June 4, 1976
Page 16700
PRESIDENT FORD CHOOSES DIRTY AIR
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on May 28, President Ford asked the Congress to reverse the course of national clean air policy set in place in 1967 and reinforced in 1970.
The President has proposed the elimination of the policy articulated in the 1967 Air Quality Act to protect air where it is presently clean.
The President has also proposed a delay in the automobile cleanup strategy which would expose 83 million people in this country to approximately 20 percent more smog and carbon monoxide in the 1980's.
The President would prefer uniformly dirty air across the country rather than the protection of public health and protection of the other values of our finite air resource.
His proposal abandons the resources of clean areas to the whims of polluters. The only limit on allowable degradation would be the primary — health-related and the secondary — welfare-related — air quality standards. These standards are 6 to 10 times dirtier than the quality of the air in many clean areas. Since these standards were conceived as cleanup targets for dirty areas, they do not provide adequate protection for areas where the air is cleaner than such standards.
The President's proposal to degrade clean air areas could mean that visibility over national parks would be reduced to as little as 5 miles in areas that presently have visibility of 100 miles.
The President gave little weight to environmental protection in this decision. He claims that his proposal strikes the proper balance between our energy, environmental and economic needs absent in the Senate bill. This is a serious distortion, when one of the key factors — environment — is assigned no value in the calculation.
President Ford stands firmly for environmental degradation. By his own admission, the President did not seek the information available on nondegradation before attempting to reach his decision. His May 28 letter to congressional leaders states that he has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to supply him with the results of studies of nondegradation. Yet he announced his position on congressional nondegradation proposals in the same letter. He did not wait to examine those studies.
A similar inattention to current information is glaringly apparent in the President's position on auto emission standards. The President has demonstrated a concern for a select segment of the electorate — the automobile industry — that does not extend to the citizens whose health is at stake.
Two days prior to the issuance of the President's letter, the California Air Resources Board announced a significant advancement in automobile emission control technology. A new catalyst system has been certified by Government testing procedures and will be marketed by Volvo in California this year. The new system achieves extremely low emissions and results in a 10-percent fuel economy improvement at the same time. The President is oblivious to this important development. In fact, his letter appears to indicate that such information would have no impact on him.
NONDEGRADATION
1. PROGRESS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
The President closes his letter by saying that while we are making progress in reaching environmental goals, we must not retard energy independence and economic recovery.
With regard to clean air areas, the Nation is not making progress. Air quality in clean air areas is declining. While only modest information is available from monitoring in such areas, we know from the increased number of sources in these areas; from the total emissions that come from these sources; and from the actual studies done of the power plants in the Southwest; that air quality in clean air areas is deteriorating.
While concentrations of particulate matter and sulfur oxides have declined in some urban areas over the last few years, total national emissions are on the increase; and urban sulfate levels have not declined. The Clean Air Act has resulted in cleanup progress in dirty air areas and has focused attention on the need to control pollution. Unless an unequivocal nondegradation policy is adopted, even that limited progress will be only temporary.
2. ONLY PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS IS AVAILABLE
President Ford is mistaken in his statement that present studies of nondegradation alternatives are not adequate. The May 26, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD contains a fact sheet which identified 21 studies conducted on the EPA regulations prior to their final promulgation, and 23 studies which have been conducted on the various Senate committee proposals. Each Senator has received a copy of this fact sheet.
In addition, EPA received 3,000 pages of testimony at its hearings on its proposed regulations. A May 28 letter from the Director of EPA Office of Legislation, Robert Ryan, stated that EPA had spent over $1 million analyzing the Senate and House nondegradation proposals.
3. NO MENTION OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
The President shows no concern about the potential adverse effects on national parks and wilderness areas, damage to water resources and vegetation by acid rain, harm to crops, and damage to other values protected by nondegradation provisions. This approach represents a philosophical viewpoint diametrically different from that on which environmental legislation has been predicated over the past 6 years. The declared national policy has been that, in the absence of complete information, steps should be taken to provide for protection. President Ford's approach implies that in the absence of conclusive information, environmental damage should be allowed to continue.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks a letter from the White House and a study by the Sierra Club which identifies the adverse health and welfare effects associated with air quality levels below the ambient standards.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I continue with my point No. 4.
