1

August 26, 2010 1Statement of Sam Napolitano 2Clean Air Markets Division 3U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4Public Hearing on the Proposed Federal 5Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 6Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 7Radisson Plaza, Warwick Hotel, 8Philadelphia, PA. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 242
MR. NAPOLITANO: Good morning 1and thank you for attending the second of 2three public hearings EPA is holding to take 3comment on the proposed rule, known as the 4“Transport Rule.” We held our first hearing 5in Chicago and we will hold the third on 6September 1st in Atlanta. 7My name is Sam Napolitano, and I 8am the Director of EPAs Clean Air Markets 9Division. I will be chairing today's hearing. 10Joining me on the panel are: Diana Esher of 11EPAs Region 3 Air Protection Division here in 12Philadelphia; Tim Smith, from the EPA's Office 13of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and 14Sara Schneeberg from EPAs Office of General 15Counsel. 16We are here today to listen to 17your comments on EPA's proposal to require 31 18states in the east and the District of 19Columbia to significantly improve air quality 20by reducing their power plant emissions. 21Specifically, this proposal would require 22significant reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) 23and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions that cross 243

state lines. 1These pollutants react in the 2atmosphere to form fine particles and 3ground-level ozone and are transported long 4distances, making it difficult for other 5states to achieve national clean air 6standards. Fine particles and ozone cause a 7series of human health effects and 8environmental damages, including premature 9mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, heart 10attacks, hospitalizations, emergency room 11visits, asthma attacks, acid deposition, 12damage to sensitive forests and coastal 13waters, and impaired visibility at our 14national parks and wilderness areas. 15Emission reductions will begin 16to take effect very quickly, in 2012, within 17one year after the rule is finalized. By 182014, the rule and other state and EPA actions 19would reduce power plant SO2 emissions by 71 20percent over the 2005 levels. Power plant 21emissions or NOX would drop by 52 percent. 22We estimate that by 2014 the 23proposed Transport Rule would prevent 14,000 244

to 36,000 premature deaths annually, as well 1as provide many other health and environmental 2benefits. The portion of the benefits that 3can be quantified total more than $120 to $290 4billion annually in 2014. These benefits far 5outweigh the estimated annual costs of $2.8 6billion. 7The Transport Rule would help 8all but a few areas in the eastern part of the 9United States meet the 1997 fine particle and 10ozone standards. In addition, the rule would 11make major strides towards helping states meet 12the 2006 24-hour average fine particle 13standard. 14EPA is proposing one approach 15for reducing SO2 and NOX emissions in states 16covered by this rule and taking comment on two 17alternatives. 18In the agency preferred 19approach, EPA is proposing to set a pollution 20limit (or budget) for each of the 31 states 21and the District of Columbia. This approach 22allows limited interstate trading among power 23plants that assures that each state will meet 245
its pollution control obligations. 1In the first alternative, EPA is 2proposing to set a pollution limit or budget 3for each state. This option allows trading 4among power plants within a state. 5In the second alternative, EPA 6is proposing to set a pollution limit for each 7state and to specify allowable emission limits 8for each power plant and allow some averaging. 9This proposed rule would replace 10EPAs 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). A 11December 2008 court decision kept the 12requirements of CAIR in place temporarily, but 13directed EPA to issue a new rule to implement 14the Clean Air Act requirements concerning the 15transport of air pollution across state 16boundaries. This action responds to those 17

courts concerns. 18Today we will be accepting oral 19comments on our proposal and we will prepare a 20written transcript of the hearing. The 21transcripts for all three hearings will be 22available as part of the official record for 23this rule and EPA will consider them as we 246
move forward to complete a final rule. 1We are also accepting written 2comments for the proposed rule until October 31, 2010. There is a handout available in the 4registration area with detailed information 5for submitting written comments by mail, fax 6or electronically. 7Now, let me describe how Id like 8to run today's hearing. I will call the 9scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs. 10When it is your turn to speak, please state 11your name and your affiliation. It will help 12our court reporter if you also spell your 13

name. 14In order to be fair to everyone, 15please limit your testimony to five minutes 16each and remain at the microphone until both 17speakers in a pair have finished. 18After you finish your testimony, 19members of the panel may ask clarifying 20questions. If, in addition to the transcript 21of your comments, you would also like us to 22put the full text of your written comments 23into the docket, please be sure to give a copy 247
of any written comments to our staff at the 1registration table. 2We have a timekeeping system 3consisting of green, yellow, and red lights. 4When you begin speaking, the green light will 5come on. You will have five minutes to speak. 6The yellow light will signal that you have one 7minute left to speak. When the red light 8comes, you have then passed the five minutes 9and I will ask you to stop speaking. 10We have a lot of speakers today. 11We intend to stay into the evening until 12everyone has an opportunity to comment. If 13you would like to testify but have not yet 14registered to do so, please sign up at the 15registration table. 16For those who have already 17registered to speak, we have tried to 18accommodate your requests for specific time 19slots. We ask for your patience as we proceed 20through the list of speakers. We may need to 21make some adjustments as the day progresses. 22I want to thank you all again 23for participating today. Lets get started. 248
MR. PAUL MILLER: Good morning. 1My name is Paul Miller. I am Deputy Director 2of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air 3Use Management, otherwise known as NESCAUM. 4NESCAUM is a multi-state organization whose 5members are the state air agencies of 6Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New 7Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island 8and Vermont. 9NESCAUM congratulates EPA on 10issuing the proposed Clean Air Transport Rule. 11We support establishing a framework to address 12transported air pollution that will assist 13states in meeting national ambient air quality 14standards, or NAAQS. Transported air 15pollution continues to have a significant 16impact on NESCAUM states, as we strive to 17achieve clean air. Thus, a framework to 18address it is important to us. 19Today, in 2010, we're discussing 20a proposal to address the 1997 ozone and 21annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 22NAAQS. This proposal is welcomed, but it is 23long in coming. States are already well into 249
planning to further improve air quality and 1build upon past successes that have integrated 2regional approaches with state-based planning. 3Based on our past experiences, 4we urge EPA to promulgate future transport 5rules concurrent with finalizing new national 6air quality standards. This would provide 7states with the critical information they need 8up front to develop and submit approvable 9plans within the required three years after an 10air quality standard is promulgated. The 11result will be timely, effective pollution 12reductions that produce cleaner air sooner for 13the public and the environment. 14We applaud several aspects of 15the proposed framework. We appreciate EPA's 16efforts to align the timing of the transport 17rule's reductions with NAAQS arraignment 18dates. We are pleased that EPA proposes to 19use 1% of a NAAQS concentration as the 20transport linkage criterion. We agree with 21EPA's decision not to use the rounding 22convention to establish 1% of the NAAQS. We 23also support the concept of the variability 2410
provisions that limit interstate trading. 1While we are pleased with the 2many strengths of the proposal, we would be 3remiss not to state some of our concerns. 4First, EPA indicates that this 5rule may not fully satisfy the transport 6requirements of the Clean Air Act for a number 7of states, and a forthcoming second transport 8rule will complete the task. While we 9appreciate EPA's acknowledgement and future 10commitment, we are concerned that this sets a 11precedent of postponing to an uncertain date 12the completion of an essential element needed 13for downwind states to meet a national ambient 14air quality standard by the attainment 15deadline. 16Second, we do not agree with 17EPA's proposed cost threshold of $500 per ton 18of NOX, and are concerned that such a low 19threshold creates regulatory challenges for 20states, who have already implemented 21successful programs at much greater per ton 22costs. We urge EPA to incorporate a higher 23cost threshold more aligned with state 2411

efforts. 1Third, we recognize that 2emissions variability needs to be addressed 3and support the concept of the proposed 4provisions that limit interstate trading. 5However, with the proposed state budgets being 6inadequate to fully address significant 7contribution, an emission variability approach 8needs to include an adequate margin of safety 9in the state budgets such that periods of high 10emissions do not cause significant 11contributions downwind. We also urge EPA to 12require variability provisions to take effect 13in 2012 rather than 2014. 14Fourth, EPA has indicated that 15it did not include non-EGU sources because it 16did not want to delay release of the rule for 17such an evaluation. We appreciate the EPA's 18efforts to release the rule as soon as 19possible, but the omission of non-EGU sources 20results in only a partial solution to 21transport, which underlies our concerns in my 22previous comments. Going forward, we expect 23the EPA to consider all cost-effective 2412
controls from upwind areas, and not just those 1from a single source sector. 2Finally, we anticipate some 3issues with the proposed state budgets, and 4have identified some questionable assumptions 5used in the analysis. Our states will 6document these in our written comments. 7In summary, we look forward to 8EPA speedily promulgating a Transport Rule 9that fully addresses the significant 10contribution prohibition of the Clean Air Act. 11We congratulate EPA in putting forth a 12constructive step towards this goal, and stand 13ready to work with EPA on the necessary future 14steps. 15To this end, we will be 16submitting more detailed written comments and 17recommendations into the docket. Thank you 18for the opportunity to testify today. 19MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 20your remarks. 21JOSEPH PARRISH, JR.: I'm 22Reverend Joseph Parrish, Jr., and my father 23was Joseph Parrish, Senior. He was a director 2413
of power plants engineering and design for the 1TVA until 1973. His plants had only some 2early design scrubbers. 3I testify in his memory and to 4help his lifelong agency to make the air 5cleaner and healthier in Tennessee, Alabama, 6Mississippi, Kentucky and all points north 7including Pennsylvania, where we are; New 8Jersey, where I work; and New York where my 9wife and I have lived for 36 years. 10I chair the Manhattan, New York 11Borough Committee on Environment and Public 12Safety, as well as pastor of a church. In 13Manhattan, the Con-Ed smokestacks are not 14miles away from human lungs like they are in 15parts of Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, 16Kentucky. In Manhattan, the Con-Ed power 17plants are only feet and inches from human 18lungs. Many of the Con-Ed smokestacks were 19built in the 1920s and 1930s when Manhattans 20buildings in the area were largely shorter 21than the smokestacks. 22Now the buildings all around the 23Con-Ed smokestacks, both on the Eastside of 2414
Manhattan and the Westside of the Borough of 1Queens, have greatly exceeded the heights of 2the Con-Ed smokestacks. 3So people living and working in 4Manhattan and Queens, look directly down and 5into the Con-Ed smokestacks. So the effluents 6of these stacks transport directly into 7people's apartments and offices. 8The asthma and lung disease 9rates in that specific area are astounding, 10far higher than even other parts of New York 11City. 12Any additional EPA regulations 13to control SOX and ozone of carbon based power 14plants when finally put into effect will 15directly and immediately improve lung health 16on the eastside of Manhattan that I oversee 17and the westside of Queens. 18Cleaning up power plants will 19save lives. EPA estimates that just the 20reductions in the proposed Transport Rule will 21save between 14,000 and 36,000 lives a year by 22the year 2014. I think that is a low-ball 23estimate. Particle pollution and ozone smog 2415
cause coughing and wheezing, trigger asthma 1attacks, send people to the emergency rooms 2and cause heart attacks and strokes, as well 3as premature death. 4Millions of people are at risk 5from this pollution, including children, 6seniors, those with chronic lung diseases like 7asthma and COPD, and those with cardiovascular 8diseases and diabetes. 9MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 10MR. ALBERT RIZZO: Thank you, I 11am Albert A. Rizzo, M.D. Chief of the Section 12of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the 13Christiana Care Health Systems in Newark, 14Delaware where I practice in a large pulmonary 15critical care/sleep medicine group. I serve 16on the faculty of Thomas Jefferson University 17Medical School here in Philadelphia, and I 18volunteer for the American Lung Association 19and am currently the Chair-Elect of its 20National Board of Directors. 21I am a pulmonary physician who 22specializes in the respiratory system, the 23airways, lungs and their blood vessels. The 2416
respiratory system is different from most of 1the other systems in the body because the 2lungs’ delicate tissues come into direct 3contact with the outside environment. What we 4breathe in affects our lungs, and once there, 5can impact other systems of the body. 6That vulnerability to what we 7breathe in is why we fight so hard for healthy 8air. It is that vulnerability why the 9American Lung Association urges the U.S. 10Environmental Protection Agency to adopt the 11Clean Air Transport Rule, and to make it 12stronger. 13Burning coal produces soot and 14ash, and at the same time emits sulfur 15dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury and other 16substances. The sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 17dioxide are ingredients of two of the most 18widespread and dangerous pollutants in the 19nation, ozone and particulate matter. 20The ozone and particulate matter 21from coal-fired power plants attack the lungs 22in multiple ways. 23When a person inhales ozone, the 2417
ozone reacts chemically with the respiratory 1tissues causing inflammation, like a “sunburn” 2of the lung. Particulates are microscopic 3specks of soot, dust and aerosols that are 4small enough to lodge deeply in the lungs 5where they can cause serious damage. 6Breathing particulate matter and 7ozone can shorten life. They can cause tens 8of thousands of premature deaths each year. 9These pollutants cause coughing, wheezing, 10difficulty breathing and increase the risk of 11asthma attacks and make it more likely that 12people with lung diseases, such as asthma and 13COPD, will need medical care and 14hospitalization, including emergency care. 15Children who regularly breathe 16high levels of ozone may face reduced lung 17function in adulthood. As adults they face 18significantly greater risk of developing lung 19disease later in life as well. 20Particulate matter has 21additional hazards and has recognized threats 22to the cardiovascular system leading to an 23increased risk of heart attack and stroke, as 2418
well as developing lung cancer. 1Making our mission more 2imperative is the fact that these problems 3affect all of us but some more than others. 4The most vulnerable people include children, 5teens, seniors, people with lung disease, and 6people with diabetes. The burden also falls 7hard on people with low incomes who suffer 8disproportionately from the pollutants they 9breathe often because of where they tend to 10live. Healthy adults who work or exercise 11outdoors aren't left out either, as studies 12show that their lungs are measurably affected 13by inhaling these toxic pollutants. 14That's why this proposed rule is 15so important. EPA estimates that cutting 16emissions in these 31 states and in the 17District of Columbia will have profound public 18health benefits each year. The reduction in 19pollution will literally save the lives of 20roughly 14,000 to 36,000 people each year, 21prevent 26,000 admissions to hospitals and 22emergency departments, and 23,000 nonfatal 23heart attacks. Breathing less of these 2419
pollutants will prevent 240,000 asthma 1attacks, and 440,000 cases of acute 2bronchitis. 3As a physician, I know what this 4means to my patients. My patients with asthma 5will have less need of their emergency relief 6medicine and the prospect of a more normal 7quality of life. My patients with chronic 8obstructive pulmonary disease wont suffer 9chest pains and coughing spells and shortness 10of breath as much. They won't have to confine 11their activities indoors as much because the 12air is so dangerous outside. My patients 13won't face increased risk of heart attack and 14stroke. They will not miss work or activities 15they love because they are sick. 16More of them will stay out of 17the hospital and the emergency room. The 18quality of their life and very likely the 19length of their life will improve. Most 20importantly, they will not die simply because 21they breathed the air outside. 22That's how it can be, cleaner 23air, healthier people. We need the help of 2420
this Clean Air Transport Rule to stop millions 1of tons of dangerous pollution from coming 2into Pennsylvania and Delaware. We need to 3clean up our own power plants so we are not 4spreading pollution to our neighbors. 5In fact, we need to clean up 6millions more tons of these pollutants because 7even lower levels of pollution can mean even 8greater benefits. The American Lung 9Association urges EPA to adopt tighter limits 10on ozone than what are proposed in the the 11Rule, to reflect the tighter national air 12quality standards that are coming this year. 13All of us and particularly my 14patients need to breathe less ozone and 15particle pollution. We want the air coming 16across our state line to not add to the burden 17of these pollutants that we already have here 18in Pennsylvania and Delaware. We urge the 19Environmental Protection Agency to quickly 20move to adopt and put in place this important 21tool for our air. 22MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 23

Doctor. 2421

NATALIE McCLOSKEY: I'm Natalie 1McCloskey; this is my husband, Sean; my son 2Sean; Erin, who is asthmatic; Kaylyn; Brendan; 3Dacey, who is asthmatic; Annalivia who is also 4asthmatic. 5As a family living with asthma, 6we have grown accustomed to the daily 7medication schedule to which our lives quite 8literally revolve around and depend on. 9Though, obviously we would rather not depend 10on this routine and the medications in it, it 11does give us a sense of control. By following 12this routine we know we are doing everything 13we can to control our asthma. As soon as we 14walk out of the door, however, things change 15and that sense of control is lost. 16Our family avoids most outdoor 17activities during the summer as air quality 18concerns often cause us to cancel plans or 19have us leave early due to an asthma 20exacerbation. Once August rolls around, those 21challenges are harder to avoid as cheerleading 22season begins. 23Allow me to provide you with a 2422
brief background on our involvement with 1cheerleading. For the last twelve years we 2have participated in our township cheerleading 3program. It plays a huge role in our lives. 4The girls couldn't wait until they were old 5enough to sign up. Currently all five of us 6McCloskey girls are involved in cheerleading 7in some capacity, Erin and I as coaches, and 8the three younger girls as cheerleaders. With 9practices, games and competitions often 10consuming our weekly schedules from August 11until as late as December, our family has 12adopted the motto, "Eat, sleep, cheer, 13repeat." 14It is those August practices 15that cause us a great deal of concern. All 16the practices are held outdoors on the 17township football field, where obviously we 18can't escape from the heat and air quality 19alerts. We do what we can to prevent an 20exacerbation by following our usual routine 21and by taking our inhalers as prescribed 22before exercise, but sometimes, in spite of 23our efforts that "tightness" in our chests, 2423
which can only be described by an asthmatic, 1starts creeping in. 2Ever since the seen started this 3year, Dacey has been coughing. Some of Erin's 4medications were changed in hopes of 5increasing her lower than average lung 6function to no avail. During a practice just 7last week, we had to make several "water 8breaks" during the practice to allow Erin to 9catch her breath when it became apparent that 10she was having difficulty breathing. 11Annalivia, who has the mildest asthma of all 12of us, has been coughing since the season 13started and needed to use her inhaler much 14more than usual. Even I was forced to sit on 15the bench two weeks ago when an asthma attack 16left me gasping for air and unable to even 17walk across the field to get my inhaler. 18What we have endured this summer 19pales in comparison to what my grandmother has 20gone through. As the temperatures began to 21rise and the air quality deteriorated, she 22curtailed her daily excursions as they left 23her out of breath for the remainder of the 2424
day. We all thought that her "venturing out" 1during an ozone alert for a haircut wasn't a 2great idea, but she said she'd be okay. After 3all, she was going from an air-conditioned 4house to an air-conditioned car, driving a 5mere mile to an air-conditioned salon, and 6back. What could possibly happen? Apparently 7enough to trigger a COPD exacerbation that not 8only required an ambulance ride to the ER that 9day, but required a week-long hospitalization, 10followed by a month in rehab to recover. 11Though we support the Clean Air 12Transport Rule, we would love to see stricter 13standards put in place. The technology is 14there. Utilizing only a portion of the 15technology is like letting us only have a 16portion of a breathing treatment. 17Generally speaking, the 18misfortune of one is viewed as a tragedy, 19whereas the misfortune of several is merely a 20statistic. Our family, as well as all other 21Americans with similar struggles, does not 22wish to be viewed as statistics. 23In your final consideration, 2425
please do not lose sight of your mission 1statement: "To protect human health, and to 2safeguard the natural environment, air, water, 3and land, upon which life depends." 4Thank you. 5MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Mrs. 6McCloskey. 7DEBORAH BROWN: I am Deborah 8Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the American 9Lung Association of the Mid Atlantic. We 10serve 23 million people in Delaware, New 11Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia who 12live and work in our region. Thank you for 13the opportunity to share our thoughts on EPA's 14proposed Clean Air Transport Rule. 15Saving lives is central to our 16mission of the American Lung Association. 17This rule will save tens of thousands of 18lives. We are committed to the prevention of 19lung disease and the promotion of lung health 20and this rule will help prevent lung disease 21and promote lung health. 22The American Lung Association 23calls on EPA to not only adopt the framework 2426
of the Clean Air Transport Rule, but to 1strengthen the limits on emissions nationwide. 2We need to provide even basic protection for 3public health. 4Passage of the Clean Air 5Transport Rule will mean fewer people will die 6and more will stay healthy. 7We are pleased that the U.S. 8Environmental Protection Agency has moved 9ahead to help states like Pennsylvania, have 10healthier air for everyone to breathe. This 11Clean Air Transport Rule reduces the tons of 12dangerous pollution that blows here from 13outside the state lines. States cannot 14protect their citizens without the help of the 15Transport Rule to stop that pollution at the 16state line. 17No one knows the need for this 18rule more than those of us who live here in 19the Mid-Atlantic. Delaware Senator, Tom 20Carper said it best when he explained that 21power plant emissions force Mid-Atlantic 22region to be "the tailpipe of the nation." 23Pollution blows into Pennsylvania today from 2427
15 different states. States as far away as 1Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and even 2Alabama send ozone particles here. 3But Pennsylvania power plants 4share their emissions with 15 other states and 5the District of Columbia. Our pollution 6doesn't just go to New York or New Jersey. 7Ozone and fine particle pollution from 8Pennsylvania power plants blows as far away as 9Iowa, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Missouri. This 10rule would require that plants in 31 states, 11including Pennsylvania, cut the pollution they 12send across state lines. 13That pollution is toxic. 14Coal-fired power plants emit millions of tons 15of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. 16Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide are 17dangerous on their own. They are also the raw 18ingredients for ozone and fine particles, two 19even deadlier pollutants. 20Ozone burns our lungs and 21airways, causing them to become inflamed and 22swollen. Ozone causes coughing and wheezing, 23aggravates asthma and increases the risk of 2428
emergency room visits and hospital admissions. 1In fact, breathing ozone can be deadly. 2Children and teens, seniors, 3people with chronic lung diseases, like 4asthma, people with cardiovascular disease and 5diabetics face greater risk from these 6pollutants. Healthy adults who work or 7exercise outdoors, can suffer from breathing 8this pollution. 9As proposed, the rule will 10decrease sulfur dioxide pollution by 72 11percent and nitrogen oxide pollution by 52 12percent. Those aren't just measurements. 13These reductions will save 14,000 to 36,000 14lives each year. They will prevent many heart 15attacks each year and eliminate many visits to 16the emergency room or the hospital. 17EPA should require even more 18reductions. The benefits so far outweigh the 19costs that we can and should require tighter 20reductions. Using this limited cap, EPA 21calculates that the annual benefits total 22between 120 and 290 billion dollars a year by 232014. That's lives saved, as well as the 2429
benefits of the medical care avoided, days not 1missed at work and school and more. By 2contrast, the annual cost in 2014 will be many 3times less, estimated to be 2.8 billion 4dollars a year. 5We have already begun to hear 6that this schedule cannot be met or its too 7expensive. But I'm here to tell you that that 8is simply not true. The control technology is 9widely available and effective. The 10investment in cleaning up even more means that 11we should see even greater benefits, including 12more lives saved each year. 13Too often, however, the critics 14fail to mention that delay means that lives 15are lost each year. Year after year, we at 16the American Lung Association call on 17Environmental Protection Agency to take this 18opportunity to do more to protect the air we 19breath and the lives of generations of our 20families and friends. Thank you. 21MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 22KEVIN STEWART: Good morning. 23I am Kevin Stewart and I serve as Director of 2430
Environmental Health for the American Lung 1Association of the Mid-Atlantic. I represent 2not only the three million people in our 3four-state service area who suffer from 4chronic lung disease, but also the tens of 5millions more who desire to breathe clean air 6and so protect their good health. 7Our oldest predecessor agency 8was founded in 1892 in this very city, to 9fight tuberculosis. We are now dedicated to 10our broader mission of improving lung health 11and preventing lung disease. We are here 12today to testify strongly in favor of the 13proposed Clean Air Transport Rule. To 14underscore the need for the rule, to confirm 15its benefits, and to call for certain 16safeguards and improvements. 17The atmosphere is not infinite. 18The environment does not have an endless 19capacity for absorbing and processing the 20pollution we dump into it. The millions of 21tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides we 22spew into the atmosphere dont just magically 23disappear. They go somewhere. They have 2431
chemical, biological, environmental, and 1physiological fates. Too often the ultimate 2fate is to be breathed in and to precipitate 3adverse health effects ranging from millions 4of days of restricted activity, to hundreds of 5thousands of asthma attacks, to tens of 6thousands of ER visits and premature deaths 7each year. 8I emphasize this so that the 9Administrator, when she is confronted with 10claims, as she will be, that complying with 11the Transport Rule will cost too much, that 12she will always, always remember that we are 13already paying on the order of a couple 14hundred billion dollars every year in lost 15work and productivity, in disease, disability, 16and death. 17Clearly, we have a significant 18problem now. In our service area of Delaware, 19New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, a 20total of no fewer than forty-three counties, 21home to some seventeen million people, are 22already known to be in violation of one or 23more of the air quality standards for ozone or 2432
particle pollution. 1And should the Administrator 2need even more support for standing up to 3forces that would weaken the rule, let me call 4her attention to millions of potential allies. 5We met some this morning. 6In our four states, the 7populations potentially at risk from exposure 8to air pollution includes millions of children 9and elderly, persons with chronic heart and 10lung disease, people with diabetes and those 11living in poverty. Far from being a small 12minority, persons falling into one or more of 13these high risk groups together comprise on 14the order of half the population. 15Every one of these millions is a 16real person, not a nameless statistic. Every 17one of these people is a human being worthy of 18our attention, a neighbor, a coworker, a 19friend, a family member, maybe even oneself. 20We urge the EPA to consider and 21act on the following: We support the essence 22of EPAs preferred approach for setting 23pollution budgets, but EPA must also codify 2433

