Committee Hearing, April 16, 2003

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 16, 2003 1:15 p.m. - - - RESOLUTION 030082, authorizing the City Council Committee on Law and Government to hold hearings to investigate the state of air quality in Philadelphia and to recommend ways and means to improve its air quality, and therefore the health of all Philadelphians. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X RESOLUTION 030082 PAGE MORRIS FINE, Dept. of Public Health ......... KEVIN STEWART, American Lung Assoc. ........ 23 LISA ZUBOWICZ, Penn Future ................. 45 JOEL CHINITZ, Philadelphia Physicians for Social Responsibility ................. 53 JEROME BAYARD, Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees ...... 65 JOY BERGEY, Pennsylvania Interfaith Global Climate Change Campaign ............... 70 JONATHAN SINKER, Clean Air Council ......... 78 CHRISTINE KNAPP, Clean Water Action ........ 85 MABEL MALLARD, Right to Know ............... 95 SARAH KURNES ............................... 104 KAREN CONAGHAN, League of Conservation Voters Education Fund ................. 109 NATHAN WILLCOX, PennEnvironment ............ 112 ROGER SMITH, Sierra Club ................... 127 3 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082

The Committee on Law and Government of the City Council of the City of Philadelphia is now in Session to witness the rebirth of the environmental action activities in the City of Philadelphia. I hope similar things will be occurring throughout the nation, because I'm fearful that with the lack of community activity throughout the country and the lack of political participation, I'm very fearful that the environmental movement has taken a few bad hits. And with the current Administration in Washington committed to profits rather than to health, it is very likely that there will be continued efforts such as the one we're going to be dealing with today to weaken environmental strength throughout the cities and rural areas of the country. It's urgent, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of those people who have convened this hearing today to begin to get back to duties, sort of. Not the military duty that, unfortunately, no matter how you view it, tends to have an effect of drowning out all other activities; but to the activity of being good citizens and protecting our 4 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 environment and making life better for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. And if there's any movement that affects the quality of life of generations yet to come, the environmental movement takes second place to nobody and no kind of force. So that this rebirth of activity, this recognition today of the harmful effects of President Bush's efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act is very important. It's important that the people of Philadelphia understand that you don't leave to Congress things that are considered national in scope, because you never leave to any public officials, local, federal, or state, important decisions without giving them direction from the people who are their bosses, and that's the people throughout the country. In this country, those of us who are elected to office spend much of our time trying to convince people that they have no rights and they've elected us to do their thinking for them. The reason we do that, of course, is it's to our advantage to keep the public away from important issues so we can make our deals, arrange for campaign contributions to those that we think ought 5 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 to get them, and to control government. That's not the way it's intended in the Constitution of United States. It is intended for the people to control the elected officials and set directions for elected officials and hold them to account. So this is the beginning of the process in the environmental field to say, we're tired of steps backward. We want to improve. Because while the environmental movement has been strong in the past, it's never yet been strong enough to achieve everything it should achieve, and we're now aimed in the right direction. So I welcome the request from the groups that are assembled here today to hold a hearing on this issue. Before we call Mr. Fine, who will be the first witness, I'm going to ask Tim Kearney, the Legislative Director for the Law and Government Committee, to read the title of the Resolution that we're going to be considering.

Resolution 030082, authorizing the City Council Committee on Law and Government to hold hearings to investigate the state of air quality in Philadelphia and to recommend ways 6 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 and means to improve its air quality, and therefore the health of all Philadelphians.

And at the end of hearing or hearings, whichever will be required to cover the subject, this Committee will issue a report for action by the City Council. And when the City Council takes action, that will become the official policy of the City of Philadelphia. Because although the Mayor may deny it, City Council is included in the Home Rule Charter and has rights and concerns to deal with policy matters. As we read the Home Rule Charter, it is City Council that sets the policy for the City. And then it will be our effort -- this is a warning to Mr. Fine, to know that City Council will be watching him and his department. I want you to know that my experiences with Mr. Fine have been very good in past years. He's been a friend of the environmental movement, and I'm sure he continues to be. But we've got to give him and the Health Department and all the environmental groups in the City the strong support they deserve. Mr. Fine, we're very happy to have you 7 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 here in Council today. If you can come forward and sit in the center chair that's open. You may have with you anybody you want to, in addition. If there's anyone here that you would like to have sit with you at the table, please have them come, and identify yourself by name. The Chair notes the presence on my left of Councilman Ortiz. But don't believe that designation of who's on the right or who's on the left. I reserve the left position for myself. Mr. Fine, please go ahead, sir.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Councilman Cohen and Members of the Law and Government Committee. My name is Morris Fine, Director of Air Management Services, Department of Public Health. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present the Health Department's comments on City Council's Resolution to investigate the state of the air quality in Philadelphia and to recommend ways to improve its air quality. My comments will include our evaluation of EPA's new and proposed rule changes to the New Source Review program. 8 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082

Mr. Fine, may I ask you to speak more directly into the microphone? Everybody can hear you now.

My comments will include our evaluation of the EPA's new and proposed rule changes to the New Source Review Program, as well as the Bush Administration's intended Clear Skies legislation. As Director of Air Management Service, my responsibilities include implementing air pollution control laws, regulations and activities with the goal of achieving and sustaining clean, healthful air for our citizens. Under the Air Management Code passed in 1969, the Air Pollution Control Board adopted regulations that have contributed to remarkable reductions in emissions of air pollutants from local industrial sources. In addition, the Board also incorporated key state and federal regulations, which enable Air Management Services to operate as a Pennsylvania-approved air pollution control agency in Philadelphia. In this capacity, Air Management Services has the authority to enforce provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act and the Pennsylvania Air 9 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Pollution Control Act. During the course of the last three-and-a-half decades, there have been progressive and significant improvement in Philadelphia's air quality. In 1962 the air quality of Philadelphia was unhealthy to breathe for over half of the days on which it was measured. In 1987, 50 percent of the days measured were of good air quality. That number now consistently exceeds 70 percent. In the last several years the number of unhealthy days per year has significantly decreased to an average of 15. You can compare this to over 50 percent in 1962. Prior to passage of the Air Management Code, the picture was much different than it is today. Residents in many of our neighborhoods found that cars they had washed in the morning would be covered with black soot by mid-afternoon. Buildings and public sculptures were subject to continuing erosive damage from industrial gases. Laundry hung outside to dry would often be in need of rewashing by the time it dried. People with asthma and lung conditions suffered needlessly much of the time. Now, people with cardiovascular, asthma 10 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 and other respiratory conditions are able to breathe easier and safely enjoy outdoor activities on more days of the year. And our property no longer sustains the continuing and often severe damage it once did. This improvement in air quality has been the result of the Health Department's effective implementation of state, federal, and local regulations, which over the years has been marked by steady progress and the elimination of air pollutants. Since the adoption of the Air Management Code and the passage of the Clean Air Act and its amendments, emissions of sulphur dioxide have been reduced by 94 percent. Particulate matter has been reduced by 93 percent. Carbon monoxide has been reduced by 61 percent. And nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, precursors of ozone, has been reduced by 56 percent. The reductions in these emissions would have been unattainable without underlying federal, state, and local legislation. While the air quality in Philadelphia is better today than in recent memory, several 11 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 challenges remain. 5. When air quality in an area does not meet the federal standards, that area is said to be in non-attainment. 5, by next year. Ground level ozone, the primary constituent of smog, is the pollutant most responsible for unhealthy air quality in the Philadelphia region. Ozone is a strong irritant to the eyes and the upper respiratory system. People who are very young, elderly, or who have chronic lung problems, such as asthma, suffer most when ground level ozone is high. 5 poses the greatest health risk of any air pollutant. 5 results in as many as 30,000 premature deaths nationwide each year.

Fine particles are responsible for a variety of adverse health effects, including aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, damage to lung tissue, 12 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 impaired breathing and respiratory symptoms, cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks and lung cancer. Health risks associated with toxic air contaminants are also a major concern in Philadelphia. According to the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment, Philadelphia is fifth in the country in health risks from air toxics. Many of the toxic compounds are emitted from motor vehicles, especially diesel trucks and buses. Other toxic compounds originate in local industrial sources. In addition, a substantial amount of air pollution originates in industry from outside of Philadelphia that makes its way into the region. Working with industry and community groups, Air Management Services is addressing issues of non-attainment and air toxicity by enforcing existing regulations and providing expanding programs. For example, we recently undertook a major initiative called the Philadelphia Diesel Difference. This voluntary program aims to quickly reduce soot and toxic emissions from existing diesel-powered vehicles, in particular large trucks and buses. This will be accomplished through emission controls and cleaner fuels. As already 13 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 5, and diesel particulate represents a significant part of the City's air toxics risks. According to the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Control Administrators, STAPPA, and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, ALAPCO, diesel emissions have the highest contribution to cancer risk, causing approximately 3,085 cancers in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. In addition to our local efforts, strong federal leadership is essential in assuring local agencies can meet clean air goals. As noted, local air quality is significantly affected by emissions transported over distances of hundreds of miles. 5 problem can be emitted from as far away as Virginia and Ohio. It is therefore critically important that we have sufficient support from the federal government in assuring that these transported emissions do not interfere with our ability to provide clean air to our citizens. Unfortunately, we are not receiving that federal leadership. Several federal initiatives 14 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 are, in fact, impeding our progress in initiating clean air goals. These include the Bush Administration's Clear Skies Initiative and the new and proposed changes to the Federal New Source Review regulations. New Source Review will be called NSR in my testimony coming up. Let me talk about NSR first. NSR, a key feature of the Clean Air Act, provides states and localities with a valuable mechanism for achieving health-based air quality standards. Currently, the NSR is a valuable tool for preserving, not degrading, air quality standards. NSR serves as a very important purpose. It allows growth in attainment and non-attainment areas without jeopardizing air quality. The program does this by requiring newly constructed and modified major air pollution sources to undertake critical air pollution reduction measures. Among these critical measures are the application of the state-of-the-art technology for installations that emit pollution for which we are in attainment, and even more stringent ones for installations that emit pollutants for which we are in non-attainment. Because it is widely recognized that the best time 15 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 to institute pollution limiting measures is before the pollution source is built or modified, NSR not only assures sustained progress in achieving air quality goals, but does it when most appropriate. The Bush Administration has already taken measures, and it intends to take additional measures that will erode the effectiveness of the current Clean Air Act and its NSR provisions.

EPA promulgated NSR revisions that took place on March 3, 2003. The purpose of these revisions, according to EPA, is to make it easier for older facilities to modernize and improve energy efficiency, providing them with operational flexibility and to otherwise codify the NSR applicability requirements. EPA is currently proposing rules to change the definition of "Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement," a key determiner of applicability, in an effort to provide greater regulatory certainty to facilities when undergoing such activities. Also, the Administration proposes the Clear Skies Bill as one of several pieces of multi-pollutant legislation being introduced to address emissions from power plants. Clear Skies 16 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 will amend Title IV of the Clean Air Act by establishing new cap-and-trade programs requiring reductions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions from electric generating facilities. It will amend Title I to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap-and-trade programs. The NSR revisions already in effect and those being proposed, while providing some operational flexibility for owners and operators of air pollution sources, will have the following potential detrimental effects to air quality: Applicability requirements have and will continue to be liberalized, making it easier for facilities to avoid triggering NSR requirements, thereby avoiding additional pollution controls. This includes basing NSR applicability on the cost of a project, rather than on the increase in emissions. Some initially well-controlled air pollution sources will be excluded from NSR requirements for 10 to 15 years, even if subsequent modification will significantly increase emissions. Also, under the new Plant Wide 17 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Applicability provision, a company can avoid NSR by setting a limit on its overall emissions. However, the limit can be substantially higher than what the company emits, thereby negating progress already made. With respect to the Clear Skies legislation, we do not expect that electric generating facilities in Philadelphia will be affected. However, the legislation would allow significant emission sources from coal burning utilities and other states to continue to degrade Philadelphia's air. Any potential improvement will be on a protracted schedule, rather than the more expeditious schedule under the current Clean Air Act. My staff has not yet had the opportunity to investigate the proposed Clear Skies method for calculating the standards relative to senior citizens, but will provide such comment in the near future. The Clear Skies impact on states and cities has been evaluated by STAPPA and ALAPCO. This joint organization, which includes Air Management Services as a member, is comprised of state and local air quality control officers in the 18 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 states and territories and over 165 metropolitan areas around the country. According to STAPPA, ALAPCO, the current version of Clear Skies has many detrimental provisions: Its deadlines are too protracted and well beyond those by which we should be meeting health-based air quality standards. The caps are not tight enough because the emission limits do not establish the most stringent enforceable national emission reduction goals feasible and reflect Best Available Control Technology or better on all existing sources. It does not require some future minimum level of control for existing power plants. It modifies or repeals some of the most important Clean Air Act provisions, including NSR, the utility MACT rule, including non-mercury hazardous air pollutants, residual risk requirements for mercury, Lowest Achievable Emission Rates and offset requirements.

It seriously undermines and possibly preempts state and local authorities to adopt and take credit for more stringent requirements for power plants, and it does not protect against any 19 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 adverse local health and environmental impacts. The promulgated and proposed revisions to NSR, as well as the proposed Clear Skies legislation, are not consistent with expeditious progress toward meeting air quality goals. In fact, these changes could have detrimental impact on the progress made over the last 30 years. Because these new federal approaches will put a greater burden on local government for the timely achievement for air quality goals, it is critically important that any multi-pollutant legislation, like Clear Skies, be adopted with provisions that do not place an undue burden on local governments for achieving clean air. The Health Department is responsible for developing and implementing an air pollution control plan sufficient to provide Philadelphians with healthful air quality and clear vistas. We cannot fulfill that responsibility without strong federal leadership in requiring that the most up-to-date technology be used when either a major air pollution source is constructed or when older and dirtier plants need to be upgraded to meet current and improved standards. The fundamental elements of Clear Skies provide a diminished approach to air 20 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 pollution control and will have an adverse effect on our air quality goals. We believe the approach being taken by the Administration in Washington will not be helpful in protecting Philadelphia's air quality. I appreciate this opportunity to present our comments and will gladly respond to your questions at this time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Fine. Wasn't there a time when Philadelphia was regarded as having the national model Air Pollution Code in the City?

