1 2 VOLUME 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - - - 4 1717 Arch Street, 50th Floor 5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 10, 1999 6 9:00 a.m. 7 - - - 8 CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM : DOCKET NO. A-97-10 9 NEW MOTOR VEHICLES: PROPOSED : TIER 2 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS : 10 STANDARDS AND GASOLINE SULFUR : CONTROL REQUIREMENTS : PUBLIC HEARING 11 - - - 12 13 PRESENT: MARGO OGE 14 BARRY McNUTT DAWN MARTIN 15 CHET FRANCE JUDY KATZ 16 SUSMITA DUBEY GLENN PASSAVANT 17 MICHAEL HOROWITZ KARL SIMON 18 19 REPORTED BY: LISA C. BRADLEY, RPR 20 BERNADETTE BLACK, RMR 21 - - - 22 VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. 23 Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 24 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 25 (215) 561-2220 00328 1 2 I N D E X 3 WITNESS: PAGE 4 RON WILLIAMS, Gary-Williams Energy Corp. .... 338 5 GREGORY DANA, AIAM .......................... 341 6 EVAN PAPPAS, Maryland PIRG .................. 348 7 CHARLES AHLERS, American Lung Assoc. ........ 353 8 DWIGHT WIGGINS, Tosco Refining Company ...... 361 9 TINA VUJOVICH, Cummins Engine Company ....... 367 10 GINA AMADOR, Penn PIRG ...................... 377 11 KARL WALTER, Penn PIRG ...................... 380 12 JESSICA BROOKS, Penn PIRG ................... 382 13 JEFF EBER, Penn PIRG ........................ 384 14 PATRICK CHARBONNEAU, Navistar ............... 387 15 LEONARD KATA, Volkswagen of America ......... 396 16 Nancy Lavin, Philly Walks ................... 401 17 RONALD STRASSBURGER, Nissan North America ... 403 18 MARIA BECHIS, Sierra Club ................... 410 19 JOHN CRNKO, Antek ........................... 417 20 BRUCE BERTELSEN, MECA ....................... 425 21 LAURA KRIV, 20/20 Vision .................... 432 22 NANCY PARKS, Sierra Club .................... 435 23 KEVIN SCOTT ................................. 442 24 DOMINIC VARRAVETO, Black & Veatch ........... 446 25 REG MODIN, DaimlerChrysler .................. 450 00329 1 2 INDEX (Cont.) PAGE 3 BROOKS MOUNTCASTLE .......................... 455 4 GEORGE THURSTON ............................. 458 5 PETE HOMER, NIBA ............................ 466 6 BIANCA MORAN, NJ PIRG ....................... 470 7 KEITH MORRIS, Sierra Club ................... 472 8 STACY LONG, Penn PIRG ....................... 474 9 SHAWN SOMERVILLE, Penn PIRG ................. 478 10 RACHEL MADEN ................................ 480 11 J. ASTRA ROONEY ............................. 481 12 CORY HOLDING ................................ 483 13 JASON RASH .................................. 484 14 WILLIAM MENZ................................. 488 15 IRWIN BERLIN, M.D., ALA...................... 493 16 STACEY YOUNG for Peter Kostmeyer............. 503 17 OLIVIA CONROY for Ann Geoke.................. 507 18 ELISSA UNDERWOOD for Jerome Butler........... 509 19 KEITH McKAY for Richard Levine, M.D.......... 510 20 ANDREW ALTMAN from Clean Air Council......... 514 21 JONATHAN SINKER, Nat'l Environmental Trust... 520 22 BRITTA IPRI, ALA of Maryland................. 525 23 HEATHER CORNELL for Jeremy Focht............. 529 24 PETER MICHELE, GEET.......................... 532 25 PETER JOSEPH, Ph.D........................... 539 00330 1 INDEX (Cont.) PAGE 2 KITTY CAMPBELL, PA PIRG...................... 545 3 MINDY MASLIN................................. 548 4 DAVID COHEN.................................. 550 5 DENIS WINTER, League of Women Voters......... 553 6 ERIC WATERS.................................. 556 7 JOSHUA MITTELDORF, Clean Air Council......... 560 8 SCOTT ALTHOUSE, Evangelical.................. 569 Environmental Network 9 DAVID E. GIBSON.............................. 574 10 SUSAN CURRY.................................. 583 11 JOHN LANGON.................................. 584 12 JACK HECKELMAN, Alliance for a............... 589 13 Sustainable Future 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00331 1 2 MS. OGE: Good morning. I would like 3 you to take your seats, please. 4 Good morning. On behalf of the 5 Environmental Protection Agency, I would like to 6 thank you for coming here this morning and welcome 7 you to this public hearing. I recognize some of the 8 faces from the meeting yesterday. And I would like 9 to welcome all of you that came yesterday and stayed 10 with us for the whole day and last evening and this 11 morning. We are looking forward to this opportunity 12 to hear the views that you're going to testify today 13 about the proposal that we believe to be very 14 critical for the future of the air quality in the 15 United States. 16 My name is Margo Oge. I'm the Director 17 of the Office of Mobile Sources with EPA, and I will 18 be serving as the presiding officer for today's 19 hearing. 20 The proposed regulation that we will be 21 considering today was announced by President Clinton 22 on May 1, 1999, and was published in the "Federal 23 Register" on May 13, 1999. This is a historic 24 proposal. The program will exceed a dramatic 25 reduction in air pollution for the 21st Century, and 00332 1 2 we will do it in the most cost-effective and 3 flexible ways. 4 We estimate emission reductions of 5 almost 2.2 million tons of nitrogen oxide by 2020. 6 This is equivalent in removing 166 million cars from 7 the road. 8 EPA followed several principles in 9 developing this proposal: The proposal is designed 10 to meet the air quality needs of the states in the 11 nation as a whole, to treat autos and fuels as one 12 system, bring sport utility vehicles, minivans, 13 light-duty trucks to the same emission standard as 14 other passenger vehicles, and be fuel-neutral, that 15 is, meet the same standard regardless of fuel use. 16 We wanted to make certain that this proposal would 17 not constraint consumer choice of vehicles or 18 driving styles either due to the cost or 19 technological factors. And finally, we wanted to 20 provide flexibility for industries in helping to 21 achieve the standards. 22 At the same time we published the Tier 2 23 Proposal, we released an advanced notice of proposed 24 rulemaking considering diesel fuel quality. We're 25 not are seeking testimony specifically on the diesel 00333 1 2 proposal during today's hearing. However, we have 3 established a separate docket, A-99-06, for comments 4 on this proposal. 5 Many of you are probably aware of the 6 two recent Court of Appeals decisions regarding EPA 7 air pollution programs. The first decision found 8 that the Clean Air Act is applied in setting new 9 public health air quality standards for ozone in 10 particular is unconstitutional, is an improper 11 delegation of legislative authority to EPA. Despite 12 the constitutional ruling, the Court did not 13 question the science on which EPA relied to develop 14 the health standards or criticized EPA's process for 15 making those decisions. EPA disagrees with the 16 Court's decision, and EPA has recommended to the 17 Department of Justice that they take all necessary 18 judicial steps to overturn the decision. 19 The second decision states the submittal 20 of state plans under the NOx SIP call, which has 21 been scheduled for this fall. We closely reviewed 22 this decision and have concluded that they do not 23 impact the Tier 2 rulemaking. The Tier 2 proposal 24 remains on solid grounds in terms of air quality 25 need, technological feasibility, cost, and 00334 1 2 cost-effectiveness. 3 Over 70 million people in this country 4 are breathing unhealthy air today, and this trend 5 will continue. Despite the voluntary National Low 6 Emissions Vehicle Program, reformulated gasoline, 7 the NOx SIP call that the agency has put in place, 8 we believe that the Tier 2 standards as proposed are 9 needed to attain and maintain the one-hour air 10 quality standard. 11 Although there are a number of areas 12 that today meet NOx air quality standards, there are 13 millions of people that live in areas that are very 14 close in non-attainment, in order to attain the 15 one-hour standard. We believe that ultimately these 16 people would tremendous benefit from this proposal. 17 Also, we believe that this proposal is 18 technologically feasible and is cost-effective. 19 Projected cost of meeting the proposed standards is 20 about $100 for light-duty cars and about $200 for 21 light-duty trucks. The cost for gasoline will be 22 between 1 to 2 cents per gallon. 23 Even though our cars and trucks run 24 cleaner than ever before, they still contribute a 25 large part to our air pollution. In Philadelphia 00335 1 2 where we're holding a hearing today, the second day 3 of the hearings, motor vehicles are contributing 4 almost one-third of all the nitrogen oxide 5 emissions. 6 Americans love to drive and we're 7 driving more every year. If we do not act today, 8 the emissions from our cars and light-duty trucks 9 combined with the current levels of sulfur in 10 gasoline are threatening to erode the many air 11 quality gains that we have made in recent years. 12 For the first time, this proposal will 13 address both fuel and engines as a system. We're 14 looking not only to the cars that we drive, but also 15 we're looking to the fuel that they use. Because 16 sulfur poisons the anti-pollution devices in 17 vehicles, we're proposing to cut sulfur content of 18 gasoline by 90 percent. 19 The proposed rules contains two primary 20 elements: First, EPA proposed more protective 21 emissions standards for all light-duty vehicles and 22 light-duty trucks. The proposed Tier 2 standards 23 will require that all vehicles and trucks weighing 24 up to 8500 pounds to meet the corporate average NOx 25 standard of 0.07 standard grams per mile. This new 00336 1 2 standard will result in cars that are 77 percent 3 cleaner and SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks that 4 are as much as 95 percent cleaner than today's 5 vehicles. 6 The standards will be phased in from 7 2004 through 2007 for light-duty vehicles and 8 light-duty trucks up to 6,000 pounds. Light-duty 9 trucks between 6,000 pounds and 8500 pounds would be 10 required to meet the Tier 2 standards in 2008 and 11 2009. For this class of vehicles, EPA has proposed 12 new interim standards beginning 2004. 13 The second element of the Tier 2 14 proposal is a nationwide control of sulfur in 15 gasoline. The Tier 2 standards cannot be met 16 without cleaner fuel. With cleaner fuel, not only 17 the Tier 2 vehicles will benefit, but also the cars 18 we drive today will benefit. Refiners and importers 19 of gasoline would be required beginning in 2004 to 20 meet a 30 parts per million on average, with a 21 banking and trading program that could introduce 22 cleaner fuel in the marketplace as early as 2000 23 time frame and could extend compliance of these 24 requirements to 2006. 25 In the proposal, we have put forward a 00337 1 2 number of flexibilities for the industries that this 3 rule will affect, and we have included a very 4 significant proposal that will apply to small 5 refiners. 6 Before getting started with today's 7 testimony, I'll take a few minutes to introduce the 8 Panel and describe how we will conduct this hearing. 9 On my right is Dawn Martin who is the Chief of Staff 10 of the Office of Air and Radiation in Washington, 11 D.C. Next to her is Mr. Glen Passavant, and Glen is 12 a senior person in charge of the Tier 2 standard. 13 On my left is Chet France, and Chet is the Director 14 of the Engines and Compliance Programs in the Oxford 15 Mobile Sources of EPA. And next to Chet France is 16 Mike Horowitz, and he's with the Office of General 17 Counsel; he's the lawyer that's supporting this 18 regulatory proposal. 19 This is the second day of the hearing, 20 of the two-day hearing in Philadelphia. And we have 21 three additional public hearings, and you're all 22 invited to follow us tonight to Atlanta, and from 23 there to Denver and Cleveland. 24 We have received an overwhelming number 25 of requests to testify, and we'll do our best to 00338 1 2 accommodate everyone. We ask that the witnesses 3 please limit your testimony to no more than 10 4 minutes. 5 Today's hearing is going to be conducted 6 in accordance with Section 307-D5 of the Clean Air 7 Act, which requires EPA to provide interested 8 persons with an opportunity to make an oral 9 presentation of data, views, or arguments in 10 addition to opportunities to make written 11 submissions. The comment period and record of this 12 hearing will remain open until August 2nd of 1999 13 for additional written comments. 14 The hearing will be conducted 15 informally, and formal rules of evidence will not 16 apply. The presiding officer, however, is 17 authorized to strike from the record statements 18 which are deemed irrelevant or needlessly 19 repetitious and enforce reasonable limits of 20 duration of the statement of any witness. 21 Joe Guy is going to try enforce some 22 reasonable time frames for your presentations. 23 There's going to be signs "one minute," "no time," 24 so please look at Joe and help us out to move the 25 process forward. 00339 1 2 We request that witnesses state their 3 names and affiliations prior to making their 4 statement. When a witness has finished his or her 5 presentation, members of this Panel may ask a person 6 questions concerning issues raised in the testimony. 7 Witnesses are reminded that any false 8 statement or false response to questions may be a 9 violation of the law. 10 If there any members of the audience who 11 wish to testify who have not already contacted us, 12 please submit your name to the reception table 13 outside of this room. I also ask that all attendees 14 please sign the register whether or not they are 15 testifying today. 16 Finally, if you would like a transcript 17 of the proceedings, you should make arrangements 18 directly with the court reporter during one of the 19 breaks. The transcript will be available, however, 20 in the docket within two weeks. 21 And before we begin the testimony, I 22 would like to know if there are any questions before 23 we proceed? 24 Thank you. 25 I would ask for Mr. Ron Williams to 00340 1 Ron Williams - Gary-Williams Energy Corp. 2 please stand up and go forward, Mr. Greg Dana, Mr. 3 David Pontious, Mr. Charles Ahlers. 4 And I will do my best to pronounce your 5 names properly, but I cannot be certain that will 6 happen. 7 Is Mr. Kevin Scott here? 8 I would also be bringing individuals 9 that are walking into today's hearing to testify if 10 there's space for them to testify. 11 Why don't we start with you, Mr. 12 Williams. 13 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. My name is 14 Ron Williams. I'm President and CEO of 15 Gary-Williams Energy Corporation, a Dever-based, 16 privately held oil and gas company. Our primary 17 assets is 50,000 barrels per day refinery within 18 Wynnewood, Oklahoma. Company-wide we have about 275 19 employees and fall within the definition of a small 20 refinery used for the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur 21 proposed regulations. 22 In our view, the SBREFA process is very 23 thorough and beneficial. Panel members were 24 knowledgeable, understanding, and willing to propose 25 new approaches in order to keep alive small refiners 00341 1 Ron Williams - Gary-Williams Energy Corp. 2 who undoubtedly would have had to shut down if hit 3 with stringent requirements in a very short time 4 frame. In our case, for example, because we 5 distribute product via pipeline to the east, a 6 strictly regional approach would not have provided 7 any relief. 8 Small refiners do not share the benefits 9 enjoyed by larger companies owning small facilities 10 because of their sheer size, diversification, and 11 integration. The competitive advantages of larger 12 refiners include easy access to both debt and equity 13 capital at a lower cost, significant overhead 14 savings and buying power with multiple refineries, 15 and the ability of one segment of their business to 16 subsidize other segments that may not be quite so 17 profitable. 18 Lead-time for equipment construction and 19 obtaining capital could be years longer for small 20 refiners because of the competition for engineering 21 and contracting services and the difficulty in 22 obtaining financing for a capital investment of this 23 magnitude. For that reason, the SBREFA process, we 24 feel, was very beneficial and also quite fair. 25 Two parts of the proposed small refiners 00342 1 Ron Williams - Gary-Williams Energy Corp. 2 standards are particular concern to us. First, 3 under the somewhat arbitrary levels proposed for the 4 year 2004, our refinery will have to cut back from 5 1997-1998 baseline sulfur level of about 275 parts 6 per million to 200 parts per million. Even if we 7 could meet the reduced levels by changing our crude 8 slate, we now estimate that the negative economic 9 impact would substantially offset our normal level 10 of profits. We may, however, be forced to install 11 the same new equipment to meet the 200 parts per 12 million level that we will ultimately need for the 13 30 parts per million standard. If that turns out to 14 be the case, we would effectively lose the small 15 refiner advantage and would be competing for funding 16 and engineering and construction expertise in order 17 to install expensive current technology. 18 We feel it is critical that some 19 flexibility be built into the proposed regulatory 20 structure rather than mandating a specific number 21 target such as 200 parts per million. At a minimum, 22 we believe a small company should have the ability 23 to appeal to the EPA for a higher sulfur level if 24 costs outweigh the benefits of hitting a specific 25 target number. 00343 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 Also, I would like to add that because 3 of the great success, we feel, of the SBREFA 4 process, we do hope that the EPA will initiate a 5 similar process that might be impacted by the 6 proposed diesel regulations in the coming future. 7 Thank you for the opportunity to address 8 this hearing. We would be happy to provide you with 9 additional information at any time. 10 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Greg Dana. 11 MR. DANA: Good morning. My name is 12 Gregory Dana. I'm Vice President, Environmental 13 Affairs for the Association of International 14 Automobile Manufacturers. AIAM is a trade 15 association representing companies which sell 16 passenger cars and light trucks to the United States 17 that are manufactured both here and abroad. We 18 welcome the opportunity to appear before you today 19 to discuss the proposed Tier 2 emissions standards 20 and the control of fuel sulfur levels. 21 AIAM's members have long been leaders in 22 the application of advanced emission control 23 technologies and are proud of their record of 24 technological achievements in meeting 25 ever-tightening emission standards. 00344 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 The standard suggested in this proposal 3 would result in a reduction of 99 percent in the 4 precursors to smog, nitrogen oxides, and volatile 5 organic compounds from uncontrolled levels in motor 6 vehicles. The proposed standards represent an 7 enormous challenge for the industry both in meeting 8 the proposed emission limits and the greater 9 emission control system durability that these rules 10 would require. However, our members are prepared to 11 take on this challenge and do our best to meet these 12 standards. 13 But a fundamental requirement to 14 achieving these levels will be the removal of sulfur 15 from gasoline. EPA is well aware of the test 16 programs that have been run by the auto and oil 17 looking at lower sulfur levels. The data from these 18 test programs prove beyond a doubt that removing 19 sulfur from gasoline not only enables the auto 20 industry to meet tighter standards, but also cleans 21 up the existing fleet of vehicles on the road. EPA 22 should remember that these test programs probably 23 underestimate the deterioration of the emissions 24 since the method used to load the catalysts with 25 sulfur was unrepresentative based on more recent 00345 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 testing by Honda. 3 Given the fact that the Agency has 4 proposed NOx levels equivalent to those adopted by 5 California, it is appropriate that sulfur and 6 volatility requirements between California and EPA 7 be harmonized. AIAM understands that California 8 plans to announce its intention to move from a 9 sulfur control level of 30 ppm to some lower level 10 sometime later this year. We believe EPA should 11 take the same action. 12 AIAM strongly supports the EPA's 13 proposal on sulfur control as a good first step. 14 Moreover, we urge the Agency to take no steps to 15 relax the levels or time lines established in the 16 proposal, and to establish a schedule for tightening 17 these requirements to enable the introduction of 18 advanced technology vehicles in a manner consistent 19 with market demand. As we have pointed out in the 20 past, NLEV cars will be distributed nationwide in 21 the 2001 model year. These vehicles will show 22 substantial emission benefits, particularly in NOx 23 control, at lower sulfur levels. 24 To evaluate the claim that gasoline 25 sulfur requirements will be a hardship on the oil 00346 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 industry, AIAM and the Alliance commissioned an 3 analysis done by MathPro, a recognized refinery 4 modeling consultant. MathPro's findings indicate 5 that even the small refineries in the PADD 4 region 6 of the country should have no problem achieving the 7 30 ppm standard without economic harm. Given the 8 additional breaks for small refiners called that are 9 called for in the EPA proposal, small refiners 10 should be able to meet these requirements. It also 11 raises the question of the financial impact of this 12 rule on larger refiners and whether they can meet 13 more stringent controls sooner given their greater 14 assets. It is imperative that EPA stay the course 15 on its proposal to reduce fuel sulfur or strengthen 16 these requirements. 17 In addition to controlling the level of 18 fuel sulfur, the Agency should also take steps to 19 control fuel volatility, that is, the drivability 20 index, as suggested by the industry petition 21 submitted earlier this year. Also, EPA should 22 implement measures to control combustion chamber 23 deposits. Taking these additional steps would 24 essentially harmonize Federal and California fuel, 25 as suggested above. This should be EPA's goal given 00347 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 the similarity of emission standards between EPA and 3 CARB. 4 AIAM has several recommendations 5 regarding the structure of the Tier 2 standards. 6 The bin structure and NOx fleet average proposed by 7 EPA will impose limitations on vehicle manufactures. 8 The least stringent bin establishes a 0.20 gram per 9 mile NOx cap. This, in addition to having only bins 10 about the 0.07 NOx average, will limit flexibility 11 and inhibit the further development of current 12 fuel-efficient technologies and the introduction of 13 advanced fuel-efficient technologies. 14 EPA rules should not have the unintended 15 consequence of restricting use of advanced 16 fuel-efficient technologies in the market. For 17 instance, there are environmental benefits 18 associated with direct injection lean-burn 19 technologies. These technologies offer the best 20 opportunity to reduce fuel consumption and the 21 emissions of greenhouse gases in the near future. 22 EPA could enhance Tier 2 flexibility by expanding 23 the certification bins. This effort would be 24 effective in encouraging the further development and 25 introduction of advanced technology vehicles. In 00348 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 addition, this action would come at no air quality 3 risk since manufacturers would still be required to 4 meet the same NOx fleet average requirement. 5 AIAM believes that it is essential for 6 EPA to conduct a technology review prior to finally 7 taking effect to assess whether technology has 8 advanced sufficiently to allow Tier 2 standards to 9 be achieved. EPA's proposal is based on the rapid 10 development and deployment of advanced catalytic 11 converter technology. This forecasted technology 12 may have some unacceptable interactions with sulfur. 13 Manufactures have seen that as precious metals are 14 used more and more efficiently, catalysts become 15 more sensitive to sulfur, even at very low levels. 16 This is no reason to think that this trend will not 17 continue. If for some reason this forecasted 18 technology does not materialize as rapidly as 19 projected, the auto industry may face an intractable 20 problem in trying to meet the proposed standards. 21 Therefore, we believe that it would be prudent for 22 EPA to conduct such a technology review once 23 manufacturers have taken the time to develop 24 produciton-ready designs. EPA should be prepared to 25 take quick action if problems in meeting the 00349 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 standards do arise. 3 AIAM supports low sulfur diesel fuel. 4 Reducing sulfur in diesel fuel has several benefits. 5 It will result in an immediate reduction of 6 regulated emissions in existing vehicles, and would 7 substantially reduce the amount of air toxics 8 unregulated pollutants from diesel engines. Low 9 sulfur diesel would also improve catalyst warm-up 10 time and is an enabler for further NOx and 11 particulate control. 12 Even modest amounts of sulfur in the 20 13 to 30 ppm range inhibit the lean-burn catalyst 14 technology being developed for compression ignition 15 engines. Near-zero sulfur fuel is necessary to 16 fully realize the environmental potential of diesel 17 engines. AIAM recommends a sulfur specification for 18 diesel fuel of 5 ppm. 19 There has been much discussion in the 20 media and yesterday at the hearing here of the 21 recent D.C. Court decision overturning EPA's ozone 22 and particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality 23 Standards. We do not believe that this decision is 24 a reason for not proceeding with this rulemaking. 25 EPA should move forward with tighter emission 00350 1 Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG 2 standards and stringent control of fuel sulfur. 3 Thank you. 4 MS. OGE: Thank you. Is it Evan Pappas? 5 MR. PAPPAS: Yes, that's correct. 6 MS. OGE: And you're here for Mr. 7 Pontious. 8 MR. PAPPAS: Speaking for David 9 Pontious. 10 MS. OGE: Welcome. You can start with 11 your testimony. 12 MR. PAPPAS: My name is Evan Pappas. 13 I'm speaking on behalf of David Pontious from 14 Maryland PIRG. 15 "Good morning. My name is Dan Pontious. 16 I'm Executive Director of the Maryland Public 17 Interest Research Group or Mary PIRG. Mary PIRG is 18 a non-profit, non-partisan consumer and 19 environmental watchdog organization and one of the 20 network of state PIRGs across the country. 21 "As the summer ozone season begins in 22 this region, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 23 for you today. I am here to applaud the many assets 24 of Tier 2 gasoline sulfur rule-making and to urge 25 you to strengthen other aspect. While I will 00351 1 Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG 2 outline my general comments on rulemaking, I would 3 like to focus my remarks on why Maryland desperately 4 needs dramatically stricter auto emission standards 5 and cleaner gasoline. 6 "This past Monday was a Code Red ozone 7 alert day in the Baltimore region. Maryland, 8 partners with the environment, issued an alert 9 urging children to reduce outdoor activity, healthy 10 individuals to limit strenuous outdoor work or 11 exercise, and individuals with respiratory and heart 12 ailments to limit their outdoor activities as well. 13 If this summer matches last summer's pollution 14 levels, we'll have another seriously unhealthy ozone 15 smog season. Last summer, the air in Maryland 16 violated EPA's revised ozone health standard on 1 of 17 every 3 days. 18 "This pollution is a serious problem for 19 all 5 million Marylanders, but it's especially 20 serious for the approximately 600,000 state 21 residents who suffer from asthma, emphysema, chronic 22 bronchitis, and other lung ailments. Nearly 90,000 23 children in Maryland suffer from asthma and are 24 especially at risk. In 1996 an American Lung 25 Association study found that between 2100 and 3200 00352 1 Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG 2 hospital admissions and emergency room visits in 3 Baltimore in one year alone were linked to this 4 ozone smog. 5 "In Maryland automobiles account for 6 fully one-third of ozone-forming nitrogen oxide 7 emissions. Its led only by electric power plants. 8 In 1997 over 1 million light trucks, such as sport 9 utility vehicles or SUVs were registered in our 10 state. With the Baltimore region in severe 11 non-attainment and the Washington region in severe 12 non-attainment for ozone smog, we will not achieve 13 healthy air unless we take dramatic action to reduce 14 pollution from the significant sources. 15 "My comments on the proposed rule echo 16 those of National PIRG and clean air advocate 17 Rebecca Stanfield. We believe that the proposed 18 Tier 2 standard and gasoline sulfur standard 19 together compromise (sic) a strong integrated 20 approach to reducing pollution from automobiles. As 21 you know, the revised nitrogen oxide standards will 22 require cars approximately 89 percent cleaner than 23 the Tier 1 standard. 24 "We agree with EPA that the popular 25 sport utility vehicles must be treated no 00353 1 Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG 2 differently for pollution purposes than cars. The 3 one million light trucks registered in Maryland are 4 overwhelmingly used for family trips and commuting. 5 The justification for allowing SUVs to pollute more 6 is significantly outdated and new standards should 7 simply reflect the new role SUVs play in our 8 society. 9 "We also agree that a new minimum 10 nationwide sulfur standard should be adopted to 11 prevent the poisoning of sophisticated new pollution 12 control equipment. The automobile and fuel should 13 be treated as a single system, and EPA has 14 appropriately proposed that new car standards be 15 accompanied by clean gasoline. 16 "While it is a strong proposal, however, 17 we do believe that EPA proposed gasoline sulfur 18 standards allows too much time to pass before 19 significant air pollution benefits can be expected. 20 We urge you to phase in low sulfur gasoline earlier. 21 Failure to do so would undermine the upcoming 22 advances under the National Low Emission Vehicle 23 Program and Tier 2. 24 "The EPA's Tier 2 proposal should also 25 be strengthened before it becomes final later this 00354 1 Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG 2 year. First, EPA proposes allowing SUVs weighing 3 between 6,000 and 8500 pounds an extra two years 4 before the Tier 2 car standards apply, exempting the 5 popular Ford Exhibition, the Dodge Ram, and the 6 Lincoln Navigator. We believe that special 7 standards for larger SUVs should expire immediately. 8 In fact, EPA's proposal does not address pollution 9 from the largest and most-polluting SUVs of all, 10 those over 8500 pounds, such as the Ford Excursion 11 and the Chevy Suburban. By not including these 12 models in the Tier 2 program, auto manufacturers 13 will likely see an unfortunate opening where they 14 can aggressive develop even larger SUVs. 15 "Finally, EPA's proposal allow the 16 proliferation of diesel vehicles, the pollution from 17 which poses especially severe health threats. We 18 urge the EPA to remove the highest forms, which 19 includes diesel vehicles from the averaging scheme 20 to protect the public from the carcinogenic nature 21 of diesel exhaust. 22 "Again, thank you very much for the 23 opportunity to comment on the proposed Tier 2 and 24 gasoline sulfur standards. We in Maryland hope that 25 we can look forward to breathing cleaner air as a 00355 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 result of your actions. Thank you." 3 MS. OGE: Thank you. For the reporter, 4 that individual who was speaking is Evan Pappas, 5 P-a-p-p-a-s. 6 Mr. Charles Ahlers. 7 MR. AHLERS: Thank you. My name is 8 Charles Ahlers. I present this statement on behalf 9 of the American Lung Association in Queens which I 10 serve as a volunteer board member. I'm also a 11 member of the Queens Clean Air Coalition. 12 We are in full agreement with the 13 statements made at this hearing and yesterday's 14 session by A. Blake Early on behalf the American 15 Lung Association's national office and by Peter 16 Iwanowicz on behalf of the American Lung Association 17 of New York State. To save time, I shall not repeat 18 the data or the reasoning presented in their 19 statements. I want to stress that we endorse the 20 positions taken therein. I wish to explain why we 21 do so and to offer additional grounds for requiring 22 prompt and forceful action on these standards as 23 part of a comprehensive program of achieving cleaner 24 air. 25 Long before the passage of the Clean Air 00356 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 Act of 1970, the medical community recognized the 3 threat posed by air contaminants. And the American 4 Lung Association initiated programs to deal with 5 sharply increased presence of chronic obstructive 6 pulmonary diseases. While a major effort was and 7 continues to be extended to further professional 8 education and education of patients to help them to 9 deal with compromised breathing capacity, it was 10 recognized that an essential part of an intelligent 11 approach to the problem was and is prevention. That 12 means air pollution control and anti-smoking 13 behavior modification. Both measures are still 14 centrally important. 15 Progress in air pollution control has 16 been very significant in many respects. In much of 17 the nation's most densely populated areas, 18 incineration of solid wastes have be drastically 19 reduced, combustion products control, the sulfur 20 content in fuel use or power generation has been 21 reduced and stack emissions. Most passenger cars 22 exhaust emissions have been reduced so that there is 23 less carbon monoxide, sulfur oxide, and hydrocarbon 24 release per vehicle. And in general, from all 25 sources, there's less large particulate matter, 00357 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 soot, going into the air and coming into the lungs. 3 Very good. But not good enough that will eliminate 4 the health hazard and not fast enough. It should 5 not have taken 30 years to get where we are. And 6 the advance must be encouraged and supported, 7 technological advances must be encouraged and 8 supported. Enforcement is critical. And 9 additionally, forcefulness and determination are 10 essential. 11 The position of our association on 12 questions of air pollution is in part a function of 13 our circumstance. Queens County, part of New York 14 City, is an urban suburban part of that city. We 15 have a population of very close to 2 million living 16 in 121 square miles. That's less dense than 17 Manhattan, Bronx, or Brooklyn, and more dense than 18 Staten Island. We are less than well-served by our 19 subway system which has not been significantly 20 expanded in 50 years while our population in those 21 50 years has increased by a third. We are heavily 22 dependent on cars, and most of us rely on buses to 23 take us to the subways. What is remarkable about 24 this is that is it unremarkable in the context of 25 American population patterns. The bulk of our 00358 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 American population is like us, urban and suburban; 3 and like us, dependent on cars, buses, and trucks. 4 The density of the vehicles corresponds to the 5 density of the population, so it is clear that 6 universal federal standards are appropriate for 7 dealing with emissions. 8 A very regrettable similarity between 9 our situation and the situation around the country 10 is the increased prevalence of asthma in both 11 children and adults with a rise being particularly 12 steep in pediatric asthma and the increased presence 13 of bronchitis and emphysema particularly among the 14 elderly. 15 A further similarity is that, 16 unsurprisingly, we are witnessing and participating 17 in two consequential national trends: Major 18 increases in vehicle travel and traffic, and major 19 increases in the proportion of high-pollution 20 vehicles on the road. These increases explain the 21 worsening air quality in our City, the times and 22 levels of ozone, particulate matter, oxides of 23 nitrogen and sulfur exceed safe standards. At times 24 of worst air quality, hospital admissions of 25 respiratory patients increase and patients who do 00359 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 not require hospital admission report increased 3 breathing difficulty. 4 Though we are well aware of the 5 complexities of ascertaining scientifically the 6 relationship between individual air contaminates and 7 distinct respiratory diseases, and while we 8 understand that responsiveness of the contaminates 9 can vary greatly among individual patients, we 10 cannot ignore the nearly universal reports from 11 patients. Kinds of dirty air mean big trouble for 12 many patients. They deserve protection from such 13 unacceptable defilement of our environment and as 14 promptly fully as possible. Pretty clearly the 15 public agrees with this. We all want clean air and 16 don't want to wait decades for it. 17 That's why we support the proposed 18 emissions standard, the extension to bigger and 19 heavy vehicles and the proposed reduction of sulfur 20 in fuel. That's why we'd like you to pass the 21 implementation schedule. It should not take 10 22 years to bring SUVs and light trucks up to standard. 