| Full title | Clean Air Act of 1963 |
|---|---|
| Acronym | CAA |
| Effective | Dec. 17, 1963 |
| Citations | |
| Public Law | P.L. 88-206 |
| Stat. | 77 Stat. 392 |
| Codification | |
| Title(s) amended | 42 |
| U.S.C. sections created | 7401 |
| Legislative history | |
| Major amendments | |
| Air Quality Act of 1967 (81 Stat. 485, P.L. 90-148) Clean Air Act Extension of 1970 (84 Stat. 1676, P.L. 91-604 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (91 Stat. 685, P.L. 95-95) Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (104 Stat. 2468, P.L. 101-549) |
|
| Relevant Supreme Court cases | |
| Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976) Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). |
|
The Clean Air Act is a United States federal law enacted by Congress, and signed by President Richard Nixon on December 31, 1970 to control air pollution on a national level. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and enforce regulations to protect the general public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health. The Act was passed in 1963 and significantly amended in 1970, 1977 and 1990.
The Clean Air Act is significant in that it was the first major environmental law in the United States to include a provision for citizen suits. Numerous state and local governments have enacted similar legislation, either implementing federal programs or filling in locally important gaps in federal programs.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 proposed emissions trading, added provisions for addressing acid rain, ozone depletion and toxic air pollution, and established a national permits program. The amendments also established new auto gasoline reformulation requirements, set Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standards to control evaporative emissions from gasoline, and mandated that the new gasoline formulations be sold from May to September in many states.
In light of advancements in understanding of atmospheric chemistry, this section was replaced by Title VI in 1990.[1]
These changes reflect a significant change in scientific understanding about how ozone is formed and depleted. Specifically, ozone's absorption spectrum covers UVC light and shorter wave UVB, letting through UVA (which is largely harmless to people). Ozone exists in the stratosphere, not the troposphere, exhibiting a lateral distribution because it is destroyed by strong sunlight; there is more at the poles. Ozone is made naturally when O2 comes in contact with photons from solar radiation. Therefore a decrease in the intensity of solar radiation also results in a decrease in the formation of ozone in the stratosphere. This exchange is known as the Chapman mechanism:
where M represents a third molecule necessary to carry off the excess energy of the collision of O + O2. Depletion of Ozone occurs in the presence of Freon and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Following discovery of the Ozone hole in 1974, the 1987 Montreal Protocol was successful in implementing a plan to replace CFCs. The speed and cooperation of the Montreal Protocol is viewed by some environmentalists as an example of what is possible for the future of environmental issues, if the political will can be garnered.
Major stationary sources of air pollution and certain modifications to those sources are required by the Act to obtain an air permit before commencing construction. This permitting process is known as New Source Review (NSR). The NSR program applies to sources that are located in areas that meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("attainment areas"), sources in areas that do not meet the NAAQS (nonattainment areas), and areas that are unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS. Permits for sources in attainment or unclassifiable areas are referred to as Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality permits, while permits for sources located in nonattainment areas are referred to as nonattainment area (NAA) permits.[2] The fundamental goals of the PSD program are to:
This part of the bill was extremely contentious at the time it was passed. The automobile industry argued that they could not meet the new standards and Senators expressed concern about the impact of this part of the legislation, in particular, on the economy. Specific new emissions standards for moving sources passed years later. Jevons paradox has done away with much of the system-gains in automobile efficiency since then. Because cars are more efficient, driving is less costly, so people now drive more on average, and this increased driving has overwhelmed the energy savings gained by the initial improvements in fuel efficiency. This same problem may be observed in the broader commercial sense when things are made more efficiently, driving down costs, so more units are sold, so that incremental improvements are overcome. This is what is so often lauded as improving profits and quality of life, but is environmentally damaging. Meanwhile, the focus is usually on the success of the solution, so drumming up further political support for the issue may be difficult. If individuals, corporations, and nations can externalize their costs, they will.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed regulations of a list of categorized sources that emitted any number of the 188 hazardous air pollutants, as directed by the Clean Air Act. There are currently 174 categories with plans for the creation of emission standards. Both the new and current sources’ standards are based on “maximum achievable control technology” (MACT), which is defined as control technology being able to reduce the emission of HAPs as much as possible while taking into account the cost and other factors.
