# Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL34479

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** February 3, 2010
- **Citation:** RL34479

## Text

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Lead
name redacted
Specialist in Environmental Policy
February 3, 2010

Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL34479

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

Summary
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under a court order to review
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead, announced his decision October
16, 2008, reducing the standard by 90%, from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 0.15
µg/m3. EPA also promulgated new monitoring requirements at that time, requiring monitors
downwind of any source emitting one ton or more of lead per year and in urban areas with
populations of 500,000 or more. In January 2009, the Natural Resources Defense Council and
three other groups petitioned EPA for a reconsideration of the monitoring requirements. EPA
granted the petition and, in December 2009, proposed changes in the monitoring requirements,
notably lowering the source-oriented emissions threshold from one ton to 0.50 tons per year.
NAAQS are standards for outdoor (ambient) air that are intended to protect public health and
welfare from harmful concentrations of pollution. In strengthening the lead standard, the
Administrator has concluded that protecting public health and welfare requires much lower
concentrations of lead pollution in ambient air than the level previously held to be safe. Lead
particles can be inhaled or ingested, and, once in the body, can cause lower IQ and effects on
learning, memory, and behavior in children. In adults, lead exposure is linked to increased blood
pressure, cardiovascular disease, and decreased kidney function.
Regulation of airborne lead is often described as one of the key successes of the Clean Air Act
and of the Environmental Protection Agency. In 1970, when lead was widely used as a gasoline
additive, emissions of lead nationwide totaled 224,100 tons. Lead was also present then in many
consumer products, and thus was emitted to the air from industrial processes and waste
incinerators. The phasing out of lead from gasoline, paint, and other products, as well as stricter
controls on industrial emissions, reduced lead emissions more than 99%, to 1,300 tons in 2007.
The reduction in lead emissions and ambient concentrations led some to suggest that there was no
longer a need for an ambient air quality standard for lead. Others, including the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), an independent panel of scientists who advise the EPA
Administrator, concluded that the old NAAQS (established in 1978) was far too lenient, that lead
in ambient air still poses a threat to public health, and that the NAAQS needed to be significantly
strengthened. CASAC recommended that the standard be reduced from 1.5 µg/m3 to no higher
than 0.2 µg/m3. In promulgating a more stringent NAAQS, the Administrator agreed with the
scientists’ recommendation, rejecting the argument that the standard is no longer needed.
The Administrator’s decision followed a multi-year review of the science. To implement the new
standard, EPA and the states will first identify nonattainment areas (expected to occur no later
than January 2012), following which there will be a 5-10 year-long implementation process in
which states and local governments will identify and implement measures to reduce lead in the
air. As noted earlier, EPA also promulgated changes to the monitoring requirements for lead as
part of the NAAQS decision. As of 2008, at least 24 of the 50 states, including some with major
sources of lead emissions, had no lead monitors at all. Under the 2008 regulations, all 101
metropolitan areas with populations greater than 500,000 would be required to have monitors as
would the estimated 135 areas that have sources of lead emissions greater than or equal to one ton
per year. In December 2009, EPA proposed further changes, lowering the source-oriented
emissions threshold from one ton to 0.50 tons per year, while eliminating the urban area
monitoring requirement. In place of the latter, lead monitoring would be added to a national
network of 80 sites that will monitor multiple pollutants.

Congressional Research Service

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
The Role of NAAQS in Improving Air Quality............................................................................1
What Are NAAQS?.........................................................................................................1
Implementing a NAAQS .................................................................................................2
Other Pollution Control Measures ...................................................................................2
The NAAQS Review Process......................................................................................................2
Schedule for Review .......................................................................................................2
How the Process Works...................................................................................................3
Adding or Deleting NAAQS Pollutants ...........................................................................3
Lead Emission Reduction: Success, but Not Generally Due to NAAQS.......................................4
EPA’s 2008 Lead NAAQS...........................................................................................................5
The Primary Standard .....................................................................................................5
The Secondary Standard..................................................................................................6
Expanding the Lead Monitoring Network........................................................................8
Issues Raised by the NAAQS Review ....................................................................................... 11
Costs and Benefits of the New Standard .................................................................................... 12
Costs............................................................................................................................. 13
Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 13
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................... 14

Figures
Figure 1. Counties with Monitors Violating the 2008 Lead Standard of 0.15 micrograms
per cubic meter (µg/m3)............................................................................................................7
Figure 2. Locations of Current Ambient Lead Monitors, Largest Stationary Sources of
Lead Emissions, and Metropolitan Areas with Populations of 500,000 or More .......................9

