1 01 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 02 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE 03 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 04 THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 05 06 * * * * * * * * * 07 IN RE: MERCURY EMISSION REDUCTION FOR ELECTRIC 08 GENERATING UNITS 09 * * * * * * * * * 10 11 BEFORE: RICHARD MANFREDI, Chair 12 MARJORIE HUGHES, Member 13 HEARING: Thursday, July 27, 2006 14 1:00 p.m. 15 LOCATION: Pennsylvania Department of 16 Environmental Protection 17 Southeast Regional Office 18 Delaware Room 19 2 East Main Street 20 Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401 21 22 Reporter: Kenneth D. O'Hearn 23 Any reproduction of this transcript 24 is prohibited without authorization 25 by the certifying agency 2 01 W I T N E S S E S 02 03 Senator Connie Williams, Nathan Wilcox,Lionel 04 Ruberg, Joy Bergey, Christine Knapp, Gene Barr, 05 Chris Milani, Debra Devries, Reverend Linda Noonan, 06 Robert Wendelgass, Mickie Somsanith, Patricia Lomden, 07 William Brainerd, Anastasia Bannikovia, Tegan 08 Costanza, Patty Fleetwood, Dr. Jack Lebeau, Brian 09 Zeck, Jim Black, Martha Black, Bernard Phearson, 10 Walter Tsou, Ann Leary, Lisa Zhu, Lynn Jaeger, 11 Al Siess, Marion Magee, Gene Wilson, Virginia 12 Fitzpatrick, Virginia Craciun, Alisha Dean-Steinler, 13 Sonnet Gabbard, Mike Ewall 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 01 I N D E X 02 03 OPENING REMARKS 04 By Richard Manfredi 6 - 9 05 TESTIMONY 06 By Senator Connie Williams 9 - 13 07 By Nathan Wilcox 13 - 21 08 By Lionel Ruberg 21 - 24 09 By Joy Bergey 24 - 26 10 By Christine Knapp 26 - 29 11 By Gene Barr 30 - 39 12 By Chris Milani 39 - 41 13 By Debra Devries 42 - 44 14 By Reverend Linda Noonan 45 - 47 15 By Robert Wendelgass 47 - 52 16 By Mickie Somsanith 53 - 57 17 By Patricia Lomden 57 18 By William Brainerd 58 - 61 19 By Anastasia Bannikovia 61 - 63 20 By Tegan Costanza 63 - 66 21 By Patty Fleetwood 66 - 67 22 By Dr. Jack Lebeau 68 - 72 23 By Brian Zeck 72 24 By Jim Black 73 - 74 25 By Martha Black 74 - 77 4 01 I N D E X con't 02 03 By Bernard Phearson 77 - 81 04 By Walter Tsou 81 - 84 05 By Ann Leary 84 - 88 06 By Lisa Zhu 88 - 90 07 By Lynn Jaeger 90 - 96 08 By Al Siess 96 - 104 09 By Marion Magee 104 - 106 10 By Gene Wilson 106 - 107 11 By Virginia Fitzpatrick 107 - 109 12 By Virginia Craciun 109 - 111 13 By Alisha Dean-Steinler 112 - 113 14 By Sonnet Gabbard 113 - 117 15 By Mike Ewall 117 - 126 16 CLOSING REMARKS 17 By Richard Manfredi 126 18 CERTIFICATE 127 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 01 E X H I B I T S 02 03 Page 04 Number Description Offered 05 NONE OFFERED 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 01 P R O C E E D I N G S 02 ------------------------------------------------------ 03 CHAIR MANFREDI: 04 Good afternoon. Welcome to the 05 Environmental Quality Board public hearing on the 06 proposed Mercury Emission Reduction Requirements for 07 Electric Generating Units. The purpose of this 08 hearing is to formally accept testimony on this 09 proposed rulemaking. 10 My name is Richard Manfredi. I am a 11 member of the Environmental Quality Board representing 12 the Citizens Advisory Council. I call this hearing to 13 order at 1:06 p.m. 14 With me today from the Department of 15 Environmental Protection is Marjorie Hughes, the 16 regulatory coordinator. 17 The Environmental Quality Board will hold 18 three public hearings, in fact has held public 19 hearings, to accept comments on a proposal to amend 25 20 Pa. Code Chapter 123 relating to standards for 21 contaminants which establishes mercury emission 22 standards, annual emission limitations as part of a 23 statewide mercury allowance program with annual 24 non-tradable mercury allowances and other requirements 25 for the purpose of reducing mercury emissions from 7 01 coal-fired electric generating units 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, otherwise known as the SIP. The 06 SIP, which is a requirement of the Clean Air Act, is a 07 plan that provides the implementation, maintenance and 08 enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality 09 Standards. 10 On June 24, 2006, the Environmental 11 Quality Board published these proposed regulations for 12 public review and comment in the Pennsylvania 13 Bulletin. In addition, notice of this hearing was 14 published in newspapers statewide. 15 This is the second public hearing for the 16 purpose of accepting comments on the Proposed 17 Rulemaking. In order to give everyone an equal 18 opportunity to comment on the proposal, the following 19 ground rules are established: 20 1. The witnesses who have pre-registered to testify 21 at this hearing will be called first. After hearing 22 from these witnesses, other interested parties present 23 will be given the opportunity to testify as time 24 allows. 25 2. Testimony is limited to ten minutes for each 8 01 witness. 02 3. Organizations are requested to designate one 03 witness to present testimony on its behalf. 04 4. Each witness is asked, but not required to provide 05 two electronic or three hard copies of their testimony 06 to aid in transcribing the hearing. Please hand me 07 your copies prior to presenting your testimony. 08 5. Please state your name clearly, address and 09 affiliation for the record, prior to presenting your 10 testimony. 11 6. Your help in spelling names and terms that may not 12 be generally familiar is appreciated so that the 13 transcript can be as accurate as possible. 14 7. And finally, because the purpose of the hearing is 15 to receive comments on the proposal, EQB or DEP staff 16 may question witnesses. However, the witnesses may 17 not question the EQB or the DEP staff. 18 As noted in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and 19 the newspaper notices, interested persons may also 20 submit comments in writing or electronically. 21 Specific instructions on submitting these comments can 22 be found in the Bulletin or newspaper notices. 23 All comments received at this hearing, as 24 well as those received in writing or electronically 25 during the public comment period of June 24, 2006 to 9 01 August 26, 2006 will be considered by the Department 02 in finalization of these regulations. 03 Anyone who is interested in a copy of the 04 transcript of this hearing may contact the reporter to 05 arrange to purchase a copy. 06 I now call the first witness. That first 07 witness is the Honorable Senator Connie Williams. 08 SENATOR WILLIAMS: 09 Thank you very much. Good afternoon, I 10 am State Senator Connie Williams. My address is 700 11 South Henderson Road in King of Prussia. 12 Before I give my comments, I'd just like 13 to say I grew up in a town in New Jersey which had 14 lots of refineries and metal processing plants. And 15 the air was yellow most of the time and it didn't 16 smell good. And the river was dead. My grandmother 17 used to talk about the fact that when she was a girl, 18 you could drive cars out to the lighthouse in the 19 middle of the bay. But by the time I was a girl, the 20 only thing that lived in the bay were the horseshoe 21 crabs which can live anywhere for any time. So we 22 have come a long way from those years in regulations 23 against pollutants and with working with industry to 24 make sure that our economy becomes vibrant and 25 flourishes as well. So I feel I have a personal 10 01 interest in this besides what I know the concerns of 02 my constituents are. 03 The health of Pennsylvanians and the 04 future of the Commonwealth's environment is at a 05 critical juncture and it is incumbent upon the 06 legislature and the administration to support a solid 07 environmental policy and stand strong against some 08 interests that are seeking a much less significant 09 reduction in mercury emissions that will trade 10 emission credits instead of seeking a real reduction 11 in mercury emissions. 12 The current debate over mercury standards 13 began in 2004 when a number of environmental, 14 sporting, religious, health, women's rights and public 15 interest organizations statewide petitioned the 16 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to 17 regulate mercury emissions asking for 90 percent 18 reduction in mercury pollution from power plants. I 19 give Secretary McGinty and the mercury work group 20 credit for moving this issue forward in a timely and 21 thoughtful manner. They should be commended for their 22 hard work and dedication. 23 Countless advocates and opponents have 24 visited my office to share their views. This spring, 25 as you may know, there were several legislative 11 01 attempts, Senate Bill 1201 and House Bill 2610, to 02 block the EP Mercury Regulations and move Pennsylvania 03 toward adopting the weaker federal standards. In 04 response to the Senate version of the bill to adopt 05 federal standards, Clean Water Action brought forth a 06 letter from 45 Pennsylvania healthcare professional 07 who opposed efforts to derail the DEP's Rule. 08 Additionally, over 100 organizations around the state 09 have endorsed DEP's proposed Mercury Rule. 10 I was disappointed that Senate did vote 11 on Senate Bill 1201, but I was pleased that I was 12 joined by nine other Senators in opposing the Bill and 13 that the House did not attempt to advance the measure. 14 Since 2004, I have heard from hundreds of constituents 15 who support a strong state-specific regulation to 16 reduce mercury emissions. And other Pennsylvanians 17 share the same belief. A poll conducted this spring 18 indicated that 80 percent of Pennsylvanians prefer 19 State Regulation to the Federal Rule. 20 Given the number of letters, e-mails and 21 phone calls my offices have received, I'd have to say 22 the support in the 17th Senatorial District is closer 23 to 100 percent. I share their concerns for the health 24 of Pennsylvania's children and for our waterways. 25 Pennsylvania power plants currently have the second 12 01 highest mercury emissions in the country. The 02 emission of this toxic chemical can and should be 03 dramatically reduced. Pennsylvania's electric 04 generating industry must rise to the challenge of 05 cleaning up its power plants that contaminate the 06 rivers and lakes and put our children in jeopardy. 07 We may not be able to control the 08 mercury. We certainly can't that enters our waterways 09 from other states, but their existence should not 10 deter us from rising to the occasion and serving as an 11 example that good environmental policy and economic 12 advancement can go hand in hand. We don't have to 13 continue to add to the mercury emissions. 14 I offer my support to DEP's plan and urge 15 everyone to consider the ramifications of emissions 16 credit trading, which most likely will lead to hot 17 spots of mercury in communities near coal-burning 18 plants. Pennsylvania has a strong and solid plan to 19 reduce mercury emissions that will offer 90 percent 20 reduction by 2015. The Federal plan offers credit 21 trading which may lead to only a 70 percent reduction 22 and that goal won't be reached until 2030. That's a 23 long time, for me anyway. 24 This issue seems pretty clear cut. The 25 only real choice that will protect the health of 13 01 Pennsylvanians in our environment is the State Plan. 02 As I said today at the opening of my testimony, the 03 health of Pennsylvanians and the future of the 04 Commonwealth's environment is at a critical juncture. 05 It is incumbent upon the legislature and 06 administration to support this strong policy and stand 07 strong against those who want to seek less reduction. 08 Thank you very much. 09 CHAIR MANFREDI: 10 Thank you, Senator. Next person to speak 11 is Nathan Wilcox, PennEnvironment. 12 MR. WILCOX: 13 Good afternoon. My name is Nathan 14 Wilcox. I'm the Energy and Clean Air advocate with 15 PennEnvironment. PennEnvironment is located at 1420 16 Walnut Street, Suite 650 in Philadelphia. As folks 17 may know, PennEnvironment is a statewide environmental 18 advocacy organization with more than 20,000 citizen 19 members across Pennsylvania. 20 Given the public health and environmental 21 threats posed by mercury pollution from Pennsylvania's 22 coal-fired power plants, the Bush administration's 23 weakening of the Clean Air Acts Federal Mercury 24 Pollution Reduction Requirements and the availability 25 of mercury pollution control technologies, 14 01 PennEnvironment supports DEP's state level proposal to 02 cut mercury pollution from Pennsylvania's coal-fired 03 power plants by 90 percent by 2015. We urge the state 04 to move forward in implementing this much needed 05 proposal and reject attempts to incorporate mercury 06 pollution credit trading into the proposal. My 07 statements today will focus on the following aspects 08 of the mercury pollution issue: The public health 09 impacts of mercury, the Bush administration's 10 so-called Clean Air Mercury Rule and the issue of 11 mercury hot spots. 12 Regarding the public health issue, 13 mercury is a bio-cumulative toxin that builds up in 14 body tissue. And the primary way that people in the 15 U.S. are exposed to methylmercury is by eating 16 contaminated fish. Pennsylvania currently has a 17 statewide fish consumption advisory due to 18 methylmercury which warns people, especially children 19 and women of child bearing age, to limit their 20 consumption of fish from all Pennsylvania waterways. 21 Mercury can also pass through the human placenta to 22 developing fetuses and through breast milk to nursing 23 infants. A potent neurotoxin, mercury poses 24 significant human health hazards. Mercury can affect 25 multiple organ systems including the nervous, 15 01 cardiovascular and immune systems throughout an 02 individual's lifetime. In 2000, the National Academy 03 of Sciences found that chronic, low dose, prenatal 04 methylmercury exposure from maternal consumption of 05 fish has been associated with more subtle end points 06 of neurotoxicity in children, including poor 07 performance on neuro behavioral tests, particularly on 08 tests of attention, fine-motor function, language, 09 visual/spatial abilities and verbal memory. The panel 10 concluded, quote, the risk to children of women who 11 consume large amounts of fish during pregnancy is 12 likely to be sufficient to result in an increase in 13 the number of children who have to struggle to keep up 14 in school and who might require remedial classes or 15 special education. EPA scientists estimate that one 16 in six women of child bearing age has enough mercury 17 in her body to put her child at risk should she become 18 pregnant. This figure is a doubling of previous 19 estimates bases on increasing evidence that 20 methylmercury concentrates in the umbilical cord, 21 exposing the developing fetus to higher levels of 22 mercury than previously understood. 23 Regarding the Bush administration's 24 so-called Clean Air Mercury Rule, reducing mercury 25 from power plants is critical to reducing toxic 16 01 mercury in the environment and in fish and thus 02 protecting public health. Unfortunately, the Bush 03 administration has promulgated regulations the 04 so-called Clean Air Mercury Rule, that give power 05 plants until at least 2018 before having to make even 06 modest mercury reductions. And even then, allow these 07 plants to buy mercury credits rather than install 08 controls to reduce their mercury emissions. The Clean 09 Air Mercury Rule sets a national cap on mercury 10 emissions from power plants of 15 tons, counted as a 11 70 percent reduction in 2018. The EPA's own analysis, 12 however, projects less than a 50-percent actual 13 reduction as late as 2020. And moreover, the 14 Congressional Research Service has concluded that full 15 compliance with the 70-percent reduction might be 16 delayed until 2030 or beyond due to the rule's banking 17 provisions. 18 In addition to its weakened delayed 19 national caps, the rule permits power plants to buy 20 and trade mercury pollution credits rather than 21 requiring every plant to make emission reductions. 22 Trading mercury credits is very risky according to 23 prominent scientists and would likely contribute to 24 mercury hot spots, areas with high levels of mercury 25 deposition that I will later discuss in my testimony. 17 01 Lastly and perhaps most importantly, 02 there have been many claims made by representatives 03 from the utility industry and others that Pennsylvania 04 power plants will be required under the Clean Air 05 Mercury Rule to achieve an 86 percent reduction in 06 mercury emissions. This is simply not true. Because 07 Pennsylvania power plants will have the ability to 08 avoid reducing their mercury emissions by purchasing 09 mercury credits from power plants in other states, it 10 is impossible to guarantee how much or how quickly 11 Pennsylvania's plants will or will not reduce their 12 mercury emissions under the Clean Air Mercury Rule. 13 And if Pennsylvania's utilities' actions in similar 14 trading programs for other pollutants is any 15 indication, Pennsylvania's power plants will be the 16 plants buying credits from other states, not the 17 plants reducing their emissions. Specifically, DEP's 18 finding that Pennsylvania's facilities are using the 19 credit trading program for sulfur dioxide to emit 20 roughly 460,000 tons of sulfur dioxide above what the 21 state is allotted offers little hope that 22 Pennsylvania's power plants will be the plants 23 exceeding the minimum requirements for mercury 24 reductions under the Clean Air Mercury Rule. 25 Regarding mercury hot spots, data 18 01 released this spring by the EPA revealed that 02 Pennsylvania's coal-fired power plants emitted roughly 03 6,700 pounds of mercury in 2004. This ranked 04 Pennsylvania second among states nationally for this 05 highest power plant mercury emissions. In 2003 06 Armstrong and Indiana County ranked first and fourth 07 respectively out of all counties nationwide for the 08 highest power plant mercury emissions. Four other 09 Pennsylvania counties made the top 100 list 10 nationally. These statistics provide the appropriate 11 backdrop for the discussion of mercury hot spots and 12 emphasize why it is imperative that we consider hot 13 spots in our discussion of the need to cut mercury 14 pollution in Pennsylvania. 15 Mercury hot spots are those areas with 16 mercury deposition higher than in surrounding area and 17 there is both sufficient evidence that hot spots exist 18 and that coal-fired power plants create hot spots in 19 nearby communities. It follows that the communities 20 near or in a mercury hot spot will face an increased 21 public health threat due to increased mercury levels. 