1

 1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY

 2 COUNTY OF MERCER

 3 CITY OF TRENTON

 4 

 5 IN THE MATTER OF: : 

 6 : 

TRANSCRIPT

 7 PUBLIC HEARING - SIP : OF

 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

PROCEEDINGS

 9 

 10 

 11 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION

 12 401 EAST STATE STREET, FIRST 

FLOOR

 13 TRENTON, NEW JERSEY

 14 Friday, August 8, 2008

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 
 20 ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.

 21 Certified Court Reporters & 

Videographers

 22 425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 201

 23 Roseland, New Jersey 07068

 24 (973) 228 - 9100

 25 www.rosenbergandassociates.com
 

2

 1 B E F O R E:

 2 

 3 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

 4 Air Quality Planning

 5 401 East State Street

 6 Trenton, New Jersey 08625

 7 CHRIS SALMI, Assistant Director

 8 

 9 PEG GARDNER, DEP

 10 NICHOLLE WORLAND, DEP

 11 LAURA SCATENA, DEP

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 
 22 

 23 ANTHONY HOFMANN, 

C.C.R.

 24 LICENSE NO. 

XIO1854

 25 
 

3

 1 I N D E X

 2 PUBLIC HEARING 

PAGE

 3 Opening statement 

4

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 E X H I B I T S

 19 NUMBER DESCRIPTION 

PAGE

 20 (No exhibits were marked.)
 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 
 

4

 1 (The time is approximately 

10:05

 2 a.m.)

 3 MR. SALMI: Good morning, 

everyone

 4 and welcome. I am Chris Salmi, the 

assistant

 5 director of the Division of Air Quality's 

Air

 6 Quality Management Element in the New 

Jersey

 7 Department of Environmental Protection.

 8 I will be reading a 

statement to

 9 begin the hearing and then we will have 

some

 10 testimony. I will be the hearing officer 

this

 11 morning. Joining me on the hearing panel 

today

 12 from the Department are the SIP manager, 

Peg

 13 Gardner and two of the SIP writers, Laura 

and

 14 Nicholle, good morning.

 15 The purpose of today's 

hearing is
 16 to accept comments on the proposed state

 17 implementation plan or SIP revision for 

the

 18 attainment and maintenance of the fine

 19 particulate matter PM 2.5 National 

Ambient Air

 20 Quality Standard. Sometimes we call that 

NAAQS.

 21 Notice of the hearing and

 22 availability of the proposed State

 23 Implementation Plan revision was 

published prior

 24 to July 8, 2008 in six newspapers 

throughout the

 25 state and also published in the New 

Jersey
 

5

 1 Register on August 4, 2008.

 2 For those areas designated 

as not

 3 attaining the 1997 fine particulate 

matter

 4 health-based standard, the annual 

standard, the

 5 United States Environmental Protection 

Agency

 6 requires the states to develop and submit 

plans

 7 to demonstrate attainment of the National

 8 Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Additionally,

 9 the plan must include other items which I 

will

 10 review in a few minutes. This proposed 

plan,

 11 subject to today's hearing, demonstrates 

that

 12 two multistate non-attainment areas which

 13 include New Jersey will attain the fine

 14 particulate matter annual National 

Ambient Air

 15 Quality Standard by the attainment date 

of

 16 April 5, 2010.
 17 The health effects 

associated with

 18 exposure to fine particles are 

significant,

 19 mainly due to the fact that particles of 

this

 20 size can easily reach into the deepest 

regions

 21 of the lungs. Significant health effects

 22 associated with fine particulate exposure

 23 include premature mortality, aggravation 

of

 24 respiratory and cardiovascular disease,

 25 decreased lung function and difficulty
 

6

 1 breathing, asthma attacks and serious

 2 cardiovascular problems, such as heart

attacks

 3 and cardiac arrhythmia. Health studies 

have

 4 shown that there is no clear threshold 

below

 5 which adverse effects are not experienced 

by at

 6 least certain segments of the population.

 7 In addition to health 

effects,

 8 particulate matter is the major cause of 

reduced

 9 visibility in many parts of the United 

States,

 10 including New Jersey. New Jersey is home 

to a

 11 federally protected Class I area, which 

is the

 12 Brigantine Wilderness Area of the Edwin 

B.

 13 Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. Other

 14 welfare impacts from direct fine 

particulate

 15 matter pollution include harmful effects 

to
 16 vegetation and ecosystems, contributions 

to the

 17 formation of acid rain, aesthetic damage 

to

 18 man-made structures and damages to 

sensitive

 19 forests and farm crops. Fine particles 

in the

 20 air also alter the amount of radiation 

that

 21 penetrates the Earth's atmosphere, 

affecting the

 22 Earth's climate.

 23 New Jersey's two fine 

particulate

 24 matter non-attainment areas are 

associated with

 25 other states in the New York City and
 

7

 1 Philadelphia metropolitan areas. 

Northern New

 2 Jersey's none-attainment area is 

associated with

 3 New York City metropolitan area and is 

shared

 4 with a portion of Connecticut and New 

York.

 5 Portions of the southern and central New 

Jersey

 6 area are in non-attainment areas 

associated with

 7 Philadelphia metropolitan area, including

 8 portions of Pennsylvania and Delaware.

