ENVIRONMENTAL
NEWS
Opposition to proposed ozone and particulate standards runs high
N
ew proposed rules to revise U.S. ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM), released Nov. 27, sparked strong opposition from businesses, state officials, and members of Congress. Congressional opponents are considering blocking the proposed EPA rules with regulatory review powers gained in legislation passed last year. Senate and House hearings on the air quality proposals are expected when Congress returns on Jan. 7. Those disputing a need for tougher air controls argued that the projected costs of complying with standards will harm local economies, even in regions that meet current standards. EPA officials countered that the agency's long-term implementation plan, which has been under discussion since Sept, 1995, may lead to a regional approach to pollution controls that will spread the burden of costs across a larger area. They add that a draft impact analysis shows that the costs of complying with both proposals are near or far below the ex-
pected benefits (see sidebar). The proposed rules call for rachedng down the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone from the current standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) measured over one hour to an 8-hour standard that limits concentrations to 0.08 ppm. Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOJ, volatile organic compounds, and sunlight interact. EPA also proposed setting national levels for fine particles, or PM2 5, resulting from industrial, vehicle, and power plant combustion, at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), and a new 24hour standard of 50 ug/m3. The comment period is open for 60 days; the rules will be finalized on June 28. Because the processes of particulate and ozone formation are linked, states are expected to require similar controls for both pollutants. They are likely to target larger sources, including coaland oil-fueled power plants, smelters, manufacturing facilities, automobiles, and diesel trucks. A 59-member advisory panel
PM controls yield benefits; ozone gains trail costs EPA's initial estimates of the compliance costs and health benefits for its proposed ozone and fine particulate matter standards show that benefits far outweigh the costs for the proposed PM 25 standard but not for the ozone standard. A draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, published with the proposals, estimates that the annual cost to businesses and regulators of complying with the proposed PM rule would be $6 billion a year but would yield benefits of $58 billion to $119 billion. The analysis includes information gathered from EPA's retrospective analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the Clean Air Act (see story on p. 16A). However, agency staff were unable to come up with one cost-benefit measurement for complying with the proposed ozone standard. The figures ranged from $600 million for both the costs and benefits of only partially complying with the proposal, to costs of $2.5 billion annually and benefits ranging from $100 million to $1.5 billion, EPA said. A number of benefits that could not be quantified, including a drop in nitrogen deposition in the Chesapeake Bay, also would result from controlling ozone, EPA added. —C.M.C.
1 4 A • VOL. 3 1 , NO. 1, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
of states, businesses, environmentalists, and academics is struggling to develop recommendations for a lortg-term implementation policy that will revise the way the agency designates areas that do not meet the standards. The policy is scheduled to be released in two parts and will be final in June 1999. EPA has asked the panel to recommend a new process that would determine which areas do not meet the standards and would incorporate the movement of pollution from an outside area, said Sharon Reinders, with the ozone policy and standards group in EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Because the two pollutants share precursors, EPA wants the group to consider integrating designations for areas that do not meet both standards. If adopted, the new approach should reduce control costs. "It seems intuitive," Reinders said, "that if you are spreading out controls across sources in a larger region, versus the way we do it now, the costs would go down." The panel's approach would require some type of regional planning forum to work on multistate pollution problems, said panel member Chris Shaver of the Environmental Defense Fund. New controls on "areas of influence" located outside or upwind of the area that is in violation of the standard are under consideration (ES&T, Oct. 1996, 426A). But a number of questions, including the time frame allowed for designating these new regions, have yet to be addressed. "Conceptually, the general agreement is that this is a good approach," Shaver said. The concept is modeled on work by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group, a 37-state workgroup currendy hammering out regional control plans for NO.,.. But the group's discussions have run into a snag, as midwestern state officials and manufacturers argue with those from eastern and upper midwestern states over
0013-936X/97/0931-14A$14.00/0 © 1996 American Chemical Society
