(Not entirely audible, off-mike.) I was speaking on behalf of the (inaudible).
You heard the statement. Do you agree with the statement of Mr. Fine?
Well, let's -- I'm going to suggest that we hear other witnesses. I find the statement pretty disappointing. I find that, like every time -- I have such trouble in distinguishing giant corporations who pollute and who get by with it year after year after year because government agencies are always waiting, always assessing, always studying -- just like the tobacco companies saying year after year after year saying the proof is not decisive, we must make another study, it's still not clear, we've got to go very carefully. Why? Why would the EPA, which moves 92 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 pretty slowly and very conservatively in the environmental field, why would they have even reached the conclusion that we ought to ban it three years from now if they weren't really convinced that it was a very dangerous thing to do, to have MTBE in?
And, Mr. Fine, you know I respect you highly and work with you very cooperatively, but it just makes me feel so bad. You know, when we had the original Air Pollution Code back in the late '60s, the same thing happened. We had to go very, very carefully, we shouldn't introduce this kind of air pollution code, 'cause it wasn't really tested everywhere, and there was still some questions. But Philadelphia, at that time, became the leading city in the country with the finest air pollution code in the nation. Today, nobody speaks of us as having a model code anymore. We're kind of in the middle or maybe toward the end of the crowd instead of leading the crowd. And why -- is Philadelphia engaged in these tests? I hear Philadelphia's so backward 93 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 that the Health Department really believes that it ought not to invest any money in studies, and I think that's an abdication of the responsibility of the City. I think, as a municipal government, we have a responsibility to protect our citizens. Why do we leave our citizens to the actions of others rather than City officials? Shouldn't they be number one in seeking to protect Philadelphians? Mr. Fine, some of this is rhetorical, the questions that I ask, but I'd like to feel that our government is alert, it's alive, it's awake, it's interested in protecting citizens when it hears of a potential danger. Like I think I think the statement of the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia with respect to Pier 34 was outrageous the other day when he said that the City has no responsibility. People rely on the government for safety. They assume if there's something available to the public, that the -- certainly, the local governmental body has taken such steps as would be necessary to make it safe for people to go to, or that local government would have 94 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 banned, that it would not permit anything to operate that was unsafe. And it's very distressing for me to feel that the City doesn't accept that responsibility. It's true in Pier 34, it's true here. What's your action, Mr. Fine?
Well, my initial reaction is that I probably was not clear enough in making my statement. The EPA has taken on its review to ban MTBE mostly based on the effects on groundwater. And there was a controversy in the EPA between the air agencies and the water agencies as to what is the right thing to do for the environment. Because on the air side, which is what I'm representing, there have been marked improvements to air quality over the years since the introduction of MTBE. In Philadelphia alone, in the mid 1980s, we were exceeding the ozone standards, you know, maybe 20 times a year -- and I'm talking about the one-hour ozone standard. Now we're exceeding it maybe once or twice. We haven't gotten there all the way, but we have made marked 95 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 improvements. And MTBE has been part of that -- a part of that story. And I don't want to discount the use of MTBE in reducing the ozone levels in Philadelphia.
I get calls from many citizens concerning asthma problems. They don't talk in terms of ozone levels; they talk in terms of their physical health. And what's the story about asthma? Why do we have this --
I'm not the asthma expert for the Health Department. I will say that there is enough evidence out there that we should take not only a look at MTBE and its contribution to causing asthma, but since EPA has already taken the steps to phase out, and possibly ban, MTBE, additional effort have to be taken into studying those components of gasoline -- of the new reformulated gasoline that will then be admitted to the atmosphere, to make sure that we are not replacing 96 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 MTBE with something else that could be harmful. My concern is the public health of the people in the City of Philadelphia, and what I don't want to see happen is something coming into affect the health of the City of Philadelphia that has not been studied sufficiently to determine what the health effects of those other additives might be. If you look at the published data on MTBE and compare that with the data, the health data, for other gasoline constituents like 1,3-butadiene and benzene, you'll see that those other two gasoline components are much more prevalent to causing long-term health effects, including cancer, than is MTBE. Now, this is the body of knowledge that I've been able to look at. And while there are respected people here who are making connections between asthma and the use of MTBE, that is still not part of the public body of knowledge that -- which I think has to be included. And I think -- and part of my testimony does call for additional -- an additional look at the relationship between MTBE and the health effects, including asthma, of 97 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 the citizens in those areas. There is strong evidence, when you look at the introduction of MTBE and the correlating data that shows an increase in asthma. Does the use of MTBE cause asthma? I'm not sure. From a strict scientific standpoint, I am not sure. I know that asthma is a complex disease and there are many causes for asthma. I suffer from asthma myself. And I don't want it to be oversimplified to where you're taking an act of including MTBE in gasoline and having asthma becoming more prevalent in cities and saying that there's a direct link between the two. And I think that has to be looked at.
Well, my personal feeling is that it has to be more looked at, but let's leave that, because I think there are other witnesses that will have points of view with respect to it. Dr. Joseph, could I ask you to -- I think at this point, it would be appropriate. Mr. Fine, would you be good enough to stay. Because maybe there can be some interesting 98 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 dialogue. (Witness comes forward.)
Dr. Joseph, would you like to have anybody up there with you?
No, no, I'm prepared to testify on my own here. My name is Peter Joseph, and I am a professor in the School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. And I can give you -- in my handout here, I do have my brief biography. I got my Ph.D. in '67, and in '72, I was trained in medical physics. In '95, I was appointed to membership on the Philadelphia Asthma Task Force by the Philadelphia Department of Health, which has been a very enriching experience for me. And on two occasions, I've testified to out-of-state lawmakers, including California and Connecticut. And I was interested by many of the comments of Mr. Fine, some of which I strongly agree and some of which I strongly disagree with, so I think maybe we could have an interesting discussion here. What I thought I would do, if I could take maybe a couple of minutes -- 99 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
-- is and run through the history of MTBE to clarify this business. Yes, it was introduced first as an octane enhancer in 1979, the 1980s. Now, Mr. Fine speaks about use in the 1980s. He's correct that the values of ozone gone down. However, I do not know any responsible scientist who would attribute the decline of ozone in the 1980s to the use of MTBE. In fact, I will call your attention to an official publication here by the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council specifically addressing ozone-forming potential of reformulated gasoline. This just came out last week, and I can read you a brief excerpt here. It says, "Effective oxygenates and RFG. " Now, that is a quote from a committee of the leading atmospheric scientists in the country, and you might want to look at that yourself later. I think it's recognized that the EPA 100 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 has taken many other positive steps over the past 20 years to reduce air pollution, independent of gasoline. You all know that you have a catalytic converter in your car, you know that your cars today have very sophisticated pollution-control equipment, which did not exist years ago. I 8 think it's generally recognized by experts in this 9 field that the improvements have come on the side 10 of car engineering and the complex computer- 11 controlled apparatus that they have, and not from 12 change gasoline. 13 However, following up on what Barry 14 Grossman said, I want to remind you of the history 15 of the problems with MTBE that have come out. In 16 1992, at the same time that Philadelphia and New 17 Jersey got this 15 percent MTBE, there were 18 massive protests in Fairbanks, Alaska, and the 19 state government perceived this as an epidemic. 20 They called in specialist doctors from the CDC -- that's Center for Disease Control -- and this did an emergency evaluation. They quickly concluded that this was a public health epidemic. The governor of Alaska immediately terminated the program and refused to have it ever since. That's 101 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Case 1. Case 2, Missoula, Montana. It wasn't publicized as much, but there was a similar case there, where hundreds and hundreds of people felt that they were being influenced by this and their health was being hurt, and they cancelled, they switched over to ethanol, and there's been no 9 problem ever since. And as Mr. Grossman unfortunately indicated, in our part of the world -- in New Jersey, in Connecticut, in Pennsylvania, although there are protests at least as large, if not larger, the public health authorities simply ignored it. And why did they do that? Based on the kinds of statements you heard previously, which are based on the existing knowledge of the exhaust, it just seems absurd. When you look at the known properties of MTBE, when you look at the known exhaust products, you have to think that these people like Barry Grossman are a bunch of nuts because there's nothing there that would explain all of these horrendous problems. Now, it's true that some air toxics are increased. The idea that MTBE lowers air toxics 102 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 is a half-truth, okay? At best, a half-truth. It absolutely increases formaldehyde. Any expert on the subject will tell you that. You may get a little variation on how much it increases it, but it definitely increases formaldehyde. So how can they claim that air toxics are going down when formaldehyde is going up? Now, I think I should mention at this point, my particular theory is that there's another air toxic which they have never even thought of, let alone measured or quantified, and that is methyl nitrite. Now, I've spent five years, based on my own personal symptoms -- I like, Barry Grossman, is one of the people who is severely affected by this, and I knew intellectually that there had to be something coming out of that exhaust than what was in the books. It was obvious to me.