22 Countering the claim by some that global 23 deposition accounts for most of our mercury pollution 24 problem, many studies suggest that in places where 25 there are large local sources of mercury pollution, 19 01 some sources account for 50 to 80 percent of mercury 02 deposition. A 2003 study by Environmental Defense 03 that examined EPA modeling data found that over 50 04 percent of the mercury deposition in Pennsylvania hot 05 spots was due to local sources. Perhaps most 06 significantly, initial results from an ongoing EPA 07 study showed that 67 percent of the mercury in rain 08 collected at a monitoring site in Steubenville, Ohio 09 originated from coal-burning power plants within 400 10 miles of the site. Studies have also shown that when 11 mercury emissions are reduced from a source, the 12 surrounding environment shows lower mercury levels. 13 Specifically, a 2003 study found that the levels of 14 mercury found in large mouth bass and other wildlife 15 in the Everglades have declined about 80 percent since 16 state and federal agencies required municipal and 17 medical waste incinerators to cut their mercury 18 emissions. More recently, mercury levels in 19 Massachusetts fish from lakes near a cluster of 20 incinerators were found to have dropped by over 30 21 percent since Massachusetts enacted strict mercury 22 pollution standards seven years ago for the nearby 23 incinerators. 24 The threat of hot spots means that the 25 communities surrounding Pennsylvania's coal-fired 20 01 power plants and even those up to 400 miles away from 02 a power plant are at an increased risk of high mercury 03 levels in their environment. For this reason the 04 environmental and public health communities have 05 strongly opposed the mercury trading program put forth 06 by the Bush administration in its so-called Clean Air 07 Mercury Rule. In this trading program, power plants 08 can avoid reducing their mercury emissions 09 significantly by buying credits from other plants in 10 different locations. It is largely because of the 11 Bush administration's mercury policy allowing for 12 mercury trading that PennEnvironment supports DEP's 13 proposed Mercury Reduction Rule as it is a state level 14 Mercury Rule for Pennsylvania's coal-fired power 15 plants that does not allow for mercury trading. 16 In conclusion, given the serious 17 environmental and public health threat posed by 18 mercury pollution in Pennsylvania, the availability of 19 pollution control technology is to significantly 20 reduce this mercury pollution and the Bush 21 administration's weakening of mercury protection at 22 the federal level, PennEnvironment is supportive of 23 DEP's state specific Mercury Reduction Rule to require 24 90-percent mercury reduction from Pennsylvania's 25 coal-fired power plants by 2015 without mercury 21 01 trading. Thank you again for the opportunity to 02 testify today. 03 CHAIR MANFREDI: 04 Thank you, Mr. Wilcox. Next testifier, 05 Lionel Ruberg? 06 MR. RUBERG: 07 Good afternoon. I am Lionel Ruberg. I 08 live at Penn's Wood Village, a continuing care 09 community, 1382 Newtown Langhorne Road in Newtown, 10 Pennsylvania. I am a volunteer for the Bucks County 11 Group of the Sierra Club, the oldest environmental 12 organization in the United States. I appreciate an 13 opportunity to express the views of the Bucks County 14 Group on the proposed rulemaking Standards for 15 Contaminants: Mercury which would amend Chapter 123 of 16 the Pennsylvania Code. 17 The executive committee of the Bucks 18 County Group specifically endorses the proposed 19 standards. We are very much aware that Pennsylvania 20 suffers from mercury pollution to a worse extent than 21 all of the other states except Texas. A recent report 22 by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 23 Protection states that the 36 coal-fired power plants 24 with 78 electric generating units and 20,000 megawatts 25 of capacity accounted for approximately 3/4s of the 22 01 more than five tons of mercury emitted into the air in 02 the Commonwealth each year. 03 All of us older people remember the 04 tragedy of Minamata, Japan many years ago where there 05 were catastrophic effects from mercury pollution among 06 the residents of a fishing village. We should have 07 been protected from such horrors long ago. Instead, 08 we are dependant on advisories on fish consumption. 09 Warning people not to eat more than two meals of fish 10 per month from specific locations is not nearly good 11 enough. 12 A particularly unfortunate characteristic 13 of mercury pollution is that it tends to concentrate 14 in areas close to its sources, such as power plants. 15 This means that even if the average level of 16 contamination is not excessive overall, it may be very 17 dangerous in specific locations. Therefore, the cap 18 and trade provisions of the federal Clean Air Mercury 19 Rule, CAMR, which might be appropriate and effective 20 for some widely dispersed pollutants such as carbon 21 dioxide, are not acceptable for mercury. Furthermore, 22 since Pennsylvania and 15 other states have a legal 23 action against the Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule, 24 there is great danger that the success of this action 25 could leave the population with no protection at all 23 01 if no state anti-pollution controls are available. 02 We cannot accept the argument that the 03 proposed Standards for Contaminants: Mercury Rule 04 would be too expensive for the consumers of 05 electricity from coal-fired plants. It is absurd to 06 sacrifice the health of the population in order to 07 save about one dollar per month per household in 08 increased electricity charges. Now that there is 09 competition among the various providers of 10 electricity, the cost might not even be that much. 11 I read just this morning this following 12 bit of data, an estimated 300,000 babies are born each 13 year in the United States with dangerous levels of the 14 toxic metal mercury which is linked to learning 15 disabilities and lowers IQs. The resulting loss of 16 adult productivity, according to a recent study by 17 researchers from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine 18 and Harvard Medical School costs the nation 8.7 19 billion dollars, that's billion with a B, annually. 20 An addition to deleterious effect of the 21 Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule is that it makes it 22 more attractive for power plants to use coal mined in 23 western states since it discriminates against 24 bituminous coal. Pennsylvania's proposed standards, 25 on the other hand, treat bituminous and sub-bituminous 24 01 coal equally. Since it is cheaper to remove mercury 02 from bituminous coal, Pennsylvania's own industries 03 will be favored by the Pennsylvania standards. 04 We hope every regulator and legislator 05 who will determine the structure of limitations on 06 mercury pollution will make decisions as though the 07 children and pregnant women in his or her own family 08 are threatened by this terrible pollutant. The 09 undeniable fact is that they are. Thank you for 10 considering the views of Sierra Club, Bucks County 11 Group. 12 CHAIR MANFREDI: 13 Thank you, Mr. Ruberg. Next to testify 14 is Joy Bergey, Center for the Celebration of Creation. 15 MS. BERGEY: 16 My name is Joy Bergey and I speak on 17 behalf of the Center for the Celebration of Creation 18 located at 8814 Germantown Avenue in Philadelphia. We 19 work with people of faith on issues of ecological 20 injustice and threats to God's creation and have been 21 doing this since 1991. 22 Mercury is a proven neurotoxin. It 23 threatens the health of fetuses, infants, children and 24 even adults. One out of every six children in this 25 country is born with unsafe levels of mercury in their 25 01 bloodstream before they take their first breath. How 02 can we tolerate this? 03 We're the second worst state in the 04 country in terms of mercury pollution. Pennsylvania 05 is home to many aging coal-fired power plants that 06 generate high levels of mercury pollution creating hot 07 spots of contamination at and around these facilities. 08 Our power plants are responsible for 83 percent of the 09 state's mercury emissions. The trading system 10 proposed in the federal rule means that the situation 11 in Pennsylvania could remain unchanged. Pennsylvania 12 facilities could continue to pollute at their current 13 high levels by purchasing credits from facilities 14 elsewhere that have surpassed the federal mercury 15 standard. Also of concern is that the federal rule 16 would delay significant action for two decades, a 17 delay that is unconscionable in light of what we know 18 about the harmful effects of mercury. 19 The biblical mandate is clear, in Genesis 20 Chapter Two, God tells us to tend and till the garden. 21 It's our responsibility to care for the glorious gift 22 of creation that God has given us. We have the 23 technology to address the problem and it's affordable. 24 There is no moral justification for us not to 25 implement the mercury standards proposed by the 26 01 Department of Environmental Protection. If the 02 federal government won't act to keep our children safe 03 and healthy, then we in Pennsylvania must. 04 Pennsylvania needs a state-specific 05 mercury rule and we need it now. We cannot allow 06 trading of mercury emissions as a way to lower overall 07 emissions because a trading system will allow mercury 08 hot spots to continue to grow. And we need greater 09 control of mercury pollution faster than the federal 10 regulation would require. 11 The Center for the Celebration of 12 Creation supports DEP's proposed mercury rule, a rule 13 that would have a real impact on decreasing mercury 14 levels in Pennsylvania. Thank you. 15 CHAIR MANFREDI: 16 Thank you, Ms. Bergey. Next commenter is 17 Christine Knapp. 18 MS. KNAPP: 19 Good afternoon. My name is Christine 20 Knapp, K-N-A-P-P. I'm an eastern Pennsylvania 21 outreach coordinator for Citizens for Pennsylvania's 22 Future, also known as PennFuture. We're located at 23 1518 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA 24 19102. 25 On behalf of PennFuture, I would like to 27 01 express my strong support for the Pennsylvania DEP's 02 proposed rulemaking standards for contaminants for 03 mercury which would amend Chapter 123 of the 04 Pennsylvania Code. 05 Almost two years ago, PennFuture, along 06 with other environmental, labor, sporting and women's 07 rights groups, filed a petition with DEP asking the 08 state to begin regulating toxic mercury emissions from 09 power plants. We did so because Pennsylvania ranked 10 second in the nation for mercury pollution to the air 11 and because its harmful effects are harming our health 12 and our economy. 13 One in six women of child-bearing age 14 have enough mercury in her blood to cause brain damage 15 in developing fetuses or nursing children. To protect 16 their health, Pennsylvanians are cautioned about how 17 much fish they can consume. In addition, mercury 18 contamination affects Pennsylvania's economy as it 19 negatively impacts our water-based tourism, tourism 20 that generates millions of dollars a year for the 21 Commonwealth. 22 It seems that everyone is in agreement 23 that mercury poses a serious threat to the health and 24 well-being of our state, but what is the best plan for 25 reducing emissions? The DEP proposed rule has several 28 01 advantages over the federal rule. The federal rule 02 relies on a trading program that allows power plants 03 to purchase credits from other plants rather than 04 reduce their emissions. Pennsylvania's power plants 05 are known for buying credits rather than reducing 06 emissions when given the option. So it's hard for us 07 to determine how much of a reduction we will actually 08 see here in our state. Why should our power plants 09 spend their money to clean up facilities in other 10 states? The Pennsylvania rule would make sure that 11 power plants spend money to clean up plants here 12 rather than emissions in other states. 13 The federal rule claims it will reduce 14 emissions by 86 percent. However, the Congressional 15 Research Services has concluded that the federal rule 16 can't deliver on this promise because of the trading 17 program, but instead would at best deliver a 18 70-percent reduction and not until 2030. In 19 comparison, the Pennsylvania rule will guarantee a 90 20 percent reduction by 2015 ensuring that all plants 21 comply right away. 22 Opponents of the rule are using scare 23 tactics, warning people that some power plants may 24 have to close down and that their utility bills will 25 increase. These accusations are silly. Like a fully 29 01 paid home mortgage, capital costs for power plants 02 have been paid off. They produce electricity that 03 costs far below the wholesale price of electricity 04 which more and more frequently is set by the cost of 05 gas-fired plants. A National Wildlife Foundation 06 report estimated the average customer would see an 07 increase of just $1.08 a month on their electric 08 bills. This is hardly an amount that's going to break 09 anyone's bank. 10 On a personal non-scientific note, my 11 sister just gave birth to a baby girl on May 3rd. 12 During her pregnancy, my sister decided to almost 13 eliminate fish from her diet completely because she 14 was concerned about mercury poisoning her growing 15 baby. I think it's a shame that my sister and my 16 niece were both deprived of the nutritional values of 17 fish because of the presence of mercury. 18 Faced with a problem as serious as 19 mercury pollution is, we must implement the strongest 20 rule that cleans up the most mercury in the fastest 21 amount of time. The Pennsylvania rule is the clear 22 choice and I urge the Environmental Quality Board to 23 move the proposal forward so it can be implemented as 24 quickly as possible. Thank you. 25 CHAIR MANFREDI: 30 01 Thank you, Ms. Knapp. Next commenter is 02 Gene Barr, vice president of Regulatory and Political 03 Affairs, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and 04 Industry. 05 MR. BARR: 06 Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Gene 07 Barr, vice president of Political and Regulatory 08 Affairs for the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and 09 Industry. Address is 417 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, 10 PA 17101. 11 The Chamber's the largest broad-based 12 business advocacy group in Pennsylvania and we 13 represent everyone from the people who make energy to 14 the people who use it. So it's good to be here in 15 front of a friendly audience here this afternoon. 16 As Senator Williams said earlier, I'm not 17 from Harrisburg, I'm from this area originally and I 18 can recall I grew up in Chester. Those of you 19 familiar with that area can remember what that place 20 looked like a few years ago. And for those of you in 21 the room old enough to remember taking the ferry over 22 when there was no Commodore Barry Bridge, you could 23 see the state of the Delaware River at that point. My 24 point in saying that is we've made significant 25 progress. We do have more progress that we need to 31 01 make on various kinds of pollutants. The important 02 thing is that we're making them. 03 The other important thing to talk about 04 when we talk about the mercury debate is this is not a 05 debate about whether or not we will reduce mercury. 06 Mercury will go down. It has gone down. US EPA 07 numbers show that there have been pretty significant 08 reductions here in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. What's 09 interesting is those reductions have not even been 10 picked up on the monitors in places in certain areas, 11 which leads to a couple of interesting thoughts. 12 Either these emissions are not a significant part of 13 where we are anyway or where is the rest of the 14 mercury coming from? 15 A couple of other things that often get 16 lost in the debate. First off, about half of the 17 mercury emissions in the world, including the U.S., 18 are from natural sources, volcanoes, geysers, 19 underground fissures and so forth. And it's also 20 important to recall and to remember that the U.S. is 21 the only country in the world to regulate power plant 22 emissions. 23 And finally an interesting point, those 24 of you --- many of you in the room went through this. 25 I see a couple of familiar faces. We went through the 32 01 mercury stakeholder group and I was part of that as 02 well. It's a great educational process learning about 03 mercury, where it is, where we stand on mercury in the 04 environment here in the U.S. And one of the things 05 that I found in terms of that, in terms of doing some 06 additional reading, was that when we examine through 07 archaeological work and other types of activities, 08 mummified human remains from 800 years ago have higher 09 mercury levels than people today. Which leads again 10 to some interesting thoughts. Where is the mercury? 11 Where is it coming from? 12 A couple of other things to talk about 13 because it is critical to talk about the health side. 14 We're all obviously interested in that. We all want 15 to reduce whatever kinds of risks are out there. But 16 in talking about the action levels for fish and other 17 type things has already been noticed. This is where 18 the concern is. The FDA has said, this is a quote 19 from the FDA, the action level quote, was established 20 to limit consumers' methylmercury exposure to levels 21 ten times lower than the lowest levels associated with 22 adverse effects. 23 There have already been a couple of 24 comments made about how many women and children are 25 exposed. I think we have to talk about that a little 33 01 bit because our concern is that that is being 02 misinterpreted. A lot of it is being said that the 03 CDC said this, Centers for Disease Control did the 04 most far-reaching survey that anyone has done. They 05 announced it in terms of measuring the blood level of 06 thousands of residents, citizens of the United States. 07 This is what the CDC said just a year ago which is the 08 most recent announcement. I want to quote from it 09 rather than give you my interpretation. This is what 10 the Centers for Disease Control said about mercury, 11 quote, mercury exposure is particularly important to 12 women of child bearing age because mercury levels 13 above 58 micrograms are associated with 14 neurodevelopmental effects in the fetus. Our exposure 15 reports that no women in the survey had mercury levels 16 that approached this concentration, but we do see that 17 a small percentage of women, about 5.7 percent of 18 women, had levels within a factor of ten of what has 19 been defined as the health threshold effect. CDC also 20 said that merely finding a measurable level of 21 contaminant in blood did not mean that it would cause 22 adverse health effects. 23 And I think what's important to think 24 about is the fact, yes, mercury is a neurotoxin. 25 Relatively small levels of mercury can cause problems. 34 01 The good thing is, and I think the good news is, we 02 don't find people with those levels in their blood. 03 There was a comment made about Minamata. 