1
 
 
    1              ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 
    2                  ATLANTA PUBLIC HEARING
 
    3
 
    4
 
    5
 
    6      PROPOSAL FOR CLEANER HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS AND BUSES
 
    7                  AND CLEANER DIESEL FUEL
 
    8
 
    9
 
   10
 
   11                      June 22, 2000
 
   12                        10:00 a.m.
 
   13
 
   14
 
   15
                        The Renaissance Hotel
   16                 590 West Peachtree Street
                          Atlanta, Georgia
   17
 
   18
 
   19
 
   20                Kara K. Lucas, CCR-B-1496
 
   21
 
   22
 
   23
                        BROWN REPORTING, INC.
   24                   1740 PEACHTREE STREET
                       ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
   25                      (404) 876-8979
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           2
 
 
    1                        APPEARANCES
 
    2
        On behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency:
    3
 
    4
 
    5        Chet France
 
    6        Jim Kutzman
 
    7        Paul Machiele
 
    8        Don Kopinski
 
    9        Gretchen Graves
 
   10
 
   11
 
   12
 
   13
 
   14                          - - -
 
   15
 
   16
 
   17
 
   18
 
   19
 
   20
 
   21
 
   22
 
   23
 
   24
 
   25
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           3
 
 
    1              MR. KUTZMAN:  Good morning.  I'm Jim
 
    2   Kutzman.  I'm the deputy division director for the
 
    3   Air Division in the Atlanta office of Region 4.  I
 
    4   want to welcome everybody to Atlanta.  It may be
 
    5   raining a little bit later, but I guarantee it will
 
    6   be hot.  And it may rain again, so hopefully you'll
 
    7   have umbrellas.
 
    8              This public meeting is on the heavy-duty
 
    9   diesel rule.  As most people know, the Tier 2 low
 
   10   sulfur fuel rule was passed in February.  This
 
   11   heavy-duty diesel would be a complement to that.
 
   12   It's designed to control emissions on heavy-duty
 
   13   diesels.
 
   14              The significance of this as it pertains
 
   15   to the Atlanta area is Atlanta has a critical air
 
   16   quality problem.  We've had a conforming lapse since
 
   17   January of '98.  No federal funds have gone to
 
   18   highway construction.  Atlantans on the average
 
   19   drive 35 to 36 miles per day per person which is
 
   20   higher than Los Angeles.
 
   21              The two primary sources of the problems
 
   22   around here are mobile sources and power plants.
 
   23   We're addressing the power plants.  We're trying to
 
   24   address the mobile sources.
 
   25              Atlanta is also a major transportation
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           4
 
 
    1   center.  Anybody who lives in the area or has passed
 
    2   through the area knows how much truck traffic we
 
    3   have in the area.  So this rule is of particular
 
    4   significance to the Atlanta metropolitan area.
 
    5              What I'd like to do at this time is
 
    6   introduce Chet France.  Chet is the director of the
 
    7   Assessment and Standards Division of the Office of
 
    8   Transportation and Air Quality.  He will be
 
    9   presiding over this public hearing and he will
 
   10   explain the rules and how we will proceed.
 
   11              If Lanore Benjamin and Dale Askey and Kay
 
   12   Prince could stand up in the back.  These are
 
   13   regional office people.  Kay is the section chief in
 
   14   charge of this particular area and Dale and Lanore
 
   15   are staff.  If you need any help, directions, or
 
   16   where to eat or anything else, if they're available,
 
   17   ask them.  They may be able to help you.
 
   18              Okay.  With that, I'll introduce Chet
 
   19   France.
 
   20              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you, Jim.  I have a
 
   21   brief statement that I will read.  Good morning.  On
 
   22   behalf of EPA, welcome to today's hearing and thank
 
   23   y'all for coming.  There are some familiar faces in
 
   24   the audience, although they're dwindling.  We're
 
   25   looking forward to hearing your views on a proposal
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           5
 
 
    1   we believe to be critical to the future of air
 
    2   quality in the United States.
 
    3              I am Chet France, director of the
 
    4   Assessment and Standards Division in EPA's Office of
 
    5   Transportation and Air Quality.  I will be serving
 
    6   as the presiding officer.  We will hear today
 
    7   testimony on EPA's proposed rulemaking for cleaner
 
    8   trucks and buses and cleaner diesel fuel.
 
    9              The proposal we are considering today was
 
   10   announced by EPA administrator Carol Browner on May
 
   11   17th and published in the Federal Register on June
 
   12   2nd.  We consider this to be a historic proposal.
 
   13   This proposed program will achieve a dramatic
 
   14   reduction in air pollution in the 21st century.
 
   15              As you know, last year we established new
 
   16   programs to dramatically reduce emissions from cars
 
   17   and light trucks.  That program called Tier 2 will
 
   18   help to improve the nation's air quality by both
 
   19   phasing in cleaner engines and cleaner-burning
 
   20   gasoline over the next decade for passenger
 
   21   vehicles.
 
   22              We are now focusing much-needed attention
 
   23   on heavy-duty highway vehicles, applying the same
 
   24   principles of addressing the vehicle and the fuel as
 
   25   a single system.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           6
 
 
    1              The proposed program would protect the
 
    2   public health and the environment of all Americans
 
    3   by reducing the sulfur content in highway diesel
 
    4   fuel by 97 percent to provide the cleanest diesel
 
    5   trucks and buses in history.
 
    6              This means for the first time ever
 
    7   heavy-duty trucks and buses would be able to use
 
    8   pollution-control devices to meet emission
 
    9   standards, just as passenger cars have been doing
 
   10   for the last 25 years.  These devices are sensitive
 
   11   to sulfur and will not work unless the amount of
 
   12   sulfur in the fuel is dramatically reduced.
 
   13              This action will provide greatly-improved
 
   14   air quality for all Americans.  It will reduce
 
   15   smog-causing nitrogen oxides from these vehicles by
 
   16   95 percent.  It will reduce harmful particulate
 
   17   matter, or soot, by 90 percent.  It is the clean air
 
   18   equivalent of removing from the air the pollution
 
   19   generated by 13 million of today's trucks.
 
   20              Heavy-duty trucks and buses are largely
 
   21   powered by diesel engines.  Diesel engines are more
 
   22   durable and get higher fuel efficiency than gasoline
 
   23   engines, but they also tend to pollute more.
 
   24              Over 100 million people are exposed to
 
   25   unhealthy air and will continue to do so without the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           7
 
 
    1   emission reductions that would come from the
 
    2   proposed standards.
 
    3              We estimate that by 2007 heavy-duty
 
    4   vehicles will account for about 30 percent of
 
    5   national mobile source NOx emissions and about 14
 
    6   percent of national mobile source PM emissions.
 
    7   These proportions are even higher in urban areas,
 
    8   like here in Atlanta, where heavy-duty engines
 
    9   contribute 36 percent of the NOx and 16 percent of
 
   10   PM from mobile sources.
 
   11              This pollution causes lung damage and
 
   12   respiratory problems, and there is increasing
 
   13   evidence that diesel exhaust may cause lung cancer
 
   14   in humans.
 
   15              The proposed program would have a
 
   16   substantial impact on these emissions.  Urban areas,
 
   17   which include many poorer neighborhoods, that can be
 
   18   disproportionately impacted by diesel emissions,
 
   19   would receive badly-needed benefits of this
 
   20   program.
 
   21              We are proposing a particulate emission
 
   22   standard for new heavy-duty engines of .01 grams per
 
   23   brake-horsepower-hour to take full effect in the
 
   24   year 2007.  This is a 90 percent reduction from
 
   25   today's standard.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           8
 
 
    1              We are also proposing standards for NOx
 
    2   of .2 grams per brake-horsepower-hour, a 95 percent
 
    3   reduction from the current standard.  These
 
    4   standards will be phased in for diesel vehicles
 
    5   between 2007 and 2010.  Gasoline vehicles will have
 
    6   to meet these standards in 2007.
 
    7              To make the new diesel engine
 
    8   technologies work, we are proposing to take most of
 
    9   the sulfur out of highway diesel fuel beginning in
 
   10   mid-2006 when the cleaner model year 2007 trucks
 
   11   will begin entering the fleet.  Specifically, we are
 
   12   proposing that sulfur levels of diesel fuel be
 
   13   capped at 15 parts per million.  This is a 97
 
   14   percent cut from the current highway diesel fuel
 
   15   levels of 500 ppm.
 
   16              We estimate that the cost to produce and
 
   17   distribute the low sulfur diesel fuel will be about
 
   18   4 1/2 cents per gallon, and we also estimate that
 
   19   vehicle costs would increase about $1,000 to $1,600
 
   20   depending upon the size of the vehicle.
 
   21              We designed this program to include
 
   22   significant lead time for the introduction of new
 
   23   cleaner fuel into the marketplace.  The proposal
 
   24   also discusses various flexible phase-in approaches
 
   25   for the diesel fuel industry to facilitate the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           9
 
 
    1   complete transition to new clean diesel fuel and to
 
    2   reduce costs further, including provisions to
 
    3   address special needs of small refiners and farmer
 
    4   cooperative refiners.  For engine manufacturers, the
 
    5   proposed program will allow phase-in of the new
 
    6   engine standards for years 2007 to 2010.
 
    7              Before we start today's testimony, I'll
 
    8   introduce the EPA panel and describe how we will
 
    9   conduct this hearing.
 
   10              You've already met Jim on my right.  On
 
   11   my left is Paul Machiele and Don Kopinski who are
 
   12   managers of the diesel fuel and heavy-duty standards
 
   13   program.  And to their left is Gretchen Graves who
 
   14   is a representative from our Office of General
 
   15   Consult.
 
   16              This is the third of five public hearings
 
   17   we're holding on this proposal.  In the last few
 
   18   days, we have been in New York and Chicago and will
 
   19   be in Los Angeles and Denver next week.  We've been
 
   20   hearing from witnesses offering a broad range of
 
   21   perspectives, and we expect that will continue
 
   22   today.
 
   23              Please keep in mind that in addition to
 
   24   the opportunity for oral comment at these hearings
 
   25   the comment period will remain open for an
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           10
 
 
    1   additional 45 days after the last hearing -- and
 
    2   that is until August 14th -- to allow for written
 
    3   comments.
 
    4              We are conducting this hearing in
 
    5   accordance with Section 307-D5 of the Clean Air Act
 
    6   which requires the EPA to provide interested parties
 
    7   with an opportunity for oral presentation of data,
 
    8   views, or arguments in addition to an opportunity to
 
    9   make written submissions.
 
   10              We are pleased to have received a large
 
   11   number of requests to testify today, and we'll do
 
   12   our best to accommodate everyone.  We ask witnesses
 
   13   to limit their testimony to no more than ten
 
   14   minutes.
 
   15              There are two individuals I would like to
 
   16   introduce.  Jeff Herzog and Todd Sherwood, if you
 
   17   would stand.  These are very important people.  They
 
   18   will have the timer and will be letting you know
 
   19   when you're approaching your ten-minute limit.
 
   20              I will be conducting this hearing
 
   21   informally.  We request that witnesses state their
 
   22   name and affiliation prior to making their
 
   23   statement.  Please write your name clearly on one of
 
   24   the cards provided and place it in front of you.
 
   25              When a witness has finished his or her
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           11
 
 
    1   presentation, members of the panel may ask the
 
    2   person questions concerning their testimony.
 
    3   Witnesses are reminded that any false statement or
 
    4   false response to questions may be a violation of
 
    5   the law.
 
    6              If there are any members of the audience
 
    7   who wish to testify who have not already signed up,
 
    8   please submit your names to the reception table
 
    9   outside.
 
   10              And because of the large number of
 
   11   witnesses who will testify today, this hearing may
 
   12   go into the evening hours.  Whenever there is time
 
   13   in the schedule, we will try to work in those who
 
   14   registered during the day and have expressed an
 
   15   interest in testifying.  If the schedule permits, we
 
   16   will have a short break for lunch.
 
   17              Finally, if you would like a transcript
 
   18   of these proceedings, you should make arrangements
 
   19   directly with the court reporter during one of the
 
   20   breaks.  The transcripts of this hearing will be
 
   21   available in the docket shortly after we receive
 
   22   them from the reporter.
 
   23              Before we begin, if there are any
 
   24   questions?  If not, why don't we start with the
 
   25   first panel.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           12
 
 
    1              If John Medley would come up, Dr. Randall
 
    2   White, Greg Scott, Ronald Methier, Lisa Stegink,
 
    3   Rebecca Stanfield.
 
    4              Okay.  John Medley, if you would be kind
 
    5   enough to start.
 
    6              MR. MEDLEY:  Good morning.  My name is
 
    7   John Medley, and I'm a fuels issue manager with
 
    8   ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company.
 
    9              ExxonMobil owns and operates six
 
   10   refineries in the United States and has a 50 percent
 
   11   joint interest in a seventh.  Our crude oil refining
 
   12   capacity is about 11 percent of the total domestic
 
   13   crude oil refining capacity, and our highway diesel
 
   14   production is consistent with this crude capacity.
 
   15   Thus, we have a substantial interest in the domestic
 
   16   highway diesel market and in this rulemaking.
 
   17              Our industry reduced the sulfur level in
 
   18   highway diesel in 1993, and the current diesel
 
   19   sulfur level represents about a 97 percent reduction
 
   20   from the sulfur level of incoming crude oil.
 
   21              In spite of this significant achievement,
 
   22   ExxonMobil agrees that a significant further
 
   23   reduction in sulfur content of diesel fuel is needed
 
   24   for cleaner air.  We support a reduction of 90
 
   25   percent from the current levels to a 50 parts per
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           13
 
 
    1   million cap to be implemented in the 2007-2008 time
 
    2   frame.
 
    3              We have serious concerns about EPA's
 
    4   proposal for a 15 parts per million maximum sulfur
 
    5   effective in early 2006.  In our view, EPA's
 
    6   proposal is a recipe for domestic supply
 
    7   disturbances and price volatility.
 
    8              While ExxonMobil has concerns about many
 
    9   issues raised by EPA's proposal, I will focus my
 
   10   comments today on what we consider the two paramount
 
   11   issues in this ruling, the diesel fuel sulfur level
 
   12   and the implementation timing.  In doing so, I will
 
   13   draw heavily on a recently-completed assessment by
 
   14   the National Petroleum Council.
 
   15              ExxonMobil participated in the National
 
   16   Petroleum Council refining study that was just
 
   17   approved.  The National Petroleum Council is an
 
   18   advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy.
 
   19              In June 1998, the Secretary of Energy
 
   20   asked the NPC to investigate and report on the
 
   21   petroleum product deliverability in the face of
 
   22   increasingly stringent and numerous environmental
 
   23   regulations affecting fuels.
 
   24              The Council report was just approved
 
   25   earlier this week, and today I plan to share with
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           14
 
 
    1   you some of its observations and recommendations.
 
    2   If you'd like to know more about the NPC study which
 
    3   is titled Assuring the Adequacy and Affordability of
 
    4   Cleaner Fuels, the executive summary is available on
 
    5   the Internet at www.npc.org.  Hard copies of the
 
    6   full report should be available from NPC by
 
    7   mid-July.
 
    8              The NPC report deals with several
 
    9   possible product specification changes including a
 
   10   reduction in diesel sulfur.  ExxonMobil agrees with
 
   11   the findings of this study, and I will reference the
 
   12   study conclusions throughout this testimony.
 
   13              Industry has proposed a 90 percent
 
   14   reduction in diesel sulfur level from the current
 
   15   maximum of 500 parts per million to a cap of 50
 
   16   parts per million.  We believe this level can be met
 
   17   by making significant modifications to existing
 
   18   diesel treating equipment at costs that are
 
   19   significant but manageable.
 
   20              NPC estimated that about $4 billion of
 
   21   investment would be required to achieve a 30 parts
 
   22   per million average diesel sulfur consistent with
 
   23   the industry's 50 parts per million cap proposal.
 
   24   Per gallon production cost would increase about 6
 
   25   cents.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           15
 
 
    1              EPA's proposal for a 15 parts per million
 
    2   sulfur cap which translates to an average of about 7
 
    3   to 10 parts per million will be substantially more
 
    4   expensive than EPA claims.  EPA based its cost
 
    5   estimate on expectations that existing diesel
 
    6   hydrotreating could be modified to produce adequate
 
    7   volumes of 15 parts per million diesel fuel,
 
    8   assuming that improved catalysts would be available;
 
    9   but such catalyst improvements have not been
 
   10   demonstrated and are beyond the realm of reasonable
 
   11   expectation.
 
   12              NPC concluded that reducing sulfur
 
   13   substantially below 30 parts per million average was
 
   14   not likely to be practical with modifications to
 
   15   existing equipment.  And ExxonMobil's substantial
 
   16   expertise in catalyst research supports this
 
   17   conclusion.
 
   18              Certainly catalyst performance has
 
   19   improved over history, and we expect continued
 
   20   improvement.  While some existing treating units
 
   21   might be able to be modified to achieve 15 parts per
 
   22   million max sulfur using some new catalysts, we
 
   23   don't believe that most units will be capable of
 
   24   this.
 
   25              In our view, new grass-roots
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           16
 
 
    1   high-pressure hydrotreating will be required if
 
    2   industry is to supply the volume currently
 
    3   demanded.
 
    4              If EPA's approach of only modifying
 
    5   existing hydrotreating units were followed, there
 
    6   would be significant shortages of on-road diesel
 
    7   supplies.
 
    8              The higher pressure treating with larger
 
    9   volumes of catalyst would be much, much more
 
   10   expensive than EPA estimates.  Furthermore, there
 
   11   would be a limited number of manufacturers worldwide
 
   12   for the kind of high-pressure reactors and
 
   13   compressors that will be needed; and fabrication of
 
   14   this new equipment could easily be a limitation on
 
   15   the industry's ability to meet EPA's proposal.
 
   16              And to what end?  Respected experts in
 
   17   the vehicular engineering field suggest that already
 
   18   demonstrated vehicle emission reduction technology
 
   19   could provide about the same emission reductions
 
   20   from heavy-duty vehicles with a 50 parts per million
 
   21   diesel fuel.
 
   22              But the sulfur level is not the only
 
   23   problem with EPA's proposed program.  Implementation
 
   24   timing is a serious problem as well.  Last December
 
   25   the EPA issued the Tier 2 rule requiring a reduction
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           17
 
 
    1   in gasoline sulfur to 30 parts per million average
 
    2   in the 2004 to 2006 time frame.
 
    3              Meeting this gasoline requirement alone
 
    4   will significantly challenge the petroleum
 
    5   industry.  The NPC estimated about $8 billion of
 
    6   investment, and we agree with their analysis.
 
    7              While this will be a significant
 
    8   challenge for the industry, it should be doable.
 
    9   However, layering another substantial investment for
 
   10   lower sulfur diesel directly on top of the gasoline
 
   11   requirement jeopardizes achieving either program.
 
   12              The EPA proposal for diesel
 
   13   implementation effective April 1st, 2006 at the
 
   14   refinery layers the diesel investment requirements
 
   15   directly on top of the Tier 2 requirements.  Based
 
   16   on construction resource studies performed by the
 
   17   NPC, this overlap will result in a demand on
 
   18   engineering and construction resources which is
 
   19   unlikely to be met; and some facilities will simply
 
   20   not be ready in time to meet the new requirements.
 
   21              In addition to the excessive demand on
 
   22   engineering and construction resources, overlapping
 
   23   gasoline and diesel sulfur reduction will strain the
 
   24   resources of the agencies responsible for issuing
 
   25   construction and operating permits for the new and
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           18
 
 
    1   modified facilities necessary to meet these
 
    2   requirements, as well as requirements for growing
 
    3   product demand.
 
    4              The NPC identified, and we agree, that
 
    5   industry's ability to acquire timely permits is a
 
    6   major concern for implementing any major fuel
 
    7   specification program.  Nearly every domestic
 
    8   refinery will need permits for new gasoline
 
    9   desulfurization facilities, and nearly every
 
   10   refinery will require additional permits for diesel
 
   11   desulfurization facilities.  In addition, permits
 
   12   will also be needed to meet growing demands for
 
   13   gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel.
 
   14              The increased number of environmental
 
   15   justice challenges to permits and the EPA's attempt
 
   16   to retroactively reinterpret New Source Review
 
   17   permitting rules both greatly complicate our ability
 
   18   to get new permits in a timely manner.
 
   19              EPA requested comments on proposals for
 
   20   phasing in very low sulfur diesel as an alternative
 
   21   to requiring full marketplace conversion in 2006.
 
   22   On the positive side, such proposals recognize the
 
   23   reality that current vehicles will not receive any
 
   24   cost-effective benefits from the very low sulfur
 
   25   diesel.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           19
 
 
    1              So why should they have to bear the high
 
    2   cost of this ultra-low sulfur diesel?
 
    3              Unfortunately, phase-in poses several
 
    4   significant challenges.  Adding another unique fuel
 
    5   to the distribution system will require additional
 
    6   investment and operating cost throughout the
 
    7   system.  For example, retail stations will have to
 
    8   add another tank and dispenser to handle very low
 
    9   sulfur diesel in addition to regular low sulfur
 
   10   diesel.  This investment will have a very short
 
   11   economic life and place a huge burden on any company
 
   12   choosing to make it.
 
   13              Many companies may choose not to make
 
   14   such investments, and the capacity and flexibility
 
   15   of the system will decrease.  In fact, forcing
 
   16   another diesel grade into the system will decrease
 
   17   the supply reliability for other diesel products
 
   18   including off-road diesel and heating oil.
 
   19              So let me recap.  Our view is that the
 
   20   EPA proposal is a recipe for enormous marketplace
 
   21   problems.  The required sulfur reduction is well
 
   22   below any cost-effective level for the existing
 
   23   diesel engine fleet.  The early timing overlaps with
 
   24   the gasoline sulfur reduction.  Permitting,
 
   25   engineering, and construction resources for
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           20
 
 
    1   desulfurization will likely be inadequate.
 
    2   Therefore, necessary facilities likely will not be
 
    3   operable in time; and domestic producibility will be
 
    4   inadequate.
 
    5              The EPA's investment and operating cost
 
    6   assumptions are based on highly optimistic thinking
 
    7   and are in need of some very serious and realistic
 
    8   reevaluation.
 
    9              We strongly recommend that EPA reconsider
 
   10   the merits of the industry proposal for a 50 parts
 
   11   per million maximum sulfur diesel beginning no
 
   12   sooner than mid-2007.
 
   13              Thank you.
 
   14              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you, Mr. Medley.  The
 
   15   next testifier, Dr. Randall White.
 
   16              DR. WHITE:  Thank you for this
 
   17   opportunity to comment on the proposed rules.  I'm
 
   18   here as a physician, not, in fact, even as a
 
   19   pulmonary specialist, primarily as a physician in
 
   20   practice and someone who has some knowledge of
 
   21   public health matters and as a concerned citizen.
 
   22              The proposed limits on particulate and
 
   23   oxide and nitrogen emissions and diesel exhaust I
 
   24   think are the right step for the EPA to take to
 
   25   protect the health of the American people.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           21
 
 
    1              As a child, I can remember being puzzled
 
    2   that the big trucks and buses that rolled down the
 
    3   street would be putting black smoke into the air
 
    4   that I was putting into my lungs.  You don't have to
 
    5   be a scientist or a doctor to understand intuitively
 
    6   that breathing black smoke isn't good for you.
 
    7              And medical studies have subsequently
 
    8   confirmed this.  Particulates that make the exhaust
 
    9   appear dark can enter our lungs, and the smallest of
 
   10   them can penetrate quite deeply into our lungs.  And
 
   11   this does affect pulmonary function.  For those with
 
   12   preexisting lung disease, it can in particularly be
 
   13   dangerous.  And also these very fine particles that
 
   14   penetrate the most deeply can also affect cardiac
 
   15   function.
 
   16              How they do that is not entirely
 
   17   understood yet, but in a study -- there are a number
 
   18   of studies about these issues.  But in one study of
 
   19   six American cities with varying levels of air
 
   20   pollution, it was found that the risk of overall
 
   21   mortality was correlated with the concentration of
 
   22   the finest particulates in the air.
 
   23              So my view is that any regulatory action
 
   24   to decrease the emissions of these particles would
 
   25   be beneficial.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           22
 
 
    1              The role of oxides and nitrogen
 
    2   increasing ground-level ozone is well understood,
 
    3   and we who own cars in the metro Atlanta area are
 
    4   required to take actions to ensure that our
 
    5   emissions are not excessive.  In this regard, I
 
    6   think it's only fair that the trucking industry
 
    7   should be likewise.
 
    8              Ground-level ozone is a significant
 
    9   irritant to our tissues and when taken into our
 
   10   lungs can cause acute inflammatory changes.  This
 
   11   affects certainly those with preexisting lung
 
   12   disease and can even send such people to the
 
   13   hospital for treatment.  And it also affects healthy
 
   14   people, although they may not have acute symptoms;
 
   15   but there is some evidence that with repeated
 
   16   exposure irreversible damage may result.
 
   17              I urge the U.S. EPA to enact the proposed
 
   18   rule.  A survey found that three-quarters of the
 
   19   public trust the EPA to set health-based air quality
 
   20   standards, and I'm confident that these proposed
 
   21   rules will be welcomed by the American people.  And
 
   22   I'll certainly be pleased if my son doesn't have to
 
   23   wonder why trucks are permitted to put black exhaust
 
   24   into the air.
 
   25              Thanks.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           23
 
 
    1              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Greg Scott.
 
    2              MR. SCOTT:  Good morning.  My name is
 
    3   Greg Scott.  I'm with the Washington, D.C. law firm
 
    4   of Collier, Shannon & Scott.
 
    5              We are privileged to serve as government
 
    6   relations and general counsel to the National
 
    7   Association of Convenience Stores, also known as
 
    8   NACS.  NACS appreciates the opportunity to appear
 
    9   today to comment on EPA's proposed standards for
 
   10   diesel sulfur content.
 
   11              NACS is a national trade association of
 
   12   more than 2,300 companies that operate over 60,000
 
   13   convenience stores nationwide with some
 
   14   three-quarters of a million employees.  More than 75
 
   15   percent of NACS' members are classified as small
 
   16   businesses by the SBA.  Over 75 percent of NACS'
 
   17   members sell motor fuels, and 40 percent of the
 
   18   member companies sell diesel fuel.
 
   19              NACS represents the full spectrum of
 
   20   diesel fuel retailers in our country from the
 
   21   one-diesel-fuel-dispenser mom-and-pop outlet in
 
   22   small towns to the large truck stops and travel
 
   23   centers located on our nation's interstate highway
 
   24   system.  Consequently, my testimony today will focus
 
   25   on the potential impact of the proposed diesel fuel
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           24
 
 
    1   regulations on diesel fuel retailers.
 
    2              NACS' membership also includes most of
 
    3   the nation's petroleum refiners that also market
 
    4   motor fuels.  NACS has not taken a formal position
 
    5   either in support or in opposition to the proposed
 
    6   diesel fuel sulfur standard or the time table for
 
    7   its implementation.  We believe the refiners are the
 
    8   best equipped to fully evaluate the potential cost
 
    9   and supply impacts of the proposed rule.  In
 
   10   general, these are refinery issues and not retail
 
   11   issues.
 
   12              However, NACS is deeply concerned and
 
   13   believes EPA should be deeply concerned about the
 
   14   potential impact of the diesel sulfur proposal on
 
   15   diesel fuel supplies in the nation.  We urge EPA to
 
   16   consider the comments of our nation's refining
 
   17   industry carefully before finalizing the proposed
 
   18   rule.
 
   19              Given the importance of diesel fuel to
 
   20   our nation's trucking and agricultural segments, EPA
 
   21   and the country's economy cannot afford to be wrong
 
   22   on these issues.
 
   23              From the diesel fuel retailers' point of
 
   24   view, there are three primary concerns we have with
 
   25   EPA's proposal:  1, its potential negative impact on
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           25
 
 
    1   our nation's diesel fuel distribution system; 2, the
 
    2   implications of a dual fuel approach to implementing
 
    3   the diesel sulfur standard on diesel fuel retailers;
 
    4   and, 3, the potential liability that retailers may
 
    5   face under the program and the defenses to such
 
    6   liability under the final regulations.
 
    7              I will address each issue briefly in
 
    8   turn.
 
    9              EPA's proposed a 15 parts per million
 
   10   diesel sulfur cap.  NACS understands that most of
 
   11   the refining industry supports a 50 ppm cap.  From
 
   12   the point of view of the diesel fuel retailer, each
 
   13   approach presents potential significant problems for
 
   14   our nation's diesel fuel distribution system.
 
   15   Simply stated, if either standard is finalized, our
 
   16   existing distribution system would be incapable of
 
   17   meeting the standard on a regular basis because of
 
   18   product commingling and product contamination as the
 
   19   product moves through pipelines, bulk storage
 
   20   terminals, and tank trucks.
 
   21              On-road diesel fuel is transported from
 
   22   the refinery or import location through pipelines or
 
   23   on barges, is stored in bulk tanks, and is
 
   24   transported from bulk storage to retail in tanker
 
   25   trucks.  That's simplified, but that's a general
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           26
 
 
    1   statement.
 
    2              Unless each of these facilities is
 
    3   cleaned immediately prior to the introduction of the
 
    4   ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, whether the standard
 
    5   is 50 or 15 ppm, residual sulfur clinging to the
 
    6   walls of the pipeline, tank, or container will
 
    7   contaminate the product.  In addition, for pipeline
 
    8   shipments, the transmix cut will of necessity be
 
    9   much larger to prevent contamination due to
 
   10   commingling of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel with
 
   11   other products, other higher sulfur products.
 
   12              If EPA intends to mandate the complete
 
   13   segregation of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel from all
 
   14   other products throughout the distribution system,
 
   15   then our nation's distribution system will surely
 
   16   collapse.  There is simply not enough dedicated
 
   17   pipelines, storage tanks, and cargo tanks or, quite
 
   18   frankly, retail tanks to meet this segregation
 
   19   requirement.
 
   20              If it is not EPA's intent to require such
 
   21   segregation, then NACS has difficulty imagining how
 
   22   EPA's proposal will work in the real world without
 
   23   significant product contamination.
 
   24              At this point NACS does not have a
 
   25   definitive answer to this contamination issue.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           27
 
 
    1   However, NACS strongly urges EPA to address this
 
    2   issue rationally before finalizing any type of final
 
    3   program.
 
    4              In the preamble of the proposal, EPA has
 
    5   requested comments on a possible phase-in approach
 
    6   to ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, perhaps permitting
 
    7   the limited sale of current low sulfur diesel in
 
    8   conjunction with the phase-in of the ultra-low
 
    9   sulfur diesel.
 
   10              NACS strongly opposes the dual on-road
 
   11   diesel fuels proposal.  Such a dual fuel approach
 
   12   would be unworkable for the vast majority of NACS
 
   13   members.  Diesel fuel retailers would be forced to
 
   14   install additional tankage to handle a second
 
   15   on-road diesel fuel, tanks that under EPA's own
 
   16   proposal would not be needed within five years once
 
   17   the phase-in is complete.
 
   18              In addition, it's difficult to see how
 
   19   our nation's distribution system will be able to
 
   20   assure that adequate supplies of each diesel fuel
 
   21   are available in all areas of the country without
 
   22   the significant problem of rolling product shortages
 
   23   or outages.
 
   24              In the preamble, EPA has not even started
 
   25   to estimate the potential cost to retailers of such
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           28
 
 
    1   a dual fuel approach; and we urge them to do so.
 
    2              NACS supports those portions of the EPA's
 
    3   diesel proposal that would excuse diesel fuel
 
    4   retailers from conducting every batch testing of
 
    5   diesel fuel deliveries to check the sulfur level.
 
    6   In addition, NACS supports those portions of the
 
    7   rule which would permit a retailer to establish a
 
    8   potential sulfur level violation defense through
 
    9   specific documentation of the product delivered to
 
   10   the retailer's outlet.
 
   11              NACS urges EPA to resist any suggestion
 
   12   that retailers be forced to sample and test every
 
   13   batch of diesel fuel delivered.  Such testing would
 
   14   be enormously expensive and in most cases would
 
   15   duplicate the testing already conducted upstream.
 
   16              NACS appreciates the opportunity to
 
   17   present these comments on the proposal.  The
 
   18   association will be submitting more detailed
 
   19   comments in writing prior to the regulatory
 
   20   deadline.
 
   21              I would be pleased to answer any
 
   22   questions my testimony may have raised.
 
   23              One question I have is do you all want
 
   24   formal copies of --
 
   25              MR. FRANCE:  She would like one.  Thanks
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           29
 
 
    1   very much.  Next testifier, Ronald Methier.
 
    2              MR. METHIER:  Good morning.  I'm Ron
 
    3   Methier; and I'm chief of the Georgia Air Protection
 
    4   Branch and president of STAPPA, the State and
 
    5   Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators.
 
    6              I'm here this morning on behalf of STAPPA
 
    7   which represents air quality agencies, including my
 
    8   own here in Georgia, and the states and territories
 
    9   and on behalf of ALAPCO which is the Association of
 
   10   Local Air Pollution Control Officials which
 
   11   represents the air quality agencies in more than 165
 
   12   major metropolitan areas across the country.
 
   13              I'm pleased to have this opportunity to
 
   14   provide our associations' testimony on EPA's recent
 
   15   proposal to set more stringent emission standards
 
   16   for on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles and to
 
   17   reduce levels of sulfur in on-road diesel fuel.
 
   18              On behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, I'd like
 
   19   to commend EPA for its continued leadership in
 
   20   reducing air pollution from the mobile source
 
   21   sector.  Your final promulgation last December of
 
   22   the Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards and a
 
   23   national low sulfur gasoline program was a
 
   24   remarkable accomplishment that will benefit the
 
   25   entire country.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           30
 
 
    1              This month's heavy-duty engine and low
 
    2   sulfur diesel proposal is further demonstration of
 
    3   EPA's commitment to efficiently and cost-effectively
 
    4   reducing a wide variety of mobile source-related
 
    5   emissions to achieve meaningful improvements in air
 
    6   quality across the country.  We apply this
 
    7   initiative and the systems approach which addresses
 
    8   both the engine and its fuel, upon which it is
 
    9   based.
 
   10              We're especially pleased that the
 
   11   proposed heavy-duty engine and diesel sulfur program
 
   12   reflects the key recommendations made by STAPPA and
 
   13   ALAPCO over the past year and a half.  This program
 
   14   is of vital importance to our memberships.  For this
 
   15   reason our associations adopted, with overwhelming
 
   16   support, a resolution calling upon EPA to establish
 
   17   a stringent low sulfur diesel fuel cap to enable the
 
   18   introduction and effective operation of advanced
 
   19   technologies such as lean-NOx catalysts and
 
   20   adsorbers and particulate filters.
 
   21              A copy of the resolution is attached to
 
   22   my statement.
 
   23              We have placed the highest priority on
 
   24   participating in the rule development process and
 
   25   are proud that EPA has concluded that the most
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           31
 
 
    1   appropriate strategy so closely mirrors what we have
 
    2   advocated.
 
    3              As the officials with primary
 
    4   responsibility for achieving and maintaining clean,
 
    5   healthful air across the country, state and local
 
    6   air agencies are keenly aware of the need to
 
    7   aggressively pursue emission reductions from the
 
    8   heavy-duty mobile source sector which contributes
 
    9   substantially to a variety of air quality problems.
 
   10              As EPA acknowledges in its proposal, by
 
   11   2007, when the proposed engine standards would take
 
   12   effect, on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles will
 
   13   account for 29 percent of mobile source NOx
 
   14   emissions and 14 percent of mobile source PM,
 
   15   particulate matter, emissions.
 
   16              Under the control strategy EPA has
 
   17   proposed, however, by the year 2030, on-road
 
   18   heavy-duty vehicle NOx emissions would be reduced by
 
   19   2.8 million tons and particulate matter emissions by
 
   20   approximately 110,000 tons.
 
   21              These emission reductions, as well as
 
   22   others that the proposed rule would affect, will
 
   23   play a pivotal role in addressing a wide array of
 
   24   significant environmental problems that continue to
 
   25   pose both health and welfare risks nationwide,
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           32
 
 
    1   including those associated with ground-level ozone;
 
    2   coarse and fine particulate matter; sulfur oxides;
 
    3   air toxics; visibility impairment; the
 
    4   acidification, nitrification, and eutrophication of
 
    5   water bodies; and global warming.
 
    6              Based on the substantial contribution of
 
    7   heavy-duty vehicle emissions to air pollution and
 
    8   very serious public health and environmental
 
    9   problems, we have no alternative but to impose
 
   10   greater controls on these sources and their fuels
 
   11   and to do so in a truly meaningful way.
 
   12              Further, because many of these vehicles
 
   13   constantly travel back and forth across the country,
 
   14   their emissions are ubiquitous.  For this reason,
 
   15   regulation of the heavy-duty mobile source sector
 
   16   and of the fuels used by these sources must be done
 
   17   on a national basis, as EPA has proposed.
 
   18              In the coming weeks STAPPA and ALAPCO
 
   19   will be providing comprehensive written comments on
 
   20   the proposal.  Today, however, I'd like to focus my
 
   21   comments on a few fundamental issues related to
 
   22   heavy-duty diesels and their fuel.
 
   23              The air pollution that comes from big
 
   24   diesel trucks and buses is not only among the most
 
   25   visible there is, it is also among the most
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           33
 
 
    1   offensive.  What is worse, however, is that the
 
    2   exhaust from heavy-duty diesels brings with it
 
    3   adverse health impacts that can be dire, posing a
 
    4   serious threat to public health nationwide.
 
    5              Perhaps the greatest risk posed by
 
    6   heavy-duty diesels comes from their toxic
 
    7   emissions.  Diesel exhaust contains over 40
 
    8   chemicals that are listed by EPA and California as
 
    9   toxic air contaminants, known human carcinogens,
 
   10   probable human carcinogens, reproductive toxicants,
 
   11   or endocrine disrupters.  In 1998 California
 
   12   declared particulate emissions from diesel-fueled
 
   13   engines a toxic air contaminant based on data that
 
   14   supported links between diesel exposure and human
 
   15   cancer.
 
   16              Further, last fall the South Coast Air
 
   17   Quality Management District in Los Angeles,
 
   18   California released a draft final report, The
 
   19   Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South
 
   20   Coast Air Basin, or the MATES-II study, which
 
   21   included an analysis of the cancer risk in the
 
   22   region from exposure to diesel particulate.
 
   23              Based on this analysis which estimated
 
   24   diesel particulate levels by using elemental carbon
 
   25   as a surrogate and applied a cancer potency factor
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           34
 
 
    1   determined by the state of California, the South
 
    2   Coast concluded that of the cancer risk posed by air
 
    3   pollution 70 percent is attributable to diesel
 
    4   particulate emissions with mobile sources being the
 
    5   dominant contributor.
 
    6              STAPPA and ALAPCO were alarmed by South
 
    7   Coast's findings.  So this past spring, based on a
 
    8   tailored, more conservative version of the MATES-II
 
    9   methodology, we sought to extrapolate the evaluation
 
   10   of cancer risk from diesel particulate to other
 
   11   cities across the country and to estimate how many
 
   12   cancers nationwide are the result of exposure to
 
   13   diesel particulate.  By applying a MATES-II-based
 
   14   methodology, we found that on a nationwide basis
 
   15   diesel particulate may be responsible for 125,000
 
   16   cancers over a lifetime.
 
   17              Now, let me be clear.  This is not a
 
   18   precise number.  Instead, it an approximation of a
 
   19   potential national impact of exposure to diesel
 
   20   particulate which we think highlights the need for
 
   21   swift and certain regulatory action.
 
   22              Further, it allows us to estimate that
 
   23   EPA's proposal which includes a 90 percent reduction
 
   24   in particulate emissions from on-road heavy-duty
 
   25   diesels could prevent 35,000 of these cancers.  We
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           35
 
 
    1   cannot afford to forego this opportunity.  And EPA,
 
    2   much to its credit, has issued a proposal that
 
    3   ensures that we will not.
 
    4              STAPPA and ALAPCO congratulate EPA for
 
    5   responding to a serious environmental problem with
 
    6   an equally serious strategy that establishes
 
    7   rigorous emission standards for on-road heavy-duty
 
    8   diesels and a commensurately low cap on sulfur in
 
    9   diesel fuel, all within a time frame that will allow
 
   10   us to reap the benefits of this program beginning
 
   11   with the 2007 model year.
 
   12              Although there are several aspects of the
 
   13   proposal with which we have concerns -- and we will
 
   14   offer recommendations to address those in our
 
   15   written comments -- the fact remains that the key
 
   16   components of this proposal are rock solid, and we
 
   17   support them.
 
   18              With respect to the emission standards,
 
   19   we strongly endorse the levels EPA has proposed:  a
 
   20   particulate matter standard of 0.01 grams per
 
   21   brake-horsepower-hour and a NOx standard of 0.2
 
   22   grams per brake-horsepower-hour which are 90 and 95
 
   23   percent cleaner than today's standards
 
   24   respectively.
 
   25              However, although we're very pleased that
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           36
 
 
    1   the PM standard will take full effect in 2007, we
 
    2   have concerns regarding this four-year phase-in
 
    3   period proposed for the NOx standard and will offer
 
    4   further discussion of this in our written comments.
 
    5              Inextricably linked to the proposed
 
    6   engine standards is the issue of low sulfur diesel
 
    7   fuel.  The ability of heavy-duty diesels to comply
 
    8   with these stringent emission standards that EPA has
 
    9   proposed is directly dependent on the timely
 
   10   nationwide availability of diesel fuel with
 
   11   ultra-low levels of sulfur.  Without such fuel, the
 
   12   technologies capable of achieving such low emission
 
   13   standards will be rendered inoperable.
 
   14              For this reason, STAPPA and ALAPCO
 
   15   vigorously support the proposed 15 parts per million
 
   16   cap on sulfur in diesel fuel to take full effect
 
   17   across the country in mid-2006 with no phase-in
 
   18   period.  This provision of the proposal is
 
   19   absolutely essential.  While an even lower cap may
 
   20   prove to be necessary, it is crucial that the final
 
   21   rule include a full, effective nationwide cap of no
 
   22   higher than 15 parts per million by mid-2006.
 
