1

1 August 26, 2010 

2 Statement of Sam Napolitano 

3 Clean Air Markets Division 

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

5 Public Hearing on the Proposed Federal 

6 Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 

7 Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 

8 Radisson Plaza, Warwick Hotel, 

9 Philadelphia, PA. 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 
2

1 MR. NAPOLITANO: Good morning 

2 and thank you for attending the second of 

3 three public hearings EPA is holding to take 

4 comment on the proposed rule, known as the 

5 “Transport Rule.” We held our first hearing 

6 in Chicago and we will hold the third on 

7 September 1st in Atlanta. 

8 My name is Sam Napolitano, and I 

9 am the Director of EPAs Clean Air Markets 

10 Division. I will be chairing today's hearing. 

11 Joining me on the panel are: Diana Esher of 

12 EPAs Region 3 Air Protection Division here in 

13 Philadelphia; Tim Smith, from the EPA's Office 

14 of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and 

15 Sara Schneeberg from EPAs Office of General 

16 Counsel. 

17 We are here today to listen to 

18 your comments on EPA's proposal to require 31 

19 states in the east and the District of 

20 Columbia to significantly improve air quality 

21 by reducing their power plant emissions. 

22 Specifically, this proposal would require 

23 significant reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

24 and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions that cross 
3

1 state lines. 

2 These pollutants react in the 

3 atmosphere to form fine particles and 

4 ground-level ozone and are transported long 

5 distances, making it difficult for other 

6 states to achieve national clean air 

7 standards. Fine particles and ozone cause a 

8 series of human health effects and 

9 environmental damages, including premature 

10 mortality, chronic and acute bronchitis, heart 

11 attacks, hospitalizations, emergency room 

12 visits, asthma attacks, acid deposition, 

13 damage to sensitive forests and coastal 

14 waters, and impaired visibility at our 

15 national parks and wilderness areas. 

16 Emission reductions will begin 

17 to take effect very quickly, in 2012, within 

18 one year after the rule is finalized. By 

19 2014, the rule and other state and EPA actions 

20 would reduce power plant SO2 emissions by 71 

21 percent over the 2005 levels. Power plant 

22 emissions or NOX would drop by 52 percent. 

23 We estimate that by 2014 the 

24 proposed Transport Rule would prevent 14,000 
4

1 to 36,000 premature deaths annually, as well 

2 as provide many other health and environmental 

3 benefits. The portion of the benefits that 

4 can be quantified total more than $120 to $290 

5 billion annually in 2014. These benefits far 

6 outweigh the estimated annual costs of $2.8 

7 billion. 

8 The Transport Rule would help 

9 all but a few areas in the eastern part of the 

10 United States meet the 1997 fine particle and 

11 ozone standards. In addition, the rule would 

12 make major strides towards helping states meet 

13 the 2006 24-hour average fine particle 

14 standard. 

15 EPA is proposing one approach 

16 for reducing SO2 and NOX emissions in states 

17 covered by this rule and taking comment on two 

18 alternatives. 

19 In the agency preferred 

20 approach, EPA is proposing to set a pollution 

21 limit (or budget) for each of the 31 states 

22 and the District of Columbia. This approach 

23 allows limited interstate trading among power 

24 plants that assures that each state will meet 
5

1 its pollution control obligations. 

2 In the first alternative, EPA is 

3 proposing to set a pollution limit or budget 

4 for each state. This option allows trading 

5 among power plants within a state. 

6 In the second alternative, EPA 

7 is proposing to set a pollution limit for each 

8 state and to specify allowable emission limits 

9 for each power plant and allow some averaging. 

10 This proposed rule would replace 

11 EPAs 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). A 

12 December 2008 court decision kept the 

13 requirements of CAIR in place temporarily, but 

14 directed EPA to issue a new rule to implement 

15 the Clean Air Act requirements concerning the 

16 transport of air pollution across state 

17 boundaries. This action responds to those 

18 courts concerns. 

19 Today we will be accepting oral 

20 comments on our proposal and we will prepare a 

21 written transcript of the hearing. The 

22 transcripts for all three hearings will be 

23 available as part of the official record for 

24 this rule and EPA will consider them as we 
6

1 move forward to complete a final rule. 

2 We are also accepting written 

3 comments for the proposed rule until October 

4 1, 2010. There is a handout available in the 

5 registration area with detailed information 

6 for submitting written comments by mail, fax 

7 or electronically. 

8 Now, let me describe how Id like 

9 to run today's hearing. I will call the 

10 scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs. 

11 When it is your turn to speak, please state 

12 your name and your affiliation. It will help 

13 our court reporter if you also spell your 

14 name. 

15 In order to be fair to everyone, 

16 please limit your testimony to five minutes 

17 each and remain at the microphone until both 

18 speakers in a pair have finished. 

19 After you finish your testimony, 

20 members of the panel may ask clarifying 

21 questions. If, in addition to the transcript 

22 of your comments, you would also like us to 

23 put the full text of your written comments 

24 into the docket, please be sure to give a copy 
7

1 of any written comments to our staff at the 

2 registration table. 

3 We have a timekeeping system 

4 consisting of green, yellow, and red lights. 

5 When you begin speaking, the green light will 

6 come on. You will have five minutes to speak. 

7 The yellow light will signal that you have one 

8 minute left to speak. When the red light 

9 comes, you have then passed the five minutes 

10 and I will ask you to stop speaking. 

11 We have a lot of speakers today. 

12 We intend to stay into the evening until 

13 everyone has an opportunity to comment. If 

14 you would like to testify but have not yet 

15 registered to do so, please sign up at the 

16 registration table. 

17 For those who have already 

18 registered to speak, we have tried to 

19 accommodate your requests for specific time 

20 slots. We ask for your patience as we proceed 

21 through the list of speakers. We may need to 

22 make some adjustments as the day progresses. 

23 I want to thank you all again 

24 for participating today. Lets get started. 
8

1 MR. PAUL MILLER: Good morning. 

2 My name is Paul Miller. I am Deputy Director 

3 of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air 

4 Use Management, otherwise known as NESCAUM. 

5 NESCAUM is a multi-state organization whose 

6 members are the state air agencies of 

7 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New 

8 Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island 

9 and Vermont. 

10 NESCAUM congratulates EPA on 

11 issuing the proposed Clean Air Transport Rule. 

12 We support establishing a framework to address 

13 transported air pollution that will assist 

14 states in meeting national ambient air quality 

15 standards, or NAAQS. Transported air 

16 pollution continues to have a significant 

17 impact on NESCAUM states, as we strive to 

18 achieve clean air. Thus, a framework to 

19 address it is important to us. 

20 Today, in 2010, we're discussing 

21 a proposal to address the 1997 ozone and 

22 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 

23 NAAQS. This proposal is welcomed, but it is 

24 long in coming. States are already well into 
9

1 planning to further improve air quality and 

2 build upon past successes that have integrated 

3 regional approaches with state-based planning. 

4 Based on our past experiences, 

5 we urge EPA to promulgate future transport 

6 rules concurrent with finalizing new national 

7 air quality standards. This would provide 

8 states with the critical information they need 

9 up front to develop and submit approvable 

10 plans within the required three years after an 

11 air quality standard is promulgated. The 

12 result will be timely, effective pollution 

13 reductions that produce cleaner air sooner for 

14 the public and the environment. 

15 We applaud several aspects of 

16 the proposed framework. We appreciate EPA's 

17 efforts to align the timing of the transport 

18 rule's reductions with NAAQS arraignment 

19 dates. We are pleased that EPA proposes to 

20 use 1% of a NAAQS concentration as the 

21 transport linkage criterion. We agree with 

22 EPA's decision not to use the rounding 

23 convention to establish 1% of the NAAQS. We 

24 also support the concept of the variability 
10

1 provisions that limit interstate trading. 

2 While we are pleased with the 

3 many strengths of the proposal, we would be 

4 remiss not to state some of our concerns. 

5 First, EPA indicates that this 

6 rule may not fully satisfy the transport 

7 requirements of the Clean Air Act for a number 

8 of states, and a forthcoming second transport 

9 rule will complete the task. While we 

10 appreciate EPA's acknowledgement and future 

11 commitment, we are concerned that this sets a 

12 precedent of postponing to an uncertain date 

13 the completion of an essential element needed 

14 for downwind states to meet a national ambient 

15 air quality standard by the attainment 

16 deadline. 

17 Second, we do not agree with 

18 EPA's proposed cost threshold of $500 per ton 

19 of NOX, and are concerned that such a low 

20 threshold creates regulatory challenges for 

21 states, who have already implemented 

22 successful programs at much greater per ton 

23 costs. We urge EPA to incorporate a higher 

24 cost threshold more aligned with state 
11

1 efforts. 

2 Third, we recognize that 

3 emissions variability needs to be addressed 

4 and support the concept of the proposed 

5 provisions that limit interstate trading. 

6 However, with the proposed state budgets being 

7 inadequate to fully address significant 

8 contribution, an emission variability approach 

9 needs to include an adequate margin of safety 

10 in the state budgets such that periods of high 

11 emissions do not cause significant 

12 contributions downwind. We also urge EPA to 

13 require variability provisions to take effect 

14 in 2012 rather than 2014. 

15 Fourth, EPA has indicated that 

16 it did not include non-EGU sources because it 

17 did not want to delay release of the rule for 

18 such an evaluation. We appreciate the EPA's 

19 efforts to release the rule as soon as 

20 possible, but the omission of non-EGU sources 

21 results in only a partial solution to 

22 transport, which underlies our concerns in my 

23 previous comments. Going forward, we expect 

24 the EPA to consider all cost-effective 
12

1 controls from upwind areas, and not just those 

2 from a single source sector. 

3 Finally, we anticipate some 

4 issues with the proposed state budgets, and 

5 have identified some questionable assumptions 

6 used in the analysis. Our states will 

7 document these in our written comments. 

8 In summary, we look forward to 

9 EPA speedily promulgating a Transport Rule 

10 that fully addresses the significant 

11 contribution prohibition of the Clean Air Act. 

12 We congratulate EPA in putting forth a 

13 constructive step towards this goal, and stand 

14 ready to work with EPA on the necessary future 

15 steps. 

16 To this end, we will be 

17 submitting more detailed written comments and 

18 recommendations into the docket. Thank you 

19 for the opportunity to testify today. 

20 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

21 your remarks. 

22 JOSEPH PARRISH, JR.: I'm 

23 Reverend Joseph Parrish, Jr., and my father 

24 was Joseph Parrish, Senior. He was a director 
13

1 of power plants engineering and design for the 

2 TVA until 1973. His plants had only some 

3 early design scrubbers. 

4 I testify in his memory and to 

5 help his lifelong agency to make the air 

6 cleaner and healthier in Tennessee, Alabama, 

7 Mississippi, Kentucky and all points north 

8 including Pennsylvania, where we are; New 

9 Jersey, where I work; and New York where my 

10 wife and I have lived for 36 years. 

11 I chair the Manhattan, New York 

12 Borough Committee on Environment and Public 

13 Safety, as well as pastor of a church. In 

14 Manhattan, the Con-Ed smokestacks are not 

15 miles away from human lungs like they are in 

16 parts of Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, 

17 Kentucky. In Manhattan, the Con-Ed power 

18 plants are only feet and inches from human 

19 lungs. Many of the Con-Ed smokestacks were 

20 built in the 1920s and 1930s when Manhattans 

21 buildings in the area were largely shorter 

22 than the smokestacks. 

23 Now the buildings all around the 

24 Con-Ed smokestacks, both on the Eastside of 
14

1 Manhattan and the Westside of the Borough of 

2 Queens, have greatly exceeded the heights of 

3 the Con-Ed smokestacks. 

4 So people living and working in 

5 Manhattan and Queens, look directly down and 

6 into the Con-Ed smokestacks. So the effluents 

7 of these stacks transport directly into 

8 people's apartments and offices. 

9 The asthma and lung disease 

10 rates in that specific area are astounding, 

11 far higher than even other parts of New York 

12 City. 

13 Any additional EPA regulations 

14 to control SOX and ozone of carbon based power 

15 plants when finally put into effect will 

16 directly and immediately improve lung health 

17 on the eastside of Manhattan that I oversee 

18 and the westside of Queens. 

19 Cleaning up power plants will 

20 save lives. EPA estimates that just the 

21 reductions in the proposed Transport Rule will 

22 save between 14,000 and 36,000 lives a year by 

23 the year 2014. I think that is a low-ball 

24 estimate. Particle pollution and ozone smog 
15

1 cause coughing and wheezing, trigger asthma 

2 attacks, send people to the emergency rooms 

3 and cause heart attacks and strokes, as well 

4 as premature death. 

5 Millions of people are at risk 

6 from this pollution, including children, 

7 seniors, those with chronic lung diseases like 

8 asthma and COPD, and those with cardiovascular 

9 diseases and diabetes. 

10 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

11 MR. ALBERT RIZZO: Thank you, I 

12 am Albert A. Rizzo, M.D. Chief of the Section 

13 of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the 

14 Christiana Care Health Systems in Newark, 

15 Delaware where I practice in a large pulmonary 

16 critical care/sleep medicine group. I serve 

17 on the faculty of Thomas Jefferson University 

18 Medical School here in Philadelphia, and I 

19 volunteer for the American Lung Association 

20 and am currently the Chair-Elect of its 

21 National Board of Directors. 

22 I am a pulmonary physician who 

23 specializes in the respiratory system, the 

24 airways, lungs and their blood vessels. The 
16

1 respiratory system is different from most of 

2 the other systems in the body because the 

3 lungs’ delicate tissues come into direct 

4 contact with the outside environment. What we 

5 breathe in affects our lungs, and once there, 

6 can impact other systems of the body. 

7 That vulnerability to what we 

8 breathe in is why we fight so hard for healthy 

9 air. It is that vulnerability why the 

10 American Lung Association urges the U.S. 

11 Environmental Protection Agency to adopt the 

12 Clean Air Transport Rule, and to make it 

13 stronger. 

14 Burning coal produces soot and 

15 ash, and at the same time emits sulfur 

16 dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury and other 

17 substances. The sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 

18 dioxide are ingredients of two of the most 

19 widespread and dangerous pollutants in the 

20 nation, ozone and particulate matter. 

21 The ozone and particulate matter 

22 from coal-fired power plants attack the lungs 

23 in multiple ways. 

24 When a person inhales ozone, the 
17

1 ozone reacts chemically with the respiratory 

2 tissues causing inflammation, like a “sunburn” 

3 of the lung. Particulates are microscopic 

4 specks of soot, dust and aerosols that are 

5 small enough to lodge deeply in the lungs 

6 where they can cause serious damage. 

7 Breathing particulate matter and 

8 ozone can shorten life. They can cause tens 

9 of thousands of premature deaths each year. 

10 These pollutants cause coughing, wheezing, 

11 difficulty breathing and increase the risk of 

12 asthma attacks and make it more likely that 

13 people with lung diseases, such as asthma and 

14 COPD, will need medical care and 

15 hospitalization, including emergency care. 

16 Children who regularly breathe 

17 high levels of ozone may face reduced lung 

18 function in adulthood. As adults they face 

19 significantly greater risk of developing lung 

20 disease later in life as well. 

21 Particulate matter has 

22 additional hazards and has recognized threats 

23 to the cardiovascular system leading to an 

24 increased risk of heart attack and stroke, as 
18

1 well as developing lung cancer. 

2 Making our mission more 

3 imperative is the fact that these problems 

4 affect all of us but some more than others. 

5 The most vulnerable people include children, 

6 teens, seniors, people with lung disease, and 

7 people with diabetes. The burden also falls 

8 hard on people with low incomes who suffer 

9 disproportionately from the pollutants they 

10 breathe often because of where they tend to 

11 live. Healthy adults who work or exercise 

12 outdoors aren't left out either, as studies 

13 show that their lungs are measurably affected 

14 by inhaling these toxic pollutants. 

15 That's why this proposed rule is 

16 so important. EPA estimates that cutting 

17 emissions in these 31 states and in the 

18 District of Columbia will have profound public 

19 health benefits each year. The reduction in 

20 pollution will literally save the lives of 

21 roughly 14,000 to 36,000 people each year, 

22 prevent 26,000 admissions to hospitals and 

23 emergency departments, and 23,000 nonfatal 

24 heart attacks. Breathing less of these 
19

1 pollutants will prevent 240,000 asthma 

2 attacks, and 440,000 cases of acute 

3 bronchitis. 

4 As a physician, I know what this 

5 means to my patients. My patients with asthma 

6 will have less need of their emergency relief 

7 medicine and the prospect of a more normal 

8 quality of life. My patients with chronic 

9 obstructive pulmonary disease wont suffer 

10 chest pains and coughing spells and shortness 

11 of breath as much. They won't have to confine 

12 their activities indoors as much because the 

13 air is so dangerous outside. My patients 

14 won't face increased risk of heart attack and 

15 stroke. They will not miss work or activities 

16 they love because they are sick. 

17 More of them will stay out of 

18 the hospital and the emergency room. The 

19 quality of their life and very likely the 

20 length of their life will improve. Most 

21 importantly, they will not die simply because 

22 they breathed the air outside. 

23 That's how it can be, cleaner 

24 air, healthier people. We need the help of 
20

1 this Clean Air Transport Rule to stop millions 

2 of tons of dangerous pollution from coming 

3 into Pennsylvania and Delaware. We need to 

4 clean up our own power plants so we are not 

5 spreading pollution to our neighbors. 

6 In fact, we need to clean up 

7 millions more tons of these pollutants because 

8 even lower levels of pollution can mean even 

9 greater benefits. The American Lung 

10 Association urges EPA to adopt tighter limits 

11 on ozone than what are proposed in the the 

12 Rule, to reflect the tighter national air 

13 quality standards that are coming this year. 

14 All of us and particularly my 

15 patients need to breathe less ozone and 

16 particle pollution. We want the air coming 

17 across our state line to not add to the burden 

18 of these pollutants that we already have here 

19 in Pennsylvania and Delaware. We urge the 

20 Environmental Protection Agency to quickly 

21 move to adopt and put in place this important 

22 tool for our air. 

23 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

24 Doctor. 
21

1 NATALIE McCLOSKEY: I'm Natalie 

2 McCloskey; this is my husband, Sean; my son 

3 Sean; Erin, who is asthmatic; Kaylyn; Brendan; 

4 Dacey, who is asthmatic; Annalivia who is also 

5 asthmatic. 

6 As a family living with asthma, 

7 we have grown accustomed to the daily 

8 medication schedule to which our lives quite 

9 literally revolve around and depend on. 

10 Though, obviously we would rather not depend 

11 on this routine and the medications in it, it 

12 does give us a sense of control. By following 

13 this routine we know we are doing everything 

14 we can to control our asthma. As soon as we 

15 walk out of the door, however, things change 

16 and that sense of control is lost. 

17 Our family avoids most outdoor 

18 activities during the summer as air quality 

19 concerns often cause us to cancel plans or 

20 have us leave early due to an asthma 

21 exacerbation. Once August rolls around, those 

22 challenges are harder to avoid as cheerleading 

23 season begins. 

24 Allow me to provide you with a 
22

1 brief background on our involvement with 

2 cheerleading. For the last twelve years we 

3 have participated in our township cheerleading 

4 program. It plays a huge role in our lives. 

5 The girls couldn't wait until they were old 

6 enough to sign up. Currently all five of us 

7 McCloskey girls are involved in cheerleading 

8 in some capacity, Erin and I as coaches, and 

9 the three younger girls as cheerleaders. With 

10 practices, games and competitions often 

11 consuming our weekly schedules from August 

12 until as late as December, our family has 

13 adopted the motto, "Eat, sleep, cheer, 

14 repeat." 

15 It is those August practices 

16 that cause us a great deal of concern. All 

17 the practices are held outdoors on the 

18 township football field, where obviously we 

19 can't escape from the heat and air quality 

20 alerts. We do what we can to prevent an 

21 exacerbation by following our usual routine 

22 and by taking our inhalers as prescribed 

23 before exercise, but sometimes, in spite of 

24 our efforts that "tightness" in our chests, 
23

1 which can only be described by an asthmatic, 

2 starts creeping in. 

3 Ever since the seen started this 

4 year, Dacey has been coughing. Some of Erin's 

5 medications were changed in hopes of 

6 increasing her lower than average lung 

7 function to no avail. During a practice just 

8 last week, we had to make several "water 

9 breaks" during the practice to allow Erin to 

10 catch her breath when it became apparent that 

11 she was having difficulty breathing. 

12 Annalivia, who has the mildest asthma of all 

13 of us, has been coughing since the season 

14 started and needed to use her inhaler much 

15 more than usual. Even I was forced to sit on 

16 the bench two weeks ago when an asthma attack 

17 left me gasping for air and unable to even 

18 walk across the field to get my inhaler. 

19 What we have endured this summer 

20 pales in comparison to what my grandmother has 

21 gone through. As the temperatures began to 

22 rise and the air quality deteriorated, she 

23 curtailed her daily excursions as they left 

24 her out of breath for the remainder of the 
24

1 day. We all thought that her "venturing out" 

2 during an ozone alert for a haircut wasn't a 

3 great idea, but she said she'd be okay. After 

4 all, she was going from an air-conditioned 

5 house to an air-conditioned car, driving a 

6 mere mile to an air-conditioned salon, and 

7 back. What could possibly happen? Apparently 

8 enough to trigger a COPD exacerbation that not 

9 only required an ambulance ride to the ER that 

10 day, but required a week-long hospitalization, 

11 followed by a month in rehab to recover. 

12 Though we support the Clean Air 

13 Transport Rule, we would love to see stricter 

14 standards put in place. The technology is 

15 there. Utilizing only a portion of the 

16 technology is like letting us only have a 

17 portion of a breathing treatment. 

18 Generally speaking, the 

19 misfortune of one is viewed as a tragedy, 

20 whereas the misfortune of several is merely a 

21 statistic. Our family, as well as all other 

22 Americans with similar struggles, does not 

23 wish to be viewed as statistics. 

24 In your final consideration, 
25

1 please do not lose sight of your mission 

2 statement: "To protect human health, and to 

3 safeguard the natural environment, air, water, 

4 and land, upon which life depends." 

5 Thank you. 

6 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Mrs. 

7 McCloskey. 

8 DEBORAH BROWN: I am Deborah 

9 Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the American 

10 Lung Association of the Mid Atlantic. We 

11 serve 23 million people in Delaware, New 

12 Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia who 

13 live and work in our region. Thank you for 

14 the opportunity to share our thoughts on EPA's 

15 proposed Clean Air Transport Rule. 

16 Saving lives is central to our 

17 mission of the American Lung Association. 

18 This rule will save tens of thousands of 

19 lives. We are committed to the prevention of 

20 lung disease and the promotion of lung health 

21 and this rule will help prevent lung disease 

22 and promote lung health. 

23 The American Lung Association 

24 calls on EPA to not only adopt the framework 
26

1 of the Clean Air Transport Rule, but to 

2 strengthen the limits on emissions nationwide. 

3 We need to provide even basic protection for 

4 public health. 

5 Passage of the Clean Air 

6 Transport Rule will mean fewer people will die 

7 and more will stay healthy. 

8 We are pleased that the U.S. 

9 Environmental Protection Agency has moved 

10 ahead to help states like Pennsylvania, have 

11 healthier air for everyone to breathe. This 

12 Clean Air Transport Rule reduces the tons of 

13 dangerous pollution that blows here from 

14 outside the state lines. States cannot 

15 protect their citizens without the help of the 

16 Transport Rule to stop that pollution at the 

17 state line. 

18 No one knows the need for this 

19 rule more than those of us who live here in 

20 the Mid-Atlantic. Delaware Senator, Tom 

21 Carper said it best when he explained that 

22 power plant emissions force Mid-Atlantic 

23 region to be "the tailpipe of the nation." 

24 Pollution blows into Pennsylvania today from 
27

1 15 different states. States as far away as 

2 Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and even 

3 Alabama send ozone particles here. 

4 But Pennsylvania power plants 

5 share their emissions with 15 other states and 

6 the District of Columbia. Our pollution 

7 doesn't just go to New York or New Jersey. 

8 Ozone and fine particle pollution from 

9 Pennsylvania power plants blows as far away as 

10 Iowa, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Missouri. This 

11 rule would require that plants in 31 states, 

12 including Pennsylvania, cut the pollution they 

13 send across state lines. 

14 That pollution is toxic. 

15 Coal-fired power plants emit millions of tons 

16 of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. 

17 Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide are 

18 dangerous on their own. They are also the raw 

19 ingredients for ozone and fine particles, two 

20 even deadlier pollutants. 

21 Ozone burns our lungs and 

22 airways, causing them to become inflamed and 

23 swollen. Ozone causes coughing and wheezing, 

24 aggravates asthma and increases the risk of 
28

1 emergency room visits and hospital admissions. 

2 In fact, breathing ozone can be deadly. 

3 Children and teens, seniors, 

4 people with chronic lung diseases, like 

5 asthma, people with cardiovascular disease and 

6 diabetics face greater risk from these 

7 pollutants. Healthy adults who work or 

8 exercise outdoors, can suffer from breathing 

9 this pollution. 

10 As proposed, the rule will 

11 decrease sulfur dioxide pollution by 72 

12 percent and nitrogen oxide pollution by 52 

13 percent. Those aren't just measurements. 

14 These reductions will save 14,000 to 36,000 

15 lives each year. They will prevent many heart 

16 attacks each year and eliminate many visits to 

17 the emergency room or the hospital. 

18 EPA should require even more 

19 reductions. The benefits so far outweigh the 

20 costs that we can and should require tighter 

21 reductions. Using this limited cap, EPA 

22 calculates that the annual benefits total 

23 between 120 and 290 billion dollars a year by 

24 2014. That's lives saved, as well as the 
29

1 benefits of the medical care avoided, days not 

2 missed at work and school and more. By 

3 contrast, the annual cost in 2014 will be many 

4 times less, estimated to be 2.8 billion 

5 dollars a year. 

6 We have already begun to hear 

7 that this schedule cannot be met or its too 

8 expensive. But I'm here to tell you that that 

9 is simply not true. The control technology is 

10 widely available and effective. The 

11 investment in cleaning up even more means that 

12 we should see even greater benefits, including 

13 more lives saved each year. 

