<DOC>
[105 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:53121.wais]
S. Hrg. 105-945
ACID DEPOSITION CONTROL ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CLEAN AIR, WETLANDS, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 1097
A BILL TO REDUCE ACID DEPOSITION UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
__________
OCTOBER 6, 1998
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred fifth congress
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear
Safety
JAMES M. INHOFE, North Carolina, Chairman
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BOB GRAHAM, Florida
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
Page
OCTOBER 6, 1998
OPENING STATEMENTS
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3, 9
Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 13
Article, Acid Precipitation and Scientific Fallout, by
Senator Moynihan........................................... 18
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 4
Article, Atmospheric Dust and Acid Rain, Scientific American,
December 1996.............................................. 5
WITNESSES
D'Amato Hon. Alfonse M., U.S. Senator from the State of New York. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Kropp, Edward, Assistant Chief, West Virginia Office of Air
Quality........................................................ 25
Prepared statement........................................... 62
McLean, Brian J., Director, Acid Rain Division, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 60
Senator Inhofe........................................... 61
Senator Moynihan......................................... 57
Senator Sessions......................................... 59
Melewski, Bernard, Counsel and Legislative Director, Adirondack
Council........................................................ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Responses to additional questions from Senator Moynihan...... 67
Solomon Hon. Jerry, U.S. Representative from the State of New
York........................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Tyndall, William F., Vice President, Environmental Service,
Cinergy Corporation............................................ 28
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Moynihan......................................... 74
Senator Sessions......................................... 72
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM)...................................................... 105
Recommendations, STAPA/ALAPCO.................................... 97
Report, Air Pollution Delays in Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs
Jeopardize Attainment of the Ozone Standard, General Accounting
Office......................................................... 82
Resolution, Adirondack Park Agency............................... 93
Statements:
Adirondack Park Agency....................................... 90
Hubbard Brook Research Foundation............................ 98
New York State Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco.............. 94
New England Council.......................................... 100
Ozone Attainment Coalition................................... 100
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) 101
Support Document, Alternative Proposal by Southeast/Midwest
Governors' Ozone Coalition..................................... 107
Text of S. 1097, Acid Deposition Control Act..................... 136
ACID DEPOSITION CONTROL ACT
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and
Nuclear Safety,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Allard, Sessions, and Chafee [ex
officio].
Senator Inhofe. The subcommittee will please come to order.
We have several simultaneous meetings taking place right
now. I know I had one, the Readiness Committee, downstairs. I
know that Representative Solomon has his committee meeting.
So, I'll forego my statement and go ahead and recognize you
at this time to make any statement you want, then we'll go back
to the regular order, in deference to your schedule. Is that
all right?
Mr. Solomon. Senator, I would deeply appreciate that. I
have to bang the gavel to send you Senators some vital
legislation so we can get out of here in a few days.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I have to say that one of the only
regrets I have about leaving the House is I left your
companionship on a regular basis.
Mr. Solomon. We're very proud of having you over here
representing my personal views, because you and I think a lot
alike, Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY SOLOMON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Solomon. Senator, let me thank you again for the
opportunity to speak on this subject here today. I also would
like to thank my colleague, Senator Moynihan, who I understand
has the flu and probably will not be able to be here today. He
is vitally interested in this legislation as well, as is
Senator D'Amato, who will be here, for their valuable work on
an issue that is so very important to my particular district,
but the entire northeast as well.
And that issue is the very real and necessary changes that
need to be made to strengthen the Clean Air Act, to continue
fighting acid rain and air pollution. The legislation before
the committee today as introduced in this body by again, my
good friends, Senator Moynihan and Senator D'Amato, will build
on the Clean Air Act and the provisions dealing with the
pollution most responsible for acid rain.
And I was pleased to introduce this companion legislation
in the House and to have the support of the entire New York
delegation as well as all Democrats and Republicans from al of
the New England States. That's how serious the issue is, Mr.
Chairman.
Although we've made tremendous progress in cutting
pollution through the original Clean Air Act, it hasn't been
enough to reduce the pollution responsible for acid rain and
excessive air contamination that we suffer in the northeast.
The forest and the waterways of the Hudson Valley, including
the Catskills and the Adirondacks where I live, as well as the
Green Mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire and on into Maine,
have literally become a dumping ground for this pollution and
they will be destroyed if we don't do something about it.
In fact, in studies as early as 1984, 20 percent of the
Adirondack lakes, and we have literally hundreds and hundreds
of lakes throughout the Adirondacks, 20 percent of them were
dead. That means no fish, entirely. And 55 percent were highly
acidic and that means that they are going to suffer the same
results.
These statistics will only get worse in the future. And as
an outdoorsman myself and a lifelong hunter and fisherman, and
a lifelong resident of this beautiful region, I witnessed with
my own eyes, as have my children and now my grandchildren, the
slow deterioration of the woods, the lakes and streams. It's
truly heartbreaking, Mr. Chairman, to think that we in the
Congress have not been able to produce legislation to reverse
the pollution that continues its daily destruction.
And you know, Mr. Chairman, I am not one of these flaming
environmentalists. I try to look at things from a practical
point of view. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, you know
that even thought I'm one of the northeasterners, I always vote
with those west of the Mississippi and Oklahomans and those
from western States on their special issues, because they do
have different issues than we might have in the northeast and
we all need to consider each other's.
I've got an extended written testimony that goes into
specifics on the details, Mr. Chairman. But I do have to get
back to my committee. Let me ask unanimous consent to submit
that for the record and then urge the committee to pass this
legislation.
It's time that we really all recognized that acid rain is a
serious problem. There's only one way to do it, and that's to
not make drastic changes but make changes that will allow us to
begin to reverse that course. That will save those mountains.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection, your entire statement
will be in the record. Let me ask you one question before you
leave, and I know you do have to leave. You drafted your
legislation prior to the EPA taking action a couple of weeks
ago on the SIPs and NOx. Is the main difference between yours
and the new rules that the EPA came out with subsequent to your
drafting your legislation the regional aspect and the level of
the cap?
Mr. Solomon. Yes. That's one of the primary differences. In
other words, Mr. Chairman, again, we only want to go back to
1984. We don't want to make drastic changes. But if we could go
back to that level, it would reverse, in other words, the acid
rain, it would make all the difference in the world.
And again, I'd be glad to submit specific answers for you
in writing if you would like.
Senator Inhofe. That's fine.
Congressman Solomon, we're very happy to have you here.
Your entire statement will be in the record, and you may go to
your meeting.
Mr. Solomon. Thank you very much. I'd like to apologize to
my good Senator and my great friend from New York, I've got to
go bang the gavel to send you over some vital legislation, so
that you can get out of here at a reasonable time, too.
Thank you very much, and thank you for the good job you're
doing.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Congressman Solomon.
Senator D'Amato, we have foregone our opening statements,
and if you're on a short time line, we'll let you go ahead and
make your statement now if you'd like. If not, we'll make our
statements for the record, and the choice is yours.
Senator D'Amato. Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply appreciative of
your holding this hearing. And indeed, inasmuch as Congressman
Solomon has already finished and you've been so accommodating.
Let me thank you for holding this hearing at this late date. We
in the northeast and New York in particular that have this
problem are tremendously concerned. And we really are looking
for relief. So I'd be very pleased to pass up your generous
offer and listen to the Chairman and my friend, Senator
Sessions, make their remarks.
Senator Inhofe. All right, Senator D'Amato. You're probably
aware, I understand that Senator Moynihan will not be able to
be here. We will be putting his statement in. He's suffering
from the flu right now.
Senator D'Amato. Yes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Before we go any further, I'd like to point
out that today is the twelfth hearing of our subcommittee this
Congress. We've covered a broad range of issues. We actually
had six hearings on the NAAQS issue, which is one that endured
a year and a half, we had hearings on regional haze, mercury,
wetlands, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and FEMA. In addition,
we have marked up the FEMA bill and passed it into law, a very
important amendment on the NAAQS standards, which was included
in the highway bill.
Those who talk about a do-nothing Congress are ignoring one
of the most important roles of Congress, and that is oversight.
An important measure of the Congress is how it performs its
oversight responsibilities. And I'm proud of the number of
oversight hearings we have held on a variety of topics. We will
continue to do that in future years.
In today's hearing, of course, Senator Moynihan is not
going to be able to be here. We've already heard from
Congressman Solomon. We will hear in a moment from Senator
D'Amato.
This hearing follows by 2 weeks the recent rulemaking by
the EPA to reduce nitrogen oxides in the eastern 22 States area
through the OTAG process. That rulemaking places limits on NOx
emissions by State. While the Clean Air Act does not authorize
a trading program for NOx, I certainly support market based
approaches, such as that which is contained in your bill.
I'd like to ask the witnesses to keep two points in mind
today, and that is, the need to incorporate more market-based
approaches into the Clean Air Act. For example, by broadening
the cap and trade programs, in effect, this legislation, in
light of the recent OTAG rule. In other words, Senator D'Amato,
your legislation was drafted prior to the rule that came out 2
weeks ago. And we'd like to have your idea and your assessment
as to how your legislation would compare to that.
We'll have a second group coming in right after, a second
panel after we complete this. And I'd ask at this time, Senator
Sessions, if you have any opening comments to make before we
hear from Senator D'Amato.
Senator Sessions. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. You have really spent a lot of time and
effort on these issues, and I appreciate that. The country has
benefited from it. I have been with you on field hearings and
many hearings here in Washington.
There are a number of successful programs that have already
been implemented to control nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide.
EPA emissions data indicates 1995 sulfur dioxide emissions were
reduced almost 40 percent below their required level. Further
reductions will occur in 2000 when phase two of the Acid
Deposition title of the Clean Air Act is implemented.
I'm concerned, however, about additional restrictions
future regulations will have on the utility industry. All of us
utilize the power that comes from that industry. EPA proposed a
one-size-fits-all OTAG implementation plan despite some
scientific conclusions that regional reductions would have
minimal impact on long range non-attainment areas. As Senator
Robert Byrd said on the Floor the other day, we may be imposing
very high costs in one area, yet little or virtually no benefit
in another area.
The further reduction of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide
as proposed by this bill, while beneficial in many ways, in
light of recent OTAG call for the upcoming implementation of
their phase two acid rain program, it raises some questions for
me. I'm concerned about over-burdening the States with
additional regulations and believe it's important for the
existing regulations to take effect so we can ascertain the
impacts of those regulations before going forward with another
initiative.
I would say this to Senator D'Amato, I am certainly, I
respect him and his leadership in this body. And I know that he
is determined to make sure that the health and safety and
environmental conditions in his State and area are properly
protected. I am certainly open to that, and look forward to
considering this legislation.
We've got to be careful that what we do has a scientific
basis and does in fact produce benefits in comparison to the
cost that's imposed. And I would mention as an example of that,
an article that I circulated to every member of this committee
within weeks of my arriving here. I read it in Scientific
American on the airplane coming up to my first visit to the
U.S. Senate. It was in Scientific American in December 1996.
It talked about the unintended consequence of some of our
actions, because it reduces the base particles in the air,
which are the particles that neutralize acid. The conclusion
was that even though we've made some very huge changes in what
we've done, we may not have impacted the acidity problem as
much as we thought, because we were reducing the neutralizing
base at the same time we were reducing acid.
So I am open-minded about this. I look forward to working
with you, and Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this
hearing.
[The referenced article follows:]
Atmospheric Dust and Acid Rain
(by Lars O. Hedin and Gene E. Likens)
emissions of acidic air pollutants have fallen dramatically. why is
acid rain still a problem? atmospheric dust may be part of the answer.
For the past several decades, scientists have been studying acid
rain and how it affects the environment. As the harmful consequences of
acidic air pollutants became increasingly clear, governments in North
America and Europe began to regulate emissions of these compounds.
Countries in the European Union enacted a variety of laws to control
the release of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides; the Clean Air Act
imposed similar regulations in the U.S. Policymakers expected these
reductions to rejuvenate forests lakes and streams in many regions. In
some respects, the issue seemed wrapped up.
But the problem of acid rain has not gone away. Why is the rain
falling on parts of Europe and North America still acidic, despite
tighter controls on pollution? And why do some natural ecosystems--in
particular, forests--show levels of damage from acid rain ``rearer than
scientists originally predicted?
Recent findings suggest that acid rain is a much more complex
phenomenon than previously though!. Results from several studies point
to the unexpected but critical role of chemicals in the atmosphere
known as bases, which can counteract the effects of acid rain by
neutralizing acidic pollutants. We have found that all the attention
given to acidic compounds in the atmosphere has obscured the fact that
emissions of bases have also decreased. A number of factors seem to be
diminishing the level of these atmospheric bases and in the process
aggravating the ecological effects of acid rain. Ironically, among
these factors are some of the very steps that governments have taken to
improve air quality.
Acids and bases are measured by what is known as the phi scale:
solutions with a pH of less than 7 are acidic; those with a pH greater
than 7 are basic; those with a pH of 7 are neutral Common acids around
the home include vinegar, orange juice and beer; ammonia, baking soda
and antacid tablets are all bases. Most of the bases in the atmosphere
can be found in airborne particles referred to as atmospheric dust.
These dust particles are rich in minerals such as calcium carbonate and
magnesium carbonate, which act as bases when they dissolve in water.
Atmospheric dust particles originate from a combination of sources.
Fossil fuel combustion and industrial activities, such as cement
manufacturing, mining operations and metal processing, generate
particles that contain bases. Constructionsites, farms and traffic on
unpaved roads also contribute. Sources such as forest fires and erosion
caused by wind blowing over arid soils with little vegetation are
considered natural yet can still be linked to human activity.
A Natural Antacid
In the air, dust particles can neutralize acid rain in a manner
similar to the way antacids counteract excess acid in an upset stomach.
In a sense, when an acid and a base combine, they cancel each other
out, producing a more neutral substance. Neutralization in the
atmosphere lakes place as dust particles dissolve into acidic cloud-
waler droplets or combine directly with acidic gases such as sulfur
dioxide or nitrogen oxides. These reactions also generate so-called
base cations--a term used to describe the positively charged atoms of
elements such as calcium and magnesium that arise when mineral bases
dissolve in water.
In addition to lowering the acidity of precipitation, atmospheric
base cations also neutralize acid rain once they reach the ground--
although the chemistry is a bit different than in the atmosphere. Small
particles of clay and humus (decayed organic matter) in soil bear
negative and thus attract positively charged cations, such as calcium
and magnesium; as a result, soils contain a natural store of base
cations attached to these particles. As acidic rainwater drains into
the ground, the base cations give up their places to the positively
charged hydrogen ions found in acids, which bind more tightly to the
soil particles. Because these particles sequester hydrogen ions, the
acidity of the water that flows through the soil stays low. In some
soils the process becomes more complex: acid rain triggers the
dissolution of toxic aluminum ions that also displace the base cations.
As long as the soil has an abundant supply of base cations, this
buffering system, known as carton exchange, protects forests from the
harmful effects of acid rain. But the natural reserves of base cations
can become depleted if soils that are naturally poor in bases are
exposed to acid rain over decades, as has been the case in regions of
Europe and North America. In these areas, hydrogen ions and aluminum
ions have displaced a large part of the available base cations in
soils, allowing levels of aluminum to rise and leaving the soil highly
acidic. Furthermore, such acidified soils can no longer protect
downstream ecosystems from acid rain: waters that drain these forests
carry both acids and aluminum into streams, lakes and rivers.
Dust particles may serve one other important role. Elements such as
calcium and magnesium, as well as sodium and potassium--all of which
can be found in mineral dust--are essential nutrients for most plants.
Acid rain not only dislodges these elements from clay and humus
particles, from which plants get most of their nutrients, it also
washes them into rivers and streams, depleting the ecosystem of its
store of minerals.
With the exception of early work in the 1950's by Hans Egner of
Uppsala Agricultural University in Sweden and Eville Gorham of the
Freshwater Biological Association laboratory in England, scientists
have not paid much attention to the idea that the atmosphere can be a
major source of base cations found in soils. Scientists have
traditionally thought that the slow dissolution of minerals and rocks
in deeper parts of the soil replenished base cations, in a natural
process called chemical weathering.
But recent findings, including our own studies, are now revising
the general view of how bases enter soils and how forests depend on
atmospheric inputs of minerals and nutrients. In some forests the
atmosphere actually appears to be the main source of base canons. These
new results suggest that many forests are more sensitive to changes in
atmospheric chemistry than scientists once believed.
Less Dust, More Damage
Efforts to reduce emissions of acidic air pollutants offered
encouraging results at first: levels of atmospheric sulfur, for
instance, have dropped dramatically over the past three decades in much
of Europe and eastern North America. The two of us became concerned,
however, that policymakers and scientists alike might be neglecting the
role of atmospheric bases in their attempts to evaluate whether these
reductions in sulfur compounds have benefited the environment.
Considering the significance of basic chemicals to both forest growth
and the prevention of acid rain, we decided to investigate whether
levels of atmospheric dust have also changed over rime in response to
lower emissions imposed by new regulations.
Regulations to limit emissions of dust were enacted because, as
scientists have known for some time, microscopic particles suspended in
the air can cause a range of health problems when inhaled; they also
degrade visibility and contribute to a host of other environmental
problems. Governments in North America and Europe have for over 90
years designated acceptable air-quality standards for particulate
matter; these regulations were quite distinct from those focusing on
acidic pollution. (Atmospheric dust from other sources appears to have
dropped off as well: Gary J. Stensland and Donald F. Gatz of the
Illinois State Water Survey have found that emissions of particles
containing bases have fallen in response to less traffic on unpaved
roads.)
Working together with European scientists, we began by evaluating
the longest records of precipitation chemistry that can be found in
eastern North America and western Europe. By measuring base cations
dissolved in snow and rainwater we can keep track of the levels of
mineral bases in the atmosphere and monitor the input of these base
cations into forest ecosystems. Our findings were startling: we
discovered that atmospheric bases have declined at unexpectedly steep
rates during the past 10 to 30 years. The longest existing North
American record, collected at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in
New Hampshire, showed a 49 percent drop in atmospheric base cations
since 1965.
On the other side of the Atlantic we found that the longest-running
high quality European record, from the forested area of Sjoangen in
southern Sweden, showed a 74 percent decrease in base cations since
1971. Our analyses of several other records confirmed with few
exceptions that atmospheric bases have declined precipitously across
extended areas of Europe and North America.
But have these cuts in atmospheric bases been strong enough to
counteract--or even nullify--the environmental benefits of reductions
in acidic emissions? Our research indicates that this indeed has been
the case. We found that the decline in bases has often mirrored the
downturn in atmospheric sulfur, at rates sharp enough to offset a large
part of the drop in sulfur compounds. For example, we found that the
decrease in base cations canceled out between 54 and 68 percent of the
reductions in atmospheric sulfur in Sweden and up tO 100 percent at
some locations in eastern North America. These trends mean that
declines in bases have kept the atmosphere sensitive to acidic
compounds despite reduced emissions of these chemicals. When we began
this work, we certainly did not anticipate that reductions in one form
of pollutants--dust particles--would be found to decrease the success
of reductions of another pollutant, sulfur dioxide.
The numerous sources of dust particles and the often sketchy
information on emissions of particulates make it difficult to determine
why these sharp reductions in atmospheric bases have occurred. We do
know that new and cleaner industrial techniques, developed in
accordance with regulations on the release of particulate matter, have
been an important factor. For example, improved combustion efficiency
and the practice of scrubbing particles from smokestacks have curtailed
particulate pollution associated with the burning of fossil fuels.
Evaluating the contribution of more diffuse sources of dust--traffic,
agricultural methods and wind erosion, for instance--has been more
difficult. But our studies suggest that the decline in dust particles
mainly reflects changes in human behavior as opposed to natural
variations.
A Major Source of Nutrients
Scientists have watched for years as calcium, magnesium and
potassium levels have dropped in forest soils around the world. For
example, Leif Hallbacken and Carl Olof Tamm, both at Uppsala
Agricultural University in Sweden, have documented losses of 56 tO 74
percent of the available cations in Norway spruce forests over the past
60 years. Other reports show similarly dramatic losses of base cations
in England, Germany and the U.S. Several recent studies of ailing
forests show that the precipitous loss of base cations can be a key
factor in the phenomenon of forest decline. Ernst-Detlef Schulze and
his colleagues at the University of Bayreuth have argued that depletion
of magnesium in soils has played a significant role in the dwindling of
spruce forests in the Fichtelgebirge of Germany. Although their
evidence is less clear, researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee, led by Samuel B. McLaughlin, have found that the slowdown in
growth of red spruce trees in the southern Appalachian Mountains
correlates with lower availability of calcium in soils. Interestingly,
small-scale experiments involving fertilization of some forests with
base cations, particularly calcium and magnesium, have ameliorated
damage--in the sugar maple forests of Quebec, for instance, and in
Norway spruce and silver fir forests of Germany and France.
Reports such as these made us wonder whether certain soils are
suffering not only because of continued exposure to acid rain but also
because they do not receive enough base cations from the atmosphere.
Scientists can now pinpoint the origin of base cations and trace their
movements through forest ecosystems by looking at the natural isotopes
of the element strontium (determined by evaluating the number of
neutrons in the nucleus of a strontium atom), which can be used as a
tracer for calcium. Strontium atoms that derive from the bedrock and
those that come from the atmosphere tend to exist as different mixtures
of isotopes. This technique has illustrated that atmospheric dust is in
fact a critical source of mineral ions in many forest ecosystems.
Moreover, in certain regions, where soils tend to be damaged by
acid rain or naturally low in base cations, most of the calcium appears
to come from the atmosphere rather than the bedrock. For instance, we
have determined that in unpolluted forests of Chile, the dominant tree
species, the southern beech, feeds on calcium that originates almost
exclusively in the atmosphere.
These observations suggest that many forests depend quite heavily
on the atmosphere for a supply of mineral bases; the drops in
atmospheric base cations have therefore led to a slower replenishment
of critical bases and nutrients in forest soils. Of course, natural
levels of atmospheric dust have always varied, but across centuries or
millennia. Studies conducted by Paul A. Mayewski and his coworkers at
the University of New Hampshire on ice cores from Greenland indicate
that the amounts of dust and calcium in the atmosphere have been
strongly affected by climate variations over the past 20,000 years. In
the coldest and driest global climates, high levels of calcium and dust
prevailed, whereas wetter and warmer periods saw low concentrations.
Analysis of modern trends, from around 700 A.D. to the present,
suggests that current quantities of dust are relatively low compared
with conditions during the past 20,000 years. One notable exception was
the Dust Bowl, the extended drought of the mid-1930's in the western
U.S.
Remaining Questions
As scientists have discovered the importance of bases in the
atmosphere and, more recently, the link between emissions of
atmospheric dust and nutrients in the soil, they have begun to paint a
new picture of how forests respond to atmospheric pollution. This
emerging view suggests that the effects of acid rain are more complex
than expected and that the damage caused by the pollution is more
serious than predicted. For instance, the widely quoted conclusion from
the 1990 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (the most
recent evaluation of the problem of acid rain by the U.S. government),
that there was no clear evidence linking acid rain to forest damage, no
longer seems tenable.
It is entirely feasible that continuing acid rain, in combination
with limited supplies of base cations, could produce environmental
conditions to which many plant species, particularly in sensitive
ecosystems, have never been exposed in the course of Heir evolution.
Consequently, predicting how they will respond over the next several
decades will be extremely difficult. And effects may not be limited to
plants. Jaap Graveland and his colleagues at the University of
Groningen, have noted chat certain birds, such as the great tits of the
Netherlands produce thinner, more fragile eggs in forests that have
been heavily damaged by acid rain and have low stores of calcium in the
soil.
What can we do about acid rain and atmospheric dust? Suggestions
range from the improbable to the feasible. After the publication of one
of our recent papers, a reader wrote proposing that forests might be
saved by a hot-air balloon campaign to drop calcium-rich particles from
the skies--a costly and impractical solution. Deliberate increases in
the release of particulates are also unrealistic and would set back
progress in air pollution control by decades. One reasonable
suggestion, however, is to reduce emissions of acidic pollutants to
levels that can be buffered by narural quantities of basic compounds in
the armosphere; such a goal would mean continued reductions in sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides, perhaps even greater than those prescribed
in the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act in the U.S.
The ecological dilemma of atmospheric dust will very likely be widh
us for some time: base cations take years to buildup in soils, and it
may take decades or more for forests to recover Their depleted pools of
nutrienrs, even if levels of acidic air pollution continue to fall. In
the meantime, researchers and governments must develop careful
strategies not only for monitoring the current health of forests but
also for predicting Their stability in the next century and beyond.
Simple solutions do not always work in complex ecosystems.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
I think also we have a concern about the layering and
layering of these regulations. If everything you and I said at
this table the last year and a half, and have gone over this,
and this has a cumulative effect that makes us noncompetitive
and makes us question the sound science. So I know we share
those concerns.
Senator D'Amato, if you'd like to make your statement.
Senator D'Amato. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and
Senator Sessions, particularly yourself for holding this
hearing as late as this in the session. I'm deeply appreciative
of that. I want to express appreciation of the Senior Senator
from New York, Senator Moynihan, who as you have indicated,
will not be able to be with us. He does have a case of the flu
and could not be here.
I'm going to ask that my full statement be placed in the
record as if read in its entirety.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection.
Senator D'Amato. A magnificent statement, it is a beautiful
statement.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Before we do that, I have a magnificent
opening statement, too. So without objection, mine will be in
there with yours.
[The prepared statement of Senators Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma
Before we begin today's hearing, I would like to point out that
today is the twelfth hearing of our subcommittee this Congress. We have
covered a broad range of issues:--a series of six hearings on the NAAQS
standards, ozone and PM,--hearings on Regional Haze and Mercury,--a
hearing on wetlands,--the first NRC hearing in 4 years, and--the first
general FEMA hearing in 7 years.
In addition we marked up a FEMA Bill and passed into law a very
important amendment on the NAAQS standards which was included in the
Highway Bill. Those who talk about a do-nothing Congress are ignoring
one of the most important roles of Congress, that of oversight. An
important measure of a Congress is how it preforms its oversight
responsibilities. I am proud of the number of oversight hearings we
have held and the variety of topics. However, I will say for every
hearing held there is probably another ten topics that deserve
hearings. In the next Congress, it is my intention to increase the
oversight responsibilities of this Subcommittee.
Today's hearing is on Senator Moynihan and Senator D'Amato's acid
rain bill, S. 1097. The Bill calls for a new Cap and Trade program for
nitrogen oxides and a lowering of the current Cap for sulfur dioxide,
in order to reduce acid rain.
This hearing, follows by 2 weeks, the recent rulemaking by the EPA
to reduce nitrogen oxides in the Eastern 22 State area through the OTAG
process. That rulemaking places limits for NOx emissions by State.
While the Clean Air Act does not authorize a trading program for NOx, I
certainly support market-based approaches, like the one in S. 1097, for
dealing with pollution. Three weeks ago I gave a Clean Air
Reauthorization speech in which I called for more market-based
approaches to be incorporated into the Act. I intend for
reauthorization hearings to cover this topic next year.
I would like to ask today's witnesses to keep these two points in
mind during your testimony.
1) The need to incorporate more market-based approaches into the
Clean Air Act, for example by broadening the cap and trade programs,
and
2) The effect of this legislation in light of the recent OTAG rule.
I do have concerns, however, in how the EPA is layering regulation
upon regulation. Just in the last year we have had the new ozone
standard, the Particulate Matter standard, and the Regional Haze rule;
all addressing the same particles. Now we have the new SIP call for
NOx. While it appears that they are trying to turn these particles into
endangered species; the effect is they are turning jobs into endangered
species; particularly coal miners. This next year, I will be asking the
General Accounting Office to examine the cumulative impacts of all of
these regulatory programs on the economy.
We have a very distinguished first panel today, the primary
sponsors of the legislation. Senators Moynihan and D'Amato and
Congressman Solomon, the lead sponsor for the House companion Bill.
While I may not agree with everything in the legislation, we can
certainly find common ground in their market-based approach to the
problem.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator D'Amato. It is filled with the kind of data and
information that I think the former Attorney General of
Alabama, who is a man of detail, will find interesting. And I
think it's important.
But indeed, the essence of S. 1097, the Acid Deposition
Control Act, which has been introduced by Senator Moynihan and
myself, has been the product of a number of years worth of
study. You know, people generally think of New York in the
context of New York City. It's understandable, because it's the
Big Apple that gets written about.
When things aren't going well, we all hear about the crime,
the infestation, the welfare rolls. When things go well, we
hear about the renaissance. And we're pleased that people have
been hearing about the renaissance, have been coming to the
city, enjoying the great restaurants, the theaters, and of
course, our hopefully world championship Yankees this year.
They play this evening, they play Cleveland. I notice none of
the members of the panel are from Ohio, so I can do a little
braggadocio. We want to even the score. They knocked us out, as
you know, last year.
Having said that, that is not an accurate picture. Even the
great city of New York is not an accurate picture of what New
York is about. It's about magnificent lakes and rivers and
forests, forests that are among the greatest in this country.
The Adirondack Range, 2,800 lakes, magnificent, magnificent.
It is about farming. It is about an agricultural community
of tens of thousands of dairy farmers, vegetable farmers, apple
farmers. We have the second largest apple crop in the United
States of America. We're about fourth in dairy. I daresay, many
people are not aware of that. We're a $4 billion industry in
agriculture.
You see, we are not really understood by many. By many even
within the State, forget about being out of the State. When do
you ever hear about the great agriculture? When do you ever
hear about the pristine lakes and rivers, etc., that are about
our State? About the 6.7 million people who live west of the
Hudson who encompass it and who create a major part of that.
Of course, Congressman Solomon represents a significant
portion of that area covered by the Adirondacks. Significant,
not all of it. But a significant portion.
So it is with this in mind that I place in front of you
that we have been assaulted by airborne terrorism for far too
long. We have complied with all the EPA requirements, and
indeed, in terms of dealing with the waste, with the emissions,
have made remarkable strides. We could close all of our power
plants, all of our factories, and never be able to accomplish
the attainment called for because of that airborne terrorism.
Now, I want to say to you in all fairness, gentlemen, if we
were to eliminate every moving truck, car, every factory and
still have airborne terrorism knocking out our lakes, and by
the year 2040, it is estimated that of the 2,800 lakes, 43 will
be so acidic that we can't use them.
And we know where it's coming from. We know that if you
build giant smokestacks 600 and 700 and 800 feet into the air,
you discharge your pollutants, so that the State or the place
where the emissions are coming from never feel them. They enter
the jet stream and carry to the northeast.
Now, it's pretty good to say, now, listen, I have to worry
about the cost of this, and what will the cost be, if you're
not the State or the people being bombarded. But if you're
being bombarded and your lakes and your forests are being
knocked out, that is not good enough.
I note that the Senator, and the Chairman indicated quite
correctly that the public-private working together, the
purchase by those in non-attainment zones, etc., those work.
They haven't provided that, the EPA, it doesn't relate to
nitrogen oxide. However, in terms of the sulfur dioxide, where
they once estimated it would cost $1,500 a ton, they're doing
it for $150 a ton. It does work. It does not have to put
businesses out.
But you can no longer, because the great Senator from West
Virginia is worried that coal, dirty coal, will have a maybe
less economic impact, maybe others will turn to natural gas,
maybe it will not have the economic value to his region, you
can't permit the bombardment of the northeast into these
forest. It's just not right.
And I would suggest that if we had the reverse taking
place, that any one of my colleagues and their States, they
would have an absolute right and an obligation to say, come on,
let's take a look at this, how do we deal with this. That's
what we're talking about here.
So while it's easy to say what is the cost and should we
take a look at it, let's take a look at the cost of not doing
it. We've lost 500 of the 2,800 lakes already. They're lost. If
we continue this, we're going to lose the majority of these
lakes. It's not what we can or should be about.
So that's why we offered this legislation. And it is
prudent legislation, it provides an opportunity over a period
of time. But it does call for the kinds of reductions that
people have a right to know that their Government does care
about the quality of life.
And we didn't even get into the asthma, we didn't get into
the health situation. And that is a problem, and it is a
problem precipitated by that kind of flow.
Last but not least, I want to say that the measures offered
by the EPA, I think they call it the SIP program, are not
nearly adequate enough. You may have some questions here and
think they are over-reaching. They are not. Let me say that
they give us some relief during the summer, none during the
winter. I cannot understand for the life of me why they would
engage in that. Maybe in an attempt to minimize the cost.
But the fact is that what happens is during the winter,
your snow, the accumulation of the snow will have this acid in
it, and thereafter, when you have the spring thaw, it is a
bombardment into those lakes. The acidity is incredible.
So it is not adequate, and Senator Moynihan's legislation
and mine goes to that. We set up reductions, we set up
standards, we set up timetables. We have done this with the
help of some of the great scientists. We did not just pick
numbers out, working with our State environmental people and
others, to arrive at these figures, bringing about annual
reductions.
I think it's prudent. I hope that staff will have an
opportunity to look at it, to examine it, to see in detail what
kinds of changes may or may not be suggested.
But that's the problem. We have this airborne terrorism.
And again, we can never, never protect those lakes. If we were
to shut down every moving vehicle in New York, close all of our
factories, we would still have this same degradation of the
quality of life.
And so that's the problem that I put forth to my
colleagues. I would hope we would have an understanding. It's
more than simply saying, what will the costs be. What's the
cost if we don't? And how can we do this within reason?
We're not looking to hurt any region. Believe me, we're
not. But I have to tell you, if we're not burning dirty coal,
and if we had to put in scrubbers where we are burning coal,
and we do have to reduce that. We've had to turn to natural
gas. And how and why is it that we should allow the
continuation of this? Because there are some who took advantage
of the existing law, which does not, and which provided them
with the opportunity of building the big stacks to avoid that
kind of cost.
That cost is being borne by others. And the degradation to
our quality of life continues. So it's real, it's a real
problem, it's not imaginary. I wouldn't come here and tell you,
and make this up because it sounds good. It is a real problem
for us.
I thank the committee for their patience, for their
understanding, and you, Mr. Chairman, in particular for your
thoughtfulness, from the fact that you have held a dozen
hearings to look and see where is the proper balance in terms
of legislation and the impact that legislation will have to try
to improve all of our qualities of life.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator D'Amato. And your
observation is very accurate. I know most of my adult life,
I've thought of New York as being New York City, until I had
occasion to spend time up there. Everything you say is true,
and you certain champion the cause of the potential harm that
can be done to that area. I'm sure people are appreciative of
it.
I think you've answered my question, when I asked the
question that the EPA rules that came out after you had already
drafted your legislation, you still feel are inadequate, is
that correct?
Senator D'Amato. Yes, absolutely. Again, as I mentioned to
you, Mr. Chairman, there is no factory, I think it works for 4
months in the winter time, there's no controls whatsoever. The
buildup, the deposition of the acidity is such that when you
have the spring thaw, it is an actual shock to the lake, when
you have the runoff, it's an incredible shock. So the aquatic
life will be tremendously impacted.
I understand what they're trying to do, they're trying to
do a balancing act. It doesn't work. So while we don't get the
direct assault immediately, we get it during the spring, an
acidic accumulation of all that that has been deposited in the
snowbanks.
Senator Inhofe. The EPA, and I'm sure we'll hear it again
today, has told us that the sulfur dioxide emissions have been
reduced. Have you noticed that in terms of impact on New York?
Senator D'Amato. Yes, there has been an overall drop in the
level of emissions of sulfur dioxide. It's not having the
anticipated effect in the State. For example, levels of acidity
in our soil and water have not dropped. It was thought that the
levels of acidity would drop with the enactment.
In order to see that, we think there has to be a much
greater reduction. We have not had the impact. Because we have
been bombarded over the years. So it does not have the kind of
impact.
Senator Inhofe. Do you think enough time has gone by that
you would be able to determine that impact?
Senator D'Amato. Yes. We would.
Senator Inhofe. All right, Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. I would say this, I am familiar with the
threat to the forests and the lakes of New York. It's a very
real thing in the northeast, and in some other areas of the
country. It's not something we ought to ignore. We need to
establish good public policy that deals with it.
You have again confirmed your reputation as being an
articulate advocate for views that you feel strongly about,
Senator D'Amato, and we will certainly give those
consideration.
Senator D'Amato. I thank the General. I call you the
General, because I have such respect for those who have been
Attorney General, for the great job you did, Senator, and we're
delighted to have that thoughtfulness.
Let me just, if I might, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Sessions, conclude. Think about this, it's not really fair or
responsible to have people evading, and I say evading, the
intent of the law by building a giant smokestack that brings
its pollution, the worst kind, that would never be permitted in
your State, in either of our States, to then take that and
carry that stuff by way of the jet stream hundreds and hundreds
of miles away and say, well, our environment is fine. Whether
it's in Indiana or Illinois, and those are two of the States,
and Ohio, States that contributed. I've nothing against
Indiana, Illinois and Ohio. I hope they have great, wonderful
environments and that their lakes aren't bombarded.
But I do have a problem with that kind of an attitude, that
they save money because they build a huge stack. We have
scrubbers, we have to burn natural gas. We understand that.
That's the price you have to pay.
But there's something wrong, and we've got to change it.
And so that's where we're coming from. This is something that
will not go away. This is not something born of the days of
political process, where there's an election. This is something
that Senator Moynihan and I have been working on. And I am more
determined than ever to attempt to do something.
And I would hope with the great leadership and the strength
of this committee, that we could come to some kind of
reasonable solution to begin to move us in the process of
fairness. And that's what we're looking for, fairness. And I'm
really deeply appreciative of my colleagues' sensitivity and
your patience.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you very much, Senator D'Amato.
You have presented a very strong case, and we appreciate your
presence here this morning.
We would also like to say that due to his illness, Senator
Moynihan is not going to be here, but we do have a statement
which will be in the record in its entirety.
[The prepared statement of Senator Moynihan follows:]
Statement of Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senator from the State
of New York
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing on
acid deposition. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on two bills
Senator D'Amato and I have introduced, S. 1097 and S. 2377, legislation
to require additional reductions in utility sector emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), and to reduce the
sulfur content in gasoline, respectively.
We have come a long way in understanding the causes and effects of
acid deposition and ways to control it. But we have a long way to go
yet. We have learned, for instance, that the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
reductions required under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (``1990
Amendments'') are insufficient to prevent the continued acidification
of many lakes and further damage to sensitive ecosystems. We also have
learned that legislation containing regulatory flexibility and market
incentives is preferable to the traditional ``command and control''
approach.
Perhaps most importantly, since the 1990 Amendments were enacted,
we have learned that nitrogen oxides, which we largely ignored 8 years
ago, are significant ``precursors'' of acid deposition. And we have
learned that acid deposition does not cause environmental degradation
just in remote, high-elevation forests and lakes in the Adirondacks and
northern New England. Rather, it poses a continuing and significant
threat to the environmental quality of lakes, streams, forests, bays,
and estuaries in numerous regions of the country, and to the health of
the people who reside in these regions.
And so Senator D'Amato and I have introduced two bills, each of
which addresses different facets of the acid deposition problem: one
targets stationary sources of SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx, the other targets
mobile sources of NOx. The first, S. 1097, is modeled after and builds
on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Sulfur Dioxide Allowance
Program. The second, S. 2377, requires a reduction in gasoline sulfur
using existing and readily available refinery technology. The cost of
gasoline would rise under S. 2377--by a nickel a gallon at the retail
level, at most. For a car driven 15,000 miles per year that achieves 15
miles per gallon, the cost of S. 2377 would be $50 annually. Keep in
mind, however, that gasoline prices, adjusted for inflation, are
cheaper now than they have been at any time since 1950 (the beginning
point of our analysis). And the benefits to human health and the
environment of reducing gasoline sulfur far outweigh this modest cost.
I think these are good bills--good for human health and the
environment, good for New York and the United States--and I am
optimistic that their essential features will be incorporated into
legislation this Subcommittee and, eventually, the full Committee will
report to reauthorize the Clean Air Act. Certainly, I welcome the
scrutiny this hearing affords, and I look forward to working with other
Committee Members on fashioning sound legislation to control acid
deposition.
Background
Mr. Chairman, as far back as the 1960's, fisherman in the
Adirondacks began to complain about more than ``the big one that got
away.'' Fish, once abundant in the pristine, remote Adirondack lakes,
were not getting harder to catch. They were gone.
At first, pollution seemed an unlikely cause. The lakes are in a 6
million acre park protected by the New York State Constitution. And
most of them are all but inaccessible, except to determined fishermen
lured by their solitude and beauty, and by what was once an enormous
bounty. But the lakes, it turned out, are accessible to something
besides fishermen: the winds that blow in from coal country,
Appalachia.
In time, pioneering scientists such as Cornell University's Carl
Schofield, Eugene Likens, and Charles Driscoll established a strong
inferential link between ``acid'' deposition--principally caused by
burning coal upwind--and the diminished ability of lakes in the
Adirondacks to sustain healthy fish populations. Water made acidic by
atmospheric deposition was leaching inorganic aluminum from the granite
bedrock surrounding the lakes, and the aluminum was poisoning the fish,
primarily through their gills.
Acid rain. Now there is a powerful image. Not always so. There were
days when dark plumes of smoke were a sign of prosperity. During the
Depression, New York City's Jim Farley, who was Postmaster General,
liked nothing more than to open a new Post Office and hire a WPA artist
to paint murals on its walls depicting busy factories belching smoke
from their chimneys. No longer.
By the early 1970's, environmentalists were alarmed.
Environmentalism is nothing if not an ethic of responsibility. Our
first responsibility is to the facts. Facts about cause and effect.
Facts about costs and benefits. It is not knowledge that we should
fear, but the lack of knowledge.
When I entered the Senate in 1977, there was much we needed to
learn about acid rain. So I introduced the first Federal legislation to
address our ``knowledge deficit'' about acid rain: the Acid
Precipitation Act of 1979. My bill was enacted into law as Title VII of
the Energy Security Act, which Congress passed in June 1980 (Public Law
96-264). Title VII established the National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP), an interagency program charged with
assessing the causes and damages of acid deposition, and reporting its
findings to Congress.
NAPAP created a network of long-term atmospheric deposition
monitoring stations, permanent forest plots, and lake sampling regimes.
These stations and sites, which comprise the infrastructure of the
National Science Foundation's Long Term Ecological Research (LTER)
network, provide scientists with data sets now spanning decades across
a variety of ecosystems. One of these sites, the Hubbard Brook
Experimental Forest in New Hampshire, has been under continuous study
for 35 years. The availability of long-term data is critical for the
study of complicated ecosystems.
NAPAP spawned tremendous academic interest in the subject of acid
deposition. Between 1970 and 1979, only two doctoral degrees were
issued in the ``field'' of acid deposition--if it could be called such
at the time. From 1980 through 1989, after NAPAP was established, 71
individuals earned doctoral degrees in the field. And between 1990 and
1995, another 35 scientists earned their Ph.D.s in the field.
More than 1,700 research papers describing the results of NAPAP-
funded research were published in technical journals by October 1989,
when debate on reauthorization of the Clean Air Act was under way. This
is a good indicator of new findings. Authors must compete for limited
space in these publications. Poor science and shopworn discoveries are
usually rejected. As we began consideration of the 1990 Amendments, we
could glean from the technical ``state-of-science'' reports that at
least 800 lakes and 2,200 streams in the eastern United States had been
made acidic by acid deposition; at least 200 additional streams, about
10 percent more, would become acidic over the next decade without
additional legislation to control emissions.
In all, some $570 million was spent to underwrite the scientific
research contained in the first NAPAP report to Congress. Except for
space and weapons research, NAPAP had become the Federal Government's
biggest scientific undertaking in history. It continues.
I was an original co-sponsor of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, and I am proud of what we accomplished through that landmark
legislation. Title IV of the 1990 Amendments established a ``Sulfur
Dioxide Allowance Program.'' Its creation represented a radical
departure from the traditional ``command and control'' approach to
environmental regulation common at the time. This program was the first
national, statutorily mandated, market-based approach to pollution
control. It has been tremendously successful.
The SO<INF>2</INF> Allowance Program is successful because of the
flexibility it affords the affected utilities. The EPA allocated a
number of allowances to each utility under the Program. Each allowance
represents the limited authority of the utility to emit one ton of
SO<INF>2</INF>. EPA ``capped'' the number of allowances to ensure an
overall reduction in emissions. Each utility may choose to reduce its
own emissions, or to purchase unused allowances from another utility.
Further, utilities may choose to ``bank'' their allowances, which may
be used or sold at a later date. The allowances trade quite freely, as
stocks do. In fact, members of my legislative staff recently purchased
two such allowances, at a discounted price of $100, which they donated
to the New York-based Adirondack Council. The Council, in turn,
``retired'' the two allowances, which is their right under the Program.
This past August, NAPAP issued another report. It states that we
have made progress under the SO<INF>2</INF> Allowance Program toward
our goal of protecting sensitive ecosystems from the scourge of acid
rain since 1990. In 1995, the first year of the program, SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions declined dramatically, to nearly 5 million tons below 1980
levels--a reduction which was 39 percent ahead of the Program's target.
Large areas of the eastern United States saw up to a 25 percent
decrease in sulfate concentration levels in the air and in the acidity
levels of wet deposition. Between 1989 and 1995, monitoring stations at
eastern sites showed dry deposition of sulfur dioxide and sulfates
decreased by 35 and 26 percent, respectively. Concentrations of
sulfates in lakes and streams have decreased in many areas, with
evidence of some recovery from acidification in New England.
Resources For the Future (RFF) scientists and economists conducted
an analysis to estimate the benefits from reduced risk of human health
effects resulting from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions required
under Title IV of the 1990 Amendments. The RFF analysis estimates
mortality benefits ranging from $1,075 to $15,020 per ton of reduction
in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Even the lowest benefit exceeds the cost
per ton of emissions reduction by more than a factor of ten. (The price
of allowances reflects the control costs for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
reductions. The price of an allowance has dropped from an estimated
$500 per ton when the 1990 Amendments were passed to about $100 per ton
currently.)
The median value of benefits from reduced risk of human morbidity
effects estimated in the RFF analysis is an additional $475 per ton of
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reduction. The RFF analysis is consistent with
analyses conducted by EPA staff on the magnitude of health benefits.
Reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions have provided substantial
improvements in visibility, especially in the eastern United States.
EPA estimates that reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions so far have
resulted in a 20 percent reduction in regional haze in large areas of
the eastern United States. Researchers have estimated monetary benefits
to residential areas in 31 eastern states and to national parks in the
southeastern states of $3.4 billion (1994 dollars) in 2010, or about
$377 per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> reduction.
Perhaps the most pleasant development with regard to the
SO<INF>2</INF> Allowance Program has been program compliance and cost.
Because of the Program's flexibility, the compliance rate is 100
percent. The cost of compliance has been less than half of what was
projected in 1990. Actual costs of compliance for 1995, for instance,
are estimated at $726 million. The General Accounting Office (GAO) had
estimated in 1994 that the costs of compliance for 1995 would be $1.2
billion. Estimates of total costs of Title IV compliance continue to be
revised downward.
The market flexibility provided by allowance trading promotes
innovation and competition in emissions reduction technologies. This
flexibility has allowed reductions to be made at sites where they could
be achieved in the most cost-effective manner. Studies conducted since
1990 have estimated that the cost savings due to emissions trading,
compared to the cost of a traditional command-and-control approach, has
been between $230 million and $600 million per year.
S. 1097: Addressing Stationary Sources of SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx
We can be proud of our accomplishments thus far. But we must look
carefully at the scientific data before we conclude that our work is
done in controlling SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. The data indicate that
the 1990 Amendments did not go far enough to prevent continued damage
from acid rain. For example, the August 1998 NAPAP Report contains an
assessment of long-term data collected at monitoring sites in the
Southern Appalachians which indicates that sulfate concentrations of
surface waters have been increasing consistently for more than a
decade. The majority of Adirondack lakes have not shown recovery from
acidity levels, and the most sensitive Adirondack lakes continue to
acidify.
So Senator D'Amato and I introduced S. 1097, the Acid Deposition
Control Act of 1997. Our bill would require additional reductions in
emissions of 50 percent for SO<INF>2</INF>, and 70 percent for NOx,
from the electric utility sector. It would also require the EPA to
develop measurable indicators of ecosystem health to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Agency's Acid Rain Program.
S. 1097 would require reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions beyond
those provided for in Phase II of the existing Program. In light of the
impressive success and cost effectiveness of the SO<INF>2</INF>
Allowance Program, our bill is designed to build onto it as seamlessly
as possible. In effect, our bill establishes a ``third phase'' under
the existing SO<INF>2</INF> Allowance Program. Under the proposed Phase
III, total utility emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> would be reduced to just
under 4.5 million tons per year--a 50 percent reduction.
The Importance of Nitrogen
We have learned a great deal about the science of acid rain in the
years since the 1990 Amendments. Perhaps the most important insight we
have gained from the last decade of scientific research is that the
emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx) contributes significantly to acid
deposition. We now know that nitrogen is quantitatively as--or, in some
cases, more--important than sulfur as a cause of both chronic and
episodic acidification.
Normally, terrestrial and aquatic plant growth is limited by the
availability of nitrogen. Inputs of new nitrogen from atmospheric
deposition (as opposed to nitrogen recycled within the ecosystem) have
caused some forests to become ``nitrogen saturated.'' Nitrogen
saturation is accompanied by depletion of soil base cations (which are
nutrients) such as calcium that buffer the soil from acidity. The soil
chemistry changes, affecting forest health. And increases in soil
acidity affect the pH of drainage water which empties into lakes and
streams. Chronically high nitrate concentrations have been documented
in lakes and streams in a variety of locations throughout the United
States, including the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains within
the Los Angeles air basin, the Front Range of Colorado, the Allegheny
Mountains of West Virginia, the Catskill Mountains of New York, and the
Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee.
We also have gained an improved understanding of the importance of
episodic acidification. In 1990, the best science available at the time
indicated that chronic acidification posed the greatest threat to
sensitive ecosystems. We now know that episodic acidification--short-
term drops in the pH of lakes and streams during periods of high water
flow, such as storms and snow melt--can be extremely damaging to
ecosystems, too. We now understand that nitrogen plays a more important
role in these acidic episodes than does sulfur.
Episodic acidification is ubiquitous in our surface waters. Nearly
all lakes and streams throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe
experience increased acidification during high water flow events.
Biological effects on fish in acidified lakes and streams are largely
attributable to increased concentrations of dissolved aluminum. The
aluminum is transported to drainage waters from soils which have been
leached by excess nitrates. We know that much of the nitrates
accumulate in the soil as a result of acid deposition.
Since 1990, we have become much more aware of the problem of
eutrophication of bays and estuaries. Through a combination of
monitoring, experimental research, and modeling, scientists better
understand the effects of atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to these
near-coastal waters. Excessive nitrogen loading causes eutrophication,
which is the increase in the rate of supply of organic matter to an
ecosystem. The consequences of eutrophication include massive die-offs
of estuarine and marine plants and animals; loss of biological
diversity; growth of nuisance algae potentially toxic to humans and
marine animals, such as pfisteria; and damage to ecosystems which
endangers the sustainability of local fisheries resources.
Atmospheric deposition is a significant source of nitrogen loading
to coastal waters stretching from the Gulf Coast around and up the
entire length of the eastern seaboard. For example, the Chesapeake Bay
is believed to receive 27 percent of its nitrogen load directly from
the atmosphere. For Tampa Bay, the figure is 28 percent. For the
coastal waters of the Newport River in North Carolina, between 35 and
80 percent.
In 1997, the Ecological Society of America convened a workshop to
consider atmospheric nitrogen deposition to coastal watersheds. The
participants in the workshop included eminent scientists, coastal
managers, and national policymakers. The workshop report concludes that
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen must be included in policy and
coastal management plans to address coastal eutrophication problems
successfully.
EPA NOx SIP Call
Just 2 weeks ago, the EPA released its Final Rule to reduce the
emissions of nitrogen oxides from the utility sector. The EPA plan,
patterned after the highly successful ``cap-and-trade'' allowance
program for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, is designed to reduce levels of
NOx emissions which contribute to ground-level ozone in urban areas.
The Final Rule is likely to increase the air quality significantly in
urban areas during the summer ``ozone'' season, and to protect urban
populations from the deleterious health effects caused by exposure to
ozone.
The EPA's Final Rule, however, is not designed to solve the
problems caused by acid deposition. The EPA's NOx ``cap-and-trade''
allowance program outlined in the Final Rule is seasonal, regional, and
voluntary. While the Final Rule is an appropriate way to address urban
ozone levels, solving the problems of acid deposition will require a
more comprehensive approach.
