1

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10

11

12 13

14

15 16

17 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 PUBLIC HEARING

- - - IN RE: Section 126 Petition HELD AT: 605 Pequest Road Oxford, New Jersey In attendance: MICHAEL LING, CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF AIR QUALITY POLICY DIVISION JUDITH ENCK, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR EPA REGION 2 DIANA ESHER, DIVISION DIRECTOR OF EPA REGION 3 DONNA MASTRO, SENIOR ASSISTANT REGIONAL COUNSEL OF EPA REGION 3 RAY WERNER, CHIEF OF EPA REGION 2

HELD ON: Wednesday, April 27, 2011

REPORTED BY: Justin Davis, Professional Court Reporter

- - - CLASS ACT REPORTING AGENCY Registered Professional Reporters 1420 Walnut Street 133H Gaither Drive Suite 1200 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 Philadelphia, PA 19103 856-235-51082 (Whereupon, the hearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 commenced at 12:07 p.m.) CHAIRMAN LING: Good afternoon, everybody. Before I begin the official part of the hearing, I would like to introduce the Regional Administrator, Judith Enck, of Region 2. She is going to be welcoming folks on behalf of EPA. She is from our Region 2 office, which is the office that covers New York and New Jersey. After she gives a few opening remarks, I'll explain how the hearing will work today, and we'll begin hearing from the many folks signed up to speak. MS. ENCK: Thank you, Michael. Good afternoon. I almost said good morning, but it's the afternoon. It's wonderful to see such a good turnout for this public hearing. We want to hear all viewpoints, all thoughts on this issue. I'm Judith Enck, I'm the Regional Administrator for EPA Region 2, which covers New Jersey, New York, the eight federally recognized Indian nations that are in New York, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin3 Islands. So I have a really unique job. I'm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 looking out for the environment in all of these locations. I want to thank you all for coming to this hearing on the Portland Power Plant, which EPA deduced is adversely affecting air quality, both in Pennsylvania and here in New Jersey. I want to thank Michael Ling, who is with us today. He is with the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. And his colleagues will all be listening very carefully to what you have to say. And I particularly want to thank the New Jersey Commissioner, Bob Martin, who is here about the hearing today. Very simply, today's hearing is about protecting air quality. And what's transpired is September of 2010, the State of New Jersey petitioned the EPA asking that we determine that the coal-fired Portland Generation Station in Northhampton County, Pennsylvania is emitting air pollutants that are affecting air quality in Warren, Sussex, Morris and Huntington County in New Jersey. And that4

this is a violation of the interstate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 transport provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. EPA's proposed conclusion is that the Portland plant is significantly contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of a national air quality standard here in New Jersey. We're particularly concerned about sulfur dioxide. It's a major precursor of acid rain, which acidifies soils and lakes and streams and effects fish, like the ones that are grown here in this fish hatchery, if that's the right word to describe fish and what happens in hatcheries. Sulfur dioxide also reacts with other compounds in the air, which cause small particles, which can penetrate deeply into our lungs. This can cause or worsen respiratory disease and can also aggravate heart disease. Sulfur dioxide also contributes to fine particle pollution, which can become embedded in the lungs and causes serious respiratory problems. Unfortunately, areas cross the Northeast struggle with leading the5

EPA's health-based standards for various 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pollutants, including fine particles. And many areas don't meet the EPA standards. The proposal we're talking about today is a first. Well, EPA has used our authority under the Interstate Transfer Provisions of the Clean Air Act. We've never before proposed to limit pollution from a single facility to remedy the situation. EPA scientists have carefully considered the technical analysis provided by the State of New Jersey. And, in addition, the EPA has independently estimated the impact of the pollution from the Portland Power Plant. EPA believes that the wisest course in this situation is to require emission reduction from the power plant. And that's what we wanted to talk to you about today and hear from you today, your comments on this important decision. So I'll now turn this back over to Michael Ling. Michael will run the entire hearing today, starting off with how the hearing will transpire over the next few6 hours. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you, Judith. So thanks, everyone, for attending the hearing. As Judith mentioned, we're holding this hearing because we want to take comment on the proposed rule; and it's the proposed rule that responds to a petition we got from the State of New Jersey submitted under Section 126 of the Clean Air Act, which is the section of the Clean Air Act that deals with air pollution that crosses state lines. My name is Michael Ling, and I am the Associate Director of the Air Quality Policy Division, which is a division in EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which is actually in North Carolina, but it's the division that has the deed for responding to these 126 petitions. Joining me on the panel is, of course, Judith Enck, who you just heard from. Also, to my right, is Diana Esher, who is the Division Director of EPA's Region 3 Air Protection Division in Philadelphia, PA. That is the region that deals with environmental issues in the Mid-Atlantic states.7 And then to my left is Donna Mastro, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 who is the Senior Assistant Regional Counsel of EPA's Region 3 Office. And on the far end of the table there is Raymond Werner, who is the Chief of Region 2's Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, in New York. So we're here today to listen to your comments on EPA's proposed response to that petition, which was received in September 2010. The petition requests that EPA finds that the coal-fired Portland Generating Station, the Portland plant we'll call it, in Upper Mount Bethel Township in Pennsylvania is emitting pollutants in violation of the provisions of the Clean Air Act that deal with interstate transport air pollution; and particularly with respect to the National Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide, which the standard sets the level of suffer dioxide that are protective of public health. The Portland plant is located directly across the Delaware River, not too far from where we are now. It's on the Pennsylvania and New Jersey state border. And Warren8 County, New Jersey is in close proximity to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Portland plant. New Jersey has been monitoring sulfur dioxide concentrations in Warren County since September 23, 2010. Based on preliminary data it does appear that ground level concentrations are exceeding the level of the one-hour sulfur dioxide standard in Warren County. In addition, NJDEP conducted several air quality modeling analyses to evaluate sulfur dioxide, and I'll start calling it SO2 for short, levels in New Jersey. These analyses indicate that the level of S02 in the air is exceeding the EPA's standard for SO2 and that the Portland plant is the main source of these emissions. EPA also conducted a modeling analysis and Found similar results. Consequently, we did proposed to find that the emissions from the Portland plant significantly contribute nonattainment to, which is the word we use when the standard is not met, and interference with maintenance of the one-hour SO2 standard in New Jersey.9 To address this finding, we proposed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 emissions limits for the Portland plant that are emitting SO2. And each unit would need to reduce S02 emissions by 81 percent from the currently allowable rates that it can emit SO2 at, nor to eliminate the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance. And the proposal lays out other requirements as necessary to allow these emission limits and to allow a facility to continue to operate. The modeling results predict that these reductions, if we go final with them, would sufficiently reduce the Portland Plant's contribution to the modeled violations in New Jersey. That would improve air quality in New Jersey to the levels that are in the standard the proposal will require these reductions on a time frame where they would be completed three years after the final rule. And we expect the final rule to be in the fall of this year, early fall of this year, after we've had a chance to good through all of the comments that are here today and10