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 14

Congressional Research Service

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

Introduction
On October 16, 2008, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced his final approval of a
more stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead. The publication of the
revised standard in the Federal Register, on November 12, 2008, was the final step in a multiyear review process.1
When the previous standard for lead was promulgated in 1978, lead was a widespread air
pollutant. Eighty to ninety percent of it was emitted by the nation’s automobiles and trucks, a
majority of which ran on leaded gasoline. Leaded gasoline was gradually phased out in the 1970s,
1980s, and early 1990s, and both emissions and concentrations of lead in the air plummeted.
Emissions fell more than 98% from 1980 to 2007. Ambient concentrations (the quantity of lead in
the air) fell by 94%.2 As of March 12, 2008, only two areas with a combined population of 4,664
people had air that remained in violation of the 1978 lead NAAQS.3
These developments led some to suggest that there was no longer a need for an ambient air
quality standard for lead. Others, including the independent scientific advisory panel that advises
EPA’s Administrator, concluded that the 1978 NAAQS was far too lenient, that lead in ambient
air still poses a threat to public health, and that the NAAQS needed to be significantly
strengthened as the result of the recent review. In promulgating a new standard, the Administrator
agreed with his scientific advisers, lowering the standard to 90% below the 1978 standard and
setting new requirements for monitoring.
This report provides background on NAAQS, the process used to establish them, the factors
leading to the reduction in lead emissions, the proposed and final changes to the lead standard and
related monitoring requirements, as well as information regarding the potential effects of the
revision.

The Role of NAAQS in Improving Air Quality
What Are NAAQS?
NAAQS are standards that apply to ambient (outdoor) air pollutants that exhibit two
characteristics: (1) they may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare; and
(2) their presence in the air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources. 4 The
1
73 Federal Register 66964, November 12, 2008. The review was the result of a consent decree in Missouri Coalition
for the Environment v. U.S. EPA, 2005 Westlaw 2234579 (E.D. Mo. September 14, 2005).
2
Historical data on lead emissions come from various years of EPA’s National Air Quality and Emission Trends
Reports (titles vary somewhat from year to year), which can generally be found at http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/
reports.html; 2007 emissions data and ambient concentrations are from U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, “October 2008 Final National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, General Overview,” pp. 6 and 8, at
http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/20081015presentation.pdf.
3
The two areas were East Helena, Montana, and Herculaneum, Missouri, both of which have been the site of lead
smelters. The East Helena smelter closed in 2001. The Herculaneum smelter continues to operate. For additional
information, see U.S. EPA, Greenbook, at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/lindex.html.
4
Authority to establish NAAQS comes from both Sections 108 and 109 of the act (42 U.S.C. 7408 and 7409); this
definition of criteria pollutants is found in Section 108. The authority and procedures for controlling the sources of
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

1

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

Clean Air Act provides for two types of NAAQS: primary standards, “the attainment and
maintenance of which in the judgment of the [EPA] Administrator ... are requisite to protect the
public health,” with “an adequate margin of safety”; and secondary standards, necessary to
protect public welfare, a broad term that includes damage to crops, vegetation, property, building
materials, etc. 5
NAAQS are at the core of the Clean Air Act, even though they do not directly regulate emissions.
In essence, they are standards that define what EPA considers to be clean air.

Implementing a NAAQS
Once a NAAQS has been set, EPA uses monitoring data and other information submitted by the
states to identify areas that exceed the standard and must, therefore, reduce pollutant
concentrations to achieve it. After these “nonattainment” areas are identified (which EPA
estimates will occur by January 2012 at the latest for the new lead standard), state and local
governments must produce State Implementation Plans outlining the measures they will
implement to reduce pollution levels and attain the standards. Lead nonattainment areas will have
five years after their designation to actually attain the standard, with a possible extension of five
more years.
As will be noted in more detail later, most areas of the country do not monitor lead concentrations
in ambient air. Thus, in addition to strengthening the lead standard, the Administrator expanded
the requirements for lead monitoring. Installing the additional monitors and compiling up to three
years of data to determine compliance is the main reason that implementing the new standard is
likely to be a lengthy process.

Other Pollution Control Measures
In addition to requiring states to submit implementation plans, EPA also acts to control many of
the NAAQS pollutants wherever they are emitted, through national standards for products that
might emit them (particularly fuels) and through emission standards for new stationary sources
(e.g., lead smelters).

The NAAQS Review Process
Schedule for Review
The Clean Air Act requires the agency to review each NAAQS every five years. That schedule is
rarely met, but it often triggers lawsuits that force the agency to undertake a review. In the case of
lead, the last review of the NAAQS was completed in 1978.6 The Missouri Coalition for the
(...continued)
criteria pollutants are found throughout Titles I, II, and IV of the act. Pollutants that are less widely emitted are
generally classified as “hazardous air pollutants” and are regulated under a different section of the act (Section 112).
5
The Clean Air Act’s definition of welfare is found in Section 302(h) of the act (42 U.S.C. 7602(h)).
6
43 Federal Register 46246, October 5, 1978.