Absolutely.

When was that?

You should take some credit for that. That was --

In the late '60s?

Late '60s, early '70s.

When we passed the City's Air Pollution Code. Do you remember who introduced the Bill 24 on that?

I believe it was you. 21 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082

Yes. So if I look a bit older, it's because I've been in the City Council -- except for a few years during Mayor Rizzo's Administration because I ran against him and lost -- but other than that, I've been in the City legislative body consistently. Incidentally, let me introduce the son of the man that defeated me for Mayor, and that's Councilman Frank Rizzo, who is a Member of this Committee.

May I make one quick statement, Councilman? They got along better than you ever would believe.

Okay. But at that time Philadelphia was regarded as the model. I was in my second year of City Council. I'm now in my 28th year of City Council. And since that day, actually -- well, we made some advances since 1969 -- the last number of years have been years of decline. And do I summarize your testimony accurately if I say that the Bush proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act and the other 22 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 recommendations of the Administration move in wrong direction from the point of view of clean air in the Philadelphia area?

Absolutely. That's correct.

And that's because of changes and requirements, as well as placing greater burdens on cities and less burdens on the federal government to take the proper action to clean the air.

That's correct.

All right. Any other questions? Because I'd like to have the opportunity to have many witnesses testify and get their reactions. Any questions from Members of the Committee? Councilman Rizzo? Councilman Ortiz? Does the gentleman with you want to add anything, or is he there to assist you in any way possible?

He's my permitting expert. I didn't know how detailed you wanted to get.

Would you like to add 23 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 something at this point? MR. BARSLEY (ph): My name is Thomas Barsley. I work in the Permitting Division of Air Management Services. I'm basically here to assist Mr. Fine with the aspects of the questions.

All right. I look forward to the day when Philadelphia again becomes the model. And if it happens during my lifetime, we'd better get moving pretty quickly. So I have a special interest in seeing that this moves forward. Thank you, Mr. Fine. I'd like to ask, could you stay here, so that you may want to comment on some of the testimony that you're going to hear from witnesses?

I'll be happy to stay.

Very good, sir. Thank you. The next witness will be Kevin Stewart from the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania.

Chairman Cohen, Members of Council, Citizens and Guests, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony before you today on a matter of serious importance for the health, and even the lives of Philadelphians. 24 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 My name is Kevin Stewart. I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Chemical Engineering from Princeton University, and I serve the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania, ALAPA, as its Director of Environmental Health. ALAPA was founded 111 years ago here in Philadelphia to combat tuberculosis, and it is now dedicated to the prevention of lung disease and to the promotion of lung health. It represents a body of scientific knowledge on the subject of lung disease, specifically on well-established links between air pollution and lung disease. Every year the American Lung Association publishes a report evaluating ozone smog air pollution across the country. And last year we assigned letter grades to 595 counties. While it is common practice in our report to address the situation in states and huge metropolitan areas, today I am focusing on one not so large area. Just 135 square miles, in the City of Philadelphia. In a few weeks we will release our State of the Air 2003 report. It will be no surprise to you that Philadelphia County will, as it has every year our report has been issued, earn an F. This grade is 25 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 not only critically important for the physical and economic health of the one-and-one-half million people who live here, but also for the millions more who work here and visit. In addition to ozone, another pollutant of grave concern is particulate matter, or PM, tiny, solid or liquid particles suspended in the air that, when inhaled, reach the deepest parts of the lungs, the tiniest bronchioles and the air sacs we call alveoli. Taken together, studies performed across the country and around the world, as well as right here in Philadelphia, have demonstrated that every year these fine particles cause premature death to tens of thousands of Americans. PM comes not only from mineral dust, biological sources and emissions of carbonaceous soot, but from chemical reactions in the atmosphere on emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, or NOx. It's important for Council to understand that a single sector, electric power plants, chiefly dirty coal burning facilities, is responsible for about two-thirds of the entire country's sulphur dioxides emissions and one-quarter of our NOx emissions. NOx is also critical for ozone 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 formation. The problem is that many of these power plants, decades after the passage of the Clean Air Act, are getting away with emitting on the order of times the amount of these pollutants for the 6 amount of electricity generated as would be allowed 7 if the plants had to get new permits. 8 Ozone sears the lungs. Particulate 9 matter introduces pollutants into them. These 10 pollutants cause headaches, nausea, coughing, painful breathing, chest tightness, wheezing, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections. They exacerbate asthma, as measured by the frequency, the severity and the duration of asthma attacks. They increase mortality, ranging from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome to premature death. The American Lung Association works hard to protect sensitive groups from air pollution and the temptation for some maybe to regard these populations as only a tiny minority. Let me emphasize to you that that perception is false. In fact, taken together, people in groups who are particularly sensitive to air pollution amount to fully half of the City's population. This means 27 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 that virtually every family, every work place, every classroom, has someone, often many someones, who are at increased risk from air pollution.

In the City of Philadelphia alone, we're talking about 84,000 adults with asthma; 21,000 children who suffer asthma attacks, sometimes severe enough to kill them; over 50,000 persons with chronic bronchitis; and more than 18,000 people struggling for every breath, with emphysema. We're talking about more than 320,000 children and 12 under, and more than 200,000 adults 65 or above. 13 But why is the American Lung Association 14 and so many citizens and groups before you here today concerned about air pollution originating hundreds of miles from here, from Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, from as far west as the Mississippi River, and from as far south as the Gulf of Mexico? Why are we concerned? And why should Council share that concern? Let me begin by giving you an example from one small power plant I happen to have some particular information about. Specifically, the Elrama Power Plant in Washington County, Pennsylvania, roughly 300 miles due west from here. 28 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 A scientifically defensible analysis using air quality and health impact modeling shows that in a typical year, the particulate matter from this plant's NOx and sulphur dioxide emissions is responsible for excess deaths and about 700 7 excess asthma attack days nationwide. 8 One might think that all of these 9 adverse effects are borne by the good people of 10 Washington County, but not so. To be sure, they 11 experience their share, but the remainder is 12 liberally spread over much of the eastern United 13 States. Here in Philadelphia, the effects of this 14 single power plant are one person dying every two 15 years, and annually about 10 people suffering an 16 asthma attack day. 17 But that's just one plant. A small one. 18 They add up. According to an analysis by Abt Associates, Incorporated, for the Clean Air Task Force, the corresponding annual impacts of particulate matter originating from all power plants on the people of Philadelphia County, the City alone, would be 332 cases of premature death, almost 200 respiratory/cardiovascular hospital admissions 29 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 and about 5,000 asthma attack days. Using additional information from the Clean Air Task Force's report, Death, Disease and Dirty Power, ALAPA conservatively estimates additional effects: 170 case of chronic bronchitis, 40,000 lost work days, 200,000 restricted activity days. Remember, these numbers are annual. Until we solve the problem, Philadelphians will suffer these consequences to roughly the same degree every year. 5 per 100,000 population, fully 78 percent as high as the corresponding rate for the highest ranked state in per capita impact, Kentucky. I do have some simple good news. As a nation, we can solve most of the problem I've described. We can reduce these health consequences by approximately two-thirds if we would just do two things: One, faithfully enforce the Clean Air Act; two, return to the rules for New Source Review that existed prior to New Year's Eve and enforce them. 30 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 I have some simple bad news too. If we fail, if we are stuck with the Bush Administration's version of the NSR rules, then the amount by which we can expect to reduce these health consequences is zero. In fact, the loopholes created so obliterate the NSR rule, that there is good reason to believe that the unprecedented free-for-all permitted by it, could result in emissions increases at any of some 17,000 major sources across the country, with no legal recourse left to communities or even to City and state air pollution control agencies to prevent them.

As you will see in detail today, that single number, zero fewer lost work days, zero fewer asthma attack days, zero fewer hospital admissions, zero fewer people killed, is the clear and resounding call for Philadelphia and, indeed, for all cities throughout the country to do everything in their power to reverse the nation's course down this anti-health, anti-environment path. Communities great and small, individuals young and old, their elected representatives and those granted with the public trust should fight to 31 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 oppose the so-called Clear Skies Initiative and the New Source Review Program. Together, these measures constitute the single largest environmental threat to public health in a generation. The American Lung Association has characterized Clear Skies as gutting the Clean Air Act and severely weakening efforts to curb air pollution. We have called the EPA's eviscerated New Source Review Program a major setback for public health. We have said, without credible dissent, that timely enforcement of the unweakened Clean Air Act would provide greater pollution reductions sooner than the Administration's plans. Therefore, the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania calls on the City of Philadelphia to show leadership in two ways. One, we ask this City, upon action by Council, to call on the elected officials who represent its populace in the United States House and Senate to oppose the NSR rollbacks and the so-called Clear Skies proposal. Two, we ask this City, upon action by Council, to call on its fellow cities in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States to do the same. Thank you. I'll appreciate your 32 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 questions.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Councilman Rizzo.

Councilman Cohen, not for this witness, but I have a quick question for clarification from Mr. Fine, so when it's appropriate, I'd like to have him back to the table.

Yes. Would you stay where you are, because I will have some questions? Mr. Fine, could you approach the table again? Councilman.

Thank you, Mr. Fine, for returning to the table. I just want to make sure I get something straight before I react. Your testimony, your criticism of the Bush Administration, is this your opinion or is this the Administration's opinion?

Well, this was reviewed by the Health Department Commissioner.

The Commissioner signed off on these remarks? 33 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082

That's correct.

Thank you. No other questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fine, stay here for a minute. I'd like to ask Mr. Fine, does he agree with the assessment just made by this most recent speaker?

Absolutely, yes.

What do you think accounts for the way in which Americans worry so much and grieve about the loss of, say, a soldier in combat? I understand that it's traumatic. I was in the Army 60 years ago overseas. I can understand the emotions of the country, how happy we are when we saved the lives of the seven prisoners of war, when they were recovered. Yet with respect to these deaths, which seem to outnumber those that we suffer at war, there is a complacency that exists. People say, "Well, you know, that isn't good news, but after all, I guess that's what we have to expect in life." What accounts for that kind approach by people? Or what can we do, other than call meetings? 34 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 I think your suggestions -- to the last speaker -- were fine. We're going to try to carry out as best we can your recommendations. I would certainly like to see the City of Philadelphia not just say, tough luck for us; therefore, we have to live with it, but begin to show some leadership in the interest of human health and human activities. Why do people act so indifferently on health matters? How do we live, for example, with 42 million people without health insurance? And we know that most of them are going to suffer severe illnesses and probably death sooner than they would otherwise because of lack of attention. What accounts for the American willingness to absorb bad health news as just being natural? Yet we get so aroused when there are issues like war and peace. Why can't we have a war on coal stacks, on coal burning furnaces? Why don't we have a war on these particulate matters and on ozone? Philadelphia suffers, I think, in all the health reports we get year after year on ozone, more than almost any other City in the country, doesn't it? We're a major victim of ozone problems, and I guess now also particulate matter problems. 35 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Do you have any recommendations? What does the Lung Association say?

Chairman Cohen, you certainly do ask a very important question, and one that, in its scope is, frankly, beyond some of my ability to respond to. But at the same time, I would remark, though, on a couple points. One, certainly, the Lung Association recognizes that every death before one's times, every injury is tragic. And certainly when you're looking at victims of warfare, it's very obvious that people are putting themselves in harm's way when bullets are flying. It's obvious to see that people are doing that, and that takes a lot of courage to face that. And to sustain injury and death as a result of those things, these are often our youngest, our best, our brightest. And for them to be taken from us is naturally going to be regarded as the highest of tragedies. When we talk about air pollution and its effects on health, admittedly, they are no less real. These are real people who suffer real suffering and real death. In many cases they are invisible in the sense that when people die from air 36 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 pollution-caused diseases, or air pollution-exacerbated diseases, it is not immediately clear that a person is dying, that Joe Smith or Mary Jones has passed away because the air pollution got her that day. It's not as cut and dry in the terms of personalizing it. What happens is that we know from good science, replicated science, that air pollution is very, very clearly linked with these kinds of numbers. And we're talking about hundreds of studies, weight of the evidence kinds of evidence, to be able to say the numbers I've said. But it's not that I'm going to be able to go to the emergency room at the hospital and pick out the patients that day who happen to be suffering from air pollution and those other lung patients who aren't. I can't distinguish from them. We know, though, when you have a population that's at higher risk, whether you're talking about kids with asthma or adults with emphysema, or if you're talking about elderly people whose lung function is on the lower side than what it used to be, or young children who are at higher risk because their lungs are growing and are 37 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 vulnerable, we know that when air pollution increases, the numbers of people on the average at hospital ERs, the numbers of people dying in the death rolls from cardiopulmonary diseases, those numbers increase. And so those are real effects. But because people learn things by using their -- the sense of reality is not so much a scientific cut and dried mathematical analysis. Most people pick up the reality of the world by their senses, by their emotions and where things are very, very clearly connected for them in terms of their senses and their emotions, as for instance the death of soldiers in a war, then it becomes very, very clear that there is a connection here and there's a clear cause and effect. The average person, though, all they see is a person who is having trouble breathing, not able necessarily to put the finger at their position onto a particular cause in the environment, or whether it was pollen, or whether it was cat dander, or whether it was diesel exhaust, or whatever it might have been, there's not going to be the ability on the part of those people. They're just simply dealing with the fact that there's a person 38 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 suffering or a person dying and they are going to be grieving that as almost one of the those things, an act of nature, an act of God. And we're certainly here as representatives from the health and environmental community today to try to help communicate, to counsel that these are not random deaths, random absences from work, random asthma attacks. These things have causes and they are effects that are measurable and discernible and preventable.