23 As important as the proposed standards 24 are and as fervently as we favor them, especially if 25 they're strengthened and given earlier 00360 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 implementation, they do not, of course, by 3 themselves constitute a comprehensive air pollution 4 control program. EPA must continue some of the best 5 and most productive and consequential elements of 6 past programs, encouragement for technical 7 improvement, encouragement of mass transit programs, 8 discouragement of highway subsidies that threaten to 9 undo progress made in other modes of pollution 10 control, and working at least slowly to reverse the 11 pattern of federal subsidy and highway travel and 12 the neglect of rail transport. 13 Finally, if the proposed standards are 14 not adopted or are adopted in a form that judged by 15 the states who offer less than hoped for benefits, 16 the State should retain the option to adopt 17 California Low Emission Vehicle Program. This 18 variety will be a spur to all concerned and make the 19 Tier 2 standards work effectively. 20 Thank you for the proposal of the new 21 standards and for the opportunity to comment. 22 MS. OGE: Thank you. 23 Mr. Dana, thank you for your testimony. 24 We do agree with the position that your organization 25 has taken. We are committed at all levels, 00361 1 2 including the President of the United States, to 3 finalize the proposal by the end of the year. 4 Yesterday we heard from the American 5 Petroleum Institute, a set of issues that were very 6 different with the positions that you have taken 7 this morning. They have suggested a program that 8 controls sulfur at much higher levels then what 9 you're suggesting this morning, 150 ppm instead of 10 30 ppm for the rest of the country. Could you 11 please explain to us why your association believes 12 that a low level of sulfur, 30 ppm and maybe using 5 13 today is needed across the country and why your 14 particular design catalyst to perform with higher 15 levels of sulfur in gasoline. 16 MR. DANA: As you know, we've run tests 17 on both as the industry alone and the industry 18 proponents looking at the effects of sulfur on 19 automobile technology. And in any single car that 20 was tested in both of those programs, we saw 21 significant reduction emissions when sulfur was 22 taken out of the fuel. And that effect declines 23 after time, it gets lower and lower levels of 24 sulfur. So it's clear to us that as you look at, 25 not only the existing fleet of vehicles out there, 00362 1 2 but if you look at future technology we must 3 enforce, so that getting sulfur at a critical level 4 in fuel is absolutely critical. As we look at the 5 catalyst developments we plan to use in the future, 6 we see them being even more insensitive to sulfur. 7 And as we look at the things like NOx to build a 8 catalyst in lean-burn engines in the future, those 9 become another order of magnitude sensitive to 10 sulfur. So it becomes clear to us as we look at the 11 future that every test, piece of testing that we've 12 seen, makes it clear that removing sulfur to extent 13 possible is the best approach. 14 MS. OGE: Thank you. 15 Do the panel members have any questions? 16 Thank you very much. Thank you for the 17 taking the time to share your views with us. 18 Maybe those who are signed up for later 19 on this afternoon and would like to speak earlier, 20 please see the receptionist and we will try to 21 accommodate you. 22 Next, Mr. Dwight Wiggins. We have a 23 change; instead of Bob Jorgensen, we have Ms. Tina 24 Vujovich, Ms. Maria Bechis, and Ms. Nancy Lavin. 25 We will start with you, Mr. Wiggins. 00363 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 MR. WIGGINS: Thank you much. My name 3 is Dwight Wiggins. I'm the president of Tosco 4 Refining Company. Tosco is an independent refiner 5 and marketer of gasoline and other petroleum 6 products in the United States. Our seven refiners 7 have a combined crude oil capacity of approximately 8 450,000 barrels a day. Tosco markets gasoline and 9 other petroleum products through a network of 10 approximately 4500 retail outlets primarily under 11 the Union 76 and Circle K brands. 12 Tosco supports the EPA's proposal sulfur 13 standard of 30 parts per million as we originally 14 announced on May the 3rd. We believe the nation 15 needs to continue to improve air quality, and the 16 current proposal is an important step in reducing 17 ozone levels. Although the newer lower sulfur 18 standards will impose significant additional cost on 19 the refining industry, Tosco is committed to 20 gasoline as a clean fuel in the future. It's clear 21 the reduction of gasoline sulfur will lower 22 emissions in future vehicles. 23 On the other hand, the current proposal 24 includes relief from the new sulfur standards for 25 small refiners both domestic and foreign. Tosco 00364 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 generally does not support special provisions which 3 will unnecessarily dilute the air quality benefit of 4 the new standard and create potential competitive 5 inequities. 6 We believe all refiners, domestic and 7 foreign, should be held to the same standards on the 8 same time table. We, therefore, urge the EPA to 9 adopt the final rule that applies to new sulfur 10 standards consistently to all producers. This will 11 help ensure that the full air quality and health 12 benefits of a cleaner low sulfur fuel are available 13 to all citizens as early as possible and in no 14 sector of the refining industry suffers an unequal 15 competitive burden of compliance. 16 It's also very important to remember 17 that foreign refiners will have an inherent 18 competitive advantage over domestic refiners in 19 meeting the new sulfur standards. While domestic 20 refiners will have to meet the standards for their 21 entire gasoline pool, foreign refiners will have the 22 option of selecting low sulfur extremes for export 23 to the US market by disposing of high-sulfer 24 extremes in their countries or other markets outside 25 the US. Therefore, foreign refiners may be able to 00365 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 continue exporting gasoline to the United States 3 without substantial investment or potentially any 4 investment in new desulfurization equipment. It's, 5 therefore, very important that the final gasoline 6 rule not contain a loophole that will allow foreign 7 refiners to import gasoline with sulfur content in 8 excess of the new standard. Such loop holes could 9 undermine the air quality purposes of the regulation 10 and place an even greater competitive disadvantage 11 on domestic refiners. Giving foreign refiners a 12 further competitive advantage could result in 13 increased imports of gasoline, displacement of 14 domestic refining industry, and loss of employment 15 in the industry. 16 While petroleum refining is not labor 17 intensive, the industry provides well-paid primarily 18 unionized manufacturing jobs that supports thousands 19 of US families. 20 We're also concerned that foreign 21 refiners of substantial size could take advantage of 22 the proposed special treatment for small refiners. 23 Because petroleum refining is not labor intensive, 24 it's possible that some large foreign refiners could 25 qualify as small merely because they have fewer than 00366 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 1500 employees. For example, Tosco's largest 3 refinery with a crude oil capacity of approximately 4 250,000 barrels per day have significantly fewer 5 than 1500 employees. In fact, none of Tosco's seven 6 refineries has more than 1500 employees. And based 7 on Tosco's experience with refinery staffing, a work 8 force of 1500 employees as discussed in the current 9 regulation could operate a refinery with 500,000 10 barrels per day or more capacity. 11 If the EPA decides to retain the special 12 compliance time table or small refineries, this 13 potential loophole could be limited by including the 14 fee stocks capacity limits of 75,000 barrels per day 15 as contained in the Small Business Administration 16 size standards. Using the SBA dual capacity and 17 employment test would be consistent with a criteria 18 that's used to qualify small refiners for the 19 procurement preferences used by the Department of 20 Defense in acquiring military fuel. The SBA dual 21 size standard is based on sound reasoning. SBA 22 concluded after hearings and public comment that a 23 dual criteria standard of both capacity and 24 employees was a much better measure of size for 25 petroleum refiners than a single measure alone. 00367 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 In a regulation of motor fuel under the 3 Clean Air Act there is ample preference for union 4 capacity limits to restrict special compliance 5 provisions for small refiners. In the 1977 lead 6 phase-down provision, Congress expressively imposed 7 a capacity limit of 50,000 barrels per day for the 8 special lead content levels allowed for small 9 refiners. Similar capacity limits have been used in 10 providing small refiners relief from state fuel 11 emissions requirement. 12 In allowing small refiners an extended 13 compliance period under the California diesel sulfur 14 regulations, the Air Resources Board restricted the 15 extensions to refiners to no more than 50,000 16 barrels per day in crude oil capacity. A similar 17 capacity limit of 55,000 barrels a day was applied 18 to an extended period allowed for small refiners to 19 comply for California's Phase 2 reformulated 20 gasoline requirement. 21 If the final sulfur rule provides an 22 extended compliance period for small refiners. The 23 final rule should also require eligible small 24 refiners to demonstrate their commitment to 25 complying low sulfur gasoline at the end of the 00368 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 extended period. Both federal and state emission 3 regulations have required such demonstrations as 4 prerequisite to special compliance schedules. 5 In order to use extended compliance 6 schedule an EPA's diesel sulfur program a small 7 refiner was required to demonstrate a commitment to 8 producing complying fuel by the end of the extended 9 period. The required demonstration included capital 10 commitments to the necessary modifications, 11 contracts for design and construction, approved 12 construction permits, and on-site construction to be 13 in progress. Requiring a demonstrated commitment to 14 compliance is necessary to prevent small refiners 15 from simply using the extended period to sell 16 high-sulfur gasoline into a low sulfur market. 17 Without any investment in compliance, a small 18 refiner could merely cease gasoline production at 19 the end of the extended compliance period. 20 As EPA recognized in implementing its 21 diesel sulfur program, it would enable a small 22 refiner to gain, by their terminology, a windfall in 23 profit by selling lower grade product into a premium 24 market with no long-term air quality benefit to 25 offset the short-term emissions detriment. 00369 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 In conclusion, Tosco recommends that EPA 3 retain the proposed sulfur standard of 30 parts per 4 million for gasoline. However, to avoid the 5 dilution of air quality benefit to the regulation 6 and potential competitive inequities, we urge the 7 EPA to apply the standard equally of all domestic 8 and foreign refiners. If the extended compliance 9 period for small refiners remain, EPA should adopt 10 its capacity limit of 75,000 barrels per day for 11 both and domestic small refiners. 12 Finally, if extensions are granted, the 13 EPA should make the extension available only to 14 small refiners that demonstrate a commitment to 15 produce complying low sulfur gasoline at the end of 16 the extended period. 17 That concludes my remarks. Thank you 18 for your consideration. 19 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Tina Vujovich. 20 MS. VUJOVICH: Good morning. My name is 21 Tina Vujovich. I'm the Vice President in charge of 22 worldwide marketing for bus and light commercial 23 automotive applications as well the environmental 24 management work for Cummins Engine Company. 25 Cummins produces diesel and natural gas 00370 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 fuel, heavy-duty engines for automotive, 3 construction, agricultural, marine, and power 4 generation applications around the world. Cummins 5 is the large producer of commercial heavy-duty 6 engines rated above 150 horsepower in the world. 7 Cummins has recently developed a new 8 concept engine for application in the light-duty 9 vehicle, the subject of the proposed regulations 10 under consideration today. A portion of the funding 11 for this development is coming from the United 12 States Department of Energy. The Department of 13 Energy's objectives of this effort, as laid out at 14 the initiation of the program, are shown in this 15 figure. There are two major performance goals, a 16 significant improvement in fuel economy, as you can 17 see, 50 percent over gasoline counterpart; and 18 compliance with future emission standards. And the 19 standards given to those who participated in this 20 program at the time are listed in the chart here, as 21 you can see. The figure at the bottom of the chart, 22 the total DOE funding represents the total funding 23 to all those participating in the program. We're 24 not there in Cummins, although I would have loved to 25 have seen that figure given to Cummins. 00371 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 These emissions targets represent 3 significant reductions from Tier 1 emissions 4 standards as shown on this figure. The light-duty 5 truck 4, light-duty truck 3, are the standards in 6 effect today as Tier 1 standards. You can see the 7 DOE program goals as the red diamonds on the chart, 8 a significant reduction. 9 When we entered the program a few years 10 ago, we felt that these standards were very 11 challenging targets and we still feel that these are 12 challenging targets. 13 As proposed, when including the 50,000 14 mile intermediate useful life standard, the Tier 2 15 requirements would preclude engines which meet these 16 objectives from entering the marketplace in 2004 and 17 beyond. We believe that this would foreclose the 18 most cost-effective and most readily available 19 opportunity to improve fuel economy and meaningfully 20 reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 21 The Department of Energy initiated this 22 program to produce to reduce the fuel consumption of 23 the growing light-duty vehicle segment known as 24 light-duty trucks. Light-duty trucks sales 25 represent an increasing percentage of an 00372 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 ever-increasing light-duty truck category 3 approaching 50 percent this year. 4 The next couple of charts that you will 5 see are data from the Energy Institute. In this 6 chart you can see that the transportation energy use 7 represents about one-third of the total energy 8 consumption in the United States. Of the energy 9 consumed by the transportation sector, approximately 10 50 percent is consumed by the light-duty vehicles, 11 including passenger cars and light-duty trucks as 12 shown on this slide, again by the Energy Institute. 13 Direct injection, compression ignition, 14 diesel cycle engines have the potential to 15 significantly reduce light-duty vehicle energy 16 consumption. As shown on this slide, the results of 17 our engine compared to the gasoline engines that it 18 would replace in a sport utility vehicle is 19 illustrated here. And as you can see, as we have 20 tested this engine, there is an improvement of 71 21 percent in fuel economy over the gasoline engine 22 that it will replace. 23 For a vehicle that drives about 15,000 24 miles annually, the fuel savings would amount to 25 about 446 gallons per year of fuel. Now, let's 00373 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 assume that there were about 7.4 million light-duty 3 trucks sold in the United States last year. Had 4 only 50 percent of these been diesel powered rather 5 than gasoline, the fuel savings last year would be 6 over 1.5 billion gallons of fuel. 7 There is a lot of debate about global 8 warming, but it seems more and more that researchers 9 are becoming convinced that it is a real issue. The 10 magnitude of carbon dioxide emission reductions 11 envisioned in the discussions taking place around 12 the world would require major changes. To reduce 13 the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by light-duty 14 trucks in the United States in the year 2010 to the 15 levels that we were experiencing in 1990 would 16 require a decrease in carbon dioxide between 35 and 17 40 percent per vehicle, depending on the growth 18 assumptions that one would make. As shown on this 19 slide, the diesel engine that we are in the process 20 of developing achieves a 37 percent reduction from 21 the carbon dioxide emission levels of the gasoline 22 engine that it would replace. 23 Earlier I showed you the Department of 24 Energy program goals, including the emissions 25 targets. The proposed Tier 2 standards are much 00374 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 more stringent, as shown on this figure. It is true 3 that the Department of Energy and the manufacturers 4 participating in this program recognize that EPA 5 would be coming out with Tier 2 proposals and also 6 recognized that program goals would change as a 7 results of those proposals. 8 As you can see from this chart, again, 9 the current Tier 1 standard. The Department of 10 Energy target, again, is represented by the red 11 diamond. And you can barely see, written very tiny, 12 the standards that have been proposed in the Tier 2 13 proposal. 14 Improvements in the engine-out emissions 15 from today's best light-duty diesel engines, which 16 employ cooled exhaust gas recirculation, wastegated 17 turbochargers, and air-to-air aftercooler, can be 18 made. And Cummins believes that with the increased 19 amounts of EGR, the use of fuels systems capable of 20 higher injection pressures and cylinder heads with 21 four valves per cylinder, that engine-out oxides of 22 nitrogen particulate matter emissions for light-duty 23 trucks can be cut in half. 24 Reductions beyond these levels will 25 require significant exhaust aftertreatment. Lean 00375 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 NOx aftertreatment is still in the development 3 stage. However, Cummins believes that such systems 4 capable of at least 50 percent reductions of oxides 5 of nitrogen will be commercially viable in the time 6 frame when the Tier 2 standards are proposed to 7 begin a phase-in. 8 Particulate aftertreatment systems, such 9 as catalyzed soot filters, will also be required. 10 Regeneration, the process of removal the particles 11 from the filters, is still the biggest hurdle for 12 such systems, especially during sustained light load 13 conditions and cold ambient temperatures. Cummins is 14 hopeful that filters with 80 percent or greater 15 trapping efficiency will be able to regenerate 16 continuously under all operating conditions. The 17 sulfur content of diesel fuel, therefore, must be 18 reduced significantly in order to enable the use of 19 these aftertreatment systems. 20 The anticipated reductions from current 21 best technology through improvements in engine 22 design and through the use of aftertreatment 23 systems, as just described, and as they are applied 24 to light-duty trucks still fall short of the 25 reductions necessary to comply with Bin 7 standards, 00376 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 the least stringent of the Tier 2 bins. 3 Cummins believes that fuel economy and 4 carbon dioxide emissions benefits 5 compression-ignition, diesel-cycle engines bring, 6 warrant their inclusion in the light-duty market. 7 Given the long-term horizon and major advances 8 required to develop conforming commercially viable 9 diesel product, Cummins recommends that a mid-term 10 technology review be included to assess the progress 11 by these highly fuel efficient engines toward Tier 2 12 compliance. 13 We're pleased to see the Agency's 14 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking requesting 15 comment on the need to changes in diesel fuel. 16 Cummins will provide separate comments to this 17 advanced notice, but inasmuch as fuel changes have a 18 large impact on feasibility of the technology to 19 meet the standards proposed in this rulemaking, it 20 is important to state here that both highly 21 efficient oxides of nitrogen and particulate 22 aftertreatment systems will require the use ultra 23 low sulfur fuel, that is, fuel with less than 5 24 parts per million sulfur. 25 In addition, Cummins believes that 00377 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 flexibility provided by an averaging program that 3 allows the setting of family emission limits is 4 needed. The large gaps between the 5 interim bins 5 and the seven Tier 2 bins really discourage emission 6 reductions that are significant but may fall short 7 of the next lower bin. Manufacturers would still 8 have to comply with the same stringent oxide of 9 nitrogen fleet average, so such an averaging system, 10 while providing greater compliance flexibility and 11 the reduction of the cost of compliance, would 12 really not negatively impact the environmental 13 improvements sought by the proposal. 14 In conclusion, Cummins recommends: One, 15 that the proposed bin structure be replaced by an 16 averaging program that allows manufacturers to set 17 family emission limits. 18 Number two, that a mid-term technology 19 review be included to assess the progress by these 20 highly fuel efficient engines toward the Tier 2 21 compliance and revise, if necessary, those 22 provisions. 23 And finally, that the maximum sulfur 24 content of the fuel stream for the light-duty 25 vehicles be capped at 5 parts per million. 00378 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 3 this proposed rulemaking and would address any 4 questions that you might have. Thank you for your 5 attention. 6 MS. OGE: Thank you. Any questions? 7 MR. PASSAVANT: May I ask? 8 MS. OGE: Yes. 9 MR. PASSAVANT: I would like to ask 10 Tina, if she would, when you provide your written 11 comments here, I heard you ask for an FEL approach. 12 If you would please do two things for us. Number 13 one, if you would take a look at what we said in the 14 preamble about the pros and cons of that which is 15 the approach we used. And second, since you've 16 suggested that more bins would be helpful if we 17 stuck with the bins approach, if you could get to us 18 sometime what bins you're thinking about. 19 MS. VUJOVICH: Just a clarification, Mr. 20 Passavant. What we've suggested is an FEL approach 21 as opposed to a bin approach. 22 MR. PASSAVANT: I understand. But if we 23 were to stick with the bin approach, if you could 24 suggest to us which bins you would like to see. 25 MS. VUJOVICH: Okay. I will do that in 00379 1 Gina Amador - Penn PIRG 2 our written comments. 3 MR. PASSAVANT: Thank you. 4 I'd like to ask Mr. Wiggins, do you have 5 with you a written copy of your testimony to make 6 available? 7 MR. WIGGINS: I believe we did. You 8 asking for a written copy? 9 MR. PASSAVANT: I guess that takes care 10 of that. Thank you very much. 11 MS. OGE: Any other questions? Thank 12 you very much, both of you. 13 MS. OGE: Before we go to the next 14 panel, I would like to ask for Ms. Gina Amador to 15 step up if she's here. Mr. Karl Walter, Ms. 16 Stephanie Mayers, Jillian Gill, Mrs. Jessica Brooks, 17 and Mr. Jeff Eber. 18 If you could take the time to print your 19 names, and if with you're any association, please 20 also print the name of the association and then we 21 can start with your remarks. 22 MS. AMADOR: My name is Gina Amador. 23 I'm very excited to be here because I am among a 24 group of people that carry many perspectives on a 25 very complexion issue of air pollution and I see a 00380 1 Gina Amador - Penn PIRG 2 lot of potential here for coming to grasp on the 3 complexities of this problem and I want to share 4 with you some of my personal experience with the air 5 pollution problem. 6 I came two years ago from Mexico City to 7 study here for college. In Mexico City I have seen 8 the tremendous effects that an air pollution crisis 9 can have on people's daily lives. On every street 10 corner I have seen people literally struggling 11 taking a breath, on every street corner. And every 12 day I see people that are in a bad mood with 13 headaches. I myself have experienced that because 14 it's just very difficult to cope especially if 15 somebody doesn't have a proper nutrition or balance 16 every day can be very difficulty with levels of 17 pollution as high as we do experience in Mexico 18 City. 19 I have also tried to see what people are 20 doing in Mexico City about the air pollution, and I 21 see that people are improvising, that there is no 22 sustainable plan for attacking this problem, but 23 there's crisis of air pollution and the public 24 sometimes doesn't even know what they're being 25 exposed to. There's a great information gap. Even 00381 1 Gina Amador - Penn PIRG 2 though we do have technology to monitor this air 3 pollution, it's very hard to know and to explain to 4 the public what it is that they are experiencing. 5 And there's very little technological studies. Even 6 though I am very hopeful that we will find a 7 solution, I see the effects of not preventing air 8 pollution. I see the effects of waiting until it's 9 almost too late to take action. 10 Here in the United States I think that 11 there is a lot of potential to prevent what is 12 happening in Mexico. And I see a lot of people that 13 care about air pollution. Every day I go out and 14 canvass with Penn PIRG and I talk about 40 people 15 and people care about the air pollution. Every day 16 I've met somebody with asthma, somebody that has a 17 very serious relation to air pollution problems 18 here. And so I'm very convinced that this is a 19 pressing problem and that there is a potential in 20 this room to come to grips with the problem and 21 start to unravel the complexities of this 22 phenomenon. 23 I just was here yesterday for a couple 24 of hours, and excuse me for my over-simplification 25 of the problem, but I saw the auto and oil industry 00382 1 Karl Walter - Penn PIRG 2 saying, "Time is money, we want more time; we need 3 wait 10 years, a decade; the problem is not serious 4 enough." And then on the other hand I have seen 5 environmental groups and public health groups 6 saying, "Time is life and we need to act now." 7 And I think we have to prioritize the 8 life aspect of time. And I really think that this 9 is a great opportunity. I really thank everybody 10 that is here for listening to each other's 11 perspectives. I happen believe in Surgi (ph) which 12 is like if you give, you gain. And I think that in 13 this tug-of-war, if both parties give, they will 14 both gain and we will all gain. And I think there 15 is a lot of hope for cutting-edge technologies that 16 give us sustainable and integrative plan for 17 changing the face of our plant. Thank you. 18 MS. OGE: Thank you very much. Mr. 19 Walter. 20 MR. WALTER: My name is Karl Walter. 21 I'm a resident of North Huntington, Pennsylvania, 22 which is a suburb and Pittsburgh. I'd like to share 23 a little story. As you know, asthma rates among 24 children are up 75 percent since 1980. One of the 25 children lucky enough to be born within that time is 00383 1 Karl Walter - Penn PIRG 2 my little sister Nancy. She was born in Pittsburgh 3 which has the eighth worst air pollution in the 4 nation. And she began having trouble breathing 5 around her 14th birthday. Naturally, my family and 6 I, we were little scared because my little, all of a 7 sudden her face starts turning purple and we don't 8 know what to do. We start taking her to the 9 hospital, and the doctors, nobody knows what to do. 10 Finally, we figure out she has asthma, my little 11 sister. 12 She's lived with this health problem 13 five years, my younger sister. There's days when 14 she can't go out and jog because the air pollution 15 is so bad. One out of three days is an ozone action 16 today. Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday in Pittsburgh 17 were ozone action days. She could not go outside 18 and ride a bike because she couldn't breathe on 19 these days. 20 Automobiles are responsible for about 30 21 percent of the smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution 22 and 20 percent of volatile organic compounds which 23 contribute to the formation of smog. And what we 24 would like see in the Penn PIRG is heavy regulations 25 on these automobiles because they are a major 00384 1 Jessica Brooks - Penn PIRG 2 contributor to the air pollution that has affected 3 my family and my little sister so dearly. 4 Basically, we would like to see the 5 loophole for the SUVs closed. For ten years the 6 biggest of those, Ford Excursions, things like this 7 are able to continue polluting our air. Ford 8 Excursion is actually not even required to clean up 9 in 10 years. These are excluded with the proposal 10 right now. 11 We applaud the proposal that the EPA has 12 put forth, but we would like to see them enforce 13 more strictly to help children and older elderly 14 people who have been affected so dearly by this 15 horrible air pollution. Thank you for your time. 16 Thanks for listening. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Brooks. 18 MS. BROOKS: Hello. My name is Jessica 19 Brooks, and I also work for Penn PIRG, although I'm 20 not really here today to talk about my job with Penn 21 PIRG. I'd like to talk about my job last summer. I 22 actually was camp counselor dealing with children 23 who would spend a week at the camp. And at the camp 24 we would spend a lot of time doing outdoor 25 activities and playing outside and having soccer 00385 1 Jessica Brooks - Penn PIRG 2 games and swimming. And a lot these children, it's 3 very sad to see, had to stop themselves when they 4 would go to play their games. They were not able to 5 play anymore at their camp. 6 And I can remember being a child when I 7 was going to camp, and that was one of the best 8 things of my summer. And the smog and air pollution 9 is taking that away from children these days. 10 When I was a child at camp, you didn't 11 understand -- these weren't things that you thought 12 about. But now all of the children understand the 13 problem, the ones that have asthma and the ones that 14 don't. They all know about it; it's so common that 15 all of the children are understanding, oh, little 16 Tommy can't play now because he has to stop, he 17 can't breathe. Have you ever looked in a child's 18 eyes when they can't breathe, the fright and the 19 sadness, the embarrassment of not being able to keep 20 up with the other kids? 21 This is a problem that needs to have a 22 solution. I understand that asthma may not be 23 specifically caused by air pollution, but it is 24 problematic because of air pollution. Their attacks 25 are triggered by this and they can't breathe. So we 00386 1 Jeff Eber - Penn PIRG 2 need to come out and we need to make sure that this 3 pollution is cleaned up. We need to have as strong 4 and as tough standards as possible. 5 There should not be exemptions for the 6 heavier vehicles. These are the most pollutant. 7 These children need to have cars out there that are 8 less pollutant, they need standards on all of the 9 cars, and they need them as soon as possible so when 10 they have children they don't have to deal with the 11 same thing. 12 So we would like to come out and thank 13 you for your support of the clean standards and of 14 the clean air proposal, but we also would like to 15 say that they do need to be stronger. And I'd just 16 like to thank you. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you, Ms. Brooks. Mr. 18 Jeff Eber. 19 MR. EBER: My name is Jeff Eber. And I 20 am with the many canvassers for Penn PIRG. I speak 21 to many people every day. I've actually found that 22 of the people that I talk to, probably one more than 23 half are in support of our group. 24 Right now I'd just like to relate a 25 personal story, that of my sister who actually 00387 1 Jeff Eber - Penn PIRG 2 didn't develop symptoms of asthma until she was 14 3 or 15. Although when she went to the doctor, the 4 doctor didn't specifically say, "You have asthma now 5 because of the air pollution right now," but I think 6 that a problem that's being ignored is that when 7 children are developing at a younger age, they 8 actually need more oxygen for their growing bodies 9 in proportion to their bodies than the average 10 adult. In cities, especially Philadelphia where 11 smog is a big problem, they can't get the vital air 12 that they need; they're taking in too much 13 pollution. And although they don't see the effects 14 right at that very moment, it's an ongoing process 15 that develops over time. 16 My sister entered high school and she 17 started to become very active in sports which she 18 hadn't been before. That is when she noticed the 19 problem. She developed asthma in high school. And 20 she was really into volleyball, ice skating, and 21 playing sports, and now she can't due to the fact 22 that she's developed asthma at such an older age. 23 And I think is a big problem. 24 The auto industry, from quotes that I've 25 read, like to downplay it saying that although 00388 1 Jeff Eber - Penn PIRG 2 pollution does harm children a little bit, it's not 3 that much. They say that it only hurts the lungs 4 and hurts the respiratory system a little bit. The 5 problem is, is that it might be do that at that 6 point, but it's a developing thing that develops 7 over time. So the longer that we wait to stop the 8 polluting, it will just keep getting worse. We need 9 to realize that children now don't see the problems 10 with the air pollution right now, but they will in 11 the future and as the problem gets worse. It will 12 continue to get worse. 13 MS. OGE: Any members have any questions 14 for them? 15 I'd like to thank you for taking the 16 time to be with us this morning. Your views are 17 very important to the work that we are doing here. 18 Thank you very much. 19 I would ask for Mr. Pat Charbonneau to 20 please come forward. We will try to make some 21 changes this morning to accommodate people that are 22 signed up to speak with us today. We suggest that 23 we move forward with the panel that is scheduled to 24 speak at 1:15. 25 So Mr. Charbonneau, Mr. Kata, Leonard 00389 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 Kata, is he here? Mr. Robert Strassburger, and Mr. 3 Jason Rash. 4 Also there were two additional 5 individuals that were scheduled to testify at 10 6 o'clock, and they were not here this morning. I'd 7 like to see if they are here. Ms. Maria Bechis and 8 Ms. Nancy Lavin. 9 (Pause.) 10 MS. OGE: Good morning. We can start 11 with Mr. Charbonneau. 12 MR. CHARBONNEAU: My name is Patrick 13 Charbonneau. I'm Vice President of Engine 14 Engineering for Navistar. I'm here today to discuss 15 the impact of the proposed Tier 2 emission standards 16 on diesel engine technology which Navistar is 17 developing for light-duty vehicle applications in 18 partnership for our customer, Ford Motor Company. 19 We believe that greater reliance on 20 diesel engines in this important market segment can 21 provide important environmental and economic 22 benefits. We support challenging but achievable 23 Tier 2 standards which create incentives for our 24 industry to invest in new generation diesel engines 25 which deliver superior emissions control 00390 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 performance. Clean diesel fuel with sulfur levels 3 at or below 5 parts per million is a critical 4 enabler for the new technologies we are developing. 5 We need EPA's help in assuring the availability of 6 ultra low sulfur fuel for light-duty diesel by 2004 7 in order to achieve the very aggressive Tier 2 8 targets the EPA has proposed. 9 With ultra-clean diesel fuel and new 10 aftertreatment systems, we foresee dramatic 11 breakthroughs in emissions control. For example, 12 Navistar recently conducted a demonstration of 13 passive trap technology using a school bus with a 14 heavy-duty diesel engine and ultra low sulfur fuel. 15 We're pleased to report that we achieved reductions 16 in particulate emissions were over 90 percent, which 17 will be required to achieve the stringent Tier 2 18 limits for particulates. The success of this 19 demonstration is an exciting example of how great 20 strides forward we can take with the combination of 21 new generation diesel technology and ultra low 22 sulfur fuel for both light-duty and heavy-duty 23 diesels. 24 I would like to make two other points: 25 One, the particulates are 50 percent lower than the 00391 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 best 1998 certified compressed natural gas engine. 3 And secondly, the hydrocarbon emissions 4 are lower than can be measured in certified test 5 cells. 6 For those of you who have seen our 7 school bus in the front of the building, you can 8 attest that there is no smoke and there is no diesel 9 odor associated with this vehicle. 10 Navistar is a major North American 11 manufacturer of medium and heavy trucks and buses 12 marketed under the International name. Navistar is 13 also the world's largest manufacturer of mid-range 14 diesel engines. We supply these engines both to 15 other Navistar divisions as well as to Ford. 16 Although we've made major strides in 17 emissions performance, Navistar expects to achieve 18 dramatic additional improvements by continuing to 19 invest in advanced emissions control systems. As 20 these new technologies come to fruition, light-duty 21 diesels should be able to meet extremely stringent 22 emission reduction goals. Thus, provided we have 23 realistic phase-in dates and assuming we have clean 24 diesel fuel available, Navistar believes light-duty 25 diesel has the potential of meeting EPA's 00392 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 challenging Tier 2 targets. 