ES&T
OUTLOOK Acid rain perspectives: A tale of two countries Differences between Canada and the U.S. affect their approaches to control At first glance, the similarities between Canada and the U.S. are striking. Apart from the province of Quebec, the language is the same, and cultural background and social values appear to be held in common. In general, it can be said that the goals of citizens of both countries are alike. Seeing so many resemblances, the visitor to Canada can easily wonder why the two countries are taking such different approaches to the acid rain problem. Although there is a strong movement in the U.S. to control acid deposition, so far the U.S. has failed to pass legislation specifically designed to deal with the issue. U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions are predicted to rise moderately over the next 10 years. In contrast, in March of this year, Canada decided unilaterally to reduce S0 2 emissions 50% by 1994, with a 25% reduction in place by 1990. This applies to provinces east of the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border. To understand why these approaches vary, it is necessary to know certain differences between the two countries pertaining to acid rain. A number of these were analyzed in a recent address by Don Munton, director of research at the Canadian Institute of International Affairs in Toronto, Ont. The following discussion will concern the eastern parts of Canada and the U.S., where there is a more immediate risk to natural resources. Control plans for emission reductions in Canada need to be less complex than those in the U.S. The major sources of S0 2 in Canada are few. Six large copper-nickel smelters and one iron-processing operation produce 58% of the total S0 2 emissions, while just 15% is produced by utilities, primarily in southern Ontario. (Nonutility fuel use and other sources account for 27%.) Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia are the only provinces in eastern 0013-936X/84/0916-0341 A$01.50/0
Sulfuric acid plant at the Falconbridge smelter outside Sudbury, Ont. Canada where the utilities produce sub- where utilities are responsible for 71 % stantial emissions, and the utility sys- of the S0 2 emissions and nonferrous tem in each province is operated by a smelters emit only a small percentage. single, provincially owned corporation. Because there are a great many utilities Therefore, to institute further acid rain in the eastern U.S., measures leading controls, Canada needs to negotiate to a significant reduction in SO: would withjust six smelters, one iron-process- have to be applied to a large number of ing firm, and three utilities. power plants operated by many priThe opposite is true in the U.S., vately owned companies. Conse-
© 1984 American Chemical Society
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 18, No. 11, 1984
341A
quently, to set up acid rain controls, the U.S. government would have to deal with a large number of individual enti ties in many states. If Canada were to attempt to reduce S 0 2 emissions in the nonutility, nonferrous smelter sector, the situation would be far more complex because this sec tor comprises many individual firms and homes. However, it produces only 27% of the total emissions, and con trols for this sector are the most expen sive per ton of S 0 2 removed. Sources and receptors A second important difference be tween the U.S. and Canada is that the major sources of SO2 in the U.S. ap pear to be widely separated from the most sensitive regions at immediate risk from acid rain (see ES&T, October 1981, p. 1120), whereas in Canada the major sources lie within or close to sen sitive regions. It is true that Pennsylva nia, the state that is the second largest emitter, borders New York State, and Pennsylvania itself has some sensitive areas. But if a circle were drawn around the highest concentration of S 0 2 emitters, the center of that circle would be located within the Ohio River basin. This region is hundreds of miles up wind from the well-known sensitive re gions in upper New York State and New England. On the other hand, smelters in Can ada are within or close to the most im portant sensitive regions. The INCO smelter at Sudbury, Ont., is within one hundred miles of vulnerable lakes to the east and southeast. Other smelters are located in a large, sensitive part of Quebec. Because the rocks and soil of nearly all of eastern Canada have low buffering capacity, it would be difficult to locate a smelter in eastern Canada that is not close to a sensitive region (ES&T, October 1981, p. 1119). However, these apparent differences may not actually exist. When effects other than those on aquatic ecosystems are considered, it may be that Ohio, for example, suffers as much from acid deposition as New York State. A recent study by Science Applications, Inc., showed that the effects on visibility, on man-made materials such as masonry, structural steel, and paint, and possibly on forests and crops, may cause a large, as yet unrecognized economic cost to the citizens of Ohio. Whatever the reality, the general perception is that states in the Midwest emit large quanti ties of S0 2 but suffer relatively minor damage from these emissions, while the sensitive lakes and streams of New York and New England are affected ad versely. It is this perception, not the re ality, that causes the differences in 342A
