1 1 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS Docket No. A-99-06 4 5 Regarding Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: 6 Proposed Heavy-duty Engine and Vehicle Standards 7 and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements 8 9 Monday, June 19, 2000 10 Crown Plaza Hotel New York, New York 11 10:00 a.m. 12 13 14 15 16 17 TRANSCRIPT of hearings as taken by and before 18 PATRICIA A. SANDS, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary 19 Public of the State of New York. 20 21 REPORTING SERVICES ARRANGED THROUGH 22 VERITEXT/NEW JERSEY REPORTING COMPANY, L.L.C. Kabot Battaglia & Hammer - Suburban Shorthand 23 Waga and Spinelli - Arthur J. Frannicola CSR 4 Becker Farm Road 24 Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Tel:(973)992-4111 Fax:(973)992-0990 25 2 1 2 3 4 MODERATED BY: 5 6 Margo Oge, presiding officer 7 Director of the Office of Transportation and Air 8 Quality 9 10 Kathy Callahan, EPA Region 2 Air Division Director 11 12 Dawn Martin, Chief of Staff of the Office of Air and 13 Radiation 14 15 Chet France, Director of the Assessment and Standards 16 Division 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 USEPA PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 Monday, June 19, 2000 3 New York, New York 4 5 MS. OGE: Good morning. On behalf of the 6 Environmental Protection Agency, I would like to 7 welcome you to today's hearing and thank you for taking 8 the time to attend this hearing this morning. 9 I'm Margo Oge, Director of the Office of 10 Transportation and Air Quality, and I will serve as the 11 presiding officer of this hearing. 12 We will hear testimony today on EPA's 13 proposed rulemaking for cleaner trucks, cleaner busses, 14 and cleaner diesel fuel. This is a historic proposal. 15 This proposed program will receive a dramatic reduction 16 in air pollution in the 21st Century. Last year we 17 established a new program to reduce emissions from 18 cars, minivans, pickup trucks, and cleaner burning 19 gasoline. 20 We are now focusing much needed attention on 21 heavy-duty trucks and buses, applying the same 22 principle of treating vehicles and fuel as a system. 23 This proposed program will protect the public health 24 and environment of all Americans by reducing the 25 sulphur content in highway diesel fuel by 97 percent to 4 1 provide the cleanest diesel trucks and buses in 2 history. 3 Heavy-duty trucks and buses are largely 4 powered by diesel engines. Diesel engines are more 5 durable and get higher fuel economy than gasoline 6 engines, but also tend to pollute more. 7 Over 100 million people across the country 8 breath unhealthy air. Trucks and buses contribute 9 significantly to this problem. For example, here in 10 New York one-third of NOx, which is the nitrogen oxide 11 emissions, and 11 percent of particulate emissions come 12 from those trucks and buses. This pollution causes 13 lung damage and respiratory problems, and there is 14 increasing evidence that diesel exhaust may cause lung 15 cancer. 16 Before we start the testimony, I would like 17 introduce the EPA panel and describe how we will 18 conduct this hearing today. You have already been 19 introduced to Kathy Callahan. Kathy is the director of 20 the Air Office of the Regional Office here in New York 21 City. Thanks for coming, Kathy. 22 On my right is Chet France, he is the 23 Director of the Assessment and Standards Division. On 24 my left is Dawn Martin, Chief of Staff of the Office of 25 Air and Radiation. And Gretchen Graves (phonetic) is a 5 1 lawyer for today's hearing. 2 This is one of the public hearings that we're 3 going to hold across the country. This is the first of 4 the five public hearings. Please keep in mind that in 5 addition to the opportunity for oral testimony today, 6 this hearing, and the remaining four hearings, the 7 common period for this proposal rule will remain open 8 until August 14 to allow for comments. 9 We are conducting this hearing according to 10 section 3067-D(5) of the Clean Air Act, which requires 11 EPA to provide interested persons with an opportunity 12 for oral presentation of data, in addition to making an 13 opportunity for submissions today. 14 We expect a large number of people to come 15 here to testify, and we will do our best to keep the 16 process moving smoothly and I'm asking for your help, 17 so that everyone has an opportunity to speak. I'm 18 asking everyone to keep your comments to an absolute 19 maximum of ten minutes. You can do a shorter than ten 20 minutes, that would be great. If your testimony runs 21 longer, this is the gentlemen who is going to help you 22 keep track of your time by signaling you before the ten 23 minutes are up. So please look at Ted. 24 Because of the large number of witness who 25 will testify today, this hearing may go into the 6 1 evening hours, if necessary. We will work through 2 lunchtime and dinner. I will be conducting this 3 hearing formally. 4 We request that witness state their names and 5 affiliations prior to making the statement. Please 6 write your name clearly on the paper provided and place 7 it in front of you so we know who you are. When a 8 witness has finished his or her presentation, a member 9 of he EPA panel may ask questions concerning your 10 testimony. 11 Now, if there are any members of the audience 12 who wish to testify and have not already signed up, I 13 would ask you to please submit your names to the 14 reception table and bring you forward to testify if you 15 would like a transcript of this proceeding, you should 16 make arrangements directly with the court reporter. 17 Before we begin the testimony is, if there 18 are any questions please let me know, if not, I will 19 introduce our first panel. 20 Today, we have few elected officials of this 21 wonderful state of New York. A member of the assembly, 22 Mr. Edward Sullivan is here. Please come forward. And 23 I understand that Ms. Kathy Fried (phonetic), New York 24 City Councilmember is also here. Please come forward. 25 MR. EDWARD SULLIVAN: Good morning. Thank 7 1 you for coming to New York, and thank you for inviting 2 me. My name is Edward Sullivan, I am a member of the 3 New York State Assembly and I serve, among other 4 committees, on the Environmental Conservation 5 Committee. 6 But the reason I'm here primarily is for two 7 reasons. One is that when I was younger, I was an 8 asthmatic child. I suffered from asthma for many 9 years. I remember very vividly the difficulties of 10 breathing. Simply breathing. Breathing through the 11 night. Breathing through the day. I remember being 12 unable to participate in certain activities that 13 children might normally be expected to participate in 14 because of my difficulty breathing. 15 Today, there are an extraordinary number of 16 young people in the same circumstances. Many of them 17 within district, and many of them live near my 18 district. 19 I represent an area on the Upper West Side of 20 Manhattan, which goes up to the edge of the bus barns, 21 where the buses are kept and where they re-circulate to 22 go on their routes. It is also an area where an 23 enormous number of trucks not only transport goods, but 24 are served also service stations that are located there 25 and, therefore, add to the pollution. 8 1 The young people in that area -- not only the 2 young -- people who are asthmatic in that area not only 3 go through what I went through as a young person, but 4 they have the additional burden of polluted air that I 5 find is unacceptable. 6 It is bad enough that a young child has to go 7 through and suffer through asthma, but to ask him to 8 suffer through polluted air that is imposed upon him or 9 her by trucks and buses which don't have to do it, is, 10 I feel, unacceptable. There are alternatives. We do 11 not have to have vehicles driven by diesel engines. 12 There are alternatives and those alternatives 13 must be employed to save these young people. Will it 14 cost money? I guess it will. Then we have to decide 15 what are the relative values of a healthy child or the 16 cost of a more efficient engine. Those are decisions 17 that we, as a society, have to make. What is more 18 important? What is more valuable to us? 19 I would like to add one other factor, and 20 that is recently, some years ago, the Americans with 21 Disabilities Act was passed, and as I understand it -- 22 I'm not an expert on that Act -- but as I understand 23 it, the idea was that we, as a nation, are going to 24 begin including everybody in our activities, everybody 25 in our social life, and not exclude people who happen 9 1 to have a disability. Thus, we have, as we have all 2 witnessed, seen stairwells turned into ramps, or 3 elevators and doorways widened, and etcetera. And I 4 think this is all very good, because as one nation, 5 instead of a divided nation, we are a stronger nation. 6 Well, I believe that the Americans with 7 Disabilities Act would apply to the asthmatic children 8 who live in areas where unnecessarily polluted air is 9 being dumped upon them. 10 If that's the case, if there is an 11 alternative available, then I would believe that this 12 polluting of the area takes on not simply a negative 13 thing to do, but possibly an illegal thing to do under 14 the Americans with Disabilities Act. So I would like 15 to call that to your attention. I'm not sure I'm 16 right, but I think it would be something to think about 17 in the protection of these children. 18 Let me just finish by citing a quotation from 19 the Bible, which goes as follows: "Which of you, if 20 your son asks for a fish, would give him a stone?" 21 Well, I ask which of you, if your son or 22 daughter asked for clean air to breathe, would give him 23 or her poisoned air to breathe? Thank you. 24 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Freed. 25 MS. KATHY FREED: (Phonetic) Good morning 10 1 and I thank you for allowing me to speak. I especially 2 want to thank you for coming forward with the proposed 3 new rules for diesel fuel. I urge you to implement 4 them as soon as possible. And if you could do it 5 tomorrow, I would be just as happy. 6 I represent lower Manhattan, but I don't want 7 to just speak for lower Manhattan I want to talk to the 8 entire City of New York. We, in many ways, are 9 unique. We're certainly the largest city in America, 10 but we probably are the most polluted city. Although, 11 technically, Baltimore is worse. When the studies that 12 came out last year, Manhattan was the second-most 13 polluted city, Queens, the Bronx, and Brooklyn are in 14 the top ten, and Staten Island was in the top 25. 15 I think if you add them altogether, what 16 we're looking at is an environmental disaster. Every 17 single day everyone who breaths is a being assaulted by 18 toxins. Anyone who has lived here for any length of 19 time starts to develop what we refer to as the "New 20 York cough." Like a two-pack-a-day smoker, after a 21 certain point you start coughing. 22 Well, if you live in New York, after a 23 certain point you notice that you come down with sinus 24 problems. You develop respiratory problems. Suddenly 25 you have allergies, and you do develop asthma. That's 11 1 if you moved here as an adult. If you've been here as 2 a child -- and an unconscionable number of children 3 have asthma. Asthma rates are higher here in the city, 4 and the number one contributor to that is the air that 5 we breath. And certainly diesel fumes. 6 Another unique thing about New York is that 7 we get fully 97 percent of the goods that come into 8 this city come from trucks. The majority of those 9 trucks are diesels. The buses that we have in the 10 Metropolitan Transit Authority, the majority of them 11 are also diesels. We are only now beginning to come in 12 with some alternatives. A lot of the proposals are too 13 little and too late. 14 If you live in New York, you really are 15 assaulted daily by the air that we have to breath. And 16 in addition to the fact that we have incredible amounts 17 of diesel, I think 50 percent of the air pollutants are 18 directly from diesel fumes. And in certain areas like 19 West Harlem, where they live by bus terminals, you have 20 some of the highest asthma rates in the country. 21 Downtown, where people who live near the 22 Canal Street corridor, where for 24 hours a day trucks 23 come from the East River bridge and the Holland Tunnel, 24 we are totally assaulted by diesel fumes. 25 We are actually trying to get the state to 12 1 put additional monitors down there, because ironically 2 in the city of New York we have what's called "opacity" 3 (phonetic). Which means that if you can actually see 4 the diesel soot, that's illegal. That (inaudible), 5 because that's the least of the problem. It's the 6 small particulate matter that we breath in through our 7 nose and runs through our respiratory system. Because 8 our bodies have no defenses against the small, 9 invisible (inaudible). 10 We're also looking at that fact that diesel 11 soot has been linked to cancer and other respiratory 12 ailments, which I think we haven't even begun to study 13 like we probably should. 14 I don't know what to say except that in New 15 York we are under assault by our own air, and we 16 desperately need to be rescued from this. And if it's 17 removing sulfur that will do this, then we're all for 18 it. 19 Sure there is a cost, but it's been estimated 20 that last year alone the top ten oil companies reported 21 $11 billion in profits. The one-time cost of removing 22 sulphur from diesel fuel is about a third of that. 23 And the other irony there is that we're 24 looking this at a time that the oil companies are 25 reaping unheard of profits. In fact, right now an 13 1 investigation is going on in the Midwest to see if 2 there's been price fixing that's been happening because 3 of the astronomical oil prices. 4 But whatever the price, even if it were more 5 than that, we should pay, because we're paying a much 6 higher cost in quality of life and death. The 7 pollution, we must remember, is deadly. Asthma does 8 kill, and it significantly reduces the quality of life 9 for children, for seniors, for all of us. 10 So I would implore you to move on this as 11 soon as possible. 12 Let me just end by saying another thing about 13 New York: We have never been in compliance with the 14 Clean Air Act. We have never been in compliance with 15 the State Implementation Plan. And there are a lot of 16 us in the city who are getting fed up with this. 17 We need a change. We need decent, safe, 18 healthy air. Because if we don't get the air we need, 19 we are looking at the possibility of a lawsuit, and 20 many of those millions or billions of (inaudible) will 21 get us to see to this problem. But we are going to do 22 whatever it takes so we can breathe healthy air. 23 Thank you for these hearings, and I urge you 24 to do whatever you can to get rid of as much diesel as 25 possible. Thank you. 14 1 MS. OGE: I would like to ask the next panel 2 and first panel to please come forward. Peggy Shepard, 3 Bill Becker, Lewis Frank, Rich Kassel, Bruce 4 Sertelsen. Ms. Shepard, we'll start with you. 5 MS. PEGGY SHEPARD: Good morning. I am the 6 executive director of West Harlem Environmental Action, 7 Incorporated, (WE ACT); co-chair of the Northeast 8 Environmental Justice Network; and vice chair of the 9 National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to the 10 EPA. 11 I appreciate the opportunity to address EPA's 12 new rule intended to dramatically cut diesel pollution 13 over the next ten years. 14 WE ACT works in communities of color to 15 empower residents by educating them on the many 16 environmental pollutants to which they are exposed and 17 to help reduce such exposures in order to improve 18 environmental health, quality of life, and community 19 well being. One of the most important issues that we 20 work to address is air quality and its effect on 21 respiratory disease; a contemporary urban paradigm of 22 transportation, air quality, and public health. In 23 Northeast urban areas like New York City, Baltimore, 24 and Boston, those links are unmistakable. 25 We thank the EPA for initiating this new 15 1 proposal to curb diesel exhaust because dirty diesel 2 trucks and buses adversely affect me, my family, my 3 community and other New Yorkers. Yet, we are troubled 4 that the communities with a high percentage of 5 residents who are more vulnerable, such as children, 6 the elderly, and the immuno-compromised, whose 7 residents have poor health status such as infant 8 mortality rates, low life expectancy, and epidemic 9 asthma rates, that those communities will continue over 10 the next ten years to see its most vulnerable residents 11 at risk. The EPA's schedule for requiring cleaner, 12 low-sulfur diesel fuel in 2006 is better late than 13 never; but sooner is both feasible and better for 14 public health. Let me tell you why. 15 Environmental Justice communities, home to 16 predominately Latinos, Asian, and Native Americans, are 17 often disproportionately exposed to a variety of 18 environmental hazards. Diesel exhaust is only one of 19 the health risks. Children in these communities are 20 losing the fight against asthma. Not only do 21 African/American and Latino children have a higher risk 22 of asthma than white children, but African/American 23 children are four times more likely to die from asthma 24 compared to Caucasian youth. 25 The demographics of residents living in areas 16 1 not in compliance with the federal ozone standard is 2 52 percent white, 62 percent African/American, and 3 71 percent Latino. There are significant studies that 4 indicate dramatically the correlation between high 5 ozone levels, increased hospitalizations and emergency 6 room visits for asthma, and premature deaths of 7 vulnerable residents like the elderly. 8 Manhattan, a non-attainment area and listed 9 as an area with the second highest level of air toxics 10 in the country by EPA, has never met the federal 11 regulations for particulate matter. According to an 12 air quality test done in northern Manhattan in the 13 summer of '96 by EPA Region II, the levels of small 14 PM2.5 particulates in the air exceeded the new federal 15 standards by as much as 200 percent at several key 16 intersections. 17 Several studies demonstrated that children 18 living near major roadways have poorer lung function 19 than children living in cleaner areas. 20 In fact, a study conducted several years ago 21 in Harlem by Mary Northridge, an epidemiologist at the 22 Columbia School of Public Health, indicated that of the 23 50 seventh graders in the control group of the study 24 attending school in a quiet street in Harlem, over 25 75 percent had biomarkers for diesel in their urine. 17 1 The majority had decreased lung function. 2 Neighborhoods in northern Manhattan, which 3 are home to over 500,000 residents, mostly 4 African/Americans and Latinos living in 7.4 square 5 miles, are disproportionately impacted by diesel 6 pollution. The neighborhoods of East, West and Central 7 Harlem and Washington Heights are surrounded by three 8 major highways which do not allow trucks; instead, 9 neighborhood streets become designated truck routes. 10 There is a diesel-fueled Amtrak rail line 11 running through the community; two sewage treatment 12 plants, one of which emits high levels of VOCs - 13 volatile organic compounds like perc; and a marine 14 transfer station to which over 200 heavy-duty diesel 15 sanitation trucks travel daily and sit idling their 16 engines. And due to the city's new solid waste plan, 17 that plant may be expanded along our Hudson River 18 waterfront. Add to that a large NY/NJ Port Authority 19 bus station entered by over 630 diesel buses daily, add 20 over 14 million trucks crossing the Triborough Bridge 21 at 125th Street, and over 50 million cars and trucks 22 crossing the George Washington Bridge yearly. 23 Yet that all pales in light of this fact: 24 Northern Manhattan neighborhoods are home to over 25 one-third of the city's 4,200 diesel bus fleet. There 18 1 are four Metropolitan Transit Authority depots in 2 Queens, four in Brooklyn, one in the Bronx, and eight 3 in Manhattan. Of those eight, six are above 99th 4 Street. Of those six, two will receive multi-million 5 dollar expansions, one which will be totally rebuilt as 6 a diesel depot, and in the zip code with the highest 7 asthma hospitalizations and deaths in the nation. 8 Because bus ridership demand is up over 9 25 percent, more diesel buses are being purchased, even 10 while all depots are at capacity. Even though state 11 legislature has mandated that the MTA by more natural 12 gas buses and build no more diesel depots, the MTA over 13 the last year has leased or purchased three new lots to 14 house buses outdoors where they will idle, idle all 15 night in cold weather. These are three new "virtual" 16 depots that will have no city or state oversight, no 17 permits to operate, and no enforcement. Though they 18 will house hundreds of idling buses, they will be 19 listed officially as mere parking lots. 20 Environmental Justice advocates define our 21 environment as "where we live, work, play, and go to 22 school." Yet in most northern Manhattan neighborhoods, 23 diesel bus depots and small truck fleet parking lots 24 are located adjacent to schools, hospitals, 25 recreational facilities, and large housing complexes. 19 1 One summer day I counted ten diesel buses idling 2 outside the Manhattanville Depot on 128th and Amsterdam 3 Avenue, adjacent to an intermediate school while over 4 fifty youngsters played in a NYC Parks Department 5 swimming pool just a few yards away. 6 The impact of diesel soot is compounded by 7 the fact that it is discharged as street level, where 8 pedestrians are walking and breathing. But for other 9 residents living near northern Manhattan, bus depots, 10 black soot against their windows makes its way indoors 11 to mix with indoor air allergens, which are significant 12 triggers for those with asthma or respiratory illness. 13 Considering that New York City's asthma death 14 rate is higher than that of any other city in the 15 country, it would be accurate to refer to New York as 16 the asthma capital of the world. And since northern 17 Manhattan and South Bronx experience asthma mortality 18 and morbidity rates at three to five times greater than 19 the city-wide average, New York City's problem is 20 northern Manhattan's crisis. 21 For these reasons, to protect the public 22 health, we make the following recommendations: 23 1) There should be nationwide implementation 24 of low sulphur diesel fuel in 2006, if not sooner. The 25 reduction in sulphur in diesel fuel, along with exhaust 20 1 treatment to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate 2 matters in diesel emissions will prevent millions of 3 asthma attacks and tens of thousands of cancers per 4 year. Without lowering sulfur in the fuel, the 5 heavy-duty truck industry cannot adequately lower 6 emissions. We support a cap of 15 parts per million on 7 sulfur, which represents a 97 percent reduction of 8 sulfur in fuel. Sulphur must be nearly eliminated from 9 diesel fuel. 10 2) Lower sulfur in diesel fuel means that 11 emission traps and filters will work to reduce 12 pollutants. We support the implementation of 13 after-treatment technologies, but believe that the EPA 14 must be equally as aggressive to mandate the use of 15 alternative fuels and technologies to diesel. 16 3) Now, let's get rid of the phase-in period 17 for diesel engines. These standards will not take 18 effect for seven years, which give manufacturers enough 19 time to plan and make the switch in technology. While 20 we wait to phase-in this rule, many children's lives 21 will be phased out. 22 4) New trucks should be required to meet 23 tighter limits on smog-forming emissions of nitrogen 24 oxides by 2007, not 2010. 25 5) It is not enough to require new trucks to 21 1 be cleaner. By 2004, the EPA should also establish a 2 program for checking in-use emissions for used trucks. 3 6) Incentives must be provided for use of 4 advanced technologies. It is time to invest in the 5 next generation of technology that can serve the role 6 of diesel without the health and environmental impacts. 7 We support the concept of incentives targeted at 8 manufacturers who go beyond the mandates of this rule 9 and create even cleaner alternatives. EPA should 10 create incentives for use of natural gas, electric and 11 fuel cell vehicles in transit, sanitation, and other 12 key urban fleets. 13 7) It is appropriate to conduct an 14 evaluation and assessment of the impact and 15 effectiveness of these rules as soon as feasible. 16 However, there is no need to wait to consider 17 appropriate penalties for noncompliance. Penalties 18 that can ensure compliance should be drafted 19 immediately. 20 8) And finally, there is always a cost to do 21 something differently. And I believe that the cost of 22 increased emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lost 23 school days, lost work days, and family disruptions are 24 worth the pennies per gallon and the $1,600 per 25 heavy-duty vehicle is cost effective. 22 1 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Becker, good 2 morning. 3 MR. BILL BECKER: Good morning. My name is 4 Bill Becker, I'm the executive director of STAPPA, the 5 State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 6 Administrators, and ALAPCO, the Association of Air 7 Pollution Control Officials, two national associations 8 of air quality officials in the states and territories 9 and more than 165 major metropolitan areas across the 10 country. 11 I am pleased to be here this morning to 12 provide our associations' testimony on EPA's recent 13 proposal to set more stringent emission standards for 14 on-road heavy-duty engines, and especially to reduce 15 levels of sulphur in on-road diesel fuel. 16 On behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, I would like 17 to commend EPA for its continued leadership in reducing 18 air pollution for the mobile source sector. Your final 19 promulgation last December of Tier 2 motor vehicle 20 emission standards and a national low-sulfur gasoline 21 program was a remarkable accomplishment that will 22 benefit the entire country. 23 This month's heavy-duty engine and low-sulfur 24 diesel proposal is further demonstration of the 25 agency's commitment to efficiently and cost effectively 23 1 reducing a wide variety of mobile source-related 2 emissions to achieve meaningful improvements in air 3 quality across the nation; we applaud this initiative 4 and the "systems approach" which addresses both the 5 engine and its fuel, upon which it is based. 6 We are especially pleased that the proposed 7 heavy-duty engine and diesel sulfur program reflects 8 the key recommendations made by our association. This 9 program is of vital importance to our memberships. For 10 this reason, our associations has adopted, with almost 11 unanimous support, a resolution calling upon EPA to 12 establish a stringent low-sulfur diesel fuel cap to 13 enable the introduction and effective operation of 14 advanced technologies, such as lean-NOx catalysts and 15 adsorbers and particulate filters; a copy of the 16 resolution is attached to my statement. 17 We have placed the highest priority on 18 participating in the rule development process, and are 19 proud that EPA has concluded that the most appropriate 20 strategy so closely mirrors that which we have 21 advocated. 22 As the officials with primary responsibility 23 for achieving and maintaining clean, healthful air 24 across the country, state and local agencies are keenly 25 aware of the need to aggressively pursue emission 24 1 reductions from the heavy-duty mobile source sector, 2 which contributes substantially to a variety of air 3 quality problems. As EPA acknowledges in this 4 proposal, by 2007, when the proposed engine standards 5 would take effect, on-road heavy-duty engines and 6 vehicles will account for 29 percent of mobile source 7 NOx emissions and 14 percent of mobile source PM 8 emissions. 9 Under the control strategy EPA has proposed, 10 however, by 2030 on-road heavy-duty vehicle NOx 11 emissions would be reduced by 2.8 million tons and PM 12 emissions by approximately 110,000 tons. These 13 emissions reductions, as well as others that the 14 proposed rule would affect, will play a pivotal role in 15 addressing an array of significant environmental 16 problems that continue to pose health and welfare risks 17 nationwide; including those associated with 18 ground-level ozone; course and fine particulate matter; 19 sulfur oxides; air toxics; visibility impairment; the 20 acidification, nitrification and eutrophication of 21 water bodies; and global warming. 22 Based on the substantial contribution of 23 heavy-duty vehicle emissions to air pollution and very 24 serious public environmental problems, we have no 25 alternative but to impose greater controls on these 25 1 sources and their fuels, and to do so in a truly 2 meaningful way. Further, because many of these 3 vehicles constantly travel back and forth across the 4 country, their emissions are ubiquitous. For this 5 reason, regulation of the heavy-duty mobile source 6 sector, and of the fuels used by these sources, must be 7 done on a national basis as EPA has proposed. 8 In the coming weeks, our association will be 9 providing comprehensive written comments on the 10 complete proposal. Today, however, I would like to 11 focus my comments on a few fundamental issues. 12 The air pollution that comes from big diesel 13 buses and trucks is not only among the most visible 14 there is, but it is also among the most offensive. 15 What is the worse, however, is that the noxious exhaust 16 brings with it adverse health impacts that can be dire, 17 posing a serious threat to public health nationwide. 18 Perhaps the greatest risk comes from the toxic 19 emissions. Diesel exhaust contains over 40 chemicals 20 that are listed by EPA and California as toxic air 21 contaminants, known human carcinogens, probable human 22 carcinogens, reproductive toxicants or endocrine 23 disrupters. In 1998 California declared particulate 24 emissions from diesel-fueled engines a toxic air 25 contaminant, based on data that supported links between 26 1 diesel exposures and human cancer. 2 Further, last fall the South Coast Air 3 Quality Management Direct in Los Angeles, California 4 released a draft final report, the "Multiple Air Toxics 5 Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin 6 (MATES-II)," which included an analysis for cancer risk 7 in the region from exposure to diesel particulate. 8 Based on this analysis - which estimated 9 diesel particulate levels by using elemental carbon as 10 a surrogate and applied a cancer potency factor 11 determined by the state of California - South Coast 12 concluded that of the cancer risk posed by air 13 pollution, 70 percent is attributable to diesel 14 particulate emissions, with mobile sources being the 15 dominant contributor. 16 Our associations were alarmed by South 17 Coast's findings. So this past spring, based on a 18 tailored, more conservative version of the MATES-II 19 methodology, we sought to extrapolate the evaluation of 20 cancer risk from diesel particulate to other cities 21 across the country and to estimate how many cancers 22 nationwide are the result of exposure to diesel 23 particulate. By applying a MATES-II methodology, we 24 found that on a nationwide basis, diesel particulate 25 maybe responsible for 125,000 cancers over a lifetime. 27 1 Now let me be clear, this is not a precise 2 number. Instead, it is an approximation of a potential 3 impact of exposure to diesel particulate that 4 highlights the need for swift and certain regulatory 5 action. Further, it allows us to estimate that EPA's 6 proposal, which includes a 90 percent reduction in 7 particulate emissions, could prevent 35,000 of these 8 cancers. We cannot afford to forego this opportunity. 9 And EPA, much to its credit, has issued a proposal that 10 ensures that we will not. 11 Our association congratulates EPA for 12 responding to a serious environmental problem with an 13 equally serious strategy that establishes rigorous 14 emission standards for on-road heavy-duty diesels and a 15 commensurately low cap on sulfur in diesel fuel, all 16 within a time frame that will allow us to reap the 17 benefits of this program beginning with the 2007 model 18 year. Although there are several aspects of the 19 proposal with which we have concerns, and we will offer 20 recommendations, the fact remains that key components 21 of this proposal are rock solid and we support them. 22 With respect to the emission standards, we 23 strongly endorse the levels EPA has proposed: A 24 particulate matter standard of 0.01 grams per brake 25 horsepower-hour, and a NOx stand of 0.2 grams per brake 28 1 horsepower-hour, which are 90 and 95 percent cleaner 2 that today's standards, respectively. However, 3 although we are very pleased that the PM standard will 4 take full effect in 2007, we have concerns regarding 5 the four-year phase-in period proposed for the NOx 6 standard, and will offer further discussion of this in 7 our written comments. 8 Inextricably linked to the proposed engine 9 standards is the issue of low-sulfur diesel fuel. The 10 ability of heavy-duty diesels to comply with the 11 stringent engine standards that EPA has appropriately 12 proposed a directly dependent on a timely, nationwide 13 availability of diesel fuel with ultra-low levels of 14 sulfur. Without such fuel, the technologies capable of 15 achieving such low emission standards will be rendered 16 inoperable. 17 For this reason, STAPPA and ALAPCO vigorously 18 support the proposed 15 parts per million cap on sulfur 19 in diesel fuel, to take full effect across the country 20 in mid-2006, with no phase-in. This provision of the 21 proposal is absolutely essential; while an even lower 22 cap may prove to be necessary, it's crucial that the 23 final rule include a fully effective, nationwide cap of 24 no higher than 15 parts per million by mid-2006. 25 Finally, while non-road diesel engines are 29 1 not addressed by this proposal, we view the control of 2 non-road diesels to be as critical as the control of 3 on-road diesels. Further, we firmly believe that the 4 technological advances that will occur in order to meet 5 future, more stringent on-road heavy-duty diesel 6 standards will carry over to non-road equipment, but 7 only if very low-sulfur diesel fuel is available for 8 this sector as well. 9 We are extremely concerned, however, that EPA 10 may not be proceeding as quickly or aggressively as 11 necessary to develop non-road diesel engine and fuel 12 programs that are commensurate with the enormous 13 contribution non-road diesels make to air pollution; 14 more must be done. 15 In conclusion, I thank you for this 16 opportunity to provide the associations' preliminary 17 perspectives on your rulemaking. We applaud EPA for 18 seizing the opportunity to take another enormous step 19 toward cleaning up the mobile source sector and 20 achieving our nation's clean air goals. 21 We commend your leadership in developing a 22 technologically, economically, and environmentally 23 credible approach for addressing on-road heavy-duty 24 diesel engines, and fuels. Preserving the integrity of 25 the framework that you have proposed is imperative to 30 1 the viability of this program and, moreover, to the 2 efforts of states and localities across the country to 3 achieve and sustain clean, healthful air. 4 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Frank, good 5 morning. 6 MR. LOUIS FRANK: I'm Louis Frank, president 7 of Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC. My company is the 8 fourth largest US refiner, operating refineries with a 9 combined capacity of 935,000 barrels per day -- 10 MS. OGE: Could you please speak closer to 11 the microphone, we cannot hear you. 12 MR. FRANK: The energy industry asks that you 13 carefully consider our views on EPA's recently proposed 14 diesel sulfur regulations. 15 First, understand that we support reducing 16 sulfur content in diesel fuel. This is an area where 17 fuel producers can make a positive contribution. 18 US Air quality has benefitted because of, and in 19 proportion to the extent we have formulated fuels to 20 cut tailpipe and exhaust stack emissions in the past. 21 The oil industry proposal of a 90 percent 22 reduction in highway diesel fuel sulfur levels to 50 23 parts per million will enable technology to meet EPA's 24 proposed particulate matter standard, and achieve 25 80 percent of EPA's proposed nitrogen oxide standard at 31 1 half the cost of EPA's proposal. Plus, our proposal is 2 achievable. 3 EPA's statistics proves that nearly 4 two-thirds of America's air quality improvement is due 5 to clean fuels and clean engine technology. Moreover, 6 the improvement has been steady and is continuing, and 7 I'm proud of that result. Please note that there was 8 no magic involved, it was a painstaking process of 9 finding out what worked, technically, economically, 10 commercially. And we do this for a living, we can't 11 afford to be wrong. Costs and benefits have to 12 balance. And that goes to the heart of industry's 13 contention that pushing beyond a 90 percent reduction 14 in diesel sulfur puts wishful thinking ahead of market 15 reality. 16 The 97 percent reduction is only required 17 because the agency has arbitrarily targeted a 18 90 percent reduction in NOx from the 2004 standards. 19 This proposal would take sulfur levels to 15 parts per 20 million by 2006. This is a regulatory triple threat 21 with the potential to seriously affect diesel supplies, 22 and harm the entire US economy. 23 A large capital cost penalty is forced upon 24 the industry because sulphur reduction to this level 25 requires new, high pressure, hydrotreating units. Only 32 1 a handful of suppliers design and build these units. 2 Refiners will face a choice of having to invest in new 3 high-cost hydrotreating, or relying on existing units 4 to produce a reduced volume of diesel fuel from the 5 available straight run stocks. Many will choose the 6 latter course, and the supply of diesel fuel in the 7 United States will shrink. 8 Motorists have complained bitterly about this 9 summer's price spikes caused by the roll-out of new 10 environmental fuel formulations that have been enacted 11 by the EPA. Higher costs and supply shortages could 12 produce this same effect for diesel fuel consumers. 13 And these consumers are not Sunday drivers, 14 they represent the bread and butter of the country's 15 economy. These are the people who haul dry freight, 16 mail, and merchandise from plant to port. Economic 17 over-the-road distribution has made just-in-time 18 inventories a standard requirement for American 19 factories. Cheap fuel has kept us competitive with 20 low-wage markets abroad. And low diesel prices have 21 made it possible for independent truckers to earn a 22 decent living. 23 The American Trucking Association, and more 24 than 1.8 million farm families and 4,000 agriculture 25 cooperatives have joined with us in calling for a 33 1 slower, more prudent approach to diesel standards. 2 EPA does not share our caution. But EPA's 3 case is based on the use of vehicle technology that is 4 still today unprovable. This is technology, which 5 EPA's admits has not advanced from the chalkboard to 6 field trial stage. In preliminary tests, the EPA 7 recommended technology has failed to hit target 8 emission levels regardless of fuel sulphur content. 9 EPA is requiring our industry to spend billions of 10 dollars on its belief that this unproven technology 11 will be there when it's needed. 12 Industry knows how to hit the 15 parts per 13 million standard. But we also know that volumes are 14 cost-constrained. Refiners will choose to produce less 15 product. Any trucker or fleet operator can tell you 16 what that will do to their business. Our estimate is 17 that EPA's proposal would add about $2,600 to the cost 18 of a trucker's annual operation. And that is before we 19 address the cost required for the infrastructure 20 adjustments that keep the new, cleaner fuel separate 21 from the high level sulfur fuels. 22 Real-world constraints will also affect our 23 ability to maintain the 15 parts per million standard 24 through thousands of miles of pipeline, shipment, 25 terminal storage, and service station disposition. 34 1 Fifteen parts per million is equivalent to less than a 2 tablespoon of water in an Olympic size swimming pool. 3 Contamination at the molecular level could endanger 4 this fragile standard. 5 The reality is that the refiners would 6 actually have to reduce levels below 15 ppm to have 7 regional assurance that the product stayed on 8 specification. Even after taking the steps, 10 to 9 20 percent of the proposed ultra-pure fuels will become 10 contaminated and will have to be downgraded into higher 11 sulphur products, and/or shipped back to the refineries 12 for reprocessing. 13 EPA has raised the possibility of phasing in 14 its sulfur requirements to mitigate their impact. This 15 would necessitate purchasing additional tanks, piping, 16 and pumps to accommodate the sale of two grades of 17 highway diesel fuel. This is nothing less than 18 requiring a second grade of on-road diesel fuel which 19 is extremely expensive. This may sound simple, but it 20 will require a whole new infrastructure to be created, 21 which will only be needed for two to three years. The 22 bottom line is: Less efficiency and more cost. 23 I'm saying to you, on behalf of America's 24 energy industry, that we have prepared to undertake a 25 landmark 90 percent reduction in diesel sulfur levels, 35 1 knowing full well what that entails in terms of 2 production cost, quality maintenance, and capital 3 investment. Moreover, the 90 percent reduction should 4 achieve virtually all the emission reductions of EPA's 5 more severe standard. 6 We support this reduction and we understand 7 its potential health benefit. But this is not a poker 8 game. We are not arguing over table stakes. Anyone 9 can demand too much too soon. Setting an appropriate 10 regulatory standard demands wisdom, courage, and care. 11 Is 15 parts per million an appropriate 12 standard? A reasonable person will acknowledge that 13 market and technological realities mean more than 14 wishful thinking when it comes to goal setting. And 15 such a person will also acknowledge that American 16 well-being is measured in the quality of life its 17 people can afford and its transportation-based economy 18 can support. In that light, the 15 parts per million 19 standard is actually counterproductive. 20 In summary, I would like to say that this 21 proposed rule is bad rulemaking in that it should be 22 moderated and tempered to something that can seem to be 23 achievable within the industry. 24 I would like to thank you for your time and 25 consideration, and I would be happy to answer any 36 1 questions that anybody might have. 2 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Kassel, good 3 morning. 4 MR. RICHARD KASSEL: Good morning. My name 5 is Richard Kassel. I'm a senior attorney for the 6 National Resources Defense Council, (NRDC,) a national 7 environmental advocacy organization with over 400,000 8 members nationwide, many of whom live in New York. 9 I coordinate the Dump Dirty Diesels 10 Campaign. I am a representative on EPA's mobile source 11 technological review subcommittee. Thank you very much 12 for the proposal and for the opportunity to comment 13 today. I'm going to speak briefly, we have more 14 details in our written statement. We will also 15 supplement our written statement. 16 NRDC has been working to clean up diesel 17 emissions since the mid-1970s. Ironically, in the 18 attempt to remove lead from gasoline, we began a new 19 phase of the campaign, the Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign, 20 when we decided it was time to work and focus on urban 21 bus fleets in New York, Los Angeles, and later 22 Washington, to move beyond diesel to cleaner 23 alternative fuels. 24 The Dump Dirty Diesels Campaign in both local 25 forums and national forums, are a top priority 37 1 campaign. In our view, diesel's toxic particles and 2 nitrogen oxide emissions are probably the most serious 3 air pollution threat facing many Americans, not only 4 New Yorkers, but many urban areas. 5 So we're here to congratulate EPA for the 6 proposal, and to urge EPA to keep to the levels for 7 particulates, nitrogen oxide, formaldehyde and, of 8 course, sulfur. 9 The reasons for our concern are clear: EPA's 10 proposal means cleaner air and better health for all of 11 us. Diesel exhaust is filled with asthma-attack 12 producing soot particles. 13 NRDC recently applied the California EPA risk 14 assessment for diesel particulate to the diesel 15 particulate levels that are found right here in midtown 16 Manhattan, and we estimate that at the current level of 17 diesel pollution, that could yield a lifetime of 18 potential cancer risk of 8870 cancers per million. I 19 might add that while this estimate is not an exact 20 predictor, it is clearly illustrative of the order of 21 magnitude of diesel potential for cancer risks. 22 The reasons for concern are clear, but so are 23 the reasons for applause. Implementing your proposal 24 in full will be the environmental equivalent of 25 removing 13 million of today's trucks from the roads. 38 1 The barrier to cleaner trucks and buses is, 2 in a word, sulphur. Just as lead in gasoline was a 3 barrier to cleaner cars in the 1970s, today's 4 high-sulfur diesel fuel is the barrier to cleaner 5 trucks and buses for a similar reason: 6 Because it prevents the use of advanced 7 control technology that, in this case, could eliminate 8 diesel's black cloud. 9 EPA and the administration should continue to 10 hold firm, you're on the verge of a watershed moment in 11 air pollution regulation. When it happens, removing 12 sulfur from diesel fuel will be the biggest vehicle 13 pollution news since the removal of lead from gas. 14 By cleaning up every bus and truck in the 15 nation, this should mean longer, healthier lives for 16 asthmatics, and many other Americans who currently hold 17 their breath when a diesel truck blows by. 18 It's worth noting that New York City is a 19 great place for your first hearing on this proposal for 20 several reasons: 21 First, as you've heard, we live with some of 22 the highest diesel particulate matter levels in the 23 nation. Over half of the particulate emissions in 24 midtown Manhattan come from diesel tailpipes. That's 25 more than ten times the national average contribution 39 1 of diesel particulate to ambient particulate. 2 Second, we live with chronically high 3 summertime smog levels. Here in the northeast there 4 were 339 exceedances of the eight-hour ozone standard 5 in just the first eleven days of June. This past 6 Saturday, EPA was actually reporting and forecasting 7 more. 8 Third, New York State is home to more than a 9 million asthmatics, including over 500,000 children. We 10 live with some of the highest asthma rates in the 11 nation. 12 And finally, New York City and State are at 13 the forefront for adopting clean-fuel bus 14 technologies. 15 The NRDC celebrated a huge victory here in 16 New York, when the state's Metropolitan Transportation 17 Authority agreed to finally clean up its bus fleet -- 18 after a decade-long campaign -- with a combination of 19 low-sulfur diesel, natural gas, and hybrid-electric 20 buses. Likewise, the city's Department of 21 Transportation already has had a long-standing 22 commitment and is converting its entire bus fleet to 23 compressed natural gas. 24 What these actions show is not only that 25 cleaner heavy-duty vehicles are necessary and desirable 40 1 from an environmental and public health perspective, 2 but that they are feasible from a perspective of some 3 of the largest bus fleets in the nation. 4 With the time that I have left, I would like 5 to touch briefly on NRDC's support. More detailed 6 comments are in my written testimony, which I submit 7 into the record. 8 First, we strongly support EPA's proposed 9 national sulfur cap of 15 parts per million. NRDC 10 would strongly oppose any relaxation of that proposal. 11 Implementing the new sulfur cap nationally by 12 mid-2006 makes sense for at least two reasons. First, 13 a national approach to low-sulfur diesel is critical, 14 given the mobility of the vehicles themselves. Second, 15 implementing the low-sulfur cap in mid-2006 ensures 16 that the fuel supply of low-sulfur diesel will be 17 adequate to service those first model year 2007 18 vehicles that are sold typically in the summer and fall 19 preceding the calendar year. 20 Third, it's critical that EPA adopts the 21 sulfur cap. Any sulfur cap less stringent will 22 jeopardize the technical feasibility of the proposed 23 particulate and NOx standards by disabling some of the 24 most promising NOx controls on the drawing boards, and 25 by reduce the (inaudible) that are already on New York 41 1 City streets. 2 Let's me be clear: The oil industry has 3 already recommended what they call a more reasonable 4 approach. But the reality is: It's a statement of 5 opposition to achieving the particulate and NOx 6 standards that EPA has set forth in its proposal, and 7 by association it's a statement of opposition to the 8 asthma and cancer reductions provided by those 9 particulate and nitrogen oxide reductions. The same 10 industries that fought unleaded gasoline are now 11 fighting against desulfurized fuel. 12 Because they can't win on the science or 13 health, the oil industry argues poverty and harm to the 14 US economy. Let's put this in perspective. 15 America's largest oil companies reported 16 nearly $12 billion in profits in just the first quarter 17 of 2000; yet industry-wide compliance costs less than 4 18 billion for the entire roll out of this rule. Surely 19 this investment is a reasonable cost of continuing what 20 is obviously an extremely profitable business. 21 As for the US economy, it's estimated that 22 these rules could add three or four cents to the cost 23 of a gallon of diesel fuel. Hardly enough to derail 24 the nation's strong economy. It is worth noting that 25 BP Amoco has already reported that its 15 ppm sulfur 42 1 fuel will be sold in California next year at an 2 incremental cost of only 5 cents a gallon. And that's 3 even without the economies-of-scale benefits of a 4 nationwide fuel. 5 Some industry opponents, of course, are 6 urging delay by asserting a need for more time to study 7 the proposal, that the EPA should not rush to reduce 8 diesel emissions this year. 9 To them, NRDC responds: You've had more than 10 20 years' notice from the environmental and public 11 health community that it's time to dump the dirty 12 diesels, and time's up. 13 Europeans are using technologies that require 14 low-sulfur diesel, and are reaping the benefits. 15 Americans should too. 16 We support the proposed standards, and we 17 strongly the NOx standard. By 2007, low sulphur diesel 18 full should be available nationwide so there's no fuel 19 barrier to the national use of advanced controls. 20 The implementing all of the new standards at 21 the same time will minimize the cost and burdens of 22 compliance. 23 Low emissions (inaudible) activities from 24 around the world and European communities, upcoming 25 diesel fuel and emission requirements will create 43 1 momentum for product development, and national 2 non-diesel alternatives will significantly 3 (inaudible). 4 I would just like to say a word in support of 5 strong Blue Sky standards. (inaudible) to provide 6 creative incentives and guidance to state and local 7 fleet programs that are trying to introduce the 8 cleanest technology, and trying to ensure that they 9 meet their set goals for the next decade. Thank you 10 very much. 11 MS. OGE: Mr. Mandel, good morning. 12 MR. JED MANDEL: Good morning. My name is 13 Jed Mandel, I am here today on behalf of the Engine 14 Manufacturers Association. Among EMA's members, the 15 principal manufacturers of the truck and bus engines 16 covered by today's proposal. 17 As we sit here today we are on the cusp, the 18 critical turning point, of something spectacular. We 19 have within our grasp the potential to dramatically 20 reduce the emissions of the most fuel efficient, 21 reliable, and durable source of motor power available 22 today, and the backbone of our nation's transportation 23 and delivery system. 24 The diesel engine can be as clean, if not 25 cleaner, than any other power source. It is capable of 44 1 meeting emission standards significantly below today's 2 levels. And let me remind everyone that the emissions 3 from today's diesel engines already have been reduced 4 by over 90 percent. Yet we recognize that more, much 5 more, in fact, can and should be done. 6 The key of course, is to greatly reduce the 7 sulfur content of diesel fuel. Future reductions in 8 diesel engine emissions are going to require much more 9 than new engine designs and technologies. As EPA 10 appropriately recognizes, future emission reductions 11 requires a systems approach involving the engine, 12 after-treatment, and fuel. 13 In a sense, the future of clean, low emitting 14 trucks and buses rests on a three-legged stool. And 15 the stool will fall without all the legs in place. One 16 of those legs, fuel quality, enables the technologies 17 necessary to make the other two legs stand. 18 Without removing essentially all sulfur from 19 diesel fuel, advanced NOx after-treatment devices will 20 not be feasible; advanced PM after-treatment will be 21 poisoned and engines will be exposed to excessive wear, 22 increased maintenance costs, and impaired durability. 23 I cannot emphasize enough the critical 24 importance of ultra-low sulfur fuel: It enables 25 substantial NOx and PM emission reductions; it provides 45 1 direct PM emissions reductions; and it provides 2 benefits not just from new engines, but from the entire 3 fleet of diesel fueled vehicles. 4 Improved diesel fuel also has a role in 5 responding to potential health effects concerns. 6 Ultra-low sulfur fuel lowers the total mass 7 of particulate from the entire fleet and enables the 8 use of known after-treatment technologies, such as 9 oxidation catalysts and catalyzed particulate filters, 10 which can reduce the organic and carbonaceous 11 components of PM emissions, can reduce hydrocarbon 12 emissions, and enables technologies to reduce NOx 13 which, in turn, will reduce secondary PM. 14 We applaud EPA for recognizing the critical 15 role of fuel sulphur. We strongly support the need for 16 a uniform, nationwide low-sulfur fuel standard with a 17 hard cap on sulphur content. Regional differences on 18 sulfur content will not allow the systems approach 19 necessary to meet EPA's very stringent NOx and PM 20 emission levels. 21 Further, a hard cap on sulfur is critical. 22 Averages simply will not work. They are difficult and 23 impractical to enforce. Moreover, the engine and 24 after-treatment legs of the stool must be assured of 25 never being exposed to high sulfur fuel. 46 1 In our view, 15 ppm does not go far enough. 2 And fuel improvements shouldn't only be limited to 3 trucks and buses. Non-road fuels also must be 4 improved. 5 We are aware of the various arguments raised 6 by the oil industry against improving fuel quality. 7 They don't want to reduce sulfur to even 15 ppm, let 8 alone to lower levels. 9 Nationwide ultra-low sulfur fuel can - no, 10 must - be achieved, and it can be done cost effectively 11 without undue economic harm to either the oil industry 12 or to the trucking industry, the users of both our 13 engines and the oil industry's fuels. We will provide 14 detailed comments on the need for ultra-low sulfur fuel 15 in our written submission. 16 So today we are enthusiastic we are 17 enthusiastic, excited, and hopeful about the future of 18 the diesel engine and our industry's ability to produce 19 reliable, durable, fuel efficient, high-performing 20 diesel engines that are also as clean or cleaner than 21 any other power source. 22 There are issues which would require a great 23 deal of work by the manufacturers and the Agency. But 24 it is no longer a question of "if." Give us fuel 25 improvements, sufficient time, compliance flexibility, 47 1 and testing certainty and tremendous emission reduction 2 can be achieved. 