New EPA Air Quality Standards Please No One

On Thursday, September 21, 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced what EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson called “the strongest national air quality standards in the country's history,” but the agency’s new regulations to control particulate matter (soot, dust, and particles too small to see) quickly drew fire from critics on all sides of the issue.

Environmentalists claimed the new air pollution rules are too weak to protect public health, and a number of lawmakers agree. Industry representatives and conservative politicians say the new rules are too restrictive and place an unnecessary burden on U.S. businesses without providing proven health benefits. Meanwhile, scientists and medical professionals who were advising the EPA about the health effects of airborne particulate matter and the levels necessary for public safety say their recommendations were ignored.

"Regardless of the rhetoric, facts are facts – today EPA is delivering the most health protective national air standards in U.S. history to all 300 million Americans," Johnson said in an EPA press release announcing the new standards. "As a 26-year EPA scientist, I have spent my career working to hand down a cleaner, healthier environment—and these stronger air quality standards do just that."

Details of the New Air Quality Standards
The facts, as Johnson and the EPA see them, are spelled out in the agency’s press release:

“The final action significantly strengthens EPA's previous daily fine particle standard – by nearly 50 percent – from 65 micrograms of particles per cubic meter to 35 micrograms of particles per cubic meter of air. This standard increases protection of the public from short-term exposure to fine particles. By revising the daily fine particle standard, it will yield additional estimated health benefits valued at between $9 billion to $75 billion a year. These standards will reduce premature deaths, heart attacks and hospital admissions for people with heart and lung disease. EPA is also retaining the current annual standard for long-term exposure to fine particles at 15 micrograms per cubic meter. Based on recently updated benefits estimates, meeting this standard will result in benefits ranging from $20 billion to $160 billion a year.”

New Standards Fall Short of Protecting Public Health
The American Medical Association, the American Lung Association, pediatricians, environmental groups, and many doctors and researchers who specialize in heart and lung disease had urged Johnson to set an annual standard of between 12 to 14 micrograms per cubic meter of air for fine particulates, saying that studies had consistently shown a strong link between exposure to soot and increased illness and death.

Instead, Johnson confirmed a standard of 15 micrograms, saying that scientists disagreed about long-term exposure amounts.

Here are some sample reactions to the EPA’s new National Ambient Air Quality Standards:

Scientists and Medical Professionals
Rogene Henderson, head of the scientific panel charged with reviewing the EPA's proposals, said she and her colleagues were “disappointed” that Johnson ignored their recommendations to adopt tougher standards that would save more lives and reduce chronic illness. Henderson also called Johnson’s decision to eliminate regulation of annual exposure to coarse particulate [dust] a step backward.

Johnson responded to Henderson’s criticisms by saying the panel was divided: “It's a complicated issue,” Johnson told the Los Angeles Times. “Reasonable minds can agree to disagree.” Henderson dismissed Johnson’s comments, noting that all but two of the 22 panel members argued for tougher standards.

Earthjustice
"Thousands of scientific studies have been conducted in the last decade that show the link between high air pollution levels and premature deaths. EPA has itself released studies that make this connection, but still the agency continues to ignore the science and adopt standards that fail to protect public health,” said David Baron, attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, in a press release. “Medical groups including the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society and others have all called for tougher long-and short-term particle pollution levels. The EPA's own science advisory board echoed these sentiments, yet EPA still refuses to adopt the stronger health safeguards that scientists say are needed.”

"The courts, the scientists, and the doctors all agree on what EPA doesn't seem to understand. A stronger pollution standard means fewer premature deaths and better air quality for millions of Americans," Baron added.

Sierra Club
"We know that soot can cause significant harm, especially to children and senior citizens, at levels well below this standard," said Ed Hopkins, director of the Sierra Club’s environmental quality program, in a press release. "By choosing politics over science, EPA is jeopardizing the health of our communities."

"It’s disappointing that the EPA has once again put industry before public health," said Alice McKeown, air analyst for the Sierra Club. "This decision goes against the combined recommendations of over 2,000 peer-reviewed studies, medical and health groups and the EPA’s own independent science advisers. It was clearly based on political science, not medical science."

Industry Representatives
Electric utilities and manufacturers objected to the new air quality regulations, saying that the new rules would cost billions of dollars to implement, even though the EPA had shown no clear evidence that the standards were necessary to protect public health.

"We think EPA has jumped the gun by adopting a more stringent fine particle standard before the existing standards have been given a chance to work,” said Dan Reidinger of the Edison Electric Institute, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. “The industry will spend more than $50 billion to cut emissions. Our hope, obviously, is that these reductions will provide a real health benefit, though EPA hasn't adequately made that case."

"EPA persists in overemphasizing studies that suggest a possible benefit to tightening the air quality standard, while downplaying those suggesting that doing so may not," Reidinger said.

Politicians
U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, expressed concern about the economic effects of the new air quality standards.

"I am disappointed that EPA is tightening the particulate matter standard in today's final rule,” Inhofe said. “Recognizing that Administrator Stephen Johnson is a scientist himself, I respect his judgment and his command of the science, but I respectfully disagree that this new rule meets the threshold burden of proof necessary to impose these costly requirements on our nation's economy."

Speaking from the other side of the aisle, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) criticized Johnson’s decision.

“Once again, this administration has shown its true colors by choosing polluters over the people and setting new air standards on toxic dust that fail to protect public health,” she said. “This decision, which flies in the face of science, should not stand. I hope that EPA reconsiders this misguided and dangerous decision. If not, it should be struck down by the courts."

Also Read:
More Than Half of U.S. Population Lives in Counties with Unsafe Air
Why Do Heat Waves Make Air Quality Worse?
EPA Plan to Allow More Air Pollution Draws Friendly Fire
Blacks More Likely Than Whites to Breathe Bad Air