1 01 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 02 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 03 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 04 05 * * * * * * * * * 06 IN RE: EQB PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED MERCURY 07 EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC 08 GENERATING UNITS 09 * * * * * * * * * 10 11 BEFORE: KEN BOWMAN, Chair 12 JOHN SLADE, Member 13 MARJORIE HUGHES, Member 14 HEARING: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 15 1:00 p.m. 16 LOCATION: Southwest Regional Office 17 Waterfront A&B Conference Room 18 400 Waterfront Drive 19 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 20 21 22 Reporter: Karen Burkett 23 Any reproduction of this transcript 24 is prohibited without authorization 25 by the certifying agency. 2 01 WITNESSES 02 03 Frank Burke, Barbara Grover, 04 Claudia Kirkpatrick, Heather Sage, Martha Raak, 05 Paul Daly, Ron Gallo, Myron Arnowitt, 06 Loree Speedy, David Fowler, Michelle Obid, 07 Mike Pastorkovich, Rachel Dolney, 08 Andrew Clearfield, Sonal Bains, 09 Reverend William Thwing, Tiara Wiles, 10 Robert Ashbaugh, Ashley Deemer, Barbara Litt, 11 Robert Reiland, Karen Giles, Victor Fiori, 12 Edda Albright, Ariel Burlette, Eric Manbieu, 13 Cynthia Walter, Raul Pison, Sr., Nancy Niemczyk, 14 Marin Cook, Kathy Lawson 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 01 I N D E X 02 OPENING REMARKS 03 By Ken Bowman 6 - 9 04 TESTIMONY 05 By Frank Burke 9 - 19 06 By Barbara Grover 19 - 26 07 By Claudia Kirkpatrick 26 - 30 08 By Heather Sage 30 - 33 09 By Martha Raak 33 - 35 10 By Paul Daly 35 - 38 11 By Ron Gallo 38 - 46 12 By Myron Arnowitt 46 - 54 13 By Loree Speedy 54 - 55 14 By David Fowler 55 - 57 15 By Michelle Obid 58 - 61 16 By Mike Pastorkovich 61 - 62 17 By Rachel Dolney 62 - 63 18 By Andrew Clearfield 63 - 64 19 By Sonal Bains 64 - 72 20 By Rev. William Thwing 72 - 82 21 By Tiara Wiles 82 - 84 22 By Robert Ashbaugh 84 - 89 23 By Ashley Deemer 89 - 94 24 By Barbara Litt 94 - 96 25 By Robert Reiland 96 - 99 4 01 I N D E X 02 03 TESTIMONY 04 By Karen Giles 99 - 101 05 By Victor Fiori 101 - 112 06 By Edda Albright 112 - 115 07 By Ariel Burlette 115 - 116 08 By Eric Manbieu 117 - 123 09 By Cynthia Walter 123 - 126 10 By Raul Pison, SR. 126 - 127 11 By Nancy Niemczyk 127 - 131 12 By Marin Cook 131 - 136 13 By Kathy Lawson 136 - 144 14 CLOSING REMARKS 15 By Ken Bowman 144 16 CERTIFICATE 145 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 01 E X H I B I T S 02 03 Page 04 Number Description Offered 05 NONE OFFERED 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 01 P R O C E E D I N G S 02 ------------------------------------------------ 03 CHAIR BOWMAN: 04 Welcome to the Environmental 05 Quality Board public hearing on the proposed 06 Mercury Emission Reduction Requirements for 07 Electric Generating Units. The purpose of this 08 hearing is to formally accept testimony on this 09 proposed rulemaking. 10 My name is Ken Bowman. I am the 11 Regional Director of the DEP Southwest Regional 12 Office. I call this hearing to order at 1:00 13 p.m. 14 The Environmental Quality Board 15 will hold three public hearings to accept 16 comments on a proposal to amend 25 Pa.Code 17 Chapter 123, relating to standards for 18 contaminants, which establishes mercury emission 19 standards, annual emission limitations as part 20 of a statewide mercury allowance program with 21 annual non-tradable mercury allowances and other 22 requirements for the purpose of reducing mercury 23 emissions from coal-fired electric generating 24 units or cogeneration units. 25 The regulation, if approved, will 7 01 be submitted to the EPA as a revision to the 02 State Implementation Plan or SIP. The SIP, 03 which is a requirement of the Clean Air Act, is 04 a plan that provides for the implementation, 05 maintenance and enforcement of the National 06 Ambient Air Quality Standards. 07 On June 24, 2006, the EQB published 08 three proposed regulations for public review and 09 comment in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. In 10 addition, notice of this hearing has been 11 published in newspapers statewide. 12 This is the first public hearing 13 for the purpose of accepting comments on the 14 Proposed Rulemaking. In order to give everyone 15 an equal opportunity to comment on the proposal, 16 the following ground rules are established: 17 1. The witnesses who have pre-registered to 18 testify at this hearing will be called first. 19 After hearing from these witnesses, other 20 interested parties present will be given the 21 opportunity to testify as time allows. 22 2. Testimony is limited to ten minutes for each 23 witness. 24 3. Organizations are requested to designate one 25 witness to present testimony on its behalf. 8 01 4. Each witness is asked, but not required to 02 provide two electronic or three hard copies of 03 their testimony to aid in transcribing this 04 hearing. Please hand me one copy prior to 05 presenting your testimony. 06 5. Please state your name, address and 07 affiliation for the record, prior to presenting 08 your testimony. 09 6. Your help in spelling names and terms that 10 may not be generally familiar is appreciated so 11 that the transcript can be as accurate as 12 possible. 13 7. Because the purpose of the hearing is to 14 receive comments on the proposal, EQB or DEP 15 staff may question witnesses. However, the 16 witnesses may not question the EQB or DEP staff. 17 As noted in the Pennsylvania 18 Bulletin and the newspaper notices, interested 19 persons may also submit comments in writing or 20 electronically. Specific instructions on 21 submitting these comments can be found in the 22 Bulletin or newspaper notices. 23 All comments received at this 24 hearing, as well as those received in writing or 25 electronically during the public comment period 9 01 of June 24, 2006 to August 26, 2006, will be 02 considered by the Department in the finalization 03 of these regulations. 04 Anyone who is interested in a copy 05 of the transcript of this hearing may contact 06 the reporter to arrange to purchase a copy. 07 At this time, I'd like to call the 08 first witness. 09 ------------------------------------------------ 10 FRANK BURKE, HAVING FIRST BEEN DULY SWORN, 11 TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 12 ----------------------------------------------- 13 MR. BURKE: 14 Good afternoon. You asked for a 15 name and address? 16 CHAIR BOWMAN: 17 Name, address and affiliation. 18 MR. BURKE: 19 My name's Frank Burke. I live at 20 1085 Glen Oak Drive in Bethel Park, 21 Pennsylvania. And I'm here today representing 22 CONSOL Energy, but I'm speaking on behalf of the 23 Pennsylvania Coal Association of which CONSOL is 24 an active member. 25 Pennsylvania Coal Association 10 01 members produce 75 percent of the bituminous 02 coal mined in Pennsylvania as well as associated 03 companies whose businesses depend on coal 04 economy. 05 We thank the Board for this 06 opportunity to provide our perspective on 07 regulating mercury emissions from Pennsylvania's 08 coal-fired power plants. This is a critical 09 issue for the Pennsylvania Coal Association 10 because its regulatory action will significantly 11 affect major market for Pennsylvania Coal. For 12 the reasons which I will discuss, PCA opposes 13 the proposed regulation and recommends that the 14 Board adopt the Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule 15 or CAMR. 16 By way of background, 17 Pennsylvania's the fourth largest coal producing 18 state in the nation. We mine about 73 million 19 tons of coal and we employ directly 7,000 20 workers. Electricity generation is a large 21 customer for Pennsylvania Coal, so preservation 22 of this market is essential to the viability of 23 the Pennsylvania Coal Industry. 24 PCA supported electricity 25 deregulation in Pennsylvania because we believe 11 01 competition favors lowest cost fuel source which 02 in any scenario is coal. However, competition 03 depends on a level playing field. If 04 Pennsylvania's air quality standards are more 05 onerous than those in other states or 06 nationally, it can make Pennsylvania coal more 07 expensive to use and result in premature closing 08 of coal-fired power plants, particularly older 09 units, with a loss of a significant portion of 10 our market. For this reason, PCA supports 11 implementation of the Federal Clean Air Mercury 12 Rule and its interstate cap and trade program. 13 With one exception, the Mercury Allowance 14 Allocation Provision disadvantages Eastern Coal. 15 Essentially, the allocations in CAMR grant 16 extra allowances to units that historically use 17 sub-bituminous coal and lignite. At the expense 18 of units such as those in Pennsylvania which 19 have exclusively used bituminous coal. 20 To oppose this provision and with 21 the knowledge and encouragement of DEP Secretary 22 Kathleen McGinty, PCA joined with other state 23 coal associations, bituminous coal operators and 24 the Union, UMWA, to file a lawsuit narrowly 25 focused on challenging only the allowance 12 01 allocation aspects of the rule. It's not 02 designed to overturn CAMR and PCA has 03 consistently supported these other provisions. 04 Our opposition to DEP's proposed 05 regulation is based on our objective to preserve 06 and expand to the maximum extent possible, 07 mining jobs in Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania's 08 coal share of the generation market. 09 Our concerns center on four issues. 10 First, the proposals prohibition of allowance 11 banking and trading. Second, its supposed 12 preference for 100 percent bituminous coal, not 13 exclusively Pennsylvania coal. Three, the lack 14 of mercury specific control technology for full 15 scale commercial use on Pennsylvania's high 16 sulfur bituminous coal. And four, no 17 demonstration that the additional costs to the 18 state that the state will provide public health 19 benefits that are commiserate with the costs. 20 Regard to allowance banking and 21 trading. Critics of trading and banking are 22 wrong to assert there are no guarantees that 23 Pennsylvania will see any significant mercury 24 reductions if utilities are allowed to purchase 25 allowances from out of state. As DEP knows very 13 01 well, the mercury removal achieved is a co- 02 benefit of SOCs and MOCs controlled equipment 03 installed for compliance with the companion 04 Clean Air Interstate Rule will result in 05 dramatic mercury emission reductions. According 06 to DEP's own estimates, 90 percent of 07 Pennsylvania's generating capacity will have 08 CAIR type controls by 2015. Indeed, DEP 09 officials have claimed repeatedly that their 10 proposed state regulation does not mandate any 11 mercury specific controls saying that utilities 12 will be able to meet the state's specific 13 standards without using technology beyond what's 14 required to comply with CAIR. 15 Electric utilities, who are our 16 biggest customers, have told us that without a 17 mercury trading and banking program, their 18 options to comply with the state regulatory 19 mandate would be to prematurely retire older, 20 smaller coal-fired units in which investments in 21 control technology would be uneconomic or switch 22 to coals with a lower mercury content mined out 23 of state. The loss of this capacity would 24 obviously disrupt Pennsylvania coal production 25 and jobs and have a negative impact on retail 14 01 electricity prices and expenditures across all 02 sectors. 03 With regard to the 100 percent 04 bituminous coal preference, the PCA does not 05 agree with the Department that its preference 06 for the use of 100 percent bituminous coal in 07 this proposal will preserve Pennsylvania's coal 08 jobs. Pennsylvania bituminous coals have, on 09 average, the highest mercury concentration of 10 all coals in the United States and twice as much 11 on average as bituminous coals produced in West 12 Virginia and Kentucky. The Department's attempt 13 to impose a mercury regulation with a preference 14 for bituminous coal, combined with the SOCs and 15 MOCs emission requirements under CAIR, may 16 encourage electric utilities to move away from 17 bituminous coals from Pennsylvania to coals from 18 neighboring states or to western sub- 19 bituminous coals. 20 DEP has criticized PCA for using 21 the average mercury content in coals as the 22 basis for this comparison, maintaining that a 23 median mercury coal content is a more meaningful 24 statistic. DEP is missing the point. Neither 25 the median nor the mean is statistically more 15 01 relevant in this case. The issue here, which 02 DEP doesn't dispute, is the comparative mercury 03 contents of coals in Pennsylvania and 04 neighboring states. And compared on the mean or 05 the median, Pennsylvania coals are higher. 06 The 100 percent bituminous preference may not 07 even be a meaningful benefit. This is because a 08 compliance presumption applies only to the 09 emission standard portion of the rule. However, 10 each generator also is require to meet a 11 separate annual emission cap. If it exceeds 12 this cap, it is presumed to be in compliance 13 with the emission standard and the utility may 14 petition the DEP for additional mercury 15 allowances from a hypothetical surplus allowance 16 pool managed by the Department. Without a 17 surplus allowance pool, the facility could be 18 presumed to be in compliance with the state 19 emission standards, but still be in violation of 20 the federal cap. The surplus allowances, if 21 they exist at all, would have to come from 22 facilities that over comply and would allow 23 emissions above the cap that facilities have 24 failed to comply. This proposal offers no 25 assurance there would be adequate allowances 16 01 available in the pool. Unlike the federal cap 02 and trade program, the DEP proposal gives 03 generators no incentive to over comply. In 04 fact, there's a disincentive to over compliance 05 because a over compliance by a given source 06 could benefit its competitors. 07 We encourage the Board to review 08 the data and methodology used by the Department 09 to supports its assumptions, to determine if 10 they provide a sound and valid basis for 11 Pennsylvania to proceed with such a rule making. 12 13 With regard to mercury specific 14 control technology, it is still a work in 15 progress. This is clear from the information 16 presented by the Department of Energy, by the 17 technology vendors, and Pennsylvania Coal 18 Association during the stakeholder 19 meetings. A particular concern to PCA is 20 evidence presented by technology vendors showing 21 that the application of mercury specific control 22 technology to the high sulfur eastern bituminous 23 coal such as those mined in Pennsylvania, may 24 result in emission reduction performance 25 substantially poorer than with western sub- 17 01 bituminous coals. DEP in clarifying its 02 perspective on the status of mercury control 03 technology said that quote, there remain a 04 number of critical, technical, and cost issues 05 to be resolved through additional research 06 before mercury control technologies can be 07 considered commercially available for all US 08 coals and the different coal-fired power plant 09 configurations in operation in the United 10 States. While this concern is being addressed 11 through further research and field tests, only 4 12 out of 19 full scale tests to date were 13 conducted using high sulfur bituminous coal and 14 only 2 of 15 tests scheduled will use this type 15 of coal. 16 Finally, with regard to the cost 17 benefit analysis, the federal rule is a 18 stringent rule. It sets a mercury cap that 19 corresponds to 85 percent control of mercury 20 from Pennsylvania sources in less than four 21 years and 93 percent mercury control full 22 implementation. 23 Before the Department adopts this 24 regulation, which is more astringent then the 25 corresponding federal standard, it should be 18 01 required to document a compelling reason for 02 such unilateral action. Therefore, the PCA asks 03 the Board to require that the Department do a 04 quantitative cost benefits analysis preparing 05 its proposal and the Federal CAMR to determine 06 the incremental costs and public health benefits 07 of going beyond the federal rule. The 08 documentation included in the benefits costs and 09 compliance section of DEP's proposal falls short 10 because it does not demonstrate that there is 11 any public health benefit for the state to go 12 beyond the federal rule of controlling mercury 13 emissions from Pennsylvania sources. If the 14 states' industry work force and ratepayers are 15 being asked to carry a greater share of this 16 regulatory burden than those in other states, 17 they should be convinced that there will be a 18 measurable additional public health benefit 19 under the state regulation that justifies any 20 additional costs. 21 Based on these reasons, PCA 22 respectively opposes this proposed rule and asks 23 the Board to replace it with the federal rule. 24 Thank you for the opportunity to 25 provide PCA's comments on this critical issue. 19 01 I'd be happy to respond to any questions. 02 CHAIR BOWMAN: 03 Thank you, Mr. Burke. Barbara 04 Grover? 05 MS. GROVER: 06 My name is Barbara Grover. I live 07 at 5526 Wilkins Avenue in Pittsburgh, 15217. 08 And I've lived in Pittsburgh since 1989. 09 I am speaking here today because I 10 am most concerned about the level of mercury 11 pollution emitted by our coal-fired plants. 12 These emissions negatively impact the health of 13 me, my friends, my children, my grandchildren 14 and all the citizens of this state. 15 Pennsylvania ranks second in the nation for the 16 most mercury emitted by electrical utilities and 17 generates about 56 percent of its electricity 18 from coal, mostly bituminous. Out of the 34 19 coal-fired plants in Pennsylvania, western 20 Pennsylvania has the five plants that emit the 21 greatest amount of mercury pollution in the 22 state. Those plants are located in Shelocta, 23 Shippingport, Shawville, Homer City and New 24 Florence. This pollution is especially 25 hazardous to women of child bearing age and 20 01 children. 02 I'm here to support the regulations 03 proposed by the Pennsylvania Department of 04 Environmental Protection. The DEP recommends 05 that Pennsylvania implement an 80 percent 06 reduction in mercury emissions by 2010 and 90 07 percent by 2015. 08 I am opposed to House Bill 2610 and 09 Senate Bill 1201 which recommend we follow the 10 federal guidelines of a 70 percent reduction 11 from 1999 levels by 2018 through a two phase 12 program starting in 2010. That means reduction 13 would not begin until 2010 and a 20 percent less 14 reduction is achieved three years later than the 15 DEP recommendation. To me, these delays and 16 lower rate of reduced emission are unacceptable. 17 18 One of the most remarkable pieces 19 of information I learned about mercury pollution 20 was that it's categorized as a stock pollutant. 21 This classification indicates that mercury has 22 the following characteristics: it accumulates 23 in the environment; there is no natural process 24 that removes or transforms it and when it gets 25 into the water. The water cannot cleanse itself 21 01 of it. This means that we, the human beings 02 that live on this planet and in this state, have 03 to reduce the emissions. Nature is not going to 04 do it for us. Mercury maims and kills. The 05 mercury accumulated in the plankton and the fish 06 that eat the plankton and then the larger fish 07 that eat the smaller fish. In Japan, 52 people 08 died and 150 others suffered severe brain and 09 nerve damage because they ate mercury 10 contaminated fish three times a day. Opponents 11 of my position might say, well, no one in 12 Pennsylvania eats fish three times a day, so 13 what's the problem? Well, maybe no one does, 14 but what about the people who eat fish once or 15 twice or three times a week over a long extended 16 period of time? Remember, mercury accumulates in 17 your body. A recent study indicated that one in 18 six women nationwide has enough mercury in her 19 body to harm a developing baby. This means an 20 estimated 630,000 babies born every year are at 21 risk from the effects of toxic levels of 22 mercury. If the state adopts the House and 23 Senate bill recommendations, we could have four 24 more years of current levels of pollution which 25 means 2.4 million babies could be placed at risk 22 01 needlessly. This doesn't make sense. 