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 18, No. 1 1 , 1984
views on acid rain in various regions of the U.S. In eastern Canada, the result of the collocation of sources and receptors is that the attitudes of the citizens toward acid rain do not vary much from region to region, and acid rain is a totally non partisan issue. The general view is that something should be done about the problem, even if the solution is expen sive. In a recent Gallup poll, 69% of the respondents were willing to devote one day's pay per year to the control of acid rain. Another difference between the U.S. and Canada that helps to build a con sensus in Canada about the acid rain issue is that the Canadian economy de pends to a much greater extent on for estry, fishing, and tourism. These ac tivities are carried on primarily in sensitive regions and account for 8 % of the gross national product. Since all three sources of income may be vulner able to the effects of acid rain, the Ca nadian people believe that acid deposi tion threatens their vital interests. Emission imbalance Total S 0 2 emissions from the eastern U.S. are more than five times as great as those from eastern Canada. Because of this difference and the general wind patterns, three to five times as much sulfur flows north from the U.S. to Canada than flows from Canada into the U.S. According to three regional budget studies, eastern Canada receives about 50% of its wet sulfate deposition from the U.S., while the eastern U.S. as a whole receives an average of about 5 % from Canada. Almost the same situation prevails with respect to NO* emissions, al though here the ratio between U.S. and Canadian emissions is about ten to one. The transportation sector is the primary source of NOx emissions in both coun tries. The percentage of NO* that flows across the borders may be somewhat less than for S 0 2 , however, because the average lifetime of NO x in the atmo sphere is shorter than that of S 0 2 . Be fore it leaves the country of origin, much of the NO^ deposits out of the air, reacts to form PAN (peroxyacetyl ni trate), or, in conjunction with hydrocar bons, promotes the formation of ozone. If Canada were the greater producer of S0 2 and ΝΟΛ emissions and if the wind generally blew from northwest to southeast, the U.S. would probably be far more concerned about Canadian emission controls. In fact, some very sensitive regions of the U.S., such as upper New York State and New En gland, receive about 15-25% of their deposition from Canada. It is generally believed, however, that the U.S. as a
whole is not very much affected by Ca nadian emissions. Consequently, Cana dians have a great interest in U.S. solu tions to the acid rain problem, but U.S. citizens are not generally concerned about the Canadian approach. Provincial power In Canada, the power of the prov inces generally has been growing over the past few decades, while federal power in the U . S . has expanded throughout much of this period. This has profound implications for the way that pollution control regulations and decisions are developed in Canada. The U.S. may view delays in implementing decisions made by the federal govern ment in Canada as proof of a lack of resolve, when in fact the delays may be the almost inevitable result of the way the government is structured. The Canadian House of Commons, the federal legislative body, cannot pass laws concerning natural resources ex cept for those dealing with inland and coastal fisheries and those having an international component. Commons' greatest power with respect to the envi ronment lies in its ability to tax and spend. For example, this body can es tablish special tax benefits for compan ies installing pollution control equip ment. The federal government provides clean air standards, but they are more like goals than enforceable rules. Sub stantial authority for air pollution con trol and enforcement resides at the pro vincial level. The result is that the decisions about how the necessary large-scale emission reductions to deal with acid deposition will be accomplished are