1

1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

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 856-235-5108 

 
2

1 (Whereupon, the hearing 

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. Virgin 
3

1 Islands. So I have a really unique job. I'm 

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 that 
4

1 this is a violation of the interstate 

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 the 
5

1 EPA's health-based standards for various 

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 few 
6

1 hours. Thank you. 

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

1 And then to my left is Donna Mastro, 

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 Warren 
8

1 County, New Jersey is in close proximity to 

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

1 To address this finding, we proposed 

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 and 
10

1 also the comments that will be submitted in 

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 will 
11

1 also help him greatly if you speak into the 

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

1 depending on the number of speakers. We'll 

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

1 COMMISSIONER MARTIN: For the record, 

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

1 I also want to thank the Region 2 

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

1 Sitting here today, we're about half 

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. Monitoring 
16

1 over the past seven months confirms 

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 95-98 
17

1 percent reduction of sulfur dioxide, so 

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

1 One has converted to natural gas, one 

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

1 New Jersey is pleased that EPA is 

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

1 I didn't know if you've ever been to 

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're 
21

1 effected more than anyone else. 

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 continually 
22

1 re-circulated. We've always had a swap out 

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 street 
23

1 in Morris Creek, they willingly, after a 

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

1 And the time period, we're a 

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

1 Half of the day you wake up and the 

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 EPA 
26

1 for proposing strong SO2 standers proposing 

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 in 
27

1 this quarry site will increase the danger that 

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

1 hexavalent chromium and selenium into Brushy 

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 100 
29

1 instances which iron, magnesium and sulfate 

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

1 MR. TITTEL: Thank you. Jeff Tittel, 

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 public 
31

1 health and safety. And that is really 

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 their 
32

1 coal from, you realize that this has so may 

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're 
33

1 saying to you is, quite frankly, give us our 

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-On 
34

1 coal burning power plant in Portland, 

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 plant 
35

1 indicated violations from 1996-2002, including 

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

1 In comparison with sulfur dioxide, 

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

1 where it collects on bicycle tires, shoes, in 

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 of 
38

1 it goes to the quarry and some of it is spread 

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

1 CHAIRMAN LING: No other questions. 

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 dumped 
40

1 into a pit in Bangor, PA. With compliance to 

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 coal 
41

1 ash pit. 

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 of 
42

1 the earth and we have managed to pollute most 

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

1 We need to stop -- the solution and 

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 for 
44

1 the dirty coal operation at Portland, 

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 impact 
45

1 of its real role as public health menace. For 

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 dirty 
46

1 business as usual. I fully support efforts by 

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 Generating 
47

1 Station. 

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 in 
48

1 Pennsylvania property taxes, and spends over 

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

1 GenOn believes any final rule should 

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 to 
50

1 study all pending rules and make long-term 

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, you 
51

1 mentioned that your company has nine coal-fire 

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 mandates 
52

1 an emission level that can only be met through 

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

1 MR. DAVIES: Right. 

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 is 
54

1 something that, in this region, PJM 

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 the 
55

1 detailed comments that you will be providing. 

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 the 
56

1 one-hour standard that doesn't get us the 

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 union 
57

1 members. We also employ many craft union 

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 further 
58

1 reduce S02 emissions. We also know that there 

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 thing 
59

1 is if we can try to reduce some of the ambient 

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

1 So I really support and applaud the 

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 the 
61

1 doctor so I can get medication to monitor my 

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 Assemblyman 
62

1 Upendra Chivukula, U-P-E-N-D-R-A. The last 

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 at 
63

1 the cost of New Jersey residents. Last year 

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

1 Frankly, I am surprised that lawmakers 

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

1 More than one billion participate in 

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 the 
66

1 nation. 

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 95 
67

1 percent. Thank you for giving me this 

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 Regional 
68

1 Medical Center, and I'm here today 

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

1 counseling, and treatment. I have seen 

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

1 transport of air pollutants across regional 

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 our 
71

1 nation's oldest, di1tiest polluters, including 

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 of 
72

1 Environmental Protection that sulfur dioxide 

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 Lung 
73

1 Association of the Mid-Atlantic and the 

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

1 Some of our information presented 

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

1 As you can see, also, there is a ranges of 

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 percent 
76

1 asymptomatic they've never been diagnosed with 

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 daily 
77

1 basis. 