3 As we approach Model Year 2004, 4 reductions in engine-out emissions of NOx and 5 particulates will be obtained through the 6 introduction of completely technologically advanced 7 engines. 8 After these advanced engine technologies 9 are implemented, further reductions in NOx and 10 particulates in the 2004 time frame will require new 11 aftertreatment technology. Several options are 12 under consideration including advanced oxidation 13 catalyst and passive particulate traps to production 14 particulates and de-NOx catalyst and NOx absorbers 15 to reduce NOx. Evaluating and then selecting the 16 best technologies will require major R & D effort by 17 Navistar and vendors of aftertreatment devices. 18 Once he have identified viable aftertreatment 19 methods, additional time and investment will be 20 needed to mature these technologies to the point 21 where they perform efficiently under on-road 22 conditions. Although the aftertreatment option we 23 are considering are currently developing 24 technologies, our goal is to make these technologies 25 available in Model Year 2004 through 2007. This 00393 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 assumes the availability of ultra low sulfur fuels 3 so that the effectiveness of the aftertreatment is 4 not compromised by sulfur contamination. 5 While this rulemaking does not address 6 vehicles in the over-8500 pound class, the 7 technological breakthroughs spurred by light-duty 8 emission standards could eventually be transferred 9 to the heavy-duty engine line. Navistar has a long 10 history of leveraging common technologies across 11 product lines from pickup trucks to Class 8 trucks. 12 For example, Navistar's HEUI fuel system was 13 originally developed for light heavy-duty engines in 14 order to meet the emissions control, fuel economy, 15 and sociability requirements for this market. 16 Navistar then applied this technology to its larger 17 engines. In a similar manner, we would expect these 18 base engine improvements and aftertreatment 19 technologies developed to meet Tier 2 light-duty 20 market would ultimately be transferred to the 21 heavy-duty diesel engines. This leveraging of 22 emissions control breakthroughs could have 23 substantial environmental benefits by creating the 24 technological foundation for lower emitting 25 heavy-duty diesels. With an expanding presence in 00394 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 the light-duty market as Tier 2 standards take 3 effect, Navistar could justify sizable R & D 4 investment required to support these new emissions 5 control technologies. These will be applicable to 6 all of our engine classes. 7 With tighter controls on nitrogen oxide 8 emissions and particulate matter, Navistar's new 9 generation of light-duty engines will provide an 10 unsurpassed combination of environmental benefits. 11 In comparison with gasoline engines, diesel offers 12 greatly increased fuel economy, substantially 13 reduced carbon dioxide emissions and greater engine 14 durability and significantly lower emissions of 15 hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. 16 These a benefits have been recognized 17 not just by industry, but by government 18 policymakers. The Administration's partnership for 19 a new generation of vehicles has selected 20 compression ignition engines as the leading 21 technology candidate for achieving greatly increased 22 fuel economy without burdening consumers with added 23 cost or reduced convenience. This increase in fuel 24 efficiency will translate into reduced greenhouse 25 gas emissions as well as producing additional 00395 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 benefits like lower carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon 3 emissions. 4 Based on these emissions benefits, 5 countries in the European Union are encouraging 6 rapid dieselization of the light-duty fleet in order 7 to achieve the EU's goal of 25 percent reduction in 8 mobile source CO2 emissions by 2008. If the United 9 States were to adopt policies which discourage 10 conversion of light-duty vehicles to diesel 11 technology, our near-term ability to address global 12 warming could be seriously compromised. Despite the 13 long-time promise of fuel cells and other 14 cutting-edge innovations, most knowledgeable experts 15 agree that their commercialization will not be 16 feasible for many years and that diesel is the only 17 high-efficiency engine technology that is 18 economically viable for widespread use in the near 19 future. 20 There is one caveat for our ability to 21 make dramatic strides in reducing NOx and 22 particulate emissions. We must have assurance that 23 ultra-clean diesel fuel, with sulfur levels at or 24 below 5 parts per million, is available for 25 light-duty vehicles by 2004. All of our R & D work 00396 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 on rests on the premise that low sulfur fuel is a 3 critical technology enabler, without which we cannot 4 achieve the levels of NOx and PM control called for 5 by the Tier 2 proposal. Based on our discussion 6 with our suppliers and our review of data, we're 7 convinced that effective aftertreatment will depend 8 on reduction of fuel sulfur levels to 5 parts per 9 million or below. Higher sulfur levels in diesel 10 fuel will interfere with aftertreatment by causing 11 catalyst poisoning and the generation of sulfate 12 particulates within the aftertreatment systems. 13 As we will explain in our comments on 14 EPA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking on 15 diesel fuels, we favor the phased approach EPA is 16 developing for introduction of low low-sulfur diesel 17 fuel. Under this approach, the EPA's initial 18 priority would be to making slow-sulfur fuel 19 available at the 5 parts per million level by 2004 20 for light-duty trucks. 21 While there are implementation issues 22 that would need to be resolved under this approach, 23 it would efficiently meet the needs of the small and 24 targeted light-duty diesel market covered by Tier 2 25 requirements while permitting the industry to gain 00397 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 experience on aftertreatment technology and develop 3 refining infrastructure necessary to support the 4 broader desulfurization requirements. 5 Again, I want to stress our ability to 6 meet Tier 2 emissions targets is conditioned on the 7 timely availability of clean fuel. If the EPA has 8 not mandated low sulfur diesel fuel when it 9 finalizes the Tier 2 rule, that rule would need to 10 provide alternate NOx and PM limits for diesel 11 engines that could be feasible using current grades 12 of diesel fuel. 13 There is one aspect of the proposed rule 14 which is of great concern to our industry. We see 15 no reason why the EPA should establish a more 16 stringent 50,000 mile standard for diesel vehicles 17 given their durability and consistency of their 18 emission profile over time. The 50K standards in 19 EPA's proposal is simply infeasible for diesel 20 engines and should either be eliminated or adjusted 21 so they are identical to the 120,000 mile standards. 22 Because of the aggressive targets we 23 will face under Tier 2, we strongly agree with the 24 EPA that a technology review in 2004 should be 25 conducted to assess the feasibility of its HDLT NOx 00398 1 Leonard Kata - Volkswagen 2 and particulate limits in Model Year 2007 and 3 beyond. This review would provide the necessary 4 opportunity to evaluate the maturation of the 5 aftertreatment technologies as well as the 6 effectiveness of cleaner fuel in controlling NOx and 7 PM. 8 In summary, ultra low fuel sulfur is 9 mandatory for Tier 2 compliance. Technologies that 10 are developed for light-duty diesels are 11 transferable to heavy-duty diesels. The Tier 2 rule 12 will not be feasible without the elimination of the 13 intermediate 50,000 mile standards, and a technology 14 review will be essential to assess the feasibility 15 of the post 2006 standards. 16 And lastly, we can demonstrate several 17 of these points at our demonstration school bus 18 parked outside if anyone would like to see it. 19 Thank you. I hope Navistar's comments 20 will be helpful to the EPA. And I would be happy to 21 answer any questions. 22 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Leonard Kata. 23 MR. KATA: Good morning. My name is 24 Leonard Kata. I'm the team leader for the Emission 25 Regulations and Certification Group at Volkswagen of 00399 1 Leonard Kata - Volkswagen 2 America. My comments today are presented on behalf 3 of Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Rolls-Royce, and 4 LAMBORGHINI. 5 Volkswagen is a member of the Alliance 6 of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of 7 International Automobile Manufacturers. As such, 8 we support the testimony presented by these 9 associations. In my testimony before you, I intend 10 to limit my comments to a few key issues which merit 11 re-emphasizing and are also of critical importance 12 to Volkswagen. More detailed written comments will 13 be prepared and submitted for the record before the 14 close of the comment period. 15 First, vehicle emissions and fuel 16 specifications must be regulated as a package. The 17 Tier 2 requirements will necessitate the control of 18 exhaust emissions to extremely low levels. Without 19 the availability of low sulfur fuel, the emission 20 reduction benefits of the emissions control systems 21 necessary to meet the Tier 2 standards will not be 22 realized. Further, near-zero sulfur fuel is 23 essential to enabling new emission control 24 technology. 25 In this rulemaking process, EPA has 00400 1 Leonard Kata - Volkswagen 2 separated the gasoline and diesel fuel 3 specifications issues. I would like to emphasize 4 that both issues are equally important and merit 5 your consideration, especially considering that the 6 proposed emission standards are fuel-neutral. Just 7 as low sulfur gasoline is essential for compliance 8 with the Tier 2 emission requirements, clean diesel 9 fuel is equally essential. While it would result in 10 an immediate reduction in the emissions of current 11 diesel vehicles, low sulfur clean diesel fuel is an 12 enabler for further NOx and particulate control. 13 Lean burn catalyst technology being 14 developed for compression ignition engines can be 15 inhibited by even modest amounts of sulfur. 16 Therefore, to fully realize the emission control 17 potential to produce clean diesel engines, near-zero 18 or 5 ppm sulfur diesel fuel is required. Volkswagen 19 has some experience with very low sulfur fuels, less 20 than 10 ppm, such as the fuel marketed in Sweden and 21 England, and the emission reduction results are 22 significant. These results were reported in an SAE 23 paper presented earlier this year. 24 The Tier 2 emissions standards should 25 not preclude the availability of particular engine 00401 1 Leonard Kata - Volkswagen 2 technologies. As proposed by EPA, the bin structure 3 and stringent NOx fleet average will impose 4 limitations on vehicle manufacturers. The least 5 stringent bin establishes a 0.2 grams per mile NOx 6 cap, Bin 7. Further, there are only 2 bins above 7 the 0.07 NOx average. These requirements will limit 8 the flexibility, inhibit the further development of 9 current fuel-efficient technologies and inhibit the 10 introduction of advanced fuel-efficient 11 technologies. Additional bins, above Bin 7, are 12 required to address the needs of heavier vehicles 13 with large displacement engines and vehicle powered 14 by lean-burn efficient engines. While limited 15 flexibility may be available during the Tier 2 16 phase-in period, additional Tier 2 bins that 17 continue beyond the phase-in period are needed to 18 encourage the ongoing development of current and 19 advanced lean-burn technology. 20 There are environmental benefits 21 associated with direct injection lean-burn 22 technologies. These technologies offer the best 23 opportunity to reduce fuel consumption in the near 24 future. In the case of diesel direct injection, the 25 advantages also include inherently low NMOG, CO, 00402 1 Leonard Kata - Volkswagen 2 cold-start, evaporative, and refueling emissions. 3 However, these lean-burn technologies present 4 difficult emission control challenges. Today's 5 emissions control technology cannot achieve the 6 level of NOx control needed to meet the very tight 7 standards in these applications. 8 As presented in the Alliance of 9 Automobile Manufacturers' proposal, EPA could 10 enhance Tier 2 flexibility by expanding the 11 certification bins, without incurring any loss of 12 Tier 2 stringency. This effort would be effective 13 in encouraging the further development and 14 introduction of advanced technology vehicles. 15 Finally, the action would come at no air quality 16 risk since manufacturers would still be required to 17 meet a NOx fleet average requirement. 18 In summary, the EPA rules should not 19 have the unintended consequence of restricting 20 vehicle design or precluding the use of vehicle 21 technologies in the market, particularly advanced 22 fuel-efficient technologies. Volkswagen recommends 23 that EPA should include certification bins that 24 allow individual vehicles to meet NOx levels of up 25 to 0.6 gram per mile, at least through 2007 model 00403 1 Nancy Lavin - Philly Walks 2 year and 0.4 grams per mile thereafter. 3 In conclusion, Volkswagen encourages the 4 Agency to continue to pursue the control of sulfur 5 in fuel, both gasoline and diesel, as an integral 6 part of the Tier 2 rulemaking process. 7 In addition, Volkswagen recommends that 8 the EPA Tier 2 rule provide the needed flexibility 9 to ensure the continued development of vehicle 10 designs and emissions control technology. This 11 flexibility would come in the form of vehicle 12 emissions standards, fleet average compliance 13 requirements, and a phase-in time line that does not 14 inhibit the continued availability or further 15 development of advanced technology. 16 This concludes my prepared remarks. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Nancy Lavin. 18 Good morning. 19 MS. LAVIN: Good morning. Thank you for 20 your invitation to hear me. I am the Chair of 21 Philly Walks in Philadelphia, the only Philadelphia 22 organization who devoted solely to pedestrian 23 advocacy. We are affiliated with the Philadelphia 24 Clean Air Council. I have asthma, and I suppose you 25 can hear it in my voice and I hope you can hear me. 00404 1 Nancy Lavin - Philly Walks 2 If not, let me know. It developed after I moved to 3 the city. 4 Now, we know that walking distances is a 5 healthy and desired activity, but not where the air 6 is unhealthy. I can no longer walk long distances. 7 Just one example, school and tour buses 8 and delivery trucks wait curbside for extended 9 periods of time outside our cultural and 10 entertainment institutions with their motors 11 running. What we need is help from you. We need 12 your assessments, your recommendations, because we 13 need regulations in place in order for enforcement 14 to occur against this activity. 15 During trips to quiet suburban areas, I 16 experience very few breathing problems, even during 17 the high allergy season, which is now. Therefore, I 18 can only conclude in an empirical sort of way that 19 breathing difficulties can be exacerbated by Mother 20 Nature, but breathing problems definitely occur in 21 the presence of man-made pollutants such as vehicle 22 exhaust. 23 As you may know, asthmatics require 24 rigorous treatment and expensive medication. I did 25 have a very good quality of life at one time. Now 00405 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 I'd like it back; we all would. 3 I wanted to refer you just briefly to an 4 article that appeared in this morning's New York 5 Times and it talks about children in crisis. It 6 refers to the fact that 38 percent of the 8,000 7 homeless children in New York City have been 8 definitely diagnosed with asthma. Again, I think we 9 can conclude that that is because they are not in a 10 suburb, they are not quietly at home often, they are 11 outside, and that is taking a toll. 12 Well, thank you very much for hearing 13 me. I appreciate it. 14 MS. OGE: Thank you. Thank you for 15 taking the time to share your views with us. 16 Mr. Strassburger. 17 MR. STRASSBURGER: Good morning. My 18 name is Ronald Strassburger. I'm corporate manger 19 of technical affairs at Nissan North America. This 20 morning I'd like to focus my comments on the 21 mid-term review posed by the Alliance of Automobile 22 Manufacturers. But first, let me just say, number 23 one, Nissan is a member of the Alliance as well as 24 AIM. We were involved in preparing the testimony, 25 and we fully support the testimony given by those 00406 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 two associations. Also, Nissan supports the goals 3 laid out by EPA for this rulemaking, and we're very 4 pleased that EPA has recognized the linkage between 5 vehicle and fuels and the fact that they work as a 6 system and that they have proposed and integrated 7 rules, and we feel important that the final rule 8 also be integrated with it. 9 Let me turn to the mid-term review. The 10 Alliance has proposed a two-step phase-down to a 11 common 0.07 NOx fleet average requirement for all 12 vehicles 0 to 8500 pounds. This is similar to the 13 proposal that EPA has made with one distinction, and 14 that is, EPA has proposed a single set of 15 phase-downs for vehicles under 6. We do agree that 16 this is a historic rulemaking, not only in the 17 levels of standards that are proposed here, but 18 because we are at a point in time when there is a 19 revolution of sorts brewing in the types of 20 powertrains that may power our vehicles in the 21 future. 22 The industry is working towards 23 perfecting advanced fuel efficient technologies such 24 as gasoline direct injection engines, hybrid 25 electric vehicles and fuel. The automotive industry 00407 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 is committed to continuing development of these new 3 technologies but, however, with any research, there 4 are no guarantees. EPA determinations with regard 5 to feasibility, cost, energy impacts and the cost 6 impact on competition will rely on some degree on 7 the Agency's ability to make educated guesses about 8 what will happen in the future. And the most 9 reasonable way to minimize this uncertainty is to 10 conduct a mid-term review. 11 Therefore, the Alliance is calling for 12 that EPA should require, via this rulemaking, an 13 independent third-party review of its standards, and 14 that this review should be commenced in 2004 with 15 the purpose of assuring based on accurate and 16 up-to-date information that the post-2007 standards 17 that the Alliance or the EPA has called out continue 18 to meet statutory requirements. Such pre-planning 19 would ensure the fairness and workability of a Tier 20 2 rule and would help to avoid a costly and 21 time-consuming judicial review process on the issue 22 of feasibility. 23 Yesterday we heard -- I think I heard, 24 anyway, some threats that they there might be 25 litigation. That's not unthinkable that that would 00408 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 occur. I think the mid-term review would actually 3 strengthen EPA's hands in that regard in defending a 4 mid-term review. An important thing about a 5 mid-term review is that it allows manufactures to 6 build on the healthy down payment that they have 7 made via the NLEV program and make additional 8 reductions, capture additional reductions under the 9 Tier 2 program while we continue to work toward 10 advanced technology vehicles. 11 Therefore, we are calling for a panel of 12 experts with expertise in automotive engineering, 13 environmental engineering, and economics to be 14 brought together and selected through a joint 15 government industry process, again, beginning in 16 2004. 17 We believe the mid-term study should 18 examine the availability of technology including 19 costs for meeting for the exhaust emissions 20 standards for Model Year 1998 and later model year 21 vehicles for all vehicles 0 to 8500 pounds. And in 22 examining the availability and cost technology to 23 meet the standards in the facing schedules proposed, 24 the study should address such things as reliability, 25 whether reasonable, reliable technologies will be 00409 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 available in the time frames required by the rule. 3 It should address the availability of precious 4 metals. Yesterday we heard Honda testify about 5 their concern about the availability of precious 6 metals, and that is actually an industry concern. 7 The study should also look at the cost 8 of emission control technologies. For this purpose, 9 we would be recommending through our written comment 10 that reasonable cost effectiveness metric to be used 11 during the study. 12 The study should also consider the 13 capability of use in lean-burn and fuel-efficient 14 engines. The panel should consider whether 15 technology satisfying the emissions criteria will be 16 capable of being used in vehicles powered by 17 lean-burn and fuel-efficient internal combustion 18 engines running on the fuels mandated for nationwide 19 sales by January 2, 2007, and thereafter. 20 The study should also look at consumer 21 welfare effects the Tier 2 proposal will have, the 22 possibility of imposing standards that could force 23 certain vehicles out of the market, the vehicles 24 that consumers want and need. It should also look 25 at the employment impact. And finally, it should 00410 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 also look at other federal policy considerations, 3 such as fuel economy and other auto safety 4 regulations that may come into effect in the time 5 period proposed. 6 The EPA should use this mid-term review 7 to determine whether mid-course corrections to the 8 standards proposed in the out years is necessary and 9 that it determines -- and this is an important 10 point, this is a EPA determination. If EPA 11 determines that the technology likely to be 12 available in the time frame 2008 to 2011 fails to 13 satisfy any of the criteria set forth and agreed 14 upon by the panel, then the standards applicable in 15 Model Year 2007 should continue until such time as 16 EPA revises the schedule. 17 And I want to emphasize here that we are 18 not proposing triggered standards. The concept here 19 is patterned after the concept followed in 20 California when they have set technology enforcing 21 standards, that is, the concept of biannual review; 22 or perhaps more accurately, the model that they used 23 when they formed the battery technology assessment 24 panel to review the zero emissions vehicle mandate; 25 again, a panel of experts. 00411 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 The standards are put in place. This is 3 what we work an engineer to and they are only 4 changed after EPA has determined that they need to 5 be changed. 6 MS. OGE: How are we doing, Joe, with 7 time? You're the time-keeper. 8 MR. GUY: Just about one minute. 9 MR. STRASSBURGER: I also want to 10 emphasis that this is not an attempt to derail 11 Tier 2. This is an attempt to move forward in the 12 face of uncertainty to allow the industry to take on 13 increased risk and capture additional gain, 14 emissions reduction gain. I would note that the 15 Clean Air Act, it's the very process that we're 16 involved in began with a study. And in that study 17 there was a set of default standards that were 18 suggested. And in actual fact, the standards 19 proposed are significantly more stringent than the 20 default standards. Thank you. 21 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Strassburger, 22 the only comment that I would make is that I did 23 have the opportunity to meet with a number of 24 members of Nissan last Tuesday, and I would strongly 25 recommend that for the written testimony, additional 00412 1 Maria Bechis - Sierra Club 2 testimony, that you need consolidate the information 3 that was provided to me on Tuesday and the testimony 4 that you have given us here today so the public can 5 have the full view of Nissan's perspective of this 6 program. 7 MR. STRASSBURGER: We will be submitting 8 written comments and we will also be commenting 9 through the Alliance and we expect to make several 10 recommendations in this area, in terms of structure, 11 evaluation metrics, et cetera. 12 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Maria Bechis. 13 MS. BECHIS: Good morning. My name is 14 Maria Bechis. I am Vice Chair of Bucks County Group 15 of the Sierra Club. I am here not only as a 16 representative of an environmental advocacy 17 organization, but because I have witnessed firsthand 18 the debilitating impact of asthma on children and 19 adults. My nine-year-old daughter and 47-year-old 20 husband have asthma. My daughter took time off from 21 school yesterday morning to attend a press 22 conference in front of this EPA building. My 23 daughter and husband have difficulty breathing and 24 breathe painfully on bad ozone days in the summer. 25 My daughter did not undergo necessary surgery in 00413 1 Maria Bechis - Sierra Club 2 1997 because of her wheezing. 3 Death rates for asthmatic children, 4 rising 6 percent a year, have doubled between 1980 5 and 1993. Nearly 5 million children, 7 percent of 6 the population, have asthma. The medical treatment 7 for these children cost $6.2 billion a year. These 8 children sulfur miserably. They cannot play 9 outdoors in the summer and are dependent on 10 medications and inhalers. The Clean Air Act directs 11 the EPA to set air quality standards at levels that 12 protect public health with an adequate margin of 13 safety. The EPA must base their decisions on the 14 best available science and public health 15 considerations alone and must not consider the cost 16 of implementing such standards. That is the law. 17 To harried parents in hospital emergency rooms, no 18 cost is too high to protect the health and lives of 19 their children. 20 Volatile organic compounds, oxides of 21 nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide are the precursors for 22 ground level ozone, smog, and the particular matter 23 that cause excess mortality, hospital admissions for 24 respiratory diseases, and decreased lung function. 25 Bucks County, where my family resides, 00414 1 Maria Bechis - Sierra Club 2 does not meet air quality standards. We need 3 cleaner air to breathe. We, the Bucks County Group 4 of the Sierra Club, and an Sierra Club as a whole, 5 support Tier 2 standards for nitrogen oxide and 6 sulfur proposed by EPA for vehicle emissions and 7 gasoline which will slash smog-forming pollution. 8 We strongly urge the EPA not to heed the 9 oil industry and auto industry, especially sport 10 utility vehicle manufacturers to extend the time 11 line for implementation of these standards. 12 I brought with me something that little 13 children use with there inhalers. Because little 14 children have difficulty taking in the right dose, 15 they have these gadgets and they carry them around 16 with them in school and they attach their inhaler to 17 these gadgets and they must breathe through this so 18 that they get the appropriate dose of their 19 albuterol or other medications that they use for 20 asthma. And my daughter carries one of these around 21 in the spring and early summer when she is in school 22 because she does have difficulty breathing on bad 23 ozone days. These little gadgets are quite 24 expensive. They're $25 apiece. And she's quite 25 responsible; she hasn't lost hers. But when you 00415 1 Maria Bechis - Sierra Club 2 consider that little children misplace these things, 3 lose these things, damage these things, it can get 4 quite expensive for families. 5 And we'd like you to consider carefully 6 the increased benefits, the decreased number of days 7 children will be losing from school, the number of 8 days my husband loses from going to work. All of 9 this far outweighs the cost required to implement 10 these new standards. And we will respectfully 11 submit the comments to the panel the, EPA panel. 12 And to my comments I have attached a 13 letter that my 9-year-old has written for all of you 14 to see. Thank you for consideration. 15 MS. OGE: Would you like to read the 16 letter? 17 MS. BECHIS: It was a short letter that 18 she brought with her yesterday. And what she says 19 in this letter is: 20 "My name is Meggy Bechis. I am 9 years 21 old and I have asthma. We learned that I had asthma 22 in 1997. I was scheduled to have ear tubes put in 23 my ears, but when I went to Children's Hospital and 24 they listened to my chest. They hear Wheezing so 25 they didn't do my operation. It would be dangerous 00416 1 Maria Bechis - Sierra Club 2 because of the Wheezing. 3 "When there are hot summer days and 4 sometimes even in the winter, I have to use this 5 inhaler. It helps me breathe much better. It's 6 really hard to breathe especially when air is dirty. 7 Sometimes I can't play outside because it's too hard 8 to breathe. 9 "I am here to ask the EPA to stop 10 harmful chemicals from coming out of the tailpipes 11 of cars and trucks." 12 Thank you for your consideration. 13 MS. OGE: Thank you. 14 (Applause.) 15 MS. OGE: I have a question for Mr. 16 Kata. I believe you testified that VW recommends 17 bins of .6 grams per NOx until 2007 and potentially 18 .4 bins beyond 2007; is that accurate? 19 MR. KATA: Yes. 20 MS. OGE: I just want to ask is this 21 recommendation, would you consider this type of 22 recommendation if fuel, the diesel fuel, is clean? 23 Or you are suggesting that you need clean diesel 24 fuel to meet this .6 and .4 upper bin requirements? 25 MR. KATA: We need clean diesel fuel to 00417 1 2 meet the -- the recommendation for the .6 and .4 was 3 basically the endorsing the Alliance proposal. We 4 are a member of the Alliance and have worked with 5 them, and that recommendation was endorsed under the 6 Alliance proposal and would like to have those bins 7 available to allow us to continue development of 8 technology, particularly the area of advanced fuel 9 efficient technology over the period of time until 10 more advanced emission control systems can be 11 developed. 12 MS. OGE: But the .6 and .4 numbers that 13 you have suggested and the Alliance suggested could 14 be met with today's fuel or today's technologies? 15 MR. KATA: In some cases they can. 16 MS. OGE: And then Mr. Charbonneau 17 earlier testified that with cleaner diesel fuel -- 18 his company believes that they can meet the .07 19 grams per NOx standard that EPA has proposed. What 20 is your view on that or your company's view on that? 21 MR. KATA: With respect to the diesel 22 technology that we have been looking at and also 23 testified today the fact that the level compared to 24 California, we've made the comment that we would 25 need 30 ppm to get our light-duty diesels down to a 00418 1 2 level of .3 grams using aftertreatment technology, 3 namely, a de-NOx galleys. So that is about as far 4 we've gone on public record in terms of stating our 5 capabilities with light-duty diesels. 6 MS. OGE: Mr. Kata, let me see if I 7 understood what you said. You have testified that 8 the California Level 2 program that VW could meet -- 9 did you say .03? 10 MR. KATA: I think may have misspoke. 11 0.3. 12 MS. OGE: Okay, that's what I heard. 13 Why don't you correct the record. 14 MR. KATA: 0.3. 15 MS. OGE: O.3 with 30 ppm. 16 MR. KATA: That statement was made in 17 the contents of 30 ppm. 18 MS. OGE: Does your company have any 19 views about going further than .3 with cleaner fuel? 20 MR. KATA: I did allude to an SAE paper 21 where we have done some studies with fuels that are 22 available in Europe and these fuels are below 10 ppm 23 and show promise for both reduced engine emissions 24 and enable the technology using aftertreatment. 25 MS. OGE: Could you elaborate? What is 00419 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 it? Is it farther below .3? 3 MR. KATA: I don't have it. 4 MS. OGE: Along with your verbal 5 testimony, will you provide any additional 6 information about what your company is doing. Thank 7 you. 8 Any other comments. Thank you. 9 I would like to thank Ms. Maria Bechis 10 for coming away from home to meet with us to share 11 your testimony and your daughter's letter. Thank 12 you very much. Thank you all. 13 We will start with our 10:45 panel. We 14 would like John Crnko, Mr. Bruce Bertelsen. 15 Mr. Crnko, we will start with you this 16 morning. 17 MR. CRNKO: My name is John Crnko. I'm 18 with Antek. There's Antek industrial group. I'm 19 with the Antek instruments group. 20 This presentation is not necessarily 21 concerned with when or what levels of sulfur are 22 eventually mandated as the US moves toward cleaner 23 motor fuels. It does put forward the notion that no 24 matter what sulfur levels are targeted, US EPA 25 should designate as its primary method the most 00420 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 economical and capable ASTM test method. 3 In their proposed Tier 2 regulations, US 4 EPA has stated D2622, WDXRF, be designated as the 5 primary test method for sulfur. For the 6 determination of sulfur fuels in the future and 7 particularly at levels proposed by EPA, D5454, or 8 UVF, has proven to be a superior method to D2622. 9 This presentation will provide evidence that 10 demonstrates why D5453 should be designated as the 11 primary test method for sulfur in fuels. 12 Based on testimony heard so far during 13 these hearing, there can be little doubt that the US 14 marketplace will have lower sulfur fuels in its not 15 too distant future. Regardless how the proposed 16 sulfur levels and effective dates pan-out the 17 petroleum community will need its most accurate and 18 flexible tools. 19 If a gasoline sulfur program that is 20 similar to the current proposed EPA Tier 2 21 regulations is enacted, the oil industry will soon 22 be routinely analyzing motor fuels for very low 23 sulfur levels. Should the Averaging, Banking and 24 Trading or ABT provisions be enacted, refiners and 25 blenders will need to measure ever lower sulfur 00421 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 levels as they seek to earn maximum ABT sulfur 3 credits. 4 Obviously both regulations in industry 5 must consider the impact of producing low sulfur 6 fuels. 7 In September 1992, the California Air 8 Resources Board, or CARB, adopted regulations 9 requiring reformulation of California gasoline. The 10 CARB regulations established a comprehensive set as 11 of gasoline specifications designed to achieve 12 reductions in emissions of VOCs, NOx, carbon 13 monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and toxic air pollutants 14 from gasoline-fueled vehicles. The CARB regulations 15 also set standards for eight gasoline parameters: 16 Sulfur, benzene, olefins, aromatic hydrocarbons, 17 oxygen, Reid vapor pressure, and distillation 18 temperatures for the 50 percent and 90 percent 19 evaporation points. 20 During blending operations, the 21 specifications for benzene, olefins, Reid Vapor 22 pressure, et cetera, are sometimes met well before 23 the sulfur level reaches 30 parts per million. 24 Therefore, many current producers of gasoline for 25 California consumption routinely must measure 00422 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 gasoline with sulfur concentration at less than 15 3 parts per million. 4 US EPA is correct to seek comment as to 5 if ASTM D5453, sulfur by UVF, should be designated 6 as the primary sulfur test method. Currently D2622, 7 sulfur by WDXRF, has been designated as the only EPA 8 approved sulfur test method. However, the EPA has 9 recognized that in certain situations D2622 has 10 limitations. For instance, where 30 ppm to 80 cap, 11 low sulfur fuels must be produced, the EPA agreed to 12 recognize test methods allowed by the California 13 EPA. 14 As we know, in the mid-1990s gasoline 15 produced for California consumption was required to 16 meet 30 ppm average to 80 ppm cap sulfur 17 specifications. This prompted a group of refiners, 18 Western States Petroleum Association, or WSPA, to 19 petition the California Air Resources Board, CARB, 20 for more flexible and economic sulfur test methods. 21 What WSPA and CARB needed was an 22 economical test method that could measure very low 23 levels of sulfur while giving the same or equivalent 24 results as found when D2622 was used for the 25 analysis of higher sulfur levels. Various 00423 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 laboratory studies and cooperative multi-laboratory 3 testing revealed D5453 was such a sulfur test 4 method. The displayed California laws resulted. 5 Further evidence that the California law 6 was analytically sound is readily available. Under 7 ASTM leadership, an independently-run sample 8 cross-check testing program, allows individual 9 laboratories to participate in an ongoing sulfur 10 analysis comparison called Round Robin. 11 Data for samples containing less than 10 12 ppm sulfur has been collected from this ASTM 13 cross-check program. This data comes from about a 14 three-year time period ending around December '98. 15 This data was compiled by Southwest Research 16 Institute, or SWRI, and clearly illustrates that 17 D2622 has much higher relative standard deviation, 18 or RSD, with samples that contain less than 10 ppm 19 sulfur. 