1

Statement of Jeffrey Clark Associate Director for Policy, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Public Hearing on the National Emission Standa rds for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units

and

Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-F ired Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small Industrial-Commercia l-Institutional Steam Generating Units

May 24, 2011, Chicago, IL

Good morning and thank you for attending this public hearing. It is one of three hearings, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding to take comment on our propos ed emissions standards

to control mercury and other air t oxics from coal and oil fired power plants. We are holding a second

hearing today in Philadelphia and will hol d the third hearing on Thursday, May 26 th in Atlanta.

My name is Jeff Clark and I am the Associate Director for Policy with EPA’s Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards. I will be chairing this hear ing. Joining me on the panel are: Bruce Sypniewski,

the Deputy Director of the Air a nd Radiation Division in EPA’s Regi on 5 Office here in Chicago, Ellen

Kurlansky, with EPA’s Office of Polic y Analysis and Review, and Nick Hutson with EPA’s Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards.

On March 16, 2011, the Environmenta l Protection Agency proposed mercury and air toxic standards for

coal and oil fired power plants. Th ese Clean Air Act standards would reduce significantly emissions of

toxic air pollutants. Toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, are known or

suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects. In addition, EP A has proposed to revise

Clean Air Act standards, known as new source performa nce standards, that would reduce emissions of

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide , and nitrogen oxides from new coal and oil-fired power plants.

Power plants emit mercury arsenic, chromium, nickel, organic air toxics, acid ga ses and other harmful air

pollutants. They are the largest domestic source of me rcury emissions to the air. Once mercury from the

air reaches water, microorganisms can change it into methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in

fish. People are primarily exposed to mercury by eating contaminated fish. Children’s developing brains2

are especially susceptible to damage from this expos ure. The effects include re ductions in their IQ and

ability to learn.

We estimate that by 2016, the proposed power plant mercury and air toxics standards would prevent

6,800 – 17,000 premature deaths annually, as well as provide many other health and environmental

benefits. The portion of these benefits that can be quantified total more than $59 to $140 billion dollars

annually in 2016. These benefits far outweigh the estimated annual costs of $10.9 billion. Implementing

these standards would also create good jobs for American workers bu ilding, installing, and operating the

equipment to reduce health-threatening emissions.

Since proposing this rule, EPA updated some of the me rcury emissions data used to develop the proposed

standards. We do not expect the upda te, which corrects a calculation erro r with a small amount of the data,

to change the types of pollution contro ls necessary to comply with the rule – or its tremendous benefits for

public health. We have made the corrected data av ailable for public review on our website and in the

docket assigned to this rulemaking.

Currently, there are no existing federal requirements for power plants to limit thei r emissions of toxic air

pollutants like mercury, arsenic and metals. The prio r administration finalized a rule to cut mercury

pollution from power plants but the D. C. Circuit Court struck down the ru le as illegal and required EPA to

develop standards that follow the law and the scie nce in order to protect human health and the

environment.

Today we will be accepting oral comments on all aspect s of our proposal. Written transcripts for all three

hearings will be available as part of the official record for this rule, and EPA will consider them as we

move forward to complete a final rule in November of this year. We are also accepting written comments

for the proposed rule until July 5, 2011. There is a ha ndout available in the registration area with detailed

information for submitting written comments by mail, fax, or electronically.

Now, let me describe the pro cedures for today’s hearing.3

I will call the scheduled speak ers to the microphone in pairs. When it is your turn to speak, please state

your name and your affiliation before you begin your tes timony. It will help our court reporter if you also

spell your name.

In order to be fair to everyone, please limit your testimony to 5 minutes each and remain at the

microphone until both speakers in a pair have finished. After you finish your testimony, members of the

panel may ask clarifying questions. If, in addition to the transcript of your testimony, you would also like

the full text of your written comments included in the docket, please be sure to give a copy of your written

comments to our staff at the registration table.

We have a timekeeping system consisting of green, yellow, and red lights. When you begin speaking, the

green light will come on. You will have 5 minutes to speak. The yellow light will signal that you have 2

minutes left to speak. When the red light comes on, 5 minutes has passed and I will ask you to complete

your testimony.

