EFFECTS OF ACID RAIN

WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 1980

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,

Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in room 3110, Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Paul E. Tsongas, presiding. Present: Senators Tsongas, Durkin, and Domenici. Also present: Elizabeth Moler, counsel.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL E. TSONGAS, A U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Senator TSONGAS. The purpose of this hearing today is to provide the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with information concerning the phenomenon of acid rain and to assess its implications for a national energy policy.

Scientists warn that a sharp increase in the acidity of rain and snow has been observed spreading over ever wider areas of the Eastern United States in recent decades.

This phenomenon, they say, poses a serious threat to our lakes, streams, forests, agricultural crops, drinking water, and human health.

Any increase in emissions from fossil fuel-burning plants is expected to worsen the problem of acid rain.

These findings raise disturbing questions for our energy future, especially in light of the emergence of proposals like the President's Power Plant Fuels Conservation Act which is now pending before this committee.

It is designed to increase our reliance on coal, this country's most plentiful domestic fuel source.

By these hearings the committee seeks to understand:

The nature, sources and effects of acid rain;

What we know now about acid rain and what we still need to know;

Whether what we know now provides a sufficient basis for concern and action;

How a potential growth in emissions from fossil fuel-burning plants will affect the acid rain problem;

To what extent concerns and research findings about acid rain are being integrated into our national energy policies, if at all; and The international scope of acid rain problem and its implications for our relations with other countries, especially Canada.

In my opinion, the acid rain problem poses a classic challenge. We need to formulate a national policy that satisfies our dual desires to live in an energy secure and environmentally safe world.

I might add two points: One, there were hearings before this committee about a month ago on the so-called greenhouse effect, the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere.

This is the second set of hearings to make people understand what the long-term environmental implications are of our energy policy.

The final point I would make is simply that one need only walk through airports to see advertisements that proclaim that coal is the answer. And what I would like to know is what the question is. The question may be "How do you get more acid rain in our environment?" And if that is the question, indeed, coal is the

answer.

Part of what we are doing today is to try to understand the implications of what we are doing.

I think one need only understand that, in the long term, once you get beyond conservation of renewables, there is a lot of very unhappy news out there. This country had better understand that before it is too late.

I am looking forward to the testimony.

I have a statement for the record from Senator Weicker. [The prepared statement of Senator Weicker follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE

OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. Chairman, the Nation's security is being held hostage by our dependence on oil imports from politically unstable and often unfriendly nations of the MiddleEast. It is the reduction of this dependence which should be the paramount concern of the Committee and of this Nation's energy policy-makers. Oil demand reductions can be achieved through a variety of alternatives. Evaluating these alternatives and developing a rational energy policy is the task of this Committee.

Each energy alternative is associated with a particular set of consequences which must be dealt with. No alternatives should be precluded, nor should the consequences of any action be ignored. Today's hearings are to consider acid rain and although this is a major consequence associated with increased coal use, it is by no means the only one. Hearings in this Committee in April focused on the atmospheric buildup of carbon-dioxide, another result of increased coal use which is less well understood than acid rain but which research suggests may have far greater implications. Experts testified that the increased combustion of fossil fuels, particularly coal, could double the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by the year 2050 leading to global climate changes. This problem is especially insidious because the effects of such a buildup cannot be scientifically confirmed before it is too late to respond to them.

Additional research is needed to fully understand the energy alternatives available to the Nation and the costs associated with them. Unfortunately, we cannot afford to wait for this additional information. Policy decisions are being made every day and therefore, they must have the flexibility to respond to new information and technology.

Acid precipitation is typical of this problem we face in formulating energy policy. As you know, a House-Senate conference committee has reached agreement on S. 932, the synfuels legislation, which contains provisions I cosponsored to establish a Federal Acid Precipitation Task Force to study and control the problem under discussion today. However, we are faced with energy policy questions today without the benefit of advice from the Acid Rain Task Force.

In August of 1979, the President announced his Federal Acid Rain Assessment Program and establishment of the inter-agency Acid Rain Coordination Committee to conduct research on acid rain effects, trends, transport and control. To date the work of the program, particularly, by the Environmental Protection Agency, has been commendable. I am concerned, however, that such a program could lose support as quickly as it was created and therefore needs the legislative authority provided by Title X of the synfuels bill. A secure acid rain program is essential to developing a rational policy on coal use.

A growing body of scientific evidence suggests several environmental problems associated with acid rain. Not only do these acids cause direct damage to plants, animals and materials, because of their corrosive properties, but they also leach trace metals from the soils polluting ground water and depriving the soil of essential nutrients. Over 300 lakes in New York are now sterilized and Canadian scientists fear that as many as 50,000 lakes may die over the next 20 years. In Scandinavia, studies have demonstrated decreased forest growth in northern Europe which has a long history of coal use and acid deposition.

