1 2 VOLUME 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - - - 4 1717 Arch Street, 50th Floor 5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 10, 1999 6 9:00 a.m. 7 - - - 8 CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM : DOCKET NO. A-97-10 9 NEW MOTOR VEHICLES: PROPOSED : TIER 2 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS : 10 STANDARDS AND GASOLINE SULFUR : CONTROL REQUIREMENTS : PUBLIC HEARING 11 - - - 12 13 PRESENT: MARGO OGE 14 BARRY McNUTT DAWN MARTIN 15 CHET FRANCE JUDY KATZ 16 SUSMITA DUBEY GLENN PASSAVANT 17 MICHAEL HOROWITZ KARL SIMON 18 19 REPORTED BY: LISA C. BRADLEY, RPR 20 BERNADETTE BLACK, RMR 21 - - - 22 VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. 23 Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 24 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 25 (215) 561-2220 00328 1 2 I N D E X 3 WITNESS: PAGE 4 RON WILLIAMS, Gary-Williams Energy Corp. .... 338 5 GREGORY DANA, AIAM .......................... 341 6 EVAN PAPPAS, Maryland PIRG .................. 348 7 CHARLES AHLERS, American Lung Assoc. ........ 353 8 DWIGHT WIGGINS, Tosco Refining Company ...... 361 9 TINA VUJOVICH, Cummins Engine Company ....... 367 10 GINA AMADOR, Penn PIRG ...................... 377 11 KARL WALTER, Penn PIRG ...................... 380 12 JESSICA BROOKS, Penn PIRG ................... 382 13 JEFF EBER, Penn PIRG ........................ 384 14 PATRICK CHARBONNEAU, Navistar ............... 387 15 LEONARD KATA, Volkswagen of America ......... 396 16 Nancy Lavin, Philly Walks ................... 401 17 RONALD STRASSBURGER, Nissan North America ... 403 18 MARIA BECHIS, Sierra Club ................... 410 19 JOHN CRNKO, Antek ........................... 417 20 BRUCE BERTELSEN, MECA ....................... 425 21 LAURA KRIV, 20/20 Vision .................... 432 22 NANCY PARKS, Sierra Club .................... 435 23 KEVIN SCOTT ................................. 442 24 DOMINIC VARRAVETO, Black & Veatch ........... 446 25 REG MODIN, DaimlerChrysler .................. 450 00329 1 2 INDEX (Cont.) PAGE 3 BROOKS MOUNTCASTLE .......................... 455 4 GEORGE THURSTON ............................. 458 5 PETE HOMER, NIBA ............................ 466 6 BIANCA MORAN, NJ PIRG ....................... 470 7 KEITH MORRIS, Sierra Club ................... 472 8 STACY LONG, Penn PIRG ....................... 474 9 SHAWN SOMERVILLE, Penn PIRG ................. 478 10 RACHEL MADEN ................................ 480 11 J. ASTRA ROONEY ............................. 481 12 CORY HOLDING ................................ 483 13 JASON RASH .................................. 484 14 WILLIAM MENZ................................. 488 15 IRWIN BERLIN, M.D., ALA...................... 493 16 STACEY YOUNG for Peter Kostmeyer............. 503 17 OLIVIA CONROY for Ann Geoke.................. 507 18 ELISSA UNDERWOOD for Jerome Butler........... 509 19 KEITH McKAY for Richard Levine, M.D.......... 510 20 ANDREW ALTMAN from Clean Air Council......... 514 21 JONATHAN SINKER, Nat'l Environmental Trust... 520 22 BRITTA IPRI, ALA of Maryland................. 525 23 HEATHER CORNELL for Jeremy Focht............. 529 24 PETER MICHELE, GEET.......................... 532 25 PETER JOSEPH, Ph.D........................... 539 00330 1 INDEX (Cont.) PAGE 2 KITTY CAMPBELL, PA PIRG...................... 545 3 MINDY MASLIN................................. 548 4 DAVID COHEN.................................. 550 5 DENIS WINTER, League of Women Voters......... 553 6 ERIC WATERS.................................. 556 7 JOSHUA MITTELDORF, Clean Air Council......... 560 8 SCOTT ALTHOUSE, Evangelical.................. 569 Environmental Network 9 DAVID E. GIBSON.............................. 574 10 SUSAN CURRY.................................. 583 11 JOHN LANGON.................................. 584 12 JACK HECKELMAN, Alliance for a............... 589 13 Sustainable Future 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00331 1 2 MS. OGE: Good morning. I would like 3 you to take your seats, please. 4 Good morning. On behalf of the 5 Environmental Protection Agency, I would like to 6 thank you for coming here this morning and welcome 7 you to this public hearing. I recognize some of the 8 faces from the meeting yesterday. And I would like 9 to welcome all of you that came yesterday and stayed 10 with us for the whole day and last evening and this 11 morning. We are looking forward to this opportunity 12 to hear the views that you're going to testify today 13 about the proposal that we believe to be very 14 critical for the future of the air quality in the 15 United States. 16 My name is Margo Oge. I'm the Director 17 of the Office of Mobile Sources with EPA, and I will 18 be serving as the presiding officer for today's 19 hearing. 20 The proposed regulation that we will be 21 considering today was announced by President Clinton 22 on May 1, 1999, and was published in the "Federal 23 Register" on May 13, 1999. This is a historic 24 proposal. The program will exceed a dramatic 25 reduction in air pollution for the 21st Century, and 00332 1 2 we will do it in the most cost-effective and 3 flexible ways. 4 We estimate emission reductions of 5 almost 2.2 million tons of nitrogen oxide by 2020. 6 This is equivalent in removing 166 million cars from 7 the road. 8 EPA followed several principles in 9 developing this proposal: The proposal is designed 10 to meet the air quality needs of the states in the 11 nation as a whole, to treat autos and fuels as one 12 system, bring sport utility vehicles, minivans, 13 light-duty trucks to the same emission standard as 14 other passenger vehicles, and be fuel-neutral, that 15 is, meet the same standard regardless of fuel use. 16 We wanted to make certain that this proposal would 17 not constraint consumer choice of vehicles or 18 driving styles either due to the cost or 19 technological factors. And finally, we wanted to 20 provide flexibility for industries in helping to 21 achieve the standards. 22 At the same time we published the Tier 2 23 Proposal, we released an advanced notice of proposed 24 rulemaking considering diesel fuel quality. We're 25 not are seeking testimony specifically on the diesel 00333 1 2 proposal during today's hearing. However, we have 3 established a separate docket, A-99-06, for comments 4 on this proposal. 5 Many of you are probably aware of the 6 two recent Court of Appeals decisions regarding EPA 7 air pollution programs. The first decision found 8 that the Clean Air Act is applied in setting new 9 public health air quality standards for ozone in 10 particular is unconstitutional, is an improper 11 delegation of legislative authority to EPA. Despite 12 the constitutional ruling, the Court did not 13 question the science on which EPA relied to develop 14 the health standards or criticized EPA's process for 15 making those decisions. EPA disagrees with the 16 Court's decision, and EPA has recommended to the 17 Department of Justice that they take all necessary 18 judicial steps to overturn the decision. 19 The second decision states the submittal 20 of state plans under the NOx SIP call, which has 21 been scheduled for this fall. We closely reviewed 22 this decision and have concluded that they do not 23 impact the Tier 2 rulemaking. The Tier 2 proposal 24 remains on solid grounds in terms of air quality 25 need, technological feasibility, cost, and 00334 1 2 cost-effectiveness. 3 Over 70 million people in this country 4 are breathing unhealthy air today, and this trend 5 will continue. Despite the voluntary National Low 6 Emissions Vehicle Program, reformulated gasoline, 7 the NOx SIP call that the agency has put in place, 8 we believe that the Tier 2 standards as proposed are 9 needed to attain and maintain the one-hour air 10 quality standard. 11 Although there are a number of areas 12 that today meet NOx air quality standards, there are 13 millions of people that live in areas that are very 14 close in non-attainment, in order to attain the 15 one-hour standard. We believe that ultimately these 16 people would tremendous benefit from this proposal. 17 Also, we believe that this proposal is 18 technologically feasible and is cost-effective. 19 Projected cost of meeting the proposed standards is 20 about $100 for light-duty cars and about $200 for 21 light-duty trucks. The cost for gasoline will be 22 between 1 to 2 cents per gallon. 23 Even though our cars and trucks run 24 cleaner than ever before, they still contribute a 25 large part to our air pollution. In Philadelphia 00335 1 2 where we're holding a hearing today, the second day 3 of the hearings, motor vehicles are contributing 4 almost one-third of all the nitrogen oxide 5 emissions. 6 Americans love to drive and we're 7 driving more every year. If we do not act today, 8 the emissions from our cars and light-duty trucks 9 combined with the current levels of sulfur in 10 gasoline are threatening to erode the many air 11 quality gains that we have made in recent years. 12 For the first time, this proposal will 13 address both fuel and engines as a system. We're 14 looking not only to the cars that we drive, but also 15 we're looking to the fuel that they use. Because 16 sulfur poisons the anti-pollution devices in 17 vehicles, we're proposing to cut sulfur content of 18 gasoline by 90 percent. 19 The proposed rules contains two primary 20 elements: First, EPA proposed more protective 21 emissions standards for all light-duty vehicles and 22 light-duty trucks. The proposed Tier 2 standards 23 will require that all vehicles and trucks weighing 24 up to 8500 pounds to meet the corporate average NOx 25 standard of 0.07 standard grams per mile. This new 00336 1 2 standard will result in cars that are 77 percent 3 cleaner and SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks that 4 are as much as 95 percent cleaner than today's 5 vehicles. 6 The standards will be phased in from 7 2004 through 2007 for light-duty vehicles and 8 light-duty trucks up to 6,000 pounds. Light-duty 9 trucks between 6,000 pounds and 8500 pounds would be 10 required to meet the Tier 2 standards in 2008 and 11 2009. For this class of vehicles, EPA has proposed 12 new interim standards beginning 2004. 13 The second element of the Tier 2 14 proposal is a nationwide control of sulfur in 15 gasoline. The Tier 2 standards cannot be met 16 without cleaner fuel. With cleaner fuel, not only 17 the Tier 2 vehicles will benefit, but also the cars 18 we drive today will benefit. Refiners and importers 19 of gasoline would be required beginning in 2004 to 20 meet a 30 parts per million on average, with a 21 banking and trading program that could introduce 22 cleaner fuel in the marketplace as early as 2000 23 time frame and could extend compliance of these 24 requirements to 2006. 25 In the proposal, we have put forward a 00337 1 2 number of flexibilities for the industries that this 3 rule will affect, and we have included a very 4 significant proposal that will apply to small 5 refiners. 6 Before getting started with today's 7 testimony, I'll take a few minutes to introduce the 8 Panel and describe how we will conduct this hearing. 9 On my right is Dawn Martin who is the Chief of Staff 10 of the Office of Air and Radiation in Washington, 11 D.C. Next to her is Mr. Glen Passavant, and Glen is 12 a senior person in charge of the Tier 2 standard. 13 On my left is Chet France, and Chet is the Director 14 of the Engines and Compliance Programs in the Oxford 15 Mobile Sources of EPA. And next to Chet France is 16 Mike Horowitz, and he's with the Office of General 17 Counsel; he's the lawyer that's supporting this 18 regulatory proposal. 19 This is the second day of the hearing, 20 of the two-day hearing in Philadelphia. And we have 21 three additional public hearings, and you're all 22 invited to follow us tonight to Atlanta, and from 23 there to Denver and Cleveland. 24 We have received an overwhelming number 25 of requests to testify, and we'll do our best to 00338 1 2 accommodate everyone. We ask that the witnesses 3 please limit your testimony to no more than 10 4 minutes. 5 Today's hearing is going to be conducted 6 in accordance with Section 307-D5 of the Clean Air 7 Act, which requires EPA to provide interested 8 persons with an opportunity to make an oral 9 presentation of data, views, or arguments in 10 addition to opportunities to make written 11 submissions. The comment period and record of this 12 hearing will remain open until August 2nd of 1999 13 for additional written comments. 14 The hearing will be conducted 15 informally, and formal rules of evidence will not 16 apply. The presiding officer, however, is 17 authorized to strike from the record statements 18 which are deemed irrelevant or needlessly 19 repetitious and enforce reasonable limits of 20 duration of the statement of any witness. 21 Joe Guy is going to try enforce some 22 reasonable time frames for your presentations. 23 There's going to be signs "one minute," "no time," 24 so please look at Joe and help us out to move the 25 process forward. 00339 1 2 We request that witnesses state their 3 names and affiliations prior to making their 4 statement. When a witness has finished his or her 5 presentation, members of this Panel may ask a person 6 questions concerning issues raised in the testimony. 7 Witnesses are reminded that any false 8 statement or false response to questions may be a 9 violation of the law. 10 If there any members of the audience who 11 wish to testify who have not already contacted us, 12 please submit your name to the reception table 13 outside of this room. I also ask that all attendees 14 please sign the register whether or not they are 15 testifying today. 16 Finally, if you would like a transcript 17 of the proceedings, you should make arrangements 18 directly with the court reporter during one of the 19 breaks. The transcript will be available, however, 20 in the docket within two weeks. 21 And before we begin the testimony, I 22 would like to know if there are any questions before 23 we proceed? 24 Thank you. 25 I would ask for Mr. Ron Williams to 00340 1 Ron Williams - Gary-Williams Energy Corp. 2 please stand up and go forward, Mr. Greg Dana, Mr. 3 David Pontious, Mr. Charles Ahlers. 4 And I will do my best to pronounce your 5 names properly, but I cannot be certain that will 6 happen. 7 Is Mr. Kevin Scott here? 8 I would also be bringing individuals 9 that are walking into today's hearing to testify if 10 there's space for them to testify. 11 Why don't we start with you, Mr. 12 Williams. 13 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. My name is 14 Ron Williams. I'm President and CEO of 15 Gary-Williams Energy Corporation, a Dever-based, 16 privately held oil and gas company. Our primary 17 assets is 50,000 barrels per day refinery within 18 Wynnewood, Oklahoma. Company-wide we have about 275 19 employees and fall within the definition of a small 20 refinery used for the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur 21 proposed regulations. 