Nitrogen emissions contribute to acid deposition to forests, lakes,
streams, and estuaries on a year-round basis. From an environmental (as
opposed to health) standpoint, acid deposition may be more important
during the winter months than during the summer. NOx emissions during
the winter months contribute to stockpiles of acidified snow, which
cause extremely acidic episodes in lakes and streams during the spring
thaw. Many aquatic systems are most biologically sensitive at precisely
this time, during the spring spawning season.
Recognizing the need for reductions in nitrogen emissions
throughout the year, our bill--S. 1097--establishes a year-round cap-
and-trade program for NOx emissions from the utility sector. Because of
the particular health risks of urban ozone formation during the summer
months, S. 1097 requires utilities to surrender two allowances for each
ton of NOx emitted between the months of May through September. During
the remainder of the year, only one allowance is required to produce
one ton of NOx emissions. In this way, utilities are encouraged to make
their most stringent emissions reductions during the summer months,
when the collective risk to human health is higher.
The NOx cap-and-trade program proposed by EPA is a regional program
because it has been envisioned as a response to a regional problem--the
problem of urban ozone. The problem of acid deposition, however, is not
limited to the Northeast. As I noted earlier in my testimony,
eutrophication is adversely affecting the coastal waters throughout the
eastern seaboard, including the Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound,
and the Gulf of Mexico. Forests, streams, and rivers in the Southern
Appalachians, the Front Range of Colorado, and the San Bernardino
Mountains in California are also showing the effects of acidification
and nitrogen saturation.
The best scientific data available indicate that emissions of NOx,
like SO<INF>2</INF>, are transported across state lines. A recent
report released by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM) concludes that several northeastern states will be unable to
attain the health-based air quality standards set by EPA without
reductions in the emissions levels transported to the Northeast from
upwind states. Moreover, several urban centers in the western part of
the country have already recorded numerous ``exceedances'' of
permissible air pollution levels established by EPA. Consequently, a
national emissions reduction program for NOx--as well as
SO<INF>2</INF>--is required.
S. 2377: Addressing Mobile Sources of NOx
It is worth noting that utility emissions are not the only
significant source of NOx emissions. When we designed the
SO<INF>2</INF> Allowance Program in 1990, our task was simplified by
the fact that over 85 percent of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions originated in
fossil fuel-fired electric utilities. Emissions from utilities account
for just under 30 percent of total NOx emissions, roughly speaking. The
share from utilities is certainly large enough that any serious program
to reduce NOx emissions must address the utility sector. But another
major source of NOx emissions, the transportation sector, must be
addressed as well.
Earlier this year, I introduced S. 2377, the Clean Gasoline Act of
1998. This bill establishes a national, year-round cap on the sulfur
content of gasoline sold in the United States. The bill would extend
the so-called California gasoline sulfur standard nationwide. The
benefits of reducing gasoline sulfur would be dramatic and virtually
immediate.
The transportation sector accounts for nearly half of national NOx
emissions. A large portion of these emissions are in the form of
tailpipe exhaust from our national vehicle fleet. In recent years,
advances in vehicle technology have produced Low Emission Vehicles
(LEVs)--vehicles designed to reduce vehicle emissions by 90 percent.
These vehicles were first sold in New York last fall, beginning with
the 1998 model year. Unfortunately, New York will not see the full air
quality benefits these vehicles are capable of providing because New
Yorkers do not have access to the higher quality, lower sulfur gasoline
these vehicles have been designed to use.
Low Emission Vehicles were first marketed in California, where
their use has contributed to significant improvements in local air
quality. One reason for the success of these vehicles in California is
that California adopted a maximum level for gasoline sulfur content,
beginning in June 1996. In California, gasoline sulfur levels average
about 30 parts per million (ppm). The national average, outside of
California, is more than ten times greater--about 330 parts per
million.
The presence of sulfur in gasoline increases vehicle emissions
because sulfur poisons the catalytic converter used in the vehicle's
emissions control system. Sulfur is a pollutant only: its presence (or
absence) does not effect engine performance. In the 1970's, we fought
to remove lead from gasoline to make possible the introduction of
catalytic converters. Until recently, we did not appreciate that sulfur
is a catalyst poison, too. The problem is not limited to LEVs, although
these vehicles are especially sensitive to gasoline sulfur. All
vehicles in the national fleet with catalytic converters--virtually all
vehicles--produce higher levels of emissions because of the high levels
of sulfur in the gasoline they burn.
A recent study by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials (STAPPA-ALAPCO) found that reducing gasoline sulfur levels to
40 parts per million, the California standard, would bring an air
quality benefit equivalent to removing nearly 54 million vehicles from
our national fleet. New York City alone would have a benefit equal to
removing 3 million vehicles from its streets.
As I mentioned earlier, I am proud of what we accomplished in
enacting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The SO<INF>2</INF>
Allowance Program established by that legislation has achieved
extraordinary benefits at program compliance costs less than half of
initial projections. The efficacy of the approach is proven. The
current science indicates, however, that we did not go far enough in
1990 in setting our emissions reduction targets. The bills I have
introduced, S. 1097 and S. 2377, endeavor to buildupon our
accomplishments thus far, and to begin the work which remains to be
done.
______
Acid Precipitation and Scientific Fallout
(By Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan)
In the 1960's, fishermen in the Adirondacks began to complain about
more than the big ones that got away. Fish, once abundant, were not
just getting harder to catch. They were gone.
At first, pollution seemed an unlikely cause. After all, the lakes
lie in a park protected by the New York State Constitution from most
disturbances at the hand of man. Most are all but inaccessible, except
to fishermen--and the winds that blow in from coal country, Appalachia.
It didn't take pioneering scientists (including Cornell
University's Eugene Likens, Carl Schofield , and Charles Driscoll) long
to establish a strong inferential link between increasing deposition of
acid sulfates in rainfall, primarily from burning coal, and the absence
or deformity of fish in lakes with clear water and low pH.
This was precisely the phenomenon of acid rain first observed by
Robert Angus Smith in Manchester, England, in 1852. More recently, acid
rain had been of concern in Scandinavia. Acids lofted into the
atmosphere from tall smokestacks in the industrial basin of the Ruhr
River were falling on watersheds that were, in many places, little more
than bare rock. Closer to the source, acid rain was blamed for
Waldsterben, the death of Germany's prized Black Forest.
Imagery and Science
Acid rain. Now there is a powerful image. By 1982, popular
magazines, including Time, Sports Illustrated, and National Geographic,
warned that acid rain was the most serious environmental threat of the
decade. One year later, major Senate bills to reduce sulfur dioxide
emissions to the atmosphere were being debated in the 97th Congress.
Acid rain was blamed for everything from poisoning cisterns to the
death of trees on mountain tops.
In Senate hearings as early as 1976 it was clear that acid rain was
a prime suspect. But neither the extent of the damage nor a
quantitative, causal link between controlling emissions of sulfur
dioxide and the resulting environmental benefits had been established
with any confidence. And so the question arose, what would happen to
fish or forests if we reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide by half? Or
ninety percent? Or not at all? If we thought that a powerful image was
all we needed, we were wrong. Science is more complicated.
In June 1980, Congress passed the Energy Security Act, Public Law
96-264. Title VII consisted of a bill I introduced in 1979, the Acid
Precipitation Act of 1980. It created the National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP)--an interagency research program to develop
the scientific basis for a Federal policy regarding acid rain.
A decade later, in Hilton Head, South Carolina, scientists
worldwide gathered to discuss the results. What they learned is that,
in many areas of the Northeast, what was going to happen had happened.
We could glean from the technical ``state-of-science'' reports that at
least 800 lakes and 2,200 streams in the eastern United States had been
made acidic by acid rain; at least 200, about 10 percent more, would
become acidic over the next decade without additional legislation.
And, as had been expected, small sulfur-dioxide particles in the
atmosphere caused a haze that reduced visibility in the eastern United
States. Sulfur dioxide had contributed to forest ``decline'' in some
high elevation forests, and corrosion of stone and metal structures had
accelerated, but we know less about these problems, at least
quantitatively.
NAPAP also made projections, based on scientific principles coded
into computer models, about what would happen if we did one thing or
another about sulfur dioxide controls. One of the options studied was
similar to what was proposed in Senate bill S. 1630, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. Figure I was prepared from NAPAP data by Larry
Cupitt, an Environmental Protection Agency Congressional Fellow
detailed to my staff during debate on the bill. It shows the projected
emissions of sulfur dioxide with no new legislation, compared to the
10-million ton reduction in emissions specified in S. 1630.
Without enactment of any Federal law to control acid rain,
replacement of old, inefficient generating facilities with new,
efficient ones would reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions to approximately
the same level as under S. 1630 by 2030. S. 1630 would reduce the
projected 890 million tons of sulfur-dioxide emissions from 1990 to
2030 by only 240 million tons.
When all was said and done, we enacted acid rain controls to reduce
sulfur-dioxide emissions by 10 million tons below 1985 levels. This is
expected to have some beneficial effects. Additional acidification of
lakes and streams will largely cease, and many of the acidified waters
will recover. It will be a noticeable, but not overwhelming, effect.
Visibility will increase, and acidification of soil and
deterioration of materials will be reduced, all by an unknown amount.
The legislation may reduce the incidence of respiratory disease, but we
are less sure about that. In any case, we estimated that such benefits
would cost between $2.7 and $4 billion per year. Paul Portney of
Resources for the Future suggested later that the number might prove
closer to $5 billion.
These were our results. But a CBS 60 Minutes program in December
1990 concluded that, after spending $570 million on NAPAP, the program
was all but ignored in the debate over the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. Articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times echoed
this assessment, as did Science. And, sad to say, so did some of my
Senate colleagues who supported the original bill. I hope to moderate,
if not to dispel, this perception.
What NAPAP Found
NAPAP discovered much that was new about the phenomenon of acid
rain. More than 1,700 research papers describing the results of NAPAP-
funded research were published in technical journals by October 1989.
This is a good indicator of new findings. Authors must compete for
limited space in these publications. Poor science and shopworn
discoveries are usually rejected. But were the new findings relevant?
An Oversight Review Board, led by Milton Russell of The University of
Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, concluded that NAPAP's
scientific findings will be of ``extraordinary value'' to the United
States and other countries making decisions about acid deposition. Did
NAPAP really contribute nothing to the debate? Consider this quote from
a letter submitted as testimony to the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee in June 1981, by a group of eminent environmental
scientists:
Scientific information is necessary but not sufficient to determine
policy. Environmental policymakers receive information on the
extent of known and anticipated damages caused by certain
practices, together with information on possible remedies. They
then decide whether to alleviate some or all of the damages by
comparing the societal consequences of changing the practices
responsible for them.
Policy makers who are convinced that the identified damage to
lakes, streams, materials, and visibility are unacceptable will
advocate a policy to reduce them. Policy makers who believe the
identified damages are too small to justify action may require
additional evidence or greater certainty regarding causes and remedies,
however.
I would say that NAPAP provided just such ``additional evidence''
and ``greater certainty,'' at least with respect to the problems noted
by fishermen. NAPAP research told us how many acid lakes and streams we
had. It told us how many more would become acidic if we did nothing. It
told us how many would recover if we did something. The rest, as the
scientists pointed out, was up to policymakers. Russell and his
colleagues on the Oversight Review Board subsequently summed it up:
[NAPAP] demonstrated that the Nation does not confront an acid
deposition problem of a size or of an urgency that puts substantial
resources at major near-term risk or that threaten human health, at
least in a major way. In doing so, NAPAP established the scientific
range of policy decisions that our society could take with
substantial confidence, while denying such support to other
decisions at either extreme of action or inaction.
The NAPAP results appeared to justify our hesitancy to undertake
draconian measures to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions in the early
1980's.
During 1989, the Bush administration became determined to see a
bill enacted that would reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions 10 million tons
per year below 1980 levels. The question has been posed whether this
decision was informed by NAPAP research. In fact, much of the critical
NAPAP data on surface waters were presented to EPA Administrator Lee
Thomas in briefings during the summer of 1987. The most important data
from the National Surface Water Survey, the NAPAP project that
estimated the number of acidic lakes and streams, were published in
scientific journals in 1988 and 1989. Given this, what is the basis for
the arguments that NAPAP was money wasted?
I believe that this perception arises from several problems. These
can, and in my opinion should, be rectified as NAPAP continues. First,
scientific findings were not assimilated into a form suitable for use
by Congress and the public. This inadequacy of interpretation and
communication was duly noted by the NAPAP Oversight Review Board. The
board observed that scientists are not always eager to take time away
from their research to explain complex, quantitative issues to a non-
technical, and perhaps hostile, audience. They must be persuaded, and
assisted, to do so in the future.
More important, the effort to disseminate NAPAP's findings became
mired in a quest to arrive at a consensus on the meaning of the data.
Such a quest can be complicated by differing norms for reaching
consensus in the two types of science identified by political scientist
Mark Rushefsky. In ``normal science,'' results are incrementally added
to a ``paradigm,'' a widely accepted framework for interpreting new
data. But in the newer practice of ``regulatory science,'' research is
brought to bear, wholesale, to answer a specified (often complex)
question as well as possible within a limited time. Jay Messer, a
former environmental engineering professor on my staff in the 102d
Congress, thinks that consensus on what constitutes acceptability of
new results in normal science may be easier to reach simply because
regulatory science sometimes hasn't sufficient time to generate its own
paradigm.
If true, then in regulatory science dissenting views, biases
acknowledged, are valuable. In NAPAP, scientists from agencies with
biases (I might say appropriate ones about producing energy or
protecting the environment) spent months, years, trying to reach
consensus on how best to interpret their results. At best, there was
the high opportunity cost of delaying any scientific input to the
debate. Worse, good scientists not persuaded to the majority view
became alienated. They withdrew. The resulting consensus often was a
lowest common denominator. We learn in elementary school mathematics
that simplification comes at a cost.
NAPAP Redux
Four things can be done to improve NAPAP as it enters its second
decade. They are offered in order of increasing difficulty.
First, we should recognize dissenting and concurring opinions in
regulatory science. The value of a multi-agency assessment group is
that the viewpoints of agencies with different interests can shed
different lights on the same facts. Provided the supporting analyses
and underlying data stand up to the level of technical scrutiny
expected of publication in scientific journals, these differences are
too valuable to be disregarded.
Second, we should devote particular attention to developing
communication skills needed to inform decisionmakers. This is not
eliminating jargon and complicated equations. Scientists must be able
to enter into a colloquy with decisionmakers that defines the
scientific questions to be answered. Both must establish the timeframe
in which the answers will be needed and how the answers might be used
to make decisions. Results of research in progress, reported in a
format readily accessible to nonscientists, can be of use in signaling
mid-course corrections.
Third, Congress should involve scientists more directly in the
decisions we make. During the months of debate on the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, we heard from industry, government agencies, and
environmental organizations--everyone but the professional scientists
carrying out $570 million worth of acid rain research. For the most
part, professional congressional staff, which includes some of the
brightest graduates of the nation's best universities, could not access
this information directly.
Staff members work tirelessly on behalf of environmental
legislation. But their education in matters of science is seldom
sufficient to critically evaluate research in progress. We might do
well to integrate a larger number of scientists with research
experience into the staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee
of the U.S. Senate. I have remarked that it would be easier for a
diabolist to enter a nunnery, but I hope I exaggerate.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, we must correct the virtual
disregard of economics in NAPAP. How do we calculate the value of
increased visibility in the Smoky Mountains? What is it worth? We
cannot yet say it is worth 50 cents, but the minute you ask yourself
the question you already know more about the subject. Try to put a
number on anything, and you have learned about it.
I offered amendments to S. 1690 that I hope will henceforth
characterize the environmental program of the Federal Government.
Environmentalism is nothing if not an ethic of responsibility, and our
first responsibility is to the facts--facts about costs and facts about
benefits. It is not knowledge that we should fear but the lack of
knowledge.
This is not a new concept in government. The analytical foundations
of cost/benefit analysis as a discrete discipline date back to an 1844
article by J. Dupuit entitled ? On the Measurement of the Utility of
Public Works. ? These methods were applied systematically to dams and
reservoir projects following passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936,
but their application to matters of environmental protection is a
relatively new endeavor. We have some experience in quantifying costs
but little in quantifying benefits.
These are complex things. Acid-rain controls will mean there are
going to be coal miners who lose their jobs. This will occur at a point
in life when getting another job, finding another occupation, is
difficult. We also will create jobs--people who make scrubbers and
commodity traders who deal in emissions allowances. More fishermen may
return to some of the Adirondack lakes, and more tourists to the Blue
Ridge Parkway to enjoy the view. We must not be frightened of the
complexity, but we must be sure that there will be long-term
measurements. We must know what happened.
We have always known a lot about this country, and we know how to
learn more. One of the greatest problems facing countries that
practiced central economic planning is that they now have no data. They
(and we) believed that they were succeeding because they listened to
their leaders instead of listening to the facts. We were largely able
to avoid this problem because data were available from the Bureau of
the Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Department of
Commerce. But before NAPAP, we had precious little data on what it
means to change the atmosphere.
NAPAP has given us 10 years of data. Ten years from now, we will
have 20 years of data, and 30 years from now we will have 40 years of
data, and we will know something about what happens when we intervene
in the natural environment. We will know some of the costs and some of
the benefits.
There were days when dark plumes of smoke coming out of factory
chimneys were signs of prosperity. There was nothing Jim Farley liked
to do better in the 1930's than to put up a new Post Office and hire an
artist to paint on its walls prosperity returning. Black columns of
smoke reaching up to the sky--strong colors for what we hoped would be
a strong economy.
Times change, but NAPAP is an opportunity to go someplace that we
are not now. A place where we will know what we have done and,
possibly, to adjust to the consequences of what we have learned.
Thank you very much, Senator D'Amato.
We will now ask our second panel of witnesses to come to
the table. Our second panel consists of Mr. Brian McLean,
Director, Acid Rain Division, Office of Air Radiation in the
Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Edward ``Skip'' Kropp,
Deputy Director, Office of Air Quality, West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection; Mr. Bernard Melewski,
Counsel and Legislative Director, the Adirondack Council; and
Mr. William F. Tyndall, Vice President, Environmental Services,
Cinergy Corporation.
With that, I will ask Mr. McLean to begin his testimony.
And I would like at this time to ask if Senator Sessions would
be good enough to chair the meeting for a few moments.
Simultaneous to this, I have another committee meeting where we
have Secretary Bill Cohen down there. I'm due to ask some
questions, and I'll be right back as soon as he gives his
answers, which I'm sure will be adequate.
Senator Sessions [assuming the Chair]. Thank you.
I know you'll ask some tough ones over there, Mr. Chairman.
I know you're deeply concerned about the state of our Nation's
defense.
Our panel today, and I'll run through this and then give
you an opportunity to give your remarks in this order. Mr.
Brian McLean, Director of Acid Rain Division, Office of
Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Skip Kropp, who's the
Deputy Director of West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection; Mr. Melewski, Adirondack Council; and Mr. Tyndall.
Mr. McLean, we'd be delighted to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. MC LEAN, DIRECTOR, ACID RAIN DIVISION,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. McLean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm very pleased to be here today to have the opportunity
to testify on S. 1097, the Acid Deposition Control Act. I will
focus on the impacts of acid deposition and its precursor
emissions, the progress of current efforts to reduce these
emissions, and our reactions to the bill.
In 1980, driven in particular by Senator Moynihan's
interest in acid rain, Congress passed the Acid Precipitation
Act, which established the National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program to study the causes and effects of acid rain
and other pollutants. NAPAP concluded that acid deposition and
its precursor emissions, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides,
acidify lakes and streams, impact high elevation forests,
damage materials, impair visibility and impact human health.
NAPAP also documented the long-range transport of
pollution, making apparent the need for a broad, regional
approach to address this broad, regional problem.
The wealth of information developed under NAPAP provided
the underpinning for Title IV of the Clean Air Act amendments
of 1990. In creating Title IV and establishing the Acid Rain
program, Congress moved environmental protection in a new
direction, away from traditional command and control
regulation. First, Congress focused on reducing the emissions
that cause acid rain, rather than relying on regionally
variable deposition standards and State by State implementation
plans.
Second, Congress translated its 10 million ton
SO<INF>2</INF> reduction goal into a nationwide cap on
emissions and allowed the industry 20 years to achieve that
goal. Third, Congress provided EPA with a new tool to achieve
the reduction, an innovative, market-based allowance trading
system. The cap and trade approach allowed industry
unprecedented flexibility in how to achieve the needed emission
reductions. In return for this flexibility, sources were to
provide a full accounting of their emissions through continuous
monitoring and reporting, and would be subject to severe
consequences if they failed to hold enough allowances to cover
their emissions.
The objective here was for sources to find the most cost-
effective means for limiting emissions and to be responsible
then for achieving those reductions. In 1995, the first year of
compliance under the acid rain program, SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions declined dramatically, by over 3 million tons that 1
year.
Over the first 3 years of the program, emissions from phase
one units have been 30 percent below their allowable levels,
and sulfate deposition has been reduced by as much as 25
percent. Further emissions reductions will be required
beginning in the year 2000 to achieve the full 10 million ton
reduction goal.
Cost savings have exceeded expectations. In 1990, EPA
projected the cost of full compliance with trading of $4
billion per year. In 1994, the General Accounting Office
projected the cost to be less than $2 billion per year. And the
most recent estimate published this year is approximately $1
billion per year.
Senator Sessions. Can I interrupt you? Is that based on
estimates, or what you estimate the actual cost to have been
that year?
Mr. McLean. No, this is projected to be the full cost by
the year 2010, when the full reduction is in place. So it's the
maximum annualized cost.
Control of nitrogen oxides from coal-fired utility boilers
under the acid rain program began in 1996. Emissions from phase
one utility units declined by 35 percent. By the year 2000, NOx
from utility boilers will be reduced by a total of 2 million
tons per year.
However, without further reduction in rates, NOx emissions
would be expected to begin rising. Because there is no cap on
emissions for NOx.
Most of what we currently know about acid rain impacts was
published in NAPAP's assessment report, released in August this
year. I'll mention a few points here from that report.
Sulfur deposition has declined, and so have sulfate
concentrations in some surface waters. Surface water nitrate
levels, however, have not changed significantly, which is
consistent with the lack of change in nitrate deposition.
Lakes in New England have begun to show some recovery. But
Adirondack lakes in New York have exhibited either no trend or
further acidification. Other sensitive watersheds in the
southeastern U.S., such as Virginia trout streams, appear to be
so saturated with sulfur that they may get worse before there
are signs of recovery.
Through improved modeling, we have confirmed that the
number of acidic lakes would be increasing substantially if it
were not for the emission reductions that are taking place
under the 1990 amendments. But we also have projected that
additional reductions in both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides may be necessary to fully protect the most sensitive
systems.
We also have a better understanding now of the broader
effects associated with nitrogen deposition on coastal waters.
We believe that reducing NOx year-round would increase
protection of coastal ecosystems along our east and Gulf coast.
We believe that reducing SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx year-round
would reduce the number of acidic lakes and streams in various
sensitive regions of the country.
We also believe that reducing ambient sulfates and nitrates
year-round would reduce risks to human health and improve
visibility throughout the United States.
Let me turn now to S. 1097. In general, S. 1097 builds on
those elements of the Clear Air Act that are working well. The
bill relies on the successful market-based mechanism introduced
in the 1990 amendments, and applies it to both NOx and
SO<INF>2</INF>. The bill reduces and caps emissions of NOx. The
NOx emissions cap in the recent SIP Call is broadened under
this bill to cover the entire year in the 48 contiguous States,
making the bill consistent with our latest understandings
coming from ecological research.
The bill further reduces SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in a way
that tries to minimize the disruption to the existing acid rain
program.
While the direction of the bill is generally consistent
with EPA's views, the timing of some of the provisions may need
to be further considered. For example, the timing of the
SO<INF>2</INF> cap reductions should be examined for its
potential impact on the allowance market that has now been
created. We should also consider these reductions in the
context of the fine particle standard review that we're going
through, as well as our efforts to reduce regional haze.
I would like to conclude by noting that the electric power
industry and EPA continue to discuss current and upcoming air
pollution control decisions and how they might best be
coordinated to achieve the multiple environmental goals at the
lowest possible cost. EPA recognizes the appropriateness of
engaging in long-term integrated planning and the need to
explore the use of market-based approaches, such as that
demonstrated under the acid rain program, which the regulated
community generally regards as working well.
We understand that this subcommittee is planning to hold
hearings in the next Congress regarding the Clean Air Act
reauthorization. And we believe bills such as S. 1097, which
address regional, multi-State air pollution issues in ways that
could improve and strengthen the Act ought to be considered in
those discussions.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear, and I'd be glad to
answer questions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kropp?
STATEMENT OF EDWARD KROPP, ASSISTANT CHIEF, WEST VIRGINIA
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY
Mr. Kropp. Good morning. My name is Edward Kropp and I'm an
Assistant Chief of the West Virginia Office of Air Quality. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning.
One of the important aspects of S. 1097, the Acid
Deposition Control Act, is the continued effort to regulate
emissions of nitrogen oxides, which has already been the
subject of regulation in the 1990 Clear Air Act amendments, and
in addition, is an ozone precursor.
West Virginia is concerned about the imposition of
additional stringent controls on nitrogen oxide emissions from
sources in West Virginia which appear to be based on politics
and rhetoric rather than environmental science. Indeed, on
September 24, 1998, EPA announced a final rule which would
require 22 States and the District of Columbia to drastically
reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide in an effort to mitigate the
long-range transport of ozone into the northeast.
West Virginia believes that neither the EPA NOx reduction
rule, known as the Ozone Transport Assessment Group, or OTAG,
SIP Call, nor any additional nitrogen oxide controls which
might be imposed under S. 1097, can be economically justified
when compared to the relatively insignificant environmental
benefits which might result.
EPA sponsored OTAG, which was a stakeholder process, taking
place between approximately May 1995 and June 1997. The OTAG
process included scientific modeling to test a hypothesis that
long-range, on the order of 600 or so miles, transport of ozone
was occurring from the midwest and southeast to the northeast,
exacerbating non-attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the
northeast.
A key conclusion of the OTAG process was that emission
reductions yield the greatest benefit locally, and that
benefits decrease as distance from the controlled source
increases. Further, OTAG concluded that regional nitrogen oxide
reductions produce regional ozone reduction benefits.
Finally, OTAG modeling data indicates that literally
shutting down all man-made sources of nitrogen oxide sources in
the midwest will not result in the northeast attaining the old
1-hour ozone standard.
In November 1997, EPA proposed its OTAG SIP Call to reduce
nitrogen oxide and requested comments on the proposed rule.
West Virginia and 12 other States, all subject to the SIP Call,
time and again submitted comments to EPA without ever receiving
a formal response to our comments.
Moreover, West Virginia and five other States jointly
submitted an alternative to the proposed EPA rule on June 25,
1998. The alternative proposal focused on attaining the new 8-
hour standard, rather than mitigating transport, to solve the
northeast attainment problems with the old 1-hour standard.
Seven other States submitted alternate proposals which focused
on attainment of the new standard as well.
Regrettably, EPA has continued to ignore the efforts of all
13 States to collaborate with EPA to attain the 8-hour
standard, instead focusing on EPA's effort to reduce nitrogen
oxide emissions primarily from midwest and southeast power
plants.
In addition to proposing power plant nitrogen emission
reductions of 85 percent and overall State nitrogen oxide
emission reductions of as much as 51 percent from 1990 levels
in the case of West Virginia, EPA counts the new nitrogen oxide
reduction rule as being flexible, because it allows sources in
the midwest and southeast to trade emissions between sources in
order to distribute the emission reduction burden.
West Virginia believes that such flexibility must be tied
to air quality science. And in the case of the EPA rules,
submits that EPA has once again ignored science in order to
level economic playing fields. That is, controlling midwest
nitrogen oxide power plants to raise the cost of electricity to
levels more nearly equal to those in the northeast.
West Virginia has on numerous occasions attempted to
provide EPA with input regarding the nitrogen oxide rule. And
our position remains both unchanged and scientifically
supported. West Virginia believes that power plant nitrogen
oxide reductions of 65 percent from 1990 levels will result in
attainment of the new 8-hour standard in most, if not all, of
West Virginia.
In addition, power plant reductions in excess of 65 percent
may be necessary to ameliorate any ozone transport from West
Virginia occurring in the 150 to 200 mile range which OTAG
concluded was likely to occur. The EPA OTAG SIP Call will
result in the expenditure in West Virginia alone of
approximately $1 billion in excess of the cost of 65 percent
reductions, while providing virtually no discernible
concomitant benefit in the northeast.
West Virginia urges that EPA be required to reconsider its
ill-conceived, one-size-fits-all OTAG SIP Call to reduce
nitrogen oxide emissions and that any further midwest and
southeast power plant nitrogen emission reductions which might
be required as a result of S. 1097 be deleted from the Act.
Thank you for your attention.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Kropp.
First, let me say I'm glad to be joined by the Chairman of
our full Committee, Senator Chafee. If you have any remarks
you'd like to make at this time, we'd be glad to hear them.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. I
wanted to come by the meeting of the subcommittee and hear
these witnesses. This is important, and I appreciate your
conducting the hearing, and I look forward to hearing the
balance of the witnesses. Thank you very much.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
All right, Mr. Melewski.
STATEMENT OF BERNARD MELEWSKI, COUNSEL AND LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, ADIRONDACK COUNCIL
Mr. Melewski. Thank you, Senator.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name
is Bernard Melewski. I'm the Counsel and Legislative Director
for the Adirondack Council, which is a not-for-profit
organization located in New York State, that focuses on
enhancing and protecting New York's Adirondack Park, which is a
6 million acre park, which is the largest in the lower 48
States, approximately 6 million acres.
We've had a long involvement in the acid rain issue. We
were instrumental in New York State's acid deposition act in
1984, the first in the Nation. And the inclusion of an
innovative trading proposal in that law which was later adopted
in 1990 by Congress. We are very much involved in the Clean Air
Act amendments as well.
Shortly after the Clean Air Act amendments were put into
place, we were interested to see an EPA administrator announce
simultaneous with the release of the regulations implementing
the law that the regulations now put an end to acid rain in the
Adirondacks. Certainly that was the intent of Congress, but we
believe that Congress wisely commissioned two reports in later
years to take an assessment of the Act and how it was
performing.
Those reports are now both in. The first came in 1996 from
EPA, and it reported that the benefits, the environmental
benefits from the Clean Air Act amendments perhaps were not
going to be as substantial as envisioned. And to the stunning
of many New Yorkers, also revealed for the first time that much
of the lakes of the Adirondack Park may be lost, and that a
substantial portion of our streams will be chronically
acidified in the next 30 years.
Just this past summer, NAPAP reported with a more
comprehensive study, and I think the significant thing about
the NAPAP report is not just that it confirmed EPA's earlier
findings, but that it illustrated that it's not just an
Adirondack problem. NAPAP's report extensively documents in
peer-reviewed scientific review that the highlands of the
United States, whether it's New England, the central
Appalachians, the Smoky Mountains, the Rocky Mountains, the
mountains of California, are all suffering similar problems
from acid rain. They also document that the estuaries, the
coastal estuaries, whether it be the bays of Rhode Island, of
Long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay, of Tampa Bay, are all too
suffering from airborne deposition of nitrogen.
Other studies have also been released but were not peer
reviewed yet by NAPAP. Environment Canada called for extensive
new reductions, both in their country and in here to address
Canada's problem. Trout Unlimited this summer released a study
of Virginia's trout streams which indicates without further
cuts in sulfur in particular, we may see a loss of 35 percent
of the trout streams of Virginia, which they extrapolated in
the southern Appalachians to thousands of miles of trout
streams throughout the east coast.
And our publication, which I hope to provide to the
committee, on acid rain, also documents this phenomenon around
the country and the basic findings in the NAPAP report.
I think both reports come to two conclusions. One is that
the mechanism that Congress put in place, the cap and trade
program, is working extremely well. The second conclusion of
both reports, I feel, is that the goals of Congress to protect
sensitive environmental areas, have not yet been met.
That's why we very much favor S. 1097, the Acid Deposition
Control Act. Because I think it does three things, in short.
One, it capitalizes on the success of the sulfur program by
creating a third phase to achieve an additional 50 percent cut
from sulfur. Second, it creates a parallel NOx program
capitalizing on the market mechanism that clearly is working
very well.
And I do want to mention that we have preferred the
proposal, the NOx program, in this bill to the trading and SIP
Call proposal from EPA for some time. Because we feel that this
proposal is year-round, it addresses a national problem, it
addresses problems other than the immediate problems that OTAG
was focusing on. And we believe that it also has some
advantages of having statutory authority. There is a report out
of the Congressional Budget Office that basically came to some
similar conclusions. I'm sure you have access to that.
Third, the bill provides a continuation of the research
monitoring that has led us to the scientific certainty that we
have now that we need to address the problem. I think it's
quite clear that Congress wisely set up a reporting mechanism.
Those reports are now in. We have now some scientific certainty
as to what's going on out there, and the time is now for a mid-
course correction. We urge you to support this bill.
Thank you.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tyndall.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. TYNDALL, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICE, CINERGY CORPORATION
Mr. Tyndall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is William Tyndall, and I'm a vice President of
Environmental Services for Cinergy Corporation. I should add
that up until about 7 weeks ago, I was a counsel on the House
side for Mr. Dingell and was working on these issues. I'm not
sure which I enjoy more. They seem a lot harder from this side.
Senator Sessions. I can vouch for that, Mr. Tyndall.
Mr. Tyndall. As one of the first utilities to endorse an
acid rain title as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments,
Cinergy retains a keen interest in any further consideration of
legislation on this subject. To summarize our views, we are
committed to addressing the environmental consequences of
emissions from our power plants. But we believe it's premature
to adopt any new acid rain legislation, certainly acid rain
legislation standing alone, until the existing acid rain
provisions of the Clean Air Act are fully implemented, and more
importantly, until EPA's recent initiatives on NOx transport,
the new national ambient air quality standards and regional
haze, are understood if not implemented.
Senator Sessions, when I was listening to you, I jotted
down the things that I sit here in my new job trying to manage.
They include a new 8-hour standard, a new PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standard, a new NOx SIP Call, possible mercury controls,
possible CO<INF>2</INF> controls, and acid rain. I would say,
although EPA talks about the need to coordinate these things,
at this moment in time, each of these regulatory initiatives is
proceeding singly on different time scales, different
timeframes and we are madly trying to figure out if and how you
comply and what the best strategy is, as we also move forward
into a deregulated environment.
Senator Sessions. Just based on your experience with the
House and this initiative, have you ever seen this many new
regulatory initiatives coming on the scene at one time?
Mr. Tyndall. No, but in self-interest, I should say
probably it is what got me hired.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sessions. You've become an important person, I've
no doubt.
Mr. Tyndall. Cinergy Corporation and its subsidiaries own
and operate fossil-fired and hydroelectric generating
facilities in Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio. Cinergy is one of the
Nation's largest coal-burning utilities. We are confident that
coal will continue to be an important fuel source for
electrical generation in the future.
Because of this, Cinergy accepts its obligation to assure
that all of its use of this fuel meets current environmental
standards as well as future environmental standards.
EPA has already talked to the committee about how much
progress has been made under the existing both Clean Air Act
and specifically the Acid Rain program. This is not to say that
everything is done. But as the committee considers S. 1097, it
is necessary to bear in mind not only the environmental
progress we have made, but what additional reductions we can
expect in the future. Under the Acid Rain program phase two,
there are an estimated 4.6 million tons of sulfur dioxide
emissions and an additional 1.6 million tons of nitrogen oxide
emissions that will be removed from the air.
Second, EPA has adopted in the last few years, as I've
stated, a number of new emission initiatives that will lead to
emission reductions by utilities and nearly every other
business. For instance, EPA has recently finalized its NOx SIP
Call rule for 22 eastern States and the District of Columbia.
Under the rule, utility nitrogen oxide emissions will fall by
over 1 million tons. The estimated capital cost to utilities in
the 22 State region is over $14 billion.
Cinergy estimates its capital costs to comply with this
rule alone are approximately $500 million to $600 million,
which by the way based on the figures from EPA is more than the
entire States of New York and New Jersey will spend to comply
with a SIP Call. I'm sorry Senator D'Amato isn't here to hear
that.
Beyond the NOx SIP Call, last year EPA tightened the
national ambient air quality standard for ozone, created a new
national ambient air standard for fine particles and proposed
new regional haze regulations. In doing so, it set in motion a
myriad of State and local planning activities that will result
in further reductions in air pollutants beyond those called for
by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. Of course, further
reductions of these pollutants will directly affect acid
deposition.
I should also point out that as a result of Senator
Inhofe's amendment to the Transportation Bill enacted last
spring, Congress has established implementation milestones for
the new ozone and fine particle standard. For the new PM
standard, the Inhofe amendment extended the implementation
schedule to allow States to site, install and operate a new
monitoring network. Senator Inhofe's amendment received the
support of EPA, the States, and Members of Congress from both
sides of the aisle, because of the universal recognition that
States could not design effective fine particle implementation
programs without the data from the new monitoring network.
In conference, the House and Senate agreed to tie the
timing of the regional haze program to the timing of the fine
particle standard implementation. In doing so, Congress
recognized that the compounds blamed for regional haze, such as
SO<INF>2</INF>, are also the precursors to fine particles, thus
moving ahead on regional haze would defeat the point of the
Inhofe amendment, to allow States to build their implementation
strategies, using the data generated by the new monitoring
program.
I bring all this up, because the committee should apply the
same logic to S. 1097 as it considers this measure. Since the
pollutants at issue are the same, any new acid rain program
should be coordinated with the implementation of the new
particle standard.
In conclusion, as a result of the Clean Air Act, we've made
tremendous progress in reducing emissions of pollutants
associated with acid rain. We can expect further progress
through implementation of the rest of the acid rain program.
Whether these reductions standing alone will eliminate
acidification of the Nation's lakes and streams may be in
dispute.
But it is no longer the relevant question. EPA has set in
motion many new programs that will result in further reductions
in the relevant pollutants. This committee should not act on
this bill or any similar legislation until we have a full
understanding of the reductions that these initiatives will
trigger.
More importantly, any legislation on this topic must be
coordinated with the Inhofe amendment to ensure that further
reductions are based on sound science and coordinated with
implementation of the new air quality standards.
Before I conclude, I would also like to agree completely
with the statements made by West Virginia, in that 13 States
put proposals before EPA, including the three States that we
operate, that Cinergy operates in. There was never a formal
response, there was never any attempt to see whether the
differences between Senator Chafee's State and other States
could be bridged, without getting into a situation where we may
have States suing directly to set this aside, we may have
States fighting EPA over what is going to be in their SIPs.
And we may very well end up with a lot of regional
skirmishing instead of reaching some agreement that
accommodates both sides, so we can move forward.
I think there are solutions that could have satisfied both
sides. They probably deal more with the timing than the
stringency. But we never got a chance to explore those, and I
think that's a lost opportunity.
I'll conclude with that. Thank you very much.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much, Mr. Tyndall.
We're glad to be joined by Senator Wayne Allard. Senator
Allard, do you have any comments?
Senator Allard. Not right now. I wanted to listen to the
testimony here. I'm not particularly excited about looking at a
reallocation that might impact my State on this issue. Because
we do have coal-generated electricity in the State, although
it's clean coal. And I want to approach this particular piece
of legislation very cautiously, so I understand how this might
impact the State of Colorado.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to recognize
you for any questions you may have.
Chairman Chafee. Well, aren't you nice, Senator.
Why don't you go ahead. I came in on the latter part, and I
will have some questions. But you go ahead, and I'll pick up
when you're through.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Kropp and Mr. Tyndall have both said,
Mr. McLean, that they went to some considerable effort, being
representatives of their States, to submit some proposals to
EPA. And they were not, in their opinion, adequately responded
to or respected, and no dialog ensued.
To me, I think EPA at a minimum ought to engage very
seriously these departments of environmental management or
private sector experts, and really attempt to confront and
grapple with the science of this problem. Do you think that's a
valid criticism and would you comment on that?
Mr. McLean. I think the suggestion is a good one. And I
think over the last 3 years, EPA has tried several times to
engage the industry in a dialog on particularly integrating
various regulatory requirements that we saw approaching.
In 1995, we met with the utility industry and States and
other interests and said, would it be helpful if we tried to
sit down and evaluate all the different requirements that we
saw coming up over the next several years, revisions to the
NAAQS, mercury requirements, regional haze requirements, even
climate requirements. And said, would it be good if we tried to
evaluate these and come up with a more comprehensive approach
that would lay out a strategy for 10 to 15 years, so that we
wouldn't have this layer upon layer of requirement that was
referred to earlier.
We got general support from the industry that we should
approach this. And a few months later, we held our first
meeting. And we were attacked by the same people who had said
we should approach this issue.
Senator Sessions. Attacked in terms of, they disagreed with
your proposals? Or attacked for having the hearing?
Mr. McLean. Well, attacked about the process. They said
this is an extra regulatory process. We told them this is what
we would do, and then they turned around and disagreed with the
approach.
Senator Sessions. Well, do you see anything wrong with
fundamentally an informal meeting as you develop or receive
information from a multitude of sources, when you've got 12 or
13 States who wish to share that with you, just to sit down and
enter into dialog with them?
Mr. McLean. Well, we did. In fact, Cinergy came to us
earlier this year, relative to the SIP Call, and had some
suggestions about a way that we might find a middle ground
approach. And we did sit down and talk to them about that
approach. And shortly thereafter, they formed a larger group
and they backed away from the proposal and put forth a proposal
that did little beyond the current Act.
So we interpreted that as a moving away from a position
where we might find common ground.
Senator Sessions. Well, let me ask Mr. Tyndall. How would
you respond to that?
Mr. Tyndall. I think it would also be appropriate to ask
West Virginia. But Cinergy worked very hard in the last year to
put together a coalition of utilities and try and put something
constructive on the table. Eventually an alternative was put
forward by 13 States of the 22 States that were subject to the
SIP call. And it basically was a two-step approach. One was an
emissions reduction of 65 percent, and EPA ended up with
approximately 85 percent. But that was a first step.
And the second step was further reductions as necessary to
meet the new 8-hour standard, which isn't supposed to be
implemented until 2005, although in appearances before the
committee I staffed, EPA regularly talked about a 2010 or 2012
implementation date when they were on the selling side of the
new air quality standard.
But they went with an 85 percent due in 2003, both because
of the----
Senator Sessions. An 85 percent reduction?
Mr. Tyndall. Due by 2003, because in their view it's
necessary for both the 1-hour and the 8-hour, that the 8-hour,
if you're not supposed to be in compliance with the 8-hour
standard in 2005, it makes little sense to us why you would
structure the decision that way.
So it was a two-step reduction generally supported by 13
States and if you look through EPA's 1,600 pages that they put
out the week before last, you will not find a direct discussion
of that. So even in the formal rulemaking, I must say, I can't
guarantee in the whole 1,600 pages, I looked pretty carefully,
I couldn't find it, other people have looked pretty carefully,
they couldn't find it.
Instead, what you find is some references to commentors.
The States were reduced to being commentors. And they were
treated no differently than anybody else in the public.
Essentially what there is, is a brief discussion of the
modeling that shows that the lower reductions may be just as
effective as the higher reductions and especially when there's
a guarantee that there would be a second step to see if more
reductions are necessary.
Then EPA said, well, we're not going to deal with that
modeling. Instead, we'll do our own, which they put out at the
same time as the new rule without any input from anybody.
I had to deal with the press a lot on the date this rule
came out. What I said time and time again is, there's a lost
opportunity here. We have a regional war going on. We could
have tried to come up with something that resolved it. EPA
essentially stoked the fires.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Kropp, how would you comment on that?
Mr. Kropp. On March 9, which was the comment date for the
November 1997 EPA SIP Call rule, the State of West Virginia and
nine other States submitted a letter to EPA Administrator
Browner and President Clinton. And in that letter, we committed
to having an alternative proposal done by August 1, 1998 to the
OTAG SIP Call.
EPA's response was to open the comment period not to August
1, but to June 25. So we redoubled our efforts, and we had a
meeting in May in North Carolina with representatives----
Senator Sessions. You mean they'd already set the August 1
date, or is that a date you requested?
Mr. Kropp. That was the date we requested. And then the
publication came out on, saying that the close of the comment
period was June 25.
In early May 1998, ten of us, different State
representatives, met with EPA in North Carolina. During that
meeting, we raised the issue of our perception problem. The
perception was that we had all submitted comments by the March
9 deadline, and none of us had gotten any response to any of
our comments. And yet, EPA had proposed supplemental rules
after receiving our comments. In the supplemental rules, they
did not incorporate the bulk of our comments.
We did submit, six States wound up being in the Southeast-
Midwest Governors Ozone Coalition. We submitted the alternative
proposal by the end of the comment date on June 25. And I, like
Mr. Tyndall, confess that I have not read word for word the
1,600 pages of rules. But I do not find, nor has West Virginia,
nor to my knowledge any other State, received any kind of a
formal response even acknowledging the existence of the
Governors Ozone Coalition.
And I believe, as well, that it's a lost opportunity. The
Governors Ozone Coalition proposal supported a two phase
reduction which would begin with 65 percent reduction for
utilities by the year 2004, followed by whatever it took. And
if that was 85 percent, fine, if it was 95 percent, fine. But
we believe that the science still needs to be defined in order
to decide what emission reductions will be necessary to attain
the 8-hour standard.
Senator Sessions. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman?
Senator Inhofe [resuming the Chair]. Thank you, Senator
Sessions.
Again, I apologize, we have two committee meetings
simultaneous right now. One's an Armed Services Committee, so I
was going back and forth. But I'm here for the duration now.
Mr. Tyndall, it's nice to have you here in your new
position. People say there's no such thing as bipartisanship,
and yet your old boss and I worked together for 12 years. You
performed great services for him and then for us. And I
appreciate that very much.
In the event that questions have already been asked, I
would like to ask one question, then go on to the Chairman. Mr.
Kropp, you took part in the midwestern Governors conference
this summer, I believe, didn't you?
Mr. Kropp. Which conference?
Senator Inhofe. In the midwestern Governors counterproposal
that they came up with to the EPA's recommendation on their SIP
Call?
Mr. Kropp. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. And in that, I believe you stated in your
testimony that shutting down all man-made sources of NOx
emissions in the midwest will not result in the northeast
attaining the old 1-hour ozone standard. Is that accurate?
Mr. Kropp. That's correct, and that's based on OTAG
modeling, not modeling that our Governors coalition did.
Senator Inhofe. All right. Mr. Melewski, he has pointed out
that even if the midwest eliminates all emissions, the
northeast will still not comply with the ozone standard. Mr.
Tyndall points out that only 29 percent of NOx emissions come
from utilities, while 49 percent come from the transportation
sector.
It would seem to me that the northeast is trying to blame
everybody else for their problems. Would you respond to that
statement in terms of the transportation, the NOx emissions
coming from utilities, while the 49 percent come from the
transportation sector?
Mr. Melewski. Senator, I'm sorry you missed our testimony.
Senator Inhofe. If you answered in your testimony, then
don't respond any more. That's fine. I'll get it from the
record. I do apologize.
Mr. Melewski. Well, the short answer, sir, is that the two
reports to Congress which Congress commissioned in 1990 support
our contention that a cap and trade program on NOx is both
desirable and very effective to address not only the acid rain
problem, but also the ozone problem.
Senator Inhofe. All right, sir, thank you very much.
The Chairman.
Chairman Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I didn't hear all the testimony, but I heard some of it.
Mr. Kropp, we've got a problem here from the northeast point of
view. And I can understand the approach that you have here. As
the Chairman mentioned, you indicated that if you just shut
down everything, all coal burning out in your section, it would
have relatively insignificant environmental benefits.
What is the answer? Is it the mobile sources that the
Chairman was mentioning?
Mr. Kropp. Senator, my understanding from the OTAG modeling
data was that the previously thought hypothesis of long-range
transport on the order of 600 miles or so has been proven
wrong, and that in fact, in the case of West Virginia, we
believe that our emissions absolutely are impacting Western
Pennsylvania, and we intend to do something about that. But we
believe that local solutions are the answer on the order of 150
to 200 miles from those local problems.
Chairman Chafee. Well, let's take New England as an entity,
since it's geographically not that large. I'll give you a bit
of incidental information. Did you know Maine is as big as the
rest of New England put together?
Mr. Kropp. I did not know that.
Chairman Chafee. Well, chalk that up as a bit of trivia.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Chafee. But taking New England as a whole, you're
saying the solution is local. In other words, our problem as
you see it is generated by our own power plants?
Mr. Kropp. I think it's an oversimplification to say that
the problem is power plants only. In the case of ozone, there
are two precursors, nitrogen oxide emissions and organic
compounds. There is a vast inventory of both, more than enough
being emitted all over the northeastern part of the United
States to go around.
We believe, for example, in West Virginia, that we had some
ozone non-attainment areas with the old 1-hour standard. In our
case, we implemented very, very severe and stringent VOC
reduction requirements and our ozone levels dropped. We are now
in attainment with the old 1-hour standard.
We haven't had to designate yet and won't be required until
June or July 1999 to designate non-attainment areas under the
new 8-hour standard.
Chairman Chafee. Mr. Tyndall, I want to welcome you here.
It was interesting what you said on page 6, and I wonder if Mr.
McLean would agree with this. You say the SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions are currently the lowest in the United States in the
past 50 years. Mr. Tyndall, do you stand by that?
Mr. Tyndall. It's in my written testimony? I completely
stand by it.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Chafee. I'd ask you to review page 6 of your
testimony.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tyndall. Senator Chafee, I do recall that. And I do
stand by it.
Chairman Chafee. Start on the second paragraph,
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the United States are the lowest in
50 years as a result of these existing programs.
Now, I might say, your not being absolutely conversant with
every part of your testimony is not grounds for chastisement. I
think most of us have that similar experience.
Mr. Tyndall. I was actually responding more, in the House
we swear everybody in, at least in the Oversight Investigations
Committee. So when you're asked a question like that, you have
to make very sure it really was in your testimony.
But I certainly stand by the statement that's in there.
Chairman Chafee. So you feel since you weren't sworn here,
you can be a little more casual?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tyndall. I would refer to my earlier statement.
Chairman Chafee. Mr. Melewski, what do you say? You've
spent a lot of time studying this, and representing the
incredible park that you do, and the council that deals with
the park. I think it is always interesting to us to realize the
size of that park. It is, as you point out, twice the size of
Yellowstone.
Mr. Melewski. Yes. You could put Yellowstone and Yosemite
combined inside the Adirondack Park.
Chairman Chafee. Well, that's incredible. And indeed,
protected by the constitution of the State of New York.
Mr. Melewski. Yes. Actually, that has been unique to the
world, that the State constitution, since 1895, makes all
public lands inside the park, which is both public and private,
forever wild, it's in Article 14 of our constitution.
Chairman Chafee. Now, you heard the testimony of Mr. Kropp
and others here, that you've got a particular problem, and
we're aware of your problem, having Senator Moynihan serving in
this committee for so many years. I think he's served in this
committee ever since he came here.
But you heard the others say that if they shut down ever
SO<INF>2</INF> emission in West Virginia, it wouldn't make a
bit of difference in the east, minimal. What do you say to
that?
Mr. Melewski. Well, I would refer you to the two reports
that Congress commissioned. I think they take exception to that
conclusion. I also take exception to the notion that we----
Chairman Chafee. I guess I said SO<INF>2</INF>. I guess
it's the NOx emissions. Go ahead.
Mr. Melewski. I also take exception to the notion that
further delay is warranted. While I did not elaborate in my
oral testimony, my full testimony indicates that the reports to
Congress did not come here without some considerable struggle
and the threat of litigation. And they were much delayed.
The delayed reports now indicate that we have a very small
timeframe in which to literally save the Adirondack Park and to
make any kind of substantial progress on cleaning up our
coastal estuaries. Perhaps there will be other impacts across
the east coast.
Our observation is that the scientific evidence is fairly
well conclusive that further cuts are necessary, and that the
sources to New York State, for example, are dramatically
outside the State, especially with regard to sulfate, which is
in excess of 90 percent of the total loading in the States,
comes from outside our borders.
Chairman Chafee. Do you think it may well be that problems
that are manifesting themselves now are just as a result of
years and years of accumulation and you passed over the
threshold where now the dangers and the damage coming from the
accumulations that have been there and caused there year after
year after year, so even though circumstances haven't changed,
and if you go along with Mr. Tyndall's sworn testimony that the
emissions have been reduced, nonetheless, any emissions now put
you over the border? Do you think that's the case?
