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 EMISSION 07 REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC 08 GENERATING UNITS 09 * * * * * * * * * 10 11 BEFORE: PATRICK HENDERSON, Chair 12 HEARING: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 13 1:00 p.m. 14 LOCATION: Department of Environmental Protection 15 Rachel Carson Building 16 Room 105 17 400 Market Street 18 Harrisburg, PA 17105 19 20 21 Reporter: Bernadette M. Black 22 23 Any reproduction of this transcript 24 is prohibited without authorization 25 by the certifying agency 2 01 WITNESSES: Eric Epstein, Douglas Biden, Melody 02 Zullinger, Sandra Strauss, Jan Jarrett, Andrew Wolfe, 03 Deana Sherman-Weaver, Kimberly Anderson, Anna Aufill, 04 Ryan Karins, Roberta Jarnagin-Blaylock, Richard 05 Martin, Ethan Lavine, Jennifer Heller, Pamela 06 Phila-Lee, Steven Quarles, Michael Helfrich, Richard 07 King, Jeffrey Schmidt, Marlene McPherson 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 01 A P P E A R A N C E S 02 03 MARJORIE L. HUGHES, ESQUIRE 04 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 05 Policy Office 06 Rachel Carson State Office Building 07 P.O. Box 2063 08 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 09 Counsel for Pennsylvania Department of 10 Environmental Protection 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 01 I N D E X 02 03 OPENING REMARKS 04 By Chair Patrick Henderson 7 - 10 05 TESTIMONY 06 By Eric Epstein 10 - 19 07 By Douglas Biden 19 - 27 08 By Melody Zullinger 27 - 34 09 By Sandra Strauss 34 - 39 10 By Jan Jarrett 40 - 42 11 By Andrew Wolfe 43 - 45 12 By Deana Sherman-Weaver 45 - 49 13 By Kimberly Anderson 49 - 51 14 By Anna Aufill 51 - 52 15 By Ryan Karins 52 - 55 16 By Roberta Jarnagin-Blaylock 56 - 61 17 By Richard Martin 61 - 64 18 By Ethan Lavine 64 - 72 19 By Jennifer Heller 72 - 77 20 By Pamela Phila-Lee 77 21 By Steven Quarles 78 22 By Michael Helfrich 79 - 87 23 By Richard King 87 - 88 24 By Jeffrey Schmidt 89 - 94 25 5 01 I N D E X (continued) 02 03 TESTIMONY 04 By Marlene McPherson 94 - 96 05 CERTIFICATE 97 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 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 7 01 P R O C E E D I N G S 02 ------------------------------------------------------ 03 CHAIR: 04 I'm going to call this Environmental 05 Quality Board for a public hearing to order. I'd like 06 to welcome you to the Environmental Quality Board 07 public hearing on the proposed mercury emission 08 reduction requirements for electric-generating units. 09 The purpose of this hearing is to formally accept 10 testimony on this proposed rulemaking. 11 My name is Patrick Henderson, 12 representing Senator Mary Jo White, a member of the 13 Environmental Quality Board. As the EQB 14 representative, I call this hearing to order at 1:00 15 p.m. With me today from the Department of 16 Environmental Protection is Marjorie Hughes, the 17 regulatory coordinator. 18 The Environmental Quality Board will hold 19 three public hearings to accept comments on a proposal 20 to amend 25 Pa. Code Chapter 123, relating to 21 standards for contaminants, which establishes mercury 22 emission standards, annual emission limitations as 23 part of a statewide mercury allowance program with 24 annual non-tradable mercury allowances and other 25 requirements for the purpose of reducing mercury 8 01 emissions from coal-fired power plants or cogeneration 02 units. 03 The regulation, if approved, will be 04 submitted to the EPA as a revision to the State 05 Implementation Plan, or the SIP. The SIP, which is a 06 requirement of the Clean Air Act, is a plan that 07 provides for the implementation, maintenance and 08 enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality 09 Standards. On June 24th, 2006, the EQB published 10 these proposed regulations for public review and 11 comment in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. In addition, 12 notice of this hearing has been published in 13 newspapers statewide. 14 This is the second public hearing for the 15 purpose of accepting comments on a proposed 16 rulemaking. In order to give everyone an equal 17 opportunity to comment on the proposal, the following 18 ground rules are established. Number one, the 19 witnesses who have pre-registered to testify at this 20 hearing will be called first. After hearing from 21 these witnesses, other interested parties present will 22 be given the opportunity to testify as time allows. 23 Two, testimony is limited to ten minutes for each 24 witness. Three, organizations are requested to 25 designate one witness to present testimony on its 9 01 behalf. Four, each witness is asked, but not 02 required, to provide two electronic or three hard 03 copies of their testimony to aid in transcribing the 04 hearing. Please hand me these copies as you present 05 your testimony. Five, please state your name, address 06 and affiliation for the record prior to presenting 07 your testimony. Six, your help in spelling names and 08 terms that may not be generally familiar is 09 appreciated so that the transcript can be as accurate 10 as possible. Seven, because the purpose of a hearing 11 is to receive comments on the proposal, EQB or DEP 12 staff may question witnesses. However, the witnesses 13 may not question EQB or DEP staff. 14 As noted in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and 15 the newspaper notice, interested persons may also 16 submit comments in writing or electronically. 17 Specific instructions on submitting these comments can 18 be found in the Bulletin or newspaper notices. All 19 comments received at this hearing, as well as those 20 received in writing or electronically during the 21 public comment period of June 24th, 2006 to August 26, 22 2006, will be considered by the Department in the 23 finalization of these regulations. Anyone who is 24 interested in a copy of the transcript of this hearing 25 may contact the reporter to arrange to purchase a 10 01 copy. 02 I will now call the first witness, Mr. 03 Eric Epstein of TMI Alert. 04 MR. EPSTEIN: 05 Can you hear me? 06 CHAIR: 07 Yes. 08 MR. EPSTEIN: 09 My name is Eric Epstein. I'm the 10 chairman of Three Mile Island Alert. We're a safe 11 energy organization that was formed in 1977. I have 12 extra copies of my testimony, which, afterwards, Mr. 13 Henderson, I'll leave in the back for the public. And 14 I think we share similar concerns to most Pennsylvania 15 citizens, although we also have a problem with mercury 16 emissions inasmuch as we monitor radiation at a number 17 of nuclear power plants that are located in close 18 proximity to some of these emitters. 19 At any rate, this is just a brief 20 overview of how we see this progressing. Frankly, 21 we're aware that you were empowered by DEP to develop 22 state-specific regulations back in August of 2005. 23 What was important to us is that the rulemaking 24 process focused on reduction of mercury emissions but 25 also sought to encourage clean coal technologies, 11 01 discourage the use of dirty fuel-switching and factor 02 the impact of the rule on capacity and reliability 03 standards. We're aware of the EPA's proposed rule 04 that would make mercury emissions control optional and 05 national in scope. The current federal proposal would 06 aim to cut mercury emissions by 30 percent by 2010, 70 07 percent by 2018. This is a significant departure from 08 the former EPA director, Christine Whitman's more 09 aggressive proposal in December of 2001. 10 Governor Rendell has declared that, the 11 federal rule is bad for the environment and bad for 12 business. Unless we change course, Pennsylvanians 13 will face continued exposure to dangerous levels of 14 mercury, and our coal industry faces significant 15 economic harm because of the unfair market barriers 16 included in the federal mercury rule. The governor 17 and the secretary of the DEP have rallied in support 18 of numerous environmental, public interest, religious 19 and health organizations. 20 However, according to the EPA, the 21 revised Clean Skies Mercury Control Plan would 22 eliminate across-the-board control on utilities in 23 favor of a cap-and-trade system. And I'll address 24 that later. This will allow utilities to reduce 25 mercury emissions from some plants but not from 12 01 others. Industry supports this proposal rather than a 02 system-wide retrofitting of all of a company's plants 03 with emission controls. It appears that the power 04 industry fears that they will be forced to retrofit 05 old coal plants, which may be shut down if new carbon 06 dioxide or multi-pollutant limits are imposed. 07 I would just note for the record that the 08 GAO recently found, within the last month, problems 09 with the EPA's voluntary program for emission 10 reduction known as Climate Leaders. The program was 11 designed to reduce greenhouse gases, but it failed to 12 ensure that participants set firm reduction targets to 13 meet their stated goals. Again, Mr. Henderson, if you 14 look at my testimony, there's a footnote as to where 15 to locate that document and the study. 16 DEP has asserted a compelling interest to 17 reduce mercury emissions. The Department determined 18 that electric steam-generating units accounted for 77 19 percent of the 5.7 tons of mercury emitted from air 20 contamination in the state. More recently, they found 21 higher levels. 22 I'm aware, as I'm sure you are, that the 23 General Assembly is considering legislation that would 24 supplant the state-specific plan with the federal 25 rule. I believe those measures, SB 1201 and HB 2610, 13 01 are supported by business, industry and labor unions. 02 Gene Barr, vice president of political and regulatory 03 affairs for the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and 04 Industry stated, the debate is not about a choice 05 between the control of mercury emissions or no 06 control. Secretary McGinty also stated that public 07 involvement is critical to the decision-making 08 process, especially so in this matter. We need a plan 09 that protects Pennsylvanians from continued exposure 10 to dangerous levels of toxic mercury, keeps our 11 environment clean and enables our economy to grow. 12 I just wanted to present that background 13 because there may be people in the audience who maybe 14 don't know how we got to where we are today. So I 15 know this is all familiar terrain to you. I'll just 16 get to the heart of my testimony, and that is, I think 17 this issue has evolved into a verbal tug-of-war. The 18 debate has been toxic, personalities have supplanted 19 issues, and both sides have retreated into their 20 respective rhetorical trenches. Pennsylvania has a 21 wealth of intellectual and technological capital that 22 we should be harvesting to defeat a common societal 23 ill. Instead, we appear to be engaging in a 24 linguistic wrestling match. 25 Pennsylvania has unique problems embedded 14 01 in mercury emissions that cannot be solved, in our 02 opinion, through a one-size-fits-all approach. The 03 facts on the ground and in the air make Pennsylvania 04 ground zero for mercury remediation. Several of our 05 communities are hot spots based on their location and 06 mercury transport pathways. We are home to some of 07 the nation's oldest and dirtiest and least efficient 08 plants. 09 However, that being said, we must 10 acknowledge that industry and labor built these plants 11 as demanded by society. These facilities produced 12 decades of energy and fueled the Pennsylvania economy. 13 Times have changed, but the coal we mine and burn 14 remains the same. Pennsylvania's bituminous assets 15 contain more mercury than the sub-bituminous coal 16 burned by our Midwestern neighbors. This is a fact of 17 life. The presence of chlorine in bituminous coal 18 enables them to --- more efficient removal of mercury 19 through technology. 20 I believe we should invest in 21 Pennsylvania. I believe we should partner with 22 Pennsylvania business and labor. I believe we should 23 reward utilities but hold them accountable for 24 decreasing their total share of pollution. However, 25 I'm still the same guy I've always been. I also 15 01 believe enforcement works best with a carrot than a 02 hammer. 03 I don't believe a national cap-and-trade 04 mercury emissions plan serves Pennsylvania's economic 05 or environmental interests. It fails to address our 06 society's desire for a balanced risk-reward formula. 07 Let me quote to you from a study that was done by a 08 pro industry group that most folks haven't looked at 09 regarding caps. A simple cap-and-trade program treats 10 all emissions equally, but it's important to recognize 11 that there are significant regional differences in the 12 effects of pollution. Emissions from California and 13 states in the mid-Atlantic area cause the greatest 14 economic damages because they lead to changes in a 15 large population. These large differences suggest 16 that there would be advantages to differentiating the 17 programs by origin of emissions. And again, I can 18 provide that study to you if you're so inclined. 19 I would prefer that we start to rally 20 around a commonality of interests. I think we all 21 want to reduce mercury emissions, create sustainable 22 jobs and grow the Pennsylvania economy. I think we 23 all agree on that. And I think we all agree that 24 there's only three ways to reduce emissions: install 25 post-combustion controls, switch fuels or reduce 16 01 generation. But there seems to be three attractable 02 problems that we can't get our hands around: 03 site-specific versus national approaches to 04 remediation; incentives versus mandates; and creating 05 a matrix that quantifies and qualifies economic and 06 social impacts. 07 Let me conclude by making some innovative 08 suggestions that will allow us to get past the 09 impasse. Number one is I think we should have 10 convened a task force or work group and we should do 11 it yesterday. We did it when we settled deregulation 12 where there were billion-dollar settlements on the 13 table. I sat around the table with dozens of people 14 who had nothing in common. So I think we're able to 15 act like adults and eliminate the personal animus and 16 bridge the philosophical chasms that have developed. 