Oil and gas trade associations took exception to revisions of the ambient air quality standards, saying that a proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isn’t based on science and would put areas in most states out of compliance.

The Gas Processors Association (GPA) submitted comments the week of March 16 to the EPA saying regulations for ozone (O3) would “unnecessarily duplicate recent state and federal regulations already underway and changes the current ozone standard before it can be fully implemented.”

“We all want clean air, but EPA needs to let the current ozone standards be fully implemented and not change the rules in the middle of the game,” GPA’s president and CEO, Mark Sutton, said. “EPA’s proposed rule would severely limit economic growth of the natural gas midstream sector by substantially increasing the number of nonattainment areas.”

The American Petroleum Institute (API) also found fault with the proposal. Implementing stricter ambient air standards “could cost the economy $270 billion per year and place millions of jobs at risk,” the group said in a release.

The EPA said the revision is necessary “to increase public health protection, including for ‘at-risk’ populations such as children, older adults, and people with asthma or other lung diseases, against an array of O3-related adverse health effects.”

According to a notice issued by the EPA in late 2014, the proposed revision to its national ambient air quality standards would “revise the primary standard to a level within the range of 0.065 to 0.070 parts per million (ppm), and to revise the secondary standard to within the range of 0.065 to 0.070 ppm.” The EPA also requested comments on the possibility of setting standard levels of less than 0.065 ppm, and possibly as low as 0.060 ppm.

API urged the agency to retain the current standards of 0.075 ppm.

To assist impacted facilities in implementing any new standard resulting from the proposal, the EPA said it “intends to issue timely and appropriate implementation guidance and, where appropriate and consistent with the law, new rulemakings to streamline regulatory burdens and provide flexibility in implementation.” The agency would also continue to work with states to address interstate transport of O3 and O3 precursors, the agency said.

EPA recorded a 33% decrease in average national ozone levels since 1980.

Taking issue with the EPA’s claims, API said in a press release, “the science does not support a change in these standards and that the current standards protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.”

As part of its comments on the regulation, API added that “while the protection of sensitive subpopulations is an important part of establishing protectiveness with an adequate margin of safety, Congress did not intend for EPA to identify and impose a standard that guaranteed zero risk to all populations.”

EPA’s claims that a substantial amount of new scientific evidence supported the proposed changes are incorrect, API said. Most of the evidence was not actually new, and what evidence there was “does not reduce the uncertainties and limitations of the science so therefore does not support changing the current standards.”

The changes would place a substantial burden on operators in most of the Lower 48 states, API said. At 0.065 ppm, “45 out of the lower 48 states would have areas that could be out of compliance,” while at 0.060 ppm, 46 of the states “could have areas out of compliance.”

GPA’s members own and operate facilities in areas that are labeled as being in nonattainment for O3 standards, as well as in areas that could be labeled nonattainment, GPA said in a statement. The proposed regulatory changes would likely have a significant impact on the midstream industry.

Contact the author, Caryn Livingston, at clivingston@hartenergy.com.