•
-------
?,EPA JOURNAL
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Communications
and Public Affairs
Preface
William K. Reilly
Administrator
Lew Crampton
Associate Administrator for
Communications and Public Affairs
Charles Osolin
Director of Publications
John Heritage
Editor
Karen Flagstad
Associate Editor
Ruth Barker
Assistant Editor
Jack Lewis
Assistant Editor
Nancy Starnes
Assistant Editor
Marilyn Rogers
Circulation Manager
Design Credits
Ron Farrah
James R. Ingram
Robert Flanagan
Front Cover: The U.S. Capitol
on a dear day. Pholo by
Everett C. Johnson for Foiio,
Inc.
FUNNY,,, He NEVER MENTW> IT WAS GOW TD& AClpRAlN,
Reprinted by permission at UFS,
In 1970, Congress passed the Clean
Air Act amidst the euphoria of Earth
Day and the creation of EPA. This
landmark legislation, among its other
provisions, for the first time gave the
federal government authority to set
national standards that would protect
human health and welfare.
Twenty years later, it is plain that
we've accomplished a great deal.
However, it is also plain that we
haven't by any measure lived up to the
expectations of that original law. Nearly
half the population still lives in cities
that fail to meet the national standards;
hazardous air pollutants, for the most
part, haven't been controlled; and
serious new problems, acid rain and
ozone depletion, have emerged.
After a decade of debate, Congress
By Mike Peieis tor the Dayton Daily News.
has come up with a sweeping revision
in the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, a revision the President has
called "the most significant air
pollution legislation in our nation's
history." The hallmark of the new act, as
underscored by Administratior Reilly
and elaborated upon by others, is the
attempt throughout to harness the
forces of the marketplace to the work of
protecting the environment.
This issue of the magazine focuses on
the new clean air law, its provisions,
the air pollution problems that led up
to them, and the implications of the
new act. Presented along the way are
the viewpoints and reminiscences of
some of those who were closely
involved in the debate leading up to
the legislation.
EPA is charged by Congress to protect the nation's land, air, and water systems. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions which lead to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.
EPA journal is published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator of EPA has determined that the publication of this periodical is
necessary in 'ho transaction of the public business required by law of this Agency. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget. Views expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect EPA policy. No permission necessary to reproduce contents
except copyrighted photos and other materials.
Contributions and inquiries should be addressed to the Editor, EPA Journal (A-107), Waterside Matt, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460
-------
VOLUME 17
NUMBER 1
21K-1004
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
Contents
The New Clean Air Act: An
Environmental Milestone—EPA's
Administrator, William K. Reilly,
explains the significance of the
new act not only as a tool for
clean air but also as an
environmental precedent.
Questions and Answers: An
Interview with William G.
Rosenberg—EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Air and
Radiation answers questions the
public might ask about the new
act—its benefits, costs, history,
and the Agency's implementation
strategy.
What You Need to Know About
the New Clean Air Act—This special
section contains pairs of articles
profiling the major provisions of
the act and the problems they
address:
Motor Vehicles and Fuels
—Michael P. WaJsh
—flichard D. Wilson
Acid Rain
—Ned HeJme and Chris Neme
Eileen CJaussen
Urban Air Quality
John A. Paul
John Seitz
3Q Air Toxics
David Durenberger
Lydia Wegman
Stratospheric Ozone
—John H. Chafee
—Stephen R. Seidei
Operating Permits
—Akn W. Eckert
John Quarles
Looking Ahead—Several articles assess the effects of the new
Clean Air Act as it is implemented over the next 10 to 15 years:
The Economic Impact—An EPA specialist calculates the
overall costs as the drive for clean air is carried out.
By Keith Mason
At the Gasoline Pump—An official at a major oil company
explains the changes that are afoot in the world of motor
vehicle fuels because of the clean air effort.
By Kenneth R. Dickerson
Opportunities in the Cleanup—Entrepreneurs will find an
array of chances to make a profit as the nation reaches for
clean air. By Kenneth C. Leung
Viewpoints—Several persons who were deeply involved in the
passage of the new act relate their opinions and experiences:
Recollections of a Key Player—The U.S. Senate's Majority
Leader, George J. Mitchell, recalls memorable times in the
years-long effort to pass a new clean air law with an acid rain
control program.
Pizza at Midnight—Rob Brenner and John Beale of the EPA
Air Policy Office recall dramatic moments when the Agency's
expertise helped move the clean air legislation along.
An Environmentalist's Perspective—Richard E. Ayres of the
Natural Resources Defense Council expresses his thoughts on
what it will take for our society to achieve clean air.
A Skeptical Observer—Frank Blake, former EPA General
Counsel, describes his doubts about the new Clean Air Act's
chances for success.
: EPANEWSL7NE
Appointments
EPA JOURNAL Subscriptions
The annual rate for subscribers in the U.S. for
EPA Journal is $8. The charge to subscribers in
foreign countries is $10. a year. The price of a
single copy of EPA Journal is $2.25 in this
country and $2.81 if sent to a foreign country.
Prices include mail costs. Subscriptions to EPA
journal as well as to other federal government
magazines are handled only by the U.S.
Government Printing Office. Anyone wishing to
subscribe to EPA journal should fill in the form
at right and enclose a check or money order
payable to the Superintendent of Documents. The
requests should be mailed to:
Superintendent of Documents, GPO,
Washington, DC 20402.
Nar
Con
Sit.
City
le
ipar
et .'
First
y NJ
ddre
. La
me
S3
it
or A
dditi
3nal
Add
ress
Line
RLE
ASE
PR
Nl
S»c
te
Zip
Cod
8
Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
Charge to my Deposit Account No,
-------
The New Clean Air Act:
An Environmental Milestone
by William K. Reilly
Twenty years ago, with a law
whose modest sine belied its
revolutionary impact, Congress made a
promise to all Americans: the promise
of clean air. Now, as EPA takes on the
challenge of carrying out the sweeping
and complex changes in the clean air
law adopted last fall, that promise is
finally back on the path to fulfillment.
The 1970 Clean Air Act was a
legislative landmark in many ways. It
marked a high point in Congressional
concern for the environment up to that
time, and it incorporated what were
then major departures in the nation's
approach to regulation, including
national, as opposed to regional, air
quality standards and statutory
deadlines for compliance. In fewer than
Charles Tasnadi photo AP'Wide World,
After signing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, President Bush
presents a ceremonial pen to EPA Administrator Reilly as Energy Secretary
James Watkins looks on. The new law sets an example for economically
sound environmental stewardship.
(ReilJy is Administrator of EPA.)
EPA JOURNAL
-------
50 pages—tiny compared to the nearly
800 pages of the 1990 law—the 1970
Clean Air Act also sent a compelling
message to the nation: The time had
come for us to get serious about
protecting the environment. Much of
this country's environmental progress
over the last two decades can be
credited to the changes in attitude
signaled by the 1970 Clean Air Act.
But while this clean air law
accomplished a great
deal—substantially reducing emissions
of such pollutants as sulfur oxides,
volatile organic compounds, carbon
monoxide, particulates, and especially
lead—we are not yet able to say we
achieved its goals. Ninety-six of our
cities have still not attained the
national standard for ozone, the
primary ingredient in smog. Forty-one
cities do not meet the standard for
carbon monoxide, and 72 do not meet
the standard for particulate matter. And
since 1970, EPA has been able to
regulate only seven hazardous air
pollutants, out of a potential list of
several hundred, because of controversy
and legal challenges over provisions of
the 1970 law.
It has been obvious for nearly a
decade that the Clean Air Act would
have to be revised, and revised
substantially, before its promise could
be realized. Yet it was not until last
year that Congress, responding to the
determined leadership of President
Bush and Congress members who had
long championed clean air, finally was
able to overcome paralyzing regional
and sectoral differences and follow
through on the initial burst of
environmental enthusiasm that had
produced the hope, but not yet the
reality, of clean air.
Like the 1970 law, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 represent a
significant departure from the past. In
its innovative approaches to pollution
control, in the extent to which its
implementation envisions an
unprecedented degree of cooperation
between government and the private
sector, and in its promise of a renewed
national commitment to environmental
protection, the new law is a major
milestone in the evolution of
environmental protection in the United
States.
The law also presents one of the most
daunting regulatory tests yet faced by
EPA. The Agency is required to publish
more than 55 new rules in the next two
years—five times as many clean air
rules as our average until now. To meet
this challenge, we have committed 70
percent of the proposed increase in
Agency operating funds for Fiscal Year
1992 to Clean Air Act programs; and
we are hiring 200 new employees to
work in the air program, including
scientists, engineers, public policy
experts, analysts, and writers.
In the face of this monumental task,
EPA also has committed itself to
making some fundamental changes in
the way we do business. Instead of
relying on traditional rule-making—and
risking the time-consuming litigation it
often provokes—we are working hard to
build consensus at the outset of the
process. Collegiality and cooperation
will be the hallmark of the Agency's
implementation strategy. Every step of
Much of this country's
environmental progress over
the last two decades can be
credited to the changes in
attitude signaled by the
Clean Air Act
the way, we intend to involve state and
local governments and to consult with
industry, labor, and environmental
groups through advisory committees,
regular informal consultations, and a
formal regulatory negotiation process.
Such consensus-building efforts are
essential if we are to achieve the
multiple objectives of the new law
within the tight deadlines set by
Congress.
Our regulatory approach is entirely
consistent with the basic thrust of the
new clean air law—to achieve specific
and ambitious environmental goals
without unnecessarily damaging the
nation's economic health or hampering
its growth.
This is, above all, a flexible,
results-oriented law. It is not wedded to
hard and fast formulas or specific
technological requirements. Instead, the
law was designed with the marketplace
in mind. The Clean Air Act sets
specific air quality standards, yet it also
allows industry a great deal of latitude
in deciding how to achieve these
objectives.
Equally important, the law provides
real incentives for companies to seek
environmental solutions that work best
for them, instead of waiting for EPA 01
state and local authorities to impose
solutions through government
directives. Ultimately, the Clean Air
Act challenges industry to seize the
initiative—to take the lead in the
business of environmental protection.
Since the Clean Air Act was passed
last October, numerous articles have
appeared describing the impact of its
costs. Such costs are indisputable. They
are also unavoidable if the nation is to
have cleaner air even as more jobs,
factories, and cars are added to the
equation. It is important, however, to
see these costs in the context of the
remarkable policy breakthroughs
embodied in the new law and the
economic implications of these new
policies. Two critical new directions for
clean air policy—two innovations not
previously seen in environmental
policy—deserve particular attention as
part of that context.
The first is clean fuels as a means of
controlling air pollution, particularly in
the "nonattainment" areas that have
failed to meet the national standards for
ground-level ozone. Congress endorsed
the President's goal of cleaning up our
automobile fuels by setting tough
standards for the reformulation of
gasoline in the nation's nine most
polluted cities. Before the end of the
year, EPA will be issuing regulations
setting specific requirements for this
reformulated fuel program. Other cities
have the option of joining the program
if they choose.
Congress also required the
introduction of hundreds of thousands
of clean-fuel cars in California
beginning in 1996. and through a
voluntary "opt-in" provision, the
California pilot program could be
extended to other states as well. This
provision, intended to stimulate
clean-fuel technology, makes real-world
sense. For as a practical matter, without
altering what goes into car and truck
engines, a number of polluted
areas—most notably Southern
California—could not possibly attain
clean air standards. As a consequence
of the new law, an array of innovative
fuels—compressed natural gas,
methanol from natural gas, ethanol
from corn, electricity, and others—will
be getting a real-world test. And very
likely, many areas in addition to
California will choose to require their
use.
The second and broader innovation
has to do with economics. The United
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
-------
States now spends more than $100
billion a year on environmental
protection—more than three times as
much, in constant dollars, as we spent
in 1972. That figure will continue to
rise over the next 10 to 15 years as the
Clean Air Act gradually takes effect and
as the nationwide cleanup of hazardous
and operating waste sites proceeds.
Expenditures for environmental
protection are expected to reach about
2.7 percent of our Gross National
Product by the year 2000. It seems
clear, given these figures, that the
nation must devote a good deal more
attention than in the past to meeting
environmental commitments in
cost-effective ways.
To say this is not to use costs as a
rationale for pulling back on
environmental progress, nor is it to
imply that the nation cannot afford an
In the face of this
monumental task, EPA also
has committed itself to
making some fundamental
changes in the way we do
business.
ambitious environmental program.
After all, the clean air bill President
Bush proposed was costed somewhere
between $14 and $19 billion per year:
The Administration's bona fides should
be indisputable. The point is simply
this: New environmental proposals
should pay careful regard to
cost-effectiveness so that expensive
new measures carry with them
commensurate benefits in terms of
reducing threats to health and the
environment.
The new Clean Air Act meets that
test. Forged in a crucible of genuine
compromise and cooperation, the
legislation evolved first within the
Administration as many diverse
interests, including those of EPA, the
Council of Economic Advisors, and the
Office of Management and Budget, were
reconciled through the White House
domestic policy process; and then on
Capitol Hill as Members of Congress
and representatives of the
Administration, industry, and
environmentalists debated its
provisions. Bearing the clear imprint of
all the individuals and groups that
participated in its shaping, the final bill
not only gives Americans the promise
of clean air but also moves the nation
into a new era of economically sound
environmental stewardship.
To achieve environmental gains
within a reasonable timeframe at the
lowest feasible cost, the new law will
take hold in incremental stages, with
most controls fully in effect by 2005.
What, specifically, are some of these
gains? Emissions that cause acid rain
(sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides)
will be cut to roughly half of 1980
emission levels. More than 30 million
tons of noxious air pollutants will be
removed from the air each year. Every
part of the country finally will have
means to attain healthy air on a
realistic schedule. And the risk from
toxic air emissions will be cut by
three-fourths.
Overall health risks, including risks
of cancer, respiratory disease, heart
ailments, and reproductive disorders,
will be reduced dramatically. Also
drastically reduced will be damage to
sensitive ecosystems and to buildings,
monuments, and other manmade
structures. To cite one particularly
dramatic benefit, well over half the
toxic substances that contaminate the
Great Lakes should be eliminated. ,
These badly needed environmental
improvements would not be possible
without a fundamental shift in our
approach to environmental policy. The
President's proposals, on which the
new legislation is largely based, were
not only sensitive to the costs of
pollution control; they also included
provisions to supplement traditional
"command-and-control" regulations
with flexible, market-based programs
that will enlist the power of the
marketplace on behalf of the
environment.
The use of economic incentives, such
as an innovative system of tradable
emissions "allowances" for sulfur
dioxide, will enable the nation to
achieve significant improvements in air
quality at compliance costs $1 billion
lower than would otherwise be
possible. The emissions-trading
program we designed drew heavily on
concepts put forward by the
Environmental Defense Fund.
(See article on page 21.)
The statute also introduces a number
of other market-based innovations,
many of which are discussed elsewhere
in this issue of EPA Journal. These
include, for example,
performance-based standards for
hazardous pollutants; incentives or
"credits" for companies which act
quickly to reduce toxic emissions or go
beyond minimum compliance
requirements; tradable emission credits
for producers of certain kinds of
reformulated fuels, for manufacturers of
clean-fuel vehicles, and for vehicle
fleets subject to clean-fuel
requirements; and performance targets
for reformulated fuels, allowing
industry to meet these
emission-reduction targets in the most
cost-effective way possible.
With the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990, the United States set a
precedent for cost-effective
environmental policy that will be
followed around the world. Economic
incentives are given prominence in a
recent British White Paper on the
environment, for example, and we can
look for new policy directions in
Britain and other countries.
Moreover, advanced pollution-control
technologies developed in the United
States will help to meet worldwide
needs for environmental protection and
cleanup, especially in the newly
emerging (and heavily contaminated)
democracies of Eastern and Central
Europe. Last year, the Soviet Union
announced its intention to purchase
$1 billion in air-pollution control
equipment from the United States. The
new Clean Air Act will stimulate
further positive developments in
environmental technology.
At home, the cost-effective,
market-based approach to
environmental protection embodied in
the statute will serve as a model for
other Administration proposals—and
not just environmental proposals—in
the future. The lesson of the Clean Air
Act is clear: The nation need not give
up its aspirations for a cleaner,
healthier environment, or for other
worthwhile social goals, even at a time
of limited economic resources.
The key is to devise programs that
harmonize economic and social goals:
programs that put the marketplace to
work on behalf of the environment.
Thanks to the example of the 1990
Clean Air Act, we now know this can
be done. Q
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Questions and Answers:
An Interview with
William G. Rosenberg
A strenuous JegisJative process drew to
a close on November 15, 1990, when
President Bush signed into Jaw the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
But the work associated with the new
law is far from over. The statute sets an
ambitious regulatory agenda which
EPA, working in consultation with state
and local governments and a//ected
groups, must move swiftly to
accomplish. At this critical juncture in
the implementation of the new Jaw,
EPA Journal interviewed William G.
Rosenberg, the Agency's Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
concerning the new law and the agenda
that lies ahead. The questions and
answers follow:
L<> Briefly, how would you list the
major elements of these new
amendments to the Clean Air Act?
The goal of the act, the
environmental objective, is to reduce
pollution by 56 billion pounds a year.
That is 224 pounds for every man,
woman, and child. The reduction will
come from cutting the emissions from
several principal sources.
Acid rain from power plants,
principally sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxide emissions, will be drastically
curtailed. Urban smog, or ozone
pollution, produced by motor vehicles
and factories will also be cut
substantially. For motor vehicles,
which still account for 50 percent of
the urban problem, we will focus not
only on the volatile organic compounds
and nitrogen oxides that go into smog,
but also on carbon monoxide and what
we call air toxics. Air toxics are those
special pollutants we associate with
increased cancer risk and other health
risks. Air toxics from major factories
will also be reduced. Finally, those
emissions that deplete stratospheric
ozone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and
related chemicals, coming from a
number of sources, will be severely
curtailed. There are programs in each of
these areas to reduce emissions.
_ How soon will Americans see
cleaner air as a result of this act?
J\ That will depend on how
successful we are in getting early
voluntary compliance. If we have the
worst-case scenario, if all that happens
is that industry responds to rules as we
grind them out, then in 1992 we will
b^gin to see a reduction in carbon
monoxide in those areas where it is a
particular problem. The reduction will
be brought about by the wintertime
blending of oxygen in fuels.
Most of the smog, air toxics, and acid
rain initiatives are not required by the
law to begin until 1995. However, we
are going to do everything we can to
promote compliance prior to that time,
to harness the good will of industrial
leaders not only to meet their
obligations under the law, but meet
their corporate responsibilities to their
communities. They can engage
communities in the work by providing
their own incentives to individuals in
meeting the requirements.
To give you one example, this year
we will begin negotiating
voluntary-compliance programs under
the air toxics portion of the act. If a
firm agrees now to a 90-percent
reduction in emissions of a toxic
chemical, then we will extend the
deadline by which the firm must meet
the final 10-percent reduction.
So we expect to get reductions earlier
than the dates specified in the act.
Firms will have the opportunity to craft
programs to their particular corporate
and marketplace circumstances, and I
believe that by 1992 we will start to see
voluntary action in advance of
regulations being issued.
One of the principal problems we
will have is writing regulations that
encourage early, voluntary reduction
and provide flexibility for it, but that
also make sure recalcitrant companies
meet their responsibilities within the
statutory timetables.
From what you've said, this is a
huge undertaking. Over the long haul,
are we headed for a different kind of
society in the United States?
/i. Let me try to put it in
perspective. By 2005, when the act is
fully implemented, it will have cost
approximately $25 billion a year. We
estimate, for example, that in 1992, 10
percent of the costs will be incurred. In
1995, that will rise to 50 percent. Then
the last half of the costs will phase in
over the 10 years that follow.
That is a lot of money. However, on a
per-person basis it breaks down to
about 24 cents a day, or the cost of the
morning newspaper. We spend 63 cents
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
-------
National Park Service phofos
per day per person, on average, for
alcoholic beverages, and 43 cents for
tobacco products. The latter two
adversely affect health, whereas the 24
cents for clean air will reduce public
health costs as well as improve the
quality of life.
My feeling is we will see changes in
how things are produced and how they
work, but not much change in how we
live. We're talking about cleaner cars
and cleaner fuels, not restricted use of
cars. We'll see pollution prevention
practiced in factories, but the same
products will come out of those
factories and go into commerce. We're
talking reductions in acid rain, not less
electricity.
So I don't think the act means a
fundamental change in lifestyle at ail. It
means, instead, that we are
incorporating, as a part of the cost of
doing business, safeguards for the air
that all of us breathe. And we are going
to accomplish that in a way that is
consistent with the competitiveness of
those industries involved.
What would you say is the most
innovative feature of the new Clean
Air Act?
/\ Without question the most
innovative feature is the effort
throughout to harness marketplace
forces in the work of protecting the
environment. Other articles in your
issue, 1 understand, will cover the
acid-rain emissions trading program,
voluntary compliance credits for
industries that control air toxics ahead
of schedule, and the stimulation of new
fuels and new technologies in the
provisions on acid rain and motor
vehicles. We are going to set
performance standards for industries
and let them find their own best ways
of meeting them, rather than dictate the
controls they apply. This will
encourage industry to develop new
technologies.
If industry and government respond
to this innovative theme of the new act,
then I think we will see more engineers
being hired and fewer lawyers:
engineers to solve problems, rather than
lawyers to litigate EPA procedures.
The principal departure, then,
from previous amendments is the
introduction of marketplace
inducements?
I\ Yes, we will be pushing the
envelope in that regard. One basic
policy we will apply in carrying out the
law is "E to the power of three." That
means we intend to achieve our
environmental goals in a way that is
consistent with economic and
energy-security principles. In phasing
out CFCs, for example, we want not
only a replacement for freon that is less
damaging to stratospheric o/one, but
one that is more efficient: in other
words, one that will, for example,
demand less use of electricity by a
refrigerator. By making appliances more
efficient, we not only reduce the cost to
the consumer of operating them, we
reduce the amount of energy they use.
Why should this new law be able
to clean up the air when the 1970
Clean Air Act fell short?
/\ We learned a lot about what
works and what doesn't work in the
last 20 years, and the new act expands
on that experience. We know that
cleaner cars and cleaner fuels work.
And so as we turn over the fleet, the
cars that will be built in the next 10
years will be much cleaner than the
cars that they replace.
We learned that technology
standards, rather than risk-based
standards, work in dealing with air
toxics. So we will set new standards
that focus on the entire plant rather
than on particular chemicals. The new
acid rain title, which incorporates a
revolutionary allowance trading
program, mandates absolutely that we
will reduce by 10 million tons a year
the amount of sulfur dioxide coming
out of power plants. Inevitably, if you
reduce what comes out of power plants,
you have a lot less air pollution. Also,
in fulfilling the U.S. obligations under
the Montreal Protocol, the act virtually
precludes the use of CFCs in this
country by the end of the decade.
And so the mechanisms and the
commitment are much stronger in this
law, and they build on the experience
of the past. There is no doubt in my
mind that they will encourage
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Now you see it; now
you don't. The picture
on the left shows
Shenandoah National
Park in Virginia on a
day when pollution
transported from other
areas has settled in.
The photo on the right,
taken from the same
vantage point, captures
a clearer day. EPA
expects that improved
visibility will be one of
the benefits of the new
Clean Air Act.
industries to apply pollution
prevention in modifying their
processes, and that they will bring
about the use of cleaner fuels in
automobiles and power plants. They
will, in other words, stimulate new
technologies that are both energy- and
cost-efficient, as well as
environmentally more protective: E to
the power of three.
Are the sanctions in the act
strong enough to force compliance if
standards are not met, and will the
sanctions be vigorously enforced?
A
The answer to the second half of
your question is easy: The law requires
EPA to establish a level playing field,
and the sanctions will certainly be
vigorously enforced.
There are two kinds of sanctions.
One set can be imposed on a state if it
fails to put into place and implement a
plan of action. We estimate that S30O
million of additional funds will be
made available to state regulatory
agencies to perform their part of the
job, which is very complex. Further, a
new permitting program should enable
the states to get the resources to
develop and monitor their plans. I
believe the ability of EPA to assure that
the states carry out their plans is
significant.
The second kind of sanction can be
imposed on a particular industry if it
fails to follow the state plan. Here, I
think we are seeing a new culture
develop. In the 1970s, there was a real
distinction between where Congress
and EPA wanted to go and where
industry wanted to go. Industry felt that
what was friendly to the marketplace
was antagonistic to the goals of EPA. A
real confrontation developed whenever
the two approached each other.
In the 1990s, we see lots of industries
leading the way voluntarily. For
example, McDonald's never had any
obligation to phase out its styrofoam,
but it is doing so. Johnson & Johnson
committed to reducing its use of CFCs
seven years before the target in the
Montreal Protocol. Monsanto has
agreed to phase out air toxics to 90
percent of what the company was
releasing in the late 1980s. Soon after
the President proposed the introduction
of cleaner-burning automotive fuels,
ARCO in California started selling
cleaner gasoline. And there are many
other examples.
So here we see industries in many
cases moving in the same direction as
the act. I believe there will be much
more cultural willingness on the part of
industry to work with EPA in the years
ahead.
That is a challenge for EPA. When
we see people going in the right
direction, we should not get in their
way. Instead, we should encourage
them with incentives.
Of course, there will still be
industries and particular companies
that will follow a confrontation mode.
And, in their case, the law requires us
to assure by regulation that they, too,
meet the public health obligations
under the statute.
V^£ If industry is going to be
encouraged to move in EPA's direction,
won't EPA have to move in theirs?
/A. It is not a matter so much of
moving in industry's direction; we
remain, after all, a federal regulatory
agency. It is more a matter of
developing a new culture at EPA.
That culture, ] believe, is one that
seeks to capture the forces of the
marketplace and to foster private
initiative in reaching public policy
goals. As I said earlier, we believe that
by harnessing these forces to the work
of protecting the environment we can
be much more effective than by simply
regulating people against their will in
the direction Congress has established.
This means we have to reach out and
educate people, and wo have to consult
with them. We have to have a lot of
buy-ins, in a psychological sense, on
where we're going. And that is a new
approach that we are already taking.
Even before we propose regulations, we
consult fully with industry,
environmental groups, consumer
groups, and with the states. We talk to
them in a formal way and in informal
ways.
Formally, in some cases, we are
negotiating regulations at meetings in
which all interested parties are
encouraged to come into the room, lock
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
-------
the door, bang it out, and come up with
a consensus. In other cases, we use a
structure like the Acid Rain Advisory
Committee, in which leading academics
and representatives of high- and
low-sulfur coal markets, plus miners,
utilities, environmental groups
from all over the country, and
economists work hand in hand with us
to propose regulations for public
comment.
In still other cases, we are departing
from the traditional format in which
industry, environmentalists, consumers,
and the states all come in for separate
meetings, after which we try to
synthesize in our own minds what
everyone said. Instead, we try to have
one meeting, or two meetings, or five
meetings in which we all sit around the
table talking to each other at the same
time to clarify and provide the full
range of information to all parties.