14 Too often, however, the critics 

15 fail to mention that delay means that lives 

16 are lost each year. Year after year, we at 

17 the American Lung Association call on 

18 Environmental Protection Agency to take this 

19 opportunity to do more to protect the air we 

20 breath and the lives of generations of our 

21 families and friends. Thank you. 

22 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

23 KEVIN STEWART: Good morning. 

24 I am Kevin Stewart and I serve as Director of 
30

1 Environmental Health for the American Lung 

2 Association of the Mid-Atlantic. I represent 

3 not only the three million people in our 

4 four-state service area who suffer from 

5 chronic lung disease, but also the tens of 

6 millions more who desire to breathe clean air 

7 and so protect their good health. 

8 Our oldest predecessor agency 

9 was founded in 1892 in this very city, to 

10 fight tuberculosis. We are now dedicated to 

11 our broader mission of improving lung health 

12 and preventing lung disease. We are here 

13 today to testify strongly in favor of the 

14 proposed Clean Air Transport Rule. To 

15 underscore the need for the rule, to confirm 

16 its benefits, and to call for certain 

17 safeguards and improvements. 

18 The atmosphere is not infinite. 

19 The environment does not have an endless 

20 capacity for absorbing and processing the 

21 pollution we dump into it. The millions of 

22 tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides we 

23 spew into the atmosphere dont just magically 

24 disappear. They go somewhere. They have 
31

1 chemical, biological, environmental, and 

2 physiological fates. Too often the ultimate 

3 fate is to be breathed in and to precipitate 

4 adverse health effects ranging from millions 

5 of days of restricted activity, to hundreds of 

6 thousands of asthma attacks, to tens of 

7 thousands of ER visits and premature deaths 

8 each year. 

9 I emphasize this so that the 

10 Administrator, when she is confronted with 

11 claims, as she will be, that complying with 

12 the Transport Rule will cost too much, that 

13 she will always, always remember that we are 

14 already paying on the order of a couple 

15 hundred billion dollars every year in lost 

16 work and productivity, in disease, disability, 

17 and death. 

18 Clearly, we have a significant 

19 problem now. In our service area of Delaware, 

20 New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, a 

21 total of no fewer than forty-three counties, 

22 home to some seventeen million people, are 

23 already known to be in violation of one or 

24 more of the air quality standards for ozone or 
32

1 particle pollution. 

2 And should the Administrator 

3 need even more support for standing up to 

4 forces that would weaken the rule, let me call 

5 her attention to millions of potential allies. 

6 We met some this morning. 

7 In our four states, the 

8 populations potentially at risk from exposure 

9 to air pollution includes millions of children 

10 and elderly, persons with chronic heart and 

11 lung disease, people with diabetes and those 

12 living in poverty. Far from being a small 

13 minority, persons falling into one or more of 

14 these high risk groups together comprise on 

15 the order of half the population. 

16 Every one of these millions is a 

17 real person, not a nameless statistic. Every 

18 one of these people is a human being worthy of 

19 our attention, a neighbor, a coworker, a 

20 friend, a family member, maybe even oneself. 

21 We urge the EPA to consider and 

22 act on the following: We support the essence 

23 of EPAs preferred approach for setting 

24 pollution budgets, but EPA must also codify 
33

1 science-based Environmental Justice 

2 protections to ensure that these advantages 

3 are not won on the backs, and in the lungs of 

4 those most vulnerable and least empowered to 

5 protect themselves. 

6 We urge the Administrator to set 

7 even stronger caps than are currently proposed 

8 for 2014, for sulfur dioxide, an 80 percent 

9 reduction to 1.75 million tons per year, and 

10 for nitrogen oxides, a 68 percent reduction to 

11 900,000 tons per year. 

12 Since 11 counties will not be 

13 expected to meet even old air quality 

14 standards in 2014, we should take proactive 

15 steps to address this deficiency now. The EPA 

16 should be proactive and include the remanded 

17 75 ppb ozone standard in its evaluation of the 

18 rules impacts. 

19 For too many decades, air 

20 pollution from too many fossil-fueled power 

21 plants has been regarded as a necessary evil 

22 about which little could be done. 

23 Half-measures have been regarded as solutions, 

24 when the technology for much more significant 
34

1 pollution reduction has been long available, 

2 and the only thing lacking was the will to 

3 require its implementation. The Clean Air 

4 Transport Rule is clearly the kind of major 

5 step in the right direction we have been 

6 waiting for and we applaud EPAs leadership in 

7 proposing this rule. 

8 I thank the hearing panel for 

9 your work here today and am happy to take your 

10 questions. 

11 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

12 your remarks. 

13 MR. ALEXANDER: Good morning, my 

14 name is Bruce Alexander and I am pleased to be 

15 here today to provide you with Exelon 

16 Corporation's initial views on EPA's proposed 

17 Transport Rule. 

18 By way of background, Exelon 

19 Corporation is comprised of Exelon Generation 

20 Company, the nation's fifth largest generator 

21 of electric power, ComEd, an electric utility 

22 serving almost 1.6 million customers in 

23 northern Illinois; and PECO energy an electric 

24 utility serving almost 1.6 million customers 
35

1 in Southeastern Pennsylvania. 

2 Overall, Exelon supports the 

3 policy objectives underlying EPA's proposed 

4 Transport Rule. Specifically power plants in 

5 the eastern United States need to make 

6 significant and timely emission reductions of 

7 nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide to support 

8 downwind state air quality attainment. Plants 

9 that have not installed adequate control 

10 equipment impose a heavy pollution tax on 

11 businesses and families living in areas 

12 affected by these emissions. 

13 For families living in downwind 

14 areas, the most severe impact is on health. 

15 We note that EPA estimates that controlling 

16 emissions will provide between $120 and $290 

17 billion in healthcare and other benefits in 

18 2014. The low-end value of these benefits is 

19 almost 43 times greater than EPA's estimated 

20 2014 compliance costs to industry. But beyond 

21 healthcare impacts, we support EPA because 

22 these upwind state emissions slow economic 

23 development in our service areas and hinder 

24 our ability to build replacement generation. 
36

1 The PECO and ComEd zones are 

2 among the most severely affected regions of 

3 the country. Without the Transport Rule, 

4 these areas will be unable to meet the current 

5 air quality standards for fine particulate and 

6 ozone and are likely to continue in 

7 nonattainment status, even after the rule is 

8 implemented. 

9 As a result, all new economic 

10 development in our operating areas must meet 

11 the heightened environmental standards that 

12 exist for nonattainment areas. Under the NSR 

13 Program, for example, major emission sources, 

14 are required to purchase emission reductions 

15 offsets credits, when they construct or expand 

16 their business in nonattainment areas. 

17 Depending on the size of the 

18 proposed project, ERC purchase requirements 

19 may represent millions of dollars of 

20 incremental cost, as compared to costs in 

21 attainment areas. As an example, ERCs to 

22 support development of a 600 megawatt combined 

23 cycle gas plant in the Southeastern 

24 Pennsylvania nonattainment area would exceed 
37

1 $5 million. 

2 So, in effect, dirty generation 

3 in one part of the country actually hinders 

4 the development of new clean generation in 

5 another part of the country. Not only must 

6 businesses in nonattainment areas purchase 

7 ERCs for new or expanded operations, but also 

8 they face ongoing risks to their operations 

9 under the Clean Air Act if the nonattainment 

10 area in which they locate fails to meet 

11 federal air quality standards by the required 

12 deadline. Each of these adverse economic 

13 impacts deters businesses from locating in 

14 nonattainment areas with resulting negative 

15 tax consequences for state and local 

16 governments. 

17 The effect of upwind in the 

18 electric sector is especially troubling. In 

19 the PECO zone, for example, electric customers 

20 and the industry have already taken steps to 

21 transition to cleaner generation by installing 

22 pollution controls and have made tough 

23 decisions to retire some of the dirtiest 

24 plants. 
38

1 But because of upwind emissions, 

2 consumers and industry in the PECO zone 

3 effectively pay double. They not only paid 

4 for the costs of installing controls on plants 

5 in the region, but are also paying a daily 

6 pollution tax as a result of continuing 

7 pollution form other regions. Having 

8 successfully transferred pollution costs for 

9 so many years, some in our sector argue for 

10 more delay. EPA should reject these 

11 arguments. 

12 The proposed Transport Rule is 

13 critical to leveling the playing field and 

14 ensuring that costs are appropriately borne by 

15 the plants that are causing the problem. 

16 To ensure downwind states can 

17 mitigate the negative economic impacts of 

18 failure to attain federal air quality 

19 standards, Exelon urges EPA to require 

20 Transport Rule compliance on the 2012 and 2014 

21 dates that the agency has proposed. Based on 

22 EPA's analysis, approximately 14 gigawatts of 

23 SO2 scrubbers and less than one gigawatt of 

24 SCR will be required for industry to comply 
39

1 with the 2014 date. This amount of new 

2 pollution control retrofits is much less than 

3 has been implemented in past construction 

4 cycles on similar timelines. 

5 With regard to electric system reliability, 

6 the Transport Rule will not pose any 

7 significant reliability risks as it will not 

8 drive significant power plant retirements or 

9 result in unmanageable pollution control 

10 retrofit requirements. 

11 For example, EPA forecasts that 

12 1.2 gigawatts of generating capacity may 

13 become uneconomic under the Transport Rule. 

14 However, looking across all NERC regions of 

15 the country, on a combined basis, there is 

16 currently over 100 gigawatts of installed 

17 generating capacity above required reserve 

18 margins; an amount of excess capacity that far 

19 exceeds any reasonable forecast of unit 

20 retirements under the Transport Rule. 

21 Recently, Exelon joined with 

22 like-minded utility companies, all of which 

23 are members of the Clean Energy Group, to 

24 sponsor a reliability study that considers all 
40

1 of EPAs rules on a holistic basis. The 

2 report, entitled, "Ensuring a Clean, Modern 

3 Electric Generating Fleet while Maintaining 

4 Electric System Reliability," proposes some 

5 common sense steps that will allow the power 

6 generation industry to meet all expected new 

7 EPA air and regulatory requirements on a 

8 timely basis. 

9 Thank you for considering 

10 Exelon's initial comments on the Transport 

11 Rule. We look forward to submitting more 

12 detailed written comments to the docket by the 

13 close of the public comment period. 

14 MR. NAPOLITANO: Good morning, 

15 my name is Joe Minnot, I am the Executive 

16 Director of the Clean Air Council. It looks 

17 like Bruce stole my testimony here. 

18 On behalf of the Clean Air 

19 Council, I want to thank the U.S. EPA for the 

20 opportunity to comment on the proposed Clean 

21 Air Transport Rule. 

22 Clean Air Council is a nonprofit 

23 environmental and public health advocacy 

24 organization that seeks to protect everyone's 
41

1 right to breathe clean air. The Council was 

2 incorporated in 1967 and operates in 

3 Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey. 

4 The purpose of my testimony 

5 today is to support EPA's proposed Clean Air 

6 Transport Rule and yet urge that it be even 

7 more stringent. 

8 The proposed Transport Rule will 

9 limit emissions of sulfur oxide and oxides of 

10 nitrogen in 31 states in the Eastern United 

11 States and the District of Columbia that 

12 contribute significantly to non-attainment of 

13 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 

14 downwind states or interfere with the 

15 maintenance of the National Ambient Air 

16 Quality Standard with respect to the annual PM 

17 2.5 standard, the 24 hour PM 2.5 standard and 

18 the ozone standard. 

19 Pennsylvania is the poster child 

20 for the Transport Rule. Our western borders 

21 are invaded by air pollution from neighboring 

22 states, and yet we are also an exporter of 

23 pollution. Indeed, even under the proposed 

24 rule, Western Pennsylvania will not meet the 
42

1 federal health standards. It cannot do so 

2 unless EPA tightens the NOX standard. 

3 Coal-fired power plant 

4 pollution is hazardous to our health. NOX and 

5 SO2 contribute to the formation of PM 2.5. 

6 NOX also contributes to Ozone formation. Both 

7 PM 2.5 and ozone contribute to premature death 

8 and serious health problems. I think the 

9 testimony of the Lung Association was asthma 

10 in sort of laying out that case. 

11 By EPA's own estimates this 

12 proposed rule will result in $120 to $290 

13 billion dollars in benefits for a program that 

14 will cost industry, according to the EPA, 

15 about 2.8 billion dollars. The benefits we 

16 are talking about are mostly public health 

17 related. That is, the benefit is in reduced 

18 human suffering. 

19 I want to be clear. To most of 

20 us, EPA's Transport Rule is not about 

21 protecting visibility in public parks. That 

22 is important, but to most of us, it is about 

23 protecting public health. 

24 Always remember that this rule 
43

1 is about public health, when you are subjected 

2 to the anguished cries from those utilities 

3 that have refused to invest in modern 

4 pollution controls, as Exelon already as done, 

5 and are now complaining of the costs or the 

6 short time compliance time. 

7 The EPA has done a good job of 

8 figuring out how to remedy the problems 

9 identified in the Court's decision in North 

10 Carolina versus the EPA, which struck down the 

11 Clean Air Interstate Rule. While the Council 

12 is mindful of not unnecessarily creating 

13 financial burdens on industry and their 

14 attempts to comply with this rule, the EPA is 

15 wise to limit interstate trading. This will 

16 ensure that a substantial portion of state's 

17 assigned emissions reductions occur in that 

18 state. 

19 The Council strongly supports 

20 EPA's commitment to reviewing whether the 

21 Transport Rule needs to be tightened each time 

22 EPA revises an air quality standard. It will 

23 obviously need to do so, after the new ozone 

24 standard that is established. By making clear 
44

1 that this is the EPA policy, major NOX and SO2 

2 producers are now on notice and can plan 

3 accordingly. 

4 The Council supports EPA's 

5 decision to move the process forward under a 

6 Federal Implementation Plan, while providing 

7 states with the option of replacing the FIP, 

8 the state implementation plan, as long as the 

9 SIP achieves the required emission reductions. 

10 Since allowing the state to 

11 develop a SIP before imposing a FIP is the 

12 more traditional approach under the Clean Air 

13 Act, EPA must make clear how a state can move 

14 forward with the SIP process. 

15 The Council's biggest concern is 

16 that the NOX reductions are not adequate to 

17 truly address the transport issue. EPA should 

18 revisit the proposed emission caps for NOX and 

19 make sure they are adequate to ensure that 

20 areas like Western Pennsylvania can meet the 

21 federal health standards. 

22 Thank you for this opportunity 

23 to testify today. The Council reserves its 

24 rights to provide more complete comments 
45

1 during the open comment period. 

2 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you very 

3 much. 

4 MR. PAUL BILLINGS: Good 

5 morning, my name is Paul Billings and I am 

6 Vice President for National Policy and 

7 Advocacy with the American Lung Association. 

8 Thank you for the opportunity to testify in 

9 support of a stronger Clean Air Transport 

10 Rule. 

11 Dr. Rizzo presented an overview 

12 of key lung health issues on behalf of our 

13 Board. The American Lung Association will 

14 also be providing extensive technical comments 

15 on the proposal. Today, I will simply 

16 emphasize a few key points. 

17 First, The American Lung 

18 Association is pleased with EPA's decision to 

19 create a framework for setting emissions 

20 reductions under the "good neighbor" 

21 provisions of the Clean Air Act. Such a 

22 framework allows EPA to follow a strong, 

23 logical pathway forward. Under this 

24 framework, EPA assesses in detail the 
46

1 contribution from sources in each upwind state 

2 to the pollution levels in downwind states. 

3 Such a careful analysis provides strong 

4 evidence that pollution from these 31 states 

5 and the District of Columbia harm and burden 

6 people living in these nonattainment and 

7 maintenance areas. For example, at least 15 

8 states contribute to the air pollution problem 

9 in Pennsylvania. EPA's analysis indicates 

10 similar situations in many states. The EPA 

11 analysis is compelling evidence that to have 

12 clean and healthy air here in Pennsylvania, we 

13 need clean and healthy air throughout the 

14 entire region. 

15 EPA most move the framework 

16 forward expeditiously. Sadly, the standards 

17 that form the basis for the calculations are 

18 out of date. For PM, the proposal 

19 incorporates the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 

20 standards, which fail to protect public 

21 health. EPA is considering new and compelling 

22 evidence that show those standards should be 

23 revised and tightened next year. 

24 Most troubling is the use of the 
47

1 1997 ozone standard as the basis of the 

2 proposal. Please allow me to put this 13 year 

3 old standard in perspective. My youngest 

4 daughter was born in 1997; next week she 

5 starts 8th grade. The ozone standard was 

6 revised in 2008. The 2008 standard, although 

7 tighter 75 ppb, is also widely recognized as 

8 inadequate, in being reconsidered and will be 

9 replaced by the 2010 standard. 

10 The ozone standard revision has 

11 been delayed until the end of October. I 

12 would be remiss, if I did not state our 

13 extreme disappointment with this delay and to 

14 remind EPA that delays in setting ozone 

15 standards have serious and life-threatening 

16 ramifications. These delays in setting 

17 standards translate into delays in putting 

18 clean-up measures in place that can reduce 

19 ozone and protect the health of millions of 

20 people. EPA can and should ameliorate some of 

21 the adverse consequence of the delay in the 

22 standard revision by moving forward with the 

23 most protective and strongest transport rule 

24 that maximizes pollution reductions. These 
48

1 reductions should ensure that no area is in 

2 nonattainment for 1997 standard and should 

3 maximize the number of areas meeting the 75 

4 ppb level. 

5 The Clean Air Transport Rule is 

6 weaker than is needed to address the 

7 significant interstate air pollution 

8 transport, leaving areas like New York, 

9 Houston and Baton Rouge in nonattainment or 

10 with maintenance issues for the 1997 standard. 

11 The proposal leaves many areas in 

12 nonattainment for PM including both 

13 Pittsburgh, Allegheny County area, and 

14 Lancaster here in Pennsylvania, as well as New 

15 York City, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit and 

16 Houston. We urge the EPA to set stronger 

17 limits on pollution. We urge that the limits 

18 should be 900,000 tons of nitrogen dioxide and 

19 1.75 million tons of sulfur dioxide by 2014. 

20 EPA recognizes that the national 

21 air quality standards evolve, changing as the 

22 scientific knowledge grows. And as standards 

23 are tightened, future transport rules will be 

24 necessary to address the interstate 
49

1 contribution to unhealthy air. 

2 The Clean Air Transport Rule 

3 cuts some of the most widespread and dangerous 

4 pollutants in our nation. As proposed, this 

5 rules will save between 14,000 and 36,000 

6 lives each year. We urge EPA to strengthen 

7 the rule to maximize the pollution reductions 

8 and the resulting health benefits. Thank You. 

9 MR. SMITH: With respect to 

10 your suggestion of a 900,000 ton NOX cap, I 

11 understand that to be a regional number across 

12 many states. One thing to think about in your 

13 comments is how you would see that translating 

14 to what each individual state must do, because 

15 that is something that we spend a lot of time 

16 thinking about. 

17 MR. BILLINGS: I think you will 

18 see we are working on that, to provide some 

19 additional information. 

20 MS. JOYCE EPPS: Good morning, 

21 my name is Joyce E. Epps, and I am the 

22 Director of the Bureau of Air Quality in the 

23 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

24 Protection. On behalf of Secretary John 
50

1 Hanger, I would like to thank the EPA for 

2 holding a public hearing in Philadelphia on 

3 the proposed Transport Rule. 

4 The Department commends EPA on 

5 its efforts to remedy the flaws identified in 

6 the Clean Air Interstate Rule. In spite or 

7 its "major flaws, " annual NOX emissions from 

8 electric generating units in Pennsylvania were 

9 reduced by approximately 64,000 tons in 2009; 

10 SO2 emissions were reduced by an estimated 

11 249,000 tons. 

12 Most areas in the Commonwealth 

13 are monitoring attainment of the 1997 ozone 

14 and PM 2.5 national ambient air quality 

15 standards. I am pleased to report today that 

16 new modeling shows that Liberty/Clairton Area 

17 will attain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard by 

18 December 31, 2013 because of significant 

19 reductions achieved under CAIR and the 

20 installation of local controls. 

21 We believe that the proposed 

22 rule will allow the Commonwealth continue to 

23 make great strides in protecting public health 

24 and the environment. By 2014, EPA projects 
51

1 that 1,400 to 3,600 PM 2.5 related premature 

2 mortalities will be avoided in Pennsylvania. 

3 According to EPA estimates, 

4 annual benefits for Pennsylvania range from 20 

5 to 29 billion dollars. These benefits are 

6 mainly public-health related benefits. 

7 Overall, the Transport Rule is 

8 expected to yield more than $122 to $294 

9 billion in annual health and welfare benefits 

10 in 2014. At an estimated compliance cost of 

11 $2.8 billion, the benefits-to-cost ratio range 

12 from 44 to 1; the benefits of the rule greatly 

13 exceed the incremental compliance costs. 

14 We support EPA's approach for 

15 the Transport Rule, to the extent allowed 

16 under the Clean Air Act. This approach, which 

17 provides for intrastate trading and limited 

18 trading, requires EGU owners and operators to 

19 achieve actual emission reduction. 

20 In 2005, EGUs in Pennsylvania 

21 accounted for approximately 27 percent of the 

22 NOX emissions and 86 percent of the SO2 

23 emissions. By 2014, the Transport Rule should 

24 reduce SO2 emissions from EGUs in Pennsylvania 
52

1 by approximately 84 percent from 2004 levels 

2 and 40 percent from 2005 levels. 

3 However, we are extremely 

4 concerned that the proposed Transport Rule may 

5 result in a relaxation of our SIP approved 

6 annual NOX emission budgets. For example, 

7 under CAIR the annual NOX budget is 99,000 

8 tones; whereas under the proposed rule, the 

9 NOX budget is increased to approximately 

10 114,000 tons. 

11 Based on our analysis, this rule 

12 could allow up to a $4.2 percent increase of 

13 the annual NOX emissions in the Commonwealth 

14 and as much as 20 percent increase in our 

15 ozone season budget from 2009 levels. EGU 

16 owners and operators must bot be allowed to 

17 backslide on air quality improvements. The 

18 final Transport Rule must not contravene the 

19 anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Air 

20 Act. 

21 I would like to speak briefly to 

22 several additional concerns. The proposed 

23 Transport Rule does not provide a complete 

24 remedy to address transported pollution 
53

1 because, as EPA acknowledges, the proposal 

2 does not, "fully quantify all of the 

3 significant contribution and interference with 

4 maintenance". 

5 To date, we have recorded 28 

6 exceedances of the 1997 ozone standard and 145 

7 exceedances of the 2008 ozone standard during 

8 the 2010 ozone season. Failure to strengthen 

9 the final rule will adversely impact the 

10 ability of states to attain and maintain the 

11 ozone and PM 2.5 standards by the prescribed 

12 deadlines. 

13 States cannot fully address 

14 transported pollution, EPA's failure to 

15 provide a complete remedy may result in the 

16 filing of additional 126 petitions, which are 

17 unduly burdensome for EPA and state agencies. 

18 As directed by the Court, EPA 

19 must harmonize the compliance dates with 

20 statutory deadlines. Failure to do so will 

21 make it difficult for states to satisfy their 

22 obligations and will delay additional health, 

23 environmental and social, benefits. 

24 We will need additional 
54

1 reductions to come clean with the new October 

2 25th deadline. If EPA adopts a 2010 ozone 

3 standard of 60 or 65 parts per billion, all 

4 areas in Pennsylvania with monitored data 

5 would be designated as non-attainment. 

6 The adoption of the 2010 ozone 

7 standard will also require EPA to establish 

8 tighter budgets in Transport Rule II. EPA 

9 must also address emissions from non-EGU 

10 sources including glass melting furnaces, 

11 cement kilns and industrial, commercial, 

12 institutional boilers in the 2011 proposal. 

13 We urge EPA to also adopt and 

14 implement additional measures to reduce 

15 emissions from on-road and off-road vehicles, 

16 which account for approximately 52 percent of 

17 the NOX emissions in Pennsylvania. 

18 Thanks again for the opportunity 

19 to provide testimony on the proposed Transport 

20 Rule We look forward to working with the EPA 

21 to address the shortcomings in the rule. 

22 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

23 Joyce. Thanks for sharing your remarks and 

24 bringing the Pennsylvania perspective and 
55

1 challenges that you face. 

2 MR. THOMAS AU: Good morning, my 

3 name is Thomas Au. These comments are being 

4 submitted on behalf of the Clean Air Board of 

5 Central Pennsylvania. The Clean Air Board was 

6 formed in the fall of 2005 after over 100 

7 Cumberland County physicians signed and 

8 published in the newspaper an open letter 

9 informing the community of the growing danger 

10 of ozone and particulate pollution. 

11 Initially a small group of 

12 people of faith gathered to support the 

13 physicians in educating our community and 

14 advocating for cleaner air. We have grown not 

15 only to include that faith community, but also 

16 people in the transportation business, 

17 teachers, lawyers, parents and the medical 

18 community. 

19 Our members include people who 

20 suffer ailments from breathing polluted air. 

21 Central Pennsylvania and the Cumberland Valley 

22 are at the receiving end of an ozone and fine 

23 particulate transport corridor which 

24 originates hundreds of miles away. 
56

1 Even on days when air quality 

2 action alert has not been declared, people who 

3 suffer respiratory problems can be adversely 

4 affected by poor air quality. 

5 The rule will require power 

6 plants to install pollution control technology 

7 in states in the East, Midwest and Southeast. 

8 Electric degeneration units emit much of these 

9 pollutants that reside in the atmosphere and 

10 they must be reduced if we hope to reduce the 

11 burden of ozone smog and particle pollution. 

12 According to the EPA summary, 

13 the rule and technology implemented by 

14 electric utilities will result in sizable cuts 

15 in two dangerous pollutants, bringing down 

16 sulfur dioxide pollution levels by 71 percent 

17 and nitrogen oxide pollution by 52 percent. 

18 On May 10, 2010, the American 

19 Heart Association issued a revised scientific 

20 statement about the link between air pollution 

21 and heart disease and death. According to the 

22 AHA, the scientific evidence linking air 

23 pollution to heart attacks, strokes and 

24 cardiovascular death has been substantially 
57

1 strengthened. 

