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
Part of the reason for this scientific decision-making slight goes back to the very statutes that govern EPA, the study finds. "A lot of the provisions in those laws mandate engineering-type solutions rather than looking at riskbalancing kinds of questions or framing the regulations in such a way that one would use a heavy dose of scientific information in them," said Terry Davies director of RFF's Center for Risk Management. likewise, EPA policy makers tend to be attorneys lacking a scientific background, which can hinder the agency's use of science, the study notes This runs counter to practices in other federal agencies, some of which, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, require their directors to have scientific backgrounds. In addition, the short tenure of political appointees seems to motivate more of a demand for science that focuses on the short-term, rather than the long-term, breakthrough-type science that leads to advances in knowledge the study finds. "Clearly, there is a need for EPA science to be supplemented by environmental science that is coming from a source that doesn't have a political or regulatory agenda," said David Blockstein, a senior scientist with the Committee for the National Institute for the Environment, an organization supporting efforts to bolster environmental research under the auspices of the National Science Foundation (ES&T 1999, 4 (5), 188A). Blockstein noted, however, that EPA's use of science has improved considerably over the past few years, a view acknowledged in the RFF study. A spokesperson from the Office of Research and Development who requested anonymity attributed the improvement to EPA's efforts to better link its research and regulatory agendas. "We've been sitting down with the offices of water, air, and others trying to plan out where requirements are coming up, what regulations we're mandated to come out with and what we need to do to have in place to get there " he said. The question really is not whether science is being used (or not) in decision making, but rather what its proper role is, said Donald Barnes, staff director of EPA's Science Advisory Board. "There is an increased recognition that science contributes to identifying problems, solutions, and ways of implementing
them, but it can't tell us what to do because it can't address such concerns as social and economic ones." Ultimately, however, "when you do use science, you want to make sure it's the best possible science, and—in situations where it's appropriate—that you actually use it," Davies said. And that is something the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), in light of its $1.2 billion scientific research and testing initiative unveiled earlier this year could not agree more with according to Jarad Smith CMA spokesperson "All the data that we're generating [under this initiative] will be hanripd over to EPA so it's important to ns that the data will be used prnnprlv" Smith sairl
Mountaintop mining agreement disturbs environmentalists Officials from EPA, two federal agencies, and West Virginia have reached an agreement that will make it easier for mining companies to fill stream valleys with rubble from leveled mountaintops, environmentalists charge. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed in August by EPA, the federal Office of Surface Mining, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), clarifies regulations for stream buffer zones and enhances coordination among the agencies, according to Rebecca Hanmer, special assistant to EPA's Region III administrator. The signing of the MOU comes in the midst of a lawsuit aimed at reducing the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining The practice of blasting off mountaintops to reach seams of low-sulfur coal in the central Appalachians
sparked a lawsuit last year by the citizens' group West Virginia Highlands Conservancy against the Corps and the DEP (ES&T 1998, 33 (23), 493A). The lawsuit alleges that the Corps and the state DEP agencies are not enforcing federal water and mining laws. As a result, mining companies are freely dumping rubble from leveled mountaintops into streams and valleys. In West Virginia alone 500-1500 stream miles have been filled over the last 20 years said Ray George West Virginia state liaison officer for EPA Region III These fills are illegal because a federal mining regulation, known as the buffer zone rule, prohibits miners from dumping debris or in any other way disturbing the environment within 100 feet of a stream, said lim Hecker, lawyer for the citizens. Companies can be exempted from the rule if they meet certain standards, for instance, if the activity will not affect water supply and quality or other aquatic resources, Hecker said. However, the agreement signed in August drops the mining law standards required to be met before a company can receive an exemption and replaces them with Clean Water Act (CWA) standards, said EPA's Hanmer. "The nub of the issue is that the buffer zone rule prohibits the Clean Water Act from operating," Hanmer said. She explained that prior to the agreement, the Corps allowed valley fills under CWA requirements that would have been prevented if the mining law were followed. But the citizens contend that the CWA standards that must be met before a mining company can receive an exemption are significantly weaker than the mining law standards, said Hecker. "The agreement is an illegal attempt to torpedo our suit," he concluded.
The scale of mountaintop mining is enormous. NOVEMBER 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 4 5 1 A
