Senator TSONGAS. Senator Domenici.

Senator DOMENICI. I just want to ask this question. In title II of the bill where the mandatory conversions are denominated, as a matter of present environmental law, if we were not before the Congress with some kind of a subsidy program under existing law, most of them could make this conversion and be within the law, is that correct?

Mr. HAWKINS. Most of them can technically comply with either the State and local regulations that are on the books or, in some instances, they can propose to the State and local authorities relaxation of those regulations so that the conversion can occur.

And, at least, in some instances, relaxations of regulations could be demonstrated as legally permissible under the Federal law because the ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxide would not be threatened even though there might be an increase in total emissions.

Senator DOMENICI. So, the reason this issue is being discussed at the congressional level is because we are being asked to pay for half the cost of conversion in the bill as presented by the administration.

Otherwise, if the utility could afford it and they could get the rate changes and the consumers would take the increase most of these can be built and there would be no requirement that they put on scrubber technology or best practical control technology; they would be able to do it under existing laws, for the most part, is that correct?

Mr. HAWKINS. Well, not entirely. Some sources definitely will have to make major investments in control technology in order to comply with the current State and local regulations.

And even if some of those regulations were relaxed, they still would have to make major investments in control technology.

In addition, they have to make major investments in other capital fixtures at the plant in order to be able to actually commence burning coal.

The problem that the administration bill attempts to address is a financing problem and a regulatory problem which has impeded the utilities from proceeding with an approach which may be in their best interests and which is definitely in the best interests of the country as a whole.

It is attempting to get over the hurdle that has placed itself in the way of moving these plants from oil to coal. No one argues— Senator DOMENICI. That is principally economic?

Mr. HAWKINS. It is financing, I would say, rather than economics. It is economic to take an existing oil plant and put controls on it and burn coal. It is economic to do so.

It just-there's a problem in financing, and the bill attempts to address that and provides the funds to get us moving.

Senator DOMENICI. But when you say "financing and regulatory", you do not mean environmental regulatory; you mean public utility commissions and the like in terms of regulatory, is that not correct?

Mr. HAWKINS. That is correct. The environmental-

Senator DOMENICI. Nothing in this bill changes the environmental requirement.

Mr. HAWKINS. That is correct. The environmental regulatory responsibilities, in my view, have not been an impediment to coal conversion.

And that is especially the case given the increased oil prices. Senator DOMENICI. In the event it is true that we are only in this because we are helping to finance and since EPA says we don't know enough about acid rain but we ought not generate more SO2, would it not be logical that if we are going to pay part of the bill, under the administration's proposal, 50 percent, to include some incentive to maximize the cleanup at this point in time even if we have to pay for it, the national Government?

I mean, was that considered in the dialog rather than constant emissions; rather a ratcheting down, a maximizing of the practical technology and putting that bill along with the other conversion costs? Wouldn't that be a logical national strategy at this point? Mr. HAWKINS. Well, the Administrator of EPA has testified several times that it would have been his preference that we find a way to have a coal conversion proposal which would not result in an increase in emissions.

And that, as I say, reflects his view. The President did decide to try to address the acid rain problem in a broader context, and we are working very hard to that end.

If it is Congress assessment that the way to speed the oil backout proposal toward passage is to do something along the lines that you are suggesting, I am sure the administration would have an open mind on listening to that assessment.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you.

Senator TSONGAS. Mr. Leonard.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN M. LEONARD, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION, ACCOMPANIED BY SUSAN F. BRAND, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

Mr. LEONARD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Stephen Leonard, chief of the Environmental Division of the Massachusetts Department of the Attorney General.

I thank you for asking me here today to talk about an issue that is of increasing concern in Massachusetts-namely, acid deposition-which concern centers on an increased feeling in Massachusetts-indeed, in the Northeast, generally-that our air and our water and perhaps our agriculture is at risk as a result of acid deposition.

Perhaps because I am from Massachusetts, which is in the area that other witnesses have indicated is on the receiving end of a good deal of the acid rain in this country, and because Massachusetts is, in addition, one of the States with the most stringent limitations with respect to the precursor pollutants that produce acid deposition, I may be somewhat unique in feeling that there are things that ought to be done now rather than after further study of the problem of acid deposition.

I will summarize what is in my written testimony because it has been touched on by previous witnesses. I would mention that there is specific evidence in bodies of water in Massachusetts, including

the largest source of drinking water in the Commonwealth, of acidification in recent years. The pH level of that body of water, that reservoir, has dropped below 5.0; it used to be 6.5.

The first panel spoke about what that means in a number of

ways.

The sulfate concentrations have also been rising in the Commonwealth, and data for other water supplies reflect similar or the same kinds of problems as a result of acid precipitation.

