1 1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 3 4 RE: PROPOSED TIER 2 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS 5 STANDARDS AND GASOLINE SULFUR CONTROL 6 REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE OF PROPOSED 7 RULEMAKING AND PUBLIC HEARING 8 9 - - - - 10 11 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HAD IN 12 THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED MATTER, AT THE 13 HOLIDAY INN, 111 LAKESIDE AVENUE, 14 CLEVELAND, OHIO, ON THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 15 1999, COMMENCING AT 10:00 A.M. 16 17 - - - - 18 MEHLER & HAGESTROM 19 Court Reporters 1750 Midland Building 20 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 216.621.4984 21 FAX 621.0050 800.822.0650 22 23 24 25 2 1 PANEL MEMBERS: 2 Margo Oge Karl Simon 3 Dawn Martin Chet France 4 Michael Horowitz Mary Manners 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 MS. OGE: Good morning. On 2 behalf of the Environmental Protection 3 Agency I want to thank you for coming 4 here and welcome all of you to today's 5 hearing. Today we're holding the 6 fourth and last public hearing on the 7 Tier 2 proposal. 8 Today we're looking forward to 9 hearing your views on a program that we 10 believe will be very critical to the 11 future of air quality in this country. 12 My name is Margo Oge. I'm the 13 director of the office of mobile 14 sources with the Environmental 15 Protection Agency and I will be your 16 presiding officer for this hearing 17 today. 18 The proposed regulation that we 19 are going to be discussing at this 20 public hearing was announced by 21 President Clinton on May 1st, 1999 and 22 it was published in the Federal 23 Register on May 13th, 1999. This is a 24 historic proposal. This program will 25 achieve dramatic reductions in air 4 1 pollution for the 21st century and we 2 will do it in the most cost-effective, 3 flexible way. We estimate emissions 4 reductions of almost 2.2 million 5 nitrogen oxide per year by 2020. These 6 reductions are equivalent in removing 7 something close to 107 million cars 8 from the road. 9 When we designed this proposal, 10 we followed a set of principles that I 11 would like to share with you. We 12 wanted to design a program that meet 13 the air quality needs of states and the 14 nation as a whole. We wanted to treat 15 autos and fuel as one system. We 16 wanted to bring sport utility vehicles, 17 minivans, pickup trucks to the same 18 emissions standard as passenger 19 vehicles. We wanted to have a program 20 that is fuel neutral, that is 21 regardless the fuel used in the car, 22 the same standards will be applied. We 23 wanted to make sure that we are not 24 going to constrain consumer choices for 25 driving styles either due to costs or 5 1 due to technological factors. And, 2 finally, we wanted to provide 3 flexibility to the affected industries 4 in how they achieve the standards. 5 The same time we published the 6 Tier 2 proposal we also released an 7 advanced notice of proposal making 8 concerning diesel fuel quality. Today 9 we are not seeking comments on the 10 specific proposal. We have established 11 a separate docket, A-99-06, for 12 comments on this proposal. 13 Now, many of you are probably 14 aware of the two recent Court of 15 Appeals decisions regarding EPA's air 16 programs. The first decision founded 17 the Clean Air Act as applied in setting 18 new public health air quality standards 19 for ozone and particulate matter is 20 unconstitutional and it's 21 unconstitutional as an improper 22 delegation of legislative authority to 23 EPA. Despite the constitutional 24 ruling, however, the court did not 25 question the science on which EPA 6 1 relied to develop the health standards 2 and the court did not criticize the 3 process that EPA used to make those 4 decisions. EPA disagrees with the 5 court decision. We have recommended to 6 the Department of Justice that they 7 take all necessary judicial steps to 8 overturn the decision. 9 The second decision state the 10 submittal of state plans under the NOx 11 SIP call. These were plans that were 12 scheduled to come to the agency this 13 fall. We closely reviewed both of the 14 sections and concluded that they do not 15 impact the Tier 2 rulemaking. The Tier 16 2 proposal remains on solid scientific 17 grounds in terms of need, technological 18 feasibility, cost and 19 cost-effectiveness. The agency will 20 move forward to finalize this proposal 21 by the end of this year. We believe 22 the Tier 2 standards as proposed are 23 needed to attain and maintain the 24 one-hour air quality standards. 25 Also we believe that today over 7 1 70 million Americans are breathing 2 unhealthy air in this country and we 3 believe that this trend will continue 4 unless we take action today. We 5 believe this proposal is 6 technologically feasible and it is 7 cost-effective. The projected costs of 8 meeting this proposal are about a 9 hundred dollars per car, $200 for SUVs 10 and light-duty trucks and between 1 and 11 2 cents per gallon of gasoline. 12 Even though our cars and trucks 13 run cleaner than ever before, they 14 still contribute a large part of our 15 air pollution. We Americans love to 16 drive and we are driving more every 17 year. If we don't act today, the 18 emissions from our cars and light-duty 19 trucks combined with the current levels 20 of sulfur in gasoline threaten to erode 21 many of the air quality gains that we 22 have made in recent years. Motor 23 vehicles, for example, are almost, are 24 responsible for almost one quarter of 25 the smoke forming air pollution here in 8 1 Cleveland. 2 The proposal contains two 3 primary elements. First, EPA proposes 4 more protective emissions standards for 5 all light-duty vehicles and light-duty 6 trucks. The proposed Tier 2 standards 7 would require all vehicles and trucks 8 weighing up to 8,500 pounds to meet a 9 corporate average nitrogen oxide 10 standard of 0.07 grams per mile. This 11 new standard will result in cars that 12 are 77 percent cleaner and SUVs, 13 minivans and pickup trucks that are as 14 smart as 95 percent cleaner than 15 today's vehicles. 16 The standards will be phased in 17 from 2004 to 2007 for light-duty 18 vehicles and light-duty trucks weighing 19 up to 6,000 pounds. Beginning in 2004 20 heavy light-duty trucks or those 21 between 6,000 pounds and 8,500 pounds 22 will have to meet a more stringent 23 interim standard that will reduce 24 emissions from those vehicles up to 80 25 percent. Beginning 2008 through 2009 9 1 these heavier trucks will have to meet 2 the same standard as vehicles, the 0.07 3 grams per mile. 4 The second element of the Tier 5 2 proposal is a nationwide control of 6 sulfur in gasoline. For the first time 7 with this proposal we will treat 8 gasoline and engines as a system. We 9 are proposing to reduce sulfur across 10 the board because sulfur poisons 11 antipollution control systems. Our 12 proposal will reduce sulfur by 90 13 percent. With cleaner fuels not only 14 the Tier 2 vehicles benefit, but also 15 the cars that we are driving today will 16 benefit. 17 Refiners and importers of 18 gasoline would be required to meet a 19 new sulfur limit of 30 parts per 20 million on an average beginning 2004. 21 With the banking and trading program 22 that we have proposed, cleaner fuels 23 could be introduced in the marketplace 24 as early as 2000 time frame and the 25 compliance could be extended to 2006 10 1 time frame. Also the Tier 2 proposal 2 has included provisions that are 3 designed to provide more flexibility to 4 small refiners. 5 Before getting started with 6 today's testimony, I'll take a few 7 minutes to introduce the panel and 8 describe how we are going to conduct 9 this meeting. With me today on my 10 right is Dawn Martin who is the chief 11 of staff in the office of air and 12 radiation with EPA. Next to Dawn is 13 Mr. Karl Simon and he's in my office, 14 an important person. Next to me on my 15 left is Chet France. He's the director 16 of the engine programs and compliance. 17 And at my left is also Mr. Michael 18 Horowitz and he's with our office of 19 general counsel. 20 We have received an 21 overwhelming number of requests to 22 testify today and we will do our best 23 to accommodate everyone who wishes to 24 speak. Therefore, we will ask 25 witnesses to limit their testimony to 11 1 no more than ten minutes. The lady 2 that is sitting in the front, Miss Mary 3 Manners, is going to keep us all honest 4 with the time. So she's going to let 5 you know when you are running out of 6 time. Please listen to her. 7 We are conducting this hearing 8 in accordance with Section 307(d)5 of 9 the Clean Air Act which requires EPA to 10 provide interested persons with an 11 opportunity for oral and written 12 presentations of data. Also we are 13 going to allow this, the comment 14 period, the public comment period for 15 this proposal to be open until August 16 2nd of 1999 for any additional written 17 submissions. 18 The hearing will be conducted 19 informally and formal rules of evidence 20 will not apply. The presiding officer 21 is authorized, however, to strike from 22 the record statements which are deemed 23 irrelevant to this hearing. Also I 24 will try to enforce reasonable limits 25 for the duration of the statement of 12 1 any witness. 2 We request that the witness 3 state their names and affiliations 4 prior to making their statement. When 5 a witness has finished his or her 6 presentation, this EPA panel may have 7 questions concerning issues raised in 8 the testimony. We are reminding the 9 witnesses that any false statement in 10 response to our questions may be a 11 violation of law. 12 If there are any members in the 13 audience that would like to testify and 14 have not signed in, please sign your 15 name with the receptionist outside and 16 we will do our best to accommodate you. 17 We must request that you refrain from 18 bringing food in this meeting room due 19 to the terms of our contract with this 20 facility. 21 And, finally, if you would like 22 a transcript of this proceeding, you 23 should make arrangements directly with 24 the court reporter during one of the 25 breaks. The transcript from this 13 1 hearing will be available, however, in 2 the docket, EPA docket within two 3 weeks. 4 If there are not any questions, 5 we will start with our first group of 6 speakers. 7 Okay. I would like for Mr. 8 Charles Lagges to come forward, Miss 9 Jayne Mardock, Mr. Robert Babik and 10 Miss Amy Simpson. Please print your 11 names on the cards in front of you. 12 Mr. Lagges, good morning. 13 We'll start with you this morning. 14 MR. LAGGES: Good morning and 15 thank you. My name is Charles Lagges 16 and I'm the director of Cook County 17 Environmental Control. It's in 18 Illinois outside Chicago. And I am 19 here this morning representing ALAPCO, 20 the Association of Local Air Pollution 21 Control Officials. I appear here on 22 behalf of ALAPCO, which represents my 23 agency as we well as more than 165 24 other local air pollution agencies, 25 control agencies across the country and 14 1 on behalf of STAPPA, our sister agency, 2 the State and Territorial Air Pollution 3 Program Administrators which represents 4 the air pollution control agencies in 5 55 states and territories. 6 I'm very pleased this morning 7 to have the opportunity to provide the 8 Associations' testimony on the U.S. 9 EPA's recently proposed Tier 2 motor 10 vehicle emissions standards and program 11 to reduce sulfur in gasoline, as well 12 as on the agency's advance notice of 13 proposed rulemaking on diesel fuel. 14 On behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, 15 I would like to commend EPA for its 16 leadership, not only in issuing the 17 Tier 2 and gasoline sulfur proposal, 18 but also for developing such a strong 19 and comprehensive package. We further 20 commend EPA for responsibly taking full 21 advantage of the opportunity to 22 efficiently and cost-effectively reduce 23 a wide variety of emissions, for 24 pursuing a systems approach that 25 addresses both fuels and tailpipe 15 1 emissions and for engaging in such a 2 thorough and inclusive process to craft 3 this proposal. 4 We are especially pleased that 5 the proposed Tier 2 and gasoline sulfur 6 programs directly reflect almost every 7 key recommendation made by STAPPA and 8 ALAPCO over the past two years. These 9 programs, which will define our ability 10 to control emissions from cars and 11 light-duty trucks for the next 15 years 12 or so, are of vital importance to our 13 memberships, as we work toward ensuring 14 clean air for our cities, counties and 15 states. For this reason, in October 16 '97 and again in April '98, our 17 associations adopted, with 18 overwhelmingly support, resolutions 19 calling for stringent low-sulfur 20 gasoline and Tier 2 programs; copies of 21 these resolutions are with my written 22 statement. We have placed the highest 23 priority on participating in the rule 24 development process and we are very 25 pleased that EPA has concluded that the 16 1 most appropriate programs so closely 2 mirror those for which we have 3 advocated. 4 As the officials with primary 5 responsibility for achieving and 6 maintaining clean, healthful air across 7 the country, state and local air 8 agencies are keenly aware of the need 9 to aggressively pursue emissions 10 reductions from all sectors that 11 contribute to our nation's air quality 12 problems. We believe the potential air 13 quality benefits to result from cutting 14 emissions from light-duty vehicles and 15 light-duty trucks and reducing sulfur 16 in gasoline, as the agency has 17 proposed, are tremendous. These 18 proposed programs will give us 19 substantial and much-needed emissions 20 reductions and allow us to make 21 significant strides in our efforts to 22 deliver and sustain clean air across 23 the country. These emissions 24 reductions will play a pivotal role in 25 addressing an array of air quality 17 1 problems that continue to pose health 2 and welfare risks nationwide. 3 While much of the debate 4 surrounding the air quality need for 5 Tier 2 and low-sulfur gasoline seems to 6 have gravitated toward ozone, it is 7 imperative that we not overlook the 8 many other important air quality 9 benefits of this proposal, to be 10 realized by both nonattainment and 11 attainment areas both east and west. 12 While this proposal will, indeed, 13 decrease the emissions of hydrocarbons 14 and NOx, which, in turn, will lead to 15 reduced levels of ambient ozone, it 16 will also decrease particulate matter, 17 carbon monoxide emissions, improve 18 visibility, address acid rain problems 19 and reduce greenhouse gases and toxic 20 air pollution. In addition, the 21 substantial reductions to occur from 22 this proposal will further the 23 objectives of pollution prevention. 24 Additionally, the proposed programs 25 will achieve these air quality 18 1 improvements in an extremely 2 cost-effective manner. At 3 approximately $2,000 per ton of NOx and 4 VOC removed, as estimated by the EPA, 5 these programs are at least as 6 cost-effective as, if not more 7 cost-effective than, most other control 8 measures available to us, and the 9 dividends are huge. 10 There are some components of 11 the proposal with which we have 12 concerns. We will offer 13 recommendations to address these. 14 Nonetheless, STAPPA and ALAPCO 15 congratulate EPA for issuing a proposal 16 that we believe provides sound 17 framework for environmentally and 18 economically responsible Tier 2 and 19 gasoline sulfur programs. 20 With regards to the proposed 21 Tier 2 vehicle emissions standards, we 22 strongly support what we believe are 23 the cornerstones of the proposed Tier 2 24 program. Specifically we, are pleased 25 that the program cost-effectively 19 1 achieves real-word emissions reductions 2 from the new light-duty vehicles and 3 light-duty trucks, that it reflects new 4 and emerging vehicle emissions control 5 technologies currently available and 6 expected to be available in the year 7 2004 and beyond, that it applies to 8 light-duty vehicles and light-duty 9 trucks up to 8,500 pounds, including 10 SUVs, pickup trucks and vans beginning 11 in 2004. We are pleased that it 12 subjects light-duty trucks up to 8,500 13 pounds to the same emissions standards 14 as cars and lighter trucks and includes 15 a corporate average NOx standard for 16 all affected vehicles. It establishes 17 fuel neutral standards. It includes a 18 more stringent evaporative emissions 19 standard. And, finally, extends the 20 useful life to 120,000 miles. These 21 programs are right on target for a 22 truly effective national motor vehicle 23 control program. 24 We are, however, concerned that 25 several provisions including in the 20 1 proposal or raised for public comment 2 could significantly undercut the 3 program. Among these concerns are the 4 later compliance deadline 2009, versus 5 2007, for the larger SUVs, vans and 6 trucks and the notion of a formal 7 technology review of the Tier 2 8 standards prior to the time the 9 standards for heavier light-duty trucks 10 take effect. In addition, while we 11 certainly agree with EPA that there 12 should be some measure of flexibility 13 included in the Tier 2 program and find 14 some of the approaches provided to be 15 entirely appropriate, we are quite 16 concerned with various aspects of some 17 of the proposed provisions, such as the 18 amount of time allowed for 19 manufacturers to make up for credit 20 shortfall under the Averaging Banking 21 and Trading program and the leniency of 22 some of the emissions standard BINS. 23 Finally, given the continuing trend 24 toward heavier light-duty trucks, we 25 encourage EPA to consider applying the 21 1 Tier 2 standards to those SUVs, pickup 2 trucks and full-size vans weighing up 3 to 10,000 pounds which are used 4 predominantly for personal 5 transportation. We will fully 6 articulate all of these concerns in our 7 forthcoming written comments. 8 With regards to the gasoline 9 sulfur control requirements, same as 10 with the Tier 2 program, STAPPA and 11 ALAPCO also believe that EPA has done a 12 fine job in establishing the key 13 parameters of the proposed low-sulfur 14 gasoline program. EPA's proposal very 15 appropriately and necessarily 16 establishes uniform, national, 17 year-round standards to sharply reduce 18 sulfur in gasoline, sets a gasoline 19 sulfur standard of 30 parts per million 20 on average, to take effect 2004, and 21 includes a sulfur cap of 80 parts per 22 million, includes flexibilities to 23 minimize the cost to and compliance 24 burden on affected parties, and 25 provides incentives for refiners to 22 1 reduce sulfur levels in gasoline prior 2 to the 2004 effective date. 3 Last spring, STAPPA and ALAPCO 4 conducted an analysis concluding that a 5 national low-sulfur gasoline program of 6 this scope will achieve overnight 7 emissions reductions that are 8 equivalent to taking 54 million 9 vehicles off the road. Further, 10 throughout the debate surrounding 11 gasoline sulfur, the issue of a 12 national versus regional program has 13 been paramount. We are gratified the 14 EPA has proposed that the low-sulfur 15 gasoline standards apply uniformly 16 nationwide. This approach will 17 forestall the very real and detrimental 18 impacts of irreversible catalyst 19 poisoning and will do so in a way that 20 is both inexpensive and cost-effective. 21 It is absolutely essential that EPA 22 preserve these provisions, as well as 23 the proposed effective day of 2004. 24 As we indicated regarding the 25 Tier 2 standards, while we are 23 1 extremely pleased with the framework 2 and key elements of the gasoline and 3 sulfur proposal, there are some 4 provisions that are of considerable 5 concern to us. For example, we 6 strongly support the 80 parts per 7 million cap on sulfur, but we believe 8 the agency's proposal to phase in this 9 cap is excessive. Further, state and 10 local air agencies recognize that the 11 current NSR program is in need of 12 streamlining and are working with EPA 13 and other stakeholders to reform NSR. 14 However, we find some of the potential 15 NSR streamlining options identified in 16 this proposal to be problematic. 17 Again, we will discuss these concerns 18 in detail in our forthcoming written 19 comments. 20 And before I conclude, I would 21 like to congratulate EPA for 22 recognizing the need to reduce sulfur 23 in diesel fuel and for issuing the 24 advance -- and its consideration of 25 improvements in diesel fuel quality and 24 1 seeking comments on the merits of that. 2 We wholeheartedly agree that 3 this is an imperative issue. Our 4 commitment is summarized in a 5 resolution that was passed this year 6 and is in the written comments that I 7 have. 8 So in conclusion, STAPPA and 9 ALAPCO applaud you for seizing the 10 opportunity to take this huge step 11 forward in achieving much cleaner air. 12 We commend your thorough process and we 13 most of all consider your leadership in 14 providing fundamentally strong programs 15 that are technologically feasable, 16 cost-effective and environmentally 17 responsible. On behalf of our 18 associations, I offer you our continued 19 cooperation and our partnership as you 20 move ahead. 21 MS. OGE: Thank you. 22 Ms. Mardock, good morning. 23 MS. MARDOCK: Hi. My name is 24 Jayne Mardock, and I am the director of 25 the Clean Air Network, and before I 25 1 start my formal comments about the Tier 2 2 regulations, I would just like to 3 report what I heard yesterday at a 4 press conference in Washington, that 5 Ohio is now leading the country for 6 ozone violations. They had 181 7 violations of the standard since the 8 beginning of the ozone season and have 9 had 12 days of unhealthy air and it's 10 very -- just to put into context why we 11 need, why we need cleaner cars is 12 because we still have a serious dirty 13 air problem. 14 And, in fact, there have been a 15 number of counties that have even 16 violated the one-hour standard. 17 Delaware County had a 154 reading of 18 the one-hour standard on June the 10th. 19 In addition, Butler, Lucas, Miami, 20 Lake, Montgomery and Stark Counties 21 have also had violations of the 22 one-hour standard. In fact, they have 23 had more violations of the one-hour 24 standard than many of the areas that 25 currently are out of attainment of the 26 1 one-hour standard. So certainly there 2 is a reason to continue to go forward. 3 I am here today to deliver 4 testimony on behalf of 20 organizations 5 that could not be present today but 6 would like to elicit their support and 7 also raise concerns about the Tier 2 8 proposal. The Network will be 9 submitting more detailed comments at 10 the end of the docket comment period, 11 but would like to take this opportunity 12 to highlight several key issues. 13 First, we would like to applaud 14 EPA for issuing such a strong proposal. 15 We are pleased that several elements 16 were included in the proposal and call 17 on EPA to retain these elements in 18 their final rule. 19 Number one, we applaud EPA for 20 taking an integrated approach to 21 tailpipe and fuel impacts on emissions. 22 By looking at the whole system involved 23 in passenger vehicle emissions 24 including fuels, the proposal was able 25 to take advantage of additional 27 1 technology to make tailpipe emissions 2 even cleaner. The U.S. leads the world 3 in stringent tailpipe standards, yet is 4 lagging behind most of the 5 industrialized world in cleaning up the 6 fuels that are burned in passenger 7 vehicles. Dirty fuel prevents the use 8 of the most advanced catalysts and 9 could block the use of other advanced 10 systems, such as fuel cells and 11 hybrids. Low-sulfur fuel will also 12 have an immediate positive effect on 13 air quality with the existing cars on 14 the road, achieving clean air quality 15 improvements in the near term. 16 We are pleased that all 17 passenger cars and trucks will 18 eventually be integrated into one 19 system. In 1998, light-duty truck 20 sales, including sport utility 21 vehicles, minivans and pickup trucks, 22 exceeded new passenger car sales for 23 the first time. While exemptions for 24 large trucks may have been more 25 justified in the past because they were 28 1 used for heavy hauling and they were 2 also fairly limited in use, these 3 vehicles have become the mainstay of 4 most families as passenger vehicles, 5 and they should be treated as such in 6 the future. The American public wants 7 consistent standards. A recent poll by 8 the American Lung Association found 9 that 91 percent of the public agreed 10 that SUVs and minivans should be 11 required to meet the same standards as 12 passenger cars. Even minivan and SUV 13 owners agreed with this. We are 14 pleased that EPA is moving forward to 15 make all passenger vehicles, regardless 16 of size and weight, meet the same 17 standards. 18 We are pleased that the fuel 19 neutral standards allow the cleanest 20 fuels to get the extra credit. EPA has 21 proposed a system that will allow fuels 22 that are significantly cleaner than 23 gasoline to get the credit for being 24 cleaner by setting certification BINS 25 that are well below the fleet average. 29 1 This will provide incentive for more 2 hybrid and cleaner fueled cars to come 3 to market. While we are concerned that 4 the highest BINS may allow for 5 increased diesel vehicles, we are 6 pleased that EPA did not set a separate 7 standard for diesel fueled cars and 8 passenger trucks. 9 Overall, we feel that this rule 10 will significantly reduce auto 11 pollution while remaining 12 cost-effective. EPA estimates that the 13 Tier 2 proposal, combined with the low 14 sulfur fuel requirements, will have an 15 emissions effect of taking 166 million 16 cars off the road when the proposal is 17 fully implemented. This is quite 18 significant considering that there are 19 only about 207 million cars on the road 20 today, only being quite an 21 understatement. But EPA's cost 22 estimates are also reasonable. 23 Increasing the cost of a new vehicle 24 from 100 to $200 with an incremental 25 fuel cost over the life of the car of 30 1 $100 makes it possible for consumers to 2 pay for these improvements. In 3 addition, there are significant 4 benefits to our health and environment 5 from this proposal that far outweigh 6 the costs. 7 We do, however, have concerns 8 about the proposal and think that they 9 can be followed -- can be strengthened 10 in the following ways. 11 Number one, we think that there 12 is too much lead time for the biggest 13 and dirtiest trucks. While we 14 understand that the fleet of vehicles 15 between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds are 16 fairly small, it is also one of the 17 fastest growing segments of new vehicle 18 sales. In the past ten years SUVs have 19 grown, the sale of SUVs has grown 20 tenfold and emit three to five times 21 what a passenger car emits today 22 according to a report by the U.S. 23 Public Interest Research Group. While 24 we acknowledge it will be a challenge 25 to reduce emissions from these 31 1 vehicles, waiting ten years from today 2 for them to, for them to become 3 integrated into the system is just too 4 long. These vehicles are the biggest 5 and the dirtiest and they should be 6 fully integrated into the Tier 2 7 program by at least 2007. 8 We feel that there is too much 9 flexibility in the fleet average, 10 especially the ability to carry over a 11 deficit fleet average. While we 12 support the concept of a fleet average 13 and understand that banking and trading 14 may be necessary to meet the average, 15 we believe that there is sufficient 16 flexibility in the program to prohibit 17 auto makers to carry a deficit into the 18 next model year. EPA has provided 19 ample flexibility by providing seven 20 certification BINS to average the 21 fleet, banking of early credits and 22 trading among auto manufacturers. The 23 auto makers can either evaluate their 24 fleets to reduce emissions or can buy 25 credits from another manufacturer that 32 1 have cleaned up beyond their 2 obligations. EPA should prohibit an 3 auto maker from carrying a deficit of 4 its fleet average into the following 5 model year so that we are assured clean 6 air benefits from year to year. 7 We believe that the phase-in 8 program, phase-in period for low-sulfur 9 fuel is too long. EPA, auto 10 manufacturers, state agencies and 11 environmental groups have been united 12 in the fact that low-sulfur fuel is 13 needed and that it will allow, it will 14 promote advanced technology in addition 15 to achieving immediate air quality 16 benefits with the existing fleet of 17 cars on the road. For this reason, we 18 are very concerned that EPA is taking 19 too long to phase in the low-sulfur 20 gasoline program, and we remain very 21 concerned with the banking and trading 22 program that allows a per gallon level 23 of sulfur to be as high as 300 parts 24 per million in the early years of the 25 program. Sulfur can permanently damage 33 1 the catalyst, especially the most 2 sensitive new technology. If auto 3 makers begin using these technologies 4 in 2004, consumers must be able to 5 protect their investment by knowing 6 that the fuel that they use in their 7 car will not damage it. While small 8 refiners may need additional help to 9 reach low-sulfur targets, we are 10 concerned about the very long lead-time 11 that would allow for the continued sale 12 of dirty fuel. 13 Finally, we believe that the 14 top BIN allowed by EPA allows too much 15 pollution. We are concerned that the 16 top BIN has been developed to allow 17 auto makers to manufacturer more 18 diesel-powered vehicles and the biggest 19 and dirtiest sport utility vehicles and 20 trucks. While we understand that there 21 may be positive consequences through 22 the fleet average requirement in the 23 form of more cleaner vehicles, we 24 remain very concerned about the health 25 and environmental impacts associated 34 1 with diesel. EPA is concluding a study 2 finding that diesel exhaust is 200 3 times more toxic than previously 4 believed and it's also a major concern 5 outlined in EPA's urban air toxic 6 strategy. The top BIN is almost three 7 times dirtier than the NOx average and 8 it should be either eliminated or it 9 should be tightened. 10 In conclusion, these 20 11 organizations want to thank EPA for the 12 opportunity to express our support for 13 the Tier 2 proposal and suggest ways it 14 can be strengthened to make it more 15 equitable and increase the health and 16 environmental benefits of the program. 17 On the whole, this proposal is a 18 significant step forward in cleaning up 19 auto pollution, and we give great 20 credit for proposing, to EPA for 21 proposing a program that will leave a 22 cleaner legacy for our children. 23 Once again thank you for 24 letting me share this testimony on 25 behalf of the following 35 1 representatives: In California, the 2 Environmental Defense Center, the 3 Desert Citizens Against Pollution, 4 California Communities Against Toxics; 5 in Illinois, the American Lung 6 Association of Metropolitan Chicago; in 7 Indiana, Valley Watch, Hoosier 8 Environmental Council; and in Kentucky, 9 the Kentucky Resources Council; in 10 Minnesota, the Clean Water Action 11 Alliance; in New Hampshire, the 12 Appalachian Mountain Club; in New 13 Jersey, the New Jersey Environmental 14 Lobby; in New York, the Clean Air Task 15 Force; in North Carolina, Appalachian 16 Voices; in Maine, the Natural Resources 17 Council of Maine; in Ohio and Oregon, 18 the Sierra Club; in Pennsylvania, the 19 Clean Air Council and the Sierra Club 20 Allegheny Group; in Utah, the Wasatch 21 County Clean Air Coalition; in 22 Washington, the Coalition for Clean Air 23 in Washington; in Washington, D.C., the 24 Campaign on Auto Pollution and 20/20 25 Vision. 36 1 MS. OGE: Thank you. 2 Mr. Babik, good morning. 3 MR. BABIK: Good morning. 4 Thank you. I am Robert Babik, director 5 of environmental programs at the 6 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 7 Coalition of Light Car/Truck Makers, 8 which include BMW, Daimler Chrysler, 9 Fiat, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, 10 Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagon and Volvo, 11 more than 642,000 employees in the 12 United States, 255 manufacturing 13 facilities in 33 states, Alliance 14 members represent more than 90 percent 15 of U.S. vehicle sales. 16 The automobile manufacturing 17 industry has done more than any other 18 industry in reducing emissions and we 19 are proud of our record. Our 20 commitment is evident in our voluntary 21 initiative in national low-emissions 22 vehicle programs where we are already 23 producing vehicles sooner than EPA can 24 require by law. 25 The auto makers are stepping up 37 1 to the plate to accomplish the Tier 2 2 rules; however, auto makers cannot do 3 it by ourselves. Much cleaner fuels 4 are needed to make this program work. 5 EPA has an opportunity to clear the 6 path for future advanced technology 7 vehicles and the ultra clean fuels 8 needed to power them. 9 The Alliance fully supports the 10 air quality goals of the rulemakers. 11 In fact, the Alliance has put forth a 12 proposal that can achieve even greater 13 emissions reductions than the EPA's 14 proposal. We are very close on most 15 issues. Our proposal will propel us 16 into the next century with the cleanest 17 fleet of vehicles in the world further 18 reducing emissions of both passenger 19 cars and light-duty trucks to near 20 negligible levels. 21 Like the EPA, the Alliance 22 proposal goes beyond proven technology 23 and breaks new ground by requiring that 24 cars and light trucks meet the same 25 average NOx level and assures a 38 1 significant reduction of NOx emissions 2 more than would be achieved from the 3 EPA proposal. This is not a proposal 4 that says it can't be done or looks for 5 a free ride. It is a robust proposal 6 that recognizes our industry's 7 important role in helping the United 8 States reach the clean air goals. We 9 don't know yet how we will reach the 10 goals that we have set for ourselves in 11 our own proposal, but we are prepared 12 to take on the challenge. Can do is 13 our attitude. 14 I want to stress key elements 15 of our proposal today, elements that 16 must not get lost in the shuffle of 17 this remaining process, elements 18 necessary for Tier 2 to be a successful 19 role. 20 Element number one, first, we 21 need improved fuels including near zero 22 sulfur which will be needed to reach 23 the clean air goals. Fuels and autos 24 operate as one system. Near zero 25 sulfur fuels are needed to enable the 39 1 introduction of technology required to 2 meet the tough new standards. It makes 3 little sense to mandate the production 4 of world-class vehicles and then run 5 them on second-class fuels. 6 We applaud EPA's proposed 7 reduction in fuel sulfur levels to an 8 average of 30 parts per million as a 9 good first step toward the fuel quality 10 we need to reach our clean air goals. 11 This is the sulfur level that 12 California EPA has required since 1996. 13 Clearly the expansion of low-sulfur 14 fuel from a California-only program to 15 a nationwide program is long overdue, 16 along with California style volatility 17 control. 18 However, it is not enough to 19 stop there at 30 parts per million. On 20 the vehicle side the Tier 2 rule is a 21 very aggressive new program with 22 technology forcing standards comparable 23 to those that California had just 24 adopted late in 1998. Before this year 25 is out, it appears California will take 40 1 another major step toward near zero 2 sulfur fuel to accompany its aggressive 3 vehicle standards. We need to take 4 this critical second step at the 5 federal level as well recognizing that 6 30 part per million is not an end 7 point, but rather a stepping stone on 8 the way to near zero sulfur fuel. 9 Removing sulfur is both 10 feasible and affordable. The 11 technology for sulfur removal is 12 readily available and is in widespread 13 use in California, Japan, Europe and 14 other areas of the world. Recent 15 announcements show that members of the 16 refining industries are moving toward 17 low-sulfur fuels voluntarily. We need 18 to get the sulfur out nationwide. 19 Simply put, sulfur is the lead 20 of the '90s because of the way it 21 poisons the catalyst. Auto oil studies 22 have shown that catalysts subjected to 23 high sulfur experience a loss of 24 effectiveness that cannot be recovered 25 even after extended operation on 41 1 low-sulfur fuel. In other words, the 2 emissions benefits get cancelled out. 3 This is why a so-called regional fuel 4 program is unworkable because vehicles 5 traveling from a low-sulfur region to a 6 high-sulfur region will experience an 7 unavoidable degradation in the 8 performance of their emissions control 9 systems. 10 Sulfur removal is an essential 11 enabler for new emissions control 12 hardware in new power train systems. 13 Emissions technology such as NOx traps 14 may enable advanced technology vehicles 15 to achieve significant improvements in 16 fuel economy. 17 Fuel cell vehicles may attain 18 the as yet elusive goals of zero 19 emissions vehicles that may appeal to a 20 wide market. These and other promising 21 technologies are known to require near 22 zero sulfur fuels. We can either put 23 our heads in the sand and ignore this 24 fact or we can adopt regulations now to 25 ensure that the necessary fuel is in 42 1 place to allow technologies to begin to 2 appear in the marketplace. 3 Another important point is that 4 the auto makers need enough flexibility 5 in the time line to allow for the 6 invention of technologies necessary to 7 make EPA standards a reality. The 8 Alliance proposal agrees with EPA on 9 the end point of .07 grams per mile NOx 10 fleet emissions averages for both 11 passenger cars and light-duty trucks. 12 Getting there will take time and 13 require us to clear a number of 14 technological hurdles. 15 The introduction of the two 16 Tier 2 standards should be accomplished 17 in a two-phase approach set forth in 18 the Alliance proposal, one round of the 19 emissions reductions starting 2004, and 20 an even more aggressive reduction 21 starting in 2008 when hopefully near 22 zero sulfur fuels will be in place. 23 A third key point, independent 24 third party capability studies in 2004 25 is needed to make sure that we are 43 1 headed in the right direction and we 2 can achieve the goals set by EPA. The 3 study should be conducted by mutually 4 agreed upon experts to establish the 5 feasibility of a second wave of 6 emissions standards based on the 7 following four items: Five ppm max 8 sulfur fuels for both gas and diesel, 9 standards feasible for leading market 10 technologies for both gas and diesel, 11 standards that pose no anticompetitive 12 impact, and standards that are 13 cost-effective and affordable. 14 There is no downside for 15 planning for this sort of independent 16 review. None of us, not the EPA, and 17 certainly not the auto industry, can 18 foretell the future and know what 19 problems may develop, but such a 20 far-reaching technology course and 21 regulation if development is on track 22 to meet the Tier 2 standards, the 23 review process will just confirm this 24 fact and things will proceed as 25 planned. On the other hand, if major 44 1 unexpected problems are encountered 2 along the way, the review process will 3 give EPA an opportunity to make 4 mid-course directions. 5 Lastly, we want to make sure 6 that the final 2 Tier rule continues to 7 foster and not freeze out the 8 development and utilization of advanced 9 technology vehicles. The government 10 industry Partnership for New Generation 11 Vehicles, otherwise known as PNGV, has 12 determined that four stroke direct 13 injection is the most promising 14 near-term technology for meeting 15 dramatically increased fuel economy 16 goals within the next ten years. EPA 17 has concurred with this selection. 18 These lean-burn technologies, however, 19 do not achieve the level of NOx 20 controls needed to meet the very tight 21 standards, and the fleet average 22 requirement could actually restrict the 23 number of units that can be sold. The 24 catalyst for these technologies are 25 extremely sensitive to sulfur and their 45 1 efficiency degrades quickly without 2 near zero sulfur fuels. 3 EPA's proposal could 4 effectively prevent the fruits of the 5 PNGV program from being realized in the 6 U.S. The EPA rules should foster, not 7 freeze, advance fuel efficient 8 technologies out of the U.S. market. 9 And EPA can enhance the Tier 2 10 flexibility without incurring any loss 11 whatsoever of clean air benefits by 12 expanding the number of certification 13 BINS and encourage the advanced 14 technology vehicles with no down side 15 for the environment. 16 In conclusion, the Alliance 17 fully supports EPA's clean air rules. 18 We are in agreement on many fronts. 19 Yes, we feel some changes are needed to 20 make the rule workable, but we are 21 confident by working together with the 22 EPA and other interested parties that 23 these issues can be worked out. 24 However, we cannot do this alone. As 25 our industry steps up to the plate with 46 1 cleaner and cleaner vehicles, we need 2 our colleagues in the oil industries to 3 do their part by providing cleaner and 4 cleaner fuels. Only by combining 5 world-class vehicles with world-class 6 fuels can we realize our full potential 7 and ensure that future generations will 8 not only have the cleanest possible 9 air, but also a robust transportation 10 and energy industry trying compete in 11 the 21st century. 12 I would like to take this 13 opportunity also to thank EPA for their 14 efforts regarding the hearings. They 15 have taken the daunting task of 16 coordinating a tremendous amount of 17 speakers over the past four hearings 18 and they've done it well and we just 19 want to let them know their efforts are 20 appreciated. And that concludes my 21 prepared statement. 22 Thank you. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you. We are 24 not going to have a fifth hearing. 25 Thank you. 47 1 Ms. Simpson, good morning. 2 MS. SIMPSON: Good morning. My 3 name is Amy Simpson. I'm the state 4 director of the Ohio Public Interest 5 Research Group or Ohio PIRG. Ohio PIRG 6 is a statewide consumer and 7 environmental advocacy group, about 8 10,000 members across the state, and I 9 greatly appreciate the opportunity to 10 speak to you today on this important 11 and timely issue. 