So these regulations are not just the
product of EPA staff. They are the
product of all interested parties. We are
doing our utmost to build a consensus
for action around Ihe agenda
established by the President and the
Congress and to avoid the litigious
attitudes that wasted so much of our
energies in the past.
What is EPA's role in
implementing the act as opposed, for
example, to that of the states?
/\ The states clearly are our
partners. In many regards, they are the
ones who implement the law. They
issue the permits, and they enforce
them. With their help, we hope to
develop a permitting program that will
be uniform across the country but that
will still allow adjustments to be made
for problems that are local in nature.
Further, we want to provide state
agencies with adequate resources to
implement the statute.
Highlights of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
Urban Pollution
Cities currently
failing to meet standards for
human health must "attain" them
by deadlines set in the law: Most
have 6 years or less to attain; an
extreme case, Los Angeles, has 20
years. State programs for these
cities will complement EPA
efforts; see Motor Vehicles,
• Ozone. The 96 cities failing for
ozone are ranked from marginal
to extreme, with the more severe
cases required to institute more
rigorous controls, but given more
time to attain. States may have to
initiate or upgrade
inspection/maintenance (I/M)
programs; install vapor recovery
at gas stations and otherwise
reduce hydrocarbon emissions
from small stationary sources; and
adopt transportation controls that
will offset growth in vehicle miles
travelled. Major stationary sources
of nitrogen oxides will have to
reduce emissions.
• Carbon Monoxide. The 41 cities
failing for carbon monoxide are
ranked moderate or serious; states
may have to initiate or upgrade
I/M and adopt transportation
controls.
• Particulate Matter. The 72 areas
failing to attain for particulate
matter (PM-10) are ranked moderate;
states will have to implement
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT); use of wood
stoves and fireplaces may have
to be curtailed.
Permits
The new act strengthens the
ability of EPA and the states to
enforce standards by requiring
that all air-pollution-control
obligations of an individual
source be contained in a single,
five-year operating permit. The
states have three years to develop
permit programs and submit them
to EPA. EPA has one year to issue
regulations describing the
minimum requirements for such
programs. Sources must pay
permit fees to the states to cover
the costs of operating the
programs.
Motor Vehicles
• Vehicle Emissions. Tailpipe
emissions of hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, and nitrogen
oxides will be cut beginning with
the 1994 model year, and
standards will have to be
maintained over a longer vehicle
life. On-board charcoal cannisters
to absorb evaporative emissions
may be required.
• Fuels. In 1995, reformulated
gasolines having less aramatics
will be introduced in the nine
cities with the worst ozone
problems; other cities can "opt
in." Beginning in 1992, oxyfuels,
gasolines blended with alcohol,
will be sold in winter in those
cities having the worst carbon
monoxide problems.
In the cases of cars, fuels, acid rain,
and CFCs, the federal government
directly implements the law, and here
we have to coordinate what we do with
the states. So we have reached out to
them to make them part of our work
groups.
0
^ Was there ever a time in the long
debate over the act when you thought
it might not pass?
l\ Interestingly, one of the most
critical moments came when Iraq
invaded Kuwait. Some forces opposed
to the bill claimed we couldn't
undertake an environmental initiative
in the middle of what appeared to be
an energy crisis.
EPA responded by showing that
pollution prevention and cleaner air
would have a positive impact on our
oil import balance: We would be
wasting less fuel, and we would be
substituting cleaner, domestic fuels for
imported oil. For example, northeast
utilities could be expected to convert
from high-sulfur oil to natural gas in
producing electric power. The natural
gas would come from Canada and the
United States; the high-sulfur oil they
are now using is imported.
In the automotive sector, by requiring
oxygenated fuel as part of the effort to
clean up carbon monoxide and ozone,
we would be substituting alcohol made
out of natural gas and corn for gasoline
components made out of imported oil.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
• Clean Cars. In 1996, a pilot
program will introduce 150,000
cars to California that meet tighter
emission limits through a
combination of vehicle
technology and "clean"
fuels—substitutes for gasoline or
blends of substitutes with
gasoline. Other states can "opt
in."
Air Toxics
Emissions of 189 toxic
pollutants, typically
carcinogens, mutagens, and
reproductive toxins, must be
reduced within 10 years. EPA
will publish a list of source
categories within one year and
issue Maximum Achievable
Control Standards (MACT) for
each category over a specified
timetable. Companies that initiate
partial controls before deadlines
set for MACT can receive
extensions.
Acid Rain
A two-phase, market-based
system will reduce sulfur-dioxide
emissions from power plants by
more than half. By the year 2000,
total annual emissions are to be
capped at 8.9 million tons, a
reduction of 10 million tons from
1980 levels. Plants will be issued
allowances based on fixed
emission rates set in the law and
on their previous fossil-fuel use.
They will pay penalties if
emissions exceed the allowances
they hold. Allowances can be
banked or traded. In Phase I,
large, high-emission plants,
located in eastern and
midwestern states, will achieve
reductions by 1995. In Phase II,
which commences on January 1,
2000, emission limits will be
imposed on smaller, cleaner
plants and tightened on Phase I
plants. All sources will install
continuous emission monitors to
assure compliance.
Nitrogen-oxide reductions will
also be achieved, but through
performance standards set by
EPA.
Ozone Depletion
The new act goes beyond the
Montreal Protocol in restricting
use, emissions, and disposal of
chemicals. It phases out
production of CFCs, carbon
tetrachloride, and methyl chloride
by 2000; and methyl chloroform
by 2002; it freezes production of
CFCs in 2015, phasing them out
in 2030. Companies servicing air
conditioning for cars will be
required to purchase certified
recycling equipment and train
employees by January 1, 1992. By
July, EPA regulations must
require reduced emissions from
all other refrigeration sectors to
lowest achievable levels. By
November 1992, use of CFCs in
"nonessential" applications will
be prohibited. The act mandates
warning labels on all containers
and products (refrigerators, foam
insulation) that enclose CFCs and
other ozone-depleting chemicals.
We were able to say that these
measures and others would reduce oil
imports by more than the amount we
were currently importing from Kuwait
and Iraq put together, a reduction of as
much as a million barrels a day. And if
more cities than those required by the
act were to choose cleaner fuels, our
estimate might go up to over two
million barrels a day. I believe this
argument was the turning point in
assuring that the crisis in the Middle
East did not derail the Clean Air Act.
Controversies about the act
persist. How do you respond to the
scientist who appeared recently on "60
Minutes" and claimed the
government's own study has shown
that acid rain is really not much of a
problem?
-tx First of all, you should know that
we had asked the news program to
allow EPA to speak during the segment,
but we were not given the chance.
Second, we responded in a letter to
what was said in the segment, but the
letter wasn't aired either.
The National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program (NAPAP) study
alluded to on the program shows that
there is a significant acid rain problem
in American and Canadian lakes and
streams and in high-elevation forests.
The NAPAP study data show that,
nationwide, 4 percent of lakes larger
than 4 hectares (about 10 acres) and 8
percent of streams surveyed were
acidic, and the percentage is
considerably higher for lakes smaller
than 10 acres. In addition, another 20
percent of both lakes and streams are
very sensitive to acidification. Plus, the
Canadians report some 31,000 total
lakes acidified in Eastern Canada. To
me, the surface water data alone
suggest a pretty big problem.
Further, acid rain, specifically sulfur
and nitrogen compounds, impairs
visibility, corrodes building and
construction materials, and can pose a
threat to public health. About 50
percent of the Eastern visibility
problem is a function of sulfates from
acid rain. Visibility in the Shenandoah
National Park, for example, is
significantly impaired as a result of
emissions from power plants. That was
not even discussed in the program.
Then, the Harvard School of Public
Health and others have found that acid
aerosols—that result from acid rain
precursors—may pose a significant
public health risk.
In spite of what was said on the TV
program, Congress fully understood the
science that supports the acid rain title.
After 10 years of debate and $50
million worth of studies, Congress
made the judgment that it would be
prudent, for both environmental and
public health reasons, to phase down
acid rain. The program is reasonable;
and measured: Over a 10-year period,
large power plants that were built in
the early 1970s and 1960s will have to
meet standards that were subsequently
imposed on plants built in the later
1970s and 1980s.
And we are revisiting older plants,
the ones that were previously
grandfathered out of controls. We will
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
-------
impose less stringent controls on them,
but they will at least have to reduce
emissions commensurate with what
we've been asking of the newer plants
over the last 20 years.
\J Can you tell us how many people
you have working on the new Clean
Air Act?
/\ Before the act, we had
approximately 1,800 people in the air
office. We've reprograrnmed probably
1,500 towards the implementation of
these amendments. In the last several
months we increased our staff by 150
people, which we called "the Class of
1990." Some are experienced; some are
right out of school. We are seeking to
create a diverse work force, as well as
to provide new skills, new energy, and
new enthusiasm for the task.
We would expect in the current fiscal
year to add another 100 to 150 people,
and we are hopeful that the budget
recommendations of the President will
give us additional resources in 1992.
These are substantial increases.
However, I believe that the strength of
EPA is very much in its people. And
the energy levels, the enthusiasm, and
the capability of the air staff are among
the strongest in the Agency.
We intend to be a prototype for the
Agency in incorporating market-based
principles into programs and in
building consensus with external
interest groups. We will push the
envelope on regulatory negotiation, on
cost-benefit analysis, and on
understanding the full implications of
environmental initiatives on the
economy and on the energy picture of
the nation. It will be an exciting time of
new ideas, new people, and new
energies.
Is this new law primarily a
public health statute, or does it also
respond to the increasing concern over
ecological values?
/\ In my view, it is both. Clearly,
there is an emphasis on public health
in meeting national ambient air quality
standards and in reducing air toxics.
However, much of the act is motivated
by and will help the environment.
Under the acid rain title, for example,
we are concerned about the quality of
our lakes and streams, our trees, and
about visibility, all of which I would
label environmental concerns. Reducing
urban and regional ground-level ozone
will benefit forest ecosystems, as well
as crops. And the stratospheric ozone
provisions will help protect natural
ecosystems from the effects of harmful
ultraviolet radiation. And so both
health and environment are protected.
One of the more challenging aspects
of this new law is going to be
sustaining the burden of proof for
programs that address both
environmental and public health
problems, It is always easier to estimate
costs than it is benefits. Here our
regulatory analysis must not only
measure the value of public health
benefits but also of ecological benefits.
And that is a relatively new
undertaking for us,
Just how will you show that this
act is worth all the effort and all the
costs that will be going into it?
I\ We will, of course, have to
develop more fully that side of the
equation, and we are working on it. For
one thing, we must show a measurable
improvement in air quality. We
measure air quality every year through
our monitoring networks. We have to
measure the number of jobs that are
created by making this improvement.
After all, if the act is going to cost some
industries $25 billion, someone else is
going to have a new $25 biilion market
for cleaner products and cleaner
services.
And this market can be worldwide.
One of the first things that happened
after the Bush-Gorbachev summit, for
example, was that Russia placed a $1
billion order to General Motors for
pollution-control components. They
had to have them if they were to sell
their cars to Western Europe, which has
stiffer emission limits than does
Moscow.
We want to make sure that we
provide incentives for voluntary
initiatives and that we stimulate the
development of new technologies and
pollution prevention measures that will
minimize the costs of compliance.
Then, we analyze the other side of the
equation as to what the benefits are,
and we tell people where we are
succeeding and where we are failing.
Where we are failing, we modify the
policy. Above all, we must be candid
about how well we're doing.
Again, putting it in perspective, this
act is targeted at about 24 cents per day
per person. And the American people
have said that if we can reduce the
amount of air pollution by the billions
of pounds projected, they are willing to
pay that amount. I don't know where
else you can buy that much for 24 cents
anymore, n
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Mike Btisson photo.
What You
Need to Know
About the New
Clean Air Act
In the special section that follows, six
pairs of articles examine (he provisions
of the new Clean Air Act in six key
areas: motor vehicle emissions and fuel
quality, acid rain, urban air quality
(the "nonattainment" problem), toxic
air pollutants, stratospheric ozone
depletion, and enforcement
procedures—particularly a new
operating permit system.
In each area, an outside writer
assesses the nature and extent of the
air quality problems leading up to the
new law; and an EPA official profiles
key provisions of the law and the
Agency's implementation plans. The
last set of articles, in which contrasting
perspectives are presented concerning
the new permit system, varies this
pattern slightly. Graphs and charts are
included to illustrate present trends
and projections for cleaner air under
the new law.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
11
-------
Motor Vehicles and Fuels:
The Problem
by Michael P. Walsh
When we analyze the failure of the
1970 Clean Air Act Amendments
to reduce pollution from automobiles to
the extent envisioned by Congress,
several factors stand out. First, the
growth in the total number of
automobile vehicle miles travelled
every year, combined with less
stringent control requirements for other
mobile sources, reduces the overall
gains achieved by the standards that
apply to the individual automobile.
Moreover, the standards as such are not
achieving the full benefit intended,
mainly because of poor vehicle
maintenance. Deterioration in fuel
quality and the stipulation in the law
that emission-control requirements
apply only for five years or 50,000
miles—roughly half the lifetime of a
car—also contribute to the problem.
Fortunately, over the past two
decades, specialists have learned a
great deal about vehicle emissions and
fuels: This knowledge provided a
framework for Congress as it
contemplated changes in the law. I will
touch on some of the more salient
lessons.
Evaporative Emissions
Between 1970 and 1987, the volatility
of gasolines increased by more than 20
percent as manufacturers strove to
substitute other high octane-blending
components for the lead which was
(Walsh is a former Director of EPA's
Office of Mobile Sources and currently
an independent consultant to many
governments around the world and (o
such international organizations as the
World Bank, the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and
Development, and the United Nations
Environment Program.]
being phased out. As a result, vehicle
evaporative emissions, which appeared
to be quite low when tested using
standard reference fuel under
laboratory conditions, were actually
several times the standard. Also,
according to EPA data, increased
purging to the engine caused by the
excess vapors raised exhaust emissions
of volatile organic compounds and
carbon monoxide emissions.
Evaporative emissions also exceeded
standards in cases where control
systems became disabled, either
because of tampering or defective
components. Further, it was discovered
that the heating up of the fuel tank
during vehicle operation could produce
evaporative "running losses" that could
be very significant. Finally, gasoline
spillage and the vapors escaping from
the gas tank when a car is refueled can
significantly increase volatile organic
emissions.
Thus, evaporative emissions from
actual cars on the road are substantially
greater than emissions from prototype
cars as tested in the laboratory.
Obviously, the prototype vehicles
tested in order to certify that
manufacturer models meet standards do
not experience the deterioration or the
tampering that happens to actual cars.
Nevertheless, these factors account
for only a small part of the difference
in emissions between laboratory test
results and real-world conditions.
Increased fuel volatility, a development
which occurred after EPA adopted its
regulations under the pre-1990 law, is
the primary culprit. The Agency did
propose restricting fuel volatility,
modifying the evaporative test
procedure, and mandating onboard
refueling controls. But strong industry
opposition and the lack of
Congressional support prevented EPA
from fully implementing these
proposed changes.
Full Useful Life
The 1970 Clean Air Act authorized EPA
to regulate light and heavy trucks for
their full lifetimes. However, the law
prohibited the Agency from extending
requirements for automobiles beyond
five years or 50,000 miles. In other
words, automobiles were legally
exempt from emission-control
requirements during roughly the second
half of their lifetimes. This problem
was compounded in that, as EPA
studies showed, increasingly advanced
control technology tended to deteriorate
more rapidly during the second half of
the lifetime of an automobile than
during the first.
Emission-control systems should
have been required to last for the actual
life of a vehicle or, at a minimum, up
to 100,000 miles. For passenger cars,
changing this requirement meant a
change in the Clean Air Act.
Inspection and
Maintenance Programs
Vehicles in actual use consistently emit
pollutants well in excess of the
standards set for them. Major reasons:
poor maintenance; deliberate tampering
with or removal of pollution controls,
especially catalytic converters; and use
of leaded gasoline in cars that require
unleaded. Inspection and Maintenance
(I/M) programs are the best way to
rectify these problems. These programs
identify cars that need remedial
maintenance or adjustment, and they
force repair of cars so identified. In
short, I/M programs encourage owners
to keep their cars in good repair, force
the service industry to do the
maintenance properly, and encourage
manufacturers to make vehicles more
serviceable and durable.
Although I/M programs were
previously required under the Clean
Air Act, the details of their
administration were left to the
discretion of state or local officials
provided they kept within broad policy
guidelines laid down by EPA. Years of
EPA JOURNAL
-------
King of the Road: Americans drive more cars more miles every year, outstripping emission controls
required under the 1970 law. The 1990 law takes a more comprehensive approach to the problem,
emphasizing cleaner cars, cleaner fuels, and improvements in the overall transportation system.
experience with these programs in
various states have yielded several
principles:
• The best programs separate
inspection from repair. A central
facility that has no direct involvement
in vehicle repair focuses solely on
high-quality, efficient inspections. Such
programs consistently achieve the
greatest emission reductions and at the
lowest cost to the public. And contrary
to expectations, centralized I/M
programs have also proven to be the
most convenient to the public,
substantially reducing the hassle
associated with this pollution-control
strategy.
• As vehicles become increasingly
complex, I/M programs will need to
keep pace if problems are to be
diagnosed properly and repairs
performed efficiently. The testing of a
car under load—that is, forcing the
engine to work as if it were moving a
car on the road—which is feasible only
in a centralized facility, will be a key
element of future I/M programs. This
kind of testing will identify many more
failures than will a simple idle test or
visual check under the hood. Since
significant amounts of nitrogen oxides
are created only when a vehicle is
under load, a loaded test is necessary to
measure emissions of this pollutant.
• The complexity of vehicles also
makes repair of defects increasingly
difficult. Fortunately, many vehicles
today are equipped with some form of
electronic onboard diagnostics.
Centralized I/M programs, which are
best equipped to interrogate these
systems and identify the causes of high
emissions, enable the owner to get the
correct repairs at the lowest cost. But
too often the process is still one of trial
and error, frequently missing the real
problem and resulting in unnecessary
expense.
Vehicles Other
Than Automobiles
Emission reductions from other
vehicles have been significantly smaller
than reductions from autos. For
example, even though many light
trucks are used mostly in the same
manner as cars, their emission
standards are more lenient. Heavy
trucks, especially diesels, are much less
stringently controlled than cars.
Emissions from urban buses should
be highlighted. Buses are important
well beyond their numbers for several
reasons;
• Urban buses tend to be used almost
continuously in the corridors where the
greatest numbers of people are
concentrated.
• The buses now in use—and there are
many—will remain in use for many
years before they are replaced.
• Emissions from these vehicles are
quite high compared to other mobile
sources.
These factors make retrofitting urban
buses with diesel-particulate traps or
converting them to alternative fuels
attractive options.
Federal Test Conditions
Achieving air quality standards for
automotive pollutants depends on
whether emission controls function
over the wide range of conditions
under which vehicles are actually used.
The test conditions EPA currently
imposes on the models manufacturers
submit for certification simulate a trip
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
13
-------
to work in Los Angeles in temperatures
conducive to ozone production.
However, in carbon monoxide
production, other conditions are
important. Cold engine choking, to
assure starting, increases emissions of
both carbon monoxide and volatile
organic compounds. At colder
temperatures, this operating mode
becomes even more important.
Heavily congested traffic leads to
lower speeds and increased stop-and-go
operation. These, in turn, lead to higher
emissions and slower catalyst light-off.
(A catalyst doesn't begin to reduce
vehicle emissions until it reaches
operating temperature, or "light-off"
temperature.)
Urban Hydrocarbon Emissions:
Motor Vehicles Contribute Nearly Half
Carbon Monoxide:
Motor Vehicles Contribute Most
Small "Area" Sources: 13.5%
Large Point Sources:
2.5%
Source: Office of Air and Radiation, EPA
As a result of these real-life
departures from the conditions
simulated in the federal test, actual
emission reductions have fallen short of
what Congress envisioned. Simply put,
car models that "pass" the federal test
are emitting substantially more
pollution than test results indicate.
This is particularly true for carbon
monoxide.
Adequacy of Federal Compliance
Program
Properly maintained cars emit
substantially less pollution than the
typical American car on the road,
which receives less maintenance than it
should. However, for carbon monoxide
and volatile organics, even properly
maintained cars usually exceed the
emission standards by the time they
reach 30,000 miles. Over their lifetimes,
they substantially exceed emission
levels intended by Congress.
EPA's ability to ensure that vehicles
meet the standards for the specified
50,000 miles, even on average, seems to
be limited by resources. If additional
resources cannot be made available to
the Agency in the form of contract
dollars and more people, then Congress
should amend the law to require that
manufacturers pay for enforcement
testing. EPA could then ask the
manufacturer to test any vehicles or
engines the Agency believes are not
conforming to regulations.
Vehicle Miles Travelled
It is now clear that technological
improvements to the motor vehicle
itself increasingly are being offset by
the growth in the number and usage of
vehicles. Not only does high growth
directly increase emissions, it leads to
more congestion, which further
increases emissions. Transportation
measures to reduce this growth were
given a strong push throughout the
country in the late 1970s, but they were
rolled back in the early 1980s. They
should be tried again, a
14
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Motor Vehicles and Fuels:
The Strategy
By Richard D. Wilson
In all the world, the United States
demands the most stringent control of
emissions from motor vehicles.
Nevertheless, cars, trucks, and buses
emit nearly half the pollutants that go
into our air every day, including
unburned gasoline, diesel soot, and
other harmful compounds. Not
surprisingly, the problem is most
serious in highly populated
metropolitan areas, where traffic
congestion is severe.
The car and truck population in this
country is growing faster than the
human population. The number of
vehicle miles travelled has doubled
from 1 trillion, in 1970, to 2 trillion, in
1990. As a result, motor vehicles
account for about one-half of the
hydrocarbon and nitrogen-oxide
pollutants that form smog in our cities,
up to 90 percent of the carbon
monoxide, and over half of the toxic air
pollutants. The steady growth in miles
driven is projected to continue into the
next century. New methods of control
would be needed even if our goal were
merely to hold auto emissions constant.
To achieve healthy air, we must go
further.
In early 1989, as EPA was developing
options to be considered by President
Bush for inclusion in his proposed
amendments to the Glean Air Act, it
became apparent that there were three
choices for reconciling the automobile
Getting ready for evaporative emissions
testing at EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission
Lab, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The new
Clean Air Act sets limits for how volatile
gasoline can be.
and the environment. One was to
require that new cars and trucks meet
even more stringent tailpipe emission
standards. The second was to stimulate
the development of cleaner-burning
fuels. And the third choice was to get
people to drive less.
The last option, though successful on
a small scale in (he past and deserving
of continued efforts, would likely never
provide large-scale emission reductions.
We Americans place too high a value
on personal mobility. A positive sign,
however, is that people are beginning
to demand that their elected officials
address the problem of clogged streets
and highways. Most steps that succeed
in making traffic flow freely, such as
improved mass transportation, help
improve air quality.
The President proposed his
(Wilson is Director of EPA's Office of
Mobile Sources.)
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
John T. White photo, EPA.
15
-------
Buses used in urban areas
must do even better than
trucks in controlling harmful
emissions.
amendments, including the above
options, in July 1989. During the 15
months of Congressional debate that
followed, these amendments were
modified. However, the final law
contains key elements of all three
options. Here are the highlights of the
motor-vehicle and fuels provisions of
the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments:
Cleaner Vehicles
A new car today emits about 95 percent
less pollutants from the tailpipe than
does an uncontrolled car. The device
most responsible for this cleanup is the
catalytic converter, which has been
installed on almost all cars built since
1975. Other improvements include the
widespread use of electronic feedback
controls and fuel-injection systems in
place of carburetors. They allow a car's
micro-computer to send into the engine
the precise amount of fuel needed,
thereby making combustion more
efficient and less polluting.
Under the new law, new cars sold in
1994 and later will emit about 30
percent less hydrocarbons and 60
percent less nitrogen-oxide pollutants
from the tailpipe than cars do today.
The law also extends the durability
requirements of emission-control
equipment from 50,000 miles to
100,000 miles.
New trucks must also meet more
stringent tailpipe requirements. In
particular, large diesel trucks will have
to cut emissions of particulate matter
by 90 percent compared to
Ethanol, made from corn, wilt be put to
use in a new emphasis on
cleaner-burning automobile fuels.
Ethanol can be used either as an
alternative fuel or as an oxygenated fuel
additive to reduce carbon monoxide
emissions.
uncontrolled levels; this should
eliminate the visible black smoke that
regrettably is so common with these
vehicles. Buses used in urban areas
must do even better than trucks in
controlling harmful emissions.
Currently, on a cold day, most
carbon-monoxide emissions occur
during the first few minutes after
vehicle start-up. But the current carbon-
monoxide emission standard applies at
75 degrees Fahrenheit. Under the new
law, for the first time, new cars,
minivans, and small trucks must meet
an emission limit for carbon monoxide
under cold temperature conditions;
specifically, 20 degrees.
Starting in a few years, new cars
nationwide will be equipped with
"on-board" diagnostic systems. These
systems, made up of under-hood
computers coupled with a dashboard
display, must be capable of alerting
drivers and mechanics to
malfunctioning emission-control
equipment.
T. O'Driscollphoto. USDA.
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The law establishes a
California Pilot Program to
encourage and demonstrate
the production of even
cleaner fuels and vehicles.
EPA is given new authority to
regulate any category of non-road
mobile engines that contribute to urban
air pollution. The Agency is directed to
control, at a minimum, locomotive
emissions and to consider emission
limits for construction and farm
equipment, lawn and garden
equipment, boats, and other machines
driven by internal combustion engines.
Gasoline vapors that escape from the
fuel tank of a car as it is refueled will
be. controlled. The vapors will be
recycled and used as fuel, instead of
contributing to pollution.
As a complement to the control of
vapor during refueling, improvements
will be made in the systems which
prevent the evaporation of gasoline
from vehicles both when they are
operating and when they are parked on
hot summer days.
The new law requires EPA to review
the procedures used to test vehicle
compliance with emission standards
and to make any revisions needed to
reflect actual driving conditions.
EPA's ability to enforce all existing
and new requirements on vehicle and
fuel manufacturers is strengthened
under the amendments. For example,
the Agency is now able to collect fees
from auto makers to recover the cost of
EPA compliance monitoring.
Cleaner Fuels
Compared to cleaning up the emissions
from cars, less has been done on
cleaning up the fuels they use. It is not
difficult to understand how the quality
of fuel burned in an engine affects its
emissions. The most environmentally
successful fuel-related program, to date,
has been the virtual elimination of lead
in gasoline. Another EPA program,
which took effect all across the country
in the summer of 1989, reduced the
volatility of gasoline. Reducing
volatility means that less fumes
evaporate into the atmosphere on hot
weather days which, in turn, means
significantly reduced smog levels. The
new amendments require that
additional steps be taken by fuel
producers to improve fuel quality.