   23              Finally, while nonroad diesel engines are
 
   24   not addressed by this proposal, STAPPA and ALAPCO
 
   25   view the control of nonroad diesels to be as
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           37
 
 
    1   critical as the control of on-road diesels.
 
    2              Further, we firmly believe that the
 
    3   technological advances that will occur in order to
 
    4   meet future, more stringent on-road heavy-duty
 
    5   diesel standards will carry over to nonroad
 
    6   equipment, but only if very low sulfur diesel fuel
 
    7   is available for this sector as well.
 
    8              We're extremely concerned, however, that
 
    9   EPA may not be proceeding as quickly or as
 
   10   aggressively as necessary to develop nonroad diesel
 
   11   engine and fuel programs that are commensurate with
 
   12   the enormous contribution nonroad diesels make to
 
   13   air pollution.  More must be done.
 
   14              To this end, STAPPA and ALAPCO urge EPA
 
   15   to accelerate its program development strategies for
 
   16   nonroad diesel engines and fuels so that we can more
 
   17   effectively reduce the huge air quality and public
 
   18   health problems posed by these sources as well.
 
   19              We recommend that EPA adopt engine
 
   20   standards and a sulfur cap for nonroad heavy-duty
 
   21   diesels and fuel that are equivalent to those for
 
   22   on-road heavy-duty diesels and in the same time
 
   23   frame.  We urge the agency to use the 2001 nonroad
 
   24   technology review as an opportunity to significantly
 
   25   strengthen the nonroad diesel control program.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           38
 
 
    1              In conclusion, I thank you for this
 
    2   opportunity to provide the associations' preliminary
 
    3   perspectives on this important proposed rulemaking.
 
    4              STAPPA and ALAPCO applaud EPA for seizing
 
    5   the opportunity to take an enormous step toward
 
    6   cleaning up the mobile source sector and achieving
 
    7   our nation's clean air goals.  We commend your
 
    8   leadership in developing a technologically,
 
    9   economically, and environmentally credible approach
 
   10   for addressing on-road heavy-duty diesel engines and
 
   11   fuels.
 
   12              Preserving the integrity of the framework
 
   13   that you have proposed is imperative to the
 
   14   viability of this program and, moreover, to the
 
   15   efforts of states and localities across the country
 
   16   to achieve and sustain clean, healthful air.
 
   17   Without it we cannot succeed.
 
   18              In the coming weeks we'll be more
 
   19   thoroughly analyzing the complete proposal and
 
   20   developing comprehensive written comments on the
 
   21   many issues raised.  STAPPA and ALAPCO look forward
 
   22   to working closely with the EPA as it continues to
 
   23   refine this extremely important program.
 
   24              On behalf of our associations, I offer
 
   25   you our continued cooperation and partnership as you
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           39
 
 
    1   move forward.
 
    2              Thank you.
 
    3              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Next speaker,
 
    4   Lisa Stegink.
 
    5              MS. STEGINK:  Good morning.  My name is
 
    6   Lisa Stegink, and I'm here today on behalf of the
 
    7   Engine Manufacturers Association.  Among EMA's
 
    8   members are the principal manufacturers of the truck
 
    9   and bus engines covered by today's proposal.
 
   10              As we sit here today, we are on the cusp,
 
   11   the critical turning point, of something
 
   12   spectacular.  We have within our grasp the potential
 
   13   to dramatically reduce the emissions of the most
 
   14   fuel-efficient, reliable, and durable source of
 
   15   motive power available today and the backbone of our
 
   16   nation's transportation and delivery system.
 
   17              The diesel engine can be as clean, if not
 
   18   cleaner, than any other power source.  It is capable
 
   19   of meeting emission standards significantly below
 
   20   today's levels.  And let me remind everyone that the
 
   21   emissions from today's diesel engines already have
 
   22   been reduced by over 90 percent.  Yet we recognize
 
   23   that more, much more, can and should be done.
 
   24              The key, of course, is to greatly reduce
 
   25   the sulfur content of diesel fuel.  Future
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           40
 
 
    1   reductions in diesel engine emissions are going to
 
    2   require much more than new engine designs and
 
    3   technologies.  As EPA appropriately recognizes,
 
    4   future emission reductions require a systems
 
    5   approach involving the engine, aftertreatment, and
 
    6   fuel.
 
    7              In a sense, the future of clean,
 
    8   low-emitting trucks and buses rests on a
 
    9   three-legged stool; and the stool will fall without
 
   10   all three legs in place.  One of those legs, fuel
 
   11   quality, enables the technologies necessary to make
 
   12   the other two legs stand.
 
   13              Without removing essentially all sulfur
 
   14   from diesel fuel, advanced NOx aftertreatment
 
   15   devices will not be feasible; advanced PM
 
   16   aftertreatment will be poisoned; and engines will be
 
   17   exposed to excessive wear, increased maintenance
 
   18   costs, and impaired durability.
 
   19              I cannot emphasize enough the critical
 
   20   importance of ultra-low sulfur fuel.  It enables
 
   21   substantial NOx and PM emission reductions, it
 
   22   provides direct PM emission reductions, and it
 
   23   provides benefits not just from new engines but from
 
   24   the entire fleet of diesel-fueled vehicles.
 
   25              Improved diesel fuel also has a role in
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           41
 
 
    1   responding to potential health effects concerns.
 
    2   Ultra-low sulfur fuel lowers the total mass of
 
    3   particulate from the entire fleet and enables the
 
    4   use of known aftertreatment technologies such as
 
    5   oxidation catalysts and catalyzed particulate
 
    6   filters which can reduce the organic and
 
    7   carbonaceous components of PM emissions, can reduce
 
    8   hydrocarbon emissions and enables technologies to
 
    9   reduce NOx which, in turn, will reduce secondary
 
   10   PM.
 
   11              We applaud EPA for recognizing the
 
   12   critical role of fuel sulfur.  We strongly support
 
   13   the need for a uniform, nationwide low sulfur fuel
 
   14   standard with a hard cap on sulfur content.
 
   15   Regional differences in sulfur content will not
 
   16   allow the systems approach necessary to meet EPA's
 
   17   very stringent NOx and PM emission levels.
 
   18              Further, a hard cap on sulfur is
 
   19   critical.  Averages simply will not work.  They are
 
   20   difficult and impractical to enforce.  Moreover, the
 
   21   engine and aftertreatment legs of the stool must be
 
   22   assured of never being exposed to high sulfur fuel.
 
   23              In our view, 15 ppm does not go far
 
   24   enough, and fuel improvements should not only be
 
   25   limited to trucks and buses.  Nonroad fuels also
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           42
 
 
    1   must be improved.
 
    2              We are aware of the various arguments
 
    3   raised by the oil industry against improving fuel
 
    4   quality.  They don't want to reduce sulfur to 15
 
    5   ppm, let alone to lower levels.  Nationwide
 
    6   ultra-low sulfur fuel can and must be achieved; and
 
    7   it can be done cost effectively without undue
 
    8   economic harm to either the oil industry or to the
 
    9   trucking industry, the users of both our engines and
 
   10   the oil industry's fuel.
 
   11              We will provide detailed comments on the
 
   12   need for ultra-low sulfur fuel in our written
 
   13   submission.
 
   14              So today we are enthusiastic, excited,
 
   15   and hopeful about the future of diesel engines and
 
   16   our industry's ability to produce reliable, durable,
 
   17   fuel-efficient, high-performing diesel engines that
 
   18   also are as clean or cleaner than any other power
 
   19   source.
 
   20              There are issues which will require a
 
   21   great deal of work by manufacturers and the agency,
 
   22   but it is no longer a question of if.  Give us fuel
 
   23   improvements, sufficient time, compliance
 
   24   flexibility, and testing certainty; and tremendous
 
   25   emission reduction can be achieved.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           43
 
 
    1              Thank you.
 
    2              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Allison Kelly.
 
    3              MS. KELLY:  My name is Allison Kelly.
 
    4   I'm the clean air advocate for the Georgia Public
 
    5   Interest Research Group, and I will be speaking
 
    6   today in place of Rebecca Stanfield.
 
    7              Thank you for giving me an opportunity to
 
    8   comment today on a rule with important and
 
    9   far-reaching implication for our nation's air
 
   10   quality.
 
   11              It is a daily reality for most Americans
 
   12   living in urban and suburban areas to encounter
 
   13   thick black clouds of noxious diesel pollution and
 
   14   suffer the foul smell and taste, itchy eyes,
 
   15   sneezing, coughing, wheezing, and long-term health
 
   16   effects that are a direct result from breathing this
 
   17   exhaust.
 
   18              In my time working on air quality issues
 
   19   for the Georgia PIRG, I know that our conversers who
 
   20   talk to those thousands of Georgians each year at
 
   21   their doors hear this story all the time.
 
   22              It is common sense that cutting the
 
   23   pollution from these trucks will result in enormous
 
   24   public health benefits and will vastly improve the
 
   25   quality of life in our cities and suburbs.  This
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           44
 
 
    1   common-sense notion was supported by 87 percent of
 
    2   people in a recent poll commissioned by the American
 
    3   Lung Association.
 
    4              Common sense in the case of diesel
 
    5   pollution is confirmed time and time again by the
 
    6   health studies showing that exposure to diesel
 
    7   pollution can lead to a range of systems from asthma
 
    8   attacks to premature death and lung cancer.
 
    9              Based on over 30 epidemiological studies,
 
   10   we know that exposure to diesel exhaust can increase
 
   11   the risk of lung cancer by as much as 89 percent.
 
   12   Earlier this spring an association of state air
 
   13   regulators estimated that more than 125,000 cases of
 
   14   cancer in the U.S. are the direct result of
 
   15   breathing diesel pollution.  Add to these 125,000
 
   16   cases of cancer the following health impacts:
 
   17   thousands of American lives cut short annually due
 
   18   to fine particulate pollution, thousands of
 
   19   hospitalizations and emergency room visits annually
 
   20   for asthma and other respiratory disease, and
 
   21   millions of days of restricted activity annually for
 
   22   vulnerable populations.
 
   23              It is to prevent these health impacts
 
   24   that Georgia PIRG strongly supports the proposed
 
   25   standards to reduce heavy-duty bus and truck
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           45
 
 
    1   pollution.
 
    2              Three key pieces form the cornerstone of
 
    3   the proposed standards and must be preserved at all
 
    4   costs if this program is to be effective.  The first
 
    5   is the 15 parts per million cap on diesel fuel
 
    6   sulfur content effective by 2006.  The second is the
 
    7   thousand grams per brake-horsepower-hour particulate
 
    8   standard effective in 2007.  Finally, the third is
 
    9   the .2 grams per brake-horsepower-hour standard for
 
   10   the NOx and hydrocarbons.
 
   11              Georgia PIRG supports EPA's proposal to
 
   12   cap diesel fuel sulfur levels at 15 parts per
 
   13   million effective in 2006.  It would be an expensive
 
   14   exercise and futility to spend the next ten years
 
   15   phasing in advanced engine and afterburner pollution
 
   16   controls for heavy-duty engines only to allow these
 
   17   controls to be poisoned and rendered ineffective by
 
   18   the presence of sulfur in the fuel.
 
   19                Given the ability of refiners to remove
 
   20   sulfur from the diesel fuel as evidenced by recent
 
   21   statements of support for the standards by two major
 
   22   oil companies, there is no reason to tolerate a
 
   23   scenario in which dirty diesel fuel damages or
 
   24   destroys these essential pollution controls.
 
   25              Other observers have suggested
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           46
 
 
    1   alternative caps and averaging systems.  For
 
    2   example, the American Petroleum Institute suggests
 
    3   that a cap of 50 ppm would be sufficient.  However,
 
    4   the consequences of setting a cap higher than 15 ppm
 
    5   include increased incident of particulate filter
 
    6   failure, deterioration of engine performance,
 
    7   poisoning of the NOx catalyst.
 
    8              For the public, this means more
 
    9   pollution, more asthma attacks, more
 
   10   hospitalizations, more premature mortality, and more
 
   11   cancer.  We urge EPA to reject this alternative.
 
   12              Similarly, we do not support alternative
 
   13   proposals that would allow refiners to continue
 
   14   producing fuel at a level of 500 ppm sulfur for a
 
   15   fraction of their total highway diesel fuel volume.
 
   16   This approach or any other scenarios that would
 
   17   allow two or more grades of diesel fuel to remain in
 
   18   the market is sorely impractical.  It would be
 
   19   nearly impossible to ensure that the two grades of
 
   20   fuel remain completely segregated throughout the
 
   21   distribution and refueling process.  Inevitably,
 
   22   under this scenario, trucks equipped with sensitive
 
   23   advanced NOx and PM controls will fuel up with dirty
 
   24   diesel fuel and permanently damage or destroy their
 
   25   pollution control systems.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           47
 
 
    1              To the extent that these alternative
 
    2   proposals are designed to provide flexibility to
 
    3   small refiners, we believe this additional
 
    4   flexibility is unwarranted given the extremely long
 
    5   lead time of six years.  Furthermore, these
 
    6   flexibility measures severely compromise the
 
    7   environmental benefits of the proposed standards
 
    8   placing too high of a burden on the breathing
 
    9   public.
 
   10              EPA's proposal holds all new engines to a
 
   11   particulate matter standard of .01 grams per
 
   12   brake-horsepower-hour in 2007 but allows a four-year
 
   13   phase-in of the nitrogen oxide standard delaying
 
   14   full implementation until 2010.  We believe that
 
   15   this unnecessarily delays the smog-reduction
 
   16   benefits of the rules prolonging the chronic smog
 
   17   problems faced by more than 117 million Americans
 
   18   who live in likely ozone nonattainment areas across
 
   19   our nation.
 
   20              The urgency of our need to reduce
 
   21   smog-forming emissions cannot be overstated.  At the
 
   22   end of 1999, we compiled smog monitoring data from
 
   23   every monitor across the nation and found that the
 
   24   health standard for smog has been exceeded more than
 
   25   7,000 times.  Moreover, according to a 1999 study by
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           48
 
 
    1   ABT Associates, smog was the cause of more than 6
 
    2   million asthma attacks, 150,000 emergency room
 
    3   visits, and 50,000 hospital admissions in a single
 
    4   summer in 1997.
 
    5              We believe that all new engines should be
 
    6   able to meet the .2 grams per brake-horsepower-hour
 
    7   by 2007.  The Manufacturers of Emission Controls
 
    8   Association and the association of companies who are
 
    9   most directly involved in providing the technology
 
   10   to achieve the standards agree that the technologies
 
   11   to meet the NOx standards will be available in
 
   12   2007.  Again, this hinges on the availability of
 
   13   clean fuel.
 
   14              In a recent letter from MECA to
 
   15   Administrator Browner, the director of that
 
   16   organization stated -- and I quote -- we strongly
 
   17   believe that NOx adsorber technology will be
 
   18   commercially available in 2007 and any current
 
   19   engineering channels involved with this technology
 
   20   will be addressed provided that very low sulfur fuel
 
   21   is available.
 
   22              Thus, we urge EPA to eliminate
 
   23   unnecessary delay and apply the .2 standard to all
 
   24   engines in 2007.  Short of this, we urge you to
 
   25   shorten the phase-in period to a length of no more
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           49
 
 
    1   than two years.
 
    2              Georgia PIRG urges the EPA to reject the
 
    3   suggestion by some to include a technology review
 
    4   for the 2003 time frame.  We believe that the review
 
    5   would be unnecessary given the high degree of
 
    6   confidence that clean fuels will enable rapid
 
    7   development of NOx emission control technologies.
 
    8              Moreover, we see the proposed technology
 
    9   review as a disincentive to actually develop cleaner
 
   10   engines.  Giving the industry an opportunity to
 
   11   escape from new standards contingent on their own
 
   12   lack of future progress in developing NOx control
 
   13   technologies is far too much like the fox guarding
 
   14   the henhouse.  It should be remembered that this
 
   15   industry has a history of illegal actions to escape
 
   16   from pollution standards.  In addition, one could
 
   17   view this technology review as little more than an
 
   18   opportunity to take advantage of the changing
 
   19   political landscape under a new administration and
 
   20   one that may be less committed to protecting public
 
   21   health.
 
   22              To the extent that you find that a
 
   23   technology review is warranted, we urge you to
 
   24   ensure that it allows equally for the strengthening
 
   25   of the standard as well as for the relaxation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           50
 
 
    1              While diesel engines are known as the
 
    2   workhorse of our present-day transportation system,
 
    3   it is important to acknowledge that far cleaner
 
    4   technologies are being commercialized.  The
 
    5   promotion of these technologies including fuel cell,
 
    6   hybrids, and electric propulsion systems can lead to
 
    7   critical additional public health and environmental
 
    8   benefits.
 
    9              We strongly support the inclusion of the
 
   10   Blue Sky Program to define a set of propulsion
 
   11   technologies and/or a set of lower emission
 
   12   standards for vehicles to be designated for receipt
 
   13   of incentives under subsequent local, state, or
 
   14   federal incentive programs.
 
   15              Thank you.
 
   16              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  I have one brief
 
   17   question for Mr. Medley.
 
   18              As you know, in our proposal we picked a
 
   19   15 ppm cap to use to enable traps in NOx adsorbers
 
   20   produce the reductions that we were projecting for
 
   21   the proposal.
 
   22              In your testimony you mentioned the API
 
   23   50 ppm proposal and also said that that would get
 
   24   essentially the same emission reductions.
 
   25              Could you elaborate from a technology
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           51
 
 
    1   perspective how that would happen?
 
    2              MR. MEDLEY:  I'll take a shot at it,
 
    3   Chet.  I'm not a technology expert.  I'll
 
    4   acknowledge that from the get-go.
 
    5              I think the question is interesting given
 
    6   that your proposal is based on an enabling type of
 
    7   fuel specification and not any actual data that
 
    8   demonstrates that the technology you have in mind
 
    9   will achieve the standards that you've proposed for
 
   10   the vehicles with any sulfur level, be it 50 or 15.
 
   11              There is data out there, as I understand
 
   12   it.  I've seen some data that suggests that other
 
   13   technologies that maybe are a little more -- a
 
   14   little further along than the NOx adsorber
 
   15   technology can demonstrate very nearly achieving the
 
   16   NOx standard at a 50 parts per million fuel.
 
   17              Particulate traps have been installed on
 
   18   retrofit applications in other parts of the world
 
   19   and have functioned well with sulfur levels up to
 
   20   500 parts per million.
 
   21              So I guess I would characterize the whole
 
   22   technology issue as one of a great deal of
 
   23   uncertainly, and I think that's the reason you have
 
   24   the technology review proposal in your proposed
 
   25   rule.  I don't think anybody knows what technology
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           52
 
 
    1   you can apply aftertreatment at this point in time
 
    2   to achieve the standard that you've proposed.
 
    3              MR. FRANCE:  I assume you're referring to
 
    4   NOx -- you mentioned traps.  And there's substantial
 
    5   field experience on those devices.  I'm more
 
    6   interested in your statement on NOx adsorbers,
 
    7   alternatives to NOx adsorbers.  I was wondering what
 
    8   you had in mind there.
 
    9              MR. MEDLEY:  I think SCR and urea has
 
   10   been demonstrated -- it's probably the most
 
   11   demonstrated technology out there that actually has
 
   12   integrated the fuel and the system and the engine in
 
   13   something of a field kind of application, more of a
 
   14   real-world application.  NOx adsorbers have not
 
   15   really had that kind of a field trial yet and even
 
   16   in their bench evaluations have come nowhere close
 
   17   to achieving the 90 percent reduction that you're
 
   18   looking for with fuels that have any -- I mean with
 
   19   no sulfur in them.
 
   20              MR. FRANCE:  I was curious.  You
 
   21   mentioned SCR which requires urea, normally 1 gallon
 
   22   per every 25 gallons of diesel fuel.  I was curious
 
   23   from Exxon's perspective how you would ensure urea
 
   24   was distributed throughout the country.
 
   25              MR. MEDLEY:  I don't think we have a
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           53
 
 
    1   definitive answer that for.  I would just say that
 
    2   urea is readily available.  How we would distribute
 
    3   it and make sure that it was in the fueling
 
    4   locations and how it would be dispensed so that you
 
    5   could ensure that it was dispensed with the low
 
    6   sulfur fuel, those are things that we'd have to work
 
    7   out.  But I think they're certainly doable.  The
 
    8   technology, it's not a high-technology kind of
 
    9   issue, I don't think.
 
   10              MR. FRANCE:  Well, we would appreciate in
 
   11   your written comments any proposal that you would
 
   12   have on how that would be -- especially your cost
 
   13   analysis on supplying a complement like urea along
 
   14   with the diesel fuel.
 
   15              MR. MEDLEY:  Yes.  It wouldn't be a
 
   16   no-cost solution.  You're right.  There would be
 
   17   some cost involved in setting up a urea distribution
 
   18   system and the cost of the urea itself.
 
   19              MR. FRANCE:  So to the extent that you
 
   20   could speak to that in your written comments as it
 
   21   relates to your proposal, we would appreciate that.
 
   22              The other quick question I have -- on
 
   23   that question, I don't know if anyone else would
 
   24   want to comment on the technology question.
 
   25              MS. STEGINK:  From our perspective, the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           54
 
 
    1   one thing that is certain from EMA's perspective is
 
    2   that without the significant reductions to 15 ppm or
 
    3   lower, we aren't going to be able to get the
 
    4   significant emission reduction that EPA is looking
 
    5   for.  50 ppm is not enough to do it from both the PM
 
    6   and the NOx perspective for various reasons.  We
 
    7   need the very low sulfur fuel to enable the use of
 
    8   the aftertreatment technologies to get it down to
 
    9   where the EPA is looking to go in the emissions.
 
   10              Manufacturers have done a lot.  They've
 
   11   reduced emissions by 90 percent.  And while they may
 
   12   be able to do a little more in terms of reducing
 
   13   emissions than cylinder, to get significant further
 
   14   reductions, we have to able to use the
 
   15   aftertreatments.  In order to use the
 
   16   aftertreatments, we need the sulfur reductions.
 
   17              In addition, with respect to PM in
 
   18   particular, without the very low sulfur fuel for
 
   19   these traps, there are going to be significant
 
   20   maintenance problems, durability problems.  Sulfur
 
   21   poisons the system.  And also we know that there is
 
   22   a conversion when sulfur converts to sulfate and is
 
   23   emitted in the atmosphere as PM.  And at a 50 ppm
 
   24   level, we know that that would actually exceed the
 
   25   PM standard as proposed by EPA.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           55
 
 
    1              That's essentially our thoughts on the
 
    2   technology questions that you're raising.
 
    3              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Mr. Scott, on
 
    4   the SCR issue on urea, what's your perspective on
 
    5   making urea -- putting in a distribution system and
 
    6   supplying urea at convenience stores, service
 
    7   stations?
 
    8              MR. SCOTT:  I'm not familiar enough with
 
    9   what would be entailed, if we're talking about a
 
   10   separate storage tank that would have to be blended
 
   11   at the pump or if it could be blended at the
 
   12   wholesale level.  Certainly if it is a less
 
   13   expensive, you know, potential control device, we
 
   14   would certainly look at it.  I'd be interested in
 
   15   knowing more about it.
 
   16              MR. FRANCE:  And, again, we would like
 
   17   some feedback from you in terms of assessment cost
 
   18   and what sort of implications it has for your member
 
   19   companies.
 
   20              MR. SCOTT:  I'll try to learn about it
 
   21   between now and August 15th.
 
   22              MR. FRANCE:  Okay.  Thank you.  One other
 
   23   quick request from Mr. Medley.  You mentioned supply
 
   24   concerns.  If you could submit also in your written
 
   25   comments any analysis that you have that addresses
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           56
 
 
    1   that issue, we would like to read that analysis.
 
    2   Okay?
 
    3              MR. MEDLEY:  We'll be happy to do that.
 
    4   I believe there is going to be some analysis of that
 
    5   type.  I think we've already got some of it in some
 
    6   of the discussions that were had prior to the actual
 
    7   proposal, but I'm sure there will be more.
 
    8              MR. FRANCE:  Okay.  We appreciate that.
 
    9   Thank you very much.  The next testifier is
 
   10   Representative Doug Keeper.
 
   11              REPRESENTATIVE KEEPER:  Thank you very
 
   12   much.  I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and
 
   13   I want to welcome the EPA here.  I want to thank you
 
   14   very much for giving the public in this area an
 
   15   opportunity to have input into the process.
 
   16              As you all are -- well, first of all, let
 
   17   me tell you a little bit about where I'm coming
 
   18   from.  My name is Doug Keeper.  I serve in the
 
   19   Georgia House of Representatives.  I've been in for
 
   20   12 years now.  I believe 10 of those years I served
 
   21   on the Natural Resource & Environment Committee.
 
   22              My background, I got into politics by way
 
   23   of environmental advocacy through the nonprofit
 
   24   world; and in my private capacity, I'm chief
 
   25   executive officer of a company called Atlanta
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           57
 
 
    1   International Consulting where I do some
 
    2   environmental consulting.  I'm neither an engineer,
 
    3   nor a scientist; and I don't claim any particular
 
    4   expertise when it comes to air quality.
 
    5              That being said, I can tell you that I
 
    6   have testified dozens of times over the years, both
 
    7   in the utility industry when it comes to clean air
 
    8   issues as well as other issues across a span of
 
    9   energy and environmental issues and different
 
   10   forums; specifically when it came to the utility
 
   11   industries, specifically electric utility.  But I am
 
   12   vaguely familiar with the issues that we're dealing
 
   13   with today.
 
   14              I'm coming to you to represent my
 
   15   district of 40,000 people right outside the city
 
   16   limits of Atlanta where we're in a crucial situation
 
   17   where we have a combination of effects that have
 
   18   impacted the metro Atlanta area.
 
   19              Extraordinary growth in the last 10 to 15
 
   20   years have put us in a position where we have added
 
   21   enumerable number of motor vehicles into the metro
 
   22   Atlanta area without a corresponding increase in the
 
   23   infrastructure to deliver those individuals to
 
   24   wherever they're trying to go, be it to work or to
 
   25   play.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           58
 
 
    1              That has created a situation in the metro
 
    2   Atlanta area where we have a terrible air quality
 
    3   problem and, as a matter of fact, are a
 
    4   nonattainment area.
 
    5              I'm coming here today to urge you to
 
    6   adopt the strictest regulations possible.  My
 
    7   constituency demands it.  I think those of us in the
 
    8   metro Atlanta area -- and I'm not talking just from
 
    9   a constituent -- as an individual, but I believe the
 
   10   business community as well understands the need to
 
   11   preserve a quality of life.
 
   12              There's a reason that approximately
 
   13   100,000 people a year every year for the last ten
 
   14   years has relocated to the metropolitan Atlanta
 
   15   area.  We provide a good place to do business, a
 
   16   good place to live.  And, unfortunately, we are
 
   17   choking on our own success.  And, therefore, I feel
 
   18   very comfortable today as someone who also has spent
 
   19   12 years on the House Industry Committee who works
 
   20   very closely with the business community,
 
   21   understanding the need to move goods and products
 
   22   around this state.
 
   23              I urge you to do everything that you can
 
   24   within y'alls regulatory ability to adopt the
 
   25   strictest standards possible so that we do not have
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           59
 
 
    1   to be concerned about the health and welfare issues
 
    2   that diesel in particular have brought upon this
 
    3   metropolitan Atlanta community.  And basically I
 
    4   just wanted to come here and express those concerns.
 
    5              I appreciate, once again, y'alls
 
    6   efforts.  Having been in politics for 20 years and
 
    7   as an elected official for 12 years, I understand
 
    8   the pressures that come to bear when it comes time
 
    9   to make policy decisions like this.
 
   10              I also understand the cost to the
 
   11   business community.  And I know that those people in
 
   12   the business community who I consult to when I have
 
   13   to advise them to do something that either, No. 1,
 
   14   means they have to meet regulatory compliance or,
 
   15   No. 2, it would be good for them as a company that's
 
   16   responsible to their community.  We do the
 
   17   calculations of the cost, and quite often the
 
   18   companies I've been working with anyhow have decided
 
   19   that if it's the right thing to do and the community
 
   20   supports it, then they'll go ahead and make those
 
   21   commitments and commit those resources to do it.
 
   22              I want to thank you very much for giving
 
   23   me the opportunity to be here today.
 
   24              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much for
 
   25   taking the time to share your views.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           60
 
 
    1              The next panel, Joseph Abrams, Sherrill
 
    2   Marcus, Hilary Carruthers, Janice Nolen, Jim
 
    3   Hinshaw.  If you could write your names and
 
    4   affiliations.
 
    5              Hilary Carruthers, begin when you're
 
    6   ready.
 
    7              MS. CARRUTHERS:  Okay.  Good morning
 
    8   all.  And I would like to thank you for allowing me
 
    9   to speak today.  My name is Hilary Carruthers; and I
 
   10   live in Marietta, Georgia and I'm from Atlanta.  I'm
 
   11   a recent high school graduate and I will be starting
 
   12   college in the fall of this year.
 
   13              And right now I think that we must take
 
   14   action to stop this situation of air pollution
 
   15   within Atlanta and within the cities, the city
 
   16   limits.
 
   17              As of right now there are 40,000 people
 
   18   who die prematurely from breathing soot pollution
 
   19   every single year.  Diesel soot pollution has been
 
   20   linked to cancer by over 30 different scientific
 
   21   studies, and 125,000 cases of cancer are reported
 
   22   annually to the result of soot pollution.  Obviously
 
   23   this is a very urgent issue right now.
 
   24              I know we've all had the experience of
 
   25   riding behind a diesel truck on the highways or the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           61
 
 
    1   streets of Atlanta and having thick brown air puffed
 
    2   back at us and seeping through the windows and you
 
    3   smell it.  It's like you have a moment in the air.
 
    4              I do definitely agree with your proposal
 
    5   that we need to clean up the situation and that we
 
    6   need to test these trucks and buses as soon as
 
    7   possible.
 
    8              Obviously we can look at the amount of
 
    9   smog days that we have every summer, and also this
 
   10   shows how much smog is in our air.  The situation is
 
   11   absolutely horrendous.  The amount of smog days
 
   12   during the summer create a situation when children
 
   13   cannot go out and play because of their young
 
   14   respiratory systems and when older people cannot go
 
   15   out and be in the air because their respiratory
 
   16   systems cannot handle it.  And I see this as a
 
   17   serious problem because it creates a situation when
 
   18   our outdoors become a health hazard.
 
   19              I definitely urge you to try to clean up
 
   20   the situation.  I think anytime when you have a
 
   21   situation when 40,000 people die per year because of
 
   22   a certain cause that makes it urgent and means that
 
   23   it needs to get cleaned up as soon as possible.
 
   24              I think that the diesel trucks within
 
   25   Georgia and everywhere actually should meet all the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           62
 
 
    1   emission standards.  We must clean up this problem
 
    2   by making sure that the emission standards on these
 
    3   trucks are the right standards and that they will
 
    4   not emit so many pollutants and toxins into the
 
    5   air.
 
    6              And I think that this problem should
 
    7   definitely be cleaned up by the year 2006, if not
 
    8   sooner than that, because, if we have five, six more
 
    9   years where 40,000 people are going to die every
 
   10   year because of this smog and the pollutants, I
 
   11   think that's absolutely unnecessary and just can't
 
   12   continue.
 
   13              And I'd like to thank you for allowing me
 
   14   to speak today and wish everybody a nice day.
 
   15              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much for
 
   16   giving us your views, and good luck as you continue
 
   17   your education.
 
   18              MS. CARRUTHERS:  Thank you.
 
   19              MR. FRANCE:  Janice Nolen.
 
   20              MS. NOLEN:  Thank you.  My name is Janice
 
   21   Nolen.  I'm the director of program for the American
 
   22   Lung Association of Tennessee, and I'm here
 
   23   representing the American Lung Association of
 
   24   Tennessee.
 
   25              As you probably know, the Lung
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           63
 
 
    1   Association is the nation's oldest voluntary health
 
    2   organization; and for the last four decades we've
 
    3   been leading the way in the fight against air
 
    4   pollution.
 
    5              We Tennesseans have never thought of our
 
    6   ourselves as living in a place that had much in
 
    7   common with Los Angeles, Houston, or even Atlanta.
 
    8   We pride ourselves on our very quiet lifestyles with
 
    9   good communities to work and to raise families.
 
   10   However, we now know that we do have one thing at
 
   11   least in common with those larger urban areas.  We
 
   12   have really unhealthy air.
 
   13              All but one of the 24 ozone monitors in
 
   14   Tennessee recorded violations of the eight-hour
 
   15   standards between 1997 and 1999.  The one that
 
   16   didn't, the only one that didn't, came in at only 1
 
   17   part per billion below the standard.  At least three
 
   18   of these monitors were originally cited because they
 
   19   were in rural locations away from the perceived
 
   20   extent of urban air pollution.
 
   21              State monitoring officials predict that
 
   22   if we had monitors in every one of our 95 counties
 
   23   every county would violate the standard.  That's how
 
   24   pervasive air pollution in Tennessee is.  There is
 
   25   no escaping it, especially for those most at risk,
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           64
 
 
    1   like the 80,000 children we have in the state with
 
    2   asthma.
 
    3              What was even more striking to me as a
 
    4   native Tennessean was how bad our air is by
 
    5   comparison to the rest of the nation.  Tennessee's
 
    6   air quality is much worse than any of us had
 
    7   previously thought.  Last month the Lung Association
 
    8   released the State of the Air 2000 report which used
 
    9   data reported to EPA to evaluate the relative air
 
   10   quality in metropolitan areas.
 
   11              Tennessee had three cities ranked among
 
   12   the 25 smoggiest cities in the nation.  Knoxville
 
   13   was No. 12, Nashville was No. 18, and Memphis was
 
   14   No. 23.  The three largest cities in Tennessee
 
   15   ranked right behind the cities of Southern
 
   16   California, Houston, and Atlanta.  Tennessee even
 
   17   had five counties ranked among the 25 smoggiest in
 
   18   the nation, four of which were in the Great Smoky
 
   19   Mountains/Knoxville area.
 
   20              That bad air is taking a dangerous toll
 
   21   on Tennesseans.  According to another recent
 
   22   national report, some 4,500 Tennesseans went to the
 
   23   emergency room in the summer of 1997 from
 
   24   respiratory problems caused by smog.  Approximately
 
   25   1,500 were admitted to the hospital because of smog
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           65
 
 
    1   impairing their ability to breathe.
 
    2              We are taking strides to clean up the air
 
    3   in Tennessee.  We at the Lung Association have long
 
    4   urged the State to work aggressively to comply with
 
    5   the NOx SIP call.  We've pushed TVA both in public
 
    6   and in private to clean up their dirty power
 
    7   plants.  The commitments to reducing NOx will help
 
    8   improve the air quality in many places in Tennessee
 
    9   but not for the three worst cities:  Knoxville,
 
   10   Nashville, and Memphis.
 
   11              More must be done to have air in my state
 
   12   that doesn't make people sick.  That's why I'm here
 
   13   today, to urge you to put these proposed diesel
 
   14   regulations into effect.  We believe that we must
 
   15   make certain that all vehicles on the highways are
 
   16   as clean as they can be, and diesel should be no
 
   17   exception.
 
   18              The key to this is capping the sulfur
 
   19   content of diesel fuel at 15 parts per million.  We
 
   20   must have nearly-sulfur-free fuel to enable the
 
   21   other measures of reducing diesel emissions to take
 
   22   effect.  In addition, it reduces the production of
 
   23   sulfur particulates to a point which will also help
 
   24   us meet the particulate standard.
 
   25              We and EPA have been pushing TVA to
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           66
 
 
    1   control sulfur in its fuel and emissions for years.
 
    2   It's time we made the same requirements for diesel
 
    3   fuels.
 
    4              However, we cannot wait until 2010 to
 
    5   have full implementation.  We cannot ask people to
 
    6   wait ten years to breathe easier.  EPA must require
 
    7   all diesel fuels meet the 15 parts per million cap
 
    8   by June 1, 2006 and require all new 2007 vehicles to
 
    9   include control technologies using them.
 
   10              We also support the concept of rewarding
 
   11   manufacturers who go beyond the mandates of this
 
   12   rule and create even cleaner alternatives.  It's
 
   13   time to begin investing in the next generation of
 
   14   technology that can serve the role of diesel without
 
   15   the health and environmental impacts.
 
   16              The American Lung Association of
 
   17   Tennessee strongly supports EPA's proposals.  These
 
   18   measures are critical to the protection of public
 
   19   health and the environment.
 
   20              Thank you.
 
   21              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Jim Hinshaw.
 
   22              MR. HINSHAW:  Thank you for giving me the
 
   23   opportunity to share with you.  I'm straddling a
 
   24   place in the table.  So if you don't hear me well,
 
   25   please raise your hand.  There are too many legs
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           67
 
 
    1   between me and the table is what I'm trying to say.
 
    2              I have an opportunity I believe to share
 
    3   for two people today.  I would like to read to you
 
    4   from a physician's statement and her testimony who
 
    5   cannot be here.  Her name is Robyn Levy.  And I
 
    6   would like to address the EPA and those who have
 
    7   come to the hearing.
 
    8              Topic of diesel fuel particulate matter
 
    9   and respiratory disease.  I am a practicing clinical
 
   10   allergist and immunologist and asthma specialist in
 
   11   the Atlanta area and have been practicing for the
 
   12   last ten years.  I treat both pediatric and adult
 
   13   patients.
 
   14              Over the past five years, I have noted
 
   15   increasing respiratory disease in both asthma and
 
   16   sinus disease among all age groups in my patients
 
   17   each summer, such that in previous years summer
 
   18   months were the quietest months of the year for my
 
   19   practice and are now some of the busiest.
 
   20              I see more patients than ever before with
 
   21   new onset asthma in all age groups and many patients
 
   22   with new onset upper respiratory tract disease such
 
   23   as sinusitis and rhinitis than ever I have before.
 
   24              Many patients move to the Atlanta area
 
   25   from other parts of the country less urbanized and
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           68
 
 
    1   even from other countries and report onset of
 
    2   increasing respiratory disease including asthma and
 
    3   upper airway disease after their move.
 
    4              This all sounds a little different from
 
    5   the politician I heard earlier saying we have a good
 
    6   place to move to.  That's my quote.
 
    7              Not only am I seeing this in my own
 
    8   practice, but respiratory physicians across America
 
    9   have similar concerns and observations in their own
 
   10   practices.  Not only are we seeing logarithmic
 
   11   increases in the incidence of asthma and sinus
 
   12   disease across all ages and patient subpopulations,
 
   13   but we are seeing more difficult-to-control asthma
 
   14   requiring higher doses of inhaled and oral steroids
 
   15   than ever before.
 
   16              It is not unusual for some of my
 
   17   patients, including very young ones, to require
 
   18   three to six medications per day to remain healthy.
 
   19   In past years many of my patients were able to
 
   20   discontinue their medications in the noncold and flu
 
   21   summer months.  However, this has not been the case
 
   22   in the last several summers, such that more patients
 
   23   have taken more medications in the summer months and
 
   24   have had less holidays off of medications during
 
   25   these months.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           69
 
 
    1              In addition, I find numerous discussions,
 
    2   complaints, and requests for information from
 
    3   patients on a daily basis regarding difficulties in
 
    4   playing ball, exercising, and running outdoors in
 
    5   the summer months.  These were not typical
 
    6   questions, concerns, and complaints I faced even
 
    7   eight years ago in my practice.
 
    8              There is an increasing body of research
 
    9   being performed amongst allergy and asthma
 
   10   specialists in this country and worldwide on the
 
   11   issues of airborne particulate matter emanating from
 
   12   car and truck exhaust in regards to their effects on
 
   13   asthma and other respiratory disease.  In
 
   14   particular, diesel particles have been implicated in
 
   15   several studies both in this country and abroad in
 
   16   issues of rising respiratory disease.
 
   17              My personal observations in combination
 
   18   with my colleagues' similar observations and the
 
   19   growing body of research evidence undoubtedly
 
   20   implicate particulate matter from air pollutants and
 
   21   especially diesel exhaust particles as major
 
   22   concerns for the epidemic of asthma and other
 
   23   related respiratory disease that we are seeing here
 
   24   in Atlanta as well as other urbanized areas.
 
   25              This is not a time for compromise in
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           70
 
 
    1   these areas.  Compromises in the past have led to
 
    2   our current situation which is far from optimal or
 
    3   even acceptable.  Recognizing the considerable cost
 
    4   in the burden of healthcare dollars over future
 
    5   years, we have no other choice than to make the
 
    6   sacrifices now to ensure better quality of life,
 
    7   health, and containment of healthcare dollars in our
 
    8   future.
 
    9              These issues are not the vague issues of
 
   10   future generations.  These issues are occurring at
 
   11   such a rapid rate of prevalence and of severity that
 
   12   these are issues for ourselves in the
 
   13   not-too-distant future.
 
   14              There are no other acceptable measures
 
   15   when it comes to the issues of diesel particles and
 
   16   particulate matter from pollutant sources.  Even the
 
   17   most dramatic steps that we're able to take at this
 
   18   current stage will only provide us with small
 
   19   changes in the right direction.  It is going to take
 
   20   dramatic changes over many years' time and in many
 
   21   different sectors to ensure a healthy quality of
 
   22   life in our population with regards to respiratory
 
   23   healthcare.
 
   24              I remain quite concerned about the
 
   25   quality of life that continues to worsen each year
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           71
 
 
    1   and that has had significant negative impacts upon
 
    2   the respiratory health of our citizens.
 
    3              I invite any representatives from the EPA
 
    4   or any other industry to spend time with me in my
 
    5   office on any given day to examine the effects of
 
    6   air quality on my patients of all ages.
 
    7              I appreciate your attention to these
 
    8   concerns and look forward to working with you to
 
    9   improve our quality of life through cleaner air.
 
   10   Sincerely, again, Dr. Robyn Levy.
 
   11              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.
 
   12              MR. HINSHAW:  Thank you again for an
 
   13   opportunity for me to share with you.  I come to you
 
   14   at a time when I think it's essential that I speak
 
   15   very quickly about how I choose to be here.
 
   16              For a brief reading, I would share with
 
   17   you out of the Acts of the Apostles the 17th
 
   18   Chapter, Verse 24 through 31.  And this is my own
 
   19   translation.
 