Today’s hearing is scheduled from 9 a.m. and will c ontinue until 8 p.m., or later if necessary depending on

the number of speakers. The hearing will go on recess during the scheduled lunch break from 12:30 p.m.

until 2:00 p.m. and a dinner break from 5 p.m. until 6: 30 p.m. We will reconvene promptly at 2:00 p.m.

and 6:30 p.m., respectively. We intend to stay into the evening until everyone has an opportunity to

comment. If you would like to testify but have not yet registered to do so, please sign up at the registration

table. For those who have already registered to speak, we have trie d to accommodate your requests for

specific time slots. We ask for your patience as we pr oceed through the list of sp eakers. We may need to

make some adjustments as the day progresses.

Thank you all again for participa ting today. Let’s get started.

### 1 FACT SHEET

PROPOSED MERCURY AND AIR TOXICS STANDARDS

ACTION

On March 16

, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule that

w ould reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants from power plants. Specifically, the proposal

would reduce emissions from new and existing coal

- and oil

- fired electric utility steam generating units (EGU s )

.

o EPA is also proposing to revise the new source performance standards (NSPS) for

fossil

- fuel

- fired EGU s

. Th is NSPS would revise the standards new coal

- and oil

- fired power plants must meet for particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NO x ).

The proposed toxics rule would reduce emissions of heavy metals, including mercury (Hg ), arsenic, chromium, and nickel, and acid gases, including hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). These toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, are known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious he alth effects.

Power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions to the air. Once mercury from the air reaches water, microorganisms can change it into methylmercury, a highly toxic form that builds up in fish. People are primarily exposed to mercu ry by eating contaminated fish.

o Methylmercury exposure is a particular concern for women of childbearing age, unborn babies, and young children because studies have linked high levels of methylmercury to damage to the developing nervous system. This damag e can impair children’s ability to think and learn.

o Mercury and other power plant emissions also damage the environment and pollute our nation's lakes, streams, and fish.

Other toxic metals emitted from power plants, such as arsenic, chromium and nickel c an cause cancer. Reducing toxic power plant emissions will also cut fine particle pollution and prevent thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of heart attacks, bronchitis cases and asthma episodes.

As part of this rulemaking, EPA is also propos ing monitoring changes and other minor amendments to the industrial, commercial, and institutional steam generating units (i.e., boilers) NSPS, but does not propos e to amend those emission standards.

EPA will take public comment on this action for 6 0 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register.

o EPA will hold public hearings on the proposal in Atlanta, GA, Chicago, IL, and Philadelphia, PA. D etails on the timing and location for those hearings will be made

available soon in a separate Federal Register n otice and posted at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/

### 2

AFFECTED SOURCES

The mercury and air toxics standards will affect EGU s that burn co al or oil for the purpose of generating electricity for sale and distribution through the national electric grid to the public are affected by this rule

.

o These include investor

- owned units as wel l as units owned by the Federal government, municipalities, and cooperatives that provide electricity for commercial, industrial, and residential uses.

o EPA has identified t wo different subcategories of coal

- fired EGU s
, two different subcategories of oil

- fired EGU s , and a subcategory for units that combust gasifie d coal or solid oil (Integrated gasification and combined cycle (IGCC) units) based on the design of the various types of boiler s at different power plants . The proposed air

t oxics r ule includes emission standards and other requirements for each subcatego ry.

EPA estimates that there are approximately 1, 350 units affected by this action. Approximately 1

, 200 existing coal

- fire d units and 150 oil fired units at about 525 power plants

.

The NSPS will affect b oilers that burn fuels, including coal, oil, or natural gas to produce steam. The steam is used to produce electricity or provide heat.

o Boilers are used at i ndustrial facilities (e.g., refineries, chemical and manufacturing plants, and paper mills), commercial establishments (e.g., stores/malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants, hotels/motels ), and institutional facilities (e.g., medical centers, educational and religious facilities, and municipal buildings ).

REQUIREMENTS For all existing and new coal

- fired EGU s , the proposed standards would es tablish numerical

emission limits for mercury , PM (a surrogate for toxic non

- mercury metals), and HCl ( a surrogate for toxic acid gases).

For all existing and new oil

- fired EGU s , the proposed toxics rule would establish numerical

emission limits for total metals, HCl, and HF. Compliance with the metals standards is through fuel testing.

The propos al would establish alternative standards , including SO 2 (as an alternate to HCl),

individual non

- mercury metal air toxics (as an alternate to PM), and total non

- mercury metal air toxics (as an alternate to PM) for certain subcategories of power plants

.

