Industry groups have stepped up the battle over air quality standards for smog and soot that the Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed.
Although outcries had already sounded before the standards were released officially (OGJ, Dec. 2, Newsletter ), the howls of protest are intensifying now that the specifics are certain.
EPA proposed to tighten the current ozone standard of 0.12 ppm measured over 1 hr to 0.08 ppm measured over 8 hr.
The current particulates standard calls for regulation of particles the size of 10 microns or smaller in concentrations of an annual mean of 50 micrograms (mcg)/cu m and 150 mcg/cu m in 24 hr. It would be toughened to 2.5 microns or smaller in concentrations of 15 mcg/cu m annual mean and 50 mcg/cu m in 24 hr.
Particulate matter results from combustion from such sources as power plants or large incinerators. Ozone is primarily the haze of chemicals from car exhausts and smokestack emissions.
EPA's rationale
EPA is asking public comment on its recommended approach and on the need for any changes to the particulate matter and ozone proposal.
Carol Browner, EPA administrator, said the Clean Air Act requires EPA to review its ozone and particulates standards every 5 years. This is the first time EPA has proposed to revise two air quality standards at once.
Browner said EPA began its current review 3 years ago, and the proposals are supported by two independent science advisory panels, which reviewed 86 studies on particulates and 185 on ozone and how they affect human health.
She said, "EPA has never taken this level of peer review on any decision in our history."
EPA anticipates issuing a final rule next June, but it will be subject to congressional review under the recently passed Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act.
Rep. Tom Bliley (R-Va.), House commerce committee chairman, said his panel would take a close look at the costs and benefits of the proposed rules.
Browner said about 335 counties would not initially meet the ozone standards and 167 would fail the particulates standards.
But she said, "We believe the vast majority of areas will be able to meet a tougher standard" using currently available or nearly available technology.
She said the two rules would cost industry $6.5-8.5 billion/year but would have health savings of more than $120 billion/year.
Industry responds
The Air Quality Standards Coalition, an industry group that includes oil companies, said, "The public will pay dearly for yet another unjustified government regulation if the proposals are adopted. They will not produce any significant improvement in public health.
"It is regrettable that Administrator Browner has concluded that there is a level of scientific proof about the health hazards of particulate matter which simply does not yet exist."
Urvan Sternfels, president of the National Petroleum Refiners Association, also blasted EPA's decision: "We believe the proposal is premature because of uncertainties identified by the scientific community that must be addressed before proceeding to rulemaking."
EPA justified the new ozone standard as a means to reduce asthmatic episodes, but Sternfels said he found the correlation "confusing," because ozone levels have been falling, while asthma cases are rising.
He also questioned how EPA linked particulate matter with premature death in persons with acute respiratory problems.
Actual data "links these premature deaths with air pollution generally and not fine particulates emissions specifically."
The National Association of Manufacturers said, "EPA's proposal isn't based on sound scientific research. The agency is ignoring years of real progress in the fight against air pollution with a response to unproven theories.
"Tougher standards will double or triple the number of nonattainment areas. By putting whole regions of the country into nonattainment, the new standards will prevent businesses from expanding, and new companies won't be able to move into an area without putting somebody else out of business.
"The restrictions that the new, more stringent standards will have on business expansion and start-up will have a chilling effect on economic growth in this country."
NAM said, "While reports of respiratory illnesses are on the rise, the air is actually cleaner, and the levels of pollutants the EPA says are causing illness are falling. The relationship between air quality and health needs more study. Embracing unproven theories won't cure anybody."
Fuel-neutral standards
Nicholas Bush, Natural Gas Supply Association president, said the U.S. could meet new and exiting environmental standards more economically if the federal government adopted fuel-neutral standards.
He said the government has stricter emissions standards for gas-burning facilities than for coal-burning plants, discouraging firms from switching to cleaner-burning natural gas.
Bush said the anticipated expense of new particulate and ozone reductions should be evaluated in light of federal laws that "grandfather" many coal-fired electric plants so they are not required to meet the standards imposed on other emissions sources.
Copyright 1996 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
