Public Hearing on the

Proposed Federal Implementation Plans

to Reduce Interstate Transport

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone

Renaissance Atlanta Downtown

Atlanta, Georgia

September 1, 20102

1 Appearances for the EPA:

2

3 SAM NAPOLITANO, Office of Atmospheric Programs

4 CAROL KEMKER, Region Four Air, Pesticides and

Toxic Management Division

5

DICK SCHUTT, Region Four Air, Pesticides and

6 Toxic Management Division

7 TIM SMITH, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

253

1 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. Good morning and

2 thank you for attending the last of the three

3 public hearings EPA's holding to take comment on

4 the proposed rule known as the Transport Rule.

5 We held a hearing on August 19th in Chicago and,

6 following that, last week in Philadelphia.

7 My name is Sam Napolitano. I am with EPA's

8 Office of Atmospheric Programs. I'm the director

9 of its Clean Air Markets Division and I will be

10 chairing today's hearing. Joining me on the

11 panel are to my immediate right Carol Kemker and

12 on the right of her Dick Schutt of EPA's region

13 four Air, Pesticides and Toxic Management

14 Division here in Atlanta. Tim Smith from the

15 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is

16 sitting to my left. Tim is one of the key

17 managers that has helped develop this rule over

18 the last year.

19 We are here today to listen to your comments

20 on EPA's proposal to require 31 states in the

21 east and the District of Columbia to

22 significantly improve our air quality by reducing

23 power plant emissions. Specifically, this

24 proposal will require significant reductions in

25 sulfer dioxide, SO2, and nitrogen oxide, NOx,4

1 emissions that cross state lines. These

2 pollutants react in the atmosphere to form fine

3 particles and ground-level ozone and are

4 transported long distances, making it difficult

5 for other states to achieve national clean air

6 standards.

7 Fine particles and ozone causes a series of

8 human health effects and environmental damages,

9 including premature mortality, chronic and acute

10 bronchitis, heart attacks, hospitalizations,

11 emergency room visits, asthma attacks, acid

12 deposition, damage to sensitive forests and

13 coastal waters and impaired visibility at our

14 national parks and wilderness areas.

15 Emission reductions would take effect very

16 quickly, in 2012, within one year after this rule

17 is finalized. By 2014, the rule and other state

18 and EPA actions would reduce SO2 power plant

19 emissions by over 70 percent from 2005 levels and

20 for NOx over 50 percent.

21 We estimate by 2014 that the proposed

22 Transport Rule would prevent between 14,000 and

23 36,000 premature deaths annually, as well as

24 provide many other health and environmental

25 benefits. The portion of these benefits that can5

1 be quantified by us total more than $120 to

2 $290 billion annually in 2014. These benefits

3 far outweigh the estimated costs of less than

4 $3 billion annually.

5 The Transport Rule would help all but a few

6 areas in the eastern part of the country meet the

7 1997 fine particle and ozone standards. In

8 addition, the rule makes major strides towards

9 helping states meet the 2006 24-hour average fine

10 particle standard for daily concentrations in

11 particulate matter.

12 EPA is proposing one approach for reducing

13 SO2 and NOx emissions in states covered by this

14 rule and taking comment on two alternatives. In

15 the agency's preferred approach, EPA is proposing

16 to set a pollution limit or a state budget for

17 each of the 31 states and D.C. This approach

18 allows limited interstate trading among power

19 plants but assures that each state will meet its

20 pollution control obligations under the Clean Air

21 Act.

22 In the first alternative, EPA's proposing to

23 set a pollution limit or budget for each state.

24 In this option, there will be intrastate trading

25 among power plants for each state.6

1 In the second alternative, EPA's proposing

2 to set a pollution limit for each state and to

3 specify an allowable emission limit for each

4 power plant and allows averaging of the emissions

5 by power companies for their units within each

6 state.

7 This proposed rule would replace EPA's 2005

8 Clean Air Interstate Rule, CAIR. A December 2008

9 Court decision kept the requirements of CAIR if

10 place temporarily, but directed EPA to issue a

11 new rule to implement the Clean Air Act

12 concerning the transport of air pollution across

13 state boundaries. This action, the Transport

14 Rule, responds to the Court's decision.

15 Today we will be accepting oral comments on

16 our proposal and will prepare a written

17 transcript of the hearing. The transcripts from

18 all three hearings will be available as part of

19 the official record for this rule and EPA will

20 consider them as we move forward to complete a

21 final rule. We are also accepting written

22 comments for the proposed rule until October 1st,

23 2010. There is a handout available in the

24 registration area with detailed information for

25 submitting written comments by mail, fax or7

1 electronically.

2 Now, I want to describe for you how we will

3 conduct today's hearing. I will call the

4 scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs.

5 When it is your turn to speak, what I'd like to

6 ask is that you state your name and your

7 affiliation for the court reporter. It will also

8 help her if you were to spell your name.

9 In order to be fair to everyone, please

10 limit your testimony to five minutes each and

11 remain at the microphone until both speakers in

12 your pair have finished. After you finish your

13 testimony, members of the panel may ask

14 clarifying questions. If, in addition to the

15 transcript of your comment -- excuse me -- if, in

16 addition to the transcript of your comments, you

17 would also like to put in a full text of your

18 written comments into the docket, be sure to give

19 a copy of the written comments to our staff at

20 the registration table.

21 We have a timekeeping system consisting of

22 green, yellow and red lights that Tim Smith will

23 administer. When you begin speaking, the green

24 light will come on. You will have five minutes

25 to speak. The yellow light will come on when you8

1 have one minute left of that time. And when the

2 red light comes on, your five minutes has passed

3 and we will ask you to wrap up as quickly as

4 possible.

5 We intend to stay into the evening until

6 everyone has an opportunity to comment if it

7 comes to that. If you would like to testify but

8 have not registered yet, please do so at the

9 registration table for a time slot. For those

10 who have already registered to speak, we have

11 tried to accommodate your requests for specific

12 time slots the best we can. We ask for your

13 patience as we proceed through the list of

14 speakers. We may need to make some adjustments

15 as the day progresses on times of speaking.

16 Thank you all again for participating today and

17 now let's get started.

18 The first two speakers, if they would come

19 up to the table here please, are Jim Gooden and

20 Janice Nolen. Okay. Jim, if you'd go first

21 please.

22 MR. GOODEN: Thank you. Good morning. I'm

23 Jim Gooden, G-O-O-D-E-N, and I'm chair of the

24 board of directors of the American Lung

25 Association. I'm also the owner and president of9

1 ACECommunications.net, which is a firm

2 headquartered near Charleston, South Carolina,

3 and we specialize in marketing, media design and

4 production, and website solutions.

5 The American Lung Association saves lives

6 through the prevention of lung disease and the

7 promotion of lung health. Fighting for clean

8 air, healthy air, is central to our mission. For

9 decades, we have supported stronger measures to

10 clean up major sources of pollution, especially

11 coal-fired power plants.

12 We are pleased that the US Environmental

13 Protection Agency has moved ahead to help states

14 like Georgia have healthy air by requiring

15 cleanup of pollution from coal-fired power

16 plants.

17 Power plants in at least ten states send

18 pollution into Atlanta, including those in my

19 home state of South Carolina. Georgia cannot

20 stop them. Georgia and the rest of the nation

21 need the Transport Rule to stop pollution from

22 crossing the state line.

23 The American Lung Association calls on EPA

24 to adopt the framework of the Clean Air Transport

25 Rule, but to also set tighter limits on10

1 emissions. Here's why.

2 As proposed, this rule will save between

3 14,000 and 36,000 lives each year. The

4 reductions are projected to prevent 23,000

5 nonfatal heart attacks and 240,000 asthma attacks

6 in children each year.

7 This rule will also help the economy. For

8 example, it will keep workers on the job and

9 children in school for the 1.9 million days a

10 year that they would have missed because of

11 illness. But imagine the lives saved, the

12 families protected, the economic benefits if we

13 stopped even more pollution.

14 The benefits of this rule far outweigh the

15 costs. EPA's estimates of the benefits range

16 from $120 billion to $290 billion in 2014. EPA

17 estimates that the annual cost of securing those

18 benefits is $2.8 billion. That means the

19 benefits outweigh the cost by over 40 to 100 to

20 one. With the benefits so high, EPA can and

21 should set tighter limits on power plant

22 emissions.

23 The Lung Association recommends that EPA

24 strengthen the limits by 2014 to no more than

25 90,000 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions and 1.7511

1 million tons of sulfer dioxide emissions. These

2 two pollutants are harmful as they pour out of

3 the smokestack, but in the air, they convert to

4 harmful fine particles and ground-level ozone.

5 We do need to do more because EPA's basing

6 this rule on sadly out-of-date national air

7 quality standards. This proposed rule uses

8 standards adopted in 1997 for ozone and annual

9 fine particles and 2006 for the 24-hour particle

10 standards.

11 Using out-of-date standards means that we

12 are looking at the wrong target for cleanup. EPA

13 should at least use the current ozone standard

14 set in 2008 for their assessment of downwind

15 impact.

16 The American Lung Association has fought for

17 years to protect our families, our children, and

18 our elders from the dangerous pollutants that

19 these power plants spread.

20 As usual, those who are most vulnerable bear

21 the greatest burden. They are children and teens

22 whose lungs are still growing, our seniors who

23 have breathed pollution for their entire lives,

24 and those who suffer from disease such as asthma,

25 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD,12

1 cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. You can

2 add families from low-income areas to that list

3 because they, too, are hurt disproportionately.

4 But even healthy adults who work or exercise

5 outdoors can be harmed by breathing these noxious

6 fumes.

7 Millions of Americans face higher risks that

8 their disease will worsen, that their asthma or

9 heart disease will send them to the emergency

10 room, or that they will die simply because of

11 pollution they must continue to breathe.

12 We know these steps can work. In the late

13 1990s, the NOx SIP call required companies to put

14 in place equipment that has helped to cut ozone

15 levels across many of the eastern states. The

16 Clean Air Interstate Rule in 2005 also showed

17 that we could cut the spread of fine particles.

18 Now we need to get this rule in place and clean

19 up even more pollution.

20 We've waited a long time for cleaner,

21 healthier air in Georgia and in the nation. We

22 need not put off reductions that we can use to

23 get the current national air quality standards

24 and current technology using those current

25 standards.13

1 This tool gives us the framework to act, to

2 stop pollution from blowing across our states.

3 The American Lung Association supports the

4 framework, but also urges EPA to set the right

5 targets and limits. Thank you.

6 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Jim. Questions

7 from the panel? Let me thank you for giving us

8 the South Carolina perspective and as well as

9 that as of the American Lung Association.

10 Appreciate it very much, Jim. Janice?

11 MS. NOLEN: Thank you. My name is Janice

12 Nolen. That's J-A-N-I-C-E, N-O-L-E-N. And I'm

13 assistant vice president for National Policy and

14 Advocacy with the American Lung Association.

15 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the

16 Clean Air Transport Rule.

17 Mr. Gooden, as the chair of our national

18 board of directors, has presented an overview of

19 issues on behalf of our board. The Lung

20 Association will be providing extensive comments

21 on the rule in writing.

22 I also had the wonderful opportunity to

23 speak in Chicago during that hearing. So today

24 I'm just going to emphasize the impact of tighter

25 standards on the proposed rule.14

1 EPA recognized that the national air quality

2 standards evolve, changing as scientific

3 knowledge grows. Growing research teaches us

4 more specifics about the needs -- about the kinds

5 of pollutants, their levels and the exposure

6 patterns that can harm us. We need to be able to

7 put that new information into a real-world

8 setting as soon as possible without having to

9 carry out extended delays sorting through our

10 national toolbox to figure out the best way to

11 fix the exhaust pipe.

12 EPA has worked hard to identify a systematic

13 approach to helping the states reduce the

14 transport of pollution across state lines. We

15 appreciate that effort. But we urge EPA to move

16 this framework forward in the final rule.

17 In this proposal, EPA chose to use the 1997

18 ozone standard that is now 13 years old. Two

19 years ago, the Bush administration replaced that

20 standard with a tighter one, setting 75 parts per

21 billion. The medical and public health community

22 considers 75 ppb far too much ozone for people to

23 breathe. The Obama administration chose to

24 reconsider the 2008 decision and is promising an

25 answer in October. Before you finalize the15

1 Transport Rule next year, we will know that what

2 new standard will be.

3 The American Lung Association expressed our

4 extreme disappointment last month as the EPA

5 announced that the new ozone standard would be

6 delayed until late October. The bottom line is

7 that the current EPA national air quality

8 standard for ozone is not 84 parts per billion

9 used in its proposed rule. For the time being,

10 it is 75 parts per billion. The Transport Rule

11 should reflect the current standard.

12 EPA is proposing to review and revise the

13 rule after the 2010 standard is adopted in 2011,

14 but to wait until then to strengthen the rule is

15 a mistake and unnecessary. The rule needs to

16 begin by using the current ozone standard. Any

17 county that gets a significant part of its ozone

18 for an 84 ppb standard for transported pollution

19 will also absolutely get a significant part of

20 its ozone under a 75 ppb or a more protective

21 standard. In fact, any county with current

22 design values above 75 ppb should have the help

23 this rule provides in solving their ozone

24 problems.

25 Right now, under the proposed rule, you've16

1 identified 10 states that contribute a

2 significant portion of the ozone and particulate

3 matter in Georgia. But you'll find that only --

4 you find that only four states, Florida,

5 Mississippi, Tennessee, my home state, and South

6 Carolina, are sending significant amounts of

7 ozone. And the only Georgia counties getting

8 protected are in the Atlanta metro area.

9 However, under a 75 ppb model, we would

10 expect that other counties in Georgia would need

11 to get help from the Transport Rule to tackle the

12 significant contribution of unhealthy air coming

13 into their communities. Many other states may

14 need to cut their emissions to keep from adding

15 to the burden of ozone in Georgia and EPA will

16 need to recalibrate the contribution of Georgia's

17 power plants to other states' ozone burdens.

18 Administrator Lisa Jackson has stated many

19 times that one of the primary goals of the EPA is

20 to protect public health and I believe her. And

21 I believe that the agency wants to set up an

22 approach that will work for the future. But EPA

23 cannot simply wait until there are designated

24 non-attainment areas for the 2010 ozone standard.

25 That will mean thousands of people will die each17

1 year that the rule waits.

2 EPA has design values and monitoring data

3 for all counties with ozone monitors. You can

4 readily tell which counties would fail to meet

5 the 75 ppb ozone standard using that data. EPA

6 could assess the burden upwind states are placing

7 on these downwind states just using the counties

8 with monitors as reference points.

9 Odds are good that the ozone standard

10 announced this fall will require at least as much

11 cleanup as the current standard and considerably

12 more than the 1997 one. Requiring controls based

13 on a 75 ppb provides a more realistic appraisal

14 of what will be needed than the proposed rule

15 does. We urge you to use the current ozone

16 standard to develop the final rule. Thank you.

17 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Janice. Any

18 questions? Okay. We appreciate your view on the

19 things we ought to consider here going forward.

20 Thank you very much.

21 The next two speakers are Rebecca Watts Hull

22 and Tiffini Jones.

23 MS. WATTS HULL: Good morning.

24 MR. NAPOLITANO: Good morning.

25 MS. WATTS HULL: My name is Rebecca Watts18

1 Hull. That's W-A-T-T-S, second word H-U-L-L.

2 And I represent Mothers and Others for Clean Air,

3 a Georgia-based, non-profit program.

4 Good morning. Mothers and Others for Clean

5 Air represents a network of roughly 1,400 Georgia

6 parents, grandparents, educators, healthcare

7 professionals, and others concerned about the

8 health effects of air pollution in our state.

9 We would like to commended EPA for its

10 efforts to reevaluate clean air standards and

11 develop new rules that will lead to reductions in

12 harmful emissions. Georgia needs federal

13 leadership to meet its clean air goals.

14 I'm here today to support EPA's preferred

15 version of the proposed Transport Rule and also

16 to urge EPA to integrate more quickly the new

17 2010 ozone standard into the final Transport Rule

18 rather than waiting to finalize a response in

19 2012.

20 First, I would like to highlight why Georgia

21 needs the Transport Rule. Georgia has an urgent

22 public health need to improve air quality. Our

23 state is fortunate to house many leading research

24 universities and a number of studies drawing on

25 decades of records from Atlanta area hospitals19

1 have demonstrated convincing associations between

2 ground-level ozone particulate matter and

3 respiratory emergency department visits.

4 A plume blows in from one of the large coal

5 plants surrounding the metropolitan area and

6 emergency department visits for asthma and other

7 respiratory symptoms rise. There's no doubt that

8 the pollution created from nitrogen oxide and

9 sulfer dioxide emissions affect our public

10 health, keeping children from school and parents

11 from work and even shortening lives.

12 Atlanta's urban core counties, Fulton and

13 DeKalb, have asthma rates over 12 percent,

14 compared with the state average of 10 percent,

15 which is bad enough. Georgia's urban areas

16 struggle with pollution from several major

17 sources including diesel engines, commuter

18 traffic, as well as some of the nation's largest

19 coal-fired power plants.