17 I just think negotiation is a better tool. I give 18 credit to DEP and some other groups for resolving a 19 particularly thorny issue at Three Mile Island. To 20 me, the issue is we need to get to a number we agree 21 on through a partnership plan rather than feuding or 22 war, which is what we've gotten ourselves into. 23 I believe, as does our organization, it's 24 possible to achieve significant and lasting mercury 25 reductions in an expedited period without mandating or 17 01 implementing a national mercury cap-and-trade program. 02 We would recommend that we use a combination of 03 market-based incentives, tax tools and measured 04 enforcement. The first issue that we would look at is 05 called negacompliance. The rulemaking process, by our 06 reading, focused not only on the reduction of mercury, 07 but also to discourage the use of dirty fuel-switching 08 and to factor the impact of the rule on capacity and 09 reliability as well as to encourage clean coal 10 technologies. 11 I know the Alternative Energy Portfolio 12 is sacrosanct. However, if you look under tier two, 13 it will require greater percentages of retail 14 electricity through the use of demand side management 15 and distribution generation. We're suggesting that we 16 look at demand side management as playing a role in 17 reducing mercury pollution and increase in available 18 market energy supplies without decreasing generating 19 capacity. DSM could include a credit that allows for 20 companies to achieve super mercury reductions, or 21 reach agreed-upon reduction levels ahead of prescribed 22 deadlines. 23 Secondly, we would ask that you explore 24 looking at creating and extending the science and 25 technology tax credit. We are attempting to reduce 18 01 corporate tax expenditures for Pennsylvania by 02 building cleaner plants. We shouldn't be in the 03 business of incenting older plants to stay online. 04 However, we need to encourage power companies not to 05 write off salvageable assets. The reality is that 06 some of these older, dirtier plants that none of us 07 really like, I think could be made cleaner and serve 08 as a bridge fuel. The science and technology tax 09 credit, in tandem with something that hasn't been used 10 going forward, is accelerated geometric depreciation, 11 could be used to provide tax relief and asset 12 preservation. This instrument could facilitate 13 investments in cleaner technologies and possibly help 14 convert older generating stations into new KOZ energy 15 parks or KIZ technology campuses. Geometric 16 depreciation allows for the asset value preservation 17 should more aggressive CO2 or multi-pollutant 18 legislation be mandated. 19 Societal benefits, tax abatement versus 20 societal tax fee. This has been used at nuclear power 21 plants throughout the country. And that is tax 22 abatements for certain mechanical and chemical systems 23 that monitor and manage mercury emissions as well, 24 since we're going to go in there and clean some of the 25 contaminants as well the equipment used to assess 19 01 plant ventilation, leak detection and other industrial 02 activities. 03 CHAIR: 04 Mr. Epstein, if I could ask you if you 05 could wrap up in about 30 seconds ---. 06 MR. EPSTEIN: 07 We will wrap up. And we already 08 essentially do this in other areas. The Department of 09 Environmental Protection would inspect, verify and 10 certify that generating stations comply with the 11 established technology. 12 Community benefits agreement is the last 13 point we'd like to ask you to look at. These are 14 site-specific tools and remedies that should be 15 considered for each community described or designated 16 as a sensitive hot spot that was used at LAX. Let me 17 conclude by saying among the available community tools 18 for communities most affected would be technical 19 training for related jobs, create a local hiring 20 program giving priority to local residents, study the 21 health impacts of plant operations, a health registry 22 and maintain atmospheric monitoring. To that end, 23 there's some information in the background. 24 Everything is footnoted. And we will leave extra 25 copies of our testimony here if you desire. 20 01 CHAIR: 02 Thank you very much. Our next witness is 03 Doug Biden of the Electric Power Generation 04 Association. And to give our witnesses and those in 05 the audience an idea, we have about 14 more --- 14 or 06 15 more pre-registered witnesses. Following Mr. Biden 07 will be Melody Zullinger, Sandra Strauss, Jan Jarrett 08 and Andrew Wolfe. Good afternoon. 09 MR. BIDEN: 10 Good afternoon. My name is Doug Biden. 11 I'm the president of the Electric Power Generation 12 Association. Did you say you want an address? 13 CHAIR: 14 If you could. 15 MR. BIDEN: 16 800 North Third Street in Harrisburg, 17 17102. Since our industry has been falsely accused by 18 DEP of not wanting to shoulder our responsibility as 19 far as reducing our mercury admissions, I want to 20 start out by stating categorically that EPGA supports 21 significant mercury emission reductions from 22 coal-fired power plants. The focus of this debate is 23 not whether to reduce mercury, but how. 24 Unless major changes are made in the 25 proposed Chapter 123 regulation, we believe it will 21 01 result in the premature retirement of smaller 02 electric-generating plants in Pennsylvania, a 03 reduction in output in other plants, a switch by many 04 power plants to lower-mercury coals, predominantly 05 from out of state, an unwarranted increase in 06 electricity prices and an export of jobs to other 07 states. The most significant flaw in the proposal is 08 the lack of market-based incentives that would cap 09 mercury emissions and allow generators to buy and sell 10 allowances to help meet emission reduction 11 requirements in a cost-effective way. 12 The Department of Environmental 13 Protection said in the preamble to this rulemaking 14 that the primary reason for not supporting a 15 cap-and-trade program was the potential for hot spots 16 of local mercury exposure. The written and oral 17 testimony provided by DEP before the Senate and House, 18 and comments presented to DEP's Mercury Work Group 19 show there is no factual basis or credible evidence to 20 support this position. 21 And for the record, I've cited a number 22 of references in my testimony related both to the hot 23 spots issue in particular and to the health effects 24 issue in general. Unfortunately, I won't have time to 25 go through all of those, but it's my hope that on an 22 01 issue of such significance, that the Board will take 02 the time to review those items that are submitted for 03 the record. 04 I'd like to point out that there's 05 already been a 33-percent reduction in mercury 06 emissions from Pennsylvania power plants between 1999 07 and 2004. However, that reduction has not even 08 registered on DEP's Mercury Monitoring Network. So if 09 mercury is the local deposition phenomenon that DEP 10 says it is, why then did this significant reduction in 11 mercury emissions not show up on DEP's own Mercury 12 Monitoring Network? This empirical data, along with 13 the fact that mercury emissions from U.S. power plants 14 make up only one percent of global mercury emissions, 15 show that mercury is a regional, national and global 16 problem and should be addressed that way. 17 The federal Clean Air Mercury Rule, or 18 CAMR, imposes steeper mercury emission reduction 19 requirements on Pennsylvania than any other state, 86 20 percent versus the national average of 70 percent, due 21 primarily to the higher mercury content of the coals 22 that we mine in Pennsylvania. Consequently, 23 Pennsylvania would be the greatest beneficiary of an 24 interstate emissions trading program and has the most 25 to lose if interstate trading is not allowed. 23 01 Some have said it is misleading to claim 02 that Pennsylvania will achieve an 86-percent reduction 03 in mercury emissions if we allow interstate trading. 04 The only ways that Pennsylvania sources can achieve 05 less than an 86-percent reduction with trading is if 06 they over-control their emissions sooner than required 07 by CAMR, or if they purchase emission allowances from 08 other sources that have over-controlled their 09 emissions relative to their regulatory requirements. 10 If sources control their emissions sooner than 11 required by regulation, most policymakers would agree 12 that is a positive feature of the cap-and-trade 13 approach to environmental regulation. 14 If Pennsylvania sources purchase 15 allowances from other sources in those cases where 16 plants cannot economically or physically meet their 17 emission caps, plant owners would be partially 18 redressing the very competitive disadvantage for 19 Pennsylvania that Secretary McGinty has repeatedly 20 called attention to in her criticism of CAMR, the 21 disparate treatment of western versus eastern coal and 22 the extra emission allowances allocated to states 23 whose power plants burn western coal. Indeed, the 24 Secretary has cited this particular disadvantage as a 25 primary reason for needing a Pennsylvania-specific 24 01 rule. 02 By requiring Pennsylvania generators to 03 meet a stringent EPA cap based on a national trading 04 program, and at the same time, preventing them from 05 participating in that program, DEP is 06 institutionalizing the very competitive disadvantage 07 that the Secretary is concerned about, removing the 08 only remedy that power plant owners have to redress 09 the source of competitive disadvantage, and adding a 10 more significant source of competitive disadvantage of 11 the state's own making. 12 Moreover, if Pennsylvania sources do 13 purchase allowances from out-of-state sources who have 14 over-controlled their emissions, in virtually all 15 cases, the selling sources would be located to the 16 west and southwest of the Commonwealth. Since the 17 prevailing winds are west to east, and mercury 18 emissions are known to travel hundreds and thousands 19 of miles, Pennsylvania's environment could benefit as 20 much or more from upwind mercury reduction as it could 21 from in-state reductions. 22 A cap-and-trade program offers 23 significant incentives for the early and 24 over-controlling for mercury emissions from power 25 plants, because plant operators get to keep or sell 25 01 extra credits to others. Under DEP's proposed rule, 02 plant owners have no opportunity to recoup their 03 investment in air pollution controls, because DEP 04 assigns any extra allowances to others, in most cases, 05 a competitor in the wholesale power market that cannot 06 comply. This creates the untenable situation where 07 one generator that has made the significant investment 08 in mercury emissions reductions could be subsidizing a 09 competing facility. 10 Some individual generating units will not 11 be able to justify the capital to install expensive 12 scrubbers, and some plants face unique site-specific 13 control equipment retrofit challenges. 14 Mercury-specific technologies have not been adequately 15 tested to the point that power plant owners have 16 assurances that they can achieve sufficient mercury 17 reductions to meet their emission caps. Some of these 18 situations will require the purchase of allowances to 19 survive in the competitive market, but that is what a 20 cap-and-trade program is for. It encourages those 21 sources to face lower marginal costs to over-control 22 their emissions so that smaller sources that face 23 higher marginal costs can pursue lower-cost options 24 and buy allowances from the larger sources to make up 25 for shortfalls. 26 01 Faced with an 86-percent reduction 02 requirement under CAMR, we firmly believe that every 03 effective plant in Pennsylvania will have to employ 04 some level of mercury removal technology or be 05 retired. But not every plant will be able to install 06 identical levels of emission controls. We have 07 already seen ---. 08 CHAIR: 09 Mr. Biden, if we could ask if you could 10 summarize --- or conclude it in about 30 seconds. 11 MR. BIDEN: 12 In 30 seconds? Okay. 13 CHAIR: 14 Thank you. 15 MR. BIDEN: 16 The other uncertainty created by the 17 plant-by-plant approach is over the availability of 18 proven mercury control technology. According to the 19 U.S. Department of Energy, there is no reliable 20 mercury-specific control technology available today 21 that works on Pennsylvania coal to reduce mercury to 22 the levels the DEP rule requires. If the technologies 23 are not proven they can meet DEP's required reductions 24 at the deadline stipulated by the proposed rule, power 25 plant operators will have few options, none of them in 27 01 Pennsylvania's best interests. We can invest in 02 unproven control technology and absorb the inevitable 03 forced outage costs, curtail output, change fuels to 04 lower-mercury coals or to natural gas, shut down. 05 Simply put, we can trade allowances or we can trade 06 jobs to other states. DEP's rule would trade jobs to 07 other states. A cap-and-trade program will help keep 08 jobs here. Accordingly, we urge the Environmental 09 Quality Board to adopt the federal Clean Air Mercury 10 Rule as Pennsylvania's mercury reduction program. 11 Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you. 12 CHAIR: 13 Our next witness is Melody Zullinger for 14 the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. 15 Good afternoon. 16 MS. ZULLINGER: 17 Good afternoon. My name is Melody 18 Zullinger. I'm the executive director of the 19 Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs. My 20 address and everything is on the copies, if that's 21 good enough. 