 9 The attainment 

demonstration

 10 relies on measures included in the 2007

 11 eight-hour ozone State Implementation 

Plan and a

 12 number of other measures. These measures

 13 include new or modified rules relating to

 14 required emission reductions from the 

following

 15 source categories. Consumer products, 

portable

 16 fuel containers which is our fancy name 

for gas
 17 cans. Adhesives and sealants, asphalt 

paving,

 18 certain categories of 

industrial/commercial and

 19 institutional boilers, petroleum 

refineries,

 20 high electrical demand day units, diesel 

idling

 21 and diesel smoke rule, municipal waste

 22 combustors, asphalt production plants and 

glass

 23 manufacturing.

 24 The implementation of all 

these

 25 measures also ensures that New Jersey is 

not
 

8

 1 negatively impacting any other area's 

ability to

 2 meet the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard

 3 through transported emissions of fine

 4 particulate matter and its precursors. 

With the

 5 exception of petroleum refineries, the 

new and

 6 revised rules have been proposed by the

 7 Department.

 8 It should be noted that on

 9 July 11, 2008 the United States Court of 

Appeals

 10 for the District of Columbia Circuit 

vacated the

 11 federal Clean Air Interstate Rule or 

CAIR. This

 12 decision has a significant impact on air 

quality

 13 in the eastern United States. It is not 

clear

 14 at this time what action the United 

States

 15 Environmental Protection Agency or 

Congress will
 16 take to address this loss. This SIP, 

State

 17 Implementation Plan, revision proposes to 

use

 18 the emission reductions from the Clean 

Air

 19 Interstate Rule as one of its contingency

 20 measures. New Jersey is evaluating its 

legal

 21 options to address the loss in emission

 22 reductions from upwind Clean Air 

Interstate Rule

 23 sources, CAIR sources. Additional 

revisions to

 24 this State Implementation Plan may be 

necessary.

 25 The remainder of the 

proposed
 

9

 1 State Implementation Plan Revision 

addresses the

 2 other mandatory elements for fine 

particulate

 3 matter and other related issues including 

a

 4 Reasonably Available Control Technology 

or RACT

 5 analysis for additional reductions from 

major

 6 source categories, including refineries,

 7 fugitive dust emissions, number six fuel

 8 oil-fired boilers and stationery diesel 

engines

 9 at major stationery sources.

 10 Second, a Reasonably 

Available

 11 Control Measures or RACM analysis that

 12 demonstrates that there are no other 

reasonable

 13 control measures available that would 

advance

 14 the non-attainment areas' attainment date 

by one

 15 year.

 16 Third, our contingency 

measures
 17 that provide additional emission 

reductions

 18 should New Jersey fail to attain the 

annual fine

 19 particulate matter standard by April 5, 

2010.

 20 Fourth, proposed onroad 

emission

 21 budgets for use by the Metropolitan 

Planning

 22 Organizations to ensure their plans and 

programs

 23 are in conformance with the State 

Implementation

 24 Plan.

 25 The plan also includes a
 

10

 1 commitment that the Department will 

continue its

 2 fine particulate matter Non-attainment 

New

 3 Source Review program.

 4 Additionally, it contains a

 5 request that the United States 

Environmental

 6 Protection Agency in reviewing the 

attainment

 7 demonstration and all other State 

Implementation

 8 Plan revisions from other states, take 

into

 9 consideration their impact on New Jersey

 10 attainment obligations and ensure that 

other

 11 states are meeting their legal 

obligations to

 12 inhibit New Jersey non-attainment areas 

from

 13 attaining the National Ambient Air 

Quality

 14 Standards.

 15 The State Implementation 

Plan also
 16 includes a discussion on how this plan 

will

 17 advance other New Jersey air quality 

goals,

 18 including continuing efforts to reduce 

toxic air

 19 pollution, the twenty-four hour 

concentrations

 20 of fine particulate matter to meet the 

new daily

 21 fine particulate matter National Ambient 

Air

 22 Quality Standard, our regional haze

 23 requirements, greenhouse gas emissions 

and to

 24 promote environmental justice 

initiatives.

 25 The additional measures 

included
 

11

 1 in this State Implementation Plan as well 

as

 2 providing further efforts for this 

proposed

 3 attainment demonstration will also 

provide

 4 additional public health protection in 

view of

 5 the health effects below the National 

Ambient

 6 Air Quality Standard, consistent with the

 7 Department's internal goal of meeting an 

annual

 8 fine particulate matter level of twelve

 9 micrograms per cubic meter and progress 

towards,

 10 as I mentioned previously, the new 

twenty-four

 11 hour fine particulate matter National 

Ambient

 12 Air Quality Standard of thirty-five 

micrograms

 13 per cubic meter. We sometimes refer to 

that

 14 standard as the 2006 fine particulate 

matter

 15 standard.
 16 We are coming to the end of 

the

 17 race here. Copies of the main document 

of the

 18 proposal are available on the table 

outside this

 19 hearing room. We have also provided a 

handout

 20 with further information regarding notice 

of the

 21 proposal and information on submitting 

written

 22 comments by August 15, 2008. There is 

also a

 23 handout with information on how hearings 

are

 24 conducted. Please review this 

information if

 25 you intend to comment at today's hearing.
 

12

 1 Let me remind you that 

everyone

 2 present should have signed in at the

 3 registration desk. Anyone who wishes to 

comment

 4 should have so indicated by completing a

 5 registration card. When your name is 

called,

 6 please come forward, state your name and 

spell

 7 it for the benefit of the stenographer. 