It's taken me five years to figure out what it is: I believe it's methyl nitrite. Now, Dr. Billmers will be speaking somewhat after me, he's an expert in the field and can reinforce what I'm saying. But I can tell you that on May 1st, Dr. Billmers and myself were 103 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 invited to testify at the EPA at a closed meeting here in Philadelphia, their regional science council, and we had proposed a formal research project to determine, is this true, is methyl nitrite made in the exhaust and is it present in Philadelphia? I'm happy to say that the technical experts in the audience at that time -- these are EPA environmental engineers, environmental scientists -- were very enthusiastic in supporting what we were saying. Unfortunately, the person who was running the meeting was an administrator from out of town, and he was sarcastic, he was skeptical, he was caustic, and he finally said, Well, there is really no way we can fund this. So if you want to know why, I suggest you ask him, or ask the director of the local EPA Region III, why don't they want to fund it? Why don't they want know if there's any methyl nitrite being made? Now, Mr. Fine talked about benzene. Yes, it's true that benzene is toxic. However, experiments in rats -- this is going to surprise you. Experiments in rats showed that methyl 104 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 nitrite is 100 times more toxic than benzene. So they're making a big deal out of this reduction of benzene, which I think is bogus anyway, and yet they don't want to know if it's making methyl nitrite? Is there any rational basis for that? I have to suspect their motives, but I try to keep my testimony purely scientific, okay? So let me tell you about some research that I've been doing here at the University of Pennsylvania. I have been looking at statistics, not just asthma, but on a wide variety of conditions, and you have them in the -- here they are. In addition to my formal outline of my talk, I have three attachments I'm submitting for the record. Attachment A is called "Characteristics of the MTBEMN Syndrome," MN standing for methyl nitrite. What are the symptoms? Under inflammatory symptoms you have: sinusitis, nosebleeds, stuffy or runny nose, sore throat, post-nasal drip, cough, asthma, earache, and irritated eyes. Under neurological system: headache, dizziness, hard to concentrate, nausea, insomnia, drunk feeling, fatigue, lethargy, heart 105 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 palpitations. And under the allergic reactions, I have skin rash. And I'm not the only person to say this. The CDC found many of these symptoms in a study of individuals in Alaska, and the following year, in April of '93, the CDC did a quiet, not well-publicized study in Connecticut where they found exactly the same symptoms there associated with MTBE. I'm currently working in peer review medicine at Penn. However in my Attachment B, which I'm giving you here, I have four graphs, and I will briefly describe them to you. Graph 1 is the explosion of asthma in Philadelphia, which is much larger than the national average and increased from 5 to something like 36 percent. A study done by a Philadelphia expert, Dr. Mangione, in '96 found that that the incidence of asthma in Philadelphia tripled or quadrupled since the early '80s. It was a huge, huge increase. Is this normal? Are you telling me there's nothing else going on here? Now, Graph 2 shows another piece of interesting statistics here, which is the 106 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 nationwide statistics on death from asthma of non-white people. There's a very interesting history here. In the cases prior to 1979, deaths were decreasing, but after MTBE was approved in 1979, the deaths were increasing. And you see, it increased gradually for a while and seemed to level off, and, lo and behold, in 1992 with the introduction of oxygenated gasoline, it increases even faster. And I found several of my colleagues at Penn had these same symptoms.
I remember distinctly all five people -- three doctors and two secretaries who got miraculously well at the same time the MTBE was taken out, and then the following November, it came back. I've gotten calls from all over the country -- California, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, every place where these things are happening. Now let me go on with the statistics that I have here, getting back closer to home now, Graph 3 shows a 62 percent increase between 1993 and '96 in visits to Philadelphia clinics. I am on the Philadelphia Asthma Task Force, which I'm very grateful to be on that committee, and I gave 107 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 statistical analyses of several diseases, not just asthma, several diseases, as diagnosed by the doctors in the Philadelphia public health clinics. Now, you understand, these are mostly poor people who can't afford private doctors, so it's not the -- it's a special subset of the population. But here's what I'm showing you, a 62 percent increase in just 3 years, okay, for asthma. If that doesn't surprise you or in case you think it's only the poor or only non-whites that are getting this problem, it's not true. There are lots of white middle-class people in the suburbs who are also coming down with asthma. I certainly agree that it's the impoverished black children getting the most, but it's not uniquely focussed on that subset. My last graph illustrates the increased use at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Pharmacy of cromolyn sodium inhalers. Perhaps Mr. Fine uses that or not, but it's very prominently prescribed for asthma. What the statistics show is that from '93 to '95, there was a sevenfold increase, sevenfold. That's 600 percent. If that's not an epidemic, what is it? 108 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Okay, it's this kind of data that makes me convinced that there's a serious problem here, and I agree that the known exhaust products are unlikely to cause that, okay? That's why if the EPA refuses to fund that research at Drexel, I will plead, I will plead with the City Council to undertake that, you know. As I said, we've had -- okay, so I'll sum up my summary pretty soon. " If you'll allow me some arrogance, I'd like to suggest a few lines of action you'd like to think about.
They from easiest to most difficult. Point No. 1. The Water Department should regularly test Philadelphia water for MTBE content. That's easy, obviously. However, in my opinion. It's unlikely that water will show significant MTBE contamination in the City. I think that's very unlikely. The second thing is, the City should determine if there's any MTBE in the infamous 109 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 "plume" in South Philadelphia, as it was described previously. And, third, I'd love to see the City do one, it's easy. Require that only Getty Gasoline with ethanol be used in all City-owned vehicles, make it a municipal policy that you not put any MTBE in vehicles where you control what goes into them. This is especially relevant for the Criminal Justice building where there's a whole group of people over there on the second floor getting sick exactly since the five years when they first moved in there. And they are all convinced that it's from exhaust from the vans that are used to transport the prisoners into trial in the Criminal Justice Building. Those vans apparently sit there and idle all day, and these poor individuals have to breathe that exhaust. Apparently, all of them are getting sick. No, it won't solve their problems when they're breathing in the MTBE out of those trucks or out of those vans while they're walking down Broad Street or sleeping in their homes at night, but at least they won't be poisoned with the methyl nitrite while they're working at the 110 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Criminal Justice Center. It's an easy one. Next, require all gasoline pumps with MTBE to contain a large warning label. I'd like to see it in large letters and strong enough language advising the consumer to be aware that the gas contains MTBE, which strongly irritates the respiratory system and may induce other symptoms such as -- I could write it out, if you want me to, but I think the consumer should be aware of this, just as Councilman Rizzo has already discovered on his own. Consumers should be aware that there is a potentially harmful substance in the gas they're pumping. Now, proponents of the studies showing the harmful effects of MTBE on rats and so forth might tell you that this could not possibly be true because there's a difference between rats and humans and that your job is not to protect rats, but your job is to protect humans in the City. An important discovery was made by scientists in Sweden just recently that shows that humans metabolize MTBE differently than rats and produce two other substances. Point number two, scientists in California two years ago published a 111 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 very important study that showed that some individuals can become truly allergic to MTBE, and there's actually a blood test that can be done. So if you think you have this condition, your doctor can send a sample of your blood to California and they can tell you if you're allergic. And there will be some individuals you're going to hear from today, and some of these individuals' lives have actually been decimated in some sense or other because they're allergic to MTBE. This is not a anecdotal data; this is hard-core laboratory science published in a peer reviewed medical journal, okay. Point No. 5 is closest to my heart. Fund research at Drexel University to prove that MTBE discussion does make methyl nitrite.