science-based Environmental Justice 1protections to ensure that these advantages 2are not won on the backs, and in the lungs of 3those most vulnerable and least empowered to 4protect themselves. 5We urge the Administrator to set 6even stronger caps than are currently proposed 7for 2014, for sulfur dioxide, an 80 percent 8reduction to 1.75 million tons per year, and 9for nitrogen oxides, a 68 percent reduction to 10900,000 tons per year. 11Since 11 counties will not be 12expected to meet even old air quality 13standards in 2014, we should take proactive 14steps to address this deficiency now. The EPA 15should be proactive and include the remanded 1675 ppb ozone standard in its evaluation of the 17rules impacts. 18For too many decades, air 19pollution from too many fossil-fueled power 20plants has been regarded as a necessary evil 21about which little could be done. 22Half-measures have been regarded as solutions, 23when the technology for much more significant 2434
pollution reduction has been long available, 1and the only thing lacking was the will to 2require its implementation. The Clean Air 3Transport Rule is clearly the kind of major 4step in the right direction we have been 5waiting for and we applaud EPAs leadership in 6proposing this rule. 7I thank the hearing panel for 8your work here today and am happy to take your 9questions. 10MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 11your remarks. 12MR. ALEXANDER: Good morning, my 13name is Bruce Alexander and I am pleased to be 14here today to provide you with Exelon 15Corporation's initial views on EPA's proposed 16Transport Rule. 17By way of background, Exelon 18Corporation is comprised of Exelon Generation 19Company, the nation's fifth largest generator 20of electric power, ComEd, an electric utility 21serving almost 1.6 million customers in 22northern Illinois; and PECO energy an electric 23utility serving almost 1.6 million customers 2435
in Southeastern Pennsylvania. 1Overall, Exelon supports the 2policy objectives underlying EPA's proposed 3Transport Rule. Specifically power plants in 4the eastern United States need to make 5significant and timely emission reductions of 6nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide to support 7downwind state air quality attainment. Plants 8that have not installed adequate control 9equipment impose a heavy pollution tax on 10businesses and families living in areas 11affected by these emissions. 12For families living in downwind 13areas, the most severe impact is on health. 14We note that EPA estimates that controlling 15emissions will provide between $120 and $290 16billion in healthcare and other benefits in 172014. The low-end value of these benefits is 18almost 43 times greater than EPA's estimated 192014 compliance costs to industry. But beyond 20healthcare impacts, we support EPA because 21these upwind state emissions slow economic 22development in our service areas and hinder 23our ability to build replacement generation. 2436

The PECO and ComEd zones are 1among the most severely affected regions of 2the country. Without the Transport Rule, 3these areas will be unable to meet the current 4air quality standards for fine particulate and 5ozone and are likely to continue in 6nonattainment status, even after the rule is 7implemented. 8As a result, all new economic 9development in our operating areas must meet 10the heightened environmental standards that 11exist for nonattainment areas. Under the NSR 12Program, for example, major emission sources, 13are required to purchase emission reductions 14offsets credits, when they construct or expand 15their business in nonattainment areas. 16Depending on the size of the 17proposed project, ERC purchase requirements 18may represent millions of dollars of 19incremental cost, as compared to costs in 20attainment areas. As an example, ERCs to 21support development of a 600 megawatt combined 22cycle gas plant in the Southeastern 23Pennsylvania nonattainment area would exceed 2437

$5 million. 1So, in effect, dirty generation 2in one part of the country actually hinders 3the development of new clean generation in 4another part of the country. Not only must 5businesses in nonattainment areas purchase 6ERCs for new or expanded operations, but also 7they face ongoing risks to their operations 8under the Clean Air Act if the nonattainment 9area in which they locate fails to meet 10federal air quality standards by the required 11deadline. Each of these adverse economic 12impacts deters businesses from locating in 13nonattainment areas with resulting negative 14tax consequences for state and local 15governments. 16The effect of upwind in the 17electric sector is especially troubling. In 18the PECO zone, for example, electric customers 19and the industry have already taken steps to 20transition to cleaner generation by installing 21pollution controls and have made tough 22decisions to retire some of the dirtiest 23plants. 2438
But because of upwind emissions, 1consumers and industry in the PECO zone 2effectively pay double. They not only paid 3for the costs of installing controls on plants 4in the region, but are also paying a daily 5pollution tax as a result of continuing 6pollution form other regions. Having 7successfully transferred pollution costs for 8so many years, some in our sector argue for 9more delay. EPA should reject these 10arguments. 11The proposed Transport Rule is 12critical to leveling the playing field and 13ensuring that costs are appropriately borne by 14the plants that are causing the problem. 15To ensure downwind states can 16mitigate the negative economic impacts of 17failure to attain federal air quality 18standards, Exelon urges EPA to require 19Transport Rule compliance on the 2012 and 2014 20dates that the agency has proposed. Based on 21EPA's analysis, approximately 14 gigawatts of 22SO2 scrubbers and less than one gigawatt of 23SCR will be required for industry to comply 2439

with the 2014 date. This amount of new 1pollution control retrofits is much less than 2has been implemented in past construction 3cycles on similar timelines. 4With regard to electric system reliability, 5the Transport Rule will not pose any 6significant reliability risks as it will not 7drive significant power plant retirements or 8result in unmanageable pollution control 9retrofit requirements. 10For example, EPA forecasts that 111.2 gigawatts of generating capacity may 12become uneconomic under the Transport Rule. 13However, looking across all NERC regions of 14the country, on a combined basis, there is 15currently over 100 gigawatts of installed 16generating capacity above required reserve 17margins; an amount of excess capacity that far 18exceeds any reasonable forecast of unit 19retirements under the Transport Rule. 20Recently, Exelon joined with 21like-minded utility companies, all of which 22are members of the Clean Energy Group, to 23sponsor a reliability study that considers all 2440

of EPAs rules on a holistic basis. The 1report, entitled, "Ensuring a Clean, Modern 2Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining 3Electric System Reliability," proposes some 4common sense steps that will allow the power 5generation industry to meet all expected new 6EPA air and regulatory requirements on a 7timely basis. 8Thank you for considering 9Exelon's initial comments on the Transport 10Rule. We look forward to submitting more 11detailed written comments to the docket by the 12close of the public comment period. 13MR. NAPOLITANO: Good morning, 14my name is Joe Minnot, I am the Executive 15Director of the Clean Air Council. It looks 16like Bruce stole my testimony here. 17On behalf of the Clean Air 18Council, I want to thank the U.S. EPA for the 19opportunity to comment on the proposed Clean 20Air Transport Rule. 21Clean Air Council is a nonprofit 22environmental and public health advocacy 23organization that seeks to protect everyone's 2441
right to breathe clean air. The Council was 1incorporated in 1967 and operates in 2Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey. 3The purpose of my testimony 4today is to support EPA's proposed Clean Air 5Transport Rule and yet urge that it be even 6more stringent. 7The proposed Transport Rule will 8limit emissions of sulfur oxide and oxides of 9nitrogen in 31 states in the Eastern United 10States and the District of Columbia that 11contribute significantly to non-attainment of 12the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 13downwind states or interfere with the 14maintenance of the National Ambient Air 15Quality Standard with respect to the annual PM 162.5 standard, the 24 hour PM 2.5 standard and 17the ozone standard. 18Pennsylvania is the poster child 19for the Transport Rule. Our western borders 20are invaded by air pollution from neighboring 21states, and yet we are also an exporter of 22pollution. Indeed, even under the proposed 23rule, Western Pennsylvania will not meet the 2442

federal health standards. It cannot do so 1unless EPA tightens the NOX standard. 2Coal-fired power plant 3pollution is hazardous to our health. NOX and 4SO2 contribute to the formation of PM 2.5. 5NOX also contributes to Ozone formation. Both 6PM 2.5 and ozone contribute to premature death 7and serious health problems. I think the 8testimony of the Lung Association was asthma 9in sort of laying out that case. 10By EPA's own estimates this 11proposed rule will result in $120 to $290 12billion dollars in benefits for a program that 13will cost industry, according to the EPA, 14about 2.8 billion dollars. The benefits we 15are talking about are mostly public health 16related. That is, the benefit is in reduced 17human suffering. 18I want to be clear. To most of 19us, EPA's Transport Rule is not about 20protecting visibility in public parks. That 21is important, but to most of us, it is about 22protecting public health. 23Always remember that this rule 2443
is about public health, when you are subjected 1to the anguished cries from those utilities 2that have refused to invest in modern 3pollution controls, as Exelon already as done, 4and are now complaining of the costs or the 5short time compliance time. 6The EPA has done a good job of 7figuring out how to remedy the problems 8identified in the Court's decision in North 9Carolina versus the EPA, which struck down the 10Clean Air Interstate Rule. While the Council 11is mindful of not unnecessarily creating 12financial burdens on industry and their 13attempts to comply with this rule, the EPA is 14wise to limit interstate trading. This will 15ensure that a substantial portion of state's 16assigned emissions reductions occur in that 17

state. 18The Council strongly supports 19EPA's commitment to reviewing whether the 20Transport Rule needs to be tightened each time 21EPA revises an air quality standard. It will 22obviously need to do so, after the new ozone 23standard that is established. By making clear 2444
that this is the EPA policy, major NOX and SO2 1producers are now on notice and can plan 2accordingly. 3The Council supports EPA's 4decision to move the process forward under a 5Federal Implementation Plan, while providing 6states with the option of replacing the FIP, 7the state implementation plan, as long as the 8SIP achieves the required emission reductions. 9Since allowing the state to 10develop a SIP before imposing a FIP is the 11more traditional approach under the Clean Air 12Act, EPA must make clear how a state can move 13forward with the SIP process. 14The Council's biggest concern is 15that the NOX reductions are not adequate to 16truly address the transport issue. EPA should 17revisit the proposed emission caps for NOX and 18make sure they are adequate to ensure that 19areas like Western Pennsylvania can meet the 20federal health standards. 21Thank you for this opportunity 22to testify today. The Council reserves its 23rights to provide more complete comments 2445
during the open comment period. 1MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you very 2much. 3MR. PAUL BILLINGS: Good 4morning, my name is Paul Billings and I am 5Vice President for National Policy and 6Advocacy with the American Lung Association. 7Thank you for the opportunity to testify in 8support of a stronger Clean Air Transport 9Rule. 10Dr. Rizzo presented an overview 11of key lung health issues on behalf of our 12Board. The American Lung Association will 13also be providing extensive technical comments 14on the proposal. Today, I will simply 15emphasize a few key points. 16First, The American Lung 17Association is pleased with EPA's decision to 18create a framework for setting emissions 19reductions under the "good neighbor" 20provisions of the Clean Air Act. Such a 21framework allows EPA to follow a strong, 22logical pathway forward. Under this 23framework, EPA assesses in detail the 2446
contribution from sources in each upwind state 1to the pollution levels in downwind states. 2Such a careful analysis provides strong 3evidence that pollution from these 31 states 4and the District of Columbia harm and burden 5people living in these nonattainment and 6maintenance areas. For example, at least 15 7states contribute to the air pollution problem 8in Pennsylvania. EPA's analysis indicates 9similar situations in many states. The EPA 10analysis is compelling evidence that to have 11clean and healthy air here in Pennsylvania, we 12need clean and healthy air throughout the 13entire region. 14EPA most move the framework 15forward expeditiously. Sadly, the standards 16that form the basis for the calculations are 17out of date. For PM, the proposal 18incorporates the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 19standards, which fail to protect public 20health. EPA is considering new and compelling 21evidence that show those standards should be 22revised and tightened next year. 23Most troubling is the use of the 2447

1997 ozone standard as the basis of the 1proposal. Please allow me to put this 13 year 2old standard in perspective. My youngest 3daughter was born in 1997; next week she 4starts 8th grade. The ozone standard was 5revised in 2008. The 2008 standard, although 6tighter 75 ppb, is also widely recognized as 7inadequate, in being reconsidered and will be 8replaced by the 2010 standard. 9The ozone standard revision has 10been delayed until the end of October. I 11would be remiss, if I did not state our 12extreme disappointment with this delay and to 13remind EPA that delays in setting ozone 14standards have serious and life-threatening 15ramifications. These delays in setting 16standards translate into delays in putting 17clean-up measures in place that can reduce 18ozone and protect the health of millions of 19people. EPA can and should ameliorate some of 20the adverse consequence of the delay in the 21standard revision by moving forward with the 22most protective and strongest transport rule 23that maximizes pollution reductions. These 2448

reductions should ensure that no area is in 1nonattainment for 1997 standard and should 2maximize the number of areas meeting the 75 3ppb level. 4The Clean Air Transport Rule is 5weaker than is needed to address the 6significant interstate air pollution 7transport, leaving areas like New York, 8Houston and Baton Rouge in nonattainment or 9with maintenance issues for the 1997 standard. 10The proposal leaves many areas in 11nonattainment for PM including both 12Pittsburgh, Allegheny County area, and 13Lancaster here in Pennsylvania, as well as New 14York City, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit and 15Houston. We urge the EPA to set stronger 16limits on pollution. We urge that the limits 17should be 900,000 tons of nitrogen dioxide and 181.75 million tons of sulfur dioxide by 2014. 19EPA recognizes that the national 20air quality standards evolve, changing as the 21scientific knowledge grows. And as standards 22are tightened, future transport rules will be 23necessary to address the interstate 2449
contribution to unhealthy air. 1The Clean Air Transport Rule 2cuts some of the most widespread and dangerous 3pollutants in our nation. As proposed, this 4rules will save between 14,000 and 36,000 5lives each year. We urge EPA to strengthen 6the rule to maximize the pollution reductions 7and the resulting health benefits. Thank You. 8MR. SMITH: With respect to 9your suggestion of a 900,000 ton NOX cap, I 10understand that to be a regional number across 11many states. One thing to think about in your 12comments is how you would see that translating 13to what each individual state must do, because 14that is something that we spend a lot of time 15thinking about. 16MR. BILLINGS: I think you will 17see we are working on that, to provide some 18additional information. 19MS. JOYCE EPPS: Good morning, 20my name is Joyce E. Epps, and I am the 21Director of the Bureau of Air Quality in the 22Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 23Protection. On behalf of Secretary John 2450
Hanger, I would like to thank the EPA for 1holding a public hearing in Philadelphia on 2the proposed Transport Rule. 3The Department commends EPA on 4its efforts to remedy the flaws identified in 5the Clean Air Interstate Rule. In spite or 6its "major flaws, " annual NOX emissions from 7electric generating units in Pennsylvania were 8reduced by approximately 64,000 tons in 2009; 9SO2 emissions were reduced by an estimated 10249,000 tons. 11Most areas in the Commonwealth 12are monitoring attainment of the 1997 ozone 13and PM 2.5 national ambient air quality 14standards. I am pleased to report today that 15new modeling shows that Liberty/Clairton Area 16will attain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard by 17December 31, 2013 because of significant 18reductions achieved under CAIR and the 19installation of local controls. 20We believe that the proposed 21rule will allow the Commonwealth continue to 22make great strides in protecting public health 23and the environment. By 2014, EPA projects 2451

that 1,400 to 3,600 PM 2.5 related premature 1mortalities will be avoided in Pennsylvania. 2According to EPA estimates, 3annual benefits for Pennsylvania range from 20 4to 29 billion dollars. These benefits are 5mainly public-health related benefits. 6Overall, the Transport Rule is 7expected to yield more than $122 to $294 8billion in annual health and welfare benefits 9in 2014. At an estimated compliance cost of 10$2.8 billion, the benefits-to-cost ratio range 11from 44 to 1; the benefits of the rule greatly 12exceed the incremental compliance costs. 13We support EPA's approach for 14the Transport Rule, to the extent allowed 15under the Clean Air Act. This approach, which 16provides for intrastate trading and limited 17trading, requires EGU owners and operators to 18achieve actual emission reduction. 19In 2005, EGUs in Pennsylvania 20accounted for approximately 27 percent of the 21NOX emissions and 86 percent of the SO2 22emissions. By 2014, the Transport Rule should 23reduce SO2 emissions from EGUs in Pennsylvania 2452
by approximately 84 percent from 2004 levels 1and 40 percent from 2005 levels. 2However, we are extremely 3concerned that the proposed Transport Rule may 4result in a relaxation of our SIP approved 5annual NOX emission budgets. For example, 6under CAIR the annual NOX budget is 99,000 7tones; whereas under the proposed rule, the 8NOX budget is increased to approximately 9114,000 tons. 10Based on our analysis, this rule 11could allow up to a $4.2 percent increase of 12the annual NOX emissions in the Commonwealth 13and as much as 20 percent increase in our 14ozone season budget from 2009 levels. EGU 15owners and operators must bot be allowed to 16backslide on air quality improvements. The 17final Transport Rule must not contravene the 18anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Air 19

Act. 20I would like to speak briefly to 21several additional concerns. The proposed 22Transport Rule does not provide a complete 23remedy to address transported pollution 2453

because, as EPA acknowledges, the proposal 1does not, "fully quantify all of the 2significant contribution and interference with 3maintenance". 4To date, we have recorded 28 5exceedances of the 1997 ozone standard and 145 6exceedances of the 2008 ozone standard during 7the 2010 ozone season. Failure to strengthen 8the final rule will adversely impact the 9ability of states to attain and maintain the 10ozone and PM 2.5 standards by the prescribed 11deadlines. 12States cannot fully address 13transported pollution, EPA's failure to 14provide a complete remedy may result in the 15filing of additional 126 petitions, which are 16unduly burdensome for EPA and state agencies. 17As directed by the Court, EPA 18must harmonize the compliance dates with 19statutory deadlines. Failure to do so will 20make it difficult for states to satisfy their 21obligations and will delay additional health, 22environmental and social, benefits. 23We will need additional 2454

reductions to come clean with the new October 125th deadline. If EPA adopts a 2010 ozone 2standard of 60 or 65 parts per billion, all 3areas in Pennsylvania with monitored data 4would be designated as non-attainment. 5The adoption of the 2010 ozone 6standard will also require EPA to establish 7tighter budgets in Transport Rule II. EPA 8must also address emissions from non-EGU 9sources including glass melting furnaces, 10cement kilns and industrial, commercial, 11institutional boilers in the 2011 proposal. 12We urge EPA to also adopt and 13implement additional measures to reduce 14emissions from on-road and off-road vehicles, 15which account for approximately 52 percent of 16the NOX emissions in Pennsylvania. 17Thanks again for the opportunity 18to provide testimony on the proposed Transport 19Rule We look forward to working with the EPA 20to address the shortcomings in the rule. 21MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 22Joyce. Thanks for sharing your remarks and 23bringing the Pennsylvania perspective and 2455

challenges that you face. 1MR. THOMAS AU: Good morning, my 2name is Thomas Au. These comments are being 3submitted on behalf of the Clean Air Board of 4Central Pennsylvania. The Clean Air Board was 5formed in the fall of 2005 after over 100 6Cumberland County physicians signed and 7published in the newspaper an open letter 8informing the community of the growing danger 9of ozone and particulate pollution. 10Initially a small group of 11people of faith gathered to support the 12physicians in educating our community and 13advocating for cleaner air. We have grown not 14only to include that faith community, but also 15people in the transportation business, 16teachers, lawyers, parents and the medical 17community. 18Our members include people who 19suffer ailments from breathing polluted air. 20Central Pennsylvania and the Cumberland Valley 21are at the receiving end of an ozone and fine 22particulate transport corridor which 23originates hundreds of miles away. 2456
Even on days when air quality 1action alert has not been declared, people who 2suffer respiratory problems can be adversely 3affected by poor air quality. 4The rule will require power 5plants to install pollution control technology 6in states in the East, Midwest and Southeast. 7Electric degeneration units emit much of these 8pollutants that reside in the atmosphere and 9they must be reduced if we hope to reduce the 10burden of ozone smog and particle pollution. 11According to the EPA summary, 12the rule and technology implemented by 13electric utilities will result in sizable cuts 14in two dangerous pollutants, bringing down 15sulfur dioxide pollution levels by 71 percent 16and nitrogen oxide pollution by 52 percent. 17On May 10, 2010, the American 18Heart Association issued a revised scientific 19statement about the link between air pollution 20and heart disease and death. According to the 21AHA, the scientific evidence linking air 22pollution to heart attacks, strokes and 23cardiovascular death has been substantially 2457

strengthened. 1The new conclusions state, 2exposure to PM less than 2.5 in diameter over 3a few hours to weeks can trigger 4cardiovascular disease, related mortality and 5nonfatal events. Longer term exposure, a few 6years, increases the risk for cardiovascular 7mortality to an even greater extent that 8exposures over a few days and reduces life 9expectancy, within more highly exposed 10segments of the population by several months 11to a few years. 12Reduction in PM levels are 13associated with decreases in cardiovascular 14mortality within a timeframe as short as a few 15years, and many credible pathological 16mechanisms have been elucidated that lend 17biological plausibility to these findings. 18It is the opinion of the writing 19group, the 14 doctors and researchers who sign 20the statement, that overall evidence is 21consistent with a causal relationship between 22relationship between PM 2.5 exposure and 23cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This 2458
is published in Circulation, 2010. 1Research into the transport of 2air pollution indicates that large weather 3patterns play a major role in the buildup of 4pollution originating from distant sources. 5PM 2.5 concentration and local 6synoptic meteorological conditions examined 7for the area around Carlisle, Pennsylvania 8suggests that winds and weather patterns 9transporting pollution into Pennsylvania play 10a large role during the days when the 24 hour 11PM 2.5 standard is not met. 12The Court of Appeals' ruling in 13North Carolina versus EPA found that the Clean 14Air Interstate Rule's permit trading program 15did not contain absolute emissions limits for 16individual sources, thereby technically 17allowing individual sources in upwind states 18to increase emissions by buying emissions 19allowances. 20The proposed EPA rule aims to 21remedy the identified flaws. We hope this 22proposed rule, as administered, will set real 23emission reductions for each state. 2459
Within this framework, we hope 1that trading allowances do not interfere with 2downwind attainment. We understand that it is 3a complex task to process the data and 4resulting ambient concentrations of fine 5particulate and ozone. 6In implementing this proposal, 7EPA must ensure that there are tangible 8emission reductions by electric generating 9units and reduced levels of ambient fine 10particulate and ozone. Thank you. 11MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 12MR. SCOTT LOREY: Good morning. 13My name is Scott Lorey. I am the Legislative 14Director for the Adirondack Council. The 15Adirondack Council is a 501 (c) 3 16not-for-profit environmental organization 17dedicated to ensuring the ecological integrity 18and wild character of New York's Adirondack 19Park. With offices both inside the Park and 20in New York's capital city of Albany, the 21Adirondack Council is the largest advocacy 22organization working full time to protect the 23Adirondacks. The Council was formed in 1975 2460