20 We need to explore each and every tool

21 available to reduce the pollutants threatening

22 the health of Georgia citizens, particularly

23 children and seniors. The Transport Rule is an

24 important tool in the regulatory toolbox.

25 The proposed Transport Rule would replace20

1 EPA's 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule. Georgia's

2 environmental protection division responded to

3 the 2005 federal rule by developing it's own

4 state rule with a timetable for installing

5 pollution controls on most of the coal-fired

6 power plants in Georgia.

7 Other states, however, waited to see the

8 results of the Court decision, delaying

9 installation of controls on their plants. As a

10 result, power plant pollution from Illinois,

11 Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida reaches

12 Georgia and contributes to the unhealthy smog in

13 our urban areas. The Transport Rule will force

14 these states to be good neighbors and install

15 controls themselves as Georgia has begun to do.

16 EPA is currently reviewing a number of

17 ambient air quality standards because scientific

18 research reveals harm at lower and lower

19 concentrations. Studies conducted right here in

20 Atlanta demonstrate links to emergency department

21 visits with concentrations of ozone and

22 particulates well below current standards.

23 Certainly Georgia can and should do more to

24 reduce its own power plant and mobile source

25 emissions, but we need every tool in the toolbox21

1 to get pollution levels as low as possible.

2 While Georgia works on reducing its own

3 emissions, we need upwind states to do their part

4 and install effective pollution controls on their

5 own coal plants.

6 The second point I'd like to make today

7 relates to how the proposed rule would be

8 adjusted in response to changing federal air

9 quality standards.

10 EPA has proposed to finalize the Transport

11 Rule based on the reductions needed to enable

12 states to meet the 1997 ground-level ozone

13 standard of 84 parts per billion. However, in

14 just two short months, EPA is expected to

15 announce a new standard for ozone in the range of

16 60 to 70 parts per billion. Given the very

17 significant difference between the 1997 standard

18 and the new standard coming this fall, we would

19 ask that EPA finalize the proposed Transport Rule

20 with nitrogen oxide budgets designed to meet the

21 new standard not the 1997 standard.

22 While we applaud EPA's commitment to

23 evaluate whether new emissions reductions would

24 be required from upwind states each time National

25 Ambient Air Quality Standards are modified, we do22

1 not want to see a two-year delay to revise the

2 Transport Rule when the new ozone standard is so

3 close to being finalized. Please revise the NOx

4 limits in the proposed Transport Rule based on

5 the 2010 ozone standards as soon as possible.

6 Business and industry groups will no doubt

7 testify that this new rule is unnecessary and

8 would hurt the economy. But it is time for

9 utilities that choose to rely on coal-fired power

10 production to bear its true costs, one of which

11 is higher concentrations of ground-level ozone

12 and fine particulate pollution.

13 Public health and associated economic costs

14 have been externalized for far too long.

15 Building the public health costs of high-risk

16 forms of energy production such as burning coal

17 into the cost of doing business will help level

18 the playing field and make cleaner and more

19 sustainable forms of power production more

20 competitive. Georgia citizens, along with the

21 rest of the eastern US, will benefit as cleaner

22 forms of energy production begin to replace coal

23 plants.

24 In summary, Mothers and Others for Clean Air

25 urges the EPA to pass a strong coal plant23

1 Transport Rule that includes updated nitrogen

2 oxide caps to reflect the coming change in the

3 federal standard for ground-level ozone.

4 We also ask that EPA work as quickly as

5 possible to reevaluate emission budgets in the

6 Transport Rule as the standard for fine

7 particulate matter is reviewed and possibly

8 strengthened in coming years.

9 Thank you for all EPA's efforts to reduce

10 air pollution in Georgia and throughout the US

11 and thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

12 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. Questions?

13 MS. KEMKER: I have --

14 MR. NAPOLITANO: Please, Carol.

15 MS. KEMKER: Thank you, Rebecca. You

16 reference a number of health studies in your oral

17 comments. Will you be submitting a list of those

18 studies in your written comments?

19 MS. WATTS HULL: They're actually written

20 out.

21 MS. KEMKER: Excellent. Thank you.

22 MR. NAPOLITANO: Any others? Thank you.

23 And thank you for spending the time laying out

24 sort of the health concerns as you saw them. It

25 was actually nice to hear how sophisticated24

1 you've come to see the issues that we're

2 addressing. We appreciate that very much.

3 Tiffini?

4 MS. JONES: Good morning. My name is

5 Tiffini Eugene Jones, T-I-F-F-I-N-I, and I am an

6 independent sustainability consultant here in

7 Atlanta, Georgia. And I'm here today to support

8 the proposed Transport Rule.

9 I applaud EPA's proposed Transport Rule that

10 will require 31 states and the District of

11 Columbia to reduce power plant emissions. I want

12 utilities in the eastern US, some of whose

13 pollution reaches our state, to be required also

14 to put pollution controls on their coal plants.

15 By reducing the emissions from the upwind

16 states, this proposal would help downwind states,

17 most noteworthy being Georgia, attain our

18 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

19 Atlanta lives with ozone and particulate

20 pollution concentrations that exceed federal

21 standards, which put our citizens, especially our

22 children, at risk. This air pollution disrupts

23 families with lost work and school days due to

24 respiratory infections and asthma attacks,

25 derails the healthy lung function growth in25

1 children and even shortens lives.

2 As the mother of three young boys, this

3 ruling is of particular interest to me. My

4 family and I spend a lot of time outdoors hiking,

5 fishing, and especially playing sports. Let's

6 take now for instance. With the start of

7 football season overlapping with the ozone

8 season, I, as a parent, am always concerned. My

9 two older sons, ages 10 and eight, are both

10 football players, while my four year old is the

11 water boy and also an integral part of the team

12 might I add because he never misses a game or

13 practice.

14 On a serious note, it has been researched

15 that children and teens, as well as people who

16 work or exercise outdoors regularly, are more

17 prone to the hazards of air pollution. Children

18 have more respiratory infections than adults,

19 which also seems to increase their susceptibility

20 sustainability to air pollution.

21 Furthermore, children don't behave like

22 adults and their behavior also affects their

23 vulnerability. They are outside for longer

24 periods of time and are usually more active when

25 outdoors. Consequently, they inhale more26

1 polluted outdoor air than adults typically do.

2 The World Health Organization published an

3 in-depth look at the research on children's

4 health and air pollution. Most importantly, the

5 scientists concluded that particle pollution

6 caused infant deaths. In addition, they found

7 that air pollution caused a host of harmful

8 effects on children, including short-term and

9 long-term decreased lung function rates and lower

10 lung function levels, critical measures of how

11 well the child will breathe throughout his or her

12 life, worsening of asthma from exposure to

13 particle as well as ozone pollution, increased

14 prevalence and incidents of cough and bronchitis

15 primarily from particle pollution, and also

16 increased risk of upper and lower respiratory

17 infections.

18 A recent study suggests that year-round

19 exposure to ozone may be associated with an

20 increased risk of the development of asthma.

21 While more research is needed to confirm this

22 finding, researchers tracking 3,500 students in

23 Southern California found an increased onset of

24 asthma in children who were taking part in three

25 or more outdoor activities in communities with27

1 high levels of ozone.

2 Another health study looked at the long-term

3 effects of particle pollution on teenagers.

4 Tracking nearly 1,800 children between ages 10

5 and 18, researchers found that those who grew up

6 in more polluted areas faced the increased risk

7 of having underdeveloped lungs, which may never

8 recover to their full capacity.

9 The average drop in lung function was

10 20 percent below what was expected for the

11 child's age, similar to the impact of growing up

12 in a home with parents who smoked. And I hope

13 everyone is aware of the adverse consequences of

14 secondhand smoke.

15 The answer, however, is in our own backyard.

16 The 1996 Olympics right here in Atlanta, Georgia,

17 proved to be a significant case study. Atlanta

18 is highly ranked as an urban area with a history

19 of serious ozone and fine particle pollution

20 problems.

21 The strategic efforts by the City to reduce

22 traffic during the Olympics succeeded in not just

23 reducing congestion but improving the health of

24 children with asthma. Concerned with the

25 expected traffic gridlock, the City utilized more28

1 buses, subway cars and carpooling options during

2 the summer of the Olympic games. These measures

3 created a prolonged period of low ozone pollution

4 that resulted in significantly lower rates of

5 childhood asthma events for children age one

6 through 16.

7 According to the American Lung Association,

8 the number of asthma acute-care events decreased

9 42 percent in the Georgia Medicaid claim files.

10 Pediatric emergency departments also saw

11 significant reductions, as did the Georgia

12 hospital discharge database and a health

13 maintenance organization database.

14 The Transport Rule is important because

15 millions of people continue to breathe unhealthy

16 air that does not meet our National Ambient Air

17 Quality Standards. More emissions reductions are

18 needed to protect public health and the

19 environment from air pollution.

20 It is estimated by the EPA that in 2014

21 11 million cases or days of restricted

22 recreational activity can be avoided with the

23 proposed implementation rule, 1.9 million days of

24 missed work and school can be avoided, and

25 440,000 cases avoided of upper and lower29

1 respiratory symptoms.

2 Notably, since the proposed rule expedites

3 installation of pollution controls in 2012 that

4 were formerly happening by 2014, the benefits of

5 the Transport Rule in 2012 are actually even

6 greater at the outset of the program.

7 The proposed rule will yield more than 120

8 to 290 billion in annual health and welfare

9 benefits in 2014. This far outweighs the

10 estimated annual costs of $2.8 billion.

11 There are some costs and important benefits

12 that EPA cannot monetize, the health and welfare

13 of our children. We cannot afford not to pass

14 this important public health measure. Please

15 pass the preferred version of the Transport Rule,

16 as even more stringent regulations are needed to

17 protect public health. All Americans, namely my

18 three sons, Truman, Leland and Armstrong, deserve

19 to breathe clean air.

20 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to

21 you today.

22 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you very much,

23 Tiffini. The studies you've mentioned, in case

24 they are somehow not among what we have, can you

25 submit them for the record? Because it was an30

1 interesting set of studies that you went through

2 that I'd like to be sure are part of our record.

3 MS. JONES: Absolutely.

4 MR. NAPOLITANO: And thank you very much for

5 relating this in a personal way of why you care

6 about the childhood study. Thank you.

7 The next two speakers are Bradley

8 McKinley -- or, Brad McKinley -- excuse me -- and

9 Amelia Shenstone. Brad, please.

10 MR. McKINLEY: Good morning. My name is

11 Brad McKinley, M-C, capital K, I-N-L-E-Y. I am

12 an AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer assigned to the

13 Gateway Center in downtown Atlanta. VISTA has a

14 program called the Faces of Homelessness Speakers

15 Bureau in which four million homeless individuals

16 speak to schools, youth groups, church and civic

17 groups on some of the causes and consequences of

18 homelessness. We are currently concerned about

19 the increase in homelessness among school-aged

20 children and the prevalence of respiratory

21 disease among homeless children.

22 The National Center on Family Homelessness

23 states that over one and a half million children

24 experience homelessness each year. Over

25 34 percent of the three and a half million31

1 homeless people in the United States are families

2 with young children and this is the fastest

3 growing segment of the homeless population.

4 These numbers are likely to continue to grow in

5 terms of the economic recession and housing

6 foreclosures.

7 The majority of homeless children live in

8 very few states. In 2006, 75 percent of

9 America's homeless children lived in just 11

10 states. These states are concentrated in the

11 south and southwest to where temperatures are

12 higher and in the cities in these regions where

13 homelessness is higher. In short, heat, smog and

14 homelessness are concentrated in southern cities

15 like Atlanta.

16 Homelessness makes children sick. Homeless

17 children are more than twice as likely as

18 middle-class children to have moderate to severe

19 acute and chronic health problems. Homeless

20 children are much more likely to have asthma than

21 children from middle-income families. Asthma has

22 become the primary indicator of poor health among

23 homeless children.

24 The most common chronic childhood illness,

25 asthma, is aggravated by the difficult living32

1 conditions often experienced by children without

2 homes. It keeps children from going to and

3 participating in school, interferes with a

4 child's ability to play, and places an undue

5 burden on their family.

6 The average homeless family in Georgia is

7 headed by a female in her late twenties with a

8 high school education or a GED and with two

9 children under the age of 10. For families

10 headed by women alone who cannot afford child

11 care and who may have jobs with inflexible hours,

12 caring for a child with asthma can contribute to

13 the slide into homelessness. Statistics

14 describing the prevalence of asthma confirm its

15 association with poverty and poor environmental

16 conditions.

17 I happen to work in perhaps the hottest and

18 most congested part of downtown Atlanta where all

19 the interstate highways converge next to Turner

20 Field. There are also freight yards and freight

21 trains running nearby and downtown traffic on

22 Peachtree Street and other major surface streets.

23 In addition to the MARTA buses concentrated at

24 Five-Point Station, there is a Greyhound bus

25 station less than one block away and homeless33

1 people routinely arrive there from all over the

2 country and walk directly to the Gateway Center

3 seeking shelter.

4 When families have to wait or return for

5 appointments or walk to other centers for

6 appointments, they walk around in the hottest,

7 smoggiest part of Atlanta for hours at a time,

8 sometimes for days on end. The number of such

9 families with young children has increased

10 dramatically in recent months.

11 At the one facility where I work, there is a

12 women and children's center with 43 beds, all of

13 which are always filled. In addition, we provide

14 for 90 women and children nightly in an emergency

15 overflow shelter.

16 Homeless children who are fortunate enough

17 to be sheltered, unfortunately spend more hours

18 per day on buses than other children. They are

19 the first to be picked up in the morning and the

20 last to be dropped off at night so as to disguise

21 to other students the fact that they are

22 homeless.

23 The National Center on Family Homelessness

24 recently issued a report card in which they

25 ranked all 50 states on the risks to children to34

1 become homeless and the health risks for children

2 if they became homeless. With the number one

3 being the best rating and the number 50 being the

4 worst rating, Georgia placed 49th among the 50

5 states.

6 At the time of that study, there were 58,397

7 homeless children in Georgia, the vast majority

8 of whom were preschool or K through eight

9 students, the most likely to ride buses.

10 Nationally, one in every 50 children is homeless.

11 In Georgia, the number is more like one in 40.

12 The causes of homelessness are interrelated

13 and can be hard to correct individually or

14 collectively. But here something clear and

15 concrete can be done to prevent one of the

16 primary symptoms and alleviate much of the

17 suffering of children and families who happen to

18 be homeless.

19 Reducing diesel emissions and smog in

20 Georgia will make life better for school

21 children, as well as for the rest of us who live

22 and work here. Therefore, the Atlanta Faces of

23 Homelessness Speakers Bureau supports a strong

24 Transport Rule to reduce one of the main sources

25 of air pollution causing harm to Georgia's35

1 children. Thank you.

2 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Brad. Thank you

3 for giving us that unique perspective of how this

4 rule can be helpful to the homeless children.

5 Thank you. Questions? Thank you very much.

6 Amelia?

7 MS. SHENSTONE: Good morning. My name is

8 Amelia Shenstone. I'm the Georgia Coal Organizer

9 for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and

10 I'm based her in Atlanta. We're a regional

11 non-profit clean energy organization with members

12 throughout the southeast and we've worked since

13 1985 to decrease our region's dependence on

14 fossil fuels which contribute to serious air

15 quality problems ubiquitous in the southeast.

16 The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

17 supports EPA's proposed Clean Air Transport Rule

18 and believes that it's a good step toward

19 requiring needed air pollution reductions in the

20 electric power sector.

21 This rule will fill a wide and troublesome

22 gap in the federal government's clean air

23 regulatory scheme and will help relieve

24 long-suffering states from the burden of

25 out-of-state air pollution.36

1 While air quality has improved in recent

2 years, primarily through power plant retrofits,

3 we see this new rule as an important step in

4 cementing and then continuing the ongoing process

5 of cleaning up our air.

6 The Transport Rule will lock in the gains we

7 have made in the last five years, goes farther

8 than CAIR would have in 15 states and should

9 allow many non-attainment states in the east to

10 reach attainment.

11 The proposed Transport Rule not only sets

12 stringent standards for coal-fired units, it

13 demonstrates that rigorous methods were used to

14 derive those standards from state-specific

15 emissions and transport data. Yet we believe

16 there are areas where the EPA proposal could be

17 strengthened in order to more adequately protect

18 the lives of many Americans.

19 At today's pollution levels, the lives of

20 tens of thousands of Americans will be cut short

21 and there are still over 700 coal-fired units in

22 the US operating with no sulfer scrubbers in

23 place. At this point, every coal-fired unit and

24 power plant in the US should be well controlled.

25 We urge the EPA to reduce the annual control37

1 region sulfer dioxide cap to 1.75 million tons

2 and the nitrogen oxide cap to 900,000 tons.

3 The necessity of this Transport Rule is

4 further highlighted by the recent Court decision

5 regarding interstate air pollution transport. On

6 July 26th, the United States Court of Appeals for

7 the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in the case

8 of North Carolina versus Tennessee Valley

9 Authority. The Court expressed a belief that the

10 federal Clean Air Act framework was extensive and

11 protective of downwind states, thereby negating

12 the need for individual states to sue under a

13 common law public nuisance theory.