3 Thank you for your time. 4 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Bertelsen, good 5 morning. 6 MR. BRUCE BERTELSEN: My name is Bruce 7 Bertelsen, and I'm executive director of the 8 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, 9 (MECA). MECA is pleased to submit testimony in support 10 of EPA's proposed heavy-duty engine and vehicle 11 standards and highway diesel sulfur control 12 requirements. 13 We believe an important opportunity exists to 14 significantly further reduce emissions from highway 15 heavy-duty diesel engines by utilizing an engineered 16 systems approach that incorporates and combines 17 advanced engine designs, advanced emission control 18 technology, and very low sulfur diesel fuel. 19 EPA's regulatory initiative recognizes the 20 importance of promoting this systems-type approach and 21 the Agency's proposal constitutes a carefully crafted 22 and balanced program. If the program is finalized, it 23 will result in substantial, cost-effective emission 24 reductions over the next several years. Indeed, EPA's 25 initiative will bring about the age of the truly clean 48 1 diesel engine. 2 By way of background, MECA is a nonprofit 3 association made up the world's leading manufacturers 4 of motor vehicle emission controls. Our member 5 companies have over 30 years of experience and a proven 6 track record in developing and commercializing exhaust 7 control technologies for motor vehicles. 8 Today, I will briefly summarize MECA's 9 position on EPA's proposed initiative. We have 10 extended discussions in the written statement we 11 submitted to you, and we will be submitting even more 12 extensive comments prior to the end of the comments 13 period. 14 In the interest of time, I would like to 15 focus on two issues today: First, the technological 16 feasibility of the diesel heavy-duty engine standards; 17 and second, the critical need for very low sulfur 18 diesel fuel to meet those standards. 19 First, with regard to the technical 20 feasibility, we believe the emission standards proposed 21 can be achieved in a cost-effective manner within the 22 lead time provided, if very low sulfur diesel fuel is 23 available. 24 EPA, in its proposal, identified two primary 25 candidate technologies for the meeting the proposed 49 1 emission limits -- catalyst-based diesel particulate 2 filters for PM control, and NOx adsorber technology for 3 oxides of nitrogen control. 4 Catalyst-based diesel particulate filters are 5 commercially available today. The only remaining 6 engineering effort is optimize the filter systems for 7 the specific engine to which they will be applied. 8 Worldwide there are over 20,000 engines 9 equipped with diesel filters. And it's important to 10 note that in Europe, or parts of Europe where diesel 11 fuel with a sulphur level below 10 ppm is available, a 12 number of filters are operating and have operated very, 13 very successfully with no problems. Some of those 14 vehicles operated hundreds of thousands of miles in 15 providing very, very significant PM reduction. 16 With regard to NOx adsorber technology, the 17 development and optimization of this technology is 18 progressing at a rapid rate. Our members fully expect 19 that with the availability of very low sulphur diesel 20 fuel, this technology will be commercialized in the 21 2007 time frame. This technology is way beyond the 22 chalkboard stages. 23 We'll discuss the rapid developments in this 24 area in more detail in our written statement, but I 25 would like to make a couple of comments. 50 1 First, our members believe there are no 2 barriers to the commercialization, the changes are 3 engineering in nature. 4 Secondly, these companies, with over 30 years 5 of experience in emission control technology, are 6 making the investment because they believe it will 7 become commercialized. 8 And, finally, I think it's important to point 9 out that when the EPA first began talking about the 10 possibility of setting the 15 ppm cap, these companies 11 significantly increased their development efforts with 12 regard to the need for very low sulfur fuel. 13 A couple of comments. On meeting the 0.2 NOx 14 standard and the 0.01 ppm standard over the full useful 15 life of a heavy-duty engine as certified over the 16 combined transient and steady-state certification test 17 procedures with not-to-exceed standards, as previously 18 stated, we believe these changes can be met and the 19 ultimate goal of a truly clean diesel engine is 20 possible. But, again, very low sulfur diesel fuel must 21 be available. 22 Our members believe with a sulphur cap of 23 15 ppm, emission control strategies can be developed to 24 meet the proposed emission limits. Specifically with a 25 15 ppm cap, our members are extremely confident that 51 1 all catalyst-based filter technologies will be designed 2 to meet the level of 0.01 ppm, and that NOx absorber 3 technology will be optimized. NOx standards at levels 4 above 15 ppm, we doubt the 0.2 NOx and 0.01 ppm 5 standard would be feasible. 6 In closing, I would like to again commend EPA 7 for a truly remarkable and forward thinking proposal. 8 We recognize that the proposed highway heavy-duty 9 engine and vehicle standards present real engineering 10 challenges, but we also believe that these changes can 11 and will be met. 12 As I mentioned earlier, the key is to employ 13 a systems approach. And from our standpoint, our 14 industry is committed to do our part to ensure that if 15 the proposed standards are adopted and the diesel 16 sulfur limits are implemented, the desired reductions 17 will be achieved. Thank you very much. 18 MS. OGE: I'd like to introduce Tom Appelt, 19 from Corning, Incorporated. Welcome, good morning. 20 Please state your name. 21 MR. THOMAS APPELT: My name is Thomas Appelt, 22 I'm the business director, mobile emission products, at 23 Corning, Incorporated. Corning appreciates the 24 opportunity to testify at today's hearing, and to fully 25 support the testimony of the Manufacturers of Emission 52 1 Controls Association. 2 In the early 1970s Corning, Incorporated 3 joined the campaign for cleaner air when it developed 4 an economical, high-performance cellular ceramic 5 substrate, and a few years later diesel particulate 6 filter that are now standards for mobile emission 7 control devices. We continue to improve upon these 8 industry standards with new technologies to enhance the 9 product performance and manufacturing "know how" which 10 will support the increase in demand in the coming 11 years. 12 Corning, Incorporated firmly believes that 13 the emission challenges set forth by the EPA proposal 14 can be met in the time frame given. But low sulfur 15 diesel full, no higher than 15 ppm cap, must be part of 16 the regulatory program as it is the enabler in meeting 17 the proposed standards. Thank you very much. 18 MS. OGE: I have a question for all of the 19 panel members, and I would like to start with 20 Mr. Frank. And obviously the issue, one of the most 21 challenging ones that we're dealing with in this 22 regulatory program, is the level of sulfur in diesel. 23 In our proposal, we have proposed a 24 97 percent sulfur reduction in diesel in order to 25 achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOx and a 90 percent 53 1 reduction in particulates. We also have analyzed the 2 proposal that the oil industry has put on the table, 3 that is 90 percent reduction of diesel sulfur in fuel, 4 and our conclusion is that if you reduce sulfur by 5 90 percent, you will reduce nitrogen oxides and 6 particulate emissions only by 20 percent. It's a 7 significant big difference. 8 Mr. Frank, in your testimony you testified 9 that the oil industry proposal will achieve an 10 80 percent reduction in NOx. I don't believe you have 11 testified what reductions will be for PM. I would like 12 to ask if you can tell us how did your industry, or 13 your company, arrive to that conclusion? 14 And I also would like to ask the engine 15 representatives, and maybe the catalyst technology 16 representatives, to speak to that. 17 How far do you think we can go in reducing 18 NOx and PM if we were to adopt a 90 percent sulfur 19 reduction in diesel? 20 But I will start first with Mr. Frank. 21 MR. FRANK: I think that the important point 22 here is that we do not see any beneficial qualities of 23 sulfur. But that the practicality of being able to 24 take down sulfur levels to the extreme levels that 25 we're talking about will not exist within the refining 54 1 business and that there will be significant shortages 2 of diesel fuel supplies available within the United 3 States. 4 I think that that is important, given the 5 fact that the situation we're facing with the gasoline 6 initiative today, where nobody understands the high 7 prices. But there is a reduction in the amount of 8 gasoline available under the EPA guidelines that have 9 been in effect that have caused a price response in the 10 marketplace. And a similar thing, I think, will happen 11 with diesel fuels. 12 Another important consideration is that I 13 think that these NOx adsorbers, even while it's been 14 testified today that they think that they can develop 15 the technology by 2006, they do not exist today that 16 can operate with any sulfur level above zero. And zero 17 is impractical to get to. 18 I think those are important considerations 19 that are driving what is practical and achievable in 20 the time frame. And then again, the phase-in of 21 gradual sulfur reductions over three-year time frame in 22 some areas just won't work, and that's what the EPA's 23 proposing there. 24 So I think that a lot of what's being 25 proposed and advocated are wishful thinking and not 55 1 being able to recognize what the real world is. 2 MS. OGE: Mr. Frank, we would definitely 3 appreciate it if you have any supporting documentation 4 that you can provide to the agency for the record how 5 your company believes that a 90 percent reduction in 6 sulfur and fuel will achieve 80 percent reduction in 7 emissions. Again, our position on that is that it's 8 only 20 percent reductions. It's a very different set 9 of numbers that we're dealing with. 10 MR. FRANK: We will submit that 11 documentation. 12 MS. OGE: I would like to ask the engine 13 expert and the after-treatment expert to speak to that 14 effect. What do you think can be done with a 15 90 percent reduction in diesel sulphur? 16 MR. MANDEL: Sulphur is a poison, and it must 17 be removed from the fuel. It's particularly important 18 to remove it in the context of this rule, because that 19 enables the after-treatment technologies. That is the 20 systems approach to what EPA's proposing, and I think 21 that's the specific benefits of the package you put 22 together. 23 So without getting to the ultra-low levels of 24 sulfur that we are recommending, we are not going to be 25 able to enable the technologies that get to those very 56 1 low levels that the Agency is seeking. 2 We have not calculated, although we will try 3 calculate whether we think without after-treatment we 4 can get additional NOx and PM benefits along the lines 5 of 20 percent. (Inaudible) -- so far reducing 6 emissions by 90 percent. 7 But to get the additional reduction, we need 8 after-treatment. And after-treatment needs no sulfur 9 in the fuel quality. 10 MS. OGE: Thank you. 11 MR. BERTELSEN: I have to say over the years 12 many times I have disagreed and sometimes I have 13 agreed, but I to have to say on this point we 14 completely agree with the Engine Manufacturers. 15 Very low sulfur fuel is absolutely 16 essential. A 50 ppm sulfur fuel, I can tell you that 17 if that level is set, work on NOx adsorber technology 18 will cease. Obviously we would prefer to operate in a 19 sulfur free environment, but what we are seeing now is 20 that it is possible to apply this technology. 21 50 ppm, unfortunately, is out of the 22 question. And I truly believe that work on that 23 technology will cease for filter technology. Again, we 24 feel it's very, very important to have the very low 25 sulfur fuel to have this technology completely 57 1 effective and to ensure the ability of (inaudible). 2 We will provide additional comments, but I 3 hope that will provide you a sense of where we are. 4 MR. BECKER: Bill Becker with STAPPA and 5 ALAPCO. It's a very good question, Marge, because the 6 difference in NOx reduction between the oil industry 7 proposal and the EPA proposal, if it's 20 percent, 8 30 percent, or 60 percent, will have to be made up 9 someplace else. 10 Air pollution, as we all know, is a zero sum 11 game. And to the extent that the oil industry proposal 12 goes into effect, the serious gap between the 13 effectiveness of that proposal versus EPA's proposal, 14 will have to be made up on the back of some other 15 sector of the economy, including mom and pop 16 businesses. 17 So while the oil industry is suggesting that 18 there is an economic effect on their operations, there 19 will be a much more serious effect on the operations of 20 mom and pop businesses around the county, who will be 21 required by necessity to make up that difference. And 22 that's an important issue to governors and state and 23 local regulators around the country. 24 MR. KASSEL: Richard Kassel from NRDC, just 25 very briefly. I defer to EMA and MECA on the 58 1 engineering that underlies these products that are 2 being developed. But I think it's important to come 3 back to the health issue -- the asthma, the cancer, the 4 other health impacts that we've heard about and will 5 hear about today -- and realize that the lowest 6 possible sulfur will create the greatest possible 7 emission reductions. And by virtue of that, the 8 greatest possible health benefits. 9 The world is already developing moving 10 towards a consensus that low-sulfur diesel has to move 11 beyond. It needs to move to perhaps a 10 part per 12 million cap, as Sweden is doing, as the European 13 community is discussing. (Inaudible.) 14 That's where -- if we are to lead in terms of 15 cleaning up diesels and providing maximum health 16 benefits -- those cleaner vehicles, that's where we 17 need to go to. And I think that we've heard very 18 promising testimony from the engineering side on that. 19 MS. OGE: I would like to thank all of the 20 panel members for coming here to testify in this very 21 important proposal. Thank you very much. 22 I would like to ask for the following -- I 23 guess we have members of the public and also we have 24 different organizations. David Levy, Mr. Charles 25 Franceshini, Ms. Alice McIntosh, Mr. Corey Bearak, I 59 1 believe, Samara Swanston, and Mr. Alan G. Hevesi, 2 please come forward. 3 MR. DAVID LEVY: Good morning. My name is 4 David Levy, and I am an independent environmental 5 activist and political consultant from Staten Island, 6 New York. 7 I'm here today for two reasons: I'm very 8 excited by the EPA's proposed new rules, and I am very 9 concerned about the lobbying blitz that I expect from 10 the oil industry to have those rules rolled back. 11 I got involved in air pollution issues for 12 the following reason: I used the bicycle to work in 13 Manhattan, I don't bicycle any more. If you have ever 14 bicycled, you move as a city bus that (inaudible). In 15 addition to the usual comments of belching of delivery 16 trucks, you find yourself blasted with hot putrid 17 exhaust, only to have this happen all over again. 18 I used to get behind buses all the time, I 19 used to combine my cycling with my exercise routine and 20 commuting, but I stopped because I read that one should 21 not exercise in polluted air. What's the cost to me? 22 Commuting costs. I have to work out separately. I 23 lose about three hours a week. 24 I also would like to add regarding bicycling, 25 I hesitated purporting go that comment because the 60 1 current state of affairs in this country is that 2 bicyclists are virtually laughed at on the city 3 streets. And this eventually is going to have to 4 change if we're going to have a sustainable life from 5 now and on and into the next several centuries. So 6 cycling is not a minor consideration, it's going to be 7 become a very major consideration over the next few 8 years. Especially as global warming is becoming a 9 major issue. 10 Finally, as I return to home on Staten Island 11 Ferry and see (inaudible) I think: "We don't have to 12 live this way." 13 I won't go into detail on the myriad 14 advantages of the proposed rules, since other advocates 15 have and will do that; however, I will just touch on 16 these rules are the best initiative for reducing 17 vehicle pollution since lead was removed from gas in 18 the 1970s. That's over 25 years ago. And it's none 19 too soon. That would be tantamount to removing 20 (inaudible) at a cost of only 3 to 4 cents a gallon. 21 Is it worth it? I think so. 22 Residents of New York are assaulted every day 23 with toxic fumes that causes lung cancer, asthma, and 24 other respiratory diseases. (Inaudible) I don't see 25 why we to have wait five years in order to see ultra 61 1 low-sulfur fuel come on the market. 2 And, lastly, given that there are currently 3 1 million trucks on the road that are specifically 4 manufactured to meet the (inaudible.), I urge the EPA 5 to require ongoing emissions testing. That's not 6 testing out of factory, but ongoing emission testing to 7 ensure that this sort of criminal behavior never 8 happens again. 9 Regarding negative health impact you will 10 hear several witnesses showing through scientific 11 studies (inaudible). However, you will not hear 12 defenders of the status quo demonstrating through 13 scientific studies how harmless diesel pollution is. 14 Why is that? 15 What happened to the precautionary 16 principle? The principle states that a substance 17 should not be introduced into common use until it has 18 been proven safe. Why does the burden of proof always 19 fall on the public? 20 Humans have introduced over 200,000 new 21 chemical compounds into the environment in the last two 22 centuries. If the precautionary principle had been 23 used, we would have avoided disasters like (inaudible), 24 mercury poisoning, Love Canal, and tens of thousands 25 early deaths due to pollution annually. 62 1 According to the US (inaudible) educations 2 funds (inaudible). The oil industry contributed to 3 congressional candidates. In addition, the oil 4 industry devotes dollars to paid lobbyists or former 5 elected officials who know the ins and outs of 6 governments and of the oil industry. If it hasn't 7 already done so, it will probably (inaudible) a 8 publicity blitz to convince the America public to think 9 jobs will be lost (inaudible.) 10 Over regulation. What do we citizens have to 11 counteract that? Very little. We have the public 12 advocacy groups like the American Lung Association, the 13 PIRGs, environmental justice groups, etcetera. We 14 (inaudible) while the journalists listen to experts on 15 the industry payroll. 16 The only people standing between us and a 17 continuation of dirty air, respiratory distress, and 18 environmental degradation are (inaudible) as 2000 19 protesters showed last week in Calgary. People are 20 tired of watching the oil industry manipulate the 21 political process to the detriment of environmental and 22 public health. I don't bicycle any more. Why? Too 23 much danger of accidents and too much pollution. 24 Please pass the proposed rules on a faster 25 schedule so I can ride my bicycle, and so that people 63 1 yearning to breathe free can finally do so. This is 2 only a step in making our cities livable again, but a 3 very significant one. Thank you. 4 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Franceshini. 5 MR. CHARLES FRANCESHINI: I'm a resident of 6 Staten Island. I live approximately 200 yards from the 7 MTA bus depot in Staten Island. I began fighting with 8 them for idling their buses for years. During the 9 summer and during the winter you can't even walk 10 outside the door, because they continued to idle the 11 buses. I have a 14-month old grandson, and he's 12 asthmatic. You know. And I called the DEP, the EPA, 13 and they laugh at me: You're going after the MTA? 14 This is what happens with them. You have 15 just one big circle. I wrote to the government, to the 16 Mayor, to the borough president -- and nothing. Now, 17 they are extending the bus depot. Now they're going to 18 be ten feet away from me. When is this going to stop? 19 When they kill everybody in the neighborhood? 20 I have been fed up with them because I say to 21 them, I says: All the money that you spend on idling 22 the buses during the winter time and during the summer, 23 you could do something about this, about keeping the 24 buses warm. You know? I could have been paying the 25 whole Staten Island -- maybe the fuel bill for all of 64 1 Staten Island. 2 This is only one location. I notice that 3 other people in Bensonhurst have the same problem, you 4 know. And they they're looking to raise fares to buy 5 more diesel. Thank you very much. 6 MS. OGE: Alice McIntosh. 7 MS. ALICE MCINTOSH: I'm Alice McIntosh, and 8 I am public health education consultant here in New 9 York City, and currently doing some work with the 10 Pulmonary Division at Harlem Hospital as their senior 11 public health educator. 12 I wanted to say a couple of things about what 13 is proposed today. With increasing efforts to improve 14 the quality of life for patients suffering with chronic 15 and often debilitating diseases like asthma, 16 determining health status must go beyond diagnosing and 17 treating disease. 18 Patients want to enhance the quality of care 19 they receive, as well as the quality of their lives, as 20 they cope with their illness. We have learned that 21 asthma presents special problems for its sufferers and 22 their ability to self manage. 23 As health care providers, whether we are 24 health education specialists, physicians, nurses, or 25 pharmacists, we must be particularly creative in our 65 1 approaches to care. We work very, very hard to treat 2 and educate our patients, but how can we increase 3 patient self-efficacy and compel our patients to 4 self-manage when we send them to homes with mold, 5 mildew, peeling lead paint, and streets cluttered with 6 exhaust from diesel engines knowing that these and 7 other factors exacerbate the afflictions? 8 If EPA's program is implemented as proposed, 9 diesel trucks and buses will be 95 percent cleaner, 10 particulate levels 95 percent below current levels, 11 nitrogen oxides 95 percent below current levels, and 12 sulphur content reduced by 95 percent. 13 The impact of this rule will be far reaching 14 for cleaner air and for the health of residents in New 15 York City, particularly those suffering with asthma, 16 thank you. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you. 18 MR. COREY BEARAK: My name is Corey Bearak, 19 and I work as legislative counsel for Bronx Borough 20 President Ferrer. Thank you for this opportunity to 21 comment on the proposed rules. 22 Last Thursday the borough president unveiled 23 a program to promote the use of clean air vehicles. 24 This program required the use of government purchasing 25 power to develop (inaudible) for our school buses, MTA, 66 1 and taxies to operate on clean air technology. 2 The borough president urges the US to adopt 3 the most stringent rules rather than a phase-in to 4 2010, and full implementation no later than 2007. That 5 adoption will help drive local, state, and regional 6 efforts, including the borough president's ten-point 7 strategic clean air plan. (inaudible). 8 The government must not allow (inaudible) and 9 exacerbate the symptoms of asthma. As a former chair 10 of the health committee of the city, I (inaudible). 11 Hospitalization just under 10,000 in the New York City 12 and (inaudible). 13 We must seize the opportunity to make a 14 difference. The borough president also urges 15 (inaudible) mandate city and state to convert to the 16 (inaudible reading from the borough president's plan). 17 We are also pleased that the National Resources Defense 18 Counsel (inaudible). 19 The key point to make is that by having these 20 stringent rules, it helps drive the local plans and 21 local initiative to move forward to get to clean air at 22 the earliest possible stages, and that would make the 23 biggest difference. 24 MS. OGE: Thank you. Good morning. 25 MS. NANCY ANDERSON: My name is Nancy 67 1 Anderson, I'm the senior environmental advisor to the 2 New York Comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi. 3 I am pleased to be here on the comptroller's 4 behalf to express his support for the rule proposed by 5 the United States Environmental Protection Agency that 6 would lower the permissible level of sulfur in diesel 7 fuel by 97 percent in 2006. 8 Let me take this opportunity to applaud the 9 EPA for proposing a rule of such importance to all 10 Americans, and also let me congratulate the American 11 Lung Association, West Harlem WE ACT, the Natural 12 Resources Defense council, and other groups for their 13 tireless efforts to solve the problems of diesel 14 pollution. 15 New York City, connected directly to the 16 mainland of the United States only in the borough of 17 the Bronx, is particularly reliant on diesel trucks for 18 the movement of goods and the export of solid wastes 19 because it lacks convenient rail-freight links. 20 Although air pollution coming from cars, 21 factories, and incinerators has been substantially 22 reduced since the 1970s, air pollution coming from 23 diesel-powered engines and distant coal burning power 24 plants remains a chronic problem. Adding to this 25 chronic problem is the fact that our robust national 68 1 economy is accompanied by more vehicle miles traveled 2 every year. In turn, this means more diesel fuel is 3 being consumed, and this means more air pollution and 4 public health problems. 5 Recently, increasing sales of popular SUVs 6 has introduced another source of microscopic 7 particulates and nitrogen oxides to our environment and 8 our lungs. The combination of all these factors in a 9 city dominated by urban canyons that trap air 10 pollution, helps explain why New York City has been in 11 chronic non-attainment for regulated particulate 12 standards under the Clean Air Act. 13 Of particular significance is the New York 14 State Department of Environmental Conservation estimate 15 that over half of the breathing level particulate 16 matter in Manhattan comes from diesel tailpipes. 17 The rule under discussion here today will 18 improve the lives of 8 million New Yorkers by enabling 19 them to breath easier and be healthier if it is 20 adopted. 21 The EPA is correct to focus its efforts on 22 both diesel fuel used by heavy-duty vehicles and the 23 vehicle engines themselves. By requiring the 24 97 percent reduction in sulfur and diesel fuel from 500 25 parts per million down to 15 ppm, smog-causing nitrogen 69 1 oxides will be cut by 95 percent and particulates would 2 be cut by 90 percent, as has already been testified 3 to. 4 These dramatic cuts in pollution can only be 5 achieved through EPA's two-pronged approached, because 6 the pollution control equipment that will be installed 7 on diesel engines can properly function only if the 8 sulfur is removed from that diesel fuel. 9 What will the adoption of these proposed 10 rules mean in human health terms for New Yorkers? 11 According to the New York City Health 12 Department's publication in 1999, "Asthma Facts," 13 asthma is the leading cause of hospitalization in New 14 York City children aged 0 to 14. 15 In 1997 14,780 children were hospitalized for 16 this disease. This translates into an asthma 17 hospitalization rate of 10.2 per 1000 for city kids 0 18 to 14 in comparison to the national rate of 3.7 for the 19 same age group. That's almost three times as high. 20 The hospitalization rate for New Yorkers of all ages 21 during 1997, 33,348 admissions for asthma were 22 recorded. 23 The Health Department has reported that 24 hospitalizations for asthma are strongly correlated 25 with socioeconomic status. During 1997 the asthma 70 1 hospitalization for children 0 to 14 from Manhattan's 2 Central Harlem/Morningside Heights community was 3 28.8 per thousand. In Staten Island's 4 South-Beach/Tottenville, the rate was much lower, 2.4 5 per thousand. 6 Many of the city's low income neighborhoods 7 are located proximate to major industrial hubs, such as 8 the Hunts Point area in the South Bronx. Hunts Point 9 is home to the city's central produce market as well as 10 many waste transfer stations, and both industries are 11 truck reliant. Adopting the low-sulfur diesel 12 regulations would greatly benefit such communities. 13 While science cannot tell us that asthma will 14 be eliminated when airborne particulate pollution is 15 eliminated, science does give us reason to believe that 16 the scourge of asthma can be controlled. According to 17 the National Jewish and Medical Research Center in 18 Denver, people with asthma suffer from chronic 19 inflammation of their airways; therefore, by definition 20 they are particularly sensitive to such airborne 21 irritants that make asthma worse. 22 Both fine particulates and oxides of nitrogen 23 are of concern here. The American Lung Association 24 describes particulate matter as a combination of fine 25 solids and aerosols. Particles of special pulmonary 71 1 concern are the very small ones, those less than 2.5 2 microns in diameter. 3 Fine particulates are easily inhaled deep 4 into the lungs, where they can be absorbed into the 5 bloodstream or remain embedded in the lungs for a long 6 time. Therefore, they pose particular health threats 7 to people with asthma and other chronic pulmonary lung 8 diseases, including bronchitis and emphysema. Recent 9 research also links exposure to premature death in the 10 elderly, and for those with preexisting lung and heart 11 disease. 12 In conclusion, I urge the Environmental 13 Protection Agency to adopt this proposed rule requiring 14 a 97 percent reduction of sulfur in diesel fuel by 15 2006; it's a lifesaver. 16 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Swanston. 17 MR. SAMARA SWANSTON: Thank you. My name is 18 Samara Swanston, I'm the Executive Director of the 19 Watchperson Project of Greenpoint/Williamsburg. I'm 20 also the (inaudible) and vice chair of the New York 21 City group of the Sierra Club. 22 Greenpoint and Williamsburg have high rates 23 of environmental disease, including cancer and asthma 24 and low birth rate. Babies in particular. We have 25 (inaudible) elevated rates of cancer, including child 72 1 leukemia. We have an asthma rate that is triple the 2 national average, and high rates of low birth rate. 3 Interestingly, we have high numbers of people in their 4 fifties dying of lung cancer who never smoked 5 cigarettes. 6 Greenpoint and Williamsburg also have a 7 significant number of environmental facilities that 8 emit air pollution. We have 12 major sources of air 9 pollution. We have (inaudible) sources of air 10 pollution, and we have 22 waste transfer stations, 11 which is half the permitted capacity of the City of New 12 York. Each and every one of those served by diesel 13 truck fleets. 14 We support the new low-sulfur diesel fuel 15 because we believe it's more protective of the health 16 of children. Public health studies show that heavy 17 truck traffic exacerbates asthma. (Inaudible) in the 18 city of New York asthma also a killer and I had two 19 asthma deaths in the family. My daughter has asthma 20 now. 21 Public health studies also show that the 22 fetal growth is impeded if exposed to particulate 23 matter during pregnancy. And, of course, we know that 24 the current diesel (inaudible.) You simply cannot 25 drive through the streets of Greenpoint and 73 1 Williamsburg without being either stuck behind trucks 2 that are packing or making a delivery, or next to an 3 idling truck. 4 And we call on the EPA to visit our community 5 so that they can see the impact of diesel emissions on 6 our communities. 7 We applaud the new standards, because we 8 believe it's a step toward protecting the health of 9 children and adults in Greenpoint, Williamsburg, and 10 statewide. Thank you very much. 11 MS. OGE: I would like to thank you for 12 taking the time to come in and testify this morning. 13 Thank you very much. 14 Mr. Shin, good morning. We'll start with 15 you. 16 MR. ROBERT SHINN: I am Bob Shinn, the 17 Commissioner of the New York Department of 18 Environmental Protection. I would like to thank the US 19 EPA for the opportunity to comment on heavy-duty engine 20 and vehicle standards and highway diesel fuel sulfur 21 control proposal. 22 I am pleased to support the agency's efforts, 23 which are most critical to the health and welfare of 24 our residents. This EPA proposal which will establish 25 new emission standards for the model year 2007 and 74 1 later heavy-duty diesel and gasoline engines, also 2 provides for low-sulfur diesel fuel with a cap of 15 3 parts per million to enable new engine technology to 4 meet standards. (Inaudible) proposal measures are 5 critical not for attainment, than for the maintenance 6 of the National Air Quality Standards for ozone. 7 This is especially important for the New 8 York/New Jersey air quality control region. New York 9 and New Jersey will have (inaudible) just to attain the 10 standard prior to the target year 2007. 11 Even more daunting for us will be the task of 12 the meeting the more stringent health based eight-hour 13 standards. As you all are aware, this new standard is 14 currently scheduled for review after the US sent 15 (inaudible) to EPA for further justification. I am 16 optimistic that when the dust settles, good judgement 17 will prevail. 18 We must act with the expectation that we will 19 need to comply with such a health based standard in the 20 near future. (Inaudible) to protect public health, 21 which means the air in this region will continue to be 22 unhealthy. 23 Also of concern to us in the region is fine 24 particulate. This proposal will clearly provide a 25 major impact on this pollutant which, in the past and 75 1 (inaudible) which directly impinges upon the public's 2 perception of New Jersey (inaudible) that many areas of 3 the state, particularly urban areas, will be unable to 4 meet the PM standard. (inaudible) as part of its daily 5 care quality index. 6 Since May 1st we have recorded eight days 7 that exceeded code for PM 2.5. That is eight days when 8 fine particulates reached unhealthy levels for the same 9 (inaudible) which ozone registered as code orange or 10 code red. 11 (Inaudible) we expect to see reductions, 12 thanks to New Jersey's enhanced inspection and 13 maintenance program for heavy-duty diesel engines. 14 This program alone cannot adequately address the 15 problem. The EPA's efforts in this regard are thus 16 critical to the success (inaudible) and ozone reduction 17 strategy. 18 We also share EPA's concerns with diesel 19 exhaust as a likely human carcinogen, which also causes 20 respiratory and cardiovascular disease. We in New 21 Jersey are concerned with reducing (inaudible) emit 22 into our air. EPA's soon-to-be-released 1996 National 23 Air Toxic Assessment is likely to show that almost a 24 third of the 34 most critical air (inaudible) in New 25 Jersey are generated by on-road sources. 76 1 This proposal should make important strides 2 in addressing this pollution from on-road sources. 3 Just as critical are non-road emissions. 4 (inaudible) EPA's announced intention to pursue further 5 controls for these engines in the coming years is 6 vital, and we will be rigorous advocates. 7 We have long known that New Jersey is 8 responsible for a significant portion of the very air 9 pollution we are seeking to control with today's 10 proposal. In fact, the same 1996 inventory is likely 11 to show that (inaudible) for more than half or 12 52 percent of the total statewide air toxins. As we 13 continue to reduce emissions from highway sources, the 14 percentage contributed by non-road engines can be 15 expected to grow. 16 To be sure, the states have not be been idle 17 in addressing this issue. For example, beyond our own 18 emission checks from heavy-duty trucks and buses, New 19 Jersey is actively contributing to regional pollution 20 reductions projects. (Inaudible) fleet of heavy-duty 21 vehicle for the Department of Transportation in New 22 Jersey will be retrofitting up to four thousand 23 (inaudible) with PM oxidation catalyst. 24 Secondly, New Jersey Transit plans to test 25 new diesel buses using advanced (inaudible). New 77 1 Jersey Transit also has begun a (inaudible) which 2 success will also (inaudible) the retrofit controls. 3 Finally, on a regional level, we will be 4 working with necessary come to test about 20 heavy-duty 5 trucks which have been retrofitted with (inaudible). 6 This effort is part of the Department of Justice's 7 efforts to help remedy excess NOx emissions caused by 8 manufacturer's use of so-called "defeat devices." In 9 the proposal, the EPA asks for comments on a number of 10 which are considered, but not included, in the proposed 11 program design. The alternative option included a 12 phase-in of the low sulphur content cap and an average 13 sulfur standard of 25 parts per million. 14 Because our region depends on the adoption of 15 the most stringent program designs, we support EPA's 16 decision to (inaudible) any phase-in of the low-sulfur 17 standards, for example, will jeopardize the 18 effectiveness of the new advanced control technology, 19 which must rely on low-sulfur fuels. 20 Finally, we have long recognized the 21 importance of implementing not just state, but regional 22 and national ozone sources. New Jersey has worked 23 actively with (inaudible) by the ozone transport 24 assessment groups to come up with regional solutions to 25 ozone and NOx. Transport motor vehicles (inaudible), 78 1 which makes localized control measures of limited 2 effectiveness. 3 Therefore, I strongly support this proposal 4 because it provides a national fuel standard. Early 5 this morning as a member of OTC, I wrote a 6 (inaudible). The OTC declared its support on the 7 proposed cap of sulfur in on-road diesel of 15 parts 8 per million. The OTC urged EPA to finalize rules 9 during the 2001 period to subject non-road fuel to the 10 same standards. (Inaudible) urge EPA to (inaudible), 11 so that highway and non-road diesel operate as cleanly 12 in reality. 13 Finally, the OTC resolved to continue to 14 examine the need for more timely and more aggressive 15 implementation as may be necessary to meet National Air 16 Quality Standards. Thank you again for this 17 opportunity to comment. We look forward to continuing 18 with (inaudible) efforts. 19 MS. OGE: Thank you very much. I understand 20 that there are two members of the public that are 21 interested in testifying prior to 12 o'clock, and I 22 will ask them to come up here. 23 MR. RED CAVANEY: Thank you members of the 24 panel. I am Red Cavaney, president and CEO of American 25 Petroleum Institute, which represents all sectors of 79 1 America's oil and national gas industry. 2 Thank you for the opportunity to testify on 3 an issue of such importance to our members, to US 4 consumers, and to our nation. I also want to express 5 our appreciation for your willingness to meet with us 6 earlier during your planning and preparation of the 7 diesel sulfur proposal. Sound regulations are 8 difficult without an exchange of information between 9 government and industry, and we hope this can 10 continue. 11 EPA and our industry agree that the sulfur 12 content in diesel fuel must be substantially reduced 13 and, as you know, API proposed a 90 percent reduction 14 last winter. Reducing sulfur in both diesel fuel and 15 gasoline is key in reducing vehicle emissions. 16 Your latest air quality report shows that 17 emission reductions from cleaner vehicles powered by 18 cleaner fuels made up more than two-thirds of the total 19 national decline in criteria pollutant emissions 20 between 1970 and 1998. This is the single most 21 important reason why Americans today are breathing 22 cleaner air and experiencing fewer health concerns 23 related to air pollution. 24 As the industry responsible for fueling all 25 of our nation's consumers, we are concerned that the 80 1 Agency's diesel sulfur proposal -- which would reduce 2 sulfur 97 percent -- risks too much by going too far, 3 too fast we. We believe EPA's proposed rule will 4 degrees the total volume of diesel fuel produced, 5 falling short of satisfying clearly rising consumer 6 demand. The national Petroleum Council, in a "soon to 7 be released" report on behalf of the US Department of 8 Energy, calls the risk of inadequate supplies 9 "significant." 10 Consumers need not face this risk. By 11 adopting the 90 percent reduction we have recommended, 12 the chances of disrupting diesel supplies would be 13 greatly lessened, yet emissions would still be cut 14 substantially. We believe that a 90 percent reduction 15 in sulfur is right. That is the amount of reduction 16 the agency is requiring of gasoline sulfur -- and how 17 much EPA said diesel sulfur content should be lowered 18 in a press release last October. 19 Were EPA to disregard our 90 percentage 20 reduction initiative and go forward with its rule as 21 proposed, a number of refiners will certainly elect to 22 make the requisite, considerable investment to meet the 23 rule. However, this is not the entire picture. 24 Total US diesel fuel supply and demand are in 25 reasonable balance. For investment return levels 81 1 and/or other reasons, a number of refiners will likely 2 not undertake EPA's costly sulphur reductions, choosing 3 instead to make other products. Yet other companies 4 will end up producing less of the new diesel than 5 current diesel capacity. All of these actions will 6 have the effect of reducing overall diesel capacity and 7 creating supply/demand imbalances. Upward cost 8 pressures on supply will be considerable. 9 Making the ultra low-sulfur diesel that EPA 10 proposes will require huge refinery investments, closer 11 to $8 billion than the $4 billion the agency has 12 estimated. The difference can be explained by the 13 failure of EPA to adequately take into account the 14 difficulty and expenses of removing sulfur from all of 15 the refinery streams that will have to be used in order 16 to make ultra low-sulfur diesel. 17 Additionally, distribution problems are 18 likely to affect supply. Refiners will have to move 19 ultra low-sulfur diesel to market using common 20 pipelines and storage facilities, risking contamination 21 of some of the volumes from the sulphur residues of the 22 other fuels having to utilize those same facilities. 23 This may force costly reprocessing or downgrading of 24 portions of each batch of ultra low-sulfur diesel, 25 further decreasing available supplies. 82 1 The majority of the America's goods move by 2 truck. We estimate that EPA's proposal could add 3 $2,600 to the cost of a trucker's annual operations in 4 higher diesel fuel costs. This does not include the 5 additional cost of emission control hardware, which 6 could be several thousand dollars per truck; nor does 7 it factor in other time and inconvenience costs 8 associated with less readily available diesel supply. 9 Higher costs could also hurt others, 10 including businesses with small fleets of vehicles like 11 bakeries and nurseries and the like, and, ultimately, 12 all consumers. 13 Has the agency considered how consumers and 14 others might be protected, if supply and cost 15 dislocations come to pass? A waiver certainly wouldn't 16 be practical, because it would expose new trucks to 17 higher sulfur diesel, which, according to EPA's own 18 assessment, could damage the emission control equipment 19 needed to meet the proposed diesel exhaust standards. 20 In the near term, increase imports probably wouldn't be 21 able to fill big gaps, because few foreign refiners 22 will be making the same diesel. And foreign producers 23 also have their own capacity constraints. Eventually, 24 US or foreign refiners may well expand capacity to 25 provide additional supplies, but this would require 83 1 installation of new equipment, a process that could 2 take years. 3 No one can predict with 100 percent 4 confidence what might happen, but given the volatility 5 we have seen in the fuels markets this year, are the 6 risks described worth taking? Are the small or 7 nonexistent additional benefits EPA's proposal is 8 likely to achieve worth this gamble? 9 According to a study by a well-known 10 automotive engineering consulting firm, the most 11 advanced vehicle emissions reduction technology that we 12 know will work reduces emissions about the same with 13 either fuel. EPA hopes that a different technology 14 will be used, but it takes the facility to support this 15 belief. According to the agency, this technology has 16 not advanced to the field trail stage. And, in 17 preliminary laboratory tests sponsored by industry and 18 government, it has not cut emissions to the levels EPA 19 wants no matter how much sulphur was reduced. 20 In short, there's a strong likelihood that 21 going to the 90 percent reduction and the latest SCR 22 technology would provide essentially all of the air 23 quality benefits that are possible, save billions of 24 dollars for consumers in the process, and greatly 25 decrease the risks of a considerable diesel supply 84 1 shortfall. 2 We encourage EPA to carefully consider the 3 concerns we have raised today. Cleaner air demands 4 that we reduce diesel sulfur, and we have volunteered 5 to do so by a significant amount -- 90 percent. Too 6 severe a reduction could result in unintended negative 7 consequences for consumers and for the industry. With 8 reasonable adjustments to EPA's proposed rule, we 9 believe these can be minimized. 10 Providing a dependable supply of fuel at 11 affordable prices is what consumers want. Working 12 constructively together to address the full range of 13 potential impacts on consumers, the agency, and 14 industry can provide both significant emissions 15 reductions and a reliable fuel supply. Consumers 16 deserve no less than full-faith efforts by each and 17 every one of us. Thank you. 18 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Billings, good 19 afternoon. 20 MR. PAUL BILLINGS: Good afternoon. My name 21 is Paul Billings, I'm the assistant vice president of 22 Government Relations for the American Lung 23 Association. 24 The American Lung Association is pleased to 25 support the low-sulfur fuel and heavy-duty vehicle 85 1 rulemaking. We strongly support the low-sulfur diesel 2 provisions and view the cap of 15 ppm on diesel sulfur 3 as the critical element of the rule. 4 I want to highlight the urgent public health 5 need to clean up diesel fuel and heavy-duty vehicles, 6 and show the overwhelming public support for this 7 program as demonstrated by a recent public opinion 8 poll. In addition, I want to suggest to the EPA how 9 accelerating the implementation would enhance its 10 efficacy. 11 The most critical element is the 97 percent 12 reduction of sulfur. We commend EPA for proposing this 13 level. EPA must cap the sulfur in diesel fuel at no 14 higher than 15 ppm, and must fully implement the fuel 15 sulfur rule no later than mid-2006, nationwide. No two 16 fuels: One fuel nationwide. 17 Cleaning up diesel fuel and heavy-duty 18 vehicles is necessary because the air is dirty. Diesel 19 engines contribute considerable pollution to our 20 continuing air pollution problems. Even with more 21 stringent heavy-duty highway engine standards set to 22 take effect in 2004, these engines will continue to 23 emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides and particulate 24 matter, both which contribute to serious health 25 problems in the United States. These include premature 86 1 mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 2 cardiovascular disease, aggravation of existing asthma, 3 acute respiratory systems, chronic bronchitis, and 4 decreased lung function. 5 Numerous studies also link diesel exhaust to 6 increased incidents of lung cancer. The "National 7 Toxicology Program's 9th Report on Carcinogens" 8 classified diesel exhaust particulates as reasonably 9 anticipated to be a human carcinogen. 10 In 1998, California declared particulate 11 emissions from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air 12 contaminant, a probable carcinogen requiring action to 13 reduce public exposure and risk, based on data that 14 supported the links between diesel exposure and 15 cancer. 16 Nitrogen oxides contribute to ozone, commonly 17 know as smog. Ozone is a powerful respiratory 18 irritant. Symptoms include shortness of breath, chest 19 pain, wheezing and coughing. Research on the effects 20 of prolonged exposures to relatively low levels of 21 ozone has found reductions in lung function, biological 22 evidence of inflammation of the lung lining, and 23 respiratory discomfort. Researchers liken ozone 24 exposure to a sunburn of the lungs. Studies of animals 25 found an increased susceptibility to bacterial 87 1 pneumonia infection. 2 Ozone triggers asthma attacks. People with 3 chronic bronchitis and asthma already suffer from 4 reduced lung function and therefore cannot tolerate an 5 additional reduction in lung function due to ozone 6 exposure. 7 The health risks from diesel exposure is 8 greatest for children, the elderly, people who have 9 respiratory problems or who smoke, people who regularly 10 exercise strenuously in diesel-polluted areas, and 11 people who live or work near diesel exhaust sources. 12 Studies have shown that the proximity of a child's 13 residence to major roads is linked to hospital 14 admissions for asthma, and there is a positive 15 relationship between school proximity to freeways and 16 asthma occurrence. Truck and traffic intensity and 17 exhaust measured in schools were significantly 18 associated with chronic respiratory symptoms. 19 Diesels are a large source of particulate 20 pollution. Particles of special concern to the 21 protection of lung health are know a fine particles, 22 2.5 five microns in diameter. Fine particles 23 particulates are easily inhaled deep into the lungs 24 where they can be absorbed into the bloodstream or 25 remain embedded for long periods of time. A recent 88 1 study showed a 17 percent increase in mortality in 2 areas associated with high concentrations of small 3 particles. 4 Recent research has also linked the exposure 5 to relatively low concentrations of particulate matter 6 with premature death. Those at greatest risk are the 7 elderly and those with preexisting respiratory and 8 heart disease. 9 To understand how far we have to go to clean 10 the air, one need only look a day earlier this month, 11 Saturday, June 10th. Preliminary data, from the 12 Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, show 13 on this particular Saturday, 144 monitors in eight 14 states from North Carolina to New York and the District 15 of Columbia had ozone levels above the .08 ppm 16 eight-hour standard. Millions of people live in this 17 region. Twenty-six monitors reported air pollution 18 above the .12 ppm one-hour standard, including peaks 19 of .146 ppm in Fair Hill, Maryland; .147 ppm in 20 Norristown, Pennsylvania, and .145 in Riverhead, New 21 York, in Suffolk County on Long Island. 22 Ozone remains a pervasive and immediate 23 health threat for millions of Americans. The public 24 overwhelmingly supports the clean up of trucks and 25 buses. In a nationwide public opinion survey conducted 89 1 earlier this month, nearly nine out of ten Americans 2 believe that big diesel trucks and buses should be 3 required to use the best available pollution control 4 technology. In addition, the survey found that nearly 5 seven of ten believe that cleaner diesel fuel and 6 stricter diesel vehicle standards will require less 7 than five years. 8 The public wants this soon. On the critical 9 question of diesel fuel 85 percent of survey 10 respondents believe that up to 4 cents a gallon is a 11 reasonable price to pay. 12 As I indicated earlier, the American Lung 13 Association strongly supports the EPA proposal. In our 14 written comments we will address many of the specifics 15 raised in the proposal. I will highlight the most 16 critical elements here. 17 We strongly endorse the levels EPA has 18 proposed. We support the 90 percent reduction of 19 particulate matter to 0.01 grams per brake 20 horsepower-hour standard and the 95 percent reduction 21 of NOx to the O.2 standard. We are pleased that EPA is 22 calling for the particulate standard to be fully 23 implemented by 2007. 24 However, we believe the four-year phase-in 25 period proposed is unwarranted and unnecessarily will 90 1 postpone the needed air quality benefits. We call on 2 EPA to require 100 percent of the new vehicles to meet 3 the 0.2 grams per brake horsepower-hour NOx standard in 4 2007. 5 Once again, we reiterate that the most 6 critical element of this rule is the 97 percent 7 reduction of sulfur in diesel fuel. EPA must cap the 8 sulfur in diesel fuel at no higher than 15 ppm and must 9 fully implement the fuel sulfur rule nationwide no 10 later than June 2006. 11 The American Lung Association also supports 12 the development of a Blue Sky performance standard for 13 truly clean technologies, and we will further expand on 14 this concept in my written comments later. 15 In conclusion, some, especially in industry, 16 will say that the air is getting cleaner so cleaning up 17 diesel fuel and heavy-duty trucks is unnecessary. Some 18 data do show that the air pollution levels in some 19 cities are lower than they were than a decade or two 20 ago. Congratulations, it is tribute to the clean air 21 strategies implemented so far. 22 But this is not true for all areas of this 23 country. In some areas, air pollution is increasing. 24 As a parent of two small children, I don't 25 care that the air used to be even dirtier. I care 91 1 about the air my children are breathing today. The 2 fact is that the air that my kids are breathing is 3 still unhealthy is unacceptable. 4 We know much more about the health effects of 5 air pollution today than we did in 1980 or even 1990. 6 We know that exposure to ozone at much lower 7 concentrations poses health risks, including the 8 exacerbation of asthma. We know that particulate 9 pollution has been linked to premature death. We know 10 that diesel exhaust has been linked to cancer. 11 With all we know about air pollution health 12 effects, we do not need more delays. The American Lung 13 Association urges the immediate adoption of the low 14 sulfur diesel/heavy-duty vehicle rule. 15 MS. OGE: Thank you. 16 MR. PAT CHARBONNEAU: My name is Patrick 17 Charbonneau. I am Vice President of Engine Engineering 18 for International Truck and Engine Corporation. Which, 19 as many of you know, formerly was known as Navistar. 20 I'm here today to discuss EPA's proposed 21 model year 2007 emission standards for heavy-duty 22 engines, as well as the agency's proposed on-road 23 diesel fuel quality requirements. 24 At the outset, International commends the EPA 25 for its landmark proposal to address heavy-duty 92 1 emissions through a systems approach involving both 2 fuel quality and engine technology. 3 There is no question that diesel engine 4 technology is making dramatic strides in emissions 5 control. As we know, the availability of ultra-clean 6 diesel fuel is a prerequisite toward meeting the 7 challenging new emissions standards beginning in 2007. 8 And with the clean diesel fuel, we can count upon the 9 advanced NOx and PM after-treatment technologies needed 10 to achieve unprecedented emissions reductions. 11 For that reason, we are pleased that the EPA 12 is mandating fuel that will enable these advanced 13 technologies to be used on all heavy-duty engines. 14 International is investing hundreds of 15 millions of dollars in the development of new 16 technologies for all markets -- heavy-duty and 17 light-duty -- where our engines are sold. We are 18 re-inventing all of our engine lines through 19 revolutionary engine redesign and the development of 20 advanced after-treatment technologies. 21 Our technological breakthroughs will allow us 22 to achieve unparalleled emissions reductions. Indeed, 23 we are developing "green diesel" technology today that, 24 with clean fuel, has already demonstrated the 25 capabilities of particulate filter technology to reduce 93 1 hydrocarbon and PM emissions to levels that are at or 2 at least below what agency is proposing in 2007. 