A range of widely available, technical and economically feasible practices, technologies, and compliance strategies are available to power plants to meet the emis sion limits, including wet and dry scrubbers, dry sorbent injection systems, activated carbon injection systems

, and baghouses

.

### 3

The proposed standards would establish work practice s , instead of numeric al emission limits

, to limit emissions of organic air toxics, including dioxin/furan, from existing and new coal

and oil

- fired power plants

. Because dioxins and furans form from inefficient combustion, t he proposed work practice standard s would r equire an annual performan ce test program for each

EGU that would include inspection, adjustment, and/or maintenance and repairs to ensure optimal combustion.

The proposed revisions to the NSPS would include revised numerical EGU emission limits

f or PM, SO 2 , and NO X

.

BENEFITS AND COSTS Power plants are the largest source of several harmful pollutants. They are responsible for 50 percent of mercury emissions, over 50 percent of acid gas emissions, and about 25 percent of

toxic metal emissions in the United States.

o Coal

- fired powe r plants are responsible for 99 percent of mercury emissions and the bulk the other pollutants from the power sector.

o EPA expects that dozens of coal

- fired plants already meet at least some part of the proposed standards, however, about 44 percent of all coal

- fired plants lack advanced pollution control equipment

.

The updated standards will provide certainty and level the playing field so that all power plants will have to limit their toxic emissions

– ultimately preventing 91 percent of t he mercury in burned coal from being emitted into the air . The rule provides up to 4 years for

facilities to meet the standards.

EPA did not estimate the benefits associated with reducing exposure to air toxics or other air pollutants, ecosystem effect s, or visibility impairment. However, the proposed toxics rule would cut emissions of pollutants that are of particular concern for children. Mercury and lead can adversely affect developing brains

– including effects on IQ, learning, and memory.

In add ition to the benefits of reducing exposure to air toxics, t hese standards would reduce concentrations of fine particles (PM 2.5 ) in our air. This will significantly improve public health by preventing hundreds of thousands of illnesses and thousands of prem ature deaths each year

.

In 201 6 , th ese proposed rule s w ould avoid:

6, 8 00

– 17,000 premature deaths,
4, 5 00 cases of chronic bronchitis,

1 1 ,000 nonfatal heart attacks,

1 2

, 2 00 hospital and emergency room visits,

1 1 ,000 cases of acute bronchitis,

2 2 0,000 cases of respiratory symptoms,

8 5 0,000 days when people miss work,

1 2 0,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and

5.1 million days when people must restrict their activities

### 4

EPA estimates the health benefits associated with reduced exposure to fine particles a re $ 5 9 billion to $ 140 billion in 201 6 (2007$)

.

EPA estimates the total national annual cost of this rule will be $ 10.9 billion in the year

201 6

.

EPA anticipate s that the proposed toxics rule may have a significant economic impact on

small entities. Thus, as required by section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)

,

w e conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendation s from representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the requirements of th e proposed toxics rule.

EPA also consulted with State, local, and tribal officials in the process of developin g the proposed toxics rule to permit them to have input into its development.

BACKGROUND
On December 20, 2000, EPA made a determin ation under the Clean Air Act that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate coal

- and oil

- fired EGUs under CAA section 1 12 and added such units to the CAA section 112(c) list (112 list) of sources that must be regulated

. On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed section 112 standards for Hg emissions from coal

- fired

EGU s and nickel (Ni) emissions from oil

- fired EGU s , and, in the a lternative, proposed to

remove EGU s from the 112 list based on a finding that it was neither appropriate nor necessary to regulate EGU s under this section of the Clean Air Act . On March 29, 2005, EPA issued a final revision of the appropriate and necessar y finding for coal

- and oil

- fired

EGU s and removed such units from the 112 list. EPA never finalized the proposed section

112 standards for Hg and Ni

.

The removal of EGU s from the 112 list was challenged in court . On February 8, 2008, the

court determin ed that EPA violated the CAA by removing EGU s from the 112 list. As a result, EGU s remain a CAA section 112(c) listed source category.

In response to the D.C. Circuit Court’s vacatur, EPA is proposing section 112 air toxics

standards for all coal

- and oi l

- fired EGU s that reflect the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) consistent with the requirements of the CAA.