04 And there were two horrific incidents, Minamata and 05 Iran. Minamata was due to direct discharge into a bay 06 where people ate the fish. Iran was due to, as I 07 recall, contaminated feed grain used that was 08 contaminated with mercury, which is totally different, 09 so those are not issues in our view that we believe we 10 need to be concerned about. 11 A couple of other health sides. Dr. Jack 12 Snyder, who's the former staff toxicologist at 13 Jefferson Medical College and Hospital and he also was 14 the advisor to the Philadelphia Police and Fire on 15 toxic issues, he testified at a Senate hearing about 16 two months ago. This is a quote from him, the 17 legislature has not been provided credible evidence 18 supporting speculation that any women, children or 19 fetuses have been harmed or have been placed at 20 increased risk of harm as a result of eating fish 21 obtained from bodies of water in PA or other parts of 22 the U.S. One other quote, Dr. Harold Koenig, the 23 former Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy recently 24 stated that quote, no U.S. women or children are being 25 exposed to unsafe levels of mercury through fish 35 01 consumption. 02 One of the interesting studies that's out 03 there and unfortunately doesn't get cited enough was a 04 recently completed study of the Seychelles Islands, 05 long-term, exhaustive study of women and children in 06 Seychelles. These are women who ate significantly 07 more fish, 10 times perhaps, 10 to 20 times as 08 American women. The findings were that there were no 09 adverse impacts on the children from the diet that 10 these women had. In fact, the researchers expressed 11 surprise about this because they went in expecting to 12 find this, University of Rochester. They said they 13 were shocked by this because they anticipated finding 14 adverse health, neurodelevopmental and neurological 15 effects. They did not find it. Their conclusion is 16 that either the levels of mercury have been set too 17 low in terms of the action levels or that eating fish 18 --- the benefits of eating fish outweigh whatever 19 minimal risks there are in terms of mercury exposure. 20 And the other thing, I'm not a doctor, 21 I'm not a health professional, but when I think about 22 it from a common sense perspective and I look at this 23 and yes, I understand that levels of mercury can have 24 impacts on children --- as I said, fortunately we 25 don't have those levels in the U.S. and we are 36 01 dropping them still. But if you think about countries 02 where the levels of fish consumption are much higher 03 than us, for example Japan, you would expect that 04 those neurological effects would be evident. They are 05 not. In fact, Japanese children typically out-perform 06 American children on standardized testing, even though 07 their blood levels are significantly higher than U.S. 08 children. 09 The other one, there's a Faroe Islands 10 study. I'll just mention that really is one that is 11 very difficult to use because it's contaminated by the 12 fact the women in this study ate pilot whale along 13 with PCBs which had contaminated the whale. So any 14 studies based on Faroe Islands from our perspective 15 are erroneous and should, to a large degree, be 16 discounted. 17 The other things I think we have to talk 18 about in terms of health effects are what health 19 problems we are having when we drive people away from 20 eating fish, when we unnecessarily scare them from 21 eating fish. And if you read the American Heart 22 Association advisories they still advise people to eat 23 fish because they believe that the Omega acids, the 24 fatty acids in fish, are a great source of various 25 kinds of nutrients and other type things necessary for 37 01 all U.S. citizens and all human beings. 02 One other thing that we'll talk about is 03 the fact that, from our perspective, Executive Order 04 One of 1996 is still in place here in Pennsylvania. 05 That order said that Pennsylvania shall establish 06 regulations that are no more stringent than federal 07 unless there's a compelling state reason. Having sat 08 through all of the mercury stakeholders, I can tell 09 you that at this point in our view there is no 10 compelling state reason for state regulations because 11 of concerns which I'll get into in just a moment. 12 There's no evidence of hot spots from 13 what we can see. We had extensive study done on that. 14 There is none. In fact, the study that's most often 15 cited by supporters who claim that there are hot spots 16 say that the hot spots were 400 miles. 400 miles is 17 the length of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So if 18 everything is a hot spot then perhaps nothing is a hot 19 spot. 20 I'll tell you briefly about the other 21 reasons why we are here. 22 CHAIR MANFREDI: 23 Excuse me, Mr. Barr? 24 MR. BARR: 25 Yes? 38 01 CHAIR MANFREDI: 02 One minute. 03 MR. BARR: 04 I will wrap up. In terms of reliability, 05 we're not the only ones that have said we're concerned 06 about electrical reliability, Chairman of the PUC said 07 it. He's concerned about the reliability of 08 Pennsylvania's electric grid if we pass this DEP 09 proposal. Also PJM, which manages the grid, said 10 similar things. 11 We're also here for costs. Our 12 manufacturers, many of whom energy costs are 50 to 60 13 percent of their total operating costs. Having 14 increases in energy is a huge issue for us and yes, we 15 do function energy costs and energy suppliers in a 16 competitive market, which is why we have to be very 17 careful about putting costs that have no real benefit. 18 Ohio has just decided to follow the 19 national program. I put that out. Why cap and trade 20 makes sense is because it's worked with other 21 pollutants, including lead. There's only two ways to 22 generate credits. You either do early reductions or 23 you do reductions above and beyond what you're 24 required. And keep in mind, the Pennsylvania's air 25 today was the midwest's air yesterday and further west 39 01 beyond that. So those credits or those pollution 02 contaminants do carry and certainly global. 03 The coalition opposing this is Business 04 and Labor and thank you for your time. 05 CHAIR MANFREDI: 06 Thank you, Mr. Barr. The next to comment 07 is Chris Milani. 08 MR. MILANI: 09 My name's Chris Milani. I live at 36 10 Simpson Road in Ardmore, Pennsylvania. 11 As the father of three young children, 12 this issue is of great importance to me. I've been 13 blessed with a very healthy family. My children do 14 not have any learning disabilities or developmental 15 disorders. I can only imagine the frustration and the 16 pain of a parent of a child with such a problem, 17 especially when I know that there is so much more we 18 can do as a society to minimize these problems. 19 Mercury is one area where the solution is very 20 achievable. 21 I think too often we get into deep 22 debates about mercury-related details and facts. 23 Let's keep it simple. Let's eliminate the noise. 24 Mercury is a poison, it's a neurotoxin. Its victims 25 are usually helpless newborn babies and young 40 01 children. Why do we continue to pump mercury into the 02 air when we know how to clean it up at a very 03 reasonable cost? Why is any mercury pumped into the 04 air acceptable? It's a neurotoxin, let's eliminate 05 it. Let's not worry about what it's doing here, what 06 it's doing there. It shouldn't be out there. We can 07 eliminate it and we should. How can our President and 08 so many U.S. Congressman and Senators tell us how much 09 to care about protecting the lives of the unborn and 10 then allow power plants to continue to pump this 11 poison for another 20 years? We know the answer, it's 12 all political rhetoric. If they truly cared about the 13 unborn, if they truly cared about my children and 14 about your children and about the children of this 15 state and this country, something real would be done 16 about mercury now on a federal level. But that's not 17 going to happen. So I'm thrilled that some of my 18 state officials actually seem to care about the health 19 of their constituents. 20 The Pennsylvania DEP has proposed an 21 aggressive plan to clean up mercury in Pennsylvania. 22 I fully support this plan and will be extremely angry 23 if it does not go forward. The power generating 24 industry claims the costs are too high. Lost jobs 25 from more expensive electricity. My understanding is 41 01 that the cost is extremely low, $1.08 per month per 02 household. What is the cost of delaying? How many 03 more kids will end up with disabilities as more 04 mercury accumulates in our environment? 05 And what about this claim about lost jobs 06 because of this $1.08 per month? It doesn't make 07 sense to me. I'm not an economist, but I can look at 08 history and see what happens when industry doesn't 09 change, doesn't modernize and doesn't innovate. How 10 many people have lost their jobs in the auto and steel 11 industry because U.S. companies rested on their 12 laurels and failed to stay ahead of the curve? The 13 way to save jobs, if you want to save jobs, is to 14 invest in the future and to modernize. Cleaning up 15 mercury emissions from coal-burning plants now is one 16 step in this process. If we really want to save jobs, 17 make the PA coal-burning plants modernize now. Don't 18 let them rape Pennsylvania workers and the environment 19 only to move somewhere else five to ten years down the 20 road when their old polluting plant isn't worth it 21 anymore. 22 Pennsylvania needs to do what's right for 23 everyone, clean up the mercury now. Pass the proposed 24 DEP Mercury Regulation without emissions trading. 25 Thank you. 42 01 CHAIR MANFREDI: 02 Thank you, Mr. Milani. Next commenter is 03 Debra Devries. 04 MS. DEVRIES: 05 Hello, I'm Debra Devries. And I'm 06 reading a statement from Sister Janice McGrane of 110 07 West Wissahickon Avenue of Flourtown. Sister Janice 08 cannot be here today because of medical reasons. 09 I thank you for the opportunity to 10 testify. Unfortunately, I'm unable to testify today 11 in person. 12 I am Roman Catholic nun who is extremely 13 concerned about the deleterious effects on human 14 beings and God's earth from the dangerous toxin 15 mercury. I urge our state to do the morally 16 responsible thing and vote to implement the 17 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's 18 plan to rid our fish and waterways of mercury. 19 This is more than an environmental issue, 20 a political issue or a fiscal issue. It is a moral 21 issue that involves protecting people, especially 22 young children, from a toxic substance that causes 23 significant developmental disabilities. Public health 24 and safety are at stake here. 25 The Catholic Church has a clear and 43 01 consistent environmental ethic. The late Pope John 02 Paul II's extensive environmental writings make clear 03 that the Church views protecting the environment as a 04 moral imperative. 05 One has to look no further than the 06 writings of the late John Paul II. He stated in his 07 1995 encyclical Envangelium Vitae, the dominion 08 granted by the Creator is not an absolute power. The 09 Pope debunks the notion that God's creation can be 10 freely exploited and wasted by humans at will. He 11 makes clear that the dominion of the Book of Genesis 12 means that all people are to be stewards of life 13 sustaining resources. Clearly mercury is a detriment 14 to human life. 15 It saddens me that our wonderful State of 16 Pennsylvania has the unhappy distinction of ranking 17 second in the country in mercury emissions. The State 18 Department of Environmental Protection has advised 19 pregnant women to severely limit their intake of fish 20 due to high mercury content. Consumer Reports 21 magazine has recently issued the same warning. 22 I pray that the sensible plan proposed by 23 the Department of Environmental Protection to reduce 24 mercury emissions from power plants by 90 percent by 25 2015 will be implemented. And we must not allow the 44 01 trading of mercury emissions which would allow 02 particularly dirty power plants to continue the 03 unabated spewing of mercury. Opponents of the state 04 plan support the much weaker federal standard which 05 would not become effective until 2018. As a young 06 mother recently pointed out, another entire generation 07 of children will have been exposed to mercury by that 08 time if we don't act in Pennsylvania. 09 A recent poll shows that Pennsylvanians 10 want mercury out of their food, water and air and they 11 appear willing to pay for it. Four out of five 12 Pennsylvanians say they would pay the estimated one 13 dollar monthly increase on their electric bill to make 14 their children safer. Certainly we must rely on coal 15 for our energy needs, but we must also implement the 16 available technology to remove the mercury from 17 Pennsylvania's smoke stacks and make that energy safe. 18 Lifting the lens of faith to our present 19 environmental crisis invites every person who benefits 20 from the abundance of God's creation to also share in 21 the responsibility to be stewards of God's creation, 22 not only because God made the earth and saw that it 23 was good, as the Book of Genesis tells us, but because 24 our very existence depends on our protecting our 25 planet. Sensible regulation of mercury is a big step 45 01 in the right direction. 02 CHAIR MANFREDI: 03 Than you, Ms. Devries. Next commenter is 04 Reverend Linda Noonan, Chestnut Hill United Methodist 05 Church. 06 REVEREND NOONAN: 07 I'm Reverend Linda Noonan and I am 08 co-pastor of the Chestnut Hill United Methodist Church 09 which is located at 8812 Germantown Avenue, 10 Philadelphia, 19118. I speak today on behalf of my 11 congregation. 12 It has long been known that mercury 13 contamination threatens the health of all citizens, 14 but we understand that the risk is greatest for some 15 of our most vulnerable citizens, particularly 16 expectant mothers and children. The impact on babies 17 and young children are especially profound. Child 18 welfare colleagues have said that exposure to even 19 small amounts of mercury can affect the way children 20 learn, think, memorize and behave. And the U.S. 21 Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the 22 mercury level in one of every six women of child 23 bearing age is unsafe for a developing child. We 24 cannot afford to risk the health of our mothers and 25 children. 46 01 Psalm 24 says the earth is God's and all 02 that's in it, the world and those who live in it. 03 These words are a reminder and a call to all who 04 believe that the earth, this magnificent creation, 05 does not belong to us, but to God. As humans created 06 in God's image and who share this fragile planet with 07 all of God's creation, we bear a responsibility for 08 its stewardship. The earth is not ours. We are 09 merely caretakers charged by God to preserve its 10 beauty and ensure its sustainability. 11 We believe that a healthy society is the 12 well being and a priority of all. We believe that we 13 are to love God and to love our neighbors. Healthy 14 persons and communities grow and flourish when society 15 creates a safe environment that does not pose risks 16 for any of its members. 17 The pastors and members of the Chestnut 18 Hill United Methodist Church call on the Commonwealth 19 of Pennsylvania to implement the mercury rule exactly 20 as proposed by the Department of Environmental 21 Protection. We can't tolerate delays in 22 implementation that the federal rules would allow. 23 And we can't tolerate a mercury emissions trading 24 system that would allow mercury hot spots to continue. 25 The Biblical prophet Micah calls on us to 47 01 do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with God. 02 Allowing current levels of mercury pollution to 03 continue is wrong. To do justice, love mercy and walk 04 humbly, we must adopt the more rigid standards and 05 timelines proposed by the DEP. Thank you. 06 CHAIR MANFREDI: 07 Thank you, Reverend Noonan. Next 08 commenter is Robert Wendelgass. And I apologize in 09 advance if I mispronounced that. 10 MR. WENDELGASS: 11 My name is Robert Wendelgass, it's 12 W-E-N-D-E-L-G-A-S-S. And I'm the Pennsylvania State 13 Director for Clean Water Action. Our address is 100 14 North 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. And I'm 15 speaking on behalf of Clean Water Action's 80,000 16 members around the state including 50,000 here in 17 southeastern PA. 18 On their behalf, I am here to urge the 19 Environmental Quality Board to approve DEP's proposal 20 to reduce power plant mercury emissions 90 percent by 21 2015. We believe that this proposal is a balanced 22 approach that will protect public health while also 23 affording considerable flexibility to industry 24 regarding compliance. We don't believe that it'll 25 have a negative impact on business in Pennsylvania. 48 01 We do believe it will have a very positive impact on 02 public health in Pennsylvania. And we speak on behalf 03 of our members who have over the past several years 04 demonstrated extraordinary support for this issue. In 05 fact, in the past year and a half, more than 30,000 of 06 them have written letters to DEP or to their 07 legislators supporting strong action like the DEP 08 rule. 09 Some have argued and we heard one just 10 earlier that there are not health effects from mercury 11 and have discounted the studies out there on mercury. 12 The fact is that the mainstream medical consensus is 13 that mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin that harms the 14 developing brains of children. The fact is that 15 scientists believe that developmental delays, lowered 16 IQ and learning disabilities are known to be caused by 17 even very low levels of mercury exposure. It's very 18 hard to see these things because these are relatively 19 invisible effects. But to the scientific community, 20 these are accepted real facts. That's true even in 21 Pennsylvania. 22 As Senator Williams mentioned earlier, 23 almost 50 leading medical and public health 24 professionals from Pennsylvania signed a letter to 25 their legislature earlier this year supporting DEP's 49 01 proposed regulation and opposing legislation that 02 would have blocked that rule from moving forward. 03 They made several comments in their letter that I 04 think are worth repeating. First they said mercury 05 threatens our health and the healthy development of 06 our children. Second, and I think this is the most 07 important thing they said, they said Pennsylvanians 08 are exposed to methylmercury at unacceptable levels. 09 And thirdly they said Pennsylvanians need protection 10 from mercury pollution in the Commonwealth. 