Mr. Melewski. Well, Senator, you must have read the NAPAP
report as well. That's exactly their conclusion, that we are at
a saturation point, not only in the Adirondacks, but also in
the southern pine forests of the United States, and even in the
highlands of Colorado. That is the most dramatic aspect of the
NAPAP report, that we are near saturation. Certainly we're past
saturation in the Adirondacks, but we're near saturation
throughout a good portion of the east coast and highland areas
in California and Colorado as well.
So I agree with you completely that we need to dramatically
drop loading, just to get back, as Senator D'Amato has
mentioned, to a 1984 level in the Adirondacks, basically.
Chairman Chafee. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a knotty problem. This is a problem that is of
great concern to the section of the country I come from, and I
appreciate the effort you went to to put together this panel,
and thank all the members of the panel for taking the trouble
to be with us.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Chafee.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to followup
on my further comment. I apologize for missing your earlier
testimony, but it couldn't be avoided.
In the legislation, we have taken and we're allocating the
NOx from 22 States over to all 48, the lower? Is that what
we're doing? Mr. McLean, would you explain how that would
impact the other 26 States that we have out there? Has there
been some study to make an evaluation on those other 26 States?
Mr. McLean. We haven't done an analysis of this particular
bill. But what the bill does is it expands geographically and
throughout the year the NOx reduction that would be done in the
east for the SIP Call. What it results in the 23 jurisdictions
of the SIP Call is about the same reduction that the SIP Call
called for. But it calls for a slightly lower reduction in the
winter and a reduction throughout the 48 States.
Senator Allard. With that, though, there is this allocation
of shares based on NOx emissions, is that right, from the
plants, which is actually under the allowance program? So then
you bring in more States into the allowance program, is that
correct?
Mr. McLean. Right.
Senator Allard. And so when you do that, what does that do
to the other, what happens to the dynamics of all this, when
you bring in all these 26 States, or 25 or whatever we're
talking about?
Mr. McLean. Well, the first thing that we consider when
someone makes a proposal for trading, we look at the geographic
area of the trading, the level of control. And we evaluate it
through economic models as to what is likely to happen in terms
of shifting of emissions. Our first concern is environmentally,
is it going to produce a shift in emissions that would be
detrimental. Or is it going to result in minimal shifts in
emissions, and actually just obtain the economic benefits of
having the trading.
And when we looked at Title IV, when that was being
proposed for sulfur, and when we looked at the SIP Call, where
we looked at a 23 State jurisdiction, we did that kind of
examination to assure ourselves that the result would not be
any major shift in emissions away from areas where we thought
the control would be most important.
We would want to do the same thing with this bill to see
that if we enlarged the geographic area and enlarged throughout
the year, made the reductions throughout the year, that in fact
the reductions would be what would be desirable. I think the
goal of the bill was to get slightly more reductions in the
summer time, where we have an ozone problem, as well as to get
some reductions in the winter time to deal with the acid rain
issue and eutrophication issues.
Senator Allard. See, I'm particularly concerned, because I
come from a higher altitude State. We have a little different
dynamics, because we tend to have less complete combustion. And
so I would like to see some information as to how it's going to
have an impact on these 26 other States. Do you plan on doing
some work on that?
Mr. McLean. Well, we got a request from Senator Moynihan's
office to look at the bill, and we will try to do that. We've
been a little backlogged this year, but we're going to try to
get to that analysis.
Senator Allard. Yes. I don't know if there's any plan to
push this thing through in the last minute of this session. If
there is, I'd be concerned about that. But I guess what I would
like to know is, if you could do that evaluation. Because I'd
be interested in what is happening in the other 25, 23 States
through the allowance program in nitrous oxide emissions, if
it's allocated through that, and see how these other States are
impacted.
I realize this is an issue that is faced pretty much in the
midwest to New England States. But we also, with this bill, it
also brings in another 25 to 26 States. And in our focusing on
those States, I hope we don't lose sight of the total picture,
which I'm trying to accomplish here. So if you could get us a
report on that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. McLean. OK.
Senator Allard. Maybe the committee would like to have that
report, Mr. Chairman, in which case we could have him send it
to the committee, too.
Senator Inhofe. That would be a good idea. I think we can
respond to your question about something being passed through
in this last week. It would be most unlikely. It's not going to
happen.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. In my opening testimony, which I didn't get
the whole part out, I talked about the layering of regulation
after regulation of the PM of ozone, regional haze, the SIP
Call and all the rest. What I didn't read in my statement, but
it's in my written statement, is that next year I will be
asking the General Accounting Office to examine the cumulative
impacts of all these regulatory programs on the economy.
Now, Mr. Tyndall, I would like to ask you, has your company
done any work in this direction to see what is the cumulative
effect of all these regulations?
Mr. Tyndall. Well, I guess the answer is yes and no. We
have done in EEI, Edison Electric Institute, has done some work
in looking at the cumulative impact. I don't think anybody has
completed an analysis so that we know what each of these things
are going to do.
The timing is, because of your efforts, the timing of
regional haze and the fine particulate standard are now joined
together. But there still is the question of the 8-hour ozone
standard. There is also mercury, CO<INF>2</INF>, acid rain, and
how they fit together, they are each independently set up under
the Act to the extent there's legal authority for what EPA is
doing. And that's part of the problem when EPA brings everybody
into a room and says, well, let's work voluntarily on trying to
rationalize all these. There are several different statutory
deadlines involved that EPA can't move unilaterally.
So it becomes very difficult to try and put them all
together. It's very important, and probably the most important
thing from our point of view, that Congress should look at as
it considers reauthorization.
Unfortunately, we're making business decisions today about
implementing all of these, and trying to make guesses. The
reality is that the legislative cycle is going to be well
behind our business decisions.
Senator Inhofe. Well, while we do have some things locked
in, so that it's easier to analyze the costs of particulate
matter, ozone, regional haze, and I hate to say it, but I think
your guess is probably as good or better than our guess would
be on the rest of these things. But any information you have,
if you would share with GAO to help them come up with
something.
I think it's very significant. I think certainly those of
us on this committee who are here today and the majority of the
committee are going to be more concerned about cost benefit
analyses and things that we have not been as concerned as we
should have been before.
Mr. McLean, in your testimony you seemed to suggest that in
some areas it may get worse before it gets better, but it
ultimately is going to get better, if I read that correctly.
Are we on the road to recovery for acid rain? And is the
current program working?
Mr. McLean. Well, what I tried to characterize there, it is
complex. There are areas where we're clearly seeing benefits as
a result of the 1990 amendments and the reductions that are
occurring. And we expect to see some continued benefits from
that.
At the same time, over the last 8 years, we have continued
to evaluate the situation using our latest understanding of the
science and the models and bring them to bear on this issue,
and find that with the full implementation of the Act, there
will probably still be some areas where we are not achieving
the full goals that we set out to achieve. And I do think that
one of them clearly is in the Adirondacks, which is one that
we've pointed out in reports that we've done and NAPAP has
done. And it looks like throughout the mid-Atlantic region
there will be some areas that do not fully recover with the
current program.
Senator Inhofe. You heard in the first panel, when we
talked to the representatives who were here, representing the
State of New York, that they came out with their
recommendations, and with this bill, prior to the changes that
the EPA had come out with. Do you agree with their response
that we need to go ahead with these restrictions or these
regulations? Or with the bill, as opposed to going with the new
rules that they're proposing?
Mr. McLean. Well, what we did want to talk about is perhaps
more next year, when you get into the reauthorization hearings,
is to talk about these issues and how they can be better
integrated into the Act.
Senator Inhofe. But for right now, you think the new rules
that you have put out there would be adequate?
Mr. McLean. I think the new rules we've put out will be
adequate for the summer ozone problem in the east, reducing the
transport of summer ozone in the east. They do not address the
winter acid deposition.
Senator Inhofe. That Senator D'Amato talked about. Any
other comments about that?
Mr. Tyndall. On the question of, EPA's NOx SIP Call is a
summer requirement. But when you look at what power plants will
do to comply with that, some of the things they will do, fuel
switching, new burner technology, are things that you basically
will do year-round. So it's not clear that because it's a
seasonal standard that it will only be implemented on a
seasonal basis by power plants.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kropp, you raised the 150-200 mile range in which you
really get some impact from containing NOx emissions or
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, how strongly do you feel about it?
How big a disagreement do we have here? Is this a close
question? Our people from New York say no doubt that, I suppose
those in Alabama, are causing their acid rain. Are they
correct? And what can we say with certainty about that?
Mr. Kropp. Senator, I'm not sure that we can say anything
with certainty. However, the OTAG process came out with a
number of significant conclusions and recommendations.
Senator Sessions. This is a process that included EPA and
environmental groups?
Mr. Kropp. Yes. It was a stakeholder process. And my
understanding was it was funded for the most part by EPA. And
that process used computer models to predict the impact of
various control scenarios. And if one accepts the validity of
those computer models, then I think what the results were, and
what the OTAG process concluded, was that the extremely long-
range transport hypothesized simply is not occurring to any
great extent.
The results that we've looked at indicate that the
imposition of the, for example, the OTAG Sip Call on sources in
the midwest, may result in an ozone improvement on an episode
day in the north to northeast of something----
Senator Sessions. An ozone improvement?
Mr. Kropp. An ozone improvement, yes, on the order of a few
parts per billion. There are some scientists who say that on a
120 part per billion standard, which the old standard was,
models can't even detect that, it's within the noise. So you
have to accept the premise that those models work.
If you do, it seems to say that controlling only power
plants in the midwest is not going to accomplish the attainment
of the old standard in the northeast.
Senator Sessions. Now, that's what Senator Byrd said. I was
in the chair and heard his speech. He said it will have an
infinitesimal and virtually no benefit. His challenge is,
should we have these heavy burdens if they're not going to
produce any benefits.
Mr. McLean, I believe you'd like to comment on that.
Mr. McLean. Yes. I think to try to understand this issue,
people try to draw boundaries, 150, 200, 600. It's like saying
you have an impact up to that point, and then the next mile,
you have no impact.
These are a gradually reducing impacts over distance. You
have a dispersion of pollutants, you have a reaction of
pollutants. You have changing wind directions.
So when people, depending on your point of view, you can
either try to bring that line in and say it has a short impact,
or you're going to try to stretch that line out and say it has
a long impact. The fact is, it's a gradually declining impact.
But we have thousands of sources and dozens of States that
are impacting dozens of non-attainment areas throughout the
eastern United States. So, you don't look at one power plant,
look at one non-attainment area and say, does this have a
significant impact.
Senator Sessions. What about these models, though? Don't
they take that into account?
Mr. McLean. The models take all of that into account. And
it's very difficult to characterize the result of a model with
a single sentence, you know, it's 150 miles. What the model
shows you is the picture of all the sources over time having
impacts on all the non-attainment areas, and giving you a sense
of the degree of impact it has on all the different areas.
I think it was interesting this morning that we heard
Senator D'Amato say that if I shut down all the industry in New
York, it wouldn't solve my problem. Yet West Virginia is
saying, if we shut down all the industry in West Virginia, it
wouldn't solve New York's problem.
Well, the truth is, we don't want to shut down anyone's
industry. What we want to do is control industries in a cost-
effective way, to bring about a reduction and a solution to
these problems. We believe we're going to need to reduce
emissions in both New York and West Virginia if we're going to
be solving this issue. You can't cordon off one State from
another.
Senator Sessions. Has there been any research on worldwide
transport of these pollutants, for example, we know what kind
of problem there is in China if you're there. To what extent
are some of our problems coming from international sources,
where we happen to have much less stringent pollution laws?
Anybody want to comment on that?
Mr. Melewski. I can comment that, in the late 1980's and
1990, the Clean Air Act amendments were adopted in
consideration of bilateral agreements with Canada, who also
engaged in a program to reduce their emissions substantially.
Because they were having an impact on New England and western
New York in particular.
They have followed through on that program, and that's one
reason why we find it so significant now that Environment
Canada is calling on their government to pursue a renewal of
the bilateral agreement with much lower targets.
So yes, there is cross boundary pollution issues with
regard to acid rain in Canada and the United States.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Melewski, with regard to the
northeast, are you familiar with the December 1996 Scientific
American article and/or the study that went behind it, dealing
with the question that with regard to dust particles and other
particulate matter, that they are in fact natural antacids,
much as an antacid helps your stomach? And they note that in
addition to the lowering of acidity, precipitation, atmospheric
base casseins also neutralize acid rain, once they reach the
ground.
And they go on and have some charts in this article that
say, parallel decreases, parallel decreases in acidic sulfur
pollutions and the base casseins that neutralize them cancel
out much of the expected benefits from reducing pollutants. And
they cite a Swedish study and a northeast United States study.
And they go on to note that other studies have shown that
levels of the base casein calcium have decreased in the trees
of a New Hampshire forest over the past several decades. Such
decreases in essential nutrients weakens the forest further.
The authors say, when we began this work, we certainly did
not anticipate that reduction in one form of pollution, dust
particles, would be found to decrease the success of reductions
of another pollutant, sulfur dioxide. Are you familiar with
that? I guess that's one reason we've got on parallel track, PM
ozone, OTAG, haze, NOx, sulfur dioxide, all these things going.
And is anybody thinking about how it's going to come out in the
end?
Mr. Melewski. I am familiar, not with the article, but with
the issue. It is a fascinating dynamic. It's explored much more
extensively again in the NAPAP report, which was delivered in
August to Congress. But it raises, the implications are quite
profound for our forestry industry. The depletion of mineral
resources, retarding growth, exposing forests to more insect
infestation, basically weakening our forest industry from Maine
to Alabama, I think is a very serious consideration.
One of the things that NAPAP pointed out is that
approximately 59 percent of the southern pine area is now to a
saturation level which this type of leachate of basic minerals
may affect long-term viability of the forests. So it's a much
bigger dynamic than the particulates being removed and
affecting the total chemistry. But the impacts for us are quite
severe. It appears to us that the most predictable and viable
resolution is simply to minimize the total loading of sulfur
and nitrogen, which is what the bill seeks to accomplish.
Senator Sessions. Well, that's what the article pointed
out, we have been doing those things and we haven't received
some of the benefits we expected to receive from it because of
the countervailing scientific events.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Sessions, do you have more
questions to ask? First of all, let me apologize for having to
go back and forth, but I'm in the Senate Armed Services
Committee and I've got to go on down there. We will be keeping
the record open when we adjourn this meeting for 7 days. There
will be questions that will be submitted, because we have a lot
of staff people here who will be submitting for their members.
So we'll hopefully be looking forward to your responding to
those questions. And I appreciate your attendance here very
much.
But let me, if you don't mind, go ahead and go back to the
Armed Services Committee meeting, and you go ahead and complete
the Chair in this meeting.
Senator Sessions. Very good.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions [assuming the Chair]. Mr. Melewski,
installation of the expensive SO<INF>2</INF> NOx and mercury
control technologies could lead utilities to decide to continue
the use of coal indefinitely. In addition, SO<INF>2</INF>
scrubbers, which would be required to achieve a 50 percent
reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> actually increase CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions.
What implications do these facts have on the current
concerns about CO<INF>2</INF> that we've been dealing with?
Mr. Melewski. Well, I can't speak directly to the
CO<INF>2</INF> issue, I have no expertise in that area. I can
say that the benefits of the bill's structure is that they take
advantage of the marketing mechanism that has now been
demonstrated to be quite effective. There is maximum
flexibility for the utilities to come in compliance. There's
maximum opportunity to use pollution allowances in an openly
traded market mechanism.
And the expense can be mitigated through sound business
planning. That's the basis for the trading mechanism. I think
it's been very successful so far. The costs are much lower than
what was projected. And the impact on every utility and its own
business decisions, whether to fuel switch or to add scrubbers
or to discontinue the unit I think are going to be very dynamic
and this is a perfect mechanism. They are going to be
especially dynamic as States deregulate their utility industry,
as New York is doing.
Senator Sessions. Anyone else?
Mr. Tyndall. I would add that to provide an advantage to
business planning, you have some certainty. When there are
seven things coming at you, you have no certainty. To the
extent this bill were to schedule every one of these things,
setting aside what the stringency levels would be, that may
begin to give you some certainty. But since this is the bite
for acid rain, and there are five more major things coming at
you, you don't have the certainty.
Senator Sessions. Well, Mr. Tyndall, you've been on both
sides of the table now.
Mr. Tyndall. Seven weeks on this side of the table.
Senator Sessions. Well, is it possible to have a more
comprehensive bill and a more comprehensive set of regulations
that could give more predictability and certainty to business
as they go about investing?
Mr. Tyndall. It's theoretically possible for Congress to
resolve a number of these issues. The dynamic that has
developed that I saw when I worked with the staff here on these
issues and that members who have worked on this have run into
is that EPA has been pretty much taking positions on one side
of the spectrum. And States that are benefited by that don't
see any reason to even begin to move legislation, because it
will only diminish where they are right now.
So we haven't gotten to a situation where there are
compromises.
But any one of these issues and certainly, you add to the
political troubles when you add the issues. But any one of
these issues is a candidate to be resolved here versus
administrative action, since the administrative action in most
cases is tenuous at best in terms of its relationship to the
Clean Air Act. And hasn't been done in a manner that gets you a
compromise so that we're not all sitting here, with Senator
D'Amato calling Ohio airborne terrorists and us telling him to
put some controls on the taxi drivers and leave the voters of
Ohio alone.
That's not going to be a productive way to go.
Mr. McLean. Senator, with all due respect to Mr. Tyndall,
dynamics change. And I think that the atmosphere while he was
staffing and the atmosphere now, there are several dynamics
that have occurred in that 7 weeks. One of them is that the
NAPAP report has been delivered. The second is that EPA has
proposed its own ozone regulations.
I think he's being a little disingenuous that the acid rain
legislation that is before us for discussion today will not
have a positive impact and a predictable impact in coming into
compliance with many of the other regulatory efforts that EPA
has deservedly advanced. So I think that quite the contrary,
the perspective that the legislature is a mire and won't be
able to resolve these problems I think is shortsighted. I think
that Congress, by taking another look at this particular
program, may open up avenues to resolve some other conflicts.
Mr. Tyndall. But the question would be, would, if we pass
this and there were the SO<INF>2</INF> reductions in this bill,
would that be all utilities or any other business would have to
do to comply with the fine particulate standard that's coming 4
years from now or 5 years from now.
Senator Sessions. What do you think, from the commercial
side? What are the most difficult challenges? We have
particulate matter, ozone, regional haze. We've got NOx and
SO<INF>2</INF> and those kinds of things. What are the ones
that are most challenging, briefly, you think are going to be
most difficult to meet or most costly to meet?
Mr. Tyndall. I think that we view the NOx, the
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions that may be required as part of the
fine particle standard, mercury to be all very difficult issues
that we face. Then the CO<INF>2</INF>, I am told this dwarfs
the costs associated with the others. I know the basic U.S.
strategy for complying involves utility sector not making
reductions, really, but buying 85 percent or some incredibly
high percentage of our reduction credits from overseas.
Senator Sessions. I really am very troubled by that.
Mr. Kropp, do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Kropp. I guess in terms of the complexity, Senator,
West Virginia, while not being the smallest State
geographically, has a population of only about 1.8 million.
Unfortunately, in our agency, we have about six of us that have
to worry about ozone and regional haze and PM fine and large
particulates and the odor complaints and all the other aspects
that we deal with.
I believe that it would be much easier for a small agency
like ours to deal with a comprehensive bill, instead of having
differently timed deadlines and different regulatory
initiatives to deal with all in a row. We are stretching our
resources.
Senator Sessions. Mr. McLean, are we ``ad hoc''-ing here,
and if we see a problem we jump on it, and we look back later
and we've really created a mosaic of rules and regulations that
could be simplified?
Mr. McLean. Well, it certainly, going back to what Bill
said theoretically, you could bring these things together. I
think you have to look at the Clean Air Act, for instance, just
on the air quality side, over a 30 year history of raising
issues, defining issues, asking for action to be taken on
issues. It's a learning process. We didn't know 30 years ago
all these issues. We've learned about them as time has gone on.
There is a feeling that as we define an issue that we
should take action to address the issue. But I also think it's
worthwhile taking stock periodically of all the things we have
on the plate and seeing whether we can't do it in a more
efficient manner. We have tried to do that. The Act is somewhat
difficult in places, because it has these specific mandates
throughout it. We do try to coordinate those mandates as best
we can.
And as I said, back a few years ago, we saw these things
coming, standard changes, mercury, regional haze. Perhaps
additional acid rain concerns, climate concerns. And we said,
maybe we can find a way to coordinate these. And we tried.
But it's very difficult. The industry is not of one mind.
There isn't one person out there who represents all the
industry that's affected either. So when you try to sit down,
you have different interests. And different years, different
months of that year you're going to get a different reaction.
It's a very difficult task to try to bring everybody
together. But one of the options we were not considering was
delaying everything. We said, we have to reach some compromise.
Some things we might be able to delay. Some things----
Senator Sessions. But standards are coming on board every
year that are tougher than the year before. We didn't pass a
single law, isn't that correct?
Mr. McLean. Well, the standards are supposed to be reviewed
every 5 years, and we haven't changed the ozone standard for
almost 20 years. So it's not like the agency has been throwing
new standards at people for ozone.
Senator Sessions. No, not you, but I mean the standards are
tougher in a lot of these areas each year.
Mr. McLean. It goes where the science leads you. As studies
are done, health studies are done and ecological studies are
done, we need to take that new information into account. The
statute says every 5 years review the information and decide
whether this leads you to change the standard. We didn't change
the ozone standard for almost 20 years, and we did this time,
because of the work that's been done over the last 20 years.
So I think that when you look at all of them, it looks like
a lot. If you look at one of these at a time, there are long
gaps between action on an individual issue. It's a very complex
issue.
Senator Sessions. Well, I've been here 2 years, and I'm
seeing a lot of new ones coming up.
Mr. McLean. These are all, a lot of them are set in the
1990 amendments as actions to be taken by the agency. Some of
these have actually been delayed considerably. The ozone SIP
Call really is a result of a failure to act in 1994. We gave
the States extra time and evaluated the issue together with
them over 2 years. The SIP Call is a result of a failure to
actually solve the problem 4 years ago.
Senator Sessions. Briefly, I'll ask you this. How do you
evaluate the progress, some general progress, I understand, in
acid rain in the forests and lakes of the northeast? How do you
evaluate that? I see Adirondacks are level, they didn't show
any progress, basically. But other areas have. How would you
evaluate that?
And then second, the legislation that's being proposed
would cost as we understand it four times what EPA's proposals
are. Do you feel like your proposals will continue to show
progress, if your standards are adhered to?
Mr. McLean. Well, first on the progress. I think we have
and are making progress and will continue to make some progress
on acid rain, with reductions in both sulfur and nitrogen.
Senator Sessions. Based on current standards?
Mr. McLean. Based on current standards. And I think Mr.
Melewski would agree with me. I think his concern and our
concern that we share is that based on the work we've done, we
can project this probably will not be enough.
Senator Sessions. How would you say it would not be enough
if you have a steady improvement?
Mr. McLean. Because the improvement will end. We know the
reduction that's being called for, we have achieved over half
of that reduction in sulfur already. So we can see the effects
of that. Just as we did in 1990, we modeled the future. I mean,
in 1990, it was based, the decision to take 10 million tons out
of the air was based on our best scientific assessment of what
would happen if we were to take 10 million tons out of the air.
And it was a scientific judgment and a political judgment about
what was acceptable.
We analyzed 8 to 12 million tons and picked 10. It wasn't a
guarantee that it was going to solve every problem. But it was
an understanding that it would go a long way toward solving the
problems. And it will go a long way in several areas. But it
appears that it won't go far enough in terms of solving all the
problems we have out there.
We look at S. 1097 as not a bill that's going to pass this
week. But we look at it as a constructive proposal to deal in
the long term with these issues and lay out a long term
strategy. The reductions called for in that bill--although the
impositions will be early in some cases because of the trading
and banking program--full effects won't occur for another 10 to
15 years. So it's not a precipitous kind of approach, and it is
something that should be considered when there are
deliberations on the whole Clean Air Act.
Senator Sessions. And how do you deal with the argument
that vehicles and other sources of pollution are significant?
One thing, as an economist, we know that there's no free lunch,
that everything has a cost. In economic terms, I consider it
the absolute equivalent of a tax to require a private industry
to spend $500 million. It's no different economically than
taxing that corporation $500 million and having EPA spend $500
million to reduce pollution.
So I guess I'm asking, are we making the right assessments
of cost on our private sector? And with regard to other areas,
there's not s many voters in utility areas, because the
ratepayers don't recognize that these costs on utilities get
passed on to them in rates. They don't feel it like we would if
we passed a tax in this Congress. They'd know it, they wouldn't
like it.
So we by subterfuge a lot of times put this cost on them by
mandates and say, we didn't raise your taxes. But we've raised
their cost to live, because they have to have electricity and
gasoline.
With regard to that, I think we ought to ask ourselves,
which is the most cost beneficial to the public, automobiles or
other areas, or is it utilities? Do you have any comments on
that?
Mr. McLean. Yes. I agree with you that whatever we do when
we impose costs, they affect the economy. Our goal is to try to
keep those costs to a minimum.
We do believe that those costs are there, not just like a
tax, but they are there to provide some benefit.
Senator Sessions. Well, taxes have benefits, too. We might
tax $500 million and use it for health care and save more lives
than on ozone.
Mr. McLean. Well, the tax itself doesn't, but the use of
the tax does. So I'm saying that the use of the money, it's
supposed to be for a benefit. So far the cost benefit analyses
we've done of the Clean Air Act shows tremendous benefits far
exceeding the costs.
As to what people pay, I think it was interesting, we got a
letter a few months ago from a citizen in Ohio. The State of
Ohio asks the electric companies to include on their billing
statements the cost of meeting acid rain requirements, so that
individual citizens could see the impact of this requirement on
their electric bill.
This citizen complained that his bill had gone up from $70
to $80 a month and this was a tremendous cost, and that the
cost of the acid rain control was 18 cents of that $10
increase. I think that it showed that that 18 cents, we
probably wouldn't disagree with. We think that the cost was
probably in that range. We don't believe that is a significant
cost, given that in the State of Ohio, the health benefits
alone from the SO<INF>2</INF> reduction would be $3 billion a
year. So there'd be tremendous health benefits from the
reduction of sulfur in the State of Ohio and surrounding States
that we think would be worth that cost.
And that's the kind of thing that we try to weigh.
Senator Sessions. I think we need to be right up front with
these costs, and compare that to the benefit. I think that's a
healthy way to do it.
But what about the cost of utilities versus automobiles and
things of that nature?
Mr. McLean. That's also a concern.
Senator Sessions. What would get you the best bang for your
buck in terms of clean air?
Mr. McLean. Exactly. And some of the direction we get from
Congress itself and the statute as to which areas to control
and how far to control them, and in other cases, the decision
is left up to the agency through the regulatory process to
determine what seems to be the most cost-effective way to go
about solving the problem.
When we look at the NOx issue, for instance, that we've
been addressing, about a third of the emissions come from
utilities. About a third of them come from automobiles. About a
third of them come from heavy duty vehicles and other
industrial sources. They're spread throughout the economy.
When it comes to reducing them, we look at what will the
cost be of taking a ton out of the air from each of these
different sectors. We look at the automobile sector, where the
NOx control levels on new cars are over 90 percent now. They've
been ratcheted down over the past 30 years. The cost is in the
thousands of dollars per ton.
We look at some of the small industries and businesses. We
find that the cost of control for some of the smaller sources
may be in the thousands of dollars per ton, because the costs
tend to go up as your size goes down, in terms of cost
effectiveness.
When we look at large utility boilers and some large
industrial boilers, we found in this particular NOx SIP Call
that the average cost would be about $1,500 a ton. Yet they
were the lowest cost of all the major sectors that we could
find to reduce nitrogen oxide.
Senator Sessions. Does Mr. Tyndall agree with that? That
sounds like the ball's in your court.
Mr. Tyndall. No, he was talking about the large, nonutility
industrial boilers.
Mr. McLean. And utility boilers.
Mr. Tyndall. But on this issue in general, another way of
saying it is that there's no free lunch, there's no low-hanging
fruit, either.
Senator Sessions. In other words, the easy progress has
already been made?
Mr. Tyndall. Having served with Mr. Dingell, I'm completely
aware of what the reductions have been from the automobile
sector, in terms of the tailpipe emission standards. And I'd be
the last to say that there's not any problem with what they've
done.
But you know, you have a third of the emissions, the NOx
emissions for instance, coming from automobiles and other
transportation and off-road engines, including things like weed
whackers and stuff, which have tremendous emissions.
Senator Sessions. Those things have a lot, weed whackers
and lawn mowers really do contribute?
Mr. Tyndall. Yes, they have big emissions. An hour on a
lawn mower is like 400 miles on a new car.
Mr. McLean. That shows you the progress that's been made in
the automotive sector. That wasn't true 30 years ago. The car
would have been far heavier.
Mr. Kropp. Senator, may I respond to that?
Senator Sessions. Yes.
Mr. Kropp. One of the problems that we see with that kind
of an analysis, and we've tried to offer EPA comments, is that
cost per ton removed may or may not be the proper metric. In
the case of ozone, for example, we have suggested, and the EPA
rule suggests, that a ton of NOx removed from a source in Ohio
has the same impact as a ton of NOx removed from a source 50
miles from a non-attainment area. We don't believe that's the
case.
So perhaps the proper metric is, what is the cost per part
per billion of ozone in the atmosphere reduced. That takes into
account the transport phenomena, and that is not being taken
into account in the OTAG SIP Call.
Mr. Tyndall. To emphasize that, because that is a key
problem here, you take a source very close to where the
nonattainment area is, there's complete consensus that those
reductions are going to impact that area regularly. They aren't
going to just impact it when the 4-hours of the year when the
wind is at the absolute worst for transport. They're going to
impact every day. And those impacts are basically going to be
one ton removed equals one ton removed from the atmosphere.
You go to one of our power plants 250 miles away or
whatever, you know, the transport is either nil or it's one
one-hundredth, or it's one-tenth, whatever we end up fighting
about. In other words, the ratepayers are going to remove ten
tons to get one ton of reduction at the local area concerned
about after the transport. And again, that's only going to
happen for the 4 hours, I mean, the OTAG process, this
multiState process was modeling the four worst 1-hour episodes.
So you're looking at 4 hours and making these decisions.
And that ton reduced locally is helping air quality every
single hour of every single day.
EPA, when it looked at this issue, it essentially said,
well, we're going to presume that everybody influences
somebody, and therefore, we're justified in making these across
the board. They're pretty far from the statute, and they may
get into trouble on that in court.
But the cost effectiveness, which they then throw in your
face, is really unfair. Because you've got to look at what the
ratepayers are doing is reducing ten tons for the one ton or
the one pound, whatever it ends up being, of transport that
occurs.
Senator Sessions. Well, American business is incredibly
sophisticated, and it is prepared, and the reason it remains
competitive in the world, in my opinion, is because you're able
to fine tune everything. I think Government's got to get better
at that.
Would you respond to that, Mr. McLean, that we ought to,
that if we want to deal with areas that are not in attainment,
primarily, it would seem to me to be appropriate that we would
put more stress on the industries and utilities who are right
there daily, polluting, rather than those who have only
incidental impact?
Mr. McLean. I think to understand the transport SIP Call,
it was not designed to achieve attainment in each non-
attainment area. We consider ozone to have two major elements
to it. There's the transported component and there's the local
component. They tend to merge at certain points.
But we have been focusing on the local component for 30
years. We have been asking States and localities to reduce
emission sources in local areas to attain their standard.
And when we got to 1994, the comment we got from a lot of
people was the same comment we got from Senator D'Amato this
morning: if I shut down all my industry to attain this standard
in my State, I can't do it. There was a recognition that
transport was a component of the problem. It wasn't the whole
problem, but it wasn't a zero part of the problem. It was a
portion of the problem.
So we embarked on the whole OTAG process to try to
understand the significance of that component and then to take
action to deal with that component. That's what the SIP Call
does. You can go ahead and----
Senator Sessions. I understand that, but if you've got a
plant that blows out over the Atlantic 90 percent of the year,
and one part of the year it blows in the non-attainment zone,
you're just not going to get as much health benefit as if you
deal with the plant that's right there, seems to me.
Mr. McLean. Right. And the local areas are free and
encouraged to deal with the plants that they feel have the most
significant impact on the problem. But those local areas were
getting transported air pollution. They could not control the
transported air pollution which came in from different States
on different days from different directions.
Now, we don't have the capability to dispatch pollution
control the way we dispatch electricity. We don't sit there and
say, on July 7, I'm going to control this plant in northern
Ohio and on July 8, I'm going to control the plant in southern
Ohio. We're not that sophisticated to move our dispatch around
with the wind flows and the weather. So we've adopted an
approach which reduces overall background because that air
blows somewhere. And it may blow in a curvilinear path and end
up in another non-attainment area. So because it didn't hit
Pittsburgh yesterday doesn't mean that it's not going to hit
Erie, Pennsylvania or Philadelphia on another day.
So we look at this more as a comprehensive set of sources,
collective set of sources that are causing a collective
problem. And by tracking one individual source, we have not
solved this problem in 30 years. So we felt that----
Senator Sessions. We've made remarkable progress.
Mr. McLean. We've made progress, but we've run up against a
wall, where we were focusing only on one way of going about
solving it. And we decided that it was appropriate to bring
down the background, so that the local areas could take the
additional steps needed to bring the areas into attainment. So
this transport SIP Call is bringing down background levels so
people can have a chance at finishing the job and solving their
local nonattainment problems.
Senator Sessions. Well, there we have it, I think, bringing
down the background. And I hope that we can take time and, as
the science comes in over the years, determine whether or not
that's an effective way to make our air more healthy.
Any of you have any final comments? I'm sure you may have
something at this point you feel you need to say.
Mr. Melewski. I actually want to go back to your question
earlier to Mr. McLean about if we're seeing some progress in
the reductions from sulfur, why continue to examine the
problem. I think it also goes to Senator Chafee's question
about the saturation issue. What we're seeing as a result of
the 1990 amendments in the Adirondacks, per se, is that the
time line has been stretched for the loss of our lakes. Instead
of losing them in 10 years, we're going to lose them in 40
years. It's still an unacceptable resolution for us.
Senator Sessions. But I thought the lakes were actually
getting cleaner or healthier in areas of New England.
Mr. Melewski. Yes, in many ways it's a dynamic of the
buffering capacity of lakes and the soils around them. Which
also goes to Senator Chafee's question about the saturation of
the soils. If you can illustrate it as a sponge and you're
applying water at a certain rate, if you slow that rate, you
may fill up the sponge, but you won't exceed the sponge's
capacity.
And in many areas outside of the Adirondacks, we're well
past that point, in many areas outside the Adirondacks, from
Maine down the east coast, soils are saturated with acidic
components. If we continue the rate in which we're going to
deposit nitrogen and sulfur dioxide, even with the new
amendments, we will fill up that sponge, if I can use that
analogy. And you're going to start seeing the same kinds of
problems, loss of trout fisheries, loss of lakes, severe loss
of the spruce and other tree species that you're seeing in a
very dynamic and aggressive way in the Adirondacks now.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, that's an insight that we
should consider. Do you have any comment about that sponge
theory, Mr. Kropp?
Mr. Kropp. Senator, I don't have a comment about the sponge
theory. But I guess I would like to respond to one of the
comments that Mr. McLean made, indicating that the OTAG SIP
Call occurred because of failures in SIPS in 1994. And I simply
want to point out that my understanding is that West Virginia
has never had a SIP Call as a result of ozone. West Virginia
had ozone non-attainment areas. We dealt with them locally. We
don't have ozone non-attainment areas any more. We may have
some under the new standard.
We put controls on our sources when we had non-attainment
problems to deal with the 1-hour ozone standard. The failures
in 1994, my understanding, are the result of many of the
northeast States to default on absolute requirements under the
Clean Air Act to have, for example, enhanced inspection and
maintenance programs for vehicles by 1994. Those States do not
have those programs today. And the idea that we need the OTAG
SIP Call to deal with transport, rather than dealing with the
local problems and the local mandates of the Clean Air Act, is
something that West Virginia thinks needs to be resolved first.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think that's some of the issues
we've been dealing with, and I appreciate your sharing that.
Seeing there are no further questions, I want to thank all
of you for your testimony. It's been extraordinarily
interesting and insightful and beneficial to me. And should
there be additional questions, I'm sure members of the
committee may submit those to you in writing.
No other questions. We are in adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Text of S. 1097 and statements submitted for the record
follow:]
Statement of Hon. Jerry Solomon, U.S. Representative from the State of
New York
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak
today. also would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Moynihan and
Senator D'Amato for their valuable work on an issue that is very
important to my district as well as much of the northeast and in fact
the entire country. That issue is the very real and necessary changes
that need to be made to strengthen the Clean Air Act to continue
fighting acid rain and air pollution.
The legislation before the committee today, as introduced in this
body by my good friends Senator Moynihan and Senator D'Amato, will
build on the Clean Air Act and the provisions dealing with the
pollutants most responsible for acid rain. I was pleased to introduce
this companion legislation in the House and to have the support of many
in the New York delegation.
Although we've made tremendous progress in cutting pollution
through the original clean air act, it hasn't been enough to reduce the
pollution responsible for acid rain and excessive air contamination we
suffer from in New York.
The forests and waterways of the Hudson Valley and the Adirondacks
have become a dumping ground for this pollution and will be destroyed
if we don't do something to stop it. In fact, in studies as early as
1984, 19 percent of the Adirondack lakes were dead and 55 percent were
highly acidic. This statistic will only get worse in the future. As an
outdoorsman and lifelong resident of this beautiful region, I'm not
going to stand by and watch our area and many others like it be
destroyed.
This legislation, entitled the Acid Deposition Control Act of 1997,
focuses on further reductions in the emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx)
and sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), the two primary components of acid
rain. Sulfur dioxide emissions have been declining under the emissions
cap currently in place, but not fast enough for environmentally
sensitive areas like the Adirondack mountains, the Hudson River Valley
as well as much of the eastern seaboard. This bill would cut the amount
of SO<INF>2</INF> emitted in half in 2003 so dirty power plants won't
be able to continue business-as-usual and get around pollution
restrictions.
But even more important, this proposal finally takes on dangerous
nitrogen oxide emissions. The Clean Air Act, as it stands, virtually
ignores nitrogen oxide which in many ways is the most dangerous
pollutant because of its devastating contribution to acid rain and
ozone pollution which can cause significant health risks for people
suffering from respiratory problems, like asthma.
This bill creates a market-based ``cap and trade. system for NOx
emissions similar to that already in place under the clean air act of
1990 that regulates SO<INF>2</INF>. Under such a trading system, states
are given pollution allowances directly related to the percent of power
the utilities in their state produce. The state then divides up these
allowances to each utility in whatever manner they choose.
The system provides incentives for utilities to produce less'
pollution than allotted because they can sell extra allowances to other
utilities. However, if a utility exceeds its emission allowances, even
after buying additional credits, they will be subject to serious
financial penalty.
Another important provision dealing with NOx emissions seeks to cut
these emissions at the most dangerous point of the year for many
elderly and children afflicted with respiratory problems. The bill cuts
in half the NOx allowance during the summer months of May, June, July,
August and September when the heat and sunshine combine with NOx and
other pollutants to create hazardous ozone pollution.
I am pleased with the support this legislation has already received
from many environmental organizations and industry groups. We need to
continue working with all members in the House and Senate that are
serious about reducing pollution in this country. I urge the committee
to pass this legislation and become committed to this cause. It's time
for all of us to get together to fight against acid rain for the health
of our citizens and the health of our vital natural resources!
__________
Statement of Hon. Alfonse M. D'Amato, U.S. Senator from the State of
New York
Good morning. I appreciate this opportunity to present my testimony
to the Clean Air Subcommittee regarding S. 1097, the Acid Deposition
Control Act. This measure, introduced by Senator Moynihan and myself,
and combined with companion legislation in the House sponsored by
Congressman Gerald Solomon will help protect the sensitive ecological
regions of our nation, including the Adirondack Mountains of New York,
from the scourge of acid rain.
Mr. Chairman, I have likened the assault on our lakes, our rivers
and our forests by acid rain as a form of ``airborne terrorism.'' For
decades, power plant smokestacks--hundreds of feet high--have been
spewing pollutants into the air where they are carried via the jet-
stream to our state. Once over New York and other Northeastern states,
they fall to earth, poisoning our environment. These pollutants have
had a devastating effect. In fact, right now in the Adirondacks--New
York's 6 million acre state park--500 of the areas 2,800 lakes and
ponds are too acidic to support life. Further, according to the EPA, if
nothing else is done to reduce acid rain by the year 2040, 43` of the
Adirondacks water-bodies will be acidic. That's just plain wrong. The
steps we have taken to combat acid rain have been important, but, they
have not been enough. We can do more and we must do more.
When Congress passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, we thought
we had tackled the pollution problem that sulfur dioxide was causing.
Today, nearly a decade later, it is abundantly clear that the steps
taken under the Clean Air Act to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions are
insufficient to protect regions such as the Adirondacks from acid rain.
Scientists now tell us that, along with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides
(NOx) play an important role in the acid rain problem. EPA's own
reports -? released only under the threat of litigation--clearly show
that additional steps are needed, and this is the purpose of the
legislation sponsored by Senator Moynihan and myself and Congressman
Solomon in the House.
Critics of our bill will point out that the EPA recently issued a
State Implementation Plan--or SIP call--for 22 states. This SIP call
will reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides or NOx, from large stationary
sources (power plants) by over 75 percent in the summer months, but,
less than 40 percent annually. While a step in the right direction, I
do not believe that the EPA's actions will be sufficient to end the
acid rain problem in the Northeast. In fact, I believe that additional
measures will be required.
Our bill includes provisions to reduce annual nationwide NOx
emissions by 70` from 1990 levels and not the 40` average annual
reduction under the SIP call. Unlike the SIP call, our bill provides
EPA with a clear legislative authority to establish a NOx ``cap-and-
trade'' program patterned after the successful sulfur dioxide cap-and-
trade program that was created under the Clean Air Act. Our bill also
would require 50` more reductions of sulfur dioxide emissions annually
beyond those called-for in the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Critics of this bill are going to say that it costs too much. I
disagree. When the Clean Air Act was enacted, it was expected that an
allowance to emit a single ton of sulfur dioxide would cost over $1,500
on the open market. Today, that allowance costs between $150 and $200.
It is a clear example that, given the chance, business and industry
will devise the most cost? effective means to meet pollution reduction
goals. It also demonstrates that additional reductions of sulfur
dioxide are both achievable and cost effective.
In addition, EPA's SIP call is aimed at reducing NOx emissions
during the summer to reduce ozone. Our bill requires emission
reductions all year round, with special emphasis on the summer months.
However, one important fact is our bill does not ignore the critical
winter months. What many people forget is acid deposition, falling as
snow, accumulates over the winter in the snow-pack. When warm weather
comes, and the snow melts, the accumulated acid in the snow is released
into water bodies in a single shock-load during Spring runoff. Such a
massive influx has a harmful effect on the development of fish and
other aquatic life.
Finally, I want to make it clear that the acid rain problem is not
limited to New York; this is not just a bill to cut down on acid rain
in our state alone. We believe that a number of states will benefit
from our bill. For example:
1) An organization of New England States and the Eastern Provinces
of Canada has issued a resolution calling for action to decrease the
impact of acid rain in their region with detailed steps to reduce their
own emissions. Their recommendations are nearly identical to those
called-for in our bill.
2) The same emissions that cause acid rain in the Adirondacks are
causing nutrient-loading in the Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound.
This process depletes oxygen from the water, killing fish and other
aquatic life.
3) According to the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
(NAPAP) report released this summer, acid deposition is damaging forest
lands around the Nation including the Colorado Rockies and from the
southern Appalachians to the tip of Maine.
4) The national sportsmen's group, Trout Unlimited, recently
released a study of Virginia's trout streams indicating the need to
reduce the levels of acid deposition by 70` to prevent the
acidification of half of Virginia's trout streams.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the EPA's initiative in issuing the
SIP call to combat ozone is the right thing to do. However, the EPA's
measure is clearly not enough to protect the nation's sensitive water-
bodies and forests from acid rain. To fully combat the effects of acid
rain--this ``airborne terrorism'' -? we need this legislation to make
the significant cuts in the pollutants that cause acid rain. Those of
us in states that are being subjected to this onslaught are saying
enough. We have no more tolerance for this assault on our health and
the environment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today.
__________
Statement of Brian J. McLean, Director, Acid Rain Division,
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to testify on S. 1097, the ``Acid Deposition Control
Act.'' My testimony will focus on several major themes pertaining to
the impacts of acid deposition and its precursor emissions sulfur
dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), the progress and
cost-effectiveness of current efforts to reduce these emissions, and
our reactions to the provisions in S. 1097. This hearing provides an
opportunity to examine where we are, what we have learned since the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and how successful mechanisms such as
those in the current Acid Rain Program may be used in future efforts to
address air pollution.
Background
In 1980, driven in particular by Senator Moynihan's interest in
acid rain, Congress passed the Acid Precipitation Act. In that Act,
Congress mandated a 10-year scientific, technological and economic
study to examine the relationships among fossil fuel combustion, acids
and other pollutants formed by emissions, and the effects on the
environment and human health. The National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP) was established to coordinate and administer
the study. NAPAP drew several significant conclusions. First, NAPAP
concluded that the effects of acid deposition and its precursor
emissions SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx are broad. They include acidification
of lakes and streams, damage to certain high elevation forests,
depletion of essential forest soil nutrients, damage to materials,
particularly those of historical and cultural significance, and
visibility impairment and human health effects associated with ambient
sulfates and nitrates. Second, the source-receptor research performed
in the 1980's recognized and documented long? range transport of air
pollution and revolutionized clean air policy regarding regional air
pollution issues. It became apparent that a broad regional approach
would be needed to address a broad regional air pollution problem.
Third, the emissions inventories developed under NAPAP revealed
critical information regarding the source of acid rain forming
emissions. Two-thirds of the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and one-third of
the NOx came from electric power generation. The wealth of data and
analyses developed under NAPAP provided the underpinning for Title IV
(Acid Deposition Control) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. At
that time, Congress also reauthorized NAPAP to periodically report to
Congress on the costs, benefits and effectiveness of Title IV.
Innovative ``Cap and Trade'' Design to Reduce SO<INF>2</INF>
In creating Title IV and establishing the Acid Rain Program,
Congress drove environmental protection in a new direction, away from
traditional command and control regulation. First, to address the
problem of acid rain, Congress focused on reducing the SO<INF>2</INF>
and NOx emissions that cause acid deposition rather than relying on
regionally variable deposition standards and state-by-state
implementation plans. Second, Congress translated its 10 million ton
SO<INF>2</INF> reduction goal into a nationwide cap on emissions from
electric generating sources and allowed the industry 20 years to
achieve it. Third, Congress provided EPA with a new tool to achieve
this reduction--an innovative market-based allowance trading program,
where one allowance is a limited authorization to emit one ton of
SO<INF>2</INF>, allowances are allocated to sources based on
performance standards, and they can be freely traded.
This ``cap and trade'' approach allowed industry unprecedented
flexibility in how to achieve the needed emission reductions. They
could install pollution control equipment such as ``scrubbers'', switch
fuel, conserve energy, rely more on renewables, trade SO<INF>2</INF>
allowances, or any combination of these. In return for this
flexibility, sources were to provide a full accounting of their
emissions through continuous monitoring and reporting, and there would
be severe consequences for failing to hold sufficient allowances to
cover one's emissions. The objective was for sources to find the most
cost-effective means for limiting SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and to be
responsible for achieving those emissions reductions. There would be no
government second guessing and lengthy permit reviews.
Progress of the Acid Rain Program--Significant Reductions at Low Costs
In 1995, the first year of compliance under the Acid Rain Program,
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions declined dramatically--by over 3 million
tons--resulting in a nearly 5 million ton SO<INF>2</INF> reduction from
electric power generation from 1980 levels. Over the first 3 years of
the program, emissions from Phase I units emissions were more than 30
percent below their allowable levels and sulfate deposition has been
reduced by as much as 25 percent. Of particular importance is that the
most significant emissions reductions occurred in the highest emitting
states and regions of the country. Phase II will begin in 2000 and
further emissions reductions will be required to achieve the total 10
million ton reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> under the Program.
Cost savings have exceeded expectations. In 1990, EPA projected the
cost of full implementation of the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reduction
with trading at $4 billion per year. In 1994, GAO projected the cost to
be less than $2 billion per year. The most recent estimate of
annualized cost of compliance published this year by Resources for the
Future is approximately $1 billion per year.
Control of NOx from coal-fired utility boilers under the Acid Rain
Program began in 1996. For Phase I utility units, the average NOx
emission rate declined by 42 percent (from 0.69 lb/mmBtu to 0.40 lb/
mmBtu). These same units exhibited about a 35 percent reduction in tons
of NOx (approximately 400,000 tons between 1990 and 1997). However, NOx
emissions in 1997 increased slightly from 1996, because of greater
electricity production. In 2000, NOx from electric utility boilers will
be further reduced to a total reduction of over 2 million tons per
year. However, without further requirements to reduce emission rates,
such as those in the Agency's final ozone transport rule (``NOx SIP
Call''), NOx emissions would be expected to rise with increased
utilization.
The success of the cap and trade approach is being adapted for
other programs. In 1996, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), composed
of 12 northeastern states and the District of Columbia, asked EPA to
help develop and administer an emissions trading program, modeled after
the SO<INF>2</INF> program, to control summer NOx emissions in the OTC
region. More recently, the cap and trade approach was included as an
option for states in the NOx SIP Call. When implemented, that rule will
achieve significant, cost-effective summertime NOx emissions reductions
in 22 states and the District of Columbia.
Environmental Trends, Modeling and Continued Concerns for Natural
Resources
Environmental data are beginning to reflect improvements
accompanying the downward emissions trend, but fundamental concerns
regarding recovery persist. The nation's deposition monitoring networks
have shown significant reductions in sulfate concentrations measured in
both wet and dry forms. Results from an analysis of long-term surface
water monitoring data have confirmed that acid sensitive lakes have
experienced significant declines in sulfate concentrations in response
to declining sulfate deposition. Surface water nitrate levels, however,
have not shown significant upward or downward trends which is also
consistent with trends in nitrate concentration levels in deposition.
Acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) is a measure of alkalinity or
buffering ability and is most often used as a primary indicator of
surface water response, or recovery. Lakes in New England have begun to
show some recovery while Adirondack lakes in New York have exhibited
either no trend or further acidification (decrease in ANC). Other
sensitive watersheds in the southeastern U. S. (e.g., Virginia trout
streams) appear to be so saturated with sulfur that they may get worse
before there are signs of recovery.
In August of this year, NAPAP reported that some forest soils are
beginning to ``leach'' sulfates or nitrates or both due to decades of
exposure to high sulfur and nitrogen deposition loads. High elevation
lakes in the western U. S. are also vulnerable to sulfur and nitrogen
loadings. In 1995, the EPA sent to Congress its Acid Deposition
Standard Feasibility Study. This study drew several conclusions: 1) The
number of acidic waters would be expected to increase substantially
without the SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx emissions reductions required by the
1990 Amendments. 2) The study projected that although there is
uncertainty and regional variability regarding a specific ``protective
threshold'' the direction and magnitude of the modeled results indicate
that additional reductions in both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
emissions may be necessary to fully protect sensitive resources. 3)
This study, as well as numerous other research studies in the peer
reviewed literature, identifies nitrogen as a major contributor to both
short? term (episodic) and long-term (chronic) acidification.
Recent evidence also points to atmospheric nitrogen deposition as a
significant contributor to total nitrogen loading to coastal waters
along the East and Gulf coasts and nutrient loading in large river
basins. Excessive nitrogen levels have been found in all East and Gulf
coast estuaries including for example the Narragansett Bay, Long Island
Sound, the Chesapeake Bay, Albemarle and Pamlico Bays, Tampa Bay,
Galveston Bay and the ``hypoxia zone'' along the Gulf coast. Recent
analyses of estuaries along the East and Gulf coasts have estimated the
nitrogen contribution from atmospheric sources to range from 10 to 45
percent. Excessive nitrogen or nutrient over-enrichment is associated
with adverse ecological effects such as eutrophication and extreme
anoxic (low oxygen) conditions in some locations. These conditions have
important implications for the biological communities.
multiple effects associated with sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
emission
Reducing SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx provides multiple environmental and
human health benefits
<bullet> Reduced number of acidic lakes and streams in various
sensitive regions of the country (e.g., Northeastern, Mid-Atlantic,
Southern Blue Ridge, Upper Midwest and high elevation Western regions)
and more sensitive ecosystems will be capable of sustaining diverse
aquatic life. In particular, annual reduction of NOx emissions ensures
greater ecosystem protection (i.e., against acidification,
eutrophication), particularly during spring when highly sensitive
biological aquatic life stages (i.e., spawning) are most susceptible to
acidic pulses from snowmelt and heavy rainfall.