22 In our view, the SBREFA process is very 23 thorough and beneficial. Panel members were 24 knowledgeable, understanding, and willing to propose 25 new approaches in order to keep alive small refiners 00341 1 Ron Williams - Gary-Williams Energy Corp. 2 who undoubtedly would have had to shut down if hit 3 with stringent requirements in a very short time 4 frame. In our case, for example, because we 5 distribute product via pipeline to the east, a 6 strictly regional approach would not have provided 7 any relief. 8 Small refiners do not share the benefits 9 enjoyed by larger companies owning small facilities 10 because of their sheer size, diversification, and 11 integration. The competitive advantages of larger 12 refiners include easy access to both debt and equity 13 capital at a lower cost, significant overhead 14 savings and buying power with multiple refineries, 15 and the ability of one segment of their business to 16 subsidize other segments that may not be quite so 17 profitable. 18 Lead-time for equipment construction and 19 obtaining capital could be years longer for small 20 refiners because of the competition for engineering 21 and contracting services and the difficulty in 22 obtaining financing for a capital investment of this 23 magnitude. For that reason, the SBREFA process, we 24 feel, was very beneficial and also quite fair. 25 Two parts of the proposed small refiners 00342 1 Ron Williams - Gary-Williams Energy Corp. 2 standards are particular concern to us. First, 3 under the somewhat arbitrary levels proposed for the 4 year 2004, our refinery will have to cut back from 5 1997-1998 baseline sulfur level of about 275 parts 6 per million to 200 parts per million. Even if we 7 could meet the reduced levels by changing our crude 8 slate, we now estimate that the negative economic 9 impact would substantially offset our normal level 10 of profits. We may, however, be forced to install 11 the same new equipment to meet the 200 parts per 12 million level that we will ultimately need for the 13 30 parts per million standard. If that turns out to 14 be the case, we would effectively lose the small 15 refiner advantage and would be competing for funding 16 and engineering and construction expertise in order 17 to install expensive current technology. 18 We feel it is critical that some 19 flexibility be built into the proposed regulatory 20 structure rather than mandating a specific number 21 target such as 200 parts per million. At a minimum, 22 we believe a small company should have the ability 23 to appeal to the EPA for a higher sulfur level if 24 costs outweigh the benefits of hitting a specific 25 target number. 00343 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 Also, I would like to add that because 3 of the great success, we feel, of the SBREFA 4 process, we do hope that the EPA will initiate a 5 similar process that might be impacted by the 6 proposed diesel regulations in the coming future. 7 Thank you for the opportunity to address 8 this hearing. We would be happy to provide you with 9 additional information at any time. 10 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Greg Dana. 11 MR. DANA: Good morning. My name is 12 Gregory Dana. I'm Vice President, Environmental 13 Affairs for the Association of International 14 Automobile Manufacturers. AIAM is a trade 15 association representing companies which sell 16 passenger cars and light trucks to the United States 17 that are manufactured both here and abroad. We 18 welcome the opportunity to appear before you today 19 to discuss the proposed Tier 2 emissions standards 20 and the control of fuel sulfur levels. 21 AIAM's members have long been leaders in 22 the application of advanced emission control 23 technologies and are proud of their record of 24 technological achievements in meeting 25 ever-tightening emission standards. 00344 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 The standard suggested in this proposal 3 would result in a reduction of 99 percent in the 4 precursors to smog, nitrogen oxides, and volatile 5 organic compounds from uncontrolled levels in motor 6 vehicles. The proposed standards represent an 7 enormous challenge for the industry both in meeting 8 the proposed emission limits and the greater 9 emission control system durability that these rules 10 would require. However, our members are prepared to 11 take on this challenge and do our best to meet these 12 standards. 13 But a fundamental requirement to 14 achieving these levels will be the removal of sulfur 15 from gasoline. EPA is well aware of the test 16 programs that have been run by the auto and oil 17 looking at lower sulfur levels. The data from these 18 test programs prove beyond a doubt that removing 19 sulfur from gasoline not only enables the auto 20 industry to meet tighter standards, but also cleans 21 up the existing fleet of vehicles on the road. EPA 22 should remember that these test programs probably 23 underestimate the deterioration of the emissions 24 since the method used to load the catalysts with 25 sulfur was unrepresentative based on more recent 00345 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 testing by Honda. 3 Given the fact that the Agency has 4 proposed NOx levels equivalent to those adopted by 5 California, it is appropriate that sulfur and 6 volatility requirements between California and EPA 7 be harmonized. AIAM understands that California 8 plans to announce its intention to move from a 9 sulfur control level of 30 ppm to some lower level 10 sometime later this year. We believe EPA should 11 take the same action. 12 AIAM strongly supports the EPA's 13 proposal on sulfur control as a good first step. 14 Moreover, we urge the Agency to take no steps to 15 relax the levels or time lines established in the 16 proposal, and to establish a schedule for tightening 17 these requirements to enable the introduction of 18 advanced technology vehicles in a manner consistent 19 with market demand. As we have pointed out in the 20 past, NLEV cars will be distributed nationwide in 21 the 2001 model year. These vehicles will show 22 substantial emission benefits, particularly in NOx 23 control, at lower sulfur levels. 24 To evaluate the claim that gasoline 25 sulfur requirements will be a hardship on the oil 00346 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 industry, AIAM and the Alliance commissioned an 3 analysis done by MathPro, a recognized refinery 4 modeling consultant. MathPro's findings indicate 5 that even the small refineries in the PADD 4 region 6 of the country should have no problem achieving the 7 30 ppm standard without economic harm. Given the 8 additional breaks for small refiners called that are 9 called for in the EPA proposal, small refiners 10 should be able to meet these requirements. It also 11 raises the question of the financial impact of this 12 rule on larger refiners and whether they can meet 13 more stringent controls sooner given their greater 14 assets. It is imperative that EPA stay the course 15 on its proposal to reduce fuel sulfur or strengthen 16 these requirements. 17 In addition to controlling the level of 18 fuel sulfur, the Agency should also take steps to 19 control fuel volatility, that is, the drivability 20 index, as suggested by the industry petition 21 submitted earlier this year. Also, EPA should 22 implement measures to control combustion chamber 23 deposits. Taking these additional steps would 24 essentially harmonize Federal and California fuel, 25 as suggested above. This should be EPA's goal given 00347 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 the similarity of emission standards between EPA and 3 CARB. 4 AIAM has several recommendations 5 regarding the structure of the Tier 2 standards. 6 The bin structure and NOx fleet average proposed by 7 EPA will impose limitations on vehicle manufactures. 8 The least stringent bin establishes a 0.20 gram per 9 mile NOx cap. This, in addition to having only bins 10 about the 0.07 NOx average, will limit flexibility 11 and inhibit the further development of current 12 fuel-efficient technologies and the introduction of 13 advanced fuel-efficient technologies. 14 EPA rules should not have the unintended 15 consequence of restricting use of advanced 16 fuel-efficient technologies in the market. For 17 instance, there are environmental benefits 18 associated with direct injection lean-burn 19 technologies. These technologies offer the best 20 opportunity to reduce fuel consumption and the 21 emissions of greenhouse gases in the near future. 22 EPA could enhance Tier 2 flexibility by expanding 23 the certification bins. This effort would be 24 effective in encouraging the further development and 25 introduction of advanced technology vehicles. In 00348 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 addition, this action would come at no air quality 3 risk since manufacturers would still be required to 4 meet the same NOx fleet average requirement. 5 AIAM believes that it is essential for 6 EPA to conduct a technology review prior to finally 7 taking effect to assess whether technology has 8 advanced sufficiently to allow Tier 2 standards to 9 be achieved. EPA's proposal is based on the rapid 10 development and deployment of advanced catalytic 11 converter technology. This forecasted technology 12 may have some unacceptable interactions with sulfur. 13 Manufactures have seen that as precious metals are 14 used more and more efficiently, catalysts become 15 more sensitive to sulfur, even at very low levels. 16 This is no reason to think that this trend will not 17 continue. If for some reason this forecasted 18 technology does not materialize as rapidly as 19 projected, the auto industry may face an intractable 20 problem in trying to meet the proposed standards. 21 Therefore, we believe that it would be prudent for 22 EPA to conduct such a technology review once 23 manufacturers have taken the time to develop 24 produciton-ready designs. EPA should be prepared to 25 take quick action if problems in meeting the 00349 1 Gregory Dana - AIAM 2 standards do arise. 3 AIAM supports low sulfur diesel fuel. 4 Reducing sulfur in diesel fuel has several benefits. 5 It will result in an immediate reduction of 6 regulated emissions in existing vehicles, and would 7 substantially reduce the amount of air toxics 8 unregulated pollutants from diesel engines. Low 9 sulfur diesel would also improve catalyst warm-up 10 time and is an enabler for further NOx and 11 particulate control. 12 Even modest amounts of sulfur in the 20 13 to 30 ppm range inhibit the lean-burn catalyst 14 technology being developed for compression ignition 15 engines. Near-zero sulfur fuel is necessary to 16 fully realize the environmental potential of diesel 17 engines. AIAM recommends a sulfur specification for 18 diesel fuel of 5 ppm. 19 There has been much discussion in the 20 media and yesterday at the hearing here of the 21 recent D.C. Court decision overturning EPA's ozone 22 and particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality 23 Standards. We do not believe that this decision is 24 a reason for not proceeding with this rulemaking. 25 EPA should move forward with tighter emission 00350 1 Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG 2 standards and stringent control of fuel sulfur. 3 Thank you. 4 MS. OGE: Thank you. Is it Evan Pappas? 5 MR. PAPPAS: Yes, that's correct. 6 MS. OGE: And you're here for Mr. 7 Pontious. 8 MR. PAPPAS: Speaking for David 9 Pontious. 10 MS. OGE: Welcome. You can start with 11 your testimony. 12 MR. PAPPAS: My name is Evan Pappas. 13 I'm speaking on behalf of David Pontious from 14 Maryland PIRG. 15 "Good morning. My name is Dan Pontious. 16 I'm Executive Director of the Maryland Public 17 Interest Research Group or Mary PIRG. Mary PIRG is 18 a non-profit, non-partisan consumer and 19 environmental watchdog organization and one of the 20 network of state PIRGs across the country. 21 "As the summer ozone season begins in 22 this region, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 23 for you today. I am here to applaud the many assets 24 of Tier 2 gasoline sulfur rule-making and to urge 25 you to strengthen other aspect. While I will 00351 1 Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG 2 outline my general comments on rulemaking, I would 3 like to focus my remarks on why Maryland desperately 4 needs dramatically stricter auto emission standards 5 and cleaner gasoline. 6 "This past Monday was a Code Red ozone 7 alert day in the Baltimore region. Maryland, 8 partners with the environment, issued an alert 9 urging children to reduce outdoor activity, healthy 10 individuals to limit strenuous outdoor work or 11 exercise, and individuals with respiratory and heart 12 ailments to limit their outdoor activities as well. 13 If this summer matches last summer's pollution 14 levels, we'll have another seriously unhealthy ozone 15 smog season. Last summer, the air in Maryland 16 violated EPA's revised ozone health standard on 1 of 17 every 3 days. 18 "This pollution is a serious problem for 19 all 5 million Marylanders, but it's especially 20 serious for the approximately 600,000 state 21 residents who suffer from asthma, emphysema, chronic 22 bronchitis, and other lung ailments. Nearly 90,000 23 children in Maryland suffer from asthma and are 24 especially at risk. In 1996 an American Lung 25 Association study found that between 2100 and 3200 00352 1 Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG 2 hospital admissions and emergency room visits in 3 Baltimore in one year alone were linked to this 4 ozone smog. 5 "In Maryland automobiles account for 6 fully one-third of ozone-forming nitrogen oxide 7 emissions. Its led only by electric power plants. 8 In 1997 over 1 million light trucks, such as sport 9 utility vehicles or SUVs were registered in our 10 state. With the Baltimore region in severe 11 non-attainment and the Washington region in severe 12 non-attainment for ozone smog, we will not achieve 13 healthy air unless we take dramatic action to reduce 14 pollution from the significant sources. 15 "My comments on the proposed rule echo 16 those of National PIRG and clean air advocate 17 Rebecca Stanfield. We believe that the proposed 18 Tier 2 standard and gasoline sulfur standard 19 together compromise (sic) a strong integrated 20 approach to reducing pollution from automobiles. As 21 you know, the revised nitrogen oxide standards will 22 require cars approximately 89 percent cleaner than 23 the Tier 1 standard. 24 "We agree with EPA that the popular 25 sport utility vehicles must be treated no 00353 1 Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG 2 differently for pollution purposes than cars. The 3 one million light trucks registered in Maryland are 4 overwhelmingly used for family trips and commuting. 