11 These were a number of very well-known 12 and reputable scientists and public health 13 professionals. The signers included the president of 14 the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of 15 Pediatrics, the executive administrator of the State 16 Nurses Association, the past president of the American 17 Public Health Association, the director of Community 18 and Environmental Medicine at Lancaster General 19 Hospital, the vice president for research at Magee 20 Women's Hospital in Pittsburgh, the director of the 21 Medical Toxicology Treatment Center at Allegheny 22 General Hospital and the director of the Center for 23 Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh 24 Cancer Institute. So these are well-known, reputable, 25 established scientists and health professionals saying 50 01 mercury is a danger to our children, mercury levels 02 are too high in our state, we need strong action. 03 Clean Water Action supports the federal 04 rule, as other groups have noted, because a state rule 05 --- excuse me, because as other groups have noted, the 06 federal rule is inadequate. An the primary problem is 07 that the federal rule doesn't mandate that all 08 Pennsylvania power plants make emission reductions. 09 Because of the trading provisions in the federal rule, 10 Pennsylvania plants can buy their way out of having to 11 do reductions. As a result, mercury emissions in some 12 parts of Pennsylvania could remain at dangerous levels 13 under the federal trading program. 14 Trading of emission credits will allow 15 for what others have referred to as mercury hot spots. 16 Companies can buy emission credits rather than 17 reducing their emissions. That's fine in an overall 18 global sense, but it doesn't protect the folks who are 19 down --- immediately or in the near distance downwind 20 from that power plant. They're still going to see 21 elevated levels of mercury emissions and that's what 22 we consider to be a hot spot. 23 And there is lots of data out there that 24 shows differences in mercury deposition. In fact, 25 we're now in an area of Pennsylvania that has an 51 01 elevated level of mercury deposition. Studies from 02 Penn State University have shown that southeastern 03 Pennsylvania, from Chester County all the way up into 04 the Lehigh Valley is an area with a higher level of 05 mercury deposition than other parts of the state. 06 The other problem as people have noted 07 with the federal rule is that the time frame is too 08 long. In large part because of the use of trading. 09 As people have noted, the Congressional Research 10 Service analysis shows that the purported 70-percent 11 national reduction would not be reached until 2025 or 12 2030. That would put another full generation of our 13 children at risk. 14 Finally, I want to just indicate that we 15 believe that a state rule will have significant 16 impacts, positive impacts for Pennsylvania's 17 environment and it is for that reason that the EQB 18 needs to move forward with this regulation. There are 19 lots of studies in other states that have shown that 20 when you reduce mercury emissions from facilities you 21 see reduced levels of mercury in wildlife adjacent to 22 those plants. Studies from Massachusetts and Florida 23 where mercury emissions from incinerators were reduced 24 have shown very clear and significant reductions of 25 mercury contamination in nearby fish. 52 01 And yes, we know that there are power 02 plants in China and even volcanoes and geysers that 03 release mercury into the atmosphere. That's true and 04 I certainly don't dispute that, but the reality is 05 that we also have a responsibility for releasing 06 mercury, that plants in Pennsylvania release mercury 07 into the environment. We can't do much about the 08 volcanoes and geysers. We can do something about the 09 power plants in Pennsylvania that are releasing 10 mercury. And that's what this rule would do. So I 11 believe we have that responsibility. 12 And finally, I think it's worth noting 13 that modeling done by the industry supported Electric 14 Power Research Institute showed that 80 percent of the 15 mercury that falls on Pennsylvania comes from domestic 16 sources. It doesn't come from China, it doesn't come 17 from geysers and volcanoes in other parts of the 18 world. Eighty (80) percent of the mercury that falls 19 in our state is generated domestically. 20 So for all these reasons, Clean Water 21 Action strongly supports DEP's proposed Mercury Rule. 22 We urge the Environmental Quality Board to move 23 forward with the rule and strongly oppose any effort 24 to allow pollution trading for mercury in 25 Pennsylvania. Thank you. 53 01 CHAIR MANFREDI: 02 Thank you, Mr. Wendelgass. Next 03 commenter is Virginia Craciun. Virginia? Next 04 commenter will be Mickie Somsanith. 05 MR. SOMSANITH: 06 Hello. I would like to thank the 07 Environmental Quality Board for providing me with an 08 opportunity to voice my concerns about mercury. I'm 09 urging the Environmental Quality Board to support the 10 stricter state-specific mercury reduction plan. 11 I'm not exactly sure how to voice my 12 concerns. Mostly everything I've heard about how 13 dangerous mercury is, is from my many local grassroots 14 organizations, which you've probably heard a lot of 15 them speak today. You probably have heard everything 16 that I know about mercury so I chose a different 17 approach. I believe that I'm pretty much an average 18 Joe kind of guy. My diet mostly consists of meat and 19 potatoes. My recent dinners are from Boston Market, 20 KFC and frozen pizzas. Last time I checked, I was 21 considered obese. I'm not sure who came up with that 22 information, I just saw it on my doctor's wall. The 23 chart says a male weighing 180 pounds and 5 feet 6 24 inches is considered obese. 25 I'm telling you this because no matter 54 01 what your decision will be to either support this 02 stricter state-specific plan or impose the weaker 03 federal regulation, most of my meals will still come 04 from fast food restaurants or ready to eat meals. 05 Sometimes I feel I don't have a choice. Why would I 06 buy a wild-caught Alaskan salmon for $24.99 a pound 07 when I could a buy a farm-raised Atlantic salmon for 08 $7.99 a pound or if it's on sale it's $4.99 a pound? 09 The supposedly healthier salmon costs about five times 10 the less healthy salmon. If Pathmark is selling it to 11 me, it must have been approved by the FDA; right? KFC 12 has this great deal of ten pieces of chicken for 13 $9.99. That's like two and a half chickens for 14 $10.00. I heard they were cooking their chicken in 15 oil that contains a very high level of trans-fat. I 16 know that's unhealthy for me, but I justify it by 17 saying I bike for over an hour a day and my system 18 will slowly get rid of it. I try to eat healthy, but 19 how many times can I eat tofu spaghetti? That is the 20 only healthy thing I know how to cook. If I try 21 something else, it's edible, but I wouldn't want to 22 eat it again. 23 Honestly, I need your help. I need you 24 to control what it's in my diet. I know that it seems 25 a bit backward, asking the government to control a 55 01 part of my life, but I'm being bombarded by so many 02 commercials and so many affordable, but unhealthy 03 meals that either I sacrifice spending money on myself 04 to ear healthier or suffer the consequences of eating 05 unhealthy. If I can eat a somewhat healthy meal and 06 still have money for myself, I'll settle. 07 I remember taking a trip down to Disney 08 World. It was my second time there. And do you know 09 what I saw? An all you can eat lobster buffet. My 10 mouth instantly started to drool. Lobsters up here 11 are $9.99 a pound. So if I can eat two pounds, I'll 12 make my money's worth. I can indulge because it's a 13 vacation. So my friends and I went to town on the 14 lobsters and I was able to stuff down five lobsters 15 before they started tasting like metal. I don't know 16 why they started to taste like metal, but they did. 17 So I stopped, but boy that was a day I will not 18 forget. 19 At that time, I had no idea that mercury 20 was accumulating in lobsters, but when I did find out, 21 I checked it on gotmercury.org. They stated that 22 their calculations are based on the EPA and FDA data. 23 So I gave them a little bit of credibility. I found 24 out what a conservative estimate of each lobster 25 weighing only one pound, I consumed 590 percent of the 56 01 EPA's limit. Now I guess that one lobster is over 100 02 percent of the EPA's limit. Now I know that my 03 cholesterol probably spiked for a couple of months 04 after that, but with a good diet and some exercise, I 05 can reduce it. 06 I'm not sure what I can do about the 07 mercury because it has a nasty habit of accumulating 08 in my body. I didn't hear anything about sweating it 09 out or just letting it pass naturally. So hopefully 10 my body got rid of it somehow. I've learned my 11 lesson, but if there was a way that my body could get 12 rid of the mercury toxins, I'll probably eat at that 13 buffet again. 14 Well, I hope that this was a change of 15 pace for you and it gives you an insight that 16 sometimes us average Joes, we do not always do what's 17 in our best interest. I urge you to support the 18 stricter state specific plan because we need you to 19 help us live a healthier life. By having a stricter 20 state specific plan, I will probably live a longer 21 life, even with my unhealthy eating habits. Thank you 22 for letting me live a little bit longer. 23 I also want to add, because I didn't hear 24 this from previous speakers, is that the mercury 25 that's coming out of our coal power plants and like 57 01 volcanoes and geysers that are naturally occurring in 02 the environment is mercury the element. What happens 03 with that element is once it goes into the seed, is 04 the bacteria that's in there converts it into a 05 dimethylmercury which is even much more toxic than the 06 mercury element. 07 CHAIR MANFREDI: 08 Thank you. I would like to remind people 09 who come to the podium please state your name, your 10 address and affiliation if any when presenting your 11 testimony. The next commenter is Patricia Lomden. 12 MS. LOMDEN: 13 Hello. My name is Patricia Lomden and 14 I'm from the Art Museum Area of Philadelphia, 2940 15 Cambridge Street, ZIP code 19130. 16 First I want to say thank you so much for 17 allowing me to testify at this hearing today. Mercury 18 pollution affects women my age, I'm 21. And it 19 affects our children and our future children. And 20 because of this fact, I support the Department of 21 Environmental Protection's state specific Mercury 22 Reduction Rule which would cut mercury pollution from 23 Pennsylvania's coal-fired power plants 90 percent by 24 2015. Thank you once again. 25 CHAIR MANFREDI: 58 01 Thank you, Ms. Lomden. Next commenter is 02 William Brainerd. 03 MR. BRAINERD: 04 Bill Brainerd, 991 Palmersville Road, 05 Media, PA, Delaware County. I support the EQB's 06 Mercury Rule. 07 On some things in the mercury literature, 08 there seems to be general agreement. One, mercury is 09 toxic, especially for kids. Two, many women of child 10 bearing age, seven percent by one estimate, have too 11 much of it. Three, Pennsylvania coal-burning power 12 plants emit a lot of it, 6,783 pounds in 2003 13 according to the EPA. Four, most mercury that we find 14 in the ground comes from local sources, a point well 15 made by the previous speaker. And it doesn't blow in 16 from overseas or blow, I'm going to say, to New 17 Jersey. It deposits here. And five, we get mercury 18 through fish, by eating fish. 19 These facts make me sympathize with power 20 plant owners, members of the IBEW, coal miners and all 21 the other interests that have been fighting extremely 22 rigorously against this bill. I know, having made 23 perhaps a 1,000 phone calls on it so far. These 24 opponents complain with justification that the only 25 people who benefit from this rule are young women who 59 01 eat a lot of Pennsylvania fish. There can't be many 02 of them, they say, because everyone here knows you're 03 not supposed to eat fish caught in this state. 04 Pennsylvania women get their mercury, they say, not 05 from local, but from out-of-state fish, fresh or 06 canned. And these fish will stay high in mercury with 07 or without a Pennsylvania rule. I wouldn't be 08 surprised if the Pennsylvania Coal Association, PCA, 09 and the Electric Power Generation Association, EPGA, 10 offered to hire Fish and Boat Commission officers 11 whose sole job would be to cruise the lakes and tell 12 people, especially young women, not to eat what they 13 catch. It might be cheaper than cleaning up their 14 power plants. 15 I still support the Mercury Rule. I 16 suspect more young women eat Pennsylvania fish than 17 power plant owners will allow. No fish advisory 18 reaches everyone even though I think they extend to 19 almost every body of water in the state. Some women 20 are poor and fish are free. Eating the day's catch 21 may be a tradition to break with which would take away 22 some of the pleasure of fishing. And fish, especially 23 their Omega-3 fatty acids, as the man from the Chamber 24 of Commerce wisely said, are said to be good for you. 25 The National Wildlife Federation says mercury hurts 60 01 reproduction of birds, especially fish eaters like 02 hawks and loons, river otters, recently reintroduced 03 into Pennsylvania with great success. Fish --- 04 whales, fish and the Florida panther, among other 05 animals. 06 Power plants must install mercury 07 specific controls by 2018. Until then, they can rely 08 on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide controls that 09 also happen to remove mercury as a co-benefit. But 10 these controls cannot meet, as the EPA admits, the 15 11 ton cap to be set on nationwide mercury emissions by 12 2018. As George Ellis of PCA says, the main problem 13 with this EQB Rule is merely timing. Equipment that 14 has to be installed someday will simply have to be 15 installed sooner. The coal burners don't like that. 16 However, postponing the inevitable seems unnecessarily 17 to risk public health. 18 It is true a tough Pennsylvania Mercury 19 Rule could cause some power plants to burn less 20 Pennsylvania coal because of its high mercury content 21 leading to layoffs of coal miners. But relatively few 22 jobs are likely to be lost because coal mining already 23 is mechanized and Pennsylvania coal is high in 24 chlorine as well as mercury. Chlorine either reacts 25 with or helps to oxidize mercury, making mercury 61 01 itself easier to remove because methylmercury or 02 oxidized mercury is water soluble. And SO2 wet 03 scrubbers will take it out along with sulfur dioxide. 04 Thus, Pennsylvania coal will not be neglected by all 05 users because its mercury content actually can be 06 reduced more easily than in non-Pennsylvania coals. 07 Finally, I don't want to seem insensitive 08 to the layoffs and brownouts that could follow 09 adoption of the EQB Rule. But the public at large may 10 benefit. With less mercury in fish, there may be 11 fewer kids with mental retardation and autism. Our 12 sport fishing industry may prosper. With fewer old 13 coal-burning power plants, the air will be cleaner, 14 there will be fewer trips to the emergency room for 15 breathing problems. And free from acid rain, more 16 trees will regenerate. With less coal mining, the 17 curse of longwall may partly be lifted. 18 CHAIR MANFREDI: 19 Thank you, Mr. Brainerd. Next commenter 20 is Anastasia Bannikovia. 21 MS. BANNIKOVIA: 22 Hello and thank you. My name is 23 Anastasia Bannikovia and I live on East --- I'm sorry, 24 I'm forgetting my own address. East Butler Avenue 23, 25 Ambler, Pennsylvania, ZIP code 19002. And I'm here to 62 01 support Governor Rendell's proposal to cut mercury 02 pollution in Pennsylvania's rivers and streams by 03 2015. 04 Pennsylvania coal mining and burning 05 industry, as we know, causes most of the mercury 06 pollution in our streams and rivers. Because it's a 07 heavy metal, you all probably know now that mercury 08 settles into the tissue and gills of the fish that can 09 later be caught and eaten by people and animals. 10 Therefore, it can settle in human bodies and cause 11 various mental and physical disabilities. 12 My primary concern is about health 13 hazards that this pollution can cause for pregnant 14 women and little children. Mercury causes birth 15 defects and slows down mental development in children, 16 that includes ADD and various forms of autism. 17 While working for a non-profit group 18 called PennEnvironment, I met many families who are 19 concerned about this problem. And one family actually 20 had a child with a mild form of autism and the house 21 was full of sophisticated systems, filters and a 22 reverse osmosis water filtering systems. And they're 23 hoping to basically remove some of the mercury levels 24 in their son's body that he already has. They, of 25 course, are very concerned about their child's mental 63 01 health and the amount of mercury that's already in his 02 body. And that's why they are concerned and so am I. 03 Also being a woman myself who someday 04 will want to have healthy children, and an 05 enthusiastic fish eater, I am very concerned about the 06 current level of mercury in the water. It is a big 07 problem when our state puts an advisory not to eat 08 fish caught in our waters. And again, I urge our 09 state leaders to cut the mercury pollution. And I 10 support Governor Rendell's proposal. Thank you. 11 CHAIR MANFREDI: 12 Thank you, Ms. Bannikovia. Next 13 commenter is Tegan Costanza. 14 MS. COSTANZA: 15 Good afternoon. My name is Tegan 16 Costanza, address is 80 Petsrinmill (phonetic) Road, 17 Collegeville, 19426. I support Governor Rendell's 18 proposed mercury protection for our waterways which 19 will cut the mercury pollution from our coal-fired 20 power plants by 90 percent by the year 2015. I've 21 lived in Collegeville along the Perkiomen Creek for 22 all 20 years of my life. Unfortunately, I've never 23 been able to take full advantage of the many 24 recreational activities the river has the potential to 25 provide, due to the low quality and cleanliness of the 64 01 water. In particular, I have never been inclined to 02 eat the fish from the Perkiomen Creek due to the high 03 levels of water pollution that affect these fish. 04 One such pollutant that threatens many of 05 our state's waterways is mercury. Mercury is 06 deposited into our waterways from many sources. But 07 it is primarily emitted from our coal-fired power 08 plants. This mercury then passes through the gills of 09 the fish in these waterways, but it can not be 10 metabolized by the fish. Therefore, the mercury 11 builds up in the muscle and the tissue of the fish and 12 consequently those who consume the fish are forced to 13 take in heightened levels of mercury. 14 Consuming high levels of mercury has been 15 proven to be the cause of neurological defects in 16 young children and developing fetuses. The risk of 17 contracting such defects is so high that the 18 government has had to release advisories requesting 19 the limitation of the consumption of many fish that 20 thrive in Pennsylvania's numerous waterways. While 21 this effectively solves the problem of the over 22 consumption of mercury, it is not a complete solution. 