Legal Change in Public Safety Administration

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Abstract

By 1970, there was massive air pollution accompanied by smog and particulate elements that affected visibility in the US. Clearly, the previous attempts to ensure clean air and reduce contamination had not yielded favorable outcomes. In 1970, the Congress enacted the Clean Air Act (CAA) as the first significant federal environmental laws to ensure clean air.

The CAA has undergone several reviews to reflect changing realities and accommodate emerging evidence in policymaking. While some administrations have sought to strengthen the Act to protect public health, others have scuttled previous efforts. Nevertheless, the Act, through EPA, has influenced Public Safety Administration through policy formulation. Such policies aim to ensure clean air standards by restricting emissions of hazardous substances into the atmosphere.

The federal law faces several challenges, including disregarding and misrepresentation of evidence during critical policymaking processes.

The Clean Air Act

The Congress enacted the Clean Air Act (CCA) of 1970 as a federal environmental plan that would ensure good air quality and introduce pollution control measures against existing and new sources of air pollutants. There are two key amendments to the Act, which mainly took place in the years 1977 and 1990. These amendments brought about critical changes to the federal air pollution plan. Nevertheless, the basic principles of the Act of the 1970 remain the same.

Summary and Interpretation of the Law

The Act is a broad federal law that controls emissions into the atmosphere from various pollutants, including motor vehicles. The law allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to introduce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) with the aim of “protecting public health and promoting public welfare and to control emissions of dangerous air pollutants” (Frye & Nelson, 2004).

The Clean Air Act had a broader approach for the national quality of air. It aimed to establish and attain NAAQS in all states by 1975. This would address the public health and welfare risks that originated from certain forms of air pollutants. The air quality standards would require all states to establish state implementation plans (SIPs). SIPs would cover industrial air pollutants across states and ensure that the established air standards were achieved. The Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 and 1990 in order to “introduce new standards and goals for attaining NAAQS because several states had failed to achieve them in the previous years” (Frye & Nelson, 2004).

The Act addresses the emission of dangerous pollutants into the atmosphere. Before the year 1990, the Act relied on a risk-based plan, which had only few programs (Frye & Nelson, 2004). The amendment of the 1990 introduced the use of technology-based standards to determine major sources and specific sources of air pollutants. The major sources of air pollutants are mainly stationary industrial plants that can release or have the potential to release over “ten tons of dangerous elements into the atmosphere every year or 25 tons of a mixture of various dangerous air pollutants” (Frye & Nelson, 2004). On the other hand, the Act classifies an area source as a stationary source with low-levels of emissions.

For major air pollutant sources, EPA must provide emission standards (maximum achievable control technology or the MACT standards) to ensure that such sources achieve maximum reduction with regard to emission of dangerous air pollutants. Under the new MACT standards, EPA has to review their effectiveness after eight years to determine any possible risk outcomes and readjust the standards accordingly based on the review outcomes.

Major Developments in the Act

Various administrations have influenced EPA in diverse ways. For instance, during the late 1990s, the Clinton administration focused on several environmental policies and achieved mixed results. Specifically, the government concentrated on the CAA through its New Source Review (NSR) plan. Under this plan, EPA required all industries to set up new equipment for monitoring air pollution. Companies that failed to comply with the new regulations were sued for violations. On several occasions, many companies resisted EPA’s efforts and filed lawsuits. Some companies successfully challenged the agency’s requirements particularly with regard to other environmental issues such as the quality of drinking water and the sales of electric cars.

During the Bush administration, EPA changed its strategies on some environmental issues, specifically under the Clean Air Act. For instance, the agency focused on reviewing air pollution regulations to favor coal-fired and oil-fired power plants (Cantwell, 2005). Political leaders and the public criticized the administration over its obvious attempts to scuttle the established standards on the levels of arsenic in drinking water. In the year 2000, the government was also criticized for its poor approaches to issues of global warming. The Bush administration was also blamed for its attempts to eliminate regulations from the CAA that guide coal-fired and oil-fired power plants. In addition, the Senate also failed to reverse such a proposal. In the year 2005, EPA reviewed its initial findings of 2000 on mercury emissions by electric utilities. This review affected the Clean Air Act standards (Cantwell, 2005).

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has also accused EPA of disregarding and misrepresenting science on particulate matter standard in its evidence collected between the year 2004 and 2010. The Union claimed that EPA decision on air pollution was a threat to public health (Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d).

In the year 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded, “EPA’s decision on particulate matter standards were not supported by any scientific evidence and, therefore they violated the Clean Air Act” (Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d). In addition, the agency failed to provide any valid reasons for rejecting the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s recommendations (Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d).

Impacts on Management Policy Decisions for Public Safety Administration

The Clean Air Act has influenced several management policy decisions that have changed Public Safety Administration since its inception.