   20              The God who created the world and
 
   21   everything in it and who was Lord of heaven and
 
   22   earth does not live in shrines made by human hands.
 
   23   It is not because God lacks anything that he accepts
 
   24   service at our hands.  For the Great Spirit is the
 
   25   universal giver of life and breath, indeed of
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           72
 
 
    1   everything.  The Great Reality created humanity and
 
    2   determines our errors in history, the limits of our
 
    3   territory.
 
    4              We are to seek God in the hopes that
 
    5   groping after our Creator we might find the source,
 
    6   the companion.  Though, indeed, this one is not very
 
    7   far from each one of us, this one in whom we live
 
    8   and move and breathe and find our being.  We are
 
    9   offspring.  God commands us everywhere to turn
 
   10   around and change and follow the will, the way of
 
   11   the Master, the human one who has risen.
 
   12              That's how I choose to be here.
 
   13              I want to tell you a story about a man
 
   14   who at age 19 found himself in the battle of bulge.
 
   15   He had already blown up bridges prior to the
 
   16   Normandy invasion of World War II.  He was freezing
 
   17   to death.  He removed a frozen coat off a frozen
 
   18   body of a dead German.  He was immediately captured
 
   19   by the Germans.  At that point he was lined up with
 
   20   two other of his guys in his squad of paratroopers,
 
   21   82nd Airborne.
 
   22              MR. HERZOG:  One minute remaining.
 
   23              MR. HINSHAW:  Thank you.  Appreciate
 
   24   that.  And at that point he watched them be shot.
 
   25   The next thing he heard was that he would be shot
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           73
 
 
    1   the next day if he was not able to tell the Germans
 
    2   what they wanted to know.  He killed a guard that
 
    3   night and approximately 30 years later related to me
 
    4   this story.  That man was my father.
 
    5              By the gift of what happens to you when
 
    6   you grow up on tobacco road and the free cigarettes
 
    7   given to servicemen, he learned to smoke; and he
 
    8   smoked until the doctors told him he had to quit.
 
    9   He developed emphysema.
 
   10              And I come to you recognizing that five
 
   11   years ago, a little more, February 1st, he died
 
   12   probably because he had gotten into the eight-year
 
   13   period the physician is talking about here.  He was
 
   14   breathing the air that we have up on tobacco road.
 
   15              I'm here because I know that we need the
 
   16   big trucks to bring the groceries to Atlanta, and I
 
   17   think that we need to clean them up.  I'm here
 
   18   because I know that we have to have the fuel that
 
   19   will make them efficient enough so that a little kid
 
   20   named Charlie that we heard about this morning in
 
   21   the press conference can get a decent breath.  I
 
   22   mean he might not be in the quota that's supposed to
 
   23   die this year.
 
   24              I know that the Supreme Court has tried.
 
   25   We're going to try and decide in the future whether
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           74
 
 
    1   or not it costs too much to do this.
 
    2              So what I invite you to recognize is that
 
    3   there was a man named Ezekiel a few years ago.  He
 
    4   invited people to recognize that you can find the
 
    5   guts, the air, the wind to do what we need to do
 
    6   even if we're skeletons.  By those bones we are
 
    7   called, I believe, to take on big oil and to take on
 
    8   our need to have the comfort that's nearly killed
 
    9   us.
 
   10              MR. HERZOG:  Excuse me, Mr. Hinshaw.  Can
 
   11   we have your conclusion?
 
   12              MR. HINSHAW:  Thanks.
 
   13              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much for
 
   14   giving us your views today.
 
   15              The next panel, Gary Boring, Michael
 
   16   Replogle, Dale McKinnon, Marie Valentine, Rick Wynn,
 
   17   David Piech.
 
   18              (A discussion ensued off the record.)
 
   19              MR. BORING:  Thank you.  I'm Gary
 
   20   Boring.  I'm president and CEO of Countrymark
 
   21   Cooperative, Incorporated.  And I would like to
 
   22   incorporate by reference the comments of Ron
 
   23   Williams who spoke on behalf of Gary Williams Energy
 
   24   Company and small refiners earlier in New York.  And
 
   25   I concur with those comments that he made.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           75
 
 
    1              But I'm here this morning representing
 
    2   Countrymark Cooperative, Inc.  We are an oil company
 
    3   but we are not big oil.  Countrymark Co-op operates
 
    4   a 24,000-barrel-a-day refinery in Mt. Vernon,
 
    5   Indiana which is located at the southwestern most
 
    6   point of Indiana where the Wabash and Ohio Rivers
 
    7   converge.  We have a 238-mile product pipeline
 
    8   conducting our three terminals in southern, central,
 
    9   and northern Indiana.
 
   10              While we are a small refiner, we serve
 
   11   the fuel needs of approximately 65 percent of the
 
   12   farmers in Indiana.  We are currently providing our
 
   13   refined products also to our members in Ohio and
 
   14   lower Michigan.
 
   15              I continue to be amazed at the vision of
 
   16   the farmers of Indiana who back in the late '40s and
 
   17   early '50s had the foresight to construct our small
 
   18   refinery in the Illinois basin which at that time
 
   19   was an active oil-producing area producing far in
 
   20   excess of what we could use at our small refinery.
 
   21              Through the years, as you can imagine,
 
   22   the production from the Illinois basin has declined
 
   23   to the point that it produces about 30,000 barrels
 
   24   of oil per day of which we consume approximately
 
   25   24,000 barrels.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           76
 
 
    1              You should know that we do not own any
 
    2   crude oil and purchase every barrel that we consume
 
    3   at our refinery from an area within 100 miles of our
 
    4   refinery, and those funds directly benefit our local
 
    5   economy.  Last month the amount we paid for that
 
    6   crude oil was in excess of $19 million.  Much of
 
    7   that amount went to the local farmers who own the
 
    8   land where the wells are located.  We use no foreign
 
    9   crude oil, and this further differentiates us from
 
   10   most refiners.  We employ 315 people.  We own no
 
   11   retail outlets.
 
   12              As an agricultural cooperative, we are
 
   13   owned by our member cooperatives which, in turn, are
 
   14   owned by the farmers of the area they serve.  We
 
   15   provide agricultural fuels to co-ops whose farmer
 
   16   members number approximately 200,000.
 
   17              In the event we are profitable, we return
 
   18   a portion of our profits to our members; and they,
 
   19   in turn, return any of their excess profits they may
 
   20   generate to their farmer-owners.
 
   21              The reason agricultural cooperatives were
 
   22   formed was to give the farmer a more level playing
 
   23   field in acquiring inputs.  We feel we provide a
 
   24   very valuable competition in our trade area and that
 
   25   the farmers in our trade area would immediately
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           77
 
 
    1   suffer higher fuel costs if we were not there to
 
    2   serve them.
 
    3              We are very conscious of our
 
    4   environmental responsibilities and have upgraded our
 
    5   facilities to meet or exceed all current EPA
 
    6   regulations.  We are most concerned about our
 
    7   future, as the current regulations under
 
    8   consideration are projected to cost far in excess of
 
    9   our ability to fund at this time.
 
   10              Please understand that we are limited in
 
   11   the amount we can borrow against our assets and can
 
   12   support through the profitability of our
 
   13   operations.  Our success is directly related to the
 
   14   farm economy; and, as many of you know, farmers have
 
   15   been in a recession despite the booming economy many
 
   16   others have experienced for the past few years.
 
   17              We are unable to go to our members and
 
   18   farmers and ask them to help us capitalize the
 
   19   projects that will be required as the result of
 
   20   these new regulations.
 
   21              Quite frankly, at this date we do not
 
   22   know how we are going to fund these new
 
   23   requirements.  We are attempting to plan for the
 
   24   future, but it will be difficult to finalize any
 
   25   future plans until we know exactly how we are to be
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           78
 
 
    1   treated in the formulation of these regulations.
 
    2              There are several things which could be
 
    3   beneficial to Countrymark Cooperative and other
 
    4   cooperatives and small refineries in allowing us to
 
    5   comply over time with the new regulations.  These
 
    6   are time, money, and reasonable standards.
 
    7              I am not a technologically-oriented
 
    8   person.  I have a legal background and was vice
 
    9   president and general counsel of Countrymark
 
   10   Cooperative before I became president and CEO.  I'm
 
   11   going to tell you what I do understand about what we
 
   12   would need to stay in business after these
 
   13   regulations are promulgated.
 
   14              Perhaps the most helpful thing would be
 
   15   to delay gasoline desulfurization requirements for
 
   16   us by two or more years if we make the necessary
 
   17   changes to comply with the distillate
 
   18   desulfurization regulations first.  It would be most
 
   19   important that the gasoline produced during that
 
   20   time would not require special treatment, handling,
 
   21   or labeling during the interim period.
 
   22              We believe that we need three to five
 
   23   years of additional time to assimilate the new
 
   24   technology which will be necessary for us to
 
   25   desulfurize our on-road products.  Most of our
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           79
 
 
    1   customers are purchasing high sulfur or off-road
 
    2   product, but we are uncertain what the introduction
 
    3   of ultra-low sulfur on-road products will do to our
 
    4   local markets.
 
    5              One could not expect the engine
 
    6   manufacturers to manufacture engines for ultra-low
 
    7   sulfur fuels and high sulfur fuels long term.  So
 
    8   even if we do get additional time, it may be that
 
    9   the market will dictate that we must desulfurize our
 
   10   products earlier to meet the competition.
 
   11              We do, however, foresee that additional
 
   12   time for us to evaluate and prepare would be most
 
   13   helpful.  We need assistance perhaps with a
 
   14   tax-based incentive that would give us the funds
 
   15   over time to do these projects.  SBA.
 
   16              has been very helpful throughout these
 
   17   last few months in attempting to find resolution to
 
   18   our financial problems.  The problem is that the SBA
 
   19   is limited to $750,000 in lending; and we are
 
   20   currently estimating that the sum total of all of
 
   21   these projects, both gasoline and distillate, will
 
   22   exceed $25 million just for our small refinery.
 
   23   This exceeds the book value of all of our current
 
   24   refining and distribution assets.
 
   25              As time passes, this technology will
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           80
 
 
    1   become even more expensive.  A government guaranteed
 
    2   loan of up to $50 million for small refiners may be
 
    3   the only way most of us could acquire the financing
 
    4   needed to make the necessary upgrades.
 
    5              Finally, we had been discussing until
 
    6   just recently a proposed 50 parts per million sulfur
 
    7   level for the ultra-low sulfur diesel product.  This
 
    8   is a 90 percent reduction from the current allowable
 
    9   levels.  The additional funds required to make the
 
   10   incremental reduction from 50 parts to 15 parts is
 
   11   estimated to be about $2 million just at our small
 
   12   refinery.
 
   13              We would request that you reconsider and
 
   14   go back to the 50 parts per million allowable level
 
   15   to give us an opportunity to purchase technology
 
   16   which we can more readily afford and which would
 
   17   reduce continuing operating costs.
 
   18              Cooperative refineries represent less
 
   19   than 2 percent of the refining capacity of this
 
   20   country, but we account for 40 percent of the
 
   21   on-farm fuel use in the United States.  And, as you
 
   22   will recall, in our trade area, we provide 65
 
   23   percent of the agricultural power fuels used in our
 
   24   market area.
 
   25              Please recall also that the original
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           81
 
 
    1   purpose of ag. co-ops was to give farmers a level
 
    2   playing field in allowing them to benefit from the
 
    3   manufacture and sale of their own products.
 
    4              I am passionate about this, as I live on
 
    5   the family farm where I was born.  My brother,
 
    6   father, and I own the farm.  My family has farmed
 
    7   this land for over 150 years.  My father was a board
 
    8   member of our local cooperative for 50 years.  I am
 
    9   a member of that local co-op.
 
   10              Please give small refiners and
 
   11   cooperative refiners every consideration in
 
   12   promulgating rules that will allow our small
 
   13   farmer-owned refinery to continue to provide quality
 
   14   products to our region at a price which farmers can
 
   15   afford and to receive the profits which benefit them
 
   16   directly.
 
   17              Thank you.
 
   18              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  The next
 
   19   speaker, Michael Replogle.
 
   20              MR. REPLOGLE:  Thank you.  It's a
 
   21   pleasure to be here today.  Environmental Defense
 
   22   greatly appreciates the opportunity to comment on
 
   23   EPA's proposed emission standards for large diesel
 
   24   trucks and buses and for cleaner diesel fuel.
 
   25              I'm testifying today on behalf of the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           82
 
 
    1   approximately 300,000 members of Environmental
 
    2   Defense who live in metropolitan Atlanta and in
 
    3   communities across the country who would get
 
    4   dramatically cleaner, healthier air than currently
 
    5   exists if this EPA proposed rule becomes final.
 
    6              Massive amounts of diesel emissions that
 
    7   contribute significantly to fine particulate, air
 
    8   toxics, and nitrogen oxide, air contaminant levels,
 
    9   rank as very serious health and environmental
 
   10   problems both here and in other metropolitan areas.
 
   11              EPA estimates that by 2007 heavy-duty
 
   12   vehicles will comprise nearly a quarter of the total
 
   13   NOx emissions inventory in Atlanta and 36 percent of
 
   14   the mobile source NOx emissions inventory as well as
 
   15   16 percent of the urban particulate matter coming up
 
   16   into the air here in Atlanta.
 
   17              There is overwhelming public support for
 
   18   EPA's proposed action.  A recent public opinion
 
   19   survey found that 87 percent of the public, nearly 9
 
   20   out of 10 people, agree that 18-wheeler trucks,
 
   21   buses, and other big diesel vehicles should be
 
   22   required to use the best available pollution control
 
   23   technology even though it will cost the owners of
 
   24   these vehicles more money.
 
   25              While millions of Americans who work and
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           83
 
 
    1   have family responsibilities are unable to attend
 
    2   EPA's public hearings, the tremendous broad-based
 
    3   support for EPA's action reflected in this survey
 
    4   must be counted.
 
    5              The overwhelming support for EPA's
 
    6   initiative is not surprising.  The largely
 
    7   uncontrolled exhaust from large diesel trucks and
 
    8   buses is dirty and noxious.  Everyone in this room
 
    9   has memories going back to our childhood of
 
   10   breathing and choking on the black fumes from trucks
 
   11   and buses.
 
   12              This pollution is ubiquitous and
 
   13   contributes to harmful air pollution across much of
 
   14   the Southeastern United States.  This hurts our
 
   15   lungs, it harms our children, and it obscures our
 
   16   heritage, both environmental and cultural.
 
   17              It's imperative that EPA finalize its
 
   18   proposed emission standard for diesel particulates
 
   19   to protect neighborhoods in the Atlanta metropolitan
 
   20   region and other communities across the country from
 
   21   the carcinogenic effects of diesel exhaust.
 
   22              Numerous public health studies show
 
   23   increased lung cancer risks of 20 to 89 percent from
 
   24   diesel exhaust.  Major state and national and
 
   25   international public health agencies have found that
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           84
 
 
    1   diesel exhaust or particulates from diesel are
 
    2   probable or known carcinogen.
 
    3              Compelling information suggests that
 
    4   minorities and the economically disadvantaged bear a
 
    5   disproportionate burden of this unacceptable public
 
    6   health risk.  In March of this year, local officials
 
    7   in Los Angeles completed a study looking at urban
 
    8   air toxics and found that emissions of diesel
 
    9   particulates are responsible for 70 percent of the
 
   10   cancer risk associated with air pollution.
 
   11   Moreover, the study found that the greatest risk
 
   12   levels were in low-income minority areas of the
 
   13   city.
 
   14              Based on this analysis, the State and
 
   15   Local Air Officials, the STAPPA/ALAPCO group,
 
   16   estimated that diesel particulates are responsible
 
   17   for nearly 2,000 cancers in the metro Atlanta
 
   18   region.
 
   19              In taking final action on its proposal,
 
   20   EPA must issue the most stringent particulate
 
   21   emission standards feasible and no less stringent
 
   22   than .01 grams per brake-horsepower to help rid our
 
   23   communities of harmful cancer-causing diesel
 
   24   exhaust.  It's high time we put the health of our
 
   25   children and those who have special susceptibility
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           85
 
 
    1   to respiratory problems, as well as those who live
 
    2   in communities that experience significant truck
 
    3   traffic, first.
 
    4              While Environmental Defense applauds
 
    5   EPA's proposed cuts in NOx emissions from large
 
    6   trucks and buses, we're concerned about the proposed
 
    7   delay in implementing the NOx emission standards.
 
    8   NOx emissions have increased by more than 15 percent
 
    9   since the advent of the 1970 Clean Air Act.
 
   10              NOx pollution contributes to a variety of
 
   11   health and environmental problems here and elsewhere
 
   12   in the country, contributing to ground-level smog,
 
   13   short and long-term lung damage in children,
 
   14   asthmatics, and other vulnerable people.  NOx is one
 
   15   of the major contributors to fine particles
 
   16   emissions that are also a major problem causing
 
   17   premature death, hospitalization, and emergency
 
   18   treatment among elderly and other vulnerable
 
   19   populations.  NOx is a major contributor to
 
   20   acidification of forests, lakes, and streams.  It
 
   21   contributes to urban haze, and in our national parks
 
   22   it obscures the beautiful views.
 
   23              Large trucks and buses are one of the
 
   24   major contributors to this NOx air pollution
 
   25   problem.  EPA projects that large trucks and buses
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           86
 
 
    1   alone will soon comprise about 23 percent of the NOx
 
    2   air pollution in Atlanta.  Therefore, we've got to
 
    3   focus on those trucks and buses if we're going to
 
    4   really deal with the smog problem here and if we're
 
    5   going to help clean up the forest health problems
 
    6   that afflict the beautiful forest of the Great Smoky
 
    7   Mountains.
 
    8              Unfortunately, EPA is proposing
 
    9   unacceptable delays in the implementation of the NOx
 
   10   emission standards for large diesel trucks and
 
   11   buses.  EPA has proposed to phase in the new
 
   12   standards between 2007 and 2010.  Today's toddlers
 
   13   will be teenagers by the time these emission
 
   14   standards take full effect.
 
   15              We've already missed the attainment
 
   16   deadlines here in Atlanta for smog.  It's simply not
 
   17   tenable for EPA to put further delay in place on
 
   18   these kinds of critical NOx controls.  For every
 
   19   single dollar that we invest in cutting NOx air
 
   20   pollution, we reap tremendous benefits for public
 
   21   health and the environment.  Instead of postponing
 
   22   those benefits, EPA should require diesel engines to
 
   23   achieve full compliance with the NOx emission
 
   24   standards no later than 2007.  This would ensure the
 
   25   huge multifaceted clean air benefits from NOx
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           87
 
 
    1   pollution reduction can be more immediately
 
    2   realized.
 
    3              Recent public opinion polls found that 69
 
    4   percent of the public supports requiring cleaner
 
    5   pollution standards for large trucks and buses to be
 
    6   achieved in less than five years.  The long delay is
 
    7   especially problematic since the proposed
 
    8   regulations say nothing about existing fleets.  And
 
    9   over the next 7 to 11 years before the NOx emission
 
   10   limits are fully in effect, hundreds of thousands of
 
   11   new diesel engines will be built, sold, and used and
 
   12   will continue to spew pollution for decades to
 
   13   come.
 
   14              Environmental Defense urges EPA to
 
   15   establish a cap on sulfur content of highway diesel
 
   16   fuel, no less than 15 parts per million by no later
 
   17   than 2006.  Low sulfur fuel at this level is
 
   18   critical to achieving the kind of clean air benefits
 
   19   that are possible under this initiative.
 
   20              At an estimated cost of 4 cents a gallon,
 
   21   this is a clean air bargain.  One refiner has
 
   22   already voluntarily agreed to produce diesel fuel
 
   23   that meets this sulfur fuel specification in the Los
 
   24   Angeles region and is producing this low sulfur
 
   25   diesel fuel.  If we can do it in Los Angeles, we can
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           88
 
 
    1   do it here in Atlanta and elsewhere.
 
    2              Industry tends to overstate the costs of
 
    3   regulatory compliance.  The record of implementing
 
    4   the Clean Air Act shows this clearly.  EPA is
 
    5   allowing six years for refiners to produce cleaner
 
    6   fuel, a longer phase-in period that will give the
 
    7   refining industry considerable flexibility in
 
    8   managing its compliance costs.  Further, EPA's cost
 
    9   estimates are consistent with those of a refining
 
   10   industry consulting firm.  We think that extending
 
   11   proposed low sulfur diesel fuel requirements to the
 
   12   nonroad sector will also help pave the way for
 
   13   enhanced emission standards for nonroad engines,
 
   14   another important source of NOx pollution.
 
   15              So in summary, pollution from large
 
   16   diesel trucks and buses threatens the health of our
 
   17   children and our communities.  It exacerbates the
 
   18   disparate impacts of our transportation system on
 
   19   low-income communities.  There's a compelling air
 
   20   quality need to cut the harmful air pollution that
 
   21   comes from the exhaust of diesel trucks and buses.
 
   22              We respectfully urge EPA to act
 
   23   expeditiously in completing this important
 
   24   rulemaking, to turn back calls for delay, and to put
 
   25   in place strong standards that will help reduce
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           89
 
 
    1   environmental injustice and ensure that present and
 
    2   future generations will have clean, healthy air.
 
    3              Thank you.
 
    4              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Dale McKinnon.
 
    5              MR. MCKINNON:  Thank you.  It looks like
 
    6   I'm the last one who can say this, but good
 
    7   morning.  My name is Dale McKinnon.  I'm the deputy
 
    8   director of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls
 
    9   Association or MECA.
 
   10              MECA is pleased to present testimony in
 
   11   support of EPA's proposed highway heavy-duty engine
 
   12   and vehicle standards and highway diesel sulfur fuel
 
   13   requirements.  We believe an important opportunity
 
   14   exists to significantly reduce emissions from
 
   15   heavy-duty diesel engines by utilizing an engineered
 
   16   systems approach where we use advanced engine
 
   17   designs, advanced emission control technology, and
 
   18   very low sulfur fuel.
 
   19              EPA's regulatory initiative recognizes
 
   20   the importance of this approach, and we believe its
 
   21   regulatory initiative constitutes a carefully
 
   22   crafted and balanced program.  If finalized,
 
   23   substantial cost-effective emission reductions will
 
   24   be achieved and the age of a truly clean diesel
 
   25   engine will be with us.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           90
 
 
    1              MECA is a nonprofit association.  We're
 
    2   made up of the world's leading manufacturers of
 
    3   motor vehicle emission controls.  Our members have
 
    4   over 30 years of experience in developing and
 
    5   commercializing exhaust emission control
 
    6   technology.  Along with this is a proven track
 
    7   record.
 
    8              My comments today are based on our
 
    9   extensive experience and also our track record.
 
   10              Today I'd like to outline MECA's position
 
   11   on EPA's proposed initiative.  In particular, I'd
 
   12   like to focus on two aspects of the proposal; and
 
   13   that's the technological feasibility of the
 
   14   heavy-duty diesel engine standards and the need for
 
   15   very low sulfur diesel fuel.
 
   16              We'll also be providing more detailed
 
   17   comments on the proposal in our written testimony.
 
   18              Regarding the technological feasibility
 
   19   of the proposed standards, we believe the proposed
 
   20   standards can be achieved in a cost-effective manner
 
   21   within the lead time available, if very low sulfur
 
   22   fuel is available.
 
   23              EPA identified two primary candidate
 
   24   technologies in its proposal, the first being
 
   25   catalyst-based diesel particulate filters for
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           91
 
 
    1   control of particulate matter emission and the
 
    2   second being NOx adsorbers for control of the
 
    3   nitrogen oxide emissions.
 
    4              Catalyst-based diesel particulate filters
 
    5   are commercially available today.  All that remains
 
    6   is to optimize these systems for the specific
 
    7   engines.  Currently over 20,000 systems on a wide
 
    8   variety of diesel applications are actually in use
 
    9   worldwide.  The control efficiency of these systems
 
   10   and performance and durability are proven.  In fact,
 
   11   in areas where less than 10 ppm fuel sulfur is being
 
   12   used, impressive durability has been demonstrated
 
   13   where excellent PM control after 600,000 kilometers
 
   14   of vehicle service has been found.  With low sulfur
 
   15   diesel fuel, greater than 90 percent reductions in
 
   16   PM and toxic hydrocarbons can be achieved.  In fact,
 
   17   PM emissions from these systems are nearly
 
   18   undetectable.
 
   19              Regarding NOx adsorber technology,
 
   20   developing optimization of this technology is
 
   21   progressing at a rapid rate.  Our members fully
 
   22   expect that with very low sulfur fuel this
 
   23   technology will be commercially available in 2007
 
   24   for diesel engines.  In fact, the prospect of this
 
   25   fuel being available in 2006 is already simulated an
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           92
 
 
    1   increased commitment to move this technology forward
 
    2   on behalf of our members.
 
    3              Our members see no barriers to the
 
    4   introduction and commercialization of this
 
    5   technology with very low sulfur fuel.  There are
 
    6   engineering challenges, but these are engineering in
 
    7   nature.  Substantial financial investments are being
 
    8   made because companies believe they will be
 
    9   commercially available.
 
   10              Selective catalytic reduction mentioned
 
   11   earlier is an another NOx control option.  It's
 
   12   currently being developed and should be commercially
 
   13   available on selected motor vehicles in the near
 
   14   future.
 
   15              Why the need for very low sulfur fuel?
 
   16   Meeting a 0.2 grams per brake-horsepower-hour NOx
 
   17   along with the 0.01 grams per brake-horsepower-hour
 
   18   PM standards for 435,000 miles combined -- you know,
 
   19   using combined transient and steady-state
 
   20   certification procedures along with not-to-exceed
 
   21   requirements is challenging.
 
   22              But we believe these challenges can be
 
   23   met.  The goal of a truly clean diesel engine is
 
   24   possible; but in order for that goal to be possible,
 
   25   very low sulfur fuel is needed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           93
 
 
    1              We continue to recommend a sulfur cap of
 
    2   5 ppm; but with a cap of 15 ppm, we believe that
 
    3   strategies can be developed to meet the proposed
 
    4   emission limits.  Specifically, with a 15 ppm cap,
 
    5   our members are extremely confident that all
 
    6   catalyst-based diesel particulate filter technology
 
    7   will be designed to meet the 0.01 grams per
 
    8   brake-horsepower-hour emission limit.
 
    9              Our members also believe that NOx
 
   10   adsorber technology with a 15 ppm cap will be
 
   11   optimized to help meet the 0.2 grams per
 
   12   brake-horsepower-hour NOx emission limit over
 
   13   435,000 miles using a combined transient and
 
   14   steady-state certification procedure with the
 
   15   not-to-exceed requirements.
 
   16              On the other hand, with a cap in excess
 
   17   of 15 ppm, simply we doubt the standards are
 
   18   achievable.
 
   19              In conclusion, we recognize that the
 
   20   proposed highway heavy-duty diesel engine and
 
   21   vehicle standards present real engineering
 
   22   challenges; but we believe these challenges can and
 
   23   will be met.  The key to meeting these challenges is
 
   24   the systems approach which EPA has identified in its
 
   25   proposal.  It will combine advanced engine designs,
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           94
 
 
    1   advanced emission control technology, and low sulfur
 
    2   diesel fuel.
 
    3              Our industry is committed to do its part
 
    4   to ensure that, if adopted, the engine and vehicle
 
    5   and sulfur requirements as proposed, the desired
 
    6   emission reductions will be achieved.
 
    7              Thank you.
 
    8              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Marty Lassen.
 
    9              MR. LASSEN:  I'll take Dale's lead and
 
   10   say good afternoon.  My name is Marty Lassen, and I
 
   11   am the heavy-duty diesel commercial development
 
   12   manager for Johnson Matthey.
 
   13              Johnson Matthey appreciates the
 
   14   opportunity to testify at today's hearings.  Johnson
 
   15   Matthey also fully supports the testimony of the
 
   16   Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association.
 
   17              For more than 30 years, Johnson Matthey
 
   18   has provided catalytic solutions for controlling
 
   19   emissions from automotive, nonautomotive, and
 
   20   stationary sources.  Johnson Matthey is a major
 
   21   supplier of diesel engine emission control devices
 
   22   for the worldwide light and heavy-duty diesel
 
   23   markets.  Over this time, Johnson Matthey has
 
   24   developed cutting-edge technology to meet or exceed
 
   25   the requirements that have been dictated by the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           95
 
 
    1   legislative process.
 
    2              Today Johnson Matthey continues to
 
    3   develop diesel engine emission control technologies
 
    4   that will meet or exceed emission level requirements
 
    5   such as those proposed for heavy-duty diesel engines
 
    6   in the year 2007.
 
    7              One such technology is Johnson Matthey's
 
    8   patented CRT particulate filter.  This technology is
 
    9   designed to attain particulate matter levels below
 
   10   0.01 grams per brake-horsepower-hour from today's
 
   11   diesel engines.  The CRT particulate filter has been
 
   12   commercially available in Europe for over five years
 
   13   and is now being used in the United States.
 
   14              Another technology still under
 
   15   development is Johnson Matthey's NOx trap or
 
   16   adsorber technology which is designed to reduce NOx
 
   17   emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines by more
 
   18   than 90 percent.  Preliminary data on our NOx trap
 
   19   catalysts indicates NOx emission reductions of more
 
   20   than 90 percent over the duty cycle.
 
   21              Johnson Matthey believes that the
 
   22   technological challenges posed by the proposed 2007
 
   23   heavy-duty vehicle standards are achievable.
 
   24   However, to achieve these results, ultra-low sulfur
 
   25   fuel is absolutely essential.  Fuel sulfur levels of
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           96
 
 
    1   5 ppm with a 15 ppm cap would ensure the lowest
 
    2   emissions levels possible with assured regeneration
 
    3   for the full 435,000-mile durability requirement.
 
    4   In fact, Johnson Matthey's CRT particulate filter
 
    5   technology meets the 2007 standard today for PM
 
    6   using ultra-low sulfur fuel.  Additionally, Johnson
 
    7   Matthey's NOx trap technology has already
 
    8   demonstrated NOx levels approaching the 2007
 
    9   standard.
 
   10              Are there technological hurdles still to
 
   11   be mastered?  The answer is yes.  But Johnson
 
   12   Matthey is firmly convinced that with the
 
   13   availability of ultra-low sulfur fuel and the
 
   14   innovation that will occur over the intervening
 
   15   years, NOx trap catalysts will be a viable
 
   16   commercial technology for NOx control in 2007.
 
   17              I'd be happy to answer any questions that
 
   18   you might have, and thank you for your attention.
 
   19              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Marie Valentine.
 
   20              MS. VALENTINE:  Good afternoon.  My name
 
   21   is Marie Valentine, and I am here to speak on behalf
 
   22   of DaimlerChrysler on the subject of EPA's proposal
 
   23   to modify heavy-duty vehicle emission control
 
   24   regulations and on-highway diesel fuel requirements.
 
   25              DaimlerChrysler is a vehicle manufacturer
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           97
 
 
    1   of light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles that operate
 
    2   on gasoline and diesel fuels.  DaimlerChrysler is a
 
    3   demonstrated leader in the development of
 
    4   environmentally-sound vehicle technologies.  This is
 
    5   evidenced by our commitment to support the pursuit
 
    6   of tough emission performance goals.
 
    7              Reducing heavy-duty emissions will aid in
 
    8   achieving the nation's air quality goals, and we
 
    9   stand ready to do our part.  This is a logical
 
   10   follow-up to the Tier 2 light-duty vehicle emission
 
   11   regulation adopted last December.  We agree that EPA
 
   12   needs to look at all pollution sources when
 
   13   determining a comprehensive emission reduction plan.
 
   14              In our opinion, the combination of a low
 
   15   sulfur on-highway diesel fuel program with feasible,
 
   16   stringent new emission standards for heavy-duty
 
   17   engines and vehicles will assist in improving air
 
   18   quality nationwide.
 
   19              We congratulate EPA for continuing to
 
   20   link vehicles and fuels, as was recently done in the
 
   21   Tier 2 regulations.  This system approach is the
 
   22   only way to achieve the emission reductions
 
   23   envisioned.
 
   24              We commend EPA's initiative to propose a
 
   25   15 ppm sulfur cap for the on-highway diesel fuel.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           98
 
 
    1   This critical first step will enable the continued
 
    2   development and advancement of diesel emission
 
    3   control technology that is necessary if the
 
    4   heavy-duty industry is to meet the new proposed
 
    5   standards which reflect a 90 percent reduction in
 
    6   NOx and PM.
 
    7              Sulfur is a poison that blocks the use of
 
    8   aftertreatment technology by rendering the hardware
 
    9   inoperable at today's 500 ppm level.  The developers
 
   10   of the aftertreatment technologies have indicated
 
   11   that a very low sulfur level in diesel fuel is
 
   12   critical for the future development of these
 
   13   devices.  The lower level will permit catalyst-based
 
   14   control strategies to be optimized for maximum
 
   15   emission reduction efficiencies.
 
   16              Recent data indicates that sulfur-free
 
   17   diesel fuel is the enabling requirement for the use
 
   18   of NOx adsorbers, continuously regenerating
 
   19   technology systems, and selective reduction
 
   20   catalysts due to their sensitivity to sulfur.
 
   21              Further information on this will be
 
   22   included in our written comments.
 
   23              The world's engine manufacturers have
 
   24   defined sulfur-free diesel fuel, as specified by the
 
   25   Worldwide Fuel Charter, as the correct fuel to
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           99
 
 
    1   enable the use of NOx and PM aftertreatment
 
    2   technologies where stringent emission standards are
 
    3   required.  Therefore, the sulfur level in diesel
 
    4   fuel must be reduced to allow the use of
 
    5   aftertreatment technology as an emission control
 
    6   strategy for diesel vehicles as has been so
 
    7   successful for gasoline vehicles.
 
    8              Let me emphasize that the proposed sulfur
 
    9   cap is only the first step needed for diesel fuel.
 
   10   A sulfur-free diesel fuel with a minimum cetane of
 
   11   55 and a maximum 15 percent aromatic limit is
 
   12   ultimately necessary.  This fuel composition would
 
   13   support the use of diesel fuel in the light-duty
 
   14   vehicle market and provide the benefits of reduced
 
   15   emissions and increased fuel economy -- another goal
 
   16   of the current administration -- while also
 
   17   maintaining customer satisfaction.
 
   18              A diesel powertrain is an important
 
   19   option for passenger vehicles.  Diesel vehicles
 
   20   could have a significant role in the reduction of
 
   21   fuel consumption by offering a 40 percent fuel
 
   22   economy advantage over gasoline vehicles on a
 
   23   miles-per-gallon basis.  The sophisticated diesel
 
   24   vehicles currently in the European market have
 
   25   higher endurance, reliability, and torque which is a
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           100
 
 
    1   desirable performance attribute.
 
    2              On the emission side, diesel vehicles
 
    3   have inherently low hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
 
    4   emissions, no evaporative emissions, and have
 
    5   long-term stability of emissions which will further
 
    6   be reduced with aftertreatment; but the enabling
 
    7   fuel is necessary.
 
    8              We applaud the incentives by some oil
 
    9   companies to deliver clean diesel fuel to some
 
   10   localized markets in advance of the regulations.
 
   11   The lesson learned is that cleaner fuel can be made
 
   12   available and it is being done at an affordable
 
   13   price.
 
   14              Should a phase-in of clean on-highway
 
   15   diesel fuel be found necessary, we encourage EPA to
 
   16   have it start in 2004.  The oil industry has
 
   17   previously challenged EPA to make all known changes
 
   18   in one step, not two separate steps, so capital
 
   19   investment strategies can be optimized.  Therefore,
 
   20   the 2004 start date suggested would link diesel with
 
   21   the gasoline sulfur control requirements by Tier 2
 
   22   and allow light-duty clean diesel as a viable
 
   23   powertrain.
 
   24              In conclusion, let me restate the key
 
   25   points of our message.  First, EPA's proposal of a
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           101
 
 
    1   reduced sulfur diesel fuel for on-highway is a great
 
    2   first step.  Second, clean fuel packaged with
 
    3   feasible emission standards is the correct path to
 
    4   enable further reduction in emissions.
 
    5              DaimlerChrysler believes that the diesel
 
    6   fuel as specified in the Worldwide Fuel Charter is
 
    7   necessary to enable low emissions and fuel-efficient
 
    8   technologies.
 
    9              DaimlerChrysler is continuing to review
 
   10   the proposal and plans to submit written comments
 
   11   addressing other issues in the NPRM and expand
 
   12   further on our diesel fuel position.
 
   13              Thank you for the opportunity to speak to
 
   14   you.
 
   15              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Rick Wynn.
 
   16              MR. WYNN:  Good afternoon.  My name is
 
   17   Rick Wynn, and I manage the Fuel Planning, Quality
 
   18   and Regulatory Compliance for CITGO Petroleum
 
   19   Corporation, a major refiner and marketer of
 
   20   petroleum products in the United States.
 
   21              I'm here today to represent both CITGO
 
   22   and the National Petrochemical & Refiners
 
   23   Association.  NPRA is a trade association of
 
   24   virtually all large and small U.S. refiners and
 
   25   petrochemical producers.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           102
 
 
    1              We are deeply concerned about the impact
 
    2   of EPA's new diesel sulfur proposal.  We do not
 
    3   believe that it is possible to consistently maintain
 
    4   needed supplies of highway diesel within the 15 ppm
 
    5   sulfur cap level.  Although some refiners may be
 
    6   able to produce some amount of this diesel, many
 
    7   would be forced by its high costs to limit or forego
 
    8   participation in the highway diesel market.  This
 
    9   would reduce supplies well below those available
 
   10   under a more realistic sulfur cap.
 
   11              In addition, with the current logistics
 
   12   infrastructure, it would be extremely difficult to
 
   13   deliver highway diesel with a 15 ppm sulfur cap to
 
   14   consumers and maintain the integrity of the sulfur
 
   15   level of the product.  This highway diesel must
 
   16   share a distribution system with other products that
 
   17   have significantly higher sulfur levels.
 
   18              At the proposed 15 ppm sulfur level, a
 
   19   significant amount of highway diesel will have to be
 
   20   downgraded to a higher sulfur product due to product
 
   21   contamination at the pipeline interfaces.
 
   22              With the enforcement at retail as opposed
 
   23   to the refinery gate, refiners will be forced to
 
   24   target their production to less than 10 ppm sulfur
 
   25   to account for test tolerances and reproducibility.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           103
 
 
    1              Additionally, we do not believe that the
 
    2   3 ppm increase in sulfur that the EPA is predicting
 
    3   from the refinery gate to the consumer is
 
    4   reasonable.  Realistically, refiners will be forced
 
    5   to produce on-highway diesel at a sulfur level less
 
    6   than 5 ppm which will increase the capital
 
    7   investment requirements even more.
 
    8              In short, we view this proposal as a
 
    9   blueprint for future fuel shortages and severe
 
   10   economic impacts.  It threatens to leave American
 
   11   consumers a legacy of scarce and unnecessarily
 
   12   costly energy supplies.
 
   13              Throughout extensive discussions with the
 
   14   EPA, the refining industry suggested a more
 
   15   reasonable way to reduce diesel emissions.  We favor
 
   16   lowering the current 500 parts per million diesel
 
   17   sulfur cap to 50 parts per million, a 90 percent
 
   18   reduction.  This is a very significant step.  It
 
   19   will enable diesel engines to meet the particulate
 
   20   matter standards sought by EPA and also achieve
 
   21   significant NOx reductions.
 
   22              Our plan is still expensive.  We estimate
 
   23   it will cost the industry roughly $4 billion to
 
   24   implement.  But unlike the much more costly EPA
 
   25   proposal, this level of sulfur reduction is
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           104
 
 
    1   sustainable.  Most refiners would choose to make the
 
    2   more affordable investments needed to make a 50 ppm
 
    3   diesel.
 
    4              On the other hand, under EPA's proposed
 
    5   program, only some refiners would invest in the
 
    6   expensive new hardware necessary to produce 15 ppm
 
    7   diesel.  Many others would be unable to make the
 
    8   large investments necessary to produce this
 
    9   product.  They would find other uses or markets for
 
   10   their current diesel output which will significantly
 
   11   reduce the supply of highway diesel fuel available
 
   12   and will create volatility in prices.  More than 30
 
   13   percent of the current supply of highway diesel
 
   14   could be lost until additional investments are made
 
   15   and new desulfurization capacity is built.  This
 
   16   could take as long as four years.
 
   17              Some refineries could likely go out of
 
   18   business.  The proposed 15 ppm diesel is estimated
 
   19   to cost somewhere between $8 to $10 billion.  This
 
   20   amount comes on top of the $8 billion in costs the
 
   21   industry is already incurring to implement EPA's
 
   22   gasoline sulfur program in the very same time
 
   23   frame.
 
   24              A study that was released this week by
 
   25   the National Petroleum Council, a joint
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           105
 
 
    1   industry/government body, concludes the industry
 
    2   will not have the capability to make these
 
    3   investments within this time frame and that
 
    4   additional time is required for the low sulfur
 
    5   diesel investments.
 
    6              When a refinery closes, we lose its
 
    7   entire output:  gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and home
 
    8   heating oil.  With the demand for petroleum products
 
    9   projected to increase, we as a nation cannot afford
 
   10   to lose any more refineries.  Unfortunately, the
 
   11   agency is unwilling to make the major changes in its
 
   12   proposal which are needed to avoid supply problems
 
   13   and resulting price volatility.
 
   14              The industry's warnings about this rule
 
   15   are well-founded.  We at CITGO have some relevant
 
   16   real-world experience.  In the EPA's proposed rule,
 
   17   our facilities at the Lyondell-CITGO Refinery were
 
   18   referenced as having a diesel desulfurization
 
   19   technology capable of producing the 15 ppm sulfur
 
   20   cap level.
 
   21              We find based on our actual operating
 
   22   experience with this referenced technology the
 
   23   capital and operating costs are much higher at the
 
   24   15 ppm sulfur cap than has been implied in the
 
   25   proposal, and the ability of the technology to
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           106
 
 
    1   consistently produce below 15 ppm diesel is
 
    2   problematic.
 
