The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1982-05-18; City Council; 7013; Clean Air Act Reauthorization5 •rf ,I.I ~ ·d £ m ~ £ 8 .§ .µ •r-l ~ "· -~. M ·e Q) : II-I 0 '"Cl ~ 0 P'.l Q) • £~ "Cl <t: ,, t1~ ,, 0 la ;, ~Q) {I) ,-I ,-1 u Tl a, 9£ 8~ N 00 I 00 ,-1 I If) z 0 ~ ..J 0 z :::, 8 -' ~11 , 'OF CAR~SBAD -AGENDA BILL AB# 7o / ~ -TIIJ.E; CLEAN AIR ACT REAUTHORIZATION MTG. 5/18/82 DEPT. C,M, RECOMMENDED ACTION: DEPT.HD-~ CITYATTY~ CITYMGR.~ Consider taking a position on the reauthorization of the Federal Clean Air Act. ITEM EY.PLANATION: The County Board of Supervisors has taken a position on reauthorization of the Clean Air Act. The Board's position is outlined in the attached report. A representative of the County, Mr .. Paul Sidhu will i:ie preseuL Lu aii5w<a:i:" quc:::ti::mc. FISCAL IMPACT: No direct impact identified at this time. EXHIBI'f: Letter dated May 4, 1982 from Jim Bates. JIM BATES SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT May 4, 1982 Olnunty nf ~an ittgn inarb nf hperuisnrs Honorable Ronald C. Packard Mayor, City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re; Clean Air Act Reauthorization Dear Mayor Packard: As you probably know the Federal Clean Air Act is up for reauthorization. The Congress is in the midst of a debate on the direction the Nation should pursue concerning protection of public health and welfare from air pollution. That direction will be reflected in amendments to the Act. Since any amendments would impact air pollution control efforts in the San Diego region, and thereby the citizens in the region, it is necessary that we convey our position on air quality issues to the Congress. The San Diego Cotlnty Board of Supervisors has recently taken a formal position on various air quality issues facing the nation today. The attached report con- tains the Board's 9osition. I request, on behalf of the Board, that the City Council adopt a similar position. If you have questions regarding the issues addre~sed in the attached report, pl ease feel free to contact Mr. Paul Sidhu at 565-3940. Attachment cc: City Manager 1600 Pacific Highway • San Diego, California 92101 • 236-2282 ! I ) . l l - " =~ ~·---------._...._.,.-. \ • r ~ ~ r r Ji r 11 :i I ii H ,, 1 ·: r~ ' ~: I • I it r 1. J 1 M I, 11 ! ) / ~ ~ ' ' .lb '~ f I lr!G POSITION PAPER ON THE CLEAN AIR ACT APRIL 28, 1982 l l • I ~ F F r n I 'i I .. H I I J I. t1! I J j ,, , ,. \. I\ ~ I ' ' t'll lj ,~ I' i~ l'"I 11 ... NS I ' l'9 BACKGROUND The Congress is in the midst of a debate on the direction the nation should pursue concerning protection of ~ublic health and welfare from air pollution. That direction will be reflected in amendments to the federal Clean Air Act. Various bills ~o amend the Clean Air Act have been introduced. Some would compromise previously established goals and objectives, and reverse the tech- nological advances and air quality achievements made to date. Others would ret~in t.h~ ~t.rnng cormtitm~nt to ~rotect oublic health and welfare. Those in opposition to the Act seek to relax technological requirements for both sta- tionary sources and motor vehicles, knowing well that to do so would increase pollution and make it very difficult to protect public health and welfare. In order to accommodate relaxed requirements, deadlines to achieve healthy air quality standards would be extended as much as five to eleven years. Those in opposition also seek to ignore any new issues facing the nation; for example acid deposition, hazardous pollutants, and indoor pollution. There fs a strong move to drastically relax emission and performanl: standards for motor vehicles. The reason given fs to revive the troubled domestic auto- mobile industry. The Clean Air Act is not the industry's problem. According to the Co11111ission on Air Quality, non-air quality related factors have been the primary cause of the auto industry's current financial condition, specifi- cally; high interest rates, petroleum prices, and effective competition from foreign manufacturers. Therefore, relaxation of motor vehicle standards is not the solution to the industry's problem. In a more general sense, despite the contrary rhetoric, the National Corrmis- sion on Air Quality concluded after substantial study, that the effect of the -i- I r r ~ F ~ i -r I~ ,~ ~ \ l~ Ii - I; t~ j; \~ j' 1, I' I ~ I . i~ ~ I l 6 Clean Afr Act requirements on national economic indicators has not been signi- ficant, and fs not expected to be significant. In short, the economy fs not a real issue fn this matter. Any fundamental change to the Act would be contrary to public opinion. Cur- rent public opinion surveys by a