1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 ATLANTA PUBLIC HEARING 3 4 5 6 PROPOSAL FOR CLEANER HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS AND BUSES 7 AND CLEANER DIESEL FUEL 8 9 10 11 June 22, 2000 12 10:00 a.m. 13 14 15 The Renaissance Hotel 16 590 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 17 18 19 20 Kara K. Lucas, CCR-B-1496 21 22 23 BROWN REPORTING, INC. 24 1740 PEACHTREE STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 25 (404) 876-8979 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 On behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency: 3 4 5 Chet France 6 Jim Kutzman 7 Paul Machiele 8 Don Kopinski 9 Gretchen Graves 10 11 12 13 14 - - - 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 MR. KUTZMAN: Good morning. I'm Jim 2 Kutzman. I'm the deputy division director for the 3 Air Division in the Atlanta office of Region 4. I 4 want to welcome everybody to Atlanta. It may be 5 raining a little bit later, but I guarantee it will 6 be hot. And it may rain again, so hopefully you'll 7 have umbrellas. 8 This public meeting is on the heavy-duty 9 diesel rule. As most people know, the Tier 2 low 10 sulfur fuel rule was passed in February. This 11 heavy-duty diesel would be a complement to that. 12 It's designed to control emissions on heavy-duty 13 diesels. 14 The significance of this as it pertains 15 to the Atlanta area is Atlanta has a critical air 16 quality problem. We've had a conforming lapse since 17 January of '98. No federal funds have gone to 18 highway construction. Atlantans on the average 19 drive 35 to 36 miles per day per person which is 20 higher than Los Angeles. 21 The two primary sources of the problems 22 around here are mobile sources and power plants. 23 We're addressing the power plants. We're trying to 24 address the mobile sources. 25 Atlanta is also a major transportation 4 1 center. Anybody who lives in the area or has passed 2 through the area knows how much truck traffic we 3 have in the area. So this rule is of particular 4 significance to the Atlanta metropolitan area. 5 What I'd like to do at this time is 6 introduce Chet France. Chet is the director of the 7 Assessment and Standards Division of the Office of 8 Transportation and Air Quality. He will be 9 presiding over this public hearing and he will 10 explain the rules and how we will proceed. 11 If Lanore Benjamin and Dale Askey and Kay 12 Prince could stand up in the back. These are 13 regional office people. Kay is the section chief in 14 charge of this particular area and Dale and Lanore 15 are staff. If you need any help, directions, or 16 where to eat or anything else, if they're available, 17 ask them. They may be able to help you. 18 Okay. With that, I'll introduce Chet 19 France. 20 MR. FRANCE: Thank you, Jim. I have a 21 brief statement that I will read. Good morning. On 22 behalf of EPA, welcome to today's hearing and thank 23 y'all for coming. There are some familiar faces in 24 the audience, although they're dwindling. We're 25 looking forward to hearing your views on a proposal 5 1 we believe to be critical to the future of air 2 quality in the United States. 3 I am Chet France, director of the 4 Assessment and Standards Division in EPA's Office of 5 Transportation and Air Quality. I will be serving 6 as the presiding officer. We will hear today 7 testimony on EPA's proposed rulemaking for cleaner 8 trucks and buses and cleaner diesel fuel. 9 The proposal we are considering today was 10 announced by EPA administrator Carol Browner on May 11 17th and published in the Federal Register on June 12 2nd. We consider this to be a historic proposal. 13 This proposed program will achieve a dramatic 14 reduction in air pollution in the 21st century. 15 As you know, last year we established new 16 programs to dramatically reduce emissions from cars 17 and light trucks. That program called Tier 2 will 18 help to improve the nation's air quality by both 19 phasing in cleaner engines and cleaner-burning 20 gasoline over the next decade for passenger 21 vehicles. 22 We are now focusing much-needed attention 23 on heavy-duty highway vehicles, applying the same 24 principles of addressing the vehicle and the fuel as 25 a single system. 6 1 The proposed program would protect the 2 public health and the environment of all Americans 3 by reducing the sulfur content in highway diesel 4 fuel by 97 percent to provide the cleanest diesel 5 trucks and buses in history. 6 This means for the first time ever 7 heavy-duty trucks and buses would be able to use 8 pollution-control devices to meet emission 9 standards, just as passenger cars have been doing 10 for the last 25 years. These devices are sensitive 11 to sulfur and will not work unless the amount of 12 sulfur in the fuel is dramatically reduced. 13 This action will provide greatly-improved 14 air quality for all Americans. It will reduce 15 smog-causing nitrogen oxides from these vehicles by 16 95 percent. It will reduce harmful particulate 17 matter, or soot, by 90 percent. It is the clean air 18 equivalent of removing from the air the pollution 19 generated by 13 million of today's trucks. 20 Heavy-duty trucks and buses are largely 21 powered by diesel engines. Diesel engines are more 22 durable and get higher fuel efficiency than gasoline 23 engines, but they also tend to pollute more. 24 Over 100 million people are exposed to 25 unhealthy air and will continue to do so without the 7 1 emission reductions that would come from the 2 proposed standards. 3 We estimate that by 2007 heavy-duty 4 vehicles will account for about 30 percent of 5 national mobile source NOx emissions and about 14 6 percent of national mobile source PM emissions. 7 These proportions are even higher in urban areas, 8 like here in Atlanta, where heavy-duty engines 9 contribute 36 percent of the NOx and 16 percent of 10 PM from mobile sources. 11 This pollution causes lung damage and 12 respiratory problems, and there is increasing 13 evidence that diesel exhaust may cause lung cancer 14 in humans. 15 The proposed program would have a 16 substantial impact on these emissions. Urban areas, 17 which include many poorer neighborhoods, that can be 18 disproportionately impacted by diesel emissions, 19 would receive badly-needed benefits of this 20 program. 21 We are proposing a particulate emission 22 standard for new heavy-duty engines of .01 grams per 23 brake-horsepower-hour to take full effect in the 24 year 2007. This is a 90 percent reduction from 25 today's standard. 8 1 We are also proposing standards for NOx 2 of .2 grams per brake-horsepower-hour, a 95 percent 3 reduction from the current standard. These 4 standards will be phased in for diesel vehicles 5 between 2007 and 2010. Gasoline vehicles will have 6 to meet these standards in 2007. 7 To make the new diesel engine 8 technologies work, we are proposing to take most of 9 the sulfur out of highway diesel fuel beginning in 10 mid-2006 when the cleaner model year 2007 trucks 11 will begin entering the fleet. Specifically, we are 12 proposing that sulfur levels of diesel fuel be 13 capped at 15 parts per million. This is a 97 14 percent cut from the current highway diesel fuel 15 levels of 500 ppm. 16 We estimate that the cost to produce and 17 distribute the low sulfur diesel fuel will be about 18 4 1/2 cents per gallon, and we also estimate that 19 vehicle costs would increase about $1,000 to $1,600 20 depending upon the size of the vehicle. 21 We designed this program to include 22 significant lead time for the introduction of new 23 cleaner fuel into the marketplace. The proposal 24 also discusses various flexible phase-in approaches 25 for the diesel fuel industry to facilitate the 9 1 complete transition to new clean diesel fuel and to 2 reduce costs further, including provisions to 3 address special needs of small refiners and farmer 4 cooperative refiners. For engine manufacturers, the 5 proposed program will allow phase-in of the new 6 engine standards for years 2007 to 2010. 7 Before we start today's testimony, I'll 8 introduce the EPA panel and describe how we will 9 conduct this hearing. 10 You've already met Jim on my right. On 11 my left is Paul Machiele and Don Kopinski who are 12 managers of the diesel fuel and heavy-duty standards 13 program. And to their left is Gretchen Graves who 14 is a representative from our Office of General 15 Consult. 16 This is the third of five public hearings 17 we're holding on this proposal. In the last few 18 days, we have been in New York and Chicago and will 19 be in Los Angeles and Denver next week. We've been 20 hearing from witnesses offering a broad range of 21 perspectives, and we expect that will continue 22 today. 23 Please keep in mind that in addition to 24 the opportunity for oral comment at these hearings 25 the comment period will remain open for an 10 1 additional 45 days after the last hearing -- and 2 that is until August 14th -- to allow for written 3 comments. 4 We are conducting this hearing in 5 accordance with Section 307-D5 of the Clean Air Act 6 which requires the EPA to provide interested parties 7 with an opportunity for oral presentation of data, 8 views, or arguments in addition to an opportunity to 9 make written submissions. 10 We are pleased to have received a large 11 number of requests to testify today, and we'll do 12 our best to accommodate everyone. We ask witnesses 13 to limit their testimony to no more than ten 14 minutes. 15 There are two individuals I would like to 16 introduce. Jeff Herzog and Todd Sherwood, if you 17 would stand. These are very important people. They 18 will have the timer and will be letting you know 19 when you're approaching your ten-minute limit. 20 I will be conducting this hearing 21 informally. We request that witnesses state their 22 name and affiliation prior to making their 23 statement. Please write your name clearly on one of 24 the cards provided and place it in front of you. 25 When a witness has finished his or her 11 1 presentation, members of the panel may ask the 2 person questions concerning their testimony. 3 Witnesses are reminded that any false statement or 4 false response to questions may be a violation of 5 the law. 6 If there are any members of the audience 7 who wish to testify who have not already signed up, 8 please submit your names to the reception table 9 outside. 10 And because of the large number of 11 witnesses who will testify today, this hearing may 12 go into the evening hours. Whenever there is time 13 in the schedule, we will try to work in those who 14 registered during the day and have expressed an 15 interest in testifying. If the schedule permits, we 16 will have a short break for lunch. 17 Finally, if you would like a transcript 18 of these proceedings, you should make arrangements 19 directly with the court reporter during one of the 20 breaks. The transcripts of this hearing will be 21 available in the docket shortly after we receive 22 them from the reporter. 23 Before we begin, if there are any 24 questions? If not, why don't we start with the 25 first panel. 12 1 If John Medley would come up, Dr. Randall 2 White, Greg Scott, Ronald Methier, Lisa Stegink, 3 Rebecca Stanfield. 4 Okay. John Medley, if you would be kind 5 enough to start. 6 MR. MEDLEY: Good morning. My name is 7 John Medley, and I'm a fuels issue manager with 8 ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company. 9 ExxonMobil owns and operates six 10 refineries in the United States and has a 50 percent 11 joint interest in a seventh. Our crude oil refining 12 capacity is about 11 percent of the total domestic 13 crude oil refining capacity, and our highway diesel 14 production is consistent with this crude capacity. 15 Thus, we have a substantial interest in the domestic 16 highway diesel market and in this rulemaking. 17 Our industry reduced the sulfur level in 18 highway diesel in 1993, and the current diesel 19 sulfur level represents about a 97 percent reduction 20 from the sulfur level of incoming crude oil. 21 In spite of this significant achievement, 22 ExxonMobil agrees that a significant further 23 reduction in sulfur content of diesel fuel is needed 24 for cleaner air. We support a reduction of 90 25 percent from the current levels to a 50 parts per 13 1 million cap to be implemented in the 2007-2008 time 2 frame. 3 We have serious concerns about EPA's 4 proposal for a 15 parts per million maximum sulfur 5 effective in early 2006. In our view, EPA's 6 proposal is a recipe for domestic supply 7 disturbances and price volatility. 8 While ExxonMobil has concerns about many 9 issues raised by EPA's proposal, I will focus my 10 comments today on what we consider the two paramount 11 issues in this ruling, the diesel fuel sulfur level 12 and the implementation timing. In doing so, I will 13 draw heavily on a recently-completed assessment by 14 the National Petroleum Council. 15 ExxonMobil participated in the National 16 Petroleum Council refining study that was just 17 approved. The National Petroleum Council is an 18 advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy. 19 In June 1998, the Secretary of Energy 20 asked the NPC to investigate and report on the 21 petroleum product deliverability in the face of 22 increasingly stringent and numerous environmental 23 regulations affecting fuels. 24 The Council report was just approved 25 earlier this week, and today I plan to share with 14 1 you some of its observations and recommendations. 2 If you'd like to know more about the NPC study which 3 is titled Assuring the Adequacy and Affordability of 4 Cleaner Fuels, the executive summary is available on 5 the Internet at www.npc.org. Hard copies of the 6 full report should be available from NPC by 7 mid-July. 8 The NPC report deals with several 9 possible product specification changes including a 10 reduction in diesel sulfur. ExxonMobil agrees with 11 the findings of this study, and I will reference the 12 study conclusions throughout this testimony. 13 Industry has proposed a 90 percent 14 reduction in diesel sulfur level from the current 15 maximum of 500 parts per million to a cap of 50 16 parts per million. We believe this level can be met 17 by making significant modifications to existing 18 diesel treating equipment at costs that are 19 significant but manageable. 20 NPC estimated that about $4 billion of 21 investment would be required to achieve a 30 parts 22 per million average diesel sulfur consistent with 23 the industry's 50 parts per million cap proposal. 24 Per gallon production cost would increase about 6 25 cents. 15 1 EPA's proposal for a 15 parts per million 2 sulfur cap which translates to an average of about 7 3 to 10 parts per million will be substantially more 4 expensive than EPA claims. EPA based its cost 5 estimate on expectations that existing diesel 6 hydrotreating could be modified to produce adequate 7 volumes of 15 parts per million diesel fuel, 8 assuming that improved catalysts would be available; 9 but such catalyst improvements have not been 10 demonstrated and are beyond the realm of reasonable 11 expectation. 12 NPC concluded that reducing sulfur 13 substantially below 30 parts per million average was 14 not likely to be practical with modifications to 15 existing equipment. And ExxonMobil's substantial 16 expertise in catalyst research supports this 17 conclusion. 18 Certainly catalyst performance has 19 improved over history, and we expect continued 20 improvement. While some existing treating units 21 might be able to be modified to achieve 15 parts per 22 million max sulfur using some new catalysts, we 23 don't believe that most units will be capable of 24 this. 25 In our view, new grass-roots 16 1 high-pressure hydrotreating will be required if 2 industry is to supply the volume currently 3 demanded. 4 If EPA's approach of only modifying 5 existing hydrotreating units were followed, there 6 would be significant shortages of on-road diesel 7 supplies. 8 The higher pressure treating with larger 9 volumes of catalyst would be much, much more 10 expensive than EPA estimates. Furthermore, there 11 would be a limited number of manufacturers worldwide 12 for the kind of high-pressure reactors and 13 compressors that will be needed; and fabrication of 14 this new equipment could easily be a limitation on 15 the industry's ability to meet EPA's proposal. 16 And to what end? Respected experts in 17 the vehicular engineering field suggest that already 18 demonstrated vehicle emission reduction technology 19 could provide about the same emission reductions 20 from heavy-duty vehicles with a 50 parts per million 21 diesel fuel. 22 But the sulfur level is not the only 23 problem with EPA's proposed program. Implementation 24 timing is a serious problem as well. Last December 25 the EPA issued the Tier 2 rule requiring a reduction 17 1 in gasoline sulfur to 30 parts per million average 2 in the 2004 to 2006 time frame. 3 Meeting this gasoline requirement alone 4 will significantly challenge the petroleum 5 industry. The NPC estimated about $8 billion of 6 investment, and we agree with their analysis. 7 While this will be a significant 8 challenge for the industry, it should be doable. 9 However, layering another substantial investment for 10 lower sulfur diesel directly on top of the gasoline 11 requirement jeopardizes achieving either program. 12 The EPA proposal for diesel 13 implementation effective April 1st, 2006 at the 14 refinery layers the diesel investment requirements 15 directly on top of the Tier 2 requirements. Based 16 on construction resource studies performed by the 17 NPC, this overlap will result in a demand on 18 engineering and construction resources which is 19 unlikely to be met; and some facilities will simply 20 not be ready in time to meet the new requirements. 21 In addition to the excessive demand on 22 engineering and construction resources, overlapping 23 gasoline and diesel sulfur reduction will strain the 24 resources of the agencies responsible for issuing 25 construction and operating permits for the new and 18 1 modified facilities necessary to meet these 2 requirements, as well as requirements for growing 3 product demand. 4 The NPC identified, and we agree, that 5 industry's ability to acquire timely permits is a 6 major concern for implementing any major fuel 7 specification program. Nearly every domestic 8 refinery will need permits for new gasoline 9 desulfurization facilities, and nearly every 10 refinery will require additional permits for diesel 11 desulfurization facilities. In addition, permits 12 will also be needed to meet growing demands for 13 gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. 14 The increased number of environmental 15 justice challenges to permits and the EPA's attempt 16 to retroactively reinterpret New Source Review 17 permitting rules both greatly complicate our ability 18 to get new permits in a timely manner. 19 EPA requested comments on proposals for 20 phasing in very low sulfur diesel as an alternative 21 to requiring full marketplace conversion in 2006. 22 On the positive side, such proposals recognize the 23 reality that current vehicles will not receive any 24 cost-effective benefits from the very low sulfur 25 diesel. 19 1 So why should they have to bear the high 2 cost of this ultra-low sulfur diesel? 3 Unfortunately, phase-in poses several 4 significant challenges. Adding another unique fuel 5 to the distribution system will require additional 6 investment and operating cost throughout the 7 system. For example, retail stations will have to 8 add another tank and dispenser to handle very low 9 sulfur diesel in addition to regular low sulfur 10 diesel. This investment will have a very short 11 economic life and place a huge burden on any company 12 choosing to make it. 13 Many companies may choose not to make 14 such investments, and the capacity and flexibility 15 of the system will decrease. In fact, forcing 16 another diesel grade into the system will decrease 17 the supply reliability for other diesel products 18 including off-road diesel and heating oil. 19 So let me recap. Our view is that the 20 EPA proposal is a recipe for enormous marketplace 21 problems. The required sulfur reduction is well 22 below any cost-effective level for the existing 23 diesel engine fleet. The early timing overlaps with 24 the gasoline sulfur reduction. Permitting, 25 engineering, and construction resources for 20 1 desulfurization will likely be inadequate. 2 Therefore, necessary facilities likely will not be 3 operable in time; and domestic producibility will be 4 inadequate. 5 The EPA's investment and operating cost 6 assumptions are based on highly optimistic thinking 7 and are in need of some very serious and realistic 8 reevaluation. 9 We strongly recommend that EPA reconsider 10 the merits of the industry proposal for a 50 parts 11 per million maximum sulfur diesel beginning no 12 sooner than mid-2007. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. FRANCE: Thank you, Mr. Medley. The 15 next testifier, Dr. Randall White. 16 DR. WHITE: Thank you for this 17 opportunity to comment on the proposed rules. I'm 18 here as a physician, not, in fact, even as a 19 pulmonary specialist, primarily as a physician in 20 practice and someone who has some knowledge of 21 public health matters and as a concerned citizen. 22 The proposed limits on particulate and 23 oxide and nitrogen emissions and diesel exhaust I 24 think are the right step for the EPA to take to 25 protect the health of the American people. 21 1 As a child, I can remember being puzzled 2 that the big trucks and buses that rolled down the 3 street would be putting black smoke into the air 4 that I was putting into my lungs. You don't have to 5 be a scientist or a doctor to understand intuitively 6 that breathing black smoke isn't good for you. 7 And medical studies have subsequently 8 confirmed this. Particulates that make the exhaust 9 appear dark can enter our lungs, and the smallest of 10 them can penetrate quite deeply into our lungs. And 11 this does affect pulmonary function. For those with 12 preexisting lung disease, it can in particularly be 13 dangerous. And also these very fine particles that 14 penetrate the most deeply can also affect cardiac 15 function. 16 How they do that is not entirely 17 understood yet, but in a study -- there are a number 18 of studies about these issues. But in one study of 19 six American cities with varying levels of air 20 pollution, it was found that the risk of overall 21 mortality was correlated with the concentration of 22 the finest particulates in the air. 23 So my view is that any regulatory action 24 to decrease the emissions of these particles would 25 be beneficial. 22 1 The role of oxides and nitrogen 2 increasing ground-level ozone is well understood, 3 and we who own cars in the metro Atlanta area are 4 required to take actions to ensure that our 5 emissions are not excessive. In this regard, I 6 think it's only fair that the trucking industry 7 should be likewise. 8 Ground-level ozone is a significant 9 irritant to our tissues and when taken into our 10 lungs can cause acute inflammatory changes. This 11 affects certainly those with preexisting lung 12 disease and can even send such people to the 13 hospital for treatment. And it also affects healthy 14 people, although they may not have acute symptoms; 15 but there is some evidence that with repeated 16 exposure irreversible damage may result. 17 I urge the U.S. EPA to enact the proposed 18 rule. A survey found that three-quarters of the 19 public trust the EPA to set health-based air quality 20 standards, and I'm confident that these proposed 21 rules will be welcomed by the American people. And 22 I'll certainly be pleased if my son doesn't have to 23 wonder why trucks are permitted to put black exhaust 24 into the air. 25 Thanks. 23 1 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Greg Scott. 2 MR. SCOTT: Good morning. My name is 3 Greg Scott. I'm with the Washington, D.C. law firm 4 of Collier, Shannon & Scott. 5 We are privileged to serve as government 6 relations and general counsel to the National 7 Association of Convenience Stores, also known as 8 NACS. NACS appreciates the opportunity to appear 9 today to comment on EPA's proposed standards for 10 diesel sulfur content. 11 NACS is a national trade association of 12 more than 2,300 companies that operate over 60,000 13 convenience stores nationwide with some 14 three-quarters of a million employees. More than 75 15 percent of NACS' members are classified as small 16 businesses by the SBA. Over 75 percent of NACS' 17 members sell motor fuels, and 40 percent of the 18 member companies sell diesel fuel. 19 NACS represents the full spectrum of 20 diesel fuel retailers in our country from the 21 one-diesel-fuel-dispenser mom-and-pop outlet in 22 small towns to the large truck stops and travel 23 centers located on our nation's interstate highway 24 system. Consequently, my testimony today will focus 25 on the potential impact of the proposed diesel fuel 24 1 regulations on diesel fuel retailers. 2 NACS' membership also includes most of 3 the nation's petroleum refiners that also market 4 motor fuels. NACS has not taken a formal position 5 either in support or in opposition to the proposed 6 diesel fuel sulfur standard or the time table for 7 its implementation. We believe the refiners are the 8 best equipped to fully evaluate the potential cost 9 and supply impacts of the proposed rule. In 10 general, these are refinery issues and not retail 11 issues. 12 However, NACS is deeply concerned and 13 believes EPA should be deeply concerned about the 14 potential impact of the diesel sulfur proposal on 15 diesel fuel supplies in the nation. We urge EPA to 16 consider the comments of our nation's refining 17 industry carefully before finalizing the proposed 18 rule. 19 Given the importance of diesel fuel to 20 our nation's trucking and agricultural segments, EPA 21 and the country's economy cannot afford to be wrong 22 on these issues. 23 From the diesel fuel retailers' point of 24 view, there are three primary concerns we have with 25 EPA's proposal: 1, its potential negative impact on 25 1 our nation's diesel fuel distribution system; 2, the 2 implications of a dual fuel approach to implementing 3 the diesel sulfur standard on diesel fuel retailers; 4 and, 3, the potential liability that retailers may 5 face under the program and the defenses to such 6 liability under the final regulations. 7 I will address each issue briefly in 8 turn. 9 EPA's proposed a 15 parts per million 10 diesel sulfur cap. NACS understands that most of 11 the refining industry supports a 50 ppm cap. From 12 the point of view of the diesel fuel retailer, each 13 approach presents potential significant problems for 14 our nation's diesel fuel distribution system. 15 Simply stated, if either standard is finalized, our 16 existing distribution system would be incapable of 17 meeting the standard on a regular basis because of 18 product commingling and product contamination as the 19 product moves through pipelines, bulk storage 20 terminals, and tank trucks. 21 On-road diesel fuel is transported from 22 the refinery or import location through pipelines or 23 on barges, is stored in bulk tanks, and is 24 transported from bulk storage to retail in tanker 25 trucks. That's simplified, but that's a general 26 1 statement. 2 Unless each of these facilities is 3 cleaned immediately prior to the introduction of the 4 ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, whether the standard 5 is 50 or 15 ppm, residual sulfur clinging to the 6 walls of the pipeline, tank, or container will 7 contaminate the product. In addition, for pipeline 8 shipments, the transmix cut will of necessity be 9 much larger to prevent contamination due to 10 commingling of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel with 11 other products, other higher sulfur products. 12 If EPA intends to mandate the complete 13 segregation of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel from all 14 other products throughout the distribution system, 15 then our nation's distribution system will surely 16 collapse. There is simply not enough dedicated 17 pipelines, storage tanks, and cargo tanks or, quite 18 frankly, retail tanks to meet this segregation 19 requirement. 20 If it is not EPA's intent to require such 21 segregation, then NACS has difficulty imagining how 22 EPA's proposal will work in the real world without 23 significant product contamination. 24 At this point NACS does not have a 25 definitive answer to this contamination issue. 27 1 However, NACS strongly urges EPA to address this 2 issue rationally before finalizing any type of final 3 program. 4 In the preamble of the proposal, EPA has 5 requested comments on a possible phase-in approach 6 to ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, perhaps permitting 7 the limited sale of current low sulfur diesel in 8 conjunction with the phase-in of the ultra-low 9 sulfur diesel. 10 NACS strongly opposes the dual on-road 11 diesel fuels proposal. Such a dual fuel approach 12 would be unworkable for the vast majority of NACS 13 members. Diesel fuel retailers would be forced to 14 install additional tankage to handle a second 15 on-road diesel fuel, tanks that under EPA's own 16 proposal would not be needed within five years once 17 the phase-in is complete. 18 In addition, it's difficult to see how 19 our nation's distribution system will be able to 20 assure that adequate supplies of each diesel fuel 21 are available in all areas of the country without 22 the significant problem of rolling product shortages 23 or outages. 24 In the preamble, EPA has not even started 25 to estimate the potential cost to retailers of such 28 1 a dual fuel approach; and we urge them to do so. 2 NACS supports those portions of the EPA's 3 diesel proposal that would excuse diesel fuel 4 retailers from conducting every batch testing of 5 diesel fuel deliveries to check the sulfur level. 6 In addition, NACS supports those portions of the 7 rule which would permit a retailer to establish a 8 potential sulfur level violation defense through 9 specific documentation of the product delivered to 10 the retailer's outlet. 11 NACS urges EPA to resist any suggestion 12 that retailers be forced to sample and test every 13 batch of diesel fuel delivered. Such testing would 14 be enormously expensive and in most cases would 15 duplicate the testing already conducted upstream. 16 NACS appreciates the opportunity to 17 present these comments on the proposal. The 18 association will be submitting more detailed 19 comments in writing prior to the regulatory 20 deadline. 21 I would be pleased to answer any 22 questions my testimony may have raised. 23 One question I have is do you all want 24 formal copies of -- 25 MR. FRANCE: She would like one. Thanks 29 1 very much. Next testifier, Ronald Methier. 2 MR. METHIER: Good morning. I'm Ron 3 Methier; and I'm chief of the Georgia Air Protection 4 Branch and president of STAPPA, the State and 5 Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators. 6 I'm here this morning on behalf of STAPPA 7 which represents air quality agencies, including my 8 own here in Georgia, and the states and territories 9 and on behalf of ALAPCO which is the Association of 10 Local Air Pollution Control Officials which 11 represents the air quality agencies in more than 165 12 major metropolitan areas across the country. 13 I'm pleased to have this opportunity to 14 provide our associations' testimony on EPA's recent 15 proposal to set more stringent emission standards 16 for on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles and to 17 reduce levels of sulfur in on-road diesel fuel. 18 On behalf of STAPPA and ALAPCO, I'd like 19 to commend EPA for its continued leadership in 20 reducing air pollution from the mobile source 21 sector. Your final promulgation last December of 22 the Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards and a 23 national low sulfur gasoline program was a 24 remarkable accomplishment that will benefit the 25 entire country. 30 1 This month's heavy-duty engine and low 2 sulfur diesel proposal is further demonstration of 3 EPA's commitment to efficiently and cost-effectively 4 reducing a wide variety of mobile source-related 5 emissions to achieve meaningful improvements in air 6 quality across the country. We apply this 7 initiative and the systems approach which addresses 8 both the engine and its fuel, upon which it is 9 based. 10 We're especially pleased that the 11 proposed heavy-duty engine and diesel sulfur program 12 reflects the key recommendations made by STAPPA and 13 ALAPCO over the past year and a half. This program 14 is of vital importance to our memberships. For this 15 reason our associations adopted, with overwhelming 16 support, a resolution calling upon EPA to establish 17 a stringent low sulfur diesel fuel cap to enable the 18 introduction and effective operation of advanced 19 technologies such as lean-NOx catalysts and 20 adsorbers and particulate filters. 21 A copy of the resolution is attached to 22 my statement. 23 We have placed the highest priority on 24 participating in the rule development process and 25 are proud that EPA has concluded that the most 31 1 appropriate strategy so closely mirrors what we have 2 advocated. 3 As the officials with primary 4 responsibility for achieving and maintaining clean, 5 healthful air across the country, state and local 6 air agencies are keenly aware of the need to 7 aggressively pursue emission reductions from the 8 heavy-duty mobile source sector which contributes 9 substantially to a variety of air quality problems. 10 As EPA acknowledges in its proposal, by 11 2007, when the proposed engine standards would take 12 effect, on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles will 13 account for 29 percent of mobile source NOx 14 emissions and 14 percent of mobile source PM, 15 particulate matter, emissions. 16 Under the control strategy EPA has 17 proposed, however, by the year 2030, on-road 18 heavy-duty vehicle NOx emissions would be reduced by 19 2.8 million tons and particulate matter emissions by 20 approximately 110,000 tons. 21 These emission reductions, as well as 22 others that the proposed rule would affect, will 23 play a pivotal role in addressing a wide array of 24 significant environmental problems that continue to 25 pose both health and welfare risks nationwide, 32 1 including those associated with ground-level ozone; 2 coarse and fine particulate matter; sulfur oxides; 3 air toxics; visibility impairment; the 4 acidification, nitrification, and eutrophication of 5 water bodies; and global warming. 6 Based on the substantial contribution of 7 heavy-duty vehicle emissions to air pollution and 8 very serious public health and environmental 9 problems, we have no alternative but to impose 10 greater controls on these sources and their fuels 11 and to do so in a truly meaningful way. 12 Further, because many of these vehicles 13 constantly travel back and forth across the country, 14 their emissions are ubiquitous. For this reason, 15 regulation of the heavy-duty mobile source sector 16 and of the fuels used by these sources must be done 17 on a national basis, as EPA has proposed. 18 In the coming weeks STAPPA and ALAPCO 19 will be providing comprehensive written comments on 20 the proposal. Today, however, I'd like to focus my 21 comments on a few fundamental issues related to 22 heavy-duty diesels and their fuel. 23 The air pollution that comes from big 24 diesel trucks and buses is not only among the most 25 visible there is, it is also among the most 33 1 offensive. What is worse, however, is that the 2 exhaust from heavy-duty diesels brings with it 3 adverse health impacts that can be dire, posing a 4 serious threat to public health nationwide. 5 Perhaps the greatest risk posed by 6 heavy-duty diesels comes from their toxic 7 emissions. Diesel exhaust contains over 40 8 chemicals that are listed by EPA and California as 9 toxic air contaminants, known human carcinogens, 10 probable human carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, 11 or endocrine disrupters. In 1998 California 12 declared particulate emissions from diesel-fueled 13 engines a toxic air contaminant based on data that 14 supported links between diesel exposure and human 15 cancer. 16 Further, last fall the South Coast Air 17 Quality Management District in Los Angeles, 18 California released a draft final report, The 19 Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South 20 Coast Air Basin, or the MATES-II study, which 21 included an analysis of the cancer risk in the 22 region from exposure to diesel particulate. 23 Based on this analysis which estimated 24 diesel particulate levels by using elemental carbon 25 as a surrogate and applied a cancer potency factor 34 1 determined by the state of California, the South 2 Coast concluded that of the cancer risk posed by air 3 pollution 70 percent is attributable to diesel 4 particulate emissions with mobile sources being the 5 dominant contributor. 6 STAPPA and ALAPCO were alarmed by South 7 Coast's findings. So this past spring, based on a 8 tailored, more conservative version of the MATES-II 9 methodology, we sought to extrapolate the evaluation 10 of cancer risk from diesel particulate to other 11 cities across the country and to estimate how many 12 cancers nationwide are the result of exposure to 13 diesel particulate. By applying a MATES-II-based 14 methodology, we found that on a nationwide basis 15 diesel particulate may be responsible for 125,000 16 cancers over a lifetime. 17 Now, let me be clear. This is not a 18 precise number. Instead, it an approximation of a 19 potential national impact of exposure to diesel 20 particulate which we think highlights the need for 21 swift and certain regulatory action. 22 Further, it allows us to estimate that 23 EPA's proposal which includes a 90 percent reduction 24 in particulate emissions from on-road heavy-duty 25 diesels could prevent 35,000 of these cancers. We 35 1 cannot afford to forego this opportunity. And EPA, 2 much to its credit, has issued a proposal that 3 ensures that we will not. 4 STAPPA and ALAPCO congratulate EPA for 5 responding to a serious environmental problem with 6 an equally serious strategy that establishes 7 rigorous emission standards for on-road heavy-duty 8 diesels and a commensurately low cap on sulfur in 9 diesel fuel, all within a time frame that will allow 10 us to reap the benefits of this program beginning 11 with the 2007 model year. 12 Although there are several aspects of the 13 proposal with which we have concerns -- and we will 14 offer recommendations to address those in our 15 written comments -- the fact remains that the key 16 components of this proposal are rock solid, and we 17 support them. 18 With respect to the emission standards, 19 we strongly endorse the levels EPA has proposed: a 20 particulate matter standard of 0.01 grams per 21 brake-horsepower-hour and a NOx standard of 0.2 22 grams per brake-horsepower-hour which are 90 and 95 23 percent cleaner than today's standards 24 respectively. 25 However, although we're very pleased that 36 1 the PM standard will take full effect in 2007, we 2 have concerns regarding this four-year phase-in 3 period proposed for the NOx standard and will offer 4 further discussion of this in our written comments. 5 Inextricably linked to the proposed 6 engine standards is the issue of low sulfur diesel 7 fuel. The ability of heavy-duty diesels to comply 8 with these stringent emission standards that EPA has 9 proposed is directly dependent on the timely 10 nationwide availability of diesel fuel with 11 ultra-low levels of sulfur. Without such fuel, the 12 technologies capable of achieving such low emission 13 standards will be rendered inoperable. 14 For this reason, STAPPA and ALAPCO 15 vigorously support the proposed 15 parts per million 16 cap on sulfur in diesel fuel to take full effect 17 across the country in mid-2006 with no phase-in 18 period. This provision of the proposal is 19 absolutely essential. While an even lower cap may 20 prove to be necessary, it is crucial that the final 21 rule include a full, effective nationwide cap of no 22 higher than 15 parts per million by mid-2006. 23 Finally, while nonroad diesel engines are 24 not addressed by this proposal, STAPPA and ALAPCO 25 view the control of nonroad diesels to be as 37 1 critical as the control of on-road diesels. 