    3              The feedstocks to this revamped facility
 
    4   are 30 percent straight-run stocks from the crude
 
    5   distillation unit and 70 percent heavy-cracked
 
    6   stocks from conversion units.  These heavy-cracked
 
    7   stocks are significantly more difficult to treat to
 
    8   the 15 ppm level.  Our operating data shows that to
 
    9   consistently desulfurize to 15 ppm or below a
 
   10   significant portion of the cracked material must be
 
   11   removed from the feed, thereby reducing our diesel
 
   12   production by this amount.
 
   13              Our first cost consideration is capital.
 
   14   The Lyondell-CITGO project to improve our diesel
 
   15   quality was completed in late 1996 and included the
 
   16   installation of the world's largest freestanding
 
   17   reactor.  We increased catalyst volume in this unit
 
   18   from 40,000 pounds to 1.7 million pounds.  The
 
   19   capital cost for conversion of this existing
 
   20   50,000-barrel-per-day unit was $86 million.  This
 
   21   includes $69 million for the process unit and $17
 
   22   million for the supporting facilities.  This is much
 
   23   higher than the $30 million revamp cost for a
 
   24   typical refinery processing light cycle oil as
 
   25   stated by the EPA.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           107
 
 
    1              Also, a simple retrofit is not possible
 
    2   on many units because most older, smaller units do
 
    3   not have sufficient reactor design pressures, the
 
    4   requisite high-purity hydrogen supply, a suitable
 
    5   fractionation system, or other hardware.
 
    6              The second cost consideration is
 
    7   operating costs.  The diesel sulfur level produced
 
    8   in the unit meets the 15 ppm sulfur cap at initial
 
    9   conditions at start of run.  However, as the
 
   10   desulfurization catalyst ages, the reactor
 
   11   temperatures must be raised to achieve target sulfur
 
   12   levels.
 
   13              There are limits to raising
 
   14   temperature -- equipment and product quality
 
   15   limits -- such as color.  These limits establish the
 
   16   cycle life of the catalyst.  At the proposed 15 ppm
 
   17   sulfur cap with 70 percent heavy-cracked stocks, the
 
   18   cycle life will be greatly reduced from current
 
   19   operation, closer to 8 months rather than 24.  This
 
   20   significantly raises the operating cost by more
 
   21   frequent catalyst replacement and more frequent
 
   22   shutdowns.  This also results in a loss of diesel
 
   23   production.
 
   24              Under current mode the frequency of
 
   25   catalyst change-out is managed by reducing the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           108
 
 
    1   cracked stocks in the feed to the unit.  The more
 
    2   frequent catalyst change-out to meet a 15 ppm sulfur
 
    3   cap raises the cost of diesel production by as much
 
    4   as 7 cents a gallon on our existing unit, this in
 
    5   addition to the loss in production due to additional
 
    6   downtime for catalyst change-out.
 
    7              So you can see that what looks simple in
 
    8   theory doesn't always work in practice.  I hope that
 
    9   the entire refining industry doesn't have to spend
 
   10   billions of dollars just to prove that our concerns
 
   11   about this rule are valid.  This will happen,
 
   12   however, if we ignore the warning signs of an
 
   13   already stressed supply system and rush to implement
 
   14   a plan based upon little more than wishful thinking.
 
   15              EPA argues that its extreme proposal is
 
   16   needed to enable heavy-duty engines to meet
 
   17   stringent NOx standards in the 2007-2010 time
 
   18   frame.  Of course, that NOx standard was arbitrarily
 
   19   selected.  It is considerably lower than NOx
 
   20   standards for the same period in Europe and Japan
 
   21   and is probably unrealistic.  The $10 billion plan
 
   22   for 15 ppm diesel is largely based upon this
 
   23   arbitrary and unattainable target.
 
   24              NPRA urges the agency to discard their
 
   25   approach in favor of the more practical and
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           109
 
 
    1   sustainable 50 ppm diesel sulfur cap which the
 
    2   refining industry advocates.
 
    3              Thank you very much.
 
    4              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  David Piech.
 
    5              MR. PIECH:  Good afternoon.  My name is
 
    6   David Piech.  I am senior counsel for International
 
    7   Truck and Engine Corporation which, as many of you
 
    8   know, formerly was known as Navistar.
 
    9              I am here today on behalf of Patrick
 
   10   Charbonneau, vice president of engine engineering at
 
   11   International, to discuss EPA's proposed model year
 
   12   2007 emission standards for heavy-duty engines as
 
   13   well as the agency's proposed on-road diesel fuel
 
   14   quality requirements.
 
   15              At the outset, International commends EPA
 
   16   for its landmark proposal to address heavy-duty
 
   17   engine emissions through a systems approach
 
   18   involving both fuel quality and engine technology.
 
   19   There's no question that diesel engine technology is
 
   20   making dramatic strides in emissions control.  As we
 
   21   know, the availability of ultra-clean diesel fuel is
 
   22   a prerequisite toward meeting the challenging new
 
   23   emissions standards beginning in 2007.  With clean
 
   24   diesel fuel, we can count on the advanced NOx and PM
 
   25   aftertreatment technologies needed to achieve
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           110
 
 
    1   unprecedented emissions reductions.
 
    2              For that reason, we are pleased that EPA
 
    3   is mandating fuel that will enable these
 
    4   technologies to be used on all heavy-duty engines.
 
    5              International is investing hundreds of
 
    6   millions of dollars in the development of new
 
    7   technologies for all markets where our engines are
 
    8   sold.  We are reinventing all of our engine lines
 
    9   through revolutionary engine redesign and
 
   10   development of advanced aftertreatment
 
   11   technologies.
 
   12              Our technological breakthroughs will
 
   13   allow us to achieve unparalleled emissions
 
   14   reductions.  Indeed, we are developing green diesel
 
   15   technology that, with clean fuel, has already
 
   16   demonstrated the capabilities of particulate filter
 
   17   technology to reduce hydrocarbon and PM emissions to
 
   18   levels that are at or below EPA's proposed
 
   19   standards.
 
   20              In that regard, it's important to note
 
   21   that progressive oil companies already are making 15
 
   22   ppm diesel fuel commercially available.  These oil
 
   23   companies have earned recognition and our applause
 
   24   for their efforts to bring clean diesel fuel to the
 
   25   marketplace early.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           111
 
 
    1              With this ultra-clean fuel available so
 
    2   soon, International will commercialize its green
 
    3   diesel engine technology next year and thus achieve
 
    4   EPA's proposed model year 2007 hydrocarbon and PM
 
    5   emissions standards six years ahead of schedule.
 
    6   This is just one example of the impressive
 
    7   environmental benefits that accrue from a systems
 
    8   approach involving both clean fuel and clean engine
 
    9   technologies.
 
   10              As a side note, I invite everyone to
 
   11   visit.  We have an example of this technology
 
   12   downstairs on one of our buses.  It's downstairs in
 
   13   the plaza.  So please stop by.
 
   14              I also commend the agency for its
 
   15   willingness to phase in the proposed NOx standards.
 
   16   We strongly support a NOx phase-in approach which
 
   17   underscores the challenges facing industry in
 
   18   meeting NOx control targets.  EPA's proposal goes
 
   19   far in addressing these technological challenges,
 
   20   but we believe that even more can be done without
 
   21   compromising important environmental objectives.
 
   22              In that regard, I am pleased to say that
 
   23   International, along with the Engine Manufacturers
 
   24   Association, soon will be presenting to EPA a new
 
   25   NOx phase-in proposal.  Under this proposal there
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           112
 
 
    1   would be a single NOx emissions standard for all
 
    2   engines in 2007.  The NOx standard in 2007 would be
 
    3   significantly below the NOx standard applying to
 
    4   model year 2006 engines.  Then, in 2010, the NOx
 
    5   standard would be stepped down to a new and
 
    6   significantly tighter NOx standard.
 
    7              Importantly, this proposal will meet and
 
    8   perhaps exceed the agency's NOx reduction targets in
 
    9   this rulemaking, while at the same time providing
 
   10   manufacturers with needed flexibility to meet those
 
   11   targets.  For these reasons, we believe that the
 
   12   agency will find this proposal to be a win-win for
 
   13   consumers and the environment alike and look forward
 
   14   to discussing it in further greater detail.
 
   15              In closing, I wish to reiterate
 
   16   International's strong support for EPA's proposal to
 
   17   reduce diesel fuel sulfur levels which will enable
 
   18   the use of NOx and PM aftertreatment technologies
 
   19   needed to achieve the agency's emission reduction
 
   20   objections.
 
   21              We look forward to discussing in our
 
   22   written comments these and other technical details
 
   23   of EPA's proposed rule.
 
   24              I thank you for giving me the opportunity
 
   25   to present International's views today and would be
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           113
 
 
    1   happy to answer any questions you may have
 
    2   concerning my testimony.
 
    3              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Just a couple of
 
    4   quick questions.  We've heard a recommendation of a
 
    5   90 percent reduction, 50 ppm cap as being
 
    6   sufficient, providing essentially the same
 
    7   reductions as compared to the 15 ppm proposal.
 
    8              I open the question up to the whole
 
    9   panel, whoever wants to weigh in on it, what your
 
   10   perspective is on that proposal.
 
   11              MR. PIECH:  International has some
 
   12   experience on this.  There really is a step function
 
   13   going from 50 ppm to 15 ppm as far as the emissions
 
   14   reduction capability.  Specifically on the NOx
 
   15   adsorber, we understand that at 50 ppm NOx adsorber
 
   16   technology is only about 20 percent efficient.  But
 
   17   when you go to 15 ppm, it becomes 90 percent or more
 
   18   efficient.  And I know that MECA and Johnson Matthey
 
   19   can speak to this more.  But not only with the NOx
 
   20   adsorber, also particulate filter technology is
 
   21   affected by the change in sulfur.  And at 50 ppm,
 
   22   there are durability and longevity issues with that.
 
   23              MR. WYNN:  I might also point out that
 
   24   there's a big step function in going from 50 ppm
 
   25   sulfur to 15 ppm in terms of the type of hardware
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           114
 
 
    1   that's required at the refinery and whether you can
 
    2   do a revamp or whether you have got to do a
 
    3   ground-up.
 
    4              MR. MCKINNON:  Dale McKinnon, MECA.  I
 
    5   think a couple of things I would agree.  For every
 
    6   diesel engine, every application in Minnesota, all
 
    7   climatic conditions, 50 ppm, you know, we have
 
    8   concerns about the reliability and durability of the
 
    9   filter technology.  I think with the 50 ppm cap, I
 
   10   think you'll see our member companies stop investing
 
   11   in R&D and NOx adsorber technology quite simply.
 
   12              MR. LASSEN:  One additional comment on
 
   13   the PM level.  With a 50 ppm cap, there is data that
 
   14   is out there from the DECSE report that indicates
 
   15   that a 15 ppm level is required in order to meet the
 
   16   0.01 PM standard that is proposed.
 
   17              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Mr. Wynn, we had
 
   18   heard from an earlier testifier along with the 90
 
   19   percent proposal that gives essentially the same
 
   20   reduction when SCR was highlighted as a technology
 
   21   for NOx reduction.
 
   22              Do you agree with that?
 
   23              MR. WYNN:  Yes, I agreed with that John
 
   24   Medley from ExxonMobil said.  And I, again, am not a
 
   25   technology expert in that area.  I don't think I can
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           115
 
 
    1   add anything to what John said.  You know, as far as
 
    2   the industry and individual companies, we do have a
 
    3   lot of people working on this to provide in the
 
    4   written comments.
 
    5              MR. FRANCE:  And the same request I'll
 
    6   make of you.  Well, let me ask you.  Have you done
 
    7   any -- setting technology aside, have you done any
 
    8   cost analysis on the impacts of supplying urea on
 
    9   service stations or trucks?
 
   10              MR. WYNN:  No, we haven't.
 
   11              MR. FRANCE:  Do you plan on doing that?
 
   12              MR. WYNN:  We will look to either do that
 
   13   as an individual company or as part of the industry.
 
   14              MR. FRANCE:  Okay.  We would appreciate
 
   15   that.  Thank you.  Any other questions?
 
   16              MR. MACHIELE:  Yeah, just real quickly.
 
   17   Mr. Wynn, you made statements in your testimony
 
   18   about the experience at your refinery and the
 
   19   difficulty in cost meeting a 15 ppm cap.
 
   20              It was our understanding that the unit
 
   21   was designed to increase cetane and lower the
 
   22   aromatic content to allow the product to meet the
 
   23   diesel fuel specifications and not really designed
 
   24   to optimize --
 
   25              MR. WYNN:  Well, it's used in the same
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           116
 
 
    1   sense that technology -- and y'all referenced this
 
    2   in your RIA.  What we wanted to do is make sure that
 
    3   you understood that this technology that you're
 
    4   referencing was able to produce 15 ppm either has a
 
    5   very difficult time doing it or it's very expensive
 
    6   to do it.
 
    7              Lester Wibourn of your staff came down
 
    8   and visited our refinery, and we spent a two or
 
    9   three-hour presentation with him.  This was right
 
   10   before the rule was issued.  So I don't know whether
 
   11   you've had a chance to get with Lester, but we made
 
   12   a pretty extensive presentation to him.
 
   13              MR. FRANCE:  We can follow up then.  Some
 
   14   of the information he brought back indicated that
 
   15   aromatics was reduced from something like 30 percent
 
   16   to 10 percent and a significant improvement in
 
   17   cetane.
 
   18              Is that --
 
   19              MR. WYNN:  That was the original.  Of
 
   20   course, this was built back in '96; and it was not
 
   21   designed to produce a 15 ppm sulfur.
 
   22              MR. FRANCE:  We understand that.  We were
 
   23   just highlighting it as an example.
 
   24              MR. WYNN:  Okay.
 
   25              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you for the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           117
 
 
    1   clarification.
 
    2              MR. MACHIELE:  I guess a little follow-up
 
    3   on that though, the unit wasn't really designed
 
    4   specifically for sulfur.  It was really designed for
 
    5   processing large amounts of heavy-cracked stock.
 
    6              Would that unit be typical of what
 
    7   refiners would follow up on if they were just to be
 
    8   focusing on sulfur control and not focus on
 
    9   expanding heavy-cracked stock?
 
   10              MR. WYNN:  I think we're looking at the
 
   11   same high-pressure reactors with enormous amounts of
 
   12   catalysts.  I think the same problem would face any
 
   13   refinery.
 
   14              MR. FRANCE:  Okay.  Thank you.
 
   15   Appreciate everyone's time and comments.
 
   16              (A recess was taken.)
 
   17              MR. FRANCE:  First testifier, Elizabeth
 
   18   Pecoraro.
 
   19              MS. PECORARO:  Hello.  My name is
 
   20   Elizabeth Pecoraro, and I'll be speaking on behalf
 
   21   of Jill Johnson or in place of Jill Johnson.  I'd
 
   22   like to thank you for allowing me to speak today.
 
   23              I'm a resident of Alpharetta and I work
 
   24   in downtown Atlanta.  I'm hear to urge you to
 
   25   recognize the extreme importance of reducing
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           118
 
 
    1   pollution from heavy-duty trucks and buses.
 
    2              Clean air is essential to all life on
 
    3   this planet, and soot pollution is a major threat to
 
    4   our survival.  Nationwide, 40,000 people died
 
    5   prematurely from breathing soot pollution.  In
 
    6   Georgia, smog sends more than 5,100 people to the
 
    7   emergency room each year and causes more than
 
    8   240,000 asthma attacks.  We are literally poisoning
 
    9   ourselves with soot pollution.
 
   10              It is urgent for me to fight for cleaner
 
   11   air so my children may have a chance to live in a
 
   12   world with clean air.  The choice that my
 
   13   great-great-grandparents made affect me, my quality
 
   14   of life today; and I recognize my responsibility to
 
   15   future generations.
 
   16              In order to ensure clean air for the
 
   17   future, we must require drastic reductions in
 
   18   pollution from large trucks and buses now.  Knowing
 
   19   this, I was disappointed to learn that the EPA has
 
   20   proposed waiting until 2010 to fully clean up
 
   21   smog-forming pollution from trucks and buses.
 
   22              Because high sulfur fuel will poison the
 
   23   new diesel cleanup technologies, we must ensure that
 
   24   all diesel fuel is fully cleaned up and readily
 
   25   available before the trucks are required to be
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           119
 
 
    1   cleaned up.
 
    2              In light of this, I urge you to first
 
    3   reduce diesel sulfur levels to no more than 15 parts
 
    4   per million nationwide for both on and off-road
 
    5   vehicle emissions by 2006.  Secondly, I wish you
 
    6   would clean up all big trucks and buses by at least
 
    7   90 percent by 2007.  Third, ensure that big trucks
 
    8   are meeting the emissions standards on the road and
 
    9   not just during engine tests.  Finally, I urge you
 
   10   to increase the use of diesel alternatives such as
 
   11   electric and fuel cell buses.
 
   12              These measures are critical to the
 
   13   protection of the environment and a safe world for
 
   14   future generations.  I hope you seriously consider
 
   15   them in your final decision making.
 
   16              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Clinton Bastin.
 
   17              MR. BASTIN:  Good afternoon.  My name is
 
   18   Clinton Bastin.  I'm a chemical engineer and live in
 
   19   Avondale Estates.  I retired from the Department of
 
   20   Energy three years ago and now write about energy
 
   21   and environmental matters in partnerships for
 
   22   problem resolution.
 
   23              My information with my testimony includes
 
   24   a recent letter published in the Atlanta
 
   25   Constitution about the adoption by the Russian
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           120
 
 
    1   Ministry for Atomic Energy and Russian Nuclear
 
    2   Workers Union for partnerships for improved safety
 
    3   in Russian nuclear power plants.
 
    4              Thank you for allowing me to testify.
 
    5              The Department of Energy was created
 
    6   because U.S. citizens and their leaders recognized
 
    7   the dangers from overuse of fossil fuels.  Major
 
    8   concerns were atmospheric pollution from all fossil
 
    9   fuels and diminishing supplies and increased imports
 
   10   of petroleum, our most precious fuel.
 
   11              We believed that alternative, clean, and
 
   12   efficient energy technologies were needed, such as
 
   13   fuel cells, nuclear plants that used uranium more
 
   14   efficiently, and solar power.  Others believed that
 
   15   problems could be resolved by use of emission
 
   16   control systems and increased exploration for oil.
 
   17              Now, after expenditure of $500 billion by
 
   18   the Department of Energy and 25 years of worldwide
 
   19   exploration for oil, we have deployed almost no
 
   20   alternative energy technologies, we have found no
 
   21   more oil and are importing more at increasing
 
   22   prices, we plan phaseout of our least-polluting
 
   23   energy source, we use less energy-efficient
 
   24   automobiles, there are projections of catastrophic
 
   25   change to climates, and in metro Atlanta we have the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           121
 
 
    1   worst-ever pollution.
 
    2              We should have had national energy
 
    3   policies as other industrial nations had.  We should
 
    4   have taxed fossil fuels to encourage more efficient
 
    5   use as other industrial nations did.  We did not,
 
    6   and thus move at an ever more rapid pace toward
 
    7   catastrophe.
 
    8              We need energy policies including planned
 
    9   phaseout of most fossil-fueled buses and trucks on
 
   10   our highways.  School buses, local buses, and
 
   11   delivery trucks and automobiles should use fuel
 
   12   cells.  The bulk of freight and inter and intracity
 
   13   transport of people should be by electric rail.
 
   14   Most of our electricity should be provided by
 
   15   nuclear power plants that use uranium and other
 
   16   source materials more efficiently and avoid present
 
   17   problems with nuclear waste.  Passenger ships and
 
   18   freighters like Navy ships should use nuclear
 
   19   power.  Solar power should be used for heating
 
   20   water, our homes, and our offices.
 
   21              In the meantime, I urge that the
 
   22   Environmental Protection Agency form partnerships
 
   23   with leaders and workers of the transportation and
 
   24   petroleum supply communities to develop best
 
   25   techniques for reducing pollution from use of trucks
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           122
 
 
    1   and buses.
 
    2              I wanted to conclude with the mention of
 
    3   the eight Es.  Needed are reliable energy, clean
 
    4   environment, and a healthy economy.  We can achieve
 
    5   this through education, energy efficiency, and
 
    6   engineering excellence.  We will succeed as
 
    7   partners; we will fail as opponents.
 
    8              Thank you.
 
    9              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  John Keys.
 
   10              MR. KEYS:  Thank you.  I represent
 
   11   MARTA.  I'm the director of government relations for
 
   12   MARTA.  That's the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
 
   13   Transit Authority.
 
   14              MARTA is the seventh largest transit
 
   15   system in the nation.  We are a bus and rail system,
 
   16   and we move over 500,000 folks per day.  Those are
 
   17   people who would be otherwise probably -- many of
 
   18   them would probably be in single occupancy
 
   19   vehicles.
 
   20              So we'd like to think that we are a part
 
   21   of the solution to our air pollution problems here
 
   22   in the Atlanta region.
 
   23              Regarding our rail service, we have 45
 
   24   heavy rail miles served.  We serve the citizens of
 
   25   DeKalb, Fulton, and the city of Atlanta.  We also
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           123
 
 
    1   surround -- we serve rather citizens of surrounding
 
    2   counties as well.  And that's evidenced by doing a
 
    3   real simple license plate count in our outlying rail
 
    4   parking facilities.
 
    5              We're opening two new stations in the
 
    6   Perimeter Mall/I-285/Georgia 400 area in December of
 
    7   this year, and we anticipate significant increases
 
    8   in rail ridership beginning with that period.
 
    9              Our bus fleet consists of 703 buses.
 
   10   They're mostly diesel.  We are in the process now
 
   11   of -- we're committed to converting that fleet to
 
   12   nearly 100 percent compressed natural gas, CNG, over
 
   13   the next four to five-year time frame.  That depends
 
   14   on the availability of federal and local funding.
 
   15   And when finished with this conversion, we will at
 
   16   MARTA have the second largest compressed natural gas
 
   17   fleet, bus fleet, in the nation, second only behind,
 
   18   ironically, Los Angeles.
 
   19              Currently we have over 100 CNG buses.
 
   20   Again, we are in the process of acquiring to replace
 
   21   our existing diesel fleet.  We have over 100 CNG
 
   22   buses currently.  We've got about 100 to 150 in
 
   23   production right now.  We'll take delivery on them
 
   24   by the end of the year.
 
   25              We're also expanding our existing CNG
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           124
 
 
    1   maintenance and fueling capabilities so that we can
 
    2   better serve the entire service area of MARTA.
 
    3   Specifically, we're talking about the eastern
 
    4   service area in DeKalb County.  Due to the lack of
 
    5   fueling and maintenance facilities in that county,
 
    6   our CNG bus service is more limited in DeKalb.
 
    7              We are committed to alternative fuels to
 
    8   help clean our region's air.  Even the State of
 
    9   Georgia at this year's session is evidencing more
 
   10   awareness and interest under the leadership of
 
   11   Governor Barnes -- an interest in alternative
 
   12   fuels.  We saw appropriation.
 
   13              That doesn't sound like a lot, but we
 
   14   think it's a significant step.  $2 million in
 
   15   state-generated revenues to help us acquire when
 
   16   leveraging federal funds about 65 CNG buses.  So
 
   17   with that state money with an equal amount of MARTA
 
   18   local sales tax dollars, we'll be able to leverage
 
   19   about $16 million to help in our CNG bus
 
   20   conversion.  We hope that this state interest in
 
   21   helping MARTA will continue years ahead.
 
   22              Again, we are committed to alternative
 
   23   fuels; but we are still some years away in that
 
   24   regard.  We're four to five years out from getting a
 
   25   complete CNG fleet, again depending on the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           125
 
 
    1   availability of those federal appropriations each
 
    2   year.
 
    3              Meanwhile, regarding the proposed
 
    4   requirement to reduce diesel fuel pollutants by some
 
    5   90 percent by the year 2010, we at MARTA state our
 
    6   support to clean diesel fuel.  We support the
 
    7   proposed diesel fuel regulations and to any and all
 
    8   efforts to move our region and nation towards
 
    9   continued deployment of the use of alternative fuel.
 
   10              We do appreciate the opportunity to visit
 
   11   with you, and I would be pleased to answer any
 
   12   questions you might have and commend your efforts in
 
   13   moving the nation forward.
 
   14              Thank you.
 
   15              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Next speaker,
 
   16   O.T. Ford.
 
   17              MR. FORD:  My name is O.T. Ford.  I am a
 
   18   citizen.  I'm speaking as a citizen.  But I
 
   19   certainly cannot thank a representative of a
 
   20   citizen.  The best I can help to do is to refute the
 
   21   presumption of universal ignorance.
 
   22              I don't dispute that my fellow citizens
 
   23   give our elected officials plenty of reason to
 
   24   believe that we are all entirely concerned with our
 
   25   own short-term economic interest.  Our officials
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           126
 
 
    1   obviously are convinced of this fact as shown by
 
    2   lavish spending on their constituencies and refusing
 
    3   to levy taxes of any sort which is an attitude that
 
    4   led to our enormous public debt.
 
    5              The elected, of course, wheels ultimate
 
    6   power in our system.  Our public officials hold a
 
    7   delegation of that power, including the power for
 
    8   appointment, administration, and oversight that will
 
    9   determine air pollution regulation.  We have to
 
   10   suppose that those officials will be, as in the
 
   11   past, particularly swayed by arguments of short-term
 
   12   economic interest.  And that is the only argument to
 
   13   be made against the more restrictive pollution
 
   14   control standards.
 
   15              No one is going to claim that the
 
   16   environment -- or the state of public health depends
 
   17   upon it -- will be improved by the higher air
 
   18   pollution.  The long-term economic cost of higher
 
   19   air pollution, particularly in the area of
 
   20   healthcare and its corollary of productivity, have
 
   21   not been, to my knowledge, disputed.  What we hear
 
   22   stated and implied is that the more restrictive
 
   23   standards will force us to pay more for the goods
 
   24   and services in some way produced through the use of
 
   25   heavy-duty diesel engines.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           127
 
 
    1              Even supposing the cost to be high and
 
    2   recognizing the certainty that this cost will be
 
    3   passed on to the consumer, this debate is hardly
 
    4   over.
 
    5              I want to note as a citizen that I and
 
    6   citizens like me find the alarmists' predictions of
 
    7   economic chaos not credible.  Furthermore, the
 
    8   threat of increased short-term economic cost for
 
    9   goods and services produced using diesel engines is
 
   10   not ultimately persuasive.  There are those who
 
   11   would rather pay more for the common good, in this
 
   12   case clean air and good health.  Those things are
 
   13   worth a good deal more than calculated by the
 
   14   arguments against the proposed EPA's standards.
 
   15              I am among those who can least afford to
 
   16   pay for cleaner air; but I refuse to take
 
   17   responsibility as a consumer, a taxpayer, and a
 
   18   voter for the misperception that all citizens are
 
   19   driven by economic selfishness or to take
 
   20   responsibility for the long-term consequence of that
 
   21   shortsightedness.
 
   22              We will suffer more in the future if we
 
   23   do the minimum.  I would rather pay now and take a
 
   24   share of the credit for the cleaner air and the
 
   25   better health that will result.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           128
 
 
    1              That's the end of my testimony.
 
    2              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.
 
    3   Sherrill Marcus.
 
    4              MR. MARCUS:  Thank you.  I'm Sherrill
 
    5   Marcus.  I'm an organizer with the Southern
 
    6   Organizing Committee for Economic & Social Justice
 
    7   which is based in Atlanta and operates in the
 
    8   southeastern states.
 
    9              The Southern Organizing Committee
 
   10   appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EPA's
 
   11   proposed emission standards for large diesel trucks
 
   12   and buses and related requirements for cleaner
 
   13   diesel fuel.
 
   14              I come here not as a technician but one
 
   15   who works and interacts with persons across the
 
   16   South dealing with clean air issues.
 
   17              I testify today on behalf of people of
 
   18   color throughout the area and particularly those who
 
   19   live in the metro Atlanta area which is a
 
   20   nonattainment area in dire need of cleaner and
 
   21   healthier air.  We speak with the hope that the EPA
 
   22   will expeditiously move to finalize the rules that
 
   23   have been proposed.
 
   24              Our organization has sponsored and
 
   25   supported many activities to attain cleaner air.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           129
 
 
    1   From bucket brigades being organized in local
 
    2   communities -- bucket brigades, by the way, is
 
    3   comprised of groups in the community, citizens,
 
    4   local community, citizens who are concerned about
 
    5   the air quality to the point that they would buy
 
    6   equipment to do air tests, have samples taken,
 
    7   tested in efforts to avoid having adverse impacts
 
    8   from that pollution.
 
    9              We've also testified several times before
 
   10   state hearings on state implementation plans trying
 
   11   to get the most strict standards for air quality
 
   12   from both fixed as well as mobile sources for
 
   13   pollution.
 
   14              Time and again we've seen the oil and
 
   15   trucking industry and other lobbyists prevail in
 
   16   getting exemptions from regulations on diesel fuel
 
   17   usage as well as equipment that use that fuel.  This
 
   18   has resulted even while gasoline-fueled vehicles
 
   19   have been regulated tremendously here in Georgia.
 
   20   Particularly, we have seen successful arguments to
 
   21   curb diesel exhaust and emissions.  Owners of
 
   22   gasoline-driven vehicles have been required to have
 
   23   their cars tested and proved.
 
   24              We're very concerned about getting
 
   25   cleaner air.  We think that these rules will get
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           130
 
 
    1   it.
 
    2              Diesel-fueled vehicles emit the dirtiest
 
    3   exhaust of vehicles in my opinion; and they travel
 
    4   our highways, both in metro Atlanta and across the
 
    5   country.  Large diesel trucks crisscross the
 
    6   Southeast polluting our neighborhoods, cities, rural
 
    7   areas, and our bodies of water.
 
    8              This causes harm, we believe, to our
 
    9   health as well as to the environment.  Studies have
 
   10   shown that people of color suffer disproportionately
 
   11   from respiratory ailments resulting from air
 
   12   pollution.  Our senior citizens and our children are
 
   13   harmed the most.  And we believe diesel exhaust is
 
   14   one of the major contributors.  In addition,
 
   15   numerous public health studies have shown increased
 
   16   lung cancer risks from diesel exhaust and other air
 
   17   pollutants.
 
   18              For example, The Centers for Disease
 
   19   Control in Atlanta reported in 1992 that the asthma
 
   20   death rate was consistently higher for blacks than
 
   21   for whites.  From 1980 through 1989, the period of
 
   22   study, annual death rate for whites increased by 45
 
   23   percent while the death rate for blacks increased by
 
   24   52 percent.
 
   25              The American Lung Association's minority
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           131
 
 
    1   lung disease data-1996 report on the percent of
 
    2   populations living in heavily-polluted areas showed
 
    3   consistent increases for minorities when four
 
    4   pollutants were analyzed.  Those four were
 
    5   particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead.
 
    6   Whites had the lowest percents, blacks were higher,
 
    7   and Hispanics had the highest rates or percentages.
 
    8              In 1998 the National Institute for
 
    9   Occupational Safety and Health classified diesel
 
   10   exhaust as a potential occupational carcinogen.
 
   11              The asthma death rate for
 
   12   African-Americans from age birth to year four and
 
   13   young people from the ages 15 through 24 is six
 
   14   times those of white Americans.
 
   15              Minorities and the economically
 
   16   disadvantaged bear a disproportionate burden of this
 
   17   unacceptable public health risk.  Pollution from
 
   18   diesel-fueled vehicles threatens the health of our
 
   19   children and communities.
 
   20              It is absolutely necessary to cut this
 
   21   air pollution, and we respectfully urge EPA to
 
   22   ignore the strong calls for exceptions from industry
 
   23   lobbyists.  We support putting in place strong
 
   24   standards that will help reduce environmental
 
   25   injustices and ensure clean and healthy air for our
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           132
 
 
    1   future generations.
 
    2              Thank you for the opportunity to address
 
    3   you.
 
    4              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  And thank you to
 
    5   the panel for providing your perspectives.  Before
 
    6   lunch I'm going to try to fit in Flora Tommie.
 
    7              MS. TOMMIE:  My name is Flora M. Tommie,
 
    8   and I serve as the MARTA representative for the
 
    9   MATEC organization.  That's the Metropolitan Atlanta
 
   10   Transportation Equity Coalition.
 
   11              Our sole focus is on educating and
 
   12   organizing low-income communities and communities of
 
   13   color as to transportation and alternative
 
   14   transportation needs.
 
   15              I come to you to speak today in regards
 
   16   to the EPA guidelines as a concerned citizen and
 
   17   also a representative of 150 severely physically
 
   18   disabled persons as well as to toughen the
 
   19   guidelines in regards to the air pollution.
 
   20              Most people can come speak with no
 
   21   problems due to no asthma, no respiratory problems,
 
   22   no such measures.  Unfortunately, I don't have that
 
   23   luxury anymore.  And I can testify as to the people
 
   24   at my complex and myself as to the severity of the
 
   25   air pollution problem that we currently have in the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           133
 
 
    1   metropolitan Atlanta area.
 
    2              I have had numerous visits to the
 
    3   emergency room due to the emissions, air pollution
 
    4   quality levels being so high that you will pass out
 
    5   literally.  You cannot breathe.
 
    6              I would like for the EPA and all of us to
 
    7   start addressing the issues of testing diesel fuel
 
    8   emissions.  This is an area whereby the lobbyists
 
    9   are seeing that it is of no concern, and it is a
 
   10   major concern.
 
   11              Generally everyone cited statistics on
 
   12   economics of the trucking industry.  But no one
 
   13   cited the human cost of going to emergency rooms;
 
   14   paying for asthma treatments; paying for asthma
 
   15   medications; paying to change your whole lifestyle
 
   16   as to when you can get out, when you cannot get out
 
   17   because you have no control over being able to
 
   18   breathe.
 
   19              This is something that everyone is
 
   20   guaranteed, a human right to at least have clean
 
   21   air.  At this point in time we have not addressed
 
   22   this issue, especially in our nation, as a critical
 
   23   situation, which it should be.
 
   24              We have more African-American children
 
   25   that are suffering with asthma.  We have a high
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           134
 
 
    1   number of asthma deaths in our community, especially
 
    2   here in metro Atlanta as well.  We have no
 
    3   government assistance as far as the medication for
 
    4   these children to receive.
 
    5              Currently we only have one project,
 
    6   hands-on Project, to deal with asthma in the metro
 
    7   Atlanta area; and it is a pity.  That is a public
 
    8   health initiative by Southside Health to actually go
 
    9   out to the neighborhoods to assist the families when
 
   10   these children go into crises and try to stop the
 
   11   asthma crises and teach them about what types of
 
   12   days -- when it's safe for them to be out.
 
   13              Most people sitting here at the trucking
 
   14   lobby are not of my color or skin tone complexion.
 
   15   They do not suffer the large numbers of our
 
   16   communities, and unfortunately we do have to face
 
   17   the issues of race as far as the African-Americans
 
   18   and Hispanic and Latino populations.  That has not
 
   19   been addressed as far as the issues of reducing the
 
   20   diesel emission.
 
   21              I am in support of our transit agencies
 
   22   being given federal funding to assist them with
 
   23   getting more clean air buses.  The one thing in
 
   24   metro Atlanta and other urban centers is that no one
 
   25   has set this as a federal mandate, that clean air
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           135
 
 
    1   has got to start now.  We don't have any more years
 
    2   to wait.
 
    3              As a child, I was there to see people who
 
    4   said that it would never work whereby we would have
 
    5   cars that could run at 27 to 30 miles per hour on
 
    6   any type of gas efficient fuels.  That was proven to
 
    7   be a lie.  It was said that there was no way to
 
    8   clean up the smokestack pollution.  That was proven
 
    9   to be a lie.
 
   10              So I'm asking EPA to closely look at the
 
   11   human cost rather than hearing the trucking industry
 
   12   say it cannot make upgrades to deal with the tougher
 
   13   guidelines.  We all have to upgrade.  Before my
 
   14   disabilities, I had to deal with computer upgrades
 
   15   and networks, software, all of that.  It's a cost of
 
   16   living.  You always change, and you have to get used
 
   17   to change.
 
   18              But the one thing that we have to
 
   19   understand is that clean air is not something that
 
   20   you can just say you can wait on forever, because
 
   21   many of us have already died; and nobody should be
 
   22   having to take their child to and from hospitals all
 
   23   the time just because someone does not want to pay
 
   24   for clean air.
 
   25              And that is what I'm here today to
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           136
 
 
    1   testify to, to request that EPA goes ahead with
 
    2   those regulations and guidelines.
 
    3              Thank you very much.
 
    4              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  Thank
 
    5   you for coming out.  We appreciate hearing your
 
    6   perspective.
 
    7              We're going to take exactly a 30-minute
 
    8   lunch break.  We will reconvene, my watch, at 1:45
 
    9   exactly.
 
   10              (A recess was taken.)
 
   11              REPRESENTATIVE HARRELL:  Hi.  I'm
 
   12   Representative Sally Harrell, and I'm a Georgia
 
   13   legislator here.  I'm going to talk very briefly
 
   14   because this is really not my area of expertise, but
 
   15   hopefully I can provide you with a little bit of
 
   16   inspiration this afternoon.  Everybody always gets
 
   17   sleepy after lunch.  So maybe I can arose a few
 
   18   people.
 
   19              I brought with me my prop.  This is
 
   20   little Joseph.  Joseph is known as the legislative
 
   21   baby in Georgia because he was born on Christmas
 
   22   Eve, ten days before the legislation session
 
   23   started; and he spent his early months down at the
 
   24   capitol which he enjoyed thoroughly.
 
   25              But I bring him as a symbolic reminder of
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           137
 
 
    1   why we're here today, which is to make sure that our
 
    2   children have clean air to breathe.
 
    3              Like I said, this is not my area of
 
    4   expertise.  My expertise is more in children's
 
    5   issues and healthcare issues.  However, more and
 
    6   more healthcare issues and children's healthcare
 
    7   issues are crossing over into environmental and air
 
    8   quality issues because of things like the extreme
 
    9   increase in the rate of asthma in children and air
 
   10   quality concerns that increase healthcare costs even
 
   11   into adulthood too.
 
   12              The other reason I'm here today is
 
   13   because I held a hearing in my district.  I
 
   14   represent part of North DeKalb County.  I-85 kind of
 
   15   divides my district in half, and most of it is just
 
   16   inside the perimeter in the northeast quadrant of
 
   17   Atlanta.
 
   18              I held a hearing, and was pleasantly
 
   19   surprised that my constituents are very concerned
 
   20   about this issue that we are debating today.  What
 
   21   was voiced was that we're doing a lot with, you
 
   22   know, Mr. Joe Schmoe citizen in making sure that his
 
   23   emissions are kept under control; but they wanted to
 
   24   know why aren't we doing more with trucks and
 
   25   buses.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           138
 
 
    1              And so in a way that's why I'm here
 
    2   today, is to represent those 36,000 people who want
 
    3   more done with trucks and buses.
 
    4              I was very inspired on my way to this
 
    5   hearing because I got caught in a horrible traffic
 
    6   jam on I-85 going south.  And I was just so pleased
 
    7   that I wasn't on 285 because there would have been
 
    8   many more trucks and buses and I would have been
 
    9   smelling the emissions in my car and my son would
 
   10   have been in the car.
 
   11              Even at that, it's not fun to get stuck
 
   12   on 85 either; but it certainly did provide some
 
   13   inspiration for me on my way down here today.
 
   14              So that's all I wanted to say, is that
 
   15   36,000 people in my district in North DeKalb County
 
   16   want something done about this issue.  And I commend
 
   17   the EPA for being here today to look at the issue.
 
   18              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  I
 
   19   think your son has the record for being the youngest
 
   20   testifier so far.  I have a few questions for him.
 
   21   David Moore.
 
   22              MR. MOORE:  I'd like to first thank you
 
   23   for the opportunity to be up here.  I certainly
 
   24   appreciate the time.  I'd also like to apologize.
 
   25   This is an extemporaneous address.  I don't have
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           139
 
 
    1   very many prepared remarks.
 
    2              I think it's thoroughly appropriate that
 
    3   I'm sitting next to this young child.  I grew up in
 
    4   Atlanta.  I was born in Atlanta in 1975.  I've lived
 
    5   here all my life.  I went to school at the
 
    6   University of Georgia, lived in Athens for some
 
    7   time.  I came back to live and work in Atlanta about
 
    8   this time last year and started getting migraine
 
    9   headaches.  I couldn't explain why.  Well, it's poor
 
   10   air quality.
 
   11              We're obviously here discussing an issue
 
   12   that concerns everybody.  We talked about poor air
 
   13   quality from any number of aspects, economic
 
   14   aspects.  We've had various minority representatives
 
   15   down here.
 
   16              I want to tell you something, ladies and
 
   17   gentlemen.  We all have to breathe.  You know, air,
 
   18   this is not an economic issue.  This is not a
 
   19   demographic issue.  This is something that affects
 
   20   everyone straight across the board.  We all
 
   21   breathe.  That's a fact.  We need clean air.
 
   22              We have an opportunity to do something
 
   23   about it.  I'm up here to ask the EPA to please --
 
   24   and I'll even say pretty please if I have to.  I
 
   25   want you to enact the strongest measures possible as
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           140
 
 
    1   soon as possible.
 
    2              Now, we had an energy crisis in the '70s
 
    3   and had opportunities to investigate alternative
 
    4   fuels.  We should be a lot further along than we
 
    5   are.  I'm here because I will not let this child
 
    6   grow up to have migraine headaches the same as me.
 
    7   I want clean air.  And you have an opportunity to do
 
    8   something about it, Environmental Protection
 
    9   Agency.
 
   10              Now, we've heard from various oil
 
   11   representatives.  I'm not out to antibusiness.  I'm
 
   12   not out to get the big guys.  I'm not out to get the
 
   13   little guys.
 
   14              We heard various -- I apologize.  I can't
 
   15   remember the fellow's name -- but various
 
   16   representatives of oil producers, oil refiners, that
 
   17   say well, don't make us do this, boo-hoo, it's going
 
   18   to cost us a lot of money.  Well, look at other
 
   19   costs, the cost of asthma, the cost of healthcare.
 