During summer months, beginning in
1992, all gasoline in the country will
evaporate less rapidly, as required by a
second step in the volatility-reduction
program.
Beginning in the winter of 1992-1993,
the amendments mandate the addition
of oxygen to all gasoline sold during
winter months in any city with carbon
monoxide problems. Adding oxygen, in
the form of alcohols or ethers, greatly
reduces carbon monoxide emissions
from all cars, new and old.
Oil refiners will be required to
reduce the amount of sulfur in diesel
fuel as of October 1, 1993.
Beginning in 1995, all gasoline sold
year-round in the nine cities with the
worst air pollution must be
reformulated to reduce smog-forming
and toxic pollutants. For example, the
amount of benzene, a component of
gasoline known to cause cancer, will be
lowered. Other cities may choose to
have this "clean" gasoline sold within
their boundaries as well.
The law establishes a California Pilot
Program to encourage and demonstrate
the production of even cleaner fuels
and vehicles. Beginning in 1996, auto
companies must sell 150,000 cars in
California that have emission levels
one-half that allowed for other new
cars. The number of cars increases to
300,000 a year in 1999; in 2001
emission levels are reduced by half
again.
As early as 1998, a percentage of new
vehicles purchased in centrally fueled
fleets in 22 polluted cities must meet
tailpipe standards that are about
one-third of those in place for general
passenger cars. This program is
intended to stimulate development of
new, low-polluting fuel/vehicle
combinations.
The View from the Driver's Seat
Most car owners probably will not be
aware of the many vehicle and fuel
changes that auto and oil companies
make in response to the Clean Air Act.
The reductions in emissions will be
sizable, but the cost will be reasonable:
less than $200 added to the cost of a
new car after all the programs have
been phased in over the next 10 years,
an additional few cents per gallon for
gasoline in the most heavily polluted
cities.
There are a few programs drivers may
notice. About 40 metropolitan areas
will begin annual vehicle inspection
programs. (Seventy cities have them
now.) Most of them will start up in the
Northeast states, which often send air
pollution to their downwind neighbors.
Additionally, many existing inspection
programs will be improved; drivers
may notice more checks being made on
their cars in the inspection lanes.
Another program will be noticed in
those cities having the highest smog
levels. Here large employers must
increase the number of employees who
car pool or take mass transit to work.
Incentives offered by employers could
take the form of subsidizing vans for
their commuters or free parking for van
or car poolers. Q
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
17
-------
Acid Rain:
The Problem
by Ned Helme
and Chris Neme
Acid deposition, popularly known as
acid rain, has long been suspected
of damaging lakes, streams, forests, and
soils, decreasing visibility, corroding
monuments and tombstones, and
potentially threatening human health in
North America and Europe. The
National Academy of Sciences and
other leading scientific bodies first gave
credence to these concerns in the early
1980s when they suggested that
emissions of sulfur dioxide from
electric power plants were being
carried hundreds of miles by prevailing
winds, being transformed in the
How to curb emissions of sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides from coal-burning
electric power plants has been the
central issue in the national debate on
acid rain. Pictured is an electric power
plant in Pennsylvania and the coal it will
burn to produce electricity.
(Heime is Executive Director of the
Alliance /or Acid Rain Control. Neme
is Senior Policy Analyst.)
National Coal Association photo
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
atmosphere into sulfuric acid, falling
into pristine lakes, and killing off
aquatic life.
Acid rain in the United States is
caused mainly by man-made pollutants.
It results primarily from the reaction of
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides with
other substances in the atmosphere.
Coal-burning electric power plants are
the primary source of sulfur dioxide
and a leading source of nitrogen oxides.
Sulfur dioxide, the most important of
these two pollutants, is created when
the sulfur in coal is released during
combustion and reacts with oxygen in
the air. The amount of sulfur dioxide
created depends on the amount of
sulfur in the coal. All coal contains
some sulfur, but the amount varies
significantly depending on where the
coal is mined.
The sulfur content of western coal,
for example, is typically very
low—about 0.5 percent. Western states
produce about 40 percent of the coal
currently sold to electric utilities. The
East produces both low-sulfur and
high-sulfur coal. Low-sulfur coal from
southern Appalachia (typically about 1
percent sulfur) currently commands
about 20 percent of the national utility
market. High-sulfur coal from northern
Appalachia and the lower midwestern
states (about 2 to 3 percent sulfur)
accounts for most of the rest of the
sales to electric utilities.
Today, the United States gets more
than 55 percent of its electricity from
coal and the trend is upward. Utility
coal consumption has nearly doubled
since the mid-1970s to more than 750
million tons a year, about 85 percent of
total U.S. coal consumption. Although
acid rain emissions have actually
decreased somewhat over the last 15
years, because of the installation of
some pollution controls and greater
reliance on low-sulfur coal, emissions
were predicted to increase again for the
next decade or two in the absence of
acid-rain control requirements.
Acid rain doesn't stop at political
boundaries. High-sulfur coal-burning
power plants in the Ohio River Valley
and lower Midwest contribute to
acidification of lakes as far away as
upstate New York, New England, and
Canada. Roughly half of the acid rain in
Canada results from pollution in the
United States.
In our own Adirondack
Mountains—a particularly vulnerable
area—up to 15 percent of medium and
large lakes (greater than 10 acres) are
chronically acidic due primarily to acid
rain; more than 25 percent of small
lakes (2 to 10 acres) in the Adirondacks
are likewise chronically acidic due
largely to acid rain. A smaller
percentage of lakes and streams in New
England, the upper Midwest, and the
Appalachian Mountains are chronically
acidic.
Many other lakes and streams
experience episodic acidity. When
acidic snow melts in the spring,
significant adverse effects on aquatic
life can result. Perhaps of even greater
long-term concern is the number of
lakes and streams that have little
acid-buffering capacity and are
susceptible to future acidification in the
United States. Roughly 20 percent of
lakes and streams fit this description,
according to a draft report by the
National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program (NAPAP), a 10-year scientific
study sponsored by Congress.
Acid rain also adversely affects the
environment beyond the acidification
of lakes and streams—a critical point
often lost in the controversy over acid
rain policy. For example, acid rain has
damaged high-elevation spruce forests
in the eastern United States, and it has
also accelerated the corrosion of
buildings and monuments.
Acid rain has contributed to reduced
visibility at scenic vistas throughout
North America. Byproducts of sulfur
dioxide, acid rain's principal precursor,
are recognized as major contributors to
regional haze in the East and parts of
the West. These byproducts, known as
sulfates, have received a great deal of
attention lately because of the impaired
visibility at a number of U.S. national
parks. At times, the sulfate pollution is
so great that people can't see the
bottom of the Grand Canyon or across
Virginia's Shenandoah Valley.
More recently, it has become
apparent that acid rain facilitates the
accumulation of mercury, a toxic metal,
in fish. Studies show correlation
between the acidity of lake water and
high mercury levels in fish, although
the biological and chemical processes
underlying this relationship are not
fully understood. Elevated levels of
mercury have led many
states—particularly the upper Great
Lakes states of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and Michigan—to advise against eating
sport fish caught in their inland lakes.
In Michigan, the public health advisory
extends to every one of roughly 10,000
inland lakes in the state.
Also, there is growing concern about
the potential health risks associated
with acid rain. Recent reports suggest,
for example, that downwind derivatives
of sulfur dioxide, known as acid
aerosols, may pose serious health
threats throughout the eastern United
States. Inhalation of acid aerosols may
lead to bronchitis in children and
decreased lung function in adults,
particularly asthmatics. Controlling
acid rain will play an important role in
reducing these risks.
Despite growing awareness of the
acid rain problem among citizens and
public officials, designing an effective
strategy to control it proved to be one
of the nation's most intractable
environmental policy problems. The
Congressional debate bogged down for
years in a sometimes acrimonious
political stalemate.
The mid-1980s saw renewed efforts
to resolve the debate. In 1985, for
example, a bi-partisan group of state
governors concluded that the
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
19
-------
Roughly half of the acid rain
in Canada results from
pollution in the United
States.
environmental threats posed by acid
rain were well-enough established to
warrant remedial action. The group
formed the Alliance for Acid Rain
Control to seek a pragmatic,
consensus-based solution that could
win broad support from government,
industry, and the environmental
community.
Last fall, Congress finally enacted
long-overdue clean air legislation. The
acid rain program, part of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, embodies the
major policy principles supported by
the Alliance for Acid Rain Control:
reducing national sulfur-dioxide
emissions by 10 million tons below
1980 levels, giving industry the
flexibility to choose the cheapest means
for reducing emissions and making
polluters pay for their own cleanup.
Nevertheless, some producers of
high-sulfur coal and some midwestern
utilities still contend that the American
public was misled when acid rain
legislation was enacted last year. Most
recently they have argued that the
soon-to-be-released final NAPAP report
concludes that acid rain is not a
catastrophic environmental problem.
The NAPAP study concluded that the
number of acidic lakes has grown only
U.S. Areas Where Precipitation is Below pH5
Shaded areas indicate stales
having emissions of 1,000
kilotonnes of S0? and greater
Contours connect points ol equal
precipitation pH
How "Acid" is Acid Rain?
"Pure" Distilled
Lemon |Uice Vinegar ram (5 6) watei Baking soda
;iD RAIN
Acidic I Neutral
I - i i
Basic
6 7 8
The pH scale langes from 0 to 14 A value of 7.0 is neutral. Readings below 7 0 are acidic.
readings above 7 0 are alkaline The more pH decreases below 7 0. the more acidity increases
Because the pH scale is logarithmic, there is a tenfold difference between one number and the
next one to it. Therefore, a drop in pH from 60 to 5 0 represents a tenfold increase in acidity.
while a drop from 6 0 to 4 0 represents a hundredfold increase
All ram is slightly acidic Only ram with a pH below 5 6 is considered "acid ram "
Source: Meeting the Environmental Challenge EPA's flewew of Progress and New
Directions in Environmental Protection (Dec' 19901.
slightly over the last 10 years and that
forest damage from acid rain has been
limited to high-elevation stands.
These arguments recently received a
wide public airing on CBS's "60
Minutes." Unfortunately, the program's
coverage seemed to imply that
legislation and remedial action were
needed only if acid rain is an
environmental "catastrophe." This
approach misses the main point: If
acidification of lakes has not become
much worse over the last decade, this
does not negate the need to address the
problem we already had 10 years ago.
Acid rain control will provide
significant environmental benefits. In
1989 testimony before Congress,
NAPAP Director Jim Mahoney agreed
that a 10-million-ton emission
reduction "would benefit aquatic
resources and would mitigate other
environmental effects caused by acidic
deposition and its precursors."
"The only question," as he later
noted for the Washington Post, "is how
much reduction is appropriate and how
much benefit are we going to get from
the cost."
All available evidence suggests that
the recently enacted acid rain
legislation was indeed a response
commensurate to the environmental
threats at hand. A recent analysis by
Resources for the Future, a leading
research organization, suggests that the
benefits of acid rain control will be
worth roughly $5 billion a year, about
50 percent greater than the costs of
controlling acid rain. Similarly, a 1988
EPA analysis found that the benefits of
reducing sulfur dioxide emissions
outweigh the costs.
A decade of research has refined our
scientific understanding of acid rain.
But nothing we have learned in the
past decade contradicts the basic
conclusion that the combined impacts
of acid rain are significant enough to
warrant measured action to reduce it.
President Bush and the Congress
should be congratulated for taking such
action last year, n
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Acid Rain:
The Strategy
by Eileen Claussen
Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, which contains
comprehensive provisions to control
the emissions that cause acid rain,
represents a legislative breakthrough in
environmental protection. To begin
with, it is the first law in the nation's
history to directly address the problem
of acid rain. The legislation calls for
historic reductions in sulfur dioxide
emissions from the burning of fossil
fuels, the principal cause of acid rain. It
also mandates significant reductions in
nitrogen oxide emissions, which also
contribute to the formation of acid rain.
In addition, the approach embodied in
the new provisions represents a radical
departure from the traditional
"command-and-contro!" approach to
environmental regulation that prevailed
Radian Corporation photo
in this country during the 1970s and
1980s.
During those years, environmental
regulations typically required industry
to achieve a particular limit on each
pollutant released to the environment
by installing specific pollution-control
equipment. The acid rain program that
EPA is developing under the Clean Air
Act Amendments takes a more flexible
approach: It simply sets a national
ceiling on sulfur dioxide emissions
Efficient use of flue gas desulfurization
absorbers (FGD) can help reduce sulfur
dioxide emissions. These FGD absorbers
are at a coal-fired power plant
from electric power plants and allows
affected utilities to determine the most
cost-effective way to achieve
compliance. It is estimated that this
approach will result in at least a
20-percent cost savings over a
traditional command-and-control
program.
The legislation requires that, by the
turn of century, sulfur dioxide
emissions must be reduced 10 million
tons annually from the levels emitted
in 1980; this will amount to roughly a
40-percent reduction from 1980 levels.
Because such reductions cannot be
achieved overnight, EPA is
implementing a two-phase approach
that gradually tightens the restrictions
placed on power plants that emit sulfur
dioxide.
The first phase begins in 1995 and
affects 261 units in 110 coal-burning
electric utility plants located in 21
eastern and midwestern states. These
plants are large and emit high levels of
sulfur dioxide. Phase II, which begins
in the year 2000, tightens the emissions
limits imposed on these large plants
and also sets restrictions on smaller,
cleaner plants fired by coal, oil, and
gas. Approximately 2,500 units within
approximately 1,000 utility plants will
be affected in Phase II. In both phases,
affected utilities will be required to
install systems that continuously
monitor emissions in order to track
progress and assure compliance.
The legislation also calls for a
two-million-ton reduction in nitrogen
oxide emissions by the year 2000. A
significant portion of this reduction
will bu achieved by utility boilers,
which will be required to meet tough
new emissions requirements under the
acid rain provisions of the act. These
requirements will also be implemented
in two phases. EPA will establish
emission limitations for two types of
utility boilers (tangentially fired and
dry bottom, wall-fired boilers) by
mid-1992; regulations for all other
types of boilers will be issued by 1997.
As with the sulfur dioxide emissions,
these utilities will be required to install
(CJaussen is Director of EPA's Office of
Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs.)
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
21
-------
The legislation calls for
historic reductions in sulfur
dioxide emissions from the
burning of fossil fuels, the
principal cause of acid rain.
equipment that will continuously
monitor omissions.
The acid rain provisions also look to
the future by placing a permanent cap
on sulfur dioxide emissions and by
encouraging energy conservation, the
use of renewable and clean alternative
technologies, and pollution-prevention
practices. These ground-breaking
provisions will help ensure that lasting
environmental gains are made.
To help bring about the mandated
sulfur dioxide emissions reductions in
a cost-effective manner, EPA is
implementing a market-based
allowance-trading system that will
provide power plants with maximum
flexibility in reducing emissions. Under
this system, EPA will allocate
allowances to affected utilities each
calendar year based upon formulas
provided in the legislation. Each
allowance permits a utility to emit one
ton of sulfur dioxide. To be in
compliance with the law, utilities may
not emit more sulfur dioxide than they
hold allowances for. This means that
utilities will have to either reduce
emissions to the level of allowances
they hold or obtain additional
allowances to cover their emissions.
Utilities that reduce their emissions
below the number of allowances they
hold may elect to trade allowances
within their systems, bank allowances
for future use, or sell them to other
utilities fur profit. Allowance trading
will be conducted nationwide;, so that a
utility in North Carolina, for example,
will be able to trade with a utility in
California. Anyone may hold
allowances, including affected utilities,
brokers, environmental groups, and
private citizens.
The legislation also establishes a
permanent cap on the number of
allowances EPA issues to utilities.
Beginning in the year 2000, EPA will
issue 8.95 million allowances to
utilities annually. Although the
lowest-emitting plants will be able to
increase their emissions between 1990
and 2000 by roughly 20 percent, these
utilities may not thereafter exceed their
year-2000 emission levels.
Utilities thai begin operating in 1996
and beyond will not be allocated
allowances. Instead, they will have to
buy into the system by purchasing
allowances. This will effectively limit
emissions even as more plants are built
and the combustion of fossil fuels
increases. These measures will help
ensure that the benefits gained from the
emissions reductions will not be eroded
over time.
The allowance allocation for each
unit affected by Phase I of the new law
is listed in the legislation. An
individual unit's allocation is based on
a standard formula: the product of a
2.5-pound sulfur dioxide per million
Btu emission rate multiplied by the
unit's average fuel consumption for
1985-87.
To illustrate how the allowance
trading system will work, consider the
following hypothetical example. Based
on the list provided in the legislation,
Utility X is allocated 40,000 allowances
a year in Phase 1. However, because the
plant is presently emitting 80,000 tons
of sulfur dioxide annually, it will need
an additional 40,000 allowances to
continue operating in the same manner.
In the past, under a traditional
approach, Utility X would have been
required to reduce its emissions to the
40,000-ton allowance by installing
pollution-control equipment or
switching to fuel containing less sulfur.
The Clean Air Act Amendments
provide the utility a great deal more
flexibility, as well as a reward for
reducing emissions below the
40,000-ton limitation.
For example, instead of installing
pollution-control equipment, Utility X
might choose to purchase 40,000
allowances from another utility that has
allowances to spare. Utility X would
also have the option of instituting
conservation measures that would
reduce both electric generation and
emission levels, thereby reducing the
need for allowances. Finally, the plant
might obtain allowances by purchasing
them at auctions or sales, which EPA
will conduct each year beginning in
1993 to facilitate trading. Auctions and
sales will establish a market price early
on and provide assurance to both new
and existing facilities that allowances
will be available to them.
The allowance system provides
incentives for power plants to reduce
their emissions substantially more than
is required since allowances freed by
installing pollution-control equipment
can be sold for profit. If Utility X
installed control technology that
removed 90 percent of the sulfur
dioxide from its original 80,000-ton
emission, it would need only 8,000
allowances to continue producing the
same amount of electricity. Since
Utility X is allocated 40,000 allowances
a year in Phase I, it would have excess
allowances of 32,000 per year for the
duration of Phase I. These allowances
could be sold to other power plants
that find it more cost-effective to
comply with the law by purchasing
Utilities are the Primary
Source of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
industrial Processes: 16.4%
Transportation: 4.4%
Fuel Combustion from Utilities: 65.7°/i
Nonutility Fuel Combustion
from Stationary Sources'
13.5%
Source: Office of Ait and Radiation, EPA
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The allowance system
provides incentives for
power plants to reduce their
emissions substantially more
than is required....
allowances rather than by installing
pollution control equipment. The
allowances could also be sold to new
utilities or banked for future use.
EPA's role in allowance trading will
be to receive and record allowance
transfers and also to ensure at the end
of the year that a utility's emissions did
not exceed the number of allowances
held. When two parties agree to an
allowance transfer, their formally
designated representatives will notify
EPA in writing to make it official. EPA
will record the transaction by entering
it into an automated allowance tracking
system, but will not otherwise
participate in the trading process. The
tracking system that wiil be developed
by the Agency over the next two years
will monitor compliance by keeping
records of allowance holdings and the
status of allowances traded. EPA will
be writing regulations for such issues as
calculating and allocating allowances,
for the mechanics of allowance
transfers, for allowance tracking, and
for the operation of reserves, sales, and
auctions.
EPA will maintain a reserve of
300,000 special allowances that will be
allocated to utilities that develop
qualifying renewable energy projects or
use conservation measures. This reserve
will be established by reducing Phase II
allowances by 30,000 allowances
annually over a 10-year period from
2000 to 2009. The allowances will be
granted to utilities on a first-come,
first-served basis starting in 1995 for
conservation activities initiated after
1992. In addition to this reserve, EPA
will be considering other mechanisms
for promoting the use of conservation
and renewable energy. The allowance
system itself also creates an inherent
incentive to conserve energy and
promote efficiency, since for each ton
of emissions reduced, there is one less
allowance a utility will have to
purchase or use to meet its allotted
emission level.
EPA will also maintain a reserve of
allowances for auctions and sales by
withholding 2.8 percent of the total
allowances each year for this purpose.
Auctions and sales will be open to
anyone. For the auctions, bidders will
send in sealed bids specifying the
number of allowances they are
requesting and the price. Auction
allowances will be sold on the basis of
bid price, starting with the
highest-priced bid and continuing until
all allowances for sale have been sold.
A limited number of allowances will
also be available for sale on a
first-come, first-served basis at a fixed
price of $1,500 an allowance.
The legislation provides a strong
incentive for utilities to comply with
the law and not exceed their
allowances. Utilities that do exceed
their allowances must pay a
$2,000-per-ton excess emissions fee and
then offset the excess emissions in the
following year. Since the excess
emissions fee will substantially exceed
the expected cost of compliance
through the purchase of allowances,
EPA expects that the market will do
much of the work of ensuring
compliance with the mandated
reduction requirements.
To keep track of emissions and
trading activity, as well as (o ensure
compliance with the various provisions
of the statute, each utility plant will be
required to have an operating permit
that spells out the specific program
requirements that apply to the plant.
These program requirements include
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide limits
as well as emissions monitoring and
recordkeeping and reporting
procedures. The plant must also
develop a compliance plan that
specifies the company's choice of one
or more of the compliance methods
authorized under the act.
To facilitate cost-effective allowance
trading, EPA will not require that
permits and compliance plans be
amended each time a utility engages in
trading. The Agency will instead
depend largely on allowance- and
emissions-tracking to monitor
compliance.
Recognizing the innovative nature of
the Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA
has established an equally creative
process for developing and
implementing the acid rain program.
Several months before the amendments
were signed into law, EPA asked for
public assistance in selecting
individuals to serve on an Acid Rain
Advisory Committee. The purpose of
the committee is to provide expert
advice on all issues related to the
development and implementation of
the program. EPA received over 150
nominations and selected a uniquely
qualified team of approximately 40
individuals to serve on the committee.
These individuals include
representatives from public utility
commissions, state air pollution control
agencies, the utility industry, consumer
groups, environmental groups, and the
pollution control industry. The
committee held its first meeting in
December 1990, less than one month
after the amendments were enacted.
The input from this committee, together
with feedback from all the affected
groups, will help to ensure the
development of a workable program.
The acid rain provisions of the Clean
Air Act Amendments are already being
viewed around the world as the
prototype for tackling emerging
environmental issues in a more
cost-effective manner. EPA has no
doubt that this innovative program will
fulfill its early promises. Even now,
more than four years away from
required compliance with presently
unwritten rules, utilities are embarking
on energy conservation programs and
planning to install pollution-control
equipment that can remove 95 to 98
percent of the sulfur dioxide being
emitted.
More surprisingly, high-sulfur coal
producers are discussing the possibility
of buying allowances to sell with their
coal to make it more marketable, and
manufacturers of emission-control
equipment are examining the
possibility of buying allowances to sell
to utilities that will need to cover
excess emissions while their technology
is being installed. The potential
markets for these allowances are truly
growing daily. But, in fact, this was the
idea behind the allowance system: to
harness the creativity and incentives of
the free market to achieve significant
reductions of acid-rain-causing
emissions at the lowest possible cost, a
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
23
-------
Urban Air Quality:
The Problem
by John A. Paul
George Rose photo Gamma Liaison
Six out of every 10 people in the
United States today live in an area
which fails to meet air quality
standards that have been set to protect
human health, That may come as a
shock to most, but it is a fact. This
situation exists despite two decades of
efforts to control air pollution in the
country. Why? What is causing the air
pollution problem? What do we need to
do in the future to get clean air to
breathe? This article will attempt to
answer these questions.
Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, EPA
established national standards for six
pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead,
and particulate matter. State and local
air-pollution control agencies measured
air quality for each of these pollutants
and, in cooperation with each other
and with the federal government, wrote
and implemented plans to meet the
standards. The formula was simple: If
you measured poor air quality for i\
given pollutant, you controlled the
(Paul is Supervisor of the Regional Air
Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA) in
Ohio. Located in Dayton, RAPCA has
jurisdiction over six Ohio counties.j
sources of that pollutant until the air
was clean. In large part, this formula
worked. Air pollution sources were
controlled, and air quality improved.
In many cities the results have been
dramatic. Compare Pittsburgh or
Stubenville, Ohio, today to what they
looked like 20 years ago, and you can
see the difference clearly. On the other
hand, when you consider an area such
as Los Angeles, you might well ask
whether any progress has been made at
all.
Most people, when asked about air
pollution in Los Angeles, will
immediately think of smog. When
questioned about the causes of this
smog, they will likely point to lots of
people, lots of cars, and massive
congestion.
However, most people fail to
recognize the extent of the nation's
smog problem outside the Los Angeles
area. Los Angeles may indeed be the
"king" of smog, but it is only one city
out of 96 that fail to meet the standards
for ozone, which is the principal
component of smog. These cities are
spread across the United States, from
Southern California to Maine. In fact, it
is difficult to name a major city which
does not violate the ozone standard.
Moreover, 41 areas fail to meet the
carbon monoxide standard, and 72
areas do not meet the standard for
PM-10 (particulate matter with a
diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 10 microns). All this after 25
years of air-pollution control. Why?
In answering this question,
considerable Congressional testimony
was offered by EPA, local, and state
officials at hearings in Washington and
around the country. The reasons given
for the large number of nonattainment
areas included:
• Understatement of
pollution-emission inventories as
compiled by states and locals and
reported to EPA
• Inadequacy of mathematical models
used to predict the success of various
control plans
• Failure of some control measures to
obtain predicted emission reductions
• Lack of political will at all levels of
government to implement difficult, but
necessary, control measures
• Lack of adequate resources at the
federal, state, and local levels to
analyze and address the problem.
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Although Los Angeles has justifiably
been dubbed the "king of smog," it is
only one city out of 96 presently failing
to attain the air quality standard for
ozone. Concerns about this widespread
problem helped bring about passage of
the new clean air law.
What these reasons come down to, in
my estimation, is that we simply did
not control enough. In the space
remaining, I will use the case of ozone
to illustrate my point.
Perhaps because they thought they
had gone far enough, many areas in the
period from 1980 to 1982 slowed their
efforts to reduce ozone levels. Arid,
many came close to meeting the ozone
standard in the middle 1980s. However,
they fell back into nonattainment in
1987 and 1988.
Seventy one of the 96 cities that
currently fail to meet the standard are
categorized as "moderate" or
"marginal" nonattainment sites. This
means that their ozone problem is close
to being solved. However, it will not
solve itself; further control must be
exercised.
What controls are necessary to solve
the ozone problem in these areas? To
answer that question, we need first to
describe how ozone is formed in the
air.
Unlike other pollutants, ozone is not
emitted directly into the air by specific
sources. A poisonous form of pure
oxygen, it is created by sunlight acting
on nitrogen oxides and volatile organic
compounds in the air. Often, these
gases are emitted in one area but the
actual chemical reactions, stimulated
by sunlight and temperature, take place
in another. The emissions can be
carried hundreds of miles from their
origins, forming high ozone
concentrations over very large regions.