2 Further, we firmly believe that the 3 technological advances that will occur in order to 4 meet future, more stringent on-road heavy-duty 5 diesel standards will carry over to nonroad 6 equipment, but only if very low sulfur diesel fuel 7 is available for this sector as well. 8 We're extremely concerned, however, that 9 EPA may not be proceeding as quickly or as 10 aggressively as necessary to develop nonroad diesel 11 engine and fuel programs that are commensurate with 12 the enormous contribution nonroad diesels make to 13 air pollution. More must be done. 14 To this end, STAPPA and ALAPCO urge EPA 15 to accelerate its program development strategies for 16 nonroad diesel engines and fuels so that we can more 17 effectively reduce the huge air quality and public 18 health problems posed by these sources as well. 19 We recommend that EPA adopt engine 20 standards and a sulfur cap for nonroad heavy-duty 21 diesels and fuel that are equivalent to those for 22 on-road heavy-duty diesels and in the same time 23 frame. We urge the agency to use the 2001 nonroad 24 technology review as an opportunity to significantly 25 strengthen the nonroad diesel control program. 38 1 In conclusion, I thank you for this 2 opportunity to provide the associations' preliminary 3 perspectives on this important proposed rulemaking. 4 STAPPA and ALAPCO applaud EPA for seizing 5 the opportunity to take an enormous step toward 6 cleaning up the mobile source sector and achieving 7 our nation's clean air goals. We commend your 8 leadership in developing a technologically, 9 economically, and environmentally credible approach 10 for addressing on-road heavy-duty diesel engines and 11 fuels. 12 Preserving the integrity of the framework 13 that you have proposed is imperative to the 14 viability of this program and, moreover, to the 15 efforts of states and localities across the country 16 to achieve and sustain clean, healthful air. 17 Without it we cannot succeed. 18 In the coming weeks we'll be more 19 thoroughly analyzing the complete proposal and 20 developing comprehensive written comments on the 21 many issues raised. STAPPA and ALAPCO look forward 22 to working closely with the EPA as it continues to 23 refine this extremely important program. 24 On behalf of our associations, I offer 25 you our continued cooperation and partnership as you 39 1 move forward. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Next speaker, 4 Lisa Stegink. 5 MS. STEGINK: Good morning. My name is 6 Lisa Stegink, and I'm here today on behalf of the 7 Engine Manufacturers Association. Among EMA's 8 members are the principal manufacturers of the truck 9 and bus engines covered by today's proposal. 10 As we sit here today, we are on the cusp, 11 the critical turning point, of something 12 spectacular. We have within our grasp the potential 13 to dramatically reduce the emissions of the most 14 fuel-efficient, reliable, and durable source of 15 motive power available today and the backbone of our 16 nation's transportation and delivery system. 17 The diesel engine can be as clean, if not 18 cleaner, than any other power source. It is capable 19 of meeting emission standards significantly below 20 today's levels. And let me remind everyone that the 21 emissions from today's diesel engines already have 22 been reduced by over 90 percent. Yet we recognize 23 that more, much more, can and should be done. 24 The key, of course, is to greatly reduce 25 the sulfur content of diesel fuel. Future 40 1 reductions in diesel engine emissions are going to 2 require much more than new engine designs and 3 technologies. As EPA appropriately recognizes, 4 future emission reductions require a systems 5 approach involving the engine, aftertreatment, and 6 fuel. 7 In a sense, the future of clean, 8 low-emitting trucks and buses rests on a 9 three-legged stool; and the stool will fall without 10 all three legs in place. One of those legs, fuel 11 quality, enables the technologies necessary to make 12 the other two legs stand. 13 Without removing essentially all sulfur 14 from diesel fuel, advanced NOx aftertreatment 15 devices will not be feasible; advanced PM 16 aftertreatment will be poisoned; and engines will be 17 exposed to excessive wear, increased maintenance 18 costs, and impaired durability. 19 I cannot emphasize enough the critical 20 importance of ultra-low sulfur fuel. It enables 21 substantial NOx and PM emission reductions, it 22 provides direct PM emission reductions, and it 23 provides benefits not just from new engines but from 24 the entire fleet of diesel-fueled vehicles. 25 Improved diesel fuel also has a role in 41 1 responding to potential health effects concerns. 2 Ultra-low sulfur fuel lowers the total mass of 3 particulate from the entire fleet and enables the 4 use of known aftertreatment technologies such as 5 oxidation catalysts and catalyzed particulate 6 filters which can reduce the organic and 7 carbonaceous components of PM emissions, can reduce 8 hydrocarbon emissions and enables technologies to 9 reduce NOx which, in turn, will reduce secondary 10 PM. 11 We applaud EPA for recognizing the 12 critical role of fuel sulfur. We strongly support 13 the need for a uniform, nationwide low sulfur fuel 14 standard with a hard cap on sulfur content. 15 Regional differences in sulfur content will not 16 allow the systems approach necessary to meet EPA's 17 very stringent NOx and PM emission levels. 18 Further, a hard cap on sulfur is 19 critical. Averages simply will not work. They are 20 difficult and impractical to enforce. Moreover, the 21 engine and aftertreatment legs of the stool must be 22 assured of never being exposed to high sulfur fuel. 23 In our view, 15 ppm does not go far 24 enough, and fuel improvements should not only be 25 limited to trucks and buses. Nonroad fuels also 42 1 must be improved. 2 We are aware of the various arguments 3 raised by the oil industry against improving fuel 4 quality. They don't want to reduce sulfur to 15 5 ppm, let alone to lower levels. Nationwide 6 ultra-low sulfur fuel can and must be achieved; and 7 it can be done cost effectively without undue 8 economic harm to either the oil industry or to the 9 trucking industry, the users of both our engines and 10 the oil industry's fuel. 11 We will provide detailed comments on the 12 need for ultra-low sulfur fuel in our written 13 submission. 14 So today we are enthusiastic, excited, 15 and hopeful about the future of diesel engines and 16 our industry's ability to produce reliable, durable, 17 fuel-efficient, high-performing diesel engines that 18 also are as clean or cleaner than any other power 19 source. 20 There are issues which will require a 21 great deal of work by manufacturers and the agency, 22 but it is no longer a question of if. Give us fuel 23 improvements, sufficient time, compliance 24 flexibility, and testing certainty; and tremendous 25 emission reduction can be achieved. 43 1 Thank you. 2 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Allison Kelly. 3 MS. KELLY: My name is Allison Kelly. 4 I'm the clean air advocate for the Georgia Public 5 Interest Research Group, and I will be speaking 6 today in place of Rebecca Stanfield. 7 Thank you for giving me an opportunity to 8 comment today on a rule with important and 9 far-reaching implication for our nation's air 10 quality. 11 It is a daily reality for most Americans 12 living in urban and suburban areas to encounter 13 thick black clouds of noxious diesel pollution and 14 suffer the foul smell and taste, itchy eyes, 15 sneezing, coughing, wheezing, and long-term health 16 effects that are a direct result from breathing this 17 exhaust. 18 In my time working on air quality issues 19 for the Georgia PIRG, I know that our conversers who 20 talk to those thousands of Georgians each year at 21 their doors hear this story all the time. 22 It is common sense that cutting the 23 pollution from these trucks will result in enormous 24 public health benefits and will vastly improve the 25 quality of life in our cities and suburbs. This 44 1 common-sense notion was supported by 87 percent of 2 people in a recent poll commissioned by the American 3 Lung Association. 4 Common sense in the case of diesel 5 pollution is confirmed time and time again by the 6 health studies showing that exposure to diesel 7 pollution can lead to a range of systems from asthma 8 attacks to premature death and lung cancer. 9 Based on over 30 epidemiological studies, 10 we know that exposure to diesel exhaust can increase 11 the risk of lung cancer by as much as 89 percent. 12 Earlier this spring an association of state air 13 regulators estimated that more than 125,000 cases of 14 cancer in the U.S. are the direct result of 15 breathing diesel pollution. Add to these 125,000 16 cases of cancer the following health impacts: 17 thousands of American lives cut short annually due 18 to fine particulate pollution, thousands of 19 hospitalizations and emergency room visits annually 20 for asthma and other respiratory disease, and 21 millions of days of restricted activity annually for 22 vulnerable populations. 23 It is to prevent these health impacts 24 that Georgia PIRG strongly supports the proposed 25 standards to reduce heavy-duty bus and truck 45 1 pollution. 2 Three key pieces form the cornerstone of 3 the proposed standards and must be preserved at all 4 costs if this program is to be effective. The first 5 is the 15 parts per million cap on diesel fuel 6 sulfur content effective by 2006. The second is the 7 thousand grams per brake-horsepower-hour particulate 8 standard effective in 2007. Finally, the third is 9 the .2 grams per brake-horsepower-hour standard for 10 the NOx and hydrocarbons. 11 Georgia PIRG supports EPA's proposal to 12 cap diesel fuel sulfur levels at 15 parts per 13 million effective in 2006. It would be an expensive 14 exercise and futility to spend the next ten years 15 phasing in advanced engine and afterburner pollution 16 controls for heavy-duty engines only to allow these 17 controls to be poisoned and rendered ineffective by 18 the presence of sulfur in the fuel. 19 Given the ability of refiners to remove 20 sulfur from the diesel fuel as evidenced by recent 21 statements of support for the standards by two major 22 oil companies, there is no reason to tolerate a 23 scenario in which dirty diesel fuel damages or 24 destroys these essential pollution controls. 25 Other observers have suggested 46 1 alternative caps and averaging systems. For 2 example, the American Petroleum Institute suggests 3 that a cap of 50 ppm would be sufficient. However, 4 the consequences of setting a cap higher than 15 ppm 5 include increased incident of particulate filter 6 failure, deterioration of engine performance, 7 poisoning of the NOx catalyst. 8 For the public, this means more 9 pollution, more asthma attacks, more 10 hospitalizations, more premature mortality, and more 11 cancer. We urge EPA to reject this alternative. 12 Similarly, we do not support alternative 13 proposals that would allow refiners to continue 14 producing fuel at a level of 500 ppm sulfur for a 15 fraction of their total highway diesel fuel volume. 16 This approach or any other scenarios that would 17 allow two or more grades of diesel fuel to remain in 18 the market is sorely impractical. It would be 19 nearly impossible to ensure that the two grades of 20 fuel remain completely segregated throughout the 21 distribution and refueling process. Inevitably, 22 under this scenario, trucks equipped with sensitive 23 advanced NOx and PM controls will fuel up with dirty 24 diesel fuel and permanently damage or destroy their 25 pollution control systems. 47 1 To the extent that these alternative 2 proposals are designed to provide flexibility to 3 small refiners, we believe this additional 4 flexibility is unwarranted given the extremely long 5 lead time of six years. Furthermore, these 6 flexibility measures severely compromise the 7 environmental benefits of the proposed standards 8 placing too high of a burden on the breathing 9 public. 10 EPA's proposal holds all new engines to a 11 particulate matter standard of .01 grams per 12 brake-horsepower-hour in 2007 but allows a four-year 13 phase-in of the nitrogen oxide standard delaying 14 full implementation until 2010. We believe that 15 this unnecessarily delays the smog-reduction 16 benefits of the rules prolonging the chronic smog 17 problems faced by more than 117 million Americans 18 who live in likely ozone nonattainment areas across 19 our nation. 20 The urgency of our need to reduce 21 smog-forming emissions cannot be overstated. At the 22 end of 1999, we compiled smog monitoring data from 23 every monitor across the nation and found that the 24 health standard for smog has been exceeded more than 25 7,000 times. Moreover, according to a 1999 study by 48 1 ABT Associates, smog was the cause of more than 6 2 million asthma attacks, 150,000 emergency room 3 visits, and 50,000 hospital admissions in a single 4 summer in 1997. 5 We believe that all new engines should be 6 able to meet the .2 grams per brake-horsepower-hour 7 by 2007. The Manufacturers of Emission Controls 8 Association and the association of companies who are 9 most directly involved in providing the technology 10 to achieve the standards agree that the technologies 11 to meet the NOx standards will be available in 12 2007. Again, this hinges on the availability of 13 clean fuel. 14 In a recent letter from MECA to 15 Administrator Browner, the director of that 16 organization stated -- and I quote -- we strongly 17 believe that NOx adsorber technology will be 18 commercially available in 2007 and any current 19 engineering channels involved with this technology 20 will be addressed provided that very low sulfur fuel 21 is available. 22 Thus, we urge EPA to eliminate 23 unnecessary delay and apply the .2 standard to all 24 engines in 2007. Short of this, we urge you to 25 shorten the phase-in period to a length of no more 49 1 than two years. 2 Georgia PIRG urges the EPA to reject the 3 suggestion by some to include a technology review 4 for the 2003 time frame. We believe that the review 5 would be unnecessary given the high degree of 6 confidence that clean fuels will enable rapid 7 development of NOx emission control technologies. 8 Moreover, we see the proposed technology 9 review as a disincentive to actually develop cleaner 10 engines. Giving the industry an opportunity to 11 escape from new standards contingent on their own 12 lack of future progress in developing NOx control 13 technologies is far too much like the fox guarding 14 the henhouse. It should be remembered that this 15 industry has a history of illegal actions to escape 16 from pollution standards. In addition, one could 17 view this technology review as little more than an 18 opportunity to take advantage of the changing 19 political landscape under a new administration and 20 one that may be less committed to protecting public 21 health. 22 To the extent that you find that a 23 technology review is warranted, we urge you to 24 ensure that it allows equally for the strengthening 25 of the standard as well as for the relaxation. 50 1 While diesel engines are known as the 2 workhorse of our present-day transportation system, 3 it is important to acknowledge that far cleaner 4 technologies are being commercialized. The 5 promotion of these technologies including fuel cell, 6 hybrids, and electric propulsion systems can lead to 7 critical additional public health and environmental 8 benefits. 9 We strongly support the inclusion of the 10 Blue Sky Program to define a set of propulsion 11 technologies and/or a set of lower emission 12 standards for vehicles to be designated for receipt 13 of incentives under subsequent local, state, or 14 federal incentive programs. 15 Thank you. 16 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. I have one brief 17 question for Mr. Medley. 18 As you know, in our proposal we picked a 19 15 ppm cap to use to enable traps in NOx adsorbers 20 produce the reductions that we were projecting for 21 the proposal. 22 In your testimony you mentioned the API 23 50 ppm proposal and also said that that would get 24 essentially the same emission reductions. 25 Could you elaborate from a technology 51 1 perspective how that would happen? 2 MR. MEDLEY: I'll take a shot at it, 3 Chet. I'm not a technology expert. I'll 4 acknowledge that from the get-go. 5 I think the question is interesting given 6 that your proposal is based on an enabling type of 7 fuel specification and not any actual data that 8 demonstrates that the technology you have in mind 9 will achieve the standards that you've proposed for 10 the vehicles with any sulfur level, be it 50 or 15. 11 There is data out there, as I understand 12 it. I've seen some data that suggests that other 13 technologies that maybe are a little more -- a 14 little further along than the NOx adsorber 15 technology can demonstrate very nearly achieving the 16 NOx standard at a 50 parts per million fuel. 17 Particulate traps have been installed on 18 retrofit applications in other parts of the world 19 and have functioned well with sulfur levels up to 20 500 parts per million. 21 So I guess I would characterize the whole 22 technology issue as one of a great deal of 23 uncertainly, and I think that's the reason you have 24 the technology review proposal in your proposed 25 rule. I don't think anybody knows what technology 52 1 you can apply aftertreatment at this point in time 2 to achieve the standard that you've proposed. 3 MR. FRANCE: I assume you're referring to 4 NOx -- you mentioned traps. And there's substantial 5 field experience on those devices. I'm more 6 interested in your statement on NOx adsorbers, 7 alternatives to NOx adsorbers. I was wondering what 8 you had in mind there. 9 MR. MEDLEY: I think SCR and urea has 10 been demonstrated -- it's probably the most 11 demonstrated technology out there that actually has 12 integrated the fuel and the system and the engine in 13 something of a field kind of application, more of a 14 real-world application. NOx adsorbers have not 15 really had that kind of a field trial yet and even 16 in their bench evaluations have come nowhere close 17 to achieving the 90 percent reduction that you're 18 looking for with fuels that have any -- I mean with 19 no sulfur in them. 20 MR. FRANCE: I was curious. You 21 mentioned SCR which requires urea, normally 1 gallon 22 per every 25 gallons of diesel fuel. I was curious 23 from Exxon's perspective how you would ensure urea 24 was distributed throughout the country. 25 MR. MEDLEY: I don't think we have a 53 1 definitive answer that for. I would just say that 2 urea is readily available. How we would distribute 3 it and make sure that it was in the fueling 4 locations and how it would be dispensed so that you 5 could ensure that it was dispensed with the low 6 sulfur fuel, those are things that we'd have to work 7 out. But I think they're certainly doable. The 8 technology, it's not a high-technology kind of 9 issue, I don't think. 10 MR. FRANCE: Well, we would appreciate in 11 your written comments any proposal that you would 12 have on how that would be -- especially your cost 13 analysis on supplying a complement like urea along 14 with the diesel fuel. 15 MR. MEDLEY: Yes. It wouldn't be a 16 no-cost solution. You're right. There would be 17 some cost involved in setting up a urea distribution 18 system and the cost of the urea itself. 19 MR. FRANCE: So to the extent that you 20 could speak to that in your written comments as it 21 relates to your proposal, we would appreciate that. 22 The other quick question I have -- on 23 that question, I don't know if anyone else would 24 want to comment on the technology question. 25 MS. STEGINK: From our perspective, the 54 1 one thing that is certain from EMA's perspective is 2 that without the significant reductions to 15 ppm or 3 lower, we aren't going to be able to get the 4 significant emission reduction that EPA is looking 5 for. 50 ppm is not enough to do it from both the PM 6 and the NOx perspective for various reasons. We 7 need the very low sulfur fuel to enable the use of 8 the aftertreatment technologies to get it down to 9 where the EPA is looking to go in the emissions. 10 Manufacturers have done a lot. They've 11 reduced emissions by 90 percent. And while they may 12 be able to do a little more in terms of reducing 13 emissions than cylinder, to get significant further 14 reductions, we have to able to use the 15 aftertreatments. In order to use the 16 aftertreatments, we need the sulfur reductions. 17 In addition, with respect to PM in 18 particular, without the very low sulfur fuel for 19 these traps, there are going to be significant 20 maintenance problems, durability problems. Sulfur 21 poisons the system. And also we know that there is 22 a conversion when sulfur converts to sulfate and is 23 emitted in the atmosphere as PM. And at a 50 ppm 24 level, we know that that would actually exceed the 25 PM standard as proposed by EPA. 55 1 That's essentially our thoughts on the 2 technology questions that you're raising. 3 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Mr. Scott, on 4 the SCR issue on urea, what's your perspective on 5 making urea -- putting in a distribution system and 6 supplying urea at convenience stores, service 7 stations? 8 MR. SCOTT: I'm not familiar enough with 9 what would be entailed, if we're talking about a 10 separate storage tank that would have to be blended 11 at the pump or if it could be blended at the 12 wholesale level. Certainly if it is a less 13 expensive, you know, potential control device, we 14 would certainly look at it. I'd be interested in 15 knowing more about it. 16 MR. FRANCE: And, again, we would like 17 some feedback from you in terms of assessment cost 18 and what sort of implications it has for your member 19 companies. 20 MR. SCOTT: I'll try to learn about it 21 between now and August 15th. 22 MR. FRANCE: Okay. Thank you. One other 23 quick request from Mr. Medley. You mentioned supply 24 concerns. If you could submit also in your written 25 comments any analysis that you have that addresses 56 1 that issue, we would like to read that analysis. 2 Okay? 3 MR. MEDLEY: We'll be happy to do that. 4 I believe there is going to be some analysis of that 5 type. I think we've already got some of it in some 6 of the discussions that were had prior to the actual 7 proposal, but I'm sure there will be more. 8 MR. FRANCE: Okay. We appreciate that. 9 Thank you very much. The next testifier is 10 Representative Doug Keeper. 11 REPRESENTATIVE KEEPER: Thank you very 12 much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and 13 I want to welcome the EPA here. I want to thank you 14 very much for giving the public in this area an 15 opportunity to have input into the process. 16 As you all are -- well, first of all, let 17 me tell you a little bit about where I'm coming 18 from. My name is Doug Keeper. I serve in the 19 Georgia House of Representatives. I've been in for 20 12 years now. I believe 10 of those years I served 21 on the Natural Resource & Environment Committee. 22 My background, I got into politics by way 23 of environmental advocacy through the nonprofit 24 world; and in my private capacity, I'm chief 25 executive officer of a company called Atlanta 57 1 International Consulting where I do some 2 environmental consulting. I'm neither an engineer, 3 nor a scientist; and I don't claim any particular 4 expertise when it comes to air quality. 5 That being said, I can tell you that I 6 have testified dozens of times over the years, both 7 in the utility industry when it comes to clean air 8 issues as well as other issues across a span of 9 energy and environmental issues and different 10 forums; specifically when it came to the utility 11 industries, specifically electric utility. But I am 12 vaguely familiar with the issues that we're dealing 13 with today. 14 I'm coming to you to represent my 15 district of 40,000 people right outside the city 16 limits of Atlanta where we're in a crucial situation 17 where we have a combination of effects that have 18 impacted the metro Atlanta area. 19 Extraordinary growth in the last 10 to 15 20 years have put us in a position where we have added 21 enumerable number of motor vehicles into the metro 22 Atlanta area without a corresponding increase in the 23 infrastructure to deliver those individuals to 24 wherever they're trying to go, be it to work or to 25 play. 58 1 That has created a situation in the metro 2 Atlanta area where we have a terrible air quality 3 problem and, as a matter of fact, are a 4 nonattainment area. 5 I'm coming here today to urge you to 6 adopt the strictest regulations possible. My 7 constituency demands it. I think those of us in the 8 metro Atlanta area -- and I'm not talking just from 9 a constituent -- as an individual, but I believe the 10 business community as well understands the need to 11 preserve a quality of life. 12 There's a reason that approximately 13 100,000 people a year every year for the last ten 14 years has relocated to the metropolitan Atlanta 15 area. We provide a good place to do business, a 16 good place to live. And, unfortunately, we are 17 choking on our own success. And, therefore, I feel 18 very comfortable today as someone who also has spent 19 12 years on the House Industry Committee who works 20 very closely with the business community, 21 understanding the need to move goods and products 22 around this state. 23 I urge you to do everything that you can 24 within y'alls regulatory ability to adopt the 25 strictest standards possible so that we do not have 59 1 to be concerned about the health and welfare issues 2 that diesel in particular have brought upon this 3 metropolitan Atlanta community. And basically I 4 just wanted to come here and express those concerns. 5 I appreciate, once again, y'alls 6 efforts. Having been in politics for 20 years and 7 as an elected official for 12 years, I understand 8 the pressures that come to bear when it comes time 9 to make policy decisions like this. 10 I also understand the cost to the 11 business community. And I know that those people in 12 the business community who I consult to when I have 13 to advise them to do something that either, No. 1, 14 means they have to meet regulatory compliance or, 15 No. 2, it would be good for them as a company that's 16 responsible to their community. We do the 17 calculations of the cost, and quite often the 18 companies I've been working with anyhow have decided 19 that if it's the right thing to do and the community 20 supports it, then they'll go ahead and make those 21 commitments and commit those resources to do it. 22 I want to thank you very much for giving 23 me the opportunity to be here today. 24 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much for 25 taking the time to share your views. 60 1 The next panel, Joseph Abrams, Sherrill 2 Marcus, Hilary Carruthers, Janice Nolen, Jim 3 Hinshaw. If you could write your names and 4 affiliations. 5 Hilary Carruthers, begin when you're 6 ready. 7 MS. CARRUTHERS: Okay. Good morning 8 all. And I would like to thank you for allowing me 9 to speak today. My name is Hilary Carruthers; and I 10 live in Marietta, Georgia and I'm from Atlanta. I'm 11 a recent high school graduate and I will be starting 12 college in the fall of this year. 13 And right now I think that we must take 14 action to stop this situation of air pollution 15 within Atlanta and within the cities, the city 16 limits. 17 As of right now there are 40,000 people 18 who die prematurely from breathing soot pollution 19 every single year. Diesel soot pollution has been 20 linked to cancer by over 30 different scientific 21 studies, and 125,000 cases of cancer are reported 22 annually to the result of soot pollution. Obviously 23 this is a very urgent issue right now. 24 I know we've all had the experience of 25 riding behind a diesel truck on the highways or the 61 1 streets of Atlanta and having thick brown air puffed 2 back at us and seeping through the windows and you 3 smell it. It's like you have a moment in the air. 4 I do definitely agree with your proposal 5 that we need to clean up the situation and that we 6 need to test these trucks and buses as soon as 7 possible. 8 Obviously we can look at the amount of 9 smog days that we have every summer, and also this 10 shows how much smog is in our air. The situation is 11 absolutely horrendous. The amount of smog days 12 during the summer create a situation when children 13 cannot go out and play because of their young 14 respiratory systems and when older people cannot go 15 out and be in the air because their respiratory 16 systems cannot handle it. And I see this as a 17 serious problem because it creates a situation when 18 our outdoors become a health hazard. 19 I definitely urge you to try to clean up 20 the situation. I think anytime when you have a 21 situation when 40,000 people die per year because of 22 a certain cause that makes it urgent and means that 23 it needs to get cleaned up as soon as possible. 24 I think that the diesel trucks within 25 Georgia and everywhere actually should meet all the 62 1 emission standards. We must clean up this problem 2 by making sure that the emission standards on these 3 trucks are the right standards and that they will 4 not emit so many pollutants and toxins into the 5 air. 6 And I think that this problem should 7 definitely be cleaned up by the year 2006, if not 8 sooner than that, because, if we have five, six more 9 years where 40,000 people are going to die every 10 year because of this smog and the pollutants, I 11 think that's absolutely unnecessary and just can't 12 continue. 13 And I'd like to thank you for allowing me 14 to speak today and wish everybody a nice day. 15 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much for 16 giving us your views, and good luck as you continue 17 your education. 18 MS. CARRUTHERS: Thank you. 19 MR. FRANCE: Janice Nolen. 20 MS. NOLEN: Thank you. My name is Janice 21 Nolen. I'm the director of program for the American 22 Lung Association of Tennessee, and I'm here 23 representing the American Lung Association of 24 Tennessee. 25 As you probably know, the Lung 63 1 Association is the nation's oldest voluntary health 2 organization; and for the last four decades we've 3 been leading the way in the fight against air 4 pollution. 5 We Tennesseans have never thought of our 6 ourselves as living in a place that had much in 7 common with Los Angeles, Houston, or even Atlanta. 8 We pride ourselves on our very quiet lifestyles with 9 good communities to work and to raise families. 10 However, we now know that we do have one thing at 11 least in common with those larger urban areas. We 12 have really unhealthy air. 13 All but one of the 24 ozone monitors in 14 Tennessee recorded violations of the eight-hour 15 standards between 1997 and 1999. The one that 16 didn't, the only one that didn't, came in at only 1 17 part per billion below the standard. At least three 18 of these monitors were originally cited because they 19 were in rural locations away from the perceived 20 extent of urban air pollution. 21 State monitoring officials predict that 22 if we had monitors in every one of our 95 counties 23 every county would violate the standard. That's how 24 pervasive air pollution in Tennessee is. There is 25 no escaping it, especially for those most at risk, 64 1 like the 80,000 children we have in the state with 2 asthma. 3 What was even more striking to me as a 4 native Tennessean was how bad our air is by 5 comparison to the rest of the nation. Tennessee's 6 air quality is much worse than any of us had 7 previously thought. Last month the Lung Association 8 released the State of the Air 2000 report which used 9 data reported to EPA to evaluate the relative air 10 quality in metropolitan areas. 11 Tennessee had three cities ranked among 12 the 25 smoggiest cities in the nation. Knoxville 13 was No. 12, Nashville was No. 18, and Memphis was 14 No. 23. The three largest cities in Tennessee 15 ranked right behind the cities of Southern 16 California, Houston, and Atlanta. Tennessee even 17 had five counties ranked among the 25 smoggiest in 18 the nation, four of which were in the Great Smoky 19 Mountains/Knoxville area. 20 That bad air is taking a dangerous toll 21 on Tennesseans. According to another recent 22 national report, some 4,500 Tennesseans went to the 23 emergency room in the summer of 1997 from 24 respiratory problems caused by smog. Approximately 25 1,500 were admitted to the hospital because of smog 65 1 impairing their ability to breathe. 2 We are taking strides to clean up the air 3 in Tennessee. We at the Lung Association have long 4 urged the State to work aggressively to comply with 5 the NOx SIP call. We've pushed TVA both in public 6 and in private to clean up their dirty power 7 plants. The commitments to reducing NOx will help 8 improve the air quality in many places in Tennessee 9 but not for the three worst cities: Knoxville, 10 Nashville, and Memphis. 11 More must be done to have air in my state 12 that doesn't make people sick. That's why I'm here 13 today, to urge you to put these proposed diesel 14 regulations into effect. We believe that we must 15 make certain that all vehicles on the highways are 16 as clean as they can be, and diesel should be no 17 exception. 18 The key to this is capping the sulfur 19 content of diesel fuel at 15 parts per million. We 20 must have nearly-sulfur-free fuel to enable the 21 other measures of reducing diesel emissions to take 22 effect. In addition, it reduces the production of 23 sulfur particulates to a point which will also help 24 us meet the particulate standard. 25 We and EPA have been pushing TVA to 66 1 control sulfur in its fuel and emissions for years. 2 It's time we made the same requirements for diesel 3 fuels. 4 However, we cannot wait until 2010 to 5 have full implementation. We cannot ask people to 6 wait ten years to breathe easier. EPA must require 7 all diesel fuels meet the 15 parts per million cap 8 by June 1, 2006 and require all new 2007 vehicles to 9 include control technologies using them. 10 We also support the concept of rewarding 11 manufacturers who go beyond the mandates of this 12 rule and create even cleaner alternatives. It's 13 time to begin investing in the next generation of 14 technology that can serve the role of diesel without 15 the health and environmental impacts. 16 The American Lung Association of 17 Tennessee strongly supports EPA's proposals. These 18 measures are critical to the protection of public 19 health and the environment. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Jim Hinshaw. 22 MR. HINSHAW: Thank you for giving me the 23 opportunity to share with you. I'm straddling a 24 place in the table. So if you don't hear me well, 25 please raise your hand. There are too many legs 67 1 between me and the table is what I'm trying to say. 2 I have an opportunity I believe to share 3 for two people today. I would like to read to you 4 from a physician's statement and her testimony who 5 cannot be here. Her name is Robyn Levy. And I 6 would like to address the EPA and those who have 7 come to the hearing. 8 Topic of diesel fuel particulate matter 9 and respiratory disease. I am a practicing clinical 10 allergist and immunologist and asthma specialist in 11 the Atlanta area and have been practicing for the 12 last ten years. I treat both pediatric and adult 13 patients. 14 Over the past five years, I have noted 15 increasing respiratory disease in both asthma and 16 sinus disease among all age groups in my patients 17 each summer, such that in previous years summer 18 months were the quietest months of the year for my 19 practice and are now some of the busiest. 20 I see more patients than ever before with 21 new onset asthma in all age groups and many patients 22 with new onset upper respiratory tract disease such 23 as sinusitis and rhinitis than ever I have before. 24 Many patients move to the Atlanta area 25 from other parts of the country less urbanized and 68 1 even from other countries and report onset of 2 increasing respiratory disease including asthma and 3 upper airway disease after their move. 4 This all sounds a little different from 5 the politician I heard earlier saying we have a good 6 place to move to. That's my quote. 7 Not only am I seeing this in my own 8 practice, but respiratory physicians across America 9 have similar concerns and observations in their own 10 practices. Not only are we seeing logarithmic 11 increases in the incidence of asthma and sinus 12 disease across all ages and patient subpopulations, 13 but we are seeing more difficult-to-control asthma 14 requiring higher doses of inhaled and oral steroids 15 than ever before. 16 It is not unusual for some of my 17 patients, including very young ones, to require 18 three to six medications per day to remain healthy. 19 In past years many of my patients were able to 20 discontinue their medications in the noncold and flu 21 summer months. However, this has not been the case 22 in the last several summers, such that more patients 23 have taken more medications in the summer months and 24 have had less holidays off of medications during 25 these months. 69 1 In addition, I find numerous discussions, 2 complaints, and requests for information from 3 patients on a daily basis regarding difficulties in 4 playing ball, exercising, and running outdoors in 5 the summer months. These were not typical 6 questions, concerns, and complaints I faced even 7 eight years ago in my practice. 8 There is an increasing body of research 9 being performed amongst allergy and asthma 10 specialists in this country and worldwide on the 11 issues of airborne particulate matter emanating from 12 car and truck exhaust in regards to their effects on 13 asthma and other respiratory disease. In 14 particular, diesel particles have been implicated in 15 several studies both in this country and abroad in 16 issues of rising respiratory disease. 17 My personal observations in combination 18 with my colleagues' similar observations and the 19 growing body of research evidence undoubtedly 20 implicate particulate matter from air pollutants and 21 especially diesel exhaust particles as major 22 concerns for the epidemic of asthma and other 23 related respiratory disease that we are seeing here 24 in Atlanta as well as other urbanized areas. 25 This is not a time for compromise in 70 1 these areas. Compromises in the past have led to 2 our current situation which is far from optimal or 3 even acceptable. Recognizing the considerable cost 4 in the burden of healthcare dollars over future 5 years, we have no other choice than to make the 6 sacrifices now to ensure better quality of life, 7 health, and containment of healthcare dollars in our 8 future. 9 These issues are not the vague issues of 10 future generations. These issues are occurring at 11 such a rapid rate of prevalence and of severity that 12 these are issues for ourselves in the 13 not-too-distant future. 14 There are no other acceptable measures 15 when it comes to the issues of diesel particles and 16 particulate matter from pollutant sources. Even the 17 most dramatic steps that we're able to take at this 18 current stage will only provide us with small 19 changes in the right direction. It is going to take 20 dramatic changes over many years' time and in many 21 different sectors to ensure a healthy quality of 22 life in our population with regards to respiratory 23 healthcare. 24 I remain quite concerned about the 25 quality of life that continues to worsen each year 71 1 and that has had significant negative impacts upon 2 the respiratory health of our citizens. 3 I invite any representatives from the EPA 4 or any other industry to spend time with me in my 5 office on any given day to examine the effects of 6 air quality on my patients of all ages. 7 I appreciate your attention to these 8 concerns and look forward to working with you to 9 improve our quality of life through cleaner air. 10 Sincerely, again, Dr. Robyn Levy. 11 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. 12 MR. HINSHAW: Thank you again for an 13 opportunity for me to share with you. I come to you 14 at a time when I think it's essential that I speak 15 very quickly about how I choose to be here. 16 For a brief reading, I would share with 17 you out of the Acts of the Apostles the 17th 18 Chapter, Verse 24 through 31. And this is my own 19 translation. 