2 The new conclusions state, 

3 exposure to PM less than 2.5 in diameter over 

4 a few hours to weeks can trigger 

5 cardiovascular disease, related mortality and 

6 nonfatal events. Longer term exposure, a few 

7 years, increases the risk for cardiovascular 

8 mortality to an even greater extent that 

9 exposures over a few days and reduces life 

10 expectancy, within more highly exposed 

11 segments of the population by several months 

12 to a few years. 

13 Reduction in PM levels are 

14 associated with decreases in cardiovascular 

15 mortality within a timeframe as short as a few 

16 years, and many credible pathological 

17 mechanisms have been elucidated that lend 

18 biological plausibility to these findings. 

19 It is the opinion of the writing 

20 group, the 14 doctors and researchers who sign 

21 the statement, that overall evidence is 

22 consistent with a causal relationship between 

23 relationship between PM 2.5 exposure and 

24 cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This 
58

1 is published in Circulation, 2010. 

2 Research into the transport of 

3 air pollution indicates that large weather 

4 patterns play a major role in the buildup of 

5 pollution originating from distant sources. 

6 PM 2.5 concentration and local 

7 synoptic meteorological conditions examined 

8 for the area around Carlisle, Pennsylvania 

9 suggests that winds and weather patterns 

10 transporting pollution into Pennsylvania play 

11 a large role during the days when the 24 hour 

12 PM 2.5 standard is not met. 

13 The Court of Appeals' ruling in 

14 North Carolina versus EPA found that the Clean 

15 Air Interstate Rule's permit trading program 

16 did not contain absolute emissions limits for 

17 individual sources, thereby technically 

18 allowing individual sources in upwind states 

19 to increase emissions by buying emissions 

20 allowances. 

21 The proposed EPA rule aims to 

22 remedy the identified flaws. We hope this 

23 proposed rule, as administered, will set real 

24 emission reductions for each state. 
59

1 Within this framework, we hope 

2 that trading allowances do not interfere with 

3 downwind attainment. We understand that it is 

4 a complex task to process the data and 

5 resulting ambient concentrations of fine 

6 particulate and ozone. 

7 In implementing this proposal, 

8 EPA must ensure that there are tangible 

9 emission reductions by electric generating 

10 units and reduced levels of ambient fine 

11 particulate and ozone. Thank you. 

12 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

13 MR. SCOTT LOREY: Good morning. 

14 My name is Scott Lorey. I am the Legislative 

15 Director for the Adirondack Council. The 

16 Adirondack Council is a 501 (c) 3 

17 not-for-profit environmental organization 

18 dedicated to ensuring the ecological integrity 

19 and wild character of New York's Adirondack 

20 Park. With offices both inside the Park and 

21 in New York's capital city of Albany, the 

22 Adirondack Council is the largest advocacy 

23 organization working full time to protect the 

24 Adirondacks. The Council was formed in 1975 
60

1 And we have thousands of members worldwide, 

2 including in each of the 50 states, the 

3 District of Columbia and on five continents. 

4 The Adirondack Park is the 

5 largest park, state or federal, in the 

6 continental United States. The six million 

7 acre park is a mixture of public and private 

8 lands. 

9 Acid rain continues to destroy 

10 the forests, waters and wildlife of the 

11 Adirondack Park. The high elevation red 

12 spruce forests have been destroyed. Sugar 

13 maple tree growth has been stunted. More than 

14 700 lakes are too acidic to support their 

15 native fish populations. 

16 New York State has already acted 

17 to reduce its own emissions. In 1984, New 

18 York became the first state in the nation to 

19 address acid rain by passing a law limiting 

20 the emissions from its own power plants. In 

21 2003, New York ratcheted down its in-state 

22 emissions again with its toughest-in-the 

23 nation regulations requiring steeper 

24 reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 
61

1 oxides. 

2 Unfortunately, New York cannot 

3 protect the Adirondack Park alone. Pollutants 

4 from outside our state are carried by 

5 prevailing winds and fall in the Adirondacks 

6 as acid deposition. 

7 Six and a half years ago, the 

8 Adirondack Council testified at three 

9 simultaneous hearings held by the EPA in 

10 Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham on 

11 the Interstate Air Quality Rule. This rule 

12 later became known as the Clean Air Interstate 

13 Rule or CAIR. We supported that rule, 

14 although we believed it could be improved. 

15 Today, we are back with similar sentiments for 

16 the new Transport Rule. 

17 We believe that the 

18 Environmental Protection Agency is taking 

19 appropriate actions to address shortcomings in 

20 CAIR that were outlined by the U.S. Circuit 

21 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

22 in 2008. We appreciate the efforts of the EPA 

23 to quickly respond to the Court's ruling and 

24 propose the Transport Rule. We are also happy 
62

1 that several of our concerns from 2004 have 

2 been addressed, including further reductions 

3 in the levels of pollution, shrinking the 

4 timelines for reduction and dealing with the 

5 glut of banked allowances that have 

6 accumulated over the last 15 years. 

7 We support strong nitrogen 

8 emission reduction on a year-round basis. In 

9 the Adirondacks, nitrogen builds up in the 

10 winter snow pack and with the spring snowmelt 

11 contributes heavily to the episodic 

12 acidification of our lakes and streams. There 

13 is substantial science that the saturation of 

14 nitrogen in soils has played a role in the 

15 depletion of the essential minerals from 

16 forest soils in much of the northeastern 

17 United States. A study published by the 

18 Hubbard Brook Research Foundation in 2003 

19 entitled, Nitrogen Pollution: From the 

20 Sources of the Sea, provides details about the 

21 impact of nitrogen pollution. 

22 We urge the EPA to use a 

23 stronger baseline for NOX emissions than the 

24 1997 NAAQS standard. At a minimum, EPA should 
63

1 use the more stringent 2008 standard, and 

2 update the Transport Rule when a new standard 

3 is put in place, hopefully later this year, 

4 although that is now uncertain. 

5 The timetable proposed for 

6 implementation of the new rule is aggressive, 

7 but capable of being met. We strongly 

8 recommend against extending these timelines. 

9 Many companies have already installed 

10 scrubbers or other pollution control equipment 

11 in order to meet the requirements of the first 

12 phase of CAIR. As the second phase of CAIR 

13 was scheduled to go into effect in 2015, 

14 moving up the deadline by only one year will 

15 not cause undue hardships to the energy 

16 companies, but will have an environmental 

17 benefit by speeding up the recovery in 

18 sensitive places like the Adirondack Park. 

19 We applaud the EPA's efforts to 

20 limit interstate trading as well. Since 2000, 

21 Adirondack Council has advocated for action to 

22 limit New York's unused allowances from being 

23 sold to upwind utilities and sent back to us 

24 in the form of acid rain. 
64

1 In 2000, the Adirondack Council 

2 distributed the chart on the screen that 

3 depicts data from a GAO report on which states 

4 were buying and selling SO2 allowances. Green 

5 states like New York were selling extra 

6 allowances, while red states like Ohio and 

7 Indiana were purchasers of th excess credits 

8 from other states. 

9 In 2000, we persuaded the New 

10 York State Legislature to pass a law that 

11 created a financial disincentive for cleaner 

12 New York utilities when they sold their 

13 leftover SO2 allowances to upwind states. 

14 State Senator Carl Marcellino, 

15 Environmental Conservation Committee Chair at 

16 the time had a memorable quote when discussing 

17 this legislation. The state law was 

18 eventually over-turned, but it demonstrated a 

19 need to do something about upwind states. 

20 By limiting interstate trading 

21 and giving each state its own budget for 

22 pollution reductions based on its contribution 

23 to nonattainment in downwind areas, EPA has 

24 adequately addressed New York's concern which 
65

1 has been a problem for over a decade. 

2 With over 12 million allowances 

3 currently in the bank, it is apparent that our 

4 calls for lower caps and ways to reduce the 

5 bank are needed immediately. By EPA creating 

6 a new scheme and not allowing Title IV SO2 

7 allowances to be used as part of this program, 

8 you are rightly correcting a major flaw. In 

9 addition, we suggest that you establish a 

10 discounted rate for banked NOX allowances, 

11 either at a 3:1 or 4:1 reaction. 

12 In conclusion, the Adirondack 

13 Council strongly supports the Transport Rule 

14 and commends EPA for those actions, but we 

15 believe more can and should be done to protect 

16 public health and the environment. We urge 

17 the EPA to look for opportunities to implement 

18 the program with even deeper reductions in 

19 nitrogen oxides. Thank you for the 

20 opportunity to comment here today. 

21 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

22 your concerns. 

23 MR. EDWARD DOYLE: I'm an 

24 occupational medicine physician and a member 
66

1 of the American Lung Association, Atlantic 

2 Board. I am here to say, unfortunately, just 

3 a few words. I am also a relative member of 

4 Environmental Research and Medicine, and the 

5 U.S. Navy Medical Department, Medical 

6 Surveillance Occupational Clinics. In other 

7 words, I spent a lifetime trying to prevent 

8 environmental and occupation illnesses in 

9 groups and in individuals. 

10 I am happy to have a chance to 

11 speak. I am going to be presenting a more 

12 lengthy written testimony later, because it's 

13 not fully ready. Here are some highlights of 

14 what I have to say. 

15 I am excited and really happy to 

16 see what the EPA is doing in limiting 

17 transportable pollutants, sulfur dioxide and 

18 nitrous oxide. 

19 I anticipate that it would be 

20 small, very small articulates that would be 

21 better effective. It was the plastics 

22 division and plastics back 25, 30 years ago in 

23 public health and respiratory and 

24 cardiovascular disease particulates, 
67

1 especially more referable ones that seem to 

2 have greater potential for biological 

3 additivity. 

4 Public health professionals and 

5 everybody in this room probably knows that 

6 respiratory diseases, namely asthma, COPD, 

7 have been increasing in the charts, so there 

8 is a big concern with that. 

9 Also another fact is, there's a 

10 synergy that has been well shown back where I 

11 came from initially, in Southern California, 

12 interacting with ozones and interacting with 

13 particulates causing lung cancer that was 

14 being shown in population studies. 

15 I think the reason the 

16 transportable control is so important, 

17 something that the EPA can do, is to force 

18 engineering and other changes. We know the 

19 states have been doing a lot of work in 

20 secondhand smoke, which is another 

21 particulate, as well as environmental problem. 

22 Communities have made a lot of 

23 progress both in smoke free areas and also 

24 mobile source of pollution, and that has been 
68

1 important. But this is one that is bigger 

2 than the states and communities can handle. 

3 I come from West Virginia where 

4 we are concerned about the local effects of 

5 the production itself, although it has nothing 

6 to do with the EPA ruling, but it would be 

7 nice to see some of the older energy 

8 generating -- being forced to comply with 

9 regulations to some of the newer ones are 

10 facing, simply because there are problems that 

11 impact the use of coal in communities. The 

12 stacks get higher. People in our neighborhood 

13 have problems with asthma and bigger problems 

14 generating from the transporter. 

15 The only other thing I want to 

16 says is that, I heard another gentleman speak 

17 earlier, epidemiology and population is hard, 

18 so the EPA has faced tricky hurdles because 

19 they have to include economic benefit. And 

20 there's a lag between the data coming out and 

21 what is really happening. 

22 But in retrospective review, I 

23 think there's some lung data from the early 

24 90s quoting doctors in the New England 
69

1 Journal, made some pretty startling 

2 observations about what a PM 2.5 reduction in 

3 cardiovascular disease and lung cancer 

4 mortality. The datas aren't as strong or 

5 significant for respiratory diseases. I hope 

6 the EPA looks at those data and the latest 

7 information. 

8 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

9 your time. We have that data and are working 

10 on a lot more. 

11 MR. JOSHUA ELLWEIN: My name is 

12 Joshua Ellwein. I'm a principal engineer with 

13 Tampa Electric Company (TEC). Tampa Electric 

14 is a mid-sized utility located in Florida 

15 utilizing a balanced fuel mix of approximately 

16 half coal and half natural gas. This blend 

17 helps us provide our rate payers the most 

18 reliable and affordable electric energy 

19 possible. 

20 Particularly during this time of 

21 year, hurricane season, we are especially 

22 sensitive to the needs to have a diverse 

23 generation fuel supply in order minimize, to 

24 the extent possible, any fuel supply chain 
70

1 disruptions caused by hurricane activity. 

2 Tampa Electric has recently completed a $1.2 

3 billion initiative to reduce emissions. 

4 This initiative has helped to 

5 reduce our system-wide SO2 and NOX emissions 

6 each by 90 percent from 1998 levels. I would 

7 like to take this opportunity to compliment 

8 EPA in its effort to post on its website quite 

9 a number of the documents used to support the 

10 Transport Rule development. However, we are 

11 still unable to determine how the allocation 

12 spreadsheet inputs are related to one another 

13 and are utilized in determining the models 

14 outputs. 

15 One suggestion, please provide 

16 the links within the spreadsheets, unless only 

17 macros are used, to help us follow along the 

18 allocation logic. We believe the models 

19 outputs can be used as a powerful tool to aid 

20 in the development of the Transport Rule, but 

21 it should not be a definitive artifact in the 

22 formation of the rule and determining states 

23 emission budgets. EPA has already identified 

24 that a number of data errors exist in the 
71

1 model. These errors can have potentially 

2 dramatic impacts on the results of the model. 

3 Just within our mid-sized 

4 electric generation fleet, a number of model 

5 input assumption errors have been identified. 

6 Examples of the types of errors found include: 

7 Allocating different emission budgets to 

8 identically sized and controlled units, or 

9 dispatching the same unit differently for 

10 estimated NOX and SO2 future emissions and 

11 consequential downwind effects. 

12 Tampa Electric will separately 

13 submit to EPA all model discrepancies we've 

14 identified. We also find it curious the model 

15 finds that emissions generated in Florida have 

16 downwind effects in Georgia and Texas for 

17 ozone non-attainment, but does not have an 

18 effect on Louisiana or Alabama. This seems to 

19 be evidence of the need to use human judgment 

20 in interpreting the model. Don't just assume 

21 the output is wholly infallible. 

22 Tampa Electric urges EPA to 

23 include the benefits gained from the emission 

24 reductions already instituted as a result of 
72

1 the CAIR interim program. 

2 Tampa Electric would also like 

3 to take this opportunity to express its 

4 preference for utilizing EPAs alternative 

5 proposal to use the heat input-based 

6 allocation method, rather than the wholly 

7 emissions based ones. 

8 Using heat input would likely 

9 result in less of an allowance shortage for 

10 those who made early emission reductions and 

11 help mitigate the referenced allocation 

12 errors. Tampa Electric, who as previously 

13 stated has a 50/50 split of natural gas and 

14 coal generation, has made significant 

15 investments in emission reductions. 

16 I would like to use this as an 

17 example. For the year 2009, accounts for 

18 nearly 15 percent of the Florida state total 

19 heat input in for Acid Rain units, but only 5 

20 percent of Florida's SO2 emissions. 

21 Under the proposed Transport 

22 Rule allowance allocation, Tampa Electric may 

23 or may not have enough allowances to cover its 

24 current generation needs, even though $1.2 
73

1 billion was spent to reduce emissions and 

2 fully control all units. 

3 The proposed Transport Rule may 

4 not have specifically touched the Acid Rain 

5 allowances, but has certainly affected their 

6 value and any banking strategies by utilities 

7 that have committed to early reductions. 

8 These useless allowances are an additional 

9 cost born by the rate payers, first for the 

10 emissions reduction controls installed and now 

11 the inability to recoup fuel cost savings. 

12 EPA should not include Florida as a Group one 

13 state. Minimal contribution from Florida 

14 sources can be attributed to downwind states, 

15 CAIR controls have not been properly reflected 

16 in projected emissions, and other model input 

17 inaccuracies can account for greater 

18 variability in the models output than 

19 verifiable point source emissions contribution 

20 to nonattainment areas. 

21 As a result, Florida based 

22 generating utilities and rate payers may have 

23 to bear additional costs without definitive 

24 environmental gains. Greater contribution to 
74

1 nonattainment areas may be attributed to local 

2 sources such as mobile sources rather than 

3 interstate emission transportation from 

4 Florida. 

5 Tampa Electric does support the 

6 EPAs preferred approach, which allows limited 

7 interstate trading among its power plants but 

8 assures that each state will meet its 

9 pollution control obligations. 

10 I would like to thank the panel 

11 for this opportunity to speak to you today. 

12 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

13 your comments. I ask that you provide us a 

14 detailed written copy. 

15 MANDY WARNER: My name is Mandy 

16 Warner and I am a Policy Analyst with 

17 Environmental Defense Fund, a non-partisan, 

18 non-profit environmental organization with 

19 more than 700,000 members nationwide. Thank 

20 you for the opportunity to testify today. 

21 The Proposed Rule is an 

22 important step in protecting public health and 

23 the environment. However, given the 

24 substantial benefits of reducing emissions, 
75

1 stronger standards can and should be set. EDF 

2 respectfully requests that the EPA 

3 significantly strengthen the limits on sulfur 

4 dioxide and nitrogen oxide in order to further 

5 improve the health and lives of millions of 

6 Americans. 

7 EDF technical analysis on health 

8 effects attributable to emissions of SO2 and 

9 NOX demonstrates the need for Health 

10 Protective Standards. Independent technical 

11 analysis prepared for EDF used 2009 facility 

12 specific emissions data for electricity 

13 generating facilities and from EPA's Clean Air 

14 Markets Data and Maps website. The analysis 

15 estimates that the SO2 and NOX emissions 

16 discharged from eastern power plants are 

17 associated with 23,000 to 60,000 deaths, 3.1 

18 million lost work days, 800,000 cases of lower 

19 and upper respiratory symptoms and over 18 

20 million cases of acute respiratory symptoms 

21 each year. 

22 As it stands, the emission 

23 limits in the Proposed Rule will make progress 

24 in saving lives, avoiding lost work days and 
76

1 preventing cases of lower and upper 

2 respiratory symptoms. However, given the 

3 serious health impacts of SO2 and NOX 

4 emissions, strengthened standards to further 

5 protect public health are imperative. 

6 To illustrate the benefits of 

7 strong emissions limits, let look at 

8 Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, the costs of 

9 SO2 and NOX emissions in terms of health and 

10 economic damage are high. According to the 

11 American Lung Association, an estimated 

12 100,000 adults and 34,000 children in 

13 Philadelphia County suffer from asthma. 

14 Statewide, an estimated 758,000 adults and 

15 224,000 children have asthma. 

16 According to EPA's Environmental 

17 Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program, the 

18 human health benefit of reducing just one ton 

19 of SOX from an electric generating unit in the 

20 Philadelphia area is $85,000 per year. The 

21 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reported over 

22 570,000 tons of SO2 emissions alone could 

23 total $39 billion or more annually. 

24 In sum, the health and economic 
77

1 impacts on Pennsylvania and the rest of the 

2 United States from SO2 and NOX pollution are 

3 significant. We respectfully request that the 

4 EPA establish substantially more rigorous 

5 limits on SO2 and NOX by 2014 in order to 

6 prevent more premature deaths, further reduce 

7 lost work days and protect the millions of 

8 Americans who suffer from asthma and 

9 respiratory symptoms. 

10 Thank you again for the 

11 opportunity to testify. 

12 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

13 Mandy. 

14 MR. TAD ABURN: Good morning. 

15 My name is Tad Aburn, and I am the Director of 

16 the Air and Radiation Management 

17 Administration of Marylands Department of the 

18 Environment, as well as the Criteria 

19 Pollutants Committee Co-Chair of NACAA, the 

20 National Association of Clean Air Agencies. 

21 Thank you for the opportunity to 

22 testify today. I am here to present the views 

23 of NACAA which is the association of air 

24 pollution control agencies in 52 states and 
78

1 territories and over 165 major metropolitan 

2 areas across the country on EPAs proposal to 

3 limit interstate transport of emissions of 

4 nitrogen oxide, NOX and sulfur dioxide, SO2 in 

5 32 states, which I will refer to as the 

6 Transport Rule. 

7 NOX and SO2 emissions contribute 

8 to fine particulate matter, PM 2.5 and ozone 

9 pollution, which cause significant public 

10 health problems, including premature deaths, 

11 infant mortality, nonfatal heart attacks, 

12 hospital admissions for respiratory and 

13 cardiovascular issues, and emergency room 

14 visits for asthma. Electric power plants the 

15 sources proposed to be controlled under the 

16 Transport Rule represent 70 percent of SO2 

17 emissions and 20 percent of NOX emissions in 

18 the 32 states covered by the rule and thus are 

19 significant contributors to ozone and PM 2.5 

20 pollution. 

21 Controlling these sources is 

22 highly cost effective; EPAs own analysis shows 

23 a 40 to 1 and up to a 100 to 1 

24 benefit-to-cost ratio for the power plant 
79

1 controls in the Transport Rule. Accordingly, 

2 this rule provides EPA with a tremendous 

3 opportunity to assist state and local air 

4 pollution control agencies throughout the 

5 eastern half of the United States with meeting 

6 their clean air obligations. 

7 It is difficult to fully assess 

8 the impacts of EPAs proposed Transport Rule 

9 since the agency's overall program to address 

10 transport is split into two phases, and the 

11 details of the full program will not be 

12 available until EPA finalizes Transport Rule 

13 ll notwithstanding this, NACAA has undertaken 

14 a preliminary assessment of EPA currently 

15 proposed Transport Rule, which I will share 

16 with you today. 

17 We will provide substantive 

18 comments on the agency's proposal during the 

19 formal comment period. I'd like to first 

20 share with you several of the positive 

21 features of the proposed rule that we have 

22 identified. We applaud EPA for thoughtfully 

23 considering how to remedy the “fatal flaws” 

24 identified by the court decision striking down 
80

1 the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

2 For example, we are encouraged 

3 by EPAs provisions limiting interstate 

4 trading. These will ensure that a substantial 

5 portion of a states assigned emissions 

6 reductions occur in that state (rather than 

7 through the purchase and use of out-of-state 

8 allowances to achieve compliance deadlines 

9 with attainment deadlines for the 1997 ozone, 

10 1997 PM 2.5 and 2006 PM 2.5 air quality 

11 standards. 

12 NACAA also supports the agency's 

13 use of air quality factors and a health 

14 benefits assessment in calculating states 

15 emissions budgets, rather than basing the 

16 budgets solely on the availability of highly 

17 cost-effective controls. 

18 Furthermore, at this time the 

19 proposed SO2 caps especially the tightened 

20 2014 cap appear to be sufficiently stringent 

21 to meet most states needs. We are also 

22 pleased that EPA has committed to quickly 

23 finalizing a second Transport Rule, Transport 

24 Rule ll in recognition that much tighter NOX 
81

1 caps will be needed to address the pending 

2 revision to the 8-hour ozone standard. 

3 NACAA strongly supports EPA's 

4 pledge to review whether a new or revised 

5 Transport Rule is needed each time it revised 

6 and air quality standard. 

7 I would now like to turn to 

8 several important areas of the rule that NACAA 

9 believes need to be strengthened. In our 2004 

10 comments on the proposed CAIR, NACAA concluded 

11 the following: While EPA has taken an 

12 important first step to address transport, we 

13 are still concerned that the agency has not 

14 done enough. We believe the compliance 

15 deadlines are too long, the emissions caps are 

16 too weak, and an insufficient 

17 number of sources are covered. 

18 Unfortunately, six years later, 

19 many of these concerns remain unaddressed. In 

20 the Preamble to the proposal, the agency has 

21 expressed a willingness to further examine 

22 these areas in the second Transport Rule. 

23 However, we believe at least some of these 

24 concerns should be addressed in this rule 
82

1 making effort. 

2 For example, the NOX emissions 

3 caps in the proposed Transport Rule are not 

4 stringent enough. While EPA proposes to lower 

5 the SO2 cap in 2014, the agency makes no such 

6 adjustment for NOX. Instead, EPA proposes to 

7 keep the same overly-generous NOX cap for 2014 

8 that is proposed for 2012. This is especially 

9 problematic because EPAs Transport Rule still 

10 leaves several areas vulnerable to interstate 

11 transport problems even under the ozone 

12 standard of 85 parts per billion, adopted in 

13 1997, let alone the proposed 60-70 ppb EPA 

14 revised the ozone standard in 2008, lowering 

15 it to 75 ppb. 

16 However, implementation of that 

17 standard was stayed while EPAA reconsiders the 

18 standard. EPA has proposed a range of 60-70 

19 ppb. Since the 2008 standard was stayed, state 

20 and local air agencies are not developing 

21 range EPA is considering. Although EPA says 

22 it will address the NOX reductions needed to 

23 meet the soon-to-be promulgated revised 

24 ozone standard in Transport Rule ll, it is 
83

1 imperative that the agency include in this 

2 Transport Rule a second, tighter NOX cap in 

3 2014 to assist states in attaining the 85 ppb 

4 ozone standard. 

5 Then, as EPA plans, the agency 

6 should turn to the forthcoming ozone standard 

7 and promulgate a far more stringent NOX cap in 

8 Transport Rule ll that achieves the maximum 

9 emissions reductions that are technologically 

10 feasible and cost effective to ameliorate the 

11 entire transport problem associated with the 

12 revised ozone standard. 

13 In addition, the Transport Rule 

14 fails to include all sources that contribute 

15 significantly to transport, such as 

16 industrial, commercial and institutional 

17 boilers, and cement kilns. These additional 

18 source categories represent a significant 

19 percentage of the states NOX and SO2 emissions 

20 inventories and also contribute to interstate 

21 transport problems. 

22 We recognize that to include 

23 these sources, EPA would need to repropose 

24 Transport Rule l, which, in the interest of 
84

1 time, we do not support. Thus, EPA must 

2 address these source categories as well when 

3 it proposes its Transport Rule ll. 

4 Furthermore, EPAs analysis in 

5 the Transport Rule is not complete. There are 

6 dozens of states that will need to do more in 

7 order to satisfy their Clean Air Act 

8 obligation to address transport: More 

9 specifically, there are 10 states for which 

10 the agency has “only quantified a minimum 

11 amount of emissions reductions needed” for the 

12 1997 ozone standard and “15 states for which 

13 the agency has not completely quantified total 

14 significant contribution or interference with 

15 maintenance” for the 2006 PM 2.5 standard. 

16 We are disappointed that after 

17 spending a year-and-a-half to analyze 

18 interstate transport,EPA presents us with an 

19 incomplete solution. 