And we have thousands of members worldwide, 1including in each of the 50 states, the 2District of Columbia and on five continents. 3The Adirondack Park is the 4largest park, state or federal, in the 5continental United States. The six million 6acre park is a mixture of public and private 7lands. 8Acid rain continues to destroy 9the forests, waters and wildlife of the 10Adirondack Park. The high elevation red 11spruce forests have been destroyed. Sugar 12maple tree growth has been stunted. More than 13700 lakes are too acidic to support their 14native fish populations. 15New York State has already acted 16to reduce its own emissions. In 1984, New 17York became the first state in the nation to 18address acid rain by passing a law limiting 19the emissions from its own power plants. In 202003, New York ratcheted down its in-state 21emissions again with its toughest-in-the 22nation regulations requiring steeper 23reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 2461

oxides. 1Unfortunately, New York cannot 2protect the Adirondack Park alone. Pollutants 3from outside our state are carried by 4prevailing winds and fall in the Adirondacks 5as acid deposition. 6Six and a half years ago, the 7Adirondack Council testified at three 8simultaneous hearings held by the EPA in 9Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham on 10the Interstate Air Quality Rule. This rule 11later became known as the Clean Air Interstate 12Rule or CAIR. We supported that rule, 13although we believed it could be improved. 14Today, we are back with similar sentiments for 15the new Transport Rule. 16We believe that the 17Environmental Protection Agency is taking 18appropriate actions to address shortcomings in 19CAIR that were outlined by the U.S. Circuit 20Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 21in 2008. We appreciate the efforts of the EPA 22to quickly respond to the Court's ruling and 23propose the Transport Rule. We are also happy 2462

that several of our concerns from 2004 have 1been addressed, including further reductions 2in the levels of pollution, shrinking the 3timelines for reduction and dealing with the 4glut of banked allowances that have 5accumulated over the last 15 years. 6We support strong nitrogen 7emission reduction on a year-round basis. In 8the Adirondacks, nitrogen builds up in the 9winter snow pack and with the spring snowmelt 10contributes heavily to the episodic 11acidification of our lakes and streams. There 12is substantial science that the saturation of 13nitrogen in soils has played a role in the 14depletion of the essential minerals from 15forest soils in much of the northeastern 16United States. A study published by the 17Hubbard Brook Research Foundation in 2003 18entitled, Nitrogen Pollution: From the 19Sources of the Sea, provides details about the 20impact of nitrogen pollution. 21We urge the EPA to use a 22stronger baseline for NOX emissions than the 231997 NAAQS standard. At a minimum, EPA should 2463
use the more stringent 2008 standard, and 1update the Transport Rule when a new standard 2is put in place, hopefully later this year, 3although that is now uncertain. 4The timetable proposed for 5implementation of the new rule is aggressive, 6but capable of being met. We strongly 7recommend against extending these timelines. 8Many companies have already installed 9scrubbers or other pollution control equipment 10in order to meet the requirements of the first 11phase of CAIR. As the second phase of CAIR 12was scheduled to go into effect in 2015, 13moving up the deadline by only one year will 14not cause undue hardships to the energy 15companies, but will have an environmental 16benefit by speeding up the recovery in 17sensitive places like the Adirondack Park. 18We applaud the EPA's efforts to 19limit interstate trading as well. Since 2000, 20Adirondack Council has advocated for action to 21limit New York's unused allowances from being 22sold to upwind utilities and sent back to us 23in the form of acid rain. 2464

In 2000, the Adirondack Council 1distributed the chart on the screen that 2depicts data from a GAO report on which states 3were buying and selling SO2 allowances. Green 4states like New York were selling extra 5allowances, while red states like Ohio and 6Indiana were purchasers of th excess credits 7from other states. 8In 2000, we persuaded the New 9York State Legislature to pass a law that 10created a financial disincentive for cleaner 11New York utilities when they sold their 12leftover SO2 allowances to upwind states. 13State Senator Carl Marcellino, 14Environmental Conservation Committee Chair at 15the time had a memorable quote when discussing 16this legislation. The state law was 17eventually over-turned, but it demonstrated a 18need to do something about upwind states. 19By limiting interstate trading 20and giving each state its own budget for 21pollution reductions based on its contribution 22to nonattainment in downwind areas, EPA has 23adequately addressed New York's concern which 2465

has been a problem for over a decade. 1With over 12 million allowances 2currently in the bank, it is apparent that our 3calls for lower caps and ways to reduce the 4bank are needed immediately. By EPA creating 5a new scheme and not allowing Title IV SO2 6allowances to be used as part of this program, 7you are rightly correcting a major flaw. In 8addition, we suggest that you establish a 9discounted rate for banked NOX allowances, 10either at a 3:1 or 4:1 reaction. 11In conclusion, the Adirondack 12Council strongly supports the Transport Rule 13and commends EPA for those actions, but we 14believe more can and should be done to protect 15public health and the environment. We urge 16the EPA to look for opportunities to implement 17the program with even deeper reductions in 18nitrogen oxides. Thank you for the 19opportunity to comment here today. 20MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 21

your concerns. 22
MR. EDWARD DOYLE: I'm an 23occupational medicine physician and a member 2466
of the American Lung Association, Atlantic 1Board. I am here to say, unfortunately, just 2a few words. I am also a relative member of 3Environmental Research and Medicine, and the 4U.S. Navy Medical Department, Medical 5Surveillance Occupational Clinics. In other 6words, I spent a lifetime trying to prevent 7environmental and occupation illnesses in 8groups and in individuals. 9I am happy to have a chance to 10speak. I am going to be presenting a more 11lengthy written testimony later, because it's 12not fully ready. Here are some highlights of 13what I have to say. 14I am excited and really happy to 15see what the EPA is doing in limiting 16transportable pollutants, sulfur dioxide and 17nitrous oxide. 18I anticipate that it would be 19small, very small articulates that would be 20better effective. It was the plastics 21division and plastics back 25, 30 years ago in 22public health and respiratory and 23cardiovascular disease particulates, 2467
especially more referable ones that seem to 1have greater potential for biological 2additivity. 3Public health professionals and 4everybody in this room probably knows that 5respiratory diseases, namely asthma, COPD, 6have been increasing in the charts, so there 7is a big concern with that. 8Also another fact is, there's a 9synergy that has been well shown back where I 10came from initially, in Southern California, 11interacting with ozones and interacting with 12particulates causing lung cancer that was 13being shown in population studies. 14I think the reason the 15transportable control is so important, 16something that the EPA can do, is to force 17engineering and other changes. We know the 18states have been doing a lot of work in 19secondhand smoke, which is another 20particulate, as well as environmental problem. 21Communities have made a lot of 22progress both in smoke free areas and also 23mobile source of pollution, and that has been 2468
important. But this is one that is bigger 1than the states and communities can handle. 2I come from West Virginia where 3we are concerned about the local effects of 4the production itself, although it has nothing 5to do with the EPA ruling, but it would be 6nice to see some of the older energy 7generating -- being forced to comply with 8regulations to some of the newer ones are 9facing, simply because there are problems that 10impact the use of coal in communities. The 11stacks get higher. People in our neighborhood 12have problems with asthma and bigger problems 13generating from the transporter. 14The only other thing I want to 15says is that, I heard another gentleman speak 16earlier, epidemiology and population is hard, 17so the EPA has faced tricky hurdles because 18they have to include economic benefit. And 19there's a lag between the data coming out and 20what is really happening. 21But in retrospective review, I 22think there's some lung data from the early 2390s quoting doctors in the New England 2469
Journal, made some pretty startling 1observations about what a PM 2.5 reduction in 2cardiovascular disease and lung cancer 3mortality. The datas aren't as strong or 4significant for respiratory diseases. I hope 5the EPA looks at those data and the latest 6information. 7MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 8your time. We have that data and are working 9on a lot more. 10MR. JOSHUA ELLWEIN: My name is 11Joshua Ellwein. I'm a principal engineer with 12Tampa Electric Company (TEC). Tampa Electric 13is a mid-sized utility located in Florida 14utilizing a balanced fuel mix of approximately 15half coal and half natural gas. This blend 16helps us provide our rate payers the most 17reliable and affordable electric energy 18possible. 19Particularly during this time of 20year, hurricane season, we are especially 21sensitive to the needs to have a diverse 22generation fuel supply in order minimize, to 23the extent possible, any fuel supply chain 2470
disruptions caused by hurricane activity. 1Tampa Electric has recently completed a $1.2 2billion initiative to reduce emissions. 3This initiative has helped to 4reduce our system-wide SO2 and NOX emissions 5each by 90 percent from 1998 levels. I would 6like to take this opportunity to compliment 7EPA in its effort to post on its website quite 8a number of the documents used to support the 9Transport Rule development. However, we are 10still unable to determine how the allocation 11spreadsheet inputs are related to one another 12and are utilized in determining the models 13outputs. 14One suggestion, please provide 15the links within the spreadsheets, unless only 16macros are used, to help us follow along the 17allocation logic. We believe the models 18outputs can be used as a powerful tool to aid 19in the development of the Transport Rule, but 20it should not be a definitive artifact in the 21formation of the rule and determining states 22emission budgets. EPA has already identified 23that a number of data errors exist in the 2471
model. These errors can have potentially 1dramatic impacts on the results of the model. 2Just within our mid-sized 3electric generation fleet, a number of model 4input assumption errors have been identified. 5Examples of the types of errors found include: 6Allocating different emission budgets to 7identically sized and controlled units, or 8dispatching the same unit differently for 9estimated NOX and SO2 future emissions and 10consequential downwind effects. 11Tampa Electric will separately 12submit to EPA all model discrepancies we've 13identified. We also find it curious the model 14finds that emissions generated in Florida have 15downwind effects in Georgia and Texas for 16ozone non-attainment, but does not have an 17effect on Louisiana or Alabama. This seems to 18be evidence of the need to use human judgment 19in interpreting the model. Don't just assume 20the output is wholly infallible. 21Tampa Electric urges EPA to 22include the benefits gained from the emission 23reductions already instituted as a result of 2472
the CAIR interim program. 1Tampa Electric would also like 2to take this opportunity to express its 3preference for utilizing EPAs alternative 4proposal to use the heat input-based 5allocation method, rather than the wholly 6emissions based ones. 7Using heat input would likely 8result in less of an allowance shortage for 9those who made early emission reductions and 10help mitigate the referenced allocation 11errors. Tampa Electric, who as previously 12stated has a 50/50 split of natural gas and 13coal generation, has made significant 14investments in emission reductions. 15I would like to use this as an 16example. For the year 2009, accounts for 17nearly 15 percent of the Florida state total 18heat input in for Acid Rain units, but only 5 19percent of Florida's SO2 emissions. 20Under the proposed Transport 21Rule allowance allocation, Tampa Electric may 22or may not have enough allowances to cover its 23current generation needs, even though $1.2 2473
billion was spent to reduce emissions and 1fully control all units. 2The proposed Transport Rule may 3not have specifically touched the Acid Rain 4allowances, but has certainly affected their 5value and any banking strategies by utilities 6that have committed to early reductions. 7These useless allowances are an additional 8cost born by the rate payers, first for the 9emissions reduction controls installed and now 10the inability to recoup fuel cost savings. 11EPA should not include Florida as a Group one 12state. Minimal contribution from Florida 13sources can be attributed to downwind states, 14CAIR controls have not been properly reflected 15in projected emissions, and other model input 16inaccuracies can account for greater 17variability in the models output than 18verifiable point source emissions contribution 19to nonattainment areas. 20As a result, Florida based 21generating utilities and rate payers may have 22to bear additional costs without definitive 23environmental gains. Greater contribution to 2474
nonattainment areas may be attributed to local 1sources such as mobile sources rather than 2interstate emission transportation from 3Florida. 4Tampa Electric does support the 5EPAs preferred approach, which allows limited 6interstate trading among its power plants but 7assures that each state will meet its 8pollution control obligations. 9I would like to thank the panel 10for this opportunity to speak to you today. 11MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 12your comments. I ask that you provide us a 13detailed written copy. 14MANDY WARNER: My name is Mandy 15Warner and I am a Policy Analyst with 16Environmental Defense Fund, a non-partisan, 17non-profit environmental organization with 18more than 700,000 members nationwide. Thank 19you for the opportunity to testify today. 20The Proposed Rule is an 21important step in protecting public health and 22the environment. However, given the 23substantial benefits of reducing emissions, 2475

stronger standards can and should be set. EDF 1respectfully requests that the EPA 2significantly strengthen the limits on sulfur 3dioxide and nitrogen oxide in order to further 4improve the health and lives of millions of 5Americans. 6EDF technical analysis on health 7effects attributable to emissions of SO2 and 8NOX demonstrates the need for Health 9Protective Standards. Independent technical 10analysis prepared for EDF used 2009 facility 11specific emissions data for electricity 12generating facilities and from EPA's Clean Air 13Markets Data and Maps website. The analysis 14estimates that the SO2 and NOX emissions 15discharged from eastern power plants are 16associated with 23,000 to 60,000 deaths, 3.1 17million lost work days, 800,000 cases of lower 18and upper respiratory symptoms and over 18 19million cases of acute respiratory symptoms 20each year. 21As it stands, the emission 22limits in the Proposed Rule will make progress 23in saving lives, avoiding lost work days and 2476
preventing cases of lower and upper 1respiratory symptoms. However, given the 2serious health impacts of SO2 and NOX 3emissions, strengthened standards to further 4protect public health are imperative. 5To illustrate the benefits of 6strong emissions limits, let look at 7Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, the costs of 8SO2 and NOX emissions in terms of health and 9economic damage are high. According to the 10American Lung Association, an estimated 11100,000 adults and 34,000 children in 12Philadelphia County suffer from asthma. 13Statewide, an estimated 758,000 adults and 14224,000 children have asthma. 15According to EPA's Environmental 16Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program, the 17human health benefit of reducing just one ton 18of SOX from an electric generating unit in the 19Philadelphia area is $85,000 per year. The 20Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reported over 21570,000 tons of SO2 emissions alone could 22total $39 billion or more annually. 23In sum, the health and economic 2477
impacts on Pennsylvania and the rest of the 1United States from SO2 and NOX pollution are 2significant. We respectfully request that the 3EPA establish substantially more rigorous 4limits on SO2 and NOX by 2014 in order to 5prevent more premature deaths, further reduce 6lost work days and protect the millions of 7Americans who suffer from asthma and 8respiratory symptoms. 9Thank you again for the 10opportunity to testify. 11MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 12Mandy. 13MR. TAD ABURN: Good morning. 14My name is Tad Aburn, and I am the Director of 15the Air and Radiation Management 16Administration of Marylands Department of the 17Environment, as well as the Criteria 18Pollutants Committee Co-Chair of NACAA, the 19National Association of Clean Air Agencies. 20Thank you for the opportunity to 21testify today. I am here to present the views 22of NACAA which is the association of air 23pollution control agencies in 52 states and 2478
territories and over 165 major metropolitan 1areas across the country on EPAs proposal to 2limit interstate transport of emissions of 3nitrogen oxide, NOX and sulfur dioxide, SO2 in 432 states, which I will refer to as the 5Transport Rule. 6NOX and SO2 emissions contribute 7to fine particulate matter, PM 2.5 and ozone 8pollution, which cause significant public 9health problems, including premature deaths, 10infant mortality, nonfatal heart attacks, 11hospital admissions for respiratory and 12cardiovascular issues, and emergency room 13visits for asthma. Electric power plants the 14sources proposed to be controlled under the 15Transport Rule represent 70 percent of SO2 16emissions and 20 percent of NOX emissions in 17the 32 states covered by the rule and thus are 18significant contributors to ozone and PM 2.5 19pollution. 20Controlling these sources is 21highly cost effective; EPAs own analysis shows 22a 40 to 1 and up to a 100 to 1 23benefit-to-cost ratio for the power plant 2479
controls in the Transport Rule. Accordingly, 1this rule provides EPA with a tremendous 2opportunity to assist state and local air 3pollution control agencies throughout the 4eastern half of the United States with meeting 5their clean air obligations. 6It is difficult to fully assess 7the impacts of EPAs proposed Transport Rule 8since the agency's overall program to address 9transport is split into two phases, and the 10details of the full program will not be 11available until EPA finalizes Transport Rule 12ll notwithstanding this, NACAA has undertaken 13a preliminary assessment of EPA currently 14proposed Transport Rule, which I will share 15with you today. 16We will provide substantive 17comments on the agency's proposal during the 18formal comment period. I'd like to first 19share with you several of the positive 20features of the proposed rule that we have 21identified. We applaud EPA for thoughtfully 22considering how to remedy the “fatal flaws” 23identified by the court decision striking down 2480

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 1For example, we are encouraged 2by EPAs provisions limiting interstate 3trading. These will ensure that a substantial 4portion of a states assigned emissions 5reductions occur in that state (rather than 6through the purchase and use of out-of-state 7allowances to achieve compliance deadlines 8with attainment deadlines for the 1997 ozone, 91997 PM 2.5 and 2006 PM 2.5 air quality 10standards. 11NACAA also supports the agency's 12use of air quality factors and a health 13benefits assessment in calculating states 14emissions budgets, rather than basing the 15budgets solely on the availability of highly 16cost-effective controls. 17Furthermore, at this time the 18proposed SO2 caps especially the tightened 192014 cap appear to be sufficiently stringent 20to meet most states needs. We are also 21pleased that EPA has committed to quickly 22finalizing a second Transport Rule, Transport 23Rule ll in recognition that much tighter NOX 2481
caps will be needed to address the pending 1revision to the 8-hour ozone standard. 2NACAA strongly supports EPA's 3pledge to review whether a new or revised 4Transport Rule is needed each time it revised 5and air quality standard. 6I would now like to turn to 7several important areas of the rule that NACAA 8believes need to be strengthened. In our 2004 9comments on the proposed CAIR, NACAA concluded 10the following: While EPA has taken an 11important first step to address transport, we 12are still concerned that the agency has not 13done enough. We believe the compliance 14deadlines are too long, the emissions caps are 15too weak, and an insufficient 16number of sources are covered. 17Unfortunately, six years later, 18many of these concerns remain unaddressed. In 19the Preamble to the proposal, the agency has 20expressed a willingness to further examine 21these areas in the second Transport Rule. 22However, we believe at least some of these 23concerns should be addressed in this rule 2482
making effort. 1For example, the NOX emissions 2caps in the proposed Transport Rule are not 3stringent enough. While EPA proposes to lower 4the SO2 cap in 2014, the agency makes no such 5adjustment for NOX. Instead, EPA proposes to 6keep the same overly-generous NOX cap for 2014 7that is proposed for 2012. This is especially 8problematic because EPAs Transport Rule still 9leaves several areas vulnerable to interstate 10transport problems even under the ozone 11standard of 85 parts per billion, adopted in 121997, let alone the proposed 60-70 ppb EPA 13revised the ozone standard in 2008, lowering 14it to 75 ppb. 15However, implementation of that 16standard was stayed while EPAA reconsiders the 17standard. EPA has proposed a range of 60-70 18ppb. Since the 2008 standard was stayed, state 19and local air agencies are not developing 20range EPA is considering. Although EPA says 21it will address the NOX reductions needed to 22meet the soon-to-be promulgated revised 23ozone standard in Transport Rule ll, it is 2483
imperative that the agency include in this 1Transport Rule a second, tighter NOX cap in 22014 to assist states in attaining the 85 ppb 3ozone standard. 4Then, as EPA plans, the agency 5should turn to the forthcoming ozone standard 6and promulgate a far more stringent NOX cap in 7Transport Rule ll that achieves the maximum 8emissions reductions that are technologically 9feasible and cost effective to ameliorate the 10entire transport problem associated with the 11revised ozone standard. 12In addition, the Transport Rule 13fails to include all sources that contribute 14significantly to transport, such as 15industrial, commercial and institutional 16boilers, and cement kilns. These additional 17source categories represent a significant 18percentage of the states NOX and SO2 emissions 19inventories and also contribute to interstate 20transport problems. 21We recognize that to include 22these sources, EPA would need to repropose 23Transport Rule l, which, in the interest of 2484
time, we do not support. Thus, EPA must 1address these source categories as well when 2it proposes its Transport Rule ll. 3Furthermore, EPAs analysis in 4the Transport Rule is not complete. There are 5dozens of states that will need to do more in 6order to satisfy their Clean Air Act 7obligation to address transport: More 8specifically, there are 10 states for which 9the agency has “only quantified a minimum 10amount of emissions reductions needed” for the 111997 ozone standard and “15 states for which 12the agency has not completely quantified total 13significant contribution or interference with 14maintenance” for the 2006 PM 2.5 standard. 15We are disappointed that after 16spending a year-and-a-half to analyze 17interstate transport,EPA presents us with an 18incomplete solution. 19Finally, and very critically, 20NACAA urges EPA to finalize Transport Rule ll 21quickly. EPA must promulgate a second 22Transport Rule no later than 2012 if the 23agency is indeed serious about helping state 2485
and local air pollution control agencies to 1address interstate Transport, meet their 2statutory obligations under the Clean Air Act 3and to ultimately attain the health-based 4standards. 5In short, EPA is asking state 6and local air pollution control agencies to 7place a tremendous amount of faith in the 8agency's ability to quickly promulgate a 9strong and effective Transport Rule ll. We 10look forward to working with the agency to 11accomplish this important goal. Thank you for 12this opportunity to comment. I am happy to 13take any questions. 14MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 15your remarks. 16MR. JIM BLACK: My name is Jim 17Black and I live in Northeast Philadelphia but 18I grew up on a farm in the Finger Lakes region 19of upstate New York. The reason I am speaking 20to you today is because of something we have 21all lost. Some of my early and fondest 22memories are fishing with my father and 23grandfather. A very important part of those 2486
memories besides the sound of water and seeing 1sunlight filter through the trees, besides all 2of that my, fondest memories are of the flavor 3-- a very important part of our tackle was a 4black frying pan, fish so fresh with a flavor 5you'd never forget. 6It may be that even in those 7days most fish weren't safe to eat, but we 8didn't know that. In the 70s, we were warned 9by New York State not to eat the trout or 10salmon unless you removed bad portions around 11the head and spine, and not to eat any of the 12fish sometimes, and only once a month on ones 13you could eat. The frying pan started to be 14left at home. 15When I raised my children, we 16didn't eat any of the fish. Catch and release 17fishing may be fine for an adult, but for a 18kid, it loses something visceral. 19My kids are not as passionate 20about fishing as I am. They will go with me, 21but they are not fisherman. As a society, we 22lose something when we can no longer return to 23nature for a physical sustenance. 2487
Philosophically, you may be able to return to 1the forest to renew your soul, but it's not 2the same, especially for children. 3This brings me to why I am 4addressing you. Why can't we fish in streams, 5it's because of the pollution that is 6literally weighing down on every hill and 7valley throughout the region. 8Now that I have grandchildren, I 9would like to hold out the hope that by the 10time they are my age, they will be able to 11take their grandchildren out fishing and not 12only still catch fish, but to not even have to 13wonder if they are safe to eat. 14Please, approve the new 15Transport Rule to reduce the pollution that is 16poisoning us all. Thank you. 17MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 18Jim. 19MR. MENKES: Thank you to the 20EPA for all of this. As someone who is still 21breathing, I appreciate whatever help you can 22give us. My name is Larry Menkes. I am a 23volunteer with the Environmental Advisory 2488
Council, The Del Val Green Building Council 1and other organizations. I am speaking here 2as a private citizen who must breathe the air 3in this region. My parents are both dead from 4respiratory illnesses. I used to be a 5paramedic when I worked up in Connecticut, and 6saw first-hand the acute suffering of 7respiratory illnesses. 8In 1985, my doctor told me to 9quit smoking. I intend to put a personal face 10on the health effects of the issues. I quit 11smoking in 1987 because I was at risk of 12chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 13Last year I had a series of lung 14tests that told me that I was now in the 15moderate range possibly of chronic obstructive 16pulmonary disease. I asked the doctor, how 17could that be, I stopped smoking 23 years ago. 18He said, well, I still breathe 19the air around here and this is very bad air 20for me. So it seems to me that I am breathing 21the air that is the dump for the power plants. 22There's no doubt that there are serious health 23effects from this. 2489