14 While the Clean Air Act is productive in

15 many ways, it's not as flawless as the Court

16 suggested. North Carolina, for example, has been

17 striving for years to improve its air quality by

18 addressing transported pollution and

19 administrative channels available under the Clean

20 Air Act have proven ineffective.

21 Now with this proposal, the good-neighbor

22 provisions of the Clean Air Act will finally

23 provide some relief for North Carolina and many

24 other states struggling with non-attainment and

25 poor air quality from out-of-state pollution.38

1 While we're pleased to see that EPA has set

2 strong and rigorously modeled budgets for upwind

3 states, we are concerned about the confusing

4 nature of group-one classification as it applies

5 to the Tennessee Valley Authority.

6 EPA explains that certain states are

7 categorized as group-one states and are tasked

8 with sulfer dioxide reductions in 2012 and again

9 in 2014. Tennessee is a group-one state and yet

10 Tennessee's sulfer dioxide budget is 100,007 tons

11 in 2012 and in 2014. In other words, it appears

12 that Tennessee is not required to further reduce

13 its sulfer dioxide emissions as other group-one

14 states will be required to do.

15 TVA is currently announcing important steps

16 to clean up its energy portfolio and to help

17 improve regional and transported air pollution.

18 It may be that the Clean Air Transport Rule is

19 part of the impetus for TVA's improvements and a

20 stringent budget that is consistent with other

21 group-one states will help push further progress.

22 We, therefore, ask that you please clarify why

23 Tennessee as a group-one state has only one

24 sulfer reduction goal set for 2012 and ask that

25 you consider setting a more stringent budget for39

1 2014.

2 Ultimately, we support this rule and thank

3 EPA for its work to rapidly finalize it because

4 air pollution seriously threatens public health

5 and quality of life for many southerners. We

6 urge EPA to strengthen the rule as mentioned and

7 we will be providing more in-depth written

8 comments with our colleagues.

9 Implementation of this rule could save

10 upwards of 36,000 lives per year, lives that many

11 states simply cannot protect on their own because

12 air pollution knows no boundaries. With the

13 promulgation of the Clean Air Transport Rule, our

14 air will be cleaner and lives will be saved.

15 Thank you.

16 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Amelia. Amelia,

17 could you give us just a little bit more

18 background on your organization?

19 MS. SHENSTONE: The Southern Alliance for

20 Clean Energy was founded in 1985 and we're

21 devoted to energy solutions that protect healthy

22 communities and solve global-warming issues. We

23 have offices in several southeastern states.

24 We're focused on Georgia, Tennessee, North

25 Carolina, Florida, and Virginia I believe. Let40

1 me double check on that, though. I think there

2 are five. And we do work in other states as

3 well.

4 MR. NAPOLITANO: That gives us a sense.

5 You're representing a regional base.

6 MS. SHENSTONE: Yes. Absolutely.

7 MR. NAPOLITANO: That's very helpful. Any

8 questions?

9 MR. SMITH: With respect to the 900,000-ton

10 recommendation for NOx, I just wanted to get

11 clarification. Do you see that as an amount over

12 a region such as the eastern US or what region

13 does that cover?

14 MS. SHENSTONE: I will have to get back to

15 you in written comments.

16 MR. SMITH: And let me just suggest that I

17 think that likely is a regional total that's over

18 some multi-state region. It's not important that

19 we know exactly what region today, but it would

20 be useful to identify within that 900,000-ton

21 total and the similar one for SO2 how you see

22 that playing out state by state.

23 Because one of the concerns that we were

24 trying to address was the Court -- in the Court

25 decision on CAIR, the concern was that a regional41

1 cap by itself didn't ensure that each state

2 address the Clean Air Act's requirement. So in

3 addition to the 900,000-ton total, it would be

4 useful to hear it in the written comments how you

5 would apply that state by state.

6 MS. SHENSTONE: We'll be sure to do that.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Amelia. Thanks,

9 Brad, as well.

10 The next two speakers are John Hornback and

11 Thad Huetteman please. John, please.

12 MR. HORNBACK: Thank you. Good morning. My

13 name is John Hornback, J-O-H-N, H-O-R-N-B-A-C-K.

14 I'm the executive director of two non-profit

15 organizations, Metro 4, Incorporated, and

16 Southeastern States Air Resource Managers,

17 Incorporated, commonly called SESARM, located in

18 Forest Park, Georgia.

19 Metro 4 was formed by various city, county,

20 and metropolitan government jurisdictions in

21 Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, and

22 Tennessee and today serves 17 local jurisdictions

23 in those states.

24 SESARM was formed by and serves the eight

25 southeastern states that comprise EPA's region42

1 four. I am testifying today on behalf of the

2 collective 25 local and state air pollution

3 control agencies in these jurisdictions and I

4 thank you for this opportunity. The agencies

5 that I represent especially thanks EPA for

6 scheduling this public hearing in Atlanta.

7 The southeast is an area of expanding

8 population and economic growth. Compounding our

9 growth are many demands for more industrial and

10 business services, better highway networks, and a

11 myriad of other infrastructure needs.

12 The southeast has achieved substantial

13 emission reductions and resultant air quality

14 improvements over the past several decades in

15 spite of the areas rapid growth. However, as the

16 National Ambient Air Quality Standards are

17 tightened, the region continues to need

18 appropriate emission reductions to aid in

19 attaining and maintaining compliance with

20 national standards.

21 The agencies which Metro 4 and SESARM

22 represent are committed to managing air quality

23 in the southeast in a responsible manner. The

24 subject of my comments today is EPA's proposal to

25 limit oxides of nitrogen, NOx, and sulfer43

1 dioxide, SO2, emissions in the eastern United

2 States.

3 This rule is currently called the Transport

4 Rule. We previously provided preliminary written

5 comments on behalf of eight states and four local

6 agencies to the Clean Air Markets Division and

7 the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

8 on August 6th, 2009. I would like to reiterate

9 the fundamental principles contained in those

10 2009 comments.

11 Number one, further control of NOx and SO2

12 emissions will be necessary for our region to

13 meet federal standards and regulations issued

14 under the authority of the Clean Air Act.

15 Two, levels of control should be based on

16 sound air quality analysis using accepted

17 evaluation tools.

18 Three, establishment of emission reduction

19 mandates should be guided solely by what is

20 needed to achieve and maintain attainment with

21 national standards. Such analyses must give

22 consideration to the impacts of emissions of

23 local origin, as well as transported emissions.

24 However, the cost in relative air quality value

25 of local versus distant emission controls must be44

1 evaluated and final emission limits should be

2 based on cost-effectiveness and proven

3 technology.

4 Number four, deadlines for achieving

5 mandated emission reductions should be designed

6 to support the attainment deadlines prescribed

7 for the standards. At the same time, the

8 regulated community must be granted the required

9 time to design and implement control equipment

10 and operational changes necessary to meet the

11 emission limits.

12 Number five, authority must be maintained to

13 allow for states to implement additional programs

14 necessary to address attainment and maintenance

15 issues within their borders.

16 Number six, timely guidance from EPA is

17 extremely critical to implementation of the final

18 Transport Rule. This guidance should be issued

19 concurrent with finalization of the rule.

20 Number seven, emissions trading should be

21 allowed to the extent authorized under the Clean

22 Air Act and any such trading program in the final

23 Transport Rule should be operated at no cost to

24 the local and state agencies.

25 We encourage EPA to finalize the Transport45

1 Rule consistent with the aforementioned

2 principles. A number of the southeastern

3 agencies will be filing more specific written

4 comments by the prescribed deadline of

5 October 2nd, 2010. We ask that EPA carefully

6 consider and implement such comments to the

7 extent possible.

8 Again, thank you for holding this public

9 hearing in Atlanta today and thank you for this

10 opportunity to comment.

11 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, John. Thank you

12 very much for reiterating the principles that you

13 sent us last year, which were very useful --

14 yours and other regional operations of the

15 states -- in helping us get to the Transport

16 Rule. Thank you very much. Please go ahead.

17 MR. HUETTEMAN: Good morning. My name is

18 Thad Huetteman, T-H-A-D, H-U-E-T-T-E-M-A-N. Not

19 even my wife can spell it. I'm chairman of the

20 Environmental Markets Association.

21 The Environmental Markets Association or EMA

22 is the leading US-based trade association focused

23 on promoting market-based solutions such as

24 emissions trading to meet environmental

25 challenges.46

1 We have two primary objectives. First, to

2 assist in the formation of sound public policy

3 and flexible environmental regulations and,

4 second, to encourage the spread of trading

5 industry best practices through effective

6 education, training, and member networking.

7 EMA is the preeminent voice for those

8 organizations who underwrite improved human

9 health and air quality by creating SO2 and NOx

10 reductions and, when they exceed their required

11 reductions, trading them.

12 We represent a diverse membership of some

13 200 entities, including electric utilities,

14 emissions brokers and traders, electronic

15 exchanges, law firms, project developers,

16 consultants, academics, public interest groups,

17 and government agencies. In short, we are the

18 people who make environmental markets work every

19 day.

20 As you know, right now environmental markets

21 are not working so well. In the aftermath of the

22 DC Circuit Court's decision in North Carolina

23 versus the EPA, crippling uncertainty has

24 undermined confidence in the continued viability

25 of emissions trading.47

1 Environmental Markets Association recognizes

2 EPA's efforts in the proposed Transport Rule to

3 preserve a critical role for emissions trading in

4 environmental regulation, while working within

5 the bounds of the Court decision to guarantee

6 that interstate transport pollutants does not

7 interfere with attainment in downwind states.

8 We fail to understand how cap and trade

9 policy has been diminished in public debate on

10 Capital Hill over climate-change legislation. As

11 EPA and analysts noted in a recent article,

12 quote, the acid rain and NOx budget programs have

13 reduced SO2 and NOx emissions faster and at far

14 lower costs than anticipated, yielding

15 wide-ranging health and environmental

16 improvements, unquote.

17 To fulfill our national compliance targets

18 by undertaking significant financial commitments,

19 we feel it is essential for EPA to restore

20 confidence in trading programs when companies can

21 both receive a fair shot at a return on

22 investment and reduce emissions.

23 We at EMA appreciate the need for additional

24 emission reductions. Without the environmental

25 certainty of a cap, none of us can be assured48

1 that desired improvements in human health and air

2 quality will be achieved. At the same time,

3 without the regulatory certainty needed to

4 support trade, risk premiums for emission

5 reduction projects go up, along with the cost of

6 allowances, something that does not benefit

7 either the environment or consumers.

8 Cap and trade should be about attracting

9 capital to the highest returned projects. The

10 higher the cost of capital, the higher the cost

11 of the projects that get completed, and the

12 greater the resistance to further reductions.

13 Emission allowances represent the return on

14 emission reduction investments which underwrite

15 these improvements in human health and air

16 quality.

17 We know that EPA realizes that it is

18 critical to maintain the integrity of allowance

19 markets, even as it becomes necessary to tighten

20 or expand environmental programs. In particular,

21 we are glad to see that EPA is considering

22 options for the convertibility of currently

23 traded CAIR NOx allowances for subsequent use in

24 meeting Transport Rule reduction requirements.

25 Failing to convert banked CAIR NOx49

1 allowances largely eliminates the return on

2 investment that companies expected as CAIR was

3 implement and will discourage wider participation

4 in emission markets.

5 We know that EPA understands these

6 principles, but we think it is essential for it

7 to take the next step and provide for continuity

8 of current programs by providing for conversion

9 of currently traded allowances.

10 We also appreciate that the EPA -- the

11 agency is concerned over the possibility of

12 additional litigation because CAIR NOx allowances

13 were allocated based on fuel factors which the

14 Court rejected in its decision.

15 EMA believes that EPA could provide for

16 continuity in allowance markets by electing to

17 apply surrender ratios to banked allowances as it

18 is proposed in the rule. We suggest that it

19 might help to reduce the risk of subsequent

20 litigation if EPA set the fuel factors in a way

21 that would reverse the impact -- if it set the

22 fuel factors in a way that reverse the impact of

23 the original allocation method, for example, if a

24 100-percent coal-fired company converted its

25 allowances at a higher ratio than a gas-fired50

1 company.

2 EMA supports efforts such as EPA's to

3 promote market-based mechanisms for responding to

4 environmental issues because emissions trading is

5 reducing emissions earlier at lower costs than

6 any other form of regulation.

7 We encourage EPA to maintain the continuity

8 of existing programs by providing for the

9 convertibility of current period allowances to

10 subsequent trading rule programs.

11 That concludes my remarks. EMA will be

12 supplementing these remarks with additional

13 written comments. Thank you for the opportunity

14 to provide these comments today.

15 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. And any

16 questions from the panel? Okay. And please

17 provide us the details that show those concepts

18 about how you think they could possibly work to

19 make them concrete so we can help get those in

20 the public comment response if you would please.

21 MR. HUETTEMAN: I'd be glad to.

22 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. The next two

23 speakers are June Deen and John Kinsman. June

24 Deen? All right. John, you may proceed.

25 MR. KINSMAN: Good morning. My name is John51

1 Kinsman, senior director of environment at Edison

2 Electric Institute, which is the trade

3 association of US shareholder-owned electric

4 power companies.

5 The EEI shares a commitment with EPA to

6 further reduce emissions from power generating

7 facilities and supports the general objectives

8 underlying EPA's proposed Transport Rule.

9 The electric power industry already has made

10 significant progress of reducing emissions of

11 nitrogen oxide, NOx, and sulfer dioxide, SO2,

12 according to the EPA data, even while the nation

13 has consumed more energy and the economy has

14 grown.

15 In Georgia, annual power plant NOx emissions

16 have been cut 75 percent from 1990 to 2009.

17 Nationally, the industry emitted only 12 percent

18 of NOx emissions in 2009. EPA's proposed rule

19 finds that power plants in Georgia already

20 surpass requirements for reducing interstate NOx

21 emissions related to the 1997 ozone standard.

22 This proposed rule requires substantial

23 additional sulfer dioxide, SO2, emissions

24 reductions. SO2 emissions for power plants in

25 Georgia already have been reduced 70 percent52

1 during the period of 1990 to 2009. The transport

2 Rule would reduce SO2 emissions for power plants

3 in Georgia by another two thirds by 2014. And

4 the state's power plant SO2 budget would be

5 reduced by 90 percent in 2014 compared to 1990

6 emission levels.

7 While some of Edison Electric Institute's

8 member companies have stated they are able to

9 meet the requirements of the proposed rule, due

10 to some combination of individual company

11 approaches to addressing environmental issues,

12 state requirements, settlement agreements, fuel

13 mix or other factors, other EEI members have

14 concerns regarding the proposed Transport Rule.

15 One concern is that the proposed Transport Rule

16 establishes new reduction requirements that must

17 be met only six and 30 months after the final

18 Transport Rule is issued.

19 Some of our member companies have expressed

20 concern that EPA's assumptions regarding their

21 current control technology projects may be

22 inaccurate and that they will have difficulty in

23 achieving the initial 2012 compliance deadlines.

24 There also is concern by some companies that

25 simultaneously adding controls at many units can53

1 stress labor, materials, and state and local

2 regulatory agencies, and that completing

3 simultaneous control installations by the end of

4 2013 to meet the 2014 compliance deadline is

5 unrealistic. This maybe especially true in nine

6 states where electric generating units would need

7 to reduce their sulfer dioxide emissions by at

8 least 50 percent from 2009 to 2014.

9 Some EEI member companies believe that the

10 full schedule, from conceptualization to

11 regulatory approvals by financial regulators and

12 air quality permitting agencies, through

13 construction and operation of an SO2 scrubber,

14 can take up to 60 months. This assumption stands

15 in stark contrast to EPA's estimate that a new

16 scrubber can be installed in 27 months.

17 EEI believes that it's imperative that the

18 EPA, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

19 FERC, and the Department of Energy and states

20 work together to utilize all tools available to

21 meet compliance targets while maintaining

22 electric system reliability.

23 EEI has misgivings regarding the proposed

24 Transport Rule providing little long-term

25 certainty because its requirements will be54

1 superseded in the near future. EPA is planning

2 to issue a separate proposal regarding NOx

3 emissions related to the 1997 ozone standard. In

4 the near future, EPA also has indicated it will

5 issue a Transport Rule II related to the

6 October 2010 ozone standard and it is almost

7 certain that EPA will propose an additional major

8 Transport Rule by 2012 to address the more

9 stringent 2011 particulate matter standard.

10 These rules are all in addition to the power

11 generating sector MACT rule, which will not be

12 finalized until late 2011, about six months after

13 the final Transport Rule, and which will greatly

14 influence company decisions regarding sulfer

15 dioxide equipment.

16 These rules will force unknown additional

17 control requirements for Georgia power plants in

18 addition to in-state requirements related to

19 ozone, particulate matter, sulfer dioxide and

20 nitrogen oxide, National Ambient Air Quality

21 Standards, and regional haze.

22 In order for us to continue to effectively

23 produce electricity and reduce emissions, the

24 electric sector needs clear, coordinated and

25 flexible regulations that provide certainty for55

1 power companies to plan multi-billion-dollar

2 investments, many of which must serve decades

3 into the future.