Congressional Research Service

2

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

Environment and others filed suit against EPA over its failure to complete a review in 2004, and a
consent decree established the schedule EPA followed in reviewing the standard.7 The schedule
required EPA to propose any revision of the standard by May 1, 2008, and to promulgate a final
decision by October 15, 2008.

How the Process Works
Reviewing an existing NAAQS is a long process.8 As a first step, EPA scientists review the
scientific literature published since the last NAAQS revision, and summarize it in a report known
as a Criteria Document or Integrated Science Assessment. Generally, there are hundreds or
thousands of scientific documents reviewed, covering such subjects as environmental
concentrations, human exposure, toxicology, animal studies and animal-to-human extrapolation,
epidemiology, effects on vegetation and ecosystems, and effects on man-made materials. 9 A
second document that EPA prepares, the Staff Paper or Policy Assessment, summarizes the
information compiled in the Criteria Document and provides the Administrator with options
regarding the indicators, averaging times, statistical form, and numerical level (concentration) of
the NAAQS.
To ensure that these reviews meet the highest scientific standards, the 1977 amendments to the
Clean Air Act required the Administrator to appoint an independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC). CASAC has seven members, largely from academia and from private
research institutions. In conducting NAAQS reviews, their expertise is supplemented by panels of
the nation’s leading experts on the health and environmental effects of the specific pollutant or
pollutants under review. These panels can be quite large. The 2005-2008 lead review panel had 15
members, in addition to the 7 statutory members of CASAC. CASAC and the public make
suggestions regarding the membership of the panels on specific pollutants, with the final
selections made by EPA. The panels review the agency’s work during NAAQS-setting and
NAAQS-revision, rather than conducting their own independent reviews.

Adding or Deleting NAAQS Pollutants
The pollutants to which NAAQS apply are generally referred to as “criteria” pollutants. Six
pollutants are currently identified as criteria pollutants: ozone, particulates, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The EPA Administrator can add to this list if she
determines that additional pollutants meet the act’s criteria (endangerment of public health or
welfare, and numerous or diverse sources); she can delete them if she concludes that they no
longer do so. Whether lead still met these criteria was one of the issues EPA considered in its
review of the standard.

7

As mentioned earlier, the schedule was set by the consent decree in Missouri Coalition for the Environment v. U.S.
EPA, 2005 Westlaw 2234579 (E.D. Mo. September 14, 2005).
8
For a discussion of the process, and of changes to the process that EPA is now implementing, see CRS Report
RL33807, Air Quality Standards and Sound Science: What Role for CASAC?, by (name redacted).
9
EPA indicates that more than 6,000 new studies on lead health effects, environmental effects, and lead in the air have
been published since 1990.

Congressional Research Service

3

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

Lead Emission Reduction: Success, but Not
Generally Due to NAAQS
The reduction of lead emissions is often described as one of the key successes of the Clean Air
Act and of the Environmental Protection Agency. In 1970, emissions of lead totaled 224,100 tons.
By 2007, emissions had been reduced more than 99%, to 1,300 tons.10
Little of that success is attributable to the setting of a NAAQS, however. The agency did not set a
NAAQS for lead until 1978 (by which time lead emissions had already declined about 40%), and
it established the NAAQS then only as a result of a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources
Defense Council and others.11 After promulgating the NAAQS, the agency did not identify
nonattainment areas until 1991. The great bulk of the lead reductions “occurred prior to 1990,”
according to EPA.12 So, in general, the reduction of lead in ambient air did not come about as a
result of the 1978 NAAQS, or in the manner prescribed by Title I of the Clean Air Act, wherein
nonattainment areas are identified and the states or areas in which they are located submit to EPA
State Implementation Plans that identify local and national measures that will be implemented to
help such areas reach attainment.
Most of the reduction was a side-benefit of other Clean Air Act programs, especially the
regulation of emissions from new automobiles, beginning in the 1970s. In order to meet more
stringent requirements for emissions of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide,
which took effect in 1975, the auto industry installed catalytic converters on new cars. Gasoline
with lead additives would have fouled the catalytic converters, rendering them useless; so, in
anticipation of the converters’ widespread adoption, EPA mandated the sale of unleaded fuel in
the early 1970s, and eventually banned the use of lead in gasoline entirely.
Being a metal, lead remains in the environment even though emissions have declined. Thus,
although human exposure to lead has declined, it has not done so by as much as the decrease in
emissions would suggest.13 Furthermore, research conducted since the 1970s suggests that lead
has significant health impacts at levels well below those previously considered safe.
Current sources of emissions include utility and other boilers, leaded fuel still used in some
general aviation airplanes, trace lead contaminants in diesel fuel and gasoline, lubricating oil, iron
and steel foundries, primary and secondary lead smelters, hazardous waste incinerators, and about
30 smaller categories of sources.14 In addition, there continues to be exposure from lead particles
10