variety of polling organizations demonstrate sound and overwhelming public support for the Clean Air Act. Those results were a surprise to those who thought there was a gene1•al dissatisfaction with regulatory programs. The San Diego region has benefited from the current Clean Afr Act require- ments. The region is attainment for sulfur dioxid& and nitrogen dfoxfde ambient standards. Attainment of carbon monoxide standard is expected around 1984. Progress fs also being made towards attainment of the ozone (smog) standard. -ii- , """"' r Pi I ~ I p F f' -p p ' ,, I-~ I' l I ~ h \ I k 1h . I• h ) I , . L, I' i .... ""' ' 1 ... L L .. SUMMARY The issues addressed in this report include ambient standard setting, attain- ment deadlines, technological requirements, planning process, motor vehicle inspection and maintenance, enforcement, as well as new program areas such as acid deposition. The report advocates changes in those e·1ements that have proven ineffective, unworkable or unnecessarily complex, b~th in a regulatory and administrative sense. It is recorrrnended that those char.ges that would reduce the fundam1ntal purpose and effectiveness of th~ Act be opposed. A brief ~u11111ary of the Board's position follows. I. Ambient Air Quality Standards Health related standards should continue to be based on health concerns with an adequate margin of safety, but without consideration of cost. The issues of cost are best addressed by local government when selecting con- trol strategies. II. State Implementation Plan (SIPs) Retain SIP concept, but recognize the role of local governmental bodies in adopting and implementing implementation plans. Require EPA to act on the plans within a specified period of time. III. Atta:nment Deadlines Allow the EPA Administrator to extend the 1982 attainment date by no more than five years, provided all reasonably available control measures including motor vehicle inspection and main'l:e•1ance program are impleme11ted along an agreed upon time schedule. -iii- m r r r F ~ ~ -, ~ I~ 11 hl I , .. f-,,, i '""' i 1<111 'I , ... I ~ I; ""' i ~ "21c ...,, l!d. • I 1111 IV. New Source Review Ensure that requirements do not unnecessarily shift growth away from urban areas, retain emission offset rP.quirements for nonattainment areas, and apply Best-Available Control Technology to sources emitting more than 50 tons a year. V. Enforcement Amend the Act to define the enforce~nt role of EPA as one ~f ov~rsight and audit. Provide EPA authority to intervene where states/locals fail to act. Allow state and local agencies to issue variances up to one year without the need for revision to the implementation plan. VI. Mobile Sources Emission standards for motor vehicles should not be relaxed, as motor vehicles are the major contributors to air quality problems. Retain a state's authority to establish vehicle emission standards. YII. Transportation Controls Remove the mandatory requirement for transportation control measures as those measures provide insignificant emission reductions. VIII. Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program can provide substantial emission reductions at a reasonable cost. The program should be imple- mented as a local option, but not federally mandated. -iv- r• r m I Al I r ri J , f J l f1, t,. p t : I' t ~ 1,-4 ,,,, "i piif '' l,,"f I, ~-- ' '.ii "1\11 I hi H5 i l ' j ~ I 1!11 ,, ! ' lit IX. Indoor Air Pollution Authorize EPA to conduct research and, if necessary, the federal Occupa- tional Safety and Health Administration should regulate prevention of indoor pollution. People generally spend more than seventy percent of their time indoors where air concentrations of some pollutants exceed health related ambient standards. X. Hazardous Poiiutants Increase funding, accelerate listing, standard setting and emission con- trol. EPA has been very slow in regulatory hazardous po11utants. XI. Long Range Transport and Acid Deposition Provide clear authority to the Clean Air Act for control of acid deposi- tion, provide sufficient funding for additional research, and require states to develop and implement olans for abatement of acid deposition. -v- r r r. r. fl Ir " f~ p ;.~ ,.. ,, 1 I' r~ FOSiTION I • i ·i • ..... i !."'I l ~ : . .., ~ t ! _.. I • ~' f I' f ' .... I .... ' { """ l ~"' ; I ! l .... I ' h·t ( i I f 1w ,,, !1' too, 1, l1' ~ [ n '- '- I r r r r <i fl'il ; I ·r◄ * ,) f""' , I : ~ ... ..,, ,•l 'I .~ ~ •◄ (-.