12 Over the past two weeks 13 Cleveland has had a record number of 14 what we call ozone action days. Day 15 after day we were warned to stay 16 indoors if possible, asked to avoid 17 driving, mowing our lawns and using our 18 barbecues. Over and over these 19 activities were blamed for the smog 20 which hung around the city like a noose 21 causing healthy people to choke and 22 cough as we tried to cope in the 23 suffocating heat. It was much worse 24 for the thousands of people who suffer 25 from asthma. These people became 48 1 virtual prisoners in their 2 air-conditioned homes. This is no way 3 to live. 4 But this is just the beginning. 5 If this summer is like the summer of 6 1998, we can expect frequent and 7 widespread violations of the federal 8 health standard for smog, not just in 9 Cleveland, but throughout the country. 10 Last year the standards were violated 11 5200 times in 40 states, and Ohio is 12 423 times. What this means for people 13 living in these areas is that they 14 could experience declining lung 15 function as a result of breathing air 16 in their, breathing the air in their 17 communities. For normal, healthy 18 adults it can mean not working or not 19 exercising outdoors and over time lung 20 tissue damage that can be irreversible. 21 For children, the elderly and those 22 with asthma, high smog days means 23 missing work or school, not playing 24 outdoors with friends, hospital 25 emergency room visits for asthma 49 1 attacks, increased susceptibility to 2 infections and also serious 3 exacerbation of preexisting heart and 4 respiratory disease. 5 Therefore, new standards 6 requiring clean cars and clean gasoline 7 are not just a good idea, but they are 8 absolutely essential for protection of 9 public health. Automobiles are the 10 single largest source of smog-forming 11 pollution creating nearly a third of 12 the nitrogen oxide that causes smog 13 formation. While today's cars are 14 cleaner than those of two decades ago, 15 Americans drive more miles per year 16 than ever before. In 1998, we drove in 17 excess of 2.2 trillion, that's trillion 18 miles, more than double the miles we 19 drove in 1970. In addition, Americans 20 are driving bigger and more polluting 21 vehicles than ever before with nearly 22 half of the new cars sold being what we 23 call light trucks, these of which can 24 pollute up to three times more than a 25 car. 50 1 Together the proposed Tier 2 2 standards and gasoline sulfur standards 3 comprise a strong integrated approach 4 to reducing pollution from automobiles. 5 There are many aspects of this program 6 which we applaud, and I'll describe 7 some of those below. I'll also 8 describe several important ways in 9 which we believe the Tier 2 program 10 should be strengthened to prevent 11 unnecessary delays or complication in 12 implementation and to avoid 13 exacerbating existing loopholes for 14 bigger and dirtier automobiles. 15 First, we applaud the overall 16 significant reductions in pollution 17 from the average automobile that will 18 be realized through the Tier 2 program. 19 The .07 grams per mile average standard 20 for nitrogen oxide based on 122000 mile 21 useful life is approximately 89 percent 22 cleaner than the Tier 1 standard of .06 23 per mile based on 100,000 mile useful 24 life. It's clear that while the 25 standard is aggressive, the technology 51 1 to meet this standard is available. 2 Additionally, this program will also 3 harmonize federal clean air standards 4 with those adopted in California. 5 Second, we agree with the U.S. 6 EPA that the popular sport utility 7 vehicles must be treated no differently 8 for pollution purposes than cars. 9 There is no longer an expectation that 10 SUVs will be work trucks. We all know 11 this. On the contrary, they are widely 12 acknowledged to be the station wagon of 13 the '90s rarely used for any purpose 14 more taxing than taking the family to 15 the grocery store or to soccer 16 practice. The justification for 17 allowing SUVs to pollute more is an 18 artifact and new standards should 19 simply reflect the new role SUVs play 20 in our society. 21 Third, we agree that a 22 nationwide sulfur standard should be 23 adopted to prevent poisoning of 24 sophisticated new pollution control 25 equipment. The automobile and the fuel 52 1 should be treated as a single system 2 and EPA has appropriately proposed that 3 new car standards should be accompanied 4 by clean gasoline. Moreover, we 5 strongly believe that nationwide, 6 rather than regional, gasoline 7 standards are critical to success of 8 the Tier 2 program. As Americans we 9 enjoy the ability to drive from state 10 to state, and as consumers we would 11 absolutely be outraged to have dirty 12 gasoline damage our cars. 13 More importantly, we had air 14 quality problems across the nation with 15 violation of the health standard for 16 smog in 40 states last year. Contrary 17 to recent testimony from the American 18 Petroleum Institute which suggested 19 that many regions do not have air 20 quality problems so that this standard 21 would provide no benefit to those 22 regions, we strongly believe that there 23 is no region that would not benefit 24 from clean fuels. 25 Oil industry representatives 53 1 have argued stridently for a slower 2 pace and schedule for clean gasoline 3 and increased flexibility for small 4 refiners. We believe U.S. EPA's 5 proposal strikes an appropriate balance 6 between achieving necessary pollution 7 reductions and allowing the industry 8 ample time and flexibility to meet 9 those standards. U.S. EPA allows the 10 industry to use an averaging system to 11 meet the standards and allows the 12 refiners to use credit from early 13 reductions to meet those standards. 14 U.S. EPA also allows less strident caps 15 in the first two years and allows small 16 refiners to meet less stringent 17 standards through the year 2007. More 18 flexibility than this is unwarranted 19 and it would result in an 20 unenforceable, ineffective program. In 21 fact, we believe that U.S. EPA's 22 proposed gasoline sulfur standards 23 allows too much time to pass between 24 significant air pollution benefits that 25 can be expected. 54 1 In 2001 auto makers will begin 2 nationwide marketing of low-emissions 3 vehicles under the national 4 low-emissions vehicle program. The 5 effectiveness of emissions control 6 technology used in these vehicles will 7 be compromised by the sulfur that will 8 remain at high levels until 2004 9 through 2006 under EPA's proposal. 10 Moreover, EPA's proposal will allow 11 gasoline containing sulfur at levels up 12 to 300 parts per million to be sold in 13 2004, the year that the Tier 2 14 standards take effect. Again, the 15 technological advances made in these 16 vehicles will be undermined by the use 17 of high-sulfur fuel in 2004 and 2005. 18 A better approach we believe will be 19 begin phasing in clean gasoline earlier 20 so that most, if not all, gasolines 21 sold in 2004 are clean. 22 Now, while a strong first step, 23 EPA's Tier 2 proposal should be 24 strengthened before it becomes final 25 later this year. And I'll highlight 55 1 three important changes that we believe 2 should be made to avoid complication, 3 delay and the continuation of 4 undesirable loopholes in automobile 5 pollution regulations. 6 First, EPA proposed allowing 7 SUVs weighing between 6,000 and 8,500 8 pounds an extra two years before the 9 Tier 2 car standards apply. There is 10 significant and growing numbers of 11 these larger SUVs on the market, 12 including the ambiguous Ford 13 Expedition, the Dodge Ram and the 14 Lincoln Navigator. EPA's proposal 15 gives these models until 2009, a full 16 decade from now before their exemption 17 to clean air standards expires. The 18 manufacturers of emissions control 19 equipment have already shown that a 20 heavy SUV weighing 6,400 pounds can be 21 designed to meet the Tier 2 standards 22 today. We believe that special 23 standards for larger SUVs should expire 24 immediately. 25 Secondly, U.S. EPA's proposal 56 1 does not address pollution from the 2 largest and dirtiest SUVs of all, those 3 over 8,500 pounds. The number of these 4 super SUVs is rapidly increasing like 5 the Ford Excursion entering the market 6 to compete with the Chevy Suburban. By 7 not including these models in the Tier 8 2 program, EPA is giving auto 9 manufacturers effectively an incentive 10 to aggressively develope even larger 11 SUVs. We believe that the Tier 2 12 standards should apply the same .O7 NOx 13 standards to all classes of passenger 14 vehicles including those over 8,500 15 pounds. 16 Third, U.S. EPA's proposal will 17 allow the proliferation of diesel 18 vehicles, the pollution from which 19 poses very real health threats. A 20 growing body of research shows that 21 diesel exhaust has particularly severe 22 health impacts. Smaller particles in 23 diesel pollution are associated with 24 greater risk of premature death. 25 Moreover, studies repeatedly show a 57 1 link between diesel pollution and 2 cancer causing the State of California 3 to list diesel pollution as a human 4 carcinogen. The highest bend in a 5 proposed averaging scheme is designed 6 specifically to allow for more 7 diesel-powered vehicles which will 8 continue to emit more toxic pollution 9 than gasoline car vehicles. The State 10 of California considered and 11 specifically rejected a similar 12 provision to protect its citizens from 13 the carcinogenic nature of the exhaust. 14 EPA should similarly remove the highest 15 bend in the averaging scheme. 16 In closing, I would like to say 17 that here in Cleveland we are really 18 tired of poor air quality. We are 19 tired of week-long ozone alerts. We 20 are tired of being told to not exercise 21 outdoors. We are tired of being asked 22 to stop mowing our lawns and stop using 23 our barbecues and it's time we stop 24 trifling, we stop gap measures and 25 Band-Aid solutions and started dealing 58 1 with real sources of air pollution in 2 our city, in our state and in our 3 country. These standards are an 4 absolutely critical step in doing so. 5 We deserve better air quality and EPA's 6 proposal will help get us what we 7 deserve, air we can live with. 8 Again, I would like to thank 9 the U.S. EPA for allowing me this 10 opportunity to comment on the proposed 11 Tier 2 gasoline and sulfur standards 12 and especially want to thank the 13 organizers again of this event for 14 their gracious flexibility in dealing 15 with citizen testimony. 16 MS. OGE: Thank you. 17 I would like to thank all of 18 you for taking the time this morning to 19 come and share your views on this very 20 important program. We will take both 21 your written and oral comments into 22 consideration as we are moving forward 23 to finalize the rule by the end of the 24 year. Thank you very much. 25 We are honored this morning to 59 1 have a number of local citizens that 2 have asked to testify, and as I call 3 your names please come forward. Anjali 4 Mather, Cheryl Ray, Miss Mary Hoffman, 5 Dawn Sunday, Chris Trepal, Mr. Adam 6 Zeller. 7 MS. OGE: What we will do is 8 break this group into two panels. 9 Could you please print your 10 names on the paper in front of you. 11 There is a seat there. 12 If you can fold it like that. 13 Great. 14 Miss Mather, we'll start with 15 you. Good morning. 16 MS. MATHER: Good morning. 17 Thank you for giving me this 18 opportunity to be here, and I'm 19 thankful to U.S. EPA for doing this 20 because I strongly believe that a civic 21 engagement is the promise of free life 22 and a division of democracy. 23 I'm Anjali Mather and I'm a 24 resident of Cleveland Heights, and I'm 25 really pleased to see these efforts, 60 1 EPA's efforts towards cleaner fuels and 2 vehicles in the proposed Tier 2 motor 3 vehicle emissions standards and 4 gasoline sulfur control requirements. 5 These efforts should be viewed not as a 6 measure to further an 7 environmentalist's compulsive dream, 8 but as a more visible need for a 9 healthy community. A significant 10 reduction in NOx emissions requiring 11 new cars and light truck to emit 80 12 percent less smog creating pollution 13 and reducing smog to healthy levels in 14 20 percent of the areas at risk can 15 only mean cleaner air for children when 16 25,000 children suffer from asthma in 17 Cuyahoga County. Nationally more than 18 5 million children are affected by 19 asthma today. The number of children 20 with asthma has doubled in the last 15 21 years. There has been a threefold 22 increase in the number of deaths in 23 children from asthma between 1977 and 24 1995. Over 10 million missed school 25 days from asthma are reported every 61 1 year. And more than 25 percent of the 2 nation's children live in areas that do 3 not meet national air quality 4 standards. 5 Also, according to a 1998 6 report of the American Academy of 7 Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, 8 children are more vulnerable because 9 their airways and narrower and they 10 also breathe more rapidly inhaling more 11 pollutant per pound of body weight than 12 adults. 13 American Academy of Pediatrics 14 has also pointed out that damage to the 15 respiratory tract occurs in children 16 upon exposure to ground level ozone and 17 repeated exposures may result in 18 persistent bronchial hyper 19 responsiveness. Increased chronic 20 cough, chest tightness, bronchitis, 21 hospital admissions for various 22 respiratory illnesses and decreased 23 lung function have been correlated with 24 ozone in epidemiological studies. The 25 symptoms were significantly higher in 62 1 children with asthma and wheezing. 2 Both experimental and epidemiological 3 data provide grounds for concern about 4 chronic lung damage from repeated 5 exposures to ozone which is the primary 6 constituent of smog. 7 Against this backdrop, while 8 EPA's efforts are a crucial first step 9 in the right direction, I urge EPA to 10 make bigger strides towards cleaner air 11 by setting shorter time lines and 12 allowing less phase-in time for both 13 cleaner cars and fuels. I do not want 14 to see my children reduced to saying I 15 breathe, therefore I am. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you. 18 Miss Hoffman, good morning. 19 MS. HOFFMAN: Good morning. My 20 name is Mary Hoffman. I'm here to 21 represent the Blackford Audubon Society 22 which is a chapter of the National 23 Audubon Society. We have 670 members 24 and we are located here in northeast 25 Ohio. Audubon is an organization that 63 1 is interested in birds and preserving 2 wildlife habitat, but our recognition 3 of what that means goes far beyond 4 taking and leading bird walks. What 5 affects wildlife and bird habitat will 6 also affect people. This was well 7 demonstrated years ago when canaries 8 were taken into mines to test the 9 purity. Our measurement techniques and 10 control abilities for air quality are 11 far more sophisticated now, but the 12 concept of relating wildlife and human 13 well-being still mains the same. 14 The U.S. EPA is to be commended 15 for proposing a level of pollution 16 controls on the fuels in cars that are 17 the subject of these hearings. They're 18 a good step and they are also long 19 overdue. 20 It's interesting one response 21 of the automotive industry was reported 22 in the Cleveland Plain Dealer yesterday 23 and that article quoted a Ford Motor 24 Company policy director saying that 25 they will meet the goals that EPA sets. 64 1 And it was interesting to hear Mr. 2 Babik today in representing the 3 Alliance proposing also a very positive 4 approach of the automotive industry to 5 these EPA goals. That attitude is 6 certainly a welcome change. So it's up 7 to us, the general public, to make sure 8 that these final goals remain good, 9 that the needed additions are made, and 10 you've already heard some suggestions 11 on those, that they be timely and that 12 they do not get watered down in the 13 process. 14 Of direct interest to Audubon 15 and our goals of protecting the 16 habitat, both of wildlife and people, 17 are the need to cut emissions that 18 contribute to global warming and to 19 reduce the overall demand and usage of 20 oil products, primarily automotive 21 fuel. We all recognize that global 22 warming is occurring and that it 23 affects our climate. That in turn can 24 affect much in our lives from crop 25 harvest, flooding, to wildlife and bird 65 1 habitat. Emissions from our uses of 2 automotive fuel is a significant 3 component of global warming, and we all 4 know we have the ability to reduce that 5 trend for more stringent application of 6 standards such as those proposed here. 7 We should go further than these 8 proposals, as you have also heard 9 suggested from Amy Simpson. They 10 include all SUVs, especially those very 11 large ones, in these standards. Global 12 warming does not recognize which SUV 13 contributed to pollution. 14 Increased fuel efficiency would 15 also reduce the overall pollution 16 level, plus it would slow down the 17 demand for imported and domestic oil. 18 The engineering efforts to reduce the 19 polluting emissions from cars should 20 include making cars more efficient as 21 well. We import over half of our oil 22 from foreign sources. The oil industry 23 has made consistent demands that we 24 explore and drill for oil in parts of 25 our country that are very susceptible 66 1 to damage from this industrialization. 2 We also have a response from 3 the American Petroleum Industry also 4 reported in that Plain Dealer article 5 yesterday that their response to these 6 EPA goals, and I quote, quote the 7 article, "unnecessarily costly and 8 impose costs on Americans who wouldn't 9 benefit," suggest that this is the same 10 old can't do attitude that has 11 prevented progress in the past. 12 And some of you remember 13 similar comments made several decades 14 ago. Some of you probably were not 15 here at that time, but I certainly 16 remember when fuel efficiency and 17 pollution controls were first being 18 proposed back in the late '60s or late 19 '70s. You can probably put a better 20 date on it than I can. The public 21 wanted then and we still want now to 22 have vehicles that get us to where we 23 need to go and not foul our air while 24 doing it. At that time there were dire 25 predictions that we would all be forced 67 1 into driving small, no frills shells of 2 cars. The industry did not seem to 3 trust themselves at that time to 4 engineer or design cars to meet these 5 essential and inevitable changes, but 6 the foreign competition did as you 7 recall. The Japanese entered the 8 market, supplied the public demand and 9 our American industry is playing 10 catch-up ever since then. The comments 11 reported by the Ford representative, 12 these EPA proposals on pollution are a 13 welcome change and we'll be watching to 14 see the results. 15 The protection of natural 16 resources in this country are a goal of 17 the National Audubon Society. We are 18 especially concerned with those places 19 threatened by oil exploration and 20 production such as the Arctic National 21 Wildlife Refuge. Wholes of the 22 American people say that protection of 23 these places, the wildlife habitat, the 24 wilderness values, the culture of the 25 native people who use them are in the 68 1 national interest. Improving the fuel 2 efficiency of all of our vehicles, 3 especially those increasingly popular 4 SUVs, will help protect these places. 5 It's estimated that a modest increase 6 of fuel economy standards of only 2 7 percent a year would yield oil savings 8 in fair greater amounts than that 9 projected available from the refuge. 10 So I would suggest that the automotive 11 industry and oil industry would do well 12 to realize that they can design and 13 produce the most efficient and cleanest 14 cars in the world and that the buying 15 public would respond to that. 16 So I would thank the U.S. EPA 17 for their ability to put on this 18 hearing. I know it's been a tremendous 19 job in doing so and we appreciate the 20 opportunity. 21 MS. OGE: Thank you. 22 Miss Ray, good morning. 23 MS. RAY: Good morning. My 24 name is Cheryl Ray. As a citizen I 25 really appreciate this opportunity to 69 1 have input at this hearing on this very 2 important issue. 3 I wish to voice my support for 4 cleaner air and for the U.S. EPA 5 decision to cut auto pollution. As a 6 parent, I am very concerned about the 7 health impacts of air pollution on my 8 children. As a minivan owner I was 9 both surprised and disappointed to find 10 out that my family minivan can pollute 11 two to three more times than my 12 passenger car. I hope that in the 13 future there will be cleaner options 14 when it's time to shop for our next 15 family car so that we can stop this 16 excess and extra air pollution. 17 This proposal is a big step in 18 the right direction, but there are 19 three things that need to be improved 20 before the rule becomes final. First 21 of all, all passenger vehicles, 22 including minivans and SUVs, need to 23 meet the same standards at the same 24 time. Larger SUVs should not be given 25 extra time to be clean. 70 1 Secondly, there should be no 2 special breaks for dirty diesel 3 vehicles. 4 And, finally, the EPA should do 5 more to help get advanced technology 6 vehicles on the road. Wouldn't it be 7 great if some day we could buy that 8 type of vehicle right here in 9 Cleveland. We need the strongest 10 regulations possible for, to control 11 auto pollution. 12 Thank you again for your 13 leadership on this issue. 14 MS. OGE: Thank you. 15 Miss Sunday, good morning. 16 MS. SUNDAY: Good morning. My 17 name is Dawn Sunday and I'm a resident 18 of Bedford, Ohio and I thank you for 19 this opportunity today. 20 As a citizen I am very pleased 21 that the EPA is making efforts to bring 22 about a cleaner and healthier 23 environment through Tier 2. Although 24 Tier 2 is a step towards protecting 25 people's health and improving all of 71 1 our quality of life, I have doubts that 2 the regulations set in Tier 2 are 3 sufficient. 4 Since there is a great need to 5 improve the quality of the air; 117 6 million people do not have access to 7 clean air. We can't buy clean air as 8 we can go out and buy water. So I'm 9 here today to ask the EPA to set those 10 standards that can help me, my family 11 and all of us to have clean air. We 12 don't have an option to the air that we 13 breath. 5,500,000 children daily 14 struggle with asthma, and there are 15 over 150,000 hospitalizations yearly, 16 and this is all due to dirty air. Why 17 should we settle for standards that do 18 not bring about the best improvements 19 possible? 20 I want to thank the EPA for 21 their efforts, but I also want to urge 22 the EPA to set the standards for all 23 passenger vehicles. SUVs and light 24 trucks need to have the same emissions 25 standards as cars. Tier 2 also needs 72 1 to set shorter phase-in allowances for 2 all vehicles. 3 Since the means and technology 4 to attain much cleaner air exists, I 5 ask the EPA to set standards that bring 6 about the highest quality attainable. 7 Thanks. 8 MS. OGE: Thank you. 9 I believe Mr., is it Mr. Chris 10 Trepal at the end, or Miss. Good 11 morning. 12 MS. TREPAL: Hi. My name is 13 Chris Trepal, and thank you very much 14 for the opportunity to testify. 15 I believe air pollution is a 16 real problem here in northeast Ohio. 17 Dirty air has a huge price tag in 18 health care costs and our quality of 19 life. As was mentioned earlier, last 20 week we had an unprecedented week long 21 of ozone action days. Several of the 22 monitors in our community are already 23 recording average one-hour ozone 24 concentrations of over 100 parts per 25 billion. Warnings were given to stay 73 1 indoors to sensitive populations like 2 our asthmatics, people with respiratory 3 concerns, children and adults who are 4 active outdoors, the elderly and people 5 who are sensitive to ozone. 6 Do we really want to raise our 7 children to seek shelter and protection 8 indoors and to reduce physical 9 activities on summer days, their 10 vacation days? Should we have to train 11 our families to ask the question if the 12 air is safe to breathe and to question 13 even if they should be going outside at 14 all? Is this a good way to enter the 15 new millennium? Scientists have found 16 that about one out of every three 17 people in the U.S. is at higher risk of 18 experiencing ozone-related health 19 effects. A recent edition of the 20 American Journal of Respiratory and 21 Critical Care Medicine cited a study 22 that says long-term exposure air 23 pollution, even at very low levels, is 24 associated with higher prevalences of 25 respiratory symptoms, even something as 74 1 simple as breathlessness when you are 2 outside talking a walk in the summer. 3 Fortunately, there is a 4 solution, and I'm really happy to be 5 here today to support the proposed plan 6 to clean up fuels and vehicles, 7 especially vehicles like sport utility 8 vehicles. I also own a minivan like 9 one of the other folks here today and 10 it distresses me to have to drive it. 11 Vehicles like minivans and SUVs are 12 being used as passenger vehicles and 13 they must do their part along with 14 other automobiles to reduce air 15 pollution. The Tier 2 proposal must 16 adopt the strongest possible 17 regulations for our autos. 18 However, I feel the time line 19 should be expedited. Waiting ten years 20 to clean up SUVs and other passenger 21 vehicles is way too along. All 22 vehicles should be required to meet the 23 standards at the same time. It really 24 makes no sense to allow the heaviest 25 vehicles to receive any kind of special 75 1 treatment. 2 Diesel-powered vehicles should 3 not be allowed to pollute more than 4 their counterparts who use gasoline. 5 All vehicles, regardless of fuel 6 preference, should be required to 7 contribute to clean air. If diesel 8 vehicles are being given special 9 treatment, then, of course, we are 10 going to see more diesel vehicles on 11 the road creating more particulate air 12 pollution and smog-forming nitrogen 13 oxide. 14 Finally, the proposed sulfur 15 reductions in gasoline should be 16 implemented by all refiners as soon as 17 possible. Sulfur actually impedes the 18 effectiveness of our catalytic 19 converters, thereby limiting the very 20 devices that are supposed to reduce 21 tailpipe pollution. And the small 22 increase that is predicted is well 23 worth the clean air benefits. 24 In summary, I applaud the 25 proposal to cut pollution and really to 76 1 safe lives and people's quality of 2 life. People who want to do the right 3 thing by purchasing cleaner vehicles 4 and fuels need to have that choice now. 5 Just like the promotion of 6 energy-efficient appliances, the public 7 needs to know how are vehicles and our 8 fuel choices protect and affect our 9 environment. Our new automobiles and 10 vehicles can and must do our part to 11 keep our kids healthy. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. OGE: I want to thank all 14 of you on behalf of all my colleagues 15 here at EPA and specifically thanks to 16 you for taking time from your schedule 17 and your daily activities to come and 18 share your views with us. Thank you 19 very much. 20 MS. MARTIN: We have another 21 panel. I'll ask them to come up. I'll 22 read the next names and if the 23 following people will come up. I think 24 we can bring another chair behind the 25 table as well. Adam Zeller, Ken Mavek, 77 1 Linda Robinson, Laurel Hopwood, Angie 2 Farleigh, Jane Miller and Pam Mason. 3 If there is not room enough at the 4 table, we'll just try to rotate people 5 in. But if those of you can grab a 6 seat and fill out your name on one of 7 the cards and place it in front of you, 8 that would be terrific. 9 Mr. Zeller, would you please 10 begin. 11 MR. ZELLER: My name is Adam 12 Zeller. I'm from Southington, Ohio. 13 And before I begin, I would like to 14 thank the EPA for the opportunity to 15 come down here and speak. 16 The automobile and oil 17 industries would like us to believe 18 that since they are composed of private 19 businesses they don't need government 20 regulations. They would like us to 21 think that as private corporations that 22 the government should not meddle with 23 their production process. When the 24 government announces new standards for 25 automobiles such as cleaner emissions 78 1 or gas, industry complains about 2 reduced profits, unnecessary expense 3 and reduced competitiveness. 4 But what the industry needs to 5 realize is that it owes these standards 6 to the public. The government has paid 7 over 83 billion dollars to construct 8 over 42,500 miles of interstate 9 highways. It will spend millions this 10 year paving roads, widening lanes and 11 constructing interchanges. Government 12 has subsidized the bulldozing of 13 neighborhoods in both Detroit and 14 Toledo for the construction of Dymler 15 Chrysler and General Motors facilities. 16 Such is the government's commitment to 17 these industries that it sponsored a 18 war to protect them. 19 Without such subsidies, the 20 automobile and oil industry as we know 21 it would not exist. We could have 22 subsidized rail or bus transportation, 23 but instead we chose automobiles. 24 Partially because of this General 25 Motors has posted a 2.1 billion dollar 79 1 profits for this year's first quarter. 2 Ford has posted 1.8 billion dollars. 3 Both companies say that they are 4 committed to protecting the 5 environment. GM has said, "We are 6 fully dedicated to protecting human 7 health, natural resources, and the 8 global environment; reaching beyond 9 compliance with the law to create and 10 implement sound environmental 11 practices." 12 Obviously the relationship 13 between industry, the public and 14 government is a symbiotic one. 15 Industry provides the products, the 16 public purchases it, and the government 17 ensures that it's safe. Any policy 18 which harms any of these groups hurts 19 the other two. Therefore, it is 20 crucial that any new relations benefit 21 not only the industry, but the public 22 as well. The proposed Tier 2 23 regulations will benefit the public. 24 Emissions from mobile sources account 25 for 46 percent of the airborne 80 1 carcinogens in Cuyahoga County. Child 2 asthma rates often associated with 3 airborne pollution has increased 75 4 percent since the early '80s. 5 Ground-level ozone according to the EPA 6 can be the cause of up to 25 percent of 7 emergency room visits during the 8 summer. Certainly then our current air 9 standards are hurting the public and 10 need to be changed as the proposed Tier 11 2 standards say. It is not in the 12 industry's interest to have their 13 customers spending money on hospital 14 visits and asthma inhalers. Of course, 15 this is not in the public's or 16 government's interest either. These 17 standards will benefit everyone, even 18 if the industry doesn't acknowledge 19 that. That needs to be the bottom 20 line. That is what EPA needs to 21 consider. We have supported the 22 automobile and oil industries for 23 decades and now it is time that they 24 support us. The government and the 25 public have allowed industry to make 81 1 billions of dollars over the years. 2 Now we deserve something back. 3 Thank you very much. 4 MS. MARTIN: Thank you. 5 Miss Robinson. 6 MS. ROBINSON: I'm Dr. Linda 7 Robinson. I live in South Euclid, 8 which is a near suburb of the City of 9 Cleveland. I'm a professional 10 sociologist. I am here, however, as an 11 individual. And I want to make some 12 three really simple points and they 13 have to do with people. I have a 14 78-year-old aunt with emphysema who 15 couldn't leave her apartment any day 16 last week. This included rescheduling 17 a dentist appointment which cost other 18 people time and money, and the idea 19 that somebody I know and love is 20 imprisoned in an apartment frequently 21 because of ozone warnings in this 22 county is becoming intolerable. 23 And there is another point. 24 I'm a perfectly healthy person whose 25 only adult problems have been sinus 82 1 infections and arthritis as I age, and 2 for the first time in my life last week 3 having canvassed for ten years door to 4 door for Ohio Citizen Action, Friday 5 came around and I couldn't canvass 6 because I couldn't lift my legs anymore 7 having walked around all week under 8 those ozone warnings in Pepper Pike, 9 which is a far suburb of Cleveland with 10 lots of trees and lots of grass and 11 theoretically the air is as filtered 12 there as it is going to be. And it hit 13 me that it wasn't my arthritis and it 14 wasn't tiredness at the end of the 15 week. It was the fact that the 16 warnings about the ozone level were 17 true. They had aggravated my sinus 18 condition to the point where I didn't 19 have the energy to do my job. And if 20 that has happened to me at age 61 leads 21 me to wonder if I'm going to live long 22 enough to see the air substantially 23 cleaner than it is now. 24 And I've heard everybody 25 thanking you for taking the trouble to 83 1 come here and proposing tougher 2 standards, but as a citizen of this 3 country for nearly 62 years I've got to 4 tell you I don't think the standards 5 are high enough. And if we were to run 6 a cost-benefit analysis between what 7 industry would have to spend to clean 8 up their cars and the fuels we run on 9 and what it costs my community in 10 health care costs for all those 11 asthmatic children you heard about, and 12 what it costs Medicare to take care of 13 my aunt's emphysema and all those other 14 things like the things like the day I 15 couldn't work, the cost of these 16 things, I suspect we would discover, at 17 least in Cuyahoga County, that the 18 greater costs come from the people who 19 can't work, the people who are sick and 20 need medical care funded by the public 21 and on my property taxes, because if 22 you can't afford care for emphysema or 23 you can't afford care for asthma or you 24 can't afford care for cancer, you are 25 going to be at Metropolitan General 84 1 Hospital, and our property taxes pay 2 for that public care and the taxes that 3 I pay on my salary check go to 4 Medicare. It's costing me a lot of 5 money. I am perfectly willing to buy a 6 more expensive car with better 7 pollution controls if I can or stop 8 driving rather than see this kind of 9 situation continue. 10 And my third point is that 11 going door to door for ten years for 12 Citizen Action, talking to 30 to 50 13 people a week or more, I can tell you 14 one thing, and they call this an 15 informal sample of northeastern Ohio 16 because I have canvassed from Vermilion 17 to Conneaut, people at the doors like 18 the idea of pollution controls. People 19 at the doors are angry because they 20 have to drive behind diesel trucks 21 spouting filth at them all over the 22 state while living in this county they 23 pay some of the highest costs in the 24 state to maintain their own vehicles, 25 and then they discover that the 85 1 families that have the SUVs aren't 2 paying the same prices. So they say to 3 me, well, you know, if I lived in 4 Columbus I wouldn't have to pay this 5 much for pollution control. Why is 6 there this inequity? Why do I have to 7 drive behind filthy diesel trucks? Why 8 doesn't everybody in every county have 9 to pay what I pay for pollution 10 control? We all drive from county to 11 county. We all drive all over Ohio. 12 And so if I have one message 13 for you, it is I'm not allowing -- 14 people want equity. People want 15 controls. People want cleaner air, 16 young parents with children, older 17 people that are facing diseases like 18 emphysema. 19 I do appreciate the chance of 20 coming here to talk with you today. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very 23 much. Miss Hopwood is it? Hopwood. 24 MS. HOPWOOD: My name is Laurel 25 Hopwood. I serve as the chair of the 86 1 human health and environment committee 2 of the northeast Ohio Sierra Club, and 3 I'm also a registered nurse and a 4 mother. Thank you for your diligence 5 in promoting clean air and for 6 listening to our comments. 7 The auto and oil industry will 8 tell you the cars are cleaner than they 9 were 30 years ago, and I won't dispute 10 that fact, but what they probably won't 11 tell you is the following: That more 12 people are driving and that people are 13 driving more miles. The total number 14 of miles driven doubled over the last 15 30 years and the total mileage is 16 expected to increase another 25 percent 17 over the next ten years. 18 Secondly, one out of every two 19 passenger vehicles sold, sports utility 20 vehicles are one of them. SUVs emit on 21 an average of four times the amount of 22 pollution than the average car. We say 23 air standards need to catch up with the 24 market trend. 25 The auto industry wants to 87 1 delay implementation of any new 2 standards. The truth is they have the 3 technology to meet the new standards. 4 I will agree that it will come with a 5 cost. The cost to reduce emissions 6 will be about $200 a vehicle, which is 7 a small fraction considering that their 8 profit margin for SUVs is approximately 9 $10,000. 10 Likewise, the oil industry is 11 trying to kill cleaner gasoline 12 proposals. Likewise, it will come at a 13 cost. The cost comes to about 2 cents 14 a gallon to reduce sulfur and to meet 15 the EPA proposal, which comes to about 16 $10 a year for the average driver. 17 It's not unreasonable for a driver to 18 pay $10 to enable all of us to breathe 19 healthier air. 20 By the year 2010 more than 93 21 million people will live in areas that 22 violate health standards for urban smog 23 and 55 million people will suffer from 24 high levels of soot. We here in 25 Cuyahoga County, which is amongst the 88 1 dirtiest counties in the nation for 2 hazardous chemical emissions into the 3 air which include sulfur dioxide and 4 nitrogen dioxide, were among the 5 twelfth top counties in the nation for 6 having the highest incidents of cancer 7 including lung cancer. 8 As a health care professional 9 I've researched asthma studies and I'll 10 share with you the following. The 11 incidents of asthma is rising 12 significantly, especially in children, 13 and mortality has doubled over the last 14 two decades. Although it is not known 15 with certainty what causes asthma, we 16 do know that many air pollutants and 17 particles aggravate asthma symptoms. 18 And I think we all want our kids to 19 stay in school and not miss days from 20 school because we want them to learn 21 and be productive citizens when they 22 are adults. 23 We trust you, the EPA, will 24 require light trucks and diesels to 25 meet the same tough standards being 89 1 proposed for gasoline automobiles and 2 meet them sooner than the year 2009. 3 Thank you. 4 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very 5 much. 6 Now we have Miss Jane Miller 7 with a special guest speaker as I 8 understand. You'll have to introduce 9 the speaker for us this morning. 10 MS. MILLER: This is McKayla. 11 She's my one-year-old daughter. 12 I'm here today to voice my 13 support for cleaner air and the EPA's 14 decision to cut auto pollution. As a 15 parent, I'm very concerned about the 16 health impacts that air pollution has 17 on my children. There is a strong 18 family trait towards asthma in my 19 family and I fear that instead of 20 reducing asthma causing pollution, we 21 are making more of it each year. I see 22 urban sprawl spreading throughout the 23 region. I know from the papers that 24 the number of miles traveled keeps 25 increasing. 90 1 I've also read that even if we 2 adopt Tier 2 and move aggressively 3 against polluting coal burning power 4 plants, that we are only buying about 5 10 years of ozone reduction before 6 increasing auto emissions overwhelm 7 these changes. Without these changes 8 we are not even going to have the short 9 reprieve. 10 The proposal is a big step in 11 the right direction, but there are 12 three things that should improved 13 before the rule becomes final. First 14 of all, all passenger vehicles, 15 including minivans and SUVs, should 16 meet the same standards at the same 17 time. Larger SUVs should not be given 18 extra time to clean up. 19 Second, there also should be no 20 special breaks for dirty diesel 21 vehicles. 22 Finally, the EPA should do more 23 to get advanced-technology vehicles on 24 the road. Right now we need the 25 strongest possible regulations to 91 1 control auto pollution. 2 Thank you very much. 3 MS. MARTIN: Miss Farleigh. 4 MS. FARLEIGH: Good morning. 5 My name is Angie Farleigh and I'm the 6 clean air advocate for the U.S. PIRG 7 and I somehow got scheduled onto the 8 local citizens panel. Although I'm not 9 a local citizen, I'd like to take just 10 a few moments to share a personal story 11 about why I think these standards are 12 important. 13 I moved to D.C. a year ago to 14 work at our national office, but until 15 then I lived and grew up in Michigan. 16 Growing up in a rural town in the 17 midwest I always thought I was safe 18 from the health dangers associated with 19 air pollution. However, as the air 20 pollution problem grew, in the country 21 and in Michigan, I discovered that air 22 pollution is not just a problem that 23 hinders our larger cities. 24 I started having health 25 problems a few years ago and the last 92 1 four years I've come down with 2 asthmatic bronchitis four separate 3 times. I was a relatively healthy 4 person. I do not suffer from asthma. 5 So I asked the doctor why I had such a 6 drastic increase in respiratory 7 illness. He said that he had seen a 8 lot more people in recent years with 9 problems just like mine and he cited 10 decreases in air quality as one of the 11 main causes. It was then that I 12 realized that air pollution is causing 13 a public health crisis nationwide. 14 Over the past two weeks the 15 1999 smog season has descended upon 16 most of the country. Yesterday I 17 learned that Michigan is fourth in the 18 nation with 67 violations of the health 19 standard for smog so far. Already this 20 summer millions of Americans have been 21 exposed to levels of air pollution that 22 are unsafe to breathe for people with 23 asthma or people like me who don't even 24 have asthma. 25 Therefore, new standards 93 1 requiring clean cars and clean gasoline 2 are not just a good idea, they are 3 absolutely essential to the protection 4 of public health. Automobiles are the 5 single largest source of smog-forming 6 pollution creating nearly a third of 7 the nitrogen oxide that forms smog. 8 U.S. PIRG believes that the 9 Tier 2 standards and gasoline sulfur 10 standards comprise a strong, integrated 11 approach to reducing pollution from 12 automobiles. 