U.S. EPA, National Air Quality and Emission Trends Reports, and October 2008 NAAQS General Overview, both
cited previously.
11
NRDC v. Train, 411 F. Supp. 864 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) aff’d., 545 F. 2d 320 (2d Cir. 1976). EPA was ordered to list lead
as a criteria pollutant and to develop NAAQS. The agency listed lead March 31, 1976, and on October 5, 1978,
established a NAAQS for lead.
12
U.S. EPA, Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead: Policy Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, November 2007, p. 2-5, at http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/pb/data/
20071101_pb_staff.pdf.
13
The supporting documentation for the new standard states that the median concentration of lead in children’s blood
dropped 89%, from 15 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL) in the late 1970s to 1.6 µg/dL in 2003-2004. See October 2008
NAAQS General Overview, previously cited, p. 7.
14
OAQPS Staff Paper, previously cited, Table 2-2, p. 2-7.

Congressional Research Service

4

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

in soil or dust re-suspended in the atmosphere as a result of vehicular traffic, construction,
agricultural operations, and the wind. 15

EPA’s 2008 Lead NAAQS
As a result of the review it completed in 2008, EPA decided to deal with the remaining issue of
lead in ambient air by both strengthening the lead NAAQS and by expanding the network of
monitors that are used to measure attainment.

The Primary Standard
The primary (health-based) standard, promulgated in 1978, was 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3) averaged over three months. With the exception of two small areas (one in Montana, one
in Missouri), the United States has attained this standard, but the NAAQS review found evidence
of health effects at the levels of exposure currently experienced by much of the U.S. population.
The Staff Paper reported “significant associations between Pb [lead] exposures and a broad range
of health effects,” including, in children, neurological effects, notably intellectual attainment,
attention, and school performance, with “long-term consequences over a lifetime.”16 The Staff
Paper also reported effects on the immune system, with “increased risk for autoimmunity and
asthma.”17 In adults, the Staff Paper found associations between lead exposure and “increased risk
of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including increased blood pressure and incidence of
hypertension, as well as cardiovascular mortality.”18 Lead exposure also was associated with
reduced kidney function, with adverse impacts enhanced in those with diabetes, hypertension, and
chronic renal insufficiency.
As a result, both EPA staff and the CASAC recommended strengthening the NAAQS. According
to the Staff Paper:
Staff concludes that it is appropriate for the Administrator to consider an appreciable
reduction in the level of the standard, reflecting our judgment that a standard appreciably
lower than the current standard could provide an appropriate degree of public health
protection and would likely result in important improvements in protecting the health of
sensitive groups. We recommend that consideration be given to a range of standard levels
from approximately 0.1-0.2 µg/m3 (particularly in conjunction with a monthly averaging
time) down to the lower levels included in the exposure and risk assessment, 0.02 to 0.05
µg/m3.19

CASAC concurred, stating in a January 22, 2008 letter that it “... unanimously affirms EPA staff’s
recognition of the need to substantially lower the level of the primary NAAQS for Lead, to an
upper bound of no higher than 0.2 µg/m3 ....”20
15

Ibid., p. 2-10.
Ibid., p. 3-22.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid., pp. 5-44 to 5-45.
20
“Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s Review of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for the
NAAQS for Lead,” Letter of Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, CASAC, to Hon. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, U.S.
(continued...)
16

Congressional Research Service

5

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

The Administrator agreed that the primary NAAQS should be substantially lowered, choosing a
level of 0.15 µg/m3.
The Administrator also proposed two options for revising the averaging time and form used to
determine whether an area meets the standard. Instead of the former not-to-be-exceeded form,
based on quarterly (3-month) averages of lead concentrations, the proposal would have either
revised the current averaging form to clarify that it applies across a three-year span (i.e., to
demonstrate attainment, an area would need to show quarterly readings lower than the standard
for 12 consecutive quarters); or the proposal would revise the measure to the second highest
monthly average in a three-year span. According to agency staff, this latter form would better
capture short-term increases in lead exposure, while allowing the average from one bad month
(perhaps resulting from unusual meteorological conditions) to be disregarded. The agency noted
that “control programs to reduce quarterly mean concentrations may not have the same protective
effect as control programs aimed at reducing concentrations in every individual month.”21
CASAC also recommended that consideration be given to changing from the calendar quarter to
the monthly averaging time. In making that recommendation, CASAC emphasized support from
studies suggesting that blood lead concentrations respond at shorter time scales than would be
captured completely by quarterly values.
The Administrator chose neither of these options. Instead, the agency will use a rolling threemonth average, evaluated over a three-year period: any three-month average exceeding the
standard will be considered a violation of the NAAQS. For a nonattainment area to be
subsequently redesignated to “attainment,” the area would have to have three years of rolling
three-month averages that met the standard. This is somewhat more stringent than the previous
averaging time (calendar quarters), but not as protective as the second highest monthly average
would have been.
As shown in Figure 1, 17 counties have monitors showing nonattainment using the new standard.
(By comparison, only portions of two counties violated the old standard.) As will be discussed in
more detail below, less than 3% of the nation’s counties have active lead monitors. Thus, more
counties may be found in nonattainment once the monitoring network is expanded.

