Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Testimony on the NOx SIP Call
before the Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee
of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
June 24, 1999

Introduction

Good morning. My name is Jane Stahl. I am the Deputy Commissioner for Air, Water and Waste Programs at the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. I appreciate the opportunity to present the perspective of the State of Connecticut on EPA's NOx SIP Call rule.

As you know, the NOx SIP Call would require twenty-two states and the District of Columbia to amend their respective state implementation plans to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx--a precursor pollutant to the formation of ground-level ozone). These reductions would be achieved through the implementation of a regional, market-based, emissions allowance trading program. Such a program would yield emission reductions more cost effectively than a program based on traditional command and control measures.

The State of Connecticut has been deeply involved in the search for a regional, consensus-based, solution to the problem of interstate transport of ozone. The State of Connecticut, as a member of the Ozone Transport Commission, participated in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) from its inception and fully supports the development of market based approaches to air quality management. We are, however, disappointed by recent events that threaten the promise of cleaner air for all.

To inject a sense of immediacy into this discussion, I would like to point out that so far this ozone season (the period from May 1-September 30 when ambient ozone levels are of greatest public health concern) the State of Connecticut has experienced three (3) days with exceedances of the 1-hour health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone (1-hour ozone NAAQS) and eight (8) days with exceedances of the more protective (yet unenforceable) 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The peak 1-hour ozone levels in Connecticut have reached 158 ppb; that is 27% higher than the minimum threshold determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as necessary to protect public health. The peak 8-hour ozone levels in Connecticut have reached 133 ppb, that is 58% above the public health threshold set by EPA.

Background

I. Connecticut fails to meet the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

The State of Connecticut has been engaged in a prolonged struggle to protect the public health of its citizens by bringing ground level ozone concentrations down to levels which comply with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The State of Connecticut has taken great strides to control the primary pollutants that produce ozone by meeting (and often exceeding) the numerous requirements imposed on the state by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Act). For example, the Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) is currently implementing and plans to implement many aggressive ozone abatement programs, including:

-- Reformulated gasoline (including ozone season reid vapor pressure limits) statewide;

--Enhanced Centralized Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance statewide;

--Stages I and II Gasoline Vapor Recovery statewide;

--New Source Review (with Offset requirements) at reduced major source thresholds as low as 25 tons per year (and in some instances technology review at 5 tons per year);

--Reasonably Available Control Technology on NOx Stationary Sources;

--Reasonably Available Control Technology on VOC Stationary Sources;

--California Low Emission Vehicle Program (Cal LEV) with National LEV Compliance Option; and

--OTC NOx Budget Program (1999 Phase II reductions and 2003 Phase III reductions).

Despite the vast improvement in Connecticut's air quality as a result of the implementation of these programs, Connecticut remains in noncompliance with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS established by the EPA. The chief cause of such continued noncompliance with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is the overwhelming transport of ozone and its precursors, primarily NOx, into our state from upwind states.

There are two maps attached to this testimony which clearly demonstrate the geographic link between high ozone levels and NOx emissions from electricity generating plants:

Figure 1 is a map of average maximum daily ozone (in parts per billion, 1-hour average) measured at ozone monitoring sites in the Eastern United States during the months June through August, 1991-1995. You will note that the most persistently high ozone levels extend along two axes: one is from the lower Ohio River Valley eastward across the Appalachians to Connecticut; and the second extends northeastward from the Piedmont of North Carolina to Connecticut. A third broad area of high ozone exists in the vicinity of Atlanta.

Figure 2 displays two types of information. The red arrows indicate wind flow (direction and persistence) during periods of high ozone episodes; and the circles represent locations and magnitude of NOx emissions from electric generating stations. Note the size of the circles is proportional to the quantity of emissions from each power plant; and that there are a series of power plants along the Ohio River Valley and along the Piedmont closely paralleling the high ozone map.

It is quite obvious that Connecticut is at a distinctive geographic disadvantage in the struggle to lower ozone levels unless we can get upwind areas to assist with reducing ozone precursor emissions.

II. Decisive Federal Action Is Necessary to Address Interstate Transport of Ozone

Air quality monitoring data, collected since the 1970's, shows a significant contribution of ozone in the Northeast originating from pollution sources outside the region. Transported ozone entering the Northeast Corridor has been measured aloft by aircraft at levels exceeding 80% of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (and over 100% of the unenforceable 8-hour ozone NAAQS). Reaching attainment in Connecticut and throughout the Northeast is unlikely if states must first compensate for the polluted air blowing across their boundaries. This is not one state's attempt to lay blame for its poor air quality on another state. Nor is it a choice between reductions from upwind sources or additional reductions from sources in Connecticut and throughout the Northeast. This is specific recognition of the fact that ozone pollution is a regional problem requiring regional solutions. Simply put, we do not live in a vacuum and our actions affect others.