<bullet> Increased protection of coastal ecosystems and estuarine
aquatic life due to a reduction in nitrogen deposition onto coastal
waters and their larger watersheds.
<bullet> Reduced leaching of essential soil nutrients, addressing
the ``saturation'' of certain forested watersheds due to many years of
high sulfur and nitrogen deposition, to a state in which recovery can
occur.
<bullet> Increased protection of sensitive structural materials,
particularly objects of cultural and historical significance. The
effects of dry acidic compounds and their reactions are now understood
to cause the most deleterious loss of structural integrity.
<bullet> Reduced ambient sulfates and nitrates with consequent
reduced risks to human health.
<bullet> Reduced ground-level ozone concentrations with consequent
reduced risks to human health.
<bullet> Reduced ambient sulfates and nitrates with consequent
improvements in reducing haze that impairs scenic visibility.
Comments on S. 1097
In general, S. 1097 builds on those elements of the Clean Air Act
that are working well.
<bullet> The Bill relies on the successful market-based mechanism
introduced in the 1990 Amendments and applies it to both NOx and
SO<INF>2</INF> Trading allowances provides flexibility to sources and
competition across compliance options, and the emissions cap ensures
that the pollution reduction goals are met and maintained into the
future. Contrary to early concerns over trading and the potential for
``hot spots,'' SO<INF>2</INF> trading has not led to significant
geographical emissions shifting from one state to another.
<bullet> The Bill reduces and caps emissions of NOx. It builds
upon the existing NOx reduction requirements under the acid rain
program and the recent ozone transport rule. The level of summertime
NOx emission reductions is similar to that under EPA's recent SIP Call;
however, the NOx emissions cap is broadened to cover the entire year
and the 48 contiguous states. By requiring the retirement of two
allowances for every ton of NOx during the five summer months, the Bill
ensures greater reductions in the summer when the health impacts of
ozone are of primary concern. By requiring NOx reductions year-round,
the Bill is consistent with the latest research on ecological
protection during biologically sensitive times of the year.
<bullet> The Bill further reduces SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from
the utility sector by requiring two SO<INF>2</INF> emissions allowances
to be surrendered for each ton of SO<INF>2</INF> emitted, thereby
cutting the current cap in half. EPA prefers an approach which
minimizes disruption to implementation of the current SO<INF>2</INF>
allowance system under the Acid Rain Program.
<bullet> The Bill emphasizes measurement of emissions by requiring
the industrial sector to install continuous emissions monitoring
systems. Continuous monitoring generated by this requirement would
improve the accuracy in emissions inventories for that sector, however
EPA would need to analyze the associated costs. The Bill does not
require emissions reductions from that sector.
<bullet> The Bill places significant emphasis on monitoring and
assessment by requiring EPA to report to Congress periodically on
environmental progress and to take further regulatory action if
reductions are insufficient to achieve environmental objectives. This
emphasis on assessment and evaluation is consistent with the Agency's
current plans to maintain the capabilities to monitor progress and
assess recovery. The requirement to periodically report to Congress and
take action as needed, although potentially resource intensive,
provides an ongoing mechanism to respond to new scientific research.
The Bill also recognizes, as does the Agency, areas of needed research
particularly to address uncertainties associated with nitrogen
deposition on sensitive watersheds and coastal waters.
In addition, the Bill places importance on addressing mercury.
Recent information on mercury emissions warrants further attention.
Electric power plants, and specifically coal-fired powerplants are the
largest source category of mercury emissions in the U.S., accounting
for fully one-third of all man made mercury emissions in this country,
and they are uncontrolled. EPA is currently working to obtain further
data on mercury emissions from electric utility sources and additional
information on cost-effective control technologies.
Overall, while the direction of the Bill is consistent with EPA's
views, the timing of the provisions in the Bill may not be consistent
with that of EPA. For example, the reduction of the SO<INF>2</INF>
allowance cap in the Bill is to occur in 2003. This timeframe may be
disruptive to the allowance market and industry planning for
compliance, leading to higher compliance costs. Additionally, since
such a reduction could affect achievement of the broader range of human
health as well as ecological benefits, the timing of such reductions
should be considered in the context of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) review for particulates and the efforts to address
regional haze. The Agency anticipates completion of national
particulate monitoring networks by 2000, completion of another 5-year
scientific review of the NAAQS by 2002, nonattainment designations
completed between 2002 to 2005 and implementation plans due between
2005 and 2008. However, it is certainly conceivable that a broad
emission reduction approach using market-based mechanisms could be
utilized to achieve cost-effective reductions. Another timing issue is
the Bill's phasing in of NOx emissions reduction in 2000 and 2003.
Since the Bill was first introduced in 1997, the Agency has proposed
and finalized NOx emissions reductions under the NOx SIP Call and
resolved litigation allowing NOx reductions under the Acid Rain Program
to proceed on schedule by the year 2000. Therefore, the Bill's first
phase of NOx emission reductions may no longer be necessary.
Furthermore, analysis of costs and benefits would be necessary to
better understand the impacts of the Bill before the Administration can
take a position.
Integrating Pollution Control Strategies
The electric utility industry and EPA continue to discuss current
and upcoming air pollution control decisions and how they might best be
coordinated to achieve environmental goals at the lowest possible cost.
The EPA recognizes the appropriateness of engaging in long? term
integrated planning and the need to explore the use of market-based
approaches such as that being used for the Acid Rain Program. The
regulated community has also acknowledged that the mechanism employed
by the Acid Rain Program works well. Congress has been kept informed
through periodic congressional hearings in 1993,1994 and 1996, as well
as with reports by the General Accounting Office in 1994 and 1996, on
the progress and costs of the Acid Rain Program. The pressing policy
question is how to best respond to continued and evolving concerns for
the multiple health and environmental effects of SO<INF>2</INF> NOx,
mercury and other pollutants resulting from combustion of fossil fuels.
It is our understanding that this Subcommittee is planning on holding
hearings in the next Congress regarding Clean Air Act reauthorization.
Should the Committee hold such hearings, we believe that bills, such as
S. 1097, which address regional, multi-state air pollution issues ought
to be considered in those discussions.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to discuss S.
1097 and our experiences implementing acid deposition control under the
Clean Air Act. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may
have.
______
Responses of Brian McLean to Additional Questions from Senator Moynihan
Question 1. This bill calls for an allowance reduction for
SO<INF>2</INF> beginning in 2003. When would the full effect of this
reduction be seen?
Response. Most likely, emissions levels would decline gradually
with the full additional 50 percent reduction in SO<INF>2</INF>
occurring sometime between 2010 and 2015 due to allowances ``banked''
by sources that over-controlled prior to 2003.
Question 2. In your testimony, you noted that S. 1097 would impact
the existing SO<INF>2</INF> market. With adequate lead time, could
these impacts on the market be mitigated?
Response. Yes, the impact on the SO<INF>2</INF> market could be
reduced by providing industry with an advance indication of the future
allowance availability level. Sending an early signal would enable
sources to plan ahead for their future compliance strategy and permit
allowance prices to adjust to this new information.
Question 3. What costs are incurred by States in implementing the
existing SO<INF>2</INF> Allowance Program?
Response. Since the Allowance Program is federally implemented,
States have spent very few resources implementing the Program. EPA has
provided adequate resources to the States through section 105 Grants to
cover establishment of the permitting programs and emission monitoring
systems.
Question 4. What have overall program costs of the acid rain
program been, and how do these costs compare to the costs projected in
1990?
Response. There have been several cost estimates of the
SO<INF>2</INF> trading program since 1990. Following is a description
of how these estimates have changed over time. All of these estimates
have been converted to 1990 dollars (based on a GDP deflator) for easy
comparison. In addition, unless noted otherwise, all of these estimates
represent scenarios of full and efficient emissions trading. Finally,
all of these estimates are for annualized cost of the program in the
year that the 8.95 million ton cap on SO<INF>2</INF> is projected to be
achieved (i.e., either 2009 or 2010).
EPA Study: In 1990, EPA estimated the cost of complying with the
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reduction through a market trading approach at
approximately $4.6 billion per year by 2010. EPA's 1990 study also
included a lower cost estimate ($1.4 billion in 1990$) based on
assumptions of low energy use. However, this number was deemed so
improbable that it was not used in Congressional testimony, press
releases, or the public debate.
In 1994, the cost was re-evaluated by the General Accounting Office
and estimated to be $ 1.9 billion by 2009 (see General Accounting Of
rice, ``Allowance Trading Offers an Opportunity to Reduce Emissions at
Less Cost'', 1994, page 74, Table I.1). GAO also estimated that if
there was only trading within companies instead of between companies,
costs for 2009 would equal $2.8 billion in 2009.
Most recently, researchers at Resources for the Future conducted
two studies using two different methodologies to project the costs of
the SO<INF>2</INF> trading program. A 1997 study used an engineering
cost model developed by Argonne National Laboratory to project a point
estimate of annualized costs in 2010 of $0.8 billion (see, Burtraw et.
al., ``Costs and Benefits of Reducing Air Pollutants Related to Acid
Rain'', Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. XVI, October 1998.) A 1998
study used an econometric model to project a ``best estimate'' of
annualized compliance costs for 2010 of $0.87 billion per year (see
Carlson et. al., ``Sulfur Dioxide Control by Electric Utilities: What
are the Gains from Trade?'', RFF Discussion Paper 98-44, July 1998.).
There are several reasons that estimates of the total costs of
Title IV have been revised downward. First, railroad deregulation has
opened up Western coals to the mid-Western electric utility market and
has led to a collapse of the premium paid for low sulfur coal. The
flexible structure of Title IV allowed these cost savings to be
realized. Second, some of the cost savings associated with more recent
analyses can be linked to reductions in scrubber costs by almost 50
percent since 1989. There is also evidence that competition between
different compliance options and the integration of the allowance and
fuels markets may have a downward impact on compliance costs.
Question 5. What collateral benefits would the additional
SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx reductions called for in S. 1097 have on human
health? On regional visibility?
Response. Human health and visibility benefits of additional
SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx reductions called for in S. 1097 would be
substantial, particularly since these emission reductions are expected
to result in significant reductions of fine inhalable particulates (see
EPA, 1997 Regulatory Impact Analyses for the Particulate Matter and
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Proposed Regional Haze
Rule) EPA has not yet estimated benefits of the bill explicitly,
however. Based on EPA's Acid Deposition Standard Feasibility Study
Report to Congress, 1995, additional SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx reductions
would also provide further benefits to ecosystems e.g., lakes and
streams suffering from acidification, coastal ecosystems affected by
eutrophication, forests, as well as monuments and structures which can
weaken and degrade in the presence of acidic deposition.
Question 6. Does S. 1097 adequately deal with industrial boilers?
In what ways could this aspect of the bill be strengthened ?
Response. The bill includes a provision to monitor emissions of
industrial boilers with a capacity of 100 mmBtu/hour or greater.
Monitoring will provide needed information about the magnitude of
emissions from this source category. In general, EPA believes that it
is already cost effective and feasible to monitor and control NOx
emissions from industrial boilers with a heat capacity of 250 mmBtu/hr.
EPA's recent NOx SIP call calculated State-wide summertime NOx
emissions budgets which assumed a 60 percent reduction in emissions
from industrial boilers with a heat capacity of 250 mmBtu/hour or
greater. States may control this source category as part of their NOx
budget strategy.
Question 7. If enacted, would S. 1097 add costs to utilities in the
East beyond the costs these utilities are likely to incur under the
recently released NOx SIP Call Final Rule?
Response. EPA has not analyzed costs of the bill thoroughly,
however, in general, this bill would result in NOx controls on
utilities in the East to be used for 12 months rather than 5 months
under the SIP call. Extending the NOx control period to 12 months might
raise costs by between 10--30 percent in the East. A very rough
calculation estimates that costs for annual NOx controls nationwide
would be about double the costs estimated for controlling similar
sources at levels specified by the recent SIP call, which covered
summertime emissions (May through September) for 22 Eastern States.
(Total SIP call costs were estimated at $1.7 billion, $1.4 for utility
NOx controls.)
Nationwide total annual costs of the additional SO<INF>2</INF>
reductions in the Moynihan bill may be around $2.6 billion dollars,
based on EPA's Regulatory Impact Analyses for the Particulate Matter
and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Proposed Regional
Haze Rule, page 6-30, costs for National PM2. 5 Strategy (EPA, 1997).
Costs for the additional SO<INF>2</INF> reductions in the East have not
been calculated separately. Monitoring of mercury emissions would also
result in additional costs for utilities.
Question 8. What are the primary conclusions of the Scientific
American article, ``Atmospheric Dust and Acid Rain,'' (December 1996)
mentioned during the hearing?
Response. Lars O. Hedin and Gene E. Likens, authors of
``Atmospheric Dust and Acid Rain'' (Scientific American. Dec., 1996),
examined the phenomenon of continued environmental problems associated
with acid rain despite reduced emissions of acid rain precursors. They
point out that the problem is much more complex than previously
thought, particularly the role that dust particles (e.g. base cations
such as calcium, magnesium, etc.) play in neutralizing acidic
pollutants. Sources of dust particles include industrial emissions,
agricultural processes, construction, traffic on unpaved roads, forest
fires, and erosion of and soils from wind. Dust particles deliver
nutrients to forest soils providing some level of protection from acid
rain. According to Hedin and Likens, the atmosphere is a much more
important source of particles for soils than was previously thought.
Since 1965, atmospheric dust has dropped substantially. Although
these particles can help forest soils resist the affects of acid rain,
they are also known to cause adverse human health effects, degrade
visibility and cause other environmental problems. Recognizing that any
deliberate increases in these particulates would set back progress in
air pollution control by decades, Hedin and Likens suggest ``reducing
emissions of acidic pollutants to levels that can be buffered by
natural quantities of basic compounds in the atmosphere.'' EPA has
continued to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides through the Acid
Rain Program. The authors suggested path would require continued and
perhaps even greater reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
beyond those prescribed in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
______
Responses of Brian McLean to Additional Questions from Senator Sessions
Question 1. What standards for mobile and stationary sources have
states in the North East imposed to meet state and Federal air
emissions limits?
Response. The attached list which was put together by the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Of finials (ALAPCO) has been
used by the states of the Northeast and the rest of the country in
developing their strategies for achieving the 1-hour ozone standard.
The states in the Northeast have regulated many of the sources listed
on these tables with different states using different size cutoffs
depending on the severity of their ozone problem. In 1994, 12 of the
Northeast states located in the Ozone Transport Region adopted a NOx
budget program to control NOx emissions from large combustion sources
to be implemented in phases, the final phase in 2003 resulting in
reduction levels similar to those in the NOx transport SIP call for
such sources. In addition, the states are moving forward as necessary
to adopt additional local measures to address their local contribution
to their ozone problem.
With respect to controls on mobile sources, as you may know, states
to a large extent are preempted by the Clean Air Act from establishing
emission standards on new vehicles and engines. Because of the nature
of vehicles, these emission requirements are set nationally by EPA.
Northeast states, however, have taken actions within their authority to
control mobile source emissions. Many nonattainment areas in the
Northeast have opted to join the reformulated gasoline program to get
the benefits of that cleaner burning fuel. Also, some Northeast states
have improved their vehicle emission inspection programs and other
states are moving ahead with similar enhancements. Finally, as a result
of Northeast state action to consider adoption of California's Low
Emission Vehicle (LEV) program, EPA was able to get agreement from auto
companies to participate in the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV)
program. This program will result in the sale of new cars meeting more
stringent tailpipe standards in the Northeast states beginning with the
1999 model year and the rest of the country in 2001 .
Question 2. What standards has California imposed for mobile and
stationary sources to meet state and Federal air emissions limits?
Response. The STAPPA/ALAPCO list is a good indicator of the types
of industries and rules that have been imposed by California to achieve
the 1-hour ozone standard. Generally, California has regulated much
smaller sources than the other states.
The Clean Air Act allows California, because of its severe air
pollution problems, to establish its own motor vehicle and fuels
control programs. Other states are preempted from such actions,
although the law does permit other states the option of adopting
programs identical to California's. California is often a leader in
adopting more stringent mobile source controls, such as the second
phase of their Low Emission Vehicle (LEV2) program just recently
adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Question 3. Which would be most effective in improving air quality
for the North East, adopting local standards similar to those in effect
in California or reducing background levels?
Response. A combination of reducing background (transported) levels
of ozone and placing local controls on ozone precursor emissions will
likely be needed to bring the North East into attainment of the ozone
NAAQS. Under the Clean Air Act, each state is required to identify and
implement all control measures necessary to bring its areas into
attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ozone by its appropriate attainment date. In addition each state's plan
must prohibit emissions from its state which contribute significantly
to nonattainment in, or interfere with the maintenance by, any other
state with respect to the national ambient air quality standards. Many
areas in the Eastern U.S. including the North East have imposed
substantial controls locally to address ozone. However, the interstate
contributions to these ozone problems have not previously been
addressed. It is the emissions that contribute to the interstate
transport of ozone and its precursors that EPA addressed with its ozone
transport rule.
The emission reductions required under EPA's ozone transport rule
will reduce the upwind contributions to ozone nonattainment and will be
achieved much more cost effectively than local control measures. These
reductions alone will not be sufficient to meet the 1-hour ozone
standard, and may not be sufficient to meet the revised 8-fur ozone
standard, in all areas of the East so individual states will still be
adopting additional local controls as necessary to meet these standards
by their appropriate attainment date.
______
Responses by Brian McLean to Additional Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1. Mr. Tyndall and Mr. Kropp indicated that comments from
States and industry regarding EPA's SIP Call were largely disregarded.
Please describe the comments that EPA received from States and industry
representatives during the comment period on the proposed SIP Call and
explain the manner and substance of EPA's response to these comments.
Response. Summary of Major Comments from the States and Industry on
Proposed NOx SIP Call Rule
Eleven Governors (from CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI and
VT) sent a letter to the President expressing their strong support for
EPA's efforts to reduce NOx emissions in the eastern U.S. and their
position that the rule is technically and legally sound.
Environmental commissioners from six states in conjunction with
executives from more than a dozen industry commenters or groups
representing industry (including PSE&G, Niagara Mohawk, Consolidated
Edison, Florida Power & Light, PECO, United Illuminating, US Generating
Company) wrote to Administrator Browner characterizing the rule as
``extremely important, both in the interests of protecting public
health and in the economic interests of a wide range of businesses
across the affected states''.
Six Governors representing Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia submitted an alternative to EPA's proposed
ozone transport rule which included a two phased approach to utility
emissions and delayed implementation of controls until 2007
Other states such as Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky also favored
some form of a 2-phase approach.
Two states, North Carolina and South Carolina, commented that they
should not be included in the ozone transport rule.
A number of industry commenters including the Alliance for
Constructive Air Policy supported a similar approach to the 6 Governors
proposal.
A number of industry commenters such as the Utility Air regulatory
Group (UARG) and Midwest Ozone Group objected to the ozone transport
rule. In the end, UARG's main concerns were associated with the timing
for installation of control equipment and the potential impact on
electricity supplies.
Many of these same states and industry commenters raised concerns
about the ability of the electric utility industry to meet the
compliance schedule of the ozone transport rule without power ``brown
outs'' or outages.
While generally supportive of the overall rule, other industry
commenters including the Tennessee Valley Authority, Commonwealth
Edison, Ohio Edison, Pennsylvania Power, Cleveland Electric
Illuminating, and Toledo Edison preferred an allocation approach for
energy sources which was output-based as opposed to EPA's input-based
allocation approach.
______
EPA's Response to State and Industry Issues and Concerns Raised by
Senator Inhofe
1. EPA's Rule Is Consistent With Results from State-Run Analyses
EPA has been working with the States since 1995 to develop on a
solid scientific understanding of the ozone transport problem in the
Eastern U.S. through the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) and
EPA's proposed rule was consistent with all of the recommendations of
OTAG in their final report.
2. EPA Conducted Additional, New Analyses Specific to State and
Industry Requests and Concerns
In response to state and industry concerns EPA performed several
new, additional analyses including:
Extensive additional modeling and cost analyses on a range of
alternative control levels including the level proposed by the
Governors. Two of the alternatives even assumed lesser levels of
control for the Midwest and Southeast than in the Northeast. These
analyses showed that no other alternative level delivered equal or
better air quality benefits at equivalent or lower costs. Analysis of
the impact on electricity supplies as a result of the level of control
assumed on utilities used in establishing the states budgets and the
timing of those reductions. The analysis showed that full compliance
was possible by May 1, 2003 without disruptions in the energy supply.
Additional analysis of the cost and impact of controlling non-utility
stationary sources of NOx to address concerns about the equitable
distribution of the reductions and the potential impacts on small
businesses.
The results of these new analyses were given full consideration in
the final decisions on the transport rule and were all made available
to the public.
3. EPA Changed the Rule In Response to State and Industry Concerns
Response. EPA made a number of significant changes to the rule
based on the more than 700 comments received during the nearly 8-month
public comment period:
To address concerns on the timing of implementing controls
submitted by the six Midwest/Southeast Governors (MI, OH, TN, VA, WV,
AL) as well as those from KY, IN, IL, MO, NC, SC, WI and other states
and industry, EPA extended the deadline for compliance with the
requirements from September 2002 to May 2003.
In response to concerns about facilities' ability to comply by the
required date and the potential effects of the rule on the availability
of electricity, the final rule created a pool of emission credits for
each state. The final rule provides emission credits for sources that
achieve their emission reductions earlier than required, and/or
demonstrate they cannot meet the compliance date. This pool of credits
encourages early compliance, but also provides significant flexibility
by allowing these credits to be sold to sources that might not
otherwise meet the deadline. This will ease any lingering concerns
about the ability of utilities (or other sources) to meet the deadlines
of the rule and the availability of electricity to their customers.
To address concerns about the impact of the proposed rule on small
businesses expressed by IL, MI, MO, NC, NY and PA, EPA exempted over 90
percent of the smaller industrial sources thereby reducing state NOx
budgets. The number of industrial sources covered under the rule
dropped from 13,000 to 1,200; however, associated emission reductions
were reduced by only about 50 percent.
To accommodate the state concerns, EPA made the final rule more
flexible by allowing states to include all stationary NOx sources in
emission trading programs provided the additional sources meet certain
requirements in the ozone transport rule particularly the monitoring of
emission requirements.
EPA's proposed rule asked for comments on a wide range of options
for incorporating emissions ``banking'' into the program, including an
option that would have prohibited banking. In response to comments,
EPA's final rule provides sources the opportunity to bank allowances
once the program begins.
As requested in many state proposals, the final rule lessened the
control on large industrial boilers to 60 percent (from 70 percent in
the proposed rule) and exempted many other non-electricity generating
sources categories.
Support for NOx SIP Call
Following promulgation of the ozone transport rule, a number of
affected states and the District of Columbia communicated their support
for as well as plans to meet the NOx SIP Call rule during in national
and regional meetings to discuss implementation of the rule. These
include Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois,
Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Tennessee. This roster of supporting states included
some, like Tennessee, which initially opposed the ozone transport rule.
__________
Statement of Edward Kropp, West Virginia Division of Environmental
Protection,
Good morning. My name is Edward Kropp and I am an Assistant Chief
of the West Virginia Office of Air Quality. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you this morning.
One of the important aspects of S. 1097, the Acid Deposition
Control Act, is the continued effort to regulate emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOx), which has already been the subject of regulation in the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and, in addition, is an ozone precursor.
West Virginia is concerned about the imposition of additional stringent
controls on NOx emissions from sources in West Virginia which appear to
be based upon politics and rhetoric rather than environmental science.
Indeed, on September 24, 1998, EPA announced a final rule which would
require 22 states and the District of Columbia to drastically reduce
emissions of NOx in an effort to mitigate the long-range transport of
ozone into the Northeast. West Virginia believes that neither the EPA
NOx reduction rule, known as the Ozone Transport Assessment Group
(OTAG) SIP Call, nor any additional NOx controls which might be imposed
under S. 1097 can be economically justified when compared to the
relatively insignificant environmental benefits which might result.
EPA sponsored OTAG, which was a stakeholder process taking place
between approximately May 1995 and June 1997. The OTAG process included
scientific modeling to test a hypothesis that long range (on the order
of 600 or so miles) transport of ozone was occurring from the Midwest
and Southeast to the Northeast, exacerbating non-attainment of the 1-
hour ozone standard in the Northeast. A key conclusion of the OTAG
process was that emission reductions yield the greatest benefit locally
and that benefits decrease as distance from the controlled source
increases. Further, OTAG concluded that regional NOx reductions produce
regional ozone reduction benefits. Finally, OTAG modeling data (copy
attached) indicates that literally shutting down all man-made sources
of NOx emissions in the Midwest will not result in the Northeast
attaining the old 1-hour ozone standard.
In November 1997, EPA proposed its OTAG SIP Call to reduce NOx, and
requested comments on the proposed rule. West Virginia and 12 other
states, all subject to the SIP Call, time and again submitted comments
to EPA without ever receiving a formal response to our comments.
Moreover, West Virginia and five other states jointly submitted an
alternative (copy attached) to the proposed EPA rule on June 25, 1998.
The alternative proposal focused on attaining the new 8-hour standard
rather than mitigating transport to solve the Northeast attainment
problems with the old 1-hour standard. Seven other states submitted
alternate proposals which focused on attainment of the new standard as
well.
Regrettably, EPA has continued to ignore the efforts of all 13
states to collaborate with EPA to attain the 8-hour standard, instead
focusing on EPA's effort to reduce NOx emissions primarily from Midwest
and Southeast power plants. In addition to proposing power plant NOx
emission reductions of 85 percent and overall state NOx emission
reductions of as much as 51 percent from 1990 levels in the case of
West Virginia, EPA touts the new NOx reduction rule as being flexible
because it allows sources in the Midwest and Southeast to trade
emissions between sources in order to distribute the emission reduction
burden. West Virginia believes that such ``flexibility'' must be tied
to air quality science and, in the case of the EPA rule, submits that
EPA has once again ignored science in order to level economic playing
fields, i.e., controlling Midwest NOx power plants to raise the cost of
electricity to levels more nearly equal to those in the Northeast.
West Virginia has, on numerous occasions, attempted to provide EPA
with input regarding the NOx rule and our position remains both
unchanged and scientifically supported. West Virginia believes that
power plant NOx reductions of 65 percent from 1990 levels will result
in attainment of the new 8-hour standard in most, if not all, of West
Virginia. In addition, power plant reductions in excess of 65 percent
may be necessary to ameliorate any ozone transport from West Virginia
occurring in the 150-200 mile range which OTAG concluded was likely to
occur. The EPA OTAG SIP Call will result in the expenditure, in West
Virginia alone, of approximately $1 billion in excess of the cost of 65
percent reductions while providing virtually no discernible concomitant
environmental benefit in the Northeast.
West Virginia urges that EPA be required to reconsider its ill-
conceived one-size-fits-all OTAG SIP Call to reduce NOx emissions and
that any further Midwest and Southeast power plant NOx emission
reductions which might be required as a result of S. 1097 be deleted
from the ct. Thank you for your attention.
__________
Statement of Bernard Melewski, Adirondack Council
Good Morning. My name is Bernard Melewski. I am the counsel and
legislative director of the Adirondack Council. I would like to thank
the chairman, and the members of the committee for the opportunity to
be here with you this morning and to provide testimony on Senate Bill
1097, the Acid Deposition Control Act.
I would like to begin with a brief explanation of what is the
Adirondack Park, the role of the Adirondack Council in New York, and
why we are particularly interested in the topic of acid rain and in
this legislation.
The Adirondack Park is the largest park of any kind in the
contiguous United States. It is nearly three times the size of
Yellowstone National Park and covers one fifth of the State of New York
making it equal in size to the State of Vermont. The Adirondack Park is
roughly six-million acres of public and private land containing the
largest assemblage of Old Growth forest east of the Mississippi River.
The Adirondacks include the headwaters of five major drainage basins.
Lake Champlain and the Hudson, St. Lawrence, Mohawk and Black rivers
all draw water from the Adirondack Park. Within the Park are More than
2,800 lakes and ponds, and more than 1,500 miles of rivers fed by an
estimated 30,000 miles of brooks and streams. The Park contains 46
mountain peaks more than 4,000 feet tall. Forty-five percent of the
Park is publicly owned Forest Preserve protected as ``Forever Wild'' by
the New York State Constitution since 1895. One million acres of these
public lands are classified as Wilderness.
The Adirondack Council was founded in 1975, it is a private, not-
for-profit organization dedicated to enhancing the natural and human
communities of the Park through research, education, advocacy and legal
action.
The Council receives moral and financial support from its more than
18,000 members and from private foundations. The Council's national and
regional member organizations include the Natural Resources Defense
Council, The Wilderness Society, National Audubon Society, National
Parks and Conservation Association, Citizens Campaign for the
Environment and the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks.
Our interest in the problem of acid rain is long held. We were
active contributors to the dialog on acid rain in New York State in the
early years of the 1980's, and helped craft the first acid rain law in
the country which was adopted in 1984. The New York law identified both
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide as precursors to acid rain, sought
limits on total emissions from utilities sited within the state and
even proposed an innovative trading mechanism that Congress would adopt
nationwide in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
The Adirondack Council was also an active participant in the
national debate that led to the adoption of the acid rain program in
the clean air act amendments 8 years ago. Our publication, ``Beside the
Stilled Waters,'' which was produced and distributed in cooperation
with our member organizations, brought the problem of acid rain to the
attention of the Nation and to Congress.
We are here today because acid rain remains a continuing national
tragedy. We ask that you now finish the job that was begun 8 years ago.
We remember well that day when a deputy administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency grandly pronounced in a press release
that the new regulations implementing the new Clean Air Act Amendments
would mean ``the end to acid rain in the Adirondacks.''
Certainly that was the intention of the Senate and the House. But
wisely, Congress ordered a series of reports that would advise you of
the success or failures of the goals of the acid rain program.
And the acid rain program as adopted was not without controversy.
Congress adopted an innovative ``cap and trade'' program, modeled after
the New York legislation, which would abandon the so-called ``command
and control'' approach to regulation, in favor of a free wheeling
pollution allowance trading program that would provide utilities with
the flexibility to make compliance strategies part of their long-term
business planning. The Adirondack Council, among others raised concern
that the cap on total emissions might not be low enough to protect
sensitive areas. Others debated both the need for and the cost of the
program.
The wisdom of requiring these reports at that time is now apparent.
The first report was due in 1993, from the Environmental Protection
Agency (ordered under sec. 404, Title IV appendix B of the 1990 CAAA)
and was entitled the Acid Deposition Standard Feasibility Study Report
to Congress. The report, dated October, 1995, was finally released in
1996 under the threat of litigation from the Adirondack Council and the
State of New York. The report concluded that the pollution reductions
accompanying the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments would not be sufficient
to allow recovery of certain sensitive ecosystems and that some would
continue to get worse. The report was particularly compelling for New
Yorkers because it revealed that despite the reductions expected from
the 1990 Amendments the loss of near fifty percent of its lakes and
acidification of most streams in the Adirondack Park could be expected.
The second of two reports to Congress, the report of the National
Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) was submitted to Congress
as you left for the August recess (ordered under Sec. 901J of the 1990
CAAA). It was due in 1996 and it too was released under pressure from
Senators Moynihan and D'Amato and the threat of litigation from the
State of New York. In short summary, it confirms and substantially
elaborates upon the findings of the earlier report to Congress
submitted in 1996 from the EPA.
The NAPAP report also confirms that acid rain is not just an
Adirondack problem.
The damage that sulfur and nitrogen pollution causes is far from a
regional issue. It is an issue of national, even international
importance. Excess nitrogen in waters and in soils--``nitrogen
saturation''--can be found in the North East and in West Virginia's
Allegheny Mountains, Tennessee's Great Smoky Mountains, Colorado's
Front Range of the Rockies and even as far west as the San Bernardino
and San Gabriel Mountains. High levels of nitrogen deposition are
causing nitrate to leach into stream water from these watersheds. This
nitrate leaching acidifies streams and strips base cations from soils.
In snow covered areas the flush of nitric acid stored in the snowpack
is the leading cause of ``acid pulses'' which are responsible for fish
kills during spring thaws.
NAPAP found that high elevation areas in the Northeast and the
Appalachians are bathed in acidic cloud water for extended periods of
time. Sulfuric acid from sulfur dioxide emissions is the significant
cause of the widespread spruce die back in these areas. The mechanism
for the die back is the leaching of calcium from the spruce needles by
the acidic fog which makes the trees susceptible to frost and winter
injury.
The coastal estuaries of the entire east coast suffer from airborne
inputs of nitrogen that can make up nearly 40 percent of the total
nitrogen loaded into their systems. From the Long Island Sound to the
Chesapeake Bay to Tampa Bay in Florida, nitrogen-based pollution is
overloading the water with nutrients. This causes ``eutrophication,''an
overabundance of algae. These blooms are associated with fin fish
kills, shellfish kills and human illness. When algae dies and decays,
it depletes the water of precious oxygen needed by all aquatic animals.
This condition is known as hypoxia.
Perhaps even more alarming was NAPAP's finding that areas of North
America that are not seeing damage now are likely to in the future due
to an effect known as soil acidification. Over the long term, acidic
deposition is slowly leaching away key soil nutrients like calcium and
magnesium (known as base cations) that are essential for plant growth.
This nutrient depletion is occurring in high and mid elevation forests
in New England, New York and the Southern Appalachians. Fifty 9 percent
of the commercial pine forest soil in all of the South East has low
enough reserves of these chemicals to warrant concern.
Acid deposition, whether from sulfur or from nitrogen based
pollution, not only leads to base depletion, but also the release of
toxic compounds from soils to living things. For example, the release
of Aluminum from soils rapidly accelerates when pH drops below 5. The
release of aluminum interferes with plant biochemistry. It is also the
leading cause of fish mortality in affected lakes. In other words, it
is not the acidity directly, but the aluminum toxicity that is
responsible for the damage. This effect is very wide-spread. Studies
conducted in the Shenendoah National Park show that fish species
richness, population density, condition, age distribution, size and
survival rate were all reduced in streams no longer able to neutralize
acidity. A study of streams in the Adirondacks, Catskills and Northern
Appalachians in Pennsylvania showed that episodic acidification ``acid
pulses'' had long term adverse effects on fish populations including
significant fish mortality. Lake acidification, whether from sulfur or
nitrogen is also implicated in the increase in mercury concentrations
found in fish. Acidity leads to greater conversion of mercury from its
less toxic elemental form to methyl mercury, which is much more toxic.
Fish consumption warnings due to mercury contamination are common in
many states and are on the rise.
All of this disturbing information has been exhaustively peer
reviewed and verified by the May 1998 National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program Biennial Report to Congress.
Other studies have found similar results:
Environment Canada, in its 1997 report ``Toward a National Acid
Rain Strategy'', said that reducing sulfur emissions significantly
beyond the current Clean Air Act requirements in both countries would
be needed for all of eastern Canada to be protected from acid rain. In
southern Canada an area the size of France and Britain combined
receives harmful levels of acid deposition. As many as 95,000 lakes in
the region will remain damaged.
A study recently released by Trout Unlimited that was conducted by
the University of Virginia. The study found that without deep
additional deposition reductions up to 35 percent of Virginia trout
streams would become ``chronically acidic'' and would no longer support
trout populations. The study further estimated that thousands of trout
stream miles in the Southern Appalachians may be lost to acidification.
We believe that a fair reading of the two reports to Congress lead
to two very clear conclusions:
First, that the mechanism of a national cap in emissions coupled
with the pollution allowance trading program has been an outstanding
success. All facilities are in compliance and there is every reason to
believe that the target cap will be reached. The Administrative and
implementation costs of the program are less than a traditional
regulatory approach. Furthermore, the actual cost of the program is
substantially less than projected at the time of adoption.
Second, that despite the success of the regulatory scheme, the
overall cap in emissions is too high to accomplish one of the primary
goals of Congress, which was to protect sensitive resource areas from
the harmful effects of acid rain.
Senate bill 1097, is the best proposal we have seen to address the
shortcomings of the acid rain program without doing harm to the
positive accomplishments of the current program.
The proposed Acid Deposition Control Act would essentially
accomplish three things:
First, it would build on the successful sulfur dioxide cap-and-
trade program by creating a third phase of reductions further along the
current time line. All of the advantages of the current program are
preserved. It is predictable, flexible, and cost-effective. The
legislation would reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions by an additional 50
percent.
Second, it would create a new cap-and-trade program for nitrogen-
oxide emissions from utility smokestacks that mirrors the successful
program already in place for sulfur. The role of nitrogen deposition
both in high elevation waters and forests and in our coastal estuaries
is much better understood and accepted by the scientific community. The
proposed cap and trade program would reduce nitrogen emissions from
utilities nationwide by approximately 70 percent of 1990 levels,
resulting in a substantial and beneficial cut that is also reasonably
achievable. Similar in structure to the existing sulfur program, the
cuts would be phased in by two stages.
We fully expect that utility executives will audibly grumble about
the stringency of the proposal and its cost. But we fully expect that
the additional reductions can be accomplished within the costs that
were projected when Title IV was passed.
It is also important to address the subject of the new air
regulations issued just a week ago by the USEPA.
It is a fair question to ask whether the nitrogen program proposed
in Acid Deposition Act is necessary in light of the adoption of these
new Federal regulations. We think the answer is quite definitely yes.
USEPA has proposed a twenty-two state voluntary utility cap and trade
program for nitrogen emissions as the preferred response for state
compliance with its new ozone program.
The EPA ozone proposal, which is only summer seasonal, will not
address in any significant way, the acid rain problem. The issue is the
total loading of nitrogen to sensitive areas. For high elevation areas
the main concern stems from the buildup of nitrogen in the snow pack
and the subsequent ``acidic pulse'' to aquatic systems in the spring of
the year. Year-round controls will be necessary to address the nitrogen
problem. Furthermore, only nationwide reductions will address the
problems outside of the twenty-two state region covered by EPA's plan.
The proposed Acid Deposition Control Act, will be a more effective
and efficient way to accomplish both the public health goals of the
ozone rules and the atmospheric loading of nitrogen to our sensitive
ecological resources.
Not only would the nitrogen program of the legislation under
discussion today accomplish the same goals of the USEPA regulations,
but will insure uniformity and an expanded market which will be more
efficient and cost effective. The legislation will also level the
competitive playing field for the utility industry. The Congressional
Budget Office (Factors Affecting the Relative Success of EPA's Nox Cap-
and-trade Program, June 1998), identified similar benefits to providing
additional statutory authority in a report on the proposed rules this
summer.
Third, the Acid Deposition Control Act would provide additional
resources to the monitoring and research networks that on a shoe-string
budget have provided the nation's research scientists with invaluable
data on the actual state of affairs on the ground and in the air. The
level of scientific certainty and confidence on acid rain has improved
substantially since 1990 because we now have the ability know what goes
up the stack coupled with an accurate monitoring of our air and water
resources. The Acid Deposition Control Act would continue to improve
our monitoring and therefor our ability to assess the success of these
programs.
As advocates for the preservation of the wild character of one of
the nation's greatest parks, imagine our dismay in reading the reports
from USEPA and NAPAP on the future of the Adirondacks.It is small
wonder then that more than 150,000 New Yorkers have signed petitions
urging more action on acid rain in the past year, collected by the
Citizens Campaign for the Environment, our member organization.
The need for additional action on acid rain is not just a New York
perspective. In May of this year the Conference of New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers recommended additional
reductions in utility emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx nearly
identical to those called for in S. 1097. The problems these pollutants
bring are felt from the Chesapeake to Tampa Bay, and in the Rockies,
Sierra Nevada and Appalachian Mountains. The Acid Deposition Control
Act will improve the environment and public health to the benefit of
virtually every American.
Mr. Chairman, the scientific uncertainty that existed in the early
1990's has been removed. The basis for strong action could not be
better articulated than in the significant findings of these reports
which we believe wholly support the actions and elements of S. 1097. We
urge the Committee to move this bill to the floor for consideration by
the full Senate at the earliest opportunity. Thank you again.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
______
Responses by Bernard Melewski to Additional Questions from Senator
Moynihan
Question 1. What human health effects result from acidification of
aquatic systems in New England?
Response. There is extensive literature regarding large negative
human health effects from the pollutants that cause acid rain in their
airborne forms: sulfate aerosols and ozone. However your question is
directed at human health effects related only to the acidification of
aquatic systems. Acidified water bodies generally have higher levels of
Mercury in them than non-acidified waters. This is due to higher levels
of mercury deposition and the leaching of mercury from watersheds by
acidity. Also, the acidity may speed the process that changes inorganic
mercury to its more toxic organic form. The Mercury Study: a Framework
for Action conducted by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) and others noted that 39 of the lower 48 states
had fish consumption advisories for mercury. Mercury is a toxic heavy
metal associated with damaging effects on the neurological development
of mammals and birds. The study noted that available science indicates
that the adverse health effects associated with exposure to mercury may
not be reversible. Many of the combustion sources that emit acid rain
precursors also emit mercury.A study conducted by H. Simonin, et. al.
titled, ``Mercury in Yellow Perch from Adirondack Drainage Lakes''
found that the pH of the lake in which perch lived was the best
predictor of the amount of mercury in the lake's fish. In other words,
fish from acidified lakes have more mercury (and are more dangerous to
eat) in them than fish from healthy lakes.
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) study State
of Science and Technology report #23: Indirect Health Effects
Associated with Acidic Precipitation discussed lead exposure. Acidic
surface water used as drinking water can leach lead out of the fittings
and solder that make up normal household plumbing systems. The report
found that this added lead exposure could cause young children and
pregnant women to be at increased risk of the adverse health effects
associated with lead exposure.
Question 2. Are there economic impacts due to acid deposition in
the Northeast? If the economic impacts are difficult to quantify,
please discuss the effects qualitatively.
Response. The 1998 NAPAP report discussed a wide variety of
negative impacts caused by acid deposition. In many cases, the actual
economic cost of these impacts can be difficult to quantify. Where
economic analysis would be possible in some cases, little research has
been done.'It is nonetheless safe to say that there are very
significant economic impacts of acid deposition.
It is worth noting that NAPAP/98 found that the costs of
implementing the existing acid rain program were far outweighed by the
benefits to human health alone. A brief list of the negative effects of
acid rain and its precursor chemicals would include damage to
commercial farms and forests, recreational fisheries, visibility, and
cultural and material resources. NAPAP found that roughly 900,000
properties of historic value were at risk for damage by acid
deposition, not including as many as 30 million grave markers.
Structures made out of limestone and marble are particularly sensitive
to erosion caused by acid deposition.
The negative economic effects of this damage to the tourism,
agriculture and forestry industries are potentially quite large.
__________
Statement of William F. Tyndall, Vice President, Environmental
Services, Cinergy Corp.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is William F.
Tyndall. I am Vice President of Environmental Services for Cinergy
Corp. I am pleased to be here today to present testimony on behalf of
Cinergy on a subject that this company probably knows too much about--
acid rain legislation and sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) controls. As
of one of the very first utilities to embrace the concept of strict
SO<INF>2</INF> controls as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments--
which this committee was instrumental in getting enacted--Cinergy is in
a unique position to comment on S. 1097. To summarize our views, while
we are committed to addressing the environmental consequences of our
generating stations, we believe it is premature to adopt any new
reduction programs until the existing Acid Rain provisions of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the new regulatory requirements spawned
by EPA's recent decisions on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and the rule relating to transport of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are
given a chance to work.
Cinergy Corp. and its operating utility subsidiaries (Cinergy) own
and operate fossil fired and hydroelectric generating facilities in
Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio. Cinergy was created in 1994 through the
merger of The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company and PSI Energy, Inc.
The Cinergy companies serve over 1.4 million customers with natural
gas, electricity, or both in those three states.
The Power of Coal
Cinergy is one of the nation's largest coal-burning utilities.
There are those in the environmental community and in government that
see coal as a four letter word. They would have us abandon this
valuable natural and economic resource. Coal is an important fuel
source for electric generation, accounting for 57 percent of all power
produced in the United States. Coal will continue to be a large part of
our national energy strategy. Cinergy knows that coal can be used in an
environmentally responsible fashion. In its operations, Cinergy accepts
this obligation for ensuring protection of the environment. However, by
endorsing the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, PSI Energy, Inc., a
Cinergy subsidiary, helped signal a then new way of thinking--that
command-and-control environmentalism was doomed to a future of market-
based solutions that actually provide incentives for companies to
reduce their emissions.
Cinergy's View
Cinergy remains committed to promoting cost-effective and
innovative ways to attain cleaner air. This is particularly important
as the industry moves toward competitive marketplaces that will add
even more pressure to keep customer costs as low as possible. Cinergy
believes it is paramount that industry, government, the environmental
community and other parties work together to find common sense
solutions to environmental concerns. We believe that success in
business and environmental excellence can and must go hand in hand. As
an example of its commitment to the environment, on the first day of
business as a merged company, Cinergy's Board of Directors adopted an
Environmental Pledge to govern corporate actions.
Cinergy Steps Forward
In September 1997, Cinergy was the first Midwestern utility to
voluntarily commit to additional reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) to
support attainment of the existing clean air standards and to address
the issue of NOx transport. At that time we also stated our support for
market based solutions and for emissions trading. We also announced a
voluntary demonstration project for the first application of Selective
Non-Catalytic Reduction technology (SNCR) on Midwestern fuel at our
Miami Fort Station near Cincinnati, Ohio. We realized that future
emissions reductions were going to heavily depend upon technologies
that were new and largely unproven on boilers of the size and
configuration that we operate, or that use our fuel types. This
demonstration began in June of this year and has so far been successful
in reducing NOx emissions by 30 percent.
The Clean Air Act Is Working
There has been tremendous success in cleaning the nation's air. The
work accomplished under the original Clean Air Act and its subsequent
amendments has been a major contribution to this improvement. Lest we
forget how far we have come in this effort, consider the following
facts as presented in EPA's ``Summary of National Emissions Trends,
1900-1996'': \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Summary of National Emissions Trends, 1900-1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Total SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for 1995 and 1996 were
lower than in 1940 (18,552,000 and 19,113,000 vs.19,952,000 tons
respectively)
<bullet> Total VOC emissions for 1995 and 1996 were less than in
1950 (20,586,000 and 19,086,000 vs. 20,936,000 tons respectively)
<bullet> Total NOx emissions for 1995 and 1996 were less than in
1980 (23,935,000 and 23,393,000 vs. 24,875,000 tons respectively)
In addition, I am pleased to confirm that the Greater Cincinnati
Area, Cinergy's headquarters city, has met the requirements to apply
for re-designation to attainment status for ozone. This success has
come through cooperation between industry, government, and the people
of our area. It is Cinergy's request that the Senate continue to
encourage the EPA, industry and all other parties to work cooperatively
and in the spirit of compromise to address pollution concerns and solve
these concerns in a cost effective fashion. In this way, environmental
benefits do not have to come at the expense of the economy.
This is not to say that everything is done. As the committee
considers S. 1097, it is necessary to keep in mind not only where
environmental programs have been, but also where they are going. We
know we will get large additional reductions from utilities beginning
in the next few years. Many of these programs post-date the
introduction of S. 1097. Still other provisions are premature because
the benefits of these further reductions are not yet realized. It is
imperative that Congress understand the full impacts of all these
adopted and pending measures before it legislates further.
In my remaining remarks, I will describe several of the current
regulatory programs that have been, or soon will be, enacted that
greatly impact utility operations. Congress established the Acid Rain
Program in Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. Its
goal was to reduce acidification of lakes and streams, damage to trees,
structural and architectural materials, and improve visibility by
reducing SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx emissions. The amendments placed a cap
on SO<INF>2</INF> emissions at a level 10 million tons per year below
1980 levels. In addition, NOx emissions were to be reduced 2 million
tons below 1980 levels. \2\ This program has already produced
substantial reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx. In the first year
alone, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions fell by about 5.6 million tons. NOx
emissions are expected to fall 400,000 tons per year by 1999. In the
year 2000, the second phase of the Title IV program takes effect, and
an additional 4.6 million tons of SO<INF>2</INF> reductions and 1.6
million tons of NOx reductions will occur. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Source www.epa.gov/acidrain/noxts3.html
\3\ Source www.epa.gov/acidrain/overview.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur Dioxide
Since 1990, Cinergy has reduced its emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> per
kWh of electricity by 42 percent and emissions of NOx per kWh by 27
percent. Cinergy further projects that it will further reduce its
emissions per kWh by a total of 50 percent for SO<INF>2</INF> and 34
percent for NOx when the second phase of Title IV takes effect in the
year 2000. To achieve these results, Cinergy has made and will continue
to make significant expenditures to reduce these acid rain precursors.
\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Cinergy internal estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Title IV NOx Phase I & II capital expenditures of about
$100 million.
<bullet> Title IV SO<INF>2</INF> Phase I capital expenditures of
about $333 million.
<bullet> Title IV additional O&M SO<INF>2</INF> expenditures of
about $90 million for 1995 and 1996 including allowance purchases.
In addition during the construction of the W. H. Zimmer Station,
Cinergy and its partners spent $350 million for environmental control
equipment including precipitators, scrubbers, and low NOx burners. This
station began commercial operation in 1991 and was recognized by EPA
Region V for excellence in SO<INF>2</INF> control.
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the United States are the lowest in
over 50 years as a result of these existing programs. Nationally, NOx
emissions have remained fairly constant between 1980 and 1996, even
with the tremendous increase in vehicular traffic, fuel combustion and
other source activity. The second phase of SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx
reductions under Title IV will begin in a little over 1 year.
Additional near term reductions are expected with the new NOx SIP Call,
the new NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and potentially under the proposed
rules for Regional Haze. It will take time for the full effect of these
new efforts to be fully seen in the environment.
However, the environment is already seeing the benefits of these
reductions. The first year's reductions made under Phase One of the
CAAA's Title IV alone produced measurable differences in acid
deposition. The U.S. Geological Survey found that when 1995 data was
compared with that of 1983 through 1994, there was a 10 percent to 25
percent drop in wet deposition of sulfate concentration and acidity
particularly at some sites in the Midwest, the Northeast, and Mid-
Atlantic Regions. In addition, SO<INF>2</INF> concentrations have
fallen 37 percent between 1986 and 1995 at ambient monitoring sites.
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA Brochure on National Air Quality: Status and Trends, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOx SIP Call
EPA has recently finalized its NOx SIP Call rule. This rule
establishes limits on summer NOx emissions, and places a cap on utility
NOx emissions during the summer ozone season in 22 eastern states and
the District of Columbia. This utility cap is based on an extremely low
mass emissions rate of 0.15 lb NOx/mmBtu of heat input. Overall, the
rule is expected to reduce NOx emissions during the ozone season in all
sectors from 4.2 million tons to 3 million tons per season, or a
decrease of 28 percent. Utility NOx will fall from 1.5 million to 0.5
million tons per season for a 64 percent decrease. The estimated
capital cost to utilities in the 22 state region is over $14 billion.
Cinergy estimates its potential capital cost between now and 2003 to be
between $500 and $600 million. Clearly utilities are bearing the brunt
of these reductions.
The rule requires the affected jurisdictions to modify their State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to incorporate the requirements of this
rule and submit the revised plans by September 30, 1999. Many of the
requirements of S. 1097 are contained in the final NOx SIP Call. These
provisions include, but are not limited to:
<bullet> A NOx allowance program for the 22 states and District of
Columbia affected by the rule.
<bullet> State by state NOx allowance allocations, and a suggested
an allowance distribution scheme within the states.
<bullet> An allowance banking and tracking system and a NOx
allowance transfer system(model trading rule) for the states to adopt
at their discretion.
<bullet> A recommendation for states to establish ``new source
set-asides'' for new sources.
<bullet> A proposed Federal Implementation Plan (PIP) in the event
a state fails to submit an acceptable plan containing the requirements
established in the SIP Rule.
NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the two precursors
that form ground level ozone. The most effective approach to resolving
ozone concerns is a mixture of NOx and VOC controls. The appropriate
mix of these controls varies by region. In the Greater Cincinnati area
for example, it has been shown that VOC controls are more effective for
attaining the existing 1 hour ozone standard. The Ozone Transport
Assessment Group (OTAG) showed that the impacts of air pollutants
carried by air currents decrease exponentially with distance from the
source of release. In addition, power plants currently produce only 29
percent of all NOx emissions. The transportation sector produces 49
percent, with the balance of 22 percent being produced by all other
industrial and fuel combustion sources. In addition, power plants
produce negligible amounts of VOCs. Individual conditions are very site
specific. Therefore Cinergy believes that a local and sub-regional
approach to controlling ground level ozone is most effective, as
opposed to the one size fits all approach embodied in the NOx SIP Call.
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Chesapeake Bay and the Control of NOx Emissions: A Policy
Analysis, August 1998, Discussion Paper 98-46, Resources for the
Future, Alan Krupnick.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last summer, EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone, created the new
PM<INF>2.5</INF> health standard, and proposed regional haze
regulations. In doing so, it set in motion a process that will likely
result in further reductions in many pollutant precursors, including
SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx beyond those called for by Title IV and the NOx
SIP Rule. Scientific research has shown that small aerosol particles
generated from a wide variety of sources are significant contributors
to both visibility impairment and the level of fine particulates in our
air. An important portion of these particles is believed to be caused
by emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx. Fine particulate emissions come
not only from utilities but other industries and the transportation
sources as well. In fact, many of these are in close proximity to urban
areas. Ongoing research and monitoring efforts are designed to quantify
the magnitude and source of these emissions. These particulate
reductions will not only result in additional health benefits, but also
will reduce acid deposition.
I should point out that as a result of the Senator Inhofe's
Amendment to the transportation bill enacted last spring, Congress
established a schedule for implementing the new PM<INF>2.5</INF>
standard. Senator Inhofe's Amendment was based on the consensus view
that there should be no implementation of the new standard until the
necessary monitoring data was collected regarding the amount and
composition of the fine particulate matter in the air. Without this
data, States can not make informed decisions regarding the amount or
location of emissions reductions needed to meet the new
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.
In conference, the conferees extended the implementation schedule
to include EPA's proposed regional haze program. In effect, Congress
realized that the compounds blamed for regional haze--such as sulfur
dioxide--are also the pollutants of concern for the fine particulate
matter problem. Moving ahead on regional haze without the fine
particulate matter monitoring program would clearly be imprudent.
The same logic should apply to S. 1097. The new fine particulate
matter standard, the regional haze program and the acid rain program
all target sulfur dioxide. It makes no sense to implement them on
separate time tables. It also makes no sense to force States to make
arbitrary and untargeted cuts without the technical information that
everyone--including EPA--agrees the States should have to make
effective reduction strategies. It also allows individual or groups of
States to balance technical and economic criteria and maintain state
primacy of their duties without Federal preemption. In short, the
SO<INF>2</INF> program as envisioned by this bill would conflict with
Senator Inhofe's Amendment as ultimately included in the highway
legislation.
Mercury
Late last year, EPA released the ``Mercury Study Report to
Congress''. This report was required by section 112(n)(1)(B) of the
1990 CAAA. It is the most comprehensive study of mercury in the
environment to date. While EPA pointed out areas where they think
additional data is needed, and they did reach several important
conclusions. EPA estimates U.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions from
all sources to be about 187 tons per year. This estimate mirrors that
of the Electric Power Research Institute. Utilities comprise only about
one third of total emissions. In addition, total global emissions of
mercury from all sources are estimated to be 5,500 tons per year,
making U.S. sources only about 3 percent of the world's total. Because
of the global nature of mercury transport, it is not clear that
reductions in domestic mercury emissions will produce demonstrable
reductions in exposure.
Despite the close agreement in the estimates of mercury emissions,
EPA has since announced a Mercury Information Collection Request (ICR)
that currently proposes to require utilities to provide specific data
on coal characteristics from each generating station. Cinergy
anticipates that this ICR will not appreciably improve the currently
available data. EPA is also considering lowering the threshold
reporting limits for mercury under the Toxic Release Inventory program.
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Mercury Study Report To Congress Volume I: Executive Summary,
December 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same report, EPA describes its review of available control
methods for mercury. EPA states, ``Although a number of mercury control
technologies are being evaluated for utility boilers, most are still in
the research stages, making it cliff cult to predict final cost
effectiveness as well as the time to scale-up and commercialize the
technologies. Because the chemical species of mercury emitted from
boilers varies from plant to plant, there is no single technology that
removes all forms of mercury.'' The report goes on to state that
although estimates have wide variability and costs will be in the
billions of dollars per year, more research is needed before
technologies can be applied. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Mercury Study Report To Congress Volume I: Executive Summary,
December 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA concludes that the average citizen is not at risk from mercury
exposure. Only a small subset of the population is potentially
impacted. The latest research indicates that the reference dose EPA
uses to access risk is perhaps a factor of five too high. EPA's
reference dose is based on short term, but high intensity exposures
associated with a mercury poisoning incident in Iraq. Several studies
from the Seychelle Islands and other locations which focus on low level
exposures from fish consumption indicate that EPA's current reference
dose is too conservative, even considering an appropriate safety
factor. \9\ For this reason there is disagreement between different
Federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry as to what this limit
should be. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy will
launch an effort to resolve this conflict starting with a workshop next
month. We encourage the EPA to work to resolve these differences by
adopting a reference dose that considers the new scientific data and is
also in line with that of the FDA and ATSDR, so that an appropriate
exposure standard that is protective of public health can be agreed
upon. Therefore there should be no regulatory action on mercury
emissions until the Federal Government sets final exposure limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Effects of Prenatal and Postnatal Methylmercury Exposure from
Fish Consumption on Neurodevelopment, Davidson, Philip W., et al.
Journal of the American Medical Association, August 26, 1998, p. 701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
In summary, I would like to repeat that our country is benefiting
from tremendous improvements in our air quality. This has come from the
hard work of industry, government, the environmental community and
other stakeholders.We know the implementation of the Clean Air Act to
date has already brought additional emission reductions in
SO<INF>2</INF>, NOx, and particulate matter. The benefits of these
reductions are already being seen in the environment. Because of
current initiatives under the existing law and ongoing regulatory
actions, Cinergy sees no reason for Congress to pursue additional
emission reductions at this time. As a proponent of competition in
electric markets, Cinergy believes that many technological advances
will be made in the coming years to make producing electricity even
cleaner and more efficient. . The arbitrary addition of costly
pollution control equipment at this time could actually impede such
technological innovation by utilities and others. Once the
implementation of the various pending environmental laws and
regulations is complete, Congress should fully evaluate their
effectiveness before imposing additional requirements. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Biennial Report
to Congress: An Integrated Assessment, National Science and Technology
Council, Committee on environment and Natural Resources, May 1998,
pages 23-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to thank this distinguished committee for the
opportunity to appear before you.
______
Responses by William Tyndall to Additional Questions from Senator
Sessions
Question 1. What standard for mobile sources have the states in the
Northeast imposed to meet state and federal air emissions limits?
Response. Title II of the Clean Air Act provides for EPA to set
national ``tail pipe'' emissions standards for mobile sources. These
national standards preempt State tail pipe standards, except in
California, which is allowed to set more stringent standards. The Clean
Air Act, however, does allow States to ``opt in'' to the more stringent
California standards. Recently automobile manufacturers have offered to
produce for sale in the Northeast (and elsewhere) automobiles meeting
emissions standards equivalent to the California standards. States in
the Northeast have either accepted this program or have formally opted
in to the California mobile source program.
The Northeast States have made less progress in adopting the
enhanced inspection and maintenance programs called for by section
182(f) of the Clean Air Act. These programs are designed to ensure that
cars continue to meet tail pipe standards once they are in operation
and are viewed as a potent and cost effective tool in the fight against
ozone. In June 1998, Congressman Henry Waxman requested the General
Accounting Office to determine the status of the enhanced Inspection
and Maintenance Plans of states required to adopt such programs
(including the Northeast). A copy of the GAO report (GAO/RCED-98-175)
is attached to this response. For your convenience, the GAO ``Results
in Brief'' is repeated below.
``Two of the 23 states had begun testing vehicles by the January 1,
99S deadline that EPA set for implementing enhanced inspection and
maintenance programs, and 12 had begun testing vehicles as of April
1998. A number of factors have contributed to delays in implementing
programs. Opposition to EPA's enhanced inspection and maintenance
regulation--including the reluctance of some state legislatures to
provide the legislative authority and funding needed to implement these
programs--cause most of the 23 states to delay implementation. In
addition, the states had difficulty in obtaining new testing equipment
and software support from vendors.
The delays in implementing enhanced inspection and maintenance
programs have jeopardized the states' ability to meet the deadline for
attaining the national ozone standard. EPA has allowed the states to
claim credit for future reductions in emissions of volatile organic
compounds from their enhanced inspection and maintenance programs,
provided they demonstrated that they will achieve the required
reductions as soon as practical after November 1996. If states cannot
demonstrate that reductions in volatile organic compounds can be
obtained from the mandatory enhanced inspection and maintenance
programs, they may have to look to other mobile sources as well as
stationary sources to meet their goals for reducing these emissions.
However, achieving further reductions from other sources will be costly
and take longer than achieving the reductions from enhanced inspection
and maintenance programs.''
Question 2. What standards has California imposed for mobile
sources to meet state and Federal emissions standards?
Response. California has more extensive regulations on mobile
sources than any other state as a result of the substantial role that
the transportation sector plays in contributing to violations of the
national ambient air quality standards, especially in Southern
California. As discussed, California is the only state in the Nation
allowed to adopt their own mobile source standards.
California has continued to evaluate the benefits of additional
mobile controls and strengthen tailpipe and fuel standards. Attached is
a summary of transportation emission controls strategy measures
included in the 1994, and updated in the 1997 California South Coast
Air Quality Management Plan. To our knowledge these are the most
current rules being implemented in California. The first two pages are
a list of the South Coast mobile control strategies. Note that rules
M1-M16 are California Air Resources Board (CARB) level controls, and
the South Coast has simply added three additional controls (MON-09,
MON-10, and MOF-07) to the controls prescribed in the California 1994
SIP for on-road and off-road vehicles. The next two pages are a
description of the CARB level control M1-M-16, with implementation
dates and reduction estimates. The final two pages contain a table
taken from the South Coast 1997 AQMP which describes the Transportation
Improvements and Transportation Technology Measures in more detail.
In November of this year, CARB approved tighter emissions standards
for light duty trucks and passenger cars. These new standards extend
California's strict low-emission vehicle standards (LEV-II) to light-
duty trucks, mini-vans, and sport-utility vehicles. These new standards
will cut NOx emissions 75 percent from current levels beginning with
model year 2004. These standards also increase the life expectancy for
tailpipe emissions control equipment from 100,000 miles to 120,000
miles. The new LEV-II also establishes for the first time a market-
based system for automakers to help them reach a mandated 10 percent
market share for zero-emission vehicles by 2003.
Question 3. Which would be most effective in improving air quality
for the North East, adopting local standards similar to those in effect
in California or reducing background levels?
Response. Over the past few years, substantial progress has been
made in understanding the complex relationship between NOx and VOC
emissions from local and remote sources to high levels of ozone in the
Northeast.
While the focus of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)
study was not on examining local impacts, sufficient modeling was
conducted for the group to develop the following conclusions:
``Based on OTAG modeling, the Regional and Urban Scale Modeling and
Air Quality Analysis Workgroups have drawn several conclusions
regarding the benefits to be derived from NOx and VOC controls for all
source sectors and regarding ozone transport. Regional NOx reductions
are effective in producing ozone benefits: the more NOx reduced, the
greater the benefit. Ozone benefits are greatest where emission
reductions are made and diminish with distance. Elevated and low level
NOx reductions are both effective. VOC controls are effective in
reducing ozone locally and are most advantageous to urban nonattainment
areas. . . .'' (Emphasis added.)'
The final OTAG results clearly demonstrate that local emission
reductions in the Northeast -whether from the transportation sector or
from local stationary sources--are more effective in lowering ozone
concentrations than emissions reductions from States upwind of the
Ozone Transport Region.
During the ozone transport SIP Call comment period, many states and
organizations outside the Northeast developed additional information
that provided auxiliary analyses to quantify the impact of controls on
distant sources versus additional local controls in the Northeast. One
such example of the distinction between local versus distant source
impacts is found in Figure 9 (attached) from the Alliance for
Constructive Air Policy SIP Call comments. This figure shows that
emissions from local elevated (utility and other tall smokestack
sources) and low level (near ground level) sources comprised a
majority, 45 percent and 17 percent respectively, of ozone
contributions above the 1-hour standard in the metropolitan New York
area. And ``utility'' emissions from all the distant upwind states
combined only contribute 10 percent of the ozone associated with 1 hour
ozone exceedances.
A similar study was conducted by the Midwest Ozone Group that also
examines the benefits of local controls in the Northeast versus
controls in distant upwind state. The baseline ozone concentration is
significantly lowered by imposing a 0.151b/mmbtu rate only on NOx
sources located entirely within the Inner Zone and the Northeast Ozone
Transport Region (NEOTR). Imposing controls on sources located outside
the Inner Zone of the NEOTR at increasing levels of stringency results
in little or no additional air quality improvement. An additional 30
percent reduction in emissions of low level VOC and NOx from sources
located entirely within the Inner Zone of the NEOTR also show
significant air quality improvement. This and other studies demonstrate
that the most effective way to meet the ozone standard will be to focus
on additional local emission reductions.
``'Ozone Transport Assessment Group, Final Recommendation on Major
Modeling/Air Quality Conclusions, Approved by the Policy Group, June 3,
1997.''
______
Responses by William Tyndall to Additional Questions from Senator
Moynihan
Question 1. In your testimony, you stated that it is premature to
adopt the provisions contained in S. 1097 until the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, the 1995 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and the recent NOx State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call have
been fully implemented. How would you reconcile your position with the
evidence provided by the recent National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program (NAPAP) report to Congress which indicates that the reductions
of SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx emissions required by existing programs will
not be sufficient to prevent further damages from acid deposition?
Response. NAPAP did not and could not assess the impact of any
recent reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx levels due to continued
implementation of Title IV of the Clean Air Act, let alone the
reductions that will occur due to the NOx SIP call and implementation
of the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particles
and ozone.
For the most recent NAPAP Study (1996)', only the Phase I
SO<INF>2</INF> controls were in place. Reductions from Phase II
SO<INF>2</INF>, Phase I NOx, and Phase II NOx were not in place and
could not be measured. In fact, NAPAP's report acknowledges this:
``NAPAP recognizes with the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments that a complete assessment of Title IV in 1996 would be
premature because emissions reductions did not occur until 1995.
Further more, due to scientific uncertainties, weather variability, and
the inherent slow response times of many ecosystems, a quantification
of human and ecosystem responses to any changes in emissions could not
be made with reasonable confidence in 1996. Hence, a limited assessment
was planned for 1996, with the goal of a more comprehensive assessment
in 2000.
Qualitatively, Title IV has been effective in reducing acid
deposition. However the geographical distribution and the quantitative
measure of the changes in total deposition resulting from emissions
reductions require a longer monitoring record and further analysis. 2
At this time, we know that the substantial reductions brought by
Phase I of the SO<INF>2</INF> program have improved sulfur
concentrations in wet and dry deposition. Concentrations of sulfate in
lake and stream waters have decreased in many areas. There is also
evidence of recovery from acidification in New England. Although
sulfate concentrations in many Adirondack Lakes have remained fairly
constant, this does not signify a need to impose reductions in
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions beyond what is required under Phase II of the
Acid Rain program.
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Biennial Report to
Congress: An Integrated Assessment pg. 96. 2 Ibid., at pg. 94
As noted, the 1996 NAPAP study was conducted after only 1 year of
Phase I Acid Rain program SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions. Phase I
of the program, however, includes only the largest, highest emitting
sources in the country and allocated allowances based on a 2.5 lb/mmbtu
emission rate. Moreover, in the years 1995 and 1996, Congress allocated
an extra 3.5 million allowances as compliance extensions for sources
installing scrubber technology, resulting in 3.5 millions tons of
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions beyond what would other wise have been allowed
in Phase I of the program.3 Thus, the majority of SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions reductions resulting from the acid Rain program are
anticipated to occur in Phase II, which begins in 2000, includes all
coal- and oil-fired electricity generating units (except for very small
units), and is based on a substantially more stringent emissions rate
(1.2 lb/mmBtu) that was the basis for the Phase I limits.
Furthermore, current scientific research suggests that nitrogen
oxides may be as important as SO<INF>2</INF> in causing acidification.
EPA's recent NOx SIP Call, which will be implemented in 2003, can be
expected therefore to result in significant additional benefits for the
Adirondack Lakes. Again, however, further NAPAP assessments will be
necessary to determine the impact of these reductions on acidification.
Finally, the Title IV acid rain program and the NOx SIP call will
not be the last source of SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx reductions. In 1997,
EPA promulgated a new fine particulate standard and a new ozone
standard. According to EPA's regulatory impact analysis, these new
standards will require reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx reductions
below the levels required under the existing acid rain program. At a
minimum, Congress should have a substantial understanding of the impact
of these additional reductions on the acidification of the Adirondack
Lakes before it considers additional acid rain legislation.
Question 2. Please comment on the cost effectiveness of the Acid
Rain programs established under Title IV.
Response. The cost effectiveness of Title IV has been good as a
result of the successful use of market mechanisms. The average
compliance costs as quoted by EPA, EPRI, and other sources have been
lower than predicted for Phase I and have ranged between $70 and $180
per ton. Phase II compliance costs are expected to be between $200 and
$400 per ton.
While there were initial cost estimates that were significantly
higher, they did not reflect the benefits of a fully implemented cap
and trade program. In addition, when implementing the SO<INF>2</INF>
reductions of Phase I of the Title IV, there was a dramatic unforeseen
drop in the price of low sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin (PRB).
This gave many utilities the unexpected option of using lower sulfur
fuel. In many cases, use of PRB coal replaced the need for scrubbers.
These dynamics fueled a vigorous market, and encouraged over-compliance
with Phase I emission limits by some utilities in the early years of
the program. As a result, the environment benefited from greater early
reductions than envisioned by the CAA Amendments. However, Cinergy does
not expect these same conditions to be present for NOx reductions under
the SIP Call, or future SO<INF>2</INF> reductions beyond Phase II of
Title IV, thus increasing utility compliance costs.
3 See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 765 Id.(a)(2), (d).
Question 3. In your testimony before the subcommittee, you noted
that as a result of the NOx SIP Call, many utilities would adopt
approaches to emission reductions which would in fact produce emissions
reductions on a year-round basis (e.g. fuel switching).
a. To what extent does Cinergy intend to adopt approaches to
emission reduction which will result in year-round reductions?
Response. Cinergy will consider a combination of techniques to
reduce NOx emissions, including fuel switching and co-firing, add-on
controls, improvements in controls and burner operations and purchasing
allowances. Fuel switching and improvements in burner technology are
permanent changes to units which will therefore operate year round. In
addition, any new generation that Cinergy builds will probably consist
of natural gas fired combustion turbines. At this time, Cinergy has not
completed its compliance planning and cannot provide any specific
prediction of its reliance on these types of compliance strategies.
b. To your knowledge, which utilities have indicated they are
likely to adopt approaches to emissions reduction which will result in
year-round emissions?
Response. Cinergy expects that other Mid-West utilities will
consider using the same mix of techniques to comply with the SIP Call.
However, at this time, Cinergy is unaware of any utility that has made
any final decisions regarding its compliance strategy.
c. What are the marginal costs per ton of NOx emission reduction
under the NOx SIP Call? What would the marginal costs per ton be under
S. 1097?
Response. S. 1097 is an annual reduction program while the NOx SIP
Call is a 5-month seasonal program. The marginal costs per ton of the
two programs are not directly comparable. Under the NOx SIP Call, the
cost of a capital addition on a specific unit is spread over all the
reductions during the 5-month season. For S. 1097 that same capital
cost for a specific unit would be spread over a greater number of tons
reduced during the entire year. As more fully set forth in response to
question 4, S. 1097 also results in a less restrictive average
emissions rate. As a result the capital costs, operation and
maintenance costs, and thus the total average costs per ton, would be
lower when calculated on an equivalent basis.
Question 4. As you noted in your testimony, some approaches to
emission reduction (e.g., fuel switching) could result in year-round
emission reductions. Please compare the capital costs required to meet
the seasonal requirements of the NOx SIP Call to the capital costs
required to meet the year-round emissions reduction provisions of S.
1097.
Response. S. 1097 would establish a NOx ``cap and trade'' program
that would require additional NOx controls in all 48 contiguous states
and would operate on an annual basis. The recently approved NOx SIP
Call only applies to 22 Eastern States and the District of Columbia,
and would be in effect only during the ozone season. S. 1097 would
require more facilities to install additional NOx controls. When
comparing the two programs, consider the following:
S. 1097 calls for 5,400,000 NOx allowances to be issued between
2000 and 2003. Assuming that in 1996 electric utilities emitted
6,663,000 tons, this would be an immediate reduction of about 19
percent in the total ton budget. This does not consider that total
generation will increase due to economic growth.
S. 1097 would also require that emission allowances be surrendered
at a 2:1 rate during the ozone season. In 1997, Cinergy emitted 44
percent of its NOx emissions during the 5 month ozone season. Assuming
this were true for all utilities, requiring this 2:1 offset would
result in an additional reduction of 30.6 percent. Thus without
considering increased generation due to economic growth, total
emissions would be reduced by 43.8 percent for the years 2000-2002
under S. 1097.
S. 1097 would reduce the amount of available allowances after 2002
to 3,000,000 per year. This is an additional reduction of 44.4 percent.
The cumulative reduction from 1997 levels, excluding economic growth
effects would then be about 70 percent.
The SIP Call is an effective 85 percent reduction from 1990 levels,
which is a greater reduction in emissions rate than S. 1097. However,
because S. 1097 is applied to all 48 states, and it is an annual
program, it would result in more total emissions reduced.
Considering the effects only on the utilities operating in the
areas subject to the SIP Call, S. 1097 would allow utilities to operate
at a higher average emissions rate, and thus would result in lower
capital costs. However, because S. 1097 is an annual program, it is to
be expected that utilities would consider somewhat more capital
intensive investments in the interest of reducing total operation and
maintenance costs.
Question 5. On page 8 of your written testimony, you state that
local or sub-regional controls are most effective in controlling ozone.
Would local or sub-regional controls also address the damages of acid
deposition included in the recent NAPAP report?
Response. It is generally believed that long-range transport of
SO<INF>2</INF> and other sulfates is a contributor to acid deposition.
However, local emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, NOx and other acid aerosols
are also of significant concern because of their consistent and
unadulterated impact. As a result, local or subregional controls can
play an important role in reducing acidification. As noted above, based
on available data, it is premature to require additional long-range or
local controls to address acidification since the impact of existing
control requirements has yet to be fully assessed.
Question 6. Your written testimony indicates that Congress should
wait until all of the relevant scientific evidence is available before
moving to enact further reductions on SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx. Please
identify areas of scientific research on NOx emissions, SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and regional transport of these emissions that have not been
adequately addressed by OTAG, EPA, NESCAUM, or NAPAP studies and
reports.
Response. As noted, we are unaware of any study that has considered
the problem of acidification in light of the reductions of pollutants
expected as a result of full implementation of the acid rain program,
the recent NOx SIP Call, and the reductions inherent in EPA's decisions
to strengthen the ozone and particulate matter standards. Each of these
initiatives will provide real benefits to the environment, including
areas of concern in New York. Before there can be an informed decision
regarding the need for further reductions to address acid rain, the
reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx emissions that these initiatives
will bring need to be quantified and modeled so that a scientifically
sound assessment can be made of the status of the lakes in the
Adirondacks after these reductions are achieved.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
__________
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORT TO CONGRESS
Air Pollution: Delays in Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs Jeopardize
Attainment of the Ozone Standard
report (gao/rced-98-175) to the ranking minority member, committee on
government reform and oversight, house of representatives--june 1998
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman,
Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Waxman: Although the United States has significantly
improved its air quality since the 1970's, air pollution problems, such
as ozone and carbon monoxide, continue to threaten the health of
millions of Americans. \1\ Motor vehicles are responsible for up to
half of the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) that affect
ozone levels and up to 90 percent of the carbon monoxide emissions
found in urban areas. \2\ Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (P.L. 101-549, Nov. 15, 1990) requires the states with the most
serious ozone and carbon monoxide problems--23 states have been
identified--to implement enhanced inspection and maintenance (I&M)
programs to reduce the emissions from motor vehicles. \3\ Under the
amendments, these states were required to have their programs
implemented by November 1992. However, in November 1992, despite this
requirement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a
regulation that postponed the required implementation date until
January 1995. I&M programs test vehicles' emissions to ensure that the
vehicles are adequately maintained and working properly. If the
vehicles pass these tests, they are assumed not to be emitting
excessive amounts of VOCs and carbon monoxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The health effects of exposure to ozone and carbon monoxide
include eye, nose, and throat irritation, as well as bronchitis,
emphysema, and other serious lung diseases.
\2\ Volatile organic compounds are a major contributor to the
formation of ground-level ozone (urban smog). Ozone is formed by
sunlight and high temperature acting on volatile organic compounds and
nitrogen oxide.
\3\ Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia are required to
implement enhanced I&M programs. Hereafter, we refer to the District as
one of the 23 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of concerns about the implementation of the enhanced I&M
programs, you asked us to determine the status of the states' programs.
Specifically, we examined (1) the progress made by the 23 states that
are required to implement enhanced I&M programs, including the
difficulties that the states have encountered, and (2) the impact that
delays in implementing enhanced I&M programs may have on the states'
ability to comply with the national air quality standard for ozone. In
order to address these issues, we used a mail survey to obtain
information from the 23 states. (App. I presents the survey we used.)
We also met with officials from EPA's program and regional offices, as
well as with officials from two states, to discuss the implementation
of the enhanced I&M programs.
Two of the 23 states had begun testing vehicles by the January 1995
deadline that EPA set for implementing enhanced inspection and
maintenance programs, and 12 had begun testing vehicles as of April
1998. A number of factors have contributed to delays in implementing
programs. Opposition to EPA's enhanced inspection and maintenance
regulation--including the reluctance of some state legislatures to
provide the legislative authority and funding needed to implement these
programs--caused most of the 23 states to delay implementation. In
addition, the states had difficulty in obtaining new testing equipment
and software support from vendors.
The delays in implementing enhanced inspection and maintenance
programs have jeopardized the states' ability to meet the deadlines for
attaining the national ozone standard. EPA has allowed the states to
claim credit for future reductions in emissions of volatile organic
compounds from their enhanced inspection and maintenance programs,
provided they demonstrate that they will achieve the required
reductions as soon as practical after November 1996. If states cannot
demonstrate that reductions in volatile organic compounds can be
obtained from the mandatory enhanced inspection and maintenance
programs, they may have to look to other mobile sources as well as
stationary sources to meet their goals for reducing these emissions.
However, achieving further reductions from other sources will be costly
and take longer than achieving the reductions from enhanced inspection
and maintenance programs.
EPA determined that 23 states needed enhanced I&M programs in order
to meet national air quality standards. Figure 1 shows the 23 states
that are required to implement enhanced I&M programs.
Because the ozone levels in many areas exceeded the national ozone
standard, the Congress recognized that reducing ozone levels would be a
long-term effort for some states and established interim goals and
milestones in title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Areas
that exceeded the national ozone standard were classified as
``nonattainment areas,'' and according to the severity of their ozone
problems, states were given future dates ranging from 3 to 20 years to
attain the ozone standard. Title I required most ozone nonattainment
areas to develop plans for EPA's approval that showed which control
measures they would need to achieve a 15-percent reduction in VOC
emissions by November 1996. Furthermore, the states with serious to
extreme nonattainment areas were required to prepare plans showing how
they would achieve additional VOC reductions beyond 1996.
Enhanced I&M programs are designed to measure the pollution that
vehicles release when they are operated under simulated driving
conditions. EPA issued an enhanced I&M regulation in November 1992 that
required the states to meet or exceed a stated performance standard
based on a model program that included IM-240 testing equipment. \4\
Although the amendments required the states to implement their enhanced
I&M programs by November 1992, EPA's regulation postponed the required
start date to January 1995 and required full implementation of the
program by January 1996. Appendix II describes the statutory and
regulatory requirements for the enhanced I&M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ IM-240 is computer-controlled equipment that simulates actual
driving conditions and measures vehicles' tailpipe emissions for 4
minutes--240 seconds--on a dynamometer--a treadmill-like device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 1996, EPA recognized that the states' delays in
implementing their enhanced I&M programs would prevent many of them
from achieving the 15-percent reduction in VOC emissions. Subsequently,
in February 1997, EPA issued guidance to allow the states that revised
their enhanced I&M programs under the September 1995 revised enhanced
I&M regulation or the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
(P.L. 104-59, Nov. 28, 1995) to have more flexibility in developing and
implementing their programs. In order for the states to operate under
the relaxed requirement, they had to demonstrate that their 15-percent
reduction in VOC emissions would be achieved as soon as possible after
November 1996, but no later than November 1999. The guidance allowed
states to resubmit their VOC reduction plans to show that they would
achieve the required reductions from the implementation of their
enhanced I&M programs by November 1999. According to EPA, the states
that had not implemented their enhanced I&M programs as of November
1997 may be unable to demonstrate how they will achieve required VOC
reductions.
many states have not implemented enhanced i&m programs
None of the 23 states met the November 1992 statutory date for
implementing their enhanced I&M programs, and only 2 had begun testing
vehicles by EPA's January 1995 deadline for starting their programs. In
total, 12 states had begun testing vehicles under enhanced I&M programs
by April 1998. A number of factors account for the delays in
implementing enhanced I&M programs, including opposition to the
stringent requirements of EPA's enhanced I&M regulation, the reluctance
of some state legislatures to provide authority and funding for the
programs, and difficulties in obtaining test equipment and software
support.
The 12 states that are testing vehicles account for 43 percent of
the 52 million vehicles subject to the enhanced I&M testing. \5\
Furthermore, several of the other 11 states are scheduled to start
testing vehicles within the next few months. \6\ For example,
California and Georgia, which have 9.4 million vehicles that will be
subject to enhanced I&M testing, are scheduled to start testing in June
1998 and July 1998, respectively. Appendix III shows the implementation
and approval status and the number of vehicles subject to enhanced I&M
testing for each of the 23 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA's Nov. 1992 technical support document for the 1992
enhanced I&M regulation estimated that 56 million vehicles would be
subject to enhanced I&M testing.
\6\ While some of these states are testing vehicles under an I&M
program, their testing does not meet all of the requirements to qualify
as testing under an enhanced I&M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
states have encountered difficulties in implementing programs
According to EPA, states opposed EPA's enhanced I&M regulation
because the regulation did not allow them enough flexibility in
designing and implementing their programs. The 1992 regulation required
all enhanced I&M programs to meet or exceed a performance standard
based on a model program that used computer-controlled test equipment
and centralized ``test-only'' inspection centers. Some states believed
that centralized programs resulted in fewer inspection centers, often
making the testing programs less convenient for vehicle owners and
potentially resulting in longer delays than previous I&M programs.
Furthermore, the states believed that consumers would be inconvenienced
by the 1992 enhanced I&M regulation because of the test-only feature of
the model program, which required the owner of any vehicle that failed
the inspection to go elsewhere to have repairs made and to return to
the same inspection center for retesting. While the 1992 enhanced I&M
regulation permitted the states to implement decentralized programs
that allowed inspection centers to test and then repair vehicles, EPA
determined that these programs were less effective in identifying and
repairing vehicles with excessive emissions.
Because of the opposition to the stringency of the 1992 regulation,
EPA issued a revised enhanced I&M regulation in September 1995, and the
Congress enacted the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995,
which gave the states more flexibility to develop and implement their
programs. For example, the revised regulation allowed the states to
implement less stringent enhanced I&M programs if they could
demonstrate emission reductions from other sources. The regulation also
allowed the states more leeway in inspecting and repairing failed
vehicles. Eight of the 23 states took advantage of the flexibility
allowed by the revised regulation by implementing less stringent
enhanced programs. Additionally, the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995--which prohibited EPA from requiring the states
to have centralized IM-240 enhanced I&M programs--allowed the states to
revise their programs to include decentralized testing and provided an
18-month interim approval period for them to demonstrate that their
revised programs could achieve the needed emissions reductions. \7\
Eight of the 23 states have implemented or plan to implement the more
flexible enhanced I&M programs under the act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ An ``interim approval'' is a time-limited approval action
created by the enhanced I&M provisions of the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though the revised enhanced I&M regulation and the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 allowed more flexibility, nine
states indicated in response to our survey that difficulties in
obtaining legislative authority delayed the implementation of their
enhanced I&M programs. For example, Massachusetts had planned to start
inspecting vehicles under an enhanced I&M program in July 1997.
However, as of November 1997, the date to which Massachusetts had
committed to begin program operations, the state legislature had not
enacted the needed legal authority for an enhanced I&M program, and
vehicle testing had not begun. In December 1997, EPA notified
Massachusetts that its enhanced I&M program was disapproved. Currently,
Massachusetts is planning to begin testing vehicles in May 1999.
Similarly, the Maryland legislature attempted to make the enhanced I&M
program voluntary instead of mandatory, as required by the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, and this attempt delayed the implementation of
the state's program. However, the Governor's veto of this legislation
paved the way for Maryland to start testing vehicles under its enhanced
I&M program in the fall of 1997.
In response to our survey, 13 states indicated that they have
experienced problems with obtaining needed testing equipment or
software support from vendors, which have delayed the implementation of
their programs. These problems were especially apparent in late 1997
and early 1998, when several states were scheduled to start testing
vehicles. According to EPA officials, only a limited number of vendors
supply the testing equipment and the computer software needed for
enhanced I&M inspection centers. With the high demand for the equipment
in recent months, vendors have been unable to fill all orders. For
example, Georgia had planned to have 300 inspection centers operating
under an enhanced I&M program by July 1997. However, because of the
vendor's problem with delivering the equipment and providing software
support, Georgia now plans to start testing vehicles in July 1998--a
year later than originally planned.
Overall, our survey of the 23 states identified a number of factors
that delayed the states' efforts to implement enhanced I&M programs.
These included opposition to the stringent requirements of EPA's
initial program, difficulties in obtaining testing equipment, delays by
EPA in issuing the initial regulation, difficulties in obtaining
authority from state legislatures, and difficulties in certifying
inspection centers and technicians. Figure 2 shows the factors cited by
states as reasons for their delays.
public acceptance of enhanced i&m programs is important
The states recognize the importance of informing the public about
the reasons for enhanced I&M programs. In fact, 14 states said that it
was very or extremely important to educate the public about their
enhanced I&M programs. Furthermore, seven said that they tried to
educate the general public to a great or very great extent about the
frequency of testing, the costs of tests, testing locations, and other
pertinent information about the program. Seven states also said that
they tried to educate the general public to a great or very great
extent about the reasons for implementing enhanced I&M programs.
For example, in implementing an enhanced I&M program, Georgia
contracted with an advertising agency to develop and disseminate
information through television and radio spots and distributed printed
materials through community groups and organizations. A recent survey
of the effectiveness of Georgia's public information campaign for its
I&M program showed that consumers believe that cars are the largest
contributing factor to air pollution. The study also showed that 88
percent of Georgia's consumers were aware of the current I&M program,
and 76 percent believed that the program was doing a good job.
In contrast, Maine initially tried to implement an enhanced I&M
program in 1994 with little or no public relations efforts. After very
strong public opposition to the program, the Governor canceled it.
According to EPA, the opposition to the program was caused, in part, by
the perception that the enhanced I&M program was being implemented as
an alternative to imposing control measures on certain stationary
sources. As of April 1998, Maine's enhanced I&M program had been
disapproved because the state's revised plan for it did not meet all of
EPA's requirements. Even though some states have been more successful
than others in overcoming public opposition and other obstacles to
implementing their enhanced I&M programs, EPA has made only a limited
effort to identify the practices these successful states have used and
to share them with other states that are in the early stages of
developing and implementing their programs.
delays in implementing enhanced i&m programs have slowed efforts to
reduce ozone levels
Because of delays in implementing enhanced I&M programs, 19 of the
23 states are in jeopardy of not meeting deadlines for attaining the
national ozone standard. \8\ The 19 states are relying on the enhanced
I&M programs to reduce VOC emissions. In August 1996, EPA recognized
that the states could not achieve a significant portion of their 15-
percent VOC reductions by November 1996 because of delays in
implementing enhanced I&M programs. It therefore examined other
available control measures for reducing VOC emissions. EPA required the
states to demonstrate in their VOC reduction plans that enhanced I&M
programs were the most practical way for them to achieve the 15-percent
reduction in VOC emissions. EPA then allowed the states to revise their
enhanced I&M programs to claim credit for the emissions reductions that
are based on the future implementation of their programs, provided they
demonstrated that the required VOC reductions would be achieved as soon
as possible after November 1996 but no later than November 1999. EPA
also allowed the states to resubmit their VOC reduction plans to show
that they would achieve the required VOC reductions from implementing
their enhanced I&M programs by November 1999. EPA encouraged the states
to customize their revised VOC reduction plans to include other control
measures that would be the most practical for their areas to implement
in achieving the required reduction in VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Four states do not have to meet deadlines for attaining the
national ozone standard. Colorado, Nevada, and Washington are required
to implement enhanced I&M programs to reduce carbon monoxide emissions
to help them attain the national carbon monoxide standard, and Vermont
is required to have an enhanced I&M program because of VOC emissions
that are transported from other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even with the relaxed requirement, 11 of the 19 states are at risk
of not meeting the required VOC reductions specified under title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 because they had not started
testing vehicles as of April 1998. According to EPA, the states that
had not implemented their enhanced I&M programs as of November 1997 may
be unable to demonstrate how they will achieve required VOC reductions,
and are at risk of having their VOC reduction plans disapproved because
of the anticipated shortfall in VOC reductions. For example:
--EPA's conditional interim approval \9\ of New Jersey's enhanced
I&M program, which accounts for 26 percent of the state's planned
reductions in VOC emissions, required the program to begin by November
15, 1997, in order for all vehicles to be tested by November 1999 and
for the state to receive full credit for the VOC reductions from the
program. New Jersey officials advised EPA that they would not select a
contractor to operate the program until April 1998. In December 1997,
EPA notified New Jersey that its 15-percent reduction plan was
disapproved because the state failed to meet the required November 1997
start date for its enhanced I&M program. According to a New Jersey
official, it is unclear how the state will make up the shortfall in VOC
reductions caused by its failure to implement an enhanced I&M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A ``conditional interim approval'' is a formal action taken on
an enhanced I&M program plan submitted under the National Highway
System Designation Act of 1995 that meets most but not all requirements
for enhanced I&M programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The District of Columbia is required to reduce VOC emissions by
133 tons per day to attain the ozone standard by November 1999. Even
though the District is relying heavily upon its enhanced I&M program to
provide 48 percent of the overall VOC reductions, it does not plan to
start inspecting vehicles under an enhanced I&M program until April
1999. While control measures are available to the District for reducing
VOC emissions from other mobile and stationary sources, many of these
measures have already been implemented, and, according to EPA
officials, imposing further controls on these sources will not produce
the reductions that the District is expecting to achieve with an
enhanced I&M program.
Many of the states that are required to implement enhanced I&M
programs must achieve the required VOC reductions by November 1999 but
still do not have final approval for their VOC reduction plans. Table 1
shows the approval status of the states' VOC reduction plans as of
April 1998.
Approval Status of the States' VOC Reduction Plans
As of April 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval status of VOC reduction plans
State Testing vehicles ------------------------------------------------------
15-percent reduction plan Post-1996 reduction plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California....................... No................... Approved\1\............... Approved
Connecticut....................... Yes.................. Proposed conditional Submitted--complete
approval\2\.
Delaware.......................... Yes.................. Conditional approval...... Submitted--complete
District of Columbia.............. No................... Submitted--complete....... Submitted--complete
Georgia........................... No................... Proposed conditional Submitted--complete
interim approval.
Illinois.......................... No................... Approved.................. Submitted--complete
Indiana........................... Yes.................. Approved.................. Submitted--complete
Louisiana......................... No................... Approved.................. Submitted--complete
Maine............................. No................... Submitted--complete....... Not required
Maryland.......................... Yes.................. Conditional approval...... Submitted--complete
Massachusetts..................... No................... Proposed conditional Proposed conditional
interim approval. interim approval
New Hampshire..................... No................... Proposed approval......... Submitted--complete
New Jersey........................ No................... Disapproved............... Disapproved
New York.......................... No................... Submitted--complete....... Submitted--complete
Pennsylvania...................... Yes.................. Conditional interim Not submitted
approval.
Rhode Island...................... No................... Limited disapproval....... Submitted--no action
Texas............................. Yes.................. Approved--Beaumont/Port Proposed disapproved
Arthur.
Proposed conditional
interim approval- -Dallas/
Ft. Worth, El Paso, and
Houston.
Virginia.......................... Yes.................. Conditional approval...... Submitted--complete
Wisconsin......................... Yes.................. Approved.................. Submitted--complete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All but one of California's nine nonattainment areas that are required to submit 15-percent VOC reduction
plans have had their plans approved. The ninth nonattainment area--Mojave Desert--has submitted a plan, but
EPA has not yet acted on it.
\2\A ``conditional approval'' is a formal approval action taken on an enhanced I&M program plan that meets most
but not all relevant requirements for enhanced I&M programs. A state must make a commitment to correct the
deficiencies within 12 months of the conditional approval action.
Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by EPA and the states.
Even though most of the states are planning to have their enhanced
I&M programs account for a significant amount of the required
reductions in VOC emissions, EPA and the states will not know how much
of the needed VOC reductions will be met by enhanced I&M programs until
each program is fully approved and operational. Thus, further delays by
the states in implementing enhanced I&M programs jeopardize their
efforts to achieve the required VOC reductions.
While the states can use mobile and stationary sources in
conjunction with the mandated enhanced I&M programs to attain the ozone
standard these sources, especially stationary sources, have already
made significant reductions in their VOC emissions, and, according to
EPA, further reductions from them will be costly and take some time to
achieve. In 1992, EPA estimated that the cost to reduce VOC emissions
with an enhanced I&M program was $879 per ton compared with $5,000 per
ton from stationary sources. According to EPA officials, with the less
stringent requirements of many of the current programs, the cost per
ton of VOC reductions from the enhanced I&M programs is probably
higher, but not as high as further reductions from other mobile sources
or stationary sources. However, EPA is not aware of any data that show
current costs.
conclusions
While enhanced I&M programs are an integral part of the effort to
significantly reduce emissions from motor vehicles, states' efforts to
implement their programs have been slow and troubled by numerous
delays. Recognizing that states have encountered a variety of
challenges in implementing enhanced I&M programs, we believe that EPA
could expand its efforts at helping some of the states that are
experiencing the most significant problems by sharing the best
practices, such as public relations campaigns, adopted by the states
with approved and/or operating programs.
Furthermore, because of delays in implementing enhanced I&M
programs, states have not realized the reductions in VOC emissions that
they were statutorily required to achieve by 1996, nor are they likely
to achieve additional reductions that EPA is now requiring by November
1999 to enable them to attain the national ozone standard. Therefore,
states will have to look to other mobile sources as well as stationary
sources to meet their goals for reducing VOC emissions. However,
obtaining the required reductions from other sources will be difficult
because many of them, especially stationary sources, have already made
major reductions in their VOC emissions, and any further reductions may
be costly and take some time to achieve.
recommendation
In view of the pivotal role that enhanced I&M programs play in
reducing VOC emissions and the delays experienced to date in
implementing these programs, as well as the possibility of future
delays, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA compile information
on the more successful practices, such as public relations campaigns,
used by the states that have implemented their enhanced I&M programs
and share the information with those states that are in the early
stages of developing and implementing their programs.
agency comments
We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for review and
comment. In commenting for the agency, the Director of the Office of
Mobile Sources agreed with the information presented and suggested a
few editorial changes to clarify points but did not comment on the
recommendation. We included EPA's comments as appropriate.
scope and methodology
We gathered data on the enhanced I&M programs in the 23 states
required to implement the programs under the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990. Data were obtained through the use of a survey mailed to the
environmental offices in each of the 23 states. The survey was
pretested by officials from the states of Georgia, Maryland, and
Washington, and subsequently mailed in late January 1998. Completed
surveys were returned by all 23 states. A copy of the survey is in
appendix I. \10\ In addition to our analyses of the data gathered from
the survey, we asked EPA to update the data for some questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Because much of the data are not reported in an aggregated
format, and many of the questions asked for information unique to a
particular state, data are not reported in the survey presented in app.
I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also reviewed notices in the Federal Register that provided
information on the status of the states' enhanced I&M programs as well
as other pertinent documentation. Additionally, we visited EPA's
regional offices in Boston, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
and Atlanta, Georgia to obtain background information on issues
concerning the enhanced I&M programs. We also visited EPA's Office of
Mobile Sources in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards in Durham, North Carolina, and interviewed
officials about the enhanced I&M program as well as issues concerning
attaining the ozone standard. We met with officials in Massachusetts
and Georgia to discuss the implementation of their enhanced I&M
programs. We measured progress in terms of the states with operating
programs that were testing vehicles as of April 1998. We did not use
EPA's approval status to measure progress because a state's approval
status is subject to change.
We performed our work from July 1997 through May 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 15 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the
appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency; and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others on
request.
Please call me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Peter F. Guerrero Director, Environmental Protection
Issues,
General Accounting Office.
______
changes in requirements for the enhanced inspection and maintenance
program
This appendix describes the statutory and regulatory changes
leading to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) current
requirements for enhanced inspection and maintenance (I&M) programs.
the clean air act amendments of 1990
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (P.L. 101-549--Nov.
15, 1990) required the 23 states with the most serious ozone and carbon
monoxide problems to implement enhanced I&M programs. Specifically, the
states with serious, severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment areas with
1980 urban populations of 200,000 or more; serious and certain moderate
carbon monoxide nonattainment areas with urban populations of 200,000
or more; and areas with a population of 100,000 or more in the Ozone
Transport Region, regardless of their attainment status; were required
to implement enhanced I&M programs. \11\ The enhanced I&M programs were
required to have centralized inspection centers and perform annual
inspections unless the state demonstrated to EPA that a decentralized
or biennial program would be equally effective. Title I also required
EPA to issue regulations for the enhanced I&M program by November 15,
1991, and the states to implement their enhanced I&M programs by
November 15, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Ozone Transport Region includes 12 states in the
northeastern United States that have significant ozone nonattainment
problems because much of the ozone originates in other states and is
transported to these states by the eastern air flow patterns. These
states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the
District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I divided all of the ozone nonattainment areas into five
categories--marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme--and set
timeframes for each category to reach attainment. The attainment dates
ranged from 3 years (marginal) to 20 years (extreme) after the act was
enacted. Title I also required the states to demonstrate how they would
reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions--one of the major
pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone. The states with
moderate to extreme ozone nonattainment areas were required to prepare
implementation plans by November 1993 that showed how they would reduce
VOC emissions by 15 percent within 6 years after enactment. The states
with serious to extreme nonattainment areas also had to prepare plans
showing how they would achieve additional VOC reductions. The plans to
reduce VOC emissions after 1996 were due by November 1994 and were to
show how the states planned to achieve 3-percent VOC reductions
annually until the nonattainment areas reach attainment.
enhanced inspection and maintenance program regulation
EPA issued its regulation for the enhanced I&M program on November
5, 1992. The regulation required the states with areas switching from
test-and-repair to test-only requirements to implement programs that
would begin testing 30 percent of all vehicles that were subject to
enhanced I&M in the nonattainment areas in January 1, 1995, and all
areas to begin testing all vehicles by January 1, 1996. The regulation
also required the states to meet or exceed a performance standard that
was based on a model program for an annual, centralized enhanced I&M
program that included IM-240 test equipment, or an equivalent test
protocol approved by EPA, and covered all 1968 and later model cars and
light-duty trucks. The states that elected to implement decentralized
programs or a program consisting of centralized and decentralized
inspection facilities were to have their emission reduction credits
discounted by approximately 50 percent for the decentralized portion of
their programs, unless they could demonstrate that their programs were
as effective as a centralized program. The regulation also included the
requirement under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 that a minimum
expenditure of $450 for emission-related repairs was required for
vehicles to qualify for a waiver of further repairs. According to EPA,
a typical urban area adopting the model program established by the
regulation would, by 2000, reduce the levels of air pollutants more
than they would have reduced them without an enhanced I&M program: for
carbon monoxide, the additional reduction would be 31 percent, for
VOCs, 28 percent, and for nitrogen oxides, 9 percent.
enhanced inspection and maintenance flexibility regulation
In response to strong public opposition to its initial enhanced I&M
regulation, EPA issued a regulation known as the Inspection/Maintenance
Flexibility Amendments on September 18, 1995. This regulation created a
less stringent enhanced I&M program by allowing certain states more
flexibility in implementing their programs. Specifically, the revised
regulation allowed the states that can meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 for VOC reductions and attainment
without an enhanced I&M program as effective as the one adopted by EPA
in the 1992 regulation to meet a less stringent low enhanced
performance standard. The new standard, referred to as the low enhanced
standard, did not include the IM-240 test as part of its model program.
The regulation also modified other requirements of the 1992 regulation,
such as extending the implementation of the minimum expenditure of $450
until January 1998.
national highway system designation act of 1995
The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (P. L. 104-59,
Nov. 28, 1995) also responded to public opposition to the 1992 enhanced
I&M regulations. Specifically, the act prohibited EPA from requiring a
centralized, IM-240 enhanced I&M program and stopped EPA's use of the
50-percent discount rate for decentralized or hybrid programs.
Additionally, the act allowed states to submit, within 120 days after
enactment, revisions to their enhanced I&M programs by proposing
interim enhanced I&M programs. The act required EPA to approve enhanced
I&M programs on an interim basis if the proposed credits for each
element of the program reflected good-faith estimates and the revised
programs complied with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The act
further provided an 18-month period for the states to demonstrate that
the credits they had proposed were appropriate, with no opportunity to
extend the 18-month period.
enhanced inspection and maintenance ozone transport region flexibility
amendments regulation
On July 25, 1996, EPA issued the Inspection and Maintenance Ozone
Transport Region Flexibility Amendments regulation. The regulation
created a special low-enhanced standard for areas within the Ozone
Transport Region that would be exempt from I&M requirements if they
were not located in the region. These areas included attainment areas,
marginal ozone nonattainment areas, and certain moderate nonattainment
areas with populations under 200,000 within the 12-state Ozone
Transport Region. Emission reduction goals in these areas were lower
than those required for low enhanced I&M and basic I&M programs. The
regulation provided flexibility to certain Ozone Transport Region
states to implement a broader range of I&M programs than allowed under
earlier regulations. Elements of the program include performing annual
tests of 1968 and newer vehicles, checking on-board computer equipment
for 1996 and newer vehicles, conducting remote sensing tests of 1968
through 1995 model year vehicles, and visual inspection of various
control components on 1968 and newer vehicles.
______
States' Progress in Performing Mandatory Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Testing
As of April 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval status of Actual/planned testing Number of vehicles (in
State enhanced I&M programs start date millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing vehicles as of April 1998\1\
Colorado............................. Approved............... January 1995........... 1.69
Connecticut.......................... Conditional approval... January 1998........... 1.20
Delaware............................. Conditional approval... October 1995........... 0.30
Indiana.............................. Approved............... January 1997........... 0.56
Maryland............................. Conditional approval... October 1997........... 2.40
Nevada............................... Approved............... January 1995........... 0.75
Pennsylvania......................... Conditional interim October 1997........... 6.00
approval.
Texas................................ Conditional interim July 1996.............. 4.30
approval.
Washington........................... Approved............... June 1993.............. 2.20
Wisconsin............................ Approved............... December 1995.......... 1.10
Vermont.............................. Status pending......... January 1997........... 0.50
Virginia............................. Conditional Interim February 1998.......... 1.30
Approval.
Subtotal......................... 22.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not testing\2\
California........................... Interim approval....... June 1998.............. 7.00
District of Columbia................. Status pending......... April 1999............. 0.24
Georgia.............................. Disapproved............ July 1998.............. 2.40
Illinois............................. Approved............... December 1998.......... 2.50
Louisiana............................ Disapproved............ Unknown\3\............. 0.27
Maine................................ Disapproved............ Unknown\3\............. 1.20
Massachusetts........................ Disapproved............ May 1999............... 4.20
New Hampshire........................ Disapproved............ January 1999........... 1.00
New Jersey........................... Disapproved............ October 1998........... 5.00
New York............................. Interim approval....... November 1998.......... 5.50
Rhode Island......................... Disapproved............ Unknown\3\............. 0.70
------------------------
Subtotal......................... 30.01
Total........................ 52.31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\These states had begun testing vehicles under an enhanced I&M program.