The Secondary Standard
As part of its current review, EPA also assessed the secondary (public welfare) NAAQS for lead.
The secondary standard has been identical to the primary standard. The agency concluded that:
A significant number of new studies have been conducted since 1978 that associate lead
pollution with adverse effects on organisms and ecosystems. However, there is a lack of
evidence linking various effects to specific levels of lead in the air.22

(...continued)
EPA, January 22, 2008, p. 5, at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
427DE71C7D43AFDC852573D8006FB5BC/$File/EPA-CASAC-08-007-unsigned.pdf.
21
U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, Proposed Rule, 73 Federal Register 29236, May 20,
2008.
22
U.S. EPA, “Fact Sheet: Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead,” p. 3 at
http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/20080501_factsheet.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

6

Figure 1. Counties with Monitors Violating the 2008 Lead Standard of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3)

Source: U.S. EPA.
Notes:
1. 18 of 111 monitored counties violate the 2008 lead standard of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) measured as total suspended particulate matter (TSP).
2. These estimates are based on the most recent air quality data available (2005–2007). EPA will not designate areas based on these data, but likely on data from
2007-2009 or 2008-2010.
3. The existing monitoring network for lead is not sufficient to determine whether many areas of the country would meet the revised standards of 0.15 μg/m3. EPA
is re-designing the national lead monitoring network to allow assessment of compliance with the revised standards.
4. Monitored air quality data is available from the Air Quality System at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/

CRS-7

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

Lacking such evidence, the Administrator continued the practice of making the secondary
standard identical to the primary standard.

Expanding the Lead Monitoring Network
Besides finding that the 1978 NAAQS was inadequate to protect public health and welfare, EPA’s
review concluded that “[t]he current monitoring network is inadequate to assess national
compliance with the proposed revised lead standards.”23 Only 70 of the roughly 3,000 counties in
the United States (2.3%) had active lead monitors in 2008, leaving many areas of the country
without any means of determining whether they were in violation of the lead NAAQS.24 Twentyfour entire states, including some with major sources of lead emissions, had no lead monitors.25
Under the old (1978) standard, this was not much of an issue. There were, at one time, about 900
lead monitors in operation; but, as lead emissions decreased and as the monitors showed
consistent attainment of the standards, many of the monitors were shut down or removed. With a
substantially more stringent standard, however, it cannot be assumed that areas without monitors
are still in attainment.
The locations of monitors and of the major sources of lead emissions are shown in Figure 2. The
figure shows that large sources of emissions in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and other states appear to be located more than 100 miles from
the nearest ambient monitor.

23

U.S. EPA, “May 2008 Proposal, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, General Overview,” Text Slides,
at http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/pdfs/20080501_text1.pdf, p. 17.
24
In the support documents for the proposed and final NAAQS, EPA provided several different estimates of the
number of counties with active monitors, ranging from 86 to 111. Further communication with the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards produced a final estimate of 70 counties with a total of 133 active monitors. The reason
for the discrepancies is that there are a number of counties that have (or had) monitors that were switched off after
years of showing attainment with the 1978 NAAQS. In these cases, there may be data for older time periods, but the
agency does not know with certainty whether the areas would be in attainment of the new standard. Personal
communication, October 23, 2008.
25
In support of the lead NAAQS proposal, EPA produced a map of the United States showing the locations of lead
monitors and of sources emitting more than 5 tons of lead per year. The map showed that several of the states without
monitors have large sources of lead emissions. Arkansas, for example, has two of the 12 largest stationary sources of
lead in the United States (those with lead emissions exceeding 5 tons per year), but no ambient lead monitors. Montana,
which has one of the two nonattainment areas for the 1978 lead standard, also has no ambient lead monitors. Similarly,
large sources in Oklahoma, the Texas panhandle, and other locations appear to be located more than 100 miles from the
nearest ambient monitor. Additional data on monitor locations, confirming that 24 states have no monitors, was
provided by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 6, 2008. See also “EPA to Seek Comment on
Increasing Air Monitors as Part of Lead Rulemaking,” Daily Environment Report, November 29, 2007, p. A-10.