5 The justification for allowing SUVs to pollute more 6 is significantly outdated and new standards should 7 simply reflect the new role SUVs play in our 8 society. 9 "We also agree that a new minimum 10 nationwide sulfur standard should be adopted to 11 prevent the poisoning of sophisticated new pollution 12 control equipment. The automobile and fuel should 13 be treated as a single system, and EPA has 14 appropriately proposed that new car standards be 15 accompanied by clean gasoline. 16 "While it is a strong proposal, however, 17 we do believe that EPA proposed gasoline sulfur 18 standards allows too much time to pass before 19 significant air pollution benefits can be expected. 20 We urge you to phase in low sulfur gasoline earlier. 21 Failure to do so would undermine the upcoming 22 advances under the National Low Emission Vehicle 23 Program and Tier 2. 24 "The EPA's Tier 2 proposal should also 25 be strengthened before it becomes final later this 00354 1 Evan Pappas - Maryland PIRG 2 year. First, EPA proposes allowing SUVs weighing 3 between 6,000 and 8500 pounds an extra two years 4 before the Tier 2 car standards apply, exempting the 5 popular Ford Exhibition, the Dodge Ram, and the 6 Lincoln Navigator. We believe that special 7 standards for larger SUVs should expire immediately. 8 In fact, EPA's proposal does not address pollution 9 from the largest and most-polluting SUVs of all, 10 those over 8500 pounds, such as the Ford Excursion 11 and the Chevy Suburban. By not including these 12 models in the Tier 2 program, auto manufacturers 13 will likely see an unfortunate opening where they 14 can aggressive develop even larger SUVs. 15 "Finally, EPA's proposal allow the 16 proliferation of diesel vehicles, the pollution from 17 which poses especially severe health threats. We 18 urge the EPA to remove the highest forms, which 19 includes diesel vehicles from the averaging scheme 20 to protect the public from the carcinogenic nature 21 of diesel exhaust. 22 "Again, thank you very much for the 23 opportunity to comment on the proposed Tier 2 and 24 gasoline sulfur standards. We in Maryland hope that 25 we can look forward to breathing cleaner air as a 00355 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 result of your actions. Thank you." 3 MS. OGE: Thank you. For the reporter, 4 that individual who was speaking is Evan Pappas, 5 P-a-p-p-a-s. 6 Mr. Charles Ahlers. 7 MR. AHLERS: Thank you. My name is 8 Charles Ahlers. I present this statement on behalf 9 of the American Lung Association in Queens which I 10 serve as a volunteer board member. I'm also a 11 member of the Queens Clean Air Coalition. 12 We are in full agreement with the 13 statements made at this hearing and yesterday's 14 session by A. Blake Early on behalf the American 15 Lung Association's national office and by Peter 16 Iwanowicz on behalf of the American Lung Association 17 of New York State. To save time, I shall not repeat 18 the data or the reasoning presented in their 19 statements. I want to stress that we endorse the 20 positions taken therein. I wish to explain why we 21 do so and to offer additional grounds for requiring 22 prompt and forceful action on these standards as 23 part of a comprehensive program of achieving cleaner 24 air. 25 Long before the passage of the Clean Air 00356 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 Act of 1970, the medical community recognized the 3 threat posed by air contaminants. And the American 4 Lung Association initiated programs to deal with 5 sharply increased presence of chronic obstructive 6 pulmonary diseases. While a major effort was and 7 continues to be extended to further professional 8 education and education of patients to help them to 9 deal with compromised breathing capacity, it was 10 recognized that an essential part of an intelligent 11 approach to the problem was and is prevention. That 12 means air pollution control and anti-smoking 13 behavior modification. Both measures are still 14 centrally important. 15 Progress in air pollution control has 16 been very significant in many respects. In much of 17 the nation's most densely populated areas, 18 incineration of solid wastes have be drastically 19 reduced, combustion products control, the sulfur 20 content in fuel use or power generation has been 21 reduced and stack emissions. Most passenger cars 22 exhaust emissions have been reduced so that there is 23 less carbon monoxide, sulfur oxide, and hydrocarbon 24 release per vehicle. And in general, from all 25 sources, there's less large particulate matter, 00357 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 soot, going into the air and coming into the lungs. 3 Very good. But not good enough that will eliminate 4 the health hazard and not fast enough. It should 5 not have taken 30 years to get where we are. And 6 the advance must be encouraged and supported, 7 technological advances must be encouraged and 8 supported. Enforcement is critical. And 9 additionally, forcefulness and determination are 10 essential. 11 The position of our association on 12 questions of air pollution is in part a function of 13 our circumstance. Queens County, part of New York 14 City, is an urban suburban part of that city. We 15 have a population of very close to 2 million living 16 in 121 square miles. That's less dense than 17 Manhattan, Bronx, or Brooklyn, and more dense than 18 Staten Island. We are less than well-served by our 19 subway system which has not been significantly 20 expanded in 50 years while our population in those 21 50 years has increased by a third. We are heavily 22 dependent on cars, and most of us rely on buses to 23 take us to the subways. What is remarkable about 24 this is that is it unremarkable in the context of 25 American population patterns. The bulk of our 00358 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 American population is like us, urban and suburban; 3 and like us, dependent on cars, buses, and trucks. 4 The density of the vehicles corresponds to the 5 density of the population, so it is clear that 6 universal federal standards are appropriate for 7 dealing with emissions. 8 A very regrettable similarity between 9 our situation and the situation around the country 10 is the increased prevalence of asthma in both 11 children and adults with a rise being particularly 12 steep in pediatric asthma and the increased presence 13 of bronchitis and emphysema particularly among the 14 elderly. 15 A further similarity is that, 16 unsurprisingly, we are witnessing and participating 17 in two consequential national trends: Major 18 increases in vehicle travel and traffic, and major 19 increases in the proportion of high-pollution 20 vehicles on the road. These increases explain the 21 worsening air quality in our City, the times and 22 levels of ozone, particulate matter, oxides of 23 nitrogen and sulfur exceed safe standards. At times 24 of worst air quality, hospital admissions of 25 respiratory patients increase and patients who do 00359 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 not require hospital admission report increased 3 breathing difficulty. 4 Though we are well aware of the 5 complexities of ascertaining scientifically the 6 relationship between individual air contaminates and 7 distinct respiratory diseases, and while we 8 understand that responsiveness of the contaminates 9 can vary greatly among individual patients, we 10 cannot ignore the nearly universal reports from 11 patients. Kinds of dirty air mean big trouble for 12 many patients. They deserve protection from such 13 unacceptable defilement of our environment and as 14 promptly fully as possible. Pretty clearly the 15 public agrees with this. We all want clean air and 16 don't want to wait decades for it. 17 That's why we support the proposed 18 emissions standard, the extension to bigger and 19 heavy vehicles and the proposed reduction of sulfur 20 in fuel. That's why we'd like you to pass the 21 implementation schedule. It should not take 10 22 years to bring SUVs and light trucks up to standard. 23 As important as the proposed standards 24 are and as fervently as we favor them, especially if 25 they're strengthened and given earlier 00360 1 Charles Ahlers - American Lung Assoc. 2 implementation, they do not, of course, by 3 themselves constitute a comprehensive air pollution 4 control program. EPA must continue some of the best 5 and most productive and consequential elements of 6 past programs, encouragement for technical 7 improvement, encouragement of mass transit programs, 8 discouragement of highway subsidies that threaten to 9 undo progress made in other modes of pollution 10 control, and working at least slowly to reverse the 11 pattern of federal subsidy and highway travel and 12 the neglect of rail transport. 13 Finally, if the proposed standards are 14 not adopted or are adopted in a form that judged by 15 the states who offer less than hoped for benefits, 16 the State should retain the option to adopt 17 California Low Emission Vehicle Program. This 18 variety will be a spur to all concerned and make the 19 Tier 2 standards work effectively. 20 Thank you for the proposal of the new 21 standards and for the opportunity to comment. 22 MS. OGE: Thank you. 23 Mr. Dana, thank you for your testimony. 24 We do agree with the position that your organization 25 has taken. We are committed at all levels, 00361 1 2 including the President of the United States, to 3 finalize the proposal by the end of the year. 4 Yesterday we heard from the American 5 Petroleum Institute, a set of issues that were very 6 different with the positions that you have taken 7 this morning. They have suggested a program that 8 controls sulfur at much higher levels then what 9 you're suggesting this morning, 150 ppm instead of 10 30 ppm for the rest of the country. Could you 11 please explain to us why your association believes 12 that a low level of sulfur, 30 ppm and maybe using 5 13 today is needed across the country and why your 14 particular design catalyst to perform with higher 15 levels of sulfur in gasoline. 16 MR. DANA: As you know, we've run tests 17 on both as the industry alone and the industry 18 proponents looking at the effects of sulfur on 19 automobile technology. And in any single car that 20 was tested in both of those programs, we saw 21 significant reduction emissions when sulfur was 22 taken out of the fuel. And that effect declines 23 after time, it gets lower and lower levels of 24 sulfur. So it's clear to us that as you look at, 25 not only the existing fleet of vehicles out there, 00362 1 2 but if you look at future technology we must 3 enforce, so that getting sulfur at a critical level 4 in fuel is absolutely critical. As we look at the 5 catalyst developments we plan to use in the future, 6 we see them being even more insensitive to sulfur. 7 And as we look at the things like NOx to build a 8 catalyst in lean-burn engines in the future, those 9 become another order of magnitude sensitive to 10 sulfur. So it becomes clear to us as we look at the 11 future that every test, piece of testing that we've 12 seen, makes it clear that removing sulfur to extent 13 possible is the best approach. 14 MS. OGE: Thank you. 15 Do the panel members have any questions? 16 Thank you very much. Thank you for the 17 taking the time to share your views with us. 18 Maybe those who are signed up for later 19 on this afternoon and would like to speak earlier, 20 please see the receptionist and we will try to 21 accommodate you. 22 Next, Mr. Dwight Wiggins. We have a 23 change; instead of Bob Jorgensen, we have Ms. Tina 24 Vujovich, Ms. Maria Bechis, and Ms. Nancy Lavin. 25 We will start with you, Mr. Wiggins. 00363 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 MR. WIGGINS: Thank you much. My name 3 is Dwight Wiggins. I'm the president of Tosco 4 Refining Company. Tosco is an independent refiner 5 and marketer of gasoline and other petroleum 6 products in the United States. Our seven refiners 7 have a combined crude oil capacity of approximately 8 450,000 barrels a day. Tosco markets gasoline and 9 other petroleum products through a network of 10 approximately 4500 retail outlets primarily under 11 the Union 76 and Circle K brands. 12 Tosco supports the EPA's proposal sulfur 13 standard of 30 parts per million as we originally 14 announced on May the 3rd. We believe the nation 15 needs to continue to improve air quality, and the 16 current proposal is an important step in reducing 17 ozone levels. Although the newer lower sulfur 18 standards will impose significant additional cost on 19 the refining industry, Tosco is committed to 20 gasoline as a clean fuel in the future. It's clear 21 the reduction of gasoline sulfur will lower 22 emissions in future vehicles. 23 On the other hand, the current proposal 24 includes relief from the new sulfur standards for 25 small refiners both domestic and foreign. Tosco 00364 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 generally does not support special provisions which 3 will unnecessarily dilute the air quality benefit of 4 the new standard and create potential competitive 5 inequities. 6 We believe all refiners, domestic and 7 foreign, should be held to the same standards on the 8 same time table. We, therefore, urge the EPA to 9 adopt the final rule that applies to new sulfur 10 standards consistently to all producers. This will 11 help ensure that the full air quality and health 12 benefits of a cleaner low sulfur fuel are available 13 to all citizens as early as possible and in no 14 sector of the refining industry suffers an unequal 15 competitive burden of compliance. 16 It's also very important to remember 17 that foreign refiners will have an inherent 18 competitive advantage over domestic refiners in 19 meeting the new sulfur standards. While domestic 20 refiners will have to meet the standards for their 21 entire gasoline pool, foreign refiners will have the 22 option of selecting low sulfur extremes for export 23 to the US market by disposing of high-sulfer 24 extremes in their countries or other markets outside 25 the US. Therefore, foreign refiners may be able to 00365 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 continue exporting gasoline to the United States 3 without substantial investment or potentially any 4 investment in new desulfurization equipment. It's, 5 therefore, very important that the final gasoline 6 rule not contain a loophole that will allow foreign 7 refiners to import gasoline with sulfur content in 8 excess of the new standard. Such loop holes could 9 undermine the air quality purposes of the regulation 10 and place an even greater competitive disadvantage 11 on domestic refiners. Giving foreign refiners a 12 further competitive advantage could result in 13 increased imports of gasoline, displacement of 14 domestic refining industry, and loss of employment 15 in the industry. 