02 Can we reduce emissions by 90 03 percent by 2015? The answer is a resounding yes 04 and the cost to accomplish this is quite 05 reasonable. Let me elaborate. An article 06 published in Modern Power Systems in March of 07 2003 described a study about the effectiveness 08 of different types of equipment that remove 09 mercury from coal. The researchers concluded 10 that the activated carbon injection with a 11 fabric filter achieved a 90 percent removal of 12 mercury in coal-fired plants using bituminous 13 and sub-bituminous coal. They also stated that 14 the carbon injection and fabric filter were 15 easily retro-fittable with little or no down 16 time. 17 In October 2004, the National 18 Wildlife Federation reported the cost of 19 achieving a 90 percent reduction in mercury 20 emissions for Pennsylvania coal-fired plants at 21 less than a quarter of a cent per kilowatt hour 22 or a total of $223 million. The report 23 estimated an increase in average monthly 24 residential electric bills at a $1.08 per month. 25 That's about $13 per year on the average 23 01 monthly residential bill of $80. Commercial 02 costs on average would increase about $6.50 per 03 month and industrial costs about $110 per month. 04 These are increases at a bit less than 1.5 05 percent. These costs are not exorbitant for the 06 consumer or the industry. 07 The House and Senate bills state 08 the implementation of the DEP recommendation and 09 I quote here, could impair competitiveness of 10 businesses and industries in the Commonwealth 11 producing and adverse impact on employment, coal 12 production, economic development and family 13 income while having negligible beneficial 14 effects on the environment, close quote. I 15 would be interested to know what evidence 16 supports this statement. An Environmental 17 Protection Agency Commission report included 18 evidence quite to the contrary. This EPA 19 Commission study released in February of 2006 by 20 the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated 21 there could be $5 billion a year in public 22 health benefits nationwide from a 62 1/2 percent 23 caught in mercury release by power plants. If 24 we arbitrarily assume that all the lower 48 25 states would benefits equally, Pennsylvania's 24 01 share would be about $104 million benefit. This 02 EPA study also estimated that the southeast US 03 could reap between $600 million and $2 billion a 04 year in benefits from reducing mercury 05 pollution. Although Pennsylvania is not in the 06 southeast USA, I think it is reasonable to 07 conclude that the taxpayers of Pennsylvania 08 would benefit significantly from a reduction in 09 mercury pollution. 10 I have two final points to make. 11 The first is related to the hot spot 12 characteristic of mercury pollution. Hot spot 13 means the closer you are to a mercury pollution 14 source, the greater the contamination. This hot 15 spot issue is related to another point in the 16 legislative bills. The bills indicate that a 17 trading program is a good way to reduce mercury 18 emissions. The bills state that one of the 19 purposes of the act is, and again I quote, to 20 provide the citizens of this Commonwealth with 21 the opportunity to participate in a national 22 emissions trading program for mercury which is 23 similar to the cost effect of national acid rain 24 control program. A trading program is not 25 effective for mercury pollution. Mercury is 25 01 different from acid rain. We can identify the 02 major sources of the pollution, mainly the coal- 03 fired plants. And we know the people living 04 near those sources are more at risk than those 05 farther away. A national trading program could 06 allow plants in Pennsylvania to continue to 07 pollute while those in other states reduce their 08 pollution. This makes no sense. All the plants 09 in Pennsylvania must reduce the pollution so 10 that our own citizens are protected and so our 11 state health care system benefits from the 12 reduction in health-related problems. 13 Finally, the House and Senate bill 14 includes the provision that prevents the 15 Environmental Quality Board from having the 16 power to make regulations to control mercury 17 emissions from coal-fired plants more stringent 18 than those of the federal government. This also 19 does not make sense to me. Why shouldn't our 20 state government agency have the power to 21 protect the health and welfare of its citizens 22 when it means that the federal regulations are 23 inadequate or insufficient. I believe that's 24 exactly the power our State Environmental 25 Quality Board should have. I like the idea that 26 01 Pennsylvania can be a leader in this area of 02 pollution control. 03 As you all know, we have been 04 advised to limit the amount of fish we eat from 05 Pennsylvania waterways because of the danger of 06 mercury emissions and contamination, certainly 07 a caution we should all follow. But the DEP has 08 made a recommendation that can change that 09 situation so that in the near future, our 10 children and our grandchildren can enjoy fishing 11 in our rivers and streams and eat their catch as 12 often as they wish. 13 I strongly urge the Environmental 14 Quality Board to approve the DEP 15 recommendations. These are the standards that 16 will protect the health of our citizens and 17 benefit our state. Thank you for your time. 18 CHAIR BOWMAN: 19 Thank you. Claudia Kirkpatrick? 20 MS. KIRKPATRICK: 21 Good afternoon and thank you very 22 much to the members of the Environmental Quality 23 Board. My name is Claudia Kirkpatrick. I live 24 at 3763 Orpwood Street in Pittsburgh, 15213. 25 And I've been a resident of Pennsylvania since 27 01 1973. I am a member of the Sierra Club and I am 02 speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club's 03 Allegheny group which has about 5,700 members. 04 We in the Sierra Club have talked 05 with thousands of people about the issue of 06 mercury emissions. And it is very impressive 07 how extremely concerned people are from all 08 walks of life about the dangers of mercury 09 pollution. And how angry they will be if the 10 Environmental Quality Board puts the financial 11 interests of the power companies ahead of the 12 health concerns of Pennsylvania citizens. 13 People are worried for themselves, but they are 14 even more worried for their children and 15 grandchildren. That worry was evidenced by the 16 approximately 4,000 postcards that people 17 eagerly signed. A.J., could you raise those for 18 me? I forgot to bring them up. We have copies 19 there. And that we sent to Secretary McGinty 20 asking that the DEP write strict mercury 21 pollution regulations. That worry was evident 22 also in the Sierra Club's hair testing event in 23 August of 2005. We used up the 40 test kits we 24 had and we had to turn people away. As so many 25 people, particularly families concerned about 28 01 their babies, wanted to know how much poison 02 they already had in their systems. That worry 03 was also very evident in the Sierra Club's town 04 hall meeting held in September 2005. That was 05 attended by at least 70 people who were eager to 06 voice their concerns and to learn how they could 07 help. And Pennsylvanians are continuing to 08 support strict mercury pollution controls by 09 signing postcards which we are sending to the 10 EQB. 11 Many, many people are also very 12 concerned about the Pennsylvania fishing and 13 recreational industry. A great many 14 Pennsylvanians enjoy fishing. And they very 15 much want the EQB to put in place the stringent 16 emission controls that would enable them to eat 17 more of their catch. Moreover, according the 18 Department of Conservation and Natural 19 Resources, the Pennsylvania Fishing Industry has 20 a direct economic impact of $8 million each 21 year. The poisoning of Pennsylvania's lakes and 22 rivers is directly harming not only the health 23 of our people, but also of our economy. 24 The evidence is very clear that 25 Pennsylvania's power plants are the major cause 29 01 of mercury pollution in Pennsylvania. Barb 02 Grover has just told you how the cost of the 03 significant reductions of mercury toxins from 04 the DEP regulations will not be a serious burden 05 on Pennsylvania electricity customers. She has 06 also explained why an emissions trading program 07 will not help Pennsylvanians. Her data is 08 carefully documented as the EQB can see from her 09 text. 10 Last Saturday, the Post- 11 Gazette reminded us that in 19th-century 12 England, quotation, Hatters suffered tremors 13 known as Hatters shakes, even hallucinations in 14 psychoses due to the mercury toxins then used in 15 making hats. Louis Carroll captured for all of 16 us the image of the Mad Hatter in Alice in 17 Wonderland. Although Mercury is no longer used 18 in making hats, mercury still poses a 19 significant danger to all Pennsylvanians 20 especially to the youngest and most vulnerable 21 of us. 22 Pennsylvania has the second highest 23 level of mercury pollution in the United States 24 behind only Texas. We Pennsylvanians do not want 25 our babies and children to continue to suffer 30 01 because the power plant operators are unwilling 02 to spend the relatively small sums needed to 03 protect our citizens. 04 We therefore urge the Environmental 05 Quality Board to adopt the very positive 06 regulations proposed by the Pennsylvania 07 Department of Environmental Protection. Thank 08 you very much for the opportunity to make these 09 remarks. 10 CHAIR BOWMAN: 11 Heather Sage? 12 MS. SAGE: 13 Good afternoon. My name is Heather 14 Sage and I live at 454 44th Street, Pittsburgh, 15 Pennsylvania 15201. In my professional life, I 16 work as the director of Outreach for PennFuture, 17 a statewide public interest organization that 18 initiated this petition for rulemaking with the 19 support of dozens of diverse organizations 20 around the state. However, I am testifying 21 today as a private citizen. PennFuture's formal 22 organizational comments are being submitted 23 elsewhere. 24 As a woman of child bearing age, an 25 aunt, a sister, a daughter and a friend to many 31 01 with children, I wholeheartedly support the 02 Department of Environmental Protection's 03 proposed rule to cut toxic mercury pollution 04 from Pennsylvania's power plants. Though I was 05 trained as a zoologist and an environmental 06 scientist, I don't need any of my training and 07 work experience to know that cutting as much 08 mercury as possible as soon as possible is quite 09 simply the right thing to do. We cannot afford 10 to continue to allow tons of this poison to spew 11 out of the stacks and take the health and 12 ecological risks and impacts associated with 13 doing so. 14 I'm not the only one that feels 15 that way. A recent poll done by Terry Madonna, 16 opinion research, demonstrates that four out of 17 five people across the state agree. 18 Pennsylvanians want and need a strong state- 19 specific regulation that cuts mercury and we 20 want it now, not later. And though we won't have 21 to pay much more in our utility bills to get the 22 mercury out, we're willing to do so anyway. It 23 seems the only parties unwilling to do so are 24 the utilities themselves. And not because they 25 can't, but because their profit margins may go 32 01 down. Of course they don't account for the harm 02 their products cause all of us when they create 03 their balance sheets. 04 The Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule 05 is as good as worthless to anyone who cares 06 about the health and well-being of children and 07 wildlife. It does too little, too late and has 08 been shown by objective agencies like the 09 Congressional Research Service to be filled with 10 over estimated projections. Pennsylvania is 11 number two in the nation for toxic mercury 12 pollution to the air and number one in the 13 country for buying up pollution credits from 14 other states. Under the Federal Mercury Rule, 15 it will be no different. Dirty plants in our 16 state will stay dirty and we will pay the price 17 in IQ points. 18 Opponents to this rule claim that 19 no one is harmed by mercury from power plants. 20 They claim there is no proof of cause and effect 21 that the risks are small and the costs too high. 22 It's a faulty argument. The price of a healthy 23 child is never too high to be borne by society. 24 It's a simple equation. Take the mercury out 25 of the air, it comes out of the fish and it 33 01 doesn't get into our bodies where it does not 02 belong. 03 We have the power to protect our 04 babies with this rule. We can and must do so. 05 Thank you. 06 CHAIR BOWMAN: 07 Martha Raak? 08 MS. RAAK: 09 I'm afraid some of this is going to 10 be redundant, but I wrote it before I heard all 11 of that. And it is short. My name is Martha 12 Raak. I live at 220 Schenley Road in 13 Pittsburgh, 15217. I am a member of the Sierra 14 Club and PennFuture. Mother of five, 15 grandmother of eight, senior citizen and a 16 retired college dean. 17 I am very concerned about the 18 quality of air, water and earth that future 19 generations will inherit from our generation. 20 Will we be proud of our actions? It is my 21 understanding that we have an opportunity to 22 reduce harmful mercury emissions statewide. As 23 is well known, Pennsylvania is ranked second 24 nationwide for these emissions. Not only do 25 prevailing winds take our western Pennsylvania 34 01 pollution eastward, but we also are the 02 recipient of mercury emissions from Ohio, ranked 03 third in the nation. Unfortunately, leadership 04 on this issue is not forthcoming at the national 05 level. However, the Pennsylvania DEP has 06 proposed a rule limiting coal-fired power plant 07 emissions and significantly disallows trading of 08 pollution credits. I commend DEP for its 09 necessary and courageous stand against the power 10 plant lobby. 11 Indeed, is not our community health 12 priceless? I call upon our legislators to 13 oppose HB 2610 and Senate Bill 1201 as these 14 bills would prevent DEP from setting mercury 15 emission standards higher than the already 16 inadequate federal standard. Please call your 17 legislators. In a recent pole by PennFuture, 18 that was already mentioned, four out of five 19 citizens state that they are willing to pay more 20 for electricity in order to clean up these 21 polluting power plant dinosaurs. Let us stop 22 exposing preborns, newborns and children to air 23 pollution which may cause learning disabilities 24 and neurological damage. Frankly, I see this as 25 a form of industrial child abuse. 35 01 The technology is available. What 02 are we waiting for? Thank you. 03 CHAIR BOWMAN: 04 Nancy Parks? We'll move on then. 05 Paul Daly? 06 MR. DALY: 07 I'm Paul Daly. I live in 08 Murrysville, Pennsylvania. I've been a member 09 of Pennsylvania citizenry since 1948. I am 10 retired and most of my activity is spent in 11 training my dog, associating with the members of 12 the Sportsmen's Clubs that I belong to and the 13 Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Club is 14 what I am a delegate to. 15 I believe that protecting the 16 environment must include all means of 17 controlling harmful elements or agents to below 18 the tolerable levels. For mercury, more 19 awareness is developing about its effect on 20 health seen by the reports on conferences held 21 at the Seventh International Conference on 22 mercury as a global pollutant, June 2004. There 23 were 53 pages of short abstracts of papers given 24 by people from all over the world. The 25 information that is available on controlling 36 01 mercury is really astounding. The US EPA 02 representative Kathy Mahaffey discussed these 03 activities in perspective from the US. 04 Fish consumers are increasing in 05 number as the benefits of this food are 06 recognized more as a low cost nutrition and a 07 source of important oils and proteins. As a 08 sportsman, I have enjoyed eating fish caught in 09 Pennsylvania streams and lakes, but I'm alarmed 10 by the advice to limit intake to a meal per week 11 due to the mercury levels measured in 12 Pennsylvania laboratories. 13 Electricity generation is 14 increasing as our needs grow and coal-burning 15 does the same in direct proportion. The escape 16 of mercury from even a 90 or 95 percent 17 efficient flue gas cleaning keeps rising in tons 18 per year over Pennsylvania in larger amounts as 19 generation meets the demand. An attempt to 20 moderate the growth in burning coal is being 21 made in the construction of windmill generators. 22 More can be added to the solar panel effort and 23 fuel cell banks. Global warming must be slowed 24 down by reducing man-produced carbon dioxide. 25 I even think that not enough 37 01 consideration is being given to the future. 02 Beyond 2015, what provisions have been made? It 03 appears that each year an increase of 3 percent 04 or 5 percent, depending upon which phase we'd be 05 in, will still give an increase in the amount of 06 release. And beyond 2015, there's no plan for 07 that. 08 Cap and trade is flagrantly 09 ignoring the dangers from an over the limit 10 plant that can be permitted to continue 11 polluting, provided somewhere another plant 12 might be under the limit for mercury escape. 13 The use of bituminous coal in most Pennsylvania 14 plants and the type of the mercury compounds it 15 produces, which are deposited as oxide forms 16 that bacteria later convert into readily 17 absorbable methylmercury and deposit in hot 18 spots, need not be a reason to buy other than 19 bituminous coal. 20 The cost to specifically handle 21 mercury removal is estimated to be .4016 dollars 22 per kilowatt hour. Which is hardly to be a 23 cause of economic disaster as claimed in the 24 exaggerated statement by Senator Don White to me 25 by letter June 30th, 2006. Eliminate the hot 38 01 spots by more effective flu gas treatment as 02 Chapter 123 amendments propose seems a more 03 reasonable proposal. Thank you. 04 CHAIR BOWMAN: 05 Ron Gallo? 06 MR. GALLO: 07 My name is Ron Gallo. I'm from 08 Connellsville in Fayette County. I'm here for 09 Tommy. 10 For years I was a volunteer for the 11 Special Olympic program. You're all familiar 12 with that program, the Special Olympics? I'm 13 not very good at speaking. As a volunteer, I 14 saw first hand the devastating effect of 15 neurological disorders on our children, one of 16 the most common effects of mercury poisoning. 17 Two years ago, I helped form The 18 Better Education Association in the 19 Connellsville Area School District. The object 20 of our group was to bring in run-away 21 educational costs and improve education by 22 electing conservative, education-minded school 23 board members. We have been completely 24 successful in this so far. I have continued to 25 watch school costs and ways to reduce them and 39 01 improve education. I came across an article 02 about special education costs in our area 03 schools in our local newspaper. It was an 04 excellent in-depth article. Not only was the 05 cost shown, but the numbers and percentage of 06 students enrolled in the special education 07 classes was there. I'll get back to this 08 article in a minute. 