The most immediate and direct way
of reducing ozone levels is to control
emissions of volatile organic
compounds [VOCs). These come
primarily from three categories: point
sources, "area sources," and motor
vehicles. A brief discussion of each
follows.
Point sources, or industries, emit air
pollution from various processes that
use solvents, paints, oils, and other
chemicals to make a product. Emissions
from point sources account for
approximately 30 percent of the
country's smog-forming VOCs. Such
emissions are controlled by process
changes or by the addition of
equipment to capture or destroy them.
Control of point sources has been
successful in the United States, but
further controls should be specified and
implemented.
Area sources are made up of very
small emitters such as small repair
shops, drycleaners, or print shops, plus
a large number and variety of consumer
products. Household paint, oil,
charcoal lighter fluid, hairspray, and
deodorants are examples of the
consumer products that make up area
sources. Because of their widespread
use, area sources account for
Areas Violating Ozone Standards
Areas Violating Carbon Monoxide Standards
Source: Office of Air and Radiation, EPA
Based on information available at the time of publication, a total of 41
areas fail to meet the national standard for carbon monoxide. This
compares with 96 areas failing for ozone (top map) and 72 areas
failing for particulate matter (not shown).
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
25
-------
approximately 20 percent of VOCs.
Their control is through product
substitution. Little has been
accomplished to date for control of
these sources.
Motor vehicles, with their vast
numbers and extensive use, are the
biggest source of VOCs, and they
account for the remaining 50 percent of
the emissions. The problem of motor
vehicles is discussed fully in a separate
article; however, I would like to
underscore one point. Unfortunately,
although the emissions of individual
vehicles have been increasingly
controlled over the years, the number
of vehicles and the extent of their use
have increased. Current estimates
predict a doubling in vehicle miles
travelled by the year 2000. Measures
must be provided to give people viable
alternatives to the use of personal
vehicles. Otherwise, any progress we
make in one area will be completely
offset by increased vehicle use.
Control of all three categories of
emissions—point sources, area sources,
and motor vehicles—will be necessary
to solve the nation's smog problem.
With 133 million people living in
ozone nonattainment areas, the
justification for further emission
controls appears obvious. Of particular
interest is the challenge of bringing the
71 "moderate" and "marginal"
nonattainment areas into compliance.
Air-pollution control officials at all
levels of government—federal, state,
and local—take this challenge very
seriously, o
Dan Foote, Dallas Times Herald.
air \Vas so
•thick you could
cut it with a
knife." *
"WE
REPORT ON
AIR QUALITY.
26
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Urban Air Quality:
The Strategy
by John Seitz
The 1977 amendments to the Clean
I Air Act set 1987 as the last deadline
for metropolitan areas to meet
health-based standards for air quality.
As indicated in the previous article,
many areas still violated the standards
after that deadline, and they continue
to do so today.
This continuing nonattainment
problem is a clear signal that more
needs to be done, but how can we be
sure that what we do this time will
bring better results? The 1990
Amendments contain at least three
answers.
First, the previous "one size fits all"
approach has been discarded. It is
replaced by a system that recognizes
the different degrees of nonattainment.
Controls will be made increasingly
stringent as the severity of the problem
increases. Deadlines are set that will
allow the areas with the worst
problems to take more time to reach
attainment.
Second, a blend of technology-based
control and long-term planning is
required by the new law. This approach
gives us a quick start in that it calls for
everyone, across the board, to apply
specific controls to certain air-pollution
sources. For the more difficult
problems, the ones that will take more
time to solve, it also calls for more
sophisticated planning, planning that
will provide more intensive controls.
Third, the possibility of not attaining
the standards within prescribed dates,
of areas failing to meet deadlines and
milestones, is anticipated. The earlier
legislation assumed that deadlines
would be met and provided no
guidance on what to do if they were
not. The 1990 amendments carefully
spell out the consequences.
Projected Urban Air Quality Benefits
?o
1990 1995 2000
Source: Office of Air and Radiation. EPA
2010
Classification
and Size of Areas
The new law establishes a classification
system that groups nonattainment areas
with similar air quality problems
together. Areas within each
classification apply similar control
measures and share the same
attainment deadline. In this way,
control measures are more closely
tailored to problems than was the case
in the past.
Areas are officially designated by
EPA as either attainment or
nonattainment. If there are insufficient
data, they are designated unclassifiable.
Once designated nonattainment, an area
is classified according to its "design
value," a numerical value which
represents the area's air quality
condition. Congress specified five
classifications for ozone: marginal,
moderate, serious, severe, extreme. It
specified two classifications for carbon
monoxide and for participate matter:
moderate and serious.
The designation/classification process
is quite elaborate, and this article will
not attempt to describe it. One
important date to remember is July 15,
1991, the 240th day after enactment.
On that day EPA will announce the
designations of most areas. Those areas
already having nonattainment status on
the date the new law was enacted
(November 15, 1990) were
automatically designated nonattainment
by operation of law.
Geographic size has been a problem
for some areas because they haven't
been large enough to include all of the
emissions that contributed to their
being designated nonattainment. The
1990 amendments require that serious,
severe, and extreme ozone
nonattainment areas be bounded by the
same limits that mark the metropolitan
statistical area (MSA), or the
consolidated metropolitan statistical
area (CMSA), unless the state can show
that peripheral districts do not
contribute significantly to the problem.
MSAs are areas that contain similar
population densities, commuting
patterns, commercial and industrial
bases, and the like. MSAs in close
proximity are sometimes grouped
together into CMSAs because of the
social and economic interaction within
an entire region. The Office of
Management and Budget identifies
MSAs and CMSAs.
Control of Ozone
Ozone controls begin with marginal
areas, where the states must first of all
complete commitments they made
previously. In general, this means that
measures EPA has defined as being
"reasonably available control
(Seitz is Director of EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.)
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
27
-------
technology" (RACT) must be applied to
a wide range of stationary sources,
including auto painting, paper coating,
and drv cleaners.
Measures such as these, plus the
measures applied by EPA to motor
vehicles (see article on page 15), are
expected to bring marginal areas into
attainment by November 1993.
Moderate areas face tougher
requirements. To begin with, they must
do everything that marginal areas are
required to do. Then, they must plan to
reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) by 15 percent
within six years. This means the states
must adopt and carry out rules that
reflect all existing and future EPA
control techniques guidelines (CTGs)
for major sources; they must adopt and
implement motor-vehicle refueling
regulations to control emissions at the
gas pump; and they must set up a
motor vehicle inspection/maintenance
(I/M) program if one is not already in
place. Moderate areas are expected to
reach attainment by November 1996.
Serious areas must do everything
required in marginal and moderate
areas, plus they must plan to reduce
VOC emissions 3 percent a year after
six years. They may control sources of
nitrogen oxides, instead of VOC
sources, if the result is at least
equivalent in terms of ozone reduction.
Further, serious areas must use more
sophisticated mathematical air quality
models to demonstrate attainment, and
if their population is greater than
200,000, they must set up an enhanced
I/M program within two years.
Enhanced 1/M requires the use of
computerized analyzers and centralized
inspection facilities. Most serious areas
will also have to implement a clean
fuels program. Serious areas are
expected to reach attainment by
November 1999.
..
South Coast Air Quality Management Disttict photo
Severe areas have 15 to 17 years to
reach attainment. They are responsible
for all the previously mentioned
controls; they must also take steps to
offset growth in vehicle miles travelled
(VMT) and, if the area still fails to
attain, adopt requirements for fees on
major sources. Further, in the nine
worst ozone areas refiners will be
required to manufacture gasoline that
yields lower levels of the pollutants
that go into the formation of ozone.
Only one area—Los Angeles—is in
the extreme category. Besides
implementing all of the previously
mentioned controls, extreme areas will
have to apply their new source review
and RACT regulations to smaller
stationary sources. Extreme areas must
also phase in requirements for motor
vehicles which emit extremely small
amounts of air pollution. The
attainment deadline for extreme areas is
November 2010, 20 years after
enactment.
In addition to the above
requirements, which state and local
agencies must fulfill, EPA must develop
certain federal measures. Within three
years the Agency must issue 13 new
CTGs, including ones for aerospace
coating and shipbuilding operations,
and must review all existing CTGs.
Also within three years, EPA must
publish alternative control techniques
(ACT) documents for VOC or nitrogen
oxide sources that emit over 25 tons
per year. The documents will
recommend levels of control for these
sources. A federal rule on marine-vessel
loading and unloading is due within
two years. Finally, within three years
the Agency must complete a study of
commercial and consumer solvents.
The study is to focus on the emissions
given off by the use of these and on the
options for controlling such emissions.
Federal regulation of these emissions is
required in subsequent years.
Transport Regions
The 1990 amendments also focus on
the problem of ozone and its precursor
gases being transported long distances.
Many areas face air quality problems
that are totally or partially caused by
sources not in their jurisdiction. The
act establishes a transport commission
for the Northeast, and it allows the
establishment of commissions in other
parts of the country. Generally
speaking, an entire transport region,
including its rural areas, is subject to
the same requirements as moderate
areas.
28
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Control of Carbon Monoxide
Carbon-monoxide controls work
similarly to ozone controls. However,
as mentioned earlier, there are only two
classifications—moderate and serious.
All moderate areas must inventory
their emissions, set up vehicle I/M
programs, and make oxygenated fuels
available to motorists. Oxygenated fuels
contain alcohol or other compounds
that reduce carbon-monoxide emissions
from cars. Moderate areas may also
have to prepare forecasts of VMT, set
up enhanced I/M, and demonstrate that
they have reached attainment. All
moderate areas are expected to reach
attainment by the end of 1995.
Serious areas must take all the steps
required for moderate ones, plus they
must institute transportation control
measures that will offset VMT growth.
Serious areas have until the end of
2000 to reach attainment.
Control of Particulate Matter
The 72 areas designated as moderate
nonattainment for particulate matter
Some small businesses, such as painting
enterprises, may be affected by
regulations in cities and states with
nonattainment problems.
(PM-10) range from large cities like
Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los
Angeles to very small towns such as
Presque Isle, Maine; Aspen and Pagosa
Springs, Colorado; Anthony, New
Mexico; and Wallula, Washington.
In the East, violations of the PM-10
standards are often caused by emissions
from industrial sources. In the West,
smoke from residential wood
combustion and dust from roadways,
construction, and agricultural activities
often cause violations.
Particulate emissions from industrial
sources can be reduced by applying
control technology or making changes
in manufacturing processes. Smoke
from residential wood combustion can
be reduced by measures such as using
EPA-certified stoves, practicing routine
stove maintenance, and burning dry
wood. In many areas, it is necessary to
curtail use of woodstoves and fireplaces
to avoid PM-10 violations at times
when the air flow is stagnant.
Attainment plans for the 72
designated areas are due by November
15, 1991. These plans must include the
implementation of RACT measures and
must demonstrate that the areas will
attain the PM-10 standards by
December 31, 1994. Areas that cannot
attain by the end of 1994 will be
reclassified as serious nonattainment
areas, and more stringent controls will
apply.
Consequences of Failing to Attain
A major distinction between the 1990
amendments and the earlier legislation
is that the new law specifies the
consequences of missing deadlines and
milestones.
For missing emission-reduction
milestones, the remedies include
"bumping up" to the next higher
classification, which means having to
meet the requirements of that
classification. Additional measures to
meet the next milestone may be called
for, and an economic incentive program
may be put in place.
If a state fails to submit a plan, or its
plan is disapproved or isn't
implemented, EPA has the choice of
restricting federal highway funds or
requiring that new sources offset by
twice the pollution reductions called
for but not achieved by existing
sources. At least one of these sanctions
is to be applied if the state fails to
correct the problem within 18 months.
A second sanction will also apply if the
failures are not corrected then or in
cases where EPA finds there is lack of a
"good faith" effort on the part of the
state. If the corrections are not made
within two years, EPA has the power to
promulgate a plan in place of the state
plan.
If the attainment date is missed, an
area is "bumped up" to the next higher
classification, except for severe and
extreme ozone areas. The latter receive
several other penalties, including an
excess emission fee program. The
specificity of these sanctions should
remove any ambiguity about the
consequences of failure to meet
milestones.
The requirements of the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments reflect a more
realistic picture of today's air quality
problems than did earlier legislation. At
the same time, the amendments present
an ambitious agenda for EPA and our
partners in this "joint venture" on
behalf of clean air: state and local
government, business and industry, and
the American public. The amendments
also provide us with improved tools so
that, this time, we will be able to
achieve our statutory goals and leave a
legacy of clean air for the generations to
come, n
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
-------
Air Toxics:
The Problem
by Senator David Durenberger
Coke ovens used in making steel are a
major source of toxic air pollutants; the
problem of regulating air toxics figured
prominently in the debate over the new
air quality statute. Shown is one of the
nation's large coke oven complexes at
USX Clairton Works in Pennsylvania.
Two kinds of pollutants are regulated
under the Clean Air Act. There are
only six in the first group, but they are
discharged in relatively large quantities
by a variety of sources, and they
threaten human health and welfare
across broad regions of the country.
EPA sets national standards for each of
these "criteria pollutants." The states
must take action to assure the standards
are met. Failure to meet the standards
is called "nonattainment."
The other kind of pollutants—and
there are literally hundreds in this
second group—are the ones that are
immediately hazardous to human
health and that are, for the most part,
associated with certain, specific
sources. Some of these air toxics are
cancer-causing; some produce other
health and environmental problems.
The threat is highest for people living
near large industrial facilities or in
heavily polluted urban corridors.
The list of toxics emitted into the air
is a long one, and it includes some
familiar names. Benzene, for example,
is a potent cancer-causing substance.
Gasolines sold in the United States are
on average 1.6 percent benzene.
fc,'ighty-five percent of human exposure
to benzene comes from gasoline.
A second example is mercury.
Mercury is a metal found in trace
amounts in coal; it is released to the air
when the coal is burned. Mercury is
also released by incinerators burning
garbage. It is used in latex paints to
prevent mildew; as the paint weathers,
substantial amounts of mercury may be
released into the air.
Ammonia, a familiar chemical, is
widely used in industry. In fact, it is
emitted by major manufacturing plants
in 30 different industrial groups. It is
also a fertilizer and is distributed
broadly in commerce for that purpose.
Although low exposures to ammonia
are safe, high exposures can burn the
eyes, skin, and lung tissue. Ammonia
emissions in 1987 were larger than the
emissions of any other air toxic.
(Durenberger (R-MinnesofaJ serves on
the Senate Commillee on Environment
and Public Works and was a key figure
in the development of the air (oxics
provisions of the new law.)
The fluid that dry cleaners use to
clean our clothes is a suspected
carcinogen and is released in large
amounts to the air. So is the solvent
that hospitals use to sterilize
equipment.
The list of air toxics touches every
major industry, from the mining of base
metals to the manufacture of high-tech
electronics. And the amounts of these
substances discharged to the air are, in
some cases, staggering.
Recently, under the Emergency
Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986, major
manufacturing facilities in certain
industrial sectors were required to
report to EPA their emissions of 359
toxic substances. The total amount of
emissions reported for the year ending
July 1987 was 2.7 billion pounds. That
is estimated to be about one-fifth of all
air toxics emissions. Texas had the
largest total, 240 million; Ohio, 173
million; Louisiana, 138 million;
Tennessee, 135 million; and Virginia,
132 million pounds.
Not surprisingly, individuals living
near large industrial facilities or in
highly developed urban areas
experience high risk of health
problems.
EPA, for example, examined cancer
risks at more than 2,600 industrial
facilities across the United States. For
Health Effects of Regulated Air Pollutants
Criteria
Pollutants
Ozone
Health Concerns
Respiratory tract problems such as difficult breathing
and reduced lung function. Asthma, eye irritation, nasal
congestion, reduced resistance to infection, and possibly
premature aging of lung tissue.
Eye and throat irritation, bronchitis, lung damage; also
impaired visibility.
Ability of blood to carry oxygen impaired;
Cardiovascular nervous and pulmonary systems affected.
Particulate
Matter
Carbon
Monoxide
Sulfur Dioxide Respiratory tract problems, permanent harm to lung
tissue.
Lead
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Retardation and brain damage, especially in children.
Respiratory illness and lung damage.
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Asbestos
Beryllium
Mercury
A variety of lung diseases, particularly lung cancer.
Primary lung disease, although als,o affects liver, spleen,
kidneys, and lymph glands.
Several areas of the brain as well as the kidneys and
bowels affected.
Vinyl Chloride Lung and liver cancer.
Arsenic
Radionuclides
Benzene
Coke Oven
Emissions
Causes cancer.
Causes cancer.
Leukemia.
Respiratory Cancer.
Source; Meeting the Environmental Challenge: EPA's Review of
Progress and New Directions in Environmental Protection (Dec.
1990).
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
John Ftcaia photo
the people living nearest to more than
one-quarter of these plants, toxic
emissions produced cancer risks greater
than 1 in 10,000: that is, 1 additional
cancer for each 10,000 persons. If these
sites were abandoned waste dumps,
they would qualify for cleanup under
the federal Superfund program.
A 1987 South Coast Air Basin study-
found that the mix of air pollutants
from industry, highway fuels, and small
business produced a cancer risk in the
Los Angeles area of greater than 1 in
1,000, Based on the actual ambient
concentrations recorded as part of the
study, cancer deaths due to air toxics,
alone, were projected at 222 per year.
In addition to the fact that air toxics
increase the risk of cancer and produce
other adverse health effects, they cause
widespread environmental degradation.
It is estimated, for example, that a large
percentage of the toxics in the waters of
the Great Lakes (up to 80 percent in
Lake Superior) are deposited from the
air, rather than from surface runoff.
Lakes all across the northern tier of the
United States are posted with warnings
for pregnant women and children
because of the high mercury levels
found in fish. The mercury is attributed
to emissions from coal-fired
powerplants and to municipal
incinerators.
Another aspect of the air-toxics
problem is the sudden and potentially
catastrophic chemical accident. It
seems the headlines are continuously
filled with stories of explosions and
fires at chemical plants and oil
refineries. For the period 1982 to 1986,
EPA released in August of 1988 an
Acute Hazardous Events Data Base
covering 11,048 events in the United
States in which extremely hazardous
substances were released accidentally.
These events caused 309 deaths, 11,341
injuries, and the evacuation of 464,677
people from homes and jobs.
As part of its work on the database,
EPA analyzed 29 events that had the
highest potential for damage to health
and the environment. They were
compared to the release at Bhopal,
India, which killed 3,000 and injured
over 200,000 in 1984. Considering only
the toxicity and volume of the
chemicals released in the U.S. events,
17 had the potential for more damage
than Bhopal, and all 29 had a potential
of 50 percent or more of the Bhopal
effects. That relatively few were killed
or injured in these accidents (650 wore
injured in one event and 5 killed in
another) is due principally to the
location of the facilities, the climate,
and the operating conditions at the
time of the release.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 required
EPA to list each hazardous air pollutant
that was likely to cause an increase in
deaths or in serious illnesses. Within a
year after listing, EPA was to establish
emission standards that would apply to
sources of the listed pollutant.
The law has not been implemented.
In 20 years EPA has listed only eight
pollutants: mercury, beryllium,
asbestos, vinyl chloride, benzene,
radionuclides, inorganic arsenic, and
coke-oven emissions. By way of
comparison, OSHA regulates 500 toxic
chemicals in the workplace, and the
handful of states with air toxics
programs have regulated 708
substances.
The problem under the 1970 law has
been, in part, a disagreement about the
regulation of cancer-causing pollutants.
The law included a very stringent
health standard for air toxics: EPA was
to provide an "ample margin of safety
to protect public health." EPA has been
unable, or unwilling, to define a safe
level of exposure to cancer-causing
substances. And the other approaches
to standard-setting which it has tried,
including cost-benefit calculations and
proposals to defer toxics regulation to
the states or to other environmental
laws, have met stiff public opposition.
The air toxics program also suffered
from the general attack on
environmental regulation which
dominated the agenda of the executive
branch in the early 1980s. Health
effects research begun in 1977 on 30 of
the most threatening toxic, pollutants
was put on hold. Congressional
oversight during the 1980s brought
promises that the program would be
revitalized, but only one additional
pollutant was listed.
In the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, Congress turned to
technology-based standards to get the
program moving again. The new law
specifically lists 189 toxic pollutants
and establishes a schedule requiring
EPA to set standards for all major
sources of those pollutants over a
10-year period. A further provision
requires major sources to install best
technology even if EPA fails to issue
the standards. The debate over "safe"
levels of pollution is set aside, and the
regulatory discretion, which has
allowed the Agency to ignore the air
toxics problem, has been withdrawn, Q
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
31
-------
Air Toxics:
The Strategy
by Lydia Wegman
The air toxics program established by
I the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 is a dramatic change from the one
called for previously in the 1970 law.
Industrial plants from large
petrochemical complexes down to the
corner dry cleaner are potentially
affected by the sweeping program. The
key component of the program is a
federal regulatory effort that includes
strong incentives for innovation and
pollution prevention in industry.
The new law names 189 toxic air
pollutants. Typically, they are
carcinogens, mutagens (substances that
can cause gene mutations), or
reproductive toxins, and they have as
their source certain specific industries.
For the most part, these chemicals
and their potential effects on human
health have been known for some time.
However, disputes arose between EPA,
industry, and environmental groups
over how to interpret the language in
the 1970 act that called for their
control. That language, "protect the
public health with an ample margin of
safety," was particularly controversial
in the case of carcinogens, because they
pose some risk at even very low
emission levels. As a result of the
disputes and the numerous lawsuits
that followed, EPA was unable to fully
implement the regulatory program
called for in the law.
The Agency did succeed in setting
standards for seven air toxics: arsenic,
asbestos, benzene, beryllium, mercury,
radionuclides, and vinyl chloride.
Standards for coke oven emissions were
in preparation when the 1990
amendments were passed.
In the 1990 amendments, the
regulatory program for air toxics
reflects an entirely new approach. Up
front, the amendments specifically
identify the chemicals that must be
brought under control. EPA must
(Wegman is Deputy Director of EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards.)
32
Within three years, EPA must report to Congress on the deposition in lakes and
rivers of air toxics such as lead and mercury. In some areas, toxic chemicals have
built up in some fish to levels considered unsafe to eat. The anglers pictured are
trying to catch coho salmon in Lake Michigan, one of the bodies of water affected by
airborne toxics.
identify categories of the major sources
of these chemicals. A major source is
one that emits more than 10 tons per
year of a single toxic or more than 25
tons per year of any combination of
toxics. Then, the Agency must develop
"maximum achievable control
technology" (MACT) standards for each
category over the next 10 years. These
standards are to be based on the best
control technologies that have already
been demonstrated in these industrial
categories. State and local air-pollution
agencies will have primary
responsibility to make sure industrial
plants meet the standards.
In setting the MACT standards, EPA
will look not only at pollution-control
equipment, but at pollution-prevention
methods, such as substituting nontoxic
chemicals for the toxic ones currently
in use. The new law favors setting
standards that industry must achieve,
rather than dictating equipment that
industry must install. This flexibility
will allow industry to develop its own
cost-effective means of reducing
air-toxics emissions and still meet the
goals of the act.
For example, for a factory that
currently emits 100 tons of chloroform
annually, the MACT standards might
require a reduction of 95 percent, or 95
tons per year. The plant could meet
this standard by eliminating the use of
chloroform in their process, or by
modifying the production process to be
more efficient and emit less chloroform,
or by adding pollution-control
equipment.
It is estimated that this 10-year
regulatory program will reduce air
toxics annually by over 1 million tons.
EPA will consider later what emissions
remain in each industrial category and
then determine whether further control
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The program will
substantially decrease the
number of cancer cases
caused by air pollution, and
it will reduce many other
health effects.
is necessary to protect the health of the
general public. But the MACT
standards are expected to go a long way
toward protecting public: health and to
be all that is needed in many cases.
The law includes unique incentives
for industries to reduce their emissions
early, rather than waiting for federal
standards. Sources that reduce
emissions by 90 percent or more before
the MACT standards go into effect will
have six additional years to comply
with them. This provision should lead
to significant reductions in air toxics
both immediately and into the future.
For example, let's assume that our
hypothetical factory were to voluntarily
reduce emissions by 90 tons beginning
this year. If this factory were covered
by one of the earliest MACT standards
developed by EPA, it would have to
meet them approximately five years
from now. By then, it would already
have achieved a total reduction of 450
tons (90 tons per year times five years).
If the reduction set by the standards is
95 percent, or 95 tons annually, then,
in the six additional years that the
factory has before it must comply with
Air Toxics: Technology Standards
Will Drastically Cut Cancer Risks
from Stationary Sources
O)
03
o
I
X
0
^
E
~io
0>
§
d)
a
1
IUU
80
60
-40
on
ZU
After MACT* fc
50% of source
categories
1990 2000
'MACT: Maximum Achievable Technology Standards
the standards, it can emit a total of 30
tons more than the standards would
have allowed: five tons per year
multiplied by six years. But the factory
has already cut emissions, under the
early reduction program, by 450 tons.
Therefore, the net reduction achieved
by the program is 420 tons.
EPA is already working closely with
industry representatives, state and local
air pollution agencies, and
environmental groups to encourage
participation in the early reduction
program. The Agency expects the
program to stimulate industry to
develop more cost-effective ways of
controlling toxic emissions—or better
yet, to prevent them entirely. At the
least, EPA expects the program to bring
about the necessary reductions at an
even faster pace than that required by
the !aw.
We don't know enough about some
air-toxics problems to pass judgment on
their significance or to decide how best
to address them. For example, some air
toxics, such as mercury and lead, last a
long time in the environment. If
emitted from industrial plants into the
atmosphere, these toxics can be
deposited in lakes and rivers where
they can be taken in by fish and plants,
thus causing significant harm to
sensitive ecosystems. There is concern
that this is already happening in the
Great Lakes, Lake Champlain,
Chesapeake Bay, and the coastal waters
of the United States. The 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments require EPA to
develop monitoring networks that can
take measure of such problems and to
report to Congress, within three years,
on the problems' nature and extent,
industrial sources contributing to them,
and corrective actions needed.
Other provisions of the act call for
the following:
• Studies by the National Academy of
Sciences and EPA that will review, and
recommend improvements to,
techniques for estimating risks to
public health from exposure to air
toxics;
• A program to assess the public health
risk in urban areas from the small,
numerous sources of air toxics, such as
dry cleaners;
• A program for the prevention of
accidental releases of air toxics from
industrial plants;
• The creation of a Chemical Safety
Board to investigate accidental releases
of air toxics from industrial plants;
• The establishment of a National
Urban Air Toxics Research Center;
• A study on air toxics emitted from
electric utility power plants.