I know the persons from the Criminal Justice Center are here during their lunchtime. Could they, while you're here, join you at the table and give their testimony?
Sure. Then after they 112 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 testify, then you'll be able to ask any questions. Christine, would you come up front. (Witness comes forward.)
We're very particularly interested in your story because as a Philadelphia employee doing work that the City wants you to do, certainly the City ought not to be endangering your health in any way. So City Council would have a special responsibility with respect to City employees. Go ahead and introduce yourself for the record.
My name is Christine Oliveri. I work for the Court of Common Pleas in Active Criminal Records.
I think you have to keep it much closer. Pull it, it moves. Right.
Okay. I've been working 113 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 with the Court of Common Pleas for 28 years in August, and we were in this building until September of 1995, when we moved into the Criminal Justice Center. And when we first moved in there, we noticed terrible gas fumes, but we were hoping that this would all be eliminated as we all got settled, and it got worse. At least three times a day, we have to leave the floor or go down to the lobby or step outside because the fumes are so overwhelming. And everyone -- and I think I'm speaking for approximately 130 people on the floor, we go home with a headache and terrible fatigue every single day. It's not getting better, it's getting worse, because we're in this building every day for five years, and there's just no answer. The buses idle to deliver the prisoners and to pick them up and take them back to the prisons at the end of the day. I guess they have to keep the motor idling for heat or air conditioning, whatever the reason, we just suck in all the exhaust fumes. If there are trucks delivering supplies and they idle on the 13th 114 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Street side, we get all the fumes from there and it's awful. You could actually taste it, you get a metallic taste in your mouth.
Oh, we've had a lot of people there. We've had carbon monoxide detectors on the floor, and they have gone off at times, and they told us that they just malfunctioned, that the carbon monoxide levels were safe. I don't know what "safe" is, but it's making everyone sick. So what's safe? To have a headache every day and to go home exhausted. I'm doing the same work that I did 28 years and now I have to go home and actually lay down because you have no energy. And having a headache is very unpleasant and it's every single day. And I have nasal problems. I mean, I've been seeing an EMT doctor, which I've never had to see before. And he actually asked me if I'm using street drugs because my nasal passages were so inflamed, and I don't use street drugs, and now I have to use a saline solution, and everyone has eye drops on their desk. Our 115 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 water supply has tripled since we've been in this building because we're always thirsty. I mean, it's just -- it's very uncomfortable .
Well, Dr. Joseph, how do you tie that in with MTBE? Would the same problem result, say, if cars were using ethanol instead of MTBE and they were idling?
I think there are some very interesting things which I've just learned for the first time right now. She mentions headache. In both of the CDC studies of MTBE in Alaska and in Connecticut, headache was the number-one symptom, okay? Furthermore, regarding methyl nitrite, it is a major symptom of methyl nitrite. That has been proven. There have been several cases published in the medical literature, where people who were accidentally exposed to methyl nitrite in an industrial accident. It's a severely toxic, they are hospitalized, and headache is always a symptom, okay? 116 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Now, she mentions carbon monoxide. And I have to respect the professional judgment of the environmental engineers; they say that carbon monoxide is safe you. I think it is safe, I don't think carbon monoxide is the problem. People have been working around carbon monoxide for dozens and dozens of years. We know its characteristics, we know the type of effects that it has on people.
Mr. Fine, did you want to join this discussion? I'd like you to feel free to do so. Come forward. (Witness comes forward.)
OSHA, the occupational and safety agency of the federal government has rules on how much carbon monoxide is allowed, okay? I believe it's 35 parts per million for a 40-hour work week, okay? Those numbers are based on the experience of thousands and thousands of man years. Other people are not getting headaches from 35 parts per million of carbon monoxide. What's the conclusion? It's something other than carbon monoxide. That's why we're bringing the methyl nitrite idea. Now, it's fascinating that she has 117 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 problems with her nose because burning nose was also a symptom found by the CDC in both Alaska and Stanford. And by the way, my own research at Penn also associates huge increases in exactly that, what we call allergic rhinitis and headache. Both of those symptoms are way up in the hundreds and hundreds of percent, okay? A fascinating comment on street drugs. Guess what? One of the more abused substances, some of the more abused substances on the street are called "poppers." And chemically, they are closely related to methyl nitrite. I think amyl nitrate is one and butyl nitrate is another, okay? Yes, they can irritate the nose, they have been shown to affect the immune system. The U.S. Congress twice passed laws to literally outlaw the sale of all of these organic nitrites. Now, if I'm correct and if Dr. Billmers is correct, they ought to pass a law against MTBE because it's making the methyl nitrite. Now, we don't know as much about methyl nitrite as we do about the poppers, but what we do know, based on rats, that if anything, it's about six times worse. So the stuff that's coming out of that 118 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 exhaust pipe is approximately six times more toxic than what the U.S. Congress has already outlawed in terms of the nitrites.
Mr. Fine, do you have any problems? I don't want to force you into --
I just thought you might have a point of view that you wanted to express here.
Well, like I said, I'm not an expert in that area. I am familiar a little bit with the events around the Criminal Justice Center, in that Air Management was originally called in to try to find out the source. And when we did find what the source was -- namely infiltration from street traffic on 13th Street, and I believe there was an additional component from the trucks taking the prisoners into the garage -- that the Risk Management then took over because that's their area of responsibility, to make some modifications to address the situation. I'm sorry to hear that there's still 119 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 some problems there.
I had a very bad morning this morning. About 10:30, we had to go down to the lobby because the fumes were overwhelming.
Now, if this is a -- if these are diesel trucks and buses that are causing the problem, there are many components of diesel emissions and also non-automotive-related emissions that could give symptoms similar to what's being experienced. We find that in many cases where there are indoor air-quality problems unrelated to traffic, that people complain of headaches and sore throats and coughing as well. And I'm not -- I'm just trying to, you know, balance this out a little bit because what I find as being common in other kinds of indoor air-quality complaints.
But wouldn't -- you know, tell me frankly what your opinion is. It would seem to me, as a layman in this field, that I would want to try to make a test. There's complaints being made about MTBE now, it may or may not have something to do with the complaints. But as certainly we may not be able to control the 120 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 traffic on 13th Street, but we could control the exhaust fumes from the City buses that are bringing in prisoners that are idling their cars. It would seem to me worthwhile for those vehicles, if they're the same vehicles, to be using gasoline other than this MTBE version over a period of time to test to see whether or not -- it seems to me it would be a very interesting test. And it may not be the cause, you may be right, and then that would be evidence, you know, supporting you, but wouldn't that be a kind of simple way? It would also show the people that are working there that a real effort is being made because we may never -- and I won't go by my lifetime, but in the lifetime of the people here, we may never have what all scientists will conclude is absolute evidence.