4 Only through carefully crafted regulations

5 can EEI members continue to minimize costs to

6 consumers and impacts on shareholders, avoid

7 straining natural gas supply and prices, and

8 continue efficient and reliable electric

9 generation using diverse, domestic energy

10 resources.

11 This concludes my remarks. EEI will be

12 supplementing these oral remarks with additional

13 written comments. Thank you for the opportunity

14 to provide these comments today.

15 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, John. Any

16 questions from the panel?

17 MS. KEMKER: Yes.

18 MR. NAPOLITANO: Please.

19 MS. KEMKER: John, thank you for your

20 comments. You mentioned in your comments that

21 EPA may have some inaccurate information on

22 control projects. Will the more specifics to

23 that be included in your written comments?

24 MR. KINSMAN: I know that individual

25 companies will address their evaluation of the56

1 assumptions probably more than our comments in

2 general. We may raise them at some level, but

3 not in as much detail as individual companies.

4 MS. KEMKER: Okay. Thanks for bringing your

5 perspective.

6 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. I take it

7 you're June Deen.

8 MS. DEEN: I am.

9 MR. NAPOLITANO: Please, June.

10 MS. DEEN: Hello. May name is June Deen.

11 Welcome to Atlanta. It's J-U-N-E, D-E-E-N. I'm

12 here representing the American Lung Association

13 in Georgia. And thank you for the opportunity

14 for us to share our thoughts on this.

15 We are pleased that EPA has proposed this

16 rule. We understand it will reduce tons of

17 dangerous pollution that blows here from other

18 states. We've long needed greater emphasis on a

19 regional approach to reducing air pollution.

20 The American Lung Association calls on EPA

21 to not only adopt the framework of the Clean Air

22 Transport Rule, but to strengthen the limits on

23 emissions nationwide to meet the requirement of

24 protecting human health.

25 This rule will save thousands of lives. We57

1 are committed to the prevention of lung disease

2 and the promotion of lung health and this rule

3 will further those goals.

4 Today pollution blows into Georgia from 10

5 different states, states as far away as

6 Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois send ozone and

7 particles here. Georgia's taken some steps to

8 cut pollution from our power plants, but

9 obviously we cannot control the wind. Your rule

10 will help Georgia tame it's pollution problem.

11 Your own analysis shows that our power

12 plants share their emissions with nine other

13 states. Fine particle pollution from our power

14 plants is found in states as far away as New

15 Jersey and our ozone helps Houston rank as the

16 fifth most ozone polluted city in the American

17 Lung Association's state of the air report this

18 year.

19 Coal-fired power plants emit millions of

20 tons of sulfer dioxide and nitrogen oxide. These

21 pollutants are hazardous on their own and they

22 are part of the raw ingredients for ozone and

23 fine particles, two even deadlier pollutants.

24 Breathing these pollutants puts Georgians at

25 risk.58

1 We are all aware that a smog alert is

2 forecasted for today in Atlanta. Children,

3 seniors, people with chronic lung diseases like

4 asthma, people with cardiovascular disease and

5 diabetics, as well as people who live in poverty

6 face greater risks from these pollutants.

7 As it stands, this rule will cut sulfer

8 dioxide pollution by 72 percent and nitrogen

9 oxide pollution by 52 percent. According to

10 EPA's own estimates, that means we can save 14 to

11 36,000 lives each year. We can prevent 23,000

12 heart attacks each year and eliminate 26,000

13 visits to the ER or hospital. Those are huge

14 improvements, but we can do better so that even

15 fewer people will suffer.

16 EPA can and should require even more

17 reductions. Your own figures tell the story.

18 Using the limited cap, EPA calculates that the

19 annual benefits total between $120 and $290

20 billion a year by 2014. That's lives saved as

21 well as the benefits of medical care afforded,

22 days not missed from work and school.

23 By contrast, the annual cost in 2014 will be

24 many times less, estimated to be $2.8 billion a

25 year. With the benefits so much greater than the59

1 costs, putting time reductions in place is a

2 logical improvement for the final rule.

3 We support a nationwide limit on sulfer

4 dioxide of no more than 1.75 million tons by

5 2014. Nitrogen dioxide limits should be no more

6 than 900,000 tons by 2014. We support EPA

7 reviewing the calculations using the 2008

8 national standard for ozone to determine what is

9 really needed now.

10 I see my time's almost up. I'll close by

11 saying we at the American Lung Association call

12 on EPA to take this opportunity to do more to

13 protect the air we breathe and the lives of our

14 family and friends. Thank you.

15 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, June.

16 Questions? Thank you very much for sharing again

17 from a local perspective of Georgia of the

18 American Lung Association's perspective on this.

19 Thank you.

20 The next two speakers are Midge Sweet and

21 Colleen Kiernan. And if you would spell your

22 name please for the court reporter.

23 MS. SWEET: Certainly.

24 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thanks.

25 MS. SWEET: Good morning. My name is Midge60

1 Sweet, M-I-D-G-E, Sweet, S-W-E-E-T.

2 Good morning again. My name is Midge Sweet

3 and I'm the director of Georgians for Smart

4 Energy Coalition, which is a state-wide campaign

5 to stop construction of more dirty coal-fired

6 power plants in Georgia and to support a plan for

7 clean energy options, including investment in

8 energy efficiency and clean, renewable power

9 sources.

10 We support EPA's clean Transport Rule

11 because it will reduce sulfer dioxide and

12 nitrogen oxide pollution that create ozone smog

13 and fine particulate pollution that blows into

14 our state.

15 This regulation by our government which is

16 specifically charged with protecting our health

17 will improve the health of millions of people at

18 risk from these pollutants, especially seniors

19 and children, people with chronic lung disease

20 and cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.

21 Here in Georgia, the Medical Association of

22 Georgia estimates that over 35,000 asthma attacks

23 and 1,362 heart attacks are triggered from

24 coal-fired power plant pollution.

25 We know also that the need to cut pollution61

1 for Georgia's power plants will reduce what we

2 send to other states. And as you know, as of

3 August 5th, dirty coal power plants in Georgia

4 generated over 100,000 tons of SO2 and over

5 29,000 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions just this

6 year.

7 We need to be good neighbors and Georgians

8 for Smart Energy is working to prevent the

9 development of three additional proposed

10 coal-fired power plants that would generate

11 sulfer dioxide, nearly 9,000 tons every year, and

12 over 4,000 tons every year of nitrogen oxide,

13 with over 5,000 tons of particulate matter.

14 And as we know, coal-fired power plant

15 particle pollution bypasses the body's natural

16 defenses and can lodge within the lungs and cause

17 respiratory problems for children and other

18 sensitive groups.

19 In 1988, my husband, John Sweet, started the

20 Atlanta Youth Soccer Association at a time when

21 24 years ago there was no youth soccer here in

22 downtown Atlanta communities. Now over 1,000

23 children participate in this exciting sport in

24 Atlanta city neighborhoods, joining thousands of

25 energized soccer players in leagues across62

1 Atlanta and Georgia, running happily over soccer

2 fields in spring and fall.

3 However, increasingly, the often unseen

4 pollution from power plants in our state and

5 beyond blows or drifts into the city and

6 communities state-wide and makes it difficult for

7 children to breathe, especially as their small

8 lungs strain and expand during exercise. Small

9 black particle matter, nitrogen oxide and sulfer

10 dioxide fill the lungs of these young soccer

11 players. We are not taking care of our children

12 when inhalers are becoming standard gear with

13 soccer shin guards.

14 Children are powerless against powerful

15 dirty coal power interests and parents feel

16 helpless watching their children gasp for breath

17 on the soccer field. The Clean Air Transport

18 Rule is an opportunity to speak out for our

19 children and other sensitive groups that rely on

20 our knowledge and action to protect them.

21 This Transport Rule does what we cannot do,

22 which is require power plants that are spewing

23 toxic pollution into our state to clean up their

24 act and to require some of the plants here in

25 Georgia that send our dirty coal plant pollution63

1 to neighboring states. And as has been

2 mentioned, this rule would require Georgia, as

3 other states, to cut the pollution. Although

4 there has been a great reduction already, Georgia

5 has some of the dirtiest coal plants here in the

6 nation.

7 The new EPA rule would have enormous public

8 health benefits and the reduced pollution would

9 save 36,000 lives each year and prevent 26,000

10 hospital admissions and ER visits every year.

11 The benefits of cleaning up these pollutants,

12 especially the public health benefits, far

13 outweigh the costs and by 2014, the annual

14 benefits will be between 42 to 103 times greater

15 than the cost according to your estimates. Any

16 parent will tell you that this is a small price

17 to pay to insure that children can get exercise

18 and happily run across a soccer field or a

19 backyard and are protected from health risks as a

20 result of the dangerous coal plant pollutants.

21 While it is true that by 2014 the rule will

22 decrease sulfer dioxide pollution by 72 percent

23 and nitrogen oxide by 52 percent, we believe that

24 EPA should do more and can do more. There is

25 pollution control technology that is widely64

1 available and very effective.

2 EPA should endorse a higher, tighter

3 national limit on sulfer dioxide and nitrogen

4 oxide emissions. And this investment in cleaning

5 up even more means that we will see even greater

6 health benefits, including more lives saved each

7 year and fewer children gasping for breath. The

8 choice is either that coal plant operators invest

9 in emission controls or our families pay for

10 distress and the costs of expensive healthcare

11 needed for their children's illnesses caused by

12 dirty coal pollution.

13 I wanted to also mention that we believe

14 that the regional standards wouldn't address

15 needed state regulatory limits and while still

16 wouldn't impair any market trading. I urge you

17 to courageously step up to the challenge and set

18 aggressive standards that will protect our

19 families from pollution-induced asthma, heart

20 attacks, and other health ailments that we know

21 result from coal-fired power plants. Thank you

22 for the opportunity to provide this testimony.

23 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Midge.

24 Questions from the panel? Thank you very much

25 for giving us the Georgia perspective for youths65

1 from Atlanta here on how you look at our rules

2 and their importance. Thank you very much,

3 Midge. Did we have Colleen Kiernan?

4 Okay. The next speakers are Dr. Yolanda

5 White and Anne Mellinger. Please, Dr. White.

6 DR. WHITE: Hello. Good morning. My name

7 is Dr. Yolanda White. I've been practicing

8 primary care pediatrics for the past six years,

9 traveling throughout the state of Georgia, as

10 well as the Indian Health Services. Most of all,

11 I do medical missions abroad which have helped me

12 to appreciate living in a nation that has

13 regulatory agencies accountable to protect human

14 health. For this reason, I'm grateful for the

15 opportunity to give medical testimony in support

16 of the Transport Rule.

17 An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of

18 cure, but when you're unable to prevent your

19 exposure to harmful threats, it leaves you

20 vulnerable, helpless and insecure.

21 Ground level is the lowest part of the

22 earth's atmosphere known as the troposphere, with

23 tropos meaning mixing in Greek. This part of the

24 atmosphere contains 75 percent of its mass and 99

25 percent of its water vapor, aerosols and gases.66

1 Normal weather processes involving sunlight,

2 heat, humidity, pressure and wind mix here with

3 environmental pollutants creating chemical and

4 photochemical reactions. The emissions of sulfer

5 dioxide and nitrogen oxides react with sunlight

6 to create smog consisting mainly of this

7 ground-level ozone and particle pollution which

8 can travel thousands of miles and place large

9 geographical regions at risk.

10 These pollutants mediate their adverse

11 health effects through oxidative and nitrosative

12 stress which can damage virtually all cell

13 structures, including proteins, lipids and DNA.

14 Your body's natural production of antioxidents,

15 like glutathione, and dietary antioxidants may

16 not be enough to overcome these stressors.

17 Even short-term exposures of low-level ozone

18 are concerning. A 2002 Italian study

19 demonstrated that exposure of just two hours to

20 0.1 part per million of ozone induced changes in

21 biomarkers of lung inflammation and oxidative

22 stress measured from breath and blood samples.

23 Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and

24 African-Americans are most vulnerable to the

25 adverse health effects of air pollutants, as well67

1 as those with pre-existing lung and/or heart

2 disease.

3 Children are particularly vulnerable because

4 their lungs do not fully mature until after

5 puberty. They have a larger lung surface area to

6 body weight ratio, a higher level of physical

7 activity, faster breathing rate and, thus, minute

8 ventilation.

9 Their kidneys are not fully developed and,

10 as a result, they have a higher glomerular

11 filtration rate and a lower urinary excretion of

12 these toxins. Therefore, exposed to the same

13 level of toxin, children receive a larger dose.

14 Their metabolic enzyme systems are not fully

15 developed and less efficient in detoxification.

16 Their immune system is less developed and less

17 able to scavenge free radicals and repair damaged

18 DNA.

19 Exposures during the prenatal period and

20 early life carry the greatest risk for severe and

21 permanent damage since their organs are going

22 through critical periods of development. The

23 blood-brain barrier, for example, is not formed

24 until six months old, placing infants under that

25 age at heightened risk for brain damage and68

1 neurotoxicity that can manifest as developmental

2 delays and intellectual deficits.

3 The new field of nanoscience has determined

4 that even trace exposures to toxins can have

5 devastating effects depending on individual

6 susceptibility. Air pollutants are linked to

7 infant mortality, sudden infant death syndrome,

8 miscarriages, prematurity, low birth weight and

9 birth defects.

10 Summer months are worse for children because

11 outdoor air quality is at its worst, combined

12 with longer lengths of time that children spend

13 outdoors. Most outdoor air pollutants even

14 penetrate into buildings and make substantial

15 contributions to indoor pollution.

16 Even though symptoms of air pollution are

17 amongst the most common seen in primary care,

18 pollutants are rarely included in differential

19 diagnoses and eventually slip under the radar.

20 They also go undetected from our body's natural

21 senses of sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch,

22 as well as from our body's natural defenses.

23 Even when brown haze produced by smog is seen,

24 the public remains oblivious to its effects on

25 our personal health due to lack of public69

1 awareness.

2 Ozone and particle pollution can cause acute

3 symptoms of nose, eye, throat and lung

4 inflammation. This ultimately results in

5 unnecessary use and overusage of decongestants,

6 antihistamines, steroids, analgesics, and other

7 pharmaceuticals to aid control of symptoms, much

8 of which is used off-label in children and has

9 its own side effect profile and is involved in

10 major recalls recently.

11 Ozone and particulate matter contribute to

12 four of the five leading causes of death in the

13 US, including heart disease, cancer, stroke and

14 chronic lower respiratory disease. By triggering

15 asthma attacks and heart attacks, hospitals and

16 emergency rooms can be easily overwhelmed. This

17 adversely affects indirect health indicators of

18 missed days of school and/or work.

19 The dynamics of primary care physician

20 offices are also affected when direct patient

21 care is diverted to completing health insurance

22 prior authorization forms, school and work

23 excuses, letters to the school, updating asthma

24 action plans with the school nurse, and other

25 paperwork.70

1 African-Americans, already victim to health

2 disparities, have both disproportionate exposures

3 to air pollution and disproportionate adverse

4 health and developmental outcomes.

5 African-Americans make up 13 percent of the

6 population and are responsible for 20 percent

7 fewer greenhouse gas emissions than whites per

8 capita, Yet 71 percent live in counties that

9 violate federal air pollution standards,

10 78 percent live within 30 miles of a coal-fired

11 power plant, and are three times more likely to

12 be hospitalized or die from asthma and

13 respiratory illness linked to air pollution.

14 The World Health Organization found that the

15 air quality in large cities of developed

16 countries is remarkably poor, exposing residents

17 to ambient concentrations of air pollutants well

18 above WHO guidelines.

19 I'm requesting that the EPA set much tighter

20 sulfer dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in

21 support of this Transport Rule and require even

22 greater cleanup. There's immediate need for an

23 aggressive public awareness campaign and

24 community outreach activities. Cleaning the air

25 not only saves lives and money, but it keeps71

1 children in school and keeps people working,

2 making it a win-win solution for everyone. Thank

3 you.

4 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Dr. White. The

5 statistics that you gave in regards to the black

6 population in proximity to the power plants and

7 areas out of attainment, can you give us the

8 supporting analysis behind that for the record?

9 DR. WHITE: I quoted the article A Climate

10 of Change, African-American, Global Warming and a

11 Just Climate Policy for the US. It was produced

12 by the Environmental Justice and Climate Change

13 Initiative Report from July 2008.

14 MR. NAPOLITANO: Great. Thank you.

15 Questions anyone? Thank you very much,

16 Dr. White, for that clinical explanation of the

17 air pollution problems and particularly how they

18 affect minority populations and black Americans.

19 Thank you.

20 Anne Mellinger-Birdsong. I'm sorry. I left

21 off that name. Could you spell your name for the

22 court reporter?

23 MS. MELLINGER-BIRDSONG: Anne has got an E

24 on the end, M-E-L-L-I-N-G-E-R dash

25 B-I-R-D-S-O-N-G and I gave a copy of my testimony72

1 outside with the people.

2 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. Thanks, Anne.

3 MS. MELLINGER-BIRDSONG: Okay. Good morning

4 and thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

5 My name is Anne Mellinger-Birdsong. I'm a

6 pediatrician and an epidemiologist.