\2\While some of these states are testing vehicles under an I&M program, their testing does not meet all of the
requirements to qualify as testing under an enhanced I&M program.
\3\ The state has not submitted a revised enhanced I&M program plan that show a planned start date.
Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by EPA and the 23 states.
__________
Testimony of Richard H. Lefebvre, Chairman, NYS Adirondack Park Agency
The Adirondack Park Agency applauds the efforts of Senators D'Amato
and Moynihan in sponsoring the Acid Deposition Control Act (S. 1097) to
address the reduction of acid precipitation and to remediate its
effects to the environment of the Adirondack Park and other areas of
the nation. On November 14, 1997, the Agency formally endorsed the
proposed legislation, and a copy of the resolution is attached.
The Adirondack Park is important to the surrounding region, New
York State, and the Nation. An area of six million acres, with over 2.6
million acres of ``forever wild'' Adirondack Forest Preserve, the
Adirondack Park is larger than the State of Massachusetts and contains
20 percent of New York's land area. It has public lands larger than
Yellowstone National Park within its boundary. The Park contains over
500,000 acres of old-growth forest, and much of the balance of the
``Forest Preserve'' is functionally nearing old-growth status because
of more than a century of protection afforded State lands in the Park
by Article 14 of the State Constitution. It is the largest formally
designated wilderness area east of the Mississippi River.
Ecologically, the Adirondack Region is a landscape dominated by
large expanses of forest clearly visible from space in a sea of
fragmented forest throughout the eastern United States. It forms the
headwaters of five major river systems and has 30,000 miles of free
flowing rivers, brooks, streams and pristine riparian habitat. Its
mountains are interspersed with over 3,000 ponds and lakes, from tiny
kettle-hole bogs to major waterbodies like Lake George and Lake
Champlain. The lakes, forests, rivers, wetlands and even sand plains
support an array of natural communities and species, many of which are
among the best examples of their kind in the Nation.
The Park is also a human community with 130,000 permanent residents
in 130 different settlements, including the ``Tri-Lakes'' communities
of Tupper Lake, Saranac Lake and Lake Placid at its heart. It is within
a day's drive of 90 million people in the northeastern United States
and southeastern Canada. The Park economy depends on tourism, forestry,
public services and a wide variety of small-scale enterprises, all of
which bear a strong relation to the quality of the natural setting the
Park provides.
New York State has a strong tradition for stewardship of the
Adirondack Park. For over 100 years, the State has provided protection
for the ``forever wild'' lands of the Park in Article 14 of its
Constitution.
For over 25 years, the State has addressed the environmental
protection of the private lands of the Park with the Adirondack Park
Land Use and Development Plan, contained in the Adirondack Park Agency
Act, adopted in 1971. The Act created this agency to develop and
administer State land and private land plans for the Park. This
forward-thinking effort is recognized as an innovative framework for
sustainable development, designed for partnership with local
governments and the settlements in the Park as well as for the
protection of the open spaces and the Park's working forest.
For over 20 years, the Agency has administered New York's
Freshwater Wetlands Act providing additional protections beyond the
Adirondack Park Agency Act to the wetlands of the Park. Representing
over 14 percent of the landscape, these critical hydrologic linkages
between aquatic and terrestrial habitats continue to be the subject of
analysis and concern by the Agency and its governmental, academic and
not-for-profit partners in watershed characterization and protection
efforts.
For over 20 years, the Agency has administered New York's Wild
Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act, addressing over 1,200 miles
of State-designated rivers within the Park for environmental protection
and public enjoyment.
These concerted efforts by the State of New York, to provide for
the continued stewardship of the natural resources of the Adirondack
Park, have been threatened for the last several decades by long-range
transport of air pollutants, loosely described as ``acid rain.'' The
solution to these threats to the Park and its natural and human
communities lies beyond the reach of State policy with the Federal
Clean Air Act. Much progress has been made, but the Adirondack Park
Agency notes a substantial body of research that defines additional
issues to be addressed if the Park ecology is to survive intact in the
21st Century.
Nearly half of the Park's more than 3,000 lakes and ponds are
critically sensitive to atmospheric deposition of sulfates and
nitrates, especially those sources of human activities upwind of the
Adirondack Mountains. Thousands of miles of streams and rivers in the
Adirondacks experience acidic conditions during the spring snowmelt
period, adversely affecting aquatic life in these waters.
The existing mechanisms under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are
inadequate to protect the sensitive forest, stream and lake resources
of the Adirondack Park and other areas of the country similarly
affected. Since 1990, a series of federally funded study reports have
consistently shown that the scientific evidence calls for further
reductions in both sulfur and nitrogen emissions beyond those required
by the 1990 CAAA.
The Adirondack Park Agency is a whole-hearted supporter of this
bill because it contains the appropriate elements:
Reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions;
Limits on nitrogen oxide emissions, through a ``cap and trade''
program; A report on environmental indicators for each of the sensitive
regional ecosystems, including the Adirondack Mountains;
Identification of ecological endpoints;
A tracking network to report on the health and chemistry of lakes
and streams of the Adirondacks.
This agency finds that several impressive reports have been
generated by various Federal offices including the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in the last several years that are technical,
scientifically based and credible. These provide the evidence to
support the actions/elements of S. 1097. The first is the 1995 EPA
Report to Congress which finds and concludes that:
Scientific analysis indicates that nitrogen as well as sulfur
deposition are important contributors to chronic and episodic
acidification of surface waters. Further reductions in nitrogen as well
as sulfur deposition may be necessary in order to realize protection of
target-sensitive systems. Model projections indicate that if the time
to nitrogen saturation in the Adirondacks is 100 years or less,
maintaining the proportion of chronically acidic target surface waters
in the Adirondacks in the year 2040 near proportions observed in 1984
may require reducing anthropogenic sulfur and nitrogen deposition by 40
to 50 percent or more below levels achieved by the CAAA (Executive
Summary, page xvi). Environmental monitoring of deposition, ecological
indicators, and ecological endpoints provides a parallel and
complementary strategy to modeling in order to assess ecological
resource issues (Executive Summary, page xix). It is reasonable to
conclude that the natural resources most sensitive to acidic deposition
are aquatic systems and high-elevation red spruce forests. Protection
of sensitive aquatic resources should particularly focus on lakes and
streams where watersheds are smaller, have shallow acidic soils with
rapid, shallow subsurface flows, and are at higher elevations (page
24). Adirondack, Pocono and Catskill Mountains and mid-Appalachian
Region apparently are now at continuing risk from acidification effects
(page 24). The Adirondack subregion, including Adirondack State Park,
has the highest number and percentage of acidic lakes (14 percent)
found for any National Surface Water Survey (NSWS) subregion, except
Florida (page 32). The proportion of chronically acidic (ANC < 0
<greek-m>eq/l) Adirondack target lakes is projected to increase by
about 50 percent in 2015 and may double by 2040, relative to 1984
proportions (page 47).
This report recognizes that there is merit and importance to
understanding the inherent ecological processes of sensitive regions
and monitoring the health and changes of those ecosystems. Developing
resource-specific goals would provide a guide to assessing whether
existing programs are effectively protecting the environment (page
119).
The Adirondack Park Agency prepared a map showing the extent and
distribution of lakes at risk from acid deposition including
chronically acidified lakes, and the lakes sensitive to springmelt
acidification.
The most recently released Federal report on acid rain (1998) is
the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program's ``Biennial Report
to Congress: An Integrated Assessment.'' It concludes:
It is too early to determine whether changes in aquatic ecosystems
have resulted from Title IV emission reductions. But over the last 15
years, lakes and streams throughout many areas of the United States
have experienced decreases in surface concentrations in response to
decreased emissions and deposition of sulfur. For example, there is
evidence of recovery from acidification in New England lakes. In
contrast, the majority of Adirondack lakes have remained fairly
constant while the sensitive Adirondack lakes have continued to
acidify. In 1995, EPA reported to Congress that additional reductions
in sulfur and nitrogen deposition would be required to fully recover
sensitive Adirondack lakes (page 4). Sulfur and nitrogen deposition
have caused adverse impacts on certain highly sensitive forest
ecosystems in the United States. High-elevation spruce-fir forests in
the eastern United States are the most sensitive. Forest ecosystems in
the East, South, and West are not currently known to be adversely
impacted by sulfur and nitrogen deposition. However, ii deposition
levels are not reduced in areas where they are presently high, adverse
effects may develop in more forests due to chronic, multiple-decade
exposure (page 4).
The gradual leaching of soil nutrients from sustained inputs of
acid deposition could eventually impede forest nutrition and growth in
several areas (page 4). Nitrogen deposition can significantly degrade
forest ecosystems, especially in areas where nitrogen levels are
already high and soil has reached or is approaching saturation (pages
4-5).
Canadian studies provide further support for these conclusions
(1997 The Acidifying Emissions Task Group).
In conclusion, S. 1097 is critical to protect the natural and
economic resources of the Adirondack Park and related regions suffering
the effects of acidic deposition.
__________
State of New York, Executive Department, Adirondack Park Agency
resolution adopted by the adirondack park agency in support of
congressional acid rain bill
WHEREAS, the six-million-acre Adirondack Park is abundant in
natural resources and open space unique to New York and the United
States. The Park contains a unique mixture of privately and publicly
owned lakes, rivers and mountains. and the New York State Forest
Preserve lands comprising over 40 percent of the Park are mandated by
the New York State Constitution to be forever kept as wild forest
lands;'' and
WHEREAS, more than 1?0,000 New Yorkers live or work in the
Adirondack Park; and
WHEREAS, the Park is within a day's drive of 70 million people, and
over nine million people from the United States, Canada. and elsewhere
visit the Park annually to delight in its unique character, fostering
tourism as a major pillar of its economy; and
WHEREAS, nearly half of the Park's more than 3,000 lakes and ponds
are critically sensitive to the atmospheric deposition of sulfates and
nitrates. including those sources of human activities upwind of the
Adirondacks; and thousands of miles of streams and rivers in the
Adirondacks experience acidic conditions during the spring snow melt
period. adversely affecting aquatic life in these watershed; and
WHEREAS, in the 1990 Amendments of the Clean Air Act, Congress
directed the U S Environmental Protection Agency to describe a program
to protect critically sensitive aquatic and terrestrial resources in
the Adirondacks and other areas similarly affected; and
WHEREAS, EPA's 1995 Final Acid Deposition Standard Feasibility
Report to Congress concludes that the Adirondack Park is the area most
severely impacted by acid deposition and predicts that 43 percent of
its lakes and ponds will become critically acidified by 2040 unless
Congress mandates additional sulfate and nitrate reductions over and
above that mandated by the present Clean Air Act; and
WHEREAS, in response to the findings of this report, Senators
Daniel P. Moynihan and Alphonse D'Amato and Congressman Gerald B.
Solomon have drafted bills designed to require action to reduce acid
deposition under the Clean Air Act and, by the establishment of a NOR
allowance system in regions contributing to acid deposition in the
Adirondacks, to provide for additional reductions in emissions of
nitrogen oxides; and
WHEREAS, the proposed bill calls for a report, with one of its the
goals to identify as an objective ``to increase the proportion of
waterbodies with an acid neutralizing capacity greater than zero from
the proportion identified in surveys begun in 1984;'' and,
WHEREAS, the report will also identify scientifically credible
environmental indicators sufficient to protect sensitive ecosystems of
the Adirondack Mountains and other sensitive receptor areas; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed legislation also calls for the establishment
of a competitive grant program to fund research on the effects of
nitrogen deposition on sensitive watersheds and coastal estuaries in
the Eastern United and calls for a report on the health and chemistry
ot lakes and streams of the Adirondacks; and
WHEREAS, the Adirondack Park Agency recognizes the initiatives of
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to preserve
and enhance the air quality of the Adirondack Park and notes that this
resolution is consistent herewith and in support thereof, and
WHEREAS, the existing mechanisms under the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments appear inadequate to protect the sensitive aquatic resources
of the Adirondack Parl;. that keN scientific knowledge is lacking on
some aspects of the role of nitrogen in Adirondack ecosystems. and that
further scientific investigation and analysis is necessary in order to
accurately assess and predict outcomes from various emission scenarios;
and
WHEREAS, in order to fully support broader public understanding of
the proposed legislation, the Adirondack Park Agency intends to
continue its public discussion on the benefits and consequences of the
legislation; furthermore, because of its staff's scientific expertise
and the ability to contribute information and analysis, the Agency will
request of EPA to be involved in the implementation of the technical
aspects of the legislation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Adirondack Park Agency
respectfully requests that this legislation be supported by all Members
of Congress.
Resolution adopted unanimously:
__________
Statement of New York Attorney General Dennis C. Vacco
In the three decades since the birth of the environmental movement
and the creation of EPA, this nation has made amazing progress in
improving our natural environment. The days of Love Canal and burning
urban rivers are largely a thing of the past. Our children can now swim
in lakes and rivers that our parents would not allow us near.
However, acid rain is nowhere to be found on this list of
environmental successes While our environment has improved in almost
every other way, acid rain continues to cause more and more damage to
our environment. My state of New York bears much of the brunt of this
environmental scourge, which is killing our lakes' ponds and streams,
particularly in the Adirondack Mountain region. That is why I support
the Acid Deposition Control Act, which contains significant and
effective provisions necessary to fight acid rain.
In contrast to polluted air which may blow in and out of an air
basin, acid rain stays--it stays in the soil, where it damages trees,
crops and other vegetation, and it stays in our lakes and ponds, where
it kills flash and other animal life.
In New York State, we feel strongly that we cannot fiddle while
Rome burns. It is rime to enact the Acid Deposition Control Act.
Since I took office in 1995, I have made combating acid rain my top
environmental priority. In the past 3 years, my office has filed three
lawsuits against SPA, seeking to force it to take steps to address acid
rain. In 1996, I took EPA to court over its decision to exempt portions
of four midwestern states from the Clean Air Actors requirements for
control of nitrogen oxides. In 1997, I sued EPA over its failure to
comply with a Congressional mandate to define the nature and numerical
value of an acid deposition standard that would be protective of the
resources threatened by acid rain The Attorneys General of New
Hampshire and Connecticut have joined me in the prosecution of that
action.
Then, earlier this year, joined by seven other northeastern states,
I sued EPA over its failure to take timely action on petitions filed by
New York and the other northeastern states, seeking reductions of NOx
emissions from utilities under Section 126 of the Act.
The Problem of Acid Rain
The toll of acid rain on New York's natural resources is,
tragically, all too clear. At least 20 percent of the lakes in the 6
million acre-Adirondack Park--which is nearly three times of size of
Yellowstone National Park--are now identified by EPA as chronically
acidic.
These are not just the cold statistics of a government report. In
fact, they can be attested to by sportsmen who have found many of their
favorite destinations are devoid of fish.
Without further emission reductions, the situation will just get
worse. A 1995 EPA report concludes that the number of lifeless lakes is
likely to double by the year 2040 unless controls beyond those
currently anticipated by the Clean Air Act, are put into place. \1\
recent study by the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
(NAPAP) confirms that the emission reductions under EPA's acid rain
program are not stemming the further deterioration of the Adirondacks.
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to EPA's Acid Deposition Feasibility Study, Report
Confess (the ``Report to Congress''), the percentage of lanes in the
Adirondacks that will be chronically acidic (i.e. corresponding to a pH
of 5.28, a level at which many species of fish can no longer survive)
by the year 2040 may exceed 40 percent. Id at xv.
\2\ NAPAP Biennial Report to Congress: An Integrated Assessment
(``NAPAP Report'') at 50-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although our concern is primarily with New York's resources, acid
rain is not a problem only for the Northeast. The NAPAP study informs
us that continued deterioration is taking place nationwide: in
Californian San Bernardino and San Gabriel Fountains, in Colorado's
Rockies, in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia and the Great
Smokies of Tennessee \3\ The Report singles out the pine forests in
Southern California's San Bernardino mountains and alpine meadows in
Colorado's Front Range as natural resources particularly threatened by
continuing acid rain. \4\ The nitrogen in acid rain also contributes to
the eutrophication of Long Island Sound and Chesapeake Bay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id. at 49
\4\ ``In the alpine areas of Colorado, about half of the nitrogen
is deposited in snowpack and that is released with the spring thaw.
This large release of nitrogen leaches through the soil, removes base
cations from the soil, and degrades the quality of streams and lakes.''
Id. at 62. With regard to the San Bernardino Mountains, the NAPAP Study
reports: ``Pine forests in the San Bernardino Mountains of Southern
California receiving high levels of nitrogen saturation ( 25 kg/ha/yr)
are already nitrogen saturated, while those receiving moderate levels
(6-16 kg/ha/yr) show evidence of approaching saturation. Exposure to
high levels of sulfur, nitrogen, and ozone, along with drought stress,
weakens the trees and leads to premature mortality.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid rain also has a direct effect on public health. EPA has
identified nitrate and sulfate particulates as among the primary
constituents of fine particulate matter which are responsible for tens
of thousands of premature deaths nationwide. In addition, acidified
rainwater may leach lead and other heavy metals out of the soil and
water supply pipes, raising the very real possibility of elevated lead
levels in drinking water supplies.
The seasonal nature of the acid rain problem
Acidification can take one of two forms: acute or chronic. Most of
EPA's work to date has focused on chronic acidification which occurs
when the acid precipitation exceeds the neutralizing capacity of a body
of water. But, perhaps more important for water bodies fed by snowmelt,
in the Rockies, the Adirondack and elsewhere, is the episodic
acidification which results from spring snowmelt.
EPA's report to Congress tells us that ``pulses of highly acidic
water flushing into and through soils, streams, and lakes often expose
soil and aquatic biota to short-term, acutely toxic, lethal chemical
conditions.'' \5\ EPA has determined that event of episodic
acidification are particularly significant because, coming in the
springtime when fish are spawning, they can cause complete spawning
failures. \6\ EPA has determined that approximately 70 percent of the
Adirondack lakes can be affected by the worst annual episode. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Report to Congress at 9. (emphasis supplied)
\6\ Id. at 9-10.
\7\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the acidity of many of the lakes may return to relatively
normal levels after the snow melt ends, the damage to the life in the
lake has been done, for that reason at least.
The inadequacy of the current regulatory regime
Acid rain was supposed to be solved by the 1990 amendments to the
Clean Air Act. It included two key elements for addressing acid rain
and related problems: the acid rain reduction program of Title IV and
the Title I controls on nitrogen oxides as a precursor to ozone.
EPA and NAPAP both recognize that the Title IV reduction
requirements are insufficient to protect the Adirondacks and other
resources threatened by acid rain EPA has estimated ``that between 40-
50 percent reductions of NOx in the Eastern United States beyond those
already required in the Clean Air Act may be necessary simply to keep
the number of acidified lakes in the Adirondacks in New York at 1984
levels. `'Without additional reductions, the number of acidic lakes in
the Adirondacks are projected to increase by almost To percent by 2040.
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 61 Fed. Reg. 671-1, 67115 December 19, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only are the anticipated controls insufficient, but JAPAN
projects that NOx emissions will begin to increase in less than 2
years. \9\ Nor will EPA's recent SIP call rulemaking sufficiently
address acid rain. Any action which focuses only on summertime
emissions, like the SIP call, will do little to prevent acid
deposition, which in largely a wintertime problem for many parts of
this country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NAPAP Report at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, there is a danger that the SIP call may even be
counterproductive in reducing acid rain, because it could nullify the
Title IV acid rain controls. Those requirements anticipate year round
reductions in NOx emissions.
However, because the Title IV emission requirements are measured on
a year-round average, a utility which complies with the stricter
requirements of the SIP call in the summertime can meet the Title IV
requirements simply by averaging the summertime emission reductions
over the rest of the year, thereby allowing emission controls to be
turned off in the winter.
EPA recognizes that a year round emission reduction program is
needed. In a report issued in August 1997, EPA explained clearly char
Wintertime Box emissions reductions are especially important to
lessening the incidence and severity of acidic episodes in certain
areas. Continuous year-round NOx controls appear to be the most
beneficial for decreasing acid deposition damage to natural resorces.''
\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Nitrogen Oxides: Impacts on Public Health and the Environment,
EPA 452/R-97-002 (August 1997), p. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, EPA has taken no steps to ensure that the SIP call does not
nullify the year round emissions reduction requirements of Title IV. A
review of the 1990 amendments clearly shows Congress anticipated
subsequent legislation may be necessary.
While Congress could have provided EPA with the express authority
to require additional NOx reductions, it chose instead to require that
EPA simply describe the necessary acid deposition standards, leaving
Congress, not the agency, with the choice of whether to enact them.
The EPA and NAPAP reports were intended to provide Congress with
the information necessary to enact any further reductions which may be
needed.
AN explained above, the results of those reports are now in and the
conclusion is unambiguous; protection of the resources threatened by
acid rain requires year round emission reductions beyond those
anticipated by the Clean Air Act.
Requirements of Effective Acid Rain Legislation
That is why I strongly endorse the Acid Deposition Control Act. It
may finally put an end to the damage being caused by acid rain to our
environment.
It includes the following elements which I believe are essential in
any effective acid rain legislation:
It provides for year-round emission reductions. As explained above,
there can no longer be any doubt that much of the worst damage caused
by acid rain occurs in the winter and spring, when snowmelt and heavy
spring storms send an ``acutely toxic, lethal'' shock to the lakes,
ponds and streams most affected by acid rain. It should be emphasized
that the additional cost of operating seasonal controls, as anticipated
by the SIP call, on a year round basis is relatively minor.
It will reduce acid rain in a cost-effective manner. In order to
meet the SIP call, utilities will have to incur the cost of installing
new pieces of control equipment. In order to obtain year-round, rather
than seasonal reductions, utilities will simply have to incur the
additional cost of operating these controls the other 7 months of the
year It has been estimated that state-of-the-art NOx emission controls
are twice an cost-effective (measured by cost per ton of NOx removed)
when they are operated year-round. \11\ Furthermore, the development of
an emissions credit trading program further serves to reduce the cost
of emissions across an industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In a 1995 report prepared for EPA entitled Estimated Effects
of Alternative NOx Cap and Trading Schemes in the Northeast Ozone
Transport Region, ICF Kaiser estimates that the annual cost-
effectiveness of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is $1,000 to
$1,500 per ton, as opposed to its seasonal cost-effectiveness of $2,OOO
to $3,000 per ton. Id. at 29. A more detailed analysis, which includes
calculations of the annual and seasonal cost-effectiveness of several
control strategies, is contained in NESCAUM and MARAMA, Status Report
on NOx Control technologies and Cost Effectiveness for Utility Boilers
(June 1998), at 77-120. The NESCAUM and MARAMA report concludes all
control strategies studied are significantly more cost-effective when
operated annually, with SCR and coal reburning technologies being at
least twice as cost-effective when operated year round. Id. at 114-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It requires reductions of emissions rather than creating an
administrative process that may lead to the development of further
emission limitations. The experience of the past 8 years has
demonstrated the need to provide firm direction to EPA. EPA has a poor
record of complying with Congressional mandates to identify potential
acid rain reduction programs. For example, EPA's response to the
requirement that it describe the nature and numerical value of an acid
deposition standard was to perform yet another acid rain study, even
though NAPAP had already performed $500 million worth of studies. \12\
EPA did not even try to comply with another Congressional mandate, that
it report to Congress on using the secondary standard provisions of the
Act to address welfare effects, such as acid rain. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Statement of Dr. James R. Mahoney, Director, National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Project (NAPAP), at hearings before the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, January 24 and 25, 1990,
Senate Hearing 101-826, at pg. 115.
\13\ Section 817 of P.L. 101-549, required that EPA and the
National Academy of Sciences undertake a study on the role of secondary
standards in protecting welfare and the environment. Among other
things, this study is supposed to ``determine ambient concentrations of
each [criteria] pollutant which would be adequate to protect welfare
ant the environment from such [welfare] effects.'' EPA was required to
take public comment on a draft of the report of the study and provide a
final report to Congress no later than November 15, 1993. In response
to a recent FOIA request served by the New York Attorney Generals
office, EPA has confirmed that it has not even commenced this study,
even though nearly 5 years have passed since the deadline for
completion of the study. As a result, New York sent EPA, on July 27,
1998, a notice of intent to sue under Section 304 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It provides EPA with the explicit authority to require further
emission reductions. If shown to be necessary, both EPA and NAPAP, as
well as numerous academic institutions, will continue to monitor the
resources affected by acid rain. If these research efforts show the
need for more emission reductions, this legislation provides EPA with
the clear authority to enact new emission reduction requirements,
without the need for more legislation.
Time is of the essence, you must act before more natural resources
are destroyed.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
__________
Observations from the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest on the
Environmental Effects of Changes in Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
In 1972 scientists from the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study reported
that rainfall and snowfall in the northeastern United States had become
increasingly acidic. In response to this discovery, Congress passed the
Clean Air Act of 1970 and its subsequent amendments of 1990. The 1990
Amendments called for a 50 percent reduction of sulfur dioxide
emissions below 1980 levels by the year 2010. Minor cuts in emissions
of nitrogen oxides were also included.
The following observations from the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study
(HBES) are relevant to the recent 1998 National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program biennial report to Congress and subsequent news
stories. This information draws from research conducted as part of the
HBES by Drs. Gene E. Likens, Charles T. Driscoll, F. Herbert Bormann
and Mr. Donald C. Buso. The HBES is conducted at the USDA Forest
Service Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, West Thornton, New
Hampshire. Initiated in 1963, it is the longest running ecosystem study
of its kind, and the site where acid rain was first documented in North
America.
Progress Since the Clean Air Act: Headed in the Right Direction?
The combustion of fossil fuel to produce energy generates sulfur
dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) as by-products. Once
emitted into the atmosphere, they mix with water to form sulfuric and
nitric acid and are transported by prevailing winds to the northeastern
U.S. where they fall to the ground in rain and snow. It has been well
documented that acidity at Hubbard Brook is largely associated with
human-produced emissions, rather than natural acidification processes.
After the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments (CAAA), electric utilities nationwide cut SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions 31 percent from 17.2 million tons in 1980 to 11.9 million
tons in 1995. Long-term measurements as part of the HBES show a roughly
45 percent decrease in sulfate in rain and snow since 1963.
Likewise, stream water chemistry has shown some improvement.
Sulfate in stream water at Hubbard Brook has decreased approximately 30
percent since 1963. This decrease is consistent with declines in
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and sulfate in precipitation. The amount of
toxic aluminum leached by acid rain from soils to stream water has also
declined.
These important gains in rain, snow and stream water chemistry
indicate that reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions have been
important to the control of acid rain and the potential reversal of its
effects. Nevertheless, continued acid inputs and marked changes in soil
chemistry have hindered the rate and magnitude of ecosystem recovery.
This suggests important lessons for policymakers.
Recent Research Shows Recovery Impeded--New Link to Forest Health
Despite reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, there has been
little improvement in acid levels in rain, snow and stream water at
Hubbard Brook. Scientists predict that, with current pollution control
measures, the acid-base status of stream water will not return to pre-
industrial revolution levels in the foreseeable future. Reasons for
this arrested recovery include the failure of the 1990 CAAA to address
NOX emissions fully, as well as the recently identified changes in soil
chemistry resulting from acid rain.
The policy debate of the 1980's focused almost exclusively on
SO<INF>2</INF>. This emphasis on sulfur obscured the role of other
elements in acid rain and in the acid-base balance of soils and surface
waters. Data show that NOX emissions contribute significantly and
increasingly to acid rain. Scientists estimate that nitrogen may now
constitute 25-50 percent of acid in precipitation. It is reasonable to
suggest that further recovery from acid rain may require cutting NOX
emissions beyond the 2 million tons called for in the 1990 CAAA.
Recent Hubbard Brook research reported in the journal Science links
atmospheric dust, acid rain and forest health. Scientists found that
the amount of calcium in the soil has declined by more that 50 percent
since 1950. Acid rain has stripped away plant nutrients such as calcium
and magnesium from soil particles. These essential nutrients, called
base cations, are then leached out to streams and rivers and lost from
the ecosystem. Years of leaching has depleted the antacid-like elements
from the soil. With a diminished ability to neutralize acid, many
forests are now more sensitive to continued inputs of acid rain and
snow. Further, this loss of essential plant nutrients may prove
limiting to biomass accumulation in forests. Overall, the depletion of
base cations appears to retard the recovery of forests in response to
decreases in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions.
Public Policy Implications
The progress made in rain, snow and stream water chemistry verify
the value of the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions called for in the
1990 CAAA. Yet, continued acidity of precipitation and surface waters
at Hubbard Brook, and new links to long-term forest health, demonstrate
that the acid rain problem has not been solved. Furthermore, the
environmental effects of acid rain appear to be more subtle and
insidious than first expected.
Leaching of base cations from the soils of the Hubbard Brook
Experimental Forest by acid rain over the past 50 years has reduced
their neutralizing capacity. As a result, the reductions mandated by
the 1990 CAAA are necessary but not sufficient to protect sensitive
forest and aquatic ecosystems in the northeastern United States from
continued inputs of acid rain. The policy implication of this research
may likely be that current SO<INF>2</INF> and NOX emission limits are
not adequate to achieve the level of ecosystem recovery envisioned by
the 1990 CAAA. It is clear that continued long-term monitoring of acid
rain and the health of forest and stream ecosystems is critical to
assessing past legislation and directing future policy.
__________
Statement of the New England Council
The New England Council would like to take the opportunity of this
hearing on acid rain to restate its position on the important issue of
ozone transport and the recent ruling by the EPA. In particular we
believe this is important since nitrogen oxide is a primary component
of smog and acid rain. The business community of our six state region,
after several years of advocacy, is extremely gratified that EPA has
set a course of action that will improve the air quality and economic
competitiveness of the Northeast. The Council feels that EPA has put
forth a solution that is equitable and cost-effective for all of the 22
states that make up the Northeast.
Since the time of the Clean Air Act of 1970, New England states and
industries have struggled with the problems associated with ozone
transport. Despite gradual mandatory and voluntary emission reductions
over the years, the New England region was still unable to meet
federally mandated air quality standards for public health due to the
pollution that was crossing over its boarders from other regions. Other
difficulties have included a chilling effect on industrial locations
and expansions and the threat of monetary penalties.
The New England Council views this action as EPA's first effort to
protect public health in downwind states from the smog that originates
in upwind areas. Not only does it recognize that it is the coal burning
utilities and industries in the Midwest and South that generate a
degree of our background pollution, but importantly, it holds these
areas responsible for its clean up. It is worth mentioning that this
plan will also significantly improve the air quality around these large
emission sources, enhancing air quality for citizens in these regions.
The opponents of this proposal claim that electricity reliability
and the overall economy of the Midwest and South are at risk. New
England utility companies have proven that conservation initiatives can
be incorporated into management and operations to the benefit of its
surroundings and bottom line. With very careful planning New England
utilities were able to retool most of its power plants with the
necessary controls during regularly scheduled maintenance checks to
avoid interruptions. Similarly EPA's plan allows for the most
economical reductions to be found utilizing the emissions ``cap and
trade'' program.
The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
estimated in a recent study that it would cost the economy of the
Northeast up to $4 Billion if EPA's proposal did not go through as
originally written. Again, the New England Council is pleased that EPA
has finalized this plan. We feel that there is still much to do to be
sure that the technical aspects are understood and that the
implementation of the rule has no unintended consequences.
The New England Council is a broad-based business organization that
represents the interests of the New England economy. Its mission is to
promote Federal policies and legislation that improve the business
climate of the region. It has offices in Boston and Washington, D. C.
__________
Statement of the Ozone Attainment Coalition
Audubon Society of New Hampshire
Connecticut Fund for the Environment
KeySpan Energy Company
Natural Resources Defense Council
PACE Energy Project
Public Service Electric & Gas
U.S. Generating Company
Central Maine Power Company
Consolidated Edison
Merck & Company
Northeast Utilities
PECO Energy Company
The United Illuminating Company
October 13, 1998
The Ozone Attainment Coalition has been an active participant
throughout the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) process and in
EPA's regulatory development of the recently adopted NOx SIP Call
regulations affecting 22 eastern states. The Coalition believes that
EPA's action will result in cost-effective NOx reductions and provides
each of the affected states with sufficient flexibility to meet its NOx
budget requirements.
The Ozone Attainment Coalition is composed of 13 organizations,
including eight electric generating companies, and national, northeast-
regional, and state-based environmental advocacy groups. The Coalition
supports the adoption of effective regulatory programs that are
designed to achieve timely implementation of cost-effective ozone
precursor emission reductions in the eastern United States, as a means
substantially to reduce regional ozone transport.
The Coalition is concerned that comments made during the October 6,
1998 hearing on S. 1097, the Acid Deposition Control Act, before the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean
Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety regarding the
impacts associated with EPA's NOx SIP Call regulations represented only
one perspective, a perspective that the Coalition believes is
inaccurate.
Enclosed for your review are two Coalition reports: ``A Comparison
of EPA's Proposed NOx SIP Call and an Alternate NOx Reduction
Proposal,'' and ``Comparison of Projected Cost Impacts of Implementing
NOx Controls Needed to Reduce Ozone Transport in the Eastern U.S.,''
submitted to the EPA docket during the NOx SIP Call comment period. The
first of these reports found that the Midwestern/Southeast Governors
alternative proposal would deliver less than a 10 percent electric
utility NOx reduction benefit, as compared to EPA's proposed 65 percent
reduction. The second report found a surprising degree of agreement
among six electric utility cost assessments, including those proposed
on behalf of Midwest electric utility companies.
I hope that these reports will be of assistance in assessing the
projected impacts associated with EPA's NOx SIP Call regulation. Please
contact me should you have any questions regarding these reports or if
additional related information would be of further assistance to you.
__________
NESCAUM, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
Ozone Transport in the Eastern United States--October 1998
once something is seen, it cannot be made to be unseen
Bertolt Brecht, The Life of Galileo
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of
implementing a regional strategy (``NOx SIP call'') in 22 eastern
states to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx), an important pollutant
responsible for ozone (smog) formation. Both supporters and detractors
of EPA's NOx SIP call cite work by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group
(OTAG) in support for their positions, but their respective arguments
sometimes omit reference to a large body of information on ozone
transport appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. \1\
While OTAG was an important process that informed many state and
Federal policymakers, it did not break new ground in the scientific
understanding of the regional ozone problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., K. Jones & J. Bucher, ``Will Reducing Transported
Ozone Improve Regulatory Compliance?,'' Envtl. Mgr., pp. 11-16 (July
1998). The article asserts EPA's NOx SIP call has little scientific
merit, citing statements from ``OTAG scientists'' but with no citations
to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. While the author of the
present paper holds a Ph.D. in chemical physics and participated in
OTAG, he does not consider himself an ``OTAG scientist'' nor is he
aware of any formal group of such persons. OTAG was a consensus-
building effort among state and Federal policymakers and scientists,
industry stakeholders and public interest groups, but was not a
scientific research effort in any traditional sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this paper is to present a brief synopsis of the
scientific literature developed over the past 30 years that is relevant
to the issue of ozone transport in the eastern United States. \2\
Numerous studies that have passed scientific peer review appear in
well-regarded journals specializing in the atmospheric sciences. A
review of this literature finds that ozone transport has been
recognized by scientific researchers decades before the creation of
OTAG. While not all policymakers and industry stakeholders seem to
recognize (or perhaps understand) this body of literature, it provides
a strong, consistent, and independent supporting basis for EPA's NOx
SIP call that was not subject to the political and stakeholder
positioning of the OTAG process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the spirit of full disclosure, the author freely admits that
he supports EPA's NOx SIP call and has argued for regional NOx
strategies even prior to the formation of OTAG. See P.J. Miller,
``Cutting Through the Smog: The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and a New
Direction Toward Reducing Ozone Pollution,'' Stanford Envtl. Law
Journal, Vol. 12 pp. 124-163(1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transport of ozone in power plant plumes has been known since
at least the 1970's. Measurements of individual power plant plumes have
documented high ozone levels transported within power plant plumes in
Maryland [Davis, et al., 1974], from Wisconsin into Michigan [Miller,
et al., 1978], from Tennessee into Indiana [Gillani, Kohli & Wilson,
1981], from Missouri toward Chicago [Gillani & Wilson, 1980; White, et
al., 1983], and across southern Alabama and Mississippi [Ridley, et
al., 1998]. These studies show that NOx in power plant plumes produces
ozone approaching or exceeding health standards, and the ozone can
travel long distances into neighboring states. Two of the power plant
studies also found that individual power plant plumes can produce ozone
on a regional scale comparable to the amount of ozone generated in an
urban plume [White, et al., 1983; Ridley, et al. 1998]. The two studies
also demonstrate that power plant plumes and urban plumes both
contribute to downwind ozone transport.
Within the Ohio River Valley, where the concentration of large
coal-fired power plants is greatest, there is a large and persistent
area of high ozone during the summer months relative to air in other
parts of the country [Husar, 1996]. In this region, winds intermingle
ozone pollution from different power plant plumes (as well as other
pollution sources). Because of this mixing, a large ``reservoir'' of
ozone is formed across much of the east-central United States. People
living in southern Indiana, southern Ohio, northern Kentucky and much
of West Virginia can breathe elevated ozone over a more prolonged
period of time than people living in Chicago or Boston.
In addition to public health impacts, natural resources are
affected by transported smog. Scientists are raising concerns that
prolonged ozone exposure can increase the death rates of trees in
forests of the Appalachian region [Heck & Cowling, 1997; Wills, et al.,
1997]. This will alter the long-term tree composition of eastern
forests, thereby affecting the forests' value as timber and
recreational resources. National parks in the East, once thought to be
pristine, are especially vulnerable to transported pollution from
sources far upwind. For example, beginning on the night of July 12,
1997 just prior to a severe ozone episode in the Northeast, an ozone
monitor in Shenandoah National Park, VA recorded a rolling 8 hour
average ozone concentration above the Federal 8-hour standard that
lasted for 28 consecutive hours [Source: USEPA AIRS data base].
The large ozone reservoir in the Ohio River Valley returns each
summer with little abatement. Researchers at Harvard University have
found no significant downward trend in regional ozone levels from 1980
to 1995 [Five, et al., 1998]. This is due in large part to the lack of
NOx reductions from power plants. While urban NOx levels have decreased
(as have urban ozone levels in a few large metropolitan areas) due to
pollution controls on automobiles, regional ozone and NOx levels have
not significantly changed. In fact, between 1987 and 1996, NOx
emissions from power plants rose by 3 percent [EPA, 1998]. Because
regional ozone is more sensitive to NOx emissions than VOCs (volatile
organic compounds), the lack of significant NOx reductions from power
plants is impeding progress toward reducing regional ozone levels.
The demonstrated existence of regional ozone transport in the
Midwest and Ohio River Valley calls for a regional strategy to reduce
power plant pollution. Regional transport, however, is not limited only
to these areas. A regional NOx control strategy is even more imperative
in light of clear evidence that large amounts of ozone and its
precursors are transported out of the Ohio River Valley and into the
Northeast.
The movement of ozone from the Ohio River Valley into the Northeast
was seen as early as 1979. During early August 1979, scientists tracked
a mass of ozone leaving Ohio, crossing Pennsylvania and southern New
York, and entering into the Northeast Corridor [Clarke and Ching,
1983]. When this mass of air from the Ohio River Valley entered into
the Northeast Corridor, it contained about 99 parts per billion (ppb)
of ozone and had the potential of generating an additional 35 ppb
without the addition of any new emissions from within the Northeast.
Therefore, despite even the most stringent possible controls within the
Northeast, the amount of background ozone seen entering the Northeast
can cause exceedances of air quality standards.
As the persistent ozone reservoir re-establishes itself every
summer in the Ohio River Valley, large amounts of ozone continue to be
transported into the Northeast from the west. During the summer of
1995, the North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone-
Northeast (NARSTO-NE) conducted aircraft measurements of ozone in air
masses along the western edge of the Northeast Corridor. During
overnight hours, scientists measured ozone levels above Shenandoah, VA,
Gettysburg, PA, Poughkeepsie, NY and other locations in excess of 100
ppb [Lurmann, et al., 1997; Zhang, et al., 1998; Ryan, et al., 1998].
During this time of night, the ozone could not have been formed locally
(no sunlight is present to initiate the formation of ozone), so it must
have been transported during the pre-dawn hours. Wind direction
measurements during the highest ozone days (e.g., July 14, 1995)
indicated the air flow was out of the west [Blumenthal, et al., 1997],
therefore the ozone traveled into the Northeast from points to the
west, i.e., the Ohio River Valley.
Consistent with these field studies are evaluations of air mass
histories associated with the highest ozone levels observed in southern
New England. In a recent study, university researchers found that the
highest ozone levels observed at a site in rural Massachusetts are
associated with air masses arriving from the west, i.e., source regions
in the Midwest [Moody, et al., 1998]. Based on an analysis of air
masses arriving in Massachusetts, the researchers concluded:
Anthropogenic pollutants (combustion-derived products) were highest
under [southwest] flow conditions, which were generally warm, moist,
and relatively cloudy. This is indicative of warm sector transport. The
highest O3 concentrations did not occur under these conditions, which
had a low O3 production efficiency. Instead, the highest average summer
O3 occurred under [west] flow. . . which delivered well-aged air masses
with high O3 production efficiency. This implies an important
contribution of adverted pollutants from Midwest source regions[.]
[Ibid.]
Ozone trapped aloft and transported during overnight hours has been
quantitatively shown to contribute significantly to ground-level ozone
concentrations experienced later in downwind regions as the aloft ozone
is mixed back down to the ground [McElroy & Smith, 1993; Berkowitz, et
al., 1998; Zhang, et al. 1998]. The field observations of high ozone
concentrations mixing down to the ground during later daylight hours
demonstrate that reducing aloft ozone is more than of theoretical
importance.
With transported ozone pollution levels in excess of 100 ppb during
pre-dawn hours, the Northeast is already over 80 percent on the way to
a 1-hour ozone exceedance before the sun rises. The Northeast is in the
predicament of achieving the 1-hour 120 ppb and the 8-hour 80 ppb
Federal ozone standards in situations where 100 ppb of the ozone is
beyond its control. The high levels of transported ozone virtually
guarantee that the Northeast will not achieve air quality goals without
regional NOx reductions.
The extent of regional ozone transport into the Northeast from the
Midwest is also seen in modeling by the Ozone Transport Assessment
Group (OTAG). OTAG modeling predicts significant decreases in ozone
above 120 ppb in major metropolitan areas of the Northeast due to
reductions in emissions from source regions in the Midwest (Table 1).
Table 1. Percent reduction in ozone exposure above 120 ppb
predicted for downwind receptor areas by OTAG modeling for the July
1995 ozone episode. Reductions are due to ``turning off'' all
anthropogenic NOx and VOC emissions in the respective source regions.
The ozone exposures were calculated by OTAG in units of concentration
(parts per million) times time (hours) times area (square kilometers),
or ppm-hrs-km\2\.
Percent Reduction in Ozone Exposure above 120 ppb In Northeast Metropolitan Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore-
New England New York City Philadelphia Washington DC
area area area area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source region of emissions......................
Parts of IN, MI, OH............................. -7 percent -11 percent -15 percent -12 percent
Parts of IL, IN, KY, MO......................... -4 -5 -11 -11
Parts of IN, KY, OH, WV......................... -12 -16 -41 -43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The July 1995 modeling data used to derive the percentage reductions of Table I can be found at the OTAG
Northeast Modeling and Analysis Center (NEMAC) web address: http://sage.mcnc.org/OTAGDC/aqm/uamv/jul95.
When interpreting the modeling work of OTAG, one must be careful to
place the results in the context of what is known about the physical
world. Computer modeling can be interpreted to support almost any view
if the interpretation is not constrained by real-world observations. A
case in point is the OTAG modeling result for July 16, 1991 that is
often cited as evidence for the lack of ozone and precursor transport.
The OTAG Modeling Report (Draft 1.1, February 12, 1997, p. 47) states:
Unfortunately, model performance based on surface measurements in
the upper Midwest is poorest on July 16 and 17 [1991 OTAG episode].
This poor performance is also seen aloft on these 2 days. Simulated
ozone concentrations are about 30 to 60 ppb lower than the
observations.
Because long-distance ozone transport occurs aloft, not at ground
level, a model that poorly represents aloft ozone is virtually
guaranteed to underestimate ozone transport. This is not to say that
models should not have a role in developing regional solutions to the
ozone problem, but that model interpretations should be bounded by
real-world observations so that the greatest confidence will be given
to modeling results which best comport with field measurements.
A compelling need emerges for regional NOx reductions when the
modeling results are put in the context of the real-world measurements
of ozone transport. Power plants are responsible for about 50 percent
of the NOx emissions in the Ohio River Valley, and represent the single
largest pool of available low-cost reductions in the eastern United
States. Even with the most stringent emission controls applied in the
Northeast, ozone levels in excess of 100 ppb seen entering the region
from the west will prevent the people of the Northeast from breathing
clean air.
References
Berkowitz, C.M., J.D. Fast, S.R. Springston, R.J. Larsen, C.W.
Spicer, P.V. Doskey, J.M. Hubbe, & R. Plastridge 1998. Formation
Mechanisms and Chemical Characteristics of Elevated Photochemical
Layers over the Northeast United States, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 103,
pp. 10,631-47.
Blumenthal, D.L., et al. 1997. Transport and Mixing Phenomena
Related to Ozone Exceedances in the Northeast U.S., Sonoma Technology
Report STI-996133-1710-WD1.1, February.
Clarke, J.F. & J.K.S. Ching 1983. Aircraft Observations of Regional
Transport of Ozone in the Northeastern United States, Atmos. Envt.,
Vol. 17, pp. 1703-12.
Davis, D.D., G. Smith & G. Klauber 1974. Trace Gas Analysis of
Power Plant Plumes Via Aircraft Measurement: O3, NOx, and
SO<INF>2</INF> Chemistry, Science, Vol. 186, pp. 733-36.
EPA 1998. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1996,
EPA 454/R-97-013, p. 17, January.
Fiore, A.M., D.J. Jacob, J.A. Logan, & J.H. Yin 1998. Long-Term
Trends in Ground Level Ozone over the Contiguous United States, 1980-
1995. J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 103, pp. 1471-80.
Gillani, N.V., S. Kohli, & W.E. Wilson 1981. Gas-to-particle
conversion of sulfur in power plant plumes-I. Parametrization of the
conversion rate for dry, moderately polluted ambient conditions, Atmos.
Envt., Vol. 15, pp. 2293-2313.
Gillani, N.V. & W.E. Wilson 1980. Formation and transport of ozone
and aerosols in power plant plumes, Annals N.Y. Acad. Sciences, Vol.
338, pp. 276-296.
Heck, W.W. & E.B. Cowling 1997. The need for long term cumulative
secondary ozone standard -An ecological perspective, Envt. Mgr., pp.
23-32, January.
Husar, R.B. 1996. Spatial Pattern of daily maximum ozone over the
OTAG region, Web address: http://capita.wustl.edu/OTAG/Reports/
otagspat/otagspat.html.
Lurmann, F.W., et al. 1997. Evaluation of the UAM-V Model
Performance in the Northeast Region for OTAG Episodes, Sonoma
Technology Report STI-996133-1716-WD2.1, March.
McElroy, J.L. & T.B. Smith 1993. Creation and Fate of Ozone Layers
Aloft in Southern California, Atmos. Envt., Vol. 27A, pp. 1917-1929.
Miller, D.F., A.J. Alkezweeny, J.M. Hales, & R.N. Lee 1978. Ozone
Formation Related to Power Plant Emissions, Science, Vol. 202, pp.
1186-88.
Moody, J.L., J.W. Munger, A.H. Goldstein, D.J. Jacob, & S.C. Wofsy
1998. Harvard Forest Regional-Scale Air Mass Composition by Patterns in
Atmospheric Transport History (PATH) J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 103, pp.
13, 181-94.
Ridley, B.A., J.G. Walega, J.-F. Lamarque, F.E. Grahek, M. Trainer,
G. Hubler, X. Lin, & F.C. Fehsenfeld 1998. Measurements of Reactive
Nitrogen and Ozone to 5-km Altitude in June 1990 over the Southeastern
United States, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 103, pp. 8369-88.
Ryan, W.F, B.G. Doddridge, R.R. Dickerson, R.M. Morales, K.A.
Hallock, P.T. Roberts, D.L. Blumenthal, J.A. Anderson, & K.L. Civerolo
1998. Pollutant Transport During a Regional O3 Episode in the Mid-
Atlantic States, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., Vol. 48, pp. 786-797.
White, W.H., D.E. Patterson & W.E. Wilson, Jr. 1983. Urban Exports
to the Nonurban Troposphere: Results from Project MISIT, J. Geophys.
Res., Vol. 88, pp. 10, 745-52.
Wills, K., O. Loucks, P. Kalisz, A. Fritsch, A. Rees, & W. Davidson
1997. Patterns of Forest Health: A Report on Citizen Monitoring in the
Eastern Mountains 1994-97. The Lucy Braum Association, September.
Zhang, J., S.T. Rao & S.M. Daggupaty 1998. Meteorological Processes
and Ozone Exceedances in the Northeastern United States during the 12-
16 July 1995 Episode, J. Applied Meteorology, Vol. 37, pp. 776-789.
__________
NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management,
October 9, 1998.
Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Moynihan: The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) is writing to commend your efforts to address the
continuing problem of acid rain in the eastern United States. As you
are well aware, acidic deposition from emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO<INF>2</INF>) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are of special concern to
our region. The Conference of New England Governors and Eastern
Canadian Premiers recently passed an acid rain action plan that seeks
to go beyond the provisions contained in Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments. While Title IV has been a great success in achieving
significant SO<INF>2</INF> reductions at far lower costs than industry
projections, there is a growing consensus that Title IV controls are
not sufficient to protect sensitive ecological areas. Of particular
concern is the inadequacy of Title IV NOx controls. We commend S.
1097's provision to require year round NOx controls. By building upon
the seasonal control requirements recently promulgated by the U.S. EPA,
S. 1097 will achieve significant and extremely cost effective
environmental improvement.
At the recent October 6, 1998 hearing on S. 1097, two witnesses
devoted substantial time to criticizing the smog transport rule
recently finalized by EPA. (Testimony of Edward Kropp, Assistant Chief
of the West Virginia Of floe of Air Quality, West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection; Testimony of William F. Tyndall, Vice
President, Environmental Services, Cinergy Corp.) Because the testimony
challenging EPA's smog plan strayed from the expected focus of the
subcommittee hearing, we are concerned that the subcommittee received
an unbalanced view of the EPA's smog plan. To remedy this imbalance, we
would like to provide you with the Northeast states' understanding of
ozone transport and cost-effective NOx control options.
Long-Range Ozone Transport is Well Documented
The independent scientific community has long recognized the
formation and transport of ozone smog. In 1973, shortly after passage
of the first Clean Air Act, scientists assessing New York State's ozone
problem concluded, ``local urban photochemical generation of ozone is
not the dominant mechanism of ozone production. . .the high urban
concentrations are principally the result of transport and mixing of
ozone rich air into the city from the surrounding air mass.'' (see
Coffey & Stasiuk Envtl Sci & Tech 1975). In 1976 the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the U.S. EPA sponsored
an international conference on ozone transport. The published Summary
Review for the Conference offers the following conclusions:
<bullet> elevated oxidant/03 concentrations can originate from
upwind sources as far away as 1000 kilometers (km) or more; and
<bullet> regional (multistate) controls programs are needed,
rather than on a state-by-state basis. (see Altshuller, JAPCA 1978)
Given that over 20 years have passed between these conclusions and EPA
action, arguments that EPA has acted rashly should be afforded little
merit.
In 1991, the National Research Council reviewed hundreds of
empirical studies supporting and challenging ozone transport. The
resulting report ``Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional
Air Pollution,'' confirms the presence of multi-day ozone transport
episodes in eastern United States.
Generally, those seeking to dismiss or diminish the magnitude of
ozone transport rely solely on computer modeling devoid of reference to
the real world. Certainly, predictive models are necessary when seeking
to evaluate and compare the effects of future scenarios. However,
skepticism is appropriate when confronted with assertions based
entirely upon predictive models to assess transport episodes that
occurred in the past. We know ozone transport exists because we see it.