made with federal-provincial agreements. Ar rangements have already been worked out to effect the initial 25 % reduction in S 0 2 emissions by 1990 (from the 1980 base case legal limit of 4.6 million met ric tons). However, the March 1984 de cision to cut emissions 50% by 1994 cannot be implemented until federalprovincial agreements are reached. Don Munton said that these agreements probably will not be made substantially in advance of an international accord between the U.S. and Canada to reduce emissions. Other observers in Canada disagree with this view. For example, Alex Manson of Environment Canada believes federal-provincial agreements are likely in the near future because there is a great deal of commitment on both sides. A lack of scrubbers Those who question Canada's deter mination to solve the acid rain problem often point out that Canada does not have a single scrubber on a smelter or
power plant, in contrast to the U.S., which has a number of utilities with scrubbers. What is not understood by these observers is that scrubbers and smelters do not fit well together and few power plants in Canada burn fossil fuel. For smelters, it is cheaper to manufacture sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur from the emissions. The cost per ton of controlling S0 2 with scrubbers is about five times higher than the cost of converting it to acid or sulfur. But unless specially designed scrubbers are employed, it is not cost effective to convert utility emissions to sulfuric acid because they have lower concentrations of SO2. Ontario Hydro, New Brunswick Electric Power, and Nova Scotia Power are the only utilities in eastern Canada that produce a substantial amount of electricity from fossil fuel; they are therefore the only ones in eastern Canada that could use scrubbers. Ontario Hydro, which burns much more coal than any other utility in eastern Canada and releases five times as much S0 2 as the next largest emitter, has received the most attention. One-third of Ontario Hydro's capacity is nuclear, one-third is hydro, and one-third is fossil fuel. However, the fossil fuel units are operated only when electricity demand is high, a relatively small portion of the time. Ontario Hydro is under orders to re-' duce its SO2 emissions 41% by 1990 compared with 1980 levels. It intends to accomplish this primarily by bringing more nuclear plants on-line and by using a coal mixture that has a lower average sulfur content. However, two of the utility's nuclear plants are now shut down for major repairs. Because of the temporary loss of nuclear capacity, Ontario Hydro's emissions are about 10% higher this year than last and may be higher yet in 1985. Some Canadian critics argue that nuclear plants are not reliable enough to be counted on to supply a planned amount of power. They say that scrubbers should be installed on the largest of Ontario Hydro's coal-fired units, as insurance that emission reductions will be achieved under a wide range of future conditions. There may be some substance to this argument. If Ontario Hydro cannot meet its emission reduction schedule by substituting nuclear power—that is, if some nuclear units break down unexpectedly or if electricity demand should rise faster than anticipated—its only alternatives would be to purchase hydroelectric power from Manitoba and Quebec or to ration electricity. Rationing is highly unlikely, and significant purchases may not be possible because
Canada's SO, and NO. emissions are a fraction of those in the U.S.a
"Emissions in 1980 Source: U.S.-Canada, Memorandum of Intent; June, 1982
Quebec recently concluded contracts to sell large amounts of electricity to New York State and New England. Critics in Canada and the U.S. may be right in demanding that Canada install scrubbers on some power plants, but they are arguing from different perspectives— the one from wanting to hedge an uncertain future, the other from seeing large expenditures as a demonstration of Canada's willingness to solve its acid rain problems. Cost of emission reductions Between 1970 and 1980, eastern Canada reduced its S0 2 emissions about 30% (from 5.6 to 3.9 million metric tons) compared with a 25% reduction in the eastern U.S (from 28.0 to 21.0 million metric tons). In most areas, both countries have successfully controlled S0 2 as a local air quality problem. So far Canada's control efforts have not been extraordinarily costly, whereas this effort has been relatively expensive for the U.S. The next step, to reduce Canadian emissions 50% by 1994, will cost substantially more than what Canada has spent to date. Achieving Canada's goal of a 2.3million-ton emission ceiling by 1994 will cost between $600 million and $1 billion annually (in Canadian dollars).