20 The God who created the world and 21 everything in it and who was Lord of heaven and 22 earth does not live in shrines made by human hands. 23 It is not because God lacks anything that he accepts 24 service at our hands. For the Great Spirit is the 25 universal giver of life and breath, indeed of 72 1 everything. The Great Reality created humanity and 2 determines our errors in history, the limits of our 3 territory. 4 We are to seek God in the hopes that 5 groping after our Creator we might find the source, 6 the companion. Though, indeed, this one is not very 7 far from each one of us, this one in whom we live 8 and move and breathe and find our being. We are 9 offspring. God commands us everywhere to turn 10 around and change and follow the will, the way of 11 the Master, the human one who has risen. 12 That's how I choose to be here. 13 I want to tell you a story about a man 14 who at age 19 found himself in the battle of bulge. 15 He had already blown up bridges prior to the 16 Normandy invasion of World War II. He was freezing 17 to death. He removed a frozen coat off a frozen 18 body of a dead German. He was immediately captured 19 by the Germans. At that point he was lined up with 20 two other of his guys in his squad of paratroopers, 21 82nd Airborne. 22 MR. HERZOG: One minute remaining. 23 MR. HINSHAW: Thank you. Appreciate 24 that. And at that point he watched them be shot. 25 The next thing he heard was that he would be shot 73 1 the next day if he was not able to tell the Germans 2 what they wanted to know. He killed a guard that 3 night and approximately 30 years later related to me 4 this story. That man was my father. 5 By the gift of what happens to you when 6 you grow up on tobacco road and the free cigarettes 7 given to servicemen, he learned to smoke; and he 8 smoked until the doctors told him he had to quit. 9 He developed emphysema. 10 And I come to you recognizing that five 11 years ago, a little more, February 1st, he died 12 probably because he had gotten into the eight-year 13 period the physician is talking about here. He was 14 breathing the air that we have up on tobacco road. 15 I'm here because I know that we need the 16 big trucks to bring the groceries to Atlanta, and I 17 think that we need to clean them up. I'm here 18 because I know that we have to have the fuel that 19 will make them efficient enough so that a little kid 20 named Charlie that we heard about this morning in 21 the press conference can get a decent breath. I 22 mean he might not be in the quota that's supposed to 23 die this year. 24 I know that the Supreme Court has tried. 25 We're going to try and decide in the future whether 74 1 or not it costs too much to do this. 2 So what I invite you to recognize is that 3 there was a man named Ezekiel a few years ago. He 4 invited people to recognize that you can find the 5 guts, the air, the wind to do what we need to do 6 even if we're skeletons. By those bones we are 7 called, I believe, to take on big oil and to take on 8 our need to have the comfort that's nearly killed 9 us. 10 MR. HERZOG: Excuse me, Mr. Hinshaw. Can 11 we have your conclusion? 12 MR. HINSHAW: Thanks. 13 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much for 14 giving us your views today. 15 The next panel, Gary Boring, Michael 16 Replogle, Dale McKinnon, Marie Valentine, Rick Wynn, 17 David Piech. 18 (A discussion ensued off the record.) 19 MR. BORING: Thank you. I'm Gary 20 Boring. I'm president and CEO of Countrymark 21 Cooperative, Incorporated. And I would like to 22 incorporate by reference the comments of Ron 23 Williams who spoke on behalf of Gary Williams Energy 24 Company and small refiners earlier in New York. And 25 I concur with those comments that he made. 75 1 But I'm here this morning representing 2 Countrymark Cooperative, Inc. We are an oil company 3 but we are not big oil. Countrymark Co-op operates 4 a 24,000-barrel-a-day refinery in Mt. Vernon, 5 Indiana which is located at the southwestern most 6 point of Indiana where the Wabash and Ohio Rivers 7 converge. We have a 238-mile product pipeline 8 conducting our three terminals in southern, central, 9 and northern Indiana. 10 While we are a small refiner, we serve 11 the fuel needs of approximately 65 percent of the 12 farmers in Indiana. We are currently providing our 13 refined products also to our members in Ohio and 14 lower Michigan. 15 I continue to be amazed at the vision of 16 the farmers of Indiana who back in the late '40s and 17 early '50s had the foresight to construct our small 18 refinery in the Illinois basin which at that time 19 was an active oil-producing area producing far in 20 excess of what we could use at our small refinery. 21 Through the years, as you can imagine, 22 the production from the Illinois basin has declined 23 to the point that it produces about 30,000 barrels 24 of oil per day of which we consume approximately 25 24,000 barrels. 76 1 You should know that we do not own any 2 crude oil and purchase every barrel that we consume 3 at our refinery from an area within 100 miles of our 4 refinery, and those funds directly benefit our local 5 economy. Last month the amount we paid for that 6 crude oil was in excess of $19 million. Much of 7 that amount went to the local farmers who own the 8 land where the wells are located. We use no foreign 9 crude oil, and this further differentiates us from 10 most refiners. We employ 315 people. We own no 11 retail outlets. 12 As an agricultural cooperative, we are 13 owned by our member cooperatives which, in turn, are 14 owned by the farmers of the area they serve. We 15 provide agricultural fuels to co-ops whose farmer 16 members number approximately 200,000. 17 In the event we are profitable, we return 18 a portion of our profits to our members; and they, 19 in turn, return any of their excess profits they may 20 generate to their farmer-owners. 21 The reason agricultural cooperatives were 22 formed was to give the farmer a more level playing 23 field in acquiring inputs. We feel we provide a 24 very valuable competition in our trade area and that 25 the farmers in our trade area would immediately 77 1 suffer higher fuel costs if we were not there to 2 serve them. 3 We are very conscious of our 4 environmental responsibilities and have upgraded our 5 facilities to meet or exceed all current EPA 6 regulations. We are most concerned about our 7 future, as the current regulations under 8 consideration are projected to cost far in excess of 9 our ability to fund at this time. 10 Please understand that we are limited in 11 the amount we can borrow against our assets and can 12 support through the profitability of our 13 operations. Our success is directly related to the 14 farm economy; and, as many of you know, farmers have 15 been in a recession despite the booming economy many 16 others have experienced for the past few years. 17 We are unable to go to our members and 18 farmers and ask them to help us capitalize the 19 projects that will be required as the result of 20 these new regulations. 21 Quite frankly, at this date we do not 22 know how we are going to fund these new 23 requirements. We are attempting to plan for the 24 future, but it will be difficult to finalize any 25 future plans until we know exactly how we are to be 78 1 treated in the formulation of these regulations. 2 There are several things which could be 3 beneficial to Countrymark Cooperative and other 4 cooperatives and small refineries in allowing us to 5 comply over time with the new regulations. These 6 are time, money, and reasonable standards. 7 I am not a technologically-oriented 8 person. I have a legal background and was vice 9 president and general counsel of Countrymark 10 Cooperative before I became president and CEO. I'm 11 going to tell you what I do understand about what we 12 would need to stay in business after these 13 regulations are promulgated. 14 Perhaps the most helpful thing would be 15 to delay gasoline desulfurization requirements for 16 us by two or more years if we make the necessary 17 changes to comply with the distillate 18 desulfurization regulations first. It would be most 19 important that the gasoline produced during that 20 time would not require special treatment, handling, 21 or labeling during the interim period. 22 We believe that we need three to five 23 years of additional time to assimilate the new 24 technology which will be necessary for us to 25 desulfurize our on-road products. Most of our 79 1 customers are purchasing high sulfur or off-road 2 product, but we are uncertain what the introduction 3 of ultra-low sulfur on-road products will do to our 4 local markets. 5 One could not expect the engine 6 manufacturers to manufacture engines for ultra-low 7 sulfur fuels and high sulfur fuels long term. So 8 even if we do get additional time, it may be that 9 the market will dictate that we must desulfurize our 10 products earlier to meet the competition. 11 We do, however, foresee that additional 12 time for us to evaluate and prepare would be most 13 helpful. We need assistance perhaps with a 14 tax-based incentive that would give us the funds 15 over time to do these projects. SBA. 16 has been very helpful throughout these 17 last few months in attempting to find resolution to 18 our financial problems. The problem is that the SBA 19 is limited to $750,000 in lending; and we are 20 currently estimating that the sum total of all of 21 these projects, both gasoline and distillate, will 22 exceed $25 million just for our small refinery. 23 This exceeds the book value of all of our current 24 refining and distribution assets. 25 As time passes, this technology will 80 1 become even more expensive. A government guaranteed 2 loan of up to $50 million for small refiners may be 3 the only way most of us could acquire the financing 4 needed to make the necessary upgrades. 5 Finally, we had been discussing until 6 just recently a proposed 50 parts per million sulfur 7 level for the ultra-low sulfur diesel product. This 8 is a 90 percent reduction from the current allowable 9 levels. The additional funds required to make the 10 incremental reduction from 50 parts to 15 parts is 11 estimated to be about $2 million just at our small 12 refinery. 13 We would request that you reconsider and 14 go back to the 50 parts per million allowable level 15 to give us an opportunity to purchase technology 16 which we can more readily afford and which would 17 reduce continuing operating costs. 18 Cooperative refineries represent less 19 than 2 percent of the refining capacity of this 20 country, but we account for 40 percent of the 21 on-farm fuel use in the United States. And, as you 22 will recall, in our trade area, we provide 65 23 percent of the agricultural power fuels used in our 24 market area. 25 Please recall also that the original 81 1 purpose of ag. co-ops was to give farmers a level 2 playing field in allowing them to benefit from the 3 manufacture and sale of their own products. 4 I am passionate about this, as I live on 5 the family farm where I was born. My brother, 6 father, and I own the farm. My family has farmed 7 this land for over 150 years. My father was a board 8 member of our local cooperative for 50 years. I am 9 a member of that local co-op. 10 Please give small refiners and 11 cooperative refiners every consideration in 12 promulgating rules that will allow our small 13 farmer-owned refinery to continue to provide quality 14 products to our region at a price which farmers can 15 afford and to receive the profits which benefit them 16 directly. 17 Thank you. 18 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. The next 19 speaker, Michael Replogle. 20 MR. REPLOGLE: Thank you. It's a 21 pleasure to be here today. Environmental Defense 22 greatly appreciates the opportunity to comment on 23 EPA's proposed emission standards for large diesel 24 trucks and buses and for cleaner diesel fuel. 25 I'm testifying today on behalf of the 82 1 approximately 300,000 members of Environmental 2 Defense who live in metropolitan Atlanta and in 3 communities across the country who would get 4 dramatically cleaner, healthier air than currently 5 exists if this EPA proposed rule becomes final. 6 Massive amounts of diesel emissions that 7 contribute significantly to fine particulate, air 8 toxics, and nitrogen oxide, air contaminant levels, 9 rank as very serious health and environmental 10 problems both here and in other metropolitan areas. 11 EPA estimates that by 2007 heavy-duty 12 vehicles will comprise nearly a quarter of the total 13 NOx emissions inventory in Atlanta and 36 percent of 14 the mobile source NOx emissions inventory as well as 15 16 percent of the urban particulate matter coming up 16 into the air here in Atlanta. 17 There is overwhelming public support for 18 EPA's proposed action. A recent public opinion 19 survey found that 87 percent of the public, nearly 9 20 out of 10 people, agree that 18-wheeler trucks, 21 buses, and other big diesel vehicles should be 22 required to use the best available pollution control 23 technology even though it will cost the owners of 24 these vehicles more money. 25 While millions of Americans who work and 83 1 have family responsibilities are unable to attend 2 EPA's public hearings, the tremendous broad-based 3 support for EPA's action reflected in this survey 4 must be counted. 5 The overwhelming support for EPA's 6 initiative is not surprising. The largely 7 uncontrolled exhaust from large diesel trucks and 8 buses is dirty and noxious. Everyone in this room 9 has memories going back to our childhood of 10 breathing and choking on the black fumes from trucks 11 and buses. 12 This pollution is ubiquitous and 13 contributes to harmful air pollution across much of 14 the Southeastern United States. This hurts our 15 lungs, it harms our children, and it obscures our 16 heritage, both environmental and cultural. 17 It's imperative that EPA finalize its 18 proposed emission standard for diesel particulates 19 to protect neighborhoods in the Atlanta metropolitan 20 region and other communities across the country from 21 the carcinogenic effects of diesel exhaust. 22 Numerous public health studies show 23 increased lung cancer risks of 20 to 89 percent from 24 diesel exhaust. Major state and national and 25 international public health agencies have found that 84 1 diesel exhaust or particulates from diesel are 2 probable or known carcinogen. 3 Compelling information suggests that 4 minorities and the economically disadvantaged bear a 5 disproportionate burden of this unacceptable public 6 health risk. In March of this year, local officials 7 in Los Angeles completed a study looking at urban 8 air toxics and found that emissions of diesel 9 particulates are responsible for 70 percent of the 10 cancer risk associated with air pollution. 11 Moreover, the study found that the greatest risk 12 levels were in low-income minority areas of the 13 city. 14 Based on this analysis, the State and 15 Local Air Officials, the STAPPA/ALAPCO group, 16 estimated that diesel particulates are responsible 17 for nearly 2,000 cancers in the metro Atlanta 18 region. 19 In taking final action on its proposal, 20 EPA must issue the most stringent particulate 21 emission standards feasible and no less stringent 22 than .01 grams per brake-horsepower to help rid our 23 communities of harmful cancer-causing diesel 24 exhaust. It's high time we put the health of our 25 children and those who have special susceptibility 85 1 to respiratory problems, as well as those who live 2 in communities that experience significant truck 3 traffic, first. 4 While Environmental Defense applauds 5 EPA's proposed cuts in NOx emissions from large 6 trucks and buses, we're concerned about the proposed 7 delay in implementing the NOx emission standards. 8 NOx emissions have increased by more than 15 percent 9 since the advent of the 1970 Clean Air Act. 10 NOx pollution contributes to a variety of 11 health and environmental problems here and elsewhere 12 in the country, contributing to ground-level smog, 13 short and long-term lung damage in children, 14 asthmatics, and other vulnerable people. NOx is one 15 of the major contributors to fine particles 16 emissions that are also a major problem causing 17 premature death, hospitalization, and emergency 18 treatment among elderly and other vulnerable 19 populations. NOx is a major contributor to 20 acidification of forests, lakes, and streams. It 21 contributes to urban haze, and in our national parks 22 it obscures the beautiful views. 23 Large trucks and buses are one of the 24 major contributors to this NOx air pollution 25 problem. EPA projects that large trucks and buses 86 1 alone will soon comprise about 23 percent of the NOx 2 air pollution in Atlanta. Therefore, we've got to 3 focus on those trucks and buses if we're going to 4 really deal with the smog problem here and if we're 5 going to help clean up the forest health problems 6 that afflict the beautiful forest of the Great Smoky 7 Mountains. 8 Unfortunately, EPA is proposing 9 unacceptable delays in the implementation of the NOx 10 emission standards for large diesel trucks and 11 buses. EPA has proposed to phase in the new 12 standards between 2007 and 2010. Today's toddlers 13 will be teenagers by the time these emission 14 standards take full effect. 15 We've already missed the attainment 16 deadlines here in Atlanta for smog. It's simply not 17 tenable for EPA to put further delay in place on 18 these kinds of critical NOx controls. For every 19 single dollar that we invest in cutting NOx air 20 pollution, we reap tremendous benefits for public 21 health and the environment. Instead of postponing 22 those benefits, EPA should require diesel engines to 23 achieve full compliance with the NOx emission 24 standards no later than 2007. This would ensure the 25 huge multifaceted clean air benefits from NOx 87 1 pollution reduction can be more immediately 2 realized. 3 Recent public opinion polls found that 69 4 percent of the public supports requiring cleaner 5 pollution standards for large trucks and buses to be 6 achieved in less than five years. The long delay is 7 especially problematic since the proposed 8 regulations say nothing about existing fleets. And 9 over the next 7 to 11 years before the NOx emission 10 limits are fully in effect, hundreds of thousands of 11 new diesel engines will be built, sold, and used and 12 will continue to spew pollution for decades to 13 come. 14 Environmental Defense urges EPA to 15 establish a cap on sulfur content of highway diesel 16 fuel, no less than 15 parts per million by no later 17 than 2006. Low sulfur fuel at this level is 18 critical to achieving the kind of clean air benefits 19 that are possible under this initiative. 20 At an estimated cost of 4 cents a gallon, 21 this is a clean air bargain. One refiner has 22 already voluntarily agreed to produce diesel fuel 23 that meets this sulfur fuel specification in the Los 24 Angeles region and is producing this low sulfur 25 diesel fuel. If we can do it in Los Angeles, we can 88 1 do it here in Atlanta and elsewhere. 2 Industry tends to overstate the costs of 3 regulatory compliance. The record of implementing 4 the Clean Air Act shows this clearly. EPA is 5 allowing six years for refiners to produce cleaner 6 fuel, a longer phase-in period that will give the 7 refining industry considerable flexibility in 8 managing its compliance costs. Further, EPA's cost 9 estimates are consistent with those of a refining 10 industry consulting firm. We think that extending 11 proposed low sulfur diesel fuel requirements to the 12 nonroad sector will also help pave the way for 13 enhanced emission standards for nonroad engines, 14 another important source of NOx pollution. 15 So in summary, pollution from large 16 diesel trucks and buses threatens the health of our 17 children and our communities. It exacerbates the 18 disparate impacts of our transportation system on 19 low-income communities. There's a compelling air 20 quality need to cut the harmful air pollution that 21 comes from the exhaust of diesel trucks and buses. 22 We respectfully urge EPA to act 23 expeditiously in completing this important 24 rulemaking, to turn back calls for delay, and to put 25 in place strong standards that will help reduce 89 1 environmental injustice and ensure that present and 2 future generations will have clean, healthy air. 3 Thank you. 4 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Dale McKinnon. 5 MR. MCKINNON: Thank you. It looks like 6 I'm the last one who can say this, but good 7 morning. My name is Dale McKinnon. I'm the deputy 8 director of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls 9 Association or MECA. 10 MECA is pleased to present testimony in 11 support of EPA's proposed highway heavy-duty engine 12 and vehicle standards and highway diesel sulfur fuel 13 requirements. We believe an important opportunity 14 exists to significantly reduce emissions from 15 heavy-duty diesel engines by utilizing an engineered 16 systems approach where we use advanced engine 17 designs, advanced emission control technology, and 18 very low sulfur fuel. 19 EPA's regulatory initiative recognizes 20 the importance of this approach, and we believe its 21 regulatory initiative constitutes a carefully 22 crafted and balanced program. If finalized, 23 substantial cost-effective emission reductions will 24 be achieved and the age of a truly clean diesel 25 engine will be with us. 90 1 MECA is a nonprofit association. We're 2 made up of the world's leading manufacturers of 3 motor vehicle emission controls. Our members have 4 over 30 years of experience in developing and 5 commercializing exhaust emission control 6 technology. Along with this is a proven track 7 record. 8 My comments today are based on our 9 extensive experience and also our track record. 10 Today I'd like to outline MECA's position 11 on EPA's proposed initiative. In particular, I'd 12 like to focus on two aspects of the proposal; and 13 that's the technological feasibility of the 14 heavy-duty diesel engine standards and the need for 15 very low sulfur diesel fuel. 16 We'll also be providing more detailed 17 comments on the proposal in our written testimony. 18 Regarding the technological feasibility 19 of the proposed standards, we believe the proposed 20 standards can be achieved in a cost-effective manner 21 within the lead time available, if very low sulfur 22 fuel is available. 23 EPA identified two primary candidate 24 technologies in its proposal, the first being 25 catalyst-based diesel particulate filters for 91 1 control of particulate matter emission and the 2 second being NOx adsorbers for control of the 3 nitrogen oxide emissions. 4 Catalyst-based diesel particulate filters 5 are commercially available today. All that remains 6 is to optimize these systems for the specific 7 engines. Currently over 20,000 systems on a wide 8 variety of diesel applications are actually in use 9 worldwide. The control efficiency of these systems 10 and performance and durability are proven. In fact, 11 in areas where less than 10 ppm fuel sulfur is being 12 used, impressive durability has been demonstrated 13 where excellent PM control after 600,000 kilometers 14 of vehicle service has been found. With low sulfur 15 diesel fuel, greater than 90 percent reductions in 16 PM and toxic hydrocarbons can be achieved. In fact, 17 PM emissions from these systems are nearly 18 undetectable. 19 Regarding NOx adsorber technology, 20 developing optimization of this technology is 21 progressing at a rapid rate. Our members fully 22 expect that with very low sulfur fuel this 23 technology will be commercially available in 2007 24 for diesel engines. In fact, the prospect of this 25 fuel being available in 2006 is already simulated an 92 1 increased commitment to move this technology forward 2 on behalf of our members. 3 Our members see no barriers to the 4 introduction and commercialization of this 5 technology with very low sulfur fuel. There are 6 engineering challenges, but these are engineering in 7 nature. Substantial financial investments are being 8 made because companies believe they will be 9 commercially available. 10 Selective catalytic reduction mentioned 11 earlier is an another NOx control option. It's 12 currently being developed and should be commercially 13 available on selected motor vehicles in the near 14 future. 15 Why the need for very low sulfur fuel? 16 Meeting a 0.2 grams per brake-horsepower-hour NOx 17 along with the 0.01 grams per brake-horsepower-hour 18 PM standards for 435,000 miles combined -- you know, 19 using combined transient and steady-state 20 certification procedures along with not-to-exceed 21 requirements is challenging. 22 But we believe these challenges can be 23 met. The goal of a truly clean diesel engine is 24 possible; but in order for that goal to be possible, 25 very low sulfur fuel is needed. 93 1 We continue to recommend a sulfur cap of 2 5 ppm; but with a cap of 15 ppm, we believe that 3 strategies can be developed to meet the proposed 4 emission limits. Specifically, with a 15 ppm cap, 5 our members are extremely confident that all 6 catalyst-based diesel particulate filter technology 7 will be designed to meet the 0.01 grams per 8 brake-horsepower-hour emission limit. 9 Our members also believe that NOx 10 adsorber technology with a 15 ppm cap will be 11 optimized to help meet the 0.2 grams per 12 brake-horsepower-hour NOx emission limit over 13 435,000 miles using a combined transient and 14 steady-state certification procedure with the 15 not-to-exceed requirements. 16 On the other hand, with a cap in excess 17 of 15 ppm, simply we doubt the standards are 18 achievable. 19 In conclusion, we recognize that the 20 proposed highway heavy-duty diesel engine and 21 vehicle standards present real engineering 22 challenges; but we believe these challenges can and 23 will be met. The key to meeting these challenges is 24 the systems approach which EPA has identified in its 25 proposal. It will combine advanced engine designs, 94 1 advanced emission control technology, and low sulfur 2 diesel fuel. 3 Our industry is committed to do its part 4 to ensure that, if adopted, the engine and vehicle 5 and sulfur requirements as proposed, the desired 6 emission reductions will be achieved. 7 Thank you. 8 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Marty Lassen. 9 MR. LASSEN: I'll take Dale's lead and 10 say good afternoon. My name is Marty Lassen, and I 11 am the heavy-duty diesel commercial development 12 manager for Johnson Matthey. 13 Johnson Matthey appreciates the 14 opportunity to testify at today's hearings. Johnson 15 Matthey also fully supports the testimony of the 16 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. 17 For more than 30 years, Johnson Matthey 18 has provided catalytic solutions for controlling 19 emissions from automotive, nonautomotive, and 20 stationary sources. Johnson Matthey is a major 21 supplier of diesel engine emission control devices 22 for the worldwide light and heavy-duty diesel 23 markets. Over this time, Johnson Matthey has 24 developed cutting-edge technology to meet or exceed 25 the requirements that have been dictated by the 95 1 legislative process. 2 Today Johnson Matthey continues to 3 develop diesel engine emission control technologies 4 that will meet or exceed emission level requirements 5 such as those proposed for heavy-duty diesel engines 6 in the year 2007. 7 One such technology is Johnson Matthey's 8 patented CRT particulate filter. This technology is 9 designed to attain particulate matter levels below 10 0.01 grams per brake-horsepower-hour from today's 11 diesel engines. The CRT particulate filter has been 12 commercially available in Europe for over five years 13 and is now being used in the United States. 14 Another technology still under 15 development is Johnson Matthey's NOx trap or 16 adsorber technology which is designed to reduce NOx 17 emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines by more 18 than 90 percent. Preliminary data on our NOx trap 19 catalysts indicates NOx emission reductions of more 20 than 90 percent over the duty cycle. 21 Johnson Matthey believes that the 22 technological challenges posed by the proposed 2007 23 heavy-duty vehicle standards are achievable. 24 However, to achieve these results, ultra-low sulfur 25 fuel is absolutely essential. Fuel sulfur levels of 96 1 5 ppm with a 15 ppm cap would ensure the lowest 2 emissions levels possible with assured regeneration 3 for the full 435,000-mile durability requirement. 4 In fact, Johnson Matthey's CRT particulate filter 5 technology meets the 2007 standard today for PM 6 using ultra-low sulfur fuel. Additionally, Johnson 7 Matthey's NOx trap technology has already 8 demonstrated NOx levels approaching the 2007 9 standard. 10 Are there technological hurdles still to 11 be mastered? The answer is yes. But Johnson 12 Matthey is firmly convinced that with the 13 availability of ultra-low sulfur fuel and the 14 innovation that will occur over the intervening 15 years, NOx trap catalysts will be a viable 16 commercial technology for NOx control in 2007. 17 I'd be happy to answer any questions that 18 you might have, and thank you for your attention. 19 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Marie Valentine. 20 MS. VALENTINE: Good afternoon. My name 21 is Marie Valentine, and I am here to speak on behalf 22 of DaimlerChrysler on the subject of EPA's proposal 23 to modify heavy-duty vehicle emission control 24 regulations and on-highway diesel fuel requirements. 25 DaimlerChrysler is a vehicle manufacturer 97 1 of light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles that operate 2 on gasoline and diesel fuels. DaimlerChrysler is a 3 demonstrated leader in the development of 4 environmentally-sound vehicle technologies. This is 5 evidenced by our commitment to support the pursuit 6 of tough emission performance goals. 7 Reducing heavy-duty emissions will aid in 8 achieving the nation's air quality goals, and we 9 stand ready to do our part. This is a logical 10 follow-up to the Tier 2 light-duty vehicle emission 11 regulation adopted last December. We agree that EPA 12 needs to look at all pollution sources when 13 determining a comprehensive emission reduction plan. 14 In our opinion, the combination of a low 15 sulfur on-highway diesel fuel program with feasible, 16 stringent new emission standards for heavy-duty 17 engines and vehicles will assist in improving air 18 quality nationwide. 19 We congratulate EPA for continuing to 20 link vehicles and fuels, as was recently done in the 21 Tier 2 regulations. This system approach is the 22 only way to achieve the emission reductions 23 envisioned. 24 We commend EPA's initiative to propose a 25 15 ppm sulfur cap for the on-highway diesel fuel. 98 1 This critical first step will enable the continued 2 development and advancement of diesel emission 3 control technology that is necessary if the 4 heavy-duty industry is to meet the new proposed 5 standards which reflect a 90 percent reduction in 6 NOx and PM. 7 Sulfur is a poison that blocks the use of 8 aftertreatment technology by rendering the hardware 9 inoperable at today's 500 ppm level. The developers 10 of the aftertreatment technologies have indicated 11 that a very low sulfur level in diesel fuel is 12 critical for the future development of these 13 devices. The lower level will permit catalyst-based 14 control strategies to be optimized for maximum 15 emission reduction efficiencies. 16 Recent data indicates that sulfur-free 17 diesel fuel is the enabling requirement for the use 18 of NOx adsorbers, continuously regenerating 19 technology systems, and selective reduction 20 catalysts due to their sensitivity to sulfur. 21 Further information on this will be 22 included in our written comments. 23 The world's engine manufacturers have 24 defined sulfur-free diesel fuel, as specified by the 25 Worldwide Fuel Charter, as the correct fuel to 99 1 enable the use of NOx and PM aftertreatment 2 technologies where stringent emission standards are 3 required. Therefore, the sulfur level in diesel 4 fuel must be reduced to allow the use of 5 aftertreatment technology as an emission control 6 strategy for diesel vehicles as has been so 7 successful for gasoline vehicles. 8 Let me emphasize that the proposed sulfur 9 cap is only the first step needed for diesel fuel. 10 A sulfur-free diesel fuel with a minimum cetane of 11 55 and a maximum 15 percent aromatic limit is 12 ultimately necessary. This fuel composition would 13 support the use of diesel fuel in the light-duty 14 vehicle market and provide the benefits of reduced 15 emissions and increased fuel economy -- another goal 16 of the current administration -- while also 17 maintaining customer satisfaction. 18 A diesel powertrain is an important 19 option for passenger vehicles. Diesel vehicles 20 could have a significant role in the reduction of 21 fuel consumption by offering a 40 percent fuel 22 economy advantage over gasoline vehicles on a 23 miles-per-gallon basis. The sophisticated diesel 24 vehicles currently in the European market have 25 higher endurance, reliability, and torque which is a 100 1 desirable performance attribute. 2 On the emission side, diesel vehicles 3 have inherently low hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide 4 emissions, no evaporative emissions, and have 5 long-term stability of emissions which will further 6 be reduced with aftertreatment; but the enabling 7 fuel is necessary. 8 We applaud the incentives by some oil 9 companies to deliver clean diesel fuel to some 10 localized markets in advance of the regulations. 11 The lesson learned is that cleaner fuel can be made 12 available and it is being done at an affordable 13 price. 14 Should a phase-in of clean on-highway 15 diesel fuel be found necessary, we encourage EPA to 16 have it start in 2004. The oil industry has 17 previously challenged EPA to make all known changes 18 in one step, not two separate steps, so capital 19 investment strategies can be optimized. Therefore, 20 the 2004 start date suggested would link diesel with 21 the gasoline sulfur control requirements by Tier 2 22 and allow light-duty clean diesel as a viable 23 powertrain. 24 In conclusion, let me restate the key 25 points of our message. First, EPA's proposal of a 101 1 reduced sulfur diesel fuel for on-highway is a great 2 first step. Second, clean fuel packaged with 3 feasible emission standards is the correct path to 4 enable further reduction in emissions. 5 DaimlerChrysler believes that the diesel 6 fuel as specified in the Worldwide Fuel Charter is 7 necessary to enable low emissions and fuel-efficient 8 technologies. 9 DaimlerChrysler is continuing to review 10 the proposal and plans to submit written comments 11 addressing other issues in the NPRM and expand 12 further on our diesel fuel position. 13 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to 14 you. 15 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Rick Wynn. 16 MR. WYNN: Good afternoon. My name is 17 Rick Wynn, and I manage the Fuel Planning, Quality 18 and Regulatory Compliance for CITGO Petroleum 19 Corporation, a major refiner and marketer of 20 petroleum products in the United States. 21 I'm here today to represent both CITGO 22 and the National Petrochemical & Refiners 23 Association. NPRA is a trade association of 24 virtually all large and small U.S. refiners and 25 petrochemical producers. 102 1 We are deeply concerned about the impact 2 of EPA's new diesel sulfur proposal. We do not 3 believe that it is possible to consistently maintain 4 needed supplies of highway diesel within the 15 ppm 5 sulfur cap level. Although some refiners may be 6 able to produce some amount of this diesel, many 7 would be forced by its high costs to limit or forego 8 participation in the highway diesel market. This 9 would reduce supplies well below those available 10 under a more realistic sulfur cap. 11 In addition, with the current logistics 12 infrastructure, it would be extremely difficult to 13 deliver highway diesel with a 15 ppm sulfur cap to 14 consumers and maintain the integrity of the sulfur 15 level of the product. This highway diesel must 16 share a distribution system with other products that 17 have significantly higher sulfur levels. 18 At the proposed 15 ppm sulfur level, a 19 significant amount of highway diesel will have to be 20 downgraded to a higher sulfur product due to product 21 contamination at the pipeline interfaces. 22 With the enforcement at retail as opposed 23 to the refinery gate, refiners will be forced to 24 target their production to less than 10 ppm sulfur 25 to account for test tolerances and reproducibility. 103 1 Additionally, we do not believe that the 2 3 ppm increase in sulfur that the EPA is predicting 3 from the refinery gate to the consumer is 4 reasonable. Realistically, refiners will be forced 5 to produce on-highway diesel at a sulfur level less 6 than 5 ppm which will increase the capital 7 investment requirements even more. 8 In short, we view this proposal as a 9 blueprint for future fuel shortages and severe 10 economic impacts. It threatens to leave American 11 consumers a legacy of scarce and unnecessarily 12 costly energy supplies. 13 Throughout extensive discussions with the 14 EPA, the refining industry suggested a more 15 reasonable way to reduce diesel emissions. We favor 16 lowering the current 500 parts per million diesel 17 sulfur cap to 50 parts per million, a 90 percent 18 reduction. This is a very significant step. It 19 will enable diesel engines to meet the particulate 20 matter standards sought by EPA and also achieve 21 significant NOx reductions. 22 Our plan is still expensive. We estimate 23 it will cost the industry roughly $4 billion to 24 implement. But unlike the much more costly EPA 25 proposal, this level of sulfur reduction is 104 1 sustainable. Most refiners would choose to make the 2 more affordable investments needed to make a 50 ppm 3 diesel. 4 On the other hand, under EPA's proposed 5 program, only some refiners would invest in the 6 expensive new hardware necessary to produce 15 ppm 7 diesel. Many others would be unable to make the 8 large investments necessary to produce this 9 product. They would find other uses or markets for 10 their current diesel output which will significantly 11 reduce the supply of highway diesel fuel available 12 and will create volatility in prices. More than 30 13 percent of the current supply of highway diesel 14 could be lost until additional investments are made 15 and new desulfurization capacity is built. This 16 could take as long as four years. 17 Some refineries could likely go out of 18 business. The proposed 15 ppm diesel is estimated 19 to cost somewhere between $8 to $10 billion. This 20 amount comes on top of the $8 billion in costs the 21 industry is already incurring to implement EPA's 22 gasoline sulfur program in the very same time 23 frame. 24 A study that was released this week by 25 the National Petroleum Council, a joint 105 1 industry/government body, concludes the industry 2 will not have the capability to make these 3 investments within this time frame and that 4 additional time is required for the low sulfur 5 diesel investments. 6 When a refinery closes, we lose its 7 entire output: gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and home 8 heating oil. With the demand for petroleum products 9 projected to increase, we as a nation cannot afford 10 to lose any more refineries. Unfortunately, the 11 agency is unwilling to make the major changes in its 12 proposal which are needed to avoid supply problems 13 and resulting price volatility. 14 The industry's warnings about this rule 15 are well-founded. We at CITGO have some relevant 16 real-world experience. In the EPA's proposed rule, 17 our facilities at the Lyondell-CITGO Refinery were 18 referenced as having a diesel desulfurization 19 technology capable of producing the 15 ppm sulfur 20 cap level. 21 We find based on our actual operating 22 experience with this referenced technology the 23 capital and operating costs are much higher at the 24 15 ppm sulfur cap than has been implied in the 25 proposal, and the ability of the technology to 106 1 consistently produce below 15 ppm diesel is 2 problematic. 