Ozone nonattainment: Industry's view According to estimates published by the American Petroleum Institute, the number of U.S. ozone nonattainment areas would increase dramatically if EPA adopts a proposed ozone standard (8 hour, 0.08 ppm).
and total mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory disease in cities in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and Europe. "We came to conclude that if we don't change the standard, we will instead say that the excess morbidity and mortality will go on while we do the research. People didn't want to say that," said Carl Shy, panel advisor and chair of the Department of Epidemiology, University of North CarolinaChapel Hill. Although the advisers signed off on the staff paper, there was no consensus on the agency's standard recommendations. In the meantime the regulated community has been gearing UD for a. fight against stricter standards The debate over a new ozone standard is only slightly less contentious. CASAC has approved EPA's recommendation for a new primary and secondary standard for ozone. But unlike the disagreement among the agency's scientific advisers over changes to the PM standard, many studies indicate the nature of human health effects from exposure to ozone said John Haines of EPA's Air Office In addition, there is a fairly robust annual toxicity database, Haines said, that gives regulators enough information to support a tough peak exposure standard but not enough to support tighter rules for chronic exposure. As a result, the agency is considering three options to tighten the current ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) measured over 1 hour to an 8-hour standard that
limits concentrations to 0.070.09 ppm. But many of the same industries that are concerned about a new PM standard oppose any move to tighten the ozone standard. The American Petroleum Institute (API), using air data collected between 1993 and 1995, said the number of areas that do not meet the standard would rise from 47 under the current level to 260 under a new 8-hour standard of 0.075 ppm, said Mitchell Baer, API senior regulatory analyst. The cost for the Chicago metropolitan would run to $12 billion
nually, forcing many businesses to close, he said. EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Mary Nichols charged API with leading a campaign to sabotage the new standards. Jeff Clark, director for policy analysis and communications in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, added that the agency had not run an analysis to determine the nonattainment areas that would occur under any of its suggested control levels. One goal of combining the two standards is to allow areas with pollution problems to coordinate control plans so economic imbe avoided he said Some observers suspect that the delay may also be intended to aid President Clinton's reelection campaign. "I don't deny that there is probably a political element," said Blake Early of the American Lung Association, which, with other plaintiffs, sued the agency to ensure that a revised PM standard was issued. In the end, however, most observers are not concerned about the date but are anxiously awaiting the level of control selected in the final rules. "Whenever they set these, they're going to have outrage," said McClellan. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
Europe to target vehicle emissions in new air quality strategies By July the European Commission is expected to propose tighter vehicle emission standards for the year 2000. At a meeting in Ireland in May, European Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard and incoming Environment Council Chair Brendan Howlin targeted the adoption of directives on fuels and reduction of vehicle emission levels as two of their top priorities for the remainder of the year. The proposed standards will cover particulates, nitrous oxides, and hydrocarbons. Other commission proposals for fuel quality are also due this summer. A leaked document suggests proposals will include banning leaded gasoline; setting limits of 18% for olefins, 45% for aromatics, and 2% for benzene; and restrict-
ing sulfur content to 200 ppm. Vehicle traffic is blamed for much of Europe's air quality problems. Dutch environment minister Margaretha de -Boer blamed vehicle emissions for Europe's ground-level ozone pollution problems at a recent meeting in London of environment ministers from several European Union (EU) countries. "We shouldn't make a choice between reducing [the number of] cars and making cars better " said de Boer. "We should be doing both." Environment ministers or their representatives from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom agreed to eliminate all groundlevel ozone pollution episodes by
VOL.30, NO. 7, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 2 8 1 A
2005. Although the ministers did not define what ozone concentration constitutes an "episode," an official from the U.K. Department of the Environment suggested that an episode occurs at ozone levels above 180 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). More than 700 such episodes were recorded at EU monitoring stations in July 1995. When ozone levels reach this threshold according to the EU ozone directive governments must "inform" the public at 360 pg/m 3 they must "warn" the public of possible health effects "The 2005 target shows that we mean business," said U.K. Environment Minister John Glimmer. The ministers also agreed to try to speed up EU measures for
tighter vehicle emissions limits. They are watching with interest a major pilot project in Germany that is studying the effects of banning high-polluting cars when weather conditions are conducive for ozone formation. Preliminary results are expected by the end of 1996. The ministers also intend to develop with the European Environment Agency a new framework to monitor and forecast pollution episodes and to encourage the EU to develop a pan-European ozone strategy. "We have a common problem and we need common solutions," said Gummer. "We need common information produced in the same way and given to each other as soon as Dossible."
