Proposed air quality standards: a threat to the foundry industry.

The EPA is working to tighten the standards for particulate matter and ozone, both which would significantly burden foundries.

The battle continues over the Clinton Administration's proposed new air pollution standards, and U.S. manufacturers, including foundries, have reason for concern.

Last November, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol Browner announced plans to revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for two criteria pollutants: particulate matter (PM) and ground-level ozone (O).

PM is a combination of small particles of dust and soot given off by factories, utilities and automobiles. Ground-level O, more commonly known as smog, results from a reaction between certain gases and volatile organic compounds emitted from motor vehicles and industrial processes. In general, the EPA proposal seeks to regulate fine particles of soot and dust in lower concentrations and impose a lower acceptable level of smog measured over a greater length of time.

Half the Nation Can't Comply

More stringent standards for either PM/O or both will create hundreds of new nonattainment areas around the country, as many areas currently in compliance with the NAAQS won't be able to meet the new requirements. EPA estimates that 56% of U.S. counties will fail to meet the new PM standard (vs. 12% under the current requirement). For O, the number of counties out of compliance is estimated to triple.

Being a "nonattainment area" under the proposed standards has broad implications. First, the existing clean air law makes specific reference to the current O standard and requires progress toward meeting it. EPA is proposing only to change the O standard, not the clean air law. If the standard changes without Congress amending the statutory language, communities may find themselves working toward a standard that no longer exists.

Second, such a classification would require additional pollution controls for stationary sources (industrial boilers, landfills and waste-to-energy plants), mobile sources (automobiles, buses and lawnmowers) and traffic-related activities. According to EPA, these actions will cost industry and other pollution sources $8.5 billion annually. Specifically, the metal-casting industry may be faced with new and costly equipment requirements; limitations on facility expansions, production and/or shipping; and increased waste disposal costs.

EPA's Failure to Review

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA established air quality standards for six criteria air pollutants (ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and lead) and is directed to review the standards every five years. EPA didn't meet the review schedules for ozone and particulates, and was subsequently sued by the American Lung Assn. and others. In a settlement agreement, EPA agreed to review and, if necessary, propose new PM and O standards by November 1996, and to finalize standards by June 28, 1997.

EPA reviewed the standards and proposed a new standards for both PM and O. Currently, the PM standard regulates particles the size of 10 microns or smaller (PM-10) in concentrations of 50 micrograms per cubic meter annually and 150 micrograms per cubic meter daily.

The proposed PM standard calls for the regulation of particles the size of 2.5 microns or smaller (PM-2.5) in concentrations of 15 micrograms per cubic meter annually and 50 micrograms per cubic meter daily, while maintaining the existing regulations (PM-10) for the larger particulates. By comparison, the typical human hair is about 70 microns wide; the current standard regulates particles that are 1/7 the size of a human hair and the new standards would regulate particles that are about 1/30 the size of a strand of hair.

The current O standard is 0.12 parts per million measured over 1 hr. The proposed standard calls for 0.08 parts per million measured over 8 hr.

Mixed Reactions

The proposed standards for PM and O have created a heated debate within the regulatory and legislative arenas. Browner stands firmly behind the position that these changes are needed to provide adequate public health protection. A November 27, 1996 EPA news release states that the new PM would cut premature deaths linked to particulate pollution by 20,000 a year and would prevent 250,000 asthma attacks and 60,000 cases of bronchitis.

The same EPA document also estimates that the new O standard would result in 1.5 million fewer breathing problem cases in which lung capacity is reduced by as much as 20%. Interestingly, on April 2, due to a discovered technical error, EPA lowered by 5000 its estimate of the number of "premature deaths" that would be prevented by the tighter air quality standards. However, it reiterated its commitment to the standards as necessary to protect human health.

There is a diversity of opinions, however, on the scientific justification for changing either standard and strong opposition to EPA's rationale. Members of EPA's own scientific advisors, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC), concluded that there are no significant public health benefits expected from the increased stringency of the O standard. In fact, CASAC Chairman George Wolff stated that there is no "bright line" to distinguish any of the proposed standards as being significantly more protective of human health. Further, numerous members of the scientific community have voiced concerns that there are no significant public health benefits that would result from changing the standards, and they have questioned the conclusions drawn from the epidemiological studies relied on by EPA; the lack of PM-2.5 data; whether air quality monitor readings correlate with population exposure; and the inability thus far to identify a biological mechanism that would give credence to concerns about PM.

