Signals are replete in Washington that the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed smog and soot rule is in deep trouble.
U.S. industry has mounted a vigorous opposition to the regulations, which would significantly toughen the ozone and particulate standards that EPA plans to issue in final form by July 19 (OGJ, Dec. 9, 1996, p. 34).
Critics say the regulations would cost far, far more than the $6-8 billion EPA has estimated and would make backyard barbecues a thing of the past.
Although EPA Administrator Carol Browner recently extended the public comment period on the rules by 3 weeks, Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), two key Democrats on the House commerce committee, criticized her last week for not granting a 60 day extension.
Meanwhile, commerce committee chairman Tom Bliley (R-Va.) charged that EPA pressured the Office of Management and Budget to keep damaging information about the proposed rules from Congress.
Bliley said, "It appears OMB had serious questions about EPA's cost-benefit analysis with respect to the ozone and particulate standards and about the ability of states and cities to meet them."
Browner said any EPA-OMB disagreements were part of a normal exchange of views. The commerce committee plans oversight hearings.
Senate complaints
On the Senate side of Capitol Hill, the environment committee grilled Browner at a Feb. 12 hearing. Afterwards, chairman John Chafee (R-R.I.) said EPA should take more time to set the standard on particles and consider dropping the ozone rule.
Last week, Okla. Gov. Frank Keating testified against the measures at a Senate subcommittee hearing. Speaking for the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, Keating said the regulations are a particular threat to the oil and gas industry.
"It would cost states and local governments millions of dollars to devise new implementation plans. In fact, Oklahoma and other states have made significant progress in meeting or exceeding existing air quality standards. EPA seems intent on penalizing us for success."
If EPA does not retreat from the rules, Congress may force it to. Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has the power to block the rules by denying the funding needed to implement them, have drafted a letter asking Browner to reconsider.
API critical
Charles DiBona, American Petroleum Institute president, vigorously attacked the EPA rules at a recent press conference.
Industry has formed the Air Quality Standards Coalition to battle EPA on the issue. DiBona said that coalition is likely to sue-and win-if EPA proceeds.
He said, "The whole country may be out of compliance with the new particulate rule. No one really knows how to meet this standard right now.
"And there would be a significant reduction in ozone and particulates over the next several years, even if they didn't change the standards at all.
"We do not believe this rule is supported by the data. We think EPA is deliberately misleading the public about what the status of the science is."
DiBona said EPA based the particulates standards on two studies but has not reviewed the data supporting the research.
"This rule was prompted by politics, not science. Once again EPA is acting like the Environmental Politics Agency," DiBona said.
Copyright 1997 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