13 We applaud the overall 14 significant reductions in pollution 15 from the average automobile that will 16 be realized through the Tier 2 program. 17 We agree that the popular sport utility 18 vehicles should be treated no 19 differently for pollution purposes than 20 cars and we agree that a nationwide, 21 not regional, sulfur standard should be 22 adopted. However, we believe that the 23 EPA's proposed gasoline sulfur 24 standards, first of all, allow too much 25 time to pass before significant air 94 1 pollution benefits can be expected. 2 Clean gas should be phased in at the 3 same time that the cleaner cars will be 4 phased in. 5 And for the Tier 2 proposal, 6 there are a few important changes that 7 should be made before it becomes final 8 later this year. First of all, largest 9 SUVs, those 6,000 to 8,500 pounds, 10 should not be given extra time to clean 11 up their act. 12 Secondly, the proposal does not 13 address pollution from the largest and 14 dirtiest SUVs, those over 8,500 pounds, 15 like the new Ford Excursion. The Tier 16 2 standard should apply the same .07 17 NOx standards to all passenger vehicles 18 including those over 8,500 pounds. 19 And, finally, the highest BIN 20 in the proposed averaging scheme will 21 allow more diesel vehicles on the road. 22 The State of California considered and 23 specifically rejected a similar 24 provision to protect its citizens from 25 the carcinogenic nature of this diesel 95 1 exhaust and the EPA should similarly 2 remove the highest BIN in the averaging 3 scheme. 4 Again thank you for the time to 5 speak. 6 MS. OGE: Thank you. 7 I'd like to thank all of you 8 for taking time. 9 And, Miss Farleigh, you are a 10 citizen and you are a citizen for 11 Michigan and you are more than welcome 12 to testify here with us today. 13 Your comments are appreciated 14 and we will fully consider them as we 15 are moving forward to finalize this 16 important program by the end of the 17 year. 18 And, Miss Miller, thank you for 19 bringing the youngest I believe to 20 participate in this public hearing 21 today. 22 I would like to call the next 23 individuals to please come forward. 24 Mr. Ken Mavek, Mr. Michael Gutierez and 25 Miss Pam Mason. Please print your 96 1 names on the cards in front of you. 2 Do we have any other individual 3 that was scheduled to testify at this 4 time frame? If we do, please come 5 forward if I haven't called your name. 6 MS. OGE: Miss Mason, good 7 morning. 8 MS. MASON: Thank you. My name 9 is Pam Mason. I live in Cleveland 10 Heights, Ohio and I would like to thank 11 you for providing the people of Ohio 12 with the opportunity, I'd like you to 13 thank you for providing the people of 14 Ohio with the opportunity to 15 participate in the regulatory process. 16 I admire your efforts to make 17 our air safe to breathe by cutting 18 pollution. More people than ever 19 before are vulnerable to the severe 20 health impacts of air pollution. We 21 need the strongest possible regulations 22 controlling air pollution from all 23 major sources. 24 Right now we have a serious air 25 pollution problem around the country. 97 1 There are currently 117 million people 2 who live in areas where the air is 3 unsafe to breathe due to smog 4 pollution. Children, the elderly and 5 those with respiratory illness are most 6 at risk. Asthma rates in children have 7 increased 75 percent since 1980. 8 Automobiles are the largest 9 non-industrial source of smog-forming 10 nitrogen oxide. 11 The proposal is a big step in 12 the right direction, but there are two 13 things that should be improved before 14 the rule becomes final. First, there 15 should be no special treatment for 16 heavier vehicles. All passenger 17 vehicles, including minivans and sport 18 utility vehicles, should meet the same 19 standards at the same time. Larger 20 SUVs should not be given extra time to 21 clean up. Right now the proposal 22 includes a separate schedule for these 23 heavier vehicles. These vehicles will 24 have lower protection standards than 25 any other vehicle class. The industry 98 1 has always responded with new 2 technologies and products when the 3 standards are firm and the deadlines 4 are reasonable. The ten-year phase-in 5 schedule for heavier vehicles far 6 exceeds any phase-in period for 7 passenger vehicles ever proposed. This 8 schedule asks the victims of air 9 pollution once again to wait last in 10 line for relief. If anything, the time 11 line should be shortened. 12 I would also like to point out 13 that as someone who drives an exempted 14 vehicle, a Honda minivan, I resent that 15 I am unable to get a clean car. I 16 drive a large vehicle because I often 17 have to transfer ill, elderly parents 18 and the size is important in moving 19 them in some comfort. I was unable to 20 find a sufficiently large vehicle that 21 was also fairly clean. I find the 22 overall cost of an additional $250 to 23 the cost of the vehicle to be a trivial 24 addition when traded off with the piece 25 of mind knowing I'm contributing less 99 1 to our pollution problems. 2 I would also like to point out 3 that this proposal does nothing to 4 clean up supersized SUVs such as the 5 Ford Excursion. This could lead to 6 increased sale and production of these 7 overgrown passenger cars. Heavy-duty 8 trucks should be required to clean up 9 their emissions as well. 10 Second, the sulfur levels in 11 gasoline should be lowered to 30 parts 12 per million. The current proposal will 13 reduce the sulfur content in gasoline 14 but allow an extended timetable for 15 small refiners. Low-sulfur gasoline 16 needs to be adopted nationally at the 17 same time as new emissions standards. 18 By allowing some refiners to continue 19 to produce dirty gasoline, there will 20 be negative impacts on the pollution 21 control technologies of newer, cleaner 22 cars. I am willing to pay the extra 1 23 to 2 cents per gallon that it will take 24 to clean up sulfur levels if it means 25 breathing cleaner air. 100 1 The Tier 2 proposal is a strong 2 start, however, since this decision 3 will affect our air quality for decades 4 to come, we cannot afford to risk the 5 public health by adopting a proposal 6 that does not address the 7 above-mentioned areas of concern. We 8 need the strongest as possible 9 regulations to control auto pollution. 10 Thank you again for your 11 leadership on this issue. 12 MS. OGE: Thank you. 13 Mr., is it Gutierez? 14 MR. GUTIEREZ: Very good try. 15 Very nice. 16 MS. OGE: Good morning. 17 MR. GUTIEREZ: Good morning. 18 How are you? I'm very exited to be 19 sitting in front of you guys. It's 20 always nice to know who is running the 21 show. 22 I'm here this morning to 23 applaud you for your proposed standards 24 and to urge you to put forth your idea 25 into action. Every day I work outside, 101 1 so your standards play an important 2 part in my life, as they do with 3 everyone else in this room and 4 yourselves as well. 5 Being a native southern 6 Californian, I know firsthand about 7 smog pollution and air pollution. I'm 8 sure you guys would understand if 9 you've traveled a southern state. I 10 developed acute bronchitis as a child 11 along with many other lung disorders. 12 I moved to Ohio just a couple years ago 13 and actually everything increased. My 14 sinuses got worse. My lungs got worse. 15 And I think that's a mix of not only 16 mixing smog from southern California 17 and smog from Ohio, but now adding some 18 of the country's most toxic industrial 19 pollution here as well. 20 I enjoy life. I enjoy 21 breathing. I'm sure you guys do as 22 well. And lately every day I see one 23 more SUV on the road and I feel a 24 shortness of breath as they drive by. 25 The other day I was told that 102 1 in Ohio we were under an ozone action 2 day. I thought that sounds like some 3 kind of holiday. Maybe Hallmark should 4 make a card. I don't know. In 5 California we like to call them smog 6 alerts. Kind of to the point exactly 7 what they are. A smog alert meant that 8 kids couldn't play outside. We 9 couldn't go anywhere. Elderly couldn't 10 leave their homes. You know, that's 11 pretty bogus. Our ozone action days 12 sounds to me like one more Ohio 13 bureaucratic blanket. Kind of pussy 14 footing is how my grandfather used to 15 call it, touching around the situation 16 but not really telling what's going 17 down. 18 Realizing that you are going to 19 have a tough opposition from oil 20 industry on this one, I just ask you 21 guys over there to please look at your 22 children when you are doing this. Look 23 in your children's eyes and think of 24 their children. I'm sure you've heard 25 that before. I know that the reason 103 1 you guys have taken your positions with 2 the EPA is because you care about the 3 environment, at least that's what I 4 hope. I ask you to not think about 5 your pockets. I ask you to not think 6 about dollar bills. And I'm 7 encouraging you to not represent just 8 the people in this room, but to please 9 represent yourselves on this one. 10 Thank you. 11 MS. OGE: Thank you. 12 Thanks both of you for coming 13 and sharing your views with us. We 14 will consider them fully as we are 15 moving forward to finalize this 16 program. Thank you very much. 17 I would like to ask the next 18 group of panelists to please come 19 forward. Cory Chadwick, Miss Laura 20 Keptner, Mr. Bob Morris, Mr. Jed 21 Mandel, Mr. Paul Brochu. Please print 22 your names on the cards in front of 23 you. 24 Mr. Chadwick, good morning. 25 We'll start with you. 104 1 MR. CHADWICK: Good morning. 2 My name is Cory Chadwick and I'm 3 speaking on behalf of the Ohio Local 4 Air Pollution Control Officials 5 Association, more commonly known as 6 OLAPCOA. Our organization is comprised 7 of the nine local air agencies serving 8 the State of Ohio. 9 First I would like to recognize 10 EPA for leading the way toward 11 improving the nation's air quality, 12 specifically your issuance of the Tier 13 2 and sulfur in gasoline proposals is 14 to be commended. We are especially 15 pleased that your proposals have 16 included key recommendations made by 17 our national air organizations 18 STAPPA/ALAPCO. 19 As the officials whose 20 primarily responsibility is achieving 21 and maintaining clean, healthful air in 22 the State of Ohio, we believe that the 23 potential air quality benefits that 24 will result from cutting emissions from 25 light-duty vehicles and light-duty 105 1 trucks and reducing sulfur in gasoline 2 and diesel are paramount to achieving 3 the air quality our citizens deserve. 4 These proposed programs will allow us 5 as air quality professionals to attain 6 cleaner air for the citizens of Ohio. 7 While much of the debate 8 surrounding air quality in the State of 9 Ohio is centered around ozone, NOx and 10 the new particular matter 2.5 microns 11 or smaller, it is imperative that we do 12 not overlook the other important air 13 quality benefits from cleaner vehicles 14 and fuels. Through the implementation 15 of cleaner vehicles and fuels, we will 16 see a decrease in particulate and 17 carbon monoxide emissions, improved 18 visibility, a reduction of greenhouses 19 gases, acid rain problems and toxic air 20 pollution. 21 Regarding the applicability of 22 the Tier 2 standards to light-duty 23 trucks over 8,500 pounds, the new 24 supersized SUVs, pickup trucks and 25 full-size vans, we strongly urge EPA to 106 1 include these as well as all vehicles 2 up to 10,000 gross vehicle weight which 3 are predominantly used for personal 4 transportation. 5 Finally, OLAPCOA also supports 6 the recommendations made by 7 STAPPA/ALAPCO on reducing sulfur in 8 diesel fuel. Implementation of these 9 recommendations will enable the use of 10 advanced catalyst technologies that 11 will yield enormous reductions in 12 emissions. In fact, once EPA's 13 forthcoming on road heavy-duty diesel 14 standards are fully effective, NOx and 15 particulate matter emissions could be 16 reduced by approximately 80 percent. 17 This is equivalent to taking four out 18 of five heavy-duty diesels off the 19 road. 20 In conclusion, OLAPCOA commends 21 US EPA for leading the charge to clean 22 up the air for the citizens of our 23 great nation. 24 Thank you. 25 MS. OGE: Thank you. 107 1 Miss Keptner, good morning. 2 MS. KEPTNER: Good morning. 3 MS. OGE: Mr. Chadwick, could 4 you please stay with us until the 5 panel -- 6 MR. CHADWICK: I'm sorry, but I 7 need to leave as soon as possible to 8 return to Cincinnati. 9 MS. OGE: Okay. Thank you. 10 MS. KEPTNER: I'd like to thank 11 you for this opportunity to speak today 12 on behalf of my organization, the 13 American Lung Association of northern 14 Ohio and all of its constituents. My 15 name is Laura Keptner. 16 We applaud the United States 17 Environmental Protection Agency for 18 their proposed Tier 2 and low-sulfur 19 gasoline standards. In addition to 20 reenforcing the new national ambient 21 air quality standards, these 22 regulations seek to control the source 23 of the problem, the most sensible and 24 effective means for eliminating harmful 25 pollutants from the air. 108 1 According to the Northeast Ohio 2 Areawide Coordinating Agency, as of May 3 30th, 1999 northeastern Ohio has 4 already experienced in whole or in part 5 six days of unhealthy air pollution 6 levels for sensitive individuals by the 7 U.S. EPA's new standards. What does 8 this mean to the American Lung 9 Association? We know that everyone is 10 affected to some degree by the harmful 11 effects of air pollution. Polluted air 12 can even make healthy people cough and 13 wheeze. It is on these days when air 14 pollution levels are high that we are 15 most concerned about the more than 16 223,000 people in Cuyahoga, Lake, 17 Medina and Geauga Counties who 18 currently suffer from lung disease. 19 These diseases can include anything 20 from asthma, emphysema, chronic 21 bronchitis, lung cancer and those just 22 more sensitive to air pollutants. It 23 is also on these days that we are more 24 concerned about the thousands of 25 children and the elderly living in our 109 1 communities who are most susceptible to 2 the harmful effects of air pollution. 3 In these populations who are already 4 sick or especially sensitive, air 5 pollution may cause discomfort, limit 6 activities, increase the use of 7 medications, cause more frequent visits 8 to doctors and hospitals and even 9 shorten life. 10 We know that a growing body of 11 scientific studies suggest that air 12 pollution has long-term effects on the 13 lungs' ability to function and on the 14 development of lung disease. We also 15 know that controlling the source of air 16 pollution is the best way to eliminate 17 the onset of lung disease and to 18 promote lung health. And we also know 19 that automobiles, including cars, 20 trucks and sport utility vehicles, 21 account for as much as 40 percent of 22 our country's air pollution problem, 23 significantly contributing to harmful 24 air pollution levels. 25 Although cleaner than 20 years 110 1 ago, the gains we have made in reducing 2 passenger vehicle pollution in the past 3 have become overwhelmed by a growing 4 population, growing vehicle use and 5 growing sales of high polluting SUVs, 6 minivans and pickup trucks. Americans 7 are now driving approximately two and a 8 half trillion miles per year, more than 9 doubling from the 1970s. At the same 10 time the growing number of cars on the 11 road include a growing number of the 12 higher polluting SUVs and pickup 13 trucks, the most harmful. 14 Cleaner cars and cleaner gas 15 are essential to adequately protect the 16 public's health. These standards are 17 needed and achievable. However, we 18 must ensure the strongest regulations 19 possible, and as the proposal stands 20 now the suggested regulations are not 21 as strong as we'd like them to be. 22 Before final decisions are made, we 23 would like to offer EPA the following 24 recommendations. 25 First of all, we would like to 111 1 recommend that all vehicles regulated 2 under the proposal, whether light 3 trucks or the heavier SUVs, should meet 4 the same standards at the same time. 5 The proposed ten-year phase-in schedule 6 for the heavier vehicles is really 7 unacceptable. This category of 8 vehicles are being manufactured and 9 purchased at an alarming rate and are 10 some of the biggest contributors to our 11 air pollution problem. We will not see 12 an overall reduction in the levels of 13 harmful pollutants until these vehicles 14 are required to control their 15 emissions, and many people's lungs do 16 not have ten years to wait. The 17 emissions control technologies are 18 available and citizens are willing to 19 to pay for them, so let's utilize them 20 while we have them. 21 Second, the heaviest and 22 dirtiest passenger SUVs currently on 23 the road, the most harmful to our 24 health, such as the Suburbans and the 25 Silverados, they should not be excluded 112 1 from the emissions control standards as 2 the current proposal reads. The 3 emissions control technologies are 4 available for these vehicles as well. 5 Without controls on these vehicles, 6 they will continue to emit large levels 7 of harmful pollutants into the air at 8 an increasingly greater rate as the 9 public continues to demand these 10 vehicles for recreational use. 11 Thirdly, we recommend that 12 standards for low-sulfur gasoline be 13 adopted at 30 parts per million by 14 every state in the nation at the same 15 time. No exception should be made for 16 this. Allowing certain refiners an 17 extended time frame for compliance, 18 specifically the year 2006, would 19 impair the pollution control 20 technologies of the newer, cleaner cars 21 that would be produced in the model 22 year 2004. Limiting levels of sulfur 23 to 30 parts per million would allow 24 these new technologies to work at the 25 highest level of efficiency in order to 113 1 effectively reduce harmful emissions. 2 Finally, we recommend the EPA 3 require low-sulfur diesel fuel at 30 4 parts per million as well in addition 5 to gasoline. Even what we know about 6 diesel fuel emissions and their cancer 7 causing potential and harm to health, 8 we believe the NOx reduction and 9 subsequent health benefits of 10 low-sulfur diesel fuel may actually be 11 greater than low-sulfur gasoline. 12 I'd like to thank you once 13 again for having me here to allow me to 14 speak. In taking these recommendations 15 into consideration, I urge you to keep 16 one thing in mind, when you can't 17 breathe, nothing else matters. 18 MS. OGE: Thank you. 19 Mr. Morris, good morning. 20 MR. MORRIS: Good morning. My 21 name is Robert Morris. I'm director of 22 Environmental and Safety Affairs for 23 the Refining and Chemical Division of 24 The Coastal Corporation. 25 I would like to focus my 114 1 remarks today on a major problem that 2 will prevent EPA and the states from 3 realizing the estimated air quality 4 benefits from this proposed rulemaking. 5 Our industry has addressed other 6 shortcomings in the rule which I will 7 not touch on today. My subject is the 8 many constraints involved in obtaining 9 the necessary federal and state permits 10 within the time frame proposed by EPA. 11 The refining industry must obtain these 12 permits under EPA and state regulations 13 in order to make the adjustments in 14 their refinery facilities needed to 15 make lower sulfur gasoline. My 16 comments will address three questions: 17 What permits will be required, what the 18 obstacles to obtaining these permits 19 are, and whether there is a solution to 20 the problem. 21 First, let's get an idea of the 22 range of hardware affected. The 23 petroleum refining industry can pursue 24 one of three options in order to make 25 low-sulfur gasoline that is compliant 115 1 with the proposed rule. They are: 1, 2 hydrotreating FCCU feed (or input); 3 hydrotreating FCCU gasoline output 4 using new state of the art technology; 5 and, finally, 3, hydrotreating FCCU 6 output using conventional technology. 7 Because each refining facility is both 8 complex and unique, no single option 9 will be used by all facilities. 10 Industry may use a mix of all three 11 options. 12 To better understand the real 13 impact on a facility and the permits 14 required, Coastal itself, in 15 conjunction with members of NPRA's 16 Environmental Committee Permits 17 Workgroup, analyzed all three options 18 and are continuing to analyze to 19 determine the processes affected and 20 the regulatory implications and permit 21 requirements for each option. 22 Table 1 of my remarks is a list 23 of the 18 processes in a typical 24 refinery that are likely to be directly 25 or indirectly impacted by the proposal 116 1 rule. Table 2, is an analysis, all ten 2 pages of it, of these 18 processes for 3 each of the three scenarios. The 4 analysis covers: Direct and indirect 5 air emissions, and could we put the 6 slide up; applicable federal 7 regulations; other media impacts; and 8 required permits. And this 9 transparency is just one page. It's an 10 excerpt of actually two pages that 11 shows some of the issues in obtaining 12 permits. 13 All three scenarios analyzed 14 are energy intensive and create waste 15 by-products in all environmental 16 medias, air, water and solid waste. 17 One cannot do an adequate analysis in 18 the current permitting climate without 19 looking at all environmental impacts. 20 This would include changes in steam and 21 electric generation and new or modified 22 streams entering NSPS regulated units 23 such as the sulfur plant, FCCU and fuel 24 gas system. It would also include air 25 quality impacts of both hazardous and 117 1 criteria air pollutants. Finally, all 2 three scenarios will have impacts on 3 safety management systems such as 4 flares and spill control which are 5 strictly regulated by either OSHA or 6 the EPA. 7 The normal construction process 8 involves design, permitting, detailed 9 engineering, construction, and start-up 10 and shakedown. This takes four to five 11 years in the United States. In a 12 normal situation, the permitting 13 process for major projects has taken up 14 to 18 months. However, the permit 15 "land rush" touched off by the proposed 16 rule would severely complicate matters 17 beyond the normal case. All refineries 18 will be operating on the same 19 timetable, with all design/construction 20 occurring at the same time. This will 21 severely strain or exhaust both the 22 regulatory permitting resources in the 23 states and EPA regions and 24 engineering/construction resources 25 available in the private market. 118 1 For example, in the State of 2 Texas there could be as many as 29 3 refineries lined up in the queue 4 requesting permits at the same time. 5 In the State of New Jersey, there could 6 be three refineries with many multiple 7 permits. Neither state, in my opinion, 8 nor the regions existing have the 9 trained manpower in place to turn these 10 permits around as the EPA suggests in 11 six months. If public hearings are 12 requested, which is part of the normal 13 state process, the scheduling alone for 14 them can take four to five months. 15 Again an estimate of 18 months for EPA 16 and the state regulatory agencies to 17 complete their tasks might be more 18 realistic. 19 To further complicate the 20 picture, a number of federal permits 21 are affected by federal regulations 22 that are under current review and 23 development. The likely result is 24 additional, currently unforeseeable, 25 changes in federal permit requirements 119 1 which will directly affect the permits 2 required for gasoline sulfur. Some of 3 the regulations in question: Major NSR 4 permitting; Part 70, Title V rules; 5 public notification and review; Urban 6 Air Toxic requirements; and emissions 7 Trading laws. 8 The new NSR revisions and 9 permits will be a serious obstacle to 10 any attempt to fast track the air 11 permitting process for Tier 2 fuels. 12 EPA's proposal suggests that industry 13 can use legal means to avoid NSR. 14 However, the definition of "legal" is 15 currently being debated by lawyers and 16 judges all over this country through 17 enforcement cases. Therefore, industry 18 and state regulators will be very, very 19 cautious in taking any steps to avoid 20 NSR without EPA's formal blessing 21 because of the extensive enforcement 22 actions being taken by the agency 23 against industry under existing NSR 24 regulations. To repeat, NSR is a 25 significant obstacle to the states and 120 1 EPA completing their review tasks in a 2 timely manner. 3 Finally, no one can overlook 4 the additional impact of environmental 5 justice claims. Whatever its intrinsic 6 merit, an environmental justice lawsuit 7 can tie up a facility's permitting 8 process for years. Environmental 9 Justice proponents sometimes ask 10 legitimate questions about obtaining 11 nationwide environmental quality 12 improvements at the expense of the 13 environmental quality in the 14 neighborhoods surrounding petroleum 15 refineries. EPA has largely encouraged 16 the assertion of environment 17 justice-like claims and that policy, 18 like the increased emphasis on zealous 19 enforcement, will lengthen the permit 20 process for compliance with the 21 gasoline sulfur rule. 22 The National Petrochemical & 23 Refiners Association, together with 24 other industry representatives, 25 advocate the only effective solution to 121 1 the impending permit crisis. That 2 solution is to establish a reasonable 3 time frame for the regulators to review 4 and issue the necessary permits. Over 5 a thousand years ago an English king 6 reminded his subjects that, whatever 7 his temporal powers, he could not 8 prevent the tide from coming in. EPA 9 should follow his example and admit the 10 realities of the permit approval 11 process. One of these, long 12 demonstrated, is "the course of true 13 permitting does not run smooth." 14 Before finalizing this rule, EPA should 15 choose a much more realistic date for 16 compliance than the fall of 2003. 17 Extending the date would give both EPA 18 and states the necessary time and 19 resources to permit the more than the 20 90 refiners struggling to comply. 21 Although additional time is the 22 only real answer to avoiding the permit 23 logiam, other solutions offer limited 24 hope. They include: 1, providing 25 limited relief through standardized 122 1 permits written into the rule; 2 establishing prescribed time frames for 3 applications by refiners and review by 4 permitting agencies with presumptive 5 approvals; and, 3, establishing 6 presumptive BACT requirements. 7 If the environmental benefits 8 from this rule are as desirable as 9 proposed in the EPA documents, 10 regulators will need to determine how 11 to best permit and mitigate increases 12 of emissions of regulated pollutants at 13 a refinery within the confines of 14 current technology limits. This is not 15 an insignificant task for the 16 regulatory bodies. The limits on the 17 refining industry's ability to produce 18 new fuels may not only be the 19 technology associated with the fuel, 20 but also the technology associated with 21 the control of stationary source 22 emissions within the confines of the 23 nation's desired environmental quality. 24 This is not a scenario that either the 25 agencies or industry has been receptive 123 1 to but which must be addressed. 2 Coastal and I understand NPRA's 3 Environmental Committee want to join 4 the EPA in addressing the very real 5 permitting problems so that our 6 facilities can be in compliance with 7 this rule on the required date. I hope 8 that the very specific information on 9 this point which I have made a part of 10 this testimony will serve both as an 11 indicator of the problem facing us and 12 our willingness to find a practical and 13 acceptable solution. 14 Thank you. 15 MS. OGE: Thank you. 16 Mr. Brochu, how do you 17 pronounce your name? 18 MR. BROCHU: Brochu. 19 MS. OGE: Good morning. 20 MR. BROCHU: Good morning. 21 Thank you. Thank you for this 22 opportunity to testify on a matter of 23 great environmental and economic 24 significance to Valero Energy 25 Corporation. My name is Paul Brochu 124 1 and I'm director of business 2 development for Valero Energy. Valero 3 Energy is one of the largest 4 independent refining and marketing 5 companies in the United States. The 6 company owns and operates five 7 refineries in Texas, Louisiana and New 8 Jersey. Valero is recognized 9 throughout the industry as a leader in 10 the production of premium, clean fuels 11 and oxygenates like MTBE. 12 Members of the panel, the 13 answer to sensible development and 14 implementation of fuel specifications 15 has always been sound innovation in the 16 petroleum refining and petrochemical 17 sectors. And in innovation, 18 independent refiners have often led the 19 way because refining gasoline is our 20 principle business. Consider the 21 phase-down of lead in gasoline. We met 22 this challenge in the mid-1970s by 23 developing important new uses for 24 oxygenates as octane-enhancers or the 25 roll out of the reformulated gasoline 125 1 program in the early 1990s. Again it 2 was the independents that stepped up to 3 the plate in working out the 4 complexities in the system and in 5 producing one of the most successful 6 air and fuel quality programs in 7 history. Valero alone invested more 8 than $300 million to meet the RFG 9 specifications. In short, we have a 10 solid track record and again stand 11 ready to focus considerable commitment 12 to innovation in fuel chemistry to 13 achieve effective fuel desulfurization. 14 We are somewhat dismayed, however, that 15 the current proposed implementation for 16 the sulfur rule does not result in the 17 optimal conditions for innovation that 18 EPA assumes to be the case in its 19 Regulatory Impact Analysis. In order 20 to restore the proper balance to the 21 rule and to allow for appropriate 22 process changes to be implemented, 23 Valero recommends incorporation of the 24 following changes as the EPA moves to 25 finalize this rule: A more realistic 126 1 timeline, including resolution of the 2 diesel fuel standard; elimination of 3 the advantages to foreign and small 4 refiners created by the rule; and 5 resolution of the uncertainty 6 surrounding the high-octane clean 7 burning additive MTBE. Without these 8 changes, Valero and other independent 9 domestic refiners cannot realistically 10 meet the EPA's environmental objectives 11 and certainly refiners are unlikely to 12 recover their capital costs. Let me 13 explain. 14 The tradition of innovation 15 that has made independent refining a 16 viable sector assumes sufficient lead 17 time to benefit from technological 18 changes in our own companies and within 19 the marketplace. However, if the 20 government puts significant burdens in 21 place without time to marshal 22 resources, the results could be 23 far-reaching and costly to consumers, 24 leading to gas supply interruptions and 25 price spikes. Valero alone will need 127 1 to invest more than $125 million to 2 meet the proposed standard, which will 3 be extremely difficult in light of the 4 current downturn in refining margins. 5 Another challenge will be meeting the 6 deadlines under the existing permitting 7 process. Under the proposed rule, 8 refineries will require modifications 9 that trigger Title V permitting, itself 10 a source of delay given backlogs at 11 state regulatory agencies. States 12 should be consulted on this issue. 13 The rule presents certain 14 technological uncertainties that again 15 require a pragmatic timeline to 16 resolve. Without sufficient transition 17 time, we can anticipate difficulty 18 associated with unproven technology 19 resulting in significant price 20 increases and supply problems, both of 21 which could undermine the viability of 22 the industry and the rule. 23 Also, if EPA decides to issue 24 its proposed diesel rule on a similarly 25 tight schedule, EPA must recognize that 128 1 doubling our compliance obligations 2 over the same compressed deadline only 3 magnifies the timing issues that 4 disrupt the ability of Valero and other 5 refiners to innovative new solutions. 6 By extending the deadline to 7 2006, and by comprehensively changing 8 the EPA approach to permitting, 9 domestic independent refiners will be 10 better able to provide low-sulfur 11 gasoline without consumers being forced 12 to bear the burden of price spikes from 13 supply shortages which can be 14 anticipated if the rule is implemented 15 as currently proposed. 16 Just as inadequate time quashes 17 innovation, so too does a failure to 18 take into consideration the realities 19 of international marketplace for fuels. 20 Currently, according to the National 21 Petroleum Council, domestic refiners 22 pay 13 cents per gallon for 23 environmental compliance. 24 By contrast, many foreign 25 refiners do not face these costs and 129 1 are heavily subsidized by national 2 governments. They often provide their 3 citizens poor quality gasoline and are 4 encumbered by few environmental 5 emissions requirements. During 1998, 6 five hundred thousand barrels per day 7 of gasoline and gasoline blendstocks 8 were imported and 30 percent of the 9 imports were from national oil 10 companies, most notably Venezuela, 11 Saudi Arabia and China. Competition is 12 not a two-way street. Significant 13 structural barriers block increased 14 competition by U.S. refiners in foreign 15 local markets. 16 Unfortunately, the current rule 17 only exacerbates this already unfair 18 situation. As the rule is currently 19 proposed, the domestic refiners will 20 have to desulfurize their entire 21 gasoline pool. Foreign refiners will 22 not. They will be able to blend their 23 cleanest components into gasoline for 24 the U.S. market, while selling 25 higher-sulfur gasoline in their own 130 1 country or other parts of the world. 2 Therefore, they will be able to flood 3 the U.S. market with less expensive 4 gasoline. Valero urges that EPA 5 consider definitive changes to the rule 6 to address this problem, up to and 7 including extraterritorial application 8 of anti-dumping provisions. 9 At this juncture, more 10 comprehensive solutions should also be 11 on the mind of the federal government. 12 To preserve the domestic petroleum 13 refining industry and the world 14 environment, it is critical we either 15 prohibit foreign imports from refiners 16 that don't comply with all U.S. 17 environmental regulations or place an 18 additional fee to affect environmental 19 costs on imported gasoline and blended 20 stocks. By the same token, the U.S. 21 should push for compliance with tough 22 harmonized international norms as a 23 prerequisite for foreign refiner 24 participation in U.S. markets. 25 In addition, the economic 131 1 advantage that this rule provides small 2 refiners through a relaxed 3 implementation schedule further reduces 4 an independent's ability to remain 5 competitive. Valero encourages the 6 agency to level the playing field by 7 either eliminating the small refiner 8 provision or by allowing all 9 independent domestic refiners to meet 10 the same compliance deadline. The 11 smaller refiner provision can also 12 magnify the international disparities 13 discussed earlier because all foreign 14 refiners may demand the same treatment 15 as small domestic refiners under 16 certain interpretations of equal 17 treatment under the General Agreement 18 of Tariffs and Trade. EPA and other 19 parts of the U.S. government must hold 20 firm against this view here at home and 21 before the World Trade Organization, if 22 it comes to that. 23 According to the EPA, the most 24 cost-effective means of reducing sulfur 25 in gasoline involves desulfurization of 132 1 the product stream from the fluidized 2 catalytic cracker unit. While this 3 process reduces sulfur, it also reduces 4 octane. Octane must be replaced either 5 by increasing high-octane blendstocks 6 or adding oxygenates. Our company is 7 one of the leading producers of the 8 fuel oxygenate MTBE and other 9 clean-fuel additives. As such we fully 10 appreciate the environmental benefits 11 of blending oxygenates in gasoline. 12 Because oxygenate use will 13 increase when this rule is implemented, 14 we believe the most responsible course 15 for EPA at this time is to express 16 clear and unambiguous support for 17 oxygenates, including MTBE, even in 18 light of recent controversies. 19 In conclusion, Valero will 20 continue to build on the progress it 21 has made in providing cleaner burning 22 fuels. The proposed regulations for 23 reducing sulfur levels in gasoline take 24 the next step in gasoline improvements. 25 Valero strongly believes that by 133 1 extending the compliance deadline, by 2 supporting measures that level the 3 playing field for domestic refiners and 4 by embracing fuel oxygenates, the EPA 5 can create conditions conducive to the 6 innovation necessary to meet health and 7 environmental objectives in a 8 cost-effective manner. 9 Thank you. 10 MS. OGE: Thank you. 11 Mr. Mandel, good morning. 12 MR. MANDEL: My name is Jed 13 Mandel and I'm here today on behalf of 14 the Engines Manufacturers Association. 15 Among EMA's members are the 16 manufacturers of pickup trucks, sport 17 utility vehicles, other light-duty 18 trucks and passenger cars and the 19 diesel engines that are being designed 20 to power them. 21 As we all recognize, this rule 22 is one of great significance. It will 23 substantially reduce the emissions from 24 light-duty vehicles and, depending on 25 how the rule is finalized, it can do so 134 1 in a way that it not only reduces HC, 2 CO, NOx and PM emissions, but also in a 3 way that can reduce CO2 emissions, 4 improve fuel economy, help 5 commercialize diesel technology that 6 can achieve additional reductions from 7 other mobile sources and provide 8 cleaner fuels to improve the emissions 9 from both new and existing vehicles. 10 As we have discussed with you, 11 the single most promising 12 cost-effective and available technology 13 to reduce CO2 and improve fuel economy 14 is the diesel engine. This has been 15 confirmed by the work coming out of the 16 Partnership for a New Generation 17 vehicle program, has been recognized by 18 the Department of Energy and the 19 administration. For example, according 20 to EPA data comparing similar sized 21 gasoline and diesel engines, a diesel 22 engine exhibits a 60 percent 23 improvement in fuel economy while 24 achieving a 30 percent reduction in CO2 25 emissions. 135 1 Diesel engines also are 2 inherently low emitters of HC and CO, 3 are extremely durable with little or no 4 degradation from initial air quality 5 emissions and performance levels and 6 they can perform more work more 7 efficiently than other types of 8 engines. These and many other positive 9 attributes of diesel engines can be 10 realized if EPA reduces the sulfur 11 content in diesel fuel to no more than 12 five parts per million, offers greater 13 flexibility in allowing manufacturers 14 to average their fleetwide emissions 15 levels and provides modestly more lead 16 time to commercialized new clean diesel 17 technologies. 18 Diesel engines that are being 19 tested today and are on the cusp of 20 commercialization will be quiet, free 21 from excessive vibration and free from 22 visible exhaust emissions, and they 23 will do so while retaining their fuel 24 economy and durability advantages. The 25 adoption of Tier 2 standards that allow 136 1 a role for vehicles with diesel-fueled 2 engines in the light-duty market has 3 significant potential to stimulate 4 support and speed major research and 5 development and clean diesel engine 6 technology, and those new technologies 7 can be transferred to other 8 applications to provide even more 9 extensive benefits. 10 Engine manufacturers already 11 have made great strides in reducing 12 emissions from diesel-fueled engines 13 and we recognize that more can be done. 14 The key, however, is to assure that 15 world class advanced technology engines 16 are paired with world class ultra clean 17 fuels. As EPA has recognized, the 18 stringent emissions standards in 19 today's proposal require a systems 20 approach to compliance in which 21 technology and fuels are integrally 22 linked. For light-duty vehicles, a 23 diesel fuel with ultra low sulfur level 24 at 5 ppm or less is essential. It 25 would provide direct PM emissions 137 1 reductions, it would enable substantial 2 NOx emissions reductions and it would 3 provide fleetwide benefits from both 4 new and existing vehicles with 5 diesel-fueled engines. Ultra low 6 sulfur diesel fuel also is required to 7 maintain engine durability. Without 8 it, severe engine wear and poisoning of 9 the entire engine system can occur. 10 And with the need to reduce carbon 11 dioxide emissions from the 12 transportation sector and the need to 13 provide fuel economy, the increased use 14 of diesel-fueled engines using ultra 15 low sulfur fuel would decrease carbon 16 dioxide emissions. 17 Improved diesel fuel also has a 18 role in responding to potential health 19 effect concerns. Ultra low sulfur fuel 20 lowers the total mass of particulate 21 from the entire fleet and enables the 22 use of known after-treatment technology 23 such as oxidation catalysts which can 24 reduce the organic fracturing of PM 25 emissions as discussed above and enable 138 1 technologies to reduce NOx which will 2 in turn reduce secondary PM. 3 Diesel engine manufacturers 4 accept the challenge of meeting the 5 same emissions standards as their 6 gasoline engine counterparts. If that 7 challenge can be met, and we think it 8 can, EPA and the driving public should 9 realize that they will have a power 10 option with NOx and PM emissions 11 equivalent to a gasoline engine and 12 with substantially better fuel economy, 13 CO2 emissions and HC, CO and 14 evaporating emissions. 15 For EPA to proceed with this 16 program, however, there must be 17 substantial improvements in diesel fuel 18 quality and EPA must recognize that 19 larger, heavier, more powerful vehicles 20 are needed to meet customer needs. 