7 I will start off by saying that I am

8 speaking in support of the proposed rule on the

9 transport of ozone and fine particle matter.

10 Ozone is formed from a chemical reaction

11 involving nitrogen oxides in combination with

12 heat and sunlight. It is a respiratory irritant

13 that affects mucosa from the eyes and nose on

14 down through the respiratory tract to the

15 smallest alveoli.

16 Ozone has been found to increase emergency

17 department visits for respiratory symptoms and

18 asthma for people of all ages. It can cause

19 increased school absences and in adults a

20 shortness of breath. In children, it has been

21 implicated in possibly causing decreased lung

22 growth and the development of asthma, not just

23 asthma exacerbations.

24 Children, senior citizens, and people of all

25 ages with respiratory disease are vulnerable to73

1 the effects of ozone. Fine particulates are a

2 complex mix of chemicals, hydrocarbons and other

3 substances present at the time of production.

4 Nitrogen oxide and sulfer dioxide both contribute

5 to the formation of fine particulates.

6 Fine particulate pollution is associated

7 with asthma exacerbations, other respiratory and

8 cardiovascular hospitalizations, strokes,

9 cardiovascular mortality and lung cancer.

10 Children, teenagers, senior citizens, and people

11 of all ages with diabetes, heart or respiratory

12 diseases are most vulnerable to fine particulate

13 pollution.

14 The American Acadamy of Pediatrics, in its

15 statement on ambient air pollution, noted that

16 80 percent of the alveoli in children's lungs are

17 formed after birth and changes continue through

18 adolescence. Therefore, children are more

19 vulnerable to the adverse effects of pollution

20 than adults are. In addition, children have

21 increased exposure to many air pollutants because

22 children breathe faster, are more physically

23 active, and spend more time outdoors than adults

24 do.

25 These statements apply to all kinds of air74

1 pollution, including both ozone and fine

2 particulates. Analysis of ozone and particulates

3 from monitors in Atlanta show that in addition to

4 that which is produced in Georgia, our pollution

5 is transported from the neighboring states of

6 Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and South Carolina

7 and also from more distant states, including

8 Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and

9 West Virginia. Georgia also produces ozone and

10 fine particulates that are transported to other

11 states.

12 Estimates of the benefits of the proposed

13 Transport Rule are that it would prevent about

14 25,000 premature deaths every year with a range

15 of 14 to 36,000, prevent about 26,000 hospital

16 and ER admissions every year, and prevent about

17 240,000 asthma exacerbations every year.

18 There is also the indirect benefits of fewer

19 work days missed, fewer school absences, and

20 increased learning and productivity from people

21 who are not sick.

22 Children, by the nature of their increased

23 minute ventilation and still maturing lungs, are

24 clearly very vulnerable to the effects of ozone

25 and fine particulates. Children have no say in75

1 where they live, where they go to school, or the

2 quality of the air they breathe. They depend on

3 the adults in their lives and on society at large

4 to make these choices for them. We, as adults

5 making these decisions, are clearly responsible

6 for the health and safety of the children in our

7 country.

8 Adults with respiratory and cardiac

9 conditions are also vulnerable to both ozone and

10 fine particulates. It is clear that the

11 interstate transport of ozone and fine

12 particulates and the precursors of nitrogen oxide

13 and sulfer dioxide has public health impacts and

14 that regulating and reducing interstate transport

15 could have major public health benefits.

16 Therefore, I support this proposed rule and EPA's

17 efforts to reduce interstate transport of both

18 ozone and fine particulates.

19 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Anne. Questions

20 from the panel? Okay. Well, thank you very much

21 for giving us your sense of the health effects

22 and the importance to you for us to deal with

23 them. Thank you.

24 Okay. The next speaker would be Harrison

25 Layer who is the last scheduled speaker we have.76

1 Harrison?

2 What happens is, if nobody else comes

3 through, we will adjourn and come back when we

4 have somebody indicated to speak. So we'll go

5 into adjournment, but we'll stay here and be

6 ready for more speakers to come. Harrison,

7 please.

8 MR. LAYER: Hello, everyone. My name is

9 Harrison Layer and I'm testifying as a private

10 citizen.

11 Thank you for the opportunity to speak

12 today. I not only speak for myself but on the

13 behalf of many in my community that could not be

14 here. This community includes students,

15 activists, full-time workers, and lovers of

16 Atlanta.

17 I am pleased with the EPA's mission to

18 reduce pollution. I am here to advocate for

19 cleaner air and some issues that intersect with

20 this issue.

21 I'm an avid pedestrian and a budding

22 bicyclist. This year is my third year at Georgia

23 State University and I'm a resident of downtown

24 Atlanta. I chose specifically to live in

25 downtown Atlanta so I could be close to school77

1 and public transit options. I wanted to minimize

2 my car dependence in order to live locally,

3 therefore sustainably. However, something I had

4 not anticipated was the possible health impact I

5 would face by making these choices.

6 Often when I go for a bike ride or a walk in

7 the car-saturated city of Atlanta, I receive a

8 sore throat and a dry cough. As a

9 health-conscious individual, I am concerned about

10 the pollutants and emissions in the air and

11 wonder if they are the cause.

12 I am aware that the energy used to power the

13 city of Atlanta is primarily from coal-fired

14 power plants. This only further pollutes the air

15 we breathe. It almost makes me want to wear one

16 of those construction masks as both a political

17 statement and a health precaution. I can't help

18 but imagine -- I mean, get the image of

19 bicyclists in urban China in their polluted

20 cities. I don't want that for the United States.

21 I support several issues that surround the

22 topic of promoting a healthier Atlanta. One of

23 these is the beltline project. If you are not

24 aware, the beltline is a project that will

25 implement 22 miles of light-rail transit around78

1 Atlanta's urban core, increase the City's park

2 space by 40 percent, and add 33 miles of trails

3 for recreational use. This project will include

4 a residential development, green transit

5 alternatives, and a healthier, more active

6 lifestyle. I think projects like these will

7 increase quality of life and decrease pollution

8 emitted by motor vehicles.

9 Another issue I support is the

10 implementation of renewable energy resources in

11 Georgia. I know that at least two coal-fired

12 power plants are proposed in south and central

13 Georgia. One plant proposed in Early County, the

14 1,200 megawatt Longleaf plant, will emit over

15 nine million tons of carbon dioxide each year,

16 along with other dangerous pollutants, sulfer

17 dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and pull millions of

18 gallons of water from the Chattahoochee River

19 each day. Instead of investing in new coal

20 facilities, why are we not taking progressive

21 steps toward a clean energy future?

22 The next issue I bring up is one of

23 environmental justice. Over 25 percent of Early

24 County's population lives below the poverty line

25 and half of the county's population consists of79

1 communities of color. Why should low-income

2 communities with disproportionate numbers of

3 historically disenfranchised people receive the

4 environmental burden of providing power to the

5 growing number of people in the Atlanta

6 metropolitan area? The people in Early County

7 might be receiving jobs, but getting these jobs

8 would sacrifice the integrity of their air, soil,

9 water and overall health.

10 I believe the air we breathe is public

11 space. I cannot understand why the public space

12 should be fouled by pollution via coal- and

13 oil-powered activities. The Clean Air Acts of

14 the past have reduced pollution, improved the

15 quality of life, and prevented possible

16 illnesses. Let us continue this trend with the

17 implementation of the Transport Rule and keep the

18 health of our communities and earth a top

19 priority. Let us move towards a sustainable,

20 clean energy future. Again, thank you for the

21 opportunity to address you today.

22 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Harrison. Any

23 questions? Okay. Well, thank you very much for

24 sharing your personal issues and the way you've

25 thought through the issues. I appreciate you80

1 coming down and sharing that with us very much.

2 MR. LAYER: Thank you.

3 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. Let me slightly

4 correct myself. We are not going to adjourn, but

5 we're going to recess would be a better way to

6 look at it. The hearing will go on. We will

7 stay here until 8:00 o'clock. I think there are

8 speakers scheduled throughout the day, but our

9 experience has been, both in Philly and Chicago,

10 that we'll have spots like this where we'll just

11 adjourn -- excuse me -- recess and call you back

12 once we have speakers in the queue again to get

13 going. So we'll take a short break and hope to

14 be back soon.

15 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:36

16 a.m. until 11:48 a.m.)

17 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. We are back in

18 session. We've got four more speakers that are

19 scheduled. The first two would be Beth Remmes

20 and Robert Brown. I'm sensing you're Robert

21 Brown.

22 MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.

23 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. She's en route.

24 MS. REMMES: Hi.

25 MR. NAPOLITANO: Hi. Good morning, Beth.81

1 Please.

2 MS. REMMES: My name is Beth Remmes and I am

3 a resident in Lilburn, Georgia. I'm here to

4 speak today as a concerned citizen. And I

5 thought it would be appropriate to wear orange

6 since we've had a record number of orange smog

7 alert air quality days in Atlanta this year. So

8 I'm here to support the proposed Transport Rule.

9 I was diagnosed with asthma about 20 years

10 ago and I've lived in Georgia now for five and I

11 was -- I always had to take care of my asthma and

12 I was really surprised here, in addition, to have

13 the smog warnings and hike up to the top of Stone

14 Mountain and see the smog covering the city.

15 It's definitely something that I have had to be

16 more conscious of since being down here and treat

17 that accordingly. And I feel very lucky that it

18 has been diagnosed and I do have treatments for

19 it, but I certainly have a lot of compassion for

20 all the children that are not diagnosed or do

21 have it and have to sit out of recess because

22 they can't be out with the bad air quality days.

23 I understand that this proposal would cost

24 energy companies money and time to implement

25 this, but I honestly feel like that's something82

1 they signed up for when they got in the business

2 of providing people with energy. It's just an

3 inherent risk and responsibility. And it's going

4 to be paid for somewhere.

5 Right now I'm paying at least $30 a month

6 for medications and that's with my insurance.

7 And, fortunately, I haven't had to be

8 hospitalized for it, but if I did, that's quite

9 an additional cost for me and the healthcare

10 system. So I don't think anyone's going to get

11 out of paying for it. I guess it's just the

12 question is who.

13 And personally if -- again, if they are in

14 the business of providing energy, I feel like

15 that's where it comes from. That's part of what

16 they signed on for. And if that means that our

17 rates go up a little bit, I'm happy to pay that

18 if it mean that the children can enjoy recess.

19 That's what I have to say. Thank you.

20 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Beth, and thank

21 you for taking the time to come down here and

22 give us your personal views. Thank you very

23 much. Robert?

24 MR. BROWN: Good morning. My name is Robert

25 Brown and I represent the Bureau of Air Quality83

1 within the South Carolina Department of Health

2 and Environmental Control.

3 I would like to thank the EPA for the

4 opportunity to provide comments on EPA's proposed

5 rule entitled Federal Implementation Plans to

6 Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate

7 Matter and Ozone, commonly called the Transport

8 Rule.

9 South Carolina and the Department of Health

10 and Environmental Control is a public health

11 agency for the state of South Carolina and we are

12 committed to promoting and protecting the health

13 of the public and the environment for the state

14 of South Carolina.

15 We generally support the proposed Transport

16 Rule and its important public health benefits,

17 but we have some concerns about its

18 implementation and the potential negative impact

19 on air quality in South Carolina.

20 In my testimony today, I will focus on just

21 a few of the comments that South Carolina has for

22 the EPA on the proposal. We will make our full

23 response in our comment letter later this month.

24 First, the proposed Transport Rule offers

25 further evidence that the current uncoordinated84

1 approach to setting the National Ambient Air

2 Quality Standards or NAAQS is inefficient.

3 The EPA intends to revise the Transport Rule

4 with each new revision of a relevant NAAQS.

5 Presumably this means that the EPA will tighten

6 the budgets with each NAAQS revision. Ozone does

7 fall, PM 2.5 in 2011, and so forth.

8 South Carolina certainly welcomes the

9 ultimate public health and environmental benefits

10 that these new tightened budgets could bring, but

11 revising the Transport Rule according to the

12 underlying schedule of NAAQS revisions is

13 unnecessarily complex and benefits to the

14 public -- to public health and environment could

15 be delayed as rules and regulations are

16 litigated.

17 In addition, this approach could hamper the

18 long-term planning on which the emission trading

19 scheme depends. South Carolina supports making

20 the necessary improvements to the air quality

21 management process that will ultimately involve

22 state and local air agencies, as well as other

23 stakeholders, in developing a comprehensive

24 approach to air quality management that provides

25 an opportunity for integrated multi-pollutant85

1 planning.

2 Our second comment centers on the increases

3 in allowable sulfer dioxide and oxides of

4 nitrogen, or SO2 and NOx respectively, budgets

5 that some states are to receive under the

6 proposed Transport Rule.

7 These possible increases in NOx and SO2

8 emissions are troubling given the recent lowering

9 of the NOx and SO2 primary NAAQS, the current

10 reconsideration of the 2000 ozone standard, and

11 the end review of the fine particulate matter or

12 PM 2.5 NAAQS. While we understand the technical

13 reason for why this happened, it is hard to

14 contemplate why the EPA is not taking this

15 opportunity to address a more stringent NAAQS and

16 bring about the public health and environmental

17 benefits that the NAAQS are intended to address.

18 The budgeting process of the Transport Rule

19 considered downwind non-attainment and

20 interference with maintenance and the proposed

21 budgets are the modeled amounts of NOx and SO2

22 that sources can emit without further

23 contributing to non-attainment while interfering

24 with maintenance downwind. However, the EPA did

25 not account for the way a larger budget could86

1 potentially impact local air quality.

2 For example, there is a proposed 103 percent

3 increase in South Carolina's SO2 budget from the

4 CAIR to the Transport Rule. Under the CAIR,

5 South Carolina sources were allowed a budget of

6 57,271 tons of SO2 per year. However, in the

7 proposed Transport Rule, South Carolina sources

8 would be given a budget of 111,342 tons of SO2

9 per year.

10 This proposal to increase allowable

11 emissions seems to contradict the spirit of

12 anti-backsliding provisions in the Clean Air Act.

13 Moreover, the EPA assumed a stationary source

14 universe without an existing Clean Air Interstate

15 Rule or CAIR controls in the Transport Rule

16 model.

17 South Carolina contends that the EPA's model

18 should recognize the limits and controls put in

19 place to meet the requirements of the CAIR

20 because utilities are not operating in a world

21 without CAIR. South Carolina utilities and their

22 rate payers commit considerable resources to

23 install operating controls on several coal-fired

24 units to meet the requirements of the CAIR and

25 the EPA's transport modeling should take into87

1 account the operation of these CAIR-based

2 controls.

3 To address these unintended consequences,

4 South Carolina contends that the final Transport

5 Rule should include provisions to require sources

6 to maintain existing controls and start to comply

7 with the CAIR.

8 Our third comment is that South Carolina's

9 concerned about the Federal Implementation Plan

10 proposal and the lack of a specific state

11 implementation plan or SIP guidance in the

12 proposal. A FIP implies that a state has to meet

13 its obligation and this is just not the case.

14 South Carolina would prefer the opportunity

15 to implement the requirements through the SIP

16 process. It is unclear why there is such urgency

17 to replace our CAIR program in South Carolina

18 with a less stringent Transport Rule only to have

19 to update this rule to address the soon to be

20 revised ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

21 Further, there is little specificity in this

22 proposal on how the states would develop an

23 appropriate SIP to replace the transport FIP. As

24 this information has not been included in the

25 proposal, would a reproposal be required before a88

1 final rule?

2 The EPA has delayed many decisions,

3 including SIP approvals, giving the reason that

4 it could not rely on emission controls installed

5 to comply with remanded yet still in place CAIR.

6 Including more explanation on this question in

7 the final rule is necessary to provide clarity

8 and consistency that the EPA would achieve by

9 relying on the 10 EPA regions to develop their

10 own guidelines.

11 Our fourth comment concerns the 2010 ozone

12 standard. We trust that even with the recently

13 announced delay as it relates to the standard

14 that EPA will adhere to its commitment to

15 promulgate a proposed revision to the Transport

16 Rule in 2011 to address the finalized 2010 ozone

17 standard so that pollution from an upwind state

18 does not significantly contribute to

19 non-attainment or interference with maintenance

20 downwind for this lower standard.

21 As a result and considering our earlier

22 comments, South Carolina may wait until the 2011

23 Transport Rule to incorporate this rule into our

24 SIP. We do not have the resources to continually

25 update our SIP to address these uncoordinated89

1 federal actions, particularly where they

2 backslide or don't bring additional air quality

3 improvement. This is yet another example of

4 where EPA could demonstrate its commitment to

5 reforming the SIP process to focus limited

6 resources on air quality improvement and not

7 process for the sake of process.

8 South Carolina trusts the EPA will respond

9 to these comments in the final rule and, again,

10 we generally support the proposed Transport Rule

11 and the public health and environmental benefits

12 that it provides. And thank you for the

13 opportunity to provide comments on this proposal.

14 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Robert. Any

15 questions from the panel? Okay. Well, thank you

16 very much for giving us the air director's views

17 for the state of South Carolina. We very much

18 appreciate the comments and we'll review them as

19 we go forward. Thank you.