( 1,<1 '"" ! , 11 I~ t'J ) I , I ..,.. td : .... l 1 .I ... ' I. NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS POS,TION Continue to require EPA to establish national primary and secondary ambi- ent air quality standards. Primary air quality standards should continue to be based on health concerns with an adequate margin of safety, but without consideration of cost. Current provisions enabling state and local governments to adopt more stringent standards shou1d be retained. current Law Section 109 of the Act requires the EPA Ac!ministrator to prescribe national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. State and local govern- ments ffiay adopt more stringent standards to protect localized environmental, property or hu111an values. Primary standards are to be establishud based on health effects with an adequate margin of safety and without regard to cost • Discussion It fs recognized that the national air quality standards in conjunction with SIP process, including deadlines, are the very heart of the Act. The esta- blishment of primary air quality standards should be solely related to health concerns without consi1eration of costs or the ability of a given area to attain the air quality standards. The issues of cost are best addressed by local government when developing and selecting control strategies. Secondary air quality standards should also be national in scope and esta- blished by EPA. Areas which are not attaining the secondary ambient air quality standards should be permitted a reasonable time to achieve com- pliance. -1- ,.. r r r I" L r- I. ;;;::. I l,,f .... i .,. . ...., M .... ,,e ,..., Ll ~ i4\C ! ;jl I It <..:~ ' t'8 I~ r • l<,d -' ' r , State and local governments should not be provided the authority to establish secondary standards in lieu of, or which would supersede, national standards. State and local governrnents, at this time of budgetary reduction and restraint, do not have the necessary funding and support to conduct indepen- dent, scientifically valid studies. If state and local governments are allowed to adopt secondary standards in lieu of the federal ones, severe equity problems could result. -2- C - II. STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS POSITION 0 0 0 0 0 Retain the State Implementation Plen concept. Amend Section 110 to provide that local sovernmental bouic~ may adopt and implement individual implementation plans where penni tted by State 1 aw. Accord federal recognition to state and local operating permits, making them federally enforceable, and thereby eliminating the need for individual site-specific plan revisions. Provide for automatic approval of plan revisions when EPA fails to take action within a specified period of time. Provide Administrator the flexibility to tailor sanctions to the magnitude of the failure to perform. Current Law Section 110 of the Clean Air Act recognizes only the state's authority to adopt and implement a State Implementation Plan. EPA approval of the plan is required. Federal assistance limitations are mandated in the event a State fails to carry out specific requirements. There is no distinction made between a minor procedural deficiency and a major fundamental inadequacy. Discussion Section 101(a)(3) of the Act recognizes that the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of state and local governments. However, the implementation plan process called for under Section 110 rer.o~nizes cr.1y the state's authority to adopt ana imple- ment regulations, even though state law often grants local government this responsibility. Local air pollution control agencies are, in many instan- ces, responsible for the basic elements of these plans (i.e., inventories, air monitoring, source testing, model analysis, development and implementa- tion of control strategies, coordination with local elected officials). -3- r r I r r r l' ,... I : ,_ .... ' - Section 110 of the Act should be amended to clarify that local governmental bodies, where permitted by State law, may adopt and implement individual implementation plans. These implementation plans should oe separate and apart from state review in consonance with Section 101 of the Act. Existing law mandates economic and growth sanctions (i.e., construction moratoriums) in the event a state fails to submit plans and revisions by established time frames or meet designated attainment deadlines. Penalties imposed for failure to meet these deadlines are often disproportionate to the failure to act. The Administrator should be given the authority to tailor sanctions to the magnitude and nature of the failure. In the past, EPA has not acted on state plans or revisions thereof in a timely manner. The Act should be amended to provide for automatic approval when EPA ·fails to take action within a specified period. To expedite EPA 1 s a~tions, require EPA to participate formally