Clean Air Act Issues

CONTENTS FOR THIS SECTION

Other Issues
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Reports

Other Issues

Other issues have developed as EPA continues implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. These include:

• concerns over use of the gasoline additive MTBE. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required numerous areas with poor air quality to add chemicals called "oxygenates" to gasoline as a means of improving combustion and, thus, reducing emissions. The most commonly used of these oxygenates is methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). A little more than 30% of the gasoline sold in the United States contains oxygenates, and of this, 76% contained MTBE in 1997. State and local environmental agencies and EPA attribute marked improvements in air quality to the use of MTBE and other oxygenates. The improvements in measured air quality have not come without question, however. In Alaska and Wisconsin, residents complained of a wide array of effects, including headaches, dizziness, nausea, sore eyes, and respiratory irritation, from exposure to gasoline/MTBE exhaust, before refiners switched to alternative gasoline formulations. MTBE from a number of sources, including leaking underground storage tanks, has also been linked to contamination of drinking water supplies. For a variety of reasons, concerns over MTBE have recently focused on California. California has experienced the most significant contamination of drinking water by MTBE. In addition, it has the most extensive reformulated gasoline requirements in the country, with state requirements separate and in addition to the federal. The overlapping state and federal requirements were the subject of legislation introduced in the 105^th Congress (H.R. 630 / S. 1576), but aside from hearings, no action was taken. In addition, Senator Boxer attached an MTBE amendment to S. 555, a bill making changes to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program. The amendment would have required EPA to conduct a study of the corrosive effects of MTBE on underground storage tanks. The bill, as amended, was ordered reported, but did not reach the floor. (For additional discussion of the MTBE issue, see CRS Report 98-290 ENR, MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues.)
• additional regulation of sources of nitrogen oxides (NO_x). NO_x is a regulated pollutant in its own right as well as a contributor to the formation of ground-level ozone. It is the only one of the six criteria air pollutants whose emissions have not been dramatically reduced during the last 25 years. Until recently, NO_x regulation focused almost exclusively on automobiles and other mobile sources. Now, the focus is shifting toward stationary sources, primarily power plants. Regulation is proceeding on four fronts, including: 1) Phase 2 of the acid rain program, which takes effect in the year 2000, setting emission limits for more than 700 fossil-fueled electric utilities; 2) New Source Performance Standards, applicable to new industrial and utility sources of the pollutants, which were signed September 3, 1998; 3) efforts by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group and Ozone Transport Commission to reduce ozone in the Northeastern states; and 4) petitions filed by eight Northeastern states to control interstate pollution under Section 126 of the Clean Air Act. Of the four regulatory fronts, the efforts of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) to develop a regional strategy for NO_x reductions have generated the most controversy. In June 1997, OTAG completed its work, recommending region-wide measures to reduce NO_x emissions, but specifying only a broad range rather than an agreed percentage for the targeted reductions. EPA promulgated regulations implementing the OTAG recommendations September 24, 1998, calling for average reductions of 28% in NO_x emissions in 22 eastern states and the District of Columbia. These reductions would be implemented through State Implementation Plans, beginning in May, 2003. The degree to which the regulations impose additional requirements on utilities and other sources of NO_x and the form of emissions trading to be allowed under the regulations are the prime areas of controversy. Two bills introduced by Representatives Wise and Ney (H.R. 3690 and H.R. 4136) would have required additional data collection before promulgation of a final rule and would have postponed its effective date until no earlier than 2005. No action was taken on these bills. (For additional information on the OTAG and Section 126 processes, see CRS Report 98-236, Air Quality: EPA's Proposed Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 126 Petitions -- A Hazy Situation?; for information on the New Source Performance Standards, see CRS Report 96-737, Nitrogen Oxides Emissions and Electric Utilities: Revising the NSPS.)
• EPA's proposed program to control sources of regional haze. Under Section 169A of the Clean Air Act, EPA was required to promulgate regulations by November 1992 assuring reasonable progress in remedying the impairment of visibility in national parks and wilderness areas resulting from manmade air pollution. On July 31, 1997, the Administrator proposed regulations to implement this section. The Agency is currently reviewing public comments on the proposal, with promulgation of a final rule expected, at the earliest, in early 1999. The proposed regulations would require all 50 states to develop implementation plans to improve visibility by 1.0 deciview (a measure of visibility) every 10 to 15 years. The plans would take effect in 2003 unless a state were simultaneously developing an implementation plan for fine particulates (in which case, the plans could be delayed to allow coordination). Regional haze controls are likely to target emissions from utilities, smelters, mobile sources, manufacturing, construction activities, and prescribed burning of agricultural lands and forests. Title VI of TEA 21 (P.L. 105-178) appears to have changed the proposed implementation schedule by requiring that State Implementation Plans for the regional haze program be submitted one year after the designation of PM_2.5 nonattainment and attainment areas -- most likely not until December 31, 2006. (For additional information on regional haze and EPA's proposed program, see CRS Report 97-1010, Regional Haze: EPA's Proposal to Improve Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas.)