Also,

 8 state the name of your organization, 

company or

 9 interest that you represent. If you have 

copies

 10 of your prepared written statement, 

please leave

 11 one copy with the hearing stenographer. 

Also at

 12 this time, please silence all cell phones 

and

 13 pagers.

 14 Thank you.

 15 I have two cards for people 

who
 16 have indicated their interested in 

testifying.

 17 First is Nicky Sheats

 18 MR. SHEATS: Good morning. 

Do you

 19 want me to speak into this to make a 

record

 20 because I probably don't need it 

otherwise.

 21 MR. SALMI: You have to 

speak loud

 22 enough for everyone and so the 

stenographer can

 23 hear you.

 24 MR. SHEATS: Good morning. 

My

 25 name is Nicky Sheats. I have both a 

legal and a
 

13

 1 scientific background and I am here 

representing

 2 about four organizations. Let me tell 

you about

 3 the people who pay me money first. I 

work at

 4 Thomas Edison State College. I am 

director of

 5 the policy center there called the Center 

for

 6 Urban Environment and it sits within a 

policy

 7 institute named the John's Watkins 

Institute for

 8 public policy. Other organizations I'm

 9 representing are the New Jersey 

Environmental

 10 Justice Alliance, the Environmental 

Research

 11 Foundation and the Coalition of Healthy 

Ports.

 12 Let me tell you about the 

Alliance

 13 a little bit though because that is an

 14 organization that really brings the other 

four

 15 together. So New Jersey Environmental 

Justice
 16 Alliance is the only statewide 

environmental

 17 organization in New Jersey that focuses 

solely

 18 on environmental justice issues. We are 

one of

 19 the few, probably the only one 

realistically

 20 that has a significant number of color in 

both

 21 its membership and its leadership. 

That's

 22 really what I want to talk to you today 

is

 23 really commenting on the SIP from the

 24 environmental justice perspective.

 25 We will be submitting 

written
 

14

 1 comments as soon as we get them written, 

and

 2 will go into more detail about what we 

are

 3 saying. I will give you a general 

impression

 4 first and then I will give you seven 

specific

 5 recommendations that were not included in 

the

 6 SIP. I won't go into detail, I am sure 

you will

 7 appreciate that, on any of them, but if 

you have

 8 questions, please ask and I will give you 

detail

 9 on any that you are interested in and the

 10 written comments will provide more 

detail.

 11 The SIP acknowledged that 

urban

 12 areas generally face higher 

concentrations of

 13 fine particulate matter. I think the SIP 

didn't

 14 say so explicitly, but most of us realize 

that

 15 environmental justice neighborhoods in
 16 particular and when I say environmental 

justice

 17 neighborhoods, for me that is shorthand 

for

 18 saying low-income neighborhoods and 

communities

 19 of color are more likely to face multiple

 20 sources of pollution. So we think 

reducing fine

 21 particulate matter concentrations in 

urban areas

 22 and environmental justice neighborhoods 

in

 23 particular should be a priority of New

Jersey.

 24 It is almost certainly true 

that

 25 low-income people and people of color are 

dying
 

15

 1 and contracting illness at 

disproportionate

 2 rates due to fine particulate matter. So 

we

 3 think that needs to be addressed 

forcefully.

 4 The SIP does a good job of

 5 presenting multiple strategies to reduce 

fine PM

 6 pollution and many of them will effect 

urban

 7 areas positively, but there is no 

coherent urban

 8 or EJ strategy that was really presented. 

How

 9 do they all come together. How are they 

all

 10 coordinated so they can really focus on 

making

 11 sure that we get significant reductions 

in urban

 12 areas and more particularly in 

environmental

 13 justice neighborhoods.

 14 So many of the proposals 

that I'll

 15 talk about, that's really where they are 

aimed
 16 and I should say parenthetically that I

 17 understand much of what I say probably is 

not

 18 included in SIP because it may be that 

you may

 19 feel, well, this is not going to help us 

by

 20 April 5, 2010, but the SIP also said that 

we

 21 want to have strategies that will go 

beyond that

 22 and I know there is interest in driving 

down

 23 concentrations as low as possible since 

there's,

 24 as the SIP acknowledged, there appears to 

be no

 25 lower threshold for positive effects of 

driving
 

16

 1 down PM concentrations. So even if you 

reach

 2 your internal goal of 12.0 micrograms per 

cubic

 3 meter, we will argue drive it down even 

lower

 4 because you are still going to save lives 

and

 5 get positive health benefits. So that is

our

 6 goal, to drive it down as low as 

possible. So

 7 let's start with the standard itself.

 8 In the SIP you say that you

 9 recognize there will be positive health 

benefits

 10 from lowering the annual standard from 

15.0 to

 11 12.0 and you recommended to the EPA that 

they

 12 lower the annual standard and you set an

 13 internal goal of reaching the 12.0 level. 

So we

 14 would say there is one more step to take. 

We

 15 recommend that New Jersey legally lowers 

that
 16 standard to 12.0 and I think the SIP also

 17 acknowledged that New Jersey has the 

legal

 18 authority to do that and so in our mind, 

there

 19 is no reason not to. Don't wait for the 

Federal

 20 Government. Let's join California and 

lower the

 21 standard to 12.0 and I think that will be

 22 important because I think to the extent 

you need

 23 it and you probably do. You need more 

legal

 24 authority and more political authority to 

drive

 25 concentrations down to 12.0. Setting the 

legal
 

17

 1 standard at that level will help you do 

that.