3 The feedstocks to this revamped facility 4 are 30 percent straight-run stocks from the crude 5 distillation unit and 70 percent heavy-cracked 6 stocks from conversion units. These heavy-cracked 7 stocks are significantly more difficult to treat to 8 the 15 ppm level. Our operating data shows that to 9 consistently desulfurize to 15 ppm or below a 10 significant portion of the cracked material must be 11 removed from the feed, thereby reducing our diesel 12 production by this amount. 13 Our first cost consideration is capital. 14 The Lyondell-CITGO project to improve our diesel 15 quality was completed in late 1996 and included the 16 installation of the world's largest freestanding 17 reactor. We increased catalyst volume in this unit 18 from 40,000 pounds to 1.7 million pounds. The 19 capital cost for conversion of this existing 20 50,000-barrel-per-day unit was $86 million. This 21 includes $69 million for the process unit and $17 22 million for the supporting facilities. This is much 23 higher than the $30 million revamp cost for a 24 typical refinery processing light cycle oil as 25 stated by the EPA. 107 1 Also, a simple retrofit is not possible 2 on many units because most older, smaller units do 3 not have sufficient reactor design pressures, the 4 requisite high-purity hydrogen supply, a suitable 5 fractionation system, or other hardware. 6 The second cost consideration is 7 operating costs. The diesel sulfur level produced 8 in the unit meets the 15 ppm sulfur cap at initial 9 conditions at start of run. However, as the 10 desulfurization catalyst ages, the reactor 11 temperatures must be raised to achieve target sulfur 12 levels. 13 There are limits to raising 14 temperature -- equipment and product quality 15 limits -- such as color. These limits establish the 16 cycle life of the catalyst. At the proposed 15 ppm 17 sulfur cap with 70 percent heavy-cracked stocks, the 18 cycle life will be greatly reduced from current 19 operation, closer to 8 months rather than 24. This 20 significantly raises the operating cost by more 21 frequent catalyst replacement and more frequent 22 shutdowns. This also results in a loss of diesel 23 production. 24 Under current mode the frequency of 25 catalyst change-out is managed by reducing the 108 1 cracked stocks in the feed to the unit. The more 2 frequent catalyst change-out to meet a 15 ppm sulfur 3 cap raises the cost of diesel production by as much 4 as 7 cents a gallon on our existing unit, this in 5 addition to the loss in production due to additional 6 downtime for catalyst change-out. 7 So you can see that what looks simple in 8 theory doesn't always work in practice. I hope that 9 the entire refining industry doesn't have to spend 10 billions of dollars just to prove that our concerns 11 about this rule are valid. This will happen, 12 however, if we ignore the warning signs of an 13 already stressed supply system and rush to implement 14 a plan based upon little more than wishful thinking. 15 EPA argues that its extreme proposal is 16 needed to enable heavy-duty engines to meet 17 stringent NOx standards in the 2007-2010 time 18 frame. Of course, that NOx standard was arbitrarily 19 selected. It is considerably lower than NOx 20 standards for the same period in Europe and Japan 21 and is probably unrealistic. The $10 billion plan 22 for 15 ppm diesel is largely based upon this 23 arbitrary and unattainable target. 24 NPRA urges the agency to discard their 25 approach in favor of the more practical and 109 1 sustainable 50 ppm diesel sulfur cap which the 2 refining industry advocates. 3 Thank you very much. 4 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. David Piech. 5 MR. PIECH: Good afternoon. My name is 6 David Piech. I am senior counsel for International 7 Truck and Engine Corporation which, as many of you 8 know, formerly was known as Navistar. 9 I am here today on behalf of Patrick 10 Charbonneau, vice president of engine engineering at 11 International, to discuss EPA's proposed model year 12 2007 emission standards for heavy-duty engines as 13 well as the agency's proposed on-road diesel fuel 14 quality requirements. 15 At the outset, International commends EPA 16 for its landmark proposal to address heavy-duty 17 engine emissions through a systems approach 18 involving both fuel quality and engine technology. 19 There's no question that diesel engine technology is 20 making dramatic strides in emissions control. As we 21 know, the availability of ultra-clean diesel fuel is 22 a prerequisite toward meeting the challenging new 23 emissions standards beginning in 2007. With clean 24 diesel fuel, we can count on the advanced NOx and PM 25 aftertreatment technologies needed to achieve 110 1 unprecedented emissions reductions. 2 For that reason, we are pleased that EPA 3 is mandating fuel that will enable these 4 technologies to be used on all heavy-duty engines. 5 International is investing hundreds of 6 millions of dollars in the development of new 7 technologies for all markets where our engines are 8 sold. We are reinventing all of our engine lines 9 through revolutionary engine redesign and 10 development of advanced aftertreatment 11 technologies. 12 Our technological breakthroughs will 13 allow us to achieve unparalleled emissions 14 reductions. Indeed, we are developing green diesel 15 technology that, with clean fuel, has already 16 demonstrated the capabilities of particulate filter 17 technology to reduce hydrocarbon and PM emissions to 18 levels that are at or below EPA's proposed 19 standards. 20 In that regard, it's important to note 21 that progressive oil companies already are making 15 22 ppm diesel fuel commercially available. These oil 23 companies have earned recognition and our applause 24 for their efforts to bring clean diesel fuel to the 25 marketplace early. 111 1 With this ultra-clean fuel available so 2 soon, International will commercialize its green 3 diesel engine technology next year and thus achieve 4 EPA's proposed model year 2007 hydrocarbon and PM 5 emissions standards six years ahead of schedule. 6 This is just one example of the impressive 7 environmental benefits that accrue from a systems 8 approach involving both clean fuel and clean engine 9 technologies. 10 As a side note, I invite everyone to 11 visit. We have an example of this technology 12 downstairs on one of our buses. It's downstairs in 13 the plaza. So please stop by. 14 I also commend the agency for its 15 willingness to phase in the proposed NOx standards. 16 We strongly support a NOx phase-in approach which 17 underscores the challenges facing industry in 18 meeting NOx control targets. EPA's proposal goes 19 far in addressing these technological challenges, 20 but we believe that even more can be done without 21 compromising important environmental objectives. 22 In that regard, I am pleased to say that 23 International, along with the Engine Manufacturers 24 Association, soon will be presenting to EPA a new 25 NOx phase-in proposal. Under this proposal there 112 1 would be a single NOx emissions standard for all 2 engines in 2007. The NOx standard in 2007 would be 3 significantly below the NOx standard applying to 4 model year 2006 engines. Then, in 2010, the NOx 5 standard would be stepped down to a new and 6 significantly tighter NOx standard. 7 Importantly, this proposal will meet and 8 perhaps exceed the agency's NOx reduction targets in 9 this rulemaking, while at the same time providing 10 manufacturers with needed flexibility to meet those 11 targets. For these reasons, we believe that the 12 agency will find this proposal to be a win-win for 13 consumers and the environment alike and look forward 14 to discussing it in further greater detail. 15 In closing, I wish to reiterate 16 International's strong support for EPA's proposal to 17 reduce diesel fuel sulfur levels which will enable 18 the use of NOx and PM aftertreatment technologies 19 needed to achieve the agency's emission reduction 20 objections. 21 We look forward to discussing in our 22 written comments these and other technical details 23 of EPA's proposed rule. 24 I thank you for giving me the opportunity 25 to present International's views today and would be 113 1 happy to answer any questions you may have 2 concerning my testimony. 3 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Just a couple of 4 quick questions. We've heard a recommendation of a 5 90 percent reduction, 50 ppm cap as being 6 sufficient, providing essentially the same 7 reductions as compared to the 15 ppm proposal. 8 I open the question up to the whole 9 panel, whoever wants to weigh in on it, what your 10 perspective is on that proposal. 11 MR. PIECH: International has some 12 experience on this. There really is a step function 13 going from 50 ppm to 15 ppm as far as the emissions 14 reduction capability. Specifically on the NOx 15 adsorber, we understand that at 50 ppm NOx adsorber 16 technology is only about 20 percent efficient. But 17 when you go to 15 ppm, it becomes 90 percent or more 18 efficient. And I know that MECA and Johnson Matthey 19 can speak to this more. But not only with the NOx 20 adsorber, also particulate filter technology is 21 affected by the change in sulfur. And at 50 ppm, 22 there are durability and longevity issues with that. 23 MR. WYNN: I might also point out that 24 there's a big step function in going from 50 ppm 25 sulfur to 15 ppm in terms of the type of hardware 114 1 that's required at the refinery and whether you can 2 do a revamp or whether you have got to do a 3 ground-up. 4 MR. MCKINNON: Dale McKinnon, MECA. I 5 think a couple of things I would agree. For every 6 diesel engine, every application in Minnesota, all 7 climatic conditions, 50 ppm, you know, we have 8 concerns about the reliability and durability of the 9 filter technology. I think with the 50 ppm cap, I 10 think you'll see our member companies stop investing 11 in R&D and NOx adsorber technology quite simply. 12 MR. LASSEN: One additional comment on 13 the PM level. With a 50 ppm cap, there is data that 14 is out there from the DECSE report that indicates 15 that a 15 ppm level is required in order to meet the 16 0.01 PM standard that is proposed. 17 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Mr. Wynn, we had 18 heard from an earlier testifier along with the 90 19 percent proposal that gives essentially the same 20 reduction when SCR was highlighted as a technology 21 for NOx reduction. 22 Do you agree with that? 23 MR. WYNN: Yes, I agreed with that John 24 Medley from ExxonMobil said. And I, again, am not a 25 technology expert in that area. I don't think I can 115 1 add anything to what John said. You know, as far as 2 the industry and individual companies, we do have a 3 lot of people working on this to provide in the 4 written comments. 5 MR. FRANCE: And the same request I'll 6 make of you. Well, let me ask you. Have you done 7 any -- setting technology aside, have you done any 8 cost analysis on the impacts of supplying urea on 9 service stations or trucks? 10 MR. WYNN: No, we haven't. 11 MR. FRANCE: Do you plan on doing that? 12 MR. WYNN: We will look to either do that 13 as an individual company or as part of the industry. 14 MR. FRANCE: Okay. We would appreciate 15 that. Thank you. Any other questions? 16 MR. MACHIELE: Yeah, just real quickly. 17 Mr. Wynn, you made statements in your testimony 18 about the experience at your refinery and the 19 difficulty in cost meeting a 15 ppm cap. 20 It was our understanding that the unit 21 was designed to increase cetane and lower the 22 aromatic content to allow the product to meet the 23 diesel fuel specifications and not really designed 24 to optimize -- 25 MR. WYNN: Well, it's used in the same 116 1 sense that technology -- and y'all referenced this 2 in your RIA. What we wanted to do is make sure that 3 you understood that this technology that you're 4 referencing was able to produce 15 ppm either has a 5 very difficult time doing it or it's very expensive 6 to do it. 7 Lester Wibourn of your staff came down 8 and visited our refinery, and we spent a two or 9 three-hour presentation with him. This was right 10 before the rule was issued. So I don't know whether 11 you've had a chance to get with Lester, but we made 12 a pretty extensive presentation to him. 13 MR. FRANCE: We can follow up then. Some 14 of the information he brought back indicated that 15 aromatics was reduced from something like 30 percent 16 to 10 percent and a significant improvement in 17 cetane. 18 Is that -- 19 MR. WYNN: That was the original. Of 20 course, this was built back in '96; and it was not 21 designed to produce a 15 ppm sulfur. 22 MR. FRANCE: We understand that. We were 23 just highlighting it as an example. 24 MR. WYNN: Okay. 25 MR. FRANCE: Thank you for the 117 1 clarification. 2 MR. MACHIELE: I guess a little follow-up 3 on that though, the unit wasn't really designed 4 specifically for sulfur. It was really designed for 5 processing large amounts of heavy-cracked stock. 6 Would that unit be typical of what 7 refiners would follow up on if they were just to be 8 focusing on sulfur control and not focus on 9 expanding heavy-cracked stock? 10 MR. WYNN: I think we're looking at the 11 same high-pressure reactors with enormous amounts of 12 catalysts. I think the same problem would face any 13 refinery. 14 MR. FRANCE: Okay. Thank you. 15 Appreciate everyone's time and comments. 16 (A recess was taken.) 17 MR. FRANCE: First testifier, Elizabeth 18 Pecoraro. 19 MS. PECORARO: Hello. My name is 20 Elizabeth Pecoraro, and I'll be speaking on behalf 21 of Jill Johnson or in place of Jill Johnson. I'd 22 like to thank you for allowing me to speak today. 23 I'm a resident of Alpharetta and I work 24 in downtown Atlanta. I'm hear to urge you to 25 recognize the extreme importance of reducing 118 1 pollution from heavy-duty trucks and buses. 2 Clean air is essential to all life on 3 this planet, and soot pollution is a major threat to 4 our survival. Nationwide, 40,000 people died 5 prematurely from breathing soot pollution. In 6 Georgia, smog sends more than 5,100 people to the 7 emergency room each year and causes more than 8 240,000 asthma attacks. We are literally poisoning 9 ourselves with soot pollution. 10 It is urgent for me to fight for cleaner 11 air so my children may have a chance to live in a 12 world with clean air. The choice that my 13 great-great-grandparents made affect me, my quality 14 of life today; and I recognize my responsibility to 15 future generations. 16 In order to ensure clean air for the 17 future, we must require drastic reductions in 18 pollution from large trucks and buses now. Knowing 19 this, I was disappointed to learn that the EPA has 20 proposed waiting until 2010 to fully clean up 21 smog-forming pollution from trucks and buses. 22 Because high sulfur fuel will poison the 23 new diesel cleanup technologies, we must ensure that 24 all diesel fuel is fully cleaned up and readily 25 available before the trucks are required to be 119 1 cleaned up. 2 In light of this, I urge you to first 3 reduce diesel sulfur levels to no more than 15 parts 4 per million nationwide for both on and off-road 5 vehicle emissions by 2006. Secondly, I wish you 6 would clean up all big trucks and buses by at least 7 90 percent by 2007. Third, ensure that big trucks 8 are meeting the emissions standards on the road and 9 not just during engine tests. Finally, I urge you 10 to increase the use of diesel alternatives such as 11 electric and fuel cell buses. 12 These measures are critical to the 13 protection of the environment and a safe world for 14 future generations. I hope you seriously consider 15 them in your final decision making. 16 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Clinton Bastin. 17 MR. BASTIN: Good afternoon. My name is 18 Clinton Bastin. I'm a chemical engineer and live in 19 Avondale Estates. I retired from the Department of 20 Energy three years ago and now write about energy 21 and environmental matters in partnerships for 22 problem resolution. 23 My information with my testimony includes 24 a recent letter published in the Atlanta 25 Constitution about the adoption by the Russian 120 1 Ministry for Atomic Energy and Russian Nuclear 2 Workers Union for partnerships for improved safety 3 in Russian nuclear power plants. 4 Thank you for allowing me to testify. 5 The Department of Energy was created 6 because U.S. citizens and their leaders recognized 7 the dangers from overuse of fossil fuels. Major 8 concerns were atmospheric pollution from all fossil 9 fuels and diminishing supplies and increased imports 10 of petroleum, our most precious fuel. 11 We believed that alternative, clean, and 12 efficient energy technologies were needed, such as 13 fuel cells, nuclear plants that used uranium more 14 efficiently, and solar power. Others believed that 15 problems could be resolved by use of emission 16 control systems and increased exploration for oil. 17 Now, after expenditure of $500 billion by 18 the Department of Energy and 25 years of worldwide 19 exploration for oil, we have deployed almost no 20 alternative energy technologies, we have found no 21 more oil and are importing more at increasing 22 prices, we plan phaseout of our least-polluting 23 energy source, we use less energy-efficient 24 automobiles, there are projections of catastrophic 25 change to climates, and in metro Atlanta we have the 121 1 worst-ever pollution. 2 We should have had national energy 3 policies as other industrial nations had. We should 4 have taxed fossil fuels to encourage more efficient 5 use as other industrial nations did. We did not, 6 and thus move at an ever more rapid pace toward 7 catastrophe. 8 We need energy policies including planned 9 phaseout of most fossil-fueled buses and trucks on 10 our highways. School buses, local buses, and 11 delivery trucks and automobiles should use fuel 12 cells. The bulk of freight and inter and intracity 13 transport of people should be by electric rail. 14 Most of our electricity should be provided by 15 nuclear power plants that use uranium and other 16 source materials more efficiently and avoid present 17 problems with nuclear waste. Passenger ships and 18 freighters like Navy ships should use nuclear 19 power. Solar power should be used for heating 20 water, our homes, and our offices. 21 In the meantime, I urge that the 22 Environmental Protection Agency form partnerships 23 with leaders and workers of the transportation and 24 petroleum supply communities to develop best 25 techniques for reducing pollution from use of trucks 122 1 and buses. 2 I wanted to conclude with the mention of 3 the eight Es. Needed are reliable energy, clean 4 environment, and a healthy economy. We can achieve 5 this through education, energy efficiency, and 6 engineering excellence. We will succeed as 7 partners; we will fail as opponents. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. John Keys. 10 MR. KEYS: Thank you. I represent 11 MARTA. I'm the director of government relations for 12 MARTA. That's the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid 13 Transit Authority. 14 MARTA is the seventh largest transit 15 system in the nation. We are a bus and rail system, 16 and we move over 500,000 folks per day. Those are 17 people who would be otherwise probably -- many of 18 them would probably be in single occupancy 19 vehicles. 20 So we'd like to think that we are a part 21 of the solution to our air pollution problems here 22 in the Atlanta region. 23 Regarding our rail service, we have 45 24 heavy rail miles served. We serve the citizens of 25 DeKalb, Fulton, and the city of Atlanta. We also 123 1 surround -- we serve rather citizens of surrounding 2 counties as well. And that's evidenced by doing a 3 real simple license plate count in our outlying rail 4 parking facilities. 5 We're opening two new stations in the 6 Perimeter Mall/I-285/Georgia 400 area in December of 7 this year, and we anticipate significant increases 8 in rail ridership beginning with that period. 9 Our bus fleet consists of 703 buses. 10 They're mostly diesel. We are in the process now 11 of -- we're committed to converting that fleet to 12 nearly 100 percent compressed natural gas, CNG, over 13 the next four to five-year time frame. That depends 14 on the availability of federal and local funding. 15 And when finished with this conversion, we will at 16 MARTA have the second largest compressed natural gas 17 fleet, bus fleet, in the nation, second only behind, 18 ironically, Los Angeles. 19 Currently we have over 100 CNG buses. 20 Again, we are in the process of acquiring to replace 21 our existing diesel fleet. We have over 100 CNG 22 buses currently. We've got about 100 to 150 in 23 production right now. We'll take delivery on them 24 by the end of the year. 25 We're also expanding our existing CNG 124 1 maintenance and fueling capabilities so that we can 2 better serve the entire service area of MARTA. 3 Specifically, we're talking about the eastern 4 service area in DeKalb County. Due to the lack of 5 fueling and maintenance facilities in that county, 6 our CNG bus service is more limited in DeKalb. 7 We are committed to alternative fuels to 8 help clean our region's air. Even the State of 9 Georgia at this year's session is evidencing more 10 awareness and interest under the leadership of 11 Governor Barnes -- an interest in alternative 12 fuels. We saw appropriation. 13 That doesn't sound like a lot, but we 14 think it's a significant step. $2 million in 15 state-generated revenues to help us acquire when 16 leveraging federal funds about 65 CNG buses. So 17 with that state money with an equal amount of MARTA 18 local sales tax dollars, we'll be able to leverage 19 about $16 million to help in our CNG bus 20 conversion. We hope that this state interest in 21 helping MARTA will continue years ahead. 22 Again, we are committed to alternative 23 fuels; but we are still some years away in that 24 regard. We're four to five years out from getting a 25 complete CNG fleet, again depending on the 125 1 availability of those federal appropriations each 2 year. 3 Meanwhile, regarding the proposed 4 requirement to reduce diesel fuel pollutants by some 5 90 percent by the year 2010, we at MARTA state our 6 support to clean diesel fuel. We support the 7 proposed diesel fuel regulations and to any and all 8 efforts to move our region and nation towards 9 continued deployment of the use of alternative fuel. 10 We do appreciate the opportunity to visit 11 with you, and I would be pleased to answer any 12 questions you might have and commend your efforts in 13 moving the nation forward. 14 Thank you. 15 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Next speaker, 16 O.T. Ford. 17 MR. FORD: My name is O.T. Ford. I am a 18 citizen. I'm speaking as a citizen. But I 19 certainly cannot thank a representative of a 20 citizen. The best I can help to do is to refute the 21 presumption of universal ignorance. 22 I don't dispute that my fellow citizens 23 give our elected officials plenty of reason to 24 believe that we are all entirely concerned with our 25 own short-term economic interest. Our officials 126 1 obviously are convinced of this fact as shown by 2 lavish spending on their constituencies and refusing 3 to levy taxes of any sort which is an attitude that 4 led to our enormous public debt. 5 The elected, of course, wheels ultimate 6 power in our system. Our public officials hold a 7 delegation of that power, including the power for 8 appointment, administration, and oversight that will 9 determine air pollution regulation. We have to 10 suppose that those officials will be, as in the 11 past, particularly swayed by arguments of short-term 12 economic interest. And that is the only argument to 13 be made against the more restrictive pollution 14 control standards. 15 No one is going to claim that the 16 environment -- or the state of public health depends 17 upon it -- will be improved by the higher air 18 pollution. The long-term economic cost of higher 19 air pollution, particularly in the area of 20 healthcare and its corollary of productivity, have 21 not been, to my knowledge, disputed. What we hear 22 stated and implied is that the more restrictive 23 standards will force us to pay more for the goods 24 and services in some way produced through the use of 25 heavy-duty diesel engines. 127 1 Even supposing the cost to be high and 2 recognizing the certainty that this cost will be 3 passed on to the consumer, this debate is hardly 4 over. 5 I want to note as a citizen that I and 6 citizens like me find the alarmists' predictions of 7 economic chaos not credible. Furthermore, the 8 threat of increased short-term economic cost for 9 goods and services produced using diesel engines is 10 not ultimately persuasive. There are those who 11 would rather pay more for the common good, in this 12 case clean air and good health. Those things are 13 worth a good deal more than calculated by the 14 arguments against the proposed EPA's standards. 15 I am among those who can least afford to 16 pay for cleaner air; but I refuse to take 17 responsibility as a consumer, a taxpayer, and a 18 voter for the misperception that all citizens are 19 driven by economic selfishness or to take 20 responsibility for the long-term consequence of that 21 shortsightedness. 22 We will suffer more in the future if we 23 do the minimum. I would rather pay now and take a 24 share of the credit for the cleaner air and the 25 better health that will result. 128 1 That's the end of my testimony. 2 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. 3 Sherrill Marcus. 4 MR. MARCUS: Thank you. I'm Sherrill 5 Marcus. I'm an organizer with the Southern 6 Organizing Committee for Economic & Social Justice 7 which is based in Atlanta and operates in the 8 southeastern states. 9 The Southern Organizing Committee 10 appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EPA's 11 proposed emission standards for large diesel trucks 12 and buses and related requirements for cleaner 13 diesel fuel. 14 I come here not as a technician but one 15 who works and interacts with persons across the 16 South dealing with clean air issues. 17 I testify today on behalf of people of 18 color throughout the area and particularly those who 19 live in the metro Atlanta area which is a 20 nonattainment area in dire need of cleaner and 21 healthier air. We speak with the hope that the EPA 22 will expeditiously move to finalize the rules that 23 have been proposed. 24 Our organization has sponsored and 25 supported many activities to attain cleaner air. 129 1 From bucket brigades being organized in local 2 communities -- bucket brigades, by the way, is 3 comprised of groups in the community, citizens, 4 local community, citizens who are concerned about 5 the air quality to the point that they would buy 6 equipment to do air tests, have samples taken, 7 tested in efforts to avoid having adverse impacts 8 from that pollution. 9 We've also testified several times before 10 state hearings on state implementation plans trying 11 to get the most strict standards for air quality 12 from both fixed as well as mobile sources for 13 pollution. 14 Time and again we've seen the oil and 15 trucking industry and other lobbyists prevail in 16 getting exemptions from regulations on diesel fuel 17 usage as well as equipment that use that fuel. This 18 has resulted even while gasoline-fueled vehicles 19 have been regulated tremendously here in Georgia. 20 Particularly, we have seen successful arguments to 21 curb diesel exhaust and emissions. Owners of 22 gasoline-driven vehicles have been required to have 23 their cars tested and proved. 24 We're very concerned about getting 25 cleaner air. We think that these rules will get 130 1 it. 2 Diesel-fueled vehicles emit the dirtiest 3 exhaust of vehicles in my opinion; and they travel 4 our highways, both in metro Atlanta and across the 5 country. Large diesel trucks crisscross the 6 Southeast polluting our neighborhoods, cities, rural 7 areas, and our bodies of water. 8 This causes harm, we believe, to our 9 health as well as to the environment. Studies have 10 shown that people of color suffer disproportionately 11 from respiratory ailments resulting from air 12 pollution. Our senior citizens and our children are 13 harmed the most. And we believe diesel exhaust is 14 one of the major contributors. In addition, 15 numerous public health studies have shown increased 16 lung cancer risks from diesel exhaust and other air 17 pollutants. 18 For example, The Centers for Disease 19 Control in Atlanta reported in 1992 that the asthma 20 death rate was consistently higher for blacks than 21 for whites. From 1980 through 1989, the period of 22 study, annual death rate for whites increased by 45 23 percent while the death rate for blacks increased by 24 52 percent. 25 The American Lung Association's minority 131 1 lung disease data-1996 report on the percent of 2 populations living in heavily-polluted areas showed 3 consistent increases for minorities when four 4 pollutants were analyzed. Those four were 5 particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead. 6 Whites had the lowest percents, blacks were higher, 7 and Hispanics had the highest rates or percentages. 8 In 1998 the National Institute for 9 Occupational Safety and Health classified diesel 10 exhaust as a potential occupational carcinogen. 11 The asthma death rate for 12 African-Americans from age birth to year four and 13 young people from the ages 15 through 24 is six 14 times those of white Americans. 15 Minorities and the economically 16 disadvantaged bear a disproportionate burden of this 17 unacceptable public health risk. Pollution from 18 diesel-fueled vehicles threatens the health of our 19 children and communities. 20 It is absolutely necessary to cut this 21 air pollution, and we respectfully urge EPA to 22 ignore the strong calls for exceptions from industry 23 lobbyists. We support putting in place strong 24 standards that will help reduce environmental 25 injustices and ensure clean and healthy air for our 132 1 future generations. 2 Thank you for the opportunity to address 3 you. 4 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. And thank you to 5 the panel for providing your perspectives. Before 6 lunch I'm going to try to fit in Flora Tommie. 7 MS. TOMMIE: My name is Flora M. Tommie, 8 and I serve as the MARTA representative for the 9 MATEC organization. That's the Metropolitan Atlanta 10 Transportation Equity Coalition. 11 Our sole focus is on educating and 12 organizing low-income communities and communities of 13 color as to transportation and alternative 14 transportation needs. 15 I come to you to speak today in regards 16 to the EPA guidelines as a concerned citizen and 17 also a representative of 150 severely physically 18 disabled persons as well as to toughen the 19 guidelines in regards to the air pollution. 20 Most people can come speak with no 21 problems due to no asthma, no respiratory problems, 22 no such measures. Unfortunately, I don't have that 23 luxury anymore. And I can testify as to the people 24 at my complex and myself as to the severity of the 25 air pollution problem that we currently have in the 133 1 metropolitan Atlanta area. 2 I have had numerous visits to the 3 emergency room due to the emissions, air pollution 4 quality levels being so high that you will pass out 5 literally. You cannot breathe. 6 I would like for the EPA and all of us to 7 start addressing the issues of testing diesel fuel 8 emissions. This is an area whereby the lobbyists 9 are seeing that it is of no concern, and it is a 10 major concern. 11 Generally everyone cited statistics on 12 economics of the trucking industry. But no one 13 cited the human cost of going to emergency rooms; 14 paying for asthma treatments; paying for asthma 15 medications; paying to change your whole lifestyle 16 as to when you can get out, when you cannot get out 17 because you have no control over being able to 18 breathe. 19 This is something that everyone is 20 guaranteed, a human right to at least have clean 21 air. At this point in time we have not addressed 22 this issue, especially in our nation, as a critical 23 situation, which it should be. 24 We have more African-American children 25 that are suffering with asthma. We have a high 134 1 number of asthma deaths in our community, especially 2 here in metro Atlanta as well. We have no 3 government assistance as far as the medication for 4 these children to receive. 5 Currently we only have one project, 6 hands-on Project, to deal with asthma in the metro 7 Atlanta area; and it is a pity. That is a public 8 health initiative by Southside Health to actually go 9 out to the neighborhoods to assist the families when 10 these children go into crises and try to stop the 11 asthma crises and teach them about what types of 12 days -- when it's safe for them to be out. 13 Most people sitting here at the trucking 14 lobby are not of my color or skin tone complexion. 15 They do not suffer the large numbers of our 16 communities, and unfortunately we do have to face 17 the issues of race as far as the African-Americans 18 and Hispanic and Latino populations. That has not 19 been addressed as far as the issues of reducing the 20 diesel emission. 21 I am in support of our transit agencies 22 being given federal funding to assist them with 23 getting more clean air buses. The one thing in 24 metro Atlanta and other urban centers is that no one 25 has set this as a federal mandate, that clean air 135 1 has got to start now. We don't have any more years 2 to wait. 3 As a child, I was there to see people who 4 said that it would never work whereby we would have 5 cars that could run at 27 to 30 miles per hour on 6 any type of gas efficient fuels. That was proven to 7 be a lie. It was said that there was no way to 8 clean up the smokestack pollution. That was proven 9 to be a lie. 10 So I'm asking EPA to closely look at the 11 human cost rather than hearing the trucking industry 12 say it cannot make upgrades to deal with the tougher 13 guidelines. We all have to upgrade. Before my 14 disabilities, I had to deal with computer upgrades 15 and networks, software, all of that. It's a cost of 16 living. You always change, and you have to get used 17 to change. 18 But the one thing that we have to 19 understand is that clean air is not something that 20 you can just say you can wait on forever, because 21 many of us have already died; and nobody should be 22 having to take their child to and from hospitals all 23 the time just because someone does not want to pay 24 for clean air. 25 And that is what I'm here today to 136 1 testify to, to request that EPA goes ahead with 2 those regulations and guidelines. 3 Thank you very much. 4 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. Thank 5 you for coming out. We appreciate hearing your 6 perspective. 7 We're going to take exactly a 30-minute 8 lunch break. We will reconvene, my watch, at 1:45 9 exactly. 10 (A recess was taken.) 11 REPRESENTATIVE HARRELL: Hi. I'm 12 Representative Sally Harrell, and I'm a Georgia 13 legislator here. I'm going to talk very briefly 14 because this is really not my area of expertise, but 15 hopefully I can provide you with a little bit of 16 inspiration this afternoon. Everybody always gets 17 sleepy after lunch. So maybe I can arose a few 18 people. 19 I brought with me my prop. This is 20 little Joseph. Joseph is known as the legislative 21 baby in Georgia because he was born on Christmas 22 Eve, ten days before the legislation session 23 started; and he spent his early months down at the 24 capitol which he enjoyed thoroughly. 25 But I bring him as a symbolic reminder of 137 1 why we're here today, which is to make sure that our 2 children have clean air to breathe. 3 Like I said, this is not my area of 4 expertise. My expertise is more in children's 5 issues and healthcare issues. However, more and 6 more healthcare issues and children's healthcare 7 issues are crossing over into environmental and air 8 quality issues because of things like the extreme 9 increase in the rate of asthma in children and air 10 quality concerns that increase healthcare costs even 11 into adulthood too. 12 The other reason I'm here today is 13 because I held a hearing in my district. I 14 represent part of North DeKalb County. I-85 kind of 15 divides my district in half, and most of it is just 16 inside the perimeter in the northeast quadrant of 17 Atlanta. 18 I held a hearing, and was pleasantly 19 surprised that my constituents are very concerned 20 about this issue that we are debating today. What 21 was voiced was that we're doing a lot with, you 22 know, Mr. Joe Schmoe citizen in making sure that his 23 emissions are kept under control; but they wanted to 24 know why aren't we doing more with trucks and 25 buses. 138 1 And so in a way that's why I'm here 2 today, is to represent those 36,000 people who want 3 more done with trucks and buses. 4 I was very inspired on my way to this 5 hearing because I got caught in a horrible traffic 6 jam on I-85 going south. And I was just so pleased 7 that I wasn't on 285 because there would have been 8 many more trucks and buses and I would have been 9 smelling the emissions in my car and my son would 10 have been in the car. 11 Even at that, it's not fun to get stuck 12 on 85 either; but it certainly did provide some 13 inspiration for me on my way down here today. 14 So that's all I wanted to say, is that 15 36,000 people in my district in North DeKalb County 16 want something done about this issue. And I commend 17 the EPA for being here today to look at the issue. 18 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. I 19 think your son has the record for being the youngest 20 testifier so far. I have a few questions for him. 21 David Moore. 22 MR. MOORE: I'd like to first thank you 23 for the opportunity to be up here. I certainly 24 appreciate the time. I'd also like to apologize. 25 This is an extemporaneous address. I don't have 139 1 very many prepared remarks. 2 I think it's thoroughly appropriate that 3 I'm sitting next to this young child. I grew up in 4 Atlanta. I was born in Atlanta in 1975. I've lived 5 here all my life. I went to school at the 6 University of Georgia, lived in Athens for some 7 time. I came back to live and work in Atlanta about 8 this time last year and started getting migraine 9 headaches. I couldn't explain why. Well, it's poor 10 air quality. 11 We're obviously here discussing an issue 12 that concerns everybody. We talked about poor air 13 quality from any number of aspects, economic 14 aspects. We've had various minority representatives 15 down here. 16 I want to tell you something, ladies and 17 gentlemen. We all have to breathe. You know, air, 18 this is not an economic issue. This is not a 19 demographic issue. This is something that affects 20 everyone straight across the board. We all 21 breathe. That's a fact. We need clean air. 22 We have an opportunity to do something 23 about it. I'm up here to ask the EPA to please -- 24 and I'll even say pretty please if I have to. I 25 want you to enact the strongest measures possible as 140 1 soon as possible. 2 Now, we had an energy crisis in the '70s 3 and had opportunities to investigate alternative 4 fuels. We should be a lot further along than we 5 are. I'm here because I will not let this child 6 grow up to have migraine headaches the same as me. 7 I want clean air. And you have an opportunity to do 8 something about it, Environmental Protection 9 Agency. 10 Now, we've heard from various oil 11 representatives. I'm not out to antibusiness. I'm 12 not out to get the big guys. I'm not out to get the 13 little guys. 14 We heard various -- I apologize. I can't 15 remember the fellow's name -- but various 16 representatives of oil producers, oil refiners, that 17 say well, don't make us do this, boo-hoo, it's going 18 to cost us a lot of money. Well, look at other 19 costs, the cost of asthma, the cost of healthcare. 20 It's ridiculous. Things should not be so bad. And 21 we are -- if no one else will say it, we are at a 22 critical point. We are at a crisis. We need to do 23 something and we need to do something now. So I'm 24 asking you to take protective measures to clean up 25 our air. 141 1 Thank you. 2 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. Thanks 3 for coming. I'm going to try to fit in Julie Simon 4 and company and Susan Grider and Allen Schaeffer and 5 also Gwen Griffith. 