also the comments that will be submitted in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 writing. So, for today, we'll be accepting oral comments on all aspects of our proposal. And there will be a written transcript prepared for this hearing, which will then be available as part of the record for our rule. And we'll consider them as we move forward. We're also accepting written comments until May 27th of this year. There is a handout available on the table that you all passed on the way in. It gives you detailed information if you want to submit written comments in addition to or instead of oral comments today. So let me just describe a little bit of detail about how the hearing will work. I'm going to call speakers. They are scheduled speakers. The folks out there have the schedule. I'll call them to the microphone in pairs. When it's your turn to speak, please state your name and your affiliation before you start your testimony. And it will help our court reporter greatly if you spell your name, and it will11 also help him greatly if you speak into the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 microphone. In order to be fair to everyone, we are limiting testimony to five minutes. Folks just remain at the table until both pairs of speakers have finished. And after the testimony is finished, folks on the panel here may ask you some clarifying questions. If you would like to have a written transcript of your testimony entered into the record, you can do that, too. Just give it to the folks out at the registration table and we'll be sure to put that into the record. We do have a time keeping system today. We have the high-tech system of green, yellow and red signs. So when you begin speaking, a green sign will go up, and then you will have five minutes to speak. And then the yellow sign will signal that there are two minutes left. And then when the red sign goes up, the five minutes have passed and I'll be asking folks to wrap up their testimony. Today's hearing is scheduled to start at noon and it will actually continue until 8:00 p.m. tonight or later, if necessary,12 depending on the number of speakers. We'll 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recess a couple of times during the day. There is a scheduled dinner recess at 4:00 p.m. We will likely be taking a short break before or around 2:00 p.m. And then we'll stay in the evening until everybody has had a chance to comment. So if you would like to testify, but have not yet registered to do so, please sign up at the table outside. For those who are registered to speak, we did try to accommodate your specific times, but we have a busy day, so we ask for your patients as we proceed through the list and we may need to make some adjustments as the day progresses. Finally, a really important matter. Everybody hopefully knows where the bathroom is, but it's right out of the door to the left. Thank you for coming, again, today, and let's get started. I will call the first speaker, Bob Martin, the New Jersey Commissioner. And the second speaker is Mayor Frank Van Horn. Is Frank Van Horn here? You can come up in pairs.13 COMMISSIONER MARTIN: For the record, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 my name is Bob Martin, Commissioner of the Environment of Protection for the State of New Jersey. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on behalf of Governor Christie and all of the people of the State of New Jersey. New Jersey is steadfast in our commitment to protect public health and improve the quality of our air. We will not back down from our resolve to force the Portland Power Plant to take action to reduce its harmful emissions. GenOn's failure to upgrade the air emissions equipment at this plant is unacceptable. If GenOn will not do this willingly as a good corporate citizen, New Jersey will take action to make sure that they live up to their responsibilities. I first want to thank the EPA. I want to thank for being here today and hosting this. We thank you for proposing to grant New Jersey's 126 petition. We appreciate you holding the hearings and proposing findings of remedies out there to address the situation.14 I also want to thank the Region 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Administrator, Judith Enck, who we worked with closely on a lot of issues. I thank you for your cooperation and support in this matter. The Portland Power Plant ranks in the top five in the nation in highest sulfur dioxide emission rate per megawatt of electricity generated. The plant also emits more mercury than all New Jersey coal-fired power plants combined. New Jersey supports EPA's proposal to require this largely uncontrolled coal-fired power plant to minimize its harmful sulfur dioxide emissions in the short term, with a 50 percent reduction in the first year. New Jersey also supports EPA's proposal to require the plant to dramatically reduce its significant sulfur dioxide emissions within three years, as the Clean Air Act requires, but New Jersey wants a 95 percent reduction rather than the 81 percent proposed by EPA. These are reasonable measures to begin to address this public health problem that has existed for way too long.15 Sitting here today, we're about half 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way between Portland Power Plant and DEP's Chester Air Monitoring Station in Morris County, which is a distance of about 22 miles from the plant. The Chester monitor historically has measured the highest short-term sulfur dioxide levels in all of New Jersey. Trajectory analysis shows this occurred when the wind was blowing from the Portland plant, demonstrating the long-range adverse impacts of the plant in New Jersey and also in Pennsylvania. Air quality computer monitoring by DEP indicates that the Portland Power Plant are causing exceedances of the health standards for sulfur dioxide in at least four New Jersey counties, including Warren, Morris, Sussex, and Hunterdon, and in three Pennsylvania counties. It is unacceptable that this single facility is adversely affecting public health across such a wide area. In September 2010, the DEP began to monitor sulfur dioxide from its station about a mile from the Portland plant. Monitoring16 over the past seven months confirms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exceedances of the federal health standards, similar to the sulfur dioxide levels predicted by our computer models. The people of Knowlton Township and beyond should not be subjected to this injustice when the wind blows from the direction of that plant Air pollution from this plant is not limited to sulfur dioxide. Over 30,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide converts to an even greater amount of fine sulfate particles, which travel in the wind throughout Northern New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and beyond. The plant also emits high levels of nitrogen oxides, mercury and other pollutants. New Jersey insists that the EPA ensure that sulfur dioxide emission limit it sets for this coal-fired power plant is fully protective of public health. The technical evaluations done by New Jersey and the EPA indicate that emission reductions between 81 and 95 percent are required to ensure the health standard is not exceeded. What we are asking is not unreasonable. Modern scrubbers achieve 95-9817 percent reduction of sulfur dioxide, so 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 compliance with the health standard is readily achievable and far from an extraordinary demand. GenOn should install the best available control technology. In addition to setting a sulfur dioxide emission limit for the Portland coal boilers, New Jersey urges EPA to follow through with requirements to address other air pollutants emitted in large amounts by this and power plants in other states. The Portland Power Plant is only one example of many poorly controlled power plants in the U.S. that lack modern control of nitrogen oxides, which cause ozone; that have outdated control for fine particulate emissions; and that do not control mercury emissions well. New Jersey is not asking this power plant to do anything our own state power plants haven't already done. Of our 10 coal-fire plants in New Jersey, six have already installed modern pollution control equipment for all of the hazardous air pollutants.18 One has converted to natural gas, one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 has been shut down and two others are under enforcement agreements to install more air pollution controls or to convert to a cleaner fuel in 2012 and 2013 respectively. New Jersey has adopted performance standards for mercury, particles, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emitted by coal-fired boilers. As New Jersey sources have done, Portland should take similar measures to reduce its harmful impact on public health. It is unacceptable for a single power plant on our border to be emitting more sulfur dioxide and mercury than all of New Jersey's coal, oil, gas and fireplace combined. It is unlawful for these for those emissions to cause or significantly contribute to a violation of a national ambient air quality standard. New Jersey is pleased that EPA is proposing action now to compel GenOn to reduce these harmful emissions. GenOn should take action now to stop causing this public health problem.19 New Jersey is pleased that EPA is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposing action now to compel GenOn to reduce these harmful emissions. GenOn must take action now to stop causing this public health problem. New Jersey looks forward to EPA's expeditious final action on our 126 petition, as well as other rules to better control air pollution from all coal-fired power plants, which cumulatively have an adverse impact on New Jersey's air quality and public health. I thank you for your attention. I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I look forward for your action on this petition. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you, Commissioner Martin. Any questions for the Commissioner? No questions, but, if I could ask you, to remain at the table. Mr. Van Horn, you're next. MR. VAN HORN: I'm honored to be here with Commissioner Martin. I hold him in high regard. We also would like to thank the U.S. Department of Environmental Protection for being here today. You can see here what a beautiful part the state is of New Jersey.20 I didn't know if you've ever been to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this part before, but my township does run there in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. There are approximately 9,000 acres there plus another 5 or 6,000 in state land. So we're very rural here. This power plant -- and we've been -- I actually live there. My father was mayor before me, and I've been mayor for probably around 20 years now. And that power plant has continually been a source of problems. We actually have dealt with extended plumes that come from the Portland Power Plant. They have their burn offs at night. It's a very, I would say, pollutant point. We really know that is really a pollutant point. We'll wake up in the morning with our cars, boats or trucks or kids or school are with this pollutant, and it's from burn off. As Commissioner Martin said, we have a direct result. We're the ones right directly across the river. When we come up, if you've actually been up to the power plant, Knowlton Township sits right on the river, the power plant sits right on the river. And we're21 effected more than anyone else. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Our effects though -- Commissioner Martin said there are 30,000 tons. I actually run a business, trucking business. 30,000 tons, that's not hard to figure. That's 1,500 20-ton loads of pollutant that goes into the air. 1,500 20-ton trucks. That's amazing to think that it is blowing over here. You can imagine, if we had that many truck loads, then we would just -- and dumping it into the air where it goes all over, not only in New Jersey, but it also blows back into Long Island. And I think the plumes extend as far north as Boston. Really, what this is -- when I came over here today, I didn't know I was going to be sitting up here with Commissioner Martin. I'm here eating a hot dog. That's another -- I go to Johnny's. It's cooked in peanut oil. But it's really not a New Jersey State problem. It's not only a problem here for the U.S. EPA, this is a national and worldwide problem. And basically, how your flows go, how your air flows go, this air is continually22 re-circulated. We've always had a swap out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 over the ocean. It's not happening anymore. All over the world now there are pollutants coming from all over the world. It's not necessary cleaning up. When it goes over the Pacific, it goes over the Atlantic. Were right here in this one little area here. There is this one plant that is really seven times more toxic than any other, I think top five in the nation. It's a direct result. Here is something here that we can actually see, put our finger on. Here with this specific area of Warren Township of Knowlton County of New Jersey of the east coast still being affected by this plant. I don't particularly want that plant to shut down. I don't want this plan to clean up. I want them to be good neighbors. they've made their money over the years. They've used a modern grade coal. We've been living with this for a long time. Modern grade coal. But everyone else, like Pennsylvania Power & Light, they are right down the street23 in Morris Creek, they willingly, after a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 little arm twisting, cleaned up their act and they were able to do it. The technology is there to make this plant work. Is it financial possible, I don't know. $300 million, that's the goal. How much is the electric bridge, how much do we need? It's going to boil down to can they actually afford to do that. Now, we have to think that this goes back like 35 to 40 years. For 35 to 40 years this plant has been making cheap electricity. But the electricity that goes into the grid gets paid the same way. That's probably one of the top producing profit margin plants that they would have because they haven't had to upgrade like everybody else. Where we work underneath the federal regulation, for people who don't work under that, we're at an unfair advantage as with all the plants in New Jersey. The plant, we looked at it one way, but I'm looking at the commercial side, too. Everyone should clean up.24 And the time period, we're a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 short-term, one-generational thinker. You and I and many of the people in this room, we're actually looking for our grand kids. That's what we're thinking. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. Any questions for the Mayor? MR. WERNER: I just wanted to ask a question. You mentioned a burn off at night, and then you mentioned you saw something in the morning. What was it that you were seeing? MR. VAN HORN: We've seen those clouds there. We actually have pictures where we took pictures of some of our -- residents and other people. It looks like a regular brown or dark cloud that comes off there. What they are. What they are doing is burning off the interior soot in there in order to make that work a lot better. You can hear it when it's going there. It will actually rumble, vroom, vroom, it goes like that. And then they have to expel all of that to get a clean burn. We've got pictures of that. It's very prominent.25 Half of the day you wake up and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 next morning you think like, you know what, I hope it don't rain because my cars are all pitted and you got dark circles under your eyes and it's not because you've been out all night at Hot Dog Johnny's. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you both very much. I would like to call the next two speakers, Greg Gorman and Jeff Tittel. Mr. Gorman, you are first. Whenever you are ready. MR. GORMAN: My name is Greg Gorman. I'm here to speak on the Environmental Integrity Project. This statement was prepared by Lisa Widawsky, esquire, and Lisa Graves-Marcucci. They are stuck in North Carolina and South Carolina. The Environmental integrity Project submits these comments in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to grant New Jersey's Clean Air Act section 126 petition regarding air pollution at the GenOn, formerly RRI Energy and Reliant Energy, Portland Power Plant. We would first like to thank the EPA26 for proposing strong SO2 standers proposing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would reduce SO2 emissions from the Portland power plant's units 1 and 2 by approximately 81 percent. This is a critical step needed to restore and protect public health New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania. We also need to stress, however, that strong air pollution controls must be complemented by strong coal ash disposal controls in order to meet the goal of protecting public health. While strong SO2 standards are necessary to control dangerous air pollution, air pollution controls will transfer the pollution to the coal ash waste stream. Toxins captured by pollution controls, such as combustion waste stream, where they can leach, runoff, or blow as toxic fugitive dust into nearby communities in the absence of stringent safeguards. The coal ash from the Portland station is disposed of in the Bangor Quarry Coal Ash Disposal Site, which discharges into Brushy Meadow Creek, a tributary of the Delaware River. Increasing the levels of pollutants in27 this quarry site will increase the danger that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pollutants will reach the community of Bangor, PA and other downstream communities and areas, including the public water supply for the City of Easton, only 10 miles downstream of the Bangor Quarry Site on the Delaware River. The Bangor Quarry Coal Ash Disposal Site is already impacting ground and surface waters in local communities. This site is especially problematic because it is within an abandoned slate quarry. EPA's 2009 risk assessment of coal combustion waste found the cancer risk to be 1 in 2,000 from exposure to arsenic in drinking water for communities living near unlined landfills, like quarries containing coal ash. This risk is 500 times higher than the level regarded as safe by current federal regulations. EIP's February 2010 report on national damage cases caused by coal ash disposal included the Bangor landfill. Public documents revealed that the Bangor Coal Ash Disposal Site had surface water discharge that are sending concentrations of boron, cadmium,28 hexavalent chromium and selenium into Brushy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Meadow Creek -- the entire Pennsylvania water quality criteria continuous concentration for fish and aquatic life. In addition, the ash that has been dumped into this landfill has sometimes been more toxic than the regulations allow. For example, some ash dumped in the site failed ritual tests nine times. Perhaps even more alarming is that GenOn's own environmental consultant acknowledged, July 1, 1995 and January 1, 2006, upper trends and downgrading wells for dissolved arsenic dissolved boron chloride and PH lab and potassium. The consultant also conceded the landfill is responsible for degradation. In addition, from November 2009 and November 2010 alone, petroleum ate from the Bangor landfill has been tested by GenOn's experts and given to the Pennsylvania DEP, had arsenic levels as high as 440 micrograms per liter. And -- levels as high as 22 micrograms per liter and selenium levels as high as 79 micrograms per liter. This is in addition to well over 10029 instances which iron, magnesium and sulfate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where PH levels were higher than Pennsylvania's secondary maximum containment levels in the same one-year time frame. Finally, GenOn and its agents have been subject to numerous compliance problems at the Portland plant or Bangor site or other disposal sites. One recent example is the Pennsylvania DEP issued a violation to RRI Energy on February 25, 2010, because the residual waste landfill was not operating in accordance with strict plans of the permit. GenOn's Bangor Quarry Coal Ash Disposal Site has a history of compliance problems and addressing the air pollution problem that would most likely lead to exasperation of the waste disposal problem. The only prudent option for EPA is to protect communities of both pollutants and escapes. Therefore, we believe the best solution is to simultaneously address the waste water as well as the air pollution controls. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you, Mr. Gorman. Any questions? No questions. Mr. Tittel.30 MR. TITTEL: Thank you. Jeff Tittel, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Director of New Jersey's Sierra Club. I'm here representing our 20,000 members in New Jersey and our 1.2 members who support us nationally. But, more importantly, we're representing 500 members that we have in and around this power plant of the New Jersey side as well as thousands more on the Pennsylvania side. This power plant is the largest single source of pollution effecting the lung of the people of North Jersey. It is a direct threat to public health and safety. The pollution from this plant not only spreads to the four counties and places them under containment for clean air, but impacts waterways and air pollution throughout the entire state. We're very concerned about this facility and need to either clean it up or shut it down. Because this facility, quite frankly, is something that should have been put out of business decades ago. Ever since the Clean Air Act passed, facilities like this have been allowed to continue to pollute at will, impacting public31 health and safety. And that is really 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concerning why we have to accept this petition. We also believe that, given the amount of pollution coming from it, that you have to go to the upper end of the range, which is 91 percent or greater, for reduction of sulfur dioxide, because this plant has such a dramatic impact, not only on people, but also on the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the Great Swamp, National Wildlife Refuge, walk hill and all of the other federal lands in the northern part of the state. We also know, because we were part of the Warren County Air Task Force for years, and we've had meetings up there and we've identified the major source of pollution as this plant. And our members spent years working on this. This plant really is something that's not only obsolete, but it's, I think, deadly. If you think about all of the other problems with this plant, whether it's cold cash, whether its -- the river, whether it's mountain top mining or wherever they get their32 coal from, you realize that this has so may 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 problems all along. And we also want to thank the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, for coming up with a series of rules and trying to regulate clean air with the air rule, coal ash and mercury, because those are other major threats that come from plants just like this that have to get cleaned up. And, in fact, hopefully when the mercury rule is in place, you'll go back after this plant for the mercury, because it was a major source of mercury that effects the fish in the Delaware River, this weekend the catfish in Landerville, as well as trout from Ohio. So we're very much concerned about this plant. When you canoe down the river, you can smell it. When that plant is going, you can actually smell the sulfur coming out of there. You can see it when you are hiking in the mountains in the Water Gap. You can see the pollutant coming out of those stacks, dark brown crap coming out of there, for lack of a better word. What we're33 saying to you is, quite frankly, give us our 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lungs back. Protect the environment for the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and nationally. Protect our economy in this region. A lot of it depends on tourism and fishing and all of these other parts of it. We can replace this plant with something better. You can create more jobs and better jobs when are cleaning it up and putting in scrubbers, or by building green technology whether it's solar or wind or other things to take its place. If you really want our to grow, you got to get rid of the biggest source of toxic pollution in the area. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LING: No questions. Thank you both very much. The next two speakers are Anna Maria Caldara and Leona Fluck. MR. MALONEY: We'll start with Ms. Caldara. MS. CALDARA: Thank you. I would just like to spell my last name for the reporter. It's C-A-L-D-A-R-A. We're here today to discuss the need for a restrict the emissions control for sulfur dioxide from the Gen-On34 coal burning power plant in Portland, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pennsylvania. As a resident of nearby Bangor, I protest that we are still trying to prop up a half-century old polluter. Stricter emissions controls will not solve the problem of coal ash production. If we continue to burn coal, we continue to generate toxic ash. That ash is trucked nine miles to Bangor, and dumped into what was an empty slate quarry. After 34 years of dumping, we now have an ash mountain named the Bangor Ash Disposal Site. 30 trucks add 560 tons of ash to the pile daily. This site covers 24 acres. Before the installation of a liner in 1999, 900,000 cubic yards of ash were dumped directly into the water. From high vantage points on windy days, it's easy to see ash blowing towards the town. Downwind are a day care, library, residences, and stores. Tenants living above the day care have complained of gritty residue if their windows are opened. They also say they have been prone to illness since moving there. A 2004 Compliance History of the plant35 indicated violations from 1996-2002, including 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 failure to take reasonable actions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Holding pond water on the site is discharged into Brushy Meadow Creek. This creek is designated for trout stocking fish, aquatic life, water supply, and recreation. It merges with Martins Creek, which flows to the Delaware. The Delaware provides drinking water for 15 million people. Environmental Integrity Group and Earthjustice discovered that the outfall pipe has discharged cadmium, boron, hexavalent chromium, and selenium into Brushy Meadow Creek at concentrations far higher than the Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentration for Fish and Aquatic Life allows. On-site groundwater has exceeded limits for several heavy metals and other toxic constituents found in ash, such as sulfate. High levels of fluoride were also found in Brushy Meadow Creek. Coal-fired plants are the largest source of hydrogen fluoride emissions in the environment.36 In comparison with sulfur dioxide, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hydrogen fluoride is the key killer. While sulfur dioxide does its damage to the human body as it is inhaled, it is excreted through the kidneys. 50 percent of all fluoride settles in the bones and pineal glands. It accumulates in the brain, disrupting hormonal processes. Fluoride also switches on the G-proteins, which affect how the body is regulated. G-proteins are present in every tissue. The presence of this fluoride in the river that runs through Bangor could indicate a plume leaching from Bangor Ash Disposal Site. Approximately a mile from the site are Meadowbrook Mobil Home Park and Hartzell's Auction Gallery. The Meadowbrook contains one well serving 98 people. Hartzell's has one well serving three families and the public. Moreover, thousands of tons of Gen-On's ash have been spread on the roads surrounding Bangor in place of salt in the winter. This so-called beneficial use has dispersed toxic ash throughout our ecosystem,37 where it collects on bicycle tires, shoes, in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fish, and in our lungs. Despite the scenario in Bangor, our DEP insists that coal ash disposal is successful. The cost of operating the Gen-On coal burner is being paid with our natural resources and our lives. Humanity and the earth are at a crossroads. Our ecosystems are so compromised that life itself hangs in the balance. The current mass extinction of species reflects this. Let us err on the side of caution, and commit to protecting the air, water, and soil that keeps life flourishing. The combustion of coal as a power source must stop. As a member of Save the Park in Blairstown, New Jersey, I take this opportunity to cast a vote for a renewable energy future. For long overdue reasons of health and safety, Gen-On must no longer be regulated, but closed CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Questions? MS. ENCK: Thank you, Ms. Caldara. Just a question on the thermal ash. Some of38 it goes to the quarry and some of it is spread 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on the roadways, as you say, as a salt substitute. Do you know what the decision-making process is in terms of what gets the beneficiary use determination versus what goes to the quarry? MS. CALDARA: No. I don't think that Bangor itself is actually using it as snow traction. Last year I don't think they did. It's the towns surrounding Bangor that are asking Bangor for the coal ash a to do that. I don't know what their criteria is. I know that we're contracted to go from the plant directly to the site with the ash, but when I did a file review a few years ago, I did find letters from East Bangor and -- saying that they wanted coal ash from the site to be he spread on the road. MS. ENCK: So they might get it directly from the power plant? MS. CALDARA: Probably. MS. ENCK: This is regulated by Pennsylvania -- MS. CALDARA: Thank you very much.39 CHAIRMAN LING: No other questions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you very much. Ms. Fluck. MS. FLUCK: My name is Leona Fluck and I live in new Jersey. I am a member of the Sierra Club and also a canoe safety patrol volunteer with the National Parks Service in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. As volunteers, my husband George and I lead recreational canoe/kayak trips on the Delaware River and we paddle by the Portland plant on the way to Belvidere several times each summer. I am here to support the Clean Air Act Section 126 petition submitted by the New Jersey DEP. I am in support of the EPA's proposal to grant NJ's petition that will require the GenOn Portland plant to reduce the plant's toxic emissions. Operating for over 50 years, the Portland coal plant produces millions of tons of air pollution each year that cause illnesses in NJ and PA residents. I am very much concerned about the toxic coal ash dumped40 into a pit in Bangor, PA. With compliance to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meet Clean Air Act standards this will increase the toxins that are dumped into the quarry site. Brushy Creek is a tributary of the Delaware River Watershed and the risks will increase the already existing pollution of ground and surface waters from the plant ash. The Delaware River has Special Waters Protection. It is a drinking source for over 15 million people in 4 states. In addition to the Clean Air Act standards, I am requesting the EPA consider increased standards and enforcement related to the coal ash pit toxins and plant compliance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: I just want to clarify one thing you said. Was it your point that in compliance with the 126 limits would increase your concerns about the ash, or are you asking us to do that in addition? MS. FLUCK: Well, I would like it in addition, because once they are in compliance with 126, that will increase the toxins that are removed that will then go into the coal41 ash pit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you both. Next is Joanne Pannone and Nancy Chambellan. I'll go ahead and apologize to the rest of you the rest of the day for butchering the pronunciation of your names, but hopefully I'm getting close. Ms. Pannone, you are first, so you can start whether you are ready. MS. PANNONE: Good afternoon. My name is Joanne Pannone. I'm a Sierra Club member, also, and I'm here and testify about my feelings to the EPA on the coal-fire Portland Generation Plant and talk particularly about it's effect on the oceans. I can remember going to the lakes and rivers and streams and seeing an abundance of wildlife and fish. Now, I'm a wildlife conservation volunteer for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The effects of burning fossil fuels goes farther than the surrounding community when it leaves the smoke stack. It causes acid rains, which ends up in the ocean. The oceans occupy two thirds of42 the earth and we have managed to pollute most 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of it and destroy the plankton and other marine life. More than 90 percent of the ocean sea life lives near the surface. We have now caused a zone of anoxic water, that is depleted oxygen in the water from the heavy metals and the acid rain, so that these sea creatures cannot breathe. It is important that we address these issues and fight the pollution of the coal industry by using renewable energy. Launched off too often in the pollution debate is the deprecation of the delicate balance between physical and -- of the atmosphere and the ocean. The ocean land system and the revolving biosphere, which controls the survival of many species includes us humans. I'm sure Edison and Tesla never thought about the release of sulfur dioxide and sulfur gases into the atmosphere while generating electricity, which will eventually cause so many health problems. To quote Dr. Silvia -- "The ocean is the lungs of the earth; with every wave brings a breathe."43 We need to stop -- the solution and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get on to renewable energy. We also need to address the health of the miners, that is M-I-N-E-R-S, as well as the minors, M-I-N-O-R-S. We need to remember how -- that the coal plants in the nation not only dumb air emissions by the truckloads of toxic ash, too, we need to remember that the EPA has the science now and it has to assert its power and push for renewable energy so an ocean can heal and my grandchildren can have wonderful memories of a full and happy life with a lot of wildlife and not a world full of pollution. That you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. No questions. Ms. Chambellan. MS CHAMBELLAN: My name is nancy chambellan, and I'll spell it for you. C-H-A-M-B-E-L-L-A-N. In the past have I been a commissioner of the Warren County Environmental Commission, but I come to you today as one of the Warren County residents who personally pays a high price every day for44 the dirty coal operation at Portland, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pennsylvania. Degraded air quality has dealt me the hand of a severe and chronic lung disability. This type of lung damage has been established as permanent and irreversible with elevated or prolonged exposure to toxic air pollution. Ironically, it also is a lung condition that has been deemed to be preventable simply by having clean air to breathe. In other words, although my medical and subsequent economic demise now has been set in stone, other people do not have to sustain such lung damage if effective steps are taken by industry and government in consideration of public health. Part and parcel in public health is the destruction of Warren County's critical watershed forest by discharged toxic gases. They diminish not only clean air, but in tandem, threaten clean water resources as well. Regularly the power industry assesses its operational costs and profit margins, yet it has long neglected to factor in the impact45 of its real role as public health menace. For 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decades, western lying coal-burning power plants have discharged dangerous pollutants upon unsuspecting residents of Warren County with various subsequent lung issues surfacing among us. About a decade ago PPL came to the landmark AIRCAP table. With members of the affected community, PP&L explored the issues and problem solved the negative impact of its Martin's Creek dirty coal plant upon Warren County. Reliant declined to participate in that AIRCAP initiative regarding its Portland plant and its continued toxic discharge still plagues its neighbors in New Jersey unchecked. Reliant's Portland plant continues to be one of the greatest offenders of toxic discharge that degrades essential air quality for Warren County residents and other locations in northwestern New Jersey. It is my understanding that technologies exist to remedy the destructive situation. Yet, the Portland plant does not embrace those technologies and operates dirty46 business as usual. I fully support efforts by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EPA and NJDEP to enforce elements of the Clean Air Act. It should not be too much for Warren County residents to ask for clean air and clean water. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. No questions. Thank you both. The next two speakers are Steve Davies and Joe Dulovich. While they come to the table, I just want to ask quick, does anybody in the audience here who was signed up to speak, but has not checked in at the front table, we ask you to please do so, so we can keep track of who is here and who is waiting to go speak. Thanks. MR. DAVIES: Good afternoon. My name is Steve Davies, D-A-V-I-E-S, and I'm the Vice President of Asset Management for GenOn Energy. I have the responsibility for our assets in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois. I live in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, about 35 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to EPA on the proposed regulation of S02 emissions from GenOn's Portland Generating47

Station. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GenOn Energy is one of the largest competitive generators of wholesale electricity in the United States. With power generation facilities located in key regions of the country and a generation portfolio of approximately 24,600 megawatts, GenOn is helping meet the nation's electricity needs. GenOn's portfolio of power generation facilities includes backload, intermediate and peaking units using coal, natural gas and oil to generate electricity. In Pennsylvania, we own all or part of nine major coal-fired generating stations, including the Portland station, and nine gas-fired generating stations, totaling 5,200 megawatts. The electricity generated at these stations is equivalent to approximately 15 percent of the total annual electric power consumption in the state of Pennsylvania or enough to power over five million homes. We have over 1,200 employees in Pennsylvania, with an annual payroll of approximately $115 million. GenOn pays approximately $15 million each year in48 Pennsylvania property taxes, and spends over 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 $650 million each year for O&M expenses and fuel. Almost all of this expense is paid to contractors and businesses in Pennsylvania. As you know, there have been several environmental rules and regulations, specifically addressing air emissions, that have recently been made effective. In addition there are numerous pending environmental rules and regulations that will impact electric generating facilities, specifically coal-fired electric power generating station operations, across the US. These pending regulations include HAPS MACT, CATR, coal combustion by-product disposal, 316(b) and the S02 one-hour AAQS. As these regulations become effective, GenOn will make operational changes and/or capital expenditures to meet these new regulatory standards. As a result of a Section 126 petition by the NJDEP, EPA is proposing a rule that will require significant reductions in S02 emissions from our Portland station.49 GenOn believes any final rule should 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 carefully consider the schedule for and the magnitude of S02 reductions mandated by other air quality regulations that EPA is promulgating. In addition, the final rule should consider the process that needs to be followed in determining the existence of any S02 nonattainment areas around the Portland station and the role of the PADEP in developing an appropriate S02 NAAQS compliance implementation plan for all Pa S02 sources. Finally, the rule should provide for meaningful, interim reductions of S02 emissions while allowing GenOn time to analyze and develop a comprehensive compliance strategy that addresses pending regulations and obtain permits for any changes in station operations or additions of control equipment. We agree with comments made recently by the NJDEP that they don't want to shut the plant down, they just want us to improve what we do. We're asking for an opportunity to make changes that will result in near-term reductions in S02 emissions and for time to50 study all pending rules and make long-term 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plans for compliance with those rules once they have been finalized. GenOn supports environmental rules and regulations that are based on sound science and that balance environmental benefits, electric reliability and economic impacts. Therefore it is critical that compliance with current and proposed environmental rules proceed in a manner that avoids material impacts to electric power supply reliability and avoids major consumer electric power price shocks. GenOn is developing detailed written comments for submission during the comment period, and we look forward to working with EPA in addressing air emission reductions at the Portland stations. Thank you for the opportunity to address this matter this afternoon. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. Questions? MS. ENCK: Mr. Davies, thank you for your testimony and for being here today. I just have two questions; one is, you51 mentioned that your company has nine coal-fire 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 power plants in Pennsylvania; is that? MR. DAVIES: That is correct, we own all nine coal-fire plants. MS. ENCK: Do the other eight power plants have modern pollutant controls on them? MR. DAVIES: The other eight stations in Pennsylvania, three are currently equipped with at least scrubbers and some form of -- and obviously, they all have a controller in them. MS. ENCK: So three of the nine? MR. DAVIES: Three of the nine. We also have two stations in Ohio that does, but three of the nine in Pennsylvania. MS. ENCK: How does the company decide when to install modern pollution controls and when not to? MR. DAVIES: As a competitive electric power supplier, it comes down to an economic decision. Do we have options on how we comply. We take a look at the most cost effective approach. Clearly, if a new regulation or permit comes down that mandates52 an emission level that can only be met through 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the -- we will do that. As you know, through the acid rain program, we take advantage of cadmium trade and rules and measures to control some sources and not control others, the most economical controller system and other emissions. So Portland station, for example, is one where we've been able to comply with all permits and all of the rules over the years, however, we were never actually required to install new removal, removal equipment there