The amendment prior to 1990, ordered the EPA to construct a list of HAPs as while as health-based standards for each one. There were 188 air pollutants listed and the source from which they came. The EPA was given a ten-year time frame to generate technology-based emission standards. Title III is considered a second phase which allows the EPA to assess lingering risk after the enactment of the first phase of emission standards. It is also to enact new standards with regard to the protection of public health. [4]
This title pre-dates the Clean Air Act. It was originally enacted by Act July 14, 1955, c. 360. With the passage of the Clean Air Act, it became enshrined as Title IV. However, another Title IV was enacted in the 1970 Amendments to the Clean Air Act by Public Law 91-604, December 31, 1970 (84 Stat. 1709). The second Title IV was then appended to this Title IV as Title IV-A (see below).
This title established the Office of Noise Abatement and Control to reduce noise pollution in urban ares, to minimise noise-related impacts on psychological and physiological effects on himans, effects on wildlife and property (including values) and other noise-related issues.
This title was added as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. It addresses the issue of acid rain which is caused by nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions resulting from electric power plants powered by fossil fuels. It also addresses other industrial sources. Originally the method for regulating industrial emissions was very controlled, meaning there was a way to decrease the pollution by a certain amount with a particular type of technology. The 1990, amendments gave industries more options including switching to low-sulfur coal and/or adding devices that controlled the harmful emissions. In some cases plants had to be closed down to prevent the dangerous chemicals from entering the atmosphere. [5]
In order to reduce SO2 emissions, two steps were enacted. The first stage of process required over 100 electric generating facilities larger than 100 megawatts to meet a 3.5 million ton SO2 emission reduction by January of 1995. The second stage pertained to facilities larger than 75 megawatts that were given a January of 2000 deadline. [5]
Starting in 1990, the main purpose of Title VI was for the Environmental Protection Act, or EPA, to set up regulations regarding the use and production of chemicals that harm the Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer. This ozone layer protects against harmful ultraviolet B sunlight which has been linked to several medical conditions including cataracts and skin cancer. [6]
The ozone destroying chemicals have been organized into two groups, Class I and Class II. Class I consists of substances, including chlorofluorocarbons, that have an ozone depletion potential (ODP) (HL) of 0.2 or higher. Class II lists substances, including hydrochlorofluorocarbons, that are known to or may be detrimental to the stratosphere. Both of these groups have programs set up a timeline for when the substances must be phased-out. For example, Class I substances must be phased out no more than seven years after being added to the list and Class II substances no more than ten years. [7]
Another feature of Title VI is to establish methods for preventing harmful chemicals from entering into the stratosphere in the first place. Some of these methods include recycling or proper disposal of chemicals and finding substitutes that cause less damage if any at all. [7]
Along with the United States there were over 190 countries that signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987. The document states that the countries agree to work on eliminating or limiting the use of any chemical that has ozone destroying properties. [6]
The first Clean Air Act was passed in 1963 and created a regulatory program in the U.S. Public Health Service.[8] The 1967 Air Quality Act mandated enforcement of interstate air pollution standards and authorized ambient monitoring studies and stationary source inspections.[9]
In the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970, Congress greatly expanded the federal mandate by requiring comprehensive federal and state regulations for both industrial and mobile sources.[10] The law established four new regulatory programs:
The 1970 law is sometimes called the "Muskie Act" because of the central role Maine Senator Edmund Muskie played in drafting the bill.[12]
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality for areas attaining the NAAQS, and added requirements for non-attainment areas.[13]
The 1990 Clean Air Act added regulatory programs for control of acid deposition (acid rain) and stationary source operating permits. The NESHAPs program was expanded to control additional toxic air pollutants, and the NAAQS program was also expanded. Other new provisions covered stratospheric ozone protection, increased enforcement authority, and expanded research programs.[14]
Since the initial establishment of six mandated criteria pollutants (ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and lead), advancements in testing and monitoring have led to the discovery of many other significant air pollutants.[15]
In 1997 EPA tightened the NAAQS regarding permissible levels of the ground-level ozone that make up smog and the fine airborne particulate matter that makes up soot.[16][17] The decision came after months of public review of the proposed new standards, as well as long and fierce internal discussion within the Clinton administration, leading to the most divisive environmental debate of that decade.[18] The new regulations were challenged in the courts by industry groups as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's nondelegation principle and eventually landed in the U.S. Supreme Court,[17] whose 2001 unanimous ruling in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. largely upheld EPA's actions.[19]
Although the 1990 Clean Air Act is a federal law covering the entire country, the states do much of the work to carry out the Act. The EPA has allowed the individual states to elect responsibility for compliance with and regulation of the CAA within their own borders in exchange for funding. For example, a state air pollution agency holds a hearing on a permit application by a power or chemical plant or fines a company for violating air pollution limits. However, election is not mandatory and in some cases states have chosen to not accept responsibility for enforcement of the act and force the EPA to assume those duties.