09 Across the river from Masontown, 10 Fayette County and Greene County sits Allegheny 11 Energy's Hatfield power plant. It spews 290 12 million pounds of mercury containing pollution 13 per year or 8 billion 200 million pounds over 14 the last 30 years. Back across the river from 15 Hatfield in Fayette County, Duke Energy has a 16 power plant that spews another 3 million pounds 17 of pollution into our area each year. Just a 18 few miles south of Hatfield power plant in West 19 Virginia is two more Allegheny Power plants and 20 a few miles down river of the Hatfield power 21 plant is the Elrama power plant. All three of 22 these plants are coal-burners like Hatfield. 23 What amounts of mercury pollution produced by 24 these power plants must be astronomical. 25 Between Hatfield and Elrama power 40 01 plants lies the California Area School District. 02 You parents pay attention to this. Down river 03 from Hatfield, along the Monongahela River, in 04 sort of a hole, lies the Borough of California. 05 It's the home of California State University, 06 it's a teachers' college. Getting back to the 07 newspaper article, reading your article, I was 08 shocked to learn that one out of every three 09 students in the California Area School District 10 in the special education classes. That's 11 amazing. In the Connellsville Area School 12 District, where I live, 20 percent of its 13 students are enrolled in the special education 14 classes. And in Uniontown Area School District, 15 16 percent of the students are enrolled in 16 special ed classes. I believe 8 percent is the 17 national average for special education 18 enrollment. 19 For your information, the 20 Connellsville and the Uniontown schools have 21 failed the No Child Left Behind test for the 22 last three years and are on the watch list to be 23 taken over by the state. At first, my motive 24 for looking at special education was to try and 25 reduce the cost of education. After seeing what 41 01 I thought was a high rate of children with 02 problems, I began looking for a cause. 03 My resources for looking into 04 things is extremely limited, mostly newspapers 05 and the public library and gossip; okay? I 06 happened to get a copy of Senate Bill 1201 and 07 decided to look into what all this commotion 08 about mercury pollution was. I got interested in 09 mercury pollution real fast when I saw what it 10 did to children. I knew that this is probably 11 what has caused thousands of children in my area 12 to have problems learning. I cannot obtain any 13 information relating to mercury poison in my 14 area as I believe no studies have ever been 15 done. I did learn that studies in other parts 16 of Pennsylvania shown an almost 50 percent 17 increase in mercury contamination in areas close 18 to power plants. I do know that the Town of 19 Masontown has an unusual number of high cancer 20 deaths that so far have been passed off as a 21 coincidence. 22 We all know what mercury does to 23 our children and you've heard all these people 24 talk about it. But to sugar coat mercury says a 25 lot about those who are doing the sugar coating. 42 01 Senate Bill 1201 makes mercury sound like a 02 trivial pollution only affecting fish and 03 aquatic life when in fact, it's one of the most 04 toxic substances on earth poisoning our most 05 vulnerable, the unborn child and our children. 06 I would like to see our legislators who voted 07 for Senate Bill 1201 move their children to live 08 in California Borough or Masontown. 09 Senate Bill 1201 completely ignores 10 the fact that mercury poisons thousands of our 11 children, condemning them to a life sentence of 12 mental disorders that will cost the state 13 billions to maintain them for life. I believe 14 that to kill a child is a terrible thing. But 15 to turn thousands of our children into living 16 vegetables is horrendous and to do it for a few 17 thousand dollars in campaign contributions. Our 18 legislators must be made to answer for this. 19 Check the Department of State's website and 20 campaign records to see who got how much and 21 from who. Legislators who place money over the 22 children of Pennsylvania must go. We no longer 23 can accept business as usual in Harrisburg. Our 24 children are too important. 25 Fayette County is one of the 43 01 poorest places in Pennsylvania for decades. The 02 rest of the state considers us a welfare county, 03 which is true. Even our own elected legislators 04 won't help us. Well, I'm here to tell you that 05 the people of Fayette are good, God-fearing 06 people, who struggle every day to provide our 07 families with only minimal low-paying jobs with 08 no futures. We have no industry, we have 09 nothing. Yet we are one of the most polluted 10 places in Pennsylvania. 11 The owners of the power plants 12 surrounding Fayette have made large 13 contributions to our legislators to not enact 14 legislation to protect our children from mercury 15 poisoning. The savings from not installing 16 pollution control equipment has gone to 17 construct low polluting power plants in other 18 states. The federal pollution credits earned 19 from these plants are then used to keep 20 Pennsylvania in compliance with federal 21 pollution credits earned from these plants while 22 not reducing pollution by one pound in our 23 state. 24 Senate Bill 1201 has proved that 25 our legislators will do anything for money. I 44 01 do not particularly care for Governor Rendell, 02 but must commend him on his mercury abatement 03 plan, although it does not go far enough. 04 Unlike the legislator, the Governor can see the 05 tragedy being forced on our children all across 06 Pennsylvania by the greed of our legislators. 07 As things now stand, we are going to allow our 08 children to be exposed to mercury toxins with no 09 idea of the effects, if any, of previous 10 exposure. This is insane. Does anybody in 11 legislature know what common sense is? 12 I urge this Board to immediately 13 have private non-state involved laboratories 14 test special education students with 15 neurological disabilities in immediate areas of 16 power plants to determine the extent of mercury 17 poisoning in these children and all positive 18 tests, if any, be turned over to the parents to 19 use to recover damages and remove the financial 20 burden from the State. After these tests have 21 been completed and if only a small number of 22 random positive tests are found, then and only 23 then should Senate Bill 1201 be considered. And 24 if Senate Bill 1201 cannot be justified by the 25 tests, then our legislators should give the 45 01 money back. 02 This was given to me by Tommy. 03 He's 18 now. He was like 16 when he give it to 04 me. If you talk to Tommy, you have to touch him 05 and say Tommy, I'm talking to you; okay? I 06 drive truck and deliver heating oil to him. He 07 did this, his mother had to help him, but it's 08 kind of special to me. Tommy sat on his porch 09 three weeks waiting for me to pass and give this 10 to me. And Tommy has severe mental problems and 11 all I can say is Tommy lives by Masontown in a 12 little coal patch in a bunch of row houses. 13 When I was working with the Special Olympics, 14 two of the kids I worked with lived on Tommy's 15 street. I didn't know Tommy then. And now I 16 come across Tommy. And when you stand on 17 Tommy's porch, you have to look up and see the 18 smoke stacks from the Hatfield power station. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIR BOWMAN: 21 One question for you, what is more 22 stringent than House Bill 1201? 23 MR. GALLO: 24 To me, your new bill isn't even 25 stringent enough. Yes, I support your bill. 46 01 CHAIR BOWMAN: 02 Thank you, Mr. Gallo. Myron 03 Arnowitt? 04 MR. ARNOWITT: 05 Good afternoon. My name's Myron 06 Arnowitt. I am the western Pennsylvania 07 director for Clean Water Action. And we are 08 located in downtown Pittsburgh, 105th Avenue, 09 Suite 1108, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. I have lived 10 in Pennsylvania since 1984. And Clean Water 11 Action's full comments will be submitted later 12 on in the comment period. I am providing a 13 summary of some of our concerns regarding DEP's 14 proposed mercury control regulation. 15 Clean Water Action has 80,000 16 members in Pennsylvania and we are very 17 concerned about the problem of mercury pollution 18 in Pennsylvania. We support DEP's proposal to 19 reduce mercury pollution 90 percent by the year 20 2015. I brought with me just some letters that 21 we've recently collected from our members which 22 we'd like to submit for the public comment 23 period. We have about 25 of them here. I don't 24 have copies of those. I know from talking with 25 our membership that this a very big concern of 47 01 ours. We certainly encourage the Environmental 02 Quality Board to move ahead and approve DEP's 03 proposed rule. 04 Pennsylvania, as people have 05 stated, is the second largest source of mercury 06 pollution in the country and it's critical that 07 Pennsylvania take strong steps to reduce mercury 08 emissions from all of our state power plants. 09 There are obviously important health impacts 10 from mercury exposure. 11 Earlier this year, in June, there 12 was a letter that was sent by almost 50 13 healthcare professionals from around the state 14 to our state legislators as they were 15 considering some of the legislation that was 16 just mentioned, Senate Bill 1201. And I think 17 it's important to look at this letter and see 18 how strong the mainstream medical consensus is 19 about the threat that's posed to Pennsylvania 20 residents from mercury pollution and how it's 21 important that the state go forward with strong 22 mercury regulations and not wait for the weaker 23 and slower federal regulations to take their 24 course. Some of the signers of this letter 25 included Dr. Robert Cicco, president of the 48 01 Pennsylvania Academy of Pediatrics, Michele 02 Campbell, executive administrator of the 03 Pennsylvania State Nurses' Association, Dr. Fred 04 Harchelroad who's director of the Medical 05 Toxicology Treatment Center at Allegheny General 06 Hospital and Dr. James Roberts who's director of 07 research at McGee Womens Hospital. These are 08 just some of the signatories to this letter, but 09 I think you can see that there are certainly 10 many important medical and public health leaders 11 in this state who understand that the proper 12 public health approach to this issue is not to 13 just warn people that they shouldn't eat fish 14 because of mercury contamination, but we need to 15 get the mercury out of the fish. 16 So why do we need a state rule as a 17 opposed to the federal rule? Our biggest concern 18 with the federal rule concerns the provisions 19 that allow the trading of mercury emission 20 credits. Because of trading, we have no 21 guarantee that Pennsylvania power plants will in 22 fact reduce their mercury emissions. They could 23 buy emission credits. And in essence, what's 24 happening when Pennsylvania power plants buy 25 emission credits, they're taking the dollars 49 01 that us as ratepayers pay to the power 02 companies, and they're taking that money and 03 we're subsidizing pollution control that's 04 happening in other states. So we pay for it, 05 but we don't get the benefits here in 06 Pennsylvania. We think that's a real problem. 07 As I said, it's critical to us that 08 we make sure that all Pennsylvania power plants 09 are required to make significant mercury 10 reductions. We are very concerned about the 11 issue of mercury hot spots, a plant that buys 12 emission credits will continue to put out high 13 levels of mercury and we're very concerned about 14 creating hot spots, especially given that there 15 are concentrations of power plants in certain 16 parts of this state, for example, the 17 Monongahela Valley here in the Pittsburgh area. 18 19 Another major problem with the 20 federal rule is the length of time that it's 21 going to take to reach even moderate levels of 22 mercury reduction. The Non Partisan 23 Congressional Research Service took EPA's own 24 data that they used to put together the federal 25 mercury rule and their analysis is that the 50 01 national 70 percent reduction, which EPA's rule 02 is supposed to reach won't be reached until 2025 03 or 2030. This is putting over a whole other 04 generation of kids at risk. This is a problem 05 we lived with for a long time, we've been 06 burning coal a long time and we think that 07 putting it off another generation is far too 08 long. 09 Reducing mercury here in 10 Pennsylvania will have a big impact on cleaning 11 up Pennsylvania's own environment. There's a 12 lot of argument on this issue over where mercury 13 goes and we have found much of the evidence, 14 especially recent evidence very compelling, that 15 mercury does deposit locally. There have been 16 several recent studies in both Massachusetts and 17 Florida that looked at what happened when 18 mercury was reduced from incinerators that were 19 putting out a lot of mercury and then were 20 required to put on controls. Those states found 21 that the level of mercury contamination in fish 22 and other wildlife reduced substantially, 23 anywhere from 30 to 70 percent, after mercury 24 controls were put on from nearby sources of 25 mercury. So they were able to clean up their 51 01 state and that's something we'd like to see in 02 Pennsylvania. 03 You may hear that mercury comes 04 from power plants in China, you may hear about 05 even volcanoes and geysers as being the primary 06 sources of mercury that affect Pennsylvania. 07 But I would just have to say that if you look at 08 the modeling that's been done on where the 09 mercury that falls in Pennsylvania comes from, 10 the DEP mercury work group heard from the 11 industry sponsored Electric Power Research 12 Institute, or EPRI, which clearly showed that 80 13 percent of the mercury that falls in 14 Pennsylvania comes from domestic sources. It 15 doesn't come from overseas. People can talk 16 about power plants in China all they want or 17 even volcanoes if they really want to, but that 18 clearly is just not the issue in Pennsylvania 19 and even the industry sponsored studies have 20 shown that. 21 The DEP proposal is one that 22 creates a balance between health and business. 23 DEP is proposing to give power plants in 24 Pennsylvania eight years to reach a 90 percent 25 reduction. Many of previous rules that have 52 01 required emission of mercury reductions from 02 other industries have only given them three 03 years. So power plants are getting eight years. 04 These are reductions which many other 05 industries have already succeeded in doing, 06 waste incinerators, medical waste incinerators, 07 steel plants, coke plants, chlorine producers, 08 these are all industries that have already 09 figured out how to reduce their mercury 10 pollution. It's obviously doable. The power 11 industry is the last one, they are the last 12 major source of direct mercury emissions into 13 the air and it's time for them to come into line 14 with all the other industries both in our state 15 and in our country. 16 DEP is also providing other 17 flexibilities for business in this proposal. 18 They're allowing plants to achieve compliance 19 through presumed compliance approaches where 20 installation of equipment is deemed to be 21 compliance. They don't have to actually show 22 that the equipment is producing the emission 23 reductions it's supposed to as long as it's 24 installed properly. They're also going to have 25 some extra allowances for probably the smallest 53 01 plants that may have trouble meeting the 02 emission limits. So there's quite a bit of 03 flexibility for business in this. And we see 04 this proposal as a very balanced approach to how 05 to deal with this issue. 06 Finally, I just want to state about 07 the economic impact of DEP's rule. There was a 08 very interesting study presented by the Energy 09 Ventures Analysis and Industry Consultant which 10 look at what would happen if you forced all coal 11 plants in Pennsylvania to reduce their emissions 12 by 90 percent? Would there be an economic 13 impact? They found that quote, this rule would 14 place 330 to 1200 megawatts of coal-fired 15 capacity at risk for accelerated retirement. To 16 put that in perspective, Pennsylvania has 46,000 17 megawatts of capacity in our power grid. This 18 means that maybe at some point in the future, a 19 half a percent to at most two and a half percent 20 of our power system would be faced with early 21 retirement. This is not a very significant 22 impact. This is not a study that was done by 23 environmentalists. This was done by industry 24 consultants and we think that shows that this is 25 clearly a rule that there's plenty of reasons to 54 01 go forward with it and there really aren't any 02 reasons not to. Thank you. 03 CHAIR BOWMAN: 04 Thank you. Loree Speedy? 05 MS. SPEEDY: 06 Hi, my name is Loree Speedy. I'm 07 speaking as a citizen of western Pennsylvania. 08 I live in West Newton between the Yough and 09 Monongahela Rivers and I grew up next to 10 Kiskiminetas River. 11 The field of environmental health 12 progresses in its efforts to measure the effects 13 of environmental pollutants. When solid 14 scientific research demonstrates that a 15 pollutant is in fact detrimental to our health, 16 we cannot deny that. Today, we now know more of 17 what pollution from burning coal can do to our 18 health and to our natural world. We can't 19 afford to rejoice when told that certain 20 pollutants from burning coal are declining when 21 new research demonstrates that the existing 22 pollutants still present in smaller amounts 23 continue to be responsible for the death and 24 harm of humans. We must accept that coal is 25 still dirty and do all that is possible to 55 01 reduce coal's far reaching impacts on health and 02 environment. If the DEP's mercury reduction 03 rule does significantly harm the coal industry 04 while protecting human health, we must accept 05 that a shift from an energy technology that is 06 inheritantly polluting to one that is harmless 07 and efficient is greatly needed. We must 08 encourage our researchers to develop cleaner, 09 less polluting energy technologies whether those 10 be advances in the graining of coal or methane 11 extraction, the development of mercury specific 12 control technologies or the development of new, 13 alternative energy sources like solar or wind. 14 The federal mercury rule will not encourage such 15 innovation as quickly. 16 The DEP rule has the ability to 17 move us forward much faster to a sustainable 18 energy future with greatly reduced health risks 19 and environmental impact. Thank you. 20 CHAIR BOWMAN: 21 David Fowler? 22 MR. FOWLER: 23 My name is David Fowler and I'm a 24 board member of the Group Against Smog and 25 Pollution, GASP. I wish to endorse the mercury 56 01 rule making which the Environmental Quality 02 Board has recently proposed. I refer to the 03 Board's proposal to amend Chapter 123 of the 04 Pennsylvania Code, related to standards for 05 contaminants with the purpose of reducing the 06 levels of mercury emitted by coal burning 07 electric power generating facilities in the 08 Commonwealth. GASP will be submitting written 09 comments at a later time in support of the 10 Environmental Quality Board's adoption of the 11 Pennsylvania DEP mercury proposal. 12 No one denies that mercury is a 13 toxic pollutant. Nearly everyone, I think, 14 accepts the reality that electric power 15 generated through the burning of coal produces 16 an unwanted byproduct, unacceptably high levels 17 of air borne mercury. 18 Now, in view of the fact that my 19 prepared remarks largely repeat what has already 20 been so eloquently said, I propose to skip to my 21 conclusion that we support the Pennsylvania DEP 22 plan for reducing mercuric pollution, which 23 promises to achieve an 80 percent mercury 24 reduction rate by 2010 and a 90 percent 25 reduction by 2015. This is contrasted to the 57 01 federal plan which would offer only a 64 percent 02 reduction in Pennsylvania mercury emissions by 03 2010 and then 86 percent reduction by 2018. 