16 While petroleum refining is not labor 17 intensive, the industry provides well-paid primarily 18 unionized manufacturing jobs that supports thousands 19 of US families. 20 We're also concerned that foreign 21 refiners of substantial size could take advantage of 22 the proposed special treatment for small refiners. 23 Because petroleum refining is not labor intensive, 24 it's possible that some large foreign refiners could 25 qualify as small merely because they have fewer than 00366 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 1500 employees. For example, Tosco's largest 3 refinery with a crude oil capacity of approximately 4 250,000 barrels per day have significantly fewer 5 than 1500 employees. In fact, none of Tosco's seven 6 refineries has more than 1500 employees. And based 7 on Tosco's experience with refinery staffing, a work 8 force of 1500 employees as discussed in the current 9 regulation could operate a refinery with 500,000 10 barrels per day or more capacity. 11 If the EPA decides to retain the special 12 compliance time table or small refineries, this 13 potential loophole could be limited by including the 14 fee stocks capacity limits of 75,000 barrels per day 15 as contained in the Small Business Administration 16 size standards. Using the SBA dual capacity and 17 employment test would be consistent with a criteria 18 that's used to qualify small refiners for the 19 procurement preferences used by the Department of 20 Defense in acquiring military fuel. The SBA dual 21 size standard is based on sound reasoning. SBA 22 concluded after hearings and public comment that a 23 dual criteria standard of both capacity and 24 employees was a much better measure of size for 25 petroleum refiners than a single measure alone. 00367 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 In a regulation of motor fuel under the 3 Clean Air Act there is ample preference for union 4 capacity limits to restrict special compliance 5 provisions for small refiners. In the 1977 lead 6 phase-down provision, Congress expressively imposed 7 a capacity limit of 50,000 barrels per day for the 8 special lead content levels allowed for small 9 refiners. Similar capacity limits have been used in 10 providing small refiners relief from state fuel 11 emissions requirement. 12 In allowing small refiners an extended 13 compliance period under the California diesel sulfur 14 regulations, the Air Resources Board restricted the 15 extensions to refiners to no more than 50,000 16 barrels per day in crude oil capacity. A similar 17 capacity limit of 55,000 barrels a day was applied 18 to an extended period allowed for small refiners to 19 comply for California's Phase 2 reformulated 20 gasoline requirement. 21 If the final sulfur rule provides an 22 extended compliance period for small refiners. The 23 final rule should also require eligible small 24 refiners to demonstrate their commitment to 25 complying low sulfur gasoline at the end of the 00368 1 Dwight Wiggins - Tosco Refining Co. 2 extended period. Both federal and state emission 3 regulations have required such demonstrations as 4 prerequisite to special compliance schedules. 5 In order to use extended compliance 6 schedule an EPA's diesel sulfur program a small 7 refiner was required to demonstrate a commitment to 8 producing complying fuel by the end of the extended 9 period. The required demonstration included capital 10 commitments to the necessary modifications, 11 contracts for design and construction, approved 12 construction permits, and on-site construction to be 13 in progress. Requiring a demonstrated commitment to 14 compliance is necessary to prevent small refiners 15 from simply using the extended period to sell 16 high-sulfur gasoline into a low sulfur market. 17 Without any investment in compliance, a small 18 refiner could merely cease gasoline production at 19 the end of the extended compliance period. 20 As EPA recognized in implementing its 21 diesel sulfur program, it would enable a small 22 refiner to gain, by their terminology, a windfall in 23 profit by selling lower grade product into a premium 24 market with no long-term air quality benefit to 25 offset the short-term emissions detriment. 00369 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 In conclusion, Tosco recommends that EPA 3 retain the proposed sulfur standard of 30 parts per 4 million for gasoline. However, to avoid the 5 dilution of air quality benefit to the regulation 6 and potential competitive inequities, we urge the 7 EPA to apply the standard equally of all domestic 8 and foreign refiners. If the extended compliance 9 period for small refiners remain, EPA should adopt 10 its capacity limit of 75,000 barrels per day for 11 both and domestic small refiners. 12 Finally, if extensions are granted, the 13 EPA should make the extension available only to 14 small refiners that demonstrate a commitment to 15 produce complying low sulfur gasoline at the end of 16 the extended period. 17 That concludes my remarks. Thank you 18 for your consideration. 19 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Tina Vujovich. 20 MS. VUJOVICH: Good morning. My name is 21 Tina Vujovich. I'm the Vice President in charge of 22 worldwide marketing for bus and light commercial 23 automotive applications as well the environmental 24 management work for Cummins Engine Company. 25 Cummins produces diesel and natural gas 00370 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 fuel, heavy-duty engines for automotive, 3 construction, agricultural, marine, and power 4 generation applications around the world. Cummins 5 is the large producer of commercial heavy-duty 6 engines rated above 150 horsepower in the world. 7 Cummins has recently developed a new 8 concept engine for application in the light-duty 9 vehicle, the subject of the proposed regulations 10 under consideration today. A portion of the funding 11 for this development is coming from the United 12 States Department of Energy. The Department of 13 Energy's objectives of this effort, as laid out at 14 the initiation of the program, are shown in this 15 figure. There are two major performance goals, a 16 significant improvement in fuel economy, as you can 17 see, 50 percent over gasoline counterpart; and 18 compliance with future emission standards. And the 19 standards given to those who participated in this 20 program at the time are listed in the chart here, as 21 you can see. The figure at the bottom of the chart, 22 the total DOE funding represents the total funding 23 to all those participating in the program. We're 24 not there in Cummins, although I would have loved to 25 have seen that figure given to Cummins. 00371 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 These emissions targets represent 3 significant reductions from Tier 1 emissions 4 standards as shown on this figure. The light-duty 5 truck 4, light-duty truck 3, are the standards in 6 effect today as Tier 1 standards. You can see the 7 DOE program goals as the red diamonds on the chart, 8 a significant reduction. 9 When we entered the program a few years 10 ago, we felt that these standards were very 11 challenging targets and we still feel that these are 12 challenging targets. 13 As proposed, when including the 50,000 14 mile intermediate useful life standard, the Tier 2 15 requirements would preclude engines which meet these 16 objectives from entering the marketplace in 2004 and 17 beyond. We believe that this would foreclose the 18 most cost-effective and most readily available 19 opportunity to improve fuel economy and meaningfully 20 reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 21 The Department of Energy initiated this 22 program to produce to reduce the fuel consumption of 23 the growing light-duty vehicle segment known as 24 light-duty trucks. Light-duty trucks sales 25 represent an increasing percentage of an 00372 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 ever-increasing light-duty truck category 3 approaching 50 percent this year. 4 The next couple of charts that you will 5 see are data from the Energy Institute. In this 6 chart you can see that the transportation energy use 7 represents about one-third of the total energy 8 consumption in the United States. Of the energy 9 consumed by the transportation sector, approximately 10 50 percent is consumed by the light-duty vehicles, 11 including passenger cars and light-duty trucks as 12 shown on this slide, again by the Energy Institute. 13 Direct injection, compression ignition, 14 diesel cycle engines have the potential to 15 significantly reduce light-duty vehicle energy 16 consumption. As shown on this slide, the results of 17 our engine compared to the gasoline engines that it 18 would replace in a sport utility vehicle is 19 illustrated here. And as you can see, as we have 20 tested this engine, there is an improvement of 71 21 percent in fuel economy over the gasoline engine 22 that it will replace. 23 For a vehicle that drives about 15,000 24 miles annually, the fuel savings would amount to 25 about 446 gallons per year of fuel. Now, let's 00373 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 assume that there were about 7.4 million light-duty 3 trucks sold in the United States last year. Had 4 only 50 percent of these been diesel powered rather 5 than gasoline, the fuel savings last year would be 6 over 1.5 billion gallons of fuel. 7 There is a lot of debate about global 8 warming, but it seems more and more that researchers 9 are becoming convinced that it is a real issue. The 10 magnitude of carbon dioxide emission reductions 11 envisioned in the discussions taking place around 12 the world would require major changes. To reduce 13 the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by light-duty 14 trucks in the United States in the year 2010 to the 15 levels that we were experiencing in 1990 would 16 require a decrease in carbon dioxide between 35 and 17 40 percent per vehicle, depending on the growth 18 assumptions that one would make. As shown on this 19 slide, the diesel engine that we are in the process 20 of developing achieves a 37 percent reduction from 21 the carbon dioxide emission levels of the gasoline 22 engine that it would replace. 23 Earlier I showed you the Department of 24 Energy program goals, including the emissions 25 targets. The proposed Tier 2 standards are much 00374 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 more stringent, as shown on this figure. It is true 3 that the Department of Energy and the manufacturers 4 participating in this program recognize that EPA 5 would be coming out with Tier 2 proposals and also 6 recognized that program goals would change as a 7 results of those proposals. 8 As you can see from this chart, again, 9 the current Tier 1 standard. The Department of 10 Energy target, again, is represented by the red 11 diamond. And you can barely see, written very tiny, 12 the standards that have been proposed in the Tier 2 13 proposal. 14 Improvements in the engine-out emissions 15 from today's best light-duty diesel engines, which 16 employ cooled exhaust gas recirculation, wastegated 17 turbochargers, and air-to-air aftercooler, can be 18 made. And Cummins believes that with the increased 19 amounts of EGR, the use of fuels systems capable of 20 higher injection pressures and cylinder heads with 21 four valves per cylinder, that engine-out oxides of 22 nitrogen particulate matter emissions for light-duty 23 trucks can be cut in half. 24 Reductions beyond these levels will 25 require significant exhaust aftertreatment. Lean 00375 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 NOx aftertreatment is still in the development 3 stage. However, Cummins believes that such systems 4 capable of at least 50 percent reductions of oxides 5 of nitrogen will be commercially viable in the time 6 frame when the Tier 2 standards are proposed to 7 begin a phase-in. 8 Particulate aftertreatment systems, such 9 as catalyzed soot filters, will also be required. 10 Regeneration, the process of removal the particles 11 from the filters, is still the biggest hurdle for 12 such systems, especially during sustained light load 13 conditions and cold ambient temperatures. Cummins is 14 hopeful that filters with 80 percent or greater 15 trapping efficiency will be able to regenerate 16 continuously under all operating conditions. The 17 sulfur content of diesel fuel, therefore, must be 18 reduced significantly in order to enable the use of 19 these aftertreatment systems. 20 The anticipated reductions from current 21 best technology through improvements in engine 22 design and through the use of aftertreatment 23 systems, as just described, and as they are applied 24 to light-duty trucks still fall short of the 25 reductions necessary to comply with Bin 7 standards, 00376 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 the least stringent of the Tier 2 bins. 3 Cummins believes that fuel economy and 4 carbon dioxide emissions benefits 5 compression-ignition, diesel-cycle engines bring, 6 warrant their inclusion in the light-duty market. 7 Given the long-term horizon and major advances 8 required to develop conforming commercially viable 9 diesel product, Cummins recommends that a mid-term 10 technology review be included to assess the progress 11 by these highly fuel efficient engines toward Tier 2 12 compliance. 13 We're pleased to see the Agency's 14 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking requesting 15 comment on the need to changes in diesel fuel. 16 Cummins will provide separate comments to this 17 advanced notice, but inasmuch as fuel changes have a 18 large impact on feasibility of the technology to 19 meet the standards proposed in this rulemaking, it 20 is important to state here that both highly 21 efficient oxides of nitrogen and particulate 22 aftertreatment systems will require the use ultra 23 low sulfur fuel, that is, fuel with less than 5 24 parts per million sulfur. 25 In addition, Cummins believes that 00377 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 flexibility provided by an averaging program that 3 allows the setting of family emission limits is 4 needed. The large gaps between the 5 interim bins 5 and the seven Tier 2 bins really discourage emission 6 reductions that are significant but may fall short 7 of the next lower bin. Manufacturers would still 8 have to comply with the same stringent oxide of 9 nitrogen fleet average, so such an averaging system, 10 while providing greater compliance flexibility and 11 the reduction of the cost of compliance, would 12 really not negatively impact the environmental 13 improvements sought by the proposal. 14 In conclusion, Cummins recommends: One, 15 that the proposed bin structure be replaced by an 16 averaging program that allows manufacturers to set 17 family emission limits. 