21 Those needs require more work and that 22 additional work results in different 23 emissions levels. An 18 wheel truck 24 does not emit at the same level as a 25 pickup truck because it's required to 139 1 perform more work. Likewise, a pickup 2 truck does not emit at the same levels 3 as a passenger car because it too is 4 required to perform more work. EPA 5 must recognize that larger, heavier, 6 work capable vehicles require different 7 emissions levels and more time to meet 8 the most stringent standards. EPA 9 should provide manufacturers greater 10 compliance flexibility and more lead 11 time. In doing so it should be noted 12 that emissions levels from all vehicles 13 will be reduced substantially beginning 14 in 2004 and each succeeding year. 15 We believe that diesel fuel 16 engine technology can remain a viable 17 marketplace option without adverse 18 emissions impacts. We believe EPA 19 should make every effort to assure that 20 low NOx emitting, high performing, low 21 CO2 producing diesel fuel engines 22 remain an option. To that end, we urge 23 EPA to move ahead promptly with its 24 diesel fuel rulemaking and to 25 incorporate in this final rule an 140 1 independent mid-term review of the Tier 2 2 standards. Thank you very much. 3 MS. OGE: Thank you. 4 Mr. Brochu, I have a couple of 5 questions for you. First of all, thank 6 you for your testimony. We do 7 appreciate you coming forward with the 8 testimony and the recommendations that 9 you're making. I didn't hear you 10 commenting on the national aspects of 11 this program. Could you please tell us 12 what is your company's view about the 13 national approach of the program as it 14 is proposed by EPA? 15 MR. BROCHU: The position of 16 Valero would be that we support the 17 cleaner fuels and the improvement of 18 cleaner fuels. As I stated in this 19 document is that the compliance 20 deadline is onerous relative to the 21 positions that I've voiced from this 22 testimony. 23 MS. OGE: Yeah. I'm trying to 24 see if there is -- if I can distinguish 25 your company's position versus the 141 1 associations that have been 2 representing the oil industry today, 3 which is the API and NPRA. 4 The second question that I had 5 for you is that I believe that you have 6 suggested that a more appropriate time 7 frame is 2006 versus our proposal of 8 2004 time frame. 9 MR. BROCHU: Yes. 10 MS. OGE: And could you please 11 comment on the levels. We have 12 proposed a 30 parts per million average 13 with a cap of 80 ppm. 14 MR. BROCHU: On the specific 15 level, again Valero's position is that 16 we support the cleaner fuels and if 30 17 parts per million is the level, then we 18 support that level and with the time 19 frame constraints that we have relative 20 to permitting, relative to building the 21 processes necessary and to prove the 22 technology that is currently somewhat 23 unproven in meeting those requirements. 24 MS. OGE: Okay. You have raised a 25 number of issues as they relate to 142 1 foreign importers. 2 MR. BROCHU: Yes. 3 MS. OGE: And I would invite 4 you to continue exploring options with 5 EPA and maybe follow up writing 6 comments or verbal communication. 7 Just for the record, I wanted 8 to both thank you for making 9 recommendations, but at the same time 10 tell you that the recommendations that 11 Valero has made, and I checked with my 12 legal people here, we don't believe we 13 really have authority to move forward 14 with what you are suggesting, but that 15 doesn't mean that we are not interested 16 in working with you and other refiners 17 on this decision. 18 MR. BROCHU: We appreciate 19 that. 20 MS. OGE: Thank you. 21 MR. BROCHU: Thank you. 22 MS. OGE: And, Mr. Morris, 23 thank you for your testimony and the 24 constructive remarks on the permits. I 25 didn't hear you taking any positions 143 1 for your company as far as the national 2 nature of this program or the levels or 3 the timing. What do you think is 4 inappropriate timing? So I have given 5 you three questions. 6 MR. MORRIS: National versus 7 regional, let me skip that. Okay. 8 MS. OGE: Okay. You can follow 9 up with me later on. 10 MR. MORRIS: We have supported 11 NPRA's position and I am chair of the 12 NPRA environmental committee. We serve 13 two markets in the U.S., so whichever 14 way I answer the question will be 15 wrong. A time frame from my standpoint 16 is in the United States projects that 17 we are working on right now is four and 18 a half to five years. We take about 19 three and a half years of that; the 20 agencies take about 18 months. So we 21 can put -- the time frame is, how do we 22 make the time frame work. I mean the 23 time frame can be more than 18 months 24 for the regional people. But it's a 25 very, very difficult problem. And the 144 1 time frame can be condensed. Where do 2 we do it? But right now it's looking 3 like four and a half to five years. 4 And we have taken this up with 5 the states. We have already talked to 6 the states about the permitting, what 7 we can do to streamline things. How do 8 we make it better? Except they are 9 under the same constraints that 10 industry is under is that they are 11 being cutting back. They are pushed, 12 particularly by Title V. So there are 13 a lot of pressures here that tend to 14 extend the time frame. 15 And the third question. 16 MS. OGE: The level. The third 17 question. The level. We have proposed 18 a 30 ppm and I would like to know what 19 is your company's position on this, not 20 necessarily the NPRA's position because 21 we do know the NPRA's position. 22 MR. MORRIS: My company's 23 position is we'll do whatever we are 24 asked to do. There are certain levels 25 in the country that have a major 145 1 problem in putting their system 2 together and they definitely have to 3 have a fuels component. I'm not an 4 expert on what that level should be. 5 So I'm looking to the agency and other 6 experts to tell me that number. But 7 we'll do whatever we can do. 8 We have, our sulfur levels in 9 New Jersey have always been low, not 30 10 ppm, but they have always been low. 11 And that actually offers or provides us 12 with some problems associated with this 13 rule because the banking and trading 14 doesn't give us a whole lot of credit 15 for that past lowness. But it's 16 whatever EPA and the public wants. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you. 18 Any questions from the panel? 19 Mike. 20 MR. HOROWITZ: I just wanted to 21 say for the record to Mr. Brochu, we do 22 encourage any comments that you have on 23 the issues dealing with foreign 24 refiners, and I don't want to say for 25 the record that we can't do this, what 146 1 you suggest, but we do have substantial 2 legal concerns which I hope you'll 3 address. 4 MS. OGE: You're the engineer. 5 He's the lawyer. 6 Thank you. I'd like to thank 7 all of you for coming forward today and 8 sharing your views with us. We do 9 appreciate you taking the time. 10 Thanks. 11 We are going to have a lunch 12 break until 1:30. We'll be back to 13 this room at 1:30. 14 - - - - 15 (Thereupon, a recess was had.) 16 - - - - 17 MS. OGE: I'd like to call up the 18 following names. As you know at 1:30 19 this section is scheduled for our 20 unscheduled speakers. So it will be a 21 little less formalized than the morning 22 session and the rest of the afternoon 23 session. But I'd ask you all to please 24 when I call you come to this front 25 table here, take one of the cards that 147 1 you'll see that are on the edge of the 2 table and write your name on it like 3 this so we can identify you as you come 4 through. 5 So the first person would be 6 Laurie Kondas, Sarah Rovito, David 7 Cornicelli, Rebecca Rollins, Betty Long 8 and Betty Perkul. 9 Ms. Kondas, good afternoon. 10 We'll start with you. Welcome. 11 MS. KONDAS: I'd like to thank 12 you for this opportunity to testify and 13 I'm doing so as a registered 14 respiratory therapist and I would like 15 to take the opportunity to speak on 16 behalf of the 30 million Americans that 17 suffer from chronic lung disease. 18 I would like to ask everyone 19 here today to participate in a small 20 experiment, especially if you've never 21 had trouble breathing. What I'd like 22 you to do for now, just for the next 23 five or ten minutes, is I want you to 24 not breathe. Right now just stop 25 breathing. I'd like you to imagine 148 1 that there is something in the room 2 that is poisonous and I want you to 3 know if you breathe this substance, if 4 it enters your body, it will make you 5 very ill and it may possibly even kill 6 you. This will be challenging because 7 you must breathe to survive. You can 8 live only a matter of moments if you 9 stop breathing. So no matter who you 10 are, no matter where you are or what 11 else you need to do, breath is 12 literally life. You really have no 13 choice but to breathe the air that's in 14 this room right now, either this minute 15 or the next. If you are participating, 16 are you finding it hard not to breathe? 17 Have you taken a breath yet? Are you 18 still protecting your lungs? 19 We need the air that's around 20 us to survive. This means that our 21 bodies are in constant contact with our 22 environment. How well or how poorly 23 our lungs perform depends entirely on 24 the state of the air that surrounds us. 25 We are all exposed to whatever 149 1 pollutants are present in the air we 2 breathe. We are all at risk for the 3 damage that may be caused by these 4 substances and no one is immune to the 5 effects of air pollution. Everyone of 6 us attacked long enough and often 7 enough will eventually sustain injury. 8 Some of us are unfortunately less able 9 to withstand these assaults than 10 others. Some of us because of who we 11 are, how old we are, how young we are 12 or what we are doing or because we have 13 other health problems are especially 14 vulnerable to serious and even 15 permanent injury by the contaminants in 16 the very air that we need to survive. 17 Children, the elderly and people with 18 asthma are especially at risk. 19 As a registered respiratory 20 therapist I have had many opportunities 21 to work with individuals that are 22 struggling to deal with the symptoms 23 imposed by respiratory disease. I have 24 often seen firsthand the far-reaching 25 effects of chronic lung disease. In 150 1 just Cuyahoga County alone there are 2 over 170,000 people affected by lung 3 disease, over 25,000 of these are 4 children under the age of 18 with 5 asthma. 6 The most common symptom of all 7 lung disease is shortness of breath. 8 This can range from mildly 9 incapacitating to severely 10 debilitating. For many people with 11 lung disease careful preparation and 12 planning are successful for just life 13 for management of their disease. These 14 individuals learn what medications to 15 take, what to eat, how important 16 activity is and the importance of 17 avoiding triggers. In essence, they 18 must learn how to manage the 19 environment in which they live. 20 Unfortunately, on some days these 21 individuals are faced with the reality 22 that the very air they need to survive 23 may be contributing to their illness 24 and, in fact, it may be killing them. 25 For 11 years I worked in a 151 1 pulmonary rehabilitation outpatient 2 clinic. Unfortunately, during that 3 time I had occasion to call our 4 patients and suggest they not attend 5 their regularly scheduled appointments 6 due to a variety of air quality alerts. 7 Even though we knew their appointments 8 were very important, we knew that 9 exposure to high levels of pollutants 10 would put them at increased risk. Of 11 all the things we could do and control 12 to help improve their health, we knew 13 that we could not on that day improve 14 the air and make it safe for them to 15 breathe. 16 While exposure to air pollution 17 causes adverse health effects in 18 adults, children are especially 19 susceptible. Their lungs are still 20 developing. They breathe more air 21 relative to the size of their lungs 22 than do adults. They spend more active 23 time outdoors. Of special concern are 24 these children with asthma. Both 25 particulates and ozone have been 152 1 repeatedly scientifically demonstrated 2 to increase the incidents of symptom 3 days, restricted activity, asthma 4 attack, emergency room visits and 5 hospital admissions. 6 Air pollution remains one of 7 the most significant threats to our 8 health and well-being in every region 9 of our country. Air pollution sends 10 children with asthma to the hospital 11 and senior citizens frankly to an early 12 grave. Additional pollution reductions 13 are needed to protect the public, 14 especially the most vulnerable among 15 us, and again that includes children, 16 the elderly and all people with chronic 17 lung disease. 18 Motor vehicle emissions are one 19 of the leading sources of outdoor air 20 pollution. Reducing this pollution 21 from transportation sources will have a 22 significant immediate impact on the 23 quality of the air that we all breathe. 24 These stricter standards must include 25 sport utility vehicles, minivans and 153 1 pickups. Currently, as you know, these 2 vehicles face weaker pollution 3 standards than cars and as a result are 4 responsible for producing much more 5 smog-causing pollution. All passenger 6 vehicles, including minivans and SUVs, 7 should and must meet the same emissions 8 standards. 9 In addition, the decision to 10 move towards cleaner fuels is another 11 step in the right direction. For 12 example, sulfur dioxide is created when 13 sulfur containing fuels are burned. 14 Sulfur dioxide alone constricts air 15 passages in everyone, but this creates 16 a special problem for people with 17 asthma and for young children who have 18 smaller airways. The proposed new 19 standards for lower sulfur will help 20 make catalytic converters more 21 efficient and will make cars much 22 cleaner. 23 Regarding the economic concerns 24 of these proposed standards, personally 25 I am more than willing to pay several 154 1 hundred dollars over the life of my van 2 or car to protect our air. Look in the 3 face of a child who is literally 4 struggling to breathe to live and tell 5 them that we can't afford to do this or 6 that we need to postpone it. I'd ask 7 you to do that. Go to any emergency 8 room and talk to one of these children 9 and watch them literally struggle in 10 order to survive. 11 The EPA's proposal once 12 implemented will have a huge positive 13 impact on air quality and will improve 14 and protect the health of our 15 community. These new regulations are 16 an important opportunity to improve the 17 quality of air that we all need to 18 breath and survive. 19 Thank you. 20 MS. OGE: Thank you. 21 Miss Rovito, good afternoon. 22 Miss Rovito: Good afternoon. 23 MS. OGE: Could you please 24 speak in the microphone. 25 Miss Rovito: Thank you for 155 1 affording me this opportunity to speak 2 today. My name is Sarah Rovito. I am 3 14 years old and I'm from the Cleveland 4 area, more specifically the suburb of 5 Parma. I have been an asthmatic since 6 I was born. Many things cause me to 7 wheeze and sneeze, dog dander, cat 8 dander, dust, cigarette smoke and air 9 pollution. 10 One of the main ways that 11 asthmatics cope with their asthma and 12 try to avoid severe asthmatic episodes 13 is controlling their environment. 14 Asthmatics like myself do this by 15 pulling up carpeting in our homes, 16 having pet goldfish and by using air 17 conditioning and other special 18 air-filtering devices in our homes. 19 Unfortunately, unless we would opt to 20 wear space suits or scuba gear when we 21 venture outside of our homes, we are 22 not able to do anything about the air 23 we breathe while we were at work, 24 school or at play. 25 Let me tell a little story. 156 1 When I was an infant during the summer 2 smog and heat, I would wheeze just 3 lying in my crib. My parents went out 4 and bought a single unit window air 5 conditioner and I did much better. 6 Consequently, for the next three years 7 of my life during the summer I lived in 8 one little room of my house. Imagine 9 being an active toddler full of energy 10 confined to such a small space but only 11 more miserable once you left it. After 12 the horrible summer of 1988 my parents 13 had saved enough to afford whole house 14 air conditioning and eventually an air 15 conditioned car. I felt like I had 16 escaped from prison. 17 The point of my story is that 18 poor air quality means poor quality of 19 life for asthmatics like me, the very 20 old and the very young. That's what 21 brings me here today. This air 22 pollution problem has gone on too long. 23 Motor vehicles contribute nearly half 24 of the man-made pollution in the United 25 States today. Here is what I believe 157 1 we must do. Number one, all passengers 2 vehicles, including SUVs, minivans and 3 diesel-powered vehicles, should be kept 4 to the same pollution control 5 standards. 6 Number two, we should do more 7 to get advanced technology vehicles 8 such as electric or fuel cell powered 9 vehicles on the road. Remember, poor 10 air quality means poor quality of life 11 for people like me now, but in the 12 future it might very well likely mean 13 poor quality of life for all Americans. 14 Thank you. 15 MS. OGE: Thank you. 16 Ms. Rollins, good afternoon. 17 MS. ROLLINS: Good afternoon. 18 I would like to begin by thanking you 19 for this opportunity to speak to you 20 today. I enthusiastically applaud your 21 most recent efforts to make our air 22 safe to breathe by cutting pollution 23 from automobiles. I am sincerely 24 concerned about the detrimental impacts 25 that air pollution has on our health. 158 1 My personal motivation to these 2 comments is twofold. First and 3 foremost, my 11-year-old brother 4 suffers from cystic fibrosis, a 5 terminal respiratory illness. Adams 6 suffers severely and is not even able 7 to play on the intramural soccer team 8 on days when smog levels are high. I 9 also frequently visit my great 10 grandmother who by emphysema is forced 11 to rely on an oxygen tank. On bad air 12 days she is trapped in her apartment 13 unable to sit outdoors and enjoy the 14 day. 15 My second reason for making 16 this statement is as an employee of 17 Ohio Citizen Action I speak to many 18 Ohioans each night who are parents, 19 senior citizens and doctors who are 20 also very concerned, and in some cases 21 even outraged, by the air pollution 22 that fills our skies and lungs. 23 The Tier 2 proposal is a big 24 step in the right direction, but there 25 are three things that must be improved 159 1 before the rule passes into a law. 2 First, all passenger vehicles, 3 including minivans and SUVs, must meet 4 the same standards at the same time. 5 Larger SUVs should not be given extra 6 time to clean up. 7 Second, there also should be no 8 special breaks for dirty diesel 9 vehicles. 10 And, finally, the EPA should do 11 more to get advanced technology 12 vehicles on the road. We need the 13 strongest possible regulations to 14 control air pollution. 15 Thank you. 16 MS. OGE: Thank you. 17 Mr. David Cornicelli, good 18 afternoon. I'm glad you found your 19 testimony. 20 MR. CORNICELLY: Thank you. 21 I'd just have to wing it I guess. It 22 wouldn't be quite as elegant as our 23 previous comments were. 24 I wanted to thank you for the 25 opportunity to come here today to talk 160 1 about the Tier 2, about Tier 2. I 2 believe that it's going to strengthen 3 the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment. 4 My job in Cleveland is as a 5 community developer for the Detroit 6 Shoreway Community Development 7 Organization. My job actually is 8 pretty unique in that Cleveland was 9 selected under a U.S. EPA grant from 10 the Sustainable Development Challenge 11 Grant program to create an ecologically 12 designed village within an urban 13 neighborhood. This actually came out 14 of a process that happened a couple 15 years ago by the, it was funded by the 16 EPA which was called the Regional 17 Environmental Priorities Project, which 18 was part of the EPA, U.S. EPA's 19 comparative risk program, and Cleveland 20 was one of the models in the country 21 that came forward with defining the 22 environmental priorities for the 23 region, what our citizens felt were the 24 most pressing issues. And the top 25 issues that emerged were urban sprawl 161 1 and, slash, quality of the urban 2 environment. They felt that it wasn't 3 just one environmental issue, but it 4 was kind of a combination of all of 5 them. So urban sprawl and the quality 6 of the urban environment were rated 7 first under an EPA program. 8 Respectively, air and water were then 9 listed as number two and number three 10 and down through the expected, you 11 know, different types of talks and, et 12 cetera, that you'd expect to show up on 13 an environmental priority. So this is 14 something that this region has been 15 grappling with for many years now. 16 Urban sprawl or out migration from the 17 urban core has taken up about 23 18 percent more land in the last eight 19 years where our population growth has 20 only been three percent. So we know 21 that people are sprawling and using 22 more land, therefore, we know they are 23 using more vehicles. And there is a 24 direct correlation between using more 25 automobiles and the air quality simply 162 1 because of the fuels that we are using. 2 We know that they give off NOx gas and 3 compounds. 4 I also think that we need to 5 take into consideration human health. 6 Again, the last three talked about 7 human health specifically talking about 8 asthma, in particular in children and 9 with the elderly. And it's not just 10 about human health. It's about the 11 health of the bioda. We are not the 12 only living creatures here. There is 13 trees, you know, there is little 14 critters in the water sheds. 15 Everything is related. Everything 16 takes oxygen to breathe, and I think 17 that if we don't take into 18 consideration the whole bioda, the 19 whole ecology of the place, we are kind 20 of defining the ethic of Cleveland by 21 not caring. So I think the ethic of a 22 place translated down, you might want 23 to call it quality of life, is 24 something that promotes a healthy 25 lifestyle, and I think this Tier 2 is a 163 1 step in the right direction addressing 2 or helping us change our behaviors to 3 creating a more healthy lifestyle. 4 I also think ethics should be 5 reflected in efficiency. If we want to 6 drive more, then let's make our impact 7 less. We are already beginning to feel 8 the impact of cars traveling in this 9 area, not only socially. We talked 10 about road rage. On the road people 11 are driving a lot more. Whether it is 12 true or not, I feel it. I think people 13 are a little bit more stressed. I 14 drive a little more than I want to 15 these days. 16 Environmentally the impacts are 17 there. Economically the impacts are 18 there. We are spending more money on 19 fuel. I rather spend the hundred 20 dollars I spend a month on gas on other 21 things, recreation or going out to 22 dinner a little bit more occasionally. 23 The economic benefits of the new 24 industry surrounding the counties that 25 has occurred through this kind of new 164 1 growth in the area has been astounding. 2 The region is strong economically. But 3 that's increased the need for more 4 deliveries, more travel time, more 5 employees. We are finding now that in 6 Cleveland alone a lot of our residents 7 are going out into the suburbs. Where 8 they used to stay in the city to work, 9 they are now having to travel farther 10 out. So I think the efficiencies of 11 the vehicles needs to be addressed 12 there. 13 I guess just to close it up, 14 our air is our connection to life, just 15 like water is our connection to life. 16 We've chosen to use land in prevailing 17 ways that our current development 18 patterns are showing, that being for 19 housing and retail plazas, industrial 20 developments, but we have had zoning 21 laws that have reacted to that in this 22 area and we've begun to rise to the 23 occasion to limit that growth. 24 There is a national agenda that 25 has emerged, the Clinton/Gore 165 1 livability agenda, that says let's take 2 into consideration these quality of 3 life factors when we consider growth 4 and how we want to live. So I think 5 the EPA is following suit and I 6 encourage you to look at the 7 Clinton/Gore livability agenda and 8 encourage the director, her honor, to 9 make that a case for pushing this type 10 of legislation. 11 We also need to address the 12 other consequences of growth and the 13 increased traffic that our new found 14 lifestyles in the suburbs have created. 15 We need to make a better case for 16 better development and less use of 17 automobiles in the end, but that might 18 mean a different law or a different 19 type of approach than this. 20 I strongly recommend that the 21 Tier 2 standards are adopted. It's not 22 just for the air we breathe, but for 23 the air that we all share. We know 24 that airborne toxins can travel 25 thousands of miles. They are just not 166 1 limited to our regions. Air doesn't 2 have a political jurisdiction or a 3 political boundary. And I think that 4 laws help our society change behavior 5 and I think that's where innovation is 6 for. New technologies come out of the 7 fact, you know, to help us accommodate 8 to the new rules. We do know that 9 there are new fuels available. There 10 are fuel cells, hydrogen fuel cells and 11 hybrid cars emerging in California and 12 Japan and Germany and elsewhere and I 13 think there is no economic incentive 14 greater to the one that challenges the 15 need for preserving the health of all 16 living creatures. 17 Thank you. 18 MS. OGE: Thank you. 19 Ms. Perkul, good afternoon. Is 20 it a son or a daughter? 21 MS. PERKUL: A son. 22 MS. OGE: Welcome both of you. 23 MS. PERKUL: Thank you. I'm 24 here to speak as a minivan driving 25 mother and I would like to say that as 167 1 a minivan driver I'm very willing to 2 pay whatever extra is needed to make 3 the minivans and SUVs more energy 4 efficient and have stricter pollution 5 controls and emissions controls. I 6 went actually to a minivan reluctantly 7 because I was driving a Honda Civic, 8 energy efficient, but with him we 9 needed to get a larger car. 10 And I'm here to ask you to 11 consider, I don't have any statistics 12 or anything, but I'm just worried about 13 the quality of life for my children and 14 I would like my children to be able to 15 go outside in the summer and not worry 16 about ozone alert days, to feel what 17 rain feels like in the summer without 18 feeling they can't go outside because 19 of acid rain or to taste the snow when 20 it falls from the sky because it is too 21 dangerous. I think the quality of life 22 of our children is very, very important 23 and I would have, like to have us think 24 ahead now and take some measures to 25 control the pollution so that in the 168 1 future we can have all of our children 2 living the same life that we are living 3 now. That's really it. 4 MS. OGE: Ms. Long, would you 5 like to come forward. 6 Ms. Perkul, thank you for your 7 testimony. 8 MS. LONG: My name is Betty 9 Long. I am euphemistically called a 10 golden ager, however, it's a misleading 11 title. I'm getting the age and the 12 medical profession is getting the gold. 13 We golden agers want clean air. We do 14 not want to have to stay in our homes 15 on smoggy days. If we go out, we find 16 ourselves breathing hard, coughing and 17 possibly inhaling carcinogenic 18 particulates which will shorten our 19 lives and damage our lung tissue. 20 Stringent EPA measures are the only way 21 to go. Clean as possible fuels for all 22 cars and trucks and a cap on the 23 industrial stacks that emit harmful 24 chemicals into the air that we breathe 25 daily in the Cleveland area. Golden 169 1 agers want the gold, not the carbon 2 dioxide smog and other health 3 endangering pollutants. Remember, we 4 vote in large numbers and our health is 5 a number one issue when we vote. 6 Thank you. 7 MS. OGE: Thank you. 8 I'd like to thank all of you 9 for coming forward to share with us 10 your views, especially the citizens of 11 this city, beautiful city that are 12 taking the time from your own work 13 schedules, whatever you are doing 14 today. Your comments are important to 15 us and we will consider them as we are 16 moving forward to finalize this 17 recommendation. Thank you very much. 18 I would like to call for the 19 following individuals to please come 20 forward. Mr. Jones, that is Gil Jones, 21 Mr. Mike Frank, Mr. Curtis Strozier, 22 Mr. Ed Hogan and Ms. Miller. Could you 23 please print your names on the cards in 24 front of you. 25 Mr. Frank, good afternoon. 170 1 We'll start with you. 2 MR. FRANK: Well, I just want 3 to suggest one thing today, that what 4 to do with these three types of 5 vehicles, sports utility and pickup 6 trucks and minivans, is logical and 7 indeed it's just as plain as the fist 8 in your face as what to do with them. 9 You know, if your neighbor had 20 dogs 10 that sort of bit people, sort of 11 wandered the neighborhood, you know, 12 biting all the little kids and even 13 sending some to hospitals, so you go 14 over to your neighborhood and you say, 15 you know, you got to muzzle those dogs 16 if you are going to let them roam. And 17 so he negotiates with you and says I'll 18 muzzle 17 of these 20 dogs, but there 19 is three of them that I'm not going to 20 let them roam. They are going to be 21 guard dogs so I don't muzzle them. You 22 say, okay, that's fine. But, you know, 23 it turns out the 17 dogs go in and out 24 a little bit, but these three dogs, 25 they kind of roam more than anybody 171 1 else terrorizing everybody, biting 2 everybody, and so, you know, it's 3 pretty clear what to do about those 4 dogs once you discover that they are 5 not just guard dogs. You got to muzzle 6 them. 7 Well, you know, we've decided 8 that we got to muzzle cars. That's why 9 we have restrictions on car pollutions. 10 And we sort of thought that these three 11 vehicles were going to be used for work 12 and weren't going to be nearly as 13 popular as they are, the pickup trucks, 14 minivans and sports utility vehicles, 15 but they are used everywhere, they are 16 everywhere, and they bite, at least 17 they bite people who breathe. And it's 18 obvious, if the air pollution laws for 19 other cars makes sense, and I think 20 they do, they make sense for these. 21 These are three dogs that need to be 22 muzzled, so muzzle them. That's what I 23 want to say. 24 MS. OGE: Thank you. 25 Mr. Gil Jones, good afternoon. 172 1 Mr. Frank, why don't you stay 2 with us, with the panel. We may have a 3 question for you. Thank you. 4 MR. JONES: Thank you. My name 5 is Gil Jones. I'm the chief deputy for 6 the Franklin County sheriff's office 7 and I'm representing Sheriff Jim 8 Carnes. I'm here today testifying to 9 share the law enforcements need for 10 bigger cars. 11 Every day I and thousands like 12 me are putting our lives on the line to 13 protect the citizens of Ohio and the 14 vehicles we use are a vital tool for 15 the services we provide, from transport 16 vans and buses, to patrol cars and 17 emergency vehicles, the need for 18 vehicles that can meet our needs for 19 our department is vital. 20 As a law enforcement officer, I 21 need to assure the people I'm 22 responsible to protect and serve are 23 safe and if they are in need of an 24 emergency service, that it will be 25 there. I would not want to be the one 173 1 to tell the victims of an accident I'm 2 sorry, we are short on emergency 3 vehicles because of the new stricter 4 EPA emissions standards which will 5 increase the cost for the price of the 6 vehicles. After that prisoner 7 transports, and it would become a 8 nightmare. Without the availability of 9 buses we would have to go to a smaller 10 vehicle which would increase the 11 frequency of transports thus the cost. 12 It would also take away officers from 13 the field where they are truly needed. 14 As a government official I have 15 the added responsibility to answer to 16 the taxpayers regarding expenditures. 17 The EPA estimates that these stricter 18 standards will increase the cost by 100 19 to $200 per vehicle. I have even heard 20 the increases estimated as high as 21 $1,000 per vehicle by an independent 22 source. And I'm not sure the cost 23 would be even more for emergency 24 vehicles, but I guess it would be. 25 As a public servant I have to 174 1 answer to the citizens of Franklin 2 County and the additional costs would 3 be difficult to support. More than 4 likely our department, as I'm sure 5 others across the country, would have 6 to buy fewer vehicles. This in turn 7 would diminish our ability to protect 8 and serve the citizens of Franklin 9 County. 10 I'm sure the intentions of the 11 EPA are honorable, however, based on 12 the information I've read, I feel that 13 stricter standards would not have the 14 benefits the EPA has claimed. Even the 15 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 16 of Columbia Circuit ruled the proposal 17 unconstitutional to force these states 18 to reduce air pollution. 19 I hope the EPA will consider 20 all the consequences of these standards 21 and work with those effected to tougher 22 emissions control standards in a manner 23 that is helpful to all. 24 Thank you. 25 MS. OGE: Thank you. 175 1 Mr. Hogan, good afternoon. 2 MR. HOGAN: Good afternoon. My 3 name is Ed Hogan and I'm speaking today 4 on behalf of the over 120 members of 5 the Ohio Coalition for Vehicle Choice. 6 I suppose we are also representing 7 those three dogs. 8 Our members, which include such 9 organizations as Campground Owners 10 Association, Chambers of Commerce, 11 automobile dealers, ohio farmers, the 12 Ohio Legislative Black Caucus, boat 13 owners, law enforcement and small 14 businesses, are interested in 15 preserving America's right to safe and 16 affordable motor vehicle 17 transportation. 18 Like most Americans, CVC 19 members are concerned about our 20 environment and preserving and 21 improving the quality of life and the 22 air we breathe. We are also concerned 23 with preserving our personal mobility. 24 Along with developing public policies 25 to address legitimate energy and 176 1 environmental concerns, we believe the 2 government also has an obligation to 3 protect mobility of Americans and the 4 need of car and truck users or vehicles 5 that provide safe, effective and 6 affordable transportation. 7 The EPA's proposed new 8 emissions standards might have some 9 small environmental benefit, but they 10 raise other concerns for those who rely 11 on light trucks and who must pay the 12 bill for new government regulations. 13 Our greatest concern is making sure 14 that the new regulations do not 15 interfere with the continued 16 availability of a wide range of 17 vehicles, including light trucks 18 suitable for heavy-duty hauling and 19 towing. 20 Our members use pickup trucks 21 for carrying heavy loads, utility 22 vehicles for towing, vans for 23 transporting passengers. They depend 24 on the special work capabilities of 25 light trucks including adequate engines 177 1 and suspensions. Because heavy-duty 2 light trucks do more work than 3 passenger cars, they have different 4 engines and different emissions 5 characteristics. Current light trucks 6 are already very clean, but the 7 emissions still aren't quite as low as 8 clean, new cars. EPA's proposals would 9 require new cars and light trucks of 10 all sizes and ranges to meet the same 11 set of extremely ambitious emissions 12 limits. That's going to be tough to do 13 for heavy-duty light trucks, especially 14 when the technology to meet those ultra 15 low standards has not yet been 16 invented. 17 We are concerned that the EPA 18 rules may drive up the cost of our 19 vehicles and perhaps reduce performance 20 or force some useful model 21 configurations out of the market, and 22 that can be counterproductive by 23 discouraging the replacement of older, 24 higher-emitting trucks with cleaner, 25 more efficient models. At a minimum, 178 1 EPA should make every effort to make 2 sure that standards are, in fact, 3 practically achievable and reasonably 4 cost-effective. 5 We recommend adequate lead time 6 to develop and introduce the new 7 technology. We understand that the 8 auto industry has recommended an 9 independent review of the standards of 10 larger vehicles a few years into the 11 program to examine such things as 12 technological feasibility, the effect 13 on competitiveness and whether or not 14 the standards are cost-effective and to 15 see if the original schedule still 16 looks practicable. 17 EPA's proposal for heavy-duty 18 vehicles to meet the ultra low limits 19 by 2009 seems very optimistic. Some 20 groups are pushing for shorter time 21 tables on vans, on diesel-powered 22 trucks, but those groups typically show 23 no understanding or interest in the 24 useful services that light trucks 25 provide. Since current trucks are 179 1 already quite clean, there is really no 2 downside to ensuring the adequate time 3 for an orderly transition for cleaner 4 trucks into the future. 5 We also believe EPA should do 6 more to emphasize the progress that has 7 been made in reducing the emissions 8 from light trucks and cars and the 9 gains already achieved in improving 10 overall air quality. Some press 11 reports have inaccurately stated that 12 light trucks have been exempt from 13 federal emissions standards, which is 14 most definitely not the case. Others 15 have suggested a growing problem with 16 smog when statistics show that our air 17 quality has, in fact, improved 18 dramatically. And many press accounts 19 also fail to recognize that cars and 20 light trucks are now a small share of 21 overall emissions and most of that is 22 due to older and poorly maintained 23 vehicles. 24 Most areas around the U.S. are 25 already in or close to compliance with 180 1 national air quality standards that are 2 currently in force. As you know, the 3 courts have invalidated the revised air 4 quality standards adopted by EPA in 5 1997. Those invalid air rules should 6 not be used as a justification for new 7 vehicle rules. Instead, the focus 8 should be on the proposal's likely 9 real-world impact on America including 10 cost and mobility as well as air 11 quality. 12 We recommend closer attention 13 by EPA to the cost and benefits of the 14 proposed standards. The cost estimates 15 of 100 to $200 per vehicle seem low, 16 especially when much of the technology 17 has yet to be invented. One 18 independent source has estimated the 19 cost of complying with the proposed 20 rule as around $1,000. Even if EPA's 21 estimates are accurate, that still 22 means an additional cost to American 23 consumers of 2 to $3 billion per year 24 for this regulation. And since 25 emissions from new vehicles are already 181 1 low, the total reduction from the new 2 standards will be relatively small. 3 Our members are asking whether we can 4 find other, more productive ways to 5 invest that 2, 3 billion a year for 6 growing public health benefits. That's 7 something EPA should consider and 8 answer in the course of this ruling. 9 Thank you. 10 MS. OGE: Thank you. 11 Mr. Strozier, good afternoon. 12 MR. STROZIER: Thank you. My 13 name is Kurt Strozier and I'm president 14 and CEO of World Satellite Network, 15 Incorporated based out of Columbus, 16 Ohio, and for four years we have been 17 providing telecommunication services 18 for Ameritech and Americast. We 19 provide telephone bury drops for 20 Ameritech from Mansfield all the way 21 down to the Ohio River, and for 22 Americast we provide installation and 23 disconnection services for apartment 24 complexes. We also recover cable TV 25 equipment and we bury cable TV drops. 182 1 Like most Americans, I am very 2 concerned about keeping our air clean 3 and preserving and improving the air I 4 breathe. However, as a business owner 5 that relies on the use of vans and 6 light trucks, I am concerned, I am also 7 concerned about how these strict new 8 standards will affect my ability to run 9 my business and provide the services to 10 my customers. Vans and trucks are 11 vital to my operation. Every day I 12 have techs or technicians on service 13 calls from Mansfield to the Ohio River. 14 These techs have got to use heavy-duty 15 equipment. This equipment that they 16 use requires the use of light trucks 17 and some heavy vehicles. This 18 equipment you have got to understand 19 requires vehicles with high-efficient 20 engines and they have got to be 21 efficient fuelwise. 22 Today's light trucks and vans 23 are very clean and auto makers are now 24 introducing cleaner vehicles under the 25 new national low emissions vehicle 183 1 program. Why drive up the cost of all 2 cars and light trucks to reduce 3 emissions standards that are already 4 being reduced. At the minimum the EPA 5 should take every effort to make sure 6 the standards are practical and 7 cost-effective. The courts have 8 invalidated the strict air quality 9 standards imposed by the EPA. So why 10 are you now using those rules to 11 impose, reduce emissions standards? 12 I know you often hear the 13 argument I am a taxpayer. Well, I am 14 too, as everyone in this room are 15 taxpayers. It is the government's job 16 to be fair to all taxpayers, not 17 support, not to support a certain 18 special interest group or to push their 19 agenda. I hope that the EPA will take 20 a stand and account for the needs of 21 all taxpayers and truly listen to all 22 of our concerns which consider imposing 23 those strict new standards. 24 And again thank you. 25 MS. OGE: Thank you. 184 1 I'd like to make a statement 2 and then a question. Since a number of 3 you, since a number of you mentioned 4 the court case, I don't know if you 5 were here this morning, but we 6 discussed this. I'm going to make it 7 very clear that the court did not say 8 that ozone and particulate matter 9 doesn't cause significant health 10 problems. 11 Second, I want to make it very 12 clear that I think we can look at the 13 court decision and we are moving 14 forward because we believe we met the 15 air quality need. 16 Mr. Hogan, you mentioned in 17 your remarks that these regulations you 18 believe will have insignificant or very 19 small environmental benefits. Could 20 you quantify for us what are these 21 benefits? Why are you calling these 22 benefits insignificant? 23 MR. HOGAN: Well, I didn't say 24 insignificant. 25 MS. OGE: Small. 185 1 MR. HOGAN: Small. 2 MS. OGE: Did you say small? 3 Do you consider 2.2 million tons of 4 nitrogen dioxide reductions, hundreds 5 of thousands of toxin reductions as 6 small? 7 MR. HOGAN: What I understand 8 is it's very hard for the EPA to 9 quantify what effect that's going to 10 have. We are talking these numbers, 11 but what it means in the real world, 12 what it means in terms of reducing 13 emissions, I don't think you have the 14 answers to that yet. 15 MS. OGE: Well, I would 16 strongly suggest you take a look at the 17 record we have developed. We believe 18 that we have a very strong case to 19 quantify the air quality benefits 20 across the country of the millions of 21 people that suffer from respiratory 22 effects to environmental improvements 23 and would be glad to share all this 24 information with you. 25 And I would like to ask -- I'm 186 1 sorry, Ms. Miller, I didn't see you. I 2 would ask you to please come forward 3 and also give us your testimony. Good 4 afternoon. 