AD-A236 526

~I~hiResearch and Development Technical ReportSLCET-TR-9 1-7

The Impact of Clean Air in the 1990's

Paul C. ManzElectronics Technology and Devices Laboratory

April 1991

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT DTICApproved for public release. ELECTF

Distribution is unlimited. JUN 1 '1991.B U

U. S. ARMY LABORATORY COMMANDElectronics Technology and Devices Laboratory

Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5000

91-0165491 10 0 0

NOTICES

Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as anofficial Department of the Army position, unless so desig-nated by other authorized documents.

The citation of trade names and names of manufacturers inthis report is not to be construed as official Governmentindorsement or approval of commercial products or servicesreferenced herein.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OM o. 070-0188

P &c reponingl burden for this CofieCtiori of inforniat~on i esimnated to areraqe I hour Oet ressonsi. including the time lis reviewing instructions, searding esing dat.e som*cmgathering aind maintaining the data needed. and conmpleting and reviewing the collection of inkomation. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any othef aspect of thij

totection of information, including wugestiord for reducing tis burden, to Wathinqton H~eadquarters SOfvices. Oirectof ate tor inform~ation Operaions and Rfeport~s. i2 is eflem,3&,Ms meqnway. Suite 1404, Arlington. VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Managerrren and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0 168), Washinytt^n tOC 40s I

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank 1. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

7 . April 1991 I Technical Report: Jan 90 to Dec 9f.4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS

THE IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR IN THE 1990's

6. AUTHOR(S)

,aul C. M-anz

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

,LS r~vLaboratory Command (LABCOM)Electronics Technology and Devices Laboratory (ETDL) SLC[T-TR-91-7ATTN: SLCET-DTFort rIonnouth, N4J 07703-5000

/.SOSRN MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/IMONITORING9. SONSOINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

-<>roved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

''oZ1990, both the legislative and executive branches of the (10Vere: 4* rk ion a. complete, com,.prehensive revision of the existino cle~in a it ,1

'uThis report discusses the public policy issues relat mci to thfr Cl'In~ i

14. UBJCT TRMSIS. NUMBER Of PAGES

17 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SCRT LSIIAIN 1.SCRT LSIIAIN 2.LMTTO FASRC

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 29LQ (Re-v 8)9.,r-bed bv aN%i StO 1 N- K1'1d 101

CONTENTS

Section Page

Introduction I

Overview of Clean Air Public Policy 1

Clean Air "Players" 2

The Clean Air Act of 1990 2

Clean Air Risk Management 3

Compliance "Costs" 4

Conclusion 5

References 6

Acoession For

N TIS GRA&IDTIC TAB 0Unannounced 0Justification

UBy-

- Distrlbuti-on/

Availability CodesjAvnil and/or

Dist Special

INTRODUCTION

Throughout 1990, both the legislative and executive branchesof the Government have been working on a complete, comprehensiverevision of the existing Clean Air statutes which would tightenpollution control on motor vehicle and industrial emissions andestablish compliance deadlines for both industrial activities andindividual states and regions.

This revision of public policy is designed to reduce and/oreliminate the continued release of hazardous materials into theair from both fugitive and point effluent sources.1 The materialsaddressed are either hazardous or toxic to humans, terrestrialanimals, aquatic life, and the balanced ecosystem of thebiosphere. The legislation is the culmination of a decade ofenvironmental concerns voiced by bo;h environmental and healthconscious interest groups and citizens aroused by severalnational-news-making catastrophes including Love Canal, Bhopal,Three Mile Island, and Prince William Sound.

OVERVIEW OF CLEAN AIR PUBLIC POLICY

Since the 1960's, public policy issues have changed in focusfrom those concerned with economic well-being and a healthymarketplace to attention on both the social and environmentalwell-being of society. 2 Thirty subsequent years of legi.slation,including the Air Quality Act of 1967, the National EnvironmcntalP1olicy Act of 1969, the Clean Air Act of 1970, the OccapationalS;afety and Health Act of 1970, the Water Pollution Control Act ()I1 ,12, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Ac't ti1972, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Toxic Substnc'sControl Act of 1976, the Resource Conservation ad Recovery Act -I19'6, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act of 1980, and the Water Quality Ajt of 1187, havestablished a broad based public policy cen4 ering on safeguardin,the health of the public and protecting th, environment. 3