4. THE PRESIDENT APPEARS TO SUPPORT SENATOR WILLIAM SCOTT'S AMENDMENT
The only legislative proposal pending as an amendment in the Senate which would meet the criteria established in the President's letter is the amendment by Senator WILLIAM L. SCOTT of Virginia to strike the protect and enhance clause from the existing Clean Air Act. The MOSS amendment does not go this far and does not meet the President's requirement that action be taken to preclude implementation of a significant deterioration policy until absolute and final knowledge is available.
The President has taken a position which supports the total elimination of protection provided by either the EPA regulations or congressional policy. The only fair interpretation of this position is that the President is opposed to protecting clean air.
5. JOB LOSSES
The President is attempting to use a phony "job scare" approach to defeat the Senate bill. His information is wrong. His approach discredits his position.
Pollution control has created 1 million jobs, according to recent reports by the President's own Council on Environmental Quality. Under the Senate bill, the installation of pollution control equipment will mean more jobs for those who manufacture pollution control equipment; for construction workers who install such equipment; and permanent employees who operate such equipment. Construction of new facilities will not be stopped by the Senate bill; new sources will, in some cases, need to add improved pollution control equipment and more carefully select locations for new plants. The increased costs are reasonable. One of the recent reports of EPA — which the President apparently chose not to read before making his decision — concludes this:
The Senate significant deterioration proposal will not prevent the construction of major, economically sized industrial facilities.
In an economy with 7.5 percent of the work force unemployed, pollution control work will aid the economy.
In addition, a study for the Federal Energy Administration by InterCity Fund on nondegradation reached a similar conclusion. It said:
The non-significant deterioration provision currently being considered by the House and Senate are unlikely to inhibit economic development, in that new plants can be built in rural areas.
AUTOMOBILES
The President has embraced Congressman DINGELL's amendment to postpone required reductions in auto emissions until 1982. The President contends that 2 or 3 additional years of delay will affect neither air quality nor the health of the population significantly; that the delay will save billions of dollars; and that the delay will save billions of gallons of gasoline.
The President is mistaken. The Ford-Dingell delay would expose 83 million Americans in the most polluted urban areas to 20 percent greater auto pollution in the 1980's than under the Senate bill.
President Ford alleges that the committee bill would cost billions of dollars and billions of gallons of gas. In fact, the committee bill might cost an added $1 billion per year for 2 years but failure to make that investment could result in as much as $2½ to $10 billion in health benefits foregone.
And the committee bill could result in as much as 1½ to 2 billion gallons of fuel savings over cars which would be produced to the Ford-Dingell standards.
HEALTH EFFECTS
It is the cumulative effect of the many short delays which is relevant to the health of the person exposed to the harmful pollution levels. The basis for President Ford to downplay health effects to unhealthy air is a comparison of the number of regions above the health-related air quality standards in 1990. That is an insufficient basis for comparison. Those regions contain 83 million people.
In 1980, the Dingell interim standard would add 11,000 "person-hours" of disability related to carbon monoxide, 1,000 aggravations of heart and lung disease in elderly persons, 20,000 excess cases of cough and 40,000 excess headaches due to oxidant.
Even in the areas where the air quality standards will be achieved by 1990, the belated attainment which the Ford-Dingell delay would cause will expose 42 million people to harmful air pollution levels.
THE NOx STANDARD
Implicit in the Ford-Dingell delay is the argument that a 2 gram per mile NOx standard may be adequate to protect public health, since tighter standards, if any, are left to administrative determination.
The 2 gram per mile NOx. standard is inadequate to protect public health. Between 1980 and 2000, the relaxed Dingell NOx. standard could add 2 million excess attacks of lower respiratory disease in children. According to the report from DOT/FEA/EPA to Mr. DINGELL, that standard would cause 110,000 excess attacks of lower respiratory disease in children per year in 1990 and 2,000 excess days of restricted activity.
If the 1982 NOx standard is tighter than 2.0 grams per mile than the DOT/ FEA/EPA report indicates, then the technology required will be essentially the same for the 1.0 gram per mile NOx required by the Senate committee bill and the cost and the fuel economy will be the same under either standard. However, if the 1982 and later standard is kept administratively at 2.0 grams per mile NOx under the Dingell amendment, then one important step toward protecting public health will have been foregone and emissions of NOx will be 4 million tons per year greater than under the Senate committee bill.
COST
It is claimed by President Ford that a delay would result in consumer cost savings of billions of dollars.