5 MS. MILLER: I appreciate your 6 time very much. And I'd like to make 7 just three comments outside of the 8 prepared testimony that I have. Just 9 after listening to some of the previous 10 testimony, I'd like to point out as a 11 citizen in this area of Cleveland and 12 Cuyahoga County who would definitely 13 have to rely on the police and 14 emergency folks if I was ever in a case 15 to need them, I feel that if their job 16 is to protect and serve us, which it 17 is, that they ought to be using 18 vehicles that are much safer because if 19 they are using something that is 20 polluting my air, then I don't see that 21 as protecting and serving me. 22 Also, I wanted to make the 23 comment that I do believe that there 24 are a lot of technologies out there, a 25 lot of new technologies out there that 187 1 are showing us much more efficient and 2 effective ways that we can run our 3 vehicles. In fact, I think they have 4 been there for years and it's probably 5 something that the public doesn't know 6 a whole lot about for a good reason 7 because it's been kept from us. 8 And also I certainly understand 9 that while folks run businesses that 10 have to use light pickup trucks, vans, 11 maybe even sports utility vehicles, 12 it's important in order for us to 13 continue to be able to run those 14 businesses and continue to be citizens 15 of this country and this world that we 16 be alive and we need clean air to be 17 alive. 18 I'm very concerned about the 19 impacts that air pollution has on 20 myself and my fellow citizens. 21 Something serious has to be done to 22 ensure that there is clean air to 23 breathe. It is imperative that you 24 allow nothing to stand in the way of 25 you doing your job, protecting your 188 1 fellow human beings. I don't know 2 about you, but I'm very sick and tired 3 hearing the tragic stories all over the 4 world about cases of asthma. These are 5 unnecessary. Every citizen ought to be 6 able to take clean air for granted. 7 The United States of America is largely 8 responsible for this unhealthy 9 situation. We as a nation have an 10 obligation to solve this problem in the 11 best manner possible. 12 The standards you proposed in 13 the Tier 2 proposal are a step in the 14 right direction. It's about time that 15 sport utility vehicles, minivans and 16 pickup trucks meet the same protective 17 standards as passenger cars. It's 18 about time that sulfur levels in 19 gasoline are significantly reduced. 20 And it's also about time that passenger 21 cars are made cleaner than those on the 22 road today. By putting these measures 23 in place you will be giving the world 24 another breath of fresh air. 25 It's a shame that the auto 189 1 industry does not feel the same way. 2 I find it even more interesting that 3 these industries keep whining about how 4 much money they will have to spend to 5 implement these measures. Consumers 6 are the ones that pay. I believe it 7 should be up to me, not them, as to 8 whether I pay more for cleaner air. I 9 would be very happy to pay extra, 10 whether that's a hundred or a thousand 11 dollars, whatever the amount is for any 12 vehicle I desire to purchase and the 13 gasoline it takes to power it if it 14 would ensure that my air was cleaner. 15 The U.S. EPA has an obligation 16 to protect the environment. Please 17 institute the strongest possible auto 18 pollution regulations to protect the 19 health of all people of the world. Do 20 not allow the auto corporate lobby to 21 dissuade you from what all people need. 22 Thank you. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you. Thank you 24 very much. 25 I'd like to ask the next group 190 1 of panelists to please come forward. 2 Mr. John Paul, Mr. Tom Bond, Dawn 3 Friest I believe, Mr. Eliot Levinsohn, 4 Mr. John Moos and Ms. Amy Ryder. 5 Mr. Paul, good afternoon. 6 We'll start with you. 7 MR. PAUL: Good afternoon. My 8 name is John Paul and I'm the 9 supervisor of the Regional Air 10 Pollution Control Agency, RAPCA, of 11 Dayton, Ohio. RAPCA is a six-county 12 local agency serving the counties of 13 Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami, Montgomery 14 and Preble in mid-southwestern Ohio. I 15 want to thank you for this opportunity 16 to present testimony in support of 17 EPA's recent proposal to the Tier 2 18 motor vehicle controls and low-sulfur 19 gasoline and the advance notice of 20 proposal for diesel fuel. I also wish 21 to acknowledge and fully support the 22 comments of Mr. Charles Lagges who 23 testified on behalf of STAPPA/ALAPCO 24 and Mr. Cory Chadwick who testified on 25 behalf of OLAPCOA. RAPCA is an active 191 1 participant in both of those 2 associations and voted for the adoption 3 of the resolutions which are attached 4 to their comments. Whereas these two 5 presented comments reflecting the 6 national and regional benefits of EPA's 7 proposal, I want to give you an 8 illustration of the need for this 9 proposal policy with regard to one 10 specific local agency, that being 11 RAPCA. 12 And I want to begin this 13 testimony by commending the EPA for 14 this proposal. We are very pleased to 15 see the proposal's combination of 16 vehicle standards and clean fuel. This 17 proposal for low-sulfur gasoline will 18 provide air quality benefits from 19 existing vehicles and make possible 20 much cleaner vehicles in the future. 21 This is as encouraging a proposal as we 22 can envision for controlling mobile 23 source emissions in the future. We are 24 also encouraged by EPA's proposed 25 inclusion of strict emissions standards 192 1 for light-duty trucks, sport utility 2 vehicles and vans beginning in the year 3 2004. 4 RAPCA is technically the Bureau 5 of Engineering within the Division of 6 Environmental Health of the Combined 7 Health District of Montgomery County. 8 We contract with the Boards of Health 9 of each of our counties within our 10 jurisdiction. Our direct authorities 11 are those of the Boards of Health. The 12 reason we exist is because of the local 13 concern over the adverse health effects 14 of air pollution. Our main charge is 15 the protection of public health, as is 16 reflected in our adopted mission 17 statement which let me read for you. 18 "The primary mission of the 19 Regional Air Pollution Control Agency 20 is to protect the citizens of Miami 21 Valley from the adverse health and 22 welfare impacts of air pollution. This 23 is accomplished through the enforcement 24 of federal, state and local air 25 pollution control regulations, and 193 1 through implementation of the state's 2 industrial permit system. RAPCA 3 personnel strive for technical 4 credibility and accountability in all 5 issues and actions." 6 And I think that the testimony 7 that you've heard today, especially 8 from the citizens, really brings out 9 the responsibility that we share, you 10 as federal EPA, we as a local agency, 11 to our citizens. It's obvious that 12 they are dependent upon us to control 13 air pollution. And it's also 14 interesting some of the comments with 15 regard to the permits, Bob Morris' 16 comments, I think we share a 17 responsibility there also. We need 18 these rules, so we need to work 19 together to make sure that the permits 20 that the refineries need to implement 21 these measures, that we are working on 22 those permits and we can handle those 23 permits within the time frames. And I 24 would pledge to you that we will work 25 with you on that issue. 194 1 Existing as a public health 2 agency dealing with air pollution in 3 the early 1970s, it was a natural event 4 for us to become a delegated extension 5 of the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA when these 6 two agencies came into existence. 7 Today RAPCA is a direct grantee of U.S. 8 EPA and a contractual agent of Ohio 9 EPA, and we perform most of the duties 10 common to an air pollution control 11 agency, including source inspections, 12 complaint response, air quality 13 monitoring, writing of permits and so 14 on. We do not have direct authority 15 with regard to vehicle emissions 16 standards and fuel standards, which is 17 one of the reasons why we are so 18 supportive of the U.S. EPA for taking 19 this action. 20 Throughout our 30-year history 21 of dealing with air pollution in the 22 Miami Valley, we have measured air 23 quality for the National Ambient Air 24 Quality Standards, as set by U.S. EPA. 25 We have been designated in the past as 195 1 nonattainment for carbon monoxide, 2 total suspended particulates, sulfur 3 dioxide and ozone. However, through an 4 aggressive program to control air 5 pollution, we have over the years met 6 each of these health-based standards 7 and been redesignated as attainment for 8 each. Our last redesignation was for 9 ozone in 1997. This was also the 10 toughest standard for us to meet. Our 11 attainment plan, which was devised and 12 approved through a coordinated effort 13 with our local metropolitan planning 14 agency, called for a combination of 15 stationary and mobile source controls. 16 Among the mobile source controls 17 recommended and adopted through the 18 state process were stage II vapor 19 controls at gasoline dispensing 20 facilities and an enhanced 21 inspection/maintenance program for 22 mobile sources. A measure which was 23 recommended locally but was not adopted 24 at the state was a call for clean 25 gasoline, defined either as low RVP 196 1 gasoline or the federal reformulated 2 gasoline. 3 I want to call to your 4 attention the adoption of the enhanced 5 inspection/maintenance program. The 6 area was officially classified as a 7 moderate nonattained area, so the 8 enhanced program was not required. But 9 it was recommended by the local 10 decision makers, along with the stage 11 II vapor control and clean gasoline 12 because of the recognition of the 13 importance of controlling the mobile 14 source emissions. We felt that unless 15 the mobile source sector was adequately 16 addressed, attainment could not be 17 projected into the future with any room 18 at all for growth. The local decision 19 makers very clearly chose those control 20 options to preserve public health and 21 to allow for growth in the region. We 22 were disappointed when the state chose 23 not to implement our recommendation for 24 clean gasoline, and we never received a 25 formal statement regarding its 197 1 rejection. This is one of the reasons 2 once again we favor a national program 3 implemented by EPA. 4 The ozone measures implemented 5 have been successful. We continue to 6 measure attainment for the one-hour 7 standard. But the measures have not 8 been without their dissenters. The 9 enhanced I/M program has received its 10 share of criticism and has been 11 adjusted by the state, reducing its 12 effectiveness, while presumably 13 increasing its public acceptability. I 14 have personally attended several public 15 hearings on the program and heard the 16 public complaints, among those 17 complaints several are common. 18 Primarily we hear about emissions from 19 vehicles that drive through the region, 20 from outside the region, especially 21 from other states, and we hear about 22 diesel truck emissions. People feel 23 there should be more equity in 24 responsibility for emissions controls, 25 and the proposal before us today would 198 1 go a long way to meet those stated 2 concerns. 3 Now, the Miami Valley has 4 within it the crossing of two major 5 interstate highways, Interstate 70 6 running east and west from the Atlantic 7 Ocean all the way to Utah, and 8 Interstate 75 running north and south 9 from Ontario, Canada to Alligator Alley 10 in the Florida Everglades. These 11 highways carry a large amount of 12 interstate traffic, cars that are 13 likely not a part of an enhanced 14 inspection/maintenance program. Of the 15 22 million vehicle miles traveled in 16 the Miami Valley each day, 17 approximately one-third are on these 18 two interstates and I-675 which 19 connects the two. Control of the 20 emissions from these vehicles is 21 essential to our future. 22 The limitation of sulfur in 23 gasoline will greatly enhance the 24 control of these highway vehicle 25 emissions. There are several aspects 199 1 of EPA's proposal that I wish to stress 2 our support on. Chief among these is 3 the uniform national and year-round 4 aspect of the proposal. As far as 5 Interstates 70 and 75 stretch, they 6 carry vehicles traveling great 7 distances from the east, west, north 8 and south. Localized or regional 9 gasoline standards would be limited in 10 their effectiveness. Vehicles 11 traveling from one area to another 12 could have their catalysts poisoned by 13 the high-sulfur content of another 14 area. Likewise, a summer only program 15 would have reduced effectiveness with 16 off-season poisoning of catalysts. The 17 national year-around aspect of the 18 proposal is essential. And I would add 19 that EPA needs to set a schedule for 20 attaining the 80 parts per million cap 21 and 30 parts per million average as 22 aggressively as possible. The sooner 23 these levels are reached, the better 24 our air quality. 25 I need to add at this point 200 1 that we are not meeting the new 2 eight-hour standard for ozone, which 3 was upheld by the court I might add, at 4 five of our six counties and just 5 recently communicated to Ohio EPA. We 6 have communicated to Ohio EPA our 7 recommendation that four of our six 8 counties be classified as nonattainment 9 for the new eight-hour standard. Once 10 these designations are formalized and 11 the area is once again designated 12 nonattainment, there will be increased 13 attention given to the economic impacts 14 of the nonattainment designation and 15 there will likely be a renewed call for 16 control measures. 17 Additionally, I want to point 18 out that ozone is not the only ambient 19 air quality standard that will be 20 improved through implementation of the 21 proposals. It's my understanding that 22 emissions of carbon monoxide and fine 23 particulate will be reduced, which 24 would in turn, will improve air quality 25 with regard to PM fine, toxics and 201 1 regional haze. I also want to point 2 out our endorsement for the Tier 2 3 application of the same standards for 4 light-duty trucks, sport utility 5 vehicles and vans as applies to the 6 light-duty vehicles. This will correct 7 inequity that has existed for too long. 8 There are many, many benefits from the 9 implementation of the proposal before 10 us today. Support for the proposal is 11 very easy for a public health official 12 such as myself. 13 Finally, and before I conclude, 14 I want to offer support for the advance 15 notice of public rulemaking with regard 16 to sulfur and diesel fuel. Just to 17 relate that back to the two major 18 complaints, we hear of cars driving 19 through the region and emissions from 20 trucks, obviously we need to address 21 that. And so we'll work with you on 22 that. 23 In conclusion, I want to offer 24 the full support of the Regional Air 25 Pollution Control Agency for EPA's 202 1 proposed Tier 2 standards of low-sulfur 2 gasoline and the advance notice of 3 public rulemaking on sulfur and diesel 4 fuels. We are very pleased with EPA's 5 proposal and urge its full adoption. 6 Thank you for this opportunity 7 to comment. 8 MS. OGE: Thank you. 9 Mr. Bond, good afternoon. 10 MR. BOND: Good afternoon. I'm 11 Tom Bond, manager of Fuel Technology at 12 BP Amoco. I appreciate this 13 opportunity to present our views on 14 EPA's Tier 2 and gasoline sulfur 15 proposal. 16 BP Amoco commends EPA for its 17 efforts to reduce emissions from 18 passenger cars, light trucks, including 19 sport utility vehicles, minivans and 20 pickup trucks. BP Amoco also agrees 21 with EPA that gasoline sulfur levels 22 should be reduced to help cut vehicle 23 emissions and improve overall air 24 quality. 25 We have never disagreed with 203 1 EPA about the goal we are trying to 2 reach in terms of lower sulfur 3 gasoline, that is 30 ppm average, 80 4 ppm cap. What we need now is to focus 5 on how to most effectively implement 6 this type of national program. If done 7 correctly, the rule could spur 8 development and deployment of more 9 fuel-efficient vehicle technology in 10 tandem with fuel changes and thus 11 improving overall air quality. 12 We believe that by working 13 together with the government and the 14 auto industry, fuel providers can 15 provide customers with products in the 16 marketplace that do not require 17 consumers to make a choice between 18 environmental quality and automotive 19 performance. We have always advocated 20 that the vehicle emissions reductions 21 must be achieved through a system 22 approach, that is looking at both fuel 23 changes and changes in vehicle 24 emissions hardware and software. This 25 system approach should be our 204 1 collective goal. 2 As many of you know, BP Amoco 3 has committed to moving quickly 4 worldwide to voluntarily bring cleaner 5 fuels to cities with air quality 6 programs as outlined in the speech by 7 our chief executive John Browne in 8 January of this year. In doing so, BP 9 Amoco publicly acknowledged that clean 10 air is one of the public's most highly 11 regarded resources. We have already 12 introduced cleaner fuels into the 13 market in the U.K. Later this year, we 14 will outline our plans for actions in 15 the U.S. and other cities around the 16 world. 17 Although we can and will take 18 some small steps on our own to act 19 early, EPA must develop a program that 20 recognizes that the transition to 21 low-sulfur gasoline on a national basis 22 will take time and require considerable 23 upgrading of the U.S. total refining 24 capacity. While we applaud EPA's 25 efforts to provide incentives for early 205 1 action and flexibility in timing, the 2 rule as proposed needs some 3 improvements if those goals are to be 4 met. 5 Therefore, I would like to 6 focus my comments on three areas today 7 that we think need improvement, that is 8 banking and trading, individual 9 refinery treatment, and the permitting 10 issue. 11 Banking and trading. BP Amoco 12 supports the concept of banking and 13 trading and credit for early action. 14 Those have long been the fundamental 15 elements of our climate change program. 16 A properly designed gasoline sulfur 17 banking and trading program can help 18 ensure that EPA's environmental 19 objectives are achieved at the lowest 20 cost by building on the experience of 21 other successful training programs such 22 as that developed for sulfur dioxide to 23 address acid rain concerns. 24 If designed properly, a banking 25 and trading program will encourage 206 1 early reductions in gasoline sulfur. 2 Such a program also will reward 3 technological innovation and help 4 facilitate early implementation of new 5 refining technologies. 6 We agree with EPA's use of the 7 historical baseline to avoid gaming 8 with regard to credit generation. Also 9 we commend EPA for seeking to implement 10 a banking and trading program as soon 11 as possible after the rule is 12 finalized, and as a refiner we hope to 13 be one of the first companies to 14 generate credits in the year 2000. 15 However, if EPA is to realize the type 16 of flexibility needed to facilitate the 17 move to lower sulfur gasoline, 18 additional improvements are needed in 19 the proposed banking and trading 20 program to ensure that adequate 21 incentive are available for credit 22 generation. 23 The step down in cap and 24 measurable average in the years 2004 25 and 2006 should be removed. As 207 1 constructed, it removes the flexibility 2 that a credit program seeks to provide 3 and forces a more costly implementation 4 path. 5 2, the life of credit should be 6 extended providing the type of 7 transition time that is similar to the 8 phase in of the lower emissions 9 vehicles. 10 3, consideration should be 11 given to allowing credit for the full 12 reduction achieved in refinery's 13 conventional gasoline average compared 14 to its baseline without having to meet 15 a trigger point. Credits should be 16 calculated and available for each 17 refinery. 18 We will provide additional 19 detailed comments on banking and 20 trading in our written submission, but 21 thought that it would be worthwhile to 22 identify early on a few areas for 23 additional consideration by EPA. 24 Small refinery issue. Another 25 issue that I believe is worthy of 208 1 further consideration by EPA is the 2 special treatment accorded to certain 3 small refiners. We recognize that 4 small refineries may face special 5 challenges in meeting the proposed 6 standard. That is the reason why we 7 have, that we think it essential to 8 improve the banking and trading program 9 to ensure that there are enough credits 10 available to generate and facilitate an 11 effective credit market for those who 12 cannot act early on this rule. 13 However, in exempting certain 14 small refineries from the requirements, 15 EPA has disadvantaged other small 16 refineries that must compete head to 17 head with those who are exempt, thus 18 creating a market distortion and 19 raising questions about the continued 20 viability of some small refineries. 21 Competition in the refining and 22 marketing industry is fierce. Every 23 refinery must meet its own financial 24 goals on a stand-alone basis regardless 25 of its ownership. Therefore, if a rule 209 1 provides differential treatment based 2 on size, all refineries of that 3 capacity should be treated the same and 4 a level playing field provided on a 5 refinery-by-refinery basis. Refineries 6 in the same marketplace with the same 7 air quality issues should operate under 8 this same set of rules. 9 Permitting challenges. A third 10 area of concern relates to the 11 potential impact of various permitting 12 requirements on the industry's ability 13 to move quickly to meet the proposed 14 gasoline sulfur standards. EPA has 15 recognized this concern and we look 16 forward to additional discussion on how 17 permitting procedures can be 18 streamlined, not only with regard to 19 meeting that compliance, the compliance 20 dates, but also with the goal of 21 encouraging early action by refiners. 22 BP Amoco urges EPA to develop 23 innovative approaches to avoid these 24 permitting barriers where possible as 25 well as establishing new tools for 210 1 streamlining the permit process. 2 In conclusion, BP Amoco looks 3 forward to working with EPA on the most 4 reasonable and effective strategy for 5 implementing the new controls on 6 gasoline sulfur. Thank you for this 7 opportunity. We will be submitting 8 more comments in a written comment 9 period on this important rule. 10 Thank you. 11 MS. OGE: Thank you. 12 Ms. Ryder, good afternoon. 13 MS. RYDER: Thank you. My name 14 is Amy Ryder. I'm the Cleveland area 15 director for Ohio Citizen Action. Ohio 16 Citizen Action is the state's largest 17 citizens organization with 150,000 18 members statewide. For the past 23 19 years we have organized all public 20 health and consumers issues on behalf 21 of all Ohioans. 22 When people around the country 23 hear about the State of Ohio's position 24 on air quality, they are often given 25 the misconception that Ohioans don't 211 1 care about clean air standards. In 2 fact, the State of Ohio has not 3 accurately or fairly represented the 4 opinion of its citizens on this issue. 5 Elected officials in the Ohio EPA for 6 decades have undermined the U.S. EPA's 7 and citizens' efforts to get stronger 8 air pollution regulations. 9 Recently the State of Ohio 10 signed on as a plaintiff in a case to 11 roll back the new NOx standards. The 12 Ohio General Assembly also recently 13 passed a polluter secrecy law which the 14 Ohio EPA strongly enforced which makes 15 it virtually impossible for the State 16 of Ohio to enforce public health 17 standards established under the Clean 18 Water Act and the Clean Air Act. This 19 week when we asked the Ohio EPA what 20 their position was on the Tier 2 21 proposed standards, they responded that 22 they didn't have one. 23 I'm here to tell you today that 24 the behavior and action on the Ohio EPA 25 and our elected officials does not 212 1 reflect the attitudes of the public 2 when it comes to stronger air quality 3 standards. Ohio Citizen Action 4 conducts its public outreach through a 5 year-round door-to-door and telephone 6 canvass. Each year statewide our 7 door-to-door canvass knocks on over a 8 million doors and our telephone canvass 9 has an additional 160,000 telephone 10 conversations with our members. When 11 we communicate with our members about 12 the issues of clean air, clean water 13 and safe food, we consistently hear the 14 same responses, and that is people want 15 cleaner air, they want cleaner water 16 and they want safer food to feed their 17 families. 18 Last week our organization 19 spent some time communicating with some 20 of our members about these Tier 2 21 standards and we found overwhelming 22 support for the new standards that 23 would force auto manufacturers to make 24 cleaner vehicles and force the oil 25 industry to produce cleaner gasoline. 213 1 I brought with me today over 300 2 telewires from our members asking that 3 these proposed standards go into 4 effect. I'd like to submit them to you 5 today to be placed as part of the 6 public hearing. 7 Along with the general public, 8 Ohio Citizen Action applauds the U.S. 9 EPA's efforts to reduce emissions from 10 vehicles and reduce sulfur in gasoline. 11 I do, however, caution you not to cave 12 to industry pressure when they tell you 13 they need more time to achieve these 14 standards or they lobby for weaker 15 standards. Remember last summer that 16 communities across Ohio reported 423 17 violations of the smog standards, 18 standards that your agency regulates to 19 protect our public health. Last week in 20 Cleveland we suffered seven ozone 21 action days. These Tier 2 standards 22 are a necessity in Ohio and nationwide 23 to improve the quality of life by 24 enabling people to breathe easier. 25 MS. OGE: Thank you. 214 1 Mr. Levinson, good afternoon. 2 MR. LEVINSON: Good afternoon. 3 Thank you. My name is Eliot Levinson 4 and I'm representing the Ohio Lung 5 Association of Michigan. On behalf of 6 our Michigan volunteers, the American 7 Lung Association of Michigan is pleased 8 to offer testimony today at this final 9 hearing. 10 Over the last few years in 11 Michigan some modest reductions in smog 12 pollution have been achieved as 13 measured against the old one-hour 14 standard. Nevertheless, as measured 15 against the now court demanded new 16 eight-hour standard, ozone monitors 17 across the state recorded the 1998 smog 18 season 123 times that that level was 19 exceeded. So far beginning in early May 20 of this year monitors have already 21 recorded unhealthful levels of ozone 22 over 70 times in this smog season. 23 Through June 11th in the Detroit 24 geographic region alone seven 25 consecutive ozone action days were 215 1 recorded going on record as the most 2 consecutive ozone action days in air 3 quality history of southeast Michigan. 4 To date southeast Michigan has had more 5 ozone action days than we experienced 6 in all of the 1998 ozone season. 7 Based on the results of two 8 recent school-based studies on asthma 9 prevalence in the city of Detroit, the 10 estimated asthma prevalence rate is 11 slightly over 17 percent. That's more 12 than three times the national average 13 for asthma prevalence rates. In Wayne 14 County where Detroit is seated it's 15 estimate that as many as 50,000 16 children suffer from asthma. Also at 17 risk from ozone exposure in Wayne 18 County is more than 450,000 children 19 under the age of 14 and nearly 270,000 20 adults over the age of 65. According 21 to a recent American Lung Association 22 national study, 22 counties across the 23 State of Michigan with more than 24 230,000 asthmatics or 907,000 children 25 and about 506,000 elderly are 216 1 populations at risk to unhealthy levels 2 of ozone. In only two Michigan 3 counties, which includes Wayne County, 4 over 123,000 asthmatics, almost 500,000 5 children and more than 270,000 are 6 populations at risk to particulate 7 matter exposures. 8 The ALA's June '96 report 9 called Breathless Air Pollution and 10 Hospital Admissions Emergency Room 11 Visits in 13 Cities attributes the 12 number of respiratory emergency room 13 visits to Detroit hospitals at an 14 estimated average of nearly 3,000, or 15 about 6 percent of the total 16 respiratory emergency room visits. Of 17 the more than 15,000 total respiratory 18 hospital admissions in Detroit during 19 the high ozone season of the same year, 20 an estimated average of 944 or 6.3 21 percent were admitted for exposure to 22 high ozone levels. 23 It's readily apparent to the 24 American Lung Association and our many 25 volunteers and thousands of other 217 1 Michigan residents, including our 2 children, the elderly and those who 3 suffer from asthma and chronic lung 4 disease, that Michigan's air quality is 5 presently in a state of relative 6 crisis. Without significant new 7 national controls on motor vehicle 8 emissions, millions of Americans and 9 thousands of Michigan residents will 10 continue to breathe unhealthy air. 11 Just behind California, Texas and 12 Florida, Michigan is the fourth highest 13 ranked state that would attain drastic 14 NOx reductions if the proposed 15 standards are enacted. A proposed Tier 16 2 emissions standard and gasoline 17 sulfur standard if enacted would reduce 18 Michigan's ozone forming NOx emissions 19 level by over 62 thousand tons per year 20 helping Michiganians, especially our 21 more vulnerable populations, to breathe 22 cleaner air while living healthier, 23 longer and more productive lives. 24 On June 3rd of this year the 25 board officers, many of who are 218 1 prominent physicians of the American 2 Lung Association of Michigan, 3 unanimously approved the resolution to 4 support the proposed Tier 2 and 5 gasoline sulfur standards with the 6 following recommendations. Therefore, 7 to achieve the greatest long-term air 8 quality benefits for the nation, the 9 American Lung Association of Michigan 10 urges the U.S. EPA to enact the 11 strictest Tier 2 standards possible 12 that would require the following: All 13 pickup trucks, minivans and sport 14 utility vehicles up to 8,500 pounds 15 gross vehicle weight to meet the same 16 emissions control standards by 2004 as 17 would be required for passengers cars. 18 Number 2, eliminating all the 19 air pollution exemptions for diesel 20 cars, SUVs and pickup trucks and 21 requiring them to meet the same strict 22 emissions standards as proposed for 23 non-diesel vehicles. 24 3, sharply reducing the average 25 sulfur level in gasoline to 30 parts 219 1 per million phased in by 2004 and 2 requiring the sulfur content of diesel 3 fuel to be reduced. 4 And, last, adopting a program 5 that becomes more stringent over time 6 to ensure cleaner air and stimulated 7 advancement of vehicle emissions 8 control technologies. 9 In summary, the American Lung 10 Association of Michigan representing 11 our volunteers and tens of thousands 12 who are at risk in our state implores 13 the EPA to enact the strongest possible 14 tailpipe and sulfur in gasoline 15 standards eliminating all diesel 16 loopholes. Most importantly, we urge 17 the EPA to finalize these rules by the 18 end of this year so that the date for 19 the rule to go into effect will not be 20 significantly delayed. 21 On behalf of our volunteers, 22 thank you for allowing the American 23 Lung Association of Michigan to offer 24 testimony at this important hearing. 25 We thank you, thank the EPA for 220 1 exemplary leadership in cleaning up our 2 air and we applaud you for that. 3 Thank you. 4 MS. OGE: Thank you. 5 Ms. Dawn Friest, good 6 afternoon. 7 MS. FRIEST: Good afternoon. 8 Thank you for the opportunity to speak 9 to you today. My name is Dawn Friest 10 and I'm here representing Detroit 11 Diesel Corporation, but more 12 importantly I'm also here speaking as a 13 mom. My daughter, Kes, is two and a 14 half years old. 15 I care about clean air. I want 16 my daughter to grow up in an 17 environment as free from pollution as 18 possible. The people I work with share 19 my concerns and my goals. Many of us 20 have children. We believe that the 21 Alliance Tier 2 proposal offers the 22 best path to achieve this common goal 23 of improved air quality. In fact, the 24 Alliance proposal offers greater 25 emissions reductions than EPA's 221 1 proposal. 2 I have heard many people refer 3 to diesel "loopholes" in EPA's proposal 4 rule. Clearly, there are no such 5 loopholes in EPA's proposal. In fact, 6 the proposal as it stands today, would 7 prevent the use of clean diesels 8 technologies. For some, that would be 9 just fine. But let me explain how 10 clean diesel technologies can help us 11 reach our common goal of improved air 12 quality for our children. 13 I'm asking you to set aside the 14 images of past generations of diesel 15 engines and consider this: Diesel 16 engines emit much lower levels of 17 certain critical emissions compared to 18 their gasoline counterparts. Diesel 19 engines produce: 28 percent less 20 carbon dioxide; 30 percent less 21 non-methane hydrocarbons; 69 percent 22 less carbon monoxide; and virtually 23 zero evaporative emissions. 24 In addition, diesel engines 25 provide more miles per gallon than any 222 1 other engine type. Better fuel economy 2 means lower fuel consumption. When 3 less fuel is consumed, emissions of CO2 4 are lower and air equality is improved. 5 I invite you to take a closer 6 look at a new diesel powertrain. We 7 have a sport utility vehicle with us 8 today. It is a Dodge Durango powered 9 by a Detroit Diesel DELTA four liter V6 10 common rail engine. The vehicle is 11 available for viewing outside the front 12 lobby entrance. 13 I would like to emphasize that 14 we are not asking for different 15 standards for diesel-powered vehicles. 16 We are committed to meeting the same 17 standards as gasoline vehicles. 18 However, if EPA fails to consider the 19 Alliance proposal and other key inputs 20 when finalizing the Tier 2 rule, EPA 21 may foreclose the most realistic and 22 economically viable opportunity to 23 reduce carbon dioxide emissions and 24 improve fuel economy. 25 In addition to diesel engine 223 1 technologies, SUVs in particular have 2 been portrayed very negatively over the 3 course of these hearings. Consider the 4 people in this room alone. I'm willing 5 to bet that at least some of us here 6 drive SUVs. Some may do so because of 7 practical needs. Maybe they tow a boat 8 or recreational vehicle. Others just 9 simply like the look and feel of a 10 larger vehicle. 11 Consumer demand for these 12 vehicles exists for a variety of 13 reasons. I am convinced that despite 14 the best efforts of many groups to push 15 consumer choices to smaller vehicles, a 16 demand will remain for SUVs. How do we 17 deal with this situation in a way that 18 maximizes potential air quality 19 improvements? We do so by allowing the 20 cleanest available technologies, 21 including clean diesel technologies, to 22 develop to their full potential. We do 23 not have to sacrifice clean diesel 24 technologies to gain air quality 25 improvements. 224 1 I would like to mention three 2 primary areas of concern with the Tier 3 2 proposal. Number 1, Tier 2 emissions 4 standards must be accompanied by 5 simultaneous fuel quality improvements, 6 reducing diesel fuel sulfur levels to 7 the zero to five ppm range. Fuel 8 sulfur directly contributes to 9 increased particulate emissions. In 10 addition, fuel sulfur is a barrier for 11 identified diesel exhaust 12 aftertreatment technologies. 13 2, additional time must be 14 allowed to establish the fuel supply 15 infrastructure, develop high efficiency 16 diesel aftertreatment systems and 17 launch a new generation of clean diesel 18 powertrains in North America. 19 3, Tier 2 rules must include 20 additional BIN flexibility. This 21 involves providing greater BIN 22 resolution and implementing only the 23 longer 120,000 mile emissions 24 standards. 25 Many of us share the same goal 225 1 to achieve the best air quality 2 possible for our children. I wanted to 3 speak on behalf of Detroit Diesel today 4 because I believe we are on the right 5 track. My interest and concern about 6 this issue is grounded in my desire to 7 provide the best air quality possible 8 for my child. 9 With the considerations 10 outlined earlier, diesel engine and 11 vehicle makers can bring fuel 12 efficient, clean diesel technologies to 13 the United States consumers and 14 contribute to achieving air quality 15 improvements. Please allow us the 16 time, fuel and flexibility to make a 17 difference for tomorrow. Thank you for 18 your attention. 19 MS. OGE: Thank you. 20 Mr. Moos, good afternoon. 21 MR. MOOS: Good afternoon. Hi. 22 I'm Jerry Moos. I'm vice president of 23 economics and planning for United 24 Refining Company, which operates a 25 small 65,000 barrels a day refinery in 226 1 the small town of Warren in rural 2 northwest Pennsylvania. While several 3 other speakers, either here today or at 4 other locations, have addressed the 5 need to make this proposal a little 6 more practical and cost-effective for 7 the oil industry in general, I would 8 like to focus my remarks today on the 9 importance of small refiner relieve 10 under this proposed rule and the need 11 to modify the current small refiner 12 provision in the rule to allow it to 13 provide real, significant relief. 14 In regard to the small refiner 15 provisions of this rule, executives of 16 several large oil companies, as well as 17 of the American Petroleum Institute, 18 which is primarily a representative of 19 major oil companies, have been quoted 20 recently as calling for a so-called 21 level playing field, meaning identical 22 treatment of all refiners regardless of 23 size. At the same time, some of these 24 same executives have been quoted as 25 predicting, almost gleefully on some 227 1 occasions, to shut down between 20 and 2 50 small refineries as the direct 3 result of the implementation of the 4 rule. These predictions of refinery 5 shutdowns are ample evidence that the 6 concept of a level playing field with 7 United Refining Company or one of our 8 small refiners at one end of the field 9 and a mammoth combination of oil 10 companies such as the recent 11 Exxon/Mobile combination, the 12 Shell/Texaco merger on the downstream 13 operations or the BP/Amoco/ARCO 14 combination at the other end of the 15 field is patently ridiculous. 16 Furthermore, it is clear that even the 17 advocates of this policy totally 18 understand that a so-called level 19 playing field is anything but. 20 The large capital investments 21 required to comply with this proposed 22 rule, United Refining estimates a $30 23 million investment even at our small 24 refinery, and by the way this is in 25 addition to $70 million that we've 228 1 spent since 1992 on previous 2 environmental regulations, are clearly 3 more feasible for large companies which 4 can fund them from internal cash flow 5 than for small refiners like United 6 that must borrow the funds. 7 Furthermore, should the major oil 8 companies choose to finance these 9 investments with borrowing, they will 10 enjoy a dramatically lower interest 11 rate because of their larger size and 12 their higher credit ratings. Finally, 13 the entire oil industry recognizes that 14 there will be a severe shortage of 15 qualified contractors to design, permit 16 and construct the required facilities 17 by the 2004 deadline. It is obvious 18 that the major oil companies and the 19 supermajors born from the frenzied 20 merging of majors with one another in 21 the last two years will have the clout 22 to ensure that their projects are 23 completed on time while smaller 24 refiners are denied timely access to 25 the resources they need to comply with 229 1 the proposed rule. 2 It is precisely the massively 3 unlevel playing field when small 4 companies must meet the same 5 regulations as immense supermajors 6 which is recognized by the Small 7 Business Regulatory Fairness 8 Enforcement Act under which the EPA, 9 SBA and OMB met with a panel including 10 several small refiners to develop the 11 small refiner provision included in the 12 current proposed rule. I believe this 13 provision is a useful basis, but there 14 are two critical changes needed to make 15 this provision effective and fair. 16 First, the definition of a small 17 refiner as one of the 1500 employees, 18 but including all affiliates whether 19 engaged in oil refinery or connected 20 activities or not, is inappropriate for 21 the current rule. A much better gauge 22 of refinery size is crude oil 23 processing capacity, both for purposes 24 of determining the ability of the 25 facility to afford the required 230 1 investment or for purposes of assessing 2 whether granting relief to the refinery 3 in question will interfere in any 4 significant way with the rule's 5 environmental goals. United Refining 6 Company and several other small 7 refiners have proposed that a small 8 refinery be defined as one with 75,000 9 barrels per day or less of crude oil 10 refining capacity. If EPA feels that 11 for such a definition to be acceptable, 12 the total companywide refining capacity 13 must also be limited, then United would 14 support a proposal by another small 15 refiner to limit corporate capacity to 16 175,000 barrels per day of crude oil 17 which this refiner calculates will 18 grant relief to less than seven percent 19 of the U.S. crude oil capacity. We 20 estimate the percentage of U.S. 21 gasoline production qualifying under 22 this definition of a small refiner 23 would be even less, almost certainly 24 less than five percent. 25 The second critically needed 231 1 change in the currently proposed 2 smaller refiner provision is to 3 eliminate the counterproductive interim 4 sulfur reductions. While smaller 5 refiner would have until 2008 to reduce 6 gasoline sulfur to 30 ppm, they would 7 currently have to make significant 8 interim sulfur reductions by 2004. 9 This defeats one of the key purposes of 10 the delay until 2008 for small 11 refiners, which was to allow small 12 refiners time to adopt promising but as 13 yet unproven new technologies which 14 would achieve the reduction of 15 significantly lower investment as well 16 as much lower operating costs. Interim 17 reductions by 2004 would have to employ 18 expensive current technologies which 19 several small refiners cannot afford 20 and which even if they could afford 21 them would force them to compete with 22 supermajors for scarce contractor 23 services. 