While these original legislative actions were intended tocontrol, correct, or prevent environmental, health, and safet',problems, they weren't always fully -ifective. In many caisesfollow-on measures, like the Superfund Amendments andRe:iuthorization Act of 1986, were required to more specificallydefine and address critical issies, or cover new and chanqinljproblem areas. Clean Air legislation has followed this patte rn (lrevision and update. Despite prior air pollution controlregulations enacted in 1963, 1965, and 1967, the Clean Air A(,t ()I1970 and subsequent Clean Air Act amendment in 1977, over 2.4billion pounds of reportable air emissions were released in P.::.,contributing to a multitude of environmental and health problem:

including acid rain, ozone transport, urban smog, respiratoryailments, and cancer.4 Thus, the legislative branch andPresident Bush have taken a serious, scientific approach toinvestigating and revising the existing clean air standards, aireffluent treatment requirements, and iompliance and enforcementpolicies.

CLEAN AIR "PLAYERS"

The main item of contention between various interest groupsin this latest Clean Air Act revision is how new standards will beset and what factors will be taken into account in setting thesestandards. Shall standards for air pollution emissions be setreflecting the cost to industry and overall economic impact, orshall they be based on the use of maximum available controltechnology, or shall they be based on known or potential healthrisks? The chemical, paper, metal process, automotive, power, andelectronic industries are fighting to enact legislation whichwould limit increases in capital and operating costs. Theseindustries have spent about $285 billion since 1970 to comply withfederal clean air requirements.5 The first set of new airpollution control systems, commonly known as scrubbers, proposedunder this legislation could cost these industries an additional$4 billion annually.6 Yet, environmentalists, such as Greenpeaceand the Sierra Club, are lobbying for maximum reductions inemission levels which will substantially increase industrialexpenses. The legislative and executive branches must thereforemaintain a delicate balance between the open, free market approachand the need to adequately protect the environment. Areassuffering from the effects of acid rain support much stricterlegislation than regions in which smoke-stack industries arefound. Specific legislation addressing the poor air quality andhigh levels of smog found in most urban areas will affect motorvehicle emissions, dry cleaning, and bakery operations.

5

THE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1990

Poth the Senate and House have sponsored comprehensive cleanair bills. The Senate's version, S.1630, was formulated by theSenate's Subcommittee on Environmental Protection. Aftercompromises between the House Majority and Minority leaders andconcurrence by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,S.1630 was passed by a vote of 89-11 on April 3, 1990. 7 On theHouse side, HR.3030 won near-unanimous approval of the HouseEnergy and Commerce Committee. The bill was passed on May 23,1990 by a very strong margin of 401-21.8 On October 21, 1990,after several months of intense negotiation in the ConferenceCommittee, House and Senate legislators reached agreement on newclean air regulations.6 President Bush has just recently signed

2

the Clean Air Act of 1990 into law on November 15, 1990.9

The new Clean Air Act contains a list of 189 regulatedhazardous chemicals and chemical classes, linked to cancer, birthdefects, adverse reproductive effects, neurological disorders, andgenetic damage. New emission limits and mandated controltechnology would be applied initially to several major sourcepollutant categories including chemical manufacturing, coke ovens,degreasing operations, chromium electroplaters, dry cleaningoperations, gasoline pumping, and commercial sterilizer processes.Several geographic regions suffering from continuous high levelsof air pollution, such as the New York metropolitan area, are alsoaddressed. These regulated categories and regions werespecifically chosen on the basis of risk potential. Riskpotential was determined by the analysis of a composite of riskfactors including total emission releases, production volumes,volatility, chemical potency, and pollution source/receptorpopulation densities. These new regulations will have animmediate economic and operational impact on chemicalmanufacturing plants, coal-burning or oil-burning electricutilities, major oil companies, and a huge amount of industrialfacilities. Local urban area dry cleaners, service stations, andhospitals will also be affected.

CLEAN AIR RISK MANAGEMENT

The new Clean Air Act will require the use of maximumachievable control technology (MACT), sometimes referred to as"best available technology", to reduce air toxic emissions by 75to 90 percent through a phased-in plan over a ten year period.7

For example, the largest 111 sulfur-emitting electric utilityplants located across 22 states will be required to use MACT toreduce sulfur dioxide emissions 10 million tons by the year2000.10 Compliance methods demonstrating "negligible" risk, suchas chemical substitution hazardous waste minimization techniques,will be permitted as alternative options to the expected annualmulti-billion dollar costs of MACT. Negligible risk is defined asrisk not to exceed 1 in 1,000,000 to most exposed individuals.

7

This definition of "negligible" risk quantifies the value placedon a human life. A risk level of 1 in 10,000 would cheapen thevalue of a human life one hundred times, while a zero risk levelwould mean that a human life is priceless. Governmentorganizations must frequently deal with this difficult valuejudgement problem of risk management.