The more that we realize that, even as City Council, the more that City Council can exercise leadership in encouraging the City of Philadelphia to recognize that.

I would say to Mr. Fine, if his service could come up with some dramatic ways to heighten the attention of the City public and if it needs money in the budget, I will volunteer to get the additional funding. I think in the City of Philadelphia it's a major cause of death prematurely. More suffer from asthma, I think, in Philadelphia than any other disease. It should strike at our heart because it effects so many youngsters. Maybe we are more 39 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 careless in our thinking about the older population, but so many youngsters have asthma. And, of course, with old people, it often leads to death many, many years before it ought to, which creates a problem for the children and the younger population. I just think we've got to find a way. For example, the Bush Administration policy, why would they advocate this? And the main reasons given in the initial testimony was because of business complaints about the expense of modernizing plants, say. Well, I can understand that from the businessman. Individually his concern is about making profits. And that's got to be his concern because it's the only way he stays in business. But the community at large and those of us who hold elected office have other motivations that ought to be guiding our actions, and that ought to be the health of the people. I think the environment and health issues are the most important that any government has to solve. But I think we need your help in learning how to deal with that question in a way other than the routine way, saying, well, he's coughing because maybe he caught a cold or maybe 40 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 it's the environment or something. I think we've got to find a way to maybe have days of mourning or have the Health Department announce that out of four deaths that occurred yesterday in Philadelphia, three of them may be attributable to asthma. And maybe we ought to have some public funerals, that kind of thing, to attract attention. Because, otherwise, greed and private profit is going to be more effective than concern for public health. Any comment, Mr. Fine? Anything we can do? If you and Mr. Domzalski and your department could come up with proposals, the City might well -- sometimes the battles between Council and the Mayor get the headlines, but there are times when we work together very effectively. On Affirmative Action, for example, we were the only City where the City Council and the Mayor together filed briefs in the recent argument before the Supreme Court on the University of Michigan Law School. So that in between our quarrels with each other, we do find the means to do effective work. I would like to see Philadelphia, both the Mayor's Office and the City Council, working together very closely to achieve these 41 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 common ends that are much more important than the issues we generally quarrel about. So we're going to look to you, Mr. Fine, and tell Mr. Domzalski the same thing, that we look to him to come up with proposals. We're going to be ready to work very hard. I intend to spend the balance of my career, whatever it is, if voters so choose, it will be at least four more years after May 20th, but whatever it is, whether it's no years or four years or eight years, I would like to spend most of my time on environmental matters. That's where I began and I think that that's where the main push is needed. Thank you very much. The next witness. Thank you both very much.

Mr. Chairman, if I could just address something very quickly. First of all, I do want to follow-up. I will follow-up with Mr. Fine on the challenge that you've made to him. In the interest of time and for the other speakers, I'll kind of hold that off line with him. I did want to remark very quickly on the 42 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 comment about, why did the Bush Administration do this and because of the economic interests of the businesses involved. I want to stress -- I didn't have time in my testimony today to go into this -- but a whole other area of discussion has to do with the health costs and the lost productivity costs of air pollution. When analyses like these are done, especially for things as dirty and polluting as coal burning power plants, and as easy as they are to fix, in terms of the amount you need to spend per ton of reduction, what you'll find is that we are already bearing, in terms of health costs and lost productivity, much more expense than we would bear to simply fix the problem. The problem is that the health costs are spread out all over, all these third party costs throughout society. Whereas the cost of fixing up the plant, the electric power company that owns it, is looking on it as something that is their cost to bear or their shareholders' cost to bear alone. And that's one of the issues, I think, for the common good we need to recognize, as a society, that it's really important for these costs to be absorbed 43 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 properly so that we can actually fix the problem and get to the health benefits that would be worth so much more if we could actually just stop the air pollution from being produced.

Well, I'm known for opposing the use of public funds for private purposes. But it seems to me that if there were a private coal mine that needed fixing, that the public cost of taking care of the health injuries suffered by people from the bad operation would certainly justify public support in the way of financing the necessary improvement for the plant. Again, it would be less costly to the government.

The thing is, many industries have already borne costs, and it is just the grandfathered dirty coal-burning power industry in large part that has escaped them over the years. Every other industry has borne, in many respects, lots of the cost that they need to do to come up to modern standards. And here we have dinosaurs that are operating, using 1960s kind of standards, that really are just completely inappropriate in this day and age.

Let me ask you one 44 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 question along that line to see if my concerns are genuine. I've been very worried about PECO and Exelon's merger. Exelon is now the major electric company serving this area. And Exelon seems to be the one utility that's spearheading the effort to continue the construction of nuclear plants that have hereto seem so dangerous in their operation. Are you concerned at all about the efforts of PECO or Exelon to extend the life of these nuclear plants? It looked as if we were making progress, that nuclear plants would, in the next 10, or 30 15 years, disappear. 16

There's so many 17 unaddressed problems to do with nuclear energy, that 18 the American Lung Association position on energy is 19 recognizing that we need to do things such as energy 20 conservation, demand distribution, so that we have better control over the amount of demand at a certain time of the day. And the kind of energy sources that we should be introducing and replacing existing sources with are the cleanest operating kinds of things. The Lung Association is 45 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 recognizing the clear value of renewable, truly renewable energy sources, that don't establish precedents for very serious environmental hazards that we still don't really know how to clean up well. Nuclear energy, for all of its promise of clean, cheap power, has been anything but. And we're thinking that there are probably a lot of better solutions out there than to go that route.

Thank you very much. The next witness will be Lisa Zubowicz. Welcome. Identify yourself for the record and spell your last name.

Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. My name is Lisa Zubowicz, and that's spelled Z-U-B-O-W-I-C-Z. And you have copies of my testimony, as well. I am the outreach coordinator for Penn Future, and we are an environmental organization with offices in Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh. " And I will be discussing a number of ozone exceedances in 46 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Philadelphia, as well as the associated health and economic effects of ozone. I apologize in advance foe reiterating the same health statistics that Mr. Stewart already did. One the biggest pieces of the air pollution puzzle includes ozone and ozone exceedances. But, first of all, I want to talk about what ozone is. Ozone is a colorless and odorless gas that is caused when nitrogen oxides, or NOxs, and volatile organic compounds, VOCs, combine under intense sunlight. Ozone can be good and bad, depending on where it's located. If it's in the upper atmosphere, it filters the sun's harmful UV rays. However, if it's in lower atmospheres, it causes health problems, and that's the type of ozone that I'm going to be talking about today. The very worst effects of ozone occur on hot, sunny days, like we have today, when the air flow is stagnant. The people most at risk for negative health effects of ozone include children, the elderly, and individuals with preexisting respiratory problems. All of these individuals may have increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions during high ozone days, with symptoms of 47 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 asthma, bronchitis and chest pain. However, ozone affects healthy individuals as well, especially when they exercise or work outside. So now that we have some background on ozone, why should Philadelphia care about this issue? The answer is straightforward. Philadelphians have increased negative health effects due to ozone exposure, and Philadelphia's economy is being negatively impacted by poor air quality. In 2002, about two-thirds of the Pennsylvania violations for the one-hour ozone standard occurred in Southeast Pennsylvania, including Bucks, Delaware, Chester, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties. The one-hour standard measures ozone spikes during a one-hour period over 125 parts per million. The Department of Environmental Protection reported 17 violations in Philadelphia, and only nine all over the rest of the state. In fact, the Philadelphia-area counties are the only ones in the state to have the label, "Severe Non-Attainment," using the Clean Air Act's 1990 amendment standards. 48 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 For the new, more protective eight-hour ozone standards, there were over 100 violations in the Philadelphia metro area. The eight-hour standard measures longer high ozone levels exceeding 85 parts per million over an eight-hour period of time. These tougher standards were revised in light of research that showed health effects from persistent smog. The Philadelphia Inquirer, on March 19th, 2003, reported that not only did 2002 bring more smoggy days, but the worst of 2002 were smoggier than the worst of 2001. Although the hot, stagnant weather of the last few years is the contributing factor, our ozone in Philadelphia is due in large part to upwind pollution from power plants. In 1999 power plants emitted 205,000 tons of NOx in Pennsylvania. This makes up about 30 percent of all of Pennsylvania's NOx released to the air. Vehicles are the other major source. To put this into a useful illustration, EPA estimates that the average car emits 29 pounds of NOx in a year. If installing NOx controls will reduce annual NOx emissions from a power plant by 10,000 tons, this would be the equivalent of taking 49 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 690,000 cars off the road. , Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia, Pennsylvania contributions 41 percent of all the area, which means non-point NOx emitted.

In Philadelphia, it's not all power plants, though. 4 million for NOx air quality violations in 2001. If you look at the one-hour ozone standards from 2000 and 2001, 2002 had more than both of those years combined. The problem is not going away and it's not getting better in Philadelphia. Ozone exceedances aren't Philadelphia's only problem in terms of ozone. As Kevin Stewart from the American Lung Association said previously, Philadelphians are suffering from adverse health effects as well. Statewide there are one million Pennsylvanians that suffer with asthma. More and more studies are illustrating this connection between ozone and negative health effects. Due to the time, I'm going to skip over some of my health statistics. I'll just mention one briefly. The Harvard School of Public Health released a study in 1996 reviewing hospital and 50 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 emergency room visits in Philadelphia and other cities that had difficulty in meeting the federal ozone standard. That study found that 3,250 hospital admissions and ER visits in Philadelphia were due to ozone, and those included asthma and bronchitis. Another study called "Death, Disease and Dirty Power" found that 997 premature deaths occurred in the Philadelphia metro areas as a direct result of particulate matter from electricity generation only. Pennsylvania truly is a leader in the air pollution Hall of Shame, unfortunately. Pennsylvania, along with four other states, contributed 44 percent of the US's total toxic power plant air emissions. And Pennsylvania, along with four other states, contributed 39 percent of the entire US's mercury air emissions. Health effects due to ozone are negatively impacting Philadelphia's economy as well. 1 million lost work days in the United States. And ozone exceedances and air pollution in general make it difficult for new 51 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 factories to locate in Philadelphia. If they do, they have to deal with two issues; more stringent pollution control mechanisms, and a need to offset their emission increases by entering into the pollution credit market. Philadelphia's air pollution is inextricably linked to the economy, so the answer is simple: Clean up the current air pollution for newer, cleaner sources to locate here. I would like to end by summarizing several key points. Air pollution is a very real problem in Philadelphia. Ozone exceedances cause health problems for people of all ages, and they cause countless economic impacts as well, in terms of lost work days and discouraging clean companies to locate here. We have the power to clean up Philadelphia's air Hall of Shame, but we need City Council Members to recognize this problem and be on board with us as we craft an effective solution. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Mr. Kearney, the Director of the Committee. 52 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082

Lisa, I don't know if you're the best person to answer this, or somebody else. Can you tell us a little bit -- one of the earlier testifiers mentioned something about January 1st or December 31st, that certain parts of the New Source Review went into effect. So my question is twofold: Could you describe specifically what the federal government did that went into effect January 1st? And, two, what is the timetable with future changes or the proposals, the other proposals, to change the Clean Air Act. Is that going to happen this year?

Your exact question actually is going to be answered later in testimony by Nathan Wilcox. He's going to cover all of the information about the new rules.

Is he going to cover the timetable?

I won't be able to give you exact dates.

Thank you very much. Dr. Joel Chinitz, please come forward. Identify yourself for the record and proceed.

Good afternoon. My name 53 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 is Joel Chinitz with the Philadelphia Physicians for Social Responsibility. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you, Councilman Cohen, Mr. Kearney. I want to begin my comments with a recorded response to sulphur dioxide and particulate matter. (Audiotape played.)

That's a typical example of wheezing. Now, in medical school we are taught that all that wheezes is not asthma. I can assure you, however, that most of it is. In my survey a few years back of elementary and middle schools in North Philadelphia, the number one health problem that the nurses reported was asthma. There was nothing else that came anywhere close to that. It turns out, however, that asthma is only one of multiple concerns of health problems that are attributable to air pollution. If you think about this, we drink about two to two-and-a-half liters or quarts of fluid a day and, certainly, we want pure water. At the same time, we inhale approximately 10 to 20,000 liters of air per day, and the effect when that air is contaminated range from the mundane to the 54 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 catastrophic. We need only recall the London smog back in December of 1952 when the effects went well beyond the immediate period of pollution. It was estimated at that time that there were approximately 12,000 excessive deaths between December of 1952 and February of 1953. Earlier in the United States, and closer to home, in Donora, Pennsylvania, which is 30 miles south of Pittsburgh, on October 26th, 1948, particulate-laden fog settled over Donora. And in a town of just 14,000 people, between 5,000 and 7,000 of them became ill and of them died as a 14 consequence of that. 15 Since then, and in response, the Clean 16 Air Act and other efforts have improved air quality, 17 but significant and major health effects persist, 18 even at concentrations of pollutants within current 19 federal standards. 20 As you've heard here today, air pollution contributes to lung disease, to emphysema, chronic bronchitis. It contributions to respiratory tract infections, to asthma and to lung cancer. Lung disease claims close to 335,000 lives in the United States every year and it is the third leading 55 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 cause of death. Over the last decade, the death rate of lung disease has risen faster than any of the other five top causes of death. As you've also heard, children, the elderly and those with underlying heart and lung disease are the most vulnerable. A recent study in Montreal, Canada, for example, found that a significant increase in mortality in patients with congestive heart failure during periods of air pollution. And in regard to children is our area of principal concern. Children inhale more air per pound of body weight. They absorb the toxins more readily than do adults. They are exposed during critical periods of their development. They're more active outside, therefore breathing more rapidly and at greater depth and have more years of exposure. Therefore, children are particularly susceptible to all airborne toxins. For example, on lead, as the lead level goes up, the IQ goes progressively down. So there's a linear relationship between decline and intelligence and blood lead levels. Recent studies both here and in Europe which looked at variations in outdoor air small particle concentration showed increased 56 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 cardiovascular and respiratory death among elderly, and increased hospital admissions for heart death. Using an imaging technique, researchers in Belgium have shown that these small particles, similar in size to those routinely found in air pollution, can enter a person's bloodstream in the lungs. This could help explain the poorly understood relationship between air pollution and cardiovascular disease. In an extremely large study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which followed 500,000 adults between 1984 and 1998, they found a clear association between excessive particulates and lung cancer. For an exposed nonsmoker, the risk of lung cancer is equal to that of their living with someone who is a smoker; that is, it is equivalent to secondhand smoke exposure.