we. Were able to make an economic judgment about which sources would be the ones that would be the most cost effective to get that control equipment. MS. ENCK: You articulated a list of other proposed new air pollution regulations that EPA is looking at. I want assure, this is not happening in a vacuum, that is all things being considered. You gave us a list of, I think, five of the most notable of the air toxic proposal of that list proposed by EPA last month.53 MR. DAVIES: Right. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ENCK: What is your company's position? Do have you a position on these various regulatory proposals? MR. DAVIES: Our position is once they're finalized in final format, we can actually begin to start on a detailed analysis on what control requirements are going to be to meet those rules. We have asked for time to have a chance to do those analyses and time to get permits to install control equipment. I know that for the MAC Rule there is a three-year compliance deadline. That is the kind of thing that gives us time, plus make sure we achieve compliance. MS. ENCK: Three years is adequate enough? MR. DAVIES: Three years, that's what that rule provides for. I think that some cases a longer time frame is needed, but since the other consideration is that -- inaudible -- but with respect to how public transition and the entire U.S. from electric power supply reliability perspective is54 something that, in this region, PJM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Organization needs to look at. That's their responsibility. And they are made to be a more delivered schedule in some phase of how various facilities implement controls and retire. So that is a bigger picture issue. It is something that may take three years. It may be an adequate time frame and some cases it may be some consideration of longer period. MS. ENCK: Just a final question. Does your company have a public position on the MAC Rule? MR. DAVIES: Not specifically on the rule. Obviously, there is some comment period right. Now, we're going to be developing detailed comments on that rule. It's a lengthy rule. It is going to take a while to note a detailed analyses, but at the end of the day, whatever is promulgated will be the law of the land. MS. ENCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Just wanted to know if you had an opportunity for some synergy and we look forward to reading more about that in the55 detailed comments that you will be providing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DAVIES: We appreciate that. We really hope to work with the Division on this. MS. ENCK: Just one final question. Do you consider Portland to be a base loading unit? MR. DAVIES: At this point, no. Originally, the plant was developed it probably did operate in a base load fashion, but now it's more of a -- inaudible -- unit. MR. WERNER: Just one other question. In terms of the time, you gave several times types about inadequate timing. If EPA proposed no later than two years for the installation controls, do you have a position on that, is that, in your mind, adequate to do this, or is it going to be in the detailed comments? MR. DAVIES: Our request would be that the schedule and the requirements for this rule closely align with the MAC Rule. It will be very helpful for us to be able to look at both of those actions in concert and not have to make a control decision early on for the56 one-hour standard that doesn't get us the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standards with the MAC Rule. It would be our purpose to look at both of these in concert and make a controlled decision that would handle both rules in the same time frame. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Mr. Dulovich. MR. DULOVICH: Thank you, and thank you for letting me make a statement today. My name is Joe Dulovich, D-U-L-O-V-I-C-H. I'm the general manager at the GenOn Portland station. The station was initially placed into service in 1958, and has provided reliable, low-cost electric power to the Pennsylvania/New Jersey region for over 50 years. The station generating capacity includes two coal-fired units with a combined capacity of 400 megawatts and 3 oil or natural gas-fired combustion turbines with a combined capacity Of 190 megawatts, enough to power nearly 400,000 homes. We have 77 full-time employees at the station, including 59 IBEW Local 777 union57 members. We also employ many craft union 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 workers during maintenance outages. The coal burned at the station is delivered by rail, and is mined from locations in southwestern Pennsylvania. Environmental performance is a key business objective for all GenOn stations, and we are very proud of our environmental compliance record at Portland. We have several major environmental permits that we must comply with that govern air emissions, ash disposal and wastewater discharges from the station. We are currently in full compliance with all of these permits. With respect to air emissions, the station has electrostatic precipitators to remove particulate matter from the flue gas. We also have Low-NOx burners in the boilers to control NOx emissions, and we bum low-sulfur coal to control the amount of S02 emissions from the station. We know that this action by EPA will likely require us to make near-term operational changes at the station to further58

reduce S02 emissions. We also know that there 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are several other pending environmental regulations that will impact station operations. We hope that EPA will recognize there are limits to what we can economically do over the next few years and give us time to evaluate what we need to do to comply with all pending environmental regulations. We are confident that we have the talent at the station do what it takes to continue to protect the environment while providing excellent employment opportunities for our employees and providing significant economic support to northeast Pennsylvania and western New Jersey. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: No questions. Thank you both very much. The next two speakers are Suda Kantor and Upendra Chivukla. A couple of requests. I think the folks in the back are sometimes having trouble hearing the speakers so two things, if folks can speak more directly into the mic. If you get closer to the mic it makes a big difference. And the other thing59 is if we can try to reduce some of the ambient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 noise in the back, that would probably help, too. With that, Ms. Kantor, whenever you are ready. MS. KANTOR: Good afternoon. I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sudah Kantor. I'm an resident of Warren County. I'm speaking today because I think it is very important for the DEP and EPA to continue its function with protecting people. I don't know if they -- inaudible -- but I have lungs and my child has lungs and they need to be protected. When we moved to Warren County, we didn't know about the air pollution. We don't walk around with a counter measuring it, but we have felt the effect of it. And now, as a mentioned, my daughter suffers sometimes from asthma. She was born -- she has been born and raised here since her birth. And when she was nine-months old, she required a nebulizer from time to time because of her activity in breathing.60 So I really support and applaud the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EPA and New Jersey DEP. I'm not against business. I'm not against generating business, this is a very important thing, but there has to be a balance. And the science has already determined what the level should be. And you are the only people that can hold these companies accountable for meeting those levels. And their excuses of, well, give us some time, we have to look at the economic impacts. The economic impact of the pollutants are also huge, and the time is now to recognize that. Not only because of the time I'll lose from work, not only because of my needs, but also my daughters needs. She can't go to school, I can't go to work. There is an economic impact on my work. There is an economic impact on my health insurance for what they have to pay for my asthma, what they have to pay for a nebulizer, what they have to pay for -- if I have a severe asthma attack, when I have to be in the emergency room and my visits to the61 doctor so I can get medication to monitor my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lungs to make sure I can breath. I only ask that -- there are business interests at hand here, and I appreciate that you are listening to people. I work for a big business and I want big business to succeed, but, at the same time, I wouldn't be working for my employer if I thought my employer brought harm to me. There are people who need their lungs to keep our business going. I'm sure the Portland plant doesn't want the residents to die or suffer from lung issues or any other related health issues. So I applaud you and ask that you adopt these regulations and hold the plant accountable for it's emissions. Hold them to the regulations to the level that the scientist determined already is healthy for us, and please protect Warren County residents and all the other people who travel to this area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Mr. Chivukula. MR. CHIVUKULUA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman Ling and members of the hearing officers. My name is Assemblyman62 Upendra Chivukula, U-P-E-N-D-R-A. The last 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 name is C-H-I-V-U-K-U-L-A. My name is Assemblyman Upendra Chivukula and I am the Chair of the New Jersey Assembly Telecom and Utilities Committee that oversees the energy issue among other policy issues. I would like to thank EPA for holding a public hearing on power plant air emissions from Portland Generating Station owned by GenOn Energy.

I appear before you today in support of the petition by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce toxic emissions from the coal-fired power plant in Portland Pennsylvania located across the Delaware River from Warren County. While I welcome the EPA's proposal requiring the plant to cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 80 percent over three years, I urge you to consider the DEP's petition to implement a 95 percent reduction. For many years the GenOn Energy coal-fired plant has been violating the law at63 the cost of New Jersey residents. Last year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this plant emitted 30,000 tons of sulfur dioxide which is three times the amount of seven of New Jersey's coal-fired plants combined. This blatant violation of the Clean Air Act is untenable. Such emissions pose a serious health hazard to New Jersey's densely populated communities that are downwind from these harmful emissions. These include the residents of the counties of Warren, Sussex, Morris and Huntington. Pollution from power plants releases chemicals into the environment. High levels of such chemicals are a serious public health hazard and may result in respiratory diseases like Asthma while prolonged exposure can lead to Cancer. As lawmaker, and in my capacity as Chair of the Telecom and Utilities Committee with oversight over utilities including power plants in New Jersey, it is my duty to condemn such a gross violation of federal laws that endanger public health and the environment in our state.64 Frankly, I am surprised that lawmakers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and environmental authorities in Pennsylvania have allowed such a violation of federal laws without protest or public comment. It took a law suit from New Jersey to call attention to this violation; As lawmakers and public officials, we serve as custodians of the public interest including public health and the environment. This includes preventing harm to residents of our own state and other states from such violations of the law. I commend the DEP for its initiative to protect public health and the environment from such a travesty from across the border. I call on the EPA to approve the DEP's petition of a 95 percent reduction in emissions of sulfur dioxide from the Portland plant. Please put a stop to the export of pollution from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. It is endangering the health and quality of life of New Jersey residents. It has gone on for too long and the people of New Jersey need your protection and strong action.65 More than one billion participate in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42nd Earth Day less than a week ago, more than one billion people around the world participated in the 42nd Earth Day on April 22, 2011. Meanwhile, the Earth Day Network called on world citizens to pledge to a 'Billion Acts of Green' as it launched the single largest global civic campaign. Individual and global Green Consciousness is at an all time high. In New Jersey, we have made significant strides in protecting the environment including improving our water and air quality with progressive policies and initiatives. These include the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative which has significantly reduced carbon emissions into the environment. It is breakthrough measure of which I am proud to be a sponsor. As a result of progressive initiatives like RGGI, the Global Warming Response Act, the Energy Master Plan, New Jersey has one of the toughest global warming and clean energy mandates in the66

nation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We have one of the strongest wind and solar programs in the nation and the development of clean energy has helped reduce air pollution in our state. The Energy Master Plan and the Global Warming Response Act call for a reduction of C02 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below the 2006 levels by 2050. Reduction in overall energy use by 20 percent by 2020. We have made a great deal of progress in protecting and preserving the environment. We are committed to continuing such progressive polices that move us forward towards a responsible energy future. We have the overwhelming mandate of the people of New Jersey to protect and preserve the environment, and that includes protection from cross border pollution. I call upon the EPA as the custodians of the environment and public health to do the right thing by the people of New Jersey and by the environment. Please accept the DEP's petition for the coal-fired Portland plant to reduce its sulfur dioxide emissions by 9567 percent. Thank you for giving me this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opportunity. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. I just want to make sure I understood your affiliation. MR. CHIVUKULUA: I'm the member of the General Assembly in New Jersey. I'm the chairman of the New Jersey Assembly Telecom and Utilities Committee. CHAIRMAN LING: Terrific, thanks. Thank you both. I'm Going to call the next two speaks, Dr. Stanley Weiss and John Rutkowski. Dr. Weiss, do I understand correctly that you have a PowerPoint? DR. WEISS: Yes. I'll start while it's loading. CHAIRMAN LING: Or the other option is we could have Mr. Rutkowski go first. Why don't we do that. Mr. Rutkowski. MR. RUTKOWSKI: Good afternoon. Thank you to the panel for your hard work today and every other day. My name is John Rutkowski, R-U-T-K-O-W-S-K-I. I'm currently the director of cardiopulmonary services at Bergen Regional68 Medical Center, and I'm here today 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 representing the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic as a member of this Board and former president and representing the American Lung Association in New Jersey on this advising board I sit. I am John Rutkowski. I am Director of Cardiopulmonary Services at Bergen Regional Medical Center, and I am here today representing the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic as a member of its Board and former President, and representing the American Lung Association in New Jersey on whose Advisory Board I sit. I am also a member of the American Lung Association's Nationwide Assembly and a former Chair of what was once known as the American Lung Association's Clean Air Committee. But perhaps the most important part of my role here today is to reflect for you my experience as a Registered Respiratory Therapist. I have been on the front lines dealing with lung disease and its aftermath in individuals who need to receive evaluation,69 counseling, and treatment. I have seen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 first-hand the adverse effects of lung disease and its causes, and that is why I am passionate about reminding this panel of the toll exacted by air pollution on the most vulnerable in our society. We are aware the Portland Generating Station lies at the Eastern border of Pennsylvania and that the prevailing winds carry emissions primarily eastward into New Jersey. Well, the service area of the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic includes Delaware, West Virginia and both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. This means that we have no favoritism on behalf of any state, and so we ask that we be recognized as being concerned solely with lung health, and today, specifically with air pollution's effects on lung health. And since we do represent Pennsylvania, we are also aware that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a state that has struggled over the years with ambient pollution entering its air via its southern and western borders. In other words,70 transport of air pollutants across regional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 boundaries is no stranger to us. Of course, the tens of thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide the Portland facility emits into the atmosphere don't just magically disappear. They go somewhere. They have chemical, environmental, biological, and physiological fates. Too often, the ultimate fate is to be breathed in and to precipitate adverse health effects ranging from days of restricted activity, to asthma attacks, to ER visits and notably through the incorporation of sulfur oxides into fine particle pollution premature deaths. Last June, the American Lung Association was pleased to applaud the EPA's new one-hour air quality standard for sulfur dioxide the first strengthening of the limits on this dangerous air pollutant in nearly four decades. As the proposed rule demonstrates, this standard will now help curtail the short- term bursts of this noxious gas that spew into communities living next to some of our71 nation's oldest, di1tiest polluters, including 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 coal-fired power plants such as the Portland facility. At last, this standard offers the promise of real protection to the people who have breathed these fumes for far too long. I emphasize that when the EPA is confronted with claims that complying with the Proposed Rule will cost too much, the Agency must always remember that we are already paying in lost work and productivity in disease, disability, and death and that the Rule at issue is necessary finally to come to grips with the pollution responsible for those outcomes and those costs. And should the EPA need even more support for standing up to forces that would weaken the rule, let me call attention to the myriads of often invisible potential allies, people who stand to benefit from implementation of the rule. We recognize that in the area of Hunterdon, Morris, Sussex, and Warren Counties in New Jersey, the EPA has confirmed the finding of the New Jersey Department of72

Environmental Protection that sulfur dioxide 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 emissions from the Portland facility contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the sulfur dioxide standard. In those four counties, the populations potentially at risk from exposure to sulfur dioxide include: 209,000 infants, children and teens under 18; 114,000 persons aged 65 and above; 19,000 children with asthma; 52,000 adults with asthma; 30,000 persons with chronic bronchitis; 15,000 persons with emphysema; 258,000 persons with cardiovascular disease, and 39,000 persons living in poverty. Far from being a small minority, persons falling into one or more of these high risk groups together comprise on the order of half the population. And even more important to remember: Every one of these millions is a real person, not a nameless statistic. Every one of these people is a human being worthy of our attention, a neighbor, a coworker, a friend, a family member, maybe even oneself. Therefore, the American Lung73

Association of the Mid-Atlantic and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 American Lung Association in New Jersey and indeed, many more are here today to testify strongly in favor of the proposed rule to underscore the need for this rule, to confirm the benefits to be gained from its implementation, and to call for a reasonable plan that protects the health of the public with the urgency they deserve. Thank you for your attention. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Dr. Weiss. DR. WEISS: If you could load the asthma study. I'm Stanley H. Weiss, W-E-I-S-S. I'm a professor at the New Jersey Medical School and at the School of Public Health, University Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey. I'm going to rapidly summarize some information from the decades of work here in Warren County and New Jersey considering a disease in particular, asthma. Next slide. Many of these studies have been done jointly with my co-PI of the studies, Dr. Cliff Wyzell (ph), who is also at UMDNJ.74 Some of our information presented 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 represent a fourth -- inaudible -- in particular responded by is the DSM, formally ROCHE, Community Advisory Panel. I'll be putting into your docket a copy of the power point and additional data. This is just to give you a rough overview of the sequence studies. Next slide. The journey began with the community in 2001 with health problems -- inaudible -- UMDNJ to study. Among the issues they looked at were asthma. They recorded a high rate of asthma. They later on shared with me the detailed data assessment. Go to the next slide. I can show you the results of that show that the reports of asthma were not in the asthma period, but ranging, as you can see, into older ages as well. So they seem to have a broad issue of health. Next slide. Citizens also, in the City of Belvidere, did a similar study of, again, the conditions. They found a slightly higher rate of asthma, emphazima, and chronic bronchitis which made them very concerned. Next slide.75 As you can see, also, there is a ranges of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ages involved. When they suggested that it was hard to put things in perspective because he didn't know what -- inaudible -- but by going through tour knowing people and being introduced and proposed a series of studies. Next slide. Next slide after that -- was to try to examine what was giving to so -- is one systematic study. The Isaac question used internationally for decades. We got approval to the school districts in Belvidere, White Township -- in Harmony, the school board, some principals, the administration and school nurses very highly responded to the surveys and analyzed that data. Next slide. This was done in grades K through 12. Next slide. A total of 1,749 students were enrolled in those public schools. Next slide. To summarize, briefly, the fair amount of work, 59 percent that were diagnosed with asthma -- reported current symptoms where a whopping 41 percent were diagnosed with asthma. Next slide. That 41 percent consisted of 13 percent physician diagnosis, 19 percent76 asymptomatic they've never been diagnosed with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 asthma. Nine percent had physician-diagnosed asthma or other past history of asthma but had not reported current symptoms. Next slide. To put some of that in perspective, here are some that were in the Isaac study, Jersey Gardens Study. On the very bottom is the data from Warren County -- inaudible -- you can see a spike in older groups. As you can see these rates, higher rates, compared to worldwide. For instance, increases in the last 12 months reported in that school by 23 percent in the 13 to 14 year olds and 23 percent in the six to seven year olds. That surprised us. We actually did not expect the citizens of the study to have issues concerning upper respiratory disease. That in particular we thought it was important. Next slide. So we decided to look okay at grades 5 through 12, only to children who had a diagnosed -- disease and to do a -- follow-up study under the guidelines monitoring stations we continued to measures SO2. That study being conduced on a daily77

basis. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next slide. And we found in that analysis that sulfur dioxide -- inaudible -- and not only found that the sulfur dioxide flow rate -- and another analyses we found is that the SO2 was associated with an increased number of asthma symptoms and decrease with the functions in these children with SO2. In other studies that have been done subsequently statewide, I'm seeing a primary of emergency room visits for asthma and also hospital visits for asthma. And so, in summary, what we found is evidence of health effects and direct association with relatively low levels of SO2, which indicates that EP's concern with SO2 is well founded, and that Warren County in particular is heavily affected by it that the citizens are concerned. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. I want to ask if there are questions for both speakers, so I'll check now. That you both very much. At this point, we are going to take a short break a five-minute break. (Whereupon, break taken.)78