Congressional Research Service

8

Figure 2. Locations of Current Ambient Lead Monitors, Largest Stationary Sources of Lead Emissions,
and Metropolitan Areas with Populations of 500,000 or More

Source: U.S. EPA.
Notes:
1. Ambient lead monitoring sites measure lead in total suspended particulate (Pb-TSP). The 133 monitoring sites shown are those operating in 2008.
2. The current monitoring network for lead is not sufficient to determine whether many areas of the country would meet the 2008 lead standards. EPA is redesigning the nation’s lead monitoring network to allow assessment of compliance with the revised standard. EPA is requiring Pb-TSP monitors in areas near lead
sources with emissions greater than or equal to 1.0 ton per year, and a monitor in every urban area with population of 500,000 or greater.
3. The emissions estimates used to develop this map are based on EPA’s 2002 National Emission Inventory (NEI) with modifications documented in Tom Pace’s
05/01/08 memorandum and Marion Hoyer’s 05/12/08 and 05/14/08 memoranda to the docket.

CRS-9

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

To address this shortfall, EPA proposed—in addition to the revised lead NAAQS—to require
monitors near all sources of lead that exceed a threshold of between 200 and 600 kilograms (441
to 1,323 pounds) of emissions per year. The agency also proposed to require a small network of
monitors to be placed in urban areas with populations greater than one million to gather
information on the general population’s exposure to lead in the air.
In the final rule, the Administrator chose thresholds different than proposed: he set the source
threshold at one ton of emissions rather than 200-600 kilograms, and required monitors in urban
areas with populations of 500,000 or more rather than one million. The final choice appeared to
have reflected concerns by industry groups, including the Battery Council International, who
argued that emphasis should be placed more on exposure-oriented monitoring than on specific
sources of emissions. 26
The monitoring decision was challenged by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Missouri
Coalition for the Environment Foundation, and two other groups: they petitioned the agency for
reconsideration of the monitoring requirements, in January 2009. EPA agreed to a reconsideration
in July and proposed changes to the monitoring rule on December 23.27 In the December
proposal, EPA reverted to a 0.5 ton threshold for source-oriented monitors. The agency also
proposed eliminating the required monitoring in areas with populations of 500,000 or more, in
favor of a network of approximately 80 multi-pollutant monitoring sites known as NCore. The
NCore network would include 60 sites located in urban areas and about 20 sites located in rural
areas. In all, EPA estimates that the proposal would increase the number of monitors by about
140.28
The states remain free to install more monitors than EPA requires, but finding the money to do so
might be difficult at a time when many of the states are experiencing a shortage of revenues. EPA
estimated the initial cost of the network (as required by the 2008 rule) at $4.5 million, and the
operational costs at $3.5 million annually. The agency estimated that the December 2009 rule
would increase ambient air monitoring costs by an additional $1.8 million. To address these costs
(and the costs of new monitoring requirements for other NAAQS pollutants), EPA has requested
an additional $15 million in its FY2011 budget. The agency is also requesting an $82.5 million
(36%) increase in total budget authority for state and tribal assistance grants in FY2011, in part to
support activities related to the implementation of new NAAQS.

26

See, for example, “Industry Says Urban Monitoring Key to Final EPA Lead NAAQS Decision,” Inside EPA Clean
Air Report, October 2, 2008. According to OMB Watch, the requirement was changed at the last minute at the request
of the Office of Management and Budget. A draft of the rule attached to an October 13, 2008 e-mail from EPA to OMB
stated that the emissions threshold would be set at 0.5 tons per year and the urban area cutoff at one million. (The draft
is available at http://www.ombwatch.org/files/regs/PDFs/half-ton_excerpt.pdf.) In changing the emissions threshold to
1 ton per year, as many as 124 areas with sources emitting between 0.5 tons and 1 ton per year were exempted from
required monitoring. In changing the urban area threshold, on the other hand, 49 areas were added. Thus, overall, 75
fewer areas were required to monitor as a result of the changes. See “EPA to Reduce Airborne Lead, but OMB
Bedevils the Details,” OMB Watch, October 21, 2008, at http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3817.
27
The proposed changes appeared in the Federal Register December 30, 2009, at 74 FR 69050.
28
U.S. EPA, “Fact Sheet – Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring Requirements,” at http://epa.gov/air/lead/
fs20091223.html.