22 I am here today on behalf of the 23 Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs and our 24 327 member clubs, representing almost 100,000 25 sportsmen and women across the state. Mercury 28 01 contamination levels in Pennsylvania's environment are 02 a great concern for our members and the over two 03 million hunters, anglers and trappers in the 04 Commonwealth. As a result, the PFSC would like to 05 express our strong support for the regulations 06 developed by the Department of Environmental 07 Protection to reduce mercury and pollution coming from 08 our state's coal plants. 09 PFSC has been concerned about mercury 10 contamination in Pennsylvania for many years, but 11 became increasingly so when the state issued its first 12 statewide advisory back in 2001. At that time, PFSC 13 and ten of its clubs sent a letter to the Federal 14 Government urging them to issue a federal mercury rule 15 that would guarantee reductions of this harmful 16 pollutant by the end of the decade in a manner that 17 would require emission reductions in the plants in our 18 state so that we could realize the full benefits of 19 those reductions. 20 We do not believe the final rule 21 developed by the Federal Government goes far enough to 22 do either of these things, and that is why our 23 organization chose to become more involved in this 24 issue. The federal mercury rule allows Pennsylvania 25 plants to purchase emissions credits rather than make 29 01 pollution reductions at their stacks. This is not an 02 acceptable solution for Pennsylvania, especially 03 because we know the pollution from these plants does 04 end up in our local waters, fish, wildlife and the 05 people who eat them. Scientific studies have 06 confirmed this, and it is time for these plants to cut 07 their mercury emissions. 08 This is why it is so essential that the 09 proposed rule before you becomes law. Today, 10 Pennsylvania's mercury warnings cover every lake and 11 stream in the state, warning people to limit or avoid 12 eating certain species of fish because of the dangers 13 of mercury exposure. DEP is on the right track to 14 address this serious issue and has developed a strong 15 plan for requiring local reductions of mercury 16 pollution that are needed to protect our treasured 17 fish and wildlife species. We are glad to see this 18 rule moving forward, and are here today to reiterate 19 our support for strong action by DEP to reduce mercury 20 emissions from our coal plants. 21 In March of this year, 108 clubs, 22 representing over 33,000 individual sportsmen, joined 23 the PFSC on a letter urging the state's legislature to 24 support DEP's mercury reduction plan. I've attached 25 this letter to my testimony. These signatures came 30 01 from club representatives from across the state whose 02 livelihoods and lives are being affected by mercury 03 contamination, and who are concerned about the future 04 health of Pennsylvania's natural resources as well as 05 human health. 06 Anglers who fish year-round and who would 07 like to eat the fish they catch signed the letter. 08 Hunters and trappers signed the letter because they 09 are concerned that mercury, over time, is affecting 10 the reproduction and overall health of wildlife like 11 water fowl, mink and otter. These concerns are not 12 without scientific basis. Also attached to my 13 testimony is a short report that summarizes the 14 findings of 30 separate scientific studies, all 15 documenting the impact of high mercury levels on 16 wildlife, even our songbirds. 17 As further evidence of the strong support 18 for DEP's mercury rule among Pennsylvania's sportsmen 19 and women, PFSC and the National Wildlife Federation 20 recently conducted a poll of licensed hunters and 21 anglers in the state. We contracted with a 22 well-respected polling firm and asked hundreds of 23 sportsmen and women in Pennsylvania what they thought 24 about DEP's mercury proposal. The results confirm 25 that people who hunt, fish and trap in our state want 31 01 to see an aggressive plan to reduce mercury pollution. 02 When asked, 75 percent of hunters and anglers said it 03 was very or extremely important to them that 04 Pennsylvania adopt a regulation that requires the 05 state's coal plants to cut mercury production 80 06 percent by 2010, and 90 percent by 2015. 07 These are the exact emission reduction 08 targets and timelines contained in DEP's mercury rule 09 before you today. Without a state policy like the DEP 10 proposed, there are no assurances that Pennsylvania 11 plants will install pollution controls. The end 12 result in that is that the fish and wildlife in 13 Pennsylvania will see little, if any, relief unless 14 the DEP's rule is finalized. 15 So why should we care if fish like 16 walleye can't school properly, making them more 17 susceptible to predation? Or why should we care if 18 mercury-laden mink and otter don't reproduce as well 19 because their offspring have weakened immune systems 20 and higher mortality rates? Or why should we care 21 what happens to our duck populations, whose 22 reproduction and overall survival skills diminish with 23 increased mercury levels? Because hunting, fishing 24 and trapping are integral to our life and our economy 25 here in the Commonwealth. Over 1.2 million residents 32 01 in Pennsylvania fish, many of these women and 02 children. Over a million people hunt and trap. We 03 have a recreational fishing industry that contributes 04 $1.6 billion to the Commonwealth's economy every year. 05 More Pennsylvanians hunt and fish each year than 06 attend Pittsburgh Steelers, Philadelphia Eagles and 07 76ers' games combined. Annual spending by 08 Pennsylvania sportsmen is more than the cash receipts 09 from dairy products, the highest-grossing agricultural 10 commodity in the state. Hundreds of anglers create a 11 $3.8 billion ripple effect on the state economy. And 12 our commercial fisheries are also significant, 13 generating millions of dollars and putting catfish and 14 many other varieties of fish on people's plates in 15 restaurants and stores across the state. Catfish, by 16 the way, is one of the many species of locally-caught 17 fish that people eat that is heavily contaminated with 18 mercury. 19 Some argue that there is no urgency for 20 reducing mercury pollution within our state borders 21 because this pollution isn't affecting anyone's health 22 in Pennsylvania. They argue the only fish that people 23 eat is canned tuna, and for their mercury we should 24 blame China. But that's not the case. We do like to 25 eat the fish we catch here in Pennsylvania. Yes, many 33 01 anglers today are catching and releasing, but many 02 anglers still want to bring some home to share with 03 their families and friends. So that's why we care 04 about mercury in our fish and our wildlife, and that's 05 why we stand strong in support of the DEP mercury 06 rule. We want a guarantee that mercury pollution is 07 going to go down significantly in our own backyards 08 right here in Pennsylvania. 09 Research repeatedly shows that reducing 10 mercury from local sources will have a near-immediate 11 impact on the amount of mercury that falls downwind of 12 that source. Many studies have confirmed this. 13 Sportsmen in Pennsylvania want to realize the benefits 14 of local mercury reduction before today's toddlers are 15 as old as I am. It is time, and DEP is on the right 16 track. 17 There is simply no reason to delay 18 getting real mercury reductions from Pennsylvania's 19 power companies when we have the technical means to do 20 it today. We will not be sitting in the dark or be 21 without air conditioning because of DEP's proposed 22 rule. We will not see the coal industry in 23 Pennsylvania go belly-up if this rule becomes law. 24 What we will see instead is the environment getting 25 healthier for all of us, while giving companies a 34 01 much-needed nudge to clean up their toxic pollution 02 once and for all. Either we will pay now or we'll pay 03 even more in the future. 04 In closing, the Pennsylvania Federation 05 of Sportsmen's Clubs strongly supports the DEP's 06 proposed rule, as should anyone who enjoys hunting, 07 fishing or other outdoor recreation in our state. We 08 have waited long enough for a policy that will 09 guarantee real reductions in mercury emissions from 10 Pennsylvania's power companies, and the federal rule 11 is simply too weak to protect our treasured fish and 12 wildlife from the harmful effects of mercury exposure. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIR: 15 Thank you very much. 16 MS. ZULLINGER: 17 I also have extra copies I'll leave back 18 here if anybody wants them. 19 CHAIR: 20 Our next witness is Sandra Strauss of the 21 Pennsylvania Council of Churches. 22 MS. STRAUSS: 23 Good afternoon. I'm the Reverend Sandra 24 L. Strauss, the director of public advocacy for the 25 Pennsylvania Council of Churches. And we are located 35 01 at 900 South Arlington Avenue, Suite 100, Harrisburg, 02 Pennsylvania, 17109. 03 As an organization made up of 43 member 04 bodies representing 20 Anglican, Orthodox and 05 Protestant communions, the Council represents 06 thousands of persons of faith throughout the 07 Commonwealth. This issue of mercury rulemaking is of 08 significant concern to the Council's constituents. 09 We believe that in a healthy society, the 10 well-being of all is a priority and that we have a 11 particular responsibility when it comes to protecting 12 the well-being of the most vulnerable, those Jesus 13 refers to as the least of these. We acknowledge that 14 creation belongs to God and that we are called to act 15 as stewards of creation on God's behalf. We envision 16 a Commonwealth that honors the integrity of God's good 17 creation and acknowledges our dependence upon and 18 solidarity with creation, and assert that decisions 19 that would affect creation require careful discussion 20 among all who would be affected. 21 Therefore, we support government 22 decisions related to the land and the environment that 23 eliminate any discrimination that occurs when people 24 have little or no voice in decisions affecting them. 25 We also uphold the principle of sustainability, which 36 01 suggests priorities that may include, but not be 02 limited to preservation of clean land, air and water. 03 Because we support the health and well-being of all, 04 the creation of a cleaner environment and policies 05 that promote sustainability and responsibility in the 06 use of our precious natural resources, we support the 07 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's 08 proposed rulemaking standards for contaminants for 09 mercury that would amend Chapter 123 of the 10 Pennsylvania Code. 11 We know from experience that dangerous 12 outcomes result when short-term practices continue 13 unabated, such as permitting the relatively 14 uncontrolled emissions of a dangerous substance life 15 mercury. There are, of course, quality of like issues 16 that sound like merely a nuisance. Some might say, so 17 what if we can't eat significant amounts of fish 18 caught in our rivers in Pennsylvania. But the problem 19 is much greater than that. 20 We understand that Pennsylvania's power 21 plants released more mercury into the air in 2004 than 22 all but one state, Texas, and that they're responsible 23 for 83 percent of the state's mercury emissions. 24 Testing throughout Pennsylvania has shown that mercury 25 levels in our streams are so high that there is 37 01 virtually no place where consumption of fish is safe, 02 and there are areas near some of our coal-fired power 03 plants that are particularly deadly. These hot spots 04 of mercury contamination create a danger that neither 05 the people nor the wildlife living in the area can 06 avoid. The methylmercury that we find in the 07 environment contributes to health problems not only 08 for people, but also for all other creatures that are 09 exposed to it. We now know that mercury has entered 10 our food chain to such a degree that the U.S. Centers 11 for Disease Control has indicated that over 600,000 12 women of childbearing age in the U.S. have enough 13 mercury in their bodies to place a fetus or a nursing 14 child at risk for brain damage. 15 Knowing all the harmful outcomes related 16 to mercury in our environment, particularly for those 17 who are the most vulnerable, it would be not just 18 irresponsible, but unconscionable not to act 19 immediately to prevent the risk. The DEP's proposed 20 mercury rulemaking expedites the response to the 21 mercury problem and guarantees that there will be 22 reductions in mercury released into the environment in 23 Pennsylvania. The Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule does 24 not. In fact, the trading system proposed in the 25 federal rule means that the situation in Pennsylvania 38 01 could remain unchanged. Pennsylvania facilities could 02 continue to pollute at their current high levels by 03 purchasing credits from facilities elsewhere that have 04 surpassed the federal mercury standard. We cannot 05 sustain the quality of life for future generations 06 when we compromise them this way, and when our 07 decisions ignore the larger impact on the entire 08 planet and its ecosystems. 09 Briefly in my introduction, I noted 10 concern over what happens when we, common citizens, 11 have little or no voice in decisions affecting them. 12 We believe that a just Commonwealth protects the 13 rights of individuals and groups, and imposes 14 corresponding responsibilities on the whole community 15 that support and sustain the common good. This means 16 that all persons must have a voice in government at 17 all levels. The debates over mercury that are 18 happening in the Pennsylvania General Assembly appear 19 to have little to do with the sentiment of 20 Pennsylvania citizens. A recent poll conducted by 21 Terry Madonna Research indicated that four of every 22 five Pennsylvanians want a stronger rule to limit 23 mercury emissions, and would even be willing to pay a 24 bit more for electricity in support of such a rule. 25 Many organizations that support the interests of 39 01 common citizens support the proposed rulemaking as 02 well, including many that represent the faith 03 community. The Council joined in a letter signed by 04 nearly 150 faith leaders from around Pennsylvania 05 asking members of our General Assembly to support the 06 DEP's mercury rule. We are disturbed at General 07 Assembly's response to what is so clearly a concern 08 for an overwhelming majority of Pennsylvanians. 