CHAIRMAN LING: If Mr. Rosebrock and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Gerwig would come and get in position. We'll start in a second. Mr. Rosebrock, whenever you are ready. MR. ROSEBROCK: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is William Rosebrock R-O-S-E-B-R-O-C-K. I live in Harmony Township. I was formerly the chair of the Warren County Commission before it was dissolved by the Freeholders. And before that, I was chair of the Harmony Township Environmental Commission. My testimony is in the form of a letter to Edward R. Muller, chairman and CEO GenOn Corporate Headquarters 1000 Main Street, Houston, Texas. Dear Ed, in an effort to acquaint ourselves with your company, we checked your website and found good news in your code of ethics and business conduct. In a chapter called protecting the environment, you say, "We strive to meet or exceed applicable environmental laws and implement business practices that go beyond applicable law when necessary to protect health and the environment, and act honorably79 and ethically and as good corporate citizens. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Compliance with applicable laws is the cornerstone of our environmental philosophy, we're delighted you raised the issue of ethics because coal pollution causes thousands of deaths, heart attacks and asthma attacks every year. Children and the elderly are especially vulnerable. The medical costs exceed $100 billion a year. An ethical dilemma to be

sure. But there are complications, "Further environmental investments will need two things, number one, clarity of rules and number two, economic justification. Regarding clarity of rules, if your lobbyists stop their decades long effort to delay and block clean air regulations, we can all get on with the business of healing our badly damaged planet. And regarding economic justification, Americans spend a billion dollars a day on electricity 7 days a week, 365 days a year. In the eight hours it takes for today's hearing revenue will be more than $322 million. There is plenty of money out there, we know, we sent it and you have it. So here80 is our ethical delimma, we don't want our 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 money to pay for air pollution that will sicken our children and elders. The solution, put your talented people to work dismantling those grimy obsolete coal burners in Portland. Expand your workforce and cover your 1,094-acre site with solar panels. This will generate more than 200,200 megawatts of electricity. We know you're currently producing 600 megawatts, but electric demand is down. There is plenty of excess generating capacity and we can easily make up the shortfall in energy conservation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. No questions. Mr. Gerwig. MR. GERWIG: My name is Bob Gerwig. I requested an opportunity to speak here today because I have multiple interest in this particular power plant. I'm a registered professional engineer. I worked 43 years in the engineering construction and project management of large industrial projects. Of that, approximately 33 years were on power plants. I owned property adjacent to81 the Portland generating station. I also 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 happen to be a member of the Board of Supervisors for Upper Mount Bethel Township where the Portland Generating Station is located. Although I'm appearing here today as an individual, I have the support of the Board of Supervisors. Right off, I do support clean air standards, as evidenced by the fact that the last 15 years before I retired were spent in retrofitting scrubbers and SCRs on coal-fire units. Unfortunately for our local community, abandonment of this generating station would be a severe blow to the financial stability of our township. This station is our second largest property taxpayer. They employ over 70 people, mostly from our area. We're a rural community and we do not have very many industries that contribute to our tax basin. Without the Portland station, we would have to replace those tax revenues with significant additional tax burdens on our local residents just to meet our annual budget. Having worked on the engineering and82 installation of 10 scrubbers and 9 SCRs, at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 five different power stations, I'm quite familiar with the high costs of such facilities. On my last project before retiring in 2002, the total cost of scrubbers were approximately $200 million. The SCRs added nearly another $200 million. And that was 10 years ago. At the same sometime, the operation of these additions drained at least four percent from the efficiency of the plant. The practicality of such expenditures is highly questionable on units the size and age of the Portland station. As the northeast corridor of this country continues to grow and increase its demand for electrical power, the Portland station is uniquely situated to supply power to the PJM interconnection from a location close to the source of the demand. Power transmissions coming from the midwest are hampered by long distance transmission line losses and by transmission lines already approaching overload. Meanwhile, the population densities, the83 topography and the wind currents of our area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are not conducive to large wind or solar energy instillation. Permits for new power plants, with all the water and air studies, public meetings and the required advanced engineering, take many years to obtain. If GenOn would decide to upgrade the existing plant with new scrubbers and SCRs, it would require a year-and-a-half to three years of advanced planning and engineering, and another two to three years to install and put the systems into operation. If they were to decide on a new plant construction of a new 600 megawatt gas powered combined cycle power plant, it would take at least three to five years to obtain all of the needed permits, another year to complete the design and another three years to build and put into service. This adds up to seven to nine years, considerably more than the three years proposed by the EPA. The recent experience would place the total cost of such a plant at 500 to $600 million. Therefore, I'm asking you to please allow GenOn enough time to84 conduct their feasibility studies and then 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 come to a practical decision about how to move forward. Please do not simply shut them down without any consideration for the impacts of our community, to the employees or for the need for power in the northeast corridor. On a personal note, my wife and I chose to live and retire in Upper Mount Bethel Township right next door to the Portland generating station. We have no problem with having GenOn and the Portland Generating Station as our next door neighbor. I sincerely hope that they are allowed to remain there and to continue to operate under the proper regulations and under the proper time frame. Thank you for permitting me to make my comments. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN LING: This is a hearing for EPA questions. Are you an EPA person? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No85

CHAIRMAN LING: Sorry. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you very much. The next two speakers are Jeanie Taylor and Derrick Loy. Ms. Taylor, you can start whenever you are ready. MS. TAYLOR: My name is Jeanie Taylor. I've been a resident of Knowlton Township for 32 years. Prior to moving up here, I've never had any type of medical problems, never had to see a doctor. From the very beginning, I noticed waking up with headaches, not being able to breath properly. My husband, being a resident born and raised here, just informed me that it was because we were up on the mountain at the same level as the smoke stacks. And when they blow the stacks and the wind comes out of the south, we can tell it's out of the south before we open our eyes in the morning because of the headaches and because of the dizziness. Over the years, I have developed asthma. I have been told I have COPD. I have had surgery because my oxygen levels were going too low. So I've had to have all of my86 soft pallet, uvula and tonsils removed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Last year, I woke up coughing, which I always have. I have a chronic cough I have chronic sinusitis now, But I was coughing blood. That led me to lung surgery this past summer, because I have lesions on my lungs. They don't know where they come from, I don't know, but they're there. Can I prove that it's the power plant, no, but it seems that this discussion has been going on for years. I respect the gentleman's, prior to me, comment that it will take a long time, but they've known that this has been coming for years. So what are three years or seven years when you are talking about the health and welfare of all of the community. So I don't have the little statistics that everyone has. I don't know how much sulfur dioxide is in the air and what it does, I just know for me and my family, we're severely affected. And I believe a lot of it is because of the air quality up here. I thought I was moving to an area in New Jersey that was clean. I was better off in Mercer County. I87 just think that you know already what the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 effects are. You know what the statistics are with knowledge comes responsibility, and I think it's time to step up to the plate. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Mr. Loy. MR. LOY: My name is Derrick Loy, D-E-R-R-I-C-K, L-O-Y. I'm here representing a company, Energy Independence of America. And I'm here today to speak in support of keeping the Portland Generating Station operating with the understanding that upgrading, which will eliminate the existing emissions is warranted. I would like to make the public, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection officials, Portland Generating officials aware that there are good alternatives to closing this pollutant facility. Our company, Energy Independence of America, Corp., EIAC has recently initiated correspondence to Mr. Mark Jacobs GenOn's energy president, presenting him with an economical and environmentally friendly alternative to installation of extremely costly pollution controls, which, in88 themselves, do not deliver a final 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comprehensive solution. I have assisted EIAC with the development of the Cauldron Clean Air Technologies, one of which I'll speak of right here. It's a technology that, if utilized, would enable Portland Generating Station to repower via this economical and environmentally friendly process ultimately extending the useful life of Portland's units number one and number two, ensuring that the facility remains competitive. This closed-system technology will not only eliminate SO2 emissions, but it will also eliminate NOx, particulate matter, mercury, ash disposal and convert the flue gas, CO2 in this useful process. The Cauldron repowering technology has been studied in depth by Dectal (ph) where they found that the technology is a unique and applicable method of co-producing clean electric power and useful byproducts. Most recently, the Cauldron repowering technology was one of a handful of technologies that were recommended to the federal government by the Clean Air Task Force89 in September 2009. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In addition, Mr. Bob Golish (ph) of the EPA's Division of Air Pollution Control has given the proposed transformational technology high marks based on his continued monitoring of the technology development. Mr. Golish stated in a letter to EIAC's president that the technology has operated as cleanly as our company has claimed it would. In short, the technology will co-produce the following products, much-needed liquid transport, fuels, clean electric power, slow release fertilizer from the COP and inert glassy slag that passes TCLP tests, and that's from the ash that is converted into a slag, and lastly, a marketable elemental sulfur. This technology is, as I said, just one of several options for this facility. I'm confident that the issues and challenges facing coal-fire power plants can be resolved in a reasonable manner while taking the environment, public health, consumer's electricity rates and business interests all into consideration equally. A solution will only happen through90 transparent active participation by all of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interested parties, including industry, environmentalists, state and federal agencies. Lastly, I would like to thank the public, the concerned community members and public officials for your time and opportunity to address you today. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. MR. WERNER: Just one question. What's the name of the technology again? MR. LOY: It's Cauldron Technologies MR. WERNER: Cauldron Technologies? MR. LOY: Yes. Mr. WERNER: MY question is, is that in use on any similar coal-fire -- MR. LOY: No, it isn't. We've demonstrated it. We worked in conjunction with the Department of Energy out in Morgantown in the Pittsburgh office, along with the EPA. We have demonstrated it and we are looking at it. MS. MASTRO: Can you just generally describe what it is? MR. LOY: It's a gas filtration91 process. And we would make a rich gas that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would make the liquid transport fuels. Fuels would come off of the volatile matter from the coals. We use high sulfur coals. And the lien gas would be produced from the char that would remain, which is the carbon, that would go to produce the power. And to counter the effect of the D-rate, we would tie it to combined cycle. And the CO2 would be converted to cyanogen and then into oxamide, which is a slow-release fertilizer that could supplant and replace imported urea at 40 percent of the cost of

urea. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. The next two speakers are Robert Gardner and Katie Feeney. Mr. Gardner, you can start whenever you are ready. MR. GARDNER: Good afternoon. My name is Robert Gardner and I represent Greenpeace USA here today. And I speak on behalf of our thousands of residents throughout the Mid-Atlantic region in saying thank you very much for having this opportunity to let the92 community speak. Thank you very much for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 having this opportunity to let the citizens of New Jersey speak, and also for giving me the opportunity to speak here. What we've seen today is that there is a concrete desire to have this plant cleaned up. There has been a lot of language about a shutdown; there has been a lot of language about cleanup. There has been a lot of hyperbole, playing around, but I wanted to get to the heart of some of the facts of the matter here and to list those out a little bit. We know that these plant's boilers came on line in 1958 and '62. They are older boilers. They are completely unscrubbed. No controls for sulfur dioxide. As such, it's the fifth highest emitter of sulfur dioxide per megawatt of power generated in the country. This plant emits 30,000 tons of SO2 annually, which is as much as all of the coal, oil and natural gas plants in New Jersey, which together emit about 14,000 tons annually. It's a fact that this plant is only93 500 feet from New Jersey, so that this state 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cannot comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, because its air quality is being adversely effected by this plant's continued operation. It's A fact that your agency, the EPA states, "Clearly that short-term exposures to SO2 ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours with an array of adverse raspatory effects, including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are especially important for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates, so when they are exercising and playing." This is your own data, your own conclusion and your own language. Continuing, you say, "A connection between short-term exposure and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in adverse populations, including children, elderly and asthmatics." That is who specifically at risk here today, this is what the 126, I think, really gets to the heart of. It's a fact, if this94 plant shuts down, stops burning coal or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 installs scrubbers, there will be zero effect on energy or grid reliability. No lights would go out if the plant shuts down, no lights would go out if the plant stops burning coal and no lights would go out if this plant installs scrubbers. But if it continues to burn coal unscrubbed, there will continue to be negative health effects as a result. It's a fact that GenOn will not comply with common sense readily available SO2 control technologies, unless it can continue to make a profit. We've heard it here a couple of different ways, we need time to do this to make it as economically advantageous as possible. GenOn's Vice President, Steve Davies, said this just today, so we know that's where they are at. We know they want time, but we know that time means more illness. But also, I want to get to the heart of profit. And I think that we should all let that sink in a bit, whether or not this plant continues to be profitable as opposed to whether or not this95 plant continues to poison the community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 What this company cares about is profit, not the health of this or any other community, nor the jobs there, nor the tax base that they provide, but what they are talking about there is profit. If that's the company's bottom line, then where can we stand as a community to change that? What we see is that no matter what is being said, profit is the bottom line. And I hope that you will address that and I hope that you will continue to make this corporation do what is responsible and do what is good for the community. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Ms. Feeney. MS. FEENEY: My name is Katie Feeney, F-E-E-N-E-Y. I'm the global warming policy analyst for the Clean Air Council based in Philadelphia. Clean Air Council is a member- supported, non-profit environmental organization dedicated to protecting everyone's right to breathe clean air. The Council works through public96 education, community advocacy and government 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 oversight to ensure enforcement of environmental laws. The Council works primarily in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, where most of our members live. For more than 40 years, the Council has fought to improve the air quality in the Greater Philadelphia area, across Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic region. The Council's mission is to protect everyone's right to breathe clean air. Specifically, Clean Air Council's airtoxics work is multipurposed and includes advocating tighter jaws for facilities that release toxics into the environment; taking legal action to force toxics redemptions, and educating policy makers and the public about the threat from air toxics and existing solutions. I am happy to have the opportunity to voice the Council's support for EPA's proposed finding that the coal-fired Portland Generating Station in Upper Mount Bethel Township, Pennsylvania, is emitting air pollutants in violation of the interstate97 transport provisions of the Clean Air Act. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 These violations are significantly contributing to nonattainment and interfering with the one-hour S02 National Ambient Air Quality Standard in New Jersey. It is vital that the United States Environmental Protection Agency take proactive measures to ensure that the Portland plant quickly remedy its emissions problems or otherwise close down with renewable sources of energy established in its stead. The emissions from Portland are clearly a problem for both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Portland emits up to triple the amount of S02 that all seven coal plants combined in New Jersey emit. According to a 2009 EIP study, Portland ranks fifth in the country for S02 emissions, measured in pounds and megawatts. The advocacy group Clean Air Task Force says pollution from coal-burning power plants will cause over 500 deaths in New Jersey this year alone. The proposed reductions in sulfur dioxide from the Portland plant will benefit the environment and benefit98 public health. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fossil fuel combustion at power plants just like Portland is responsible for the majority of S02 emissions. S02 is a major precursor of acid rain and fine particulate soot. S02 emissions and their mixture with other pollutants to form fine particulates cause adverse respiratory health effects, including worsening emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma. High concentrations of sulfur dioxide can result in breathing problems with asthmatic children and adults who are active outdoors. Short-term exposure has been linked to wheezing, chest tightness and shortness of breath. While the Council stands fully behind the EPA's section 126 finding, we acknowledge that this finding will only have a positive impact if Portland is held accountable under the terms of the finding. The Council urges the EPA to ensure that Portland meets the proposed emissions requirements as expeditiously as possible. Progress should be visible within99 Portland's three-month post-finding period. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If there is no progress in this period, the Council recommends the EPA consider closing the facility as allowed by statute and move to renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar. This Section 126 finding will be meaningless unless the Portland plant makes progress in reducing its emissions sooner rather than later. Further, this finding should evidence the need for states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania to accelerate their production of renewable sources of energy so that air and natural resources can be protected from harms both in state and from across state lines. I thank you again, and Clean Air Council reserves the right to submit further comments prior to the May 27, 2011 submission deadline. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Any questions? No questions. Thank you both very much. The next two speakers are Christine Guhl and Victor Allen. MS. Guhl, you can start whenever you100 are ready. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. GUHL: That you very much. It's Guhl, G-U-H-L. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. The GenOn coal plant has been polluting New Jersey and Pennsylvania for far too long. This facility is one of the oldest and dirtiest coal plants in the United States. It emits millions of tons of air pollution every year, destroying the environment and putting public health at risk. The Sierra Club supports the efforts by New Jersey and the EPA to address pollution from this plant. Plant exemplifies how critically important the EPA is for protecting our health. Because of the GenOn facility in Portland, New Jersey is not able to protect its residents from dangerous air pollution. As a lifelong resident of New Jersey, I have been fortunate to live in a state with strong air quality regulations. Our DEP has consistently taken steps to protect New Jerseyans from dangerous and unhealthy air pollution. But the New Jersey DEP cannot prevent101 air pollution from blowing across the Delaware 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 River into our state. It cannot prevent asthma attacks and respiratory illness caused by the Portland coal plant. The New Jersey DEP cannot protect the people of Warren, Sussex, Morris and Hunterdon counties from toxic emissions produced by GenOn. The EPA's proposal to require an 81 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide from the Portland plant would have direct benefits on the affected counties in New Jersey. Sulfur dioxide has significant adverse health impacts and leads to increased hospital visits and death. The impacts from sulfur dioxide can result event from five minutes of exposure to the pollutant. Just five minutes, that's all it takes to put children, asthmatics and the elderly at risk. The EPA exists to protect all of us, but especially those at risk populations, from harmful pollution. Congress enacted Section 126 of the Clean Air Act to provide a means by which downwind states could protect their residents from unhealthy air blowing from upwind power102 plants, in states such as New Jersey to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 petition the EPA to determine if upwind states are causing unhealthy air downwind. Pennsylvania has done nothing to prevent unhealthy air pollution from blowing into New Jersey. That is why the EPA needs to take the lead and address this serious public health issue. Coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania have been making New Jerseyans sick for over 50 years. It is not acceptable to put GenOn or any other coal company's profits above public health. We, the people of New Jersey, are looking to the EPA to ensure that this practice comes to a swift end. It is time to end the use of coal and dangerous, polluting fossil fuels, and move toward a clean, healthy energy future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Mr. Allen. MR. Allen: My name is Victor Allen, A-L-L-E-N. I was the chairman of the Warren Northhampton Regional Air Quality Advisory Panel, known as the Air QAP, for a period of five years. I was also a member of a Warren103 County Environmental Commission, the White 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Township Environmental Commission. I currently am a member of the Roche Vitamins who are now DSN Plant, Citizens Advisory Panel and also a member of Martin's Creek Power Facility Plant Advisory Panel. As a regular citizen and resident of Warren County, I've had first-hand exposure to air quality issues for quite sometime. Warren County residents have had first-hand experience with similar air quality issues over the last decade. In 2001, Roche Vitamins plant located in Belvidere was found to be exceeding -- actually, they self- announced that they were exceeding their permitted emissions for volatile organic compounds, three of which were toluene, methol and chloroform. And they had been doing that for a period of 18 years. About three weeks after that announcement, there was an announcement in the press for a similar hearing to this one about the Martin's Creek Plant wanting to expand its facility, and they were looking for pubic comment on it.104 Public concern over these two things, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in terms of health impact, led both the White Township and the Belvidere Environmental Commissions to do asthma studies or health studies. Dr. Stanley Weiss spoke to some of this earlier. I wish he had gone after me, but this was the luck of the draw. Those two studies, which were independent studies, were questionnaires that were sent out to the residents of the town, to all residents, to give input on what the health concerns were. That study basically came back with one startling feature, both of those studies. That was that asthma rates were more than double the national standards, the average. Those concerns led the Roche Vitamin Citizens Advisory Panel to work with the New Jersey DEP, who was then fining Roche Vitamins $3.2 million for having exceeded its emissions for 18 years. The results of those discussions with that QAP led to the initiation of three supplemental environmental projects that were both designed and requested by this QAP to be105 implemented with the oversight of the New 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Jersey DEP. Those three steps were to install a monitoring system within Warren County and monitor air quality for a period of three years. The emissions that they were monitoring were for SO2 PM2.5 and 459 volatile organic compounds. The second step was to establish an air quality advisory panel, which became known as the Warren Northhampton Regional Air Quality Advisory Panel, or Air QAP, which was in existence for the entire time that the monitoring took place. We're charterers to monitor the air, evaluate the results and report those results to the public. The Air QAP actually established, with the help of some of the monies from some of these subs, to put up a website that was an Air QAP website. All of this was done with the oversight of the New Jersey DEP. The location of the monitors was selected by the New Jersey DEP. The methodology and logistics for doing all of this was all done with the oversight of the106