In the nonferrous smelter industry, a capital expenditure of $1—$1.5 billion will be required; in the utility sector, $1 billion or more could be needed. Two copper-nickel smelters in the area of Sudbury, Ont., have already made substantial reductions in their emissions: Falconbridge by two-thirds since 1960 and INCO by a similar proportion since 1970. However, S0 2 emissions at three of the largest copper-nickel smelters remain mostly uncontrolled. The nonferrous smelter industry in Canada has had financial difficulties in recent years because the worldwide demand for metals has been soft. Moreover, metal prices have declined as new smelters have opened or expanded in the less developed countries. To accomplish significant new reductions at the nonferrous smelters, the Canadian government recognizes that some kind of financial assistance will be required in the form of tax breaks, direct grants, or both. In a recent report, "Time Lost," a House of Commons subcommittee on acid rain wrote, "The current state of the nonferrous smelting industry is such that most firms would find themselves in financial difficulty if they were to undertake major abatement programs." The projected cost of Canada's conEnviron. Sci. Technol., Vol. 18, No. 11, 1984 343A
trol program is less than that of most of the acid rain bills introduced in Congress in recent years. For example, the annual cost of the Stafford bill has been estimated at $3.1-$3.6 billion (for a 10-million-ton S 0 2 reduction), and that of the Sikorski-Waxman bill at $4.2$5.3 billion (for a 10-million-ton S 0 2 reduction and a 4-million-ton NO, reduction). But because Canada has only one-tenth the U.S. population, the cost per capita of the planned 50% reduction in SÔ 2 emissions will probably be greater than it would be in the U.S. An anomaly In the overall effort to reduce air pollution, the U.S. remains ahead of Canada in one area—automobile emissions. Emission limits for NO,, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide in Canada are three, four, and seven times higher than those in in the U.S., respectively. A reduction catalyst is required on new cars sold in Canada; a three-way, closed-loop catalyst is required in the U.S. Until recently, government officials in Canada have shown little interest in reducing automobile emissions. This is puzzling when the following facts are considered. By the year 2000, NO, emissions from the transportation
sector are predicted to increase just over 50%. A large part of the NO, emitted in Canada is likely to be deposited there, as it is transported fewer miles on the average than S0 2 before deposition. The relative contribution of NO, to snow acidity in some areas varies from 43% to 7 3 % , with an average of 60%. Therefore, although NO, is not usually a problem for lakes and streams in the summer when it is absorbed by vegetation before it reaches surface waters, it can contribute substantially to acid shock, the short-term pH depression caused by snowmelt and spring runoff. Acid shock is thought to be responsible for damage in the early spring to fish populations, amphibians, and other aquatic biota. Finally, Canada is becoming increasingly concerned that air pollution is damaging its forests. No comprehensive survey has been made, but incidents of sugar maple dieback are being reported in central Ontario and the Eastern Townships region of Quebec. Most scientists believe that the widespread forest decline in the U.S. and Europe is caused by some kind of air pollution: ozone, nitrates, sulfur dioxide, acid rain, heavy metals, or some combination of two or more of these.
Because either ozone or nitrates could play a major part in Canadian forestry problems, it may be prudent to reduce automobile emissions as a precaution. Robert Slater, assistant deputy minister of Environment Canada's Environmental Protection Service, said recently that "ozone levels in many Canadian cities have exceeded the national ambient air quality objectives." (Ozone levels in most Canadian rural areas are not known at present because there are only 17 monitors in the entire country.) Furthermore, if lead contributes to forest damage in Canada, it would also be necessary to lower or eliminate the lead allowed in Canadian gasoline, now at 0.77 grams per liter (to be reduced to 0.29 grams per liter by 1987). The EPA proposal is for U.S. gasoline to have one-tenth the Canadian 1987 level by 1986. In "Time Lost," the subcommittee wrote concerning automobile emissions, "The present Canadian regulatory position is therefore an anomaly, is environmentally harmful, and causes acute political embarrassment to Canadians in discussion with U.S. legislators and officials on the need for continental controls on acid rain." —Bette Hileman
HYDROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS C o m p a t i b l e systems f o r e c o n o m y and efficiency The i n - S i t u t m SE200 Hydrologie Analysis System 1 " 1 provides reliable, accurate, computerautomated water level measurement and data reduction in the field. Now featuring improved electronic filtering, lightning protection, independent voltage regulation, and new, high accuracy transducers, the instrument has a 16-channel capacity for multiwell tests and monitoring o f waste sites, dams, or municipal wellfields. Driven by In-Situ's second-generation software, the SE200's computer (HewlettPackard HP85) can start and stop pumping, control f l o w rate, conduct step tests, and perform a variety o f other operations. The HP85 reduces all data to tables and graphs (linear, semilog, log-log, t / t ' ) , and it also serves as a data dump for our single-channel monitor, the SE1000. With a modem, it can communicate w i t h a larger computer such as our V A X 11/780 for computer simulation and design. The compatibility of our systems makes your hydrologie work more efficient and your buying decision more economical.
In-Situ Inc.
CIRCLE 4 ON READER SERVICE CARD 344A
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 18, No. 11, 1984
P.O. Box I Laramie, WY 82070
(307) 742-8213 TWX: 910-949-4944