09 In summary, we find, one, there is 10 undisputable scientific evidence concerning the 11 dangers of mercury pollution, particularly as it 12 relates to the health and welfare of mothers and 13 babies. Two, high mercury levels create significant 14 problems for the environment as a whole in 15 Pennsylvania and beyond. And three, there is clear 16 public support for a stronger mercury rule. 17 Therefore, the Pennsylvania Council of Churches, 18 guided by our principles that call for protecting the 19 environment, protecting the health and welfare of our 20 citizens, and ensuring that all citizens have a voice 21 in government, urges the Environmental Quality Board 22 to adopt the Department of Environmental Protection's 23 proposed rulemaking for mercury, and do that at the 24 earliest possible date. Thank you. 25 CHAIR: 40 01 Thank you. Our next witness is Jan 02 Jarrett of Citizens for PA's Future. 03 MS. JARRETT: 04 Good afternoon. I'm Jan Jarrett, vice 05 president of Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future. We 06 are at 610 North Third Street, Harrisburg. I would 07 like to thank you for this opportunity to present 08 PennFuture's views on this important public health 09 issue. PennFuture will also be submitting detailed 10 written comments for the record. 11 PennFuture fully supports the proposed 12 mercury reduction rule. In August of 2004, PennFuture 13 submitted a petition for rulemaking on behalf of ten 14 other organizations, asking the EQB to adopt a 15 regulation requiring coal-fired power plants to reduce 16 their toxic mercury emissions by 90 percent. While 17 the rule proposed by DEP differs significantly from 18 our original request, we believe that it will result 19 in reductions in mercury pollution that we seek, and 20 protect both public health and natural resources from 21 mercury contamination. 22 We believe that the rule is necessary for 23 the following reasons. Mercury is a neurotoxin that 24 interferes with the development of babies' brains and 25 lead to neurological problems like learning 41 01 disabilities, attention deficit disorder, 02 developmental delays in walking and talking, and in 03 extreme cases, mental retardation. More than 600,000 04 women nationwide of childbearing age have mercury 05 blood levels that exceed the level set as safe by the 06 National Academy of Sciences and the Environmental 07 Protection Agency. Pennsylvania power plants are the 08 second biggest mercury polluters in the country, 09 emitting more than 6,800 pounds of mercury into the 10 air in 2004. There is widespread contamination of 11 Pennsylvania rivers, streams and lakes where Penn 12 State monitoring has documented hot spots of mercury 13 contamination downwind of coal-fired power plants. 14 The federal Clean Air Mercury Rule will not provide 15 adequate protection to Pennsylvania's public health 16 and natural resources, because power plants can comply 17 with the rule by purchasing and banking mercury 18 allowances rather than cleaning up. Pennsylvania 19 power plants will not achieve 86 percent reduction in 20 mercury emissions under the federal rule. A 21 Congressional Research Service report found that 22 because of the banking and trading provisions of CAMR, 23 mercury pollution from power plants would be reduced 24 by only 70 percent by 2030. A National Wildlife 25 Federation report based on projections by the EPA 42 01 found that by 2020, Pennsylvania power plants would be 02 emitting 45 percent more mercury than the state's CAMR 03 cap and would be a net buyer of mercury allowances. 04 The technology to reduce mercury pollution to meet the 05 requirements of the DEP regulation is readily 06 available, and installing the equipment will create 07 jobs. Allegheny Energy announced that installing 08 pollution controls at just one power plant will create 09 350 construction jobs and a number of permanent jobs 10 to operate the equipment. Since the DEP rule is 11 structured to leverage the co-benefits of power 12 industry plans to install pollution controls to comply 13 with the Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule, complying 14 with the Pennsylvania mercury rule is affordable. To 15 reach the 90-percent reduction, the National Wildlife 16 report found that it would cost only $34 million over 17 the cost of complying with CAIR. 18 DEP's proposed mercury rule is a 19 common-sense approach to ensuring that power plants 20 clean up their toxic mercury pollution at a reasonable 21 cost. PennFuture supports the rule and urges its 22 approval by the Environmental Quality Board. Thank 23 you. 24 CHAIR: 25 Thank you. Our next witness is Andrew 43 01 Wolfe of IBEW Local 1600. And for the benefit of the 02 audience and the other witnesses, we have 03 approximately 13 more pre-registered witnesses. The 04 next five after Mr. Wolfe are Deanna Weaver, Kim 05 Anderson, Anna Aufill, Ryan Karins and Roberta 06 Blaylock. Mr. Wolfe, good afternoon. 07 MR. WOLFE: 08 Good afternoon. My name is Andy Wolfe. 09 My address is 540 Grange Road, Trexlertown, 10 Pennsylvania. 11 Good afternoon. My name is Andy Wolfe. 12 I'm president and financial secretary for IBEW Local 13 1600. IBEW stands for International Brotherhood of 14 Electrical Workers. I represent 3,667 members who are 15 employed by PPL, Comcast Cable, Ephrata Borough and 16 Sunbury Power Plant. 17 I'm here today to comment on 18 Pennsylvania's state-specific mercury reduction rule. 19 First, IBEW Local 1600 supports reductions in mercury 20 emissions. This issue is not whether to reduce 21 emissions, but how. We believe good public policy 22 takes into account protection of the environment, 23 protection of public health, protection of jobs so 24 that working Pennsylvanians and their families are not 25 threatened by unemployment and poverty. 44 01 The IBEW is part of a broad coalition of 02 labor unions, coal producers, electric consumers and 03 power plant owners supporting the Federal Government's 04 Clean Air Mercury Rule, combined with the Clean Air 05 Interstate Rule with interstate trading as a better 06 way to achieve real and significant mercury reductions 07 without placing thousands of jobs at risk and 08 thousands of families in jeopardy. Labor members of 09 the coalition include the International Brotherhood of 10 Electrical Workers, the United Mine Workers of America 11 and the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters. 12 Currently, IBEW Local 1600 has 13 approximately 700 members working at the Sunbury Power 14 Plant, Brunner Island Power Plant, Montour Power Plant 15 and Martins Creek Power Plant. If the DEP continues 16 to move forward on the proposed mercury reduction 17 rule, the members working at these power plants will 18 certainly be negatively impacted. Regulation must 19 help both the environment and the economy. DEP's 20 efforts will put Pennsylvania's industry and consumers 21 at a disadvantage without any measurable improvements 22 in public health or the environment. Surely a rule 23 that would have such profound impacts on the economy 24 and quality of life in Pennsylvania should at least 25 have benefits for Pennsylvanians that match or 45 01 outweigh the costs. The DEP has not been able to 02 produce any credible evidence that a state-specific 03 rule would achieve any additional benefits beyond the 04 federal rule. 05 As I said before, IBEW Local 1600 06 supports the federal rule on mercury reductions for 07 the following reasons. It allows emission trading, 08 which provides a strong incentive for generators to 09 reduce emissions more than and sooner than required. 10 It does not disadvantage Pennsylvania coal, which 11 contains more mercury than other coal from other 12 states. It does not jeopardize the coal mining or 13 power generation jobs in the state that could be at 14 risk if generators have to start using coal from other 15 states to meet requirements of the proposed 16 regulations, or if smaller, older plants were forced 17 into premature retirement. 18 In closing, on behalf of the members of 19 IBEW Local 1600, I would like to thank the 20 Environmental Quality Board for allowing the local 21 union this time to raise issues and concerns with the 22 Pennsylvania state-specific mercury reduction rule. 23 CHAIR: 24 Thank you very much. Our next witness is 25 Deanna Weaver. Good afternoon. 46 01 MS. SHERMAN-WEAVER: 02 Good afternoon. My name is Deanna Weaver 03 and I a member of Carroll Citizens for Sensible Growth 04 in Dillsburg. My address is on the paperwork. 05 I came today because I wanted to 06 introduce my sons. Samuel is 11, and he likes tuna. 07 And Jackson is seven and he prefers junk food. As a 08 mother, it's quite easy for me to explain limitations 09 on not eating too much junk food. But it has been 10 inexcusable in the last few years for me to have to 11 tell Sam that he can't have another tuna sandwich for 12 a week because that's what the news says, that he 13 can't consume an item of our food chain. 14 SAMUEL and JACKSON: 15 Why? 16 MS. SHERMAN-WEAVER: 17 Well, because there's poison and metal 18 and mercury in the tuna, and too much of it can hurt 19 you. 20 SAMUEL and JACKSON: 21 Why? 22 MS. SHERMAN-WEAVER: 23 Because some big companies are allowed to 24 put the poison in the water that gets into the fish, 25 and you can't eat it. 47 01 SAMUEL and JACKSON: 02 How come? 03 MS. SHERMAN-WEAVER: 04 Because they're able to convince people 05 in power that that it's okay. 06 SAMUEL and JACKSON: 07 Why? 08 MS. SHERMAN-WEAVER: 09 I don't know. Okay. Anybody with 10 inquisitive, hungry children knows how long this can 11 go on at a meal. Now, the fact of the matter is that 12 there's no good reason for polluting our food 13 knowingly and with disregard. 14 And to get off the script a little bit, 15 some of the comments made by previous presenters 16 really just galls me, because if you're talking about 17 making excuses and you're talking about, well, as 18 Pennsylvanians and these companies, we only really 19 contribute one percent contamination globally. I'm 20 trying to teach my children an old motto. It's think 21 globally, but act locally. And even one percent, and 22 improving one percent, is better than doing nothing. 23 When I take them on a walk and they see litter in 24 front of them, I taught them to pick up that litter, 25 not to throw down more because someone else has 48 01 already done it. 02 There are some tough decisions that have 03 to be made by the Pennsylvania legislators. They've 04 made tough decisions in the past, at times, in the 05 middle of the night. This issue appears simple 06 enough. No one is disputing that there is mercury 07 pollution. The technology is available and affordable 08 to reverse this trend with hugely positive results. 09 Now, all we need is a legal requirement for them to do 10 so. 11 Pennsylvania's founding fathers 12 established us as a commonwealth specifically to 13 provide the most protections for its citizenry. 14 Pennsylvanians have a right to expect tougher mercury 15 contamination standards than the federal level 16 provides. We've come to ask our legislators to pass 17 DEP's proposed rulemaking to amend Chapter 123 of the 18 Pa. Code. 19 In the last year, the following 20 contributions have been made to Pennsylvania 21 politicians or PACs. Exelon made ten donations 22 totaling over $5,000. PECO made 79 donations totaling 23 over $67,000. PP&L made 167 donations totaling well 24 over $75,000. Now, these figures come from the 25 Pennsylvania Department of State Campaign Finance 49 01 Reports that I've attached to my statement. 02 I can't speak as eloquently as Benjamin 03 Franklin, nor can I contribute thousands of dollars to 04 hundreds of politicians. All I can do is raise my 05 children to have expectations of their government. 06 After today, there are two possible outcomes. In 20 07 years, my children's children will either be able to 08 ask for seconds on the tuna or will be driving through 09 Pennsylvania with the new Pennsylvania motto being, no 10 fishing. Thank you. 11 CHAIR: 12 Thank you. Our next witness is Kim 13 Anderson. 14 MS. ANDERSON: 15 Thank you. My name is Kim Anderson and I 16 live at 470 Mount Zion Road in Dillsburg, 17 Pennsylvania, 17019. I'm here as a mother and a 18 citizen of Pennsylvania to support the Pennsylvania 19 Department of Environmental Protection's proposed 20 rulemaking change on mercury emission. The number one 21 reason I believe it should be done is that it can be 22 done. The technology is available and affordable. 23 The National Energy Technology Laboratory states that 24 at a minimal cost, coal-fired power plants can be 25 fitted to reduce mercury emissions. Personally, I am 50 01 tired of industry telling us that responsible 02 environmental stewardship is too expensive and that 03 the cost would pass on to the consumer. We are all 04 consumers of electricity, we all have a responsibility 05 to our children, and we all should bear the burden of 06 that responsibility. Is about a dollar per month more 07 on the electric bill more expensive than a local 08 school district's costs to educate learning-disabled 09 students? 10 We, as Americans, always boast about our 11 ingenuity and innovative skills. This is where that 12 boasting can actually be practiced. Mercury is a 13 neurotoxin, especially harmful to children. When it 14 is our task to protect children, it is unconscionable 15 to not do the most to protect the most vulnerable. As 16 many here will attest to the statistics about the 17 numbers of children --- or the number of people 18 already known to have elevated mercury levels, 19 including women of childbearing age, with America's 20 thirst for energy, this number will only increase 21 unless proper leadership is taken and stands up to 22 make the necessary changes. Trading for the right to 23 contaminate is not acceptable, nor is delaying the 24 inevitable need for reduction. 