Congressional Research Service

10

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

Issues Raised by the NAAQS Review
Perhaps the two largest issues raised during the lead NAAQS review process—whether a
NAAQS was still needed, and whether the Administrator’s proposed range of standards reflected
the scientific advice he received—have been resolved, with little remaining controversy. CASAC
and EPA staff both concluded that airborne lead still meets the NAAQS criteria (endangerment of
public health or welfare, and numerous or diverse sources). Rather than support the deletion of
lead from the list of criteria pollutants, they concluded that lead in ambient air still poses a threat
to public health, that the old NAAQS (established in 1978) was far too lenient, and that the 1978
NAAQS needed to be significantly strengthened.29 The Administrator agreed.
A second major issue was whether the proposed range of standards (as opposed to the final,
promulgated version) was supported by the available science. The range proposed by the
Administrator, while substantially stronger than the 1978 standard, would have allowed him to set
a final NAAQS 50% higher (i.e., less stringent) than the least stringent level recommended by
both EPA’s scientific staff and by the independent CASAC panel. Given uncertainties in the
science (particularly the estimated correlation between airborne lead and blood lead levels and the
uncertainties in the concentration-response functions—i.e., the effect that changes in blood lead
levels have on IQ), the Administrator stated in the May 2008 proposal that his decision would be
supported by the science at any point in the proposed range of 0.10 to 0.30 µg/m3.30
His final choice (0.15 µg/m3) fell within the range recommended by EPA staff and CASAC, and,
thus, did not provoke controversy. At that level, the standard was supported by the staff’s
conclusions, which were themselves based on the review of more than 6,000 scientific studies,
and by the unanimous conclusions of the 22-member CASAC review panel.
There are, of course, some who wanted weaker or stronger standards. In comments on the
proposed range, some commenters expressed disappointment that the Administrator did not
consider the potential economic impacts in making his choice. 31 These comments were echoed by
the Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR), following the Administrator’s decision: in press
reports, an ABR representative stated that the new standard “potentially threatens the viability of
the lead recycling industry.”32 The Clean Air Act does not allow the consideration of costs or
economic impacts in the setting of NAAQS, however—a point underlined by the Supreme Court
in a unanimous 2001 decision, 33 and repeated by the agency in announcing the final decision.
Thus, the Administrator appears to have been on firm ground in rejecting economic arguments.

29

EPA staff conclusions are found in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Staff Paper at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/data/20071101_pb_staff.pdf. See especially pp. 5-43 to 5-45. CASAC’s
conclusions can be found in a March 27, 2007 letter from its Chair, Dr. Rogene Henderson, to Administrator Johnson,
at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/989B57DCD436111B852572AC0079DA8A/$File/casac-07-003.pdf.
30
U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead, Proposed Rule, 73 Federal
Register 29243, May 20, 2008.
31
See, for example, “Environmentalists Push New Lead Standard; Industry Warns of Consequences for Business,”
Daily Environment Report, August 28, 2008.
32
Robert N. Steinwurtzel, a lawyer for the Association of Battery Recyclers, as cited in a “E.P.A. Toughens Standard
on Lead Emissions; Change Is the First in 3 Decades,” New York Times, October 17, 2008.
33
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 121 S. Ct. 903 (2001).

Congressional Research Service

11

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

Others, including EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC), argued for
a stronger standard.34 CHPAC cited evidence that lead exposure at low levels poses even greater
harm per unit of lead than does exposure at higher levels, and argued that the standard should be
set at 0.02 µg/m3, almost an order of magnitude below the Administrator’s final choice.35
Despite that recommendation, criticism was muted in the wake of the Administrator’s decision,
with most environmental groups expressing support. A typical reaction was that of Dr. John
Balbus, a member of CHPAC and the Chief Health Scientist on the staff of the Environmental
Defense Fund: “While EPA’s own analysis justifies an even lower lead standard, this tenfold
reduction will go a long way to protecting children most at risk from airborne lead.... It’s
refreshing to see the agency follow the science and the advice of its experts in making this
decision.”36

Costs and Benefits of the New Standard
Although the Administrator is prohibited from taking costs or economic factors into consideration
in setting a NAAQS,37 the agency generally does prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for
information purposes, and to comply with an executive order. 38 The RIA analyzes in detail the
costs and benefits of new or revised NAAQS standards. The agency released an RIA for the final
lead standard as part of the final regulatory package, October 16, 2008.
The RIA presented a range of both costs and benefits from the new standard, assuming full
implementation of control measures in 2016. Both the cost and benefit ranges were large, and
EPA stressed that “there are important overall data limitations and uncertainties in these
estimates.”39 In general, costs and benefits may be understated, because the study developed
estimates only for the 17 counties that currently have monitors showing nonattainment. Until new
monitors are installed, the agency has no way of estimating how many additional areas will be
affected by the standard, but the RIA emphasizes that “... there may be many more potential
nonattainment areas than have been analyzed in this RIA.”40

34

EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) is a body of researchers, academicians, health
care providers, environmentalists, children’s advocates, professionals, government employees, and members of the
public who advise EPA on regulations, research, and communication issues relevant to children.
35
Letter of Melanie A. Marty, Chair, Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, to EPA Administrator
Johnson, June 16, 2008, re Proposed Rulemaking for the NAAQS for Lead, at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/
ochpweb.nsf/content/61608.htm/$file/61608.pdf.
36
Environmental Defense Fund, “New EPA Lead Standard Significantly Improved to Protect Kids’ Health,” Press
Release, October 16, 2008, at http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8688.
37
Although costs can’t be considered in setting the NAAQS, costs can be considered by the states in developing their
State Implementation Plans, i.e., the regulations by which they will bring nonattainment areas into attainment.
38
Executive Order 12866 and OMB Circular A-4 require regulatory agencies to assess the benefits and costs of
selected regulatory options, as well as one less stringent and one more stringent option. OMB Circular A-4 also
requires both a benefit-cost, and a cost-effectiveness analysis for rules where health is the primary effect. The RIA for
the Lead NAAQS can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/finalpbria.pdf.
39
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead (hereafter, “RIA”), at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/
finalpbria.pdf, p. ES-1.
40
RIA, p. 7-1.