New Jersey DEP. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The membership to the Air QAP was made up of New Jersey DEP representatives, some of whom are in this room; the representatives of the Pennsylvania DEP, and two regions, Region 2 and Region 3 of the EPA. Bill Baker was our representative from Region 2. As a regular citizen -- I'm not a scientist -- I did not have any notion of what air quality was or how it got monitored, but I got a real experience with it. The third study was the asthma study, which Dr. Weiss spoke to earlier. It was an epidemiological study of the students in three schools in Warren County. The results of all of this was analyzed and we had two press conferences, one halfway through and one in June of 2006, which was our final announcement. In fact, Bill Baker gave some of the commentary on the results of those studies. Now, the VOC information, I won't talk to here, because it's not really relevant, but really what is relevant is the SO2 study. Back then, we were looking at standards,107 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were not as restrictive as they are today. As a result, the SO2 and PM2.5, we had no exceedances, but the results of the asthma study were very significant, and Dr. Weiss spoke to them earlier. Very minor increases in SO2 caused impact on the ability of students to breath, the peak flow was restricted. So I think it's really important that the results of this have some beneficial impact to what we're looking for here. It did take sometime for the Martin's Creek Plant to get shutdown. In 2007, they closed their doors. In 2009, they imploded the towers, smokestack. I don't know that it has to be done, that it has to be shutdown, but they certainly can do a lot to clean up the air, because the residents of Warren County, particularly in Knowlton Township, I'm sure, are suffering with the results of the SO2 that has been monitored by the New Jersey DEP. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. The next two speakers, Laura Dempsey and108 Jerilyn Doherty. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. DEMPSEY: I'm Laura Dempsey, D-E-M-P-S-E-Y. I'm the founder of Save the Park Organizations. I've also served on the environmental commission for nine years. Save the Park is a grassroots organization whose primary purpose is to keep the community informed of any environmental dangers affecting the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation area which includes the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This group was initially formed out of necessity to protect our pristine areas from the proposed Susquehanna to Roseland power line proposal. Since its inception in 2009, this organization has expanded its focus to include various environmental threats to this scenic community. In addition to the initial concerns for the Delaware Water Gap area we now have to address the hydro-tracking in the Marcellus shale to Gen-On's Portland Power plant which is polluting the Delaware River. I stand before you today on behalf of Save the Park organization to ask for your109 help and support in shutting down Gen-On's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 coal burning power plant in Portland, Pennsylvania. The plant is currently wreaking havoc on our environment, affecting air quality, the river and most importantly our health. Recent studies conducted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection show an excessive amount of sulfur dioxide present in Warren, Sussex, Hunterdon and Morris counties. Every breath we take, every piece of produce that we ingest is affected by the coal and sulfur that is airborne in our communities. To allow Gen-On's coal plant to continue to produce toxic elements that enter the air we breathe and the water we drink is only increasing the risk to the health of the people living in these nearby communities. The Delaware River is the last free flowing river in the United States and it runs cleanly up to the point where Gen-On's Coal power plant contaminates it. This water serves over 15 million people that will continue to be affected by the current unsafe110 practices of this plant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The river is a shared river between the people of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It is the single largest natural source of water servicing the people in this region. In closing, we are urging the EPA to come to a quick and ethical decision to close down this coal plant so that the health and safety of the people of New Jersey and Pennsylvania are no longer threatened. In this period of our history where we are attempting to change to clean and renewable energy, companies like Gen-On should make every effort to stop polluting our environment. We have suffered the consequences of their actions far too long. Not only do we ask this, but we implore you to do this. Help us to preserve these areas in New Jersey and Pennsylvania which are national treasures. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Ms. Doherty. MS. DOHERTY: Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. My name is111 Jerilyn, J-E-R-I-L-Y-N, Doherty, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 D-O-H-E-R-T-Y, and together Laura and I represent the Unitarian Universalist Fellow of Sussex Counties, Green Sanctuary Committee. The covenant of the Unitarian Universalist Association affirms and promotes, "The inherent worth and dignity of every person and respect for the interdependent web of all existence, of which we are a part." We believe every human being has the right to breathe clean air, drink clean water and to know that future generations will be protected from any threats against our environment. The byproducts of Gen-On's coal plant are in direct contradiction to our goals for a cleaner and healthier environment. As you know, coal is one of the most polluting and most environmentally damaging energy sources that we use today. It destroys our land, and pollutes our water and air. The effects of such dangerous elements on our health and environment are in many cases irreversible. The Portland plant is the fifth highest emitter of sulfur dioxide per megawatt112 of power generated in the entire United 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 States. Sulfur dioxide in the air causes asthma and other respiratory difficulties. It falls to the earth as acid rain. This is not acceptable to us. It is time for a change in the way we produce our energy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you both. The next two speakers are Alicia Karner and Carol cook. We'll have Ms. Karner go, and you can start whenever you are ready. MS. KARNER: Thank you. It's Alicia A-L-I-C-I-A, Karner, K-A-R-N-E-R. Good afternoon. My name is Alicia Karner and I am the Northhampton County Economic Development Administrator. I am here to discuss the economic impact that GenOn's Portland Station has on Northhampton County and the efforts we are making to bring industrial development to the region. Let me begin by stating that County Executive John Staffa and all of the Northhampton County Council Members are advocates of clean air and support the EPA's effort to that end. However, we want to provide some113 information to you today that we hope you will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 take into consideration as you issue a final ruling on this matter. GenOn is a significant economic contributor to the local community, including Upper Mt. Bethel Township, Bangor Area School District and the Northhampton County. GenOn contributes nearly $30 million to the regional economy in direct spending. This includes employee payroll, supplies, taxes, contracts, and contractors, all from within the local community. What this figure does not include is the ancillary benefits that are recognized by the local businesses in the area, whether it be additional purchases at the groce1y store by the contractor working at the facility or the new car purchased by the GenOn employee, all spending is critical during this delicate time. As you can imagine, the loss of this kind of spending could be devastating to the local economy. GenOn currently pays significant property taxes to the local taxing jurisdictions and the loss of this revenue114 would most certainly result in an increase in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 taxes for the residents of the county. This comes at a time many families simply cannot afford additional expenses. Over the past several years, Northhampton County has been working to bring additional industrial development to the area around the Portland Station, investing more than $4 million in infrastructure improvements. Additionally, the county is aggressively pursuing the planning and development of an industrial park on the 700-plus acres adjacent to the Portland Power Plant. The recent relocation of two businesses across from the power station, investing in and occupying more than 500,000 square feet is a positive development for the community. However, an out-of-work, shutdown power plant will deter businesses from investing in that property. GenOn has been a great partner in this potential development and the impact of the loss of this company to the Northhampton County community is greater than just the loss of the power plant.115 On behalf of the Northhampton County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Executive and Council, please consider the economic development opportunities that could occur with the Portland station as an anchor tenant and the very real impact that can have on the citizens of our community. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here on behalf of Northhampton County and thank you for the consideration of my comments when making this important decision. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. No questions. Ms. Cook. MS. COOK: My name is Carol Cook. I'm a resident of Blairstown. I was a member of their very first environmental commission in 1971, and I was the chairman of the environmental commission in 2001 when we sponsored a public meeting at our local library to which representatives of the PPL Plant, which is the Martin's Creek Plant and Reliant Energy, which is GenOn, I believe, now, the Upper Mount Bethel, were invited. During the course of the meeting, the representatives were asked whether or not116 their companies would implement remediation to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decrease emissions. The PPL representatives stated his company was amenable to doing what could be done to reduce toxic emissions. The representative from Reliant Energy state his company was not prepared to institute this process at this time. This was 10 years ago. In the 10 years since that meeting, areas downwind from these plants and other plants further west have been subjected to a tsunami of air tainted with sulfur dioxide and other toxic materials. We say enough. To give this plant three years to effect cleanup is a travesty to the health and well-being of the residents as well as the floor and quantum of the area. Cleanup should begin immediately. Thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. I have Eugene Neiderlander and Samuel Burlum. Mr. Neiderlander, you can start whenever you are ready. MR. NEIDERLANDER: My name is a Eugene Neiderlander. I live in the Village of Delaware in Warren County, Knowlton Township.117 My family and I moved there in 1970. At the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time, my oldest daughter was 10, my middle daughter was eight and my youngest daughter was three. They went to the elementary school in Delaware, which is about two miles away from the power plant. And they went to the high school up in Blairstown, the Regional. My middle daughter, Tracy, she has nasal breathing problems 365 days of the year and takes Sudafed daily. My wife, who has a heart condition, cannot take any type of antihistamines, has daily headaches. And I take a daily prescription drug Flunisolide Nasal Solution. Vickie, our oldest daughter, has had asthma for many years and takes the prescription drug Advair Lori is the youngest. She also has asthma, for many years, and takes a prescription drug Symbicort. I have Barrett's esophagus, which is a forerunner of cancer of the esophagus and is caused by acid reflux and/or long exposure to the pollutants in the earth. I just wanted to bring our family118 experience because of the power plant here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. Mr. Burlum. MR. BURLUM: My name is Samuel Burlum. I'm the CEO and president of Extreme Energy Solutions out of Ogdensburg, New Jersey. I'm also a sworn-in fuel economy expert and emissions expert by U.S. Federal Court in the case of Dutchman versus FTC. One of the -- from all of our research that our company has compiled over the past three to four years, one of the factors that hasn't been looked at in the emissions arena is the fact of the actual fuel source. In a report that you guys established in 1999, the main component or reason why you have dirty emissions is simply unburnt and unused fuel. One of the things that we would ask EPA to consider is actually looking at how to better refine the fuel source. This is related to diesel, gas, coal, natural gas, propane. We actually had the opportunity to prove the factual concepts of combustion efficiency. And during that discovery with the court, what was able to be119 found is if you just better refine the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 material you are burning, you no longer have dirty emission. So that science and those reports we'll be submitting to your office in a formal report before May 27th. Another issue that we have found dealing with other coal fire plants and other sources of dirty emissions, companies and municipalities that we are doing business with, is the fact that there is not enough bridging between the compliance sector and the options that are able to be used. For instance, we understand that EPA and DEP, both New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania are more of an enforcement agency. One of the things that we found that would help mitigate these issues is if you supplied the companies with a format of what could be used as an option. So put 100 percent responsibility on their shoulders in order to get it done so you can properly enforce. And that's been one of the missing pieces to a lot of companies not taking any action, is that they understand that there are laws, but there is not enough120 affordable options for them to be able to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mitigate these issues. In regards to a supplement product that our company has researched and developed, University of Pennsylvania has worked with that product and researched it, tested the product. It's basically a product we call Extreme Clean that can be used to mitigate dirty emissions as a wet scrubber system similar to a limestone slurry. But, however, we can mitigate above 80 percent of the dirty emissions and totally sequester all of your volatile compounds above the limestone slurry. It's a fully recyclable product, 100 percent, to make plastics. We ask that the EPA use that as an option to help mitigate this issue. That will be in the report that we'll submit to your office. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. I guess a question. In the proposal, we established -- tried to establish an emission limit. We're not descriptive about how the company should go about doing that and what technology they should use. So I just wanted to clarify, do you121 have specific technologies that you are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 recommending that we should consider as part of the record. MR. BURLUM: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN LING: You are going to give us this information in -- MR. BURLUM: That's correct, our technical director will send that to you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. At the current moment, I do not have who the next speakers are, so I'm going to take a short break and folks outside and we'll regather in about five minutes with the next set of speakers. (Whereupon, break taken. CHAIRMAN LING: I'm going to reconvene. Our next two speakers are Dan Engle and Frank Capodianco. Welcome back. We'll get going here with Mr. Engle. MR. ENGLE: My name is Daniel Engle, E-N-G-L-E. I represent boilermakers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers and Forgers. I'm here on behalf of the boilermakers of local 28 and local 13 to ask for more time for122 the Portland powerhouse. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Here in New Jersey, we have installed scrubbers in Duck Island, in Trenton and Hudson and Jersey City. I do believe that New Jersey is leading the way in pollution control here. I've worked -- supervised and worked on both of those units. In those units I've eliminated 90 percent of pollution from those two units. There is more pollution coming off the Parkway and the Turnpike now than those two units. Also, closing the Portland powerhouse will only result in two major, major concerns that I have; loss of jobs and loss of the local economy. I've lived here in Oxford most of my life. I moved over to Rosetta, which is outside of Mount Bethel. My kids -- both of my kids, and my wife is a teacher at Bangor Middle School. So the concerns are there. Closing this plant would definitely hurt the economy. We're asking for more time as boilermakers and as every working family in that area. That is the heartbeat of Mount Bethel. Without that plant, there is no123 economy. So far, the United States is falling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 behind. I do believe that the United States is falling behind China in the environmental protection. That is a big concern for myself as well as hopefully everybody here. We do need to take a stand on this. I am for SER projects. We are here for coal. But, like I said, we're just asking for -- eliminating jobs is not the answer right now. Building solar panels over there is also not the answer. Everybody knows that that area floods, which could lead to more problems down the road. And that's it. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN LING: Questions? MR. WERNER: Just a question. Do you think that building scrubbers at that plant would be a benefit to the local -- MR. ENGLE: Absolutely. I'm a fourth- generation boilermaker. My grandfather built that plant. My father and I worked in that plant. We all know it's filthy. We all know it's dirty, we are in there. We all work in there. They are filthy things, but, again, down in Trenton and down in Jersey City, we124 have eliminated -- you can see the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 difference. If you go onto these plants you can see the difference right away, before and after pictures. You couldn't walk 15 feet without dust, coal dust. We all breathe it in the field. We all breathe it in. We don't like it either, but eliminating this plant is not the answer. You know, there is too much at stake over there at Mount Bethel. CHAIRMAN LING: Did you say that you worked on the installation of pollution controls as part of your job as well? MR. ENGLE: Absolutely. Yes, I've worked inside. I know the ins and outs on them. I've supervised on them. I know the ins and outs on them. You know, building this SER unit will create an estimate of about 200 or 300 jobs locally for two-and-a-half years to three years. Jersey City was a devastation going across the Pulaski Skyway and seeing the smoke coming out of there, absolutely. But now that we had that on there, you see white smoke, which is just steam released now because you125 need steam to produce the energy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You no longer see them blowing off the tubes or blowing off the stacks or anything like that. And on another note -- I'm sorry for taking up your time -- the concerns of the flash, I know in New Jersey the flash is recycled to cement plants. They are made into sidewalks, they are made into pavers. There is a recycling. It could be green energy. We are just asking for more time for Portland to look into the investment of it. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. Don't worry, you didn't take any of Mr. Capodianco's time. He still gets his full-time. Whenever you are ready. MR. CAPODIANCO: Good afternoon. My name is Frank Capodianco, that's C-A-P-O-D-I-A-N-C-O. I have worked at the GenOn Energy Portland Station my entire professional career 26 plus years. In addition, I have been a resident of PA and Northhampton County my entire life. The Portland Power plant has been a126 very solid means of income for many 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 individuals in the surrounding communities for over 50 years. This is not limited to just Portland plant employees , workers that support the plant include, but are not limited to: Norfolk Southern Railroad, local boilermaker unions, pipe-fitters, insulators, electrical contractors, original equipment manufacturers and coal miners. The employees and contractors bring revenue into the local business and stores. restaurants, hotels, convenience stores, From a community-wide perspective, the plant is an important source of tax revenue for the county and townships. You may hear from some more of our employees today as well. Relative to the environment the plant has always operated with integrity, within the limits set by the federal government and state of PA. I can assure you, that employees take a special pride in operating the plant well within all environmental laws and regulations, our families live in this area and this is something we would never compromise.127 Sometimes, it's easy to lose sight of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 actual employees and their families that make their livelihood at the plant. The Portland plant is more than an asset on a company's balance sheet; I a home for us to live in, a college education for our children, and a way of life that allows us to give back to the community. It is difficult to understand why this plant has been singled out by this ruling. This is the first time a single source has been treated in this manner and I feel we are being treated unfairly. I hope that you will sincerely and thoughtfully consider my viewpoint during your deliberations. Protecting the environment is no doubt important but there should be a balance between environmental concerns and the well-being of employees, citizens, and the community, this current ruling does not strike an appropriate balance. Thank you for letting me share comments. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. No questions. Thank you both. The next two speakers are Carol Cohen and Thomas Church.128 Ms. Cohen, whenever you are ready. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. COHEN: My name is Carol Cohen, and I'm a resident of Warren County. I'm a member of the Sierra Club, and I'm very sensitive to environmental issues and public health. I grew up in New York City and I was fortunate enough to live near a park, so I spent practically all of my after-school hours in this park. I also went to a camp in New Hampshire during the summer and I learned to appreciate the environment, the lakes, the streams and the mountains. I got married in 1962 and moved to New Jersey in 1963, and immediately moved to Warren County. And there were a lot of negatives, but things have changed. However, the outstanding thing was the quality of the air, the beautiful rivers, the mountains, which I like to hike on. The Highlands Act, which was passed to protect the water shed, I think, is a very important thing. And the Clean Air Act, also, is very important because it's supposed to protect states like ours from pollution from129 upstate -- to upstates like Pennsylvania. So 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I certainly don't want to see people lose any jobs, but it's a public health issue. We have to think about the people in Warren, Sussex and Morris County, who are the most impacted by this plant. And there has to be a transition. A transition has to start somewhere, and I think this is the time and place. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Mr. Church. MR. CHURCH: My name is Thomas Church. I live about 10 miles below the Portland plant on the Delaware River, and I've been very concerned through my life with the purity of clean air, the air and the water. I have found myself to be caught in looking at the protections that have been offered and whether they've been provided over the years by government agencies that -- basically whether they are in a position to have the people available to enforce laws and rules that have been put forward, or whether things fall through the cracks or exemptions have been made.130 But it seems to me, in this case, is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that the health issues trump the other issues. And it's not only the air, but it is the water. It's the Delaware River, it's the pot ash that we saw on our property from the power plant. And I've seen this. I lived in West Virginia for 20 years and saw union carbide. I lived 30 miles from the Ohio River, had union carbide, had yellow deposits on the field when the wind blew certain ways. And I know that there are tradeoffs with everything. If you change to natural gas, then there is the whole fracking issue and the toxic chemicals that are being released through the exemptions from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. It don't make sense to me, the idea that the people who are drilling the wells -- I've worked for a natural gas company in West Virginia and I've had two wells fractured on my property. And I've benefited from the oil and gas business down there, both by my job as a utility worker and by thousands of dollars131 that I got for production of gas off of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 property. But to be able to pump toxic chemicals down into the ground, and then take the flowback and then be able to release it into watersheds through waste treatment plants when there is no ability in that waste treatment plant to extract those toxins makes absolutely no sense to me, other than somebody was able to get an exemption through. And hopefully they'll take care of that. I think that this is a case where you are in a position to make a big difference by asking these people to put scrubbers on it and not use cap and trade or whatever they use to be able to comply with regulations. If they can say that they can take -- release a certain amount of toxins and trade it out as a commodity in order to say that they comply with regulations in the face of people who are having physical problems, I think that's a problem. I thank you for allowing me to speak and allowing everybody to speak. I really learned a lot by listening to everybody.132 Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Our next two speakers are Carolyn Theperman and Bill O'Sullivan. MS. THEPERMAN: Yes. I'm Carolyn Theperman. I'm senior advisor to Robert Memendez. The senator has been very spoken about this issue. And I'm going so read a letter into the record that is written to Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on his behalf. "I write in strong support of the proposed rule under the Clean Air Act to significantly limit pollution from the Portland Generating Station. Your action on this issue demonstrates how important the Clean Air Act is to New Jersey at a time when it is under attack. Finalizing this rule would present a major victory for New Jersey residents and the environment, but without the Clean Air Act this would not be possible. My state would have had no recourse to stop the threat the Portland Generating Station poses to public health in New Jersey. Pollutants from the Portland133 Generating Station waft across the Delaware 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 River into numerous New Jersey counties, causing and exacerbating a whole host of respiratory illnesses, from asthma to heart disease. Imagine having to tell your children they cannot go outside to play because the wind isn't quite right, or because the air they will be breathing will damage their lungs. The lives of thousands of New Jersey residents revolve around inhalers, steroids, and constant anxiety over when air pollution will trigger another severe asthma attack. Your action to significantly limit pollution from the Portland Generating Station demonstrates how the Clean Air Act directly improves their quality of life. This comes at a time when some aim to prevent the federal government from regulating polluters under the Clean Air Act. They tried unsuccessfully to accomplish that end in the recent budget debate, but the battle to protect the Clean Air Act and public health is not over. Because of dirty, old, out-of-state coal134 plants, every county in New Jersey has become 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 non-compliant with the Clean Air Act's air quality standards. Located just across the Delaware River, the aging Portland Generating Station emitted'30,000 tons of sulfur dioxide in 2009, among other pollutants like mercury and particulates. This is about three times the amount of sulfur dioxide emitted by all seven of New Jersey's coal plants combined. We must not allow polluters to set our priorities. Doing so would risk not only our health and that of future generations,' it would risk the promise of a green economy built on clean energy jobs, energy efficiency innovations, and reduced waste and pollution. For these reasons I thank you for your action to curb the pollution from the Portland Generating Station and improve air quality for the citizens of New Jersey." Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Did you leave a copy of that letter up front, or can you? MS. THEPERMAN: I will. CHAIRMAN LING: If you send it to the135 administrator, she might respond and it might 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not make it's way into the record. Thank you Mr. O'Sullivan. MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you. I'm Bill O'Sullivan. I'm the director of the New Jersey DEP Division of Air Quality. I'm following up Commissioner Martin's testimony this morning with some technical explanations of some of our scientific work by the staff. We've had two maps in the back of the room all day, and I just wanted to explain those for the public mostly, because I think most of the EPA folks understand the technical issues. First of all, the red, what I call the red ameba, the blob, that is a model, air quality model, federally approved air quality model; computer model that inputs meteorology, topography, the mountains and the valleys, and the emissions from the plant with one year of meteorological data predicts where there will be violations of this new more protective federal public health standard, the 75 part per billion SO2 standard. So this is a year's worth of analysis,136 and it shows where, for at least one hour in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that year, there was a predicted violation. So this area of red is not violation all of the time, it's when the wind blows in that particular direction. Now, you can see it's a fairly wide extent. It goes out about 20 miles, and it's a function -- nearby it's all red, near the plant. And further out, it's a functional terrain. It goes up to the high terrain mountains of the Delaware Water Gap. It impacts the Appalachian Trail, of course, which is on top of the mountains. So if you live in this area and you are on high terrain, when the wind blows in your direction, in all probability, you are impacted by this plant. And it also impacts Pennsylvania as well as New Jersey, because the wind -- well, it tends to blow to New Jersey. It does blow in all directions throughout the year. This is only one year worth of data. If we modeled for five years, which is more typical, we would find a larger area. The second map, this is a trajectory137 analysis. And we have the power plant, and we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a new monitor, which we cited seven months ago off of Columbia Lake about a mile from the power plant. And that's been operating now for seven months. And we've picked up 14 violations of air quality standards so far. And then when we find a violation, we look at where the wind is blowing from. And this demonstrates that the wind was, in fact, blowing from the power plant, directly back to the power plant. Now, if we had monitors throughout the red zone, we would be picking up violations elsewhere. We only had one monitor. We can't put monitors everywhere. As Commissioner Martin said this morning, we have another monitor 22 miles away in Morris County, Chester. That monitor is our clean monitor, our background monitor. We've been surprised over the years to see high spikes of SO2 every once in a while. And after we put in this monitor, after we did this modeling, we looked more carefully at that data from that monitor 22 miles away, and we found exactly the same138 situation when we did the trajectory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 analysis. When that monitor spikes, you look at the trajectory, it goes back to this plant. So these 30,000 tons a year, when they're operating at high capacity, when the wind is blowing in a particular direction, those SO2 emissions carry a very long distance. One final point is that several air quality models have been used, and they all show the same thing, that there are violations over a wide area. Our scientists recommend that the model for high terrain be used here. And that model shows that a 95 percent reduction in emission is required. New Jersey power plants are doing that. The gentleman who was up here several times ago from boilermakers, he cited the scrubbers at our PSE&G Hudson Plant and the PSE&G Mercer Plant. Those are, in fact, designed for a 95 percent sulfur dioxide reduction and are probably doing better than that. So it's possible, it's the best available control technology. It's what the139 air quality models show are needed. It's what 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the air monitor shows is needed. So that you very much. CHAIRMAN LING: Question for Mr. O'Sullivan. The red blob, did you say that represents any hour in a year, or is that the 98th percentile -- MR. O'SULLIVAN: No, that's one year of modeling. Let me get the -- CHAIRMAN LING: One hour of -- MR. O'SULLIVAN: No, let me explain. We looked at 8,760 hours in 2003 with the model. This map shows where in that one year there were violations. It's not one hour, it's 8,760 hours. If we looked at a different year, the map would look slightly different because the weather is slightly different. But basically, it's a function of terrain, and we have high terrain in this region. That's where you are going to get the impacts. CHAIRMAN LING: I was just getting at the issue, kind of the nitty gritty, but we actually have that, it's in the 98 or 99th percentile of ours. So it's possible for140

