1

1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY

2 COUNTY OF MERCE R

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

1920 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.com2

1 B E F O R E:

2

3 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

4 Air Qualit y 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

2122

23 ANTHONY HOFMANN,

C.C.R.

24 LICENSE NO.

XIO1854

253

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

254

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 is16 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 Q uality 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

Jersey5

1 Register on August 4, 2 008.

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 Protecti on

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 Th e 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 lun gs. 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 difficulty6

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 pop ulation.

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

to16 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 and7

1 Philadelphia metropolitan areas.

Northern New

2 Jersey's none

- attainment area is

associated with

3 New York City metropoli tan 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 met ropolitan 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 gas17 cans. Adhesives and sealants, asphalt

paving,

18 certain categories of

industrial/comm ercial 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

not8

1 negatively impacting any other area's

ability to

2 meet the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard

3 through transported emi ssions 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

Congres s will16 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 contingenc y

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

revision s to

24 this State Implementation Plan may be

necessary.

25 The remainder of the

proposed9

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

engine s

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

measures17 that provide ad ditional 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 f or 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 a10

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

Implementatio n

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 also16 includes a dis cussion 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 pa rticulate 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 enviro nmental justice

initiatives.

25 The additional measures

included11

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. Copi es 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 prop osal 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

spel l

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

who16 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 a13

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

di rector 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 organiz ations 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

Justice16 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

realisti cally

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

written14

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

concentra tions 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 in16 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

dying15

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

envi ronmental

13 justice neighborhoods.

14 So many of the proposals

that I'll

15 talk about, that's really where they are

aimed16 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 appea rs to

be no

25 lower threshold for positive effects of

driving16

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

that16 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

low er 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 authorit y to

drive

25 concentrations down to 12.0. Setting the

legal17

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 in16 attainment up to the 15.0 standard, that

no more

17 air pollution permits should be issue d 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 environmental18

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 Ne w

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

neighborhoods16 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

variation19

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

l evel,

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 Environ mental 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 DE P

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

student s in

24 other burdened EJ neighborhoods would be

enough

25 to bring DEP monitors for a closer20

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 recommenda tions

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 invol ve 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 as16 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

sh ould be

6 retrofitted is how do you get the pre

2007

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

- ow ned 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 to22

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 are15 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

retro fitted

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 say23

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

artic le

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

change24

1 from a very different perspectiv e. 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 specif ically. 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 advocat ing 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

of17 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's25

1 been developed around climate change to

lower

2 concentration of fin e 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 a15 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

concentrations26

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

tha t

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 could17 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

po licy

24 recommendations I presented are really

aimed at

25 urban areas and really if they are used27

1 together, the morator ium, 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 the16 panelists to see if they have any

questions.

17 Somehow I mi ssed 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 you28

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

t hat 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

urban29

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

sign ificant16 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 th ey 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

in30

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

some17 research that our office has done about

ind irect

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 the31

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

faci lity

--

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/or16 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 o f

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

of16 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,

they33

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

sources16 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

of34

1 pollution are located i n 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

per16 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 r equiring 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

is35

1 developing a, quote, coordinated strategy

for

2 reducing the public's ex posure 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

other17 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 a re 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 M S. SHREKGAST: Yes.

17 MR. SALMI: How are they18 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 the37

1 operational baselines are actua lly

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 clos er 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

North16 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 f or 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. SALM I: 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

any39

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

2540

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

2

3 I, ANTHONY HOFMANN, a Certified

Court Reporter,

4 and Notar y 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

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25