   20   It's ridiculous.  Things should not be so bad.  And
 
   21   we are -- if no one else will say it, we are at a
 
   22   critical point.  We are at a crisis.  We need to do
 
   23   something and we need to do something now.  So I'm
 
   24   asking you to take protective measures to clean up
 
   25   our air.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           141
 
 
    1              Thank you.
 
    2              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  Thanks
 
    3   for coming.  I'm going to try to fit in Julie Simon
 
    4   and company and Susan Grider and Allen Schaeffer and
 
    5   also Gwen Griffith.
 
    6              Julie, whenever you're ready.
 
    7              MS. SIMON:  Okay.  My name is Julie Simon
 
    8   and I live in the city of Atlanta and I drive a
 
    9   16-year-old car right now but it does meet the
 
   10   current emission standards for automobiles.  I'm
 
   11   also a walker and a bicyclist and a carpooler and a
 
   12   MARTA rider.  And I feel like I'm doing my part to
 
   13   help with the ozone problem.  I also insulated my
 
   14   attic and I do other things on building efficiency
 
   15   so that we use less electricity which also
 
   16   contributes.
 
   17              During my walks and my bicycling and in
 
   18   the car and all these places that I go, I'm getting
 
   19   tired of breathing the black sooty air of these
 
   20   vehicles.  It's really nice when I'm behind a
 
   21   natural gas bus.  It's a lot better.
 
   22              I think it's time that large diesel
 
   23   trucks do their part.  We need tough standards, and
 
   24   we need them sooner rather than later.  We need to
 
   25   make sure that the fuel that doesn't mess up the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           142
 
 
    1   engines is available as soon as we can.  And I just
 
    2   basically want to support making sure that the
 
    3   diesel part of the picture is improved as far as
 
    4   emissions go.
 
    5              Another thing I want to make sure is that
 
    6   the current vehicles are as clean as they can be.
 
    7   We've got new technology, new engines.  We've got
 
    8   new fuels that we've been studying for years.  A lot
 
    9   of technology is ready now.  But we want to make
 
   10   sure that the current trucks and buses that are on
 
   11   the road are well maintained so that their emissions
 
   12   are as low as possible.  Diesel engines run
 
   13   forever.  So we need an inspection program to make
 
   14   sure that those on the road are running as best they
 
   15   can.
 
   16              Some in the industry would say it's too
 
   17   soon, we want to wait, it's too costly.  We've heard
 
   18   that argument over and over again.  And it's been
 
   19   proven every time that it costs less than what
 
   20   industry says to do.
 
   21              So with a lot of creativity, with a lot
 
   22   of working together, we can meet emissions
 
   23   regulations as soon as possible.  The 2007 deadline
 
   24   makes sense to me.  Obviously we have to have time
 
   25   to get the fuel ready.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           143
 
 
    1              Diesel vehicles are a small percentage on
 
    2   the road but they're a big percentage in terms of
 
    3   emissions; and it's time to take care of those
 
    4   emissions.
 
    5              That's all I have.
 
    6              MR. MACHIELE:  Okay.  Thank you for your
 
    7   testimony.  And I'm not sure who has the record now
 
    8   for the youngest testifier.
 
    9              MS. SIMON:  Four and a half months.
 
   10              MR. MACHIELE:  Susan, would you like to
 
   11   go next?
 
   12              MS. GRIDER:  My name is Susan Grider.  I
 
   13   am here representing myself.  I'm also here
 
   14   representing my company, Arenir Solutions, which is
 
   15   a small little-known business incorporated a couple
 
   16   of years ago to take a look at health and
 
   17   environmental concerns and their related impacts.
 
   18              I'm also here representing my
 
   19   neighborhood, Candler Park.  I am the neighborhood
 
   20   environmental VP and I also serve on the board of
 
   21   the Watershed Alliance here in Atlanta that looks at
 
   22   water issues which can, in fact, be impacted by air
 
   23   quality issues as well.
 
   24              I'm also here representing family
 
   25   members, neighbors, and friends who have died of
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           144
 
 
    1   cancer or who are currently fighting cancer.  And
 
    2   please bear with me, but I am representing family
 
    3   members who are not yet born who may genetically be
 
    4   at risk for cancer or other immune system failures
 
    5   associated with air pollution.
 
    6              Again, my name is Susan Grider.  I have a
 
    7   small company dedicated to isolating health impacts
 
    8   of current power provision models and business
 
    9   opportunities associated with alternative energy
 
   10   paradigms.
 
   11              I was born in 1963 here in Atlanta,
 
   12   Georgia.  However, as a native Atlantan, I have no
 
   13   interest in raising a family here due to health
 
   14   risks and am currently making plans to build a
 
   15   family outside of the Atlanta, Georgia area.
 
   16              Of the three illness profiles I am aware
 
   17   of associated with fossil fuels and diesel, I am
 
   18   personally at risk in two areas.
 
   19              Cancer:  I have a personal history of
 
   20   cancer and have lost four people in my family due to
 
   21   cancer in the last 10 to 15 years.  An additional
 
   22   case has surfaced in my family in the last couple of
 
   23   years.
 
   24              Immune system failures:  I have an
 
   25   extreme allergy to sulfur.  I can drink one sip of
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           145
 
 
    1   wine that is preserved with sulfides and suffer a
 
    2   migraine headache for three days.  I am unable to
 
    3   exercise outside in Atlanta because of the sulfur
 
    4   dioxide in the air.  I have an acute allergy to
 
    5   sulfur and sulfur dioxide which means I suffer
 
    6   intense migraines and immune system failures due to
 
    7   sulfur and sulfur dioxide.
 
    8              I am not committed to raise a family in
 
    9   Atlanta given its small profile due to the potential
 
   10   genetic profile of my child who may potentially be
 
   11   at risk for cancer or sulfur allergies.
 
   12              In addition to my personal and familial
 
   13   health risk, I am the environmental VP for my
 
   14   neighborhood, Candler Park.  On my street alone
 
   15   which is approximately seven to nine blocks long,
 
   16   short city blocks, three cases of cancer have
 
   17   surfaced in the last two to three years, one of
 
   18   these resulting in fatality on Christmas Day, 1999.
 
   19              On my street alone, at least five cases
 
   20   of cancer exist when preexisting cases are
 
   21   included.  Of those five cases, four of these people
 
   22   are under 50 years of ages, two of these people are
 
   23   under 40 years of age.  In addition to these five
 
   24   people, I am aware of another case of cancer two
 
   25   streets away from me of an individual who is under
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           146
 
 
    1   50 years of age.
 
    2              I am very concerned that these numbers
 
    3   may indicate a cancer cluster due to smog in the
 
    4   city of Atlanta.
 
    5              I would like personally to challenge
 
    6   every research engine here today, including the EPA
 
    7   and particularly the fossil fuel folks, to
 
    8   thoroughly quantify and understand the health
 
    9   impacts of diesel and fossil fuels.
 
   10              I have some information that I'll share
 
   11   with you from the National Biodiesel Board.
 
   12   Mutagenicity is the potential for the diesel
 
   13   particulate exhaust to cause genetic mutations to
 
   14   the DNA and gene cells of living organisms -- that
 
   15   includes us -- shortened life, birth defects,
 
   16   stillbirth.
 
   17              Excuse me for talking about this next to
 
   18   you.
 
   19              If you assume that the diesel risk level
 
   20   is equal to wine, that is the natural risk of
 
   21   regular diesel.  The risk of biodiesel at 100
 
   22   percent is equal to .064 which represents a 93.6
 
   23   percent reduction in cancer risk.  That's if you use
 
   24   full biodiesel.  The risk of B20 which is a 20
 
   25   percent solution is equal to .725 which represents a
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           147
 
 
    1   27.5 reduction in cancer risks.
 
    2              I hope that everybody can take those
 
    3   numbers home with them and consider them when
 
    4   they're thinking about cancer cases in their
 
    5   neighborhoods and in their families.  That includes
 
    6   people who work in the fossil fuel industry as
 
    7   well.
 
    8              I would like to suggest that, while I do
 
    9   support EPA efforts and efforts supported by
 
   10   executive order No. 13149 recently signed by
 
   11   President Clinton, I welcome a dramatic increase in
 
   12   efforts from the EPA, the Department of Energy, the
 
   13   USDA, and the Health and Human Services Division to
 
   14   truly apprise the public of short and long-term
 
   15   health-related impacts associated with diesel fuel
 
   16   and fossil fuels in general.
 
   17              Finally, I encourage all health industry
 
   18   experts and proponents of renewable energy in this
 
   19   room or reading this transcript in the future to, 1,
 
   20   stringently and accurately portray the trade-off
 
   21   associated with short-term economic gains of the
 
   22   fossil fuel industry at the expense of human health
 
   23   and human life; 2, consider other examples in
 
   24   American history when an industry or an economic
 
   25   model has had power enough to secure substantive
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           148
 
 
    1   economic gains at the expense of human health, human
 
    2   life, and civil rights; 3, consider these
 
    3   perspectives from an eminent, hard-business school
 
    4   scholar.
 
    5              And I paraphrase.  I'm sorry.  I can't
 
    6   remember his name right now.  The reason the
 
    7   railroads failed and cars and planes succeeded is
 
    8   that the railroads considered themselves to be in
 
    9   the railroad business rather than in the
 
   10   transportation business.
 
   11              Perhaps the pertinent question here today
 
   12   is should the diesel and fossil fuel industry
 
   13   consider themselves in the fossil fuel business or
 
   14   in the fuel business in general which would include
 
   15   renewable and sustainable energy sources, such as
 
   16   biodiesel, which dramatically can reduce illness
 
   17   risks such as that associated with cancer.
 
   18              Thank you very much.
 
   19              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Allen Schaeffer.
 
   20              MR. SCHAEFFER:  Good afternoon.  Thank
 
   21   you very much for the opportunity to be here.  My
 
   22   name is Allen Schaeffer, and I'm here on behalf of
 
   23   the Diesel Technology Forum.
 
   24              The Forum is a new group working to
 
   25   enhance public dialogue with a wide range of
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           149
 
 
    1   stakeholders, including the EPA, other government
 
    2   agencies and other interested parties, to explore a
 
    3   wide range of opportunities to reduce emissions from
 
    4   both existing and new diesel engines while
 
    5   recognizing the inherent benefits of diesel
 
    6   technology.
 
    7              Diesel power systems -- that is engines,
 
    8   fuels, and aftertreatment systems -- that are the
 
    9   subject of today's hearing power our economy.  From
 
   10   package delivery trucks to tractor-trailers
 
   11   delivering fresh produce from the fields to our
 
   12   neighborhood grocery store, they are the very
 
   13   centerpiece of our nation's supply and distribution
 
   14   network; but also much more.
 
   15              In the age of the Internet and
 
   16   e-commerce, diesel power systems have taken on an
 
   17   even more important role facilitating the greatest
 
   18   economic expansion this country has ever seen, doing
 
   19   more work, moving more goods, and helping more
 
   20   businesses and people than ever before.
 
   21              This proposal to reduce emissions and
 
   22   require cleaner fuels in new diesel trucks and buses
 
   23   starting in 2007 marks yet another milestone in the
 
   24   continuing improvement of diesel technology.  New
 
   25   diesel engines powered with today's fuels emit less
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           150
 
 
    1   than one-eighth of the emissions of engines built
 
    2   just over 12 years ago.
 
    3              If adopted, the proposal currently under
 
    4   consideration could result in as much as a 90
 
    5   percent reduction in emissions beginning in 2007;
 
    6   and that is on top of improvements already on-line
 
    7   for 2002-2004.
 
    8              We support the direction of EPA's
 
    9   proposed rule that will result in lower diesel
 
   10   emissions and cleaner diesel fuel in 2007.  We are
 
   11   especially pleased that for the first time EPA has
 
   12   used a systems approach in setting future fuel and
 
   13   engine standards, recognizing that both engines and
 
   14   fuel are part of an integrated diesel power system.
 
   15              Whatever the outcome of the debate over
 
   16   how much sulfur should be allowed in diesel fuel,
 
   17   everyone agrees that lowering sulfur content,
 
   18   coupled with advances in diesel technology, will
 
   19   help improve air quality.
 
   20              And while this hearing is focused on
 
   21   future reductions in air pollution, we should not
 
   22   lose sight of the tremendous progress that has been
 
   23   made in the past, in Georgia and the entire nation.
 
   24              For example, in Georgia, a recent study
 
   25   on air quality shows that the state has made
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           151
 
 
    1   dramatic progress reducing emissions that pollute
 
    2   the air; and that progress is projected to continue
 
    3   well into the next century.  Between 1970 and 2015,
 
    4   total emissions in Georgia are expected to fall by
 
    5   over 2.8 million tons per year, cutting annual state
 
    6   emission totals by almost 40 percent.
 
    7              What is most encouraging is that on a
 
    8   national basis overall criteria pollutant emissions
 
    9   have declined by 34 percent from 1970 to 1997.  This
 
   10   reduction has taken place at the time the U.S.
 
   11   population has increased by 31 percent and the
 
   12   economy has more than doubled in size, the GDP
 
   13   growing by 114 percent in the same period.
 
   14              How has pollution declined at the same
 
   15   time we have seen massive increases in
 
   16   manufacturing, construction, transportation,
 
   17   agriculture, and all the other activities that
 
   18   constitute economic growth?
 
   19              The answer is that these activities have
 
   20   become cleaner at the same time that Americans are
 
   21   demanding more and more of them.  We see the future
 
   22   of diesel power systems in both these trends.
 
   23   Diesel power systems have become much cleaner and
 
   24   through continuous improvement will become cleaner
 
   25   still.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           152
 
 
    1              Diesel power systems are an essential
 
    2   part of the quality of life that we enjoy today,
 
    3   providing the most efficient, economical and
 
    4   reliable power for whatever the need.  It is a
 
    5   technology that is defined by innovation and
 
    6   continuous improvement.
 
    7              Make no mistake about it.  This proposal
 
    8   represents a significant technological challenge for
 
    9   engine manufacturers, exhaust aftertreatment
 
   10   suppliers, and fuel refiners that are members of the
 
   11   Diesel Technology Forum.  However, we are confident
 
   12   that together we can build on our past progress and
 
   13   produce the cleanest, most economical, reliable
 
   14   diesel power system ever.
 
   15              While this proposal deals with new
 
   16   technology going forward, there are many
 
   17   opportunities to address some important issues of
 
   18   the existing fleet mentioned by some other folks on
 
   19   the panel today.
 
   20              Let me say a word about excessive smoke
 
   21   from diesel trucks and buses.  When properly
 
   22   maintained, diesel engines do not smoke.  Frankly,
 
   23   we wonder why only 13 states have programs today to
 
   24   inspect diesel trucks and buses for excess smoke
 
   25   emission.  Georgia is not one of those states.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           153
 
 
    1              We challenge Georgia and the
 
    2   representative that was here earlier to take a
 
    3   serious role in improving air quality by enacting
 
    4   smoke emissions inspection programs.  And we have
 
    5   the tools available to assist in that effort.
 
    6              This March, EPA issued a retrofit
 
    7   challenge to retrofit 10,000 engines in the next two
 
    8   years.  The Forum is pleased to be working alongside
 
    9   EPA in that effort.  We're bringing together
 
   10   resources to identify engines in a wide variety of
 
   11   applications that might be suitable for retrofit and
 
   12   determine the feasibility of lowering emissions by
 
   13   adding exhaust aftertreatment systems, modifying
 
   14   engine emissions controls, and/or using cleaner
 
   15   diesel fuel.
 
   16              We're very encouraged by the
 
   17   possibilities for success for this program which
 
   18   will include engines in a full range of applications
 
   19   from marine vessels to highway trucks.
 
   20              In conclusion, members of the Diesel
 
   21   Technology Forum, while not taking a position on
 
   22   specific sulfur levels or other issues under debate
 
   23   today, support EPA's decision to take a systems
 
   24   approach to reducing diesel emissions.  However the
 
   25   specifics of this debate are resolved, diesel power
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           154
 
 
    1   systems are poised to deliver more of the efficient,
 
    2   reliable, and economical power demanded by the
 
    3   American people.
 
    4              As leaders in technology and innovation,
 
    5   members of the Forum are committed to working with
 
    6   EPA, state governments, and other interested parties
 
    7   to continue improving diesel emissions and to take
 
    8   meaningful steps now to address concerns about the
 
    9   existing fleet.
 
   10              Thank you.
 
   11              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Gwen Griffith.
 
   12              MS. GRIFFITH:  I want to add my thanks
 
   13   for the opportunity to speak with you today.  I am
 
   14   Gwen Griffith.  I am the executive director of the
 
   15   Tennessee Environmental Council which is a statewide
 
   16   organization in Tennessee that educates and
 
   17   advocates for environmental protection and public
 
   18   health.
 
   19              I'm here today to add my voice in support
 
   20   of EPA's proposed regulations that will reduce
 
   21   diesel pollution through ultra-low sulfur fuels and
 
   22   the use of best available technologies.  And I want
 
   23   to add my encouragement that this be done in the
 
   24   shortest possible time frame.
 
   25              My perspectives on this issue come from a
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           155
 
 
    1   variety of different roles that I have filled in my
 
    2   lifetime.  First of all, I am a veterinarian with 20
 
    3   years experience in both small and large animal
 
    4   medicine.  As a medical professional, I can tell you
 
    5   that air quality has impacts not only on human
 
    6   health but on animal health as well.
 
    7              There have been many eloquent speakers
 
    8   about the human health impacts, and I won't repeat
 
    9   those messages; but I would add to that that you
 
   10   should understand there are impacts to animal life,
 
   11   wildlife, and ecosystems that we all depend upon.
 
   12   One only need to look at the soaring rates of asthma
 
   13   not only in people but in animals to know that this
 
   14   is the case.
 
   15              Two species of animals are particularly
 
   16   harmed by air pollution, and that would be our
 
   17   horses and our domestic cats.  Allergies and asthma
 
   18   are increasing in the dog and cat population in a
 
   19   rate that's similar to that in people.  As a
 
   20   veterinarian, I have also seen asthma, sinus
 
   21   disease, rhinitis, and allergies in my patients as
 
   22   well.
 
   23              And this is true in the horse population
 
   24   as well.  Horses have a disease called COPD or
 
   25   chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which is very
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           156
 
 
    1   similar to an emphysema-like disease in people.  And
 
    2   the horse populations that are most susceptible to
 
    3   diesel pollution are those that live and work in the
 
    4   city.  Those would be the police horses, the
 
    5   carriage horses, racehorses in the urban areas, and
 
    6   in Tennessee the horses that work with the park
 
    7   rangers in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
 
    8   These horses have difficulty with the air quality as
 
    9   well.
 
   10              Already this year in the Smoky's we've
 
   11   had red alert ozone days that have exceeded and come
 
   12   earlier than ever before.  Last year there were 52
 
   13   unhealthy ozone days in the state park or in the
 
   14   national park, and we're going to beat that this
 
   15   year unfortunately; and that's a record we just as
 
   16   soon not break.
 
   17              One of the outfitters that uses horses in
 
   18   the park has already reported to us that they had to
 
   19   turn away customers this year because the air was
 
   20   too unhealthy to exercise their horses.  And so they
 
   21   had to turn down business.  Imagine what that means
 
   22   to the hikers and visitors to the park if they don't
 
   23   even want to exercise their horses in this air.
 
   24              This means economic impacts to the
 
   25   tourism industry which is extremely vital to
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           157
 
 
    1   Tennessee.  Not only are their health costs, but
 
    2   there are recreation and tourism industry costs as
 
    3   well.
 
    4              My second perspective on this issue, of
 
    5   course, comes as my role as director of the
 
    6   Tennessee Environmental Council.  And in that
 
    7   capacity I speak for its people, its animals, and
 
    8   its wildlife habitat.
 
    9              As you heard, Tennessee has three cities
 
   10   in the top most polluted -- 25 most polluted cities
 
   11   in the country; and that doesn't include the Smoky's
 
   12   which, in fact, have worse air on certain days than
 
   13   even downtown Nashville.
 
   14              You've heard that every ozone monitor
 
   15   that we have in the state has shown exceedances at
 
   16   least some days out of the year.  And this is in
 
   17   large part due to the heavy truck traffic that comes
 
   18   through our state.  Tennessee with its central
 
   19   location and its very large warehouse distribution
 
   20   industry is a prime area of concern because of the
 
   21   heavy truck traffic.
 
   22              The third perspective that I have on this
 
   23   issue is that of a daughter and a family member.
 
   24   I'm part of the baby-boomer generation with aging
 
   25   parents; and what that means is that I have two
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           158
 
 
    1   parents, both of which suffer from heart disease.
 
    2              Heart disease is directly connected to
 
    3   the air quality that we have to deal with.  My
 
    4   parents are dealing with their disease well, but one
 
    5   of their therapies is to walk.  Moderate walking
 
    6   exercise has been recommended for both of them, and
 
    7   they enjoy walking in their neighborhood and in
 
    8   nearby city parks.  Unfortunately, there are too
 
    9   many days when they can't participate in this
 
   10   because the air quality restricts their activities.
 
   11              They live near a major highway and a
 
   12   major interstate, and this impacts the air in their
 
   13   neighborhood on a daily basis.  As a daughter, I
 
   14   worry about them; and I worry that these bad air
 
   15   days are incrementally reducing the number of days
 
   16   that I have left with them.
 
   17              On behalf of the people of Tennessee, its
 
   18   animals, and its ecosystems, I urge the EPA to move
 
   19   forward with pollution prevention from diesel
 
   20   engines in the fastest possible time frame and the
 
   21   most stringent controls that are technically
 
   22   feasible.
 
   23              In this effort to clean up our air, every
 
   24   segment of society has got to do their part.  The
 
   25   diesel engine users have had a free ride up til
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           159
 
 
    1   now.  It's time that they step up to the plate.
 
    2   This shouldn't come as a surprise to them.  They've
 
    3   known that they've been heavy polluters for a long
 
    4   time.  They should have been preparing for this
 
    5   before now.
 
    6              We know that they pollute far beyond
 
    7   their fair share with only 2 percent of the vehicles
 
    8   and then a very high percentage of both soot and the
 
    9   ozone coming from these vehicles.
 
   10              I was amazed when I learned that one
 
   11   diesel truck can put out as much pollution as 100
 
   12   cars.  If indeed the prediction of another million
 
   13   diesel vehicles on the road means that the pollution
 
   14   is equal to 100 million cars on the road, that's
 
   15   truly unacceptable.
 
   16              So we need two things to happen.  First,
 
   17   we need EPA to stick to your guns and require a 15
 
   18   parts per million sulfur limit on gasoline.  And I
 
   19   would encourage this to be for both on-road and
 
   20   off-road vehicles.  We've heard testimony about the
 
   21   problems with commingling of fuel.  Well, it seems a
 
   22   no-brainer solution to just make the fuel have to
 
   23   meet one standard.
 
   24              Secondly, we need this to happen so that
 
   25   you can use the most effective pollution control
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           160
 
 
    1   devices that are out there; and that means using the
 
    2   low sulfur fuel.
 
    3              Thirdly, I'd like to see this happen in
 
    4   the shortest possible time frame.  I would encourage
 
    5   you not to use a phase-in approach but try to make
 
    6   this happen by 2007, because every day that this is
 
    7   delayed is another day that millions of children,
 
    8   elderly, and those with respiratory illnesses have
 
    9   to breathe bad air.  And that's a price we can't
 
   10   afford to pay.
 
   11              Finally, I'd like to see encouragement
 
   12   for the electric buses, the natural gas buses, and
 
   13   fuel cell trucks at every possible turn.
 
   14              I urge you to go forward with your rule
 
   15   and make it as stringent as is technically
 
   16   feasible.  I urge the transportation industry to
 
   17   step up to the plate and do the right thing.  It's
 
   18   good for your family.  Ultimately it's good for
 
   19   business.  Those of you who do that will be more
 
   20   competitive than anybody else.
 
   21              And in conclusion I would say that there
 
   22   is a public will for this rule.  There is the
 
   23   technology for this rule.  And, finally, when you
 
   24   look at society as a whole, it makes economic
 
   25   sense.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           161
 
 
    1              Thank you.
 
    2              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you, and thank you to
 
    3   the panel.
 
    4              The next panel, Donzella James, Jim
 
    5   Williams, Ellen Shapiro, Robert Fletcher, Michael
 
    6   Ports, Richard Meeks, and Keith Gostafson.
 
    7              Jim Williams, when you're ready.
 
    8              MR. WILLIAMS:  Thank you.  Good
 
    9   afternoon.  I'm Jim Williams, products manager for
 
   10   the American Petroleum Institute which represents
 
   11   all sectors of American's oil and natural gas
 
   12   industry.
 
   13              Thank you for the opportunity to testify
 
   14   on issues of such importance to our members, to U.S.
 
   15   consumers, and to our nation.
 
   16              API has already submitted a substantial
 
   17   and important amount of information to the agency as
 
   18   it developed its proposal.  We trust that you will
 
   19   take this information and any additional information
 
   20   we provide into serious consideration.
 
   21              EPA and our industry agree that sulfur
 
   22   content in diesel fuel must be substantially
 
   23   reduced.  And, as you know, API proposed a 90
 
   24   percent reduction last winter.  Reducing sulfur in
 
   25   both diesel fuel and gasoline is key to continuing
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           162
 
 
    1   the nation's impressive progress in reducing vehicle
 
    2   emissions.
 
    3              However, we are concerned that the
 
    4   agency's diesel sulfur proposal which would reduce
 
    5   sulfur 97 percent risks too much by going too far
 
    6   too fast.  We believe EPA's proposed rule will
 
    7   decrease the total amount of diesel fuel produced,
 
    8   falling short of satisfying clearly rising demand.
 
    9   The National Petroleum Council in a just-issued
 
   10   report on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy
 
   11   calls the risk of inadequate supplies substantial.
 
   12              Consumers need not face this risk.  By
 
   13   adopting the 90 percent sulfur reduction we have
 
   14   recommended, the chances of disrupting diesel
 
   15   supplies would be greatly lessened, yet emissions
 
   16   would still be cut substantially here in Atlanta and
 
   17   across the nation.
 
   18              We believe that a 90 percent reduction in
 
   19   sulfur is right.  That is the amount the agency is
 
   20   requiring of gasoline sulfur and how much it said
 
   21   diesel sulfur content should be lowered in a press
 
   22   release last October.
 
   23              Were EPA to disregard our 90 percent
 
   24   initiative and go forward with its proposed rule, a
 
   25   number of refiners will elect to make the requisite,
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           163
 
 
    1   considerable investment to meet the rule.  However,
 
    2   this is not the entire picture.
 
    3              Total U.S. diesel fuel supply and demand
 
    4   are in reasonable balance.  For investment-return
 
    5   levels and/or other reasons, a number of refiners
 
    6   will likely not undertake EPA's costly sulfur
 
    7   reductions, choosing to make other products
 
    8   instead.  Yet other companies will end up producing
 
    9   less of the new diesel fuel than current capacity.
 
   10              All these actions will have the effect of
 
   11   reducing overall diesel capacity and creating
 
   12   substantial supply and demand imbalances.  Upward
 
   13   cost pressures on supply will be considerable.
 
   14              Making the ultra-low sulfur diesel that
 
   15   EPA proposes will require huge refinery investments,
 
   16   closer to 8 billion than the 4 billion the agency
 
   17   has estimated.  The difference can be explained by
 
   18   the failure of EPA to adequately take into account
 
   19   the difficulty and expense of removing sulfur from
 
   20   all the refinery streams that will have to be used
 
   21   to make ultra-low sulfur diesel.
 
   22              In addition to prohibitive investment
 
   23   costs, distribution problems are likely to affect
 
   24   supply.  Refiners will have to move ultra-low sulfur
 
   25   diesel to market using common pipelines and storage
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           164
 
 
    1   facilities, risking contamination of some of the
 
    2   volumes from the sulfur residues of other fuels
 
    3   using those same facilities, further decreasing
 
    4   available supplies.
 
    5              The majority of America's goods move by
 
    6   truck, as should be obvious to anyone who drives on
 
    7   the highways in the Atlanta area and across
 
    8   America.  We estimate that EPA's proposal could add
 
    9   about $2600 to the cost of a trucker's annual
 
   10   operations in higher diesel fuel costs.  This does
 
   11   not include the additional cost of emission control
 
   12   hardware which could be several thousand dollars per
 
   13   truck, nor does it factor in the time and
 
   14   inconvenience costs associated with less readily
 
   15   available diesel supply.
 
   16              Higher few costs could also hurt others,
 
   17   including businesses with small fleets of vehicles
 
   18   such as bakeries and nurseries, farmer-owned
 
   19   refineries and, ultimately, all consumers.  We are
 
   20   very concerned that the needs of these core American
 
   21   businesses and the heavy-duty truck industry are
 
   22   being shortchanged at the expense of EPA's stated
 
   23   objective of providing growth potential for
 
   24   light-duty vehicles which, according to credible
 
   25   studies, may never be more than a small fraction of
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           165
 
 
    1   the vehicle fleet.
 
    2              Has the agency considered how consumers
 
    3   and others might be protected if supply and cost
 
    4   dislocations come to pass?
 
    5              A waiver certainly wouldn't be practical
 
    6   because it would expose new trucks to higher sulfur
 
    7   diesel fuel which, according to EPA's own
 
    8   assessment, could damage the emission control
 
    9   equipment needed to meet the proposed diesel exhaust
 
   10   standards.
 
   11              In the near term, increased imports
 
   12   probably wouldn't be able to fill the big gaps
 
   13   because few foreign refiners will be making the same
 
   14   diesel.  And foreign producers have their own
 
   15   capacity constraints.  Eventually U.S. or foreign
 
   16   refiners might expand capacity to provide additional
 
   17   supplies; but this would require installation of new
 
   18   equipment, a process that could take several years.
 
   19              No one can predict with 100 percent
 
   20   confidence what might happen; but, given the
 
   21   volatility we've seen in the fuel market this year,
 
   22   are the risks described worth taking?
 
   23              Keep in mind that EPA's NOx benefits do
 
   24   not appear until many years after initial
 
   25   implementation due in part to the phase-in
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           166
 
 
    1   proposal.
 
    2              Why did EPA not consider a more
 
    3   reasonable NOx standard that could be implemented
 
    4   sooner?  How does EPA expect urban areas struggling
 
    5   to meet attainment deadlines in the 2007-2010 time
 
    6   frame to significantly benefit when the full effect
 
    7   of its program does not occur until much later?
 
    8              According to a study by a well-known
 
    9   automotive engineering consulting firm, the most
 
   10   advanced vehicle emissions reduction technology that
 
   11   we know will work reduces emissions about the same
 
   12   with either fuel.  EPA hopes that a different
 
   13   technology will be used, but it takes a leap of
 
   14   faith to support this belief.
 
   15              According to the agency, this technology
 
   16   has not advanced to the field trial stage.  And in
 
   17   preliminary laboratory tests sponsored by industry
 
   18   and government, it had not cut emissions to the
 
   19   levels EPA wants no matter how much sulfur was
 
   20   reduced.
 
   21              Our misgivings about EPA's leap of faith
 
   22   are based on two historical facts.  First, for the
 
   23   1993 diesel sulfur regulations, EPA called for low
 
   24   sulfur fuels to enable the use of aftertreatment
 
   25   devices.  The industry has spent billions of dollars
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           167
 
 
    1   to supply the fuel; but low and behold, the
 
    2   aftertreatment devices that supposedly were going to
 
    3   be used never came into being.
 
    4              Second, the last time EPA tried to force
 
    5   diesel emission control technology in its 1991 bus
 
    6   standard, the agency's chosen technology failed
 
    7   miserably on the road despite the fact that trap
 
    8   manufacturers convinced EPA that they could develop
 
    9   durable, cost-effective systems to meet emissions
 
   10   requirements in the time frame available.
 
   11              And I've attached a copy of some
 
   12   correspondence, a fax sheet from EPA, to my
 
   13   testimony just as a reminder.
 
   14              We strongly urge EPA to take the time
 
   15   needed to get this rule right the first time.  The
 
   16   impacts run too deep and too broad for EPA to do
 
   17   otherwise.  There are still many questions and
 
   18   issues that have to be resolved, and EPA must give
 
   19   them fair and appropriate consideration.
 
   20              Why has EPA arbitrarily selected year-end
 
   21   to finalize this rule when there is much more time
 
   22   to get the rule right?
 
   23              For example, to be implemented in 2007,
 
   24   this rule does not need to be finalized for several
 
   25   years.  In addition, EPA has not even finalized the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           168
 
 
    1   standards proposed for 2004 yet.  The 2004 rule
 
    2   raises several engine certification issues that
 
    3   could impact both the fuels and engine industries
 
    4   for 2007.  Industry will need sufficient time to
 
    5   study those impacts in order to comment on the 2007
 
    6   proposal.
 
    7              We encourage EPA to carefully consider
 
    8   the concerns we have raised today.  Cleaner air
 
    9   demands that we reduce diesel sulfur; and we have
 
   10   volunteered to do so by a significant amount, 90
 
   11   percent.  Too severe a reduction could result in
 
   12   unintended negative consequences for consumers and
 
   13   for the industry.  With reasonable adjustments to
 
   14   EPA's proposed rule, we believe these can be
 
   15   minimized.
 
   16              Thank you.
 
   17              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Ellen Shapiro.
 
   18              MS. SHAPIRO:  Thank you.  Can you hear
 
   19   me?  My name is Ellen Shapiro.  I'm a director of
 
   20   automotive fuels for the Alliance of Automobile
 
   21   Manufacturers which is a coalition of car and
 
   22   light-truck manufacturers who sell more than 90
 
   23   percent of the vehicles in this country.
 
   24              Alliance members are in the
 
   25   transportation business, and our interest in this
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           169
 
 
    1   rulemaking is to preserve diesel engines as a
 
    2   transportation option for the light-duty market.  As
 
    3   EPA recognizes, they have inherent advantages for
 
    4   higher fuel economy, lower greenhouse gas emissions,
 
    5   and lower evaporative hydrocarbon emissions.
 
    6              Diesel is one of the key technologies of
 
    7   the future.  Considering the concerns about fuel
 
    8   supply that have surfaced in this rulemaking, EPA
 
    9   also should consider the potential overall fuel
 
   10   savings that would accrue if the auto makers are
 
   11   successful in introducing more fuel-efficient
 
   12   vehicles.
 
   13              As we heard DaimlerChrysler state
 
   14   earlier, the PNGD program estimates that advanced
 
   15   diesel technology vehicles will achieve a 40 percent
 
   16   gain in fuel economy over today's gasoline
 
   17   vehicles.
 
   18              Our members are working hard to advance
 
   19   the state of the art in fuel-efficient diesel
 
   20   technology so it will meet the Tier 2 standards
 
   21   adopted last year.  But the most critical factor in
 
   22   this endeavor is the quality of the fuel, especially
 
   23   sulfur.  That is why we applaud the EPA for taking
 
   24   this crucial first step toward enabling the next
 
   25   generation of diesel technology.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           170
 
 
    1              EPA has done several things right with
 
    2   this proposal.  First, EPA treated the vehicles and
 
    3   its fuel as a system for both existing and future
 
    4   diesel fleet.  This perspective is essential for
 
    5   today's sophisticated vehicles.
 
    6              Second, EPA proposed to dramatically
 
    7   reduce sulfur to enable the new aftertreatment
 
    8   technology.  Numerous research programs are showing
 
    9   how clean diesel can be.  Recent bus demonstration
 
   10   programs show diesel buses with aftertreatment
 
   11   controls and clean diesel fuel are proving as clean
 
   12   as or cleaner than buses running on compressed
 
   13   natural gas.  I believe there was a demonstration
 
   14   outside here today.  This advancement is nothing
 
   15   short of remarkable.
 
   16              Third, EPA has proposed to introduce the
 
   17   new fuel on a nationwide basis with a common
 
   18   deadline and very limited exceptions.  This approach
 
   19   is necessary to prevent any high sulfur fuel from
 
   20   contaminating the sensitive new aftertreatment
 
   21   systems that will be used and will help ensure that
 
   22   trucks will continue to be able to deliver their
 
   23   goods throughout the country.
 
   24              Fourth, the EPA has proposed introducing
 
   25   the cleaner fuel before the new aftertreatment
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           171
 
 
    1   technology must be used on heavy-duty vehicles.  And
 
    2   to the extent the new cap also leads to early
 
    3   introduction of near-zero sulfur fuel, it will
 
    4   encourage auto makers and their suppliers to
 
    5   continue investing in the light-duty option.
 
    6              Does this proposal go far enough for Tier
 
    7   2?  Not quite.  More needs to be done.
 
    8              As much of a stretch as the Tier 2
 
    9   standards will be for gasoline vehicles, there will
 
   10   be even more so for diesel engines.  The fundamental
 
   11   problem, as EPA recognizes, is getting the vehicle
 
   12   system to meet both the NOx and the PM emission
 
   13   standards at the same time.
 
   14              Sulfur free is the level that will allow
 
   15   diesel vehicles to operate at their cleanest
 
   16   throughout their useful life.  That is why auto
 
   17   makers and engine manufacturers from around the
 
   18   world have endorsed this level in the recently
 
   19   updated Worldwide Fuel Charter which we have
 
   20   submitted for the record and is also available on
 
   21   our web site for those who are interested.
 
   22              The Charter defines sulfur free as
 
   23   between 5 and 10 parts per million, to be defined
 
   24   further as more data becomes available.  In this
 
   25   country, the stringent emission standards justify
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           172
 
 
    1   adopting the lower limit.  Emerging data from DOE's
 
    2   DECSE program support this view.
 
    3              The Manufacturers of Emission Controls
 
    4   Association also continues to recommend 5 parts per
 
    5   million, notwithstanding its support for the
 
    6   proposed 15 ppm cap.  Many people are assuming that
 
    7   the 15 ppm cap will lead to an average sulfur level
 
    8   of about 7 parts per million with most of the fuel
 
    9   having less than 10 ppm due to the expected refiner
 
   10   compliance margins.
 
   11              We are less certain.  Rather, we expect
 
   12   refiners will learn how to shrink their compliance
 
   13   margins; and this, in turn, will lead to more fuel
 
   14   about 10 ppm.  And, in addition, there may be
 
   15   testing provision margins of a few ppm or more
 
   16   regarding what measurements are taken.  So, in
 
   17   actuality, there could even be some fuel out there
 
   18   higher than 15, even though the fuel might meet the
 
   19   15 cap.  So this sulfur level in this range would
 
   20   seriously poison the new aftertreatment devices.
 
   21              In addition to sulfur, EPA also should
 
   22   adjust other fuel properties as recommended in the
 
   23   Charter, especially cetane, aromatics, and
 
   24   distillation.  And we will discuss these issues
 
   25   further in our written comments.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           173
 
 
    1              Is our position realistic?  Are we asking
 
    2   too much?
 
    3              We think that 5 ppm is doable.  After
 
    4   all, refiners are making this fuel today in Sweden
 
    5   and elsewhere as others have testified.
 
    6              Other countries are moving quickly to
 
    7   ultra-low sulfur levels.  Just last year Germany
 
    8   adopted a tax incentive program to encourage fuels
 
    9   with less than 10 ppm by 2003.  In May, the European
 
   10   Union announced its intent to pursue this course for
 
   11   all of Europe.
 
   12              The key point is that refiners know how
 
   13   to make clean diesel fuel.  Proper incentives and
 
   14   market demand will bring this fuel to market even
 
   15   faster than public estimates predict.  We urge EPA
 
   16   to focus on its incentive package to encourage the
 
   17   marketplace, to make the new cleaner fuel widely
 
   18   available as soon as possible.
 
   19              We understand the concern about supply;
 
   20   but we believe the fuel supply will be driven as
 
   21   much by profitability and other factors, not simply
 
   22   the cost of this regulation.
 
   23              To the extent that maintaining low sulfur
 
   24   levels through the distribution system becomes a
 
   25   challenge, we believe in the collective
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           174
 
 
    1   problem-solving capability of the free market
 
    2   system.
 
    3              We've come a long way in the debate over
 
    4   sulfur.  Just two years ago auto makers petitioned
 
    5   EPA to reduce sulfur in gasoline to California
 
    6   levels or lower.  Today everyone accepts the
 
    7   critical role that sulfur plays in our national
 
    8   environmental policy.  The issue is no longer
 
    9   whether to reduce sulfur.  It is not even that
 
   10   near-zero sulfur levels eventually will be needed.
 
   11   Rather, it is when will they be available to enable
 
   12   the new technology.
 
   13              For our part, Alliance members want to
 
   14   bring advanced technologies such as the turbocharged
 
   15   direct injection engines and hybrid electric
 
   16   vehicles described in our new brochure on advanced
 
   17   technologies to the point where they can operate
 
   18   cleanly and meet consumer needs.
 
   19              The proposed 15 ppm cap on diesel fuel
 
   20   sulfur is a very strong step in the right direction
 
   21   towards providing the incentives to continue
 
   22   investing in this clean diesel technology.  Diesel
 
   23   fuel quality on a par with the Worldwide Fuel
 
   24   Charter will actually make this technology one of
 
   25   our key options for the future.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           175
 
 
    1              Thank you.
 
    2              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Robert Fletcher.
 
    3              MR. FLETCHER:  Good afternoon.  My name
 
    4   is Robert E. Fletcher, and I'm a member of the
 
    5   Sierra Club here in Georgia; and I appreciate the
 
    6   opportunity to make some comments this afternoon.
 
    7              I strongly support more effective air
 
    8   quality standards and reduced pollution from
 
    9   heavy-duty vehicles and engines.  If anything, EPA's
 
   10   proposed standards should be strengthened.  Efforts
 
   11   to stop or weaken these standards should be
 
   12   opposed.
 
   13              Some will argue that we can't afford
 
   14   stronger standards and that the U.S. economy will
 
   15   suffer if they are implemented.  This is reminiscent
 
   16   of the dire predictions made before the enactment of
 
   17   the Clean Air Act in 1970.
 
   18              In actuality, the results of this
 
   19   landmark legislation have been positive.  A
 
   20   comprehensive analysis of the effects of the Clean
 
   21   Air Act between 1970 and 1990 shows that direct
 
   22   monetized benefits were $23 trillion and every
 
   23   dollar spent for compliance yielded $45 in
 
   24   benefits.  Of course, air quality is now better than
 
   25   it would have been if the Act had not been passed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           176
 
 
    1              Arguments against effective air quality
 
    2   standards are sometimes flawed because they fail to
 
    3   acknowledge all of the benefits that will be
 
    4   derived.  In the case of the currently proposed
 
    5   program, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, particulate
 
    6   matter, sulfur dioxide, and toxic air pollutants
 
    7   will be reduced; and all of these reductions must be
 
    8   taken into account.
 