I would call on us to even be more aggressive with SEPTA and fleet operators, you know, to go beyond the gasoline-powered engines and go to alternative fuel-type engines, 121 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 which are being tested and used successfully in other cities, so that we don't stay dependent on gasoline, because gasoline itself is not a very nice substance to --
Well, I'm very interested in that. I think that's a very good point. But as an immediate factor, wouldn't the simplest thing be -- if the City acted as a humane employer, just a simple human employer, it would seem to me they'd say, Well, let's find out if it's this idling. You know, let's see if that changes it. Now, it could be that there's a combination of a whole lot of factors working, and one of those factors may be MTBE, the impact of MTBE may be worse where there are also other factors. It may be that MTBE is making -- you know, just adding so much more that it's creating the problem, or it may not be, but this will be a simple area. Dr. Joseph, is that the kind of test that scientists would accept?
Yes, of course. I'd love 122 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 to see somebody -- the City or Drexel or somebody -- measure MTBE and methyl nitrite on that floor where she works.
Are they the same vehicles that come day after day with the prisoners?
Yeah, yeah. But I was going to comment on one thing she said, which was also very interesting, which I think supports the 123 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 methyl nitrite idea. She said that this morning, it was especially difficult.
Okay, why? Because methyl nitrite is destroyed by sunlight, and this leads to what is called "the cloudy day effect." Many people, such as myself -- when I was in my sensitive stage, I couldn't have come in today. This would be too cloudy a day for me to come in. On a sunny day, I felt fine. So this morning, when you have heavy, dark clouds, but no rain, it's the worse possible day for methyl nitrite. It fits perfectly with what she is saying.
Well, maybe we'll -- I think our committee report will want to be dealing with this situation to see whether or not we can develop our own homegrown test.
I would like to add also that Air Management monitors air toxics to sites in the City. Where we do have a deficiency is that the MTBE and methyl nitrite are not on that list of air toxics that are measured. And what I 124 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 would like to do is go back and see what would be required to include those two on the list of what's being measured so that we can get some baseline data --
That sounds like a great idea. I think they ought to be tested. And I think what you said, Mr. Fine, about SEPTA, I would like to have your thoughts on SEPTA. SEPTA has a responsibility to City Council, we help them with funding, to the tune of about $45 million a year, so we would have something to say, and particularly if there's any way that we can reduce any health hazards that may come from SEPTA's use of whatever fuels there are, I'd like to continue that.
We don't have too much SEPTA traffic. There is no bus on 13th Street, as far as I know, and there is nothing going down Filbert Street. It's just the regular -- the cars and the sheriff's buses that, you know, we see a lot of. And it's very uncomfortable. 125 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
I'd like to expand on that point. You see, there's a limited amount that the City of Philadelphia government can control, which is what you're saying. You don't have control over all these cars driving around and what kind of gasoline is in their tank. Now, even if you were successful in banning, short-term banning MTBE to be sold in Philadelphia, which I doubt, but if you were successful, that would not prevent the suburbanites from driving in and the New Jersey people from driving in, so it wouldn't really solve the problem. It would reduce it, but it would no solve it. And that's why I think the most important step is to get the definitive research that proves that this methyl nitrite is there. If you have that data in your back pocket, then your legal case is much, much stronger.
I agree with that. What do you feel about a test, having the City's vehicles tested?
Oh, I think it's worth a try, especially in her case, where, apparently, I 126 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 guess, a significant fraction of that pollution is coming from the City vehicles, but not all of it, that's all I'm saying. I'm not that familiar; these people are far more knowledgeable about that particular building and its traffic than I am. I think we agree that it's not all of it but some of it is coming from the City vehicles.
What's the impact of -- somebody referred earlier to catalytic converters.
Do catalytic converters the same kind of work that the MTBE is supposed to?
That's a very good question, that's a very good question. As a matter of fact, I've had some fascinating debates with some of senior environmental engineers at the 127 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 EPA office. One of them has actually suggested that the catalytic converters may make methyl nitrite worse. I am not 100 percent convinced that's true, but this is, you know, a senior engineer who has this theory. Again, we need research, okay? If you fund the research at Drexel, they can take a look at that and they'll tell you the answer. It won't be a mystery anymore. They'll say, if you put in the catalytic converter, it gets better or it gets worse.
Well, the witness from the EPA talked about research that the EPA was undertaking on MTBE?
I don't know that they're looking at methyl nitrite; I'd be delighted to learn if that's true.
I would just like to say one thing about catalytic converters as well.
And that is that with the technology buildup around emission controls in 128 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 automobiles, that the catalytic converters and the on-board emission-control systems make the use of reformulated gas less relevant. So that the -- in California, they did some studies that said that reformulated gasoline does not have a great effect on mobile-source emissions, and that is because they were looking at the control of these automobiles in California, which are controlled to a much greater extent than around the rest of the country. And as the vehicles around the country are upgraded, as newer vehicles come on line, then we would expect that reformulated gasoline would play less and less of a role in the clean-air equation. So I just wanted to make that statement. Another piece of news --
Could I interrupt for a moment. Professor Billmers, would you have something you'd like to say on this subject that we're talking about? 'Cause I'd like to invite you -- you don't have to leave the table, but I'd like to invite Professor Billmers to come up.
There's one more thing I 129 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 want to put in on catalytic converters.
There's a movement in effect now, where EPA is moving to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline and, more recently, in diesel fuel. What the sulfur in the fuel does is, it tends to negate some of the effectiveness of the catalytic converters. So we expect, as time goes on and as the lower sulfur fuel requirement comes on board, that the catalytic converters will have an even greater effect in reducing air emissions and, therefore, even further reducing the need to have reformulated gasoline.
Professor Billmers, why don't you introduce yourself for the record. And if there's anything that you want to say on this part of the debate or anything else, say it.
Sure. Hi, how you doing. My name is Dr. Richard Billmers. I'm a research associate professor at Drexel University, specifically in the Mechanical Engineering Department, working on combustion chemistry. Mr. Fine is absolutely right. 130 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Catalytic converters have gotten a lot better and they do make the need for reformulated gases much less necessary. The one thing to be careful of, though, is that it takes a little bit of time for the catalytic converter to get to its own temperature to where the catalysis happens. And so as the engine begins to warm up happen and the cat. begins to warm up, things do happen until it reaches its equilibrium temperature. So there is a time period where it's not quite as effective as it might be later on. Other than that, I do believe that the catalytic converter does make reformulated gasolines less important that they used to be.
Do you have any problem with respect to the problem that the young woman testified to, at the Criminal Justice Center building?
I thought the -- I thought Dr. Joseph's comments were interesting, I thought the same thing in our discussions of methyl nitrite. It does not sound to me like carbon monoxide was the problem; it does sound 131 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 like something else. I was just thinking about the amyl nitrite problem because amy nitrite is very related to methyl nitrite. It's one derivative on one side of the molecule. It's very similar in a lot of ways, and that is the drug of choice of -- I guess, they're teenagers who like to ingest it, snort it, and a lot of those same kinds of symptoms have been seen. Again, I'm not the health expert, but I have read about that and heard about that. And it's interesting when she made the point that they were experiencing those kinds of problems, that's the first thing that I had thought about. In terms of other things that I've heard so far today, I think in some of the things that I've done and proposed to the EPA, it's been amazing to me that we're proposing such a small study at Drexel University, which could provide some very definitive answers, and we've been looked at like we're totally crazy. And I think the problem is political. Nobody want to admit that this may be a problem because, I think, because it would inflame a lot of people. It 132 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 might be easier to look at other.
Excuse me, Rich. The technical experts didn't say we were crazy; they were very enthusiastic.
No, no, you're absolutely right, Peter. What I meant was that it's not the thing of choice to look at as the cause of the problem because it may have political ramifications if we find that the answer is methyl nitrate.