18 Number two, that a mid-term technology 19 review be included to assess the progress by these 20 highly fuel efficient engines toward the Tier 2 21 compliance and revise, if necessary, those 22 provisions. 23 And finally, that the maximum sulfur 24 content of the fuel stream for the light-duty 25 vehicles be capped at 5 parts per million. 00378 1 Tina Vujovich - Cummins Engine Co. 2 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 3 this proposed rulemaking and would address any 4 questions that you might have. Thank you for your 5 attention. 6 MS. OGE: Thank you. Any questions? 7 MR. PASSAVANT: May I ask? 8 MS. OGE: Yes. 9 MR. PASSAVANT: I would like to ask 10 Tina, if she would, when you provide your written 11 comments here, I heard you ask for an FEL approach. 12 If you would please do two things for us. Number 13 one, if you would take a look at what we said in the 14 preamble about the pros and cons of that which is 15 the approach we used. And second, since you've 16 suggested that more bins would be helpful if we 17 stuck with the bins approach, if you could get to us 18 sometime what bins you're thinking about. 19 MS. VUJOVICH: Just a clarification, Mr. 20 Passavant. What we've suggested is an FEL approach 21 as opposed to a bin approach. 22 MR. PASSAVANT: I understand. But if we 23 were to stick with the bin approach, if you could 24 suggest to us which bins you would like to see. 25 MS. VUJOVICH: Okay. I will do that in 00379 1 Gina Amador - Penn PIRG 2 our written comments. 3 MR. PASSAVANT: Thank you. 4 I'd like to ask Mr. Wiggins, do you have 5 with you a written copy of your testimony to make 6 available? 7 MR. WIGGINS: I believe we did. You 8 asking for a written copy? 9 MR. PASSAVANT: I guess that takes care 10 of that. Thank you very much. 11 MS. OGE: Any other questions? Thank 12 you very much, both of you. 13 MS. OGE: Before we go to the next 14 panel, I would like to ask for Ms. Gina Amador to 15 step up if she's here. Mr. Karl Walter, Ms. 16 Stephanie Mayers, Jillian Gill, Mrs. Jessica Brooks, 17 and Mr. Jeff Eber. 18 If you could take the time to print your 19 names, and if with you're any association, please 20 also print the name of the association and then we 21 can start with your remarks. 22 MS. AMADOR: My name is Gina Amador. 23 I'm very excited to be here because I am among a 24 group of people that carry many perspectives on a 25 very complexion issue of air pollution and I see a 00380 1 Gina Amador - Penn PIRG 2 lot of potential here for coming to grasp on the 3 complexities of this problem and I want to share 4 with you some of my personal experience with the air 5 pollution problem. 6 I came two years ago from Mexico City to 7 study here for college. In Mexico City I have seen 8 the tremendous effects that an air pollution crisis 9 can have on people's daily lives. On every street 10 corner I have seen people literally struggling 11 taking a breath, on every street corner. And every 12 day I see people that are in a bad mood with 13 headaches. I myself have experienced that because 14 it's just very difficult to cope especially if 15 somebody doesn't have a proper nutrition or balance 16 every day can be very difficulty with levels of 17 pollution as high as we do experience in Mexico 18 City. 19 I have also tried to see what people are 20 doing in Mexico City about the air pollution, and I 21 see that people are improvising, that there is no 22 sustainable plan for attacking this problem, but 23 there's crisis of air pollution and the public 24 sometimes doesn't even know what they're being 25 exposed to. There's a great information gap. Even 00381 1 Gina Amador - Penn PIRG 2 though we do have technology to monitor this air 3 pollution, it's very hard to know and to explain to 4 the public what it is that they are experiencing. 5 And there's very little technological studies. Even 6 though I am very hopeful that we will find a 7 solution, I see the effects of not preventing air 8 pollution. I see the effects of waiting until it's 9 almost too late to take action. 10 Here in the United States I think that 11 there is a lot of potential to prevent what is 12 happening in Mexico. And I see a lot of people that 13 care about air pollution. Every day I go out and 14 canvass with Penn PIRG and I talk about 40 people 15 and people care about the air pollution. Every day 16 I've met somebody with asthma, somebody that has a 17 very serious relation to air pollution problems 18 here. And so I'm very convinced that this is a 19 pressing problem and that there is a potential in 20 this room to come to grips with the problem and 21 start to unravel the complexities of this 22 phenomenon. 23 I just was here yesterday for a couple 24 of hours, and excuse me for my over-simplification 25 of the problem, but I saw the auto and oil industry 00382 1 Karl Walter - Penn PIRG 2 saying, "Time is money, we want more time; we need 3 wait 10 years, a decade; the problem is not serious 4 enough." And then on the other hand I have seen 5 environmental groups and public health groups 6 saying, "Time is life and we need to act now." 7 And I think we have to prioritize the 8 life aspect of time. And I really think that this 9 is a great opportunity. I really thank everybody 10 that is here for listening to each other's 11 perspectives. I happen believe in Surgi (ph) which 12 is like if you give, you gain. And I think that in 13 this tug-of-war, if both parties give, they will 14 both gain and we will all gain. And I think there 15 is a lot of hope for cutting-edge technologies that 16 give us sustainable and integrative plan for 17 changing the face of our plant. Thank you. 18 MS. OGE: Thank you very much. Mr. 19 Walter. 20 MR. WALTER: My name is Karl Walter. 21 I'm a resident of North Huntington, Pennsylvania, 22 which is a suburb and Pittsburgh. I'd like to share 23 a little story. As you know, asthma rates among 24 children are up 75 percent since 1980. One of the 25 children lucky enough to be born within that time is 00383 1 Karl Walter - Penn PIRG 2 my little sister Nancy. She was born in Pittsburgh 3 which has the eighth worst air pollution in the 4 nation. And she began having trouble breathing 5 around her 14th birthday. Naturally, my family and 6 I, we were little scared because my little, all of a 7 sudden her face starts turning purple and we don't 8 know what to do. We start taking her to the 9 hospital, and the doctors, nobody knows what to do. 10 Finally, we figure out she has asthma, my little 11 sister. 12 She's lived with this health problem 13 five years, my younger sister. There's days when 14 she can't go out and jog because the air pollution 15 is so bad. One out of three days is an ozone action 16 today. Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday in Pittsburgh 17 were ozone action days. She could not go outside 18 and ride a bike because she couldn't breathe on 19 these days. 20 Automobiles are responsible for about 30 21 percent of the smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution 22 and 20 percent of volatile organic compounds which 23 contribute to the formation of smog. And what we 24 would like see in the Penn PIRG is heavy regulations 25 on these automobiles because they are a major 00384 1 Jessica Brooks - Penn PIRG 2 contributor to the air pollution that has affected 3 my family and my little sister so dearly. 4 Basically, we would like to see the 5 loophole for the SUVs closed. For ten years the 6 biggest of those, Ford Excursions, things like this 7 are able to continue polluting our air. Ford 8 Excursion is actually not even required to clean up 9 in 10 years. These are excluded with the proposal 10 right now. 11 We applaud the proposal that the EPA has 12 put forth, but we would like to see them enforce 13 more strictly to help children and older elderly 14 people who have been affected so dearly by this 15 horrible air pollution. Thank you for your time. 16 Thanks for listening. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Brooks. 18 MS. BROOKS: Hello. My name is Jessica 19 Brooks, and I also work for Penn PIRG, although I'm 20 not really here today to talk about my job with Penn 21 PIRG. I'd like to talk about my job last summer. I 22 actually was camp counselor dealing with children 23 who would spend a week at the camp. And at the camp 24 we would spend a lot of time doing outdoor 25 activities and playing outside and having soccer 00385 1 Jessica Brooks - Penn PIRG 2 games and swimming. And a lot these children, it's 3 very sad to see, had to stop themselves when they 4 would go to play their games. They were not able to 5 play anymore at their camp. 6 And I can remember being a child when I 7 was going to camp, and that was one of the best 8 things of my summer. And the smog and air pollution 9 is taking that away from children these days. 10 When I was a child at camp, you didn't 11 understand -- these weren't things that you thought 12 about. But now all of the children understand the 13 problem, the ones that have asthma and the ones that 14 don't. They all know about it; it's so common that 15 all of the children are understanding, oh, little 16 Tommy can't play now because he has to stop, he 17 can't breathe. Have you ever looked in a child's 18 eyes when they can't breathe, the fright and the 19 sadness, the embarrassment of not being able to keep 20 up with the other kids? 21 This is a problem that needs to have a 22 solution. I understand that asthma may not be 23 specifically caused by air pollution, but it is 24 problematic because of air pollution. Their attacks 25 are triggered by this and they can't breathe. So we 00386 1 Jeff Eber - Penn PIRG 2 need to come out and we need to make sure that this 3 pollution is cleaned up. We need to have as strong 4 and as tough standards as possible. 5 There should not be exemptions for the 6 heavier vehicles. These are the most pollutant. 7 These children need to have cars out there that are 8 less pollutant, they need standards on all of the 9 cars, and they need them as soon as possible so when 10 they have children they don't have to deal with the 11 same thing. 12 So we would like to come out and thank 13 you for your support of the clean standards and of 14 the clean air proposal, but we also would like to 15 say that they do need to be stronger. And I'd just 16 like to thank you. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you, Ms. Brooks. Mr. 18 Jeff Eber. 19 MR. EBER: My name is Jeff Eber. And I 20 am with the many canvassers for Penn PIRG. I speak 21 to many people every day. I've actually found that 22 of the people that I talk to, probably one more than 23 half are in support of our group. 24 Right now I'd just like to relate a 25 personal story, that of my sister who actually 00387 1 Jeff Eber - Penn PIRG 2 didn't develop symptoms of asthma until she was 14 3 or 15. Although when she went to the doctor, the 4 doctor didn't specifically say, "You have asthma now 5 because of the air pollution right now," but I think 6 that a problem that's being ignored is that when 7 children are developing at a younger age, they 8 actually need more oxygen for their growing bodies 9 in proportion to their bodies than the average 10 adult. In cities, especially Philadelphia where 11 smog is a big problem, they can't get the vital air 12 that they need; they're taking in too much 13 pollution. And although they don't see the effects 14 right at that very moment, it's an ongoing process 15 that develops over time. 16 My sister entered high school and she 17 started to become very active in sports which she 18 hadn't been before. That is when she noticed the 19 problem. She developed asthma in high school. And 20 she was really into volleyball, ice skating, and 21 playing sports, and now she can't due to the fact 22 that she's developed asthma at such an older age. 23 And I think is a big problem. 24 The auto industry, from quotes that I've 25 read, like to downplay it saying that although 00388 1 Jeff Eber - Penn PIRG 2 pollution does harm children a little bit, it's not 3 that much. They say that it only hurts the lungs 4 and hurts the respiratory system a little bit. The 5 problem is, is that it might be do that at that 6 point, but it's a developing thing that develops 7 over time. So the longer that we wait to stop the 8 polluting, it will just keep getting worse. We need 9 to realize that children now don't see the problems 10 with the air pollution right now, but they will in 11 the future and as the problem gets worse. It will 12 continue to get worse. 13 MS. OGE: Any members have any questions 14 for them? 15 I'd like to thank you for taking the 16 time to be with us this morning. Your views are 17 very important to the work that we are doing here. 18 Thank you very much. 19 I would ask for Mr. Pat Charbonneau to 20 please come forward. We will try to make some 21 changes this morning to accommodate people that are 22 signed up to speak with us today. We suggest that 23 we move forward with the panel that is scheduled to 24 speak at 1:15. 25 So Mr. Charbonneau, Mr. Kata, Leonard 00389 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 Kata, is he here? Mr. Robert Strassburger, and Mr. 3 Jason Rash. 4 Also there were two additional 5 individuals that were scheduled to testify at 10 6 o'clock, and they were not here this morning. I'd 7 like to see if they are here. Ms. Maria Bechis and 8 Ms. Nancy Lavin. 9 (Pause.) 10 MS. OGE: Good morning. We can start 11 with Mr. Charbonneau. 12 MR. CHARBONNEAU: My name is Patrick 13 Charbonneau. I'm Vice President of Engine 14 Engineering for Navistar. I'm here today to discuss 15 the impact of the proposed Tier 2 emission standards 16 on diesel engine technology which Navistar is 17 developing for light-duty vehicle applications in 18 partnership for our customer, Ford Motor Company. 19 We believe that greater reliance on 20 diesel engines in this important market segment can 21 provide important environmental and economic 22 benefits. We support challenging but achievable 23 Tier 2 standards which create incentives for our 24 industry to invest in new generation diesel engines 25 which deliver superior emissions control 00390 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 performance. Clean diesel fuel with sulfur levels 3 at or below 5 parts per million is a critical 4 enabler for the new technologies we are developing. 5 We need EPA's help in assuring the availability of 6 ultra low sulfur fuel for light-duty diesel by 2004 7 in order to achieve the very aggressive Tier 2 8 targets the EPA has proposed. 