20 MR. BROWN: Thank you.

21 MR. NAPOLITANO: The next two speakers are

22 James Capp and Colleen Kiernan. James, please.

23 MR. CAPP: Good afternoon. My name is Jack

24 Capp. I am the chief of the Air Protection

25 branch of the Georgia Environmental Protection90

1 Division.

2 I appreciate the opportunity to present some

3 preliminary thoughts on this very important

4 proposed rule. I'm also appreciative that EPA is

5 holding this hearing here in the southeast and

6 hope that it is an indication of future

7 precedence.

8 Georgia has a long history in addressing our

9 quality issues in the state and is proud of the

10 improvements we've made in the quality of life

11 for our citizens.

12 Georgia currently has four areas designated

13 non-attainment for fine particulates under the

14 1997 annual standard and one area designated

15 non-attainment for ozone under the 1997

16 eight-hour standard. We have no areas designated

17 non-attainment for fine particles under the 2006

18 24-hour standard.

19 Georgia EPD has already done much to reduce

20 emissions of sulfer dioxide and nitrogen oxide

21 within our state. In an effort to ensure that

22 these areas are on schedule for getting back into

23 attainment with those standards, Georgia EPD

24 negotiated with stakeholders a very successful

25 multi-pollutant rule for power plants that91

1 requires significant reductions of sulfer dioxide

2 and nitrogen oxides to be phased in between 2008

3 and 2015.

4 However, Georgia still needs cost effective

5 reductions in sulfer dioxide and nitrogen oxide

6 emissions from upwind states in order to attain

7 and maintain the current air quality standards

8 for ozone and fine particles.

9 Georgia EPD will officially be requesting an

10 extension of the comment period. The amount of

11 information contained in the preamble, the rule,

12 and the technical support documents is

13 substantial and 60 days is not an adequate amount

14 of time to conduct a thorough review.

15 Some concerns we have identified so far

16 include the inclusion of non-EGUs, incorrect

17 emissions modeled for both 2012 and 2014, and

18 reductions scheduled to occur in 2015 that are

19 actually modeled as occurring at the beginning of

20 2014. All of these issues may lead to incorrect

21 decisions regarding Georgia's contribution to the

22 receptors EPA has linked us to, the amount of

23 reductions that will actually need to be made,

24 and what group we are placed in for SO2

25 reductions.92

1 A specific example is that EPA has modeled

2 approximately 551,000 tons of SO2 in 2012, while

3 the modeling inventory for our PM 2.5 SIPs that

4 have been submitted to EPA use approximately

5 233,000 tons of SO2 in 2012. Clearly more than

6 doubling the emissions would grossly misrepresent

7 Georgia's impact on non-attainment or maintenance

8 areas in other states.

9 It should be of the utmost importance to EPA

10 to get this rule right. And given the fact that

11 CAIR is still in place, we do not believe the

12 environment would be harmed by allowing an

13 additional 60 days for a proper review of the

14 technical information and the development of

15 meaningful, constructive comments on how to

16 improve the proposal.

17 One area that we have begun to look very

18 closely at and would like sufficient time to

19 prepare our best justification for is why we

20 believe that EPA should not include NOx controls

21 outside of the ozone season in the southeast as

22 part of this rule.

23 The Transport Rule air quality modeling

24 technical support document talks about the

25 state-by-state contribution assessment using PSAT93

1 source apportionment for SO2, NOx and direct

2 PM 2.5. EPA combined the contributions of

3 nitrate and sulfate in calculating the net

4 contributions of PM 2.5 for the purpose of

5 evaluating the interstate contributions against

6 specific threshold criteria. In order to justify

7 the annual state caps on both SO2 and NOx, it

8 should be demonstrated that SO2 and NOx

9 individually are significant contributors.

10 Georgia EPD has begun to examine the daily

11 PM 2.5 and annual PM 2.5 source apportionment

12 modeling results presented by EPA in the

13 technical support document. Specifically, we

14 looked at the impact from the combination of NOx

15 and SO2, which was the EPA approach, as well as

16 NOx and SO2 individually on non-attainment and

17 maintenance areas outside of Georgia.

18 The EPA approach combined the impacts of SO2

19 and NOx and compared the combined impacts to

20 one percent of the National Ambient Air Quality

21 Standards, which are 0.35 micrograms per cubic

22 meter for the daily PM 2.5 standard and 0.15

23 micrograms per cubic meter for the annual PM 2.5

24 standard.

25 If the combined impacts were above these94

1 levels, the upwind state was linked to the

2 downwind monitor and targeted for use in

3 reductions. However, the maximum impact from

4 Georgia NOx on daily PM 2.5 levels was 0.0364

5 micrograms per cubic meter, and the maximum

6 impact from Georgia NOx on annual PM 2.5 was

7 0.0159 micrograms per cubic meter, which is

8 approximately 0.1 percent of the National Ambient

9 Air Quality Standards.

10 In neither scenario did Georgia's NOx

11 contribution to PM 2.5 levels downwind come close

12 to the one percent of the NAAQS EPA has

13 established as a threshold. Based on this

14 analysis, using EPA's own results found in the

15 technical support document, it makes no sense to

16 control NOx emissions on an annual basis in the

17 southeast to prevent attainment or maintenance of

18 PM 2.5 levels in downwind states including those

19 outside the southeast.

20 Finally, EPA's approach to establishing

21 federal implementation plans or FIPs in every

22 state subject to this rule is unjustified and

23 undermines the federal-state partnership the EPA

24 administrator has said is important to successful

25 implementation of the Clean Air Act.95

1 On October 9th, 2007, EPA published in the

2 Federal Register the approval of Georgia's CAIR

3 SIP. This approval preceded the December 2008

4 remand of CAIR by the DC Circuit Court. CAIR was

5 remanded to ensure that the environmental

6 benefits achieved by that rule remain in effect.

7 Therefore, Georgia EPD strongly disagrees with

8 EPA's conclusion that the Court's decision means

9 EPA's approval of our SIP no longer satisfies the

10 section 110a2di obligation and for that reason,

11 EPA's 2005 findings that we failed to submit such

12 a SIP remains in force.

13 In lieu of the FIP, EPA should retain the

14 CAIR SIP requirements which continue to achieve

15 significant reductions until adequate time has

16 been provided for Georgia to submit and for EPA

17 to approve a revision.

18 Again, I would like to thank EPA for holding

19 this hearing in Atlanta. We will be preparing

20 more detailed comments for the docket and

21 sincerely hope that EPA will extend the comment

22 period so that those comments can be prepared

23 properly.

24 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. Thank you, Jack, for

25 your comments. And any questions from the panel?96

1 Okay. Well, thanks for sharing your perspective

2 and we look forward to going through your

3 detailed comments and having them to review as we

4 go through. Thank you very much.

5 MS. KIERNAN: Good afternoon. My name is

6 Colleen Kiernan. I'm the director of the Georgia

7 chapter of the Sierra Club and I appreciate the

8 opportunity to be able to speak here today.

9 I guess we generally echo both South

10 Carolina and Georgia EPD's support of the rule

11 but have some concerns of our own.

12 The Georgia chapter of the Sierra Club has

13 long been concerned about the ambient air quality

14 in Georgia. And as you may be aware, in the late

15 1990s, after years of missing deadlines to comply

16 with the ozone NAAQS, we brought it to EPA's

17 attention that metro Atlanta should have been

18 bumped up from serious non-attainment to severe

19 non-attainment which ultimately required more

20 scrutiny of the impact of our road building

21 projects on air quality and also lower emission

22 limits at Georgia Power's coal-fired power

23 plants.

24 Ten years later, we are pleased that the NOx

25 pollution, particularly from Georgia Power's97

1 coal-fired power plants, has been significantly

2 reduced and that there have been only five days

3 this summer where Atlanta's air quality has

4 violated the 1997 ozone NAAQS. However more

5 reductions will be necessary when the newer, more

6 protective standards are finalized and we're

7 concerned that the Transport Rule does not go as

8 far as fast as the Bush era CAIR would have

9 required.

10 This backsliding is of even greater concern

11 for sulfer dioxide which is one of the components

12 of fine particle pollution. Fine particle

13 pollution is associated with serious health

14 problems because they get past the lung's natural

15 defense system. So serious health ailments such

16 as lung cancer, heart attacks, and strokes can

17 result.

18 While metro Atlanta did not violate the

19 PM 2.5 standard yet this year, the daily average,

20 there have been three violations in north Georgia

21 three in south coastal Georgia, two in Savannah

22 and one in Macon so far this year. Whereas CAIR

23 would have given Georgia an SO2 budget of 213,000

24 tons per year, the revised Transport Rule gives

25 Georgia a bigger budget of 233,000 tons in 2012.98

1 The construction schedules for the sulfer

2 dioxide controls at Georgia power plants can

3 achieve bigger reduction than the Transport Rule

4 will require. We also need controls as fast as

5 possible from our neighboring states, in

6 particular Alabama and Tennessee.

7 We do support the limits of the trading of

8 pollution allowances and we're pleased that the

9 emissions banking can only be used when emissions

10 reductions go below what is already required.

11 And that concludes my comments. Thanks again for

12 the opportunity to speak here today.

13 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you very much,

14 Colleen, for sharing the views of the local

15 chapter of the Sierra Club here in Georgia. Any

16 other questions for her? Thank you both for

17 coming and joining us and taking the time to be

18 with us.

19 Next speaker, Merry Ford. And this is the

20 last speaker I think before lunch we've got

21 scheduled this morning. And one more possible.

22 Hang in there with us. Merry, if you could

23 please spell your name.

24 MS. FORD: My first name is M-E-R-R-Y,

25 Merry, as in Merry Christmas. And I'm not99

1 scheduled, but I just wanted to say a couple of

2 words.

3 MR. NAPOLITANO: Please.

4 MS. FORD: I'm an X-ray technologist and PR

5 specialist for West End Medical Center. And we

6 have an annual asthma walk/run where we use the

7 funds to purchase nebulizers, the breathing

8 machines for those children who suffer with

9 asthma and their parents cannot afford to

10 purchase the nebulizer.

11 The nebulizer is needed -- I'm a little

12 nervous because I didn't expect to speak -- but

13 it saves the children from missing school. When

14 they have their own machine at home, the parent

15 can give them a breathing treatment and then send

16 the child on to school. And so we try to put

17 those nebulizers into the homes.

18 And the other reason for the asthma walk is

19 to send the child to Camp Breathe Easy where they

20 learn about asthma, what triggers an asthma

21 attack. And they just have fun for a week, but

22 they also are educated.

23 At our health center -- and we serve the

24 medically uninsured and under-served population

25 of Atlanta and Marietta. Our children are100

1 being -- the parents are being educated on the

2 triggers, smoke, rodents, feathers, things of

3 that sort. And then when you have to deal with

4 the air pollution, you're adding something else

5 to the things that trigger the asthma attacks.

6 So while our children are learning these

7 things, some of them are not making it. Some

8 children actually die from asthma. And pollution

9 is part of the problem. The negative air

10 pollution is part of the problem.

11 We can go into a home and we can say throw

12 this out, throw this out, throw that out, clean

13 the house out, but we can't do that with air. So

14 we need help with the children. And a parent

15 sometimes is smoking right over the child's head,

16 just -- they come into our yard at the center,

17 which now you can't even smoke on our campus.

18 But we've seen parents having a cigarette in

19 their hand. But wouldn't it be wonderful if we

20 could throw the pollutants out of the air just

21 like you drop a cigarette and step on it? It

22 would be wonderful.

23 So we've got to get to a point that we are

24 serious about -- and I think we are getting to

25 that point -- that we're serious about the effect101

1 that air pollutants have on our children, and not

2 just other everyday things that affect them.

3 Sometimes I give this little experiment when

4 I'm trying to talk. I put -- I give people a

5 straw. And I tell them to pinch their nose and

6 try to breathe through the straw. And it is

7 difficult. It's very difficult. You're going to

8 get a little pant. But that's the way a child is

9 when it's trying to breathe from an asthma

10 attack. As a matter of fact, y'all try this for

11 a minute. Let's just warm up for one minute.

12 Okay?

13 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay.

14 MS. FORD: All right. What I want you to do

15 is put a finger on a nostril. Now, put the other

16 finger on the other nostril and push down. Just

17 let just a little air come in. Just a little.

18 Close your mouth. Breathe, in and out, a quick

19 puff. See how difficult? You can't hardly get

20 air in, let alone take it out. And once it goes

21 out, it's hard to get it back in to get the lung

22 opened back up for the child to breathe.

23 We see these children coming into West End

24 Medical Center having a problem. And also I told

25 you an I'm X-ray tech. Well, sometimes I'm102

1 trying to get a deep breath into the child so we

2 can open the lungs up to make sure pneumonia is

3 not hid in the lungs. They can't do it. And I

4 really need that deep breath, but they cannot do

5 it.

6 So I'm so grateful that you're allowing me

7 to speak for just a moment, but I have to get

8 more involved because I can't just keep giving

9 asthma walks and don't know the cause. I know

10 what's going on in my center and that limited

11 knowledge that we get there, but we've got to go

12 to deeper depths and higher heights to deal with

13 what's happening with our children.

14 And adults now are just dying from asthma.

15 A friend of mine dropped dead, boom. And they

16 had the autopsy. It was an asthma attack. So

17 I'm getting started today. I've started a little

18 bit already, but I'm getting more involved in

19 what's happening to bring on asthma in Georgia.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you very much, Merry,

22 for coming down and for your visual demonstration

23 of your concern. Thank you.

24 MS. FORD: Thank you.

25 MR. NAPOLITANO: Natasha Herbert. Please go103

1 ahead.

2 MS. HERBERT: Sure. Good afternoon,

3 everyone. My name is Natasha Herbert and I'm a

4 student at Emory University Rollins School of

5 Public Health.

6 As a public health student, we are

7 constantly reminded that preventative or primary

8 methods are key to the health of populations of

9 people compared to secondary or tertiary methods.

10 The Clean Air Transport Rule, if enacted, is

11 an example of a primary method that would protect

12 many people from developing diseases and

13 conditions that are preventable.

14 I'm a supporter of this rule because it is

15 time to clean up power plants and decrease the

16 pollution that we are creating. Coal-fired power

17 plants produce massive amounts of pollution which

18 affect those living in close proximity, along

19 with those afar due to the winds blowing

20 particulate matter and other fine particles

21 around.

22 The state of Georgia has been proactive in

23 making steps to clean up the power plants here,

24 but we are also affected by our neighboring

25 states by pollution that blows in. We need EPA104

1 and the cooperation of all our neighbors to

2 decrease pollution and prevent unnecessary asthma

3 attacks and emergency room visits that Americans

4 face every day due to the pollution produced by

5 coal-fired power plants.

6 There are several laws at the national and

7 state level that have been passed and enforced

8 that save countless lives. Every time we put on

9 our seat belts when we get in the car, we think

10 click it or ticket. Or when we are able to

11 breathe smokeless air on airplanes or in some

12 indoor facilities, just think of the many

13 individuals and lives that were saved because

14 these laws were enacted to protect the greater

15 population.

16 I support the Clean Air Transport Rule

17 because I see it as another avenue to clean the

18 air that we breathe and prevent unnecessary

19 hospitalizations and the development of disease.

20 As public health professionals, let us act in the

21 best interests of the general public to clean up

22 power plants so that we can all breathe cleaner

23 air. Thank you.

24 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you very much,

25 Natasha, for joining us and making a105

1 presentation. Thank you.

2 With that, I think we are now going to

3 adjourn -- excuse me -- we's going to recess --

4 I'm going to get the hang of this -- we're going

5 to recess and see if we go till 12:25 without

6 anybody else showing up in the queue. We will

7 then recess further for lunch for an hour and a

8 half until 2:00 o'clock. So bear with us for a

9 few minutes to see if we get anymore speakers and

10 then we'll break for lunch. Thank you.

11 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:20

12 p.m. until 2:00 p.m.)

13 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. I would like to call

14 the hearing back into session. And basically,

15 for those of you who were not here this morning,

16 I'd like to reintroduce myself. I'm Sam

17 Napolitano, the director of the Clean Air Markets

18 Division in the EPA's Office of Air Programs in

19 Washington, DC. To my immediate right is Carol

20 Kemker and to her right is Dick Schutt who are

21 managers here in region four at EPA's office for

22 the Air, Pesticides and Toxic Management

23 Division. In a short while, rejoining me will be

24 Tim Smith who is with the Office of Air Quality

25 Planning and Standards in North Carolina, which106

1 is EPA's central arm for the regulation of

2 stationary sources at the agency of the air

3 program.

4 We're here today pretty much to listen all

5 day to the public and different groups on their

6 views of the transport rule that we've proposed

7 in the Federal Register August 2nd of this summer

8 and are now in the public comment period.

9 The public comment period goes to October

10 the 1st where we are taking comments through

11 these hearings, which this is the third of a

12 series that we've held. The first was in Chicago

13 about two weeks ago, then last week in

14 Philadelphia, and here we are closing out our

15 public hearings here in Atlanta. And then we'll

16 be getting formal written comments by the

17 beginning of October.