Other data show-and I think, Senator Tsongas, you referred to a study that I am going to mention here-that much of this problem is caused by out-of-State sources of the precursor pollutants for acid rain.

A study was recently commissioned by Massachusetts and other Northeastern States whose preliminary findings indicate, as you said, Senator, that over half of the total sulfur deposition in New England comes from out-of-State emissions.

That is not terribly surprising in light of what we know, one, about the prevailing winds. The first panel talked a little bit about that. And, two, something that hasn't been talked about in here yet, the significantly greater amounts of the precursor pollutants that are produced in States outside of New England, States that are upwind of New England, was talked about.

For example, 1975 data demonstrate that sources in the industrialized Midwest-that is, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois-together emitted about 13 times as much sulfur dioxide as the New England states combined. Sources in Ohio emit perhaps 11 times as much as sources in Massachusetts.

Even if you compare them on an equivalent basis-that is, how much is emitted in terms of how much electricity is produced-you find that Ohio emits approximately 31⁄2 times as much sulfur dioxide as does Massachusetts.

Senator TSONGAS. Is that because of State-imposed standards? Mr. LEONARD. Senator, I think it is principally because of the way the Clean Air Act works. And Senator Domenici talked about that earlier.

It is not so much because of State-imposed standards as it is because the Clean Air Act works on a State-by-State manner and, if you put something high enough in the air and it does not affect the ambient air in Ohio, then you don't have to ratchet down, as the Senator said, on your plants in Ohio.

That's the problem, I think. In 1970, Congress did not foresee that as a problem. It is clear that it is a problem now.

I think that, although I don't blame a particular State for taking advantage of as much space or increment as it can take advantage of under the Clean Air Act, the problem is a very real one for New England, and something needs to be done about it.

I realize that overlapping jurisdictions-this committee and the Committee on Environment and Public Works-makes some of the things that I am going to suggest not strictly within this ballpark, and I will go through them quickly.

There are five things that I will discuss in greater detail that I think would help this situation substantially.

First, reasonably available control technology should be applied uniformly to all major fossil fuel utilization facilities.

Second, coal washing should be required nationwide.

Third, emission limitations should be developed for sulfates and nitrates for existing sources under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

Fourth, all coal-fired powerplants should be required to install continuous in-stack monitors.

Fifth, we need some assurance that the Clean Air Act is applied and enforced uniformly throughout the EPA regions.

Let me address the first one for a moment. The application of RACT-reasonably available control technology-will control acid deposition by reducing emissions rather than by tightening ambient air quality standards. That is preferable for a couple of reasons. One is that ambient air quality standards don't really measure what it is that is causing the problem since it is high up in the atmosphere both in the producer State, as a result of tall stacks, and in the receiving States, if you will, because it is high up before it is washed down.

So, even very strict standards and even in the producing States, it won't solve the problem. We need limitations of the source of the pollutants.

In addition, as I said, the State-by-State approach is not terribly effective, particularly when you are talking about pollutants like these that travel long distances and that come from several places and are not easily traced through-to particular sources.

In the view of Massachusetts and I think most of the Northeast, it is important, therefore, that reasonably available control technology be applied uniformly to these sources on a nationwide basis. That will also allocate more equitably the burden of assuring clean air. Right now, the standards for SO2 emissions in Massachusetts are considerably more stringent than they are-on Massachusetts plants, considerably more stringent than they are in other places.

That would be justifiable under the State-by-State approach of the Clean Air Act because the stuff is washed away from plants in other places.

But the fact is, one, we get it in Massachusetts and, two, we are paying more for the cleanup because our controls are more stringent.

Let me skip quickly-well, let me rely on my written submittal for points 2, 3, and 4 and speak briefly to No. 5; that is, consistency among EPA regions.

I have already indicated that there are different emissions limitations that apply in various regions. There is also at least the perception-and I suspect that it could be demonstrated-that whatever the emissions limitations are, there are differences in enforcement among EPA regions. Some are more stringent than others than region I, which includes New England, which is good in the sense that it is quick to spot and correct violations of SIP's. And there are other regions, including those where the precursor pollutants for acid rain are produced where they are less stringent, more likely to grant waivers or variances of implementation plans. That kind of issue is of serious concern to Massachusetts.

Now, I understand from what has been under discussion today that you are concerned with the oil backout bill, and it is clear that

most of what I am talking about cannot be and will not be included in that legislation.

The fact is though that there is an already existing problem. The scientists have told you that there is an already existing problem; that it is a particularly serious one in the Northeast. It could be addressed in part by the suggestions I have made in my testimony. And it is likely to be exacerbated by the passage of the legislation that we have before us. Some provision has got to be made and some attention paid to the kinds of solutions that will ultimately correct this problem.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:]