9 With ultra-clean diesel fuel and new 10 aftertreatment systems, we foresee dramatic 11 breakthroughs in emissions control. For example, 12 Navistar recently conducted a demonstration of 13 passive trap technology using a school bus with a 14 heavy-duty diesel engine and ultra low sulfur fuel. 15 We're pleased to report that we achieved reductions 16 in particulate emissions were over 90 percent, which 17 will be required to achieve the stringent Tier 2 18 limits for particulates. The success of this 19 demonstration is an exciting example of how great 20 strides forward we can take with the combination of 21 new generation diesel technology and ultra low 22 sulfur fuel for both light-duty and heavy-duty 23 diesels. 24 I would like to make two other points: 25 One, the particulates are 50 percent lower than the 00391 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 best 1998 certified compressed natural gas engine. 3 And secondly, the hydrocarbon emissions 4 are lower than can be measured in certified test 5 cells. 6 For those of you who have seen our 7 school bus in the front of the building, you can 8 attest that there is no smoke and there is no diesel 9 odor associated with this vehicle. 10 Navistar is a major North American 11 manufacturer of medium and heavy trucks and buses 12 marketed under the International name. Navistar is 13 also the world's largest manufacturer of mid-range 14 diesel engines. We supply these engines both to 15 other Navistar divisions as well as to Ford. 16 Although we've made major strides in 17 emissions performance, Navistar expects to achieve 18 dramatic additional improvements by continuing to 19 invest in advanced emissions control systems. As 20 these new technologies come to fruition, light-duty 21 diesels should be able to meet extremely stringent 22 emission reduction goals. Thus, provided we have 23 realistic phase-in dates and assuming we have clean 24 diesel fuel available, Navistar believes light-duty 25 diesel has the potential of meeting EPA's 00392 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 challenging Tier 2 targets. 3 As we approach Model Year 2004, 4 reductions in engine-out emissions of NOx and 5 particulates will be obtained through the 6 introduction of completely technologically advanced 7 engines. 8 After these advanced engine technologies 9 are implemented, further reductions in NOx and 10 particulates in the 2004 time frame will require new 11 aftertreatment technology. Several options are 12 under consideration including advanced oxidation 13 catalyst and passive particulate traps to production 14 particulates and de-NOx catalyst and NOx absorbers 15 to reduce NOx. Evaluating and then selecting the 16 best technologies will require major R & D effort by 17 Navistar and vendors of aftertreatment devices. 18 Once he have identified viable aftertreatment 19 methods, additional time and investment will be 20 needed to mature these technologies to the point 21 where they perform efficiently under on-road 22 conditions. Although the aftertreatment option we 23 are considering are currently developing 24 technologies, our goal is to make these technologies 25 available in Model Year 2004 through 2007. This 00393 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 assumes the availability of ultra low sulfur fuels 3 so that the effectiveness of the aftertreatment is 4 not compromised by sulfur contamination. 5 While this rulemaking does not address 6 vehicles in the over-8500 pound class, the 7 technological breakthroughs spurred by light-duty 8 emission standards could eventually be transferred 9 to the heavy-duty engine line. Navistar has a long 10 history of leveraging common technologies across 11 product lines from pickup trucks to Class 8 trucks. 12 For example, Navistar's HEUI fuel system was 13 originally developed for light heavy-duty engines in 14 order to meet the emissions control, fuel economy, 15 and sociability requirements for this market. 16 Navistar then applied this technology to its larger 17 engines. In a similar manner, we would expect these 18 base engine improvements and aftertreatment 19 technologies developed to meet Tier 2 light-duty 20 market would ultimately be transferred to the 21 heavy-duty diesel engines. This leveraging of 22 emissions control breakthroughs could have 23 substantial environmental benefits by creating the 24 technological foundation for lower emitting 25 heavy-duty diesels. With an expanding presence in 00394 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 the light-duty market as Tier 2 standards take 3 effect, Navistar could justify sizable R & D 4 investment required to support these new emissions 5 control technologies. These will be applicable to 6 all of our engine classes. 7 With tighter controls on nitrogen oxide 8 emissions and particulate matter, Navistar's new 9 generation of light-duty engines will provide an 10 unsurpassed combination of environmental benefits. 11 In comparison with gasoline engines, diesel offers 12 greatly increased fuel economy, substantially 13 reduced carbon dioxide emissions and greater engine 14 durability and significantly lower emissions of 15 hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. 16 These a benefits have been recognized 17 not just by industry, but by government 18 policymakers. The Administration's partnership for 19 a new generation of vehicles has selected 20 compression ignition engines as the leading 21 technology candidate for achieving greatly increased 22 fuel economy without burdening consumers with added 23 cost or reduced convenience. This increase in fuel 24 efficiency will translate into reduced greenhouse 25 gas emissions as well as producing additional 00395 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 benefits like lower carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon 3 emissions. 4 Based on these emissions benefits, 5 countries in the European Union are encouraging 6 rapid dieselization of the light-duty fleet in order 7 to achieve the EU's goal of 25 percent reduction in 8 mobile source CO2 emissions by 2008. If the United 9 States were to adopt policies which discourage 10 conversion of light-duty vehicles to diesel 11 technology, our near-term ability to address global 12 warming could be seriously compromised. Despite the 13 long-time promise of fuel cells and other 14 cutting-edge innovations, most knowledgeable experts 15 agree that their commercialization will not be 16 feasible for many years and that diesel is the only 17 high-efficiency engine technology that is 18 economically viable for widespread use in the near 19 future. 20 There is one caveat for our ability to 21 make dramatic strides in reducing NOx and 22 particulate emissions. We must have assurance that 23 ultra-clean diesel fuel, with sulfur levels at or 24 below 5 parts per million, is available for 25 light-duty vehicles by 2004. All of our R & D work 00396 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 on rests on the premise that low sulfur fuel is a 3 critical technology enabler, without which we cannot 4 achieve the levels of NOx and PM control called for 5 by the Tier 2 proposal. Based on our discussion 6 with our suppliers and our review of data, we're 7 convinced that effective aftertreatment will depend 8 on reduction of fuel sulfur levels to 5 parts per 9 million or below. Higher sulfur levels in diesel 10 fuel will interfere with aftertreatment by causing 11 catalyst poisoning and the generation of sulfate 12 particulates within the aftertreatment systems. 13 As we will explain in our comments on 14 EPA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking on 15 diesel fuels, we favor the phased approach EPA is 16 developing for introduction of low low-sulfur diesel 17 fuel. Under this approach, the EPA's initial 18 priority would be to making slow-sulfur fuel 19 available at the 5 parts per million level by 2004 20 for light-duty trucks. 21 While there are implementation issues 22 that would need to be resolved under this approach, 23 it would efficiently meet the needs of the small and 24 targeted light-duty diesel market covered by Tier 2 25 requirements while permitting the industry to gain 00397 1 Patrick Charbonneau - Navistar 2 experience on aftertreatment technology and develop 3 refining infrastructure necessary to support the 4 broader desulfurization requirements. 5 Again, I want to stress our ability to 6 meet Tier 2 emissions targets is conditioned on the 7 timely availability of clean fuel. If the EPA has 8 not mandated low sulfur diesel fuel when it 9 finalizes the Tier 2 rule, that rule would need to 10 provide alternate NOx and PM limits for diesel 11 engines that could be feasible using current grades 12 of diesel fuel. 13 There is one aspect of the proposed rule 14 which is of great concern to our industry. We see 15 no reason why the EPA should establish a more 16 stringent 50,000 mile standard for diesel vehicles 17 given their durability and consistency of their 18 emission profile over time. The 50K standards in 19 EPA's proposal is simply infeasible for diesel 20 engines and should either be eliminated or adjusted 21 so they are identical to the 120,000 mile standards. 22 Because of the aggressive targets we 23 will face under Tier 2, we strongly agree with the 24 EPA that a technology review in 2004 should be 25 conducted to assess the feasibility of its HDLT NOx 00398 1 Leonard Kata - Volkswagen 2 and particulate limits in Model Year 2007 and 3 beyond. This review would provide the necessary 4 opportunity to evaluate the maturation of the 5 aftertreatment technologies as well as the 6 effectiveness of cleaner fuel in controlling NOx and 7 PM. 8 In summary, ultra low fuel sulfur is 9 mandatory for Tier 2 compliance. Technologies that 10 are developed for light-duty diesels are 11 transferable to heavy-duty diesels. The Tier 2 rule 12 will not be feasible without the elimination of the 13 intermediate 50,000 mile standards, and a technology 14 review will be essential to assess the feasibility 15 of the post 2006 standards. 16 And lastly, we can demonstrate several 17 of these points at our demonstration school bus 18 parked outside if anyone would like to see it. 19 Thank you. I hope Navistar's comments 20 will be helpful to the EPA. And I would be happy to 21 answer any questions. 22 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Leonard Kata. 23 MR. KATA: Good morning. My name is 24 Leonard Kata. I'm the team leader for the Emission 25 Regulations and Certification Group at Volkswagen of 00399 1 Leonard Kata - Volkswagen 2 America. My comments today are presented on behalf 3 of Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Rolls-Royce, and 4 LAMBORGHINI. 5 Volkswagen is a member of the Alliance 6 of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of 7 International Automobile Manufacturers. As such, 8 we support the testimony presented by these 9 associations. In my testimony before you, I intend 10 to limit my comments to a few key issues which merit 11 re-emphasizing and are also of critical importance 12 to Volkswagen. More detailed written comments will 13 be prepared and submitted for the record before the 14 close of the comment period. 15 First, vehicle emissions and fuel 16 specifications must be regulated as a package. The 17 Tier 2 requirements will necessitate the control of 18 exhaust emissions to extremely low levels. Without 19 the availability of low sulfur fuel, the emission 20 reduction benefits of the emissions control systems 21 necessary to meet the Tier 2 standards will not be 22 realized. Further, near-zero sulfur fuel is 23 essential to enabling new emission control 24 technology. 25 In this rulemaking process, EPA has 00400 1 Leonard Kata - Volkswagen 2 separated the gasoline and diesel fuel 3 specifications issues. I would like to emphasize 4 that both issues are equally important and merit 5 your consideration, especially considering that the 6 proposed emission standards are fuel-neutral. Just 7 as low sulfur gasoline is essential for compliance 8 with the Tier 2 emission requirements, clean diesel 9 fuel is equally essential. While it would result in 10 an immediate reduction in the emissions of current 11 diesel vehicles, low sulfur clean diesel fuel is an 12 enabler for further NOx and particulate control. 13 Lean burn catalyst technology being 14 developed for compression ignition engines can be 15 inhibited by even modest amounts of sulfur. 16 Therefore, to fully realize the emission control 17 potential to produce clean diesel engines, near-zero 18 or 5 ppm sulfur diesel fuel is required. Volkswagen 19 has some experience with very low sulfur fuels, less 20 than 10 ppm, such as the fuel marketed in Sweden and 21 England, and the emission reduction results are 22 significant. These results were reported in an SAE 23 paper presented earlier this year. 24 The Tier 2 emissions standards should 25 not preclude the availability of particular engine 00401 1 Leonard Kata - Volkswagen 2 technologies. As proposed by EPA, the bin structure 3 and stringent NOx fleet average will impose 4 limitations on vehicle manufacturers. The least 5 stringent bin establishes a 0.2 grams per mile NOx 6 cap, Bin 7. Further, there are only 2 bins above 7 the 0.07 NOx average. These requirements will limit 8 the flexibility, inhibit the further development of 9 current fuel-efficient technologies and inhibit the 10 introduction of advanced fuel-efficient 11 technologies. Additional bins, above Bin 7, are 12 required to address the needs of heavier vehicles 13 with large displacement engines and vehicle powered 14 by lean-burn efficient engines. While limited 15 flexibility may be available during the Tier 2 16 phase-in period, additional Tier 2 bins that 17 continue beyond the phase-in period are needed to 18 encourage the ongoing development of current and 19 advanced lean-burn technology. 20 There are environmental benefits 21 associated with direct injection lean-burn 22 technologies. These technologies offer the best 23 opportunity to reduce fuel consumption in the near 24 future. In the case of diesel direct injection, the 25 advantages also include inherently low NMOG, CO, 00402 1 Leonard Kata - Volkswagen 2 cold-start, evaporative, and refueling emissions. 3 However, these lean-burn technologies present 4 difficult emission control challenges. Today's 5 emissions control technology cannot achieve the 6 level of NOx control needed to meet the very tight 7 standards in these applications. 8 As presented in the Alliance of 9 Automobile Manufacturers' proposal, EPA could 10 enhance Tier 2 flexibility by expanding the 11 certification bins, without incurring any loss of 12 Tier 2 stringency. This effort would be effective 13 in encouraging the further development and 14 introduction of advanced technology vehicles. 15 Finally, the action would come at no air quality 16 risk since manufacturers would still be required to 17 meet a NOx fleet average requirement. 18 In summary, the EPA rules should not 19 have the unintended consequence of restricting 20 vehicle design or precluding the use of vehicle 21 technologies in the market, particularly advanced 22 fuel-efficient technologies. Volkswagen recommends 23 that EPA should include certification bins that 24 allow individual vehicles to meet NOx levels of up 25 to 0.6 gram per mile, at least through 2007 model 00403 1 Nancy Lavin - Philly Walks 2 year and 0.4 grams per mile thereafter. 