You are on page 1of 4

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES

T
he Clean Air Act (CAA) stakeholders and examined the
provides the legal operation, successes, and limitations of
framework for promoting the many components of the nation’s
public health and public welfare by AQM system.
pursuing five major air quality goals
(see Box 1). Individual states must Progress To Date
develop state implementation plans Implementation of the Clean Air Act
(SIPs) that show how, with the has contributed to substantial decreases
assistance of national control in emissions of several pollutants.
programs, they will meet National Regulations for light-duty vehicles, light-
Ambient Air Quality Standards duty trucks, and fuel properties have
(NAAQA) for six criteria pollutants. greatly reduced emissions per mile
Such efforts, as well as those in traveled. Programs for stationary
pursuit of other CAA goals, seek to regulate sources, such as power plants and large factories,
emissions from a variety of stationary and mobile have also achieved substantial reductions of pollutant
sources through the nation’s AQM system (see emissions. However, most of the reductions have
Figure 1, p. 2). Since passage of the CAA been accomplished through regulations on new
Amendments of 1970, the nation has devoted facilities, while many older, often higher-emitting
significant efforts and resources to AQM and facilities can be a substantial source of emissions.
substantial progress has been made. Emission “cap and trade” has also provided a
Air Quality Management in the United mechanism for achieving emission reductions at
States, a National Academies report, examines the reduced costs. Air quality monitoring networks
role of science and technology in the have confirmed that ambient pollutant
implementation of the CAA and recommends ways concentrations, especially in urban areas, have
in which the scientific and technical foundations decreased over the past three decades, and
for AQM in the United States can be enhanced. monitoring has documented a reduction in sulfate
Over a 2-year period, the committee that authored deposition in the eastern United States. Economic
the report heard briefings from experts and assessments of the overall costs and benefits of

Goals of the Clean Air Act


¾ Mitigate potentially harmful ambient concentrations of six “criteria” pollutants: carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3), particulate
matter (PM), and lead (Pb).
¾ Limit sources of exposure to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
¾ Protect and improve visibility in wilderness areas and national parks.
¾ Reduce emissions of substances that cause acid deposition, specifically sulfur dioxide and
1
Within thenitrogen
framework oxides
of the(NO
CAA, ).
x “welfare” refers to the viability of agriculture and ecosystems (such as forests and
¾ Curb
wildlands), use of of
the protection chemicals that have
materials (such the potential
as monuments to deplete
and buildings), themaintenance
and the stratospheric ozone layer.
of visibility.
AQM in the United States indicate, despite y Responding to the evidence that, for some
uncertainties, that implementation of the CAA has had pollutants, there may be no identifiable
and will probably continue to have substantial net threshold exposure below which harmful
economic benefits. effects cease to occur.
Challenges Ahead y Mitigating pollution effects that might
disproportionately occur in minority and low-
Despite the progress, the report identifies income communities in densely populated
scientific and technical limitations in the current AQM urban areas.
system that will hinder future progress, especially as
the nation attempts to meet the following key
y Enhancing understanding and protection of
ecosystems affected by air pollution.
challenges in the coming decade:
y Meeting new standards for ozone, particulate
y Understanding and addressing multistate and
international transport of pollutants.
matter, and regional haze.
y Understanding and addressing the human y Adapting the AQM system to a changing (and
health risks from exposure to air toxics. most likely warmer) climate.

3) Assessing Status and 1) Setting Standards


Measuring Progress and Objectives
• Emissions trends • Emissions standards
• Air quality trends • Ambient air quality standards
• Health effects trends • Reducing acid deposition
• Ecosystem trends • Reducing regional pollution
• Institutional accountability • Protecting visibility
Scientific and Technical
Foundation
Monitoring: Analysis:
• Emissions • Models (e.g., air
• Ambient air quality quality, emissions)
• Health and • Economics
exposure • Health and ecological
• Ecosystems risk assessment
• Meteorology

Research: Development:
• Public health and • Source control
ecosystems studies technology
• Laboratory studies • Monitoring technology
(e.g., air chemistry,
toxicology)

2) Designing and Implementing


Control Strategies
• Source control technology requirements
• Emissions caps and trading
• Voluntary or incentive-based programs
• Energy efficiency
• Pollution prevention (e.g., product substitution and process alteration)
• Compliance assurance