25 Mercury emissions and resulting 51 01 contamination is a public health issue. The indirect 02 costs of not lowering emissions fast enough or low 03 enough is felt by the most vulnerable, those living 04 the nearest to power plants and those relying on 05 subsistent fishing. This, too, costs us all, likely 06 more than $12 a year in increased electric bills. 07 I have three children. I'm a Cub Scout 08 leader. I coach Envirothon. I enjoy teaching and 09 learning from children. I'm always telling them, 10 don't strive to do just enough. Like the Cub Scout 11 motto, I tell them, do your best. This is what I tell 12 you. Do your best and tell the coal-fired power 13 plants, do your best. It's the least we can do. 14 Thank you for this opportunity. 15 CHAIR: 16 Thank you. Our next witness is Anna 17 Aufill. Good afternoon. 18 MS. AUFILL: 19 Just to let you know, my name is Aufil 20 (corrects pronunciation). 21 CHAIR: 22 I apologize. 23 MS. AUFILL: 24 A-U-F-I-L-L. So I'm living in 25 Philadelphia, PA, 2200 Ben Franklin Parkway. Not only 52 01 am I concerned about the existing levels of mercury 02 for the sake of the environment, affecting the food 03 chain and our ecosystem, but more specifically, I find 04 it horrifying that the fate of our children and our 05 unborn are at significant risk since this toxin can 06 spur disabilities. 07 I find it reproachable that so many 08 citizens remain uneducated about the mercury that 09 cycles through the water above ground and below, 10 affecting every corner of the state and our 85,000 11 miles of streams and rivers. 12 I support the DEP's proposed regulations 13 to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power 14 plants by 90 percent. It is bad enough that we can't 15 feed ourselves with the resources provided by our 16 earth. But why hasn't the damage caused to humans 17 been more publicized? Safeguards must be initiated by 18 the state to protect citizens' well-being. And I'm 19 pleased that Pennsylvania is considering making these 20 important cuts to mercury pollution. Thank you for 21 giving me the opportunity to testify. 22 CHAIR: 23 Thank you. Our next witness is Ryan 24 Karins --- Karins (corrects pronunciation). 25 MR. KARINS: 53 01 First, I would just like to thank the 02 Department of Environmental Protection for providing 03 this hearing. My name is Ryan Karins. I'm a resident 04 of Lower Paxton Township. I reside at 2250 Williams 05 Street Drive, Harrisburg, PA, 17112. And I support 06 the Department of Environmental Protection's 07 state-specific mercury reductions rule, which would 08 cut mercury pollution from Pennsylvania's coal-fired 09 power plants 90 percent by the year 2015. 10 Mercury is a neurotoxin that poses 11 significant health hazards, even in miniscule 12 quantities. Exposure to mercury can lead to 13 developmental problems in babies and children, 14 affecting how they learn, think, memorize and behave. 15 In fact, the EPA has estimated that one in six women 16 of childbearing age has enough mercury in her body to 17 put her child at risk, should she become pregnant. I 18 do not think I am alone when I state that every baby 19 should have the right to develop to his or her full 20 potential. 21 The most common way people are exposed to 22 mercury is by eating contaminated fish. And as an 23 angler, I'm aware of the statewide freshwater fish 24 consumption advisory, warning people to limit their 25 consumption of fish from the waterways of 54 01 Pennsylvania. I do not think I am alone when I 02 believe that I should be able to consume the fish that 03 I catch without worrying about their mercury content. 04 Most of the mercury pollution in our 05 Commonwealth comes from our coal-fired power plants, 06 which are the largest unregulated source of mercury 07 pollution. In fact, Pennsylvania's mercury emissions 08 from our coal-fired power plants rank second in the 09 entire nation. Since mercury is a heavy metal, most 10 mercury from these plants falls locally. Critics of 11 this rule claim that the science is not there to prove 12 that coal-fired power plants are the main culprit. 13 But a recent EPA study found that 67 percent of the 14 mercury in rain collected at a monitoring site in 15 Steubenville, Ohio originated from coal-burning plants 16 within 400 miles of the site. 17 Proponents of the federal rule claim that 18 it will reduce mercury pollution by 86 percent, but 19 the Congressional Research Service has concluded that 20 the rule's 70-percent mercury pollution reduction 21 target might not be met until 2030 or even later. 22 Also, the federal rule allows power plants to avoid 23 significant mercury reductions by instead purchasing 24 mercury pollution credits from other power plants in 25 other parts of the country. Considering the 55 01 scientific fact that most mercury emissions fall 02 locally, this trading program creates mercury hot 03 spots around coal plants that would rather buy their 04 way out of compliance rather than committing to 05 reducing their emissions of such a powerful 06 neurotoxin. 07 The state-specific rule is not new. In 08 fact, ten other states have passed similar rules, and 09 their reductions have yielded amazing results. A 10 Florida Everglades study has shown a 60 to 70-percent 11 decline in the mercury content in fish and wading 12 birds due to local mercury reduction efforts. A 13 similar state-specific plan in Massachusetts has 14 yielded a 32-percent drop in mercury pollution in the 15 state's northeastern lakes in only seven years since 16 its passing. 17 I know that I am not alone today when I 18 state that similar successes, scientific facts and 19 simple human morality are all reasons why 20 Pennsylvanians deserve a rule that polices our biggest 21 mercury polluters instead of one that allows the 22 polluters to police themselves. That's why it is 23 imperative that Pennsylvania moves forward in 24 implementing the DEP's state-specific mercury 25 reduction plan. The health of our born and unborn 56 01 children is at stake. Thank you. 02 CHAIR: 03 Thank you very much. Our next witness is 04 Roberta Blaylock. And the next five after Ms. 05 Blaylock will be Dick Martin, Ethan Lavine, Jennifer 06 Heller, Pam Lee and Steve Quarles. Good afternoon. 07 MS. JARNAGIN-BLAYLOCK: 08 Hi. My name is Roberta Blaylock and I'm 09 here as an individual citizen to testify in favor of 10 the DEP proposal. My address is 6509 Blue Ridge 11 Avenue here in Harrisburg, and my ZIP is 17112. 12 Before I start, I'd like to take a moment to thank you 13 for the opportunity to provide input today. I think 14 mercury affects all of us and it's very important that 15 the public have a chance to provide feedback on any 16 proposed rule. 17 Mercury levels have been a concern of 18 mine for about 13 years, ever since I was pregnant 19 with my first child and I was first warned about them. 20 At that time, I was a pretty healthy individual and I 21 attempted to eat a good diet. My diet included quite 22 a bit of fish, since all the experts said that was the 23 right thing to eat. Unfortunately, even then, what 24 should have been a healthy food had become quite 25 dangerous. The mercury levels were too high and I was 57 01 advised to severely limit my intake. 02 Well, through two pregnancies and two 03 periods of nursing my children, I basically lost the 04 habit of eating fish. Now, even some years later, I 05 never picked that habit back up. Also, my children 06 never learned that habit. It was simply too dangerous 07 for them to eat fish when they were younger, and most 08 of our food tastes are developed during our first few 09 years of life. So we are now a family that really 10 doesn't eat what should be one of the healthiest foods 11 out there. 12 Now, this is a relatively minor effect to 13 the big scale of things, but my story is mirrored over 14 and over throughout Pennsylvania and the nation. We 15 are becoming a country that does not eat fish. This 16 affects the fishing industry. It affects the sport of 17 fishing. And in the long run, it affects all of our 18 health. This, by itself, seems like a very high price 19 to pay for just continuing to pollute our waters, but 20 it's certainly not the only price we pay. 21 Mercury is in our rainwater, our streams, 22 our rivers and our lakes. We're advised to limit our 23 fish intake from these waters, but little has really 24 been studied beyond that. How safe is our normal 25 exposure? We really don't know. Does it matter if 58 01 the individual in question is a baby or a pregnant 02 woman or an elderly person with a weak immune system? 03 Last year and this year, we have had major problems 04 with flooding throughout the state. Has anyone 05 examined the after effects of having mercury-laden 06 water flood your house? When it dries out, does it 07 leave mercury behind? We really don't know. 08 In fact, there's too much we don't know, 09 but what we do know is hardly comforting. High 10 mercury levels have been found in songbirds, 11 salamanders and other wildlife that don't live in the 12 water and don't eat fish. If it can happen to them, 13 well, maybe those are canaries in the mine showing us 14 what environmental contamination can cause. I think 15 we shouldn't ignore that warning. 16 Turning to what we do know about people, 17 the Environmental Protection Agency has stated a 18 figure you've heard several times today, that one in 19 six women of childbearing age has enough mercury in 20 her body to put a developing baby at risk. Those 21 risks include birth defects as well as a myriad of 22 other health problems. But just to reiterate that 23 number one more time, that's one in six women, not 24 exactly a minor risk. We implemented car seat belt 25 laws and child safety seat regulations for far lower 59 01 risks than that. In fact, all the time we're putting 02 regulations in place for much lower risks. We need to 03 take this more seriously. 04 Mercury is an extremely toxic substance. 05 I often hear it put in the same league as plutonium. 06 No, it's probably not that dangerous, but it does make 07 me wonder how we would react if it were plutonium that 08 was in our rainwater and our streams and our rivers 09 and lakes in dangerous quantities. Would we sit back 10 and say, oh, well, you know, we'll go ahead and let 11 the power plants trade some credits. We'll give them 12 about 25 years to make a dent in the problem. No, 13 certainly not. We would never have let the problem 14 get this bad. But for some reason, mercury, which is 15 an extremely toxic substance, too, we've largely 16 ignored it. It beats the heck out of me why. 17 Mercury has been linked to ADHD, autism, 18 cerebral palsy, developmental delays, vision problems, 19 learning disorders. The list goes on and on. It's 20 been shown to damage the brain, the spinal cord, the 21 nervous system, the kidneys, the liver, cardiovascular 22 system, immune system, the heart, pretty much every 23 part of the body. The DEP's own estimates state that 24 approximately 480,000 children born in the U.S. 25 already have neurological problems from their prenatal 60 01 exposure to mercury. That's not even talking future 02 children. That's current, present date living kids. 03 In adults, there's evidence that mercury contributes 04 to multiple sclerosis, infertility, breast cancer, 05 fibromyalgia, a whole bunch of other things. At all 06 ages, this neurotoxin adds stress to the body. It 07 makes the effects of other illnesses worse. We'll 08 never know how many cases of cancer or other disease 09 have been made worse by exposure to mercury. We'll 10 never know how many deaths the substance has caused 11 and will continue to cause through the years. 12 But despite all these dangers, a few 13 people still argue against the proposed rules because 14 they might increase our monthly power rates slightly. 15 Well, personally, I say big deal. But let's look at 16 it for a moment and let's look at what we're paying 17 right now. Mercury is already having a big hit on 18 both our health and our wallets for paying for the 19 special education costs of those children whose brains 20 have been damaged by this toxin, a number that's only 21 going to go up. We pay for healthcare costs for those 22 who are, again, damaged by mercury and are on any form 23 of state support. We pay for the many health effects 24 through our increased health insurance premiums. We 25 also pay for our own increased medical costs. 61 01 Compared with all of those costs put together, a 02 dollar or two a month increase in our power bill is 03 the deal of the century. Even at ten times this cost, 04 the proposed rules would pay for themselves easily and 05 in a manner that's far easier on all of us than the 06 status quo. 07 It's time to face the reality that 08 mercury affects all of us deeply. We need a reduction 09 approach that will cut those levels quickly and 10 effectively. The federal guidelines are simply not 11 enough. Please, for the sake of every man, woman and 12 child in this state, implement the stronger proposal 13 you're considering. It's long overdue. 14 CHAIR: 15 Thank you. Our next witness is Dick 16 Martin. 17 MR. MARTIN: 18 Good afternoon. Good to see a lot of 19 faces here under 30. My advice is don't wait until 20 you're 68 to speak out. 21 My name is Richard Martin and I represent 22 the Pennsylvania Forest Coalition. My address is 740 23 Oak Hill, Boiling Springs, 17007. 24 How many of you present here have heard 25 of Minamata, Japan? Go to your computer and Google 62 01 Minamata disease. You're in for an education. That's 02 the most severe case of mercury poisoning ever so far. 03 This was documented by photojournalist W. Eugene Smith 04 around 1970. I read about it more than 30 years ago, 05 and the stark black and white photographs have been 06 burned in my mind ever since. 