there to be one hour and there not be a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 violation, but I guess if you are saying it's violations, then you probably already took that into account. MR. O'SULLIVAN: We'll be providing technical testimony by the close of comment period. CHAIRMAN LING: Good. That was my next question. Thank you. Any other questions? The next speaker is Carolyn Auwaeter. Also, the reason I called one speaker is because, at the present time, there is no one who is signed up to speak who is here. So if there are people who are here who have not yet checked in or who are wishing to speak, they need to check in at the table and sign up. But, in the mean time, Ms. Auwaeter, please go ahead. MS. AUWAETER: Very good pronunciation. I'm impressed. My last name is spelled, A-U-W-A-E-R-T-E-R. My name is Carolyn Auwaeter, and I grew up in Southeastern Pennsylvania. I now work with141 Greenpeace in Washington D.C., where I moved a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 little more over an year ago. But what happens in my home state is still of really great importance to me. Greenpeace was invited by members of Bangor Pennsylvania to come and hear their stories and learn more about the Portland coal plant. It's been a concern of theirs for quite a while. A few years ago, community members successfully organized to prevent the plant from expanding, but that did not address any of their other concerns. I've talked with residents over the past few days and what they discussed with me goes beyond just sulfur dioxide, which is the subject of this hearing. EPA's recommendation does not address any of the other pollutants that are coming out of the smoke stacks, nor does it address the coal ash that is produced from burning the coal. I stood on people's porches as they pointed at the coal ash pond on the horizon where they've seen the wind swirl the ash into the air.142 I heard people worry over how the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 quarry was not lined when the coal ash first started being dumped there, and how many people in town fish in the creeks right near there. This plant has been operating since 1958, and it's one of the oldest and dirtiest in the nation. It's passed through many companies' hands and now in 2011, it's owned by GenOn. No doubt the Portland plant has large profit margins, because virtually no changes have been made in its operation. This plant has only been a good investment to the company so long as GenOn has not been required to actually invest money in the plant. With the projected 300 to $500 million cost to install pollution control, that will likely be bore by rate payers. GenOn should instead look to the future and shut the plant down. Such an old plant with so many associated toxins being emitted from it doesn't justify any other solution. And the surrounding community's health doesn't justify any other solution. I would especially encourage GenOn to143 look to one of its new neighbors for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inspiration and how it creates energy. Votex, a manufacture of materials that enhance the performance of solar cells is in the midst of constructing a new facility in Portland industrial part in Upper Mount Bethel Township. This will be completed later this year, and that's the kind of future that we need to look to. I just want to close with a short anecdote. Yesterday, Greenpeace, we took our solar truck to the Bangor Middle School and spoke to more than 500 students there. Their curiosity was very clear. We received a barrage of questions about the solar panels, everything from what happens when it's rains, and we have batteries that store the energy when the sun has been shinning, to whether the panels are hot to touch, which they aren't. It's really that generation that needs to be thought of when the EPA makes a decision on this rule. And it's that generation that needs to be thought of by GenOn. Not only are144 they here right now feeling its effects, but 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they will be here much, much longer after you all are. The Portland coal plant should be shutdown. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Very much. I'm going to suspend the proceedings again. I'm sorry, I have some more speakers that magically appeared here. We have Erin Dascher and Rick Ege. Ms. Dascher as soon as Mr. Ege gets settled, you can start whenever you are ready. Thanks. MS. DASCHER: Hi. My name is Erin Dascher, D-A-S-C-H-E-R. While it is great that the EPA is trying to get the Portland coal plant to clean up its act and further control the amount of pollution that is being spewed into the environment by the plant, ultimately, the only way to protect human health, wildlife and the environment at large is to shut the Portland plant down. On a more personal note, the last time I went to a doctor's office for a sore throat and nasal congestion, she asked me if I had grown up in Philadelphia. She wanted to make145 sure that I was used to the air, and that that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wasn't what was causing my symptoms. It was a bit concerning to hear, especially from a medical professional, that the air itself could be causing adverse health effects. This small personal experience certainly illuminated the plate of the people would lived near the Portland plant, both here in New Jersey and back home in PA. They suffer from poor health as a result of the Portland plant. They live with adverse health effects of the plant's emissions every day. And what makes it worse is that they know what's causing their health problems and yet nothing has been done about it. At 23-years-old, I have concerns that the legacy left to my generation will be one of pollution and impaired health. It is imperative for the future of our plant that the truly renewable energy resources, such as solar wind and geothermal, be aggressively pursued. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Mr. Ege.146 MR. EGE: My name is Rick Ege. I'm a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 resident of Warren County. I'm the Executive Director of the New Jersey State Council representing 10 chapters here in the state and 13,000 constituents. CHAIRMAN LING: For the court reporter, can I first get you to spell your name and also get the mic closer? Thank you. MR. EGE: E-G-E. We've already submitted comments electronically, so I'm not going to take a lot of your time. I want to thank you for holding the hearing here today. This plant is long overdue to be repaired or taken out of service. We're not only concerned about the air pollution, but the pollution that it is giving to our streams and rivers. The Northern New Jersey is where our homes are and wildlife. We thank you for holding this and we hope and the support you for this petition to correct this matter. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. All right, the next speaker is Harmony Lambert. MS. LAMBERT: Good afternoon. My name is Harmony Lambert, and I work for Greenpeace147 USA in Washington D.C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For 53 years, the Portland Generating Station has been in operation. For 53 years, this coal plant has been polluting the local communities of both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. For 53 years, Portland Generating Station has poured sulfur dioxide, mercury and other toxins into our air and water. The Portland Generating Station owned and operated by GenOn is one of the oldest and dirtiest coal plants in the United States. Because it has no scrubbers, its sulfur dioxide emissions are off the charts at 30,000 tons per year. That is more than all of New Jersey's coal plants SO2 emissions combined, more than twice over. This brings it in as the United States' fifth highest sulfur dioxide emitter. The surrounding communities experience 30 premature deaths, 54 heart attacks, 500 asthma attacks and countless hospital and ER visits every year directly linked to the Portland Generating Station's pollution; pollution that does not discriminate, knows no state lines,148 and is not going to wait for us to figure out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if we should or should not put regulations on the plant. Because of Portland Generating Station's continual neglect and indifference towards the environment we live in, the State of New Jersey cannot comply with the national Air Quality Ambient Air Standard. The sulfuric wind from the Portland plant, only 500 feet away in Pennsylvania, are to blame for this. Furthermore, communities in Pennsylvania bear the cost of this plant as well. In Bangor, just a short drive away from here, the plant transports its coal ash to a dumping quarry that is not properly lined and is not equipped to collect water leaching from the site. Residents tell of Brushy Meadow Creek, a place that used to be stocked with fish, now polluted to a point that it is not stocked with fish anymore because of toxins in the water. It seems like everyone is bearing the brunt of the detrimental effects of the plant except, the plant and GenOn itself.149 While we suffer here in New Jersey and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pennsylvania, GenOn continues to grow to more than a $3 billion company without even a single thought about cleaning up their act at Portland Generating Station. The plant is not only unconcerned with the environmental impact it is putting on the ecosystem around it, but it has also turned a blind eye to community health and safety. While GenOn pulls in profits from the Portland plant, the community members pay vast amounts of money in doctor bills, medication and quality of life. This is the simple clearcut case of corporate greed with no concerns of human life and livelihood. Portland Generating Station is a prime example of the true cost of coal with the sulfur dioxide emissions, not to even mention coal ash, mercury levels and other side effects. There is simply no cost efficient way to run the plant. Scrubbers will cost millions of dollars and still not protect our communities from the pollution this plant spews out daily. We need to stop investing in an150 industry that is on its way to the grave. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For 53 years, the people of Pennsylvania and New Jersey have had no voice; today, that ends. And I urge the EPA to listen to these voices. 53 years is too long to be living in a shadow. Today is your day to protect people, not polluters. Shutdown the Portland Generating Station. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: I think we do have several more speakers scheduled for this afternoon, but I think we are running a little ahead of schedule, so they may not be here, and haven't checked in yet. I'm going to have another 5 to 10-minute break, and we'll reconvene after some speakers have arrived. That you. (Whereupon, break taken.) CHAIRMAN LING: Good evening, everybody. Let's reconvene the hearing. I see a lot of new faces in the crowd and a lot of familiar faces who stuck around from the afternoon session. I'm going to go ahead and redo my opening statement for folks who were not here when the hearing began. My name is Michael Ling, and I am the151 Associate Director of the Air Quality Policy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Division, which is in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in North Carolina. My office is the office for responding to petitions under Section 126. This hearing is to take comment on a proposed rule that we put out responding to a petition that was submitted by New Jersey under Clean Air Section 126, which is the section of the Clean Air Act that deals with air pollution that crosses state lines. I'll be chairing today's hearing, but with me on the panel are a couple of other EPA. To my right is Diana Esher, who is the Division Director of EPA's Region 3 Air Protection Division. Region 3 is EPA's office in Philadelphia, PA, that deals with environmental issues in the Mid-Atlantic states. And to my left is Donna Mastro, who is the Senior Assistant Regional Counsel in Region 3. And to her left is Raymond Werner, who is the Chief of EPA's Region 2 Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, Region 2 is EPA Office in New York and New Jersey,152 among other places. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This petition requests that the EPA make a finding that the coal-fired Portland Generating Station, the Portland plant in Upper Mount Bethel Township in Northhampton County, Pennsylvania, is emitting air pollutants in violation of interstate transport provisions of the Clean Air Act, particularly with respect to Ambient Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide, the one-hour levels of suffer dioxide. The Portland plant is located directly across the Delaware River on the Pennsylvania and New Jersey state border. And Warren County, New Jersey is in close proximity to the Portland plant. New Jersey DEP has been monitoring sulfur dioxide concentrations in Warren County since September 23, 2010. Based on preliminary data from that site, ground level concentrations are exceeding the level of the one-hour sulfur dioxide air quality standards in Warren County. In addition, the NJDEP conducted several air quality modeling analyses to153 evaluate sulfur dioxide levels in New Jersey. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Those analyses indicated that the level of sulfur dioxide in the air is -- and I'll say SO2 sometimes for sulfur dioxide -- exceeding the EPA's standard for SO2, and that the Portland plant is the main source of those emissions. EPA conducted a modeling analysis and found similar results. Consequently, we proposed to find that the emissions from the Portland plant are significantly contributing to nonattainment -- nonattainment means, not meeting the air quality standard -- and interference with maintenance of the one-hour sulfur dioxide standard in New Jersey. To address this finding, EPA proposed emission limits for units one and two at the Portland plant. Each unit would need to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 81 percent from its currently allowable sulfur dioxide emission levels. The proposal also lays out the requirements that would be necessary to carry out these reductions to allow continued operation of the facility. EPA's modeling results predict that154 these reductions will sufficiently reduce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Portland plant's contribution to the modeled air quality violations in New Jersey, and will improve the air quality in New Jersey to the levels that meet the one-hour standard. The EPA proposal will require these reductions within three years after our final rule. And we currently project our final rule will be finalized in September, the end of September of this year. So for today, we'll be accepting oral comments on all aspects of our proposal. And we will prepare a written transcript of the hearing. And the transcript of the hearing will be available as part of the official record, and the EPA will consider it as we move towards our final rule in September. We're also accepting written comments on this proposal. And we are accepting those until May 27th. There is a handout available outside at the registration area with detailed information. If you want to submit written comments, you can by mail, fax or submit them electronically. So let me just describe the procedures155 for the hearing for folks who are commenting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'll call the scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs over to this table. When it's your turn to speak, please state your name and your affiliation before you begin your testimony. And it will helpful to the court reporter, who is creating the transcript, if you spell your name. And it would also be helpful if you speak into the microphone. Try to get it close to your mouth so he could hear you clearly. In order to be fair to everyone, please limit your testimony to five minutes each. Remain at the microphone and at the table until both of the speakers in the pair have finished. After you finish your testimony, members of this panel may want to ask clarifying questions. If, in addition to you giving your testimony you would like to leave a written copy of the full text of your comments, you can leave it at the registration table outside. We do have a high-tech time system156 today consisting of green, red and yellow 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 signs. So when you begin speaking, the green sign will go up and you will have five minutes. And then the yellow sign will signal that you have two minutes left to speak. And then when the red sign goes up, that means five minutes have passed, and I'll ask you to wrap up your testimony. The evening session is scheduled from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. We'll stay into the evening until everyone has had a chance to speak. Some folks have already requested scheduled time slots and we tried to accommodate those. We ask for your patients as we proceed through the list of speakers tonight. We may need to make some adjustments to the schedule. Finally, a really important detail, the restroom is located out of the door and to the left. So that's how the hearing is going to operate. Again, I want to thank everybody for participating. Let's get started. I'll call the first two speakers to the table. We have Jedd Dietz and Tonya Dentith.157 Why don't you start whenever you are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ready. MR. Dietz: My name is Jedd Dietz, that's J-E-D-D, D-I-E-T-Z. I work at the Portland Generating Station. As I'm going to read something that I wrote here, I've been there a long time, 28 years. I started back in January of 1983, and I've been steadily employed there ever since. So if you don't mind, I would like to read what I wrote. You will understand better what I'd like to say. Thank you for this opportunity to address you on the issues before us. As I said, I'm a 28-year employee at the Portland Power Plant. This obviously makes me a little bias in my concerns about these issues. My employment is very important to me, as I'm sure all of your employment is to you. I'll be 53-years-old this year, and I don't feel this would be a good time to find a good job or any job at all for that matter. My job not only supports my wife and myself, but also provides for the ability to help my daughter's family as they have some158 hardships that are beyond their control at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this time. Now, I understand that this is not the only, or perhaps most important issue before us. It is my hope that we might come to a reasonable compromise, discussion, which will be best for all of the concerns here. As far as air and water pollution is concerned, we really should be doing all we can to reduce or eliminate it where we can. What we have to be careful of is that in the we won't put ourselves in a position where we put the reliability of the power grid in jeopardy or cause electricity to get very expensive. Now, taking one coal-fired power plant out of service will not make a huge difference to these concerns. It will help the air quality right here in the immediate area as I am told. But I doubt this effort is just about one plant. A large amount of our electricity is supplied by coal. The reason is because coal is cheap and plentiful. The replacement for coal at this time is oil and gas, which are more expensive. Another possibility is nuclear, but there is159 much fear about its safety, and about a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15-year time frame before any new nuclear plants would be in service. In conclusion I can tell you that the Portland Power Plant and the companies that have owned it have made every effort to be a good neighbor and comply with any and all environmental regulations. Part of my duties for the past 12 years have been to monitor and report how we effect the waterways that we have discharge to. I have never experienced any adverse reactions from supervisions when it concerns they address my concerns and any concerns quickly and appropriately. Now, these regulations have become more stringent as sometime goes by, and they should. Please, let us try to be sensible about all concerns as we attempt to the conditions at hand. Just one more thing, if I may. The other day I noticed a truck in the back Bangor areas, I was traveling through there. I don't even know what it was about. There were huge lettering on the side that said say no to160

