COMMENT EPA TURF WARS HAMPERING CLEAN AIR GOALS

Richard J. Stegemeier Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Unocal Corp. Los Angeles Something needs fixing in this country if a company can break the law by obeying it. The Clean Air Act requires that by Jan. 1, 1995, all gasoline sold in America must be reformulated to meet new specifications of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The California Air Resources Board is raising the ante even higher. Beginning in 1996, gasoline sold in this state must meet still stricter standards.

Nov. 15, 1993

4 min read

Richard J. Stegemeier
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Unocal Corp.
Los Angeles

Something needs fixing in this country if a company can break the law by obeying it.

The Clean Air Act requires that by Jan. 1, 1995, all gasoline sold in America must be reformulated to meet new specifications of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The California Air Resources Board is raising the ante even higher. Beginning in 1996, gasoline sold in this state must meet still stricter standards.

Refiners such as Unocal are working hard to modify our facilities in order to make the new fuels. These are big jobs, and 1995 is less than 14 months away. We plan to spend about $500 million on these modifications the next three years.

Recently, we began to grade sites and lay foundations to make room for the process modifications at our plants in Wilmington and Carson, Calif. We were following a rule interpretation established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Scaqmd) nearly 4 years ago. Scaqmd was designated by the EPA in 1978 to police such projects.

AGENCY TURF WAR?

Our conscientious effort to comply with the law did not sit well with a regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency in San Francisco.

That office, in what looks suspiciously like a petty attempt to launch a turf war with Scaqmd, declared our construction work illegal. Because we had not waited for Scaqmd to issue final permits to make changes in the operating units, we were given a notice of violation and subsequently an order to stop construction. We are contesting it (OGJ, Oct. 8, Newsletter).

In different circumstances, the situation could be comical. Unfortunately, humor, not to mention common sense, are traits often lacking in a government bureaucracy.

Blind persistence seems to be plentiful, though. The EPA had already taken similar action against Chevron Corp. for new construction at its refinery in El Segundo, Calif. Chevron's project, like ours, was consistent with the Scaqmd interpretation. A federal appeals court quashed the EPA's stop-construction order, and Scaqmd subsequently issued Chevron the final permits.

The ruling didn't faze the EPA. The agency says it will attempt to fine Chevron for the work it did before receiving the permit.

"We intend to go to trial over that issue," said an EPA spokeswoman, promising further pollution of court dockets and waste of taxpayer money.

Whir the agency persists in pursuing this matter is incomprehensible. Congress passed the legislation calling for reformulated gasoline in 1990. Two years after the statutory deadline, the EPA still hasn't issued precise specifications for the fuel we will be forced to sell but may be prevented from producing.

EPA'S PARTNERSHIP PROMISE

At the same time the agency was citing Unocal, Carol M. Browner, administrator of EPA, was testifying to the House committee on energy and commerce.

She emphasized that as EPA implements the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, it would follow several important principles.

"Number one," she stated, "we will greatly enhance EPA's effort to work with state and local governments. We will build true partnerships."

A second important principle, Browner said, was that the EPA would "seek to eliminate the adversarial nature of the rulemaking and regulatory process."

Perhaps EPA officials in California should pay closer attention to what their boss is saying.

EPA's contention that our foundation work exposes our neighbors to unhealthy air is absurd. We've adhered strictly to the regulations of Scaqmd. The district is responsible for issuing permits and monitoring our efforts. Air quality is unaffected by grading and laying foundations for refinery modifications.

The constructive course for the agency would be to try to help refiners comply with its own mandate and deadline. It's a good bet that grading and foundation work would not move the EPA to act against a supermarket or an apartment project. Only a bureaucrat would consider the merits of our case any different.

Industry in Southern California has made great progress in developing a cooperative working relationship with local, state and federal regulators in recent years. EPA threatens to wipe out a lot of that progress in just a matter of days.

We can do a better job of cleaning up the air if the EPA cleans up its act.