EPA WATCH DOE urges extension for refiners under sulfur proposal In a letter to EPA, a Department of Energy (DOE) official criticized a proposed rule to reduce gasoline sulfur levels, saying it would cause economic disruption within the refining industry and raise gasoline prices. DOE's concerns are strikingly similar to those voiced by the industry. The July 31 letter, written by DOE Deputy Secretary of Energy T. J. Glauthier, urged EPA to extend the compliance deadline for refiners to 2007 from EPA's proposed 20042007 time frame. Glauthier also recommended mat the sulfur requirement be raised from EPA's proposed 30 parts per million (ppm), to a declining standard of 250 ppm in 2004, 175 ppm in 2005, and finally 100 ppm in 2006. This phased-in reduction would allow the industry time to complete necessary equipment and facility adjustments and receive new Clean Air Act permits by 2007 when the 30 ppm requirement would go into force Glauthier President Clinton announced the proDOsal in Mav {Fed Dprnrf
1QQQ RA
(92) 26 003-26 142) EPA's proposal would also require automakers to produce passenger and sport utility vehicles that emit low levels of nitrogen oxides (NOJ when run with the new fuel. Once in place, NO x emissions would drop by 800,000 tons per year by 2007; without the sulfur reductions, vehicle emissions will contribute 30% to 40% of national NO^ and volatile organic compound emissions in certain cities by 2020, according to EPA's rulemaking. The oil industry has loudly criticized the proposal. This, coupled with a separate notice proposing sulfur reductions in diesel fuel and the prospect that Congress might change the Clean Air Act oxygenate requirement so methyl terf-butyl ether will no longer be needed by states to meet air standards, has put the refining industry in a severe
state of regulatory uncertainty, said Bob Slaughter, general counsel for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association in Washington, D.C., which represents 98% of the refining industry. EPA and refining industry officials met several times in August to discuss options to make these requirements less burdensome for fuel producers, but no solution had yet emerged.
NRC urges efforts supporting particulate control plans In the second of four reports reviewing EPA's 13-year, $360-million airborne particulate matter (PM) research agenda, the National Research Council (NRC) urged the agency to develop methods now that can help states devise control plans, while continuing to study how the air pollution affects human health. In Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter: II, Evaluating Research Progress and Updating the Portfolio, the panel applauded efforts to respond to the 10 priority research areas in its first report, released last March {ES&T 1998, 32 (2) 209A). The one priority EPA has ignored, however, is to develop research studying long-term exposure to PM and other major air pollutants, the panel wrote. NRC revised two of those priorities emphasizing why EPA should develop methods of measuring particulates by size, analyzing their chemical compositions, and identifying their sources. "In the committee's first report, it said the main emphasis of the research should be to determine what was causing the health effects," said one panel participant. "This report said to EPA: 'Keep doing that, but in addition, even though we don't fully understand what is causing the health effect, start preparing to characterize the particulates and to model them You have to do that otherwise we might control [the wrong sources] "'
4 5 0 A • NOVEMBER 1, 1999/ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY/ NEWS
Since the release of the first report, EPA revised its ambient air monitoring program after seeking input from the scientific community. To ensure that the data support health effects research, EPA doubled its continuous PM2 5 monitoring sites to 100 nationwide and revised plans for a routine chemical-speciation monitoring program. The four reports were required by Congress shortly after EPA finalized its PM 2 5 rule. Critics have successfully sued EPA over the standard, charging that it is too early to control PM 2 5 because so little is known about the mechanism that sets off adverse human health effects. NRC remains undaunted by the court ruling. EPA and other agencies should continue studying PM, despite recent court rulings mat may have put the standard in jeopardy. "The committee holds a strong view that the PM research program should continue to move forward expeditiously. Whatever the resolution of legal proceedings, public health and regulatory issues concerning particulate matter will remain," NRC concluded. For a copy of the report, released in August, call (202) 334-3313.
Science getting its proper due in regulatory decision making? Science often takes a backseat to the legal, political, economic, and social pressures that complicate EPA's regulatory decision making, according to a new study by Resources for the Future (RFF), a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C. The result: messy regulatory developments that fail to reflect the best science available. Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process, which was cofunded by EPA, takes a look at how science was acquired and used in various regulations stemming from the agency's offices of air, water, pesticides and toxics, solid waste, and emergency response. © 1999 American Chemical Society