    9              Similarly, adverse effects caused by
 
   10   these substances will be reduced and must be
 
   11   considered.  Resultant benefits will occur in the
 
   12   following areas:  human health, agricultural crops,
 
   13   forests, other plant life, waterways, and entire
 
   14   ecosystems.
 
   15              The need for a holistic approach to air
 
   16   quality is underlined by a quotation from Professor
 
   17   C.S. Kiang of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and
 
   18   Atmospheric Sciences cited in this newspaper
 
   19   article.  Professor Kiang states we are going to
 
   20   have to look at our air quality problems
 
   21   holistically.
 
   22              Air pollution from diesel-powered sources
 
   23   is becoming a more prominent factor.  Accordingly,
 
   24   heavy-duty vehicles are more viable candidates for
 
   25   new controls in order to meet air quality goals.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           177
 
 
    1   New essential measures for light-duty vehicles will
 
    2   be an increasingly hard sell if the public perceives
 
    3   that there's a growing disparity between the
 
    4   requirements for these two groups of vehicles.  Of
 
    5   course, solving the air quality problem requires a
 
    6   comprehensive approach that effectively reduces
 
    7   pollution from all major sources.
 
    8              Reduction of diesel engine pollution will
 
    9   require advanced aftertreatment technologies such as
 
   10   catalytic converters.  U.S. EPA and other
 
   11   authorities concur that low sulfur fuel is
 
   12   imperative to avoid the poisoning effect on
 
   13   pollution control components and consequent
 
   14   diminished effectiveness of the program.
 
   15              Sweden currently requires diesel fuel
 
   16   with a limit of only 10 parts per million of
 
   17   sulfur.  Contrast this with the current U.S. limit
 
   18   for on-road diesel fuel of 500 parts per million.
 
   19              Reduced levels of sulfur in diesel fuel
 
   20   will also help reduce emissions from Tier 2
 
   21   light-duty diesel-powered vehicles.  Furthermore, it
 
   22   has been demonstrated that lower sulfur levels in
 
   23   diesel fuel extends engine life and reduces
 
   24   maintenance costs.
 
   25              It is universally recognized that engine
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           178
 
 
    1   components fail from time to time, and emission
 
    2   control devices are no exception.  For this reason,
 
    3   it is imperative that the new standards be
 
    4   accompanied by a mechanism to ensure that installed
 
    5   devices operate properly and remain effective.
 
    6   Inspection and maintenance programs should be
 
    7   required nationally.  This could be supplemented by
 
    8   remote sensing programs if they prove to be feasible
 
    9   and effective.
 
   10              I specifically recommend that U.S. EPA,
 
   11   1, reduce diesel fuel sulfur levels to no more than
 
   12   15 parts per million nationwide for both on-road and
 
   13   nonroad diesels by 2006; 2, reduce emissions of
 
   14   ozone precursors and particulate matter from
 
   15   heavy-duty vehicles, including those powered by
 
   16   diesel engines, by 95 percent and 90 percent
 
   17   respectively with an effective date of 2007; 3,
 
   18   initiate action to establish the same standards for
 
   19   nonroad diesel engines; 4, specify that new emission
 
   20   standards be accompanied by effective programs for
 
   21   periodic inspection and maintenance to ensure that
 
   22   installed emission control systems continue to
 
   23   perform as designed; 5, establish and implement a
 
   24   national program for accelerated development and
 
   25   introduction of alternative fueled heavy-duty
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           179
 
 
    1   vehicles such as those powered by natural gas,
 
    2   electricity, and fuel cells.
 
    3              Thank you for the opportunity to present
 
    4   these comments.
 
    5              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Senator Donzella
 
    6   James.
 
    7              SENATOR JAMES:  Thank you very much.  My
 
    8   name is State Senator Donzella James, and I'm
 
    9   honored to sit with so many distinguished
 
   10   environmentalists and professionals.
 
   11              I represent the 35th District in the
 
   12   state of Georgia which includes metropolitan
 
   13   Atlanta.  And while I am here today as state
 
   14   senator, I feel that it's important for me as a
 
   15   citizen to voice my concerns surrounding diesel
 
   16   fumes.
 
   17              Any additional pollution in our
 
   18   already-dangerous atmosphere should concern all of
 
   19   us because it adversely affects our health and our
 
   20   overall quality of life.
 
   21              In the district that I represent, we
 
   22   already have a nonattainment zone warning throughout
 
   23   metropolitan Atlanta and the other eight cities that
 
   24   I represent.  That is unacceptable.  We cannot even
 
   25   build new roads that we want to build, nor can we
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           180
 
 
    1   build some of the new construction in our area
 
    2   because of this nonattainment zone that we're in.
 
    3              In researching this issue, I have learned
 
    4   that, in spite of the efforts of so many
 
    5   corporations, state agencies, and private citizens
 
    6   to cleanse our air, our efforts are being negated by
 
    7   the petroleum and trucking industries, both of whom
 
    8   use diesel fuel for power.
 
    9              The primary component of the diesel fuel,
 
   10   sulfur, is what causes our problems; and it is
 
   11   important that we rally to find low fuel means to
 
   12   produce the diesel fuel.  If we don't, we're sure to
 
   13   find ourselves in even worse shape than we are
 
   14   currently in.
 
   15              Here in the state of Georgia, over 5,000
 
   16   people annually are treated in emergency rooms
 
   17   because of pulmonary disorders including asthma and
 
   18   bronchitis, not to mention the long-term effects
 
   19   such as emphysema and lung cancer.
 
   20              In our legislature, the House and the
 
   21   Senate, in the past few years, we have lost
 
   22   legislators to emphysema and lung cancer; and those
 
   23   people never smoked.  So they feel that it was the
 
   24   air quality that contributed to it.
 
   25              In addition to astounding statistics in
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           181
 
 
    1   the state of Georgia, the national statistics show
 
    2   that more than 150,000 Americans are treated for
 
    3   pulmonary conditions while more than 40,000
 
    4   Americans die prematurely from serious conditions
 
    5   resulting from breathing pollution.  We cannot
 
    6   afford those kind of numbers.
 
    7              I cannot vouch for other cities in the
 
    8   state or across this country, but I can tell you
 
    9   that in Atlanta our children and our elderly are
 
   10   outdoor people.  They play in their yards.  They
 
   11   garden.  They play outdoor sports.  They walk for
 
   12   exercise.  They patronize outdoor cafes.  They
 
   13   support concerts at Piedmont Park, at Grant Park.
 
   14   And they walk to cut down on traffic congestion.
 
   15   They spend a considerable amount of time outdoors,
 
   16   and they deserve to be able to do so without the
 
   17   threat of illness.
 
   18              I am frightened by the state of our
 
   19   environment, and I realize that we must work
 
   20   together as a cooperative community to eliminate the
 
   21   risk.  Each private citizen must do his or her part
 
   22   by being aware of ozone alert days and by reducing
 
   23   his or her contributions to pollution, including how
 
   24   and when we drive as well as how and when we operate
 
   25   our lawn equipment, etc.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           182
 
 
    1              In the same vein, industry must be
 
    2   responsible citizens also.  Currently vehicles that
 
    3   use diesel fuel contribute a little more than
 
    4   one-third of this problem.  While new vehicle
 
    5   emission standards go into effect in 2006, it is
 
    6   critical that trucks and buses be held to a standard
 
    7   that will reduce sulfur levels now.
 
    8              I support your proposal and ask that you
 
    9   not implement provisions that will allow for an
 
   10   extension past 2006, the targeted date.  New trucks
 
   11   must meet the 15 ppm sulfur or we will not be able
 
   12   to meet the necessary pollution reductions.
 
   13              In the Senate I have worked very hard to
 
   14   make sure that we have clean air, clean water, and
 
   15   even to reduce the solid waste treatment so that we
 
   16   will not have so many landfills and incinerators to
 
   17   pollute our air.  Surely this is something that I
 
   18   would love to work for in the state of Georgia if we
 
   19   have to come to any kind of legislation.
 
   20              I also ask that you ensure that
 
   21   diesel-powered vehicles continue to meet emission
 
   22   standards when they are on the road, not just doing
 
   23   emission tests, and that we continue to look toward
 
   24   increasing the use of advanced technology vehicles.
 
   25              I hope the input you receive from all the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           183
 
 
    1   panels today will not fall on deaf ears.  I hope
 
    2   that we can take the politics out.  I understand the
 
    3   process.  I know even at the state capitol that they
 
    4   think that the laws are made in the chambers of the
 
    5   House and the Senate.  But many laugh about it and
 
    6   say they're made in the hallways and the golf
 
    7   courses, because I know that lobbyists have a lot of
 
    8   money and a lot of power.  And many of them are
 
    9   responsible people, and I hope that they will be
 
   10   responsible when it comes to trying to lower the
 
   11   sulfur rates.
 
   12              I thank you for allowing me this time to
 
   13   speak to you today; and if there's anything that I
 
   14   can do as a state legislator, then please call on
 
   15   me.
 
   16              I have an emergency, so I'm going to have
 
   17   to leave.  And thank you very much for listening to
 
   18   me.
 
   19              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  The
 
   20   next speaker is Richard Meeks.
 
   21              MR. MEEKS:  Good afternoon.  My name is
 
   22   Richard Meeks.  I am vice president of planning and
 
   23   economics of Ergon, Incorporated.
 
   24              I appear here today on behalf of Ergon
 
   25   and Lion Oil Company which is an Ergon majority
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           184
 
 
    1   owned and managed company.  Thank you for calling
 
    2   this hearing to solicit comments on EPA's proposed
 
    3   diesel fuel sulfur reduction regulations.  I
 
    4   appreciate the opportunity to present Ergon's and
 
    5   Lion's views on this proposal.
 
    6              While our company is a member of the
 
    7   National Petrochemical and Refiners Association from
 
    8   whom this panel has heard testimony, we sought this
 
    9   opportunity to present separate testimony to
 
   10   highlight the unique impacts this proposal would
 
   11   have on our company.
 
   12              We generally agree with the testimony
 
   13   presented by NPRA but also want to assure you that
 
   14   you hear testimony from the individual companies
 
   15   that will be expected to comply with this proposal.
 
   16              First, some information about our
 
   17   company.  Ergon is a privately-held family-owned
 
   18   company headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.  In
 
   19   addition to other operations, Ergon either wholly or
 
   20   partially owns and operates three petroleum
 
   21   refineries.
 
   22              Our Vicksburg, Mississippi refinery which
 
   23   has a capacity of 25,000 barrels per day of crude
 
   24   oil, currently chooses not to produce highway diesel
 
   25   fuel.  However, this refinery's product slate may
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           185
 
 
    1   change in the near future, in which case it would be
 
    2   directly impacted by EPA's diesel fuel sulfur
 
    3   proposal.
 
    4              We acquired our Newell, West Virginia
 
    5   refinery from the Quaker State Corporation in 1997.
 
    6   This refinery has a crude capacity of 16,000 barrels
 
    7   per day and produces conventional gasoline and
 
    8   on-road diesel fuel as well as other products.
 
    9              In addition, Ergon owns 51 percent of the
 
   10   common stock of and has 100 percent of the
 
   11   management responsibility for Lion Oil Company, an
 
   12   El Dorado, Arkansas refiner.  The Lion refinery has
 
   13   a crude capacity of 55,000 barrels per day and
 
   14   produces conventional gasoline and on-road diesel
 
   15   fuel as well as other products.  In addition, Lion
 
   16   has been in continuous operation since 1922 and has
 
   17   provided livelihoods to several generations of
 
   18   employees in South Arkansas.
 
   19              Ergon is strongly opposed to EPA's diesel
 
   20   sulfur proposal because it mandates reductions that
 
   21   are too large and too costly over a time frame that
 
   22   is too short for my company, Ergon, to meet.  The
 
   23   negative impact of EPA's diesel sulfur proposal on
 
   24   the future viability of Ergon's three refineries
 
   25   could not be more severe.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           186
 
 
    1              When combined with the costs, Ergon will
 
    2   be forced to shoulder in order to comply with the
 
    3   gasoline sulfur mandate.  The costs of compliance
 
    4   with this proposal may stretch beyond Ergon's
 
    5   financial capacity.  In short, it is not clear that
 
    6   the operations of our Mississippi, West Virginia,
 
    7   and our Arkansas refineries will continue if this
 
    8   proposal is adopted.
 
    9              How ironic that the Lion refinery, saved
 
   10   from closure in the 1980s through much effort from
 
   11   then-Governor Clinton, could ultimately close due to
 
   12   a regulation from now-President Clinton's
 
   13   administration.
 
   14              Ergon's situation is not unique, but our
 
   15   company does possess certain characteristics that
 
   16   adds to our vulnerability.  Each of our refineries
 
   17   is small, particularly when compared to the
 
   18   mega-refineries operated by the major oil
 
   19   companies.  None of our refineries produce more than
 
   20   75,000 barrels per day of product.  As a result, we
 
   21   cannot achieve the economies of scale in making
 
   22   equipment upgrades that the integrated refiners do.
 
   23              And yet, because of the decisions EPA has
 
   24   made in the gasoline sulfur rule regarding the
 
   25   definition of a small refiner, Ergon's refineries do
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           187
 
 
    1   not qualify for either the small refiner flexibility
 
    2   or the geographic phase-in program.
 
    3              Consequently, Ergon is, in fact, stuck in
 
    4   the middle.  We do not have the deep pockets of the
 
    5   integrated refiners to make these investments, and
 
    6   we do not qualify for regulatory flexibility because
 
    7   of our size.
 
    8              Ergon suggests that EPA alter the
 
    9   proposal in two ways:  1, delay the implementation
 
   10   of the heavy-duty vehicle emissions standards for
 
   11   several years, perhaps until 2010; and then, 2,
 
   12   establish a 50 ppm diesel fuel sulfur specification
 
   13   instead of the 15 ppm standard EPA has proposed.
 
   14              These twin actions will have several
 
   15   beneficial impacts.  First, an extended
 
   16   implementation time frame will permit additional
 
   17   time for the development of sulfur-tolerant
 
   18   emissions control devices for heavy-duty vehicles.
 
   19   If the manufacturers of these devices believe they
 
   20   can achieve tolerance for 15 ppm diesel fuel by
 
   21   2007, then there is no reason to believe that they
 
   22   cannot achieve tolerance for 50 ppm by 2010.
 
   23              Second, a 2010 implementation schedule
 
   24   will assure that the investments that Ergon and
 
   25   other refiners are required to make do not occur at
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           188
 
 
    1   the same time as the investments we'll be making for
 
    2   the gasoline sulfur reductions.
 
    3              Ergon's pockets, unlike many of the
 
    4   integrated refiners, are only so deep; and Ergon's
 
    5   assets are only so bankable.  Making our sulfur
 
    6   reduction capital investments sequentially, rather
 
    7   than concurrently, will greatly enhance Ergon's
 
    8   ability to make these investments.
 
    9              Third, a 50 ppm cap is achievable for
 
   10   Ergon at approximately half the cost of a 15 ppm
 
   11   cap.  If the diesel sulfur cap is set at 50 ppm, we
 
   12   believe it will cost us approximately $25 million to
 
   13   meet this standard.  This is at only our Lion
 
   14   refinery.  If 15 ppm is the cap, we estimate our
 
   15   costs will be approximately 50 million or double, if
 
   16   we can afford to make the investments at all.
 
   17              Finally, this extended time frame would
 
   18   permit Ergon, a small refiner, to make its
 
   19   investments after, or concurrently with, larger
 
   20   refiners.  As the proposal now stands, Ergon would
 
   21   be forced to make its investments in the 2001 to
 
   22   2003 time frame because it is virtually assured that
 
   23   the sheer number of refiners will fill the calendars
 
   24   of the existing fabrication shops and qualified
 
   25   construction companies from 2004 through 2006.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           189
 
 
    1              Additionally, the lead time for
 
    2   permitting, even under EPA's fast track process,
 
    3   would force Ergon to begin the permitting process
 
    4   now, so far in advance of any start-up that the
 
    5   estimates for the process could be very suspect.
 
    6              Consequently, even if EPA's suggested
 
    7   technology review shows that the emissions control
 
    8   devices will not be commercialized by 2007, Ergon
 
    9   will already have either undertaken the investments
 
   10   needed for a 2006 implementation date or made the
 
   11   decision to exit the on-road diesel fuel business by
 
   12   the time the conclusions of this review are made
 
   13   known to the public.
 
   14              Ergon urges EPA to reconsider its
 
   15   proposal for diesel fuel.  We and other refiners
 
   16   have offered a 90 percent diesel sulfur reduction.
 
   17   EPA has proposed a 97 percent reduction.  With
 
   18   flexibility, Ergon and other refiners can supply
 
   19   clean diesel fuel.  Without it, many mid-sized
 
   20   refiners like Ergon may not survive this second
 
   21   round of sulfur reductions.
 
   22              Thank you for soliciting our comment on
 
   23   this proposal.  I would be pleased to answer any
 
   24   questions you may have.
 
   25              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Michael Ports.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           190
 
 
    1              MR. PORTS:  Good afternoon.  My name is
 
    2   Mike Ports.  I'm president of Ports Petroleum
 
    3   Company, Incorporated, a family-owned private
 
    4   company headquartered in Wooster, Ohio.
 
    5              Thank you for calling this hearing today
 
    6   to solicit public comment on the Environmental
 
    7   Protection Agency's proposed regulations to control
 
    8   the sulfur content of diesel fuel.
 
    9              Ports Petroleum is an independent
 
   10   marketer of motor fuels.  We own and operate 70
 
   11   motor fuel outlets in 12 states.  Our company
 
   12   employs 700 workers and markets approximately 280
 
   13   million gallons of diesel fuel every year.
 
   14              I appear today on behalf of the Society
 
   15   of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America.  I am
 
   16   privileged to serve as SIGMA's first vice
 
   17   president.
 
   18              SIGMA is an association of approximately
 
   19   260 motor fuel marketers operating in all 50
 
   20   states.  Together, SIGMA members supply over 28,000
 
   21   motor fuel outlets and sell over 48 billion gallons
 
   22   of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, or
 
   23   approximately 30 percent of all motor fuels sold in
 
   24   the nation last year.  Collectively, SIGMA members
 
   25   sold over 13 billion gallons of on-road diesel fuel
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           191
 
 
    1   last year; and 89 percent of our members sell diesel
 
    2   fuel.
 
    3              My personal experience with Ports
 
    4   Petroleum and my representation of all SIGMA members
 
    5   at this hearing today combine to make me
 
    6   well-qualified to speak about the EPA's diesel
 
    7   sulfur proposal, not just from the diesel fuel
 
    8   marketers' perspective but from the perspective of
 
    9   diesel fuel consumers as well.
 
   10              From the point of view of diesel fuel
 
   11   marketers and our customers, EPA's proposal will
 
   12   have dire consequences on our business, on our
 
   13   customers, and potentially on our national economy.
 
   14   SIGMA strongly opposes EPA's diesel fuel sulfur
 
   15   proposal for one fundamental reason.  It will
 
   16   reduce, perhaps substantially, the supplies of
 
   17   on-road diesel fuel.
 
   18              Diverse and plentiful supplies of diesel
 
   19   fuel are the life's blood of independent petroleum
 
   20   marketers like Ports.  Without adequate supplies of
 
   21   diesel fuel, independent marketers -- the most
 
   22   competitive segment of the motor fuel marketing
 
   23   industry -- will cease to exist as a force in diesel
 
   24   fuel retailing.
 
   25              Already as a result of industry
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           192
 
 
    1   consolidations and refiners exiting the motor fuels
 
    2   business, the number of sources of diesel fuel on
 
    3   which an independent marketer can look for supply
 
    4   has been reduced.  If the sources of supply or the
 
    5   numbers of suppliers are restricted further,
 
    6   independent marketers will be forced to look towards
 
    7   integrated refiners -- in many cases our strongest
 
    8   competitors -- for diesel fuel supplies.
 
    9              When integrated refiners are aware that
 
   10   an independent marketer has many other sources of
 
   11   supply, then the integrated refiners are forced to
 
   12   be competitive.  When sources of supply narrow,
 
   13   however, there are no such forces acting on the
 
   14   integrated refiners.
 
   15              We have seen an excellent example of the
 
   16   precarious role independent marketers occupy in the
 
   17   motor fuels marketing industry during the recent
 
   18   supply crisis in Michigan.  While independent
 
   19   marketers traditionally have been a strong
 
   20   competitive force in Michigan, recent consolidations
 
   21   have given one or two large refiners dominance over
 
   22   that market.
 
   23              When the Wolverine Pipeline went down two
 
   24   weeks ago, independent marketers were totally cut
 
   25   off from supply of unbranded product from these
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           193
 
 
    1   refiners' bulk terminals and for a period of time
 
    2   simply could not get supplies in Michigan.  They
 
    3   were forced to truck the product into the state from
 
    4   surrounding areas.  As a result, gasoline prices in
 
    5   the state rose dramatically.
 
    6              SIGMA fears that this Michigan supply and
 
    7   price crisis could become the norm in the nation's
 
    8   diesel fuel market if EPA's diesel sulfur proposal
 
    9   is finalized as published.
 
   10              EPA's diesel sulfur proposal will result
 
   11   in a substantial decrease in the overall supplies of
 
   12   on-road diesel fuel in this country.  As EPA admits
 
   13   in its proposal, some refiners will not be able to
 
   14   make the capital investments necessary to produce
 
   15   ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, resulting in reduced
 
   16   diesel fuel supplies.
 
   17              EPA also admits that desulfurization
 
   18   technology currently does not exist to remove
 
   19   sufficient sulfur from certain diesel fuel
 
   20   blendstocks, again reducing supply.
 
   21              EPA further admits that our nation's
 
   22   diesel fuel distribution system, including
 
   23   pipelines, bulk storage facilities, and tanker
 
   24   trucks, will be forced to downgrade an unspecified
 
   25   portion of our nation's diesel fuel production
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           194
 
 
    1   because it will become contaminated with higher
 
    2   sulfur products during distribution, again reducing
 
    3   overall supplies.
 
    4              And EPA highlights the fact that under
 
    5   the proposal domestic diesel fuel will have a
 
    6   substantially lower sulfur level than diesel fuel
 
    7   produced in most other industrialized counties which
 
    8   will prevent foreign supplies of diesel fuel from
 
    9   alleviating any shortage in domestic production.
 
   10              Independent marketers of diesel fuel will
 
   11   not be the only ones to suffer under EPA's
 
   12   proposal.  Consumers of diesel fuel, including our
 
   13   nation's trucking and agricultural industries, will
 
   14   pay for EPA's program at the pump.  EPA predicts in
 
   15   its proposal that diesel sulfur reductions will cost
 
   16   approximately 4 1/2 cents per gallon.  That number
 
   17   is woefully low.
 
   18              As we witnessed this past winter and
 
   19   spring in the Northeast and currently are witnessing
 
   20   in the Midwest, even small supply shortages of motor
 
   21   fuels can cause dramatic increases in retail
 
   22   prices.  If overall diesel fuel supplies are reduced
 
   23   by 10 percent as a result of EPA's proposal -- which
 
   24   I believe is not an unreasonable prediction given
 
   25   the refiners I've talked with -- then the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           195
 
 
    1   $2-per-gallon diesel fuel prices we saw in the
 
    2   Northeast last winter will become the norm, if not a
 
    3   bargain, in the eyes of consumers.
 
    4              Given the extent to which our nation
 
    5   relies on diesel fuel to power our on-road
 
    6   commercial transportation network, the ultimate
 
    7   impact on these price increases and diesel fuel
 
    8   shortages will be felt by the economy as a whole
 
    9   through increased transportation costs and
 
   10   inflation.
 
   11              While the current staff at EPA may not
 
   12   care about this impact of their proposal on the
 
   13   future of our economy because these impacts will
 
   14   occur long after this administration has left
 
   15   office, many of us will be present when the
 
   16   repercussions from this ill-considered proposal are
 
   17   felt by consumers and our economy.
 
   18              While consumers generally have responded
 
   19   to public polling that they are willing to pay more
 
   20   for gasoline and diesel fuel to have cleaner air,
 
   21   the recent supply crises and price spikes and the
 
   22   resultant howls of protest from consumers and
 
   23   elected officials in the Midwest give rise to
 
   24   significant questions regarding the public's support
 
   25   for an environmental program that could harm the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           196
 
 
    1   continued economic expansion.
 
    2              SIGMA raises a specific objection to the
 
    3   dual fuel option discussed in the preamble to the
 
    4   proposal, including the ill-conceived notion that a
 
    5   dual fuel program should be limited to large diesel
 
    6   fuel marketers.
 
    7              In the preamble, EPA requests comments on
 
    8   adopting a regulatory scheme that would permit two
 
    9   on-road diesel fuels to exist for a short period of
 
   10   time.  EPA envisions that refiners would make some
 
   11   ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel for several years and
 
   12   continue to also supply the current low sulfur
 
   13   on-road diesel during this transition period.
 
   14              EPA also solicits comments on a retailer
 
   15   mandate for offering both on-road diesels or a
 
   16   mandate that only large marketers do so.  These
 
   17   ideas should be roundly criticized and discarded.
 
   18              EPA, in its attempt to make its drastic
 
   19   proposal on diesel sulfur reductions seem
 
   20   reasonable, has floated this idea of dual on-road
 
   21   diesel fuels.
 
   22              I must tell you that this proposal would
 
   23   be disastrous for our industry and the nation's
 
   24   motor fuel distribution system.  This dual fuel
 
   25   proposal would force Ports and other diesel fuel
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           197
 
 
    1   marketers into one of the following scenarios:
 
    2   either, No. 1, add an additional underground or
 
    3   above-ground storage tank and dispenser system to
 
    4   hold and pump the second grade of on-road diesel or
 
    5   retail only ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel at a time
 
    6   when only a small percentage of our customers would
 
    7   require it and risk losing customers to competitors
 
    8   that choose to sell the cheaper low sulfur diesel.
 
    9              At the vast majority of our company's
 
   10   locations, we have very limited storage for diesel
 
   11   fuel.  At most sites our tanks hold less than 48
 
   12   hours of supply.  In many instances, we would not
 
   13   have room at our sites to install additional
 
   14   tankage, even if we could get the permits to do so.
 
   15   Even if we could install the additional tanks, it
 
   16   appears from EPA's proposal that a second on-road
 
   17   diesel fuel would be phased out within five years,
 
   18   making our investment in that additional tank
 
   19   unnecessary and a wasted investment.
 
   20              While Ports does not own or operate bulk
 
   21   storage terminals, I would assume that such a dual
 
   22   fuel approach would tax storage and distribution
 
   23   assets at the terminal level of distribution as
 
   24   well.  We need only to look at the St. Louis
 
   25   metropolitan area which has already experienced
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           198
 
 
    1   significant supply shortages of gasoline to
 
    2   understand that the bulk storage facilities will not
 
    3   be available to store additional types of on-road
 
    4   diesel fuel.  St. Louis-area terminals have already
 
    5   been forced to shoulder 12 different types of
 
    6   gasoline rather than the area's traditional three
 
    7   types.
 
    8              This area's distribution system already
 
    9   is overtaxed.  Adding an additional type of on-road
 
   10   diesel fuel would be virtually impossible given
 
   11   current storage capabilities.
 
   12              As a result, SIGMA strongly opposes EPA's
 
   13   dual fuel option.  While EPA has attempted to
 
   14   portray this idea as a means of easing the burdens
 
   15   of this program on refiners and marketers, it, in
 
   16   fact, will greatly increase the costs of the
 
   17   proposed program if it is implemented.
 
   18              SIGMA would support a diesel
 
   19   desulfurization program that takes effect in 2010 or
 
   20   later to permit adequate time for the proposed
 
   21   environmental emissions control and diesel
 
   22   desulfurization technologies to mature and develop
 
   23   and give refiners additional time to install these
 
   24   new technologies.
 
   25              An EPA regulation that adheres to these
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           199
 
 
    1   principles would, we believe, have only a minimal
 
    2   impact on overall diesel fuel supplies while
 
    3   reducing diesel sulfur levels by 90 percent and
 
    4   achieving substantial reductions in emissions from
 
    5   heavy-duty diesel engines.
 
    6              In addition, the longer implementation
 
    7   time frame would permit the manufacturers of
 
    8   emissions control devices to develop their
 
    9   technologies to a level at which a 50 ppm sulfur
 
   10   level would not have a negative impact on emissions.
 
   11              I appreciate the opportunity to present
 
   12   SIGMA's views of EPA's proposal.  SIGMA will be
 
   13   filing more detailed, formal comments prior to the
 
   14   close of the public comment period.
 
   15              And I would be pleased to answer any
 
   16   questions raised by my testimony.
 
   17              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Keith Gostafson.
 
   18              MR. GOSTAFSON:  Thank you.  I appreciate
 
   19   the opportunity to speak here with you this
 
   20   morning.
 
   21              Believe it or not, I heard about this
 
   22   conference as I was driving into the allergy clinic
 
   23   this morning.  I called the state EPA office.  They
 
   24   sent me to the national office.  After 30 minutes I
 
   25   finally called the radio station.  They told me
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           200
 
 
    1   where to find you guys.  You need a little bit
 
    2   better PR department on your meetings.
 
    3              I live up in North Georgia up in Waleska,
 
    4   Georgia up on the side of Pine Log Mountain.  You
 
    5   can no longer see Pine Log Mountain from Atlanta
 
    6   except for two or three days a year.  It's pretty
 
    7   evident in driving through the area that the air
 
    8   quality has gotten worse.
 
    9              Now, in addition to being a local
 
   10   resident by vocation, I'm an engineer.  I initially
 
   11   just planned to attend this meeting to listen and
 
   12   see what was presented, but I felt obligated to
 
   13   speak.
 
   14              Now, I've heard several things presented
 
   15   here today.  One of them, in looking through the
 
   16   proposal, none of your heavy-duty standards that
 
   17   you're talking about actually apply to the vehicles
 
   18   everyone is so worried about.  When almost
 
   19   everyone's speaks an example, says at sometime in
 
   20   their life gotten behind a truck or a bus and it's
 
   21   spewing out noxious emissions.  Yet the proposed
 
   22   standards for heavy-duty vehicles cuts off at 14,000
 
   23   pounds gross vehicle weight.  So the very trucks and
 
   24   buses that we're talking about regulating, reducing
 
   25   the emissions on, aren't covered by the proposal.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           201
 
 
    1              So one of the things I'd like to ask the
 
    2   committee would be to include an emissions standard
 
    3   for on-road trucks, inner-city trucks, off-road
 
    4   trucks, urban buses.
 
    5              Now, on the engine side, it does a pretty
 
    6   good job of addressing heavy-duty engines.
 
    7              Now, in listening to further comments
 
    8   here, everyone seems to be narrowing the focus of
 
    9   this proposal down to the sulfur requirements of
 
   10   diesel engines.  I see that we're talking about
 
   11   aftertreatment and catalysts and whether the
 
   12   catalysts and aftertreatment will work at 15 parts
 
   13   per million versus 50 parts per million -- lots of
 
   14   technology terms going on -- and then kind of veil
 
   15   threats that the cost will go through the ceiling if
 
   16   we have to comply.
 
   17              Now, I work for a company called Chart
 
   18   Engineering.  I'm head of R&D for their flight
 
   19   technology division.  We manufacture cryogenic
 
   20   equipment, and we're the world's far most supplier
 
   21   of liquid natural gas vehicle tanks for on and
 
   22   off-road vehicles.
 
   23              As opposed to focusing this thing --
 
   24   everyone's talking about heavy-duty engines and
 
   25   they're immediately assuming diesel.  And right now
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           202
 
 
    1   today there's alternatives to diesel.  Cummins,
 
    2   Caterpillar, Mack, Deere Corporation all make
 
    3   natural gas engines.  On the heavy side, when
 
    4   they're powering trucks and urban buses, you
 
    5   typically power them with liquid natural gas so you
 
    6   can get the range.
 
    7              These engines all meet today the 2004
 
    8   CARB requirements for particulates, emissions, and
 
    9   NOx.  Some of them already meet the standards you're
 
   10   proposing here.
 
   11              As a consequence, most of the large
 
   12   western cities are adopting LNG technology.
 
   13   Houston, El Paso, Dallas, Phoenix, Austin, Los
 
   14   Angeles are all running large natural gas bus
 
   15   fleets.  In addition, there's some large private
 
   16   truck fleets running domestically and in Europe.
 
   17              In addition to it being an already
 
   18   existing technology to clean-burning fuel, it's
 
   19   actually lower cost than current diesel fuel.  In
 
   20   the Atlanta area, you can get it delivered from
 
   21   three or four different suppliers if you're a fuel
 
   22   station for 40 cents a gallon.  That's not $1.40.
 
   23   That's 40 cents.  It's available.  It's fairly
 
   24   widely available up and down the East Coast.  It's
 
   25   used for peak shaving natural gas for home heating.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           203
 
 
    1   In the Atlanta area, there's over 100 million
 
    2   gallons of LNG available today.
 
    3              So it provides another path for meeting
 
    4   the requirements besides just arguing over whether
 
    5   or not diesel can be made cleaner.  If the
 
    6   regulations are adopted, the competition that
 
    7   natural gas engines will provide in response to the
 
    8   diesel engines are going to force the diesel engine
 
    9   manufacturers and the diesel fuel producers to make
 
   10   cleaner engines and cleaner fuel so that natural gas
 
   11   doesn't take over.
 
   12              That's more of a mind-set than anything
 
   13   else.  There's very little education out right now.
 
   14   I mean I travel the world telling people about
 
   15   liquid natural gas.
 
   16              I'll take a quote from another engineer,
 
   17   a guy named Molt Taylor.  Back in the '60s he
 
   18   invented a certified flying car.  And he was asked
 
   19   by a reporter what it takes to convert from a car to
 
   20   a plane, what do you have to change to convert your
 
   21   car to a plane.  He said you have to change your
 
   22   mind.
 
   23              Similarly, the conversion from diesel to
 
   24   natural gas technology requires a similar mind
 
   25   change.  Passage of this proposal into law would
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           204
 
 
    1   help convince people that there are other ways to
 
    2   achieve low emissions and still not cause the mass
 
    3   price increases and the refineries won't be reduced
 
    4   to making candle wax and shoe polish.
 
    5              I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
 
    6   you today.  I thank you.
 
    7              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Any questions?
 
    8              MS. GRAVES:  There was a statement in the
 
    9   testimony that EPA has not finalized the standards
 
   10   proposed for 2004.  I just want to clarify for the
 
   11   record that the 2004 standards are final and under
 
   12   review.  Thanks.
 
   13              MR. KOPINSKI:  Just to clarify for Keith
 
   14   and any others in the audience, our proposal does
 
   15   cover all the categories of trucks that we've been
 
   16   discussing today.  That requirement for 14,000-pound
 
   17   and smaller vehicles is a special requirement to
 
   18   make sure that the smaller gasoline vehicles
 
   19   certified under a separate test are also included.
 
   20              MR. FRANCE:  Just one brief clarification
 
   21   question, Mr. Williams.  You referenced in your
 
   22   testimony experience back in the early '90s, and you
 
   23   attached some material.  I'm not sure I -- if you
 
   24   can explain to me what point you were trying to make
 
   25   there, because I think it makes our point.  But go
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           205
 
 
    1   ahead.  I'm open.  Let me backtrack.
 
    2              What happened there is 500 ppm fuel came
 
    3   into effect in 1993.  This particular manufacturer
 
    4   that we don't need to highlight tried to design a
 
    5   trap on higher sulfur fuel.  It did not work.  They
 
    6   had massive failures.  They ended up replacing the
 
    7   traps with oxidation catalysts which do work which
 
    8   were facilitated by low sulfur fuel.
 
    9              From EPA's perspective that is a case in
 
   10   point and a success story attributed to lowering the
 
   11   sulfur in diesel fuel.
 
   12              I was just curious what I'm missing.
 
   13              MR. WILLIAMS:  Well, my point is that you
 
   14   were predicting and promoting a certain technology
 
   15   and fuel level; and that combination didn't work.
 
   16   And I think because of the uncertainty with the same
 
   17   combination diesel today, we're just very concerned
 
   18   that you want to repeat that same experience.
 
   19              MR. FRANCE:  Again, just for the record,
 
   20   500 ppm fuel wasn't -- in that case we were reducing
 
   21   sulfur we indicated with oxidation catalysts; and,
 
   22   in fact, that's what it did.  So, again, just to
 
   23   clarify for the record, that to us is a success
 
   24   story which reinforces the role of sulfur and the
 
   25   affect on aftertreatment.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           206
 
 
    1              Okay.  Any more questions?  Thank you
 
    2   very much.
 
    3              (A discussion ensued off the record.)
 
    4              MR. FRANCE:  David Holt, whenever you're
 
    5   ready to go.
 
    6              MR. HOLT:  Ready.  Thank you very much.
 
    7   As Chet mentioned, my name is David Holt.  I'm
 
    8   director of government affairs for Hart/IRI Fuels
 
    9   Information Services.
 
   10              On behalf of Hart/IRI Fuels Information
 
   11   Services, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
 
   12   appear before you today in support of EPA's proposed
 
   13   heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and highway
 
   14   diesel fuel sulfur control requirements.
 
   15              For almost 20 years Hart/IRI has provided
 
   16   quality information, consulting services, and
 
   17   analysis to the worldwide refining and automotive
 
   18   industries, as well as state and federal regulatory
 
   19   and legislative officials and public policy makers.
 
   20              As part of these overall efforts,
 
   21   Hart/IRI has a unique perspective on the individual
 
   22   and collective needs of the refining and automotive
 
   23   industry as well as the economic and environmental
 
   24   needs of the general public.  We also recognize that
 
   25   vehicle technology and motor fuels should be treated
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           207
 
 
    1   as an integrated system.
 
    2              With these perspectives in mind, we
 
    3   support EPA's proposal for a comprehensive 50-state
 
    4   air quality control program regulating heavy-duty
 
    5   vehicle exhaust and diesel fuels as a single
 
    6   system.  We applaud EPA's efforts to ensure that
 
    7   refiners have adequate lead time with which to
 
    8   implement the proposed changes.  We also welcome the
 
    9   opportunities presented for advanced synthetic
 
   10   diesel, such as Syntroleum's gas-to-liquids process.
 
   11              As currently proposed, EPA's diesel
 
   12   sulfur fuel requirements would reduce current diesel
 
   13   sulfur levels of 50 parts per million to 15 parts
 
   14   per million by mid-2006.  In addition, heavy-duty
 
   15   vehicle emission standards for particulate matter,
 
   16   nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons would be
 
   17   significantly tightened beginning in 2007.
 
   18              In our view, EPA's proposal to
 
   19   substantially reduce the sulfur content of diesel
 
   20   fuels would accomplish several important public
 
   21   policy objectives including air quality improvement,
 
   22   creation of a pathway for clean-burning diesel
 
   23   engines to meet the goals of the Energy Policy Act
 
   24   and Clean Air Act, establishment of an alternative
 
   25   fuel diesel market such as synthetic diesel, further
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           208
 
 
    1   recognition of the need to treat fuels and vehicles
 
    2   as an integrated system, and maintenance of the
 
    3   diesel engine as an alternative for the light-duty
 
    4   market.
 
    5              If adopted, EPA's proposed cap of 15
 
    6   parts per million sulfur content in diesel fuel and
 
    7   proposed new standards for heavy-duty highway
 
    8   engines and vehicles would have a significant and
 
    9   positive impact on air quality around the country.
 
   10   According to EPA, the standards proposed would
 
   11   result in substantial benefits to the public health
 
   12   and welfare through significant annual reductions in
 
   13   emissions of NOx, PM, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
 
   14   sulfur dioxide, and air toxics.
 
   15              As proposed, this program will reduce
 
   16   emissions of NOx and hydrocarbons, key ingredients
 
   17   in ozone, by 2.8 million and 305,000 tons per year
 
   18   in 2030 respectively.  PM emissions from these
 
   19   vehicles would be reduced by 110,000 tons per year
 
   20   in 2030.  These reductions translate to a 90 percent
 
   21   reduction in NOx emissions from the 2004 levels and
 
   22   a 90 percent reduction in PM from current levels by
 
   23   2007.
 
   24              It is also important to note that diesel
 
   25   fuel use in the United States continues to increase
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           209
 
 
    1   as trucks and diesel-powered sport utility vehicles
 
    2   capture larger percentages of the transportation
 
    3   market.  The demand for diesel in the United States
 
    4   transportation sector is growing three times faster
 
    5   than gasoline.  The conversion from gasoline to
 
    6   diesel engines grew at a 44 percent rate from
 
    7   1997-1998.
 
    8              The Department of Energy estimates that
 
    9   Americans will consume 1.93 million barrels per day
 
   10   of diesel fuel in 2000 and 2 million barrels per day
 
   11   in 2010.
 
   12              This growth not only creates the need for
 
   13   additional air quality standard safeguards such as
 
   14   those EPA's currently proposing, it establishes a
 
   15   need for an expanded alternative diesel fuel
 
   16   market.  It also raises the question of how refiners
 
   17   will meet increased diesel production demands driven
 
   18   by the continued growth of the diesel market while
 
   19   also further constrained by additional improvements
 
   20   to emission standards.  This problem will likely be
 
   21   exacerbated by fuel quality improvements also being
 
   22   made by the European Union and elsewhere.
 
   23              In the early 1990s, Congress passed the
 
   24   Energy Policy Act designed to reduce the nation's
 
   25   growing reliance on imported oil as well as the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           210
 
 
    1   Clean Air Act which was designed to provide for
 
    2   improved air quality through reductions in mobile
 
    3   and stationary source emissions.
 
    4              EPACT promotes the use of
 
    5   nonpetroleum-based fuels and new technology to
 
    6   replace substantial quantities of oil consumed by
 
    7   motor vehicles.  EPACT calls for displacing 10
 
    8   percent of all petroleum-based fuels by 2000 and 30
 
    9   percent by 2010.
 