20 A convenient term to describe the 21 message delivered by this data is the term 22 "reproducibility." ASTM uses reproducibility to 23 express the degree of agreement that a group of 24 separate laboratories demonstrate when they analyze 25 the same sample using the same test method. The 00424 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 high D2622 RSD numbers indicate that different 3 laboratories would have trouble getting the same 4 answer. 5 Another critical analytical range lies 6 between 10 and 30 ppm. In this range, D2622 7 continues to have difficulty with sulfur levels less 8 than 15 ppm, as evidenced by the much higher RSD. 9 Note that around 30 ppm , D2622 can have an improved 10 reproducibility, but D5453 still have one-half the 11 variation exhibited by D2622. 12 These 10 to 30 milligram samples are 13 also from ASTM laboratory cross-check program. They 14 include reformulated gas. That's RFG that you see 15 up there. This table summarizes data generated 16 within the ASTM cross-check program between June of 17 '96 and approximately December 1998. 18 It should be emphasized here that all 19 this data being presented here today has been 20 independently produced and gathered. It's not 21 cooked up the Antek's Laboratories; it represents 22 work does by dozens of different laboratories and 23 often on a world-wide basis. 24 The superior performance of D5453 can be 25 illustrated. Here, the D5453 data from the previous 00425 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 two slides is graphed. You'll see X exist on the 3 horizontal, concentration milligrams per kilogram. 4 On Y axis is the standard deviation number. 5 This graph illustrates that D5453 is 6 capable of very good accuracy and between lab 7 reproducibility levels less than 30 ppm and is 8 particularly capable of accurate precise results 9 when sulfur levels get below 15 ppm. 10 Here D2622 performance for the same 11 samples are graphed. When compared to the previous 12 slide, D2622 reproducibility is clearly less than 13 that demonstrated by D5453. Again, the X axis is 14 concentration. Y axis is standard deviation. 15 D2622 should be designated as the 16 alternate test method because its results can be 17 unreliable at lower sulfur concentrations. D2622 18 has a proven record for determination of higher 19 level sulfur concentrations. 20 D5453 also has the analytical range to 21 provide equivalent sulfur results in higher 22 concentration fuels. Here is a collection of all 23 fuel samples analyzed by both D5453 and D2622 for 24 sulfur levels less than 500 parts per million, 25 again, from the ASTM laboratory cross-check program. 00426 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 It includes reformulated gasoline, motor 3 gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. This table 4 summarizes data generated within the ASTM 5 cross-check program between June 1996 and 6 approximately December 1998. 7 MS. OGE: Excuse me, Mr. Crnko. Your 8 time is almost up. 9 MR. CRNKO: This data confirms and 10 reinforces the conclusions of the WSPA and 11 California EPA regarding the equivalency of D2622 12 and D5453 for higher sulfur concentration samples. 13 D5453 provides superior sulfur test 14 results at lower sulfur levels and equivalent 15 measurements at higher sulfur concentration levels. 16 Allowing the use of D5453 could enable significant 17 capital savings for the fuel-producing community, 18 while giving them a better measurement tool as 19 sulfur concentrations continue to drop. 20 The D5453 test method has already been 21 approved by other regulating agencies and has proven 22 its worth time and time again in daily low sulfur 23 fuel production as well as in general use on a 24 worldwide basis. 25 D5453 should be designated as the 00427 1 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA 2 primary sulfur test method. D2622 and possibly 3 other ASTM test methodologies should be designated 4 as the alternate test methods. 5 MS. OGE: Mr. Crnko, please submit your 6 statement for the record. 7 Mr. Bertelsen. 8 MR. BERTELSEN: Good morning. My name 9 is Bruce Bertelsen. I'm the Executive Director of 10 the Manufactures of Emission Control Association. 11 MECA is pleased to present testimony in 12 support of the EPA's proposed Tier 2 standards and 13 limits on the sulfur levels in gasoline. We believe 14 an important opportunity exists to significantly 15 further reduce emissions from passenger cars and 16 light-duty trucks by utilizing a systems approach 17 which combines advanced engine designs, advanced 18 catalyst technology, and low sulfur fuel. EPA's 19 regulatory initiative recognizes the importance of 20 promoting this systems-type approach and the 21 Agency's proposal constitutes a carefully crafted 22 and balanced program that, it finalized, will result 23 in substantial cost-effective emission reductions 24 over the next several decades. 25 MECA is a non-profit association made up 00428 1 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA 2 of the world's leading manufacturers of motor 3 vehicle emission controls. Our members include 4 companies with over 25 years of experience and a 5 proven track record in developing and 6 commercializing exhaust control technology. 7 Today I'd like to briefly summarize 8 MECA's position on EPA's proposed initiative. MECA 9 plans to submit more detailed written comments. 10 We believe the EPA standards for 11 vehicles greater than 8500 pounds are 12 technologically feasible. The proposed standards 13 pose engineering challenges, but a clear 14 technological pathway to meeting those standards 15 exists and we're confident the engineering 16 challenges can and will be met. The Tier 2 17 standards likely will be met by combining advanced 18 catalyst technology already available, and being 19 further optimized with advanced engine designs and 20 fuel preparation/delivery systems that are already 21 beginning to be utilized on an increasing number of 22 light-duty vehicles. Engineering efforts between 23 now and when the standards take effect will focus on 24 optimizing control systems to match particular he 25 emission reduction needs of the particular vehicle 00429 1 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA 2 involved. 3 EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis 4 thoroughly documents the technical basis and 5 evidence for concluding that Tier 2 standards are 6 technologically feasible. Over the past several 7 years, MECA has appreciated the opportunity to work 8 with the EPA to help demonstrate the role advanced 9 catalyst technology can play as part of a complete 10 emission control system to meet very low emission 11 levels. 12 MECA recently completed a test program 13 which provides further illustration of the types of 14 low emission levels that are achievable. In the 15 program, four vehicles certified to meet federal 16 Tier 1 standards were equipped with advanced 17 catalyst technology. These vehicles evaluated 18 included two passenger cars and two pick-up trucks, 19 one an LDT2 and an LDT3. The control systems were 20 optimized, including modifications to the engine 21 controls and were emissions tested. The tests 22 included evaluations after the catalysts were aged 23 using a recognized aging cycle to simulate high 24 milage accumulation. To give you a frame of 25 reference, all four of the vehicles had emissions 00430 1 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA 2 levels after being aged below the Tier 2 120,000 3 mile Bin No. 4 standards. A report summarizing the 4 results of this test program has been provided to 5 the EPA and we will include it together with our 6 written comments. 7 The application of the types of advanced 8 engine and catalyst technologies used in passenger 9 cars and some light, light-duty trucks can be 10 applied to heavy, light-duty trucks. 11 Engine/emission optimizations have not been fully 12 explored for this categories of vehicles compared to 13 the technologies already beginning to be appearing 14 on passenger cars. Also, the thermal durability of 15 three-way catalysts historically was seen by some as 16 a limiting factor because of the heavier operating 17 loads of vehicles designed and used for commercial 18 applications generate higher exhaust temperatures. 19 The thermal durability of three-way catalysts, 20 however, has greatly increased in the past five 21 years from 900 degrees Celsius to 1100 degrees 22 Celsius. Thus, the higher temperatures that might 23 be experienced with these categories of vehicles are 24 not a barrier to applying the same type of advanced 25 catalyst technologies used on passenger cars. 00431 1 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA 2 Reducing emissions to meet the Tier 2 3 standards is without question the greatest 4 engineering challenge posed by the Tier 2 proposal. 5 We believe substantial emission reductions from 6 light-duty diesel-powered vehicles are possible by, 7 again, combining advanced diesel engines with 8 advanced exhaust emissions. Our member companies 9 are continuing their efforts to optimize a variety 10 of exhaust controls to reduce PM and NOx emissions, 11 including oxidation catalysts, PM filters, and lean 12 NOx controls. The current level of sulfur in diesel 13 fuel is a barrier to the introduction of some of 14 these promising technologies, including lean NOx 15 catalysts, NOx absorbers, and certain particulate 16 filter designs. Consequently, we support reducing 17 the sulfur level in diesel fuel, and we will submit 18 comments in response to EPA's federal register 19 request for information on this issue. 20 We support EPA's proposed measures 21 designed to provide vehicle manufacturers 22 considerable flexibility in meeting the requirements 23 of the Tier 2 program. Phasing in the Tier 2 24 standards over several years, utilizing a corporate 25 average NOx approach, allowing manufacturers to 00432 1 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA 2 select from different bins to meet their compliance 3 obligations, providing intermediate in-use 4 compliance standards for the first two years, and 5 other similar measures will help enable the vehicle 6 manufacturers to meet the challenges of the proposed 7 Tier 2 program in the most effective and less 8 disruptive manner. 9 With regard to gasoline sulfur limits, 10 MECA supports EPA's proposal as it relates to the 11 levels of sulfur in gasoline. Reducing the levels 12 of current levels of sulfur in gasoline is 13 absolutely critical to maximizing the emissions 14 reduction benefits of EPA proposed Tier 2 program. 15 As EPA has documented in its regulatory 16 support documents, sulfur in gasoline inhibits the 17 emission control performance of catalyst technology. 18 Sulfur is an inhibitor which strongly competes with 19 the exhaust pollutants for space on the active 20 catalyst surface. Also, it is well known that 21 sulfur can penetrate into the catalyst surface and, 22 upon extended exposure to sulfur, can cause 23 irreversible damage to the catalyst. 24 A series of studies by the auto 25 manufacturers and the Coordinating Research Council 00433 1 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA 2 confirm the negative impacts on vehicles designed to 3 meet the LEV and ULEV standards with sulfur in fuel. 4 While some improved sulfur tolerance of catalyst 5 technology has been achieved, a completely sulfur 6 tolerant catalyst is not available, nor do we expect 7 that such a catalyst will be developed. On the 8 issue of reversibility, a recent CRC study showed 9 that the effects of sulfur are not always fully 10 reversible. In addition, that data generated by one 11 of our members further confirms that when catalysts 12 are aged on high-sulfur fuel, the prospects are not 13 good for complete regeneration of the catalyst even 14 when the vehicle subsequently operated on fuel with 15 low sulfur levels. 16 Finally, we believe the prospects for 17 catalyst regeneration will continue to diminish due 18 to the elimination of the wide air/fuel ratio 19 excursions as control systems are improved to meet 20 increasingly tighter standards that go beyond LEV 21 and ULEV standards and to comply with EPA's new 22 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure. 23 We also believe that EPA should consider 24 the benefits of further reductions in sulfur beyond 25 the levels currently proposed in light of the 00434 1 Laura Kriv - 20/20 Vision 2 emerging technologies such as lean NOx catalyst and 3 NOx absorber technologies which likely will be used 4 on direct injection engines. If very low sulfur 5 gasoline was available, it would increase the 6 options available to the auto manufacturer to offer 7 very fuel efficient vehicles meeting Tier 2 8 standards. 9 In conclusion, while we recognize that 10 the proposed Tier 2 standards and sulfur limits 11 presents new challenges, we also believe those 12 challenges can and will be met. We are optimistic 13 that the end result of the considerable efforts that 14 will be needed to meet EPA's proposed program will 15 be a wide choice for the consumer of high 16 performance, high quality, fuel efficient, and clean 17 vehicles that achieve Tier 2 standards. Our 18 industry is committed to do our part to ensure that 19 if the Tier 2 program is adopted, the desire 20 emissions reductions will be achieved. 21 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mrs. Laura Kriv. 22 MS. KRIV: Good morning. My name is 23 Laura Kriv. I'm Legislative Director of 20/20 24 Vision. 20/20 Vision is a grassroots group and is 25 based in Washington, D.C. On behalf of our over 00435 1 Laura Kriv - 20/20 Vision 2 10,000 members nationwide and our 1,000 members in 3 Pennsylvania, I'm pleased to support EPA Tier 2 4 standards. 20/20 Vision would like applaud EPA for 5 your commitment to protecting the public health and 6 the health of our environment and for taking the 7 steps needed to make sure the next generation of 8 vehicles on the road are clean. With over 20,000 9 vehicles registered in the US traveling over 2 10 trillion miles annually, auto pollution is one of 11 the main sources of air pollution. As vehicle use 12 escalated and populations are on the rise, more 13 people than ever before are suffering health impacts 14 because of air pollution. As you know, children, 15 the elderly, and those with respiratory illnesses 16 are most at risk. While we may not be able to 17 significantly reduce the number of cars on the road, 18 the EPA Tier 2 proposal will help strengthen auto 19 emissions standards for cleaner cars and cleaner 20 air. 21 Specifically, our members support the 22 following key elements in the Tier 2 proposal: 23 Requiring new cars and light trucks to emit 80 24 percent less, setting the same tough standards for 25 cars, SUVs, and light trucks, and requiring low 00436 1 Laura Kriv - 20/20 Vision 2 sulfur gas to be sold nationwide. 3 It's clear that the American public want 4 consistent standards. A recent pole by the American 5 Lung Association found 91 percent of you believe 6 SUVs and minivans should be required to meet the 7 same standards as cars. Our members were shocked to 8 learn that under the current standards they were 9 allowed to emit more pollution than cars. 10 EPA estimates the Tier 2 proposal 11 combined with low sulfur gasoline will have the 12 equivalent effect of taking 166 million cars off the 13 road when the proposal is fully implemented. 14 However, 20/20 Vision feels that there 15 are improvements that need to be made to strengthen 16 this proposal. There should no special treatment 17 for heavier vehicles. Heavier vehicles are the 18 dirtiest vehicles. Although the fleet average 19 between 6,000 and 8500 pounds are fairly small, it 20 is one of the fastest growing segments of new 21 vehicle sales. 22 The 10-year phase-in schedule for the 23 larger SUVs and minivans should meet the same 24 standards at the same time. 25 There should be no special treatment of 00437 1 Nancy Parks - Sierra Club 2 diesel engine technologies. All of the vehicles, 3 regardless of engine technology, should meet the 4 same tough standards. 5 The phase-in period for low sulfur fuel 6 should be faster. The current proposal to reduce 7 sulfur content in gasoline gives more time to small 8 refiners. Low sulfur gasoline need to be adopted 9 nationally at the same time as new emissions 10 standards. 11 There should also be increased 12 incentives for advanced technology vehicles. The 13 current proposal do not provide incentives for the 14 development of cleaner technologies. 15 I appreciate the opportunity to express 16 our support and to offer ways to improve this 17 program. Tier 2 is a strong proposal. Since this 18 decision will affect our air quality for decades to 19 come, we need the strongest possible standards now 20 that will protect our health, our children's health, 21 and our environment. 22 On behalf of 20/20 Vision and our 23 members and on behalf my one-year-old daughter, I 24 thank you for your leadership in establishing a 25 program that will ensure cleaner air and cleaner 00438 1 Nancy Parks - Sierra Club 2 environment for years to come. Thank you. 3 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Parks. 4 MS. PARKS: Good morning. I thank the 5 EPA for this opportunity to testify in support of 6 the next round of NOx and particulate matter 7 pollution limitations in American vehicles. I am 8 Nancy F. Parks, Chair of the Sierra Club, 9 Pennsylvania Chapter Clean Air Committee. I 10 represent over 19,000 members in Pennsylvania and I 11 also serve on the Sierra Club Clean Air Committee. 12 I want to applaud the EPA's current 13 efforts to make the air safer to breathe for the 14 children and the elderly, and those with chronic 15 respiratory disease in Pennsylvania. And with a 117 16 million Americans living in areas with chronic ozone 17 smog exposure, and as many as one-half of all 18 Pennsylvanians still chronically exposed, and with 19 asthma rates in children rising 75 percent since 20 1980, it is vital that EPA continue to target all 21 large polluting sectors, including motor vehicles. 22 This new round of vehicle emission controls is 23 timely and necessary, with a focus on vehicles as 24 the largest of the non-industrial sources of ozone 25 smog-forming NOx precursors and particulate 00439 1 Nancy Parks - Sierra Club 2 pollution. 3 Pennsylvanians are worried. In the 4 Chesapeake Bay Foundation's 1998 pole, 26 percent of 5 Pennsylvanians thought that the environment in 6 Pennsylvania was getting worse; 56 percent thought 7 the environment had stayed the same, effectively not 8 doing any better; 46 percent of Pennsylvanians 9 thought that their air and their water would be more 10 polluted 20 years from now than it is. 11 The Sierra Club must agree. With the 12 recent decisions of the DC Circuit Court which may 13 have stopped dead, however temporarily, the efforts 14 of EPA to reduce dangerous NOx, ozone smog and PM 15 air pollution from plants, we must wonder what can 16 be the future for reducing air pollution by 17 emissions limits based on human health-based 18 standards. Reductions are absolutely necessary to 19 our children's health here in Pennsylvania. 20 Additionally, in July of 1998 NESCAUM released a 21 report that showed that the financial impact of not 22 implementing NOx controls in the Northeast United 23 States for air pollution transported from power 24 plants elsewhere would likely reach between 1.4 to 25 $3.9 billion in additional costs linked to local 00440 1 Nancy Parks - Sierra Club 2 control measures that must to compensate for no 3 reduction in transported pollution. With the DC 4 Circuit decisions, it has become vital that we 5 attack large inputs of NOx pollution elsewhere, and 6 the Tier 2 NOx controls on passenger vehicles will 7 help to relieve some of the ozone smog precursor 8 nitrogen pollution burden. 9 Already the CBF poll found that 65 10 percent of adult Pennsylvanians believe that 11 Pennsylvania's existing regulations are not strictly 12 enforced. More than half, 56 percent, believe that 13 our state's environmental regulations are already 14 too weak. 15 EPA must use all possible authority that 16 it clearly possesses under the Clean Air Act to 17 decrease the range of air pollutants that are 18 emitted by the wide diversity of polluting sectors. 19 This is another reason why the Sierra Club supports 20 such a well-structured Tier 2 air pollution 21 reduction program. 22 In the CBF poll, 25 percent of 23 Philadelphians specifically felt that in general 24 pollution was the biggest problem in Philadelphia, 25 with a full 21 percent of those contacted thought 00441 1 Nancy Parks - Sierra Club 2 that air pollution was the single more environmental 3 problem facing the State of Pennsylvania today. 4 So here Philadelphians think that air 5 pollution is one of their biggest problems. We 6 couldn't agree more. This city literally stinks of 7 air pollution. It burns your eyes, irritates your 8 lungs, and this city is not going to be truly 9 liveable until soot, smog, toxins, and stink the 10 malodors are removed. EPA must proceed full speed 11 ahead with its vehicle emissions reductions, which 12 it unquestionably has the authority to do. 13 I have recently read EPA's enforcement 14 alert entitled, "Compliance with Permitting Critical 15 to Clean Air Act Goals." EPA has identified an 16 ongoing problem with make the Clean Air Act affected 17 sources, both industrial and non-industrial 18 polluters, comply with existing mandatory 19 requirements. Delays, appeals and litigation are 20 common. But delays in achieving safety for our 21 children through clean are for them to breathe is 22 the result. So you see for this reason, we see more 23 and more reasons EPA must proceed as quickly as 24 possible with each sector's pollution reduction 25 structure schedule, timetable an enforcement. And 00442 1 Nancy Parks - Sierra Club 2 hence, the current focus on passenger vehicles. 3 So what should new controls on dirty 4 vehicles accomplish? There should be no special 5 treatment of heavier vehicles. Close that loophole. 6 All passenger vehicles, including minivans and the 7 ubiquitous sport utility vehicles should all meet 8 the same requirements at the same time, by 2007. 9 The heaviest SUVs should not be given 10 extra time to clean up on a separate schedule. A 11 10-year phase-in schedule for the heaviest SUVs far 12 exceeds any phase-in period ever applied to other 13 passenger vehicles. And the victims of air 14 pollution, once again, will be forced to wait for 15 their relief. 16 Additionally, these overgrown SUVs could 17 become the focus of increased production of 18 automakers, as business attempts to, once again, 19 evade regulatory requirements. 20 There can be no special treatment of 21 diesel engine technologies. Diesel engines emit 22 twice the PM soot and up to 10 times the ozone smog 23 forming NOx, but because these engines are 24 efficient, automakers want to expand use of these 25 engines in SUVs. Because diesel exhaust contains 00443 1 Nancy Parks - Sierra Club 2 toxics and likely contains carcinogens, there should 3 be no incentives created for the use of these 4 engines in SUVs. 5 Current sulfur levels in gasoline will 6 damage the advanced emission control technology 7 systems, catalytic converters, on cleaner passenger 8 vehicles to be sold in 2004. And while the average 9 sulfur content and gasoline at this time is 300 ppm, 10 reducing sulfur content in all gasoline should occur 11 at the same time as the tailpipe emissions limit 12 become stricter. And also, EPA should not provide 13 time for small refiners. Reducing sulfur in 14 gasoline to this level would be analogous to 15 removing 54 million passenger cars off our roads 16 nationally. 17 These new tailpipe standards should 18 encourage and provide incentives for advanced 19 technology vehicles running on alternative fuels and 20 engines systems. And EPA should add incentives for 21 hybrid, electric and fuel cell vehicles. 22 Thank you. And I would welcome the 23 opportunity to comment in more technical detail by 24 your August 2 deadline. 25 MS. OGE: Thank you, Mrs. Parks. Mr. 00444 1 Kevin Scott 2 Kevin Scott, welcome for the second time. Mr. Scott 3 was with us last night with 12 of us here and he 4 wanted to come back and share his views with the 5 rest of you, so please go ahead. 6 MR. SCOTT: Good morning. Thank you for 7 giving me this opportunity to share my views as a 8 citizen and taxpayer. I want to commend the EPA for 9 taking this very significant step toward reducing 10 air pollution. We know that tens of thousands of 11 Americans die prematurely each year as a result of 12 air pollution, while millions more sulfur illness 13 because of it. It's therefore tragic that we'll 14 have to wait years before we see these reductions. 15 These deaths and illnesses are all the more tragic 16 considering that the oil and auto industries could 17 have easily attained these reductions and pollution 18 years age but have thus far chosen not to do so. So 19 unlike those who become ill and die from smoking 20 cigarettes, a choice that they themselves have made, 21 the victims of air pollution suffer as a result of 22 choices made by others. 23 Well, given that people are dying and 24 getting sick from air pollution and given that the 25 oil and auto industries are capable of doing 00445 1 Kevin Scott 2 something about it, the question arises, well, why 3 haven't they already done so? The answer is simple: 4 Money. Unfortunately, these corporations that focus 5 on the bottom line while ignoring their 6 responsibility to the society. 7 The oil and the auto industries have 8 fail to voluntarily make the relatively modest 9 investment necessary to mitigate the harm that their 10 products cause to our health. That's why they must 11 now be required to do what they could have and 12 should have done long ago. But while the 13 industries' lack of initiative in reducing harm from 14 their products is at best irresponsible, their 15 coming here today in an active attempt to derail, 16 delay, and weaken the Tier 2 standards is 17 unconscionable. EPA proposal's is more than 18 generous in giving the industries plenty of time to 19 meet the standards at a minimal cost. What the 20 industry representatives are really saying is that 21 any cost which affects their current record-breaking 22 profits, no matter how slight, is unacceptable to 23 them and that they don't care about our health. I 24 find this level of greed and disregard for human 25 health and safety to be shocking and appalling, not 00446 1 Kevin Scott 2 only on a corporate level, but on an individual 3 level. I think that every single person who's come 4 here today to oppose the Tier 2 standards should be 5 ashamed of themselves. 6 For the record, no one is paying me to 7 be here. I wonder what the industry reps are being 8 paid. I hope it's a lot. I hope they haven't sold 9 out everyone in this country for a pittance. 10 However much money it is, I wonder how they live 11 with themselves. I wonder how they look their 12 neighbors in the eye knowing that they're actively 13 working to endanger those people's health. I wonder 14 how they face their families knowing that if their 15 efforts are successful, they're likely to harm the 16 health of their own children for money. 17 We all breathe the same air. No one has 18 the right to force me to breathe their pollution, 19 not when it's so unnecessary and not just to 20 maintain their profits. 21 Ladies and gentlemen of the EPA, I ask 22 you and everyone at EPA to remember the importance 23 of the mission, to protect human health. Americans 24 want clean air. More to the point, Americans need 25 clean air. I urge the EPA to stand strong against 00447 1 Kevin Scott 2 these disingenuous and amoral efforts of industry 3 and adopt the strongest possible Tier 2 standards. 4 Thank you. 5 (Applause.) 6 MS. OGE: Thank you. Thank you, panel, 7 for taking the time to share your views with us. We 8 appreciate your statements and your comments. I 9 don't have any questions. I don't if my panel 10 members do. 11 MR. PASSAVANT: I have one question. Do 12 you represent a company that markets D5453? 13 MS. OGE: This question is towards Mr. 14 Crnko. 15 MR. CRNKO: We make apparatus that 16 complies to that test method. 17 MR. PASSAVANT: How about 2622? 18 MR. CRNKO: We do not, for that method. 19 MR. PASSAVANT: Will you send a brochure 20 that describes your product when you send in your 21 comment? 22 MR. CRNKO: Yes. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you very much. 24 MS. MARTIN: We'd like to move forward 25 with the panel that was scheduled at 11:30. And the 00448 1 Dominic Varraveto - Black & Veatch 2 first speaker would be Mr. Dominic Varraveto, Mr. 3 Reg Modlin, Brooks Mountcastle, and Mr. George 4 Thurston. We also ask Mr. Peter Homer to join this 5 panel. 6 Mr. Varraveto. 7 MR. VARRAVETO: Good morning, and thank 8 you for the opportunity to testify today. My name 9 is Dominic Varraveto and I am representing Black & 10 Veatch, a global provider of technology, 11 engineering, and construction services to the 12 petroleum refining, gas processing and electric 13 power industries. Black & Veatch is a recognized 14 leader in providing sulfur control and recovery 15 technology to refineries through its process 16 division subsidiary formerly known as the Pritchard 17 Corporation. I am also representing a joint 18 technology effort between Black & Veatch and Alcoa 19 Industrial Chemicals & Adsorbents, a provider of 20 catalysts and catalyst powders to the petroleum 21 refining industry and to suppliers of automotive 22 converter catalysts. 23 Black & Veatch and Alcoa have jointly 24 developed a breakthrough technology for removing 25 sulfur from gasoline. The IRVAD process, as the 00449 1 Dominic Varraveto - Black & Veatch 2 technology is called, uses solid alumina adsorbent 3 to countercurrently contact liquid hydrocarbon in a 4 multistage adsorber. The adsorbent is regenerated 5 continuously using heated reactivation gas. In 6 pilot plant tests, the IRVAD process has reduced the 7 sulfur content of olefinic gasoline low enough to 8 meet blend requirements for 30 ppm sulfur in 9 gasoline as required by the Tier 2 proposal. This 10 low sulfur gasoline can be produced without the 11 octane debit typically associated with hydrotreating 12 processes. In fact, by selectively removing 13 molecular species with a pro-knock or predetonation 14 tendency, the octane rating of the IRVAD adsorber 15 effluent is actually increased. 16 As Black & Veatch and Alcoa move forward 17 with plans for commercialization of IRVAD 18 technology, we have been encouraged by the positive 19 response from the refining industry. However, we do 20 have concerns to bring to your attention today. 21 Specifically, I would like to make a few comments 22 about the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur proposal regarding 23 EPA's analysis of technical feasibility, 24 implementation and cost. 25 First, I would like to point out that as 00450 1 Dominic Varraveto - Black & Veatch 2 an enabler of technology and facilitator of business 3 strategies via engineering and construction project 4 implementation, Black & Veatch has first-hand 5 experience in successfully managing projects for 6 industrial markets. Our project management 7 experience tells us that project success is always 8 constrained by technical requirements, schedule, and 9 cost. It is unrealistic to attempt to 10 simultaneously fix all three of these constraints. 11 I would caution of EPA that in the case of the 12 proposed low sulfur gasoline requirements they may 13 have overspecified the implementation equation. By 14 simultaneously setting rigorous nationwide 15 reductions in gasoline sulfur content, by proposing 16 industry implementation of new technology in a very 17 narrow time frame and by presenting cost projections 18 based on as yet commercially unproven technology, 19 the EPA proposal portrays an unrealistic view for 20 the public of the impact of the proposal. It is 21 possible and highly probable that the refining 22 industry will be able to deliver low sulfur gasoline 23 to the US consumer in the proposed 2004 to 2006 time 24 frame, but it is not as likely that the refining 25 industry will be able to achieve this goal for the 00451 1 Dominic Varraveto - Black & Veatch 2 cost projected by EPA. 3 My second comment regarding the Tier 2 4 low sulfur gasoline proposal is presented from the 5 viewpoint of technology provider. Black & Veatch 6 and Alcoa are concerned about the way EPA has 7 portrayed new and emerging technologies for gasoline 8 sulfur removal. In the proposal, EPA specifically 9 and exclusively references two technologies and 10 makes only vague references to other alternatives. 11 We should urge the EPA to more clearly acknowledge 12 other alternatives, like the IRVAD process. We do 13 not think the EPA should endorse specific 14 technologies for refiners to solve the low sulfur 15 gasoline challenge. We would prefer the refining 16 marketplace make this decision. Refiners should be 17 given adequate time and incentive to evaluate, 18 select and implement the most cost-effective 19 solutions for supplying low sulfur gasoline. 20 Finally, I would like to complete my 21 comments this morning by saying that Black & Veatch 22 and Alcoa stand ready to support the goal of 23 improved air quality by providing technology, 24 engineering, and construction services for the 25 production of low sulfur gasoline to the US refining 00452 1 Reg Modlin - DaimlerChrysler 2 industry. 3 Thank you again for the opportunity to 4 testify today. 5 MS. OGE: Thank you. 6 Mr. Modlin. 7 MR. MODLIN: My name is Reg Modlin, I'm 8 here today to speak on behalf of DaimlerChrysler 9 Corporation on the subject of EPA's proposal to 10 modify vehicle emissions control regulations. 11 DaimlerChrysler is an industry leader 12 when it comes to supporting the development of 13 environmentally sound vehicle technologies. We 14 demonstrated this in March when we introduced the 15 world's first zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell 16 passenger vehicle, and in May when we discussed our 17 research on developing a gasoline fuel cell. We're 18 demonstrating this commitment now by supporting the 19 pursuit of tough emission performance goals. 20 Reducing emissions will help in achieving the 21 nation's clean air goals, and we stand ready to do 22 our part. 23 As a member of the Alliance of 24 Automobile Manufacturers, we contribute to the 25 development of that organization's position and we 00453 1 Reg Modlin - DaimlerChrysler 2 fully support it. Our program was offered in the 3 spirit of the industry's previous voluntary 4 initiative. The proposal was configured to address 5 a few objectives: 6 One, we attempted to match prospective 7 technology needed to meet emissions standards with 8 fuel that will be available to customers when that 9 technology is introduced in the future. 10 Next, we respect that oil industry's 11 claim that time is needed to plan capital 12 investments that would enable the production of 13 cleaner burning gasoline. 14 And in the interim, we wanted to make 15 optimal use of foreseeable technologies as we 16 continue to work towards meeting clear air goals. 17 The Alliance's proposal makes sense 18 because it meets our objectives and soundly beats 19 the projected performance of EPA's proposal. 20 Compared to the EPA's emission reduction goals 21 800,000 tons per year by 2007 and at 1,200,000 tons 22 per year by 2010, the program proposed by the 23 Alliance would achieve about 957,000 and 1,248,000 24 tons per year reductions projected for the same 25 years. A Alliance proposal also continues to 00454 1 Reg Modlin - DaimlerChrysler 2 provide even greater reductions into the future. 3 DaimlerChrysler supports a program in 4 which car and light truck standards for nitrogen 5 oxides eventually converge to a comparable level 6 provided that an independent review in about 2004 7 verifies: That the price of emission reductions is 8 cost-effective and affordable to our customers; and 9 the feasibility of the program on, and availability 10 of gasoline that limits sulfur content to less than 11 five parts per million is in place, as identified; 12 and standards are feasible for fuel-efficient 13 lean-burn technologies; and standards do not 14 adversely affect any company relative to others in 15 the industry. 16 With these points in mind, I emphasize 17 that we believe that removing sulfur from gasoline 18 is critically important to giving auto manufacturers 19 the chance to meet nitrogen oxide fleet average 20 objectives. 21 Sulfur is a poison to exhaust treatment 22 devices. As vehicle hardware becomes clogged up, 23 it's ability to operate at maximum effectiveness and 24 efficiency is seriously compromised. The conversion 25 efficiency of a control device tested here shows a 00455 1 Reg Modlin - DaimlerChrysler 2 loss of efficiency of 10 percent points within about 3 1200 miles when comparing the effects of gasoline 4 containing 50 parts per million sulfur and 8 parts 5 per million sulfur. A loss of 40 percentage points 6 is noted as the mileage increases. The story is 7 complete when we see the effect of reduced 8 efficiency on emissions. A total loss of even 10 9 percent of catalyst efficiency will result in a 10 vehicle not meeting the proposed standards, as you 11 can see from the example. 12 A nationwide program is required. 13 Everyone from New York to Montana deserves cleaner 14 air. Ozone may be the issue in the East and Ohio 15 Valley, while regional haze is the issue in the 16 West. Reducing sulfur content of gasoline is an 17 emission reduction strategy that promises to improve 18 air quality conditions across the country. The 19 mobility of the nation's vehicle fleet also demands 20 nationwide control of fuel quality. Allowing 21 control systems to be poisoned in one area so that 22 they can increase the pollution in another does not 23 make sense. 