24 Effective smaller refiner 25 relief is essential to the survival of 232 1 the nation's small refiners. There is 2 much more at stake in our survival than 3 our stockholders' investments or 4 management's careers. Most small 5 refineries still exist precisely 6 because we are located in rural areas 7 which are not easily supplied by the 8 huge refineries operated near major 9 population centers by the majors and 10 supermajors. We, therefore, often 11 operate in small rural towns where we 12 are one of the few, often the only, 13 source of high-wage industrial jobs. 14 The shutdown of small refineries, 15 therefore, not only imposes hardship 16 upon employees unlikely to find 17 comparable employment and on their 18 families, but devastates the entire 19 local economy. 20 A number of speakers today have 21 spoken about the fact that $200 per 22 vehicle is a small price to pay for 23 clean air. I'd like them to consider 24 that the cost that could be imposed 25 upon a few thousand or perhaps a couple 233 1 tens of thousands of employees of small 2 refineries around the country is a lot 3 higher. They are threatened with the 4 loss of their jobs, the loss of their 5 careers, the devastation of their local 6 economies. And I think most of this 7 could be avoided simply by effective 8 relief for a group of small refineries 9 which represents in any case probably 10 no more than five percent of the total 11 gasoline production in the United 12 States and would have negligible impact 13 upon the environmental objectives of 14 this rule. 15 On a national scale, there is a 16 broader public interest in preserving 17 small refineries. Ever since the 18 elimination of lead from gasoline in 19 the early 1980s, the major oil 20 companies and trade associations which 21 represent them, I would like to 22 reiterate the American Petroleum 23 Institute is primarily the 24 representative of the major oil 25 companies, does not represent us or in 234 1 any real way the other smaller 2 refiners. These associations and major 3 oil companies have consistently since 4 the early 1980s overpredicted the cost 5 to the public of each new environmental 6 regulation imposed on the industry. 7 There is clear reason why these 8 overpredictions have been made. It's 9 that each time the major oil companies 10 have predicted that the full cost of 11 investment and operating expenses for 12 implementing the rule would be born by 13 the public in the form of higher fuel 14 prices. The reason that these 15 predictions have been consistently 16 wrong is that the small refiners have 17 continued to exist and coupled with 18 excess capacity in the refining 19 industry have exerted enough 20 competition in the marketplace, the 21 major oil companies have each time been 22 forced to absorb a significant 23 proportion of the cost rather than pass 24 it along to the public. However, 25 without effective small refiner relief, 235 1 the situation may now be fundamentally 2 different with this proposed rule. The 3 last 20 years of environmental 4 regulations have now almost entirely 5 eliminated the excess capacity in the 6 U.S. refining industry. This is 7 evidenced by the fact that for several 8 weeks of the last year during the peak 9 driving season the industry was 10 operating at more than 100 percent 11 capacity, that is to say at a 12 nonsustainable rate. In this situation 13 the approximate one million barrels per 14 day of capacity operated by small 15 refiners, though a small percentage of 16 the approximate 15 million barrel U.S. 17 refining capacity represents the 18 difference between adequate supply and 19 shortage and its elimination would give 20 the major oil companies their first 21 real opportunity in 20 years to 22 actually pass along to the public the 23 full cost of new regulations. That is 24 why they are opposing effective small 25 refiner relief while gleefully 236 1 predicting the widespread refinery 2 shutdowns in which lack of effective 3 relief will certainly result. 4 Thank you. 5 MS. OGE: Thank you. 6 Mr. Bond, thank you for your 7 testimony. As you know, the American 8 Petroleum Institute has recommended a 9 regional program and we at EPA have 10 proposed a national program of 30 parts 11 per million average. What is BP 12 Amoco's position on the geographic type 13 of a program that should be, that they 14 just should go forward? 15 MR. BOND: Well, as you know, 16 and you mentioned now, you, EPA, have 17 proposed a national program and our 18 comments today were trying to help you 19 best implement that program relative to 20 a regional program. 21 MS. OGE: So is your company 22 supporting a national program? 23 MR. BOND: I guess you could 24 read that. 25 MS. OGE: So I read that for 237 1 the record. 2 The second question, Mr. Bond, 3 I understand that BP has made a lot of 4 efforts in the area of diesel, 5 especially in England. Could you 6 briefly tell us what are you doing in 7 England as far as diesel fuel is 8 concerned? Specifically keep your 9 comments to the sulfur changes.? 10 MR. BOND: Well, there was a 11 need for fuel in that market and that 12 is our home market and there was an 13 opportunity to respond and we found our 14 local refining capacity was capable of 15 responding to that with only a small 16 investment, and I think as most of you 17 noted and have studied that area there 18 was a significant tax incentive to 19 bring that to market also. So the 20 ability to move quick, having two 21 refineries that had a favorable kit on 22 the ground that did not need a lot of 23 capital investment, we were able to 24 take advantage of that opportunity. 25 And, you know, around the world we are 238 1 looking at, as you know, the lead issue 2 in other undeveloped countries. 3 MS. OGE: But could you 4 specifically tell us what is your 5 target level for sulfur in diesel in 6 England? 7 MR. BOND: We are very close to 8 less than ten. 9 MS. OGE: Parts per million. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. BOND: I have to comment on 12 that though. 13 MS. OGE: Please go ahead. 14 MR. BOND: That bringing, 15 looking at a total refinery, when you 16 get down to those levels, it's very 17 easy to get contamination. We are 18 talking -- so you must keep that in 19 mind. We are able to segregate in that 20 market and do it, but it's tough. 21 MS. OGE: We obviously are 22 interested in seeking written comments 23 from BP Amoco on the issue. As you 24 know, we have published an advance 25 notice for the proposed rulemaking for 239 1 the diesel fuel program and we are very 2 interested to understand your 3 experience with the work that you are 4 doing in England. 5 Ms. Friest, thank you for your 6 comments. 7 MR. BOND: Could I add one more 8 comment? 9 MS. OGE: Yes. 10 MR. BOND: It should be made on 11 the record here, I'm pretty sure that 12 you people here understand that, the 13 entire European refining capacity is 14 based on hydrocrackers which make a lot 15 of diesel and they take sulfur out in 16 doing that. The entire U.S. refining 17 capacity is based on FCC units and that 18 is a major difference. We are designed 19 to make gasoline in this market, not 20 diesel. And so that is why in my 21 testimony I indicated that we've got -- 22 we want to get the whole industry 23 moving, but we got to be careful how we 24 do it. 25 MS. OGE: That's a very good 240 1 point. Thank you. Any more comments 2 before I go to Ms. Friest, Mr. Bond? 3 No. Okay. Thank you. 4 Ms. Friest, that you for your 5 statement and the comments. We have 6 heard throughout these public hearings 7 some different views from the diesel 8 engine companies as what is feasible, 9 technologically feasible to be achieved 10 by diesel engines let's say in 2007, 11 2008 time frame. If we indeed provide 12 the cleaner fuel that you suggested 13 that you need, the five parts per 14 million, could you please tell us what 15 does Detroit Diesel believe the 16 technical feasibility will be for these 17 diesel engines assuming that the fuel 18 is there? And I'm talking about 19 light-duty market now. And we have 20 proposed 0.07 grams per mile of NOx. 21 MS. FRIEST: I'm not sure I can 22 give you the detail that you want, but 23 I can try and address what I'm hearing 24 from you. Part of the reason I think 25 that you are hearing, you know, some 241 1 differences among manufacturers 2 reflects the infancy of the technology. 3 It reflects the long way that we have 4 to go and the further out. The farther 5 away you are from your goal, I think 6 you are bound to get differences among 7 different people at different levels. 8 MS. OGE: Okay. And I'm 9 looking for Detroit Diesel. You have 10 recommended the five parts per million 11 diesel fuel. My question is what type 12 of emissions standards you can meet 13 with five parts per million diesel 14 fuel? 15 MS. FRIEST: With the five 16 parts per million with advanced 17 aftertreatment technologies, with 18 flexibility in the BINS, we are looking 19 at the Alliance proposal as being a 20 goal that we are hoping we can achieve, 21 but it's a stretch goal. 22 MS. OGE: Okay. So your goal 23 is 0.07 grams per mile? 24 MS. FRIEST: We are looking at 25 the BIN proposal from the Alliance. 242 1 MS. OGE: So is it .4? I'm 2 just trying to figure out exactly. If 3 we were to deliver this cleaner fuel 4 that Detroit Diesel has suggested, what 5 type of emissions reductions Detroit 6 Diesel would deliver? 7 MS. FRIEST: I can't give you 8 an exact number. What I can say is 9 what I've already said in my comments 10 from Detroit Diesel is that the 11 Alliance proposal offers an alternate 12 frame work that we believe we can work 13 with to get diesel engines where they 14 need to be to be on par with gasoline 15 engines. 16 MS. OGE: Ms. Friest, I would 17 welcome any supplemental information 18 that you may want to provide for the 19 record on this specific issue. 20 Thank you. 21 Any other questions from this 22 panel? 23 Well, thank you very much. 24 Thank you for taking the time to come 25 and share your views with us. We'll 243 1 take your comments into consideration 2 as we are moving forward to finalize 3 this very important program. Thank 4 you. 5 I would like to move forward 6 with the next group. I guess Miss Lana 7 Pollack or Mr. David Wright. 8 Why don't we just take a few 9 minutes to straight -- our recorder has 10 been working very hard this morning and 11 this afternoon. I think she needs a 12 break. 13 - - - - 14 (Thereupon, a recess was had.) 15 - - - - 16 MS. OGE: Start with the 3:00. 17 Ms. Jennifer Price, Mr. Bob Morgan, Mr. 18 Kurt Waltzer and Mr. Bradley Flamm. 19 Please print your names in the card in 20 front of you. Would ask you to keep 21 your statements to ten minutes or less. 22 If it's okay in with this 23 panel, I would like to start with Mr. 24 Bradley Flamm. I understand he has 25 another appointment. Go ahead. Good 244 1 afternoon. 2 MR. FLAMM: Good afternoon. 3 Thank you very much. Thank you for the 4 opportunity to speak today on the U.S. 5 EPA's proposed new automobile emissions 6 standards and low sulfur gasoline 7 rules. My name is Bradley Flamm and 8 I'm here today representing EcoCity 9 Cleveland and Northeast Ohio 10 Environmental Planning Organization. 11 EcoCity Cleveland supports the proposed 12 new auto emissions standards and low 13 sulfur gasoline rules. Good health and 14 a clean environment for all Americans 15 depend in large part on making 16 automobile emissions as clean as 17 possible. 18 These proposals are an 19 important step in the right direction. 20 In the short run, in fact, these 21 proposals seem to be the only step that 22 we can take to improve air quality. 23 Expected improvements to the air most 24 urban Americans breathe are not 25 occurring, despite the fact that cars 245 1 have become much cleaner in recent 2 decades. Why; because our collective 3 response to cleaner cars has simply 4 been to increase the number of miles we 5 drive every day overwhelming the 6 benefits of cleaner fuels and vehicles. 7 In Ohio we have shown ourselves 8 to be unable to address this relentless 9 rise in average vehicle miles traveled. 10 We apparently will not plan our 11 transportation investments and land 12 uses with a regional perspective in 13 mind that emphasizes efficiency and 14 sustainability. 15 Consequently, we find ourselves 16 incapable of creating communities that 17 offer true transportation alternatives 18 and require less driving. In the long 19 run, one of the most important 20 solutions to our air-quality problems 21 is to promote better urban design that 22 links transportation investments with 23 wise land use planning. 24 Until then, closing the 25 loopholes that allows sport utility 246 1 vehicles, light trucks and minivans to 2 pollute our air at much higher rates 3 than automobiles is the only realistic 4 response available to us. 5 Even these proposals, however, 6 could be much better. While we support 7 the intent of the EPA's proposals for 8 cleaner emissions vehicles and lower 9 sulfur gasoline, we share other groups' 10 and individuals' concerns that the 11 following revisions to them be made 12 before they go into effect. The 13 largest most polluting sport utility 14 vehicles should not be exempted from 15 the clean air emissions standards. 16 SUVs, light trucks, utility 17 vans used primarily as passenger 18 vehicles should meet the same standards 19 at the same time. The phase-in 20 schedule for making SUV emissions 21 cleaner is much longer than it needs to 22 be and should be shortened as much as 23 is technically feasible. The exemption 24 of diesel vehicles from the clean air 25 emissions standards should also be 247 1 eliminated. They should not be allowed 2 to continue polluting more than 3 gasoline-powered cars and trucks. And 4 finally, the phasing period for 5 low-sulfur gasolines is too long and 6 should also be shortened. 7 Thank you again for your time 8 and attention. 9 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. 10 Pollack, good afternoon. 11 MS. POLLACK: Good afternoon. 12 MS. OGE: If you could please 13 speak closer to the microphone. Thank 14 you. 15 MS. POLLACK: Thank you, Madame 16 Chair and members of the panel, my name 17 is Lana Pollack. I'm the president of 18 the Michigan Environmental Council, the 19 coalition of 53 different organizations 20 representing 175,000 individuals in 21 Michigan. And on behalf of those 22 member organizations and the citizens 23 who cannot be here today, I would like 24 to submit that we do indeed support, in 25 general, the proposed rules. We will 248 1 be submitting more detailed comments 2 towards the end of the comment period. 3 Having served 12 years in the 4 Michigan state legislature and having 5 spent many more years beyond that in 6 politics, I'm fully aware that the 7 challenges that you are facing here in 8 the matter of clean and healthy air are 9 at least as political as they are 10 technological engineering or economic 11 in nature. And I think that's 12 important to recognize. 13 I'd also like to point out that 14 all of us in Michigan are particularly 15 sensitive to the well-being of the 16 domestic auto industry. Our state's 17 economy, our family's income and indeed 18 the capacity to fund our universities, 19 our prisons, our public safety, our 20 public health is all dependant on the 21 well-being of the auto industry. 22 With that said, there is 23 nothing in Tier 2 in your proposal, 24 fairly applied, would compromise the 25 economic viability of this industry or 249 1 the economic well-being of our state. 2 We've already heard, and I will not, 3 therefore, repeat from Mr. Levinsohn of 4 the American Lung Association, of the 5 significant impact of poor air quality, 6 that has on the lives of our families, 7 particularly some populations. 8 I was shocked to hear that a 9 representative on an earlier panel said 10 the black caucus of the legislature in 11 the State of Ohio was not in support of 12 this when I know full well the impact 13 on the black population. I would like 14 to see that more fully developed via 15 better discussion of representatives 16 and not be compromised perhaps by also 17 representing an industry that is 18 impacted. 19 Additional air pollution 20 reductions are needed from on-road 21 mobile sources to protect the public 22 health from ground level ozone. And we 23 know that and it has been said 24 repeatedly today that these are sources 25 of significant impact. This is why the 250 1 MEC, my organization, would also like 2 the EPA to complete the phase out of 3 the equivalent standards for sport 4 utility vehicles, minivans and light 5 mini trucks prior to 2009, as currently 6 proposed. These vehicles are currently 7 being marketed and used, aggressively 8 marketed, in fact, as passenger cars 9 and are outselling passenger cars. 10 As pointed out by the EPA under 11 Tier 1 standards, these vehicles are 12 allowed to pollute from three to five 13 times more than passenger cars. And 14 while we are pleased, even delighted, 15 that the alliance auto manufacturers, 16 which does, I believe, represent all 17 auto manufacturers, except perhaps for 18 Honda, which has even higher standards 19 for itself, that they have endorsed the 20 goals of Tier 2. We in the 21 environmental community will be alert 22 to any results, any requests by the 23 industry to delay implementation of 24 these goals. 25 We remind the panel, all 251 1 interested parties, the long history 2 that the industry has, all industries, 3 in fact, have, saying it can't be done 4 when confronted with additional 5 regulatory requests for improvements. 6 Whether it's the chemical industry, 7 whether it's auto industry, with clean 8 air, in the past they said it couldn't 9 be done. Always it has been done. 10 It's been done with considerable 11 ingenuity, American genius, even to 12 adjust to new challenges and done with 13 the result of resulting prosperity to 14 our economy around our country. 15 So in closing, once again, I 16 would like to thank you. And I'd like 17 to also state that never in my long 18 experience with legislative panels, and 19 other panels as well, as in taking 20 testimony, have I ever seen a more 21 attentive and more courteous chair and 22 panel. I think your mother's would be 23 proud of you. 24 MS. OGE: Thank you. Maybe my 25 18 and 20-year-old daughters would be 252 1 proud of me. 2 MS. POLLACK: They should be. 3 MS. OGE: Thank you for your 4 kind remarks. 5 Mr. Wright, good afternoon. 6 MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon. 7 My name is David Wright and I'm a 8 policy specialist with the Michigan 9 Environmental Council. I'm a 10 mechanical engineer. And prior to 11 joining the Michigan Environmental 12 Council, I worked for 12 years in the 13 industry on the evaluation, development 14 and testing of automotive emissions 15 control systems. I am pleased to 16 testify in support of the proposed Tier 17 2 and low sulfur gasoline regulations 18 on behalf of our member organizations. 19 Today, I want to emphasize our 20 agreement with support of the comments 21 provided at today's hearing by Jayne 22 Mardock, director of the Clean Air 23 Network. The Michigan Environmental 24 council supports the integrated 25 approach taken by EPA to address both 253 1 vehicle emissions and dual composition 2 engines. 3 In addressing the effects of 4 sulfur on emissions control system's 5 performance will provide immediate air 6 quality control benefits and improve 7 the performance of future advanced 8 emissions control technology. Our 9 organization is pleased that EPA will 10 ultimately require both light-duty 11 trucks and passenger cars to meet the 12 same emissions standards. Our 13 organization is also pleased the EPA 14 has not proposing a different set of 15 standards for diesel fuel vehicles. 16 In addition, we believe that 17 the proposed rule can and should be 18 strengthened. EPA is allowing too much 19 time for the heaviest trucks to meet 20 the proposed Tier 2 standard. Vehicles 21 between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds are one 22 of the fastest growing market segments. 23 Sales of these vehicles have increased 24 dramatically during the past decade. 25 Reducing emissions from these vehicles 254 1 will be a challenge. However, waiting 2 a decade is too long. These vehicles 3 need to be fully integrated into the 4 Tier 2 program by 2007. 5 Although we support the concept 6 of a fleet average, we do not believe 7 the manufacturers should be able to 8 carry a deficit into the next model 9 year. Sufficient flexibility exists 10 with this rule that allows for banking 11 and trading with other manufacturers. 12 EPA should prohibit a manufacturer from 13 carrying a deficit in the fleet average 14 into the following year. This is 15 important to insure improvements in air 16 quality continue yearly into the Tier 2 17 program. 18 The phase-in period for 19 reducing the sulfur concentrations is 20 also too long. Sulfur can permanently 21 degrade performance of catalysts. 22 Reducing sulfur will provide 23 significant immediate benefits in air 24 quality by not degrading emissions 25 controls on current technology 255 1 vehicles. 2 The impact becomes even more 3 significant as advanced technology 4 vehicles are introduced into the 5 market. 6 In conclusion, the Michigan 7 Environmental Council supports the 8 strong position the EPA has taken with 9 this proposal. The organization is 10 pleased that the EPA is meeting its 11 responsibilities to improve public 12 health and the environment. Overall, 13 this rule will result in cost-effective 14 air pollution reductions. 15 On behalf of the Michigan 16 Environmental Council and our members, 17 thank you for giving me the opportunity 18 to express our support of the proposed 19 Tier 2 regulation. 20 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. 21 Price, good afternoon. 22 MS. PRICE: Good afternoon. 23 Again, my name is Jennifer Price and 24 I'm the director of public affairs for 25 the American Lung Association of Ohio. 256 1 And although I realize that we have 2 some time constraints here today, I 3 have to stray from my prepared comments 4 for a moment and I have to come clean. 5 I drive a SUV. I, being a new mom, 6 thought I was buying a station wagon of 7 the '90s. I even bought American, like 8 many other Americans, though I never 9 realized that SUVs were exempted from 10 any clean air standards. And I have to 11 admit that I would like to buy another 12 SUV, but I want it to be as clean as 13 other passenger vehicles. The American 14 Lung Association of Ohio applauds EPA's 15 Tier 2 and low sulfur gas proposal as a 16 most important measure for protecting 17 public health since the issuance of the 18 new national ambient air quality 19 standards for ozone and particulate 20 matter. 21 The EPA estimates that these 22 new rules will significantly reduce the 23 amount of air pollution. Most 24 important to the American Lung 25 Association of Ohio is that cleaner 257 1 cars and trucks and cleaner gasoline 2 will help save lives and reduce 3 illness. 4 Here in Ohio, these new rules 5 will help the hundreds of thousands of 6 people who suffer from chronic lung 7 disease. Without question, air 8 pollution exacerbates the symptoms of 9 lung disease. Lung diseases such as 10 lung cancer, emphysema, chronic 11 bronchitis and asthma. The coughing 12 becomes louder, the wheezing becomes 13 deeper and the breathing becomes 14 harder. 15 Of particular concern to us is 16 the growing prevalence of asthma in 17 Ohio. More than 400,000 adults have 18 asthma and another 200,000 of Ohio's 19 children suffer from this disease. 20 This disease is not a simple 21 inconvenience. Asthma is deadly and 22 asthma attacks can and are triggered by 23 air pollution. Though air pollution 24 affects all asthma sufferers, children 25 with asthma are at greatest risk when 258 1 exposed to ozone because their airways 2 are especially sensitive to this potent 3 lung irritant. 4 Take a moment to consider what 5 dirty air means to an Ohio family. 6 Begin by considering the financial 7 ramifications of one trip to an 8 emergency room when a child has an 9 asthma attack. First there's the 10 emergency room charge, then there's the 11 pharmaceutical charges, not to mention 12 the lost work time of the parent. 13 Next, consider the other costs 14 associated with an asthma attack. The 15 cost of the resulting, the cost of the 16 permanent lung damage, the emotional 17 trauma to the child and the stress to 18 the family. Simply watching a child 19 suffocating from a lack of fresh air is 20 frightening to an onlooker let alone 21 the young child who's experiencing it. 22 How strange it must be to an asthmatic 23 child riding along in the family car, 24 watching black clouds of diesel blow 25 out of trucks, knowing the sick, black 259 1 smoke can trigger an asthma attack at 2 any time. 3 Ozone does not discriminate. 4 However, children are at particular 5 risk of ill health effects from ozone. 6 Even healthy children. They spend more 7 time outdoors in the summertime when 8 the ozone levels are high. They spend 9 more time engaged in vigorous activity 10 thereby increasing the amount of ozone 11 inhaled deep into their lungs, and 12 likewise, they've taken more air 13 relative to their body weights and 14 lungs surface than do adults. Because 15 their lungs are still developing, their 16 biological defenses against pollution 17 are not fully mature and their airways 18 are narrower than those of adults, thus 19 enhancing the inflammatory effects of 20 ozone air pollution. Unfortunately, 21 Ohio's children by design are greatly 22 susceptible to the dangers of ozone. 23 As I said before, ozone does 24 not discriminate. Ohio senior citizens 25 are also at significant risk of the 260 1 dangers of dirty air. Senior citizens 2 tend to be frail and weaker than they 3 once were. They are more vulnerable to 4 infections, raising their 5 susceptibility to pneumonia and 6 influenza because of a degree of 7 declining lung function as part of the 8 natural aging process. The elderly 9 have fewer reserves and, therefore, may 10 be less able to tolerate additional 11 declines among functions forming from 12 air pollution. 13 A number of epidemiological 14 studies have linked air pollution with 15 premature death and hospital admissions 16 for cardiovascular and respiratory 17 problems in the elderly. The elderly 18 population constitutes the fastest 19 growing portion of our population. 20 The American Lung Association 21 of Ohio commissioned a poll to measure 22 the public opinion of American's 23 heartland on their concerns of air 24 pollution. The results were 25 overwhelming. More than eight of ten 261 1 respondents, 83 percent, voiced concern 2 about the impact of poor air quality on 3 their health. The survey also revealed 4 that Ohioans support a number of 5 measures that can help clean up the 6 air. Nearly 90 percent of those 7 surveyed would buy and use cleaner gas 8 in their personal cars. Likewise, 88 9 percent would pay more for cleaner gas. 10 These respondents were willing to pay 11 at least three cents more per gallon of 12 gas. 13 Most of the respondents, 61 14 percent, were willing to pay at least 15 five cents more per gallon of gas and 16 another 27 percent would pay ten cents 17 or more per gallon of gas if it meant 18 it would protect public health. 19 It's simple. Ohioans want 20 cleaner cars and trucks and they want 21 cleaner gasoline. The EPA should 22 require auto makers and oil refineries 23 to give the people of Ohio what they 24 want. While we support the majority of 25 this proposal, we urge you to consider 262 1 the recommendations which will expedite 2 the reduction of public health. We 3 encourage you to reduce the timeline 4 phase-in for both cars and fuel 5 standards and the special treatment for 6 some type of sport utility vehicles and 7 the promotion of diesels through higher 8 standards and to promote the use of 9 advanced technology vehicles as a way 10 to reduce air pollution. 11 I thank you for allowing me an 12 opportunity to come before you today. 13 This proposed standard takes major 14 strides for protecting the health of 15 Ohio citizens. Ohio's children should 16 not be forced to stay indoors as a 17 result of dirty air. We need cleaner 18 air for our kids. They should be 19 spending more time at the neighborhood 20 swimming pool this summer. I'm also 21 attaching a copy of the top line data 22 from that Ohio poll. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you. 24 Mr. Morgan, good afternoon. 25 MR. MORGAN: Good afternoon. 263 1 MS. OGE: And welcome back. 2 MR. MORGAN: Thank you. 3 MS. OGE: If you could speak 4 directly into the microphone. Thank 5 you. 6 MR. MORGAN: Good afternoon. 7 I'm Bob Morgan representing Placid 8 Refining Company, L.L.C. thank you for 9 the opportunity to once again address 10 the subject of Tier 2 from the small 11 refiners' perspective. 12 Placid is a small refiner by 13 every statutory definition, with the 14 capacity of 50,000 barrels per day, or 15 refining capacity of 50,000 barrels per 16 day. Placid's refinery is in Port 17 Allen, Louisiana, directly across the 18 Mississippi River from Exxon's 432,000 19 barrel Baton Rouge facility. 20 Placid manufactures gasoline, 21 diesel and military jet fuel, which is 22 distributed through terminals in six 23 southeastern states. The great 24 majority of our gasoline is marketed in 25 the U.S. Gulf Coast Petroleum 264 1 Administration for Defense District 3, 2 which is dominated by large refiners. 3 As you must know, the number of 4 small refiners has declined 5 substantially over the last few years 6 and the impact of any regulation has a 7 disproportional economic significance, 8 as Mr. Moos pointed out earlier. 9 Regulatory flexibility is of 10 utmost importance to small business. 11 More particularly, to the viability of 12 small refiners. The Small Business 13 Regulatory and Flexibility Act clearly 14 expresses the will of Congress that 15 administrative agencies to accommodate 16 concerns of small business, recognizing 17 that, quote, a vibrant and growing 18 small business sector is critical in 19 creating jobs in a dynamic economy, 20 close quote. 21 SBREFA has provided an 22 effective vehicle for comment. We are 23 pleased with the SBREFA process and the 24 opportunity it has afforded to us to 25 present information helpful to EPA in 265 1 formulating the implementation of this 2 proposed rule. We appreciate EPA's 3 attention to our concerns and the 4 information we provided in support of 5 our position. 6 We're especially grateful to 7 this group of panel members who went to 8 great lengths to educate themselves 9 firsthand in the operational and 10 logistical concerns common to small 11 refiners. We're also indebted to 12 Frontier Refining Company, which opened 13 its facility to the panel for a 14 firsthand view of the operation. 15 The SBREFA report recognizes 16 and succinctly addresses the concerns 17 of small refineries in general. The 18 EPA has perceptively incorporated the 19 SBREFA findings in the proposed rule. 20 Specifically, to recognize the problems 21 that affect the economy of scale, the 22 access to capital, capital recovery 23 potential, access to technology and the 24 availability of the drilling supplier. 25 Although Placid and small 266 1 refineries in general would prefer even 2 greater flexibility than that proposed, 3 we're confident that the proposed 4 standard will allow us to continue to 5 operate, although at substantially 6 higher costs. Any further weakening of 7 the flexible implementation proposed by 8 EPA will pose a serious threat to the 9 viability of small refiners. 10 Finally, some concern has been 11 expressed that the proposed flexibility 12 for small refiners might obligate the 13 United States to give equivalent 14 treatments to foreign refiners under 15 the general agreement on tariffs and 16 trade. 17 This issue was fully reviewed 18 in the SBREFA process without side 19 counsel opinion letters being provided 20 by three small refiners. This issue is 21 more fully addressed in a letter from 22 Gracewell and Patterson to Mr. Jere 23 Glover, chief counsel of the SBA 24 office, on behalf of Placid. These 25 opinions clearly show that flexibility 267 1 to small domestic refiners would not 2 open the flood gates for imports of 3 higher sulfur gasoline. Under GATT, 4 any importer would have to meet the 5 same small refiner requirements as 6 domestic refiners and as of the SBREFA 7 meeting. No importer of gasoline to 8 the U.S. was identified as meeting 9 these requirements. We will include a 10 copy of that letter in our written 11 comments. We will supplement the 12 record with further written comments as 13 appropriate within the allowed period. 14 We welcome the opportunity to 15 discuss our position with any entity or 16 group that might take issue with us on 17 the smaller refiner flexibility 18 provisions. And let me agree with Ms. 19 Pollack on her observations of the 20 panel and I thank you for your courtesy 21 and applaud you for your stamina. 22 MS. OGE: Thank you. 23 Ms. Bobbi Medlen. 24 MS. MEDLEN: Thank you. 25 MS. OGE: Good afternoon. 268 1 MS. MEDLEN: Good afternoon. My 2 name is Bobbi Medlen and I'm 3 representing Ohio Environmental 4 Council. OEC is an Ohio-wide network 5 organization of citizens committed to 6 protect our health and natural 7 resources. We're testifying today in 8 support of U.S. EPA proposed rule that 9 will establish lower tailpipe emissions 10 and cleaner gasoline. 11 In particular, we endorse the 12 requirement that will not only require 13 cleaner emissions from cars, but will 14 also require minivans, SUVs and other 15 light trucks to meet the same standards 16 as cars. Not only is this fair, but 17 it's one of the most important in light 18 of the fact that SUVs and minivans are 19 rapidly replacing passenger cars on the 20 road. 21 We respectfully suggest that 22 this fairness and effectiveness would 23 be greatly enhanced if the U.S. EPA 24 would improve the ruling by requiring 25 all SUVs to meet the new standard by 269 1 2004 rather than the biggest and 2 dirtiest trucks to delay meeting the 3 standards until 2007. 4 We'd like to commend the agency 5 for helping us to get twice the bang 6 for our buck by requiring significant 7 reductions in sulfur in gasoline. Not 8 only will this reduce our exposure to 9 fine particles, it will reduce our 10 exposure to ozone. Ozone, in fact, is 11 a problem that exists here in Ohio. 12 Last summer we exceeded the new 13 eight-hour ozone standards 440 times. 14 And the old one-hour ozone standard 15 seven times at 50 different monitoring 16 sites throughout Ohio. This year we 17 seem to be gearing up to break that 18 record. Before summer has even 19 officially started, we've exceeded the 20 new ozone standard 201 times and the 21 old ozone standard 12 times. 22 I'm from the Columbus area, 23 which generally has been considered a 24 low ozone area in terms of the old 25 eight-hour standard. And so far we've 270 1 exceeded that old standard twice just 2 last week reaching a high of 144 parts 3 per million last Wednesday and 154 4 parts per million last Thursday. 5 Levels like these make air unsafe for 6 everyone. Not just elderly and 7 children with asthma. 8 It's important to know the 9 monitor which reported this data is 10 located in an area of sprawling urban 11 development and it's only been at this 12 location for a few years. I don't 13 think anything can better illustrate 14 the air problems associated with the 15 urban sprawling cars. 16 As monitoring data suggests, 17 smog is not just a local problem. It's 18 a statewide problem and, therefore, it 19 requires the comprehensive solutions. 20 According to analysis by the 21 U.S. EPA, NOx SIP call could reduce the 22 number of days Ohio exceeded the new 23 tailpipe standards by 98 percent. 24 Clearly an effective set of 25 requirements to reduce tailpipe 271 1 emissions in conjunction with cleaning 2 up utility smoke stacks could 3 completely eliminate ozone days in 4 Ohio. 5 The OAC supports these 6 broad-based solutions as the best 7 approach to addressing ozone problems 8 in Ohio. These are, in fact, preferred 9 over E-check types of solutions, 10 inspection and maintenance programs 11 that are now broad-based and thus are 12 not viewed as fair by many members of 13 the general public. 14 The E-check program is a useful 15 tool to have in the clean air tool box. 16 But our first priority should be 17 implementing the broad-based solutions, 18 such as Tier 2 and the standards in the 19 NOx SIP call. 20 I'd like to close by voicing 21 once again that we support the U.S. 22 EPA's proposed rule to raise tailpipe 23 emissions and clean up gasoline. We 24 have the cost-effective technology and 25 we should be using it. 272 1 I'd also like to express OEC's 2 support in both in NOx SIP call as well 3 as the ozone particulate standards. As 4 citizens of Ohio, we appreciate the 5 U.S. EPA fighting for our right to 6 breathe cleaner, healthier air. Thank 7 you for your continuing effort to 8 defend this right in court and in 9 forums for public debate. Thanks for 10 your time. 11 MS. OGE: Thank you. And 12 again, thanks to all of you for your 13 testimony and words of encouragement, 14 support, views, recommendations. Thank 15 you very much. We will fully consider 16 your comments as we're moving forward 17 to finalize this very important 18 program. Thank you. 19 - - - - 20 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 21 the record.) 22 - - - - 23 MS. OGE: We will take a short 24 break. I would recommend to get back 25 at 4:00. A ten-minute break for the 273 1 next panel. 2 - - - - 3 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 4 the record.) 5 - - - - 6 MR. FRANCE: Mr. Welsh, when you 7 are ready. 8 MR. WELSH: Thank you very 9 much. I was going to have slides, but 10 my slide technician had to go catch an 11 airplane so I'll do my best to go 12 through it as it is written. 13 My name is John Welsh. I'm an 14 application chemist with Antek 15 Industrial Instruments. We're a 16 manufacturer of on-line process 17 instrumentation for the determination 18 of sulfur in fuels specifically. If I 19 may read a quotation from the Federal 20 Register, volume 64, number 92, page 21 26097, which states," However, we are 22 requesting comment on whether ASTM 23 method D 5453-93, entitled Standard 24 Test Method for Determination of Total 25 Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Motor 274 1 Fuels and Oils by Ultraviolet 2 Fluorescence, should be the primary 3 method." 4 The U.S. EPA is correct to seek 5 comment as to if ASTM D 5453, sulfur by 6 UV fluorescence, should be designated 7 as the primary sulfur test method. 8 Currently D 2622, sulfur by WDXRF, has 9 been designated as the only EPA 10 approved sulfur test method. However, 11 the EPA has recognized that in certain 12 situations D 2622 has limitations. 13 In my previous testimony, I 14 presented evidence from published ASTM 15 documents that described the 16 limitations of ASTM D 2622 and the 17 absence of these limitations for D 18 5453. 19 I'll review them very quickly. 20 Section 1.2 of the D 2622 test method 21 scope includes an estimation of the 22 test methods pooled limit of 23 quantification. This calculation, 24 based upon a special subset of the 25 lowest samples analyzed during D 2622 275 1 verification, or otherwise known as the 2 round robin, finds a PLOQ for D 2622 of 3 only 15 parts per million. 4 Section 1.5 of the D 2622 test 5 method scope reinforces the problems 6 that can occur with samples with a 7 changing matrix. Analytical errors 8 caused by these matrix effects can 9 become critical as sulfur 10 concentrations decline. It is this 11 issue that most limits D 2622's 12 usefulness in the dynamic blending 13 future of Tier 2 gasoline. 14 Section 5.1 of the D 2622 test 15 method states, "When the elemental 16 composition, excluding sulfur, of 17 samples differs significantly from the 18 standards, errors in the sulfur 19 determination can result. For example, 20 differences in the carbon-hydrogen 21 ratio of sample and calibration 22 standards introduce errors in the 23 determination." 24 D 5453 will not suffer from 25 interferences from products covered in 276 1 this Tier 2 proposal because halogen 2 contamination is stringently controlled 3 in modern motor fuels. 4 D 5453 has proven itself to be 5 an excellent test method for the 6 determination of sulfur in all sorts of 7 motor fuels. 8 This is possible because D 5453 9 uses a sample combustion technology 10 that is very selective and free from 11 the carbon-hydrogen ratio and metal 12 contamination interference that affects 13 the proposed primary sulfur, regulatory 14 method, D 2622. Instrument calibration 15 is straightforward and not biased by 16 the matrix of the calibration material. 17 D 5453 has a proven history of 18 performance in the measurement of 19 sulfur at very low levels. The test 20 method initial publication in 1993 21 indicated the ability to measure down 22 to 1 milligram per kilogram sulfur 23 parts per million. A pooled level of 24 quantification, PLOQ, recently 25 completed this year, last year, excuse 277 1 me, 1998 ASTM round robin was less than 2 1 part per million. Another quote from 3 the Federal Register by the EPA says 4 that, "We believe that ASTM D 5453 5 would significantly reduce capital 6 costs for test equipment and that 7 operational costs would be similar to 8 ASTM D 2622." 9 A cost comparison between D 10 2622 and D 5453 for laboratory 11 instrumentation was presented at the 12 Denver hearing and is now part of the 13 record. I would like to present today 14 a cost analysis for on-line process 15 instrumentation using UV fluorescence. 16 What would have been shown if 17 the slide had been up, that the initial 18 estimated purchase price for 19 instrumentation, on-line 20 instrumentation for 5453 is in the 21 neighborhood of $58,000, space 22 requirement costs in the neighborhood 23 of $3,600 and annual maintenance costs 24 of $3,000. 25 However, for 2622, as of this 278 1 date, I am not aware of teh use of this 2 method for the on-line determination of 3 sulfur. Therefore, I will not attempt 4 to estimate the cost of this technology 5 for on-line use. However, please note 6 that from previous testimony laboratory 7 instrumentation using D 2622 costs 8 three times more than laboratory 9 instrumentation using D 5453. 