07 Our legislators, who seem bent on 08 destroying the DEP's mission of protecting public 09 health, should all read Smith's book. It's not a 10 scientific treatise. It's a stark record of the 11 effects of fetal mercury poisoning. 12 While I keep telling people that I ain't 13 half as dumb as I look, our legislators seem to be 14 trying to prove something else. Many legislators are 15 ignoring the medical facts. They pretend to view this 16 only as an economic issue. It's clearly a health 17 issue, and DEP has the expertise to handle this. Our 18 legislators are unqualified to override DEP in matters 19 of public health, and the federal standards are just 20 ineffectual. 21 A recent statewide poll by PennFuture 22 reported that 80 percent of Pennsylvanians support the 23 state's plan to reduce mercury. It's also significant 24 that only 13 percent of those surveyed believe that 25 power plants and industry would cut their pollution 63 01 voluntarily. 02 Since our legislators are supposed to 03 represent us, I challenge every one of them to survey 04 his or her constituents, asking the identical 05 questions as in PennFuture's survey regarding the 06 regulation of mercury. Any legislators who fail to 07 conduct a survey are simply demonstrating that they 08 really don't want to know the wishes of their 09 constituents. 10 Since Section 27 of our Pennsylvania 11 Constitution states that the people have a right to 12 clean air and pure water, my wish is to soon be able 13 to fish in Pennsylvania waters without having to 14 contend with warnings of fish contaminated by high 15 levels of mercury. 16 Pennsylvania power plants are polluting 17 to the tune of about 8,000 pounds of mercury a year. 18 That's more than 49 other states. We're the 19 penultimate in pollution, beat out only by Texas. 20 Commenting on the situation, a Pittsburgh 21 Post-Gazette editorial didn't see it as ignorance on 22 the part of the legislature. They said, quote, it 23 takes a special sort of irresponsibility to slight 24 these risks to ordinary Pennsylvanians by insisting on 25 weaker standards, but sadly, the Senate was up to the 64 01 task. That vote was 40 to 10 for passage of SB 1201. 02 But I thank my senator, Pat Vance, and nine others for 03 voting against that harmful bill. 04 They say, there ain't no upper limit to 05 ignorance. And some of our legislators seem to be on 06 the way to proving that. Perhaps the most ignorant 07 part of that legislation is that it would allow the 08 electric companies to buy credits from electric 09 generators in other states that already meet mercury 10 standards. And that does nothing for toxic emissions 11 in Pennsylvania. 12 I fully support DEP in their efforts to 13 protect public health in Pennsylvania by implementing 14 mercury regulations and reducing mercury emissions at 15 the state's 36 coal-fired power plants. And that's 16 only proper, because those plants account for most of 17 the mercury that's poisoning Pennsylvania. Thanks for 18 your time. 19 CHAIR: 20 Thank you. Our next witness is Ethan 21 Lavine. 22 MR. LAVINE: 23 Thank you. My name is Ethan Lavine. I 24 am here on behalf of PennEnvironment. Thank you for 25 the opportunity to testify today on the important 65 01 issue of reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired 02 power plants and Pennsylvania's state-specific mercury 03 reduction rule. As you may know, PennEnvironment is a 04 statewide, non-profit, non-partisan environmental 05 advocacy organization with more than 18,000 citizen 06 members across the state. 07 Given the public health and environmental 08 threats posed by mercury pollution from Pennsylvania's 09 coal-fired power plants, the Bush Administration 10 speaking of the Clean Air Act's federal mercury 11 pollution reduction requirements and the availability 12 of mercury pollution control technologies, 13 PennEnvironment supports DEP's state-level proposal to 14 cut mercury pollution from Pennsylvania's coal-fired 15 power plants by 90 percent by 2015. We urge the State 16 to move forward in implementing this much-needed 17 proposal without allowing for mercury pollution credit 18 trading. 19 My testimony will focus on the following 20 aspects of mercury pollution emission: the public 21 health impacts of mercury, the Bush administration's 22 so-called Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the issue of 23 mercury hot spots. 24 Mercury is a bioaccumulative toxin that 25 builds up in the body tissue. And the primary way 66 01 that people in the U.S. are exposed to methylmercury 02 is by eating contaminated fish. Pennsylvania 03 currently has a statewide fish consumption advisory 04 due to methylmercury which warns people, especially in 05 children --- especially women and children about 06 --- excuse me, especially children and women of 07 childbearing age to limit their consumption of fish 08 from all Pennsylvania waterways. Mercury can also 09 pass through human placentas to developing fetuses and 10 through breast milk to nursing infants. 11 A potent neurotoxin, mercury poses 12 significant human health hazards. Mercury can affect 13 multiple organ systems, including the nervous, 14 cardiovascular and immune systems throughout the 15 individual's lifetime. In 2000, the National Academy 16 of Sciences found that chronic low-dose prenatal 17 methylmercury exposure from maternal consumption from 18 fish has been associated with more subtle endpoints of 19 neurotoxicity in children, including poor performance 20 on neurobehavioral tests, particularly on tests of 21 attention, fine motor function, language, 22 visual-spatial abilities and verbal memory. The panel 23 concluded the risk to children and women consuming 24 large amounts of fish during pregnancy is likely to be 25 sufficient to result in an increase in the number of 67 01 children who have to struggle to keep up in school and 02 who might require review in classes or special 03 education. EPA scientists estimate that one in six 04 women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her 05 body to put her child at risk, should she become 06 pregnant. This figure is a doubling of previous 07 estimates based on increasing evidence that 08 methylmercury concentrates in the umbilical cord, 09 exposing the developing fetus to higher levels of 10 mercury than previously understood. 11 Reducing mercury from power plants is 12 critical to reducing toxic mercury in the environment 13 and in fish, and thus protecting public health. 14 Unfortunately, the Bush administration has promulgated 15 regulations, the so-called Clean Air Mercury Rule, to 16 give power plants until at least 2018 before having to 17 make even modest mercury reductions, and even then, 18 allow these plants to buy mercury credits rather than 19 install controls to reduce their mercury emissions. 20 The Clean Air Mercury Rule sets a 21 national cap on mercury emissions from power plants of 22 15 tons, touted as a 70-percent reduction, in 2018. 23 The EPA's own analysis, however, projects that less 24 than a 50-percent actual reduction will occur as late 25 as 2020. Moreover, the Congressional Research Service 68 01 concluded that full compliance with the 02 70-percent reduction might be delayed until 2030 or 03 beyond due to the rule's banking provisions. 04 In addition to its weak and delayed 05 national caps, the rule permits power plants to buy 06 and trade mercury pollution credits rather than 07 requiring every plant to make emissions reductions. 08 Trading mercury credits is very risky, according to 09 prominent scientists, and would likely contribute to 10 mercury hot spots, areas with high levels of mercury 11 deposition that I will discuss later in my testimony. 12 Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, 13 there have been many claims made by representatives 14 from the utility industry and others in Pennsylvania 15 that power plants would be required, under the Clean 16 Air Mercury Rule, to achieve an 86-percent reduction 17 in mercury emissions. This is simply not true. 18 Because Pennsylvania power plans will have the ability 19 to avoid reducing their mercury emissions by 20 purchasing mercury credits from power plants in other 21 states, it is impossible to guarantee how much or how 22 quickly Pennsylvania's plants will or will not reduce 23 their mercury emissions under the Clean Air Mercury 24 Rule. 25 And if Pennsylvania's utilities actions 69 01 in similar trading programs for other pollutants is 02 any indication, Pennsylvania's power plants would be 03 the plants buying credits from other states, not the 04 plants reducing their emissions. Specifically, DEP's 05 finding that Pennsylvania facilities are using the 06 credit trading program for sulfur dioxide to emit 07 roughly 460,000 tons of sulfur dioxide above what the 08 state has allotted offers little hope that 09 Pennsylvania's power plants would be the plants 10 exceeding the minimum requirements for mercury 11 reductions under the Clean Air Mercury Rule. 12 Data released this spring by EPA revealed 13 that Pennsylvania's coal-fired power plants emitted 14 roughly 6,700 pounds of mercury in 2004. This ranked 15 Pennsylvania second among states nationally for the 16 highest power plant mercury pollutions. In 2003, 17 Armstrong and Indiana Counties ranked first and fourth 18 respectively out of all counties nationwide for the 19 highest power plant mercury emissions. Four other 20 Pennsylvania counties made the top 100 list 21 nationally. 22 These statistics provide the appropriate 23 backdrop for the discussion of mercury hot spots and 24 emphasized why it is imperative that we consider hot 25 spots in our discussion of the need to cut mercury 70 01 pollution in Pennsylvania. Mercury hot spots are 02 those areas with mercury deposition higher than the 03 surrounding areas, and there is both significant 04 evidence that hot spots exist and that coal-fired 05 power plants create hot spots in nearby communities. 06 It follows that the communities near or in a mercury 07 hot spot will face an increased public health threat 08 due to increased mercury levels. 09 Countering the claim by some that global 10 deposition accounts for most of our mercury pollution 11 problem, many studies suggest that in places where 12 there are large local sources of mercury pollution, 13 such sources account for 50 to 80 percent of mercury 14 deposition. A 2003 study by Environmental Defense 15 that examines EPA modeling data found that over 50 16 percent of the mercury deposition in Pennsylvania hot 17 spots was due to local sources. Perhaps most 18 significantly, initial results from an ongoing EPA 19 study show that 67 percent of the mercury in rain 20 collected at a modeling site in Steubenville, Ohio 21 originated from coal-burning power plants within 400 22 miles of the site. 23 Studies have also shown that when mercury 24 emissions are reduced from a source, the surrounding 25 environment shows lower mercury levels. Specifically, 71 01 a 2003 study found that the levels of mercury found in 02 largemouth bass and other wildlife in the Everglades 03 have declined about 80 percent since the state and 04 federal agencies required municipal and medical waste 05 incinerators to cut their mercury emissions. More 06 recently, mercury levels in Massachusetts fish from 07 lakes near a cluster of incinerators were found to 08 have dropped by over 30 percent since Massachusetts 09 enacted strict mercury pollution standards seven years 10 ago for nearby incinerators. 11 The threat of hot spots means that the 12 communities surrounding Pennsylvania's coal-fired 13 power plants, and even those up to 400 miles away from 14 the power plant, are at an increased risk of high 15 mercury levels in their environment. For this reason, 16 the environmental and public health communities have 17 strongly opposed the mercury trading program put forth 18 by the Bush administration in their so-called Clean 19 Air Mercury Rule. In this trading program, power 20 plants can avoid reducing their mercury emissions by 21 buying credits from other plants in different 22 locations. 23 It is largely because of the Bush 24 administration's mercury policy allowing for mercury 25 trading that PennEnvironment supports DEP's proposed 72 01 mercury reduction rule, as it is a state-level mercury 02 rule for Pennsylvania's coal-fired power plants that 03 does not allow mercury trades. 04 Given the serious environmental and 05 public health threat posed by mercury pollution in 06 Pennsylvania, the availability of pollution control 07 technology to significantly reduce this harmful 08 mercury pollution, and the Bush administration's 09 weakening of mercury protections at the federal level, 10 PennEnvironment is supportive of DEP's state-specific 11 mercury reduction rule, which would require 90-percent 12 mercury reductions from Pennsylvania's coal-fired 13 power plants by 2015 without mercury trading. Thank 14 you again for the opportunity to testify on this 15 issue. 16 CHAIR: 17 Thank you. Our next witness is Jennifer 18 Heller of the National Wildlife Federation. 19 MS. HELLER: 20 My name is Jennifer Heller. My address 21 is 1400 16th Street Northwest, Washington, D.C. with 22 the National Wildlife Federation. I'm speaking on 23 behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and our one 24 million members nationwide, over 55,000 of which live 25 here in Pennsylvania, we are deeply concerned about 73 01 mercury pollution because of the severe impacts of 02 contamination on fish and wildlife. We stand in 03 strong support of the Department of Environmental 04 Protection's proposed mercury rule. 05 Coal-fired power plants are the largest 06 source of mercury pollution in this country, and 07 unfortunately, the federal government is not doing 08 enough about it. Instead of following the Clean Air 09 Act and developing strong emissions reduction 10 requirements for this major source of toxic pollution, 11 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a weak 12 federal rule, the Clean Air Mercury Rule, that does 13 little to protect future generations of people and 14 wildlife from mercury exposure. The fundamental 15 problem with the federal mercury rule is that it 16 allows power plants to purchase emissions credits in 17 place of making pollution reductions. 