You asked for information on new clean coal technologies and recent developments in nuclear power, particularly with regard to safety. You also wanted to know (1) whether any states have challenged the emission testing requirements of the Clean Air Act, (2) the penalties for non-compliance, and (3) the program’s effect on air quality. We have also included the 2000 report from Program Review and Investigations, Efficacy of the Connecticut Motor Vehicle Emissions Testing Program.

SUMMARY

The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) has extensive research and development programs to promote clean coal technologies that are designed to reduce the environmental harm caused by burning coal to produce electricity. Among other things, DOE is funding the development of technologies that turn coal into a gas similar to natural gas, which is then burned to produce electricity. Another initiative, called

FutureGen, is developing a plant to convert coal into hydrogen fuel.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has taken various steps to increase safety at existing nuclear power plants. Among other things, NRC has ordered plant owners to sharply increase physical security programs and has strengthened training programs and qualification standards for plant security forces. A multinational consortium is developing new nuclear technologies that are inherently safer than existing nuclear reactor technologies.

The Clean Air Act requires areas that fall significantly short of air quality standards to implement enhanced vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M) prgrams. Several states challenged the requirements that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established for the program, and Congress subsequently gave states more latitude, among other things allowing states to use decentralized testing at vehicle garages. However, the underlying requirement that states, such as Connecticut, adopt enhanced I/M programs is explicitly required by the Clean Air Act. States that fail to comply with the testing requirements are subject to a number of significant sanctions, including the loss of federal highway funds. According to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the program has improved the state's air quality since its inception in 1983. A 2004 analysis conducted for DEP found that the program significantly reduced emissions of three types of pollution.

COAL

While the United States has sufficient coal resources to meet demand for many years, traditional coal technologies produce large quantities of air pollutants. In the 1980s and 1990s, DOE conducted a program with industry and states to develop a new generation of energy processes to sharply reduce air emissions and other pollutants compared to older coal technologies. This program focused on reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which contribute to acid rain and other environmental problems. During the early phases of this research more than 20 technologies achieved commercial success.

More recently, the research has expanded to address other environmental problems associated with the burning of coal. These include the health impacts of mercury emissions, the effects of microscopic particles on people with respiratory problems, and the global warming impact of greenhouse gases, notably the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal and other fossil fuels.

The current phase of DOE’s program includes a wide range of research and large-scale demonstration projects. The demonstration portion of the program, the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), is providing government financing for new coal technologies that could help utilities cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70% by the year 2018. Also, some of the early projects are showing ways to reduce greenhouse gases from coal plants by boosting the efficiency at which they convert coal to electricity or other energy forms.

CCPI is soliciting projects that target DOE’s priority areas. Projects selected under these solicitations must address needs not met by the private sector, promote technologies that have not been proven commercially, be applicable to existing power plants, and provide substantial public benefit.

Eight projects were selected under the first round of the initiative, although two were subsequently withdrawn. Of the remaining six projects, three are in the design phase, two are in the construction phase, and one is still in the pre-award phase.

Four projects were recently selected from the second round solicitation and are in negotiation.  Two of these projects will demonstrate advanced integrated gasification/combined cycle technology. In this technology, coal is turned into a gas that is burned in a combined cycle generating plant. Such plants recover the waste heat produced when fuel is burned to generate electricity and use it to improve the efficiency of the generation process. The third project selected in the current funding round will demonstrate an innovative process for controlling nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions. The final project will demonstrate a computerized control process for optimizing the way the plant is operated in order to simultaneously minimize the emissions of several pollutants.  

Future demonstration projects are expected to include advanced turbines (the machinery used to generate power), membranes to remove pollutants, fuel cells, hydrogen production, and other advanced energy system technologies. Further information about the program is available on the department’s website, http: //www. fe. doe. gov/programs/ powersystems/cleancoal/index. html.

Another DOE initiative is called FutureGen, which is developing the world's first power plant designed to simultaneously produce hydrogen and capture the carbon dioxide produced by burning coal. The $ 1 billion dollar project is intended to create the world's first zero-emissions fossil fuel plant. When operational, the administration asserts that the prototype will be the cleanest fossil fuel fired power plant in the world. Further information about this initiative is available at http: //www. fossil. energy. gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/index. html.

Some environmental groups have been skeptical of CCPI and the clean coal technologies it is promoting. For example, the Natural Resources Defense (NRDC) Council argues that even if the clean coal

plants meet the department’s targets, they will still emit more pollution than natural gas or renewable energy plants. NRDC’s website on this issue is http: //www. nrdc. org/air/energy/scd/scd. pdf.

NUCLEAR POWER

Existing Plants

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, NRC:

1. ordered plant owners to sharply increase physical security programs to defend against more challenging adversaries, and enhanced training exercises;

2. required more restrictive controls on access to the plants;

3. enhanced communication and liaison with the intelligence agencies;

4. ordered plant owners to improve their capability to respond to explosions or fires;

5. strengthened training programs and qualification standards for plant security forces;

6. required that vehicles be checked further away from the plants; and;

7. improved liaison among with federal, state, and local agencies responsible for protecting the plants and other types of critical infrastructure.

New Technologies

Research is being conducted in the United States and elsewhere to develop new nuclear technologies that are inherently safer than those used in existing plants. The goal of this research is to develop plants that are “passively safe. ” Such plants would use the laws of nature and behavior inherent in the reactor's materials and design to reduce or eliminate the risk of damage to the reactor core or release of radioactivity into the environment.