6 Julie, whenever you're ready. 7 MS. SIMON: Okay. My name is Julie Simon 8 and I live in the city of Atlanta and I drive a 9 16-year-old car right now but it does meet the 10 current emission standards for automobiles. I'm 11 also a walker and a bicyclist and a carpooler and a 12 MARTA rider. And I feel like I'm doing my part to 13 help with the ozone problem. I also insulated my 14 attic and I do other things on building efficiency 15 so that we use less electricity which also 16 contributes. 17 During my walks and my bicycling and in 18 the car and all these places that I go, I'm getting 19 tired of breathing the black sooty air of these 20 vehicles. It's really nice when I'm behind a 21 natural gas bus. It's a lot better. 22 I think it's time that large diesel 23 trucks do their part. We need tough standards, and 24 we need them sooner rather than later. We need to 25 make sure that the fuel that doesn't mess up the 142 1 engines is available as soon as we can. And I just 2 basically want to support making sure that the 3 diesel part of the picture is improved as far as 4 emissions go. 5 Another thing I want to make sure is that 6 the current vehicles are as clean as they can be. 7 We've got new technology, new engines. We've got 8 new fuels that we've been studying for years. A lot 9 of technology is ready now. But we want to make 10 sure that the current trucks and buses that are on 11 the road are well maintained so that their emissions 12 are as low as possible. Diesel engines run 13 forever. So we need an inspection program to make 14 sure that those on the road are running as best they 15 can. 16 Some in the industry would say it's too 17 soon, we want to wait, it's too costly. We've heard 18 that argument over and over again. And it's been 19 proven every time that it costs less than what 20 industry says to do. 21 So with a lot of creativity, with a lot 22 of working together, we can meet emissions 23 regulations as soon as possible. The 2007 deadline 24 makes sense to me. Obviously we have to have time 25 to get the fuel ready. 143 1 Diesel vehicles are a small percentage on 2 the road but they're a big percentage in terms of 3 emissions; and it's time to take care of those 4 emissions. 5 That's all I have. 6 MR. MACHIELE: Okay. Thank you for your 7 testimony. And I'm not sure who has the record now 8 for the youngest testifier. 9 MS. SIMON: Four and a half months. 10 MR. MACHIELE: Susan, would you like to 11 go next? 12 MS. GRIDER: My name is Susan Grider. I 13 am here representing myself. I'm also here 14 representing my company, Arenir Solutions, which is 15 a small little-known business incorporated a couple 16 of years ago to take a look at health and 17 environmental concerns and their related impacts. 18 I'm also here representing my 19 neighborhood, Candler Park. I am the neighborhood 20 environmental VP and I also serve on the board of 21 the Watershed Alliance here in Atlanta that looks at 22 water issues which can, in fact, be impacted by air 23 quality issues as well. 24 I'm also here representing family 25 members, neighbors, and friends who have died of 144 1 cancer or who are currently fighting cancer. And 2 please bear with me, but I am representing family 3 members who are not yet born who may genetically be 4 at risk for cancer or other immune system failures 5 associated with air pollution. 6 Again, my name is Susan Grider. I have a 7 small company dedicated to isolating health impacts 8 of current power provision models and business 9 opportunities associated with alternative energy 10 paradigms. 11 I was born in 1963 here in Atlanta, 12 Georgia. However, as a native Atlantan, I have no 13 interest in raising a family here due to health 14 risks and am currently making plans to build a 15 family outside of the Atlanta, Georgia area. 16 Of the three illness profiles I am aware 17 of associated with fossil fuels and diesel, I am 18 personally at risk in two areas. 19 Cancer: I have a personal history of 20 cancer and have lost four people in my family due to 21 cancer in the last 10 to 15 years. An additional 22 case has surfaced in my family in the last couple of 23 years. 24 Immune system failures: I have an 25 extreme allergy to sulfur. I can drink one sip of 145 1 wine that is preserved with sulfides and suffer a 2 migraine headache for three days. I am unable to 3 exercise outside in Atlanta because of the sulfur 4 dioxide in the air. I have an acute allergy to 5 sulfur and sulfur dioxide which means I suffer 6 intense migraines and immune system failures due to 7 sulfur and sulfur dioxide. 8 I am not committed to raise a family in 9 Atlanta given its small profile due to the potential 10 genetic profile of my child who may potentially be 11 at risk for cancer or sulfur allergies. 12 In addition to my personal and familial 13 health risk, I am the environmental VP for my 14 neighborhood, Candler Park. On my street alone 15 which is approximately seven to nine blocks long, 16 short city blocks, three cases of cancer have 17 surfaced in the last two to three years, one of 18 these resulting in fatality on Christmas Day, 1999. 19 On my street alone, at least five cases 20 of cancer exist when preexisting cases are 21 included. Of those five cases, four of these people 22 are under 50 years of ages, two of these people are 23 under 40 years of age. In addition to these five 24 people, I am aware of another case of cancer two 25 streets away from me of an individual who is under 146 1 50 years of age. 2 I am very concerned that these numbers 3 may indicate a cancer cluster due to smog in the 4 city of Atlanta. 5 I would like personally to challenge 6 every research engine here today, including the EPA 7 and particularly the fossil fuel folks, to 8 thoroughly quantify and understand the health 9 impacts of diesel and fossil fuels. 10 I have some information that I'll share 11 with you from the National Biodiesel Board. 12 Mutagenicity is the potential for the diesel 13 particulate exhaust to cause genetic mutations to 14 the DNA and gene cells of living organisms -- that 15 includes us -- shortened life, birth defects, 16 stillbirth. 17 Excuse me for talking about this next to 18 you. 19 If you assume that the diesel risk level 20 is equal to wine, that is the natural risk of 21 regular diesel. The risk of biodiesel at 100 22 percent is equal to .064 which represents a 93.6 23 percent reduction in cancer risk. That's if you use 24 full biodiesel. The risk of B20 which is a 20 25 percent solution is equal to .725 which represents a 147 1 27.5 reduction in cancer risks. 2 I hope that everybody can take those 3 numbers home with them and consider them when 4 they're thinking about cancer cases in their 5 neighborhoods and in their families. That includes 6 people who work in the fossil fuel industry as 7 well. 8 I would like to suggest that, while I do 9 support EPA efforts and efforts supported by 10 executive order No. 13149 recently signed by 11 President Clinton, I welcome a dramatic increase in 12 efforts from the EPA, the Department of Energy, the 13 USDA, and the Health and Human Services Division to 14 truly apprise the public of short and long-term 15 health-related impacts associated with diesel fuel 16 and fossil fuels in general. 17 Finally, I encourage all health industry 18 experts and proponents of renewable energy in this 19 room or reading this transcript in the future to, 1, 20 stringently and accurately portray the trade-off 21 associated with short-term economic gains of the 22 fossil fuel industry at the expense of human health 23 and human life; 2, consider other examples in 24 American history when an industry or an economic 25 model has had power enough to secure substantive 148 1 economic gains at the expense of human health, human 2 life, and civil rights; 3, consider these 3 perspectives from an eminent, hard-business school 4 scholar. 5 And I paraphrase. I'm sorry. I can't 6 remember his name right now. The reason the 7 railroads failed and cars and planes succeeded is 8 that the railroads considered themselves to be in 9 the railroad business rather than in the 10 transportation business. 11 Perhaps the pertinent question here today 12 is should the diesel and fossil fuel industry 13 consider themselves in the fossil fuel business or 14 in the fuel business in general which would include 15 renewable and sustainable energy sources, such as 16 biodiesel, which dramatically can reduce illness 17 risks such as that associated with cancer. 18 Thank you very much. 19 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Allen Schaeffer. 20 MR. SCHAEFFER: Good afternoon. Thank 21 you very much for the opportunity to be here. My 22 name is Allen Schaeffer, and I'm here on behalf of 23 the Diesel Technology Forum. 24 The Forum is a new group working to 25 enhance public dialogue with a wide range of 149 1 stakeholders, including the EPA, other government 2 agencies and other interested parties, to explore a 3 wide range of opportunities to reduce emissions from 4 both existing and new diesel engines while 5 recognizing the inherent benefits of diesel 6 technology. 7 Diesel power systems -- that is engines, 8 fuels, and aftertreatment systems -- that are the 9 subject of today's hearing power our economy. From 10 package delivery trucks to tractor-trailers 11 delivering fresh produce from the fields to our 12 neighborhood grocery store, they are the very 13 centerpiece of our nation's supply and distribution 14 network; but also much more. 15 In the age of the Internet and 16 e-commerce, diesel power systems have taken on an 17 even more important role facilitating the greatest 18 economic expansion this country has ever seen, doing 19 more work, moving more goods, and helping more 20 businesses and people than ever before. 21 This proposal to reduce emissions and 22 require cleaner fuels in new diesel trucks and buses 23 starting in 2007 marks yet another milestone in the 24 continuing improvement of diesel technology. New 25 diesel engines powered with today's fuels emit less 150 1 than one-eighth of the emissions of engines built 2 just over 12 years ago. 3 If adopted, the proposal currently under 4 consideration could result in as much as a 90 5 percent reduction in emissions beginning in 2007; 6 and that is on top of improvements already on-line 7 for 2002-2004. 8 We support the direction of EPA's 9 proposed rule that will result in lower diesel 10 emissions and cleaner diesel fuel in 2007. We are 11 especially pleased that for the first time EPA has 12 used a systems approach in setting future fuel and 13 engine standards, recognizing that both engines and 14 fuel are part of an integrated diesel power system. 15 Whatever the outcome of the debate over 16 how much sulfur should be allowed in diesel fuel, 17 everyone agrees that lowering sulfur content, 18 coupled with advances in diesel technology, will 19 help improve air quality. 20 And while this hearing is focused on 21 future reductions in air pollution, we should not 22 lose sight of the tremendous progress that has been 23 made in the past, in Georgia and the entire nation. 24 For example, in Georgia, a recent study 25 on air quality shows that the state has made 151 1 dramatic progress reducing emissions that pollute 2 the air; and that progress is projected to continue 3 well into the next century. Between 1970 and 2015, 4 total emissions in Georgia are expected to fall by 5 over 2.8 million tons per year, cutting annual state 6 emission totals by almost 40 percent. 7 What is most encouraging is that on a 8 national basis overall criteria pollutant emissions 9 have declined by 34 percent from 1970 to 1997. This 10 reduction has taken place at the time the U.S. 11 population has increased by 31 percent and the 12 economy has more than doubled in size, the GDP 13 growing by 114 percent in the same period. 14 How has pollution declined at the same 15 time we have seen massive increases in 16 manufacturing, construction, transportation, 17 agriculture, and all the other activities that 18 constitute economic growth? 19 The answer is that these activities have 20 become cleaner at the same time that Americans are 21 demanding more and more of them. We see the future 22 of diesel power systems in both these trends. 23 Diesel power systems have become much cleaner and 24 through continuous improvement will become cleaner 25 still. 152 1 Diesel power systems are an essential 2 part of the quality of life that we enjoy today, 3 providing the most efficient, economical and 4 reliable power for whatever the need. It is a 5 technology that is defined by innovation and 6 continuous improvement. 7 Make no mistake about it. This proposal 8 represents a significant technological challenge for 9 engine manufacturers, exhaust aftertreatment 10 suppliers, and fuel refiners that are members of the 11 Diesel Technology Forum. However, we are confident 12 that together we can build on our past progress and 13 produce the cleanest, most economical, reliable 14 diesel power system ever. 15 While this proposal deals with new 16 technology going forward, there are many 17 opportunities to address some important issues of 18 the existing fleet mentioned by some other folks on 19 the panel today. 20 Let me say a word about excessive smoke 21 from diesel trucks and buses. When properly 22 maintained, diesel engines do not smoke. Frankly, 23 we wonder why only 13 states have programs today to 24 inspect diesel trucks and buses for excess smoke 25 emission. Georgia is not one of those states. 153 1 We challenge Georgia and the 2 representative that was here earlier to take a 3 serious role in improving air quality by enacting 4 smoke emissions inspection programs. And we have 5 the tools available to assist in that effort. 6 This March, EPA issued a retrofit 7 challenge to retrofit 10,000 engines in the next two 8 years. The Forum is pleased to be working alongside 9 EPA in that effort. We're bringing together 10 resources to identify engines in a wide variety of 11 applications that might be suitable for retrofit and 12 determine the feasibility of lowering emissions by 13 adding exhaust aftertreatment systems, modifying 14 engine emissions controls, and/or using cleaner 15 diesel fuel. 16 We're very encouraged by the 17 possibilities for success for this program which 18 will include engines in a full range of applications 19 from marine vessels to highway trucks. 20 In conclusion, members of the Diesel 21 Technology Forum, while not taking a position on 22 specific sulfur levels or other issues under debate 23 today, support EPA's decision to take a systems 24 approach to reducing diesel emissions. However the 25 specifics of this debate are resolved, diesel power 154 1 systems are poised to deliver more of the efficient, 2 reliable, and economical power demanded by the 3 American people. 4 As leaders in technology and innovation, 5 members of the Forum are committed to working with 6 EPA, state governments, and other interested parties 7 to continue improving diesel emissions and to take 8 meaningful steps now to address concerns about the 9 existing fleet. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Gwen Griffith. 12 MS. GRIFFITH: I want to add my thanks 13 for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am 14 Gwen Griffith. I am the executive director of the 15 Tennessee Environmental Council which is a statewide 16 organization in Tennessee that educates and 17 advocates for environmental protection and public 18 health. 19 I'm here today to add my voice in support 20 of EPA's proposed regulations that will reduce 21 diesel pollution through ultra-low sulfur fuels and 22 the use of best available technologies. And I want 23 to add my encouragement that this be done in the 24 shortest possible time frame. 25 My perspectives on this issue come from a 155 1 variety of different roles that I have filled in my 2 lifetime. First of all, I am a veterinarian with 20 3 years experience in both small and large animal 4 medicine. As a medical professional, I can tell you 5 that air quality has impacts not only on human 6 health but on animal health as well. 7 There have been many eloquent speakers 8 about the human health impacts, and I won't repeat 9 those messages; but I would add to that that you 10 should understand there are impacts to animal life, 11 wildlife, and ecosystems that we all depend upon. 12 One only need to look at the soaring rates of asthma 13 not only in people but in animals to know that this 14 is the case. 15 Two species of animals are particularly 16 harmed by air pollution, and that would be our 17 horses and our domestic cats. Allergies and asthma 18 are increasing in the dog and cat population in a 19 rate that's similar to that in people. As a 20 veterinarian, I have also seen asthma, sinus 21 disease, rhinitis, and allergies in my patients as 22 well. 23 And this is true in the horse population 24 as well. Horses have a disease called COPD or 25 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which is very 156 1 similar to an emphysema-like disease in people. And 2 the horse populations that are most susceptible to 3 diesel pollution are those that live and work in the 4 city. Those would be the police horses, the 5 carriage horses, racehorses in the urban areas, and 6 in Tennessee the horses that work with the park 7 rangers in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 8 These horses have difficulty with the air quality as 9 well. 10 Already this year in the Smoky's we've 11 had red alert ozone days that have exceeded and come 12 earlier than ever before. Last year there were 52 13 unhealthy ozone days in the state park or in the 14 national park, and we're going to beat that this 15 year unfortunately; and that's a record we just as 16 soon not break. 17 One of the outfitters that uses horses in 18 the park has already reported to us that they had to 19 turn away customers this year because the air was 20 too unhealthy to exercise their horses. And so they 21 had to turn down business. Imagine what that means 22 to the hikers and visitors to the park if they don't 23 even want to exercise their horses in this air. 24 This means economic impacts to the 25 tourism industry which is extremely vital to 157 1 Tennessee. Not only are their health costs, but 2 there are recreation and tourism industry costs as 3 well. 4 My second perspective on this issue, of 5 course, comes as my role as director of the 6 Tennessee Environmental Council. And in that 7 capacity I speak for its people, its animals, and 8 its wildlife habitat. 9 As you heard, Tennessee has three cities 10 in the top most polluted -- 25 most polluted cities 11 in the country; and that doesn't include the Smoky's 12 which, in fact, have worse air on certain days than 13 even downtown Nashville. 14 You've heard that every ozone monitor 15 that we have in the state has shown exceedances at 16 least some days out of the year. And this is in 17 large part due to the heavy truck traffic that comes 18 through our state. Tennessee with its central 19 location and its very large warehouse distribution 20 industry is a prime area of concern because of the 21 heavy truck traffic. 22 The third perspective that I have on this 23 issue is that of a daughter and a family member. 24 I'm part of the baby-boomer generation with aging 25 parents; and what that means is that I have two 158 1 parents, both of which suffer from heart disease. 2 Heart disease is directly connected to 3 the air quality that we have to deal with. My 4 parents are dealing with their disease well, but one 5 of their therapies is to walk. Moderate walking 6 exercise has been recommended for both of them, and 7 they enjoy walking in their neighborhood and in 8 nearby city parks. Unfortunately, there are too 9 many days when they can't participate in this 10 because the air quality restricts their activities. 11 They live near a major highway and a 12 major interstate, and this impacts the air in their 13 neighborhood on a daily basis. As a daughter, I 14 worry about them; and I worry that these bad air 15 days are incrementally reducing the number of days 16 that I have left with them. 17 On behalf of the people of Tennessee, its 18 animals, and its ecosystems, I urge the EPA to move 19 forward with pollution prevention from diesel 20 engines in the fastest possible time frame and the 21 most stringent controls that are technically 22 feasible. 23 In this effort to clean up our air, every 24 segment of society has got to do their part. The 25 diesel engine users have had a free ride up til 159 1 now. It's time that they step up to the plate. 2 This shouldn't come as a surprise to them. They've 3 known that they've been heavy polluters for a long 4 time. They should have been preparing for this 5 before now. 6 We know that they pollute far beyond 7 their fair share with only 2 percent of the vehicles 8 and then a very high percentage of both soot and the 9 ozone coming from these vehicles. 10 I was amazed when I learned that one 11 diesel truck can put out as much pollution as 100 12 cars. If indeed the prediction of another million 13 diesel vehicles on the road means that the pollution 14 is equal to 100 million cars on the road, that's 15 truly unacceptable. 16 So we need two things to happen. First, 17 we need EPA to stick to your guns and require a 15 18 parts per million sulfur limit on gasoline. And I 19 would encourage this to be for both on-road and 20 off-road vehicles. We've heard testimony about the 21 problems with commingling of fuel. Well, it seems a 22 no-brainer solution to just make the fuel have to 23 meet one standard. 24 Secondly, we need this to happen so that 25 you can use the most effective pollution control 160 1 devices that are out there; and that means using the 2 low sulfur fuel. 3 Thirdly, I'd like to see this happen in 4 the shortest possible time frame. I would encourage 5 you not to use a phase-in approach but try to make 6 this happen by 2007, because every day that this is 7 delayed is another day that millions of children, 8 elderly, and those with respiratory illnesses have 9 to breathe bad air. And that's a price we can't 10 afford to pay. 11 Finally, I'd like to see encouragement 12 for the electric buses, the natural gas buses, and 13 fuel cell trucks at every possible turn. 14 I urge you to go forward with your rule 15 and make it as stringent as is technically 16 feasible. I urge the transportation industry to 17 step up to the plate and do the right thing. It's 18 good for your family. Ultimately it's good for 19 business. Those of you who do that will be more 20 competitive than anybody else. 21 And in conclusion I would say that there 22 is a public will for this rule. There is the 23 technology for this rule. And, finally, when you 24 look at society as a whole, it makes economic 25 sense. 161 1 Thank you. 2 MR. FRANCE: Thank you, and thank you to 3 the panel. 4 The next panel, Donzella James, Jim 5 Williams, Ellen Shapiro, Robert Fletcher, Michael 6 Ports, Richard Meeks, and Keith Gostafson. 7 Jim Williams, when you're ready. 8 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Good 9 afternoon. I'm Jim Williams, products manager for 10 the American Petroleum Institute which represents 11 all sectors of American's oil and natural gas 12 industry. 13 Thank you for the opportunity to testify 14 on issues of such importance to our members, to U.S. 15 consumers, and to our nation. 16 API has already submitted a substantial 17 and important amount of information to the agency as 18 it developed its proposal. We trust that you will 19 take this information and any additional information 20 we provide into serious consideration. 21 EPA and our industry agree that sulfur 22 content in diesel fuel must be substantially 23 reduced. And, as you know, API proposed a 90 24 percent reduction last winter. Reducing sulfur in 25 both diesel fuel and gasoline is key to continuing 162 1 the nation's impressive progress in reducing vehicle 2 emissions. 3 However, we are concerned that the 4 agency's diesel sulfur proposal which would reduce 5 sulfur 97 percent risks too much by going too far 6 too fast. We believe EPA's proposed rule will 7 decrease the total amount of diesel fuel produced, 8 falling short of satisfying clearly rising demand. 9 The National Petroleum Council in a just-issued 10 report on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy 11 calls the risk of inadequate supplies substantial. 12 Consumers need not face this risk. By 13 adopting the 90 percent sulfur reduction we have 14 recommended, the chances of disrupting diesel 15 supplies would be greatly lessened, yet emissions 16 would still be cut substantially here in Atlanta and 17 across the nation. 18 We believe that a 90 percent reduction in 19 sulfur is right. That is the amount the agency is 20 requiring of gasoline sulfur and how much it said 21 diesel sulfur content should be lowered in a press 22 release last October. 23 Were EPA to disregard our 90 percent 24 initiative and go forward with its proposed rule, a 25 number of refiners will elect to make the requisite, 163 1 considerable investment to meet the rule. However, 2 this is not the entire picture. 3 Total U.S. diesel fuel supply and demand 4 are in reasonable balance. For investment-return 5 levels and/or other reasons, a number of refiners 6 will likely not undertake EPA's costly sulfur 7 reductions, choosing to make other products 8 instead. Yet other companies will end up producing 9 less of the new diesel fuel than current capacity. 10 All these actions will have the effect of 11 reducing overall diesel capacity and creating 12 substantial supply and demand imbalances. Upward 13 cost pressures on supply will be considerable. 14 Making the ultra-low sulfur diesel that 15 EPA proposes will require huge refinery investments, 16 closer to 8 billion than the 4 billion the agency 17 has estimated. The difference can be explained by 18 the failure of EPA to adequately take into account 19 the difficulty and expense of removing sulfur from 20 all the refinery streams that will have to be used 21 to make ultra-low sulfur diesel. 22 In addition to prohibitive investment 23 costs, distribution problems are likely to affect 24 supply. Refiners will have to move ultra-low sulfur 25 diesel to market using common pipelines and storage 164 1 facilities, risking contamination of some of the 2 volumes from the sulfur residues of other fuels 3 using those same facilities, further decreasing 4 available supplies. 5 The majority of America's goods move by 6 truck, as should be obvious to anyone who drives on 7 the highways in the Atlanta area and across 8 America. We estimate that EPA's proposal could add 9 about $2600 to the cost of a trucker's annual 10 operations in higher diesel fuel costs. This does 11 not include the additional cost of emission control 12 hardware which could be several thousand dollars per 13 truck, nor does it factor in the time and 14 inconvenience costs associated with less readily 15 available diesel supply. 16 Higher few costs could also hurt others, 17 including businesses with small fleets of vehicles 18 such as bakeries and nurseries, farmer-owned 19 refineries and, ultimately, all consumers. We are 20 very concerned that the needs of these core American 21 businesses and the heavy-duty truck industry are 22 being shortchanged at the expense of EPA's stated 23 objective of providing growth potential for 24 light-duty vehicles which, according to credible 25 studies, may never be more than a small fraction of 165 1 the vehicle fleet. 2 Has the agency considered how consumers 3 and others might be protected if supply and cost 4 dislocations come to pass? 5 A waiver certainly wouldn't be practical 6 because it would expose new trucks to higher sulfur 7 diesel fuel which, according to EPA's own 8 assessment, could damage the emission control 9 equipment needed to meet the proposed diesel exhaust 10 standards. 11 In the near term, increased imports 12 probably wouldn't be able to fill the big gaps 13 because few foreign refiners will be making the same 14 diesel. And foreign producers have their own 15 capacity constraints. Eventually U.S. or foreign 16 refiners might expand capacity to provide additional 17 supplies; but this would require installation of new 18 equipment, a process that could take several years. 19 No one can predict with 100 percent 20 confidence what might happen; but, given the 21 volatility we've seen in the fuel market this year, 22 are the risks described worth taking? 23 Keep in mind that EPA's NOx benefits do 24 not appear until many years after initial 25 implementation due in part to the phase-in 166 1 proposal. 2 Why did EPA not consider a more 3 reasonable NOx standard that could be implemented 4 sooner? How does EPA expect urban areas struggling 5 to meet attainment deadlines in the 2007-2010 time 6 frame to significantly benefit when the full effect 7 of its program does not occur until much later? 8 According to a study by a well-known 9 automotive engineering consulting firm, the most 10 advanced vehicle emissions reduction technology that 11 we know will work reduces emissions about the same 12 with either fuel. EPA hopes that a different 13 technology will be used, but it takes a leap of 14 faith to support this belief. 15 According to the agency, this technology 16 has not advanced to the field trial stage. And in 17 preliminary laboratory tests sponsored by industry 18 and government, it had not cut emissions to the 19 levels EPA wants no matter how much sulfur was 20 reduced. 21 Our misgivings about EPA's leap of faith 22 are based on two historical facts. First, for the 23 1993 diesel sulfur regulations, EPA called for low 24 sulfur fuels to enable the use of aftertreatment 25 devices. The industry has spent billions of dollars 167 1 to supply the fuel; but low and behold, the 2 aftertreatment devices that supposedly were going to 3 be used never came into being. 4 Second, the last time EPA tried to force 5 diesel emission control technology in its 1991 bus 6 standard, the agency's chosen technology failed 7 miserably on the road despite the fact that trap 8 manufacturers convinced EPA that they could develop 9 durable, cost-effective systems to meet emissions 10 requirements in the time frame available. 11 And I've attached a copy of some 12 correspondence, a fax sheet from EPA, to my 13 testimony just as a reminder. 14 We strongly urge EPA to take the time 15 needed to get this rule right the first time. The 16 impacts run too deep and too broad for EPA to do 17 otherwise. There are still many questions and 18 issues that have to be resolved, and EPA must give 19 them fair and appropriate consideration. 20 Why has EPA arbitrarily selected year-end 21 to finalize this rule when there is much more time 22 to get the rule right? 23 For example, to be implemented in 2007, 24 this rule does not need to be finalized for several 25 years. In addition, EPA has not even finalized the 168 1 standards proposed for 2004 yet. The 2004 rule 2 raises several engine certification issues that 3 could impact both the fuels and engine industries 4 for 2007. Industry will need sufficient time to 5 study those impacts in order to comment on the 2007 6 proposal. 7 We encourage EPA to carefully consider 8 the concerns we have raised today. Cleaner air 9 demands that we reduce diesel sulfur; and we have 10 volunteered to do so by a significant amount, 90 11 percent. Too severe a reduction could result in 12 unintended negative consequences for consumers and 13 for the industry. With reasonable adjustments to 14 EPA's proposed rule, we believe these can be 15 minimized. 16 Thank you. 17 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Ellen Shapiro. 18 MS. SHAPIRO: Thank you. Can you hear 19 me? My name is Ellen Shapiro. I'm a director of 20 automotive fuels for the Alliance of Automobile 21 Manufacturers which is a coalition of car and 22 light-truck manufacturers who sell more than 90 23 percent of the vehicles in this country. 24 Alliance members are in the 25 transportation business, and our interest in this 169 1 rulemaking is to preserve diesel engines as a 2 transportation option for the light-duty market. As 3 EPA recognizes, they have inherent advantages for 4 higher fuel economy, lower greenhouse gas emissions, 5 and lower evaporative hydrocarbon emissions. 6 Diesel is one of the key technologies of 7 the future. Considering the concerns about fuel 8 supply that have surfaced in this rulemaking, EPA 9 also should consider the potential overall fuel 10 savings that would accrue if the auto makers are 11 successful in introducing more fuel-efficient 12 vehicles. 13 As we heard DaimlerChrysler state 14 earlier, the PNGD program estimates that advanced 15 diesel technology vehicles will achieve a 40 percent 16 gain in fuel economy over today's gasoline 17 vehicles. 18 Our members are working hard to advance 19 the state of the art in fuel-efficient diesel 20 technology so it will meet the Tier 2 standards 21 adopted last year. But the most critical factor in 22 this endeavor is the quality of the fuel, especially 23 sulfur. That is why we applaud the EPA for taking 24 this crucial first step toward enabling the next 25 generation of diesel technology. 170 1 EPA has done several things right with 2 this proposal. First, EPA treated the vehicles and 3 its fuel as a system for both existing and future 4 diesel fleet. This perspective is essential for 5 today's sophisticated vehicles. 6 Second, EPA proposed to dramatically 7 reduce sulfur to enable the new aftertreatment 8 technology. Numerous research programs are showing 9 how clean diesel can be. Recent bus demonstration 10 programs show diesel buses with aftertreatment 11 controls and clean diesel fuel are proving as clean 12 as or cleaner than buses running on compressed 13 natural gas. I believe there was a demonstration 14 outside here today. This advancement is nothing 15 short of remarkable. 16 Third, EPA has proposed to introduce the 17 new fuel on a nationwide basis with a common 18 deadline and very limited exceptions. This approach 19 is necessary to prevent any high sulfur fuel from 20 contaminating the sensitive new aftertreatment 21 systems that will be used and will help ensure that 22 trucks will continue to be able to deliver their 23 goods throughout the country. 24 Fourth, the EPA has proposed introducing 25 the cleaner fuel before the new aftertreatment 171 1 technology must be used on heavy-duty vehicles. And 2 to the extent the new cap also leads to early 3 introduction of near-zero sulfur fuel, it will 4 encourage auto makers and their suppliers to 5 continue investing in the light-duty option. 6 Does this proposal go far enough for Tier 7 2? Not quite. More needs to be done. 8 As much of a stretch as the Tier 2 9 standards will be for gasoline vehicles, there will 10 be even more so for diesel engines. The fundamental 11 problem, as EPA recognizes, is getting the vehicle 12 system to meet both the NOx and the PM emission 13 standards at the same time. 14 Sulfur free is the level that will allow 15 diesel vehicles to operate at their cleanest 16 throughout their useful life. That is why auto 17 makers and engine manufacturers from around the 18 world have endorsed this level in the recently 19 updated Worldwide Fuel Charter which we have 20 submitted for the record and is also available on 21 our web site for those who are interested. 22 The Charter defines sulfur free as 23 between 5 and 10 parts per million, to be defined 24 further as more data becomes available. In this 25 country, the stringent emission standards justify 172 1 adopting the lower limit. Emerging data from DOE's 2 DECSE program support this view. 3 The Manufacturers of Emission Controls 4 Association also continues to recommend 5 parts per 5 million, notwithstanding its support for the 6 proposed 15 ppm cap. Many people are assuming that 7 the 15 ppm cap will lead to an average sulfur level 8 of about 7 parts per million with most of the fuel 9 having less than 10 ppm due to the expected refiner 10 compliance margins. 11 We are less certain. Rather, we expect 12 refiners will learn how to shrink their compliance 13 margins; and this, in turn, will lead to more fuel 14 about 10 ppm. And, in addition, there may be 15 testing provision margins of a few ppm or more 16 regarding what measurements are taken. So, in 17 actuality, there could even be some fuel out there 18 higher than 15, even though the fuel might meet the 19 15 cap. So this sulfur level in this range would 20 seriously poison the new aftertreatment devices. 21 In addition to sulfur, EPA also should 22 adjust other fuel properties as recommended in the 23 Charter, especially cetane, aromatics, and 24 distillation. And we will discuss these issues 25 further in our written comments. 173 1 Is our position realistic? Are we asking 2 too much? 3 We think that 5 ppm is doable. After 4 all, refiners are making this fuel today in Sweden 5 and elsewhere as others have testified. 6 Other countries are moving quickly to 7 ultra-low sulfur levels. Just last year Germany 8 adopted a tax incentive program to encourage fuels 9 with less than 10 ppm by 2003. In May, the European 10 Union announced its intent to pursue this course for 11 all of Europe. 12 The key point is that refiners know how 13 to make clean diesel fuel. Proper incentives and 14 market demand will bring this fuel to market even 15 faster than public estimates predict. We urge EPA 16 to focus on its incentive package to encourage the 17 marketplace, to make the new cleaner fuel widely 18 available as soon as possible. 19 We understand the concern about supply; 20 but we believe the fuel supply will be driven as 21 much by profitability and other factors, not simply 22 the cost of this regulation. 23 To the extent that maintaining low sulfur 24 levels through the distribution system becomes a 25 challenge, we believe in the collective 174 1 problem-solving capability of the free market 2 system. 3 We've come a long way in the debate over 4 sulfur. Just two years ago auto makers petitioned 5 EPA to reduce sulfur in gasoline to California 6 levels or lower. Today everyone accepts the 7 critical role that sulfur plays in our national 8 environmental policy. The issue is no longer 9 whether to reduce sulfur. It is not even that 10 near-zero sulfur levels eventually will be needed. 11 Rather, it is when will they be available to enable 12 the new technology. 13 For our part, Alliance members want to 14 bring advanced technologies such as the turbocharged 15 direct injection engines and hybrid electric 16 vehicles described in our new brochure on advanced 17 technologies to the point where they can operate 18 cleanly and meet consumer needs. 19 The proposed 15 ppm cap on diesel fuel 20 sulfur is a very strong step in the right direction 21 towards providing the incentives to continue 22 investing in this clean diesel technology. Diesel 23 fuel quality on a par with the Worldwide Fuel 24 Charter will actually make this technology one of 25 our key options for the future. 175 1 Thank you. 2 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Robert Fletcher. 3 MR. FLETCHER: Good afternoon. My name 4 is Robert E. Fletcher, and I'm a member of the 5 Sierra Club here in Georgia; and I appreciate the 6 opportunity to make some comments this afternoon. 7 I strongly support more effective air 8 quality standards and reduced pollution from 9 heavy-duty vehicles and engines. If anything, EPA's 10 proposed standards should be strengthened. Efforts 11 to stop or weaken these standards should be 12 opposed. 13 Some will argue that we can't afford 14 stronger standards and that the U.S. economy will 15 suffer if they are implemented. This is reminiscent 16 of the dire predictions made before the enactment of 17 the Clean Air Act in 1970. 18 In actuality, the results of this 19 landmark legislation have been positive. A 20 comprehensive analysis of the effects of the Clean 21 Air Act between 1970 and 1990 shows that direct 22 monetized benefits were $23 trillion and every 23 dollar spent for compliance yielded $45 in 24 benefits. Of course, air quality is now better than 25 it would have been if the Act had not been passed. 