3 In conclusion, Volkswagen encourages the 4 Agency to continue to pursue the control of sulfur 5 in fuel, both gasoline and diesel, as an integral 6 part of the Tier 2 rulemaking process. 7 In addition, Volkswagen recommends that 8 the EPA Tier 2 rule provide the needed flexibility 9 to ensure the continued development of vehicle 10 designs and emissions control technology. This 11 flexibility would come in the form of vehicle 12 emissions standards, fleet average compliance 13 requirements, and a phase-in time line that does not 14 inhibit the continued availability or further 15 development of advanced technology. 16 This concludes my prepared remarks. 17 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Nancy Lavin. 18 Good morning. 19 MS. LAVIN: Good morning. Thank you for 20 your invitation to hear me. I am the Chair of 21 Philly Walks in Philadelphia, the only Philadelphia 22 organization who devoted solely to pedestrian 23 advocacy. We are affiliated with the Philadelphia 24 Clean Air Council. I have asthma, and I suppose you 25 can hear it in my voice and I hope you can hear me. 00404 1 Nancy Lavin - Philly Walks 2 If not, let me know. It developed after I moved to 3 the city. 4 Now, we know that walking distances is a 5 healthy and desired activity, but not where the air 6 is unhealthy. I can no longer walk long distances. 7 Just one example, school and tour buses 8 and delivery trucks wait curbside for extended 9 periods of time outside our cultural and 10 entertainment institutions with their motors 11 running. What we need is help from you. We need 12 your assessments, your recommendations, because we 13 need regulations in place in order for enforcement 14 to occur against this activity. 15 During trips to quiet suburban areas, I 16 experience very few breathing problems, even during 17 the high allergy season, which is now. Therefore, I 18 can only conclude in an empirical sort of way that 19 breathing difficulties can be exacerbated by Mother 20 Nature, but breathing problems definitely occur in 21 the presence of man-made pollutants such as vehicle 22 exhaust. 23 As you may know, asthmatics require 24 rigorous treatment and expensive medication. I did 25 have a very good quality of life at one time. Now 00405 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 I'd like it back; we all would. 3 I wanted to refer you just briefly to an 4 article that appeared in this morning's New York 5 Times and it talks about children in crisis. It 6 refers to the fact that 38 percent of the 8,000 7 homeless children in New York City have been 8 definitely diagnosed with asthma. Again, I think we 9 can conclude that that is because they are not in a 10 suburb, they are not quietly at home often, they are 11 outside, and that is taking a toll. 12 Well, thank you very much for hearing 13 me. I appreciate it. 14 MS. OGE: Thank you. Thank you for 15 taking the time to share your views with us. 16 Mr. Strassburger. 17 MR. STRASSBURGER: Good morning. My 18 name is Ronald Strassburger. I'm corporate manger 19 of technical affairs at Nissan North America. This 20 morning I'd like to focus my comments on the 21 mid-term review posed by the Alliance of Automobile 22 Manufacturers. But first, let me just say, number 23 one, Nissan is a member of the Alliance as well as 24 AIM. We were involved in preparing the testimony, 25 and we fully support the testimony given by those 00406 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 two associations. Also, Nissan supports the goals 3 laid out by EPA for this rulemaking, and we're very 4 pleased that EPA has recognized the linkage between 5 vehicle and fuels and the fact that they work as a 6 system and that they have proposed and integrated 7 rules, and we feel important that the final rule 8 also be integrated with it. 9 Let me turn to the mid-term review. The 10 Alliance has proposed a two-step phase-down to a 11 common 0.07 NOx fleet average requirement for all 12 vehicles 0 to 8500 pounds. This is similar to the 13 proposal that EPA has made with one distinction, and 14 that is, EPA has proposed a single set of 15 phase-downs for vehicles under 6. We do agree that 16 this is a historic rulemaking, not only in the 17 levels of standards that are proposed here, but 18 because we are at a point in time when there is a 19 revolution of sorts brewing in the types of 20 powertrains that may power our vehicles in the 21 future. 22 The industry is working towards 23 perfecting advanced fuel efficient technologies such 24 as gasoline direct injection engines, hybrid 25 electric vehicles and fuel. The automotive industry 00407 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 is committed to continuing development of these new 3 technologies but, however, with any research, there 4 are no guarantees. EPA determinations with regard 5 to feasibility, cost, energy impacts and the cost 6 impact on competition will rely on some degree on 7 the Agency's ability to make educated guesses about 8 what will happen in the future. And the most 9 reasonable way to minimize this uncertainty is to 10 conduct a mid-term review. 11 Therefore, the Alliance is calling for 12 that EPA should require, via this rulemaking, an 13 independent third-party review of its standards, and 14 that this review should be commenced in 2004 with 15 the purpose of assuring based on accurate and 16 up-to-date information that the post-2007 standards 17 that the Alliance or the EPA has called out continue 18 to meet statutory requirements. Such pre-planning 19 would ensure the fairness and workability of a Tier 20 2 rule and would help to avoid a costly and 21 time-consuming judicial review process on the issue 22 of feasibility. 23 Yesterday we heard -- I think I heard, 24 anyway, some threats that they there might be 25 litigation. That's not unthinkable that that would 00408 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 occur. I think the mid-term review would actually 3 strengthen EPA's hands in that regard in defending a 4 mid-term review. An important thing about a 5 mid-term review is that it allows manufactures to 6 build on the healthy down payment that they have 7 made via the NLEV program and make additional 8 reductions, capture additional reductions under the 9 Tier 2 program while we continue to work toward 10 advanced technology vehicles. 11 Therefore, we are calling for a panel of 12 experts with expertise in automotive engineering, 13 environmental engineering, and economics to be 14 brought together and selected through a joint 15 government industry process, again, beginning in 16 2004. 17 We believe the mid-term study should 18 examine the availability of technology including 19 costs for meeting for the exhaust emissions 20 standards for Model Year 1998 and later model year 21 vehicles for all vehicles 0 to 8500 pounds. And in 22 examining the availability and cost technology to 23 meet the standards in the facing schedules proposed, 24 the study should address such things as reliability, 25 whether reasonable, reliable technologies will be 00409 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 available in the time frames required by the rule. 3 It should address the availability of precious 4 metals. Yesterday we heard Honda testify about 5 their concern about the availability of precious 6 metals, and that is actually an industry concern. 7 The study should also look at the cost 8 of emission control technologies. For this purpose, 9 we would be recommending through our written comment 10 that reasonable cost effectiveness metric to be used 11 during the study. 12 The study should also consider the 13 capability of use in lean-burn and fuel-efficient 14 engines. The panel should consider whether 15 technology satisfying the emissions criteria will be 16 capable of being used in vehicles powered by 17 lean-burn and fuel-efficient internal combustion 18 engines running on the fuels mandated for nationwide 19 sales by January 2, 2007, and thereafter. 20 The study should also look at consumer 21 welfare effects the Tier 2 proposal will have, the 22 possibility of imposing standards that could force 23 certain vehicles out of the market, the vehicles 24 that consumers want and need. It should also look 25 at the employment impact. And finally, it should 00410 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 also look at other federal policy considerations, 3 such as fuel economy and other auto safety 4 regulations that may come into effect in the time 5 period proposed. 6 The EPA should use this mid-term review 7 to determine whether mid-course corrections to the 8 standards proposed in the out years is necessary and 9 that it determines -- and this is an important 10 point, this is a EPA determination. If EPA 11 determines that the technology likely to be 12 available in the time frame 2008 to 2011 fails to 13 satisfy any of the criteria set forth and agreed 14 upon by the panel, then the standards applicable in 15 Model Year 2007 should continue until such time as 16 EPA revises the schedule. 17 And I want to emphasize here that we are 18 not proposing triggered standards. The concept here 19 is patterned after the concept followed in 20 California when they have set technology enforcing 21 standards, that is, the concept of biannual review; 22 or perhaps more accurately, the model that they used 23 when they formed the battery technology assessment 24 panel to review the zero emissions vehicle mandate; 25 again, a panel of experts. 00411 1 Ronald Strassburger - Nissan North America 2 The standards are put in place. This is 3 what we work an engineer to and they are only 4 changed after EPA has determined that they need to 5 be changed. 6 MS. OGE: How are we doing, Joe, with 7 time? You're the time-keeper. 8 MR. GUY: Just about one minute. 9 MR. STRASSBURGER: I also want to 10 emphasis that this is not an attempt to derail 11 Tier 2. This is an attempt to move forward in the 12 face of uncertainty to allow the industry to take on 13 increased risk and capture additional gain, 14 emissions reduction gain. I would note that the 15 Clean Air Act, it's the very process that we're 16 involved in began with a study. And in that study 17 there was a set of default standards that were 18 suggested. And in actual fact, the standards 19 proposed are significantly more stringent than the 20 default standards. Thank you. 21 MS. OGE: Thank you. Mr. Strassburger, 22 the only comment that I would make is that I did 23 have the opportunity to meet with a number of 24 members of Nissan last Tuesday, and I would strongly 25 recommend that for the written testimony, additional 00412 1 Maria Bechis - Sierra Club 2 testimony, that you need consolidate the information 3 that was provided to me on Tuesday and the testimony 4 that you have given us here today so the public can 5 have the full view of Nissan's perspective of this 6 program. 7 MR. STRASSBURGER: We will be submitting 8 written comments and we will also be commenting 9 through the Alliance and we expect to make several 10 recommendations in this area, in terms of structure, 11 evaluation metrics, et cetera. 12 MS. OGE: Thank you. Ms. Maria Bechis. 13 MS. BECHIS: Good morning. My name is 14 Maria Bechis. I am Vice Chair of Bucks County Group 15 of the Sierra Club. I am here not only as a 16 representative of an environmental advocacy 17 organization, but because I have witnessed firsthand 18 the debilitating impact of asthma on children and 19 adults. My nine-year-old daughter and 47-year-old 20 husband have asthma. My daughter took time off from 21 school yesterday morning to attend a press 22 conference in front of this EPA building. My 23 daughter and husband have difficulty breathing and 24 breathe painfully on bad ozone days in the summer. 25 My daughter did not undergo necessary surgery in 00413 1 Maria Bechis - Sierra Club 2 1997 because of her wheezing. 3 Death rates for asthmatic children, 4 rising 6 percent a year, have doubled between 1980 5 and 1993. Nearly 5 million children, 7 percent of 6 the population, have asthma. The medical treatment 7 for these children cost $6.2 billion a year. These 8 children sulfur miserably. They cannot play 9 outdoors in the summer and are dependent on 10 medications and inhalers. The Clean Air Act directs 11 the EPA to set air quality standards at levels that 12 protect public health with an adequate margin of 13 safety. The EPA must base their decisions on the 14 best available science and public health 15 considerations alone and must not consider the cost 16 of implementing such standards. That is the law. 17 To harried parents in hospital emergency rooms, no 18 cost is too high to protect the health and lives of 19 their children. 20 Volatile organic compounds, oxides of 21 nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide are the precursors for 22 ground level ozone, smog, and the particular matter 23 that cause excess mortality, hospital admissions for 24 respiratory diseases, and decreased lung function. 25 Bucks County, where my family resides, 00414 1 Maria Bechis - Sierra Club 2 does not meet air quality standards. We need 3 cleaner air to breathe. We, the Bucks County Group 4 of the Sierra Club, and an Sierra Club as a whole, 5 support Tier 2 standards for nitrogen oxide and 6 sulfur proposed by EPA for vehicle emissions and 7 gasoline which will slash smog-forming pollution. 8 We strongly urge the EPA not to heed the 9 oil industry and auto industry, especially sport 10 utility vehicle manufacturers to extend the time 11 line for implementation of these standards. 12 I brought with me something that little 13 children use with there inhalers. Because little 14 children have difficulty taking in the right dose, 15 they have these gadgets and they carry them around 16 with them in school and they attach their inhaler to 17 these gadgets and they must breathe through this so 18 that they get the appropriate dose of their 19 albuterol or other medications that they use for 20 asthma. And my daughter carries one of these around 21 in the spring and early summer when she is in school 22 because she does have difficulty breathing on bad 23 ozone days. These little gadgets are quite 24 expensive. They're $25 apiece. And she's quite 25 responsible; she hasn't lost hers. But when you 00415 1 Maria Bechis - Sierra Club 2 consider that little children misplace these things, 3 lose these things, damage these things, it can get 4 quite expensive for families. 5 And we'd like you to consider carefully 6 the increased benefits, the decreased number of days 7 children will be losing from school, the number of 8 days my husband loses from going to work. All of 9 this far outweighs the cost required to implement 10 these new standards. And we will respectfully 11 submit the comments to the panel the, EPA panel. 