in the state adoption process. Further, the process should be revised to recognize state ar.d local public participa- tion and due process procedures that achieve the same purpose as the federal Administrative Procedure Act. Lately, a controversy has arisen as to whether conditions imposed by state and local operating permits are federally enforceable if the permits are not in- corporated as site-specific plan revisions. Incorporating permits would be resource intensive. The Act should be amended to recognize federal enforce- ability of state and local permits issued pursuant to the provisions of a federally approved plan. -4- ,. I r I r r ,... I l r ,... ' I·, fM L ' .... : I } , .. '""' .... ,..., .... ,_, I '"" I !"'1 I• ..,. I I .... .._ III. ATTAINMENT DEADLINES POSITION 0 0 Provide the EPA Administrator the authority to extend the current 1982 attainment date in areas with severe and persistent air pollu- tion problems after conferring with state and local officials and holding a public nearing in the area. Extensions are to be limited to a period reasonably necessary to attain the standards but not to extend·beyond 1987. Specifically enumerate the criteria that must be met in order for the EPA Administrator to grant an extension. The criteria are to include, at a minimum, adoption of ~11 reasonably available control measures including a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance pro- gram; implernent~tion of those specified control measures to be implemented along an agreed upon time schedule during the period of the extension; and, demonstration of annual reasonable further pro- gress. Failure to demonstrate annual progress would require imp1e- mentation of additional measures. Current Law The Clean Air Act requires attainment of the national primary standards by December 1982. An extension to 1987 is authorized for Ozone and Carbon Mon- oxide standards only. Secondary standards are to be achieved within a reasonable time • Discussion In certain areas of the country, officials assert that there has not been adequate time to develop an effective and, perhaps, realistic State Impl~mentation Plan. There have also been problems implementing the neces- sary controls to attain the standards within the statutory deadline of the Act • These circumstances are symptomatic of one of the major deficiencies of the Act prior to the 1977 amendments; that is, a failure to enumerate mln·lmum performance expectations along with attainment dates. As a result, progress was limited, -5- 1 .~ \1 t r r r r r fl"' L I""' L i I- I""' i' 1-o ,... ' - .- ' ..... t-♦ i .... I~ I i... I~ I ' .... I' ..... ! .... l i '-- Given certain circumstances, extensions may be appropriate. But the dura- tion should be limited, subject to specified minimal performance expecta- tions and should occur only after the Administrator confers with state and local officials and holds a public hearing in the area. While certain areas may argue that a five year extension for certain pollu- tants is inadequate, except for a small number of obvious and extreme cases, it is well known that the basis for those arguments does not reflect sufficiently accurate projection and assessment methodologies. Thus, pro- viding for extensions beyond 1987 can be expected to encourage actions anticipating the extensian and, as a result, progress will be mitigated. -6- i ~ I r r r r r 1lt I M I• .... ._ IY. NEV SOURCE REVIEW POSITION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ensure that requirements do not unnecessarily shift growth away from urban areas. Delete the current requirement for Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) for nonattainment areas, and substitute in its place Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Apply best available control technology on a case-by-case basis to new sources, locatin~ in both nonattafnment and clean areas, emitting (after control l mor,1 than 50 tons per year of a pc11lutant for which there is a national air quality standard. Retain application of best available control technology to criteria pollutants and other pollutants regulated under the Act. Allow best available control technology to be more stringent than new source performance standards. Retain offset requirements for nonattafnment areas, to provide for net air quality benefit. Specialized funds are not to substitute for offsets. Eliminate the increment system in Class II and Class III ar-eas, provided secondary standards are set by th~ Federal government. Attafr.ment of the welfare related secondary standards would protect both the public health and welfare. Require pre-construction monitoring in unclassified areas. Make new source performance standards effective at time of final promul gatfon. Protect new sources and major modifications from retrofit require- ments for a specified period, not to exceed five years, except where ft is necessary to achieve newly established standards. Current Law The Clean Afr Act specifies requirements for new sources locating in non- attainment, attainment and unclassifiable areas. Additionally, the Act authorizes the EPA Administratcr to establish new source performance stan- dards for sources which contribute sig~ificantly to air po,lution. Best ' I • ' r ' r r r r r. ~ ~ I' ~ l • ,,... !