25 PA. Code Chapters 123 and 145
Interstate Ozone Transport Reduction
March 23, 2000 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today on the implementation of Pennsylvania's  Interstate Ozone Transport Reduction rules.  I live and breathe in Glendale Springs, North Carolina, in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains.  The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League was founded there in 1984 and is incorporated in Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina.  On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, I declare our support of the Clean Air Act 126 petition and Pennsylvania pollution caps as applied to upwind states, specifically, the compliance supplement pool allowance of 10,737 tons of NOx for North Carolina and 5,504 tons of NOx for Virginia.

However, we cannot support the concept of pollution trading to achieve air pollution reductions.  Pollution trading is a flawed concept because air pollution travels hundreds of miles--hence, the basis for the Clean Air Act Section 126.  Pollution trading contradicts this petition.  A trading  program endangers specific communities, often less wealthy and less powerful.  It is an inherent injustice in many pollution trading programs.

Ozone levels are higher than ever and the rate of increase is rising⁹. Last year North Carolina had 540 violations of the EPA eight-hour ozone standard and 20 violations of the one-hour standard⁴.  High ozone levels caused the state to issue health advisories telling people to stay indoors to avoid breathing problems, asthma attacks, and respiratory infections.  Ozone inhibits plant growth and damages crops.  NOx emissions create ozone, reduce visibility, and contribute to acid rain, nitrate hazards in drinking water, and formation of toxic air pollution¹⁰. National parks and other Class I areas, which are supposed to have the most pristine air in the country, are more polluted than cities. In fact, the two most polluted national parks in the nation are the Great Smoky Mountain and the Shenandoah national parks.¹²

Electric industry emissions are a major cause of urban and rural ozone pollution. Nationwide, coal-fired electric power stations built before 1980 generate half of the nation's electricity, but emit 85% of the NOx generated by utilities⁵.  Because of the loopholes written into the Clean Air Act, these coal-fired plants continue to rely on pollution control technology developed 20 to 40 years ago⁵.  Some older plants operate with pollution rates up to 100 times greater than newer units⁶.

This is no time for half measures.  Poor atmospheric mixing and air inversions can increase ozone concentrations in populated areas to dangerous levels in a matter of hours.  Rural mountain regions also suffer prolonged high ozone levels.  The risk to the very young, the elderly, and to people with heart or lung disease is especially serious.

The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League advocates at least an 80% reduction in NOx emissions from all 14 coal-fired electric plants operating in North Carolina.  This is possible through the use of selective catalytic reduction controls which have achieved a 92% NOx reduction at other coal-fired utility boilers.  And this level of pollution reduction would raise the average North Carolina household electric bill only about $1.20 per month⁸.

We believe that nothing short of an 80% NOx reduction will alleviate the ozone threat. Ozone masses can be displaced 400-500 miles.  Air quality models in the Southern Oxidant Study indicate that peak ozone levels may not be reduced, and could even rise, unless this level of reduction is achieved:

"Air quality attainment is predicated on a large (i.e. 80%) reduction in NOx emissions, while moderate reductions in NOx emissions of less than 67% could bring about a period of slightly increased peak O₃ concentrations." ¹³

There is no disagreement among scientists that this level would improve air quality.  The 80% reduction should be year-round in order to protect the public and the environment from other adverse effects of NOx.  Utilities should achieve this goal within five years.  BREDL advocates 90% NOx reductions within ten years.  We do not need one more computer model to tell us why we cannot see the high peaks of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park in the summertime.

Our organization is working to reduce air pollution from all fossil-fuel burning sources including utility power plants and industrial boilers.  We advocate a regional approach to the effort to reduce air pollution.  Air pollutants, including SO2, NOx, toxics, and particulate pollution, are all part of the same problem for communities.  They affect health, visibility, and the economy.  In 1999 we developed the following Principles for Clean Air.

(1) States should develop a strong SO2 reduction program.
(a) State agencies should develop new rules which go beyond or at least anticipate the upcoming federal SO2 reduction regulations.
(b) States should establish ambient SO2 monitors at all coal-fired power plants (for example, at least three of Duke Power's coal plants have violated ambient SO2 emissions in an erratic patchwork testing program).
(c) States should employ the three hour rolling average for determination of permitted emission levels. The 24 hour block averaging method approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission in 1998 is a less restrictive method which allows spikes of high SO2 emissions to be averaged with lower levels, allowing higher overall  pollution.

(2) The ozone threat to cities and rural areas should be addressed as a single problem.
(a) NOx emissions should be reduced to levels at least matching the NOx State Implementation Plan (NOX SIP).
(b) NOx emission reduction efforts must be part of a total pollution reduction package for coal-fired power plants, i.e., new devices or retrofits should be accompanied by whole-facility improvements which reduce other criteria pollutants and toxins.
(c) Because ozone is created in part from toxic air pollutants, the NC exemption for utility boilers must be removed immediately.  Meeting the limits on toxic air pollutants at property boundaries can be expected to contribute to ozone levels reductions.
(d) Special areas where ozone levels remain dangerously high for extended periods of time (as much as 24 hours) should have increased ozone monitoring and heightened ozone mitigation programs.
(e) Relying too heavily on reductions from mobile sources, which are harder to quantify and which affect only certain areas of the state, must not replace strict requirements for NOx reductions from the big coal plants.