Reduced cost is an inadequate argument for relaxed standards. According to EPA, the technology to meet Senate committee statutory standards would add $2 or less to the sticker price compared to the Dingell 1982 standards. Even assuming a freeze at 2.0 NOx, the EPA April 1976 report "Automobile Emission Control" gives a cost of $175 to $216 to meet the Dingell standards — 41/3.4/2.0 — and $175 to $218 to meet the S. 3219 standard — 0.41/3.4/1.0 — and these numbers do not reflect the learning curve which results in further cost reduction as technology is stabilized for a period of years. The added cost in either case compared to an average 1976 vehicle is moderate: $117 which is about the same cost as an option such as power steering, or a vinyl roof. The Ford-Dingell approach would not avoid that cost but merely delay it for 2 years.
It also must be recognized that the Ford-Dingell delay will result in added medical costs due to the higher level of emissions permitted. The National Academy of Sciences, in their report on air quality and automobile emissions control, found that the annual benefits for improving air quality from its present levels to the levels of the Federal ambient air standards for automobile pollutants may be in the range of $2½ to $10 billion.
The comparison of lifetime cost depends on relative fuel economy and the most realistic comparison can be made using the scenario described under fuel economy. As shown in the table below, the added lifetime cost due to S. 3219 with the industry adopting good technology would be about $1 billion for 1979, 1980, and 1981. This compares to an estimated total lifetime cost of $16,000 per vehicle or $160 billion for the new car fleet in each year. Thus the added cost under the committee bill will be about $100 over the 10-year lifetime of the car, or about $10 per year. Surely this is not an unreasonable price to pay for clean air and added fuel savings. Using Mr. DINGELL's assumptions, the following table has been prepared :
[Table omitted]
However, the Ford-Dingell analysis contains inflated assumptions of the cost of maintenance of vehicles meeting the S. 3219 standards. The recent Volvo data suggests that neither a start catalyst nor a catalyst change will be required. The President assumes both items will be needed.
This suggests that the added sticker price will be less than $70 and added maintenance — mostly due to sensor changes — $25 for a total of $95. However, lifetime savings in gasoline cost would be $86 in 1980 and $109 in 1981 so that cost savings due to fuel economy gains offset the modest added sticker cost under the committee standards.
FUEL ECONOMY
The President claims that the Ford-Dingell delay would result in fuel savings of billions of gallons.
Not only is this unlikely, but increased fuel economy is also a false argument for relaxed standards, since there is no guarantee that the hypothetical fuel economy gains identified will be achieved.
In fact, there is good reason to believe that the application of the tighter standards in the Senate bill in 1979, 1980, and 1981 will result in the saving of 3 billion gallons of gasoline compared to the Ford-Dingell standards.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the actual fuel economy depends on the choice of technology, not on the choice of emission standards.
Actual fuel economy of a vehicle depends upon many factors unrelated to emissions, vehicle weight and engine size. The 1976 EPA report on automobile emission control identified two systems that could be considered to make the good fuel economy engine achieve hydrocarbon levels low enough to have high confidence of certifying at statutory emission standards. And EPA has stated that—
There is no inherent relationship between exhaust emission standards and fuel economy.
The fuel economy standards established by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 of 20 miles per gallon in 1980 and 27.5 miles per gallon in 1985 can be met concurrently with the emission standards established by the Senate committee bill, even assuming no shift in model mix and poor to average technology.
Since it is unlikely that the S. 3219 emission standards can be met on most cars without good technology, it is reasonable to assume that if S. 3219 prevails, good technology will be used, with benefits for fuel economy. Since the manufacturers have already faced the Ford-Dingell interim standards in California and most have used poor technology to meet them, it is also reasonable to assume that if Ford-Dingell prevails, poor technology will simply be extended to all States, with a similar and continued negative impact on fuel economy.
A current example of the benefits of good technology is the 1977 Volvo which has achieved emission levels of 0.20 HC, 2.8 CO, 0.17 NOx in EPA certification tests for cars sold in California. These levels are considerably better than the final statutory standards set in the committee bill. And while meeting much tighter emission levels, this automobile has improved its fuel economy by 10 percent from 20 miles per gallon in 1976 to 22 miles per gallon in 1977.
The reason? The manufacturer introduced improved technology. Surely, given 2 more years of lead time, the domestic manufacturers can do as well as Volvo.