04 However, under the federal rule, interstate 05 trading is allowed. So it's unclear what 06 mercury reductions would actually take place in 07 Pennsylvania under the federal plan. The DEP 08 plan does not allow allowance trading and so 09 offers citizens more certainty of reductions. 10 In this proposed system of banking 11 and trading, the Non-Partisan Congressional 12 Research Service predicts even 70 percent 13 reductions required nationally by 2018 would not 14 happen until 2030 under the EPA rule. I 15 understand that a competing version for control 16 over air borne mercury paralleling the federal 17 CAM rule, Senate Bill 1201 has been adopted by 18 the Pennsylvania Senate. I urge that the DEP's 19 proposal for mercury be adopted by the 20 Environmental Quality Board. It will reduce 21 mercury in the Pennsylvania environment more 22 reliably and expeditiously and thus better 23 project public health. Safe guarding our 24 citizens' well-being must be our top priority. 25 CHAIR BOWMAN: 58 01 Arleen Mercurio? Michelle Obid? 02 MS. OBID: 03 Hello, my name is Michelle Obid. I 04 live in Ben Avon Borough. I'd like to tell the 05 DEP how important a strong rule to reduce 06 mercury emissions is to my family and me. 07 Something is fundamentally wrong 08 when our food chain is contaminated with toxic 09 chemicals. This a clear sign that we are 10 overdue for change. The DEP's proposal for a 90 11 percent reduction in mercury emissions from coal 12 plants by 2015 is such a change. I have two 13 main concerns related to mercury emissions and 14 our need for a strong state rule to reduce those 15 emissions sooner rather than later. 16 My first concern is related to the 17 cumulative impact of pollution. We are exposed 18 to hundreds of chemicals yet the federal 19 government sets standards for only six of them. 20 We don't know exactly how these chemicals build 21 up and interact with one another, but common 22 sense suggests that there is a saturation point 23 in our environment and in our bodies to this 24 chemical exposure. We have within our control a 25 sure way to reduce one of these toxic pollutants 59 01 that has proven to be bio-cumulative. Industries 02 should be required to install that technology. 03 I understand that the cost of installation is 04 relatively inexpensive. I have not read any 05 information to suggest that this technology is 06 so expensive that it would force a plant to shut 07 down. In fact, I understand that most 08 Pennsylvania coal plants are paid off and making 09 a profit. 10 I am expected to maintain a certain 11 safety standard related to my house, sidewalks 12 in good repair and clear of snow and ice, bushes 13 trimmed so as drivers can see around the corner. 14 It is not unreasonable that we require the same 15 of industry. We need to send a message to 16 industries that we expect them to keep their 17 house in order as well and to be a responsible 18 member of the community. 19 My second concern is that the 20 federal mercury rules are weak, thereby putting 21 public health at risk. Specifically, I think 22 that allowing plants to trade mercury emission 23 is a very bad idea. This practice will result 24 in no real pollution reduction, creating instead 25 dangerous concentrations of mercury in those 60 01 communities near the plants buying the quote, 02 right to pollute more. My personal rights end 03 when they start to adversely affect someone 04 else. Again, why is industry exempt from this 05 civic responsibility? As someone who lives near 06 a heavy concentration of industry, I am 07 particularly concerned about communities who 08 bear an unfair burden of pollution because 09 lawmakers do not seem to take pollution hot 10 spots and cumulative impact into consideration 11 when legislating. 12 It is upsetting to think that I 13 live in a state that is ranked among the worst 14 mercury polluters in the country. It is also 15 upsetting to find out that I live in a county 16 that is ranked among the top fifty counties in 17 the country for toxic chemicals released into 18 the air. But perhaps even more upsetting is the 19 fact that the polluters responsible oppose using 20 a viable technology to reduce those dangerous 21 emissions and that the federal government 22 proposes weak rules that allow polluters to 23 profit at the expense of public health. 24 I fully support the Pennsylvania 25 DEP proposal for a 90 percent reduction in 61 01 mercury emissions from coal plants by 2015. 02 Thank you for exercising our state's right to 03 make a better law for Pennsylvania residents 04 when the federal law did not work in our best 05 interest. 06 CHAIR BOWMAN: 07 Thank you. Mike Pastorkovich? 08 MR. PASTORKOVICH: 09 Hi, my name is Mike Pastorkovich. 10 I live at 348 North Craig Street, Pittsburgh, 11 15213. I was born and raised in southwestern 12 Pennsylvania and I've lived in the City since 13 1973. My statement is very brief. It basically 14 serves as a synopsis for what many other people 15 here have said. 16 I support the proposed DEP rules 17 for mercury. We have a serious mercury 18 pollution problem in Pennsylvania. We have an 19 affordable, technologically feasible solution at 20 hand that can reduce mercury pollution in 21 Pennsylvania by 80 percent by 2010 and 90 22 percent by 2015. There is no reason to adopt 23 the inadequate federal EPA mercury rules except 24 to please the fat cat energy corporations', once 25 again claiming upon their servants, our 62 01 legislators, for a favor. It would be much more 02 expensive in the long run for Pennsylvania 03 taxpayers to pay to assist mercury brain damaged 04 children than to do the right thing now and 05 insist upon the strictest possible mercury 06 rules. Thank you. 07 CHAIR BOWMAN: 08 Rachel Dolney? 09 MS. DOLNEY: 10 Hi. My name is Rachel Renee Dolney 11 and this is my son, Julian. And I just want to 12 tell you a story. 13 One Thanksgiving when I was 11 and 14 my brother was 9, my parents took us fishing. 15 My parents loved to fish and it was something we 16 did as family a lot. This Thanksgiving day was 17 special. We were the only ones on the water and 18 the fish were biting like crazy. After about 19 the 40th catch, it became clear that this was no 20 ordinary day. Every catch became a major event. 21 My brother and I were dancing on the shores 22 with glee. All total, we caught 79 fish. And 23 so the usual turkey day feast, we had a massive 24 fish fry. I can still remember my joy at 25 relating the event to my friends at school and 63 01 how special I felt me and my family were. 02 As things stand, my son will never 03 have such a memory because I cannot let him eat 04 fish from our rivers. I ask that you keep my 05 son Julian in mind when you're making decisions 06 regarding the health of our waterways and our 07 environment. Thank you. 08 CHAIR BOWMAN: 09 Andrew Clearfield? 10 MR. CLEARFIELD: 11 Hi, I'm Andrew Clearfield. I go to 12 school at Carnegie Mellon University and I live 13 at 5000 Forbes Avenue. And I came here today 14 like a lot of people to express my support for 15 the DEP's proposed mercury regulation. And as a 16 student, I've also lived in Harrisburg, 17 Pennsylvania with my family. I hope to start a 18 family sometime in Pennsylvania and I don't want 19 to be worried that my baby or my wife are eating 20 too much fish or become unhealthy. I think by 21 passing this regulation, there's very little 22 trade off and I think it's something that should 23 be done. Under the circumstances, I think the 24 State owes it to us to make sure that mercury is 25 not a problem for our young families and our 64 01 babies. Thank you. 02 CHAIR BOWMAN: 03 Winifred Frolik? Moriah Mason? 04 Sonal Bains? 05 MS. BAINS: 06 Thank you for this opportunity to 07 testify on the important issue of reducing 08 mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants 09 in Pennsylvania state specific mercury reduction 10 rule. My name is Sonal Bains and I'm a citizen 11 outreach instructor for Penn Environment. As 12 you may know, Penn Environment is a statewide 13 non-profit, non-partisan environmental advocacy 14 organization with more than 18,000 citizen 15 members across the state. 16 Given the public health and 17 environmental threats posed by mercury pollution 18 from Pennsylvania's coal-fired power plants, the 19 Bush administrations weakening of the Clean Air 20 Act Federal Mercury Pollution Reduction 21 requirements and the availability of mercury 22 pollution control technologies, Penn Environment 23 supports DEP's state level proposal to cut 24 mercury pollution from Pennsylvania's coal-fired 25 power plants by 90 percent by 2015. We urge the 65 01 State to move forward in implementing this much- 02 needed proposal without allowing for mercury 03 pollution credit trading. My testimony will 04 focus on the following aspects of the mercury 05 pollution issue: the public health impacts of 06 mercury, the Bush administrations so called 07 Clean Air Mercury Rule and the issue of mercury 08 hot spots. 09 Mercury is a bio-cumulative toxin 10 that builds up in the body tissue and the 11 primary way that people in the U.S. are exposed 12 to methylmercury is by eating contaminated fish. 13 Pennsylvania currently has a statewide fish 14 consumption advisory due to methylmercury which 15 warns people, especially children and women of 16 child bearing age to limit their consumption of 17 fish from all Pennsylvania waterways. Mercury 18 can also pass through the human placenta to 19 developing fetuses and through breast milk to 20 nursing infants. 21 A potent neurotoxin, mercury poses 22 significant human health hazards. Mercury can 23 affect multiple organ systems including the 24 nervous, cardiovascular and immune systems 25 throughout an individual's lifetime. In 2000, 66 01 the National Academy of Sciences found that 02 chronic low dose prenatal methylmercury exposure 03 from maternal consumption of fish has been 04 associated with more subtle endpoints of near 05 toxicity in children, including poor 06 performance on your behavioral tests, 07 particularly on tests of attention, fine motor 08 function, language, visual facial abilities and 09 verbal memory. The panel concluded the risk to 10 children of women who consumed large amounts of 11 fish during pregnancy is likely to be sufficient 12 to result in an increase in the number of 13 children who have to struggle to keep up in 14 school and who might require remedial classes or 15 special education. EPA scientists estimate that 16 one in six women of child bearing age has enough 17 mercury in her body to put her child at risk 18 should she become pregnant. This figure is a 19 doubling of previous estimates based on 20 increasing evidence that methylmercury 21 concentrates in the umbilical cord exposing the 22 developing fetus to higher level of mercury than 23 previously understood. 24 Reducing mercury from power plants 25 is critical to reducing toxic mercury in the 67 01 environment and in fish and that's protecting 02 public health. Unfortunately, the Bush 03 administration has promulgated regulations. 04 This so-called Clean Air Mercury Rule that 05 gives power plants until at least 2018 before 06 having to make even modest mercury reductions 07 and even then allow these plants to buy mercury 08 credits rather than install controls that reduce 09 their mercury emissions. The Clean Air Mercury 10 Rule set the national cap on mercury emissions 11 form power plants of 15 tons as a 70 percent 12 reduction in 2018. The EPA's own analysis 13 however projects less than a 50 percent actual 14 reduction as late as 2020. Moreover, as Myron 15 mentioned earlier, the Congressional Research 16 Service has concluded that full compliance with 17 the 70 percent reduction might be delayed until 18 2030 or beyond due to the rule's banking 19 provisions. In addition to its weak and delayed 20 national caps, the rule permits power plants to 21 buy and trade mercury pollution credits rather 22 than requiring every plant to make emissions 23 reductions. Trading mercury credits is very 24 risky according to prominent scientists and 25 would likely contribute to mercury hot spots, 68 01 areas with high levels of mercury deposition and 02 I'll discuss that later in my testimony. 03 Lastly and perhaps most 04 importantly, there have been many claims made by 05 representatives from the utility industry and 06 others that Pennsylvania power plants will be 07 required under the Clean Air Mercury Rule to 08 achieve an 86 percent reduction in mercury 09 emissions. This is simply not true because 10 Pennsylvania power plants will have the ability 11 to avoid reducing their mercury emissions by 12 purchasing mercury credits from power plants in 13 other states. It's impossible to guarantee how 14 much or how quickly Pennsylvania's power plants 15 will or will not reduce their mercury emissions 16 under the Clean Air Mercury Rule. And if 17 Pennsylvania's utilities' actions in similar 18 trading programs for other pollutants is any 19 indication, Pennsylvania's power plants will be 20 the plants buying credits from other states, not 21 the plants reducing their emissions. 22 Specifically, DEP's finding that Pennsylvania 23 facilities are using the credit trading program 24 for sulfur dioxide to emit roughly 460,000 tons 25 of sulfur dioxide above what the State is 69 01 allotted offers little hope that Pennsylvania's 02 power plants will be the plants exceeding the 03 minimum requirements for the mercury reduction 04 under the Clean Air Mercury Rule. 05 A statement released in the spring 06 by the EPA revealed that Pennsylvania's coal- 07 fired power plants emitted roughly 6,700 pounds 08 of mercury in 2004. This ranked Pennsylvania as 09 second among stated nationally for the highest 10 power plant mercury emissions. In 2003, 11 Armstrong and Indiana Counties ranked first and 12 fourth respectively out of all counties 13 nationwide for the highest power plant mercury 14 emissions. Four other Pennsylvania counties 15 made the top 100 list nationally. These 16 statistics provide the appropriate backdrop for 17 this discussion of mercury hot spots and 18 emphasize why it is imperative that we consider 19 hot spots in our discussion of the need to cut 20 mercury pollution in Pennsylvania. 21 Mercury hot spots are those areas 22 with mercury deposition higher than in 23 surrounding areas. And there is both 24 significant evidence that hot spots exist and 25 that coal-fired power plants create hot spots in 70 01 nearby communities. It follows that the 02 communities near or in mercury hot spots will 03 face an increased public health threat due to 04 increased mercury levels. Countering the claim 05 by some that global deposition accounts for most 06 of our mercury pollution problem, many studies 07 suggest that in places where there are large 08 local sources of mercury pollution such sources 09 amount for 50 to 80 percent of mercury 10 deposition. A 2003 study by Environmental 11 Defense that examined EPA modeling data found 12 that over 50 percent of the mercury deposition 13 in Pennsylvania hot spots was due to local 14 sources. 15 Perhaps most significantly, initial 16 results from an ongoing EPA study show that 67 17 percent of the mercury in rain collected at a 18 monitoring site in Steubenville, Ohio originated 19 from the coal-burning power plants within 400 20 miles of the site. Studies have also shown that 21 when mercury emissions are reduced from a 22 source, the surrounding environment shows lower 23 mercury levels. 24 Specifically, a 2003 study found 25 that the levels of mercury found in large mouth 71 01 bass and other wildlife in the Everglades have 02 declined about 80 percent since the state and 03 federal agencies required municipal and medical 04 waste incinerators to cut their mercury 05 emissions. More recently, mercury levels in 06 Massachusetts fish from lakes near a cluster of 07 incinerators were found to have dropped by over 08 30 percent since Massachusetts enacted strict 09 mercury pollution standards seven years ago for 10 the nearby incinerators. 11 The threat of hot spots means that 12 the communities surrounding Pennsylvania's coal- 13 fired power plants and even those up to 400 14 miles away from a power plant are at an 15 increased risk of high mercury levels in their 16 environment. For this reason, the Environmental 17 and Public Health Communities have strongly 18 opposed the mercury trading program put forth by 19 the Bush administration and their so-called 20 Clean Air Mercury Rule. In this trading 21 program, power plants can avoid reducing their 22 mercury emissions by buying credits from plants 23 in different locations. 24 It is largely because of the Bush 25 administration's mercury policy allowing for 72 01 mercury trading that Penn Environment supports 02 DEP's proposed mercury reduction rule, as it is 03 a state level mercury rule for Pennsylvania's 04 coal-fired power plants that does not allow for 05 mercury trading. Given the serious 06 environmental and public health threats posed by 07 mercury pollution in Pennsylvania, the 08 availability of pollution control technologies 09 to significantly reduce this mercury pollution 10 and the Bush administration's weakening of 11 mercury protection at the federal level, Penn 12 Environment is supportive of DEP's state 13 specific mercury reduction rule to require 90 14 percent mercury reductions from Pennsylvania's 15 coal-fired power plants by 2015 without mercury 16 trading. Thank you again for this opportunity 17 to testify. 18 CHAIR BOWMAN: 19 Reverend William Thwing? 20 REVEREND THWING: 21 Okay. My name is William Thwing. 22 I live in Ebensburg, Pennsylvania. I drove all 23 the way down here so that I could testify today. 24 I pastor two churches up there. I have four 25 children, three of whom live in Pennsylvania, 73 01 all of whom who are child bearing age. For the 02 sake of my children and their children yet 03 unborn, for the sake of the 200 families that I 04 pastor, over 400 people, for the sake of all the 05 families in the Ebensburg, Johnstown area where 06 I come from, over 200,000 people, for the sake 07 of the young people who plan to have children in 08 Pennsylvania, for the sake even of those 600,000 09 American babies that are born each year to 10 mothers who have been identified by US Center of 11 Disease Control as having dangerous levels of 12 mercury in their blood, I strongly support 13 Pennsylvania Environmental Protections proposed 14 rule making for standards of contaminate mercury 15 which would amend Chapter 123 of the 16 Pennsylvania Code. 17 Mercury, as we've heard before and 18 you're going to hear this again, is a powerful 19 neurotoxin which causes severe developmental 20 problems in developing fetuses and babies and 21 also in youth because the brain takes a long 22 time to develop and also even in adults as 23 studies are beginning to show. And it causes 24 all kinds of weird developmental problems in a 25 wide variety of wildlife including birds and 74 01 mammals and amphibians and native fresh water 02 and salt water fish in Pennsylvania. 03 After Texas, Pennsylvania pumps 04 more mercury contaminants into the air and water 05 than any other state in the union. This poison 06 pill is delivered primarily by our 36 and maybe 07 that number's wrong. I heard 34 earlier today. 08 But my number is 36 electric power plants which 09 dot the landscape of Pennsylvania. At least 75 10 percent of the five tons of the neurotoxin 11 mercury dumped yearly into our air and water 12 comes directly from these plants. Ebensburg and 13 the Johnstown area where I live is directly 14 downwind from many of these coal-burning plants. 