If each power plant would take 1our township's emissions and dump it on the 2front of the township lawn, they'd probably 3get arrested for a variety of crimes. If they 4blew their high daily dose of emissions in my 5face, they would be arrested for assault with 6deadly intent. 7But because they blow it out of 8a smokestack, it's hard to trace the pollution 9after that, they can get away with it. 10Our air is commons. We all have 11a right to clean air. Here's how we do it, we 12privatize profits, like generating electricity 13and commonize the cost. This has got to stop. 14This has got to be exposed. The cost and 15health effects of 100 or so polluters really 16effects the lives of millions of people over 17this region. This hurts people like me. It 18drives up my health cost and I can barely 19afford it right now. 20If we had the Clean Air Act Now, 21the air protected now, we would be up in arms 22that the EPA would allow this much pollution. 23But I do think it's necessary to get to this 2490

rule. 1Finally, I would like to address 2the waste of energy in this country. We waste 3half of the energy that we use. This waste 4can and must be eliminated to be more as part 5of the program, to be more emissions free and 6to reduce the demand in their quest to sell 7

energy. 8It's cheaper for electrical 9generator companies to help reduce, than it is 10to build a new power plant. I would urge you 11to address this by requiring this philosophy. 12We are almost out of time in 13addressing the most serious problems, air 14pollution and the tragedy of the commons. 15Thank you all. 16MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 17NICK ROGERS: My name is Nick 18Rogers. I am a competitive cyclist and an 19asthmatic who lives in Philadelphia and spends 20most of my time outdoors. I am a strong 21supporter of the proposed EPA Transport Rule, 22and hope my testimony today can help the EPA 23go forward with its implementation. 2491

As someone who suffers from 1asthma and spends most of my days outside, 2especially during the summer when ozone levels 3are already high, I am at a higher risk of 4health problems caused by air pollution than 5others. It is especially important to me to 6protect my health because of cycling. 7I spend hours every day training 8outside on my bike and am constantly subjected 9to the poor air quality in Pennsylvania. I 10race my bike against other athletes who take 11impeccable care of their health. My lungs 12need to be physically up to the task every 13weekend of being pushed to the limit. When 14air pollution from coal plants causes me to 15suffer from lung problems and prevent me from 16performing at 100 percent, it takes all the 17hard work I have done and makes it obsolete. 18More important than my athletic 19performance being affected by pollution from 20coal plants is the serious impact this 21pollution has on my health. The reduced 22pollution from the Transport Rule is expected 23to save 14,000 to 36,00 lives each year. The 2492
Transport Rule is predicted to prevent 26,000 1hospital and ER admissions and 240,000 asthma 2attacks each year. 3I am strongly urging the 4adoption of the Transport Rule. I fear that 5if it isn't adopted, my life might be one of 6those that could have been saved with the help 7of this reduced pollution. 8My high risk for serious lung 9problems as an asthmatic and a cyclist makes 10it crucial to me that the EPA tightens 11restrictions on dirty power plants. 12Otherwise, I, and people like me, will cost 13the government and private insurance companies 14billions of dollars in health care costs; and 15cause tragedies to families burdened by the 16loss of a loved one because of this pollution. 17Ozone burns my lungs and 18airways, causing them to become inflamed, 19reddened and swollen. Particles lodge deep 20inside my lungs where they threaten my 21breathing, my heart and my life. 22Cleaning up power plants is 23critically important because particle 2493
pollution and ozone smog cause coughing and 1wheezing, trigger asthma attacks, send people 2to the emergency room, and cause heart attacks 3and strokes, as well as premature death. 4I think the EPA should do even 5more. EPA should set a much tighter national 6limit on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide 7emissions. EPA needs to require even greater 8clean up. The control technology is widely 9available and very effective. The investment 10in cleaning up even more means that we seen 11even greater benefits, including more lives 12saved each year. 13Thank you for giving me the 14opportunity to testify about this important 15issue today. It is my request that the EPA 16please go forward with the proposed Transport 17Rule and protects everyone's health and air 18quality, especially those like myself with a 19higher risk of health problems. 20MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 21MS. SARA BLUHM: Good morning, 22my name is Sarah Bluhm. I'm with the New 23Jersey Business and Industry Association. 2494
I'm the Assistant Vice President for Energy 1and Federal Affairs. 2For the past seven or eight 3years it feels I like I have been working on 4different types of energy policies and 5different ways that our states have been 6working together to lower emissions. Most 7recently, we're working on Regional Greenhouse 8Gas Initiative. 9New Jersey has been at a 10disadvantage due to the fact that we're one of 11the few states that actually participated in 12RGGI, and so we had additional costs for our 13electric, but we didn't see any environmental 14benefits because we're still downwind from the 15midwest states. 16While we have been trying to 17clean up our act, we still are being impacted 18by other states. Additionally, we've also 19seen hundreds of millions of dollars spent on 20scrubbers and other advance technology to 21clean up within our state and try to improve 22our air quality. But we're still at risk for 23nonattainment as a result of being downwind. 2495

In terms of RGGI, some of the 1lessons that we learned is that multi state, 2interstate trading agreement has been working 3and allowing different power plants to create 4allowances emissions. 5I will caution though that 6depending on the purchase prices, we have seen 7the over the toughest times that many of the 8money has been diverted and not necessarily 9going to where it should be, such as cleaner 10energy projects, depending on how you're 11setting that up. This year, most of our RGGI 12funds go to other state priorities. 13We have also seen the cost 14passed down to consumers. Commercial and 15industrial customers in New Jersey use 1664 percent of the electric power. So we have 17a very vested interest in many of these 18policies. We are fortunate that 50 percent of 19our power is nuclear. 20As we're looking at this rule 21and having businesses in nonattainment areas, 22which are downwind, we basically see our 23businesses paying a pollution tax. As we're 2496
already at a disadvantage because of the fact 1that our companies are subject to state 2regulations, that other states are not, we're 3incurring more costs. 4So we see this as a way that we 5can control emissions in other states and help 6our states businesses be able to reduce some 7of their costs as well. Thank you. 8MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 9DR. WALTER TSOU: I am the 10former Health Commissioner of Philadelphia and 11the past president of the American Public 12Health Association. I wish to offer my strong 13support for the proposed air pollution 14Transport Rule, otherwise known as the Good 15Neighbor Rule, which would restrict or limit 16power plant pollution. 17In 2008, which was the last 18publicly available report, Philadelphia 19exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality 20Standard for ozone and particulate matter, 21less than 2.5 microns in diameter. In 22addition, while there were 204 good days, 23there were 144 moderate days and significantly 2497
18 unhealthy days in our city. 1In addition, several air toxins 2were tested in concentrations that would 3result an excess lifetime cancer risk of more 4than one in a million. These included 1.3 5butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon 6tetrachloride and tetrachloroethylene. 7In short, while our air is still 8quite breathable, there are many days when 9individuals with serious cardiac or 10respiratory illness, including asthma, 11bronchitis, emphysema or congestive heart 12failure would have difficulty breathing. In 13borderline situations, poor air quality could 14be fatal. 15The Public Health Management 16Corporation has been tracking the percent of 17adults who stated that they have asthma in the 18five county Philadelphia area since 1991. In 19that year, 1991, 4.7 percent of adults, over 20age 18, stated that they had asthma. The 21trend has increased each succeeding year. 22In the most recent data in 2008, 2314.1 percent of adults stated they had asthma, 2498
a 300 percent increase. Asthma is complicated 1and not all can be attributed to air 2pollution. But lungs are very sensitive to 3external factors. To the extent that this 4rate is increasing at a time when smoking bans 5are more widespread is suggestive that ambient 6air quality is an important factor. 7Imagine, of course, that behind 8each of these statistics are families whose 9lives have been disrupted by shortness of 10breath, hospitalizations with increasing 11healthcare costs, and lost time from work. 12The leading medical cause for 13truancy in Philadelphia schools is asthma. We 14cannot minimize the impact asthma has had on 15many, many Philadelphia families in the city 16which is exacerbated by the ozone and 17particulate matter. 18You will hear from many others 19on the national cost of power plant pollution 20in 31 states, including the estimated $100 to 21290 billion dollars in additional health care 22costs, the loss of between 14,000 to 36,000 23lives, the 240,000 asthma attacks, the 23,000 2499

additional heart attacks, etc., etc. 1I will only add that as a 2public health physician, we have the ability 3and means to stop this air pollution in order 4to leave this world just a little bit better 5for our children than how we found it. We 6just need the political will. 7MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 8Walter. 9JOHN KINSMAN: Good morning. 10My name is John Kinsman. I am Senior 11Director, Environment at the Edison Electric 12Institute in Washington, which is the 13association of U.S. shareholder-owned electric 14companies. 15EEI shares a commitment with the 16EPA to further reduce emissions from power 17generating facilities supportive of general 18policy underlying EPA's proposed Transport 19Rule. 20Important to note is the 21electric power industry has already made 22significant progress in reducing emissions. 23According to EPA statistics, power generation 24100
NOX emissions during the ozone season in the 1Eastern U.S. have declined 81 percent since 21990. The electric power industry now emits 3only 12 percent of national NOX. National 4power plant emissions declined 70 percent 5since 1990. National SO2 emissions from power 6plants in 2009 were 64 percent lower than in 71990. 8This proposed rule will require 9substantial additional emission reductions. 10For example, power plant companies in three 11states in which EPA is holding these public 12hearings, Georgia, Illinois and Pennsylvania, 13will need to reduce their SO2 emissions in 142014 by under the proposed rule will be 15reduced 83.0 to 90.2 percent, 88.3 percent for 16Pennsylvania, from 1990 to 2014. 17While some of our member 18companies have stated that they are able to 19meet the requirements of the proposed rule 20due to some combination of individual company 21approaches, state requirements, settlement 22agreements, fuel mix or other factors. Other 23EEI members have concerns regarding the 24101

proposed Transport Rule. 1One concern is that the 2proposed Transport Rule establishes new 3reduction requirements that must be met only 6 4and 30 months after the final Transport Rule 5is issued. 6Some of our member companies 7have expressed concern that EPAs assumption 8regarding their current control technology 9projects may be inaccurate and that they will 10have difficulty in achieving the initial 2012 11compliance deadlines. 12There also is concern by some 13companies that simultaneously adding controls 14at many units can stress labor, materials, and 15state and local regulatory agencies, and that 16completing simultaneous control installations 17by the end of 2013 to meet the 2014 compliance 18deadline is unrealistic. This may be 19especially true in nine states where EGUs 20would need to reduce their SO2 emissions by at 21least 50 percent from 2009 to 2014. 22Some EEI member companies 23believe that the full schedule, from 24102
conceptualization to regulatory approvals by 1financial regulators and air quality 2permitting agencies, through construction and 3operation of a SO2 scrubber, can take up to 60 4months. This assumption stands in stark 5contrast to EPAs estimate that a new scrubber 6can be installed in 27 months. 7EEI believes that it is 8imperative that EPA, the Federal Energy 9Regulatory Commission, FERC, the Department of 10Energy, DOE, and states work together to 11utilize all tools available to meet compliance 12targets while maintaining electric system 13reliability. 14EEI has concerns regarding the 15proposed Transport Rule providing little 16long-term certainty, because its requirements 17will be superseded in the near-future. EPA 18has indicated it will issue a separate 19proposal regarding NOX emissions related to 20the 1997 ozone standard. EPA also has 21indicated it will issue a “Transport Rule II” 22related to a tightened (October 2010) ozone 23standard, and it is almost certain that EPA 24103
will propose an additional major transport 1rule by 2013 to address a more stringent 2late-2011 NAAQS for particulate matter. 3These rules are all in addition 4to the power generator MACT rule, which will 5not be finalized until late-2011, about 6 6months after the final Transport Rule. 7In order to continue to 8effectively produce electricity and reduce 9emissions, the electric sector needs clear, 10coordinated and flexible regulations that 11provide certainty for power companies to plan 12multi-billion dollar investments, many of 13which must serve decades into the future. 14Only through carefully crafted 15regulations can EEI members continue to 16minimize costs to customers and impacts on 17shareholders, avoid straining natural gas 18supply and prices, and continue efficient and 19reliable electric generation using diverse, 20domestic energy resources. 21EEI will be supplementing these 22oral remarks with additional written comments. 23Thank you for the opportunity to provide these 24104

comments today. 1MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 2John, for your perspective. 3What we would now like to do is 4take a 20 minute break. 5

- - - 6(Whereupon a break was taken at 7this time.) 8

- - - 9MR. DAVID MARSHALL: Good 10morning. My name is David Marshall and I am 11Senior Counsel to the Clean Air Task Force. I 12appreciate the opportunity to speak with you 13today. 14Many areas throughout the East 15and Midwest continue to exceed these 16health-based air quality standards. The 17problem would be much worse if many power 18plants had not reduced their emissions of SO2 19and NOX over the past five years. In fact, 20national power plant emissions of sulfur 21dioxide dropped by nearly 50 percent over that 22time. 23While this reduction may be 24105
attributed to a number of factors, including 1New Source Review enforcement actions and 2state regulations, much of these gains were 3consolidated and extended through EPAs 2005 4Clean Air Interstate Rule. Of course, CAIR 5has been invalidated by the DC Circuit Court 6of Appeals, and much of the progress made over 7the past few years will be in jeopardy without 8a strong Transport Rule to replace CAIR. 9Scrubbers and selective catalytic 10reduction are widely available today and 11extremely cost effective, but they have an 12operation and maintenance cost, so utilities 13will not run them unless they have to. 14Furthermore, even at todays 15pollution levels, the lives of tens of 16thousands of Americans will be cut short and 17there are still over 700 coal-fired power 18plants in the U.S. operating with no scrubber 19in place. At this point, every coal-fired 20power plant in the United States should be 21well-controlled. That is why it is so 22important for EPA to strengthen and finalize 23the proposed Transport Rule. 24106
We believe that the Transport 1Rule is a good step towards requiring needed 2air pollution reductions in the electric power 3sector, and we commend the EPA for bringing 4the proposal forward. We are concerned, 5however, that the proposal falls short of 6requiring the amount of cost-effective 7reductions that are reasonably obtainable and 8necessary to protect human health and the 9environment. 10EPAs analysis also shows that 11the proposed rule will reduce thousands of 12premature deaths and will provide benefits of 13at least 50 times costs. A stronger rule 14could save many more lives and provide far 15more benefits. 16Therefore, we urge EPA to reduce 17the annual control region SO2 cap to 1.75 18million tons and the NOX cap to 900,000 tons; 19and to include Texas and several other states 20in the control region. 21Although we support the basic thrust and structure of the rule, according to EPA's own statements 22and using its proposed approach to addressing 23107
transported air pollution under section 1110(a)(2)(D), the Transport Rule proposal does 2not eliminate all of the projected 3contribution in upwind states to downwind 4nonattainment and maintenance problems. EPA's 5atmospheric modeling shows that even after the 6proposed rule is implemented, many downwind 7areas will still experience nonattainment or 8maintenance problems under the 1997 annual PM 92.5 NAAQS; the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS; and the 10ozone NAAQS. 11At a minimum, these 12nonattainment areas should be brought into 13attainment by having appoint contribution. 14Power plants in several states 15that are outside of the proposed control area 16will increase emissions following 17implementation of the rule, as they will be 18subject only to the much weaker Title IV acid 19rain restrictions; in fact, the increase in 20Texas is large enough to cause it to become a 21significant contributor to downwind 22nonattainment and maintenance problems. 23These residual nonattainment 24108
maintenance problems can easily be 1addressed by EPA by requiring deeper 2reductions while keeping within the 3framework of the proposal. With respect to 4PM 2.5, Group 2 states have minimal 5obligations under the current proposal, but 6there are clearly substantial additional 7reductions that can be obtained from those 8states at the $2000/ton cost threshold 9applicable under the proposal to Group 1 10states; thus, all states should be required to 11meet the Group 1 state requirements. 12In addition, according to EPA 13estimates, additional reductions of about 14500,000 tons of SO2 could be obtained in 2014 15by increasing the proposals SO2 cost threshold 16to $2400. 17Our preliminary analysis shows 18that a 1.75 million ton regional SO2 cap could 19be achieved with a cost threshold of about 20$2600 a ton. 21With respect to ozone, EPA 22should raise the $500 a ton minimum cost 23threshold in the Transport Rule proposal for 24109
requiring ozone season NOX reductions, keeping 1in mind that EPA found in the 1998 NOX SIP 2Call that a much higher cost threshold was 3highly cost-effective. Furthermore, EPA 4should include Texas in the control region. 5Finally, we welcome EPA's stated 6intention to promulgate a number of rules in 7the near future to require emission reductions 8from this sector beyond those in the Transport 9Rule proposal. 10We urge EPA to follow through 11with these important regulatory efforts. We 12also urge EPA to strengthen the proposed 13Transport Rule and finalize it as soon as 14possible. 15We will also submit detailed 16written comments by the October 1 deadline. 17MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 18David. 19MR. CHRIS SALMI: Good morning 20and thank you for the opportunity to testify 21on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 22Transport Rule. My name is Chris Salmi, I'm 23the Assistant Director of the Division of Air 24110
Quality in the New Jersey Department of 1Environmental Protection. I am pleased to be 2here today representing the views of the Ozone 3Transport Commission (OTC). 4The OTC coordinates ground-level 5ozone pollution control planning among the 12 6Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States and the 7District of Columbia. 8In addition to todays testimony, 9the OTC will submit written comments and 10supplemental documentation. The State of New 11Jersey will provide separate testimony this 12afternoon. In meetings to come, I will 13highlight the OTC's testimony rather than read 14it into the record. 15The transported ozone and 16particulate matter pollution that is formed 17from NOX and SO2 emissions endanger the health 18of our citizens, particularly the very young 19and elderly, causing lung damage, respiratory 20illness and premature mortality. 21Power plants are a significant 22source of these pollutants, contributing 18 23percent of all NOX emissions and 66 percent of 24111
all SO2 emissions nationally. EPA Regulatory 1Impact Analysis for the Proposed Transport 2Rule. 3By controlling emissions from 4these sources under the Transport Rule, EPA is 5achieving badly needed public health benefits 6that are long overdue utilizing the most 7cost-effective reductions available. In its 8own analysis, EPA finds a benefits-to-cost 9ratio of at minimum 40-to-1 and up to as much 10as 100-to-1 for the controls on power plants 11covered under the proposed Transport Rule. 12The OTCs conceptual model work 13clearly shows that reducing transport of 14damaging ozone precursor emissions is the 15regions number 1 priority. The OTC states 16have stepped up to the plate willingly and 17aggressively to address our own sources of 18ozone for many years. 19The new “local controls” being 20developed by the OTC states will help, but the 21health benefits from these new local controls 22are small compared to the benefits from 23regional transport strategies. 24112

We also commend EPA for 1addressing the Courts and the states concern 2with the relationship between emission 3reductions and downwind contributions, and 4important transport issue that caused the 5Court to reject and remand the 2005 Clean Air 6Interstate Rule (CAIR) back to EPA. 7The proposed rule provides a 8strong, science-based methodology that can 9achieve significant reductions in air 10pollution from power plants transported from 11upwind states into and within the OTC region. 12Further, the proposed rule 13limits the degree to which such plants can 14engage in interstate trading of emissions. By 15restricting interstate trading, EPA has taken 16a major step towards addressing the courts 17finding and the CAA requirement that each 18state mush reduce its share of transported 19pollution. We also commend EPA for proposing 20a methodology for assessing transported air 21pollution that will provide a framework for 22more quickly analyzing the impact of transport 23under future revised air quality standards. 24113

