iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

EPA Smog Limit: New Strict Proposal To Replace Bush-Era Rule

DINA CAPPIELLO   01/ 7/10 08:59 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of communities far from congested highways and belching smokestacks could soon join big cities and industrial corridors in violation of stricter limits on lung-damaging smog proposed Thursday by the Obama administration.

Costs of compliance could be in the tens of billions of dollars, but the government said the rules would save other billions – as well as lives – in the long run.

More than 300 counties – mainly in southern California, the Northeast and Gulf Coast – already violate the current, looser requirements adopted two years ago by the Bush administration and will find it even harder to reduce smog-forming pollution enough to comply with the law.

The new limits being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency could more than double the number of counties in violation and reach places like California's wine country in Napa Valley and rural Trego County, Kan., and its 3,000 residents.

For the first time, counties in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, the Dakotas, Kansas, Minnesota and Iowa might be forced to find ways to clamp down on smog-forming emissions from industry and automobiles, or face government sanctions, most likely the loss of federal highway dollars.

The tighter standards, though costly to implement, will ultimately save billions in avoided emergency room visits, premature deaths, and missed work and school days, the EPA said.

"EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face," said agency administrator Lisa Jackson. "Using the best science to strengthen these standards is long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier."

The proposal presents a range for the allowable concentration of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, from 60 parts per billion to 70 parts, as recommended by scientists during the Bush administration. That's equivalent to a single tennis ball in an Olympic-sized swimming pool full of tennis balls.

EPA plans to select a specific figure within that range by August. Counties and states will then have up to 20 years to meet the new limits, depending on how severely they are out of compliance. They will have to submit plans for meeting the new limits by end of 2013 or early 2014.

Former President George W. Bush personally intervened in the issue after hearing complaints from electric utilities and other affected industries. His EPA set a standard of 75 parts per billion, stricter than one adopted in 1997 but not as strict as what scientist said was needed to protect public health.

Some of those same industries reiterated their opposition Thursday to a stronger smog standard.

"We probably won't know for a couple of years just what utilities and other emissions sources will be required to do in response to a tighter ozone standard," said John Kinsman, a senior director at the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group. "Utilities already have made substantial reductions in ozone-related emissions."

Parts of the country that have already spent decades and millions of dollars fighting smog and are still struggling to meet existing thresholds questioned what more they could do. They've already cut pollution from the easier sources, by increasing monitoring and enforcement and requiring car emissions tests.

"This EPA decision provides the illusion of greater protectiveness, but with no regard for cost, in terms of dollars or in terms of the freedoms that Americans are accustomed to," said Bryan W. Shaw, chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Texas, with its heavy industry, is home to Houston, one of the smoggiest cities in the nation.

Environmentalists endorsed the new plan. "If EPA follows through, it will mean significantly cleaner air and better health protection," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch.

EPA estimates meeting the new requirements will cost industry and motorists from $19 billion to as much as $90 billion a year by 2020. The Bush administration had put the cost of meeting its threshold at $7.6 billion to $8.5 billion a year.

The new regulations would mean more controls on large industrial facilities, plus regulating smaller facilities and sources. New federal regulations in the works to improve car and truck fuel economy and curb global warming pollution at large factories will also help communities meet any new standards, the EPA said.

Smog is a respiratory irritant that has been linked to asthma attacks and other illnesses. Global warming is expected to make it worse, since smog is created when emissions from cars, power and chemical plants, refineries and other factories mix in sunlight and heat.

But some parts of the country that could be found in violation of the proposed standards have very few cars and little industry. In places like these, smog-forming pollution is being blown in from hundreds of miles away.

Charlene Neish, director of Trego County Economic Development, moved to the rural county in western Kansas a decade ago from Phoenix to escape big city problems like traffic and air pollution. Neish was shocked that her county, which has about nine people per square mile and virtually no industry, made the list.

"There is absolutely nothing in Trego County," Neish said. "We have wide open spaces and fresh air."

In Utah, six more counties would join the three in violation of the Bush standard.

Cheryl Heying, director of Utah's Division of Air Quality, said the change will not only require additional reductions in vehicle and industrial emissions, but a regional focus on other contributors such as wildfire smoke and offshore shipping.

"That doesn't mean we're just going to point our finger at everyone else, but if we don't cooperate, we're never going to get it done," Heying said.

___

Associated Press writers John McFarland in Dallas, Mike Stark in Salt Lake City, Noaki Schwartz in Los Angeles, Judith Kohler in Denver and Garance Burke in Fresno, Calif., contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — Hundreds of communities far from congested highways and belching smokestacks could soon join big cities and industrial corridors in violation of stricter limits on lung-damaging smo...
WASHINGTON — Hundreds of communities far from congested highways and belching smokestacks could soon join big cities and industrial corridors in violation of stricter limits on lung-damaging smo...
Filed by Katherine Goldstein  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 120
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
FormerReaganite
Government Regulations Save Lives
11:24 AM on 01/10/2010
Why are pollution controls always seen by the right wing as a negative? With that kind of outlook, nothing would ever get done.