Well, that does not mean that we shouldn't do the scientific study and try to find the problem, because I truly believe that we need to know the answer. Right or wrong, lawsuits are not, if methyl nitrite, or a by-product of methyl tertiary butyl ether, is the problem, we need to target on that. And I've heard the Department of Health talk about cockroaches being a problem and spending an awful lot of taxpayers' money to look to see if cockroaches are related to asthma, and they may be, I'm not the expert to say that 133 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 they're are not, but they have not even considered the idea of by-products of methyl tertiary butyl ether as the problem, will not even to look at it. And we have the facilities at Drexel University to do a very inexpensive, very primary study to do that in our combustion research facility, and we've yet to be able to move anyone anywhere. And the thing is, Dr. Joseph is right, we have gotten very good technical reviews of the proposal, but no one will stand up and actually put any funding toward it be get the ball rolling.
In terms of monies, that doesn't even represent petty cash for the budget, say, of the EPA or the federal government 134 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 operating with surpluses.
Well, it's interesting that you mention that, because we had originally submitted this to the local EPA because we thought they could find some local money to start this program and then, you know, we could then maybe start to look for ambient air concentrations if we found that it was in our research engine. What happened was, I think it was such a hot topic locally, that they decided they couldn't handle it so they pushed it off to a more national level, and I'm just terribly afraid that it's going to get lost in the shuffle of other things.
Well, is the EPA representative still here? Would you mind coming forward for a minute? Marsha Spivak?
I also want to say that I didn't come here to bad-mouth the EPA by any means.
I don't understand the politics. I know Getty is supposed to be a gasoline company that uses ethanol and not MTBE. Does anybody here know what Sunoco uses? 135 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
'Cause the gentleman that was speaking to me before the hearings began was a representative of Sunoco, and he said they would wish to speak at this hearing today, except they are involved in some lawsuit that they have been brought into in New York. He said it kind of indirectly -- the lawyers, I'm one, so I can understand it maybe better than non-lawyers. Their lawyers won't permit them to because the lawyers are always worried something may come up, which may be disadvantageous to them in this lawsuit or any lawsuit that may evolve. But I don't -- I guess there must be a lot of profits involved in making both ethanol, as well as MTBE. So -- and I don't feel that the local office would be involved in that aspect. The national office might be. Tell us, is there any problem? Would it be possible for the local office -- I don't know enough about EPA to know, you know, whether or not the local office would have power to reach 136 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 a decision on that.
Okay. Let's -- I think you're talking now about the grant proposal for the scientific study from Drexel; is that right?
It's just that your remarks prior to the question related back to what Sunoco uses in gasoline. So, okay, what happens is that the government has gotten more efficient about where you can move money from one pot to another. And quite frankly, I think that there was a time when there was sufficient discretionary money at the regional level for a regional administrator to consider funding such a local proposal. However, in this day and age, the pots of money that come into the budget for the Congressional appropriation for EPA make that process competitive. So what we do do, in the regional offices, is take proposals, which the regional office feels have merit, and we forward them on to our national office, with our recommendation that 137 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 they be considered among the projects that have been submitted for funding. And we actually -- if we get more than one project at a time, Councilman, we even rank them. So it would have been normal procedure for the regional office to have forward Drexel's request for funding for a scientific study to our national office. That -- I don't know that there should be too much more read into that, other than that's the normal process for doing that.
And, Councilman, let me clarify that that is what we were told me.
That is what we were told, that there was no discretionary funding locally, and it would have to be circulated throughout the national office for them to find some funding for it. But I guess my point would be, and having worked for the Navy previously, you know how that situation goes. Once we went from the local office to the national office, there are so many proposals and so many things going on, and 138 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 particularly small proposals such as ours will have to --
Maybe that's your problem, maybe you ought to add another zero and 700,000 or maybe million, and then people will 7 pay attention. You know, a 60 or $70,000 proposal might just get lost. But what I had in mind was, I would like to try to move it -- I know it would be very difficult to move something like that through either Philadelphia or maybe the national government, but if this committee finds substance in City Council and were to vote that there should be at least a study made, it seems to me that between Philadelphia and the federal government, there ought to be the possibility to achieve it. And from a political point of view, this might be the year -- we don't know what's going to happen in the November election. As a partisan Democrat, I hope that the Democrats continue, but nobody knows, and there is a very strong and good relationship between Philadelphia and the national administration at this time. I would like to have the opportunity -- if I could 139 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 get enough information on the proposal, I would like to seek to get the intervention of our Philadelphia Congressional delegation in support of the proposal at the national level while we try to do what we can do at the local level. We're the one funding agency. The State and the federal government are awash in surplus funding. The City is awash in just the reverse. So that -- but I would like to make a real effort. I'm convinced clearly at least that there is a need for some more study. I tend to believe that there's good cause to believe that in the situation we're talking about that MTBE is a culprit and not an asset. But I would like to see a study, you know, that would more decisively indicate. If you think a study would do it, I would also like to see a simple test made with respect to the Criminal Justice Center. I feel a bit responsible, Christine, about the Criminal Justice section because I was Chairman of the Council Committee at the time we voted to build the Criminal Justice Section to change it just from a jail to a whole criminal just operation. 140 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
It's a great building. I mean, we have much more conveniences than we did when we were in City Hall. We have a place for everything now. It's new, it's clean, our conditions are much better, but then we have this air quality that's awful.
And by the way, this only our complaint. As far as I know, it's only the second floor that gets the fumes.
Mr. Fine, would you know that? Is that where the complaint came from, the second floor?
We don't have anything underneath us, just the garage. So there's nothing, I guess, to capture the fumes.
Well, I will be making a trip over there separately. I would like to see that, to examine it, and I'll feel better having examined it and maybe spoken to some more of the people there. 141 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 I think something's got to be done, I think the City's got a real responsibility for everybody's general health, but obviously for those whom it employs, I think it has a number-one responsibility. I would like to bring on now Robert Wendelgass, who's been here, as all of us have been, who's Executive Director of Pennsylvania Clean Water Action. Could you stay, Doctor, you haven't testified yet. And Dr. Joseph, if you would stay. And we're, of course, going to want to bring up Linda Maietti and Saul Berger. Saul Berger is the person who brought this to my attention, dogged after me until I paid attention. (Witnesses come forward.)
Thank you, Councilman. My name is Robert Wendelgass, and I'm Pennsylvania State Director for Clean Water Action. Clean Water Action is a statewide environmental organization with 60,000 members in 142 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 the State and 6,000 here in Philadelphia. We work for passage and enforcement of strong laws and regulations to both protect our environment and safeguard public health.
Linda, take the seat that's there. Join us, yes. Go ahead, go ahead, Mr. Wendelgass.
Among our priorities over the past several years has been ensuring the safety of our drinking water, working for strong standards to protect our drinking water, and working to protect the sources of our drinking water from contamination. My organization has been concerned about health problems associated with the use of MTBE in gasoline for over five years. In 1996, we unfortunately unsuccessfully lobbied the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to set a drinking-water standard for MTBE and to require water utilities and water systems to test for MTBE. This year, our national organization has adopted a position calling for a rapid phase-out and a complete ban on MTBE and other ether-derived fuel additives within three years. We also 143 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 support a requirement that gasoline companies and MTBE manufacturers, not taxpayers, pay for the cost of cleaning up existing and future MTBE contamination of groundwater. The primary focus for our concern has been the potential for contamination of our drinking water. That's not to minimize health effects from breathing MTBE vapors in the air; it's just to say that our focus has been on groundwater and drinking water contamination. Because of its solubility and its mobility, even a small spill or leak of MTBE has the potential to cause extensive contamination of drinking water. The MTBE leaked from a single overturned automobile can contaminate 75 million gallons of drinking water through to level of 5 parts appear billion. You've already heard about taste and odor problems which can make the water undrinkable, and others testified about long-term health effects, noting that MTBE is a possible human carcinogen, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The concerns that we've raised over the 144 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 years about the possible contamination of groundwater, I think, have been documented in a number of studies over the years, and they are listed in my testimony. In the interest of time, I won't go through them all. S. Geological Service, by various states that have found MTBE at detectable and sometimes significant levels in wells throughout the country, in states all over the country, in both private drinking water wells and wells serving community water systems. Because of these problems, many state and national governments have begun paying more attention to MTBE over the past several years. And more and more, their conclusion is that MTBE use should be eliminated. California and Maine have requested the authority to stop MTBE use, and as others have noted, in September of last year, the EPA's blue-ribbon panel on oxygenates called for substantial reductions in MTBE use due largely to concerns about groundwater contamination. Finally, earlier this year, the EPA agreed, proposing to ban MTBE and the oxygenate 145 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 requirement and add a somewhat controversial renewable fuels requirement instead. In terms of drinking water, why should Philadelphia care about MTBE contamination? After all, our drinking water comes from our local rivers, and conventional wisdom suggests that MTBE will evaporate out of such water bodies. I would submit that there are at least three reasons. First, there are other communities that live downstream from us, and the MTBE in our gasoline can potentially contaminate their drinking water. The recharge area for the Potomac-Raritan aquifer that provides drinking water to most of the river towns in New Jersey is in eastern Pennsylvania and includes a substantial proportion of Philadelphia. MTBE leaking from gas stations in our city can potentially pollute the groundwater that tens of thousands of our neighbors just across the Delaware River use as their source of drinking water. And I would add certainly that the buildup of MTBE levels in groundwater under our city is not good for our environment or our health, even if we don't directly drink that water.