Both the House and Senate are currently considering legislation, H.R. 6930 and S. 2470, mandating the conversion of dozens of the Nation's powerplants from oil to coal. These conversions are expected to increase the emission of the chemical precursors of acid rain, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrous oxides (NO). Although the estimates of the size of the emissions increases are disputed (the EPA claims an increase of 330,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and the Department of Energy claims an increase of only 192,000 tons), any increases will have their greatest impact in New England. Most of the 107 plants slated for mandatory conversion under phase I of the legislation are in New England with many of the remaining plants in the northern midwest from which winds will carry their emissions into New England. In fact, the EPA has discovered that only 44 percent of New England's acid rain is self generated.

Because States cannot permit industrial expansion which would cause them to exceed their air quality standards, industrial expansion will be limited first in New England even though those States are not the source of most of the emissions. A similar situation exists internationally in that the United States is a net exporter of acid rain to both Canada and Mexico. If the Nation chooses to increase its use of coal, the resultant acid rain burden must be shared equitably. New England and Canada have not struggled to maintain their clean air so that others less concerned about air quality could exploit it.

In previous hearings before this Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, testimony was heard outlining the Federal responses to acid rain. The EPA is analyzing the economic implications of control measures, reviewing the Clean Air Act to determine whether it provides the regulatory structure needed to deal with the problem of interstate transport and emissions standards have been promulgated for new or expanded coal-fired powerplants. Additional testimony indicated that technological and financial resources are available to deal with the problem of acid rain. New emissions control devices can reduce SO2 emissions from an average of 80 lbs. per ton of coal in existing plants to below the 12 lbs. per ton required in the new source standard. Furthermore, because of the price differential between oil and coal, fuel cost savings will more than cover the cost of these devices. The President's Commission on Coal Use has endorsed these new performance standards as a way to burn coal cleanly. The issue of acid rain then is not whether we can control it, but whether we are willing to control it. A major outstanding problem of acid rain is the fact that the primary source of SO, and NO, emissions is existing coal-fired plants which are not required to meet the new source emissions standards. Additionally, because most States allow higher emissions levels from coal than from oil plants, any conversions of oil plants to coal will allow increases in emissions, exacerbating the already serious acid rain problem.

Congress had hoped to reduce the emission of acid rain precursors by offering loans to coal plant operators for the installation of control equipment under the Fuel Use Act (Section 602). However, most of the coal burning industry continues to deny that coal burning contributes to acid rain and not a single loan has been made for emissions control equipment. Under the coal conversion legislation now being considered by Congress grants would be made available for the design and installation of emissions control systems. If these provisions do not lead to meaningful reductions in SO, and NO, emissions we must be willing to take further action to offset the increases in acid rain caused by increased coal use.

Finally, let me reiterate that a solution to a problem which does not recognize its associated costs is not a solution at all, it is only an exchange of problems. Coal offers a viable option to our crippling dependence on foreign oil but we must be willing to make the hard decisions and respond to the problems which increased coal use creates. We must establish a program to investigate the causes, effects and solutions of acid rain and implement the solutions as they are determined.

Senator TSONGAS. We will start off with Dr. Ellis Cowling, associate dean of the School of Forest Resources, North Carolina State University, and Dr. George Hendrey of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York.

Dr. Cowling.

STATEMENT OF DR. ELLIS B. COWLING, ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR RESEARCH, AND PROFESSOR OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND FOREST RESOURCES, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, N.C.

Dr. COWLING. Good morning. I think George and I, who know each other pretty well, can perhaps more effectively deal with the challenge of communicating with the committee if we go back and forth a couple of times.

I think it is a particularly fortunate thing that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has taken up the acid rain issue.

Atmospheric deposition-that broad subject of which acid rain is a part-is a product of energy production from fossil fuels.

Also, atmospheric deposition and acid rain have important beneficial and harmful effects on natural resources.

So, you have here within this one committee the two important elements: The major source of acidity in rain and the major reason for being concerned, the stability of our natural resources.

Let me just introduce myself. I have been a professor of plant pathology and forestry at Yale and at North Carolina State University for 20 years, and a significant part of my personal research has been devoted to studies of the effects of air pollutants and of acid precipitation on agricultural crops and forest trees.

For the past 3 years, I have served as chairman of a consortium of about 100 scientists stretched across this country that make up the so-called national atmospheric deposition program.

This is a regional program of research sponsored by the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, by the Department of Agriculture, by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency, and several other agencies.

The objectives of the national atmospheric deposition program are twofold. One is to determine spatial and temporal trends in the deposition from the atmosphere of beneficial and injurious substances into ecosystems in various regions of the United States.

And the second objective is to organize and coordinate research on the effects of atmospheric deposition on the productivity of agricultural crops, forests, range lands, wet lands, and surface

waters.

In this latter connection, the Environmental Protection Agency has recently established a cooperative agreement with North Carolina State University to manage a large fraction of its programs in the biological effects arena.

Our responsibilities under this agreement include synthesis and integration of results from research conducted both in this country and abroad.

And I might mention that item 4, which is attached to this testimony, is our first attempt at integration and synthesis in that organization. You will find that item 4 contains a listing of the present status of our knowledge of acid precipitation as a phenomenon and acid precipitation as it affects various sorts of biological

resources.