3 In that regard, it's important to note that 4 progressive oil companies are already making 15 parts 5 per million diesel fuel commercially available. These 6 oil companies have earned recognition and our applause 7 for their efforts to bring clean diesel fuel to the 8 marketplace early. 9 With this ultra-clean fuel available so soon, 10 International will commercialize its "green diesel" 11 engine technology next year, and thus achieve EPA's 12 proposed MY 2007 hydrocarbon and PM emission standards 13 six years ahead of schedule. This is just one example 14 of the impressive environmental benefits that accrue 15 from a systems approach involving both clean fuel and 16 clean engines technologies. 17 I also commend the agency for its willingness 18 to phase-in the proposed NOx standards. We strongly 19 support a NOx phase-in approach, which underscores the 20 challenges facing industry in meeting NOx control 21 targets. The EPA's proposal goes far in addressing 22 these technological challenges, but we believe that we 23 could do even more without compromising important 24 environmental objectives. 25 In that regard, I'm pleased to say that 94 1 International, along with EMA, soon will be presenting 2 to EPA a new NOx phase-in proposal. 3 Under this proposal, there would be a single 4 NOx emissions standard for all engines in 2007. The 5 NOx standard in 2007 would be significantly below the 6 NOx standard applying to MY 2006 engines. Then, in 7 2010, the NOx standard would be stepped down to a new 8 and significantly tighter NOx standard. Importantly, 9 this proposal will meet and exceed targets in this 10 rulemaking, while at the same time providing 11 manufacturers with needed flexibility to meet those 12 targets. 13 For these reasons, we believe that the agency 14 will find this proposal to be a win-win for consumers 15 and the environment alike, and I am looking forward to 16 discussing this in greater detail. 17 We also believe that it will be critical for 18 the agency to conduct a narrow technology review to 19 confirm the status of the NOx adsorber technology, 20 which is the NOx after-treatment technology of choice 21 in meeting -- and EPA's basis for selecting -- the 22 proposed NOx emissions targets. A mid-term technology 23 review will allow us to assure that NOx adsorber 24 development is on schedule to meet the agency's 25 objectives. 95 1 In closing, I wish to reiterate 2 International's strong support for EPA's proposal to 3 reduce diesel fuel sulfur levels, which will enable the 4 use of NOx and PM after-treatment technologies needed 5 to achieve the agency's reduction objectives. We look 6 forward to discussing in our written comments these and 7 other technical details of EPA's proposed rule. I 8 thank you for giving us the opportunity to present 9 International's views today, and I'll be happy to 10 answer any questions you may have concerning my 11 testimony. 12 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. John Huber. 13 MR. JOHN HUBER: On behalf of the Petroleum 14 Marketers Association of America (PMAA), we would like 15 to commend EPA for moving diligently forward to improve 16 diesel emissions. 17 Diesel vehicles are the backbone of industry, 18 they deliver products locally and nationally. They 19 bring soda to the local stores; cement and asphalt to 20 construction sites, and supplies to all businesses. 21 Additionally, diesel powered buses transport commuters 22 and tourists throughout the country. 23 Improving emissions from these vehicles is 24 vital and supported by the petroleum industry, the 25 truck manufacturing industry, and users of these 96 1 vehicles. Curtailing emissions from these vehicles 2 will be appreciated by the American public and is an 3 extraordinarily worthy goal. 4 However, in improving the emissions 5 performance of these vehicles, EPA has many 6 challenges. First and most importantly, substantial 7 gains in emissions must occur. Second, and more 8 difficult, is to ensure that the program itself and the 9 costs associated with the program will not deter or 10 prevent the program from being successful. 11 EPA has done substantial research and 12 analysis to adopt an aggressive program to reduce 13 emissions, and should be applauded for those efforts. 14 PMAA, however, is concerned that the program 15 proposed may have some problems associated with 16 implementation, and urges EPA to be extremely cautious 17 in those areas. 18 A diesel truck is essentially a rolling 19 factory, with a chassis, an engine, and either a cargo 20 bed or cement mixer or other equipment over the 21 chassis. The operators of the trucks make rational 22 decisions on component replacements whether to buy new 23 trucks or to rebuild components, including the engine. 24 Diesel engines can last an extremely long time, and 25 many of the diesel-powered vehicles used in a 97 1 metropolitan area will tend to be low mileage vehicles, 2 whose engine life-span can be extremely long. 3 It is PMAA's opinion that for air emissions 4 to improve, neither the new vehicle nor the fuel that 5 will power it should encourage the operator of the 6 vehicle to defer purchasing the new engines and the new 7 fuel by rebuilding his current engine. 8 If such incentives occur or anticipated to 9 occur, we may see trucking companies purchasing record 10 numbers of trucks in 2005 and early 2006, buying 11 engines to put in their existing trucks with the goal 12 of avoiding the new trucks and the new fuel. An 13 article in "Transport Topics" earlier this year 14 examined the number of tractors sold in 1999; that 15 numbered shattered the previous record by nearly 16 20 percent or 50,000 units. 17 However, as 2000 developed, production seems 18 to be way down. The original equipment manufacturers 19 were turning their attention to this huge inventory of 20 used trucks in the market, and that the pressure from 21 these trucks was dampening sales in 2000. Volvo 22 indicated that they were cutting production in their 23 Virginia factory. 24 If this were to occur with this important 25 program or an amplified effect, then there would be 98 1 fewer of the cleaner trucks in the market. And 2 depending on how EPA decides to phase-in the new fuel, 3 we could end up in a vicious cycle where the new fuel 4 is underproduced, which drives the price up, which 5 deters new vehicle sales. Such a vicious cycle could 6 derail the program for a period of time, and would 7 almost certainly defer the gains that have been 8 promised to the American public. 9 PMAA, thus, would urge the Agency to listen 10 to the comments from manufacturers of petroleum 11 products. They have stated to both you and I that the 12 15 ppm cap is overly ambitious, will be expensive, and 13 will be outside the range for many refiners to produce 14 economically. If this occurs, fewer refiners will make 15 the product which will affect supply. Any supply 16 reductions will have a strong impact on price. 17 Additionally PMAA believes that this low 18 sulphur level will increase the pressure on the 19 Administration to develop alternative phase-in 20 provisions for the new fuel. In the proposal, EPA 21 discusses many of these alternative approaches. PMAA 22 does not have confidence that any will work 23 successfully. 24 PMAA starts with the premise that EPA must 25 select a diesel fuel that can and will be produced in 99 1 volumes adequate to satisfy the entire market. We 2 would reiterate our comments submitted with the ANPRM 3 that this is necessary and to avoid misfueling, ensure 4 adequate supplies that are available universally, and 5 ensure that there are no disincentives for purchasing 6 new vehicles. However, in an effort to respond to the 7 agency's request for information on these phase-ins, we 8 will discuss our concerns. 9 The Agency discusses misfueling as a concern, 10 and PMAA shares concerns regarding misfueling. There 11 are a number of issues regarding misfueling that are 12 relevant and must be considered. First, are there 13 incentives for the consumer to use the appropriate 14 fuel, and what harm will result from using the wrong 15 fuel? 16 In examining the proposal, it appears that 17 the 500 ppm fuel will come to the market with a much 18 lower price. In those situations, price will be an 19 incentive to use the old fuel. The countervailing 20 incentives are that it may damage the pollution 21 prevention equipment on the truck and disable the 22 trap. 23 The second problem is the sharply reduced 24 fuel mileage and possible damage resulting from the use 25 of the wrong fuel. PMAA believes that those will serve 100 1 as significant deterrents to using the wrong fuel. 2 However, EPA does not indicate whether the equipment 3 can be easily disabled or bypassed. If so, the price 4 will then become a powerful incentive to use the wrong 5 fuel. Assuming there is a 500 ppm fuel as well as a 6 15 ppm fuel in the marketplace, the EPA will be tasked 7 with preventing deliberate as well as accidental 8 misfuelings. 9 Preventing deliberate misfuelings will be 10 difficult if there is a substantial economic incentive 11 to use the old fuel. EPA raises the possibility of 12 changing the nozzle interface. However, while that 13 worked in the unleaded gasoline rule, the answer is not 14 as simple this time. 15 First, diesel is generally distributed 16 through large nozzles at fuel dispensers and that can 17 accommodate flow rates of 30 gallons per minute safely. 18 This is typical of the equipment at truck stops, and 19 most diesel trucks have large openings in their fuel 20 tank. However, at many retail service stations, the 21 diesel is dispensed through a smaller nozzle suitable 22 for fueling vehicles. The gasoline distribution 23 industry has a preference for using interchangeable 24 parts, and most service stations use small nozzles. 25 Thus, in considering a nozzle interface, EPA 101 1 could consider having the diesel tanks have extremely 2 small openings, which won't work for fueling 3 efficiency, or adopt an alternative configuration for 4 the nozzle and fuel interface. However, given the 5 small nozzles at some service stations, EPA will have 6 to design a very narrow lateral cut. 7 Of course, such interface restrictions don't 8 recognize that most diesel trucks use saddle tanks, 9 tanks that can readily be removed and replaced by the 10 owner of the vehicle. Additionally, as the Agency 11 noted, disabling or avoiding a nozzle restriction is 12 not typically difficult. 13 EPA also discusses the possibility of an 14 availability requirement. PMAA is convinced that if 15 new trucks are required to buy the new fuel, and have 16 not disabled the equipment, that the fuel will be 17 available. The free market is likely to mimic some of 18 the requirements that are now going on for alternative 19 fuels, whereby only centrally fueled fleets purchase 20 new trucks under this option, because that will ensure 21 that they are able to purchase fuels for the new 22 vehicles. It is also likely that some areas of the 23 country will have only limited supplies of the new 24 fuel. 25 In mandating and considering an availability 102 1 requirement, EPA should be extremely cautious on how it 2 proceeds. In previous rules, and as discussed in this 3 proposal, EPA would require sites selling diesel at a 4 certain volume to sell the new ultra-low sulfur fuel. 5 As EPA knows, the high volume sites are principally 6 travel plazas and truck stops. Mandating that these 7 sites sell the fuel would appear attractive to EPA, 8 since it would ensure the fuel is sold throughout the 9 country. 10 However, PMAA believes first that such a 11 mandate would not be necessary, since this class of 12 trade will configure itself to serve the market. 13 However, in some cases, the investment may not be 14 warranted in installing a second fueling system. 15 For example, in some cases two truck stops 16 may be in competition. And if one decides to sell the 17 fuel, then why should the other be required to sell 18 it. Additionally, it should be noted that nearly one 19 third of the trucks use their own fueling 20 infrastructure. Thus, a truck stop which may be 21 competing with these private resources will be even 22 further disadvantaged. 23 PMAA is also concerned that to ensure the 24 fuel is widely available, that service stations will be 25 required to sell the new fuel. In that case, the 103 1 volume of the new fuel will increase dramatically and 2 the alleged benefits of a phase-in will be forfeited at 3 the same time the regulatory burden increases. 4 Further, it's clear that a low volume service 5 station cannot make the investment to install the 6 second tank, and would thus have to sell the new low 7 sulfur fuel. In some cases there may be no customers 8 needing to buy that fuel. However, he is not without 9 competition, in the industry several companies are now 10 fueling fleets from trucks at night. 11 If the new fuel costs 4 to 6 cents more per 12 gallon, that may be enough to drive the fixed retailer 13 out of the business. Thus, EPA in requiring 14 availability, would be forcing him out of the diesel 15 business, and possibly forcing him out of business. 16 Additionally, since all refiners will not be 17 manufacturing the new fuel, but may instead be buying 18 credits or may be exempt because of their size, where 19 will these retailers get the new fuel. If they have to 20 truck it in for 500 miles, the price will be 21 exorbitant, and it will be wiser to stop selling 22 diesel, since they may be competing with other 23 customers who are selling both grades of diesel or 24 having just the one. Thus, EPA may be mandating 25 retailers to sell a fuel, even though they have 104 1 provided an option for manufacturers to not make the 2 fuel. 3 We would now like to comment on the various 4 ideas that EPA has suggested for phasing in the fuel. 5 First, EPA has suggested three possible 6 scenarios for phasing in the new fuel with different 7 volume levels required to be manufactured. While we 8 recognize that EPA is attempting to provide flexibility 9 to the market, we do not think that is the best 10 approach. 11 First, as EPA certainly recognizes, matching 12 supply and demand is extremely difficult. Under each 13 of these phase-in approaches, the refiners will be 14 making substantially more fuel than is likely to be 15 consumed by the vehicles required to use it. In such a 16 situation, supply will be greater than demand, and the 17 likelihood of recovering costs will be lessened. This 18 will discourage refineries from making the necessary 19 investments to supply the demand, which may result in 20 shortages in both the old and newer product as 21 producers decide to forego the investment in a new fuel 22 where EPA has fixed the game so they will not recover 23 their investments. 24 As second alternative which has been 25 suggested is refiner ensured availability. It is our 105 1 understanding of this concept that the refiners would 2 be entitled to manufacture 500 ppm fuel in some ratio 3 to the amount of 15 ppm fuel that they have ensured is 4 in the marketplace. PMAA is dubious on how this will 5 work, and believes that it could provide unique 6 benefits to certain refineries or truck stop operators. 7 In closing, 2000 has been characterized as 8 the third oil crisis by some notable energy experts. 9 Distribution problems for fuel in the Northeast and the 10 Midwest have sharply raised costs for fuel. The 11 Northeast heating oil problem was alleviated by 12 bringing heating oil and diesel from Europe and 13 relaxing the sulfur standards for heating oil. 14 In St. Louis, reformulated gasoline was not 15 available, and EPA waived the rules so that 16 conventional gasoline could be used. It should be 17 noted that relief did not come before prices spiraled 18 out of control. 19 Chicago and Milwaukee are now experiencing 20 prices for gasoline that many consider too high. Too 21 many fuels, not enough refineries, not enough domestic 22 production all contribute to these problems. 23 EPA must work through these issues and 24 develop a fuel for the future, and a program to improve 25 diesel emissions that is sure to succeed. Thank you. 106 1 MS. OGE: Ms. Stanfield. 2 MS. REBECCA STANFIELD: My name is Rebecca 3 Stanfield, and I'm the director of the clean air 4 programs for the United States Public Interest Research 5 Group for the national lobby office. We are nonprofit, 6 nonpartisan, and active in 28 states with about a half 7 million members around the country. 8 Thank you for giving me an opportunity to 9 comment today on a rule with important and far-reaching 10 implications for our nation's air quality. 11 It is a daily reality for most Americans 12 living in urban suburban areas to encounter thick, 13 black clouds of noxious diesel pollution, and suffer 14 the foul smell and taste, itchy eyes, sneezing, 15 coughing, wheezing, and long-term health effects that 16 are a direct result from breathing this exhaust. In my 17 time working on air quality issues for the State PIRGs, 18 I know that our canvassers who talk to millions of 19 Americans each year at their doors hear this story all 20 the time. 21 It is common sense that cutting the pollution 22 from these trucks will result in enormous public health 23 benefits, and will vastly improve the quality of life 24 in our cities and suburbs. This common sense notion 25 was recently supported by 87 percent of the people in a 107 1 poll commissioned by the American Lung Association. 2 Common sense in the case of diesel pollution 3 is confirmed time and time again by the health studies 4 showing that exposure to diesel pollution can lead to a 5 range of symptoms from asthma attacks to premature 6 death and lung cancer. Based on over 30 7 epidemiological studies, we know that exposure to 8 diesel exhaust can increase the risk of lung cancer by 9 as much as 89 percent. Earlier this spring, an 10 association of state air regulators estimated that more 11 than 125,000 cases of cancer in the US are the result 12 of breathing diesel pollution. 13 Add to these 125,000 cases of cancer the 14 following health impacts: Thousands of American lives 15 cut short annually due to fine particulate pollution; 16 thousands of hospitalizations and emergency room visits 17 annually for asthma and other respiratory disease; and 18 millions of days of restricted activity annually for 19 vulnerable populations. It is to prevent these health 20 impacts the US PIRG strongly supports the proposed 21 standards to reduce heavy-duty bus and truck 22 pollution. 23 There are three key pieces that form the 24 cornerstone of the proposed standards, and these pieces 25 need to be preserved at all costs if this program is to 108 1 be effective. 2 The first is the 15 parts per million cap on 3 diesel fuel sulfur content, to be effective by 2006. 4 The second is the 0.01 one grams per brake 5 horsepower-hour particulate standard, effective in 6 2007. And the third is the 0.2 grams per brake 7 horsepower-hour standard for NOx and hydrocarbons. 8 I'm going to use the remainder of my time to 9 touch on four briefs points. The first point is that 10 clean diesel fuel is essential. We've heard it over 11 and over today. US PIRG supports EPA's proposal to cap 12 diesel fuel sulfur levels at 15 parts per million, 13 effective in 2006. 14 And we believe it would be an expensive 15 exercise in futility to spend the next ten years 16 phasing-in advanced engine and afterburner pollution 17 controls for heavy-duty engines, only to allow these 18 controls to be poisoned and rendered infective by the 19 presence of sulfur in the fuel. Given the ability of 20 refiners to remove sulfur from the diesel fuel, as 21 evidenced by recent statements of support for the 22 standards by two major oil companies, there is no 23 reason to tolerate a scenario in which dirty diesel 24 fuel damages or destroys these essential pollution 25 controls. 109 1 Other observers have suggested alternative 2 caps, and averaging systems. For example, the American 3 Petroleum Institute suggests that a cap of 50 parts per 4 million would be sufficient; however, the consequences 5 of setting a cap higher than 15 ppm include: Increased 6 incidence of particulate filter failure; deterioration 7 of engine performance; and poisoning of the NOx 8 catalysts. 9 For the public, this means more pollution, 10 more asthma attacks, more hospitalizations, more 11 premature mortality, and more cancer. We urge EPA to 12 reject this alternative. 13 The second point is that EPA's proposed NOx 14 standards should be applied to all new engines in 2007, 15 EPA's proposal holds all new engines to a particulate 16 standard of 0.01 grams per break horsepower-hour in 17 2007, and but allows a four-year phase-in of the NOx 18 standard, delaying full implementation until 2010. 19 We believe that this unnecessarily delays the 20 smog reduction benefits of the rules, prolonging the 21 chronic smog problems faced by more than 117 million 22 Americans who live in likely ozone non-attainment areas 23 across the nation. 24 The urgency of our need to reduce emissions 25 cannot be overstated. At the end of 1999, we compiled 110 1 smog monitoring data from every monitor in the nation, 2 and found that the health standard for smog had been 3 exceeded more than 7000 times. Moreover, according to 4 a 1990 study by Abt Associates, smog was the cause of 5 more than 6 million asthma attacks, 150,000 emergency 6 room visits; and 50,000 hospital admissions in a single 7 summer of 1997. 8 We believe that all new engines should be 9 able to meet the 0.20 grams per bhp-hour by 2007. The 10 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, an 11 association of companies who are most directly involved 12 in providing the technology to achieve these standards, 13 agree that the technologies to meet the NOx standard 14 will be available in 2007. Again, this hinges on the 15 availability of clean fuel. 16 The third point is that we believe that a 17 technology review is unnecessary and 18 counterproductive. US PIRG urges the EPA to reject the 19 suggestion by some to include a technology review for 20 the 2003 time frame. We believe that this review would 21 be unnecessary, given the high degree of confidence 22 that clean fuels will enable rapid development of NOx 23 emission control technologies. 24 Moreover, we see the proposed technology 25 review as a disincentive to actually develop cleaner 111 1 engines. Giving the industry an opportunity to escape 2 from new standards, contingent on their own lack of 3 future progress in developing NOx control technologies 4 is far too much like the fox guarding the hen house. It 5 should be remembered that this industry has a history 6 of illegal actions to escape from pollution standards. 7 In addition, one could view this technology 8 review as little more than an opportunity to take 9 advantage of the changing political landscape under a 10 new administration, and one that make be less committed 11 to protecting public health. 12 Finally, the last point that advanced 13 heavy-duty technology should be encouraged. While 14 diesel engines are known as the workhorse of our 15 present transportation system, it's important to 16 acknowledge that far cleaner technologies are being 17 commercialized. The promotion of these technologies, 18 including fuel cells, hybrids, and electric propulsion 19 systems, can lead to critical additional public health 20 and environmental benefits. 21 We strongly support the inclusion of the Blue 22 Sky program to define a set of propulsion technologies, 23 and/or a set of lower emission standards for vehicles 24 to be designated for receipt of incentives under local, 25 federal, or state incentive programs. 112 1 Thank you, again, for giving us this 2 opportunity. 3 MS. OGE: Thank you. 4 UNIDENTIFIED: I want to talk mainly about 5 West Harlem. We will be commenting on your rules once 6 we've read them. We have not seen a copy as yet, we 7 will be looking at it. 8 Statistics shows that both city and private 9 industrial facilities are violating neighborhoods of 10 color. North River Community Environmental Review 11 Board, which I chair, will complete its 15th year 12 advocating and trying to protect the health of Harlem. 13 West Harlem in particular. And, of course, of other 14 communities. 15 West Harlem is the seat of six of New York 16 City's bus depots, the West Harlem Highway, and the 17 Amtrak Rail. Diesel fuel from heavy-duty gasoline 18 trucks primarily coming in from other boroughs, buses 19 commuting, and commuters on the West Side Highway pass 20 through Harlem's neighborhoods. New York City is 21 planning to close (inaudible). Harlem is being plagued 22 with an over-saturation of hazardous waste of 23 (inaudible) carbon monoxide. 24 We need continuous testing of PM 2.5 25 throughout Harlem, and West Harlem in particular. 113 1 Through the (inaudible) the New York City DEP has 2 installed the North River Water Pollution Control Plant 3 Air Quality Control Monitoring System to monitor 4 various types of contaminants in the area, which affect 5 residents of West Harlem communities and the river 6 banks. According to the New York City DEP, North River 7 opened in March of 1986. We began to address the 8 (inaudible) from the (inaudible), which actually became 9 unbearable. 10 Now that we are finally getting some 11 validated data from the Air Quality Control Monitoring 12 System that was installed to monitor the contaminants 13 of North River through the consent order, New York City 14 DEP has applied to New York State DEC for consent to 15 remove the North River Air Quality Monitoring System 16 and discontinue air monitoring. This is unacceptable. 17 The North River Air Quality Station system needs 18 upgrading. And the North River Community Environmental 19 Review Board has requested various upgrades and 20 improvements (inaudible). 21 West Harlem is in dire need of a (inaudible) 22 air quality environmental impact evaluation 23 (inaudible). The North River Water Pollution Control 24 Plant Air Quality Monitoring System should be looked at 25 by the US EPA to make sure that it is made permanent 114 1 and that it will not be removed. The improvements to 2 the Environmental Impact Air Quality Monitoring System 3 has been requested by the North River Communities 4 Environmental Review Board, and we can give you copies 5 of those letters. If not, however, you should have 6 them in your office, because you're on my mailing 7 list. 8 Preferred plans by New York City Department 9 of Sanitation to enlarge the 135th Street (inaudible) 10 rail, water, and trucks moving garbage in and 11 throughout lower Manhattan (inaudible). This is an 12 injustice to the residents of West Harlem. If each 13 borough is to have its own garbage, 91st Street and 14 (inaudible) 135th Street, each handling the same amount 15 of garbage, only the same amount of (inaudible) and the 16 same amount of (inaudible). 17 More industry contaminated racism on Harlem 18 and West Harlem is unacceptable (inaudible). In 19 particular, because they make sure that these 20 contaminated facilities are not located in their area 21 and they are forced into our communities. That's an 22 injustice. 23 A few years ago when the 91st Street and 59th 24 Street Marine Transfer Stations were renovated, they 25 moved uptown to 135th Street, we had (inaudible) going 115 1 in and out with three shifts. The 91st street is 2 closed, all of them are closed now, with the exception 3 they keep (inaudible). The plans that they have are 4 unacceptable. 5 And if they opened only the 135th station, 6 then we will have over and above 2000 trucks coming in 7 per day. More diesel fuel, more PM 2.5, more asthma, 8 more diesel, more cancer. And that means that while we 9 are (inaudible), we will be dying at a much higher 10 rate. 11 I want to thank US EPA for holding this 12 hearing and allowing us to be heard, we appreciate 13 that. And we will be commenting on your rules before 14 your commenting period ends. We apologize for having 15 not seen a copy of it, but I just heard from you on 16 Thursday night and we have not had time to look at it. 17 So if there is any help, if you can come to 18 West Harlem and see the problems that we have there, it 19 would be most appreciated. 20 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Stead. 21 MR. CRAIG STEAD: My name is Craig Stead, I'm 22 from Putney, Vermont (phonetic), and I have served as 23 an expert on composition toxicity, toxicity and human 24 health effects of diesel exhaust. I have been studying 25 diesel exhaust for seven years at this point. I have a 116 1 master's degree in chemical engineering, and I am a 2 registered professional engineer. I have worked for 3 the petroleum and the chemical industries. I am also 4 an asthmatic, and I found diesel exhaust is a potent 5 asthma trigger. 6 I'm going to raise a new concern that has not 7 been discussed. And this new concern is new, highly 8 toxic, diesel exhaust pollutant that requires no 9 (inaudible). And it is briefly discussed in EPA 10 documents, but it is far more serious than the 11 discussion indicates. 12 The new highly toxic pollutant is ultra-fine 13 particles that are generated by modern clean burning 14 diesel engines. So the first question obviously is 15 what are ultra-fine particles? These are particles 16 that are incredibly small, less than 0.1 microns in 17 size. This is to be compared with the standard PM 10, 18 or the new standard of PM 2.5, which is 2.5 microns, 19 these are 0.1 microns. 20 As a result of the small size, these 21 particles are (inaudible). And they cannot be seen in 22 a diesel exhaust pipe, so that exhaust looks perfectly 23 clean. It is not. It is deadly. These particulates 24 have no weight. A million of them weigh nothing. As a 25 result of this, mass-based or weight-based standards 117 1 (inaudible) are meaningless in addressing ultra-fine 2 particulates. Thus, statements that we have a 3 90 percent reduction in (inaudible) meaningless in 4 regards to ultra-fine particulates. 5 These particulates, because of their 6 fineness, stay aloft for a week, it is estimated, and 7 can travel thousands of miles. So the air pollution of 8 New York City is the air pollution of Vermont when it 9 gets pushed up to Connecticut Valley. And I can't 10 (inaudible). They found that ultra-fine particles 11 cause severe inflammation (inaudible) in animals. They 12 are associated with asthma. Because of the fine size 13 of these particles, when you breathe them, you retain 14 almost 100 percent of them. They have found that these 15 particles enter the respiratory tract and can trigger 16 serious lung health damage. 17 So having heard the story of ultra-fine 18 particles, you somehow must now address the ultra-fine 19 particle. In fact, it is important, because with the 20 change in diesel engine technology through what they 21 call "clean burning diesels," in fact, they are 22 producing primarily ultra-fine particles, which are 23 invisible. And they have found -- these are 24 researchers in Europe as well as the University of 25 Minnesota -- that the modern engines produce more 118 1 particulates (inaudible). The modern ones, you don't 2 see the toxicity coming out of that exhaust pipe. They 3 are estimated at 10 to 100 million ultra-fine particles 4 per cubic centimeter of diesel exhaust. And for those 5 of you who can't visualize, that's about the size of a 6 marble. 7 The only method that has been found to 8 control ultra-fine particles in diesel engine exhaust 9 from a modern, clean burning engine is a particulate 10 trap with an oxidation catalyst to remove what is 11 called "soluble organics fraction." 12 I would refer the EPA to their own document, 13 which is an impressive and massive document -- and I 14 did not read it all, either -- but I read where they 15 discuss particulates and they make the following 16 statement. This is on page 161, and it's a statement 17 by Kettleson (phonetic), who's probably one of the 18 cutting-edge investigators on ultra-fine particulates. 19 Kettleson confirmed that ultra-fine particles 20 can be reduced by a factor of 10. By (inaudible) 21 volatile organics (inaudible reading from document) -- 22 and I would emphasize this -- additional factor of 10 23 by reducing sulphur in the fuel, (inaudible) 24 particulate traps efficiently, (inaudible) nearly all 25 of the volatile organic particulate. 119 1 This is important, because what happens is in 2 the diesel exhaust (inaudible) these ultra-fine 3 particles. 4 This is why you need this after-treatment 5 technology. And he said elimination of as much sulfur 6 as possible will dramatically reduce the number of 7 ultra-fine particulates emitted from diesel engines. 8 And I emphasize that. 9 Therefore, the combination of particulate 10 traps with low-sulfur fuel is expected to result in a 11 very large reduction in particulate matter. And I 12 emphasize this again: Ultra-fine particulates will be 13 almost completely eliminated. 14 Thus, I pose the question to this audience 15 and EPA: Do we really have any choice on this issue of 16 sulphur in fuel and 15 parts per million cap? I don't 17 believe so. 18 The proposal with the 15 parts per million 19 cap on sulfur must be implemented as soon as possible 20 for the protection of asthmatics, and all of us. Thank 21 you. 22 MS. OGE: Thank you. I have couple of the 23 statements. (Request for Mr. Cavaney and Mr. 24 Charbonneau to provide more information.) 25 I would like to thank all of the panel 120 1 members for taking the time to testify. And given the 2 fact we have so many people, I would suggest that we 3 work through our lunch break to see if we can pick up 4 some time. So I would call for Candida Bido, Maria 5 McMorran, Carlos Padilla, Adele Bender. 6 We'll start with Candida Bido. 7 MS. CANDIDA BIDO: My name is Candida Bido, 8 and I'm the (inaudible) for West Harlem Environmental 9 Action, (inaudible) environmental justice in our 10 community, and I'm here really to speak on a personal 11 level. 12 I'm an asthmatic and I have discovered 13 personally the effect for all of the diesel fumes that 14 have traveled to my community. And let me say to you 15 that it might be very expensive for them to convert, 16 but it was extremely expensive for my family and me to 17 go up to the hospital to go to the emergency room every 18 day as I was growing up, and after that going to school 19 to learn. 20 The costs in my family has been extremely 21 high, too, and it is not comparable to the amount of 22 money that they have earned through all of the years 23 that they have been operating in our community. 24 The things is that many, a lot of those 25 people that they take their goods to, that they are 121 1 supplying the oils to -- eventually we're going to 2 die. And if that is the case, (inaudible). And that's 3 the reality that they need to deal with. It is not 4 cost effective to not do it. It is not expensive to 5 them to actually change the way of doing business. 6 It is more expensive to our community to 7 be -- really to be put through this process where we 8 get up, we cannot breathe at night, we end up at night 9 in the hospital, in the emergency room. Then we go to 10 school all drugged up because of the medicine that they 11 give us in the hospital and that causes a later 12 problem. 13 So I urge you to be strong and really make 14 the changes that are needed so that those people behind 15 me -- the kids in my community, my son, my nieces, my 16 nephew, my neighbor -- they can they have a healthy 17 life and be part of a productive community. 18 We are really being assaulted (inaudible). 19 This is not an environmental justice issue -- I have a 20 right to a clean neighborhood, and I want you to 21 protect my right as well as those of my community. 22 Okay, thank you so much. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Maria McMorran. 24 MS. MARIA McMORRAN: Good afternoon. Hi, my 25 name is Maria McMorran, and I'm here as a concerned 122 1 citizen. I would just like to echo many of the people 2 who have gone before me and spoken in support of the 3 EPA's proposal. 4 Clean air is fundamentally important to 5 quality of life for all New Yorkers, as this woman who 6 has just spoken has personally shown. Especially so 7 for asthmatics and people who already suffer from 8 respiratory diseases. 9 So, we've heard many people, many exerts, 10 talk so far about the fact that the technology is 11 something that is feasible. The health and 12 environmental benefits are known, and I think that we 13 don't really have any choice but to go forward with 14 these rules. It's important to all of us in terms of 15 our quality of life. Thank you. 16 MS. OGE: Thank you. Okay, could you state 17 your name? 18 MR. DANIEL PEREZ: My name is Dan Perez, and 19 I am here representing the Community Board in Harlem. 20 And I'm going to share my time with Yvonne Robinson. 21 I'm here representing (inaudible). 22 I am pleased to be here today with the 23 opportunity to not only to call attention to the 24 environmental condition that is our community, but also 25 to be a support to the EPA to diesel regulation. If 123 1 implemented, this regulation finally promised to 2 (inaudible) the life of millions of New Yorkers who are 3 both of (inaudible) by drastically reducing the 4 emissions of particulate. 5 Environmental have gone on for too long may 6 be stop may be able to (inaudible). Harlem today is a 7 community with thousands of residents suffering with 8 the effects of asthma and costs, and by the very diesel 9 pollution and (inaudible) like these buses and trucks 10 that are based in Harlem. This pollution is poisoning 11 the very air that we breathe. This degrades the 12 quality of our life. (Inaudible). I would like to not 13 have family, friends, neighbors to suffer from that. 14 Or to have asthma attacks (inaudible). To live in 15 Harlem means to know the constant (inaudible) of the 16 elderly, and the (inaudible). What is in particular 17 painful for me is that all the community in North 18 Manhattan (inaudible), which they have remedies 19 (inaudible). 20 All of the people involved in this issue are 21 fully aware of the alternates of diesel fuel vehicles, 22 which would have permanent impact on air quality. We 23 know New York (inaudible) high level. We all know that 24 the EPA has rated New York City second only to the Los 25 Angeles (inaudible) pollution. Half of which is 124 1 created from diesel. We all know that diesel 2 (inaudible) a certain form of cancer. 3 Finally the issue of (inaudible) the lack of 4 consent and leadership. Using the (inaudible) 5 facility, which is a massive amount of diesel 6 pollution. Two and three quarters of most people are 7 located in upper Manhattan, the areas known as Harlem 8 and Washington Heights, are communities of color. In 9 Manhattan, six of the MTA large bus depots are located 10 in these two communities. 11 Race appeared to be a large factor, not only 12 in (inaudible) but also funding. The future looked no 13 better. The MTA proposed 80 percent on (inaudible) 14 maintained a diesel depot and in communities of color 15 (inaudible). The only significant change is that the 16 downtown bus depot and extension (inaudible). 17 Technologies have made the tolerance of 18 diesel buses a matter of choice, not of necessity. 19 (inaudible) those will not care less about deadly and 20 (inaudible) each and every day. I would like to invite 21 you and your members to visit Harlem so you could smell 22 how sick. 23 MS. MARTIN: I ask you, for clarification of 24 the record, you stated that you were West Harlem 25 Environmental Action? 125 1 MR. PEREZ: I'm with the Community Board, but 2 I work very close to the West Harlem. 3 MS. MARTIN: Now we'll hear from Mr. Carlos 4 Padilla. 5 MR. CARLOS PADILLA: My name is Carlos 6 Padilla. I'm a President of South Bronx Clean Air 7 Coalition, who for the past 12 years has shutdown two 8 medical waste facilities -- one being an incinerator 9 and one plan to retrofit -- when they were destroying 10 the health of communities by emitting particulates and 11 (inaudible), which they were denying, themselves, that 12 was coming out of their plant. The EPA organizations 13 were able to have them reevaluate the systems and found 14 the errors of their ways. 15 I would like to thank the EPA for this 16 opportunity and I would also like to invite the EPA to 17 a tour up in the South Bronx. The South Bronx, 18 basically known as "Dodge City," is an area where you 19 have seven bridges that service Manhattan. These seven 20 bridges are most of the time congested with vehicles 21 that would not ordinarily pass any kind of emission 22 standard if it were to be tested. 23 I understand that you're trying to change the 24 sulfates to create a cleaner diesel, but we're looking 25 at seven years and looking at a hard fight, from the 126 1 examples that we've seen here. They seem to be 2 (inaudible). It's going to be a very tough fight and 3 things have happened in the past, sometimes a middle 4 grounds there have been negotiated. 5 I have a feeling the EPA should not 6 negotiate, should stay firm and strong. One of the 7 issues they have also is that I haven't seen anyone 8 address the petroleum industry the way (inaudible) 9 addressed for the negligence in selling cigarettes. I 10 do believe that the petroleum industry will surface 11 erroneous statements and documents. Doctored up 12 documents. 13 I also understand that the EPA gave a fine to 14 the General Motors, I believe it was about three or 15 four years ago, for $25 million for (inaudible) rating 16 the emission test on the engines. 17 We're getting more to a situation -- I have a 18 community where there are highways and seven bridges. 19 This community is suffering one of the highest death 20 rates of asthma and we need from the EPA to come up and 21 take a look at why there is no enforcement. If you go 22 down to midtown Manhattan, in certain areas you blow 23 your horn and the police pull you over and you get 24 ticketed. Trucks are running with black streamers 25 coming from their pipes in front of daycare centers, 127 1 garbage trucks are parked in front of senior citizen 2 homes and hospitals. 3 You have to come take a look at a complete 4 disregard. They claim there's laws on the books that 5 will not allow this -- this is being allowed. There is 6 no enforcement. If you were to stop the police 7 officers in that community, in the South Bronx, and 8 question them on truck traffic, they will not be able 9 to give you a first regulation of how to stop or how to 10 ticket. These are some of the problems. 11 I know there is a lot of work ahead of all of 12 us to try to prove to go towards clean diesel. There 13 is a wonderful seminar at Bronx Community College to 14 give (inaudible) to identify a lot of areas to be 15 explored. We have a one-size-fits-all mentality, where 16 if we don't clean up diesel, nothing is going to 17 happen. 18 I believe the majority of trucks in our 19 communities are local. For instance, in the service of 20 the hotel, school buses -- anything associated with 21 diesel, these vehicles (inaudible) I speak up. The 22 Hunts Point Market, the New York Post, the buses, these 23 vehicles are burning their engines approximately 8 to 24 12 hours a day in the same communities. The majority 25 of trucks in our communities are ten years old and 128 1 better. 2 The average of these trucks leave in the 3 morning, they have diesel burning engines, and they 4 also have (inaudible) are running approximately 10 to 5 12 hours a day non-stop. School buses, city buses, all 6 these local transportation methods are running 8 to 12 7 hours per day. 8 The trucks in our community, I don't care 9 what the truck, you give me a truck, give me the 10 registration, I go up to a gas station, I bring back an 11 inspection sticker. This is what goes on. And there 12 is nobody (inaudible). This is why our communities are 13 oversaturated with respiratory problems and are 14 completely taken advantage of, because there is no 15 enforcement. 16 There are rules on the books. We are talking 17 about improving the emissions by reducing the sulfates, 18 and I agree with you. But in the interim I think there 19 has to be some sort of dignity. 20 What is the quality of the (inaudible). None 21 of this is taken seriously. Trucks running all over 22 the senior citizens. I understand that we have to take 23 a look at (inaudible). We're all working towards 24 (inaudible). Well, right now some of the impacts are 25 created just because burning -- diesel is being allowed 129 1 to burn, is another one of the problems. 2 In the Bronx, you have the rail yard which 3 was downsized. At a time when we need all the rail, 4 some developer who (inaudible) all the rail, okay, 5 ripped up the rail, enough rail for his friends in the 6 waste industry to be able to utilize. A lot of goods 7 and services are being forced to be trucked in because 8 the rail has been taken from you. I remember I was in 9 the trucking business. In New Jersey, half a mile 10 before you get to the piers you can smell the diesel 11 out there, that's how bad it was. (inaudible). I 12 think we're going to have to take a look at various 13 different technologies. 14 I want to thank you all for allowing me to 15 testify, and I really think it's important to come and 16 take a look and see the complete disrespect. The 17 regulatory agencies are not there stop some of these 18 trucks and look at their inspection (inaudible). How 19 did they manage to get an inspection sticker with a 20 vehicle in that type of condition? 21 We suffer, our children are suffering. Talk 22 to the community. Take a look. Please come up, I will 23 be happy to give you a tour of the situation and then 24 turnaround and say where is the enforcement? What's 25 the sense of having a law if nobody's going to be there 130 1 to enforce it? Thank you very much. 2 MS. MARTIN: Thank you. Adele Bender. 3 MS. ADELE BENDER: My name is Adele Bender, 4 and I'm a member of the Queens Senior Citizens 5 Organization. 6 When I hear all of the people talking, I 7 think "the best things in life are free," and it seems 8 the air you breathe is no longer free, you pay for it 9 with your life and with your health. And it's 10 disgusting and it's a disgrace when I hear the fuel 11 industry talking about the economy and the money, and 12 that they won't do as well with profit, or whatever. 13 I got to tell you something fuel industry: 14 I'm worth it, you're worth it, we're all 15 worth it. I don't care if the economy is not so great, 16 I want to be healthy. And if they're so worried about 17 cost effectiveness, maybe the health insurance people 18 should be down here testifying to that. Because with 19 the bad air and all of the toxic things that are going 20 on, the hospitals will save money, insurance companies 21 will save money. Perhaps, if money is always a bottom 22 line, maybe that will convince them we can breathe. 23 I live in Forest Hills, Queens, and I was 24 talking to some of the women. They happened to tell me 25 about a building that they know of, have some friends 131 1 living there on Queens Boulevard and, of course, they 2 keep their windows open. There are eight people they 3 know on one floor that they have cancer, and they feel 4 it's possible because they live above very heavy 5 traffic and maybe breathing in all that stuff over the 6 years. And, for sure (inaudible), but it is very 7 possible. 8 Other thing I would like to bring on also, 9 this tells me that the government -- I don't know if 10 you're going to have to work with industry -- but what 11 you, EPA, is proposing to do, they're going to really 12 have to move themselves and really do a lot of very 13 heavy and important work on alternative fuel sources, 14 you know, whatever, and in five or six years from now. 15 People don't have five or six years, so you, they want 16 to pass laws and profit motives or for industries -- 17 it's amazing they are planning to do these things and 18 they really have to go through very, very quickly. 19 It's going to cost money, and that means it's 20 jobs, it's people maybe could earn living doing some 21 good and improving the quality of our life. This is a 22 very, very important thing. 23 The other thing I wanted you to know, I 24 wanted to say is that, again, these things have to be 25 done pretty much, I guess, like everything. But I 132 1 wanted to say one other thing I didn't want to say and, 2 but when I see these trucks with black smoke coming out 3 of those pipes, I say why don't they (inaudible) 4 everything else, any clean air law that is passed for 5 the cars, as far as I'm concerned, when that black 6 smoke comes out. 7 And there's more and more trucks. I have 8 nothing against the guy learning earning a living, but 9 if you don't have the laws for the big trucks that go 10 through, it's going to berate everything you did. And 11 you do have to depend more on your rail system. Thank 12 you. 13 MS. MARTIN: Now, if we could hear from 14 Ms. Yvonne Robinson. 15 MS. YVONNE ROBINSON: Good afternoon. My 16 statement is both personal and professional. My name 17 is Yvonne Robinson and I live in the South Bronx which, 18 as you know, has a very high rate of asthma. 19 I have a 22-month old son. When I take him 20 outside my building to the playground, you can see 21 (inaudible). To make it worse, there is a warehouse 22 supermarket across the street, so, therefore, there are 23 constant deliveries being made by 18-wheelers with 24 diesel fuel. And then on a block over there is a 25 sanitation plant. This greatly concerns me, as I do 133 1 not want my son to develop asthma or any other 2 respiratory illness, I want my son to grow up with 3 healthy lungs. 4 On a professional side, I'm a community 5 liaison with the outreach component of Harlem 6 hospitals. As an (inaudible) initiative within our 7 program, we have a group called "Asthmatics." The 8 majority of our members did not develop asthma until 9 they were well into their fifties, so clearly the 10 effects of air pollution can affect you sooner or 11 later. 12 The passage of this proposal is of concern to 13 me, please treat it as such. Thank you. 14 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much. Now the 15 last person, I believe, on this panel is Ms. 16 Sally Lindsay. 17 MS. SALLY LINDSAY: I'm Sally Lindsay, I'm an 18 artist living and working in Soho. My loft is 12 19 stories above (inaudible) Street at Broadway, which is 20 right down the street from the Holland Tunnel. 21 When I went there in 1971 it was like being 22 in the country, it was wonderful. Now when you open 23 the windows and doors, your eyes sting and the air is 24 foul most of the time. So this is just a little 25 anecdote about environmental pollution. 134 1 MS. MARTIN: Thank you to all the members on 2 the current panel. And we will take a short recess for 3 the court reporter. 4 (Recess.) 5 MS. MARTIN: We will please begin this panel 6 with the testimony of City Councilmember Stanley 7 Michaels. 8 MR. STANLEY MICHAELS: Thank you very much. 9 I am Councilmember Stanley Michaels, and 10 chair of the Environmental Protection Agency of the New 11 York City Council. And I'm also a member of the local 12 government advisory committee of the EPA. 13 I'm very pleased to be here. Let me say this 14 at the outset: I fully support EPA's proposed 15 standards requiring advanced pollution control devices, 16 both diesel and heavy-duty gasoline truck devices. 17 These rules are long overdue, and have been 18 enthusiastically received by everyone concerned about 19 the continuing serious pollution problems in the New 20 York City area and the deleterious effect on public 21 health. 22 I urge you -- repeat -- I urge you to 23 implement these rules nationwide at the earliest 24 possible date. At least by the year 2006, as you have 25 proposed. 135 1 Diesel fuel and vehicles have been the only 2 major source of pollution not to be covered by updated 3 federal regulations in recent years. These new rules 4 recognize the fact that the trucks and buses, together, 5 represent a disproportionately large source of nitrogen 6 oxides. Especially as emissions from private cars, 7 power plants, and factories have been reduced. 8 The EPA is to be congratulated and commended 9 for tackling this issue head on. And for seeking not 10 just a modest improvement, but a 90 percent cut of 11 emissions by the end of this decade. 12 As far as I'm concerned, this standard is as 13 important to the future of New York City, and the rest 14 of the country, as President Kennedy called the landing 15 of man on the moon in the early 1960s. 16 New York City is overly dependent on buses 17 and truck drivers and mass transit for commercial goods 18 deliveries. And to that I might add that over 19 95 percent of all goods that come to New York, comes by 20 truck. So we're captive of the truck industry. 21 We are literally choking on the fumes from 22 diesel-powered engines. New York State estimates that 23 by the year 2007 heavy-duty trucks and buses will be 24 the source of one-third of all nitrogen oxide emissions 25 from vehicles, even though the trucks and buses account 136 1 for only 7 percent of the total miles traveled. The 2 problem is undoubtedly worse in New York City. 3 This is why we, and the rest of the country, 4 needs these EPA rules as quickly as possible. We urge 5 you not to back down. You are on the right road, the 6 road to cleaner air. So it's extremely important to 7 all of us, especially to New York City and State. It 8 does us no good on a regional basis, it has to be on a 9 nationwide basis. I appreciate it, and I wish you 10 Godspeed in working. Thank you. 11 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much. Mr. Peter 12 Lehner. 13 MR. PETER LEHNER: I'm the Chief of the 14 Environmental Protection Bureau in the New York State 15 Attorney General's Office. On behalf of Attorney 16 General Eliot Spitzer, I'm here to speak strongly also 17 in favor of the proposed emission standards for 18 heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and the proposed 19 highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. 20 The substantial reductions in nitrogen 21 oxides, nonmethane hydrocarbons, particulate matter, 22 sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and air toxics that 23 would be achieved by the implementation of the proposed 24 emissions standards is very badly needed. Despite New 25 York State's leadership in fighting air pollution, our 137 1 state continues to suffer the consequences of smog, 2 particulate matter, acid rain, and nitrogen 3 deposition. 4 The New York City metropolitan area has some 5 of the highest levels of ozone and particulate matter 6 in the United States, as well as extremely high levels 7 of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Upstate, 8 because of acid rain causing sulfur dioxide pollution, 9 many Adirondack lakes are devoid of life and forests 10 are deteriorating. 11 And as EPA's impact analysis for the proposed 12 standard shows, the eutrophication of Long Island Sound 13 is exacerbated by nitrogen deposition, disrupting the 14 marine habitat and resulting in large shellfish kills. 15 Diesel exhaust is one of the most damaging 16 sources contributing to New York's air pollution 17 problems, particularly in the metropolitan area. 18 Diesel-powered vehicles produce a significant 19 proportion of New York City's loads of particulates and 20 smog forming nitrogen oxides. 21 The New York State DEC estimates that almost 22 53 percent of airborne particulate matter in New York 23 City comes from diesel tailpipes. And that number is 24 even larger with respect to PM 2.5, which comprise over 25 90 percent of particulate matter in heavy-duty diesel 138 1 engines exhaust. 2 As EPA has recognized in lowering the 3 national ambient air quality for ozone and adopting a 4 PM 2.5 NAAQS, these pollutants cause or contribute to a 5 variety of respiratory illnesses. And, too often, 6 these adverse effect are disproportionately felt by 7 low-income and minority communities. 8 While I go into greater detail with the 9 written testimony on some of the impacts of this, I 10 would like to emphasize that EPA's action is an 11 important complement to what the states are doing at 12 the local level. 