Now, the EPA also has classified diesel fuel as a likely human carcinogen. Long-term exposure to diesel exhaust will increase the risk of lung cancer by approximately 40 percent. So while we associate the pollutants, the ozone, particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide with lung disease and impairment of lung 57 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 function, there are a growing number of studies that link these pollutants with hypertension, coronary artery disease, decreased birth weight, neurological problems and other disorders. During an episode of air pollution in 1985 in central Europe, there was an increase in blood pressure in the general population. This was attributed to particulates and to sulfur dioxide. They also found an increase in blood viscosity. Other studies also found an association between particulates and increase in the heart rate through stimulation of the autonomic nervous system. So if you combine this viscosity, the rapid heartbeat and the hypertension, they all increase the risk of coronary artery disease. And, therefore, it shouldn't be surprising that there is an association between ambient air pollution and cardiovascular deaths. What about low birth weights? There was a year 2000 report by Johns Hopkins and the CDC and the National Center for Environmental Health that looked at ambient air levels of particulate matter up to 10 micrometers, and sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide in six cities, and Philadelphia was among 58 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 them. They established an association between low birth weight and sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide exposure. A review of the literature in 2000 noted that intrauterine growth was retarded and that preterm delivery occurred with chronic sulfate and particulate matter exposure. Again, when we think of air pollution, we think of asthma. And it certainly is the most common chronic disease of children. Of the 11 million people in the United States with asthma, 12 approximately 10 million are children below the age 13 of 16. This represents a 58 percent increase since 14 1980. It is certainly the most prevalent inner-City 15 disease among racial and ethnic minorities. While multiple factors account for this increase in asthma, it is clear that poor air quality exacerbates symptoms in those with the disease. While not the only factor, it is the one that we can do something about. The CDC estimates 30 percent of healthcare costs for childhood asthma are due to environmental factors. 30 percent translates to a cost of about $2 billion a year. In these asthmatic patients, there is a decrease in lung function with exposure to particulates, to 59 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 sulfur dioxide and to nitrogen oxides, which increases bronchial hyperreactivity, and the symptoms correlate with the increased level of these pollutants. In addition to exacerbating asthma symptoms, a recent study reported by the California Air Resource Board concluded that ozone smog can actually not just exacerbate asthma, but can cause asthma in children. A new study of children in Southern California reports that frequent strenuous outdoor exercise combined with high levels of ozone can more than triple a child's risk of developing asthma. This study, which was published in the Lancet, is the first study to find that air pollution might actually cause asthma, not just aggravate it. Officials of the California Air Resource Board were quick to state that its results applied not only to the six Southern California communities where the study was performed, but also to many cities across the country. The study also found that children living in communities with higher concentrations of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and acid vapor have lungs that develop and grow more slowly and 60 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 that they are less able to move air through them.

This decreased lung development may, for these children, have permanent adverse effects as they become adults. What about children without asthma? A study presented at the November of 2001 annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America suggest that some children who appear in perfect health nonetheless have measurable lung damage from exposure to air pollution. The study compared the chest X-rays of children living in Mexico City, where pollution exceeds US air quality standards for an average of four hours a day, to children living in a clean air seaside Mexican town where the air is better than Philadelphia. Over 63 percent of apparently healthy children breathing City air had signs of airway obstruction on X-ray. Over 50 percent of them had signs of inflammation and 18 percent had signs of more advanced damage. Of those living by the sea, only 5 percent had mild obstruction, and none had inflammation or more advanced damage. The researchers from the University of North Carolina, who noted that the study could have been difficult to perform in the 61 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 United States because of our high rates of asthma and the high rates of indoor pollution because of carpets and glues, say the same results would apply in the United States as well. I'm giving you just a small example of the respiratory, cardiac and other effects of air pollution, even at ambient levels, that we experience on a regular basis within the City of Philadelphia. So I certainly appreciate the opportunity to present this to you. Thank you very much.

Before you leave. I've always had a particularly high regard for Physicians for Social Responsibilities as an organization because it helped to contradict the views that physicians don't really care about their patients. They live a life by themselves. I would like to see the physicians, maybe in a different name, take a leadership role at least, in this fight on the environment. Because you're in the best position to be believed. You're credible witnesses as to the impact. The rest of us are laypeople. And we can be accused of having political motives or other motives. But physicians, despite the 62 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 sometimes love/hate relationship people have with them, physicians are highly credible people. I think we really have a public health calamitous condition that exists here. And the threat by the Bush Administration to, instead of repairing what needs repairing, they're further damaging it, I think has to be made very clear to everyone. So I would hope you would take back to your organization an expression of an opinion of mine. I would like to work with your group. Maybe you could have a new subdivision called, Physicians for the Environment, or something better than that, something that doesn't frighten people into thinking they have to be literate. Something that touches their feelings. I think physicians are in an unusual position. You can put pressure on the American Medical Association to take sound positions, and maybe we'll forgive you for physician's generally bad views about medical malpractice. You have a chance to make up for your good work on environmental actions. I really would like to send that message 63 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 back to your group. I think you have wonderful capability of doing so much good, and you've already done so much good in alerting people to the dangers of war and the services that your group performs in so many areas. So I'm delighted you were here today. I would like to see if your minds could go back to work on how you can be creative in alerting people about this danger. It would be a much more pleasant life for physicians if they didn't have so many asthma patients to deal with.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your praise of the organization, and I appreciate the challenge as well. I think that one area where we see our next opportunity involves the medical schools. There are five medical schools within the City of Philadelphia. Within the medical education, within those schools, so little attention is played to the health consequences of environmental contamination, that I think we look to that opportunity as probably one of the first places --

Well, you might come up with a recommendation for changes in curriculum to include that. Because people just think that 64 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 environmental hazards are something that nobody can do anything about. But that's not true. We've already made great strides in certain areas on environmental health, but the moment we relax, the forces of greed take over. And it's difficult to say that a private owner of a coal plant ought to be socially responsible as an individual, because he has no way of controlling the situation. But society as a whole can control the situation. And I think physicians can play an enormous role in that. And I would be very happy to work with you. And I'm sure all the organizations that are assembled here would welcome that kind of leadership from the physicians.

We certainly look forward to the opportunity. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The next witness is?

The next witness is Jerome Bayard from the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees.

Identify yourself. Give your name and organization and spell your last name, please. 65 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082

Good afternoon, Councilman Cohen. Good afternoon, Tim. My name is Jerome Bayard. I'm with UNITE. My last name is B-A-Y-A-R-D.

Very good, sir. Go right ahead.

I am here testifying on behalf of 75 percent of my fellow brothers and sisters who do care about the environment and nine northeastern states that have signed on opposing the Bush Clear Skies policy, which has nothing to do with improving air quality or clear skies. I hope that you will be convinced to stand against the President's package. If allowed to take effect, the Administration's rule changes will enable industrial facilities to increase air pollution by enormous amounts without meeting controlled requirements. The safety of not only our surroundings, are very lives hang in the balance. Managers of national parks will lose their ability to protect precious national treasures from haze and acid rain.. State governments will no longer have tools needed to combat smog or soot or toxic pollution of any kind across this great nation. The public will 66 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 be held relentlessly at the mercy of polluters in their communities. Some argue that keeping standards put forth some years ago cost too much, thereby causing jobs to be lost in an already challenged economy, and others spouting, "It is a tediously impossible undertaking trying to control levels of pollution." None of these are adequate reasons to repeal protection of air quality. Progression cannot be stopped, although stipulations must be maintained and should be imposed to secure clean air. A few conscientious thinkers proposed and passed the acts pertaining to cleaner air over three decades ago to make air breathable, cutting the cause of thousands of premature deaths, millions of asthma attacks and other pollution-related illnesses every year. Over the length of the past 30 years, some 300 million tons plus have been kept from being released into the atmosphere, reducing the harm done annually by sulphur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, to the skies, environment, as well as humans. Our public health and safety are threatened by the plans of Clear Skies, which will 67 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 allow industrial facilities to increase contaminates released into the air in an unprotected, unregulated rate, increasing global warming, while delaying clean-ups that should and must be done to eliminate the enormous amounts of pollution traumatizing the air in which we breathe each day. Major plant operations that cost millions of dollars and increase pollution by hundreds of thousands of dollars will be looked at as an every day occurrence and exempted from regulations required by Clean Air for changes that decrease pollution. If this Clear Skies proposal becomes law, air pollution clean-up programs that are currently mandated by law will become deregulated, self-policing fields without any legal authority. These lax guidelines will give an industry the green light to start polluting and destroying our planet, causing health devastation now and for many future generations to come. This deregulation of the clean air agenda is more than politics. It is genuinely a matter of life and death.

Thank you very much. I'm glad to see labor represented here, because so 68 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 often labor just goes along with management separately on issues like the environment upon the strange theory that somehow it might make pay increases more likely if the company doesn't have to spend time on safety measures.

Yes. I've gotten a lot of flack from some people about that because some say, well, as long as we're working, that's all we care about. But if you're not around to do the work, if you don't look out for the environment -- and personally it involves me because it cut short my paternal grandmother's life by years, air 14 pollution. My maternal grandfather, it cut his life 15 short by at least 12 to 13 years. They died 16 prematurely. She died at 50 and he died when he was 17 just 63, and it was related to the air pollution. 18

Well, maybe you could 19 wake up the AFL-CIO generally in the City to an 20 understanding that they've got to deal with the real 21 needs of workers. One of the needs is how do we 22 manage to survive in an unhealthy environment. And 23 the only way I know is to make that environment 24 healthier. 25

Yes, sir. I thank you. 69 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082

Thank you very much. It's good again to have you here representing UNITE. Maybe they'll make you an ambassador to the other unions.

Thank you.

And tell the President of AFL-CIO, who is the head of the asbestos union -- we worked with him over a long time to get Philadelphia to adopt one of the most rigid asbestos removal control laws of any City because we were very concerned about the health of asbestos workers, as well as the health of folks in the general community that might be affected if asbestos removal was done in other than a very healthy way. So he would know -- and he's president of the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia. So I think it will have a ready ear in him in asking him to see that unions begin to get behind this movement. Thank you very much. It was very good having you here. The next speaker is?

The next speaker is Joy Bergey representing the Pennsylvania Interfaith Global Climate Change Campaign, quote, The Religious 70 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Community and Air Pollution, unquote.

This is an interesting approach. I'm anxious to hear it.

Well, good. Good afternoon. My name is Joy Bergey, B-E-R-G-E-Y, and I'm with the Pennsylvania Interfaith Global Climate Change Campaign. This is a coalition of the faithful from many religious communities; Jews, Muslims, Christians and Buddhists, as well as Baha'i and others. In each of these religions, God calls us to protect creation, the world and every one of its inhabitants. In Genesis Chapter One, which is the creation story that lies in the heart of Jewish, Muslim and Christian traditions, God tells us that creation is good; worthy of our utmost protection. What else ultimately do we have to support the sacred gift of life? So as the Congress and the Bush Administration debate the future of clean air in this country, the faith community calls on City Council to do all that you can to ensure that the Clean Air Act is strengthened, not weakened. You're hearing much this afternoon about mercury and the 71 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 pollutants that lead to smog and acid rain and all their attendant ailments. We in the faith community care deeply about all of these conditions, and we deplore any attempts to weaken the control of the pollutants that contribute directly to the death and chronic illnesses of so many Philadelphians. People of faith are called by their faith to aid those who are suffering. We must clean up these dirty power plants. We must end the unnecessary suffering of our people. In addition to the pollutants already mentioned, the Pennsylvania InterFaith Climate Change Campaign is tremendously concerned by carbon pollution. Carbon dioxide is the leading cause of global warming. And old, dirty coal-fired power plants are a leading cause of carbon pollution. Our state has so many of these plants, as do neighboring states upwind from us. Pennsylvania ranks fourth worst in carbon pollution in the United States. And our state alone emits more greenhouse gases than 101 developing countries combined. That's just Pennsylvania. So what if we were to do nothing in this 72 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 country about climate change? The world would grow gradually warmer -- and, in fact, has already warmed up a degree or two -- and will continue to warm unless we change our ways. So what's the big deal? Wouldn't this mean milder winters? And who but the kids would complain about fewer snow days? Now, a few degrees may not sound like enough to worry about, but it's not few degrees. It's the steady warming that leads to instability in the climate, with dramatic weather disruptions. Our actions, in fact, are leading to changes in the weather. But these changes are not irreversible. And if we act responsibly, sooner rather than later, we can slow down and eventually reverse global warming and the weather changes. We have the know-how and resources to do this. And we have a responsibility to care for the home that God has given us. And to keep it healthy for future generations. Countries around the world are already addressing carbon pollution through the Kyoto Protocol, and yet our Congress and our President refuse to sign on to this international treaty that calls for reducing carbon pollution. It will cost too much, they say. It will hurt our productivity, 73 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 they say. In actuality, the facts tell quite a different story. When we balance the costs of cleaning up smoke stack pollution with a total cost of premature deaths, healthcare and missed work time, the total monetary benefits of cleaning up our power plants would be over $100 billion a year. $100 billion, with a B. Global warming becomes more difficult to manage the longer we wait. If we don't act, we will see more frequent and drastic weather changes. Hurricanes and winter storms will be more likely more severe, resulting in more storm-related deaths and damage to buildings and infrastructure.

