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
the effects of transboundary pollution {ES&T, Aug. 1996, p. 336A). In the meantime, EPA will complete an interim implementation policy outlining how states can continue to meet the current standards until they have developed plans to meet the new standards. The interim policy will become effective the same day the new standards become final. Businesses sharply disagree with EPA that the tighter standards are necessary, claiming they will put a chill on the nation's economy. Operating as the Air Quality Standards Coalition, auto manufacturers, utilities, oil companies, the National Association of Counties, and others add there is not enough scientific evidence to support tightening the two standards. The coalition cites comments by EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee
Power plants that rely on high-sulfur coal are likely targets for control under EPA's proposed ozone and P M 2 5 standards.
(CASAC) on the uncertainties expressed in health-related studies of PM. "The agency is ignoring years of real progress in the fight against air pollution with a hasty, 'throw out the baby with the bath water' response to unproven theories," said Owen Drey of the National Association of Manufacturers, which is leading the coalition.
However, the science has been peer reviewed and opened to public comment, EPA says, as well as scrutinized several times by CASAC, an independent group that includes industry scientists. CASAC agreed there was a need for tighter controls on both PM and ozone, but it did not select numerical standards (ES&T, July 1996, p. 280A). Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans have announced that Congress will hold hearings to review the scientific studies. Others predicted that the Republican leadership will use the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, which allows Congress to veto rules that would have an economic impact of more than $100 million, to block the proposals. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
ORD staff, managers meet to discuss management, morale From "guardedly optimistic" to the "best workshop I've attended in 20 years at ORD" was the range of attendee responses following the EPA Office of Research and Development's (ORD) "managing change" meeting, held in Williamsburg, Va., Dec. 2-5. The workshop brought together 200 ORD staff and managers and came on the heels of an internal ORD staff survey that revealed deep dissatisfaction within the office. Workshop attendees included some 100 staff members from all labs and levels, selected from 400 volunteers; the rest were managers. The total topped 10% of ORD's employees. The workshop and survey are to be annual affairs, according to interviews. The workshop's focus was to "explore opportunities for improving ORD," according to a memo from ORD Assistant Administrator Robert Huggett. He urged attendees to "prod" coworkers for ideas on how ORD can be improved and to bring all views to the workshop. He promised an open and thorough discussion, and, based on interviews with attendees of the closed meeting, Huggett delivered. On the first day, attendees were randomly mixed into workgroups and asked to identify key problems. The list of problems was refined
and trimmed to five topics. Participants called the workshop "intense"—with positions agreed to one day, written up and ready for discussion the next. At the workshop's end, each lab's staff met and outlined an action plan for further refinement at allhands meetings planned for individual labs and EPA headquarters. Five priority issues emerged: red tape and micromanagement; too much top-down communications; resources and infrastructure needs; integration of science within EPA's mission; and career development. Red tape topped the list at the workshop and among those interviewed. A scientist with experience at several federal agencies said ORD was the most bureaucratic office in the most bureaucratic federal agency. He and others blamed EPA's upper level management and its fear of congressional and Inspector General investigations for the problem. But these critics also credited the same EPA top officials with openness at the workshop. At the workshop's'conclusion, managers committed to cut internal review and approval signatures for decision documents and work to make decisions at the lowest level possible. Management also agreed to address sev-
eral long-running complaints: to create a "mentoring system" for career development and to investigate charges that management was "hoarding" travel budget allocations at the expense of research scientists [ES&T, Nov. 1996, p. 492A). Several attendees endorsed the need for the workshop and defended the time and cost. "It's important to get people away from their desks and to give them time to be creative and meet people from other labs," said one. In implementing recommendations, Huggett's most difficult challenge, participants said, may be to change management's views. "Our top-level people have worked to maintain the status quo," said one participant. "After all, this is the system that got them where they are." But several participants were swayed by Huggett's closing speech. "I've always heard Huggett is a top-down, do-it-my-way kind of individual," one said. "But he said the recommendations will be implemented, the bottom-up information will be included, and he will change the performance standards of his assistants and mega-labs directors to include these objectives. That speech set quite a tone." —JEFF JOHNSON
VOL. 3 1 , NO. 1, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 5 A