146 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Secondly, as other people have talked more eloquently than I could, the inhalation of MTBE vapors and its possible impact on our health is certainly an issue, and there are a number of recent studies that suggest a serious problem in that regard that we should be very careful about. And, thirdly, while MTBE does volatilize from water, particularly in rivers and streams, the half-lives in these rivers and streams can be substantial. Catastrophic leaks from gas stations upstream from our drinking-water intakes could affect our drinking water supplies along with discharges from pleasure boats in the area of our water intakes. What do we suggest as an alternative? Well, my organization does not have a position currently on the long-term issue of whether ethanol is the appropriate long-term substitute or whether we should eliminate the oxygenate requirement. However, we believe very strongly that we need to act immediately at both the local, state, and federal levels to end the use of MTBE. And one of the reasons I would argue for doing that is to note some comments that EPA 147 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 folks have made. In noting that MTBE contamination can remain a problem in groundwater for many years, EPA deputy secretaries have indicated that some of the contamination we're now seeing may well have come from spills or leaks as long as ten years ago. We believe we must act quickly to get MTBE out of our gasoline to prevent future problems and to protect the quality of our drinking water and of the drinking water for our neighbors for years to come. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Could I ask you to comment on the testimony that Mr. Roy gave on behalf of the Water Department.
Well, I think it's good that the Water Department is testing for MTBE in their raw water. That's an important development, and they're now going to be required to. I'm happy that they've been doing it in advance. 148 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 I'm -- I'm not -- I don't know that I share his degree of certainty that our water is not at risk. There is, I think, some developing evidence that even surface-water bodies, even rivers likely we draw our water from, can be at risk. And, certainly, a catastrophic leak or spill, like was the situation with Dallas's water supply, could certainly have an effect on the Delaware or the Schuylkill and affect our drinking water. So I think it's good that they're doing the testing. I think that a combination of testing and the elimination of MTBE -- the use of MTBE would be the best alternative and the one that's most protective of public health.
Thank you, Mr. Wendelgass. I would like to call is the next witness Linda Maietti. (Witness comes forward.)
Would you please state your name and spell your last name, please, for 149 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 the stenographer and pull the microphone very close to your mouth.
My name is Linda Raffa Maietti. And the last name is spelled M-A-I-E-T-T-I.
My name is Linda Raffa Maietti. I am an accountant and a third- generation family business owner in South Philadelphia, and I have been very sick for the past eight years. For the first two years, my doctors and I had no idea what was wrong with me, except that I mysteriously got better in the spring and sick again right before Thanksgiving. For two years, I went through every medical test imaginable, and the doctors found no medical reason for my illness. I suffered with headaches and sinus problems. I contracted asthma, and on certain days, I have pains down my spine and into my arms and legs, sometimes so debilitating that I am bedridden. I at one point suffered terrible abdominal pain and started being perimenopausal at a very early age. My doctors were so frustrated 150 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 that they advised me to seek psychiatric help since they found no medical reasons for my symptoms. The third winter I was sick, I found out why. I went to Florida in January and miraculously felt better. I returned to my own self. I could eat, sleep, and walk again. I could drive in traffic not be nauseous or feel like I was going to fall asleep at the wheel. I was not in pain. I came home. And within two days, I was sick all over again. At that point, I knew it was environmental. As if a message from God, on a Sunday in February, I was going through the Philadelphia Inquirer, and there was an article interviewing a doctor from the University of Penn, and he was describing other people who were suffering the same symptoms as I. I found the reason for my illness -- MTBE in gasoline to clean the air. I wasn't crazy; people all over the country were suffering as I was. Needless to say, I was happy to find the reason but sad because there is no 24 cure; no cure, except to remove this poison from the environment. I also found out that third year 151 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 that I could not look forward to the spring when it would go away because now MTBE was going to be in gasoline the entire year. I have been suffering every day of my life since. Dr. Joseph, who suffered the ill effects himself, began helping me. Although there was not anything on the market to make the symptoms go away, he proceeded in suggesting different things that could lessen the degree of the discomfort. The first thing I did was to purchase air filters, electronic air filters, and place them in strategic rooms of my home, my office, and my car. I have my car filter with me; it's my best friend, I don't go anywhere without it. I take a regimen of the vitamins, dietary supplements, and hormones, and I am using five different types of asthma inhalers a day at this point, not to cure the problem, but to help me live with it. There are some days, especially cloudy ones, or hot and humid ones, where nothing helps. A while ago, I had to document the bad days for a doctor. From July 1st to the end of 152 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 September, 79 days, I had 41 bad ones, days that I had difficulty functioning at work and at home. As often as our finances will allow, and when I think I can't tolerate anymore, I take small trips to parts of Florida where MTBE and oxygenated or reformulated fuel is not used. To ask for help, I've written letters to the President and Vice President of the United States, to Federal and State EPA officials, and Congress. I have been interviewed on TV and radio seeking help. I have been quoted in newspaper and in magazine articles, and now I am seeking your help. Our air is poisoned and now our water is being poisoned. Every day, more and more people's immune systems are breaking down, and they are becoming ill. You can help us, you have the power to make it go away here and now. Think of the little children. There are more children on medications today than ever before. What is this poison doing to them. The federal government asked for a three-year phase-out of MTBE.
Because they do not realize that it is not cleaning the air, they are 153 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 not removing it right away. I would hope that City Council would fund research to prove that what is coming from exhaust is doing more harm than good. Also, I am asking you to take it out of Philadelphia now. Do this before more people, especially children, get sick. There is no reason for oxygenated fuel. And us back in the '80s, when the Clean Air Act was conjured up, the exhaust systems in cars were not as efficient as they are today. If the EPA thinks that the air is cleaner, it's because of cleaner-burning cars, not cleaner-burning fuel. I expect that once MTBE is removed from the fuel, my symptoms will start disappearing, but my fear is, after being subjected to this for the past eight years, what permanent damage has there be to my liver and my neurological system? I look for a normal life again and pray God that I am not left with any permanent ailments. Thank you.