20 Finally, and very critically, 

21 NACAA urges EPA to finalize Transport Rule ll 

22 quickly. EPA must promulgate a second 

23 Transport Rule no later than 2012 if the 

24 agency is indeed serious about helping state 
85

1 and local air pollution control agencies to 

2 address interstate Transport, meet their 

3 statutory obligations under the Clean Air Act 

4 and to ultimately attain the health-based 

5 standards. 

6 In short, EPA is asking state 

7 and local air pollution control agencies to 

8 place a tremendous amount of faith in the 

9 agency's ability to quickly promulgate a 

10 strong and effective Transport Rule ll. We 

11 look forward to working with the agency to 

12 accomplish this important goal. Thank you for 

13 this opportunity to comment. I am happy to 

14 take any questions. 

15 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

16 your remarks. 

17 MR. JIM BLACK: My name is Jim 

18 Black and I live in Northeast Philadelphia but 

19 I grew up on a farm in the Finger Lakes region 

20 of upstate New York. The reason I am speaking 

21 to you today is because of something we have 

22 all lost. Some of my early and fondest 

23 memories are fishing with my father and 

24 grandfather. A very important part of those 
86

1 memories besides the sound of water and seeing 

2 sunlight filter through the trees, besides all 

3 of that my, fondest memories are of the flavor 

4 -- a very important part of our tackle was a 

5 black frying pan, fish so fresh with a flavor 

6 you'd never forget. 

7 It may be that even in those 

8 days most fish weren't safe to eat, but we 

9 didn't know that. In the 70s, we were warned 

10 by New York State not to eat the trout or 

11 salmon unless you removed bad portions around 

12 the head and spine, and not to eat any of the 

13 fish sometimes, and only once a month on ones 

14 you could eat. The frying pan started to be 

15 left at home. 

16 When I raised my children, we 

17 didn't eat any of the fish. Catch and release 

18 fishing may be fine for an adult, but for a 

19 kid, it loses something visceral. 

20 My kids are not as passionate 

21 about fishing as I am. They will go with me, 

22 but they are not fisherman. As a society, we 

23 lose something when we can no longer return to 

24 nature for a physical sustenance. 
87

1 Philosophically, you may be able to return to 

2 the forest to renew your soul, but it's not 

3 the same, especially for children. 

4 This brings me to why I am 

5 addressing you. Why can't we fish in streams, 

6 it's because of the pollution that is 

7 literally weighing down on every hill and 

8 valley throughout the region. 

9 Now that I have grandchildren, I 

10 would like to hold out the hope that by the 

11 time they are my age, they will be able to 

12 take their grandchildren out fishing and not 

13 only still catch fish, but to not even have to 

14 wonder if they are safe to eat. 

15 Please, approve the new 

16 Transport Rule to reduce the pollution that is 

17 poisoning us all. Thank you. 

18 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

19 Jim. 

20 MR. MENKES: Thank you to the 

21 EPA for all of this. As someone who is still 

22 breathing, I appreciate whatever help you can 

23 give us. My name is Larry Menkes. I am a 

24 volunteer with the Environmental Advisory 
88

1 Council, The Del Val Green Building Council 

2 and other organizations. I am speaking here 

3 as a private citizen who must breathe the air 

4 in this region. My parents are both dead from 

5 respiratory illnesses. I used to be a 

6 paramedic when I worked up in Connecticut, and 

7 saw first-hand the acute suffering of 

8 respiratory illnesses. 

9 In 1985, my doctor told me to 

10 quit smoking. I intend to put a personal face 

11 on the health effects of the issues. I quit 

12 smoking in 1987 because I was at risk of 

13 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

14 Last year I had a series of lung 

15 tests that told me that I was now in the 

16 moderate range possibly of chronic obstructive 

17 pulmonary disease. I asked the doctor, how 

18 could that be, I stopped smoking 23 years ago. 

19 He said, well, I still breathe 

20 the air around here and this is very bad air 

21 for me. So it seems to me that I am breathing 

22 the air that is the dump for the power plants. 

23 There's no doubt that there are serious health 

24 effects from this. 
89

1 If each power plant would take 

2 our township's emissions and dump it on the 

3 front of the township lawn, they'd probably 

4 get arrested for a variety of crimes. If they 

5 blew their high daily dose of emissions in my 

6 face, they would be arrested for assault with 

7 deadly intent. 

8 But because they blow it out of 

9 a smokestack, it's hard to trace the pollution 

10 after that, they can get away with it. 

11 Our air is commons. We all have 

12 a right to clean air. Here's how we do it, we 

13 privatize profits, like generating electricity 

14 and commonize the cost. This has got to stop. 

15 This has got to be exposed. The cost and 

16 health effects of 100 or so polluters really 

17 effects the lives of millions of people over 

18 this region. This hurts people like me. It 

19 drives up my health cost and I can barely 

20 afford it right now. 

21 If we had the Clean Air Act Now, 

22 the air protected now, we would be up in arms 

23 that the EPA would allow this much pollution. 

24 But I do think it's necessary to get to this 
90

1 rule. 

2 Finally, I would like to address 

3 the waste of energy in this country. We waste 

4 half of the energy that we use. This waste 

5 can and must be eliminated to be more as part 

6 of the program, to be more emissions free and 

7 to reduce the demand in their quest to sell 

8 energy. 

9 It's cheaper for electrical 

10 generator companies to help reduce, than it is 

11 to build a new power plant. I would urge you 

12 to address this by requiring this philosophy. 

13 We are almost out of time in 

14 addressing the most serious problems, air 

15 pollution and the tragedy of the commons. 

16 Thank you all. 

17 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

18 NICK ROGERS: My name is Nick 

19 Rogers. I am a competitive cyclist and an 

20 asthmatic who lives in Philadelphia and spends 

21 most of my time outdoors. I am a strong 

22 supporter of the proposed EPA Transport Rule, 

23 and hope my testimony today can help the EPA 

24 go forward with its implementation. 
91

1 As someone who suffers from 

2 asthma and spends most of my days outside, 

3 especially during the summer when ozone levels 

4 are already high, I am at a higher risk of 

5 health problems caused by air pollution than 

6 others. It is especially important to me to 

7 protect my health because of cycling. 

8 I spend hours every day training 

9 outside on my bike and am constantly subjected 

10 to the poor air quality in Pennsylvania. I 

11 race my bike against other athletes who take 

12 impeccable care of their health. My lungs 

13 need to be physically up to the task every 

14 weekend of being pushed to the limit. When 

15 air pollution from coal plants causes me to 

16 suffer from lung problems and prevent me from 

17 performing at 100 percent, it takes all the 

18 hard work I have done and makes it obsolete. 

19 More important than my athletic 

20 performance being affected by pollution from 

21 coal plants is the serious impact this 

22 pollution has on my health. The reduced 

23 pollution from the Transport Rule is expected 

24 to save 14,000 to 36,00 lives each year. The 
92

1 Transport Rule is predicted to prevent 26,000 

2 hospital and ER admissions and 240,000 asthma 

3 attacks each year. 

4 I am strongly urging the 

5 adoption of the Transport Rule. I fear that 

6 if it isn't adopted, my life might be one of 

7 those that could have been saved with the help 

8 of this reduced pollution. 

9 My high risk for serious lung 

10 problems as an asthmatic and a cyclist makes 

11 it crucial to me that the EPA tightens 

12 restrictions on dirty power plants. 

13 Otherwise, I, and people like me, will cost 

14 the government and private insurance companies 

15 billions of dollars in health care costs; and 

16 cause tragedies to families burdened by the 

17 loss of a loved one because of this pollution. 

18 Ozone burns my lungs and 

19 airways, causing them to become inflamed, 

20 reddened and swollen. Particles lodge deep 

21 inside my lungs where they threaten my 

22 breathing, my heart and my life. 

23 Cleaning up power plants is 

24 critically important because particle 
93

1 pollution and ozone smog cause coughing and 

2 wheezing, trigger asthma attacks, send people 

3 to the emergency room, and cause heart attacks 

4 and strokes, as well as premature death. 

5 I think the EPA should do even 

6 more. EPA should set a much tighter national 

7 limit on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide 

8 emissions. EPA needs to require even greater 

9 clean up. The control technology is widely 

10 available and very effective. The investment 

11 in cleaning up even more means that we seen 

12 even greater benefits, including more lives 

13 saved each year. 

14 Thank you for giving me the 

15 opportunity to testify about this important 

16 issue today. It is my request that the EPA 

17 please go forward with the proposed Transport 

18 Rule and protects everyone's health and air 

19 quality, especially those like myself with a 

20 higher risk of health problems. 

21 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

22 MS. SARA BLUHM: Good morning, 

23 my name is Sarah Bluhm. I'm with the New 

24 Jersey Business and Industry Association. 
94

1 I'm the Assistant Vice President for Energy 

2 and Federal Affairs. 

3 For the past seven or eight 

4 years it feels I like I have been working on 

5 different types of energy policies and 

6 different ways that our states have been 

7 working together to lower emissions. Most 

8 recently, we're working on Regional Greenhouse 

9 Gas Initiative. 

10 New Jersey has been at a 

11 disadvantage due to the fact that we're one of 

12 the few states that actually participated in 

13 RGGI, and so we had additional costs for our 

14 electric, but we didn't see any environmental 

15 benefits because we're still downwind from the 

16 midwest states. 

17 While we have been trying to 

18 clean up our act, we still are being impacted 

19 by other states. Additionally, we've also 

20 seen hundreds of millions of dollars spent on 

21 scrubbers and other advance technology to 

22 clean up within our state and try to improve 

23 our air quality. But we're still at risk for 

24 nonattainment as a result of being downwind. 
95

1 In terms of RGGI, some of the 

2 lessons that we learned is that multi state, 

3 interstate trading agreement has been working 

4 and allowing different power plants to create 

5 allowances emissions. 

6 I will caution though that 

7 depending on the purchase prices, we have seen 

8 the over the toughest times that many of the 

9 money has been diverted and not necessarily 

10 going to where it should be, such as cleaner 

11 energy projects, depending on how you're 

12 setting that up. This year, most of our RGGI 

13 funds go to other state priorities. 

14 We have also seen the cost 

15 passed down to consumers. Commercial and 

16 industrial customers in New Jersey use 

17 64 percent of the electric power. So we have 

18 a very vested interest in many of these 

19 policies. We are fortunate that 50 percent of 

20 our power is nuclear. 

21 As we're looking at this rule 

22 and having businesses in nonattainment areas, 

23 which are downwind, we basically see our 

24 businesses paying a pollution tax. As we're 
96

1 already at a disadvantage because of the fact 

2 that our companies are subject to state 

3 regulations, that other states are not, we're 

4 incurring more costs. 

5 So we see this as a way that we 

6 can control emissions in other states and help 

7 our states businesses be able to reduce some 

8 of their costs as well. Thank you. 

9 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

10 DR. WALTER TSOU: I am the 

11 former Health Commissioner of Philadelphia and 

12 the past president of the American Public 

13 Health Association. I wish to offer my strong 

14 support for the proposed air pollution 

15 Transport Rule, otherwise known as the Good 

16 Neighbor Rule, which would restrict or limit 

17 power plant pollution. 

18 In 2008, which was the last 

19 publicly available report, Philadelphia 

20 exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality 

21 Standard for ozone and particulate matter, 

22 less than 2.5 microns in diameter. In 

23 addition, while there were 204 good days, 

24 there were 144 moderate days and significantly 
97

1 18 unhealthy days in our city. 

2 In addition, several air toxins 

3 were tested in concentrations that would 

4 result an excess lifetime cancer risk of more 

5 than one in a million. These included 1.3 

6 butadiene, acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon 

7 tetrachloride and tetrachloroethylene. 

8 In short, while our air is still 

9 quite breathable, there are many days when 

10 individuals with serious cardiac or 

11 respiratory illness, including asthma, 

12 bronchitis, emphysema or congestive heart 

13 failure would have difficulty breathing. In 

14 borderline situations, poor air quality could 

15 be fatal. 

16 The Public Health Management 

17 Corporation has been tracking the percent of 

18 adults who stated that they have asthma in the 

19 five county Philadelphia area since 1991. In 

20 that year, 1991, 4.7 percent of adults, over 

21 age 18, stated that they had asthma. The 

22 trend has increased each succeeding year. 

23 In the most recent data in 2008, 

24 14.1 percent of adults stated they had asthma, 
98

1 a 300 percent increase. Asthma is complicated 

2 and not all can be attributed to air 

3 pollution. But lungs are very sensitive to 

4 external factors. To the extent that this 

5 rate is increasing at a time when smoking bans 

6 are more widespread is suggestive that ambient 

7 air quality is an important factor. 

8 Imagine, of course, that behind 

9 each of these statistics are families whose 

10 lives have been disrupted by shortness of 

11 breath, hospitalizations with increasing 

12 healthcare costs, and lost time from work. 

13 The leading medical cause for 

14 truancy in Philadelphia schools is asthma. We 

15 cannot minimize the impact asthma has had on 

16 many, many Philadelphia families in the city 

17 which is exacerbated by the ozone and 

18 particulate matter. 

19 You will hear from many others 

20 on the national cost of power plant pollution 

21 in 31 states, including the estimated $100 to 

22 290 billion dollars in additional health care 

23 costs, the loss of between 14,000 to 36,000 

24 lives, the 240,000 asthma attacks, the 23,000 
99

1 additional heart attacks, etc., etc. 

2 I will only add that as a 

3 public health physician, we have the ability 

4 and means to stop this air pollution in order 

5 to leave this world just a little bit better 

6 for our children than how we found it. We 

7 just need the political will. 

8 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

9 Walter. 

10 JOHN KINSMAN: Good morning. 

11 My name is John Kinsman. I am Senior 

12 Director, Environment at the Edison Electric 

13 Institute in Washington, which is the 

14 association of U.S. shareholder-owned electric 

15 companies. 

16 EEI shares a commitment with the 

17 EPA to further reduce emissions from power 

18 generating facilities supportive of general 

19 policy underlying EPA's proposed Transport 

20 Rule. 

21 Important to note is the 

22 electric power industry has already made 

23 significant progress in reducing emissions. 

24 According to EPA statistics, power generation 
100

1 NOX emissions during the ozone season in the 

2 Eastern U.S. have declined 81 percent since 

3 1990. The electric power industry now emits 

4 only 12 percent of national NOX. National 

5 power plant emissions declined 70 percent 

6 since 1990. National SO2 emissions from power 

7 plants in 2009 were 64 percent lower than in 

8 1990. 

9 This proposed rule will require 

10 substantial additional emission reductions. 

11 For example, power plant companies in three 

12 states in which EPA is holding these public 

13 hearings, Georgia, Illinois and Pennsylvania, 

14 will need to reduce their SO2 emissions in 

15 2014 by under the proposed rule will be 

16 reduced 83.0 to 90.2 percent, 88.3 percent for 

17 Pennsylvania, from 1990 to 2014. 

18 While some of our member 

19 companies have stated that they are able to 

20 meet the requirements of the proposed rule 

21 due to some combination of individual company 

22 approaches, state requirements, settlement 

23 agreements, fuel mix or other factors. Other 

24 EEI members have concerns regarding the 
101

1 proposed Transport Rule. 

2 One concern is that the 

3 proposed Transport Rule establishes new 

4 reduction requirements that must be met only 6 

5 and 30 months after the final Transport Rule 

6 is issued. 

7 Some of our member companies 

8 have expressed concern that EPAs assumption 

9 regarding their current control technology 

10 projects may be inaccurate and that they will 

11 have difficulty in achieving the initial 2012 

12 compliance deadlines. 

13 There also is concern by some 

14 companies that simultaneously adding controls 

15 at many units can stress labor, materials, and 

16 state and local regulatory agencies, and that 

17 completing simultaneous control installations 

18 by the end of 2013 to meet the 2014 compliance 

19 deadline is unrealistic. This may be 

20 especially true in nine states where EGUs 

21 would need to reduce their SO2 emissions by at 

22 least 50 percent from 2009 to 2014. 

23 Some EEI member companies 

24 believe that the full schedule, from 
102

1 conceptualization to regulatory approvals by 

2 financial regulators and air quality 

3 permitting agencies, through construction and 

4 operation of a SO2 scrubber, can take up to 60 

5 months. This assumption stands in stark 

6 contrast to EPAs estimate that a new scrubber 

7 can be installed in 27 months. 

8 EEI believes that it is 

9 imperative that EPA, the Federal Energy 

10 Regulatory Commission, FERC, the Department of 

11 Energy, DOE, and states work together to 

12 utilize all tools available to meet compliance 

13 targets while maintaining electric system 

14 reliability. 

15 EEI has concerns regarding the 

16 proposed Transport Rule providing little 

17 long-term certainty, because its requirements 

18 will be superseded in the near-future. EPA 

19 has indicated it will issue a separate 

20 proposal regarding NOX emissions related to 

21 the 1997 ozone standard. EPA also has 

22 indicated it will issue a “Transport Rule II” 

23 related to a tightened (October 2010) ozone 

24 standard, and it is almost certain that EPA 
103

1 will propose an additional major transport 

2 rule by 2013 to address a more stringent 

3 late-2011 NAAQS for particulate matter. 

4 These rules are all in addition 

5 to the power generator MACT rule, which will 

6 not be finalized until late-2011, about 6 

7 months after the final Transport Rule. 

8 In order to continue to 

9 effectively produce electricity and reduce 

10 emissions, the electric sector needs clear, 

11 coordinated and flexible regulations that 

12 provide certainty for power companies to plan 

13 multi-billion dollar investments, many of 

14 which must serve decades into the future. 

15 Only through carefully crafted 

16 regulations can EEI members continue to 

17 minimize costs to customers and impacts on 

18 shareholders, avoid straining natural gas 

19 supply and prices, and continue efficient and 

20 reliable electric generation using diverse, 

21 domestic energy resources. 

22 EEI will be supplementing these 

23 oral remarks with additional written comments. 

24 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these 
104

1 comments today. 

2 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

3 John, for your perspective. 

4 What we would now like to do is 

5 take a 20 minute break. 

6 - - - 

7 (Whereupon a break was taken at 

8 this time.) 

9 - - - 

10 MR. DAVID MARSHALL: Good 

11 morning. My name is David Marshall and I am 

12 Senior Counsel to the Clean Air Task Force. I 

13 appreciate the opportunity to speak with you 

14 today. 

15 Many areas throughout the East 

16 and Midwest continue to exceed these 

17 health-based air quality standards. The 

18 problem would be much worse if many power 

19 plants had not reduced their emissions of SO2 

20 and NOX over the past five years. In fact, 

21 national power plant emissions of sulfur 

22 dioxide dropped by nearly 50 percent over that 

23 time. 

24 While this reduction may be 
105

1 attributed to a number of factors, including 

2 New Source Review enforcement actions and 

3 state regulations, much of these gains were 

4 consolidated and extended through EPAs 2005 

5 Clean Air Interstate Rule. Of course, CAIR 

6 has been invalidated by the DC Circuit Court 

7 of Appeals, and much of the progress made over 

8 the past few years will be in jeopardy without 

9 a strong Transport Rule to replace CAIR. 

10 Scrubbers and selective catalytic 

11 reduction are widely available today and 

12 extremely cost effective, but they have an 

13 operation and maintenance cost, so utilities 

14 will not run them unless they have to. 

15 Furthermore, even at todays 

16 pollution levels, the lives of tens of 

17 thousands of Americans will be cut short and 

18 there are still over 700 coal-fired power 

19 plants in the U.S. operating with no scrubber 

20 in place. At this point, every coal-fired 

21 power plant in the United States should be 

22 well-controlled. That is why it is so 

23 important for EPA to strengthen and finalize 

24 the proposed Transport Rule. 
106

1 We believe that the Transport 

2 Rule is a good step towards requiring needed 

3 air pollution reductions in the electric power 

4 sector, and we commend the EPA for bringing 

5 the proposal forward. We are concerned, 

6 however, that the proposal falls short of 

7 requiring the amount of cost-effective 

8 reductions that are reasonably obtainable and 

9 necessary to protect human health and the 

10 environment. 

11 EPAs analysis also shows that 

12 the proposed rule will reduce thousands of 

13 premature deaths and will provide benefits of 

14 at least 50 times costs. A stronger rule 

15 could save many more lives and provide far 

16 more benefits. 

17 Therefore, we urge EPA to reduce 

18 the annual control region SO2 cap to 1.75 

19 million tons and the NOX cap to 900,000 tons; 

20 and to include Texas and several other states 

21 in the control region. 

 Although we support the basic thrust and structure of 

22 the rule, according to EPA's own statements 

23 and using its proposed approach to addressing 
107

1 transported air pollution under section 

2 110(a)(2)(D), the Transport Rule proposal does 

3 not eliminate all of the projected 

4 contribution in upwind states to downwind 

5 nonattainment and maintenance problems. EPA's 

6 atmospheric modeling shows that even after the 

7 proposed rule is implemented, many downwind 

8 areas will still experience nonattainment or 

9 maintenance problems under the 1997 annual PM 

10 2.5 NAAQS; the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS; and the 

11 ozone NAAQS. 

12 At a minimum, these 

13 nonattainment areas should be brought into 

14 attainment by having appoint contribution. 

15 Power plants in several states 

16 that are outside of the proposed control area 

17 will increase emissions following 

18 implementation of the rule, as they will be 

19 subject only to the much weaker Title IV acid 

20 rain restrictions; in fact, the increase in 

21 Texas is large enough to cause it to become a 

22 significant contributor to downwind 

23 nonattainment and maintenance problems. 

24 These residual nonattainment 
108

1 maintenance problems can easily be 

2 addressed by EPA by requiring deeper 

3 reductions while keeping within the 

4 framework of the proposal. With respect to 

5 PM 2.5, Group 2 states have minimal 

6 obligations under the current proposal, but 

7 there are clearly substantial additional 

8 reductions that can be obtained from those 

9 states at the $2000/ton cost threshold 

10 applicable under the proposal to Group 1 

11 states; thus, all states should be required to 

12 meet the Group 1 state requirements. 

13 In addition, according to EPA 

14 estimates, additional reductions of about 

15 500,000 tons of SO2 could be obtained in 2014 

16 by increasing the proposals SO2 cost threshold 

17 to $2400. 

18 Our preliminary analysis shows 

19 that a 1.75 million ton regional SO2 cap could 

20 be achieved with a cost threshold of about 

21 $2600 a ton. 

22 With respect to ozone, EPA 

23 should raise the $500 a ton minimum cost 

24 threshold in the Transport Rule proposal for 
109

1 requiring ozone season NOX reductions, keeping 

2 in mind that EPA found in the 1998 NOX SIP 

3 Call that a much higher cost threshold was 

4 highly cost-effective. Furthermore, EPA 

5 should include Texas in the control region. 

6 Finally, we welcome EPA's stated 

7 intention to promulgate a number of rules in 

8 the near future to require emission reductions 

9 from this sector beyond those in the Transport 

10 Rule proposal. 

11 We urge EPA to follow through 

12 with these important regulatory efforts. We 

13 also urge EPA to strengthen the proposed 

14 Transport Rule and finalize it as soon as 

15 possible. 

16 We will also submit detailed 

17 written comments by the October 1 deadline. 

18 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

19 David. 

20 MR. CHRIS SALMI: Good morning 

21 and thank you for the opportunity to testify 

22 on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

23 Transport Rule. My name is Chris Salmi, I'm 

24 the Assistant Director of the Division of Air 
110

1 Quality in the New Jersey Department of 

2 Environmental Protection. I am pleased to be 

3 here today representing the views of the Ozone 

4 Transport Commission (OTC). 

5 The OTC coordinates ground-level 

6 ozone pollution control planning among the 12 

7 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States and the 

8 District of Columbia. 

9 In addition to todays testimony, 

10 the OTC will submit written comments and 

11 supplemental documentation. The State of New 

12 Jersey will provide separate testimony this 

13 afternoon. In meetings to come, I will 

14 highlight the OTC's testimony rather than read 

15 it into the record. 

16 The transported ozone and 

17 particulate matter pollution that is formed 

18 from NOX and SO2 emissions endanger the health 

19 of our citizens, particularly the very young 

20 and elderly, causing lung damage, respiratory 

21 illness and premature mortality. 

22 Power plants are a significant 

23 source of these pollutants, contributing 18 

24 percent of all NOX emissions and 66 percent of 
111

1 all SO2 emissions nationally. EPA Regulatory 

2 Impact Analysis for the Proposed Transport 

3 Rule. 

4 By controlling emissions from 

5 these sources under the Transport Rule, EPA is 

6 achieving badly needed public health benefits 

7 that are long overdue utilizing the most 

8 cost-effective reductions available. In its 

9 own analysis, EPA finds a benefits-to-cost 

10 ratio of at minimum 40-to-1 and up to as much 

11 as 100-to-1 for the controls on power plants 

12 covered under the proposed Transport Rule. 

13 The OTCs conceptual model work 

14 clearly shows that reducing transport of 

15 damaging ozone precursor emissions is the 

16 regions number 1 priority. The OTC states 

17 have stepped up to the plate willingly and 

18 aggressively to address our own sources of 

19 ozone for many years. 

20 The new “local controls” being 

21 developed by the OTC states will help, but the 

22 health benefits from these new local controls 

23 are small compared to the benefits from 

24 regional transport strategies. 
112

1 We also commend EPA for 

2 addressing the Courts and the states concern 

3 with the relationship between emission 

4 reductions and downwind contributions, and 

5 important transport issue that caused the 

6 Court to reject and remand the 2005 Clean Air 

7 Interstate Rule (CAIR) back to EPA. 

8 The proposed rule provides a 

9 strong, science-based methodology that can 

10 achieve significant reductions in air 

11 pollution from power plants transported from 

12 upwind states into and within the OTC region. 

13 Further, the proposed rule 

14 limits the degree to which such plants can 

15 engage in interstate trading of emissions. By 

16 restricting interstate trading, EPA has taken 

17 a major step towards addressing the courts 

18 finding and the CAA requirement that each 

19 state mush reduce its share of transported 

20 pollution. We also commend EPA for proposing 

21 a methodology for assessing transported air 

22 pollution that will provide a framework for 

23 more quickly analyzing the impact of transport 

24 under future revised air quality standards. 
113

1 For the states to have any 

2 chance of developing timely plans to 

3 adequately address transport, EPA must 

4 identify the reductions needed to eliminate 

5 significant contribution and interference with 

6 maintenance concurrent with the setting of air 

7 quality standards. 

