NEWS OF THE WEEK
CLEAN AIRACT: Congress passes massive overhaul Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D.-Me.) entered Congress in 1981 resolved to deal with one burning issue: acid rain abatement. Last week he saw his nine-year effort vindicated w h e n Congress passed a clean air bill that not only will reduce acid rain, but also will cleanse the air of smog-causing chemicals and toxic industrial compounds over the next 15 years. Mitchell terms this overhaul of the 1977 Clean Air Act, 13 years in the making, "national in scope, comprehensive in coverage, and historic in nature/' Rep. John D. Dingell (D.Mich.), a force on the conference committee, agrees and adds: "It is going to affect virtually every human activity." The massive, 700-page bill contains detailed rules and regulations that tighten existing emission controls on vehicles and factories. But it avoids more intractable problems by failing to meld energy use with air pollution control. Still, it does chart new directions: controlling for the
Mitchell: nine-year effort vindicated 4
October 29, 1990 C&EN
first time those pollutants causing acid rain, phasing out chemicals that destroy the protective ozone layer in the upper atmosphere, and reducing the release of toxic chemicals from industry and small business. The bill places costly burdens on industry. But the Environmental Protection Agency also will be faced with writing and enforcing hundreds of new standards and regulations, straining an agency already weighed down by the mandates of other major environmental laws. Ultimately, however, consumers will bear the economic brunt of the bill as industry and business pass along their increased costs. "Americans will see continued progress in their efforts to improve the nation's air quality," says William D. Fay, administrator of the Clean Air Working Group, an industry coalition. "But they will also pay the price of those efforts through job losses and dislocations, higher consumer product prices, increased electricity bills, reduced competitiveness, changed life-styles, and slower economic growth." The chemical industry, a heavy user of electricity, is likely to be hit with a double whammy. Not only will it have to comply with provisions controlling the release of toxic air pollutants, but it also will be faced with higher electric bills—the result of utilities having to control emissions causing acid rain. Over the next 10 years, chemical and other plants that routinely emit toxic air pollutants will have to apply the best available technology to reduce emissions of some 189 chemicals by 90%. If health risks remain eight years after this technology has been installed, EPA is required to set tighter health-based standards on a chemical-specific basis. These standards must offer "an ample margin
Estimated costs of Clean Air Act vary widely Administration: $11 billion a year by 1995, and between $22 billion and $25 billion by 2005 when all pollution controls are in effect. Industry: $35 billion to $50 billion a year by 2005. Environmental community: $10 billion a year by 1995, and between $20 billion and $21 billion by 2005. American Lung Association: When fully implemented, the act will provide health savings of up to $50 billion a year. Environmental Protection Agency: Cost of current air pollution controls is $32 billion a year.
of safety" to the most affected population—nearby residents. These socalled residual risk standards are to be set whenever the risk to the affected population is greater than one in 1 million. Small businesses, such as dry cleaners and gas stations, are also required to install the best available technology. To prevent accidental releases of toxic pollutants, EPA is to promulgate accident prevention rules. In addition, a Chemical Safety Board modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board is to be set up to investigate accidents. By 1995, 111 of the largest coalfired electric utility plants in 22 states, mainly in the Midwest, must cut their sulfur dioxide emissions a specified amount by installing scrubbers or switching to coal with lower sulfur content. By the year 2000, an additional 200 power plants will be required to meet new emission standards. In short, by 2000, sulfur dioxide emissions will be cut
by 10 million tons annually. Nitrogen oxide emissions also will bé reduced by 2 million tons to 4 million tons annually after 1997. The acid rain program imposes a cap on emissions that affects all utilities, and is designed to preserve gains achieved. In addition, the program sets up a trading system, under which utilities making deep cuts earn credits of up to $500 for each ton of reduction. They can use these credits to build additional capacity or sell them to other utilities. Some 15,000 miners of high-sulfur coal in the Midwest and Appalachia may lose their jobs as a result of this legislation. To protect them and others thrown out of work by the tightened regulations, the bill provides $250 million over five years for extra unemployment benefits, as long as a displaced worker remains in a retraining program. Provisions for protecting the ozone layer are new to this revision and do not appear in the 1977 law. Production of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons and carbon tetrachloride is to be halted by 2000. Production of methyl chloroform is outlawed two years later. Safer hydrochlorofluorocarbons are to be phased out after 1994, and their production is banned in 2030. Automakers and oil companies are required to help curb smog through tighter controls on tailpipe emissions. Among the many provisions affecting them, automakers will have to begin in 1994 to phase in new cars emitting 60% less nitrogen oxides and 40% less hydrocarbons. Pollution control equipment will have to be built to last 10 years or 100,000 miles, instead of the current five years or 50,000 miles. Oil refiners will have to supply cleaner burning reformulated gasoline to the nation's nine smoggiest cities by 1995. The American Petroleum Institute says it would like to meet the requirements of the new bill but doesn't know how to do it with existing technology. Richard E. Ayres, chairman of the National Clean Air Coalition (composed of environmental groups), claims the new bill's provision on urban smog "provides too long for too many to do too little."