23 This so-called pollution is problematic. And that 24 limiting fish consumption also limits the consumption 25 of other proteins and necessary nutrients that are 65 01 essential to the development of the same population it 02 intends to protect. 03 The technology exists that would allow us 04 to stop this problem at the source. Reducing mercury 05 emissions from industrial facilities has been 06 successful at reducing mercury levels in waterways in 07 other states such as Massachusetts and Florida. It is 08 important that Pennsylvania follows suit and learns 09 how to successfully protect its upcoming generation. 10 I understand that one of the main 11 concerns in supporting Governor Rendell's Mercury 12 Protection Plan is economic. Fortunately, technology 13 that would make these protections possible is less 14 expensive than some of the methods that are currently 15 used to control emissions from coal-fired power 16 plants. Furthermore, a technology manager at the 17 United States Department of Energy's National Energy 18 Technology Laboratory stated that the installation of 19 these technologies would not significantly increase 20 utility costs. 21 If these technologies and protections are 22 not instated, mercury levels in our waterways will 23 continue increasing. Increased levels of mercury in 24 our food supplies will continue to affect the 25 development in young children in more and more extreme 66 01 ways. With more children being born with 02 developmental disorders, the state will be required to 03 provide additional services for children within the 04 public school system potentially increasing taxes and 05 other fines imposed on Pennsylvanians. 06 Instating Governor Rendell's Mercury 07 Protection and ensuring that mercury levels in our 08 state waterways are controlled and our children and 09 future generations are protected is an inexpensive and 10 important task. This administration has the 11 opportunity to act upon this issue and show other 12 states how easy and effective these protections can 13 be. Please do not let this incredible opportunity 14 slip away. Thank you. 15 CHAIR MANFREDI: 16 Thank you, Ms. Costanza. Next commenter 17 is Patty Fleetwood. 18 MS. FLEETWOOD: 19 Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is 20 Patty Fleetwood. I live at 1151 Plowshare Road in 21 Blue Bell, 19422. 22 I've learned recently that existing 23 mercury regulations in Pennsylvania are not adequate 24 to protect our health. I therefore applaud the effort 25 to increase mercury regulations in the state. 67 01 I have two young girls and I'm a school 02 teacher. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising that 03 the health and safety of children is a matter of great 04 concern to me. Schools and teachers deal with all 05 sorts of challenges, including children with 06 behavioral and developmental problems. To learn that 07 mercury may be the cause of many of these problems, 08 but that our federal government is lax in controlling 09 mercury, is deeply disturbing. 10 As I understand it, we can control the 11 amount of mercury pollution relatively inexpensively. 12 I, for one, will gladly pay the estimated dollar per 13 month additional cost on my electricity bill if it 14 means less mercury pollution and healthier children. 15 I voluntarily signed up to pay a few dollars more per 16 month for wind power in my home because I understand 17 this creates far less pollution. 18 So don't think for a minute that 19 Pennsylvania citizens are not ready to do their part 20 to clean up mercury pollution, we are. The only 21 question is whether the Commonwealth is ready to do 22 its part. The federal government has let us down, so 23 the state must step in. I implore the State of 24 Pennsylvania, under your leadership, to enact a 25 mercury regulation proposed by the Department of 68 01 Environmental Protection. Thank you. 02 CHAIR MANFREDI: 03 Thank you, Ms. Fleetwood. The next 04 commenter is Dr. Jack Lebeau. 05 DR. LEBEAU: 06 My name is Jack Lebeau, I am a physician. 07 I live in Jenkintown, 722 Windale Road. I speak for 08 myself today although I'm a member of several 09 environmental groups. 10 I want to make a couple of didactic 11 points, forgive me. I like to teach so I'm going to 12 do a little medical teaching if I may. I've heard a 13 lot about blood levels of mercury today. Are we 14 really worried about that? Where's the level we're 15 worried about? Brain, hard to measure. It's very 16 hard to get ladies to give up their fetuses for brain 17 mercury measurement, you see. So I think the point 18 here is let's not be deceived when we talk about this 19 is a safe blood level. Don't talk to me about that. 20 I need to know what the brain level is because that's 21 where it's doing damage. 22 I want to quote you some statistics on 23 the financial value of some of that damage from some 24 responsible sources. Also, don't quote me national 25 statistics on mercury. Our problem is here in 69 01 Pennsylvania and in the states around us and all of us 02 need to get together and do this. 03 Another thing I'm hearing a lot about is 04 this business of emissions trading and so forth. It's 05 not entirely morally acceptable to me, but unless 06 Pennsylvania is selling and not buying emissions 07 credits, we're all in a lot of trouble. I love the 08 applause, thank you. 09 I brought something today from the New 10 York Times. This is two days ago. It's entitled 11 Study of Song Birds Finds High Levels of Toxic 12 Mercury. I've given up eating song birds so that's 13 not a problem for me. I just mentioned this to remind 14 you that we are not the only occupants of this earth 15 that we are talking about today. And it really does 16 matter to us. It turns out that the levels that 17 they're measuring, this is for real now, right now, in 18 these song birds like thrushes, this is in New York 19 state, nearby, are enough to affect their reproductive 20 capacity and cause some inhibition of reproduction. 21 Well, in turn that means all the bugs and things that 22 they kill are let loose. Such as gypsy moths and 23 things like that. I don't think probably most of us, 24 you know, adore gypsy moths. They are part of 25 creation, but we'd rather have a little natural 70 01 balance. So we're not the only creatures that are 02 affected by this. And as a physician, you know, I 03 deal with people, but let me remind you that we are 04 not alone and other animals and other creatures are 05 affected. 06 One other thing now. I have a couple of 07 other points, but let me just finish and gel something 08 I want to deliver to you. This is by a gentleman, 09 Leonardo Trasande, who's an MD and an MPP. An MPP is 10 a Master of Public Policy. He's at Mount Sinai in New 11 York with the most prestigious and informed pediatric 12 group in the country when it comes to toxic things 13 like mercury. He works with a whole group there and 14 these are world famous people. This is testimony 15 given April 19th, 2005 in the US Senate. The title is 16 Consequences of Methylmercury Toxicity for the Health 17 and Economic Security of Our Nation. Here we go. My 18 colleagues and I at Mount Sinai Medical Center for 19 Children's Health and the Environment put into 20 perspective the costs of controlling mercury emissions 21 by estimating the impact of methylmercury toxicity on 22 America's children. We found that between 316,000 and 23 637,000 children each year are born with enough 24 methylmercury to cause brain damage. Let me emphasize 25 that this impact is permanent and irreversible. Even 71 01 low levels of exposure can result in lost IQ and we 02 found that some children may suffer an IQ loss as high 03 as 24.4 IQ points. 04 Let me just pause for a second. That's 05 enough IQ points to make someone who's got a 06 successful job in industry almost unemployable; okay? 07 Or enough to make a, on the other hand, a guy who's a 08 pretty good lawyer, say a genius who maybe could save 09 the world. We can't afford that kind of loss of IQ; 10 okay? Now, to the money. 11 But there is far more on this side of the 12 scale. Methylmercury toxicity threatens our economic 13 security. Lost intelligence leads to lost economic 14 productivity and methylmercury toxicity costs our 15 nation at least $2.2 billion and as much as $43.8 16 billion each year. Mercury emitted by coal-fired 17 power plants alone costs $1.3 billion in lost economic 18 productivity each year. These costs will occur year 19 after year after year with each new birth cohort so 20 long as mercury emissions are not controlled. By 21 contrast, the costs of installing stack filters to 22 control atmospheric mercury emissions is a one-time 23 expense. Putting aside for the moment the 24 unconscionable act of exposing our children to 25 neurotoxins, the economic impact alone is startling. 72 01 Now let me finish. The birth of a new 02 generation should be attended by joy. I heard that 03 very well from a father here. It should not be a time 04 of tragedy. Let's make this go. 05 CHAIR MANFREDI: 06 Thank you, Dr. Lebeau. Next commenter is 07 Brian Zeck. 08 MR. ZECK: 09 Hello. My name is Brian. 10 Mercury pollution is a major concern here 11 in the State of Pennsylvania. Mercury is known to be 12 an extreme neurotoxin and has distinguishable effects 13 at the millionth of a gram. 14 So Pennsylvania is the second highest in 15 the nation in airborne mercury emissions. This 16 devastates the natural world and has a direct effect 17 on the human community in Pennsylvania. 18 As the State of Pennsylvania, we should 19 do everything possible to reduce our mercury 20 emissions. Modern technology is available. 21 Reductions of mercury levels is mandatory. 22 I support and urge the EQB and the IRRC 23 to approve and implement the state-specific rule to 24 reduce mercury as quickly as possible. Thank you. 25 CHAIR MANFREDI: 73 01 Thank you, Mr. Zeck. The next commenter 02 is Alex Garvey. Next commenter is Jim Black. 03 MR. BLACK: 04 Okay. Thank you. My name is Jim Black 05 and I live in Cheltenham, Pennsylvania. 06 I'm speaking to you today as a father and 07 a grandfather. I'm concerned with the legacy we leave 08 for future generations and how they will judge us. 09 Will they praise us for our foresight and courage, 10 applaud us for our vision to put long-range good 11 before short-term profit or, I fear they will curse us 12 for our profiteering, taking the rewards now and 13 leaving the consequences to them. My granddaughter, 14 Hanna, will be two years old this October. How will 15 she think of us 20 years from now? 16 I think we need at this time to make a 17 fundamental change in our decision-making process. 18 Instead of making our decisions on how this affects 19 us, we should instead look at this problem from the 20 point of view of our children's children and how it 21 will affect them. We must ask ourselves what decision 22 would they want us to make? I think I know what they 23 would want. I know they would want us to use the best 24 available control technologies. Why would we not 25 listen to them? 74 01 Years ago, we recognized the problems 02 caused by exposure to lead. Lead was removed from 03 plumbing, paint and gasoline. This has drastically 04 reduced the risk to today's children. And we were 05 able to do this without destroying our economy. Now 06 we can remove the risk of mercury as we did lead and I 07 believe it will have no more impact on our economy 08 than removing lead did. 09 Now, I remember fishing with my father 10 and my grandfather and the great joy of eating our 11 fresh caught catch cooked over a fire streamside. 12 Today, I do not dare do this with my children. 13 Something very special has been lost. My question to 14 you is this --- it's a rhetorical question as I know 15 I'm not allowed to ask any question of the panel. But 16 this is the question, will I be able to take Hanna's 17 children fishing and safely eat our catch streamside 18 here in Pennsylvania? Thank you. 19 CHAIR MANFREDI: 20 Thank you, Mr. Black. The next commenter 21 is Martha Black. 22 MS. BLACK: 23 Hello, good afternoon. Thank you for 24 letting me testify here today. My name is Martha 25 Black. I live at 312 A Central Avenue, Cheltenham, 75 01 Pennsylvania. I'll be voicing my opinion regarding 02 the mercury emission at hand from a personal 03 standpoint, as a recent high school graduate and as an 04 environmental activist. 05 I have come to realize through my 06 environmental activism that we are in jeopardy. The 07 environment is in jeopardy, our health is in jeopardy 08 and the quality of life for future generation is also 09 in jeopardy. The current mercury emissions from coal- 10 fired power plants are devastating, mostly to human 11 health, especially to the young and the very young 12 still developing inside the womb. This is the main 13 part of the population that we try to protect the 14 most. The young are still developing and we certainly 15 do not want anything to impede that crucial 16 development. So why then are we working against 17 ourselves and our values and allowing a potent 18 neurotoxin that causes serious brain defects and 19 learning disabilities to seep into our daily lives and 20 poison us? There is no reason why coal-fired power 21 plants should be allowed to do this to us. Especially 22 when the technology exists today to decrease these 23 very emissions immensely by almost 90 percent. 24 Many would argue the main problem with 25 high mercury emissions exists in contaminated fish and 76 01 so we should stop eating the fish in those 02 contaminated waterways. This is completely backwards 03 thinking. People should be able to go out fishing in 04 their local waterways and eat the fish they catch, a 05 normally very nutritious meal, without having to worry 06 if they and their children are being poisoned by a 07 neurotoxin. 08 And let's not forget about the many, many 09 people in the area who do not even speak English or at 10 least not well enough to really understand warning 11 signs at local waterways advising people not to fish 12 there due to the highly contaminated fish latent with 13 mercury. 14 It simply is not fair to anyone that 15 these power plants should be allowed to continue 16 polluting our waterways and contaminating our fish 17 simply because they don't want to spend the money to 18 do what needs to be done to protect all our health and 19 especially the health of future generations. 20 I am speaking to defend all those who 21 cannot defend themselves, newborn babies, young 22 children and even those yet to be born. We need to 23 protect our future generations, not poison them. 2026 24 or 2030, whatever the current figure is right now, is 25 simply too long to wait. We need to do something now. 77 01 We need to drastically decrease mercury emissions 02 today. I definitely am in support of the proposed 03 rulemaking standards for contaminants in mercury. 04 Please move this proposal forward. Thank you. 05 CHAIR MANFREDI: 06 Thank you, Ms. Black. The next commenter 07 is Bernard Phearson. 08 MR. PHEARSON: 09 Hello and with the respect to Ms. Black, 10 buenas tardes, good afternoon. My name is Bernard 11 Phearson. I'm the field manager of Alternative 12 Energy's Campaigns for the Clean Air Council which is 13 located at 135 South 19th Street in Philadelphia, 14 Pennsylvania. Thank you for this opportunity to 15 speak. Again, my name is Bernard Phearson. 16 I am reading this testimony on behalf of 17 the Clean Air Council, a non-profit environmental 18 organization representing over 7,500 active members. 19 A non-profit environmental organization, the Council 20 operates out of offices in Harrisburg, Philadelphia 21 and Wilmington, Delaware. Established in 1967, the 22 Clean Air Council is dedicated to protecting public 23 health by reducing pollution. We have been engaged in 24 numerous stakeholder dialogues, tasked with reducing 25 mercury pollution from a wide variety of sources, 78 01 automobile switches, thermostats and dental fillings 02 are three significant ones. 03 Of course the largest source of mercury 04 pollution in Pennsylvania is that emitted from coal- 05 fired power plants. According to the US Environmental 06 Protection Agency's most recent toxic release 07 inventory, electric utilities in Pennsylvania emitted 08 6,646 pounds of mercury into the air in 2004. That is 09 a massive amount of toxin that's impact on human 10 health is measured in the millionth of a gram level. 11 Clean Air Council was part of the Mercury Rule work 12 group that advised the state on the creation of a 13 Pennsylvania specific mercury rule for power plants. 14 It is one that working groups, in very first meetings, 15 that Dr. Leonard Levin of the industry funded Electric 16 Power Research Institute explained that at least 80 17 percent of the atmospheric mercury deposited in 18 Pennsylvania is from US sources, domestic sources 19 right here. 20 In the state that has the second highest 21 mercury emissions of the entire country, reducing 22 mercury from power plants is, to the greatest extent 23 possible, is of paramount importance. Some will claim 24 that the Department of Environmental Protection's 25 proposal to reduce power plant mercury emissions, 90 79 01 percent by 2015, is only incrementally better than the 02 federal proposed alleged to reduce emissions in 03 Pennsylvania 86 percent by 2018. But the suggestion 04 that the federal rule will ever reduce emissions in 05 Pennsylvania by 86 percent is very disingenuous, as is 06 the suggestion that whatever weak reductions the 07 federal rule does achieve will be in place by 2018. 08 EPA has stated publicly that due to the 09 banking provisions in the Federal Rule, it does not 10 expect this rule to achieve its final results until 11 2026 or later. 2026 is a full 20 years from now. 12 Children born today will be full-grown adults before 13 the Federal Rule takes full effect. It is completely 14 unacceptable to tell Pennsylvanians that they should 15 have to wait another full generation to see 16 substantial mercury reductions given that these 17 reductions could easily be put into place right now. 18 Perhaps even more importantly, the 19 suggestion that the Federal Rule will result in 86 20 percent mercury emission reductions from Pennsylvania 21 power plants is outrageously misleading. The Federal 22 Rule does not require individual plants to reduce 23 their emissions. It requires them to reduce their 24 emissions or to purchase pollution credits. Several 25 electric utilities and utility trade associations in 80 01 Pennsylvania have already stated on the record that 02 they do not plan to reduce their emissions by 86 03 percent to come to the compliance with the Federal 04 Rule. That they will purchase out-of-state pollution 05 credits instead. 06 According to the Pennsylvania Fish and 07 Boat Commission, lakes, rivers and streams throughout 08 the Commonwealth are contaminated with mercury. We 09 know from the electric industry's own research 10 institutions that most of this mercury is from 11 domestic sources, and that Pennsylvania's coal-fired 12 power plants are among the biggest emitters of mercury 13 pollution in the nation. 