8 This proposed methodology should 

9 be quickly applied to identify the additional 

10 reductions in transport needed to meet the new 

11 ozone standard EPA expects to issue this fall. 

12 Unfortunately, there are a 

13 number of shortcomings in the transport 

14 proposal that will prevent achieving healthy 

15 air in the eastern United States as 

16 expeditiously as practical, as required under 

17 the Clean Air Act. To emphasize this point, 

18 there have been 53 separate exceedances of the 

19 2008 ozone standard in the region so far 

20 during this ozone season and the season is far 

21 from over. And because the proposed Transport 

22 Rule purports to respond only to the 

23 inadequacies of CAIR, which addressed the 1997 

24 ozone standard, it will not provide the NOX 
114

1 reductions necessary to meet the 2008 ozone 

2 standard nor its more stringent replacement 

3 expected in October. 

4 We, therefore, urge EPA to 

5 strengthen this Transport Rule, particularly 

6 in the areas we will now discuss, to provide 

7 greater public health protection in a more 

8 timely manner. 

9 It is troubling that the 

10 proposed Transport Rule does not completely 

11 address the significant contributions from 

12 upwind states in the context of the less 

13 protective 1997 ozone standards. Section 

14 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act mandates 

15 that states must include in their state 

16 implementation plans provisions that prohibit 

17 air pollutant emissions that significantly 

18 contribute to non-attainment or interfere with 

19 maintenance in any other state. And yet EPA 

20 asserts in the proposed Transport Rule (which 

21 is a federal implementation plan) that it will 

22 only “partially eliminate” the significant 

23 contributions of 25 states in relation to the 

24 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and 
115

1 will only “make measurable progress toward 

2 eliminating” the significant contributions of 

3 10 states in relation to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

4 It is not acceptable to the OTC states that a 

5 federal implementation plan, which is intended 

6 to fulfill the obligations of a state 

7 implementation plan, does not meet the letter 

8 of the Clean Air Act transport requirements. 

9 A key reason that significant 

10 contribution is not eliminated by the proposed 

11 Transport Rule is that the NOX caps are not 

12 stringent enough. The proposed 2012 NOX caps 

13 are actually more generous than those that 

14 were required in CAIR phase 2, beginning in 

15 2015. The seasonal NOX budget for the 

16 identical states under EPAs proposed Transport 

17 Rule is 475,000 tons; the CAIR phase 2 NOX cap 

18 was 429,000 tons. EPA further exacerbates the 

19 situation by retaining the 2012 NOX cap in 

20 2014, rather than ratcheting it down, as it 

21 did for the SO2 caps in the proposed rule. In 

22 a recent plant-by-plant analysis by OTC of 

23 potential future NOX caps, we determine that a 

24 375,000 ton ozone season NOX cap by 2014 is 
116

1 technologically feasible and cost-effective 

2 based on an annual NOX cap of 900,000 tons in 

3 the eastern U.S. 

4 We urge EPA to tighten the NOX 

5 caps in this rulemaking to a level that fully 

6 eliminates significant contribution. We 

7 believe that cost-effective reductions from 

8 power plants are available at cost thresholds 

9 greater than EPAs proposed threshold of $500 

10 per ton and we urge EPA to adopt a cost 

11 threshold that will result in tighter state 

12 NOX budgets. 

13 Another flaw in the proposed 

14 Transport Rule is the design of the remedy. 

15 EPA proposes to set state EGU budgets, but 

16 then allows sources within that state to emit 

17 above these already inadequate budgets up to 

18 the variability limit. 

19 In order to meet the statutes 

20 requirement and the Courts mandate, EPA need 

21 to implement a trading program that sets a 

22 state emissions budget at the level necessary 

23 to eliminate transport and that requires 

24 mitigation in a specific state if the 
117

1 collective sources in the state exceed the 

2 budget. 

3 A third problem with the 

4 proposed rule is its failure to include 

5 emission reductions from all NOX sources that 

6 contribute to transport, particularly from 

7 large industrial, commercial and institutional 

8 (ICI) boilers. We understand that EPA 

9 proposes to address ICI boilers, as well as 

10 other NOX source categories, in a second 

11 transport rule that will follow. 

12 However, we urge EPA to examine 

13 the technical evaluation the OTC developed 

14 jointly with the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

15 Consortium (LADCO) for ICI boilers and include 

16 NOX and SO2 reductions from this sector in the 

17 final rulemaking for this proposed rule if 

18 possible. If not, we urge EPA to address 

19 emissions from ICI boilers in the second 

20 Transport Rule, as well as emissions from 

21 cement kilns, on-road vehicles, marine engines 

22 and locomotives. 

23 EPA data shows that emissions 

24 from power plants, along with emissions from 
118

1 these other source categories, represent about 

2 75% of the NOX emissions that remain to be 

3 regulated. These source categories are most 

4 effectively regulated by national rules 

5 promulgated by EPA. 

6 Finally, and most importantly, 

7 it is imperative that EPA fulfill the promise 

8 it makes in this proposal to quickly adopt, no 

9 later than 2012, a second transport rule to 

10 address the more health-protective ozone 

11 standard anticipated this fall. Under this 

12 new standard, further reductions in 

13 transported pollution will be needed beginning 

14 as early as 2014 for states to meet their 

15 transport obligations and to realize the goal 

16 of clean air. 

17 The OTC stands ready to work 

18 with EPA to address the issues and concerns I 

19 have raised today. 

20 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

21 MS. AMANDA DELCORE: Hello, my 

22 name is Amanda DelCore, and I am a graduate 

23 student at Villanova University studying 

24 sustainable engineering. 
119

1 This summer, I lived in 

2 Doylestown for an internship. Doylestown is 

3 about an hour north of Philadelphia, has two 

4 lane county roads, farms, and great sunsets. 

5 Watching the sun go down over the Peace Valley 

6 Park lake always brought a mix of sentiments. 

7 Sure it looked pretty, but I knew that 

8 pollution and particulates were to blame for 

9 the array of colors I was seeing. “How could I 

10 be observing the effects of pollution all the 

11 way in Doylestown?” With the air currents 

12 generally flowing from west to east in our 

13 region, it's not hard to understand how 

14 quickly pollution can travel. 

15 As we all know, airborne 

16 pollutants do not recognize state borders. 

17 Which is why it is important to tighten 

18 regulations concerning emitted pollutants like 

19 sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide across state 

20 borders. 

21 In Pennsylvania,about 53 percent 

22 of our electricity is generated from 78 

23 coal-burning power plants. The United States 

24 as a whole gets 48 percent of its electricity 
120

1 from coal-burning power plants. These are 

2 significant figures. 

3 On a hot summer day, we can 

4 retreat to our boxes of air conditioning, 

5 whether it be the office or our home or our 

6 schools. We think this is comfortable, 

7 beating the summer heat by staying indoors. 

8 But somewhere not too far away, there's a 

9 coal-burning power plant exhausting tons of 

10 SO2 and NOX into the atmosphere. And unlike 

11 our air-conditioning that stays within the 

12 bounds of our manmade habitats, this pollution 

13 doesn't stay at the power plant. 

14 I believe that as a society, we 

15 need to start looking at our surroundings as a 

16 whole system. We cannot create something 

17 without having an effect, and we can't expect 

18 those effects to play out quietly in the 

19 background forever. We have the technology to 

20 control the negative effects of coal-fired 

21 power plants. 

22 The operating costs of such 

23 technologies cannot be used as an excuse for 

24 negligence any longer because the benefits far 
121

1 outweigh the costs. 

2 I know how to conserve energy at 

3 home, and I do. But I pay for the electricity 

4 that I use, and I want to know that the 

5 electricity I pay for is produced in such a 

6 way that it's as clean as possible. Not only 

7 does the current standard allow for many cases 

8 of bronchitis, asthma, heart attacks, and 

9 premature deaths every year, but it allows for 

10 a lower standard of living for all the 

11 inhabitants downwind of a power plant. 

12 The most I can do is to conserve 

13 energy, and ask the company that supplies most 

14 of my energy to take its due responsibility. 

15 So, as a resident of Philadelphia, a resident 

16 of North America, I am asking you to please 

17 implement this plan to reduce interstate 

18 transport of fine particulate matter and 

19 ozone. 

20 Thank you for giving me the 

21 opportunity to voice my support for this 

22 regulatory action. 

23 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

24 MR. ADAM H. CUTLER: Good 
122

1 morning. My name is Adam Cutler, and I am the 

2 Director of the Public Health and 

3 Environmental Justice Law Project at the 

4 Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. 

5 Thank you for the opportunity to 

6 testify today concerning EPAs proposed rule to 

7 limit the interstate transport of emissions of 

8 nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

9 which I will refer to in my testimony as the 

10 Transport Rule. 

11 The EPA defines environmental 

12 justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful 

13 involvement of all people regardless of race, 

14 color, national origin, or income with respect 

15 to the development, implementation, and 

16 enforcement of environmental laws, 

17 regulations, and policies.” The Public Health 

18 and Environmental Justice Law Project provides 

19 legal services to environmental justice 

20 communities in Pennsylvania. 

21 Our work is centered primarily 

22 in and around Philadelphia, including 

23 communities in Delaware County and Montgomery 

24 County. Through the Project, I work closely 
123

1 with communities where residents, mostly of 

2 color or poor or both, suffer 

3 disproportionately from adverse health effects 

4 associated with pollution. 

5 In some of these communities, 

6 like the City of Chester or the Borough of 

7 Eddystone, both in Delaware County and both 

8 close to coal-fired power plants and other 

9 sources of air pollution, a recent household 

10 health survey reported asthma rates among 

11 children are in excess of 25 percent. 

12 My clients and their 

13 communities, therefore, are acutely affected 

14 by particle pollution and ozone, which are 

15 known to exacerbate asthma among other human 

16 health impacts. My comments today are my own, 

17 and are not made on behalf of any particular 

18 client group or community. They are, however, 

19 rooted in the work I do, and are focused 

20 specifically on the implications of the 

21 Transport Rule for environmental justice 

22 communities. 

23 I will provide more detailed 

24 comments on the agency's proposal during the 
124

1 written comment period. 

2 The Transport Rule contemplates 

3 reducing electric power plan emissions of 

4 nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide in 31 states 

5 and the District of Columbia, so that by 2014, 

6 EPA projects that EGU sulfur dioxide emissions 

7 would be cut by 71 percent versus 2005 levels, 

8 and nitrogen oxide emissions would be reduced 

9 by 52 percent. 

10 These reductions would represent 

11 significant progress toward finally achieving 

12 attainment standards for PM 2.5 standard. 

13 Although these cuts could and should be 

14 deeper, particularly with respect to nitrogen 

15 oxide, and could and should cover more 

16 sources, the welcome public health and 

17 environmental benefits from the proposed 

18 reductions in these dangerous pollutants are 

19 unmistakable, and will far outweigh the costs 

20 of compliance with the Transport Rule. 

21 That said, I want to comment 

22 specifically on the fact that EPAs preferred 

23 rule would allow unlimited intrastate trading 

24 and limited interstate trading of allowances 
125

1 between EGUs as part of the agency's strategy 

2 to in the words of the Transport Rules 

3 preamble "assure environmental results while 

4 providing some limited flexibility to covered 

5 sources." Under the agency's first 

6 alternative, only intrastate trading would be 

7 allowed. 

8 Even under the second 

9 alternative, which would set emissions limits 

10 for each power plant individually, 

11 company-level averaging for sites within a 

12 given state would be permitted. Under any of 

13 the Transport Rule proposals, then, 

14 environmental justice communities may suffer a 

15 perverse fate. 

16 Take Pennsylvania, a covered 

17 state for both nitrogen oxide and sulfur 

18 dioxide, as an example. A facility located in 

19 the less populous part of the state that 

20 achieves more than its required reductions 

21 might then trade its extra allowances to a 

22 power plant located close to one or more 

23 environmental justice communities in the more 

24 populous southeast part of the state. 
126

1 Although the overall state 

2 emission budget might thus be met, the power 

3 plant located near the environmental justice 

4 communities would, thanks to trading, be 

5 allowed to continue emitting pollutants at 

6 higher levels. The same result could occur 

7 under Alternative Two, which allows 

8 company-level averaging. 

9 Because local pollution would 

10 remain high, the nearby environmental justice 

11 communities would not receive the same public 

12 health and environmental benefits under the 

13 Transport Rule as the communities surrounding 

14 the facility on the other end of the trade. 

15 Indeed, the disproportionate imposition of 

16 environmental burdens on vulnerable 

17 communities would be perpetuated. 

18 If EPAs nascent focus on 

19 environmental justice under Administrator 

20 Jackson is to be seen as something other than 

21 mere lip service, the agency must ensure that 

22 the Transport Rule is consistent with its 

23 environmental justice obligations. If there 

24 is to be allowance trading, whether intrastate 
127

1 or interstate, it must be controlled in a 

2 manner that offers true protection to the 

3 environmental justice communities who would 

4 otherwise bear the pollution burdens. 

5 Environmental justice 

6 communities are, to borrow the memorable words 

7 of civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, 

8 "sick and tired of being sick and tired." EPA 

9 should not, in promulgating a Transport Rule 

10 that can provide so many public health and 

11 environmental benefits to all, leave open the 

12 possibility that vulnerable communities of 

13 color and of poverty will continue to be 

14 subjected to unequal treatment, based solely 

15 on the vicissitudes of power sector 

16 variability. 

17 Thank you for the opportunity to 

18 comment. I am happy to take any questions. 

19 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

20 MS. CHRISTINE KNAPP: My name is 

21 Christine Knapp. I am here today on behalf of 

22 Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, or Penn 

23 Future, where I am Director of Outreach. Penn 

24 Future is a statewide environmental advocacy 
128

1 group that works for a healthy environment, 

2 clean energy and a strong economy. We support 

3 actions by EPA that address air pollution and 

4 protect the public health. 

5 Pennsylvania is home to big coal 

6 and big coal air pollution. Our coal plants 

7 emit massive amounts of NOX and SO2 causing 

8 downwind health impacts from smog and fine 

9 particles. These plants even rain fine 

10 particles directly down on neighbors. The 

11 effects of air pollution from Pennsylvania 

12 coal are felt both in our state and beyond. 

13 Sine Penn Future's founding in 

14 1999, we have sought to reduce harmful air 

15 pollution on many fronts. We have represented 

16 citizens in direct litigation against 

17 Pennsylvania's largest coal plants. We have 

18 represented people with asthma in litigation 

19 against the Pennsylvania Department of 

20 Environmental Protection over its failure to 

21 implement a vehicle testing program. 

22 We have fought for strong air 

23 quality rules starting with the Pennsylvania 

24 NOX Budget Rule in 2000. We have worked with 
129

1 the Pennsylvania Legislature to encourage good 

2 bills and to oppose bad ones. 

3 Since Penn Future's founding, 

4 Pennsylvania has made progress on air 

5 pollution on many fronts. But the elephant in 

6 the room is coal plants. It is hard to 

7 imagine how we will see further progress on 

8 smog and fine particle pollution reductions 

9 without sharp reductions in the enormous 

10 emissions from coal plants. 

11 At a time when Pennsylvania even 

12 regulates nail polish for it's potential to 

13 cause air pollution, we must require steeper 

14 cuts from our biggest polluters. 

15 The Transport Rule is a good 

16 start. The rule will require reductions in 

17 power plant SO2 emissions of 71 percent from 

18 2005 levels by 2014, and reductions in NOX 

19 emissions by 52 percent. EPA's proposal 

20 documents the expected effect on attainment or 

21 air quality health standards from these 

22 reductions, and the dramatic expected health 

23 benefits. 

24 We commend EPA for proposing 
130

1 this rule. We encourage EPA to make it 

2 better, with steeper reductions that reflect 

3 already-available pollution controls. Thank 

4 you for the opportunity to testify today. 

5 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

6 THERESA STIMPFEL: Good morning. 

7 I am a retired industrial hygienist and 

8 teacher in Robbinsville, New Jersey. Like the 

9 emissions that this proposed rule will reduce, 

10 I traveled across state lines to get here. 

11 As a child, 50 years ago at 

12 Staten Island, on a crisp, clear autumn day, I 

13 realized, don't take a deep breath. The 

14 lovely autumn air was polluted from the 

15 refiners and power plant emission to the west. 

16 These were not good neighbors. We have come 

17 along way in pollution since then, and yet 

18 some of the same polluters still cause 

19 problems. 

20 I strongly support the proposed 

21 EPA rule and it's approach to interstate 

22 transport proposal and fine particle 

23 pollution. The EPA has done an excellent job 

24 in developing a well documented rule with 
131

1 great supporting materials for everyone to 

2 comment. Thank you for the opportunity to 

3 speak for myself and many others like me, as I 

4 explain why it's critical to me and to 

5 millions of Americans, that this rule is 

6 adopted. 

7 As I said, I am a retired 

8 person. I am a senior citizen. I'm a baby 

9 boomer, part of a huge population. I'm also a 

10 member of Sierra Club. I like to sit, I like 

11 to eat, read; but at my age, even if I eat 

12 right and get the proper amount of sleep, I 

13 still must exercise to be healthy. When I 

14 exercise, My heart and lungs work harder. 

15 When I breathe in now, my health is 

16 compromised now by exercising to be healthy. 

17 Clearly it is still unhealthy here in New York 

18 and New Jersey even after 50 years. 

19 In 2011 I will be 64 years old, 

20 and like my fellow boomers, we'll have heart 

21 attacks with crippling sequela. My heart is 

22 working harder as I exercise at huge costs, 

23 consequent to the to American economy. 

24 The EPA projects that now the 
132

1 non-generating New Jersey community I live in, 

2 will have ultimate fine particle air problems 

3 without this rule in 2012. 

4 The best way we have to control 

5 healthcare costs is to stay healthy. We can't 

6 do this unless EPA adopts this rule and 

7 implements it properly. 

8 One area that is not addressed 

9 is the impact on youth and lifestyle choices. 

10 My students will suffer and stay in doors 

11 rather than go out. Why would they go out 

12 when their throats get sore from the ozone. 

13 And parents recognizing the quality in the air 

14 aren't pushing them to go out. So with the 

15 growing problem of obesity and the subsequent 

16 cost to society, it is essential to adopt this 

17 rule. 

18 The cost to individual consumers 

19 on utility bills compared to health care 

20 co-pays for medical problems that result from 

21 the contaminant that exists. In fact, the 

22 projected costs for me for over-the-counter 

23 aids to offset the immediate impacts now, my 

24 sore throats and my allergy aggravation as I 
133

1 exercise, because I am exposed to the ozone 

2 and fine particles that are transported from 

3 western and southern states into my 

4 non-emitting New Jersey state, from power 

5 plants that need these controls. 

6 In summary I would like to say 

7 that my neighbors and I need the EPA to 

8 implement the Transport Rule so we can be 

9 healthier, to limit our consumption and to be 

10 able to use our financial resources wisely and 

11 to support the American economy, not simply 

12 support the power industry and their friends 

13 because they have the money, and to lobby 

14 strongly and to have limited improvement in 

15 air quality we need. 

16 We want to enjoy the outdoors, 

17 out beautiful forests, lakes and meadows, not 

18 deposits from the impact of emissions. Thank 

19 you. 

20 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

21 MR. WILLIAM KRAMER: My name is 

22 William Kramer and I am a member and organizer 

23 of the Sierra Club, based here in 

24 Philadelphia. We have over 9,000 members in 
134

1 Southeast Pennsylvania. 

2 I currently live in central New 

3 Jersey, but I plan to move to Philadelphia 

4 later this year. On a personal level, as a 

5 cyclist and a father of a four year old, who 

6 is also becoming a cyclist, I am very 

7 concerned about the quality of our air. 

8 With the decreasing number of 

9 people in this country trying to get out of 

10 their cars and instead bike and walk more, 

11 both for environmental and health reasons, as 

12 one of our prior speakers mentioned, we need 

13 to ensure that poor air quality doesn't sicken 

14 people as they get out of their cars. 

15 Air quality is also an 

16 environmental justice issue, and that's 

17 something that has been raised before, 

18 especially in communities like Philadelphia or 

19 also Trenton, where air pollution is the 

20 highest in the country. 

21 Lower income communities and 

22 communities of color suffer proportionately 

23 from the health impacts of bad air. Air 

24 pollution is a Civil Rights issue and an 
135

1 economic justice issue. We need to keep that 

2 in mind. 

3 The real problem is coal, as 

4 people have talked about. Each year coal 

5 plants spew millions of tons of harmful 

6 pollution into our air, and this increases 

7 asthma, causes heart attacks and increases 

8 emergency room visits and missed work days. 

9 These are all economic impacts. 

10 It impacts productivity, our work and people's 

11 ability to be part of the economy. 

12 This pollution doesn't stop at 

13 county or state lines. As a result, people 

14 throughout the country are forced to breathe 

15 unhealthy air. This national problem needs a 

16 national solution. We are pleased that the 

17 Environmental Protection Agency is acting to 

18 help states be good neighbors. The rule will 

19 systematically envision and cut pollution from 

20 dozens of coal plants, and will otherwise 

21 spread across the country. We applaud this 

22 common sense approach by Lisa Jackson and the 

23 EPA to protect public health, and help states 

24 clean up their air efficiently and cost 
136

1 effectively. 

2 On behalf of the Sierra Club and 

3 all my colleagues, I just want to say this is 

4 a real priority issue for us in this community 

5 and throughout the region. The coal industry 

6 is something we need to move beyond, both for 

7 greenhouse gases and for ozone pollution. 

8 We thank the EPA for addressing 

9 this problem and we want to work with you as 

10 you move forward to continue to reduce both 

11 the pollution impacts and green house gas 

12 emissions. Thank you. 

13 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

14 TOLSUN WADDLE: My name is 

15 Tolsun Waddle. I am here to speak to you 

16 today as an active rower and cyclist and 

17 outdoorsman. 

18 I grew up just outside of 

19 Knoxville, Tennessee and went to college in 

20 Chattanooga. A local air quality group did 

21 its first particulate study in Chattanooga in 

22 the late 60s. They conducted it by putting 

23 mason jars out on the corners of buildings. 

24 They just measured how much dust they found in 
137

1 the jars at the end of the week. 

2 In 1969, Chattanooga was rated 

3 the poorest air quality of any city in the 

4 United States. That has improved dramatically 

5 over time as the local industries in 

6 Chattanooga has cleaned up its act. 

7 When I was in high school, again 

8 just outside of Knoxville I spent a lot of 

9 times at Great Smokey Mountains National Park. 

10 Occasionally, from downtown Knoxville, you 

11 could look out to the east and see the 

12 Smokeys. But that was maybe once every two to 

13 three months with the skies clear enough to be 

14 able to do so. 

15 For the most part, the smoke and 

16 smog that obscured the views of the Smokey's 

17 from Knoxville, which was only about 25 miles 

18 away from the park, was from Ohio Power 

19 Plants. So this Transport Rule is something 

20 that is near and dear to my heart. I have a 

21 lot of family in that area still, and 

22 obviously I'm here now and not too excited 

23 about continuing to breathe particulate matter 

24 from places elsewhere, particulate matter in 
138

1 general. 

2 Every time I go outside to the 

3 park, I think to myself, well this is great, I 

4 am getting away from mobile pollution, all of 

5 the tailpipes that I follow every time I'm on 

6 my bike. I'm getting away from all of those 

7 engines on the Schuylkill River there. But 

8 still, as I walk through the woods I am really 

9 not away from it at all. I'm still breathing 

10 a lot of noxious fumes. 

11 I applaud the EPA for taking 

12 this dramatic step. It's a tremendous step. 

13 I hope that consumers when they look at their 

14 energy bills go up a dollar or two a month 

15 realize that it's for the greater good. Thank 

16 you. 

17 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

18 CHRISTINE GUHL: My name is 

19 Christine Guhl. I'm an organizer for the 

20 Sierra Club in New Jersey. I'm speaking on 

21 behalf of the Sierra Club, but also on behalf 

22 of myself. 

23 I just wanted to thank the EPA 

24 for taking a step with the interstate 
139

1 Transport Rule to reduce pollution and improve 

2 air quality. This Rule will help to clean up 

3 dirty coal plants that pollute their home 

4 states and downwind states throughout the 

5 region. We thank Lisa Jackson and the EPA for 

6 moving forward with the Good Neighbor Rule. 

7 The Agency has lived up to its name and 

8 reputation for protection of the environment 

9 and public health. 

10 Coal plants pour millions of 

11 tons of Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur Dioxide into 

12 the air every year. This pollution knows no 

13 borders. It doesn't know state boundaries or 

14 county lines. It travels downwind, affecting 

15 neighboring states like New Jersey, choking 

16 people with soot and smog. 

17 The Good Neighbor Rule will hold 

18 these dirty coal plants accountable and put 

19 protections in place to limit harmful 

20 emissions. The Rule will protect downwind 

21 states like New Jersey and will greatly reduce 

22 pollution in upwind states as well. 

23 The states required to do the 

24 most clean-up will realize the most air 
140

1 quality and health benefits. New Jersey will 

2 be protected from downwind pollution caused by 

3 power plants in Pennsylvania and the Midwest. 

4 Those states will also be protected from 

5 instate coal plants. New Jersey will be 

6 protected from instate coal plants. 

7 Millions of people are currently 

8 breathing air that doesn't meet basic clean 

9 air standards. Pollution from dirty coal 

10 plants causes respiratory and cardiovascular 

11 disease. That means 240,000 asthma attacks, 

12 23,000 heart attacks and 26,000 hospital 

13 visits. These are EPA estimates. 

14 This rule is essential for 

15 protecting the environment and the public 

16 health for the people of New Jersey, 

17 Pennsylvania and the nation. 

18 I urge you as a citizen of New 

19 Jersey and the Sierra organizer to go forward 

20 with the rule. A delay in action could result 

21 in 36,000 deaths related to dirty air. 

22 This rule is especially personal 

23 to me because I'm a runner and am actually 

24 training for a marathon. I do almost all of 
141

1 my running outside. People that exercise 

2 outside are especially at risk for pollution 

3 related illnesses. 

4 So those people that are doing 

5 their part to keep themselves healthy are 

6 becoming at risk because they are enjoying the 

7 outdoors, they're exercising outside. They're 

8 inhaling large volumes of air and are at risk 

9 as a result of that. They're doing the most 

10 that they can do to keep themselves in good 

11 health by exercising, and they are being 

12 subjected to the soot and smog and to lung, 

13 respiratory and other illnesses as a result of 

14 the pollution. The interstate Transport Rule 

15 will affect these people and help meet air 

16 quality standards. 