 2 Next on the list, and this 

has

 3 been debated for many years. The issue 

of a

 4 moratorium on air pollution permits and

 5 environmental justice communities for 

many years

 6 has been arguing for some type of 

moratorium on

 7 pollution permits in environmental 

justice

 8 neighborhoods that are overburdened with

 9 pollution. We think this presents us 

with an

 10 opportunity to really use the idea of a

 11 moratorium in almost a surgical way that 

would

 12 really protect the health of people in

 13 environmental justice neighborhoods. So 

what we

 14 are suggesting if by April 5, 2010 

overburdened

 15 environmental justice neighborhoods are 

not in
 16 attainment up to the 15.0 standard, that 

no more

 17 air pollution permits should be issued in 

those

 18 neighborhoods until concentrations -- we 

were

 19 saying until concentrations are driven 

down to

 20 12.0 because that would give you a buffer

 21 between 15.0 and 12.0 and be more likely 

to keep

 22 concentrations from rising above the 15.0

 23 standard again.

 24 We have a suggestion for 

how to

 25 identify those overburdened environmental
 

18

 1 justice neighborhoods. There is a model 

that

 2 was developed and used in Massachusetts 

by

 3 professor Danny Faber at Northeastern

 4 University. I won't go into details 

there, but

 5 if you're interested, we can certainly 

talk

 6 about that. We also think there is legal

 7 authority to introduce a moratorium from 

the New

 8 Jersey Air Pollution Control Act and, 

again, if

 9 you want to talk about that, we are 

prepared to

 10 talk about that in more detail.

 11 Secondly, in support of 

that, not

 12 only in support of that, but an action 

that

 13 would support that as establishing the 

community

 14 based fine particulate matter monitoring 

system

 15 in these environmental justice 

neighborhoods
 16 because what we are suggesting is that 

you're

 17 going to have to be able to identify

 18 concentrations on a smaller geographic 

scale

 19 than you now identify. Because I think 

you have

 20 monitors in nineteen locations, possibly 

twenty

 21 or twenty-three monitors and basically on 

a

 22 county level. I know the traditional 

wisdom in

 23 the scientific level concentrations are 

not

 24 varying that much within urban areas, but 

I

 25 think there are some studies that show 

variation
 

19

 1 and we think it is worth looking into.

 2 You hear a lot of talk 

about toxic

 3 hot spots and we think there may be fine

 4 particulate matter pollution hot spots in 

urban

 5 areas in environmental justice 

neighborhoods.

 6 So we think a community based monitoring 

system

 7 that can get down to the neighborhood 

level,

 8 especially in terms of a moratorium that 

we are

 9 suggesting would be necessary and would 

be

 10 desirable.

 11 The Alliance and the New 

Jersey

 12 Environmental Federation about three 

years ago

 13 we did a monitoring project that involved 

high

 14 school students in Camden, Trenton and 

Newark.

 15 It was successful. We think it was 

successful.
 16 We even thought we showed we could 

produce

 17 credible data. We used machines, dust 

track and

 18 P track that measured fine PM and 

ultrafine

 19 concentrations. We did a calibration 

with DEP

 20 machines that we thought went well and we 

are

 21 not suggesting that would be enough to 

say

 22 someone's not in attainment, but we think 

data

 23 generated by involving high school 

students in

 24 other burdened EJ neighborhoods would be 

enough

 25 to bring DEP monitors for a closer
 

20

 1 identification. There would be other 

benefits.

 2 You would produce local policies to get 

involved

 3 with students, not only monitoring, but 

involve

 4 them in generating policy recommendations 

for

 5 their own neighborhoods. They could 

reach out

 6 to other community members and reach out 

to

 7 them.

 8 In addition, there was an 

article

 9 I kept and read the other day that New 

Jersey

 10 schools want to have more science based

 11 education. So we think this all comes 

together

 12 in a nice way. You produce credible 

data, you

 13 involve local students, you get ideas 

from the

 14 community and you have an idea of what is 

going

 15 on in the EJ neighborhoods as far as
 16 concentration of fine PM.

 17 The fourth idea, the SIP

 18 acknowledges that diesel particulate 

matter is

 19 unusually toxic. In fact, I kept reading 

this.

 20 I think I was reading it right that 

diesel

 21 particulate matter is the leading cancer 

risk in

 22 this state. That surprised me and I read 

that

 23 several times and so there is certainly

 24 recognition we need to do something about 

diesel

 25 particulate matter. Probably urban 

areas,
 

21

 1 again, face disproportionate levels of 

diesel PM

 2 with resulting disproportionate health 

impacts

 3 and we know that Peg is working hard on 

this.

 4 We think the challenge is now that we 

have a law

 5 saying the public diesel power fleet 

should be

 6 retrofitted is how do you get the pre2007

 7 privately-owned diesel power vehicles

 8 retrofitted. Peg is working on 

strategies for

 9 that.