For the states to have any 1chance of developing timely plans to 2adequately address transport, EPA must 3identify the reductions needed to eliminate 4significant contribution and interference with 5maintenance concurrent with the setting of air 6quality standards. 7This proposed methodology should 8be quickly applied to identify the additional 9reductions in transport needed to meet the new 10ozone standard EPA expects to issue this fall. 11Unfortunately, there are a 12number of shortcomings in the transport 13proposal that will prevent achieving healthy 14air in the eastern United States as 15expeditiously as practical, as required under 16the Clean Air Act. To emphasize this point, 17there have been 53 separate exceedances of the 182008 ozone standard in the region so far 19during this ozone season and the season is far 20from over. And because the proposed Transport 21Rule purports to respond only to the 22inadequacies of CAIR, which addressed the 1997 23ozone standard, it will not provide the NOX 24114
reductions necessary to meet the 2008 ozone 1standard nor its more stringent replacement 2expected in October. 3We, therefore, urge EPA to 4strengthen this Transport Rule, particularly 5in the areas we will now discuss, to provide 6greater public health protection in a more 7timely manner. 8It is troubling that the 9proposed Transport Rule does not completely 10address the significant contributions from 11upwind states in the context of the less 12protective 1997 ozone standards. Section 13110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act mandates 14that states must include in their state 15implementation plans provisions that prohibit 16air pollutant emissions that significantly 17contribute to non-attainment or interfere with 18maintenance in any other state. And yet EPA 19asserts in the proposed Transport Rule (which 20is a federal implementation plan) that it will 21only “partially eliminate” the significant 22contributions of 25 states in relation to the 231997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and 24115
will only “make measurable progress toward 1eliminating” the significant contributions of 210 states in relation to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 3It is not acceptable to the OTC states that a 4federal implementation plan, which is intended 5to fulfill the obligations of a state 6implementation plan, does not meet the letter 7of the Clean Air Act transport requirements. 8A key reason that significant 9contribution is not eliminated by the proposed 10Transport Rule is that the NOX caps are not 11stringent enough. The proposed 2012 NOX caps 12are actually more generous than those that 13were required in CAIR phase 2, beginning in 142015. The seasonal NOX budget for the 15identical states under EPAs proposed Transport 16Rule is 475,000 tons; the CAIR phase 2 NOX cap 17was 429,000 tons. EPA further exacerbates the 18situation by retaining the 2012 NOX cap in 192014, rather than ratcheting it down, as it 20did for the SO2 caps in the proposed rule. In 21a recent plant-by-plant analysis by OTC of 22potential future NOX caps, we determine that a 23375,000 ton ozone season NOX cap by 2014 is 24116
technologically feasible and cost-effective 1based on an annual NOX cap of 900,000 tons in 2the eastern U.S. 3We urge EPA to tighten the NOX 4caps in this rulemaking to a level that fully 5eliminates significant contribution. We 6believe that cost-effective reductions from 7power plants are available at cost thresholds 8greater than EPAs proposed threshold of $500 9per ton and we urge EPA to adopt a cost 10threshold that will result in tighter state 11NOX budgets. 12Another flaw in the proposed 13Transport Rule is the design of the remedy. 14EPA proposes to set state EGU budgets, but 15then allows sources within that state to emit 16above these already inadequate budgets up to 17the variability limit. 18In order to meet the statutes 19requirement and the Courts mandate, EPA need 20to implement a trading program that sets a 21state emissions budget at the level necessary 22to eliminate transport and that requires 23mitigation in a specific state if the 24117

collective sources in the state exceed the 1budget. 2A third problem with the 3proposed rule is its failure to include 4emission reductions from all NOX sources that 5contribute to transport, particularly from 6large industrial, commercial and institutional 7(ICI) boilers. We understand that EPA 8proposes to address ICI boilers, as well as 9other NOX source categories, in a second 10transport rule that will follow. 11However, we urge EPA to examine 12the technical evaluation the OTC developed 13jointly with the Lake Michigan Air Directors 14Consortium (LADCO) for ICI boilers and include 15NOX and SO2 reductions from this sector in the 16final rulemaking for this proposed rule if 17possible. If not, we urge EPA to address 18emissions from ICI boilers in the second 19Transport Rule, as well as emissions from 20cement kilns, on-road vehicles, marine engines 21and locomotives. 22EPA data shows that emissions 23from power plants, along with emissions from 24118
these other source categories, represent about 175% of the NOX emissions that remain to be 2regulated. These source categories are most 3effectively regulated by national rules 4promulgated by EPA. 5Finally, and most importantly, 6it is imperative that EPA fulfill the promise 7it makes in this proposal to quickly adopt, no 8later than 2012, a second transport rule to 9address the more health-protective ozone 10standard anticipated this fall. Under this 11new standard, further reductions in 12transported pollution will be needed beginning 13as early as 2014 for states to meet their 14transport obligations and to realize the goal 15of clean air. 16The OTC stands ready to work 17with EPA to address the issues and concerns I 18have raised today. 19MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 20MS. AMANDA DELCORE: Hello, my 21name is Amanda DelCore, and I am a graduate 22student at Villanova University studying 23sustainable engineering. 24119

This summer, I lived in 1Doylestown for an internship. Doylestown is 2about an hour north of Philadelphia, has two 3lane county roads, farms, and great sunsets. 4Watching the sun go down over the Peace Valley 5Park lake always brought a mix of sentiments. 6Sure it looked pretty, but I knew that 7pollution and particulates were to blame for 8the array of colors I was seeing. “How could I 9be observing the effects of pollution all the 10way in Doylestown?” With the air currents 11generally flowing from west to east in our 12region, it's not hard to understand how 13quickly pollution can travel. 14As we all know, airborne 15pollutants do not recognize state borders. 16Which is why it is important to tighten 17regulations concerning emitted pollutants like 18sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide across state 19borders. 20In Pennsylvania,about 53 percent 21of our electricity is generated from 78 22coal-burning power plants. The United States 23as a whole gets 48 percent of its electricity 24120
from coal-burning power plants. These are 1significant figures. 2On a hot summer day, we can 3retreat to our boxes of air conditioning, 4whether it be the office or our home or our 5schools. We think this is comfortable, 6beating the summer heat by staying indoors. 7But somewhere not too far away, there's a 8coal-burning power plant exhausting tons of 9SO2 and NOX into the atmosphere. And unlike 10our air-conditioning that stays within the 11bounds of our manmade habitats, this pollution 12doesn't stay at the power plant. 13I believe that as a society, we 14need to start looking at our surroundings as a 15whole system. We cannot create something 16without having an effect, and we can't expect 17those effects to play out quietly in the 18background forever. We have the technology to 19control the negative effects of coal-fired 20power plants. 21The operating costs of such 22technologies cannot be used as an excuse for 23negligence any longer because the benefits far 24121
outweigh the costs. 1I know how to conserve energy at 2home, and I do. But I pay for the electricity 3that I use, and I want to know that the 4electricity I pay for is produced in such a 5way that it's as clean as possible. Not only 6does the current standard allow for many cases 7of bronchitis, asthma, heart attacks, and 8premature deaths every year, but it allows for 9a lower standard of living for all the 10inhabitants downwind of a power plant. 11The most I can do is to conserve 12energy, and ask the company that supplies most 13of my energy to take its due responsibility. 14So, as a resident of Philadelphia, a resident 15of North America, I am asking you to please 16implement this plan to reduce interstate 17transport of fine particulate matter and 18

ozone. 19Thank you for giving me the 20opportunity to voice my support for this 21regulatory action. 22MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 23MR. ADAM H. CUTLER: Good 24122
morning. My name is Adam Cutler, and I am the 1Director of the Public Health and 2Environmental Justice Law Project at the 3Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. 4Thank you for the opportunity to 5testify today concerning EPAs proposed rule to 6limit the interstate transport of emissions of 7nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), 8which I will refer to in my testimony as the 9Transport Rule. 10The EPA defines environmental 11justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful 12involvement of all people regardless of race, 13color, national origin, or income with respect 14to the development, implementation, and 15enforcement of environmental laws, 16regulations, and policies.” The Public Health 17and Environmental Justice Law Project provides 18legal services to environmental justice 19communities in Pennsylvania. 20Our work is centered primarily 21in and around Philadelphia, including 22communities in Delaware County and Montgomery 23County. Through the Project, I work closely 24123
with communities where residents, mostly of 1color or poor or both, suffer 2disproportionately from adverse health effects 3associated with pollution. 4In some of these communities, 5like the City of Chester or the Borough of 6Eddystone, both in Delaware County and both 7close to coal-fired power plants and other 8sources of air pollution, a recent household 9health survey reported asthma rates among 10children are in excess of 25 percent. 11My clients and their 12communities, therefore, are acutely affected 13by particle pollution and ozone, which are 14known to exacerbate asthma among other human 15health impacts. My comments today are my own, 16and are not made on behalf of any particular 17client group or community. They are, however, 18rooted in the work I do, and are focused 19specifically on the implications of the 20Transport Rule for environmental justice 21communities. 22I will provide more detailed 23comments on the agency's proposal during the 24124
written comment period. 1The Transport Rule contemplates 2reducing electric power plan emissions of 3nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide in 31 states 4and the District of Columbia, so that by 2014, 5EPA projects that EGU sulfur dioxide emissions 6would be cut by 71 percent versus 2005 levels, 7and nitrogen oxide emissions would be reduced 8by 52 percent. 9These reductions would represent 10significant progress toward finally achieving 11attainment standards for PM 2.5 standard. 12Although these cuts could and should be 13deeper, particularly with respect to nitrogen 14oxide, and could and should cover more 15sources, the welcome public health and 16environmental benefits from the proposed 17reductions in these dangerous pollutants are 18unmistakable, and will far outweigh the costs 19of compliance with the Transport Rule. 20That said, I want to comment 21specifically on the fact that EPAs preferred 22rule would allow unlimited intrastate trading 23and limited interstate trading of allowances 24125

between EGUs as part of the agency's strategy 1to in the words of the Transport Rules 2preamble "assure environmental results while 3providing some limited flexibility to covered 4sources." Under the agency's first 5alternative, only intrastate trading would be 6allowed. 7Even under the second 8alternative, which would set emissions limits 9for each power plant individually, 10company-level averaging for sites within a 11given state would be permitted. Under any of 12the Transport Rule proposals, then, 13environmental justice communities may suffer a 14perverse fate. 15Take Pennsylvania, a covered 16state for both nitrogen oxide and sulfur 17dioxide, as an example. A facility located in 18the less populous part of the state that 19achieves more than its required reductions 20might then trade its extra allowances to a 21power plant located close to one or more 22environmental justice communities in the more 23populous southeast part of the state. 24126

Although the overall state 1emission budget might thus be met, the power 2plant located near the environmental justice 3communities would, thanks to trading, be 4allowed to continue emitting pollutants at 5higher levels. The same result could occur 6under Alternative Two, which allows 7company-level averaging. 8Because local pollution would 9remain high, the nearby environmental justice 10communities would not receive the same public 11health and environmental benefits under the 12Transport Rule as the communities surrounding 13the facility on the other end of the trade. 14Indeed, the disproportionate imposition of 15environmental burdens on vulnerable 16communities would be perpetuated. 17If EPAs nascent focus on 18environmental justice under Administrator 19Jackson is to be seen as something other than 20mere lip service, the agency must ensure that 21the Transport Rule is consistent with its 22environmental justice obligations. If there 23is to be allowance trading, whether intrastate 24127

or interstate, it must be controlled in a 1manner that offers true protection to the 2environmental justice communities who would 3otherwise bear the pollution burdens. 4Environmental justice 5communities are, to borrow the memorable words 6of civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, 7"sick and tired of being sick and tired." EPA 8should not, in promulgating a Transport Rule 9that can provide so many public health and 10environmental benefits to all, leave open the 11possibility that vulnerable communities of 12color and of poverty will continue to be 13subjected to unequal treatment, based solely 14on the vicissitudes of power sector 15variability. 16Thank you for the opportunity to 17comment. I am happy to take any questions. 18MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 19MS. CHRISTINE KNAPP: My name is 20Christine Knapp. I am here today on behalf of 21Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, or Penn 22Future, where I am Director of Outreach. Penn 23Future is a statewide environmental advocacy 24128
group that works for a healthy environment, 1clean energy and a strong economy. We support 2actions by EPA that address air pollution and 3protect the public health. 4Pennsylvania is home to big coal 5and big coal air pollution. Our coal plants 6emit massive amounts of NOX and SO2 causing 7downwind health impacts from smog and fine 8particles. These plants even rain fine 9particles directly down on neighbors. The 10effects of air pollution from Pennsylvania 11coal are felt both in our state and beyond. 12Sine Penn Future's founding in 131999, we have sought to reduce harmful air 14pollution on many fronts. We have represented 15citizens in direct litigation against 16Pennsylvania's largest coal plants. We have 17represented people with asthma in litigation 18against the Pennsylvania Department of 19Environmental Protection over its failure to 20implement a vehicle testing program. 21We have fought for strong air 22quality rules starting with the Pennsylvania 23NOX Budget Rule in 2000. We have worked with 24129
the Pennsylvania Legislature to encourage good 1bills and to oppose bad ones. 2Since Penn Future's founding, 3Pennsylvania has made progress on air 4pollution on many fronts. But the elephant in 5the room is coal plants. It is hard to 6imagine how we will see further progress on 7smog and fine particle pollution reductions 8without sharp reductions in the enormous 9emissions from coal plants. 10At a time when Pennsylvania even 11regulates nail polish for it's potential to 12cause air pollution, we must require steeper 13cuts from our biggest polluters. 14The Transport Rule is a good 15start. The rule will require reductions in 16power plant SO2 emissions of 71 percent from 172005 levels by 2014, and reductions in NOX 18emissions by 52 percent. EPA's proposal 19documents the expected effect on attainment or 20air quality health standards from these 21reductions, and the dramatic expected health 22benefits. 23We commend EPA for proposing 24130
this rule. We encourage EPA to make it 1better, with steeper reductions that reflect 2already-available pollution controls. Thank 3you for the opportunity to testify today. 4MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 5THERESA STIMPFEL: Good morning. 6I am a retired industrial hygienist and 7teacher in Robbinsville, New Jersey. Like the 8emissions that this proposed rule will reduce, 9I traveled across state lines to get here. 10As a child, 50 years ago at 11Staten Island, on a crisp, clear autumn day, I 12realized, don't take a deep breath. The 13lovely autumn air was polluted from the 14refiners and power plant emission to the west. 15These were not good neighbors. We have come 16along way in pollution since then, and yet 17some of the same polluters still cause 18problems. 19I strongly support the proposed 20EPA rule and it's approach to interstate 21transport proposal and fine particle 22pollution. The EPA has done an excellent job 23in developing a well documented rule with 24131
great supporting materials for everyone to 1comment. Thank you for the opportunity to 2speak for myself and many others like me, as I 3explain why it's critical to me and to 4millions of Americans, that this rule is 5adopted. 6As I said, I am a retired 7person. I am a senior citizen. I'm a baby 8boomer, part of a huge population. I'm also a 9member of Sierra Club. I like to sit, I like 10to eat, read; but at my age, even if I eat 11right and get the proper amount of sleep, I 12still must exercise to be healthy. When I 13exercise, My heart and lungs work harder. 14When I breathe in now, my health is 15compromised now by exercising to be healthy. 16Clearly it is still unhealthy here in New York 17and New Jersey even after 50 years. 18In 2011 I will be 64 years old, 19and like my fellow boomers, we'll have heart 20attacks with crippling sequela. My heart is 21working harder as I exercise at huge costs, 22consequent to the to American economy. 23The EPA projects that now the 24132
non-generating New Jersey community I live in, 1will have ultimate fine particle air problems 2without this rule in 2012. 3The best way we have to control 4healthcare costs is to stay healthy. We can't 5do this unless EPA adopts this rule and 6implements it properly. 7One area that is not addressed 8is the impact on youth and lifestyle choices. 9My students will suffer and stay in doors 10rather than go out. Why would they go out 11when their throats get sore from the ozone. 12And parents recognizing the quality in the air 13aren't pushing them to go out. So with the 14growing problem of obesity and the subsequent 15cost to society, it is essential to adopt this 16rule. 17The cost to individual consumers 18on utility bills compared to health care 19co-pays for medical problems that result from 20the contaminant that exists. In fact, the 21projected costs for me for over-the-counter 22aids to offset the immediate impacts now, my 23sore throats and my allergy aggravation as I 24133
exercise, because I am exposed to the ozone 1and fine particles that are transported from 2western and southern states into my 3non-emitting New Jersey state, from power 4plants that need these controls. 5In summary I would like to say 6that my neighbors and I need the EPA to 7implement the Transport Rule so we can be 8healthier, to limit our consumption and to be 9able to use our financial resources wisely and 10to support the American economy, not simply 11support the power industry and their friends 12because they have the money, and to lobby 13strongly and to have limited improvement in 14air quality we need. 15We want to enjoy the outdoors, 16out beautiful forests, lakes and meadows, not 17deposits from the impact of emissions. Thank 18

you. 19MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 20MR. WILLIAM KRAMER: My name is 21William Kramer and I am a member and organizer 22of the Sierra Club, based here in 23Philadelphia. We have over 9,000 members in 24134
Southeast Pennsylvania. 1I currently live in central New 2Jersey, but I plan to move to Philadelphia 3later this year. On a personal level, as a 4cyclist and a father of a four year old, who 5is also becoming a cyclist, I am very 6concerned about the quality of our air. 7With the decreasing number of 8people in this country trying to get out of 9their cars and instead bike and walk more, 10both for environmental and health reasons, as 11one of our prior speakers mentioned, we need 12to ensure that poor air quality doesn't sicken 13people as they get out of their cars. 14Air quality is also an 15environmental justice issue, and that's 16something that has been raised before, 17especially in communities like Philadelphia or 18also Trenton, where air pollution is the 19highest in the country. 20Lower income communities and 21communities of color suffer proportionately 22from the health impacts of bad air. Air 23pollution is a Civil Rights issue and an 24135
economic justice issue. We need to keep that 1in mind. 2The real problem is coal, as 3people have talked about. Each year coal 4plants spew millions of tons of harmful 5pollution into our air, and this increases 6asthma, causes heart attacks and increases 7emergency room visits and missed work days. 8These are all economic impacts. 9It impacts productivity, our work and people's 10ability to be part of the economy. 11This pollution doesn't stop at 12county or state lines. As a result, people 13throughout the country are forced to breathe 14unhealthy air. This national problem needs a 15national solution. We are pleased that the 16Environmental Protection Agency is acting to 17help states be good neighbors. The rule will 18systematically envision and cut pollution from 19dozens of coal plants, and will otherwise 20spread across the country. We applaud this 21common sense approach by Lisa Jackson and the 22EPA to protect public health, and help states 23clean up their air efficiently and cost 24136
effectively. 1On behalf of the Sierra Club and 2all my colleagues, I just want to say this is 3a real priority issue for us in this community 4and throughout the region. The coal industry 5is something we need to move beyond, both for 6greenhouse gases and for ozone pollution. 7We thank the EPA for addressing 8this problem and we want to work with you as 9you move forward to continue to reduce both 10the pollution impacts and green house gas 11emissions. Thank you. 12MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 13TOLSUN WADDLE: My name is 14Tolsun Waddle. I am here to speak to you 15today as an active rower and cyclist and 16outdoorsman. 17I grew up just outside of 18Knoxville, Tennessee and went to college in 19Chattanooga. A local air quality group did 20its first particulate study in Chattanooga in 21the late 60s. They conducted it by putting 22mason jars out on the corners of buildings. 23They just measured how much dust they found in 24137
the jars at the end of the week. 1In 1969, Chattanooga was rated 2the poorest air quality of any city in the 3United States. That has improved dramatically 4over time as the local industries in 5Chattanooga has cleaned up its act. 6When I was in high school, again 7just outside of Knoxville I spent a lot of 8times at Great Smokey Mountains National Park. 9Occasionally, from downtown Knoxville, you 10could look out to the east and see the 11Smokeys. But that was maybe once every two to 12three months with the skies clear enough to be 13able to do so. 14For the most part, the smoke and 15smog that obscured the views of the Smokey's 16from Knoxville, which was only about 25 miles 17away from the park, was from Ohio Power 18Plants. So this Transport Rule is something 19that is near and dear to my heart. I have a 20lot of family in that area still, and 21obviously I'm here now and not too excited 22about continuing to breathe particulate matter 23from places elsewhere, particulate matter in 24138

general. 1Every time I go outside to the 2park, I think to myself, well this is great, I 3am getting away from mobile pollution, all of 4the tailpipes that I follow every time I'm on 5my bike. I'm getting away from all of those 6engines on the Schuylkill River there. But 7still, as I walk through the woods I am really 8not away from it at all. I'm still breathing 9a lot of noxious fumes. 10I applaud the EPA for taking 11this dramatic step. It's a tremendous step. 12I hope that consumers when they look at their 13energy bills go up a dollar or two a month 14realize that it's for the greater good. Thank 15

you. 16MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 17CHRISTINE GUHL: My name is 18Christine Guhl. I'm an organizer for the 19Sierra Club in New Jersey. I'm speaking on 20behalf of the Sierra Club, but also on behalf 21of myself. 22I just wanted to thank the EPA 23for taking a step with the interstate 24139
Transport Rule to reduce pollution and improve 1air quality. This Rule will help to clean up 2dirty coal plants that pollute their home 3states and downwind states throughout the 4region. We thank Lisa Jackson and the EPA for 5moving forward with the Good Neighbor Rule. 6The Agency has lived up to its name and 7reputation for protection of the environment 8and public health. 9Coal plants pour millions of 10tons of Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur Dioxide into 11the air every year. This pollution knows no 12borders. It doesn't know state boundaries or 13county lines. It travels downwind, affecting 14neighboring states like New Jersey, choking 15people with soot and smog. 16The Good Neighbor Rule will hold 17these dirty coal plants accountable and put 18protections in place to limit harmful 19emissions. The Rule will protect downwind 20states like New Jersey and will greatly reduce 21pollution in upwind states as well. 22The states required to do the 23most clean-up will realize the most air 24140
quality and health benefits. New Jersey will 1be protected from downwind pollution caused by 2power plants in Pennsylvania and the Midwest. 3Those states will also be protected from 4instate coal plants. New Jersey will be 5protected from instate coal plants. 6Millions of people are currently 7breathing air that doesn't meet basic clean 8air standards. Pollution from dirty coal 9plants causes respiratory and cardiovascular 10disease. That means 240,000 asthma attacks, 1123,000 heart attacks and 26,000 hospital 12visits. These are EPA estimates. 13This rule is essential for 14protecting the environment and the public 15health for the people of New Jersey, 16Pennsylvania and the nation. 17I urge you as a citizen of New 18Jersey and the Sierra organizer to go forward 19with the rule. A delay in action could result 20in 36,000 deaths related to dirty air. 21This rule is especially personal 22to me because I'm a runner and am actually 23training for a marathon. I do almost all of 24141
my running outside. People that exercise 1outside are especially at risk for pollution 2related illnesses. 3So those people that are doing 4their part to keep themselves healthy are 5becoming at risk because they are enjoying the 6outdoors, they're exercising outside. They're 7inhaling large volumes of air and are at risk 8as a result of that. They're doing the most 9that they can do to keep themselves in good 10health by exercising, and they are being 11subjected to the soot and smog and to lung, 12respiratory and other illnesses as a result of 13the pollution. The interstate Transport Rule 14will affect these people and help meet air 15quality standards. 16We all know about bad air 17quality in New Jersey. We experience that if 18you go outside, especially lately, the weather 19has been very, very warm. We have experienced 20a lot of bad air quality days. So this will 21help New Jersey and other states meet the air 22quality standards. It will protect the 23citizens of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the 24142

detrimental effects of the nation. 1It has already been said that 2we'll save millions of dollars in health care 3costs and thousands of lives, which obviously 4there's no monetary value. 5Health problems associated 6pollution result in missed work days from 7asthma attacks, lung disease, hospital and 8doctors' visits. These are extremely costly. 9If you've ever been to the hospital and seen 10the bill, even if you had insurance, if you 11looked at the bill, you know how costly it can 12be. The interstate Transport Rule will save 13hundreds of millions of dollars in health 14savings, with economic benefit, by protecting 15people from pollution related illnesses. 16As it has been said, it will 17costs very little in utility bills to support 18this. A dollar or two a month is a very small 19price to pay for the amount of lives that will 20be saved. This is a cost effective plan. I 21want to urge that to the EPA. 22You have done an excellent job 23with this proposal to reduce soot and smog in 24143