18 The rule we're talking about, the so-called

19 Transport Rule, is a rule for 31 eastern states

20 and the District of Columbia to reduce from the

21 electric power industry, from fossil generation

22 units, to reduce SO2 and NOx that now are

23 contributing to attainment or potentially

24 maintenance problems in getting attainment with

25 the '97 ozone standard, the '97 fine particulate107

1 standard, and the 2006 particulate standard

2 that's a daily standard that cities have to

3 comply with and states.

4 And this rule helps states bring about

5 attainment by lowering power sector emissions

6 that are transported across state lines. And SO2

7 and NOx transform themselves in the atmosphere to

8 become fine particles, sulfates and nitrates.

9 And sulfer dioxide and NOx combine with ammonia

10 in the air and produce those aerosols, as well as

11 NOx transforms itself in the presence of VOCs and

12 sunlight into ozone at the ground level. They're

13 harmful for human health and also have

14 significant environmental implications.

15 In this particular rule, we believe when

16 it's in full effect in 2014 it will save

17 somewhere on the order of 14,000 to 36,000 lives

18 a year, preventing premature death that would

19 otherwise shorten people's lives an average of

20 between 10 and 15 years. So there's substantial

21 gains from a public health standpoint, numerous

22 environmental benefits, a lot of morbidity

23 benefits for public health that when we quantify

24 to some degree the reductions we're going to get,

25 we think we're in the neighborhood of 120 billion108

1 to close to a third of a trillion dollars

2 annually of annual health benefits that result

3 for those things that we can quantify each year.

4 So reoccurring would be the benefits thereafter

5 in subsequent years for what we've done for the

6 control of the power plant emissions.

7 So that's what we're here to talk about and

8 pretty much to listen about from you that are

9 here to speak to us today. The way we're going

10 to run the process with speakers is we're going

11 to call you two at a time to come up and sit here

12 at the table. You have five minutes to talk.

13 There is a little box which has a green light

14 indicating to start and basically you have five

15 minutes. And at the four-minute point, there

16 will be a yellow light that comes on and then at

17 five minutes, when your time has expired, we will

18 ask you to wrap things up for us in the process.

19 When you first come up, we'd like you to

20 spell your name so that in the official

21 transcript of the hearing where this is being

22 recorded by the reporter here, she spells it

23 right and has it. And we will basically go and

24 listen to people here throughout the afternoon

25 and into the evening. We're open until109

1 8:00 o'clock so people can come after work and

2 join us.

3 And at this point, we've found that not all

4 the time slots were filled this morning and we

5 are noticing that it's spotty, that people have

6 made appointments to come in and speak throughout

7 the afternoon and evening. So when we run out of

8 speakers, what I will do is recess the group.

9 And we'll ask you, if you want to continue to

10 listen to speakers, to stay nearby. Because the

11 moment I get a speaker or two, I will reconvene

12 and put us back into the session to talk.

13 And I'm about ready to get my first two

14 speakers for the afternoon who I'd like to come

15 up to the podium please -- or, the table here.

16 Nancy Larson and Erin Glynn, please join us up

17 here. Thank you. Nancy?

18 MS. LARSON: Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Nancy

19 Larson and my name is spelled L-A-R-S-O-N. And

20 I'm here today to express my support for the

21 proposed Transport Rule as a concerned citizen

22 and a parent.

23 I work with a local green building

24 consultancy and my work involves helping project

25 teams to design and build energy efficient,110

1 healthy buildings which reduce CO2 emissions and

2 other harmful air pollutants and also slow the

3 demand for coal-fired power plants.

4 High-performance green buildings also help

5 reduce illnesses and increase occupant

6 performance. They make for healthier communities

7 by encouraging alternative transportation like

8 biking, walking and mass transit. But we don't

9 have control over air pollutants which come from

10 other areas.

11 This issue reminds me of a conversation I

12 had with a gentleman in southeast Asia who was a

13 professional mosquito eradicator. And he was

14 working to control a strain of malarial

15 mosquitoes along the border of Thailand and

16 Burma. And the Thai government was working to

17 help reduce the mosquito population, but the

18 Burmese government was doing nothing. And,

19 unfortunately, mosquitoes, like air pollutants,

20 don't respect borders.

21 So we won't be able to breathe healthy air

22 in Georgia in spite of our collective efforts if

23 harmful emissions from other areas are affecting

24 our air quality here. So it's critical that the

25 new Transport Rule be passed to protect our111

1 health and the health of our children.

2 The proposed rule has already shown to have

3 significant health benefits as you mentioned and,

4 like green building, this will save money and

5 improve human health rather than harming human

6 health. Thank you.

7 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Nancy. Thank

8 you for coming down and sharing your personal

9 views with us on what you think of the rule and

10 what we ought to do. I appreciate it very much.

11 Thank you. Erin?

12 MS. GLYNN: Hi. Thanks for the opportunity

13 to make a comment. This is my first public

14 comment, so please forgive me if I stumble or

15 falter.

16 Welcome EPA. We hope you come to Atlanta

17 more frequently. We really are happy to have you

18 here and would welcome future public hearings.

19 We have lots of environmental issues here in the

20 southeast. That's why they call it the dirty

21 south.

22 My name is Erin Glynn. Last name Glynn,

23 G-L-Y-N-N. I live in metro Atlanta and in the

24 state of Georgia, and I'm here today to support

25 the Clean Air Transport Rule and ask that it be112

1 strengthened.

2 Anything we can do in the United States and

3 as citizens or as regulators to shift the full

4 cost of fossil fuel pollution onto utilities

5 where they belong is a good thing. This is the

6 Environmental Protection Agency after all, not

7 the utilities protection agency.

8 As you've stated, on cost, EPA estimates

9 that the benefits of cleaning up these

10 pollutants, especially those public health

11 benefits, far outweigh the costs. We're talking

12 hundreds of millions of dollars -- or, hundreds

13 of billions of dollars -- excuse me -- in annual

14 benefits. We cannot afford not to do this.

15 In addition, lowering air pollution by

16 passing the Transport Rule will significantly

17 improve visibility in our parks and our national

18 monuments and our wild places that are integral

19 to our American way of life. The improved views

20 are worth the Sierra Club estimates $3.4 billion

21 in increased tourism and recreational

22 opportunities.

23 On energy, power companies such as

24 Power4Georgians who has representation here

25 today, power companies who are proposing to build113

1 new coal plants or complaining about the costs of

2 installing scrubbers and complying with the

3 Transport Rule will complain about the costs and

4 the time that it would take to comply with this

5 rule. However, if these utilities such as

6 Power4Georgians and Southern Company would just

7 invest in energy efficiency, stop proposing new

8 coal plants and take their coal plants off-line,

9 they would incur no costs and their scrubbers

10 would not be necessary.

11 So I would just like to say thank you again

12 for coming. I support the Transport Rule and

13 energy efficiency and clean energy would be much

14 greater opportunities to the utility

15 representatives that are here today. Thank you

16 very much and that's my comment.

17 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Erin. Thank you

18 for laying out how you see this, what you've seen

19 from looking at the rule and the materials in

20 advance to coming in and see us. Any questions?

21 Thank you both for making the time to come down

22 and give us your thoughts.

23 MS. GLYNN: Thank you.

24 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. Okay. We're

25 going to recess now until we get additional114

1 speakers in the queue to be able to talk again or

2 to listen. So we are now recessed for whatever

3 time it takes to get other speakers to come join

4 us.

5 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 2:15

6 p.m. until 5:00 p.m.)

7 MR. NAPOLITANO: This hearing will be

8 recessed here at 5:00 o'clock since there are no

9 additional speakers and we'll reconvene at 6:30.

10 Thank you.

11 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 5:00

12 p.m. until 6:30 p.m.)

13 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. Good evening. I'm

14 going to call this hearing back into session, a

15 hearing on the Transport Rule that EPA has

16 proposed back in August in the Federal Register,

17 the 2nd.

18 This hearing that we're holding with you is

19 the third and final hearing of the series. The

20 first was in Chicago two weeks ago, Philadelphia

21 last week, and here we are for the final hearing

22 during our public comment period, which will be

23 through -- October 1st is the deadline for

24 submission of comments on this rule proposal.

25 I am Sam Napolitano. I am with the Office115

1 of Atmospheric Programs of EPA back in

2 Washington. I'm the director of its Clean Air

3 Markets Division. Immediately to my right is

4 Carol Kemker who is the acting division director

5 of the Air, Pesticides and Toxins Management

6 Division here in Atlanta working on our air

7 program work. And to my left is Tim Smith who is

8 with the Office of Air Quality Planning and

9 Standards out of North Carolina, which is the

10 lead group of the agencies in the air program

11 that does National Ambient Air Quality Standards

12 and works extensively with the states to jointly

13 implement the Clean Air Act.

14 We're here to listen to your comments on

15 EPA's proposal. That proposal and the Transport

16 Rule is requiring 31 eastern states and the

17 District of Columbia to basically lower electric

18 power sector sulfer dioxide, SO2, and nitrogen

19 oxide, NOx, emissions in a manner that can help

20 downwind areas that are out of attainment with

21 our standards for ozone and fine particles,

22 standards that came into effect in 1997 and 2006,

23 to help those states that are out of attainment.

24 The 31 states are to reduce their

25 transported emissions that go downwind and116

1 influences the non-attainment situation or states

2 that have issues with maintenance of keeping

3 within the standards that EPA has set.

4 Again, these reductions of the transport of

5 NOx and SO2 are aimed at making so that there is

6 a lower level of concentration in the air in

7 these downwind areas that are close to our

8 standards so that they don't violate them in the

9 future.

10 The emissions reductions that are going to

11 come from this program are quite extensive. From

12 2005 we believe by 2014, the SO2 emissions from

13 these 31 states will be lowered from the 2005

14 levels over 70 percent. NOx will be cut by more

15 than 50 percent. And the rules will be in full

16 effect in 2014 but begin in 2012 on January 1st

17 as we will work from this point to finalize these

18 rules in the spring of 2011 and give then another

19 six months for compliance at the beginning of

20 2012.

21 The rules have the substantial benefit of

22 helping the states provide greater air quality in

23 areas where we now are experiencing problems or

24 predict there would be problems in 2012.

25 Primarily, they're going to provide to the public117

1 at large very large health benefits. Most

2 notably, we are estimating in 2014 that annually

3 these rules will produce somewhere between a

4 reduction of 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths

5 that would have otherwise occurred without the

6 rules.

7 There will be a lot of reduced morbidity,

8 fewer asthma attacks, fewer emergency room

9 visits, less chronic bronchitis, a substantial

10 reduction in basically non-fatal heart attacks.

11 A whole host of cardiovascular and pulmonary and

12 respiratory health effects will be reduced with

13 the cleaner air that will result from the rules.

14 When we estimate benefits for those things

15 that we can quantify, annual benefits in 2014

16 that will keep occurring thereafter are in a

17 range of $120 billion to $290 billion annually,

18 quite a substantial health improvement.

19 Juxtapose that against costs that annually we

20 think that at 2014 will be a little under

21 $3 billion a year.

22 In doing these rules that are replacing the

23 Clean Air Interstate Rule, which is now in effect

24 but basically was in litigation remanded to us,

25 which is the technical term for, in effect, that118

1 the judge believed we had flaws, but let the

2 rules remain in effect as they are until we do

3 them over, which is what the Transport Rule is

4 proposing to do is the do-over of CAIR going

5 forward.

6 With this at today's hearing, let me explain

7 how we're going to do things for listening to

8 people. I'm going to call people two at a time

9 once we have speakers ready to go this evening to

10 come up to the table. You'll have five minutes

11 to present your views. There is a little box

12 there that is going to be turned on with a green

13 light indicating you've just begun your five

14 minutes. At four minutes, it will go to a yellow

15 light. And at five minutes, your time will have

16 expired and we'll ask you to wrap things up.

17 Basically when you come to the table, what

18 we would very much like you to do is introduce

19 yourself and spell your name for the court

20 reporter so we get it right in the transcript,

21 and then proceed. And we will be listening and

22 at the end of your presentation, we could ask you

23 a few questions for clarification and make some

24 comments as we listen to what you have.

25 What we have been doing at points where119

1 there are no speakers in the queue is recessing

2 and basically standing or staying here waiting

3 for speakers and then queuing up again. And in

4 the next hour and a half before we stop at

5 8:00 o'clock, that's kind of what we'll do on and

6 off again so people don't have to basically sit

7 here and observe nothing.

8 With that said, you're free to get up and

9 walk around and get yourself a cup of coffee.

10 There's an excellent coffee stand here by the

11 way. I'll vouch for that. And relax a bit and

12 then we will announce we're going back into

13 session and you'll have a couple minutes to sit

14 down again. We'll pick up as people come in.

15 At this point, I have no speakers in the

16 queue, so I'll give you a sense of this. We're

17 going to recess until we have people that are

18 ready to go and pick up and listen and hear your

19 comments. Thank you. We're in recess please.

20 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 6:50

21 p.m. until 6:59 p.m.)

22 MR. NAPOLITANO: Again, I'd like to call

23 this hearing back into session. We have our

24 first two speakers, Susan Hanberry-Martin and Lee

25 Martin. Whenever you're ready, Susan.120

1 MS. HANBERRY-MARTIN: Okay. My name is

2 Susan Hanberry-Martin, S-U-S-A-N,

3 H-A-N-B-E-R-R-Y, M-A-R-T-I-N, and I'm from Macon.

4 Thank you for holding this hearing. I appreciate

5 it.

6 I live in the county that's next to the

7 largest power plant in North America and the

8 dirtiest power plant in North America, Plant

9 Scherer, and I've watched with dismay over the

10 years as the Southern Company was allowed to

11 skirt the rules under New Source Review. They

12 practiced a dilution solution and took overflow

13 from the ash ponds and piped it right into the

14 Ocmulgee River.

15 And I watched my small city -- we live --

16 our city is 150,000 people and we are in

17 non-attainment. We receive an F grade from the

18 American Lung Association. We've had virtually

19 no population growth. We've lost industry. Yet

20 we're in non-attainment. And this is because of

21 Plant Scherer.

22 I've watched my river fall under mercury

23 advisories for catfish and bass and this is,

24 again, from Plant Scherer. I've watched my town

25 and my students and my children suffer lung121

1 damage because of the effects of ozone, NOx, SO2,

2 PM 2.5, and whatever we know that mercury's doing

3 to us.

4 And I'm very, very concerned that we could

5 suffer a devastating disaster from the huge ash

6 ponds at Plant Scherer. Our drinking supply

7 comes from the Ocmulgee River and we are already

8 getting pollution from Plant Scherer in the river

9 and I can't say strongly enough that it's time

10 for EPA to enact new protective rules for this.

11 The Southern Company in Macon is allowed to

12 produce cheap power that they send to other

13 states and we filter that air through our lungs.

14 We pay the price. Stricter rules will help us.

15 They need to be enacted soon, certainly as soon

16 as possible. The rules that EPD has enacted do

17 not protect us.

18 One of the most important functions of

19 government is to protect the health and safety of

20 the citizens. And because our state is not doing

21 it, we look to the EPA to produce strict rules

22 that will protect our health and safety. And I'm

23 fully in support of everything that you're doing

24 to this end. I can't thank you enough for

25 getting the ball rolling on this. We truly,122

1 truly need some help. Thank you.

2 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Susan. Thanks

3 for sharing your views and concerns from where

4 you are. I appreciate that very much. Any

5 questions? Okay. Thank you.

6 MS. HANBERRY-MARTIN: Thank you.

7 MR. NAPOLITANO: Lee?

8 MR. MARTIN: My name is Lee Martin. I also

9 live in Macon with my wife. Thank you for having

10 this meeting and extending it to 8:00 o'clock.

11 It's very -- we're activists and it's very

12 difficult for us to go to meetings in the

13 afternoon or in the mornings.

14 We drove up from Macon this afternoon. As

15 we approached the I-16 and I-75 intersection,

16 directly ahead of us is Plant Scherer and the

17 three big smokestacks and the proverbial mushroom

18 cloud sits right up on top. It reminded me of

19 the old Lyndon B. Johnson/Goldwater ad. The

20 problem is that you really -- you can see that

21 there, but you can't see the pollution in our

22 town. People breathe. They think, oh, you know,

23 the air's clean. If the water was as dirty as

24 our air, there would be a thousand people here,

25 and probably more than that.123

1 In the mid '70s, I had three children. My

2 wife and I had to drive to Atlanta to find an

3 allergist. Macon's population has not increased

4 hardly at all since the mid '70s. A medical

5 center now has an asthma clinic. There are at

6 least 15 allergy medical doctors in Macon. All

7 of this after Plant Scherer came online. I can't

8 even contemplate the numbers of lost work days

9 because of that.

10 Bibb County has received an F rating from

11 the American Lung Association for the last six or

12 seven years. In 2004, Macon had the 24th

13 dirtiest air in the nation. We have been in

14 non-attainment for the last seven or eight years.

15 Mr. Napolitano, you mentioned downwind

16 pollution. One of our editors at the Telegraph

17 is fond of saying that and everybody wants to

18 blame Macon's air quality problem on Atlanta's

19 air quality problem. They're completely

20 different. My son's a deer hunter and he says

21 the air doesn't always blow from north to south.