Ozone levels in excess of 0.10 parts per million (ppm) have been
observed entering the Northeast Corridor during field studies as early
as 1979. The magnitude of transported ozone makes it extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the ozone public health
standards of 0.12 ppm (1-hour average) and 0.08 ppm (8-hour average) in
the Northeast.
Additional evidence of long-range transport is provided by measured
violations of the ozone standard at remote sites in the eastern U.S.
Field measurements at Acadia National Park in Maine, Shenandoah
National Park in Virginia and Great Smoky Mountains National Park on
the North Carolina/Tennessee border have all recorded substantially
elevated ozone levels during the night or early morning hours when
local ozone production is not possible due to the absence of sunlight.
There is no logical explanation for these violations other than long
range ozone transport.
At the October 6, 1998 Senate subcommittee hearing, Edward Kropp,
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, cited an ozone
transport limit of 150-200 miles. This assertion is not supported by
actual field measurements of ozone transport in the eastern United
States. While the absolute distance ozone travels varies among
pollution episodes, Mr. Kropp's assertion underestimates measured ozone
transport by at least a factor of three. We are attaching two NESCAUM
documents providing an overview of the peer-reviewed scientific
literature on ozone transport, as well as information developed by the
Ozone Transport Assessment Group. The numerous studies of ozone
transport in the eastern United States that have undergone peer review
by the scientific community embody a more objective view of ozone
transport than was provided in testimony previously submitted to the
Senate subcommittee.
Transport Rule Can Be Met With Highly Cost-Effective Measures
Controlling NOx emissions from large power plants is the most cost-
effective strategy remaining in the eastern United States. Often times,
states and EPA will adopt technology forcing regulations requiring the
development of new pollution control approaches and greatly
complicating cost-estimation. The transport rule however, is not a
technology forcing regulation. In fact, the technologies to meet the
emission limits contained in the rule have been in use domestically and
abroad for many years. To assess utility compliance costs, NESCAUM
conducted a study relying upon the real-world cost and operating
experience from actual installations of advanced NOx control systems at
14 U.S. facilities involving 52 coal, gas and oil fired boilers. The
results, which summarize over 40 boiler years of actual experience with
advanced controls, indicate that most coal power plants can achieve a
reduction of up to 90 percent (or a 0.15 lb/mmBtu NOx emission rate) at
a cost of $790-$1,200/ton. Even greater reductions are technologically
feasible and cost effective. NESCAUM estimates that a 0.07 lb/mmBtu NOx
emission rate can be achieved at some coal power plants in a cost range
of $1,890-$3,350/ton. With a regional trading system, NESCAUM believes
that the average compliance costs for the electric power industry will
be substantially less than the $ 1,700/ton figure predicted by EPA.
(``Status Report on NOx Control Technologies and Cost Effectiveness for
Utility Boilers,'' June 1998 (attached)).
Transport Rule is a Responsible & Equitable Step Toward Clean Air
The EPA transport rule does not seek to control all the ozone-
forming NOx emissions that undermine regional air quality. Instead, EPA
focuses only on what it deems are the most ``highly cost effective''
controls (those estimated to cost less than $2,000/ton), leaving many
other reasonably cost effective measures untapped. Far from a ``one
size fits all'' strategy, the Transport rule presents a responsible
first step that we in the Northeast and other regions must build upon
in order to achieve clean air. Believing that additional pollution
reduction measures beyond the smog transport rule must be implemented
in the Northeast, the NESCAUM states held a workshop on September 16,
1998 in New York City to receive public comment and recommendations on
future control strategies. All testifying agreed that additional local
measures are needed in the Northeast. Several Northeast industry
representatives asserted the concern that additional measures are
likely to be far more costly per ton than the measures required by the
transport rule. This recognition underscores the importance of
achieving NOx reductions from all cheaply controlled sources both in-
region and upwind. A recent analysis by NESCAUM determined that without
the EPA regional NOx rule, it will cost the Northeast States $1.4 to
$3.9 billion annually for local measures to offset transported ozone.
While the Northeast will still likely incur many of these costs,
diminishing upwind transport will allow these relatively more expensive
local controls to make progress toward meeting health standards, rather
than simply compensating for upwind pollution. (``The Costs of Ozone
Transport: Achieving Clean Air in the East,'' July 1998 (attached).
Conclusion
We are confident that the wealth of information on the science of
ozone transport provides an objective, independent basis for EPA's smog
transport rule. Moreover, controlling large coal-fired power plants is
a proven and extremely cost effective means of reducing local and
regional air pollution. It is unfortunate that some are so accustomed
to their inequitable position that they will oppose cost-effective
solutions in favor of the continued ability to harm their neighbors'
health and economies. As the drafters of the Clean Air Act well
understood, the perverse incentives created by interstate pollution
transport necessitate Federal intervention. At long last, EPA has
employed the authority granted by Congress to protect states from
pollution beyond their control. Your efforts to reduce NOx emissions on
an annual basis will go a great deal farther in protecting the air we
breathe and the natural world we live in.
Sincerely,
Jason S. Grumet, Executive Director,
NESCAUM.
__________
Technical Support Document for Alternative Proposal by the Southeast/
Midwest Governors' Ozone Coalition
executive summary
In a letter to President Clinton, dated March 9, 199S, the
Governors of several southeast and midwest States committed to the
preparation of a plan to achieve compliance with the nation's ozone
ambient air quality standard in an effective and common sense manner.
These Governors, having organized themselves as the Southwest/Midwest
Governor's Ozone Coalition [``Coalition''], now offer a proposal that
will:
<bullet> Fully accomplish the purposes of USEPA's ozone transport
proposal without imposing overly prescriptive Federal solutions to
problems that affected States are fully prepared to address;
<bullet> Equitably distribute the reductions where needed most;
<bullet> Be more consistent with the available science on regional
transport;
<bullet> Alleviate any significant contribution of our States
beyond our borders;
<bullet> Be more consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act and the flexibility and the goals articulated in your directive to
USEPA in July, 1997;
<bullet> Assure that electricity supplies in the eastern United
States will not be disrupted as initial steps are taken to clean the
emissions of power plant and large industrial boilers; and
<bullet> Reflect our commitment to take whatever other steps that
science and good public policy point us toward in the next 3 years to
assure that clean air goals are met.
The Coalition calls for States to assess the reductions that will
assure that the 8-hour \1\ ozone ambient air quality standard will be
achieved by the fall of 2009, well in advance of the deadlines set
forth in the Federal Clean Air Act. To accomplish this objective, the
Coalition proposes to complete attainment plans which identify
reductions of both nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) as may be needed to achieve compliance with the ozone standard.
Modeling and other analytical work necessary to make this determination
would be completed by 2001, legally enforceable control requirements
would be adopted by 2003, and emission reduction controls would be
implemented by sources prior to the start of the ozone season in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The States of Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia have joined as
Plaintiffs in the consolidated case styled American Trucking
Associations. Inc. et. al. v. EPA Docket No. 97-1441, pending in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in advance of completing the modeling work necessary to
determine the emission reductions appropriate to achieve the 8-hour
standard, the Coalition calls for electric utility generating units to
substantially reduce their emission of nitrogen oxides. Most Coalition
States will require the system wide reduction of NOx emissions from
electric utility generating units to at least 65 percent or .25 lb/
MMBtu, whichever is less stringent, (from 1990 levels). These
reductions will be in place by April, 2004, unless a demonstration is
made to the State that an additional year is necessary to avoid any
demonstrated energy disruption.
To assure early progress in achieving the Coalition's emissions
reduction goal, most Coalition States will require the reduction of NOx
emissions by 55 percent (from 1990 levels) or .35 lb/MMBtu, whichever
is less stringent, by April 2002. An additional year to achieve this
reduction would be allowed to avoid any demonstrated energy disruption.
The Coalition also calls for large non-utility sources of NOx
requiring that other large (greater than 250 MMBtu) be subject to
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) by April 2003.
southeast/midwest governors ozone coalition ozone attainment plan
1.0 Introduction
By letter dated March 9, 1998, the Governors of several midwestern
and southern States advised President Clinton of their great concern
over the November 7, 1997 proposal by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to address the transport of ozone in the
eastern United States.
While the initial deadline for the submittal of the alternative to
EPA's November 7, 1997 SIP call proposal was August 1, 1998, the
reopening of the comment period on the proposed SIP call and the
publication of the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR)
has allowed the opportunity to submit the proposal as part of the
formal comments on the SNPR.
The Coalition States have cooperated in an initiative known as the
Southeast/Midwest Governors Ozone Coalition committed to the
development and implementation of a plan that will address the
contribution of Coalition States to the attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard [``NAAQS''] for ozone within the Coalition
States, as well as characterizing the resultant benefits in the
nonattainment area of the Northeast Ozone Transport Region through the
implementation of control strategies which optimize the cost of
compliance per unit of ozone improvement.
The Coalition has organized itself into a Governors Committee, to
address policy and other non-technical issues, and a Technical
Committee, to address substantive issues involved in formulating the
alternative proposal. Each Coalition State is represented on each
committee and each Coalition State has one vote on matters which come
before it for a vote.
The Governors Committee first met on April 6, 1998 and again June
16, 1998. The Technical Committee met on April 14 and 15, April 29 and
30, May 13 and 14, June 4, and on June 16 with the Governors Committee,
with numerous conference calls being conducted between meetings. The
Technical Committee developed the following eight work elements to
provide an appropriate basis for the development of a scientifically
sound alternative proposal to the EPA SIP Call:
1. Make Use of On-Going UAM-V Modeling--At least two groups, LADCO
and a joint venture among Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia, are
conducting modeling germane to the development of its proposal.
2. Review Existing UAM-V Modeling--A significant amount of UAM-V
modeling has been completed since the OTAG process concluded. Some of
this modeling may be post-processed to determine sub-regional impact
estimates.
3. Utilization of On-Going and Existing CAMx Modeling--A great deal
of modeling using the CAMx model has been and is being conducted.
4. Cost per Ton NOx Removed Analysis--The cost of various control
scenario costs was also evaluated by the Coalition.
5. Phase I NOx Reductions--One of the perspectives examined in
developing the alternative proposal was to seek input from regulated
sources as to the level of NOx reductions that might be appropriate
even in advance of performing refined modeling.
6. Liaison with EPA--A communication link with EPA on the
Coalitions initiative was established.
7. Additional 8-hour NAAQS Modeling--The Coalition recognized that
sound air quality management demands that an air analysis of NOx
controls based on attainment of the 8-hour standard be performed.
8. Cost per ppb Ozone Improvement Analysis--The OTAG process
concluded that, while any NOx reduction will result in ozone reduction
downwind of the course, the amount of reduction decreases significantly
with distance from the source. Accordingly, the Coalition believes that
an analysis of ozone reductions based on the cost per ppb of ozone
reduction in downwind areas is a logical and resource-conservative
means to deal with the concept of NOx transport.
Lead responsibility for the eight work elements was undertaken by:
Task, Description, Lead, Responsibility.
1. Utilization on On-Going UAM-V Modeling--Illinois
2. Utilization of Existing UAM-x Modeling--Kentucky
3. Utilization of CAMx Modeling--Michigan
4. Cost per Ton NOx Removed Analysis--Ohio
5. Voluntary Early NOx Reductions--Virginia
6. Liaison with EPA--West Virginia
7. Additional 8-hour NAAQS Modeling--Virginia
8. Cost per ppb Ozone Improvement Analysis--South Carolina
2.0 Statements of Purpose
The Southeast/Midwest Governors Ozone Coalition has as its purpose
to develop an alternative proposal to U.S. EPA's proposal for NOx
transport. The following statements of purpose guided the Coalition in
this effort:
1. To develop a control strategy that leads to attainment of the
NAAQS for ozone throughout the multi-state area and the areas
immediately downwind.
2. To develop a control strategy to provide for attainment of the
1-hour standard as soon as practicable and achieve the 8-hour standard
within Clean Air Act deadlines, provided that the 8-hour standard
survives its ongoing legal challenge.)
3. To determine control strategies which optimize cost of
compliance per unit of ozone improvement.
4. To utilize good scientific principles and techniques to
accurately characterize the amount of emission reductions, total cost,
and expected air quality benefit related to the Coalition's recommended
control strategy.
3.0 Proposed Attainment Plan
3.1 Overview
This plan describes the Coalition approach for developing
quantitative estimates of the levels of ozone precursor reductions that
are likely to be needed in the Southeast and Midwest States (i.e., the
Coalition States) in order to reach attainment of the Federal 1-hr and
8-hr ozone NAAQS. More specifically, the plan describes the use of
state-of-science regional photochemical dispersion models to identify
emissions control strategies over the eastern U.S. that will cost-
effectively abate those sources or source categories responsible for
ozone exceedances where they occur in the ten Coalition States; the
approach is also applicable across a broader geographic area, but would
need commitments from other States.
3.2 Goal
The overarching Coalition goal consists of two inter-related
components as follows:
A. Develop and implement those anthropogenic VOC and/or NOx
emissions reductions that are estimated to be required for attainment
of the 1-hr and 8-hr ozone NAAQS within the Coalition States; and
B. Develop and compare estimates of the cost-effectiveness of
emissions in ameliorating violations of the 1-hr and 8-hr ozone NAAQS,
assuming full and timely compliance with Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements in the affected nonattainment areas.
In striving to achieve this goal, particular attention must be
placed on identifying and selecting the most cost-effective controls
possible and in complying fully with the Clean Air Act Amendment
requirements. Here, cost-effectiveness is specifically defined in terms
of $/ppb ozone reduced under ozone exceedance conditions.
In summary, the Coalition is committed to implement controls in the
Coalition States (and identify goals in neighboring States) to achieve
attainment of the 1-hour violating counties in the Coalition addition,
the Coalition is committed to the use of a comparative analysis of the
most cost-effective control measures needed to achieve attainment of
the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
3.3 Regulatory Time Frame and Proposal Schedule
Attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is already overdue for many
ozone nonattainment areas. As the CAA attainment deadline is missed,
the nonattainment areas classification is typically ``bumped up'' to
include new mandatory control provisions and the next attainment date.
The most distant nonattainment areas in the eastern U.S. and 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in and neighboring States. In attainment date for is 2007;
thus the proposed approach needs to achieve attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS by the year 2007.
The schedule for implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is likely
to involve designation of 8-hour nonattainment areas by the year 2000,
submission of an 8-hour ozone SIP control plan is due 3 years later by
2003; and attainment 10 years after designation (2010) with the
possibility of a 2-year extension (2012). Thus, any 8-hour attainment
plan needs to result in attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later
than 2010-12. Given that attainment is based on measured ozone
concentrations during the latest three consecutive years, then all
controls needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS need to be in
place prior to the 2008 ozone season to minimize (no more than three
per year) the occurrence of exceedances of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
during 2008-2010.
The Coalition believes that attainment can be achieved by the end
of the 2009 ozone season, at least 1 year in advance of the Clean Air
Act requirement as proposed by EPA. However, implementation of controls
can require from 1-3 years (e.g., implementation of stationary control
measures or introduction of reformulated gasoline) or more (e.g.,
introduction new alternative fueled vehicles require many years of
fleet turnover before the emission benefits are realized). Furthermore,
once the most cost-effective control measures have been identified,
then 1-2 years of review, public comment, and refinement are needed
prior to regulation adoption. Thus, we estimate that all of the
technical analysis to identify the most cost-effective control measures
for achieving attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS needs to be
completed approximately 5 years before their spring implementation,
e.g., by July, 2001.
Further, the Coalition proposes that certain States provide SIP's
to implement Phase I reductions by April of 2000 as well. The timeframe
is based on giving regulated sources until April of 2002 to begin to
implement Phase I reductions (see Section 5) and to implement 8-hour
attainment strategy controls by April of 2007.
3.4 Key Issues
Several key technical issues will need to be addressed in the
course of developing the technical analysis necessary to determine an
8-hour control strategy. These include the following:
3.4.1. Continue Diagnostic Evaluation of OTAG Models: Further
analysis of the UAM-V/CAMx base case model performance,
particularly at sub-regional and urban-scales, is needed
with particular focus on the models ability to reproduce
ozone exceedances, precursor species, and species ratios.
3.4.2. Continue QA on OTAG Data Bases: Further quality assurance
should be performed on the OTAG emissions inventories and
aerometric data sets, particularly those being used in
post-OTAG analyses.
3.4.3. Assess the Suitability of the OTAG Episode for 8-hr Modeling
in the Southwest/Midwest Nonattainment Areas. The rationale
for selecting the 4 OTAG episodes did not necessarily
ensure that the conditions ultimately chosen are the best
periods for 1-hr and 8-hr ozone attainment modeling in
areas such as Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Atlanta,
and so on. Consideration will need to be given to whether
additional episodes need to be examined as well.
3.4.4. Assess Whether Attainment of the 8-hr Standard Implies
Attainment of the 1-hr Standard. The greater stringency of
the new 8-hr standard suggests that if it is met by States
within the Coalition region, then the 1-hr standard will
likely be met as well. While the OTAG modeling and other
stakeholder modeling has shown that there is strong
similarity in the responses of peak 1-hr and 8-hr ozone
concentrations to precursor controls, some investigation is
warranted into whether attainment of the 8-hr: standard
necessarily means that the 1-hr will be met or approached
as well. Particular attention should be given to whether
there are situations where emissions controls for
attainment of the 8-hr standard might, in fact, exacerbate
attempts to achieve the 1-hr standard in certain areas.
3.4.5. Provide Adequate Time and Resources for the Subregional
Modeling Analyses: It will take considerable time and
resource requirements to carefully design subregional
control scenarios to cost-effectively mitigate local ozone
exceedance problems and avoid new exceedances while at the
same time contributing, were appropriate, to an
amelioration of the ozone exceedances in the most severe
areas. Beginning with the SIPs developed in the early
1970's, there has never been adequate time and resources
given to addressing this fundamental question. If
appropriate time and resources are again not provided, the
same incrementalism that has been the hallmark of the SIP
processes for nearly two decades may be expected to
continue.
3.5 Technical Approach
The Coalition urges that the implementation of this plan be pursued
in accordance with the following schedule:
<bullet> 04/01/00 Coalition States will submit legally enforceable
Phase I emission reduction requirements
<bullet> 07/31/01 Completion of modeling and analysis for
attainment of 8-hour NAAQS
<bullet> 04/01/02 Implementation of Phase I utility NOx reductions
of at least the lesser of 55 percent or .35 lb/MMBtu from the 1990
level, subject to a 1 year energy disruption exemption
<bullet> 07/31/03 Submit ozone NAAQS attainment SIPs
<bullet> 04/01/04 Implementation of Phase I utility NOx reductions
of at least the lesser of 65 percent or .25 lb/MMBtu from the 1990
level, subject to a 1 year energy disruption exemption
<bullet> 04/01/09 Implementation of Phase II controls
<bullet> 09/30/09 Attain ozone NAAQS
3.5.1. Definition of the Analysis Improvements of Current
Databases
Completion of this task will result in available data and
databases, data gaps and uncertainties, additional data needs, and
definition of the analysis to be performed subsequently. The following
activities will be considered in individual States or cooperating State
assessment efforts:
<bullet> Develop a prioritized list of key nonattainment areas in
the Coalition States region for which modeling analyses are to be
targeted;
<bullet> Assess the suitability of current OTAG models and data
bases for addressing 1-fur and 8-hr1 ozone attainment issues in these
key areas. Develop new modeling episode(s) if necessary; diagnose poor
model performance and rectify performance problems where necessary;
<bullet> Improve the OTAG emissions inventories where feasible,
consistent with the scope of the refined subregional modeling;
<bullet> Review and synthesize pertinent past studies to help
guide the analysis;
<bullet> Identify and integrate the new improved post-OTAG
modeling databases into the analysis. These databases include both OTAG
spin-off data bases and new higher quality data bases that are
beginning to come available.
OTAG spin-off data bases that are now complete or expected to be
complete for use in this analysis include at a minimum:
1. The LADCO/IEPA refined 4 km modeling data bases for 1991 LMOS
episodes;
2. The Tri-Sta data bases; and
3. The Missouri Electric Utility Environmental Committee (MEUEC)
refined 4 km data base.
4. The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) NARSTO July 1995 CAMx
and MAQSIP modeling data bases based on new high resolution emissions
modeling and high resolution MM5 meteorological modeling;
5. The CRC LMOS June/July 1991 CAMx and MAQSIP modeling data bases
based on new high resolution emissions modeling and high resolution MM5
meteorological modeling;
6. NYSDEC/SUNY 3 month 1995 seasonal UAM-V modeling data base;
7. EPA's MODELS3 data bases; and
<bullet> Identify models to be used in the analysis.
<bullet> Identify sources and uncertainties in economic data
needed to perform cost-effectiveness analysis;
<bullet> Identify data gaps and shortfalls and what additional
information needs to be obtained to perform a technically justified and
comprehensive analysis; and Evaluation of Phase I emission controls to
determine their benefits for achieving attainment of the 1-hour and 8-
hour NAAQS in the Midwest/Southeast nonattainment areas and level of
reductions of ozone transport. Evaluate whether Phase I emissions
reductions will result in ozone disbenefits.
3.5.2. Data base Development and Model Performance
Evaluation
The second task is to develop the data bases and tools needed to
perform the refined modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis to
determine the optimal control measures for achieving attainment of the
1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the nonattainment areas in the
Coalition States. Specific elements to be performed include the
following:
<bullet> Acquisition of data bases and data to develop high
quality refined modeling data bases. Acquisition or generation of
missing data to fill data gaps and reduce uncertainties;
<bullet> Development of base case emissions and meteorological
data bases (as necessary as defined in the first task);
<bullet> Performance of base case photochemical model simulations
and comprehensive model performance evaluation. Model performance
evaluation will be much more detailed than performed for OTAG and will
(as well as many other consider the following elements):
<bullet> Ability of the model to reproduce ozone exceedances in
the key nonattainment areas;
<bullet> Ability of the model to reproduce ozone precursors and
key indicators to determine whether model is reproducing the chemical
regimes that produced the ozone exceedances; and
<bullet> Establish 2007 CAA Baseline 1-hr and 2010 CAA Baseline 8-
hr ozone conditions throughout the OTAG domain for pertinent modeling
episodes; and.
<bullet> Conduct Roll-Out modeling (see Imhoff and Gautney, 1998
or Morris et al., 1998b) from each problem area to assess the extent of
the geographical regions whose emissions influence 1-hr and 8-hr ozone
concentrations in the problem areas.
3.5.3. Identify Optimal Control Strategies for Coalition
States, Nonattainment Areas
EPA's SIP call is based on a massive reduction in NOx emissions
throughout a 22-State area. EPA's justification is that such a large
emission reduction will produce widespread ozone benefits. While it is
not difficult to provide examples to contradict EPA's position nor is
it difficult to show that their approach is counter to the Clean Air
Act, the Coalition has chosen not to focus on the technical
shortcomings of the SIP call. Instead, the Coalition has attempted to
craft alternative proposals that are reasonable, cost effective and
more universally supported. One of the tools employed by the Coalition
to achieve this objective is the CAMx model.
Regional models such as CAMx are beneficial in assessing transport.
However, because of their relatively large grid size, they typically
are not used to project ``attainment''. Unfortunately, since EPA has
frequently supported the SIP call on the basis of projected attainment
as indicated by the UAM-V model, we were forced to review model results
with a view toward attainment. Doing so in no way infers that the
Coalition believes that regional modeling can be substituted for
subregional modeling when conducting attainment demonstrations. That
would have serious consequences because, among other things, NOx
disbenefits would be underestimated.
The CAMx runs conducted for the Coalition allow several general
conclusions to be made:
<bullet> The contribution of low level and elevated sources to
ozone formation from the Coalition States is comparable.
<bullet> The largest fraction of the ozone in a receptor area is
due to emissions from within that receptor area and from adjacent
States.
<bullet> In some cases, the level of transport from non-SIP call
States (a.k.a., the coarse grid States) is greater than that from the
SIP call States. This is most evident for the receptor areas in the
Midwest.
<bullet> Levels of ozone from biogenics, initial conditions and
boundary conditions are sometimes as high or higher than from
transport.
For the 1-hour standard, at the majority of the receptors, most of
the ozone (usually 60 percent or more) is due to emissions in the
receptor State and adjacent States. This effect is most pronounced in
the OTR States. For the 8-hour) standard, local and adjacent State
contributions are also most significant, but less so than for the 1-
hour standard.
An examination of the CAMx results performed by Alpine Geophysics
for the application of the SIP call and several alternatives to it
demonstrates that the SIP call will not result in attainment
particularly in the Northeast. Moreover, application of NOx controls in
the midwest and southeast will have little or no impact on the
northeast beyond the benefits that would result from applying the SIP
call only to the Inner Zone of the Northeast Ozone Transport Region.
In the CAMx analyses contained in the enclosed graphics, impacts on
the Northern, Central and Southern corridors are examined for each of
the following 5 control strategies.
1. Base--Clean Air Act Base (Year 2007 CAAA controls, Title IV,
etc.)
2. SIP/Inner--SIP call controls in the inner zone of the OTR; Phase
II MOU controls in the outer zone of the OTR; Year 2007 CAAA controls,
Title IV, etc., base elsewhere;
3. 55 percent MU--SIP call controls in the inner zone of the OTR;
Phase II MOU controls in the outer zone of the OTR; 55 percent /0.35
lb/hr NOx on electric utility boilers >250 MMBtu in IL, IN, KY, MI, OH,
TN, VA, WV, WI, the fine grid portion of MO, and in the outer zone of
the OTR; Year 2007 CAAA controls, Title IV, etc., base elsewhere; and
4. 65 percent/MW--SIP call controls in the inner zone of the OTR;
Phase II MOU controls in the outer zone of the OTR; 65 percent/0.25 lb/
hr NOx on electric utility boilers > 250 to in IL, IN, KY, MI, OH, TN,
VA, WV, WI and the fine grid portion of MO; Year 2007 CAAA controls,
Title IV, etc., base elsewhere;
5. SIP/Call--SIP call controls applied over the full OTAG domain
for the 1991 and 1995 OTAG episodes.
From the CAMx results it is apparent that in the development
strategies the following conclusions are applicable:
<bullet> The SIP call reductions exceed what is necessary for most
areas to address transport implications and will be counter productive
in some areas.
<bullet> The SIP call will not result in attainment of either
standard in many areas. CAMx results can be used to identify areas
where detailed subregional modeling should be conducted as envisioned
by OTAG.
<bullet> CAMx has quantified ozone contributions from each State.
This information, coupled with control cost data, can be used to
estimate benefits on a dollar per ppb basis. Attainment demonstrations
must be based on more detailed subregional modeling as called for by
OTAG.
<bullet> Contribution from individual States vary significantly,
verifying that EPA's one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate.
<bullet> Additional local controls will be necessary to comply
with the new 8-hour standard in many areas.
<bullet> The model may result in underestimation of the benefits
of VOC controls, overestimation of the benefits of NOx controls, is due
to SIP call and underestimation of NOx disbenefits. This the high
proportion of biogenic VOCs in EPA's inventory. This high level of
biogenic emissions dominates the anthropogenic VOC emissions over most
of the region.
Identification of the optimal VOC and NOx control measures needed
to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in nonattainment areas of the
Coalition States will involve the following activities.
<bullet> Develop candidate subregional emissions control programs
for each problem area based on results of previous modeling analyses
(e.g., pertinent OTAG and post-OTAG studies). Estimate control
requirements for 8-hr attainment in each Southeast/Midwest Coalition
State problem areas separately;
<bullet> Integrate findings from above problem area analyses into
one or more composite subregional strategies aimed a providing for 8-hr
attainment in multiple Southeast/Midwest problem areas. Included as
part of this analysis would be identifying and mitigating the potential
for ozone disbenefits to occur in an area as the result of a proposed
control measure;
<bullet> Repeat preceding two steps if necessary to reach a matrix
of subregional VOC and/or NOx emissions controls throughout the
Coalition States that achieves the 8-hr standards in the problem areas;
and
<bullet> Integrate cost data into the alternative VOC and/or NOx
ozone attainment emission control strategies to identify a matrix of
optimal most cost-effective VOC/NOx emissions control strategies that
achieve attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Midwest/Southeast
nonattainment areas.
3.5.4 Comparative Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of
Local Versus More Distant Control Measures for
Reducing Ozone Exceedances
In the development of control strategies, cost effectiveness should
consider the cost as well as the effectiveness of the control; i.e. the
downwind benefit that a control has on ozone concentrations.
Recognizing that not all NOx is created equal, control strategies
should not seek to reduce cost-effectively NOx, but rather to reduce
cost-effectively ozone. Any control strategy should determine the most
cost-effective controls available to produce a demonstrated downwind
impact. Ultimate control strategies should not utilize cost/ton of the
controls as the primary consideration in determining cost
effectiveness. Rather, cost-effectiveness should be calculated in terms
of a cost per ppb of ozone removed.
The Cost/Benefit Analysis of OTAG Modeling Results was presented at
the June 3, 1997 OTAG Policy Group Meeting. This document is not only
part of the formal record for OTAG but is part of the NOx SIP Call
Comments as well. To date this is the only known comparable analysis
that has been publicly presented which takes into consideration cost
per unit of ozone removed. While the analysis did not provide an
absolute finding of cost-effectiveness, it did provide a relative
comparison of cost-effectiveness across regional areas.
This analysis normalized cost-effectiveness considering all four
OTAG episodes for the three identified 1-hour nonattainment areas and
assumed comparable controls across OTAG Zones I-V. This analysis showed
that NOx reductions from sources internal to Zones I, III, and V
containing the current 1-hour nonattainment areas were more cost-
effective on a per unit ozone removed basis than sources internal to
Zones II and IV.
For example, utility controls applied in the Northeast Corridor
(Zone III), the Lake Michigan Area (Zone I), and Georgia (Zone V), were
shown to be 24 times more cost-effective at reducing ozone in the
Baltimore/Washington area, 22 times more cost effective at reducing
ozone in the Lake Michigan area, and 11 times more cost-effective at
reducing ozone in the Atlanta area, respectively, than utility controls
applied in Zone IV. Similarly, utility controls applied in the Lake
Michigan area and Georgia would be 54 and 150 times respectively more
cost-effective than controls in Zone II.
This analysis identified comparable costs between Zone II
reductions and those in the Southern Corridor of the Northeast
nonattainment area (Zone III). An important factor in this comparison
was the exclusion of the costs associated with the OTC NOx-MOU in the
Zone III area. This and other assumptions, such as using the costs
associated across an entire Zone rather than limiting costs to a
specific receptor area, as well as a uniform cost of controls across
all Zones, contributed to this conclusion.
A state-by-state demonstration of the cost-effectiveness of any
reductions necessary to achieve attainment of the 1-hour standard is
needed. A reduction of ``x'' tons of NOx in State A may have no impact
on attainment in State B. However, an identical reduction of ``x'' tons
in State B may have a marked effect on ozone in State B. Uniformity in
control is not uniformity in effect. Less stringent controls in some
areas may actually be more cost effective in terms of cost/ppb of ozone
reduced (or dollars/percent ozone reduction) than the most stringent
controls elsewhere. The only way to determine this is to examine the
full range of controls and calculate the costs and downwind ozone
benefits of each set of controls. Models have been developed which will
provide least cost options for reducing ozone concentrations and
studies utilizing such models are ongoing. States need sufficient time
to perform such an analysis and to evaluate appropriate actions.
3.5.5. Review, Refinement, and Public Outreach
Public outreach regarding the control plan development will be
critical to receiving comment from the regulated community, public and
governmental entities. Accordingly, the Coalition will assure that a
mechanism is provided for full, regular, and meaningful public
participation in the Coalition States modeling and analysis program;
and that refined final control plans be based on public comments.
3.5.6. Rules and Implementation
The final task of the initiative will involve the Coalition States
making rules for the control measures and for affected sources to
implement the control technologies. It will therefore be critical for
States to develop and promulgate rules for the control measures in the
Coalition States and affected sources to implement control measures to
achieve necessary emissions reductions prior to the ozone season in
2007.
4.0 Phase I Reductions
4.1. Reduction Levels
An integral part of the overall strategy for emission reductions is
the commitment by States to Phase I emission reductions. Such
reductions will be targeted for implementation during the ozone seasons
in 2002 and 2004.
It is anticipated that implementation of Phase I reductions will
result in emission reductions that will vary on a state-by-state basis
as companies elect to over-control some units and under-control others
to achieve a company wide average. To determine the level of Phase I
reductions, the geographic scope, and the resultant improvement in air
quality, the following actions were undertaken:
1. Use of On-Going UAM-V Modeling--At least two groups, LADCO and a
joint venture among Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia, conducted
modeling which the Technical Committee felt is germane to the
development of its proposal.
2. Review Existing UAM-V Modeling--A significant amount of UAM-V
modeling has been completed since the OTAG process concluded. Some of
this modeling was post-processed to determine sub-regional impact
estimates. A significant effort was necessary to coordinate and analyze
the necessary post-processing. A summary of the studies conducted in
the first two work elements regarding UAM-V modeling is appended to
this Technical Support Document as Appendix 1.
3. Utilization of On-Going and Existing CAMx Modeling--A great deal
of modeling using the CAMx model has been and is being conducted.
Analysis of existing results, including post-processing of the model
output, was helpful in developing the alternative proposal.
4. Cost per Ton NOx Removed Analysis--Another piece of the ozone
management puzzle which the Technical Committee explored is the cost of
various control scenarios.
5. Initial Early NOx Reductions--One of the perspectives examined
in developing the alternative proposal was to determine what regulated
sources could achieve in NOx reductions in advance of refined analyses
being performed.
Upon completion of the work elements and following review of the
results and recommendations by the Technical Committee, the Governors
Committee met and adopted the following Phase I emission
recommendation:
<bullet> All Coalition States other than Alabama and South
Carolina will require a reduction of NOx emissions form electric
utilities within our States equivalent to at least the lesser of a
system wide emission rate of .25 lbs/MMBtu or a 65 percent level of
reduction (from 1990 levels). These reductions will be in place by
April of 2004, unless a demonstration is made that an additional year
is necessary to avoid disruption of the energy supply in our States.
<bullet> To assure early progress in reducing emissions, these
same tes will also require at least the lesser of a system wide
emission rate of .35 lb/MMBtu or a 55 percent level of reduction (from
1990 levels). These reductions would be in place by April of 2002,
unless a demonstration is made that an additional year is necessary to
avoid disruption of the energy supply in our States. We will also
require reductions from other large (greater than 250 MMBtu heat input)
non-utility sources of NOx by April of 2003. These State reductions
will be coordinated with USEPA's on-going Industrial Combustion
Coordinated Rulemaking. The control level for these non-utility sources
will be based upon Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT).
State regulations requiring these reductions will be in place within 18
months of the final rulemaking by USEPA.
<bullet> While we commit to limit the emissions of NOx from these
sources in Phase I, we approach of a mandatory States. The Clean Air do
not agree with USEPA's proposed emission cap, or budget, for our Act
provides the States with the authority and responsibility for making
this choice. While some of our States may choose to implement a cap,
many may not.
4.2. Air Quality Impacts
The Coalition anticipates that substantial air quality benefits
will result even from its Phase I reductions with additional reductions
as necessary to achieve the 8-hour' standard within the Coalition
States. CAMx modeling runs performed by Alpine Geophysics allow a side-
by-side comparison to be made between EPA's SIP Call and a 65
percent/.25 control strategy similar to that recommended by the
Coalition.
The figures that follow make such a comparison first with respect
to the 1991 episode and then the 1995 episode. The 65 percent/.25
control strategy (on the right in each case) that is being compared
against the SIP Call (on the left in each case) contains the following
controls:
07SIP2a controls in the inner zone of the OTR; Phase II MOU
controls in the outer zone of the OTR; 65 percent/0.25 lb/hr NOx on
electric utility boilers >250 MMBtu in IL, IN, KY, MI, OH, TN, VA,
WV, WI, and the fine grid portion of MO; 07EPA1a base elsewhere.
The Coalition takes no position at this time as to the merit of any
particular control strategy in Northeast Ozone Transport Regions and
offers these graphics to illustrate the air quality benefits of its
proposed Phase I reductions in a geographic area that closely
proximates the scope of its proposal.
Phase II analyses will be used to address all remaining hour areas
projected to exceed the ozone NAAQS and the 8-hour ozone NAAQS within
the Coalition States.
5.0 Trading
The Coalition favors providing for an appropriate trading program.
The alternative plan does not require an overall emissions cap, but
does allow States the flexibility to establish such caps at their
discretion.
6.0 Conclusion
The Southeast/Midwest Governors Ozone Coalition is pleased to have
the opportunity to advance its proposed alternative to EPA's proposed
NOx SIP call. This proposal is offered in the belief that it offers an
answer to the ozone dilemma facing the Nation that is not only
equitable and cost effective, but which for the first time assures that
there is the strongest possible commitment to attain and maintain the
national ambient air quality standard for ozone.
No one should minimize the extraordinary effort that will need to
be undertaken to perform the assessment of air quality to determine the
types of controls that will need to be put in place to achieve the 8-
hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone. This proposal
provides for an appropriate opportunity to allow this assessment to be
conducted to assure that the ultimate control strategy selected will
indeed comply with the standard and do so on a cost-effective basis.
In the meantime, the proposal brings about significant reductions
of NOx principally through controls on electric utility boilers. Phase
II controls, however, will likely require the imposition of controls on
many other sources, including other point sources as well as area and
mobile sources.
The Coalition is committed to taking the actions set forth in this
proposal to assure that all Americans are afforded the opportunity to
live and work in an environment free of air quality concerns related to
ozone.
______
references
Cass, G.R., and G.J. McRae, 1981. ``Minimizing the Cost of Air
Pollution Control'', Environmental Science and Technology, Vol.15, No.-
7.
EPA, 1996. ``Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate
Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,'. EPA-454/B-95-007, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA, 1997. ``Calculation of Budget Components: Technical Support
Document'' prepared by the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Imhoff, R.E., and L.L. Gautney, 1998. ``Regional Photochemical
Model Estimation of the Scale of Ozone Transport in the Eastern U.S.'',
10th Conference on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology with the
Air and Waste Management Association, American Meteorological Society,
11-16 January, Phoenix, AZ.
Koerber, M, 1998. ``OTAG Modeling Results'', proceedings of the
10th Joint Conference on the Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology,
11-16 January, 1998, Phoenix, AZ.
Lurmann, F. and N. Kumar, 1997. ``Evaluation of the UAM-V Model
Performance in OTAG Simulations: Summary of Performance Against Surface
Observations'', Final report prepared by Sonoma Technology, Inc.,
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group, Research Triangle Park, NC.
MOG, 1996. ``Ozone Attainment: Proceeding in the Right Direction?',
prepared by the Midwest Ozone Group.
Morris, R.E., 1996a, ``Review of Recent Ozone Measurement and
Modeling Studies in the Eastern United States'', Draft Final Report,
prepared for the Ozone Transport Assessment Group, prepared by ENVIRON
International Corp., Novato, CA.
Morris, R.E., 1996b, ``Preliminary UAMx Ozone Source Apportionment
Modeling Using the OTAG July 1991 B2 Base Case Data Base,'' prepared by
ENVIRON International Corp., Novato, CA.
Morris, R.E. 1997. ``Review of NESCAUM Report on Long-Range
Transport of Ozone and its Precursors in the Eastern U.S.'',
prepared for the Midwest Ozone Group, prepared by ENVIRON
International Corp., Novato, CA.
Morris, R.E., 1998a. ``Review and Critique of the November 7, 1997
EPA Ozone Transport SIP call and Assessment of the Contribution of
Emissions from Missouri on Nonattainment Using the July 1995 OTAG Data
base, prepared for the Missouri Electric Utility Environmental
Committee, prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA.
Morris, R.R., E. Tai, G. Wilson, and D. Weiss, 1998b. ``Use of
Advanced Ozone Source Apportionment Techniques to Estimate Area of
Influence (AOI) Contributions to Elevated Ozone Concentrations'',
presented at 91st Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the Air and Waste
Management Association, San Diego, California June 14-18, 1998.
National Academy of Sciences. 1991. Rethinkinq the Ozone Problem in
Urban and Reqional Air Pollution, National Academy Press, Washington,
DC.
OTAG, 1996. ``Modeling Protocol'', Version 3.0, prepared by the
Ozone Transport Assessment Group, 29 February.
OTAG, 1997a. ``Modeling Report'', Draft Version 1.1, prepared by
the Ozone Transport Assessment Group, 12 February.
OTAG, 1997b ``Ozone Transport Assessment Group Executive Report,
1997'', prepared by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group.
Tesche, T.W., et al,. 1998a. `iReview of the EPA Ozone Transport
SIP Call and Recent Post-OTAG Modeling and Analysis Studies'', prepared
for the States of Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, prepared by Alpine
Geophysics, LLC, Covington, KY and ENVIRON International, Novato, CA.
Tesche, T.W., et al., 1998b. ``Assessment of the Reliability of the
OTAG Modeling System, proceedings of the 10th Joint Conference on the
Applications of Air Pollution MeteoroloqY,-11-16 January, 1998,
Phoenix, AZ.
Tesche, T.W., et al., 1998c. ``Tri-State Regional Ozone Modeling
Study: Results of the Sub-Regional Modeling of the EPA Section 110 SIP
call'', prepared for the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce,
prepared by Alpine Geophysics, LLC, Covington, KY.
Tesche, T.W., et al., 1998h, ``Analysis of the Effects of VOC and
NOx Emissions Reductions in the Eastern United States on Peak 1-hr and
8-hr Ozone Concentrations'' prepared for the Midwest Ozone Group,
prepared by Alpine Geophysics, LLC, Covington, KY.
Yarwood, G., R.E. Morris, C. Emery, and G. Wilson, 1998b. ``Recent
Advances in Regional Photochemical Grid Modeling and Application using
the OTAG Modeling Data bases, presented at 91st Annual Meeting and
Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Association, San Diego,
California June 14-18, 1998.
______
Appendix 1 Summary of UAM-V Modeling Projects
summary
Significant regional and subregional modeling efforts were
undertaken by States and other stakeholders, both during and after the
OTAG effort, using the UAM-V model. Additionally, important work by the
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) was nearing completion
while this report was being compiled. This work is critical in
developing control strategies that appropriately address NOx reduction
disbenefits noted below. The UAM-V model was the model of choice for
the OTAG evaluations of transport into the serious 1 hour ozone
nonattainment areas. Most efforts were designed to evaluate the impact
of various levels of controls as well as the effectiveness of different
control strategies. The large volume of additional modeling data
provided additional insight into the degree and range of transport in
ways not originally considered in the OTAG process. The results of
these analyses indicate that there is not a modeling basis for the
requested level of control contained in the OTAG SIP call notice nor a
basis for extending those controls beyond the serious nonattainment
areas.
<bullet> Local Controls Most Effective: Most of the ozone
reduction benefits of the EPA's SIP Call control strategy in a
nonattainment area are due to controls in or immediately downwind of
the nonattainment area.
<bullet> Ozone Improvements Occur Predominantly in Non-Problem
Areas: Most of the ozone reductions due to the EPA's SIP Call control
plan occur in attainment or near-attainment areas, reducing ozone
concentrations to levels well below the NAAQS.
<bullet> Diminishing Effectiveness of Point Source NOx Control:
There is very little difference in the reductions in ozone
concentrations due to the Run A control strategy (55 percent controls
on major NOx point sources) versus the Run I control strategy (85
percent control on major NOx point sources); the extra reductions in
emissions from major NOx point sources from 55 percent to 85 percent is
not cost-effective or justified based on the ozone air quality
benefits.
<bullet> Controls on Nearest States Outside the OTR Yield Little
Ozone Benefit in the North East: The high modeled 1-hr average ozone
concentrations occurring in the northeast are not influenced
appreciably by sources in the States of KY, OH, and WV. Results from
modeling with two episodes (91, 95) reveals little (i.e., 2-6 ppb) or
no ozone reduction in the Northeast Corridor. Also, Virginia UAM-V
modeling results show that point source emissions from VA have little
impact on the northeast.
<bullet> Regional NOx Reductions Cause Isolated, Local Ozone
Disbenefits: OTAG modeling indicated NOx reduction disbenefits that
generated some controversy. Subsequent modeling confirms that
significant NOx reduction disbenefits do occur, as a result at EPA's
SIP call, particularly around Lake Michigan and near certain urban
areas including Baltimore (MD)-Washington (DC); Cincinnati, OH;
Louisville, KY; and Pittsburgh, PA.
background
On 8 July 1998 the OTAG Policy Group forwarded to EPA
recommendations approved by 31 States and the District of Columbia. The
most significant OTAG findings were:
<bullet> Modeling/Air Quality Conclusions: Regional NOx reductions
are effective in producing ozone benefits; the more NOx reduced, the
greater the benefit. Ozone benefits are greatest where emissions
reductions are made and diminish with distance.
<bullet> Elevated and low-level NOx reductions are both effective.
VOC controls are effective in reducing ozone locally and are most
advantageous to urban nonattainment areas.
<bullet> Additional Modeling and Air Quality Analysis: ``. . .
States must have the opportunity to conduct additional local and
subregional modeling and air quality analyses, as well as develop and
propose appropriate levels and timing of controls''. ``. . . priority
should be given to the serious and severe nonattainment areas of
Atlanta, Lake Michigan and the northeast, relative to transport''.
``OTAG recommends EPA evaluate States, timely submittal of comments and
subregional modeling regarding the proposed statewide budgets prior to
EPA's finalizing the SIP calls within 12 months of their proposal''.
<bullet> Utility NOx Control: ``. . . the range of utility NOx
controls in the fine grid fall between Clean Air Act controls and the
less stringent of 85-percent reduction from the 1990 rate (lb/MMBtu) or
0.15 lb/MMBtu in order to mitigate ozone transport and assist States in
complying with the existing 120 ppb ozone standard''.
<bullet> Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Controls:
``The OTAG States recommend that, where required by the Clean Air Act,
appropriate and effective vehicle emission and inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs be implemented., ``. . . States [should]
consider the option of enhanced I/M programs in all urbanized areas in
the fine grid with a population greater than 500,000.''
In response to the OTAG recommendation for additional regional and
subregional modeling, many stakeholder groups performed additional UAM-
V analyses. This combined work element summarizes the work completed
both during and after OTAG.
analysis
This work element was undertaken to evaluate all available UAM-V
modeling analyses which were performed during or after the OTAG
process. The following are summaries of the approaches, assumptions and
conclusions from UAM-V model efforts and ancillary studies performed
outside of OTAG which have been completed since the beginning of the
OTAG process.
MODELING STUDIES CONCURRENT WITH OTAG
OEPA State Specific UAM-V/CAMx Modeling
The Ohio EPA and the Midwest Ozone Group (MOG) jointly commissioned
a study to perform state-specific ozone control simulations using the
UAM-V model and the July 1991 and July 1995 OTAG modeling episodes. The
objective of this modeling was to test an underlying OTAG hypothesis,
namely that emissions from Midwestern States have an impact on ozone
concentrations in States farther to the east, including in the
Northeast Corridor. The UAMV model was exercised to examine the impact
of emissions reductions in several States (Kentucky, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, and the northeastern U.S.). The July 1991 and July 1995
OTAG episodes were used in conjunction with the 2007 Baseline OTAG
Baselc emissions inventory to model a total of eight (8) scenarios
based on the OTAG Round 2 Controls. Runs 11 and 8 defined with 2007
CEMla applied everywhere in OTAG domain except where OTAG Round 2
controls were applied:
The OEPA/MOG study concluded that:
<bullet> OTAG Round 2 controls in Kentucky produce 2-16 ppb ozone
reductions throughout large portions of northern Kentucky and southern
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio for both the July 1991 and July 1995 OTAG
episodes. Reductions above 2 ppb to not extend beyond Pittsburgh;
localized ozone disbenefits on the order of 2-9 ppb are predicted in
the Louisville nonattainment area.
<bullet> OTAG Round 2 controls in Illinois produce 2-14 ppb ozone
reductions throughout large portions of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
western Kentucky and Ohio during the 1995 episode and Ohio and
Pennsylvania during the 1991 episode. For the 1991 episode, reductions
of 2 ppb or greater extend to New York City; localized ozone disbene-
fits of 2 -23 ppb are modeled in the Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment
area.
<bullet> OTAG Round 2 controls in Pennsylvania produce 2-10 ppb
ozone reductions throughout large portions of Pennsylvania and
Maryland, southern New York State and western Connecticut during the
1995 episode; localized ozone disbenefits of 1 ppb are modeled in the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area.
<bullet> OTAG Round 2 controls in the Northeast U.S. produce a
broad region of ozone reductions in the 2-22 ppb range throughout
virtually the entire coastal northeast corridor during the 1991
episode; localized ozone disbenefits of 2-19 ppb in a few metropolitan
areas and over the Atlantic Ocean.
MOG Superregional Stakeholder Modeling
The Midwest Ozone Group (MOG) and other business and trade
organizations commissioned a Superregional ozone modeling study to
respond to the OTAG initiative. The Stakeholder Superregional Modeling
Study evolved, had three main objectives:
The project analyzed several key ozone and NOx model evaluation
statistics and graphical displays for the SAQM and UAM-V regional model
simulations of the 13-21 July 1991 OTAG episode.
This analysis focused on model inter-comparisons at the 12 km grid
scale since this is the most highly resolved scale used in OTAG.
MOG Subregional UAM-V Modeling
MOG also sponsored a subregional UAM-V ozone modeling study (Tesche
and McNally 1996g) to corroborate the OTAG modeling results and to
emphasize the need for subregional modeling as part of OTAG itself
(Table 4-4). The following UAM-V simulations were performed with the
13-21 July 1991 OTAG episode using the 07D2/Base B1 modeling inputs:
<bullet> Run 1: 60 percent NOx control from elevated sources in
the nonattainment areas;
<bullet> Run 2: 30 percent VOC and NOx control from elevated
sources in the nonattainment areas;
<bullet> Run 3: 60 percent NOx control from elevated sources in
the nonattainment areas and surrounding 100 km areas;
<bullet> Run 5: 30 percent VOC and NOx control from ground level
sources in the nonattainment areas; and
<bullet> Run 6: 30 percent VOC and NOx control from ground level
sources in the nonattainment areas and surrounding 100 km areas.
Key findings from the MOG subregional UAM-V emissions reduction
simulations for the 13-21 July 2007 OTAG episode included:
Maximum Ozone Increases
<bullet> 60 percent elevated source NOx control in nonattainment
areas and nonattainment areas plus 100 km increases ozone
concentrations on average by 25 ppb and 37 ppb, respectively;
<bullet> 30 percent ground level VOC and NOx control in
nonattainment areas and nonattainment areas plus 100 km increases ozone
concentrations on average by 16 ppb and 15 ppb, respectively; 60
percent elevated source NOx control throughout the OTAG domain
increases ozone concentrations on average by 26 ppb.
Maximum Ozone Decreases
<bullet> 60 percent elevated source NOx control in nonattainment
areas and nonattainment areas plus 100 km decreases ozone
concentrations on average by -18 ppb and -24 ppb, respectively;
<bullet> 30 percent ground level VOC and NOx control in
nonattainment areas and nonattainment areas plus 100 km decreases ozone
concentrations on average by -13 ppb and -14 ppb respectively;
<bullet> 60 percent elevated source NOx control throughout the
OTAG domain decreases ozone concentrations on average by -27 ppb.
Grid Total Differences
<bullet> 60 percent elevated source NOx control in nonattainment
areas increases grid total ozone concentrations on average by 5,970 ppb
while reductions in the nonattainment areas plus 100 km decreases grid
total ozone by -19,020 ppb;
<bullet> 30 percent ground level VOC and NOx control in
nonattainment areas increases grid total ozone concentrations on
average by 9,816 ppb while reductions in the nonattainment areas plus
100 km decreases grid total ozone by -2,959 pub;
<bullet> 60 percent elevated source NOx control throughout the
OTAG domain decreases grid total ozone concentrations on average by
77,468 ppb.
Reduction in Episode-Average Exceedance Grid Cells
<bullet> 60 percent elevated source NOx control (in nonattainment
areas and nonattainment areas plus 100 km) reduces the average number
of exceedance grid cells from 202 to values of 169 and 146,
respectively (-16 percent and -28 percent, respectively).
<bullet> 30 percent ground level VOC and NOx control (in
nonattainment areas and nonattainment areas plus 100 km) reduces the
average number of exceedance grid cells from 202 to values of 165 and
156, respectively (-18 percent and -23 percent, respectively).