31 states. The people of New Jersey and all 1of the states affected by the rule will be 2able to breathe cleaner and healthier air. 3This regulation will include New 4Jersey and other states in this region to have 5clean energy in the future. 6So I thank the EPA for proposing 7the rule and I urge you to go forward and take 8the step in adopting it. 9MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 10MR. ROBERT GARDNER: My name is 11Robert Gardner. As an avid outdoorsman, 12bicyclist, and runner, I would like to applaud 13the EPA for taking this positive step towards 14restricting dangerous Sulfur Dioxide and 15Nitrogen oxide. 16The Environmental Protection 17Agency is right to restrict pollution of 18sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from dirty 19old coal plants across the country. Americans 20should not be forced to wait for clean air. 21This is especially so, given the clear ability 22of electric power companies to utilize readily 23available pollution-control technologies, 24144
while simultaneously ensuring a reliable 1electric system. 2The respiratory health of the 3American people is simply too precious to 4continue to allow millions of tons of SO2 and 5NOX emissions. The Eddystone and Crombie coal 6plants, here in Philadelphia, are slated to be 7retired from coal generation for just that 8reason. However, Homer City, Keystone, 9Montour and Penn State are among hundreds that 10have not installed easily available technology 11to reduce pollution. 12Under authority of the Clean 13Air Act, a strong Transport Rule will put the 14onus back on industry for the pollution it has 15tried to send far away by building taller and 16taller smokestacks. Many of the worst 17offending coal plants do not even provide 18electricity to the communities they pollute. 19Industry can and should be 20required to adhere to stricter pollution 21limits than what is proposed by this rule, 22which would help clear the air in the 23Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast, where air 24145
quality worsened in 2010, yet another year 1that has proved to be the hottest on record. 2Burning coal is indeed dirty in 3many ways and in this country also responsible 4for about 30 percent of our global warming 5pollution. 6According to the EPA, as many as 736,000 premature deaths and $290 billion in 8unnecessary health care expenditures for 9ailments like asthma, could be avoided by 10taking serious action to reduce sulfur dioxide 11and nitrogen oxide emissions through the 12Transport Rule as it is currently written. 13Cities with high concentrations 14of nitrogen oxides have death rates four times 15higher than those with low concentrations, 16which while not definitive, definitely 17suggests a potential correlation. 18Nearly one in ten American 19children has asthma. Coal-fired power plants 20cause over 554,000 asthma attacks every year. 21By enacting this rule, more children would be 22able to grow up asthma free, less adults would 23feel the crippling effects of heart disease 24146

and emphysema, and we would be closer to 1protecting everyone's right to breathe clean 2air. 3The health affects of SO2 are 4well documented. Sulfates are major 5components of the fine particle pollution that 6plagues many parts of America, and in 7addition, SO2 interact with NOX to form nitric 8and sulfuric acids, which forms acid rain and 9damages forests and acidifies soil and 10waterways. 11In addition, NOX, further 12increases nitrogen loading in water bodies, 13which accelerates eutrophication, which leads 14to oxygen depletion and kills fish, notably in 15bio-diverse areas such the Chesapeake Bay. 16For years, residents from 17Philadelphia to Merrimack, New Hampshire, and 18Alexandria to Hudson, New Jersey and 19Bridgeport, Connecticut have been forced to 20pay the health price of burning coal for 21electricity. Because of costs to public 22health and the environment, coal is always 23expensive. Reducing this pollution will save 24147
100 times the money that it will cost. 1The proposed rule would yield 2more than $120 to $290 billion in annual 3health and welfare benefits in 2014, including 4the value of avoiding 14,000 to 36,000 5premature deaths. The cost effectiveness of 6this pollution reduction is consistent with 7the record of the Clean Air Act, which has 8provided benefits that are 42 times greater 9than the estimated costs of reducing industry 10pollution. 11Obvious polluting giants like 12Mirant and Dominion oppose pollution 13standards, but industry-funded analysis shows 14support for the Transport Rule. Barkley and 15Associates, consultants for companies such as 16Exelon, Public Service Enterprise Group and 17Entergy, found that electric system 18reliability will not be compromised, that 19industry can easily afford it, and that 20regulators have plenty of tools to moderate 21any impacts on business. 22Opposition to a strong Transport 23Rule can be only about greed and lack of 24148

concern for social welfare. 1It is for the reasons submitted alone, that GP 2calls for a strong Transport Rule, focused on 3setting a pollution limit for each state with 4specific allowable emission limits for each 5power plant. Thank you for your time. 6MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 7your remarks. 8MARTIN HAGE: My name is Martin 9Hage. I live here in Pennsylvania, a coal 10state. I grew up in another coal state. I 11grew up in Illinois. I am a two-time cancer 12survivor and I'm 30 years old. 13I would like to put on the 14public record my support for the Transport 15Rule. I believe this rule will make the air I 16breathe less harmful to my body. 17I am willing to be pragmatic. I 18am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to 19businesses supplying the public need. 20However, the coal industry is not in financial 21peril. The nuclear power plants are putting 22greater risk of these businesses to achieve 23the bottom line. 24149
In my life, I've had to deal 1with unlucky breaks. If we can prevent others 2from going through stress or hardship, and the 3only one that needs to alter their practices 4is the coal industry, it seems the coal burner 5power plants can figure out a way to continue 6to thrive while working within any constraints 7the transport rule might impose. Thank you. 8MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 9REV. DR. HORACE STRAND: Good 10afternoon. My name is Reverend Horace Strand. 11I'm the pastor of Faith Temple Church in the 12City of Chester and also the Chester 13Partnership. We started over 20 years ago to 14deal with the frustrating effects of 15environmental, unclean facilities in our 16community, the City of Chester, which at that 17time we had the fourth largest trash to steam 18plant in the nation. That was licensed to 19bring in 5.5 times the tonage and a company 20called Soil Mediation with contaminated soil. 21They're basically all within one square mile 22of each other. 23It has been furstrating for over 24150
20 years to deal with the environment 1injustice issues in the City of Chester, 2Delaware County and also America. 3When you go to agencies that 4have been entrusted with the care of the air, 5water and quality of life residences that have 6had no power to do anything to stop the 7negative effects on of these industries upon 8the resident. 9Where I live in the City of 10Chester, we are considered what's called, 11unfortunately it's known as the cancer belt on 12the east coast of this country. Many people 13have died from cancer issues and respiratory 14problems. We have a high rate of asthma among 15our children. 16I want to applaud the EPA for 17taking the issue to change the regulation 18concerning our air. The Transport Act will 19give communities such as ours something to 20look forward to, something to hope for, for 21our children's well-being, as well as our own. 22We attended a conference in 23Washington approximately six months ago with 24151
approximately 148,000 people throughout the 1country to meet with the EPA to discuss what 2could be done to help make a difference. 3I was a little disturbed because 4we spent four to six hours there, we didn't 5have no lunch, we didn't have no water, no 6coffee, they worked us. But the outcome is 7that this agency has demonstrated that they 8did not waste our time. 9Today we're sitting here talking 10about something that is paramount to the 11health and welfare of our all residents and 12all citizens of the United States. I applaud 13the EPA because they have demonstrated they 14are serious about change in this country. 15They are serious about the grass root 16organizations who are fighting, trying to 17protect the quality of life of the residents 18that have been bullied and taken advantage of 19by industries that their only concern is the 20almighty dollar. 21I am here to say that this is a 22breath of fresh air. When I came here this 23morning and I looked outside my car window and 24152
I saw protestors outside, I assumed they were 1from the coal industry protesting the change 2being proposed here. To my warmth and 3surprise, it was a group of people 4demonstrating their approval in favor of this 5policy. 6I have never seen anything like 7it in all my years. If this is what the Obama 8Administration is going to continue to do in 9this country, I applaud the President, Lisa 10Jackson and others who are progressive, who 11are serious, who are not just sitting on their 12butt doing nothing, but are trying to make a 13difference for this country, to give the 14American citizens the kind of justice and 15quality that we've been promised and not 16gotten. When it comes to poor and minority 17communities, they've been dumped on and 18trampled on enough and. This is a step in the 19right direction. Thank you very much. 20MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 21MORGAN RUST: My name is Morgan 22Rust. I'm a resident of Philadelphia. I want 23to show support for the Transport Rule to 24153
significantly reduce emissions from coal power 1plants for cleaner air. Clean air has to be a 2priority. During this crucial time showing 3its effects every day. As someone who bikes, 4runs and works outside, it directly affects me 5and my health. Thank you. 6MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. Now 7we're going to adjourn for lunch and we will 8start up at 2:00. 9

- - - 10(Whereupon a lunch break was 11taken at this time.) 12

- - - 13MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 14joining us for the afternoon session of this 15public hearing. Let me introduce myself. I 16am Sam Napolitano, with the EPA's Office of 17Atmospheric Programs, Director of Clean Air 18Markets Division. Immediately to my left is 19Diana Esher of EPA's Region III, Air 20Protection Division. Also to my far left is 21Tim Smith with the Office of Air Quality 22Planning and Standards. To my right is Sara 23Schneeberg, who is with the EPA's Office of 24154

General Counsel. 1We will be sitting here 2listening to testimony this afternoon on the 3Transport Rule, which is predominantly dealing 4with the production of SO2, sulfur dioxide; 5NOX and nitrogen oxides, emissions form 6electric power plants. 7The program is going to cover 31 8eastern states and D.C. It's a program we 9want to finalize in the spring of 2011. We 10view the public comments that are due to us by 11October 1st, 2010. We're hopeful to complete 12the rule in the spring of 2011. We plan to 13have it in full effect by January 1, 2012. 14This rule is to replace the 15interstate rule for the current court's 16direction when we have to re-man the 17litigation that occurred in 2008. We think it 18does a lot to protect the public's health, the 19benefits are quite large. 20All of this you can find out by 21reviewing my full opening remarks this morning 22as well as the fact sheet that lays this out 23on the front desk. If you want additional 24155
facts and information about the particular 1rule. 2Let me talk about how we're 3handling the speakers and the session this 4afternoon. What it is is that each person is 5being given five minutes to speak. We will 6call the speakers, two at a time, in pairs, to 7come up. When you do come up, we have had a 8little problem with the mic. Get very close 9to it so that the transcriber can make sure 10she clearly takes down your remarks. 11If you have a written statement, 12an extra copy, if you could give that to Sarah 13at the outset. If you could say your name, in 14case I don't do justice to it, and spell it, 15that would help again for the official 16transcript. 17We're going to have a 18timekeeping system which you will see a box on 19the table there. You will have a green, a 20yellow and a red light. What will happen is, 21when you go to speak, the green light will be 22on. When you have about a minute left, you 23get a yellow light warning you that you're 24156
coming up on five minutes. And at that point 1at five minutes, the red light will go on. We 2please ask that you wrap it up then. 3We have many speakers this 4afternoon and we want to roughly stay on track 5to hold the hearing at about eight o'clock. 6However, we will stay and hear every speaker 7that comes, and basically get your comments 8into the record. We'll stay until everyone 9who has been here has been heard, that comes 10to the hearing. With that, we'll get started. 11MR. BILL O'SULLIVAN: Good 12afternoon. My name is Bill O'Sullivan. I am 13the Air Director at the New Jersey Department 14of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). I am 15speaking on behalf of NJDEP on USEPAs proposed 16Transport Rule. I would like to first applaud 17USEPA for their effort to address the flaws in 18the Clean Air Interstate Rule, CAIR. There 19are many positive aspects of the proposed 20Transport Rule, such as using a Federal 21Implementation Plan, FIP, for implementing 22emissions reduction measures quickly, 23disconnecting the SO2 reductions from the Acid 24157
Rain Program, and committing to a second phase 1of the Transport Rule to achieve additional 2and necessary emissions reductions to address 3all NAAQS. 4There are also significant 5weaknesses in the Transport Rule. I will 6focus on three: First, the Transport Rule as 7proposed does not guarantee that a specific 8source that has significant impact to a 9downwind state will ever control its 10emissions. A real world example for New 11Jersey is the Portland Generating Station 12Portland Plant in Pennsylvania. 13This source is adversely 14impacting New Jerseys air quality due to its 15significant, largely uncontrolled emissions 16and its close proximity to New Jersey. Under 17the Transport Rule, not all power plants in a 18large state like Pennsylvania will need to 19control their emissions. Thus, the Portland 20Plant might remain poorly controlled through 21the purchase of allowances under the Transport 22Rule. 23If little or no reductions in 24158

the actual emissions from the Portland Plant 1occur, New Jerseys air quality, and the public 2health and welfare, will continue to suffer as 3a result of the plants emissions. Therefore, 4it is necessary to implement emission 5performance standards, similar to those 6already adopted by New Jersey, for electric 7generating units. 8New Jersey submitted on May 12, 92010, a Section 126 petition to the USEPA 10seeking reductions in emissions from the 11Portland Plant due to its significant 12contribution to nonattainment, and 13interference with maintenance, of the sulfur 14dioxide SO2 and 24-hour fine particulate 15matter PM 2.5 NAAQS in New Jersey. 16The units at the Portland Plant, 17built in the 1950s and 1960s, have no SO2 18emission controls and outdated control 19technology for NOX and particulate emissions. 20This petition was based on air quality 21modeling and the 24 hour SO2 standard. 22Based on the new one-hour SO2 23standard promulgated in June, the Department 24159
predicts that the Portland Plants sulfur 1dioxide impact on the air quality is much 2greater, causing nonattainment in a much 3larger area in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 4While EPAs transport rule is a positive step, 5additional regulatory tools are needed to 6address plants like Portland. 7Two, perhaps most importantly, 8USEPAs proposal does not adequately address 9the daily nature of peak ozone. In order to 10states to attain and maintain the current 75 11ppb and future ozone standards, it is 12necessary for the USEPA to additionally set 13short term (hourly to daily) performance 14standards that apply to each upwind source. 15New Jersey has adopted its own rules to 16address NOX and SO2 and particulate matter 17emissions on a 3 hour to daily basis. USEPA 18approved these RACT rules as a SIP revision on 19August 3, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 45483 (August 3, 202010) In an analysis NJDEP conducted for the 21northeast, it found that only a typical summer 22day in 2005, the NOX emissions were 551 tons 23per day, while on a high electric demand day, 24160
typically a hot summer day that corresponds 1with high ozone, the NOX emissions were 1,349 2tons per day. Averaging emissions over the 3ozone season is insufficient to address high 4ozone days where the NOX emissions are almost 5three times the typical day. Although the 6USEPA offered a direct control alternative in 7the Transport Rule, it allows for annual 8averaging, which also will not solve the peak 9ozone day problem. To properly address NOX 10emissions during high ozone days, the USEPA 11must adopt a rule with daily, or shorter time 12period, performance standards. 3. The cost 13level of $500/ton of NOX removed that the 14USEPA set for determining significant 15contribution is much too low to be reasonable. 16The USEPA cited $2,500/ton in CAIR as 17extremely cost effective for controlling NOX. 18Section 185 of the Clean Air Act specifies 19over $8,000 ton penalty for failure to attain 20the NAAQS. States in the Ozone Transport 21Commission (OTC) and elsewhere have adopted 22rules to control NOX from smaller sources that 23cost much more than $10,000 ton. Limiting 24161
costs to $500 ton in this transport rule is 1inappropriate because it does not reflect the 2much higher public health and welfare benefits 3that are available at higher control cost 4levels. The rule is not stringent enough to 5provide the necessary emission reductions to 6remove all significant contributions from 7upwind states. In the rules Preamble, the 8USEPA states that there are still several 9areas that will not attain the old 85 ppb 10ozone NAAQS and the annual and daily PM 2.5 11NAAQS. This includes nonattainment areas in 12New Jersey. This problem is compounded when 13you consider the current 75 ppb ozone standard 14or an even lower standard. 15I urge the USEPA to move forward 16with Transport Rule 2 and better address 17regional transport and cost effective public 18health benefits in a timely manner. Without 19effective regulation, states will not be able 20to attain the ozone, sulfur dioxide, and fine 21particulate health standards. We will be 22submitting more detailed written technical 23comments into the docket. Thank you for the 24162
opportunity to testify today. 1MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 2Bill. 3SALLY ANDERSON: My name is 4Sally Anderson. I am an asthmatic and I run 5and bike daily. I not only enjoy clean air, 6but I down right need it. However, the need 7for our clean air goes so much further than my 8individual needs or even the needs of every 9asthmatic in Philadelphia. 10I work for an organization 11called the Human League in Philadelphia. Our 12main mission is to speak up for those that 13cannot speak for themselves, primarily 14animals. Air pollution can directly affect 15animals exactly the same way it does humans, 16only their systems, their lungs and everything 17are more sensitive because they're much 18smaller. 19They are susceptible to skin 20cancer, just like we are. When you take your 21dog out for a daily walk, I doubt you put 22sunscreen on it. They can get skin cancer 23

too. 24163
Pollution also seriously 1compromises the safety of the animal's 2habitats. It changes the soil make-up, it 3changes the water that they drink and it 4changes so many other natural resources that 5animals absolutely need to survive. Pollution 6harms and kills trees that they use for 7shelter, plants that smaller animals use for 8shelter and some also use for food. And then 9it begins killing off the smaller life forms 10that start the food chain, thus messing up the 11whole chain. It becomes a situation where 12then species begin dying out. We begin losing 13species of plants and animals. 14Fish are especially susceptible 15and vulnerable, but so are our pets and our 16native wild life. Without implementation to 17control pollution, our animals and our wild 18life and the plants around us can seriously be 19compromised. Thank you. 20MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 21adding that. 22MARIKA FRANZ: This past spring 23my nearly two year old daughter developed a 24164
very mild, very common cold. Outside of 1needing to buy an extra box of tissues, it 2seemed innocent enough until two weeks passed, 3and this very mild, very common cold was still 4there and getting worse. 5Worried, I took her to the 6doctors, and while the doctor couldn't 7definitively diagnose it as asthma, she heard 8some wheezing in her lungs, and quickly 9prescribed an inhaler. Initially I was 10hesitant to use the inhaler since it seemed 11such an extreme measure, that is until she had 12what seemed like a wheezing or an asthma 13attack. 14Since then, we had to use it 15once more when she had what seemed like 16another asthma attack. She has developed two 17more coughs during the past three summer 18months. Each time I wonder if this is asthma. 19Since then, I am afraid of the 20air she breathes. I'm afraid of the 21particles, pollution, and smog that is putting 22her at greater risk for developing full-blown 23asthma of worse. 24165
Afraid that there is nothing I 1can do to make the air a little cleaner, a 2little safer. That is why I am here today, to 3do something to ensure that my daughter has 4clean air so that she can run, dance and play 5without fear of an asthma attack. And I dont 6think I'm alone when I say that I want the 7best possible future for my daughter, and 8giving that to her includes being able to 9breathe safely. 10I'll do my part by reducing my 11demand for energy, but coal-fired power plants 12need to do their part by reducing their 13emissions that can prevent asthma attacks, not 14only for my daughter, but the 240,000 other 15people that suffer from asthma attacks each 16

year. 17MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 18your thoughts. 19ANNIE WILSON: I am Annie 20Wilson, and my affiliation is with the Sierra 21Club. I'm the Energy Committee chair of the 22chapter. I'm a resident of New York City, 23Lower East Side, adjacent to a very large 24166

power plant. 1First, I would like to address 2this overall, which given the significant 3reductions, it will certainly be an 4improvement for what we have. I hope it could 5be possible to expand on this with maybe 6requirements for technology. In the State of 7New York there had been a proposal to create 8regulations defining that form of technology. 9The best available technologies 10would be the most effective process for 11operational vending in minimizing the adverse 12requirement impacts. Reasonable available 13control technologies which infers costs and I 14think that when we're referring to costs, the 15determination that we make eventually on 16implying technology as best available. Please 17consider that the costs are not only and human 18costs. Environmental costs need to be 19factored in somehow and promoted as some kind 20of determinant for the best available 21technologies. 22As it relates to the East 14th 23Street plant, I want to give you a quick brief 24167
on the history, a quick history. There had 1been a shutdown of a midtown facility about 225 blocks away, and an expansion on East 14th 3Street, which is referred to in your tables as 4the East River Power Plant. That particular 5location is between a highway and a low-income 6project, several buildings right next to it. 7The pollution levels, PM 2.5 and 8other pollutants were greatly increased and 9SOX and NOX were somewhat reduced, even though 10they had no scrubbers provided. Two of them 11are burning gasoline. Dependent on the price 12of the fuel, and not in any way considering 13the communities that are most impacted, I'm 14living next to this power plant. I will state 15for the record prior to the expansion and 16location known as 14th Street, the pounds of 17emissions went from 156 million to four 18billion. This is a severe increase in pounds 19of emission. It is averaging now 5500 tons a 20day. 21I want to address the asthma 22rates. The community living next to that 23power plant are the highest in the city, 24168
higher than the Bronx, higher than Harlem, 1higher than anywhere. There was a preliminary 2study done under two years ago that found that 335 percent of the children living in those 4buildings next to the power plants are 5suffering from asthma. Half of those had to 6visit the hospital emergency room in the past 7