(3) No rollback in particulate emissions standards should occur.  BREDL recommends a revocation of the Duke Power and Carolina Power & Light Special Orders by Consent for the 10 and 20 year old visible emissions standards for power plants. Visible emissions are integrally related to other pollutants of concern, including criteria pollutants and toxics.

In December North Carolina's Division of Air Quality presented a new plan to reduce ozone pollution caused by nitrogen oxides.  The plan would require the state's fourteen coal-fired power plants to reduce emissions of NOx by as much as two-thirds beginning in 2001.  Soon, the Environmental Management Commission may decide whether to implement this plan.  But it is under attack by the utilities and their allies.

While utility spokesmen babble about their "financial responsibility to our customers and shareholders,"⁷ plants operated by Duke and CP&L emit over a billion pounds of NOx per year¹¹.  Both utilities emit high rates of nitrogen oxide per ton of coal burned³ because of out-dated pollution controls.  Duke Power is the seventh largest electric utility in the nation; Carolina Power & Light is ninteenth¹.  In total emissions of dangerous nitrogen oxides, Duke is the fifth largest and CP&L is tenth².  Air pollution is a national problem.  Rather than seeking further delays, Duke and CP&L would best serve North Carolina and the nation by leading us into the new century with bold reductions in air pollutants.  It is irresponsible for them to propose voluntary reductions only when more stringent reductions are on the table.

On Monday the state of North Carolina joined Virginia and five other states and filed a legal petition opposing the US EPA's requirement for specific pollution controls on utilities and other industries.  In addition to opposing the EPA mandate under Section 126 of the Clean Air Act, North Carolina plans to appeal a recent federal court ruling which favored another EPA mandate for controlling ozone-forming industrial emissions.  Just one year ago, North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt invited other governors to his Summit on Mountain Air Quality.  But his words were as solid as smoke in the wind.  The Governor is on the short list for Vice Presidential candidates, but his accession to that high office would make a mockery of environmental protection at the federal level as the pollution industry whispered in his ear.  We agree with the editorial published in the Asheville Citizen which said,⁷

"It is truly incomprehensible that the state of North Carolina is joining a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed by utility and industry trade groups in their continuing effort to avoid implementing regulations that would reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired plants."

"This lawsuit challenges directives targeted at the emissions sources, the power plants and industrial boilers themselves. EPA regulations intended to accomplish the same objective -- reduce ground level ozone, a major air pollutant -- aimed at 19 eastern states, including North Carolina, were challenged by the states in a lawsuit filed last year. A federal appeals court ruled in favor of EPA three weeks ago. Now, on Gov. Jim Hunt's authority, North Carolina plans to challenge that ruling, and adds insult to injury by joining forces with the polluters in another lawsuit."

I attach to these comments some documents and letters from our files which indicate where the citizens of North Carolina and Virginia stand on air pollution.  Also, I include correspondence from utilities to state officials which reveals the tactics which they employ to undermine efforts to reduce pollution from  coal-fired power plants.


Respectfully submitted,


Louis Zeller
Clean Air Campaign Director

Citations

(1) Natural Resources Defense Council, Benchmarking Air Emissions of Electric Utility Generators in the US,  June 1998, p.15
(2) Natural Resources Defense Council, Benchmarking Air Emissions of Electric Utility Generators in the US,  June 1998, p.18
(3) Natural Resources Defense Council, Benchmarking Air Emissions of Electric Utility Generators in the US,  June 1998,  p.30
(4) AIR Daily 1/10/2000
(5) Natural Resources Defense Council, Benchmarking Air Emissions of Electric Utility Generators in the US,  June 1998,   p.39
(6) Natural Resources Defense Council, Benchmarking Air Emissions of Electric Utility Generators in the US,  June 1998,   p.40
(7) Asheville, NC Citizen-Times, March 22, 2000
(8) Appalachian Voices policy paper delivered to the NC EMC January 24, 2000  Science, Cost and Benefit Factors  in NOx Reductions in NC, Dr. Harvard Ayers
(9) NC Division of Air Quality Trends in Exceedences of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard 1978-1999
(10) Natural Resources Defense Council, Benchmarking Air Emissions of Electric Utility Generators in the US,  June 1998,  p.42
(11) US EPA Toxic Release Inventory, 1998
(12) Polluted Parks in Peril, Harvard G. Ayers, Ph.D, October 1999
(13) Background Paper on NOx Sources as a Cause of Ozone and Smog in NC and Surrounding States,  Orie L. Loucks, Miami University, February 1999

Press Advisory