Assuming that even under the Ford-Dingell delay, that the requirements of public health and the availability of technology would cause EPA to establish a nitrogen oxide standard of 1.0 grams/ mile in 1982, there are only 3 years in which the Ford-Dingell and the S. 3219 standards would differ: 1979, 1980, and 1981.
Under the most likely scenario, in which the S. 3219 standards force the use of best technology, but the Ford-Dingell standards do not, close examination of the DOT/FEA/EPA report itself shows that it is the Senate bill which would result in savings of billions of gallons of gasoline.
The ranges of fuel economy from table IA of the DOT/FEA/EPA report are reproduced below along with the requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
[Table omitted]
The President leaves the impression that auto pollution has been reduced by 83 percent. That is incorrect. The latest tests of actual cars on the road show that emissions of carbon monoxide from 1975 model cars are 65 percent above the standards even at low mileage. When projected to the 50,000 miles required to meet certification standards, carbon monoxide emissions will reach 160 percent above the standard and hydrocarbons 47 percent above the standard. Thus, any claim that auto pollution has been reduced 83 percent is idealized and misleading because it does not correspond to actual performance of cars in use.
Russell Train stated the following in the Senate hearings last year — page 1340:
Currently, 1975 Federal standards will require an 83% hydrocarbon, 83% carbon monoxide, and 11% nitrogen oxide reduction from pre-controlled cars.
Compared to the 1970-71 models upon which the statutory 90% reduction required by Congress is measured, and which had higher nitrogen oxide emissions than did pre-controlled cars, the progress is 63, 56, and 38 percent respectively.
Thus, we have come a long way, but still have a considerable way to go to meet the statutory standards. Moreover, autos in use often fail to meet standards because of inadequate maintenance.
The last sentence is key: The record of cars in use is very poor. To imply that we have had adequate cleanup of auto emissions is erroneous.
EXHIBIT 1
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington,
May 28, 1976.
HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
Chairman, Public Works Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Both Houses of the Congress will soon consider amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970. There are several sections of both the Senate and House amendments, as reported out of the respective committees, that I find disturbing. Specifically, I have serious reservations concerning the amendments dealing with auto emissions standards and prevention of significant deterioration.
In January 1975, I recommended that the Congress modify provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970 related to automobile emissions. This position in part reflected the fact that auto emissions for 1976 model autos have been reduced by 83% compared to uncontrolled pre-1968 emission levels (with the exception of nitrogen oxides). Further reductions would be increasingly costly to the consumer and would involve decreases in fuel efficiency.
The Senate and House amendments, as presently written, fall to strike the proper balance between energy, environmental and economic needs. Therefore, I am announcing my support for an amendment to be cosponsored by Congressman John Dingell and Congressman James Broyhill, which reflects the position recommended by Russell Train, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This amendment would provide for stability of emissions standards over the next three years, imposing stricter standards for two years thereafter.
Furthermore, a recent study by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Energy Administration indicates that the Dingell-Broyhill Amendment, relative to the Senate and House positions, would result in consumer cost savings of billions of dollars and fuel savings of billions of gallons. Resulting air quality differences would be negligible. I believe the Dingell-Broyhill Amendment at this point best balances the critical considerations of energy, economics and environment.
I am also concerned about the potential impact of the sections of the Senate and House Committee Amendments that deal with the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
In January 1975, I asked the Congress to clarify their intent by eliminating significant deterioration provisions. As the respective Amendments are now written, greater economic uncertainties concerning job creation and capital formation would be created. Additionally, the impact on future energy resource development might well be negative. While I applaud the efforts of your committee in attempting to clarify this difficult issue, the uncertainties of the suggested changes are disturbing. I have asked the Environmental Protection Agency to supply me with the results of impact studies showing the effect of such changes on various industries. I am not satisfied that the very preliminary work of that Agency is sufficient evidence on which to decide this critical issue. We do not have the facts necessary to make proper decisions.
In view of the potentially disastrous effects on unemployment and on energy development, I cannot endorse the changes recommended by the respective House and Senate Committees. Accordingly, I believe the most appropriate course of action would be to amend the Act to preclude application of all significant deterioration provisions until sufficient information concerning final impact can be gathered.
The Nation is making progress towards reaching its environmental goals. As we continue to clean up our air and water, we must be careful not to retard our efforts at energy independence and economic recovery. Given the uncertainties created by the Clean Air Amendments, I will ask the Congress to review these considerations.