-1 ~ i ~ ~ l • ~ ! ' 11 1' I ~ I' .... I' .... - i ~ j l ~ available control technology is required in attainment and unclassifiable areas; lowest achievable emissi~n rate in nonattainment areas. Emission offsets are required only in nonattainment areas. Discussion Current distinctions between the prevention of significant deterioration {PSD) legislation anQ the permitting requirements for nonattainment areas (i.e., offset requ~rements) may lead to (1) the displacement of sources in urban areas to atta1nment/unclassified areas (for criteria pollutants), and (2) the inability of urban areas to effectively compete for new industry. Such displacement could contribute to the existing problems of urban sprawl and economic deterioration of inner-city areas. A strong and effective clean-up effort in the nation•~ t,ities is favored, but care must be taken to insure the Act does not cripple the ability of urban areas to compete for new industry. Unclassified areas adjacent to nonattainment areas are particularly attractive to new sources anxious to draw upon an existing supply of capital, resources, manpower and transportation, without the concerns of jrban taxes and ~ophisti- cated government. Many of the unclassified areas may indeed be nonattainment, particularly for transported pollutants. Therefore, air quality monitoring prior to the siting of new sources in unclassified areas is necessary. Current regulations also provide an incentive for new major sources to locate in clean areas to avoid technology requirements. The incentive is created by the fact that a source (over 100 tons a year) is ~~bject to technology requirements in nonattainment areas. But in attainment areas -8- ..... l ! I"' I r r , .. L ""' .... I - the technology requirements are triggered in most cases at 250 tons a year, except for a few specified sources where controls are required at 100 tons a year. Many local regulations require best a~aiiable contro, technology for non-major sources, as low as 15 tons a year, because it is feasible and cost-effective, Therefore, as a national goal, ft should be applied at least to sources emitting 50 tons or more a year. Further, best available control technology should not be equated to new source performance standards as it has frequently been termed the 11 lowest comon denominator" (the minimum controls) fer many categories. The requirement for best available control technology should be substituted for lowest available emission rate in r.:.,;attainment areas. Studies have shown that the air quality benefits from the application of best available control technology are nearly identical to those achieved from lowest available emission rate. Furthermore, requiring best available control tech~ology in nonattai nment areas wil 1 encourage technol ogf ca 1 deve 1 opment and increas1 ngly tighter emission limitations as new sources are constructed. In addition, the technology-forcing aspects of offset requirements ~Ill be a driving force in im~roving emission control equipment. The increment system in Class II and Class III areas should be eliminated • Properly·adopted secondary air quality standards coupled with strict techno- logy standards should be sufficient to protect the public health and welfare sinca the secondary standards are more stringent than the health related pri- mary standards. State and local governments should retain authority to imple- ment some type of incremental tracking system if they so desire. -9- ... With respect to new source performance standards, past experience indicates that EPA has taken excessive time between initial proposal and fina1 promulga- tion. Accordingly, these limitations should become effective at the time of final promulgation rather than at the time they are proposed as currently required. Otherwise, industries and reviewing agencies are left to speculate or attempt to anticipate applicable emission limitations between the time of proposal and final promulgation. These limitations should also be reviewed