Heat-related summer deaths, already a big problem in this City, in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, are projected to rise from about 170 per year, to more than 300 people per year. Climate impacts are likely to fall more heavily on low income persons and children, elderly and persons with chronic respiratory problems. There is some good news by the way. Global emissions dropped by a half a percent in 2002, which was largely the result of the other nations who have already signed on to Kyoto 74 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Protocol. Think what could be accomplished if the US was part of the solution, rather than the biggest problem. It is critical that we regulate carbon dioxide, and the Clean Air Act is an excellent place to begin this process. We in the faith community seek justice for all God's people by addressing climate change and the carbon pollution it's causing. We must stand in solidarity with the poor who will not have the resources to adapt to these changes. We seek justice for future generations who will be adversely affected by rising sea levels, more drought and increases in vector-borne diseases, like malaria and West Nile virus. Humankind fills a unique role as guardians of creation. " Our national 21 leadership has little vision around the issues of 22 energy independence and conservation. The president 23 acknowledges that global warming is real, reluctantly agreeing that humans have something to do with its cause, but his response is that we 75 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 should simply get used to it. The president wants industry to voluntarily reduce carbon emissions. This has proven insufficient. In the decades since the federal government first called for voluntary action to reduce carbon emission, greenhouse gas emissions have increased percent, and that's 8 according to the EPA. 9 At stake are the future of life on 10 earth, the sustainability of our economy and public 11 health and the quality of life we bequeath to our 12 children and grandchildren. Religious leaders and 13 laypeople alike in Pennsylvania are increasingly 14 speaking with one voice to call for government policies that promote energy conservation and sustainability. We are deeply heartened that City Council, under your leadership, Councilman Cohen, are taking this issue seriously. We are filled with hope that our voices and actions, together with yourself, can move this country in the right direction. The direction of justice and fairness for all. Justice is one of the most deeply held and oldest values of this nation. Justice is what God calls the faithful to work for. Justice means 76 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 acting responsibly and acting now to turn the tied on global warming. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I think that you can lend a tremendous amount to the movement that people have a right to health, that it's a right which no 9 one can take from them, and anyone in political life who ignores it ought to do so at their own peril of no longer remaining in political life. We'll help you in that regard. Thank you very much. We're about halfway through the testimony today. Could you explain where the wash rooms are, if anyone uses them. And we'll get back in five minutes. I will steal off to a private office and have a BLT sandwich too, in the meantime. Can we take a five minute recess? I think everybody can stand a little walk and a little stretching, and we'll be more awake. Thank you. (Brief recess.)

The Committee on Law and Government is back in Session. In the Jewish language, today is Erev Yom Tov, which means it's just a few hours before the beginning of the 77 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Passover holiday, and so my time is going to be limited to hearing about just another hour, and then I've got to leave for what we call the first Seder. And so please forgive me if I don't ask too many questions this afternoon. I think this is enormously important, and I welcome the renewed vigor with which I understand people are approaching this question today. If the hearing is not over by then, I am going to ask that Councilman Ortiz or Tim Kearney, my director, stay here and complete the hearing because we want to get a full record. And then I'm hopeful of preparing a report for the public, a report by the Committee on Law and Government, which I hope will be enacted by the City Council as a body. I will be presenting it to the City Council for approval. And I would like that to be done sometime before we recess in the middle of June. I would hope that sometime in May we could do that. I would hope it would take the format of something that might be publishable for widespread distribution as the findings of the City Council of the City of Philadelphia and useful in the fight, not only against the efforts of the current 78 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Administration in Washington to try to continue relaxing -- actually, almost obliterating the standards that exist for clean air, and that would be useful in educating people out in the communities. So we'll be asking for all your support and guidances as to the form of the report. Having said that, that's a warning to you that if you're called upon, please help us in the Committee to produce what we would like to have as a readable report that is scientifically sound and that begins to wake up people in the country as to why folks back home in the small communities that don't legislate on national things must inform their national and their state legislatures of their feelings in the local communities, and why this is as important as any issue that's ever been presented to the United States before. Thank you very much. The next witness will be?

The next witness will be Jonathan Sinker of the Clean Air Council.

My name is Jonathan Sinker. I am the Field Organizer for the Clean Air Council. Clean Air Council is committed to the 79 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 position that everyone has a right to breathe clean, healthful air. Founded in Philadelphia in 1967, the Council is the oldest member-supported organization in Pennsylvania. The Council's team of attorneys, community organizers and policy analysts focus their efforts on the following key areas: Clean Air Act implementation, clean energy, sustainable transportation, waste reduction and recycling, indoor air pollution and children's environmental health. Thank you for inviting the Council to testify at this important hearing. Over the last 35 years, Clean Air Council has had numerous opportunities to work with City Council to better protect the health and welfare of Philadelphians. City Council should be commended for holding this critical hearing. I will limit my testimony today to the health threat from mercury emissions from old, dirty power plants. In regards to mercury emissions, the Bush Administration's proposal is far too little, far too late. Across the United States, mercury air pollution from coal-fired power plants contaminates 80 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 our lakes, rivers and oceans. Toxic mercury emissions deposit from the air into water bodies and then concentrate in fish. Eating mercury-contaminated fish damages brains and the nervous system of children, and can harm cardiovascular and immune systems in adults. The Bush Administration's air pollution plan would rewrite our country's clean air laws to weaken health protections for millions of Americans. The Administration's plan would allow power plants to continue emitting far more mercury pollution for decades longer. Coal-fired power plants are the nation's largest mercury source, responsible for one-third of the mercury air pollution from US industry. Power plants are the only major mercury polluters still unregulated for mercury under Federal Clean Air Laws. Two major Environmental Protection Agency reports to Congress document how mercury air pollution contaminates our lakes, streams and other water bodies, concentrates in fish, and causes serious health risks for pregnant women and children who consume those fish. 81 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Nationally, 44 states and territories had issued fish consumption advisories for mercury, warning citizens to limit how often they eat certain types of fish because the fish are contaminated with mercury. states have issued mercury advisories 7 for fish in every inland water body. 10 states have 8 issued advisories for canned tuna, and eight states 9 have issued coastal water advisories, warning 10 consumers about eating king mackerel, another fish 11 species known to have high levels of contamination. 12 According to the EPA's latest Toxics Release 13 Inventory published in 2000, Pennsylvania ranked 14 number one in mercury emissions from coal burning 15 power plants. This issue is especially significant 16 with the start of fishing season last week. 2 million acres of lakes, estuaries and wetlands, and 415,000 miles of streams, rivers and coasts. Methylmercury, the form of mercury that contaminates fish, is highly toxic, interfering with the development and function of the central nervous system. Infants can ingest methylmercury from breast milk when mothers have eaten contaminated 82 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 fish. Children are exposed when they eat such fish. Children and infants are at higher risk of mercury poisoning because their nervous systems continue to develop until about the age 14. Health effects linked to methylmercury exposure include poor performance on tests of attention and language impaired memory, inability to process and recall information, and impaired visual and motor functions.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report in January 2003 found that 1 in 12 women of childbearing age has mercury levels above EPA's safe health threshold. 9 million women of childbearing age with elevated levels of mercury from eating contaminated fish, and approximately 322,000 newborns at risk for neurological impairment from exposure in utero. Current laws require EPA to issue "maximum achievable control technology," also known as MACT standards, for coal-fired power plants with compliance due by the end of 2007. In December 2001, the EPA told the Edison Electric Institute that the Clean Air Act's MACT standard could reduce 83 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 power plants' mercury emissions by 90 percent, from 48 tons to five tons nationwide by 2008. The Bush Administration's plan would weaken the Clean Air Act. It delays any mercury reductions to 2010, and then allows tons in 2010 and 15 tons in 2018. 7 That's more than five times as much power plant 8 mercury pollution through 2017 and three times as 9 much mercury each year after that, indefinitely. 10 From 2008 through 2020, that's 284 tons more mercury 11 under the Bush plan. 12 The Bush plan would allow unrestricted 13 emissions trading. This means that some power 14 plants may not have to reduce their emissions at 15 all. Instead, they could buy mercury emission 16 credits from other power plants and do nothing to 17 stop contaminating the local lakes and streams. 18 Some plants could even increase their mercury 19 emissions. Because mercury trading could lead to 20 toxic hot spots where mercury contamination 21 increases, other legislative proposals, notably the 22 Clean Power and Clean Smokestacks Acts bar trading 23 in mercury emissions. 24 Independent tests to date indicate that 25 90 percent removal of mercury will be 84 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 technologically and economically feasible. Some air pollution controls are achieving reductions of more than 90 percent right now. History also reminds us that the substantial technological improvements and a steady reduction in control costs occur only when strong standards are set. Clean Air Council calls on Philadelphia City Council to address President Bush's air pollution plan. Philadelphia already suffers from poor air quality. The President's plan will only exacerbate this situation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Kearney.

When you mentioned that 90 percent of the mercury could be taken out of the power plant emissions, physically how do this they do that? Is it with what we've always called scrubbers, or is there a different way?

There's a different technique, and I would rather send some information to you. It's pretty technical. I don't fully understand it myself.

Mr. Fine, I saw you nod 85 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 your head. Can you tell us the answer?

Please come forward, Mr. Fine.

I think the devices are called selective catalytic reduction units, SCRs, that are most efficient in removing pollutants, including mercury.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Christine Knapp of the Clean Water Action.

Good afternoon. My name is Christine Knapp, K-N-A-P-P. I'm a program organizer for Clean Water Action, a grassroots environmental group advocating for better environmental policy here in Philadelphia and throughout the state. We currently represent about 5,000 residents of Philadelphia. Since the early 1990s, Clean Water Action has worked with residents of South and Southwest Philadelphia who are concerned with their air quality. In my time working with these residents, I have heard of many possible solutions to help clean up the air in Philadelphia. I believe 86 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 that improving air monitoring and setting ambient air quality standards for toxics are two steps that City Council can take that will be most effective in addressing this issue. Residents of South and Southwest Philadelphia live in close proximity not just to the large Sunoco Refinery, which is the largest polluter in the City, but also another 250 facilities listed in federal and state environmental regulatory databases. Included among these facilities are trash transfer stations, autobody shops, dry cleaners, a sewage treatment facility, soil remediation sites, junkyards, chemical plants an airport, two large highways and 12 Superfund sites. Living in this area, residents are exposed to a toxic soup of multiple chemicals, the health effects of which for many of them are unknown. Last year Clean Water Action and the Community Labor Refinery Tracking Committee began the South and Southwest Philadelphia Bucket Brigade. The Bucket Brigade is a simple but effective tool that dozens of communities across the country are now using to take air samples in their own backyard to find out for themselves what chemicals are in 87 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 their air. This is the bucket right here. It's fashioned with a bag, vacuum and valves, and it will trap a few liters of air inside the bag, which is sent to the lab for analysis. I'll show you the bag. Over the last year we have taken nine samples in the neighborhoods surrounding the Sunoco Refinery and we have detected a total of 54 different chemicals. The reason that the Community Labor Refinery Tracking Committee became involved in the Bucket Brigade was because they suspected that not enough was being done to protect the safety of their air. Currently, City residents rely on Air Management Services for enforcement of the Philadelphia Air Management Code, as well as state and federal regulations controlling air pollution. AMS plays a vital role in monitoring City air and insuring that the air we breathe is safe. Yet we have reason to believe that this monitoring is not enough. I'd like to make it clear that I am not attacking AMS for failing to do their job. We meet with officials from AMS regularly, and I do believe that they understand and are willing to help us with 88 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 the issues our City faces regarding air quality. They are simply underfunded and understaffed, and I do believe they are trying to do the best they can with what resources they have. There are currently only air monitors 7 located in Philadelphia. Only two of these are 8 located in South and Southwest Philadelphia, which 9 might be effected by emissions from the Sunoco 10 Refinery. 5 12 miles away from it. This monitor also does not 13 monitor for sulphur dioxide, which is one of the 14 largest emissions that comes from the Sunoco Refinery. Since the majority of industries in Philadelphia are located in South and Southwest Philadelphia, I do not believe it's effective to only operate two out of the 14 monitors in these neighborhoods. In addition, Air Management Services does not monitor for all the chemicals they know that are released by local industry. For example, almost 24,000 pounds of MTBE, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, was released into the air by just the Sunoco Refinery in 2000. MTBE is a suspected carcinogen 89 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES.