24 Sulfur-free gasoline would allow the 25 manufacturers to bring cleaner, more fuel-efficient 00456 1 Reg Modlin - DaimlerChrysler 2 hardware to the market. Devices that could further 3 reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate matter are 4 intolerant to sulfur in gasoline. DaimlerChrysler 5 has consistently demonstrated its willingness to 6 develop cleaner, world-class vehicles. We believe 7 that these vehicles deserve cleaner, world class 8 fuel. Unfortunately, much of the gasoline sold in 9 the United States today has a sulfur content that 10 exceeds that sold in third-world nations. 11 To reach the performance levels called 12 for by the tough new standards all sectors, 13 specifically the auto and oil industries, must do 14 their part. All of the tools in the toolbox must be 15 available to meet the performance levels we want to 16 achieve. We will work in tandem with our suppliers 17 to vigorously test the limites of technology for 18 control system hardware. We call on the refiners to 19 do the same in order to bring to market gasoline 20 that does not hamper vehicles from operating as 21 cleanly as possible. 22 Improved gasoline formulation is a 23 critical tool in the effort to reduce auto 24 emissions. In this decade, reducing sulfur is the 25 most effective, immediate way to accomplish this 00457 1 Brooks Mountcastle - Jeff Tober 2 goal. Sulfur is a poison to the emission control 3 system that, over time, will clog the pipes and 4 prevent the system from working. EPA's proposal to 5 reduce sulfur to 30 ppm is a good first step. The 6 sophisticated, clean burning systems that automakers 7 will develop to make Tier 2 standards will be wasted 8 if sulfur in gasoline is not limited further by this 9 rule. 10 Thank you for your attention and the 11 opportunity to address these very important issues. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. OGE: Mr. Modlin, thank you. 14 Mr. Brooks Mountcastle. 15 MR. MOUNTCASTLE: Good morning. 16 "I am writing to give my strong support 17 to the proposed Tier 2 standards as a good first 18 step toward making our air cleaner and safer. I 19 live in the City of Philadelphia where I cycle to 20 work and work outdoors with children and seniors 10 21 months of the year in urban parks. My father, 22 grandmother, and two cousins suffer from respiratory 23 conditions. In addition, I am an avid hiker in the 24 Eastern Appalachians, where I have witnessed 25 firsthand the damage done by smog and acid rain. In 00458 1 Brooks Mountcastle - Jeff Tober 2 so many ways, I and the ones I love and work with 3 are dependent on clean air. Unfortunately, the air 4 you and I breathe today does not qualify as clean or 5 safe. 6 "Clean air is something we all deserve 7 and the EPA now has a wonderful opportunity to make 8 positive changes for us all. I implore you to take 9 the following steps: 10 "Require sport utility vehicles, 11 minivans, and light trucks to adhere to the same 12 emission standards as regular automobiles. The 13 current exemption allowing them to pollute 14 inordinately is completely out of date and must be 15 closed now. 16 "Secondly, the fuel we use must be 17 cleaner. Current sulfur levels are far too high. 18 Sulfur can damage pollution control systems in 19 vehicles and must be significantly decreased 20 nationwide. I would be more than happy to pay more 21 for gasoline to ensure cleaner air. Along those 22 lines, diesel vehicles should not receive any 23 special treatment. They should be held to the same 24 standards as other vehicles. Please address these 25 in the final proposal. 00459 1 Brooks Mountcastle - Jeff Tober 2 "Thirdly, we need to have better 3 vehicles utilizing cleaner, less polluting 4 technology on the read sooner rather than later. 5 Necessity is the mother of invention and there is a 6 definite public outcry saying that we need clean 7 air. We can do better than the internal combustion 8 engine and I implore the EPA to do all it can to 9 make cleaner, more efficient vehicles available to 10 the public. 11 "A few weeks ago, I saw a large 12 advertisement painted on the showroom window of a 13 Lincoln/Mercury dealer outside of philadelphia. It 14 was advertizing their two new SUVs, the Navigator 15 and the Mountaineer. The painting showed mountains, 16 trees and rolling waters promising that the 17 mountaineer and Navigator were Mother Nature 18 approved. When I called the dealer to ask why they 19 were approved by Mother Nature, I was told because 20 they could take whatever she had to dish out. Well, 21 that may be so, but I'm afraid Nature can't take 22 everything that the SUVS are dishing out. There is 23 no point in delaying these necessary steps. We all 24 want and deserve clean, safe, fresh air. We can 25 have a healthy economy and healthy air. 00460 1 George D. Thruston - NYU 2 "I thank you for taking the strongest 3 possible steps to safeguard our collective air." 4 Thank you. 5 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. George 6 Thurston. Good morning -- or good afternoon. 7 MR. THURSTON: I am George D. Thurston, 8 a tenured Associate Professor of Environmental 9 Medicine at the New York University School of 10 Medicine. My scientific research involves 11 investigations of the human health effects of air 12 pollution. 13 I am also Director of the National 14 Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' (NIEHS) 15 Community Outreach and Education Program at NYU. A 16 goal of this program is to provide an impartial 17 scientific resource on environmental health issues 18 to decision-makers, and that is my purpose in 19 speaking to you here today. 20 In 1997, I was named Chairman of the 21 Canadian Government's Health and Environmental 22 Impact Assessment Panel of their Joint Industry 23 Government Study of Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel 24 Fuels. That panel's work resulted in a report that 25 evaluated the potential health-related benefits, and 00461 1 George D. Thruston - NYU 2 their monetary valuations, that would be expected to 3 result from lowering the sulfur content of gasoline 4 in Canada. 5 In part on the basis of that study, the 6 Canadian government has now acted to require 7 lowering of gasoline sulfur content down to 30 parts 8 per million by the year 2005. Their final 9 sulfur-in-fuels regulations, which are very similar 10 to those now being proposed by the US EPA, will be 11 published in the Canadian Gazette, Part II, on June 12 23, 1999. 13 What we found from the examination of 14 both the costs and benefits of removing sulfur from 15 gasoline was that this regulation will be a "win, 16 win" both economically and environmentally. The 17 costs to industry of removing the sulfur contaminant 18 in gasoline will be greatly exceeded by the monetary 19 valuation of the health benefits that would be 20 derived from such a step. 21 The air pollution emissions benefits 22 that result from removing sulfur from gas apply to 23 all cars on the road. The removal of sulfur from 24 gasoline stops the sulfur from poisoning the 25 catalytic converters in cars, allowing the 00462 1 George D. Thruston - NYU 2 converters to do their job of lowering pollution 3 more efficiently, as we just heard. All motor 4 vehicles, new and old, will benefit from the removal 5 of sulfur, making them burn cleaner. In addition, 6 this will contribute toward eliminating ozone air 7 pollution episodes like the ones we have experienced 8 in the past two weeks here in the Northeast. 9 In addition to allowing the cars' 10 catalysts to do their jobs better and, thereby, 11 lowering hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions 12 from cars and reducing ozone in the air, the 13 elimination of sulfur also cuts down on the sulfuric 14 acid particles that can result from the sulfur 15 itself. Breathing less particulate matter pollution 16 is a noteworthy benefit of this regulation, as 17 exposure to acidic sulfate particles have been shown 18 by numerous studies, including those that I have 19 conducted, to be associated with excess numbers of 20 hospital admissions and daily deaths, as well as 21 other health impacts. These various adverse health 22 impacts will now be voided by the implementation of 23 the EPA's new sulfur in gasoline regulations. 24 Also, if I have time, I brought along 25 overheads I'd like some to show you. The Canadian 00463 1 George D. Thruston - NYU 2 study of the benefits of removing sulfur from 3 gasoline confirms what the EPA analysis has said: 4 The health benefits to the public of this proposed 5 regulation far outweigh the clean-up cost to 6 industry. 7 The Canadian joint industry/government 8 study was conducted to assess the cost and benefits 9 of removing sulfur from gasoline in the Canadian 10 cities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, 11 Winnipeg, Halifax, and St. John or 40 percent of 12 that nation's population. Using sulfate as an index 13 pollutant for the atmospheric pollution reductions 14 expected, projected adverse effects reductions were 15 estimated for premature deaths, hospital admissions, 16 emergency room visits, asthma symptom days, 17 restricted activity days, and new respiratory 18 disease cases. Monetary valuations derived from the 19 published literature for each health outcome were 20 used to estimate the monetary values ascribed to the 21 avoided pollution health effects. 22 The results of this Canadian study 23 indicated that the health and monetary benefits of 24 reducing sulphur in gas can be significant, with for 25 example over 127,000 asthma symptom days a year and 00464 1 George D. Thruston - NYU 2 82 premature deaths a year avoided in the seven 3 largest Canadian cities in the year 2020. And for 4 the year 2000, that's what this chart is of, the 5 adverse health effects avoided and their monetary 6 valuation by the year 2020 in those seven cities. 7 The estimated net present value of the 8 monetary valuation of health benefits over the 9 period 2001 to 2020 amounted to 5.2 billion Canadian 10 with a 30 parts per million gasoline scenario, i.e., 11 the control level adopted by Canada, and now being 12 proposed by the US EPA, even after discounting at 3 13 percent. I don't really like discounting health 14 effects like a piece of equipment. It's lives, but 15 that's what I'm reporting. The health benefit 16 valuation estimates derived in this manner for these 17 seven cities alone greatly exceeded the central 18 estimates of the nationwide control costs for all 19 scenarios when viewed on a net per value basis. For 20 the seven cities, the benefit-to-cost ratio came to 21 1.5 for the 30 ppm sulfur case, and when the entire 22 Canadian population was considered, the 23 benefit-to-cost ratio increased to about 2.3. Thus, 24 the Canadian benefits were more than double the 25 control costs. 00465 1 George D. Thruston - NYU 2 To find a copy of the various Canadian 3 reports on this subject, including my expert panel's 4 report, on the internet, you can visit the web page. 5 It's in my testimony. I can give you my web page. 6 In closing, I would like to point out 7 that the projected benefits of preventing adverse 8 health effects are not something nonexistent today 9 that would be generated by the requirement to remove 10 sulfur from gasoline. Instead, they represent real 11 and already adverse health effects that will 12 continue to occur if nothing is done. More 13 important, they also represent adverse health events 14 that can be avoided from happening by moving forward 15 with the EPA proposed regulations. 16 Thus, this regulatory step should be 17 viewed as a process of reducing the health price 18 that is already being paid by the American people 19 day in and day out in the form of reduced quality of 20 health from high sulfur gasoline. 21 The EPA should move forward with their 22 proposal to remove sulfur from gasoline in order to 23 provide relief to the American people from the 24 adverse health effects that are now needlessly 25 occurring as a result of the fact that we have 00466 1 George D. Thruston - NYU 2 allowed, and presently still allow, the sale of more 3 polluting high sulfur gasoline to the American 4 public. 5 MS. OGE: How are we doing on time? 6 MR. GUY: Two and a half minutes. 7 MR. THURSTON: The Health Benefits of 8 Removing Sulfur from Gasoline was a title of an 9 abstract we presented recently at the 1999 10 International Conference of the American Thoracic 11 Society in San Diego, California. And the abstract 12 is published in the American Journal of Respiratory 13 and Critical Care Medicine in March 1999. And the 14 list of co-authors are all members of the expert 15 panel that I headed and include David Bates, R. 16 Burnett, F. Lipfert, B. Ostro, A. Krupnick, R. Rowe 17 from Status Consulting in Denver, so a blue ribbon 18 panel looked at this question. 19 This is background. I think you know 20 the Canadian Government was considering lowering the 21 sulfur in gasoline from present levels, around 22 300-400 ppm, down to as low as 30 ppm, which was the 23 lowest one that they looked and ultimately was the 24 one that they selected. So the sulfur in fuels 25 study was conducted to aid in the determination of a 00467 1 George D. Thruston - NYU 2 cost-effective sulfur limit. 3 So the objectives were to estimate the 4 health benefits that may be achieved in Canada by a 5 reduction of the sulfur content and to compare the 6 economic valuation benefits in the seven largest 7 Canadian Cities with the nationwide economic costs 8 of the cleanup. 9 Methods, selecting a suitable index 10 pollutant of the atmospheric pollutant reduction 11 expected. We used a somewhat similar method EPA 12 used. So it was sort of independent check. We 13 identified the health effects able to be considered. 14 We applied suitable concentration response 15 relationships from the published literature. And 16 then we also looked at best available monetary 17 values. 18 MS. OGE: Maybe you give us the 19 conclusions. And it would be great if you can 20 provide everything for the record so we can have it. 21 MR. THURSTON: These are in my 22 submission. Basically our conclusion were the 23 health and monetary benefits of lowering sulfur in 24 gas can be significant. At 30 ppm, the Net Present 25 Value of the estimated health benefits exceeded the 00468 1 Pete Homer - NIBA 2 Nationwide clean-up costs by a factor of 1.5. And 3 then when you looked at the nation, the benefit cost 4 ratio was over 2. 5 And again, I have the web pages here. 6 MS. OGE: I was trying to read. What is 7 it? If you can read -- 8 MR. THURSTON: At 30 ppm, the estimated 9 health benefits amounted to 5.2 billion Canadian 10 dollars. And they exceeded nationwide cleanup costs 11 by 1.5. And then, as I said, they're 8 billion once 12 you adjust that to population. And the final 13 report is on the web at this quite long address, and 14 also their recent decision to set 30 ppm sulfur 15 limit is on the web as well on the government site. 16 And so when the sulfur content of US 17 gasoline is lowered, similar important benefits can 18 also be expected. 19 MS. OGE: Thank you. 20 Mr. Pete Homer, please proceed. 21 MR. HOMER: Thank you. I'm a Native 22 American from a Mohave tribe of Arizona. I'm the 23 President of the National Indian Business 24 Association. We represent 24,000 American Indian 25 and Alaska native owned businesses. We're a 00469 1 Pete Homer - NIBA 2 national trade organization that works out of 3 Washington, D.C. I want to thank you for the 4 opportunity to be here to testify on some of the 5 these very, very important issues. 6 I'm here today in the interest of 7 preserving the health and welfare of Native American 8 and Alaska Native families and protecting the 9 commercial interests of their family-owned 10 businesses from the unintended consequence of 11 government regulation. 12 The National Indian Business Association 13 supports EPA's efforts to improve the nation's air 14 quality through regulations that are rational, 15 technologically feasible, and cost-effective. In 16 Indian country, Native Americans and Alaska native 17 owned family businesses, especially small and 18 disadvantaged businesses, rely heavily on the use of 19 pickup trucks and other medium and heavy-duty light 20 trucks to maintain their livelihoods and family 21 structures. These vehicles are essential to the 22 continued economic viability and our commercial and 23 recreational interests. 24 The automobile industry as a whole has 25 made a great stride in reducing vehicle emissions 00470 1 Pete Homer - NIBA 2 including medium and heavy-duty light trucks and 3 application of new technologies. At the same time, 4 the National Indian Business Association believes 5 more should be done by the auto industry to help 6 assure continued improvements in our nation's air 7 quality. NIBA also believes, however, when imposing 8 future regulatory requirements as are necessary to 9 future control of vehicle emissions, that automakers 10 be afforded appropriate flexibility and lead time 11 needed to maximize cost or potential adverse product 12 impacts. This is especially important for those 13 manufacturers of medium and heavy-duty light upon 14 which NIBA members depend. 15 EPA's proposed Tier 2 rulemaking would 16 impose new requirements that, for the first time, 17 would require medium and heavy-duty light trucks to 18 meet the same emission standards as passenger cars 19 and could affect affordability and utility of these 20 vehicles. 21 As we understand it, the Alliance of 22 Automobile Manufacturers has proposed to EPA an 23 alternative that NIBA believes not only to be a 24 rational technology, but an achievable alternative 25 that along with requiring cleaner burning fuels, but 00471 1 Pete Homer - NIBA 2 meet or achieve objectives while minimizing 3 potential adverse effects on the ability and utility 4 of medium and heavy-duty light trucks including 5 diesel powered vehicles. 6 So on behalf of its over 24,000 members, 7 National Indian Business Association calls on EPA to 8 give the utmost consideration to the Alliance of 9 Automobile Manufactures' alternative proposal to 10 EPA's Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur proposed rule. Thank 11 you. 12 MS. OGE: Thank you. Any questions? 13 We have one question. 14 MS. MARTIN: Mr. Homer, I was wondering 15 if you could expand for me the type of businesses 16 your association represents and how the differences 17 between the Alliance's proposal and EPA proposal 18 would effect those types of businesses specifically. 19 MR. HOMER: Let me give you an example 20 of the that. 95 percent of the families and 21 businesses drive medium sized trucks. When we talk 22 economics, when we talk what's right and making 23 recommendations, you're looking at sort of like a 24 new breed of American Indian in this country that is 25 the businessman and the businesswoman who care about 00472 1 Bianca Moran - NJ PIRG 2 their employees and care about the costs of all 3 types of items. And so we think that we recommend 4 that we have a balance here that is a balance 5 between EPA and the automobile industry and that you 6 come together with some sensible ideas of technology 7 to get the job done. And to do that, we think it 8 would be a level playing field if you could get 9 together and do that. We have so many business. 10 There are 103,000 Native American and Alaska Native 11 owned business in this country. They're all kinds 12 various business. A lot of construction, a lot of 13 agricultural businesses, a lot of farming industry. 14 Rural America is involved. Rural America is a 15 little different than Philadelphia. And so I talk 16 and I represent those individuals in this issue. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you, Mr. Homer. I'd 18 like to thank each one of the panel members for 19 talking the time to visit with us and sharing your 20 views. Thank you very much. 21 Before we break for lunch, I would like 22 to call on the following individuals to please come 23 forward. 24 (Pause.) 25 MS. MARTIN: Ms. Moran, if you'd like 00473 1 Bianca Moran - NJ PIRG 2 to begin. 3 MS. MORAN: I'm here with the New Jersey 4 PIRG. Some of you may remember me from the ozone 5 action kick-off at the museum a few weeks ago for a 6 different program. 7 The reason I'm here today is that my mom 8 is a school teacher and for years I would go and 9 have lunch with her at her school because it 10 coincides with mine. And each year that I do this, 11 more and more children are staying inside for lunch 12 and recess. And if you see these kids and you ask 13 them how they feel about it and compare that to how 14 these companies feel about their profits, I think 15 the priority should be obvious here. 16 My point here is that we can't extend 17 any time lines for any of these companies because 18 it's technologically possible, EPA time lines or 19 even more stringent one. It's entirely possible and 20 that's what needs to happen here. If we were 21 talking about time lines, I'd like to share 22 something. Think about the time lines for those 23 kids. Think about 14.6 million people in the US who 24 suffer from asthma. What do their time look like? 25 It might look a little like this, the increase in 00474 1 Keith Morris - Sierra Club 2 Americans with asthma since 1980, that's where it 3 starts. Then asthma attacks are the number one 4 reason for children missing school. Next stage is 5 that these children, especially from here from 6 Philadelphia, we're fourth worst air quality and 7 nationally there are 117 million Americans who live 8 in air unsafe to breathe due to ozone or smog 9 pollution. And then we come to 1998, where in the 10 smog season in 1998 there were 47 violations of the 11 EPA health standard from smog in Pennsylvania. 12 This is what their time line looks like. At the end 13 of their time line they suffer from 30 percent of 14 the smog from NOx as from automobiles. They suffer 15 from the 80 percent of deadly fine particles in our 16 air caused by automobiles and the soot from vehicles 17 classified as a human carcinogen. They suffer from 18 the fact that automobiles cause 20 percent of carbon 19 dioxide at leads to global warming, and 40 thousand 20 Americans die prematurely each year from soot in our 21 air. That's their time line. And until you can 22 find a way to extend their time line, you can't do 23 it for the automobile and oil industries. You 24 cannot give them more time to fix this. They need 25 to do it is now and sooner because you can't extend 00475 1 Keith Morris - Sierra Club 2 the time line for these kids. Thank you. 3 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Morris. 4 MR. MORRIS: Good afternoon. My name is 5 Keith Morris, and I'm a student presently working 6 with the Sierra Club as a field manager. I spend 7 every weekday going door-to-door talking about 8 environmental issues. I can say the overwhelming 9 majority I speak with express serious concern for 10 the quality of our air. However, many don't 11 understand the impact of our driving habits and 12 inefficient unclean motor vehicles. Instead of 13 working towards clean and efficient cars and trucks, 14 oil companies and manufacturers are spending 15 tremendous amounts of time and money to confuse the 16 issue and to continue their exploitation of the 17 public and abuse of the planet as a whole. Today 18 and yesterday we stand witness to this expensive 19 campaign; traveling expenses, executives, slides and 20 charts. If we really share the same goals, it 21 seems that this is an effort that could be directed 22 toward meeting or exceeding the proposal instead of 23 fighting and complaining about a very crucial time 24 line. 25 To me, the Automobile Manufacturers 00476 1 Stacy Long - Penn PIRG 2 Alliance appearance is a cooperative effort to 3 withhold progress for the sake of profits with total 4 disregard for public health and opinion. I 5 challenge manufacturers who are not part of the 6 Alliance to fully accept to existing terms or 7 stronger ones. I know they would receive my 8 support, and hopefully that of the American public. 9 The oil refinery is the main obstacle to 10 the real aims of this proposal. Frankly, the 11 transportation industry should lay oil companies to 12 rest where we all know they belong by now. I 13 challenge manufacturers to begin manufacturing an 14 affordable electrical or other forms of 15 transportation immediately and challenge the public 16 to demand them. 17 I commend the EPA's landmark standards. 18 We need the strongest possible regulation as soon as 19 possible. Perhaps we are finally nearing the 20 extinction of this hungry and dangerous dinosaur 21 known as the internal combustion engine. Thank you. 22 MS. OGE: Ms. Stacy Long. 23 MS. LONG: My name is Stacy Long from 24 Pittsburgh Penn PIRG. I have canvasses with Sierra 25 Club and just yesterday I was with the Clean Air 00477 1 Stacy Long - Penn PIRG 2 Campaign. I find it very, very amusing that as soon 3 as we arrive, the entire auto industry seem to have 4 left. 5 MS. OGE: But we are here. 6 MS. LONG: It's a shame, because I 7 wanted to address specifically Ford's 8 representative, I believe, Kelly Brown, and I don't 9 think she's in the room. 10 MS. OGE: He's a male. 11 MS. LONG: I'm sorry. 12 MS. OGE: I called him Mr. Ford 13 yesterday. I don't want to change his sex. 14 (Laughter.) 15 MS. MARTIN: We have some automotive 16 people here. Reg is here. We have a couple of 17 people. 18 MS. LONG: I wanted to address Ford 19 because actually the other day my boyfriend and I 20 were looking over a magazine and we found a very 21 interesting ad for the Ford -- not the Explorer, it 22 was the Lincoln Navigator. It said, "We now produce 23 less pollution than the average car." Now according 24 to our research, the average car produced .4 grams 25 of nitrous oxide; the average SUV, 1.11. So we 00478 1 Stacy Long - Penn PIRG 2 thought, let's call the number they gave us, let's 3 call, let's see exactly what the numbers are. I 4 called the number that was listed. Nobody had any 5 idea what I was talking about. They tried to refer 6 me to a dealer in my area. They never -- "Nitrous 7 oxide? What are you talking about," they said. 8 "Who are you? Where are you from?" So they 9 referred me to corporate, the top dogs, and they 10 also had absolutely no clue what I was talking 11 about. 12 Now, my question is, how can they make 13 claims like this, and then when you actually 14 investigate to see if that's true, they have no idea 15 what you're talking about? I don't understand that. 16 I personally am very upset about a lot 17 of things. I'm upset we have to have these 18 hearings. This shouldn't have to happen. We know 19 people are dying. We know people are in the 20 hospital. This shouldn't have to happen. They 21 should lobby politicians. They shouldn't beg for 22 time. The industry -- the economy is booming. 23 These guys are not in any financial difficulty. We 24 don't need to give them more time. We don't need to 25 do anything for them. They need to do for us 00479 1 Stacy Long - Penn PIRG 2 because our kids are suffering. This affects every 3 one of us. 4 I go door-to-door every day. Every day 5 lately the past five days have been high ozone days 6 because of this very problem. So I get to walk 7 around in 95 plus heat and get sweaty and filthy 8 from the pollution and I talk to people and they're 9 worried. 10 Yesterday I was in a very poor 11 neighborhood. These people gave me more than $15 a 12 piece; that is what they gave me. I had eight new 13 names and many contributors although they are at or 14 below the poverty level. 15 And I'm sorry, we don't six figures. 16 Most of these people do, if not more. We don't have 17 the money to fight this. But hopefully it, seems we 18 have your understanding on our side. You have 19 proposed new laws and regulations. I really hope 20 you will at least enforce them. I want you to go 21 the extra mile and do it all. This is not 22 acceptable. People are dying because people don't 23 want -- the big auto industries have more money than 24 I can count. They don't need more time. This is a 25 public health hazard. I don't think it's necessary. 00480 1 Shawn Somerville - Penn PIRG 2 I had notes, but I don't know -- but another point, 3 these executives, maybe if their children have 4 asthma, maybe they can afford to hospitalize them 5 and get really good care. Most Americans can't, 6 most Americans can't speak up for themselves. So 7 basically we're trying to say stop the corruption. 8 This is ridiculous. We don't need to put up with 9 this anymore. We are human. Because if they die of 10 asthma -- never mind. You know what I'm talking 11 about. I'm very upset. 12 I really, really urge you to adopt this 13 proposal and go further, adopt stronger ones. Thank 14 you. 15 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Shawn 16 Somerville. 17 MR. SOMERVILLE: I also work with the 18 Pittsburgh PIRG. I'm originally from Houston which 19 has an air pollution problem. With millions of cars 20 on the road belching out pollutants, we had HOV 21 lanes, we tried bus lines, we tried to get people to 22 car pool together. It doesn't work. People love 23 their cars and they're always going to be driving 24 them. That's why we have to have less pollution 25 from the cars. It's not going to come from city or 00481 1 Shawn Somerville - Penn PIRG 2 local government. It has to come from the top, from 3 the EPA. 4 When I'm in Pittsburgh -- I'm a student. 5 I use a bicycle for transportation. I'm actually a 6 pretty healthy guy. But when I'm riding my bike 7 through town, I have to stop a lot of times, not 8 because I'm tired, but because my lungs give out; I 9 can't stand what I'm breathing. Maybe the person 10 that's driving in their huge SUV, in their insulated 11 air-conditioned vehicle doesn't quite get the same 12 effect from the smog as I do. 13 Actually, yesterday as I was walking 14 around Philadelphia after going door-to-door with 15 this issue, I was next to, I guess, 476. I started 16 getting sick. I don't have asthma, but I was 17 coughing for nearly an hour. I felt nauseous just 18 from the pollution in the area. 19 People are really concerned about this. 20 But they bring up a number of strange points; well, 21 what does it matter? Third world countries pollute 22 more than we do. They have to clean up their act. 23 I'm sorry, we're not a third world 24 country. We should hold ourselves to the highest 25 standard. We're the wealthiest, technologically 00482 1 Rachel Maden 2 advanced nation in the world. Why is the air 3 quality so poor? Why can't the auto industry -- 4 actually, as the gentleman from DaimlerChrysler 5 expressed, they can meet the standards and actually 6 exceed them. We can't wait for them to do it on 7 their own. We can't wait for the auto industry and 8 the fuel industry. No, the parent organization are 9 the people who make the rules. EPA has to step in 10 and enforce strict guidelines. 11 I'd like to thank you for having us. 12 MS. OGE: Thank you. Rachel Maden. 13 MS. MADEN: My name is Rachel Maden. I 14 live in New Brunswick, New Jersey. And while these 15 hearings are being held in Philadelphia, I can tell 16 you firsthand that air pollutions is not limited to 17 Philadelphia. New Jersey is not the butt of the 18 nation for no good reason. Every day millions of 19 cars, minivans, SUVs and trucks travel our highways. 20 The exhaust of those vehicles release smog-forming 21 nitrogen oxide. The smog is dangerous for everyone, 22 but especially children, the elderly, and those with 23 respiratory illness. 24 So I am here today with a question for 25 you. Why is it that America is a leader in 00483 1 J. Astra Rooney 2 business, a leader in technology, a leader in 3 creativity, but not a leader in protecting the 4 health of the very people who have made our country 5 what it is today? 6 I applaud the effort of the EPA. I 7 think it is an excellent first step. However, I 8 believe it is only a first step. I believe this 9 effort is not enough. Passenger vehicles, including 10 SUVs and minivans, should be subject to the same 11 standards as cars. There should be no exceptions 12 for super-sized SUVs. All of these vehicles are 13 family vehicles. And at a time when it seems like 14 all people in America can talk about our family 15 values, I think to myself, shouldn't one of these 16 values be protecting the health of those very 17 families? We need the strongest possible 18 regulations to control auto pollution here in the 19 leader of the countries in the world. 20 I thank you for your time and I applaud 21 your efforts and hope you will take them to the next 22 necessary step. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you. J. Astra Rooney. 24 MS. ROONEY: I'm from the Princeton 25 Office in New Jersey. We walk around and talk about 00484 1 J. Astra Rooney 2 environmental consumer interests every day. The 3 State of New Jersey, like it's been pointed out, one 4 out of three days it's unhealthy to breathe air. 5 The Department of Environmental Protection actually 6 has a hotline that you can call up and they'll tell 7 you when you can breathe the air outside. This is 8 not a solution. The solution to these problems is 9 tougher emissions standards for all vehicles. 10 I do walk around. The beginning of this 11 week were very hot days where we were in high ozone 12 but we were still outside talking to people. I was 13 out walking around on those 2 days. Yesterday I 14 came to Philly. Yesterday morning at this hearing, 15 I had my voice. I walked, canvassed yesterday 16 afternoon, and now I can barely speak. This makes 17 my job a lot harder. I believe that it's a direct 18 link to the air quality in the area. And I think 19 that's very simple and simply put. I don't have 20 asthma. I don't have a history of respiratory 21 problems, but today this is what my voice sounds 22 like. Like I said, it was perfectly fine yesterday 23 morning. 24 I applaud this first step in making the 25 effort by the EPA to improve standards. I believe 00485 1 Cory Holding 2 that we should be looking at solutions to the 3 problem that we face, and that does mean tougher 4 emissions standards and looking at standard fuel 5 efficient engines and fuel so we don't have to rely 6 so heavily on the oil and gas industry. So I thank 7 you very much for your time and I applaud your 8 efforts. 9 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Cory Holding. 10 MS. HOLDING: My message is pretty 11 simple, too. Basically having been a part of these 12 hearings for the last couple days and having heard 13 both sides and thought about both sides, I am still 14 definitely an advocate for clean air as soon as 15 possible. It seems to me like a sort of simple case 16 for you all for mostly four basic reasons. One, the 17 technology does exist as was explained to us by 18 panel members like Mr. Bertelsen and Mr. Modlin 19 also. Number 2, the capital and manpower also 20 exists which we can, I feel, assume based on the 21 wealth and size of the auto industry. Third, there 22 is a physical need for change which has been 23 explained, pleaded over and over and over by the 24 people and by panel members like Dr. Thurston who 25 just spoke. And fourth, there is certainly a strong 00486 1 Jason Rash 2 public demand which has been certainly shown to you 3 all by groups like the Public Interest Research 4 Group and the Sierra Club, the Clean Air Council and 5 many other groups that have been here. 6 It seems to me that basically it's a 7 matter of priority. Which do you prefer to kind of 8 appease, the automobile gurus, so to speak, or the 9 people who really need this right now? I implore 10 you to hear the people. And I thank you so much for 11 coming out and listening. And I thank you guys for 12 sticking around to hear us. We really appreciate 13 it. 14 MS. OGE: Well, for Stacy Long, I'll be 15 more than glad give you Kenny Brown's phone number, 16 and I'll ask him first if I can do that. But I 17 think he would be very glad to share with you about 18 the their vehicles. This is public information. I 19 can give you that information so you can call me 20 afterwards. 21 But seriously, I want to thank you for 22 coming and meeting with us and sharing your 23 experience, walking on the streets and sharing what 24 you're hearing from the public and what you are 25 feeling. And I want to commend your interest in the 00487 1 Jason Rash 2 issue. Thank you very much. 3 I understand that we may have additional 4 people that would like to speak. 5 MR. RASH: I'll be brief. I am here 6 representing the board of directors of the Greater 7 Philadelphia Clean City Program which is an program 8 dedicated to the use of alternative fuels and 9 alternative fuel vehicles in the Greater 10 Philadelphia region. The Clean City Program was 11 established in 1993 and is widely recognized as one 12 of the successful United States Department of Energy 13 clean cities programs in the country. Thanks to the 14 efforts of its members, local governments, 15 companies, and consumers in the Greater Philadelphia 16 area want vans, trucks, cars, and buses on 17 alternative fuel such as compressed natural gas, 18 propane, ethanol, methanol, and electricity, the 19 results being improved air quality and a reduction 20 of reliance on foreign oil. 21 While the Greater Philadelphia Clean 22 City sees EPA Tier 2 proposal for emissions as a 23 positive step, it calls for EPA to give increase 24 attention to alternative fuels and give as much 25 attention to them as tailpipe emissions. The 00488 1 Jason Rash 2 reasons are simple. Transportation revolves around 3 motor vehicles that run on gasoline and diesel made 4 in catalytic converter technologies and will 5 continue to contribute to the ground level ozone 6 problem well into the next century. Each year there 7 are more vehicles on the road driving more miles 8 than the year before. Furthermore, the world oil 9 supply is not limitless and the source of great 10 political instability witnessed by the OPEC crisis 11 in the seventies and the Gulf War. As a result, the 12 United States is forced to spend billions of dollars 13 each year importing half of its oil from politically 14 unstable regions of the world. The public health 15 and ground ozone and the increasing reliance on 16 foreign oil seriously threats to our nation's 17 future. That is why the Greater Philadelphia Clean 18 Cities Program is calling for its increased presence 19 in the alternative fuel arena. 