periodically on a basis established by Congress. Finally, new sources and modifications of existing sources should be protected from retrofit requirements for a specified period of time, except where additional controls are necessary to achieve the requirements of newly designated criteria or halardous pollutants or revised ambient a1r quality standards • -10- r ft« I 1411 I .... .... .... ,_ I I L. Y. EMFORCEMENT POSITION 0 0 0 0 0 Amend Section 113 to define the enforcement role of EPA as one of oversight and audit. Provide EPA authority to intervene where states/locals fail to act. Increase funding to adequately implement the noncompliance penalty provisions of Section 120. Retain mandatory civil penalty pr·ovisions of Section 113. Amend Section 113 of the Act to provide that state and local agencies may issue a one time variance up to one year to allow a source to come into compliance, without the need for a revision to the imple- mentation plan. Such variance should only be issued if emissions from the source would not interfere with the attainment or mainte-nance of ambient standards. Current Law The Act provides for dual federal and state enforcement of a State plan. Variances can b~ issued subject to approval by the EPA. The Act requires civil and noncc,mpliance penaltie$ against major stationary sources. Discussion There is consensus among the local air agencies that EPA has needlessly intervened and superseded the activities of state and local programs through independent enforcement activities. Section 113 of the Act should be amended to provide for delegation of enforce- ment to state and local programs and clarify that EPA 1 s primary responsibility should be an oversight or audit role when authority is delegated. Dual juris- diction should be retained so EPA can take enforceme,.+ action if state and local authorities fail to. This is consistent with the intent specified in Section 101 that the prevention and control of air pollution at its source is -11- ' ; ' j' ! 1. ~ t t ', J ... [ r- I ' ,.. r ,... I L r: I I· I"' ! , ... I"" l t-- I"". i-, ,... ' - '""' .... ·~ I 1 I l l L the primary responsibility of state and local governments. Federal financial assistance and leadership should act as the underpinnings of an effective enforcement effort. Section 113 of the Act should also oe revised to clearly provide that state and local agencies may issue variances for up to one .1ear, in order to allow a source to come into final compliance with a State Implementation Plan. Such variances should only be issued if the source under variance would not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of ambient stand- ards. The variance authority should also apply to the extension of interim compliance dates for sources where no extension of the final compliance dates is necessary. Such a procedure will decrease the administ~ative bur- den and will not in any way jeopardize achievP.ment of air quality. The concept of noncompliance penalties is good. However, it has not been adeq~ately implemented, perhaps due to lack of resources. Sufficient funding should be authorized to adequately implement noncompliance penalty provisions that would prevent sources from unduly delaying ccmpliance. Amendments are being proposed to allow the EPA Administrator to use discre- tion in initiating civil actions against violators. Such flexibility should not be allowed as it would invite politics into the enforcement process. -12- ' r ""' ' ,- I ' j • ,... ' I' r- ! l • '' ' .... - YI. MOBILE SOURCES POSITION 0 0 0 Title II (EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOVING SOURCES) should not bfl amended to relax any of the current requirP.ments. This section of the Act would benefit from amendments to restrict the current provisions for waiving compliance with emission standards. Regulatory stability would be enhanced by modifying current regula- tions concerning diesel particulate emissions and heavy-duty vehicle emission standards as minimum requirements. In no case should the current provision~ enabling States to establish vehicle emission standards and related compliance criteria be modified. Current Law The Clean Air Act requires EPA to adopt and implemsnt emission standards for new motor vehicles. The minimum standards for light-duty vehicles are speci- fied. In regard to heavy-duty vehicles, standards must reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology as determined by the EPA Administrator. There are specific provisions for certification, compliance testing waivers, and so on. The Act authorizes the Administrator to allow a state to adopt and enforce its own mobile