    [Senate Hearing 105-945]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            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 (SO2) 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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
    SO2. 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 SO2 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, SO2
    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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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
    SO2 emissions reduction. The RFF analysis is consistent with
    analyses conducted by EPA staff on the magnitude of health benefits.
        Reductions in SO2 emissions have provided substantial
    improvements in visibility, especially in the eastern United States.
    EPA estimates that reductions in SO2 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 SO2 reduction.
        Perhaps the most pleasant development with regard to the
    SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2, 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 SO2 emissions beyond
    those provided for in Phase II of the existing Program. In light of the
    impressive success and cost effectiveness of the SO2
    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 SO2 Allowance Program. Under the proposed Phase
    III, total utility emissions of SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2, 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
    SO2--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
    SO2 Allowance Program in 1990, our task was simplified by
    the fact that over 85 percent of SO2 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 SO2
    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
    SO2 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, SO2
    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 SO2 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
    SO2. 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 SO2 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
    SO2 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 PM2.5
    standard, a new NOx SIP Call, possible mercury controls,
    possible CO2 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
    SO2, 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 SO2
    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,
    SO2 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
    SO2 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 SO2. 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, CO2, 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
    SO2 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 SO2 NOx and mercury
    control technologies could lead utilities to decide to continue
    the use of coal indefinitely. In addition, SO2
    scrubbers, which would be required to achieve a 50 percent
    reduction in SO2 actually increase CO2
    emissions.
        What implications do these facts have on the current
    concerns about CO2 that we've been dealing with?
        Mr. Melewski. Well, I can't speak directly to the
    CO2 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 SO2 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
    SO2 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
    SO2 reductions that may be required as part of the
    fine particle standard, mercury to be all very difficult issues
    that we face. Then the CO2, 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 SO2 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 (SO2), 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 SO2 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 SO2. 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 (SO2) 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2
        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 SO2
    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
    SO2 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
    SO2, 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 SO2
    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 SO2 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,
    SO2 emissions declined dramatically--by over 3 million
    tons--resulting in a nearly 5 million ton SO2 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 SO2 under the Program.
        Cost savings have exceeded expectations. In 1990, EPA projected the
    cost of full implementation of the SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 and NOx provides multiple environmental and
            human health benefits
          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.
          Increased protection of coastal ecosystems and estuarine
    aquatic life due to a reduction in nitrogen deposition onto coastal
    waters and their larger watersheds.
          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.
          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.
          Reduced ambient sulfates and nitrates with consequent
    reduced risks to human health.
          Reduced ground-level ozone concentrations with consequent
    reduced risks to human health.
          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.
          The Bill relies on the successful market-based mechanism
    introduced in the 1990 Amendments and applies it to both NOx and
    SO2 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,'' SO2 trading has not led to significant
    geographical emissions shifting from one state to another.
          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.
          The Bill further reduces SO2 emissions from
    the utility sector by requiring two SO2 emissions allowances
    to be surrendered for each ton of SO2 emitted, thereby
    cutting the current cap in half. EPA prefers an approach which
    minimizes disruption to implementation of the current SO2
    allowance system under the Acid Rain Program.
          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.
          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 SO2
    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 SO2 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
    SO2 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 SO2
    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 SO2 market. With adequate lead time, could
    these impacts on the market be mitigated?
        Response. Yes, the impact on the SO2 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 SO2 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
    SO2 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 SO2 is projected to be
    achieved (i.e., either 2009 or 2010).
        EPA Study: In 1990, EPA estimated the cost of complying with the
    SO2 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 SO2 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
    SO2 and NOx reductions called for in S. 1097 have on human
    health? On regional visibility?
        Response. Human health and visibility benefits of additional
    SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2
    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 SO2 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 SO2 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.

                                     ______

      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 (SO2) controls. As
    of one of the very first utilities to embrace the concept of strict
    SO2 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
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total SO2 emissions for 1995 and 1996 were
    lower than in 1940 (18,552,000 and 19,113,000 vs.19,952,000 tons
    respectively)
          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)
          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 SO2 and NOx emissions. The amendments placed a cap
    on SO2 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 SO2 and NOx. In the first year
    alone, SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Title IV NOx Phase I & II capital expenditures of about
    $100 million.
          Title IV SO2 Phase I capital expenditures of
    about $333 million.
          Title IV additional O&M SO2 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 SO2 control.
        SO2 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 SO2 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 PM2.5, 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, SO2 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:
          A NOx allowance program for the 22 states and District of
    Columbia affected by the rule.
          State by state NOx allowance allocations, and a suggested
    an allowance distribution scheme within the states.
          An allowance banking and tracking system and a NOx
    allowance transfer system(model trading rule) for the states to adopt
    at their discretion.
          A recommendation for states to establish ``new source
    set-asides'' for new sources.
          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
    PM2.5 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
    SO2 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 SO2 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 PM2.5
    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
    PM2.5 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
    SO2 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
    SO2, 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 SO2 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 SO2 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
    SO2 controls were in place. Reductions from Phase II
    SO2, 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 SO2 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
    SO2 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 SO2 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
    SO2 emissions beyond what would other wise have been allowed
    in Phase I of the program.3 Thus, the majority of SO2
    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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2
    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 SO2 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
    SO2 and other sulfates is a contributor to acid deposition.
    However, local emissions of SO2, 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 SO2 and NOx. Please
    identify areas of scientific research on NOx emissions, SO2
    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 SO2 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.