14 Mercury controlled technologies are 15 currently available to power plants at reasonable 16 costs. There is every reason to expect that these 17 technologies will improve and become less expensive 18 over time. Clean Air Council would have liked to have 19 seen the Department of Environmental Protection's 20 mercury proposal to be a little bit stronger. But 21 when compared to the much weaker Federal Rule, the 22 DEP's state-specific rule is just common sense. 23 Finally, Clean Air Council urges the EQB 24 and the IRRC to approve and implement the state 25 specific rule as quickly as possible. Once again, 81 01 thank you for your consideration. Thank you. 02 CHAIR MANFREDI: 03 Thank you, Mr. Phearson. The next 04 commenter is Pamela Lee. Pamela Lee? Next commenter 05 is Walter Tsou, Physicians for Social Responsibility. 06 MR. TSOU: 07 Thank you. My name is Dr. Walter Tsou 08 and I'm speaking to you today on behalf of Physicians 09 for Social Responsibility. 10 As a board member of PSR and the former 11 Health Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia, I 12 consider this issue of air quality and control 13 critical to protecting the public's health. 14 We support the DEP proposal to cut 15 mercury pollution from our state's coal-fired power 16 plants by 90 percent by 2015. The cornerstone of our 17 nation's efforts to solve our air pollution problems 18 is the setting of standards for the most serious air 19 pollutants based on the current science and data. 20 This role falls to the EPA and to the DEP, which 21 inherent in your statutory mandate is charged to 22 protect vulnerable populations. 23 Mercury is such a pollutant and is a 24 known neurotoxin. Its potentially harmful effects 25 have been known since the 1800s when the term mad as a 82 01 hatter was coined because of the use of mercury by hat 02 makers. Mercury can be absorbed through vapor 03 inhalation, ingestion, injection or absorption through 04 the skin. And because mercury toxicity can occur in 05 so many different ways, our only true protection for 06 preventing mercury poisoning is to prevent it from 07 entering the environment in the first place. 08 Mercury's most serious effect is on the 09 developing fetus. For ethical reasons, we don't know 10 the exact threshold for fetal neurotoxicity. But even 11 small amounts are considered unacceptable. Elemental 12 mercury is a liquid in room temperature and can 13 readily vaporize and be inhaled. Most, but not all of 14 this mercury will be eliminated in our feces. But 15 small amounts can remain in a chronic state in our 16 bodies causing central nervous system toxicity. These 17 can be manifested in young children as delayed mental 18 development or memory loss, behavior problems, 19 depression or even insomnia. But its effects are 20 usually much more subtle making it difficult to 21 detect. 22 It's likely that small amounts of mercury 23 are already present in everyone in this room. In its 24 ingested inorganic form, mercury can also affect the 25 GI tract and cause kidney damage. And since the 83 01 kidney cannot excrete heavy metals like mercury very 02 well, accumulated amounts of mercury can cause chronic 03 nephro and neurotoxicity. 04 The most common source of unregulated 05 mercury in our environment is from coal-fired power 06 plants which release mercury in their exhausts. 07 Mercury lies on the ground, in our lakes and in our 08 rivers. Fish ingest this mercury and convert it to an 09 organic form of mercury called methylmercury. 10 Methylmercury can be ingested by pregnant mothers and 11 cross the placenta risking fetal retardation. It can 12 be absorbed by red blood cells causing anemia and also 13 in our gums causing severe gingivitis, skin and hair 14 loss. It can inhibit the enzyme, choline acetyl 15 transferase, which is necessary for proper motor 16 function and causes one of mercury toxicity's classic 17 symptoms, tremors. 18 Today, it is difficult to recommend 19 eating fish more often than once a week because of the 20 potential toxins found in the fatty layer of their 21 skin. Methylmercury is but one of these toxins. 22 In conclusion, we affirm the importance 23 of health-based air quality standards to offer health 24 protection to susceptible populations, especially 25 children, from the harmful effects of air pollution 84 01 and urge you to base such standards on the latest 02 science. Nine years from now is enough time to do 03 something constructive about this environmental toxin. 04 We should do all we can to remove mercury from our 05 environment. We owe that much to our children who 06 inherit our planet. Thank you for the opportunity to 07 address this important public health issue. 08 CHAIR MANFREDI: 09 Thank you, Dr. Tsou. The next commenter 10 is Karen Woodson. Karen Woodson? Next commenter will 11 then be Ann Leary. 12 MS. LEARY: 13 Thanks. My name is Annie Leary and I 14 live at 1320 McKean Street in Philadelphia, 15 Pennsylvania 19148. Thanks a lot for hearing my 16 testimony today. 17 Over the past year I've heard both sides 18 of the argument, for and against adopting state 19 mercury regulations. Both sides were argued with 20 impressive facts and figures presented by experts on 21 both sides countering the other. In my mind and 22 amongst most parents I've talked to across the state, 23 what this really comes down to is pretty simple. It's 24 taking a precautionary approach to keeping children 25 safe and healthy, it's acting responsibly for the 85 01 benefit of the youngest citizens here in Pennsylvania 02 and moving forward with smarter energy solutions that 03 will benefit everybody long term. 04 Just a few years ago, Pennsylvania was 05 listed by the Environmental Protection Agency as the 06 third worst polluter of mercury in the United States. 07 Today, we're ranked second to Texas. That's a state 08 that's five times the size of Pennsylvania. Clearly 09 we have not been moving in the right direction and the 10 Federal Rule will not fix this problem. 11 Mercury is a known neurotoxin as we've 12 heard today. This is a fact confirmed by the 13 Environmental Protection Agency so why would we do 14 anything other than work to reduce mercury pollution? 15 Women take a million other precautions to ensure that 16 they give birth to healthy children. They have 17 regular check-ups, they eat a well-balanced diet, they 18 take vitamins. Many spend thousands of dollars just 19 on medical expenses just to ensure that they're doing 20 everything right to give birth to a healthy baby. So 21 why not take a precaution like this one? More and 22 more these days, despite the individual precautions we 23 take during pregnancy, babies are born with 24 neurological disorders, with learning disabilities, 25 with autism, cerebral palsy and other unexplained 86 01 diseases. This is completely unacceptable. 02 Many doctors, as we've also heard today, 03 will tell you that although it's recommended to avoid 04 some fish during pregnancy, it's also healthier to 05 actually eat fish during pregnancy because of the 06 benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids. Imagine you're a 07 woman being told two very different things and trying 08 to figure which is the decision that you should make 09 that's going to affect your child for the rest of his 10 or her life. Pregnant women should not have to make 11 this decision. The State of Pennsylvania should not 12 take a risk with women and children's health by 13 adopting the weak Federal Mercury Rule that will wait 14 20 years to begin reducing mercury pollution. 15 There may be varying data on how far 16 mercury travels through the air, where it lands or how 17 often babies are affected. But even one child born 18 with the damaging effects of mercury pollution is too 19 many. Regardless of whether we can trace mercury 20 laden fish directly back to one of our power plants 21 here in Pennsylvania, adopting a strong regulation for 22 our state will help set a precedent for other states. 23 In fact, it already has. Almost half of the United 24 States are now developing their own state-specific 25 stronger mercury standards than the Federal 87 01 Government's Rule, but it's clearly just not enough. 02 Unless we are willing to tell even one 03 mother that her child's health was not worth the cost 04 of installing technology on our power plants, we must 05 implement state regulations that take the strongest 06 steps possible to reduce mercury that we're emitting 07 into the atmosphere. We cannot allow our society to 08 get to a point where basically we're just avoiding 09 food and water because it's unsafe or contaminated. 10 We must address the cause of these problems. Luckily, 11 the problem of mercury pollution has an affordable 12 solution. 13 We banned lead paint in the 1970s because 14 it could cause neurological damage in children. It is 15 also a neurotoxin. Children may have to eat a 16 significant amount of lead paint chips or be exposed 17 to large quantities of lead paint dust to be 18 negatively affected, but to reduce the risk, we took 19 the precaution. The same thing needs to happen with 20 mercury pollution. 21 It's time to take responsibility for the 22 mercury pollution we contribute to waterways both 23 statewide and beyond from our 36 coal-fired power 24 plants here in Pennsylvania. It's critical that we 25 adopt a Pennsylvania-specific state Mercury Reduction 88 01 Rule that calls for a two-phase reduction of mercury 02 pollution and prohibits the trading of mercury 03 pollution credits for our families and our future. 04 Thanks. 05 CHAIR MANFREDI: 06 Thank you, Ms. Leary. The next commenter 07 is Lisa Zhu. 08 MS. ZHU: 09 Hi. Good afternoon everyone. My name is 10 Lisa Zhu. I live at 3900 Chestnut Street in 11 Philadelphia. 12 Like so many of you here today, I am here 13 to articulate my support for the State Department of 14 Environmental Protection's proposal regarding mercury 15 pollutants. I fully advocate the plan to reduce 16 mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants by 90 17 percent by 2015. However, I am slightly disappointed 18 that this change will not occur by 2008, a completely 19 feasible goal by the Environmental Protection Agency's 20 own estimate. Yet even though the DEP's current 21 proposal is not the most progressive with respect to 22 its time frame, it still suggests a drastic 23 improvement for our state, especially when taken into 24 consideration with the weak Federal Clean Air 25 Regulation. It would be a grave error for our state's 89 01 leaders to choose against using the available 02 technology to reduce mercury pollution since it would 03 represent a deliberate apathy towards the safety of 04 our children and the sanctity of our wildlife. 05 The refusal to act concretely on this 06 issue could perhaps be attributed to tax and consumer 07 cost increases they believe will occur with the 08 passing of such a proposal. Yet experts have said 09 that such an improvement in pollution control 10 technologies will pose no great cost to the individual 11 person. Indeed, the National Wildlife Federation has 12 estimated that forcing coal-fired power plants to 13 utilize mercury reducing technology would at most cost 14 each household the equivalent of a cup of coffee per 15 month. And by a cup of coffee I mean regular black 16 coffee, not a grandé fat free cappuccino with a double 17 shot of espresso. 18 Given the risks mercury poses to 19 Pennsylvania's wildlife and its children's health, it 20 would seem obvious for our state's leaders to support 21 the DEP's proposal, especially since the plan is 22 accompanied by such negligible costs. However, it is 23 also very possible that the enormous sums of money 24 wielded by coal and energy lobbyists have acted as 25 enticing influences on our state's legislators 90 01 preventing them from doing what is best for us. To 02 this I would say that perhaps these special interest 03 groups can afford the best lobbyists, but here in this 04 room today, we have such a wealth of passion and 05 opinion that no money can buy. 06 In conclusion, I would urge the DEP to 07 push forward this proposal and for Pennsylvania's 08 leaders to keep our best interests at heart when 09 considering it. Thanks. 10 CHAIR MANFREDI: 11 Thank you, Ms. Zhu. Next commenter is 12 Lynn Jaeger. 13 MS. JAEGER: 14 I'm Lynn Jaeger. My address is 1125 15 Colonial Avenue in Roslyn, Pennsylvania 19001. I 16 appreciate this opportunity to express my concerns 17 before you. 18 We are here today because the 19 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a problem. The 20 problem is that we have polluted our environment so 21 badly that we're endangering the health and safety of 22 those now living and of those who may live here in 23 future generations. We've done this in a myriad of 24 ways, creating many complex difficulties. But today I 25 would like to focus on the problem of mercury 91 01 pollution. 02 Mercury's a heavy metal, toxic in all of 03 its forms. It enters the environment through 04 industrial discharges, into the soil, a body of water 05 or into the air from which it falls both into the soil 06 and the water. Once present, it remains. It does not 07 biodegrade. Removal is extremely complicated and 08 costly, being most practical when the pollution is 09 localized rather than widespread. 10 Mercury is not excreted once it enters 11 the body and in animals it accumulates in fatty 12 tissues. Because of this, it moves up the food chain. 13 Polluted water and soil cause it to be taken up into 14 plants. Herbivores eat the polluted plants developing 15 even higher levels of mercury in their tissues. And 16 finally, when herbivores are consumed by predator 17 species, their levels of mercury become highest of 18 all. A well-known source of such gathered mercury in 19 the American diet is tuna fish. I am from San Diego 20 so I'm extremely familiar with that problem. When 21 mercury falls on the ocean, it enters plankton. 22 Plankton's eaten by tiny fish who are eaten by larger 23 fish. Finally, the tuna fish eats the larger fish, 24 accumulating in their tissues all of the mercury that 25 was present in the plankton, the tiny fish and their 92 01 prey. 02 Mercury contamination of tuna has been 03 known to be a problem for several decades as airborne 04 pollution, direct discharge of mercury tainted wastes 05 run off from coastal areas and the contribution of 06 rivers concentrated in much the same way as fish. 07 Mercury from creeks feeds into streams then from 08 streams into rivers, has continued. Standards have 09 been set for allowable amounts of mercury in tuna fish 10 sold by American companies that are significantly 11 lower than what is found in much tuna caught and sold 12 by foreign packers. Yet the federal government 13 recommends that its consumption by pregnant and 14 nursing women and growing children be limited to no 15 more than one serving per week. Similarly, we have 16 been given warnings by our state health authorities to 17 avoid or greatly limit our consumption of fish caught 18 anywhere in Pennsylvania because the entire state has 19 been subject to the deposit of mercury and other heavy 20 metals from various industrial sources. 21 Many health officials believe that no 22 exposure to mercury is safe. This is because mercury 23 causes irreversible damage to the nervous system, 24 particularly when it is rapidly developing. While all 25 can be adversely affected, those most vulnerable are 93 01 the unborn and our children. 02 Now approximately 40 percent of the 03 mercury pollution across the country has its origins 04 in the burning of coal to generate electricity. It's 05 released into the air from power plants and finds its 06 way into all parts of the environment. People and 07 animals breathe it. Plants take it in from the soil. 08 And when it falls into water, it makes its way up the 09 food chain as I've described, ultimately accumulates 10 in those animals, including people, at the top of the 11 food chain. 12 Here in Pennsylvania we rely on coal 13 powered plants for a large part of our electricity. 14 It is forecast that we will need to become even more 15 reliant on coal as other energy sources dwindle. 16 Right now, our power plants are not equipped to remove 17 much mercury from their smoke stacks before it's 18 released into the environment. There is only one 19 state in the entire country whose mercury emissions 20 from power plants is worse. This bodes ill for 21 environmental, health and budgetary integrity in our 22 state. If mercury emissions continue as they are, the 23 cost of removing mercury from our waterways alone 24 would be astronomical. The costs of the physical and 25 mental health problems resulting from chronic heavy 94 01 metal exposure is also high, not only directly in 02 terms of costly medical treatment and lost economic 03 productivity, but in the suffering of those whose life 04 potential is reduced. Obviously, the less mercury 05 emitted, the less expensive it will be to clean things 06 up and the fewer adverse effects on our population. 07 Fortunately, this is a problem that can 08 be solved. There are now means of efficiently 09 catching and containing mercury produced as a 10 byproduct of electricity generation before it can 11 pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink and the 12 foods we eat. If those needs are employed now, we can 13 reduce current emissions and focus our limited 14 financial resources on remedial actions to protect the 15 health and welfare of our population. 16 The federal government has implemented 17 regulations that limit mercury emissions from power 18 plants via a method called trading. This does not 19 require that all of the emission producing plants 20 utilize the most up to date technology available. 21 This means they would be allowing more mercury to be 22 released into the atmosphere than must be in order to 23 operate those coal-fired power plants. Believing that 24 this isn't good enough for Pennsylvanians, our 25 governor and the State Department of Environmental 95 01 Protection have put forth a plan to reduce mercury 02 emissions by 90 percent in all of our coal powered 03 plants while still allowing the owners of those 04 electric generating facilities to operate and make a 05 profit. 06 There is enormous support for this plan. 07 Eight out of ten Pennsylvanians polled thought it a 08 good idea to contain the mercury at its source rather 09 than have to clean it up once it's been spread 10 throughout the state, especially as the cost would 11 amount to a little over a dollar a month more on our 12 average household's electric bill. The DEP did its 13 homework in preparing the plan seeking information and 14 input from a wide range of sources. Health 15 professionals have testified to the benefits of 16 preventing mercury-related disorders and to the cost 17 of treating them when they do occur. Industry and 18 utility companies were given the opportunity to 19 provide input as did environmental scientists. 