Under Executive Order 12291, government agencies are requiredto perform a cost/benefit analysis showing a positive benef itresult before issuing any final rulemaking such as the mandateduse of MACT. 2 The acceptable margin of cancer risk associated

3

with the new list of 189 regulated hazardous chemicals andchemical classes is defined as 1 in 10,000. By setting thisstandard, the legislature has had to make a difficult decision byequating the total value of human lives lost due to cancer causedby exposure to these materials with the resulting benefits ofclean air. The decision to set an "acceptable" clean air standardfor a hazardous chemical is made even more difficult as thetechnology used to measure that chemical becomes more sensitiveand as subsequent health impact assessments have been made.

A decade ago, air effluent measurement technology couldreliably detect Parts Per Million (PPM) concentration levels.With advances in both chemistry, photonics, and electronics, neweffluent measurement techniques can now measure Parts Per Billion(PPB) concentrations.1 1 If a material is known to be a cancercausing agent, should our legislature set a standard at the lowestdetectable limit? Are the expenditures of resources andopportunity costs of implementing the required control measures tomeet this standard well spent? What should be done if there is nocontrol technology capable of meeting this standard? Should theprocess generating this chemical effluent be shut down entirely?value judgements requiring that a price be placed on a human lifecan frequently cause friction between the value-settinginstitution and interest groups, activists, and citizens whichsometimes leads to verbal or active physical protests, an increasein the number of lawsuits filed on the issue, and possibly, evenviolence. The clash between industrial interests and publicconcern during the establishment of public policy to protect thehealth and safety of West Virginia mine workers during the late1960's and early 1970's is a prime example of this conflict invalue judgements.2

COMPLIANCE "COSTS"

Whatever air pollution compliance path is chosen, the harddollar costs to industry will certainly be significant.Facilities and plants can no longer simply increase the flow ratesand exhaust velocities of their stacks to reduce the concentrationof regulated hazardous air emissions below the defined PPM or PPBstandard. A single, typical coal-burning power plant may have tospend $100 million or more on pollution control equipment to avoidthe stiff fines and penalties for noncompliance. 6 A local drycleaner may have to spend upwards of $35,000 to comply with newstandards. In a time of economic stagnation and risingunemployment, these additional cost burdens could force affectedindustries to lay off thousands of workers or shut downoperations.

In urban areas, automotive exhaust control equipment caused

4

by tightened tailpipe emission standards could add a minimum of$150 to the cost of a car.1 0 Oil companies would have to investadditional research and development dollars to develop new kindsof gasoline that would burn more cleanly. These costs wouldprobably be passed on to the consumer at the gas pumps. In marketswhere foreign competition is present, resources expended to fundand install air effluent control equipment could mean lower,overall company profit margins or higher consumer goods costs andpossible loss of a market share to a non-domestic company based ina country with less restrictive environmental laws. Somecompanies might even argue that the worldwide net detrimentaleffects of hazardous emissions from developing or third-worldcountries negate any benefit from new clean air policies in theUnited States.

The new clean air standards and pollution controlrequirements are also subject to future update and revision byboth EPA and Congress. 7 Environmental equipment acquired byindustry to comply with new, present-day standards may not be goodenough to meet future, almost certainly more restrictivestandards. Thus, there is little incentive for industry to beginearly compliance efforts to meet the new, phased-in,milestone-driven, clean air standards. Economics would dictatethat air effluent control equipment be purchased at the lastpossible date to avoid such problems caused by changing policiesin an unpredictable, environment-conscious, political climate.

CONCLUSION

New clean air legislation, and environmental reform efforts,like California's recent "Big Green Initiative" 1 2 , are becoming afact of life. Environmentalists, and public demands to protectour lakes, streams, rivers, and forests, and the wildlife theysupport from the killing effects of acid rain and pollution cannotbe ignored. It is difficult for anyone to oppose pollutioncontrol and the right of tomorrow's children to breathe clean airand enjoy the world's natural resources. The development of asuccessful clean air policy must be tempered with a balance ofenvironmental protection, consideration for the costs ofcompliance, and a realistic plan of implementation. But the truemeasure of the Clean Air Act of 1990 will be the cleanliness ofour air, and the health of our environment and businesses in theyear 2000.

5

REFERENCES

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of ToxicSubstances. Toxics in the Community - September 1990, WashingtonD.C.: Government Printing Office, 1990, p. 120.