13 In our office of the Attorney General's 14 office, we are doing all we can to enforce and protect 15 the clean air laws that we have in place. 16 In a major environmental initiative, we sued 17 a number of coal-fired power plants in the Midwest that 18 have upgraded or expanded their old facilities without 19 making the necessary emission control upgrades required 20 by the Clean Air Act. We are also pursuing legal 21 action against a number of similar plants in New York 22 State. We are pleased that the federal government, 23 seven other Northeast states, and numerous 24 environmental and community organizations have joined 25 our efforts. 139 1 We have also supported EPA in a number of 2 other rulemaking efforts. In Michigan versus EPA, for 3 example, we intervened to support their action 4 requiring extensive reductions in NOx emissions from 5 Midwestern states. And in another case, Appalachian 6 Power versus EPA, we intervened to support EPA's grant 7 of New York's petition under Section 126 of the Clean 8 Air Act. And, finally, as we all are involved in the 9 American trucking case, we have submitted and will 10 submit additional amicus briefs on EPA's tightened 11 ozone and PM 2.5 standards. So we're used to 12 supporting EPA, and we're glad to be doing so again. 13 More locally, last spring we sued the New 14 York City Department of Sanitation for failure to 15 produce an environmental impact statement, or 16 addressing a plan to send hundreds of highly polluting 17 diesel garbage trucks per day through the Holland and 18 Lincoln tunnels and over the George Washington Bridge, 19 to deliver garbage from Manhattan to New Jersey. 20 New York City DOS, however, did not address 21 PM 2.5, despite the clear and overwhelming evidence of 22 adverse public health impacts from these particulate 23 matter, nor did they use correct modeling approaches. 24 We cited to an EPA letter that similarly noted that 25 under the National Environmental Policy Act, the 2.5 140 1 analysis would be required. 2 In developing that lawsuit, we found that 3 many effective after-treatment devices exist that can 4 be put on new vehicles, or that can easily be 5 retrofitted on to existing trucks. We also discovered 6 the importance of low-sulfur fuel for the proper 7 functioning of these devices, and the impact that 8 low-sulfur fuel alone can have on particulates and 9 other emissions. 10 And finally, with EPA, our office 11 participated in the settlements with the heavy-duty 12 diesel emission manufacturers, who deliberately 13 deceived the EPA on their emissions tests, resulting in 14 an extra 1.3 million tons of nitrogen oxides emissions 15 each year. 16 In addition to these actions, we have 17 underway several investigations that you may hear about 18 before too long. So in summary, at the Attorney 19 General's office, we are doing everything in our power 20 to clean the air in New York State. But we cannot 21 bring air quality to a safe level without more 22 stringent emissions standards for heavy-duty diesel 23 vehicles. We are, therefore, very supportive of the 24 EPA's proposed plan to reduce these dangerous diesel 25 emissions. 141 1 EPA's proposed plan addresses the heavy-duty 2 diesel vehicles and its fuel as a single system. This 3 is essential for the success of the proposal, as the 4 standards are based on the use of high-efficiency 5 catalytic after-treatment devices. Because the devices 6 are damaged by sulfur, EPA is right to propose new fuel 7 quality requirements to remove 97 percent of the sulfur 8 from highway diesel fuel before the vehicles are 9 required to meet the new standards. 10 Independent of its effect on after-treatment 11 devices on new engines and vehicles, reducing the 12 sulfur content of diesel fuels will also significantly 13 reduce the particulate emissions from the existing 14 fleet of diesel trucks and buses. And as I noted 15 earlier, it allows the installation of retrofit 16 devices. Reducing the sulfur content to the level 17 proposed by EPA alone will reduce PM emissions by 18 approximately 20 percent. 19 We are examining whether the sulfur 20 reductions can be accomplished more quickly, allowing 21 for immediate emissions reductions and general use of 22 treatment devices well before 2006, the proposed date 23 of implementation. Our written comments will address 24 that issue. 25 This sulfur reduction only applies to fuel 142 1 that will be used by highway vehicles. We recommend 2 the sulfur reductions be extended for use in off-road 3 vehicles and diesel-powered construction and farm 4 equipment as well. 5 Cleaning up diesel fuel by 97 percent, in 6 tandem with its proposed emission standards, will allow 7 the EPA to cut NOx emissions from heavy-duty 8 diesel-powered vehicles by 95 percent, and soot by 9 90 percent. 10 While EPA proposes to fully implement the 11 particulate matter emissions standards in 2007, it 12 proposes to phase-in the NOx standard over four years. 13 Our office is studying the feasibility of shortening 14 the phase-in schedule, and plans to submit further 15 comments to the EPA on this issue. 16 Having learned from the emissions testing 17 experience with diesel engine manufacturers, the EPA 18 should also continue to take measures to ensure that 19 the heavy-duty vehicles are meeting the emissions 20 standards on the roads, not just during engine tests. 21 And the new rule should address that issue. 22 Lastly, we would like to commend EPA for 23 proposing a cost-effective program that will result in 24 tremendous gains for the environment and the public 25 health. 143 1 Thank you for providing the opportunity for 2 our office to testify. We'll look forward to 3 continuing to work with the EPA toward cleaner air and 4 improved public health. Thank you. 5 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much. Christine 6 Vujovich. 7 MS. CHRISTINE VUJOVICH: Good afternoon, 8 Ms. Martin. My name is Christine Vujovich. I am the 9 Vice President for Environmental Policy and Product 10 Strategy for Cummins Engine Company. 11 Cummins manufactures heavy-duty diesel and 12 natural gas engines for a variety of applications, 13 including marine, agriculture, construction, stationary 14 power and heavy-duty on-road vehicles, the subject of 15 the proposal before us today. 16 Before providing you with the Cummins 17 specific comments, I wanted to express Cummins' support 18 of the comments made by the engine manufacturers 19 earlier today, and those of the diesel technology forum 20 later this afternoon. 21 Cummins has long appreciated the opportunity 22 to participate in the public hearing process for 23 rulemaking. Doing so challenges us to fully understand 24 what it takes to satisfy the needs of society. And 25 based on this understanding, offer constructive 144 1 suggestions for enhancement or alternatives to EPA's 2 proposals. 3 As a company, we are absolutely committed to 4 pursuing technologies that benefit the environment. We 5 are equally committed to providing products that offer 6 superior performance and meet our customer's 7 expectations. 8 EPA's proposal is significant in many ways 9 today. It, for the first time, recognizes the 10 importance of low-sulfur fuel in implementing 11 technologies to reduce nitrogen oxides and particulate 12 matter from diesel engines. It also represents the 13 biggest percentage reduction of NOx and PM of any 14 previous rule. 15 We support these efforts to improve 16 emissions, but we do have our concerns when it comes to 17 how the proposed reductions will be accomplished. The 18 complex array of after-treatment technologies and 19 controls that are necessary to reduce PM and NOx 20 together, as of today, do not exist outside of the 21 lab. 22 Beyond this, there are various uncertainties 23 embedded in this proposal that complicate our ability 24 to thoroughly asses the impact of these rules. Among 25 them are the test requirements for which we have no 145 1 final knowledge; measurement capability for which 2 instruments do not currently exist; and many others. 3 I have chosen to focus today only on the 4 current state of technology purported to be needed to 5 achieve these standards. 6 We have monumental challenges to overcome 7 before we can contemplate whether what the EPA is 8 proposing is practicable. Therefore, I am here today 9 to urge EPA to slow down the review process. Instead 10 of rushing to finalize these rules by the end of the 11 year, Cummins asks the EPA to take a more measured 12 approach that will allow for the careful assessment of 13 the technology necessary to meet these goals. 14 Diesel engines are significantly cleaner than 15 they were even just ten years ago, and progress will 16 continue. By 2002, NOx emissions from our heavy-duty 17 products will have been reduced by 87 percent, and PM 18 emissions by 90 percent from their unregulated levels. 19 This has been done in steps, with each step 20 preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, such as 21 this one. There is a significant difference, however, 22 between this rulemaking and those that have come 23 before. The majority of the reductions achieved to 24 date have been through in-cylinder and engine 25 sub-system control technologies. Technologies which, 146 1 as engine manufacturers, we specify and install as part 2 of the assembly of the engines. 3 This reduction will be the first time that as 4 manufacturers of record for certification, the 5 emissions capability and the useful life of our entire 6 automotive products depend on the suppliers outside our 7 sphere of development and production. That is to say, 8 we must rely on technologies that we neither make nor 9 install. 10 I am certain, however, that the 11 after-treatment suppliers are actively researching and 12 inventing the systems necessary to trap sulfur, filter 13 particulates, chemically reduce oxides of nitrogen, and 14 oxidize whatever hydrocarbons might slip through the 15 systems. But this work is being done in carefully 16 controlled lab situations right now -- where it should 17 be -- but one pollutant control system is optimized at 18 a time. 19 The truth is that none of these complex 20 systems where NOx and PM are controlled together to 21 these very low levels is developed to even a point of 22 adequate laboratory demonstration, let alone field 23 tests. 24 Furthermore, active regenerative controls 25 which permit the continued use of the catalysts have 147 1 not been developed, so anyone's statement today that 2 these systems are practicable is really unfounded. 3 Many of you on the EPA panel know that I have 4 been participating in the development of environmental 5 regulations and controls for over 20 years. In those 6 20 years, this is the first time that my company is 7 unable to ascertain whether the standards will be 8 achievable at this time in the rulemaking process. 9 It is not that we aren't trying to do that. 10 We fully support the air quality improvements that this 11 effort represents. Nor is it that we are unfamiliar 12 with the technology options. In fact, it is simply 13 because at this time we just don't know the 14 capabilities of all these technologies that are 15 necessary. 16 We expect that a new regulation will be in 17 place in 2007. There's no reason not to take the time 18 now to make certain that we get it right for 2007. 19 We have the time to approach this rulemaking 20 in a systematic way, so that those who must certify the 21 technology have the opportunity to establish its 22 practicability before they commit to achieving any 23 specific emissions level. 24 We also have the time to approach this 25 rulemaking in a systematic way, so that those who must 148 1 develop the technology can assure its effectiveness 2 before they commit to its reliability. That's only 3 fair and it's only responsible. 4 Now one might ask, "What's the difference? 5 Why not finalize the standard at the end of the year? 6 Then Cummins and all the rest will have nearly six 7 years of lead time to develop the technology to achieve 8 the emission standards. After all isn't lead time what 9 the manufacturers want?" 10 The point is, there is a difference. On the 11 one hand, having final rules set by the end of this 12 year would provide many years to sort out the 13 technology to achieve very low emissions standards. 14 And on the other hand, we would have agreed to a final 15 rule without any certainty that the technology we 16 suspect will be necessary is even a viable option. 17 The last time EPA permitted us a long lead 18 time -- and I believe it was six years -- was when EPA 19 and the manufacturers negotiated the year 2004 20 regulations. In that case, we knew what the standards 21 would be; but, most importantly, we had real experience 22 with workable technology that was required to achieve 23 those 2004 levels. The exhaust gas re-circulation 24 technology already existed, and the wonderful lead time 25 enabled us to effectively apply EGR to the heavy-duty 149 1 engines with some confidence that we would meet these 2 standards on the Federal Test Procedure by 2004. 3 In today's case, we to have rely on 4 technologies for which we have no proof of reliability, 5 durability, useful life, practicability, or cost. Thus 6 committing to any standard with even six years of lead 7 time, but having no out-of-lab experience with the 8 technology, is unreasonable and irresponsible. 9 Our customers, and the public, deserve to 10 know with confidence that manufacturers will deliver on 11 their commitments. The only way we can get improved 12 air quality is if there is a demand for the technology 13 that brings about the improvement. If the technology 14 is disruptive to the operation, or is cost prohibitive, 15 then no one buys and no one benefits. 16 It is imperative that manufacturers be 17 permitted the time to carefully assess the technology 18 in order to confidently provide the emissions control 19 we will need to deliver. Cummins, for one, will be 20 much better able to commit to the public its abilities 21 and levels of control, if it is given the time to fully 22 asses the technology and Cummins' ability to apply that 23 technology. This company is committed to providing the 24 air quality needs of our customers and society at 25 large. 150 1 But once again, we strongly recommend that 2 EPA keep open this rulemaking beyond the end of the 3 year to allow us and others, yourselves included, to 4 more carefully and responsibly asses the technologies 5 necessary to meet our collective goals. 6 Thank you for your attention, and at the 7 appropriate time I will be happy to answer any of your 8 questions. 9 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Williams, good 10 afternoon. 11 MS. STEPHANIE WILLIAMS: Thank you. My name 12 is Stephanie Williams, I'm the director of 13 Environmental Affairs for the California Trucking 14 Association. Our members represent 2,500 truck 15 companies and suppliers that operate into and out of 16 California. The majority of our membership is 17 interstate registered. 18 I'm here today to support EPA and their 19 efforts at passing a 15 parts per million diesel fuel 20 standard cap, along with the 0.01 grams per break 21 horsepower-hour particulate standard, and the 0.2 NOx 22 standard. 23 The California Trucking Association is taking 24 our mission for clean air on the road for five reasons, 25 and the first one is air quality. 151 1 Unlike some of the other states who are 2 coming into the same kinds of considerations, 3 California has been under them for many years. Air 4 quality is a zero sum game. 5 State implementation plans require states to 6 sit down, come up with an inventory, figure out their 7 emissions. Ozone and (inaudible) are on the horizon. 8 In California, Sacramento and the South Coast will not 9 meet the attainment dates, unless serious concerns are 10 taken on diesel fuel. 11 As a regulated industry, if we don't have a 12 national fuel standard, we're going to end up with 13 regulations on trucks that interfere with operation, 14 time of day, and other problems that put our truckers, 15 and truckers coming into our state, in a very bad 16 competitive disadvantage. 17 It is important to have a national fuel 18 standard. The trucking industry is the end user. We 19 don't make fuel, we don't make trucks. We bring goods 20 to market. And we need to do that in a safe, 21 environmentally considerate engine. And that's what we 22 are asking for today. 23 The ozone standards and PM standards are what 24 drive this hearing, and should drive this hearing. 25 There should be no other consideration. Federal law 152 1 requires us to meet standards based on the air quality 2 in our communities. The public wants diesel cleaned 3 up. To take the pressure off the trucking industry, a 4 national fuel standard is the only suitable remedy. 5 You can't ignore the inventory, you cannot 6 blame the railroads or off-road. Emission standards 7 start with the smallest engine first. What would have 8 happened if the car people pointed to the trucks and 9 said why aren't you going after them? 10 You start with the technology that's 11 feasible, and you move forward to avoid diesel bans in 12 communities, which will be what happens next. You'll 13 have communities like the gentleman who's sitting next 14 to me, that are targeting the very trucks that we want 15 to use because the emission standards aren't tight 16 enough. As a trucking representative, we can't change 17 the emission standards on our trucks. We can't make 18 different fuel. 19 The next four reasons that we support this 20 proposal are economic. Regional diesel fuels are a 21 disaster for the trucking industry. Regional diesel 22 fuels are a windfall for the oil companies. 23 In California in 1993, we introduced 24 California Air Resources Board diesel. Car diesel 25 number two comes in at about 120 parts per million 153 1 sulfur. Much cleaner than the fuel used in the other 2 49 states. 350 is the average federal fuel sulfur 3 standard from all our testing outside the State of 4 California. 5 What happened with this proposal is a fuel 6 island was created. Diesel fuel prices shot up, not 7 because there wasn't enough diesel fuel, because the 8 number of people producing diesel fuel had a greater 9 hold on the market. The profits of oil companies were 10 investigated by the Attorney General, and still are to 11 this day. 12 What I'm saying on a regional fuel standard 13 is the only beneficiary are the oil companies. The 14 nation needs a national clean fuel standard. The 15 reason for this is price and supply. 16 If all states are competing in the market, 17 they can bring clean diesel fuel to the states, to 18 communities, for a cheaper price than if we allow the 19 oil companies to regionalize fuel and Texas has a fuel, 20 California has a fuel, the Northeast has a fuel, 21 everyone could have a dirty fuel, we would pay more for 22 fuel in this nation because of the regionalization than 23 we would if we had the cleanest fuel possible that EPA 24 is asking for today. Regional diesel fuels are a bad 25 economic decision for this country. 154 1 Fuel prices and supply is the second economic 2 reason that we support this proposal. As has been said 3 many times, I'm not going to go over it again today. 4 15 ppm maximizes emission controls with fuel, 5 eliminates enough sulphur so the by-products of 6 hydrochloric sulfates don't come out, H2SO, spoiling 7 the traps. That is a maintenance problem for the 8 trucking industry, and there is a fuel penalty. When 9 you go above 15 ppm fuel, the trucker, the end-user, 10 pays the economic cost in reduced fuel economy. That's 11 not fair. 12 The next is maintenance. The maintenance 13 costs associated with this rule are based on the fuel 14 standard. Anything above 15 ppm disadvantages the 15 end-user. The spoiled emission controls for the 16 particulate trap and the NOx adsorber, which are the 17 preferred technology by the end-user -- the 18 continuously regenerated PM trap and the NOx 19 adsorber -- are spoiled by anything above 15 ppm. 20 It would be unfair to the trucking industry 21 to force manufacturers to provide a product that would 22 be inferior in maintenance. 23 And finally, diesel fuel is right now the 24 backbone of this country. To preserve the use of this 25 technology, EPA needs to act today. There are areas in 155 1 the state that are banning diesel, because it's not 2 meeting the emission requirements. 3 On Friday, the South Coast Air Quality 4 Management District banned the use of diesel fuel in 5 the four counties in the area: Riverside, Orange, LA, 6 and San Bernadino. No more diesel tractors, trucks, or 7 buses can be purchased there. That is the biggest 8 reason that EPA needs to reformulate diesel fuels to 9 15 ppm and adopt these standards. Thank you very 10 much. 11 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Cooper. 12 MS. JOSEPHINE COOPER: Good afternoon. My 13 name is Jo Cooper, and I'm the President and Chief 14 Executive Officer of the Alliance of Automobile 15 Manufacturers. 16 Our 13 member company represents more than 17 90 percent of US vehicle sales. It seems like deja vu, 18 it's only been a year, but it seems like yesterday we 19 were here talking about the Tier 2 emission standards 20 for sulfur in gasoline. So as we start this, I think 21 we can all look back and now look forward. 22 The Alliance's main interest in this 23 rulemaking today is to preserve diesel engines as an 24 option for the light-duty market. EPA stated in its 25 proposal that diesel fuels, diesel vehicles, have 156 1 inherent advantages over the gasoline vehicles with 2 respect to fuel economy, lower greenhouse gas emissions 3 and lower evaporative hydrocarbon emissions. 4 Our members are working hard to advance state 5 of the art diesel technology so that it will meet the 6 Tier 2 emission standards adopted last year. The most 7 critical factor in this endeavor is quality of the 8 fuel, especially sulfur. The emerging new emission 9 control technologies for diesel engines simply are not 10 viable without sulphur-free fuel. 11 So we applaud EPA for taking this crucial 12 first step toward enabling highly efficient, advanced 13 technology diesel vehicles in this country. It opens 14 the door to continued investment in clean diesel 15 technologies, which are advancing rapidly. We say this 16 proposal is a first step, because it stops short of 17 enabling the new clean diesel technology to operate at 18 optimum levels. 19 Many stakeholders support reducing sulfur to 20 ultra-low levels. Earlier today we heard the testimony 21 of the Engine Manufacturers Association. Like us, it 22 is depending on ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel to enable 23 the new clean diesel technology. The Manufacturers of 24 Emissions Controls Association, state and local air 25 pollution control officials, environmentalists all 157 1 support ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel to enable these 2 new technologies. 3 We believe the EPA has done several things 4 right with this proposal. First, the agency has 5 reinforced the notion that the vehicle and its fuel are 6 an integrated system, and should be treated as such for 7 both the existing and future on-highway diesel fleets. 8 Second, EPA has proposed a dramatic reduction 9 in diesel fuel sulfur level for the purpose of enabling 10 new after-treatment technology. Numerous research 11 programs are demonstrating just how clean diesel can 12 be. Recent tests show that ultra low-sulfur diesel 13 fuel allows diesel buses with advanced controls to run 14 as clean or cleaner than buses running on compressed 15 natural gas. I think you probably agree with us that 16 this is remarkable. 17 In this sense, the proposal goes beyond the 18 Tier 2 rulemaking, which only allowed existing 19 technology to meet the standards. With Tier 2 sulfur 20 levels up to 80 parts per million in gasoline, auto 21 makers probably will be unable to introduce lean-burn 22 gasoline engines in this country. I would be remiss if 23 I didn't note that we hope EPA eventually will seek to 24 enable these new gasoline technologies by reducing the 25 sulfur and gasoline to near zero. 158 1 Third, EPA has proposed to introduce the new 2 fuel on a nationwide with a common deadline across the 3 country, and very limited exceptions. This is 4 necessary to prevent the fuel from contaminating 5 sensitive new after-treatment systems. Besides 6 reducing emissions all around the country, it will help 7 ensure that trucks will be able to deliver their goods 8 throughout the US. 9 And fourth, EPA's has proposed introducing 10 the cleaner fuel before the new heavy-duty technology 11 will have to be introduced. To the extent the proposed 12 cap leads to near-zero sulfur fuel while automakers are 13 still developing their Tier 2-compliant technologies, 14 it will encourage them to continue working on the new 15 fuel efficient diesel technologies. The future is 16 bright for this technology, but additional investments 17 are needed. And the availability of sufficiently clean 18 diesel fuel will encourage that investment. 19 Does this proposal go far enough for Tier 2 20 diesel vehicles? Not quite. More needs to be done. 21 The fundamental problem is getting the vehicle to meet 22 the nitrogen oxide and particulate matter standards at 23 the same time, as EPA has recognized. It will require 24 near-zero sulfur levels -- up to a 5 ppm cap -- for the 25 after-treatment systems to be used on these vehicles to 159 1 meet new emission standards throughout their useful 2 life. 3 Near-zero or sulfur-free is the level that 4 automakers around the world are endorsing. The 5 recently updated World-Wide Fuel Charter explains that 6 "sulfur-free" means a cap of between 5 and 10 ppm, to 7 be further defined as more data become available. And 8 I would commend the World-Wide Fuel Charter to your 9 observations, if you haven't seen it. In this country, 10 the Tier 2 emission standards justify adopting the 11 lower limit. Emerging data from the Department of 12 Energy Research support this view. 13 The Manufacturers of Emission Controls 14 Association continues to recommend a cap of 5 parts per 15 million, though supporting a 15 part per million cap on 16 the assumption that most of the fuels will be below 17 10 parts per million. 18 The automakers are much less certain of this 19 possibility and expect that refiners, as they improve 20 their capability, will learn how to shrink their 21 compliance margins from existing levels. Smaller 22 compliance margins will enable refiners to market much 23 more diesel fuel with a sulphur level above 10 parts 24 per million, and this will likely be too high for both 25 heavy- and light-duty vehicles. 160 1 Besides sulfur, EPA also should adjust other 2 fuel properties, as described in the World-Wide Fuel 3 Charter. Including cetane, aromatics, and 4 distillation. 5 Is our position realistic? Are we asking too 6 much? We think not. Refiners already are marketing 7 clean diesel fuel in this country and abroad. Sweden, 8 England, Germany are all on their way, as are Equilon 9 and ARCO in the United States. 10 The key message: Refiners know how to make 11 clean diesel fuel. Tax incentives and market demand 12 will bring this fuel to market even faster than public 13 estimates have predicted. We urge EPA to focus on its 14 incentive packages as a way to encourage the 15 marketplace to make the new fuel widely available and 16 as soon as possible. 17 We understand the concern that some refiners 18 may choose not to make on-highway diesel fuel. We 19 believe that fuel supply will be driven by 20 profitability, not cost. 21 To the extent that maintaining low sulfur 22 levels throughout the distribution system becomes a 23 challenge, we believe in the collective problem-solving 24 capabilities of the free enterprise system to get there 25 by the 2006 deadline. 161 1 We've come a long way in the debate over 2 sulfur. Two years ago, automakers petitioned the EPA 3 to reduce sulfur and gasoline to California levels. 4 Today, everyone accepts the critical role that sulfur 5 plays in our national environmental policy. Nations 6 around the world are working to reduce sulphur in both 7 gasoline and diesel fuel. 8 The issue is no longer whether to reduce 9 sulfur, or even that near-zero sulfur fuels eventually 10 will be needed -- but when will these fuels become 11 available. 12 For our part, our members want to bring 13 advanced technologies, such as the highly 14 fuel-efficient turbocharged direct injection, and 15 hybrid electric diesel vehicles to the point where they 16 can operate cleanly and meet consumer needs. 17 The proposed 15 parts per million cap on 18 diesel fuel sulfur is a very strong step toward helping 19 clean diesel technology take its place among our 20 options for the future. With diesel fuel quality on a 21 par with the World-Wide Fuel Charter at sulfur-free 22 levels, the American public would be able to get the 23 full benefit of its investments in these advanced 24 technologies. Thank you. 25 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Williams. 162 1 MR. RON WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. My name 2 is Ron Williams. I am an owner, President and CEO of 3 Gary-Williams Energy Corporation, a Denver-based 4 independent oil and gas company. Our primary asset is 5 50,000 barrels per day crude oil refinery in Wynnewood, 6 Oklahoma. Company wide, we have about 275 employees 7 and fall within the definition of small business 8 refiner used for the proposed diesel sulfur 9 regulations. 10 Small business refiners face the same 11 problems as the majors with this rulemaking, but in 12 most cases are problems are somewhat greater. We are 13 less able to raise the necessary capital and to endure 14 the related increased operating costs, which 15 desulfurization investments will require. We face 16 proportionately higher costs, because we do not enjoy 17 the same economies of scale. And because of our size, 18 we cannot compete effectively for the limited 19 construction and energy resources. 20 Many of us are faced with meeting the 21 stringent Tier 2 gasoline standards in approximately 22 the same time frame. In our case, the impact of the 23 combined proposals is somewhat devastating, and could 24 cause us to shutdown our refinery -- with disastrous 25 results on the local economy. 163 1 The SBREFA process offered an important 2 opportunity for us and other small refiners to explore 3 issues related to this rulemaking, and to express our 4 deep concerns about the disastrous impact of a very 5 stringent standard, particularly when coupled with an 6 almost simultaneous Tier 2 gasoline standards. 7 There is no one solution that will enable all 8 small refiners to survive. However, we do very much 9 support the effort to provide cleaner fuels. However, 10 we were extremely disappointed that the preamble to the 11 proposed rule includes no provision that would 12 accommodate a small refiner in the near term. 13 We can see only three possible avenues which 14 might be of benefit. Number one, our greatest priority 15 is access to the capital required to install the 16 desulfurization equipment. And we believe that it 17 would be very beneficial and appropriate for the 18 administration to consider tax credits, loan 19 guarantees, and other incentives which might enable 20 small refiners to accomplish this together. 21 We estimate in our case that our capital 22 costs to reach 15 parts per million diesel sulfur 23 alone, for a total of approximately $46 million. That 24 is more than twice what we paid for the refinery in 25 1995. In addition, our annual operating costs and 164 1 maintenance costs will increase from five to six 2 million dollars per year. 3 Number two, if we must install currently 4 available gasoline desulfurization equipment for the 5 2004 interim deadline, we estimate engineering, 6 construction, and capital costs at $50-75 million, for 7 gasoline alone. And an increase in the annual 8 operating costs of at least $5 million. 9 We know of no possible financing sources 10 willing to provide that kind of capital to our small 11 business, particularly in the face of the increased 12 capital costs for diesel desulfurization. 13 We strongly endorse the concept of 14 flexibility on the gasoline standard that the small 15 refiner is also subject to the diesel standard. We 16 seek delay of all Tier 2 gasoline requirements until 17 the year 2008, at the earliest for qualified small 18 refiners. 19 The EPA has said it will consider temporary 20 waivers based on extreme hardship circumstances on a 21 case-by-case basis. We are deeply concerned, however, 22 about the potential arbitrariness and timing of 23 case-by-case negotiations. We think that hardship 24 extension should automatically be granted for at least 25 three full years before the 2004 Tier 2 implementation 165 1 deadline. 2 At the very least clear, straightforward and 3 easy to administer hardship criteria must be delineated 4 immediately with a small business refiner concurrence, 5 so that our companies will be able to determine their 6 eligibility. We will, in our written comments, address 7 in some detail the criteria that we think will be 8 relevant and appropriate for a temporary hardship 9 waiver. We do need clarification of the hardship 10 situation immediately. 11 Number three, retaining the small refiners' 12 access to the off-road market is our third 13 recommendation. It is critically important that we 14 know as soon as possible the EPA's intention for the 15 regulation of off-road diesel. 16 We believe that it is imperative that small 17 business refiners be given an exemption from any new 18 off-road standard, and allowed to continue to sell at 19 the current level of diesel fuel in the off-road 20 market. 21 In our case, the great majority of our diesel 22 product currently is used in rural agriculture 23 communities. Some measures must be adopted to conserve 24 the off-road market for small businesses, and prevent 25 larger companies from dumping higher sulfur diesel 166 1 fuels and diluting that market. 2 And we have other written comments addressing 3 the other EPA proposed options, but I don't want to 4 take your time with those now. 5 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Slaughter. 6 MR. BOB SLAUGHTER: Good afternoon, Margaret 7 and members of the panel. My name is Bob Slaughter, 8 I'm General Counsel of the NPRA, the National 9 Petrochemical and Refiners Association. NPRA is a 10 trade association of virtually all and large and small 11 US refiners and petrochemical producers who have 12 processes similar to refiners. 13 NPRA is deeply concerned about the impact of 14 EPA's new diesel sulfur proposal. We do not believe 15 that it is possible to consistently maintain needed 16 supplies of highway diesel within the 15 ppm sulphur 17 cap level. 18 Although some refiners may be able to produce 19 some amount of this diesel, many would be forced by its 20 high costs to limit or forego participation in the 21 highway diesel market. This would reduce supplies well 22 below those available under a more realistic sulfur 23 cap. 24 In addition, with the current logistics 25 infrastructure, it will be extremely difficult to 167 1 deliver highway diesel with a 15 ppm sulfur cap to 2 consumers and maintain the integrity of the sulphur 3 level of the product. This highway diesel must share a 4 distribution system with other products that have 5 significantly higher sulphur levels. 6 At the proposed 15 ppm sulfur level, a 7 significant amount of highway diesel will have to be 8 downgraded to a higher sulfur product due to product 9 contamination at the interfaces. This means a loss of 10 highway diesel supply. With the enforcement at retail 11 as opposed to the refinery gate, refiners would be 12 forced to target their production to 7-9 ppm sulfur in 13 order to account for the increased sulfur content 14 picked up in the distribution system after the product 15 leaves the refinery. 16 In short, we view this proposal as a 17 blueprint for future fuel shortages and severe economic 18 impacts. It threatens to leave American consumers a 19 legacy of scarce and unnecessarily costly energy 20 supplies. 21 Throughout protracted discussions with the 22 EPA, the refining industry suggested a more reasonable 23 way to reduce diesel emissions. We favor lowering the 24 current 500 parts per million diesel sulfur cap to 25 50 parts per million, which will be a 90 percent 168 1 reduction. This is a very significant step. We 2 believe it will enable diesel engines to meet the 3 particulate matter standards sought by EPA, and also to 4 achieve significant NOx reductions. 5 Our plan is still expensive, we estimate it 6 will cost the industry roughly $4 billion to 7 implement. But unlike the much more costly EPA 8 proposal, this level of sulfur reduction is 9 sustainable. Most refiners would choose to make the 10 more affordable investments needed to make 50 ppm 11 diesel. 12 On the other hand, under EPA's proposed 13 program, only some refiners would invest in the 14 expensive new equipment necessary to produce 15 ppm 15 diesel. Many others would be unable to make the large 16 investments necessary to produce the product. They 17 would find other uses or markets for their current 18 diesel output, significantly reducing the supply of 19 highway diesel fuel available and creating volatility 20 in prices. 21 More than 30 percent of the current supply of 22 highway diesel could be lost until additional 23 investments are made and new desulfurization capacity 24 is built. This would be in response to higher diesel 25 prices resulting from a market shortage. It could take 169 1 as long as four years for the industry to respond to 2 these market factors at that time. 3 Some refineries will would likely go out of 4 business. The proposed 15 ppm is estimated to cost the 5 industry somewhere between $8-10 billion. This amount 6 comes on top of the $8 billion in costs the industry is 7 already incurring to implement EPA's gasoline sulfur 8 program in the very same time frame. 9 A study to be released this week by the 10 National Petroleum Council, a joint industry/government 11 body, concludes refiners do not have the capability to 12 make these investments within this time frame, and 13 additional time is required for the low-sulfur diesel 14 investments. 15 When a refinery closes, we lose its entire 16 output: Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, home heating oil. 17 With the demand for petroleum products projected to 18 increase, we, as a nation, cannot afford to lose any 19 more refineries. Unfortunately, the agency appears 20 unwilling to make the major changes in this proposal 21 which are needed to avoid supply problems and resulting 22 price volatility. 23 The industry's warnings about this rule are 24 well-founded. One of our members, CITGO Petroleum, has 25 facilities at the Lyondell-CITGO Refinery, which are 170 1 referenced in EPA's proposed rule as having the diesel 2 desulfurization technology capable of producing 15 ppm 3 sulfur diesel fuel. 4 Based on actual operating experience, 5 however, the capital and operating costs are more than 6 twice as high at the 15 ppm sulfur cap than has been 7 claimed in the proposal, and the ability of technology 8 to consistently produce below 15 ppm diesel is 9 problematic. 10 What looks simple in theory doesn't always 11 work in practice. The industry's scarce capital is 12 needed for implementation of the gasoline sulphur rule 13 and maintaining or expanding capacity to meet the 14 increased demand for gasoline, diesel, and other 15 products. Clearly, we should not ignore the warning 16 signs of an already stressed supply system and rush to 17 implement a plan like this diesel proposal, which 18 really is based on little more than wishful thinking. 19 There are other serious problems with both 20 this diesel program and the time frame in which EPA 21 wants the changes. Engineering, planning, and 22 construction resources will be in sort supply due to 23 the implementation of the gasoline sulfur program in 24 the same time frame. And we know that the demand for 25 these resources comes from not only the US 171 1 requirements, but from efforts to reduce sulfur in 2 Canada and Europe as well. 3 We also know that gasoline sulfur will exceed 4 the permitting capabilities of EPA and state agencies, 5 which means that their resources could be unable to act 6 on applications for diesel-sulfur related permits in 7 the same time period. Few synergies exist between 8 steps necessary to implement sizable sulfur reductions 9 for both gasoline and diesel. It is counterproductive 10 to attempt to do both in the same period. And the 11 unrealistic level of diesel sulfur reduction sought by 12 EPA strongly suggests that efforts to comply with it 13 will fail. 14 EPA argues that its proposal is needed to 15 enable heavy-duty engines to meet stringent NOx 16 standards in the 2007-10 time frame. Of course, that 17 standard was arbitrarily selected. It is considerably 18 lower than NOx standards for the same period in Europe 19 and Japan, and is probably unrealistic. The 20 $10 billion plan for 15 ppm diesel is largely based 21 upon this arbitrary and unattainable target. 22 Fuel transportation systems can become 23 severely stressed. The refining industry is faced with 24 more than 12 regulatory actions over the next ten 25 years. The cost of these programs, which are largely 172 1 uncoordinated, is astronomical. As a result of this 2 crushing burden on refiners and fuel distributors, we 3 are starting to see signs of stress in the system. The 4 impact of unforeseen situations, such as refinery 5 outage, a pipeline malfunction, or even the weather, is 6 magnified under such conditions. 7 We strongly believe that diesel sulfur level 8 should be reduced, but EPA should not adopt a 9 regulation that puts the nation's energy supply at 10 risk. Fuel and engine emission standards should be 11 based on developed technologies and cost effectiveness. 12 An adequate supply of sulfur diesel for highway cannot 13 be assured, and distribution of this 15 ppm fuel is 14 also probably not feasible. 15 NPRA urges the agency to discard that 16 approach in favor of the more practical and sustainable 17 50 ppm diesel sulfur cap, which the refining industry 18 advocates. 19 I want to thank you again for this 20 opportunity to appear, and will be glad to respond to 21 any questions that you have. 22 MS. OGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Ken 23 Colburn. 24 MR. KEN COLBURN: Thank you. My name is Ken 25 Colburn, and I'm the Director of the Air Resources 173 1 Division of the New Hampshire Department of 2 Environmental Services. 3 Today I speak on behalf of the NESCAUM 4 Organization, the Northeast States Coordinated Area 5 Management, which represents the air quality control 6 programs in the eight Northeast states. 7 The need to reduce pollution from heavy-duty 8 engines and vehicles is clear. Construction, buses, 9 and other heavy-duty vehicles are significant 10 contributors to elevated levels of ozone, particulate 11 matter, and several key toxic air pollutants of concern 12 in the Northeast. 13 For some pollutants, heavy-duty engines 14 single-handedly represent the majority of the 15 emissions. Within the Northeast corridor, for example, 16 they are responsible for approximately one-third of the 17 oxide emissions, three-quarters of the motor vehicle 18 related PM, and 60 percent of the aldahyde emissions, 19 some of which are probable human carcinogens. 20 As a result, reducing heavy-duty engine 21 emissions is a top priority in the Northeast. In fact, 22 Northeast states have already dedicated significant 23 resources for reducing emissions from heavy-duty 24 vehicles. 25 For example, we have the implementation of 174 1 diesel smoke capacity enforcement programs throughout 2 the region. Several retrofit programs, including those 3 on construction equipment in Boson and on urban buses 4 in New York. The development of other retrofit 5 programs in collaboration with the EPA under its VMEP 6 program. And the implementation of SCR demonstration 7 projects undertaken with the manufacturers as part of 8 supplemental and environmental programs. 9 The political commitment that was necessary 10 to implement these initiatives illustrates the 11 sincerity of state's desires to reduce diesel 12 pollution. It's no surprise, then, that the Northeast 13 states are extremely pleased that the EPA has put forth 14 all proposals to substantially reduce pollution from 15 these sources. 16 Attainment of the National Ambient Air 17 Quality standards for ozone is of immediate concern to 18 the states in the Northeast region, and may require 19 substantial VOC and NOx reduction in addition to those 20 anticipated from current stationery sources and motor 21 vehicle control programs. 22 Moreover, the plan reductions won't ensure 23 maintenance of the ozone standard as growth occurs. 24 Urban air shed modelling suggests that NOx reductions 25 on a regional scale are more effective than VOC 175 1 reductions. So programs that have substantial NOx 2 reduction benefits, such as (inaudible) for heavy-duty 3 diesel engines and vehicles are essential. 4 In addition to reductions needed to attain 5 and maintain the one-hour standard, the NESCAUM states 6 are concerned about the significant health effects 7 associated with long-term exposures to ozone below the 8 current one-hour standard. As a zero threshold 9 pollutant, the health effects from exposure to even 10 moderate levels of ozone are genuine and, at this 11 point, virtually chronic. Unhealthful ozone levels 12 were measured at 56 monitors in the NESCAUM region over 13 the last three years, and have already occurred this 14 spring. 15 Ambient toxic concentrations are also of 16 concern for the Northeast states. Measured annual 17 average concentrations of benzene, formaldehyde, and 18 other toxics exceed cancer risk thresholds throughout 19 the region. Heavy-duty diesels and gasoline vehicles 20 contribute substantially to these concentrations, so 21 it's imperative to reduce toxic emissions from these 22 sources in the region. 23 Particulate matter has also been linked to a 24 broad range of serious respiratory health problems, 25 several of which you have already heard about so I 176 1 don't need to repeat them here. But California, as you 2 know, has declared particulate emissions from diesel 3 fuel emissions a toxic air contaminate. And several 4 entities, including NIOSH, (inaudible) and EPA, in a 5 draft report, have labeled it a probable human 6 carcinogen. 7 The NESCAUM states support the agency's 8 efforts to use available irrefutable scientific 9 evidence to characterize potential cancer causing 10 elements of diesel exhaust. Scientific evidence of 11 cancer and non-cancer health effects of diesel exhaust 12 exacerbates the existing public concern and frustration 13 over smoking vehicles, buses, trucks, and heavy 14 equipment. 15 This coalescing together of expert and public 16 opinion provides added impetus to timely efforts 17 regarding NOx, PM, and toxic emissions from heavy-duty 18 engines. 19 The NESCAUM states have several specific 20 comments on the EPA proposal, a few of which I'll go 21 over now. We will submit more detailed comments in 22 writing later. 23 The NESCAUM states strongly support the 0.2 24 grams per break horsepower-hour standard for heavy-duty 25 diesel engines in 2007. The standard is both 177 1 technically and economically feasible using NOx 2 adsorbers. Recent studies of adsorbers have shown 3 greater than 90 percent reductions in diesel NOx 4 emissions, and the EPA proposal provides the 5 manufacturers of diesel engines ample lead time, seven 6 years, to integrate adsorber technology into the new 7 diesel engines. 8 The NESCAUM states also strongly support 9 the .01 gram per break horsepower-hour PM standard. 10 Currently available emission control technology, such 11 as particulate filters, have been shown to reduce PM by 12 90 percent or more in heavy-duty vehicles. 13 Crucial to the widespread introduction and 14 long-term durability of these technologies is a very 15 low-sulfur fuel. Accordingly, the states strongly 16 support EPA's proposal to require refiners to supply 17 diesel fuel capped at 15 ppm sulfur. Desulfurization 18 techniques necessary to reach this level exist 19 commercially today. In fact, several oil companies in 20 the US, including ARCO, are already supplying very 21 low-sulphur fuel to customers. 22 Beyond new heavy-duty engines, the agency's 23 proposal to cap highway diesel fuel sulfur at 15 ppm, 24 will also facilitate retrofitting existing highway 25 diesel vehicles with particulate traps. Given the 178 1 durability of heavy-duty diesel vehicles, retrofitting 2 existing trucks and buses is an important, readily 3 achievable public health benefit. 4 The introduction and widespread use of 5 low-sulfur highway diesel fuel, including it's use in 6 non-road applications, will also allow states to move 7 forward with retrofit programs for non-road vehicle 8 equipment, such as construction equipment. Due to the 9 large NOx and PM contribution from non-road diesel 10 engines, a contribution that approaches or may even 11 exceed that of on-road diesel engines, the NESCAUM 12 states urge EPA to establish parity between highway and 13 non-road engine and diesel standards, and diesel sulfur 14 fuel requirements in the shortest time. 15 Finally, the NESCAUM states strongly support 16 EPA's proposed heavy-duty gasoline engine and vehicle 17 standards. Advances in three-way catalysts and 18 catalytic converters (inaudible) durable and effective 19 emissions control at the high temperatures that can 20 occur when heavy-duty gasoline engines are running at 21 full load. 22 The agency is also proposing more stringent 23 evaporative controls for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles, 24 which will reduce toxic emissions such as benzene and 25 (inaudible), both of which are known human 179 1 carcinogens. 2 In conclusion, the nature of this heavy-duty 3 engine emissions (inaudible) air quality standards to 4 more effectively protect the public from exposure to 5 ozone, particulates and toxics is evident. Equally 6 evident is the fact that the Northeast air quality 7 problems cannot be solved by state and local measures 8 targeting traditional sources. 9 Further, states are federally preempted from 10 regulating heavy-duty engines and diesel fuel. These 11 facts make it incumbent upon the EPA to move forward 12 promptly and aggressively with the proposals, in order 13 protect the health and quality of the life of over one 14 quarter of the nation's citizens within the NESCAUM 15 region. 16 The NESCAUM states applaud EPA's aggressive 17 initiative to reduce heavy-duty engine emissions and 18 sulphur in diesel fuel. When fully implemented, the 19 current proposal will reduce 2 million tons of NOx per 20 year nationwide. In addition, it will reduce over 21 82,000 tons of PM, and will enable additional 22 reductions through retrofits. Toxics will be reduced 23 by 32,000 tons. 24 The magnitude of this air quality improvement 25 is simply unavailable in any other sector, and the 180 1 costs are quite competitive with the measures already 2 implemented in other sectors. 3 The health and welfare of the nation cannot 4 afford to miss or delay this opportunity. So that we 5 trust the EPA will more forward with this and finalize 6 the regulations by the end of the year. 7 Thank you and a final comment, some of the 8 thoughts we've had today leave me to recall the rule of 9 thumb developed in (inaudible), of which both you and I 10 are veterans, that when you ask an engineer if you can 11 do something you get nothing but problems; when you 12 tell an engineer to do something, you get nothing but 13 solutions. 14 MS. OGE: A couple of your comments were 15 consistent with the supply and distribution problems as 16 we were developing the proposal. We have analyzed the 17 potential supply and distribution issues, and we have 18 put forward our position, our proposed position on the 19 supply and distribution problems. 20 We would very much appreciate it if you have 21 specific data analysis that would lead us to believe 22 something contrary to what we propose, we would very 23 much appreciate it if you would get that information in 24 writing during the comment period. 25 And we still have until August 14th. So then 181 1 we would encourage you, if you have actual information 2 that would lead us to a different conclusion than the 3 conclusion that we have put forward, which is, you 4 know, adequate supply and distribution problems, it 5 would be very important to us as we're moving forward 6 towards putting the final law together. 7 MR. WILLIAMS: As you know, we'll be glad to 8 supply data as part of our comments for you. 9 MS. OGE: Thank you very much. Thank you for 10 coming forward to testify. 11 I would like to ask for the next panel 12 members to please come forward. State Senator Tom 13 Duane, Mr. Alec Evans, Mr. Gerald Faudel, Mr. John 14 Duerr, Mr. Carl Johnson, Mr. Tim Zellers, and Ms. Marie 15 Curtis. 16 Senator Duane, good afternoon and welcome. I 17 will start with you. 18 MR. TOM DUANE: Good afternoon ladies and 19 gentlemen. I'm New York State Senator Tom Duane, 20 representing the 27th Senatorial District in 21 Manhattan. And by EPA's own monitoring data, the 22 district I represent is a densely populated, 23 demographically diverse area, with approximately 24 300,000 residents, contains some of the most highly 25 polluted air in the United States. 182 1 On behalf of my constituents, I am here today 2 to urge you to adopt these proposed new emission and 3 fuel content standards without any dilution of their 4 requirements and without any delay in the time frame 5 for implementation. 6 As we speak, rates of asthma and other 7 respiratory elements are frighteningly high and rising 8 in much of New York City, and particulate matter or 9 soot is found in our air at levels well above what 10 federal guidelines are for health and safety 11 recommendations. 12 This proposed package of new regulations 13 would go a very long way toward reducing these urgent 14 health problems, and could not come too soon. With 15 volumes of traffic, particularly diesel fuel powered 16 traffic, steadily climbing in our city, and with the 17 possible introduction over the next several years of 18 new types of diesel fuel vehicles, strict reductions in 19 the output of dangerous pollutants from diesel vehicles 20 are absolutely necessary to preserve the health of 21 residents of my district, and this city and, indeed, to 22 preserve the very liveability of our communities. 23 It is clearly time for these sorts of 24 regulations to be put in place. A generation ago, 25 federal guidelines which mandated the reduction of lead 183 1 contented gasoline and introduced the widespread use of 2 catalytic converters to reduce the output of toxic 3 pollutants by motor vehicles in the United States, had 4 a profound impact on the cleanliness and safety of our 5 air. One merely has to travel to any country which 6 does not require such guidelines for gasoline content 7 to perceive the palpable difference in the air one 8 breathes. And sadly, statistics regarding respiratory 9 elements in many of these regions of the world bear out 10 these first-person observations. 11 This new set of proposed guidelines will do 12 much the same for diesel fuel powered vehicles, making 13 them dramatically cleaner in their output, and 14 substantially reduce the amount of pollutants emitted 15 into our air. 16 In a country which is so motor vehicle 17 intensive in its use as ours, strengthening and 18 extending this sort of requirement to include these 19 classes of vehicles is critical. In a city like New 20 York, where people live, work, and play in such close 21 proximity to these sources of dangerous pollutants, it 22 is an absolute public health necessity. It is hard to 23 imagine how much of New York City would meet newly 24 imposed national air quality standards without these 25 strict new regulations in place. 184 1 More than one in ten Americans lived in, 2 worked in, or traveled to New York City last year. 3 These millions of Americans breathed air with 4 shockingly high concentrations of pollutants linked to 5 lung cancer, leukemia, reproductive and developmental 6 defects, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and 7 premature death. 