Neahtawanta Center, Synapse 39: Federal Legislative Update

Spring 1997 - Issue Number 39

Federal Legislative Update

Clean Air

EPA: The EPA has proposed revisions to strengthen the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulate matter based on scientific studies that have shown the detrimental effects of the pollutants on people. The studies have shown that ozone and PM lead to a decrease of up to twenty percent in lung function as well as other respiratory problems such asasthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Growing evidence suggests an association between the pollutants and premature deaths. The current standard for ozone is 0.12ppm, 1-hour average, 1 exceedence per year measured over three years. The proposed revisions would replace the current 1-hour standard with a new 8-hour standard. The level of the 8-hour standard would be 0.08ppm instead of the current 0.12 ppm standard. The form of the 8-hour standard would be third highest daily maximum concentration averaged over three years. The current standards of particulate matter are PM-10 50 ug/m3 annual arithmetic mean averaged over three years and 150ug/m3, 24 hour one hour exceeding per year which is averaged over three years. The proposed revisions would raise the standards to PM-2.5, 15ug/m3, annual arithmetic mean, spatial average of designated monitors averaged over three years, and 50ug/m3, 24-hour, 98th percentile concentration (averaged over three years) maximum monitor in an area.

Latest Action:
Senate Clean Air Subcommittee Chair James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) held a field hearing March 3, 1997, in Oklahoma City to address perspectives of states and local government officials on the proposed clean air standards.

A group of Democratic senators from "coal states" sent a letter to EPA Administrator Browner requesting that new standards be delayed until states have time to meet attainment standards that already are in place. Five senators signed the letter: Byrd, Ford, Glenn, Robb and Rockefeller.

On Wednesday, March 12, the House Science Committee held a hearing to review the science behind the rulemaking on clean air standards and heard from several members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Most of those testifying agreed that there are adequate scientific studies available to warrant the new standards; although, they also agree that the court imposed deadline did "rush" the completion of some studies.

On February 27, 1997, Rep. Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Sherrod Brown(D-OH) introduced a bill, H.R. 880, that would require Congressional approval of any increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAF) Standards designed to improve the fuel efficiency of automobiles. Sen. Abraham(R-MI) has introduced a companion bill, S. 286. The legislation would limit EPA's ability to raise the standards to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and urban smog. These standards have not been raised for the past 10 years. The review of smog and soot standards is long over due. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review air standards every five years. This allows the rules to catch up with the latest medical research. The ozone standard has not changed since 1979, and the particulate standard was last examined in 1987.

Industry has mounted a multi-million dollar campaign to undermine the proposed standards. For months polluters have been lobbying governors, the EPA, the White House, and the Congress to derail the cleanup effort. Polluter Lobbyists Vie For Sensitivity Award --If The Air Isn't Good Enough For You, Just Don't Breathe It.

In the February 3, 1997 edition of the Washington Post political columnist Al Kamenreported on some fascinating arguments being trotted out by industrylobbyists fighting to gut the EPA's proposal for tougher clean airstandards.

An Automobile Manufacturers Association (BIG 3) spokesman who said: "The effects of ozone are not that serious. I hate to say that. But what we're talking about is a temporary loss of lung function of 20 to 30 percent. That's not really a health effect "
An oil industry spokesman who stated that it was Òclear to us that the ozone standard doesnÕt need to be changed, no ifs, ands, or buts . . . People exposed to ozone actually adapt to it.Ó
And another unnamed oil industry lobbyist who in a recent National Journal article said that Òpeople can protect themselvesÓ from the health effects of high ozone levels. ÒThey can avoid jogging,Ó the lobbyist said. ÒAsthmatic kids need not go out and ride their bicycles.Ó
Perhaps the most outrageous claim some opposing the new EPA regs are making is that Òthe EPAÕs cost benefit analysis is rigged in favor of more regulations because it treats the value of the life of an older person Ñ who may be suffering from emphysema and whoÕs going to die soon anyway Ñ the same as that of a younger person who might have a bright future.Ó (Washington Post, February 3, 97)

Endangered Species

Sen. Kempthorne (R-ID) and Sen. Chafee (R-RI) have circulated draft legislation to rewrite current endangered species protections. The draft would reduce the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service to block other agency actions that jeopardize a listed species; create an opportunity for persons showing Òsubstantial scientific or commercial informationÓ to challenge proposed listing decisions before an independent review committee; and establish a streamlined process for small landowners to obtain permits to incidentally harm endangered species in exchange for implementing habitat conservation plans. The Senators are seeking comment on their draft. In the House, moderates and conservative Republicans remain divided over appropriate Endangered Species Act reform

Rep. Chenoweth (R-ID) has introduced a bill, H.R. 752, that would allow people to sue for recovery of lost property or wages as a result of federal actions under the Endangered Species Act. The bill would circumvent recent court decisions limiting the right to sue for economic damages.

Nuclear Waste

Senate: Bill: Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 (S. 104)
Introduced: January 21, 1997
Sponsors: Murkowski (R-AK) and Craig (R-ID)

Summary:
This bill would establish an interim nuclear waste storage facility for spent fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Department of Energy is under court order to accept the waste from the states by January 31, 1998. Nuclear facilities have been storing the spent fuel on site. The bill also would require EPA to issue a radiation protection standards in case of leaks and require the use of transportation routes that would minimize traffic through populated and environmentally-sensitive areas. The Clinton Administration has threatened to veto the bill if passed, stating that there is no need to transport the spent fuel from its current on-site storage facilities until a permanent site is selected and operational, and that the time and funds that would be appropriated for the interim site would be better used finalizing plans for a permanent facility. The bill also is opposed by environmentalists, the Nevada congressional delegation, and other senators who are concerned about transporting the waste through dangerous mountain passes en route to Nevada. Latest Action:
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee mark-up of S. 104 scheduled for Wednesday, March 12th, was extended. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) planned to propose two amendments at the mark-up scheduled to resume on March 13. The first amendment would delay the date on which storage of spent nuclear fuel would begin at the proposed interim facility at Yucca Mountain from November 30, 1999, to October 1, 2002. The second amendment would lower the level of permissible releases of radioactive materials and radioactivity from the site. The committee was still meeting at the time of this update.

Return to the Indexof Synapse 39, Spring 1997