 10 What I'd like to see in the 

SIP is

 11 probably what Peg's helped already is 

there kind

 12 of a comprehensive strategy to attack 

that

 13 issue. What's the strategy for getting 

those

 14 privately-owned diesel powered vehicles

 15 retrofitted. Of course, we have a couple 

ideas.
 16 One of which at least, you know, we 

suggested an

 17 executive order that will require

 18 privately-owned publicly contracted 

diesel

 19 powered vehicles to be retrofitted. So 

we still

 20 think that is a good idea and the Ports

 21 Coalition, you already mentioned the 

Coalition

 22 for Healthy Ports. That is a coalition 

of

 23 environmental groups, unions, 

environmental

 24 justice groups, act emissions, faith 

based

 25 groups and the purpose of the Coalition 

is to
 

22

 1 reduce pollution from ports and to get a 

better

 2 lifestyle of living wage and benefits for 

truck

 3 drivers, but one of our major inferences 

is to

 4 get the thousands of trucks that do 

business

 5 with the ports on a daily basis, get 

those

 6 pre-2007 trucks either retrofitted or 

retired

 7 and replaced with cleaner trucks and we 

are

 8 really trying to follow the example of 

the port

 9 in LA where they have come up with a

 10 comprehensive plan and they are going to 

form a

 11 trucking company where all the truck 

drivers

 12 must be employed by that company and then 

it

 13 will be the responsibility of the company 

and

 14 the port to make sure that all those 

trucks are
 15 post-2007 retrofitted and we think that 

is a

 16 great example to follow.

 17 So while I'm on the ports, 

I'll

 18 talk more about the ports. That is 

certainly

 19 our inference in the ports, the trucks, 

but

 20 there are two or three other things we'd 

like to

 21 see instituted. Diesel powered equipment 

such

 22 as cranes, either have those cranes 

retrofitted

 23 or retired -- retrofitted or repowered 

with the

 24 best available technology or retired. 

Same

 25 thing for I think in the written comments 

I say
 

23

 1 ships or boats that operate in or near 

the ports

 2 on a regular basis. We are talking about 

tug

 3 boats. There may be other boats I am not 

aware

 4 of, but all those boats should either be

 5 repowered or retrofitted with the best 

available

 6 technology or retired and there is a 

study, I

 7 haven't read it, but I read a newspaper 

article

 8 about it. I think the U.S. Geological 

Service

 9 did a study where they inventory ships 

and boats

 10 and found there are a lot more soot 

coming from

 11 the boat than they thought and I think 

they

 12 mentioned tug boats in particular.

 13 Another thing that 

California is

 14 out in front on and, again, I haven't 

read the

 15 regulation, but I read a description of 

it.
 16 They are requiring I think all boats or 

ships

 17 that operate within twenty-four miles or

 18 twenty-five miles of the coast, they are

 19 requiring them to switch to low sulfur 

diesel

 20 fuel. Again, these ships have a lot more 

soot

 21 than was previously thought.

 22 We are up to number six. 

This is

 23 one dear to my heart because the 

environmental

 24 justice communities are doing a lot of 

work on

 25 climate change and we come at climate 

change
 

24

 1 from a very different perspective. One I 

think

 2 you will appreciate and what we are 

advocating

 3 is that the state develop climate change 

policy

 4 that not only reduces emission of carbon

 5 dioxide, but also reduces emission of 

fine

 6 particulate matter and its precursors, 

nitrogen

 7 oxides and sulphur dioxide.

 8 So how would this work

 9 specifically. Well, I imagine that when 

the

 10 state developed strategies to reduce 

carbon

 11 dioxide, they are calculating the amount 

of

 12 reduction they are going to get. What we 

are

 13 advocating is that you do this for all

 14 strategies you develop, but you also 

calculate

 15 the amount of fine PM that is going to be

 16 reduced due to the strategy. The amount 

of
 17 nitrogen oxide going to be reduced and 

the

 18 amount of sulfer oxide that is going to 

be

 19 reduced and you prioritize or only use 

those

 20 strategies that are going to reduce 

carbon

 21 dioxide and get a reduction in these 

other

 22 pollutants. If they are only reducing 

carbon

 23 dioxide, we suggest you don't use it. We 

think

 24 it's an unprecedented opportunity to use 

the

 25 economic and political and social goals 

that's
 

25

 1 been developed around climate change to 

lower

 2 concentration of fine particulate matter 

also.

 3 We think it's an unprecedented 

opportunity to

 4 save lives in urban areas, literally, 

while we

 5 have this political will around climate 

change,

 6 use that will to drive down 

concentrations of

 7 fine particulate matter.

 8 I noticed in the SIP what 

we are

 9 suggesting -- before I say that, let me 

say we

 10 are also suggesting -- when we say 

climate

 11 change strategy, we mean across the board 

the

 12 strategies that have to be produced 

pursuant to

 13 the Global Warning Response Act, but we 

are also

 14 including RGGI in that. That is where we 

get a
 15 little bit controversial, but RGGI should 

also

 16 be used not only to drive down carbon 

dioxide

 17 concentration, but it should be a 

mechanism

 18 included in RGGI to drive down culprits 

and we

 19 are going to comment on RGGI rules and 

suggest

 20 that.

 21 But I noticed in the SIP 

what we

 22 are suggesting you really already done 

for NOx.

 23 I think several times the discussion that 

NOx

 24 reduction strategies were also evaluated 

for how

 25 much they would reduced fine PM 

concentrations
 

26

 1 and I thought that was great and I think 

you

 2 should also be doing that for climate 

change

 3 strategies.