The Council of Economic Advisors
has estimated that the cost to industry
of the air-toxics program could be as
much as $1 billion in 1995 and $6 to
$7 billion in 2005. These costs,
however, do not take into account the
program's incentives for industry to
develop less costly controls or to
practice pollution prevention—incentives
which should reduce the costs to both
industry and consumers.
On the other side of the ledger, the
program will reduce emissions of air
toxics by more than 1 million tons per
year by 2005. The substantial benefits
of these reductions are difficult to
quantify. Air toxics, such as
carcinogens, do their damage over long
periods of time; the benefits of reducing
them may not be seen for many years.
Reducing the number and severity of
accidental releases of air toxics also
may take a number of years to achieve.
Nevertheless, the program will
substantially decrease the number of
cancer cases caused by air pollution,
and it will reduce many other health
effects. Consequently, medical costs
associated with these effects will be
substantially diminished, n
-------
Stratospheric Ozone:
The Problem
by Senator John H. Chafee
Although ozone at ground level is a
toxic pollutant responsible for
smog and all kinds of health and
environmental problems, ozone in the
stratosphere, 6 to 30 miles over our
heads, is "good" ozone. While we are
trying to eliminate ozone down here,
we want it to stay up there.
The stratospheric ozone layer is the
Earth's main shield against the Sun's
ultraviolet radiation. A decrease in
stratospheric ozone allows more
ultraviolet rays to reach Earth. The
experts tell us that this will cause
increased rates of skin cancer, cataracts
(the leading cause of blindness in this
country), and, potentially, suppression
of the immune system. If our immune
systems are affected, all of us will be
more susceptible to diseases of all
types. Further, damage to the ozone
layer presents a serious threat to our
food crops by reducing crop yields. All
forms of life on land and in the sea are
at risk.
The problem is this: CFCs and
similar compounds are persistent,
extremely stable chemicals that rise up
into the atmosphere intact until they
reach the stratosphere. In the
stratosphere, the Sun's radiation breaks
the molecule apart and frees the
chlorine component. The chlorine then
attacks and destroys ozone.
In 1974, Drs. Sherwood Rowland and
Mario Molina from the University of
California published a paper
demonstrating how CFCs destroy ozone
in the stratosphere. There were no
measurements of actual ozone loss, just
the scientific theory. However, in this
country the theory led to a ban on the
use of CFCs in most aerosols in 1978.
Recognizing (he problem, industry
began to look for safe substitutes.
(Chafee (R-Rhode Island] is the
senior Republican on the Committee on
Environment and PubJi'c Works and
was the primary author of the new
Clean Air Act provisions designed to
protect the stratospheric ozone layer.)
34
Progress was being made when, in the
early 1980s, the threat of further
government regulation subsided, the
search for substitutes came to a virtual
standstill, and worldwide use of CFCs
continued to grow.
In 1985, scientists discovered a
significant loss of ozone over a portion
of the southern hemisphere the size of
North America. Measurements have
since revealed losses greater than 50
percent in the total column and greater
than 95 percent at an altitude of 9 to 12
miles. The discovery of this "hole" over
Antarctica gave renewed impetus to
international efforts to understand and
protect the ozone layer.
While we are trying to
eliminate ozone down here,
we want it to stay up there.
In September 1987, the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer was negotiated and signed
by more than two dozen nations. The
Protocol entered into force in January
1989; 68 nations are now parties to it
(at last count).
Unfortunately, shortly after the
Protocol was signed, scientists observed
and measured losses of ozone on a
global scale, and they discovered that
destruction is not limited to remote,
uninhabited portions of Antarctica.
Losses were measured, for example,
over vast areas of this country, which
brought the problem dangerously close
to home.
These measurements of actual ozone
loss were significantly greater than
computer models had predicted, and
they raised serious questions about the
adequacy of the control measures set
forth in the original Montreal Protocol
and EPA regulations. Even the
strengthening Protocol amendments
that were adopted at the June 1990
meeting in London do not go far
enough. Four major areas warrant
further attention by national
legislatures and by the parties to the
Protocol: accelerating the CFC and
methyl chloroform phase-out schedules;
controlling and ultimately eliminating
production and use of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs);
eliminating emissions of
ozone-destroying compounds; and
implementing effective trade sanctions.
Each of these areas is covered by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
The natural concentration of chlorine
in our atmosphere is 0.6 parts per
billion. When the "hole" over
Antarctica was discovered in 1985, we
were up to around 2.5 parts per
billion—largely due to emissions of
CFCs, methyl chloroform, and similar
chemicals. Today, we are at more than
3 parts per billion, a record high level,
and going up. Action to halt this
pattern has not come too soon.
The United States is the largest
producer and user of ozone-depleting
chemicals in the entire world. Even
though we banned aerosol uses in 1978,
our per-capita consumption continues
to exceed that of Western Europe,
Japan, the Soviet Union, China, and
India by a substantial margin. We use
CFCs as refrigerants in home
appliances, automobile air conditioners,
and commercial heating and cooling
systems. We use them as blowing
agents in the manufacture of furniture
cushions and packaging materials. We
use methyl chloroform as a solvent for
cleaning and degreasing metals and as a
component of adhesives. We created
these chemicals; we have a
responsibility to lead the world in
eliminating them and finding safe
substitutes.
EPA has estimated that the phaseout
of CFCs and similar compounds
scheduled in the act will benefit the
entire U.S. population born before 2075
by eliminating almost 162 million cases
of skin cancer, more than 3 million
cancer deaths, and over 18 million
cases of cataracts.
Further, the Agency has estimated
that in addition to the health impacts
described above, the economic and
environmental benefits of the phaseout
EPA JOURNAL
-------
in the United States will be
approximately $58 billion through
2075. This includes $41 billion in the
form of reduced damage to our food
crops.
And there is another benefit. Most of
us are familiar with the connection
between CFCs and destruction of the
ozone layer. Less well known, however,
is the connection between CFCs and
global climate change that is predicted
to occur as a result of an intensified
greenhouse effect.
The threat of uncontrolled global
climate change is due to the
We created these chemicals;
we have a responsibility to
lead the world in
eliminating them and
finding safe substitutes.
accelerating accumulation of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
primarily carbon dioxide, CFCs, and
methane. These gases act as a thermal
blanket, trapping heat in the Earth's
atmosphere and causing temperatures
to rise.
Carbon dioxide emissions account for
an estimated 50 percent of the
predicted global warming. CFCs are
estimated to account for a substantial
portion of the problem—from 15 to 20
percent.
The fact that each molecule of CFC
has approximately 20,000 times more
impact on global climate than does a
single molecule of carbon dioxide
makes the control of CFCs an important
part of any strategy to combat global
warming.
Elimination of these ozone-destroying
chemicals, then, is a double winner.
First, it is absolutely essential if we are
to stop destroying the ozone layer.
Second, it is the most effective single
step we can take to curb the
phenomenon known as the greenhouse
effect, n
Mike Keefe Reprinted
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
35
-------
Stratospheric Ozone:
The Strategy
by Stephen R. Seidel
Murray Corporation photo
By 1992, firms that work on motor
vehicle air conditioners must purchase
certified recycling equipment to prevent
CFC emissions from escaping into the
atmosphere. Employees will be required
to complete special training programs.
(Seidel is Deputy Director of the Global
Change Division in EPA's Office of Air
and Radiation.)
Title VI of the new Clean Air Act,
"Protecting Stratospheric Ozone,"
represents one more significant link in
the global effort to safeguard the critical
part of the atmosphere that protects the
planet from harmful ultraviolet
radiation.
Not only was 1990 the year of this
landmark legislation, but significant
progress was made on the international
front with the substantially
strengthened requirements agreed to
last June at the second meeting of the
parties to the Montreal Protocol. Thus,
this past year will be remembered as a
turning point in the political response
to the threat of ozone depletion.
Efforts to protect the ozone layer
have come a long way in a short
period. Following a decade of much
debate and little action, a growing
international consensus began
developing around 1986 on the need to
reduce the use of chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) and other ozone-depleting gases.
The ozone layer came to be seen as
truly a global commons which would
require an international response to
protect it. Negotiations under the
auspices of the United Nations
Environment Programme reached a
breakthrough in September 1987, when
the Montreal Protocol was signed by 23
nations, including the United States.
In the three years since the Protocol
was signed, a great deal has happened.
In an almost continuous stream of
events, new scientific evidence
established CFCs as the cause of the
Antarctic ozone hole, showed that
ozone levels in the northern
mid-latitudes (i.e., above the United
States) had dropped more than
anticipated, and revealed the potential
for an Arctic ozone hole.
The international political
community, faced with even greater
threats of ozone depletion, stepped up
its efforts to gain widespread
participation in the Protocol and to
strengthen its requirements. As a result,
by January 1991, 68 nations had joined
in the agreement. Six months earlier, at
the June 1990 meeting in London,
amendments had been adopted to
completely phase out CFCs and halons,
to add and phase out other significant
ozone-depleting chemicals, and to
establish a landmark fund to support
developing countries' participation in
meeting the control requirements of the
Protocol.
The new scientific evidence also
increased Congressional interest. With
broad support and widespread
grassroots interest, Congress included
in the new Clean Air Act major
provisions which expand broadly on
previous legislation aimed at domestic
efforts to protect the ozone layer.
Perhaps the single most appropriate
word to describe Title VI is
comprehensive. Like the Montreal
Protocol, Title VI restricts production of
ozone-depleting chemicals, but it goes
further in that it also restricts their use,
emissions, and disposal.
Title VI tells companies not only
what ozone-depleting chemicals they
must stop making, but also establishes
a program to review their proposed
substitute chemicals. This section
contains a phase-out schedule both for
CFCs and for hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs). HCFCs are a family of
chemicals that will serve as transition
chemicals to replace some of the uses
of CFCs. But over the longer run,
HCFCs must also be eliminated because
they contain chlorine.
While most of the provisions directly
affect the industrial sector, consumers,
too, will be affected by the provisions
for mandatory recycling of car and
home air conditioners and by the
warning labels required on many
products they buy.
Following are the major provisions of
Title VI:
• Phase-out Requirements. The title
sets out scheduled reductions leading
to the phase-out of production of CFCs,
halons, and carbon tetrachloride by
2000 and of methyl chloroform by
2002. It also freezes the production of
HCFCs in 2015 and phases them out by
2030. Since these restrictions focus on
production limitations, to the extent
that these chemicals can be recovered,
recycled, and reused, they may
continue in commerce past the
applicable phase-out date.
• National Recycling and
Emission-Reduction Program. This
section calls for EPA regulations by
July 1992 formally requiring emissions
from all refrigeration sectors [except
mobile air conditioners) to be reduced
to their "lowest achievable level."
Regulations affecting emissions for all
other uses of CFCs, halons, and methyl
chloroform—and for all uses of
HCFCs—are to take effect by November
1995. This section also prohibits any
person from knowingly venting any of
the controlled substances, including
36
EPA JOURNAL
-------
HCFCs, during the servicing of
refrigeration or air-conditioning
equipment (except for cars) beginning
July 1, 1992, and requires the safe
disposal of these compounds by that
date.
« Motor Vehicle Air Conditioner
Recycling. CFCs released from car air
conditioners, which represent the
single largest source of emissions, are
treated in a separate section of the title.
The section requires that by January 1,
1992, each firm purchase certified
recycling equipment and that
employees operating the equipment
complete a training program. To reduce
emissions from do-it-yourselfers
charging their cars' air conditioners, the
act limits sales of small containers to
individuals with proper certification.
• Ban on Nonessential Products. This
provision prohibits the use of CFCs and
other controlled substances in
nonessential applications beginning
November 1992. It specifically lists
"silly string," commercial photographic
equipment, and noise horns; it also
establishes general criteria for EPA
when adding products to this list.
Beginning in 1994, the list will be
extended to products with HCFCs.
• Warning Labels. To assist consumers
in choosing among products and to aid
service personnel in deciding when
recycling and disposal are necessary,
the act establishes mandatory labeling
requirements on all containers holding
CFCs, other major ozone-depleting
chemicals, and all products containing
these chemicals (refrigerators, foam
insulation, etc.). Under certain
circumstances, warning labels may be
required on products made with, but
not containing, ozone-depleting
chemicals (e.g., many electronics
products and flexible foams) and over a
longer period of time, products made
with or containing HCFCs.
• Safe Alternatives. To ensure that the
chemicals used as substitutes for
ozone-depleting substances do not
themselves create environmental
problems, EPA must be notified of, and
evaluate, the overall environmental
risks associated with the use of
substitutes.
• Federal Procurement. While the
above provisions affect primarily the
private sector, this provision seeks to
ensure that federal agencies take
whatever steps are possible through
their procurement programs to facilitate
the early, orderly transition away from
ozone-depleting chemicals. The
provision requires EPA to work with
the General Services Administration in
developing guidelines for all agencies
to alter their procurement regulations to
meet this title's requirements.
• Assistance to Developing Nations.
This section provides a legislative
mandate for EPA to provide technical
and financial support for developing
countries' participation in the Montreal
Protocol. It builds on the agreement
reached at the London meeting of the
Protocol parties to establish a
multilateral fund specifically for this
purpose and authorizes U.S.
contribution to that fund.
• Methane Studies. The final major
section of Title VI goes beyond ozone
protection to require a series of studies
over the next two years on the potential
contribution of methane to global
climate change. The studies will
involve developing improved
inventories of the sources of methane
emissions, evaluating cost-effective
options for reducing those emissions,
Projected Atmospheric Chlorine
Concentrations (1985-2100)
12 Parts per billion
10
Original Montreal Protocol (19871
^lean Air Act; London Agreement
(19901
•2
1985
2010
2035
2060
2085
and developing a plan for stabilizing
methane concentrations.
Because it is so comprehensive, Title
VI presents an enormous challenge for
EPA and all affected parties.
Fortunately, recent actions by the
private sector provide a strong
foundation on which to build. Many
industries have already achieved
considerable success in reducing their
use of CFCs and halons; many have
developed and are well along in
implementing strategies to achieve
further reductions.
For example, many of the large
electronics companies such as
American Telephone and Telegraph,
Northern Telecom, and IBM have
announced corporate goals for a
phaseout by 1994 or earlier. The auto
companies expect to begin shifting to
alternative refrigerants for car air
conditioners beginning with their 1994
models. Voluntary recycling efforts
have also played a large role in many
companies' plans, a role that will
expand dramatically as mandatory
regulations take effect.
The Agency's existing system of
marketable production permits
allocated to manufacturers of CFCs
provides a foundation on which EPA
can build in implementing the new
Clean Air Act's production limits. In
the first year of regulation, actual CFC
production was 23 percent below the
allowable level, reflecting thu success
of early efforts to reduce private sector
use. This sizable drop in production
also reflects the impact of a tax on
ozone-depleting chemicals that took
effect on January 1, 1990.
In implementing Title VI, EPA will
continue its efforts to use market-based
approaches to regulation and to work
collaboratively with industry, the
environmental community, and
interested state and local governments.
Despite widespread political support
for a rapid and smooth transition away
from ozone-depleting chemicals, the
magnitude of the undertaking remains
enormous. Title VI significantly
strengthens EPA's hand in
accomplishing this goal, but the Agency
fully recognizes the need to act
judiciously and to work in a
cooperative spirit to solve the many
problems likely to arise before we
attain this goal, a
Chlorine from CFCs has been linked with stratospheric ozone
depletion. The new Clean Air Act and the 1990 London
Agreement amending the Montreal Protocol will substantially
reduce the amount of chlorine that enters the atmosphere
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
37
-------
Operating Permits:
The New Program
by Alan W. Eckert
Through voluntary environmental
measures, companies may qualify for
reduced permit fees, which can be a
significant cost item. Pictured is
pollution-prevention equipment installed
by General Dynamics' Pomona Division
to remove airborne solvent emissions
from a company paint shop.
(Eckerl is EPA's Associate General
Counsel for Air and Radiation.)
General Dynamics photo
During the long deliberations over
proposed amendments to the Clean
Air Act, much public attention was
focused on the massive new regulatory
programs included in the legislation:
acid deposition controls, a new air
toxics program, and a comprehensive
clean-up program for widespread
pollutants such as ozone and carbon
monoxide. The new operating permits
program created by the 1990
amendments attracted somewhat less
attention; nevertheless, it is a key
component in the regulatory agenda for
clean air.
Why is an operating permit program
needed, and where did the concept for
such a program come from? To answer
these questions, a little history is in
order.
38
Since the groundbreaking 1970
amendments, the Clean Air Act has had
at its core the State Implementation
Plan, or SIP. These amendments were
simple in concept, but dizzyingly
complex in execution. Under the 1970
law, EPA set nationwide standards for
the principal air pollutants of concern,
the "criteria pollutants," specifying the
concentrations that would be allowed
in the ambient air over a given time
period. (See article on page 24.) For
example, the national ozone standard
limits the concentration of ozone
anywhere in the country to not more
than 0.12 parts per million, averaged
over a one-hour period. The states then
identified their significant emission
sources and, through mathematical
modeling, determined what reductions
those sources would need to make in
order to meet the ambient standards.
Based on the modeling results, the
states developed SIPs by rulemaking,
setting out enforceable measures to
achieve the necessary reductions.
Through notice-and-comment
rulemaking, EPA approved each state's
rules or, if it disapproved them, issued
a federal plan by rulemaking.
The SIP program, as it developed in
practice, showed both the strength and
weakness of the Clean Air Act.
Strength, because the SIP system
focuses on environmental results: The
states need regulate only as necessary
to attain the standards. Weakness,
because rulemaking was necessary at
both federal and state levels to establish
enforceable requirements that apply to
sources. That meant SIPs tended to
become very detailed. Moreover, when
changes were needed, rulemaking was
again required at both the state and
federal levels.
The typical SIP is not a single
document. Instead, it may be a file
cabinet full of rules, amendments to
rules, detailed technical tables, and
analytical and monitoring methods. A
SIP is also a hodgepodge of different
sorts of rules. Some rules apply only to
a single facility, such as a large steam
electric utility plant, while others set
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Operating permits, to be renewed every five years,
will be required for facilities affected by provisions
of the new Clean Air Act. Permits will spell out the
clean air requirements that apply to particular
facilities.
out general rules for whole classes of
emission sources, such as auto-body
painting shops or printing plants. Some
rules set numerical emission limits;
others set work practices or operation
and maintenance requirements. Some
include waivers for particular sources
or groups of sources.
Despite the complexity, rarely is a
SIP indexed or organized so that a lay
person can navigate through it. Often
only a handful of people in the state
regulatory agency and the EPA regional
office even knows where the SIP is,
much less what is in it. Enforcement is
hampered because sources can argue in
court that, due to ambiguities in the
SIP, it does not apply to them or that
they are subject to different SIP limits
than the government claims. SIP
enforcement poses other problems.
Many SIPs do not adequately identify
the monitoring techniques necessary to
measure compliance, and few require
the sources themselves to conduct
testing necessary to show compliance.
All this complexity and confusion
also make it difficult to revise SIPs.
State rulemaking on SIP revisions is
time-consuming. In addition, further
delays of at least a year (sometimes up
to four years or more) are common
before EPA approves a SIP revision
submitted by a state. Enforcement is
further hampered by these delays.
When EPA brings enforcement actions
against sources, it is not unusual for
states to submit SIP revisions that, if
approved, would bring the sources into
compliance. Courts have proved
reluctant to impose penalties in such
cases when EPA has not yet approved
or disapproved the SIP.
To address these problems,
thoughtful observers have long favored
a permit program for the Clean Air Act.
Fortunately, there is a highly successful
model ready at hand: the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program under the Clean
Water Act. The NPDES program has
operated effectively for over 18 years
and applies to all point sources of
Sre^e Delaney photo.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
discharge into the nation's waters.
Under that program, the regulatory
requirements of the Clean Water Act
are collected in a permit for each
source. The permit sets out monitoring
and reporting requirements. Both the
permit and the source's self-monitoring
reports are available for inspection in
EPA regional offices. William Pedersen,
former Associate General Counsel for
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation,
proposed in a thoughtful 1980 law
review article that this program be
adapted for the Clean Air Act.
That idea bore fruit during
development of the President's
proposed amendments to the Clean Air
Act. Drafters of the bill wanted a
comprehensive permit program that
incorporated the best features of the
Clean Water Act program while
preserving the Clean Air Act's focus on
environmental results. We had four
major objectives:
• To make the Clean Air Act readily
enforceable (see box on enforcement
tools)
• To gather the information needed to
measure and predict environmental
results as well as to enforce the law
• To provide a clear emissions baseline
to facilitate emissions trading
• To encourage the states to raise the
fees necessary to support the permit
program itself.
The result was Title IV of the
President's proposal. With few major
changes, this became Title V of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Following are the major features of
Title V:
• Operating permits are required for all
major sources and all other sources
covered by federal regulatory programs.
• Permits must be renewed every five
years.
• Permits must set forth all those
requirements of the Clean Air Act that
apply to the source, as well as
39
-------
monitoring and reporting requirements
that help enforce these requirements.
• States must develop permit
programs, but EPA retains backup
authority to establish a program in any
defaulting state.
• EPA may veto a state permit that
fails to comply with federal law; EPA
must subsequently act to issue or deny
the permit if the state fails to fix it after
a veto.
• The states must collect a fee from
permit applicants adequate to support
their programs, ordinarily $25 per ton
of regulated pollutant emitted.
The permit program can never
replace the SIP system. It will always
be necessary to gather emission
inventories, prepare mathematical
models, and decide how much sources
must reduce their emissions. However,
with the help of the new permit
program, the SIP system can be
streamlined in important ways.
Initially, permits will simply
translate requirements developed under
other titles of the law into
individualized enforceable
requirements for each source.
Originally, the Administration had
loftier ambitions for the program:
During the Congressional debates, it
asked Congress to address the problem
of SIP revision backlogs by allowing
permits to modify SIPs. Congress
rejected that approach. However, the
permit program outlined in Title V will
change the regulatory background
against which SIPs are written in a way
that will ultimately help make the
process work better.
Right now, many SIP revisions, with
all their attendant delays, are
necessitated because SIPs contain all
the detail necessary for enforcement. If
some of that detail can be excised from
SIPs and left to the operating permit
process, not only will the system work
more smoothly, but SIPs themselves
can become more compact and
accessible.
Permits can also facilitate emission
trades. Currently, such trades must be
processed as SIP revisions. If SIPs can
be written so as to allow the
substitution of equivalent limits
through permits, subject to EPA
approval in the SIP review process,
environmental goals may be achieved
more flexibly and at lower cost.
Title V provides a framework on
which EPA can construct a permit
program that works, but a great deal of
work remains to be done to make this
happen. The law requires EPA to issue
regulations for state permit programs by
November 15, 1991—the earliest
deadline in the law for an important,
precedent-setting rule. To meet that
deadline, we must issue proposed rules
this spring. That accelerated timetable,
in conjunction with the difficult issues
involved, demands a creative
rule-development process to enable our
proposal to be as carefully thought-out
as possible.
To help bring this about, William G.
Rosenberg, EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
and E. Donald Elliott, Assistant
Administrator and General Counsel,
participated in a series of pre-proposal
"roundtable discussions" with
representatives of those who would be
most affected by the rule—states,
industry, and environmental groups. As
a result, the Agency has already
identified many of the concerns these
groups might have about alternative
approaches and started identifying
ways to address those concerns while
meeting the law's requirements.
For example, a principal argument
raised by industry against the permit
program during the legislative debates
is that permits would stifle industrial
flexibility and innovation. Industry
officials feared that the permit program
would be administered in a
cumbersome way. For example, one
such cumbersome scenario would
require modification of permits by the
states, subject to public notice and
comment and EPA veto, before
New Enforcement Tools Under the 1990 Amendments
—Michael S. Alushin
Civil Authorities
EPA has new authority to assess
penalties without filing a court
case. This new "administrative
authority" allows the Agency to
order payment of penalties of up
to $200,000 and to order that
violations be corrected. People
who get orders can request an
administrative hearing (much less
formal than a court proceeding) to
present their side of a case. EPA
can also issue "field citations" of
up to $5,000 per day. These
traffic tickets will be issued to
violators by EPA inspectors
immediately upon finding certain
types of violations. Again,
recipients are entitled to an
administrative hearing. A detailed
schedule, with types of violations
and corresponding penalties, will
be published by EPA after
working with the Department of
Justice.
These new authorities will
allow EPA to act on smaller cases
without starting a federal court
action. If an inspector finds that
monitoring equipment is not
working, for example, he can
issue a ticket assessing a small
fine on the spot. A routine
pollution violation can be
handled through orders which
impose a fine and require the
problem to be fixed.
The amendments expand EPA's
authority to respond to
emergencies by including threats
to the environment. Previous
authority was limited to threats to
human health. When EPA does
respond to an environmental
emergency, it can issue an order
directing the violator to correct
the situation. Fines for violation
of emergency orders are increased
from $5,000 to $25,000 per day of
violation. The amendments add a
criminal penalty of up to five
years in jail for knowing violation
of an emergency order.
Congress encouraged more
citizen action to supplement
EPA's enforcement efforts. In the
past, citizens could sue only to
make a violator comply with the
Clean Air Act. They can now also
sue for cash penalties, which will
then be used by EPA for
enforcement activities. However,
a federal court can order that up
to $100,000 of any penalty be
used for a project to benefit the
environment. EPA is working
with the Department of Justice
and citizen groups to develop a
policy which will define
permissible projects.
Congress authorized awards up
to $10,000 to citizens who
provide information leading to
criminal convictions or civil
40
EPA JOURNAL
-------
companies could make changes now
considered routine and made without
government scrutiny (or after minimal
state procedures).
In response to this concern, Congress
adopted a so-called "operational
flexibility" provision in the final law.
This provision allows permittees to
make routine changes in production or
operations without a permit
modification if the permittee gives
seven days' notice to the state and the
changes do not result in violation of
specific permit emission limits. During
the round-table discussion, EPA was
able to develop approaches for
administering this provision that
address legitimate industry concerns
but preserve the right of the public to
participate in the decision-making
process.
This innovative roundtable
technique, in short, holds great promise
as a tool for developing well
thought-out rules in less time than has
been traditionally required. The Office
of Air and Radiation is using that tool,
as well as regulatory negotiation and
input from formal advisory committees,
to find workable solutions to key issues
even before rules are proposed, n
penalties for violations of the act.
State and federal employees,
whose duties involve
environmental laws and
regulations, are ineligible.
Criminal Sanctions
For serious violations, the
amendments provide up to five
years (up from one year) in jail
and increased fines for knowing
violations of the act. Punishment
for a second offense is doubled
for almost all these crimes.
The amendments create a new
crime for a knowing release of
hazardous air pollutants which
places another person in
imminent danger of death or
serious bodily injury. Punishment
includes up to 15 years in jail and
a fine of up to $1 million for
violations by companies.
Negligent releases are punishable
by up to one year in jail and a
fine.