State Implementation Plans

EPA introduced the NAAQS to guide states on how to attain new standards for air quality. Under the NAAQS, states have to develop and update their implementation plans (SIPs) to ensure that all locations are covered with the plan and they comply with such requirements. States are free to formulate policies that match their needs under the SIP as required by EPA. In addition, states are also free to develop self-regulatory standards, which should steer them to achieve the national standards on quality of the air. However, the agency must assess all SIPs and approve or reject them. Any state that fails to prepare a proper SIP will get one from EPA (Frye & Nelson, 2004). However, any state that has failed to prepare the required SIP will face limitations on federal highway funds.

States have different environmental challenges. Therefore, they also have different deadlines for meeting NAAQS based on their present pollutants and the extent of failure to achieve the standards. Many states have failed to achieve the ground level ozone standards. In the recent reviews, EPA has introduced stringent regulations on ozone standards, which could limit the number of states that ensure absolute compliance. SIPs have ensured that states adopt “low-VOC coatings and solvent to replace other volatile materials previously used, regulate the amount of nitrogen oxide emitted from burning fuels and use different strategies to reduce emissions from motor vehicles” (Frye & Nelson, 2004).

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

The NSPS requires all sources of air pollutants to apply new technologies to control pollution irrespective of their locations. EPA is responsible for providing NSPS. These are “federal technology-based conditions for meeting emission standards for both stationary and mobile sources of air pollution” (Frye & Nelson, 2004). Stationary sources of air pollution require different NSPS regulations. These requirements also affect any subsequent changes to such sources of air pollution. Changes may include physical alterations that could affect operations, rates of emissions or results in the release of new pollutants previously not accounted for under NSPS requirements. Generally, NSPS requirements cover common sources of emissions found in industrial plants and some specific sources within industries.

National Emission Standards

The national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) were introduced after the 1990 amendment of the CAA. NESHAP aimed to improve public protection against pollutants by raising the levels of safety standards. EPA has to focus on 189 dangerous air pollutants from different sources. Hazardous air pollutants include known or suspected toxic substances and carcinogens among other dangerous elements emitted into the atmosphere (Frye & Nelson, 2004). EPA, however, can remove an item from the hazardous list if it has sufficient evidence to show that the substance may not cause any adverse effects on public health or harm to the environment. In addition, EPA has the responsibility of developing new standards for hazardous air pollutants based on different classifications, areas and sources. Area sources of air pollutants may not have major impacts on the environment.

After identification, classification and listing of all sources air pollutants, EPA must formulate emission requirements for all the identified categories (Frye & Nelson, 2004). The main sources of air pollutants must adopt technology-based emission standards. Alternatively, they can adopt methods that ensure maximum achievable control technology (MACT) on air pollution with regard to their work practices. Under MACT standards, EPA must assess the effectiveness of these standards after eight years and determine whether new rigid standards are required to protect the public, their health with improved levels of safety standards. Such outstanding risk management standards are necessary, at minimum, if people are greatly exposed to harmful pollutants for a lifetime.

For public health and safety, EPA must publish regulations and requirements for all accidents that involve extremely dangerous chemicals for organizations using them (Frye & Nelson, 2004). Under the Risk Management Program Rule, the agency requires all affected organizations to “formulate a risk management plan and submit their plans for review to EPA” (Frye & Nelson, 2004). Such plans must indicate “analysis of hazardous chemicals, strategies for prevention of accidental emissions and emergency response strategies” (Frye & Nelson, 2004).

New Source Review

The CAA has classified states based on the quality of the air with regard to attainment of the NAAQS. It also recognizes that certain states may have better quality of air than the requirements under the NAAQS.

For regions that have achieved the required air quality standards, there is a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) plan. The plan restricts new constructions from causing any deterioration on the air quality from its identified emissions. It also ensures that plants will not violate any of the NAAQS requirements. Moreover, new constructions will install the latest available control technologies to combat emissions. A modification that increases the rate of emissions is considered a major change.

New major constructions and modifications in areas that have not achieved the set standards must meet stringent requirements. For new major sources of emissions, they must meet stringent requirements and achieve low rates of emissions at the lowest possible costs. Such plants must install technologies to offset high emissions and costs.

Motor vehicle emissions

Motor vehicles and other mobile pollutants were the “first to be subjected to federal air control regulations” (Frye & Nelson, 2004). The CAA focused on curtailing emissions from mobile sources of air pollution to ensure public health and safety. Consequently, it requires fuel refineries to produce clean fuels and car manufacturers to develop new cars that meet stringent environmental requirements and emission standards. In addition, the Public Safety Administration requires vehicles to undergo inspection and maintenance. Moreover, EPA had to introduce new rules for off-road vehicles and other mobile machines.

The Acid Rain Program

The program aims to “reduce acidification of lakes in the region” (Frye & Nelson, 2004). The agency identified coal plants as the major sources of emissions that result in acid rain. In addition, the long-range sulfur and nitrogen oxide released during transportation are also responsible for acid rain and particulate matter in the atmosphere. These substances enter surface water through various means, including directly.