20 Alternative fuel might correct a 21 pollution problem in conventional automobiles. Some 22 even have zero emissions. Compressed natural gas, 23 electricity, and ethanol are in great abundance here 24 in the United States. Its shift will not take plays 25 overnight, but it is imperative that it occur. 00489 1 Jason Rash 2 There is a willingness to have vehicles, but its 3 growth is continuing, and we better start working 4 with other global agencies and private industry to 5 improve all fuel and vehicle development. Thank 6 you. 7 MS. OGE: Thank you. Any other 8 individuals who would like to speak? 9 Thank you very much. We will break for 10 lunch and convene at 2:30 for additional 11 organizations and individuals to testify. 12 (Luncheon recess taken at 12:45 pm.) 13 (Court reporter excused.) 14 - - - 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00490 1 William Menz, CT DEP 2 MS. MARTIN: Bill Menz from the 3 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 4 Please go ahead, right ahead straight to the table. 5 Irwin Berlin, Stacey Young, Olivia Conroy, and 6 Elissa Underwood. 7 MS. OGE: Good afternoon. I would like 8 to welcome you to the panel. Since I would suspect 9 many of you or any of you were not here this 10 morning, I would just like to give you some guidance 11 as to how we are going to do this meeting. 12 Write your names, and if you are with an 13 organization, please indicate that on the card in 14 front of you. We are going to give you ten minutes 15 to make your oral presentations, and then the panel 16 members may have questions of you. If not, we will 17 ask the next group of people to come forward. 18 We will start with Mr. Bill Menz. 19 MR. MENZ: Menz. 20 MS. OGE: Menz. 21 MR. MENZ: My name the Bill Menz. I am 22 an air pollution control engineer representative of 23 the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental 24 Protection Bureau Air Management. The State of 25 Connecticut is pleased to offer these comments on 00491 1 William Menz, CT DEP 2 EPA's Tier 2 motor vehicle standard low-sulfur 3 gasoline proposed rule. 4 The State of Connecticut strongly 5 supports the proposed rule as the critical 6 components of the Northeast state's strategy to 7 achieve and maintain the national ambient air 8 quality standards for the one-hour ground level 9 ozone and fine particulates and to improve the 10 public health by reducing air toxics. 11 We applaud EPA's efforts in developing 12 the proposed rule but have specific concerns as 13 indicated below. But we encourage the EPA to 14 consider in promulgating the requirements of the 15 final rule. 16 In particular Connecticut strongly 17 supports the following provisions of the Tier 2 18 low-sulfur gasoline proposed rule: 19 The single average exhaust emission 20 standard for both passenger cars and all light-duty 21 trucks up to 8500 pounds; 22 The choice of NOx as the pollutant for 23 the average exhaust emission standard; 24 A NOx fleet average exhaust emission 25 standard as comparable to the NOx standard for LEV 00492 1 William Menz, CT DEP 2 and ULEV vehicles in the California LEV II rule; 3 Lengthening the useful life of motor 4 vehicle emission standards to 120,000 miles; 5 The inclusion of new standards for the 6 supplemental federal test procedure; 7 A fuel neutral emission standard; 8 A single set of NOx fleet average 9 standards for cars and light trucks used for 10 passenger applications; 11 A reduction in gasoline sulfur levels to 12 the 30 parts per million with an 80 parts per 13 million cap; 14 A credit program to provide incentives 15 for refiners to reduce sulfur levels in gasoline 16 prior to the effective date of the final ruling; 17 A national rather than a regional 18 gasoline sulfur standard. 19 A national gasoline sulfur standard 20 allows EPA to establish one real world federal test 21 fuel for motor vehicles and protects catalysts in 22 vehicles driven from a low-sulfur gasoline region to 23 high sulfur gasoline region from damage by the 24 temporary use of sulfur gasoline. 25 The State of Connecticut has three 00493 1 William Menz, CT DEP 2 significant concerns with the proposed rule and 3 makes the final recommendations with respect to the 4 final rule. 5 First, EPA failed to adequately justify 6 the proposed rule in relation to the one-hour 7 standard relying rather on the need for states to 8 meet the eight-hour ozone standard. Connecticut 9 needs the emission benefits the proposed rule would 10 provide in order to help solve our one-hour ozone 11 problem. 12 For example, during the ten-day period 13 beginning on May 29th, 1999 and ending just this 14 past Monday, exceedences of the eight-hour ozone 15 standard have been recorded on seven days and 16 perhaps more significant exceedences of the one-hour 17 standard have been recorded on three days at 18 monitoring sites in Connecticut. 19 By the way, this past Tuesday we 20 reported our eighth exceedence of the eight-hour 21 ozone standard. 22 The effect of the recent decision by the 23 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which 24 found new air quality standards unenforceable 25 including the eight-hour standard is yet to be fully 00494 1 William Menz, CT DEP 2 determined. In view of this, we recommend the EPA 3 include a significant justification for the proposed 4 rule based on the one-hour standard alone. 5 Second, with fuel cells and other 6 emerging technology on the horizon which may require 7 low levels of sulfur in gasoline, we recommend that 8 EPA continue to examine the benefits and 9 practicality of achieving even lower sulfur levels 10 than those proposed. 11 Third, we recommend EPA conform the 12 requirements of the final rule to the California LEV 13 II program in terms of emission reductions and air 14 quality benefits. The Northeast states require a 15 comprehensive examination of the emission benefits 16 from LEV II and the Tier 2 low-sulfur gasoline 17 proposal rule in order to make an informed choice 18 from among the two programs. 19 Thus far, comparisons have been 20 superficial and difficult to make given the lack of 21 the MOBILE6 and other appropriate tools. 22 We recommend that EPA conduct a 23 comprehensive, in-depth comparison of the LEV II and 24 the proposed rule. 25 Under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, 00495 1 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA 2 States have the option of adopting the California 3 LEV II program. 4 If such a comparison does not 5 demonstrate the proposed Tier 2 low-suffer gasoline 6 program is substantially equivalent to the LEV II 7 program, many states may find it necessary to 8 implement the LEV II program. 9 In conclusion, we support EPA's proposed 10 rules as an effective way to reduce air pollution 11 for cars and trucks in the future. We recommend 12 that EPA make the following improvements in the 13 final rule: A justification based on a one-hour 14 ozone standard; the potential for the lower sulfur 15 levels in near term; and a comprehensive comparison 16 with the California LEV II program. 17 Thank you for giving us this opportunity 18 to comment. 19 MS. OGE: Thank you. 20 Mr. Irwin Berlin. 21 MR. BERLIN: My name is Dr. Berlin, and 22 I am chief of pulmonary medicine at St. Elizabeth 23 Hospital in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and I am on the 24 National Council of American Lung Association, and I 25 am a board member of the New Jersey American Lung 00496 1 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA 2 Association. 3 It is the American Lung Association's 4 position that sport-utility vehicles must meet the 5 new auto emission standards within three years, not 6 as EPA proposes in the ten years. 7 Sport-utility vehicles grew three times 8 as much as the standard car, they use much more 9 gasoline, and since they are larger and heavier than 10 most standard cars, they can cause a great deal of 11 damage in an accident with smaller vehicles. 12 I want to remind the EPA and give them a 13 little bit of an overview about air pollution. Air 14 pollution has had adverse effects on health 15 throughout history starting at the time we invented 16 fire for heating and cooking with exposure to 17 smoke. And rise of cities concentrated those 18 emissions of pollutants from dwellings and from 19 manufacturing facilities within restricted locales. 20 During the 20th Century, mobile sources, 21 including cars, trucks and other possible fuel- 22 powered vehicles, created a new type of pollution, 23 photochemical pollution, or smog, first recognized 24 in the LA air basin. 25 The unprecedented growth of some urban 00497 1 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA 2 areas, what we now call megacities, such as Mexico 3 City, Sao Paulo and Shanghai has led to unrelenting 4 air pollution from massive vehicle fleets and 5 snarled traffic and from polluting industries and 6 power plants. 7 Health effects on air pollution have 8 long been of concern. During the reign of King 9 Edward I in 1272 in London, the pollution by coal 10 smoke prompted a royal proclamation banning a 11 burning of sea-coal in open furnaces. 12 But air pollution was not regulated in 13 England until two centuries later with the passage 14 of The Smoke Nuisance Abatement Act. 15 In the United States, recognition of the 16 public health dimensions of air pollution just began 17 in the middle of the 20th Century, driven by rising 18 problems of smog in Southern California and the 1948 19 air pollution episode in Donora, Pennsylvania, which 20 caused 20 excess deaths and thousands of illnesses. 21 This modern era of air pollution 22 research and control dates to the episodes in Donora 23 and other cities during which extremely high levels 24 of pollution caused clearly evident excess deaths. 25 These episodes led to regulations for 00498 1 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA 2 the control of outdoor air pollution and to the 3 conduct of research designed to develop evidence on 4 the health effects of outdoor air pollution as a 5 foundation for control measures. 6 The research includes: Characterization 7 of the pollutants in outdoor air as to their 8 sources, concentrations, chemical and physical 9 properties; 10 Toxicologic investigation on the injury 11 caused by air pollution; 12 And the underlying mechanism, 13 epidemiologic survey's top health effects of air 14 pollution in the community. 15 These approaches remain fundamental to 16 research on air pollution today. 17 Atmospheric pollutants, whether they are 18 indoors or outdoors, exist in both gaseous and 19 particulate forms. In evaluating clinical 20 consequences of specific exposures, the clinician 21 has to recognize that penetration into and retention 22 within the respiratory tract of toxic gases varies 23 widely depending on the physical property of the gas 24 and solubility, concentration of the gas in the 25 inspired air, the rate and depth of ventilation, and 00499 1 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA 2 the extent to which the material is reactive. 3 The spectrum of adverse effects of air 4 pollution is broad, ranging from consequences of 5 acute and very dramatic exposures, which can lead to 6 death, to far more subtle and chronic effects on 7 disease, risk and well-being. 8 Perhaps the most common adverse effect 9 is a loss of sense of well-being from the diminished 10 aesthetic value of a polluted environment. 11 Clinicians are more likely to be concerned with the 12 less common, more acute effects with clinical 13 consequences-acute responses, often in asthmatics, 14 for which a link to air pollution exposure, may be 15 made by history or challenge testing. The more 16 subtle and long-term consequences are typically a 17 focus for public health researchers and regulators. 18 To interpret the scientific evidence on 19 the effects of air pollution, clinicians need a 20 framework to determine whether an effect is 21 adverse. Judgment on the adversity of response is 22 societal and reflective of prevalent valuations and 23 perceptions of risk. The Clean Air Act, it uses the 24 term "adverse" without a definition. 25 In a 1985 report, the Committee of the 00500 1 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA 2 American Thoracic Society offered guidelines for 3 defining adverse respiratory health effects in 4 epidemiologic studies in outdoor air pollution. 5 The Committee turned to a medical basis 6 for this determination of finding adverse 7 respiratory health effects as medically significant, 8 physiological or pathological changes. 9 So what are these effects on the health 10 of particulate and increased ozone air pollution? 11 Increase in daily mortality; increase in total 12 deaths; increase in respiratory deaths; increase in 13 cardiovascular deaths; increase in hospital usage, 14 specifically ER admissions, admissions to the 15 hospital; exacerbation of asthma; asthmatic attacks; 16 increase in the use of bronchodilators; increase in 17 respiratory symptom reports in the lower respiratory 18 tract, the upper respiratory tract; and the 19 increased incidence of cough; and specifically, 20 decrease in lung function; decrease in FEV 1; 21 decrease in peak expiratory flow. 22 So who are the populations that we are 23 talking about who are at risk? Certainly you and I 24 are all at risk, but there are some people who are 25 obviously more susceptible: 00501 1 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA 2 The asthmatic has a potential mechanism 3 for increased airway responsiveness with increased 4 risk for exacerbation and respiratory symptoms; 5 Cigarette smokers have impaired defects, 6 and they are at increased damage through synergists; 7 The elderly have impaired respiratory 8 defenses with reduced functional reserves. And they 9 are at increased risk for respiratory infection and 10 increased risk for clinically significant effects on 11 function. We now know that seniors also face asthma 12 as a separate specific illness. Asthma does occur 13 in the elderly. 14 Infants and children obviously also have 15 immature defense mechanisms of the lung, and they 16 are at increased risk. 17 Persons with coronary heart disease have 18 impaired myocardial oxygenation, and they are at 19 increased risk for myocardial ischemia. 20 And persons with COPD have reduced 21 levels of lung function, and they are at increased 22 risk for significant -- clinically significant 23 effects on function. 24 The American Lung Association of New 25 Jersey, as one of its prime focuses on outdoor air 00502 1 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA 2 pollution, our goal is to prevent and control 3 outdoor air pollution. 4 Over 7.8 million people live in New 5 Jersey and are exposed to unhealthy levels of air 6 pollution, including 4.6 million Jerseyites who are 7 particularly at risk from the health effects of air 8 pollution. 9 Asthma rates have been increasing with 10 current prevalence of approximately 540,000 persons 11 in New Jersey, and 150,000 children in New Jersey. 12 It has been shown in my hospital and 13 other hospitals in New Jersey that there are 14 increased levels of ozone in the air which resulted 15 in increased episodes of asthma and increased visits 16 to the emergency room and increased visits in 17 hospitalizations. 18 Nationwide approximately 60,000 19 premature deaths and 2,000 excess cancer death cases 20 are estimated to be caused by outdoor air 21 pollution. The direct and indirect health and 22 productivity costs of outdoor air pollution are 23 estimated to be $50 billion each year. 24 The Lung Association, I remind the EPA, 25 should be a key source of expert information on the 00503 1 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA 2 sources, health effects and control of outdoor 3 pollution. And we are instrumental in influencing 4 the adoption and implementation of effective state 5 and local air pollution control legislation and 6 regulations. 7 In New Jersey, when we look at in 1995, 8 1996 and 1997, the number of high ozone days in the 9 unhealthy range, despite the best effort, certainly 10 in my county of Union County that has 500,000 11 people, 98,000 children under the age of 14, 76,000 12 people over the age of 65. We've had increasing 13 numbers of unhealthy high ozone days as recently as 14 last week. 15 American voters strongly favor requiring 16 car companies to make sport-utility vehicles and 17 minivans meet strict air pollution standards. 18 Nearly nine out of ten owners agreed that car 19 companies should be required to make these vehicles 20 meet the same strict air pollution standards as 21 passenger cars. 22 The survey also revealed that the voters 23 overwhelmingly support cleaner gasoline nationwide. 24 A vast majority of voters also are willing to pay up 25 to 2 cents more per gallon of cleaner gasoline that 00504 1 Irwin Berlin, M.D., ALA 2 the United States and Environmental Protection 3 Agency estimates it will cost. 4 The survey results were released as you 5 began your -- conducting your public hearing on new 6 clean gasoline and clean air standards. 7 According to the president of the 8 American Lung Association, Ernest Frank, American 9 voters -- 10 MS. OGE: Excuse me, Dr. Berlin, I 11 would like you to conclude your remarks. 12 MR. BERLIN: Yes. Two more minutes. 13 MS. OGE: I didn't indicate to you 14 that there is an important person sitting in 15 front of you, John Guy. And he has cards showing 16 the time that is left for each one of you. So 17 please go to your remarks. 18 MR. BERLIN: Thank you. 19 The public is demanding that the EPA 20 close the loophole that allows SUVs to pollute 21 more. The auto industry is pushing to continue 22 special SUV loopholes to avoid or postpone air 23 pollution clean-up. 24 Much of the oil industry opposes 25 strong national clean gasoline standards and 00505 1 Stacey Young for Peter Kostmeyer 2 wants to allow dirtier, higher sulfur gasoline. 3 We have already experienced smog problems this 4 summer. 5 In conclusion, there should be no 6 special treatments for heavier vehicles; there 7 should be no special treatment of diesel 8 technologies; sulfur levels in gasoline should be 9 lowered to 30 parts per million; there should be 10 increased incentives for advanced technology 11 vehicles. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. OGE: Thank you. 14 Ms. Stacey Young. 15 MS. YOUNG: Hi. 16 MS. OGE: Hi. Good afternoon. 17 MS. YOUNG: My name is Stacey Young. 18 I am here representing Former-Congressman Peter 19 Kostmeyer. 20 Peter served as EPA's regional 21 administrator for the Middle Atlantic states and 22 served as the executive director of the nonprofit 23 environmental organization Zero Population 24 Growth. Peter Kostmeyer is a U.S. Senate 25 candidate challenging the Pennsylvania State 00506 1 Stacey Young for Peter Kostmeyer 2 senate seat currently held by Rick Santorum. 3 Today, as much of the nation 4 experiences the beginning of 1999 smog season, we 5 have a great opportunity to curb pollution from a 6 much larger source, the automobile. This should 7 be among our nation's highest priorities. 8 Air pollution threatens the health of 9 at least 117 million Americans who live where 10 smog levels are a frequent health threat. Those 11 who are among the most vulnerable to the health 12 impact of air pollution? Children and people 13 with asthma. 14 There are over 15 million Americans 15 with asthma, 5 million of whom are children. We 16 must establish pollution controls that protect 17 these vulnerable populations from smog. 18 Although we do have cleaner cars 19 today than two decades ago, automobile air 20 pollution is on the rise. This is because people 21 drive more than ever and are choosing larger, 22 more polluting vehicles. Therefore, we must 23 insist upon advances in automobile pollution 24 control technology in order to keep pace with the 25 trends toward more driving and larger vehicles. 00507 1 Stacey Young for Peter Kostmeyer 2 As "The New York Times" pointed out, 3 the popularity of SUVs could obliterate recent 4 improvements in air quality. The EPA's Tier 2 5 and gasoline sulfur proposal should be applauded, 6 because it is a strong program that will lead to 7 dramatically cleaner cars. 8 Specifically I agree with EPA that 9 new cars should pollute 90 percent less than 10 today's cars and a nationwide clean gasoline 11 standard is necessary to ensure that vehicle 12 pollution controls remain effective over the 13 lifetime of the car and the popular sport-utility 14 vehicle should be included in the program. 15 However, the EPA should strengthen 16 its standards in several important ways: Number 17 one, no special treatment should be given to 18 bigger, dirtier SUVs. EPA's proposal as written 19 will not require the clean-up of the largest and 20 dirtiest sport-utility vehicles on the market and 21 give some SUVs until 2009 before standards 22 applied. 23 This loophole creates clear incentive 24 for automobile manufacturers to aggressively make 25 and market ever-larger and more polluting SUVs. 00508 1 Stacey Young for Peter Kostmeyer 2 All cars and SUVs should meet the same pollution 3 standards at the same time. 4 Number two, no special treatment 5 should be given to diesel vehicles. Automobile 6 makers are aggressively moving toward diesel 7 engines in the largest passenger vehicles. EPA's 8 proposal leaves the door open for higher 9 polluting diesel trucks to be sold indefinitely. 10 Number three, clean gasoline should 11 be given -- should be available earlier. Under 12 EPA's proposal, high sulfur gasoline will be on 13 the market in significant quantities as late as 14 2006. 15 In 2004 when clean cars begin to come 16 off the assembly lines, clean gasoline should be 17 required nationwide to prevent measurable damage 18 to the car's pollution control equipment. 19 I am convinced that higher standards 20 are just as good for our economy as they are for 21 the environment. 22 The United States can and will 23 continue to have the most prosperous economy in 24 the world if we rise to the challenge by leading 25 the way in creating cleaner, safer and more 00509 1 Olivia Conroy for Ann Geoke 2 efficient technology. 3 Again, thank you for the opportunity 4 to speak. 5 The EPA should be credited for 6 proposing stringent standards for cars, and I 7 urge the adoption of this program with the noted 8 strengthening amendments. 9 Thank you. 10 MS. OGE: Thank you. 11 Ms. Olivia Conroy. 12 Good afternoon. 13 MS. CONROY: Hello. My name is 14 Olivia Conroy, and I am speaking today on behalf 15 of Ann Geoke. She is the coordinator for 16 Lancaster Greens. 17 We are writing to voice our support 18 for cleaner air and the EPA's Tier 2 proposal to 19 cut auto pollution. We are very concerned about 20 the health impacts that air pollution has already 21 had on our health. 22 We know that in Lancaster County 23 there has been an incredible increase of 24 breathing problems like asthma especially with 25 our children. 00510 1 Olivia Conroy for Ann Geoke 2 We have been advocating in our 3 community for everyone to take serious notice of 4 this increasing polluted air that we are exposed 5 to daily. 6 The warnings for dangerous bad air 7 days have now started during spring rather than 8 only during summertime. This means there has 9 been a tremendous increase during these past few 10 years. 11 This proposal will be a big step in 12 the right direction, but we request that three 13 things must be improved before you rule it as 14 final: 15 First, all passenger vehicles, 16 including minivans and SUVs, should meet the same 17 standards at the same time. Larger SUVs should 18 not be given extra time to clean up; 19 Second, there should be no special 20 breaks for dirty diesel vehicles; 21 And finally, the EPA should do more 22 to get advanced technology vehicles on the road. 23 We urge you to create a strong 24 regulation to control auto pollution and help 25 clean our air. If we begin to reverse this 00511 1 Elissa Underwood for Jerome Butler 2 destructive trend, we will not only help the 3 people who are now suffering from asthma due to 4 polluted air, but in the long run you will save 5 lots of unnecessary money to be spent due to an 6 unhealthy community. 7 We have a membership of 85 people, 8 and we firmly believe that we have a right to 9 clean air and urge our government to protect this 10 right. 11 Thank you. 12 MS. OGE: Thank you. 13 Elissa Underwood. 14 MS. UNDERWOOD: I am speaking on 15 behalf of Jerome Butler, director of the 16 Environmental Law Project at the Public Interest 17 Law Center of Philadelphia. 18 I want to support EPA's Tier 2 19 proposal for the control of emissions of 20 automobiles, sport-utility vehicles and 21 light-duty trucks. 22 The EPA proposal developed after 23 years of study is a compromise between components 24 of more stringent standards to improve the human 25 and ecological environments and performance will 00512 1 2 allow us to degrade our environment in their 3 mistaken belief that such degradations will 4 improve their bottom-line profits. 5 Industry, in opposing Tier 2, is 6 acting in its traditional manner when in the 7 1970s and 1980s EPA implemented the first auto 8 emission inspection and maintenance regulations. 9 Industry forecasted that the sky would fall; the 10 sky didn't fall but industry now repeats the same 11 theme song. 12 The EPA's Tier 2 is not a radical 13 proposal. It is designed merely to maintain the 14 present quality of our air environment; that is 15 the least the nation should expect of the EPA. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you. 18 Any questions? 19 Thank you very much. Thank you for 20 taking the time to come and share your views with 21 us. 22 Mr. Keith McKay, Mr. Andrew Altman, 23 Mr. Jonathan Sinker, Ms. Britta Ipri, Ms. Heather 24 Cornell, Mr. Peter Michele. 25 Place print your names and your 00513 1 Keith McKay for Richard Levine, M.D. 2 affiliation of the organization that you are 3 with, also. And I would like to remind you to 4 please keep your remarks to ten minutes or less. 5 John is helping you out with that. Now we have a 6 sign giving you a warning at one minute and then 7 no time left. 8 We will start with Mr. Keith McKay. 9 MR. McKAY: Good afternoon. 10 MS. OGE: Good afternoon. 11 MR. McKAY: I am actually testifying 12 on behalf of Richard Levine, who is a family 13 practitioner for Tatem Brown Family Practice 14 Center. 15 MS. OGE: Would you please speak 16 closer to the mike, if you can? 17 MR. McKAY: What may seem like common 18 sense today was often met with criticism during 19 the last three decades; for example, who in their 20 right mind would allow a child to ride a bicycle 21 without a helmet, yet when we were growing up 22 nobody wore helmets. 23 Seat belts were often disconnected so 24 the annoying buzzer wouldn't sound, allowing 25 people to drive without being restrained, without 00514 1 Keith McKay for Richard Levine, M.D. 2 a seat belt. How long did it take for seat belts 3 to become the rule rather than the exception? 4 The more modern example is the use of 5 the air bag. General Motors introduced air bags 6 in the 1970s but they did not become popular 7 until the mid 1980s, until it was sued by a car- 8 accident victim because the Ford she was driving 9 did not have an air bag yet. It was common 10 knowledge at the time that air bags protected 11 occupants better than seat belts alone. 12 Obviously the public has been 13 clamoring for increased safety in vehicles for 14 many years but is only now beginning to see the 15 impact of vehicles on the environment. 16 As a family physician I have 17 witnessed firsthand the effects of pollution on 18 human beings. More and more children are being 19 diagnosed with asthma and the symptoms are 20 increasingly difficult to control. 21 Although difficult to prove, it has 22 been postulated by leading researchers in 23 pulmonary medicine that the rise in asthma rates 24 since the early 1980s is directly related to the 25 amounts of ozone in the environment. 00515 1 Keith McKay for Richard Levine, M.D. 2 Not only are children at risk, but 3 also the elderly and persons with pulmonary 4 problems. 5 Just today a 23-year-old patient of 6 mine is having difficulty breathing because of 7 the excessive heat and ozone triggered by her 8 asthma. Why treat asthma with medications if we 9 can prevent it from occurring in the first 10 place? 11 On days when air pollution is at its 12 worst, my office is busier than usual with 13 patients suffering from respiratory problems. 14 I support cleaner air and the EPA's 15 Tier 2 proposal to cut auto pollution. There 16 should not be the special treatment for trucks, 17 minivans and SUVs. Now that these vehicles 18 account for over half of Ford's and Chrysler's 19 sales in the U.S., it is obvious that these 20 vehicles should be viewed in the same light as 21 passenger cars. 22 Car manufacturers have the technology 23 now to cut emissions, so why allow them ten years 24 to phase in stricter tailpipe emissions? 25 Ten years from now, it will seem like 00516 1 Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council 2 common sense that the government should have 3 treated trucks just like passenger cars in our 4 duty to clean our air. 5 Aren't our children worth it? 6 Thank you. 7 MS. OGE: Dr. McKay, thank you. 8 Mr. Andrew Altman. 9 MR. ALTMAN: Good afternoon. My name 10 is Andrew Altman. I am deputy director of Clean 11 Air Council. Clean Air Council is Pennsylvania's 12 leading environmental advocacy organization 13 working on air issues. The Council has offices 14 in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, and the Council 15 has been working for the last 32 years to protect 16 everyone's right to breathe clean air. 17 The Council is perhaps best known for 18 its willingness to sue the U.S. EPA and 19 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when they do not 20 properly implement the Clean Air Act. 21 Air pollution is dangerous for all of 22 us. It is even a more serious problem for 23 children, the elderly and people with preexisting 24 respiratory diseases. The group health 25 professionals are most concerned about are 00517 1 Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council 2 children with asthma. Asthma rates among 3 children are up 75 percent since 1980 with 4.6 4 million children suffering from asthma. 5 In 1998, Pennsylvania had 616 6 recorded exceedences of the eight-hour health 7 standard. Most Pennsylvanians are still 8 regularly exposed to unhealthful levels of 9 ozone. In the Philadelphia Area, Montgomery 10 County exceeded the eight-hour standard on 19 11 different occasions in 1998. Bucks County had 12 14, Philadelphia County 27 and Delaware County 13 had 19. Pittsburgh had a record of 33 14 exceedences. 15 During the summer of 1998, 27 16 Pennsylvania counties exceeded the eight-hour 17 standard, and 31 other states and the District of 18 Columbia have similarly severe ozone 19 exceedences. 20 The same anti-environmental forces 21 that are delaying the implementation of the 22 revised eight-hour ozone standard and new fine 23 particulate standard, both health-based, are now 24 in front of the EPA trying to delay these mobile 25 source emission proposals. 00518 1 Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council 2 And the Air Council calls on EPA 3 today to close the loophole for SUVs and other 4 light trucks, set national standards for 5 low-sulfur gasoline, and require the engines of 6 all passenger cars, whether diesel- or gasoline- 7 powered to meet the same low emissions standards. 8 Support for Tier 2: There can be no 9 doubt about the public health need for cleaner 10 motor vehicles. 11 Americans now drive 2.5 trillion 12 miles per year, more than doubling 1970 levels. 13 Cars and light trucks spew out more than 30 14 percent of the smog throwing oxides of nitrogen 15 that fouls the air in the Philadelphia area. 16 Improvements in the emissions for new 17 passenger vehicles are being offset by the 18 dramatic trends in purchases of SUVs. Sales of 19 these vehicles are now equal to the sales of the 20 traditional passenger vehicles. 21 According to the survey done by the 22 American Lung Association, America strongly 23 favors uniform national clean gasoline standards 24 and are even willing to pay more for cleaner 25 gasoline if it will result in clean air -- 00519 1 Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council 2 cleaner air. 3 Significant advances have been made 4 in vehicle emissions and control technology. 5 These advances are continuing. The advanced 6 technologies on the market today are the result 7 of the technology-forcing nature of the low 8 emission vehicle programs. 9 EPA must strengthen and simplify the 10 national low emission program to guarantee 11 emission reductions. EPA has chosen to follow 12 the California model in allowing emission goals 13 to be calculated on a per company average rather 14 than a per vehicle average or basis. 15 The Council believes that the 16 California approach may not be translated to a 17 much larger national program with integrity. The 18 section of the proposal rule which adds extra 19 emission bins and vehicle categories extends 20 deadlines for full compliance. 21 In particular, the proposal to allow 22 higher emissions and later deadlines for heavier 23 light-duty trucks makes the proposed system 24 vulnerable to fraud and delay. 25 The Council makes the following 00520 1 Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council 2 recommendations: EPA should substantially 3 shorten the compliance schedule of the heavier 4 SUVs to 2005; 5 EPA should eliminate extra provisions 6 that provide for an allowable higher emission 7 level for heavy vehicles; 8 EPA should not include a formal 9 technology review of the Tier 2 standards; 10 EPA as it monitors the Tier 2 11 implementation can adjust the program. It is 12 unnecessary and unwise for the formal review 13 provision to be included in the final rule; 14 EPA should delete from the average 15 banking and trading portion of the proposed rule 16 any ability of an automobile manufacturer to 17 address violations of emission unit also by 18 borrowing emission reduction credits from the 19 next model year. 20 The program will be meaningful only 21 if participants are required to meet targets on 22 time. 23 At yesterday's hearing Mr. German 24 from Honda Motor Company expressed why the 25 Council supports the adoption of the National Low 00521 1 Andrew Altman, Clean Air Council 2 Sulfur in -- Low Sulfur in Fuel Program. 3 He stated sulfur -- I quote from 4 him: "Sulfur is a catalyst poison which has many 5 detrimental effects. It is a barrier to reaching 6 low emission levels; it is a barrier to the 7 introduction of new technologies." 8 Unless EPA is willing to be 9 aggressive in its implementation of the national 10 low sulfur fuel program, automobile manufacturers 11 will be delayed in implementing significant 12 reductions in vehicle emission controls. 13 Honda then goes on to conclude that 14 the Tier 2 standards proposed by EPA are 15 technically feasible. 16 The Clean Air Council believes that 17 EPA is wrong and that its proposal does not 18 deliver cleaner gasoline at that time, the same 19 time that the new technology vehicles are 20 required under NLEV and Tier 2 to become 21 available to consumers. 22 The Council makes the following 23 recommendations: 24 EPA should phase in more quickly its 25 caps for sulfur and fuel; 00522 1 Jonathan Sinker, National Environmental Trust 2 EPA must tighten its trading rules in 3 order to prevent pockets of high sulfur gasoline; 4 EPA should reject the suggestion by 5 some interested parties to adopt a more regional 6 approach to sulfur in fuel. Sulfur is poison to 7 a car's pollution control equipment, wherever 8 that car may be driven. 9 On diesel, Americans overwhelmingly 10 believe that the diesel fuel vehicles should have 11 the same or equivalent strict emission standards 12 as gasoline vehicles. Every vehicle designed 13 primarily for passenger use should meet the same 14 pollution control standards regardless of the 15 chosen fuel vehicle weight or engine type. 16 In conclusion, Clean Air Council 17 reserves the right to submit more detailed 18 testimony in writing before the close of the 19 comment period. Any questions to this testimony 20 should be addressed to Joseph Minott, our 21 executive director. 22 Thank you very much. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you. 24 Mr. Jonathan Sinker. 25 MR. SINKER: My name is Jonathan 00523 1 Jonathan Sinker, National Environmental Trust 2 Sinker. I am the organizer for the National 3 Environmental Trust in Pennsylvania and 4 Delaware. The Environmental Trust is a 5 nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to 6 educating the American public on contemporary 7 environmental issues. 8 Since it was founded in 1995 at the 9 Environmental Information Center, NET has worked 10 to promote strong health, safety and 11 environmental protections on issues including 12 food, air, drinking water, safety, local climate 13 change, public right-to-know policies, and 14 endangered species protection. 