Sincerely,
GERALD R. FORD.
HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS AT CONCENTRATIONS BELOW NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS: A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ADDENDUM
This addendum describes the scientific evidence concerning the adverse effects associated with pollution levels below those permitted by the national ambient air quality standards.
HEALTH EFFECTS
Summarizing the results of the Conference on Health Effects of Air Pollution which was conducted under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences–Engineering, the NAB reporters concluded:
"Due to the limitations of present knowledge, it is impossible at this time to establish an ambient air concentration of any pollutant — other than zero — below which it is certain that no human beings will be adversely affected."
For example, a sulfur dioxide episode in Yokkaichi, Japan, in 1972 resulted in 817 reported illnesses from sulfur dioxide inhalation when the pollution level reached 0.1 part per million (ppm). Syrota, M., "Observations on the fight against air pollution in Japan," 15 Pollution Atmospherique 129-151 (1973). By comparison, the maximum 24 hour concentration, which is not to be exceeded more than once per year, under the present national standards is 0.14 ppm.
During the same episode in Japan, absenteeism among school children due to respiratory ailments tripled when the average weekly sulfur dioxide level exceeded 0.09 ppm. Ibid.
A recent report in this country found: "The implication of daily levels of SO2 and particulates has been studied in particularly vulnerable groups such as patients with chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Deterioration in their respiratory well being has resulted from daily concentrations of SO2 of about 500 micrograms per cubic meter which is not much above the 24-hour primary standard. A few studies have even suggested that deterioration in particularly vulnerable groups may occur with daily concentrations which are below this standard."
A classic example of the adverse effects on health from sulfur oxide concentrations below the ambient standards has recently been documented by EPA itself. Ever since the national sulfur dioxide standards were promulgated, increasing attention has been given to derivative forms of sulfur dioxides, namely sulfates. Sulfates are produced through complex interactions of sulfur oxides with other chemical substances in the air and with ambient moisture. In recent years, sulfates have become increasingly regarded as being more dangerous to human health and more likely to be responsible for observed human health effects than sulfur dioxide itself! The data tentatively suggest: (1) adverse health effects could be ascribed to quite low values of suspended sulfates and (2) such values exist pervasively in the ambient air throughout the eastern United States!
On September 23, 1975, EPA issued a report which, while emphasizing the need for additional studies, stated that its "best judgment estimates" tied adverse effects to sulfate concentrations at or below that found in a 24-state region of the northeastern United States, including rural areas. EPA, Position Paper on Regulation of Atmospheric Sulfates, p. x (1975). Furthermore, these sulfate concentrations were correlated to sulfur dioxide levels at or near the primary annual standards and at or below the primary 24 hour standard. For example, urban levels now being monitored in the northeastern United States measured a range of sulfate concentrations of 10 to 24 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3); nonurban concentrations ranged from 8 to 14 ug/m3 (annual average). Id. at x, 20. "Best judgment estimates" on levels associated with adverse health effects were as low as 10 to 15 ug/m3 (annual average). Id. at viii, 10.
Despite this information, EPA has concluded that (id. at 78):
"[S]ulfate information presently available does not now permit the establishment of a new regulatory program."
Moreover (id. at xiv):
"... development of the data and information necessary for a sulfate regulatory program would require 3 to 5 years. In this regard, if EPA were to set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfates, it could not realistically be proposed before 1980 or 1981."
Sulfur dioxide emissions from relatively clean air in rural areas is a chief contributor to dangerously high urban sulfate concentrations. EPA states (id. at 35):
"The hypothesis that long range transport of sulfates from power plants is influencing urban sulfate levels is supported by the limited data on emission and concentration trends ... [T]he NAS [National Academy of Sciences] presents estimates of the impact of large emission sources on downwind sulfate concentrations. Their analysis suggests appreciable impacts on sulfate levels at distances of 300 miles downwind ..."
EPA further states (id. at 41):
"[O]nce applicable emission limits have been met by all sources in urban areas thus reducing locally produced sulfates, EPA believes that, based on the available evidence concerning transport, further increases in regional and urban sulfates can be expected if nonurban SO2 emissions from power plants and other sources continue to rise. Given the general levels of sulfates, other fine particles, and sulfur oxides in the northeast, the Agency's assessment of the preliminary health data suggests that such increases should be viewed with concern."