In order to take over compliance with the CAA the states must write and submit a state implementation plan (SIP) to the EPA for approval. A state implementation plan is a collection of the regulations a state will use to clean up polluted areas. The states are obligated to notify the public of these plans, through hearings that offer opportunities to comment, in the development of each state implementation plan. The SIP becomes the state's legal guide for local enforcement of the CAA. For example, Rhode Island law requires compliance with the Federal CAA through the SIP.[20] The SIP delegates permitting and enforcement responsibility to the state Department of Environmental Management (RI-DEM).
The federal law recognizes that states should lead in carrying out the Clean Air Act, because pollution control problems often require special understanding of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. However, states are not allowed to have weaker pollution controls than the national minimum criteria set by EPA. EPA must approve each SIP, and if a SIP isn't acceptable, EPA can take over CAA enforcement in that state.
The United States government, through the EPA, assists the states by providing scientific research, expert studies, engineering designs, and money to support clean air programs.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations must approve all federally-funded transportation projects in a given urban area. If the MPO's plans do not Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration have the authority to withhold funds if the plans do not conform with federal requirements, including air quality standards.[21] In 2010, the EPA directly fined the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District $29 million for failure to meet ozone standards, resulting in fees for county drivers and businesses. This was the results of a federal appeals court case that required the EPA to continue enforce older, stronger standards,[22] and spurred debate in Congress over amending the Act.[23]
Air pollution often travels from its source in one state to another state. In many metropolitan areas, people live in one state and work or shop in another; air pollution from cars and trucks may spread throughout the interstate area. The 1990 Clean Air Act provides for interstate commissions on air pollution control, which are to develop regional strategies for cleaning up air pollution. The 1990 Clean Air Act includes other provisions to reduce interstate air pollution.
The Acid Rain Program, created under Title IV of the Act, authorizes emissions trading to reduce the overall cost of controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide.
The Act requires industrial facilities to implement a Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) program to monitor and audit a facility's fugitive emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC).
The program is intended to identify and repair components such as valves, pumps, compressors, flanges, connectors and other components that may be leaking. These components are the main source of the fugitive VOC emissions.
Testing is done manually using a portable vapor analyzer that read in parts per million (ppm). Monitoring frequency, and the leak threshold, is determined by various factors such as the type of component being tested and the chemical running through the line. Moving components such as pumps and agitators are monitored more frequently than non-moving components such as flanges and screwed connectors. The regulations require that when a leak is detected the component be repaired within a set amount of days. Most facilities get 5 days for an initial repair attempt with no more than 15 days for a complete repair. Allowances for delaying the repairs beyond the allowed time are made for some components where repairing the component requires shutting process equipment down.
EPA began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution under the Clean Air Act for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA, and GHGs from stationary sources are controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. See Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act.
Robert Fri argues in “How Environmental Forces Shape Energy Futures” that energy and environmental policy making are inextricably linked. This perspective is echoed by many others including Robert Friedman and Rosa Bierbaum in their article “The Bumpy Road to Reduced Carbon Emissions.” Characteristics of environmental drivers include the need for an empirical understanding of the costs and benefits of pollution reduction and how they accrue to different groups. Where benefits and costs accrue to different players, conflict is increased. Over time, the mix of costs and benefits has shifted. Pollution used to be primarily local, and the same people used to reap the benefits and benefits of whatever system was used. Extensive distribution and higher levels of more centralized production have changed this system to be less democratic. Increased NIMBYism has meant that those who reap the benefits (such as electricity or heating) often are not exposed to the immediate environmental costs (contaminated air or water). The energy/environment relationship has been changed by negative externalities accruing where and when people do not connect them with their own behavior and choices. Trans-boundary pollution changed this and politically changed pollution as a national issue. This was particularly true in Northern Europe in the second half of the 20th century and provided the impetus for some of the first real controls on industrial pollution, including the Clean Air Act.
Some people believe that the traditional model of exponential growth is anachronistic. John Gibbons advocates in “Conservator Society Still a Dream” for an “equilibrium oriented model”, proposing that where in the economy cost factors are incorporated matters less than widespread recognition that it is necessary to include such factors in market pricing. A further alternative policy to the Clean Air Act might include efforts to build consensus in the economic sector on how to incorporate environmental costs and benefits into National Accounts. Although this will be a very data-intensive process, as evidenced by the beginnings of such an undertaking by the Dutch in recent years, it is useful for the policy-making process, and invaluable for making informed decision. The derived conventional wisdom is limited and problematic without such an empirical basis for making assessments about tradeoffs between the Natural environment and the economy.