source con- trol program if that program is at least as stringent as the federal program. Discussion No other strategy for controlling emissions in air basins has p:·oduced reductions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides comparable to those obtained from control of motor vehicles • Motor vehicles are the major contributors to emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Their contribution ~o sulfur oxides and particulate emissions is expected to increase as more diesel cars cap- -13- r r r r r. ri ~ r~ l '.J I, fl Ii 1-- h ' t ·• i~ .,.. f. i. 1-f l ! I ~ .... - l i ._ ture the market. If new motor vehicle performance standard, are relaxed, state and local officials will be faced with the unacceptable alternatives of either ottafning the equivalent emission reductions from less effective mobile source tactics dealing with vehicle usage, or adopting more strin- gent stationary source emissfon requirements. Neither of these options is comparatively practical or promising as a vehicle emission control program. The result would be that many regions may never achi E:''e and maintain healthy air. Further, an increase in emissions as a result of relaxed standards would very 1ikely exacerbate the problem of acid deposition !see Section XI, Long Range and Transport Acid Deposition). California has a good vehicular emission control program. In many respects ft is more stringent than the federal program and has better provisions for consumer protection. Such programs should be allowed to continue. Accord,, ingly, the State's authority to adopt and enforce a mobile source control program should be retained in the Act. -14- l I ·• r r r. r l . ' VII. iRANSPORTATION CONTROLS POSITION Remove the mandatory requirement for transportation control measures, and delete Sections 174 and 175 of the Clean Air Act. Current Law The Clean Air Act requires that transportation control measures be included in State Implementation Plans for nonattainment areas. Further, the prepa- ration of such plans must be coordinated with the continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process required under Sections 134 of Title 23, U.S. Code. Discussion The National Conmission on Air Quality has concluded that transportation control projects for reducing emissions are proceeding slowly and should no longer be mandated. The progress of transportation control measures in the San Diego region bear that conclusion. In light of fiscal constraints, the funding for planning of transportation controls should be diverted to other air quality related programs where money can be spent cost-effectively. Since Section 1O9(j) of the Federal Highway Act requires that transporta- tion plans and programs at the local level must be consistent with the SIP, air quality planning required by Sections 174 and 175 of the Clean Air Act is often merely a federally mandated overlay to ongoing responsibilities. -15- r r r r r r [ r : .. ' . VIII. MOTOR YEIIICLE IISPECTIOI AND MAIITENANCE POSITION 0 0 The Act should be modified to delete federal requirements for motor vehicle inspection and maintenance but provide for inspection and maintenance as a local option. If Congress decides to provide the Administrator with the ability to extend to 1987 the attainment in regard to carbon monoxide or ozone, the Act should be amended to require that an annual 1/M program be implemented as a condition of the extension. Current Law The Clean Air Act requires periodic motor vehicle inspection and mainte- nance in air quality control regions that have requested an extension to 1987 to attain the ambient standards for either or both ozone and carbon monoxide. Discussion Motor vehicle er.iissions are the major cont;•ibutors to the air quality prob- lem, followed by industrial sources. In the San Diego region, vehicular emissions represent about soi of the regional hydrocarbon emissions, 94% of carbon monoxide, and 74% of nitrogen oxide emissions. New proposals to further regulate industry are addressing smaller and smaller emissions in- crements at higher costs. Transportation control measures are not produc- ing any meaningful benefits. Motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs can provide about 25% reduction in hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles. In San Diego that would amount to a daily reduction of approximately 13 tons of hydrocarbons and 175 tons of carbon monoxide in 1987. That is a -16- P' L r r r r , [ [ j I,.. [ . ! r ,: - C ;[ ; r-·:L 1 J ,_ }I . ' '. ' ;: I . ' ' ' '' t l 1 j I substantial reduction that can be achieved at a reasonable cost. The National Comnission on Air