15 And according to a recent study done by Penn 16 State University, we get 47 percent more mercury 17 dumped on us than the other less vulnerable 18 parts of the state. That means that all unborn 19 children in the most populous areas of 20 Pennsylvania, but particularly our children in 21 the Johnstown, Altoona area have a much better 22 chance of being born with a chance of having 23 learning disabilities, attention deficit 24 disorder, decreased IQ, especially in areas of 25 spatial relations and language skills than do 75 01 many of the other children in other parts of the 02 United States. And in more severe cases, being 03 born blind, deaf, subject to seizures, having 04 heart or cardiovascular problems or being 05 severely retarded or autistic. All of these 06 developmental problems in the human fetus in 07 younger children and even in adults have been 08 linked to the neurotoxin mercury and studies 09 conducted for a long time, but in the last three 10 years, I'll just quote a few of the studies: 11 Hightower and Moore, 2003; Mahaffey, who we've 12 talked about here, 2005; Schober, 2003; Transit, 13 Landeron, and Shector, 2005; Yoku, 2003; AH 14 Stern, 2005; Groth, 2005; just to mention a few 15 of the studies and many of them you can access 16 online. The children and the families of 17 Pennsylvanians are at an extreme and unnecessary 18 risk because of this mercury neurotoxin. 19 The solution to the problem is 20 simple, quick and relatively inexpensive. 21 Mercury pollution controls are available and 22 affordable to these coal-burning power plants. 23 The so-called Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule 24 which these plants or representatives of these 25 plants evoke as holding the solution to 76 01 Pennsylvania's mercury problem, is a joke. It 02 is a bad joke on the citizens of Pennsylvania. 03 I'm losing my place. A bad joke on the citizens 04 of Pennsylvania at best. I would describe them 05 rather perhaps even as a hoax or a delaying 06 tactic by these highly profitable coal-burning 07 power plants who have long since paid off their 08 capital costs and are now just rolling in 09 profitability. To do this mercury pollution 10 trading or market based cap and trade system 11 proposed by the EPA to purchase credits which 12 exempt them from federal controls and allow them 13 to continue pumping scandalous amounts and 14 obscene amounts of mercury into our Pennsylvania 15 air way into the future. This so-called 16 reduction of mercury emissions might possibly be 17 70 percent by 2030. This may be okay for North 18 Dakota, it may be okay for New Mexico who don't 19 have a problem, but for the number two mercury 20 polluter in the country and especially for the 21 people downwind from these big polluters like 22 the Keystone Plant which produces 1,735 pounds 23 of mercury per year and is the fifth largest 24 polluter in the country and the Homer City plant 25 which is right next door to us produces 688 77 01 pounds of mercury per year, I would say this is 02 absurd. 03 Pennsylvania power plants are 04 currently the largest purchasers of pollution 05 allowances in the country. If they are given 06 the opportunity to participate in the cap and 07 trade system and that system costs them less in 08 a short run, then you will definitely see them 09 being bad corporate citizens of Pennsylvania. 10 Because it's going to be much easier for them 11 to, you know, make a little bit of money here 12 and ignore all of the children of Pennsylvania. 13 14 Pennsylvania must adopt its own 15 mercury standard which if properly enforced will 16 result in an estimated 90 percent reduction in 17 mercury emissions by 2015. And to quote again, 18 there have been studies done in Massachusetts 19 and Florida which show a dramatic downturn can 20 be achieved in a very short time. Massachusetts 21 reduced their levels of mercury by 32 percent in 22 freshwater fish within 7 years after the new 23 standard was implemented. Florida reduced 24 mercury levels in fish and wading birds of the 25 Everglades by 60 percent to 70 percent in a very 78 01 short time. And Pennsylvania can easily do that 02 too if we choose to. 03 If our already highly profitable 04 coal-burning plants in Pennsylvania were to 05 install these simple cost effective technologies 06 tomorrow and pass all of their costs on to their 07 customers instead of absorbing any of those 08 costs on their own, the financial burden of the 09 average customer would amount to about $13.00 a 10 year, another words, one good chicken dinner per 11 year. That's all it would cost. One good 12 chicken dinner and you could save all the 13 children of Pennsylvania. A National Wildlife 14 Federation study estimated that it would cost 15 each customer a $1.08 per month to rid 16 themselves of this peril. It's a very small 17 cost to protect Pennsylvania citizens from a 18 high incidence of retarded and autistic children 19 that require a whole lifetime of care for their 20 families who could instead be living normal, 21 productive lives. 22 You don't have to be a rocket 23 scientist to figure this one out. I think it's 24 a no brainer. No matter how many high priced 25 mouth pieces the coal-burning electric power 79 01 industry send out to confuse us and give us 02 statistics which don't add up, in the end if 03 Pennsylvania adopts this standard, everybody 04 wins. Generations of yet unborn Pennsylvania 05 children and their families, fishermen like 06 myself who like to eat what they catch 07 occasionally and even the Pennsylvania coal 08 industry which produces some of the best and 09 cleanest coal burning in the country and if you 10 put these things on all coal's equal and the 11 stuffs that's closest is the stuff that we're 12 going to be buying. So it makes perfect sense 13 for the coal industry to have it that way. You 14 don't have to import coal from Wyoming just 15 because it's cheaper. I would urge DEP and the 16 government of Pennsylvania to build the 17 Pennsylvania economy by adopting this homegrown 18 mercury contaminate standard. 19 My wife says that I have to tell at 20 least one story. As a minister, I see a lot of 21 parts of the community that most people never 22 ever see. I was, for awhile, Salvation Army 23 voucher write in my area for three years. 24 Hundreds of desperate disabled people came 25 through my office during those years. In many 80 01 cases, I got the opportunity to visit in their 02 homes and to assess their situation. Many of 03 them had problem children with anger issues, 04 with attention disorders, with school problems. 05 Some of these people were part of dysfunctional 06 ,multi-generational extended families all with 07 developmental disabilities. These families are 08 huge drains on the economy of the State of 09 Pennsylvania. In more than one case, the 10 families lived off not only the state in terms 11 of the welfare system, in terms of the IU-8, in 12 terms of all the other situations, but they also 13 lived off the land. They hunted, they fished, 14 they gardened, they canned their food. 15 Occasionally because they had nothing else to 16 give me when I came and gave them a little help, 17 they would take something out of their freezer, 18 like a dead squirrel that was frozen or a dead 19 fish and they would give it to me. That was 20 their gift as a form of appreciation. For many 21 of these people, the two fish meal per month of 22 the Fish and Game or DEP doesn't really count 23 because when you're hungry, you eat whatever's 24 around. Pennsylvania has thousands of these 25 folk who mostly operate below the radar of the 81 01 social system because they're actually proud 02 people. The ones at the welfare system, the 03 ones the IU-8, you know, the intermediate units, 04 the special education, those are the ones that 05 are in the radar. But they're ones that are 06 below the radar, too, a lot of them. 07 I call this the underbelly of 08 Pennsylvania. Not every state has an 09 underbelly, I will tell you that. I mean, I 10 have lived in Alberta. It did not have an 11 underbelly. If by enacting this mercury rule in 12 Pennsylvania, we even in part solve this rural 13 poverty and rural dysfunctionality problem that 14 we have, it would be worth every chicken meal 15 that we have once a year. 16 Please adopt the mercury standard 17 for the sake of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvanians. 18 I'll just do one more thing. I called my son, 19 who took an environmental education course, I'm 20 not a lawyer, but I got an environmental law 21 book out here and he pointed me to a certain 22 section. And I'm just going to read this 23 section. It's 2627 under the Toxic Substance 24 Control Federal Law. For the purpose of 25 complementing, but not reducing the authority of 82 01 or the actions taken by the administrator of 02 this chapter, in other words the Toxins 03 Administrator. The administrator may make grants 04 to states for the establishment and the 05 operation of programs to prevent or eliminate 06 unreasonable risks within the state to health 07 and the environment which are associated with a 08 chemical substance or mixture. And with respect 09 to which the administration is unable or not 10 likely to take action under this chapter for 11 their prevention or elimination. It goes on to 12 say that the grant for any state may not exceed 13 75 percent of the established and the operation 14 costs. Now, what Mrs. Grover was telling us 15 that the total cost of this, it looks to me like 16 could be as little as $223 million per year of 17 which we would save $104 million per year, I 18 believe. Which basically makes the payback two 19 years if we don't do anything. But if we got 75 20 percent from the Federal Government, what's the 21 problem? I just don't see the problem at all. 22 So with those thoughts ---. 23 CHAIR BOWMAN: 24 Thank you. Tiara Wiles? 25 MS. WILES: 83 01 Hi, my name is Tiara Wiles. I'm 02 from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I live at 110 03 Brunner Court, 15214. I attend Howard 04 University in Washington, DC and we always joke 05 because we think that it's so dirty there so I 06 think it's really funny that we have more 07 mercury in our air than Washington, DC. But I'm 08 definitely in support of the DEP's proposed rule 09 making. 10 Mercury is tremendously affecting 11 the health of not just women and babies, but 12 everybody in Pennsylvania. We can't even eat 13 fish from our own water and I think that's kind 14 of crazy and it's really scary to me. And like 15 I said earlier, I think it's really scary that 16 we're number two in the nation for having the 17 worst mercury pollution. And that should not 18 sit well with anyone. I'm a woman of child 19 bearing age and while I do not plan on having 20 any kids any time soon, I know women who are 21 either pregnant or who have young children or 22 babies and I'm very scared for what is either 23 happening to them and the children or what could 24 potentially happen. 25 So I don't think that individuals 84 01 should have to feel uncomfortable or nervous or 02 scared to live somewhere, especially in their 03 own state. And I think that with these mercury 04 issues that are going on, I think that that's 05 making Pennsylvanians feel that exact way. So I 06 think something should be done about it. Thank 07 you. 08 CHAIR BOWMAN: 09 Robert Ashbaugh? 10 MR. ASHBAUGH: 11 My name is Robert Ashbaugh. I'm 12 from Indiana, Pennsylvania. I'm here 13 representing the International Brotherhood of 14 Electrical Workers, Local 459 out of Johnstown, 15 PA. 16 I am a 34-year employee of a power 17 plant in Indiana County. We have about 800 18 members that work in the coal-fired power plants 19 in our area, the Keystone Power Plant, Seward, 20 Conemaugh, Shawville and Homer City. Our 21 members work primarily for two generating 22 companies, Edison Mission and Reliant Energy. 23 In Pennsylvania, the IBEW has about 2,500 24 members who work in coal-fired plants and almost 25 9,000 in the utility industry. The IBEW has a 85 01 total of 32,000 members in Pennsylvania. 02 The plant where I work at, Homer 03 City, employs about 250 people. We burn 5 04 million ton of coal annually and the bulk of 05 that coal comes from within a 60 mile radius. 06 We believe this regulation proposed by the state 07 DEP will result in a premature closing of the 08 smaller older plants that make up 20 percent of 09 Pennsylvania's coal-fired generation because it 10 does not include the cap and trade program like 11 the Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule. One of the 12 plants I feel that's the greatest at risk is the 13 Shawville plant which I represent. And this 14 would mean the loss of families sustaining jobs 15 not only at the plant, but also the hundreds of 16 others who drive coal trucks, work in gas 17 stations, work in stores and restaurants. 18 The cap and trade program allows 19 the power plant owners to install advanced air 20 pollution controls on larger plants that are 21 more cost effective and to recover part of their 22 investment by selling the extra mercury 23 reduction credits to smaller plants where it 24 could be cost prohibitive or not possible to 25 even install. 86 01 The cap and trade programs have 02 been very successful in reducing air pollution 03 that causes acid rains and ozone pollution in a 04 cost effective manner that protects jobs in the 05 power plant and in the coal industry. In 06 Pennsylvania, even lead is controlled using a 07 cap and trade program. 08 I think it is important to point 09 out that Pennsylvania power plants have already 10 had large reductions in mercury emissions in 11 particularly the plants that I represent. The 12 mercury emissions at Homer City, Keystone and 13 Seward since the year 2000 have averaged 47 14 percent reductions. In addition to these 15 reductions, the owners at Keystone Plant have 16 just announced just last month that they are 17 investing another 350 million in air pollution 18 controls to reduce mercury and sulfur emissions. 19 Statewide mercury emissions from power plants 20 in Pennsylvania fell by 33 percent from 1999 to 21 the year 2004. 22 I mention these reductions in 23 mercury because one of the reasons the 24 Department of Environmental Protection has given 25 for not including the cap and trade program in 87 01 this regulation is because they believe mercury 02 emissions from power plants do cause hot spots 03 of mercury around the plants. Based on the 04 experience we have at our plants and on the 05 information from DEP, mercury monitoring newer 06 plants, we find this not to be true. While our 07 plants had a 47 percent reduction in mercury 08 emissions, those reductions did not show up at 09 the monitoring station at Portage in Cambria 10 County, directly downwind from our plants. In 11 fact, the 33 percent reduction in mercury 12 emissions from power plants across the state did 13 not make any difference in the DEP mercury 14 monitors. 15 The reason for this is simple. 16 Mercury emissions from power plants make up only 17 one percent of the global mercury emissions 18 since mercury travels hundreds of miles before 19 it falls to the ground. Mercury is a national 20 and an international problem that has to be 21 treated that way. We cannot put a dome over 22 Pennsylvania and adopt our own regulations 23 thinking this will clean up the air. I think we 24 need to have answers to a couple basic questions 25 concerning these regulations to regulate mercury 88 01 emissions from the power plants. 02 Number one, what are the real 03 health and environmental benefits of adopting a 04 rule like DEP proposed versus the federal rule? 05 Number two, what are the costs of adopting a 06 rule like the DEP's to electric generators and 07 the loss of jobs at power plants and in the 08 communities and to the price of electricity 09 versus the proposed federal rule? 10 During the heat wave of last week, 11 we were all reminded how important electricity 12 is. We saw one of the highest demands ever for 13 electricity in Pennsylvania and throughout the 14 region last Monday and Tuesday. Now imagine 15 that 20 percent of our coal-fired power plants 16 were not available to meet the demand for 17 electricity because of the mercury rule proposed 18 by the DEP. There are three things that greatly 19 concern us in a power generation industry that 20 we feel the DEP should re-evaluate. 21 One, the state regulation on 22 percentage of reduction of 90 percent versus the 23 federal reduction of 70 percent. Number two, 24 the lack of a cap and trade program under the 25 state proposal. And number three, the time 89 01 allotment to meet the standards of the state 02 versus the federal requirement. 03 As members of IBEW, we are proud of 04 the work that we do and we're very conscious of 05 the public's health and safety. We too live in 06 these areas with our children and grandchildren. 07 We also recognize this is a very complicated 08 issue, but we have to work together to find a 09 solution that cleans up the environment without 10 threatening jobs and in a way that allows us to 11 meet our demands for electricity in the future. 12 Thank you very much. 13 CHAIR BOWMAN: 14 You represent all of IBEW? 15 MR. ASHBAUGH: 16 No, I'm representing the members of 17 Local 459. 18 CHAIR BOWMAN: 19 Why don't we take a five- minute 20 break. 21 SHORT BREAK TAKEN 22 MS. DEEMER 23 My name is Ashley Deemer. I'm here 24 as a resident of Pittsburgh and Allegheny 25 County. My address is 311 East End Avenue, 90 01 Pittsburgh, 15221. 02 There are a lot of tough acts to 03 follow today and the things I'm about to say 04 have been said already, but I'm going to say 05 them again just to make sure that the EQB not 06 only hears them, but listens. 07 I strongly support the 08 implementation of the DEP's mercury reduction 09 rule. We all know the toxic impacts of mercury 10 on both people and wildlife. Unfortunately, 11 Pennsylvania is ranked only second in the nation 12 for mercury pollution from power plants. Only 13 second to Texas. We're emitting a frightening 14 6,000 pounds of this toxin each year and this 15 places Pennsylvanians, particularly women of my 16 age and children in a very precarious position. 17 Even small blood levels of mercury in a mother 18 may cause serious harm to the embryos and 19 developing fetuses during pregnancy. 20 The EPA's proposed cap and trade 21 program as submitted in SB 1201 in no way 22 protects Pennsylvanians from the serious 23 toxicological impacts of mercury emissions. 24 While a cap and trade program may result in a 25 national reduction in mercury emissions, it may 91 01 only stand to intensify local accumulation of 02 this dangerous toxin. Pennsylvania power plants 03 are currently the largest purchasers of 04 pollution allowances in the country and it's 05 safe to assume that the purchase of mercury 06 allowances would follow the same trend exposing 07 Pennsylvanians to unsafe and unfair levels of 08 this dangerous neurotoxin. And this illustrates 09 only one way in which the people of this 10 Commonwealth will pay for SB 1201. 11 As allowances are bought and 12 imported to Pennsylvania, hot spots surrounding 13 Pennsylvania power plants will continue to grow 14 in toxicity. There are already 207 waterways in 15 Pennsylvania in which the fish contain too much 16 mercury to eat more than twice a month. As that 17 figure rises, it is safe to assume that the 18 number of people impacted by mercury will rise 19 as well. And this will undoubtedly raise the 20 health care costs for those most at risk, 21 increasing the burden on Pennsylvania's tax 22 base. 23 The clear solution is to implement 24 more stringent state level standards as the DEP 25 has proposed in their mercury reduction rule. 92 01 If accepted, this proposal will take us out of 02 the National Emissions Trading Market and place 03 accountability on the shoulders of our own power 04 plants. In addition, by eliminating the largest 05 group of purchasers in the national market, we 06 may be able to pressure other states and the EPA 07 to eventually develop stricter federal 08 standards. 