Wolff and other health specialists continue to urge EPA to conduct more research on the health effects of PM and O. In testimony before a senate committee in February, Wolff said more research is needed before EPA should move forward with stronger standards. And while EPA claims that the proposed standards are scientifically grounded and necessary for the adequate protection of human health, the agency continues to ask for more research dollars. Specifically, it is seeking nearly $28 million in research dollars for FY 1998, a move that undermines the EPA's credibility relating to the justification for the new standards.

In addition to the scientific community, several agencies within the Clinton Administration have been critical of the EPA's proposals. Internal memoranda, public comments and other documents from April 17 included questions and/or criticisms from officials in numerous federal agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Transportation, Treasury Dept. Dept. of Agriculture and Dept. of Defense.

Congress Questions EPA

There is also speculation on Capitol Hill regarding the necessity/justification for the proposed standards and the costs associated with their implementation. The Senate and the House have held numerous hearings on the proposed standards. The Senate Environment and Public Works Clean Air Subcommittee is near completion of a series of hearings that have addressed a variety of topics associated with the development and implementation of the stricter air quality standards.

On the House side, at least five committees, including Commerce, Agriculture, Science, Appropriations and Government Reform and Oversight, have held hearings to examine the issues surrounding the proposed standards as well.

Further, several letters have been sent from members of Congress to the EPA on this subject, with two letters being of particular interest. First, several members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee asked the EPA to give due consideration of the new standards' economic impact on small businesses before moving forward with a final rule. The administration's response, however, was wholly inadequate. Browner touted the administration's position that the pro, posed standards are health-based and not based on a cost-benefit analysis. She then stated, in writing, that the proposed NAAQS standards don't affect Small entities - technically the NAAQS requirements only apply to states, who, in turn, may impose requirements on small businesses.

Second, five prominent Senate Democrats, including Robert Byrd (WV), Wendell Ford (KY), John Glenn (OH), Chuck Robb (VA) and Jay Rockefeller (WV), wrote a significant letter to EPA in opposition to the agency's efforts to tighten current air quality standards. Thus, the Clinton Administration can no longer claim that the opposition to EPA's efforts is the product of partisan politics. Instead, administration officials must acknowledge that the concerns over these proposed rules are substantial widespread and nonpartisan.

Potential Legislative Veto 

Luckily, the battle doesn't end with the publication of a final rule, which EPA must issue by the court-ordered deadline of July 19, 1997. After the final rule is issued, Congress has an opportunity to review the implications of the new standards, stop it and/or modify it as necessary.

Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), passed by the 104th Congress, lawmakers were given the authority to reject new rules. Under SBREFA, all federal agencies promulgating major rules must submit to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General a copy of the rule and a cost-benefit analysis of it. Before the rule can take effect, the committees of jurisdiction (in this case, the House Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee) review the proposed standards and cost-benefit analysis and then recommend whether the House and Senate should consider rejecting them. Congress has 60 days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval (legislative veto) should it decide to do so. Interestingly, only a simple majority (one vote over half) is required in both chambers to block the rule.

The proposed new standards recently released by the EPA have broad implications for states, local governments industry and small businesses. Representatives from all factions of the debate, including the regulated community, have contributed much time and effort to try to sway the debate towards their position.

RELATED ARTICLE: Foundry Industry Involvement

In its efforts to persuade EPA to reaffirm the existing air standards before moving forward, AFS issued a news release stating the industry's opposition to the proposal and sent 350 postcards to the EPA public comment docket. Several companies have also submitted more lengthy, individual comments.

Most notable, however, are the efforts on Capitol Hill. Several congressional leaders have heard the industry's concerns that have arisen as a result of the proposed standards. AFS assisted the staffs of Sen. John Chafee (R-RI), chairman of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Environment and Public Works subcommittee on clean air, with the preparation for the three-Senate hearings that have been held on the PM/O issue.

AFS has also been working with the staff of Tom Bliley (R-VA), chairman of the House Commerce Committee, in a similar capacity (no hearings have been held to date). In addition, industry officials met with top-level staff in the offices of House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) to discuss this issue and identify mechanisms available to Congress to prevent EPA from implementing the stricter air standards.

The public comment period for the proposed rules on PM and O has closed. EPA is under a court mandate to issue a final rule by July 19, 1997. The industry will continue to actively oppose EPA's efforts to impose stricter air standards through all available means.