   10              The Clean Air Act establishes standards
 
   11   for the reduction of criteria pollutants and
 
   12   improving air quality.  Among the requirements of
 
   13   the Clean Air Act is the establishment of a clean
 
   14   fuel fleet program.  This program establishes that
 
   15   specified percentages of new vehicles acquired by
 
   16   fleet owners in 1998 and thereafter must meet clean
 
   17   fuel fleet standards.
 
   18              But the transportation sector is failing
 
   19   to achieve the goals set by these acts with the use
 
   20   of nonpetroleum-based fuels capturing only about 3
 
   21   percent of the total highway transportation fuel
 
   22   market.  The primary reason for this failure is the
 
   23   fact that nearly all public transportation vehicles
 
   24   are powered by diesel engines, and there are
 
   25   virtually no alternative fuels available in
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           211
 
 
    1   sufficient quantities for diesel engines.
 
    2              In many cases, altering the vehicle
 
    3   engine and infrastructure to run on compressed
 
    4   natural gas or propane has proven too expensive.  As
 
    5   a result, emissions from diesel-powered engines,
 
    6   particularly NOx and PM emissions, have continued to
 
    7   rise.
 
    8              EPA's proposal offers an effective
 
    9   pathway to improve current diesel engine technology
 
   10   and substantially reduce harmful emissions from
 
   11   diesel fuels.  It also offers an avenue for the
 
   12   development and commercialization of ultra-clean
 
   13   synthetic diesel for the establishment of an
 
   14   alternative fuel diesel market to meet the goals of
 
   15   EPACT and, to a lesser extent, the Clean Air Act.
 
   16              Synthetic diesels have already proven a
 
   17   way to cost-effectively exceed EPA's proposed low
 
   18   sulfur diesel standards.  In addition, they are
 
   19   substantially nonpetroleum.  They provide an
 
   20   opportunity, if it is realized, to advance the
 
   21   marketability of ultra-clean cost-effective
 
   22   diesel-powered engines that meet the requirements of
 
   23   both EPACT and the Clean Air Act.
 
   24              Synthetic diesels generally produced from
 
   25   natural gas contain no detectable sulfur, aromatics,
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           212
 
 
    1   olefins, or metals.  They have low density and high
 
    2   hydrocarbon content and a cetane number that exceeds
 
    3   74.
 
    4              A recent study of heavy-duty engines by
 
    5   the Southwest Research Institute concluded that
 
    6   synthetic diesel's emissions of criteria pollutants
 
    7   were significantly lower than other diesel.  NOx
 
    8   emissions were reduced 22 percent over current EPA
 
    9   No. 2 diesel.  PM emissions were reduced 38 percent
 
   10   over current EPA No. 2 diesel.  Air toxic emissions
 
   11   were reduced 34 percent over current EPA No. 2
 
   12   diesel.
 
   13              At least one synthetic diesel technology
 
   14   company, Syntroleum, has already submitted a
 
   15   petition to the Department of Energy requesting a
 
   16   rulemaking to add synthetic diesel to the list of
 
   17   alternative fuels defined by EPACT.  Because
 
   18   synthetic fuels are substantially nonpetroleum,
 
   19   would yield substantial energy security and
 
   20   environmental benefits and would cost-effectively
 
   21   provide a ready market alternative for meeting EPACT
 
   22   and Clean Air Act requirements, it would seem
 
   23   reasonable for DOE to grant such a proposal.  We
 
   24   would also urge EPA to support DOE's granting of
 
   25   this proposal.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           213
 
 
    1              In addition to its benefits as a
 
    2   potential ultra-clean alternative fuel, because
 
    3   synthetic diesel is produced from natural gas
 
    4   feedstock, the resource base is as large or larger
 
    5   than the present world oil reserves.  As a result,
 
    6   use of synthetic diesel will enable the refining
 
    7   industry to have additional flexibility in meeting
 
    8   expected demand for diesel fuel while also meeting
 
    9   new emission reduction standards.
 
   10              The production of diesel fuel with 15 ppm
 
   11   sulfur will require additional refinery operation,
 
   12   specifically more process heat and more natural gas
 
   13   for hydrogen production.  Reducing the total diesel
 
   14   pool from 350 ppm to below 50 ppm requires
 
   15   substantial increases in energy and hydrogen, thus
 
   16   constricting diesel stocks.  Adding 30 percent by
 
   17   volume of synthetic diesel to conventional diesel
 
   18   blendstocks will reduce 20 ppm sulfur to 15 ppm
 
   19   sulfur and provide a more efficient means of
 
   20   complying with EPA's low sulfur rule.
 
   21              In conclusion, we applaud EPA's
 
   22   heavy-duty diesel engine and low sulfur diesel fuel
 
   23   content rulemaking.  We also support the process EPA
 
   24   has proposed for implementing diesel fuel
 
   25   improvements prior to vehicle emission reduction
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           214
 
 
    1   requirements to ensure that advanced vehicle
 
    2   technology is fully utilized.
 
    3              Today, everyone recognizes the critical
 
    4   role sulfur plays in our national environmental
 
    5   policy.  Ultra-low and near-zero sulfur levels are
 
    6   vital to continued air quality improvements.  The
 
    7   issue is no longer should we reduce sulfur.  It is
 
    8   how quickly can we achieve near-zero sulfur levels.
 
    9              We also urge EPA to work with DOE to
 
   10   ensure that other important public policy goals of
 
   11   the Energy Policy Act and the Clean Air Act can be
 
   12   met through the use and commercialization of
 
   13   ultra-low, zero sulfur, zero aromatics synthetic
 
   14   diesel in order to take advantage of the promise
 
   15   shown by Syntroleum's gas-to-liquids synthetic
 
   16   diesel process.
 
   17              Thank you very much for the opportunity
 
   18   and for the special consideration for the time
 
   19   constraints.
 
   20              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Next speaker,
 
   21   Curt Smith.
 
   22              MR. SMITH:  My name is Curt Smith.  I'm a
 
   23   member and representative from the Georgia Sierra
 
   24   Club, Georgia's air pollution issue leader.  Thank
 
   25   you for the opportunity to speak.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           215
 
 
    1              One of the advantages of being late in
 
    2   the day is I've had the opportunity to listen to so
 
    3   many great presentations.  So I'll edit the things
 
    4   I'll say to not repeat what we've already heard 100
 
    5   times over:  our health will be increased, air
 
    6   pollution will be improved.  These things are
 
    7   self-evident.
 
    8              Georgia Sierra Club urges the EPA to
 
    9   adopt stricter diesel fuel engine technology.  That
 
   10   much I'll be very glad to repeat.
 
   11              What may be new news is Georgia and the
 
   12   greater Atlanta area is in the cross hairs of diesel
 
   13   trucks and transportation with north/south travel of
 
   14   interstate traffic powered by diesel, east/west
 
   15   traffic of diesel trucks, trains and our buses.  We
 
   16   are literally in the cross hairs of diesel pollution
 
   17   here in the greater Atlanta area, perhaps more so
 
   18   than most cities.
 
   19              We would be greatly benefitted by
 
   20   reducing the diesel pollution.  The national
 
   21   standards of 2 percent of traffic being diesel
 
   22   powered probably would be very, very low if we
 
   23   actually measured vehicle miles here in Georgia.  We
 
   24   desperately need lower pollution.  We've gone
 
   25   through a nonattainment zone and plan proposal to
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           216
 
 
    1   the EPA to meet our nonattainment.  The plan is
 
    2   woefully weak.  Hardly any air pollution reductions
 
    3   were achieved through our state of implementation
 
    4   plan.  We need outside help by this type of
 
    5   additional help to meet our air pollution
 
    6   requirements here in Georgia.
 
    7              I very much disagree with any claims of
 
    8   fuel shortages.  Europe is ahead of us.  Those
 
    9   refineries are ahead of us in terms of producing
 
   10   fuel, offers of synthetic fuel sources.  I would
 
   11   urge that the EPA not give particular credence to
 
   12   industry human cry.  We've had in excess of 20 years
 
   13   of first the auto industry and then the tobacco
 
   14   industry and then the gasoline industry making human
 
   15   cry about dire predictions.  One thing that's been
 
   16   absolutely consistent, they've all turned out to be
 
   17   false.
 
   18              Another issue that's chewing the diesel
 
   19   market is it's not a free market.  Vehicle
 
   20   purchasers who wish to buy a truck to haul drywall
 
   21   from the inner-cities supply depots to the suburbs
 
   22   where construction is occurring have no choice.  I
 
   23   can go out and choose to buy an ultra-low emission
 
   24   vehicle from Honda or a big boat polluter if I want
 
   25   to buy a car.  If I want to buy a truck, I have no
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           217
 
 
    1   choice.
 
    2              This is an area where government, the
 
    3   EPA, and regulations unfortunately are our only help
 
    4   in making improvements in this area.
 
    5              It appears the free market is not going
 
    6   to make any improvements in either the fuel or the
 
    7   engine or the vehicles.  We've had how many years
 
    8   head start with cars?  Trucks today are polluting
 
    9   more than they ever have.  Why is this?
 
   10              The EPA is our only hope to make
 
   11   improvements in reducing diesel pollution.
 
   12              Thank you very much.
 
   13              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  The next
 
   14   speaker, George Gay.
 
   15              MR. GAY:  Thank you very much for the
 
   16   opportunity to speak with you this afternoon.  My
 
   17   name is George Gay, and I am the southeast regional
 
   18   director of The Wilderness Society located here in
 
   19   Atlanta, Georgia.
 
   20              The Wilderness Society was founded in
 
   21   1935 in the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee and
 
   22   North Carolina.  The Society works to protect
 
   23   America's wilderness and to develop a nationwide
 
   24   network of wildlands.  We do this through public
 
   25   education, scientific analysis, and advocacy.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           218
 
 
    1              Our goal is to ensure that future
 
    2   generations can enjoy clean water, wildlife, and
 
    3   opportunities for recreation and spiritual renewal
 
    4   provided by the nation's rivers, forests, deserts,
 
    5   and mountains.  One of our goals is also to ensure
 
    6   that these pristine wildlands can afford us
 
    7   opportunity to have clean air.
 
    8              That's why I'm here today, to talk about
 
    9   clean air and the air sheds provided by our Southern
 
   10   Appalachian Mountains.  It's a perspective or point
 
   11   of view and an analysis with respect to this issue
 
   12   that I don't think has been articulated too
 
   13   frequently today.
 
   14              You have heard some comments, some
 
   15   eloquent comments, with respect to the Great Smoky
 
   16   Mountains and the health of the air in the Smoky's.
 
   17   Near the Smoky Mountains is a national forest that
 
   18   some of you on the panel may not have heard of.
 
   19   Some of you may have heard of it.  Maybe you're
 
   20   familiar with the Chattahoochee National Forest in
 
   21   Georgia.
 
   22              The Chattahoochee National Forest is a
 
   23   national forest that's about a million acres in
 
   24   size.  It received last year more user visits than
 
   25   the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.  The Great
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           219
 
 
    1   Smoky Mountains National Park received more user
 
    2   visits than any other national park in the United
 
    3   States, more visits than Yellowstone, more visits
 
    4   than the Grand Canyon.
 
    5              People come to the national parks, to the
 
    6   Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the
 
    7   Chattahoochee, for renewal and the ability to get
 
    8   away from what we find in the city to be
 
    9   oppressive:  smog, congestion, and unhealthy air.
 
   10   They go to places like the Great Smoky Mountains
 
   11   National Park for clean air, for open spaces, and
 
   12   opportunities of solitude.
 
   13              These places like the Smoky Mountains
 
   14   National Park and the Chattahoochee National Forest
 
   15   of our Southern Appalachians are very valuable to
 
   16   Atlantans and to Georgians and to citizens of the
 
   17   Southeast.  They generate billions and billions of
 
   18   dollars per year in tourist-based, recreation-based
 
   19   revenue.
 
   20              The value is more than just these dollars
 
   21   however.  As I mentioned, it's for spiritual renewal
 
   22   and for an opportunity of solitude.
 
   23              We've heard that in the Smoky's last year
 
   24   there were more than 50 red alert days, dangerous
 
   25   air days; and there are more to come this year.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           220
 
 
    1   These remote places are damaged to the point of
 
    2   inaccessibility.  We've lost a lot.  We have lost an
 
    3   incredible amount.  Where will the citizens of
 
    4   Atlanta go for solitude?  Where will the citizens of
 
    5   Chattanooga go to get away from it all?
 
    6              Can we really ask these citizens to go
 
    7   into these parks and forests if they are even
 
    8   greater spots for red alert?  Can we ask them as a
 
    9   government in good conscience to go to these places
 
   10   to get away when, in fact, these places become
 
   11   places of danger?
 
   12              That would be asking them to sort of jump
 
   13   from the frying pan into the fire if, as we heard,
 
   14   the air quality in the Great Smoky Mountains
 
   15   National Park is, in fact, worse during the course
 
   16   of summer days than the air quality in Chattanooga.
 
   17   We'd be disingenuous if we as a government
 
   18   encouraged them to go to these wild places to get
 
   19   away for cleansing, if, in fact, these places are
 
   20   dirtier.
 
   21              I'm personally ashamed that we have
 
   22   allowed during this century the degradation of our
 
   23   natural resources to the extent we have, and I find
 
   24   it somewhat of a disgrace that we're here today
 
   25   debating whether or not these EPA measures go too
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           221
 
 
    1   far.  I would suggest that they do not go far enough
 
    2   and they do not go fast enough.
 
    3              I understand that heavy-duty trucks and
 
    4   buses currently account for approximately 37 percent
 
    5   of the smog-forming nitrogen oxides and 59 percent
 
    6   of the particulate pollution emitted by all vehicles
 
    7   on the road in Georgia.  The figures are probably
 
    8   similar in Tennessee.  These figures have a
 
    9   dramatically negative impact upon the Chattahoochee
 
   10   and other public land resources here in the Southern
 
   11   Appalachians.
 
   12              In order to ensure that cleaner trucks
 
   13   will have access to clean fuel necessary to run
 
   14   them, The Wilderness Society urges the EPA to
 
   15   require diesel sulfur fuel levels for on-road and
 
   16   off-road vehicles, off-road vehicles that we see on
 
   17   our public land, with a cap of no more than 15 parts
 
   18   per million sulfur nationwide by the year 2006.
 
   19              Cleaning up diesel fuel by 97 percent
 
   20   will allow the EPA to cut smog-forming pollution,
 
   21   the kind of pollution that destroys the user
 
   22   experience in the Smoky's, by 95 percent in 2007 and
 
   23   soot pollution by 90 percent by 2007.
 
   24              This, again, will help go a long way to
 
   25   protect the integrity of our national forests,
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           222
 
 
    1   national parks and wildlands in the Southeast.
 
    2              But I understand that you're proposing to
 
    3   wait until the year 2010 to fully clean up
 
    4   smog-forming pollution from these vehicles.  I have
 
    5   not heard anything today that convinces me that we
 
    6   can afford to wait.  Waiting ten years before all
 
    7   new trucks are cleaned up is too long.  The phase-in
 
    8   period should be shortened.
 
    9              In addition, the EPA should take measures
 
   10   to ensure that big trucks are meeting the emission
 
   11   standards on the roads where it counts, not just
 
   12   during the engine tests.  Specifically, both in-use
 
   13   and on-board diagnostic equipment should be required
 
   14   for all heavy-duty trucks by the year 2007.
 
   15              We think that these provisions are
 
   16   necessary to protect the integrity of our public
 
   17   land, our wildlands, these wildlands that are
 
   18   cherished by the majority of Georgians and residents
 
   19   of the Southeast.  The Wilderness Society asks that
 
   20   you include these provisions in your final
 
   21   rulemaking.
 
   22              Thank you.
 
   23              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much.  The
 
   24   next speaker, Peter Carr.
 
   25              MR. CARR:  My name is Peter Carr.  I'm
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           223
 
 
    1   president of the Instatherm Company.  I thank you
 
    2   very much for this opportunity to testify today.
 
    3              We've heard a great deal today about the
 
    4   systems approach that the EPA is taking which is to
 
    5   combine the engine and the fuel into one package.
 
    6   However, I think one aspect is missing here; and
 
    7   that is the actual use patterns.  You need to look
 
    8   at the way these engines are used.
 
    9              Two years ago EPA took the heavy diesel
 
   10   manufacturers to task in a major enforcement action
 
   11   because of the actual highway pollution levels.
 
   12   We're way above that prediction from the EPA
 
   13   certification tests.  And the engines passed the
 
   14   certification test, but it was a test that did not
 
   15   give an accurate value for what we're doing on the
 
   16   highway.
 
   17              Well, I'm here today to testify about an
 
   18   analogous situation wherein the certification
 
   19   standards and the use are so desperate that they are
 
   20   of no use in being predictive at all.  We all know
 
   21   about this problem; but like the Emperor's clothes,
 
   22   we appear not to want to recognize it.
 
   23              My concern is here that interstate
 
   24   trucks, which there are 1.3 million of them running
 
   25   around, spend at least 40 percent of their operating
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           224
 
 
    1   time idling with no driver in the seat.  This is an
 
    2   incredible amount of time.  It severely compromises
 
    3   the grams per brake-horsepower standard as presently
 
    4   proposed.
 
    5              These standards need to recognize this.
 
    6   I mean here we've got a situation where the trucks
 
    7   are actually running at zero brake-horsepower, but
 
    8   the driver is not sitting idling in traffic or
 
    9   behind the wheel.  He is not even in the driver's
 
   10   seat.  He or she is back in the sleeper
 
   11   compartment.
 
   12              The standards need to take this into
 
   13   account.  And if they do that, of course the grams
 
   14   of pollution per brake-horsepower-hour will become
 
   15   considerable because the denominator is close to
 
   16   zero.  Or alternative steps can be taken to
 
   17   eliminate this environmentally-damaging idling
 
   18   practice, and then probably the proposed standards
 
   19   would make sense.  But they don't make sense if this
 
   20   isn't looked at.
 
   21              The general feeling throughout the EPA
 
   22   regulatory process is the best available means in
 
   23   abating pollution from any source.  And the best
 
   24   available means in this case is to turn the engine
 
   25   off when the driver is not propelling the truck,
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           225
 
 
    1   when the driver is not in the seat and the truck is
 
    2   not being propelled by the engine.
 
    3              I mean what could be more
 
    4   straightforward?  And actual pollution reductions
 
    5   which I'll talk about in a minute are really
 
    6   astronomical.
 
    7              Trucks with attached sleeper compartments
 
    8   comprise the majority of the heavy-duty
 
    9   over-the-road vehicles operating on our interstate
 
   10   highways.  These trucks provide a vital service, and
 
   11   a comfortable heated and air conditioned sleeper
 
   12   compartment for the driver is essential.  You know,
 
   13   it's a tough enough job being a driver on the
 
   14   interstate; and they need a good air conditioned
 
   15   environment or heated environment to sleep in,
 
   16   albeit that the engines are on all the time and the
 
   17   vehicles are shaking and, you know, with all sorts
 
   18   of pollution.
 
   19              However, the overwhelming majority of
 
   20   these trucks are produced with engine idling as the
 
   21   only means of heating or cooling the sleeper box.  I
 
   22   mean that's the only way they can do it.  And
 
   23   implicit in this sort of idle-all-night approach --
 
   24   which is what they do, they run all night -- it is
 
   25   part of substantial pollution, noise, and health
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           226
 
 
    1   consequences.
 
    2              I mean I don't know.  We've talked a lot
 
    3   about trucks going through the cities and what have
 
    4   you.  You just go to a truck stop on a summer
 
    5   evening and experience its conditions.  They're
 
    6   miserable.  I don't know what it does to the
 
    7   driver's health, sleeping in that; but the
 
    8   conditions are a lot worse than you would ever find
 
    9   in downtown Atlanta or anywhere like that.
 
   10              Consider this.  You've got 1.3 million
 
   11   sleeper trucks on the road.  These trucks utilize
 
   12   1.6 billion gallons of fuel that's squandered.  It
 
   13   goes straight up the tail pipe while the driver is
 
   14   resting.  I mean this is 1 percent of our imported
 
   15   fuel that's going up through the exhaust pipe of
 
   16   these trucks while the truck is stopped and the
 
   17   driver is not in his seat.
 
   18              You notice in the paper today, you know,
 
   19   we're seeing 2.8 percent more fuel from OPEC.  I
 
   20   mean this is of the same order.  We just run it up
 
   21   in the exhaust pipe; 27,000 tons of hydrocarbons
 
   22   needlessly emitted, 23,000 tons of NOx needlessly
 
   23   emitted, and almost 6,000 tons of particulates.  I
 
   24   mean that would be enough in a year to cover the
 
   25   entire United States to a depth of 12 feet where the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           227
 
 
    1   particulate level would be above the threshold
 
    2   limit.
 
    3              This one I would direct back to EPA.
 
    4   This 1.6 billion gallons of fuel translates into an
 
    5   annual global warming effect that is equivalent to
 
    6   that that would be experienced by taking the Freon
 
    7   out of every new car that was produced that year and
 
    8   venting it into the environment.  Or every truck, if
 
    9   the driver every two months vented his
 
   10   air-conditioning system, that won't be tolerated.
 
   11   And the effect is exactly the same.
 
   12              And you have to contrast this with
 
   13   extremely strict regulations that EPA imposes on any
 
   14   air-conditioning system venting at all.  You won't
 
   15   let anybody vent anything from an air-conditioning
 
   16   system.  However, you will allow huge amounts of
 
   17   pollution from idling trucks.
 
   18              This is one of the most egregious
 
   19   pollution sources.  It's nationwide in scope and
 
   20   continues unabated.  If you walk out the door to a
 
   21   truck stop, you see trucks idling away.
 
   22              Technology is available today to the
 
   23   sleeper truck manufacturers and to the industry to
 
   24   eliminate the need for trucks to idle and pollute in
 
   25   this manner.  The technology would keep drivers
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           228
 
 
    1   comfortable and, incidentally, will save money for
 
    2   the truck operators as well.
 
    3              Leadership is desperately needed within
 
    4   government and the industry to elimination this
 
    5   pollution source and give it the priority it demands
 
    6   to quickly eliminate it.
 
    7              This is actually quite embarrassing.  It
 
    8   is almost a U.S.-only practice.  You will not find
 
    9   trucks idling in the rest of the developed world.
 
   10   We do it here.  Fuel is cheap.  It's getting more
 
   11   expensive, but we do it here and we're almost alone
 
   12   in doing it.
 
   13              Without the above leadership, I think
 
   14   that the proposed standards cannot stand as they are
 
   15   printed.  They need to be taken further to take into
 
   16   account this extensive driver-out-of-the-seat idling
 
   17   pollution.  It is truly a massive loss of fuel and
 
   18   one that can be easily solved and should be solved
 
   19   in concert with tightening up the pollution
 
   20   standards.
 
   21              I thank you very much for the opportunity
 
   22   to speak.
 
   23              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Felicia
 
   24   Davis-Gilmore.
 
   25              MS. DAVIS-GILMORE:  Good afternoon, and
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           229
 
 
    1   thank you for this opportunity to go on record in
 
    2   support of curbing diesel emissions.  As the
 
    3   southern regional director for Ozone Action and
 
    4   Georgia Airkeeper Campaign director, my focus is
 
    5   upon the reduction of human contribution to global
 
    6   warming and the cleanup of coal-fired power plants
 
    7   respectfully.
 
    8              We support efforts to reduce NOx, SOx,
 
    9   particulate, and CO2 emissions.
 
   10              Today I wish to speak to you as a mother,
 
   11   daughter, and resident of one of Georgia's thriving
 
   12   truck stops, Forest Park.  My remarks today are
 
   13   informed by my work to help clean the air but
 
   14   inspired by my stepson, George Gilmore, who is eight
 
   15   years old and suffers from asthma.  I'm certain that
 
   16   anyone who has been through an asthma attack with a
 
   17   child that cannot breathe learns firsthand the value
 
   18   of clean air.
 
   19              The EPA proposal to clean up diesel fuel
 
   20   will go a long way toward cleaning the air we
 
   21   breathe.  We have such a good standard of living
 
   22   that we often forget that on ozone alert days the
 
   23   air is unhealthy to breathe.  Those of us with
 
   24   healthy children and no exposure to those who
 
   25   experience great difficulty breathing move through
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           230
 
 
    1   the smog pretty much in a fog.  In other words, on
 
    2   the average, we take little or no thought of
 
    3   breathing.  It is automatic and taken for granted.
 
    4              We have all been choked by the exhaust
 
    5   from dirty old trucks and buses running on high
 
    6   sulfur diesel and generally have considered it an
 
    7   occupational hazard.  There are many occupations
 
    8   that are hazardous, and we live with it because in
 
    9   the end the good outweighs the bad or else we have
 
   10   no choice.
 
   11              In the case of diesel fuel, we have a
 
   12   choice; and the choice is rather simple:  tough
 
   13   standards that result in cleaner trucks using
 
   14   cleaner fuel that in the end result in cleaner air.
 
   15              The trucking and fuel industries will be
 
   16   motivated to change.  We know that absent a more
 
   17   strict emission standard neither industry will
 
   18   change.
 
   19              One of the most important roles of our
 
   20   government is to establish national standards and to
 
   21   inspire the collective will to meet and exceed those
 
   22   standards.
 
   23              Our children, George included, and all of
 
   24   the other little boys and girls have a right to
 
   25   expect nothing less than our best when it comes to
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           231
 
 
    1   efforts to protect and secure our environment.  It
 
    2   is very simply the right thing to do at the right
 
    3   time for the right reasons.
 
    4              I am pleased to add my voice to those who
 
    5   speak eloquently and forcefully on behalf of a clean
 
    6   and healthy America that puts children, families,
 
    7   and communities first.
 
    8              Thank you.
 
    9              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you for your
 
   10   testimony.  Dennis Hoffarth.
 
   11              MR. HOFFARTH:  Thank you.  I'm Dennis
 
   12   Hoffarth.  I'm the executive director of the Atlanta
 
   13   Bicycle Campaign.  I'm pleased to be out here among
 
   14   all these other citizens that care enough to come
 
   15   out and spend some time and speak from the heart.
 
   16              I'm also an engineer; and I want to share
 
   17   some energy philosophy, if that's not an oxymoron.
 
   18   It just seems like we've had a pattern throughout
 
   19   our technological era here creating solutions,
 
   20   technical solutions, that create other problems.
 
   21   Everything from, you know, the way London was
 
   22   covered with coal smoke in the early years.  People
 
   23   were breathing and spitting out black goo,
 
   24   whatever.  And then we began to -- we find a
 
   25   solution for that that creates another problem.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           232
 
 
    1              And I think we're finding that the
 
    2   industry is not -- is on that same pattern.  I think
 
    3   it really is taking government regulation to bring
 
    4   us back to the point where we are.  We have a net
 
    5   benefit from our technology of solving these
 
    6   problems, of moving materials and moving people,
 
    7   without creating such additional problems that
 
    8   really the net benefit is greatly reduced.
 
    9              My organization, first of all, I think I
 
   10   made it clear that we support the change in the
 
   11   regulations to greatly limit the emissions and fuel
 
   12   pollution that we're now facing.  I am dismayed that
 
   13   we are, as my fellow environmental activists to the
 
   14   right of me said earlier.  The time that we're
 
   15   dealing with here, we're not going to see any real
 
   16   benefit for so many years.  I would encourage you to
 
   17   look at what we can do working with the industry,
 
   18   working with the technology to bring that time
 
   19   closer when we actually see major benefits.
 
   20              My main purpose here though is to speak
 
   21   to you as a person who spends a lot of time in the
 
   22   streets as a cyclist and one who gets around
 
   23   transportation primarily by bicycle.  We're the
 
   24   people that end up eating a lot of this stuff.
 
   25              We're working in partnership with a
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           233
 
 
    1   number of other organizations from a society
 
    2   standpoint to actually get people out of their cars
 
    3   and have more people actually out in the streets, as
 
    4   someone else was saying earlier -- I think Donzella
 
    5   James was talking about all the outdoor cafes, the
 
    6   outdoor life that we enjoy here in Atlanta.  In
 
    7   order for us to have the transportation changes that
 
    8   we're working towards to get people taking buses and
 
    9   trains, walking and bicycling, we need an outdoor
 
   10   atmosphere that is welcoming and pleasant.
 
   11              And diesel emissions are one of the most
 
   12   personally offensive things out there right now when
 
   13   you're out in the city.  We encourage people to ride
 
   14   bicycles for transportation, but a lot of them are
 
   15   very discouraged the first time they're behind a bus
 
   16   or a truck that ends up spitting offensive materials
 
   17   in their face and they're choking and their eyes are
 
   18   stinging and they may not go back and try it again.
 
   19              Same thing with other people getting out,
 
   20   out and about, walking and bicycling and taking the
 
   21   buses and trains.  They shouldn't have to do this in
 
   22   a sea of pollution.
 
   23              Now, looking at the objections I'm
 
   24   hearing from the industry, it seems to me that the
 
   25   diesel vehicles have been given a free ride for too
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           234
 
 
    1   long.  It's time that they begin to have the same
 
    2   restrictions that some of the other vehicles have
 
    3   had.
 
    4              If I was producing a food that was
 
    5   poisoning people, I would be required to change that
 
    6   very quickly and change my operations, my factory,
 
    7   whatever it took to cease that problem regardless of
 
    8   cost.
 
    9              And let's make no mistake about it.
 
   10   We're talking about poisons in the air here.  You
 
   11   know, once we've identified the problem, let's get
 
   12   down to solving it; not looking at, you know, gee,
 
   13   we're going to maybe put somebody out of a job.  We
 
   14   don't want jobs making poisons.  Okay?
 
   15              As we're out promoting bicycling and
 
   16   looking at making these changes, one thing that I
 
   17   have realized is that if we're able to make the
 
   18   atmosphere more pleasant -- first of all, just by
 
   19   reducing the diesel emissions, we have helped to
 
   20   clean up the air.
 
   21              But then there's something that we call
 
   22   in engineering called synergy where you solve a
 
   23   problem; and while someone else is working on
 
   24   another part of that problem, if they both work
 
   25   together, the net result is more than double.  In
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           235
 
 
    1   other words, you get a multiplying effect.
 
    2              If we actually reduce the amount of
 
    3   pollution out there, then more people are going to
 
    4   get out and about.  They're going to get out of
 
    5   their cars.  They're going to walk and take the bus
 
    6   and bicycle more which means we're going to have
 
    7   even less pollution.  So it has a multiplying
 
    8   effect, and it can be a factor I think in a lot of
 
    9   people being willing to get out there and breathe
 
   10   the air instead of breathing inside their houses and
 
   11   inside their air-conditioned cars, etc.
 
   12              Lastly, I just want to emphasize the
 
   13   pollution from the diesel.  It seems to me it ought
 
   14   to be the first thing we should took care of because
 
   15   it's so visible, it's so obvious, and it's so
 
   16   offensive.
 
   17              I want to end with a praise from a local
 
   18   politician who was running for office for governor
 
   19   last year I guess it was when he said that there's
 
   20   certain things that children should never see and
 
   21   one of them is the air that they breathe.
 
   22              Thank you.
 
   23              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Connie Tucker.
 
   24              MS. TUCKER:  Good afternoon.  You heard
 
   25   my name, Connie Tucker.  And I'm director for the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           236
 
 
    1   Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and
 
    2   Social Justice.  We're a south-wide network of
 
    3   organizations and organizers working in our
 
    4   communities for economic, social, and environmental
 
    5   justice.  By the way, our regional office is located
 
    6   here in Atlanta.
 
    7              We applaud the EPA for initiating this
 
    8   new proposal to curb diesel exhaust because dirty
 
    9   diesel trucks and buses are really suffocating our
 
   10   communities.  On behalf of my organization, I urge
 
   11   you to adopt tough new emissions standards for
 
   12   heavy-duty trucks and buses as soon as possible.
 
   13              Communities of color are often
 
   14   disproportionately exposed to a variety of
 
   15   environmental hazards.  Diesel exhaust is only one
 
   16   of the health risks our communities face.  Children
 
   17   in our communities are losing the fight against
 
   18   asthma.  Not only do African-American and Latino
 
   19   children have a higher risk of asthma than white
 
   20   children, but African-American children are four
 
   21   times more likely to die from asthma compared to
 
   22   Caucasian children.
 
   23              The demographics of residents living in
 
   24   areas not in compliance with the federal ozone
 
   25   standard is 52 percent white, 62 percent
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           237
 
 
    1   African-American, and 71 percent Latino.  Now, if we
 
    2   look at the population demographics as a whole, you
 
    3   know that that is a very serious disproportionate
 
    4   impact.
 
    5              There are significant studies that
 
    6   indicate dramatically the correlation between high
 
    7   ozone levels, increased hospitalizations and
 
    8   emergency room visits for asthma and premature
 
    9   deaths of vulnerable residents like the elderly.
 
   10              Environmental justice advocates define
 
   11   our environment as where we live, work, and play and
 
   12   go to school; and they added worship.  Yet, in many
 
   13   metro Atlanta neighborhoods, major thoroughfares
 
   14   used by big diesel trucks and buses run adjacent to
 
   15   schools, hospitals, recreational facilities, and
 
   16   large housing complexes.
 
   17              The impact of diesel soot is compounded
 
   18   by the fact that it is discharged at street level
 
   19   where pedestrians are walking and breathing.  And
 
   20   for residents living near bus depots and highways,
 
   21   black soot against their windows makes its way
 
   22   indoors to mix with indoor air allergens which are
 
   23   also a significant trigger for those with asthma or
 
   24   respiratory illnesses.
 
   25              Although big trucks and buses are among
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           238
 
 
    1   the biggest pollution sources, the oil industries
 
    2   and engine manufacturers have done very little to
 
    3   curb this pollution.  In fact, they have cheated on
 
    4   their emissions tests in the past -- and, you know,
 
    5   we're used to industries cheating -- resulting in an
 
    6   extra 1.3 million tons of smog-forming pollution
 
    7   each year.
 
    8              In short, this is unacceptable.  We must
 
    9   require drastic reductions in pollution from these
 
   10   large trucks and buses.  And because high sulfur
 
   11   fuel disables pollution control technologies, we
 
   12   must demand that all diesel fuel is fully cleaned up
 
   13   and readily available before the trucks are required
 
   14   to clean up.
 
   15              For these reasons, to protect the public
 
   16   health, we make the following recommendations.  In
 
   17   order to ensure that all cleaner trucks will have
 
   18   access to clean fuel necessary to run them, the
 
   19   Southern Organizing Committee urges the EPA to
 
   20   require diesel sulfur levels for on-road and
 
   21   off-road vehicles by 2006, if not sooner.  We
 
   22   support a cap of 15 parts per million on sulfur
 
   23   which represents a 97 percent reduction of sulfur in
 
   24   fuel.
 
   25              Cleaning up diesel fuel will allow the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           239
 
 
    1   EPA to cut smog-forming nitrous oxide pollution by
 
    2   95 percent, cut soot pollution by 90 percent, and
 
    3   will prevent millions of asthma attacks and tens of
 
    4   thousands of cancers every year.
 
    5              Furthermore, these newer cleaner trucks
 
    6   should be required to meet the emissions standards
 
    7   as soon as possible.  The EPA is proposing to wait
 
    8   until 2010 to fully clean up smog-forming pollution
 
    9   from these vehicles.  This means that Americans --
 
   10   and I want to say all of us living in the United
 
   11   States of American -- will have to wait ten years
 
   12   before all new trucks are cleaned up.  We propose
 
   13   that there should be no phase-in period for
 
   14   emissions reductions.
 
   15              It is not enough to require new diesels
 
   16   to be cleaner.  The EPA should take the measures to
 
   17   ensure that all trucks are meeting the emission
 
   18   standards on the road, not just during the engine
 
   19   tests.  Specifically, both in-use and on-board
 
   20   diagnostic equipment should be required for all
 
   21   heavy-duty trucks by 2007.
 
   22              It is time to invest in the next
 
   23   generation of technology that can serve the role of
 
   24   diesel without adverse health and environmental
 
   25   impacts.  Cleaning up existing diesels makes sense
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           240
 
 
    1   for our health and environment, but replacing diesel
 
    2   with cleaner technologies makes even more sense.
 
    3   Therefore, the EPA should provide incentives to
 
    4   increase the use of advanced technology vehicles
 
    5   such as electric buses or fuel cell trucks or
 
    6   natural gas.
 
    7              We support the concept of incentives
 
    8   targeted to manufactures who go beyond the mandates
 
    9   of this rule and create even cleaner alternatives.
 
   10              Finally, there is always a cost
 
   11   associated with doing something differently.
 
   12   However, when we weigh the additional cost of
 
   13   pennies per gallon of diesel fuel against the
 
   14   increased emergency room visits, cost of
 
   15   hospitalizations, lost school days, lost work days,
 
   16   and family disruptions, not to mention untimely
 
   17   deaths, the pennies for this cleaner fuel and
 
   18   cleaner trucks is a very small price to pay.
 
   19              These provisions are necessary to protect
 
   20   the public health.  We ask that you include them in
 
   21   your final rulemaking.
 
   22              Thank you very much.
 
   23              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  We appreciate
 
   24   everybody coming, taking the time to express your
 
   25   views.  Thank you.  Next panel.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           241
 
 
    1              (A discussion ensued off the record.)
 
    2              MR. FRANCE:  Richard Bright.
 
    3              MR. BRIGHT:  Thank you very much.  I'm
 
    4   Richard Bright.  I serve in a couple of capacities.
 
    5   I'm the executive director for the Georgia Coalition
 
    6   for the Peoples' Agenda and I'm the assistant
 
    7   director for the Center for Public Health Practices,
 
    8   Department of Community Health and Preventative
 
    9   Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine.
 
   10              The Georgia Coalition for the Peoples'
 
   11   Agenda applauds EPA for holding these hearings, and
 
   12   thank you for this opportunity to share our views on
 
   13   these fuel standards.
 
   14              The GCPA represents major organizations
 
   15   across the state of Georgia including the Georgia
 
   16   Association of Black Elected Officials, NAACP, SCLC,
 
   17   Rainbow-PUSH, local and statewide religious and
 
   18   interdenominational associations, and individual
 
   19   citizens whose voices need to be heard.
 
   20              Of particular concern to the GCPA are
 
   21   justice, public policy improvement, and citizenship
 
   22   issues.  It is our concern about environmental
 
   23   justice and health that motivates us to address you
 
   24   today on diesel fuel standards.
 
   25              I drive a diesel vehicle for regular
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           242
 
 
    1   transportation.  I close my windows and turn off the
 
    2   air conditioner or turn off the heating system when
 
    3   I am behind a big diesel vehicle belching out
 
    4   obnoxious fumes and smoke.
 
    5              Now, my thoughts turn immediately to the
 
    6   cars behind me when I'm behind a diesel vehicle.
 
    7   Here I am driving one.  Why does not that guy
 
    8   driving that diesel car get rid of that old diesel
 
    9   car, I think that the other person might be saying.
 
   10   And I justify my continuing to drive my diesel
 
   11   vehicle by saying diesel fuel is cheaper and if they
 
   12   did not make these engines I would not have a diesel
 
   13   car.
 
   14              Is the answer to clean air to eliminate
 
   15   diesel motors, in effect eliminating the need for
 
   16   diesel as a fuel?  While this might be idealistic,
 
   17   it is much more practical to produce clean diesel
 
   18   fuel and clean-burning diesel engines.
 
   19              We strongly support EPA's move to reduce
 
   20   the pollutants in diesel fuel that provides for
 
   21   cleaner air and less health problems.  It is
 
   22   estimated that diesel exhaust can produce 125,000
 
   23   cancer cases in the U.S. and numerous respiratory
 
   24   diseases, with a quarter million asthma attacks
 
   25   annually.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           243
 
 
    1              Pollutants in diesel fuel and products
 
    2   released as a result of diesel fuel combustion and
 
    3   incomplete combustion are of concern.  Of particular
 
    4   concern from diesel exhausts are small particles,
 
    5   some of which at 2.5 micron size can become trapped
 
    6   in alveolar of our lung tissue.
 
    7              We know that with this trapping a couple
 
    8   of things take place besides being uncomfortable.
 
    9   One, it can lead to permanent entrapment which can
 
   10   lead to cancer and also it can lead to tumor
 
   11   formation, as well as it can cause other lung
 
   12   impediments.
 
   13              A majority of the people we represent and
 
   14   for whom we perform studies, minority and inner-city
 
   15   residents, suffer from higher morbidity and
 
   16   mortality rates than others in the society.  It is
 
   17   these residents who live in, quote, high-transport
 
   18   corridors and in areas of high exposure to toxic
 
   19   pollutants from transportation, transportation
 
   20   related industries, and industry in general -- it is
 
   21   these residents that we represent rather.
 
   22              There is an association of triggered
 
   23   asthma attacks, childhood leukemia, and generalized
 
   24   cancer and exposure to pollutants from vehicle
 
   25   exhausts, particularly diesel exhausts.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           244
 
 
    1              In a recent study published in the Air
 
    2   and Waste Journal, it was found that children living
 
    3   within 750 feet of highways with greater than 20,000
 
    4   vehicles a day passing by have a 12-fold greater
 
    5   increase in leukemia than children living further
 
    6   away in urban settings.
 
    7              In a California study, the Multiple Air
 
    8   Toxics Exposure Study, it is reported that 70
 
    9   percent of the cancers for a four-county area, with
 
   10   Orange County being the central county, Los Angeles
 
   11   being the city and most heavily populated, 30
 
   12   percent of the cancers would be attributed to diesel
 
   13   fuel.
 
   14              In this study it is the heaviest
 
   15   transportation corridors with the people who have
 
   16   the least opportunity to move who bear the burden of
 
   17   exposure to the most pollutants.
 
   18              It is estimated in the March 15, 2000
 
   19   report Cancer Risks from Diesel Particulates:
 
   20   National and Metropolitan Area Estimates for the
 
   21   United States that diesel particulates are
 
   22   responsible for 1,930 cancers annually in the
 
   23   Atlanta region.
 
   24              While it appears that there is
 
   25   insufficient evidence to point to particular
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           245
 
 
    1   chemicals in diesel as causes of particular diseases
 
    2   and mortality, there is sufficient association of
 
    3   sickness and death in our communities from
 
    4   transportation related decisions for us to be
 
    5   concerned.
 
    6              People know that they are being sickened
 
    7   and killed because of transportation public policies
 
    8   or the lack thereof.
 