The program aims to reduce emissions of “sulfur dioxide and cut nitrogen oxide released from power plants significantly” (Frye & Nelson, 2004). The plan focuses on developing a novel market-oriented model to attain these ambitious goals (Frye & Nelson, 2004). Power plants must determine the costs and emission rates in order to receive allowances based on tons of emitted gases traded, bought and sold (Frye & Nelson, 2004). For instance, a plant should not release more greenhouse gases than its allowances. It would be forced to curtail emissions or buy excess emissions from other plants.

Operating Permits

The CAA amendment of the 1990 introduced the Title V, which was “a federal permit system with consolidated specifications for a given source of air pollution” (Frye & Nelson, 2004). The Title V or the operating permits contained necessary information about emissions, pollutants, potential amount of gases to be released, reduction methods and evaluation and monitoring strategies by operators. All these methods focused on reducing air pollution. Title V, however, is only needed for specific sources of air pollution, which are mainly larger than the major sources. Such sources must be identified through the New Source Review.

Ozone-Depleting Substances

The Act requires EPA to ensure that the “stratospheric ozone layer is protected from depletion” (Frye & Nelson, 2004). Studies have shown that the concentrated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are responsible for depletion of the ozone layer (Frye & Nelson, 2004). Consequently, the Act restricts the production and use of all substances responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. In this regard, EPA has the mandate to outlaw all nonessential materials with ozone-depleting substances.

In addition, the agency also requires all manufacturers to label all materials made from ozone-depleting chemicals.

Lastly, the Act encourages manufacturers to develop new materials that pose little threats to the ozone layer and substitute old substances. Nevertheless, EPA must establish the “safety levels of the substitutes on public health and the environment” (Frye & Nelson, 2004).

Noise Pollution

Under the CAA, EPA created the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) to regulate noise pollution (Frye & Nelson, 2004). ONAC is responsible for studying causes and sources of noise. In addition, it also looks at ways of limiting noise pollution from government activities.

In 1982, however, the Reagan administration scraped federal funding for ONAC because it viewed noise as a local problem that states could handle through their own regulations. Nevertheless, EPA has some standards to mitigate noise pollution though such standards have limited capabilities.

Mercury Reduction Issues

Mercury emission has been a major challenge in attempts to achieve clean air standards across various states. Consequently, EPA has embarked on a mission to mitigate emissions of mercury into the atmosphere. Evidence suggests that a significant number of people are exposed to mercury and it could have adverse outcomes on public health. This may occur through the consumption mercury-contaminated fish. While mercury concentration in the atmosphere has been low, it has raised concerns among environmentalists. They believe that the available amount of mercury in the air could enter water and become highly toxic substance for human and the environment. The combustion of fossil fuels contributes to mercury presence in the atmosphere. Sediments of mercury may enter the waterway and finally reach water for human consumption when they are highly toxic in the form of methlymercury (Frye & Nelson, 2004).

Mercury is categorized under Hazardous Air Pollutants and therefore, it has MACT standards. The requirements focus on mercury emitted from coal-powered electricity generating plants (Frye & Nelson, 2004). In addition, the agency also encourages manufacturers to substitute mercury with new materials.

There are proposals to introduce ‘Clear Skies’ laws to ensure mandatory protection of the environment from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury (Frye & Nelson, 2004). The aim of this legislation is to reduce emissions into the atmosphere by power plants significantly. This approach would introduce a stringent national cap for all pollutants. On the other hand, arguments against ‘Clear Skies’ laws have asserted that the new laws would not achieve any mercury reductions beyond emissions that occur with other gases and they call for more stringent mercury mitigation approaches.

Criticism on disregarding scientific evidence on policymaking

The public, politicians, environmentalists, scientists and other concerned bodies have criticized EPA for disregarding and misrepresenting recommendations based on scientific evidence when formulating public administration policies to protect public health adequately (Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d). The manipulated new laws affected how EPA handled fine particulate matter pollution from diverse sources. Scientific evidence has shown that particulate matter could cause heart conditions, respiratory diseases and even premature deaths (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2005).

Maria Cantwell concludes that, “Weakening the Clean Air Act is unacceptable” (Cantwell, 2005). On the same note, the Union of Concerned Scientists investigated and tabled a report on how the Bush administration engaged in “manipulation of the process through which science entered into its decisions” (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2005). The report indicated that this was a risky trend for the government and the public health. In some cases, the government has delayed making critical decisions on Public Safety Administration (Power, 2010).

References

Cantwell, M. (2005). Bush Administration Plan to Weaken Clean Air Act Puts Public Health at Risk. Web.

Frye, R., & Nelson, K. (2004). An Overview of the Clean Air Act. Web.

Power, S. (2010). EPA Again Delays Tighter Ozone Restrictions. The Wall Street Journal. Web.

Union of Concerned Scientists. (n.d). EPA Air Pollution Decision Threatens Public Health. Web.

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2005). Scientific Integrity in Policy Making. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.

Click Here To Order Now!