18 National Wildlife Federation, along with 19 our state affiliate organization, Pennsylvania 20 Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, does not support the 21 use of this emissions trading program for mercury. 22 The federal mercury rule allows the nation's worst 23 polluters to pay for the right to keep emitting toxic 24 mercury into our air for many years to come. Under 25 this plan, many plants will not have to reduce their 74 01 mercury emissions, and some will even increase. This 02 is hardly an acceptable approach, given that there are 03 a variety of cost-effective technology options 04 available today to dramatically reduce mercury 05 emissions from coal plants. 06 That is why DEP's proposed mercury rule 07 is so important for Pennsylvania. Given the lack of 08 federal leadership in addressing mercury pollution 09 from coal plants, it is up to state governments across 10 the country to take responsibility for the plants 11 within their borders. Without a strong state policy, 12 there are no guarantees that any particular plant in 13 Pennsylvania will install pollution control technology 14 necessary to clean up its pollution. 15 In fact, NWF recently commissioned an 16 analysis of the national impacts of the federal rule 17 in order to get a better handle on EPA concluded would 18 result as the program is implemented in Pennsylvania. 19 NWF will be submitting more substantiative technical 20 comments to the docket regarding this analysis, but I 21 would like to share a snapshot of what we found. We 22 looked closely at the results of the computer model 23 used by EPA to predict what types of pollution control 24 technologies would be installed at coal plants across 25 the state to comply with the federal rule. Our 75 01 concerns about the federal program were confirmed. 02 Even in the best-case scenario, EPA projected that by 03 2020, Pennsylvania's mercury emissions will exceed the 04 allowable cap by 45 percent. This means that even by 05 the end of the next decade, Pennsylvania coal plants 06 will still be buying large amounts of emissions 07 credits instead of cleaning up their mercury 08 pollution, all this while affordable, effective 09 control technology sits on the shelf. 10 DEP's proposed rule is what's needed and 11 necessary for addressing Pennsylvania's severe mercury 12 pollution problem. We know that mercury emissions 13 have a significant impact on the environment downwind. 14 Several studies have confirmed that when mercury 15 emissions are reduced, the levels of mercury in local 16 waters, fish and wildlife also decrease. We are 17 seeing these positive results in states that have 18 taken action on mercury in a matter of years, not 19 decades. 20 If Pennsylvania is to realize the 21 benefits of reducing mercury emissions, it is critical 22 that DEP's proposed rule be finalized. Pennsylvania 23 is not alone in pursing a state policy on mercury 24 emissions that is stronger than the federal mercury 25 program. In fact, there are already six states that 76 01 have finalized state mercury rules that go beyond the 02 federal rule, and at least ten have announced their 03 intention to develop stronger policies. These states 04 are exercising the leadership necessary to protect 05 their people, wildlife and local economies from the 06 unchecked mercury pollution that will remain once the 07 federal program is implemented. 08 In conclusion, National Wildlife 09 Federation strongly supports the proposed rule from 10 DEP. Mercury contamination levels in our environment 11 pose a grave health threat to wildlife at all levels 12 of the food chain. Just yesterday, the New York Times 13 reported new research finding extensive, high levels 14 of mercury in our forest songbirds. The evidence is 15 mounting, and it is clear that toxic mercury is 16 accumulating in our environment at higher levels and 17 in far more places that we had previously thought. 18 This is a serious problem, but fortunately, it is one 19 we know how to solve. 20 It is time for a swift, aggressive action 21 to cut mercury pollution from Pennsylvania's coal 22 plants. The technology is available, affordable and 23 effective. What we need is a strong state policy to 24 require plants to use it. DEP's mercury rule creates 25 the solution necessary to protect current and future 77 01 generations of people and wildlife from the dangers of 02 mercury exposure. I thank you for the opportunity to 03 comment, and I will have extra testimony that I will 04 leave for the public. 05 CHAIR: 06 Thank you. Our next witness is Pam Lee. 07 Good afternoon. 08 MS. PHILA-LEE: 09 Hi. My name is Pamela Phila-Lee and I've 10 lived in Pennsylvania for 20 years. I currently still 11 am. I find it unacceptable that our coal-fired power 12 plants are ranked second in the country in mercury 13 pollution. It's also sad that we can no longer eat 14 the fish in our rivers because they threaten our 15 health and the health of our children. The current 16 federal rule might allow our power plants to get away 17 without significantly reducing mercury emissions by 18 purchasing credits from other states. That, too, is 19 unacceptable. Therefore, I support the Department of 20 Environmental Protection's proposals to cut down 21 mercury pollution from our coal-fired power plants, 22 because it is our responsibility as residents to 23 protect our health and safety as well as our 24 environment. And I'd also like to add that it is my 25 21st birthday today and my only birthday wish is that 78 01 this proposal goes through. 02 CHAIR: 03 Our next witness is Michael --- excuse 04 me, is Steve Quarles. And after Mr. Quarles we have 05 two pre-registered witnesses, Michael Helfrich and 06 Richard King, at which time we will then open to the 07 public. 08 MR. QUARLES: 09 Hello. 10 CHAIR: 11 Good afternoon. 12 MR. QUARLES: 13 My name is Steven Quarles. I'm from 14 Philadelphia. And I support the proposal by the DEP 15 that would decrease mercury pollution by 90 percent by 16 the year 2015. Mercury is a serious threat to public 17 health and even can be hazardous in small quantities. 18 And it causes all kinds of problems, and it shouldn't 19 even be there. The main way that we expose ourselves 20 to mercury is through fish consumption, so we should 21 make certain that our fish don't have it. If we have 22 the technology to drastically reduce the mercury in 23 our waterways and get it out of our fish which are 24 worthy of a statewide advisory, then I think that we 25 should use it. 79 01 CHAIR: 02 Thank you. Our next witness is Michael 03 Helfrich. 04 MR. HELFRICH: 05 Good afternoon. I'm Michael Helfrich, 06 Lower Susquehanna River keeper. 324 West Market 07 Street, Lower Level, York, Pennsylvania, 17401. 08 To start here, I am supporting the DEP's 09 standards for contaminants on mercury. I know it's 10 very difficult to make decisions on what you hear. 11 We've heard some stuff --- testimony in favor and 12 opposed to this, but I haven't really heard, 13 particularly from the side of industry, haven't heard 14 too much from the science end of things. I've heard 15 that there are no health effects, but I've gotten no 16 backup documents, I've gotten no footnotes. And I 17 appreciate that Eric --- I think everybody should 18 footnote like Eric does here. He does a great job. 19 But I've got no background information on why these 20 claims are coming up that there are no problems with 21 mercury. 22 One of the things I've had the pleasure 23 to do is attend the EPA's fish forum. Every couple of 24 years, the EPA gets together some of the leading 25 scientists in the world and the folks from the fishing 80 01 industry, and they put them all together in the same 02 room. There's about 60 of us just there. Actually, 03 there were two folks that came in with environmental 04 concerns, myself and someone from Kansas from the 05 Sierra Club. So we were the environmental 06 representatives in there. And during this forum, we 07 spent four days discussing how contaminated the fish 08 are and whether or not the fish have gotten to the 09 point that we should no longer recommend them for the 10 healthy consumption of the omega-3 fatty acids that 11 are vital for the development of our children. And so 12 I took the liberty to bring along a few PowerPoints 13 from some of the scientists that were there that might 14 kind of give a little bit more clarity to some of the 15 specifics. They might be a little over-specific, so I 16 apologize for that. But this has to do with the study 17 of risk assessment and where we come up with these 18 ideas that something is a risk or not a risk. 19 Risk assessments are based --- they start 20 out, either you test some animals and see how it 21 affects animals or you look at some populations that 22 have been exposed to these materials. And then from 23 that, you come up with a baseline idea of how much you 24 think it might affect somebody. Well, then to that, 25 you add a bunch of uncertainty factors. These 81 01 uncertainty factors are based on at-risk populations, 02 for instance. You may have a more sensitive 03 population to a certain chemical or there might be 04 other diseases that this chemical exacerbates. These 05 uncertainty factors I've heard referred to as --- we 06 multiply things by ten just to make sure that 07 everybody is safe. Well, that's not where the 08 uncertainty factor comes from. The uncertainty factor 09 is a real number that comes from adding up all these, 10 yes, uncertainties about how it's going to affect a 11 more sensitive population. But it's not just some 12 random number that they said, oh, we took the risk and 13 we multiplied it by ten. And I've heard some people 14 say that, some representatives say that, and I just 15 wanted to clarify that. And this is explained in the 16 documents, uncertainty factor adjustments in 17 methylmercury reference doses. So I will be 18 submitting this to you as soon as I'm done referencing 19 it myself here. So the uncertainty factor, just to 20 start off, if anybody tells you that things are 21 multiplied by ten just so that it makes it more safe, 22 that's not what an uncertainty factor is. I just 23 wanted to get that out there. 24 So what we have here, we start off with a 25 reference dose. What's the dose that we're going to 82 01 say? Okay. Right now it's .1 parts per billion, per 02 kilogram, per day is what we're saying is a reference 03 dose. Now, that reference dose doesn't click in until 04 you've got five percent of a population that is 05 affected by a chemical. Well, when that number 06 doubles to ten percent, that's what we call our 07 reference dose. So the reference dose has already 08 multiplied by 100 percent, the amount of people that 09 are going to be affected by this stuff. So a 10 reference dose is already admitting that we've allowed 11 twice the population to be affected by something that 12 was affected before. Instead of five percent of our 13 children having neurological disorders, now we've 14 accepted that ten percent have neurological disorders. 15 So that's where the reference dose comes from. 16 Katherine Mahaffey, Ph.D., director of 17 the Division of Exposure Assessment, Coordination and 18 Policy, the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 19 Substances with the U.S. EPA, she has been studying 20 mercury for, I believe approximately ten years now. 21 Let me say this is not EPA documents. This is her 22 scientific finding. This administration did not 23 choose to listen to her scientific findings that she's 24 been working on for ten years. That is one of the 25 other failures of the Bush administration policies. 83 01 Not only did the Congressional Research Service say 02 that the outcomes are lacking, but the actual 03 beginning is lacking, the reference doses that they're 04 using from the front end are lacking. And it was very 05 simple for her to prove one of these things. The 06 fetal cord, the placenta itself, is a magnifier of 07 minerals and elements so that a woman can produce a 08 child. Now, if you can imagine 10,000 years ago, a 09 woman might not have enough calcium, enough iodine in 10 her body to help bring in a healthy child. And 11 nature, God, evolution, whatever you want to call it, 12 has created this system where the placenta magnifies 13 things by 70 percent. So when we talk about the dose 14 to the fetus, imagine that dose is 70 percent higher 15 than what the mother is taking in. So for us to just 16 measure what's in a mother or in a pregnant woman and 17 say that's what the fetus is getting is completely 18 incorrect. And all of their science is based on this 19 idea, and it has all been debunked by 30 different 20 studies showing that a fetus gets 70 percent more 21 mercury than the mother that is taking in the 22 substance. So this is a study that explains all that. 23 So if the senator or anyone has scientists that are 24 actually looking into this information, that would be 25 wonderful. And I'm sure you could call Kate and she'd 84 01 be happy to answer any questions about that. 02 The second study I would like to refer to 03 is by Alan Stern. He's with the New Jersey Department 04 of Environmental Protection and has also been studying 05 risk assessment for many years. Mr. Stern has now 06 taken this information, this 1.7 increase in dosage, 07 and has also looked at many other problems with the 08 original reference dose. Part of the reference dose 09 and the uncertainty factors is that it takes in, as I 10 said, how mercury can affect the cardiovascular 11 system, immunotoxicity, aging. And some of these 12 things --- actually, almost none of these things were 13 taken into account in the original risk assessment and 14 reference dose used by the EPA. They have found that 15 --- or they have used this dose conversion now of 16 maternal numbers to the cord, they've used that now 17 and used the cardiovascular effect information and the 18 fresh look at sensitive populations. One of the 19 things they found ---. And believe it or not, all 20 these numbers come from examining people that are 21 isolated out on these islands and were exposed to 22 mercury. That's where all of our numbers come from, 23 people in New Zealand and this other place called the 24 Faroe Islands. And one of these populations is very 25 modulous. They're on an island and they've pretty 85 01 much stayed on the island. New Zealand, on the other 02 hand, has a more heterogeneous population. They found 03 that the more heterogeneous the population, the higher 04 and the worse the effects of the mercury are. Well, 05 there's not much more of a heterogeneous population 06 than Pennsylvania. We've come from all over the world 07 to come to Pennsylvania, and we're all one big happy 08 --- well, maybe not always so happy, but we're one big 09 family here. Okay. So our population is even more 10 diverse, heterogeneous, than the populations that were 11 studied to come up with these doses in the first 12 place. So it completely changes the references, the 13 science behind what the EPA has advised and what the 14 current federal administration is advising us. 15 Now, I really respect and enjoy --- well, 16 I don't know enjoy. I really love the people that are 17 trying to protect our children and our unborn 18 children. That is very important to me. But there 19 has been a gap, and that is adult white males. 