T h is proposed toxics rule would regulate units at both major and area sources. Major sources are those that have the potential to emit 10 tpy or more of any one air toxic or 25 tpy or more of any combination of air toxics

.

In accordance with a Consent Decree, the EPA Administrator must sign a final section 112 rule by November 16, 2 011.

On February 27, 2006, EPA promulgated amendments to the NSPS for PM, SO 2 , and NO X

### 5

contained in the standards of performance for EGU s . EPA was subsequently sued on the

amendments and o n September 2, 2009, was granted a voluntary remand without vacatu r of the 2006 amendments. The proposed revisions to the NSPS are in response to th at voluntary

remand.

HOW TO COMMENT EPA will accept comment on the proposal until July 5, 2011

. Comments on the proposed

toxics rule should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0234. Comments on the proposed NSPS revisions should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2011

- 0044. All comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

o www.regulations.gov: Follow the on

- line instructions for submitting comments.

o E

- mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e

- mail) to a

- and

- r

Docket@epa.gov.

o Fax: Fax your comments to: 202

- 566

- 1741.

o Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460.

o Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460 . Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

The proposed rule s are posted at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerpla nttoxics/actions.html

.

Today’s proposed rule s and other background information are also available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov , EPA’s electronic public docket and comment system, or in hardc opy at the EPA Docket Center’s Public Reading Room.

o The Public Reading Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. Hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4: 30 p.m. eastern standard time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

o Visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor materials will be processed through

an X

- r ay machine as well. Visitors will be provided a badge that must be visible at all

times.

o Materials for th e proposed toxics rule can be accessed using Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2009

- 0234

.

o Materials for the proposed NSPS revisions can be accessed using Docket ID No.

EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0044

.Proposed Amendments to National Em ission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Coal and Oil

‐ Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and
Standards of Performance for Fossil

‐ Fuel

‐ Fired Electric Utility,

Industrial

‐ Commercial

‐ Institutional, and Small Industrial

‐ Commercial

‐ Institutional Steam Generating Units

Public Hearing Procedures Chicago, IL Tuesday, 24 May 2011

The public hearing will begin at 9 AM and continue until 8 PM or later, if needed.

If you have pre

‐ registered to speak, please sign

‐ in at the registration table. We have tried to

accommodate for specific time slots. We ask for your patience as we proceed through the list. We may
need to make some minor adjustments as the day progresses.

If you would like to testify but did not pre

‐ register, please sign up at the registration table. We will make

every effort to work you in as soon as possible.

The EPA Hearing Officer will call the scheduled speakers to the microphone in pairs. Please remain at the
microphone until you and the other person in your pair have finished speaking.

You will have a maximum of 5 minutes to present your testimony. A speaker timer consisting of green, yellow, and red lights will be used. You may begin speaking when the timer light is green. Please state

your name and your affiliation. It will help our court reporter if you also spell your name. The yellow
light will signal that you have 2 minutes left to speak. You will be asked to stop speaking when the red
light comes on. After you finish your testimony, the panel members may ask clarifying questions.

If you have written copies of your statement, you may submit them to the staff at the registration

table.

A lunch break is scheduled between 12:30 and 2:00 PM. Dinner break is scheduled between 5:00 and

6:30 PM.

The public hearing will be transcribed and each speaker’s oral testimony will become part of the official

record.

Please let us know if we can assist you in any way.HOW TO COMMENT

ON THE PROP O SED MERCURY AND AIR TOXICS STANDARDS

On March 16, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule that would reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants from power plants. Specifically, the proposal

would r educe emissions from new and existing coal

- and oil

- fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs).

o EPA is also proposing to revise the new source performance standards (NSPS) for

fossil

- fuel

- fired EGUs. Th is NSPS would revise the standards new c oal

- and oil

- fired power plants must meet for particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NO x ).

These proposed rules were published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2011.

E PA will accept comment on the proposal until July 5, 2011 . Comments on the proposed mercury and air toxics standards should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2009

- 0234. Comments on the proposed NSPS revisions should be identified by Docket ID

No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0044. All comments may be submitted by one of the following

methods:

o www.regulations.gov: Follow the on

- line instructions for submitting comments.

o E

- mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e

- mail) to a

- and

- r

Docket@epa.gov.

o Fax: Fax your comments to: 202

- 566

- 1741.

o Mail: Send your comme nts to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460.

o Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitut ion Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.