Congressional Research Service

12

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

Costs
The cost estimates ranged from $150 million annually in 2016 to as much as $2.8 billion, 19
times as much. The difference is attributable to EPA’s inability to demonstrate attainment of the
standard in all areas through the application of identified control technologies. The RIA states:
For the selected standard of 0.15 µg/m3, over 94% of the estimated emission reductions
needed for attainment are achieved through application of identified controls, and less than
6% through unspecified emission reductions. Identified point source controls include known
measures for known sources that may be implemented to attain the selected standard,
whereas the achievement of unspecified emission reductions requires implementation of
hypothetical additional measures in areas that would not attain the selected standard
following the implementation of identified controls to known sources.41

The known controls are estimated to cost $130 million to $150 million annually, depending on the
discount rate chosen. But the unspecified emission controls are estimated at from $20 million to
$3.1 billion annually depending on the methodology used.
A key feature of EPA’s analysis is that it assumed all emission reductions would come from
controls on point source emissions (e.g., smelters, foundries, incinerators, etc.). But, according to
the agency, 45% of emissions come from aviation fuel. In October 2006, EPA received a petition
from Friends of the Earth to reduce or eliminate lead from aviation gasoline. 42 The agency, in
coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), is analyzing the petition. The RIA
does not address the costs or benefits of such a step.
In addition, the agency notes:
...in this RIA we have not accounted for the effect of improvements that tend to occur, such
as technology improvement, process changes, efficiency improvements, materials
substitution, etc. We believe these typical improvements will tend to result in more cost
effective approaches than simply adding extremely expensive pollution controls in many
areas by the attainment date of 2016. Many industrial sources of lead emissions emit very
small quantities of lead in absolute terms. Our cost modeling shows that some could face
significant costs to reduce these low levels of lead, costs which could be prohibitively
expensive. Rather than applying additional controls, it may be possible for firms emitting
small amounts of Pb [lead] to modify their production processes or other operational
parameters, including pollution prevention techniques, which would be more cost effective
than adding additional control technology. Such measures might include increasing the
enclosure of buildings, increasing air flow in hoods, modifying operation and maintenance
procedures, changing feed materials to lower Pb content, measures to suppress dust from
tailings piles, etc.43

Benefits
The RIA estimates that benefits of the NAAQS will range from $3.7 billion to $6.9 billion
annually in 2016—and, thus, that benefits will outweigh costs at all points in the estimated range.
The benefits mostly represent the expected increase in lifetime earnings that would result from
41

RIA, p. 6-1.
For the petition, and additional information, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm.
43
RIA, p. ES-4.
42

Congressional Research Service

13

Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead

children under seven years of age avoiding IQ loss due to exposure to lead. The RIA focuses
primarily on children’s health effects. It does not attempt to estimate the changes in lead-related
health effects among adults. Unquantified health effects include:
•

Hypertension

•

Non-fatal coronary heart disease

•

Non-fatal strokes

•

Premature mortality

•

Other cardiovascular diseases

•

Neurobehavioral function

•

Renal effects

•

Reproductive effects

•

Fetal effects from maternal exposure (including diminished IQ). 44

It is beyond the agency’s capability, at present, to quantify these effects. Thus, the benefits, just
like the costs, are subject to substantial uncertainty.

Issues for Congress
The lead NAAQS was less controversial than the recent NAAQS decisions on ozone and
particulate matter, both of which were challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals;45 but,
given the importance of its potential health benefits and the uncertainties regarding both the
number of areas affected and the means by which areas will reach attainment, implementation of
the NAAQS may continue to be of interest to the Congress.
An immediate issue is the need for additional funds for monitoring and implementation of the
NAAQS. EPA has requested a substantial increase in its FY2011 budget for state and tribal
assistance grants, in order to fund both new monitors and the increased state workload involved in
implementing the revised NAAQS for lead and other pollutants.

Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

44

RIA, Chapter 5, pp. 1-14.

45

For additional information on those rules, see CRS Report R41062, Ozone Air Quality Standards: EPA’s Proposed
January 2010 Revisions, and CRS Report RL34762, The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
Particulate Matter (PM): EPA’s 2006 Revisions and Associated Issues.

Congressional Research Service

14

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL34479. Public record. Not legal advice.