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

1 CHAIRMAN LING: If Mr. Rosebrock and 

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 honorably 
79

1 and ethically and as good corporate citizens. 

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 here 
80

1 is our ethical delimma, we don't want our 

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 to 
81

1 the Portland generating station. I also 

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 and 
82

1 installation of 10 scrubbers and 9 SCRs, at 

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, the 
83

1 topography and the wind currents of our area 

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 to 
84

1 conduct their feasibility studies and then 

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: No 
85

1 CHAIRMAN LING: Sorry. 

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 my 
86

1 soft pallet, uvula and tonsils removed. 

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. I 
87

1 just think that you know already what the 

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, in 
88

1 themselves, do not deliver a final 

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 Force 
89

1 in September 2009. 

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 through 
90

1 transparent active participation by all of the 

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 filtration 
91

1 process. And we would make a rich gas that 

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 the 
92

1 community speak. Thank you very much for 

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 only 
93

1 500 feet from New Jersey, so that this state 

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 this 
94

1 plant shuts down, stops burning coal or 

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 this 
95

1 plant continues to poison the community. 

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 public 
96

1 education, community advocacy and government 

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 interstate 
97

1 transport provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

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 benefit 
98

1 public health. 

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 within 
99

1 Portland's three-month post-finding period. 

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 you 
100

1 are ready. 

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 prevent 
101

1 air pollution from blowing across the Delaware 

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 power 
102

1 plants, in states such as New Jersey to 

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 Warren 
103

1 County Environmental Commission, the White 

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

1 Public concern over these two things, 

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 be 
105

1 implemented with the oversight of the New 

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 the 
106

1 New Jersey DEP. 

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

1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which 

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 and 
108

1 Jerilyn Doherty. 

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 your 
109

1 help and support in shutting down Gen-On's 

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 unsafe 
110

1 practices of this plant. 

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 is 
111

1 Jerilyn, J-E-R-I-L-Y-N, Doherty, 

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 megawatt 
112

1 of power generated in the entire United 

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 some 
113

1 information to you today that we hope you will 

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 revenue 
114

1 would most certainly result in an increase in 

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

1 On behalf of the Northhampton County 

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 not 
116

1 their companies would implement remediation to 

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

1 My family and I moved there in 1970. At the 

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 family 
118

1 experience because of the power plant here. 

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 be 
119

1 found is if you just better refine the 

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 enough 
120

1 affordable options for them to be able to 

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 you 
121

1 have specific technologies that you are 

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 for 
122

1 the Portland powerhouse. 

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 no 
123

1 economy. So far, the United States is falling 

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, we 
124

1 have eliminated -- you can see the 

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 you 
125

1 need steam to produce the energy. 

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 a 
126

1 very solid means of income for many 

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

1 Sometimes, it's easy to lose sight of the 

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

1 Ms. Cohen, whenever you are ready. 

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 from 
129

1 upstate -- to upstates like Pennsylvania. So 

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

1 But it seems to me, in this case, is 

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 dollars 
131

1 that I got for production of gas off of my 

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

1 Thank you. 

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 Portland 
133

1 Generating Station waft across the Delaware 

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 coal 
134

1 plants, every county in New Jersey has become 

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 the 
135

1 administrator, she might respond and it might 

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

1 and it shows where, for at least one hour in 

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 trajectory 
137

1 analysis. And we have the power plant, and we 

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 same 
138

1 situation when we did the trajectory 

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 the 
139

1 air quality models show are needed. It's what 

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 for 
140

1 there to be one hour and there not be a 

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 with 
141

1 Greenpeace in Washington D.C., where I moved a 

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

1 I heard people worry over how the 

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 to 
143

1 look to one of its new neighbors for 

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 are 
144

1 they here right now feeling its effects, but 

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 make 
145

1 sure that I was used to the air, and that that 

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

1 MR. EGE: My name is Rick Ege. I'm a 

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 Greenpeace 
147

1 USA in Washington D.C. 

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

1 and is not going to wait for us to figure out 

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

1 While we suffer here in New Jersey and 

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 an 
150

1 industry that is on its way to the grave. 