I would like to have Dr. Joseph's interpretation? 154 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
Yes. Well, as Linda said, we met back in February of 1995, after she saw the article in the Philadelphia Inquire about me, so we've been keeping in touch over the years. I know that she repeatedly goes to Florida to escape this, and it gets better. She has a variety of symptoms, many but not all of which, I think, are almost certainly due to the direct effect of these toxic chemicals. I don't know how to answer her question, will there be a permanent effect? I just don't know according. According to my theory, if it's methyl nitrite, there has been very little research done on that. Only a four-hour exposure to rats -- it's called "acute toxicity" -- that's as much as we know about methyl nitrite. We do know that these analogous nitrites, the poppers and so forth that people use on a regular basis, can, in fact, have the very effect she's talking about, especially on the immune system. It's been proven that it can 155 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 affect the immune system, it's been proven that it can affect the respiratory system when taken by human beings over an extended period of time. I encourage her to be optimistic. I mean, I'd like to believe that once she gets out of this, you know, once we get rid of it, that she will improve. Of course, none of us are getting any younger, Linda, you know that. But I would expect or I would hope that most of her symptoms would clear up.
Oh, we wanted to point out, this is the air filter machine that she uses. She plugs this into the car and it cleans the air. And I recommended this particular model for this reason: it contains two elements specifically for chemical pollution. Most of the air filter machines that you would buy in Sears Roebuck or something like that are only for dust, and they would not be effective for this of air pollution, which is what this machine is designed for.
And I can't drive in the car for more than 15 minutes without it. I cannot 156 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 drive for more than 15 minutes without it. I become completely lethargic and just want to fall asleep.
Speaking of that, I just recently heard some fascinating research done up in New Haven, Connecticut, by a professor at Yale. He is finding a huge increase -- he calls it an epidemic of exactly that syndrome. People passing out while driving in their cars. He interprets it as due to a heart effect. In other words, their heart goes to an arrhythmic condition. And I would just tell that you the data which I got from the Philadelphia Department of Health Clinics indeed shows exactly that; it shows an increase in what's called "cardiac dysrhythmia." And I've just communicated with him, his name is Dr. Schoenfeld (ph.), and he's up in New Haven, and I'm encouraged that now we're beginning to get some scientific basis for what she's talking about.
Excuse me for the discourtesy of having lunch, but immediately after this hearing, there's another one at 2 o'clock 157 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 that I must attend. Saul Berger, why don't all of you stay where you are. Do you have to go back to work?
You may do so. If your supervisor needs confirmation of the fact that you were here on official business, give me a call.
All right. Thank you very much for coming. Saul, you brought this matter to my attention.
And kept after me for quite a while to make sure it got on my screen, and I'm very grateful to you for doing that 'cause I think this a very important health matter, a matter of the highest degree of importance. Why don't you tell us -- introduce yourself for the record and then tell us what you'd like us to know.
All right. My name is Saul Berger, and I'm a long-term resident of the 158 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 City of Philadelphia, and I've been impacted by MTBE off and on over the years, and I have statement I'd like to read.
Shortly after MTBE was introduced in early 1992, I began to smell a strong chemical odor coming from the carburetor of my car. Even inside the car, with the vent on or off, the smell persisted. My physical reaction to MTBE was a tightening feeling in my throat accompanied by phlegm, and minor headaches accompanied the phlegm also. I also noticed a decline in the miles per gallon that my car had. Even after giving my car a tune-up, the miles per gallon remained low. I started to ask around why this was going on and bumped into Dr. Peter Joseph on the Internet. He suggested that during the winter months that I should switch to Getty Gasoline. I did and many of my symptoms stopped, some did 159 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 not. The phlegm that started in 1992 remains as long as I'm in the Philadelphia. Once I leave to the shore or to the Pocono Mountains, the phlegm disappears. As a lifelong resident of Philadelphia, it would be valuable to all Philadelphians to have truth in advertising extended to gasoline pumps, indicating the type of oxygenate -- MTBE, ethanol, or no oxygenate at all -- that has been added to the gasoline that we purchase. A requirement for every gas pump in the City of Philadelphia to be labeled with the oxygenate being sold is a minimal thing that City Council can do to protect the health of its citizens. It is my belief that the record high number of young people in Philadelphia that have asthmatic conditions will greatly benefit from the elimination of MTBE. Besides the labeling of gas pumps, the City of Philadelphia should contract only for gasoline that is free of MTBE. Gas pumps in many states, including Connecticut and Rhode Island, already have such. Finally, MTBE should be monitored in the water by the Water Department, from both 160 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 rivers on a regular basis -- daily, possibly weekly, rather than just once every two years that MTBE is currently tested for. Frequent daily or weekly air-quality reports on the parts per million of MTBE is also valuable. I hope City Council takes the conservative approach to our health and bans the use of MTBE in the Philadelphia area. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Now, at this point, I would like to suggest that anyone who wants to make any additional statement or want to challenge anybody else, come forward, or if you're at the table, all right.
I just have one additional point that I would like to underline a little bit today -- the issue of the deteriorated miles per gallon that people get. It actually costs people money to have MTBE in their gasoline because if they use a gasoline that does not have MTBE in it, like ethanol, or go to another state that doesn't use any oxygenate at all, they'll find a 4 to 5 161 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 percent improvement immediately in the gasoline performance of their car.
Is there anyone else here who has any thought on the matter that Mr. Berger's raising? Come forward.
I thought I heard you say -- and this -- I mean, all of this information -- I take this information at this hearing very seriously too to bring back to my agency. Saul, I thought you heard you say that you got better when you went to the Poconos, and you're absolutely right. The gasoline market in the Poconos, if you're filling your car up there, does not have MTBE in it, because it's not reformulated gas. But you said that you felt better when you went to the shore.
That's right. When I go to the ocean, I stand right at the shore, and I get -- I have a little house near the shore and I stand right next to the beach for a couple of hours, so the air that I'm breathing is coming from the Atlantic Ocean.
Okay, I understand. I was particularly interested, though, in the times you 162 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 experienced symptoms while driving your car. And I only wanted to point out that RFG gasoline with MTBE is marketed statewide in New Jersey. So if you're filling up in New Jersey, you're getting MTBE. So that's just a point that I wanted to mention, and that's why I was interested. Although I also took interest in Dr. Joseph's comments that on warm sunlight days, MTBE in the air is also destroyed by sunlight -- I mean methyl nitrite, which is a derivative, of which you raised concerns. And perhaps there's some of that linkage as well. But I just wanted to let you know that if you genuinely feel that when you fill up in the Poconos that you honestly feel a causal relationship that you're actually feeling better, I just wanted to make sure you knew that statewide and in New Jersey, you get MTBE right now.
Well, it's good thing that you mentioned that point because, actually, in Pennsylvania, we have an opportunity that we don't have in New Jersey, because there are five counties in this area of Pennsylvania that are impacted with MTBE sounded by counties that are 163 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 not, which New Jersey doesn't have that situation. And one of the interesting things that I tried to do when trying to contact the DEP in Harrisburg was to find out if there was any differences in auto-emission tests between counties that do not have MTBE versus counties that do not have MTBE, and I'm still looking for the answer to that question. And I suspect that the answer is that the emissions for both counties that do use MTBE versus the ones that don't are probably the same.
Actually, it has nothing to do with MTBE directly, but it just so happens that the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton non-attainment area, which is made up of the five counties in Philly, seven counties in Jersey, two northern counties in Delaware, and Cecil County, Maryland, all use reformulated gasoline, and all of those counties, with the exception of Delaware County, Saul, had to do the enhanced I and M test that goes on the treadmill, but the reason for that is that it's an ozone control measure, and that more sophisticated tests, where you actually put the 164 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 car in the driving mode, it's just coincidental that because of the ozone problem being as severe as it in what's called "the Philadelphia- Wilmington-Trenton area," they had to use RFG, and it just so happens, because of the severity of the ozone problem, they had to use the treadmill program to do their emission tests; whereas, for example, out in Pittsburgh, you have neither reformulated gasoline or the treadmill test, but it has to do because they had a different ozone problem. So they actually probably do match up, but it wasn't a causal effect to say because you have RFG, I'm going to make you do the more sophisticated emissions test. It's just because they have the same severity of an ozone problem that both programs are required under the Clean Air Act.