176 1 Arguments against effective air quality 2 standards are sometimes flawed because they fail to 3 acknowledge all of the benefits that will be 4 derived. In the case of the currently proposed 5 program, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, particulate 6 matter, sulfur dioxide, and toxic air pollutants 7 will be reduced; and all of these reductions must be 8 taken into account. 9 Similarly, adverse effects caused by 10 these substances will be reduced and must be 11 considered. Resultant benefits will occur in the 12 following areas: human health, agricultural crops, 13 forests, other plant life, waterways, and entire 14 ecosystems. 15 The need for a holistic approach to air 16 quality is underlined by a quotation from Professor 17 C.S. Kiang of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and 18 Atmospheric Sciences cited in this newspaper 19 article. Professor Kiang states we are going to 20 have to look at our air quality problems 21 holistically. 22 Air pollution from diesel-powered sources 23 is becoming a more prominent factor. Accordingly, 24 heavy-duty vehicles are more viable candidates for 25 new controls in order to meet air quality goals. 177 1 New essential measures for light-duty vehicles will 2 be an increasingly hard sell if the public perceives 3 that there's a growing disparity between the 4 requirements for these two groups of vehicles. Of 5 course, solving the air quality problem requires a 6 comprehensive approach that effectively reduces 7 pollution from all major sources. 8 Reduction of diesel engine pollution will 9 require advanced aftertreatment technologies such as 10 catalytic converters. U.S. EPA and other 11 authorities concur that low sulfur fuel is 12 imperative to avoid the poisoning effect on 13 pollution control components and consequent 14 diminished effectiveness of the program. 15 Sweden currently requires diesel fuel 16 with a limit of only 10 parts per million of 17 sulfur. Contrast this with the current U.S. limit 18 for on-road diesel fuel of 500 parts per million. 19 Reduced levels of sulfur in diesel fuel 20 will also help reduce emissions from Tier 2 21 light-duty diesel-powered vehicles. Furthermore, it 22 has been demonstrated that lower sulfur levels in 23 diesel fuel extends engine life and reduces 24 maintenance costs. 25 It is universally recognized that engine 178 1 components fail from time to time, and emission 2 control devices are no exception. For this reason, 3 it is imperative that the new standards be 4 accompanied by a mechanism to ensure that installed 5 devices operate properly and remain effective. 6 Inspection and maintenance programs should be 7 required nationally. This could be supplemented by 8 remote sensing programs if they prove to be feasible 9 and effective. 10 I specifically recommend that U.S. EPA, 11 1, reduce diesel fuel sulfur levels to no more than 12 15 parts per million nationwide for both on-road and 13 nonroad diesels by 2006; 2, reduce emissions of 14 ozone precursors and particulate matter from 15 heavy-duty vehicles, including those powered by 16 diesel engines, by 95 percent and 90 percent 17 respectively with an effective date of 2007; 3, 18 initiate action to establish the same standards for 19 nonroad diesel engines; 4, specify that new emission 20 standards be accompanied by effective programs for 21 periodic inspection and maintenance to ensure that 22 installed emission control systems continue to 23 perform as designed; 5, establish and implement a 24 national program for accelerated development and 25 introduction of alternative fueled heavy-duty 179 1 vehicles such as those powered by natural gas, 2 electricity, and fuel cells. 3 Thank you for the opportunity to present 4 these comments. 5 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Senator Donzella 6 James. 7 SENATOR JAMES: Thank you very much. My 8 name is State Senator Donzella James, and I'm 9 honored to sit with so many distinguished 10 environmentalists and professionals. 11 I represent the 35th District in the 12 state of Georgia which includes metropolitan 13 Atlanta. And while I am here today as state 14 senator, I feel that it's important for me as a 15 citizen to voice my concerns surrounding diesel 16 fumes. 17 Any additional pollution in our 18 already-dangerous atmosphere should concern all of 19 us because it adversely affects our health and our 20 overall quality of life. 21 In the district that I represent, we 22 already have a nonattainment zone warning throughout 23 metropolitan Atlanta and the other eight cities that 24 I represent. That is unacceptable. We cannot even 25 build new roads that we want to build, nor can we 180 1 build some of the new construction in our area 2 because of this nonattainment zone that we're in. 3 In researching this issue, I have learned 4 that, in spite of the efforts of so many 5 corporations, state agencies, and private citizens 6 to cleanse our air, our efforts are being negated by 7 the petroleum and trucking industries, both of whom 8 use diesel fuel for power. 9 The primary component of the diesel fuel, 10 sulfur, is what causes our problems; and it is 11 important that we rally to find low fuel means to 12 produce the diesel fuel. If we don't, we're sure to 13 find ourselves in even worse shape than we are 14 currently in. 15 Here in the state of Georgia, over 5,000 16 people annually are treated in emergency rooms 17 because of pulmonary disorders including asthma and 18 bronchitis, not to mention the long-term effects 19 such as emphysema and lung cancer. 20 In our legislature, the House and the 21 Senate, in the past few years, we have lost 22 legislators to emphysema and lung cancer; and those 23 people never smoked. So they feel that it was the 24 air quality that contributed to it. 25 In addition to astounding statistics in 181 1 the state of Georgia, the national statistics show 2 that more than 150,000 Americans are treated for 3 pulmonary conditions while more than 40,000 4 Americans die prematurely from serious conditions 5 resulting from breathing pollution. We cannot 6 afford those kind of numbers. 7 I cannot vouch for other cities in the 8 state or across this country, but I can tell you 9 that in Atlanta our children and our elderly are 10 outdoor people. They play in their yards. They 11 garden. They play outdoor sports. They walk for 12 exercise. They patronize outdoor cafes. They 13 support concerts at Piedmont Park, at Grant Park. 14 And they walk to cut down on traffic congestion. 15 They spend a considerable amount of time outdoors, 16 and they deserve to be able to do so without the 17 threat of illness. 18 I am frightened by the state of our 19 environment, and I realize that we must work 20 together as a cooperative community to eliminate the 21 risk. Each private citizen must do his or her part 22 by being aware of ozone alert days and by reducing 23 his or her contributions to pollution, including how 24 and when we drive as well as how and when we operate 25 our lawn equipment, etc. 182 1 In the same vein, industry must be 2 responsible citizens also. Currently vehicles that 3 use diesel fuel contribute a little more than 4 one-third of this problem. While new vehicle 5 emission standards go into effect in 2006, it is 6 critical that trucks and buses be held to a standard 7 that will reduce sulfur levels now. 8 I support your proposal and ask that you 9 not implement provisions that will allow for an 10 extension past 2006, the targeted date. New trucks 11 must meet the 15 ppm sulfur or we will not be able 12 to meet the necessary pollution reductions. 13 In the Senate I have worked very hard to 14 make sure that we have clean air, clean water, and 15 even to reduce the solid waste treatment so that we 16 will not have so many landfills and incinerators to 17 pollute our air. Surely this is something that I 18 would love to work for in the state of Georgia if we 19 have to come to any kind of legislation. 20 I also ask that you ensure that 21 diesel-powered vehicles continue to meet emission 22 standards when they are on the road, not just doing 23 emission tests, and that we continue to look toward 24 increasing the use of advanced technology vehicles. 25 I hope the input you receive from all the 183 1 panels today will not fall on deaf ears. I hope 2 that we can take the politics out. I understand the 3 process. I know even at the state capitol that they 4 think that the laws are made in the chambers of the 5 House and the Senate. But many laugh about it and 6 say they're made in the hallways and the golf 7 courses, because I know that lobbyists have a lot of 8 money and a lot of power. And many of them are 9 responsible people, and I hope that they will be 10 responsible when it comes to trying to lower the 11 sulfur rates. 12 I thank you for allowing me this time to 13 speak to you today; and if there's anything that I 14 can do as a state legislator, then please call on 15 me. 16 I have an emergency, so I'm going to have 17 to leave. And thank you very much for listening to 18 me. 19 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. The 20 next speaker is Richard Meeks. 21 MR. MEEKS: Good afternoon. My name is 22 Richard Meeks. I am vice president of planning and 23 economics of Ergon, Incorporated. 24 I appear here today on behalf of Ergon 25 and Lion Oil Company which is an Ergon majority 184 1 owned and managed company. Thank you for calling 2 this hearing to solicit comments on EPA's proposed 3 diesel fuel sulfur reduction regulations. I 4 appreciate the opportunity to present Ergon's and 5 Lion's views on this proposal. 6 While our company is a member of the 7 National Petrochemical and Refiners Association from 8 whom this panel has heard testimony, we sought this 9 opportunity to present separate testimony to 10 highlight the unique impacts this proposal would 11 have on our company. 12 We generally agree with the testimony 13 presented by NPRA but also want to assure you that 14 you hear testimony from the individual companies 15 that will be expected to comply with this proposal. 16 First, some information about our 17 company. Ergon is a privately-held family-owned 18 company headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi. In 19 addition to other operations, Ergon either wholly or 20 partially owns and operates three petroleum 21 refineries. 22 Our Vicksburg, Mississippi refinery which 23 has a capacity of 25,000 barrels per day of crude 24 oil, currently chooses not to produce highway diesel 25 fuel. However, this refinery's product slate may 185 1 change in the near future, in which case it would be 2 directly impacted by EPA's diesel fuel sulfur 3 proposal. 4 We acquired our Newell, West Virginia 5 refinery from the Quaker State Corporation in 1997. 6 This refinery has a crude capacity of 16,000 barrels 7 per day and produces conventional gasoline and 8 on-road diesel fuel as well as other products. 9 In addition, Ergon owns 51 percent of the 10 common stock of and has 100 percent of the 11 management responsibility for Lion Oil Company, an 12 El Dorado, Arkansas refiner. The Lion refinery has 13 a crude capacity of 55,000 barrels per day and 14 produces conventional gasoline and on-road diesel 15 fuel as well as other products. In addition, Lion 16 has been in continuous operation since 1922 and has 17 provided livelihoods to several generations of 18 employees in South Arkansas. 19 Ergon is strongly opposed to EPA's diesel 20 sulfur proposal because it mandates reductions that 21 are too large and too costly over a time frame that 22 is too short for my company, Ergon, to meet. The 23 negative impact of EPA's diesel sulfur proposal on 24 the future viability of Ergon's three refineries 25 could not be more severe. 186 1 When combined with the costs, Ergon will 2 be forced to shoulder in order to comply with the 3 gasoline sulfur mandate. The costs of compliance 4 with this proposal may stretch beyond Ergon's 5 financial capacity. In short, it is not clear that 6 the operations of our Mississippi, West Virginia, 7 and our Arkansas refineries will continue if this 8 proposal is adopted. 9 How ironic that the Lion refinery, saved 10 from closure in the 1980s through much effort from 11 then-Governor Clinton, could ultimately close due to 12 a regulation from now-President Clinton's 13 administration. 14 Ergon's situation is not unique, but our 15 company does possess certain characteristics that 16 adds to our vulnerability. Each of our refineries 17 is small, particularly when compared to the 18 mega-refineries operated by the major oil 19 companies. None of our refineries produce more than 20 75,000 barrels per day of product. As a result, we 21 cannot achieve the economies of scale in making 22 equipment upgrades that the integrated refiners do. 23 And yet, because of the decisions EPA has 24 made in the gasoline sulfur rule regarding the 25 definition of a small refiner, Ergon's refineries do 187 1 not qualify for either the small refiner flexibility 2 or the geographic phase-in program. 3 Consequently, Ergon is, in fact, stuck in 4 the middle. We do not have the deep pockets of the 5 integrated refiners to make these investments, and 6 we do not qualify for regulatory flexibility because 7 of our size. 8 Ergon suggests that EPA alter the 9 proposal in two ways: 1, delay the implementation 10 of the heavy-duty vehicle emissions standards for 11 several years, perhaps until 2010; and then, 2, 12 establish a 50 ppm diesel fuel sulfur specification 13 instead of the 15 ppm standard EPA has proposed. 14 These twin actions will have several 15 beneficial impacts. First, an extended 16 implementation time frame will permit additional 17 time for the development of sulfur-tolerant 18 emissions control devices for heavy-duty vehicles. 19 If the manufacturers of these devices believe they 20 can achieve tolerance for 15 ppm diesel fuel by 21 2007, then there is no reason to believe that they 22 cannot achieve tolerance for 50 ppm by 2010. 23 Second, a 2010 implementation schedule 24 will assure that the investments that Ergon and 25 other refiners are required to make do not occur at 188 1 the same time as the investments we'll be making for 2 the gasoline sulfur reductions. 3 Ergon's pockets, unlike many of the 4 integrated refiners, are only so deep; and Ergon's 5 assets are only so bankable. Making our sulfur 6 reduction capital investments sequentially, rather 7 than concurrently, will greatly enhance Ergon's 8 ability to make these investments. 9 Third, a 50 ppm cap is achievable for 10 Ergon at approximately half the cost of a 15 ppm 11 cap. If the diesel sulfur cap is set at 50 ppm, we 12 believe it will cost us approximately $25 million to 13 meet this standard. This is at only our Lion 14 refinery. If 15 ppm is the cap, we estimate our 15 costs will be approximately 50 million or double, if 16 we can afford to make the investments at all. 17 Finally, this extended time frame would 18 permit Ergon, a small refiner, to make its 19 investments after, or concurrently with, larger 20 refiners. As the proposal now stands, Ergon would 21 be forced to make its investments in the 2001 to 22 2003 time frame because it is virtually assured that 23 the sheer number of refiners will fill the calendars 24 of the existing fabrication shops and qualified 25 construction companies from 2004 through 2006. 189 1 Additionally, the lead time for 2 permitting, even under EPA's fast track process, 3 would force Ergon to begin the permitting process 4 now, so far in advance of any start-up that the 5 estimates for the process could be very suspect. 6 Consequently, even if EPA's suggested 7 technology review shows that the emissions control 8 devices will not be commercialized by 2007, Ergon 9 will already have either undertaken the investments 10 needed for a 2006 implementation date or made the 11 decision to exit the on-road diesel fuel business by 12 the time the conclusions of this review are made 13 known to the public. 14 Ergon urges EPA to reconsider its 15 proposal for diesel fuel. We and other refiners 16 have offered a 90 percent diesel sulfur reduction. 17 EPA has proposed a 97 percent reduction. With 18 flexibility, Ergon and other refiners can supply 19 clean diesel fuel. Without it, many mid-sized 20 refiners like Ergon may not survive this second 21 round of sulfur reductions. 22 Thank you for soliciting our comment on 23 this proposal. I would be pleased to answer any 24 questions you may have. 25 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Michael Ports. 190 1 MR. PORTS: Good afternoon. My name is 2 Mike Ports. I'm president of Ports Petroleum 3 Company, Incorporated, a family-owned private 4 company headquartered in Wooster, Ohio. 5 Thank you for calling this hearing today 6 to solicit public comment on the Environmental 7 Protection Agency's proposed regulations to control 8 the sulfur content of diesel fuel. 9 Ports Petroleum is an independent 10 marketer of motor fuels. We own and operate 70 11 motor fuel outlets in 12 states. Our company 12 employs 700 workers and markets approximately 280 13 million gallons of diesel fuel every year. 14 I appear today on behalf of the Society 15 of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America. I am 16 privileged to serve as SIGMA's first vice 17 president. 18 SIGMA is an association of approximately 19 260 motor fuel marketers operating in all 50 20 states. Together, SIGMA members supply over 28,000 21 motor fuel outlets and sell over 48 billion gallons 22 of gasoline and diesel fuel annually, or 23 approximately 30 percent of all motor fuels sold in 24 the nation last year. Collectively, SIGMA members 25 sold over 13 billion gallons of on-road diesel fuel 191 1 last year; and 89 percent of our members sell diesel 2 fuel. 3 My personal experience with Ports 4 Petroleum and my representation of all SIGMA members 5 at this hearing today combine to make me 6 well-qualified to speak about the EPA's diesel 7 sulfur proposal, not just from the diesel fuel 8 marketers' perspective but from the perspective of 9 diesel fuel consumers as well. 10 From the point of view of diesel fuel 11 marketers and our customers, EPA's proposal will 12 have dire consequences on our business, on our 13 customers, and potentially on our national economy. 14 SIGMA strongly opposes EPA's diesel fuel sulfur 15 proposal for one fundamental reason. It will 16 reduce, perhaps substantially, the supplies of 17 on-road diesel fuel. 18 Diverse and plentiful supplies of diesel 19 fuel are the life's blood of independent petroleum 20 marketers like Ports. Without adequate supplies of 21 diesel fuel, independent marketers -- the most 22 competitive segment of the motor fuel marketing 23 industry -- will cease to exist as a force in diesel 24 fuel retailing. 25 Already as a result of industry 192 1 consolidations and refiners exiting the motor fuels 2 business, the number of sources of diesel fuel on 3 which an independent marketer can look for supply 4 has been reduced. If the sources of supply or the 5 numbers of suppliers are restricted further, 6 independent marketers will be forced to look towards 7 integrated refiners -- in many cases our strongest 8 competitors -- for diesel fuel supplies. 9 When integrated refiners are aware that 10 an independent marketer has many other sources of 11 supply, then the integrated refiners are forced to 12 be competitive. When sources of supply narrow, 13 however, there are no such forces acting on the 14 integrated refiners. 15 We have seen an excellent example of the 16 precarious role independent marketers occupy in the 17 motor fuels marketing industry during the recent 18 supply crisis in Michigan. While independent 19 marketers traditionally have been a strong 20 competitive force in Michigan, recent consolidations 21 have given one or two large refiners dominance over 22 that market. 23 When the Wolverine Pipeline went down two 24 weeks ago, independent marketers were totally cut 25 off from supply of unbranded product from these 193 1 refiners' bulk terminals and for a period of time 2 simply could not get supplies in Michigan. They 3 were forced to truck the product into the state from 4 surrounding areas. As a result, gasoline prices in 5 the state rose dramatically. 6 SIGMA fears that this Michigan supply and 7 price crisis could become the norm in the nation's 8 diesel fuel market if EPA's diesel sulfur proposal 9 is finalized as published. 10 EPA's diesel sulfur proposal will result 11 in a substantial decrease in the overall supplies of 12 on-road diesel fuel in this country. As EPA admits 13 in its proposal, some refiners will not be able to 14 make the capital investments necessary to produce 15 ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, resulting in reduced 16 diesel fuel supplies. 17 EPA also admits that desulfurization 18 technology currently does not exist to remove 19 sufficient sulfur from certain diesel fuel 20 blendstocks, again reducing supply. 21 EPA further admits that our nation's 22 diesel fuel distribution system, including 23 pipelines, bulk storage facilities, and tanker 24 trucks, will be forced to downgrade an unspecified 25 portion of our nation's diesel fuel production 194 1 because it will become contaminated with higher 2 sulfur products during distribution, again reducing 3 overall supplies. 4 And EPA highlights the fact that under 5 the proposal domestic diesel fuel will have a 6 substantially lower sulfur level than diesel fuel 7 produced in most other industrialized counties which 8 will prevent foreign supplies of diesel fuel from 9 alleviating any shortage in domestic production. 10 Independent marketers of diesel fuel will 11 not be the only ones to suffer under EPA's 12 proposal. Consumers of diesel fuel, including our 13 nation's trucking and agricultural industries, will 14 pay for EPA's program at the pump. EPA predicts in 15 its proposal that diesel sulfur reductions will cost 16 approximately 4 1/2 cents per gallon. That number 17 is woefully low. 18 As we witnessed this past winter and 19 spring in the Northeast and currently are witnessing 20 in the Midwest, even small supply shortages of motor 21 fuels can cause dramatic increases in retail 22 prices. If overall diesel fuel supplies are reduced 23 by 10 percent as a result of EPA's proposal -- which 24 I believe is not an unreasonable prediction given 25 the refiners I've talked with -- then the 195 1 $2-per-gallon diesel fuel prices we saw in the 2 Northeast last winter will become the norm, if not a 3 bargain, in the eyes of consumers. 4 Given the extent to which our nation 5 relies on diesel fuel to power our on-road 6 commercial transportation network, the ultimate 7 impact on these price increases and diesel fuel 8 shortages will be felt by the economy as a whole 9 through increased transportation costs and 10 inflation. 11 While the current staff at EPA may not 12 care about this impact of their proposal on the 13 future of our economy because these impacts will 14 occur long after this administration has left 15 office, many of us will be present when the 16 repercussions from this ill-considered proposal are 17 felt by consumers and our economy. 18 While consumers generally have responded 19 to public polling that they are willing to pay more 20 for gasoline and diesel fuel to have cleaner air, 21 the recent supply crises and price spikes and the 22 resultant howls of protest from consumers and 23 elected officials in the Midwest give rise to 24 significant questions regarding the public's support 25 for an environmental program that could harm the 196 1 continued economic expansion. 2 SIGMA raises a specific objection to the 3 dual fuel option discussed in the preamble to the 4 proposal, including the ill-conceived notion that a 5 dual fuel program should be limited to large diesel 6 fuel marketers. 7 In the preamble, EPA requests comments on 8 adopting a regulatory scheme that would permit two 9 on-road diesel fuels to exist for a short period of 10 time. EPA envisions that refiners would make some 11 ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel for several years and 12 continue to also supply the current low sulfur 13 on-road diesel during this transition period. 14 EPA also solicits comments on a retailer 15 mandate for offering both on-road diesels or a 16 mandate that only large marketers do so. These 17 ideas should be roundly criticized and discarded. 18 EPA, in its attempt to make its drastic 19 proposal on diesel sulfur reductions seem 20 reasonable, has floated this idea of dual on-road 21 diesel fuels. 22 I must tell you that this proposal would 23 be disastrous for our industry and the nation's 24 motor fuel distribution system. This dual fuel 25 proposal would force Ports and other diesel fuel 197 1 marketers into one of the following scenarios: 2 either, No. 1, add an additional underground or 3 above-ground storage tank and dispenser system to 4 hold and pump the second grade of on-road diesel or 5 retail only ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel at a time 6 when only a small percentage of our customers would 7 require it and risk losing customers to competitors 8 that choose to sell the cheaper low sulfur diesel. 9 At the vast majority of our company's 10 locations, we have very limited storage for diesel 11 fuel. At most sites our tanks hold less than 48 12 hours of supply. In many instances, we would not 13 have room at our sites to install additional 14 tankage, even if we could get the permits to do so. 15 Even if we could install the additional tanks, it 16 appears from EPA's proposal that a second on-road 17 diesel fuel would be phased out within five years, 18 making our investment in that additional tank 19 unnecessary and a wasted investment. 20 While Ports does not own or operate bulk 21 storage terminals, I would assume that such a dual 22 fuel approach would tax storage and distribution 23 assets at the terminal level of distribution as 24 well. We need only to look at the St. Louis 25 metropolitan area which has already experienced 198 1 significant supply shortages of gasoline to 2 understand that the bulk storage facilities will not 3 be available to store additional types of on-road 4 diesel fuel. St. Louis-area terminals have already 5 been forced to shoulder 12 different types of 6 gasoline rather than the area's traditional three 7 types. 8 This area's distribution system already 9 is overtaxed. Adding an additional type of on-road 10 diesel fuel would be virtually impossible given 11 current storage capabilities. 12 As a result, SIGMA strongly opposes EPA's 13 dual fuel option. While EPA has attempted to 14 portray this idea as a means of easing the burdens 15 of this program on refiners and marketers, it, in 16 fact, will greatly increase the costs of the 17 proposed program if it is implemented. 18 SIGMA would support a diesel 19 desulfurization program that takes effect in 2010 or 20 later to permit adequate time for the proposed 21 environmental emissions control and diesel 22 desulfurization technologies to mature and develop 23 and give refiners additional time to install these 24 new technologies. 25 An EPA regulation that adheres to these 199 1 principles would, we believe, have only a minimal 2 impact on overall diesel fuel supplies while 3 reducing diesel sulfur levels by 90 percent and 4 achieving substantial reductions in emissions from 5 heavy-duty diesel engines. 6 In addition, the longer implementation 7 time frame would permit the manufacturers of 8 emissions control devices to develop their 9 technologies to a level at which a 50 ppm sulfur 10 level would not have a negative impact on emissions. 11 I appreciate the opportunity to present 12 SIGMA's views of EPA's proposal. SIGMA will be 13 filing more detailed, formal comments prior to the 14 close of the public comment period. 15 And I would be pleased to answer any 16 questions raised by my testimony. 17 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Keith Gostafson. 18 MR. GOSTAFSON: Thank you. I appreciate 19 the opportunity to speak here with you this 20 morning. 21 Believe it or not, I heard about this 22 conference as I was driving into the allergy clinic 23 this morning. I called the state EPA office. They 24 sent me to the national office. After 30 minutes I 25 finally called the radio station. They told me 200 1 where to find you guys. You need a little bit 2 better PR department on your meetings. 3 I live up in North Georgia up in Waleska, 4 Georgia up on the side of Pine Log Mountain. You 5 can no longer see Pine Log Mountain from Atlanta 6 except for two or three days a year. It's pretty 7 evident in driving through the area that the air 8 quality has gotten worse. 9 Now, in addition to being a local 10 resident by vocation, I'm an engineer. I initially 11 just planned to attend this meeting to listen and 12 see what was presented, but I felt obligated to 13 speak. 14 Now, I've heard several things presented 15 here today. One of them, in looking through the 16 proposal, none of your heavy-duty standards that 17 you're talking about actually apply to the vehicles 18 everyone is so worried about. When almost 19 everyone's speaks an example, says at sometime in 20 their life gotten behind a truck or a bus and it's 21 spewing out noxious emissions. Yet the proposed 22 standards for heavy-duty vehicles cuts off at 14,000 23 pounds gross vehicle weight. So the very trucks and 24 buses that we're talking about regulating, reducing 25 the emissions on, aren't covered by the proposal. 201 1 So one of the things I'd like to ask the 2 committee would be to include an emissions standard 3 for on-road trucks, inner-city trucks, off-road 4 trucks, urban buses. 5 Now, on the engine side, it does a pretty 6 good job of addressing heavy-duty engines. 7 Now, in listening to further comments 8 here, everyone seems to be narrowing the focus of 9 this proposal down to the sulfur requirements of 10 diesel engines. I see that we're talking about 11 aftertreatment and catalysts and whether the 12 catalysts and aftertreatment will work at 15 parts 13 per million versus 50 parts per million -- lots of 14 technology terms going on -- and then kind of veil 15 threats that the cost will go through the ceiling if 16 we have to comply. 17 Now, I work for a company called Chart 18 Engineering. I'm head of R&D for their flight 19 technology division. We manufacture cryogenic 20 equipment, and we're the world's far most supplier 21 of liquid natural gas vehicle tanks for on and 22 off-road vehicles. 23 As opposed to focusing this thing -- 24 everyone's talking about heavy-duty engines and 25 they're immediately assuming diesel. And right now 202 1 today there's alternatives to diesel. Cummins, 2 Caterpillar, Mack, Deere Corporation all make 3 natural gas engines. On the heavy side, when 4 they're powering trucks and urban buses, you 5 typically power them with liquid natural gas so you 6 can get the range. 7 These engines all meet today the 2004 8 CARB requirements for particulates, emissions, and 9 NOx. Some of them already meet the standards you're 10 proposing here. 11 As a consequence, most of the large 12 western cities are adopting LNG technology. 13 Houston, El Paso, Dallas, Phoenix, Austin, Los 14 Angeles are all running large natural gas bus 15 fleets. In addition, there's some large private 16 truck fleets running domestically and in Europe. 17 In addition to it being an already 18 existing technology to clean-burning fuel, it's 19 actually lower cost than current diesel fuel. In 20 the Atlanta area, you can get it delivered from 21 three or four different suppliers if you're a fuel 22 station for 40 cents a gallon. That's not $1.40. 23 That's 40 cents. It's available. It's fairly 24 widely available up and down the East Coast. It's 25 used for peak shaving natural gas for home heating. 203 1 In the Atlanta area, there's over 100 million 2 gallons of LNG available today. 3 So it provides another path for meeting 4 the requirements besides just arguing over whether 5 or not diesel can be made cleaner. If the 6 regulations are adopted, the competition that 7 natural gas engines will provide in response to the 8 diesel engines are going to force the diesel engine 9 manufacturers and the diesel fuel producers to make 10 cleaner engines and cleaner fuel so that natural gas 11 doesn't take over. 12 That's more of a mind-set than anything 13 else. There's very little education out right now. 14 I mean I travel the world telling people about 15 liquid natural gas. 16 I'll take a quote from another engineer, 17 a guy named Molt Taylor. Back in the '60s he 18 invented a certified flying car. And he was asked 19 by a reporter what it takes to convert from a car to 20 a plane, what do you have to change to convert your 21 car to a plane. He said you have to change your 22 mind. 23 Similarly, the conversion from diesel to 24 natural gas technology requires a similar mind 25 change. Passage of this proposal into law would 204 1 help convince people that there are other ways to 2 achieve low emissions and still not cause the mass 3 price increases and the refineries won't be reduced 4 to making candle wax and shoe polish. 5 I appreciate the opportunity to speak to 6 you today. I thank you. 7 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Any questions? 8 MS. GRAVES: There was a statement in the 9 testimony that EPA has not finalized the standards 10 proposed for 2004. I just want to clarify for the 11 record that the 2004 standards are final and under 12 review. Thanks. 13 MR. KOPINSKI: Just to clarify for Keith 14 and any others in the audience, our proposal does 15 cover all the categories of trucks that we've been 16 discussing today. That requirement for 14,000-pound 17 and smaller vehicles is a special requirement to 18 make sure that the smaller gasoline vehicles 19 certified under a separate test are also included. 20 MR. FRANCE: Just one brief clarification 21 question, Mr. Williams. You referenced in your 22 testimony experience back in the early '90s, and you 23 attached some material. I'm not sure I -- if you 24 can explain to me what point you were trying to make 25 there, because I think it makes our point. But go 205 1 ahead. I'm open. Let me backtrack. 2 What happened there is 500 ppm fuel came 3 into effect in 1993. This particular manufacturer 4 that we don't need to highlight tried to design a 5 trap on higher sulfur fuel. It did not work. They 6 had massive failures. They ended up replacing the 7 traps with oxidation catalysts which do work which 8 were facilitated by low sulfur fuel. 9 From EPA's perspective that is a case in 10 point and a success story attributed to lowering the 11 sulfur in diesel fuel. 12 I was just curious what I'm missing. 13 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, my point is that you 14 were predicting and promoting a certain technology 15 and fuel level; and that combination didn't work. 16 And I think because of the uncertainty with the same 17 combination diesel today, we're just very concerned 18 that you want to repeat that same experience. 19 MR. FRANCE: Again, just for the record, 20 500 ppm fuel wasn't -- in that case we were reducing 21 sulfur we indicated with oxidation catalysts; and, 22 in fact, that's what it did. So, again, just to 23 clarify for the record, that to us is a success 24 story which reinforces the role of sulfur and the 25 affect on aftertreatment. 206 1 Okay. Any more questions? Thank you 2 very much. 3 (A discussion ensued off the record.) 4 MR. FRANCE: David Holt, whenever you're 5 ready to go. 6 MR. HOLT: Ready. Thank you very much. 7 As Chet mentioned, my name is David Holt. I'm 8 director of government affairs for Hart/IRI Fuels 9 Information Services. 10 On behalf of Hart/IRI Fuels Information 11 Services, I want to thank you for the opportunity to 12 appear before you today in support of EPA's proposed 13 heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and highway 14 diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. 15 For almost 20 years Hart/IRI has provided 16 quality information, consulting services, and 17 analysis to the worldwide refining and automotive 18 industries, as well as state and federal regulatory 19 and legislative officials and public policy makers. 20 As part of these overall efforts, 21 Hart/IRI has a unique perspective on the individual 22 and collective needs of the refining and automotive 23 industry as well as the economic and environmental 24 needs of the general public. We also recognize that 25 vehicle technology and motor fuels should be treated 207 1 as an integrated system. 2 With these perspectives in mind, we 3 support EPA's proposal for a comprehensive 50-state 4 air quality control program regulating heavy-duty 5 vehicle exhaust and diesel fuels as a single 6 system. We applaud EPA's efforts to ensure that 7 refiners have adequate lead time with which to 8 implement the proposed changes. We also welcome the 9 opportunities presented for advanced synthetic 10 diesel, such as Syntroleum's gas-to-liquids process. 11 As currently proposed, EPA's diesel 12 sulfur fuel requirements would reduce current diesel 13 sulfur levels of 50 parts per million to 15 parts 14 per million by mid-2006. In addition, heavy-duty 15 vehicle emission standards for particulate matter, 16 nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons would be 17 significantly tightened beginning in 2007. 18 In our view, EPA's proposal to 19 substantially reduce the sulfur content of diesel 20 fuels would accomplish several important public 21 policy objectives including air quality improvement, 22 creation of a pathway for clean-burning diesel 23 engines to meet the goals of the Energy Policy Act 24 and Clean Air Act, establishment of an alternative 25 fuel diesel market such as synthetic diesel, further 208 1 recognition of the need to treat fuels and vehicles 2 as an integrated system, and maintenance of the 3 diesel engine as an alternative for the light-duty 4 market. 5 If adopted, EPA's proposed cap of 15 6 parts per million sulfur content in diesel fuel and 7 proposed new standards for heavy-duty highway 8 engines and vehicles would have a significant and 9 positive impact on air quality around the country. 10 According to EPA, the standards proposed would 11 result in substantial benefits to the public health 12 and welfare through significant annual reductions in 13 emissions of NOx, PM, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, 14 sulfur dioxide, and air toxics. 15 As proposed, this program will reduce 16 emissions of NOx and hydrocarbons, key ingredients 17 in ozone, by 2.8 million and 305,000 tons per year 18 in 2030 respectively. PM emissions from these 19 vehicles would be reduced by 110,000 tons per year 20 in 2030. These reductions translate to a 90 percent 21 reduction in NOx emissions from the 2004 levels and 22 a 90 percent reduction in PM from current levels by 23 2007. 24 It is also important to note that diesel 25 fuel use in the United States continues to increase 209 1 as trucks and diesel-powered sport utility vehicles 2 capture larger percentages of the transportation 3 market. The demand for diesel in the United States 4 transportation sector is growing three times faster 5 than gasoline. The conversion from gasoline to 6 diesel engines grew at a 44 percent rate from 7 1997-1998. 8 The Department of Energy estimates that 9 Americans will consume 1.93 million barrels per day 10 of diesel fuel in 2000 and 2 million barrels per day 11 in 2010. 12 This growth not only creates the need for 13 additional air quality standard safeguards such as 14 those EPA's currently proposing, it establishes a 15 need for an expanded alternative diesel fuel 16 market. It also raises the question of how refiners 17 will meet increased diesel production demands driven 18 by the continued growth of the diesel market while 19 also further constrained by additional improvements 20 to emission standards. This problem will likely be 21 exacerbated by fuel quality improvements also being 22 made by the European Union and elsewhere. 23 In the early 1990s, Congress passed the 24 Energy Policy Act designed to reduce the nation's 25 growing reliance on imported oil as well as the 210 1 Clean Air Act which was designed to provide for 2 improved air quality through reductions in mobile 3 and stationary source emissions. 4 EPACT promotes the use of 5 nonpetroleum-based fuels and new technology to 6 replace substantial quantities of oil consumed by 7 motor vehicles. EPACT calls for displacing 10 8 percent of all petroleum-based fuels by 2000 and 30 9 percent by 2010. 