8 Diesel fuel powered vehicles such as trucks 9 were a major contributor to this pollution output, and 10 account for a much higher percentage of such pollution 11 output than in many other parts of the country. New 12 York is, and unfortunately will probably remain for the 13 foreseeable future, dependent upon trucks powered by 14 diesel fuel for commerce and delivery of goods and 15 materials. These trucks, along with diesel fuel 16 powered buses of all sorts, utilize our highways which 17 ring our neighborhoods, and are in uniquely close 18 proximity to where large numbers of people live. 19 In narrow Manhattan island, the most densely 20 populated area of the United States and the destination 21 of by far most of the commuters and visitors to New 22 York City, we are literally encircled by such 23 roadways. Much worse for us, however, these currently 24 highly polluting vehicles very frequently use our city 25 streets not just to get to or from delivery points, but 185 1 as a means of traversing the New York Metropolitan 2 region. 3 Because of a federal law passed in 1986, a 4 one-way westbound toll is mandated on the 5 Verrazano-Narrows bridge. This has had the unfortunate 6 and dangerous effect of encouraging large truck traffic 7 to find other means of getting across New York City 8 when headed westbound to avoid this steep double toll. 9 All too often, that means taking one of the East River 10 bridges or tunnels to enter Manhattan from its East 11 Side, traveling through the narrow and densely built-up 12 streets of Lower and Mid-Manhattan to get to the 13 Holland or Lincoln tunnels, and exiting Manhattan from 14 its West Side as a means of reaching New Jersey and 15 other points west. 16 We continue to fight to get this unfair and 17 unduly burdensome law changed, and recognize that the 18 EPA cannot necessarily reduce the volume of this black 19 smoke-belching diesel fuel truck and bus traffic we see 20 on our streets, and really right outside our windows, 21 every day. However, with these regulations in place, 22 you can at least significantly reduce the volume and 23 danger of the clouds of smoke which they emit into in 24 the air in our homes, workplaces, parks, playgrounds, 25 and hospitals. 186 1 The proposed regulations will involve a small 2 increase in costs for the new diesel fuel and new 3 compliant engines it would mandate. However, the cost, 4 as compared to the savings undoubtedly resulting from 5 lowered levels of nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, 6 particulate matter or soot, sulphur oxides, carbon 7 monoxide, benzene, acetaldehyde, and butadiene in our 8 air and the health problems which they create or 9 exacerbate, would be quite small. 10 As the regulations allow reasonable time for 11 conversion and compliance, I again urge you as strongly 12 as I can to move forward with the implementation in 13 full, without any weakening amendments or delay. 14 I thank the EPA and the Administration for 15 its hard work, intelligence, and foresight in moving 16 these regulations forward. And I look forward to 17 enjoying, along with my constituents and all my fellow 18 New Yorkers, the safer, healthier air which these 19 regulations will allow all of us to breath. Thank 20 you. 21 MS. OGE: Thank you, Senator Duane. Mr. Alec 22 Evans. 23 MR. ALEXANDER EVANS: Good afternoon. My 24 name is Alexander J. Evans. I'm a student, 25 environmentalist, captain of Haverford College's 187 1 basketball team, and the outreach coordinator for the 2 Clean Air Council. Most importantly, I'm a brother. 3 My brother, Nicholas is a 26-year old 4 graduate student at Harvard University. He is a 5 budding political theorist who has always maintained a 6 passion for sports. Although he has continually 7 remained active, my brother suffers from an irregular 8 heartbeat. 9 I do not know how many of you in this room 10 have a family member who suffers from a heart condition 11 or other ailment that is affected by air pollution. I 12 can assure you, however, that if a member of your 13 family suffers from an irregular heartbeat, or for that 14 matter, any other serious affliction that is 15 exacerbated by toxic diesel emissions, you will 16 understand the passion of my testimony. 17 Since I was young, I have always looked up to 18 my brother. I owe him so much. He is my role model 19 and I marvel at how much he has managed to teach me. 20 Throughout my childhood I was always amazed at my 21 brother's athletic abilities. I cherish the time that 22 he spent with me in the backyard. From basketball to 23 baseball to soccer, he was always willing to spend time 24 with me. There is no doubt in my mind that my athletic 25 prowess is the direct result of his tireless efforts. 188 1 As a young child, more than any other pro athlete or 2 entertainer, I looked up to my brother and followed his 3 every step. 4 I will never forget the day when my brother 5 was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat. I will 6 never forget the sight of my brother running up and 7 down the stairs of the doctor's office with his shirt 8 off and his chest full of devices designed to monitor 9 his heart rate. As I looked at my brother, I wondered 10 how someone who had always been deeply involved in 11 athletics could have an irregular heartbeat. I was 12 worried that something was terribly wrong with my 13 brother. 14 After it was determined that his heart beat 15 at an irregular rate, my brother was told that he would 16 probably never notice his condition. As time passed, 17 however, and the doctors continued to monitor my 18 brother's heart rate, they began to worry that his 19 heart would react adversely to the ever-increasing air 20 pollution of large cities. My brother, to this date, 21 has never had a serious episode. Nevertheless, he is 22 still monitored by doctors and he is restricted from 23 exercising when the national ambient air quality 24 standards for ozone reach or surpass either the 1 or 8 25 hour federal health standards. Essentially the only 189 1 thing that can seriously aggravate my brother's heart 2 condition is air pollution. 3 My brother is not alone. Millions of 4 Americans suffer from similar conditions. Many of 5 these individuals do not share my brother's luck. 6 People with irregular heartbeats are extremely 7 susceptible to harmful particulates. Particulates, 8 which constitute a majority of the harmful emission 9 divulged from diesel vehicles, interfere with the 10 body's ability to control its heart rate and rhythm. 11 For someone who suffers from an irregular 12 condition, exposure to particulate matter can be 13 fatal. Recent studies have shown that particulate 14 matter directly limits the body's ability to control 15 the human heart rate. 16 The evidence is clear: Emissions from 17 unregulated vehicles have a direct effect on our 18 communities. To make matters worse, thousands of 19 people are unaware that they suffer from an irregular 20 heartbeat. If diesel engines are allowed to keep 21 polluting the air at their current rate, the 22 repercussions will be disastrous. Individuals who once 23 did not have to worry, may soon begin to feel the 24 effects of diesel engine emissions. 25 There is other conditions, such as asthma and 190 1 lung disease, are also exacerbated by dangerous soot 2 emissions. A recent study estimated that 2,599 3 premature deaths are caused by soot particles each year 4 in Philadelphia alone. Although diesel exhaust 5 specifically endangers children, the elderly, and those 6 living near highways and bus depots, the pollution has 7 an effect on each and every one of us. This is a 8 serious problem. 9 It worries me that my brother may soon have 10 to deal with this issue every day. It worries me that 11 he lives in a city wrought with pollution and dirty 12 air. I pray that the harmful particulates and nitrous 13 oxides emitted from diesel vehicles will never affect 14 my brother, but I am not confident. 15 This proposed rulemaking will have a direct 16 effect on the health of millions of Americans. Not 17 only will it help children, the elderly, and people 18 with other health conditions, but it will help ease the 19 pain for all those connected to anyone with the 20 aforementioned health problems. 21 This proposed rulemaking will have a direct 22 effect on the health of millions of individuals, and 23 all of those who care for them. If this nation cares 24 about the health of its citizens, this proposed 25 rulemaking must be approved. Thank you for allowing me 191 1 to speak on this crucial issue. 2 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Johnson. 3 MR. CARL JOHNSON: Thank you. Good 4 afternoon. I'm Carl Johnson, Deputy Commissioner of 5 Air and Waste Management of the New York State 6 Department of Environmental Conservation. 7 I am pleased to be here today to offer the 8 Department's comments on the EPA's proposed heavy-duty 9 engine and vehicle standards and the highway diesel 10 fuel sulfur control requirements. 11 On behalf of DEC's Commissioner, John Cahil, 12 I want to commend the EPA for its strong proposals for 13 making long-term reductions in emissions from diesel 14 powered vehicles. We've seen continued progress, we're 15 very pleased with the Tier 2 rule. (inaudible) as 16 well, and striking against emissions from diesels is 17 the next logical step we have to make. 18 Air quality concerns confront New Yorkers 19 every day, as you've heard from so many people here 20 today. The New York metropolitan area is a 21 non-attainment for ozone, and Manhattan is 22 non-attainment for particulate matter, as well. 23 The health effects associated with reduced 24 air quality have been widely discussed here today, and 25 is well documented. But we're greatly concerned by 192 1 recent information that has linked fine particulate 2 matter to not only respiratory distress, but also to 3 increased cancer risks and possibly pulmonary disease 4 as we've just heard. 5 To address these issues, the DEC has 6 implemented a wide range of control programs at the 7 state level, impacting almost every source of pollution 8 from large industrial boilers, to automobiles, 9 architectural coatings, and even personal hygiene 10 products. 11 We've learned, as well, that nearly 12 15 percent of the New York metropolitan area NOx 13 inventory is related to on-road diesel engines. An 14 additional 22 percent we expect is related to non-road 15 engines. As much as half of the PM10 measured in 16 certain areas of New York City has been linked to 17 diesel. 18 Further, diesel engines are believed to be 19 the major contributor of fine particulate matter. And 20 of course, we'll know more as we begin our first round 21 of testing, and as we implement the PM Supersites and 22 for the first time speciate what's in the particles 23 that were collected. 24 A wide range of toxic air contaminants for 25 which ambient quality standards have not been set are 193 1 also known to be emitted from diesel engines. Without 2 significant reductions in this category, we will not be 3 able to meet our air quality goals. 4 Understanding these concerns, the Department 5 has started to address heavy-duty vehicle emissions to 6 do all we can on the state level. We initiated a 7 periodic smoke inspection program for diesel trucks 8 registered in the metro area, and a roadside inspection 9 program statewide. 10 In April, Governor Pataki announced that the 11 Metropolitan Transit Authority, MTA, would begin to 12 make its New York City bus fleet the cleanest in the 13 nation. Activities under this initiative have already 14 begun with conversion of the Clara Hale Depot to low 15 sulfur (30 ppm) diesel fuel; the retrofit of 50 buses 16 at that location with Continuously Regenerating 17 Technology; by purchasing alternate fuel, hybrid 18 electric, and clean diesel buses equipped with CRT or 19 other technologies. And by retiring the worst buses in 20 the fleet early, MTA plans to greatly reduce the 21 emissions of particulate matter from its fleet over the 22 next few years. 23 The Department, DEC, will be working with MTA 24 to verify the emissions reductions through appropriate 25 measurement technologies, and we expect to be able to 194 1 transfer what we learn about measuring those reductions 2 to other diesel fleets in the metro area. 3 In addition, and we're particularly proud, 4 MTA will be (inaudible) DEC, a state of the art diesel 5 engine testing facility, which will be one of only 6 three in the country that we're aware of, that will be 7 capable of sophisticated analysis of in-use diesel 8 engine emissions. It will be able to take something 9 that's been on the road and analyze what's actually 10 coming out of the tailpipe. 11 While the MTA project is a great step 12 forward, it will only affect about 4,000 buses in a 13 city that sees ten of thousands of heavy-duty vehicles 14 every day. These vehicles travel into and out of the 15 New York region daily, hundreds of miles from their 16 point of origin in many cases. To truly effect 17 significant changes in diesel emissions, we need a 18 national program that will impact the entire diesel 19 vehicle population. 20 A national emissions initiative for diesels 21 will ensure the greatest environmental benefits, as 22 well as levels the playing field economically. This 23 issue is critical for both public and private 24 interests. 25 As with the light duty Tier 2 standards, the 195 1 EPA correctly views both the diesel engine and fuel as 2 parts of a system that must be taken together to ensure 3 the effective control of emissions from heavy-duty 4 vehicles. The role of fuel in meeting emission 5 standards is critical, and must involve a collaboration 6 between the fuel suppliers and engine manufacturers. 7 Ultimately, credit for meeting the strict heavy-duty 8 standards will belong to both sectors. 9 The Department agrees with the EPA that 10 significant reductions in diesel fuel sulfur are 11 necessary to enable emissions control equipment to 12 function properly at the levels necessary to meet the 13 proposed standards. Some of the most promising 14 technologies may require near-zero sulfur levels. 15 Therefore, we support the 15 parts per million sulfur 16 limit included in the EPA's proposal. 17 While we strongly support this rulemaking, 18 the DEC believes there are some modifications that 19 would enhance the benefits to the health and welfare of 20 the public. And I will enumerate a few of them. 21 First, EPA should extend the regulations to 22 non-road diesel engines as soon as possible. Non-road 23 engines are a significant source of NOx, PM, and toxic 24 materials. Technology for such control is similar to 25 on-road controls, and, as such, extending the diesel 196 1 controls to non-road engines should not be unduly 2 delayed. 3 We'll note that many of the neighborhoods 4 that we've heard from today and we'll hear from later 5 on, in addition to the issues of diesel trucks, we have 6 diesel generators and diesel construction equipment in 7 neighborhoods, and a lot of other issues that the 8 off-road sector really contributes to. 9 Second, the EPA should consider speeding up 10 the process of closing crankcases on diesel engines, 11 and investigate mechanisms to retrofit existing engines 12 and on non-road engines. Our testing indicates that 13 the open crankcase is a significant source of the 14 toxics that come from the diesel engine. 15 Third, the EPA should investigate additional 16 fuel changes. There is a strong relationship between 17 cetane and NOx emissions. A change in the cetane 18 levels at this time levels would result in NOx 19 reductions from all in-use diesel engines without 20 additional retrofit. 21 Fourth, while the EPA has indicated an 22 expectation that it will change non-road diesel fuel 23 standards, those changes are not included in this 24 rulemaking. It's our understanding you expect that in 25 a year or so. We would really like to have the EPA 197 1 announce its intentions now. We think that that's fair 2 for the fuel industry and it's fair for the engine 3 manufacturers as well, so that they can properly and 4 economically plan for the changes that will result from 5 the non-road standard. 6 Fifth, the EPA should develop a broad 7 enforcement program with not only an engine 8 certification, but also includes in-use testing under 9 real world conditions. While the new heavy-duty engine 10 standards are excellent, they must be enforced and 11 supported by a strong enforcement program. 12 And, finally, the EPA should support the 13 inclusion of On Board Diagnostics, as part of any new 14 engine certification. OBD, On Board Diagnostics, is an 15 important element of reducing the deterioration of 16 emissions control equipment. It is easy to diagnose 17 (inaudible) and, of course, is becoming part of our 18 standard tool bag on dealing with (inaudible) 19 vehicles. The early planning for eventual in-use 20 compliance issues should be emphasized to avoid major 21 technical and programing issues that may come down the 22 road. 23 The EPA must work with the states as partners 24 in this effort on the common issue of cleaning our 25 air. The states are ultimately responsible for 198 1 modifying the final air quality benefits (inaudible). 2 We need to be part of the effort. Our request is that 3 the long-term planning for in-use measurements and 4 compliance begin early in the technology roll out. 5 New York State has developed considerable 6 expertise in the area of heavy-duty vehicle emissions. 7 Currently, we are developing the testing capability for 8 heavy-duty vehicles and engines. We're ready to 9 partner with the EPA, the engine manufacturers, fuel 10 providers, and the emissions control interests to 11 ensure that the federal regulations will deliver the 12 desired emissions reductions in a reasonable and 13 practical way. 14 The Department will submit detailed comments 15 on EPA's proposed regulations in the near future, 16 including supporting data from our testing programs. 17 We are pleased to continue working with you. Thank 18 you. 19 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. John Duerr, 20 welcome. 21 MR. JOHN DUERR: Thank you and good 22 afternoon. My name is John Duerr, I'm here today 23 representing the Detroit Diesel Corporation. Detroit 24 Diesel is a major manufacturer of diesel engines, 25 including heavy-duty on-highway engines, which are the 199 1 subject of today's rulemaking. Detroit diesel is 2 pleased to have this opportunity to present our views 3 in this proposed rule. 4 I may also say that Detroit diesel is member 5 of the Engine Manufacturers Association, and supports 6 the comments of that organization which were made 7 earlier today. 8 Detroit Diesel wants to congratulate the 9 agency in adopting a systems approach in this 10 rulemaking by proposing substantial fuel quality 11 improvements in support of their extremely challenging 12 new engine emissions standards. 13 Heavy-duty highway engines have been 14 regulated since the early 1970s, and since that time 15 there have been remarkable reductions in engine 16 emissions. By the time the 2004 emission standards 17 take effect, NOx and particulate emissions will have 18 been reduced by approximately 90 percent. 19 Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and smoke 20 emissions from diesel engines have also been reduced 21 substantially, and today stand at levels that are 22 roughly 10 percent of the current standards. 23 For the most part, these impressive emission 24 reductions have been achieved through improvements of 25 engine design. Although this approach has been 200 1 successful in the past, I believe I can state without 2 the fear of contradiction that the 2004 standards are 3 very close to the limits of what can be achieved with 4 engine modifications alone. 5 Any substantial emission reductions beyond 6 those reflected in the 2004 standards will require the 7 use of exhaust after-treatment systems. Efficient and 8 durable exhaust after-treatment depends on the 9 availability of very low sulfur diesel fuel. 10 Thus, Detroit Diesel not only supports EPA's 11 approach of considering diesel fuel quality and engine 12 emissions standards together, we believe that this is 13 the only viable path for achieving future emission 14 reductions of significant magnitude. 15 While Detroit Diesel believes that reductions 16 in diesel fuel sulphur levels are key to achieving the 17 next level of emission standards, we are not certain 18 that the NOx standard that the EPA has proposed will be 19 feasible even with the fuel meeting a 15 ppm sulfur 20 cap. 21 The proposed 0.2 grams horsepower-hour NOx 22 standard will require the development and use of an 23 after-treatment system with over 90 percent 24 effectiveness over an extremely broad range of 25 operating conditions. 201 1 Detroit Diesel is not aware of any systems 2 that have demonstrated this level of effectiveness in 3 the laboratory, let alone meet the requirements of a 4 production feasible system with minimal deterioration 5 and effectiveness over the full 435,000 mile useful 6 life period. 7 We are continuing to review and analyze the 8 available data, and will provide more detailed 9 information regarding the feasibility of the proposed 10 NOx standard and the adequacy of the 15 ppm fuel sulfur 11 cap before the end of the comment period. 12 On a related note, the preamble to the 13 proposed rule indicates that supplemental not-to-exceed 14 and steady-state provisions, which are yet to be 15 finalized as part of the still pending 2004 rulemaking 16 package, will apply to the proposed 2007 standards. 17 It is further noted that a number of 18 modifications to those provisions are expected relative 19 to the proposal that was released in October of 1999. 20 These provisions have a very significant impact on the 21 stringency and feasibility of the proposed standards. 22 Since we have not, as yet, seen these 23 finalized provisions, we cannot asses their impact or 24 comment meaningfully on how these provisions impact the 25 technical feasibility of the proposed standards for 202 1 2007. Because of the extreme importance and complexity 2 of these provisions, the EPA must provide assurances 3 that there will be adequate time in this rulemaking for 4 public review and comments on these supplemental 5 provisions after the 2004 rulemaking has been 6 finalized. 7 Detroit Diesel appreciates the EPA's intent 8 to provide flexibility by proposing an option phase-in 9 for the proposed NOx, NMHC, and formaldehyde 10 standards. While this approach have been successful in 11 managing the transition to new standards for light-duty 12 vehicles, we believe this program will be unworkable 13 for heavy-duty engines because of customer preferences, 14 cost factors, competition between engine manufacturers, 15 and issues related to truck design which will make it 16 impossible for engine manufacturers to manage sales to 17 meet the proposed phase-in as scheduled. 18 As an alternative, we suggest that a two-step 19 implementation with a substantial reduction in the NOx 20 plus NMHC standard applicable to all heavy-duty diesel 21 engines in 2007, and a second large reduction in 2010. 22 We believe two-step implementation will avoid 23 the problems associated with managing engine sales, is 24 more aligned with technology readiness, and can achieve 25 emission reductions that are equivalent to EPA's 203 1 proposed phase-in schedule. 2 One aspect of the proposed rule that Detroit 3 Diesel finds troublesome is that the agency did not 4 include any changes to the emission test procedures. 5 The emission test procedures that manufacturers are 6 required to use in certifying and auditing engines are 7 currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. 8 These procedures were developed in the early 9 1980s, and were first applied when the NOx and 10 particulate emission standards were 10.7 and 0.60 grams 11 per horsepower-hour respectively. These procedures 12 were never designed to provide reliable measurements at 13 the extremely low emission levels represented by the 14 proposed standards. 15 Testing programs conducted jointly by EPA and 16 the industry show that emission measurement variability 17 using these procedures is approximately the same 18 magnitude as the proposed standards. With testing 19 variability of this magnitude, it will simply not be 20 possible to reliably determine if the proposed 21 standards are being met. 22 Clearly, substantially improved test 23 procedures and equipment need to be developed. 24 Further, the improved procedures must be developed with 25 sufficient lead-time to allow manufacturers to obtain 204 1 and install the necessary equipment to upgrade their 2 laboratory facilities and complete the development of 3 compliant engines before the new standards take 4 effect. 5 We believe this is a major undertaking and 6 one that calls for an immediate initiation of a 7 large-scale cooperative effort between the agency and 8 industry. 9 Again, Detroit Diesel appreciates this 10 opportunities to present our views on this important 11 rulemaking. We will follow-up with more detailed 12 comments on a number of issues before the end of the 13 comment period. Thank you. 14 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Faudel, welcome. 15 MR. GERALD FAUDEL: Good afternoon. I want 16 to thank you for the opportunity to provide these 17 comments regarding the diesel fuel sulfur provisions, 18 and the proposed rulemaking designed primarily to limit 19 emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines. 20 My name is Gerald Faudel, I am Vice President 21 of the Corporate Relations for Frontier Oil 22 Corporation. We own and operate a small refinery in 23 Cheyenne, Wyoming. With only approximately 700 24 employees, Frontier is one of the 22 small business 25 refineries identified by the agency as subject to the 205 1 provisions and protections of the small business 2 (inaudible). 3 The small refiners very much appreciate your 4 formal acknowledgment, as compliance with the 5 dramatically reduced diesel sulfur standard will cost a 6 small business such as Frontier as much as 50 percent 7 more on a per gallon basis than it will cost a large 8 oil company. We also very much appreciate your efforts 9 in this process to find possible ways to partially 10 offset these disproportionate costs for small 11 businesses. 12 However, we have a long way to go. And 13 unless this rulemaking process can be extended, a very 14 short time to get there for a small business refinery 15 to be allowed a fighting chance to survive. This 16 regulation continues to provide much needed competition 17 in the transportation fields market. 18 The (inaudible) flexibility a small business 19 requires within this proposal is a much more difficult 20 task than the agency's recently successful Tier 2 21 gasoline (inaudible). Unlike the passenger vehicle 22 engine controls in Tier 2, the proposed heavy-duty 23 diesel engine emission control systems endorsed by the 24 agency seem to be paradoxically (inaudible), allowing 25 for absolutely no flexibility in the diesel sulfur 206 1 standards. 2 In addition, the effects of this standard on 3 small businesses are much more numerous and widespread, 4 and much more varied than it was in Tier 2. Small 5 business refiners will be adversely impacted by this 6 rule (inaudible) small refiners in California, who have 7 already been driven out of the gasoline manufacturing 8 business by the costs of the California regulations 9 (inaudible), but it can still make and sell diesel 10 fuel. 11 A small native American owner in Alaska that 12 is pioneering a unique desulfurization process for 13 diesel fuel, that may not be able to meet a very low 14 standard with the flexibility proposed. Small business 15 refiners that have historically made predominately 16 off-road diesel, may soon face disintegration if the 17 prime market of off-road diesel fuel is dumped or 18 produced by large oil companies. 19 The small business agriculture co-op refinery 20 uniquely serving the needs of the Midwest, and a number 21 of small business refineries like Frontier still 22 manufacturing both gasoline and diesel fuel, may now 23 face potentially debilitating costs if there are 24 simultaneous qualifications on their facilities to meet 25 these two expensive new gasoline and diesel sulphur 207 1 standards at nearly the same time. 2 In the preamble to the proposed rule, you 3 have asked for comments on a number of programs that 4 may help small businesses like Frontier comply with 5 this regulation. With the exception of the suggestion 6 that small refiners might be granted a higher final 7 off-road diesel standard than the rest of the industry, 8 my response to each program suggested is: Yes, we need 9 that and we need more. 10 We must accept that the best that the 11 heavy-duty diesel engine manufacturers can do to meet 12 their emission limits, is to design emission control 13 systems with nearly sulfur intolerance. The agency has 14 correctly concluded (inaudible) small business refiners 15 (inaudible) in other related areas, (inaudible) small 16 refiners to comply. 17 Frontier, therefore, believes it is necessary 18 to allow small business refiners to choose any or all 19 of the potentially useful combinations identified as 20 follows, so that we have the best possible chance of 21 survival. 22 We further do not believe that any of these 23 small business refiner combinations will in any way 24 diminish the environmental benefits. Unfortunately, 25 neither can we guarantee all of this will remain 208 1 economically viable. 2 Number one, small business refiners need the 3 ability to continue to manufacture and sell on-road 4 diesel at the current 500 parts per million standard 5 for as long as there's a market for that fuel. And 6 without commensurate requirement to manufacture the new 7 ultra low sulfur diesel, or for their customer stations 8 to carry it. 9 Number two, the EPA must take steps to 10 protect the off-road diesel market from damage from 11 dumping of on-road diesel fuel to the off-road market 12 by large refineries. 13 Number three, small business refineries who 14 manufacture both gasoline and diesel fuel must be 15 granted a four-year extension of all Tier 2 gasoline 16 sulphur requirements without suffering the uncertainty 17 or hardship of the original application approval 18 process. 19 Number four, small business refiners need the 20 EPA's help in endorsing and obtaining economic 21 assistance possibly through income or tax incentives, 22 or loan guarantees, so that the small businesses can 23 better absorb the 50 percent (inaudible) the agency has 24 estimated they will incur. 25 It is unfortunate that the agency has not 209 1 given adequate time to ensure that this rule is 2 technologically sound and economically practical when 3 it was proposed. It is likely due to the rush to 4 promulgate it before the end of this election year, but 5 it will have to be revisited in the future if there is 6 to be stability in the fuels marketplace. 7 Regardless of the outcome and irrespective of 8 the final diesel sulfur standards, small business 9 refiners like Frontier must obtain the combinations 10 described above if we are to continue to play a 11 competitive role in that marketplace. 12 Thank you again for your consideration of 13 these comments. I would like to reserve the 14 opportunity to supplement this presentation in writing 15 prior to the end of the comment period. 16 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Tim Zellers, good 17 afternoon. 18 MR. TIM ZELLERS: Good afternoon. Thank you 19 for allowing me to speak today. My name is Tim 20 Zellers, and I'm a law student at Brooklyn Law School. 21 I'm the co-chair of the Brooklyn Law School 22 Environmental Justice Club, and I'm a summer intern at 23 the New York Public Health Research Group. 24 I'm here to ask you to adopt a common-sense 25 approach to cleaning up toxic emissions. Nationwide, 210 1 40,000 people die each year from breathing pollution. 2 Diesel soot pollution is worse, because it is linked to 3 cancer by over 30 independent scientific studies. 4 Diesel vehicles contribute more than their 5 fair share of air pollution. In fact, here in New York 6 City, when the proposed standards go into effect, 7 heavy-duty trucks and buses will be responsible for 30 8 percent of the smog-forming pollution, and 11 percent 9 of the soot produced by all city vehicles. 10 Every internship that I've had so far in my 11 law school experience -- I was at the New York City 12 Department of Environmental Conservation last spring, I 13 was at the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance 14 in the fall, I worked with citizen coalition groups 15 around Williamsburg last summer -- every issue dealt 16 with the quality of life. And the quality of the 17 people's lives in New York City dealt with the quality 18 of the air. And they were all affected by diesel buses 19 and heavy-duty traffic from trucks moving garbage 20 about, moving commerce about -- it has a direct 21 influence on every person living in the city. 22 I agree with your proposal to protect the 23 public health, cleaning out big trucks and buses. Now, 24 it makes sense that you're proposing to reduce sulphur 25 levels in diesel fuels by 97 percent before the new 211 1 vehicle standards go into effect. 2 I urge you not to weaken this provision by 3 allowing an extended time line, or higher sulfur 4 levels. If the newer, cleaner trucks do not have 5 reliable access to 15 parts per million sulfur, we will 6 not be able to meet the necessary pollution 7 reductions. 8 Furthermore, these newer, cleaner trucks 9 should be required to meet the emission standards as 10 soon as possible. We are already going to have to wait 11 until 2007 before we see any major reductions in soot 12 pollution. We should not wait until 2010 before we get 13 relief from the smog forming pollutions. Instead the 14 emission standards for smog forming pollutions should 15 be fully implemented in 2007. 16 Finally, cleaning up existing diesel makes 17 sense for our health and our country. By replacing 18 diesel with cleaner technologies makes even greater 19 sense. 20 Therefore, I would ask the EPA to provide 21 incentives to increase the use of advanced, 22 technologically clean vehicles. Thank you. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Curtis, welcome. 24 MS. MARIE CURTIS: Thank you, and good 25 afternoon. I am Marie Curtis, Executive Director of 212 1 the New Jersey Environmental Lobby. We're an 2 organization that represents roughly 100 local, 3 regional, and statewide environmental groups in New 4 Jersey, as well as some 1000 individual members. 5 We are here in strong support of the 6 Environmental Protection Agency's proposed diesel 7 rule. 8 We all know that the California Air Resources 9 Board has declared diesel exhaust (inaudible). We know 10 about the health effects. And we know that ground 11 level ozone also affects vegetation, damages the leaves 12 of the plants and trees, reduces growth rates, weakens 13 plants making them more vulnerable to diseases and 14 insect invasions. 15 But most importantly, for too long our New 16 Jersey citizens have endured dirty air and the 17 detrimental effects such chronic exposure entails. We 18 have rising rates of asthma, and one of the worst 19 concentrations of tuberculosis in the world. And, yes, 20 tuberculosis is a transmittable disease, but it's also 21 very difficult for individuals to fight tuberculosis if 22 they have weakened lung structure. And that's what 23 this dirty air has given us. 24 New Jersey has been in serious non-attainment 25 of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards right 213 1 from the very beginning of such evaluations. We have 2 taken measures to improve stationary source emissions, 3 and we have required emission checks on family cars. 4 And are now going to enhance inspections of those 5 vehicles. 6 New Jersey, however, is a corridor state. We 7 sit between the metropolitan areas of New York and 8 Philadelphia, and we are also in the center of the 9 Boston/Washington megalopolis. In addition, we are the 10 most densely populated state in the union, with heavy 11 congestion on our roads from both residents and through 12 traffic. Much of the through traffic is heavy-duty 13 diesel, delivering freight from points outside of the 14 Garden State to points either in or beyond us. 15 And freight traffic in New Jersey is even 16 more heavy, because rail freight must be trucked across 17 the Hudson, since the nearest rail freight crossing of 18 that river is four miles south of Albany. There is no 19 other way, really, to get freight across the Hudson to 20 those markets in the city and on Long Island. But 21 regardless of destination or origin, diesel emissions 22 from vehicles foul our air on a daily basis and to a 23 very great extent. 24 Diesel trucks and buses are responsible for 25 11 percent of the nitrogen oxide pollution nationwide. 214 1 With the concentration of vehicular traffic in our 2 state, we would presume the figure in New Jersey to be 3 even higher. Nitrogen oxide is a necessary precursor 4 to the formation of ground level ozone and smog. It's 5 not surprising that we suffer harmful ozone effects 6 summer and after summer. We need to require emission 7 reductions in trucks, just as we have in our 8 automobiles. 9 Catalytic converters that reduce NOx and 10 other pollutants, however, cannot function with current 11 diesel fuel. The sulphur content in diesel fuel is 12 currently roughly 500 parts per million. This is the 13 ingredient that renders catalytic converters inoperable 14 on diesel engines. The rule proposes to reduce the 15 level drastically. The rule would allow only 15 parts 16 per million by 2007. This would allow pollution 17 control equipment to function and, thus, would reduce 18 pollution and smog from these sources. 19 However, it isn't just the heavy-duty diesels 20 on our roads. Off-road vehicles must be included if we 21 are to truly achieve the goals that we have set out 22 here. We don't believe that phasing in is really 23 necessary. We don't believe that we should to have 24 wait for healthy air. 25 The Blue Sky's Program mentioned in the rule 215 1 should have the most stringent standards possible. We 2 believe that incentives are good, but they must 3 sufficiently benefit the public to warrant their 4 introduction in the first place. 5 In conclusion, really our major criticism of 6 this proposal, is why it took so long to come forth and 7 why we must wait so long for implementation. 8 We strongly endorse the proposed diesel rule, 9 and we thank you for the opportunity to be heard here 10 today. 11 MS. OGE: Thank you, and I would like to 12 thank all the panel for taking the time to come and 13 share their views with us. Let me call the next panel. 14 MR. BOB KULIKOWSKI: Good afternoon, ladies 15 and gentlemen. My name is Dr. Robert Kulikowski, and I 16 am pleased to express the view of Manhattan Borough 17 President, C. Virginia Fields, on this issue. 18 Let me begin with some background 19 information. You are undoubtedly acutely aware that 20 New York City's air quality is among the worst in the 21 nation. EPA projects that ozone precursors generally 22 will decline next the decade before experiencing an 23 increase. However, this is of little comfort to New 24 York City, since it is currently designated as a 25 non-attainment zone for ozone under the National 216 1 Ambient Air Quality Standard. 2 Worse yet, the EPA projects that emissions of 3 particulate matter will increase over the next decade. 4 Unfortunately, this already appears to be the case in 5 New York County, Manhattan, which while not designated 6 a non-attainment zone for PM and should be. In 1998, 7 Manhattan exceeded the NAAQS for PM, but since findings 8 are based on three-year averages, the lower averages 9 for 1996 and 1997 brought the three-year average below 10 the standard. And clearly we are seeing an increase of 11 particulate matter in the air. 12 Manhattan, along with the other boroughs, has 13 neighborhoods where asthma and other respiratory 14 diseases are at near epidemic proportions. As 15 discussed by the EPA in the background material for 16 this proposed rulemaking, and indeed many other 17 sources, ozone and particulate matter found in diesel 18 exhaust aggravate these conditions. Especially in 19 children. 20 Clearly Manhattan, New York City, and the 21 region need to clean up their air. New York City is 22 also a major transportation hub with goods moving from 23 other parts of the country into the city and through it 24 to reach New England and Long Island. Unfortunately, 25 this movement of goods occurs predominately by truck. 217 1 Diesel truck. 2 Major transportation corridors through 3 Manhattan -- Canal Street and the Holland Tunnel, the 4 Lincoln Tunnel, Midtown Tunnel, and the George 5 Washington Bridge -- slice through many residential 6 neighborhoods. Even casual observations reveal slow 7 moving bumper-to-bumper 18-wheelers inching their way 8 through the borough, spewing diesel exhaust into the 9 air. In addition, sanitation trucks, buses, and other 10 vehicles, fire engines, ply our streets to provide 11 essential services, but which still generate diesel 12 exhaust. 13 Our president, C. Virginia Fields, has long 14 been a staunch advocate for reducing diesel emissions 15 in the city. Recently she has helped convince the 16 Metropolitan Transportation Authority to reduce its 17 purchases of diesel buses and to accelerate its clean 18 bus program for New York City. 19 This will help our air, but it's not enough. 20 The entire issue of diesel vehicles must be 21 addressed -- our municipal fleets and commercial trucks 22 delivering goods or passing through, as well as 23 off-road sources. 24 Therefore, while the total elimination of 25 diesel fueled vehicles would be the ideal scenario, 218 1 given today's technologies, the Borough President 2 wholeheartedly supports the EPA's proposed rulemaking 3 as an initial, comprehensive approach to the diesel 4 emission problem. Combining the use of low-sulur fuels 5 with additional pollution control devices for 6 heavy-duty vehicles makes ultimate sense. 7 Specifically, Borough President Fields 8 supports the 15 parts per million cap on sulfur content 9 in diesel fuel -- a 97 percent reduction from current 10 allowed levels; the proposed emission standards for 11 heavy-duty vehicles that will reduce PM by 90 percent 12 and oxides of nitrogen by 95 percent; the use of 13 after-treatment technologies; as well as implementation 14 of these standards nationwide. 15 The low-sulfur fuel standard is to be 16 implemented in 2006 in time for modifications in the 17 2007-model year vehicle to achieve the standards. We 18 would very much like to see this time frame reduced to 19 the greatest extent possible. It is our understanding 20 that the American Petroleum Institute has estimated 21 that it would take about four years to implement these 22 standards. While others may hold differing opinions, 23 the startup costs of the industry alone should not be 24 sufficient to delay its implementation. 25 Finally, the fact that these changes will be 219 1 accomplished with, in our opinion, very little economic 2 impact is extremely gratifying. The EPA's estimate 3 that reducing the sulfur content in diesel fuel will 4 cost about 4 cents a gallon and, over the long term, 5 less than $2,000 per vehicle -- an insignificant amount 6 compared to an average price tag of $250,000. The 7 savings in people's health, fewer hospitalizations and 8 emergency room visits, lost time at work, and an 9 increase in the quality of life are just a few of the 10 benefits that will be realized. Clearly, this is a 11 no-brainer. And these rules should be finalized as 12 soon as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to 13 comment. 14 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much. Mr. Weck. 15 MR. LARRY WECK: Good afternoon. My name is 16 Larry Weck, I'm the Vice President of Business 17 Development for Syntroleum Corporation. My company has 18 developed a process to convert natural gas into ultra 19 clean fuel. 20 My specific interests in this hearing is that 21 Syntroleum has developed a (inaudible) diesel. My 22 comments at this hearing will focus on the potential 23 impact that Syntroleum's synthetic diesel, and similar 24 synthetic fuels available from other producers, will 25 have on the US transportation fuels industry. 220 1 I will also review the significant 2 environmental and energy security benefits that will 3 develop with the increased production and use of 4 synthetic diesel and similar fuels from other producers 5 during the next decade. 6 Syntroleum strongly believes that blending 7 this synthetic fuel into the present diesel fuel can 8 assist refiners, large and small, in the meeting the 9 cap of 10 parts per million diesel sulphur requirements 10 by 2007. 11 Let me describe the properties of the 12 synthetic diesel. Synthetic diesels have been 13 developed and tested by Syntroleum and others. These 14 diesels meet or exceed the properties specified by 15 ASTM 975, and are highly suitable for conventional and 16 advanced compression (inaudible) engines in both the 17 North American and European markets. 18 Additionally, Syntroleum's synthetic diesel 19 has been demonstrated to be a viable fuel (inaudible). 20 This synthetic diesel is physically similar to the 21 petroleum-based diesel, but it has superior combustion 22 emission characteristics. It contains no detectable 23 levels of sulphur or metals (inaudible). 24 Our diesel and Swedish city diesel are the 25 cleanest diesel fuels commercially available today. 221 1 Syntroleum's synthetic diesel never exceeded the 2 applicable EPA Tier 1 emission standards appropriate 3 for each test platform, according to your manufactured 4 vehicle category. 5 In addition, the SDRI (phonetic) tests 6 revealed that synthetic diesel emissions for criteria 7 pollutants are significantly lower than each of the 8 other diesel fuels tested. For just the heavy-duty 9 engine platform, nitrogen oxide emissions are 10 22 percent lower than EPA provisions, 14 percent lower 11 than car, and 11 percent lower than the Swedish 12 diesel. Particular matter emissions are 38 percent 13 lower than EPA diesel, 25 percent lower than car, and 14 25 percent lower than Swedish diesel. And Air toxic 15 emissions are 34 percent lower, 13 percent and 16 27 percent respectively. 17 These environmental benefits can be realized 18 immediately because this diesel can be used in the 19 existing, conventional diesel engines. The absence of 20 sulphur enables vehicles to operate on synthetic diesel 21 with the use of advanced technologies you have heard 22 about today, including catalytic converters and 23 particulate traps, to achieve lower emissions. 24 Moreover, it's truly really a pleasure to 25 point out to the EPA and to the American public that 222 1 the synthetic diesel under discussion here has a very 2 low solubility in water. Additionally, laboratory 3 testing indicates that this synthetic diesel has a 4 significantly lower level of toxicity than traditional 5 diesel, and is more biodegradable. 6 Synthetic diesel fuel provides substantial 7 energy security benefits to the US. Syntroleum 8 develops (inaudible) technology for both its own 9 commercial use and for license to others in the 10 production of diesel fuels. As such, the synthetic 11 fuel production technology is broadly available to the 12 energy industry in the production of synthetic diesel. 13 Present licensees of this process are ARCO, 14 now BP, (inaudible), Texaco, Ivanhoe Energy, and 15 recently the Commonwealth of Australia. (Inaudible) 16 natural gas, methane rich gas containing up to 17 30 percent inerts (inaudible). These (inaudible) are 18 abundant worldwide. 19 Production of these synthetic fuels is the 20 logical component in the plan to (inaudible) petroleum- 21 based fuel in the transportation sector, because, 22 number one, the US has plentiful natural gas 23 resources. Number two, numerous countries, in addition 24 to members of OPEC, have plentiful natural gas 25 resources. 223 1 The full-cycle fuel energy required to 2 produce this diesel is potentially more energy 3 efficient than full-cycle fuel energy required to 4 produce diesel containing sulfur or reformulated 5 gasoline. The comparable full-cycle production of 6 synthetic diesel requires less energy than the 7 production of either reformulated diesel or 8 reformulated gasoline or petroleum. 9 As a case in point, a study by Oakgrade 10 (phonetic) National Laboratory identifies the potential 11 energy security benefits that would be realized with 12 the increased use of this diesel. It would reduce 13 reliance on imported oil as a transportation energy 14 resource, because it can be manufactured domestically 15 from US reserves of (inaudible) quality gas. In 16 addition, the manufacturer's subsidies would broaden 17 and diversify supplies, and increase the level of 18 competition, thus reducing the price. 19 For the refining industry, this diesel can be 20 produced economically in a variety of plant 21 configurations, site conditions, and the proximity of 22 the plants in the fuel market. 23 As trucks continue to grow in popularity, the 24 shift from gasoline to diesel engines is evidenced by a 25 12 percent growth rate for the period '96 to '98, and a 224 1 44 percent growth rate for the one-year period of 2 1997-98. In the heavier portion of this category, 3 where some of the most popular, full-size SUVs and 4 large pickup trucks are found, the shift from gasoline 5 to diesel is even greater: 18 percent for 1996-98, and 6 50 percent for '97-98. 7 With the increasing availability of cleaner 8 diesel fuels, manufacturers of diesel-powered vehicles 9 will be better able to bring their diesel technology 10 and experience into the US marketplace. 11 Of particular interest to this hearing is the 12 need for the community's fuel to meet Tier 2 13 standards. The demand for diesel in the United States 14 transportation sector is growing three times faster 15 than gasoline. If this growth and demand continues, 16 100,000 barrels per day incremental capacity will be 17 required (inaudible). Availability of synthetic diesel 18 will increase the options available to refiners to 19 provide for this production of diesel under the 20 proposed rules. 21 Synthetic diesel will enable the refining 22 industry to have more flexibility to meet the 23 anticipated increasing demand for Tier 2 specs. Using 24 only conventional refining technologies for the 25 production of the 15 parts per million diesel will 225 1 require more processing and more natural gas or 2 hydrogen production. 3 Once the diesel fuels improve the current 4 level, 350 ppm, to below 50, additional reductions in 5 diesel fuel sulfur require disproportionate increases 6 in energy and hydrogen. In this instance, when the 7 conventional diesel with an additional 30 percent 8 (inaudible) synthetic diesel reduce sulfur from 20 to 9 15 ppm, is expected to be a more carbon and energy 10 efficient means to achieve compliance for numerous 11 refineries compared to their traditional (inaudible). 12 Most significant to this hearing is that the 13 economics of synthetic diesel may be particularly 14 enhanced and used as a blending agent. More detailed 15 information will be supplied on this topic. 16 In conclusion, our use of synthetic diesel 17 fuels will bring significant environmental and energy 18 security benefits to the US during the next decade and 19 beyond. Syntroleum strongly believes that the expected 20 increased availability of these fuels will dramatically 21 assist refiners in meeting the sulfur requirements by 22 2007 both by blending the in-place fuel stream, and by 23 supplementing the refining capacity that will become 24 economically challenged. Thank you for the opportunity 25 to speak today. 226 1 MS. OGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Tripp, 2 good afternoon. 3 MR. JAMES TRIPP: Thank you very much. My 4 name is James Tripp, I'm the General Counsel of 5 Environmental Defense, a national environmental 6 organization. We have in the New York/New Jersey/ 7 Connecticut metropolitan area somewhere around 30,000 8 members, we have 300,000 members nationally. 9 I've prepared a statement, I do not intend to 10 read it verbatim. You can do so at your leisure. 11 Needless to say, in general we strongly 12 support this rule. We all would have been better off 13 if the rule had been proposed ten or fifteen years ago. 14 But if you live in a metropolitan area like this, as 15 cars have gotten cleaner, the dirty nature of emissions 16 from heavy trucks as well as buses has become all the 17 more evident. 18 Particulate emissions are a very serious 19 problem in this metropolitan area. And I think as Carl 20 Johnson noted, when and if -- and we hope the sooner 21 the better -- the EPA finally puts in place the PM 2.5 22 standard, we will have a clear idea just how serious 23 the particulate problem is. And a lot of this problem 24 is associated with diesel admissions from trucks. 25 In connection with the DEC proceedings in 227 1 which we are a party, we have looked at the PM 2.5 data 2 from a couple of air monitors in the South Bronx. 3 These are monitors which are on top of school 4 buildings, so they don't really tell you what's going 5 on at the street level where the heavy trucks are. But 6 the analysis that was done by a physicist working with 7 (inaudible) indicated that the PM 2.5 levels, based on 8 that data that had been certified, was at or slightly 9 above 15 micrograms per cubic meter, which is above the 10 proposed EPA standard for 2.5 particulates. 11 And my suspicion is that if and when we have 12 a better and more detailed air monitoring network, and 13 we're willing to look at what's going on along the 14 streets that are heavily used by trucks -- whether 15 we're talking about the Bronx, or lower Manhattan, 16 Newark, or other parts of the metropolitan area -- we 17 will find PM 2.5 levels well in excess of 15 micrograms 18 per cubic meter. This is a deplorable situation. 19 We cite in our testimony, and you've probably 20 already heard today, about the health data about the 21 nature of diesel particulates. And, of course, it was 22 just last month that the Department of Health and Human 23 Services, in their report on carcinogens, classified 24 diesel exhaust particulates as reasonably anticipated 25 to be human carcinogens. 228 1 And I think you're probably also aware of the 2 fact that the South Coast Air Quality Management 3 District Board in the Los Angeles area has just come 4 out with a report on the toxic nature of diesel 5 emissions, indicating that diesel emissions were 6 responsible for about 70 percent of all air toxic 7 carcinogenicity in that region. There's no reason to 8 believe that the same isn't the case here. 9 So it seems to me that the evidence that fine 10 particulates generated by diesel emissions are of great 11 health concern throughout this metropolitan area. But 12 it is particularly in parts of the city that tend to be 13 populated with lower income, minority populations that 14 it is an extremely serious problem. And certainly we, 15 therefore, support the particulate rule. 16 With respect to nitrogen oxides, again other 17 speakers have indicated that truck NOx emissions are 18 becoming a larger and larger portion of all nitrogen 19 oxide emissions. Probably the most serious general air 20 pollutant problem that this country faces today is 21 linked to nitrogen oxide emissions. Those emissions 22 have been going up, we to have to do something about 23 it. We should reduce by 90 percent, or more, as 24 quickly as we possibly can, the nitrogen oxide 25 emissions of trucks. 229 1 Peter Lehner mentioned the eutrophication of 2 Long Island Sound. The City of New York is going to be 3 expected to spend half a billion to a billion dollars 4 on finalizing nitrogen removal treatment plants. And 5 Connecticut, Westchester, Long Island will be doing the 6 same. We've got to reduce nitrogen input into Long 7 Island Sound by a very significant percentage if that's 8 going to be become a health body of water again. And 9 that alone is justification for reducing nitrogen 10 oxides. 