 4 Now, in particular for 

urban

 5 areas, we think that and, again, this may 

not be

 6 included in the SIP, but I know it is in 

our

 7 mind because probably may go beyond 2010 

that

 8 energy conservation and renewable energy 

sources

 9 be used extensively in urban areas --

well, for

 10 this context, to drive down fine PM

 11 concentrations, but it will also have the

 12 benefit of reducing carbon dioxide

 13 concentrations or emission and also help, 

if it

 14 is done the right way, help economically 

develop

 15 urban areas so you have a win/win/win 

situation.

 16 Actually, energy concentration that could
 17 probably start and have benefits by 2010.

 18 So I presented seven 

strategies to

 19 you. A couple of them probably should 

effect

 20 different areas of the state. Equally 

lowering

 21 the annual standard using strategies to 

drive

 22 down fine PM strategies will benefit 

probably

 23 all areas of the state equally. Other 

policy

 24 recommendations I presented are really 

aimed at

 25 urban areas and really if they are used
 

27

 1 together, the moratorium, community based

 2 monitoring, retrofitting diesel vehicles, 

ports,

 3 energy conservation, renewable energy

 4 particularly in urban areas really do 

form the

 5 beginning of a coherent comprehensive 

urban fine

 6 particulate matter reduction strategy, 

but we

 7 really need DEP to think about it, fully 

develop

 8 it, take the leadership on it and we 

believe DEP

 9 has the authority also.

 10 So thanks very much. You 

will see

 11 all that reflected in our written 

comments and

 12 thanks for giving me the opportunity to 

publicly

 13 testify.

 14 MR. SALMI: Thanks, Nicky, 

for

 15 providing us with your strategies. I'll 

ask the
 16 panelists to see if they have any 

questions.

 17 Somehow I missed in my counting the 

numbers, but

 18 I assume we will get it in the written 

comments,

 19 get it correctly.

 20 You are asking, if I can 

summarize

 21 just to make sure I caught your points 

for

 22 coherent urban or EJ strategy focusing on 

PM

 23 reductions and you have outlined setting 

a

 24 standard of twelve, a moratorium on 

permits and

 25 you suggested that for overburden areas 

and you
 

28

 1 have a methodology that's been 

identified.

 2 MR. SHEATS: Overburdened 

areas

 3 that don't meet attainment.

 4 MR. SALMI: Community based

 5 monitoring with a linkage to the students 

in the

 6 schools, education. Focusing again on 

diesel

 7 particulate matter and looking at the 

pre-2007

 8 trucks. A port strategy, looking at both 

the

 9 trucks and then looking at the equipment 

that is

 10 at the port in moving the containers 

around.

 11 Regarding climate change

 12 strategies, looking for measures that 

provide

 13 co-benefits and prioritizing those with 

the CO2

 14 strategies, the benefits for the PM is 

what we

 15 talked about today or its precursors.
 16 You know the RGGI hearing 

is next

 17 week?

 18 MR. SHEATS: Yeah, I'm 

trying to

 19 get the regulations read in time.

 20 MR. SALMI: I don't have 

any

 21 questions. I just want to make sure I 

captured

 22 that correctly.

 23 MR. SHEATS: Thank you for

 24 listening so well and let me add that 

what I

 25 didn't say, we think the ports effects 

urban
 

29

 1 areas more, but we are really concerned 

about

 2 the neighborhoods surrounding the ports 

and the

 3 trucks going through them and even the 

pollution

 4 coming from the ships in the port.

 5 There was one other thing I

 6 thought of while you were saying, but I 

can't

 7 remember now so that is fine. I should 

add that

 8 Kathy Shrekgast is going to testify and 

she will

 9 give you another method maybe of legally 

getting

 10 some of the reductions we are talking 

about and

 11 some of the policy recommendations.

 12 I know what I was going to 

say.

 13 As far as the climate change strategy and 

there

 14 might be a pool of money to institute 

those

 15 strategies, we are advocating that a 

significant
 16 portion of the money that's coming from 

the

 17 carbon allowance auction be channeled 

back into

 18 urban areas to be used for energy 

conservation

 19 and renewable energy, but also they could 

be

 20 used for other strategies that will 

reduce

 21 co-pollutant concentrations.

 22 MR. SALMI: The Department 

is

 23 working on a rule that talks about how 

that

 24 money is going to be used. That is just 

kicked

 25 off so that will be a hearing coming up 

in
 

30

 1 several months.

 2 MR. SHEATS: Right, another 

chance

 3 to testify.

 4 MR. SALMI: Thank you very 

much.

 5 Okay, Kathy Shrekgast.

 6 MS. SHREKGAST: Yes.

 7 MR. SALMI: Thank you.

 8 MS. SHREKGAST: As Nicky 

said, I

 9 am Kathleen Shrekgast. I am a staff 

attorney

 10 with the Eastern Environmental Law Center 

which

 11 is a not-for-profit environmental law 

firm. Our

 12 offices are in Newark and I am here on 

behalf of

 13 my clients, the Coalition for Healthy 

Ports and

 14 the New Jersey Environmental Justice 

Alliance.

 15 As Nicky mentioned, I just want to 

augment what

 16 Nicky has said. A suggestion based on 

some
 17 research that our office has done about 

indirect

 18 source review programs included in State

 19 Implementation Plans. We intend to 

include

 20 these comments with the comments that 

will be

 21 submitted in written form by the Alliance 

and

 22 Nicky's coalition, all the parties that 

he has

 23 mentioned.