Figure 1. Idealized schematic showing the iterative nature of air quality management. Bullets
under each heading provide examples.
Long-Term Objectives
To meet these challenges and remedy current
limitations, the report identifies a set of overarching
long-term objectives that should guide future
improvement of the AQM system. AQM should work
toward the following goals for the long term:
y Strive to identify and assess more clearly the
most significant exposures, risks, and
uncertainties.
y Strive to take an integrated multipollutant
approach to controlling emissions of pollutants
posing the most significant risks.
y Strive to take an airshed-based approach by EPA should strive to take an airshed-based approach
assessing and controlling emissions of to air quality management by assessing and control-
important pollutants arising from local, ling pollutants arising from local, multistate, national
multistate, national, and international sources. and international sources. Photo courtesy NASA.
y Strive to emphasize results over process,
create accountability for the results, and control measures, especially for nonroad mobile
dynamically adjust and correct the system as sources, area sources, and building and consumer
data on progress are assessed. products; emphasizing technology-neutral standards
for emission control; using market-based approaches
Recommend Near Term Actions such as the SO2 emissions cap-and-trade program
whenever practical and effective; reducing emissions
Immediate attainment of these objectives is from existing facilities and vehicles; and addressing
unrealistic. It would require a level of scientific multistate transport problems.
understanding that has yet to be developed, a
commitment of new resources that would be difficult 3. Transform the SIP process into a more dynamic
to obtain in the short term, and a rapid transformation and collaborative performance-oriented,
of the AQM system that is undesirable in light of the multipollutant air quality management plan
system’s past successes. The report proposes, therefore, (AQMP) process.
that the AQM system be enhanced so that it steadily
Each state should be required to prepare an AQMP
evolves toward meeting these objectives. In that spirit,
that integrates all relevant air quality measures,
the report makes five interrelated recommendations to
replacing all single pollutant SIPs with one
be implemented through specific actions:
comprehensive, multipollutant AQMP. Because these
1. (Highest Priority) Strengthen the scientific and actions would require significant changes in standard
technical capacity of the AQM system to assess procedure at the federal, state, and local level, it is
risk and track progress. recommended that they occur in stages, over a defined
transition period, and possibly with incentives.
Critical actions include: enhancing or improving
Substantial reforms are needed to focus on
emissions tracking, air pollution monitoring, modeling,
tracking results using periodic reviews, encouraging
and exposure assessments; developing and
innovative strategies, retaining conformity with regional
implementing a system to assess and monitor human
transportation plants, and retaining federal oversight
health and welfare effects; continuing to track
(see box, p. 4)
implementation costs; and invest in research and
human and technical resources. 4. Develop an integrated program for criteria
pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
2. Expand national and multistate performance-
oriented control strategies to support local, state, Critical actions include: developing a system to set
and tribal efforts. priorities for those pollutants; instituting a dynamic
review of pollutant classification; listing potentially
Critical actions include: expanding federal emission- dangerous but unregulated air pollutants for regulatory
attention; addressing multiple pollutants in the NAAQS standards and tracking progress towards them, as
review and standard-setting process; and enhancing well as considering regionally distinct standards.
assessment of residual risk. Implementing these recommendations will
require substantial resources, but they should not be
5. Enhance protection of ecosystems and other
overwhelming, especially compared with current
aspects of public welfare.
expenditures for CAA compliance and costs resulting
Critical actions include: completing a comprehensive from harmful effects of air pollution on human health
.
review of standards to protect public welfare; and welfare. Implementing these recommendations
implementing networks for comprehensive ecosystem will also require a commitment by all parties to adjust
monitoring; establishing acceptable exposure levels and change; it may also require new legislation from
for natural and managed ecosystems by evaluating Congress. As the transition occurs, it is imperative
data on the effects of air pollutants on ecosystems at that ongoing programs to reduce emissions continue
least every 10 years; and promulgating secondary so that progress toward cleaner air is maintained.

Enhancing Agency Accountability and Performance


The overall goal of these recommendations is to foster a more collaborative and dynamic performance-
oriented system, but experience has shown that not all states have equally addressed their air quality
problems. Public accountability and performance could be enhanced through the following:
y The Clean Air Act should continue to specify deadlines for attaining NAAQS milestones and to
assess progress along the way; EPA should retain its authority to impose sanctions on states that
fail to submit and implement adequate implementation plans.
y States should not be sanctioned for failure of EPA to institute necessary regulations for multistate
or national control programs that are beyond the states control.
y Incentives should be created for states that meet or beat deadlines and for those that develop
creative and effective multipollutant reduction strategies.
y Existing programs could be enforced with economic mechanisms such as additional emission fees
when states or regions fail to achieve rates of progress set forth in their plans.

Committee on Air Quality Management in the United States: William Chameides (Chair), Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Daniel Greenbaum (Vice-Chair), Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA, Carmen
Benkovitz, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, Eula Bingham, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
OH, Michael Bradley, M.J. Bradley & Associates, Concord, MA, Richard Burnett, Health Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Dallas Burtraw, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, Laurence Caretto, California State
University, Northridge, Costel Denson, University of Delaware, Newark, Charles Driscoll, Syracuse University,
Syracuse, NY, Jane Hall, California State University, Fullerton, Philip Hopke, Clarkson University, Potsdam,
NY, Arnold Howitt, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, C.S. Kiang, Peking University, Beijing, China, Beverly
Law, Oregon State University, Corvallis, James Lents, University of California, Riverside, Denise Mauzerall,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, Thomas McGarity, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Jana
Milford, University of Colorado, Boulder, Michael Morris, North Central Texas Council of Governments,
Arlington, Spyros Pandis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, P. Barry Ryan, Emory University,
Atlanta, GA, Adel Sarofim, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Sverre Vedal, National Jewish Medical and
Research Center, Denver, CO, Lauren Zeise, California Environmental Protection Agency, Oakland, Raymond
Wassel (Study Director), Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology.
This report brief was prepared by the National Research Council based on the committee’s report. For
more information, contact the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology at (202) 334-3060. Air Quality
Management in the United States is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20001; 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 (in the Washington area); www.nap.edu.

Permission granted to reproduce this brief in its entirety with no additions or alterations.
Copyright 2004 The National Academies

You might also like