The act requires that those
regulated give EPA reports
detailing information such as data
from pollution-monitoring
devices. This information is
critical to the efforts of EPA
inspectors, and the law makes it a
criminal offense to knowingly
submit false or altered reports or
to tamper with pollution-monitoring
devices. The amendments increase
punishment for these offenses to
a maximum of one year in jail
(up from six months).
Other Enhancements to
Enforcement
The amendments make it easier
for EPA to show, in an
enforcement action, that a
violation has continued for a long
time. Once EPA proves a
violation has occurred, the
number of days of violation are
presumed to include the day EPA
gives notice of the violation and
all subsequent days until the
company/owner proves he is
complying with the act. The idea
behind this change is that the
company/owner is in the best
position to demonstrate that he is
complying.
Information on what companies
are putting out is crucial to EPA's
enforcement efforts. Here,
Congress made a number of
improvements. First, the
amendments make clear that EPA
can require that a wide range of
information be collected
and submitted by those regulated.
Second, EPA can require those
regulated to identify the standards
to which they are subject and to
certify that they are complying
with the standards. Finally, EPA
is now authorized to use
"administrative subpoenas" to
compel those regulated to submit
certain information needed to
enforce the act. Previously, the
Agency had to ask a federal court
to issue subpoenas, which many
times prevented timely
information-gathering and
enforcement of the law.
(Alushin is EPA's Associate
Enforcement Counsel for Air.J
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
41
-------
Operating Permits:
Business Concerns
by John Quarles
The new operating permit program is
destined to become one of the major
components of the Clean Air Act
regulatory framework. In a practical
sense, permits will be the engine to
pull the rest of the freight. They will
provide the mechanism through which
all other regulatory requirements are
made applicable to individual facilities,
and they will establish the operating
limitations against which plant
operators must measure compliance.
The permits, at least in theory, can
provide significant benefits to the
regulatory system. They will tend to
force a resolution of uncertainties as to
which requirements are applicable in
particular cases and clarify ambiguities
as to their precise meaning. They may
also foster a better understanding of
those requirements at the operating
level. They are also expected to
facilitate enforcement by collecting all
of the pertinent requirements in a
single document, although many critics
feel that this advantage has been
overblown as to its actual significance.
As an old enforcer myself, and
drawing from my intensive experience
in starting the federal water permit
program (the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination system, or
NPDES) in the early 1970s, I have
reservations as to the ultimate net
benefits of the air permit program.
Moreover, I have deep concerns as to
its prospective adverse effects.
There is an obvious need for
regulatory requirements to be precisely
defined, but most of the air regulations
(QuarJes is a partner in the
Washington law firm of Morgan, Lewis
6- Bockius. From 1970 through 1977 he
served as Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and General Counsel,
then as Deputy Administrator of EPA,
and during that period was directly
responsible for implementation of the
NPDES water pollution permit
program.)
are now effectively set forth in the State
Implementation Plans (SIPs)—a
component of the clean air framework
which the water pollution control
program never contained. I do not think
the case was ever convincingly made
that our continuing air pollution
problems result from any failure in the
requirements applicable to stationary
sources being adequately defined, or
adequately understood, or adequately
enforced. The cause of the air pollution
lies not in the administration of
established requirements but in their
substance. It also lies in the failure to
restructure basic systems of
transportation and in the failure to
The new air permits must
accommodate dozens or
hundreds of emission points
at each large facility.
achieve effective control of sources
other than stationary industrial plants.
Thus it is doubtful that any significant
air quality dividend can be squeezed
out of better administration, as is
implicit in the ambitious new air
permit program.
Issuing air permits will be a huge
administrative challenge. It may
become an administrative nightmare.
There are dangers both to EPA and to
American industry if the program does
not run smoothly. The challenge will
be to streamline the process so that
permits can be issued promptly and so
that the permit program does not
become an embarrassment to
government or a severe handicap to
American industry.
A big problem in issuing air permits
is the huge number of emission points
at large industrial facilities. This marks
a contrast to water permits. Industrial
wastewaters at each plant are collected
internally before discharge into the
river, so they can readily be handled in
a single treatment process and can also
easily be regulated by a single permit.
The hypothetical "bubble" which air
regulators have struggled over exists
automatically with respect to water
discharges. The new air permits,
however, must accommodate dozens or
hundreds of emission points at each
large facility. They must either set
emission limitations for each emission
point or find a way to aggregate the
emission limitations under a single set
of restrictions.
The prospect of individually tailored
emission limitations strikes fear into
the heart of an economist. While the
regulatory advantages are
understandable, the danger is that
highly detailed permit restrictions may
constrict operational flexibility. Since
many businesses experience operating
cycles and changing market demands,
their success depends on rapid
adjustment to changing market
conditions. Their competition— often
international competition—may
necessitate an immediate shift to
different levels of production, different
products, or different raw materials. All
these changes can alter air emissions or
move emissions from one point in the
plant to another.
The issue is whether the permits will
obstruct operational change. If the
permits commit an industrial facility to
a pre-determined schedule of
production and selection of material,
they can put American industry into an
operational straitjacket.
This potential problem has been well
recognized by EPA. Unfortunately, it is
not easy to solve. The mandate of the
Agency to implement the new Clean
Air Act requires that permits be issued
and that they prescribe stringent and
detailed regulatory controls. It is not on
either side a question of good faith.
There is a real dilemma. Some
compromises will be needed, and even
then some adverse effects are going to
occur.
42
EPA JOURNAL
-------
dents of cities like Denver, which has frequently been enshrouded in brown haze, hope that the new law will
• iir. Some industries are worried about the paperwork and expense involved in making this a reality.
One key to reducing adverse impacts
is to provide substantial flexibility in
the terms of the permit to make minor
changes in emissions without requiring
a revision of the permit. Freedom to
move emissions from one point to
another within an industrial plant,
without increasing the total, must be
provided. Some freedom to shift
emissions from one substance to
another is also a must. Setting
reasonable ground rules to assure such
flexibility is a responsibility the Agency
cannot duck.
Another key is to assure that if a
permit must be revised to accommodate
a minor increase in emissions which
will not have significant air quality
impacts, then a fast-track procedure
should be provided to allow such
revision without protracted delay. The
original permit provisions should
authorize such fine-tuning revisions
either upon mere notification or
through a governmental quick check
that would not exceed 30 or 45 days.
The other huge issue that will
determine whether the air permit
program causes serious disruption to
the national economy concerns the
procedures for issuing pre-construction
permits. Replacement, modernization,
and expansion of industrial production
facilities are indispensable to the health
Setting reasonable ground
rules to assure such
flexibility is a responsibility
the Agency cannot duck.
of our national economy. The Clean Air
Act already imposes an extraordinarily
complex set of new source review and
permit requirements which must be
satisfied before major industrial sources
can be constructed or modified.
In areas already meeting air quality
standards, sources must comply with
intricate rules designed for the
prevention of significant deterioration
of air quality (PSD). In so-called
nonattainment areas, even more
complicated and onerous requirements
must be satisfied, including the
installation of lowest achievable
emissions rate (LAER) equipment and
also the provision of "offsets." No
comparable requirements exist under
the Clean Water Act as barriers to
economic growth.
Many months are required to satisfy
these Clean Air Act restrictions
whenever they apply. Often it takes
years. Much of the delay results from
detailed specifications for data
collection and analysis and the
resolution of technical disputes.
Sometimes the requirements cannot be
satisfied. In other instances the
economic benefits of an industrial
project may disappear before the
regulatory hurdles can be crossed.
The new permit requirements will
aggravate existing difficulties in
achieving approval for projects of
industrial growth and modernization.
The necessity for permits will be given
broader coverage, and the procedural
obstacle course will be lengthened. In
addition, the regulatory officials will be
overwhelmed by the challenge of
processing permit applications for
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
43
-------
Petroleum refineries will be affected by several new clean air provisions. In order to produce the reformulated fuel
mandated by the statute, they will likely need new processing units. As new emission sources, such units will require
operating permits. The author argues that any delay in issuing these permits could work against the statutory
deadline for alternative fuel production.
existing sources, distracting their
attention from those permits which
must be issued to give the green light to
new projects. If the waiting lines
backed up for action on permit
applications become sufficiently long.
there could be a serious obstacle to
national economic growth.
The pressure to issue permits for new
facilities will be particularly intense in
some situations as a result of other
requirements in the Clean Air Act. Title
II of the law calls for the production of
alternative clean fuels in order to
reduce mobile source emissions. To
meet that air quality objective and that
legal requirement, petroleum refineries
will need to install additional
processing units. These units wili
create new emissions and require
pre-construction permits. If the Agency
cannot find a way to issue these
permits without delay—far more
rapidly than its track record would
indicate as normal—there is no way
that the statutory deadlines for
production of clean fuels can be met. In
this instance, one Clean Air Act
requirement is bumping up against
another.
Many other administrative and
regulatory questions are also of great
concern to affected industry. An issue
of immediate importance concerns the
ground rules for determining whether a
permit application is complete. Under
the statutory provisions, if a company
submits a "complete and timely"
application, it is authorized to continue
operations until the permit is issued or
denied. If, however, the permitting
agency concludes that the application
Some compromises will be
needed, and even then some
adverse effects are going to
occur.
is not complete, then it will be too late
to submit an application that is "timely
and complete" and the plant would
have to shut down, since it could not
operate legally until a permit actually is
issued. This means that a company
must be able to determine with
absolute certainty that it has submitted
a "complete" application, which in turn
means that the instructions must be
foolproof.
EPA confronted a similar situation
when starting up the permit program
for land disposal facilities required
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The problem was
solved then by requiring only a "Part
A" permit application containing very
basic and simple information. More
detailed information requirements came
into play only at the Part B permit
stage. Some comparable arrangement is
needed in the air permit program.
Another important question concerns
the relationship between SIPs and
operating permits. It must be made
clear that questions resolved by the
permit have been conclusively decided
so that if by chance the permit and the
SIP are inconsistent, the permit would
be controlling. The reason for this is
that once a permit is issued, a company
will be relying on it as an authoritative
determination of its obligations. A
related question involves when a
permit can be reissued in the event that
a SIP is revised or other new regulatory
controls are established. These issues
need to be resolved in a manner that
provides reasonable planning certainty
to companies to carry out new
pollution control efforts in an efficient
and integrated manner.
As with any major new regulatory
effort, it is unrealistic to expect that
there will not be a number of start-up
problems. Most of industry, albeit with
significant apprehensions, now accepts
the reality that new federal air permits
will be required. Launching this
program and making it work, however,
will require good faith and hard effort
on all sides.
The Agency has started off on a
positive basis of striving hard to obtain
advice and input from all directions. It
has also clearly demonstrated that it is
listening, and trying to respond, to
outside opinion. That is a good sign.
We may be off to an encouraging start,
but the road ahead will be long and
difficult, a
44
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Looking Ahead:
The Economic Impact
by Keith Mason
Economic impacts will be
widely dispersed over the
entire U.S. economy and
gradually incurred over a
15-year time period.
In the recent debate in Congress and
the media over a stronger Clean Air
Act, questions about the economic
implications of the proposed
amendments figured prominently.
Honest and earnest opinions were aired
concerning the costs of the
amendments, their potential impacts on
employment, and possible ramifications
for U.S. industry in international
competition. The debate was at times
enlightening, at times filled with an
economics of advocacy and hyperbole.
These deliberations produced far
more economic discourse than did the
Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 and
1977. Of course, this is not really
surprising considering the forum of the
debate—a Congress consumed by the
savings and loan scandal and the great
budget battle. Yet these Congressional
preoccupations were not the sole
reason for the economic tenor of the
deliberations.
In large part, the economic debate
was triggered by the nature of the
expanded air-pollution control
programs included in the new act and
the costs of these programs. EPA and
the President's Council of Economic
Advisors estimate that the new Clean
Air Act will cost approximately $12
billion per year by 1995—and
approximately $25 billion per year
when fully implemented in the year
2005. This is in addition to an already
extensive level of air-pollution control:
EPA estimated that expenditures for
air-pollution control were
approximately $27 billion annually in
1988.
Considered as a lump sum, this cost
is enough to give anyone pause. In fact,
however, economic impacts will be
widely dispersed over the entire U.S.
economy and gradually incurred over a
15-year time period. The new law will
have only modest impacts on such
things as the price of an automobile or
electricity rates. When the new
requirements are fully phased in, the
cost per day per person is around 24
cents.
(Mason is an Economic Impact Analyst
in the Office of Policy Analysis and
Review within EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation.]
When all provisions of the new law
are fully in place, the cost of achieving
the goals of the act's three main
objectives will be as follows. The
estimated annual cost of the acid rain
provisions is approximately $4 billion
in 2005. Controls necessary to bring the
numerous "nonattainment'L areas into
attainment with the national
health-based standards for pollutants
such as ozone and carbon monoxide are
expected to cost approximately $14
billion per year when fully
implemented. Control of toxic air
pollutants is estimated to cost
approximately $7 billion per year by
2005.
Further scrutiny of these individual
cost components is revealing. The
economic impact of the acid rain
provisions has received more analysis
than the impacts of the other major
titles of the act. Concerning electricity
rates, national average increases on the
order of 2 percent can be expected
when the acid rain program is fully
phased in. Rate increases will be
minimal in the early years of the
program, and in general, rate changes
will vary among states and utilities. A
number of states could experience
significantly higher rate increases
depending on the amount of pollution
reduction the utilities in those states
must achieve and the method of
compliance the utilities choose. For
example, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana,
Kentucky, and Missouri are expected to
have average rate increases greater than
4 percent by the year 2004.
These electricity rate increases could
ultimately affect the price of goods
made with the use of electricity.
Potential price increases will depend
upon the extent to which the utility is
allowed to pass cost increases along as
well as on the percentage of a product's
price that is related to electricity use.
There are only a few products
(aluminum is an example) for which
the cost of electricity is a major
component of the final product price.
More typically, electricity costs account
for 1 to 5 percent of the product's final
price. Thus, even a 10-percent increase
in the price of electricity would have a
very small effect on the final product
price. The President's Domestic Policy
Council confirmed this in 1987 when
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
45
-------
Concerning electricity rates,
national average increases
on the order of 2 percent
can be expected when the
acid rain program is fully
phased in.
analyzing an acid rain control bill that
would have required more pollution
reductions than the bill recently
passed. They concluded that aggregate
price impacts of less than 0.1 percent
could be expected.
If many utilities choose to switch to
other fuels (natural gas or low-sulfur
coal) to meet sulfur dioxide emission
limits, high-sulfur coal mining jobs
could be lost. However, these losses are
expected to be offset by gains in
low-sulfur mining regions. In one
scenario, EPA estimates that
approximately 14,000 high-sulfur
mining jobs in northern Appalachian
and Midwest regions would be lost by
the year 2000, and approximately
17,000 low-sulfur mining jobs would be
gained in central and southern
Appalachia and the western United
States.
The issue of coal-mining employment
and acid rain is not new; it has been
nationally debated for years. Although
the act's nationwide impact on
coal-mining employment is negligible.
the potential impact on some
high-sulfur coal mining regions is not.
To help ease the transition for persons
who have lost their jobs as a direct
result of the new Clean Air Act, the bill
provides for significant strengthening of
worker assistance and job retraining
programs.
The economic impacts of the
"nonattainment" and air toxics titles of
the bill are more difficult to estimate.
This is due to the vast number of
industrial source categories affected by
these titles and the relative lack of
detailed data on all of these sources.
Also, some of the impacts of these titles
will become known only after progress
in reducing pollution through
mandatory measures is assessed.
Still, some observations can be made.
The mobile source provisions to lower
auto emissions of ozone precursors,
when fully phased in, will result in an
additional cost to consumers of less
than $200 per car. And the additional
price per gallon of cleaner,
"reformulated" gasoline that will be
required in the nation's nine
worst-polluted cites is estimated at
According to a recent New York Times poll, many Americans feel that
environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost.
approximately 5 cents (EPA estimate).
Also subject to considerable debate
was the nature of some of the new
pollution-control strategies embodied in
the new act. Instead of traditional
pollution-control requirements that give
industry little choice as to how
pollution is controlled, the new law
incorporates strategies designed to
foster choice and enhance economic
efficiency.
For example, there will be incentives
for early reductions of air toxic
emissions in the form of credit for
emission reductions made ahead of
schedule. The acid rain control
program is designed to afford the
maximum choice of control strategy for
reducing pollution, thereby resulting in
the least control costs. The acid rain
emissions-trading program is designed
to reduce compliance costs by as much
as 20 percent compared to a traditional
"command-and-control" approach. (See
article on page 21.)
Finally, as in any debate involving
economic predictions, the cost
estimates themselves were grist for
argument. As with any cost estimate
associated with a complicated piece of
legislation that must be implemented
over an extended period, uncertainty is
the rule rather than the exception. Part
of the difficulty lies in predicting future
methods of pollution control. Air-
pollution control technology and the
cost of that technology change over
time. The cost estimates generated by
EPA and other groups have no built-in
mechanism to account for future
changes. As a result, experience has
shown that estimates by both industry
and the government are often on the
high side.
For example, in 1987 EPA estimated
that it would cost approximately $4
billion for the steel industry to control
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
from coke ovens. The current estimate
to achieve the same level of control is
$250 to $450 million. Much of the
difference is due to new technologies
that were not foreseen when the earlier
estimates were made. Often, when
faced with high costs for pollution
control, industrial innovation acts to
lower the predicted costs. In the late
1970s, faced with per-plant cost
projections of $350,000 for benzene
emission control, certain chemical
46
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Experience has shown that
estimates by both industry
and the government are
often on the high side.
production plants developed a process
that substituted other chemicals for
benzene and thus virtually eliminated
control costs.
On the other hand, it is also possible
for actual compliance costs to increase
beyond predictions. For example, cost
estimates of energy-intensive pollution
controls such as the incineration of
volatile organic chemicals depend on
accurately predicting future energy
prices. Rapid rises in energy prices can
turn the most thoughtful analysis into
wishful thinking.
Of course, pollution-control costs
may also be underestimated if the
magnitude of the problem being
addressed is underestimated or the
effectiveness of the control method
being applied is misappraised. The
experience of trying to estimate
measures needed to bring U.S. cities
into compliance with the national
ozone standard is a relevant example
here.
Despite cost prediction uncertainties,
innovation and the development of less
polluting technology in the face of
regulation are commonplace. Even
before the new Clean Air Act was
signed, numerous oil companies
developed and delivered to the market
new "cleaner" gasoline with lower
levels of toxic emissions, ozone
precursors, and carbon monoxide.
Automobile manufacturers are already
responding by announcing the
development of alternative-fueled truck
fleets.
Given the difficulty of predicting the
future cost of air-pollution control, it is
even more difficult to predict how
increased pollution-control
expenditures will affect such economic
indicators as employment, growth,
productivity, and trade. In terms of an
approximate $7 trillion economy in the
year 2005, $25 billion represents much
less than 1 percent of the size of that
economy.
Real economic growth and
productivity impacts are likely to be
small, according to the Council of
Economic Advisors. To the extent that
productivity gains are decreased
slightly, the impact is likely to be
transitional and not permanent. The
Council has said that some temporary
unemployment will result from the act
(such'as with high-sulfur coal miners),
but the new law is not likely to have
significant permanent negative effects
on aggregate U.S. employment.
Moreover, expenditures on pollution
control bolster a growing U.S. industry.
The pollution-control industry is an
important part of our economy.
Expenditures on pollution-control
create domestic high-skilled jobs (some
estimates are that for every $1 billion of
air-pollution control expenditure,
between 15,000 to 20,000 jobs are
created). As an added benefit, the
reduced air-pollution levels lead to
improvements in worker health and
productivity.
As for impacts on international trade,
exact studies concerning the impact of
the new act on competitiveness have
not been completed. However, a
preliminary comparison of selected
industries among major trading partners
indicates that other countries with
strong national economies and trade
surpluses have relatively greater
degrees of air-pollution control for
some industries than will be required
in the United States under the new
Clean Air Act. For instance, sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission
control requirements that will apply to
U.S. power plants are less stringent
than the controls already in place in
Germany. The notion that additional
environmental protection necessarily
endangers international trade is to date
unsubstantiated.
What has been substantiated are the
enormous trade opportunities for
pollution-control equipment and
expertise. The Soviet Union's recent $1
billion order of General Motors
pollution-control equipment is just one
example.
Finally, while it is difficult to predict
the economic impact of the new Clean
Air Act, the estimated levels of
expenditures seem to reflect current
public support for clean air. In an April
1990 Roper poll, 75 percent of
Americans indicated they would be
willing to pay three times the final cost
of the new law—today. This same poll
found that the average consumer would
pay 8 cents more for cleaner,
reformulated gasoline. In a New York-
Times poll in March 1990, 75 percent
of Americans said that environmental
improvements must be made regardless
of cost.
Considering public opinion and the
overwhelming support for the new law
in Congress, the economic debate over
the new Clean Air Act provisions
seems to have been brought to a
successful conclusion. Q
WIZARD OF ID
BY BRANT PARKER & JOHNNY HART
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
By permission ofJohnny Hart and NAS. Inc.
47
-------
Looking Ahead:
At the Gasoline Pump
by Kenneth R. Dickerson
Dawn lineup. ARCO trucks arrive at Vinvale Terminal, South Gate, California,
for their first fill-up. ARCO is reformulating gasoline to reduce air-polluting
emissions.
(Dickerson is Senior Vice President of
ARCO.)
48
ARCO photo.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
I 1990 portend revolutionary changes
in the cars people drive and in the
fuels that power them. As spelled out
in an earlier article, the new law
mandates drastic reductions in
motor-vehicle emissions over the next
10 years.
For the oil companies, this means
that new kinds of gasolines, ones that
burn more cleanly, must be offered to
consumers. Cleaner fuels also mean
fundamental and costly changes for the
industry. And, because oil is essential
to the world's industry and economy,
everyone from the producer on down
EPA JOURNAL
-------
will be affected. For consumers, the
most visible evidence of this change
will be seen at the gas pump.
In Southern California, reformulated
gasoline, pioneered by ARCO, has been
on sale for more than a year. Virtually
unheard of only a short time ago,
reformulated gasoline has proven so
effective in reducing tailpipe emissions
that it has qualified under the new
Clean Air Act to compete with other
alternatives, such as methanol or
electricity.
Under both U.S. and California
relations, reformulated gasoline—in
combination with advanced automotive
In Southern California,
reformulated gasoline,
pioneered by ARCO, has
oeen on sale for more than
a year.
technology—will provide an option for
meeting low-emission standards in the
years ahead.
That's good news for drivers and for
air quality, because reformulated
gasoline offers the only immediate
means of reducing automotive
emissions: It is priced competitively
with conventional blends; it is readily
available through existing facilities; and
it can be used in existing vehicles
without costly engine retooling. No
other fuel can meet these criteria.
As the largest gasoline marketer in
Southern California, ARCO chose to
take the lead in clean fuels
development. A new computer model
of the area's atmospheric mix,
developed by the California Institute of
Technology and used by local air
quality regulators, enabled ARCO's
chemists to determine precisely which
gasoline formula would produce the
maximum reduction of air-polluting
emissions.
Because older vehicles—cars
manufactured before 1975—are
responsible for most vehicular
pollution, the company decided to
produce its first reformulated gasoline
specifically for these cars. ARCO tested
its EC-1 gasoline at two independent
testing facilities and shared the results
with both the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMDj and
the California Air Resources Board
(CARB). The results were impressive.
EC-1, which replaced ARCO's old
leaded regular gasoline in September
1989, reduced emissions from older
vehicles by at least 20 percent. A year
later, ARCO EC-Premium, a high-octane
fuel designed to burn cleaner in high
performance cars, came on the market.
Using these emission-control gasolines,
ARCO customers have reduced
emissions in the Los Angeles basin by
more than 100 million pounds. Other
companies soon followed ARCO's lead,
entering their own brands into the
reformulated gasoline market.
ARCO received numerous
commendations from state and local
government bodies, environmental
organizations, and industry for
developing reformulated gasoline.
However, the most important
testimonial came from the new
gasoline's performance: It worked. In
1990, a combination of weather
conditions and cleaner fuels produced
southern California's cleanest air in 40
years.
The success of reformulated gasolines
in southern California has
demonstrated that significant
improvements in air quality are not
dependent on the development of
entirely new fuels. However, gasoline
cannot be reformulated to meet the
tough standards of the new law without
making major changes in refining
processes and in refineries. Refining
crude oil into gasoline is a complex
process that sorts out and rearranges
hydrocarbon molecules. EC-1 and
EC-Premium are marketed only in
southern California and were produced
with minor refining changes. But
reformulating all the gasoline that
ARCO produces—that is, radically
changing its chemical structure for the
total market—will require major
changes. ARCO estimates that the
necessary retooling and processing
plant additions to its two West Coast
refineries will entail costs of $3 billion
over the next four or five years.
Can gasoline be improved enough to
meet the ultimate Clean Air Act
standards, the ones that go into effect
in the year 2000? We believe so, but
not with our current reformulated fuels.
Last year, three major U.S.
automakers and 14 petroleum
companies joined forces in a
research-and-testing program to assess
the air-quality benefits of combining
improved vehicles with cleaner fuels.
The program will continue through
1993.
In 1990, a combination of
weather conditions and
cleaner fuels produced
Southern California's
cleanest air in 40 years.
Tests now underway lead us to
believe that we can make gasoline
meeting the legislative requirements for
an additional cost to the motorist of
about 15 cents a gallon (ARCO
estimate). This is far less than the cost
of alternatives such as M85, a mixture
of 15 percent unleaded gasoline and 85
percent methanol.
The tests should be completed by late
spring. The data from them, combined
with the information we are getting
from the auto/oil task force, should
provide conclusive evidence as to what
it takes to make gasoline that will burn
as cleanly as alternatives and at a
much reduced cost.
What about alternative fuels? Where
do they fit into the picture? In our
view, they cannot replace gasoline until
at least mid-21st century, but they will
be useful as "niche" or special-purpose
fuels in the meantime. All are less
powerful, requiring twice as much fuel
to achieve the same mileage. All
require new distribution and refueling
facilities.
Propane, compressed natural gas, and
methanol already power many fleet and
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
49
-------
limited-mileage vehicles. But each has
limitations for mass use when
compared to gasoline. Jvlethanol, for
example, is an odorless and tasteless
toxic that presents several hazards: It
could pollute ground water if spilled; it
burns with an invisible flame; and a
byproduct of its combustion is
formaldehyde, which disperses into the
air. At present, no one knows what
effects large amounts of formaldehyde
would have on air quality.
Several auto manufacturers have
developed prototype electric cars, but
their range is limited to anywhere from
50 to 200 miles, after which they must
be recharged. In addition, every 20,000
miles batteries must be replaced at a
cost of about $1,500, and disposal of
used batteries presents another
environmental problem.