EPA concludes that (id. at 60):
"... protecting the most sensitive portion of the population could ultimately involve SO2 control in excess of that required to meet current SO2 standards."
Low level effects of other pollutants which are not covered by EPA's significant deterioration regulations, such as nitrogen oxides, also cause adverse effects. For example, nitrogen dioxide concentrations of 0.10-.3 ppm for short periods of time may cause visual and olfactory effects. It is now believed that further control of nitrogen oxide emissions could inhibit the formation of sulfates in the atmosphere."
Finally, there is recent evidence regarding the possible cancer causing effects of a nitrogen dioxide derivative. The World Health Organization estimates that eighty per cent of cancers are environmentally caused; the National Cancer Institute puts the figure at sixty to ninety per cent.
The City of Baltimore. Maryland, has the highest cancer death rate of any city in the nation. Until recently dimethyl nitrosamine (DMN) one of the most potent cancer-causing substances known to man, had never been found anywhere in ambient air over the United States, because techniques to detect it were too primitive. It was, nonetheless, theorized that DMN could be formed in the atmosphere by the reaction of nitrogen oxides with industrial or natural substances called amines. Baltimore was among five eastern cities recently tested for DMN. This time the startling evidence revealed DMN to be present over two of the cities. Baltimore was one; its air registered the higher level.
In sum, the evidence is mounting that adverse effects on health and welfare are associated with air pollution concentrations well below the present national standards. The National Academy of Sciences–Engineering recently reported to the Congress:
"All of the panels on health effects addressed themselves to the question of whether there are thresholds for the adverse health effects of pollutants, that is, some safe levels below which essentially all members of the population are protected. The present standards were derived on the assumption that such thresholds do exist .. .
"However, in no case is there evidence that the threshold levels have a clear physiological meaning, in the sense that there are genuine adverse health effects at and above some level of pollution, but no effects at all below that level. On the contrary, evidence indicates that the amount of health damage varies with the upward and downward variations in the concentration of the pollutant, and with no sharp lower limit."
Moreover:
"Some persons with respiratory or cardiac disease may have so little reserve that the slightest increase in pollution could aggravate their condition or precipitate death. 44(b).
"Thus, at any concentration, no matter how small, health effects may occur, the importance of which depends on the gravity of the effect." 44(c).
A report submitted to the Ford Foundation in September 1974 by the American Public Health Association, concluded that "at every level of pollution and not at some defined threshold, it appears that, depending upon the adaptive reserve of the individual, someone becomes ill and someone's life is shortened."
VEGETATION
Adverse effects are also caused to vegetation by low levels of pollution. Complete disappearance of certain lichens has occurred when winter sulfur dioxide averages reached two-thirds of the annual standard. EPA, Effects of Sulfur Oxide in the Atmosphere on Vegetation: Revised Chapter 5 for Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides, p. 19 (1973). Acute injury to spruce trees has been observed when the four-month growth season average concentration for sulfur dioxide was two-thirds the annual standard. Id. at 36-37. Other studies indicate varying adverse effects of pollutants at levels below the national standards on wheat and potato yields, spinach and apple quality, white pine tree volume and many other crops. Ibid.
ACID RAIN
Another effect of low level pollution, which is closely associated with observed ambient levels of suspended sulfates, is the phenomenon known as acid rain. EPA, Position Paper on Regulation of Atmospheric Sulfates, supra, p, 11. EPA has found that the acidification of rainfall can raise the acidity of soils and natural waters, cause mineral leaching, and damage vegetation. Ibid. The results can have a devastating effect on forests, soils, plant, animal, and aquatic life. A recent study suggests that acid precipitation may be causing depletion of fish populations in lakes in the Adirondack Mountains of New York. A Swedish study pointed to the increasing acidity of Swedish and Norwegian lakes and streams, some of which have become so acidified that they can no longer support fish life.
Several groups have warned about the potential effect on vegetation which a rise in acidity may have. Sweden's researchers found that a very small increase in ambient concentrations of sulfur oxides led to a drop in the growth rate of its forests. Id. at 44. The resulting acidity was projected to result in a reduction of forest growth by as much as 10 to 15 per cent by the year 2000. Id at 9.