20 Nobody's talking about adult white males. Well, guess 21 what? 22 CHAIR: 23 Mr. Helfrich, if I could ask if you could 24 wrap up in about 30 seconds. 25 MR. HELFRICH: 86 01 I will wrap it up in 30 seconds. 02 CHAIR: 03 Thank you. 04 MR. HELFRICH: 05 In Finland, they did a study and they 06 found that at two parts per million, adult white males 07 have double the risk of acute myocardial infarction. 08 That's heart disease. The entire heart disease is 09 being doubled by that. And 90 percent of the adult 10 men in the United States meet that threshold. That 11 means our heart disease is being doubled because of 12 mercury in the environment. 13 The last couple of things, I appreciate 14 --- I want to see incentives and grants go to these 15 companies. I had an editorial in the paper and it 16 said, let's take some of this $1 billion surplus and 17 let's put some of that towards fixing these plants. 18 As you're probably aware and have heard multiple 19 times, the fishing economy alone in this state is $1.6 20 billion with 14,000 jobs. Imagine if people weren't 21 distracted by this mercury issue. We would have a $3 22 billion, $4 billion economy. 23 And on the last thing, I want to comment 24 on hot spots and how air reacts. There seems to be 25 some argument about this. But guess what? Air acts 87 01 almost the same as water. It's just a little lighter. 02 So if you can imagine dropping a couple drops of 03 something into water and watching it dissipate, the 04 majority of it stays near where you dropped it and the 05 rest of it dissipates. And that's the same way that 06 mercury acts. These studies are absolutely valid, and 07 I question the intention and integrity of anyone that 08 is questioning those studies. Thank you. 09 CHAIR: 10 Our next witness is Richard King. 11 MR. KING: 12 My name is Richard King, North River 13 Drive, York, Pennsylvania. I'm here as a citizen. 14 And I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak 15 today and for your efforts. Your caterer did inform 16 me that there will be tuna salad sandwiches during 17 break and you may have more than one. But I don't 18 think mom's going to let you. 19 I swim and I kayak in the Susquehanna 20 River. I live along the Susquehanna River and I care 21 very much about the area. I'm a special education 22 teacher of 25 years and I also am very alertly aware 23 of what happens when the body and brain don't work as 24 one might expect it should. 25 Moving on, I think we all agree that 88 01 mercury is toxic. There's no question about that. We 02 heard people in Pennsylvania have a right to clean air 03 and clean water. It's about time, too, hopefully with 04 your efforts. 05 This whole notion of buying and selling 06 pollution allowances, it's still polluting. It just 07 boggles my mind to create a commodity of such a 08 nature. And then you move along to this hot spot 09 issue. It doesn't take a, fill in the blank, to 10 conclude or to figure out that an area with a combined 11 high output of mercury is going to have a correlation 12 of higher mercury levels in the environment. 13 And then additionally, taking some of 14 this a little further, and not to get off the point, 15 but I would like to see increased attention given to 16 collection of fluorescent fixtures and paraphernalia, 17 not only from industry and schools, related items such 18 as batteries. 19 And then moving back to the point of 20 today's hearing, you have the power to reduce this 21 toxin, and hopefully your body will find the courage 22 to do what needs to be done. Thank you. 23 CHAIR: 24 Thank you. Our next scheduled witness is 25 Mr. Jeff Schmidt. 89 01 MR. SCHMIDT: 02 Thank you. I'm Jeff Schmidt, 03 representing the Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter. 04 Our address is 300 North Second Street, Harrisburg, 05 17101. I'm here today sitting in for Nancy Parks, who 06 couldn't be here. My oral comments today will be 07 supplemented by written comments, some technical 08 comments that she will provide for you in the coming 09 period. I appreciate the opportunity from the 10 Environmental Quality Board to testify on the matter 11 of mercury reductions. I'm here representing our more 12 than 27,000 members. And we appreciate the first 13 opportunity for the public to comment on the mercury 14 issue. 15 In Pennsylvania, we have 36 coal-fired 16 power plants collectively with 78 separate units, 17 that's energy-generating units, that generate about 18 20,000 megawatts of capacity. Our Pennsylvania 19 contribution to the U.S. total of mercury pollution is 20 five tons, approximately five tons per year. And that 21 is of the 60 tons per year that the U.S. coal-fired 22 power plants contribute to the total global mercury 23 pollution. In Pennsylvania, our power plants provide 24 about 77 percent of the state contribution to national 25 mercury pollution. That is 3.85 tons per year. As 90 01 other commenters have mentioned, Pennsylvania is 02 second only to Texas in the amount of mercury 03 pollution that power plants put into the atmosphere. 04 How do we control mercury pollution? 05 Well, Pennsylvania DEP finds that energy-generating 06 units that burn 100 percent bituminous coal and that 07 control sulfur dioxide emissions with wet scrubbers 08 and control nitrogen oxide emissions with the 09 selective catalytic reduction, can expect to capture 10 approximately 90 percent of mercury. Pennsylvania DEP 11 calls this, quote, complete control, unquote. In 12 Pennsylvania, 85 percent of coal that's burned is 13 bituminous, and 15 percent is waste coal. In 14 Pennsylvania, we have higher levels of mercury and 15 chlorine, which allows mercury to be oxidized and jump 16 out of the atmosphere close to the source, causing hot 17 spots. This is more so than other states. PA DEP's 18 proposed mercury rule is designed to take advantage of 19 the co-benefits of nitrogen oxide reductions under the 20 Federal CAIR rule. That said then, mercury reductions 21 in Pennsylvania are dependent on achieving true 22 emissions reductions through the construction and 23 placement of source-specific technology under the 24 Federal Clean Air Interstate Rule, the CAIR rule, and 25 not trading for emission credits. 91 01 Concerns and complications with this, 02 trading programs for ozone smog reduction are 03 unsuccessful here in Pennsylvania because they have 04 failed to sufficiently reduce trading air pollutants 05 within Pennsylvania's large population centers, large 06 cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Because 07 trading programs have allowed a trading distance that 08 was too great and because long-distance trading has 09 been permitted, i.e., a source downwind has been 10 permitted to sell allowances or emission reduction 11 credits to a source upwind, therefore allowing both 12 the upwind and downwind population centers to continue 13 to be polluted. 14 PA DEP, in its preamble to this proposed 15 regulation, identifies that for those 16 energy-generating units that are burning, quote, 100 17 percent bituminous coal and that control SO2 emissions 18 with a wet scrubber and control nox emissions with 19 selective catalytic reductions, that they can, quote, 20 expect to capture approximately 90 percent of mercury 21 emissions, unquote. However, a report prepared in 22 March of 2005 by the Center for Energy and Economic 23 Development, Incorporated, and prepared by Energy 24 Ventures Analysis, Incorporated, and the firm of 25 Marchetti, Cichanowicz & Hein, and entitled, quote, 92 01 the Impact of Mercury Regulations on Pennsylvania 02 Coal-Fired Power Plants, unquote, includes a table 03 B-1, best estimates of co-benefits of residual mercury 04 for post-combustion technologies. This same 05 information was presented to EPA in January of '05. 06 This table specifically says that 90-percent reduction 07 of mercury from existing sources will be achieved from 08 bituminous coal using selective catalytic reduction, 09 fabric particulate filter and wet flue gas de- 10 sulfurization. 11 Pennsylvania DEP has proposed mercury 12 controls and altered this proposal since the original 13 2004 mercury petition was accepted for review and 14 discussion. These changes have led to a different 15 proposal than the original petitioner's proposal. PA 16 DEP should provide current emissions reductions 17 estimates associated with current regulatory language, 18 not past regulatory language. And PA DEP should 19 provide emissions reductions expected from using a 20 statewide facility averaging mechanism for mercury 21 reductions. Because the proposal has changed, PA DEP 22 should expect that its initial emission reduction 23 estimates may yield different benefits than previously 24 mentioned. That circumstance would lead us to expect 25 to need additional reductions and additional 93 01 technology to accomplish those reductions. 02 Pennsylvania has yet to see a power plant industry 03 application for compliance with the Federal CAIR rule 04 that includes selective catalytic reduction, proposals 05 for whichever company it is to destage nox LNB, that's 06 low nox burner technologies. 07 The Sierra Club proposal is that we 08 support the PA DEP proposal for mercury control. And 09 additionally, the Sierra Club proposes that, quote, 10 complete mercury control, unquote, be defined as 11 selective catalytic reduction plus fabric filters plus 12 wet scrubbers with the addition of ACI, the activated 13 carbon control technology, for additional controls 14 needed to meet mercury controls as proposed by DEP. 15 Additional comments will be --- and further analysis 16 of the available data we would present to the 17 Environmental Quality Board if asked before the end of 18 the comment period. Thank you. 19 ATTORNEY HUGHES: 20 Is this part of your testimony? 21 MR. SCHMIDT: 22 I'm sorry. Thank you, Marjorie. I also 23 wanted to place into the record a New York Times 24 article from yesterday about research that has found 25 unusually high levels of mercury in all 178 woodland 94 01 birds that were tested in New York State recently, a 02 state directly downwind from Pennsylvania. The new 03 study, which will be published in the next several 04 months, is covered in that news article. The 05 significance of the study cannot be ignored. Most 06 research concerning the impacts of mercury as it moves 07 through the food chain are from fish to humans. The 08 new study by biologist David C. Evers, who's the 09 director of the BioDiversity Research Institute, has 10 found that birds that do not eat fish are showing 11 mercury levels. Therefore, the study suggests that 12 additional environmental pathways other than water 13 result in mercury contamination from nearby sources. 14 Mercury deposition on land may very well result in 15 mercury entering the food chain for terrestrial 16 animals, threatening those species and those that 17 consume them. 18 CHAIR: 19 Thank you. That completes the list of 20 pre-registered witnesses for this hearing. Does 21 anyone else present wish to comment on the proposal? 22 If you could come forward. If you could state your 23 name and your address, we would appreciate it. 24 MS. MCPHERSON: 25 My name is Marlene McPherson. I live in 95 01 Ickesburg, Pennsylvania. 02 CHAIR: 03 Can we have your street address? And I 04 you could spell that as well ---. 05 MS. MCPHERSON: 06 Oh, okay. 07 CHAIR: 08 Your name and ---. 09 MS. MCPHERSON: 10 Okay. 68 Kerr, K-E-R-R, Alley, 11 Ickesburg, I-C-K-E-S-B-U-R-G. It's in Perry County. 12 McPherson, M-C-P-H-E-R-S-O-N. 13 CHAIR: 14 Thank you. 15 MS. MCPHERSON: 16 Thank you for having these hearings. 17 Thank everybody for coming and participating. I 18 didn't come with the idea of participating, but now 19 that I'm here, I can't see not adding my support. I 20 strongly support the proposition for stronger mercury 21 reduction, just as a citizen who is really concerned 22 about it. And for poisoning something, that's wrong. 23 If we can stop that and stop poisoning ourselves, we 24 need to do that and stop poisoning all of our citizens 25 and our animals and our wildlife. I'm sure there's a 96 01 way we can do that, and this is a great proposal. 02 It's not my 21st birthday, sorry, but it's still my 03 wish. 04 CHAIR: 05 Is there anyone else present who wishes 06 to comment on this proposal? Seeing none, on behalf 07 of the Environmental Quality Board, thank you for your 08 interest. And I hereby adjourn this hearing at 2:54 09 p.m. 10 * * * * * * * * 11 HEARING CONCLUDED AT 2:54 P.M. 12 * * * * * * * * 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25