EPA issued its new water pollution rules; outmaneuvering GOP leaders who
thought the regulation had been killed. The Congress had passed a spending
measure that included language blocking the EPA from implementing the proposed
stricter clean water rules until a complete cost-benefit analysis could
be conducted. Because President Clinton indicated he would sign the spending
bill, EPA had to act before he did so. As a result, the agency finalized
the rules by publishing them in the Federal Register a few hours ahead
of Clinton signing the bill into law. Since EPA proposed the rule in August
1999, there have been eight congressional hearings and over 34,000 public
comments on the rule.
Opposed by a broad coalition of industries ranging from steel to agriculture,
the proposed EPA regulations would require states to draft plans on cleaning
up all waterways within their borders that do not meet federal water quality
standards within 15 years. Critics also contend the rule could lead to
increased costs and possible shutdowns for metals manufacturing interests
to comply with these revised total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of pollution
allowed for release into individual waterways across the nation. The proposal
greatly expands the criteria for listing water bodies as impaired, thus
requiring the development of numerous new TMDL plans.
If individual polluters are found to be contributing to nearby water
quality deterioration or their states have failed to draft adequate regulations,
companies would be required to obtain a pollution discharge permit from
EPA headquarters.
The rule would lead states to target point source releases, like those
from individual steelmaking facilities. Such an emphasis could lead to
highly restrictive or even complete emission limitations that could lead
to production decreases or even plant shutdowns.
Another complaint is that the TMDL regulations would place an undue
burden on state-level resources. EPA estimates that 40,000 lakes, rivers
and streams are in violation of federal clean water standards. Each would
require an individualized state-level action plan if the rule is promulgated.
However, EPA was required to abide by another congressional provision?that
the effective date of the new rule be delayed until October 2001.
On a more positive note, EPA designated the new regulations as a "major
rule" which makes them subject to recall by Congress for 60 days. As a
result of this EPA action, four separate resolutions have been introduced
under the Congressional Review Act in an effort to bar EPA from acting
on this rule. In the Senate, Mr. Crapo (R-ID) and Mr. Smith (R-NH) introduced
a resolution of disapproval - "The Water Pollution Program Enhancement
Act of 2000" (SJRes 50) - that would require a scientific analysis/cost
assessment be conducted before the rule is promulgated; delay final ruling
for 18 months to allow the study to be completed; and provide states with
resources to help collect high-quality monitoring data. In the House, Reps.
Ron Paul (R-TX), Marion Berry (D-AR), and Jay Dickey (R-AR) introduced
three similar resolutions.
If any of these four resolutions pass both chambers of Congress and
is signed by the president, the EPA rule will be considered null and void.
A two-thirds majority vote would be needed to block the rule.
Back to Wireline Contents
American Wire Producers Association
801 North Fairfax Street, Suite 211
Alexandria, VA 22314-1757
Tel (703) 299-4434 | Fax (703) 299-9233 | E-mail info@awpa.org | Web: www.awpa.org