09 And what I've noticed is that power 10 plant representatives seem to assert that this 11 is a national and international problem and that 12 it's not their responsibility. But if they are 13 indeed concerned about this, the best thing they 14 can do is to take themselves out of the federal 15 emissions market. 16 Not surprisingly, Pennsylvania 17 utilities have raised many other arguments in 18 opposition to the DEP's proposal. They've said 19 that implanting pollution controls will increase 20 the cost of electricity for their customers. 21 But the National Wildlife Federation conducted a 22 study in which they found that customers would 23 only see an average increase of $1.08 per month 24 should the power plants pass on the entire 25 costs. And that amount is hardly noticeable to 93 01 customers and may even pay for itself in 02 regional health improvement. 03 It is, however, more important to 04 note that there is little chance the entire cost 05 of pollution controls will be passed on to 06 customers. The Pennsylvania energy market is 07 highly competitive and power plants have very 08 few to no capital costs having paid these off 09 long ago. It is likely that the representatives 10 of these power plants are far more concerned 11 about dipping into their profit margins than 12 about protecting their customers' pockets. 13 Lobbyists for power plants have 14 also voiced a concern over job loss creating in 15 many workers' minds a disconnect between clean 16 energy and a good economy. The truth of the 17 matter is that the development, manufacturing, 18 installation and monitoring of pollution 19 controls only stands to create jobs bolstering 20 our economy instead of deflating it. It's 21 understandable that any business will want to 22 protect their profits, but at what cost? 23 Creating a dirty spin on clean energy only hurts 24 the citizens of Pennsylvania. 25 Again, I urge the EQB to reject the 94 01 EPA's Federal Mercury Emissions Trading Program 02 in favor of the stricter DEP Mercury Reduction 03 Rule. Cleaning up Pennsylvania's power plants 04 is imperative to the health of myself, my 05 neighbors and people living across the 06 Commonwealth. Thank you for your time. 07 CHAIR BOWMAN: 08 Colleen Willison? Diane Hemmingway 09 or Mike Wright from the United Steel Workers? 10 Barbara Litt? 11 MS. LITT: 12 Hi, I'm Barbara Litt. I live at 13 6567 Bartlett Street, Pittsburgh, 15217. I've 14 been there since 1995. 15 I have two young children and I ate 16 a lot of fish while I was pregnant as someone 17 who was almost a vegetarian except for loving 18 fish. I love fish now, but I eat it only 19 rarely. And I think most of what I ate was 20 probably not caught in Pennsylvania. 21 Nevertheless, we see high mercury in a variety 22 of fish and I would like to see Pennsylvania be 23 a leader to the country, not just for its own 24 local situation, but to provide a good model to 25 do better. By the way, one of my children does 95 01 have a behavioral issue and I don't know if it 02 was because I ate lots of fish when I was 03 pregnant or not, probably will never know. But 04 it's very sad that we have to be concerned about 05 our fish consumption. 06 I won't repeat all of what you've 07 heard already about mercury, well-documented 08 potent neurotoxin. I'll just briefly say 09 Pennsylvania has had to propose its own 10 regulations because the federal regulations are 11 not sufficiently protective of public health and 12 the environment. The federal regulations do not 13 require the use of readily available control 14 technology, do not require quick action, 15 unfairly penalized bituminous coal users and 16 allow emissions trading. 17 Emissions trading means that a 18 dirty plant may purchase a credit to continue 19 polluting from another plant that removes a 20 certain amount of mercury from its emissions. 21 The emissions trading system makes sense with a 22 pollutant such as carbon dioxide for which hot 23 spots do not occur and a reduction in one place 24 is as good as a reduction in another. However, 25 mercury hot spots have been documented to occur 96 01 near the sources. In that circumstance, an 02 emissions trading scheme is unfair to the biota 03 and to humans near those plants. 04 In closing, I would also like to 05 cite religious grounds for my position. As a 06 Unitarian Universalist, I believe in respect for 07 the interdependent web of all existence of which 08 we are a part. And I also believe that each and 09 every person is important. It is our moral duty 10 to clean up what we can and not to subject those 11 unlucky enough to live near power plants to 12 higher mercury exposures than the rest of us. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIR BOWMAN: 15 Robert Reiland? 16 MR. REILAND: 17 My name is Robert Reiland and I've 18 lived in Pittsburgh most of my life, currently 19 116 Valley View Drive, Pittsburgh, 15215. I 20 support the DEP proposal and I see the mercury 21 problem as a crisis now and not one that can be 22 put off for ten years or more for any meaningful 23 solution. 24 Most of what I had planned to say 25 has been said and I'm not going to repeat a lot 97 01 of it. So I'll go on to other things. The job 02 issue, for example, what nobody has pointed out 03 is that the coal power plant industry is 04 planning to build several new plants in 05 Pittsburgh and if we happen to lose some jobs, 06 if some plants have to be closed because they 07 don't meet standards, I think there'll be more 08 than those jobs made up in the new construction. 09 Workers can move to other jobs. Children don't 10 have that option. Their parents could maybe 11 take them, but the children themselves cannot 12 move to safer places. We have to protect them. 13 We can't depend on the children to protect 14 themselves. 15 Considering the new construction, 16 what I found out in recent reading is that there 17 is no plan to use advanced technologies in this 18 new construction. It's a conventional kind of 19 power plant once again. Why this is significant 20 is that I have seen many commercials lately that 21 the coal industry has put on TV, and I presume 22 at great expense, in which they talk about clean 23 coal. And the feeling from that is they're 24 solving our problem, they're acting in our 25 interests. So I looked this up, being very 98 01 skeptical and the technologies do in fact exist. 02 They can take coal and in at least two 03 different processes remove virtually all the 04 pollutants before anything is burned. That 05 would be great. They're not planning to do 06 that. It's bait and switch. They're telling 07 you don't worry, we're taking care of your 08 interests and then they're proposing 09 conventional power plants where that is not 10 true. 11 One final thing for those people 12 who think that maybe a little mercury isn't so 13 bad. I happen to be a high school physics 14 teacher and I was also at CMU, I think it was 15 about '89, and there was a barometer broke in 16 one of their big labs and I was about 50 feet 17 away and I was told I had to get out of that 18 room. I was too close. I looked through the 19 window, they brought in these people in these 20 environmental suits completely enclosing them 21 and they had monitors and they had special 22 vacuum equipment. Never vacuum mercury with a 23 regular vacuum cleaner by the way. That's going 24 to make things worse. This is elemental 25 mercury, it's not as bad for you as 99 01 methylmercury which is what you get in fish. I 02 know as a teacher, we've had some mercury 03 problems at my school. We have to close the 04 lab, we have to bring people, we can't allow 05 anybody back in the lab until testing shows that 06 it is safe. By the way, this is what's coming 07 out of the power plants that we're told, you 08 know, don't worry too much about for ten years 09 or so. That's the elemental mercury and some 10 other forms of mercury and then it gets worse. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIR BOWMAN: 13 Karen Giles? 14 MS. GILES: 15 My name is Karen Giles. I'm from 16 Portage, Pennsylvania, 15946. I'm a concerned 17 citizen who has worked with children who have 18 severe behavior and learning problems. I think 19 we need to prevent these problems by removing 20 toxins that causes the problems instead of 21 allowing them to be harmed and then treating 22 them with drugs that cause additional problems. 23 Pennsylvania's power plants have 24 the second highest mercury emissions in the 25 country. We need to reduce mercury pollution 100 01 from the state's coal-fired power plants beyond 02 what would be accomplished by the federal 03 program. The Pennsylvania Department of 04 Environmental Protection, The National Academy 05 of Sciences and the Natural Resources Defense 06 Council say exposure to mercury can affect the 07 way children learn, think, memorize and behave. 08 It can lower their intelligence, damage their 09 hearing and cause learning disabilities. 10 As a former home economics teacher 11 who has studied nutrition, I know we need fish 12 in our diet to get enough omega three fatty 13 acids to decrease the risk of heart disease. 14 But while our fish is contaminated with mercury, 15 instead of eating more fish for the health 16 benefits, we have to limit the fish we eat to 17 avoid the toxins. Fishing is a popular sport in 18 our state. It is unacceptable that the fish 19 caught in Pennsylvania are not safe to eat. 20 Learning disabilities are 21 increasing. Pennsylvania can't afford to wait 22 for mercury reductions from coal-fired power 23 plants. Our health is at risk now. The Federal 24 Mercury Rule does not do enough and it is too 25 slow. It allows power plants to get away with 101 01 not reducing their mercury pollution by 02 purchasing credits from power plants in other 03 areas. This does not solve the mercury problem 04 in Pennsylvania. To protect the health of 05 people in Pennsylvania, we need to enact 06 Governor Rendell's new state level regulation 07 requiring 90 percent mercury pollution 08 reductions from the state coal-fired power 09 plants by 2015. Thank you. 10 CHAIR BOWMAN: 11 Victor Fiori? 12 MR. FIORI: 13 I think before I present my 14 testimony, I think it's important to clarify 15 some things. What I've noticed and I've been 16 around 44 years, getting ready to retire. I've 17 been to a lot of hearings over the years over 18 various issues, many with the environment by the 19 way. And because I'm a Union representative, we 20 have a tendency to categorize people and we look 21 at where you come from and automatically shut 22 down and say well I don't want to hear what he 23 says or yes, I want to hear what he says. I 24 think that's a mistake. 25 I represent members, quite a few of 102 01 them, and negotiate with companies and deal with 02 government agencies. And I don't disregard 03 anything anybody says in this room and I 04 absolutely do not discount anything that McGinty 05 says. I've met with her, I feel that she's an 06 advocate for the environment, I think she is 07 very sincere in what her approach is. But I 08 don't represent her, I represent members of the 09 IBEW, International Brotherhood of Electrical 10 Workers. And what I noticed in this room is 11 everybody's lumping mercury together in one 12 lump. Much of the testimony has a lot to do, 13 those studies that you're talking about, with 14 comes out of what we eat. And I'm not a 15 scientist so I'm not going to try to tell you, 16 you know, what you should believe or disbelieve. 17 But I listened to testimony and I'm going to go 18 through my testimony today and much of this will 19 come out in my testimony. But I think it's 20 wrong to lump everything together. Much of what 21 I've heard, I've listened to those studies and 22 it's true, what you're saying is correct. But 23 you have to really separate elemental mercury. 24 And by the way, the mercury you're speaking of, 25 I worked in power plants where that stuff was in 103 01 gallons and if it went on the floor and you 02 touched it to your skin, you would ingest it 03 through the skin. So that's not the same as 04 what goes in the air. McGinty herself has 05 admitted that the airborne is not what is held 06 in the body and I listened to the scientific 07 testimony at the Senate hearings. And again it 08 came out that way, no one refuted that. So I'm 09 not trying to tell you what to believe, but I'm 10 listening and it wasn't that simple. In the 11 beginning, I listened to McGinty I said why 12 would anybody be against this and if I'm going 13 to get up and take a position in front of people 14 or deal with an employer who is emitting 15 something out there and I have to put my 16 credentials on the table, I'd like to know who's 17 correct. And I'll admit, at this point I'm not 18 totally convinced who is. But I believe there's 19 a solution. At least I have my ideas, I've 20 looked at it. 21 I'm speaking in behalf of the 22 environment, the IBEW and the companies that I 23 deal with and in particular, my job of course is 24 to represent my members. And I can best do 25 that, of course, to look at the economic 104 01 situation they're under. If something adverse 02 would happen to the plants they work in, I'd 03 also have to look at their communities, their 04 children. You know, there's a whole myriad of 05 things that those individuals and I myself who's 06 a father, have to think about when we come here 07 and testify. So I'll go on. 08 By the way, my name's Vic Fiori. 09 I'm with the International Brotherhood of 10 Electrical Workers, Local 29. We reside in 11 Greentree, 986 Greentree Road, Pittsburgh, PA 12 15007. And I represent about 1,800 members for 13 Local 29 in Allegheny and Beaver County. We 14 used to have one large utility company, but 15 through de-regulation, which is another matter, 16 we ended up with three utility companies. We 17 have about 168 members who work at the coal- 18 fired plants in our area, two of them that is, 19 Cheswick and Elrama. And then we have gas-fired 20 units at Brunner Island, which used to be a 21 coal-fire unit. We converted and built some new 22 units that burn gas. 23 We also work with three electric 24 generation companies. One is Reliant Energy, 25 which is the coal stations. And the other is 105 01 Duquesne Light and one is First Energy, which is 02 nuclear. And they're right next to the plants 03 that were referred to up in Shippingport, PA. 04 Statewide, the International 05 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers represents 06 about 3,200 people and that takes in 07 construction overhead, inside wiring, utility 08 people, manufacturing. So it takes in different 09 segments. I represent the utility personnel. 10 And by the way, I don't want to say I'm speaking 11 for my International Vice President because he 12 takes in four states and that's Pennsylvania, 13 New York, New Jersey and Delaware. However, I 14 am involved with him. The IBEW has taken a 15 pretty clear position on this issue and I will 16 admit that I have met with him and I do belong 17 to a coalition of IBEW Locals throughout 18 Pennsylvania and the other states that I 19 mentioned. So to some regard, I am. They're not 20 able to be present here because they're at a 21 conference. So I am speaking mostly for myself, 22 but there are a few things I'm saying here that 23 also speaks for them. 24 I like to keep things simple by the 25 way, but unfortunately, you know, talking about 106 01 emission issues with a power plant are not that 02 simple. And unfortunately you can't turn a 03 switch on and off. Now these places are built, 04 there's a lot of money spent and whether we like 05 or not, people that invest money get pretty 06 upset when you try to mess with that. After 07 they invest that money, they're looking for 08 return. And I understand that process and by 09 the way, I know that they mostly care about 10 stockholders, that's their responsibility. But 11 they also have to care about their employees and 12 I of course come into the picture at that time. 13 14 The bottom issue is we need cap and 15 trade. I'm going to be honest with you. I'm 16 going to say that right up front. The cap and 17 trade program is the compromise here. However, 18 I want to say that with this. My opinion, based 19 on all the people I've talked to, is that the 20 solution is to put the equipment in all the 21 plants. So I'm not opposed to reducing the 22 emissions to whatever level the technology will 23 let us. You know, I met with McGinty and I 24 understand her point, but I don't believe that 25 if we take a hard line and we disregard 107 01 investments and we disregard the costs and 02 remember that you're not just putting in 03 emission for mercury. While we speak, the Clean 04 Air Act has mandates you either put them in or 05 you shut down. So these companies have large 06 capital expenditures that they have to put forth 07 like it or not, aside from the mercury. But I 08 will admit in looking into this issue, in 09 comparison, the mercury investment isn't what 10 really matters. However, two things come clear 11 is if you have to put in the kind of money for 12 clean air, forget about mercury, we'll just shut 13 the --- the reason for shutting a plant down may 14 or may not be for mercury. That may be part of 15 it; okay? The fact is there are large outlays. 16 17 Right now as we speak, the Cheswick 18 Fire Station, which is one of the stations I 19 mentioned, is putting in a $250 million 20 scrubber. That scrubber, being a new scrubber 21 too by the way, will probably put them in a 22 legal area, once that's built, with the State on 23 their proposed legislation. And even if it 24 didn't, they can put in the carbon injection, 25 which again is a pittance of investment compared 108 01 to their larger investment with the Clean Air 02 Act. 03 So the point is, you know, a large 04 plant that has the income coming in because of 05 the generation capacity, it's making the money, 06 it can make that kind of commitment. And by the 07 way, that return's not coming back in a year. 08 That's going to take time to pull that money 09 back in. So there's a very large commitment 10 being made there and I feel that even though 11 that plant is going to, I should say, come in 12 compliance, there are other stations in the 13 Reliant Energy Company that can't, that would 14 have to be shut down. Whether we like to admit 15 that or not. And the fact is that there is 16 where we use whatever technology can be had and 17 we use the cap and trade with the feds and we 18 also use the cap and trade with the State. 19 And why I say that is, you have to 20 realize, you take the Reliant Energy Company. 21 They bought those plants. They unfortunately 22 ended up with them at the end of the bubble. 23 You know, there was a big frenzy out there to 24 buy these stations and make big money. While 25 contrary to common belief, that's not what's 109 01 going on out there. The fact is, they bought 02 them, they got left holding the bag. They are 03 not --- in comparison to other companies, and I 04 can name them, who have deep pockets like was 05 mentioned here, they are not one of them. They 06 are struggling to make ends meet. They had to 07 purchase scrubbers because back in the '70s 08 myself and other people who were involved in the 09 soil and conservation district, instead of 10 beating up on these companies, we showed them a 11 way to put scrubbers in. We got them low 12 interest loans. So I have that approach. 