030082 and has been implicated in the contamination of water wells across the country that have been known to make neighborhoods sick. Yet AMS does not currently monitor for MTBE to determine if the amount of this chemical that is being released into the air is safe for residents to breathe. In fact, of the 54 chemicals that the Bucket Brigade has detected in the last year, only six are monitored for by Air Management Services. They also do not routinely take air samples in response to citizen odor complaints or other events. They rely on data collected from their stationary monitors, which can be located miles away from the actual polluting facility. When residents file complaints, they receive no 17 information about what they could be exposed to or what caused the odor or visible emission. If your tap water turned brown in Philadelphia, you could easily get somebody to come look at your tap water and possibly to take a sample of it to find out if it was safe. Yet if you have an issue with your air, if it smells like rotten eggs or if you see a yellow cloud, it's harder for you to get that same type of information. It is crucial that AMS and 90 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 other regulatory agencies take regular samples around facilities and in response to resident complaints so that people can learn what they are being exposed to. The fire at the unpermitted dump beneath the Platt Bridge has brought a lot more attention to the question of air quality and safety in Philadelphia. For months, possibly years, this dump has been smoldering, further polluting the air of South and Southwest Philadelphia. Yet no one from the City informed the public of this potential health hazard, nor did Air Management Services detect any harmful chemicals coming from the site. A sample taken by the Bucket Brigade found levels of the carcinogens benzene and tetrachloroethane that exceeded the EPA Region III Risk Based Concentration by more than 150 percent for benzene and 50 percent for tetrachloroethane. Six other toxic chemicals were also detected in that sample. But according to City officials, their results have not shown any harmful levels of chemicals. Residents are now asking themselves, what else has been going on that they didn't know about. If a problem of this scale has been releasing benzene and other chemicals into 91 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 the air for months without detection, it's frightening to think what else might be out there right now. This situation has highlighted the fact that City monitoring is inadequate in dealing with the large scale air quality problem in this City. A larger issue facing Philadelphia is the lack of ambient air quality standards for toxics. Many people assume that, like for their water, their air must meet certain standards to protect their health toxic standards. However, this is not the case. Pennsylvania State nor Philadelphia County have any ambient air quality standards for any toxic chemical. Currently air toxics are regulated facility by facility, controlling emissions to a certain level from each one. Unfortunately, in an area like South and Southwest Philadelphia where there are dozens of industries in one small area, this approach is inadequate. There are 250 facilities in South and Southwest Philadelphia alone that are listed in federal and state environmental regulatory databases. Other states, such as Texas and Louisiana, are beginning to set ambient air quality 92 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 standards for toxics. Texas has established "Effect Screening Levels" for many air toxics which alert air pollution staff to conduct an in-depth review if levels are exceeded to see if there is a problem which should be addressed. We currently have no 7 such standards which would alert government agencies and the public that their air is unsafe.

Standards must be developed to evaluate when the cumulative impact of many industries reaches a point that threatens the public's health. In summary, there is much that City Council can do to help reduce air pollution in Philadelphia and to protect the health of residents who live near industries. Improving City monitoring to include more regular monitoring around facilities and in response to resident complaints, adding additional monitors and testing for more chemicals would all help ensure that Philadelphia's air is safe and healthy. Regulatory agencies should also take into consideration the cumulative effect of how several industries in one area can affect the neighboring communities. Research should be conducted to set standards for ambient air toxics to 93 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 ensure that unsafe levels of chemicals do not lead to increased rates of asthma, cancer and other illnesses in our communities. Of course we cannot ask any City agency to do more without providing them with more resources. Members of Council can help Philadelphia regain its air by making air quality a priority and adequately funding Air Management Service so that they can improve their monitoring. Money should be set aside for the Health Department to conduct research and develop ambient air toxic standards to protect the health and safety of our air. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. I understand there were two representatives from Sunoco here before. In preparation for hearings, the general procedure is, of course, that people who produce the legislation, either a proposed Ordinance or Resolution, in this case myself, always prepares a list of witnesses who are going to speak in support of whatever the Bill 23 or Resolution proposes. But no Council hearing ever ends without a call, are there any other people who wish to be heard. Also, the proposed hearing is 94 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 advertised in the press and the industries are all very well informed and they follow much more closely than citizens generally do. So don't feel that this is a one-sided presentation. This Committee would have been happy to have heard the Sunoco representatives or any others from industry, if they wish to be heard. And I usually take it to mean that people who don't wish to be heard don't have too much confidence in the soundness of their positions and, therefore, don't want to present it publicly. But if Sunoco is here or any other -- PECO or any representatives, they will be heard. They had two ways of being heard. One, had they communicated with City Council, they could have gotten on the official witness list. Or, second, they could just wait until the end of the call of the regular witness list and then respond to the question, are there any other witnesses to be heard. So this is not a one-sided presentation. This hearing today was open to everybody in the City of Philadelphia or anybody anywhere who happened to be here at today's event would have been heard. I don't know whether there is anybody yet in the audience from industry, but if you want 95 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 to testify and haven't asked, you will have an opportunity at the end of this hearing. Thank you very much. I'm going to ask that three people come up together. Mabel Mallard (ph) on the Right to Know Committee. This Council took unusual action to see that a Right to Know law was passed in connection with environmental matters. She's going to speak on community impact on South Philadelphia from air pollution. Then I'm going to also ask that she be joined by Al Capparelli (ph) and Sarah Kurnes, who are from the Community Labor Refinery Tracking Committee, and they're going to speak on their 10-year struggle for air pollution and worker relief in Philadelphia. I won't be surprised if they both talk about South Philadelphia. Mabel Mallard first.

Thank you. Councilman David Cohen, this is my first time speaking before a public arena, but I'm trying to thank you in advance for giving me this opportunity to speak. I represent a group of ex-workers who 96 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 worked at the Defense Personnel Center. As well, I represent the community of the surrounding area in South Philadelphia. There is a known pollution problem in our area and it has been that way for years. Christine spoke of the fire burning, and it's burning for years, I understand. And this 8 fire is just one of the problems that is related to 9 South Philadelphia alone. The plume, 60 acres of 10 oil floating on the water tablet, that's been there 11 for years. 12 The purpose and goal of our group, the 13 Right to Know Committee, is to alert and make aware to the people living within the neighborhood the threats of the environment releases in the air, the water, and basically your home. Our homes have been contaminated through releases. Take for instance, in 1994, Sunoco, they released 70 tons. There was a release of 70 tons of silica aluminium that traveled all through Philadelphia, though they told the people, there's no harm. It was no problem in that release. I have went researching and researched the census tract South Philadelphia in 1990. There was 27,000 population in South Philadelphia. As of 97 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 the year 2000, there's only 22,000 in the population in South Philadelphia. That's a difference of at least 5,000. I am concerned. Those people, are they sick? Have they moved out because of the air, because of sickness? I and our group have started a survey, and this survey is basically looking for the symptoms. And what we want it to lead to is bio-monitoring. Most people hear about the biochemicals, but there's such a thing as bio-monitoring, which takes into consideration the blood and the urine of people who have been exposed to see how much of the chemicals that are causing illnesses, such as was mentioned, asthma -- cancer is three times higher in the area of South Philadelphia. Southwest Philadelphia can't discontinue because -- just because it's one area doesn't mean it doesn't affect the whole. Because we have been subject to so much illnesses. I, in particular, living and born in South Philadelphia over 50 years. As a child, I know the difference of the air quality. And as a young mother raising four children I know the difficulty of how it has been to raise them. And I also know the difficulty of working in a 98 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 contaminated place, which is the Defense Personnel Center. I think you may be aware of the asbestos problem there, Mr. Cohen. So to make a long story short -- and I am trying to do this because this is something that has been going on for years. It's not something that happened overnight. It's going to take a long time to try and straighten it up. And we may never straighten it up. 6 million gallons of this plume over a 60-acre area in South Philadelphia, also under the expressway. Now they're recycling this oil, making money off it, but the people who have been affected by this have not been given any kind of consideration. So what I'm asking the Council to do, if possible, is to help bring those environmental doctors and have these tests to see the amount of chemicals that the people living in the closest area, how it is affecting our children. I have a son. He has seizures and has had seizures since he was 18. I did not know and do not to this day know what has brought this on with him. Now he's 40 years old. He still suffers with 99 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 these seizures. And it's basically chemicals. I lived in the Tasker Homes projects. That is, like, right next door to Sunoco. I was living there at the time when they had the fire that lasted for seven days. Mr. Rizzo knows because his father was there.

But that fire that went on for seven days was releasing those same particles that's been talked about. And for seven days most of those people who were involved, going out of their homes, sitting on the steps while this stuff was coming down, are no longer around, have suffered with cancer. I would like to see -- and I have put a proposal to have the Health Department in the City of Philadelphia to help those who live in the neighborhood to do investigating -- to investigate the chemicals. To investigate the companies within your neighborhood and what are they releasing. Not only Sunoco. According to research, it's 20 facilities in the area of South Philadelphia alone that release tons of ammonia, sulphur dioxide. You name it. I'm just a mother who is trying to live in an area that I know is contaminated. I know it's a risk. But how to live with this risk. And this is 100 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 what's been my goal for over years. I have struggled. I have to look out my window to see which way the wind is blowing to know what way these chemicals are blowing towards my house. What windows do I shut? Do I go outside? I don't go outside. I don't sit outside. So this is part of what it is to live, as they say, on the fence. And living on the fence, you became aware of a lot of things. I have. Because when I was raising my children, I had to notice what the weather was in order to dress them to go out. Since they're grown, it never stopped. I have been observant of my surrounding, either outside and inside. And to start awareness to the people in my community, we have started having meetings. I'm under the support of PhilaPosh (ph), who has given me the support since '97, the groups, the workers and the residents, we meet there every three months. I have traveled to network with other groups who have the same interest. It's coming about. And this hearing is the best thing for people in the community, because then we know that maybe there are people who do care about the situation, who can help 101 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 us. And that means bring the experts down to the level of the grassroots. Bring them to help us evaluate just what it is and how to cope. How to cope, because eventually it will tear you down. I mean, look at the houses and the paints in you home -- I mean on the street, it becomes corrosive. The paint start peeling off. It is from the acid rain. You can take whatever you look at in South Philadelphia, you can see where, somewhere along the line, they're struggling to survive. The trees -- I observe everything. I moved on my block years ago. There was a young tree in front of my door. And maybe it seems strange, but I always was an observant person, even as a child. And I noticed my tree -- I call it my tree because it's what I look at every day. It's developing properly. There's nothing wrong with it, but there's other trees in the neighborhood that are dying.

Ms. Mallard, your testimony shows why it's so urgent that we take action along the lines proposed here today. I'm going to ask Mr. Fine, does the City have any information on this matter? 102 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 I know I've been down in South Philly at a number of meetings that were held with respect to this question of the plume. What is the City's response to the situation that Ms. Mallard is calling our attention to?

Well, the City has been involved in what they call the Restoration Advisory Board meetings that are held once every two or three months listening to the people there that are testifying about their concerns. And we've also been involved from -- at least my unit. I can only speak for Air Management Services. That we've been involved in looking at the kinds of technology that is being employed to remove the subterranean oil and in controlling any fumes or vapors that may be released into the atmosphere.

Does the City contest in any way the statements Ms. Mallard is making about the conditions under which she and her neighbors are living? Or does the City accept that, but has not come up with any response, any effective response, moving towards health?

I believe the City has taken 103 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 on doing health assessments for those that --

Only six people responded to the health survey that was done by the City for the people of Passyunk Homes. There were 600 people removed from that area because of the plume. And only six people responded because at that time they had moved them all over. So the survey that was done does not reflect the people.

I'm going to ask Ms. Mallard, that before we complete the budget process, City Council, which has to be done by the end of May at the very latest, that the Health Department, including the Health Department generally, as well as your unit and Ms. Mallard, appear before City Council so we can get a grip of it. I've got to find out whether the City is really doing something about it, or whether these are the kind of actions I engaged in during trash to steam days, which stopped that terrible trash to steam plant from being built in South Philadelphia. That would have been intensified all of your problems.

We can't take no more.

We've got to clear up this thing because it's been years since the plume 104 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 has been around. I remember going to one meeting -- I couldn't follow the expert testimony because it seemed to be there not for the purpose of helping people, but just to cloud everything up and make it very difficult to get a handle on. But I think, Ms. Mallard, the hearing today is not on that phase of it, but we're glad you took advantage of the opportunity to bring it to our attention. And we're going to be moving to try to give help to your community. You certainly deserve.

Thank you.

So thank you, Ms. Mallard, and thank you, Mr. Fine. Sarah Kurnes.

Yes. My name is Sarah Kurnes, K-U-R-N-E-S. I represent the Labor Refinery --

Is Al -- is the other gentleman here?