10 The Clean Air Act establishes standards 11 for the reduction of criteria pollutants and 12 improving air quality. Among the requirements of 13 the Clean Air Act is the establishment of a clean 14 fuel fleet program. This program establishes that 15 specified percentages of new vehicles acquired by 16 fleet owners in 1998 and thereafter must meet clean 17 fuel fleet standards. 18 But the transportation sector is failing 19 to achieve the goals set by these acts with the use 20 of nonpetroleum-based fuels capturing only about 3 21 percent of the total highway transportation fuel 22 market. The primary reason for this failure is the 23 fact that nearly all public transportation vehicles 24 are powered by diesel engines, and there are 25 virtually no alternative fuels available in 211 1 sufficient quantities for diesel engines. 2 In many cases, altering the vehicle 3 engine and infrastructure to run on compressed 4 natural gas or propane has proven too expensive. As 5 a result, emissions from diesel-powered engines, 6 particularly NOx and PM emissions, have continued to 7 rise. 8 EPA's proposal offers an effective 9 pathway to improve current diesel engine technology 10 and substantially reduce harmful emissions from 11 diesel fuels. It also offers an avenue for the 12 development and commercialization of ultra-clean 13 synthetic diesel for the establishment of an 14 alternative fuel diesel market to meet the goals of 15 EPACT and, to a lesser extent, the Clean Air Act. 16 Synthetic diesels have already proven a 17 way to cost-effectively exceed EPA's proposed low 18 sulfur diesel standards. In addition, they are 19 substantially nonpetroleum. They provide an 20 opportunity, if it is realized, to advance the 21 marketability of ultra-clean cost-effective 22 diesel-powered engines that meet the requirements of 23 both EPACT and the Clean Air Act. 24 Synthetic diesels generally produced from 25 natural gas contain no detectable sulfur, aromatics, 212 1 olefins, or metals. They have low density and high 2 hydrocarbon content and a cetane number that exceeds 3 74. 4 A recent study of heavy-duty engines by 5 the Southwest Research Institute concluded that 6 synthetic diesel's emissions of criteria pollutants 7 were significantly lower than other diesel. NOx 8 emissions were reduced 22 percent over current EPA 9 No. 2 diesel. PM emissions were reduced 38 percent 10 over current EPA No. 2 diesel. Air toxic emissions 11 were reduced 34 percent over current EPA No. 2 12 diesel. 13 At least one synthetic diesel technology 14 company, Syntroleum, has already submitted a 15 petition to the Department of Energy requesting a 16 rulemaking to add synthetic diesel to the list of 17 alternative fuels defined by EPACT. Because 18 synthetic fuels are substantially nonpetroleum, 19 would yield substantial energy security and 20 environmental benefits and would cost-effectively 21 provide a ready market alternative for meeting EPACT 22 and Clean Air Act requirements, it would seem 23 reasonable for DOE to grant such a proposal. We 24 would also urge EPA to support DOE's granting of 25 this proposal. 213 1 In addition to its benefits as a 2 potential ultra-clean alternative fuel, because 3 synthetic diesel is produced from natural gas 4 feedstock, the resource base is as large or larger 5 than the present world oil reserves. As a result, 6 use of synthetic diesel will enable the refining 7 industry to have additional flexibility in meeting 8 expected demand for diesel fuel while also meeting 9 new emission reduction standards. 10 The production of diesel fuel with 15 ppm 11 sulfur will require additional refinery operation, 12 specifically more process heat and more natural gas 13 for hydrogen production. Reducing the total diesel 14 pool from 350 ppm to below 50 ppm requires 15 substantial increases in energy and hydrogen, thus 16 constricting diesel stocks. Adding 30 percent by 17 volume of synthetic diesel to conventional diesel 18 blendstocks will reduce 20 ppm sulfur to 15 ppm 19 sulfur and provide a more efficient means of 20 complying with EPA's low sulfur rule. 21 In conclusion, we applaud EPA's 22 heavy-duty diesel engine and low sulfur diesel fuel 23 content rulemaking. We also support the process EPA 24 has proposed for implementing diesel fuel 25 improvements prior to vehicle emission reduction 214 1 requirements to ensure that advanced vehicle 2 technology is fully utilized. 3 Today, everyone recognizes the critical 4 role sulfur plays in our national environmental 5 policy. Ultra-low and near-zero sulfur levels are 6 vital to continued air quality improvements. The 7 issue is no longer should we reduce sulfur. It is 8 how quickly can we achieve near-zero sulfur levels. 9 We also urge EPA to work with DOE to 10 ensure that other important public policy goals of 11 the Energy Policy Act and the Clean Air Act can be 12 met through the use and commercialization of 13 ultra-low, zero sulfur, zero aromatics synthetic 14 diesel in order to take advantage of the promise 15 shown by Syntroleum's gas-to-liquids synthetic 16 diesel process. 17 Thank you very much for the opportunity 18 and for the special consideration for the time 19 constraints. 20 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Next speaker, 21 Curt Smith. 22 MR. SMITH: My name is Curt Smith. I'm a 23 member and representative from the Georgia Sierra 24 Club, Georgia's air pollution issue leader. Thank 25 you for the opportunity to speak. 215 1 One of the advantages of being late in 2 the day is I've had the opportunity to listen to so 3 many great presentations. So I'll edit the things 4 I'll say to not repeat what we've already heard 100 5 times over: our health will be increased, air 6 pollution will be improved. These things are 7 self-evident. 8 Georgia Sierra Club urges the EPA to 9 adopt stricter diesel fuel engine technology. That 10 much I'll be very glad to repeat. 11 What may be new news is Georgia and the 12 greater Atlanta area is in the cross hairs of diesel 13 trucks and transportation with north/south travel of 14 interstate traffic powered by diesel, east/west 15 traffic of diesel trucks, trains and our buses. We 16 are literally in the cross hairs of diesel pollution 17 here in the greater Atlanta area, perhaps more so 18 than most cities. 19 We would be greatly benefitted by 20 reducing the diesel pollution. The national 21 standards of 2 percent of traffic being diesel 22 powered probably would be very, very low if we 23 actually measured vehicle miles here in Georgia. We 24 desperately need lower pollution. We've gone 25 through a nonattainment zone and plan proposal to 216 1 the EPA to meet our nonattainment. The plan is 2 woefully weak. Hardly any air pollution reductions 3 were achieved through our state of implementation 4 plan. We need outside help by this type of 5 additional help to meet our air pollution 6 requirements here in Georgia. 7 I very much disagree with any claims of 8 fuel shortages. Europe is ahead of us. Those 9 refineries are ahead of us in terms of producing 10 fuel, offers of synthetic fuel sources. I would 11 urge that the EPA not give particular credence to 12 industry human cry. We've had in excess of 20 years 13 of first the auto industry and then the tobacco 14 industry and then the gasoline industry making human 15 cry about dire predictions. One thing that's been 16 absolutely consistent, they've all turned out to be 17 false. 18 Another issue that's chewing the diesel 19 market is it's not a free market. Vehicle 20 purchasers who wish to buy a truck to haul drywall 21 from the inner-cities supply depots to the suburbs 22 where construction is occurring have no choice. I 23 can go out and choose to buy an ultra-low emission 24 vehicle from Honda or a big boat polluter if I want 25 to buy a car. If I want to buy a truck, I have no 217 1 choice. 2 This is an area where government, the 3 EPA, and regulations unfortunately are our only help 4 in making improvements in this area. 5 It appears the free market is not going 6 to make any improvements in either the fuel or the 7 engine or the vehicles. We've had how many years 8 head start with cars? Trucks today are polluting 9 more than they ever have. Why is this? 10 The EPA is our only hope to make 11 improvements in reducing diesel pollution. 12 Thank you very much. 13 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. The next 14 speaker, George Gay. 15 MR. GAY: Thank you very much for the 16 opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. My 17 name is George Gay, and I am the southeast regional 18 director of The Wilderness Society located here in 19 Atlanta, Georgia. 20 The Wilderness Society was founded in 21 1935 in the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee and 22 North Carolina. The Society works to protect 23 America's wilderness and to develop a nationwide 24 network of wildlands. We do this through public 25 education, scientific analysis, and advocacy. 218 1 Our goal is to ensure that future 2 generations can enjoy clean water, wildlife, and 3 opportunities for recreation and spiritual renewal 4 provided by the nation's rivers, forests, deserts, 5 and mountains. One of our goals is also to ensure 6 that these pristine wildlands can afford us 7 opportunity to have clean air. 8 That's why I'm here today, to talk about 9 clean air and the air sheds provided by our Southern 10 Appalachian Mountains. It's a perspective or point 11 of view and an analysis with respect to this issue 12 that I don't think has been articulated too 13 frequently today. 14 You have heard some comments, some 15 eloquent comments, with respect to the Great Smoky 16 Mountains and the health of the air in the Smoky's. 17 Near the Smoky Mountains is a national forest that 18 some of you on the panel may not have heard of. 19 Some of you may have heard of it. Maybe you're 20 familiar with the Chattahoochee National Forest in 21 Georgia. 22 The Chattahoochee National Forest is a 23 national forest that's about a million acres in 24 size. It received last year more user visits than 25 the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The Great 219 1 Smoky Mountains National Park received more user 2 visits than any other national park in the United 3 States, more visits than Yellowstone, more visits 4 than the Grand Canyon. 5 People come to the national parks, to the 6 Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the 7 Chattahoochee, for renewal and the ability to get 8 away from what we find in the city to be 9 oppressive: smog, congestion, and unhealthy air. 10 They go to places like the Great Smoky Mountains 11 National Park for clean air, for open spaces, and 12 opportunities of solitude. 13 These places like the Smoky Mountains 14 National Park and the Chattahoochee National Forest 15 of our Southern Appalachians are very valuable to 16 Atlantans and to Georgians and to citizens of the 17 Southeast. They generate billions and billions of 18 dollars per year in tourist-based, recreation-based 19 revenue. 20 The value is more than just these dollars 21 however. As I mentioned, it's for spiritual renewal 22 and for an opportunity of solitude. 23 We've heard that in the Smoky's last year 24 there were more than 50 red alert days, dangerous 25 air days; and there are more to come this year. 220 1 These remote places are damaged to the point of 2 inaccessibility. We've lost a lot. We have lost an 3 incredible amount. Where will the citizens of 4 Atlanta go for solitude? Where will the citizens of 5 Chattanooga go to get away from it all? 6 Can we really ask these citizens to go 7 into these parks and forests if they are even 8 greater spots for red alert? Can we ask them as a 9 government in good conscience to go to these places 10 to get away when, in fact, these places become 11 places of danger? 12 That would be asking them to sort of jump 13 from the frying pan into the fire if, as we heard, 14 the air quality in the Great Smoky Mountains 15 National Park is, in fact, worse during the course 16 of summer days than the air quality in Chattanooga. 17 We'd be disingenuous if we as a government 18 encouraged them to go to these wild places to get 19 away for cleansing, if, in fact, these places are 20 dirtier. 21 I'm personally ashamed that we have 22 allowed during this century the degradation of our 23 natural resources to the extent we have, and I find 24 it somewhat of a disgrace that we're here today 25 debating whether or not these EPA measures go too 221 1 far. I would suggest that they do not go far enough 2 and they do not go fast enough. 3 I understand that heavy-duty trucks and 4 buses currently account for approximately 37 percent 5 of the smog-forming nitrogen oxides and 59 percent 6 of the particulate pollution emitted by all vehicles 7 on the road in Georgia. The figures are probably 8 similar in Tennessee. These figures have a 9 dramatically negative impact upon the Chattahoochee 10 and other public land resources here in the Southern 11 Appalachians. 12 In order to ensure that cleaner trucks 13 will have access to clean fuel necessary to run 14 them, The Wilderness Society urges the EPA to 15 require diesel sulfur fuel levels for on-road and 16 off-road vehicles, off-road vehicles that we see on 17 our public land, with a cap of no more than 15 parts 18 per million sulfur nationwide by the year 2006. 19 Cleaning up diesel fuel by 97 percent 20 will allow the EPA to cut smog-forming pollution, 21 the kind of pollution that destroys the user 22 experience in the Smoky's, by 95 percent in 2007 and 23 soot pollution by 90 percent by 2007. 24 This, again, will help go a long way to 25 protect the integrity of our national forests, 222 1 national parks and wildlands in the Southeast. 2 But I understand that you're proposing to 3 wait until the year 2010 to fully clean up 4 smog-forming pollution from these vehicles. I have 5 not heard anything today that convinces me that we 6 can afford to wait. Waiting ten years before all 7 new trucks are cleaned up is too long. The phase-in 8 period should be shortened. 9 In addition, the EPA should take measures 10 to ensure that big trucks are meeting the emission 11 standards on the roads where it counts, not just 12 during the engine tests. Specifically, both in-use 13 and on-board diagnostic equipment should be required 14 for all heavy-duty trucks by the year 2007. 15 We think that these provisions are 16 necessary to protect the integrity of our public 17 land, our wildlands, these wildlands that are 18 cherished by the majority of Georgians and residents 19 of the Southeast. The Wilderness Society asks that 20 you include these provisions in your final 21 rulemaking. 22 Thank you. 23 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much. The 24 next speaker, Peter Carr. 25 MR. CARR: My name is Peter Carr. I'm 223 1 president of the Instatherm Company. I thank you 2 very much for this opportunity to testify today. 3 We've heard a great deal today about the 4 systems approach that the EPA is taking which is to 5 combine the engine and the fuel into one package. 6 However, I think one aspect is missing here; and 7 that is the actual use patterns. You need to look 8 at the way these engines are used. 9 Two years ago EPA took the heavy diesel 10 manufacturers to task in a major enforcement action 11 because of the actual highway pollution levels. 12 We're way above that prediction from the EPA 13 certification tests. And the engines passed the 14 certification test, but it was a test that did not 15 give an accurate value for what we're doing on the 16 highway. 17 Well, I'm here today to testify about an 18 analogous situation wherein the certification 19 standards and the use are so desperate that they are 20 of no use in being predictive at all. We all know 21 about this problem; but like the Emperor's clothes, 22 we appear not to want to recognize it. 23 My concern is here that interstate 24 trucks, which there are 1.3 million of them running 25 around, spend at least 40 percent of their operating 224 1 time idling with no driver in the seat. This is an 2 incredible amount of time. It severely compromises 3 the grams per brake-horsepower standard as presently 4 proposed. 5 These standards need to recognize this. 6 I mean here we've got a situation where the trucks 7 are actually running at zero brake-horsepower, but 8 the driver is not sitting idling in traffic or 9 behind the wheel. He is not even in the driver's 10 seat. He or she is back in the sleeper 11 compartment. 12 The standards need to take this into 13 account. And if they do that, of course the grams 14 of pollution per brake-horsepower-hour will become 15 considerable because the denominator is close to 16 zero. Or alternative steps can be taken to 17 eliminate this environmentally-damaging idling 18 practice, and then probably the proposed standards 19 would make sense. But they don't make sense if this 20 isn't looked at. 21 The general feeling throughout the EPA 22 regulatory process is the best available means in 23 abating pollution from any source. And the best 24 available means in this case is to turn the engine 25 off when the driver is not propelling the truck, 225 1 when the driver is not in the seat and the truck is 2 not being propelled by the engine. 3 I mean what could be more 4 straightforward? And actual pollution reductions 5 which I'll talk about in a minute are really 6 astronomical. 7 Trucks with attached sleeper compartments 8 comprise the majority of the heavy-duty 9 over-the-road vehicles operating on our interstate 10 highways. These trucks provide a vital service, and 11 a comfortable heated and air conditioned sleeper 12 compartment for the driver is essential. You know, 13 it's a tough enough job being a driver on the 14 interstate; and they need a good air conditioned 15 environment or heated environment to sleep in, 16 albeit that the engines are on all the time and the 17 vehicles are shaking and, you know, with all sorts 18 of pollution. 19 However, the overwhelming majority of 20 these trucks are produced with engine idling as the 21 only means of heating or cooling the sleeper box. I 22 mean that's the only way they can do it. And 23 implicit in this sort of idle-all-night approach -- 24 which is what they do, they run all night -- it is 25 part of substantial pollution, noise, and health 226 1 consequences. 2 I mean I don't know. We've talked a lot 3 about trucks going through the cities and what have 4 you. You just go to a truck stop on a summer 5 evening and experience its conditions. They're 6 miserable. I don't know what it does to the 7 driver's health, sleeping in that; but the 8 conditions are a lot worse than you would ever find 9 in downtown Atlanta or anywhere like that. 10 Consider this. You've got 1.3 million 11 sleeper trucks on the road. These trucks utilize 12 1.6 billion gallons of fuel that's squandered. It 13 goes straight up the tail pipe while the driver is 14 resting. I mean this is 1 percent of our imported 15 fuel that's going up through the exhaust pipe of 16 these trucks while the truck is stopped and the 17 driver is not in his seat. 18 You notice in the paper today, you know, 19 we're seeing 2.8 percent more fuel from OPEC. I 20 mean this is of the same order. We just run it up 21 in the exhaust pipe; 27,000 tons of hydrocarbons 22 needlessly emitted, 23,000 tons of NOx needlessly 23 emitted, and almost 6,000 tons of particulates. I 24 mean that would be enough in a year to cover the 25 entire United States to a depth of 12 feet where the 227 1 particulate level would be above the threshold 2 limit. 3 This one I would direct back to EPA. 4 This 1.6 billion gallons of fuel translates into an 5 annual global warming effect that is equivalent to 6 that that would be experienced by taking the Freon 7 out of every new car that was produced that year and 8 venting it into the environment. Or every truck, if 9 the driver every two months vented his 10 air-conditioning system, that won't be tolerated. 11 And the effect is exactly the same. 12 And you have to contrast this with 13 extremely strict regulations that EPA imposes on any 14 air-conditioning system venting at all. You won't 15 let anybody vent anything from an air-conditioning 16 system. However, you will allow huge amounts of 17 pollution from idling trucks. 18 This is one of the most egregious 19 pollution sources. It's nationwide in scope and 20 continues unabated. If you walk out the door to a 21 truck stop, you see trucks idling away. 22 Technology is available today to the 23 sleeper truck manufacturers and to the industry to 24 eliminate the need for trucks to idle and pollute in 25 this manner. The technology would keep drivers 228 1 comfortable and, incidentally, will save money for 2 the truck operators as well. 3 Leadership is desperately needed within 4 government and the industry to elimination this 5 pollution source and give it the priority it demands 6 to quickly eliminate it. 7 This is actually quite embarrassing. It 8 is almost a U.S.-only practice. You will not find 9 trucks idling in the rest of the developed world. 10 We do it here. Fuel is cheap. It's getting more 11 expensive, but we do it here and we're almost alone 12 in doing it. 13 Without the above leadership, I think 14 that the proposed standards cannot stand as they are 15 printed. They need to be taken further to take into 16 account this extensive driver-out-of-the-seat idling 17 pollution. It is truly a massive loss of fuel and 18 one that can be easily solved and should be solved 19 in concert with tightening up the pollution 20 standards. 21 I thank you very much for the opportunity 22 to speak. 23 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Felicia 24 Davis-Gilmore. 25 MS. DAVIS-GILMORE: Good afternoon, and 229 1 thank you for this opportunity to go on record in 2 support of curbing diesel emissions. As the 3 southern regional director for Ozone Action and 4 Georgia Airkeeper Campaign director, my focus is 5 upon the reduction of human contribution to global 6 warming and the cleanup of coal-fired power plants 7 respectfully. 8 We support efforts to reduce NOx, SOx, 9 particulate, and CO2 emissions. 10 Today I wish to speak to you as a mother, 11 daughter, and resident of one of Georgia's thriving 12 truck stops, Forest Park. My remarks today are 13 informed by my work to help clean the air but 14 inspired by my stepson, George Gilmore, who is eight 15 years old and suffers from asthma. I'm certain that 16 anyone who has been through an asthma attack with a 17 child that cannot breathe learns firsthand the value 18 of clean air. 19 The EPA proposal to clean up diesel fuel 20 will go a long way toward cleaning the air we 21 breathe. We have such a good standard of living 22 that we often forget that on ozone alert days the 23 air is unhealthy to breathe. Those of us with 24 healthy children and no exposure to those who 25 experience great difficulty breathing move through 230 1 the smog pretty much in a fog. In other words, on 2 the average, we take little or no thought of 3 breathing. It is automatic and taken for granted. 4 We have all been choked by the exhaust 5 from dirty old trucks and buses running on high 6 sulfur diesel and generally have considered it an 7 occupational hazard. There are many occupations 8 that are hazardous, and we live with it because in 9 the end the good outweighs the bad or else we have 10 no choice. 11 In the case of diesel fuel, we have a 12 choice; and the choice is rather simple: tough 13 standards that result in cleaner trucks using 14 cleaner fuel that in the end result in cleaner air. 15 The trucking and fuel industries will be 16 motivated to change. We know that absent a more 17 strict emission standard neither industry will 18 change. 19 One of the most important roles of our 20 government is to establish national standards and to 21 inspire the collective will to meet and exceed those 22 standards. 23 Our children, George included, and all of 24 the other little boys and girls have a right to 25 expect nothing less than our best when it comes to 231 1 efforts to protect and secure our environment. It 2 is very simply the right thing to do at the right 3 time for the right reasons. 4 I am pleased to add my voice to those who 5 speak eloquently and forcefully on behalf of a clean 6 and healthy America that puts children, families, 7 and communities first. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. FRANCE: Thank you for your 10 testimony. Dennis Hoffarth. 11 MR. HOFFARTH: Thank you. I'm Dennis 12 Hoffarth. I'm the executive director of the Atlanta 13 Bicycle Campaign. I'm pleased to be out here among 14 all these other citizens that care enough to come 15 out and spend some time and speak from the heart. 16 I'm also an engineer; and I want to share 17 some energy philosophy, if that's not an oxymoron. 18 It just seems like we've had a pattern throughout 19 our technological era here creating solutions, 20 technical solutions, that create other problems. 21 Everything from, you know, the way London was 22 covered with coal smoke in the early years. People 23 were breathing and spitting out black goo, 24 whatever. And then we began to -- we find a 25 solution for that that creates another problem. 232 1 And I think we're finding that the 2 industry is not -- is on that same pattern. I think 3 it really is taking government regulation to bring 4 us back to the point where we are. We have a net 5 benefit from our technology of solving these 6 problems, of moving materials and moving people, 7 without creating such additional problems that 8 really the net benefit is greatly reduced. 9 My organization, first of all, I think I 10 made it clear that we support the change in the 11 regulations to greatly limit the emissions and fuel 12 pollution that we're now facing. I am dismayed that 13 we are, as my fellow environmental activists to the 14 right of me said earlier. The time that we're 15 dealing with here, we're not going to see any real 16 benefit for so many years. I would encourage you to 17 look at what we can do working with the industry, 18 working with the technology to bring that time 19 closer when we actually see major benefits. 20 My main purpose here though is to speak 21 to you as a person who spends a lot of time in the 22 streets as a cyclist and one who gets around 23 transportation primarily by bicycle. We're the 24 people that end up eating a lot of this stuff. 25 We're working in partnership with a 233 1 number of other organizations from a society 2 standpoint to actually get people out of their cars 3 and have more people actually out in the streets, as 4 someone else was saying earlier -- I think Donzella 5 James was talking about all the outdoor cafes, the 6 outdoor life that we enjoy here in Atlanta. In 7 order for us to have the transportation changes that 8 we're working towards to get people taking buses and 9 trains, walking and bicycling, we need an outdoor 10 atmosphere that is welcoming and pleasant. 11 And diesel emissions are one of the most 12 personally offensive things out there right now when 13 you're out in the city. We encourage people to ride 14 bicycles for transportation, but a lot of them are 15 very discouraged the first time they're behind a bus 16 or a truck that ends up spitting offensive materials 17 in their face and they're choking and their eyes are 18 stinging and they may not go back and try it again. 19 Same thing with other people getting out, 20 out and about, walking and bicycling and taking the 21 buses and trains. They shouldn't have to do this in 22 a sea of pollution. 23 Now, looking at the objections I'm 24 hearing from the industry, it seems to me that the 25 diesel vehicles have been given a free ride for too 234 1 long. It's time that they begin to have the same 2 restrictions that some of the other vehicles have 3 had. 4 If I was producing a food that was 5 poisoning people, I would be required to change that 6 very quickly and change my operations, my factory, 7 whatever it took to cease that problem regardless of 8 cost. 9 And let's make no mistake about it. 10 We're talking about poisons in the air here. You 11 know, once we've identified the problem, let's get 12 down to solving it; not looking at, you know, gee, 13 we're going to maybe put somebody out of a job. We 14 don't want jobs making poisons. Okay? 15 As we're out promoting bicycling and 16 looking at making these changes, one thing that I 17 have realized is that if we're able to make the 18 atmosphere more pleasant -- first of all, just by 19 reducing the diesel emissions, we have helped to 20 clean up the air. 21 But then there's something that we call 22 in engineering called synergy where you solve a 23 problem; and while someone else is working on 24 another part of that problem, if they both work 25 together, the net result is more than double. In 235 1 other words, you get a multiplying effect. 2 If we actually reduce the amount of 3 pollution out there, then more people are going to 4 get out and about. They're going to get out of 5 their cars. They're going to walk and take the bus 6 and bicycle more which means we're going to have 7 even less pollution. So it has a multiplying 8 effect, and it can be a factor I think in a lot of 9 people being willing to get out there and breathe 10 the air instead of breathing inside their houses and 11 inside their air-conditioned cars, etc. 12 Lastly, I just want to emphasize the 13 pollution from the diesel. It seems to me it ought 14 to be the first thing we should took care of because 15 it's so visible, it's so obvious, and it's so 16 offensive. 17 I want to end with a praise from a local 18 politician who was running for office for governor 19 last year I guess it was when he said that there's 20 certain things that children should never see and 21 one of them is the air that they breathe. 22 Thank you. 23 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Connie Tucker. 24 MS. TUCKER: Good afternoon. You heard 25 my name, Connie Tucker. And I'm director for the 236 1 Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and 2 Social Justice. We're a south-wide network of 3 organizations and organizers working in our 4 communities for economic, social, and environmental 5 justice. By the way, our regional office is located 6 here in Atlanta. 7 We applaud the EPA for initiating this 8 new proposal to curb diesel exhaust because dirty 9 diesel trucks and buses are really suffocating our 10 communities. On behalf of my organization, I urge 11 you to adopt tough new emissions standards for 12 heavy-duty trucks and buses as soon as possible. 13 Communities of color are often 14 disproportionately exposed to a variety of 15 environmental hazards. Diesel exhaust is only one 16 of the health risks our communities face. Children 17 in our communities are losing the fight against 18 asthma. Not only do African-American and Latino 19 children have a higher risk of asthma than white 20 children, but African-American children are four 21 times more likely to die from asthma compared to 22 Caucasian children. 23 The demographics of residents living in 24 areas not in compliance with the federal ozone 25 standard is 52 percent white, 62 percent 237 1 African-American, and 71 percent Latino. Now, if we 2 look at the population demographics as a whole, you 3 know that that is a very serious disproportionate 4 impact. 5 There are significant studies that 6 indicate dramatically the correlation between high 7 ozone levels, increased hospitalizations and 8 emergency room visits for asthma and premature 9 deaths of vulnerable residents like the elderly. 10 Environmental justice advocates define 11 our environment as where we live, work, and play and 12 go to school; and they added worship. Yet, in many 13 metro Atlanta neighborhoods, major thoroughfares 14 used by big diesel trucks and buses run adjacent to 15 schools, hospitals, recreational facilities, and 16 large housing complexes. 17 The impact of diesel soot is compounded 18 by the fact that it is discharged at street level 19 where pedestrians are walking and breathing. And 20 for residents living near bus depots and highways, 21 black soot against their windows makes its way 22 indoors to mix with indoor air allergens which are 23 also a significant trigger for those with asthma or 24 respiratory illnesses. 25 Although big trucks and buses are among 238 1 the biggest pollution sources, the oil industries 2 and engine manufacturers have done very little to 3 curb this pollution. In fact, they have cheated on 4 their emissions tests in the past -- and, you know, 5 we're used to industries cheating -- resulting in an 6 extra 1.3 million tons of smog-forming pollution 7 each year. 8 In short, this is unacceptable. We must 9 require drastic reductions in pollution from these 10 large trucks and buses. And because high sulfur 11 fuel disables pollution control technologies, we 12 must demand that all diesel fuel is fully cleaned up 13 and readily available before the trucks are required 14 to clean up. 15 For these reasons, to protect the public 16 health, we make the following recommendations. In 17 order to ensure that all cleaner trucks will have 18 access to clean fuel necessary to run them, the 19 Southern Organizing Committee urges the EPA to 20 require diesel sulfur levels for on-road and 21 off-road vehicles by 2006, if not sooner. We 22 support a cap of 15 parts per million on sulfur 23 which represents a 97 percent reduction of sulfur in 24 fuel. 25 Cleaning up diesel fuel will allow the 239 1 EPA to cut smog-forming nitrous oxide pollution by 2 95 percent, cut soot pollution by 90 percent, and 3 will prevent millions of asthma attacks and tens of 4 thousands of cancers every year. 5 Furthermore, these newer cleaner trucks 6 should be required to meet the emissions standards 7 as soon as possible. The EPA is proposing to wait 8 until 2010 to fully clean up smog-forming pollution 9 from these vehicles. This means that Americans -- 10 and I want to say all of us living in the United 11 States of American -- will have to wait ten years 12 before all new trucks are cleaned up. We propose 13 that there should be no phase-in period for 14 emissions reductions. 15 It is not enough to require new diesels 16 to be cleaner. The EPA should take the measures to 17 ensure that all trucks are meeting the emission 18 standards on the road, not just during the engine 19 tests. Specifically, both in-use and on-board 20 diagnostic equipment should be required for all 21 heavy-duty trucks by 2007. 22 It is time to invest in the next 23 generation of technology that can serve the role of 24 diesel without adverse health and environmental 25 impacts. Cleaning up existing diesels makes sense 240 1 for our health and environment, but replacing diesel 2 with cleaner technologies makes even more sense. 3 Therefore, the EPA should provide incentives to 4 increase the use of advanced technology vehicles 5 such as electric buses or fuel cell trucks or 6 natural gas. 7 We support the concept of incentives 8 targeted to manufactures who go beyond the mandates 9 of this rule and create even cleaner alternatives. 10 Finally, there is always a cost 11 associated with doing something differently. 12 However, when we weigh the additional cost of 13 pennies per gallon of diesel fuel against the 14 increased emergency room visits, cost of 15 hospitalizations, lost school days, lost work days, 16 and family disruptions, not to mention untimely 17 deaths, the pennies for this cleaner fuel and 18 cleaner trucks is a very small price to pay. 19 These provisions are necessary to protect 20 the public health. We ask that you include them in 21 your final rulemaking. 22 Thank you very much. 23 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. We appreciate 24 everybody coming, taking the time to express your 25 views. Thank you. Next panel. 241 1 (A discussion ensued off the record.) 2 MR. FRANCE: Richard Bright. 3 MR. BRIGHT: Thank you very much. I'm 4 Richard Bright. I serve in a couple of capacities. 5 I'm the executive director for the Georgia Coalition 6 for the Peoples' Agenda and I'm the assistant 7 director for the Center for Public Health Practices, 8 Department of Community Health and Preventative 9 Medicine, Morehouse School of Medicine. 10 The Georgia Coalition for the Peoples' 11 Agenda applauds EPA for holding these hearings, and 12 thank you for this opportunity to share our views on 13 these fuel standards. 14 The GCPA represents major organizations 15 across the state of Georgia including the Georgia 16 Association of Black Elected Officials, NAACP, SCLC, 17 Rainbow-PUSH, local and statewide religious and 18 interdenominational associations, and individual 19 citizens whose voices need to be heard. 20 Of particular concern to the GCPA are 21 justice, public policy improvement, and citizenship 22 issues. It is our concern about environmental 23 justice and health that motivates us to address you 24 today on diesel fuel standards. 25 I drive a diesel vehicle for regular 242 1 transportation. I close my windows and turn off the 2 air conditioner or turn off the heating system when 3 I am behind a big diesel vehicle belching out 4 obnoxious fumes and smoke. 5 Now, my thoughts turn immediately to the 6 cars behind me when I'm behind a diesel vehicle. 7 Here I am driving one. Why does not that guy 8 driving that diesel car get rid of that old diesel 9 car, I think that the other person might be saying. 10 And I justify my continuing to drive my diesel 11 vehicle by saying diesel fuel is cheaper and if they 12 did not make these engines I would not have a diesel 13 car. 14 Is the answer to clean air to eliminate 15 diesel motors, in effect eliminating the need for 16 diesel as a fuel? While this might be idealistic, 17 it is much more practical to produce clean diesel 18 fuel and clean-burning diesel engines. 19 We strongly support EPA's move to reduce 20 the pollutants in diesel fuel that provides for 21 cleaner air and less health problems. It is 22 estimated that diesel exhaust can produce 125,000 23 cancer cases in the U.S. and numerous respiratory 24 diseases, with a quarter million asthma attacks 25 annually. 243 1 Pollutants in diesel fuel and products 2 released as a result of diesel fuel combustion and 3 incomplete combustion are of concern. Of particular 4 concern from diesel exhausts are small particles, 5 some of which at 2.5 micron size can become trapped 6 in alveolar of our lung tissue. 7 We know that with this trapping a couple 8 of things take place besides being uncomfortable. 9 One, it can lead to permanent entrapment which can 10 lead to cancer and also it can lead to tumor 11 formation, as well as it can cause other lung 12 impediments. 13 A majority of the people we represent and 14 for whom we perform studies, minority and inner-city 15 residents, suffer from higher morbidity and 16 mortality rates than others in the society. It is 17 these residents who live in, quote, high-transport 18 corridors and in areas of high exposure to toxic 19 pollutants from transportation, transportation 20 related industries, and industry in general -- it is 21 these residents that we represent rather. 22 There is an association of triggered 23 asthma attacks, childhood leukemia, and generalized 24 cancer and exposure to pollutants from vehicle 25 exhausts, particularly diesel exhausts. 244 1 In a recent study published in the Air 2 and Waste Journal, it was found that children living 3 within 750 feet of highways with greater than 20,000 4 vehicles a day passing by have a 12-fold greater 5 increase in leukemia than children living further 6 away in urban settings. 7 In a California study, the Multiple Air 8 Toxics Exposure Study, it is reported that 70 9 percent of the cancers for a four-county area, with 10 Orange County being the central county, Los Angeles 11 being the city and most heavily populated, 30 12 percent of the cancers would be attributed to diesel 13 fuel. 14 In this study it is the heaviest 15 transportation corridors with the people who have 16 the least opportunity to move who bear the burden of 17 exposure to the most pollutants. 18 It is estimated in the March 15, 2000 19 report Cancer Risks from Diesel Particulates: 20 National and Metropolitan Area Estimates for the 21 United States that diesel particulates are 22 responsible for 1,930 cancers annually in the 23 Atlanta region. 