13 I feel though, I have to tell you, 14 the organizations I've belonged to over the 15 years, we put the welfare of the community and 16 the worker, I have to admit that, a little bit 17 ahead. I don't want to say ahead of the 18 environment, but at times I considered a lot 19 heavier than I would other times because I think 20 you have to put the environment first, at least 21 in today's world. That's my opinion. 22 But the fact is, you cannot disregard the impact 23 you have to the community. 24 And I've done my homework on this 25 issue. I've met with DEP, Secretary McGinty 110 01 twice, I talked to my companies that I deal 02 with. I went to the hearings held by Senator 03 White and I listened to the testimony. And by 04 the way, not until that happened was I able to 05 put a whole picture together. And I'll be 06 honest with you, when I first listened to the 07 mercury level issue, I looked at it as lead, 08 just like everybody in this room's doing. You 09 know, even though most of it's coming from fish 10 and it's coming from all over the world. And by 11 the way, you people who live next door to the 12 plant may be safer than the ones that live in 13 Canada for instance or maybe New York, you know. 14 CHAIR BOWMAN: 15 You have about one minute left. 16 MR. FIORI: 17 Okay. So studies show that there 18 is a difference in the environment between 19 zeroing out all mercury emissions in all United 20 States power plants and adopting a Federal Clean 21 Air Mercury Rule with a cap and trade program. 22 And I feel that's the trade off by the way. The 23 companies will put advanced air pollution 24 control on small old plants if they can put the 25 controls on and be assured that they're going to 111 01 recover some money. And since they spent that 02 money on the scrubbers that exist in the 03 millions, I believe that have some credit they 04 should get for that because that has already 05 cleaned up SO2 and other things in the 06 environment. 07 In my opinion, we need to answer 08 some of the basic questions though. Why can't 09 we go back to the Federal Clean Air Mercury 10 Rule? I have not seen any information that 11 convinces me that we should do something 12 different than the federal rule. I'm just being 13 straight with you on that based on the testimony 14 I heard. What are the benefits in Pennsylvania 15 if we do go beyond the federal rule? Again, 16 what benefit are we going to derive on the 17 economic side? What impact will it have? 18 And those are some of the issues. 19 What will it do to jobs? And what will happen 20 to those little plants that can't afford to do 21 what the larger plants do? The 20 percent that 22 the other gentleman spoke of. What will happen 23 to our jobs and our economy if these plants do 24 shut down? And how many plants will close? How 25 will it affect the price of electricity and what 112 01 studies has the DEP conducted to answer some of 02 these questions? Because I feel that side of 03 this deserves an answer also. 04 We recognize we'll have to reduce 05 mercury emissions, everybody knows that. But we 06 have to do it in a balanced way that does not 07 have a negative impact on jobs and our economy. 08 And I'll end it with that. Thank you. 09 CHAIR BOWMAN: 10 Edda Albright? 11 MS. ALBRIGHT: 12 My name is Edda Albright. And I'm 13 from 429 Powell Avenue, Cresson, PA 16630. And 14 I'm an advocate for a Stewardship and 15 Sustainability for Goodness Sake. 16 In this concept of Stewardship and 17 Sustainability for Goodness Sake, it's 18 recognized that there is a partnership among 19 business and industry, citizen and consumer and 20 government in which we have been known to 21 recognize as quality of life. It has been said 22 that overwhelmingly public support for the rule 23 is what it will take to drown out the high paid 24 mouthpieces of the electric utility and industry 25 interest. While I have submitted testimony 113 01 electronically, I could not pass up the 02 opportunity to try to impress upon decision 03 makers the trust and faith they carry with them 04 to protect public health and safety from mercury 05 and other pollutants. Not just for today, but 06 for all the tomorrows and the children yet to be 07 conceived and born. 08 A dangerous damaging line has been 09 crossed in the interest of America's energy 10 consumption. As I present this, New York and 11 California are in the news asking for the 12 federal aid because of interrupted energy 13 supplies. There will be overwhelming pressure 14 on this Board to seek short term solutions for 15 the glutinous energy appetite in America by 16 bowing to the demands of industry to produce 17 more and more energy as cheaply as possible no 18 matter who or what is hurt or destroyed. 19 There is a solution, but it will 20 take courage and conviction. It is clearly the 21 responsibility of the partnership among business 22 industry, consumer citizen and government to 23 address the energy issue in its entirety. But 24 right now, the power is in the government entity 25 of that partnership. You will set the 114 01 expectation that damaging harm must be avoided. 02 No matter what the arguments, the facts are 03 there to demonstrate the damage done to the 04 environment and the health of the nation due to 05 mercury and other industrial pollutants. I 06 question business and industry's attempt to 07 minimize the toxic effects of mercury when one 08 teaspoon contaminates a 20 acre lake. 09 I have been active in the 10 opposition for a coal plant to be built in 11 Cambria Township in the Crescent Mountain area 12 where the high mercury levels have already been 13 documented. At a public meeting, I asked a 14 representative from the company advocating the 15 plant being built. If the controls to contain 16 pollution in the plant would be used, I asked 17 them if they would be used if they didn't have 18 to and he said no. Industry, like a child 19 seeking direction during unsafe behavior needs 20 firm, enforceable able rules for the protection 21 of self and others. And that's in response to 22 the gentleman that said we'll have all this 23 technology in place. So what, if you don't have 24 to use it? It's just window dressing. 25 Our people deserve the protection 115 01 offered in the Department of Environmental 02 Protection's proposed rule making on mercury 03 reductions from coal-fired power plants in 04 Pennsylvania. Thank you. 05 CHAIR BOWMAN: 06 Lisa Sliman (phonetic)? Lisa 07 Sliman? Will Sevella (phonetic)? Will Sevella? 08 Ariel Burlette? 09 MS. BURETTE: 10 My name is Ariel Burlette and I 11 live at 1323 Second Street in Beaver, 12 Pennsylvania 15009. I am very concerned with 13 the accepted level of mercury pollution emitted 14 by our cities' coal-fired power plants and its 15 effect on developmental patterns in babies. 16 As a young woman, I plan to have 17 children of my own in the future and I want to 18 be assured that my children will grow up in a 19 clean Pennsylvania, one of vastly reduced levels 20 of mercury pollution emitted into our streams 21 and lakes. 22 The PA DEP's proposed state 23 specific regulation calls for reduction of 24 mercury pollution from power plants by 80 25 percent in 2010 and 90 percent in 2015. As you 116 01 know, babies and infants are highly sensitive to 02 mercury. Since mercury passes from mother to 03 baby through the placenta and breast milk, toxic 04 levels of mercury in a woman's body leaves her 05 at a higher risk of giving birth to babies of 06 learning and developmental disabilities. In 07 fact, this was already said, but one in six 08 women nationwide have enough mercury in their 09 own body to harm her developing baby. If this 10 proposal is passed, by the time I become a 11 mother, my children will have the opportunity to 12 live in a state where mercury pollution will be 13 almost negligible. Risk to developmental 14 impairments in infants will be lowered and 15 mothers will feel safe when eating fish from our 16 streams and lakes during pregnancy without fear 17 of increasing mercury levels in her body. 18 Therefore, I support the PA 19 Environmental Quality Board proposal that calls 20 for a state specific regulation which result in 21 an 80 percent reduction in mercury emissions by 22 2010 and 90 percent by 2015. Thank you for your 23 time and consideration with this. 24 CHAIR BOWMAN: 25 Fay Grover? Danielle Barriman 117 01 (phonetic)? Eric Manbieu (phonetic)? 02 MR. MANBIEU: 03 Hello, my name is Eric Manbieu. I 04 am a resident of Pennsylvania, have been one all 05 my life. I've been a resident of Pittsburgh for 06 six years. And I am here in support of the 07 DEP's proposed reduction of mercury emissions, 08 90 percent by 2015. 09 There's been dozens of testimony 10 prior to my own that have talked about the 11 dangers of mercury as a harmful neurotoxin, that 12 it is a risk to children, that is a risk to 13 pregnant women. One in six women of child 14 bearing age are at risk for birth defects. Some 15 of these birth defect include: cerebral palsy, 16 autism, blindness, deafness, loss of movement, 17 loss of control of bodily function and yes, even 18 death. 19 We've also heard testimony from 20 coal power industry's, CPA, Mr. Fiori who just 21 came in a little while ago. He seems to have 22 left which is a shame because he mentioned being 23 open to all forms of conversation. I wish he 24 would have stayed to listen to mine because as I 25 will not be going to into what a lot of people 118 01 had already talked about. 02 So instead, the two big issues that 03 have been brought up. One, what is the health 04 benefit of adopting a statewide proposed 05 regulation of mercury emissions, of reduction I 06 should say. And number two, what is the cost of 07 adopting such a statewide rule? 08 Well, the health benefit comes into 09 the form of what has been talked about that 10 mercury is not something that can be lumped into 11 one category. That we can't all talk about all 12 mercury is the same. And you know what, that's 13 true because you had elemental mercury, you have 14 inorganic mercury, you have methylmercury and 15 you have di-methylmercury as well as other types 16 of mercury. Since I am not a chemist, that I do 17 not know about other forms and compounds that go 18 into these water systems. 19 Elemental mercury that has been 20 talked about that these coal power plants have 21 in vats in the gallons, yes, that's not what 22 goes up into the air. What goes into the air is 23 inorganic mercury and inorganic mercury is a 24 result of when coal is burned at --- when fossil 25 fuels are burned and broken down, inorganic 119 01 mercury is released into the air. And what the 02 coal power industries will tell you is that 03 inorganic mercury, there is no direct link of 04 health risks between inorganic mercury and all 05 of these health problems that are associated. 06 And you know what? That's true. There has not 07 yet been a study that had linked inorganic 08 mercury with all these health risks. What the 09 coal corporation does not tell you, however, is 10 that inorganic mercury when it falls into our 11 waterways, when it comes down via the rain, it 12 is accumulated by plankton. It is accumulated 13 by these microorganisms in the fresh water and 14 it turns into something that's called 15 methylmercury. 16 Methylmercury is a biocumulative. 17 When the smaller microorganisms ingest inorganic 18 mercury and turn it into methylmercury, the 19 smaller larvivorous fish then eat these 20 plankton, it accumulates. When fish eating fish 21 then eat the larvivorous fish, that accumulates 22 further. So what is eaten in the fish of 23 methylmercury, the amount of methylmercury 24 consumed, studies have been shown from one 25 piscivorous fish, which is a fish eating fish, 120 01 200 times the level of methylmercury are in 02 these fish than what's in our waterways. Two 03 hundred times. That's why the state issues 04 these, you know, you can only have one fish per 05 week or two fish per month. 06 They talk about a one percent how 07 the global --- the coal industries are only 08 responsible for one percent of the global 09 mercury emissions. What they mean by global 10 mercury emissions, however, is on a global 11 standard so you have to include the 70 percent 12 of the planet that's ocean. You have to include 13 Antarctica, you have to include parts of 14 Mongolia and northern China and areas in Siberia 15 where there are no power plants, where nothing 16 ever gets touched there. One percent of the 17 global rate? That's still doesn't change the 18 fact that in 2004, Pennsylvania's coal-fired 19 power plants emitted 6,700 pounds of mercury. 20 It doesn't change the fact that that's 40 21 percent of what goes into our air, what comes 22 down and into our fresh water. 23 Methylmercury is a deadly 24 substance. They'll tell you there's no link 25 between inorganic mercury and health risks. 121 01 There are, however, links between methylmercury 02 and health links. The Michigan State University 03 have done studies recently on the effects that 04 mercury has on myelin. Those of you who don't 05 know, myelin is a protein building block within 06 our own central nervous systems. And what it 07 does, it surrounds our neurons in between the 08 axons and it helps control things like our own 09 movement and our ability to see. The ability 10 that, you know, sending signals from our 11 extremities into the brain and back and forth. 12 And this is an inhibitory effect. You can look 13 it up. It's called demyelinization. 14 Methylmercury has been shown to do that. So we 15 ingest this fish and we get sick as a result of 16 it. And that is why methylmercury is among 17 leading causes, of again, as I say, cerebral 18 palsy, autism, all of these deadly effects. 19 Young males under the age of six are at risk for 20 something that's called ALD which is 21 adrenoleukodystrophy. What that causes is 22 blindness, loss of movement, loss of control of 23 bodily functions. This is a deadly substance. 24 It's getting into our fresh water systems. 25 They talk about a balanced 122 01 reduction. Balanced reduction is nice if we 02 were to live in a state that was an average 03 emitter of mercury. But we are the second 04 highest in the nation. You don't ask for 05 balanced protection on levies if you're in a low 06 land area. If you're in like Amsterdam or, 07 oops, New Orleans, you don't talk about things 08 like that. When we're one of the highest 09 emitters of mercury in the state, balanced 10 reduction does not help. You need to have 11 something higher and that's why again, I support 12 the DEP's proposed standards, 90 percent over 13 the next eight years is more than enough time. 14 We've talked about the technology is there. So 15 eight years should be more than enough time to 16 implement it and use it. 17 The second part was of course the 18 costs of adopting a state rule, of adopting such 19 high standards state-wide legislation, added 20 risk. We're not going to go into that partly 21 because one, I'm probably running out of time 22 and partly because --- mainly because actually 23 the health benefits of the citizens of 24 Pennsylvania should never ever outweigh --- 25 excuse me. The cost effects should never ever 123 01 outweigh the health of our state and the health 02 of our citizens. Thank you very much for your 03 time. 04 CHAIR BOWMAN: 05 Cynthia Walter? 06 MS. WALTER: 07 Hi, my name's Cynthia Walter. I'm 08 a teacher. I live at 916 Essex Drive in 09 Greensburg, 15601. 10 I urge you, the Council here, to 11 reduce mercury emissions beyond the federal rule 12 announced in 2005 by the EPA Clean Air Mercury 13 Rule. 14 Mercury, as you know, is a 15 permanent toxin, never goes away. Our 16 regulation must reflect this simple chemistry. 17 We already have too much mercury in our air, 18 soil, water, fish, even our own flesh. Mercury 19 causes brain damage and learning impairments. 20 It's hurting our children here and now. We must 21 consider the huge cost in human health from this 22 permanent toxin when we debate the cost and 23 responsibilities of power plants. The PA DEP is 24 duty bound to do better than the weakened, 25 flawed federal regulations. 124 01 Federal percentage reduction levels 02 are too low, first point. We can do better than 03 70 percent. We already have the technology to 04 reach 90 percent. For example, the sulfur 05 dioxide removal systems being installed as we 06 speak, for example, in that Keystone plant. I 07 think the guy is gone now. The systems being 08 installed now as we speak can easily reach 80 09 percent. They have guaranteed the Keystone 10 plant they will reach 80 percent and are going 11 in place now. At the mercury removal, sulfur 12 dioxide removal also removes mercury. They 13 could contain 90 percent of the mercury 14 emissions if the capacity was slightly improved 15 upon installation. This can only happen if the 16 PA DEP writes 90 percent in the regulations now. 17 If we have to retrofit the additional emission 18 treatment, it will be more expensive for those 19 plants and simply allow more of this permanent 20 pollutant, mercury, to accumulate. 21 Point number two. Federal time 22 frame is too slow. Federal regulations allow 23 too much pollution with 2018 as the target date. 24 The technology to remove mercury exists today. 25 We must start now to phase in its use and not 125 01 continue pollution. Other states such as 02 Massachusetts have successfully implemented this 03 years ago and are on a much rapid emission 04 reduction. And their economy, their energy 05 economy is doing fine. 06 Trading pollution credits for a 07 toxin like mercury is wrong. The notion of 08 trading toxin credits is ethically and 09 ecologically wrong. We cannot use the success 10 of a program to regulate non-toxic gases such as 11 carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and apply it to a 12 heavy metal like mercury. Giving power plants 13 the continued right to release toxic levels of 14 mercury denies Pennsylvanians our right to clean 15 air, water and food. 16 Conclusion. It's your 17 responsibility, you guys, to set the standards 18 for environmental and human health in this 19 Commonwealth. The power plants have the 20 technology to meet the standards. They have the 21 political and economic ability to install the 22 equipment and still prosper. Various economic 23 approaches are possible, such as tax incentives, 24 we haven't heard those yet today. And federal 25 grants for innovative pollution reduction 126 01 technologies. I've written a lot of grants. We 02 can write these grants, too. When we consider 03 the cost of mercury abatement, we must remember 04 the even larger ethical, economic costs of 05 living with the poison levels we can reduce if 06 we take responsibility now. 07 CHAIR BOWMAN: 08 Rachel Martin? Does anybody else 09 wish to comment on this proposal? Why don't we 10 start with the first row and just work our way 11 backwards? You, sir? Please state your name 12 and address and if you're affiliated with 13 anybody. 14 MR. PISON: 15 My name's Raul Pison, Sr. I live 16 at 901 State Route 18, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. 17 That's Raccoon Township, Beaver County. I live 18 less than a mile from the First Energy's Bruce 19 Mansfield plant in Shippingport which ranks the 20 seventh largest coal-fired plant in the United 21 States. As a resident that lives within the 22 mercury hot spot of Bruce Mansfield Plant, and I 23 live within the red zone there. 24 I don't need scientists or studies 25 to see what mercury causes. I see it daily. 127 01 Our local Raccoon Elementary School, last year, 02 had nine autistic students and many, many 03 children that have ADHD. That's one elementary 04 school. There are many within the Bruce 05 Mansfield Plant hot spot. I personally have 06 grandchildren, nieces and nephews that have 07 these illnesses. This is a life sentence for 08 these children and their parents. 