• Tier 2 auto standards. Section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act required EPA to study the need for further reductions in auto emissions, the availability of technology to achieve such reductions, and the cost-effectiveness of such technology. The Agency was required to submit a report to Congress by June 1, 1997, containing the results of the study, and, if stricter standards are needed, to promulgate them by December 31, 1999. On April 23, 1998, the Agency released a draft of its report to Congress. A final version of the report, essentially unchanged but including responses to comments on the draft, was submitted to Congress August 4. In it, the Agency concluded that further reductions in emissions are needed, that technology exists to make those reductions, and that the technologies can be applied cost-effectively. Nevertheless, the report raised questions that need to be answered before any new standards are promulgated. These include the extent to which the desired results can be achieved by reducing sulfur in gasoline, and whether the same emission standards should be applied to passenger cars and light trucks. The latter category, which includes sport utility vehicles and minivans, has historically been allowed to emit more pollutants than passenger cars.
• sulfur in gasoline. Recent studies by a number of sources indicate that the performance of catalysts in vehicle emission control systems is negatively affected by the presence of sulfur in gasoline. Sulfur, a contaminant that is naturally present in crude oil, competes with other pollutants for "space" on the active surface of the catalyst. This limits the catalysts's ability to convert pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons to less harmful gases. The sulfur content of gasoline in the United States averages about 340 parts per million. Reducing sulfur content to 40 ppm, as required in California, would cut nitrogen oxide emissions in half in new vehicles, and reduce hydrocarbon emissions by significant amounts as well. Whether sulfur causes permanent damage to catalysts or its effects are reversible once the catalyst is exposed to lower sulfur exhaust is a key question on which differing views have been expressed. If the damage is permanent, national year-round reductions in sulfur would appear more desirable. If not, regional and seasonal controls could achieve the desired effects. The cost-effectiveness of removing sulfur compared to other methods of lowering emissions is another open question. With EPA having concluded that vehicle emissions need to be further reduced, an array of options involving cleaner fuels and/or improved engines and catalysts presents itself. At present, a number of parties, including auto manufacturers and states are urging EPA to set strict national standards for fuel sulfur content, with petroleum refiners arguing for less stringent and more localized controls. EPA has authority to set sulfur standards under the Clean Air Act, and has announced its intention to propose such standards in January 1999. In addition, legislation to require strict national standards (S. 2377) was introduced in the 105^th Congress, but not acted on.
• the inspection and maintenance program for auto emission controls. The Clean Air Act requires areas in 23 states to implement "enhanced" vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. The programs are designed to ensure that cars are properly maintained and that cars whose emission control systems are not functioning properly are detected and repaired. EPA believes that such programs are among the most cost-effective measures available to improve air quality. In November 1992, EPA promulgated a performance standard for enhanced I/M programs that was based on a new test known as IM240. The IM240 test requires expensive new equipment that simulates actual driving conditions, using a dynamometer. While some states (notably Colorado, Arizona, and more recently, Maryland) have implemented IM240 without major incident, many other states have balked. The potential costs to motorists, the reliability of the testing equipment, and the desirability of centralized test-only (as opposed to decentralized test-and-repair) facilities were among the issues raised. In late 1995, Congress addressed these issues, through legislation that gave states greater flexibility in designing their I/M programs and allowed the states to develop data that demonstrate the effectiveness of alternate I/M approaches. Congress's action notwithstanding, controversy has continued to plague state I/M programs. Given the continued controversies, I/M programs are among the air act provisions of interest to the Congress. (For a description of the largest state program and the issues raised by I/M in general, see CRS Report 97-561, Inspection and Maintenance of Automobile Emission Controls: California's Smog Check II Program.)
• low emission vehicle (LEV) and zero emission vehicle (ZEV) requirements under Title II of the Act. Section 209 of the Clean Air Act generally prohibits states from adopting emission standards for automobiles, but California, which regulated auto emissions before the federal government, is granted an exception as long as its standards are more stringent than the federal. In addition, Section 177 of the Act allows other states to adopt the California requirements in lieu of the national standards. Four Northeastern states (New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine) have chosen to adopt the California standards, including market share requirements for ZEVs. The auto industry responded by proposing that EPA promulgate a national low emission vehicle (NLEV) or "49-state car" requirement, more stringent than that required by law, in place of the four Northeast states adopting California standards. Because this alternative was not anticipated in the Clean Air Act, an impasse arose among the parties that prevented further progress in bringing low emission vehicles to market. That impasse now appears largely overcome. EPA has developed a framework of regulations to permit states and the automakers to implement a voluntary, yet enforceable NLEV program; in February 1998, all 23 manufacturers selling autos in the United States agreed to begin selling LEV cars under this program in Northeastern states in model year 1999, and in the rest of the country two years later. At present, however, the four Northeastern states continue to insist on their rights to implement California requirements, and the automakers are suing to prevent this.
• mercury standards for coal-fired power plants. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA was required to conduct a study of hazards of emissions from electric utilities by November 1993, and a separate study of mercury emissions from utilities and other sources by November 1994. The mercury study, released December 19, 1997, concluded that mercury poses significant risks to fetal development. Between 1 and 3% of women of child-bearing age are estimated to eat sufficient amounts of fish for their babies to be at risk from mercury exposure. EPA concluded that waste incinerators and coal-fired power plants are the major sources of mercury emissions. Having recently regulated incinerators, the Agency now faces pressure to regulate mercury emissions from power plants.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Impact of Clean Air Act Rules on Agriculture. Hearing. September 16, 1997.

---- Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research. EPA's Proposed Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone and Their Implications for Agriculture. Hearing. April 23, 1997.

----Subcommittee on Forestry, Resource Conservation, and Research. Methyl Bromide. Hearing. June 10, 1998.

----Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. FY 1998 Appropriations for EPA. Hearings. April 15 and 16, 1997.

----Committee on Commerce. Border Smog Reduction Act of 1998. H.Rept. 105-634. July 20, 1998.

----Committee on Commerce. Subcommittees on Health and Environment and on Oversight and Investigations. EPA's Proposed Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone. Hearings. April 10 and 17, May 1, 8, and 15, and October 1, 1997.

----Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Health and Environment. Title VI of the Clean Air Act and the Ninth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Hearing. July 30, 1997.

----Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Health and Environment. Transboundary Air Pollution. Field Hearing, San Diego, California. November 18, 1997.

----Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Health and Environment. H.R. 630. Hearing. April 22, 1998.

----Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs. Legality of EPA's Proposed Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone Rulemaking Process. Hearing. April 16 and 23, 1997.

----Committee on Resources. Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. Oversight Hearing on the Interrelationship Between the Forest Service's Fire and Vegetation Management Policies and the EPA's Proposed Regional Haze Rule. July 16, 1998.

----Committee on Science. Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Scientific Basis of EPA's Proposed Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone. Hearings. March 12 and May 7 and 21, 1997.

----Committee on Science. Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. EPA's Rule on Paints and Coatings: Has EPA Met the Research Requirements of the Clean Air Act? Hearing. May 20, 1998.

----Committee on Small Business. Subcommittees on Government Programs and Oversight and on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction. Regulatory Flexibility Act: Are Federal Agencies Using "Good Science" in Their Rule Making? Hearings. April 15 and 17, 1997.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture. Clean Air Regulations and Agriculture. Hearing. July 22, 1997.