Another problem associated with
battery-powered cars is generation of
the power for recharging. Most power
plants operate on fossil-fuels and
contribute to air pollution to some
degree. No new power plants are
planned in severe non-attainment areas,
such as (he Los Angeles basin, and
locating them elsewhere means
exporting the area's pollution. Nuclear
energy might solve this problem, but it
is an unpopular source of power. No
new nuclear plants are planned.
Alternative fuels have an increasing
role in clean air technology, and
researchers, with support from the oil
industry, will continue to seek the
combination of fuel and vehicle
modifications that will be both cost
efficient and environmentally sound.
But for the foreseeable future,
America's drivers will continue to
fill-up with gasoline wherever they
travel. What the oil industry can
promise is that it will burn much
cleaner.
This is good news for
environmentally concerned consumers
because they can continue to operate
their current vehicles—and without
significant increases in cost. And as
they buy new vehicles, they can help
reduce air pollution even more by
using the same reformulated gasolines.
In this way, each of us can make an
immediate impact on air quality in the
areas where we live and work, n
Reformulated Gasoline: What Makes It Different?
In Southern California, which has
the nation's worst smog despite
the toughest air quality laws, it is
estimated that vehicular
emissions, primarily nitrogen
oxide and volatile organic
compounds, are responsible for
about 50 percent of the air
pollution problem.
As the state's leading gasoline
marketer, ARCO decided to tackle
tlui problem by developing a
cleaner-burning, "emission-
control" gasoline. The
first, called EC-1 Heguiur, was
aimed at vehicles that pollute the
most—pre-1975 cars and pre-1980
trucks, which run on leaded
gasoline and are not equipped
with catalytic converters. When
ARCO introduced EC-1 in 1989,
these vehicles comprised only 15
percent of the auto/truck
population in Southern
California, but they produced 30
percent of vehicular air pollution.
In formulating EC-1, ARCO
eliminated lead, replacing it with
another octane enhancer, methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).
MTBE boosts performance and
produces a cleaner-burning
mixture. In addition, aromatics
were reduced by one-third, and
benzene was reduced by 50
percent. Vapor pressure was cut
by one pound per square inch
below the state-mandated
nine-pound standard. Sulfur
content was reduced by
approximately 80 percent.
Two independent,
government-approved laboratories
tested the new formula. EC-1 was
shown to emit less of the gases
that form ozone, the main
component of smog. EC-1 also
gives off less carbon monoxide
than conventional fuel.
EC-Premium, ARCO's second
reformulated gasoline, was
introduced in September 1990 for
high-performance cars. Benzene
content is less than half that of
ARCO's earlier premium fuel and
more than 60 percent below the
average premium sold in Los
Angeles, according to the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers
Association. Aromatics and
olefins are reduced by 25 percent,
and MTBE has been added to
increase octane. Further, vapor
pressure is lowered (a pound
below the California state
standard) to reduce pollution by
evaporation.
What are the results?
Independent tests show that
compared to conventional
premium gasolines, EC-Premium
reduces carbon monoxide by 28
percent, exhaust hydrocarbons by
21 percent, and evaporative
emissions by 36 percent.
ARCO customers using EC-1
Regular and EC-Premium are
reducing air pollution by about
150 tons a day in southern
California.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Looking Ahead:
Opportunities in the Cleanup
by Kenneth Leung
Sytvanta photo
(Leung is Managing Director of Smith
Barney, an investment banking firm.)
Many companies are worried
about the expenses they will incur
due to the new Clean Air Act.
Others are seeking ways to profit.
The lighting industry is working
closely with businesses that want
to reduce air pollution, save
energy, and cut costs.
One blanches at the numbers. The
Administration's official estimate
pegs the cost impacts of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 at some $25
billion a year by 2005, when the law
swings into full effect. That's on top of
an estimated $27 billion that American
business already spends annually on
air-pollution cleanup (1988 EPA
estimate). More pessimistic assessments
place the new legislation's ultimate
yearly cost around $50 billion. In the
heat of the debate leading up to the
statute's enactment, one industry
lobbyist complained that the new law
could usher in "the cleanest Depression
since the 1930s."
Perhaps. But business is, as they say,
a zero-sum game. And for every utility
plant manager wondering how to
comply with the new rules, there's a
supplier or entrepreneur who will be
more than happy to show him—for a
price.
Just where do the Clean Air Act's
business opportunities lie? For more
than two years, investment analysts
have spaded the soil in search of
answers. They've turned up a bevy of
potential beneficiaries, ranging from the
obvious ones, like producers of natural
gas and other alternative fuels, to some
more offbeat possibilities. A few Wall
Street newsletters even suggested a
potential play in makers of corn-based
sweeteners for soft drinks and other
packaged foods. Their reasoning? The
new law's requirements for
reformulated fuels could energize the
market for corn-based ethanol,
increasing the demand for raw corn by
250 to 300 million bushels, according
to the Corn Growers' Association. That,
in turn, might lead to tighter supply
and higher prices for other corn-based
products.
Whether or not these and other
scenarios work out, the new legislation
clearly will bring heady days for
companies that make money cleaning
the air. These include more than just
suppliers of pollution-abatement
equipment. Indeed, the earliest
beneficiaries are likely to be the swarm
of small and mid-sized environmental
consultants. Even before the law was
passed, some of these companies saw
business boom because they provided
computer modeling, analysis, and other
services for both sides of the lobbying
game. Now they may glean added
revenues from virtually every section of
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
51
-------
the new act—from the urban-smog title
to operating permit requirements to air
toxics to acid rain—as they advise
corporations, municipalities, and others
on how to comply.
There are also opportunities in some
tightly focused business niches.
Consider, for example, the acid-rain
title of the new law. Among other
things, this title allqvyys relatively clean
utilities to sell emissWn "credits" to
dirtier plants. Although the
Administration has maintained that the
emissions-trading provisions will work
"as easily as a checking account," a
couple of companies are trying out
profit opportunities here by acting as
middlemen between the buyers and the
sellers.
The acid-rain section also mandates
continuous emissions monitoring at
coal-fired utilities by 1993, and other
titles of the law also beef up monitoring
requirements. Consequently, those
firms that manufacture
emission-measurement instruments are
licking their chops. For some of these
companies, business has merely
plodded along; now, they're gearing up
for what could be a doubling of
demand.
Notwithstanding these and other
opportunities, the largest share of Clean
Air Act dollars will probably go to
makers of big-ticket equipment. Most of
the $7 billion annually expected to be
spent complying with the air toxics
title and the $4 billion or more to be
spent under the acid rain provisions are
likely to funnel into such items as flue
gas desulfurization units (popularly
known as stack scrubbers) and other
costly control devices. Sales for these
products can be expected to pick up
gradually in the next several years, and
they will probably surge in the middle
of the decade as the deadlines imposed
by these two sections of the legislation
draw uncomfortably close.
It's important to note, though, that
while the law will pump up revenues
in the clean-air sector, profits may be
harder to come by. The air-pollution
control industry is already a highly
fragmented one, and competition, even
for a huge new pool of business, will
likely be fierce. In fact, in the wake of
the Clean Air Act Amendments, the
siren song of fat revenues may well lure
many new players to a complex and
treacherous market. The result could be
slim profit margins all around, at least
until the industry sorts itself out.
The profitability of traditional
pollution-abatement equipment
companies will hinge on how many
potential clients choose alternative
methods to pare emissions. To achieve
acid-rain reductions, many coal-fired
utilities (particularly those located
relatively near raining areas) will no
doubt simply start burning low-sulfur
coal. That will divert money that might
otherwise have gone toward stack
scrubbers into the coffers of miners of
low-sulfur coal—and of the railroads
that transport it. Still other utilities are
taking a hard look at so-called
clean-coal technologies—a fledgling
Recall, however, that it was
the 1970 Clean Air Act that
spawned the catalytic
converter that is now
standard equipment on
American automobiles.
industry that could allow power plants
to burn sulfur-saturated coal but still
comply with the new act at a cost
lower than the $75 million that a single
500-megawatt facility might pay to
install a scrubber.
Many clean-coal technologies—and
other technical wizardry envisioned by
the new clean air law—have yet to be
developed: Whether they can be
supplied in time is an open question.
The oil industry, for example, has
repeatedly grumbled that it "simply
can't" produce the reformulated
gasoline required under the law's
mobile-sources title by the 1992
deadline. Obviously, the availability of
technology is a very real concern.
Recall, however, that it was the 1970
Clean Air Act that spawned the
catalytic converter that is now standard
equipment on American automobiles.
Many companies are already hard at
work on the next generation of
technology. For instance, one major
chemical company reportedly has
earmarked 10 percent of its annual R&D
budget to Clean Air Act work.
Developing new technologies won't be
easy, of course, but the potential for
profit has greased the wheels of
ingenuity many times before.
Along the same lines, one possible
plus of the Clean Air Act has been
hardly noticed in the hand-wringing
over its costs. Particularly in light of
the air-toxics provisions, which
eventually will regulate 189 separate
hazardous substances, many industrial
companies will likely take a hard look
at changing their front-end production
methods in order to lower their
emissions levels and, thus, the costs of
their back-end pollution control.
Obviously, this will mean a nice jump
in business for selected engineering and
design firms with the expertise to help
the regulated community in that effort.
But it could mean much more than
that. Last December, a Wall Street
Journal article reported that a major
industrial concern had saved an
estimated $41 million in the past three
years as a result of manufacturing
changes intended to cut pollution. In
the same article, Joel Hirschhorn,
formerly of the Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment, observed that
American companies produce five
times the waste per dollar of goods sold
as Japanese firms. If the Clean Air Act
spurs a lot of companies to
fundamentally rethink the way they
produce things, the resulting changes
could ultimately make us a better
match for some of our overseas rivals.
All of this is not to suggest, of course,
that American industry will welcome
the changes wrought by the Clean Air
Act Amendments. The new law swings
a heavy hammer, and many companies
will suffer. This is particularly true for
small business, which will bear the
onus not only of direct regulation, but
also of higher costs for cars, fuel,
power, and a host of raw materials.
Larger companies will experience the
same costs multiplied tenfold, and
although they may be better able to
cope with the financial burdens, they're
not about to applaud them.
Yet for the nation's commerce as a
whole, there's some reason to believe
that the new law's ultimate impact may
be less harrowing than the raw
numbers would indicate. Even as
environmental spending is forced
upward, a range of companies will
benefit, some entirely new business
segments may be created, and
American manufacturing firms will
have yet another incentive for more
efficient, productive operation. It's
worth remembering, too, that we've all
seen worse. American industry has
prevailed through two world wars,
dozens of financial panics, and the
Great Depression. When future business
historians sit down at their writing
desks, the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 may seem a relatively small
event—just another way station on the
road to bluer skies and, in the best
financial sense, greener pastures. Q
52
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Viewpoints:
Recollections of a Key Player
by Senator George J. Mitchell
Shortly after I came to the Senate in
1980, I became interested in the
issue of acid rain out of concern about
the effects on New England lakes and
forests. In 1981, I introduced the first
control bill, which called for an
8-million-ton reduction of sulfur
dioxide in 13 years by the 31 states east
of the Mississippi. The bill was
included in the package of clean air
amendments reported by the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public
Works in 1982. It was never considered
by the full Senate.
In 1984, the Committee tried again,
this time reporting legislation that
included a sulfur-dioxide reduction of
10 million tons to be achieved in 10
years. This bill also did not pass the
Senate.
On February 3, 1987, as chairman of
the Senate Subcommittee on
Environmental Protection, I held a
hearing that marked a turning point in
the debate. We heard detailed
testimony on the adverse impacts of
acid rain on human health. The
president-elect of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, the
president-elect designate of the
American Lung Association, the
past president of the American Public
Health Association, and the director of
Environmental and Occupational
Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical
Center all recommended that control of
acid rain be justified solely on the basis
of health effects.
After hearing the testimony, I
introduced a bill that required a
12-million-ton reduction in sulfur
dioxide in 10 years. Representatives of
high-sulfur coal states were concerned
that acid rain controls would close
their mines. To make Senate
consideration and passage of the bill
possible, concerns about the jobs
impact needed to be addressed. I spent
George Tames photo A/V7 Pictures
Senators celebrate after the 1990 Clean Air Act passed in their chamber.
Left to right: Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY); Alan K.
Simpson (R-WY); Max Baucus (D-MT); George J. Mitchell (D-ME): John H.
Chafee (R-RI); Dave Durenberger (R-MN); and Quentin N. Burdick (D-ND).
(Mitchell ID-Maine) is Senate Majority
Leader and was instrumental in (he
passage of the new Clean Air Act.)
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
two months negotiating with the
president of the United Mine Workers,
and we finally agreed on a compromise
bill. It must have been a true
compromise, because few senators
would support it. On October 4, 1988, I
announced that there would be no
clean air legislation in that Congress.
In July 1989 George Bush reversed
the anti-environment position of the
previous administration by proposing
clean air legislation. This completely
changed the political landscape. For the
first time in a decade, the balance
tipped in favor of enactment. The
proposed legislation was in some
respects similar to my 1987 bill,
although it was less aggressive in some
areas.
When the next Congress convened in
1989, I was elected Senate Majority
Leader. The Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee reported a
10-million-ton sulfur-dioxide control
bill in November 1989. Before Congress
recessed, I announced that the full
Senate would begin consideration of
the bill on January 23, 1990.
In January, as promised, for the first
time in 13 years the Senate began
debate on clean air legislation. But it
soon became apparent that there were
not the 60 votes necessary to terminate
debate. At the same time, there was no
group of senators with whom an
agreement would produce the necessary
votes. The only other place to garner
enough votes was the Administration.
On February 2, 1990, we began
negotiations with the Administration in
a conference room adjacent to my
office. For one month, we worked long
hours to reach agreement on a
compromise. The agreement was
weaker than the Committee bill, but it
was stronger than the Administration's
original proposal.
The acid rain discussion was
regionally divisive. The Committee bill
and the President's proposal were
similar. Both achieved a 10-million-ton
reduction; both adopted a system of
emissions trading through purchase and
sale of "allowances." Individual
53
-------
Viewpoints:
Pizza at Midnight
by Rob Brenner
and John Beale
emission limits were placed on every
utility boiler. Many senators argued
that the system wasn't equitable, that it
didn't take into account their particular
circumstances. This put us in the
unenviable position of responding to
unit-specific concerns, and we were
faced with literally dozens of requests
to make adjustments during and after
negotiations with the Administration.
As part of the negotiations, we
provided extra bonus allowances for
those utilities that used technology
during the first phase of the reduction.
The bonus allowances would provide
additional job-protection incentives for
high-sulfur coal miners. But this led
western senators to argue that their
low-sulfur utilities were not adequately
compensated for past efforts. Working
with these senators, I helped draft a
compromise that provided
second-phase bonus allowances to
these "clean" states as well.
After a weekend of frantic legislative
drafting, I, Senator Dole, and others
introduced an amendment on March 5,
1990. That began a month-long effort
on the Senate floor to reconcile
concerns about allocation of acid rain
allowances, toxics and smog controls,
limits on ozone-depleting chemicals,
and municipal incinerator controls.
Finally, on April 3, the Senate
overwhelmingly passed clean air
legislation by a vote of 89 to 11. Never
in my experience had the Senate
remained on one issue for so long, and
never had so many senators focused on
such technical legislation.
After this victory, we waited almost
three months for the House to act, so
we could begin a conference to
reconcile differences between House
and Senate bills. The conferees reached
agreement in principle on October 22,
and the Senate passed the conference
report on October 27. On November 15,
President Bush signed the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments into law. There
were many happy but tired faces at the
ceremony, o
t was well after midnight during the
third week of Clean Air Act
negotiations between key senators and
the Administration. The negotiators
were trying to resolve one of the more
formidable issues: Should automakers
be required to cut emissions of new
cars once in the mid-1990s and then
meet a second round of even tighter
standards after the year 2000 (so-called
"Tier II" controls)? The potential
compromise laid on the table was a
Staffers from many offices
worked 60- to 80-hour work
weeks for long periods of
time .
Tier II "trigger." The additional controls
would be required only if a significant
number of cities were not meeting the
health standards and were likely to
need the emission reductions provided
by additional vehicle controls.
The problem was determining what
constitutes a significant number of
cities and how far out of attainment
they would need to be to justify
imposing expensive controls on new
cars. As the meeting was breaking up,
Senator Mitchell pulled aside some of
the EPA staff. He said he did not think
an agreement could be reached unless
some data could be provided indicating
the frequency of violations in
nonattainment areas.
Senator Mitchell wanted the
information by 9 o'clock the next
morning (which meant that the White
House would want to see it before
then). Although the task required
pulling some analysts out of bed and
some early-morning computer runs, the
data were provided the next morning.
And although several more hours of
discussion were needed, agreement was
reached: Tier II controls would be
imposed if more than 11 cities
fBrenner is Director of EPA's Office of
Policy Analysis and Review (OPARJ.
Beaie is Deputy Director of OPAH.j
remained out of attainment in the year
2001. In this case, and in countless
similar cases over a two-year period,
agreement was possible only because
EPA staff were able to provide the
authoritative information, virtually (and
often literally) overnight.
Beyond the unprecedented demands
for accuracy and speed, the highly
contested political situation
surrounding the clean air debate added
an unaccustomed dimension to an
already difficult task. Our challenge
was to provide technical assistance and
policy insights to the White House,
Congress, and senior EPA officials
without becoming targets in what was
an often savage political crossfire.
Although most of the public attention
focused on the 101st Congress,
intensive EPA involvement began two
years earlier, in 1987, at the start of the
previous Congress. At that time, EPA
established the "Clean Air Work
Group," composed of staff from
numerous EPA offices and outside the
Agency. Air, Policy. Congressional
Liaison, Public Affairs, Water, OPPE
(Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation), ORD (Office of Research
and Development), OARM (Office of
Administration and Resources
Management), OSWER (Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response).
Enforcement, General Counsel, and
Administrator's offices, as well as the
Department of Justice: All contributed
staff and resources to the effort.
The work group's first task was to
develop analyses, briefing papers, and
policy options to encourage thoughtful
deliberations. But the previous year's
bruising battle between EPA and
Congress over Superfund
reauthorization made another task
equally important: Rebuilding severely
strained working relationships with
Congress.
After a year of internal and external
discussions and debates, the Agency
produced three innovative proposals:
more realistic deadlines with interim
progress requirements to address the
problem of "nonattainment" of the
national air quality standards; an air
toxics control program featuring a
technology-based approach backed up
54
EPA JOURNAL
-------
by additional control of any remaining
unacceptable risks; and comprehensive
revisions to the government's
enforcement authorities under the
Clean Air Act. Although these
proposals raised many questions and
triggered some controversy, they
re-established the Agency as an
important and respected participant in
the Congressional debate. Agency staff
were frequently called upon to provide
technical expertise at legislative
mark-ups and to brief members of
Congress as they attempted to craft
legislation.
But the 100th Congress failed to
enact Clean Air Act legislation: The
problems were too contentious and the
positions too rigid to resolve without
strong presidential leadership.
Fortunately, by the time the 101st
Congress began, the new president,
George Bush, had voiced strong support
for new legislation, and had also
appointed Bill Reilly and Bill
Rosenberg to EPA and instructed them
to make it happen. Their leadership,
along with the efforts of key White
House officials, resulted in the
development of a presidential proposal
by early summer of 7989.
The intensive involvement of EPA
staff in those efforts was
unprecedented. Career staff
accompanied Administrator Reilly and
Assistant Administrator Rosenberg to
virtually all of the White House
planning and strategy seminars (well
over a hundred in the course of the two
years). Never before in the history of
EPA did career staff work so closely
with senior White House officials such
as the Counsel to the President, his
chief domestic policy advisor, and
members of the Council of Economic
Advisors—primarily because no
environmental initiative has ever before
been such a key component of any
president's agenda.
As is typical in such situations, many
of the breakthroughs in crafting the
policy occurred in smaller, less formal
sessions—often around Bob Grady's
table at the Old Executive Office
Building. (Bob Grady is the Associate
Director for Environment and Natural
Resources at the Office of Management
and Budget.) Unfortunately, we soon
learned that the best time to work with
Bob was late at night when he seemed
to get his "second wind." We spent
many a midnight in his office over
Chinese food or pizza, working through
problems of policy drafting and
consensus building.
Thanks to fax machines and an EPA
headquarters/regional personnel
rotation program, it was not just the
Agency's Washington staff who directly
contributed to the new Clean Air Act.
Key staff around the country were able
to provide their expertise in an
extremely short turnaround (much to
the chagrin of their families]. That extra
Intensive EPA involvement
began two years earlier, in
1987, at the start of the
previous Congress.
help enabled us to write the legislative
language at the same time we were
completing the policy-development
process at the White House and
working with the Congress and outside
groups. The Agency's ability to provide
expertise simultaneously in these
different arenas meant that EPA's
concerns were largely reflected in
almost all the key documents produced
during the legislative process.
Some specific examples of the
Agency staff's efforts are instructive:
• The acid rain program: Working with
the Environmental Defense Fund (EOF),
EPA staff crafted the market-based acid
rain trading program, building on
concepts developed by EDF and others.
• The Senate compromise: Working
with key senators and Administration
officials during a month of marathon
sessions in Senator Mitchell's
conference room, EPA staff helped to
produce a bipartisan compromise. The
effort was a success, thanks largely to
the patience and skill of chief White
House domestic policy advisor Roger
Porter and Senator Mitchell. EPA staff
provided the data and insights
necessary for key compromises on the
allocation of acid rain allowances, the
conditions under which to trigger
tighter automobile tailpipe
requirements, and a program to address
any remaining risks after the
application of air toxic controls.
• The permitting program: This
program, essential for ensuring effective
compliance, is largely the product of
the previous and current Associate
General Counsels for Air, both of whom
recognized the need to provide a means
to implement more explicit compliance
requirements without overburdening
the state planning process. Of particular
note are the central provisions on
program flexibility, as well as those
which address small business concerns,
both of which were adopted at EPA's
recommendation over more rigid
procedures.
All in all, it was the experience of a
lifetime—and to many it seemed like a
lifetime! The work-load was staggering:
Staffers from many offices worked 60-
to 80-hour work weeks for long periods
of time, not only in the Air Office in
Washington, but also in the General
Counsel's office and the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards in
Durham, North Carolina. And all who
were part of the process agree: The
results are remarkable. The legislation
passed by overwhelming majorities
(89-11 Senate, 401 to 25 House) and
was enthusiastically signed into law by
President Bush in a White House
ceremony attended by many from EPA.
As we move into the implementation
stage, the new law has the full support
of the President and the entire
Administration. Perhaps the most
compelling example of that support is
that in an era of fiscal austerity, EPA's
air program budget for the first two
years of implementation has been
increased by 76 percent. This increase
is concrete evidence of the President's
commitment to seeing his new law
implemented effectively and of his
confidence that EPA will implement
the law with the same energy and
effectiveness that went into writing
it. a
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
55
-------
Viewpoints:
An Environmentalist's Perspective
by Richard E. Ayres
The new Clean Air Act, to the credit
of the Bush Administration and the
Congressional leaders who fashioned it,
addresses all the major air-pollution
issues that trouble this country.
Without question, the law will produce
cleaner skies. Even so, whether the act
will achieve the goals of protecting
health and natural resources remains to
be seen.
The national process of putting
together this comprehensive initiative
has renewed momentum in a program
that was stalled for nearly a decade. At
EPA and elsewhere, there is a new
enthusiasm for attacking the scourge of
air pollution. But, the law is not
self-executing. Moreover, it entails
extended clean-up schedules stretching
more than two decades into the future.
Whether the law will achieve its
ambitious goals depends on the
commitment of this and succeeding
administrations in Washington. It also
depends on whether state and local
officials—and leaders of American
industry—choose to see the new law as
an opportunity to address the
fundamental causes of atmospheric
degradation and to move beyond the
baleful stalemate that so often has
characterized past efforts.
The problem of urban smog
illustrates the point forcefully.
Currently, the emissions that cause the
unhealthy blankets of smog in our
urban areas come about equally from
motor vehicles and so-called
"stationary sources" that range from
factories to small businesses to
consumer products and activities in our
homes.
Over the past 20 years, the nation has
demonstrated remarkable technological
capability to reduce pollution levels
from motor vehicles and some
stationary sources. However,
(Ayres is a Senior Attorney with the
Natural Resources Defense Council and
chaired the National Clean Air
Coalition.)
improvements in air quality have
lagged far behind these technical
accomplishments.
Our new cars are far cleaner than
they were 20 years ago (though far less
clean on the road than indicated by the
certification test figures often cited by
the auto industry). But our nation now
drives twice as many miles as it did in
1970, when these technical
improvements were mandated. And
although our factories are cleaner, our
economy has grown massively. Yet,
without question, new technologies
now on the shelf can further reduce
pollution from conventional vehicles
and from industrial production
methods.
The new law is filled with
requirements for improved pollution
controls for both motor vehicles and
stationary sources. It mandates further
reductions in tailpipe emissions of cars,
trucks, and buses; new measures to
reduce "running losses" and emissions
from refueling; more durable
pollution-control devices; reductions in
the pollution potential of motor-vehicle
fuels; and better inspection and
maintenance programs to assure that
vehicles perform better on the road.
Pollution-control requirements are
extended to more factories and other
commercial activities that contribute to
smog. And EPA is under mandate to
develop new standards to reduce
emissions from polluting products such
as paints, other coatings, and common
household products.
But the past 20 years teach that
achieving the President's goal of
healthy air for all Americans will
require fundamental changes in how
we organize society and manufacture
products. The basic cause of continuing
high levels of motor-vehicle pollution
lies in the sprawling, wasteful way that
American urban areas have been
allowed to develop. Land-use patterns
require Americans to drive more and
more miles each year and to spend
more and more hours sitting in traffic
jams that waste time and resources.
And the major cause of much pollution
from "stationary sources" lies in the
failure to devote the attention and
creativity needed to find less polluting
ways to make the products our
advanced society wants.
According to the California Energy
Commission (CEC), traffic congestion in
California already costs 360 million
person years, a figure worth $17 billion
in wasted fuel and lost time, annually.
The CEC expects this to triple in the
1990s! Assuming the rest of the country
is only two-thirds as congested,
nationwide costs would translate
annually into more than 1.2 billion
person hours and more than $57 billion
for the country as a whole. Does
anyone really believe that this is
progress towards a higher standard of
living?
It is time to face the music. We need
to deal with basic questions of land
use, zoning, and mass transit that have
been political taboos virtually since
World War II. The mindless
construction of accidental cities can no
longer represent the definition of
progress. The casual acceptance of 8
percent—or even 4 percent—annual
increases in vehicle miles travelled can
no longer pass as transportation policy.
The slavery of hours spent commuting
in a car each day can no longer
masquerade PS freedom.
It has become fashionable to despair
of addressing these fundamental causes
The Clinical Research Program at EPA's
Health Effects Research Laboratory in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has
performed key studies on the health
impacts of exposure to air poilutants.