17 We all know about bad air 

18 quality in New Jersey. We experience that if 

19 you go outside, especially lately, the weather 

20 has been very, very warm. We have experienced 

21 a lot of bad air quality days. So this will 

22 help New Jersey and other states meet the air 

23 quality standards. It will protect the 

24 citizens of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the 
142

1 detrimental effects of the nation. 

2 It has already been said that 

3 we'll save millions of dollars in health care 

4 costs and thousands of lives, which obviously 

5 there's no monetary value. 

6 Health problems associated 

7 pollution result in missed work days from 

8 asthma attacks, lung disease, hospital and 

9 doctors' visits. These are extremely costly. 

10 If you've ever been to the hospital and seen 

11 the bill, even if you had insurance, if you 

12 looked at the bill, you know how costly it can 

13 be. The interstate Transport Rule will save 

14 hundreds of millions of dollars in health 

15 savings, with economic benefit, by protecting 

16 people from pollution related illnesses. 

17 As it has been said, it will 

18 costs very little in utility bills to support 

19 this. A dollar or two a month is a very small 

20 price to pay for the amount of lives that will 

21 be saved. This is a cost effective plan. I 

22 want to urge that to the EPA. 

23 You have done an excellent job 

24 with this proposal to reduce soot and smog in 
143

1 31 states. The people of New Jersey and all 

2 of the states affected by the rule will be 

3 able to breathe cleaner and healthier air. 

4 This regulation will include New 

5 Jersey and other states in this region to have 

6 clean energy in the future. 

7 So I thank the EPA for proposing 

8 the rule and I urge you to go forward and take 

9 the step in adopting it. 

10 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

11 MR. ROBERT GARDNER: My name is 

12 Robert Gardner. As an avid outdoorsman, 

13 bicyclist, and runner, I would like to applaud 

14 the EPA for taking this positive step towards 

15 restricting dangerous Sulfur Dioxide and 

16 Nitrogen oxide. 

17 The Environmental Protection 

18 Agency is right to restrict pollution of 

19 sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from dirty 

20 old coal plants across the country. Americans 

21 should not be forced to wait for clean air. 

22 This is especially so, given the clear ability 

23 of electric power companies to utilize readily 

24 available pollution-control technologies, 
144

1 while simultaneously ensuring a reliable 

2 electric system. 

3 The respiratory health of the 

4 American people is simply too precious to 

5 continue to allow millions of tons of SO2 and 

6 NOX emissions. The Eddystone and Crombie coal 

7 plants, here in Philadelphia, are slated to be 

8 retired from coal generation for just that 

9 reason. However, Homer City, Keystone, 

10 Montour and Penn State are among hundreds that 

11 have not installed easily available technology 

12 to reduce pollution. 

13 Under authority of the Clean 

14 Air Act, a strong Transport Rule will put the 

15 onus back on industry for the pollution it has 

16 tried to send far away by building taller and 

17 taller smokestacks. Many of the worst 

18 offending coal plants do not even provide 

19 electricity to the communities they pollute. 

20 Industry can and should be 

21 required to adhere to stricter pollution 

22 limits than what is proposed by this rule, 

23 which would help clear the air in the 

24 Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast, where air 
145

1 quality worsened in 2010, yet another year 

2 that has proved to be the hottest on record. 

3 Burning coal is indeed dirty in 

4 many ways and in this country also responsible 

5 for about 30 percent of our global warming 

6 pollution. 

7 According to the EPA, as many as 

8 36,000 premature deaths and $290 billion in 

9 unnecessary health care expenditures for 

10 ailments like asthma, could be avoided by 

11 taking serious action to reduce sulfur dioxide 

12 and nitrogen oxide emissions through the 

13 Transport Rule as it is currently written. 

14 Cities with high concentrations 

15 of nitrogen oxides have death rates four times 

16 higher than those with low concentrations, 

17 which while not definitive, definitely 

18 suggests a potential correlation. 

19 Nearly one in ten American 

20 children has asthma. Coal-fired power plants 

21 cause over 554,000 asthma attacks every year. 

22 By enacting this rule, more children would be 

23 able to grow up asthma free, less adults would 

24 feel the crippling effects of heart disease 
146

1 and emphysema, and we would be closer to 

2 protecting everyone's right to breathe clean 

3 air. 

4 The health affects of SO2 are 

5 well documented. Sulfates are major 

6 components of the fine particle pollution that 

7 plagues many parts of America, and in 

8 addition, SO2 interact with NOX to form nitric 

9 and sulfuric acids, which forms acid rain and 

10 damages forests and acidifies soil and 

11 waterways. 

12 In addition, NOX, further 

13 increases nitrogen loading in water bodies, 

14 which accelerates eutrophication, which leads 

15 to oxygen depletion and kills fish, notably in 

16 bio-diverse areas such the Chesapeake Bay. 

17 For years, residents from 

18 Philadelphia to Merrimack, New Hampshire, and 

19 Alexandria to Hudson, New Jersey and 

20 Bridgeport, Connecticut have been forced to 

21 pay the health price of burning coal for 

22 electricity. Because of costs to public 

23 health and the environment, coal is always 

24 expensive. Reducing this pollution will save 
147

1 100 times the money that it will cost. 

2 The proposed rule would yield 

3 more than $120 to $290 billion in annual 

4 health and welfare benefits in 2014, including 

5 the value of avoiding 14,000 to 36,000 

6 premature deaths. The cost effectiveness of 

7 this pollution reduction is consistent with 

8 the record of the Clean Air Act, which has 

9 provided benefits that are 42 times greater 

10 than the estimated costs of reducing industry 

11 pollution. 

12 Obvious polluting giants like 

13 Mirant and Dominion oppose pollution 

14 standards, but industry-funded analysis shows 

15 support for the Transport Rule. Barkley and 

16 Associates, consultants for companies such as 

17 Exelon, Public Service Enterprise Group and 

18 Entergy, found that electric system 

19 reliability will not be compromised, that 

20 industry can easily afford it, and that 

21 regulators have plenty of tools to moderate 

22 any impacts on business. 

23 Opposition to a strong Transport 

24 Rule can be only about greed and lack of 
148

1 concern for social welfare. 

2 It is for the reasons submitted alone, that GP 

3 calls for a strong Transport Rule, focused on 

4 setting a pollution limit for each state with 

5 specific allowable emission limits for each 

6 power plant. Thank you for your time. 

7 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

8 your remarks. 

9 MARTIN HAGE: My name is Martin 

10 Hage. I live here in Pennsylvania, a coal 

11 state. I grew up in another coal state. I 

12 grew up in Illinois. I am a two-time cancer 

13 survivor and I'm 30 years old. 

14 I would like to put on the 

15 public record my support for the Transport 

16 Rule. I believe this rule will make the air I 

17 breathe less harmful to my body. 

18 I am willing to be pragmatic. I 

19 am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to 

20 businesses supplying the public need. 

21 However, the coal industry is not in financial 

22 peril. The nuclear power plants are putting 

23 greater risk of these businesses to achieve 

24 the bottom line. 
149

1 In my life, I've had to deal 

2 with unlucky breaks. If we can prevent others 

3 from going through stress or hardship, and the 

4 only one that needs to alter their practices 

5 is the coal industry, it seems the coal burner 

6 power plants can figure out a way to continue 

7 to thrive while working within any constraints 

8 the transport rule might impose. Thank you. 

9 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

10 REV. DR. HORACE STRAND: Good 

11 afternoon. My name is Reverend Horace Strand. 

12 I'm the pastor of Faith Temple Church in the 

13 City of Chester and also the Chester 

14 Partnership. We started over 20 years ago to 

15 deal with the frustrating effects of 

16 environmental, unclean facilities in our 

17 community, the City of Chester, which at that 

18 time we had the fourth largest trash to steam 

19 plant in the nation. That was licensed to 

20 bring in 5.5 times the tonage and a company 

21 called Soil Mediation with contaminated soil. 

22 They're basically all within one square mile 

23 of each other. 

24 It has been furstrating for over 
150

1 20 years to deal with the environment 

2 injustice issues in the City of Chester, 

3 Delaware County and also America. 

4 When you go to agencies that 

5 have been entrusted with the care of the air, 

6 water and quality of life residences that have 

7 had no power to do anything to stop the 

8 negative effects on of these industries upon 

9 the resident. 

10 Where I live in the City of 

11 Chester, we are considered what's called, 

12 unfortunately it's known as the cancer belt on 

13 the east coast of this country. Many people 

14 have died from cancer issues and respiratory 

15 problems. We have a high rate of asthma among 

16 our children. 

17 I want to applaud the EPA for 

18 taking the issue to change the regulation 

19 concerning our air. The Transport Act will 

20 give communities such as ours something to 

21 look forward to, something to hope for, for 

22 our children's well-being, as well as our own. 

23 We attended a conference in 

24 Washington approximately six months ago with 
151

1 approximately 148,000 people throughout the 

2 country to meet with the EPA to discuss what 

3 could be done to help make a difference. 

4 I was a little disturbed because 

5 we spent four to six hours there, we didn't 

6 have no lunch, we didn't have no water, no 

7 coffee, they worked us. But the outcome is 

8 that this agency has demonstrated that they 

9 did not waste our time. 

10 Today we're sitting here talking 

11 about something that is paramount to the 

12 health and welfare of our all residents and 

13 all citizens of the United States. I applaud 

14 the EPA because they have demonstrated they 

15 are serious about change in this country. 

16 They are serious about the grass root 

17 organizations who are fighting, trying to 

18 protect the quality of life of the residents 

19 that have been bullied and taken advantage of 

20 by industries that their only concern is the 

21 almighty dollar. 

22 I am here to say that this is a 

23 breath of fresh air. When I came here this 

24 morning and I looked outside my car window and 
152

1 I saw protestors outside, I assumed they were 

2 from the coal industry protesting the change 

3 being proposed here. To my warmth and 

4 surprise, it was a group of people 

5 demonstrating their approval in favor of this 

6 policy. 

7 I have never seen anything like 

8 it in all my years. If this is what the Obama 

9 Administration is going to continue to do in 

10 this country, I applaud the President, Lisa 

11 Jackson and others who are progressive, who 

12 are serious, who are not just sitting on their 

13 butt doing nothing, but are trying to make a 

14 difference for this country, to give the 

15 American citizens the kind of justice and 

16 quality that we've been promised and not 

17 gotten. When it comes to poor and minority 

18 communities, they've been dumped on and 

19 trampled on enough and. This is a step in the 

20 right direction. Thank you very much. 

21 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

22 MORGAN RUST: My name is Morgan 

23 Rust. I'm a resident of Philadelphia. I want 

24 to show support for the Transport Rule to 
153

1 significantly reduce emissions from coal power 

2 plants for cleaner air. Clean air has to be a 

3 priority. During this crucial time showing 

4 its effects every day. As someone who bikes, 

5 runs and works outside, it directly affects me 

6 and my health. Thank you. 

7 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. Now 

8 we're going to adjourn for lunch and we will 

9 start up at 2:00. 

10 - - - 

11 (Whereupon a lunch break was 

12 taken at this time.) 

13 - - - 

14 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

15 joining us for the afternoon session of this 

16 public hearing. Let me introduce myself. I 

17 am Sam Napolitano, with the EPA's Office of 

18 Atmospheric Programs, Director of Clean Air 

19 Markets Division. Immediately to my left is 

20 Diana Esher of EPA's Region III, Air 

21 Protection Division. Also to my far left is 

22 Tim Smith with the Office of Air Quality 

23 Planning and Standards. To my right is Sara 

24 Schneeberg, who is with the EPA's Office of 
154

1 General Counsel. 

2 We will be sitting here 

3 listening to testimony this afternoon on the 

4 Transport Rule, which is predominantly dealing 

5 with the production of SO2, sulfur dioxide; 

6 NOX and nitrogen oxides, emissions form 

7 electric power plants. 

8 The program is going to cover 31 

9 eastern states and D.C. It's a program we 

10 want to finalize in the spring of 2011. We 

11 view the public comments that are due to us by 

12 October 1st, 2010. We're hopeful to complete 

13 the rule in the spring of 2011. We plan to 

14 have it in full effect by January 1, 2012. 

15 This rule is to replace the 

16 interstate rule for the current court's 

17 direction when we have to re-man the 

18 litigation that occurred in 2008. We think it 

19 does a lot to protect the public's health, the 

20 benefits are quite large. 

21 All of this you can find out by 

22 reviewing my full opening remarks this morning 

23 as well as the fact sheet that lays this out 

24 on the front desk. If you want additional 
155

1 facts and information about the particular 

2 rule. 

3 Let me talk about how we're 

4 handling the speakers and the session this 

5 afternoon. What it is is that each person is 

6 being given five minutes to speak. We will 

7 call the speakers, two at a time, in pairs, to 

8 come up. When you do come up, we have had a 

9 little problem with the mic. Get very close 

10 to it so that the transcriber can make sure 

11 she clearly takes down your remarks. 

12 If you have a written statement, 

13 an extra copy, if you could give that to Sarah 

14 at the outset. If you could say your name, in 

15 case I don't do justice to it, and spell it, 

16 that would help again for the official 

17 transcript. 

18 We're going to have a 

19 timekeeping system which you will see a box on 

20 the table there. You will have a green, a 

21 yellow and a red light. What will happen is, 

22 when you go to speak, the green light will be 

23 on. When you have about a minute left, you 

24 get a yellow light warning you that you're 
156

1 coming up on five minutes. And at that point 

2 at five minutes, the red light will go on. We 

3 please ask that you wrap it up then. 

4 We have many speakers this 

5 afternoon and we want to roughly stay on track 

6 to hold the hearing at about eight o'clock. 

7 However, we will stay and hear every speaker 

8 that comes, and basically get your comments 

9 into the record. We'll stay until everyone 

10 who has been here has been heard, that comes 

11 to the hearing. With that, we'll get started. 

12 MR. BILL O'SULLIVAN: Good 

13 afternoon. My name is Bill O'Sullivan. I am 

14 the Air Director at the New Jersey Department 

15 of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). I am 

16 speaking on behalf of NJDEP on USEPAs proposed 

17 Transport Rule. I would like to first applaud 

18 USEPA for their effort to address the flaws in 

19 the Clean Air Interstate Rule, CAIR. There 

20 are many positive aspects of the proposed 

21 Transport Rule, such as using a Federal 

22 Implementation Plan, FIP, for implementing 

23 emissions reduction measures quickly, 

24 disconnecting the SO2 reductions from the Acid 
157

1 Rain Program, and committing to a second phase 

2 of the Transport Rule to achieve additional 

3 and necessary emissions reductions to address 

4 all NAAQS. 

5 There are also significant 

6 weaknesses in the Transport Rule. I will 

7 focus on three: First, the Transport Rule as 

8 proposed does not guarantee that a specific 

9 source that has significant impact to a 

10 downwind state will ever control its 

11 emissions. A real world example for New 

12 Jersey is the Portland Generating Station 

13 Portland Plant in Pennsylvania. 

14 This source is adversely 

15 impacting New Jerseys air quality due to its 

16 significant, largely uncontrolled emissions 

17 and its close proximity to New Jersey. Under 

18 the Transport Rule, not all power plants in a 

19 large state like Pennsylvania will need to 

20 control their emissions. Thus, the Portland 

21 Plant might remain poorly controlled through 

22 the purchase of allowances under the Transport 

23 Rule. 

24 If little or no reductions in 
158

1 the actual emissions from the Portland Plant 

2 occur, New Jerseys air quality, and the public 

3 health and welfare, will continue to suffer as 

4 a result of the plants emissions. Therefore, 

5 it is necessary to implement emission 

6 performance standards, similar to those 

7 already adopted by New Jersey, for electric 

8 generating units. 

9 New Jersey submitted on May 12, 

10 2010, a Section 126 petition to the USEPA 

11 seeking reductions in emissions from the 

12 Portland Plant due to its significant 

13 contribution to nonattainment, and 

14 interference with maintenance, of the sulfur 

15 dioxide SO2 and 24-hour fine particulate 

16 matter PM 2.5 NAAQS in New Jersey. 

17 The units at the Portland Plant, 

18 built in the 1950s and 1960s, have no SO2 

19 emission controls and outdated control 

20 technology for NOX and particulate emissions. 

21 This petition was based on air quality 

22 modeling and the 24 hour SO2 standard. 

23 Based on the new one-hour SO2 

24 standard promulgated in June, the Department 
159

1 predicts that the Portland Plants sulfur 

2 dioxide impact on the air quality is much 

3 greater, causing nonattainment in a much 

4 larger area in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

5 While EPAs transport rule is a positive step, 

6 additional regulatory tools are needed to 

7 address plants like Portland. 

8 Two, perhaps most importantly, 

9 USEPAs proposal does not adequately address 

10 the daily nature of peak ozone. In order to 

11 states to attain and maintain the current 75 

12 ppb and future ozone standards, it is 

13 necessary for the USEPA to additionally set 

14 short term (hourly to daily) performance 

15 standards that apply to each upwind source. 

16 New Jersey has adopted its own rules to 

17 address NOX and SO2 and particulate matter 

18 emissions on a 3 hour to daily basis. USEPA 

19 approved these RACT rules as a SIP revision on 

20 August 3, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 45483 (August 3, 

21 2010) In an analysis NJDEP conducted for the 

22 northeast, it found that only a typical summer 

23 day in 2005, the NOX emissions were 551 tons 

24 per day, while on a high electric demand day, 
160

1 typically a hot summer day that corresponds 

2 with high ozone, the NOX emissions were 1,349 

3 tons per day. Averaging emissions over the 

4 ozone season is insufficient to address high 

5 ozone days where the NOX emissions are almost 

6 three times the typical day. Although the 

7 USEPA offered a direct control alternative in 

8 the Transport Rule, it allows for annual 

9 averaging, which also will not solve the peak 

10 ozone day problem. To properly address NOX 

11 emissions during high ozone days, the USEPA 

12 must adopt a rule with daily, or shorter time 

13 period, performance standards. 3. The cost 

14 level of $500/ton of NOX removed that the 

15 USEPA set for determining significant 

16 contribution is much too low to be reasonable. 

17 The USEPA cited $2,500/ton in CAIR as 

18 extremely cost effective for controlling NOX. 

19 Section 185 of the Clean Air Act specifies 

20 over $8,000 ton penalty for failure to attain 

21 the NAAQS. States in the Ozone Transport 

22 Commission (OTC) and elsewhere have adopted 

23 rules to control NOX from smaller sources that 

24 cost much more than $10,000 ton. Limiting 
161

1 costs to $500 ton in this transport rule is 

2 inappropriate because it does not reflect the 

3 much higher public health and welfare benefits 

4 that are available at higher control cost 

5 levels. The rule is not stringent enough to 

6 provide the necessary emission reductions to 

7 remove all significant contributions from 

8 upwind states. In the rules Preamble, the 

9 USEPA states that there are still several 

10 areas that will not attain the old 85 ppb 

11 ozone NAAQS and the annual and daily PM 2.5 

12 NAAQS. This includes nonattainment areas in 

13 New Jersey. This problem is compounded when 

14 you consider the current 75 ppb ozone standard 

15 or an even lower standard. 

16 I urge the USEPA to move forward 

17 with Transport Rule 2 and better address 

18 regional transport and cost effective public 

19 health benefits in a timely manner. Without 

20 effective regulation, states will not be able 

21 to attain the ozone, sulfur dioxide, and fine 

22 particulate health standards. We will be 

23 submitting more detailed written technical 

24 comments into the docket. Thank you for the 
162

1 opportunity to testify today. 

2 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

3 Bill. 

4 SALLY ANDERSON: My name is 

5 Sally Anderson. I am an asthmatic and I run 

6 and bike daily. I not only enjoy clean air, 

7 but I down right need it. However, the need 

8 for our clean air goes so much further than my 

9 individual needs or even the needs of every 

10 asthmatic in Philadelphia. 

11 I work for an organization 

12 called the Human League in Philadelphia. Our 

13 main mission is to speak up for those that 

14 cannot speak for themselves, primarily 

15 animals. Air pollution can directly affect 

16 animals exactly the same way it does humans, 

17 only their systems, their lungs and everything 

18 are more sensitive because they're much 

19 smaller. 

20 They are susceptible to skin 

21 cancer, just like we are. When you take your 

22 dog out for a daily walk, I doubt you put 

23 sunscreen on it. They can get skin cancer 

24 too. 
163

1 Pollution also seriously 

2 compromises the safety of the animal's 

3 habitats. It changes the soil make-up, it 

4 changes the water that they drink and it 

5 changes so many other natural resources that 

6 animals absolutely need to survive. Pollution 

7 harms and kills trees that they use for 

8 shelter, plants that smaller animals use for 

9 shelter and some also use for food. And then 

10 it begins killing off the smaller life forms 

11 that start the food chain, thus messing up the 

12 whole chain. It becomes a situation where 

13 then species begin dying out. We begin losing 

14 species of plants and animals. 

15 Fish are especially susceptible 

16 and vulnerable, but so are our pets and our 

17 native wild life. Without implementation to 

18 control pollution, our animals and our wild 

19 life and the plants around us can seriously be 

20 compromised. Thank you. 

21 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

22 adding that. 

23 MARIKA FRANZ: This past spring 

24 my nearly two year old daughter developed a 
164

1 very mild, very common cold. Outside of 

2 needing to buy an extra box of tissues, it 

3 seemed innocent enough until two weeks passed, 

4 and this very mild, very common cold was still 

5 there and getting worse. 

6 Worried, I took her to the 

7 doctors, and while the doctor couldn't 

8 definitively diagnose it as asthma, she heard 

9 some wheezing in her lungs, and quickly 

10 prescribed an inhaler. Initially I was 

11 hesitant to use the inhaler since it seemed 

12 such an extreme measure, that is until she had 

13 what seemed like a wheezing or an asthma 

14 attack. 

15 Since then, we had to use it 

16 once more when she had what seemed like 

17 another asthma attack. She has developed two 

18 more coughs during the past three summer 

19 months. Each time I wonder if this is asthma. 

20 Since then, I am afraid of the 

21 air she breathes. I'm afraid of the 

22 particles, pollution, and smog that is putting 

23 her at greater risk for developing full-blown 

24 asthma of worse. 
165

1 Afraid that there is nothing I 

2 can do to make the air a little cleaner, a 

3 little safer. That is why I am here today, to 

4 do something to ensure that my daughter has 

5 clean air so that she can run, dance and play 

6 without fear of an asthma attack. And I dont 

7 think I'm alone when I say that I want the 

8 best possible future for my daughter, and 

9 giving that to her includes being able to 

10 breathe safely. 

11 I'll do my part by reducing my 

12 demand for energy, but coal-fired power plants 

13 need to do their part by reducing their 

14 emissions that can prevent asthma attacks, not 

15 only for my daughter, but the 240,000 other 

16 people that suffer from asthma attacks each 

17 year. 

18 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

19 your thoughts. 

20 ANNIE WILSON: I am Annie 

21 Wilson, and my affiliation is with the Sierra 

22 Club. I'm the Energy Committee chair of the 

23 chapter. I'm a resident of New York City, 

24 Lower East Side, adjacent to a very large 
166

1 power plant. 

2 First, I would like to address 

3 this overall, which given the significant 

4 reductions, it will certainly be an 

5 improvement for what we have. I hope it could 

6 be possible to expand on this with maybe 

7 requirements for technology. In the State of 

8 New York there had been a proposal to create 

9 regulations defining that form of technology. 

10 The best available technologies 

11 would be the most effective process for 

12 operational vending in minimizing the adverse 

13 requirement impacts. Reasonable available 

14 control technologies which infers costs and I 

15 think that when we're referring to costs, the 

16 determination that we make eventually on 

17 implying technology as best available. Please 

18 consider that the costs are not only and human 

19 costs. Environmental costs need to be 

20 factored in somehow and promoted as some kind 

21 of determinant for the best available 

22 technologies. 

23 As it relates to the East 14th 

24 Street plant, I want to give you a quick brief 
167

1 on the history, a quick history. There had 

2 been a shutdown of a midtown facility about 

3 25 blocks away, and an expansion on East 14th 

4 Street, which is referred to in your tables as 

5 the East River Power Plant. That particular 

6 location is between a highway and a low-income 

7 project, several buildings right next to it. 

8 The pollution levels, PM 2.5 and 

9 other pollutants were greatly increased and 

10 SOX and NOX were somewhat reduced, even though 

11 they had no scrubbers provided. Two of them 

12 are burning gasoline. Dependent on the price 

13 of the fuel, and not in any way considering 

14 the communities that are most impacted, I'm 

15 living next to this power plant. I will state 

16 for the record prior to the expansion and 

17 location known as 14th Street, the pounds of 

18 emissions went from 156 million to four 

19 billion. This is a severe increase in pounds 

20 of emission. It is averaging now 5500 tons a 

21 day. 

22 I want to address the asthma 

23 rates. The community living next to that 

24 power plant are the highest in the city, 
168

1 higher than the Bronx, higher than Harlem, 

2 higher than anywhere. There was a preliminary 

3 study done under two years ago that found that 

4 35 percent of the children living in those 

5 buildings next to the power plants are 

6 suffering from asthma. Half of those had to 

7 visit the hospital emergency room in the past 

8 year. 

9 As it relates to the proposed 

10 training, the three systems that have been 

11 outlined, could I suggest that there has to be 

12 some kind of incorporation of the local 

13 pollution issues, and that an intrastate 

14 training program or interstate training 

15 program or even some kind of allowable average 

16 as referred to in the third case scenario 

17 might not necessarily address the local 

18 pollution issues as in this situation on East 

19 14th Street. And I hope that it doesn't slip 

20 through the cracks when you're making your 

21 rules relating to federal versus state 

22 implementation plan. 

23 In the state of New York, the 

24 DEC is very short-staffed. 85 percent of 
169

1 permit renewals for discharge of air are not 

2 examined on-site, but rather based on the 

3 applications made by -- the original 

4 application made by applicant. Because of the 

5 short staffing, there are some kinds of 

6 enforcement compliance and reporting that 

7 needs to be addressed. 

8 Thank you very much for this 

9 opportunity. It was a pleasure being here. 