15 Clean Air Act mandates that EPA set 16 national ambient air quality standards that will 17 protect public health. There is no doubt that 18 the air in Pennsylvania and Delaware is not 19 protective of public health. 20 In 1998, Pennsylvania had 16 -- 616 21 readings where the eight-hour standard was 22 exceeded. Most Pennsylvanians are still 23 regularly exposed to unhealthful levels of ozone. 24 In the Philadelphia area, if you live 25 in Montgomery County, the eight-hour standard was 00524 1 Jonathan Sinker, National Environmental Trust 2 exceeded on 19 different occasions; 14 times in 3 Bucks County; 27 times in Philadelphia County; 4 and 19 times in Delaware County. 5 During the summer of 1998, 27 6 Pennsylvania counties exceeded the eight-hour 7 standard. In Delaware the reading exceeded the 8 eight-hour standard 88 times in 1998. 9 Air pollution is dangerous for all of 10 us. It is an even more serious problem for 11 children, the elderly and people with preexisting 12 respiratory diseases. The group most health 13 professionals are concerned about are children 14 with asthma. 15 Asthma rates among children are up 75 16 percent since 1980 with 4.6 million children 17 suffering from asthma. Ozone is responsible for 18 up to 10 percent of all hospital admissions 19 during the summer. 20 Ozone is a powerful lung irritant. 21 It can inflame lungs and cause harmful changes in 22 breathing problems. According to the American 23 Lung Association, ozone pollution even at low 24 levels has the ability to increase hospital 25 admissions and emergency room visits and 00525 1 Jonathan Sinker, National Environmental Trust 2 respiratory problems. 3 Exposure to elevated levels of ozone 4 is particularly a problem for children because 5 the respiratory system is still being developed, 6 and they breathe more air per pound for body 7 weight than adults. 8 The United States is currently 9 responsible for about 25 percent of the growth 10 for global warming gases. The Tier 2 proposal 11 will have the important benefit of lowering 12 global warming gas emission. 13 NET joins the rest of the 14 environmental community in supporting the EPA's 15 Tier 2 low-sulfur gasoline proposal. The 16 national environmental trust calls on EPA today 17 to: 18 Number one, close the loophole for 19 SUVs and other light trucks. The SUV emission 20 loophole that allows such cars to pollute three 21 to five times more than passenger cars needed to 22 be addressed and it has been obvious for years. 23 Yet only now is EPA proposing to act. And even 24 now it acts in a way that will still exempt the 25 largest SUVs, the worst polluters expeditiously 00526 1 Jonathan Sinker, National Environmental Trust 2 reducing their emissions. 3 Number two, set national standards 4 for low-sulfur gasoline. Sulfur is poisonous for 5 pollution control devices on cars. New tougher 6 emission standards being proposed today cannot be 7 achieved with dirty gasoline. 8 And number three, require the engines 9 of all passenger cars whether diesel or 10 gasoline-powered meet the same low emission 11 standards. 12 Americans overwhelmingly believe that 13 diesel fuel vehicles should have the same, 14 equivalent, strict emission standards as gasoline 15 vehicles. 16 Every vehicle designed primarily for 17 passengers' use should meet the same pollution 18 control standards regardless of the chosen fuel, 19 vehicle weight or engine type. There can be no 20 doubt about the public health need for cleaner 21 motor vehicles. 22 NET reserves the right to submit 23 additional written comments during the comment 24 period. Thank you. 25 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Britta 00527 1 Britta Ipri, ALA of Maryland 2 Ipri? Is that how you pronounce your name? 3 MS. IPRI: Yep. You got it right on 4 the first try. 5 My name is Britta Ipri speaking on 6 behalf on the American Lung Association of 7 Maryland. 8 The American Lung Association of 9 Maryland applauds the efforts of the EPA to make 10 our air safer to breathe by cutting pollution 11 from automobiles. This comes at a time when 12 asthma rates are on the rise and more people than 13 ever before are vulnerable to severe health 14 impacts of air pollution. 15 It is clearly evident our nation 16 needs the strongest possible air regulation 17 controlling our pollution from all major sources. 18 Right now Maryland has a very serious 19 air pollution problem. Maryland alone had over 20 54 violations of the new eight-hour health 21 standard for smog last summer. A report released 22 in 1996 revealed that Baltimore, Maryland, ranked 23 second only to Los Angeles in the number of 24 respiratory-related hospital emissions and 25 emergency room visits related to air quality. 00528 1 Britta Ipri, ALA of Maryland 2 Children, the elderly and those with 3 respiratory illnesses are most at risk. Asthma 4 rates in children have increased 75 percent since 5 1980. Automobiles are the largest non-industrial 6 source of smog-forming nitrogen oxides. 7 This proposal is a big step in the 8 right direction, but there are a few things that 9 should be improved before the rules become 10 final. 11 First, there should be no special 12 treatment for heavier vehicles. All passenger 13 vehicles including minivans and SUVs should meet 14 the same standards at the same time. Larger SUVs 15 should not be given extra time to clean up. 16 Right now the proposal includes a 17 separate schedule for these heavier vehicles. 18 These vehicles will have more protection 19 standards than any other vehicle class. 20 The industry has always responded 21 with new technologies and products when standards 22 are firm and deadlines are reasonable. 23 The ten-year phase-in schedule for 24 heavier vehicles far exceeds any phase-in period 25 for passenger vehicles ever proposed. This 00529 1 Britta Ipri, ALA of Maryland 2 schedule asks the victims of air pollution to 3 once again wait for relief. 4 If anything, the time line should be 5 shortened. In addition, this proposal does 6 nothing to clean up super-sized SUVs such as the 7 Ford Excursion. This could lead to increased 8 sales and production of these overgrown passenger 9 cars. Heavy-duty trucks should be required to 10 clean up their emissions as well. 11 Second, there should not be any 12 special treatment of diesel technologies. All 13 vehicles, regardless of engine or fuel use should 14 meet the same public health standards. There is 15 no logical justification for special treatment 16 for diesel technologies, yet the Tier 2 proposal 17 has created two vehicle categories that would 18 permanently allow diesel engines to pollute twice 19 as much soot as gasoline engines and up to ten 20 times as much smog-forming nitrogen oxide. 21 Given the toxic and likely 22 carcinogenic nature of diesel exhausts, there 23 should be no incentives to increase the amount of 24 diesel vehicles on the road. 25 Third, the sulfur levels in gasoline 00530 1 Britta Ipri, ALA of Maryland 2 should be lowered to 30 parts per million. The 3 current proposal will reduce sulfur content in 4 gasoline but will allow an extended timetable for 5 small refiners. Low-sulfur gasoline needs to be 6 adopted nationally at the same time as the new 7 emission standards. 8 By allowing some refiners to continue 9 to produce dirty gasoline, there will be negative 10 impacts on the pollution control technologies of 11 newer and cleaner cars. We believe people are 12 willing to pay the extra 1 to 2 cents per gallon 13 that it will take to clean up sulfur levels if it 14 will mean being able to breath cleaner air. 15 And, fourth, there should be no -- 16 there should be increased incentives for advanced 17 technology vehicles. The new standards do not 18 provide sufficient incentives to spur the 19 development of cleaner technologies such as 20 battery electric and fuel-cell powered cars. 21 In other words, to move the market 22 toward-future-advanced technology vehicles, EPA 23 must do more to get more of these vehicles on the 24 road. 25 The Tier 2 proposal is a strong start 00531 1 Heather Cornell for Jeremy Focht 2 to reducing air pollution; however, since this 3 decision will affect our air quality for decades 4 to come, we cannot afford to risk the public 5 health by documenting a proposal that does not 6 address the above-mentioned areas of concern. 7 We need the strongest possible 8 regulations to control air pollution. 9 On behalf of the American Lung 10 Association of Maryland, thank you again for your 11 leadership on this issue. 12 MS. OGE: Thank you. 13 Ms. Heather Cornell. 14 MS. CORNELL: I am speaking today on 15 behalf of Mr. Jeremy Focht. He is a research 16 process engineer with the agricultural chemical 17 division of Rohm & Haas Corporation. 18 As a practicing chemical engineer, 19 part of my job deals with ensuring that our 20 company's chemical processes will be able to 21 adhere to strict EPA guidelines. 22 Air emissions from chemical plants 23 are highly regulated by the EPA, and rightfully 24 so. But for an industry that is perceived to be 25 a large polluter by many, an examination of the 00532 1 Heather Cornell for Jeremy Focht 2 1997 EPA statistics tells a different story. 3 The chemical industry contributes to 4 seven-tenths of 1 percent of nitrogen oxides, 1.5 5 percent of carbon monoxide, and 2.4 percent of 6 the volatile organic compound emissions. 7 However, on-the-road vehicles 8 contribute to 29.8 percent of NOx, 57.5 percent 9 of carbon monoxide, and 27.2 percent of VOC 10 emissions in the United States. 11 The chemical industry has worked hard 12 over the past several decades to curb our 13 emissions, and it's time for the transportation 14 industry to use all available technology to put 15 forth a serious effort to decrease their 16 emissions. 17 I urge the EPA to adopt the Tier 2 18 standards. The Tier 2 standards would allow for 19 a consistent approach to emissions control. 20 Instead of exempting the fastest growing portion 21 of the automobile industry, the current emission 22 requirements should be extended to include 23 sport-utility vehicles and light-duty trucks. 24 In fact, we need to go further than 25 the Tier 2 requirements by extending the current 00533 1 Heather Cornell for Jeremy Focht 2 emission standards immediately, not in 2004. 3 In addition, certain emission 4 standards should be applied to all vehicles that 5 travel our nation's roadways. With the 6 diesel-powered vehicles contributing 26 percent 7 of the xOx emissions and over 60 percent of the 8 particulate emissions from all U.S. vehicles, any 9 standards not addressed in this transportation 10 class would be incomplete at best. 11 It seems absurd that I can spend $50 12 for an emissions test for my compact car only to 13 pull away from the service station into a cloud 14 of black diesel exhaust of a passing 15 semi-trailer. 16 The Tier 2 emission standards coupled 17 with the reduction of sulfur in gasoline would 18 help to reduce acid rain formation, decrease the 19 formation of smog in urban areas and help make 20 the air safer for us all to breathe. 21 The adoption of the Tier 2 standards 22 is not only a sound environmental investment but 23 also a cost-effective way of achieving beneficial 24 environmental results. 25 The extra $200 required per SUV to 00534 1 Peter Michele - GEET 2 bring it into emission compliance amounts to less 3 than 1 percent of that vehicle's cost. The 4 sport-utility vehicle market that sells thousands 5 of vehicles for prices that would pay for two of 6 many other vehicles, this additional cost should 7 not be considered as a deterrent for extending 8 emissions guidelines. 9 In closing, on-road vehicles 10 contribute a large portion of the total U.S. air 11 emissions in a number of different categories. 12 The Tier 2 standards would be an important step 13 in reducing on-road vehicle emission. 14 In addition, I urge the EPA to extend 15 guidelines to all on-road vehicles. The Tier 2 16 standards lend consistency to air emissions 17 guidelines across the industry, and I believe 18 that the EPA should adopt the Tier 2 standards. 19 Thank you for your time. 20 MS. OGE: Thank you. 21 Mr. Peter -- is it Michele? 22 MR. MICHELE: Michele, yes. 23 My name is Peter Michele. I am a New 24 Jersey resident and an advocate for a cleaner 25 environment. And I am here today on a volunteer 00535 1 Peter Michele - GEET 2 basis to represent Global Environmental Energy 3 Technology in support of the stricter Tier 2 4 standards. 5 I have listened to a lot of the 6 stories presented here today by people who are 7 themselves suffering from asthma or relating 8 stories of close relatives or children with 9 asthma. I found myself able to fully relate to 10 their pleas for cleaner air, myself having a 31- 11 year-old sister who has suffered immensely from 12 asthma for over 15 years. In 1991 my sister was 13 hospitalized 29 times for severe asthma. That's 14 insane. 15 And while air pollution from vehicles 16 is not the sole cause of this, I cannot count the 17 number of times I've seen her condition 18 exacerbated on ozone alert days. 19 Only three weeks ago she was 20 hospitalized again for a week with severe 21 asthma. I can't tell you how many times I've 22 feared she might die and watch my parents worry 23 so much about her. She is not getting any better 24 with her condition. She really needs cleaner air 25 to breathe. 00536 1 Peter Michele - GEET 2 Being frustrated with this situation 3 for years and realizing that air pollution was a 4 significant contributing factor, I searched for 5 solutions to help reduce the pollution. 6 Realizing that money, unfortunately, 7 makes the modern industrial world go round versus 8 love, I knew it to be a solution that industry 9 could both live and benefit from. It had to be a 10 win/win arrangement between the industrialists 11 and the people they serve. 12 After years of looking for such a 13 solution, I found a humanitarian-based company 14 who puts people before profits and who offered a 15 solution. The company's name is GEET, Global 16 Environmental Energy Technology, and they have 17 the technology to reduce air pollution today, not 18 five to ten years from now. And it is economical 19 and well within the reach of consumers, not like 20 some $200,000 hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle. 21 GEET has over 400 inventions from 22 inventors all over the world who wanted to help 23 the environment. Many of these technologies are 24 far in advance of what most engineers and 25 scientists would currently consider being 00537 1 Peter Michele - GEET 2 possible. 3 Specifically today, I would like just 4 to mention one of these technologies, known as 5 the GEET fuel pre-treater that was patented last 6 August. Use of this fuel pre-treater, which 7 consists of a specially designed reaction 8 chamber, effectively converts both gasoline and 9 diesel as well as crude oil and a host of other 10 unlikely fuels to a new fuel there, GEET gas, 11 which is rich in hydrogen and burns extremely 12 clean. 13 With GEET fuel pre-treaters, 14 emissions can be reduced by 95 percent while the 15 engine gets double the fuel mileage. In 16 addition, engines have been shown to have a 17 longer life expectancy, from two to ten times the 18 standard, due to the cleaner fuel. 19 Although I am not an expert in 20 chemistry, I am able to comprehend common sense. 21 And the dramatic results GEET has achieved have 22 made far more sense to me than various other 23 industry proposals I have heard and reviewed thus 24 far. 25 A hot topic here today has been the 00538 1 Peter Michele - GEET 2 reduction of sulfur in fuel. I just spoke with 3 the inventer, Paul Pantone (ph.) of Salt Lake 4 City a few minutes ago and mentioned this. I 5 asked him: What about sulfur? 6 He said: They have not yet performed 7 tests for sulfur emissions as of yet. But he 8 related to me they ran a stand-alone 10 9 horsepower-engine in a closed room for eight and 10 a half hours using sulfur-rich crude oil as 11 fuel. Testing the emissions showed zero carbon 12 monoxide, zero carbon and zero hydrocarbons. 13 Also prior to the run, the air in the 14 room showed an oxygen content of 21 percent. 15 After the run the oxygen in the room was 23 16 percent. 17 Think of what this would mean in 18 Mexico City or Los Angeles: Clean the air as you 19 drive. 20 GEET has demonstrated a 1985 Suburban 21 with the GEET retrofit. It was factory equipped 22 with four-wheel drive without overdrive with a 23 normal fuel rating of 8 miles per gallon. They 24 currently get between 20 and 32 miles per gallon 25 using mixtures of half gas, half water. 00539 1 Peter Michele - GEET 2 The standard hydrocarbons for this 3 vehicle are 120 to 240 parts per million; they 4 are getting 5 to 10 parts per million. 5 They've ruined diesel and gas engines 6 on junk fuels including coffee, soda pop, battery 7 acid, used oil, used transmission fluid, and a 8 host of other unlikely fuels in front of 9 audiences. 10 There are employees from GM, Ford and 11 Chrysler who purchased plans on how to build a 12 GEET retrofit and put them on their own personal 13 vehicles but they say they haven't fared well in 14 presenting this technology to their companies 15 mostly viewed to an inordinate level of 16 scepticism. 17 People who have built these units 18 themselves have even gotten a 90 percent 19 reduction in emissions using used motor oil as 20 fuel. 21 With such technology available today, 22 what are we waiting for in the country? GEET is 23 currently negotiating licensing agreements with 24 car and bus manufacturers in China, Korea and 25 Japan who use GEET devices on an OEM basis. 00540 1 Peter Michele - GEET 2 I would like to commend several of 3 the auto manufacturers here today. Some of your 4 efforts seem genuinely sincere while perhaps 5 others are offering empty excuses for deadline 6 extensions and for putting limits on the Tier 2 7 standards. 8 Let me just close by saying that I 9 have not and will not receive a dime from GEET or 10 anyone else for being here today and that I have 11 been working for GEET on a volunteer basis for 12 several months. Global Environmental Energy 13 Technology has committed themselves to helping 14 heal the environment. 15 It is donating a minimum of up 25 16 percent of all company profits back to the 17 community that purchase GEET technology. This 18 money will be used to continue helping the 19 environment and the people of those areas. 20 On behalf of GEET, myself and my 21 sister, I thank you so much. I deeply appreciate 22 your consideration. Your Tier 2 standards are 23 exactly what the doctor ordered. 24 MS. OGE: Thank you. I would like to 25 thank all of you for taking the time to come 00541 1 Peter Joseph, Ph.D. 2 forward and give us your views about the Tier 2 3 program. Thank you very much. 4 And I would ask -- I would like to 5 ask the next panel to please come forward. Dr. 6 Peter Joseph, Ms. Kitty Campbell, Ms. Mindy 7 Maslin, Mr. David Cohen, Eric Waters, and Mr. 8 Denis Winter. 9 Please print your name on the piece 10 of paper. John is going to give you a piece of 11 paper. 12 We will start with Dr. Joseph -- oh, 13 I'm sorry, let's see. 14 MR. JOSEPH: Good afternoon. Let me 15 introduce myself. 16 MS. OGE: Peter -- Dr. Peter Joseph. 17 MR. JOSEPH: Dr. Peter Joseph, yes. 18 I am a Ph.D., not an M.D. 19 I am a professor in the School of 20 Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania here 21 in Philadelphia. I am also a member of the 22 Philadelphia Asthma Task Force, which is a 23 special asthma group of experts appointed by the 24 City of Philadelphia Department of Health. 25 My talk today is called the Air 00542 1 Peter Joseph, Ph.D. 2 Pollution Crisis in Philadelphia. And I suspect 3 that some of the things I say will be in 4 disagreement with some of the other opinions that 5 you have heard today. However I want to 6 emphasize that there is no one in this room that 7 is more passionately devoted to clean air than I 8 am. 9 My talk takes just five minutes to 10 read, and it is a series of questions and 11 answers. 12 "Question 1: Do we have an air 13 pollution crisis in Philadelphia? 14 "ANSWER: Something is seriously 15 wrong with the air we breath in the Philadelphia 16 region. Over the last six years, asthma rates 17 have skyrocketed far beyond anything that has 18 ever been seen in the history of the world. 19 Whereas the national average for asthma 20 prevalence is about 6 percent, recent studies in 21 Philadelphia school children are showing rates of 22 25 to 35 percent. That was not true in 1993 when 23 a study by Harvard doctors found only 7 percent." 24 And I have a graph here for those of 25 you interested to illustrate that. 00543 1 Peter Joseph, Ph.D. 2 "A similar situation exists in a few 3 other places, most notably New York City. A New 4 York City Health Department survey in 1998 found 5 23 percent of the children had asthma as 6 diagnosed by the physicians. 7 A study recently reported in the 8 "New York Times" showed that homeless children 9 in New York had an asthma rate of 38 percent --" 10 sounds like there is a missing decimal point 11 there, doesn't it? "-- 38 percent, far higher 12 than anything that has ever been seen at any time 13 in the history of the human race." 14 Wow. 15 "QUESTION: Isn't asthma increasing 16 everywhere? 17 "ANSWER: Yes. But not nearly as 18 much. For example, in New York State as opposed 19 to City, New York State had a survey in 1997 20 show, quote, only, unquote, 7 percent prevalence, 21 far less than New York City or Philadelphia. 22 "QUESTION 3: Isn't the EPA doing 23 everything possible to reduce air pollution in 24 Philadelphia? 25 "ANSWER: The problem is that 00544 1 Peter Joseph, Ph.D. 2 according to all conventional measures, the air 3 in Philadelphia and New York City is now cleaner 4 than it has been in many years. This includes 5 ozone, includes sulfur and particulate pollution 6 that are being discussed in this forum. The most 7 obvious conclusion is that there is some unusual 8 new pollutant that the EPA has overlooked." 9 And that's my thesis, there is 10 something. 11 "QUESTION: Is there something 12 unusual about Philadelphia and New York that can 13 explain these disastrous results? 14 "ANSWER: Yes. Both regions have 15 been required by the EPA to have high levels of 16 the chemical MTBE in their gasoline since 1992, 17 which I remind you is exactly when the skyrocket 18 began. 19 "QUESTION: Is there any reason to 20 think that MTBE in gasoline is causing this 21 epidemic? 22 "ANSWER: Yes. An epidemic of 23 various respiratory and/or neurologic problems 24 when MTBE was required in Alaska in 1992 and the 25 state government defied the EPA and banned the 00545 1 Peter Joseph, Ph.D. 2 substance. Since then, literally thousands of 3 people have been complaining that the gasoline or 4 exhaust fumes are making them sick. 5 Unfortunately, the EPA ignored these complaints 6 and steadfastly required that we continue to use 7 MTBE in our gasoline. 8 "QUESTION: Isn't MTBE making 9 gasoline burn cleaner and reduce air pollution? 10 "ANSWER: Not according to two 11 separate studies released by the National Academy 12 of Sciences. Their 1996 report said MTBE is not 13 really reducing carbon monoxide. And the recent 14 1999 report said it is not reducing ozone. In 15 fact, both carbon monoxide and ozone are now 16 lower than they have been in many years and 17 cannot possibly explain the increase in asthma 18 that has occurred here since 1992." 19 It makes absolutely no sense to blame 20 this on ozone. 21 "QUESTION: Isn't MTBE reducing air 22 toxins such as benzene? 23 "ANSWER: That depends on how you 24 define, 'toxins.' MTBE definitely increases --" 25 underline increases "-- the emission of 00546 1 Peter Joseph, Ph.D. 2 formaldehyde, formic acid and methanol, all of 3 them toxic to the respiratory or neurological 4 systems. 5 "More important, the EPA has not 6 done a complete job of analyzing the toxic 7 chemicals produced. They have studied emissions 8 of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, but not 9 of compounds formed from both nitrogen and 10 hydrocarbon. 11 "I believe that MTBE is producing 12 methyl nitrite, a chemical that is literally 100 13 times more toxic than benzene." 14 Let me say that again: Methyl 15 nitrite is 100 times more toxic than benzene. 16 "There have been no attempts to 17 determine if methyl nitrite is being produced or 18 how much of it is in our air." 19 By the way, it is made in -- 20 definitely made in diesel exhaust. There is a 21 paper about this, if you are interested. 22 "QUESTION: Is there any reason to 23 think that methyl nitrite is a problem? 24 "ANSWER: Yes. Because it is 25 destroyed by sunlight but will be present at 00547 1 Kitty Campbell, PA PIRG 2 night or on dark cloudy days. Many people 3 experience their worst symptoms on such days. 4 Furthermore, most asthma attacks occur at night 5 and not during the daytime when ozone is at its 6 maximum. 7 "QUESTION: How can one learn more 8 about this problem? 9 "ANSWER: Check the website... 10 www.Oxybusters.org. Oxybusters is a grass roots 11 citizens group of people whose health has been 12 damaged by MTBE. Contrary to cost rumors spread 13 by the MTBE industry, Oxybusters does not get any 14 financial help from the ethanol industry." 15 Final question: "What can one do to 16 help? 17 Please "support the bills in 18 Congress by Representative Frank Pallone of New 19 Jersey and Senator Diane Feinstein in 20 California." They are trying "to ban the use of 21 MTBE and other ethers in gasoline." 22 Thank you. 23 MS. OGE: Thank you very much. 24 Ms. Campbell. 25 MS. CAMPBELL: My name is Kitty 00548 1 Kitty Campbell, PA PIRG 2 Campbell, and I am speaking both personally and 3 as a person who works for Penn PIRG, Public 4 Interest Research Group of Pennsylvania. 5 On a personal level, my nephew -- my 6 nephew's wife, who lives in Bordentown, New 7 Jersey has asthma, and there are many days when 8 she just can't go outside at all. 9 We live in a free country, and I 10 think the air should be free as well as the other 11 freedoms that we enjoy. And I think that people 12 like the EPA, we ought to applaud them for taking 13 the initiative to try to do something about 14 taking the responsibility for the air that 15 everybody breathes. 16 Secondly, I work for PIRG. It is a 17 nonprofit organization, that's Public Interest 18 Research Group, here in Philadelphia. We fight 19 very hard to clean up our environment, both the 20 air and water, by educating our members and 21 lobbying all over the United States. 22 I personally hope to be able to buy 23 an electric, battery-operated or solar-powered 24 car next time I get one. So I want to encourage 25 incentives for advanced technology vehicles so 00549 1 Kitty Campbell, PA PIRG 2 more of us can drive less polluting cars. 3 I am going to definitely -- I am 4 going to talk to that person from GEET. It 5 sounds like a great idea. 6 I moved to Pennsylvania from 7 California. Now in California, the standards of 8 emissions of smog by cars are much stricter. And 9 it has definitely reduced the smog out there, 10 even though it is bad because of the amount of 11 population and building of cities in the middle 12 of mountain valleys where the smog can't escape. 13 It is undeniable that planning around 14 the freeways and having much stricter smog 15 standards on cars has made a huge difference. 16 Smog would be much worse without it. 17 I am letting the EPA know that I 18 believe the majority of Americans will show a 19 willingness to pay as much as necessary so we can 20 improve our air quality with cleaner cars. 21 Isn't being able to breathe freely a 22 lot more important than a few cents more a gallon 23 or a few hundred dollars a year? 24 Thank you for listening. 25 MS. OGE: Thank you. 00550 1 Mindy Maslin 2 Ms. Maslin. 3 MS. MASLIN: Good afternoon. My name 4 is Mindy Maslin. I am speaking as a private 5 citizen. 6 EPA's Tier 2 proposal has wonderful 7 potential for improving our air quality. Air 8 pollution is a critical environmental and public 9 health issue as need for regulations grow as 10 miles are put on our cars and the number of cars 11 on the road increases. 12 Automobiles are the number one 13 non-industrial smog producers and our future 14 depends on implementing strong regulations that 15 limits their damage. 16 I am a professional tree-hugger who 17 works for the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 18 teaching community groups to keep city trees 19 alive. 20 Trees help lower air pollution, 21 reduce urban heat islands, reduce runoff and 22 subsequent water pollution and much more. 23 However, the effects of the excessive 24 air pollution on them is devastating. 25 Ground-level ozone is one of the stresses that 00551 1 Mindy Maslin 2 leads to the death of many of our Urban trees. 3 One statistic is that Philadelphia's Urban trees 4 on the average live less than ten years. 5 If this trend does not stop, 6 Philadelphia could become a city that few would 7 choose to live in increasing other environmental 8 issues. 9 My interest is also personal. I 10 developed asthma as an adult and blame 11 Philadelphia's poor air quality for it. I cannot 12 leave my home without carrying a bronchodilator 13 and am often forced to limit my activities on bad 14 air quality days like commuting to work via 15 bicycle. 16 There are three areas of the proposal 17 that need strengthening in order for it to have 18 the teeth necessary for the results that we 19 want: One, there should be no special treatment 20 for minivans and SUVs. They are high on the list 21 of pollution producers and should be expected to 22 meet standards on time. These vehicles, the 23 dirtiest of all vehicles, should not receive any 24 exceptions to meeting the standards on time as 25 well. 00552 1 David Cohen 2 The standards must include incentives 3 for the development of clean alternatives, such 4 as battery-powered -- excuse me, battery-electric 5 or fuel-cell-powered cars. Until the paradigm 6 shifts in mass transit and rail and other clean 7 alternatives are used, these clean cars are the 8 only long-term solution. 9 The Tier 2 proposal has great 10 potential. With the above-mentioned concerns 11 met, we will all breathe a little easier. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. OGE: Thank you very much. Mr. 14 Cohen. 15 MR. COHEN: Good afternoon. My name 16 is David Cohen. Thank you for allowing me to 17 testify before you today. 18 I am a member of the Clean Air 19 Council and a certified room planner who is in 20 favor of tightening standards on vehicle and 21 emission controls. 22 Tier 2 standards need to be tightened 23 and I feel should have the same emission controls 24 as the Tier 1 vehicles. The proposed rule is 25 clearly a step in the right direction. However 00553 1 David Cohen 2 it has two key deficiencies: First, the ten-year 3 phase-in for sport-utility vehicles and light 4 trucks is excessively long. While I recognize 5 the manufacturers of these vehicles need time to 6 achieve design and engineering changes, the 7 timetable is excessively long and should be 8 shortened. 9 Second, heavy-duty trucks should also 10 be required to clean up their emissions. The 11 emergence of vehicles such as the Ford Excursion 12 will be exempt from the proposed rule change. 13 Currently the Ford Excursion and similar vehicles 14 will be largely used for non-farm and 15 non-industrial activities and will be marketed 16 for suburban transportation. Thus there should 17 not be a new loophole that enables a more 18 excessive vehicle such as the Excursion to skirt 19 the rules. 20 The proliferation and increased sales 21 and increased market share of the sport-utility 22 vehicle and light trucks coupled with the 23 increase of these vehicles for non-farm and 24 non-industrial activities have had a significant 25 impact on the environment. 00554 1 David Cohen 2 With increased vehicle miles traveled 3 during this decade, the use of sport-utility 4 vehicle and light trucks as suburban 5 transportation vehicles has not only resulted in 6 increased harmful emissions but have also helped 7 to contribute to suburban sprawl, loss of farm 8 land and an excessive use of raw material and 9 fossil fuels necessary to build and operate 10 sport-utility vehicles and light trucks. 11 Finally, a response to concerns about 12 the cost of implementing the proposed rule: It 13 is nominal for the benefit. The estimated cost 14 of 100 to $200 per vehicle represents a 15 negligible cost. The estimated cost of 2 cents 16 per gallon per gasoline is also negligible. 17 Even if the cost increases gasoline 18 higher, say 5 cents per gallon, it still 19 represents a negligible cost increase. For those 20 individuals that complain about the increase and 21 the cost of gasoline due to the implementation of 22 the proposed rule, there are two important 23 notes: First, consumer acceptance of the cost of 24 gasoline is elastic. 25 The cost of gasoline fluctuates up 00555 1 Denis Winters, League of Women Voters 2 and down for a variety of reasons. Consumers may 3 complain when there is an increase due to 4 regulatory change or new tax, but the encourage 5 to use gasoline is not impacted in any 6 significant way by increasing the price. 7 Second, the cost of gasoline is 8 severely underpriced in terms of the negative 9 impact driving has on our environment and the 10 costs associated with road building and road 11 maintenance. 12 While an increase associated with the 13 proposed rule would merely cover the cost of this 14 deficiency in gasoline pricing, it will at least 15 be a step in the right direction. 16 Thank you for allowing me to testify 17 before you today. 18 MS. MARTIN: Thank you for coming. 19 And I want to especially thank Mr. Winters for 20 being here for the League Women Voters from 21 Delaware. Please go forward. 22 MR. WINTERS: Thank you my name is 23 Dennis Winters. I am a resident, and I live and 24 work in Center City of Philadelphia. I am here 25 today to read into the record a statement that is 00556 1 Denis Winters, League of Women Voters 2 cosigned by Anita Puglisi, president of the 3 League of Women Voters of Delaware and Pat -- 4 Patricia Todd, president of the League of Women 5 Voters of New Castle County, Delaware. 6 The League of Women Voters of 7 Delaware appreciates the opportunity to comment 8 on EPA's new proposal, Air Docket 6102, for 9 uniform tailpipe standards and reduction of 10 sulfur levels in gasoline. 11 The League's environmental position 12 is to preserve the physical, chemical and 13 biological integrity of the ecosystem with 14 maximum protection of public health and the 15 environment. 16 Two of Delaware's three counties, New 17 Castle and Kent Counties, are part of the 18 Philadelphia/Wilmington metropolitan ozone 19 non-attainment area. 20 One of the main reasons that Delaware 21 is in this non-attainment area is the air 22 pollution generated by traffic on Interstate 95, 23 much of which is through-traffic. 24 Applying the uniform tailpipe 25 standard to cars plus sport-utility vehicles, 00557 1 Denis Winters, League of Women Voters 2 minivans and light-duty trucks is certainly a 3 step toward cleaner, healthier air for the people 4 of our state. 5 Requiring cleaner cars, SUVs, vans 6 and trucks will cut down on the nitrogen oxide 7 particulate matter and carbon dioxide as well. 8 The League supports the EPA's 9 proposals that will make cars 77 percent cleaner 10 and the other vehicles 95 percent cleaner than 11 today's models. Also a phase-in period of 2004 12 to 2009 does seem reasonable to us. 13 The League also feels that asking oil 14 companies to reduce the sulfur content levels in 15 gasoline from 300 parts per million to 30 parts 16 per million will improve the health of 17 individuals susceptible to respiratory problems, 18 especially the elderly and children. 19 The League recommends a suggested new 20 standard of 30 parts per million which will 21 result in less-corrosive damage to catalystic 22 converters. 23 Thank you. 24 MS. MARTIN: Thank you. 25 Mr. Waters. 00558 1 Eric Waters 2 MR. WATERS: Good afternoon. My name 3 is Eric Waters. And I am here just to speak as a 4 citizen of Philadelphia. That's all I am. I am 5 not a scientist; I don't know a lot of the 6 details of what these cars produce. 7 But just from my experience, I would 8 just like to share that I don't particularly like 9 breathing the air in Philadelphia. 10 I am a bicycle rider, and I ride my 11 bike all around the town. And I really don't 12 want to do it. I would really rather -- I don't 13 enjoy it at all, because, you know, it's pretty -- 14 it's pretty disgusting to ride on the streets. 15 And with that, I just want to say 16 that I do hope that we can take the proper 17 measures to try to improve our air quality. 18 I would like to tell a story, which 19 is one of the main reasons I came here today, 20 which is a story my mother told me really 21 recently. It is about something that happened in 22 the recent past, maybe a couple of years ago, in 23 England, in Oxford. 24 There was a cathedral; it was about a 25 couple hundred years old and -- in Oxford. And 00559 1 Eric Waters 2 they found that the rafters were starting and the 3 beams were starting to rot. And these beams were 4 made of these -- of wood from trees that were 5 like 2 feet by 2 feet, these amazingly huge -- 6 huge -- you know, the trunks of trees. 7 And when they had to be replaced, the 8 people said to themselves: How are we going to 9 ever find these trees that have these amazing 10 trunks like this to replace the rafters in our 11 awesome cathedral? 