This chamber is used to evaluate
pulmonary and cardiovascular functions
in human subjects exposed to air
pollutants.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
EPA photo
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
of smog on the grounds that the
necessary steps would require changes
in "lifestyle"—as if the result would
necessarily be unacceptable reductions
in the American standard of living.
What is needed now is the perception
and courage to recognize the obvious:
that attacking the fundamental causes
of pollution would improve our
standard of living and save Americans
and American businesses billions of
dollars wasted in resources and time.
The new Clean Air Act prescribes a
new beginning on these issues, at least
in the more polluted cities. But the
federal act is a prescription, not a cure.
The patient's own actions will
determine the cure. It will take a new
political coalition at the local level, one
built on enlightened self interest on the
part of business leaders and state and
local government.
The remarkable experience of
Portland, Oregon, illustrates the kind of
boldness needed. Two decades ago,
Portland was more committed to
freeways than any city. But when
Oregon adopted a state land-use law,
Portland abandoned plans for new
freeways and instead built a light rail
system. The rail system now carries the
equivalent of two additional traffic
lanes on every road entering
downtown. The result: better air quality
and a rejuvenated city economy.
Downtown has added 30,000 jobs
without any increase in the number of
cars while increasing its share of the
regional retail market from 7 percent to
nearly 30 percent. Meanwhile,
health-threatening smoggy days are
down from about 100 per year to none.
The same willingness to see with
fresh eyes will be necessary for
industry. For too long, too many have
accepted the zero-sum conception of
environmental problems—that any
improvement in environmental quality
must be paid for with sacrifices
elsewhere in the economy. But very
often pollution is waste, and
eliminating its cause means saving
money: a win-win situation.
The case of the furniture makers in
57
-------
the Los Angeles basin is one among
many that illustrates how the
application of intelligence to solving
pollution problems pays off in both
better environmental quality and
lowered production costs. When a new
air-pollution control plan for the Los
Angeles basin was unveiled, furniture
makers complained that its strict limits
on pollution from painting and drying
operations would force them out of the
basin, taking thousands of jobs with
them. But then they looked for the first
time at the costs of the drying method
they had been using, one that burned
massive quantities of fuel to generate
hot air to dry their products. They
found that an alternative approach
using infrared drying gave a better
product at lower cost, and without
pollution.
The new Clean Air Act has set the
stage for more such innovative
thinking. For instance, states are
obligated to achieve and document
annual percentage reductions in
smog-causing emissions. In most cities,
this will require not only slowing the
rate of increase in aggregate vehicle
mileage but also the kind of success in
new process development that was
demonstrated by the furniture makers.
Will the New Law Protect Public Health?
—John R. Garrison
A look inside Eastern Europe
suggests what our cities might
look like today if Congress had
not adopted the Clean Air Act of
1970. That law, for example,
compelled the auto industry to
develop the catalytic converter
that is standard equipment on all
cars today.
Nevertheless, 96 major
metropolitan areas still exceed the
ozone health standard. For the
133 million Americans living and
working in these areas, clean air
may seem as far away as ever.
Perhaps more alarming is what
we've learned since 1970 about
the health effects of air pollution.
In 1981 a research group reported
that asthmatics are especially
sensitive to sulfur dioxide.
Although the findings wore met
with skepticism at the time, today
the scientific community agrees
that sulfur dioxide affects
asthmatics as well as others with
hyperreactivo airways.
Following quickly on this
discovery, EPA's own clinical
laboratories found that otherwise
healthy, exercising individuals
show significant effects after six
to eight hours of breathing ozone
at levels below the threshold of
the current health standard.
Consider your mailman walking
3.5 miles per hour during the
"smog season." By the end of the
day he may suffer a sizable
decline in his ability to breathe
normally, thereby affecting his job
performance. The long-term effect
of repeated exposures to such
levels is one of the many
questions remaining in the area of
health-effects research.
Air pollution diminishes the
lives of millions of Americans
and shortens the lives of tens of
thousands each year. Excess
deaths from air pollution are in
the same range as those from
breast cancer or auto accidents.
Translating these human costs
into financial terms, the American
Lung Association estimates the
annual health cost of air pollution
at $50 billion. Twenty years ago,
Congress declared that the health
consequences of air pollution
constituted a national emergency
and developed a crash program to
respond.
It is hard to believe, but that
sense of urgency is lacking in the
1990 law. There is a subtle shift
away from health-driven
deadlines, and toward progress
requirements; away from new
technology-forcing standards and
toward broader application
of today's technology. Air
pollution is, for the first time,
considered not a health hazard,
but an economic commodity. The
goal of protecting public health
may remain, but it is now more a
compass than a roadmap for the
almost 100 communities still
facing unhealthy air quality.
Will the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 provide all
Americans with clean and
healthful air quality? To be
honest, it is too early to tell.
(Garrison is Managing
Director of (he American Lung
Association.]
For motor vehicles, the law also
requires localities to adopt additional
measures, beyond those in the state
implementation plan, if actual mileage
growth does not slow as needed to
meet health standards. While this
requirement is categorical, its primary
purpose is to challenge states and
localities to develop programs that
answer transportation demands by
moving people and goods with less
effect on public health.
Providing mobility consistent with
public health goals will require a new
federal transportation policy. Although
federal highway funding may not be the
only force promoting suburban sprawl,
the overwhelmingly pro-automobile tilt
of federal transportation policy and
funding has largely enabled such
sprawl. This year Congress will have
the opportunity to rethink
transportation policy when it
reauthorizes the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act, known widely—and
tellingly—as the "Highway Act." For
the sake of public health and our
energy future, the next Transportation
Act should emphasize cleaner, more
energy-efficient public transportation.
The reauthonzation process will test
whether the President and Congress are
serious about restoring breathable air in
our polluted urban areas.
In 1981, the National Commission on
Air Quality confidently predicted that
if the programs for air-pollution control
then on the books were carried out,
only about seven urban areas would
still have unhealthy levels of smog by
1987; and only one or two areas would
continue to expose residents to
health-threatening levels of carbon
monoxide pollution. This prediction
fell victim to lax enforcement and lack
of leadership in the environmental "lost
decade."
With enactment of the new Clean Air
Act, the nation seems poised for a
renewed effort to restore air quality as
envisioned by the authors of the
landmark 1970 Clean Air Amendments.
Whether our leaders in government and
in private industry seize this
opportunity for a new beginning may
determine whether this Clean Air Act
will fulfill, at last, the promise of the
1970 Act. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Viewpoints:
A Skeptical Observer
by Frank Blake
Will the dream embodied in the new Clean Air Act come
true? In light of past experience, can we rise to the
challenge?
The Clean Air Act puts a new twist
on the roadside advertising
technique of announcing on successive
billboards the approach of a desired
destination. But in this case, instead of
moving closer to the exit, the farther
the nation travels, the more it moves
away from its destination.
With each new version of the act,
Congress announces that the goal of
attainment of the national ambient air
qualify standards is even more distant.
One projection for the next decade that
can be made with confidence is that by
the time the act is next considered for
reauthorization, nationwide attainment
still will not have been achieved. This
is the environmental version of the
myth of Tantalus: The prize is always
out of reach. And were we ever to
(Blake is currently General Counsel
with GE Industrial &• Power Systems.
He served as General Counsel for EPA
from 1985 to 1988.J
approach nationwide attainment, the
standards would be revised—a
possibility now lurking in the
background for the ozone standard.
In fundamental respects, the Clean
Air Act is designed to fail. Some might
argue that this serves a political
purpose. It provides a focus for fund
raising and a perpetual cause. But there
are also less cynical explanations.
Although the page upon page of
detailed legislative language may
obscure the point, the act is, at heart,
about technology, and unattainable
goals are the whips for constant
technological improvement.
What is unusual about this newest
version of the act is the breadth and
scope of improvement demanded. In
addition to the standard recipe of
tighter automobile-tailpipe controls and
major stationary source controls, the
new law calls for advances in the
formulation of gasoline, the
introduction of new alternative fuels,
such as compressed natural gas and
electricity, new controls on all
Chris Walker photo The Chicago Tribune
industrial sources of air toxics, new
controls on small stationary sources,
new controls on sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter:
The list could go on and on.
When we look back on the
accomplishments attributable to the
1990 amendments, there is little doubt
that we will see significant
improvements in air quality and
significant technological advances in
air-pollution control. What is less
certain is whether the blizzard of new
requirements will contribute to or
hamper this progress. The legislation is
full of promises, and, as Samuel
Johnson wrote, large promises are the
soul of public debate. But he added this
caution: "I cannot but propose it as a
moral question to those masters of the
public ear, whether they do not
sometimes play too wantonly with our
passions."
There are two cautionary notes here
for the Clean Air Act. First, the rhetoric
of massive health impacts from
nonattainrnent, ecological damage from
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
59
-------
There is more to be
commanded and controlled
under this legislation than
has ever been attempted
before.
"acid rain," cancer from air toxics and
so on outstrips the reality of the health
and environmental benefits to be
gained from the legislation. This may
prove harmful to the goal of continuing
environmental improvement if the
public were to receive more balanced
presentations in the media on
environmental issues; there may be a
price to pay in the future in terms of
lost credibility for playing "too
wantonly" with environmental
passions. But that appears a remote
possibility, at least at this time.
The more immediate cautionary note
concerns the burdens and challenges
that will face EPA over the next 10
years and that will determine the
success of this legislation.
Whatever one's ideological
perspective on command-and-control
regulations, the new Clean Air Act
should press the outer limits of
anyone's confidence in that approach.
There is more to be commanded
and-controlled under this
legislation than has ever been
attempted before. The legislation is an
odd mixture of marketplace
philosophies with standard
command-and-control approaches. The
acid rain provisions are notable in their
reliance on the marketplace and on the
new allowance-trading system (this is
also the one area where the act's goals,
a 10-million ton reduction, wiil be
achieved and can be verified).
But while the allowance system may
have received the lion's share of
attention, the remainder of the
legislation is heavily oriented to a
command-and-control approach. This is.
true in the nonattainrnent area where,
for example, EPA is mandated to
develop guidance documents for new
control techniques. It is even more so
in the air toxics area, where the Agency
is faced with the overwhelming task
over the next 10 years of developing
control standards for nearly every form
of industrial activity.
The availability of an adequate
knowledge base, adequate personnel,
and adequate resources to tackle these
tasks is doubtful. And even if that base
could spring into existence within the
statutory time frames, the
interrelationship of the various
provisions of the act requires a level of
planning and a field of vision that are
elusive even under the best of
circumstances. For example, controls of
volatile organic compounds for ozone
purposes will be linked with air toxics
controls; air toxic controls will be
linked to product reformulations;
product reformulations will be linked
to operating permit revisions; permit
revisions to State Implementation
Plans, and so on.
The issue is not whether EPA can
manage this process. It cannot. The
tighter the grip the Agency attempts,
the more the hoped-for result will slip
away.
The Agency is faced with a
particularly difficult institutional
challenge. On the one hand, the usual
round of criticism of the Agency can be
expected as the broad goals of the act
fall short of accomplishment. This has
been the history not only of the Clean
Air Act but of most other
environmental statutes. EPA bears the
public criticism of missing targets that
were designed to be unattainable.
On the other hand, the Agency's
typical reaction to this situation, which
is to gather more control for itself, will
not work. The reaction is logical. There
is a natural desire for any institution
that knows it will be blamed for failure
to attempt to gain control over what it
is being held accountable for. But the
breadth and complexity of this
legislation do not permit typical
solutions. The typical solutions are
likely to be counterproductive. If EPA
must approve each new development in
control strategies or if those strategies
are imposed by the federal government
according to the federal government's
time schedule and not through the logic
of facility and product improvement,
the underlying technological goals of
the legislation will not be achieved.
As with a physician, the Agency's
first obligation in implementing the act
is to do no harm. In trying to make
good on an impossibly large promise,
the Agency may sacrifice the realization
of a series of smaller promises.
Environmental performance is now a
significant international competitive
issue. Lower emissions provide a
competitive advantage, and
technological advancement and
environmental performance are linked.
This has many long-term consequences,
the most immediate of which is that
there may be a greater commonality of
interest among EPA, the environmental
community, and industry than has ever
existed before.
A second consequence, however, is
that EPA, with the vast and unwieldy
mandate that it has been given, may
create a regulatory structure that
imposes unacceptably high transaction
costs. Delay and regulatory confusion
may prove the greatest barriers to
progress. The criticism of
command-and-control regulation has
been, historically, that it is
economically inefficient. Now the more
pressing criticism may be that it is
environmentally inefficient.
To its credit, the early signals from
EPA are that it recognizes these dangers
and that it will implement the act
through a greater reliance on consensus
rulemaking and flexible principles than
has ever been the case. The temptations
to veer from this path will be powerful:
the Agency's own self-interest in
exercising control, the interest of states
in shielding themselves from difficult
decisions by pointing to federal
mandates, and the pressure from some
industries to use environmental goals
as a tool for market allocation. But the
test of whether the legislation will be
successful rests in large part on the
Agency's resisting those temptations, o
60
EPA JOURNAL
-------
EPA NEWS/./A/EJ
EPA Launches Two Voluntary-Action
Initiatives to Prevent Pollution
Editor's note: "Newsline,"
introduced in this issue of the
Journal, will appear as a
regular feature highlighting
significant news-breaking
items.
EPA Administrator William
K. Reilly recently announced
two major new initiatives for
preventing pollution, and
EPA is encouraging leading
U.S. corporations to
participate.
According to Agency and
independent projections, the
two programs will result in
significant reductions in air
and other pollution, and one
of them could generate
savings of more than $18
billion a year for participating
U.S. companies.
In the first of these
programs, called "Green
Lights," 23 major
corporations signed voluntary
agreements with EPA
committing the companies to
upgrade their facilities with
more energy-efficient lighting.
Lighting accounts for almost
one-fourth of national
electricity use. If enough
companies join the Green
Lights program and install
modern lighting fixtures, the
Agency estimates the nation
would reduce electricity
demand by 10 percent or
more. Reducing demand
reduces use of coal and other
energy sources that generate
electricity, thereby reducing
pollution.
The Green Lights program,
which incorporates
new, energy-efficient fixtures
currently available, is
projected to reduce annual air
pollution by 235 million
tons—5 percent of the
national total. Sulfur dioxide
would be reduced by 7
percent of the national total,
nitrogen oxide by 4 percent,
and carbon dioxide by 4
percent.
Representatives of more
than a hundred corporations
recently attended a series of
one-day workshops at EPA
headquarters to learn
technical details about the
Green Lights program.
Contact: Dave Ryan at (202)
382-2981.
In a second
pollution-prevention action,
Administrator Reilly has
asked more than 600 U.S.
companies to reduce
voluntarily their emissions of
17 especially troublesome
toxic chemicals. EPA's goal
for this initiative, called the
Industrial Toxics Project, is to
Philips Lighting photo
I i
This compact fluorescent bulb
uses only 18 watts of electricity
and lasts about three years.
cut nationwide releases and
transfers of the 17 target
chemicals by one-third by the
end of 1992; and by one-half
by the end of 1995.
The companies involved
are the largest contributors to
annual releases of 1.4 billion
pounds of these 17 chemicals
from more than 11,000
industrial facilities. Releases
occur in all environmental
media: air, water, and land.
Reilly's request for
voluntary corporate action is
part of a comprehensive EPA
Pollution Prevention Strategy
recently transmitted to
Congress. The Industrial
Toxics Project, headed by
Susan Hazen, is being
coordinated by EPA's Office
of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
"Pollution prevention can
be the most cost-effective
alternative to after-the-fact
treatment of pollution,"
Reilly said. "Companies can
save on the costs of waste
management, they can reduce
their use of raw materials,
and they can minimize their
liability."
The 17 targeted chemicals,
which include a number of
heavy metals and volatile
organic compounds, are
widely used in the
manufacture of a variety of
products ranging from paper
and plastics to furniture and
transportation equipment.
EPA selected the chemicals
because they pose serious
known health and
environmental effects, have
high production volumes,
high potential to come into
contact with humans or
ecosystems, and offer a
recognized potential for
release reduction.
Reilly said the voluntary
programs, coupled with the
incentives for toxics
reductions in the new Clean
Air Act, can help achieve
significant cuts in pollution
in advance of statutory
timetables and bring about
earlier health benefits at
lower cost to industry.
Contact: Luke Hester at (202)
382-4383 or Gwen Brown at
(202) 382-4384.
Agency Appeals
Wetlands Decision
EPA is seeking to reverse a
court ruling allowing the
destruction of hundreds of
acres of wetlands near
historic Williamsburg,
Virginia. The Agency is
appealing a recent federal
district court decision that
overruled its veto of the
proposed Ware Creek Dam.
EPA contends that the dam
would damage wildlife and
recreation areas and that
alternatives to the project are
available. Contact: Sean
McElheny at (202) 382-4387.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
61
-------
EPA NEWSL//VEJ
EPA's 1992 Budget Upped
to $6.2 Billion
The President's proposed
budget for EPA in fiscal year
1992 is $6.2 billion, an
increase of just under 2
percent from current levels.
Remedial programs and
large environmental
construction projects will
continue to receive the largest
share of money, $3.65 billion,
assigned to EPA. These
include: Superfund, for
correcting old and abandoned
hazardous waste sites, $1.75
billion; Construction Grants,
to help finance municipal
wastewater treatment
facilities, $1.9 billion; and
Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks, a program to help
protect ground water, $85
million.
Highlights of the
President's budget include:
• Roughly 70 percent of
the increase in operating
program funds will be used
in implementing the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990.
• Natural ecosystems such as
the Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay will receive
greater protection through
multi-media (air, land, water)
initiatives targeting specific
geographic areas. Wetlands
and coastal areas also will
receive increased attention.
• By establishing an
Environmental Education
Office, focusing on
elementary and secondary
schools, the Agency will
promote environmental
literacy, individual
stewardship of nature, and
careers in environmental
sciences. (See related item.)
• The Agency will strengthen
programs affecting food
safety through stringent
pesticide registration
standards, safer pesticides,
and expanded public
outreach and communication.
• To buttress its
lead-reduction strategies, the
Agency will continue its
study of the health effects of
lead exposure, evaluate
long-term abatement and
in-place management, and
pursue research and training
related to the effects and
reduction of this
contaminant.
• Additional funding will
strengthen the Agency's
scientific and economic
analysis, assisting
decision-makers to make
more effective use of market
incentives and applied
science.
Administrator Reilly said
EPA will continue to
strengthen the role of science
to emphasize pollution
prevention and risk reduction
and to increase protection
and restoration of natural
systems. Many of the
underlying principles in the
Agency's 1992 budget were
recommended by EPA's
Science Advisory Board in a
report entitled Reducing Risk,
released last September.
Contact: Lauren Milone at
(202) 382-4355.
New Education
Office at EPA
A new Office of
Environmental Education has
been created at EPA under
the direction of Lewis
Crampton, Associate
Administrator for
Communications and Public
Affairs. The office was
authorized by the National
Environmental Education
Act, recently signed into law.
The goal of the office is to
increase environmental
literacy and awareness among
students and educators from
elementary to postgraduate
levels. Responsibilities
include coordinating
programs and information in
government, private industry,
and the education field;
sponsoring grants supporting
environmental education
projects; and implementing
programs such as the
President's Environmental
Youth Awards and
Environmental Youth
Forums. Contact: Michael
Baker at (202) 382-4965.
Joint Study of
Forest Health
EPA and the U.S. Forest
Service have joined forces to
develop a nationally
consistent monitoring
network to determine the
environmental health of the
nation's forests.
Air pollution, global
climate change, and land
management practices are
thought by some experts to
have the potential for causing
long-term damage to forest
ecosystems, including the
economic and environmental
benefits the forests provide.
The new monitoring network
will examine the
relationships among forest
conditions and human-
induced and naturally
occurring stresses.
A pilot project involving
two different types of forest is
under way in New England
and Virginia. The pilot will
examine the productivity,
sustainabilitv, and
biodiversity of the forests,
aiming toward developing a
more comprehensive forest
monitoring program. Contact:
Lauren Milone at (202)
382-4355.
Richard Freaf photo. National Park Service
62
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Nine EPA Offices
Join Forces in
New Lead Strategy
Responding to growing
evidence that millions of
American children still may
be exposed to unhealthy
levels of lead in their
environment, EPA announced
the creation of a cross-media
task force to attack the
problem.
"Lead can be a pernicious
problem. Recent research
shows children are seriously
harmed when they have
blood lead levels previously
considered safe. EPA intends
to use every authority at its
disposal to reduce exposure
of children to lead in the
environment," Administrator
Reilly stated.
Ingested lead can delay the
development of children,
cause cognitive and behavior
problems, harm fetuses, cause
reproductive disorders, and
increase blood pressure. The
three major sources of lead
exposure are lead-based
paint, urban soil and dust,
and drinking water.
Since lead is a multi-media
pollutant affecting air, land,
and water, the Agency's new
strategy involves integrated
efforts by several programs,
nine in all, as well as
coordination with other
federal and state agencies.
Major actions include:
• Identifying geographic "hot
spots'' of lead pollution
• Implementing a
pollution-prevention program
• Strengthening existing
environmental standards
• Developing and
transferring abatement
technology
• Encouraging a recycling
program
• Sponsoring a national
educational campaign
• Adding to enforcement
actions.
The Agency is allocating $4
million to support the lead
strategy, as initiatives are
phased in over the next few
months. Contact: Gwen
Brown at (202) 382-4384.
On A Clear Day
A/ar/ona/ Park Service photo
EPA has proposed rules to
curb pollution from a
Northern Arizona coal-fired
power plant believed to
contribute substantially to
winter pollution haze in the
Grand Canyon.
EPA's proposal is based on
evidence provided by the
National Park Service,
supported by the National
Academy of Sciences, that
the Navajo Generating
Station, a 2,250-megawatt
plant, is a significant
contributor to the visibility
problem in the Grand
Canyon. The impaired
visibility is caused mostly by
a mixture of sulfates, nitrates,
and dust particles. EPA is
proposing a 70-percent
reduction in currently
allowable sulfur dioxide
emissions from the power
plant. Depending on the
option selected by the power
plant, EPA estimates annual
costs of pollution-control
measures will range from $92
million to $128 million.
According to the National
Park Service, the canyon had
almost 900,000 wintertime
visitors in 1989, about 21
percent of its annual total.
Contact: Dave Stonefield,
EPA's Air Quality
Management Division, at
(919) 541-5350.
First Rule Under
New Clean Air Act
The first rule issued under
the new Clean Air Act calls
for advanced
pollution-control technologies
on large municipal waste
incinerators. The rule will
reduce overall air emissions
from this source by 90
percent by 1994.
The new emission
standards will require
scrubbers at new large
facilities to limit emissions of
such metals as lead,
cadmium, arsenic, and
chromium by more than 99
percent; reduce organic
chemical emissions such as
dioxin by 99 percent; reduce
acid gas emissions such as
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen
chloride by 90 to 95 percent
and cut nitrogen oxide gases
by about 40 percent. Existing
incinerators will be required
to add scrubbers and take
other steps to ensure proper
burning and curb emissions.
The standards will be fully
implemented at 100 existing
incinerators by 1994 and
apply immediately to 30 new
plants expected to be built in
the next five years or
thereafter. Contact: Robin
Woods at (202) 382-4377.
EPA Announces Grants
to 17 Small Businesses
for Pollution Prevention
EPA's Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business
Utilization has awarded
17 grants for pollution-
prevention projects
to small businesses. The
awards, worth up to $25,000
each, help small businesses
develop and demonstrate new
pollution-prevention
technologies. A total of
$400,000 is available for such
projects in 1991, and 176
companies applied for the
grants. The program is
administrated for EPA by the
Center for Hazardous
Materials Research at the
University of Pittsburgh.
Contact: Karen V. Brown,
EPA's Asbestos and Small
Business Ombudsman, at
(703) 557-1938.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
63
-------
APPOINTTMENTSl
Thomas C. Voltaggio is the
new Director of the
Hazardous Waste
Management Division for
EPA's Region 3, which is
located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Voltaggio has served in
several positions in Region 3
since 1980. His most recent
position was Director of the
Superfund Program from
1983 to 1990. From 1981 to
1983, he was Chief of the
Compliance Branch in the Air
and Waste Management
Division. He was also Acting
Director of the Enforcement
Division from 1979 to 1980
and Chief of the Air
Enforcement Branch from
1977 to 1979.
Voltaggio came to Region 3
from Region 5 in Chicago,
Illinois, where he was Air
Engineering Section Chief
from 1974 to 1977 and
Compliance Section Chief in
1973. He began his career
with EPA in 1971 as a
chemical engineer in the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
Program in Region 6, Dallas.
Texas.
Voltaggio graduated from
the City College of New York
with a bachelor's degree in
chemical engineering. He
then earned a master's degree
in management science at
Texas Christian University.
He was awarded the EPA
silver medal in 1989 and the
EPA bronze medal in 1988.
The new Director of the
Office of Toxic Substances is
Mark A. Greenwood. His
EPA career started in 1978
when he joined the Office of
General Counsel as an
attorney-advisor. Greenwood
became the Assistant General
Counsel for the Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) program in 1983
and then served as Assistant
General Counsel for
Superfund in 1987. He was
appointed Associate General
Counsel for Pesticides and
Toxic Substances in 1988.
Greenwood graduated from
the University of Michigan in
1974 with a bachelor's degree
in political science. He then
earned a master's degree in
public policy and a law
degree from the University of
Michigan in 1978. During his
education, he worked as a
legal intern for Wisconsin's
Office of State Planning and
Energy and the Office of
General Counsel for the U.S.
Council on Environmental
Quality.
The new Deputy Director of
the Office of Information
Resources Management
(OIRM) is Paul Wohlleben.
Wohlleben joined EPA in
1985 as a branch chief in the
Financial Management
Division, Office of the
Comptroller. In that position,
he managed the operation of
the Agency's financial
management and payroll
systems. Since 1988, he has
worked in OIRM as Deputy
Director and Director of the
Administrative Systems
Division, where he managed
the Agency's national
administrative systems
software portfolio.
Previously, Wohlleben
worked at the Department of
Treasury from 1976 to 1985.
During that time, he held a
variety of positions related to
financial policy, operations,
and systems within the
Financial Management
Service. His duties at
Treasury included serving as
project manager for the
Treasury General Account
Cash Concentration System.
He also served as a staff
advisor to the Fiscal Assistant
Secretary, and in that
capacity was the
department's principal liaison
with the Federal Reserve
System on matters related to
fiscal agency operations.
An alumnus of Virginia
Tech, Wohlleben graduated
in 1972 with a bachelor's
degree in business
administration. After a tour of
duty in the U.S. Army, he
earned his master's in
business administration from
George Washington
University and attended the
George Mason University Law
School, n
64
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Copyright David Muencb 799/
SssGM
Lost River Range, Idaho: A breath of fresh air.
Back Cover: Closeup of springtime.
Photo by Bill Weems for Woodfin Camp.
-------
------- |