Al was not able to make it. He wasn't feeling up to it. As Mrs. Mabel Mallard had mentioned about the accident from the Sunoco Refinery back in 1994, since then I have been suffering with heart 105 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 disease. And as far as Mr. Fine's findings about the air improving, I kind of doubt it myself because of what's been happening to me personally. And a friend sent me this -- this was in 1999, which is only a couple years ago -- "The Pollutions Laced the Philadelphia Air." Now, according to this article, they said, "The Philadelphia region is exceeding federal guidelines by more than 200 times in some places." In the other part of the article it talks about, "the EPA's health guidelines by at least times in every town, and up t0 300 times in 14 the City." That's how bad the pollution is in my 15 area. Now, I have to say it's the refinery because I know I was a healthy person when I moved into this area. These pictures that you're going to see are taken from my bedroom window, with the window not even being open. She mentioned about opening windows. Since the accident in '94, I wouldn't dare open a window. What I have coming in with my windows closed, the Air Management people took a sample of it, and I have some samples myself. I'm sorry I didn't bring them so that I could show 106 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 you what I'm finding on my bedroom window sills with my window closed, which I am breathing into my lungs. Now, that will give you credibility as to this arm and leg weakness. It's a known fact that the benzene is causing this problem that I'm having. I feel like I lost my legs. I have no 9 strength in my arms. The benzene on two different occasions caused me to black out. I've had the heart disease since '94 when they had the aluminum silica. All my cookware is stainless steel. They try to say that Alzheimer's and short-term memory comes from aluminum. You're cooking with aluminum. No. I've been using stainless steel cookware for years. As long as I've been living in that area I've been using my stainless steel. I have nothing aluminium. So it's not coming from my cookware. It's coming from what I'm inhaling. My sinuses are bleeding just about every day of my life. I'm sitting here right now with sinus pain because I happened to get in a cab that had an air freshener. I have no life because I have become -- it's called an environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivities. I've become 107 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 allergic to everything in the environment. I was not like that when I moved into Southwest Philadelphia. I was a very active person. I went bowling a couple nights a week. I hung wallpaper. I painted walls. I just was a very, very active person, and now I can do nothing. I have to pay for everything that I need done. I have to pay somebody to come in to help me with just everyday chores. I'm completely fatigued. One day the ammonia smell was so bad from the refinery that I actually took a stroke from the ammonia. When I got out of my shower in my bathroom, my bathroom door, the sulphur hits me in the face, and my windows are closed, and yet the sulphur is still coming in my house with the windows closed. So when they talk about weakening the Clean Air Act, no. If anything, you have to strengthen it for everybody so that they all don't become like I am right now.

I'd just like to add when we deal with the problem that Ms. Mallard raised and bring the Health Department in to discuss it, I'd like it if you could be here, so that we could include that also in the questioning. Because 108 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 you two are real life witnesses of what happens if we don't do the right thing on protecting the environment. So I want to thank both of you for coming and bringing this to our attention. I'm going to direct Mr. Kearney, who is on my staff, to ask the City Council President to bring back the Health Department on these matters raised by Mrs. Mallard and Mrs. Kurnes. Thank you very much. Mr. Fine, this will give you advanced opportunity to tell Dr. Domzalski that these questions are going to be raised, and we'll appreciate your cooperation. Thank you. Karen Conaghan. Is that how you pronounce your name?

Yes.

You're going to have to spell that name for the reporter. Identify yourself. Would you and the next two witnesses after that, including Nathan Williams of PennEnvironment and Roger Smith of the Sierra Club -- I would like very much to hear your testimony, 109 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 but I'm really going to have to leave, but I don't want to postpone the hearing, so I'm going to ask Mr. Kearney to conduct the hearing so we can complete it today and be in a position to prepare a preliminary report to present to City Council. So forgive me, but I've really got to leave for what I mentioned is the first Seder. Mr. Kearney, would you be good enough to continue the hearing until the end? There are three more witnesses. And then at the end, the question Mr. Kearney will raise, is there anybody else who wishes to be heard, and any additional witness will be able to come. Is that agreeable to everybody? Because I think it's important that we move quickly on this and that we complete the hearing today. Mr. Kearney.

Thank you, Councilman Cohen. Ms. Conaghan, if you're ready, please repeat your name and spell your last name for the stenographer, and then start your testimony. And keep the microphone close.

Good afternoon. My name 110 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 is Karen Conaghan. That's spelled C-O-N-A-G-H-A-N. I represent the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. Last summer we commissioned the Tarrance Group, a nationally noted polling organization to conduct a poll regarding Pennsylvanians' attitudes towards environmental issues. Eight hundred likely voters were interviewed. The results proved overwhelmingly that the citizens in Pennsylvania have strong environmental concerns and support stronger clean air regulations. Of those interviewed, 79 percent said that they would favor a proposal which would pass stronger laws to reduce air pollution coming from industrial plants and power plants. It is important to note that the strongest support for the proposal came from those in the Philadelphia region. 74 percent of those interviewed say that they would favor a proposal that requires all power plants to meet the Clean Air Act standards. In addition, 70 percent of Pennsylvanian voters agreed with the statement, "Now more than ever, we should protect our land, air and water in order to preserve our quality of life." 111 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 The people of Pennsylvania and, in particular, the people in Southeastern Pennsylvania overwhelming are making the connection between their health and pollution in the environment. Eighty-four percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "Environmental problems such as clean air and water pollution and environmental exposure to toxics cause health problems like asthma, allergies and other respiratory problems, cancers and other long-term illnesses." This poll demonstrates unequivocally that Pennsylvanians are concerned about the air they breathe, and they understand the consequences of relaxed standards. They recognize the relationship between air quality and public health, and they support stricter regulations. I've also provided a Web address on my written testimony where you can get the entire poll results. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you work with Susan?

Yes, I do.

On behalf of Councilman 112 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Cohen and myself, please tell her we said hello. I also wanted to say the same thing to Lisa, please tell Mr. Hanger (ph), Mr. Adells (ph) and Ed the same thing. The next person to testify will be Nathan Willcox from PennEnvironment. And if Mr. Smith from the Sierra Club, if he's here, could you please come up at the same time so you'll be ready?

Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Willcox, W-I-L-L-C-O-X. I would first like to thank the Council for passing its previous Resolution in which it identified that air pollution is a serious problem, determined that the Bush Administration's air pollution plan and rollbacks of the New Source Review program would lead to more pollution and called for this hearing. Of course, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak before the Council today. My name is Nathan Willcox, and I am the Energy and Clean Air Associate with PennEnvironment. PennEnvironment is a statewide environmental advocacy with more than 10,000 members from across 113 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 the state. We work on both state and national level environmental issues, including clean air, clean water, energy policy, sprawl and preservation issues. More the 30 years ago Congress adopted the Clean Air Act to protect the country's public health from respiratory illnesses caused by soot, smog and toxic air pollution. Since then the Clean Air Act has been promoting the development of ever-cleaner industrial processes and more effective pollution control technologies. Because of the proactive steps taken under the Clean Air Act to reduce dangerous pollution, we've begun to make progress toward making our air truly safe to breathe. However, we still have a long way to go. Every year air pollution from power plants cuts short the lives of over 2,000 Pennsylvanians and more than 30,000 Americans. Urban areas, including Philadelphia, are especially hit hard by this pollution. In addition, the severe environmental impacts of air pollution include, as mentioned previously, global warming, acid rain and mercury contamination of our waterways. In short, there's a 114 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 lot of work left to be done in the fight of air pollution, and weakening the Clean Air Act should be the last thing on the government's to do list. However, that is exactly what is happening, as the Clean Air Act is now being threatened with rollbacks from the White House and Federal Legislators in the House and Senate. At the behest of the polluting industries, especially coal and oil companies and utilities, the Bush Administration has proposed legislation to let power plants and other facilities increase their pollution. Deceptively and inappropriately dubbed the "Clear Skies Initiative" by the political spin doctors in the White House, public health advocates recognize the plan as perhaps the largest clean air rollback in history. The President's plan, introduced in the House and Senate in February, is a massive weakening of our clear air safeguards. To briefly summarize what is at stake, the Bush Administration's air pollution plan, if passed, would do the following: First, the Bush Administration's plan would threaten the public's health be delaying and 115 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 diluting reductions in power plants' emissions of sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollution. Second, and perhaps most important for Pennsylvania, the Administration's plan would roll back the current law's public health safeguard to protect local air quality and curb pollution from upwind states. Lastly, the Administration's plan would do nothing to curb power plants' growing emissions of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming. These changes are even more alarming once one looks more closely at the specifics. To illustrate this, I will now go through each section 15 of the Administration's plan and compare it with the current Clean Air Act. First, the proposed change weakens public health protections from dangerous soot and smog. As has been highlighted by other speakers, dangerous levels of soot and smog are causing thousands of premature deaths and asthma attacks each year in Pennsylvania. Under the current Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency and individual 116 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES.

030082 states must clean up dangerous soot and smog and provide most citizens with air that meets public health standards by 2010. Current law requires deep reductions in power plants' sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions within this decade in order to meet these public health standards. 25 million tons by 2010. In short, the current Clean Air Act will clearly work to reduce soot and smog pollution. However, the Bush Administration's plan delays deadlines for meeting public health standards, allowing violations of soot and smog health standards to continue until 2015 or later. Power plant pollution cuts are delayed and diluted. The end result is that tens of millions of people across the country are denied healthy air, even as late as 2020 and beyond. Specifically, the Administration's plan 117 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 allows more than twice as much sulfur dioxide for nearly a decade longer, compared with faithful enforcement of the current Clean Air Act. After 2018, sulfur dioxide emissions will still be one-and-a-half times higher than if current law is enforced. The Administration's plan allows more than one-and-a-half times as much nitrogen oxide for nearly a decade longer, and one-third more nitrogen oxide even after 2018. The proposed changes also weaken public health protections from toxic mercury, but I will skip over this section of my testimony, as it has been thoroughly covered earlier by Jonathan Sinker of the Clean Air Council. Second, the proposed changes repeals safeguards for local air quality. The current Clean Air Act requires new power plants to install state-of-the-art pollution controls, and requires older grandfathered plants to install modern pollution controls when rebuilt or expanded in ways that increase their pollution output. In areas with dirty air, newer expanded plants must offset their pollution increases. This is the New Source Review section of the Clean Air 118 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Act to which the EPA and the Bush Administration have already instituted rollbacks. In response, Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, on behalf of the state and Governor Rendell, are currently part of a legal effort with other northeast states to stop these rollbacks. However, the Administration's plan effectively repeals the remaining New Source Review air quality safeguards. Exemptions are not even limited to power plants, but are available to plants in any industry sector. Third, and perhaps most importantly for Pennsylvania, the Administration --

Can I please stop you for a second? You went from the last paragraph on two where you talked about Pennsylvania's involvement in the lawsuit and then you say, "however, the Administration's plan effectively repeals the remaining New Source Review." Are those regulations that are outside of this lawsuit that are not addressed by this lawsuit? Is that what you mean?

The lawsuit is contesting all changes to the New Source Review program that 119 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 have been proposed and already instituted by the Bush Administration.

So when you say the Administration's plan effectively repeals, those things that it's effectively repealing are being contested in the lawsuit?

That is not my impression at this time. The lawsuit, because it was filed before the Clear Skies Initiative was finalized, deals only with the proposed and instituted rollbacks of the New Source Review program. I can go into more detail of those two stages now, or I can do that after I complete the rest of my testimony, whichever.

Afterwards.

Okay. Third, and perhaps most importantly for Pennsylvania, the Administration's proposed changes hamstring safeguards for downwind states. Under the current Clean Air Act, when power plants in upwind states, such as Ohio, cause violations of air pollution health standards in downwind states, such as Pennsylvania, the downwind states can force the upwind facilities to cut their 120 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 pollution. This is a crucial tool for Pennsylvania, as some of our worst air pollution comes from Ohio and other Midwestern states, as opposed to from plants within our state borders. Unfortunately, the Administration's plan effectively repeals this "states rights" provision. The Bush Administration's plan prohibits downwind states from pursuing any pollution reductions from power plants in upwind states before 2010. The Administration bill then increases the burden of proof after 2010, making it nearly impossible to prove that upwind power plants are causing downwind pollution. Lastly, the Administration's plan worsens global warming. Power plants are the largest source of US global warming pollution, responsible for 40 percent of US carbon dioxide emissions. Ignoring power plants' carbon emissions will lead to more global warming and the resulting costs from increased severe weather. Rather that establishing mandatory limits on carbon dioxide, which would start curbing this monumental hazard to our health and to our environment, and at the same time save 121 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 billions of dollars, the Administration's plan does nothing. The plan allows power plants' carbon dioxide pollution to continue to increase, relying instead on voluntary approaches, long proven to be ineffective. The Administration's plan would allow another generation of investments in power plants with excessive carbon dioxide emissions, dramatically increasing future costs for utilities and their customers when the need to curb these emissions is finally recognized. Given this clear threat to the public health of the citizens it represents, we call on the City Council to urge Pennsylvania's Representatives and Senators to reject any weakening of the Clean Air Act, including the Bush Administration's air pollution plan. Despite the obvious air pollution problem in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Senators Specter and Santorum actually voted for some of the Administration's rollbacks to our clean air laws earlier this year. Clearly, any action by this Council will give them much-needed political support to do the right thing the next time around. Proactively, our Representatives and 122 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Senators should be encouraged to support the Clean Smokestacks Act and Clean Power Act respectively, two bills that will take us forward rather than backwards in the fight against air pollution. In closing, I would say that this is a clear opportunity for Philadelphia to speak out against further degradation of our public health and our environment, and I thank the City Council for working to address this very serious problem.

Before Roger Smith from the Sierra Club gives his presentation, I have a couple questions. When the proposed changes the Bush Administration has, whether they're part of Clear Skies or not part of Clear Skies, when is there going to be a vote on these? Is it just a rule making that an administrative branch of the government is going to do? Could you tell us politically how it's going to play out and a time line?