12 And so it was a problem. And they 13 didn't know what they were going to do until 14 they, I don't know when, maybe a couple of days 15 or whatever, they were walking outside, realized 16 across the street from the cathedral was a huge 17 grove of pine trees; perfect size, tall and with 18 the width. 19 And they went back and they found out 20 that the people, when they originally built the 21 cathedral 200 years ago, had the foresight to 22 know that 200 years later they were going to need 23 new rafters. So they planted -- planted a new 24 grove of pine trees that could be used to rebuild 25 the rafters. 00560 1 Eric Waters 2 And it is just that tradition of 3 foresight, I think, that we need to draw on and 4 really consider when we think about our 5 environment and the air we breathe. 6 Because we can list, you know, facts 7 about asthma and the things that are happening 8 right now and the problems that are facing us 9 right now. We just need to think and plan for 10 the future. And that is the mind set that we 11 should have. We need to take these measures to 12 take care of ourselves and our prosperity. 13 So I thank you for listening. 14 MS. MARTIN: We thank you all very 15 much for taking the time to come here and join us 16 this afternoon. 17 And, unfortunately, I have to admit, 18 Eric, that we at EPA probably didn't have as much 19 foresight as those people who built the church. 20 And I wanted to explain why some of 21 the people here on the panel, from the government 22 panel, had to leave. And that is because we have 23 Another public hearing tomorrow morning in 24 Atlanta. And, unfortunately, this afternoon we 25 found out that a lot of our flight reservations 00561 1 2 were kind of shifted around and planes were 3 fuller than they told us when we came down here 4 to Philadelphia. 5 So please know that the people that 6 were here feel very bad about having to leave 7 while there were still other people to testify. 8 Some of us may also have to leave 9 while we -- while others of you are testifying. 10 But we will have copies of the record, thanks to 11 our stenographer friend here, and we will 12 certainly pay attention to anything that you add 13 in written form to the record. 14 And someone from EPA will continue to 15 stay here until midnight as long as people are 16 willing to talk about it. 17 But thank you all very much. 18 As far as I know, we actually have 19 just one more panel. And I would like to call up 20 the three people that we have notification of 21 that are interested in still testifying this 22 afternoon. That is, Mr. David Gibson, Scott 23 Althouse from the Evangelical Environmental 24 Network and Josh Mitteldorf. If you would please 25 proceed to the table and sign a name card with 00562 1 Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council 2 the name and the organization you are with. 3 Thanks very much. 4 Actually, if there is anyone else 5 here in the audience that hasn't had a chance to 6 either sign up or would still like to speak, 7 please feel free to proceed to the table as 8 well. Two more chairs. Anyone? 9 Thank you very much. 10 Would the gentleman whose name I did 11 not call please identify yourself? 12 MR. LANGON: John Langon. 13 MS. MARTIN: Okay. And if you would -- 14 we will, start with the person who was the 15 quickest in getting his name card up, Mr. 16 Mitteldorf from the University of Pennsylvania. 17 Please begin. 18 MR. MITTELDORF: My name is Joshua 19 Mitteldorf. I am a board officer of the Clean 20 Air Council, and I have a small family foundation 21 that is enthusiastic about environmental causes. 22 I am on the biology faculty of the University of 23 Pennsylvania, but my Ph.D. is in computational 24 astrophysics. And for 20 years I have been a 25 teacher and community advocate for personal 00563 1 Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council 2 health and fitness. I should add, too, that I am 3 a parent of two school-aged daughters and a 4 bicycle commuter. 5 I came here today with the intention 6 of voicing support for EPA's Tier 2 standards for 7 auto emissions. I came to support them, I 8 intended to support them, but I cannot support 9 them. 10 These standards are far too little, 11 too late. They are already so diluted by 12 corporate lobbying that they will not result in 13 compliance in EPA's ambient ozone standards any 14 time soon, standards in which themselves are 15 probably inadequate to protect our health. 16 The standards and the regulations 17 have become dangerously polluted, and the process 18 itself is as dirty as the air we are forced to 19 breathe. 20 I know that I live in a severe 21 non-attainment area where EPA has called our air 22 dangerously unhealthy. I know that almost half 23 of our nation lives in places where the air does 24 not meet the EPA's standards, and I know there is 25 substantial research indicating that these 00564 1 Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council 2 standards are not conservative enough, especially 3 for our children, our elders, and those of us 4 with compromised lung conditions. 5 Nonsmokers living in smoggy areas are 6 four times more likely to develop lung cancer 7 than others in unpolluted areas. 8 Even at levels tolerated by the 9 latest EPA standards, ozone is associated with 10 impaired lung function, increased incidence of 11 asthma and bronchial infections, hardening of the 12 lung tissue. Chronic exposure leads to permanent 13 lung damage. 14 I have the resources and the 15 background to know these things, but what if I 16 had not known these things? Would the EPA then 17 deem it less important to promulgate the 18 standards needed to protect my lungs? What if I 19 was too busy to come to this meeting, or not well 20 enough informed to have heard about it, or not 21 well enough educated to understand the connection 22 between my own health and federal politics? What 23 if these meetings were packed with people on the 24 payroll of General Motors or Sun Oil who were 25 instructed to take the day off from work to 00565 1 Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council 2 demonstrate public opposition from Tier 2? How 3 then would the EPA perceive its responsibilities 4 if the public seemed apathetic or numbed or busy 5 or confused? Would the EPA then say, well, the 6 science indicates that these standards were a 7 good idea, but there just isn't enough public 8 support to warrant the change? 9 There is something fundamentally 10 wrong with this process that is supposed to be 11 based on science and health but where the ghost 12 of politics is the uninvited guest at every 13 policy forum. Can this administration make 14 decisions about good science, or are they 15 prisoners of politics? 16 And is politics, in turn, a prisoner 17 of financial interests so that public health, 18 with no interest group, no PAC funds cannot 19 compete for support? 20 For me, the bottom line in this air 21 quality issue is protection of our health. We as 22 a nation spend over $1.2 trillion on medical care 23 every year, one-sixth of our GDP. 24 This amount is increasing four times 25 faster than the GDP itself. The economists in 00566 1 Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council 2 and out of government are wringing their hands 3 asking how can this explosion of medical costs be 4 contained? 5 And yet we know that a dollar spent 6 on prevention now can save many dollars in health 7 care costs later. It's estimated that current 8 levels of ambient air pollution comprising ozone 9 particulates and sulfur dioxide result in 40,000 10 annual deaths nationwide. 11 The Tier 2 standards for SUVs come 12 with a price tag of about $100 million annually, 13 and the benefit is expected to be a 12 percent 14 reduction in total pollutants. A little division 15 yields a cost per saved life of $20,000. 16 Now, if a cancer patient was admitted 17 to the hospital, would we deny him lifesaving 18 therapy because it cost him $20,000? I think 19 even at ten times that cost that the miracles of 20 modern medicine are embraced as a bargain. If 21 $200,000 for a life saved is no obstacle in the 22 operating room, why would we set the bar so much 23 lower when it comes to environmental protection? 24 Just on the basis of saved lives 25 alone, these Tier 2 measures should be rushed 00567 1 Joshua Mitteldorf, Clean Air Council 2 through on an emergency basis while further 3 measures cutting more deeply into pollution at 4 somewhat higher costs are embraced as well. 5 Remember that saved lives are only 6 the most dramatic benefit from pollution 7 abatement; reduction in infections, improved 8 productivity, prevention of damage to crops and 9 other major benefits. And then there is the 10 health and well-being of the 14 million Americans 11 with asthma. 12 There's a great disproportion here. 13 There should be nothing controversial about the 14 measures embraced in Tier 2. We should be here 15 debating a greatly enhanced commensurate with the 16 magnitude of the potential health benefits. 17 Next year I hope to return to these 18 hearings to testify in favor of larger 19 investments and vastly greater imposed costs in 20 the name of health and of our right to breathe 21 clean air. 22 Thank you. 23 I also have here the testimony of Dr. 24 Howard Winant, which he asked me to read for him. 25 Is this the right time to do that? 00568 1 Joshua Mittledorf for Howard Winant 2 MR. SIMON: Yeah. We are asking 3 people to be limited to ten minutes, but go 4 ahead, put it in. 5 MR. MITTELDORF: Thank you for the 6 opportunity to make my views known on the subject 7 of our air quality. 8 This is the testimony of Howard 9 Winant. 10 I am a professor of sociology at 11 Temple University and a resident of 12 Philadelphia. As a social scientist, not a 13 natural scientist or medical specialist, I cannot 14 speak on the quality of our air. But as a 15 citizen that suffers from asthma and tries to 16 stay healthy through aerobic exercise, I can, 17 indeed, speak. As the parent of three children, 18 kids who try to excel athletically and play 19 outdoors at home or at school, I can speak as 20 well. 21 Our Philadelphia air is not good. It 22 continues to flunk the national standards for 23 clean air. Although I don't have instruments to 24 measure the amount of contamination we're 25 breathing, I do have my own lungs, which measure 00569 1 Joshua Mittledorf for Howard Winant 2 very well the pollution, the particulate matter, 3 the ozone that I encounter on my regular 4 three-day -- 3-mile run in Fairmount Park. 5 I keep myself in good shape. I am a 6 good control on the experiment, but gradually I 7 can feel the added difficulty in breathing that 8 pollution is causing. 9 What might the sources of this added 10 pollution be? Of course there are many, but I 11 hope the EPA is doing the kind of work they 12 should be to identify all them. But one source 13 that I want to highlight today is SUVs, 14 sport-utility vehicles. 15 The exploding sales of SUVs has been 16 a regular item in the news for several years 17 now. These vehicles are popular because they are 18 bigger and safer for their occupants, if not 19 those unlucky enough to collide with them. 20 They are seen as hip and cool and 21 sporty even for those who may never drive them 22 off the paved road. Their emissions are less 23 regulated than ordinary passenger cars. They are 24 still absurdly considered to be trucks. This is 25 absurd because they have been converted from the 00570 1 Joshua Mittledorf for Howard Winant 2 truck frames they were originally designed to 3 rest on to become the passenger vehicles that 4 they are now. 5 If you look at the SUVs on the 6 Expressway or lined up in the drop-off areas at 7 schools or outside the supermarket, will you see 8 quickly enough that they are no longer trucks, 9 they are big station wagons, big cars. Everybody 10 knows this. 11 And there is so many of them now. I 12 ask the EPA to consider, what is the reason for 13 the exemption from the emissions that these big 14 cars were given? Is there any sound explanation 15 why citizens like me and my kids have to wheeze 16 more and cough more so that executives driving 17 their SUVs downtown to work in high-rises can 18 save a few bucks on their luxurious cars. 19 Is there some deal, not very secret 20 but not very public either, that allows the 21 manufacturers of these vehicles to avoid 22 pollution laws and controls on these vehicles? 23 SUVs aren't cheap, but I am sure the 24 auto-makers don't want to raise their prices for 25 these popular models, so they resist making the 00571 1 Scott Althouse, Evangelical Environmental Network 2 improvements that adequate pollution regulations 3 would require. 4 It was ever thus, but as we have seen 5 in the past, when the car manufacturers finally 6 heard the complaints being raised by citizens 7 concerned about air quality, they showed that 8 they could make the necessary improvements, that 9 they could install pollution-lowering 10 technology. They can do that again for the SUVs, 11 but only if the EPA requires it. 12 In the past when the public protested 13 about needless environmental damage and risk, the 14 EPA and Congress finally woke up and listened and 15 required the manufacturers to do what is right. 16 It is time for that to happen again. 17 Thank you. 18 MR. SIMON: Thank you, Mr. 19 Mitteldorf. 20 Mr. Althouse. 21 MR. ALTHOUSE: Good afternoon, 22 Members of the Panel, EPA officials, 23 representatives of the automobile and oil 24 industries, representative of the environmental 25 community of the fine people of Philadelphia. 00572 1 Scott Althouse, Evangelical Environmental Network 2 Good afternoon. 3 Today I am appearing before you on 4 behalf of the public policy team of the 5 Evangelical Environmental Network. The EEN is a 6 fellowship of some 7,000 Christen believers who 7 are committed to building our Lord's kingdom by 8 active services to restore and renew the works of 9 His hands. 10 Our network partners with 19 Christen 11 organizations, including Habitat for Humanity, 12 World Vision, Target Earth, and the American 13 Scientific Affiliation, to name a few. 14 Our network also comprises the 15 evangelical component of what is know as the 16 National Religious Partnership for the 17 environment. 18 Now, more than ever, the public is 19 concerned about environmental issues. And 20 Christians who obey God's mandate to care for 21 creation are making a statement about their 22 faith. Jesus loves the earth and so do His 23 people. 24 Every summer one of the forefront 25 environmental issues is about air pollution, and 00573 1 Scott Althouse, Evangelical Environmental Network 2 this summer is no exception. In light of the 3 recent federal court decision which repealed the 4 much-needed air quality standards, I applaud the 5 EPA for issuing this latest series of proposed 6 rules to improve the quality of life for 7 countless Americans. 8 During last year's smog season, the 9 EPA reported 5200 violations of health standards 10 across the nation. It is reported that each year 11 40,000 people die prematurely due to poor air 12 quality, and 117 million Americans live in cities 13 where the air is often unsafe to breathe, as in 14 Philadelphia. 15 Our culture's insatiable appetite for 16 energy consumption and our sinful disregard for 17 creation is not only harming the earth but is 18 also killing the people and animals who inhabit 19 it. This is serious business. 20 The EEN thanks the EPA for this 21 excellent opportunity for concerned believers to 22 voice an unapologetically Christian perspective 23 on the righteous stewardship of God's creation. 24 We pray that Christ's love for the 25 earth and for His affected people will be evident 00574 1 Scott Althouse, Evangelical Environmental Network 2 in this public forum. 3 It is well documented that air 4 pollution poses unacceptable health risks to the 5 most susceptible members of our society: the 6 sick, the elderly, and, of course, our children. 7 One of our members, Dr. Phillip 8 Landrigan, director of Mt. Sinai School of 9 Medicine Center for Children's Health and the 10 Environment New York, he tells us that asthma 11 rates have more than doubled among American 12 children in the past decade alone. Approximately 13 600 children die every year from asthma and 14 150,000 are hospitalized. 15 In fact, Dr. Landrigan suggests that 16 asthma is the leading cause of the admission of 17 Children into hospitals. Dr. Language also knows 18 clearly there are genetic components but also 19 suggests that this inheritance factor is only one 20 part of the explanation of increased rates of 21 asthma. Both indoor and outdoor air pollution 22 appear to be contributing to the upsurge in 23 asthma rates. 24 It is true that gross black pollution 25 has declined in the past two decades as a result 00575 1 Scott Althouse, Evangelical Environmental Network 2 of EPA's air quality standards, but levels of 3 ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur and fine 4 particulates are on the increase. These 5 pollutants come mostly from automotive emissions, 6 and levels have been rising as Americans drive 7 more and more miles every year. 8 While our organization supports the 9 efforts of EPA to institute stricter regulations 10 on auto emissions to help improve air quality, I 11 support the first initiative to close the SUV 12 loophole. 13 Current emission standards for light 14 trucks, sport-utility vehicles and minivans allow 15 two to three times more exhaust pollution than 16 passenger cars. This is unacceptable. I support 17 EPA's proposal that new SUV's meet the same clean 18 air standards as new cars. 19 Secondly, I support EPA's proposal to 20 mandate the use of low-sulfur gasoline in all 50 21 states. 22 Participants in this public hearing 23 may have heard or read about the auto or oil 24 industries complaining about the cost of 25 environmental regulations; however, our analysts 00576 1 David E. Gibson 2 including professionals, suggest that all of 3 these proposed changes will be relatively 4 inexpensive for the auto industry. 5 Pollution control technology already 6 exists to enable SUVs to comply with EPA's new 7 proposals. We have heard estimated costs as low 8 as just $200 per truck. Additionally, California 9 has been successful at using the low-sulfur 10 gasoline at a minimal cost of just 2 to 3 cents 11 per gallon. 12 The new EPA regulations are industry 13 and consumer conscious. The manufacturers have 14 no excuse but to comply and protect the beautiful 15 earth God has given us. 16 Members of the panel and others in 17 attendance, thank you for this opportunity to 18 appear before you in the Creator's service. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. SIMON: Thank you, Mr. Althouse. 21 Mr. Gibson. 22 MR. GIBSON: Good afternoon. My name 23 is David Gibson. I wish to thank the EPA for 24 holding these hearings and allowing me time to 25 speak today. I have come to represent no 00577 1 David E. Gibson 2 organization or agency other than myself. I do 3 come with 20 years of research and organizing 4 experience in environmental community and labor 5 organizing. 6 There has been a lot of attention 7 paid to the local and near-term environmental 8 health benefits of the EPA's proposed standards 9 for Tier 2. I'm heartened to see that. 10 In essence, we can all at least -- 11 including or friends from the industry who had to 12 leave today, at least we can all publicly 13 announce our agreement on the eventual goals of 14 reductions of auto tailpipe emissions and the 15 ensuing transition to more environmentally- 16 friendly technologies, particularly EV vehicles. 17 I would like to state for the record, 18 I support at a minimum the EPA's proposed new 19 standards as well as my further support for the 20 improvements advocated by the Public Interest 21 Research Group, the Physicians for Social 22 Responsibility, Sierra Club, Clean Air Council, 23 the American Lung Association and many others who 24 have spoken for the proposal for the past two 25 days. 00578 1 David E. Gibson 2 Any discussion of proposed new 3 standards will be incomplete, however, unless 4 there is more specific discussion of the need and 5 the impacts they have regarding the issue we all 6 call global warning. This is an issue that I 7 would like to addresses. 8 Regardless of the oft stated 9 perception that the debate climate change is 10 somehow still not conclusive, the overwhelming 11 preponderance of evidence more than suggests the 12 details involved is really in question. 13 Mounting information continues to 14 accumulate. As recently as two days ago, June 15 8th, 1999, according to the Associated Press, a 16 team of U.S., Russian and French scientists have 17 extracted a 2-mile-long ice core from the 18 Antarctic Ice Sheet which shows levels of 19 greenhouse gases are higher now than at any time 20 in the past 120,000 years. This is reported to 21 be the longest record of the earth's weather 22 history to date. 23 It further demonstrates that gases 24 such as methane, and more relevant to today's 25 debate, carbon dioxide are more important than 00579 1 David E. Gibson 2 previously thought in warming the planet when ice 3 ages end. 4 A study released in London on June 5 4th, just five days earlier, by scientists from 6 Columbia University reports research concluding 7 that winters in Europe, Asia and North America 8 have been warmer and wetter in the past 35 years 9 due to the increased amounts of greenhouse 10 gases. 11 The study used model simulations of 12 weather patterns from NASA's Goddard Institute to 13 test their theory. The study goes on to say, 14 according to the writers, that the effects have 15 shifted wind patterns, strengthening west-east 16 winds carrying warm air from oceans to the 17 continents and colder continental air to the 18 oceans. 19 Now, our auto-makers -- our autos and 20 our smokestacks have been emitting these gases 21 for decades. The resulting atmospheric 22 concentrations of CO2, the relevant greenhouse 23 gas here today, are 50 percent higher than before 24 the industrial revolution. 25 The Intergovernmental Panel on 00580 1 David E. Gibson 2 Climate Change, or the IPCC, made up of over 3 2,000 scientists and other experts commissioned 4 in 1988 by the UN, have concluded that merely to 5 stabilize concentrations at current levels, 6 global emission would have to be cut by 50 to 70 7 percent. 8 Carbon emissions have been growing by 9 about 1 percent per year. This will put twice as 10 much carbon in the atmosphere by 2100 as during 11 pre-industrial era. The IPCC report Climate 12 Change 1995 predicts an average global surface 13 temperature rise of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 14 2100 if CO2 and other gases are not curbed. 15 In the words of the report: "There 16 will be some beneficial effects...there will be 17 many adverse effects, with some being potentially 18 irreversible." 19 The insurance industry has been 20 alarmed at the warming and repeated reality of 21 increases of hurricanes and tornadoes as well as 22 extreme weather events and the ongoing beach 23 erosion that has been occurring. Hurricane 24 Andrew, just to take one example, costs the 25 industry something like $17 billion. 00581 1 David E. Gibson 2 Climate change as a result of actions 3 taken years ago and actions we take today will 4 have impacts that will be felt by our children 5 and our grandchildren. 6 Climate change is a runaway train. 7 And like a train, we need to begin to apply the 8 brakes now to ease to a stop for future 9 generations. 10 And obviously, we will have to reduce 11 emissions from other sources than just 12 automobiles. It is commonly assumed that 13 automobiles do produce about 20 percent of all 14 U.S. carbon emissions. 15 U.S. Department of Energy projects a 16 40 percent growth in greenhouse gases through 17 2015 will be caused not only by cars but other 18 transportation vehicles, but predominantly by 19 cars. It is about 30 percent less produced by 20 cars now anyway. 21 Clearly the internal combustion 22 engine has become more than a mixed blessing. It 23 has nearly outlived its usefulness. When its 24 benefits are being outweighed by its eventual 25 impacts, it becomes a liability. If we assume 00582 1 David E. Gibson 2 that the average car meets the federally mandated 3 27.5 miles to the gallon -- I don't think my car 4 does -- but if we assume that, and say it travels 5 100,000 miles in its lifetime, we will end up 6 emitting on average 35 tons of CO2. 7 So the world's 500 million cars 8 create 20 to 25 percent of today's greenhouse 9 gases. But car ownership is on the rise 10 worldwide? And if we don't do our part, what 11 does that hold for the future of our children's 12 planet. 13 The UN Population Fund has estimated 14 that developing companies will be emitting four 15 times as much CO2 as industrialized countries 16 do. In the words of Mark Hertsgaard in his very 17 important book Earth Odyssey, that is why "Taming 18 the car is essential to defusing the greenhouse 19 crisis." 20 Now, the oil and auto industry, I 21 wish they were here, they will tell you two 22 things: They will say that U.S. autos and U.S. 23 air is cleaner today since new improvements have 24 been implemented, and that we cannot be 25 responsible for consumption patterns in 00583 1 David E. Gibson 2 developing nations. 3 Well, first, it may be true that cars 4 and air are cleaner today, but what the auto 5 industry won't tell you is that improvements were 6 made only after government action in the early 7 1970s forced compliance with new standards. 8 The auto barons aren't fond of 9 reminding the buying public of how hard they 10 fought to stop or curtail existing improvements, 11 much as they seem to be stonewalling here at 12 these hearings. 13 Second, while it is true that the 14 Tier 2 standards would have no direct effect on 15 autos sold in other countries, the contingent 16 advance in technology required by these standards 17 certainly opens up the availability of new 18 potential market opportunities that would only 19 encourage and eventually compel new markets to 20 adjust behavior. 21 Besides, if you can't count on 22 developing nations to bring down their share of 23 greenhouse gases in the near term, isn't it 24 logical that the industrialized nations had 25 better double their efforts if we are to decrease 00584 1 David E. Gibson 2 the awful potential of extreme climate change and 3 its intended negative impacts from everything 4 from health and agriculture to extreme weather 5 events and a bankrupt insurance industry? 6 The noble-sounding and self-serving 7 platitudes by auto and oil executives extolling 8 our common goals and proud partnerships in 9 ensuring clean environments are nothing more than 10 spin control when they accept no legal 11 obligations or impositions mandated by federal 12 law. 13 That is why I come here today to urge 14 strong support for the Tier 2 standards and the 15 proposed improvements by the environmental health 16 organizations that have been here for the past 17 two days. I sincerely hope that this is just the 18 beginning. 19 It is particularly important to see 20 these standards as transitional and for the oil 21 and auto industries to speed up the process of 22 adaptation manifest in the proposals for 23 increased production of alternative technology 24 vehicles and cleaner burning or low-to-zero 25 sulfur fuels. 00585 1 Susan Curry 2 And this is critical if the 3 automotive industry, if not the human species, do 4 not want to go the way of the dinosaurs. 5 I want to thank once again the EPA 6 for holding these hearings and allowing time for 7 this important discussion. And it is only, you 8 know, with an informed and active public debate 9 on this that the efforts on democratic 10 decision-making of a narrow, financial, 11 self-interested view can be checked. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. SIMON: Thank you, Mr. Gibson. 14 Ms. Curry. 15 MS. CURRY: Hi. I am speaking 16 today -- and I am not quite sure what faces I am 17 speaking to. 18 But I am here as -- I am a person of 19 one of the people of this nation and one of the 20 people of this generation. And to me, the proper 21 functions of the government, at least two of 22 them, are securing the safety and health of the 23 people. And the most basic things to human life 24 are food, water and air. And these hearings are 25 about air, air quality. 00586 1 John Langon 2 And I request the strongest standards 3 that prevents every possible harmful or toxic 4 particle from entering my life space, yours, and 5 that reduce the purity of air for future 6 generations. 7 I request that you close the loophole 8 for the SUVs; that whatever can be done to clean 9 up the diesel vehicles -- whenever I drive behind 10 a bus, I hold my breath, if I am caught behind 11 one at a stop sign. And I always put my air 12 vents on recirculate so I am never taking in 13 exhaust fuels from the cars ahead of me at stop 14 signs. 15 So I request the strongest standards 16 that you prevent every possible harmful or toxic 17 particle from entering my life space, your life 18 space, and the future generations? 19 Thank you. 20 MR. SIMON: Thank you. 21 Mr. Langon. 22 MR. LANGON: Good afternoon. My name 23 is John Langon. I work with the Fund for Public 24 Interest Research, but today I am here speaking 25 on my own behalf. 00587 1 John Langon 2 First, I want to thank the EPA for 3 selecting Philadelphia as one of the public 4 hearing cities. Our city is under siege from air 5 pollution, so I think it is quite appropriate to 6 be here. 7 I also want to address the recent 8 ruling by a court of appeals in the District of 9 Columbia, which evaluated the EPA's ability to 10 make decisions regarding clean air standards. 11 The court rules that only Congress itself has the 12 power to make such decisions. This is a 13 ridiculous ruling. 14 Congress hasn't the time nor expense 15 to make every decision regarding the affairs of 16 our country. And as a citizen, I fully support 17 Congress', my Congress' ability to delegate 18 decision-making powers to the EPA. And, indeed, 19 the EPA has done the necessary research to make 20 such an important decision with its Tier 2 21 proposal. 22 The EPA has, in fact, made a strong 23 proposal for Tier 2, most brilliantly requiring a 24 change in both the gas and the automobile. 25 Both industries have reaped profit 00588 1 John Langon 2 from polluting, and so now they must share the 3 responsibility of cleaning our air. The proposal 4 should, however, be strengthened by requiring the 5 heaviest of SUVs to come into compliance with 6 other SUVs by the year 2004. 7 Exemptions for diesel engines should 8 be ended as well. Incentives for alternative 9 vehicles should be increased, and sulfur content 10 and gasoline should be reduced from its current 11 standards down to 30 parts per million in 12 conjunction with changes in the automobile 13 pollution technology. 14 But what I really want to talk about 15 today is courage. I'm appealing to the EPA, and 16 you, members of the current EPA panel -- 17 unfortunately, most of the original panel has 18 left prematurely. 19 But I want to appeal to you and the 20 entire EPA to be courageous and finalize the 21 strongest Tier 2 policy possible. Resist the 22 auto and oil industry's influence; reject them as 23 they beg for more time. 24 As they feign helplessness in this 25 situation, simultaneously they will spend 00589 1 John Langon 2 outrageous amounts of money to undermine the 3 EPA's proposal. As they beg for a delay now, 4 they will surely beg for a delay in the future. 5 And if begging doesn't work, then 6 they will tie up the courts with lawsuits and try 7 to buy off Congress with campaign contributions 8 to pass a law that would ban EPA's ruling. 9 These have been their tactics every 10 time clean air standards have been proposed. And 11 industry can certainly make the required changes 12 in the time frame outlined by the EPA. 13 Both industries pride themselves on 14 innovations. Every car commercial I see touts 15 new technology. The auto industry has put 16 advanced braking systems, air bags and 17 manufacture control systems into production. 18 With all of this innovation, even if 19 their self-confidence is now slipping, I have 20 full confidence that industry can meet the EPA's 21 Tier 2 proposal. 22 Similarly the oil industry's 23 commercials brag that they have the newest 24 technology to search for and extract oil from any 25 part of the world. And certainly in this age of 00590 1 John Langon 2 information, technology and speed, EPA should 3 realize that industry can comply with the 4 original Tier 2 proposal time frame. 5 The bottom line, we need cleaner 6 air. The medical and scientific community have 7 confirmed that. 8 As a resident of Philadelphia, I can 9 attest for the need for cleaner air. Earlier 10 this week I was watching the evening local news. 11 Sadly, part of the weather forecast was the air 12 pollution forecast. 13 This is a major wake-up call. Now 14 instead of watching the weather forecast to see 15 if your child will need to take an umbrella to 16 school, we now need to watch to see if they will 17 need their inhaler. Or maybe even worse, maybe 18 schools closed altogether due to air pollution 19 like it was here in Philadelphia earlier this 20 week. 21 I am personally asking the EPA to be 22 courageous against industry and implement a 23 stronger version of its Tier 2 proposal. 24 So I am asking the members of the EPA 25 panel here to do their part, do everything in 00591 1 John Langon 2 their power to implement the strongest Tier 2 3 policy possible. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. SIMON: Thank you. And even 6 though there are only two of us, you can rest 7 assured your message will be heard. 8 Mr. Heckelman. 9 MR. HECKELMAN: Good afternoon. I 10 support all of the testimony I've heard so far. 11 And you will be pleased to know that as the last 12 presenter in this panel, my testimony is rather 13 short. 14 I am Jack Heckelman, president of the 15 Alliance for a Sustainable Future. The Alliance 16 strongly supports the EPA, the EPA proposal to 17 apply uniform tailpipe standards to passenger 18 cars, SUVs and light trucks. 19 It is essential to close this 20 loophole especially since SUVs have become such 21 popular vehicles. It is recommended that the 22 automobile companies be urged to comply 23 voluntarily with these standards even before they 24 can become effective in 2004. 25 This will result in much cleaner air 00592 1 Jack Heckelman, Alliance for a Sustainable Future 2 and less ground-level ozone generation, 3 particularly in noncompliance regions such as 4 Philadelphia, and reduce health problems caused 5 by excessive ozone. 6 It is also recommended that SUVs be 7 required to make higher CAFE standards in order 8 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as 9 ozone-causing emissions. 10 In the area of lower sulfur, again 11 the Alliance strongly supports the reduction of 12 sulfur in gasoline in order to preserve and 13 enhance the operation of catalytic converters to 14 reduce nitrogen oxide and other ozone-causing 15 emissions. 16 In addition, the reduction of sulfur 17 compounds will reduce their contribution to acid 18 rain. We feel the small cost is a very good 19 investment. 20 On a related issue, we consider the 21 problem of greenhouse gas emissions to be 22 extremely serious and life-threatening for future 23 generations and for ecosystems. The United 24 States should take a much stronger leadership 25 role so we comply with Kyoto requirements, and 00593 1 Jack Heckelman, Alliance for a Sustainable Future 2 this is certainly one important step in that 3 direction. 4 And finally, off the record, this is 5 my own personal comment, I think it's insane that 6 gasoline costs less than bottled water or milk. 7 And we should take the initiatives in this 8 country to raise the taxes on gasoline to the 9 point where they're somewhat comparable to those 10 in Europe. I think we would have far cleaner air 11 and we would have a lot of money that could be 12 used for environmental protection. And that 13 seems to be the only way to go. 14 Thank you for your recording my views 15 with you. 16 MR. SIMON: Thank you. 17 Questions? 18 MR. HOROWITZ: No questions. 19 MR. SIMON: I would like to thank 20 this panel for sharing their views with us today, 21 and I look forward to going forward in the 22 process. 23 Thank you. 24 Are there any other members of the 25 public out in the audience that wishes to speak 00594 1 2 today? 3 I will take that as a no. 4 So this concludes the first Tier 2 5 Gasoline in Sulfur Public Hearing. We will have 6 another public hearing in Atlanta tomorrow, 7 Denver on Tuesday and Cleveland on Thursday. 8 We thank everybody who has testified 9 over the last two days, and we appreciate their 10 efforts. And we also thank the people in the 11 audience who have listened over this process. 12 I would just like to remind people 13 that we are taking written and oral and 14 electronic comments. The commentary on the 15 proposal closes on August 2nd of this year. 16 Thank you very much, and good day. 17 (Hearing concluded at 4:22 p.m.) 18 - - - 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00595 1 2 CERTIFICATE 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing 4 proceedings, of the EPA TIER 2 EMISSION STANDARDS 5 FOR VEHICLES AND GASOLINE SULFUR STANDARDS, taken 6 on June 10th, 1999 and that this is a true and 7 correct transcript of same. 8 9 10 ______________________________ LISA C. BRADLEY, RPR and 11 Notary Public 12 and 13 14 ______________________________ BERNADETTE M. BLACK, RMR and 15 Notary Public 16 17 18 (The foregoing certification of this 19 transcript does not apply to any reproduction of 20 the same by any means, unless under the direct 21 control and/or supervision of the certifying 22 reporter.) 23 24 25