No sector, industrial or environmental, is entirely happy with the bill. But all agree with Robert A. Roland, president of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, that "it will lead to continued progress in cleaning our nation's air." Ayres' coalition parts with Roland when he
adds, "this continued progress won't come without a very high price." Some noted economists deem the price too high and in a letter ask President Bush to veto the bill. However, the President is expected to sign it. Lois Ember
Federal R&D funding generally up for 1991 Fiscal 1991 promises to be not a bad year at all for the majority of federally funded R&D activities. That's contrary to what might have been expected in a budget year that sees Congress and the Administration tying themselves in knots trying to come up with mutually agreeable ways of reducing the federal deficit. At press time, Congress had completed work on all but two of the appropriation bills that fund federal R&D agencies. Remaining were one covering defense-related activities and another funding the Department of Interior and some Department of Energy programs. Moreover, all of the agencies funded so far are getting increases— in some cases quite substantial ones for a time of "austere" budgets. For example, funding for the National Institutes of Health is up $710 million, or 10%, to just under $8 billion. Congress believes the amount it has provided for NIH "is sufficient to
fund grants at the levels approved by the Institutes with no arbitrary downward negotiation of awards." Not all programs within an agency are slated for equal increases. For example, funding for the DOE's basic energy sciences activities is up 23% to $716 million. But within that category, funding for chemical sciences is up just 10% to $159 million, while materials sciences is up 36% to $277 million. The materials sciences budget includes an additional $12 million over fiscal 1990 for work on the advanced neutron source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Congress also provided a total of $243 million for DOE's Superconducting Super Collider. That's 12% more than the SSC project was allotted in fiscal 1990, but almost 25% less than the Administration wanted this year. Overall funding for NSF is up 11% to $2.3 billion. Education and human resources activities are up
Research gets healthy increase in 1991 1991 $ Millions
NIH NASA R&D Energy Supply R&D General science & research NSF Research-related activities USDA ARSa CSRSb Commerce Oceanic, atmospheric research NISTC EPAd TOTAL
Congress final
Administration request
1990
% change 1990-91
$ 7,987.2 6,023.6 3,675.8 2,527.1 1,148.7 2,316.0 1,694.2 1,116.5 665.1 451.4 422.3 207.0 215.3 254.9
$ 7,623.2 7,074.0 3,379.0 2,105.3 1,273.7 2,383.0 1,954.0 1,003.0 656.1 346.9 397.9 199.5 198.4 249.0
$ 7,276.8 5,227.8 3,283.2 2,184.4 1,098.8 2,080.6 1,592.8 979.6 596.8 382.8 334.6 172.8 161.8 229.8
10% 15 12 16 5 11 6 13 11 18 26 20 33 11
$21,796.3
$22,109.1
$19,412.4
12%
a Agricultural Research Service, b Cooperative State Research Service, c National Institute of Standards & Technology, d Fund for extramural R&D. Source: Congressional budget documents
October 29, 1990 C&EN
5