09 I support DEP's mercury proposal 10 and oppose any mercury emission trading. If 11 this happens, thousands of children in my area 12 alone, will pay the price for life. 13 In closing, by the way, the Bruce 14 Mansfield Plant had a huge release over the 15 weekend causing the area to be covered with soot 16 and fly ash, which I have pictures of. And I 17 believe, I personally believe, if you could see 18 mercury, if mercury was visible, this is what it 19 would look like in my area. That's it. Thank 20 you. 21 CHAIR BOWMAN: 22 We'll go to the next row back. 23 Would you like to come up? And again, please 24 state your name and address and if you're 25 affiliated with anybody. 128 01 MS. NIEMCZYK: 02 My name's Nancy Niemczyk, N-I-E-M- 03 C-Z-Y-K, 2825 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, 15222, 04 just over the bridge on the other side of the 05 river. I am a certified nurse midwife. I have a 06 Master's degree in Nursing from the University 07 of Pennsylvania. I'm director of the Midwife 08 Center for Birth and Women's Health here in 09 Pittsburgh and a member of the medical staff at 10 Allegheny General Hospital. And I've been taking 11 care of pregnant women and delivering babies in 12 Pittsburgh since 1995. And I'm just going to 13 say three things that I know from my own 14 experience in support of the DEP proposal. 15 The first thing I know is that 16 pregnant women in Pittsburgh eat fish. As part 17 of my practice, we have every client keep a 18 three-day food diary and bring it in to the 19 midwives to analyze so that we can comment on 20 their nutrition and help them take better care 21 of themselves. And several times a month I am 22 analyzing a food diary from a pregnant woman and 23 find that she is eating fish and then I'm able 24 to counsel her appropriately about fish 25 advisories and safe fish consumption in 129 01 pregnancy. So the first thing is that pregnant 02 women are eating fish here in Pittsburgh, I know 03 that. 04 The second thing that I know from 05 my own experience is that women don't know about 06 the fish advisories and safe fish consumption 07 before they get pregnant. I teach a class 08 called Ten Things Every Women Should Know Before 09 Getting Pregnant and the midwives I work with go 10 around and we talk in churches, in schools and 11 to community groups and grocery stores, anywhere 12 we can do this to women who are planning to get 13 pregnant to talk about things like smoking 14 cessation and exercise and food safety as part 15 of that. And when we do this class I talk about 16 safe fish consumption and mercury and almost no 17 one knows about this and they don't know about 18 the state fish advisories and what they should 19 be doing to protect themselves. So I want my 20 clients to eat fish, I want them to get this 21 good, cheap source of protein. You need 80 22 grams of protein a day when you're pregnant and 23 this is a cheap, safe, really healthy form and I 24 have to tell women to limit it. And that makes 25 me angry. And women don't know about safety 130 01 before being taught. 02 The third thing I know from my own 03 experience is that over half of pregnancies are 04 unplanned in the United States. So that even if 05 we in the ideal world had great warnings, great 06 signs everywhere, every woman knew that before 07 becoming pregnant she should limit her fish 08 consumption, she should be careful about 09 mercury, still more than half the pregnancies 10 would happen in women who weren't doing that 11 because they weren't planning to get pregnant or 12 expecting to get pregnant. And they discover 13 they're pregnant six or seven or eight weeks 14 into the pregnancy and even if they immediately 15 knew to change their diets and be careful of 16 this, most of that important first trimester is 17 gone and they've been consuming foods high in 18 mercury. So I think just awareness of the issue 19 isn't enough to really protect public health and 20 the health of my clients and their unborn 21 babies. We need the strict standards so that 22 people will be protected without having to think 23 about it. Without having to plan ahead because 24 most pregnancies aren't planned and we need to 25 be protecting them ahead of time. Thanks. 131 01 CHAIR BOWMAN: 02 Thank you. Let's just work our way 03 back to this row, next row. Okay. I think 04 we're with you now. Would you like to come up? 05 And again, please give your name and address 06 and affiliation if you have one. 07 MS. COOK: 08 My name is Marin Cook and I live at 09 6745 Forest Glenn Road in Pittsburgh. This is 10 my daughter Kelan (phonetic) Donahue who also 11 lives there. I'm here as a scientist and a 12 science educator as a volunteer for several grad 13 student organizations. I should note I'm on the 14 Board of GASP, The Group Against Smog and 15 Pollution, but I speak as an individual and as a 16 mother. Kelan here is one of my two daughters. 17 I already said that. 18 Mercury from power plant smoke 19 stacks comes down all over the lands and waters 20 of our region. It's highly concentrated in the 21 body tissues of fish as we've heard simply 22 because they are so far up the food chain. 23 We've all heard in recent years about limits on 24 eating fish especially for women who are 25 pregnant or may become pregnant or who are 132 01 nursing. Realistically, as Nancy noted, that 02 means about a quarter of the population, all 03 women of child bearing age. Mercury is also 04 strongly linked to the rising rate of male 05 infertility. So there's another difficulty with 06 producing healthy children and another quarter 07 of the population who shouldn't eat much fish. 08 But the assault doesn't stop at birth. We need 09 to add children to the list of those who must 10 avoid fish, an otherwise healthy source of 11 protein, minerals and essential fatty acids. 12 Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin 13 that affects the development to the brain and 14 nervous system well into the teenage years. 15 Infants and children exposed to mercury face 16 learning disabilities, intelligence and 17 attention deficits and possibly, autism. And in 18 case you were beginning to feel safe because 19 you've already had your kids or don't plan to 20 have any, other grown ups are also at risk. 21 Mercury exposure can damage adult cardiovascular 22 and immune systems as well as the brain and 23 kidneys. 24 Why are we all here now? Now that 25 we know all this, now is the time to speak up; 133 01 right? Here's an environmental science 02 textbook, college textbook from 2003 which has 03 15 different index listings on mercury detailing 04 all the risks. And how mercury is converted 05 into methylmercury and all that. But step back 06 in time 80 years. This is a book called The 07 Health of the Runabout Child from 1923. I came 08 across it just a few weeks ago. I was browsing 09 in some books from my grandmother who founded 10 the National Association for the Education of 11 Young Children. And it was an interesting title 12 and I thought about what Runabout Child might be 13 and there on page two it says the mother does 14 learn early in that first year, in italics, that 15 the injurious prenatal influences are those 16 communicated through the blood, such as ill 17 health, malnutrition, severe shock, grief or 18 worry, diseases such as tuberculosis, poisons in 19 the blood such as lead, mercury and alcohol. So 20 this isn't new. 21 I apologize for getting here late, 22 but I think someone may have already mentioned 23 the Madder the Hatter, which we are most 24 familiar with from Louis Carroll's, Alice in 25 Wonderland, 1865. The term was coined at least 134 01 by 1837 because hat makers were working with 02 felt which was cured with mercuric nitrate which 03 when exposed to acid as you're doing with the 04 felt turned into elemental mercury and then they 05 steamed it and shaped it with heat and steam. 06 And so they're all breathing mercury vapor all 07 the time and they were loopy. Nitrative mercury 08 was finally banned from the hat industry by the 09 United Stated Public Health Service in 1941, 10 although by that time, the hazards had been 11 known for a century. I think it may have had 12 something to do with it was during the war, they 13 needed the mercury for other things, but at 14 least it was banned. 15 So isn't it high time that we step 16 up to the plate and use technologies that are 17 already within reach to control emissions and 18 protect people? I've been inside a coal-fired 19 plant and I've spoken with the site managers 20 about emission reduction technologies. One 21 thing that became clear to me is that while 22 these folks are generally intelligent, well- 23 spoken and well meaning individuals, it is not 24 in their best interest as corporate 25 representatives to mitigate further than the law 135 01 requires. The only way to provide a level 02 playing field in this competitive industry while 03 providing safe conditions for the people who 04 live downwind and downstream is to mandate the 05 reductions necessary to guarantee that safety. 06 I'm lucky. I have two bright, 07 healthy, amazing children. I'm lucky, but I've 08 also been careful. Fish is rarely on the table 09 at our house and we eat almost exclusively 10 organic food. Our girls' preschool has a strict 11 policy forbidding pesticide use and the new 12 playground equipment is made of wood treated 13 without arsenic. And once more, these kids are 14 growing up to understand what's going on around 15 them as well the importance of people making 16 their voices heard. Kelan and Innace (phonetic) 17 have been in demonstrations. I was going to 18 bring a sign she made from some years back, but 19 it was in the wrong place and couldn't get it. 20 It said I don't want pollutants, I want clen 21 are. Which is called inventive spelling and 22 it's a great thing to do when you're five years 23 old. 24 The Clean Air Act requires that the 25 best pollution controls possible be mandated. 136 01 Let's meet the Clean Air Act standard which 02 means constant improvement. No amount of 03 mercury is safe. Thanks for your help. 04 CHAIR BOWMAN: 05 I think we're at the last row. 06 Would you like to come up? Again, your name and 07 address and affiliation. 08 MS. LAWSON: 09 My name's Kathy Lawson. My address 10 is 1614 Jefferson Ridge Drive and that's 11 Jefferson Hills, Pennsylvania 15025, close to 12 Clairton. I am the director of the Healthy 13 Children Project of the Learning Disabilities 14 Association of America. 15 The national headquarters of LDA is 16 located in Pennsylvania on Library Road in 17 Castle Shannon. LDA is a national non-profit 18 association with approximately 20,000 members 19 and some 200 affiliates in 41 states. Organized 20 by volunteer parents in 1963, LDA established a 21 research committee in 1975 which promotes 22 research and policies aimed at identifying the 23 nature and causes of learning disabilities and 24 reducing its incidence. 25 LDA has avidly tracked the emerging 137 01 science of children's environmental health. We 02 know now that 2/3s of learning and other 03 developmental disabilities are caused by genetic 04 environmental interactions. And that increasing 05 amounts of chemical and other toxic exposures 06 increase the incidence of cognitive 07 disabilities. In 2002, LDA launched its Healthy 08 Children Project which promotes grass roots 09 prevention activities aimed at reducing human 10 exposure to environmental neurotoxicants (sic). 11 The Learning Disabilities 12 Association of America is gravely concerned 13 about reported increases in the number of 14 children diagnosed with learning and other 15 developmental disabilities, especially notable 16 in the dramatic rise in the incidence of autism 17 and ADHD. Knowing for over a century that 18 mercury is a potent toxicant directly affecting 19 the nervous system and knowing the research 20 history of that other deadly neurotoxicant 21 (sic), lead, we are convinced that there exists 22 a direct relationship between human exposure to 23 mercury pollution, especially for women of child 24 bearing years, and the rising incidence of 25 cognitive disabilities. 138 01 There are four types of mercury 02 emissions coming from sources caused by either 03 man, anthropogenic, or by nature. 04 Number one, inadvertent releases 05 associated with human activity. Basically, 06 that's the mercury which is the byproduct of 07 processing raw materials such as fossil fuels 08 and minerals. 09 Number two, intentional use of 10 mercury in products and processing and released 11 into the environment during manufacturing leaks, 12 disposal or incineration. 13 Number three, remobilization of 14 mercury deposits previously in soils, sediments, 15 water bodies, landfills and waste piles. 16 And number four, natural sources 17 such as releases from the earth's crust due to 18 volcanic activity and weathering stones. 19 The first three types of exposure 20 can be reduced by human ingenuity. Most of the 21 mercury in our environment is emitted from 22 industrial smoke stacks. The EPA has concluded 23 that coal-fired power plants are the nation's 24 largest source of unregulated mercury emissions 25 attributable to human activity. Similar to our 139 01 global water supply, the world-wide mercury 02 inventory continuously cycles. Once we emit 03 mercury into the atmosphere, it doesn't go away. 04 Once it enters our water supply, it doesn't go 05 away. It might be transformed, but it does not 06 disappear. For this reason, individuals 07 concerned about the environmental health impacts 08 of mercury exposure are focusing on the danger 09 of eating fish with high levels of mercury in 10 their bodies. The mercury levels in the bodies 11 of fish are a direct result of the mercury which 12 is emitted into the air. The inorganic mercury 13 compounds which fall from the air into water are 14 transformed into the most toxic form of mercury, 15 methylmercury, a known neurotoxicant (sic) by 16 way of interaction with bacteria found in fresh 17 water and marine sediments. 18 During the process called 19 bioaccumulation, the strength of the 20 methylmercury becomes increasingly more potent. 21 As a result, some fish that humans consume have 22 a very high concentration of methylmercury and 23 that mercury is much more toxic than the mercury 24 that was originally deposited into the water. 25 And unfortunately, in Pennsylvania, every 140 01 waterway in the Commonwealth has advisories on 02 fish consumption due to the high levels of 03 mercury and other types of pollution. And 04 residents are advised to eat no more than two 05 meals of this fish per month. 06 The US FDA and American Heart 07 Association agree that fish consumption is an 08 important part of a healthy diet and we agree 09 with them. Fish consumption is an important 10 part of a healthy diet. By carefully choosing 11 the fish they eat, people can benefit from 12 consuming seafood while minimizing their risk 13 from mercury exposure associated with fish in 14 the diet. However, people need accurate 15 information in order to make correct choices. 16 Unfortunately, self-serving parties try to 17 exacerbate the potential confusion surrounding 18 the issue of mercury in fish by sharing 19 incorrect information for their own commercial 20 interests. Correct information about risk is 21 not toxic, methylmercury is toxic. 22 Some proponents for weak mercury 23 regulation say no confirmed cases of a single 24 person having a level of mercury in their blood 25 due to fish consumption that comes anywhere near 141 01 a level which would cause adverse health 02 effects. Scientific studies as far back as the 03 1950s have made a clear connection between 04 health hazards related to the consumption of 05 mercury tainted fish. Recently, studies have 06 documented harmful effects at even lower doses 07 than we previously thought to cause damage, 08 especially to the developing brain. A study 09 done in Faroe Islands showed a significant 10 correlation between impairment in the areas of 11 language, attention and memory and prenatal 12 mercury exposure. 13 Studies as recent as March 2006 14 have linked the consequences of methylmercury 15 toxicity to the developing brain. Using the 16 Centers for Disease Control data, it was found 17 that between 316,588 and 637,233 children each 18 year have cord blood levels more than 5.8 19 micrograms per liter. That's the reference 20 dose, the level associated with loss of IQ and 21 increased developmental disabilities. Those 22 detriments in IQ are in turn associated with 23 lower wages and diminished lifetime earning 24 power to the amount of 8.7 billion dollars 25 annually. 142 01 In a second study, it was concluded 02 that these downward shifts in IQ resulted in 03 1,566 excess cases of mental retardation, 04 representing 3.2 percent of mental retardation 05 cases in the United States. The cost for caring 06 for these children amount to millions of dollars 07 a year. In contrast --- I'll just skip to the 08 end. 09 As mentioned earlier, exposure to 10 mercury is clearly linked to learning and other 11 developmental disabilities. To reduce the 12 prevalence of mercury contamination as a factor 13 in learning disabilities, we need to reduce 14 mercury released into our environment, and we 15 need to do it now. Because coal-fired power 16 plants are our nation's biggest mercury emitters 17 with Pennsylvania ranking at the top of the list 18 at number two, we cannot solve this problem 19 without reducing mercury emissions from these 20 facilities. Independent studies have shown that 21 90 percent of the mercury from these facilities 22 can be removed economically before it pollutes 23 our water and air. Yet the alternative 24 legislation under consideration, The Federal 25 Clean Mercury Rule, would remove less mercury 143 01 and delay effective action for years. In the 02 meantime, more children are being born with 03 mercury in their cord blood. More children are 04 being born with autism, mental retardation and 05 learning disabilities. 06 I just have some additional facts. 07 As I mentioned, mercury is a known 08 neurotoxicant (sic). The definition of a 09 neurotoxin is a toxin that damages or destroys 10 nerve tissue, a poisonous protein complex that 11 acts on the nervous system. As we all know, the 12 brain is the center of the nervous system. With 13 that in mind, I ask you to consider these 14 statistics. There was a 191 percent increase in 15 the number of U.S. children in special education 16 programs classified with learning disabilities 17 between 1977 and 1994. The cost for 18 neurodevelopment disorders in the United States 19 is $81.5 billion annually. Seventeen (17) 20 percent of school age children in the United 21 States suffer from a disability that affects 22 their behavior, memory or ability to learn. From 23 the 1980s to the 1990s, there was an increase 24 from 4 to 5 to 30 to 60 in the number of U.S. 25 children per 10,000 diagnosed with autistic 144 01 spectrum disorders. Between 1990 and 1998, 02 there was a 250 percent increase in the number 03 of U.S. children diagnosed with ADHD. 04 Given these facts, The Healthy 05 Children Project of the Learning Disabilities 06 Association of America strongly supports the 07 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 08 Protection proposed rule making standards for 09 contaminants, mercury, which would amend Chapter 10 123 of the Pennsylvania Code. The sooner we 11 have stronger regulations, the better. 12 CHAIR BOWMAN: 13 Thank you very much. Does anybody 14 else wish to comment? I think we've worked 15 ourselves back through all the rows, but just 16 one more time, anybody else? Well with no other 17 witnesses present, and on behalf on the 18 Environmental Quality Board, I thank you for 19 your interest and attention today. I hereby 20 adjourn this hearing at, looks like, 10 after 21 4:00. 22 * * * * * * * * 23 PUBLIC HEARING CONCLUDED AT 4:10 P.M. 24 * * * * * * * * 25