24 While it appears that there is 25 insufficient evidence to point to particular 245 1 chemicals in diesel as causes of particular diseases 2 and mortality, there is sufficient association of 3 sickness and death in our communities from 4 transportation related decisions for us to be 5 concerned. 6 People know that they are being sickened 7 and killed because of transportation public policies 8 or the lack thereof. 9 I worked for the federal government 31 10 years. 21 of those years are EPA from which I 11 retired. I was responsible for a lot of regulatory 12 decisions. 13 One of the things which brought to me so 14 much dismay was I would spend a number of years, 15 many millions of citizens' dollars to come up with 16 levels of chemicals that would, quote, be acceptable 17 in the society, only to find out later because of 18 political pressure brought on by industry and the 19 caving in of administrators who are appointed that 20 career servants who would go to great lengths to 21 come up with good information to supply 22 administrators, who would go to rulemaking, the work 23 would be going down the drain. 24 And it's really appalling. And I feel 25 very sorry for many of my new friends who are 246 1 working for EPA now and associates to get such 2 wonderful information only to find that that which 3 they have that supports good decision making is not 4 really going to be used for the decisions that are 5 made. 6 I'm saying this as an aside but a very 7 important aside, because we have to understand that, 8 to go ten years before we can really put into full 9 effect the proposed rule, that it's not really 10 acceptable. 11 We make careers -- I made a career out of 12 doing this, and undoubtedly some of you will be 13 doing the very same thing. So I suggest very 14 strongly to those who are testifying more so than 15 the EPA people who are receiving the comments that 16 we go beyond where we are, just presenting this 17 information to EPA. But we must become a social 18 political force to make certain that our views are 19 heard at least equally to that of industry. 20 In conclusion, I have some 21 recommendations. We ask that the government 22 establish the most stringent diesel fuels that 23 public policy can come up with and that the shortest 24 date possible for implementation be established. No 25 less than the 0.01 grams per brake-horsepower-hour 247 1 diesel emissions standard should be established to 2 provide for better health of society. 2, we ask 3 that EPA and the U.S. DOT design and support a study 4 similar to the MATES California study to determine 5 the air pollution problems in the Atlanta 6 metropolitan area, the area with the longest commute 7 of any region in the country. 8 We ask that certain hot spots be targeted 9 for air monitoring and for health effects research 10 related to diesel and vehicle exhausts in the 11 Atlanta area. Certain areas, hot spots, of Atlanta 12 have very high incidences of cancer, respiratory 13 disease, and mortality as compared to the region as 14 a whole. We believe that there is a direct 15 association with high transportation corridors and 16 also negative health effects. 17 Fourth, we ask that EPA seriously examine 18 air monitoring and health effects research in tandem 19 and make recommendations to the U.S. DOT to coincide 20 with release of any federal transportation money for 21 new roads and certain road widenings. 22 Lastly, we urge EPA to not support state 23 transportation decisions that have not had 24 representative public support, have not met Title VI 25 Civil Rights requirements, and have gone around 248 1 clean air requirements. 2 Lastly, we come as a people whose voices 3 have been affected by soot, sulfur, nitrous oxides, 4 and air toxics to express to you that you can 5 support the people while not killing industry. It 6 is a small price to pay -- 4 to 5 cents a gallon -- 7 to produce clean fuel. Even if it costs twice the 8 amount of what fuel costs, which it will not, the 9 health of citizens is more important. 10 We thank you. 11 MR. FRANCE: Thank you for your 12 testimony. John Crnko. 13 MR. CRNKO: Okay. I'm vice chair of ASTM 14 Subcommittee D 203. What I'll be talking about 15 today, we are with keepers, if you will, of some of 16 the test methods that I'll be talking about here 17 today. I also work for an instrument company that 18 makes apparatuses that can apply to some of the 19 technology I'm talking about. 20 There were some attachments that I had 21 made to the talk here today, and I assume those have 22 been forward; and I will reference them in my talk. 23 Regardless of how Tier 2 sulfur in diesel 24 levels and final effective dates evolve, the 25 petroleum community will need its most accurate and 249 1 flexible sulfur measurement tools. If a diesel 2 sulfur program similar to the currently proposed 3 rulemaking is enacted, the oil industry will soon be 4 routinely analyzing motor fuels and their 5 additives -- an example would be kerosene -- for 6 very low sulfur levels. Should the averaging, 7 banking, and trading or ABT provisions be enacted, 8 refiners and blenders will need to measure ever 9 lower sulfur levels as they seek to earn maximum ABT 10 sulfur credits in early time frames. 11 Additionally, because of the various 12 phase-in, ABT and small refiner considerations, 13 analysts who measure sulfur in materials found in 14 the distribution system will be faced with an 15 unprecedented and constant variation. 16 As these various low sulfur diesels enter 17 the distribution system, the oil production and 18 distribution industry must be allowed to use its 19 most capable, economical, and flexible sulfur 20 measurement systems for monitoring and regulatory 21 reporting purposes. 22 For example, by its own estimates in the 23 preamble, the EPA states that refiners would 24 actually have to produce 7 parts per million diesel 25 in order to ensure the sulfur standard is not 250 1 exceeded during the fuel's journey to the end-user. 2 These near-zero fuels will certainly be present in 3 the distribution system along with other fuels 4 containing a variety of sulfur content and 5 additives. 6 Currently ASTM D 2622 which is a sulfur 7 by x-ray method -- I'll refer to it as just 2622 as 8 we go through -- has been designated as the sole EPA 9 regulatory sulfur test method for Tier 2 gasoline. 10 Additionally, the EPA has proposed a modified D 2622 11 for use with its Tier 2 diesel fuels. However, the 12 EPA and the laboratory community recognize that in 13 certain situations D 2622 has limitations and 14 disadvantages. 15 An example is the need to prepare a 16 special calibration cocktail for diesel analysis as 17 described in the current proposal. Another example 18 is found where less than 30 parts per million 19 average fuels are already being produced. 20 In the mid-1990s, gasoline produced for 21 California consumption was required to meet 30 parts 22 per million average sulfur specifications. This 23 prompted a group of refiners, the Western States 24 Petroleum Association or WSPA, to petition the 25 California Air Resources Board, CARB, for more 251 1 flexible, capable, and economical sulfur test 2 methods. 3 What WSPA and CARB needed was an 4 economical test method that could measure very low 5 levels of sulfur while giving the same equivalent 6 results as found when D 2622 was used for greater 7 than 10 parts per million sulfur levels. 8 Various laboratory studies and 9 cooperative multi-laboratory tests revealed that the 10 ASTM D 5453, a sulfur by UV technique, was such a 11 sulfur test method. New California laws resulted 12 that allowed the use of D 5453 and one other 13 technique for the analysis of sulfur in gasoline and 14 diesel. These laws can be found in Title 13 of the 15 California Code. 16 D 5453 has the analytical range to 17 provide equivalent sulfur results in higher 18 concentration and can readily analyze diesel samples 19 down to 1 part per million. 20 Data from the ASTM cross-check program 21 which is summarized as Attachment C; the findings of 22 an ASTM research report which is my Attachment D 23 confirms and reinforces the conclusions of the WSPA 24 and California EPA. These independent studies 25 affirm the equivalency of D 2622 and D 5453 for 252 1 higher sulfur concentration samples and D 5453's 2 superior capability at less than 15 parts per 3 million. 4 Several factors inherent to modern and 5 future motor fuels contribute to D 2622's 6 questionable performance at low sulfur levels. 7 Metal contamination and the presence of oxygenated 8 materials such as alcohol, ethers, or esters that 9 may commonly be found in modern/alternate fuel 10 mixtures interfere with the D 2622 analysis. 11 Additionally, the 2622-98 test method 12 states that differences in carbon-hydrogen ratio of 13 sample and calibration standards introduce errors in 14 the determination. These analytical errors caused 15 by matrix effects can become critical as sulfur 16 concentrations decline. It is this issue that will 17 most limit D 2622's usefulness in the inevitable 18 blending future of diesel fuel. 19 The scope section of the most recent 20 revision of D 2622 test method confirms that the 21 technique is suspect for sulfur levels less than 20 22 parts per million. The proposed modified 2622 has 23 not been shown to be capable in an ASTM 24 multi-laboratory study or a round robin; and, in 25 fact, this modified technique proposes that 253 1 side-window x-ray instrumentation that currently 2 meets the existing 2622 criteria be limited or 3 eliminated. 4 On the other hand, 5453 has proven itself 5 to be an excellent test method for determination of 6 sulfur in all sorts of low sulfur motor fuels. This 7 is possible because 5453 uses a sample combustion 8 technology that's very selective and free from the 9 carbon/hydrogen ratio and oxygenate interference 10 that can affect the current primary sulfur 11 regulatory method. D 5453 instrument calibration is 12 straightforward and not biased by the hydrocarbon 13 matrix of the calibration material. 14 On-line and at-process sulfur analysis is 15 absolutely essential for process control and 16 blending operations. As different fuel stocks are 17 blended to meet other critical fuel specifications, 18 sulfur content must be controlled with confidence. 19 The designation of 5453 as an approved sulfur test 20 method would allow refiners the ability to 21 economically develop on-line certification 22 procedures and protocols. D 5453 technology has a 23 proven process on-line history in California. 24 U.S. EPA has correctly requested comment 25 concerning sulfur measurement technology costs. 254 1 Many laboratories and refineries already employ the 2 use of 5453 analyzers. It's just they aren't 3 allowed for regulatory reporting. D 5453 technology 4 is a very economical alternative to D 2622 and has a 5 much lower operational cost. 6 The following summarizes the 5453 and 7 2622 apparatus costs. I'll paraphrase here to save 8 us a few minutes. Basically it's a times three 9 situation. If you're buying a new instrument, 10 you're going to pay three times as much for the 2622 11 as you do the 5453. In space, the instruments -- 12 the 2622 are typically as big as one of these tables 13 here; whereas, the 5453 technology is about the size 14 of a good-sized TV. 15 Operation and maintenance is a big deal 16 because most of the time 2622 technology requires a 17 maintenance agreement. The 5453 is easy to 18 maintain, and a lot of times the users will just 19 choose a self maintenance option rather than going 20 for a maintenance agreement. Some states require 21 personnel exposure for the x-rays that come off of 22 that, and that adds cost also. 23 So all of those things with the 2622 add 24 cost to this law. 25 As previously mentioned, D 5453 is very 255 1 selective and free from carbon/hydrogen ratio 2 (matrix effect) interference. This allows for 3 accurate sulfur determination in multiple streams 4 with a widely varying component matrix and is 5 readily adaptable to at-process applications. 6 The development of an on-line 7 certification program begins with the establishment 8 of a direct correlation between on-line and 9 laboratory results. The ability to use 5453 in the 10 laboratory and on-line for the determination of 11 sulfur eases and simplifies the establishment of 12 this correlation of results. The issue of test 13 method bias is eliminated. 14 Finally, D 5453 provides superior test 15 results at lower sulfur levels and equivalent 16 measurements at higher sulfur concentration levels. 17 I've included as Attachment C an article 18 that will appear soon in a national refinery 19 publication that summarizes a cross-check program 20 that ASTN has been running for five or six years. 21 Allowing the use of D 5453 could enable 22 significant capital savings for the fuel-producing 23 community, while giving them a better measurement 24 tool as sulfur concentrations continue to drop. The 25 D 5453 test method has already been approved by 256 1 other regulatory agencies and has proven its worth 2 time and time again in daily low level sulfur 3 production as well as general use on a worldwide 4 basis. D 5453 should be designated as an approved 5 sulfur test method for regulatory reporting 6 purposes. 7 Thanks for this opportunity to talk to 8 y'all today. 9 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. The next 10 testifier is Ed Arnold. 11 MR. ARNOLD: My name is Ed Arnold. I'm 12 the executive director of Physicians for Social 13 Responsibility, Atlanta Chapter. PSR is a national 14 organization of about 20,000 healthcare 15 professionals, including physicians and other 16 supporters in this region, served by the Atlanta 17 Chapter. We have approximately 250 members here. 18 Many virtually world-class physicians use 19 PSR as their instrument through which to speak on 20 public issues, and PSR supports what EPA is doing 21 here with the provision that we think your phase-in 22 time is too long. We think that this could be 23 accomplished in a shorter period. 24 I won't go to the trouble or take 25 everybody's time to read through or even cite the 257 1 many medical studies, epidemiologic studies that 2 support what EPA is calling for here. I would 3 suggest that any industry people or skeptics within 4 EPA who think that taking the sulfur out of the air 5 is something that's not needed, that they review 6 those medical studies. 7 And that takes me to a recommendation. I 8 don't think that we in the nonprofit community or 9 the EPA is doing a sufficient job of educating the 10 public. I don't think that we have public support 11 for what you're doing here to the extent that would 12 be possible if EPA and our other groups as well -- I 13 cite myself with this concern, but especially the 14 federal government. If the people knew what was 15 happening to their health as a result of bad air, 16 there would be no question. You wouldn't have to go 17 through this. There would be automatic acceptance 18 of what you're doing. 19 So some provisions that would improve 20 public education about these issues such as -- maybe 21 you do some of these things already. I'm not sure. 22 But if you link to -- for example, the American Lung 23 Association has extensive medical data on its web 24 site. If you would link to that so that people who 25 want to check on this can find out what the facts 258 1 are, that would be useful. 2 Not long ago the editorial page editor of 3 the Atlanta Journal wrote an editorial that just 4 came from I don't know where. I don't know whose 5 agenda he was pushing; but it was totally erroneous, 6 the conclusions he was drawing about what bad air 7 does to us. Did the federal government go talk to 8 him or his publisher? I doubt it. An activist's 9 role in refuting the campaigns of misinformation and 10 disinformation would be very useful to us all. 11 Once again, thank you for the opportunity 12 to come before you and speak today. 13 MR. FRANCE: Thank you for your 14 testimony. June Deen. 15 MS. DEEN: I'm June Deen. I'm with the 16 American Lung Association of Georgia. I can usually 17 talk without this. I want to thank you for the 18 opportunity to speak today. 19 You've heard a lot about illness caused 20 by bad air and problems for people with asthma, 21 chronic respiratory and cardiac illness; and I don't 22 know that I can add very much to that. 23 I will only say, as you all know, the 24 Lung Association is very concerned about the air we 25 breathe and to always remind you that your lungs and 259 1 breathing apparatus is the first line of defense for 2 your body against poisons and toxins in the air. 3 And from that perspective, we're very pleased to 4 support the rulemaking that you've proposed here for 5 low sulfur diesel fuel and for improving the 6 technology around diesel engines. 7 I was provided with some information on 8 some research that's been done around diesel 9 exhaust, and I'm just going to read the titles to 10 you. I'll leave this testimony here and you'll have 11 it for the record. You've probably seen it before, 12 but I was amazed. 13 Positive associations between wheezing 14 and allergic rhinitis and truck traffic were found 15 during a 12-month period for about 3700 students. 16 That doesn't sound too good to me. The proximity of 17 a child's residence to major roads is linked to 18 hospital admissions for asthma. That doesn't sound 19 too red hot. A school's proximity to freeways is 20 linked to asthma occurrence. Truck traffic 21 intensity and the concentration of emissions 22 measured in schools were found to be significantly 23 associated with chronic respiratory symptoms. 24 And there's some more like that that 25 comment further, and I will leave those for your 260 1 review. 2 I would just say certainly when folks 3 that are afflicted with respiratory problems are 4 experiencing difficulty, that's a wake-up call for 5 all of us that we're also -- those of us who don't 6 have those problems are getting these low level 7 assaults of bad air that's compromising our ability 8 to breathe. 9 And toward that end, we know a lot more 10 today about the health effects of air pollution than 11 we did in earlier years; and we urge you to proceed 12 with all due haste. 13 And thank you for your time today. 14 MR. FRANCE: Thank you for coming. The 15 next testifier, Troy Burns. 16 MR. BURNS: Good afternoon. My name is 17 Troy Burns. I'm a resident of Georgia. And I'm 18 here today basically because this is a good step 19 forward, and this issue really does have two sides. 20 In one corner you have somebody like a 21 child that's not my child, but she's eight months 22 old. My wife photographed her about two weeks ago. 23 And if you can't see her, you can just put a young 24 child that you know in place of her face. 25 But in this corner we have 261 1 eight-month-old Kiley Anderson from Marietta, 2 Georgia; and Kiley's mother won't let her have a tea 3 party in the backyard this summer because the air 4 poses a significant health risk. 5 In the other corner we have the oil 6 industry who doesn't want to reduce sulfur level, 7 nitrogen oxide, or other particulates from their 8 fuel because it will affect their quarterly 9 earnings. 10 There's documentation confirming 11 increases in asthma, bronchitis, pulmonary disease, 12 heart disease, and cancer. Meanwhile, they'll spend 13 untold amounts of money on legal fees and lobbying 14 to avoid the new legislation. I would love to see a 15 comparison on the cost of avoidance versus the 16 compliance. 17 But this is why we have the EPA, and the 18 question is now one of roles. Is it the EPA's role 19 to throw tea parties or to protect quarterly 20 profits? I hope it's teatime myself. 21 And, therefore, I urge the EPA to reduce 22 diesel sulfur levels to a national cap of no more 23 than 15 parts per million nationwide by 2006; to 24 also cut smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from 25 big trucks and buses by 95 percent and particulate 262 1 soot pollution by 90 percent no later than 2007; to 2 ensure that big trucks are meeting emission 3 standards on the road, not just during emission 4 tests; and to add incentives that will increase the 5 use of nondiesel alternatives like natural gas, 6 electric batteries, fuel cells, hybrid automobiles, 7 and other advanced technologies. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Michael 10 Chameides. 11 MR. CHAMEIDES: I moved to Atlanta 19 12 years ago when I was two years old. I started 13 playing soccer when I was five years old, and I've 14 been pretty active ever since. In high school I 15 played on the state championship soccer team and the 16 state championship wrestling team. I also got the 17 coach's award in wrestling and the scholar athlete 18 award from my high school. 19 I go to school now in Upstate New York at 20 Bard College. And in addition to playing soccer and 21 jujitsu, I run on the cross-country team. 22 And I consider health a major priority in 23 my life. I've had a number of injuries over the 24 years. I had two compound fractures. I lost a 25 piece of my finger. I had stitches over my eye. I 263 1 had tendonitis, sprains and strains, and two or 2 three concussions. But nothing has been more 3 debilitating than Atlanta's air pollution. 4 I came home last summer form school. I 5 was running every day at least 5 miles at Bard which 6 is more of a country area. And I went running here 7 in Atlanta over at Piedmont Park. My lungs burned 8 for three days. I was like better not run so much. 9 So I'll just walk around. I'm outside a lot because 10 I feel like that's a normal thing that people want 11 to do, is be outside their homes. And my lungs 12 would burn. I was tired. I was fatigued. 13 So I went to my doctor, and the doctor 14 confirmed what I already knew was the problem. He 15 said it was the air pollution. I was being poisoned 16 by the air outside of Atlanta. And the reason why 17 is because of trucks and is because of diesel and 18 unclean fuel. 19 And the thing is that I am a lot better 20 than most people. There's 125,000 cases of cancer 21 caused by diesel vehicles. Smog causes 150,000 22 Americans to go to the emergency room and 40,000 23 deaths every year. I mean there are wars that are 24 fought that have less casualties than what smog has 25 done to America. 264 1 And this is absurd that we're letting 2 industry get away with this. They're sitting around 3 and they're complaining. They're saying they don't 4 have the technology for improvement, they can't 5 afford to make changes. But perhaps if they spent a 6 little less money on lobbying and PR campaigns they 7 could spend a little bit more money on saving 8 lives. 9 We've heard these arguments before. When 10 we put seat belts in cars and we passed the Clean 11 Air Act, when we were all here last year to pass the 12 Tier 2 amendment, industry was saying the exact same 13 thing. They said they can't make it, they'll fall 14 apart if they change it. But we know we can make 15 the changes. And the issue is really what's more 16 important. Is it their profit or is it people's 17 lives? 18 It's clear that the majority of Americans 19 want clean air. I've never head anybody say that 20 they would rather the oil industry make more money 21 if they got cancer. No one wants cancer and no one 22 really cares that much if the industry makes $10 23 billion or $11 every quarter. And it's not an 24 issue. They make huge amounts of profit. They can 25 afford to make these changes. 265 1 So considering that, I urge you to 2 approve the recommendations and specifically to 3 reduce sulfur levels to only 15 parts per million 4 nationwide for both on-road and off-road vehicles by 5 the year 2006. Clean up big trucks and buses by at 6 least 90 percent by the year 2007. Ensure that big 7 trucks are meeting emission standards on the roads, 8 not just during emission tests. Increase the use of 9 diesel alternatives such as electric buses and other 10 advanced vehicles. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. And I thank the 13 rest of the panel, and we appreciate you sharing 14 your views with us. Thanks. 15 The next panel, Henry Chuang, Jim 16 Chapman, Lynn Razaitis, Kenneth Rosso, Dr. Howard 17 Frumkin, Robert Pregulman. 18 (A discussion ensued off the record.) 19 MR. FRANCE: Henry Chuang, start when 20 you're ready. 21 MR. CHUANG: Thank you for the 22 opportunity to speak before you today. My name is 23 Henry Chuang. I'm a student at Emory University, 24 and I'm here today to urge you to adopt the toughest 25 possible standards to reduce pollution from 266 1 heavy-duty vehicles. 2 Here in Georgia, smog sends more than 3 5,000 people to emergency rooms each year and causes 4 more than 240,000 asthma attacks. Making matters 5 worse, a study by local air pollution control 6 officials estimates that diesel exhaust is 7 responsible for 125,000 cases of cancer in the 8 United States. 9 Ladies and gentlemen, I'm positive you're 10 well aware of these statistics. However, when we 11 look at these statistics, all we see is a number. I 12 mean what do they mean to us? Behind each number 13 there is a face, a story, a life. And when we 14 refuse to take action, we condemn these people who 15 are our friends, who are ourselves, and who are our 16 neighbors to suffer from something that could easily 17 be prevented. 18 Now, I'm lucky enough to be raised in the 19 San Francisco Bay area, which is, as most of you 20 know, one of the strongest economies in the nation. 21 Yet, it is also one of the most environmentally 22 protected areas. It is possible for environmental 23 protection to be combined with the strong economy. 24 In order to protect the public health, we 25 must require drastic reductions in pollution from 267 1 these large trucks and buses as soon as possible. I 2 was, therefore, disappointed to learn that the EPA 3 has proposed waiting until 2010 to fully clean up 4 smog-forming pollution from trucks and buses. 5 In addition, because high sulfur levels 6 will poison the new diesel cleanup technologies, we 7 must ensure that all diesel fuel is fully cleaned up 8 and readily available before trucks are required to 9 clean up. 10 Specifically, I urge you to, first of 11 all, reduce diesel sulfur levels to no more than 15 12 parts per million nationwide for both on and 13 off-road diesels by 2006; secondly, clean up all big 14 trucks and buses by at least 90 percent by 2007; 15 thirdly, ensure that big trucks are meeting the 16 emission standards on the road, not just during the 17 emission engine tests. Finally, I urge you to 18 increase the use of diesel alternatives such as 19 electric and fuel cell buses. 20 These measures are critical for the 21 protection of public health and the environment. I 22 hope you seriously consider them in your final 23 decision making. 24 Thank you. 25 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Robert 268 1 Pregulman. 2 MR. PREGULMAN: Hi. My name is Robert 3 Pregulman, and I'm the program director for the 4 Georgia Public Interest Research Group here in 5 Atlanta. And I appreciate the EPA for coming to 6 Atlanta once again for soliciting comments from one 7 of the most polluted cities in the country with 8 regard to air quality. 9 I participated in the Tier 2 hearings 10 last year; and today kind of signifies an 11 anniversary for me, because it was last year at the 12 hearings when I learned that I had asthma. 13 I was sitting in the audience waiting to 14 testify and next to me was a doctor who was also 15 going to testify. And for sometime I had had 16 shortness of breath. I couldn't exercise in the 17 afternoons like I used to. I couldn't jog and had 18 chronic sinus problems. And when I told her my 19 symptoms, she said it sounds like you have asthma, 20 you should come see me. And the next week I went to 21 see her, and it turns out that's exactly what I 22 have. 23 I have never had any health problems like 24 this before, before I moved to Atlanta. So I'm here 25 not only as someone from an environmental 269 1 organization but also a citizen who is suffering 2 from the effects of Atlanta's bad air. 3 I'm going to ask y'all to do a couple of 4 things that I know that several people have 5 already. As an organization, we fully support your 6 efforts to clean up diesel emissions. We think that 7 y'all have taken some extremely far-reaching and 8 farsighted steps towards correcting this problem. 9 We definitely recommend that sulfur in 10 gasoline should be reduced to 15 parts per million 11 by the year 2006. We know that sulfur inhibits the 12 ability of engines to properly -- it inhibits the 13 pollution reduction equipment in diesel engines, and 14 obviously that's very important and we do support 15 that. 16 We also support your efforts to reduce 17 nitrogen oxide levels and also particulate levels, 18 although we would ask that you do not wait until 19 2010 to completely reduce the nitrogen oxide 20 levels. We definitely would like that to happen 21 with the particulate and reduce them by 2007. And I 22 believe that you're shooting for 95 percent 23 reduction in nitrogen oxide, a 90 percent reduction 24 in particulate; and we request that both of those 25 things happen by 2007. We certainly don't need 270 1 another ten years of high NOx levels here in Atlanta 2 or anywhere else in the country from diesel 3 engines. 4 In closing, I want to touch on something 5 that some previous speakers mentioned as far as cost 6 of implementing these programs. I know the 7 petroleum industries, the trucking industries have 8 complained about the cost of implementing these 9 programs, just as the auto makers did last year and 10 the oil industries did last year for Tier 2. 11 I think the recent skyrocketing gas 12 prices that we have seen especially in the Midwest, 13 with no backup data to support it other than it 14 looks like the oil companies are gouging the public, 15 shows where they stand on this issue. 16 Also, historically, since 1970 the oil 17 industry and the auto industry have fought every 18 attempt to make cars cleaner and safer and have 19 drastically overestimated the cost of implementing 20 tougher safety standards and tougher pollution 21 standards. 22 None of those things have come to pass. 23 Air bags didn't make cars prohibitively expensive. 24 Seat belts didn't make cars prohibitively 25 expensive. The Clean Air Act in 1970 did not make 271 1 cars prohibitively expensive. It won't happen with 2 these new standards as well. 3 So we urge you to move forward. And one 4 thing I would add is it's critically important to 5 take into account not just the cost to the industry 6 to implement these things but also look at the cost 7 of what pollution does to society. 8 There's more medication. There are more 9 trips to the doctor. There's higher emergency room 10 visits. There's higher insurance rates. There's 11 billions of dollars lost in lost productivity 12 because people are too sick to go to work or go to 13 school. Personally, I pay about $150 a year for 14 asthma medication that I didn't have to pay before. 15 These are real costs that people are 16 suffering under because of air pollution, and a few 17 pennies more for diesel fuel or cleaner diesel 18 engines will not make a difference. It's more 19 important to protect people's health and it's also 20 more cost effective as well. 21 Thanks again for taking my comments. 22 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Not Joan King 23 but her testimony? 24 MS. KELLY: Yes. My name is Allison 25 Kelly. I'm the clean air activist from the Georgia 272 1 Public Interest Research Group. And if you'll 2 permit me, I'm going to read the testimony of Joan 3 O. King with 20/20 Vision. 4 For submission to the June 22nd EPA 5 hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. Since I am unable to 6 be at today's EPA hearing on diesel emissions, I 7 wish to submit the following statement by proxy and 8 ask that it be added to the record. 9 I am Joan O. King. I live in Sautee 10 Valley which is in rural North Georgia. I represent 11 the Environmental Concerns Committee of the Sautee 12 Nacoochee Community Association, an organization of 13 over 400 members. 14 Over the last 15 years, I have worked 15 with other environmental organizations as well. 16 While I do not speak officially for these groups 17 today, I am going to mention a couple of them so you 18 will have some basis with which to judge my 19 background and knowledge of the issue at hand. 20 I am a former national board member of 21 20/20 Vision, an organization whose business it is 22 to be informed about environmental issues. I work 23 closely with the Georgia Chapter of Physicians for 24 Social Responsibility, an organization that studies 25 air pollution and its impact on public health. 273 1 I belong to a number of other groups that 2 are concerned about air pollution. I have read 3 their literature, and I accept their conclusions. 4 But one doesn't have to be an environmental activist 5 to know we have a problem. Just read the papers. 6 Or better yet, step outside and take a deep breath. 7 I am adding my personal appeal to that of 8 the Environmental Concerns Committee and I urge the 9 EPA to adopt the toughest possible emission 10 standards for all forms of automotive 11 transportation. We hope something will be done, and 12 done soon, to cut emissions from heavy trucks and 13 buses. 14 I understand New York City has just 15 committed to improving their air quality by cleaning 16 up their fleet of over 4,000 buses. Atlanta has 17 been called the New York of the South. We need to 18 follow their lead, and we look to the EPA to help us 19 do it. Give us the regulations. We will do all 20 that we can to educate the general public on the 21 need for emission regulations and the benefits to 22 their health once they are in place. Thank you. 23 And, in addition, before I go, I'd like 24 to present 71 comment letters to the EPA. This 25 represents 71 people that wanted to be here today to 274 1 express their concern over this issue directly to 2 you. But they couldn't be hear for scheduling 3 reasons, so they submitted letters. 4 MR. FRANCE: Okay. Thank you. We do 5 appreciate you taking the time out of your day and 6 sharing your thoughts with us. We'll seriously take 7 them under consideration. Thank you. 8 Is there anyone in the audience who would 9 like to testify? 10 (A recess was taken.) 11 MS. PANDEY: Hi. My name is Stacy 12 Pandey, and I live in Marietta. I'm a member of the 13 Sierra Club and have also worked with Georgia PIRG 14 in the past. 15 Thank you for giving me the chance to 16 voice my support for clean air. I applaud your bold 17 initiative to reduce pollution in diesel trucks by 18 90 percent. 19 I'm sure you've heard a bunch of 20 statistics today; but there are a lot of cases of 21 cancer that are caused by pollution from diesel 22 trucks and buses here in Georgia, and many health 23 studies have linked diesel pollution to lung 24 cancer. Other things that it causes are heart and 25 lung disease and many asthma attacks. 275 1 I have traveled to Delhi, India where the 2 majority of taxis, cars, and buses run on diesel. 3 When you go out even for a short trip, your face 4 becomes noticeably dirty with particulate matter and 5 you blow out black snot. 6 According to the World Health 7 Organization, living in Delhi or Mumbai is 8 equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes a day. Everyone 9 has a perpetual cough, including my two-year-old 10 nephew. 11 At this point, Indians understand the 12 detrimental effects of pollution but are struggling 13 with the economic burdens of cleaning it up. We 14 must not let Atlanta go down the same path. 15 Big trucks and buses are among the 16 biggest pollution sources, and they must be cleaned 17 up to protect the public health. Although diesel 18 vehicles amount to only 2 percent of all vehicles on 19 the road, I'm sure, as you know, they're responsible 20 for 27 percent of the smog-forming pollution and 21 two-thirds of the soot produced by all the nation's 22 vehicles. In fact, I guess one truck can pollute as 23 much as 100 cars. 24 Therefore, I urge the EPA to reduce fuel 25 sulfur levels to at least 15 parts per million 276 1 nationwide for both on-road and off-road diesels; 2 clean up big trucks and buses by at least 90 percent 3 by 2007 at the latest; ensure that big trucks are 4 meeting the emissions standards on the roads, not 5 just during emissions tests; and increase the use of 6 advanced technology vehicles. 7 Thank you for allowing me to speak. 8 MR. FRANCE: Thank you very much for your 9 testimony. Anyone else in the audience? Why don't 10 we take a 15-minute break and we'll reassess the 11 situation. 12 (A recess was taken.) 13 MR. FRANCE: Anup Pandey. Is there 14 anyone else in the audience who would like to 15 testify? 16 MR. PANDEY: Hello. Good evening. I'm 17 going to go by my firsthand experience of what 18 diesel emissions can do to you. I was, as my wife 19 has also said, in India. I was there for 40 days 20 about two months ago. And just in one hour, when 21 you travel, when you reach your destination, you're 22 so exhausted and you get teary-eyed. 23 You get teary-eyed for two reasons. One 24 is the diesel and the other is the situation of the 25 atmosphere there. Because of the lack of foresight 277 1 ten years ago when the policies should have been put 2 in place, realization was there; but, again, because 3 of corruption in the government and lack of 4 uplifting of the issues amongst the politicians and 5 amongst the people at that time, it was all fine and 6 dandy ten years ago. Delhi was a beautiful place to 7 live in, but now life is completely miserable. 8 Even I who grew up in Delhi just wanted 9 to get away from that city after my, you know, 10 business deal was over. My life was miserable 11 purely because of diesel emissions. 12 And I would just like to say that when 13 there is still time we should, here at least in this 14 country where policy makers are more aware of these 15 issues, are more educated, we should try to do 16 whatever we can to put the policies in place and to 17 effect it as soon as possible. 18 Even the taxi drivers there, everybody 19 blames the taxi drivers because it's too late and 20 it's going to be very expensive to change. It's 21 very uneconomical to change all the diesel engines 22 that are in taxis over there. And people say well, 23 we'll ban the taxies. When that happens, the taxi 24 drivers will go on strike because it's not possible 25 for them to change now. 278 1 And the taxi drivers, I've talked with 2 some of them because this is an important issue for 3 me. And they would all say we are all for it, 4 because it harms them too every day driving on 5 diesel fumes from the trucks and their taxis 6 themselves. 7 But they say, you know, five years ago 8 when there was a bid to put a better engine, the 9 government took some money from the suppliers of the 10 diesel engines, you know, the petroleum group, 11 whatever; and they went with the diesel engine. And 12 so, of course, the taxi drivers went for the cheaper 13 thing as well. And so today it's much more 14 difficult for them to revert back. 15 What my basic point is is that we 16 should -- the more delay you do in fixing something, 17 the more expensive it will get and the more 18 possibility that it may not be as perfect as it 19 could be if it was sooner. 20 That's all. Thank you. 21 MR. FRANCE: Thank you. Thank you for 22 sticking out with us. Anyone else? We're on 23 another break. 24 (A recess was taken.) 25 MR. FRANCE: We'll conclude this 279 1 hearing. 2 (Proceedings concluded at 6:30 p.m.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 280 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 STATE OF GEORGIA: 4 COUNTY OF HARALSON: 5 I hereby certify that the foregoing 6 transcript was taken down, as stated in 7 the caption, and the questions and answers 8 thereto were reduced to typewriting under 9 my direction; that the foregoing pages 1 10 through 279 represent a true, complete, and 11 correct transcript of the evidence given 12 upon said hearing, and I further certify 13 that I am not of kin or counsel to the 14 parties in the case; am not in the regular 15 employ of counsel for any of said parties; 16 nor am I in anywise interested in the result 17 of said case. 18 This, the 29th day of June, 2000. 19 20 21 KARA K. LUCAS, CCR-B-1496 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER 22 23 24 25