One such technology is the pebble-bed reactor currently under development in South Africa. A consortium including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the South African electric utility, and other parties began work on this reactor in 1998. The goal is to improve the overall safety of nuclear plants while making the plants less complex and economically competitive with fossil fueled plants.

Instead of the fuel rods that are used to convert water into steam in a conventional reactor, a pebble bed reactor is powered by thousands of billiards-sized graphite balls packed with tiny flecks of uranium. Because of the physical characteristics of the fuel, the speed of the nuclear reaction automatically slows down if the reactor temperature exceeds design limits.

The reactor uses helium gas, which is chemically inert, rather than water to transmit energy from the reactor to the turbine. Since the gas can reach much higher temperatures than water without bursting pipes, the reactor is approximately one third more efficient than conventional reactors.

The pebble bed reactor does not have a containment structure, the concrete dome that surrounds conventional reactors. This substantially reduces the cost of the facility and allows it to be expanded in modules. On the other hand, some groups have raised concerns that the absence of a containment structure means that radioactivity could be released into the environment in the case of a terrorist attack or catastrophic accident. Further information about pebble bed technology is available at http: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor.

For another perspective on nuclear safety, you may wish to consult the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists, http: //www. ucsusa. org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/index. cfm.

EMISSIONS PROGRAM

Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990, requiring areas that did not meet federal air quality standards to implement basic or enhanced vehicle I/M emissions testing programs, depending upon the severity of the area’s air quality problem. OLR Report 2000-R-0614 describes some of the specific requirements of the enhanced program. The law required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop standards and procedures for emissions testing.

Most of Connecticut is subject to the enhanced I/M requirement, and the state has chosen to operate the enhanced program on a statewide basis. The program is one of several components in the state's plan to improve its air quality and come into compliance with the federal standards. This State Implementation Plan (SIP), is required by the Clean Air Act and must be approved by EPA. In addition, the state must also ensure that its Transportation Plan (TP), and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform with the state's efforts to achieve the air quality standards.

In 1992, EPA adopted regulations mandating that areas subject to the enhanced I/M requirements use its new “I/M 240” test procedure. The procedure required that testing occur in centralized locations in facilities that did not repair vehicles. EPA said the use of “test only” facilities administered by an independent contractor would eliminate any conflicts of interest in shops that test and repair vehicles.

Challenges to Emission Testing Requirements

Implementation of the enhanced I/M programs has been highly contentious. Facing opposition in California, EPA agreed to require centralized testing only for vehicles six years old or older. Maine and Texas suspended their programs in response to consumer dissatisfaction with procedures viewed as time-consuming, producing inconsistent results, damaging to vehicles, and expensive. In Pennsylvania in late 1994 public opposition to centralized testing culminated in the legislature passing a law, over the veto of then-governor Casey, that directed the Department of Transportation to submit a plan to EPA proposing a decentralized or hybrid vehicle emissions I/M program. It prohibited the department from spending funds to implement a centralized testing program (Act 95 of 1994). In addition, Missouri and Virginia sued EPA, contesting the constitutionality of the sanctions contained in the Clean Air Act.

In response to the controversy, Congress provided states with greater latitude in a provision of the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act. Among other things, the act allowed the use of onboard diagnostic system testing for verifying emissions performance, the use of decentralized I/M programs, and roadside testing. Subsequently, Connecticut shifted from centralized to decentralized testing. This office has prepared several reports on the shift, including OLR Reports 2002-R-0581, 2004-R-0286, and 2004-R-0751.

Potential Consequences of not Complying with Emissions Testing Requirements

If the state eliminated its I/M program, the federal consequences could include:

1. disapproval of Connecticut's SIP,

2. disapproval of the state's attainment demonstrations, and

3. non-conformity of the state's TP and TIP.

Disapproval of Connecticut's SIP triggers a timeline for the state to amend its SIP to make it satisfactory (which it could not currently do without the program) or for EPA to impose an implementation plan. In addition, the Clean Air Act calls for sanctions when a state does not implement an SIP. The sanctions include requiring new or modified stationary sources in the state to purchase offset credits at a 2: 1 ratio, which could have substantial negative economic development consequence. Another sanction is the withholding of federal highway construction funds, except for certain exempt projects.

Emissions Program And Air Quality

According to DEP, the I/M program has improved the state's air quality. Air quality has improved generally since the passage and implementation of the Clean Air Act and through the inception of the program in 1983.

In a 2004 report prepared for DEP found that significant reductions in emissions for vehicles that failed the test and then were repaired and retested. Based on actual data, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) from these vehicles fell by 84. 2% and emissions of hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) fell by 63. 2% and 56. 1%, respectively. The analysis estimates that the program reduced CO emissions by 31. 1% for the entire fleet of vehicles subject to the testing requirements. The estimated fleet-wide reductions for HC and NOx were 17. 4% and 10. 6%, respectively. The estimates do not include emission reductions that may be attributable to repairs or maintenance that drivers undertook before having their vehicles tested or reductions due to scrapping vehicles that failed the test. These reductions are similar to those found in a 1999 analysis. The 2004 analysis is available at http: //www. dep. state. ct. us/air2/imreport. pdf.

KM: ro