coal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I thought, that's a good thing to consider, but say yes to what? I think maybe if we go down this road far enough we are going to find things will get very expensive as electricity goes. And it's not just the bill at your house, it will also effect the guy down the street who has a restaurant, any business that uses electricity, I'm sure there are a lot of them. All of their products are going to get more expensive as well. We need to be careful how quickly we go down this road or how -- well, maybe not well-thought out. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. If you could just stay at the table. Let me see if there are any questions? Next is Ms. Dentith. MS. DENTITH: My name Tanya Dentith, T-A-N-Y-A, D-E-N-T-I-T-H. I live in Pennsylvania. I was intrigued by a brief Express Times Newspaper on April 25th regarding this public hearing, and followed a published link to your proposal.161 After reading over this proposal, I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just wondering why a meeting has been scheduled. I'm appalled as to the quantity of sulfur dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere by just two units, over 30,400 tons. Upon further reading and some simple addition, realized these two units are spewing more sulfur dioxide into the air than all the units -- all of the power units and cement plants in our area combined. Also, the nitrogen oxide that is being emitted is extremely toxic, not to get into the mercury heavy metals and acid gasses being emitted. My question to you is why hasn't something been done to make this company drastically reduce their emissions? There is definitely a double standard here. You are allowing one company with two power producing units to greatly impact the health of thousands of people in New Jersey. I'm a resident of Northhampton County, and I don't want to see the tax base go up because this plant is closing. I certainly do not want to see people lose their job or Mount162 Bethel lose their taxable income, however, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this is not about that. This decision is about doing what you are supposed to do, what Richard Nixon created this agency to do, protect the environment, and that is your job. It's obvious in reading your proposal that the Clean Air Act is being violated. The people in New Jersey deserve clean air. The breathing problems these people are being subjected to is just unacceptable. If the shoe was on the other foot and the wind was blowing in the opposite direction, the citizens in Mount Bethel and the surrounding area would look at this a lot differently. There is absolutely nothing to be said in favor of continuing this sinful poising of our neighbors. At the rate we are destroying our environments, our future generations will have a tough time surviving on this earth, and it's not like they are able to move. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: No questions. Thank you both very much. The next two speaker are Elliott Ruga and Maryann McGillis.163 Mr. Ruga, you can begin whenever you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are ready. MR. RUGA: Good evening. My name is Elliott Ruga. I'm with the new jersey Highlands Coalition. Since 1988, we have advocated for the protection of the water and other natural and cultural resource. We're located in Boonton, New Jersey. It is a rarity these days that the New Jersey Highlands Coalition is supportive of an initiative by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection under Governor Christie and Commissioner Martin, but we support DEP's Section 126 petition to the Environmental Protection Agency to address air pollution from GenOn's Portland Generating Station. It is indeed unfair that New Jersey citizens, largely who live in the New Jersey Highlands region, are subjected to the variety of pollutants from this plant over a wide area and with known and documented effects to our health. But the closing of GenOn's Portland Generating Station, although it would be164 significant, is merely a step in the right 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 direction. There are numerous coal-fire electrical generating stations in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in West Virginia and other nearby states to our west and to our south, whose cumulative impact effect our health in New Jersey and the quality of our drinking water. These plants are part of a network of power sources that feed the Susquehanna to Roseland power line. That is a known highway for bring dirty coal generated electricity to lucrative markets in the east. We call upon the Environmental Protection Agency to consider the health effects of all plants that are compromising our health, and we call upon the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to continue to exercise its rights with Section 126 petitions to enforce needed air quality standards. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Ms. McGillis. MR. McGILLIS : My name is Maryann McGillis I'm the director of Genesis Farm,165 which is an ecological learning center in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Blairstown, New Jersey. I would like to just share some remarks about the more recent granting of sovereign rights to corporations on the juris prudence that corporations can be understood as persons under the law. An event that happened in the late 1800s and which flies in the face of all other issues, all other understandings of Sovereignty that go back in human history. So what we have now is a situation where corporations, which have enormous money and power behind them, are actually able to control legislation and judicial decisions that are made on their behalf rather than on common good. I believe that the years that this power plant has been allowed to violate the standards of the Clean Air Act is a perfect example of where corporate control rides over individual and common sovereignty. At Genesis Farm, we offer courses based on the scientific story of the evolution of the universe. And it is clear that the children of today and the children of the166 future are going to have a very, very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 different understanding of what is meant by Sovereign rights. If the universe has evolved in the way that science has suggested it has, and I would just suggest who would like a quick introduction to this evolutionary process, just take a trip to the Rose Center on urban space at the Museum of Natural History, because the entire evolutionary process is worked out in a very, very understandable way. But what it would say is that rights of any being originates where their existence originates. And once you understand that, then the right of every single being to exist is based on this context rather than on a very recent context of human juris prudence based on democratic principles, all of which are good, but, which, in nature, it gives all rights to human and no rights to the other than human world. And this disconnect is at the basis of the violations that we're talking about, and it can allow for the manipulation of the167 powerful against the sovereign rights of all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other creatures to exist. So we're at an opportune moment now to take the legislation that has been created in the past and to bring it to a greater context of perspective in order to judge what we're going to allow this corporation to do in the future. You've heard testimony all day about the health effects of this power plant and the way it has violated those criteria that have been set up. And it's a time of decision now. And so on behalf of the children, not just of the human species, but of all species that have a right to exist and with that right have a right to what they need to continue their existence and have the habitat and the nourishment they need. I suggest that we be courageous in speaking for the children of the future. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said that, "Legislation does not necessarily change the human heart, but it can restrain the heartless." It's the restraint of the heartless168 now that is needed now in this corporate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 facade of being protected by a bill of rights, which was never designed to protect that part of our society. So I thank you and wish you well. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. The next two speakers are Lorrie Gold and Rene Mathez. MS. GOLD: My name is a Lorraine Gold. I'm a resident here in Warren County, and I'm here to support the proposed reduction of the sulfur dioxide emissions of this plant. According to the NJ-DEP Sulfur Dioxide emissions from the Portland plant have been measured up to ten times above federal standards. The existing coal fired power plant is a major contributor to sulfur dioxide in this region. Other toxic pollutants are also being emitted from this plant. The health and welfare of the people and the ecosystem are damaged by the reckless behavior of this company. As you are aware, sulfur dioxide is a major cause of acid rain, which, among other impacts, has a devastating affect in169 agricultural areas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It is also know to contribute to asthma and other respiratory diseases. The biggest increase in asthma is in children five to 15 years of age. Given the results of an asthma study I am greatly concerned with the impact the Portland facility is having on the health and well-being of the residents of Warren County. We know that those in close proximity to coal-fired power plants fare the worst. In addition to sulfur dioxide, this plant releases mercury and other dangerous particulates. Citizens, agricultural crops, animals, soils and waterways near the plant are suffering. Our senior citizens, those with chronic ailments, and pregnant women are especially at risk. The Delaware River flows directly by the Portland power plant which emits tons of sulfur dioxide. I am demanding an end to the defilement of this river that nourishes life in so many ways. As citizens and agencies and yes, even as power companies, it is our responsibility to protect this river.170 I urge the EPA to follow through with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your proposed action calling for an 81 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from RRI's Portland PA Power Generating Station over the next three years. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Mr. Mathez. MR. MATHEZ: My name is Rene Mathez. As a member of the Knowlton Township Committee, I am speaking to support the proposed regulation of the Portland Power Plant. The danger from the toxic effluent that comes from the plant has been well documented. The statistics are known to most of us, but the statistics may hide the fact that the plant causes real harm to real people. All across Northern NJ but especially in Warren County our children, our parents, our grandparents are being harmed by the toxic discharge from the Portland Plant. I know some of these people. They are sick and what's most disheartening is that they don't have to be sick. The technology to significantly reduce the pollutants coming out171 of the plant has been around for a long time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We have the ability to fix this problem but what's been missing is the will to fix it. The main question of course is money. The owner of the plant does not want to spend the money to reduce the pollution coming out of the plant. But the pollution coming out of the plant is costing all of us a lot of money, in medical treatment and in premature death. In its spring 2011 magazine the Union of Concerned Scientists stated that S02 and NOX pollution cost the country $100 billion a year in health-related costs. A one-time investment in pollution control technology will lower these costs for NJ and PA residents every year. The regulatory loophole that allows the Portland Plant's outdated technology is not saving money. It's just transferring costs from the owner of the plant to the residents of PA and NJ. In addition to improving our health, construction of pollution control technology would, it seems to me, bring significant benefits to the local economy. Installation172 of pollution control technology will bring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 much needed jobs to the area. Therefore I ask the EPA to stop the Portland Plant from polluting our air and harming our residents. I ask the EPA to adopt the proposed rules. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. The next speaker is Richard Drey. MR. DREY: Good evening everyone. My name is Richard Drey. I am President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 777. We are the men and women who operate the GenOn Portland Station- all us. You may hear from some more of our members today as well. As members of organized labor, we take great pride in operating the plant in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner. I can assure you, that our members take a special pride in operating the plant well within all environmental laws and regulations our families live in this area and this is something we would never compromise. Sometimes, it's easy to lose sight of the actual employees and their families that make173 their livelihood at the plant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Portland plant is more than an asset on a company's balance sheet; it a home for us to live in, a college education for our children, and a way of life that allows us to give back to the community. There is no doubt I can speak for all of the employees of Local 777, when I say that nobody wants to be polluting the air, but I must also say it is difficult to understand why this plant has been singled out by this ruling. Nonetheless, while I cannot speak for GenOn as a company, I am sure that we will do all that we can to meet the standards set forth under this ruling. It is important to keep in mind that as employees, we receive a family-sustaining wage plus health and other benefits. This is not easy to find in today's economy, plus my family and I live in the area and we very much like it here. If the Portland Station is no longer operational, I am not sure what my family and I will do. As you can imagine, it is not easy to manage a174 family on two-incomes let alone one. And if a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 family only has this income, it could leave them without any income at all. On behalf of the IBEW Local 777 and our members, we hope that you will sincerely and thoughtfully consider our viewpoints during your review as well and work towards a fair balance of protecting jobs and protecting the environment. Thank you for letting me share comments. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you very much. At this point we are going to take a short break. We do have a number of other speakers scheduled this evening, but they are scheduled for other times, and they are not here yet. So we'll take a break. Just stick close and I'll reconvene when the speakers are here. Thank you (Whereupon, break taken.) CHAIRMAN LING: All right, we're going to reconvene. We have a couple folks in the 6 o'clock hour and we have a few more folks coming in the 7 o'clock hour. For now, the next two speakers are Lyn Varnderheart and Amy vanderheart. So could you come to the table,175 both of you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I don't know if you were here when I explained how this works, but you can each go stay at the table until you are both done. Lyn, you can go first. Start whenever you are ready. MR. VANDERHEART: My name is Lyn Vanderheart. I know that this plant is producing literally tons of sulfur dioxide into the air. I live in Warren County where I know a ton of the pollution is blown and knowing that that's one of the dirtiest plants in the country, I would like to see this plant be cleaned up in any way possible, therefore, I support any decision to make this plant cleaner. CHAIRMAN LING: That you very much. Can I ask you a question, how would are you? MS. VANDERHEART: 11. CHAIRMAN LING: Any questions? Let's have Amy. MS. VANDERHEART: We're sisters and I feel, too, that the Portland Power Plant should be forced to make changes to be176 environmentally friendly. The plant, as you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know, is literally dumping tons of sulfur dioxide into the air, but it seems like the power plant doesn't feel so much remorse seeing as they haven't made any changes by themselves. So I really do feel that scrubbers should be fixed to the smoke stacks. It would really just help make everything cleaner. The air would be fresher to breathe because you wouldn't have all of that pollution, and less trouble with acid rain. I don't know how much we have now, but we would still have that. And, you know, New Jersey is taking the brunt of it. While Pennsylvania is also benefiting from the electricity, we're get thing brunt of the pollution. With all of this said, I feel that power plant should be forced to take action, and I support that. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you both very much. The next two speakers are William Vanderheart and Matt Moore. MR. VANDERHEART: Those are my two daughters. I'm a proud Papa. First, I177 appreciate the EPA holding this hearing. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think it's kind of long overdue. And I know this interstate thing has sort of been an issue for a while, so I appreciated you taking the range up and listening to folks. We just a few miles down the road, Vanderhearts here in Liberty Township. In fact, part of Pequest Fish Hatchery is in our town. I guess with today's technology, I'm kind of shocked that an electric generating facility is able to burn coal without scrubbing technology. When I first heard about it, I was like wow, I can't even believe it. The reason not to implement this technology sooner would have to be profits. That's the on thing I can think of, whether it's for meeting shareholder demands or whatever. But to make the profits at the expense of human health and environmental impact, it just seems like the wrong thing to do. The right choice is to require scrubbing technology. It seems like an easy choice. My concern is that the company might threaten to close the plant and jobs could be178 lost and those sorts of things. And I don't 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think that those potential threats should enter the equation, even in today's economy. The profits exist. I mean the plant is running now. They've been turning the crank and milking the cow for a long time. And there are power plants in the area. For example, the girls and I, we recently visited the Merrill Creek Plant. Although that is a peak generated plant, they switched their coal technology to oil and natural gas. So, you know, the scrubbing technology isn't the only thing. It's possible to switch fuels as well. We really shouldn't have to -- I don't think we should even need to have this hearing. I agree with my own children, it seems like it should have been done on their own. I think they should be doing the right thing on their own. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Mr. Moore. MR. MOORE: Thank you. I too would like to thank the EPA for holding this hearing as well as making as much publicly available information easy to find as possible, given179 the length of the report. I'll be brief, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 although I'm here on two capacities. I would like to start. I'm Matthew Moore, from 162 Route 46 in Columbia New Jersey. I'm also the president of the Knowlton Township Elementary School Board of Ed. We have an elementary school one-and-a-half miles down the river from the plant. We have responsibility for about 300 students and 35 to 40 staff. And we're right there. We see it all of the time. And clearly there is an air quality issue. We've known about it for a while. Reading information that the EPA has put out, I hope that the recommendations go forward. And on behalf of the elementary school the kids in the community there, I would like to ask that action happens fast. I know that this is a complicated matter with multiple violations. There have been several pieces of information that have come to the light more recently, and I hope that after this public hearing happens, that work gets done and action gets taken as fast as possible.180 Secondly, I personally happen to live 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 three miles from the plant on Route 46, and suffer from asthma, which was diagnosed about eight or nine years ago. I've tried everything with my doctor's help, peak flow meter measurement to determine exactly what the cause is. And I think I found out when half of the Board of Ed went online and saw the information and saw the concentration of red there. I've tried getting rid of animals, I've tried changing laundry detergent. I've tried absolutely everything to control my asthma, and it has been hard. And my doctor really can't figure out what the triggers are. It would be interesting if I went back and looked at day-to-day emissions of sulfur versus when I'm having problems breathing, it might be related. So on a personal note I would like to end by saying, people are suffering probably with no idea that this might be the cause. And, to that end, again I would ask that action be taken as quickly as possible. Thank you.181 CHAIRMAN LING: Questions? Thank you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 both very much. The next two speakers, I have Peter Summers and Steve Davies. Mr. Summers, you can start whenever you are ready. MR. SUMMERS: I'm Peter Summers. I'm the health officer and director of the Warren County Health Department. I have a few prepared remarks that I'll make. I've been working in public health for almost 25 years, and I'm a proud Knowlton Township resident for the last 20. So I'm also just down the road from the plant. On behalf of the residents of Warren County, I would like to thank the EPA for the proposed ruling, and for the efforts that you are making to protect the health of the citizens of Warren County. I would also like to thank the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for its efforts in bringing this issue to your attention. I fully support the DEP's efforts and its recommendation that the Portland Generating Station meet the same high standards that protect residents living near182 New Jersey-based power plants. Despite being 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a rural community, Warren County's asthma rates rival those of more urban areas. The New Jersey Department of Health's 2010 and 2011 admin New Jersey report estimates the number of Warren County adults with current asthma at 9.4 percent. This is significantly higher than the estimated New Jersey rate of 7.7 percent. And the Center For Disease Control estimates the U.S. rate as asthma in adults at also about 7.7 percent. Both the CDC and the EPA have linked sulfur dioxide and other air pollutants with increased asthma symptoms. Studies have also shown the connection between short-term exposure to SO2 and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses. A 2003 study by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey found that children with physician diagnosed asthma in two Warren County communities suffered reduced peak expiratory flow rates as sulfur dioxide in the community increase. The peak expiratory flow rate is the person's maximum183 speed of expiration, how you breathe out as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 measured by a peak flow meter, a small plastic device that you breathe out into. It is essential to the health of Warren County residents that the Portland Generating Station upgrades its pollution controls to meet the same high standards as New Jersey plants. I would ask the EPA to consider the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's recommendations and require this plant to reduce its commissions to levels that will protect our community. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Mr. Davies. MR. Davies: Steve Davis with GenOn Energy. I wanted to take a second to clarify a response I gave to one of the questions the panel asked earlier. If I don't do this I won't sleep well at night. The question had to do with how many scrubber plants we have in Pennsylvania. We have nine power plants in Pennsylvania. three of them have scrubbers that have been installed within the last 15-or-so years.184 However, we also have a plant that employs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fluidized bed technogy, which, in effect, is a scrubbing process that takes place inside the boiler that achieves the same SO2 reduction levels that a normal one would achieve. We also have another plant south of Pittsburgh, that was one of the original scrub units back in the '70s. So, in total, out of the nine plants we have in Pennsylvania, it is not three it is really five, in effect, that are scrubs. I just wanted so clarify that for the panel. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you both very much. That concludes the list of speakers that I have until 7:00. So I'm actually going to put us in recess until 7 o'clock, and then we'll have another group of speakers. Thank you all very much (Whereupon, break taken.) CHAIRMAN LING: We'll reconvene. We have a speaker who was signed up to speak earlier that has just arrived. So we are going to let him go a head and speak, so he doesn't have to wait until 7:00. His name is Wyatt Earp.185 Whenever you are ready, speak clearly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into the microphone and spell your name for the court reporter. MR. EARP: Good evening. Thank you. It is Wyatt, W-Y-A-T-T, Earp, E-A-R-P. Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate the EPA and everybody coming out. Obviously, you hear that from a lot of folks, but I think we have an opportunity here -- or hope we have an opportunity here to both help the environment and keep things working well, keep industry working well. And there are a lot of different things that can peak back and forth here. I've been to several of these type hearings throughout the country, and often times people insist on a solid answer on a solid date, and sometimes when you do that, things can't be done, so you wind up in court and you spend a lot of money in litigating things or people run into the 36th month and then shut it down since they can't make it. So sometimes there are some discussions that we can have with responsible power producers and corporations186 to maybe mitigate some things early on, and in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consideration for earlier mitigation let things move a little bit further for them to do that. I know the EPA is hard and the economy and taxes but sometimes actually incentivising companies financially is an important thing to do. We have a natural resource. And I know people don't always like to use the C-word for coal, but it is a good resource and the good news is we don't have young men or woman overseas dying to bring that into this country. And I do think that there are ways we can make it cleaner and, at the same time, make it competitive because that's the other side of it is we have to be able to competent with the different things. I'll just tell you an interesting story. We're in the State of New Jersey and there is an opportunity for us to have a natural gas pipeline in Pennsylvania you can argue frack or no frack, but, in fact, in foreign countries today, and you can look at it, and I don't know if people know this, but187 natural gas comes out of the ground when you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get oil. There are countries where they are burning the natural gas wasting it into the air. People are saying yes, but we don't want a natural gas pipeline in the ocean which the project, the one that seems most favorable is a buoy that actually sits underwater, a ship comes up hooks up to the buoy puts natural gas into the system. And it's natural gas that is presently being wasted right now. And there are people that say that's a bad project. I just ask for something that a good friend of mine told me and that's that we use a little common which isn't always so common. You look at everything. I'm sure, by this point, you've heard some of the people whose lives would be impacted very negatively if this plant closed and we kind of have to balance all of that. I'll go ahead and pop some written comments to you, but I want to thank you for the opportunity and thank everybody on both sides that are here today, because, if we work188 together, I think we can do a lot of great 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things. CHAIRMAN LING: Questions for Mr. Earp? With that, we'll hopefully, I think this time, really recess until 7 o'clock. So well we'll reconvene then. (Whereupon, recess taken.) CHAIRMAN LING: Good evening. We're going to reconvene the hearing for this last hour. I notice, again, we have a couple of new faces. I read an opening statement, and there is a copy of it available out there that describes what we're doing here tonight. Just briefly, my name is Michael Ling, I work at the U.S. EPA, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in North Carolina. The hearing today is about a petition that New Jersey filed under Section 126 of the Clean Air Act, which is the section of the act that deals with interstate transport of air pollution. And specifically, their petition was about emissions from the Portland Generating Station. We're here to hear comments about our189 proposal to grant that petition, and to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 require reductions from the facility. We're here to hear oral comments, but you can also file written comments. And there are detailed instructions outside about how to do that. With me is Diana Esher of EPA Region 3, the Mid-Atlantic Region. And Ray Werner, EPA Region 2, the New York and New Jersey, Region. With that short introduction, and there is more detail in the opening statement, we are going to go ahead and call the first two speakers. The way we're working the hearing is we're going call the speakers in pairs, so come up to the table and you can each go and stay at the table until both of you have completed your testimony. And we may ask questions to clarify any comments that you have. And after that, you can both get up and we'll move on to the next group of speakers. There is a high-tech timing system that we're using. You'll have five minutes to speak. When there is two minutes left, we'll hold up a yellow sign. And when the time is190 out, we'll hold up a red sign, and I'll ask 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you to wrap up your testimony. I think that pretty much covers the basics. Thanks again for participating, thanks to the speakers. The first two speakers are Kevin Pflug and Stan Wilkins. I should mention that folks should spell their name to help out the court reporter, and also try to speak as closely to the mic as you can to help out the court reporter as well. Mr. Pflug, whenever you are ready, go ahead and start. MR. PFLUG: Hello, my name is Kevin Pflug. That's spelled P-F-L-U-G, and I'm an attorney with the Eastern Environmental Law Center in Newark, New Jersey. I speak on behalf of the Maple Coalition, which is comprised in part of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace the Delaware River Keeper Network and the New Jersey Highlands Coalition. I would just like to say a few words about the health and economic impacts of pollution from coal power -- coal-fire power plants. Among all of the industrial sources191 of air pollution, none presents greater risk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to human health than coal power plants. Pollution from coal plants, such as the Portland Generating Station, contribute to climate change, acid rain, smog and particulate matter pollution. According to a recent study by the Clean Air Task Force, entitle, "The toll from Coal," pollution from coal burning power plants cause 10s of thousands of premature deaths each year and hundreds of thousands of heart attacks, asthma attacks emergency room visits, hospital emissions and lost work days. The Clean Air Task Force estimates that coal pollution caused 13,200 deaths in 2010. Not only did over 13,000 people die last year from illnesses caused by coal, but an additional 20,000 people had nonlethal heart attacks that were caused by the burning of coal. The total economic value of these health impacts amounts to more than a $100 billion a per year. Let me repeat those numbers, because I don't think their magnitude192 is appreciated by the general public and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regulators who are entrusted with their protection. Coal pollution kills over 13,000 people a year in this country, causes 20,000 heart attacks and causes over $100 billion of economic damage annually. These types of economic burdens are not evenly distributed throughout the population. Adverse impacts are especially severe for the elderly, children and people with respiratory diseases. With regard to the health impacts from coal pollution in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the Clean Air Task Force estimates that in 2010 pollution from coal plants killed 531 people in New Jersey and 1,359 people in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, 987 people in New Jersey and 2,298 people in Pennsylvania suffered heart attacks prematurely caused by coal pollution. The Portland coal plant is a major contributor to the negative health effects caused by coal pollution in New Jersey. The sulfur dioxide emissions from Portland in 2009 were greater than the sulfur193 dioxide emissions from all power plants in New 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Jersey combined. As you know, the coal burning units one and two at the Portland plant have no air pollution controls for sulfur dioxide and have outdated controls for nitorgen oxide and particulate matter. New Jersey model and assessment of the Portland plant's actual emission show a maximum sulfur dioxide concentration in New Jersey that is 10 times greater than the one-hour capacity limit. And when the plant operates at full capacity, the sulfur dioxide emissions are over 17 times the allowable standard. While we applaud DEP's request to the EPA asking that the Portland plant be required to install control technology that will limit amount of pollution that is emitted from the plant, the Maple Coalition asks that the EPA take steps that will lead to the immediate closing of the Portland plant. Burning coal as a source of energy is a relic of the 20th century that must be phased out as soon as possible. The environmental damage caused by using fossil194 fuel for electricity is having profound 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 effects on the plant, and it is not just limited to human health and economic effects that I just described. The fossil fuel industry is mining of coal from such practices as mountaintop removal is causing devastating and irreversable changes to the country's landscape. In addition, New Jersey is a coastal state that will bear the brunt of effects of climate change. Furthermore, coal ash, a byproduct of burning coal, is highly toxic and many of the chemicals containing coal ash end up in drinking water supplies. In short, the fossil fuel age must end. The sooner coal plants are closed, and particularly older coal plants, such as Portland, the better. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Mr. Wilkins. MR. WILKINS: Good evening. My name is Stan Wilkins, W-I-L-K-I-N-S. I am a resident of Belvidere, New Jersey, and I'm a195