The issue of interstate transport of ozone and its precursors has not gone unnoticed by Congress, who in structuring sections 110 and 176A of the Clean Air Act recognize that constitutional limitations prevent individual states from addressing problems associated with interstate transport of air pollution. There are distinct economies of scale in regional approaches to air pollution control that offer the most flexible opportunities to meet the ozone NAAQS at the lowest possible cost. However in the absence of federal leadership to control interstate transport of air pollution, states such as Connecticut will be constrained to seek relief under section 126 of the Act from transported air pollution which contributes significantly to nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in Connecticut. I would like to be clear that Connecticut's 126 petition is not the preferred option to address ozone transport and that the State of Connecticut would rather participate in a program based on a regional consensus-built solution to this problem. Although I believe that Connecticut's section 126 petition is meritorious and would yield reductions in interstate transport of air pollution, it will do so in a manner that is ultimately wasteful of the resources of all involved parties given the resultant litigation.

III. What the NOx SIP Call Means to the State of Connecticut

The State of Connecticut is fully aware that there are political and industrial interests aligned against the NOx SIP Call. There is also a judicial review of the NOx SIP Call pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The NOx SIP Call faces an uncertain future.

Regardless of the future of the NOx SIP Call, this does not change the fact that Connecticut suffers from some of the worst air quality in the nation. When the CTDEP is forced to issue warnings for its children and elderly citizens to stay inside on sunny summer days, when incidences of hospital admissions for asthma and related respiratory illnesses increase on days with poor air quality, when all of this persists in the face of one of the nation's premier air quality programs, it is obvious that it is beyond the power of the state, acting alone, to correct. This situation is shared by our sister states in the Northeast.

Against this backdrop, Connecticut emphatically endorses EPA's attempt to effectuate Congress' recognition of the regional nature of the ozone problem and offers the following comments in support of the NOx SIP Call:

A. The NOx SIP Call is necessary to protect the public health of Connecticut's Citizens

There are indications of the existence of sensitive subpopulations which are affected by environmental pollutants such as ozone. Ozone-related health effects can include: moderate to large decreases in lung function (e.g. resulting in difficulty breathing and shortness of breathe); respiratory symptoms such as those associated with chronic bronchitis (e.g. aggravated/prolonged coughing and chest pain); increased respiratory problems (e.g. aggravation of asthma and susceptibility to respiratory infection--resulting in increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits); and chronic inflammation and irreversible structural changes in the lungs upon repeated exposures.

Connecticut's Ozone Attainment Plan relies on the NOx SIP Call, in conjunction with the control measures identified in Part I of this testimony and elsewhere in the Connecticut State Implementation Plan, to meet the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Compliance with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS will only minimize, not eliminate, the adverse health effects described above because many sensitive subpopulations may be adversely effected by ozone levels below the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Air quality modeling indicates that peak ozone levels will barely comply with the 1-hour NAAQS in the year 2007 ONLY IF the NOx SIP Call, as set forth in EPA's final rule, is fully implemented.

B. The NOX SIP Call is a technically feasible and cost effective program

One of the arguments put forth by detractors of the NOx SIP Call is that control technologies are not feasible to meet the level of emission reductions needed to reduce ozone transport to acceptable levels. However, the fairly extensive experience in the United States with advanced post-combustion controls (such as Selective Catalytic Reduction or SCR, and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction or SNCR) demonstrates that these technologies can provide significant NOx reduction capability for virtually every coal-fired boiler in the NOx SIP Call region at a very attractive cost effectiveness. There are a number of studies, including one sponsored last year by the states of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM--a regional association of the eight states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont) which indicate that control technologies are both technically feasible and cost effective. The NESCAUM study showed that there are significantly more low-cost opportunities for reducing NOx emissions from upwind regions than in the Northeast. The cost analysis found that power plants in the Midwest can meet the emission targets at an average cost of $662 per ton of NOx reduced versus more expensive options in the Northeast that would amount to $1,031/ton. Furthermore, the market-based system of allowance trading which EPA has developed is intended to provide source owners the flexibility to decide for themselves if technology or trading is more cost-effective.

Conclusion

Thank you for providing the opportunity to present the perspective of the State of Connecticut on the NOx SIP Call. As public officials we have a duty to do everything in our power to limit exposures to environmental pollutants and the resultant risks to public health associated with such exposures. It is simply sound public health practice to limit exposures to any environmental pollutant that is within our means to control. When an opportunity to protect public health on this scale presents itself and contains the added benefits associated with a technically feasible and cost-effective program such as the NOx SIP Call, that opportunity must be seized. Therefore, I urge the members of this subcommittee to fully support EPA's efforts to protect public health and address this regional problem. I would also urge the members of this subcommittee and Congress to avoid any initiatives to weaken the NOx SIP Call.