year. 8As it relates to the proposed 9training, the three systems that have been 10outlined, could I suggest that there has to be 11some kind of incorporation of the local 12pollution issues, and that an intrastate 13training program or interstate training 14program or even some kind of allowable average 15as referred to in the third case scenario 16might not necessarily address the local 17pollution issues as in this situation on East 1814th Street. And I hope that it doesn't slip 19through the cracks when you're making your 20rules relating to federal versus state 21implementation plan. 22In the state of New York, the 23DEC is very short-staffed. 85 percent of 24169
permit renewals for discharge of air are not 1examined on-site, but rather based on the 2applications made by -- the original 3application made by applicant. Because of the 4short staffing, there are some kinds of 5enforcement compliance and reporting that 6needs to be addressed. 7Thank you very much for this 8opportunity. It was a pleasure being here. 9MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you very 10much for sharing your thoughts with us and 11your local concerns. 12JAMES PLUMB, M.D.: My name is 13James Plumb. I am a Professor in the 14Department of Family and Community Medicine at 15Thomas Jefferson University, and Director of 16the Center for Urban Health. I am also the 17past President of the Philadelphia Chapter of 18Physicians for Social Responsibility. Here in 19Philadelphia we concentrate on personal 20violence and environmental degradation. 21As a practicing physician in 22North Philadelphia where premature morbidity 23and mortality from asthma, heart disease and 24170
stroke show marked disparities, I am deeply 1concerned about the health of the public and 2the impact that the environment has on my 3patients in Philadelphia. 4I am chronically perplexed by 5opposition to policies that affect the health 6and well being of so many citizens; citizens 7who have little to no idea about the 8environmental impact of laws and regulations 9promulgated by the Environmental Protection 10Agency, and less of efforts to restrict or 11redact these laws. 12I have patients, adults and 13children, right now who feel that they are in 14charge of their health. They have immunized 15their children, stopped smoking; use their 16inhalers correctly, follow diets, take their 17medications, and yet they remain at risk for 18symptom exacerbation, more frequent 19hospitalizations and premature death. And 20they have very little or no choice in the 21quality of the air they breathe, or in living 22in a climate that is warming with the growing 23risk of extreme heat events, worsening air 24171
quality, and risk of respiratory, cardiac, and 1pregnancy related deaths. 2I am currently working on two 3major projects in Philadelphia, obesity 4prevention in children and hypertension/stroke 5prevention in African American men, 6particularly in North Philadelphia. 7We are teaching the value of 8screening and exercise. People are listening. 9They are trying to do the right things. But 10walking in the city, the best, most affordable 11and most sustainable form of exercise, may in 12fact be harmful. Folks may be taking their 13blood pressure medications as directed, but 14coal-burning power plant emissions are 15interfering with optimal control. Medication 16use rises, costs rise and more side effects of 17the medications occur. This is unacceptable. 18People must go outside to play, 19work and worship. This is occurring in areas 20where our most vulnerable citizens live. 21Where obesity rates and stroke deaths are 22alarmingly high, where more folks are 23uninsured, and where more folks do not have 24172
access to quality primary care. 1This is the truth in North 2Philadelphia; but it is not just, and it 3should not be the American way of doing 4business. Regulation is just, when the lives 5of vulnerable citizens are put at risk by 6business as usual. 7I teach medical and public 8health students. They challenged me to read 9the scientific literature, so I am prepared to 10give them the best information available. The 11evidence of the negative effects of coal based 12power plant emissions on the health of their 13future patients and clients is mounting. I 14tell my students to look at the studies in 15peer-reviewed publications, learn the 16physiological and biochemical consequences of 17ozone and particulate matter on the lining of 18the lungs and its effect on the autonomic 19system of the heart, all resulting from 20oxidative stress and chronic inflammation. 21It's my responsibility as a 22physician to advocate for my patients and my 23students by strongly supporting the Clean Air 24173
Transport Rule. Without this rule, an 1immediate and direct threat to the children, 2elderly, the poor and vulnerable citizens of 3Philadelphia remains. 4Not to implement this rule is a 5socially irresponsible action and will lead to 6numerous missed days of work and school, 7preventable illness and deaths. Thank you. 8MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Dr. 9Plumb. 10MR. AARON RITZ: My name is 11Aaron Ritz. I'm an active person in 12Philadelphia and I'm a cyclist and a member of 13one of the oldest bicycle clubs in the city. 14Each year coal plants pour 15millions of tons of harmful pollution into our 16air, worsening asthma, causing heart attacks, 17increasing number of emergency room visits and 18missed work days. 19That pollution doesn't stop at 20county or even state lines; as a result people 21throughout the country are forced to breathe 22unhealthy air. 23This national problem needs a 24174
national solution. Were pleased that EPA is 1acting to help states be good neighbors by 2reducing air pollution escaping across state 3lines. 4We applaud this common sense 5approach by Lisa Jackson and EPA to protect 6public health and help states clean up their 7air efficiently and cost-effectively. 8
Cost. 9The rule will produce at least 10$100 billion dollars, and possibly up to $290 11billion, in public health savings. 12The areas with the most cleanup 13to do will also realize the most benefits so 14that no state will bear an unfair burden. 15These significant pollution 16reductions will cost consumers very little on 17their energy bills on average a dollar or two 18a month. 19Millions of people are currently 20breathing air that doesn't meet basic clean 21air standards. 22The Good Neighbor rule will 23prevent at least 23,000 heart attacks, 26,000 24175
hospital visits and 240,000 asthma attacks, 1according to EPA estimates. 2These health benefits translate 3not only to a better quality of life, but to 4hard savings of $120 to $290 billion. A delay 5in action could result in up to 36,000 deaths 6related to dirty air. 7Accordingly to the EPA one in 8six women already has enough mercury in her 9body to put her baby at risk of developmental 10problems. This rule would indirectly help 11lower that exposure. 12Reducing air pollution will 13significantly improve visibility in our 14national parks and wilderness areas. These 15improved views are worth $3.4 billion in 16increased tourism and recreational 17opportunities. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 18oxides, main contributors to acid rain, will 19be cut by more than half under this rule. 20The rule will also reduce 21mercury contamination. Already 47 states have 22warnings not to eat the fish from their waters 23because of unsafe mercury levels. 24176
Starting in 2012, coal plants in 131 states will have to reduce their soot and 2smog pollution. Over time pollution limits 3will be lowered to help progressively clean up 4our air. Like the highly successful acid rain 5program, the rule sets final clean air 6requirements but gives coal plants flexible 7options to achieve those requirements. 8Those plants responsible for the 9most air pollution will have to make a second 10round of pollution reductions so that 11residents in all states can enjoy clean, 12healthy air. 13EPA has concluded that this plan 14is the most cost-effective way to protect air 15quality in neighboring states. Thank you. 16MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 17

Aaron. 18DENNIS WINTERS: Good afternoon. 19My name is Dennis Winters and I am the Sierra 20Club, Pennsylvania Chapter Chairman. The 21Sierra Club was founded in 1892 to explore, 22enjoy and protect our planet. Nationally and 23locally, the Sierra Club has been a leader in 24177
conservation practices and environmental 1protection. Thank you for the opportunity to 2comment today. 3I am also here today on behalf 4of myself as a senior citizen, a car-free 5cyclist, and a public transportation advocate 6that has been active for sixteen years on the 7regional citizens committee of the Delaware 8Valley Regional Planning Commission. The 9CVRPC. The Commission is the regional 10nine-county MPO that also includes Delaware 11and Maryland counties for air quality 12

purposes. 13However, let me be clear. I am 14speaking for myself and Sierra Club and not 15for DVRPC or its citizens committee. 16The Sierra Club, Pennsylvania 17Chapter and it's over 24,000 members supports 18the efforts of EPA to finally bring to our 19citizens a proposal that will help 20Pennsylvania protect our citizens from upwind 21power plant pollution and help prevent 22Pennsylvania from victimizing our downwind 23neighbors with our dirty coal fired electric 24178
generation. The Sierra Club supports the 1Clean Air Transport Rule. 2My personal experience has shown 3me the true value of protecting the public 4health and welfare, and not the industry 5emitting this pollution. I previously 6referenced the DVRPC only to indicate my 7awareness that Pennsylvania, despite its being 8in conformity for air quality goals 9established in its state implementation plan, 10promulgated by the Pennsylvania Department of 11Environmental Protection, that regional 12nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter 13pollutants will probably still extent beyond 14my lifetime. 15This is largely due to the 16importation of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from 17coal burning electric power plants far outside 18the western boundaries of our region. 19Communities in New Jersey and to the northeast 20suffer an even greater burden of atmospheric 21pollution after the Philadelphia metropolitan 22area adds the effluents from hundreds of 23thousands of mobile sources. 24179
To the extent that the City and 1County of Camden sit on the eastern boundary 2of the MPO, the amount of pollution they 3ultimately have to live with amounts to a 4monument environmental justice issue. The air 5quality sensors there consistently indicate 6the highest pollution levels in the region. 7The Sierra Club and its 8Pennsylvania Chapter supports the proposed EPA 9proposal called the Good Neighbor Rule and 10Clean Air Transport Rule, because it will 11reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide 12pollution that create acid precipitation, 13ozone smog and particle pollution that blows 14into our state. This will improve the health 15of millions of people at risk from these 16pollutants, especially vulnerable people, 17seniors, children and people with chronic lung 18disease and cardiovascular disease and 19diabetes. Particulate pollution alone has 20been linked to over 5300 premature deaths, and 21has now been linked to actual mortality from 22cardiovascular disease and chronic respiratory 23disease. 24180

EPA has made a good start. It 1is again requiring that 31 states and the 2District of Columbia produce sulfur dioxide 3and nitrogen oxide pollution emitted from 4fossil fuel fired power plants. However, we 5call on EPA to strengthen this rule. We need 6to have even greater reductions in the 7airborne sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide 8emissions that create deadly ozone and fine 9particle pollutions. 10The Sierra Club, Pennsylvania 11Chapter, Clean Air Committee will be 12submitting technical comments to EPA during 13the written comment period. We appreciate the 14opportunity the EPA has given us to 15communicate our position to you this 16afternoon. 17MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 18ERIC CHEUNG: My name is Eric 19Cheung. Thank you for this opportunity to 20speak on your proposed Transport Rule. I am a 21middle-aged man who has always enjoyed running 22outdoors, especially during the summer months. 23About 12 years ago I was 24181
diagnosed with a mild form of asthma. What my 1asthma amounted to then was occasionally at 2the start of a run, I might begin hacking a 3bit, but the problem was never significant. 4And although I was prescribed an inhaler, I 5never actually needed to use it. In recent 6years, it is clear that my asthma has gotten 7much worse. In fact I just met with my 8primary care physician on Monday about this. 9In the past year I have suffered 10the worst respiratory problems I can ever 11recall having. And my body has had to teach 12me new lessons about how much I took being 13healthy for granted. 14During the winter months my 15colds were so severe and my coughing so bad, I 16learned to accept taking time off from work to 17recover. During the spring, my allergies 18acted up so frequently that I learned to sleep 19on my side or else endure a dizzy spell from 20an uncontrollable coughing bout. And this 21summer I have learned the joy of running for 22its own sake, not running as fast as I used 23to, not running as far as I used to, but, just 24182
the accomplishment of finishing a few miles 1without stopping. 2Sure, I attribute much of my 3declining respiratory health to getting older. 4But, I also know that as my asthma has 5worsened, I have become far more susceptible 6to ground level ozone. In fact, prolonged 7exposure to ozone from living in an urban 8setting may have aggravated my asthma. 9As an agency charged with 10researching and establishing health standards 11for air pollution, you know very well the 12impact high levels of ozone can have on 13someone like me. And over the years the EPA 14has done an excellent job of educating me on 15this impact. 16Still, it is only in recent 17years that I have fully begun to appreciate 18this knowledge. I used to love running in hot 19weather. I prided myself in being able to 20rise to the challenge. Of course the hottest 21days tend to correspond to the worst ozone 22levels and this summer I discovered that I 23simply can no longer run on those days. I 24183
tried once or twice, but I felt so weak, my 1breathing so labored, I could move only a 2little faster than a walking pace. 3I watched runner after runner 4pass me by and instead of enjoying the 5exercise, I kept wishing I could just crawl 6back inside and sit in front of an air 7conditioner. 8I am beginning to accept my 9physical limitations, beginning to realize 10what it means to have asthma. I'm using an 11inhaler now. Im going to meet with a 12pulmonologist soon. I am taking much more 13care to check the weather and air quality 14reports before exercising outside. I am doing 15my part and addressing what I can control. 16Now, I need you to do your part 17and address what I cannot control. I need you 18to do all you can to reduce the pollution 19outside that I have no choice but to breathe. 20And if this means targeting ozone from 21neighboring states, then I fully support and 22applaud you actions. 23Being healthy is a precious gift 24184
that I will no longer take for granted. 1Please remember that safeguarding my health 2and the health of everyone else in America 3from the threat of pollution is your top 4priority. Please act accordingly, and proceed 5with these regulations as well as future ones 6that will reduce air pollution. Thank you. 7MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 8DR. ESTHER K. CHUNG: Good 9afternoon. My name is Dr. Esther K. Chung. I 10am an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at 11Jefferson Medical College and a practicing 12pediatrician in Philadelphia with Nemours/A.I. 13DuPont Hospital for Children. 14I take time out of my clinical 15day to be here today because of the important 16issues that we're discussing. I would like to 17acknowledge five medical students in the 18audience, who have also taken time out of 19their clinical day. It's not very often that 20physicians come to these kind of hearings. 21Thank you very much. 22Thank you for the opportunity to 23give testimony in support of the Transport 24185

Rule proposed by the EPA. Today, I speak as a 1native citizen and an individual physician on 2behalf of the thousands of patients that I 3have had the privilege to serve over the past 4two decades. 5The proposed rule would cut air 6pollution from coal-fired power plants that 7crosses 31 states and the District of Columbia 8in an effort to help states meet current 9national air quality health standards. I 10agree with others speakers that the status 11quo, and the lack of clean air, is a social 12and environmental injustice. 13The new rule would have a 14significant and favorable impact on health by 15one, reducing coal pollution and its 16associated diseases and two, lessening the 17threat of global warming and its predicted ill 18health effects. 19Coal pollutants affect all major 20body organ systems, impact people of all ages, 21and contribute to four of the five leading 22causes of death in the United States: Chronic 23lower respiratory diseases including asthma, 24186

heart disease, cancer, and stroke. 1Daily, I see children with 2preventable and controllable conditions such 3as asthma, which affects 7 million children in 4the United States. Approximately 4.1 million 5U.S. children suffer from asthma and have an 6attack each year. Asthma is the third most 7common reason for hospitalization among 8children and the most common chronic childhood 9health condition. 10Common triggers for asthma 11include respiratory tract infections and air 12pollutants including tobacco smoke, and power 13plant and vehicle emissions. I have witnessed 14children so sick from asthma that they are 15unable to speak because they cannot breathe 16and they require prolonged hospitalizations in 17intensive care settings. 18Many young patients that I see 19cannot enjoy what others take for granted. 20They cannot participate in physical education, 21play on team sports, play at community pools 22because their asthma is so severe and 23difficult to control even with the best 24187
medicines, including multiple medications. 1Coal emissions consisting of 2nitrogen oxide, ozone, particulate matter, and 3sulfur dioxide, all contribute to asthma by 4increasing airway inflammation and reducing 5lung capacity. The Transport rule would 6result in $290 billion in annual cost savings 7related to health. There would be an 8estimated fewer 240,000 cases of asthma 9attacks and 1.9 million fewer days of missed 10work and school. 11By reducing air pollution from 12coal-burning plants, the Transport Rule will 13result in reductions in associated diseases, 14including asthma, chronic obstructive 15pulmonary disease or COPD, lung cancer, 16cardiac arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, 17heart attacks and stroke. With growing 18evidence to show that coal emissions are 19associated with higher rates of infant 20mortality and congenital heart defects, 21including ventricular sepal defects, we can 22impact poor health outcomes even among 23newborns and infants. 24188

For the past 10-15 years, the 1ill health effects of mercury have been 2publicly discussed and I personally have spent 3hours counseling families about mercury, which 4is a known coal pollutant. I have watched 5children go unvaccinated because of mercury 6concerns in vaccines, and I have even had 7conversations about whether it is better to 8eat tilapia instead of tuna. Rarely, however, 9have families asked me about mercury in the 10content of air pollution. 11People assume that the outdoor 12air they breathe is fresh and clean, often not 13recognizing that air pollution is often 14invisible. Sadly, families and the general 15public are unaware of the fact that in 2006, 16power plants were estimated to account for 40 17percent of the controllable mercury emissions 18in the United States. 19It is also well established that 20mercury, as an air pollutant, places fetuses 21at risk for future developmental delays 22through maternal exposure. 23The document, Coals Assault on 24189
Human Health, published by Physicians for 1Social Responsibility in November of 2009, 2clearly outlines the direct ill health effects 3mentioned above from coal-burning due to air 4pollution. In addition, this report 5summarizes the predicted indirect ill health 6effects associated with global warming. These 7include heat cramps, heat syncope or fainting, 8heat exhaustion and heat stroke; water-borne 9bacterial illnesses including diarrhea; 10drowning, asthma, COPD, insect and 11rodent-borne diseases, hunger, malnutrition, 12mental health problems, violence, and war. 13Help me to reassure my 10 and 14 14year-old daughters that we can work toward 15clean air and reduce the threat of global 16warming. Allow my 8 year-old patient with 17asthma to have a childhood and to run and play 18outside, and give young families confidence 19that their children will not be at risk for 20developmental delays because of the air that 21they breathe. 22The words of President Lyndon B. 23Johnson spoken at the 1964 University of 24190
Michigan commencement 46 years ago, in what is 1now known as his Great Society speech still 2ring true, "We have always prided ourselves on 3being not only America the strong and America 4the free, but America the beautiful. Today 5that beauty is in danger. The water we drink, 6the food we eat, and the very air that we 7breathe are threatened with pollution.” 8Sadly, these words still ring true. 9I commend the EPA for the 10proposed Transport Rule and for all of its 11work to preserve and improve America's health. 12Thank you very much for hosting this hearing 13and for your attention and consideration. 14MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 15

Doctor. 16TRACEY HEALEY: I'm here as a 17mother of two sons that have asthma. I'm here 18to ask for something to be done so that my 19kids don't have to go through the burden of 20hospitalizations with my grandchildren and 21their children. I'm also a runner and I'm 22asking you to make sure that the air is clean 23for me and for my family. I'm also here as a 24191
friend to many other parents. Thank you. 1MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 2MR. JOSEPH OSBORNE: Good 3afternoon. Im Joe Osborne and Im the legal 4director of the Group Against Smog and 5Pollution (or GASP). GASP is a 6Pittsburgh-based non-profit founded in 1969 to 7improve air quality in southwestern 8Pennsylvania. I want to thank EPA for 9providing this opportunity to speak today. We 10commend the agency for developing the Clean 11Air Transport Rule, and we welcome the 12reductions in PM 2.5 and ozone the rule will 13

secure. 14However, from the perspective of 15those of us living in southwestern 16Pennsylvania the proposed rule does not go far 17enough. Southwestern Pennsylvania is home to 18the Liberty-Clairton PM 2.5 nonattainment 19area, this is a tiny area made up of five 20municipalities just southeast of Pittsburgh 21along the Monongahela River. 22The Liberty-Clairton area has 23quite possibly the most severe PM 2.5 problem 24192

in the nation. This area also has the 1unfortunate distinction of being the only 2place in the eastern half of the United States 3that will still fail to meet the annual PM 2.5 4standard after the proposed transport rule is 5fully implemented. This is not acceptable. 6Over 20,000 people live in the 7Liberty-Clairton area. So long as we fail to 8address the areas continued nonattainment, 9well se additional cases of childhood asthma, 10heart attacks, and premature deaths. These 11are very real and very grave consequences of 12our failure to act, and they are completely 13avoidable. 14EPAs reasoning for not 15addressing the Liberty-Clairton problem in the 16transport rule is that the area is heavily 17influenced by local emissions from the nearby 18US Steel Clairton Coke Works. In other words, 19EPA is saying, it's a local problem, not a 20transport problem. 21It's true that the coke works 22has a huge influence on local PM 2.5 23concentrations. However, long-range transport 24193
also plays a significant role in the problem. 1Based on 2001-2003 data used to develop the 21997 PM 2.5 state implementation plan for the 3area roughly 14 ug/m3 of the annual PM 2.5 4measured at the Liberty monitor was emitted by 5sources other than the coke works. Thats 6about two-thirds of the total annual measured 7PM 2.5 concentration. Nearly 12 ug/m3 8originate from sources beyond the areas long 9range transport modeling domain-thats a 150 10x150 kilometer area centered on 11Liberty-Clairton. 12So even before accounting for 13emissions from the coke works, the Liberty 14monitor is nearly violating the PM 2.5 annual 15standard, and the bulk of those 14 micrograms 16are from sources nowhere near 17Liberty-Clairton. 18EPA cannot use the emissions 19from the Clairton Coke Works to justify a 20transport rule that essentially pretends 21Liberty-Clairton doesn't exist. 22Liberty-Clairtons PM 2.5 problem is caused by 23a combination of local and distant sources, 24194
and it can only be addressed by achieving 1reductions from both local and distant 2