Quality concluded that an inspection and maintenance program is cost-effective, and many people, except certain special interest groups, concur with that conclusion. -17- i r r r, Ir _; r ~ r [ C C 1: C C C t ' L L L L .,. L IX. INDOOR AIR POLLUTION POSITION Authorize EPA to conduct research and, ff necessary, th~ federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) should regulate prevention of indoor pollution in nonindustrial settings. Current Law Presently indoor air quality is not regulated, Federal Occupational Safet_y and Health Administration has jurisdiction over occupational related safety and health hazards. Discussion According to the findings of the National Conmission on Air Quality, indoor air concentrations of some pollutants appear to exceed ambient air quality standards. In some cases, indoor concentrations of carcinogens are consi- derably higher than outdoors. Further, people generally spend more than seventy percent of their time indoors; however, people more susceptible to health effects such as infants, the infirm and the aged are likely to be indoors even more. -18- I ,. l r r r r ,- L .... i l- .- I .... X. HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS POSITION Increase funding. accelerate listing, standard setting and emission central. Current Law Section 112 of tt.1e Clean Air Act directs EPA to list hazardous pollutants and promulgate emis~ion standards to protect public health. Discussion Since 1970, EPA ha$ identified more than forty potentially hazardous pollutants. Only about seven have been listed as hazardous, and emission standards have been set for only four. According to the National Corrmission on Air Quality fewer people are ex- posed to hazardous pollutants compared to pollutants for which air quality standards have been established, but the potential adverse health effects are likely to be far more severe from exposure to hazardous pollutants. Congress should authorize adequate funding and require accelerated control of hazardous po 11 uta!lts. -19- .... l r r r r r [ r L ' L XI. LONG RANGE TUIISPORT AND ACID DEPOSITION POSITION 0 0 0 Provide clear authority in the Clean Air Act for control of acid deposition. Provide sufficient funding for additional research. Require states to develop and implement plans for abatemer.t of acid deposition. Provide adequ~tc frnding to states to support planning and implementation. Current Law The Clean Air Act is vague or silent on the issue of acid deposition. The Act prohibits a source from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will prevent attainiac:,\~ and maintenance of ambient standards in another state. Discussion Acidity has been observed to increase in many lakes and rivers, adversely affecting the ability of fish to survive, particularly in the ~orth Eastern U.S. and South Eastern Canada. Many lakes have become fishless. Acid deposition ha5 also been linked to damage of building materials, painted surfaces, and may damage the productivity of crops and forests. Lately, in:,~nsed acidity in the Sierras and high concentrations in fog in the Los Angeles area have been noted. Sulfates and nitrates contribute to acid deposition. These pollutants are indirectly regulated under the Act in regard to ambient standards for sul- fur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, but not directly in terms of acid deposi- tion. The Clean Air Act needs to be amended to recognize this problem and -20- r r ..... I • ,-, to establish clear authority for controlling pollutants that contribute to acid deposition. The Act should also address transport of those pollutants from one state to another • One 8pproach the Congress can consider is to require that EPA establish emission targets for those states considered responsible for causing acid deposition and require those states tl, develop and submit plans to achiev~ the assigned targets. If any state fails to submit an adequate plan, re- quire the EPA Administrator to promulgate one for the state. Pending preparation of an adequate plan, emissions of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides should not be allowed to increase beyond the present levels. It should be noted that motor vehicles are the major contributors to nitro- gen oxide emissions, and their contributior to sulfur oxide emissions is expected to increase as more diesel cars capture the market. Any relaxa- tion in vehicular emission standards would increase emissions of precursors of acid a~position. If that happens, acid 1~position very likely will not be abated. (See Section VI, Mobile Sources regarding implications of re- laxea motor vehicle standards.) -21-