American Oil and Gas Reporter - May 2015 - 145

has not justified nor adequately explained
the enormous increase in health benefits
claimed for the current proposal," its
comments state.
The "Ozone and Health" fact sheet
accompanying EPA's 2014 proposal
makes no reference to the agency's 2011
regulatory impact analysis, IPAA notes,
and a review of the agency's scientific
references in the Health Risk and Exposure
Assessment for Ozone from August 2014
reveals that nearly 70 percent of the
sources it cites have pre-2011 publication
dates. The upshot, IPAA says, was that
those analyses constituted a major portion
of the broader scientific understanding
about ozone when EPA estimated little
to no net benefits from a 65 ppb standard.
"Moreover," the association adds, "many
of the sources published during or since
2011 are literature reviews from EPA,
which examine research published in previous years."
That also holds true for new findings,
IPAA points out, citing a reaction by the
Competitive Enterprise Institute's William
Yeatman. According to Yeatman, much
of the new research, on which the agency's
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) based its endorsement of a 60
ppb standard and provided EPA's public
health basis for the new rule, appears to
lack independence. "Instead, all the clinical
studies cited by CASAC in support of
the 60 ppb standard were created by the
EPA-the organization that proposed the
limit," Yeatman writes. "Thus, the science
on which the economy's fate hinges
suffers from a troubling absence of independence."
NMOGA makes similar points. "EPA
showed a significant lack of transparency
in communicating the impacts of the proposed lower standard, and therefore should
extend the comment date to allow stakeholders to more thoroughly evaluate and
understand the impacts," the association
holds.
Regarding the proposed rule's projected
economic impact, NMOGA and IPAA
cite analyses from experts and comments
from policymakers about the negative
health impacts of a variety of outside
factors and lifestyle choices, suggesting
lost employment poses a far greater health
threat than higher ozone levels.
New Mexico Challenges
A combination of factors particular to
New Mexico mean a tougher NAAQS
standard will be particularly onerous in
the Land of Enchantment, NMOGA's
comments indicate:
* EPA proposes to lower the ozone
standard to a level at or near background,
presenting a potentially impossible situ-

ation for Western states.
* International emissions reach the
state from both Mexico and Asia, and
even overlap in some areas, while exceptional events such as wildfires and
stratospheric intrusion also influence the
state's ozone levels, but the statutory
tools for dealing with such factors have
proven inadequate or impractical.
* Because the method of measuring
ozone introduces a high elevation bias
and also because stratospheric ozone impacts tend to be more frequent at higher
elevations, the state's significant proportion
of high-elevation terrain means lower
ozone limits will be especially difficult
for New Mexico to reach.
NMOGA cites an analysis showing
that New Mexico's background ozone
can range from 50 to 60 ppb. The association credits EPA's proposal for recognizing that background ozone is a factor,
but questions whether the standard can
accommodate it. "Unfortunately, the proposed rule seeks to impose new regulatory
standards at or below background ozone
levels for many Western air quality control
regions, meaning that no amount of technological innovation (or costs expended)
will allow those regions to reach attainment
status," the association worries. "Background ozone, whether attributable to
natural phenomena or to emissions from
outside the United States, is plainly beyond
a state's (or EPA's) control, and Congress
did not intend to require states to do the
impossible."
Exceeding The Limit
IPAA also points out that promulgating
a new standard is not the same as achieving
it. Therefore, the group suggests, the
places that need to cut their ozone most
will derive no health benefits from a
lower limit because the same areas that
failed to meet the 1997 and 2008 ozone
NAAQS also will fail to meet the proposed
NAAQS by 2025, and realistically, cannot
expect to do so any time until well after
2030. "This means that EPA's claimed
health benefits from the proposed NAAQS
will not occur in these enduring nonattainment areas," IPAA reasons.
The association notes that Part D requirements for areas in ozone NAAQS
nonattainment create the possibility that
the area will be moved into a higher
classification. "The significant impact of
Part D is that perpetual nonattainment
eventually produces a base line of regulations and requirements of additional
percentage reductions," IPAA describes.
"Since these areas have been subject to
Part D for 25 years, their future regulatory
requirements will be the same iterative
percentage reductions under the current

NAAQS or any new one. Adopting the
proposed NAAQS will produce the same
regulatory requirements for these areas
as the current NAAQS."
Meanwhile, the association warns,
new nonattainment areas will have all
costs and no benefits. Minimum requirements are mandated after an area becomes
subject to Part D, IPAA observes. "For
example, all new construction not only
must comply with rigorous emission controls, but all remaining emissions must
be offset by reductions in existing emissions that are not otherwise regulated,"
IPAA details. "Many of the areas that
would fall into ozone NAAQS nonattainment, but later would attain the
NAAQS, are largely rural or smaller municipalities. These areas likely will have
limited existing emission sources to regulate. The areas would face either an effective constructive prohibition or the
choice of shutting existing operations
that employ workers."
For these reasons and others, IPAA
and other industry groups urge EPA to
retain the existing ozone NAAQS. Some
in Congress have exhibited a willingness
to back that call with statutory support.
Senators Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and John
Thune, R-S.D., have introduced legislation
to that effect in the Senate, while Representative Pete Sessions, D-Tx., has done
so in the House.
According to Thune's office, The
Clean Air, Strong Economies (CASE)
Act would stem the economic harm from
a lower ozone standard by requiring the
EPA to focus on the worst areas for air
quality before lowering NAAQS ozone
limits across the country.
"Lowering the ground-level ozone
standard would be a staggering blow to
our economy," Thune states. "The Obama
EPA needs to focus its efforts on areas
already struggling with attainment, not
strangle American industry with a jobkilling regulation that could slash our
gross domestic product by $1.7 trillion
through 2040 and destroy 1.4 million
jobs a year."
Ì

Coming In June

Offshore & Subsea special reports, spotlighting the multiple-field
Delta House deepwater project,
which LLOG Exploration and its
partners brought to first production
in mid-April. LLOG's technical experts review the novel technological
and business solutions the company
implemented to successfully bring
the project to first oil in record time.
MAY 2015 145
American Oil and Gas Reporter - May 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - May 2015