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 the 
151

1 Associate Director of the Air Quality Policy 

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

1 among other places. 

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 to 
153

1 evaluate sulfur dioxide levels in New Jersey. 

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 that 
154

1 these reductions will sufficiently reduce 

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 procedures 
155

1 for the hearing for folks who are commenting. 

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 system 
156

1 today consisting of green, red and yellow 

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

1 Why don't you start whenever you are 

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 some 
158

1 hardships that are beyond their control at 

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 is 
159

1 much fear about its safety, and about a 

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 to 
160

1 coal. 

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

1 After reading over this proposal, I am 

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 Mount 
162

1 Bethel lose their taxable income, however, 

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

1 Mr. Ruga, you can begin whenever you 

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 be 
164

1 significant, is merely a step in the right 

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

1 which is an ecological learning center in 

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 the 
166

1 future are going to have a very, very 

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 the 
167

1 powerful against the sovereign rights of all 

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 heartless 
168

1 now that is needed now in this corporate 

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 in 
169

1 agricultural areas. 

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

1 I urge the EPA to follow through with 

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 out 
171

1 of the plant has been around for a long time. 

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. Installation 
172

1 of pollution control technology will bring 

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 make 
173

1 their livelihood at the plant. 

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 a 
174

1 family on two-incomes let alone one. And if a 

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

1 both of you? 

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 be 
176

1 environmentally friendly. The plant, as you 

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, I 
177

1 appreciate the EPA holding this hearing. I 

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 be 
178

1 lost and those sorts of things. And I don't 

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, given 
179

1 the length of the report. I'll be brief, 

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

1 Secondly, I personally happen to live 

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

1 CHAIRMAN LING: Questions? Thank you 

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 near 
182

1 New Jersey-based power plants. Despite being 

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 maximum 
183

1 speed of expiration, how you breathe out as 

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

1 However, we also have a plant that employs 

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

1 Whenever you are ready, speak clearly 

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 corporations 
186

1 to maybe mitigate some things early on, and in 

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, but 
187

1 natural gas comes out of the ground when you 

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 work 
188

1 together, I think we can do a lot of great 

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 our 
189

1 proposal to grant that petition, and to 

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 is 
190

1 out, we'll hold up a red sign, and I'll ask 

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 sources 
191

1 of air pollution, none presents greater risk 

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 magnitude 
192

1 is appreciated by the general public and the 

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 sulfur 
193

1 dioxide emissions from all power plants in New 

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 fossil 
194

1 fuel for electricity is having profound 

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 a 
195

1 member of the Belvidere Environmental 

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

1 In short, as I said, I came here 

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 there 
197

1 was no clear indication of where this came 

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

1 as the previous person spoke, there are 

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

1 CHAIRMAN LING: The next two speakers 

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

1 So I would like to see you go forward 

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

1 Another disturbing thing is when these 

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 to 
202

1 not pollute the air, not to pollute the water, 

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. And 
203

1 I hope you guys do just that. Thank you. 

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 York 
204

1 State, in all of New Jersey in the Virgin 

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 problem 
205

1 than we even knew. That's really all I had to 

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 contaminate 
206

1 that is coming out. And as we've heard many 

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 that 
207

1 significantly coming from this power plant. 

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 new 
208

1 hotter in terms of SO2 will now just find its 

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

1 They have nine facilities in 

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 a 
210

1 three or four hour ordeal we were on Route 

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

1 I knew that the Portland plant was 

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 who 
212

1 work in the plant will be able to continue 

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

1 Time's gone by. I haven't worked in 

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 I 
214

1 agree with them, but if we can do this in some 

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 

25 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
216

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