11 We certainly would support, strongly support, 12 a much more rapid implementation of the NOx emission 13 rule. I believe the rule allows for four years of 14 implementation, 2007 to 2011. Given the number of 15 years that any truck is on the roads in this country, 16 and the number and the distance that a truck goes 17 before it's finally retired, the sooner that that rule 18 can be implemented the better. We would strongly 19 support implementing the rule 2006, 2005 -- as early as 20 possible. 21 With all of that, diesel fuel has got to be 22 as clean as possible. And given what ARCO is doing in 23 California, and what other refineries are beginning to 24 do, we think that the 15 parts per million sulfur rule 25 for diesel fuel is very reasonable in this schedule. 230 1 Just a couple of other points: We strongly 2 agree with what some other speakers have said, that 3 this rule ought to be applied for all non-road 4 vehicles. And, again, the sooner the better. The 5 off-road vehicles are looming as a larger and larger 6 portion of all air pollutants. They've been largely 7 unregulated -- it's time to move ahead with a program 8 to regulate those sources. 9 And we also agree that for this rule to make 10 sense, there's going to have to be a stringent 11 enforcement program by the states with the federal 12 government behind it, because a lot of these trucks 13 move interstate commerce. 14 And, finally, we'll just note our support for 15 the EPA retrofit partnership program. Which I think 16 the EPA has recently announced on a demonstration 17 basis. We hope that you, that the EPA can find some 18 partners here, or a partner with whoever, to buy and 19 make use of retrofit trucks that are found in this 20 region. And we would be happy to work with EPA to see 21 if we can help find some suitable partners. Thank 22 you. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you very much. 24 Ms. Fisher. 25 MS. ALEXANDRA FISHER: Thanks very much. 231 1 My name is Alexandra Fisher, and I am a 2 concerned citizen. I'm very nervous, because I'm 3 speaking only of my personal experience. 4 I don't know a lot of numbers and lot of the 5 statistics, I only know that I'm a life-long resident 6 of New York City and that on what we call a "bad air 7 day" when I blow my nose, the kleenex is black. That I 8 look at that and wonder what my lungs look like. 9 And that my brother, who is eight years 10 younger than I am has asthma. And that he doesn't live 11 here in New York anymore, but when I get a call from 12 him in the hospital and he talks about almost dying, 13 and I know that part of what is potentially killing him 14 is the air quality, I become very afraid. 15 I grew up in the sixties learning that all 16 war would end, the air would become clean, the water 17 would become clean, all people would be equal, women 18 would have equal rights, people of all colors would be 19 living together in harmony -- and I've been waiting for 20 this happen. And I'm not giving up yet. 21 And it is so frustrating to me when the 22 answers are within reach. They're difficult, from what 23 I'm hearing today. I'm not stupid, I understand that 24 this isn't a matter of anybody snapping their fingers 25 and making change happen. It's a long-time progress, 232 1 and this country barreled along because nobody knew of 2 the problems that would be created. 3 But now that he would have ways of finding 4 out what the problems are and we start to know what the 5 solutions are, I find it unbelievable that everyone 6 doesn't think the way I do and just want to clean 7 everything up. Because even the people who are making 8 lots and lots of money from polluting also have to 9 breathe this air and drink the water, and their 10 children do. And I don't understand why it becomes a 11 political battle. 12 I heard about the new standards that are 13 proposed. And what I understand of them, I like. I 14 agree with the other things that I have heard today, 15 that I wish they could be implemented sooner. 16 I am a privileged person in that I have a 17 job, I work for myself. If I want to leave New York 18 City, I can. And I plan to. Partly because it's so 19 dirty. But, like I said, I'm privileged. There are 20 many people who don't have the privilege of leaving 21 large urban areas, and are subject to the pollution 22 that continues to grow there. 23 I myself suffer from bronchitis. And when 24 I'm in a bad pollution area I have, at times, had go to 25 the emergency room myself for bronchitis. And I know 233 1 that with pollution it happened to me in Mexico City. 2 And then when it happened to me New York City, I was 3 amazed that we were as bad as they were, because I had 4 always heard how awful it was in Mexico City with the 5 pollution. And to think that I could get that sick 6 here was appalling to me. 7 I don't want to ramble. I didn't write, I 8 wrote a few things down for myself here. 9 But I think the important thing here is that 10 if I do put a face on my brother, which I can't -- but 11 he looks almost exactly like me -- and to think that my 12 brother might live or die, depending on the air 13 quality, and that my brother is only one of the 14 millions in this country, and I don't know how many in 15 the world, who are affected on a daily basis by air 16 quality, then maybe it will help to move this out of 17 the political arena, the economic arena, and into one, 18 as someone mentioned before, where the costs go beyond 19 what it costs individual companies to comply, or for 20 the government to help subsidize, and then it will go 21 into what we mean if we have country full of healthy 22 people who go to work every day, almost every day. 23 Where sick days will be maybe because they drank a 24 little too much the night before, not because they had 25 to go to the emergency room. Those kinds of costs, if 234 1 we can hold back and see the larger picture, are what I 2 think we're really talking about. 3 I have seen the Hudson River get cleaner, I 4 never thought that would happen. When I was little, 5 that was a lost cause. It is now -- it is not clean, 6 it is cleaner. I would like to see the same thing 7 happen with air. I would like not to have to be 8 finding places that are air conditioned to go to in the 9 summer when the wind isn't moving across Manhattan. I 10 don't like air conditioning. And, again, that's a 11 privilege to be able to find it or have it. 12 So basically I just want to say that I think 13 the standards, as I've heard them and understand them, 14 are good ones. As other people have said, I wish they 15 could be implemented sooner. 16 And that I want everyone here to remember, no 17 matter which side you're on, that this is a human issue 18 and that we all have to live here and share the air. 19 We may as well work together to make it the best air 20 that we can possibly have. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. OGE: Thank you very much for your 23 testimony. I wanted to just say to you that to be able 24 to hear from people like you is exactly why we're here 25 in New York and going to Chicago, Atlanta, and Denver 235 1 and California and getting out of Washington so that we 2 can hear from the people. So thank you very much. 3 I now understand that Mr. Perez and 4 Mr. Corbin will be sharing testimony, so however each 5 of you wish to proceed. 6 MR. JOE PEREZ: Good afternoon. My name is 7 Joe Perez, I'm President of (inaudible), Vice President 8 and Chair of the South Bronx Clean Air Coalition. 9 The oil industry is here fighting this rule 10 claiming that the reduction of diesel fuel is too 11 expensive. That is adding insult to injury to our 12 community. It has become apparent that the lives of 13 Latinos and African/Americans are in a susceptible 14 role. The South Bronx in upper Manhattan lead the 15 nation in emergency room visits due to asthma caused by 16 air pollution. Why is it that we are the target for 17 every major polluting project the city/state can think 18 of? 19 To mention a few: The (inaudible) Medical 20 Waste Incinerator, which placed toxics into our air 21 until we shut it down. Waste transfers stations and 22 bus depots that increase the amount of diesel fuel 23 pollution that causes asthma, heart disease, and lung 24 cancer. A Home Depot that is being built on 116th 25 Street that will bring into our community 7,000 more 236 1 cars and 120 more trucks a day. The New York Post, and 2 the Harlem River (inaudible). We are being killed, and 3 a sad part of it is that we are being made to pay for 4 it. 5 Another thing that we need is enforcement of 6 existing laws. An example: An incinerator had 800 7 violations before they closed it down. Now any driver 8 know that if you have a few violations, they're going 9 to take your license away. 10 The trucks, they park all over the place. 11 Three or four of them park right in front of the day 12 care centers. On 138th Street in the Bronx, they park 13 right next to a school, leave the truck running, go out 14 and eat lunch or breakfast. 15 When you speak to the police department, they 16 say well, we don't have no authority against that. 17 When you speak to the traffic department, they don't 18 have no authority on that. Speak to the DEC, they 19 don't have any authority on that. 20 Well, now, whose job is it to enforce the 21 laws that are on the books? 22 On the question to address the oil industry's 23 fear of losing millions of dollars: A child's life is 24 priceless. We ask that you please pass this law. 25 MR. CECIL CORBIN-MARK: Good afternoon. My 237 1 name is Cecil Corbin-Mark, and I am the Program 2 Director for an organization called West Harlem 3 Environmental Action. We have members who are 4 life-long residents of north Manhattan and Harlem. 5 To be specific, our organization is based in 6 Northern Manhattan and works on environmental issues 7 locally, statewide, and nationally. Since 1988, WE ACT 8 has worked to educate community residents about the 9 threat to human health created by these particulates, 10 and today I'm really here to applaud the EPA for 11 putting forth such a strong rule. 12 In 1997 we launched our Clean Air Good Health 13 campaign, with a series of English and Spanish bus 14 shelter ads in Northern Manhattan and a battery of 15 brochures that were all designed to inform people that 16 if you live uptown, breathing was something that you 17 did at your own risk. And to call attention to the 18 fact that Northern Manhattan was saturated with six out 19 of eight of the Transit Authority's bus depots, and a 20 series of networks that comprised a very complex truck 21 route system, all in area that was only about 7.4 22 square miles that was also home to more than half a 23 million residents. 24 One of the things that I certainly want to 25 call attention to, or three things that I think are 238 1 important about this particular rule: 2 One, EPA's new rule, in very short and 3 succinct terms, for residents of Manhattan will really 4 mean fewer asthma attacks. 5 Two, Northern Manhattan, as we understand it 6 from some of our colleagues who were (inaudible), is 7 really awash in diesel particulates. And one of the 8 major contributors to that is the truck traffic that is 9 there, as well as the buses. 10 Now, we've worked for more than a decade to 11 deal with the buses thinking that that was an avenue 12 through which we could have some leverage, because 13 quote unquote, it was a "public service," only to find 14 that 13 years later after the battle began that we were 15 now beginning to get to the point where there was some 16 light, possibly, at the end of the tunnel, but we still 17 haven't seen it yet. 18 The trucks, however, we have to throw our 19 hands up at completely and say well, there seems to be 20 no hook. Well, hurrah for the EPA, because today with 21 this proposed rule if it is implemented, yes, there 22 really does become a hook that deals with the hundreds 23 of trucks that we have had our YRDP(?) crew 24 monitoring -- our YRDP crew is the Youth Reach 25 (phonetic) Development Project -- monitoring truck 239 1 traffic on our local streets. Hundreds of trucks just 2 barreling down the streets on a daily basis, because 3 New York City has no proper real infrastructure for the 4 delivery of goods. 5 The third thing about this rule is that 6 cleaner air really will be a regional benefit as well 7 as a national benefit, and it's something that we 8 should not take lightly. 9 Now, many are going to come and argue in 10 opposition to this particular rule. Some of the 11 arguments will have to do with the cost. The oil 12 industry constantly throws up the cost. I find this 13 particularly galling that every time as the state of 14 science advances and we find out more about how to 15 either improve the quality of our environment or 16 protect our public health in a significant way, that 17 industry seems to come up with a red herring for why we 18 shouldn't go forth with this, and usually that red 19 herring is cost. 20 The first thing that I want to say about cost 21 is that I was astounded to find out that while the oil 22 industry particularly throws this up as an issue, that 23 Exxon Mobile, the largest of the barons, if you will, 24 in the oil industry, recently published in one of their 25 financial disclosures, quarterly financial statements. 240 1 And what left me astonished was that in that quarterly 2 financial statement, one of the things that was 3 revealed was that in a quarter Exxon Mobile made enough 4 money to actually have some of this stuff happen. 5 Now, I don't know understand, if we live in 6 this particular time that is so opulent and supposedly 7 so rich -- for some, obviously, but not for all -- why 8 we're not taking on these challenges. Costs should not 9 be a factor. 10 In fact, if we are going to talk about costs, 11 then it is incumbent upon me as a resident of Northern 12 Manhattan to demand that people look at the fact that 13 there is a cost to the increase in hospital admissions 14 for asthma cases. There is a cost to mothers and 15 fathers who have to take off from work to attend to a 16 sick child, or to take care of their own asthmatic 17 conditions that are related, or triggered by this 18 particular pollutant. There is a cost to the number of 19 school days that are lost. 20 And why are we not factoring in those costs 21 as well? 22 I suspect that the reason for that is that 23 the picture that would be revealed upon that kind of 24 mathematics would not be a pretty one. 25 Secondly, one of the things that I am 241 1 troubled by also is that people will say that this 2 particular type of modification to the oil industry's 3 infrastructure will actually leave the industry in 4 fiscal ruin. Well, I go back, again, to this Exxon 5 Mobile quarterly statement, and I can't imagine that 6 that would be true. 7 I think that it is high time that we own up, 8 all of us -- both the industry, the private sector, 9 private residents, all of us -- own up to the challenge 10 ahead. 11 When we were faced with this issue of lead in 12 gasoline poisoning all of our children, America rose to 13 the task. And I think we are at another crossroads 14 like that now. We must rise to the task. Because, 15 really and truly, I believe that in the end our 16 society's well being will not be judged by the 17 magnitude of the bottom line, or the fat GNP or GEP 18 figures, but really it will be judged by the quality of 19 life we provide for each and every one of our 20 citizens. 21 I think this rule moves us in that 22 direction. Moves us in the right direction of 23 improving the quality of the air that we breath, and 24 providing an opportunity for those who suffer -- like 25 many of the Northern Manhattan residents -- to improve 242 1 the quality of their health. 2 Our organization over the last couple of 3 years has really engaged in a series of community- 4 based research projects with our academic partner at 5 Columbia University. And some of those scientific 6 research projects have really left us with what we 7 believe are the smoking-gun findings. 8 We conducted a study amongst seventh graders 9 in Northern Manhattan to determine what the lung 10 function was with the students who were exposed to 11 diesel and smog. And because we -- because of the 12 politics in the city, we had to get started with what 13 we were calling our quote unquote "control school" 14 first. 15 When we were finished and all of the 16 information was gathered from that control school, 17 supposedly the school that was supposed to be the least 18 exposed, we found that the students in those schools 19 were so much awash in diesel particulates that it 20 really did not even make sense for us to go forward and 21 check the exposed school. The levels of exposure were 22 so high that even a control school was, in effect, an 23 exposed school. That is something that is 24 intolerable. 25 I want to end by talking about some of the 243 1 residents that I know in Northern Manhattan who live 2 there, work there, and call it home. 3 Joselito (phonetic) Mendez was a young man 4 that I actually met through our program. He started 5 coming to our organization when he was about 14-years 6 old. Very overweight, intensely shy, but a very 7 brilliant mind and a gentleman of a young man who was a 8 severe asthmatic. Could not play, could not get 9 involved in any substantive physical activities for 10 fear -- all of his life -- for fear that he would be 11 seized by an asthma attack. 12 (Inaudible), another young lady who came 13 through our earth cleaning project, she also was a 14 severe asthmatic, but determined she was going to 15 continue to live her life the way that she would. She 16 actually fought through her asthma attacks, and decided 17 that she was not going to be stopped by it. 18 Jamal is a young child of four-years old who 19 I just recently became aware of. And when I first met 20 his mother her bag was filled -- she opened her bag at 21 one point with the child in her lap, and began to give 22 him an inhaler. A four-year old. To me, this is some 23 of what the new rule will help us move beyond. 24 And lastly, Paris Walsby (phonetic), a woman 25 who is 44-years old and headed something called the 244 1 Harlem Textiles Project, that in the prime of her life, 2 died from an asthma attack. 3 I think that it is time that we move beyond, 4 I think that it is time that we work collectively to 5 implement these changes sooner than 2007 or 2006. And 6 I think we can do this. Thank you. 7 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much, sir. 8 Ms. Rubel. 9 MS. JENNY RUBEL: Thank you for the 10 opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Jenny 11 Rubel, and I'm here as an intern from the New York 12 Public Interest Research Group. I'm here to urge you 13 to adopt the toughest possible standards to reduce 14 pollution from heavy-duty vehicles. 15 Here in New York, smog sends more than 12,300 16 people to emergency rooms each year, and causes over 17 510,000 asthma attacks. Making matters worse, a study 18 by local air pollution control officials estimates that 19 diesel exhaust is responsible for 125,000 cases of 20 cancer in the United States. 21 Air pollution is an issue that residents of 22 urban areas, especially in New York City, have to deal 23 with on a daily basis. All throughout the year, but 24 particularly during the summer, individuals, even those 25 who do not suffer from asthma or other diagnosed lung 245 1 diseases like myself, can feel the effects of air 2 pollution from itchy eyes and difficulty breathing. 3 In order to protect the public health, we 4 must require drastic reductions in pollution from these 5 large trucks and buses as soon as possible. 6 I was, therefore, disappointed to learn that 7 the EPA has delayed the rating until 2010. In 8 addition, because high sulfur fuel will poison the new 9 diesel clean up technologies, we must ensure that all 10 diesel fuel is fully cleaned up and readily available. 11 Specifically, I urge you to, first of all, 12 reduce diesel sulfur levels to no more than 15 parts 13 per million nationwide for both on- and off-road 14 vehicles by 2006. Secondly, clean up all big trucks 15 and buses by at least 90 percent 2007. Third, ensure 16 that big trucks are meeting the emission standards on 17 the road, and not just during the engine tests. And 18 finally, I urge you to increase the use of diesel 19 alternatives, such as electric and fuel cell buses. 20 These measures are critical to the protection 21 of public health and the environment. I hope you will 22 seriously consider them. Thank you for allowing me to 23 speak today. 24 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much, we 25 appreciate it. And finally Mr. Henry, if you can 246 1 please present your testimony. 2 MR. CYRUS HENRY: I have a presentation. My 3 name is Cyrus Henry, I am a Ph.D. chemist of Octel 4 America. For the last 27 years my principal area of 5 work is (inaudible). 6 MS. MARTIN: Excuse me, if you could please 7 use the microphone. Thank you. 8 MR. HENRY: One of the provisions of the 9 proposed rule will prohibit the use downstream of 10 refineries of additives that contain more than 15 parts 11 per million of sulphur. 12 For most additives, that is only an 13 inconvenience in the sense that the solvent that is 14 used with the additive must be cleaned up (inaudible). 15 But there is a small niche group of additives 16 called "static dissipator additives" that contain 17 sulphur as part of their active ingredient. And what I 18 would like to request today is permission, or some sort 19 of exception to permit downstream use of these 20 additives. And, in fact, there's not an awful lot of 21 latitude that's required, because in general the 22 sulphur content in use concentration of these additives 23 is very small, on the order of a few parts per 24 million. And so by allowing the downstream sulfur 25 contribution of less 0.2 ppm, these additives could be 247 1 used. 2 Essentially, they help prevent the 3 possibility of electrostatic ignition during tank 4 truckloading and loading ramps. About a million of 5 these loadings take place every year, and very 6 frequently the last load in the truck was gasoline, so 7 there are flammable vapors present. 8 The API records during the period of 9 recordkeeping, which stopped in 1981, showed that there 10 were 121 ignitions during tank truck loading. These 11 incidents continue to occur. The incidents or rate of 12 incidents has reduced. But in 1994, which was soon 13 after the introduction of low-sulfur diesel, a series 14 of these occurred in Minneapolis. And the final 15 ignition destroyed not only the truck, but the loading 16 rack and damaged several other surrounding trucks. So 17 it's a serious problem. 18 These incidents come about because when fuel 19 moves through piping pumps and so forth, it tends to 20 entrain electrostatic charge. And this occurs in the 21 same way that you generate a charge rubbing across the 22 carpet. Movement causes charge liberation. This 23 charge in low conductivity fluids can accumulate with 24 the fuel in a receiver. And if you have flammable 25 vapors present, you may have a spark which can then 248 1 ignite those vapors. 2 Just as point of reference, if you walk 3 across the carpet in winter and feel a spark, that 4 spark was probably energetic enough to ignite a 5 flammable (inaudible) combination. 6 The tricky part of this, which even some 7 people in the business don't understand very well, is 8 that this can occur even though a truck, a loading 9 pipe, and all that, are properly grounded. And that is 10 because the fuel itself may be so resistant to current 11 flow, the charge that's in it accumulates (inaudible) 12 and literally can't get through the fuel itself to the 13 ground. And so even if it's grounded, you can still 14 have this internal spark from the fuel surface to the 15 interior of the tank, which can cause a fire or 16 explosion. 17 So there are a variety of ways that this can 18 be handled. There are procedures that are well-known 19 in the business, like reducing the flow rates and so 20 on, that help mitigate electrostatic charges. But that 21 various over a very broad range, dependent on minor 22 trace factors such as the composition of materials and 23 trace materials in the fuel. 24 The flammable vapors result from switch 25 loading from gasoline to diesel, which is very, very 249 1 common in the petroleum industry. It's a fact of 2 life. Sparking sources can be minimized, but they 3 cannot be eliminated. And one of the best solutions to 4 help prevent this kind of accident is the use of static 5 dissipater additives to prevent accumulation of 6 charge. 7 These could, of course, be added by the 8 refiner. But these are frequently multiple events at 9 terminal loading racks, and the terminal operation is 10 often not the responsibility of the refiner. The fuel 11 goes from him and the majority of fuel goes through a 12 pipeline to a terminal maybe several owners away 13 removed from him. So it's not really his problem. 14 And it is well-known that when these 15 incidents occur, another one is likely. So that the 16 downstream operator needs a way to address this 17 quickly. And the use of these additives is an 18 excellent remedy. Furthermore, when you add them 19 downstream, you also minimize the concentration. You 20 don't to have to worry about loss during the 21 distribution system. 22 As I said before, all of the available static 23 dissipater additives contain more than 15 ppm sulfur as 24 part of the active ingredient. However, the normal use 25 concentration is very low, on the order of one to three 250 1 parts per million typically. And the concentration in 2 the fuel is easily monitored with available 3 instruments, such as those described in the ASTM 4 D2624. Something like this. (Indicating on screen.) 5 You put the probe three-quarters of its 6 length into the fuel, press the button marked "major," 7 and read the result. So you can very easily monitor 8 the conductivity, which can then be a surrogate for 9 measuring sulphur content. As you know, the D2622, 10 which is normally required by the EPA, is fairly 11 complex and requires requisite expertise. This 12 instrument does not. 13 Also, it allows for 0.2 ppm of sulphur. It 14 will be essentially undetectable by D2622. That will 15 be about three percent at 0.2 of the precision of the 16 methods. 17 We are actively seeking alternative 18 additives, but certainly at the likely time that this 19 rule will be implemented it will not be known for sure 20 whether they will be available. 21 Hence, I think you can feel very comfortable 22 that there's going to be pressure to develop such 23 additives, because refiners and fuel suppliers are not 24 going to want to give away (inaudible) margin to an 25 additive supplier. There are substantial performance 251 1 requirements which are not easy to meet. And also 2 there's an advantage to have the same additives for 3 diesel fuel as used for aviation fuels. 4 Aviation fuel approval will take eight to ten 5 years. I will reiterate my recommendations is that you 6 modify NPRM to permit downstream use of static 7 dissipater additives under conditions that assure ULSD 8 sulfur content is not increased by greater than 9 0.2 ppm. 10 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much. This, I 11 think, concludes this panel. We appreciate you all 12 very much for coming, and the rest of you for being so 13 patient. We would like to quickly move into the next 14 panel. 15 Mr. Carhart, would you like to begin, 16 please. 17 MR. BRUCE CARHART: Good afternoon, thank you 18 very much. My name is Bruce Carhart, I'm the Executive 19 Director of the Ozone Transport Commission, or OTC. 20 OTC was created by Congress as a result of the Clean 21 Air Act Amendments of 1990 to coordinate ground-level 22 ozone control planning in the Northeast and 23 Mid-Atlantic. Twelve states and the District of 24 Columbia are represented on OTC. 25 I would like to say right up front that we 252 1 support the engine emission and fuel standards 2 contained in EPA's recent diesel proposal, because we 3 believe that they will help us in our efforts to clean 4 up the air in our region. The Northeast and 5 Mid-Atlantic states have experienced a pervasive 6 ground-level ozone problem for many years. 7 Ground-level ozone is a major public health 8 concern, and we have already had days in our region 9 this year which exceed the National Ambient Air Quality 10 Standards. Our states have adopted many of their own 11 air pollution control strategies to reduce the 12 emissions of pollutants that cause ozone. Strategies 13 include both controls on emissions of volatile organic 14 compounds, also known as VOC, and nitrogen oxides, 15 known as NOx. 16 Coordination on a regional level is critical 17 because ozone is a regional air pollutant. Ozone can 18 in fact be transported over hundreds of miles downwind 19 of NOx and VOC sources. A regional problem needs a 20 regional solution, and with the national nature of 21 motor vehicle traffic and sales, a strong national 22 program helps us to solve a regional problem. 23 It is important at this hearing to stress the 24 role of NOx, because diesel engines are large 25 contributors to our overall NOx inventory. Reductions 253 1 in NOx emission are critical. Our studies of ozone 2 show that regional NOx emission are strongly related to 3 regional ozone formation and transport. 4 Correspondingly, reductions in regional NOx 5 emissions generally reduce regional ozone formation and 6 transport. 7 We in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states 8 have done a lot to reduce NOx emissions within our 9 region. For example, in 1994 we approved the OTC NOx 10 Memorandum of Understanding or MOU, which substantially 11 reduces NOx emissions from major stationery sources, 12 such as power plants and large industrial boilers. We 13 just issued a report on the first year of this second 14 phase of our effort, which documented more than a 15 50 percent reduction in NOx emissions from affected 16 sources in 1999. 17 As stationery sources of NOx are reduced, 18 mobile sources become a larger proportion of the 19 remaining NOx which needs to be addressed as a part of 20 our state plants to reduce air pollution. EPA's recent 21 finalization of the Tier 2 program for light-duty 22 vehicles and trucks is certainly a good step forward to 23 reducing broad regional reductions of NOx emissions. 24 However, Tier 2 does not address heavy-duty 25 diesel engines and fuels, which we know will become an 254 1 increasing part of the problem. 2 Now let me address EPA's proposal 3 specifically, and indicate a number of major points we 4 would like you to keep in mind. 5 First, we support the proposed engine and 6 fuel standards that EPA has published. We know that we 7 will need additional emission reductions from diesel 8 engines as soon as possible. And we know that major 9 reductions in diesel fuel sulfur are fundamental to 10 attaining those emission reductions. It is clear that 11 diesel sulphur is a major impediment to the development 12 of a range of emission control technologies for diesel 13 engines. Reducing diesel fuel sulphur all the way down 14 to a cap of 15 ppm by mid-2006 as EPA has proposed, 15 should provide sufficient flexibility for the 16 development and utilization of new technologies. The 17 EPA should finalize this proposal as soon as possible, 18 but no later than the end of this year. 19 Second, while we believe that the engine 20 standards themselves should be finalized, the phase-in 21 schedule should be accelerated. With the 22 implementation of low sulfur fuel in mid-2006, we are 23 not convinced that four years are necessary for program 24 phase-in. Diesel engines turnover relatively slowly, 25 and any possible acceleration of the phase-in will be a 255 1 positive step. 2 Third, we believe that while this proposal is 3 a major plus for us as states as we prepare our 4 long-term plans, more needs to be done on the off-road 5 fuel. Reduction in on-road diesel fuel sulfur, while 6 absolutely necessary, does raise the issue of where the 7 extra sulfur will be directed in the refinery process. 8 Benefits of the on-road diesel proposal would 9 be substantially reduced if the sulfur were simply 10 directed into off-road diesel fuel and other off-road 11 fuels. We believe that EPA should finalize rules 12 during 2001 that makes non-road fuel subject to the 13 same standards as are being proposed for on-road diesel 14 fuel. 15 Fourth, we are pleased that EPA has developed 16 this proposal to reduce multiple pollutants 17 simultaneously. Producing a comprehensive regulation 18 that reduces ozone precursors and fine particulates, 19 while reducing toxic air pollutants at the same time, 20 is good public policy. 21 In summary, we believe that EPA should 22 finalize this proposal as soon as possible, but no 23 later than the end of this year, 2000. We are 24 supportive of this proposal, and believe that with a 25 few changes that it can be even better. 256 1 As a part of my statement, I am including a 2 copy of the resolution OTC approved at its annual 3 meeting on June 1, 2000. We will also be submitting 4 detailed written comments by the deadline. Thank you 5 for the opportunity to come before you today, and I 6 would be glad to take any questions you may have. 7 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much. Mr. David 8 Bartlett. 9 MR. DAVID BARTLETT: Thank you, good 10 afternoon. My name is Dave Bartlett, and I'm here 11 today on behalf of the Diesel Technology Forum. 12 The Forum is a new group working to enhance 13 public dialogue with a wide range of stakeholders, 14 including the EPA, other government agencies, and other 15 interested parties. Our intention is to explore a wide 16 range of opportunities to reduce emissions from both 17 existing and new diesel engines, while recognizing the 18 inherent benefits of diesel technology. 19 Diesel power systems -- that is the engines, 20 the fuels, and the after-treatment systems -- that are 21 the subject of today's hearing, power our economy. 22 They are the centerpiece of our nation's supply and 23 distribution network. And in the age of the internet 24 and e-commerce, diesel power systems have taken on an 25 even more important role facilitating the greatest 257 1 economic expansion this country has ever seen. They do 2 more work, move more goods, and help more businesses 3 and people than ever before. 4 This proposal to reduction emissions and 5 require cleaner fuels in new diesel trucks and buses 6 starting in 2007, marks yet another milestone in the 7 continuing improvement in diesel technology. New 8 diesel engines powered with today's fuels emit less 9 than one-eighth the emissions of engines built just 10 over 12 years ago. If adopted, the proposal currently 11 under consideration today could result in as much as a 12 90 percent reduction in emissions beginning in 2007, 13 and that's on top of improvements already online for 14 2002 through 2004. 15 We support the direction of EPA's proposed 16 rule that will result in lower diesel emissions and 17 cleaner diesel fuel in 2007. We're especially pleased 18 that for the first time EPA has used the systems 19 approach in setting future fuel and engine standards, 20 an approach that recognizes that engines and fuels are 21 both parts of an integrated diesel power system. 22 A systems approach is more important than 23 ever since for the first time engine manufacturers, 24 companies that manufacture exhaust after-treatment 25 equipment, and fuel refiners all have important roles 258 1 to play to achieve the significant reductions in 2 emissions that the EPA is proposing. 3 Whatever the outcome of the debate over how 4 much sulphur should be allowed in diesel fuel, I think 5 everyone agrees that lowering sulphur content coupled 6 with advances in diesel technology, will improve air 7 quality. And while this hearing is focused on future 8 reductions in air pollution, we should not lose sight 9 of the tremendous progress that's been made in the past 10 in New York State, in the entire Northeast, and indeed 11 throughout the nation. 12 For example, in New York air quality has 13 improved dramatically over the last 10 years, from 33 14 exceedances in 1988 to only 3 in 1998. That's a 15 76 percent reduction in the days of poor air quality. 16 Both Rochester and Buffalo are two areas that have had 17 the most dramatic improvements of all. Both Rochester 18 and Buffalo had no ozone exceedances days from 1994 19 through 1999. 20 What is most encouraging is that on a 21 national basis, overall criteria pollutant emissions 22 have declined 34 percent from 1970 to 1997. This 23 reduction has taken place at the same that the US 24 population has increased 31 percent, and the economy 25 has more than doubled in size. Over that period of 259 1 time the gross domestic product has increased 2 114 percent. 3 How does pollution decline at the same time 4 that we've seen massive increases in manufacturing, 5 construction, transportation, agriculture, and all the 6 other activities that constitute economic growth? 7 The answer is that these activities have 8 become cleaner at the same time that Americans have 9 demanded more of them. We see the future of diesel 10 power systems in both these trends. Diesel power 11 systems have become much cleaner, and through 12 continuous improvement, they will become cleaner 13 still. And as diesel technology becomes cleaner, it 14 will continue to do more work, powering more trucks to 15 deliver more goods than ever before. 16 Diesel power systems are an essential part of 17 the quality of life that we enjoy today, providing the 18 most efficient, economical and reliable power for 19 whatever the need. It is technology that is defined by 20 innovation and continuous improvement, meeting the ever 21 increasing needs of the consumer whatever the 22 application and whatever the need. 23 Make no mistake about it, this proposal 24 represents a significant challenge for engine 25 manufacturers, exhaust treatment suppliers, and fuel 260 1 refiners that are the members of the Diesel Technology 2 Forum. But we are confident that together we can build 3 on our past progress and produce the cleanest, most 4 economical, reliable diesel power systems ever. 5 While this proposal deals with new technology 6 going forward, there are many opportunities to address 7 some important issues in the existing fleet. 8 We congratulate Governor Pataki and others 9 here in New York, who were involved recently in 10 developing a comprehensive program to inspect and 11 repair diesel trucks and buses found to be emitting 12 excessive smoke. When properly maintained, diesel 13 engines do not smoke. And frankly, we wonder why only 14 13 states have such inspection programs today. 15 The Northeastern states have been leaders in 16 the development of these programs, and we challenge 17 other states around the country to consider the 18 adoption of smoke testing programs. We have the tools 19 and the resources available to assist that effort. 20 This March, the EPA issued a challenge to 21 retrofit 10,000 engines in the next two years. The 22 Forum is pleased to be working alongside the EPA in 23 that effort. We're bringing together resources to 24 identify engines of all types in a wide variety of 25 applications to determine the feasibility of lowering 261 1 emissions by adding exhaust after-treatment systems, 2 modifying engine emissions controls and/or using 3 cleaner diesel fuel. We are encouraged by the 4 possibilities for success with this program, which will 5 include engines in a full range of applications from 6 marine vessels to highway trucks. 7 In conclusion, members of the Diesel 8 Technology Forum support EPA's systems approach to 9 reducing emissions from diesel engines by enhancing 10 fuel quality. 11 Members of the Diesel Technology Forum, while 12 not taking a position on specific fuel sulfur levels or 13 other issues under debate today, support the EPA's 14 decision to take a systems approach to reducing diesel 15 emissions. However the specifics of this debate are 16 resolved, diesel power systems are poised to deliver 17 even more the efficient, reliable, and economical power 18 demanded by the American people. 19 As leaders in technology and innovation, 20 members of the Forum are committed to working with the 21 EPA, with state governments, and with other interested 22 parties to continue future improvements in diesel 23 emissions, and to take meaningful steps now to address 24 concerns in the existing fleet. Thank you, and I would 25 be happy to answer any questions. 262 1 MR. RALPH BOMBADIERE: Thank you for giving 2 me the opportunity to testify of EPA's proposed rule to 3 reduce highway sulfur in diesel to 15 ppm beginning in 4 2006. I am Ralph Bombadiere, the Executive Director of 5 the New York State Association of Service Stations & 6 Repair shops. 7 I am here today representing a membership 8 that is struggling in a highly competitive and volatile 9 market. We are on the frontline, so to speak, when our 10 customers pull into our stations and face ever higher 11 fuel prices brought about by the impact of global 12 market forces and environmental regulations. 13 Of course, our customers don't understand 14 pump prices in those terms, which makes it all the more 15 difficult for us on the street. However, my members 16 are aware of these influences on price as part and 17 parcel of their business. Daily they confront the very 18 real impact that governmental regulations have on their 19 livelihood. 20 That is why I join in today with the 21 opposition of other with other stakeholders relative to 22 the costly impact this reduced sulfur proposal will 23 have on my members. 24 To begin with, from my very practical 25 experience, consumers are only willing to go so far to 263 1 absorb higher fuel costs for environmental benefits. I 2 know what's popularly accepted -- that the Americans 3 are willing to pay more for clean air. But that's not 4 the reality. Otherwise, why is there such sensitivity 5 to even the most modest price increases at the pump? I 6 can predict that if this proposal goes through and it 7 affects supplies and increased costs upward of from 8 4 cents a gallon to 13 cents a gallon, as the analysts 9 estimate, we will all hear -- not just from the dealer 10 on the street -- the outrage loud and clear. It will 11 make the truckers' protests from the past winter look 12 like a tea party. 13 As I understand it from other industry 14 experts, under this 15 ppm proposal, diesel 15 manufacturing costs would increase about 12 cents per 16 gallon. These costs don't even include higher costs 17 for distribution since moving the ultra-low sulfur 18 through the pipeline with other products is 19 problematic. You have to ensure that the low sulphur 20 fuel doesn't become contaminated. Furthermore, if the 21 low sulfur requirements requirement are phased-in, it 22 would require suppliers, distributors, and retailers to 23 segregate two different diesel fuels. My members will 24 then obviously have to decide, under a phase-in, which 25 diesel fuel to sell since most would not have the 264 1 ability to add another diesel tank. From a broader 2 view, we already know that storage capacity on the East 3 Coast is minimal. So, how the major distributors would 4 add capacity is a mystery to me. 5 Obviously, cleaner air comes at a price and 6 we realize this. To a certain extent, I suppose the 7 customer does, too. However, I am told that the 8 stringent proposal of 15 ppm will reap only a very 9 minor clean air benefit in contrast to the industry's 10 50 ppm proposal, which yields a 90 percent reduction in 11 sulfur levels. The industry proposal, it is estimated, 12 would increase the per gallon cost about 6 cents. 13 Frankly, I'm not sure that that's even going to go over 14 well with our customers, but it's certainly better than 15 13 cents. 16 Additionally, my members have serious 17 concerns about the availability of supply of this fuel. 18 Just the hint that supplies might be tight sounds an 19 alarm in the market. We can see it happening right now 20 to retail prices with the threat of the Unocal patent 21 decision hanging over our heads. These kinds of market 22 influences don't need much pushing to translate into 23 higher prices. All this is to say, that while analysts 24 on both sides of this issue predict increases of 25 anywhere from 3 and 4 cents 13 cents a gallon to 265 1 13 cents a gallon, this proposal might have an even 2 greater impact. 3 I'm a realist. I've seen it before in this 4 business. And I don't need to go back to ancient 5 history. In April, the DOE/EIA's short term energy 6 outlook for the upcoming summer season (April- 7 September) estimated average retail gasoline prices at 8 regular grade of $1.46 per gallon. A 25 percent 9 increase over last summer. As you know, that average 10 has already been drastically exceeded, and the peak 11 driving season has just got underway. So much for 12 predictions and "outlooks." 13 In conclusion, let me say this: Our members 14 and their families enjoy the benefits that pollution 15 reductions have brought over the last 25 years, just 16 like everyone else has. What's more, my members 17 probably understand better than anyone what those 18 benefits have cost. What they don't understand is why 19 the reasonable industry proposal can't be adopted when 20 the clean air benefits would realized would be about 21 the same as with the agency's proposal. 22 We believe it's time for the agency and all 23 other environmental regulators to consider the cost of 24 their proposals and factor this into the decision 25 making process before charging ahead. We would all 266 1 would like to wear a white hat. And frankly, in 2 bearing the brunt of most of the clean air act 3 regulations, I think our industry has the right to wear 4 the white hat as well. We're not necessarily your 5 adversaries in this quest for a cleaner environment, 6 we're merely the implementers of the regulations who 7 must juggle their obligations to comply with the law 8 and make a living at the same time. As we see it, this 9 proposal will just make this already difficult juggling 10 act plain impossible. Thank you. 11 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much. Now, if we 12 could have Clark (inaudible). 13 MR. CLARK WITSA: (Phonetic) My name is 14 Clark Witsa, I'm here to testify on behalf of State 15 Senator Eric Schneiderman. His district includes the 16 neighborhoods of Chelsea, Clinton, the Upper West Side, 17 Washington Heights, Inwood, Riverdale, Kingsbridge and 18 Norwood in the Bronx. 19 I am here today to urge the Environmental 20 Protection Agency to adopt the strictest possible 21 standards to reduce diesel pollution from heavy-duty 22 vehicles. The guidelines you have proposed in May were 23 a brave step in fighting the diesel pollution that 24 poisons our communities. Please do not back away in 25 your commitment to ridding our environment of harmful 267 1 diesel fumes. 2 Diesel emissions remain one of the most 3 serious public health threats in the United States 4 today. Although only 2 percent of all vehicles run on 5 diesel, this fuel causes 27 percent of the smog-forming 6 pollution, and 66 percent of the soot produced by all 7 of the nation's motor vehicles. Every year, smog 8 causes over 6 million asthma attacks and 150,000 9 emergency room visits. And every year, more than 10 40,000 die prematurely from breathing soot and fine 11 particle pollution. 12 The deadliness does not stop with smog and 13 soot. Diesel emissions contain more than 40 known 14 hazardous air pollutants, including arsenic, benzene, 15 and formaldehyde. Many major studies have found a link 16 between diesel exhaust and lung cancer. One study has 17 linked diesel exhaust to 125,000 cancer cases in the 18 US. 19 Furthermore, diesel trucks and buses are 20 speeding up the process of global warming. These large 21 vehicles are responsible for more than 15 percent of 22 the transportation emissions of carbon dioxide, the 23 leading contributor of global warming. 24 To put a stop to this destruction of our 25 communities, I urge the Environmental Protection Agency 268 1 to mandate a 90 percent clean-up of emissions by 2007. 2 In order to do that, sulphur in diesel fuel must be cut 3 by no less than 97 percent. There can be no middle 4 ground on diesel fuel. 5 I also urge you to get rid of the phase-in 6 period for the new standards, which will not take 7 effect for seven years. That's plenty of time for 8 engine manufacturers to make the change in technology. 9 Finally, we must begin investing in new 10 technology to develop alternatives to diesel that can 11 serve the same role without harming the environment and 12 our health. 13 I thank you very much for letting me 14 testify. If you have any questions, please direct them 15 to me as so appropriate. 16 MS. ELECTRA BROWN: Thank you for the chance 17 to speak here today. My name is Electra Brown of the 18 West Houston Street Block Association, downtown 19 Manhattan. We have a particular problem on West 20 Houston involving a federal law passed in 1986, which 21 senator Tom Duane has referred to, of a one-way 22 westbound toll on the Verrazano Bridge. This has had 23 the unfortunate and dangerous effect of encouraging 24 large truck traffic to find other means of getting 25 across New York City when headed westbound to avoid a 269 1 double toll. This adds to traffic from Brooklyn 2 through Manhattan through the Holland Tunnel. Since 3 this so-called "experiment," huge trucks have been 4 plighting our streets in downtown Manhattan. 5 Downtown Manhattan always has diesel soot on 6 our windowsill. You can see it, it isn't just in the 7 air. We need more testing in our air to see how 8 seriously the toxic emissions are affecting the air 9 downtown. (Inaudible.) 10 To fully clean up smog, we urge you to 11 increase the use of diesel alternatives. And we also 12 urge you to ensure that big trucks are meeting 13 emissions standards on the roads, not just during the 14 engine tests. These measures (inaudible) of my 15 neighborhood, as well as environmental and public 16 health. Thank you. 17 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much. And 18 finally we have Ms. Roth. 19 MS. DEBBIE ROTH: Thank you for giving me the 20 opportunity to present testimony today on behalf of 21 State Assemblymember Deborah Glick, 66th District, New 22 York County, which falls in lower Manhattan which 23 you've already heard quite a bit about. 24 I'm here today to applaud you for your 25 proposal to eliminate sulfur from diesel fuel and to 270 1 set tougher emission standards for big trucks and 2 buses. 3 Manhattan has the highest level of 4 particulate matter emissions in the eastern half of the 5 country, and over half of these emissions come from 6 diesels. We are well aware of the harmful impacts that 7 this pollution has on our health and the environment. 8 Cancer, heart disease, and asthma. New York City has 9 the unfortunate distinction to boast one of the highest 10 rates of asthma in the country. As asthma levels 11 continue to rise, especially in communities where 12 diesel depots are located, we must act with the great 13 urgency to reduce the emissions of these heavy-duty 14 trucks and buses. 15 A year ago, I stood before the Metropolitan 16 Transportation Authority asking them to fulfill their 17 commitment to convert their diesel bus fleet to cleaner 18 fuel vehicles. I introduced state legislation that 19 would oblige the MTA to promulgate a plan to phase out 20 diesel buses. As we at the state level continue to 21 seek out ways to clean our air it is vital that you 22 adopt the toughest possible national standards. 23 Running through this district is one of the 24 busiest thoroughfares in the New York Metropolitan 25 area, which to no one's surprise is also an air quality 271 1 non-attainment zone. The corridor to the Holland 2 Tunnel serves vehicles traveling inter-borough and 3 state-to-state. Heavy-duty trucks and buses sit idling 4 on our streets, all the while spewing diesel exhaust 5 into our air. Efforts to clean up the state's public 6 transportation system will only bring about a fraction 7 of the relief that we need in hot spots such as this. 8 We need a commitment at the national level to eliminate 9 soot and smog pollution, letting clean air be what sets 10 the standard and evidence that compliance is ongoing. 11 Enforcements of these federal standards must be backed 12 by the threat of financial sanction for those states 13 that are non-compliant. 14 As I understand it, your proposal will clean 15 up diesel fuel and curb diesel exhaust emissions. I 16 want to express strong support for even more stringent 17 emission standards, resulting in particulate matter and 18 oxides of nitrogen emission levels that are 90 percent 19 and 95 percent below current standard levels. And to 20 that end, I support a national sulphur cap of no more 21 than 15 parts per million for our diesel fuel supply. 22 Any effort to weaken this proposal is an 23 attempt to sacrifice our public health solely for the 24 protection and gain of the oil industry. I urge you to 25 put public health first. Let's reduce diesel emissions 272 1 from big trucks and buses by 2007 -- no extended time 2 lines -- no excuses. Once implemented, this proposal 3 will be a victory for our health and the environmental 4 quality of this state and of the country. Thank you. 5 MS. MARTIN: Great, thank you very much. We 6 would like to ask for the next panel. Thank you for 7 coming and being patient. We will start with you, 8 please. 9 MR. CURTIS SEYFRIED: Thank you. My name is 10 Curtis Seyfried, I am Project Manager for Nos Quedamos, 11 which is a community development corporation in the 12 South Bronx. 13 Our neighborhood is situated between a 14 triangle of three of the major interstates or 15 parkways. In the Bronx, you have the Bruckner 16 Expressway on your east, you have the Major Deegan on 17 the west, and the Cross Bronx Expressway to the north. 18 It's also next to Hunts Point, which is the home of 24 19 waste transfer stations which get garbage trucks going 20 in and out on a constant basis all day. 21 We're also in the same neighborhood where the 22 AMR, American Marine Railway, wanted to place another 23 transfer station. This would be supposedly taking 24 waste out by rail, unfortunately Harlem River yards 25 (inaudible) to take out the trash that they want, so 273 1 most likely if this had (inaudible) it would have ended 2 up going out by truck, now that's shot down. We find 3 out that the deregulation of the power infrastructure, 4 that there is a power company who wants to put a power 5 plant there, in fact, DEC (inaudible) all in 6 communities of color. 7 I don't really want to quote figures and 8 things like that, what I want to talk about in 9 particular is what we're really here for today, because 10 what we're really here about is the children. I grew 11 up as a teenager in the sixties and the EPA was put 12 together in the early seventies, after passage by 13 Congress of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act 14 because of atrocious things like the burning of the 15 Ohio River. I don't know if you around when the rivers 16 in the United States used to catch on fire they were so 17 polluted. That was what the industry did. 18 What the EPA was put together for was to 19 protect the public from a polluting and dangerous 20 industry, and this has not changed. Industry still 21 pollutes. They do anything they can. 22 The oil industry has been here all day, 23 you've heard from many different refineries. And if 24 you walk down the hall, you see what they do with some 25 of those profits. They have a nice fancy luncheon down 274 1 there with mescaline salad and fancy forks and the 2 plates and spoons and cloth napkins, all to lure you 3 into doing what they want. All to make you believe 4 that the $11 billion dollars in profits that they make 5 isn't enough money. It isn't enough money to protect 6 the citizens of this country from their pollution. 7 Their taking 1 or 2 percent of that money away to take 8 sulphur out of fuel is too much to ask out of their $11 9 billion in profits. And I think that's absurd. In 10 fact, I think it's more than absurd, I think it's 11 criminal. 