10 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you very 

11 much for sharing your thoughts with us and 

12 your local concerns. 

13 JAMES PLUMB, M.D.: My name is 

14 James Plumb. I am a Professor in the 

15 Department of Family and Community Medicine at 

16 Thomas Jefferson University, and Director of 

17 the Center for Urban Health. I am also the 

18 past President of the Philadelphia Chapter of 

19 Physicians for Social Responsibility. Here in 

20 Philadelphia we concentrate on personal 

21 violence and environmental degradation. 

22 As a practicing physician in 

23 North Philadelphia where premature morbidity 

24 and mortality from asthma, heart disease and 
170

1 stroke show marked disparities, I am deeply 

2 concerned about the health of the public and 

3 the impact that the environment has on my 

4 patients in Philadelphia. 

5 I am chronically perplexed by 

6 opposition to policies that affect the health 

7 and well being of so many citizens; citizens 

8 who have little to no idea about the 

9 environmental impact of laws and regulations 

10 promulgated by the Environmental Protection 

11 Agency, and less of efforts to restrict or 

12 redact these laws. 

13 I have patients, adults and 

14 children, right now who feel that they are in 

15 charge of their health. They have immunized 

16 their children, stopped smoking; use their 

17 inhalers correctly, follow diets, take their 

18 medications, and yet they remain at risk for 

19 symptom exacerbation, more frequent 

20 hospitalizations and premature death. And 

21 they have very little or no choice in the 

22 quality of the air they breathe, or in living 

23 in a climate that is warming with the growing 

24 risk of extreme heat events, worsening air 
171

1 quality, and risk of respiratory, cardiac, and 

2 pregnancy related deaths. 

3 I am currently working on two 

4 major projects in Philadelphia, obesity 

5 prevention in children and hypertension/stroke 

6 prevention in African American men, 

7 particularly in North Philadelphia. 

8 We are teaching the value of 

9 screening and exercise. People are listening. 

10 They are trying to do the right things. But 

11 walking in the city, the best, most affordable 

12 and most sustainable form of exercise, may in 

13 fact be harmful. Folks may be taking their 

14 blood pressure medications as directed, but 

15 coal-burning power plant emissions are 

16 interfering with optimal control. Medication 

17 use rises, costs rise and more side effects of 

18 the medications occur. This is unacceptable. 

19 People must go outside to play, 

20 work and worship. This is occurring in areas 

21 where our most vulnerable citizens live. 

22 Where obesity rates and stroke deaths are 

23 alarmingly high, where more folks are 

24 uninsured, and where more folks do not have 
172

1 access to quality primary care. 

2 This is the truth in North 

3 Philadelphia; but it is not just, and it 

4 should not be the American way of doing 

5 business. Regulation is just, when the lives 

6 of vulnerable citizens are put at risk by 

7 business as usual. 

8 I teach medical and public 

9 health students. They challenged me to read 

10 the scientific literature, so I am prepared to 

11 give them the best information available. The 

12 evidence of the negative effects of coal based 

13 power plant emissions on the health of their 

14 future patients and clients is mounting. I 

15 tell my students to look at the studies in 

16 peer-reviewed publications, learn the 

17 physiological and biochemical consequences of 

18 ozone and particulate matter on the lining of 

19 the lungs and its effect on the autonomic 

20 system of the heart, all resulting from 

21 oxidative stress and chronic inflammation. 

22 It's my responsibility as a 

23 physician to advocate for my patients and my 

24 students by strongly supporting the Clean Air 
173

1 Transport Rule. Without this rule, an 

2 immediate and direct threat to the children, 

3 elderly, the poor and vulnerable citizens of 

4 Philadelphia remains. 

5 Not to implement this rule is a 

6 socially irresponsible action and will lead to 

7 numerous missed days of work and school, 

8 preventable illness and deaths. Thank you. 

9 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Dr. 

10 Plumb. 

11 MR. AARON RITZ: My name is 

12 Aaron Ritz. I'm an active person in 

13 Philadelphia and I'm a cyclist and a member of 

14 one of the oldest bicycle clubs in the city. 

15 Each year coal plants pour 

16 millions of tons of harmful pollution into our 

17 air, worsening asthma, causing heart attacks, 

18 increasing number of emergency room visits and 

19 missed work days. 

20 That pollution doesn't stop at 

21 county or even state lines; as a result people 

22 throughout the country are forced to breathe 

23 unhealthy air. 

24 This national problem needs a 
174

1 national solution. Were pleased that EPA is 

2 acting to help states be good neighbors by 

3 reducing air pollution escaping across state 

4 lines. 

5 We applaud this common sense 

6 approach by Lisa Jackson and EPA to protect 

7 public health and help states clean up their 

8 air efficiently and cost-effectively. 

9 Cost. 

10 The rule will produce at least 

11 $100 billion dollars, and possibly up to $290 

12 billion, in public health savings. 

13 The areas with the most cleanup 

14 to do will also realize the most benefits so 

15 that no state will bear an unfair burden. 

16 These significant pollution 

17 reductions will cost consumers very little on 

18 their energy bills on average a dollar or two 

19 a month. 

20 Millions of people are currently 

21 breathing air that doesn't meet basic clean 

22 air standards. 

23 The Good Neighbor rule will 

24 prevent at least 23,000 heart attacks, 26,000 
175

1 hospital visits and 240,000 asthma attacks, 

2 according to EPA estimates. 

3 These health benefits translate 

4 not only to a better quality of life, but to 

5 hard savings of $120 to $290 billion. A delay 

6 in action could result in up to 36,000 deaths 

7 related to dirty air. 

8 Accordingly to the EPA one in 

9 six women already has enough mercury in her 

10 body to put her baby at risk of developmental 

11 problems. This rule would indirectly help 

12 lower that exposure. 

13 Reducing air pollution will 

14 significantly improve visibility in our 

15 national parks and wilderness areas. These 

16 improved views are worth $3.4 billion in 

17 increased tourism and recreational 

18 opportunities. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 

19 oxides, main contributors to acid rain, will 

20 be cut by more than half under this rule. 

21 The rule will also reduce 

22 mercury contamination. Already 47 states have 

23 warnings not to eat the fish from their waters 

24 because of unsafe mercury levels. 
176

1 Starting in 2012, coal plants in 

2 31 states will have to reduce their soot and 

3 smog pollution. Over time pollution limits 

4 will be lowered to help progressively clean up 

5 our air. Like the highly successful acid rain 

6 program, the rule sets final clean air 

7 requirements but gives coal plants flexible 

8 options to achieve those requirements. 

9 Those plants responsible for the 

10 most air pollution will have to make a second 

11 round of pollution reductions so that 

12 residents in all states can enjoy clean, 

13 healthy air. 

14 EPA has concluded that this plan 

15 is the most cost-effective way to protect air 

16 quality in neighboring states. Thank you. 

17 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

18 Aaron. 

19 DENNIS WINTERS: Good afternoon. 

20 My name is Dennis Winters and I am the Sierra 

21 Club, Pennsylvania Chapter Chairman. The 

22 Sierra Club was founded in 1892 to explore, 

23 enjoy and protect our planet. Nationally and 

24 locally, the Sierra Club has been a leader in 
177

1 conservation practices and environmental 

2 protection. Thank you for the opportunity to 

3 comment today. 

4 I am also here today on behalf 

5 of myself as a senior citizen, a car-free 

6 cyclist, and a public transportation advocate 

7 that has been active for sixteen years on the 

8 regional citizens committee of the Delaware 

9 Valley Regional Planning Commission. The 

10 CVRPC. The Commission is the regional 

11 nine-county MPO that also includes Delaware 

12 and Maryland counties for air quality 

13 purposes. 

14 However, let me be clear. I am 

15 speaking for myself and Sierra Club and not 

16 for DVRPC or its citizens committee. 

17 The Sierra Club, Pennsylvania 

18 Chapter and it's over 24,000 members supports 

19 the efforts of EPA to finally bring to our 

20 citizens a proposal that will help 

21 Pennsylvania protect our citizens from upwind 

22 power plant pollution and help prevent 

23 Pennsylvania from victimizing our downwind 

24 neighbors with our dirty coal fired electric 
178

1 generation. The Sierra Club supports the 

2 Clean Air Transport Rule. 

3 My personal experience has shown 

4 me the true value of protecting the public 

5 health and welfare, and not the industry 

6 emitting this pollution. I previously 

7 referenced the DVRPC only to indicate my 

8 awareness that Pennsylvania, despite its being 

9 in conformity for air quality goals 

10 established in its state implementation plan, 

11 promulgated by the Pennsylvania Department of 

12 Environmental Protection, that regional 

13 nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter 

14 pollutants will probably still extent beyond 

15 my lifetime. 

16 This is largely due to the 

17 importation of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from 

18 coal burning electric power plants far outside 

19 the western boundaries of our region. 

20 Communities in New Jersey and to the northeast 

21 suffer an even greater burden of atmospheric 

22 pollution after the Philadelphia metropolitan 

23 area adds the effluents from hundreds of 

24 thousands of mobile sources. 
179

1 To the extent that the City and 

2 County of Camden sit on the eastern boundary 

3 of the MPO, the amount of pollution they 

4 ultimately have to live with amounts to a 

5 monument environmental justice issue. The air 

6 quality sensors there consistently indicate 

7 the highest pollution levels in the region. 

8 The Sierra Club and its 

9 Pennsylvania Chapter supports the proposed EPA 

10 proposal called the Good Neighbor Rule and 

11 Clean Air Transport Rule, because it will 

12 reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide 

13 pollution that create acid precipitation, 

14 ozone smog and particle pollution that blows 

15 into our state. This will improve the health 

16 of millions of people at risk from these 

17 pollutants, especially vulnerable people, 

18 seniors, children and people with chronic lung 

19 disease and cardiovascular disease and 

20 diabetes. Particulate pollution alone has 

21 been linked to over 5300 premature deaths, and 

22 has now been linked to actual mortality from 

23 cardiovascular disease and chronic respiratory 

24 disease. 
180

1 EPA has made a good start. It 

2 is again requiring that 31 states and the 

3 District of Columbia produce sulfur dioxide 

4 and nitrogen oxide pollution emitted from 

5 fossil fuel fired power plants. However, we 

6 call on EPA to strengthen this rule. We need 

7 to have even greater reductions in the 

8 airborne sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide 

9 emissions that create deadly ozone and fine 

10 particle pollutions. 

11 The Sierra Club, Pennsylvania 

12 Chapter, Clean Air Committee will be 

13 submitting technical comments to EPA during 

14 the written comment period. We appreciate the 

15 opportunity the EPA has given us to 

16 communicate our position to you this 

17 afternoon. 

18 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

19 ERIC CHEUNG: My name is Eric 

20 Cheung. Thank you for this opportunity to 

21 speak on your proposed Transport Rule. I am a 

22 middle-aged man who has always enjoyed running 

23 outdoors, especially during the summer months. 

24 About 12 years ago I was 
181

1 diagnosed with a mild form of asthma. What my 

2 asthma amounted to then was occasionally at 

3 the start of a run, I might begin hacking a 

4 bit, but the problem was never significant. 

5 And although I was prescribed an inhaler, I 

6 never actually needed to use it. In recent 

7 years, it is clear that my asthma has gotten 

8 much worse. In fact I just met with my 

9 primary care physician on Monday about this. 

10 In the past year I have suffered 

11 the worst respiratory problems I can ever 

12 recall having. And my body has had to teach 

13 me new lessons about how much I took being 

14 healthy for granted. 

15 During the winter months my 

16 colds were so severe and my coughing so bad, I 

17 learned to accept taking time off from work to 

18 recover. During the spring, my allergies 

19 acted up so frequently that I learned to sleep 

20 on my side or else endure a dizzy spell from 

21 an uncontrollable coughing bout. And this 

22 summer I have learned the joy of running for 

23 its own sake, not running as fast as I used 

24 to, not running as far as I used to, but, just 
182

1 the accomplishment of finishing a few miles 

2 without stopping. 

3 Sure, I attribute much of my 

4 declining respiratory health to getting older. 

5 But, I also know that as my asthma has 

6 worsened, I have become far more susceptible 

7 to ground level ozone. In fact, prolonged 

8 exposure to ozone from living in an urban 

9 setting may have aggravated my asthma. 

10 As an agency charged with 

11 researching and establishing health standards 

12 for air pollution, you know very well the 

13 impact high levels of ozone can have on 

14 someone like me. And over the years the EPA 

15 has done an excellent job of educating me on 

16 this impact. 

17 Still, it is only in recent 

18 years that I have fully begun to appreciate 

19 this knowledge. I used to love running in hot 

20 weather. I prided myself in being able to 

21 rise to the challenge. Of course the hottest 

22 days tend to correspond to the worst ozone 

23 levels and this summer I discovered that I 

24 simply can no longer run on those days. I 
183

1 tried once or twice, but I felt so weak, my 

2 breathing so labored, I could move only a 

3 little faster than a walking pace. 

4 I watched runner after runner 

5 pass me by and instead of enjoying the 

6 exercise, I kept wishing I could just crawl 

7 back inside and sit in front of an air 

8 conditioner. 

9 I am beginning to accept my 

10 physical limitations, beginning to realize 

11 what it means to have asthma. I'm using an 

12 inhaler now. Im going to meet with a 

13 pulmonologist soon. I am taking much more 

14 care to check the weather and air quality 

15 reports before exercising outside. I am doing 

16 my part and addressing what I can control. 

17 Now, I need you to do your part 

18 and address what I cannot control. I need you 

19 to do all you can to reduce the pollution 

20 outside that I have no choice but to breathe. 

21 And if this means targeting ozone from 

22 neighboring states, then I fully support and 

23 applaud you actions. 

24 Being healthy is a precious gift 
184

1 that I will no longer take for granted. 

2 Please remember that safeguarding my health 

3 and the health of everyone else in America 

4 from the threat of pollution is your top 

5 priority. Please act accordingly, and proceed 

6 with these regulations as well as future ones 

7 that will reduce air pollution. Thank you. 

8 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

9 DR. ESTHER K. CHUNG: Good 

10 afternoon. My name is Dr. Esther K. Chung. I 

11 am an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at 

12 Jefferson Medical College and a practicing 

13 pediatrician in Philadelphia with Nemours/A.I. 

14 DuPont Hospital for Children. 

15 I take time out of my clinical 

16 day to be here today because of the important 

17 issues that we're discussing. I would like to 

18 acknowledge five medical students in the 

19 audience, who have also taken time out of 

20 their clinical day. It's not very often that 

21 physicians come to these kind of hearings. 

22 Thank you very much. 

23 Thank you for the opportunity to 

24 give testimony in support of the Transport 
185

1 Rule proposed by the EPA. Today, I speak as a 

2 native citizen and an individual physician on 

3 behalf of the thousands of patients that I 

4 have had the privilege to serve over the past 

5 two decades. 

6 The proposed rule would cut air 

7 pollution from coal-fired power plants that 

8 crosses 31 states and the District of Columbia 

9 in an effort to help states meet current 

10 national air quality health standards. I 

11 agree with others speakers that the status 

12 quo, and the lack of clean air, is a social 

13 and environmental injustice. 

14 The new rule would have a 

15 significant and favorable impact on health by 

16 one, reducing coal pollution and its 

17 associated diseases and two, lessening the 

18 threat of global warming and its predicted ill 

19 health effects. 

20 Coal pollutants affect all major 

21 body organ systems, impact people of all ages, 

22 and contribute to four of the five leading 

23 causes of death in the United States: Chronic 

24 lower respiratory diseases including asthma, 
186

1 heart disease, cancer, and stroke. 

2 Daily, I see children with 

3 preventable and controllable conditions such 

4 as asthma, which affects 7 million children in 

5 the United States. Approximately 4.1 million 

6 U.S. children suffer from asthma and have an 

7 attack each year. Asthma is the third most 

8 common reason for hospitalization among 

9 children and the most common chronic childhood 

10 health condition. 

11 Common triggers for asthma 

12 include respiratory tract infections and air 

13 pollutants including tobacco smoke, and power 

14 plant and vehicle emissions. I have witnessed 

15 children so sick from asthma that they are 

16 unable to speak because they cannot breathe 

17 and they require prolonged hospitalizations in 

18 intensive care settings. 

19 Many young patients that I see 

20 cannot enjoy what others take for granted. 

21 They cannot participate in physical education, 

22 play on team sports, play at community pools 

23 because their asthma is so severe and 

24 difficult to control even with the best 
187

1 medicines, including multiple medications. 

2 Coal emissions consisting of 

3 nitrogen oxide, ozone, particulate matter, and 

4 sulfur dioxide, all contribute to asthma by 

5 increasing airway inflammation and reducing 

6 lung capacity. The Transport rule would 

7 result in $290 billion in annual cost savings 

8 related to health. There would be an 

9 estimated fewer 240,000 cases of asthma 

10 attacks and 1.9 million fewer days of missed 

11 work and school. 

12 By reducing air pollution from 

13 coal-burning plants, the Transport Rule will 

14 result in reductions in associated diseases, 

15 including asthma, chronic obstructive 

16 pulmonary disease or COPD, lung cancer, 

17 cardiac arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, 

18 heart attacks and stroke. With growing 

19 evidence to show that coal emissions are 

20 associated with higher rates of infant 

21 mortality and congenital heart defects, 

22 including ventricular sepal defects, we can 

23 impact poor health outcomes even among 

24 newborns and infants. 
188

1 For the past 10-15 years, the 

2 ill health effects of mercury have been 

3 publicly discussed and I personally have spent 

4 hours counseling families about mercury, which 

5 is a known coal pollutant. I have watched 

6 children go unvaccinated because of mercury 

7 concerns in vaccines, and I have even had 

8 conversations about whether it is better to 

9 eat tilapia instead of tuna. Rarely, however, 

10 have families asked me about mercury in the 

11 content of air pollution. 

12 People assume that the outdoor 

13 air they breathe is fresh and clean, often not 

14 recognizing that air pollution is often 

15 invisible. Sadly, families and the general 

16 public are unaware of the fact that in 2006, 

17 power plants were estimated to account for 40 

18 percent of the controllable mercury emissions 

19 in the United States. 

20 It is also well established that 

21 mercury, as an air pollutant, places fetuses 

22 at risk for future developmental delays 

23 through maternal exposure. 

24 The document, Coals Assault on 
189

1 Human Health, published by Physicians for 

2 Social Responsibility in November of 2009, 

3 clearly outlines the direct ill health effects 

4 mentioned above from coal-burning due to air 

5 pollution. In addition, this report 

6 summarizes the predicted indirect ill health 

7 effects associated with global warming. These 

8 include heat cramps, heat syncope or fainting, 

9 heat exhaustion and heat stroke; water-borne 

10 bacterial illnesses including diarrhea; 

11 drowning, asthma, COPD, insect and 

12 rodent-borne diseases, hunger, malnutrition, 

13 mental health problems, violence, and war. 

14 Help me to reassure my 10 and 14 

15 year-old daughters that we can work toward 

16 clean air and reduce the threat of global 

17 warming. Allow my 8 year-old patient with 

18 asthma to have a childhood and to run and play 

19 outside, and give young families confidence 

20 that their children will not be at risk for 

21 developmental delays because of the air that 

22 they breathe. 

23 The words of President Lyndon B. 

24 Johnson spoken at the 1964 University of 
190

1 Michigan commencement 46 years ago, in what is 

2 now known as his Great Society speech still 

3 ring true, "We have always prided ourselves on 

4 being not only America the strong and America 

5 the free, but America the beautiful. Today 

6 that beauty is in danger. The water we drink, 

7 the food we eat, and the very air that we 

8 breathe are threatened with pollution.” 

9 Sadly, these words still ring true. 

10 I commend the EPA for the 

11 proposed Transport Rule and for all of its 

12 work to preserve and improve America's health. 

13 Thank you very much for hosting this hearing 

14 and for your attention and consideration. 

15 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

16 Doctor. 

17 TRACEY HEALEY: I'm here as a 

18 mother of two sons that have asthma. I'm here 

19 to ask for something to be done so that my 

20 kids don't have to go through the burden of 

21 hospitalizations with my grandchildren and 

22 their children. I'm also a runner and I'm 

23 asking you to make sure that the air is clean 

24 for me and for my family. I'm also here as a 
191

1 friend to many other parents. Thank you. 

2 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

3 MR. JOSEPH OSBORNE: Good 

4 afternoon. Im Joe Osborne and Im the legal 

5 director of the Group Against Smog and 

6 Pollution (or GASP). GASP is a 

7 Pittsburgh-based non-profit founded in 1969 to 

8 improve air quality in southwestern 

9 Pennsylvania. I want to thank EPA for 

10 providing this opportunity to speak today. We 

11 commend the agency for developing the Clean 

12 Air Transport Rule, and we welcome the 

13 reductions in PM 2.5 and ozone the rule will 

14 secure. 

15 However, from the perspective of 

16 those of us living in southwestern 

17 Pennsylvania the proposed rule does not go far 

18 enough. Southwestern Pennsylvania is home to 

19 the Liberty-Clairton PM 2.5 nonattainment 

20 area, this is a tiny area made up of five 

21 municipalities just southeast of Pittsburgh 

22 along the Monongahela River. 

23 The Liberty-Clairton area has 

24 quite possibly the most severe PM 2.5 problem 
192

1 in the nation. This area also has the 

2 unfortunate distinction of being the only 

3 place in the eastern half of the United States 

4 that will still fail to meet the annual PM 2.5 

5 standard after the proposed transport rule is 

6 fully implemented. This is not acceptable. 

7 Over 20,000 people live in the 

8 Liberty-Clairton area. So long as we fail to 

9 address the areas continued nonattainment, 

10 well se additional cases of childhood asthma, 

11 heart attacks, and premature deaths. These 

12 are very real and very grave consequences of 

13 our failure to act, and they are completely 

14 avoidable. 

15 EPAs reasoning for not 

16 addressing the Liberty-Clairton problem in the 

17 transport rule is that the area is heavily 

18 influenced by local emissions from the nearby 

19 US Steel Clairton Coke Works. In other words, 

20 EPA is saying, it's a local problem, not a 

21 transport problem. 

22 It's true that the coke works 

23 has a huge influence on local PM 2.5 

24 concentrations. However, long-range transport 
193

1 also plays a significant role in the problem. 

2 Based on 2001-2003 data used to develop the 

3 1997 PM 2.5 state implementation plan for the 

4 area roughly 14 ug/m3 of the annual PM 2.5 

5 measured at the Liberty monitor was emitted by 

6 sources other than the coke works. Thats 

7 about two-thirds of the total annual measured 

8 PM 2.5 concentration. Nearly 12 ug/m3 

9 originate from sources beyond the areas long 

10 range transport modeling domain-thats a 150 

11 x150 kilometer area centered on 

12 Liberty-Clairton. 

13 So even before accounting for 

14 emissions from the coke works, the Liberty 

15 monitor is nearly violating the PM 2.5 annual 

16 standard, and the bulk of those 14 micrograms 

17 are from sources nowhere near 

18 Liberty-Clairton. 

19 EPA cannot use the emissions 

20 from the Clairton Coke Works to justify a 

21 transport rule that essentially pretends 

22 Liberty-Clairton doesn't exist. 

23 Liberty-Clairtons PM 2.5 problem is caused by 

24 a combination of local and distant sources, 
194

1 and it can only be addressed by achieving 

2 reductions from both local and distant 

3 sources. 

4 The Clairton Coke Works must do 

5 its part, upwind sources must do theirs. If 

6 the transport rule is finalized in its current 

7 form, the local emission reductions currently 

8 being developed would not be sufficient to 

9 demonstrate attainment of the 1997 annual PM 

10 2.5 standard until 2017-the absolute latest 

11 deadline the Clean air Act allows. 

12 Maybe the transport rule cant 

13 fully resolve the Liberty-Clairton problem, 

14 but it can better address the upwind 

15 contribution to nonattainment in 

16 Liberty-Clairton by adopting higher SO2 and 

17 NOX cost thresholds; moving the eight 

18 candidate states EPA has identified from group 

19 2 to group 1, and adding Texas to group 2. 

20 EPA should also explore the feasibility of 

21 establishing caps on ammonia and VOCs, or at 

22 least subset of the most reactive VOCs. 

23 The benefits of these additional 

24 measures wouldn't be limited to the 20,000 
195

1 people in Liberty-Clairton, they would also 

2 help address other remaining nonattainment and 

3 maintenance areas predicted by either the air 

4 quality assessment tool or CAMx, and provide a 

5 head start on the 2008 ozone standard and the 

6 soon-to-be-revised 2006 PM 2.5 standard. 

7 Again, thank you for your time and 

8 providing this opportunity to speak. I hope 

9 these comments are helpful to EPA as the 

10 agency works to finalize the transport rule. 

11 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

12 MYRIAM FALLON: My name is 

13 Myriam Fallon. I am here as a resident of 

14 Philadelphia. I am here to support the 

15 proposed Transport Rule. This rule is very 

16 important to me on a personal level. I grew 

17 up on the south side of Chicago. I was very 

18 active as a child. I joined a rowing team 

19 that practiced on the Chicago River. I 

20 trained three to four hours a day near the 

21 power plant located on the south side. 

22 Within six months, I developed 

23 fairly severe asthma, which I never 

24 experienced before. It got to the point that 
196

1 within a year I was collapsing after races and 

2 had to make the choice to take a much less 

3 active role in my rowing team. 

4 This asthma continued throughout 

5 my high school career, until I moved out of 

6 the city and went west to college, and it went 

7 away within six months. I've never 

8 experienced that acute level of asthma since 

9 then. However, when I do return to the south 

10 side of Chicago to go home, I can feel the 

11 difference in the way I breathe. 

12 Today, as I said, I no longer 

13 suffer from asthma, but I do actively exercise 

14 outside, I run, walk and bike on a daily basis 

15 in Philadelphia. The idea that being outside 

16 affects my health, as well as the health of 

17 other citizens, is both terrifying and sad to 

18 me. It's something that we need to be 

19 concerned about, breathing the air that should 

20 be there and healthy for everybody. 

21 Throughout the hearing we've 

22 heard many health risks attributed to 

23 pollution across the country. So this is an 

24 issue that affects everyone in this community, 
197

1 the country and ultimately the world. It is 

2 true that pollution knows no boundaries. 