member of the Belvidere Environmental 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commission and the DSM Citizens Advisory Panel, which is formally the Roche Citizens Advisory Panel. I came here tonight somewhat unprepared, but felt it was important to get up and weigh in on the topic. It's been a few years since I've been on these various commissions and heard on this issue in terms of the nonattainment of sulfur dioxide in Warren County. As a resident and a runner, I've been very concerned. And I'm very excited to hear that finally action is beginning to be taken on the subject. I'm not sure -- I'm sure plenty has been said. I'm not an expert and able to really offer any new information. However, it is my feeling that we have a problem here. There are strong indications as to where the problem is coming from. We have the technology and the means to remedy the situation. The question seems to be in my mind, that of expense. In that regard, I think we must measure the expense to human health and quality of life in this area.196 In short, as I said, I came here 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 somewhat to gather information, but feeling that it is important to speak on the matter as not only an resident of Belvidere, but as a concerned citizen of the United States. With that being said, that's about all I have on the subject. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you both very much. The next speaker is Jerry Cook. Start whenever you are ready. MR. COOK: My name is Jerry Cook. I'm a little surprised to be here. I found out this meeting was taking place and it was an opportunity to come and voice my opinion. CHAIRMAN LING: Can I get you to speak more directly into the mic. MR. COOK: I moved out here 13 years ago with the hopes to have a better life for my family. I'm happy we came here. It's a very beautiful area. It's very clean and nice. We came from Passaic County. But after our daughter was born, a short time after, she developed asthma and several other respiratory problems and there197

was no clear indication of where this came 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from. There is -- my wife and I don't smoke. There is no smoke in the house. We were very concerned about that. The doctors didn't seem to give us any indication. There is no history of any respiratory problems between my family and my wife's family, on either side. And my daughter is healthy otherwise, but the respiratory problems were of much concern. And people, friends of ours, as we entered the school system, started to talk about their child's respiratory problems. And it seemed that there was quite a high level of asthma in the area. And I figured this was significant, but I still didn't know why. I saw the power plant. I figured it was within compliance. And then I read more about it and found out over decades that they were not within compliance, instead they were spewing out pollutants that were -- they would be fined or stopped and the things would be corrected, but then it would good back to where they felt they could legally do it. The worst part about this is there is,198 as the previous person spoke, there are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 technologies to eliminate this, I know this. My father was an engineer. He used to work for a corporation that sold technology that would place scrubbers within stacks that would eliminate all but the hot air coming out of the stacks. These technologies came from Germany. And the hot air was then used to heat homes in the area. It was a completely efficient area that was non-polluting. This can occur here. It doesn't occur here and I know why, it's because of cost. Everybody needs a job. I don't want to put people out of a job that work there, they have families to support, also. But for children and seniors to suffer and not be able to breathe clean air because of pollution that is being caused by this plant from another state two miles from my house, right across the river is wrong. Everyone is entitled to breathe clean air. And it just doesn't seem to be taking place. And it's very sad to see my daughter choking from the air that is coming out of this power plant. Thank you.199 CHAIRMAN LING: The next two speakers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are John Nevay and Eileen Musarra. Mr. Nevay, you can start whenever you are ready. MR. NEVAY: I would like to applaud the EPA on taking legal action. Apparently, it's the only way that this type of criminal behavior, even though it's legalized, is put to and end. So that's the first thing I would like to say. Even the legal standards are low. The decision is made to create a certain amount of smoke into the air, and they legalize that even though, you know, there are people breathing that and getting sick from that even. But when you have someone that is out of compliance for a long time, I don't know why it would take decades to come down hard and stop that. The effects are not really up for debate from what I can tell. The results of the toxins out of the coal burning plant are clearly documented, and there is just not a lot of debate on heavy metals carcinogenic materials that causes health problems.200 So I would like to see you go forward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with that and close that plant and make it safe. That needs to be the end result. And that's not just on this plant, it's a disturbing trend in our society, it seems, for money, which is not an excuse, because we basically print it. We jeopardize our own health and welfare and the ecosystem that supports us and the people that live here and everything that actually is valuable for some vaporous kind of nonsensical kind of made up monetary compensation. Another thing I hear a lot about justifying this type of behavior is it creates jobs. It's not really the government's issue to create jobs. Jobs are going to be created and they'll be what they are. And if there are no jobs there are no jobs and if there is jobs there is. It's not really, well, let's make jobs that have to cost the health of the people that live in the area. I don't see those two issues -- there is a safety issue, and that's what we should be worried about.201 Another disturbing thing is when these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things are allowed to go on and, the burden of proof falls on the victims to get sick and get angry and get involved and get vocal, so that's way after the fact. And it happens all over the country from what I can see. It's happening in West Virginia in the coal areas. It's happening in Northeast Pennsylvania with this frack fluid debate that is going on. There is a whole lot of issues going on. And the burden of proof is the victims, whereas the government and the agencies of the government are funded and passed to protect the individuals before the damage is done. And this is a clear case where everyone involved knows the damage is being done and everyone knows that the innocent people are not being protected and everyone knows it is basically wrong. And that's as clear as that. As far as the jobs or the cost, I think it comes down to an ethics issue. Are we ethical? Do we do the right thing or do we do what's convenient? The right thing is to202 not pollute the air, not to pollute the water, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not to damage our own selves. That's just the right thing to do. Now, when they say well there are jobs there are costs, there is money or taxes, it's the right or wrong issue. Are you willing to do the wrong thing for a certain price? And I would like to see that trend reversed where we start enforcing our laws based on what's right and not on what's convenient. I see this trend in a lot with anything that has to do with environmental protection. It just seems like it's always put at the bottom. It's always what's convenient, it's not what's right or what's wrong or what's ethical. It's up to the EPA and the government agencies to put a stop to this criminal behavior. And even if it's considered "Legal" at this time. There are a lot of things that were legal in history that were wrong. And polluting the water, polluting the air and making your own people get sick and die is wrong, and it needs to be illegal. And if it is illegal, then it needs to be enforced. And203 I hope you guys do just that. Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MUSARRA: Good evening my name is. Eileen Musarra, M-U-S-A-R-R-A. I am, right now, a member of the Belvidere Environmental Commission, but I'm here tonight as a resident of Belvidere, a resident of Warren County. In 1977, I moved into Warren County. I did not have asthma. In 1994, I was diagnosed with asthma. My daughter, Rebecca, grew up in Belvidere. In high school, she was diagnosed with asthma. My mother moved to Belvidere in 1996 she was 72-years-old. She did not have asthma. Five years later she was diagnosed with asthma. She is 87. She continues to live in Belvidere, and I hope that, with your action, she will be able to spend her last years breathing clean air. Right now, I'm working towards a masters of public health at UMDNJ, and I was very surprised to learn in my research for that class that Warren County is the only nonattainment area of SO2 in the entire Region 2 of the EPA. That means that in all of New York204 State, in all of New Jersey in the Virgin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Islands Virginia and in Puerto Rico, there is only one county that doesn't meet the standards for SO2, and we're it. Another thing I learned just this morning. There is an article dated April 14th in the magazine, Circulation Research. And this research used a model to determine that chronic exposure to particulate matter leads to an increase in white blood cells these cells are winding up in vascular and adipose tissue and producing systemic inflammation, which is leading to cardiac disease. Now, I have understood that SO2 would be a problem for respiratory problems, but never realized that there was a connection to particulate matter, but I heard that this morning that the SO2 pollutants combined with other articles in the air to increase the PM2.5. So if this information in this journal is correct, the SO2 is also causing a particulate matter to in accuracy over the years which leading directly or indirectly to cardiac disease. So we have more of a problem205 than we even knew. That's really all I had to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 say. I want to thank you for this action, thank you for this hearing and thank you for what you do everyday. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. Now I'll call Fred Stine. MR. STINE: Thank you very much. My name is Fred Stein. I work with the Delaware River Keeper Network. It's a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization we have 8,000 members. About 4,100 of them are New Jersey residents. And I'm here to represent them. I have a few short comments. CHAIRMAN LING: Can I get you to spell your last name for the court reporter? MR. STINE: My last name is S-T-I-N-E. Thank you. I know what you are looking for comment on is fairly discrete, and it would be hard for you, the rules that you are looking at, to good beyond that, but in any degree you can, looking at cumulative impact of the pollutants that are coming out of Portland Power Plant. I know we are focusing a lot on sulfur dioxide, but that's not the only contaminate206 that is coming out. And as we've heard many 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 times today, it's 30,000 tons; is that correct? It's a lot of pollutants coming out impacting the surrounding community, the Delaware River and its tributaries. Looking at the map in the back of the room, looking at the trajectory of the pollutants coming out of the stack, they seriously impact the Delaware River. Parts of it are in the wild and scenic designated areas . The Musconetcong River, that is also in the wild and scenic program. Both of those rivers has been designated as wild and scenic by the U.S. Congress because they were both deemed to have superior ecological and natural resource values. The implementation of these rules and the reduction of the SO2 on those bodies of water will have a marked impact on both of those waterways. Again, these waterways are communities, are being bombarded with many different pollutants and contaminants everyday. We have a an opportunity -- you have an opportunity to decrease that207 significantly coming from this power plant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And we urge you to do that. We fully support the work that you are trying to accomplish here today. We also have, in looking at the cumulative impacts, we heard testimony today about the next stage of this of how the ash is being disposed of in Bangor, Pennsylvania. While we would like to say that scrubbers and new technology would be a good step to clean our air, we have great concern that all of that pollutant that is being captured in the scrubbers will still find its way into our environment. We've heard testimony today about how it's spread in the parking lot material in Bangor and other communities. There are communities across the country where this has been the case. Pine, Indiana, I believe, it's superfund material, because they put so much fly ash in parking lot asphalt as an added ingredient way of disposal, and some places it's considered best management practices. We're just concerned that this new208 hotter in terms of SO2 will now just find its 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was in the environment even though it's being stopped from going up the stack. It's going into a landfill that is an old quarry, that's just an unstable situation and there is data showing that it's already leaking and going beyond back into the Delaware River. What good does that do if we're stopping it from going up the stack if it's still finding its way into our environment. Any way that you can look at the cumulative impact of the cradle to the grave of these contaminates that you are looking to control, don't stop looking at the GenOn plant facility's property line. Look at it until it goes to the grave, the water she'd approach, more the less. Finally, the timeline that we had talked about, GenOn clearly has not just discovered the pollutants coming out of their plant when they received New Jersey's petition. They've known this for years. We cannot give them more and more years to decide whether retrofitting is the right thing to do. We need to now.209 They have nine facilities in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pennsylvania, three of them have the scrubbers. We need to put pressure on them to move and move as quickly as we possibly can and not give them the delays. I know you are balancing other regulations and other rules coming up, and we just want you to continue to put the short timelines on that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LING: Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. We, at this point, have no more scheduled speakers. And unless there is anyone in the audience that would like to -- MS. COHEN: I am signed up. My name is Rachel Val Cohen C-O-H-E-N. I was born in 1969 in New York City. And when I was a baby, my parents bought land and built a house in Minisink Hills, Pennsylvania, which is just on the other side of the Delaware Water Gap from here. I've spent my entire life up here in the summertime and when I finished graduate school in New York, I moved up in 1975, when I was very young. There was no Route 80. We used to drive out to Pennsylvania. It was a210

three or four hour ordeal we were on Route 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46. So I remember seeing the Portland Power Plant when it was constructed. The river was empty and then there was this huge building not particularly aesthetic, but there it is. I hike for fun and I garden for fun. I know that spring is getting earlier and earlier. Trees are leafing out much earlier in the year than they used to. A couple of times a year I make it up to the top of the mountain to see so I can watch the power plant. I don't have a big scientific background, but I do garden and I know what I see in terms of climate change. I grew up running behind buses and I expected to eventually die from some kind of lung disease, but I hope not to any time soon, because, like I said, I still make it up to the top of mountains periodically. Last fall I was attacked by a fox. I had my 15 minutes of fame. I through the fox was probably raved and I fell and I strangled it and I made international news. It was a ridiculous story, but I'm just saying, I'm not a winner, but I really am kind of horrified.211 I knew that the Portland plant was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 polluting, I had no idea how bad it was. I understand that the management is threatening to close the plant because of the expense of installing scrubbers. All I can say is, in all of the movies I watch there is always a line at some point where somebody says blackmail. It's such an ugly word. But I can't think of any other word to describe what is threatened against the jobs of the people who work in the plant by the management, who apparently is unwilling or unable to come up with at least a temporary plan to install scrubbers to do something to reduce the pollution. I think most of us know eventually coal is going to have to become an obsolete technology, but, in the mean time, the decent thing to do, the thing that would not be shameful would be to have the plant retrofitted to keep it open, if necessary. Obviously, retrofitting the plant will create vast numbers of jobs. That is extra work. And then, presumably, the people who212 work in the plant will be able to continue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 working until they can either be restrained or there is some other technology that isn't as damaging. And that's basically what I have to say. Thank you. Questions? CHAIRMAN LING: No questions. The next speaker is Kevin Lott. MR. LOTT: Thank you. My name is Kevin Lott, L-O-T-T. I really appreciate what the fox woman had to say. I grew up in Northhampton County, Pennsylvania where the plant is located. I spent most of my life there. I support the Sierra Club. I believe in EPA. I think it's very necessary, but I've backpacked all the way through the Appalachian Trail Pennsylvania and in New Jersey. I took the Boy Scouts camping on the Delaware River. I'm not an environmental person as far as the scientific end of it. I wear a new hat now in my life. I've been a carpenter all my life. 20 years ago, I worked at the Portland Power Plant. It allowed me to make extra payments on my mortgage. It allowed me to take my family on our first vacation.213 Time's gone by. I haven't worked in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that aspect of the trade in many years. Now, I became a business agent. I represent 750 people in Lehigh and Northhampton County. Jobs are very important to people. What I'm seeing right now is devastating to me. My member's lives are being destroyed. They are losing home, their families are being split up. If there was ever a time that we need jobs, it's now. It's as bad in construction as it's probably been since the Great Depression. If they close this plant down, it's not only the in-house people that work there we have hundreds of tradesmen that work there yearly. I don't have a problem in the world with improving. In fact, I agree with improving the environmental standards of that plant. At the same token, we have people that need that to pay their mortgages and need that to have their families and maintain their livelihoods. So what I would ask the EPA is, I know these are very pressing issues and real issues, and they need to be addressed. And I214 agree with them, but if we can do this in some 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fashion that would allow us to keep that plant going and correct the situation. I think it's a dual win if we can make it that it's a safe plant and create work at the same time. I believe -- not everybody is going to be happy, but I believe that would be the best case scenario. And that's pretty much what I have to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LING: I think, at this point, we don't have any other speakers signed up to speak. So, if you to wish to speak, you can check in at the front table. And we'll suspend, but not adjourn for the evening yet. We are going to stay here until 8 o'clock, so folks can stay as long as they want. And other folks may come to speak, but I think that concludes our scheduled speakers for now. (Whereupon, break taken.) CHAIRMAN LING: It's 8 o'clock, so I'm gong to officially adjourn the hearing. Thanks to everybody for coming. (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.)215

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25216

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE I, JUSTIN DAVIS, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the testimony as taken stenographically by and before me at the time, place and on the date herein before set forth. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of the parties to this action, and that I am neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, and that I am not financially interested in the action.

Justin Davis