Well, actually, I wasn't really trying to raise the issue of the increased costs for the motorists of having a more expensive pollution-control test done for this area because we happen to live in Philadelphia and consume MTBE; I was really more interested in seeing the 165 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 relationship between the amount of pollutants that were coming out of the exhaust in one county that doesn't use MTBE versus using another.
I understand. You're talking more about the mileage issues, mileage too, yeah.
And the only thing I wanted to add is to remind folks that the position of the United States Environmental Protection Agency is to seek Congressional action immediately to change the Clean Air Act to remove the 2 percent that's oxygenate requirement that's currently in the law. Right now, if Congress would move immediately to change the Clean Air Act, that would be the most direct legal way to ban or expedite the elimination of MTBE. We have taken action under TSCA, but anybody who's familiar with the Toxic Substance Control Act knows that that's a very complex regulatory test to declare a particular compound to be a hazard to the public and to get it removed from being manufactured, used, marketed, 166 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 distributed, but that's why we're seeking the Congressional action, and we want to work with Congress on the legislative fix to the Clean Air Act. Right now, by law, you have to use an oxygenate that's 2 percent by weight in this reformulated gasoline. Now, the other thing, just to remind folks of is that what EPA has done has done is not -- I want to be clear -- has not said to Congress, therefore, make everybody use ethanol. What EPA has simply said is that currently, across the United States, there's about an annual average of about 1.2 percent of the gasoline in the United States being a form of renewable fuel, and we're only asking that we not lose that. And we feel that simply by removing the oxygenate requirement but by also having some requirement that nationwide annual average, that you have is a certainly percentage of renewable fuel, that doesn't dictate necessarily ethanol to everyone. But the Agency, albeit for the water pollution reasons, is of the position that MTBE has got to come out of the gasoline as soon as possible. I just wanted to make sure that you 167 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 understood the position of the Agency, albeit we are driven at the current time by the water pollution problems.
And we appreciate the clear ring that comes from your testimony in support of saving the environment from all the attacks made on it constantly for all kinds of reasons. I guess as long as there will be human beings alive, there will be attacks on the environment. All of us in our own ways tend to add to the pollution.
I want to say thank you. I'll say this to you. I've been 18 years with the Agency, and before that, I taught 19 math and science in high school, and I also want 20 to say that personally, I'm a -- I really try to 21 base my work on protecting the urban environment. 22 I'm a great lover of American cities. I moved 23 from Boston to this one, bought a home here, and I have great fondness for Philadelphia and its people. I think there's a lot of people out there 168 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 that want to protect the clean areas and the beautiful green areas, but you really need people to champion our cities, particularly our older cities and the people who live there. So I appreciate your remarks. Thank you.
Well, thank you. And I want to say that of the people that have been here today that have testified from whatever point of view. I think this has been a very strong demonstration of how many people are, in fact, interested in working to improve the environment. But it is important to give support to every phase of the effort to save the environment. And so often the government, I think, doesn't take the role of leadership that the people want it to take. I mean, all government isn't bad; a lot of government is very, very good. There may be parts of it where those of us responsible don't do what we ought to be doing, and there's some areas maybe that we don't think about doing that we ought to be doing. But I think government, on the whole, 169 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 does a very fine job, and people have confidence. I don't find that people hate government. Maybe those who don't want any regulations, just want to be free to do whatever they want and to make whatever profits they want and be unrestricted in their efforts to make their profits, maybe they have worries about the government going too far. But I think people generally have a great deal of confidence in government. And I find that particularly in Philadelphia, and they expect us to perform our duties, which is basically to keep the City safe and comfortable for those who live in it. And I think hearings like this go in that direction. Mr. Fine, do you have any statement you want to make? I would hope that your department could get back into the problem of the Criminal Justice Center because I think your office is a very important office. I had occasion -- there were complaint from people living in Society Hill Towers, and Mr. Fine worked very diligently, and it was a difficult problem to handle, 'cause the problem seemed to not quite fit under any laws that we had available to us, but the problem was 170 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 solved because too much sound is also an attack on the environment. So attacks on the environment can come from many different sources, and I think we have to be flexible in our ability to develop approaches to the problems. And I thank you very much, Mr. Fine, for your testimony today. And that's true of all of the government people and of the private citizens. But if anybody has any -- Mr. Fine, is there anything you would like to say? We would like to -- I'll tell you what we hope to do in the committee. We will work very hard in attempting to prepare a report based upon the testimony that was given. I don't know what the recommendation will be, but we'll find out within the next two or three weeks. And I hope that in some small measure, at least, we'll be moving along the efforts of so many fine people in trying to get to the bottom of MTBE. I think there's a lot of evidence that indicates it's creating a problem. I would like to see that study undertaken. I'd like to see the problem -- the ones that you have talked about, Dr. Joseph and Dr. Billmers at Drexel University. 171 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 I can't quite understand why a small amount of 60 or $70,000 should be such a problem. ), who was once being questioned about a newspaper reporter about a $3 million item. " And you know, 60 or $70,000, as I said before, doesn't even approach petty cash when you're dealing with the sums that government has to deal with. And I can't understand why people don't support it. They support so many things, you know, that cost so much money. We're spending money to locate a new chief executive for the school system in the event the State takes over our local schools. Now that -- the newspapers have reported that's going to cost $100,000 just for the search committee. And you put that next to the question of this kind of a study, you know, 172 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 and we don't have good answers as to why your proposal isn't moving forward. We'd like to try to help it in every way. Anything more to come before the committee?
Anybody feel that he or she has anything that ought to be added to this record?
I was just going to give one last little story I thought you might appreciate hearing.
I'm just going to comment on what he says. Yeah, what he's saying is that he goes to the shore and stands and he breathes, you know, the air from the Atlantic Ocean, and he's better. It has nothing to do with where he bought his gasoline in New Jersey. I have a colleague, a professor at Penn, who has a similar experience. He owns a house in Cape May, and he regularly gets cardiac 173 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 symptoms in Philadelphia, his wife regularly gets respiratory symptoms in Philadelphia. And they go almost every weekend down to their house at Cape May. And he says, We are always, always so much better there in Cape May than we are in Philadelphia -- with one exception. What was the exception? Well, there was one time there on a weekend -- two factors. First of all, it was very cloudy, so you have the cloudy-day effect. Secondly, in Cape May, they were having a convention of antique cars that day; and, of course, the antique cars have no pollution control at all, okay? So they had dozens or hundreds of antique cars driving very slowly down the main street of Cape May, spewing out the pollution, without any sunlight to destroy the methyl nitrite, and that's the one time they felt sick in Cape May.
A very appropriate story for this hearing. All right. Then I will want to -- there are a couple of bookkeeping things. First, we have written testimony from Harold James, who 174 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 is a State Representative, and LeeAnna Washington, also a State Representative. Both of them have been active at the statewide level in trying to bring attention to the problems that they feel exist. They're very strong advocates of doing something right now. Yesterday, if it were possible, they would have liked to have had it done, on eliminating MTBE as a gasoline additive. We also have written testimony from a Julie Becker, who is an MPH and a Ph.D. at the Women's Health Environmental Network, and I'm going to put their testimony in the record. Tim, I would like not to adjourn this hearing, but to recess the hearing to a specific date.
I just remembered I had some written testimony also, which I will submit.
Please do and we will incorporate that with the testimony.
That's from the wife of a man who was seriously injured, a gas station owner.
Their name is Cava, Joseph 175 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Cava.
The woman's name is Nancy Cava. The husband's name is Joseph Cava.
All right, that testimony will be admitted. I would like to recess this hearing until 9 a.m., on June 15th, and I pick that day because that is the next-to-the-last hearing date, the next-to-the-last meeting date before the summer recess of City Council. That summer recess may prove to be a fiction and not fact because of all the problems that the Council has before it. And I want to thank everybody for their participation. What's your feeling, Dr. Joseph, as to this hearing?