20 But when it made its way to the 21 legislature for approval, some of our state 22 representatives and Senators sought to block its 23 implementation, barring our own Department of 24 Environmental Protection from setting any standards 25 that would exceed the weaker federal government 96 01 standards, even though it's not only possible to 02 reduce emissions to ten percent of what they are now, 03 but it's so demonstrably cost effective to prevent as 04 much mercury pollution as we can. 05 This is simply unacceptable. We hire the 06 people working in our state regulatory departments to 07 protect us. They should be allowed to do so. We 08 should be thinking about the common good, not only in 09 terms of greater profits for companies, but in terms 10 of the health and welfare of all Pennsylvanians in 11 this current generation and in those to come. We have 12 a responsibility to do everything we can to limit the 13 exposure of unborn babies, infants and children to a 14 toxin that robs them of intellectual and physical 15 abilities. Please, don't let us be exposed to more 16 mercury than is absolutely necessary. We simply 17 cannot afford it. Thank you for this opportunity to 18 be heard. 19 CHAIR MANFREDI: 20 Thank you, Ms. Jaeger. Next commenter is 21 Al Siess. 22 MR. SIESS: 23 Good afternoon. My name is Al Siess. 24 I'm a civil engineer with 50 years of government and 25 private industry experience, 20 years adjunct teaching 97 01 at both graduate and undergraduate levels. 02 Professionally employed as an environmental economic 03 consultant since 1986. I'm co-founder and a member of 04 the board of directors of SAVE, Inc., a 37-year-old 05 environmental non-profit group. I have specific 06 personal experience with the regulation of the US 07 Electric Industry by the EPA since that agency was 08 established in 1970. I will be speaking today on my 09 own behalf. 10 I'm testifying today in support of the 11 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's 12 proposed rulemaking Standards for Contaminants: 13 Mercury which would amend Chapter 123 of the 14 Pennsylvania Code. 15 State regulation is required for three 16 main reasons. All of these reasons are opposed by 17 industry and politics. 18 One, MACT, maximum achievable control 19 technology, standards for mercury must be the maximum 20 achievable for mercury in view of the serious public 21 health consequences posed by mercury emissions. 22 Two, EPA's cap and trade proposal is not 23 proper for control of mercury because of its extreme 24 toxicity. 25 Three, the continued failure of industry 98 01 to comply with provisions of the Clean Air Act, 02 relaxation of standards, the lax enforcement of the 03 Act by the Agency and the seemingly deliberate and 04 systematic distortion of scientific fact by industry 05 lobbyists and the present administration of G.W. Bush. 06 I testified to these issues at length in 07 Philadelphia on February 25th, 2004 at the EPA hearing 08 on proposed national emission standards for hazardous 09 pollutants. In the interest of time, I will quote 10 from only portions of that testimony today, but am 11 including the entire testimony as an attachment hereto 12 and ask that you consider it as part of my written 13 testimony. 14 I'm going to skip over most of the 15 citations showing the seriousness of mercury emissions 16 and zero in on a full explanation of why cap and trade 17 for mercury is an unacceptable strategy on the 18 conspiracy on the part of industry to evade 19 requirements of the Clean Air Act and on the Bush 20 administration's willingness to allow industry to not 21 only avoid reasonable regulation, but to allow 22 industry to write the regulations. 23 Adverse effects of mercury are well 24 documented. In 2002, 45 states and territories issued 25 fish consumption warnings because of unsafe levels of 99 01 mercury. Advisories for mercury increased 138 percent 02 from 1993 to 2002. 03 The EPA recently estimated that one in 04 six women of child bearing age have mercury levels in 05 the blood high enough to put their babies at risk. 06 That means that approximately 630,000 newborns are at 07 risk each year. 08 In 2001, the Environmental Protection 09 Agency presented information to Edison Electric and 10 estimated that by 2008, a 90-percent reduction in 11 mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants was 12 possible with available technology and strong 13 enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Enforcing the Clean 14 Air Act will cut mercury emissions from power plants 15 to five tons per year by 2008. Under the Bush 16 administration's recent plan, mercury emissions would 17 decrease only to 15 tons per year by 2018. And while 18 the Bush administration's proposal has a stated goal 19 of 70-percent reductions in mercury by 2018, EPA's own 20 data indicate that the proposal will reduce emissions 21 only 38 percent to 46 percent by 2020. 22 Cap and trade. At best, this practice 23 allows the dirtiest plants to continue operating with 24 no improvement while a distant plant becomes 25 marginally cleaner. In practice, it localizes 100 01 pollution, unfairly harming those living closest to 02 the dirtiest power plants. 03 Consider the following real life example 04 of how electric utilities use the trading system to 05 continue avoiding requirements to clean up SO2 06 emissions. Title Four of the 1990 Clean Air Act 07 amendments addresses the acid rain problem by 08 requiring electric utilities to reduce their SO2 and 09 NOx emissions. Compliance with the SO2 requirements 10 can be achieved under the act in any of three ways, 11 switching to low sulfur coal, installing scrubbers or 12 purchasing allowances from other sources. 13 Utilities embrace the allowance provision 14 because it provides the opportunity to meet the letter 15 of the law without seriously trying to reduce 16 emissions. For example, if the utility has plants of 17 varying age where the cost of additional emissions 18 reduction will also vary significantly, the 19 opportunity exists for the company to be very 20 selective in deciding what, if any, pollution will be 21 eliminated. 22 For example, at plant A it may cost $200 23 a ton and at plant B it may cost $100 a ton to reduce 24 emissions with improved scrubbers. If sufficient 25 reduction can be achieved at plant B to bring the 101 01 company into compliance, the company is able to do 02 absolutely nothing about cleaning up emission from 03 plant A. If SO2 pollution credits can be purchased 04 for less than $100 a ton, then the company would be 05 able to avoid reducing emissions altogether. The sad 06 fact is that many, perhaps all, utility companies are 07 willing to do just that. 08 It was the utility industry that led the 09 lobbying effort to include this loophole in the act. 10 The industry lobbied for the trade-off provision on 11 the grounds that the higher cost of doing the job 12 properly, i.e. by eliminating emissions, would hurt 13 their competitive position. They pretended not to 14 understand the fact that pollution control costs are 15 passed on to their residential customers just as other 16 rate increases are ultimately paid by their 17 residential customers. Industrial and commercial 18 customers add the rate increase to the price of their 19 products. School districts and municipalities obtain 20 the needed revenue from property taxes. As regulated 21 monopolies, the utilities can not use competition as 22 an argument in not spending money on pollution 23 control. 24 Another case illustrating the utility 25 industry's short-sightedness with respect to reducing 102 01 sulfur dioxide emissions was aired by National Public 02 Radio in 1995. The report told how a class of sixth 03 graders from New York state outbid a Cleveland based 04 company in the SO2 allowances market. SO2 credits are 05 traded on the open market at the Chicago Board of 06 Trade. Concerned with the effects of acid rain, which 07 the students had found to be horribly acidic, as low 08 as 3.0, the class had raised over $3,000 and used it 09 to purchase the rights to 21 tons of SO2 pollution. A 10 spokeswomen for the Cleveland Electric Utility 11 Company, which was outbid by the middle school 12 students, had this to say about the incident, quote, 13 if for whatever reason sufficient emissions allowances 14 are not available for us to continue to use our coal 15 plants as they are currently configured, then we would 16 have to invest in a more expensive technology such as 17 a scrubber or such as burning natural gas or something 18 like that. And if the allowance market went away, 19 that would merely drive up the price of what it would 20 cost us to generate the energy for our customers. So 21 in the long run, the customers are the ones who pay. 22 Continued easing of regulations. George 23 W. Bush hit the ground running in 2001. By May he was 24 already gutting the New Source Review requirements of 25 the Clean Air Act. The administration's attacks on 103 01 the environment have continued unabated. 02 The Union of Concerned Scientists 03 recently released a comprehensive report on the Bush 04 administration's failures to properly enforce other 05 mandates of the Clean Air Act, as shown below, and 06 including specifically the regulation of mercury 07 emissions from power plants. 08 This is a 2004 study. Quote, the Bush 09 administration has long attempted to avoid issuing new 10 standards to regulate mercury emissions by coal-fired 11 power plants based on the Maximum Achievable Coal 12 Technology as required by the Clean Air Act. Mercury 13 is a neurotoxin that can cause brain damage and harm 14 reproduction in women and wildlife. Coal-fired power 15 plants are the nation's largest source of mercury 16 emissions, emitting about 48 tons annually. As a 17 prelude to the current debate, published accounts to 18 date have documented that senior Bush officials 19 suppressed and sought to manipulate information about 20 mercury contained in an EPA report on children's 21 health and the environment. As the EPA readily ---. 22 CHAIR MANFREDI: 23 Just ten seconds left. 24 MR. SIESS: 25 Okay. I will just conclude by saying 104 01 that you have my full comments before you that it is a 02 very sad case of deliberate concealing facts on the 03 part of the Bush administration. And just one final 04 word, the State Senate in Pennsylvania mistakenly 05 voted to allow the Federal Government to preempt our 06 state with respect to mercury regulations. The bill 07 has not passed. It's been pulled back. And probably 08 the worst precedent we could set would be to allow the 09 Federal Government to preempt the state on 10 establishing more protective regulations to protect 11 our health and safety from mercury emissions. 12 CHAIR MANFREDI: 13 Next commenter is Sarah Casper. 14 MS. HUGHES: 15 She was here. 16 CHAIR MANFREDI: 17 Is Mr. John Christmas here? Next 18 commenter is Karen Slossberg. Then next commenter is 19 Ginger Magee. 20 MS. HUGHES: 21 Your legal name's Marion, M-A-R-I-O-N. 22 MS. MAGEE: 23 Hi there. I'm Ginger Magee. My legal 24 name is Marion Magee, M-A-G-E-E. I live at 322 Harry 25 Street, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428. And I am 105 01 very glad to be able to speak today. Although I 02 didn't know you're supposed to make several copies to 03 hand to them, they're going to let me speak with my 04 little handwritten note. Thank you. I'm so glad so 05 many of you could come out today in the middle of the 06 day, in the middle of the week. And a lot of you are 07 working people. 08 Now, when I was in junior high school, 58 09 years ago, we talked about mercury poisoning and 10 pollution. Then, we knew most of the mercury was 11 being released into the air by smoke stacks and coal 12 fires producing powers and manufacturing plants. The 13 biggest polluters were power plants providing electric 14 for our brand new 13 inch round screen TV. Remember 15 them, anybody? And our new refrigerators that had 16 freezer chests that you actually could put food in, 17 not just ice cubes. 18 Now, to the lawmakers I want to say, 19 don't tell me that you weren't there in office at that 20 time and that is not your problem. You grew up 21 knowing that the world had this problem. Solving the 22 problem is way overdue. Enough studies have been 23 done. Enough time for manufacturers and power plants. 24 It is time to order, by law, that the best and the 25 most must be done to stop it now. No more extensions. 106 01 To manufacturers and power plants, I want 02 to say to them, no whining. 03 CHAIR MANFREDI: 04 Thank you, Ms. Magee. Let's go on to 05 combining your written comments. Next commentator is 06 Gene Wilson. 07 MR. WILSON: 08 I'll give you a third copy when I've said 09 my presentation. I represent the Energy Committee for 10 the League of Women Voters of Chester County. I'm 11 also representing the League of Women Voters of 12 Pennsylvania for which I serve as the off board 13 advisory on energy. My residence is in East Goshen, 14 1115 Lincoln Drive, West Chester. 15 And I strongly support the Department of 16 Environmental Protection's proposed rulemaking on 17 mercury reductions from coal-fired power plants in 18 Pennsylvania. 19 I start from the position that mercury 20 poses a major toxicity threat to humans and wildlife. 21 This mercury comes from emissions from coal-fired 22 power plants. The Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule 23 won't deliver the reductions it claims. It's based on 24 what I would call a fatal flaw. It would allow 25 pollution trading, a practice I believe was used 107 01 successfully in reducing overall pollution from acid 02 rain. You've heard some preservations from Al Siess. 03 The difference is that the offending pollutants 04 causing acid rain spread themselves over a wide area. 05 Perhaps not so toxic as mercury. 06 Not so with mercury. I understand the 07 EPA has found that some 70 percent of mercury 08 emissions deposit locally around the source. Intense 09 deposits called local hot spots are exceedingly 10 dangerous. The trading of mercury emissions would be 11 based on flawed reasoning and should not be allowed. 12 CHAIR MANFREDI: 13 Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Next commenter is 14 Jack Lebeau. He had two listings. The next 15 commentator will be Virginia Fitzpatrick. 16 MS. FITZPATRICK: 17 My name is Virginia Fitzpatrick. I live 18 at 6 Eminency Circle in East Norriton, 19403. I am a 19 lifetime member of Trout Unlimited. I have monitored 20 Stony Creek for four years for various pollutants. 21 And I'm also on the Board of Directors for the local 22 Chapter of Trout Unlimited. However, I'm speaking for 23 myself. 24 I raised my daughter in Seattle, 25 Washington. We ate all the fish we could catch and we 108 01 ate a lot of fish that was caught locally and sold 02 commercially, but it was caught in the waters of the 03 State of Washington. We ate them several times a week 04 and enjoyed it immensely and we're very healthy. Then 05 I moved to the State of Pennsylvania and all that came 06 to a halt. And like the Black family, I'm afraid to 07 eat Pennsylvania fish because of all of the warnings. 08 I also know that our streams have other pollutants in 09 them. 10 Of course, you know, my experience in the 11 State of Washington and being healthy eating the fish 12 is not relevant to the State of Pennsylvania. My 13 health from eating that fish is not relevant to the 14 situation here in Pennsylvania. And I was taken aback 15 by earlier testimony by a Mr. Barr representing the 16 Chamber of Commerce. He stated that women in the 17 Seychelles were healthy eating much more fish than we 18 normally do. I don't think that that experience is 19 any more relevant than my experience in Seattle. 20 I'm not downwind of the coal-fire plants 21 in this country. And back in the 1980s, I was not even 22 downwind of the coal-fired power plants in China 23 because back then they were a poor country and had a 24 lot fewer of them. I doubt that the women in the 25 Seychelles, and the Seychelles, if I'm not mistaken, 109 01 are located between the continent of Africa and the 02 subcontinent of India, so they're well outside the 400 03 mile hot zone and way downwind of Harrisburg and what 04 have you. And the gentleman did not say if there were 05 many coal-fired plants upwind of the women in the 06 Seychelles who ate all this fish. So his arguments 07 seem to me rather strange and he was the only one 08 today who has testified in favor of the new Federal 09 Standards. 10 I strongly urge you to adopt the DEP's 11 standards and I look forward to the people of 12 Pennsylvania being able to enjoy fish like the people 13 of the State of Washington did when I was raising my 14 daughter. 15 CHAIR MANFREDI: 16 Thank you, Ms. Fitzpatrick. Next 17 commenter is Virginia Craciun. 18 MS. CRACIUN: 19 My name is Virginia Craciun. I live in 20 East Norriton, Pennsylvania. 21 Pennsylvania is one of numerous states 22 now considering the Federal Mercury Regulations to 23 require strengthening. As I recall years back, a rule 24 had been endorsed by the EPA requiring mercury 25 emissions from the nation's power plants to be reduced 110 01 90 percent by the year 2008. Those rules were altered 02 a couple of years ago to call for a 70 percent 03 reduction by 2018 or later. 04 These newer Federal Rules were not 05 without controversy. At the time, EPA's own 06 Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee had 07 expressed concerns that the new Federal Proposals 08 would provide insufficient protection. Furthermore, 09 it seems that the EPA's proposal had been copied, 10 sometimes verbatim from industry lobbying materials. 11 Two of the key EPA officials who worked on the 12 proposal had been previously employed by a corporate 13 environmental law firm. This federal rule is now 14 being scrutinized by individual states. 15 I'm here to support Pennsylvania's DEP 16 proposed rule to reduce mercury pollution from 17 Pennsylvania's coal-fired power plants 90 percent by 18 2015. However, it's my understanding that 19 Pennsylvania's General Assembly is currently 20 considering legislation that would block DEP's 21 proposed plan and would impose the, in my opinion, 22 controversial federal rule. One wonders why? 23 Mercury is a neurotoxin. Exposure to 24 mercury can lead to developmental problems in infants 25 and young children. Reducing mercury pollution will 111 01 undoubtedly entail a cost to the power companies. But 02 the power companies are not the only ones faced with 03 costs. What about the cost incurred for bringing 04 children into the world already suffering from mercury 05 poisoning, medical bills, special ed, tutors, 06 therapists, not to mention a future made less 07 promising because of exposure to mercury? 