Evaluating the environmental impact of power plant development in the Southwest, a federal study group found that "the effect of acid rain ... may be expected to be significant"on vegetation as well as water quality. Southwest Energy Study, Report of the Air Pollution Work Subgroup, App. C1, p. 29 (1972). An EPA panel found that a Christmas tree plantation suffered significant damage from emissions from a power plant, even though the maximum one-hour average of ambient sulfur oxides did not exceed .36 ppm during the study period, in contrast to the secondary 3-hour standard of .5 ppm.
In its comments to EPA on the 1973 proposed regulations, the Forest Service expressed particular concern over reports of "substantial reduction in timber volume caused by chronic low levels of SO2 or acid rains." The comments pointed out that, "although acute damage episodes are diminishing, we are now faced with a more serious problem — chronic exposure to low levels of various air pollutants." To avoid such damage, the Forest Service urged "a cautious approach to allowing any deterioration of air quality ..."
Rainfall ten times more acidic than normal has been reported over the eastern United States. In some remote rural areas of New England, the rains have been described to be "as acid as pure lemon juice."
One especially difficult aspect of acid rain is that its quantity and concentration depend upon the total amount of pollution in the air over a wide region rather than the concentration in any particular place. Any increase in pollutants, even at very low levels and even in an area which enjoys air quality better than required by the standards, nevertheless will contribute to the overall atmospheric loading of pollution which can result in acid rainfall.
VISIBILITY
Any amount of air pollution, even at low levels, will have an impact on visibility. If sulfur oxides are present at a level well below the annual standard (60 micrograms as opposed to the standard of 80), visibility will be reduced to about 15 miles. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides, p. 14. If humidity is fairly high, visibility will be reduced even more. For example, if humidity is at 98 percent, with sulfur dioxide at 60 micrograms, visibility decreases to 3 or 4 miles. Ibid. A visual range of five miles or less requires that aircraft operations be slowed and restrictions imposed. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, p. 52. By contrast, in large areas of the country and in particular in those areas prized for their natural and scenic treasures, present visibility may extend for 50 to 100 miles.
The presence of particulates also reduces visibility sharply. At what EPA terms a "typical rural concentration" of 30 micrograms of particulates per cubic meter, visibility is about 25 miles. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particular Matter, p. 60. At the level of the secondary annual standard, 60 micrograms, the range is reduced about 12 miles. Id. at 57. If particulates are at the level of the primary standard, 75 micrograms, that concentration "might produce a visibility of 5 miles in some instances." Id. at 61. And if nitrogen oxides are present with particulates, visibility is reduced even further. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Nitrogen Oxides, pp. 24, 26.
SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS
These specific examples demonstrate that many adverse effects are present at pollution levels below those set by the ambient standards. In addition, however, atmospheric pollutants seldom, if ever, occur in isolation. It is clearly established that pollutants combined together may have a greater total effect than the sum of their individual effects. This phenomenon, called synergism, can result in adverse effects produced by two or more pollutants acting in combination, even though each pollutant is present in quantities below its corresponding national standard. As the National Academy of Sciences–Engineering has stated, the implication is that (NAS Report, supra, p. 19):
"Air quality standards that regulate individual pollutants independently can never fully reflect ambient pollutant concentrations and their effects on human health."
Research has increasingly documented synergistic effects. For example, particulate matter in concentrations below the secondary 24-hour standard will produce, in conjunction with small amounts of sulfates, a decrease in the lung function of children both at rest and after exercise. NAS Report, supra, p. 78. The evidence of synergism between sulfur dioxide and particulates is well established. EPA has concluded that the harm from sulfur dioxide is increased three to four times by the presence of particulates, which oxidize sulfur dioxide to acid aerosols. EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides, p. 111. A number of other studies have also demonstrated the synergistic effect of relatively low levels of sulfur oxides in combination with particulates.
Synergistic adverse effects upon vegetation at concentrations that had no effects when searchers "found that a mixture of ozone and sulfur dioxide injured tobacco leaves at concentrations that had no effects when the two chemicals were present separately." Marx, Air Pollution: Effects on Plants, Science 731, 733 (February 28, 1975). Damage to plants has been found at sulfur dioxide levels of only .001 ppm, compared with the annual standard of .03 ppm, when combined with ozone. A later study considered the combined effects of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide which "often occur together because they are both formed during the combustion of fossil fuels, especially coal." The study found that "the synergistic effect was most `marked at the lower concentrations used ...'" The concentrations ranged from .15 to .5 ppm compared with the secondary standard for sulfur dioxide of of .5 ppm.