22 Water pollution generally goes from north to

23 south. I don't think that air pollution respects

24 county boundaries.

25 Dr. Michael Chang of the Fall Line Air124

1 Quality Study said at a public meeting that you

2 could remove all the cars and vehicles in Macon,

3 Georgia, Bibb County, and you would still be in

4 non-attainment. He also told a Chamber of

5 Commerce meeting that Plant Scherer was the

6 800-pound gorilla in the room.

7 The Ocmulgee River in Macon -- and I

8 apologize. Susan and I read from the same page.

9 The Ocmulgee River in Macon, the source of our

10 drinking water, has two fish advisories for

11 mercury and PCPs. The plant is north of our

12 intake pipe for our water treatment plant.

13 Robins Air Force Base is the largest employer in

14 the state of Georgia and it's 15 miles from

15 Macon. Robins Air Force Base is going to be

16 threatened through BRAC, the base realignment and

17 closure, because of our dirty air.

18 Please make your rules for the health of

19 citizens and not for the bottom line of huge

20 economic engines and coal-fired power plant

21 companies. Thank you very much. We appreciate

22 you doing this.

23 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you and thanks for

24 sharing your views, your perspective from where

25 you sit and live on the issues that you've got125

1 with the power plants. We appreciate that and

2 we'll consider them. Thank you.

3 MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

4 MS. HANBERRY-MARTIN: Thanks.

5 MR. NAPOLITANO: Again, we have no speakers

6 in the queue, so I'm going to recess this until

7 again we do.

8 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 7:06

9 p.m. until 7:28 p.m.)

10 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. I'm going to

11 reconvene the hearing. And, again, let me just

12 refresh everyone's memory, especially those

13 people that just joined us. What I'm going to do

14 is call two speakers to come up at a time and you

15 have five minutes to talk. And the way you can

16 tell how that's going is there's a little box on

17 that table. It will turn on with a green light,

18 meaning your five minutes. It will turn to

19 yellow at four minutes. And then at red, it

20 means that you have to wrap up. Your time has

21 expired.

22 When you come on up, it's good to introduce

23 yourself and spell your last name so the court

24 reporter gets it right in the official transcript

25 that is going to record your remarks and become126

1 part of our public record.

2 And with that, let me first call up Erin

3 Glynn to give the testimony of Frank Nederhand.

4 And then I also want to have Jenna Garland please

5 come on up and join us. Okay. Erin?

6 MS. GLYNN: Hi. My name is Erin Glynn.

7 Last name G-L-Y-N-N. And I'm here today giving

8 comment on behalf of Frank Nederhand,

9 N-E-D-E-R-H-A-N-D, who lives here in Atlanta.

10 I'd like to start off just by reviewing some

11 of the things that we've talked about today and

12 again thanking EPA for being here in Atlanta.

13 Each year coal plants pour millions of tons

14 of harmful pollution into our air, worsening

15 asthma rates, causing heart attacks, emergency

16 room visits, and as far as the bottom line is

17 concerned, missed work days.

18 We know that air pollution doesn't stop at

19 county or even state lines and, as a result,

20 people throughout the country are forced to

21 breathe unhealthy air. This national problem

22 needs a national solution.

23 We're pleased that EPA is acting to help

24 states be good neighbors by reducing air

25 pollution that crosses state lines. We applaud127

1 this common-sense approach by Lisa Jackson and

2 the EPA to effectively protect public health and

3 help states clean up their air efficiently and

4 cost effectively. We support the Transport Rule

5 and ask that it be strengthened.

6 A few things that we talked about today were

7 the costs of this rule. We know that the rule

8 will produce at least $100 billion and possibly

9 up to $290 billion dollars in public health

10 savings. Those are the savings. So what are the

11 costs?

12 The costs on rate payers for this Transport

13 Rule would be an average of less than one percent

14 according to the EPA analyses that I've read.

15 This is not a major rate hike that we're talking

16 about here. The cost of the benefits greatly

17 outweigh the costs.

18 Some of the solutions to those costs that

19 we've talked about are installing scrubbers.

20 And, again, I would just like to state for the

21 record that the cheapest scrubber is no scrubber

22 at all. So by investing in energy efficiency and

23 renewables, no scrubbers would need to be

24 purchased by major utilities.

25 Frank brings up two points that we've talked128

1 about and that's not only the scrubber

2 technology, but it's the type of coal that's

3 purchased. I believe that EPA has noted that

4 importing coal from western states would be lower

5 in sulfer and, therefore, recommended by this

6 rule.

7 Frank states that the Transport Rule really

8 needs to include the emissions reductions and the

9 emissions and environmental impact of

10 transporting that coal from the Powder River

11 Basin in Wyoming. While you increase the

12 transportation of coal from western states, what

13 you're doing is just eliminating the cost of

14 that. So we're paying for it because of raised

15 fuel costs, but the utilities aren't covering the

16 costs. So I'd like to encourage EPA to look at

17 the transportation costs associated with hauling

18 in this low-sulfer fuel.

19 Additionally, in regards to the monitoring

20 that's proposed by this rule, more monitoring is

21 a good thing. There are areas in the state of

22 Georgia that have no monitoring, mostly middle

23 and south Georgia. So we don't really have a

24 clear depiction of what the air quality issues

25 are here in the state.129

1 The Transport Rule would improve that. So

2 we support that. However, we'd like to recommend

3 that the stack monitoring data be realtime

4 instead of letting the utility upload their

5 monitoring data manually once a quarter or once a

6 year, just so there's a better snapshot picture

7 of the emissions coming from these coal plants.

8 Thank you.

9 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. Thank you, Erin, for

10 your testimony on Frank's behalf and please pass

11 on our appreciation to Frank for getting the

12 remarks to us on how he feels about our efforts

13 in this area. Any questions? Okay. Well, thank

14 you.

15 And if you would please go ahead, Jenna.

16 MS. GARLAND: Thank you. My name is Jenna

17 Garland. I'm from Woodstock, Georgia, originally

18 and I now live in Athens, Georgia. And I have

19 been very passionate about the environment for a

20 really long time, but the reason that I wanted

21 specifically to come here and talk to y'all today

22 is because I'm extremely concerned about existing

23 coal-fired power plants and new proposed

24 coal-fired power plants for Georgia and other

25 places in the US.130

1 The first week in August I spent a week in

2 meetings and trainings associated with my work

3 adjacent to a coal-fired power plant that was

4 built prior to the Clean Air Act. So it was

5 grandfathered in and did not have to make any of

6 the substantive changes and reductions in its

7 pollutants after the Clean Air Act was passed.

8 And myself and the 80 or so other people who

9 were part of this series of meetings and those

10 trainings, including some people in this room, we

11 had terrible headaches. We had sinus problems

12 all week long. We felt horrible just being

13 adjacent to this. And I thought about those

14 people who live and work every day in the

15 neighborhood immediately surrounding this coal

16 plant and what their day-to-day experience must

17 be like if this was just our experience for a

18 very few days.

19 And when I was doing a little research about

20 this proposed rule and saw that the state I was

21 in, Illinois, we get their air pollution here in

22 Georgia from that coal plant, it really kind of

23 closed that circle for me. And I think I really

24 want to applaud EPA and thank you all for being

25 here today and moving forward with this rule.131

1 Because when I was doing my research and learning

2 about what was proposed, I thought this is

3 exactly what we need because we know that

4 coal-fired power plants are dangerous. We know

5 that the plants we have today are pumping

6 pollutants into our air. We know that the

7 proposed plants are only going to make things

8 worse and we need to start taking steps now.

9 So I'm so pleased that Administrator Jackson

10 is a strong leader in the US EPA and I want to

11 ask you to please do even more. Please be

12 more -- I don't want to say aggressive, but maybe

13 active a little more. I don't know the right

14 word, but you know what I'm trying to say. Even

15 more excited and active about moving forward with

16 having this rule implemented, having it as strong

17 as possible.

18 When I think about staying here in Georgia,

19 potentially starting a family here, wanting to

20 spend the rest of my life here in Georgia or in

21 the south regionally, it's extremely scary to

22 think about what my children might be

23 experiencing with asthma. Do I have a huge

24 amount of mercury in my blood that could

25 potentially be passed on to any children that I132

1 might have? I don't eat a lot of fish, so --

2 it's something that I'm extremely concerned

3 about.

4 But as a young person, I feel like the time

5 is now to start making changes with how we get

6 our energy, from the point of extraction to the

7 point of burning coal or burning other fossil

8 fuels to the point of it being delivered to our

9 homes and our offices and our buildings.

10 So, once again, in summation, thank you for

11 being here. Thank you for listening to our

12 comments. And I hope that we will soon be able

13 to move beyond coal entirely and towards an

14 economy powered 100 percent by clean energy.

15 Thank you.

16 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. Thank you, Jenna,

17 for sharing your views and coming in and making

18 the time to come from Athens over to see us and

19 give us your thoughts. Thank you, Erin, as well.

20 Okay. The next two speakers are Stephen

21 Feinberg and Talie Watzman.

22 MR. FEINBERG: My name is Stephen Feinberg.

23 That's S-T-E-P-H-E-N, F-E-I-N-B-E-R-G. I'm from

24 here in Atlanta and I'm a student at the

25 University of Georgia in Athens. And I would133

1 like to focus my comments also on the polluting

2 effects of coal-fired power plants, specifically

3 from the youth perspective, and I want to voice

4 my support for the Clean Air Transport Rule.

5 Restrictions on the polluting outputs of

6 coal plants will improve air quality and health

7 and, in turn, leading to monetary savings and a

8 better energy future. And we can't afford to

9 spend time and energy on building new plants like

10 the one we're currently doing in Georgia with

11 plants like Plant Washington in Centerville,

12 Georgia, nor should we have to worry about air

13 pollution that we receive from other states. We

14 should instead be focusing on the future of clean

15 energy.

16 Having grown up during the past 20 years,

17 I've seen firsthand the progress of clean energy

18 technology and it seems sad and backwards to me

19 that a high percentage of my friends suffer from

20 things like asthma, a condition caused in part by

21 the dirty air that they are forced to breathe.

22 And I also read a scary statistic that

23 stated that one in six girls have enough mercury

24 in their blood to cause the children that they

25 may have in the future to have birth defects.134

1 And for me as a young adult who hopefully

2 sometime soon, maybe not too soon, will be

3 considering marriage and life as a parent, this

4 is particularly frightening.

5 But I've also seen that progress is possible

6 and it's happening, just like UGA recently this

7 past year established an Office of

8 Sustainability, the sole focus of which is to

9 make UGA more sustainable as a campus. And the

10 producers of energy should follow suit, focusing

11 on a clean energy future and not dwelling in a

12 dirty past. It is in the spirit of progress that

13 I offer my comments.

14 So thank you for being here today and for

15 listening to what we have to say.

16 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Stephen. Any

17 questions? I appreciate your remarks very much

18 and coming over from Athens to see us and spend

19 the time. Thank you. Please, Talie.

20 MS. WATZMAN: My name is Talie Watzman.

21 That's T-A-L-I-E, W-A-T-Z-M-A-N. I'm also a

22 student at the University of Georgia and I'd just

23 like to share a quick personal anecdote.

24 I ran cross country all four years of high

25 school. And out of the team of around 120 kids,135

1 I'd say that probably around 60, half,

2 experienced problems with asthma that were

3 exacerbated by running outside. Particularly a

4 close friend of mine, she experienced multiple

5 times where she had to quit running races because

6 her asthma had gotten so bad. She would have to

7 carry an inhaler with her at all times when she

8 was running.

9 And I just -- I look forward to a future

10 where runners don't have to carry around inhalers

11 when they run and I think that this rule will be

12 a step towards that in the future. Thank you.

13 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. Thank you for

14 your personal perspective of why this rule

15 matters to you. I appreciate that very much. We

16 appreciate both of you coming over to see us in

17 the area. Thank you for coming in.

18 MR. FEINBERG: Thank you.

19 MR. NAPOLITANO: Again, we are out of

20 speakers at the moment. We will recess until we

21 have more speakers in the queue. And at this

22 point, we're 20 minutes from 8:00 when we'll then

23 adjourn.

24 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 7:40

25 p.m. until 7:45 p.m.)136

1 MR. NAPOLITANO: We would like to call the

2 group back into session and our next speaker

3 would be Carly Queen. Carly, please go ahead.

4 MS. QUEEN: Okay. My name is Carly Queen,

5 Q-U-E-E-N. And, first of all, I want to thank

6 you for having this hearing today at such a

7 convenient location for me.

8 A little bit about my background. I

9 actually grew up in a small town in western North

10 Carolina right near a paper mill. And I know

11 we're talking about power plants today, but

12 something important to know about this paper mill

13 is that as recently as 2005 it was dumping 9,000

14 tons of sulfer dioxide into the air each year. I

15 remember as a kid driving by and, you know, I'd

16 always smell the rotten-egg smell and was like

17 what's that.

18 I had chronic bronchitis as a child. I had

19 exercise-induced asthma. And I never put it

20 together that maybe that was caused in part by

21 the pollution from this plant. You know, of

22 course, that caused some missed opportunities to

23 me because I couldn't run very well. You know, I

24 played soccer for 10 years in a youth league and

25 could never make the middle or high school soccer137

1 team because I couldn't run.

2 So eventually I did move out of North

3 Carolina and I came here to Atlanta, you know,

4 thinking that I might be escaping some of the air

5 pollution. Unfortunately, I was deadly wrong

6 about that. I moved to Georgia, which is one of

7 the most coal-dependent states in the country,

8 and specifically Atlanta, which was recently

9 named the most toxic city in the United States.

10 Since moving to Atlanta, I can't say that my

11 asthma has gotten any better. I really haven't

12 run enough to test it out to be honest with you

13 because it's almost a fear of mine, running,

14 because I can remember the pain in my lungs from,

15 you know, just not being able to breathe.

16 You know, I came to Atlanta to go to Georgia

17 Tech. I studied mechanical engineering. I

18 graduated recently. And when I graduated, I was

19 really hoping to get a job in clean energy or

20 energy efficiency, something like that. And,

21 unfortunately, when I graduated, I found that

22 there really weren't any jobs available for me

23 here to do that. So I went into the non-profit

24 sector.

25 And, you know, I just -- I want to note that138

1 Georgia has some of the lowest energy costs in

2 the country and because of that, there is no

3 incentive to -- for homeowners to make their

4 houses more efficient and obviously not for

5 renters especially. They aren't living there

6 permanently. But also there's no incentive.

7 Because we're depending so heavily on coal

8 and because we can get that so cheap and because

9 the regulations are so loose, it's just really

10 difficult to push solar energy here. This is a

11 very sunny state and still Southern Company

12 continues on this, you know, solar power won't

13 work in Georgia thing. You know, I'm just sick

14 of it.

15 I want there to be jobs available for people

16 like me to go into clean energy and to do energy

17 efficiency and to be able to make a profit, to be

18 able to have a business doing that. But the

19 demand's not there. And it's really -- I know a

20 lot of people will hate me for saying that energy

21 costs should go up and really this is such a

22 small increase that I don't think it will matter

23 in the long run as far as the cost difference.

24 But, you know, we have to do something to

25 encourage energy efficiency. And if it's a small139

1 price increase, which -- like I said, I don't

2 think it's really going to have a dramatic

3 effect, but it maybe is a step in the right

4 direction if you're thinking in the long term.

5 And, you know, as some of the other folks

6 have said here, I would maybe one day like to

7 have kids and I'd like to think that they'll be

8 able to grow up without chronic bronchitis,

9 without these asthma problems that I've had, and

10 they'll be able to run comfortably and not suffer

11 the pain that I suffered as a child. So that's

12 really all I have to say, but thank you very

13 much.

14 MR. NAPOLITANO: Okay. Well, thank you

15 Carly for coming down and giving us your views

16 and giving us our personal perspective of how you

17 see things in this particular rule in the context

18 of energy efficiency and issues that are

19 important to you. Thank you for coming down.

20 Okay. Again, I'm going to put us in recess

21 with another 10 minutes left this evening before

22 we finally adjourn.

23 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 7:50

24 p.m. until 8:00 p.m.)

25 MR. NAPOLITANO: We shall go from the recess140

1 to adjourning. Thank you very much for joining

2 us and thank you very much for coming over from

3 Athens to make the time to give us your thoughts

4 and share with us your views at the hearing and

5 putting in the effort to make this trip. That

6 was very nice of you to do for us. Thanks and

7 have a good evening. Thank you very much. We

8 stand adjourned.

9 (Whereupon, the public hearing was concluded

10 at 8:00 p.m.)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25141

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

2 STATE OF GEORGIA)

3 COUNTY OF COBB)

4 I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript

5 was taken down, as stated in the caption, and the

6 proceedings were reduced to typewriting under my

7 direction and control.

8 I further certify that the transcript is a true

9 and correct record of the evidence given at the said

10 proceedings.

11 I further certify that I am neither a relative or

12 employee or attorney or counsel to any of the parties,

13 nor financially or otherwise interested in this

14 matter.

15 This the 1st day of September, 2010.

16

17

18

19

20

21 ________________________________

22 BONNIE L. SMITH, RPR, CCR B-2432

23

24

25________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________