08 What about the impact on the recreational 09 fishing industry when health warnings are posted for 10 Pennsylvania's lakes and rivers? As a small business 11 owner, I face the concern of increasing costs and 12 shrinking profit margins. However, some costs cannot 13 and should not be avoided. 14 I've read that Pennsylvania is one of the 15 leaders in state mercury emissions, ranking second 16 only to Texas, a dubious distinction. Instead, let's 17 make Pennsylvania one of the leading states in 18 revising mercury pollution regulation and better 19 protecting our citizens. 20 I support DEP's proposed Mercury 21 Reduction Rule. Thank you. 22 CHAIR MANFREDI: 23 Thank you, Ms. Craciun. Sister Aquinas? 24 Alisha Dean-Steinler? 25 MS. DEAN-STEINLER: 112 01 Good afternoon. My name is Alisha 02 Dean-Steinler and I'm here today representing myself. 03 I'm speaking as an individual. I'm at 100 North 17th, 04 Philadelphia 19103. 05 I don't want to repeat much of the 06 science and the statistics that we've all heard 07 already over and over, so I want to talk to you about 08 a different topic. It's really great that all of you 09 are here in the room today and everyone that was in 10 the room earlier made it out to give some public input 11 on this issue on mercury. But I want you to think 12 about all of the people that are not here in the room 13 that cannot be here in the room because they're 14 working. And also the people who are actually, 15 believe it or not, fishing right now in the waterways 16 of Pennsylvania, around the state. Believe it or not, 17 despite all of the warnings, people do still fish out 18 of the water and fish for subsistence. It's not 19 necessarily because if they are aware of the warning, 20 it's more for subsistence than because of economic 21 reasons. 22 I want you to remember that environmental 23 decisions such as the one you're considering today 24 often have a disproportionate impact on low income 25 communities and people of color. Pennsylvania is a 113 01 Commonwealth. What does that really mean? Water and 02 air should be thought of as a common which all 03 residents have a right to draw from. When clean air 04 and clean water are essential for life, what kind of 05 Pennsylvania do we really want to live in? We should 06 all be able to drink the water, breathe our own air, 07 eat the fish, and anything less is unacceptable. 08 To me, pollution trading is the same 09 thing as buying and selling air and water. There's no 10 justification for putting off clean-up towards the 11 future to some other point in time. There will always 12 be economic arguments against cleaning up right now in 13 the short term. But we have to do what's right. 14 It's inexcusable to wait and to allow any 15 more environment degradation than what we already have 16 to live with. I urge you to adopt the DEP Reduction 17 Rule. Thank you. 18 CHAIR MANFREDI: 19 Thank you, Ms. Steinler. Next commenter 20 is Sonnet Gabbard. 21 MS. GABBARD: 22 Thank you. My name is Sonnet Gabbard and 23 I am here as an environmentalist, but I also work for 24 Clean Water Action. I'm speaking on my own behalf as 25 a young woman getting ready to start a family, not 114 01 immediately, but eventually. I live at 35 South 13th 02 Street in Philly, PA 19107. 03 As I mentioned before, I am approaching 04 you today not as an individual for the organization I 05 work at, but as an environmentalist and more 06 importantly as a young woman getting ready to get 07 married and eventually start a family. But even more 08 important to that and the tone that I'm addressing you 09 with is I'm approaching you as a Hoosier. Now who 10 knows what a Hoosier is? You don't have to answer 11 that. Thank you. Hoosier is someone from Indiana. 12 Now you're probably wondering why are you talking 13 about Indiana? This is about Pennsylvania and this is 14 about mercury. 15 Well, I want to approach this from a 16 different way. I mean, we've heard all of the 17 statistics so far. And we've heard one opposition 18 argument and other pro arguments. So I'm going to 19 address this from an outsider coming in to 20 Pennsylvania. I've been living here for about a year 21 now, coming straight from Indianapolis, Indiana. I'm 22 originally from Frankfort Indiana where we have all 23 kinds of natural resources and not very good 24 regulations in terms of environmentally speaking. So 25 I come into Pennsylvania, start working for this 115 01 environmental group and expect for things to be a lot 02 better because in Indiana people don't really think 03 about the environment yet. We don't have to. It's 04 definitely not to the point of degradation as it is 05 here in Pennsylvania. 06 Now, you're probably wondering why I 07 mentioned that. Well, Indiana is closely approaching 08 Pennsylvania in terms of mercury emissions. However, 09 we're about five years behind y'all. And what that 10 means is we are in a very impressionable point. Now 11 PA has a very big responsibility right now because we 12 have passed that. We're second in the nation in 13 Pennsylvania for mercury emissions as everybody has 14 already mentioned. So it's now at the point where 15 we're reactive. Back in Indiana, they don't have to 16 be reactive yet, they can be proactive. And I really 17 think in a lot of ways this proposal is proactive and 18 that it's going to stop more degradation in the next 19 20 years. 20 Now, y'all are really lucky here in 21 Pennsylvania because you have wonderful natural 22 resources. You got the mountains, you got thousands 23 of waterways. And the great thing is people really do 24 care about it and I think Alisha having made a really 25 good statement saying, you know, we need to think 116 01 about not those just in the rooms, but those who 02 really aren't here who are unable to because they have 03 to work and because they are perhaps unaware of the 04 severe danger it is to actually eat fish taken out of 05 Pennsylvania's waterways. 06 I remember when I was a girl back in 07 Indiana, it was never an issue to go fishing with my 08 grandpa. We'd go up to this little lake and just hang 09 out all day. And when I moved out here, I was really 10 excited about, you know, going up to Schuylkill River, 11 going fishing, and you don't want to fish in the 12 Schuylkill River. It's nasty. And when I say it's 13 nasty, I mean it's polluted and there are 14 hermaphroditic fish. Plus, all of the mercury 15 regulations. 16 So, you know, I'm addressing you as an 17 outsider, but I really want you to know that 18 Pennsylvania needs to take a stand. As a state that 19 has 36 coal-fired power plants, imagine the precedence 20 it would make and imagine the impact it would have on 21 other states who are years behind us in mercury 22 pollution, but are quickly approaching us. Imagine 23 the impact it would make on the nation. For one of 24 the largest coal-burning fire power plant producers, I 25 mean we're a coal state, to say, you know what? We 117 01 want to be proactive and make a decision to pull back 02 and make sure that we install the scrubbers and make 03 sure that we do not allow mercury to continue to 04 contaminate our waterways. And to say, you know what, 05 we don't want to be second. We don't want anyone to 06 be second. We want to be last on the list. 07 So that's my spiel and thank you for 08 having me. 09 CHAIR MANFREDI: 10 Thank you, Ms. Gabbard. Mike Ewall? 11 MR. EWALL: 12 Okay. My name's Mike Ewall. My address 13 is 1434 Elbridge Street, that's E-L-B-R-I-D-G-E, in 14 Philadelphia, that's 19149. I'm director of Action 15 PA, a statewide environmental group based in 16 Philadelphia. We're a support network for communities 17 seeking to protect themselves from toxic hazards, 18 particularly wastes from toxic energy-related 19 industries, speaking in support of the rule and 20 opposed to parts of the rule as well, so please don't 21 write me down just supports DEP's Rule, because I'm on 22 both sides on this. 23 First, before talking about coal plants 24 and some of the specifics about the rule, I'd like to 25 speak onto another type of electric generating 118 01 industry in the state. And that is those burners that 02 are burning natural gas. This may seem like an 03 unexpected topic for this hearing. Yet since 1999, 04 there have been numerous studies that have come out 05 all from specific researchers at Oak Ridge National 06 Laboratory in Tennessee talking about mercury in 07 natural gas. And even in that time, state governments 08 and environmental groups have been promoting natural 09 gas burning as some sort of renewable energy. The 10 state has been accumulating on how much mercury is 11 contaminating natural gas and the most recent studies, 12 two of them that were published in the Journal of Air 13 and Waste National Association last July, July of 14 2005, they mentioned that there is actually comparable 15 levels of mercury in natural gas. That concentration 16 of mercury natural gas exhausts that is comparable to 17 that in coal power plant's exhaust. 18 Now, if people knew this, they probably 19 would not still be promoting this renewable energy. 20 And if there were more attention paid to this by DEP, 21 I imagine these regulations might also be addressing 22 more than just coal power plants in terms of electric 23 generators that have to comply. While I supplied this 24 data to some of the individuals at the DEP central 25 office within the last year, I see that none of those 119 01 studies have actually influenced this rule in any way. 02 Now, there are a few things that make 03 natural gas even more of a concern. One of them is 04 that there is no filtering, monitoring or regulation 05 of mercury in natural gas. So we're talking far 06 behind in terms of catching up on the regulations. 07 But there's also about four times the amount of gas 08 --- of all the natural gas that is generated over the 09 course of a life of natural, including post closure, 10 only about 10 to 20 percent of that gas is ever even 11 captured. And so most of that gas escapes and doesn't 12 even have an opportunity to be filtered because there 13 are no regulations requiring the gas capture. So 14 we're talking about much higher levels of mercury 15 coming out per megawatt of electricity produced than 16 you even have from coal power plants. 17 And making it further worse is that it 18 comes out in methylated form. Natural gas is one of 19 only two known sources of methylmercury. Of coal 20 plants, you have other forms that eventually become 21 methylated once they hit water bodies. With natural, 22 as it comes out in methylated form. So I'd encourage 23 a revision of this rule that would include some 24 looking at natural gas and the mercury hazards from 25 that. At least doing an inventory of that. 120 01 Now, I support the concept of there being 02 no trading. I think that's great that the state is 03 opposing trading. However, the state's rule allows 04 for supplemental allowance pool which reserves 05 allowances for future use. It seems like this is a 06 mini form of trading within a company giving unfair 07 advantage to the larger utilities that own the most 08 coal plants in the state, and so I see that as 09 essentially another form of trading that is an 10 advantage not needed by the largest market players and 11 an advantage that should be taken away and just create 12 a level playing field on this. 13 I also noticed in the rule that there is 14 a fuel neutral position, one that ignores the mercury 15 content of coal or waste coal and in doing so, tries 16 to not discriminate against Pennsylvania coal. And I 17 think there should be a discrimination against coal 18 that's higher in mercury. We have very high mercury 19 levels in Pennsylvania coal and far higher in 20 Pennsylvania's waste coal. So I think that fuel 21 neutral position should be abandoned and all 22 standards, rather than being based on the combustor 23 type, also should be in pounds per million BTU or some 24 kind of equal basis so that's not a renewable 25 efficiency standard which gives unfair advantage to 121 01 the companies burning fuels that are higher in 02 mercury. 03 Also, standards should be enforced on a 04 unit-wide basis. There should not be allowances for a 05 facility-wide averaging. Especially when you'll have 06 cases where companies might have fuels other than coal 07 in some of their boilers. It wouldn't make sense to 08 allow that to happen. 09 And also, I saw that there was in the 10 rule a requirement for continuous emissions monitors 11 for mercury for new units. I was unclear about 12 whether that applies to existing units. And to the 13 extent that it might not, I would encourage that this 14 rule be rewritten so that it includes continuous 15 emissions monitors for all stacks on all units 16 existing or new. And go a step further and do what we 17 set a precedent recently, a victory in West Reading 18 Borough where they passed the first law in the country 19 on the local level that requires continuous monitoring 20 for mercury. Not for coal passed, but for medical 21 incinerators and crematorium. And also set a very 22 strict standard. And a part of that I would like to 23 see applied to this rule is the real time public 24 recording that requires that the data from those 25 continuous monitors be posted on a website real time 122 01 so the public has access to that information. It 02 doesn't have to set up a two week in advance 03 appointment with this DEP office, travel to an office 04 during a weekday and actually understand what they're 05 looking at. It's much more difficult to get 06 information that way. 07 I also noticed in the rule that DEP would 08 allow an alternative emission standard or schedule if 09 a company applies to have alternative standards. I 10 don't see why there should be any allowance for 11 companies to have different standards than others. It 12 should be uniform across the board. 13 I also noticed there was a part in there 14 about sampling a coal analysis for input mercury 15 levels, the amount of mercury in the fuel that would 16 be burned. Again, in terms of the public reporting, 17 that data also ought to be placed online and made 18 easily available to the public. 19 In New Jersey, I understand that they set 20 the same standard for new and existing sources and 21 that was one of the things that DEP commented in the 22 rule would not make sense for Pennsylvania because 23 Pennsylvania has multiple type of coal burners and New 24 Jersey doesn't have as many. And somehow that 25 rationalizes having different standards. I think 123 01 there ought to be the same standards that existing 02 facilities should have to comply with the stricter 03 standards that applied to new facilities in 04 Pennsylvania as good as people in this state deserve. 05 On waste coal ash, we have some of the 06 most toxic ash in the country. Particularly because 07 we have so many waste coal power plants in the state 08 and they have about six times as much mercury per 09 megawatt of energy produced or megawatt hour of energy 10 produced than a normal coal powered plant does because 11 the mercury levels are higher than waste coal and the 12 BTU values are lower, a little over six times more 13 mercury going in. Now, the regulations, I am 14 assuming, were based on data that would say how much 15 mercury is coming out of the smoke stack of waste coal 16 power plants. The problem with that is that in the 17 operating lifetime of all the waste coal power plants, 18 we have 14 out of 18 in the whole country in this 19 state, you'd think there be a good amount of data on 20 how much mercury is coming out of the smoke stacks. 21 They've all been operating for 10 to 20 years. Well 22 there's only two data points. They're in this report 23 here from Earth Tech. In all the operating life of 24 these plants, there are only two tests, they were done 25 in 1999. One on a plant in eastern Pennsylvania, one 124 01 on a plant in western Pennsylvania and that's all the 02 data that's available for how much mercury is coming 03 out of the smoke stacks of these plants that are 04 burning very high mercury fuel. And so I don't know 05 if the regulations are based on assumptions that 06 ultimately tie back to those two tests or maybe to 07 other models on how much mercury is supposedly coming 08 out of these units. But to the extent that any 09 regulations are based on that, I think real and 10 ongoing test data needs to be acquired so that you can 11 base this regulation on something that's what's really 12 coming out of these smoke stacks, not just assumptions 13 and industry funded assumptions. 14 CHAIR MANFREDI: 15 You have one minute. 16 MR. EWALL: 17 Okay. Great. On the waste coal ash 18 piles, most of the mercury they say ends up in the ash 19 as opposed to in the air. The better pollution 20 controls you have, the less you have in the air, the 21 more you have in the ash. A question I have and 22 something that would be good to look into, is how much 23 mercury is actually coming off of these piles of ash, 24 whether it's from normal coal or waste coal that's 25 being burned? When the rain water hits it, when the 125 01 hot is hitting or if the sunlight's hitting it and you 02 have the hot air accumulated from the black surface of 03 these piles that are just sitting out there exposed to 04 the elements, how much mercury is off gassing over 05 time and what does that look like in terms of overall 06 inventory? I don't think any looking has been done 07 into that. 08 And finally, the mercury doesn't go away 09 when you filter it out. Anything that's captured is 10 going somewhere. It's either going into the ash or 11 it's being disposed of in some other way. Rather than 12 allow it to seep back into the ground water and 13 contaminate the waters of this Commonwealth, which 14 it's been doing for many years, especially in these 15 waste coal ash piles which are dumped in communities, 16 no liners. All the coal ash is dumped in communities 17 with no liners required to protect ground water. A 18 better thing to do would be to try to isolate this 19 mercury as best as possible. Concentrate it and 20 isolate it. And as a Pennsylvania based company, the 21 largest mercury recycling in North America actually, 22 Bethlehem Apparatus has a patent or is working on 23 developing patents for turning mercury back into 24 cinnabar which is the natural solid form of mercury 25 that's found in the ground, it's HgS. And to the 126 01 extent that we could do that, it would be much safer 02 than allowing mercury to remain in the form that it's 03 captured. Thank you. 04 CHAIR MANFREDI: 05 Thank you, Mr. Ewall. Does anyone else 06 wish to comment on this proposal? I want to thank you 07 all for coming today. And with no other witnesses 08 present and on behalf of the Environmental Quality 09 Board, I thank you for your interest. I hereby 10 adjourn this hearing at 3:57 p.m. 11 12 13 * * * * * * * * 14 HEARING CONCLUDED AT 3:57 P.M. 15 * * * * * * * * 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25