12 And to my comments I have attached a 13 letter that my 9-year-old has written for all of you 14 to see. Thank you for consideration. 15 MS. OGE: Would you like to read the 16 letter? 17 MS. BECHIS: It was a short letter that 18 she brought with her yesterday. And what she says 19 in this letter is: 20 "My name is Meggy Bechis. I am 9 years 21 old and I have asthma. We learned that I had asthma 22 in 1997. I was scheduled to have ear tubes put in 23 my ears, but when I went to Children's Hospital and 24 they listened to my chest. They hear Wheezing so 25 they didn't do my operation. It would be dangerous 00416 1 Maria Bechis - Sierra Club 2 because of the Wheezing. 3 "When there are hot summer days and 4 sometimes even in the winter, I have to use this 5 inhaler. It helps me breathe much better. It's 6 really hard to breathe especially when air is dirty. 7 Sometimes I can't play outside because it's too hard 8 to breathe. 9 "I am here to ask the EPA to stop 10 harmful chemicals from coming out of the tailpipes 11 of cars and trucks." 12 Thank you for your consideration. 13 MS. OGE: Thank you. 14 (Applause.) 15 MS. OGE: I have a question for Mr. 16 Kata. I believe you testified that VW recommends 17 bins of .6 grams per NOx until 2007 and potentially 18 .4 bins beyond 2007; is that accurate? 19 MR. KATA: Yes. 20 MS. OGE: I just want to ask is this 21 recommendation, would you consider this type of 22 recommendation if fuel, the diesel fuel, is clean? 23 Or you are suggesting that you need clean diesel 24 fuel to meet this .6 and .4 upper bin requirements? 25 MR. KATA: We need clean diesel fuel to 00417 1 2 meet the -- the recommendation for the .6 and .4 was 3 basically the endorsing the Alliance proposal. We 4 are a member of the Alliance and have worked with 5 them, and that recommendation was endorsed under the 6 Alliance proposal and would like to have those bins 7 available to allow us to continue development of 8 technology, particularly the area of advanced fuel 9 efficient technology over the period of time until 10 more advanced emission control systems can be 11 developed. 12 MS. OGE: But the .6 and .4 numbers that 13 you have suggested and the Alliance suggested could 14 be met with today's fuel or today's technologies? 15 MR. KATA: In some cases they can. 16 MS. OGE: And then Mr. Charbonneau 17 earlier testified that with cleaner diesel fuel -- 18 his company believes that they can meet the .07 19 grams per NOx standard that EPA has proposed. What 20 is your view on that or your company's view on that? 21 MR. KATA: With respect to the diesel 22 technology that we have been looking at and also 23 testified today the fact that the level compared to 24 California, we've made the comment that we would 25 need 30 ppm to get our light-duty diesels down to a 00418 1 2 level of .3 grams using aftertreatment technology, 3 namely, a de-NOx galleys. So that is about as far 4 we've gone on public record in terms of stating our 5 capabilities with light-duty diesels. 6 MS. OGE: Mr. Kata, let me see if I 7 understood what you said. You have testified that 8 the California Level 2 program that VW could meet -- 9 did you say .03? 10 MR. KATA: I think may have misspoke. 11 0.3. 12 MS. OGE: Okay, that's what I heard. 13 Why don't you correct the record. 14 MR. KATA: 0.3. 15 MS. OGE: O.3 with 30 ppm. 16 MR. KATA: That statement was made in 17 the contents of 30 ppm. 18 MS. OGE: Does your company have any 19 views about going further than .3 with cleaner fuel? 20 MR. KATA: I did allude to an SAE paper 21 where we have done some studies with fuels that are 22 available in Europe and these fuels are below 10 ppm 23 and show promise for both reduced engine emissions 24 and enable the technology using aftertreatment. 25 MS. OGE: Could you elaborate? What is 00419 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 it? Is it farther below .3? 3 MR. KATA: I don't have it. 4 MS. OGE: Along with your verbal 5 testimony, will you provide any additional 6 information about what your company is doing. Thank 7 you. 8 Any other comments. Thank you. 9 I would like to thank Ms. Maria Bechis 10 for coming away from home to meet with us to share 11 your testimony and your daughter's letter. Thank 12 you very much. Thank you all. 13 We will start with our 10:45 panel. We 14 would like John Crnko, Mr. Bruce Bertelsen. 15 Mr. Crnko, we will start with you this 16 morning. 17 MR. CRNKO: My name is John Crnko. I'm 18 with Antek. There's Antek industrial group. I'm 19 with the Antek instruments group. 20 This presentation is not necessarily 21 concerned with when or what levels of sulfur are 22 eventually mandated as the US moves toward cleaner 23 motor fuels. It does put forward the notion that no 24 matter what sulfur levels are targeted, US EPA 25 should designate as its primary method the most 00420 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 economical and capable ASTM test method. 3 In their proposed Tier 2 regulations, US 4 EPA has stated D2622, WDXRF, be designated as the 5 primary test method for sulfur. For the 6 determination of sulfur fuels in the future and 7 particularly at levels proposed by EPA, D5454, or 8 UVF, has proven to be a superior method to D2622. 9 This presentation will provide evidence that 10 demonstrates why D5453 should be designated as the 11 primary test method for sulfur in fuels. 12 Based on testimony heard so far during 13 these hearing, there can be little doubt that the US 14 marketplace will have lower sulfur fuels in its not 15 too distant future. Regardless how the proposed 16 sulfur levels and effective dates pan-out the 17 petroleum community will need its most accurate and 18 flexible tools. 19 If a gasoline sulfur program that is 20 similar to the current proposed EPA Tier 2 21 regulations is enacted, the oil industry will soon 22 be routinely analyzing motor fuels for very low 23 sulfur levels. Should the Averaging, Banking and 24 Trading or ABT provisions be enacted, refiners and 25 blenders will need to measure ever lower sulfur 00421 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 levels as they seek to earn maximum ABT sulfur 3 credits. 4 Obviously both regulations in industry 5 must consider the impact of producing low sulfur 6 fuels. 7 In September 1992, the California Air 8 Resources Board, or CARB, adopted regulations 9 requiring reformulation of California gasoline. The 10 CARB regulations established a comprehensive set as 11 of gasoline specifications designed to achieve 12 reductions in emissions of VOCs, NOx, carbon 13 monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and toxic air pollutants 14 from gasoline-fueled vehicles. The CARB regulations 15 also set standards for eight gasoline parameters: 16 Sulfur, benzene, olefins, aromatic hydrocarbons, 17 oxygen, Reid vapor pressure, and distillation 18 temperatures for the 50 percent and 90 percent 19 evaporation points. 20 During blending operations, the 21 specifications for benzene, olefins, Reid Vapor 22 pressure, et cetera, are sometimes met well before 23 the sulfur level reaches 30 parts per million. 24 Therefore, many current producers of gasoline for 25 California consumption routinely must measure 00422 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 gasoline with sulfur concentration at less than 15 3 parts per million. 4 US EPA is correct to seek comment as to 5 if ASTM D5453, sulfur by UVF, should be designated 6 as the primary sulfur test method. Currently D2622, 7 sulfur by WDXRF, has been designated as the only EPA 8 approved sulfur test method. However, the EPA has 9 recognized that in certain situations D2622 has 10 limitations. For instance, where 30 ppm to 80 cap, 11 low sulfur fuels must be produced, the EPA agreed to 12 recognize test methods allowed by the California 13 EPA. 14 As we know, in the mid-1990s gasoline 15 produced for California consumption was required to 16 meet 30 ppm average to 80 ppm cap sulfur 17 specifications. This prompted a group of refiners, 18 Western States Petroleum Association, or WSPA, to 19 petition the California Air Resources Board, CARB, 20 for more flexible and economic sulfur test methods. 21 What WSPA and CARB needed was an 22 economical test method that could measure very low 23 levels of sulfur while giving the same or equivalent 24 results as found when D2622 was used for the 25 analysis of higher sulfur levels. Various 00423 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 laboratory studies and cooperative multi-laboratory 3 testing revealed D5453 was such a sulfur test 4 method. The displayed California laws resulted. 5 Further evidence that the California law 6 was analytically sound is readily available. Under 7 ASTM leadership, an independently-run sample 8 cross-check testing program, allows individual 9 laboratories to participate in an ongoing sulfur 10 analysis comparison called Round Robin. 11 Data for samples containing less than 10 12 ppm sulfur has been collected from this ASTM 13 cross-check program. This data comes from about a 14 three-year time period ending around December '98. 15 This data was compiled by Southwest Research 16 Institute, or SWRI, and clearly illustrates that 17 D2622 has much higher relative standard deviation, 18 or RSD, with samples that contain less than 10 ppm 19 sulfur. 20 A convenient term to describe the 21 message delivered by this data is the term 22 "reproducibility." ASTM uses reproducibility to 23 express the degree of agreement that a group of 24 separate laboratories demonstrate when they analyze 25 the same sample using the same test method. The 00424 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 high D2622 RSD numbers indicate that different 3 laboratories would have trouble getting the same 4 answer. 5 Another critical analytical range lies 6 between 10 and 30 ppm. In this range, D2622 7 continues to have difficulty with sulfur levels less 8 than 15 ppm, as evidenced by the much higher RSD. 9 Note that around 30 ppm , D2622 can have an improved 10 reproducibility, but D5453 still have one-half the 11 variation exhibited by D2622. 12 These 10 to 30 milligram samples are 13 also from ASTM laboratory cross-check program. They 14 include reformulated gas. That's RFG that you see 15 up there. This table summarizes data generated 16 within the ASTM cross-check program between June of 17 '96 and approximately December 1998. 18 It should be emphasized here that all 19 this data being presented here today has been 20 independently produced and gathered. It's not 21 cooked up the Antek's Laboratories; it represents 22 work does by dozens of different laboratories and 23 often on a world-wide basis. 24 The superior performance of D5453 can be 25 illustrated. Here, the D5453 data from the previous 00425 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 two slides is graphed. You'll see X exist on the 3 horizontal, concentration milligrams per kilogram. 4 On Y axis is the standard deviation number. 5 This graph illustrates that D5453 is 6 capable of very good accuracy and between lab 7 reproducibility levels less than 30 ppm and is 8 particularly capable of accurate precise results 9 when sulfur levels get below 15 ppm. 10 Here D2622 performance for the same 11 samples are graphed. When compared to the previous 12 slide, D2622 reproducibility is clearly less than 13 that demonstrated by D5453. Again, the X axis is 14 concentration. Y axis is standard deviation. 15 D2622 should be designated as the 16 alternate test method because its results can be 17 unreliable at lower sulfur concentrations. D2622 18 has a proven record for determination of higher 19 level sulfur concentrations. 20 D5453 also has the analytical range to 21 provide equivalent sulfur results in higher 22 concentration fuels. Here is a collection of all 23 fuel samples analyzed by both D5453 and D2622 for 24 sulfur levels less than 500 parts per million, 25 again, from the ASTM laboratory cross-check program. 00426 1 John Crnko - Antek 2 It includes reformulated gasoline, motor 3 gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. This table 4 summarizes data generated within the ASTM 5 cross-check program between June 1996 and 6 approximately December 1998. 7 MS. OGE: Excuse me, Mr. Crnko. Your 8 time is almost up. 9 MR. CRNKO: This data confirms and 10 reinforces the conclusions of the WSPA and 11 California EPA regarding the equivalency of D2622 12 and D5453 for higher sulfur concentration samples. 13 D5453 provides superior sulfur test 14 results at lower sulfur levels and equivalent 15 measurements at higher sulfur concentration levels. 16 Allowing the use of D5453 could enable significant 17 capital savings for the fuel-producing community, 18 while giving them a better measurement tool as 19 sulfur concentrations continue to drop. 20 The D5453 test method has already been 21 approved by other regulating agencies and has proven 22 its worth time and time again in daily low sulfur 23 fuel production as well as in general use on a 24 worldwide basis. 25 D5453 should be designated as the 00427 1 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA 2 primary sulfur test method. D2622 and possibly 3 other ASTM test methodologies should be designated 4 as the alternate test methods. 5 MS. OGE: Mr. Crnko, please submit your 6 statement for the record. 7 Mr. Bertelsen. 8 MR. BERTELSEN: Good morning. My name 9 is Bruce Bertelsen. I'm the Executive Director of 10 the Manufactures of Emission Control Association. 11 MECA is pleased to present testimony in 12 support of the EPA's proposed Tier 2 standards and 13 limits on the sulfur levels in gasoline. We believe 14 an important opportunity exists to significantly 15 further reduce emissions from passenger cars and 16 light-duty trucks by utilizing a systems approach 17 which combines advanced engine designs, advanced 18 catalyst technology, and low sulfur fuel. EPA's 19 regulatory initiative recognizes the importance of 20 promoting this systems-type approach and the 21 Agency's proposal constitutes a carefully crafted 22 and balanced program that, it finalized, will result 23 in substantial cost-effective emission reductions 24 over the next several decades. 25 MECA is a non-profit association made up 00428 1 Bruce Bertelsen - MECA 2 of the world's leading manufacturers of motor 3 vehicle emission controls. Our members include 4 companies with over 25 years of experience and a 5 proven track record in developing and 6 commercializing exhaust control technology. 7 Today I'd like to briefly summarize 8 MECA's position on EPA's proposed initiative. MECA 9 plans to submit more detailed written comments. 10 We believe the EPA standards for 11 vehicles greater than 8500 pounds are 12 technologically feasible. The proposed standards 13 pose engineerin