The need for stricter controls on vehicles was stressed in a report published in May on particulate pollution in the United Kingdom. A government advisory group reported that the United Kingdom would have to cut particulate pollution from vehicles by two-thirds to meet air quality guidelines it has adopted. The U.K. Department of Environment will take this report into account when it publishes a national air quality strategy this summer. The report suggested that control strategies for PM10 should concentrate on the PM2 5 fraction, which is mainly responsible for the most severe pollution in the winter months. MARIA BURKE/London
EPA research takes a hit in final 1996 budget appropriation Environmental research funding came up short in the final 1996 federal budget. Overall, EPA was allocated $6.5 billion, slightly less than its $6.6 billion 1995 postrescission budget, but EPA's Office of Research and Development received $460 million, a 15% cut from its 1995 appropriation and 27% less than the administration's request, according to ORD Assistant Administrator Robert Huggett. "This has been an absolutely crazy year," said a frustrated Huggett, when explaining the impact of the six-month funding delay and federal shutdowns caused by the impasse between Congress and the administration. "We are only now doing what we normally would have done six months ago. We are just now finding out where we will be putting our money." The biggest ORD cuts, Huggett said, were some $40 million taken from the Superfund research program and $30 million stripped from the Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI). What remains is $20.5 million for Superfund and $10 million for ETI, which is now specifically directed through legislative language to verification of environmental technologies. Of the Superfund money, more than half has been earmarked by members of Congress for specific Superfund research centers and other institutions. Huggett was critical of the earmarks, noting that Congress does
not supply additional funds for the recipients. "The problem is that we don't have any flexibility. The Superfund research centers do good work," he said, "but the earmarks dictate the agency's research agenda." In response, he said, he plans to meet with institutions that benefited from the designations and encourage them to conduct research that matches ORD needs. "Basically what we have left in the Superfund research budget is enough to cover salaries," he said. Huggett was particularly concerned about the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, which, he said, was dead. Through SITE'S assessment of new cleanup technologies, Huggett said, responsible parties were encouraged to try new technologies that could save billions of dollars in cleanup costs. He said he hoped to keep the program alive by shifting funds from other programs. Another program singled out for reduction was the federal environmental mapping program, EMAP, which was reduced from $35 million to $32 million. Because of government shutdowns and delays, Huggett said agency time-dated work must be tightly compressed. For instance, a program that was funded well— ORD's extramural grants program—received about $80 million, but grant proposals must be
2 8 2 A • VOL. 30, NO. 7, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
peer reviewed and released by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. To complete that daunting task, Huggett said ORD has some 1200 scientists lined up to peer review grant applications this summer. Huggett created the grants program and remains a strong supporter, asserting that "we'll have this done in time." According to ORD staff, areas that will retain current funding levels include research on pesticide impact on children, disinfection byproducts, endocrine disrupters, risk assessment, and the National Human Exposure and Assessment Program. Cut, however, were research programs in lead exposure, tropospheric ozone, and global climate change. The reductions are possible, staff said because major research had been completed or the pro~ large enough to absorb cuts Looking at the 1997 budget, in late June the full House was poised to act on an EPA spending bill of $6.55 billion, a $19 million increase over 1996. It was still, however, $500 million short of the president's request. EPA's science and technology account, the lion's share of which funds ORD, was $540 million, $15 million more than 1996 but $39 million below the administration's request. Missing from the bill were riders that had hung up last year's appropriation JEFF JOHNSON