sources. 3The Clairton Coke Works must do 4its part, upwind sources must do theirs. If 5the transport rule is finalized in its current 6form, the local emission reductions currently 7being developed would not be sufficient to 8demonstrate attainment of the 1997 annual PM 92.5 standard until 2017-the absolute latest 10deadline the Clean air Act allows. 11Maybe the transport rule cant 12fully resolve the Liberty-Clairton problem, 13but it can better address the upwind 14contribution to nonattainment in 15Liberty-Clairton by adopting higher SO2 and 16NOX cost thresholds; moving the eight 17candidate states EPA has identified from group 182 to group 1, and adding Texas to group 2. 19EPA should also explore the feasibility of 20establishing caps on ammonia and VOCs, or at 21least subset of the most reactive VOCs. 22The benefits of these additional 23measures wouldn't be limited to the 20,000 24195
people in Liberty-Clairton, they would also 1help address other remaining nonattainment and 2maintenance areas predicted by either the air 3quality assessment tool or CAMx, and provide a 4head start on the 2008 ozone standard and the 5soon-to-be-revised 2006 PM 2.5 standard. 6Again, thank you for your time and 7providing this opportunity to speak. I hope 8these comments are helpful to EPA as the 9agency works to finalize the transport rule. 10MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 11MYRIAM FALLON: My name is 12Myriam Fallon. I am here as a resident of 13Philadelphia. I am here to support the 14proposed Transport Rule. This rule is very 15important to me on a personal level. I grew 16up on the south side of Chicago. I was very 17active as a child. I joined a rowing team 18that practiced on the Chicago River. I 19trained three to four hours a day near the 20power plant located on the south side. 21Within six months, I developed 22fairly severe asthma, which I never 23experienced before. It got to the point that 24196
within a year I was collapsing after races and 1had to make the choice to take a much less 2active role in my rowing team. 3This asthma continued throughout 4my high school career, until I moved out of 5the city and went west to college, and it went 6away within six months. I've never 7experienced that acute level of asthma since 8then. However, when I do return to the south 9side of Chicago to go home, I can feel the 10difference in the way I breathe. 11Today, as I said, I no longer 12suffer from asthma, but I do actively exercise 13outside, I run, walk and bike on a daily basis 14in Philadelphia. The idea that being outside 15affects my health, as well as the health of 16other citizens, is both terrifying and sad to 17me. It's something that we need to be 18concerned about, breathing the air that should 19be there and healthy for everybody. 20Throughout the hearing we've 21heard many health risks attributed to 22pollution across the country. So this is an 23issue that affects everyone in this community, 24197
the country and ultimately the world. It is 1true that pollution knows no boundaries. 2I believe this rule to be a big 3step in the right direction as far as the air 4quality goes, and across our country. I 5wanted to put my word in for support of this 6rule. 7MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 8coming down and expressing your views and your 9thoughts. 10JAMIN BOGI: Good afternoon. My 11name is Jamin Bogi and I am the Education and 12Outreach Coordinator for Group Against Smog 13and Pollution, or GASP. Thank you for taking 14comments today on this important proposal. 15While my colleague, Joe Osborne, has provided 16GASP's views on more technical aspects of the 17proposal, allow me to give you a 18boots-on-the-ground view. 19Much of my work focuses on 20educating citizens of southwestern PA about 21our poor air quality and its effect on our 22health. Almost no one I meet knows or cares 23what NAAQS, BACT, BART, or VOC means. 24198
There is a strong feeling held 1my many in the region that because we dont 2have to leave streetlights on all day to cut 3through the smog like we did decades ago, the 4air is clean and our problems are gone. 5Unfortunately, the Pittsburgh region still has 6dirty air. PM 2.5 is too small to be seen, 7which makes my job that much harder. 8We face another obstacle to 9change in my region, which is that much of our 10pollution comes from elsewhere. Due to 11Pittsburgh's location, east of many coal-fired 12power plants, and its unique topography, lots 13of air pollution finds its way to Pittsburgh 14from somewhere else. 15Those who are aware of our air 16quality issues can be lulled into inaction 17because of this. Business leaders complain 18that stronger, local regulations we advocate 19for will make our area less competitive for 20business while not solving the pollution 21problem, since so much of it comes from 22upwind. 23Politicians see little reason to 24199
offend industry or labor when our problems can 1be blamed on others. This blame game means 2that out own large sources of pollution can go 3on polluting, without feeling much pressure to 4change. 5GASP agrees its not fair that we 6have to breathe in the particulate matter and 7ozone produced several states away. We 8applaud EPA for taking interstate action for 9an interstate problem. Knowing that our 10upwind pollution sources are being dealt with 11will allow GASP to hold our leaders in 12Pittsburgh more accountable for the pollution 13we produce ourselves. 14The estimated annual health and 15welfare benefits of hundreds of billions of 16dollars are massive compared to the relatively 17puny costs of less than three billion dollars. 18The rule is estimated to prevent 23,000 19non-fatal heart attacks in 2014, and many of 20those heart attacks would have occurred in the 21Pittsburgh region. Heart attacks like the one 22my father suffered. 23He grew up in McKeesport, a town 24200
on the Monongahela River a few miles east of 1Pittsburgh. At age 34, my age now, he 2suffered a heart attack and underwent a triple 3bypass. I speak for him as well when I say 4this action is appreciated. 5But while we are pleased to see 6this rule go forward, we would like it to be 7even stronger. Pittsburgh stands out for many 8reasons. Its the City of Bridges, boasting 9more spans than even Venice. Its home to 10sports teams that win championships year after 11year. But even after this rule takes effect, 12it will still be called The Smoky City. 13Allegheny County, home of Pittsburgh, will be 14one of the last holdouts for having a monitor 15in violation of PM 2.5 standards, so Allegheny 16County has the most to gain from the strongest 17possible regulations. 18CAMx modeling, which EPA admits 19is more accurate, shows that higher cost 20thresholds are needed for many regions to meet 21attainment for the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. 22GASP supports raising the cost threshold from 23$2000/ton to at least $2500/ton for SO2, 24201
providing further reductions of hundreds of 1thousands of tons of pollutants per year. 2We also support moving all 3states expected to have attainment issues 4under CAMx modeling from group two to group 5one, and adding Texas to group two. It makes 6little sense to have more accurate date from 7CAMx modeling not to use it. 8Again, thank you for taking this 9action and comments on it and for proposing 10further action down the road. 11MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 12SARAH BUCIC: I am testifying 13today in favor of the EPA Transport Rule. I 14am testifying as an Advance Practice 15Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse, a concerned 16citizen and a parent. There has been emerging 17evidence of particulate matter-related 18cardiovascular health effects and growing 19knowledge regarding pathways that link 20particulate matter exposure with 21cardiopulmonary morbidity and mortality. 22Fine particulate matter is a 23major threat to children, because of their 24202
higher exposure to particulate matter compared 1to adults, the immature state of the lung in 2childhood and also of the immune function at 3birth. 4I have great concern for the 5most vulnerable in our society, some still 6receiving their oxygen through their mothers 7bodies. Exposures to ambient air pollutants 8have been associated with adverse birth 9outcomes such as lower birth weight and 10increased risk of intrauterine growth 11retardation. 12Fine particulates even at much 13lower concentrations than current U.S. 14regulatory levels, has been associated with 15increased rates of mortality and morbidity in 16several cities in the United States, as well 17as in Europe and other developed countries. 18The effect of particulates on 19health may be complex, as it may vary from one 20individual to another. Susceptibility factors 21could be linked to genetics, gender, age and 22race or to individual characteristics caused 23by the realities of life. 24203
This proposed rule would yield 1more than $120 to $290 billion in annual 2benefits in 2014. This far outweighs the 3estimated annual costs of $2.8 billion. The 4emission reductions from this proposed rule 5would lead to significant annual health 6benefits. In 2014, this rule would protect 7public health by avoiding 14,000 to 36,000 8premature deaths, 21,000 cases of acute 9bronchitis, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 1026,000 hospital and emergency room visits, 1.9 11million days when people miss work or school, 12240,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 13440,000 upper and lower respiratory symptoms. 14The price of reducing emissions 15may be high for companies, but I ask those who 16oppose this rule to consider the price of the 17health related problems that emissions cause 18to people's lives and the health related costs 19these impose on our society. 20MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 21Sarah. 22JOE MAHONEY: Good afternoon and 23thank you for the opportunity to comment on 24204
the proposed air pollution transport rule. My 1name is Joe Mahoney and I am Executive Vice 2President at the Greater Philadelphia Chamber 3of Commerce. We are please to be here today 4to express our support for the proposed rules 5designed to help states implement the Good 6Neighbor provisions of the Clean Air Act which 7prohibits states from significantly 8contributing to the air quality problems of 9another state. 10The EPA Transport Rule 11specifically is aimed at requiring stricter 12controls for air pollution that travels 13hundreds of miles and causes multiple health 14and environmental problems for surrounding 15regions. As a downwind state, Pennsylvania 16will benefit from the proposed rule changes 17being suggested by the EPA. These actions 18will have a significant impact on public 19health as well as on economic development and 20infrastructure needs within our region. Our 21region is moving aggressively to pursue 22options which will improve air quality and 23reduce emissions through the use of mass 24205

transit. 1The Chamber supports the 2proposed expansion of public transit along the 3waterfront in Philadelphia and in suburban 4locations, as well as programs such as car and 5bike sharing to reduce emissions within the 6city. Just this week, the Chamber supported 7an application to the Pennsylvania Department 8of Environmental Protection for an electric 9vehicle micro-community project to develop an 10urban electric charging grid within the City 11of Philadelphia. 12This project, if brought to 13completion, will align with Mayor Nutter's 14desire that Philadelphia become the greenest 15city in America. Despite local efforts like 16these, our efforts can be thwarted when 17pollution from upwind states contributes to 18keeping our region as an ozone nonattainment 19

area. 20Economic development is affected 21by the increased cost of compliance through 22more stringent permitting requirements, 23increased costs on motor fuels and the 24206
jeopardy placed on federal highway funds. 1In short, downwind states such 2as ours are effectively paying a pollution tax 3for the emissions generated by polluters in 4distant states. The EPA preferred option, 5which allows for intrastate trading and 6limited interstate trading among power plants, 7but assures that each state will meet its 8pollution control obligations, would seem to 9make sense for our region. 10Often, the cost of compliance 11becomes a major issue for businesses when 12seeking to address environmental issues. We 13have always stated that any legislation or 14regulation must balance the needs of the 15environment and the economy. Cost to business 16is a critical concern in an increasingly 17competitive economy. 18In this case, EPA estimates that 19the annual cost of compliance will be about 20$2.8 billion in 2014, while annual benefits 21will range between $120 and $290 billion in 22that same timeframe. Most of these benefits 23will be health related and could result in 24207
less lost time and increased productivity for 1businesses of all types. These estimates seem 2to strike a reasonable balance. 3We thank you for this 4opportunity to comment on the proposed 5Transport Rule. Thank you for holding this 6regional hearing here in Philadelphia. 7MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 8ISKAR SMITH: Good afternoon, my 9name is Iskar Smith. So, I'm an asthmatic, 10like many of you in this room. I am in favor 11of reducing the emissions for obvious reasons. 12I have had health implications. Without 13reducing the emissions, it's been a dream of 14mine to go to college at Westpoint Military 15Academy. I feel that I can aptly serve this 16country. I can carry out the duties, but I 17can't do that if I am not in good health. 18Many people who do apply to school 19don't get in because they are asthmatic. So 20the inability not only as a sports 21participator, but as a soldier, an infantry 22man, I'd like to keep you people safe. I'd 23like to keep my children safe. 24208
Speaking of my children, I would 1like them to also be able to be physically 2stronger and smarter than me. I don't see how 3they can do this the emissions the way they 4are. They have to be reduced. 5If you look around you, the 6summer was ridiculous in Philadelphia. So to 7exist in the city, you have to use air 8conditioners to stay cool. 9We're destroying. How can we 10continue to exist? How can I serve my 11country? We can't unless we doing do 12something. The statistics have been proven 13and made quite clear and present, we can't 14debate this threat. Unless we do something, 15we must reduce the emissions. 16I would very much like to serve 17my country. I would like to keep people safe, 18counter terrorism. The enemies of this 19country would like to see each and every one 20of us dead. It can't be stopped unless we 21have good officers of the greatest military on 22the planet. We can't win if we don't have 23good officers. Students like me, who do have 24209

asthma but want to serve our country can't 1perform if they have asthma. That abates 2their ability to get into the college they 3want to get into. We can't be healthy without 4reducing the emissions. 5I care about my children, my 6family and friends. I feel that this rule 7needs to be passed and I strongly support the 8Transport Rule. Thank you. 9MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 10ROBERT FIORENTINO: My name is 11Robert Fiorentino. I am a home owner in 12Montgomery County, Abington Township. I heard 13about this hearing and I just wanted to give 14my voice because I hear a lot of commercials 15on the radio for coal industry, and I know 16that there is a profit to be made. I want to 17give a common voice from everyone one I know. 18I live in Montgomery County and 19I spend a lot of time in Bucks County and 20parts of Philadelphia. I really like the 21outdoors. I like to do a lot of things 22outside, spend time in parks, take my friends' 23dogs out for walks. I really am concerned for 24210
the future and the air quality and just the 1environment in general. I love the idea of 2making the air better, making the industry 3more secure and tighter. I really like what 4the EPA is doing. 5I really can't see any reason to 6not go forward and have stricter standards. I 7am thinking selfishly for my own health and 8enjoyment, and also down the line when I have 9children, grandchildren, what have you. I 10really think that we're on the right track and 11EPA is on the right track. I want to voice my 12support and hope that this goes through. 13MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you 14Robert for offering your thoughts and your 15support and coming a considerable distance to 16do that. I appreciate that very much. 17

- - - 18(Whereupon a dinner break was 19taken at this time.) 20

- - - 21
MR. NAPOLITANO: I am Sam 22Napolitano, with the EPA's Office of 23Atmospheric Programs, Director of Clean Air 24211
Markets Division. To my immediate left is 1Diana Esher of EPA's Region III office in 2Philadelphia. She runs the Air Protection 3Division. Tim Smith is to my far left. He's 4with EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and 5Standards. He is one of the key managers of 6the development. To my right is Sara 7Schneeberg, who is with the EPA's Office of 8General Counsel. 9We are here today to listen to 10your views on the Transport Rule that we 11proposed. We are taking public comment on it 12through October 1st, 2010. At that point, we 13will work on putting together everybody's 14comments of these hearings and the written 15comments submitted to us. And from that 16develop the final ruling. 17We plan to have it in full 18effect in Spring 2011 and basically have the 19full operation funds, January 1, 2012. 20The Transport Rule takes 31 21eastern states and the District of Columbia 22who are contributing significantly to 23downwind, nonattainment problems for '97 NAAQS 24212
for ozone fine particulate, and the 2006 fine 1particulate daily standard. It takes upwind 2areas in states that have downwind, 3nonattainment problems, and perhaps problems 4with maintaining air quality to maintain it. 5It basically reduces from their 6power sector the NOX and SOX emissions that 7attribute to the problems that we have in the 8downwind states for ozone and fine 9particulate. In effect, the transport of 10upwind pollution to downwind states, known as 11the Transport Rule, as we've shortened its 12

name. 13We believe the rule in its full 14effect, in 2012 and having further reductions 15occur by 1014, at that point we believe it's a 16rule that will give very, very substantial 17health benefits on the order of 120 billion to 18close to 300 billion annual benefits to the 19public. 20Most of those are happening from 21prevention of premature death, as it's 22associated with fine particulate and ozone 23level concentrations in the air that people 24213
are breathing in. Reducing that concentration 1and therefore preventing somewhere annually at 2that point between 40,000 and 36,000 premature 3deaths. 4There are a bunch of morbidity 5effects that are also prevented, heart 6attacks, chronic bronchitis and acute 7bronchitis, aggravated asthma attacks, 8emergency room visits, hospitalizations, loss 9of worker productivity, loss of school days 10for children and a lot of other things that 11collectively add up to a significant amount of 12benefits. 13We believe in the rule coming 14out that it will cost somewhere under about 15three billion dollars a year to be 16implemented. Obviously the costs are much 17less than the benefits the public will accrue. 18There will be a modest regional increase in 19your electricity prices, less than two 20percent, and other fuel prices will not 21significantly increase as a result of the 22rule, even though it's a quite meaningful 23reductions. 24214
As we have this rule coming 1out, as a result the court decision in 2008 2that basically the court remanded to us to do 3this rule over. The original Clean Air 4Interstate Rule of 2005, they let it remain in 5effect while we do it over. 6Today at the hearing as we're 7listening, thing the way that we're running it 8is, we will invite two speakers to come up to 9the table. You will have five minutes to 10speak. We ask that you introduce yourself and 11stay close to the mic because the mics are 12very sensitive, and basically give your name 13and spell it so the court reporter here can 14take that down. 15If you have more than one copy 16of your prepared statement, if you could give 17it to the court reporter, as you come in. 18That would be great, as she transcribes your 19remarks which are a part of the official 20record. 21We have a system here where 22there is a timer on the desk. You have five 23minutes. The first four minutes it will be a 24215
green light. Then it will go to yellow 1telling you that you have a minute left, and 2it will go to red at five minutes to tell you 3to please wrap up. We will prompt you at that 4point to help you stay with a reasonable time 5limit. 6At this point we have throughout 7the day heard close to 60 speakers. We 8basically look forward to those of you here to 9give your point of view. 10THOMAS HYUNH: Good evening. My 11name is Thomas Huynh. I am the Director of 12the City of Philadelphia, Department of Public 13Health, Air Management Services. On behalf of 14the City of Philadelphia, I would like to 15thank the United States Environmental 16Protection Agency for holding a public hearing 17in Philadelphia on the proposed Rule on the 18Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 19Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 20Matter and Ozone. 21Air Management Services, AMS is 22the local air pollution control agency for the 23City of Philadelphia. AMS's mission is to 24216
protect the health and quality of life of 1Philadelphians from the adverse effects of air 2pollution. It operates under authority 3provided by the Philadelphia Code, the 4Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act, and 5the Federal Clean Air Act. The City of 6Philadelphia commends the EPA for its efforts 7to protect public health by proposing to 8regulate nitrogen oxide, NOX and sulfur 9dioxide, SO2, emissions from electric 10generating units, EGUs, within 31 states in 11the eastern U.S. and the District of Columbia. 12This proposal will limit the 13interstate transport of these pollutants and 14assist downwind states in attaining and 15maintaining compliance with the 1997 and 2006 16fine particulate matter; PM 2.5, national 17ambient air quality standards, NAAQS; and the 181997 ozone NAAQS. 19NOX and SO2 emissions, 20originating from power plants and other 21sources located outside of Pennsylvania, 22contribute to PM 2.5 and ozone pollution in 23the City. NOX, as emitted by combustion 24217
sources such as power plants, is a well-known 1precursor in the formation of ozone. 2Likewise, SO2 emitted by the 3same sources can react in the air and form 4fie, sulfated particulates. Philadelphia is 5currently considered to be in attainment with 6the NAAQS for all air pollutants with the 7exception of ozone and PM 2.5. For thirteen 8days in 2009, the airborne concentrations of 9ozone and fine particulate matter in 10Philadelphia were high enough to warrant 11unhealthy ratings under the EPAs Air Quality 12Index. 13Ground level ozone is the 14pollutant most often responsible for unhealthy 15air quality in Philadelphia. Exposure to high 16levels of ozone can damage vegetation and can 17cause chest pain, coughing, aggravate asthma 18and reduce the life expectancy in humans. 19Exposure to fine particles also 20affects lung function; worsens medical 21conditions such as asthma and heart disease; 22and causes numerous short-term health effects 23including eye, nose, throat and lung 24218

irritation; and shortness of breath. In 2007, 1the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America 2determined that Philadelphia was the second 3worst city in the U.S. for asthma sufferers. 4According to the Philadelphia 5Health Management Corporation, the 2002 6Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Health 7survey showed that 13.7 percent of the 8children residing in the City have asthma. 929.2 percent of children with asthma are in 10fair or poor health, and 51.3 percent of the 11children with asthma went to the emergency 12room at least once in the prior year due to 13asthma problems. 14NOX and SO2 emissions 15originating from outside of Pennsylvania are 16significant contributors to the high levels of 17ozone and fine particulate in Philadelphia. 18As a result, the air quality within the City 19and the health of city residents can only be 20improved if the NOX and SO2 pollution 21generated in neighboring, upwind jurisdictions 22is limited. 23The Rule, in itself, is not a 24219
complete solution. There are many states that 1will need to do more to satisfy their Clean 2Air obligations to meet the Ozone and PM 2.5 3standards. EPA should include all categories 4in the proposed rule, not just EGUs that 5contribute significantly to interstate 6transport of NOX and SO2 in the jurisdictions 7covered. 8Thank you for the opportunity to 9testify on the proposed Rule on the Federal 10Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 11Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 12Ozone. We look forward to continued work with 13EPA, other air agencies, business and the 14public in improving Public Health for 15Philadelphia's citizens. 16MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Tom. 17JEFF MAHER: Thanks for coming 18out here. It's great that you're doing this. 19I guess in short, I am a layman. I am kind of 20a normal person. I like to spend time 21outside. I bicycle a lot and I like to 22breathe air. So I think it's a no brainer 23that this Transport Rule is a fantastic idea. 24220
I have recently moved into the 1Philadelphia area within the last couple of 2years. One of the things that I noticed has 3become seemingly worse is how awful the air 4quality is around here. I don't have facts or 5figures, but when you're bike riding down by 6the river, you can feel the air go into your 7lungs. And it doesn't feel very good. 8So I think this rule will do a 9lot by helping to regulate things that I think 10should have been regulated long ago. I wanted 11to come out and voice my support for it. 12Thank you. 13MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 14GREGG KRAVITZ: My name is Gregg 15Kravitz. I'll keep my comments brief. I am a 16young professional here in Philadelphia. I'm 17very politically involved. I recently ran for 18state representative here in center city as a 19candidate. Regardless of the outcome of my 20first election as a person who is engaged in 21public service and hopefully wants to see 22others do public service, this is a no 23brainer. To me, this is beyond politics. 24221
This is a very simple, where do we want to see 1ourselves in 10, 20, 50 years? 2Where do we want our children, 3grandchildren, hopefully we'll be here in 30 4or 40 years. It's important to me to know 5that the quality of air that I am breathing, 6that my siblings are breathing, that my family 7and my friends, all those who are important to 8me and generations afterwards, have a place 9that they can live and work and exist in 10society, and it's going to be free of 11pollutants. 12This is not 50 or 100 years ago. 13We're at a time in our society right now where 14we know, we have the science to prove the 15damage that not passing the Transport Rule 16will do, what the consequences will mean. 17Again, I don't think this is 18political. It's a global issue, simply, do 19you care about your family, your friends and 20future generations; and if you do, you very 21much need to support this. Thank you. 22MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 23Gregg. 24222

KARL PIETRZAK: I don't have 1anything prepared, but I will be more 2comfortable if I wing it. I actually moved 3here about two months ago from upstate New 4York. One thing I really liked there was the 5clean air. Irrespective of how you feel about 6nuclear power, the electricity generated 7upstate, 99 percent of it is from nuclear 8power plants that are up there. 9It produces no emissions, it's 10clean, it makes the air up there clean. One 11of the first things I noticed when I moved 12down here is that the air is a lot thicker. 13It's harder to breathe even if you're walking 14around. I wasn't used to that. I lived up 15there for seven years. 16When I would drive into the city 17after being in Rochester for awhile, I would 18have to turn off the vents in the car so that 19the air would recirculate in my car, so I 20wouldn't have to keep bringing in more fumes 21from the outside. That help the headaches go 22away. I have gotten more adjusted. 23I jog, I bike whenever I can, 24223

but it is hard to do that here. It has been a 1sweltering summer. From what I understand, a 2crazy summer too for you guys. But the extra 3heat makes the ozone a bigger problem. So 4upstate I never had to worry about, is the 5ozone safe, is it safe for me to run outside, 6I don't want to screw up my lungs from jogging 7for a little bit. 8So it's totally a different kind 9of attitude. I couldn't just go out and run. 10What's the temperature, is there any ozone 11warning? Even if I do though, you can feel it 12when you're running. It is thicker. It's a 13little harder to breathe. If there are a 14bunch of cars driving by, it sticks to your 15nostrils a little bit. 16The only thing I want to say is 17I am supportive of the rule because it is not 18fair for different communities just to have 19the geographical disadvantage of shear 20existence. I happen to be in places that get 21a lot of downstream pollution. 22New Jersey as a state is a 23little bit more interested in renewable 24224
energy. Pennsylvania, not so much. From west 1to east, there's a lot of pollution from 2Pennsylvania over to New Jersey. So it's 3unfortunate geographically the reality that in 4Philadelphia we're getting pollution from 5Pittsburgh and even Indiana. 6It all comes together. As a 7jogger and biker, it makes everything a little 8bit harder. Even just walking outside, I 9haven't gotten quite used to it. That's all I 10got. That's my schtick. 11MR. NAPOLITANO: Any questions? 12Okay, thank you very much for taking the time 13to come down and give us a sense of what you 14want to see going forward. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24225

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

- - - 2 3 I, Jeannine Cancelliere, Court 4Reporter and Notary Public and for 5Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify 6that the foregoing testimony at the Radisson 7Plaza, Warwick Hotel, on Thursday, August 26, 82010; was taken by me in shorthand by myself 9and reduced to typing under my direction and 10control, that the foregoing pages contain a 11true and correct transcription of all of the 12testimony of said witnesses. 13 14 15

............. 16JEANNINE CANCELLIERE Notary Public 17My commission expires October 13, 2011 18 19 20 21 22 23 24