12 I would like to paraphrase something and it 13 won't be exactly, because I don't remember the words 14 exactly as they are written. But there is a document 15 that was written about 200 years ago in the formation 16 of this country, and part of it is that: 17 We the people of the United States America do 18 hold that all people -- I changed the word "men" to 19 "people" all of us, men, women, white, all people -- 20 are created equal and endowed with the basic rights of 21 life -- and I stress that most importantly-- liberty, 22 and the pursuit of happiness. 23 I have heard refiners talk about how they 24 might be put out of business. Well, I've had a 25 business, I got put out of business. But I'm still 275 1 here, I'm alive, I can walk around. I can create 2 another business, I can get another job. I'm not 3 dead. I'm not buried six feet underground, dead 4 forever, permanently. We don't have some business 5 where you die. When a child or an adult dies of asthma 6 in the hospital, that's it. They don't get another 7 chance. 8 And in actuality, if you look at a lot of the 9 statistics in hospitals, the deaths are not even 10 attributed to asthma -- they are attributed to cardiac 11 arrest, because that's what happens. That's the end 12 result. (Inaudible) has been trying to get hospitals 13 in the South Bronx to record not just the actual cause 14 of death as cardiac arrest, but what caused the cardiac 15 arrest. (Inaudible) to get these statistics done 16 accurately, so the people can really see. 17 You know, we walk around and you meet more 18 people with inhalers, more people wheezing. You have 19 people that can't exercise because they have asthma and 20 they cannot exert themselves that much, not because 21 they are lazy, because if they exercise they could 22 die. They could have asthma attacks and die. 23 You know, sometimes I feel like I really 24 should have brought a violin in here because listening 25 to the oil industry whine and cry, and how much money 276 1 it will cost -- while they have a fancy lunch, while 2 they have left 100 fancy brochures with information 3 that they just left. They left them here. That's 4 money, that's paper that should get recycled. But this 5 is what the extra money goes to. It doesn't go into 6 the hands of the retailer. He hurts a lot. He doesn't 7 get a lot of that money, it goes to the big oil 8 companies. 9 The small refiners I have sympathy for. They 10 should get some sort of exemption or assistance. They 11 should get a some sort of a low-interest loan system. 12 But when you look at the history of this 13 country, when America wants to go to war we don't say 14 we wish, we don't have enough time to get ready, hold 15 this war until we get the technology ready -- we go to 16 war. We get the technology. We put up the money. And 17 whatever else. That's what it's all about. We find 18 the money to fight a war. 19 Well, what we need is a war on smog, a war on 20 air pollution, a war on asthma that is killing our 21 children, killing our seniors, and killing basically 22 everybody. 23 I used to live one block from the 24 Williamsburg Bridge, and when I left my windows open 25 and they would be filled with soot. You would wipe it 277 1 up, and in two days you would find another layer of 2 black soot. And that's what I was breathing. I have 3 air-conditioning now. But as someone pointed out, that 4 is a privilege. 5 And what you hear in the media about how 6 supposedly the American public is crying about the 7 increase of gas prices -- it's not the American public 8 that's crying out, it's the media making a scene. When 9 the American public goes out and buys big SUV that if 10 they were really so concerned about paying that extra 11 price at the pump, they would be buying Honda Civics or 12 a Honda Insight, which is a hybrid. 13 So I don't know if the American public is 14 really that concerned. Compared to the rest of the 15 world, America and Americans are privileged. Because 16 in most of the rest of world, the price is $3-5 a 17 gallon and they drive less and they have better mass 18 transportation. In most parts of Europe you have real 19 mass transit, and people can safely bicycle on the 20 roads. 21 MS. OGE: Thank you very much for your 22 testimony. I agree with you what this is all about is 23 protecting the health of the public, and more 24 important, to protect the children. All our children. 25 Thank you very, very much. Ms. Vanessa Plasencia. 278 1 MS. VANESSA PLASENCIA: We are United 2 Community Center, which is a community-based 3 organization and we're very pleased to be here. 4 Our community organization promotes activism 5 for our children, and so this is an opportunity for our 6 children to come out and actively take a role in their 7 future. We have a big problem with asthma. We have 8 one of the highest rates of asthma in the city, so our 9 (inaudible) wanted to take a role in this. And they 10 wrote a letter to the MTA, and I think it represents 11 basically what we want for our community so -- and 12 we're a little nervous here -- so we'll begin with 13 Anthony. 14 ANTHONY GEREZ: Hi, my name is Anthony and I 15 would like to read a letter. 16 We are writing to you because of our 17 displeasure in your plans to purchase more diesel buses 18 and bus depots near the Brooklyn-Queens border. As 19 young people who attended United School Center at the 20 school which is located in East New York, we have 21 learned that our community has the highest rate of 22 hospitalization for asthma in the city. We have also 23 learned that particulate or dust can trigger an 24 increase of asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, and a 25 variety of other respiratory ailments. We are aware 279 1 that the MTA is assuming responsibility for it and 2 begun to convert to compressed natural gas. We aware 3 that almost no dust -- 4 STEVEN: Hi, I'm Steven. We are asking that 5 the MTA respect our community by stopping the purchase 6 of diesel buses and not placing a diesel bus depot in 7 our neighborhood, and converting to CNG as you are 8 doing in Long Island. Please let our voices be heard 9 so that we can grow up to be healthy and empowered 10 adults. Thank you. 11 THE CHILDREN: I'm Anthony, age 11. Justin, 12 age 10. Kenneth, age 10. Monique, age 11. Donna, 13 age 11. I'm Charles, age 12. (Inaudible), age 11. 14 Darnel, age 11. Julio, age 10. Donessa, age 11. 15 Tristan, age 13. Devin, age 12. Steven, age 12. 16 Steven, age 12. Julian, age 11. Johan; age 13. 17 Jacob, age 11. Randy, age 11. Amy, age 12. Sergio, 18 age 11. 19 MS. PLASENCIA: So as you can hear, we have 20 quite a group here. And we have an environmental class 21 and we learned about the particulate matter and how it 22 gets deep in the lungs and can cause asthma. We're 23 asking MTA, we're asking you, please stop these 24 purchase of diesel buses. This is our future 25 (Inaudible). We want them to be healthy and also to 280 1 have healthy and empowered families. 2 MS. OGE: Thank you, Ms. Plasencia, for 3 bringing the children forward. And we are truly 4 honored to have them here and testify on this important 5 issue. Now we'd like to hear from (inaudible.) 6 UNIDENTIFIED: Good afternoon, my name is 7 (inaudible), and I live in the Bronx and I attend high 8 school in Harlem. The reason why I'm here today is to 9 let EPA know why clean air is so important to me. 10 The first reason is because of my mother. My 11 mother is asthmatic. On certain days I go to school, 12 and while I'm sitting there in the classroom I worry 13 sometimes that my mother might have an asthma attack 14 and I would not be there to help her in any way, shape, 15 or form. And that worries me a lot. 16 The second reason is, and I don't remember 17 his name, a fellow came up here and he said that diesel 18 fuel is not only linked to asthma attacks, it's also 19 linked to other diseases such as lung cancer. And I 20 see for myself that liking to go lay outside in the 21 park, and then a bus, a diesel bus passing by almost 20 22 to 45 minutes around the clock every day. I could 23 develop later on lung cancer. And I fear that I will 24 not have a normal childhood. I worry that all of these 25 things can happen so much. Things that can happen to a 281 1 child these days and age, and it's something that 2 really worries me. 3 I feel that the idea of lowering sulfur in 4 diesel fuel is a great idea and I think we should 5 continue with that idea, try to implement it earlier 6 instead of 2007. Try to do it as soon as possible. No 7 waiting, because you will never know what will happen 8 next. Things are taking turns in different ways. 9 It's like it's very emotional certain times 10 to lose somebody to cancer, to lose somebody from 11 asthma. Somebody that you love, somebody that was 12 there for you when you were younger. Somebody who 13 raised you, who taught you what's good and what's 14 wrong, taught you respect and how to respect other 15 people, how to respect yourself and others. 16 Worrying about all these things really gets 17 in the way of my education and I think that it is a 18 good plan that you're doing. It let's me concentrate 19 more on my education and try to be what I want to be 20 later on. Thank you for letting me speak. 21 MS. OGE: Thank you for coming. On behalf of 22 the EPA panel, I want to thank all of you for taking 23 your time from your daily activities, and especially 24 the young children, to come and to honor us with your 25 attendance. We will take a short recess to give the 282 1 court reporter a break. 2 (Recess.) 3 MR. FRANCE: Let's get started. Marge Oge 4 and Dawn Martin had to leave for Chicago. My name is 5 Chet France, and I'll be wrapping up the hearing along 6 with Carl Simon, who has joined us. 7 Okay, let's start with the next panel. Arron 8 Mair, Sarah Massey, Marina Cardona, Marie Valentine, 9 Bill Menz, Marion Feinberg, Barbara Warren, and Leon 10 Tulton. 11 MR. ARRON MAIR: Good evening, I would like 12 to thank the EPA for hosting this hearing. My name is 13 Arron Mair. I am Board President of Marvin Hill 14 Environmental Justice. Our organization is in the 15 capital, Albany, and I live in Albany, New York. 16 Our organization is also a member of the 17 Northeast Environmental Justice Network, which consists 18 of members from the state of New York, New Jersey, 19 Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 20 Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland, Delaware, 21 Washington, D.C., and Michigan. 22 Unlike the title and all of the affiliations, 23 I want to point out first and foremost I'm a father, a 24 taxpayer, and a homeowner. In fact, I had to leave to 25 drive down to testify this evening. 283 1 I am typical of a lot of fathers in most 2 inner cities who are community advocates and 3 volunteers -- it takes a toll on the family. But in 4 fighting and trying to seek redress, it also costs us 5 time money and resources that are family, but also time 6 away from family and children. In fact, I had to delay 7 my baseball because tonight is very important. 8 Let me say we are fully in support of EPA's 9 regulations and rulemaking that will reduce a highway 10 diesel fuel sulfur. 11 But let me also add a little bit of 12 perspective as a father and a family member, and also a 13 little bit about my community. In most urban 14 communities, they happen to be in some of the most 15 industrial areas of a particular region. In our case, 16 it's on the Hudson River. And equally important, it is 17 an area that is often under-represented. When it comes 18 to things like zoning and influence on zoning boards, 19 they often are at a disadvantage. Our community is no 20 different. 21 Our community has a disproportionate share of 22 business. We have an inordinate number of truck 23 stops. The highway arterials are rutted throughout our 24 community. 25 Our children, in order to get to a park, for 284 1 example, two weeks ago we had an event down at the 2 Hudson River, they had to dodge heavy traffic. It's 3 the 787 arterial, about eight lanes of traffic, no 4 sidewalk. It's a hazardous situation. 5 But equally important, it's one of the few 6 places to recreate, albeit it's not a clean place where 7 children recreate. My daughter a year ago had an 8 asthma attack. My daughter is typical of a lot of 9 children. 10 Albany is also kind of odd, because if you 11 want to go north -- we have dead lakes there from the 12 sulphur dioxide. And also the Hudson River, which is 13 contaminated with PCB. 14 So our children have very few options. They 15 happen to be near heavy industrial and truck congested 16 areas. So whenever we have an opportunity to improve 17 the quality of the environment for our children, we 18 want to applaud and encourage you, because it's very 19 important. Many of the children of the communities who 20 use the park -- which is adjacent to a truck stop, 21 idling diesel trucks -- often have to take bronchial 22 dilators with them. It's a very sad state of affairs 23 when children at a park of recreation have to take 24 bronchial dilators or steroids. Stopping the attack is 25 just not enough, we have to worry also about long-term 285 1 use of the medications and side effects. 2 And when we talk about the disproportionate 3 impact, we also look at the fact that our children, 4 more so than other children, have to look at a dirty 5 environment, and we have to start to raise questions as 6 to why. 7 Granted this does not by any means cure the 8 overall inequities, but it starts to deal with them. 9 (inaudible), if there is a cleaner fuel, if there is a 10 cleaner (inaudible) to the fixture in that field and 11 that, by nature, starts to reduce the particulates, 12 then it's a good thing. 13 It's a given that these trucks, these diesels 14 are right near our community. I don't want to be like, 15 you know, as they say the proverbial (inaudible), it's 16 thrust upon us. We have no choice, this is the 17 community that we live in. 18 But also, my daughters' grandma is in the 19 South Bronx, I can't tell you that we can't send our 20 daughters there. In fact, six years ago my daughter 21 had to be hospitalized. And, again, when children 22 can't recreate, can't visit grandma, because of the 23 high particulates due to diesel exhaust and other 24 sources, it's a sad state of affairs. 25 Let me say our children, our community, is 286 1 disproportionately affected. Even so, while it is not 2 a permanent solution, it's a step. It's a step in 3 eliminating environmental inequity. 4 But it's a (inaudible) of poor public policy 5 and poor decision making which -- basically, I want my 6 daughter to be able to spend summer at grandma's. You 7 know, she's going to be graduating in two years. Just 8 think, she has choices, but hopefully, you know, 9 something will happen when she starts to bring her 10 children -- not right now, because obviously she'll 11 probably be at college and thinking about starting a 12 career -- but hopefully if she does have a child in the 13 future, it can play with its cousins in the South 14 Bronx. 15 I cannot say enough about what needs to be 16 done to improve environmental quality. And I cannot 17 underscore -- as you've heard earlier -- cannot 18 underscore the benefits. 19 Granted they say it will cost, but let me say 20 this: One of the things that I have been monitoring is 21 all of the current rise in gas prices, even the 22 government is at a loss to explain why oil prices are 23 going through the roof. So it's a little bit more. I 24 say that this is going to jack prices up. 25 I think that this is not -- I think oil is 287 1 overpriced, and I would submit (inaudible) as educated, 2 perhaps, as the guy that runs the business down there, 3 the real squeeze is the corporate level. You should 4 not be pitting human health, environmental protection, 5 my daughter's health, against the fact that the guy has 6 to make a buck. It's not acceptable. 7 It's not an acceptable loss, especially when 8 through phoney zoning practices -- and they do 9 gerrymander -- the bus depots, the rail stops, 10 (inaudible), and they are putting it in black people's 11 backyard or brown people's backyard. 12 Thank you for your time. 13 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. The next 14 testifiers are Sarah Massey and Marina Cardona. 15 MS. SARAH MASSEY: Good evening. My name is 16 Sarah Massey, I am Communications Director of West 17 Harlem Environmental Action. 18 I thank you for the opportunity to testify in 19 favor of the new stringent emission standards. 20 As you have heard from our Executive 21 Director, Peggy Shepard, and others from the 22 environmental community, there is a direct correlation 23 between diesel particulate pollution and health 24 problems such as asthma and cancer. 25 The community we work with is the unfortunate 288 1 asthma capital of the United States, with the highest 2 asthma hospitalization rates. My colleagues from the 3 environmental community have already discussed the 4 proposals for cutting diesel emissions and they've 5 discussed the different parts of your rules. 6 I will not repeat their discussions, but say 7 that we wholeheartedly support their arguments. I 8 would like to talk about and read to you a statement 9 prepared by (inaudible) an area resident. 10 She wrote: I'm a resident of Washington 11 Heights. As a member of a volunteer organization that 12 operates a playground and community garden, I'm very 13 attentive to air quality. On overcast days, diesel 14 particulates buildup and are trapped under low-lying 15 clouds. People have to stay inside and avoid outdoor 16 activity. Days when we New Yorkers are prisoners. 17 The term "diesel soot particles" is 18 (inaudible) to me. I call it "New York grit." You can 19 touch it. All you have to do, with the heavy bus and 20 truck traffic, is to look under your fingers. Cross 21 the window sill, it's covered with an accumulation of 22 dark gritty soot. That's diesel soot particulates. 23 Imagine breathing that stuff all day. People 24 who have asthma or respiratory disease are breathing in 25 that stuff. Picture them fighting for breath, staying 289 1 home from school, losing education days, losing days 2 from work. 3 I plead, I ask the EPA to move as rapidly as 4 possible. Don't be persuaded to reduce the standards. 5 Think of the millions of people whose lives will be 6 better when the air quality is better. Who take strong 7 vigorous action on behalf to reduce diesel fuel. 8 I think Mrs. (inaudible) clearly stated the 9 problem of air pollution in Manhattan. She gives us a 10 visual of dark soot, and the same soot that clogs our 11 lungs, triggers asthma, and causes cancer. 12 Today we have already heard from the oil 13 industry that the standards are too extensive. And 14 we've heard from others who have questioned the need to 15 implement the emissions standards. 16 I ask that oil industry and those 17 distractors, those detractors from the EPA regulations, 18 to consider the price of caring for a person while ill 19 from asthma. And I ask how long do people have to wait 20 for relief from diesel air pollution? 21 I now want to talk to you about bit my 22 personal story. I am an urban planner and worked as a 23 public transportation advocate. A couple of years ago 24 I read in the New York Times on 116th Street 25 (inaudible). 290 1 Not only was I aghast because New York 2 City -- the place I love and call home -- could be so 3 polluted, but also aghast, because my best friend lived 4 in that area, on 116th Street between First and Second 5 Avenues. I called her and I said we've got to talk 6 about you moving. I've read about this again and again 7 in the newspaper, and today in the New York Times 8 (inaudible). And I said well, we're going to have to 9 move quickly. 10 We were lucky I was working as an urban 11 planner. And as someone with this experience in this 12 area, I was able to understand what high the 13 hospitalization rates meant, and I was able to 14 understand what her living in that neighborhood meant. 15 We were also lucky because we had the means 16 to move. I have been working in Harlem for only a few 17 months now, and I am shocked and moved to tears when I 18 hear the stories about people living with asthma. I 19 feel like it's almost every person that I meet in the 20 neighborhood has a story. 21 I think the EPA is making great strides 22 forward with these regulations. And I would like to 23 ask that you do implement these stringent diesel rules 24 as soon as possible. Do not hesitate. Thank you. 25 MS. MARINA CARDONA: Hi, my name is Marina 291 1 Cardona. What I'm going say, I'm going to say in 2 Spanish, then I will write to you and say what I want 3 to say. (Proceeding in Spanish.) 4 MS. MASSEY: In summary, she's saying in 1996 5 she did not understand a lot about asthma, but she was 6 very affected by it because the apartment in which she 7 was living was located directly above a garbage 8 compressor. And at that time, she went for assistance 9 to West Harlem Environmental Action and began to 10 understand more about the situation. 11 It's very important for her to be here today, 12 because she's beginning to understand just how many, 13 many people in Washington Heights are being affected by 14 asthma. 15 MS. CARDONA: (In Spanish.) 16 MS. MASSEY: She said in upper Manhattan has 17 six out of eight bus depots. They have over a thousand 18 diesel buses. They spew dirt and smut into the air. 19 That triggers asthma attacks in the area that are home 20 to the highest asthma rates in the country. 21 MS. CARDONA: (In Spanish.) 22 MS. MASSEY: She said while the oil industry 23 claims it's too expensive, but the small cost of 24 cleaner fuel is much less than the enormous cost of 25 asthma in a community. And she's petitioning the EPA 292 1 to regulate or to legislate cleaner fuel. 2 MS. CARDONA: Thank you. 3 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. Marie 4 Valentine. 5 MS. MARIE VALENTINE: Good evening. My name 6 is Marie Valentine, and I'm here to speak on behalf of 7 DaimlerChrysler on the subject of EPA's proposal to 8 modify heavy-duty vehicle emission control regulations 9 and on-highway diesel fuel requirements. 10 DaimlerChrysler is a vehicle manufacturer of 11 light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles that operate on 12 gasoline and diesel fuels. DaimlerChrysler is a 13 demonstrated leader in the development of 14 environmentally sound vehicle technologies. This is 15 evidenced by our commitment to support the pursuit of 16 tough emission performance goals. 17 Reducing heavy-duty emissions will aid in 18 achieving the nation's air quality goals, and we stand 19 ready to do our part. This is a logical follow-up to 20 the Tier 2 light-duty vehicle emission regulation 21 adopted last December. We agree that EPA needs to look 22 at you all pollution sources when determining a 23 comprehensive emission reduction plan. 24 In our opinion, the combination of a 25 low-sulfur on-highway diesel fuel program with feasible 293 1 stringent new emission standards for heavy-duty engines 2 and vehicles will assist in improving air quality 3 nationwide. We congratulate EPA for continuing to link 4 vehicles and fuels, as was recently done in the Tier 2 5 regulations. This system approach is the only way to 6 achieve the emission reductions envisioned. 7 We commend the EPA's initiative to propose a 8 15 ppm sulfur cap for the on-highway diesel fuel. This 9 critical first step will enable the continued 10 development and advancement of diesel emission control 11 technology that is necessary if the heavy-duty industry 12 is to meet the new proposed standards which reflect a 13 90 percent reduction in NOx and PM. 14 Sulfur is a poison that blocks the use of 15 after-treatment technology by rendering the hardware 16 inoperable at today's 500 ppm level. The developers of 17 the after-treatment technologies have indicated that a 18 very low level of sulfur in diesel fuel is critical for 19 the future development of these devices. The lower 20 level will permit catalyst-based control strategies to 21 be optimized for maximum emission reduction 22 efficiencies. 23 Recent data indicates that sulfur free diesel 24 fuel is the enabling requirement for the use of NOx 25 adsorbers, Continuously Regenerating Technology (CRT) 294 1 systems, and Selective Reduction Catalysts (SCR) due to 2 their sensitivity to sulphur. Further information on 3 this will be included in our written comments. 4 The world's engine manufacturers have defined 5 "sulfur free" diesel fuel, as specified by the 6 World-Wide Fuel charter, as the correct fuel to enable 7 the use of NOx and after-treatment technologies where 8 stringent emission standards are required. Therefore, 9 the sulfur level in diesel fuel must be reduced to 10 allow the use of after-treatment technology as an 11 emission control strategy for diesel vehicles as has 12 been so successfully done for gasoline vehicles. 13 Let me emphasize that the proposed sulfur cap 14 is only the first step needed for diesel fuel. A 15 sulfur free diesel fuel with a minimum cetane of 55 and 16 a maximum of 15 percent aromatic limit is ultimately 17 necessary. This fuel composition would support the use 18 of diesel fuel in the light-duty vehicle market, and 19 provide the benefits of reduced emissions and increased 20 fuel economy -- another goal of the current 21 administration, while also maintaining customer 22 satisfaction. 23 A diesel powertrain is an important option 24 for passenger vehicles. Diesel vehicles could have a 25 significant role in the reduction of fuel consumption 295 1 by offering a 40 percent advantage over the gasoline 2 vehicles on a per mile basis. The sophisticated diesel 3 vehicles currently in the European market have higher 4 endurance, reliability, and torque, which is a 5 desirable performance attribute. 6 On the emission side, diesel vehicles have 7 inherently low hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide 8 emissions, no evaporative emissions, and have long-term 9 stability of emissions, which will further be reduced 10 with after-treatment, but the enabling fuel is 11 necessary. 12 We applaud the initiatives by some oil 13 companies to deliver clean diesel fuel to some 14 localized markets in advance of the regulations. The 15 lesson learned is that cleaner fuel can be available 16 and is being done at an affordable price. 17 Should a phase-in of clean on-highway diesel 18 fuel be found necessary, we encourage EPA to have it 19 start in 2004. The oil industry has previously 20 challenged EPA to make all known changes in one step, 21 not two separate steps, so capital investment 22 strategies can be optimized. Therefore, the 2004 23 suggested start date would link diesel with the 24 gasoline sulfur control required by Tier 2, and allow 25 light-duty clean diesel as a viable powertrain. 296 1 In conclusion, let me restate the key points 2 of our message: 3 First, the EPA's proposal of reduced sulfur 4 diesel fuel for on-highway is great first step. 5 Second, clean fuel packaged with feasible 6 emission standards is the correct path to enable 7 further reduction in emissions. 8 DaimlerChrysler believes that the diesel 9 fuel, as specified in the World-Wide Fuel Charter is 10 necessary to enable low emissions and fuel-efficient 11 technologies. 12 DaimlerChrysler is continuing to review the 13 proposal, and plans to submit written comments 14 addressing other issues in the NPRM, and further expand 15 on our diesel fuel position. 16 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to 17 you. 18 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Bill Menz. 19 MR. MENZ: My name is William F. Menz, Jr. I 20 represent the Connecticut Department of Environmental 21 Protection. Connecticut DEP congratulates EPA on the 22 progress made in air pollution control of mobile 23 sources, notably through the Tier 2 motor vehicle 24 standards and low-sulfur gasoline requirements. 25 The Connecticut DEP strongly supports EPA's 297 1 proposal on May 17, 2000 of additional requirements for 2 heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and highway diesel 3 fuel sulfur control. It's a crucial additional 4 component of the nation's and Connecticut's mobile 5 source emission control programs. In order for the 6 nation to receive the substantial environmental and 7 health benefits, Connecticut DEP encourages EPA to 8 implement the proposed rule without delay or 9 weakening. 10 In particular, Connecticut DEP notes that 11 implementation of EPA's proposed rule is projected to 12 result in particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen 13 emission levels that are 90 percent and 95 percent 14 below current levels respectively. 15 In order to meet these more stringent 16 standards for diesel engines, the proposal rule calls 17 for a 97 percent reduction in the sulfur content of 18 diesel fuel. Thus, clean diesel fuel will be available 19 in time for implementation of the light-duty Tier 2 20 standards. As a result, the nation will receive 21 immediate PM and NOx reduction benefits for both the 22 heavy-duty fleet and diesel vehicles regulated through 23 EPA's Tier 2 program. 24 Among the proposed rule's requirements, the 25 Connecticut DEP particularly supports the fuel sulphur, 298 1 ozone precursor, and PM requirements. The standard for 2 diesel fuel sole to consumers for use in highway 3 vehicles caps the sulfur content of 15 parts per 4 million, beginning June 1st, 2006. We believe this is 5 an essential component for the proposal and stress the 6 need for a cap of no higher than 15 ppm to take full 7 effect nationwide by mid-2006. 8 The Connecticut DEP also endorses the 9 appropriately stringent emission standards in the 10 proposal. The written comments I have submitted spell 11 out the proposed NOx, PM, standards, I'm not going to 12 read that now. 13 Connecticut DEP recommends one change to the 14 proposed rule when promulgated: Elimination of the 15 four year NOx phase-in so that the proposed vehicle and 16 NOx standards take full effect in 2007, rather than on 17 a percent of sales basis between 2007 and 2010. Not 18 only would the full implementation of the NOx standards 19 in 2007 better address the general national need to 20 counter the upward trend in heavy-duty emissions from 21 projected increased vehicle miles traveled per year, 22 but full NOx implementation by 2007 is especially 23 important to Connecticut's plans to attain and maintain 24 the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. 25 While the US efforts to implement new NOx 299 1 vehicle exhaust controls have been limited in the 2 absence of low-sulfur diesel fuel availability and 3 standards requiring NOx exhaust control on heavy-duty 4 diesel engines, such necessary control technologies are 5 proven effective through a history of use in other 6 countries. For example, several European countries 7 have made rapid progress to develop and implement such 8 technologies, given the 2005 effective date for the 9 Euro IV emissions standards and corresponding 10 low-sulfur fuel requirements. 11 Today, the DEP stresses the importance of 12 additional ozone precursor reductions to Connecticut, 13 given the severe ozone NAAQS non-attainment status of 14 the New York/New Jersey/Long air quality region, of 15 which southwestern Connecticut is a portion. In 1999 16 the one-hour ozone standard was exceeded in Connecticut 17 on 11 days, eight-hour standard on 33 days. In 2000, 18 the one-hour standard has been exceeded on 3 days, and 19 eight-hour standard has been exceeded on seven days so 20 far this summer, as of June 14. 21 Connecticut's one-hour ozone NAAQS attainment 22 demonstration as submitted to EPA relies on a suite of 23 local, regional, and national emission control 24 strategies to achieve the attainment of the one-hour 25 ozone NAAQS by 2007. The Tier 2 requirements were 300 1 identified as an important part of the weight of 2 evidence to demonstrate attainment. 3 With respect to Connecticut's State 4 Implementation Plan, EPA has identified that additional 5 emission reductions are required to achieve the 6 one-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in 7 southwestern Connecticut. Both the vehicle and fuel 8 standards of the proposed rule will assist Connecticut 9 to achieve the necessary reductions to attain the 10 one-hour ozone standards. 11 In addition, the NOx engine standards of the 12 proposed rule will provide needed additional reductions 13 essential to maintain ozone attainment in light of the 14 expected continued growth in vehicle miles traveled up 15 to and beyond 2007. 16 Thank you for the opportunity to state 17 Connecticut's strong commendation to EPA for all of its 18 mobile source efforts, of which the proposed 19 requirements are a crucial addition. In conclusion, 20 the Connecticut DEP encourages EPA to move forward with 21 expeditious promulgation of this rule as proposed, with 22 consideration to strengthening the NOx engine and 23 vehicle requirements by eliminating the proposed four 24 year phase-in. Thank you. 25 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. The next 301 1 testimony is Marian Feinberg. 2 MS. MARIAN FEINBERG: Thank you for this 3 opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Marian 4 Feinberg, I'm the Health Coordinator of the South Bronx 5 Clean Air Coalition. And former chairperson of the 6 Community Advisory Board Environmental (inaudible). 7 After World War II, the United States 8 Congress and various state legislators, including our 9 own, in their dubious wisdom chose to invest billions 10 of our tax dollars in a national highway system, and 11 dis-invested in the rail freight and public 12 transportation. 13 We are today reaping the fruit of this 14 indulgence to the petroleum and oil industry in the 15 form of unprecedented increased pollution and an 16 incredibly frightening rise in the level of respiratory 17 illness in the United States and, most particularly, in 18 many of our communities. 19 Nowhere is this more true than here in New 20 York City, which is not connected to the freightway 21 system, and therefore has tremendously increased the 22 amount of truck traffic through our city streets and 23 through our city road system. And it is within New 24 York City, precisely in the most industrialized areas, 25 all of them are low income, primarily communities of 302 1 color, communities that bear this burden of this truck 2 traffic. 3 For example, of the 12 community board 4 districts in the Bronx, (inaudible) 16 percent of the 5 children hospitalized for asthma in New York City. 6 This figure is astounding. One out of every six 7 children hospitalized in New York City comes from a 8 small area in the South Bronx. 9 And it is this area precisely which is the 10 highest volume of truck traffic. (Inaudible). The 11 high volume of truck traffic (inaudible), other more 12 stationery air pollution sources in the community, so 13 the people are bearing a double burden. 14 In the Monthaven area of the South Bronx, 15 which has the highest asthma rate in the Bronx, for 16 example, is where we have one of the largest 17 concentrations of high-rise public housing in the 18 entire United States. And these units of public 19 houses, not coincidentally, face this whole major truck 20 transportation hub with highways and bridges all joined 21 together. 22 It's a housing that -- if you go to those 23 buildings, you see that the color of the brick on the 24 side that is facing the highway is a completely 25 different color brick than the side that's facing the 303 1 city street. And if the brick has changed color, 2 imagine what color the lungs of the people are who live 3 in those buildings. 4 There are also a number of public schools 5 which face and literally sit on those highways. A 6 number of schools in our area in the South Bronx have a 7 third of their students with asthma. And if you talked 8 to principals in these schools, you will find that they 9 are trying to grapple with, you know, an absenteeism 10 rate due to asthma, which is really affecting the 11 quality of education. 12 It's even also affecting their education 13 funding, because the funding formula is based on the 14 number of students present on a given day. So they are 15 further penalized, because it lowers the funding rate 16 to our schools, which we're in dire need of as well. 17 So all these effects multiply. We and you, 18 and our environmental representatives here today, have 19 a really unprecedented opportunity with this new rule 20 to begin to address a situation which didn't fall from 21 the sky, but was created by a series of political and 22 funding decisions several decades ago which have 23 brought us to this point. 24 You know, we're not talking about an 25 infectious disease which sprang of how (inaudible), 304 1 this sprang out of human decisions and we can help it 2 be redressed by human decisions. 3 We also really want to mention -- because we 4 understand that industry representatives are talking 5 about how much these changes are going to cost. 6 We can tell you by some of things that we've 7 mentioned here today by many other stories, we can tell 8 you, I can tell you personally, because I grew up in a 9 household with a sibling and a parent who had asthma, 10 and I saw the children hospitalized there, and the 11 parents who had to stay off work, neglect their other 12 children at home, to stay by the bedside of a 13 hospitalized child -- 14 But of what would it have cost the family, 15 what does it cost in loss of work productivity of 16 either an affected adult or adult caretaker of a sick 17 child, of what the psychic cost is to the siblings? 18 A very articulate man talked about being in 19 school, and he said some words about his mom and if he 20 is not home to take care of her. Now this was -- you 21 can tell by his presentation, he is an extremely 22 intelligent boy. If that boy's attention is spent on 23 being worried about his mom, his creative potential is 24 being lowered by the fact that his attention is 25 someplace else. 305 1 That's an incredible loss to him to our 2 communities, and to the society as a whole. Not to 3 mention the incredible cost to every single person of 4 the rising costs of health care, and the rising 5 percentage of health care dollars spent on illnesses 6 which are affected by diesel emissions. And I don't 7 want to go into the specifics of what sulfur does and 8 whatnot, because people ahead of me have done that 9 perfectly adequately. 10 I just really want to urge you to implement 11 these new regulations as soon as possible. If they can 12 have an accelerated phase-in, we would really like to 13 see that. Because we're talking about a large toll on 14 human life, on social life, on community life, and on 15 the educational life of our nation. Thank you very 16 much. 17 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. The next speaker is 18 Barbara Warren. 19 MS. BARBARA WARREN: My name is Barbara 20 Warren, (inaudible) Consumer Policy Institute, New 21 York. We appreciate the fact that the EPA is holding a 22 hearing in New York, given the significant air quality 23 problems in this metropolitan area. And we hope to 24 hear that you will be scheduling more hearings in New 25 York in the future. 306 1 There is no question that a stringent 2 heavy-duty diesel (inaudible), and will have an 3 enormous impact. They applaud EPA for their efforts on 4 the current proposal. 5 But while talking about the health effects of 6 diesel and the nationwide benefits of this rule, it 7 falls short in addressing the particular populations 8 that will continue to be impacted: Children, persons 9 with respiratory or cardiac disease, communities living 10 on top of and breathing diesel exhaust, and certain 11 entire large metropolitan areas like New York. 12 While EPA's rule clearly is beneficial, it 13 fails to consider the unique situations in large 14 metropolitan areas. When NESCAUM looked at this issue, 15 it was very clear the extent to which New York State 16 and the New York metropolitan area within New York 17 State dominated the diesel contributions. 18 What this means is that even under the most 19 stringent version and the earliest implementation, 20 there will still be these inequities and unacceptable 21 health risks. This should be addressed up front with 22 the proper promulgation of this rule. Regulating 23 non-road diesel engines and their fuel make a 24 significant contribution, particularly in urban areas. 25 In fact, there are very good reasons to make 307 1 sure that all diesel fuel meets the sulfur limitations 2 so there is no opportunity for high sulphur fuel; and, 3 number two, make sure that there are regular in-use 4 emissions testing for all diesel engines road and 5 non-road. 6 We would like to mention that such in-use 7 testing -- we're already concerned about the concept of 8 compliance flexibility for refiners. If EPA is to 9 provide compliance flexibility, to address the 10 unacceptable health risks in certain large metropolitan 11 areas we urge EPA, therefore, that if it decides to 12 provide this flexibility, to insist that the fuel in 13 large metropolitan areas meet the most stringent 14 standards at the earliest date. 15 We believe industry changes must be balanced 16 by sufficient health-based information about the 17 (inaudible) and unacceptable health risks that will 18 likely remain even after implementation, and we urge 19 EPA to prepare that kind of information right now. 20 Thank you very much for your attention. 21 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. And the last 22 speaker, Leon Tulton. 23 MR. LEON TULTON: Hi, I'm Leon Tulton. I'm a 24 research assistant at Mount Sinai School of Medicine 25 and I'm here on behalf of Dr. Phillip (inaudible). 308 1 Unfortunately he couldn't make it today, so I'm going 2 to read a letter on his behalf. The panel has a copy 3 of the letter and a copy of the report. 4 He writes: I am writing to express my strong 5 support for the proposed emission standards recommended 6 by the US Environmental Protection Agency. As a 7 pediatrician who treats children with asthma, I have 8 witnessed the effects of fine particulate matter on the 9 respiratory health of New York City children. Asthma 10 is a major problem in our community, especially 11 (inaudible) is the leading cause of hospital admissions 12 and major cause (inaudible). 13 In a study coauthored (inaudible) last year, 14 we examined the asthma hospitalization rate. We found 15 communities that had the highest asthma hospitalization 16 rate and high (inaudible). Are the most vulnerable. 17 One reason for their great vulnerability is that 18 children in these communities are disproportionately 19 (inaudible) especially components of diesel exhaust. 20 As a physician and health advocate, I proudly extend 21 (inaudible). Sincerely, Phillip J. (inaudible) MD. 22 Thank you very much for your time. 23 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. Next 24 panel. If we could first start off with Dave Evans and 25 Tanya Lena. 309 1 MR. DAVID EVANS: Thank you very much. My 2 name is David Evans, and I'm an Associate Professor at 3 Columbia University in the School of Public Health in 4 the Department of Pediatrics. 5 I'm testifying here today in support of the 6 proposed rule for both personal and professional 7 reasons. 8 My job is developing health education 9 programs for kids with asthma. My open air (inaudible) 10 program that is used now in many schools, and 11 (inaudible) how to take care of asthma. 12 There are many things that can I tell them to 13 do about taking medicines and modifying the 14 environment, but one of my biggest frustrations -- and 15 when air pollution is a major contributor -- it's not 16 that easy to do something about that. 17 I think this is going to make a huge 18 difference for people with asthma. The cap of 15 parts 19 per million and reducing nitrous oxide by 95 percent 20 and particulates by 90 percent will have a major health 21 benefit. And I think it's very important to implement 22 this rule early, because further delay is really going 23 to prolong the effect of diesel emissions. 24 The added costs to truck manufacturers seem 25 to be small. Estimates I've read are around 310 1 1 percent. And although the added cost on fuel are 2 slightly larger, I think they're well worth the 3 benefits in health. 4 It seems to me it's (inaudible). It's kind 5 of difficult sometimes to estimate the exact cost of 6 the health benefits due to something like this. Just 7 as it's difficult to estimate how much less (inaudible) 8 people who have to pay in repainting their homes. 9 There are many subtle health benefits, but 10 health ones are not so subtle and they are very 11 important to measure. I think the direct costs for 12 asthma care now are about $12 million a year, and they 13 don't cover many of the indirect losses such as in 14 terms of loss of productivity. 15 I think taking these (inaudible) is of great 16 importance, because diesel emissions, such as nitrogen 17 oxide and particles that are harmful to the lungs, 18 particularly of the elderly. These pollutants reduce 19 lung function. Your airways actually contract and make 20 it more difficult to breathe. 21 In addition, as the next speaker is going to 22 tell you, we now have evidence that inhaled diesel 23 emissions (inaudible). They interact inside the lung 24 in various biological processes, which make the 25 allergies worse. Which is bad news for the 10 percent 311 1 of those who have asthma. And also for the 25 percent 2 of the population who have allergies and are allergic 3 (inaudible). 4 Children are at particular risk. And 5 children run around more, they breathe faster, they are 6 more active physically. So they are actually inhaling 7 more because their bodies need more oxygen. So I think 8 it's really important that we take this step towards 9 securing good health for their sake as well as our 10 own. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 11 MS. TANYA LENA: My name is Tanya Lena, I'm a 12 graduate student at the Columbia School of Public 13 Health. My research is currently on community exposure 14 to particulates, and also the mechanisms of diesel 15 toxicity. 16 We have noticed that in New York City in 17 communities with high asthma rates (inaudible) to 18 diesel particulates. And in pilot studies done at the 19 Columbia School of Public Health, there is a strong 20 correlation between regional traffic densities and 21 asthma. Elemental carbon is a very specific marker for 22 diesel exhaust particulate exposure. 23 Even more important, we have shown in Harlem 24 and in the South Bronx (inaudible) are significantly 25 higher than EPA published for averages for urban areas 312 1 across the US. So that (inaudible) communities to the 2 diesel particulates and they also have serious 3 respiratory problems. 4 The physical and chemical properties of 5 diesel exhaust particulates have been well studied. 6 It's particularly important (inaudible) most of these 7 have a diameter of less than 2.5 (inaudible). In 8 addition, these diesel particulates (inaudible) 9 allergens that are in the environment, such as dust. 10 We sent you the studies. 11 Epidemiological studies completed in Europe 12 suggest also that diesel emissions from trucks are 13 associated in particular with asthma and allergies. 14 (inaudible) found that children who (inaudible) 15 constant outside their homes were two times (inaudible) 16 residential exposure. 17 These results confirm of a number of studies 18 in the Netherlands the study of (inaudible) and lung 19 function in children age 7 to 12. The studies are 20 (inaudible) associated with truck traffic and with 21 automobiles, and were associated with (inaudible). 22 More important, mechanistic research is now 23 providing us with some explanations with how diesel may 24 be associated with (inaudible). For instance, DS 25 Sanchez, et al, working in Los Angeles has shown that 313 1 when healthy volunteers are (inaudible) that they're 2 producing extremely elevated levels of IGE, which is an 3 immunoglobulin which is indicated (inaudible). So what 4 this means is that those that are exposed in 5 combination are having dramatically enhanced 6 (inaudible). 7 These findings are of concern for US inner 8 city residents, precisely the combination. And there 9 are in vitro studies that have been done. For 10 instance, (inaudible) found that pH in diesel exhaust 11 particulates (inaudible). 12 In conclusion, there is a growing body of 13 evidence both epidemiologic and mechanistic (inaudible) 14 may be playing a role in the present (inaudible) of 15 asthma. 16 So to paraphrase, the scientific evidence is 17 in now which supports the testimony you have been 18 hearing from the residents throughout the day. And 19 it's certain that the regulations would help reduce the 20 asthma prevalence. 21 For these reasons, we urge the EPA to hold 22 fast to the target of 97 percent reduction; 23 furthermore, we urge speedy implementation and proper 24 enforcement of the regulations. 25 I would just like to conclude with a personal 314 1 experience. When I was doing some of these exposure 2 studies, I developed a wheeze and bronchial 3 constriction. And I had never had asthma symptoms 4 before, and now it has gone away. So an anecdotal 5 revelation about the exposure and the connection to the 6 respiratory system. And I think it's a very strong 7 link. So I think it's an ideal opportunity to act, I 8 believe, in a preventative manner. 9 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. The next 10 speaker is John Guinan. 11 MR. JOHN PAUL GUINAN: Good afternoon and 12 thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. My 13 name is John Paul Guinan, and I am a Staff Attorney and 14 Clean Air Advocate for New Jersey PIRG, the New Jersey 15 Public Interest Research Group. 16 I am here today to urge to you adopt the well 17 needed emission standards for heavy-duty trucks and 18 buses. We are certainly welcoming many of the 19 comments, but the one thing I would like you to keep in 20 mind is that we have an air pollution problem. I know 21 that you have been sitting in those chairs, I want you 22 to keep in mind that during every minute you've been in 23 your chairs thousands of people are suffering from 24 pollution-related illnesses in New Jersey alone. 25 That's why I'm here today. Each New Jersey 315 1 summer, one of every three days it is unhealthy to 2 breath the air due to high ozone levels. This is 3 particularly troublesome for the over 1 million people 4 that have chronic respiratory illnesses. 5 Summertime in New Jersey now means that we 6 see well over a quarter million asthma attacks, 7 resulting in a 26 percent increase in hospital room 8 admissions on bad air quality days. Between 1982 and 9 1995, the number of people in New Jersey with asthma 10 went up 58 percent, even more astonishing is the 11 increase of 90 percent for pediatric asthma. 12 It's not just asthma, as we've heard from 13 many people before. We have studies that link diesel 14 exhaust to cancer and other problematic diseases. 15 Although big trucks and buses are among the 16 largest pollution sources, the oil industry and engine 17 manufacturers have done little to curb this pollution. 18 In fact, we've seen that they've cheated on their 19 emissions tests in the past, which resulted in an extra 20 1.3 million tons of smog-forming pollution each year. 21 In order to protect the public health, we 22 must require drastic reductions in pollution from these 23 large trucks and buses. However, because high sulfur 24 fuel will poison the new diesel clean-up technologies, 25 we must ensure that all diesel fuel is fully cleaned up 316 1 and readily available before the trucks are required to 2 clean up. 3 Therefore, in order to ensure that all 4 cleaner trucks will have access to the clean fuel 5 necessary to operate, we urge you to require diesel 6 sulfur level with a cap of no more than 15 parts per 7 million nationwide by 2006. 8 Cleaning up diesel fuel by 97 percent will 9 allow the EPA to cut smog-forming pollution by 10 95 percent in 2007, and soot pollution by 90 percent by 11 2007. However, the EPA proposing to wait until 2010 to 12 fully clean up smog-forming pollution from these 13 vehicles. This means that Americans will have to wait 14 another ten years before all new trucks are cleaned up. 15 We'll have to have another ten years of bad air quality 16 and another ten years of bad asthma attacks. 17 In addition, the EPA should take measures to 18 ensure that big trucks are meeting the emission 19 standards on the roads, not just during the engine 20 tests. Specifically, both in-use and on-board 21 diagnostic equipment should be required for all 22 heavy-duty trucks by 2007. 23 Finally, we should increase the use of 24 advanced technology vehicles such as electric buses or 25 fuel cell trucks. The EPA should include a provision 317 1 in the heavy-duty rule that would provide incentives to 2 introduce more of these cleaner, efficient diesel 3 alternatives into the heavy-duty fleet. 4 These provisions are necessary to protect the 5 public health. We ask that you include them in the 6 final rulemaking. Thank you. 7 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. The next speaker is 8 Omar Freilla. 9 MR. OMAR FREILLA: I planned on coming up 10 here with this very scary looking white construction 11 painter outfit and some gas masks, but unfortunately I 12 got thrown out by the hotel staff. So imagine that I'm 13 sitting up here with my friends in a scary looking 14 outfit and some gas masks and some scary looking 15 (inaudible) and some banners saying "justice now" and 16 "people not profits," and, you know, "healthy kids, 17 not fat cats." Things like that. So just imagine 18 that, all right. 19 All right, all right, but that's okay, 20 because I think that the fact that I will be repeating 21 what everyone has already said means that everyone else 22 pretty much seems to be in accord. So let common sense 23 decide what regulation is going to be drafted. 24 My name is Omar Freilla, and I am with the 25 New York City Environmental Justice Alliance. And am 318 1 speaking on behalf of the Environmental Justice 2 Alliance. (inaudible) I am urging you today to adopt 3 the toughest and strongest standards on diesel that you 4 can possibly imagine, that you can possibly put to the 5 (inaudible). 6 We have already heard from millions of people 7 who have come out here today that diesel is a threat to 8 our health. People have testified that it causes 9 asthma, is a trigger for asthma attacks. The World 10 Health Organization has acknowledged, the American Lung 11 Association has acknowledged, the Environmental 12 Protection Agency has acknowledged in the past, and it 13 seems like a million and one studies. 14 Over 30 studies (inaudible) diesel exhaust is 15 actually a carcinogen and can induce cancer. It's also 16 been linked to heart disease, and there are many other 17 studies that show numerous other effects of diesel 18 fuel. 19 So in my opinion (inaudible) we already 20 know -- we already know, that diesel fuel, diesel 21 exhaust, particulates, all of these, all of these items 22 lead to reduced health. It reduces your life-span, 23 increases mortality, and just makes life a -- life bad 24 to live at times. 25 In our communities, in low income communities 319 1 and in communities of color, already we feel the effect 2 stronger. It's in our communities where you see 3 communities of people who are exposed to the greater 4 amount of toxins, the greater amounts of traffic. 5 In New York City, 80 percent of diesel of bus 6 depots are located in communities of color as places 7 where you have more than 50 percent of people in 8 color. Over 80 percent of the bus depots are here. 9 These are the places where buses drive in, buses have 10 to go to these facilities. While the bus line may be 11 (inaudible) they all converge on certain places. And 12 here in New York, Northern Manhattan and Washington 13 Heights, Harlem, six out of eight depots are here. 14 And other communities around the city are 15 also innudated, but they also apply to waste transfer 16 stations. Most of the industry facilities here in the 17 city are in low income communities of color, and these 18 are the places that are most vulnerable. These people 19 are constantly innudated. 20 Not only do you have a situation where it's 21 the most vulnerable people who are dealing with having 22 a facility there that attracts traffic, attracts 23 trucks, and attracts buses, but in many cases you've 24 got truckers you've got (inaudible). So if there is a 25 truck route that's only supposed to go down a street 320 1 that doesn't have any residences, and truckers taking 2 illegal routes just because it's the quickest path, 3 people who are (inaudible) the windows are open in the 4 summertime -- you need to breathe. 