The ``Ozone Free, States Modeling
This report examines if there was any significant impact on ozone
non-attainment problems in the upper Midwest or eastern U.S. at the
result of the application of emissions controls in Iowa, Minnesota,
Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. The impact of controls from
these northwest OTAG States were to be compared to emissions controls
applied locally to ozone nonattainment areas and near the OTAG 12 ozone
problem areas as a means for quantifying relative control
effectiveness.
Twelve (12) future year emissions control scenario simulations were
performed with the UAM-V model using the 10-18 July 1995 OTAG modeling
episode. The objective of these runs was to estimate the ground level
ozone impacts from man-made VOC and NOx emissions from the western tier
of States in the OTAG domain, i.e., the so-called Northwest OTAG
States. Of particular interest was the establishment of data allowing a
comparison of the impact of controls in the northwest OTAG States and
control applied locally in the 12 OTAG ``ozone problem areas''. The
scenarios included a progression of zero anthropogenic controls in the
northwest OTAG States, a series of controls in the 12 OTAG defined
``ozone problem areas'', and 5C controls on a state-by-state and
combined basis. 5C controls were defined consistent with the OTAG
sensitivity runs, with a 30 percent VOC reduction, 30 percent low level
NOx reduction and 60 percent elevated NOx reduction referenced against
year 2007 Base 1c projected emissions. The UAM-V modeling was performed
in accordance with OTAG's ``Maverick Modeling,' guidelines stipulated
by the Regional and Urban-Scale Modeling Workgroup co-chairs (Messrs.
Koerber and Tikvart) in their 4 February 1997 memorandum governing
stakeholder modeling. The principal conclusions drawn from the study
included:
<bullet> When 5C controls are applied to each of the five States
individually, the maximum difference on a region in the OTAG domain
above 100 ppb in the 2007 base year was 1.0 ppb for the simulation with
controls applied to Iowa;
<bullet> When 5C controls were applied to North and South Dakota
the maximum impact on any grid cell above 100 ppb was 0.1 ppb;
<bullet> When 5C controls were applied to Minnesota the maximum
impact on any grid cell above 100 ppb was 0.4 ppb;
<bullet> When 5C controls were applied to Nebraska the maximum
impact on any grid cell above 100 ppb was 0.1 pub;
<bullet> When 5C controls were applied to the five States
simultaneously, the maximum impact on any grid cell above 100 ppb was
1.0 ppb;
<bullet> When 5C controls were applied to the 12 OTAG ozone
nonattainment Problem areas'' the maximum impact on any grid cell above
100 ppb was 43.8 ppb;
<bullet> At a threshold of 2 pub, the maximum difference of any
emission control scenario on a region estimated to be above 100 ppb in
the 2007 base year was 2.8 ppb for a simulation zeroing out all five
States' anthropogenic emissions;
<bullet> When a simulation zeroing out anthropogenic emissions in
the 12 OTAG ozone nonattainment areas was applied, the maximum impact
on any grid cell above 100 ppb was a 141 ppb reduction in ground-level
ozone; and
<bullet> When the 5C controls were applied to the five States
simultaneously, the maximum impact on any grid cell above 80 ppb was
less than a 2 ppb in regions outside of the five northwest States. A
maximum local impact from application of 5C controls in the northwest
States of 9 ppb was observed in isolated grid cells north of the Twin
Cities and isolated grid cells near the eastern border of Iowa when an
80 ppb threshold was applied.
EPRI CEM-Enhanced UAM-V Modeling Study
A recent study by Enviroplan for the Midwest Ozone Group (MOG)
indicated that the OTAG emissions inventory overstated utility NOx
emissions based upon continuous emissions monitoring (CEM)data by 34
percent over the 1995 episode. In response, an EPRI-sponsored study was
performed (Emigh et al., 1997) to develop a CEM-enhanced inventory
using the OTAG inventory as the starting point and to perform baseline
and sensitivity UAM-V simulations using these CEM-enhanced emissions
(Table 4-6). The CEM-enhanced emissions were grown to the year 2007
using OTAG methodology, controlled using the OTAG 5C controls and UAM-V
baseline and sensitivity simulations carried out. The major findings of
this study were as follows:
<bullet> The CEM facility data were correlated with OTAG utility
data for 737 facilities. The OTAG data were replaced with CEM data
where the correlation could be made. The remaining utility temporal
files were modified on a state-by-state basis to be consistent with the
CEM temporal files;
<bullet> The CEM utility data were consistently less than the
corresponding OTAG utility emissions data on a day-to-day basis. The
CEM utility data were from 3.8 percent to 30.2 percent less than the
corresponding OTAG data. The CEM emissions estimates were approximately
13.4 percent less than the OTAG emissions estimates for the period of
the ozone episode;
<bullet> The variation between the CEM and the OTAG utility
emission data were the most pronounced on a state-by-state basis. The
CEM data are significantly less than the OTAG data in the transport
States;
<bullet> The UAM-V baseline simulation indicates little impact of
using the CEM-enhanced emissions on the domain ozone maximum.
However, there are significant differences in specific areas
located within the domain. The largest positive difference during the
1995 OTAG episode was 130 ppb on 11 July and the largest negative
difference was 97 ppb on 15 July. Large differences, much larger than
the regional differences, exceeded 50 ppb on several days during the
1995 episode;
In general, the CEM-enhanced emissions produced less ozone in the
Ohio River valley and more ozone in the southern portion of the domain;
and
The UAM-V sensitivity simulation using 5C controls applied to the
OTAG Subregions 5, 6 and 9 shows that controls placed on the CEM
emissions have relatively more impact than controls placed on the
Baselc inventory.
POST-OTAG MODELING STUDIES
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Attainment Demonstration Study
The Pittsburgh Ozone Modeling Study was aimed at characterizing the
processes whereby ozone is formed in and downwind of the seven-county
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area during high ozone episodes
and to identify strategies for its control. Three major activities were
carried out: (a) application of photochemical models to three recent
ozone episodes, (b) evaluation of three emission control strategies
developed by the Stakeholder's, and (c) additional modeling refinements
and control strategy simulations for the Pennsylvania DEP in support of
their efforts to develop an attainment demonstration for the region.
Modeling Methodology
While the models used in the Pittsburgh study were generally
consistent with EPA (1991) guidance, in several instances, notably in
the preparation of the meteorological fields, emissions inputs, and
boundary conditions to the guideline UAM-IV urban model, more
technically advanced models were used. These included the Emissions
Modeling System (EMS-95) (AG, 1995) and the PSU Mesoscale
Meteorological Model (MM5), and three state-of-science nested regional-
scale photochemical models--UAM-V, SAQM, and CAMx.
These regional models were used to develop and intercompare
estimates of ozone and ozone precursor boundary conditions to the UAM-
IV for the base case and 1996 future year urban-scale ozone
simulations.
The modeling episodes were drawn from the most recent five (5) year
historical record (1991 through 1995) with primary emphasis given to
the existence of significant ozone exceedances at numerous monitoring
stations during the episode and the availability of supplemental
ground-level and aloft aerometric data. The episodes selected were 31
July-2 August 1995, 13-15 July 1995 (the OTAG episode), and 17-19 June
1995. The various meteorological and photochemical models were set up,
exercised, and evaluated for the three episodes following an approved
protocol (Tesche et al., 1996d). An evaluation of the MM5
meteorological model for these episodes was reported by (Tesche and
McNally, 1996h) and the emissions inputs were developed using the EMS-
95 model as described by Loomis et al., (1996).
Control Strategy Evaluation
Future year (1996) emissions inventories for each episode were
developed using EPA/OTAG growth and control methodologies and region-
specific information (Loomis et al., 1996). Baseline UAM-IV simulations
were then performed for all three episodes using the interim
Stakeholder modeling files. Since base case performance for episode 3
was marginal, the emissions control scenarios developed by the
Stakeholders were examined only with episodes 1 and 2. Results of these
future year baseline and strategy simulations are summarized as
follows:
<bullet> All strategies produce ozone benefits and some
disbenefits (i.e., positive residuals);
<bullet> The ``1999 Equivalent Measures'' strategy for episode 1
produced the largest average and grid total ozone reductions across the
JAM--IV domain;
<bullet> The ``1999 Strategy'' for episode 1 produces the largest
ozone disbenefits and ozone-benefits, using the maximum residuals as
the measure of change;
<bullet> The ``1999 Strategy'' results for episodes 1 and 2 are
similar in the average and grid total residuals but under episode 2
conditions there are no ozone disbenefits (i.e., the maximum residuals
are negative).
<bullet> The final flexible attainment demonstration for the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area, using EPA's ``weight of evidence
approaches, indicated that it is likely that the emissions controls
represented in the 1996 attainment year emissions inventory will be
sufficient to lead to attainment of the 1-hr ozone NAAQS within the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment area without recourse to
relying on significant upwind VOC and/or NOx controls.
Cincinnati-Hamilton Interim Attainment Demonstration Study
This study presents the results of a photochemical modeling study
carried out for the States of Kentucky and Ohio to examine the levels
of VOC and/or NOx emissions controls that might be needed in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton region to bring the area into attainment with the
Federal 1-hr ozone standard by 1999. Nested UAM-V model simulations
were made using the 12-14 July 1995 OTAG episode to develop estimates
of model performance for the base year. The emissions inventory was
then projected to the year 1999 using OTAG-derived emissions growth and
control estimates. Based on the 1999 baseline UAM-V model simulation
which shows the region to attain the 1-hr standard, a generic emissions
reduction scenario was modeled to assess the need for further precursor
controls in the region.
For the interim modeling analyses, one OTAG episode, 12-14 July
1999, was modeled. The UAM-V was set up and applied over a nested 36/
12/4 km grid and tested the model's performance against measured
ground-level ozone concentrations during this historical period. Having
demonstrated model performance that does not reveal obvious performance
problems or difficulties, the 1995 emissions inventory was then
``grown'' to 1999 using the EMS-95 Emissions Modeling System and the
OTAG growth and control files to create a 1999 baseline inventory. A
subsequent UAM-V simulation on the 36/12/4 km grid provided an estimate
of the levels of peak ozone that are expected in the region in the
attainment year. This year 1999 baseline inventory did not assume any
additional emissions controls in the region beyond those already ``on
the books''.
To examine the sensitivity of 1999 ozone levels in the region to
emissions controls, one emissions reduction scenario was modeled: a 30
percent reduction in all anthropogenic VOC and NOx emissions across the
4 km domain. The implications of emissions controls upwind of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton region were further examined with the results of
recent UAM-V simulations for the July 1995 and 1991 episode in which
SIP level controls (i.e., 07SIP2a) implemented individually in the
States of Kentucky and Tennessee while the rest of the region was kept
at year 2007 baseline (i.e., 07EPA1a) conditions. The results of these
model calculations, presented in Subsection 5.10 under the Tri-State
Study, suggest that an enlargement of the 4 km grid region currently
proposed for the Cincinnati-Hamilton SIP demonstration may be
appropriate.
The main findings of this analyses are as follows:
Future Year (1999) Baseline Results. UAM-V modeling with an interim
future year (1999) emissions inventory revealed that the maximum ozone
concentration on the 4 km grid on 14 July was 140 ppb northeast of
Louisville, upwind of the seven-county Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone
nonattainment area. The peak prediction in the nonattainment area was
131.8 ppb in extreme southwestern Boone County (Florence, Kentucky).
Once the EPA ``weight of evidence, analyses (EPA, 1996) are performed
for Cincinnati, this episode will likely pass the attainment
demonstration test without the need for significant further controls.
The ozone exceedances modeled northeast of Louisville appear to be the
result of emissions from Louisville and upwind Kentucky and Tennessee
sources and not the Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area.
<bullet> Effects of a 30 percent VOC and NOx Emissions Reduction
Scenario: A future year 30 percent VOC and NOx emissions control
inventory was modeled by reducing all anthropogenic emissions source
categories in the 1999 baseline inventory by 30 percent. There was
virtually no change in the maximum 4 km regionwide impact northeast of
Louisville. The 30 percent VOC and NOx control scenario reduced the
number of exceedance grid cells from 135 to 75. In addition, the peak
concentrations in the nonattainment area were reduced to well below the
standard (i.e., the peak prediction on 14 July 1999 was reduced to
120.8 ppb).
The results also showed that implementation of the 30 percent
controls in the Cincinnati-Hamilton region are expected to lower peak
ozone concentrations on the 14th by 2-6 ppb in several subregions.
However, ozone increases are also modeled in several areas ranging from
2 to 10 ppb. Thus, this result suggest that developing an optimal
control strategy for the region may not be a simple task since the
issue of ozone benefits and disbenefits must be carefully examined and
considered.
<bullet> Role of Upwind States on Attainment Efforts in
Cincinnati: Analysis of existing CAMx and UAM-V simulations for the
full OTAG episodes indicates the existence of subregional plumes of
ozone and its precursors extending up the Ohio river through
Cincinnati. Examination of recent UAM-V modeling of the effects of SIP
Call controls on sources in Kentucky and Tennessee indicates that
sources in both States have a direct impact on ozone levels in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment region. Furthermore, reductions in
emissions in Kentucky are predicted to lead to both ozone disbenefits
(i.e., 2-6 ppb ozone increases) and benefits (2-10 pub) in Cincinnati-
Hamilton nonattainment area for both the 1991 and 1995 episodes. These
results support the idea that attainment demonstration modeling in
Cincinnati must take account the incoming transport of ozone and
precursors from upwind areas as well as account for the downwind
transport of ozone past the region.
Tri-State Subregional Modeling and Analysis Study Tri-State Objectives
The three States of Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia are
sponsoring a regional photochemical modeling and analysis study aimed
at: (a) demonstrating attainment of the 1-hr ozone NAAQS in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton moderate interstate nonattainment area, (b)
evaluating the validity of the photochemical modeling used as the basis
for the EPA SIP call, (c) estimating the impact of NOx emissions from
Kentucky, West Virginia and Ohio sources on adjacent States and within
Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia, including the impacts of emissions
on the 1-hr and 8-hr ozone standards; and (d) assessing the impacts of
emissions from Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia on Pennsylvania.
For the Tri-State study, pertinent OTAG and regional modeling data
sets were used dozen UAM-V simulations to elucidate the emissions,
aerometric. to conduct nearly two potential impacts of emissions from
sources in one or more States in the Midwest on peak 1-her and 8-hr
ozone levels in the same or neighboring States as well as in more
distant, downwind States. The model runs were analyzed to assess the
reasonableness of the NOx controls set forth in the SIP call and
whether and to what extent lesser levels of controls will also achieve
the desired ozone reductions in key receptor regions within and
downwind of the Midwest States.
UAM-V Modeling Methodology
The Tri-State subregional modeling study consisted of the matrix of
twenty-two (22) UAM-V model simulations. The July 1991 and July 1995
OTAG meteorological episodes were used and the base year emissions were
scaled using OTAG growth and control factors to the forecast year of
2007. A 2007 base year inventory (i.e., 07EPA1a) and a year 2007 (i.e.,
07SIP2a) inventory reflecting the state-by-state emissions controls set
forth in the EPA SIP call. With these two inventories, a range of
emissions reduction scenarios (from less to more stringent) were
constructed using the EMS-95 emissions modeling system. The control
levels ranged from the year 2007 baseline (i.e., the ``EPA1a''
inventory) involving Clean Air Act required controls plus Title IV and
other reductions to the most stringent case, i.e., year 2007 SIP Call
controls reflected in the ``SIP2a'' inventory. An intermediate level of
controls, referred to as the ``Cinergy package'', were also examined.
The various SIP Call and Cinergy package controls were applied
selectively to particular States of interest in order to quantify the
impact of their emissions on local and more distant 1-hr and 8-hr ozone
levels.
The Tri-State UAM-V modeling was performed on the standard 36/12 Km
OTAG grid and the simulation results were post-processed to develop
estimates of the 1-hr and 8-hr ozone impacts in all States within the
36/12 Km OTAG region. These estimates were quantified in a number of
ways including: (a) of the number of hours throughout the episode that
grid cells within each State exceed specific concentration levels
(e.g., 100 ppb, 124 ppb, 140 ppb) for both base case model runs and
emissions control scenario runs, and (b) through the use of the so-
called OTAG ``objective measures,. The principal graphical and
statistical results of the 22 UAM-V modeling runs, summarized below,
were archived on CD-ROMs.
Year 2007 Base Case and SIP Call Results
Figures 5-10.1 and 5-10.2 present highlights of Runs 1 and 2, the
so-called Clean Air Act Baseline. The figures contain daily maximum 1-
hr and 8-hr ozone tile plots for the year 2007 baseline conditions
(i.e., 07EPA1a) for two high ozone days during each episode. These are
14 July from the 1995 OTAG Episode and 19 July from the 1991 OTAG
Episode. (The UAM-V results presented here are drawn from the 12 Km
OTAG ``fine grid'' domain). Analysis of the full set of daily maximum
ozone tile plots for these 2007 base case runs revealed the following:
Run 1: 2007 EPA1a Base case (1995). Significant areas of ozone
exceedances are predicted in the Lower Lake Michigan, Atlanta,
Richmond, Baltimore-Washington, Birmingham, and Louisville areas as
well as across a broad portion of the Northeast Corridor. The maximum
1-hr ozone concentration modeled during the 2007 baseline was 211 ppb
on 15 July in Atlanta. The number of daily maximum grid cells exceeding
124 ppb ranged from 36 to 400, with the highest number of exceedances
occurring on 15 July. (Most of these cells were over the Atlantic Ocean
however). The maximum modeled 8-hr ozone concentration was 177 ppb on
15 July in Atlanta. The number of daily maximum grid cells exceeding
124 ppb ranged from 14 to 265, with the highest number of 8-hr
exceedances occurring on 14 July. (Most of these cells were over Lake
Michigan)
Run 2: 2007 EPA1a Base case (1991). For the 1991 meteorological
episode, significant areas of ozone exceedances are predicted in the
Lower Lake Michigan, Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Baltimore-Washington
areas as well as across a broad portion of the Northeast Corridor. The
maximum 1-hr ozone concentration modeled during the 2007 baseline was
171 ppb on 19 July near Boston. The number of daily maximum grid cells
exceeding 124 ppb ranged from 15 to 383, with the highest number of
exceedances occurring on 21 July. (Most of these cells were over the
Atlantic Ocean). The maximum modeled 8-hr ozone concentration was 153
ppb on 21 July near Cape Cod. The number of daily maximum grid cells
exceeding 124 ppb ranged from O to 246, with the highest number of 8-hr
exceedances occurring on 21 July. (Most of these cells were over the
Atlantic Ocean).
Figures 5-10.3 and 5-10.4 present daily maximum 1-hr and 8-hr ozone
tile plots for Runs 3 and 4. These runs correspond to year 2007
conditions assuming fu77 implementation of the EM SIP Ca77 (i.e.,
07SIP2a). The same two high ozone days are depicted. Analysis of the
full set of daily maximum ozone tile plots for the Run 3 and 4 SIP Call
simulations revealed the following:
Run 3: 2007 SIP Call (1995). Significant areas of ozone exceedances
are still predicted in the Lower Lake Michigan, Atlanta, Richmond,
Baltimore-Washington, Birmingham, Louisville, and in broad portions of
the Northeast Corridor although the magnitude of the peak ozone
concentrations and the spatial distribution of the high ozone levels is
diminished somewhat from the 07EPA1a base case (Run 1). The maximum 1-
hr ozone concentration was 181 ppb on 15 July in Atlanta. This
represents a 30 ppb decrease from the Run 1 peak.
The number of daily maximum grid cells exceeding 124 ppb ranged
from 18 to 207, nearly a 50 percent reduction from Run 1.
The highest number of exceedances (on 15 July) again were located
the Atlantic Ocean. The maximum modeled 8-hr ozone concentration was
162 ppb on 10 July in Atlanta. The number of daily maximum grid cells
exceeding 124 ppb ranged from 0 to 120, with the highest number of 8-hr
exceedances occurring on 14 July. (Most of these cells were over Lake
Michigan)
Run 4: 2007 SIP Call (1991). For the SIP Call run with the 1991
meteorology, ozone exceedances are predicted in the Lower Lake
Michigan, New York, Cincinnati, Baltimore-Washington and Boston. The
maximum 1-hr ozone concentration modeled during the 2007 baseline was
158 ppb on 18 July near Cincinnati. The number of daily maximum grid
cells exceeding 124 ppb ranged from 5 to 108, with the highest number
of exceedances occurring on 20 July. (Most of these cells were over
Lake Michigan or the Atlantic Ocean). The maximum modeled 8-hr ozone
concentration was 139 ppb on 18 July near Cincinnati. The number of
daily maximum grid cells exceeding 124 ppb ranged from 0 to 41, with
the highest number of 8-hr exceedances occurring on 21 July over Long
Island.
It is thus apparent that the modeled effects of the EPA SIP Call
significantly reduce ozone levels across the eastern U.S. but do not
even come close to attainment of the 1-hr standard in the key problem
areas: Lower Lake Michigan and the Northeast Corridor.
Run 5: SIP Call Controls in KY, OH, and WV (1995). The episode
composite results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in
northern Kentucky, southern Ohio and through large portions of western
West Virginia in the high ozone areas (> 100 ppb). In addition, broad
regions of -2 to -10 ppb ozone reductions are modeled over Lake Erie
and the southern portion of the Northeast Corridor.
The daily maximum ozone residual plots (not shown) indicate broad
regions of ozone reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more
throughout much of Kentucky, southern Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia and
Pennsylvania on individual days. Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 14
ppb are modeled on certain days in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Cleveland,
Louisville, and at other locations along the Ohio River. The maximum
daily ozone increase and decrease during the episode were 25 ppb
(Paducah, 11 July) and -47 ppb (West Virginia, 15 July). Ozone
disbenefits were modeled as far east as northern New Jersey and ozone
reductions as large as 2 to 6 ppb were modeled in the Northeast on 14
July. The episode total grid cell hours > 124 ppb were reduced from
3200 to 2804 in Run 5 (-12.4 percent).
Run 6: SIP Call Controls in KY, OH, and WV (1991). The episode
composite results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in
northern Kentucky, southern Indiana, central Ohio and south-central
Pennsylvania in the high ozone areas (> 100 ppb). Broad regions of -2
to -10 ppb ozone reductions are modeled over the southern portion of
the Northeast Corridor. Ozone disbenefits of 6 to 10 ppb are simulated
in the Cincinnati region.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate broad regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
Kentucky, southern Indiana, southwestern Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia,
northern Virginia and Pennsylvania on individual days. Localized ozone
disbenefits of 2 to 30 ppb are modeled on several days in Louisville,
Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.
The maximum daily ozone increase and decrease during the episode
were 33 ppb (Pittsburgh, 16 July) and -35 ppb , 17 July). Very
extensive zone disbenefits were in Pittsburgh on 16 July and ozone
reductions in -6 ppb range are modeled as far as NH and VT on some
days. The episode total grid cell hours > 124 ppb were reduced from
2129 to 1832 in Run 6 (-14.0 percent).
Run 7: SIP Call Controls in KY and OH (1995). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in northern
Kentucky, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, over Lake Erie, and in
western West Virginia. A few isolated locations of -2 to -10 ppb ozone
reductions are modeled over the southern portion of the Northeast
Corridor. Ozone disbenefits of 6 ppb are simulated near Bowling Green.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate broad regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
Kentucky, southern Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, northern Virginia and
Pennsylvania on individual days. Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 20
ppb are modeled on several days in areas such as Louisville,
Cincinnati, Cleveland, and in various ``hot spots'' in western
Kentucky. The maximum daily ozone increase and decrease during the
episode were 25 ppb (southwestern KY, 11 July) and -37 ppb (near
Huntington, KY, 15 July). Isolated spots of ozone disbenefits appear in
Ohio and ozone reductions in the -2 to -6 ppb range are modeled no
farther east than New Jersey. The episode total grid cell hours > 124
ppb were reduced from 3200 to 2980 in Run 7 (-6.9 percent).
Run 8: Cinergy Controls in KY, OH, and WV (1995). The episode
composite results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in
central to northern Kentucky, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, over
Lake Erie, and in major portions of western West Virginia. A few
isolated locations of -2 to -10 ppb ozone reductions are modeled over
the southern portion of the Northeast Corridor and in Atlanta. Ozone
disbenefits of 2-4 ppb are simulated near Bowling Green and Memphis.
The daily maximum ozone residuals of ozone reduction in the range
of -2 to -14 ppb or more throughout much of Kentucky, Ohio, West
Virginia, northern Virginia and Pennsylvania on individual days.
Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 20 ppb are modeled on several days
in areas such as southern Kentucky, Louisville, Cincinnati, Cleveland,
Pittsburgh, and even into New Jersey. The maximum daily ozone increase
and decrease during the episode were 31 ppb (Paducah, KY, 12 July) and
-34 ppb (western WV, 15 July). Isolated spots of ozone disbenefits
appear in Ohio and several of the other in the -2 to -6 ppb range are
modeled as far as Rhode Island. The episode reduced from 3200 to 2862
in Run 8 (-10.6 percent).
Run 9: Cinergy Controls in KY, OH, and WV ( `91). The episode
composite results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in
western Kentucky, southern Indiana, central Ohio, central Pennsylvania,
and along the Ohio River in West Virginia. A broad region of -2 to -10
ppb ozone reductions are modeled over the southern portion of the
Northeast Corridor. Ozone disbenefits as high as 31 ppb are simulated
near Cincinnati.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate broad regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
Kentucky, Ohio, southern Indiana, West Virginia, northern Virginia and
Pennsylvania on individual days. Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 30
ppb are modeled on several days in areas such as Paducah, Louisville,
Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. The regions surrounding
Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are very significant areas of ozone
disbenefits on the 16th. The maximum daily ozone increase and decrease
during the episode were 32 ppb (Pittsburgh, 16 July) and -28 ppb
(Paducah, 17 July). Isolated spots of ozone disbenefits appear in Ohio
and other Midwestern States; ozone reductions in the -2 to -6 ppb range
are modeled as far as VT and NH. The episode total grid cell hours >
124 ppb were reduced from 2129 to 1907 in Run 9 (-10.4 percent).
Run 10: SIP Call Controls in KY (1995). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in western
Kentucky, southern Indiana, and in Ohio and West Virginia along the
Ohio River. An isolated region of -2 to -10 ppb ozone reductions is
modeled in Atlanta. Ozone disbenefits as high as 6 ppb are simulated
near Bowling Green, KY.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate modest regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
Kentucky, southern Indiana and Ohio, West Virginia, the western
Carolinas, and northern Georgia. Very little impact in Pennsylvania is
modeled on individual days. Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 20 ppb
are modeled on several days in areas including western Kentucky,
Louisville, and Maysville, KY. The maximum daily ozone increase and
decrease during the episode were 25 ppb (near Bowling Green, 11 July)
and -36 ppb (west-central KY, 15 July). Isolated spots of ozone
disbenefits appear in southwestern Indiana and southern Illinois. Ozone
reductions in the -2 to -6 ppb range are not modeled past eastern
Pennsylvania. The episode total grid cell hours > 124 ppb were reduced
from 3200 to 3051 in Run 10 (-4.7 percent).
Run 11: SIP Call Controls in OH (1995). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -10 ppb or more in western
West Virginia and eastern Ohio, over Lake Erie, and in western Ohio. A
few isolated locations of -2 to -6 ppb ozone reductions are modeled in
Maryland. Ozone disbenefits of 2-3 ppb are simulated near Cincinnati.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate broad regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -10 ppb or more throughout much of
Ohio, West Virginia, and western Pennsylvania on individual days.
Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 10 ppb are modeled on several days
in areas such as Cincinnati, Cleveland, and in a few other locations in
WV and Ohio. The maximum daily ozone increase and decrease during the
episode were 15 ppb (Cincinnati, 12 July) and -19 ppb (near
Parkersburg, WV 15 July). Isolated spots of ozone disbenefits appear in
Ohio and ozone reductions in the -2 to -6 ppb range are modeled no
farther east than New Jersey. The episode total grid cell hours > 124
ppb were reduced from 3200 to 3122 in Run 11 (-2.4 percent).
Run 12: SIP Call Controls in WV (1995). The episode composite--
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in western
WV; smaller reductions are simulated in southwestern PA. Modest (6-8
pub) ozone disbenefits are simulated in western WV.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate modest regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
West Virginia and Pennsylvania and portions of Maryland and Virginia.
Regions of ozone disbenefits of 2 to 20 ppb are modeled on several days
in areas including central WV, Pittsburgh, and Newark. The maximum
daily ozone increase and decrease during the episode were 21 ppb
(Pittsburgh, 12 July) and -41 ppb (west-central WV, 15 July). Isolated
spots of ozone disbenefits appear throughout West Virginia and
Pennsylvania. Ozone reductions in the -2 to -6 ppb barely extend to
Connecticut and Massachusetts on 2 days. The episode total grid cell
hours > 124 ppb were reduced from 3200 to 3008 in Run 12 (-6.0
percent).
Run 13: SIP Call Controls in TN (95). The episode composite results
indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in various parts of
Tennessee, western Kentucky, eastern Missouri, and northern Alabama.
Smaller reductions are simulated in southern Indiana and Mississippi,
Alabama, and Georgia. Small ozone disbenefits (2-4 ppb) are simulated
in eastern Arkansas.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate broad regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
Tennessee and Kentucky, northern Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, and
along the Ohio River valley upstream to Ashland, Kentucky. Only on 2
days are regions of ozone disbenefits of 2 to 10 ppb are modeled. These
occur in extreme western and eastern Tennessee. The maximum daily ozone
increase and decrease during the episode were 12 ppb (northwestern
Tennessee, 12 July) and -39 ppb (Paducah, 13 July). Unlike the other
runs, there are very few regions of modeled ozone disbenefits in this
scenario. Ozone reductions in the -2 to -6 ppb are confined to the
Midwest and southeast States. There is no impact in the Northeast
Corridor. The episode total grid cell hours > 124 ppb were reduced from
3200 to 2930 in Run 13 (-8.4 percent).
Run 14: SIP Call Controls in IN (1995). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in northern
Kentucky, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and in the Gary, IN region
adjacent to Lake Michigan. Two localized regions of 2 to 10 ppb ozone
increases are modeled near Gary and Louisville.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate modest regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, the western Carolinas, and
eastern TN. Only little impact in Pennsylvania is modeled on individual
days. Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 30 ppb are modeled on several
days in areas including the Lower Lake Michigan area, Louisville,
Cincinnati, and Indianapolis.
The maximum daily ozone increase and decrease during the episode
were 44 ppb (Louisville, 12 July) and -38 ppb (Maysville, Kentucky, 15
July). Isolated spots of ozone disbenefits appear in throughout Indiana
and Kentucky.
However, a broad ozone disbenefit plume of 2 to 10 ppb extends
eastward from Gary, Indiana on several days of the 1995 episode. Ozone
reductions in the -2 to -6 ppb range are not modeled east of
Pittsburgh. The episode total grid cell hours > 124 ppb were reduced
from 3200 to 3036 in Run 14 (-5.1 percent).
Run 15: Cinergy Controls in KY (1995). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in western
Kentucky, southern Indiana, and in Ohio and West Virginia along the
Ohio River. An isolated region of -2 to -10 ppb ozone reductions is
modeled over Lake Erie and in Atlanta. Ozone disbenefits as high as 6
ppb are simulated near Bowling Green and Memphis.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate modest regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
Kentucky, southern Indiana and Ohio, West Virginia, the western
Carolinas, and northern Georgia. Essentially no impact is modeled in
Pennsylvania or eastward on individual days. Localized ozone
disbenefits of 2 to 30 ppb are modeled on several days in areas
including southwestern Kentucky, Louisville, Maysville and Ashland,
Kentucky. The maximum daily ozone increase and decrease during the
episode were 31 ppb (Owensboro, Kentucky, 12 July) and -28 ppb (west-
central Kentucky, 15 July). A few isolated spots of ozone disbenefits
appear in southwestern Indiana and southern Illinois. The episode total
grid cell hours > 124 ppb were reduced from 3200 to 3076 in Run 15
(-3.9 percent).
Run 16: Cinergy Controls in OH (1995). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -10 ppb or more in western
wv and eastern Ohio, over Lake Erie, and in western Ohio. A few grid
cells of -2 to -6 ppb ozone reductions are modeled in Maryland and
southwestern PA. Ozone disbenefits of 2-3 ppb are simulated near
Cincinnati.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate broad regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -10 ppb or more throughout much of
Ohio, West Virginia, and western Pennsylvania on individual days.
Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 10 ppb are modeled on several days
in areas such as Cincinnati, Cleveland, and in a few other locations in
West Virginia and Ohio. The maximum daily ozone increase and decrease
during the episode were 12 ppb (Cincinnati, 12 July) and -15 ppb (near
Parkersburg, West Virginia 15 July). Isolated spots of ozone
disbenefits appear in Ohio and ozone reductions in the -2 to -6 ppb
range are modeled no farther east Pennsylvania. The episode total grid
cell hours > 124 ppb were reduced from 3200 to 3139 in Run 16 (-1.9
percent).
Run 17: Cinergy Controls in West Virginia (1995). The episode
composite results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in
western West Virginia; smaller reductions of order -2 to -10 ppb are
simulated in southwestern Pennsylvania. Modest (4-5 ppb) ozone
disbenefits are simulated in western West Virginia.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate modest regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
West Virginia and Pennsylvania and portions of Maryland and Virginia.
Regions of ozone disbenefits of 2 to 20 ppb are modeled on several days
in areas including central West Virginia, Pittsburgh, and Newark. The
maximum daily ozone increase and decrease during the episode were 22
ppb (Pittsburgh, 12 July) and 30 ppb (west-central West Virginia, 15
July). Isolated spots of ozone disbenefits appear throughout West
Virginia and Pennsylvania. A major ozone disbenefit plume is simulated
downwind of Pittsburgh on several days. Ozone reductions in the -2 to
-6 ppb barely extend to New York on 1 day. The episode total grid cell
hours > 124 ppb were reduced from 3200 to 3045 in Run 17 (-4.8
percent).
Run 18: SIP Call Controls in KY (1991). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in western
Kentucky, southern Indiana and Illinois, and in central Ohio. Ozone
disbenefits of 10 ppb are simulated near Cincinnati.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate modest regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout portions
of western Kentucky and lower reductions in southern Indiana, Ohio, and
West Virginia. Ozone reductions of -2 to -6 ppb were modeled in western
Pennsylvania on a few days. Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 15 ppb
are modeled on several days in Cincinnati or along the Ohio River
valley. The maximum daily ozone increase and decrease during the
episode were 18 ppb (Cincinnati, 19 July) and -35 ppb (Paducah,
Kentucky, 17 July). Isolated spots of ozone disbenefits appear in
southwestern Indiana and southern Illinois. Ozone reductions in the -2
to -6 ppb range are not modeled past central Pennsylvania. The episode
total grid cell hours > 124 ppb were reduced from 2129 to 2088 in Run
18 (-1.9 percent).
Run 19: SIP Call Controls in OH (1991). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -10 ppb or more in central
Ohio and western PA. A few isolated locations of -2 to -6 ppb ozone
reductions are modeled in WV, Maryland, and New Jersey. Ozone
disbenefits of as much as 34 ppb are simulated near Cincinnati.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate broad regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
Ohio, southern Indiana, West Virginia, and western Pennsylvania on
individual days. Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 30 ppb are modeled
on all days in Cincinnati and Cleveland and in several other locations
in Ohio. The maximum daily ozone increase and decrease during the
episode were 34 ppb (Cincinnati, 19 July) and -17 ppb (near Columbus,
18 July). Ozone reductions in the -2 to -6 ppb range extend on 1 day to
New Jersey. The episode total grid cell hours > 124 pub were reduced
from 2129 to 2062 in Run 19 (-3.1 percent).
Run 20: SIP Call Controls in WV (1991). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in western
WV and southwestern PA; smaller reductions are simulated in the
Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia region. Essentially no ozone
disbenefits are simulated.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate modest regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
southern Ohio, northern Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania and
portions of Maryland and Virginia. The principal regions of ozone
disbenefits (2 to 30 ppb) is modeled on several days in Pittsburgh. The
maximum daily ozone increase and decrease during the episode were 34
ppb (Pittsburgh, 16 July) and -23 ppb (Washington, PA, 17 July).
Modeled ozone disbenefits occur within a broad plume encompassing the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley nonattainment area. . Ozone reductions in the
-2 to -6 ppb extend to CT and MA on a few days. The episode total grid
cell hours > 124 ppb were reduced from 2129 to 1937 in Run 20 (-9.0
percent).
Run 21: SIP Call Controls in TN (1991). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in western
Tennessee, north-central Kentucky, and eastern Arkansas.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate broad regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
Tennessee and Kentucky, northern MS, AL, and GA, along the Ohio River
valley upstream to Ashland, KY, and through broad swaths of Ohio. Ozone
disbenefits appear to be located principally in extreme northeastern
and southwestern Tennessee. The maximum daily ozone increase and
decrease during the episode were 12 ppb (northeastern TN, 16 July) and
-28 ppb (northwestern TN, 18 July). There are very few regions of
modeled ozone disbenefits in this scenario. There is no impact in the
Northeast Corridor. The episode total grid cell hours > 124 ppb were
reduced from 2129 to 2069 in Run 21 (-2.8 percent).
Run 22: SIP Call Controls in IN (1991). The episode composite
results indicate ozone reductions of -2 to -14 ppb or more in southern
Indiana and in south-central Ohio. Localized regions of 2 to 10 ppb
ozone increases are modeled over the lake and in Cincinnati and
Louisville.
The daily maximum ozone residuals indicate modest regions of ozone
reduction in the range of -2 ppb to -14 ppb or more throughout much of
southern Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and north-western Pennsylvania.
Localized ozone disbenefits of 2 to 40 ppb are modeled on several days
in areas including the Lower Lake Michigan area, Louisville,
Cincinnati, and Indianapolis. The maximum daily ozone increase and
decrease during the episode were 45 ppb (Louisville, 18 July) and -17
ppb (Cincinnati, 20 July). Isolated spots of ozone disbenefits appear
in throughout Indiana. However, a broad ozone disbenefit plume of 2 to
10 ppb emanates from Gary, IN on several days of the 1991 episode. The
episode total grid cell hours > 124 ppb were reduced from 2129 to 2100
in Run 22 (-1.4 percent).
The total number of grid cell hours in each State in the OTAG 12 km
domain for which predicted maximum 1-hr and 8-hr ozone concentrations
exceed arbitrary cutoff levels were developed (Tesche et al., 1998b).
For the 1-hr ozone results, these levels are 100 pub, 124 ppb, and 140
pub, respectively. 1-hr and 8-hr tables were compiled to help determine
the total number of grid cell hours in a particular State where ozone
levels are predicted to decrease over the episode relative to the 2007
EPA1a baseline simulation. Joint analysis of these grid cell hours
tables and the daily maximum ozone difference plots (contained on the
CD-ROM archives) reveals that in many cases, the absolute
concentrations of ozone contributed in one State by another far upwind
is well below a few ppb, even though the total concentration in the
receptor State from all local and upwind sources is above 124 ppb.
Tri-State Subregional Modeling Results
The results of the Tri-State subregional UAM-V modeling (Table 5-
10.2) in which SIP level controls and Cinergy controls were placed on
the States of Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana and Tennessee
suggest that:
Effects of the SIP Call
<bullet> SIP Call controls are effective in reducing the OTAG
domainwide peak ozone concentrations from 211 ppb (695) and 171 ppb
(1991) to 181 ppb (30 ppb reduction) and 158 ppb (13 ppb reduction),
respectively. The number of daily maximum grid cells > 124 ppb in the
2007 Base case were reduced by factors of 2 to 4 for the two OTAG
episodes. Despite these significant regionwide ozone reductions,
exceedances are still modeled in the Lower Lake Michigan, Atlanta,
Northeast Corridor, Baltimore-Washington, Cincinnati, Birmingham,
Raleigh, and Louisville nonattainment areas.
Impacts on the Northeast
<bullet> The high modeled 1-hr average ozone concentrations
occurring in the northeast are not influenced appreciably by sources in
the States of Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia. Results from modeling
with both episodes reveals little (i.e., 2-6 ppb) or no ozone reduction
in the Northeast Corridor. More specifically:
<bullet> Impacts from Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia may be as
much as 2-6 ppb in the Northeast Corridor on one or a few days, but the
impact areas are very small;
<bullet> Impacts from Ohio in the 2-6 ppb range extend no farther
east than New Jersey; Impacts from Kentucky in the 2-6 ppb range extend
no farther east than central to eastern Pennsylvania: Impacts from West
Virginia in the 2-6 ppb range extend into the Northeast Corridor
(Connecticut, Massachusetts) on one or a few days.
<bullet> Impacts from Indiana in the 2-6 ppb range are not modeled
much beyond Pittsburgh; and
<bullet> There are no modeled impacts from Tennessee in the
Northeast Corridor.
Effects of Individual State Controls
<bullet> SIP controls in Kentucky increase/decrease maximum ozone
concentrations by 25 ppb/-36 ppb for the 1995 episode and by 18 ppb/-35
ppb for the 1991 episode. The net reduction in grid cell exceedance
hours for the two episodes is -4.7 percent and -1.9 percent;
<bullet> SIP controls in Ohio increase/decrease maximum ozone
concentrations by 15 ppb/-19 ppb for the 1995 episode and by 34 ppb/-17
ppb for the 1991 episode. The net reduction in grid cell exceedance
hours for the two episodes is -2.4 percent and -3.1 percent;
<bullet> SIP controls in West Virginia increase/decrease maximum
ozone concentrations by 21 ppb/-41 ppb for the 1995 episode and by 34
ppb/-23 ppb for the 1991 episode. The net reduction in grid cell
exceedance hours for the two episodes is -6.0 percent and 9.0 percent;
<bullet> SIP controls in Tennessee increase/decrease maximum ozone
concentrations by 12 ppb/-39 ppb for the 1995 episode and by 12 ppb/-28
ppb for the 1991 episode. The net reduction in grid cell exceedance
hours for the two episodes is -8.4 percent and -2.8 percent;
<bullet> SIP controls in Indiana increase/decrease maximum ozone
concentrations by 44 ppb/-38 ppb for the 1995 episode and by 45 ppb/-17
ppb for the 1991 episode. The net reduction in grid cell exceedance
hours for the two episodes is -5.1 percent and -1.4 percent. A broad
disbenefit plume (2-10 pub) is modeled downwind of Gary, Indiana on
several days of the 1995 episode; The greatest number of grid-cell
hours of ozone reduction occurs for SIP controls on West Virginia (32.9
percent for 1995 and 31.0 percent for 1991 episodes).
<bullet> The greatest number of grid-cell hours for ozone
increases occurs for SIP controls on Indiana (79.2 percent, 695
episode) and Tennessee (75.3 percent, 1991 episode).
Differences Between SIP Call and Cinergy Controls
Comparing the SIP Call and Cinergy controls on the aggregate States
of Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia:
<bullet> For the 1995 episode, the Cinergy package produced larger
peak ozone increases (31 ppb vs. 25 pub) and smaller peak ozone
reductions (-34 ppb vs. -47 ppb) than the SIP Call and lowered the
episode total grid cell hours > 124 ppb by a smaller percentage (-10.6
percent versus -12.4 percent).
<bullet> For the 1991 episode the Cinergy package produced
equivalent peak ozone increases (32 ppb vs. 33 ppb) and smaller peak
ozone reductions (-28 ppb vs. -35 ppb) than the SIP Call and again
lowered the episode total grid cell hours > 124 ppb by a smaller
percentage (-10.4 percent versus -14.0 percent).
<bullet> Comparing the SIP Call and Cinergy controls on Kentucky
sources for the 695 episode, the Cinergy package produced larger peak
ozone increases (31 ppb vs. 25 ppb) and smaller peak ozone decreases
(-28 ppb vs. -36 ppb) and a smaller reduction in grid cell exceedance
hours (-3.9 percent versus -4.7 percent). Comparing the SIP Call and
Cinergy controls on Ohio sources for the 695 episode, the Cinergy
package produced nearly equal peak ozone increases (12 ppb vs. 15 ppb)
and smaller peak ozone decreases (-15 ppb vs. -19 ppb) and a smaller
reduction in grid cell exceedance hours (-1.9 percent versus -2.4
percent).
<bullet> Comparing the SIP Call and Cinergy controls on West
Virginia sources for the 695 episode, the Cinergy package produced
essentially equivalent peak ozone increases (21 ppb vs. 22 ppb) and
larger peak ozone decreases (-41 ppb vs. -30 ppb) and a greater
reduction in grid cell exceedance hours (-6.0 percent versus -4.8
percent).
<bullet> The effectiveness of the Cinergy package relative to the
SIP Call appears to depend upon the State in which the controls are
applied. Across the three State region of KY, OH, and WV and for
controls individually in the States of Kentucky and Ohio, the SIP Call
controls appear to provide greater ozone benefits, lower ozone
disbenefits and a larger reduction in the total number of grid cells >
124 ppb. In contrast, Cinergy level controls in the WV appear to
produce greater reductions in the peak ozone concentration and a
greater reduction in the number of grid cells > 124 ppb. These results
corroborate the overall necessity for focused analyses of subregional
control strategy effectiveness. A simplistic, regionwide control
strategy (e.g., an eastern States SIP Call) may not be most effective
in individual OTAG subregions.
TVA Scale of Ozone Transport Study
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) carried out a number of UAM-V
modeling and analysis activities during and subsequent to the OTAG
process. While many of the results were presented in public meetings
during the OTAG process, no formal documentation was developed until
the recent paper by Imhoff and Gautney (1998) summarizing a portion of
the TVA analysis. Their work is briefly summarized here.
Two unique applications of the UAM-V photochemical model were
performed by TVA using primarily the July 1995 OTAG episode:
<bullet> Rollout Modeling: The rollout modeling assessment
requires a number of UAM-V runs. In the rollout methodology, particular
control strategy of interest' (e.g., the OTAG 5c controls) is first
applied to the problem area itself, say the Northeast Corridor.
Subsequently, controls are applied in successive UAM-V runs in which
the geographical region over which the controls are imposed is
increased in size in a stepwise fashion, either in circles of expanding
radii or in tiers of grid cells added onto the original problem area.
The effects of controls in each of the larger areas is compared back to
the effects of controls on the original problem area. Applied in this
manner, the rollout methodology allows one to determine quantitatively
the distance beyond which additional controls cease being effective in
improving ozone in the original problem area.
<bullet> Reactive Tracer Modeling: The reactive tracer UAM-V
simulations were aimed at examining the rate at which ozone is removed
from the atmosphere. Anthropogenic NOx and VOC emissions and biogenic
NOx emissions are turned off 48 hours and 24 hours before a time of
interest in the model simulation. The biogenic VOCs emissions are
retained in the model simulation to give the NOx remaining in the
system an opportunity to form ozone and to preserve on of the important
ozone removal mechanisms. The concentrations in this run is then
compared with the base case to estimate the amount of ozone formed due
to emissions in the previous 24 hours. In other words, the results
allow one to estimate the decay rate of ozone in the atmosphere due to
natural removal, dilution, and conversion processes.
Among the pertinent TVA findings reported by Imhoff and Gautney
(1998) are:
<bullet> Both the rollout and reactive tracer modeling indicate
that meaningful ozone reductions at high concentration locations (e.g.,
the Northeast Corridor) are difficult to achieve by controlling sources
far away from the problem areas;
<bullet> Different regions of the eastern U.S. have very different
characteristic scales of ozone transport, with Atlanta having the
shortest and Lake Michigan the longest;
<bullet> Defining the Area of Influence (AOI) as the distance at
which 75 percent of the overall effects of OTAG 5c controls are
achieved, TVA found:
<bullet> Controls within the Atlanta region are sufficient to
reducing peak ozone concentrations to 120 ppb (AOI = 0);
<bullet> Controls must extent additional 195 km beyond the Lower
Lake Michigan region in order to aid in reducing concentrations to
below 120 ppb (AOI = 195 km) and
<bullet> Controls must extend an additional 40 km beyond the
Northeast corridor to achieve the 75 percent reduction potential
available for 5c controls. To achieve 90 to 95 percent of the possible
effectiveness of reducing cells below 120 ppb using the 5c controls
would obviously require controls over a larger area--with the attendant
costs.
By the time controls have been extended beyond 96 km from the
Northeast Corridor, their efficiency is less than one-half that of
controls within the corridor itself; and
Simulated ozone concentrations do not depend significantly on the
amount of ozone that has been resident in the model for more than 48
hours, but is strongly dependent on the anthropogenic emissions that
have occurred within the preceding 48 hours. This UAM-V findings refute
the popular conceptual notion of a cause and effect relationship
between transport of localized high ozone from far upwind and
nonattainment in the NE.
The TVA analysis concludes that a strategy of regional NOx controls
for controlling high ozone concentrations is not specifically focused
at the locations in need, and is inefficient, impractical.
conclusions
The analysis of the UAM-V air quality modeling addressing the
proposed SIP Call plan reveals the following:
<bullet> Local Controls Most Effective: Most of the ozone
reduction benefits of the SIP Call control strategy in a nonattainment
area are due to controls in or immediately downwind of the
nonattainment area.
<bullet> Ozone Improvements Predominantly in Non-Problem Areas:
Most of the ozone reductions due to the SIP Call control plan occur in
attainment or near-attainment areas, reducing ozone concentrations to
levels well below the NAAQS.
<bullet> SIP Call Does Not Produce Desired Result in Regions of
Greatest Need: The SIP Call control scenario produces much smaller
reductions in ozone concentrations in the most serious ozone
nonattainment areas (Northeast Corridor and Lake Michigan) because
ozone in these areas is mainly due to area and mobile sources. What
reductions that do occur are mainly due to local emissions reductions.
<bullet> Diminishing Effectiveness of Point Source NOx Control:
There is very little difference in the reductions in ozone
concentrations due to the Run A control strategy (55 percent controls
on major NOx point sources) versus the Run I control strategy (85
percent control on major NOx point sources); the extra reductions in
emissions from major NOx point sources from 55 percent to 85 percent is
not cost-effective or justified based on the ozone air quality
benefits.
<bullet> NOx-Focused Plan Accelerates Ozone Formation Rates: The
SIP Call NOx-focused control plan increases the rate of atmospheric
ozone formation; States whose emissions are not affected by the SIP
Call control strategy have higher contributions to nonattainment after
implementation of the SIP Call controls.
<bullet> Regional NOx Reductions Cause Isolated, Local Ozone
Disbenefits: OTAG modeling indicated NOx disbenefits that generated
some controversy. Subesequent modeling confirms that significant NOx
disbenefits do occur , particularly around Lake Michigan and near
certain urban areas including Baltimore (Maryland)-Washington (DC);
Cincinnati, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
A very large number of photochemical model simulations have been
performed to develop refined estimates of whether and to what extent
precursor emissions from sources in the Midwestern U.S. actually
contribute to the modeled high ozone concentrations in the Northeast
Corridor. These simulations, employing the UAM-V and CAMx regional
models and OTAG data sets, have examined specific controls on
individual facilities, individual States and/or specific aggregations
of States. As such, they constitute much more focused analyses than the
generic ``zero-out'' runs performed by OTAG and used by EPA to justify
the SIP Call. Overall these refined model simulations reveal a
consistent picture. The expected effect of significant ozone precursor
emissions in the Midwest:
<bullet> Has at most a -2 to -6 ppb reduction on modeled afternoon
ozone concentrations in the Northeast Corridor under severe ozone
episode conditions;
<bullet> Tends not to produce significant ozone reductions at the
same time or location in the Northeast where the peak ozone
concentrations are modeled or measured; and
<bullet> Produces far greater increases in peak ozone
concentrations in local Midwestern attainment and nonattainment areas
than decreases in ozone levels in the Northeast Corridor.
Results from the Tri-State study evaluate the geographical extent
and magnitude of expected ozone benefits in the Northeast Corridor from
controls in the Midwest. These results very clearly reveal that in
those instances where ozone benefits are modeled in the Northeast
Corridor, the concentration reductions are very low (-2 to -6 ppb),
tend not to occur in the most heavily populated areas, and do not occur
in the areas of highest modeled ozone.
The tables below (Tesche, T.W., et al, 1998a) summarizes the UAM-V
modeling results from the Tri-State study with respect to the extent of
modeled ozone disbenefits occurring in the Midwest, particularly in
Kentucky and southern Ohio. These results very clearly reveal that one
of the negative consequences of the SIP Call or Cinergy level control
scenarios is the generation of significant ozone increases,
particularly in the Cincinnati and Louisville nonattainment areas.
Ozone increases on the order of 20 to 45 ppb are predicted in
Cincinnati and Louisville under severe ozone episode conditions.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
-