 24 One of the major 

difficulties of

 25 controlling PM 2.5 is the fact that much 

of the
 

31

 1 problematic pollutants is mobile sources. 

Given

 2 this, we think that the DEP should 

institute an

 3 indirect source review program in its PM 

2.5

 4 SIP. Under the Clean Air Act, indirect 

sources

 5 of pollution may be regulated. The Clean 

Air

 6 Act defines an indirect source as a 

facility --

 7 this is a quote -- a facility, building,

 8 structure, installation, real property, 

road or

 9 highway which attracts or may attract 

mobile

 10 sources of pollution. This definition 

would

 11 include a number of the sources in New 

Jersey

 12 that introduce a significant amount of PM 

2.5

 13 into the air.

 14 Indirect sources of 

pollution in

 15 New Jersey attract multiple trucks, ships 

and/or
 16 airplanes are largely located in urban 

areas

 17 posing disproportionate health threats 

for

 18 people that live nearby. Some of the 

examples

 19 of indirect sources of 2.5 including the 

ports

 20 at Camden, Newark and Elizabeth, New 

Jersey

 21 Turnpike, the airports and the 

warehousing

 22 facilities and complexes across the 

state. Each

 23 of these attract mobile sources of fine

 24 particulate pollution primarily from 

diesel

 25 trucks, large ships and airplanes.
 

32

 1 Regulation of indirect 

sources may

 2 be included in the State Implementation 

Plan and

 3 it is within state discretion as to 

whether or

 4 not to include an indirect source review 

program

 5 within the SIP. Given the permanency of

 6 environmental justice concerns to New 

Jersey and

 7 its citizens and the recognition on a 

statewide

 8 level of the disproportionate increase in

 9 childhood asthma for black and Latino, 

Spanish

 10 children in urban communities and the 

link of

 11 this to poor air quality is essential for 

New

 12 Jersey to step into a leadership role for 

the

 13 nation and introduce its program.

 14 Some states have actually 

taken

 15 the opportunity to institute these kinds 

of
 16 programs. And some examples are in 

Wisconsin

 17 and the region of the San Joaquin Valley 

in

 18 California. They all have ISR programs. 

The

 19 ISR programs allow the states to reduce

 20 emissions in an efficient manner by 

encompassing

 21 mobile sources such as diesel trucks and 

large

 22 ships within the nonmobile source 

regulatory

 23 scheme. Emissions can be drastically 

reduced in

 24 this way.

 25 So in Oregon, for example, 

they
 

33

 1 set out four different criteria wherein 

the

 2 permitting of an indirect source will be 

denied

 3 if the construction of the indirect 

source will

 4 bring the state below its attainment 

levels. If

 5 New Jersey were to do like measures, it 

can

 6 ensure that air quality is kept within an

 7 acceptable and healthy range in the face 

of new

 8 development. Even when the development 

includes

 9 mobile and, therefore, difficult to 

regulate

 10 sources of pollution.

 11 In Wisconsin, the 

Department of

 12 Natural Resources has proposed a revision 

to the

 13 states ISR expanding it to include 

controlled

 14 particulate matter, diesel exhaust, NOx 

and VOCs

 15 through the regulation of indirect 

sources
 16 required to obtain both operation and

 17 construction permits. The draft rule 

would

 18 require that certain older, heavy-duty 

diesel

 19 trucks that will operate at the indirect 

source

 20 obtain software upgrades to decrease 

pollutants.

 21 Likewise, in New Jersey a 

properly

 22 formulated ISR would allow the state to 

require

 23 retrofits on older trucks that operate in 

mass

 24 numbers on the ports, warehousing 

facilities, et

 25 cetera. Because these indirect sources 

of
 

34

 1 pollution are located in an area 

overburdened by

 2 the environmental justice problems. The 

ISR

 3 would help alleviate these issues.

 4 The San Joaquin Valley air

 5 pollution in California recently adopted 

an ISR

 6 program. The program aims to reduce both 

NOx

 7 and PM. The program requires indirect 

sources

 8 to reduce emissions based on its 

operational

 9 baseline. The operational baseline for a

 10 project is defined as the baseline NOx or 

PM

 11 emissions including area sources and 

mobile

 12 emissions calculated by their air 

pollution

 13 control officers which is an improved 

model in

 14 the state for the first year of build out 

for

 15 the project or any phase thereof in tons 

per
 16 year. The San Joaquin Valley ISR 

requires fifty

 17 percent reduction in PM and 33.3 percent

 18 reduction of the indirect sources 

operational

 19 baseline for NOx.

 20 New Jersey could adopt 

similar

 21 measures requiring a reduction in 

operational

 22 measures to onset emission reduction 

measures.

 23 Any adoption in the ISR in New Jersey 

would help

 24 the New Jersey DEP and New Jersey DOT to 

meet

 25 its mandate from Executive Order 96 which 

is
 

35

 1 developing a, quote, coordinated strategy 

for

 2 reducing the public's exposure to fine

 3 particulate pollution in effected 

communities

 4 particularly from diesel emissions from 

stable

 5 and mobile sources.

 6 Further, as the most 

egregious

 7 indirect sources are located in urban 

areas and

 8 the ISR would help address concerns while 

moving

 9 the state towards compliance with the 

NAAQS.