                                   __________
                  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
    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.

                                   __________
        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 (SO2) 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 SO2
    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
    SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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
    SO2. 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 SO2 emissions.
    Public Policy Implications
        The progress made in rain, snow and stream water chemistry verify
    the value of the SO2 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 SO2 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
    SO2 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
    (SO2) 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 SO2 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:
          elevated oxidant/03 concentrations can originate from
    upwind sources as far away as 1000 kilometers (km) or more; and
          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:

          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;
          Equitably distribute the reductions where needed most;
          Be more consistent with the available science on regional
    transport;
          Alleviate any significant contribution of our States
    beyond our borders;
          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;
          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
          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:
          04/01/00 Coalition States will submit legally enforceable
    Phase I emission reduction requirements
          07/31/01 Completion of modeling and analysis for
    attainment of 8-hour NAAQS
          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
          07/31/03 Submit ozone NAAQS attainment SIPs
          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
          04/01/09 Implementation of Phase II controls
          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:
          Develop a prioritized list of key nonattainment areas in
    the Coalition States region for which modeling analyses are to be
    targeted;
          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;
          Improve the OTAG emissions inventories where feasible,
    consistent with the scope of the refined subregional modeling;
          Review and synthesize pertinent past studies to help
    guide the analysis;
          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
          Identify models to be used in the analysis.
          Identify sources and uncertainties in economic data
    needed to perform cost-effectiveness analysis;
          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:
          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;
          Development of base case emissions and meteorological
    data bases (as necessary as defined in the first task);
          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):
          Ability of the model to reproduce ozone exceedances in
    the key nonattainment areas;
          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
          Establish 2007 CAA Baseline 1-hr and 2010 CAA Baseline 8-
    hr ozone conditions throughout the OTAG domain for pertinent modeling
    episodes; and.
          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:
          The contribution of low level and elevated sources to
    ozone formation from the Coalition States is comparable.
          The largest fraction of the ozone in a receptor area is
    due to emissions from within that receptor area and from adjacent
    States.
          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.
          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:
          The SIP call reductions exceed what is necessary for most
    areas to address transport implications and will be counter productive
    in some areas.
          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.
          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.
          Contribution from individual States vary significantly,
    verifying that EPA's one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate.
          Additional local controls will be necessary to comply
    with the new 8-hour standard in many areas.
          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.
          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;
          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;
          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
          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:
          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.
          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.
          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.
          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.
          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.
          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.
          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.
          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:
          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.
          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.
          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''.
          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''.
          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:
          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.
          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.
          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.
          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:
          Run 1: 60 percent NOx control from elevated sources in
    the nonattainment areas;
          Run 2: 30 percent VOC and NOx control from elevated
    sources in the nonattainment areas;
          Run 3: 60 percent NOx control from elevated sources in
    the nonattainment areas and surrounding 100 km areas;
          Run 5: 30 percent VOC and NOx control from ground level
    sources in the nonattainment areas; and
          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
          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;
          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
          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;
          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;
          60 percent elevated source NOx control throughout the
    OTAG domain decreases ozone concentrations on average by -27 ppb.
    Grid Total Differences
          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;
          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;
          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
          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).
          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:
          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;
          When 5C controls were applied to North and South Dakota
    the maximum impact on any grid cell above 100 ppb was 0.1 ppb;
          When 5C controls were applied to Minnesota the maximum
    impact on any grid cell above 100 ppb was 0.4 ppb;
          When 5C controls were applied to Nebraska the maximum
    impact on any grid cell above 100 ppb was 0.1 pub;
          When 5C controls were applied to the five States
    simultaneously, the maximum impact on any grid cell above 100 ppb was
    1.0 ppb;
          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;
          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;
          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
          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:
          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;
          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;
          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;
          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:
          All strategies produce ozone benefits and some
    disbenefits (i.e., positive residuals);
          The ``1999 Equivalent Measures'' strategy for episode 1
    produced the largest average and grid total ozone reductions across the
    JAM--IV domain;
          The ``1999 Strategy'' for episode 1 produces the largest
    ozone disbenefits and ozone-benefits, using the maximum residuals as
    the measure of change;
          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).
          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.
          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.
          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
          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
          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:
          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;
          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.
          Impacts from Indiana in the 2-6 ppb range are not modeled
    much beyond Pittsburgh; and
          There are no modeled impacts from Tennessee in the
    Northeast Corridor.
    Effects of Individual State Controls
          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;
          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;
          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;
          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;
          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).
          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:
          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).
          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).
          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).
          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).
          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:
          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.
          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:
          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;
          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;
          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:
          Controls within the Atlanta region are sufficient to
    reducing peak ozone concentrations to 120 ppb (AOI = 0);
          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
          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:
          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.
          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.
          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.
          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.
          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.
          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:
          Has at most a -2 to -6 ppb reduction on modeled afternoon
    ozone concentrations in the Northeast Corridor under severe ozone
    episode conditions;
          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
          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.

                                       -