3 I believe this rule to be a big 

4 step in the right direction as far as the air 

5 quality goes, and across our country. I 

6 wanted to put my word in for support of this 

7 rule. 

8 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you for 

9 coming down and expressing your views and your 

10 thoughts. 

11 JAMIN BOGI: Good afternoon. My 

12 name is Jamin Bogi and I am the Education and 

13 Outreach Coordinator for Group Against Smog 

14 and Pollution, or GASP. Thank you for taking 

15 comments today on this important proposal. 

16 While my colleague, Joe Osborne, has provided 

17 GASP's views on more technical aspects of the 

18 proposal, allow me to give you a 

19 boots-on-the-ground view. 

20 Much of my work focuses on 

21 educating citizens of southwestern PA about 

22 our poor air quality and its effect on our 

23 health. Almost no one I meet knows or cares 

24 what NAAQS, BACT, BART, or VOC means. 
198

1 There is a strong feeling held 

2 my many in the region that because we dont 

3 have to leave streetlights on all day to cut 

4 through the smog like we did decades ago, the 

5 air is clean and our problems are gone. 

6 Unfortunately, the Pittsburgh region still has 

7 dirty air. PM 2.5 is too small to be seen, 

8 which makes my job that much harder. 

9 We face another obstacle to 

10 change in my region, which is that much of our 

11 pollution comes from elsewhere. Due to 

12 Pittsburgh's location, east of many coal-fired 

13 power plants, and its unique topography, lots 

14 of air pollution finds its way to Pittsburgh 

15 from somewhere else. 

16 Those who are aware of our air 

17 quality issues can be lulled into inaction 

18 because of this. Business leaders complain 

19 that stronger, local regulations we advocate 

20 for will make our area less competitive for 

21 business while not solving the pollution 

22 problem, since so much of it comes from 

23 upwind. 

24 Politicians see little reason to 
199

1 offend industry or labor when our problems can 

2 be blamed on others. This blame game means 

3 that out own large sources of pollution can go 

4 on polluting, without feeling much pressure to 

5 change. 

6 GASP agrees its not fair that we 

7 have to breathe in the particulate matter and 

8 ozone produced several states away. We 

9 applaud EPA for taking interstate action for 

10 an interstate problem. Knowing that our 

11 upwind pollution sources are being dealt with 

12 will allow GASP to hold our leaders in 

13 Pittsburgh more accountable for the pollution 

14 we produce ourselves. 

15 The estimated annual health and 

16 welfare benefits of hundreds of billions of 

17 dollars are massive compared to the relatively 

18 puny costs of less than three billion dollars. 

19 The rule is estimated to prevent 23,000 

20 non-fatal heart attacks in 2014, and many of 

21 those heart attacks would have occurred in the 

22 Pittsburgh region. Heart attacks like the one 

23 my father suffered. 

24 He grew up in McKeesport, a town 
200

1 on the Monongahela River a few miles east of 

2 Pittsburgh. At age 34, my age now, he 

3 suffered a heart attack and underwent a triple 

4 bypass. I speak for him as well when I say 

5 this action is appreciated. 

6 But while we are pleased to see 

7 this rule go forward, we would like it to be 

8 even stronger. Pittsburgh stands out for many 

9 reasons. Its the City of Bridges, boasting 

10 more spans than even Venice. Its home to 

11 sports teams that win championships year after 

12 year. But even after this rule takes effect, 

13 it will still be called The Smoky City. 

14 Allegheny County, home of Pittsburgh, will be 

15 one of the last holdouts for having a monitor 

16 in violation of PM 2.5 standards, so Allegheny 

17 County has the most to gain from the strongest 

18 possible regulations. 

19 CAMx modeling, which EPA admits 

20 is more accurate, shows that higher cost 

21 thresholds are needed for many regions to meet 

22 attainment for the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. 

23 GASP supports raising the cost threshold from 

24 $2000/ton to at least $2500/ton for SO2, 
201

1 providing further reductions of hundreds of 

2 thousands of tons of pollutants per year. 

3 We also support moving all 

4 states expected to have attainment issues 

5 under CAMx modeling from group two to group 

6 one, and adding Texas to group two. It makes 

7 little sense to have more accurate date from 

8 CAMx modeling not to use it. 

9 Again, thank you for taking this 

10 action and comments on it and for proposing 

11 further action down the road. 

12 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

13 SARAH BUCIC: I am testifying 

14 today in favor of the EPA Transport Rule. I 

15 am testifying as an Advance Practice 

16 Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse, a concerned 

17 citizen and a parent. There has been emerging 

18 evidence of particulate matter-related 

19 cardiovascular health effects and growing 

20 knowledge regarding pathways that link 

21 particulate matter exposure with 

22 cardiopulmonary morbidity and mortality. 

23 Fine particulate matter is a 

24 major threat to children, because of their 
202

1 higher exposure to particulate matter compared 

2 to adults, the immature state of the lung in 

3 childhood and also of the immune function at 

4 birth. 

5 I have great concern for the 

6 most vulnerable in our society, some still 

7 receiving their oxygen through their mothers 

8 bodies. Exposures to ambient air pollutants 

9 have been associated with adverse birth 

10 outcomes such as lower birth weight and 

11 increased risk of intrauterine growth 

12 retardation. 

13 Fine particulates even at much 

14 lower concentrations than current U.S. 

15 regulatory levels, has been associated with 

16 increased rates of mortality and morbidity in 

17 several cities in the United States, as well 

18 as in Europe and other developed countries. 

19 The effect of particulates on 

20 health may be complex, as it may vary from one 

21 individual to another. Susceptibility factors 

22 could be linked to genetics, gender, age and 

23 race or to individual characteristics caused 

24 by the realities of life. 
203

1 This proposed rule would yield 

2 more than $120 to $290 billion in annual 

3 benefits in 2014. This far outweighs the 

4 estimated annual costs of $2.8 billion. The 

5 emission reductions from this proposed rule 

6 would lead to significant annual health 

7 benefits. In 2014, this rule would protect 

8 public health by avoiding 14,000 to 36,000 

9 premature deaths, 21,000 cases of acute 

10 bronchitis, 23,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 

11 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, 1.9 

12 million days when people miss work or school, 

13 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 

14 440,000 upper and lower respiratory symptoms. 

15 The price of reducing emissions 

16 may be high for companies, but I ask those who 

17 oppose this rule to consider the price of the 

18 health related problems that emissions cause 

19 to people's lives and the health related costs 

20 these impose on our society. 

21 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

22 Sarah. 

23 JOE MAHONEY: Good afternoon and 

24 thank you for the opportunity to comment on 
204

1 the proposed air pollution transport rule. My 

2 name is Joe Mahoney and I am Executive Vice 

3 President at the Greater Philadelphia Chamber 

4 of Commerce. We are please to be here today 

5 to express our support for the proposed rules 

6 designed to help states implement the Good 

7 Neighbor provisions of the Clean Air Act which 

8 prohibits states from significantly 

9 contributing to the air quality problems of 

10 another state. 

11 The EPA Transport Rule 

12 specifically is aimed at requiring stricter 

13 controls for air pollution that travels 

14 hundreds of miles and causes multiple health 

15 and environmental problems for surrounding 

16 regions. As a downwind state, Pennsylvania 

17 will benefit from the proposed rule changes 

18 being suggested by the EPA. These actions 

19 will have a significant impact on public 

20 health as well as on economic development and 

21 infrastructure needs within our region. Our 

22 region is moving aggressively to pursue 

23 options which will improve air quality and 

24 reduce emissions through the use of mass 
205

1 transit. 

2 The Chamber supports the 

3 proposed expansion of public transit along the 

4 waterfront in Philadelphia and in suburban 

5 locations, as well as programs such as car and 

6 bike sharing to reduce emissions within the 

7 city. Just this week, the Chamber supported 

8 an application to the Pennsylvania Department 

9 of Environmental Protection for an electric 

10 vehicle micro-community project to develop an 

11 urban electric charging grid within the City 

12 of Philadelphia. 

13 This project, if brought to 

14 completion, will align with Mayor Nutter's 

15 desire that Philadelphia become the greenest 

16 city in America. Despite local efforts like 

17 these, our efforts can be thwarted when 

18 pollution from upwind states contributes to 

19 keeping our region as an ozone nonattainment 

20 area. 

21 Economic development is affected 

22 by the increased cost of compliance through 

23 more stringent permitting requirements, 

24 increased costs on motor fuels and the 
206

1 jeopardy placed on federal highway funds. 

2 In short, downwind states such 

3 as ours are effectively paying a pollution tax 

4 for the emissions generated by polluters in 

5 distant states. The EPA preferred option, 

6 which allows for intrastate trading and 

7 limited interstate trading among power plants, 

8 but assures that each state will meet its 

9 pollution control obligations, would seem to 

10 make sense for our region. 

11 Often, the cost of compliance 

12 becomes a major issue for businesses when 

13 seeking to address environmental issues. We 

14 have always stated that any legislation or 

15 regulation must balance the needs of the 

16 environment and the economy. Cost to business 

17 is a critical concern in an increasingly 

18 competitive economy. 

19 In this case, EPA estimates that 

20 the annual cost of compliance will be about 

21 $2.8 billion in 2014, while annual benefits 

22 will range between $120 and $290 billion in 

23 that same timeframe. Most of these benefits 

24 will be health related and could result in 
207

1 less lost time and increased productivity for 

2 businesses of all types. These estimates seem 

3 to strike a reasonable balance. 

4 We thank you for this 

5 opportunity to comment on the proposed 

6 Transport Rule. Thank you for holding this 

7 regional hearing here in Philadelphia. 

8 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

9 ISKAR SMITH: Good afternoon, my 

10 name is Iskar Smith. So, I'm an asthmatic, 

11 like many of you in this room. I am in favor 

12 of reducing the emissions for obvious reasons. 

13 I have had health implications. Without 

14 reducing the emissions, it's been a dream of 

15 mine to go to college at Westpoint Military 

16 Academy. I feel that I can aptly serve this 

17 country. I can carry out the duties, but I 

18 can't do that if I am not in good health. 

19 Many people who do apply to school 

20 don't get in because they are asthmatic. So 

21 the inability not only as a sports 

22 participator, but as a soldier, an infantry 

23 man, I'd like to keep you people safe. I'd 

24 like to keep my children safe. 
208

1 Speaking of my children, I would 

2 like them to also be able to be physically 

3 stronger and smarter than me. I don't see how 

4 they can do this the emissions the way they 

5 are. They have to be reduced. 

6 If you look around you, the 

7 summer was ridiculous in Philadelphia. So to 

8 exist in the city, you have to use air 

9 conditioners to stay cool. 

10 We're destroying. How can we 

11 continue to exist? How can I serve my 

12 country? We can't unless we doing do 

13 something. The statistics have been proven 

14 and made quite clear and present, we can't 

15 debate this threat. Unless we do something, 

16 we must reduce the emissions. 

17 I would very much like to serve 

18 my country. I would like to keep people safe, 

19 counter terrorism. The enemies of this 

20 country would like to see each and every one 

21 of us dead. It can't be stopped unless we 

22 have good officers of the greatest military on 

23 the planet. We can't win if we don't have 

24 good officers. Students like me, who do have 
209

1 asthma but want to serve our country can't 

2 perform if they have asthma. That abates 

3 their ability to get into the college they 

4 want to get into. We can't be healthy without 

5 reducing the emissions. 

6 I care about my children, my 

7 family and friends. I feel that this rule 

8 needs to be passed and I strongly support the 

9 Transport Rule. Thank you. 

10 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

11 ROBERT FIORENTINO: My name is 

12 Robert Fiorentino. I am a home owner in 

13 Montgomery County, Abington Township. I heard 

14 about this hearing and I just wanted to give 

15 my voice because I hear a lot of commercials 

16 on the radio for coal industry, and I know 

17 that there is a profit to be made. I want to 

18 give a common voice from everyone one I know. 

19 I live in Montgomery County and 

20 I spend a lot of time in Bucks County and 

21 parts of Philadelphia. I really like the 

22 outdoors. I like to do a lot of things 

23 outside, spend time in parks, take my friends' 

24 dogs out for walks. I really am concerned for 
210

1 the future and the air quality and just the 

2 environment in general. I love the idea of 

3 making the air better, making the industry 

4 more secure and tighter. I really like what 

5 the EPA is doing. 

6 I really can't see any reason to 

7 not go forward and have stricter standards. I 

8 am thinking selfishly for my own health and 

9 enjoyment, and also down the line when I have 

10 children, grandchildren, what have you. I 

11 really think that we're on the right track and 

12 EPA is on the right track. I want to voice my 

13 support and hope that this goes through. 

14 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you 

15 Robert for offering your thoughts and your 

16 support and coming a considerable distance to 

17 do that. I appreciate that very much. 

18 - - - 

19 (Whereupon a dinner break was 

20 taken at this time.) 

21 - - - 

22 MR. NAPOLITANO: I am Sam 

23 Napolitano, with the EPA's Office of 

24 Atmospheric Programs, Director of Clean Air 
211

1 Markets Division. To my immediate left is 

2 Diana Esher of EPA's Region III office in 

3 Philadelphia. She runs the Air Protection 

4 Division. Tim Smith is to my far left. He's 

5 with EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and 

6 Standards. He is one of the key managers of 

7 the development. To my right is Sara 

8 Schneeberg, who is with the EPA's Office of 

9 General Counsel. 

10 We are here today to listen to 

11 your views on the Transport Rule that we 

12 proposed. We are taking public comment on it 

13 through October 1st, 2010. At that point, we 

14 will work on putting together everybody's 

15 comments of these hearings and the written 

16 comments submitted to us. And from that 

17 develop the final ruling. 

18 We plan to have it in full 

19 effect in Spring 2011 and basically have the 

20 full operation funds, January 1, 2012. 

21 The Transport Rule takes 31 

22 eastern states and the District of Columbia 

23 who are contributing significantly to 

24 downwind, nonattainment problems for '97 NAAQS 
212

1 for ozone fine particulate, and the 2006 fine 

2 particulate daily standard. It takes upwind 

3 areas in states that have downwind, 

4 nonattainment problems, and perhaps problems 

5 with maintaining air quality to maintain it. 

6 It basically reduces from their 

7 power sector the NOX and SOX emissions that 

8 attribute to the problems that we have in the 

9 downwind states for ozone and fine 

10 particulate. In effect, the transport of 

11 upwind pollution to downwind states, known as 

12 the Transport Rule, as we've shortened its 

13 name. 

14 We believe the rule in its full 

15 effect, in 2012 and having further reductions 

16 occur by 1014, at that point we believe it's a 

17 rule that will give very, very substantial 

18 health benefits on the order of 120 billion to 

19 close to 300 billion annual benefits to the 

20 public. 

21 Most of those are happening from 

22 prevention of premature death, as it's 

23 associated with fine particulate and ozone 

24 level concentrations in the air that people 
213

1 are breathing in. Reducing that concentration 

2 and therefore preventing somewhere annually at 

3 that point between 40,000 and 36,000 premature 

4 deaths. 

5 There are a bunch of morbidity 

6 effects that are also prevented, heart 

7 attacks, chronic bronchitis and acute 

8 bronchitis, aggravated asthma attacks, 

9 emergency room visits, hospitalizations, loss 

10 of worker productivity, loss of school days 

11 for children and a lot of other things that 

12 collectively add up to a significant amount of 

13 benefits. 

14 We believe in the rule coming 

15 out that it will cost somewhere under about 

16 three billion dollars a year to be 

17 implemented. Obviously the costs are much 

18 less than the benefits the public will accrue. 

19 There will be a modest regional increase in 

20 your electricity prices, less than two 

21 percent, and other fuel prices will not 

22 significantly increase as a result of the 

23 rule, even though it's a quite meaningful 

24 reductions. 
214

1 As we have this rule coming 

2 out, as a result the court decision in 2008 

3 that basically the court remanded to us to do 

4 this rule over. The original Clean Air 

5 Interstate Rule of 2005, they let it remain in 

6 effect while we do it over. 

7 Today at the hearing as we're 

8 listening, thing the way that we're running it 

9 is, we will invite two speakers to come up to 

10 the table. You will have five minutes to 

11 speak. We ask that you introduce yourself and 

12 stay close to the mic because the mics are 

13 very sensitive, and basically give your name 

14 and spell it so the court reporter here can 

15 take that down. 

16 If you have more than one copy 

17 of your prepared statement, if you could give 

18 it to the court reporter, as you come in. 

19 That would be great, as she transcribes your 

20 remarks which are a part of the official 

21 record. 

22 We have a system here where 

23 there is a timer on the desk. You have five 

24 minutes. The first four minutes it will be a 
215

1 green light. Then it will go to yellow 

2 telling you that you have a minute left, and 

3 it will go to red at five minutes to tell you 

4 to please wrap up. We will prompt you at that 

5 point to help you stay with a reasonable time 

6 limit. 

7 At this point we have throughout 

8 the day heard close to 60 speakers. We 

9 basically look forward to those of you here to 

10 give your point of view. 

11 THOMAS HYUNH: Good evening. My 

12 name is Thomas Huynh. I am the Director of 

13 the City of Philadelphia, Department of Public 

14 Health, Air Management Services. On behalf of 

15 the City of Philadelphia, I would like to 

16 thank the United States Environmental 

17 Protection Agency for holding a public hearing 

18 in Philadelphia on the proposed Rule on the 

19 Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

20 Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

21 Matter and Ozone. 

22 Air Management Services, AMS is 

23 the local air pollution control agency for the 

24 City of Philadelphia. AMS's mission is to 
216

1 protect the health and quality of life of 

2 Philadelphians from the adverse effects of air 

3 pollution. It operates under authority 

4 provided by the Philadelphia Code, the 

5 Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act, and 

6 the Federal Clean Air Act. The City of 

7 Philadelphia commends the EPA for its efforts 

8 to protect public health by proposing to 

9 regulate nitrogen oxide, NOX and sulfur 

10 dioxide, SO2, emissions from electric 

11 generating units, EGUs, within 31 states in 

12 the eastern U.S. and the District of Columbia. 

13 This proposal will limit the 

14 interstate transport of these pollutants and 

15 assist downwind states in attaining and 

16 maintaining compliance with the 1997 and 2006 

17 fine particulate matter; PM 2.5, national 

18 ambient air quality standards, NAAQS; and the 

19 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

20 NOX and SO2 emissions, 

21 originating from power plants and other 

22 sources located outside of Pennsylvania, 

23 contribute to PM 2.5 and ozone pollution in 

24 the City. NOX, as emitted by combustion 
217

1 sources such as power plants, is a well-known 

2 precursor in the formation of ozone. 

3 Likewise, SO2 emitted by the 

4 same sources can react in the air and form 

5 fie, sulfated particulates. Philadelphia is 

6 currently considered to be in attainment with 

7 the NAAQS for all air pollutants with the 

8 exception of ozone and PM 2.5. For thirteen 

9 days in 2009, the airborne concentrations of 

10 ozone and fine particulate matter in 

11 Philadelphia were high enough to warrant 

12 unhealthy ratings under the EPAs Air Quality 

13 Index. 

14 Ground level ozone is the 

15 pollutant most often responsible for unhealthy 

16 air quality in Philadelphia. Exposure to high 

17 levels of ozone can damage vegetation and can 

18 cause chest pain, coughing, aggravate asthma 

19 and reduce the life expectancy in humans. 

20 Exposure to fine particles also 

21 affects lung function; worsens medical 

22 conditions such as asthma and heart disease; 

23 and causes numerous short-term health effects 

24 including eye, nose, throat and lung 
218

1 irritation; and shortness of breath. In 2007, 

2 the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America 

3 determined that Philadelphia was the second 

4 worst city in the U.S. for asthma sufferers. 

5 According to the Philadelphia 

6 Health Management Corporation, the 2002 

7 Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Health 

8 survey showed that 13.7 percent of the 

9 children residing in the City have asthma. 

10 29.2 percent of children with asthma are in 

11 fair or poor health, and 51.3 percent of the 

12 children with asthma went to the emergency 

13 room at least once in the prior year due to 

14 asthma problems. 

15 NOX and SO2 emissions 

16 originating from outside of Pennsylvania are 

17 significant contributors to the high levels of 

18 ozone and fine particulate in Philadelphia. 

19 As a result, the air quality within the City 

20 and the health of city residents can only be 

21 improved if the NOX and SO2 pollution 

22 generated in neighboring, upwind jurisdictions 

23 is limited. 

24 The Rule, in itself, is not a 
219

1 complete solution. There are many states that 

2 will need to do more to satisfy their Clean 

3 Air obligations to meet the Ozone and PM 2.5 

4 standards. EPA should include all categories 

5 in the proposed rule, not just EGUs that 

6 contribute significantly to interstate 

7 transport of NOX and SO2 in the jurisdictions 

8 covered. 

9 Thank you for the opportunity to 

10 testify on the proposed Rule on the Federal 

11 Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 

12 Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

13 Ozone. We look forward to continued work with 

14 EPA, other air agencies, business and the 

15 public in improving Public Health for 

16 Philadelphia's citizens. 

17 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, Tom. 

18 JEFF MAHER: Thanks for coming 

19 out here. It's great that you're doing this. 

20 I guess in short, I am a layman. I am kind of 

21 a normal person. I like to spend time 

22 outside. I bicycle a lot and I like to 

23 breathe air. So I think it's a no brainer 

24 that this Transport Rule is a fantastic idea. 
220

1 I have recently moved into the 

2 Philadelphia area within the last couple of 

3 years. One of the things that I noticed has 

4 become seemingly worse is how awful the air 

5 quality is around here. I don't have facts or 

6 figures, but when you're bike riding down by 

7 the river, you can feel the air go into your 

8 lungs. And it doesn't feel very good. 

9 So I think this rule will do a 

10 lot by helping to regulate things that I think 

11 should have been regulated long ago. I wanted 

12 to come out and voice my support for it. 

13 Thank you. 

14 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you. 

15 GREGG KRAVITZ: My name is Gregg 

16 Kravitz. I'll keep my comments brief. I am a 

17 young professional here in Philadelphia. I'm 

18 very politically involved. I recently ran for 

19 state representative here in center city as a 

20 candidate. Regardless of the outcome of my 

21 first election as a person who is engaged in 

22 public service and hopefully wants to see 

23 others do public service, this is a no 

24 brainer. To me, this is beyond politics. 
221

1 This is a very simple, where do we want to see 

2 ourselves in 10, 20, 50 years? 

3 Where do we want our children, 

4 grandchildren, hopefully we'll be here in 30 

5 or 40 years. It's important to me to know 

6 that the quality of air that I am breathing, 

7 that my siblings are breathing, that my family 

8 and my friends, all those who are important to 

9 me and generations afterwards, have a place 

10 that they can live and work and exist in 

11 society, and it's going to be free of 

12 pollutants. 

13 This is not 50 or 100 years ago. 

14 We're at a time in our society right now where 

15 we know, we have the science to prove the 

16 damage that not passing the Transport Rule 

17 will do, what the consequences will mean. 

18 Again, I don't think this is 

19 political. It's a global issue, simply, do 

20 you care about your family, your friends and 

21 future generations; and if you do, you very 

22 much need to support this. Thank you. 

23 MR. NAPOLITANO: Thank you, 

24 Gregg. 
222

1 KARL PIETRZAK: I don't have 

2 anything prepared, but I will be more 

3 comfortable if I wing it. I actually moved 

4 here about two months ago from upstate New 

5 York. One thing I really liked there was the 

6 clean air. Irrespective of how you feel about 

7 nuclear power, the electricity generated 

8 upstate, 99 percent of it is from nuclear 

9 power plants that are up there. 

10 It produces no emissions, it's 

11 clean, it makes the air up there clean. One 

12 of the first things I noticed when I moved 

13 down here is that the air is a lot thicker. 

14 It's harder to breathe even if you're walking 

15 around. I wasn't used to that. I lived up 

16 there for seven years. 

17 When I would drive into the city 

18 after being in Rochester for awhile, I would 

19 have to turn off the vents in the car so that 

20 the air would recirculate in my car, so I 

21 wouldn't have to keep bringing in more fumes 

22 from the outside. That help the headaches go 

23 away. I have gotten more adjusted. 

24 I jog, I bike whenever I can, 
223

1 but it is hard to do that here. It has been a 

2 sweltering summer. From what I understand, a 

3 crazy summer too for you guys. But the extra 

4 heat makes the ozone a bigger problem. So 

5 upstate I never had to worry about, is the 

6 ozone safe, is it safe for me to run outside, 

7 I don't want to screw up my lungs from jogging 

8 for a little bit. 

9 So it's totally a different kind 

10 of attitude. I couldn't just go out and run. 

11 What's the temperature, is there any ozone 

12 warning? Even if I do though, you can feel it 

13 when you're running. It is thicker. It's a 

14 little harder to breathe. If there are a 

15 bunch of cars driving by, it sticks to your 

16 nostrils a little bit. 

17 The only thing I want to say is 

18 I am supportive of the rule because it is not 

19 fair for different communities just to have 

20 the geographical disadvantage of shear 

21 existence. I happen to be in places that get 

22 a lot of downstream pollution. 

23 New Jersey as a state is a 

24 little bit more interested in renewable 
224

1 energy. Pennsylvania, not so much. From west 

2 to east, there's a lot of pollution from 

3 Pennsylvania over to New Jersey. So it's 

4 unfortunate geographically the reality that in 

5 Philadelphia we're getting pollution from 

6 Pittsburgh and even Indiana. 

7 It all comes together. As a 

8 jogger and biker, it makes everything a little 

9 bit harder. Even just walking outside, I 

10 haven't gotten quite used to it. That's all I 

11 got. That's my schtick. 

12 MR. NAPOLITANO: Any questions? 

13 Okay, thank you very much for taking the time 

14 to come down and give us a sense of what you 

15 want to see going forward. 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 
225

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

2 - - - 

 3 

4 I, Jeannine Cancelliere, Court 

5 Reporter and Notary Public and for 

6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify 

7 that the foregoing testimony at the Radisson 

8 Plaza, Warwick Hotel, on Thursday, August 26, 

9 2010; was taken by me in shorthand by myself 

10 and reduced to typing under my direction and 

11 control, that the foregoing pages contain a 

12 true and correct transcription of all of the 

13 testimony of said witnesses. 

 14 

 15 

16 ............. 

 JEANNINE CANCELLIERE 

17 Notary Public 

 My commission expires 

18 October 13, 2011 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24