10 Also, if such an instrument did 11 exist, I would believe that it would 12 require permits and could present 13 potential personnel exposure problems. 14 As previously shown, D 5453 is 15 very selective and free from the 16 carbon-hydrogen ratio, matrix effect, 17 interference. This allows for an 18 accurate sulfur determination in 19 multiple streams with a widely varying 20 component matrix. 21 The development of an on-line 22 certification program begins with the 23 establishment of a direct correlation 24 between on-line and laboratory results. 25 The ability to use D 5453 in the 279 1 laboratory and on-line for the 2 determination of sulfur eases and 3 simplifies the establishment of this 4 correlation of results. The issue of 5 test method bias is eliminated. The 6 development of an on-line certification 7 procedure should provide refiners with 8 a substantial cost benefit. 9 Again, as of this date, I am 10 not aware of the use of the current 11 regulatory method of D 2622 for the 12 on-line determination of sulfur. 13 For low sulfur fuels, D 5453 is 14 the technology of choice. It has the 15 analytical range, cost savings, 16 availability and flexibility in 17 applications that the oil industry will 18 need on its journey toward Tier 2 motor 19 fuels. 20 D 5453 provides a superior 21 sulfur test method, results in lower 22 sulfur levels and equivalent 23 measurements at higher sulfur 24 concentrations levels. Allowing the 25 use of D 5453 could enable significant 280 1 capital savings for the fuel-producing 2 community, while giving them a better 3 measurement tool as sulfur 4 concentrations continue to drop. 5 The D 5453 test method has 6 already been approved by other 7 regulating agencies and has proven its 8 worth time and time again in daily low 9 sulfur fuel production as well as in 10 general use on a world-wide basis. 11 D 5453 should be designated as 12 the primary sulfur test method. D 2622 13 and possibly other ASTM test 14 methodologies should be designated as 15 the alternate test methods. 16 In conclusion, I would like to 17 summarize what has been said in the 18 four hearings by myself or my 19 colleague, John Crnko. 20 In testimony given during four 21 public hearings, Philadelphia, Atlanta, 22 Denver and Cleveland, a compelling 23 argument has been made for the 24 designation of ASTM D 5453 as the 25 primary method for the determination of 281 1 sulfur in fuels. Data from 2 peer-reviewed published ASTM documents 3 and other independently conducted 4 studies has been presented that attests 5 to the superiority of ASTM D 5453. The 6 data presented in these hearings has 7 demonstrated that ASTM D 5453 is a 8 superior method in the following areas: 9 Analytical Range: ASTM D 5453 10 has an analytical range that is 11 equivalent to ASTM D 2622 for fuels 12 with high sulfur levels. 13 Limit of Quantification: ASTM 14 D 5453 demonstrates an LOQ of 1 15 milligram per kilogram sulfur per part 16 per million versus 15 milligrams per 17 kilograms sulfur for ASTM D 2622 which 18 has questionable results below 20 19 milligrams per kilograms sulfur. 20 Interferences: One 21 interference is listed for ASTM D 5453, 22 which is insignificant in modern fuel 23 formulations, versus the well-known 24 carbon to hydrogen ratio and heteroatom 25 interferences found in ASTM D 2622. 282 1 Cost Effectiveness: Laboratory 2 instrumentation using ASTM D 5453 costs 3 one-third that of instrumentation using 4 ASTM D 2622. On-line instrumentation 5 using UV fluorescence is widely used in 6 California refineries. As of this date 7 and to the best of my knowledge, no 8 on-line instrumentation using 9 wavelength dispersive x-ray 10 fluorescence is available. 11 Established Technology: 12 Instrumentation using ASTM D 5453 is 13 available and currently in use in many 14 refinery and contract laboratories. D 15 5453 can be implemented as the primary 16 sulfur test method and many companies 17 will have little or not cost. 18 Flexibility: The use of UV 19 fluorescence in the laboratory and 20 on-line will ease and simplify the 21 establishment of on-line certification 22 procedures that should provide refiners 23 with a substantial cost benefit. 24 Thank you very much for getting 25 me in on time. And if I could, I need 283 1 to run to catch an airplane. 2 MR. FRANCE: Thank you, 3 Mr. Welsh. 4 MR. WELSH: Thank you. 5 MR. FRANCE: Mr. Gelfand. 6 MR. GELFAND: Thanks for coming to 7 Cleveland. As one of the things, one 8 of the first things I noticed in this 9 rule is that there's a comment 10 expiration date or comment deadline of 11 August 2nd. And we're very thankful 12 there is that deadline because there's 13 150 pages of the rule and then I just 14 heard another 400 pages of regulatory 15 analysis to slough through. So the 16 congressman is going to have written 17 testimony within the time of the 18 deadline. But I do want to take this 19 opportunity to thank you for coming to 20 Cleveland. And in particular, thank 21 you for coming to the the 10th 22 Congressional District. We appreciate 23 that, the Congressman appreciates you 24 coming. 25 I know that you've only, you've 284 1 been to three other cities. This is 2 the fourth out of them. And we 3 appreciate appreciate that you have 4 come to Cleveland to hear the testimony 5 of the people here in northeastern 6 Ohio. People want to live, work and 7 play in this county, or it is very 8 important to, you know, to hear from 9 us. And, you know, pass on to the 10 administrator that we thank her for 11 doing that, for keeping Cleveland in 12 mind. 13 We will have testimony for you 14 on this rule within the deadline time. 15 So I'll pass to my distinguished 16 colleagues at this table. Thank you. 17 MR. FRANCE: Ms. Aveni. 18 - - - - 19 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 20 the record.) 21 - - - - 22 MS. AVENI: Mr. Chairman and 23 members of the committee, thank you for 24 the opportunity to testify before you 25 on the issue faced by your agency in 285 1 its implementation of the Clean Air Act 2 Amendments. 3 Cuyahoga County has implemented 4 vehicle emissions testing in the mid 5 1980s, upgraded, as you probably know, 6 with great political angst, to enhanced 7 testing in the early 1990s. The 8 financial cost of controls on 9 stationary sources since 1971 has been 10 significant, but most citizens I 11 believe here believe it's well worth 12 the cost in human health and quality of 13 life. 14 The County Planning Commission 15 is not the responsible agency for local 16 ambient air compliance, but it is 17 seriously engaged in planning for our 18 56 municipalities, the character of 19 their neighborhoods and their prospects 20 for thriving in the 21st century. As 21 an older urban industrial community, 22 quality of life issues such as air, 23 clarity of the air, including the way 24 it smells, whether it's good and 25 healthful, are factors in whether 286 1 people want to live, work and play in 2 this county or whether they find air 3 pollution another reason to abandon the 4 cities where they grew up and move to 5 the farmlands and rural communities 6 distant from the urban core. 7 Joe or Jane Citizen may not 8 have considered whether PM10 or PM2.5 9 means any difference to his or her 10 health, but they do understand the 11 sniff test when sulfur permeates the 12 air, when particulates blur the view of 13 the Terminal Tower from the lakefront 14 and when the closeness of the air is 15 suffocating. Their best guess is that 16 it is not only more pleasant to move to 17 Geauga County where there are still 18 trees and open spaces, but healthier 19 for their children. And we know that 20 this is a pretty good assumption. 21 My point is that Cuyahoga 22 County and the City of Cleveland are 23 investing significant resources in new 24 entertainment facilities, new housing 25 in the center city and even new parks 287 1 in the Cuyahoga River steel valley. We 2 have worked diligently to create the 3 infrastructure to redevelop Brownfields 4 properties on our old industrial 5 property, but without clean air and 6 water, our urban and inner-ring 7 suburban communities will never attain 8 the potential they deserve. 9 Vehicle emissions standards 10 should take into account those vehicles 11 which are the growing market of SUVs, 12 diesel trucks and buses must be 13 controlled and soon. I am particularly 14 disappointed that the rules have not 15 foreseen the growing behemoths, giant 16 SUVs which are not covered by the 17 proposed rule-making. Automobile 18 drivers who have paid their $19 for the 19 E-check test see a Lincoln Navigator or 20 a diesel truck belching nasty 21 sulfur-smelling black smoke roaring by 22 them on the highway and know that there 23 is no or minimal pollution control on 24 the vehicle. They complain loudly 25 about RTA buses which lack diesel 288 1 controls. Although many of our fleet 2 have converted to natural gas, there is 3 a recommendation to policy of 4 purchasing natural gas vehicles. I 5 hope that these factors that are taken, 6 that are going to be completed and more 7 considerations will help them make a 8 decision. But these problems are seen 9 as loopholes by the public and need to 10 be closed as an issue of fairness to 11 other motorists. 12 Mr. Chairman, we have neither 13 the information nor the inclination to 14 make a case for particular fuels in a 15 cost-benefit basis. I understand that 16 Congress mandates that you perform 17 those calculations and I have no 18 problem with the requirement. But 19 common sense and your responsibility 20 for health under your charter dictate 21 that you get complete these hearings, 22 evaluate your studies and regulate 23 those emissions not presently 24 controlled, but which do require 25 regulations. We suggest that the rule 289 1 be implemented on time and at the 2 minimum level required to do the job. 3 Thank you for holding the 4 hearings in Cleveland and thank you for 5 listening to us all. I will be glad to 6 answer any questions. 7 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 8 much. 9 Ms. VanGilder. 10 MS. VANGILDER: My name is 11 Rachel VanGilder and I'm a research 12 associate at Environmental Health Watch 13 in Cleveland, a community-based 14 information assistance and advocacy 15 organization. I appreciate the 16 opportunity to give testimony on this 17 important issue. 18 My remarks deal with two 19 concerns. The first is toxic air 20 pollutants from motor vehicles. The 21 second is the relationship between 22 indoor and outdoor pollution triggers 23 for asthma. 24 Air toxics, sometimes called 25 hazardous air pollutants, are air 290 1 pollutants that cause serious adverse 2 health effects. The U.S. EPA has 3 focused most of its air toxics work on 4 carcinogens, air pollutants that cause 5 cancer. Motor vehicles emit several 6 pollutants that U.S. EPA classifies as 7 known or probable human carcinogens. 8 These include benzene, formaldehyde, 9 acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and diesel 10 particles. 11 U.S. EPA estimates that mobile 12 sources of air toxics, that is, cars, 13 trucks and buses, may account for as 14 much as half of all cancers attributed 15 to outdoor sources of air toxics. Some 16 of these toxic chemicals are present in 17 gasoline and are emitted to the air 18 when gasoline evaporates, passes 19 through the engine as unburned fuel, or 20 as a result of incomplete combustion. 21 Benzene, for example. Other chemicals 22 are not present in fuel, but are 23 by-products of incomplete combustion. 24 Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 25 1,3-butidiene and diesel particles, for 291 1 example. Some air toxics are formed 2 when other mobile source pollutants 3 undergo chemical reactions in the 4 atmosphere. Formaldehyde and 5 acetaldehyde are formed in this 6 secondary process. 7 We have used data from the U.S. 8 EPA cumulative exposure project to 9 estimate exposure to toxic air 10 pollutants from mobile sources in 11 Cuyahoga County. 12 The cumulative exposure project 13 developed a computer model to estimate 14 outdoor exposure to 148 air toxics, by 15 census tract, for the continental U.S. 16 the model is based on 1990 emissions 17 source inventories, including 18 background, point, area and mobile 19 sources. An air dispersion model 20 estimated how far the pollutants travel 21 after emissions, based on wind speed 22 and direction, breakdown of chemicals 23 secondary formation of pollutants. 24 It is important to note that 25 there are many limitations to this kind 292 1 of study. Its estimates have been 2 criticized as being too high because 3 they are based on outdated 1990 source 4 data, prior to recent improvement in 5 air quality. However, our comparison 6 of model estimates with the recent Ohio 7 EPA monitoring data from Cleveland and 8 Cincinnati found generally good 9 correspondence between the two. In 10 addition to the exposure estimates, the 11 cumulative exposure project developed 12 health effects benchmarks for those 13 chemicals for which sufficient health 14 data was available. For cancer, the 15 benchmark is based on one-in-a-million 16 excess cancer deaths from lifetime 17 exposure. 18 The results of the CEP modeling 19 are startling and disturbing. 20 Nationally, seven air toxics exceeded 21 the cancer benchmark in all 60,000 U.S. 22 census tracts. Estimated exposure for 23 benzene, formaldehyde and 24 1,3-butadiene, mobile source air 25 toxics, exceed the cancer benchmark in 293 1 over 90 percent of U.S. census tracts. 2 Some census tracts in the U.S. 3 had as many as 32 pollutants that 4 exceeded the cancer benchmark. The 5 average was 14 per census tract. 6 Our analysis of the cumulative 7 exposure project data for Cuyahoga 8 County found 14 air toxics estimated to 9 exceed the cance5r benchmark. Four of 10 these derived primarily from mobile 11 sources. Mobile air toxics had the 12 highest exceedences of the cancer 13 benchmarks by far. The estimated 14 exposures for benzene, formaldehyde and 15 1,3-butadiene exceeded the cancer 16 benchmarks by 23 time, 36 times and 86 17 times, respectively. 18 The current control measures 19 for automobile help reduce their toxic 20 emissions. But nearly half of all 21 passenger vehicles sold in 1998 were 22 so-called light trucks, not subject to 23 the same pollution controls as 24 automobiles. The SUVs, minivans and 25 small pickups not only produce more 294 1 toxic emissions per gallon of gas, but 2 because they are less fuel efficient, 3 they use more gas. 4 The proposed Tier 2 emissions 5 standards for vehicles and gasoline are 6 a big step in the direction of reduced 7 air toxic exposure from motor vehicles. 8 However, there are a few elements of 9 the standard that should be 10 strengthened. Give no special 11 treatment for heavier vehicles. They 12 should be required to meet the same 13 public health standard. Give not 14 special treatment for diesel engines. 15 Again, they should be required to meet 16 the same public health standard. 17 Provide more incentive for the 18 development of alternative technologies 19 that can dramatically reduce toxic air 20 pollution. 21 Now, let me address briefly a 22 somewhat different air pollution 23 question that my organization, 24 Environmental Health Watch, has been 25 involved with. We have been working 295 1 for several years on programs to 2 control indoor pollution hazards 3 related to children's health, lead 4 poisoning and asthma in particular. 5 Opponents of stricter 6 regulations for air pollution have been 7 trying to minimize the adverse health 8 effects of outdoor air by pointing to 9 the role of indoor pollution in 10 illnesses such as asthma. However, 11 research on the significance of indoor 12 hazards does not get outdoor pollution 13 off the hook. Both indoor and outdoor 14 pollutants have been found to increase 15 the frequency and severity of breathing 16 problems for asthma sufferers and there 17 is, therefore, a need to control both 18 exposure pathways. 19 Asthma is the most common 20 chronic disease of childhood. 21 Prevalence has more than doubled in the 22 last two decades. Deaths of children 23 from asthma now nearly 1,500 a year, 24 increased by 50 percent in the 1980s. 25 Urban poor children are at greatest 296 1 risk. The American Lung Association 2 estimates that in the Cleveland area 3 23,000 children suffer from asthma. It 4 is not known why asthma rates have 5 increased in the last several years, 6 particularly among children. But we do 7 know that with the greater prevalence 8 of asthma, whatever the cause, many 9 more people are now especially 10 sensitive to both indoor and outdoor 11 pollution. 12 There is a natural division of 13 responsibility in the control of indoor 14 and outdoor pollutants that trigger 15 asthma attacks. For example, there are 16 things parents can do to reduce their 17 children's exposures to tobacco smoke, 18 cockroaches, dustmites and molds. 19 Landlords have a responsibility to 20 provide housing that is free of roach 21 infestation, water leaks and other 22 defects that give rise to these asthma 23 triggers. But neither parents nor 24 landlords control pollution in the 25 outdoor air. That must be done by 297 1 government and industry. 2 Lead poisoning is a good 3 example of this division of 4 responsibility for indoor and outdoor 5 pollution. Until the early 1980s, when 6 EPA regulations began to remove lead 7 from gasoline and to reduce industrial 8 lead emissions, an astonishing 53 9 percent of children nationally were 10 lead poisoned, as compared to less than 11 2 percent today. This is a dramatic 12 public health success, though lead 13 poisoning levels are still unacceptably 14 high, particularly among poor children 15 living in deteriorated housing. 16 Parents and building owners still have 17 a serious responsibility to protect 18 children from lead paint hazards and 19 soil contaminated from past use of 20 leaded gasoline. But these measures by 21 themselves, without the dramatic drop 22 in air lead levels, would never have 23 reduced lead poisoning so 24 substantially. 25 A brochure from the Northeast 298 1 Ohio Ozone Task Force warns parents of 2 asthmatic children that on high ozone 3 days they should limit their children's 4 time outdoors. Do we really want a 5 public health policy that tells parents 6 of asthmatic children to try to find a 7 safe place in the house where their 8 children must hide when the outside air 9 is damaging to their lungs. 10 I applaud U.S. EPA for 11 proposing the Tier 2 standards to 12 protect public health. I urge adoption 13 of these standards, with the 14 strengthening modifications noted. 15 Thank you for this opportunity to 16 speak. 17 MR. FRANCE: Thank you so much 18 for your comments. 19 Mr. Ports. 20 MR. PORTS: My name is Mike 21 Ports. I'm president of Ports 22 Petroleum Company in Wooster Ohio. 23 Ports Petroleum owns and operates 71 24 unbranded retail motor fuel outlets in 25 12 states under the name Fuel Mart. 299 1 I appear today on behalf of our 2 company and the Society of Independent 3 Gasoline Marketers of Ohio. I serve as 4 second vice-president of SIGMA and am a 5 member of SIGMA's board of directors. 6 SIGMA is a trade association with 7 approximately 270 members in all 50 8 states. Collectively, SIGMA members 9 sell over 20 percent of the motor fuels 10 in the nation annually. 11 As noted in SIGMA's name, we 12 are an independent marketer of motor 13 fuels. We are not a refiner of motor 14 fuels and do not fly the flag of any 15 major oil company at our outlets. 16 Instead, we compete on a daily basis 17 head to head with the major integrated 18 refiners. SIGMA members are able to 19 compete with these refiners who in many 20 cases operate both as suppliers of our 21 outlets and as our direct competitors 22 because we have access to numerous 23 suppliers and diverse sources of 24 gasoline supplies. If the number of 25 potential suppliers decrease or the 300 1 amount of overall supply decreases, 2 then the role of the independent 3 marketer as the most price competitive 4 segment of the gasoline marketing 5 industry is jeopardized. 6 This is the reason I am 7 appearing before you today. SIGMA is 8 deeply concerned about the potential 9 impact of the gasoline sulfur proposal 10 both on overall gasoline supplies and 11 on the number of gasoline suppliers. 12 Quality is extremely difficult to 13 predict the future. I am very 14 concerned that some of the refineries 15 that my company counts on for 16 substantial portions of our gasoline 17 supplies will not be in business in 18 five years if this proposal is not 19 modified before it's finalized. Many 20 of the refineries our companies buy 21 gasoline from are smaller, independent 22 refineries, such as Ergon Refining in 23 Newell, West Virginia and Pennzoil in 24 Rouseville, Pennsylvania. These 25 refineries, despite being small in 301 1 terms of output, will not qualify for 2 compliance flexibility as small 3 refiners under the definition the EPA 4 has proposed because they are parts of 5 parent companies with more than 1,500 6 employees. And yet I'm not all sure 7 that these refineries will remain 8 viable business entities under this 9 sulfur proposal. 10 If these small refineries close 11 because they cannot afford the capital 12 upgrades to meet the proposed sulfur 13 standards, our company and other 14 independent marketers will be forced to 15 increase our reliance on integrated 16 refiners for gasoline supply. And I 17 can tell you from personal experience 18 that these large, integrated refiners 19 are becoming less and less interested 20 in doing business with unbranded 21 independent marketers. If the number 22 of refiners is reduced and refining 23 capacity is concentrated in fewer and 24 fewer hands, then large integrated 25 refiners will have no incentive to do 302 1 business with our company, their direct 2 competitor. If our company can not 3 locate adequate gasoline supplies, we 4 are out of business. If this happens, 5 consumers will be the group that 6 suffers as a result because of 7 decreased marketplace competition and 8 increased retail prices for gasoline. 9 We need look no further than 10 California for a case study of the 11 potential impact of this proposal on 12 small refiners, independent marketers 13 and consumers. California led the way 14 in mandating low sulfur gasoline and 15 diesel fuel. Today, only a handful of 16 small independent refineries make 17 California gasoline. All of the rest 18 of the production is controlled by 19 large, integrated refiners. Many 20 independent marketers in California 21 have either branded their stations or 22 ceased doing business altogether. 23 And these trends have had a 24 dramatic impact on consumers in 25 California where gas is more expensive 303 1 than in any other state. California 2 consumers were paying over two dollars 3 a gallon for that state's low sulfur 4 gasoline earlier this year. While 5 there may have been many reasons for 6 these high prices, SIGMA feels it's 7 directly traceable to the increased 8 concentration of refining capacity in 9 the state and in the hands of the large 10 integrated companies, the reduced role 11 of independent marketers and the 12 stringent California gasoline 13 standards. If EPA is not careful, the 14 California experience may well spread 15 to the rest of the nation. 16 Our company and SIGMA urges EPA 17 to modify this definition of a small 18 refiner. We urge EPA to adopt a 19 definition that gives added compliance 20 flexibility to all refineries with a 21 capacity of 75,000 barrels per day or 22 less. If this step is not undertaken, 23 SIGMA is deeply concerned that many of 24 these small refineries will be closed, 25 no matter how big their corporate 304 1 parent may be, to the detriment of 2 independent gasoline marketers, such as 3 Ports Petroleum and to consumers across 4 much of the nation. 5 Thank you for listening to the 6 views of our company and SIGMA. I 7 would be pleased to answer any 8 questions you might have. 9 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 10 much. 11 Ms. Russell. 12 MS. RUSSELL: Thank you. Good 13 afternoon. My name is Erin Russell. 14 I'm the Clean Cities Coordinator for 15 The Earth Day Coalition, a local 16 Cleveland based environmental 17 organization. 18 I'm here today to voice support 19 for the proposed Tier 2 standards. 20 While many sport utility vehicles, or 21 SUVs, and other so-called light trucks 22 are driven as business and commercial 23 vehicles, we have seen a significant 24 shift in their use in the private 25 sector over the last 15 years. SUVs 305 1 are now frequently driven as passenger 2 vehicles by hundreds of thousands of 3 people every year. All passenger 4 vehicles, including SUVs and minivans, 5 should meet the same emissions 6 standards. 7 Last year SUVs comprised 8 roughly 50 percent of the total vehicle 9 sales in the United States. While 10 passenger cars have become cleaner over 11 the past two decades, those gains are 12 decreasing due to the expanded use of 13 polluting SUVs. This translates 14 directly into a public health issue. 15 According to the U.S. Department of 16 Energy, vehicle pollution is often the 17 single largest contributor to poor air 18 quality in many cities. A recent study 19 by the International Center for 20 Technology Assessment estimates that 21 Americans annually absorb roughly $39 22 billion in medical costs related to 23 automotive air pollution alone. 24 Also, by imposing the same 25 emissions criteria to diesel cars and 306 1 light trucks, public health will be 2 further protected. However, those same 3 standards need to be extended to all 4 diesel vehicles. According to the 5 World Health Organization, 6 particulates, including those from 7 diesel exhaust, are responsible for 8 nearly one-half million premature 9 deaths around the world every year. A 10 1996 study conducted by the Natural 11 Resources Defense Council ranked 12 Cleveland tenth in the nation in 13 estimated annual cardiopulmonary deaths 14 attributable to particulate air 15 pollution. The study estimated that 16 1,169 early deaths occur every year in 17 Cleveland due to particulate matter in 18 the air. As you know, diesel exhaust 19 is a suspected carcinogen. While a 20 diesel engine is extremely fuel 21 efficient, and that issue will become 22 increasingly important over the next 23 decade as oil reserves decline, it is 24 imperative that efficiency gains are 25 not made at the expense of 307 1 environmental and public health. 2 While I urge the EPA to exact 3 stricter emissions standards on cars, 4 light trucks, SUVs and diesel vehicles, 5 I also urge you to increase incentives 6 for advanced technology vehicles. 7 Through the U.S. Department of Energy's 8 Clean Cities program, clean alternative 9 fuel vehicles are being promoted and 10 used nationwide. However, this program 11 focuses primarily on national security 12 and domestic energy issues. U.S. EPA 13 should do all they can to promote 14 cleaner burning internal combustion 15 engines, clean domestic fuels and 16 advanced fuel cell technologies. 17 While involved in the Clean 18 Cities program, I have learned that 19 many people and companies within the 20 automotive industry are capable and 21 willing to produce cleaner vehicles. 22 There are approximately 20 models of 23 clean alternative fuel vehicles 24 available from auto manufacturers on 25 the market today. With encouragement 308 1 and assistance from the U.S. 2 Environmental Protection Agency, this 3 amount could grow significantly. 4 Requiring auto manufacturers to produce 5 low emissions vehicles, or LEVs, the 6 California standard, will, in effect, 7 create a national standard that should 8 be less complicated for OEMs to meet. 9 To close the loop, it is also 10 vitally important that oil companies be 11 required to produce a cleaner product. 12 While the country will undoubtedly 13 transition away from petroleum use over 14 the coming decades, that transition can 15 be made cleaner by requiring the 16 production and sale of low sulfur 17 gasoline. This enforcement should be 18 adopted at the same time as the new 19 emissions standards. 20 Why is all this so important. 21 I mentioned earlier the extreme health 22 costs associated with automotive air 23 pollution. Not only am I an advocate 24 for a cleaner environment, I'm one of 25 the millions of people in America who 309 1 suffer from asthma. While I have the 2 disease moderately in control now, I 3 fear a future of dirtier air that will 4 take its toll as I age. Please adopt 5 strong vehicle emissions standards that 6 will protect our air quality for many 7 years to come. Thank you for giving me 8 the opportunity to address you on this 9 important issue and I'll be happy to 10 answer any questions. 11 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 12 much for your comments. We will 13 consider your comments. 14 - - - - 15 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 16 the record.) 17 - - - - 18 MR. GREENBAUN: Hi, my name is Bob 19 Greenbaun. I'm the chairman of the 20 local Sierra Club in northeastern Ohio 21 and we're very happy to have you here 22 and working on an issue near and dear 23 to our hearts. I'd like to give you a 24 slightly different viewpoint on the 25 proposed regulations that I think I've 310 1 heard in the last little bit here 2 listening in. I have two basic points 3 I'd like to share with you. One is 4 it's a shame you folks weren't able to 5 join us here in Cleveland last week 6 because last Monday we had an ozone 7 alert and it ran on for a number of 8 days. 9 And while this ozone alert was 10 hitting us in 90 degree plus weather 11 last Monday, I happened to be out and 12 about Monday morning about 11:00 in 13 morning. I had to be driven home 14 because I was no longer capable of 15 driving. I was getting deprived of 16 oxygen to the brain, as many asthma 17 suffers do in this kind of weather. I 18 was having trouble lifting things, like 19 glasses. And so I had to go into 20 hibernation for a little while. 21 I predict that the industry 22 panels, who I've heard and listened 23 respectfully to their testimony here, 24 would have an entirely different 25 viewpoint on air pollution from 311 1 automobiles if say GM's Roger had a kid 2 with asthma. Because I think about the 3 first time that a father looks at a 4 child turning blue or has to throw them 5 in the back seat of the car and rush 6 them down to the emergency room, 7 there's a very different perspective 8 that you obtain as to, you know, the 9 relationship between your business and 10 your family and the values of life in 11 general. Because, you know, although 12 we're told in churches and synagogues 13 and mosques that it's immoral for us to 14 make our living by causing the injury 15 or death of others, that tends to not 16 sit home, that moral lesson tends not 17 to sit in the forefront of the mind as 18 we go about our daily routines and 19 everything's no problem. There doesn't 20 appear to be much there. So in a sense 21 it's unfortunate you missed the 22 pleasure of Cleveland during an ozone 23 alert. 24 Please keep us in mind as you 25 are evolving rules on this subject. 312 1 Because you are talking directly of the 2 ability to function, the health and 3 longevity of the people of this area 4 and other areas that are subject to 5 ozone alerts, okay. 6 With regard to the upcoming 7 recommendation that you all have, you 8 know, on the proposed regulations here, 9 I would like to suggest one way of 10 resolving an industrial problem that I 11 have been hearing here and at many 12 other hearings of this type throughout 13 the years. And that is the problem of 14 industrial people saying they either do 15 not know how to comply with this 16 request or can't do it for financial 17 reasons. 18 I would like to propose that 19 EPA start, in the spirit of free 20 enterprise that has come to us more 21 recently through the ideas of Ronald 22 Reagan and the right wing, I would like 23 you to throw this open to an 24 inventor's, I'd like to throw open for 25 an inventor's lottery. And I suggest 313 1 that you run it as follows: That you 2 throw out to the public the possibility 3 of coming up with inventions to permit 4 the rapid improvement of the 5 environment through automobiles, 6 gasoline and any other medium and 7 empower a panel of engineering 8 societies to evaluate these proposals 9 as they may affect the health, safety 10 and environment of the community at 11 large. And then help the inventors 12 market these inventions to the 13 companies and so forth who have been 14 resistant through the years to new 15 ideas. 16 I think this would help this 17 industrial albatross that we have to 18 look at suggestions and ideas that come 19 from a culture not quite as steeped in 20 its own methodology and maybe a whole 21 new perspective for solving some of 22 these problems and we may get to a more 23 rapid thing. It would certainly enable 24 the EPA to say to GM, for example, that 25 well, if you're having trouble meeting 314 1 the requirements for various 2 pollutants, here are a number of 3 inventions that the society of 4 mechanical engineers and, you know, so 5 on and so forth, all the various 6 societies could look at. 7 I don't know of a single bridge 8 builder engineer who would not just 9 drool at the possibility of reducing 10 weight in the frames of some of these 11 sport utility vehicles. They could 12 make a lot of money selling those ideas 13 to Detroit. 14 So to help out our friends in 15 the industry who are having trouble 16 with this and lacking ideas, let's have 17 an inventor's lottery and give these 18 folks a portion of the ideas that could 19 help and so forth. 20 And the last thing I would like 21 to suggest that you are going to get 22 complaints at the EPA on the duration, 23 how long it this will take to implement 24 these standards and how long it will 25 take to develop new processes and 315 1 manufacturing facilities and so on and 2 so forth. No matter what timetable you 3 propose, you're going to get the same 4 complaints. So I think that what you 5 should do is propose the fastest 6 timetables that you can and the most 7 inclusive timetables. And that means 8 no more exceptions. 9 We had exceptions on fuel 10 efficiency for light trucks and look 11 what happened. So if we have 12 exceptions for anything, sport utility 13 vehicles, small diesel or even 14 full-size diesel, any exception will be 15 exploited as a marketing opportunity 16 where a manufacturer will have the 17 opportunity to compete and offer a 18 product that doesn't have to conform to 19 the same standards as everyone else. 20 So I strongly urge you to rationalize 21 and unify the standards for diesel, for 22 heavier cars and so forth. And this 23 will take us a long way towards an 24 improved country. And 20 years from 25 now you will be able to say to your 316 1 grandchildren that you contributed to a 2 better world than the one that you were 3 born into by doing these things. And 4 the bitching from the industry is going 5 to remain the same and you have nothing 6 to lose by doing this. 7 I would like to thank you for 8 your attention and for your joining us 9 here in Cleveland. And I certainly 10 hope you go back and take a very strong 11 and hard line. I would be very pleased 12 to answer any questions. 13 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 14 much. Any questions. Thank you. 15 - - - - 16 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 17 the record.) 18 - - - - 19 MR. SNAPE: Good afternoon and 20 thanks. This is what, your fifth day 21 of doing this. You're holding up 22 remarkably well. 23 I would also like to add my 24 voice to the many you've heard today. 25 And I'm really going to make two sets 317 1 of comments. One of them fairly 2 general and one rather specific. 3 Basically, I wish to speak in 4 support of EPA's Tier 2 proposal for 5 improving human health in the urban 6 environment by cutting 7 transportation-related pollution. I'm 8 concerned about the health impacts that 9 air pollution has on our health and the 10 health of our society's weakest 11 members. During the 1998 ozone season, 12 Ohio managed to have almost 450 days 13 where the new ozone standards were 14 violated. Given that we know that 15 health impacts occur in sensitive 16 populations well below the new ozone 17 standards, the importance of these 18 regulations cannot be overstated. 19 For example, in northeast Ohio, 20 the childhood asthma rates have come 21 close to tripling over the past 30 22 years. Moreover, we continue to 23 devalue the quality of life of our 24 elders. 25 My father is slowly dying from 318 1 lung disease and high particulate and 2 high ozone days are extremely stressful 3 on his breathing and destroy quality of 4 life he has left. Last week when we 5 had five high ozone days in a row he 6 had particular severe difficulty 7 breathing. It is ironic that the 8 pollution that so limits his breathing 9 that he is forced to stop walking and 10 take his car, the very tool that 11 created much of the problem in the 12 first place. 13 Some step needs to be taken to 14 clean air quality for all of those with 15 poor respiratory health. Given the 16 failure of the current NOx SIP call to 17 deal with transportation sources, not 18 to mention its ambiguous legal status, 19 the Tier 2 standards are one of the 20 best tools we have to really begin to 21 bring transportation emissions under 22 control. 23 This proposal's a big step in 24 the right direction, but there are 25 three things that might be improved 319 1 before this rule becomes final. First, 2 all passenger vehicles, including 3 minivans and SUVs, should meet the same 4 standards at the same time. Larger 5 SUVs should not be given extra time to 6 clean up. 7 I recently interviewed one of 8 the senior design engineer's at Honda. 9 He was employed as one of the project 10 managers on their new SUV project that 11 will be coming out next year. In that 12 interview, he pointed out that he will 13 be able to meet national NLEV standards 14 for approximately $225 above the 15 existing vehicle costs on what they 16 currently are planning. As this 17 vehicle's classed as a large SUV and 18 will retail for approximately $35,000, 19 extra cost brings this behemoth into 20 compliance at approximately 0.64 21 percent of its base cost. 22 If I am going to spend $35,000, 23 I'm doubtful that that last one-half of 24 one percent that will make this vehicle 25 substantially cleaner will deter too 320 1 many consumers who might otherwise 2 purchase the vehicle. Clearly, cost is 3 hardly significant and nothing exists 4 to prevent immediate implementation. 5 The technology is already in 6 existence and on the shelf. A ten-year 7 phase-in merely allows us to maintain a 8 status quo that fails to work for even 9 longer periods of time without one 10 single compelling reason. 11 A second thing I'd like you to 12 think about is that the current 13 standards are much too lax when dealing 14 with diesel vehicles. While these 15 regulations mark a valuable step 16 forward, they are still too permissive. 17 All vehicles, regardless of engine 18 technology or fuel use, should meet the 19 same public health-related standards. 20 There's no logical justification for 21 special treatment for diesel 22 technologies. Rather than go on about 23 that, I'll just simply cite the 24 gentleman who was just here. If you 25 give them a reason to separate profit 321 1 line, they will do so because it 2 becomes marketable. And there's no 3 need to encourage that. 4 While I would speculate that 5 EPA, by doing little about diesel to 6 this point, now feels that they need to 7 phase in the new limitations, while 8 this might be politically astute, you 9 merely insure that we will need Tier 3 10 standards to deal with diesel and allow 11 the negative health consequences to 12 perpetuate. The Tier 2 proposal has 13 created two vehicle categories that 14 would permanently allow diesel engines 15 to pollute twice as much soot as 16 gasoline engines and up to ten times as 17 much smog-forming nitrogen oxide. I 18 would reconsider the diesel standard 19 and act more aggressively in bringing 20 these sources into line with automobile 21 standards. 22 Finally, and on a much more 23 specific level, the Clean Air 24 Conservancy is a national environmental 25 group whose mission is to find 322 1 market-based solutions that serve to 2 clean the air while doing so at the 3 lowest possible cost. I would 4 particularly like to now focus on the 5 issue of implementing the 30 part per 6 million standard. 7 Specifically, I'm concerned 8 that the way we're currently in the 9 existing Tier 2 legislation going to 10 implement the standard is going to lead 11 to the equivalent of what we've seen in 12 the SO2 market or hot spots. That by 13 allowing people to go ahead and setting 14 a minimum standard that they'll be 15 accountable for but no maximum standard 16 which they cannot exceed. We've seen 17 in the SO2, national sulfur dioxide 18 market, that midwestern utilities have 19 pursued a buy-and-burn program where 20 they go out, purchase allowances and 21 find cheaper to burn them than comply, 22 thus leaving the New York state 23 legislature, who repeatedly tried to 24 drop off sales of surplus sulfur 25 dioxide allowances by their utilities 323 1 to Ohio utilities because they're 2 viewing it as we just simply get air 3 pollution dumped back on us. 4 What we would propose is to 5 reconceptionalize your allowance 6 credits that you're currently looking 7 at and set both the minimum and maximum 8 levels. That any refinery that manages 9 to go below their target number, they 10 shouldn't be awarded allowances for 11 staking use in the next year or they 12 consult other refineries. However, 13 there should also be a maximum cost 14 allowance so that they cannot exceeded 15 a certain level and so that we do not 16 find, excuse me a second, this 17 happening, which is what I greatly 18 expect will happen. Which is over time 19 what will happen as the utilities move 20 toward, into the program, you'll see 21 some who are much more aggressive in 22 their reductions and thereby year four, 23 three out of the four utilities are 24 well below the level. However, that 25 one remaining utility is still at .095 324 1 parts per million. 2 Where this becomes a real 3 problem is in the large SUVs which 4 currently have the technology to go 5 down to current or close to NLEV 6 standards, they're unable to do so 7 because of the high sulfur content. 