5 And studies have shown that the air outside 6 (inaudible) so there's a lot of talk about well, we 7 need to deal with indoor air pollution (inaudible) 8 because the air that is outside has the same number of 9 (inaudible) you will you still find much of the same 10 things that induce asthma attacks. 11 Studies have also shown, you know, we talk 12 about a trucks's life-span. (Inaudible) the engine 13 that is used ultimately winds up being in your delivery 14 man's truck. So thinking that (inaudible) engine is in 15 new tractor/trailer. So we need to think about the 16 life-span of the vehicle and how that plays into 17 effect. 18 So those are the issues, just some of the 19 issues. We talk about who's being affected by that. 20 Because you have communities that are bearing the 21 brunts and have typically been ignored, and the health 22 situation has been ignored for a long time. And it's 23 about time, and I'm glad that something like this is 24 happening. It's really going to impact the lives of 25 people who have been suffering the most, and who for a 321 1 long time have been really ignored. And this is really 2 the first time that it's the (inaudible). 3 Asthma isn't the only thing, but it certainly 4 is in epidemic proportions here in New York City. We 5 have places where we talk about differences in asthma 6 rates. New York City has three times the national 7 average for asthma hospitalizations. And the Bronx, as 8 a whole, it's four times the national average. In the 9 South Bronx, it's eight times the national average. 10 You start to get a feel for the 11 neighborhoods, the places that are being affected by 12 this. There was a study that was done just in the city 13 and we see places with like (inaudible) times the rate 14 of asthma hospitalization than in the places like 15 Staten Island, where you don't have trucks barreling 16 down your street. That's the kind of situation that 17 we're living in. 18 And we know it's going to affect anyone with 19 a lung, anyone who breathes air, their lives are going 20 to be improved. But I would like for you to recognize 21 that there are communities in the city and communities 22 in the country, and in these communities the quality of 23 life in these communities has been ignored for far too 24 long. You get really -- we don't need to do this. You 25 need to weight the benefits. 322 1 The oil industry is saying that they 2 (inaudible). The American economy will not collapse 3 versus the health and the quality of life of the 4 children who are actually bearing the brunts of all of 5 the diesel fumes, the people who are people affected by 6 this. 7 So I'm asking you to cut the sulfur levels 8 (inaudible). The oil industry is crying they say that 9 they can't cut sulfur any less. And really, 7 percent 10 or nothing, that's the minimum that is needed in order 11 to make sure that the equipment that would be able to 12 actually clean the fuel will not be contaminated. 13 The EPA should be taking measures to ensure 14 that big trucks are meeting the specific standards. 15 There should be in-use and on-board particulate 16 equipment tests, so we don't have truck companies and 17 industry manufacturers that are lying about whether or 18 not their trucks actually meet the tests. 19 And we need alternatives to diesel. And I'm 20 really asking, really put in some wording and make sure 21 that we have some sort of standard that's before 2007. 22 But before 2007, there needs to be some sort of push on 23 agencies to actually push as strong as they can for 24 cleaner engines and having alternatives to diesel. 25 Thank you. 323 1 MR. TIMOTHY LOGAN: My name is Timothy Logan, 2 and I'm here today representing the Organization of 3 Waterfront Neighborhoods which is a coalition 4 representing community groups from all five boroughs of 5 New York City. I think it's about 25 community groups 6 as it stands now. Most of the work that we do focuses 7 on solid waste issues, so while I may not look like a 8 professional athlete, I talk trash for a living. 9 The one thing that we've been seeing in New 10 York City and we appreciate, is that the federal 11 government has been doing a lot -- particularly a lot 12 more than the state and local governments have on solid 13 waste issues, but what we've seen is a proliferation of 14 waste transfer stations and the movement of waste 15 throughout New York City by diesel trucks, whether they 16 be (inaudible) trucks, whether collecting, or whether 17 they (inaudible) -- all trucks, when the city decided 18 that they wanted to close down the landfill on Staten 19 Island, rather than coming up with a plan and waiting 20 until they could fully implement it themselves where 21 they trucking it, they're trucking it through the 22 regular corridors where all the other trucks move. 23 At the same time, EPA and DES put in new air 24 monitors. They were switching from PM 10 to PM 2.5 25 monitors. A great thing. The program, you are 324 1 required to have a base line of three years. All of a 2 sudden, you have no base line on which to pursue the 3 regulations, because you haven't had them in place for 4 three years. And then you go into court and find 5 judges who were appointed by less-than-public-friendly 6 politicians, who are basically fighting against PM 2.5 7 standards. So now the only monitors that we have in 8 place have no base line, and it may not be a worthwhile 9 standard. 10 All this is to say that the same communities 11 are being impacted again, and again, and again. When 12 they site industries, whether they be waste transfers 13 stations, which I work on, or any other type of 14 industry that is considered to be a bad industry that 15 you don't want to have in your neighborhood, next door 16 to you, where do you think that ends up? 17 It ends up in a low income community, or 18 communities of color. It ends up in communities like 19 South Jamaica, communities like Sunset Park, 20 Williamsburg, Hunts Point. You have diesel stations 21 throughout Northern Manhattan. This is a problem, and 22 it doesn't get solved by (inaudible). 23 We can't wait ten years. A decade is another 24 ten year's worth of children who are coming down with 25 asthma and dying. And when we talk about dying, it's 325 1 not an abstract, something that nobody knows who's died 2 from it. We have a member of our board (inaudible) 3 died of asthma at 25. How many 25-year olds do you 4 know who have heart failure? It's not from a natural 5 cause, it was asthma and years of asthma medications 6 that damaged his heart. 7 This is the type of thing that is not being 8 reported on a regular basis. We now know that over 9 50 percent of people are being affected. Well, that 10 means that most of these truck movements are harming 11 more than 50 percent of the world population. 12 So basically it doesn't come down to when you 13 (inaudible) have happen, or whether you live in that 14 city or another city, and most people do, that's where 15 people are living these days (inaudible) a large extent 16 is based on the way the industry is set up. 17 And when industry says they can't afford to 18 do that, why can they not? Clearly whenever costs are 19 raised they pass it on to the consumer. 20 So what's the point in delaying and having so 21 many more people injured and harmed? 2007 is not soon 22 enough. Yesterday is not soon enough. That's the 23 issue that all the people have come out here about, 24 people are having press conferences about before 25 9 o'clock this morning. It's now almost 7:30. People 326 1 continue to talk and they continue to feel in their 2 hearts and have tears well up in their eyes over what's 3 going on, because the people who came here, the 4 community people, whether they are below income, or 5 whether they (inaudible) to live next door, or they get 6 caught up somewhere along the way, they know that's 7 what's going on. That's what this is all about. 8 So when we talk about putting these standards 9 in effect and whether DaimlerChrysler is against 10 this -- you know, she's getting a big paycheck and 11 she's going to continue to get a big paycheck. 12 But how many people are no longer living on 13 this earth because this did not go into effect as soon 14 as possible? There is no reason why we can't put this 15 into effect. Why don't we start phasing it in now? It 16 takes three years, it doesn't have to wait seven years, 17 ten years. That's what's going on. Thank you very 18 much. 19 MS. MARIA BOTTINO: Let me just add a little 20 aside that I can't see. I can't see humidity and 21 smog. I can't wear my contacts because my eyes burn, 22 so I have to wear my glasses and they are not quite as 23 efficient. 24 Members of the Environmental Protection 25 Agency, thank you for the opportunity to testify here 327 1 today. This hearing marks a historic step in the 2 regulatory process of the use of diesel fuel in our 3 country with this first public hearing in the nation. 4 We hope you craft legislation that will 5 safeguard our public health, protect our national 6 environment, and improve the quality of life for years 7 to come. 8 As it is currently produced, diesel fuel 9 contains high levels of sulphur. Diesel fuel emissions 10 have been linked to increased rates of asthma, cancer, 11 heart disease, and other serious diseases. The 12 nitrogen emissions released by diesel is a major 13 contributor to respiratory illness, particularly during 14 the hot summer months. 15 We New Yorkers are all too familiar with the 16 admonitions. This is particularly dangerous to 17 individuals with compromised immune systems, the 18 elderly, and children. Pollution is also a major 19 contributing factor to low birth rate babies. 20 Nitrogen oxide, which produces a third of the 21 smog along the Northeast United States, is released 22 into the atmosphere by the fleet of diesel trucks and 23 buses that move along our streets and thoroughfares. 24 The (inaudible) of our city continues to 25 allow its major thoroughfares, such as Canal Street, 328 1 Houston Street, the lower East Side, in Chinatown, and 2 Broadway, and even our residential streets to be choked 3 with diesel truck traffic. While New York is a leader 4 in finance, technology, and business, in the area of 5 public transportation, this city has lacked behind 6 other metropolitan areas in converting to clean burning 7 fuel. It's only recently that it will be forcing its 8 Metropolitan Transportation Authority to replace aging 9 buses with cleaner burning fuel buses. 10 As the Congressmember representing the lower 11 East Side, Chinatown, Williamsburg, and other low 12 income communities, I represent these communities. 13 These communities have historically been the dumping 14 grounds for waste transfer stations, electrical power 15 plants, industry plants, bus depots, and even oil 16 spills. We say enough is enough. 17 Communities of color, particularly 18 African/American and Latinos, have among the highest 19 asthma rates in the city of New York. (Inaudible) 20 found that Latino communities in particular are more 21 susceptible to respiratory ailments than others. And 22 Dr. Gene Ford of Harlem Hospital is conducting research 23 to determine whether Puerto Ricans suffer more severe 24 effects of asthma than other Latino communities. 25 On another front, (inaudible) expanded, while 329 1 building a state-of-the-art clean natural gas burner. 2 If you read the fine print carefully, they retain the 3 right to convert to burning diesel if the price of 4 natural gas becomes too high, and it is they who 5 determine how to define "high." 6 My office is committed to supporting efforts 7 to have this criteria eliminated before any future plan 8 is allowed to go online. I shortly will unveil a major 9 policy (inaudible). 10 Let us sound the first bell hereby affirming 11 that diesel fuel should be 98 percent sulfur free, 12 diesel engines should be (inaudible) and that these 13 regulations should be implemented immediately rather 14 than be phased-in over three years. That all New York 15 City buses and trucks should utilize the cleanest 16 available fuel. That all New York City power plants 17 should utilize the cleanest available fuel. 18 If we agree on these basic principles, we can 19 move forward on this critical piece. With this, we 20 will have the basis of a more intelligent environment. 21 Thank you very, very much. 22 MR. ROCKY CHIN: My name is Rocky Chin. I'm 23 a civil rights attorney, but I'm testifying today as 24 (inaudible) and also a resident of the lower East 25 Side. I live in a six building (inaudible), which 330 1 overlooks the FDR Drive and I work in an agency, a 2 civil rights agency on the West Side, which overlooks 3 the West Side Highway. 4 During the time that I'm not working or 5 staying at home, I hang around in the area between 6 which is Chinatown and the lower East Side. So you 7 could say that I spend a lot of time around traffic, 8 around trucks, around a lot of idling. 9 And I wanted to -- I know a lot of people 10 have talked about different parts of the city, but I 11 wanted to underscore how this part of the city has 12 gotten increasingly congested. Part of this is because 13 lower Manhattan squeezes everything together, so the 14 streets are narrower and the streets are used for cross 15 transit. And Canal Street is increasingly utilized for 16 truck traffic. 17 This is a very diverse community. A lot of 18 businesses, a lot of -- Fulton Fish Market which, as 19 you know, if you go into that area in the nighttime, 20 has trucks idling all through the night. And on the 21 West Side you have, of course as people already 22 testified, an incredible amount of traffic. So you 23 have idling, idling, a lot of traffic, a lot of 24 trucks. 25 Now I'm testify here as someone who has 331 1 generally dealt with civil rights issues, race issues, 2 issues of discrimination, and I would like to just give 3 you an anecdote about something that I have experienced 4 myself that I thought was maybe appropriate for this 5 hearing. 6 A couple of years ago I had a chance to 7 testify and to speak in Japan, and the subject was 8 human rights in the corporate culture. And I remember 9 how I was supposed to speak about human rights in the 10 corporate culture in Japan and while I was arriving in 11 the airplane, I happened to run into a bunch of 12 environmental activists as they were attending the 13 Kyoto Conference on Global Warming. 14 And it made me think, after speaking with a 15 number of these activists, how the issues that we 16 address are connected. And that we really need to see 17 the inter-connectedness, not only about how a lot of 18 the communities that we grew up in have been impacted, 19 but also how we, as a society, benefit from cleaner 20 air, better race relations, all these things really 21 make for a better society. 22 So here we have a lot of problems, because 23 most of the people testifying, I would say probably 24 90 percent, are for very strong regulations. But the 25 challenge is really quite dramatic, because a small 332 1 percentage is opposed to this, and they wield quite a 2 lot of power through the channels that they use. 3 So I think I want to underscore applaud for 4 EPA taking very strong measures, but I want to end with 5 one of the problems that we have in our community is 6 trying to figure out what is the incidence of asthma 7 and so forth. A number of people have testified about 8 studies, I just want to talk about the Chinese, which 9 is a large community in the United States. 10 The Chinese community does not have a lot of 11 health clinics and so forth. (Inaudible) and there 12 aren't really a lot of studies done, but anecdotal 13 information is quite available. 14 For example, a number of people in the 15 community have said that particularly the children who 16 to go school, for example, at Intermediate School 131, 17 this is the largest intermediate school predominately 18 Chinese, immigrant kids have problems with respiratory 19 problems, but these haven't necessarily been linked to 20 trucks. But 131 sits at the entrance of Manhattan 21 Bridge, one of the major areas where trucks are coming 22 in and spewing pollution every day. And Canal Street, 23 as has been said before, has an incredible amount of 24 traffic, and yet we don't really know what the monitors 25 are producing. I don't know. I know there are state 333 1 and city and federal (inaudible) and I think there 2 needs to be a lot more study as to what's happening 3 along these corridors, and specifically linking it up 4 to studies of the incidence of asthma and other kinds 5 of respiratory illness. 6 The (inaudible) is finishing an audit of 7 their own cases, it will be completed at the end of 8 year. It's high time that we connected with what the 9 EPA is doing. Our communities do not have enough 10 health resources so that we can research these 11 problems. 12 I want to thank you. I happened to have had 13 asthma -- some say you never get rid of it. I happened 14 to live in Los Angeles, and I thanked God when I came 15 here, there's no smog. Little did I realize that I was 16 going into the one of the most polluted urban areas of 17 the country. Thank you very much. 18 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Next is Ian Taylor. 19 MR. IAN TAYLOR: My name is Ian Taylor, 20 and I'm a policy analyst for the Clean Air Council 21 founded in 1967. The Clean Air Council is a 22 Pennsylvania-based nonprofit member organization 23 working through a combination of public education, 24 community advocacy, and oversight of government 25 enforcement of environmental laws to ensure that we can 334 1 all live in a healthy environment with clean air. 2 The Clean Air Council has offices in 3 Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and 4 Wilmington, Delaware. The Council is perhaps best 5 known for its willingness to sue the Environmental 6 Protection Agency when they do not properly implement 7 the Clean Air Act. 8 Thank you for allowing me to testify today on 9 this important issue. On behalf of the Clean Air 10 Council, I urge you to adopt these proposed 11 rulemakings. The quality of America's air is a serious 12 environmental health issue. Emissions from diesel 13 engines continue to pollute the air and endanger the 14 health of many Americans. 15 Philadelphia has the fourth worst air quality 16 in the nation. According to a recent report by the 17 EPA, the air in Philadelphia County exceeded the 18 federal safety level for cancer by 297 times. Small 19 steps have been taken to reduce the level of 20 particulate matter throughout the greater Philadelphia 21 area. Unfortunately, even low concentrations of PM 22 adversely affect human health. A recent study 23 estimated that 2,599 premature deaths are caused by 24 soot particles in Philadelphia annually. 25 Although the nation as a whole is affected by 335 1 diesel engine emissions, large cities, in particular, 2 are continuing to experience dangerous levels of air 3 pollution. Throughout the country, too many Americans 4 are being forced to breathe high concentrations of 5 harmful particulates each and every day. 6 Less than 2 percent of all vehicles on the 7 road today use diesel fuel. Nevertheless, these 8 vehicles manage to emit more than 50 percent or more of 9 the dangerous soot particles in urban areas, and nearly 10 one-third of all smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions. 11 Soot particles are extremely dangerous and contain more 12 than 40 hazardous pollutants, including many potential 13 or probable carcinogens. Nitrous oxide reacts with 14 volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight 15 to create ground level ozone or smog. Smog exacerbates 16 asthma and other respiratory diseases exacerbates 17 asthma. 18 PM and NOx cause serious public health 19 concerns and contribute to soot and smog pollution that 20 is associated with what I've heard today 40,000 deaths 21 every year, as well as millions of cases of respiratory 22 problems each year. 23 Diesel emissions are also responsible for 24 some 400,000 asthma attacks nationally every year. 25 While air pollution may have more of a long-term health 336 1 effect to otherwise healthy adults, to vulnerable 2 individuals such as children, the elderly, and those 3 with chronic respiratory and cardiovascular problems, 4 it can be deadly. 5 These groups remain disproportionately 6 susceptible to air pollution, and are the first to feel 7 the effects of diesel emissions. Without adequate 8 regulation, diesel engines will continue to adversely 9 affect the environment, increase the number of cases 10 and heart and lung disease, aggravate asthma, and cause 11 additional public health problems. 12 Epidemiologists in approximately 70 cities 13 around the world have consistently found that more 14 people die and are hospitalized during periods when 15 particulate pollution levels rise even a moderate 16 amount. Rarely has such a clear pattern emerged in 17 epidemiology, and most environmental health experts are 18 now convinced that it is not a coincidence. 19 Despite this overwhelming evidence, opponents 20 of the proposed rulemaking have still managed to find 21 fault with the results of epidemiological studies that 22 link particulate matter with adverse health effects. 23 One of the main industry criticisms has been that 24 confounding factors such as temperature, weather, 25 seasonal factors, or co-occurring pollutants could be 337 1 all contributing to the observed health effects 2 associated with particulate matter. Currently, a 3 number of carefully designed studies have been able to 4 single out many such factors giving credence to the 5 fact that PM itself is directly responsible for some of 6 the health effects. 7 Recent examinations have been done using 8 clinical and toxicological studies with personalized 9 exposure to PM to correlate these epidemiological 10 results. Several of these studies were done by 11 examining hospital patients and nursing home residents, 12 deriving data on the actual effects of human exposures 13 to particulate matter; something which had previously 14 been unavailable. The latest results from these 15 correlating personalized studies not only conclude that 16 PM is a major contributing factor, but also suggests 17 some reasons why PM causes adverse health effects. 18 For example in the past year, about a dozen 19 major scientific studies have turned up heart pattern 20 changes in animals and elderly people. One study 21 indicated that the tiny particles of PM seem to alter 22 the normal pulsing of the human heart, and that even 23 the air pollution levels commonly found daily in 24 Philadelphia and other cities across the country are 25 enough to disrupt the body's ability to regulate the 338 1 pumping of blood. Rising particulate counts on a given 2 day are enough to disrupt the beat-to-beat variations 3 that are designed to meet the demands of regular 4 activities ranging from sleep to exercise. 5 This threat is of particular concern to the 6 elderly, those suffering with arrythmia, and those with 7 heart conditions, and lung disease or asthma. Experts 8 have estimated that particulate pollution may account 9 for 1 percent of heart disease fatalities in the United 10 States, amounting to about 10,000 deaths a year. 11 The Clean Air Council calls on the 12 Environmental Protection Agency to adopt the proposed 13 heavy-duty diesel engine and vehicle standards as 14 expeditiously as possible. Adopt highway diesel fuel 15 sulfur control requirements as expeditiously as 16 possible to prevent the poisoning of emission control 17 equipment in trucks and buses. And also to require the 18 retrofit of older vehicles with diesel engines to meet 19 modern emission standards. 20 Many environmentalists have come here today 21 to praise EPA's proposal, but the Council comes here 22 today to say: What took you so long? 23 A recent poll determined that roughly nine 24 out of ten Americans believe that big diesel trucks and 25 buses should be required to use the best available 339 1 pollution control technology. 2 Despite all of this information and 3 knowledge, diesel manufacturers and fuel providers and 4 the federal government have continued to ignore the 5 problem. Current diesel engine and fuel standards 6 remain insufficient and outdated. Although heavy 7 trucks and buses are among the nation's largest 8 pollution sources, the oil industry and engine 9 manufacturers have done remarkable little to reduce the 10 pollution from these sources. In addition, federal 11 standards are currently so weak that most diesel 12 engines are not even required to install readily 13 available pollution controls. 14 The Clean Air Act mandates that the EPA set 15 national ambient air quality standards that will 16 protect public health. There is no doubt that present 17 diesel engine emissions do not reflect this goal. In 18 order to protect and improve public health, the EPA 19 must take the initiative to establish comprehensive 20 reductions in pollution from vehicles with diesel 21 engines. 22 The EPA's proposed rulemakings are a step in 23 the right direction, and should be approved. The 24 proposed rulemakings, however, should be improved. 25 Reducing sulfur in diesel fuel by 97 percent will cut 340 1 smog-forming pollution by 95 percent in 2007 and soot 2 pollution by 90 percent by 2007. Unfortunately, the 3 proposed rulemakings delay implementation of these 4 needed air quality improvements far too long. 5 There is no reason why the EPA cannot shorten 6 the compliance schedule for vehicles containing diesel 7 engines. The standards proposed by the proposed 8 rulemakings may be stringent enough, but the EPA has 9 chosen unnecessarily to delay their implementation. 10 Moreover, because the proposed standards to 11 not take effect for a number of years, Clean Air 12 Council would like to request an additional requirement 13 to the proposed regulation. By the year 2008, two 14 years after almost all the sulfur has been removed from 15 diesel fuel, the Council suggests all heavy-duty trucks 16 and buses 15 years old and less, must comply with the 17 new standards or retrofit with a new converter that 18 would sufficiently reduce their harmful emissions to 19 appropriate standards. 20 Opponents of the EPA's proposal cite 21 increasing costs and a lack of feasible alternatives as 22 obstacles to the implementation of EPA's proposed 23 regulation. In reality, there are a number of options 24 available today that could significantly reduce 25 emission from diesel engines. Natural gas, for 341 1 instance, is an effective replacement for diesel fuel 2 and appears to be cost effective and environmentally 3 sound. 4 Although an extensive cost study has not yet 5 been completed, the Council, along with other 6 environmental groups, believes that regulation will 7 affect the price of diesel only minimally. 8 Furthermore, the benefits of clean air and improved 9 health would certainly exceed a small increase in 10 costs. 11 If EPA does not move expeditiously with these 12 proposed rulemakings, the quality of public health 13 continues to get worse. Sales of diesel engines are 14 rapidly increasing. Approximately 1 million new diesel 15 engines are put to work in the US every year. Unless 16 EPA is willing to aggressively implement the proposed 17 national low sulfur and diesel engine regulations, 18 diesel emissions will continue to have a significant 19 affect on public health. 20 Clean Air Council believes that diesel fuel 21 vehicles should have the same, or equivalent, strict 22 emission standards as gasoline vehicles. Every vehicle 23 designed should be forced to meet the same pollution 24 control standards, regardless of the chosen fuel, 25 vehicle weight, or engine type. 342 1 Air pollution is a dangerous and serious 2 threat to all Americans. Congress intended that the 3 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 would force 4 technological advances in pollution control. Current 5 diesel engine and sulfur in fuel regulations are far 6 too lenient on diesel vehicles and fuels and remain 7 unacceptable. It is time for the federal government to 8 understand this growing health threat and deal with it. 9 These proposed regulations are a step in the right 10 direction. 11 EPA's proposed action is good news for 12 everyone who wants to breathe healthier air, especially 13 children, seniors, and people with existing respiratory 14 problems. This proposal will ensure that they get it. 15 Thank you very much for the time and 16 consideration, and the opportunity to comment on this 17 crucial public matter. 18 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much and we 19 really appreciate you sticking it with out us. 20 Right now the last panel -- unless there are 21 other folks -- James Cimino, Lisa Schreibman and Nancy 22 Gibbs. 23 Is there anyone else in the audience that I 24 have not called that wants to testify? Okay, so the 25 first testifier is James Cimino. 343 1 MR. JAMES CIMINO: I Will submit a more 2 extended form of testimony later on, this will just be 3 very brief. (inaudible). It's quite late in the day 4 and I know we've heard from a variety of interests who 5 have spoken in favor of your proposal. As I've sat 6 here, it's become obvious that the oil industry have no 7 (inaudible). Diesel fumes are bad for our hearts and 8 lungs. These are facts you have heard today several, 9 dozens of times in many different ways. 10 You have also heard (inaudible) assert that 11 the industry dominates the nation's economic 12 (inaudible). When you look at nearly $12 billion 13 profit of industry just in the first quarter, 14 (inaudible) ill or die from diesel related lung disease 15 or other illnesses (inaudible). 16 I would like to applaud EPA for this 17 proposal, but I would like to see a shorter phase-in 18 (inaudible). These proposed rules are a dinosaur step 19 in the right direction. 20 There is no reason to delay. American 21 ingenuity has brought us progress faster and more 22 efficiently during the past 30 years than we realized 23 could be possible. 24 This need is underscored by every child who 25 misses school struggling to breathe, reeling from the 344 1 dirty air produced when buses and delivery truck roll 2 by. The technology industry-wide is not even that 3 (inaudible) it flies in the face of our technological 4 spirit. So vehemently they resisted for all their dire 5 predictions, they are enjoying record profits. Instead 6 of embracing modern technology, the oil industry is in 7 Stone Age. That is why this proposal is so important 8 for making use of the technology that will be good for 9 our health and the environment. 10 On a personal level, as an asthmatic, I 11 cannot wait until I can go running without having to 12 stop between 50 and 100 yards. Thank you. 13 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. The next testifier 14 is Tim Barner. 15 MR. TIM BARNER: I thank you for the 16 opportunity to speak today. My name is Tim Barner, I 17 live in Washington, D.C. and I work for 20/20 Vision. 18 But I'm speaking today in my personal capacity, because 19 my boss is going to speak in Atlanta. 20 When I came to New York, I think it was the 21 former chair earlier in the day who said you were glad 22 to get outside of Washington. I came here in part 23 (inaudible) and have citizen input, so I'm glad to be 24 here with you in New York today. 25 Most of my adult (inaudible). I'm looking 345 1 forward to giving up those techniques of learning to 2 run fast when you see a bus, while you try to keep the 3 black plume away from your head, or frantically rolling 4 up your window. When you live here, you just consider 5 that one of the facts of life. It's obnoxious, but you 6 have to learn to deal with it. 7 The education I've gone through in the last 8 month working for 20/20 is knowing that while it is 9 obnoxious, while it is a fact of life, it's not 10 necessary. I've been lucky I lived in (inaudible) and 11 I've been able to move. But in a way, you do feel 12 trapped. When I live my life in a certain (inaudible) 13 and I realize that there are some options that are 14 doing damage. 15 But the (inaudible) for me is for my kids and 16 grandchildren as well. I want to add my weight of a 17 single voice that with many other people, including 18 those thousands of (inaudible) is that it's the kids 19 who count. I have lived most of my life (inaudible) 20 and I don't want my children to either go without the 21 knowledge (inaudible). And when I say "the knowledge" 22 of something happening negative to them. 23 I want them to know they (inaudible) the 24 political impact earlier in life then perhaps I have, 25 because of the knowledge about what diesel fuel 346 1 emissions mean, and the new technology and what the 2 technology can now mean. 3 I have a two-year old grandson who has Down's 4 Syndrome. He's been in the hospital several times with 5 breathing difficulties. Enough has already been 6 (inaudible) the contribution of diesel engines to 7 polluted air. (Inaudible). 8 I'm disappointed to learn that EPA has 9 delayed waiting to 2010 fully clean-up pollution trucks 10 and buses. 11 I have a son who teaches chess here in New 12 York. I wonder how many days or years (inaudible) by 13 running daily on the sidewalks of New York, and whether 14 it's been so (inaudible). 15 I have another son who works for a landscape 16 company driving trucks working with off-road diesel 17 equipment. (inaudible) but because perhaps the 18 government and business don't want to get together 19 enough to control the diesel air pollution that exists 20 on his job right now. 21 I would also ask you to ensure all these 22 vehicles are meeting the emission standards on the 23 road, and not just during the testing stage. Drivers 24 of vans and trucks are logging more miles and driving 25 hours in the highways and streets (inaudible) know that 347 1 his vehicle is air-conditioned (inaudible) understand 2 recent studies show that's a pollution tunnel which 3 (inaudible) even concentrates (inaudible), many of them 4 being generated by trucks and buses. 5 Some oil and industry interests are telling 6 you that (inaudible) is a good compromise, and I have 7 read (inaudible) if the higher level is permitted, this 8 kind of political compromise (inaudible) only we're 9 being fair about (inaudible) this happens and the 10 emission controls don't work, guess who's going to be 11 coming right back an additional time. 12 I watched the dance over the last couple 13 weeks at the (inaudible). I watched (inaudible) and a 14 couple of other senators following up on the actions of 15 the House (inaudible) standards for trucks -- well, 16 cost factors, heavier vehicles will mean more safety 17 factors -- it's these kinds of arguments that seem 18 utterly ridiculous that seem to carry the day 19 politically, and I urge you to maintain strong, high, 20 and fast standards. 21 I personally live in Capital Hill. I'm 22 curious as an economic stakeholder, too, what's going 23 to happen to the central bus route once the knowledge 24 of diesel (inaudible) get around that is jeopardizing 25 people. And I would urge you to increase the use of 348 1 diesel alternatives in addition to cleaner diesel. 2 There are centers in Washington that are 3 really working with our metropolitan transportation 4 agencies and agencies cities in Europe and Asia for 5 cleaner air for some years now. Isn't it time that 6 (inaudible) globalization we have quality air that 7 (inaudible) newer, cleaner trucks should be required to 8 meet the emission standards. It's happening 9 elsewhere. It's a political role as much as 10 technologic. 11 Finally, it's a patriotic time of the 12 summer. Fourth of parade season, maybe not so much in 13 the streets of New York, but a lot of places across the 14 country. I think of the image of kids sitting for 15 hours watching great floats crawling by -- you got 16 diesel engines, diesel trucks floats -- wouldn't it be 17 nice to know that it's safe for kids to be in places 18 where trucks, floats, parades, your own school buses 19 are not jeopardizing their life? We must do the 20 politically courageous thing. I think we can. 21 I really congratulate you on putting out this 22 rulemaking, and hope the standards can be put on a much 23 faster timeline that is laid out right now. 24 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much, and thank 25 you for sticking around today. The next speaker is 349 1 Jason Babbie. 2 MR. JASON BABBIE: Good evening. I'm Jason 3 K. Babbie, Environmental Advocates' Air & Energy 4 Program director. Environmental Advocates is a 5 statewide, broad-based organization that has worked to 6 defend New York's land, air, water, wildlife and the 7 public's health for over thirty years. 8 The final outcome of this rulemaking process 9 will affect millions of New Yorkers. So I implore you 10 to stay strong on the emissions standards for nitrogen 11 oxides, particulate matter and nonmethane hydrocarbons, 12 and sulfur standards for diesel fuel. This stringent, 13 dual system approach to clean up heavy-duty diesel 14 vehicles is the right approach. A cleaner fuel means 15 fewer emissions, will help us all breath a lot easier. 16 Diesel emissions negatively impact the 17 environment and public health in many ways. Diesel 18 tailpipes, which largely consist of trucks and buses, 19 are single largest source of particulate matter at 20 sidewalk level in Manhattan. That means millions of 21 New Yorker are being subject to multiple known and 22 probable human carcinogens and respiratory irritants 23 every time diesel truck or bus drives by them. Diesel 24 tailpipes are also a major source of nitrogen oxides, 25 which cause ozone-smog all across the state. 350 1 Children are disproportionately affected by 2 bad air quality. Children take in twice as much air 3 per pound of body weight as adults. They also spend a 4 lot more time in outside activities, partake in more 5 rigorous activities, and are less likely to curtail 6 their activity when experiencing difficulty breathing. 7 Asthma is the number one chronic reason for school 8 absenteeism, which will affect children for years to 9 come. In essence, the emissions that cause ozone-smog 10 are robbing children of their education and comprising 11 their health. 12 In addition to children, the negative impacts 13 of poor air quality disproportionately affect those 14 with existing respiratory ailments; the elderly, 15 because they often have existing respiratory problems; 16 and those living or working near major diesel exhaust 17 sources like bus depots. 18 New York is breaking records this year 19 because of those ozone-smog. Unfortunately, they are 20 the wrong markers to be breaking. Already this year 21 New York has exceeded the US Environmental Protection 22 Agency's eight-hour health based standards multiple 23 times. Virtually every time the weather conditions 24 were right, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic 25 compounds combined with the heat and sunlight to form 351 1 ozone-smog. We have already had days when almost every 2 monitor in the state exceeded the 85 parts per billion 3 standard. This is alarming to say the least, and is 4 yet another example of why updated and more stringent 5 nitrogen oxides emission standards on diesel vehicles 6 and sulfur standards on diesel fuel are necessary. 7 In the report "Out of Breath: Health Effects 8 from Ozone in the Eastern United States" Abt Associates 9 used epidemiological studies in 1997 air quality data 10 to determine the health impacts of ozone on a 11 county-by-county basis. The report attributed over 12 510,000 asthma attacks, 12,300 emergency room visits, 13 and 4,100 hospital admissions to ozone-smog in New York 14 State during the ozone season in 1997. What that means 15 is that too many lives were negatively affected by 16 ozone-smog. 17 New York has some of the highest asthma rates 18 in the country. Particularly in northern Manhattan and 19 the south Bronx, where there are a disproportionate 20 number of diesel bus depots and truck routes, and the 21 residents have limited access to health care. Often, 22 residents in these communities are forced to use the 23 emergency room to treat asthma, which is the most 24 costly and least effective form of treatment. 25 The toxic chemicals that make up particulate 352 1 matter are of particular concern. According to the US 2 EPA, the California EPA, and the National Institute of 3 Occupational Safety and Health, diesel exhaust contains 4 over forty known and probable human carcinogens. In 5 fact, a number of studies show that diesel exhaust 6 causes cancer. The chemicals in diesel exhaust also 7 negatively affect the immune system, hormone function, 8 and the reproductive system. They also cause disorders 9 of the blood and blood forming tissue. 10 Up until recently, I lived six blocks from a 11 bus depot in West Harlem and remember the soot that 12 covered my windowsill, floor, and bed. I could only 13 imagine what I was breathing, considering the smaller 14 invisible particulates are even more dangerous than the 15 coarse particulates. Now, I was able to buy an air 16 filter for my room, but that was not an option for most 17 of the other residents in my neighborhood. I should 18 not have had to spend close to $200 to filter my air to 19 protect my health, but at least I could. What about 20 all the families that cannot afford the same luxury? 21 My point is that the air should be clean enough to 22 breath without an air filter. Hopefully these new 23 standards will get us a great deal closer to healthy 24 air for New York City and the nation. 25 It is imperative that the EPA does not back 353 1 down from the 15 parts per million sulfur standard for 2 diesel fuel. A low sulfur level in diesel fuel is 3 necessary for pollution control technologies to work 4 effectively. Sulfur clogs the devices or renders them 5 useless, which exposes more people to dirty diesel 6 fumes. 7 Industry has continually forecasted their 8 demise or outrageous cost when faced with regulations 9 or legislation that required them to change procedure 10 or switch to a new technology. Their Chicken Little 11 syndrome is tiresome and insulting. Time and time 12 again industries have met the required standards, and 13 at a fraction of the projected costs. Besides, the 14 public's health and environment are worth an additional 15 3 cents a gallon for diesel fuel. 16 I applaud the EPA for addressing diesel 17 emission and diesel fuel standards. However, I have 18 two recommendations to improve the proposed 19 regulations, better protecting public health and the 20 environment. One, all components of your program 21 should be fully implemented by 2007. Two, more work 22 should be done to promote the use of alternative fuel 23 vehicles. 24 The New York Metropolitan Area has a severe 25 air quality problem. As I am sure you are aware, this 354 1 area is classified as a "severe non-attainment area" by 2 the EPA, and has never met the Clean Air Act's 3 health-based air quality standards. Pushing the 4 nitrogen oxides full implementation out until 2010 does 5 little to help New York City and the surrounding 6 suburbs with their ozone-smog problem. Eliminating or 7 shortening the phase-in period is necessary for 8 cleaning up the New York Metropolitan Area's air. 9 Encouraging the switch to alternative fuel 10 vehicles will further improve air quality. Long 11 Island's bus fleet is scheduled to be diesel free by 12 2005. The number of compressed natural gas powered 13 vehicles in New York City's bus fleet is growing, but 14 not as quickly as the MTA originally projected. The 15 MTA has moved away from purchasing CNG power buses of 16 favor of hybrid diesel electric buses, which is much 17 less desirable. The toxic emissions associated with 18 diesel makes it an undesirable fuel. EPA encouraging 19 the state and local agencies to purchase non-diesel 20 powered buses and trucks would improve the air quality 21 even more. 22 Thank you for this opportunity to testify, 23 and thank you for addressing diesel vehicle emissions 24 and diesel fuel. 25 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Next is Lisa 355 1 Schreibman. 2 MS. LISA SCHREIBMAN: I was trying 3 desperately to think of anything original, and the only 4 thing original that I came up with I'm afraid somebody 5 might have already explained in the four hours or so I 6 wasn't here. And now you'll all say, oh, are they 7 going to make us do make us do it again? 8 Allow me to sort of explain: When I was 9 field organizing a couple of jobs ago, I used to have 10 to explain the difference between "ozone" and "ozone," 11 because after all, this would cause confusion. Because 12 on the one hand, everyone's talking about saving the 13 ozone and on the other hand, they're talking about 14 getting rid of it. Actually it's kind of a nice 15 exercise, but maybe it would have been better about two 16 hours ago, because the way you explain it is good ozone 17 (indicating up) and bad ozone is (indicating down) then 18 making them stand up and do it. (Demonstrating.) 19 But I'm afraid somebody might have taught 800 20 people this routine already. So I make my -- 21 My name is Lisa Schreibman, I'm the New York 22 City Coordinator for the Tri-State Transportation 23 Campaign, a consortium of thirteen of the region's 24 leading environmental, planning, and transit advocacy 25 groups that work to achieve sustainable transportation 356 1 by reforming and redirecting transportation investment 2 patterns, many of whom have testified already today. 3 We have worked on both truck and bus 4 pollution issues as they relate to New York, New 5 Jersey, and Connecticut. Specifically, we have worked 6 to ensure that the maximum amount of freight is moved 7 by train, that the trucks that move freight run on 8 clean fuels, and that they operate in such a way as 9 causes the least harm possible to people living near 10 truck routes. We have also worked to make sure that 11 more people use buses, and that the bus emissions are 12 as low as possible. 13 Today we are here to thank the EPA for its 14 proposal to remove sulfur from diesel in order to clean 15 up the nation's trucks and buses. This rule, although 16 not eliminating all of the dangers posed by trucks and 17 buses, is the air pollution equivalent of taking 18 13 million diesel trucks off from the roads. As such, 19 it is the single most influential fuel policy now up 20 for debate. 21 Talking sulfur out of diesel, as many said 22 before me, is the equivalent of taking lead out of 23 gasoline. Pollution control devices cannot work while 24 sulfur is there, and can work when it is not. The 25 EPA's proposed rule will eliminate 97 percent of the 357 1 sulfur in diesel fuel by 2006, 90 percent of soot 2 particles by 2007, and 95 percent of nitrogen oxides by 3 the end of the decade. 4 New York City is a great place for your first 5 hearing on this proposal. And, in fact, we think that 6 the fact you are still here tonight, makes it the 7 perfect place. Here, like in other major cities, we 8 can see the most egregious effects of diesel pollution. 9 Half the particulate emissions in midtown comes from 10 diesel tailpipes. We live in chronically high 11 summertime smog levels smog levels. And New York State 12 is home to more than a million asthmatics, half of whom 13 are children. We have some of nation's highest asthma 14 rates and the communities that have the highest of the 15 high rates are all along the truck routes, expressways, 16 and bus depots of our cities. 17 However, the only rational way to clean up 18 the air pollution in New York city and other places 19 polluted by sources that can travel from other states 20 is with a national rule. It simply won't do to just 21 clean up the pollution in polluted areas, it would be 22 insufficient to require low-sulfur fuel only in 23 polluted areas, because if a truck was traveling 24 outside the jurisdiction and was unable to acquire the 25 proper fuel, its pollution traps would become 358 1 incapacitated by using just a few tanks of regular 2 diesel fuel. Thus, even in areas with low levels of 3 pollution, low-sulfur diesel fuel must be made 4 available. That is why implementing a sulfur cap 5 nationally by mid 2006 makes sense. 6 The two points poise that the opposition has 7 tried to make today is that one, they need more time; 8 and two, the proposed rule is too costly. 9 As if they haven't made it clear enough, the 10 environmental and health communities have been 11 discussing and advocating the problems of pollution 12 from fuels since the mid-1970s. The oil industry has, 13 therefore, had 20 years to voluntarily reduce sulfur in 14 its fuel, but it hasn't. It is, thus, up to the 15 government to require the changes. 16 We have already heard about this rule being 17 too costly, using some hocus-pocus math that no one 18 really understands, and drive up the prices of goods 19 beyond the prices that we are seeing today. And yet, 20 the people who have testified today have pointed out 21 that the industry earns more profits in a single 22 quarter than removing sulfur from diesel fuel will cost 23 in the next ten years. And that the costs will be 24 passed on to us, the consumers. 25 However, it is the hardest hit consumers, 359 1 those who are low income people, who are the hardest 2 hit by dirty air consistently, those are the ones who 3 would probably be the most impacted by cost increases 4 to consumer goods. And yet, all of the individuals who 5 came here and told you about what they want, felt that 6 the 4 cents on the gallon that it's predicted to cost 7 to clean up the air is a good set of goals. This is 8 something that they are willing to pay for. Today we 9 have heard from many low-income people that it's worth 10 the health of their children and communities. 11 In fact, we are heartend to see every type of 12 concern represented here today. From local, state, and 13 city elected officials, government agency 14 representatives, industry groups, citizen groups, and 15 individuals from the entire region are here to show 16 their support in being able to breathe the air. We 17 want to echo their applause for the EPA and for its 18 proposal, and look forward to the successful 19 finalization of this proposal by the end of the year. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. And the 22 last speaker is Nancy Gibbs. 23 MS. NANCY GIBBS: My name is Nancy Gibbs. I 24 didn't even know you were going to have a meeting here 25 until I got a call from one of your interns. I don't 360 1 know how she got my name, she said I was on a list. 2 I live in the South Bronx, I've lived there 3 for over 30 years. I'm a grandmother, I'm 74-years 4 old. I'm also working as a professional occupational 5 therapist within part of the medical establishment in 6 the field of rehabilitation. 7 I speak to you in favor of your proposal. 8 The petroleum industry (inaudible) shown concern for 9 the people in our community. The use of electric and 10 (inaudible) buses is certainly a wonderful idea. I 11 don't want you to wait until 2010, I hope you don't 12 have to compromise. I hope that you will go ahead with 13 your plans and get this done. And this gentleman, I 14 overheard, said 2007. And so I've been learning just 15 since I've been in here. 16 I've tried to do a lot with the young 17 (inaudible) in their meetings. They were having a lot 18 of meetings (inaudible). I live near 180th Street in 19 the Bronx, which is a minority community. I guess I'm 20 a minority within a minority. I see people file in our 21 buses time and time again. 22 I work another job as well as working in a 23 nursing home. I work up in Riverdale, which is a very 24 (inaudible) community, full of wonderful trees and the 25 buses are always there, waiting. And they don't 361 1 scatter the way do on 180th Street, where all of us 2 poor people wait and get a face full of black smog. 3 And following the bus, right on the track of the bus, 4 is a big massive truck. And that happens almost every 5 day. 6 And so, as I say, I live in a poor 7 neighborhood. I'm lucky enough to live in a co-op and 8 it's a nice co-op. But a lot of people, which when 9 they ask me where I live, I say well, and I tell them. 10 And they say just exactly where is this? And I say 11 well, literally this the southeast Bronx, but it's 12 really the South Bronx. Then it's oh, you don't live 13 in Riverdale? No, no, I don't. 14 So I spoke -- I understand from the phone 15 call that I got from this lovely attorney, that she 16 wanted to hear from people that live in the South 17 Bronx. I guess she got my name because I have 18 testified several times (inaudible), and I came across 19 people who were very much against diesel fuels during 20 these sessions. 21 My particular beef was that we would stand 22 for hours. I have literally stood for an hour and a 23 half waiting for the number 36 bus. I've also seen 24 big -- and I understand from your attorney that you're 25 interested in the people from the South Bronx -- I have 362 1 seen four schools go up right across the street from 2 electrical power plants, and I've wondered why because 3 there that is contamination. And that's right along 4 the 36 bus line right on 190th Street. So I can't 5 figure out the thinking of the city people in doing 6 that. 7 However, there has been slight improvement in 8 the 36 bus. But low and behold, suddenly my landscape 9 which did have trees, suddenly was obliterated by 10 tremendous construction going on. In other words, our 11 community is getting full of people. And when I spoke 12 to a bus driver who picked me up from my job at 13 Riverdale, I said this bus is empty, why don't you put 14 more of your buses down in the South Bronx? He said we 15 don't have enough bus drivers. He said don't you know 16 we're recruiting? There aren't enough of them for 17 where you live. I was flabbergasted, absolutely 18 flabbergasted. 19 So I'm speaking to you mostly from a personal 20 idiom. I come as an individual. Although, I did get 21 5,000 signatures for my little thing about trying to 22 get the 36 bus (inaudible) I went around (inaudible) 23 and all of the buses up and down, and I got 5,000 24 signatures within six months. 25 So any way, getting back to about the issue 363 1 of contaminants. I am also not only an occupational 2 therapist, I'm also an artist. And I (inaudible) -- I 3 won't mention its name because I respect it too 4 highly -- but the area you go in there (inaudible) 5 artists using all kinds of contaminants, whether it be 6 sulphur or cobalt. And I studied at this school for 7 several years, and suddenly I found out I was getting 8 thyroid problems and I was seeing my doctor. So one of 9 the (inaudible) said about is hormonal problems, I was 10 a direct recipient of this. So I started telling my 11 study mates, please would you cut down the turpentine, 12 please cut down on some of these. 13 I also (Inaudible) and one of them, or a 14 number of them told me if I work with them, if I could 15 give them exercise. A senior citizen exercise, which 16 comprises of stretching. And most of these people have 17 pain, arthritic pain. So a couple of them came up to 18 me and they told me I suffer this pain and then I go 19 away to the country, this beautiful camp, and no more 20 pain. So that told me a lot about the Bronx, because 21 they live in the Bronx. Thank you. 22 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Thank you all for 23 coming and being so patient. I believe that concludes 24 all the testifiers. 25 (The hearing was concluded at 8:35 p.m.) 364 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, PATRICIA A. SANDS, a Shorthand Reporter and 4 Notary Public of the State of New York and New Jersey, 5 do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and 6 accurate transcript of the testimony as taken 7 stenographically by and before me at the time, place 8 and on the date hereinbefore set forth. 9 I do further certify that I am neither of counsel 10 nor attorney for any party in this action and that I am 11 not interested in the event nor outcome of this 12 hearing. 13 14 Notary Public of the State of New York 15 Certificate No. 4974309 New Jersey Certificate No. 2109345 16 17 Dated: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25