Sure. One part of the New Source Review changes as presented by the Bush Administration were presented in two parts. The first part has actually already been 123 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 instituted, as mentioned earlier. And that happened on New Year's Eve of this year. The rollbacks that have already incurred include three key things. The first is what's referred to as plant-wide applicability limit. This would allow facilities to pick the most polluting 24-month period in their last five years as a cap for their pollution. I should get more information to the Council on this, but I believe as it stood previously in the New Source Review program, the period was two years, rather than five years. So it allows a plant to go further back in its history to find the most pollution that it was emitting and then set a cap now as compared to that pollution level. The second key part of the rollbacks that have already been instituted is what's called the clean unit exclusion. This basically means that if you've installed clean technology at one point, you're exempt from having to install more clean technology for a good 10 years. This is troublesome for a couple reasons because it creates problems of what is clean technology, how much should you be instituting to effectively clean up your plant. But also, the rate at which technology is changing and 124 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 advancing to allow for more pollution reduction is pretty impressive. And therefore to say that we're going to put a 10-year delay on these facilities' ability to institute new technology does not do a lot for clean air. Lastly, another change that has already been instituted is what's called the pollution control exemption. This basically says that if you clean up emissions of one pollutant, such as nitrogen oxide or sulfur dioxide, you don't have to clean up other pollutants. This is especially troublesome because enough of one pollutant can do enough damage on itself, that all plants should be required to be reducing their emissions of all pollutants rather than simply focussing on one. The other changes, as far as the timeline goes, the EPA has a public comment period that is ending on May 2nd for the new proposed changes. After that, the EPA will look at that. Hopefully, they will see that the public overwhelming supports the New Source Review program as is and realizes that the last thing we should be doing is rolling it back. These proposed changes that the public 125 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 comment period involves -- this is actually the larger part of the New Source Review rollback. And what it involves is the definition of what's called routine maintenance. So under the New Source Review program right now, any time a facility performs anything beyond routine maintenance that allows it to increase its emissions or increase its power production, it also has to implement modern pollution control technologies. The only exemption is if they're performing routine maintenance, thought of as little things that don't impact the emissions. The proposed rollbacks greatly expand the definition of routine maintenance, allowing a facility to basically remake its production facilities from the inside out, without having to implement pollution control technologies. And that, again, the public comment period for that ends on May 2nd, after which EPA will make a decision as to whether or not to institute these rollbacks.

To change those, or to reverse that action, does the EPA have to do the same thing?

That's honestly a question that I don't know. I suspect that they would have 126 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 to have another comment period to do that. As far as to change a rule that they already made, I suspect that they would have to have another public comment period.

You mentioned Senators Specter and Santorum and their position. On the changes, do you know how the Philadelphia Congressional Delegation voted? Did that go to a vote in the House?

It did not. The House did not have a chance to vote on this. The Senate did. There was an amendment introduced by Senator Edwards that would have delayed the implementation of the clean air rollbacks to New Source Review until the public health impacts could be adequately studied. This is what both Senator Santorum and Senator Specter voted against. The U.S. House did not have a chance to vote on the New Source Review program.

Is there -- I know your group is a national network, as is the Sierra Club and some of the others, Clean Water Action. I don't honestly know about the Clean Air Council, but I know for Clean Water Action. Is this something that people are fighting all over the country? 127 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082

Yes. Without a doubt. Though I think the focus -- when you look at the lawsuit against the EPA and the government, it's coming from mainly northeast states, but obviously as we've heard previously, air pollution affects everyone. If you talk to a person who's living next to a facility in Alabama or Mississippi, they can definitely testify to the fact that air pollution ia affecting them as well. So, yes, it's a national issue and we're doing work around the country on this issue. And that's why we're especially excited that Philadelphia is taking the lead on this as the first major City to consider a Resolution involving the Clear Skies Initiative. We're hoping that other cities across the country, many of whom have very similar air pollution problems, will follow suit and really speak out on this issue.

Thank you. Mr. Smith, please state your name and your organization. Please spell your last name for the stenographer and keep the microphone pretty close.

Sure thing. My name is Roger Smith, S-M-I-T-H, and I'm with the Sierra Club 128 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Southeastern Pennsylvania Group. I'm actually presenting testimony today that was originally prepared by Nancy Parks, who is our Clean Air Chairperson for the entire Pennsylvania chapter. She couldn't be here today, so I'm still here representing the official views of the Sierra Club.

I also on behalf of City Councilman David Cohen want to thank the Sierra Club for their position on the Venice Island situation and their support of the lawsuits in this case.

Thank you. I'd like to start by saying that I do believe that Philadelphia City Council has a role to play in encouraging or demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency do its job as has been laid out by Congress under the Clean Air Act. That job is first and foremost to protect human health, and we wouldn't be here otherwise. I'll also tell you that individual citizens have a role to play in air pollutions control, and that the goal is certainly not a hopeless task. We have the ability and the technology and the know-how to do this. It simply 129 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 takes the political and personal commitment, desire and will of all of us. Others have described the health effects of air pollution on the vulnerable populations in the Philadelphia area. I will describe how bad the problem has been, how far we have come, and how close we are to the solution. And the goal of ground level ozone smog control and protection of human health is attainable right now. We will do this with a level economic playing field. We will not be inventing undue hardship for either businesses or individual citizens. Philadelphia County and the surrounding four counties were designated as, quote, severe non-attainment area for ground level ozone smog pollution after the Clean Air Act amendments were passed in 1990. This classification created a set of legally binding obligations for pollution control that Philadelphia must meet by the 2005 ozone season of May 15th through September 30, 2005. , the three ozone seasons, including 2005. Philadelphia must not 130 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 violate clean air requirements for ozone smog control starting this year, 2003, and it must remain without violations in 2004 and 2005. And only then in 2005 can the Philadelphia five-county area be redesignated as a clean air area for ozone. In 1979 the level of ozone smog in Philadelphia was measured at an average of 220 parts per billion. And by 1990 that level was still between 180 and 280 parts per billion, causing Philadelphia and the surrounding four counties to be designated as a severe ozone non-attainment area, and it has an accompanying indication of unhealthy, dirty air. In 1999, that extremely high level had been reduced to the still unhealthy ozone level of 139 parts per billion. And the Philadelphia five-county area continues today to possess the worst air pollution in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania continues to require measures that will ultimately bring down ozone air pollution to a level below 120 parts per billion, as required by the Clean Air Act by November 2005, and that will protect the people of Southeastern Pennsylvania. In order to control ground level ozone, 131 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 we concentrate on reducing both nitrogen oxides, NOx pollution, and volatile organic chemicals, VOCs, which combine in sunlight during humid, still summer weather to produce ozone smog. Not only in Pennsylvania, but throughout the entire northeast United Sates we have concentrated on reducing these pollutants by timetables and methods specified within the Clean Air Act. S. ozone transport region. We've targeted mobile sources throughout the northeast with national vehicle pollution reduction programs, but mainly we've targeted large, dirty power plant and chemical industry sources throughout this ozone transport region, and we've successfully reduced ozone, particulate matter and acid rain pollution by the application of existing technology by limiting pollution emissions and by applying ceilings to emission rates. We have reduced NOx by requiring reasonably achievable 132 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 control technologies, like low NOx burners. We then agreed throughout the ozone transport region to reduce NOx by 65 percent further along the Amtrak Route 95 corridor of Eastern Pennsylvania and the United States, and to reduce NOx by 55 percent throughout Western Pennsylvania. S.

and the Midwest because air pollution 13 became accepted as both a local problem and a 14 transported problem. Pennsylvania receives 15 significant ozone air pollution from states upwind, 16 such as Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia and the 17 Ohio River Valley states, but please remember that 18 Pennsylvania drastically effects other northeast 19 states downwind of us. In Pennsylvania 10 years ago 20 produced and emitted 40 percent of all the NOx 21 emitted in the northeastern United States. Today, 22 Pennsylvania spews out 50 percent of the NOx pollution emitted throughout the northeastern United States because we have not controlled our emissions as effectively, nor as quickly as other northeast 133 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 states. Now, many states, including Pennsylvania, have petitioned the EPA to reduce ozone in upwind states, charging their ozone problem clean-up is complicated by downwind ozone transport. Pennsylvania will further reduce its NOx problem by using both of these programs starting this summer 2003. Other states will delay their NOx reductions under President Bush's initiatives until 2004 and later. Now, our Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection regularly must examine whether or not the Philadelphia area can achieve ozone reductions on time under Clean Air Act requirements called Reasonable Further Progress. When the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection changed the state's air quality technical advisory committee with review of progress towards attainment, it was obvious that it would not be possible for this ozone non-attainment area to clean up and protect human health by the legal deadline of 2005. In sum, we fall short. The Pennsylvania Bureau of Air Quality then developed a series of shortfall regulations 134 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 aimed at capturing air pollution reductions from smaller sources of both NOx and VOC pollution. And these shortfall regulations captured pollution from solvent cleaning, paint manufacturing usage, portable gasoline containers, small diesel engines and cement kilns. It was also obvious from the first that these measures were vitally necessary, and yet would not bring the Philadelphia five-county area into legal compliance with the Clean Air Act without additional help. Now, the PADP believes it can squeeze by and comply with the clean air law by the skin of its teeth, if other upwind states reduce their pollution. If this does not occur, then the Philadelphia City Council can be assured that a really hot summer any time in the next three years will indeed throw the City into noncompliance with Federal Clean Air Act Law, thereby triggering enforcement sanctions that the EPA is required to impose. These sanctions include the withholding of federal highway and other constructions dollars. While some Pennsylvania pollution sources comfort themselves in the belief that the Bush White House will not be favorable to the 135 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 required imposition of these enforcement sanctions, they should be assured that we, the Sierra Club, do not feel the same. The Sierra Club has been committed to the protection of human health by implementation of the Clean Air Act for 30 years, and we have used legal means, when necessary, to ensure implementation and enforcement compliance. Let me assure Pennsylvania pollution sources today that we will not hesitate to do so again to protect the health of Pennsylvanians from air pollution. The Bush Administration's proposals to change the requirements to the Clean Air Act are an unwise invasion of the law and the intent of Congress. Both the Bush-sponsored legislative Clear Skies Initiative and the proposed regulatory weakening of the New Source Review Provisions of the Clean Air Act are a thinly veiled attempt to eviscerate the entire Clean Air Act enforcement process. They will create dirty and darkened skies in Philadelphia.

2 million ton cap on NOx pollution by 2010, and a 136 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 two million ton cap on sulfur dioxide by 2012, and a five ton per year limit on mercury, a dangerous neuro toxin in tiny quantities, by 2008. President Bush's plan will allow a 68 percent increase in nitrogen oxide pollution and delay reductions for eight years, a 125 percent increase in sulfur dioxide and a year delay, and no 9 control of mercury at all. The Bush New Source Review proposals will allow essentially all applicable sources to evade scrutiny and the application of clean-up technologies, a move that Philadelphia citizens cannot tolerate for the sake of their health. Let me also reassure you that the air pollution problem in Pennsylvania today is solvable with current technology for large, stationary sources. Technology such as selective catalytic reduction for some power plants, and for smaller point sources such as diesel engines and paint shops, as well as for mobile vehicle sources. Philadelphia City Council is not powerless in its ability to help Pennsylvania DEP and Philadelphia Air Management Services with their goals. Let me suggest the following: 137 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 One. Support Pennsylvania in meeting its 2003 deadlines for ozone reductions by strict enforcement of current requirements throughout the region. Two. All sectors of polluters should be held responsible for reducing air pollution as required by the Clean Air Act, and they are responsible to do it on time, thereby accomplishing pollution reduction in the most economic way. Three. Philadelphia City Council should actively support and take a leadership role in educating the Bush Administration on the necessity for completing current existing Clean Air Act requirements. Four. Philadelphia City Council should openly oppose President Bush's gutting of New Source Review. Five. Philadelphia City Council should oppose the Clear Skies Initiative. Six. Philadelphia City Council should make it clear to their citizens that if the PADEP cannot make the necessary pollution reductions, then they will. Seven. Individual Pennsylvanians are 138 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 also air pollution culpable and should eliminate wasteful practices in their lives and daily routines, thereby fostering energy conservation and energy efficiency. The Sierra Club, and myself in particular, would be very interested in helping Philadelphia City Council identify mechanisms that they could use to help meet Clean Air Act requirements. Pollution tax incentive packages for fuel-efficient vehicles, less polluting paints, innovative transportation measures, cleaner fuels for fleets and individuals, increased and dedicated support for SEPTA and other mechanisms could be introduced in this region. I look forward to any opportunity to work with Philadelphia City Council and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have after this hearing. That's from Nancy Parks.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Before I forget, Councilman Cohen asked for Mr. Fine and Sarah Kurnes and Ms. Mallard to come back at a recall budget hearing for the Health Department. Obviously, I know where Mr. Fine works 139 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 and vice versa, but when this hearing is over, could I please get the phone number and address from Ms. Mallard and Ms. Kurnes to give that to Councilman Cohen? The City Council Session runs until mid June. I know in your testimony you said that there was a date of May 2nd for the end of a comment period on these proposed changes. I know also that Councilman Cohen has two hearings and meetings and, therefore, meetings of the Law and Government Committee next week. Technically, there's actually three of them; on the 22nd at 1:00, at 5:00, and again on the 23rd at 1:00. So for everybody interested in City Council and the testimony today, and possibly having the Council Committee -- or as Councilman Cohen said, most likely having the Council Committee issue a report that would be voted on by the Committee. And then if all goes well, voted on and, therefore, adopted by the Council. I don't know that that can be done by May 2nd, but it could probably be done very shortly thereafter. There is City Council meeting on the 1st. There's a Council meeting on the 25th. So I'm thinking that it's possible to have the report adopted by the 140 04/16/03 - LAW & GOVERNMENT - RES. 030082 Council on the 1st. If that happens there's, I guess, a one-day window of opportunity to get that to the EPA for the comment period as the official report of the City Council. Obviously, that's up to the Councilman, to the Committee Members and to the full Council. But on behalf of Councilman Cohen and the Law and Government Committee, I'd like to thank everybody who came here today to testify, for your written testimony and all of your very positive input on this issue. Is there anybody here who hasn't testified that would like to testify at this public hearing? (No response.)

Is there anybody who has testified that would like to add anything? (No response.)

Hearing none, the Committee of Law and Government's hearing on Resolution 030082 will adjourn. Thank you. (Council adjourned at 4:37 p.m.) - - - 141 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of April 16, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public