----Committee on Appropriations. FY 1998 Appropriations for EPA. Hearing. April 8, 1997.

----Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Manufacturing and Competitiveness. Air Quality Standards and Manufacturing. Hearing. September 24, 1997.

---- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. Regional Haze Rule. Hearing. October 28, 1997.

----Committee on Environment and Public Works. EPA's Proposed Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone. Hearings. February 5 and 12, March 3, April 24 and 29, and July 24, 1997.

----Committee on Environment and Public Works. Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety. Ozone and Particulate Matter Research Act, S. 1084. Hearing. October 22, 1997.

---- Committee on Environment and Public Works. Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety. Regional Haze. Hearings. April 23 and October 1, 1998.

----Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Risks of MTBE Contamination of Drinking Water. Field hearing, Sacramento, California. December 9, 1997.

----Committee on Environment and Public Works. S. 1576. Hearing. September 16, 1998.

FOR ADDITIONAL READING

U.S. General Accounting Office. Air Pollution: Limited New Data on Inspection and Maintenance Program's Effectiveness, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives. March 1996. 29 p. GAO/RCED-96-63.

----Delays in Motor Vehicle Inspection Programs Jeopardize Attainment of the Ozone Standard. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives. June 1998. 35 p. GAO/RCED-98-175.

----Air Pollution: State Planning Requirements Will Continue to Challenge EPA and the States, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. June 1993. 31 p. GAO/RCED-93-113.

----Motor Fuels: Issues Related to Reformulated Gasoline, Oxygenated Fuels, and Biofuels, Report to the Honorable Tom Daschle. June 1996. 64 p. GAO/RCED-96-121.

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Issue Brief 97003. Stratospheric Ozone Depletion: Implementation Issues, by Larry Parker and David E. Gushee. (Updated regularly)

CRS Reports

CRS Report 97-8. Air Quality: Background Analysis of EPA's 1997 Ozone and Particulate Matter Standards, by John E. Blodgett, Larry B. Parker, and James E. McCarthy. Updated June 19, 1998. 32 p.

CRS Report 97-670. Agriculture and EPA's New Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulates, by James E. McCarthy and Jeffrey A. Zinn. Updated March 24, 1998. 15 p.

CRS Report 97-902. Air Quality and Transportation Enhancement Provisions in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, by David M. Bearden. Updated October 28, 1997. 6 p.

CRS Report 98-236. Air Quality: EPA's Proposed Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 126 Petitions -- A Hazy Situation?, by Larry Parker and John Blodgett. March 11, 1998. 13 p.

CRS Report 97-722. Air Quality Standards: The Decisionmaking Process, by John E. Blodgett, Larry B. Parker, and James E. McCarthy. July 21, 1997. 27 p.

CRS Report 97-458. Clean Air Act Permitting: Status of Implementation, by Claudia Copeland. April 16, 1997. 6 p.

CRS Report 97-959. Highway Fund Sanctions for Clean Air Act Violations, by James E. McCarthy. October 22, 1997. 6 p.

CRS Report 95-850. Implementation of the Reformulated Gasoline Program, by Susan L. Mayer, Lawrence Kumins, and Migdon Segal. August 1, 1995. 26 p.

CRS Report 97-561. Inspection and Maintenance of Automobile Emission Controls: California's Smog Check II Program, by David M. Bearden and James E. McCarthy. May 21, 1997. 10 p.

CRS Report 98-290. MTBE in Gasoline: Clean Air and Drinking Water Issues, by James E. McCarthy and Mary Tiemann. July 7, 1998. 8 p.

CRS Report 96-737. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions and Electric Utilities: Revising the NSPS, by Larry Parker. Updated July 25, 1997. 6 p.

CRS Report 97-1010. Regional Haze: EPA's Proposal to Improve Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, by James E. McCarthy, John E. Blodgett, Larry B. Parker, and Robert Meltz. July 9, 1998. 26 p.

Return to CONTENTS section of this issue brief.

Use the "Back" button on your browser to return to the previous page.