2. Anderson, James E. Public Policymaking. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Company, 1990, p. 92.

3. Government Institutes, Inc. Environmental Law Handbook, TenthEdition. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes, 1989.

4. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of ToxicSubstances. Toxics in the Community - September 1990, WashingtonD.C.: Government Printing Office, 1990, p. 120.

5. Dehncke, Susan. "Rewriting the Clean Air Act," SSA Journal,September, 1989.

6. "Lawmakers Agree on Rules to Reduce Acid Rain Damage," NewYork Times, Monday, October 22, 1990, p. Al.

7. Milner, Israel Z. "Air Toxics - A Regulatory Perspective:Past, Present, and Future," Invited EPA Region III Presentaticn atNew Jersey Environmental Exposition, Raritan Center, Edison, NJ,October 17, 1990.

8. Sheridan, Peter J. "Congress Reformulates Clean Air Policy,"Occupational Hazards, August, 1990.

9. Phone conversation with Robert Hargrove, Federal FacilitiesCoordinator, EPA Region II, on November 28, 1990.

10. "The Clean Air Act: Immediate Costs, Long-Term Gains," NewYork Times, Tuesday, October 23, 1990, p. A18.

11. Korolkoff, Nicholas 0. "Survey of Toxic Gas Sensors andMonitoring Systems," Solid State Technology, December 1989.

12. Minter, Stephen G. "Bracing for 'Big Green'," OccupationalHazards, August, 1990.

6

I Nov 90ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY AND DEVICES LABORATORY Page I of 2

MANDATORY DISTRIBUTION LISTCONTRACT OR IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL REPORTS

Defense Technical Information Center*ATTN: DTIC-FDACCameron Station (Bldg 5) (*Note: Two copies for OTIC willAlexandria, VA 22304-6145 be sent from STINFO Office.)

DirectorUS Army Material Systems Analysis ActvATTN: DRXSY-MP

001 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

Commander, AMCATTN: AMCDE-SC5001 Eisenhower Ave.

001 Alexandria, VA 22333-0001

Commander, LABCOMATTN: AMSLC-CG, CD, CS (In turn)2800 Powder Mill Road

001 Adelphi, Md 20783-1145

Commander, LABCOMATTN: AMSLC-CT2800 Powder Mill Road

001 Adelphi, MD 20783-1145

Commander, LABCOMATTN: AMSLC-RK2300 Powder Mill Road

001 Adelphi, 11D 20783-1145

Commander,US Army Laboratory CommandFort Monmouth, NJ 07703-50001 - SLCET-DD2 - SLCET-DT (M. Howard)1 - SLCET-DB

35 - Originating Office

Commander, CECOMR&D Technical LibraryFort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5000

1 - ASQNC-ELC-IS-L-R (Tech Library)3 - ASQNC-ELC-IS-L-R (STINFO)

Advisory Group on Electron Devices201 Varick Street, 9th Floor

002 New York, NY 10014-4877

7

ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY AND DEVICES LABORATORY 1 Nov 90SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT DISTRIBUTION LIST Page 2 of 2

(ELECTIVE)

Director Cdr, Atmospheric Sciences LabNaval Research Laboratory LABCOMATTN: CODE 2627 ATTN: SLCAS-SY-S

001 Washington, DC 20375-5000 001 White Sands Missile Range, NM' 88002

Cdr, PM JTFUSION Cdr, Harry Jiamond LaboratoriesATTN: JTF ATTN: SLCHD-CO, ,D (In turn)1500 Planning Research Drive 2800 Powder Mill Road

001 McLean, VA 22102 001 Adelphi, MD 20783-1145

Rome Air Development CenterATTN: Documents Library (TILD)

001 Griffiss AFB, NY 13441

Deputy for Science & TechnologyOffice, Asst Sec Amy (R&D)

001 Washington, DC 20310

HQDA (DAMA-ARZ-D/Dr. F.D. Verderame)001 Washington, DC 20310

Dir, Electronic Warfare/ReconnaissanceSurveillance and Target Acquisition CtrATTN: AMSEL-EW-D

001 Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5000

Dir, Reconnaissance Surveillance andTarget Acquisition Systems DirectorateATTN: AMSEL-EW-DR

001 Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5000

Cdr, Marine Corps Liaison OfficeATTN: AMSEL-LN-MC

001 Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5000

Dir, US Army Signals Warfare CtrATTN: AMSEL-SW-OSVint Hill Farms Station

001 Warrenton, VA 22186-5100

Dir, Night Vision & Electro-Optics CtrCECOMATTN: AMSEL-NV-D

001 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5677

8