8 And given the volume of gasoline and 9 emissions they have to push because of 10 their size, this becomes a problem 11 issue. They can't implement a 1400 dpi 12 catalytic system much above seven parts 13 per million. Consequently, any one 14 utility or refinery in this case that 15 is still above, even the market is 16 drifting downward, and from an 17 aggregate viewpoint, you would be 18 perfectly consistent and would be in 19 complete compliance because they can 20 buy allowances and have no annual limit 21 on their emissions, they can block the 22 entire limitation of the large-scale 23 SUV. Because with some of that fuel 24 out there, you're going to wind up 25 clogging the systems and rendering them 325 1 useless. 2 Consequently, we propose going 3 to a dual-level system so that annually 4 there will be a maximum amount, a 5 maximum decline as well. That still 6 gives predictability for the 7 refineries, it gives the market forces 8 a chance to continue to generate the 9 lowest costs, but it also prevents one 10 or two actors from delaying 11 implementation of crucial standards. 12 This would also allow us to speed up 13 our yearly implementation so that to 14 bring large-scale SUVs into compliance 15 be done much more rapidly if we're 16 going to use the second maximum level. 17 Thank you for your time. 18 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Thank 19 you very much. Thank you. Any 20 questions? Thank you very much. 21 MR. SIMON: I don't have any 22 questions, but I would encourage you to 23 follow up your testimony today with 24 some detailed written statements 25 including your slides. 326 1 MR. SNAPE: I dropped those off 2 out front. I will be more than glad, 3 if you windup with any questions, my 4 information's on the testimony. Please 5 feel free to call. 6 MR. FRANCE: Is there anyone 7 else that wants to testify? 8 Why don't we take a break 9 and reconvene at about 5:15 and we'll 10 take stock at where we're at at that 11 point. 12 - - - - 13 (Thereupon, a recess was had.) 14 - - - - 15 MR. FRANCE: It's 5:15. We'll 16 start again. If you will be kind 17 enough to write your names and any 18 affiliation on the cards for the court 19 reporter. Appreciate it. 20 - - - - 21 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 22 the record.) 23 - - - - 24 MR. FRANCE: Ms. Dunn, you go 25 first. 327 1 MS. DUNN: Sure. Good morning 2 -- not morning anymore. Good evening. 3 My name is Jessica Dunn and I greatly 4 appreciate the opportunity to speak to 5 you on this important and timely issue. 6 Today, as much of the nation 7 experiences the beginning of the 1999 8 smog season, we have a great 9 opportunity to curve pollution from 10 it's second largest single source, the 11 automobile. This should be among our 12 nation's highest priorities, especially 13 in light of the difficulties U.S. EPA 14 is having implementing the current NOx 15 SIP call on utility NOx emissions. Air 16 pollution, especially NOx pollution, 17 threatens the health of at least 117 18 million Americans who live where smog 19 levels are a frequent health threat. 20 Those who are most vulnerable 21 to the health impacts of air pollution 22 are children and people with asthma. 23 The growing number of American children 24 now go to asthma camps instead of 25 summer camps, miss school to avoid 328 1 breathing smog, stay indoors instead of 2 playing outside with friends on smoggy 3 summer days and end up in hospital 4 emergency rooms from asthma attacks 5 brought on by smog. There are over 15 6 million Americans with asthma, 5 7 million of whom are children. We must 8 establish pollution controls that 9 protect these vulnerable populations 10 from smog. 11 Although we do have cleaner 12 cars today than two decades ago, 13 automobile air pollution is on the 14 rise. This is because people drive 15 more than ever before and are choosing 16 larger, more polluting vehicles. 17 Therefore, we must insist upon advances 18 in automobile pollution control 19 technology in order to keep pace with 20 the trends toward more driving and 21 larger vehicles. As the New York Times 22 pointed out, the popularity of SUVs 23 could obliterate recent improvements in 24 air quality. 25 I applaud EPA's Tier 2 and 329 1 gasoline sulfur proposal because it is 2 a strong program that will lead to 3 dramatically cleaner cars. 4 Specifically, I agree with EPA that new 5 cars should pollute 90 percent less 6 than today's cars, that a nationwide 7 clean gasoline standard is necessary to 8 insure that vehicle pollution controls 9 remain effective over the lifetime of 10 the car and that the popular sport 11 utility vehicles should be included in 12 the program. While not all would agree 13 with the scope of the risk, as Richard 14 Klimisch, the vice-president of the 15 American Automobile Manufacturers 16 Association, reported, "The effects of 17 ozone are not that serious... what 18 we're talking about is a temporary loss 19 in lung function of 20 to 30 percent. 20 That's not really a health effect." 21 Another anonymous oil industry 22 lobbyist was quoted as saying, 23 "Asthmatic kids need not go out and 24 ride their bicycles on smoggy days." 25 Despite these opposing views, 330 1 the EPA should strengthen its standards 2 in several important ways. No special 3 treatment should be given to bigger, 4 dirtier SUVs. 5 EPA's proposal, as written, 6 will not require the cleanup of the 7 largest and dirtiest sport utility 8 vehicles on the market and gives some 9 SUVs until 2009 before the standards 10 apply. This loophole creates a 11 perverse incentive for automobile 12 manufacturers to aggressively make and 13 market ever-larger and more polluting 14 SUVs. All cars and SUVs should meet 15 the same pollution standards at the 16 same time under the new standards. 17 No special treatment should be 18 given to diesel vehicles. Automobile 19 makers are aggressively moving toward 20 diesel engines for the largest 21 passenger vehicles. EPA's proposal 22 leaves the door open for higher 23 polluting diesel trucks to be sold 24 indefinitely. 25 Clean gasoline should be 331 1 available earlier. Under EPA's 2 proposal, high sulfur gasoline will be 3 on the market in significant quantities 4 as late as 2006. In 2004 when clean 5 cars begin to come off the assembly 6 lines, clean gasoline should be 7 required nationwide to prevent 8 irreversible damage to the car's 9 pollution control equipment. 10 Again, thank you for the 11 opportunity to speak. I applaud EPA 12 for proposing stringent standards for 13 cars and urge the adoption of this 14 program with the noted strengthening 15 amendment. 16 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 17 much. 18 Mr. Galik. 19 MR. GALIK: Thank you for the 20 opportunity to speak here today. I am 21 here to voice my support for the EPA's 22 Tier 2 proposal to push forward 23 important environmentally effective 24 standards that will insure cleaner air. 25 As an environmentally conscious 332 1 citizen, college student and life-long 2 resident of the greater Cleveland area, 3 I have researched and studied both the 4 health and environmental problems that 5 the proposed regulations focus upon. 6 Environment problems such as increased 7 automobile emissions, the degradation 8 of air quality and the significant 9 buildup of ground level ozone are of 10 great concern to me since the public 11 health impact on the surrounding areas 12 and region are serious. 13 I applaud the EPA in their 14 efforts to eliminate sulfur from 15 gasoline since it is of utmost 16 importance. Low or no sulfur gas would 17 lead to cleaner air by lessening the 18 pollution emissions by vehicles. The 19 current gasoline pollution controls 20 found on vehicles today are sulfur 21 tolerant. However, new and better 22 control technologies are available and 23 comparatively priced to current 24 technologies. Unfortunately, they are 25 not sulfur tolerant. 333 1 The oil industry is fighting 2 against such a policy stating that it 3 would be too costly to the consumer to 4 refine out the sulfur and that the 5 EPA's proposal requires more than is 6 reasonably possible. Contrarily, the 7 technology to eliminate sulfur from gas 8 is readily available and increases in 9 the price would be more than likely 10 comparative to those that occurred with 11 the elimination of lead. Big business 12 such as the oil industry has 13 continually made such claims in 14 vehement opposition to environmental 15 regulations. They try to scare the 16 public with absurd economic figures 17 that have been shown time and time 18 again to be far too high once the 19 policy was actually enacted. 20 Furthermore, I am glad to see 21 the EPA is attempting to close the SUV 22 loophole, which means that light trucks 23 and SUVs would have to meet similar 24 pollution standards as are currently in 25 the place for our average cars. The 334 1 proposed new pollution standards are 2 needed to combat the tremendous 3 increase in light trucks, SUVs, 4 minivans and pickups from less than 20 5 percent some 25 years ago to one of the 6 fastest growing types of automobiles 7 sold today. The policy would fix the 8 problem of SUVs emitting up to three 9 times as much pollution as an average 10 car and make new cars about 90 percent 11 cleaner than the current cars. 12 In addition to closing the 13 loopholes of light trucks, I'm happy to 14 see the EPA proposal addresses 15 diesel-run vehicles for the first time. 16 Necessary regulations are finally being 17 placed on emissions levels for some 18 diesel-run vehicles. Even though the 19 proposal only provides minimal 20 emissions standards to be set, I think 21 this is a step in the right direction. 22 Degradation of air quality and 23 public health is inherent in all the 24 diesel and SUV traffic going on in the 25 exurbs, which can be combatted by the 335 1 Tier 2 proposal. SUV and diesel 2 vehicles are amongst the largest 3 producers of air pollutants threatening 4 public health. The air pollution that 5 traffic produces has a significant 6 impact on local, state and national and 7 global environments. There are serious 8 health ramifications due to the 9 increased distances and volumes of 10 automobile traffic. This leads to 11 higher pollution emissions and 12 decreasing air quality since more and 13 more vehicles travel on our roads every 14 day emitting massive amounts of 15 pollution. 30 percent of the 16 smog-forming nitrogen oxide or NOx 17 pollution arises from cars and light 18 trucks. In addition, they are 19 responsible for about 20 percent of 20 smog forming volatile organic 21 compounds, not to mention that 20 22 percent of the total U.S. carbon 23 dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions are 24 produced by cars and light trucks. All 25 of these numbers would be increased if 336 1 diesel-run vehicles were added to the 2 equation. 3 Furthermore, these vehicles 4 produce particulate matter that is seen 5 in the form of soot. This can be 6 translated in the degradation of our 7 surrounding areas that impact the 8 environment, i.e., human health, 9 buildings, monuments, crops, etc. One 10 can easily see the impact of more 11 stringent air pollution standards would 12 have on all suburban areas. One of the 13 major health risks stemming from all of 14 this is that the health impact of 15 ground level ozone. According to the 16 American Lung Association, ground level 17 ozone reacts with lung tissue, 18 inflaming breathing passages and 19 decreasing lung function. It acts as a 20 powerful respiratory irritant, which at 21 high levels can cause shortness of 22 breath, coughing, wheezing, headaches, 23 nausea and lung damage. Children, the 24 elderly and those with respiratory 25 disorders are at an even greater risk. 337 1 Also, people who suffer from lung 2 disease, like bronchitis, asthma, 3 pneumonia, emphysema and colds have 4 even a harder time breathing when air 5 is polluted. Nevertheless, these 6 potential health risks effect everyone 7 in the region. 8 One of the best examples of 9 these effects that the proposed air 10 pollution standards set forth by Tier 2 11 would be seen in the area of Medina 12 County, which is located in northeast 13 Ohio, just south of Cleveland. In the 14 past several years, there has been an 15 explosive urban development of the 16 Medina County region. To combat this, 17 one of the major interstates, I-71, 18 runs through the county, adding to the 19 increased traffic flow. What all this 20 means is that the with such increase in 21 urban sprawl, which leads to increase 22 in traffic congestion in the area, and 23 ambient air quality of the area has 24 decreased, thus the amount of air 25 pollution has, air pollution has 338 1 significantly increased. 2 However, the proposal does fall 3 short on several key areas. The first 4 being that all passenger vehicles, 5 whether it be a sedan, minivan, SUV or 6 compact, should be required to meet the 7 same standards at the same time. 8 Secondly, larger SUVs should not have 9 an extended period of time to meet the 10 new standards. Thirdly, that EPA 11 should not provide any special 12 concessions for dirtier emitting diesel 13 vehicles. Instead, more stringent 14 standards should be set to combat the 15 pollution effects of diesel-run 16 vehicles. 17 Also, the EPA should 18 strengthen their efforts to advance 19 control technologies to lower emissions 20 of all vehicles. And finally, sulfur 21 must be completely eliminated from 22 gasoline as quickly as possible. 23 Thank you for your time, or for 24 the opportunity to speak. 25 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 339 1 much. We do appreciate you sharing 2 your views with us and we will take 3 them under advisement as we modify the 4 rule. Thank you again. 5 - - - - 6 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 7 the record.) 8 - - - - 9 (Thereupon, a recess was had.) 10 - - - - 11 MR. FRANCE: Let the testimony of 12 William G. Johnson, managing director 13 of public affairs, AAA Ohio Motorists 14 Association, be submitted into the 15 record. 16 MR. MAVEC: My name is Ken 17 Mavec and I'm a respiratory therapist 18 at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in 19 Cleveland. And I'd like to say thank 20 you for your efforts to make the air 21 safe to breathe by cutting pollution 22 from vehicles. 23 I see on a firsthand basis the 24 health effects daily when our air 25 pollution is high. We get a lot of 340 1 asthmatics and emphysema and chronic 2 lung patients in the emergency room. 3 And particularly what affects me is the 4 children that can't run outside and 5 play because the air pollution is too 6 bad. And they come in the hospital and 7 they're in there several days getting 8 stuck with needles and getting all 9 kinds of medications in order to try to 10 breathe. And it's not fun and they'd 11 rather be outside playing or going to 12 school. They lose a lot of days of 13 school from being sick. 14 And so smog, it's called a 15 serious health threat, but I think the 16 threat is, it's actually an occurrence 17 that occurs. And that's, some of this 18 is unnecessary and we could, by 19 applying the same standards for diesel 20 and gasoline fuels and eliminating 21 sulfur from each of those fuels, we 22 decrease a lot of the pollution that 23 effects the sulfur dioxide that effects 24 the lungs. And passenger cars, sport 25 utility vehicles and light trucks and 341 1 vans should all have the same standard 2 applied to them if they're used for the 3 same personal transportation. So 4 vehicles, including up to the new 5 super-size SUVs, 10,000 pounds, 6 personal transportation should have the 7 same standards, apply the same 8 implementation phase-in and the effect, 9 make them effective before the year 10 2004 vehicles, that would be helpful. 11 And the cancer-causing 12 particulates, EM2.5, apply the same 13 standards to all the vehicles, whether 14 they operate on electricity or diesel 15 or gasoline. 16 And thank you very much for the 17 opportunity to testify. 18 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. We 19 appreciate your time today to come 20 here. Thank you very much. 21 I appreciate you testifying. 22 You can state your name and spell your 23 name for the court reporter. 24 MR. BELL: My name is Sam Bell, 25 B-e-l-l, and I'll give you a written 342 1 copy as well. Hello, I'm a certified 2 automobile repair technician operating 3 the Lusty Wrench Garage in Cleveland 4 Heights and a contributing editor at 5 Import Service magazine. I'm also a 6 member of the Service Technicians 7 Society, the sister organization of the 8 Society of Automotive Engineers. I am 9 also a State of Ohio EPA certified I/M 10 240 technician trainer. So it is my 11 job and the job of those whom I train 12 to maintain and repair the new vehicles 13 and systems that will result from the 14 regulations ultimately adopted. 15 I would like to speak to some 16 of the specifics of the proposed Tier 17 regulations before us today. 18 A. The proposed low sulfur 19 standards for fuel should be 20 implemented industry-wide as quickly as 21 possible. Industry-wide implementation 22 is necessary because high sulfur fuels 23 will irreversibly 24 damage next-generation catalytic 25 converters rendering them ineffective. 343 1 Another emerging technology 2 which shows great promise for increased 3 fuel efficiency and reduced emissions 4 levels, gasoline direct injection, also 5 requires low sulfur fuels. Low sulfur 6 fuels are already in use in California, 7 Sweden, Finland and the UK. The 8 proposed market-based system of banking 9 and credits will not accomplish the 10 needed goal of insuring greater 11 converter efficiency, but will instead 12 allow small refineries to continue to 13 produce and market high sulfur fuels. 14 I, therefore, suggest a system of tax 15 credits and subsidies on a per refinery 16 basis, which would allow universal 17 compliance in a shorter time frame. A 18 more detailed discussion of this 19 proposal is included in my written 20 statement. 21 B. The automobile industry is 22 capable of meeting the proposed .07 23 grams per mile NOx standard as early as 24 model year 2002 or 2003 for all 25 vehicles below 10,000 pounds. The 344 1 EPA's own feasibility testing has shown 2 the simple addition of off-the-shelf 3 catalytic converter capacity allows 4 current production small and 5 medium-sized trucks to meet the Tier 2 6 standards under full load without even 7 reprogramming the vehicle's engine 8 management computer. 9 A study project conducted at 10 the independent Southwest Research 11 Center in San Antonio, Texas for MECA, 12 the Manufacturers of emissions Controls 13 Equipment Association, replaced the 14 catalyst of a 6,400 pound Silverado 15 showing 120,000 miles on its odometer 16 with a larger, more efficient converter 17 and other advanced but readily 18 available components. This experiment 19 achieved NOx emissions of .047 grams 20 per mile, more than 30 percent below 21 the proposed Tier 2 standards. This 22 study used gasoline with a sulfur 23 content of 38 parts per million, 24 commercially available now in 25 California. 345 1 I will mention only two more of 2 the many available strategies by means 3 of which the Tier 2 NOx goals could be 4 achieved much sooner. 5 One, the adoption of 6 continuously variable automatic 7 transmissions, a technology already 8 extensively used by Subaru and DAF, a 9 Dutch manufacturer, would allow 10 vehicular power plants to operate 11 within a narrow band of speed and load, 12 achieving the same kind of efficiency 13 currently enjoyed by stationary 14 engines. 15 And two, the use of hybrid 16 underhood power plants or multi-stage 17 power supplies, incorporating the 18 output from one or more auxiliary 19 motors to supplement the main engine's 20 power during extreme load conditions, 21 allowing even the largest vehicles to 22 operate substantially 23 greater efficiency throughout their 24 range of speed and load. The 25 forthcoming Toyota Prius, already a 346 1 best seller in Japan, is a good example 2 of a hybrid power plant. 3 C. The emissions regulations 4 should be extended to all vehicles up 5 to at least 10,000 pounds. It is 6 morally reprehensible and 7 environmentally unsound for the very 8 largest and dirtiest SUVs to be 9 exempted from the regulations. Indeed, 10 the proposed regulations will 11 paradoxically encourage vehicle 12 manufacturers to devote greater 13 marketing and production resources to 14 the biggest, dirtiest and least 15 efficient class of vehicle, like the 16 new Ford Excursion. 17 D. The upsurge in the sale of 18 trucks, minivans and sport utility 19 vehicles has already resulted in a 20 decrease in the average fuel economy of 21 the fleet on our highways. If we are 22 to allow these vehicles to be produced 23 and driven at all, I propose an 24 additional regulation requiring any 25 vehicle which falls more than 10 347 1 percent below the average fuel economy 2 of the fleet or even of its segment of 3 the fleet to display an EPA warning 4 label accompanied by the following 5 text: Use of this vehicle is hazardous 6 to life on this plant. This vehicle is 7 inefficient and its use hastens the 8 degradation of the entire ecosystem. 9 This includes you. 10 E. The proposed regulations do 11 not adequately address the specific 12 problems associated with the 13 diesel-powered vehicles. Soot and fine 14 particulate emissions from diesel 15 emissions is known health hazards. 16 Compared to gasoline engines, diesels 17 emit fine particulates and soot at a 18 given NOx level. If the prevalence of 19 diesels increases in the passenger 20 portion of the fleet, as seems 21 inevitable, greatly higher levels of 22 particulate emissions will result. 23 Although, tighter NOx standards for 24 diesels may not be required, tighter 25 particulate matter standards are. 348 1 Common-rail, direct-injection 2 diesel technologies coupled with better 3 self-regenerating particulate traps and 4 other appropriate control devices, such 5 as those in current production on the 6 latest generation Mercedes passenger 7 diesels, could bring diesel into the 8 mainstream. Changes in the formulation 9 of diesel fuels may also be required to 10 inhibit particulate formation. EPA 11 should lead the way through dealing 12 more strictly with diesel particulate 13 emissions. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 16 much. We appreciate you taking the 17 time to come here and share your views. 18 Do we have any other 19 testifiers? 20 - - - - 21 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 22 the record.) 23 - - - - 24 MS. BROCK: My name is Kathryn 25 Brock. B-r-o-c-k, Kathryn, 349 1 K-a-t-h-r-y-n. I live in the City of 2 Cleveland. You want my address? I 3 would just like to say that I am very 4 much in favor of the strictest possible 5 air emissions regulations for cars and 6 SUVs and trucks. 7 I presently live in the City of 8 Cleveland. I lived, I live on the west 9 side. And I previously lived in Parma 10 Heights, which is south of the Ford and 11 the Chevy plant and south of the 12 airport. And so when I first moved to 13 Cleveland, I was amazed at how much 14 dirtier the air is. Very often it 15 smells like burning electrical cords 16 all day. I mean, if you go outside, 17 that's what it smells like. And I know 18 that this is because there's more 19 industry in the City of Cleveland and 20 probably there's a whole lot more 21 pollution. And I know that you're not 22 addressing that problem at this 23 hearing, but that is still a huge 24 problem and the air emissions of 25 vehicles add to that problem as well. 350 1 And I have a particular reason 2 for being concerned. In the last three 3 years, I've had cancer twice. And in 4 December of 1995 I had breast cancer on 5 one side and in October of '98 I had 6 breast cancer on the other side, a 7 completely different cell line, 8 different kind of cancer. There is no 9 history of breast cancer in my family. 10 And I work at Cleveland Clinic, have 11 access to Medline and a whole database 12 of journal articles. So I've done a 13 lot of research on the subject. And 14 like 95 percent of breast cancers are 15 not genetic, which means they're caused 16 by environmental factors. And that 17 means the air we breathe, the water we 18 drink. And I know that, I think in the 19 Cleveland area breast cancer is like 20 one in seven women get it. That's a 21 whole lot of people. 22 And while you're just 23 addressing the small issue of air 24 emissions from vehicles in this 25 hearing, I think that air pollution has 351 1 a tremendous effect on the whole 2 environment because air deposition to 3 Lake Erie is second only in pollution 4 to the pollution coming in from the 5 Detroit River to Lake Erie. So it's 6 huge dioxins. 7 After I lived in Parma Heights, 8 I lived in Lakewood for a 9 year-and-a-half. And we had a, the 10 apartment building had an incinerator 11 where everything was burned, except 12 bottles and cans. And I would come out 13 in the morning and my car would be 14 covered with soot. And, I mean, it had 15 to be full of dioxins because there's 16 all that bleach in the paper and all 17 the plastics. And I called the City of 18 Cleveland Air Pollution Control office 19 and asked them about the, is this 20 building that I live in in compliance. 21 And they said actually yes, it's one of 22 the better ones. 23 Lakewood is a very populous 24 community. It's like the highest 25 population per square mile between New 352 1 York and Chicago. And it is full of 2 apartment buildings, all who have these 3 old incinerators which they use. So, 4 you know, that's in the air. And I 5 just think that anything that can 6 reduce air pollution reduces the air 7 pollution contribution to water quality 8 in Lake Erie. And so I would just like 9 to see the strictest standards 10 possible. You know, I think that the 11 whole United States should have the 12 California standards at the very least. 13 So that's all I have to say. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 16 much. Appreciate you sharing your 17 views with us. 18 Anyone else? 19 Please state your name and 20 spell your last name for the recorder. 21 MS. MANNERS: Wanted to add for 22 those of you who came in to speak, can 23 I get a copy of your written testimony 24 as well. But if you have extra copies, 25 if you could leave them with us, too. 353 1 MS. RYDER: Hi, my name is 2 Claire Ryder. C-l-a-i-r-e R-y-d-e-r. 3 My name is Claire Ryder and I 4 am 15 years old. I have taken 5 193,646,000 breaths, so I consider 6 myself an expert of on breathing. As 7 an expert, I can tell you the air we 8 breathe is less than satisfactory. I 9 am here today in favor of the proposal 10 that would require SUVs to have 11 stronger air quality standards. 12 Passing this proposal would make my 13 next 493,526,000 breaths healthier. 14 I would now like to read two 15 letters written by teenagers to Carol 16 Browner on the subject. 17 Dear Carol Browner, the 18 proposed standards of making the cars 19 pollute less is a great idea. Our 20 health and environment is too important 21 to us to throw away with pollution from 22 cars. Please send me info on these 23 standards. Thank you. 24 Dear EPA, the air around here 25 isn't so bad, but I've seen it smoggy 354 1 in areas. I have had problems 2 breathing in those areas and I believe 3 the people living there have the same 4 problems. Despite the rise in gas 5 costs, I want the air cleaner and 6 easier to breathe. Thank you for 7 reading this. 8 Those were written by teenagers 9 that drive. So if they can afford the 10 increase in gas, adults with 11 higher-paying jobs can. 12 Now you've heard from three 13 teenagers. And if you need more proof, 14 I have 17 more letters here. Thank 15 you. 16 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 17 much for sharing that with us. 18 Anyone else? Come on up. If 19 you'd be kind enough to state your name 20 and spell it. 21 MS. BOTWAN: My name is Judy 22 Botwan, B-o-t-w-a-n. I just found out 23 about this hearing yesterday so I don't 24 have a prepared text or anything. And 25 I decided to stop in and see what was 355 1 happening. And I certainly do have 2 something to say though. 3 For many years I've noticed 4 increasing smog over the City of 5 Cleveland and its environments. You 6 don't see a clear sky very often. This 7 is in short contrast to my childhood 8 and youth and young adulthood. It's 9 very perceptible. 10 Now, in addition, I, like many 11 other people, have become asthmatic. 12 And I became aware of this in the 1980s 13 and started having some problems. I 14 didn't know exactly what it was, but it 15 really hit when I was on a trip twice 16 and suddenly I realized that I was 17 having respiratory difficulties and so 18 I had it diagnosed finally. And it 19 renders me more susceptible to 20 infections and then I have a great deal 21 of difficulty. 22 Last week I had a problem 23 because we had air aversion. It was 24 extremely hot, we didn't have much 25 movement. And what happens is when I 356 1 go outside, and I really do enjoy the 2 outdoors, I really can't tolerate it 3 under those conditions. I couldn't go 4 to a meeting because the place wasn't, 5 you know, air conditioned and it was 6 hot and they had the windows open and 7 so on and I just feel really tired. I 8 should point out that I'm otherwise a 9 very healthy person. I don't take any 10 medication except for hormone 11 replacements. For a person my age, 12 that's pretty darn good, I think, you 13 know. Occasional aspirin, whatever. 14 None whatsoever. 15 But this is a problem. And I 16 feel that and I know that air quality 17 is being seriously compromised not only 18 by the emissions of industrial 19 corporations but also by cars and 20 vehicles not abiding by the standards 21 that were set. But most importantly, 22 we have a great increase in the number 23 of vehicles that don't have to maintain 24 the same standard that passenger cars 25 do and these vehicles have been 357 1 increasing numerically. 2 I think it's extremely 3 important that we improve the standards 4 for vehicles so that at least they will 5 have to abide by the standards for 6 regular passenger cars. I mean, that's 7 the least we can do. I think we really 8 should, of course, improve those 9 standards. 10 The one thing is that we all 11 have to breathe. And even those 12 members of society who consider 13 themselves extraordinarily privileged 14 can't escape that fact. Even they have 15 to breathe. And I don't think 16 interplanetary travel is progressed to 17 the point where they can escape. Not 18 yet. 19 So that being the case, I would 20 strongly suggest that government, whose 21 function is to protect us, sometimes we 22 forget about that, take the necessary 23 steps to provide that protection. I 24 think that's the least we can do as a 25 society that purports to be civilized. 358 1 Thank you very much. 2 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. We 3 appreciate you taking the opportunity 4 to come here and share your views. 5 Any other testifiers? 6 - - - - 7 (Thereupon, a discussion was had off 8 the record.) 9 - - - - 10 MR. FRANCE: I'd like to welcome 11 you all here. I think you have the 12 honor of being the last panel. And 13 we've lost a few of our fellow panel 14 members. They had to catch flights in 15 various parts of the country. But the 16 two of us are here to listen carefully 17 and take back your comments. We'll 18 consider them as we develop the final 19 rule. 20 And so with that, why don't we 21 start off. Shawn, if you would state 22 your name and any affiliation and give 23 us your testimony, we appreciate it. 24 MR. SWEENEY: Shawn Sweeney. I 25 just have something prepared I'm going 359 1 to read real quick. It's not going to 2 be very long. 3 Today in front of the hotel 4 there was a press conference with about 5 75 environmental activists to speak out 6 in favor of Tier 2 emissions standards 7 for vehicles and gasoline sulfur 8 standards for refineries. 9 What I wanted just to comment 10 on was the testimony about the 11 14-year-old girl. I can't remember her 12 name, but she told the story of having 13 asthma and what's that like to grow up 14 with asthma in a community with a lot 15 of toxic air pollution, what that goes 16 through. And my feeling is that that 17 should have said it all. 18 These standards deal with the 19 health of people in this state and in 20 this country and that should be the 21 bottom line. Unfortunately, some 22 people believe that profits are more 23 important than the health of our 24 children and of our families. And 25 that's sad. I think that's sad. And I 360 1 think that's a bad message that we're 2 sending to our children. I think we 3 should send a better message to our 4 children by passing stronger air 5 standards. We should send them the 6 message that their health comes before 7 the profits of big business. 8 Those 75 of us or so who stood 9 outside today to demonstrate in favor 10 of stronger air standards had a message 11 that I believe should be heard and 12 understood by the EPA. That message is 13 clean air now. That was the basic 14 chant, that we want clean air now. And 15 that's a demand that we think should be 16 heard and understood. 17 Today I just wanted to take a 18 minute and testify in hopes that you 19 guys would hear that message and 20 understand that message and act on it 21 immediately and not in ten years, but 22 act on it now. 23 The members of the auto 24 industry say that it's too expensive, 25 they say it costs a lot and so does the 361 1 oil industry. I for one am willing to 2 pay an extra couple cents per gallon 3 for gas in order to breathe and I'm 4 certainly okay with paying an extra 5 hundred dollars or so for a truck. In 6 fact, I own a truck and it's fine with 7 me if I decide to buy another one in a 8 few years and it costs me more money. 9 I think that our health is priceless 10 and we can't put a price tag on that. 11 I think it's an insult to do so. And 12 the auto industry even admits that it's 13 just a few hundred dollars, which is 14 just a fraction of what those vehicles 15 will cost, and a couple more cents a 16 gallon is just a fraction of what it 17 already costs. And I think it's worth 18 it, so. 19 I think that when the EPA and 20 Carol Browner make this decision, they 21 need to think of the health of the 22 children in this country and the people 23 in this country and not worry about the 24 pocket book of corporate America and 25 remember the message is clean air now, 362 1 not later. And this has been going on 2 too long and we can't wait. That's it. 3 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 4 much. 5 Courtney Christenson. 6 MS. CHRISTENSON: First I want 7 to thank you guys for sticking around 8 as long as you have because I know it's 9 been a long day and I'm sure that the 10 message has been pretty consistent all 11 day as well. But I am also here to 12 express my support for the Tier 2 13 standards. And I have a letter that 14 I've written to Ms. Browner that I 15 would like to have taken back to her. 16 I'm a community organizer with 17 Ohio Citizen Action. I live in 18 Cleveland's Tremont area, which is a 19 virtual fallout zone for Cleveland's 20 industrial valley. And I can tell you 21 that I do not speak for myself when I 22 say that I'm angry that this debate 23 over air standards even exists. I'm 24 angry when decisions are made on 25 environmental regulation, economic 363 1 development and the industry's bottom 2 line always seems to take precedent 3 over human life and health. 4 I'm angry in this case that the 5 oil industry makes my friends and 6 family and neighbors become simple 7 mathematical and political 8 calculations. Healthy problems like 9 respiratory illness, asthma, emphysema, 10 these are not medical mysteries by any 11 means or sense. Solutions and 12 technology exist to make the quality of 13 life better for people who suffer from 14 these problems. But they're not 15 aggressively used or regulated. And 16 I'm angry that yet again the industry 17 bottom line seems to outweigh human 18 health. 19 I also live in a country that 20 cannot guarantee myself or my family 21 medical care. I believe that the least 22 that we can ask is to breathe air and 23 drink water and eat foods that do not 24 poison our bodies. And I think we have 25 an opportunity now to further progress 364 1 us to that goal. 2 If the industry does insist on 3 accentuating the bottom line and the 4 all-mighty dollar, I would ask they 5 hear myself and everyone in my 6 community that I speak for when I say 7 that I'm 18 grand at least worth of 8 consumer that's willing to spend 9 another hundred bucks next time I 10 purchase an automobile to improve our 11 quality of life. And I would also ask 12 the EPA accept no compromise with these 13 standards. Thank you. 14 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. 15 Tom Smith. 16 MR. SMITH: Well, I'd also like 17 to thank you for staying so late. I 18 just came back from Akron. It took me 19 about an hour and 15 minutes. So I 20 just sat in all those emissions all the 21 way up here. 22 MR. FRANCE: Hopefully we miss 23 them when we go out, the traffic that 24 is. 25 MR. SMITH: Buses, even though 365 1 they spew up instead of out at ground 2 level now, it's still there. Every day 3 I travel 25 miles each way to work in 4 Solon from the suburb of Lakewood where 5 I live following the garbage trucks and 6 all the others as they shift gears up a 7 hill, spew out all this black 8 particulate that ends up in my lungs 9 because I'm following them. 10 And as a committee concerned 11 about urban sprawl, our Sierra Club 12 Urban Sprawl Committee, we know one of 13 the driving factors of urban sprawl we 14 hear over and over again, I want to the 15 live out where the air is fresh. The 16 implication being that it's not fresh 17 in place that they're living, which is 18 the more older urban area and the place 19 that everybody sees as they drive in 20 every day and experience the auto 21 pollution. And they want to get away 22 from that and they want to move out. 23 They don't want their children living 24 in it. Especially if children have 25 asthma or any health problem. And it 366 1 is just one of the many factors that 2 causes people to move out and leads to 3 the decline of older cities. 4 I am against extending any time 5 limits for the industry to meet these 6 standards. As I read the information 7 on the proposed Tier 2 standards, I 8 find your time limits are very generous 9 to allow people to get ready by 2004. 10 2009 I think is almost stretching it in 11 some cases. 12 I'm old enough to remember the 13 whole battle at the time with cars 14 starting back when people were losing 15 their eyes and noses on hard 16 dashboards. And the auto industry said 17 we can't do that. People won't pay for 18 the extra added cost of making soft 19 dashboards. Then it was collapsible 20 steering wheels, then engines that go 21 down when there's a frontal collision 22 instead of crushing the driver, then 23 putting the bends in the frames so the 24 car acts as an accordion. The auto 25 industry just fought over all of these 367 1 things. Then it was seat belts. No 2 one will ever use them. They'll never 3 pay for these. How will we get the 4 public to accept air bags. Oh, no, we 5 can't afford that. And catalytic 6 converters, the same thing. And 7 they've done it and they're making 8 record profits and we're paying for it. 9 And we're all enjoying the cleaner air 10 that we have as a result of this. So 11 it can be done. 12 And as an engineer that's 13 responsible for cleaning up some of the 14 air that comes out of the plant where 15 he works, I can tell you that if you 16 give us fair standards throughout 17 industry, that's all we ask, is a level 18 playing field. If we have to pay 19 something extra, as long as the other 20 guy has to pay it, too, fine. And we 21 really depend on you guys to level the 22 playing field and say this is what 23 everybody has to do. So we appreciate 24 this. 25 We see what people can do in 368 1 California, what kind of emissions 2 they're not allowed to do and we wonder 3 why can't we do this in Ohio or why 4 can't we do this in some other state. 5 And we depend on national standards to 6 say all right, let's make it fair for 7 everybody, all businesses would face 8 the same expense. So please go ahead 9 and please make it tough. And 10 obviously the auto industry, which is 11 the main subject in today's hearings, I 12 guess, has lived with these and has 13 prospered and has done very well. 14 They say that the average van 15 brings the auto industry a profit of 16 about $5,000 and these sell for 20 to 17 $25,000 a piece. Well, when I look at 18 that sport utility vehicle that sells 19 for 30 to $40,000, then for somebody to 20 say we can't afford a $200 catalytic 21 converter, there isn't even a matter of 22 cutting the cost, it's just cut into 23 the huge profits that are there. It's 24 very possible to be done. It's been 25 done in case after case, as I've 369 1 mentioned. Thank you very much. 2 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very 3 much. We appreciate your comments and 4 we'll take them under, into 5 consideration as we develop our final 6 rule. 7 This is the final call for any 8 testifiers. Okay. Since there are 9 none, we'll take this opportunity to 10 close the record. And this hearing is 11 finished. Thank you very much. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 370 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 4 The State of Ohio, ) SS: 5 County of Cuyahoga.) 6 We, Heidi D. Smith and Juliana M. Lawson, 7 Notaries Public within and for the State of Ohio, do hereby certify that the hearing as 8 above-set forth was reduced to writing by us by means of stenotypy, and was later transcribed 9 into typewriting under our direction; that this is a true record of the hearing; that said 10 hearing was taken at the aforementioned time, date and place. 11 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals of office, at Cleveland, 13 Ohio, this _____ day of ______________, A.D. 1986. 14 15 _____________________________________________ 16 Heidi D. Smith, Notary Public, State of Ohio 1750 Midland Building, Cleveland, Ohio 44115 17 My commission expires October 27, 1999 18 19 _____________________________________________ Juliana M. Lawson, Notary Public, State of Ohio 20 1750 Midland Building, Cleveland, Ohio 44115 My commission expires March 10, 2000 21 22 23 24 25