    9              I worked for the federal government 31
 
   10   years.  21 of those years are EPA from which I
 
   11   retired.  I was responsible for a lot of regulatory
 
   12   decisions.
 
   13              One of the things which brought to me so
 
   14   much dismay was I would spend a number of years,
 
   15   many millions of citizens' dollars to come up with
 
   16   levels of chemicals that would, quote, be acceptable
 
   17   in the society, only to find out later because of
 
   18   political pressure brought on by industry and the
 
   19   caving in of administrators who are appointed that
 
   20   career servants who would go to great lengths to
 
   21   come up with good information to supply
 
   22   administrators, who would go to rulemaking, the work
 
   23   would be going down the drain.
 
   24              And it's really appalling.  And I feel
 
   25   very sorry for many of my new friends who are
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           246
 
 
    1   working for EPA now and associates to get such
 
    2   wonderful information only to find that that which
 
    3   they have that supports good decision making is not
 
    4   really going to be used for the decisions that are
 
    5   made.
 
    6              I'm saying this as an aside but a very
 
    7   important aside, because we have to understand that,
 
    8   to go ten years before we can really put into full
 
    9   effect the proposed rule, that it's not really
 
   10   acceptable.
 
   11              We make careers -- I made a career out of
 
   12   doing this, and undoubtedly some of you will be
 
   13   doing the very same thing.  So I suggest very
 
   14   strongly to those who are testifying more so than
 
   15   the EPA people who are receiving the comments that
 
   16   we go beyond where we are, just presenting this
 
   17   information to EPA.  But we must become a social
 
   18   political force to make certain that our views are
 
   19   heard at least equally to that of industry.
 
   20              In conclusion, I have some
 
   21   recommendations.  We ask that the government
 
   22   establish the most stringent diesel fuels that
 
   23   public policy can come up with and that the shortest
 
   24   date possible for implementation be established.  No
 
   25   less than the 0.01 grams per brake-horsepower-hour
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           247
 
 
    1   diesel emissions standard should be established to
 
    2   provide for better health of society.  2, we ask
 
    3   that EPA and the U.S. DOT design and support a study
 
    4   similar to the MATES California study to determine
 
    5   the air pollution problems in the Atlanta
 
    6   metropolitan area, the area with the longest commute
 
    7   of any region in the country.
 
    8              We ask that certain hot spots be targeted
 
    9   for air monitoring and for health effects research
 
   10   related to diesel and vehicle exhausts in the
 
   11   Atlanta area.  Certain areas, hot spots, of Atlanta
 
   12   have very high incidences of cancer, respiratory
 
   13   disease, and mortality as compared to the region as
 
   14   a whole.  We believe that there is a direct
 
   15   association with high transportation corridors and
 
   16   also negative health effects.
 
   17              Fourth, we ask that EPA seriously examine
 
   18   air monitoring and health effects research in tandem
 
   19   and make recommendations to the U.S. DOT to coincide
 
   20   with release of any federal transportation money for
 
   21   new roads and certain road widenings.
 
   22              Lastly, we urge EPA to not support state
 
   23   transportation decisions that have not had
 
   24   representative public support, have not met Title VI
 
   25   Civil Rights requirements, and have gone around
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           248
 
 
    1   clean air requirements.
 
    2              Lastly, we come as a people whose voices
 
    3   have been affected by soot, sulfur, nitrous oxides,
 
    4   and air toxics to express to you that you can
 
    5   support the people while not killing industry.  It
 
    6   is a small price to pay -- 4 to 5 cents a gallon --
 
    7   to produce clean fuel.  Even if it costs twice the
 
    8   amount of what fuel costs, which it will not, the
 
    9   health of citizens is more important.
 
   10              We thank you.
 
   11              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you for your
 
   12   testimony.  John Crnko.
 
   13              MR. CRNKO:  Okay.  I'm vice chair of ASTM
 
   14   Subcommittee D 203.  What I'll be talking about
 
   15   today, we are with keepers, if you will, of some of
 
   16   the test methods that I'll be talking about here
 
   17   today.  I also work for an instrument company that
 
   18   makes apparatuses that can apply to some of the
 
   19   technology I'm talking about.
 
   20              There were some attachments that I had
 
   21   made to the talk here today, and I assume those have
 
   22   been forward; and I will reference them in my talk.
 
   23              Regardless of how Tier 2 sulfur in diesel
 
   24   levels and final effective dates evolve, the
 
   25   petroleum community will need its most accurate and
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           249
 
 
    1   flexible sulfur measurement tools.  If a diesel
 
    2   sulfur program similar to the currently proposed
 
    3   rulemaking is enacted, the oil industry will soon be
 
    4   routinely analyzing motor fuels and their
 
    5   additives -- an example would be kerosene -- for
 
    6   very low sulfur levels.  Should the averaging,
 
    7   banking, and trading or ABT provisions be enacted,
 
    8   refiners and blenders will need to measure ever
 
    9   lower sulfur levels as they seek to earn maximum ABT
 
   10   sulfur credits in early time frames.
 
   11              Additionally, because of the various
 
   12   phase-in, ABT and small refiner considerations,
 
   13   analysts who measure sulfur in materials found in
 
   14   the distribution system will be faced with an
 
   15   unprecedented and constant variation.
 
   16              As these various low sulfur diesels enter
 
   17   the distribution system, the oil production and
 
   18   distribution industry must be allowed to use its
 
   19   most capable, economical, and flexible sulfur
 
   20   measurement systems for monitoring and regulatory
 
   21   reporting purposes.
 
   22              For example, by its own estimates in the
 
   23   preamble, the EPA states that refiners would
 
   24   actually have to produce 7 parts per million diesel
 
   25   in order to ensure the sulfur standard is not
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           250
 
 
    1   exceeded during the fuel's journey to the end-user.
 
    2   These near-zero fuels will certainly be present in
 
    3   the distribution system along with other fuels
 
    4   containing a variety of sulfur content and
 
    5   additives.
 
    6              Currently ASTM D 2622 which is a sulfur
 
    7   by x-ray method -- I'll refer to it as just 2622 as
 
    8   we go through -- has been designated as the sole EPA
 
    9   regulatory sulfur test method for Tier 2 gasoline.
 
   10   Additionally, the EPA has proposed a modified D 2622
 
   11   for use with its Tier 2 diesel fuels.  However, the
 
   12   EPA and the laboratory community recognize that in
 
   13   certain situations D 2622 has limitations and
 
   14   disadvantages.
 
   15              An example is the need to prepare a
 
   16   special calibration cocktail for diesel analysis as
 
   17   described in the current proposal.  Another example
 
   18   is found where less than 30 parts per million
 
   19   average fuels are already being produced.
 
   20              In the mid-1990s, gasoline produced for
 
   21   California consumption was required to meet 30 parts
 
   22   per million average sulfur specifications.  This
 
   23   prompted a group of refiners, the Western States
 
   24   Petroleum Association or WSPA, to petition the
 
   25   California Air Resources Board, CARB, for more
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           251
 
 
    1   flexible, capable, and economical sulfur test
 
    2   methods.
 
    3              What WSPA and CARB needed was an
 
    4   economical test method that could measure very low
 
    5   levels of sulfur while giving the same equivalent
 
    6   results as found when D 2622 was used for greater
 
    7   than 10 parts per million sulfur levels.
 
    8              Various laboratory studies and
 
    9   cooperative multi-laboratory tests revealed that the
 
   10   ASTM D 5453, a sulfur by UV technique, was such a
 
   11   sulfur test method.  New California laws resulted
 
   12   that allowed the use of D 5453 and one other
 
   13   technique for the analysis of sulfur in gasoline and
 
   14   diesel.  These laws can be found in Title 13 of the
 
   15   California Code.
 
   16              D 5453 has the analytical range to
 
   17   provide equivalent sulfur results in higher
 
   18   concentration and can readily analyze diesel samples
 
   19   down to 1 part per million.
 
   20              Data from the ASTM cross-check program
 
   21   which is summarized as Attachment C; the findings of
 
   22   an ASTM research report which is my Attachment D
 
   23   confirms and reinforces the conclusions of the WSPA
 
   24   and California EPA.  These independent studies
 
   25   affirm the equivalency of D 2622 and D 5453 for
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           252
 
 
    1   higher sulfur concentration samples and D 5453's
 
    2   superior capability at less than 15 parts per
 
    3   million.
 
    4              Several factors inherent to modern and
 
    5   future motor fuels contribute to D 2622's
 
    6   questionable performance at low sulfur levels.
 
    7   Metal contamination and the presence of oxygenated
 
    8   materials such as alcohol, ethers, or esters that
 
    9   may commonly be found in modern/alternate fuel
 
   10   mixtures interfere with the D 2622 analysis.
 
   11              Additionally, the 2622-98 test method
 
   12   states that differences in carbon-hydrogen ratio of
 
   13   sample and calibration standards introduce errors in
 
   14   the determination.  These analytical errors caused
 
   15   by matrix effects can become critical as sulfur
 
   16   concentrations decline.  It is this issue that will
 
   17   most limit D 2622's usefulness in the inevitable
 
   18   blending future of diesel fuel.
 
   19              The scope section of the most recent
 
   20   revision of D 2622 test method confirms that the
 
   21   technique is suspect for sulfur levels less than 20
 
   22   parts per million.  The proposed modified 2622 has
 
   23   not been shown to be capable in an ASTM
 
   24   multi-laboratory study or a round robin; and, in
 
   25   fact, this modified technique proposes that
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           253
 
 
    1   side-window x-ray instrumentation that currently
 
    2   meets the existing 2622 criteria be limited or
 
    3   eliminated.
 
    4              On the other hand, 5453 has proven itself
 
    5   to be an excellent test method for determination of
 
    6   sulfur in all sorts of low sulfur motor fuels.  This
 
    7   is possible because 5453 uses a sample combustion
 
    8   technology that's very selective and free from the
 
    9   carbon/hydrogen ratio and oxygenate interference
 
   10   that can affect the current primary sulfur
 
   11   regulatory method.  D 5453 instrument calibration is
 
   12   straightforward and not biased by the hydrocarbon
 
   13   matrix of the calibration material.
 
   14              On-line and at-process sulfur analysis is
 
   15   absolutely essential for process control and
 
   16   blending operations.  As different fuel stocks are
 
   17   blended to meet other critical fuel specifications,
 
   18   sulfur content must be controlled with confidence.
 
   19   The designation of 5453 as an approved sulfur test
 
   20   method would allow refiners the ability to
 
   21   economically develop on-line certification
 
   22   procedures and protocols.  D 5453 technology has a
 
   23   proven process on-line history in California.
 
   24              U.S. EPA has correctly requested comment
 
   25   concerning sulfur measurement technology costs.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           254
 
 
    1   Many laboratories and refineries already employ the
 
    2   use of 5453 analyzers.  It's just they aren't
 
    3   allowed for regulatory reporting.  D 5453 technology
 
    4   is a very economical alternative to D 2622 and has a
 
    5   much lower operational cost.
 
    6              The following summarizes the 5453 and
 
    7   2622 apparatus costs.  I'll paraphrase here to save
 
    8   us a few minutes.  Basically it's a times three
 
    9   situation.  If you're buying a new instrument,
 
   10   you're going to pay three times as much for the 2622
 
   11   as you do the 5453.  In space, the instruments --
 
   12   the 2622 are typically as big as one of these tables
 
   13   here; whereas, the 5453 technology is about the size
 
   14   of a good-sized TV.
 
   15              Operation and maintenance is a big deal
 
   16   because most of the time 2622 technology requires a
 
   17   maintenance agreement.  The 5453 is easy to
 
   18   maintain, and a lot of times the users will just
 
   19   choose a self maintenance option rather than going
 
   20   for a maintenance agreement.  Some states require
 
   21   personnel exposure for the x-rays that come off of
 
   22   that, and that adds cost also.
 
   23              So all of those things with the 2622 add
 
   24   cost to this law.
 
   25              As previously mentioned, D 5453 is very
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           255
 
 
    1   selective and free from carbon/hydrogen ratio
 
    2   (matrix effect) interference.  This allows for
 
    3   accurate sulfur determination in multiple streams
 
    4   with a widely varying component matrix and is
 
    5   readily adaptable to at-process applications.
 
    6              The development of an on-line
 
    7   certification program begins with the establishment
 
    8   of a direct correlation between on-line and
 
    9   laboratory results.  The ability to use 5453 in the
 
   10   laboratory and on-line for the determination of
 
   11   sulfur eases and simplifies the establishment of
 
   12   this correlation of results.  The issue of test
 
   13   method bias is eliminated.
 
   14              Finally, D 5453 provides superior test
 
   15   results at lower sulfur levels and equivalent
 
   16   measurements at higher sulfur concentration levels.
 
   17              I've included as Attachment C an article
 
   18   that will appear soon in a national refinery
 
   19   publication that summarizes a cross-check program
 
   20   that ASTN has been running for five or six years.
 
   21              Allowing the use of D 5453 could enable
 
   22   significant capital savings for the fuel-producing
 
   23   community, while giving them a better measurement
 
   24   tool as sulfur concentrations continue to drop.  The
 
   25   D 5453 test method has already been approved by
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           256
 
 
    1   other regulatory agencies and has proven its worth
 
    2   time and time again in daily low level sulfur
 
    3   production as well as general use on a worldwide
 
    4   basis.  D 5453 should be designated as an approved
 
    5   sulfur test method for regulatory reporting
 
    6   purposes.
 
    7              Thanks for this opportunity to talk to
 
    8   y'all today.
 
    9              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  The next
 
   10   testifier is Ed Arnold.
 
   11              MR. ARNOLD:  My name is Ed Arnold.  I'm
 
   12   the executive director of Physicians for Social
 
   13   Responsibility, Atlanta Chapter.  PSR is a national
 
   14   organization of about 20,000 healthcare
 
   15   professionals, including physicians and other
 
   16   supporters in this region, served by the Atlanta
 
   17   Chapter.  We have approximately 250 members here.
 
   18              Many virtually world-class physicians use
 
   19   PSR as their instrument through which to speak on
 
   20   public issues, and PSR supports what EPA is doing
 
   21   here with the provision that we think your phase-in
 
   22   time is too long.  We think that this could be
 
   23   accomplished in a shorter period.
 
   24              I won't go to the trouble or take
 
   25   everybody's time to read through or even cite the
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           257
 
 
    1   many medical studies, epidemiologic studies that
 
    2   support what EPA is calling for here.  I would
 
    3   suggest that any industry people or skeptics within
 
    4   EPA who think that taking the sulfur out of the air
 
    5   is something that's not needed, that they review
 
    6   those medical studies.
 
    7              And that takes me to a recommendation.  I
 
    8   don't think that we in the nonprofit community or
 
    9   the EPA is doing a sufficient job of educating the
 
   10   public.  I don't think that we have public support
 
   11   for what you're doing here to the extent that would
 
   12   be possible if EPA and our other groups as well -- I
 
   13   cite myself with this concern, but especially the
 
   14   federal government.  If the people knew what was
 
   15   happening to their health as a result of bad air,
 
   16   there would be no question.  You wouldn't have to go
 
   17   through this.  There would be automatic acceptance
 
   18   of what you're doing.
 
   19              So some provisions that would improve
 
   20   public education about these issues such as -- maybe
 
   21   you do some of these things already.  I'm not sure.
 
   22   But if you link to -- for example, the American Lung
 
   23   Association has extensive medical data on its web
 
   24   site.  If you would link to that so that people who
 
   25   want to check on this can find out what the facts
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           258
 
 
    1   are, that would be useful.
 
    2              Not long ago the editorial page editor of
 
    3   the Atlanta Journal wrote an editorial that just
 
    4   came from I don't know where.  I don't know whose
 
    5   agenda he was pushing; but it was totally erroneous,
 
    6   the conclusions he was drawing about what bad air
 
    7   does to us.  Did the federal government go talk to
 
    8   him or his publisher?  I doubt it.  An activist's
 
    9   role in refuting the campaigns of misinformation and
 
   10   disinformation would be very useful to us all.
 
   11              Once again, thank you for the opportunity
 
   12   to come before you and speak today.
 
   13              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you for your
 
   14   testimony.  June Deen.
 
   15              MS. DEEN:  I'm June Deen.  I'm with the
 
   16   American Lung Association of Georgia.  I can usually
 
   17   talk without this.  I want to thank you for the
 
   18   opportunity to speak today.
 
   19              You've heard a lot about illness caused
 
   20   by bad air and problems for people with asthma,
 
   21   chronic respiratory and cardiac illness; and I don't
 
   22   know that I can add very much to that.
 
   23              I will only say, as you all know, the
 
   24   Lung Association is very concerned about the air we
 
   25   breathe and to always remind you that your lungs and
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           259
 
 
    1   breathing apparatus is the first line of defense for
 
    2   your body against poisons and toxins in the air.
 
    3   And from that perspective, we're very pleased to
 
    4   support the rulemaking that you've proposed here for
 
    5   low sulfur diesel fuel and for improving the
 
    6   technology around diesel engines.
 
    7              I was provided with some information on
 
    8   some research that's been done around diesel
 
    9   exhaust, and I'm just going to read the titles to
 
   10   you.  I'll leave this testimony here and you'll have
 
   11   it for the record.  You've probably seen it before,
 
   12   but I was amazed.
 
   13              Positive associations between wheezing
 
   14   and allergic rhinitis and truck traffic were found
 
   15   during a 12-month period for about 3700 students.
 
   16   That doesn't sound too good to me.  The proximity of
 
   17   a child's residence to major roads is linked to
 
   18   hospital admissions for asthma.  That doesn't sound
 
   19   too red hot.  A school's proximity to freeways is
 
   20   linked to asthma occurrence.  Truck traffic
 
   21   intensity and the concentration of emissions
 
   22   measured in schools were found to be significantly
 
   23   associated with chronic respiratory symptoms.
 
   24              And there's some more like that that
 
   25   comment further, and I will leave those for your
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           260
 
 
    1   review.
 
    2              I would just say certainly when folks
 
    3   that are afflicted with respiratory problems are
 
    4   experiencing difficulty, that's a wake-up call for
 
    5   all of us that we're also -- those of us who don't
 
    6   have those problems are getting these low level
 
    7   assaults of bad air that's compromising our ability
 
    8   to breathe.
 
    9              And toward that end, we know a lot more
 
   10   today about the health effects of air pollution than
 
   11   we did in earlier years; and we urge you to proceed
 
   12   with all due haste.
 
   13              And thank you for your time today.
 
   14              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you for coming.  The
 
   15   next testifier, Troy Burns.
 
   16              MR. BURNS:  Good afternoon.  My name is
 
   17   Troy Burns.  I'm a resident of Georgia.  And I'm
 
   18   here today basically because this is a good step
 
   19   forward, and this issue really does have two sides.
 
   20              In one corner you have somebody like a
 
   21   child that's not my child, but she's eight months
 
   22   old.  My wife photographed her about two weeks ago.
 
   23   And if you can't see her, you can just put a young
 
   24   child that you know in place of her face.
 
   25              But in this corner we have
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           261
 
 
    1   eight-month-old Kiley Anderson from Marietta,
 
    2   Georgia; and Kiley's mother won't let her have a tea
 
    3   party in the backyard this summer because the air
 
    4   poses a significant health risk.
 
    5              In the other corner we have the oil
 
    6   industry who doesn't want to reduce sulfur level,
 
    7   nitrogen oxide, or other particulates from their
 
    8   fuel because it will affect their quarterly
 
    9   earnings.
 
   10              There's documentation confirming
 
   11   increases in asthma, bronchitis, pulmonary disease,
 
   12   heart disease, and cancer.  Meanwhile, they'll spend
 
   13   untold amounts of money on legal fees and lobbying
 
   14   to avoid the new legislation.  I would love to see a
 
   15   comparison on the cost of avoidance versus the
 
   16   compliance.
 
   17              But this is why we have the EPA, and the
 
   18   question is now one of roles.  Is it the EPA's role
 
   19   to throw tea parties or to protect quarterly
 
   20   profits?  I hope it's teatime myself.
 
   21              And, therefore, I urge the EPA to reduce
 
   22   diesel sulfur levels to a national cap of no more
 
   23   than 15 parts per million nationwide by 2006; to
 
   24   also cut smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from
 
   25   big trucks and buses by 95 percent and particulate
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           262
 
 
    1   soot pollution by 90 percent no later than 2007; to
 
    2   ensure that big trucks are meeting emission
 
    3   standards on the road, not just during emission
 
    4   tests; and to add incentives that will increase the
 
    5   use of nondiesel alternatives like natural gas,
 
    6   electric batteries, fuel cells, hybrid automobiles,
 
    7   and other advanced technologies.
 
    8              Thank you.
 
    9              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Michael
 
   10   Chameides.
 
   11              MR. CHAMEIDES:  I moved to Atlanta 19
 
   12   years ago when I was two years old.  I started
 
   13   playing soccer when I was five years old, and I've
 
   14   been pretty active ever since.  In high school I
 
   15   played on the state championship soccer team and the
 
   16   state championship wrestling team.  I also got the
 
   17   coach's award in wrestling and the scholar athlete
 
   18   award from my high school.
 
   19              I go to school now in Upstate New York at
 
   20   Bard College.  And in addition to playing soccer and
 
   21   jujitsu, I run on the cross-country team.
 
   22              And I consider health a major priority in
 
   23   my life.  I've had a number of injuries over the
 
   24   years.  I had two compound fractures.  I lost a
 
   25   piece of my finger.  I had stitches over my eye.  I
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           263
 
 
    1   had tendonitis, sprains and strains, and two or
 
    2   three concussions.  But nothing has been more
 
    3   debilitating than Atlanta's air pollution.
 
    4              I came home last summer form school.  I
 
    5   was running every day at least 5 miles at Bard which
 
    6   is more of a country area.  And I went running here
 
    7   in Atlanta over at Piedmont Park.  My lungs burned
 
    8   for three days.  I was like better not run so much.
 
    9   So I'll just walk around.  I'm outside a lot because
 
   10   I feel like that's a normal thing that people want
 
   11   to do, is be outside their homes.  And my lungs
 
   12   would burn.  I was tired.  I was fatigued.
 
   13              So I went to my doctor, and the doctor
 
   14   confirmed what I already knew was the problem.  He
 
   15   said it was the air pollution.  I was being poisoned
 
   16   by the air outside of Atlanta.  And the reason why
 
   17   is because of trucks and is because of diesel and
 
   18   unclean fuel.
 
   19              And the thing is that I am a lot better
 
   20   than most people.  There's 125,000 cases of cancer
 
   21   caused by diesel vehicles.  Smog causes 150,000
 
   22   Americans to go to the emergency room and 40,000
 
   23   deaths every year.  I mean there are wars that are
 
   24   fought that have less casualties than what smog has
 
   25   done to America.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           264
 
 
    1              And this is absurd that we're letting
 
    2   industry get away with this.  They're sitting around
 
    3   and they're complaining.  They're saying they don't
 
    4   have the technology for improvement, they can't
 
    5   afford to make changes.  But perhaps if they spent a
 
    6   little less money on lobbying and PR campaigns they
 
    7   could spend a little bit more money on saving
 
    8   lives.
 
    9              We've heard these arguments before.  When
 
   10   we put seat belts in cars and we passed the Clean
 
   11   Air Act, when we were all here last year to pass the
 
   12   Tier 2 amendment, industry was saying the exact same
 
   13   thing.  They said they can't make it, they'll fall
 
   14   apart if they change it.  But we know we can make
 
   15   the changes.  And the issue is really what's more
 
   16   important.  Is it their profit or is it people's
 
   17   lives?
 
   18              It's clear that the majority of Americans
 
   19   want clean air.  I've never head anybody say that
 
   20   they would rather the oil industry make more money
 
   21   if they got cancer.  No one wants cancer and no one
 
   22   really cares that much if the industry makes $10
 
   23   billion or $11 every quarter.  And it's not an
 
   24   issue.  They make huge amounts of profit.  They can
 
   25   afford to make these changes.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           265
 
 
    1              So considering that, I urge you to
 
    2   approve the recommendations and specifically to
 
    3   reduce sulfur levels to only 15 parts per million
 
    4   nationwide for both on-road and off-road vehicles by
 
    5   the year 2006.  Clean up big trucks and buses by at
 
    6   least 90 percent by the year 2007.  Ensure that big
 
    7   trucks are meeting emission standards on the roads,
 
    8   not just during emission tests.  Increase the use of
 
    9   diesel alternatives such as electric buses and other
 
   10   advanced vehicles.
 
   11              Thank you.
 
   12              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  And I thank the
 
   13   rest of the panel, and we appreciate you sharing
 
   14   your views with us.  Thanks.
 
   15              The next panel, Henry Chuang, Jim
 
   16   Chapman, Lynn Razaitis, Kenneth Rosso, Dr. Howard
 
   17   Frumkin, Robert Pregulman.
 
   18              (A discussion ensued off the record.)
 
   19              MR. FRANCE:  Henry Chuang, start when
 
   20   you're ready.
 
   21              MR. CHUANG:  Thank you for the
 
   22   opportunity to speak before you today.  My name is
 
   23   Henry Chuang.  I'm a student at Emory University,
 
   24   and I'm here today to urge you to adopt the toughest
 
   25   possible standards to reduce pollution from
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           266
 
 
    1   heavy-duty vehicles.
 
    2              Here in Georgia, smog sends more than
 
    3   5,000 people to emergency rooms each year and causes
 
    4   more than 240,000 asthma attacks.  Making matters
 
    5   worse, a study by local air pollution control
 
    6   officials estimates that diesel exhaust is
 
    7   responsible for 125,000 cases of cancer in the
 
    8   United States.
 
    9              Ladies and gentlemen, I'm positive you're
 
   10   well aware of these statistics.  However, when we
 
   11   look at these statistics, all we see is a number.  I
 
   12   mean what do they mean to us?  Behind each number
 
   13   there is a face, a story, a life.  And when we
 
   14   refuse to take action, we condemn these people who
 
   15   are our friends, who are ourselves, and who are our
 
   16   neighbors to suffer from something that could easily
 
   17   be prevented.
 
   18              Now, I'm lucky enough to be raised in the
 
   19   San Francisco Bay area, which is, as most of you
 
   20   know, one of the strongest economies in the nation.
 
   21   Yet, it is also one of the most environmentally
 
   22   protected areas.  It is possible for environmental
 
   23   protection to be combined with the strong economy.
 
   24              In order to protect the public health, we
 
   25   must require drastic reductions in pollution from
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           267
 
 
    1   these large trucks and buses as soon as possible.  I
 
    2   was, therefore, disappointed to learn that the EPA
 
    3   has proposed waiting until 2010 to fully clean up
 
    4   smog-forming pollution from trucks and buses.
 
    5              In addition, because high sulfur levels
 
    6   will poison the new diesel cleanup technologies, we
 
    7   must ensure that all diesel fuel is fully cleaned up
 
    8   and readily available before trucks are required to
 
    9   clean up.
 
   10              Specifically, I urge you to, first of
 
   11   all, reduce diesel sulfur levels to no more than 15
 
   12   parts per million nationwide for both on and
 
   13   off-road diesels by 2006; secondly, clean up all big
 
   14   trucks and buses by at least 90 percent by 2007;
 
   15   thirdly, ensure that big trucks are meeting the
 
   16   emission standards on the road, not just during the
 
   17   emission engine tests.  Finally, I urge you to
 
   18   increase the use of diesel alternatives such as
 
   19   electric and fuel cell buses.
 
   20              These measures are critical for the
 
   21   protection of public health and the environment.  I
 
   22   hope you seriously consider them in your final
 
   23   decision making.
 
   24              Thank you.
 
   25              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Robert
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           268
 
 
    1   Pregulman.
 
    2              MR. PREGULMAN:  Hi.  My name is Robert
 
    3   Pregulman, and I'm the program director for the
 
    4   Georgia Public Interest Research Group here in
 
    5   Atlanta.  And I appreciate the EPA for coming to
 
    6   Atlanta once again for soliciting comments from one
 
    7   of the most polluted cities in the country with
 
    8   regard to air quality.
 
    9              I participated in the Tier 2 hearings
 
   10   last year; and today kind of signifies an
 
   11   anniversary for me, because it was last year at the
 
   12   hearings when I learned that I had asthma.
 
   13              I was sitting in the audience waiting to
 
   14   testify and next to me was a doctor who was also
 
   15   going to testify.  And for sometime I had had
 
   16   shortness of breath.  I couldn't exercise in the
 
   17   afternoons like I used to.  I couldn't jog and had
 
   18   chronic sinus problems.  And when I told her my
 
   19   symptoms, she said it sounds like you have asthma,
 
   20   you should come see me.  And the next week I went to
 
   21   see her, and it turns out that's exactly what I
 
   22   have.
 
   23              I have never had any health problems like
 
   24   this before, before I moved to Atlanta.  So I'm here
 
   25   not only as someone from an environmental
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           269
 
 
    1   organization but also a citizen who is suffering
 
    2   from the effects of Atlanta's bad air.
 
    3              I'm going to ask y'all to do a couple of
 
    4   things that I know that several people have
 
    5   already.  As an organization, we fully support your
 
    6   efforts to clean up diesel emissions.  We think that
 
    7   y'all have taken some extremely far-reaching and
 
    8   farsighted steps towards correcting this problem.
 
    9              We definitely recommend that sulfur in
 
   10   gasoline should be reduced to 15 parts per million
 
   11   by the year 2006.  We know that sulfur inhibits the
 
   12   ability of engines to properly -- it inhibits the
 
   13   pollution reduction equipment in diesel engines, and
 
   14   obviously that's very important and we do support
 
   15   that.
 
   16              We also support your efforts to reduce
 
   17   nitrogen oxide levels and also particulate levels,
 
   18   although we would ask that you do not wait until
 
   19   2010 to completely reduce the nitrogen oxide
 
   20   levels.  We definitely would like that to happen
 
   21   with the particulate and reduce them by 2007.  And I
 
   22   believe that you're shooting for 95 percent
 
   23   reduction in nitrogen oxide, a 90 percent reduction
 
   24   in particulate; and we request that both of those
 
   25   things happen by 2007.  We certainly don't need
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           270
 
 
    1   another ten years of high NOx levels here in Atlanta
 
    2   or anywhere else in the country from diesel
 
    3   engines.
 
    4              In closing, I want to touch on something
 
    5   that some previous speakers mentioned as far as cost
 
    6   of implementing these programs.  I know the
 
    7   petroleum industries, the trucking industries have
 
    8   complained about the cost of implementing these
 
    9   programs, just as the auto makers did last year and
 
   10   the oil industries did last year for Tier 2.
 
   11              I think the recent skyrocketing gas
 
   12   prices that we have seen especially in the Midwest,
 
   13   with no backup data to support it other than it
 
   14   looks like the oil companies are gouging the public,
 
   15   shows where they stand on this issue.
 
   16              Also, historically, since 1970 the oil
 
   17   industry and the auto industry have fought every
 
   18   attempt to make cars cleaner and safer and have
 
   19   drastically overestimated the cost of implementing
 
   20   tougher safety standards and tougher pollution
 
   21   standards.
 
   22              None of those things have come to pass.
 
   23   Air bags didn't make cars prohibitively expensive.
 
   24   Seat belts didn't make cars prohibitively
 
   25   expensive.  The Clean Air Act in 1970 did not make
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           271
 
 
    1   cars prohibitively expensive.  It won't happen with
 
    2   these new standards as well.
 
    3              So we urge you to move forward.  And one
 
    4   thing I would add is it's critically important to
 
    5   take into account not just the cost to the industry
 
    6   to implement these things but also look at the cost
 
    7   of what pollution does to society.
 
    8              There's more medication.  There are more
 
    9   trips to the doctor.  There's higher emergency room
 
   10   visits.  There's higher insurance rates.  There's
 
   11   billions of dollars lost in lost productivity
 
   12   because people are too sick to go to work or go to
 
   13   school.  Personally, I pay about $150 a year for
 
   14   asthma medication that I didn't have to pay before.
 
   15              These are real costs that people are
 
   16   suffering under because of air pollution, and a few
 
   17   pennies more for diesel fuel or cleaner diesel
 
   18   engines will not make a difference.  It's more
 
   19   important to protect people's health and it's also
 
   20   more cost effective as well.
 
   21              Thanks again for taking my comments.
 
   22              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Not Joan King
 
   23   but her testimony?
 
   24              MS. KELLY:  Yes.  My name is Allison
 
   25   Kelly.  I'm the clean air activist from the Georgia
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           272
 
 
    1   Public Interest Research Group.  And if you'll
 
    2   permit me, I'm going to read the testimony of Joan
 
    3   O. King with 20/20 Vision.
 
    4              For submission to the June 22nd EPA
 
    5   hearing in Atlanta, Georgia.  Since I am unable to
 
    6   be at today's EPA hearing on diesel emissions, I
 
    7   wish to submit the following statement by proxy and
 
    8   ask that it be added to the record.
 
    9              I am Joan O. King.  I live in Sautee
 
   10   Valley which is in rural North Georgia.  I represent
 
   11   the Environmental Concerns Committee of the Sautee
 
   12   Nacoochee Community Association, an organization of
 
   13   over 400 members.
 
   14              Over the last 15 years, I have worked
 
   15   with other environmental organizations as well.
 
   16   While I do not speak officially for these groups
 
   17   today, I am going to mention a couple of them so you
 
   18   will have some basis with which to judge my
 
   19   background and knowledge of the issue at hand.
 
   20              I am a former national board member of
 
   21   20/20 Vision, an organization whose business it is
 
   22   to be informed about environmental issues.  I work
 
   23   closely with the Georgia Chapter of Physicians for
 
   24   Social Responsibility, an organization that studies
 
   25   air pollution and its impact on public health.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           273
 
 
    1              I belong to a number of other groups that
 
    2   are concerned about air pollution.  I have read
 
    3   their literature, and I accept their conclusions.
 
    4   But one doesn't have to be an environmental activist
 
    5   to know we have a problem.  Just read the papers.
 
    6   Or better yet, step outside and take a deep breath.
 
    7              I am adding my personal appeal to that of
 
    8   the Environmental Concerns Committee and I urge the
 
    9   EPA to adopt the toughest possible emission
 
   10   standards for all forms of automotive
 
   11   transportation.  We hope something will be done, and
 
   12   done soon, to cut emissions from heavy trucks and
 
   13   buses.
 
   14              I understand New York City has just
 
   15   committed to improving their air quality by cleaning
 
   16   up their fleet of over 4,000 buses.  Atlanta has
 
   17   been called the New York of the South.  We need to
 
   18   follow their lead, and we look to the EPA to help us
 
   19   do it.  Give us the regulations.  We will do all
 
   20   that we can to educate the general public on the
 
   21   need for emission regulations and the benefits to
 
   22   their health once they are in place.  Thank you.
 
   23              And, in addition, before I go, I'd like
 
   24   to present 71 comment letters to the EPA.  This
 
   25   represents 71 people that wanted to be here today to
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           274
 
 
    1   express their concern over this issue directly to
 
    2   you.  But they couldn't be hear for scheduling
 
    3   reasons, so they submitted letters.
 
    4              MR. FRANCE:  Okay.  Thank you.  We do
 
    5   appreciate you taking the time out of your day and
 
    6   sharing your thoughts with us.  We'll seriously take
 
    7   them under consideration.  Thank you.
 
    8              Is there anyone in the audience who would
 
    9   like to testify?
 
   10              (A recess was taken.)
 
   11              MS. PANDEY:  Hi.  My name is Stacy
 
   12   Pandey, and I live in Marietta.  I'm a member of the
 
   13   Sierra Club and have also worked with Georgia PIRG
 
   14   in the past.
 
   15              Thank you for giving me the chance to
 
   16   voice my support for clean air.  I applaud your bold
 
   17   initiative to reduce pollution in diesel trucks by
 
   18   90 percent.
 
   19              I'm sure you've heard a bunch of
 
   20   statistics today; but there are a lot of cases of
 
   21   cancer that are caused by pollution from diesel
 
   22   trucks and buses here in Georgia, and many health
 
   23   studies have linked diesel pollution to lung
 
   24   cancer.  Other things that it causes are heart and
 
   25   lung disease and many asthma attacks.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           275
 
 
    1              I have traveled to Delhi, India where the
 
    2   majority of taxis, cars, and buses run on diesel.
 
    3   When you go out even for a short trip, your face
 
    4   becomes noticeably dirty with particulate matter and
 
    5   you blow out black snot.
 
    6              According to the World Health
 
    7   Organization, living in Delhi or Mumbai is
 
    8   equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes a day.  Everyone
 
    9   has a perpetual cough, including my two-year-old
 
   10   nephew.
 
   11              At this point, Indians understand the
 
   12   detrimental effects of pollution but are struggling
 
   13   with the economic burdens of cleaning it up.  We
 
   14   must not let Atlanta go down the same path.
 
   15              Big trucks and buses are among the
 
   16   biggest pollution sources, and they must be cleaned
 
   17   up to protect the public health.  Although diesel
 
   18   vehicles amount to only 2 percent of all vehicles on
 
   19   the road, I'm sure, as you know, they're responsible
 
   20   for 27 percent of the smog-forming pollution and
 
   21   two-thirds of the soot produced by all the nation's
 
   22   vehicles.  In fact, I guess one truck can pollute as
 
   23   much as 100 cars.
 
   24              Therefore, I urge the EPA to reduce fuel
 
   25   sulfur levels to at least 15 parts per million
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           276
 
 
    1   nationwide for both on-road and off-road diesels;
 
    2   clean up big trucks and buses by at least 90 percent
 
    3   by 2007 at the latest; ensure that big trucks are
 
    4   meeting the emissions standards on the roads, not
 
    5   just during emissions tests; and increase the use of
 
    6   advanced technology vehicles.
 
    7              Thank you for allowing me to speak.
 
    8              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you very much for your
 
    9   testimony.  Anyone else in the audience?  Why don't
 
   10   we take a 15-minute break and we'll reassess the
 
   11   situation.
 
   12              (A recess was taken.)
 
   13              MR. FRANCE:  Anup Pandey.  Is there
 
   14   anyone else in the audience who would like to
 
   15   testify?
 
   16              MR. PANDEY:  Hello.  Good evening.  I'm
 
   17   going to go by my firsthand experience of what
 
   18   diesel emissions can do to you.  I was, as my wife
 
   19   has also said, in India.  I was there for 40 days
 
   20   about two months ago.  And just in one hour, when
 
   21   you travel, when you reach your destination, you're
 
   22   so exhausted and you get teary-eyed.
 
   23              You get teary-eyed for two reasons.  One
 
   24   is the diesel and the other is the situation of the
 
   25   atmosphere there.  Because of the lack of foresight
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           277
 
 
    1   ten years ago when the policies should have been put
 
    2   in place, realization was there; but, again, because
 
    3   of corruption in the government and lack of
 
    4   uplifting of the issues amongst the politicians and
 
    5   amongst the people at that time, it was all fine and
 
    6   dandy ten years ago.  Delhi was a beautiful place to
 
    7   live in, but now life is completely miserable.
 
    8              Even I who grew up in Delhi just wanted
 
    9   to get away from that city after my, you know,
 
   10   business deal was over.  My life was miserable
 
   11   purely because of diesel emissions.
 
   12              And I would just like to say that when
 
   13   there is still time we should, here at least in this
 
   14   country where policy makers are more aware of these
 
   15   issues, are more educated, we should try to do
 
   16   whatever we can to put the policies in place and to
 
   17   effect it as soon as possible.
 
   18              Even the taxi drivers there, everybody
 
   19   blames the taxi drivers because it's too late and
 
   20   it's going to be very expensive to change.  It's
 
   21   very uneconomical to change all the diesel engines
 
   22   that are in taxis over there.  And people say well,
 
   23   we'll ban the taxies.  When that happens, the taxi
 
   24   drivers will go on strike because it's not possible
 
   25   for them to change now.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           278
 
 
    1              And the taxi drivers, I've talked with
 
    2   some of them because this is an important issue for
 
    3   me.  And they would all say we are all for it,
 
    4   because it harms them too every day driving on
 
    5   diesel fumes from the trucks and their taxis
 
    6   themselves.
 
    7              But they say, you know, five years ago
 
    8   when there was a bid to put a better engine, the
 
    9   government took some money from the suppliers of the
 
   10   diesel engines, you know, the petroleum group,
 
   11   whatever; and they went with the diesel engine.  And
 
   12   so, of course, the taxi drivers went for the cheaper
 
   13   thing as well.  And so today it's much more
 
   14   difficult for them to revert back.
 
   15              What my basic point is is that we
 
   16   should -- the more delay you do in fixing something,
 
   17   the more expensive it will get and the more
 
   18   possibility that it may not be as perfect as it
 
   19   could be if it was sooner.
 
   20              That's all.  Thank you.
 
   21              MR. FRANCE:  Thank you.  Thank you for
 
   22   sticking out with us.  Anyone else?  We're on
 
   23   another break.
 
   24              (A recess was taken.)
 
   25              MR. FRANCE:  We'll conclude this
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           279
 
 
    1   hearing.
 
    2              (Proceedings concluded at 6:30 p.m.)
 
    3
 
    4
 
    5
 
    6
 
    7
 
    8
 
    9
 
   10
 
   11
 
   12
 
   13
 
   14
 
   15
 
   16
 
   17
 
   18
 
   19
 
   20
 
   21
 
   22
 
   23
 
   24
 
   25
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           280
 
 
    1                   C E R T I F I C A T E
 
    2
 
    3   STATE OF GEORGIA:
 
    4   COUNTY OF HARALSON:
 
    5              I hereby certify that the foregoing
 
    6        transcript was taken down, as stated in
 
    7        the caption, and the questions and answers
 
    8        thereto were reduced to typewriting under
 
    9        my direction; that the foregoing pages 1
 
   10        through 279 represent a true, complete, and
 
   11        correct transcript of the evidence given
 
   12        upon said hearing, and I further certify
 
   13        that I am not of kin or counsel to the
 
   14        parties in the case; am not in the regular
 
   15        employ of counsel for any of said parties;
 
   16        nor am I in anywise interested in the result
 
   17        of said case.
 
   18              This, the 29th day of June, 2000.
 
   19
 
   20
 
   21                          KARA K. LUCAS, CCR-B-1496
                               CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
   22
 
   23
 
   24
 
   25