 10 So if you have any 

questions that

 11 I can answer, I am happy to accept them.

 12 Otherwise, we will submit this and sort 

of more

 13 detailed form in our written comments.

 14 MR. SALMI: I have a couple

 15 questions.

 16 When you talked about the 

other
 17 states, I think it was Oregon you 

mentioned that

 18 there's a criteria they could deny a 

permit.

 19 What type of permits would those be.

 20 MS. SHREKGAST: Those are

 21 construction permits. So it is my 

understanding

 22 that Oregon's regulations are restricted 

to only

 23 the reconstruction and construction 

permitting

 24 for indirect sources, not operating or 

currently

 25 operating.
 

36

 1 MR. SALMI: So a 

construction

 2 permit to build a store?

 3 MS. SHREKGAST: Parking 

facility

 4 or warehousing facility, certain 

highways, that

 5 sort of thing. Anything that would fall 

under

 6 the definition for indirect source.

 7 MR. SALMI: Are those 

permits

 8 issued by the state?

 9 MS. SHREKGAST: Yes.

 10 MR. SALMI: Or local 

permits?

 11 MS. SHREKGAST: No, they 

are state

 12 issued permits from what I understand.

 13 MR. SALMI: In San Joaquin 

you

 14 indicated emission reductions from their

 15 operational baseline.

 16 MS. SHREKGAST: Yes.

 17 MR. SALMI: How are they
 18 evaluating the projects and what is their 

basis

 19 for not allowing one to move forward?

 20 MS. SHREKGAST: From my

 21 understanding of what is going to happen 

in San

 22 Joaquin is that the air pollution 

districts, and

 23 if anyone knows any differently, please 

correct

 24 me. In California they have air 

pollution

 25 districts so it is more regional and the
 

37

 1 operational baselines are actually 

calculated

 2 according to a set of criteria that is 

dictated

 3 by the Air Pollution Control Board in

 4 California. So I'm not entirely clear, 

but I

 5 can flush it out more with a closer look 

at the

 6 regulation in my submitted comments if 

that is

 7 something you would like us to clarify.

 8 MR. SALMI: We have as well 

as

 9 other non-attainment areas have, 

transportation

 10 conformity requirements where the 

transportation

 11 plans have to agree with the air quality 

plans.

 12 Simplest thing is you can't just build a 

roadway

 13 and not have it in your air quality plan. 

Those

 14 plans set budgets so we do in our 

document you

 15 will see that there's a budget for the 

North
 16 Jersey Transportation Planning Authority

is one

 17 of the metropolitan planning 

organizations.

 18 Now, that would be larger than in New 

Jersey

 19 than the San Joaquin Valley I believe. 

Well,

 20 California is pretty big.

 21 Those budgets are set 

looking at

 22 the regional basis for emissions of PM 

2.5 in

 23 this case NOx and carbon monoxide I 

believe. So

 24 I am trying to figure out how what they 

are

 25 doing is different than the conformity 

program.
 

38

 1 MS. SHREKGAST: I'm not 

entirely

 2 clear. I know that in San Joaquin Valley 

they

 3 are actually using -- they have offset

 4 allowances for a project that doesn't 

meet the

 5 requirements. One of the ways that they 

can

 6 come into their plan for fifty percent or 

33.3

 7 percent reductions in PM and NOx is to 

provide

 8 offsets. In New Jersey, you know, you'd 

want

 9 those offsets to be extremely local so 

the

 10 communities that they were affecting, 

once

 11 again, bear the overwhelming burden of 

high

 12 levels of concentration of these kind of

 13 pollutants.

 14 MR. SALMI: Is Wisconsin's 

permit

 15 program associated with other state 

programs?
 16 MS. SHREKGAST: Wisconsin's

 17 program, they have an ISR program, but 

the

 18 proposed draft rule is much more involved 

than

 19 what currently exists, but yes, it's a 

state

 20 permitting program.

 21 MR. SALMI: So it's the 

other

 22 authorities and other state agencies 

within

 23 their DEP type of organization?

 24 MS. SHREKGAST: Yes.

 25 MR. SALMI: Anybody have 

any
 

39

 1 questions? Thank you very much.

 2 That's all the cards I have 

for

 3 folks who are interested in testifying. 

Is

 4 there anybody else who is interested? 

Let's

 5 take a break and see if anyone else 

comes. We

 6 will take a ten-minute break and after 

that if

 7 no one comes, then we will close the 

hearing.

 8 Thank you.

 9 (Whereupon, a short recess 

was

 10 taken.)

 11 MR. SALMI: Okay, it's now 

five

 12 after 11:00. Is there anyone else 

interested in

 13 testifying? I hear none, see none.

 14 Thank you all for coming 

and have

 15 a wonderful weekend and I'll officially 

close

 16 the hearing. Thank you.
 17 

 18 (Whereupon, the proceedings 

were

 19 concluded at 11:05 a.m.)

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 
 

40

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

 2 

 3 I, ANTHONY HOFMANN, a Certified 

Court Reporter,

 4 and Notary Public within and for the 

State of New

 5 Jersey, certify that the foregoing is a 

true and

 6 accurate transcript of the stenographic 

notes of said

 7 witness(es)who were first duly sworn by 

me, on the

 8 date and place hereinbefore set forth.

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

___________________________

 13 ANTHONY HOFMANN, C.C.R.

 14 LICENSE NO. XIO1854

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 
 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25