And why is it always about "industry" and "jobs?" How about "health" and "safety?"

Speaking of *jobs,* pollution control has actually helped CREATE jobs! Take for example, the car industry. Since the 1960s, (and only because they were mandated) tailpipe emissions have fallen to vanishingly low levels. That effort has employed thousands of researchers, engineers, and lab-tech jobs. By the same token, required emission testing for cars on the road employs a host of people (mechanics, auto parts stores, etc.)

"Control of pollution" is a JOB CREATOR, not a job loser. Take a class in econ 101 in order to better understand this concept.
06:16 AM on 01/10/2010
Great news. The coal power plants in the wide open west need t be closed down or cleaned up. They've turned the blue sky a dirty grey.
10:07 AM on 01/08/2010
Asia and China just opened a bottle of bubbly. We've effectively signed a death warrant for our industries.
photo
Lemmy
There Are Americans, then there are Liberals . .
12:51 PM on 01/08/2010
Higher energy costs, lost jobs - that's pretty consistent with the liberal agenda.
02:44 PM on 01/08/2010
Get ready for more entitlements. It's their solution to every problems.
photo
FormerReaganite
Government Regulations Save Lives
11:27 AM on 01/10/2010
Or higher health care costs, lost lives...

Take your pick
photo
FormerReaganite
Government Regulations Save Lives
11:30 AM on 01/10/2010
The "death warrant for industries" has to do with these bogus "free-trade" policies which were implemented under Clinton and Bush.

Pollution controls never ruined the auto industry. On the contrary, have helped it. (People WANT clean, efficient cars.)
09:39 AM on 01/08/2010
Good, I like to see anything "ex dictator Bush" gone!

Jess
www.anonymity-tools.ru.tc
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:50 AM on 01/08/2010
As a Christian, this offends me. SIDS is major killer of cute babies, and God tells us that dead babies are totally awesome (Psalms 137.)

Why is Obama trying to repress our religion, which loves babies that are dead?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:18 PM on 01/07/2010
I have to admit that some of the dumbbest comments I have read lately are on this story!

The best ones are those that claim that because Asia's cities are more polluted than ours we shouldn't do anything about our level of pollution!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:28 PM on 01/07/2010
That has not been said. Asia is a mess. Our country is far far superior pollution wise. We should be proud of that.

The discussion points:
- Does an incremental change of spec from 75ppb atmospheric ozone to 60-70ppb have any measurable effect on health?
- Where is the data that supports the spec change?
- Can the change in spec be accurately measured considering atmospheric ozone measurement precision is on the order of 5% best case.
- Is any health benefit (which has not been quantified) worth an extra $19billion a year when our economy is already very very weak (especially compared to SEAsia). Should we further handicap ourselves compared to our ruthless competitor.
10:50 PM on 01/07/2010
Actually, you have valid questions....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453178/?tool=pmcentrez

Hopefully, this may answer some of them.
photo
FormerReaganite
Government Regulations Save Lives
11:46 AM on 01/10/2010
"- Does an incremental change of spec from 75ppb atmospheric ozone to 60-70ppb have any measurable effect on health?"

The better question is: does it have any measurable effect on *industry?*

A slight drop in emissions is NOT going to "cost-millions-of-dollars," (the constant drone we hear from the "do-and-think-as-they're-told" conservative element in this country.)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
phoenixdoglover
My dog loves my progressive treats agenda
06:49 PM on 01/07/2010
Prakosh. I agree.

Our friend, katooom, does us all a disservice with his pseudo-scientific questions. For example, he complains the reduction in permissible Ozone is within the 5% measurement error for Ozone, so it must be meaningless. Of course, even with a 20% measurement error, long term average Ozone levels of only a few ppb can be discriminated. (that's because the measurement errors are both positive and negative; over the long run, the errors average out to nothing).

I have been in the environmental field for 30 years. The EPA science is run through an incredible number of reviews. I am confident they have this one right.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:04 PM on 01/07/2010
Meanwhile we read this in another story:

"Scientific evidence that mountaintop-removal coal mining destroys streams and threatens human health is so strong that government should stop granting new permits for it, a group of 12 environmental scientists report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The consequences of this mining in eastern Kentucky, West Virginia and southwestern Virginia are "pervasive and irreversible," the article finds. Companies are required by law to take steps to reduce the damages, but their efforts don't compensate for lost streams nor do they prevent lasting water pollution, it says."

This is all connected. The more coal fired electricity we produce the more pollution we produce. The more mountaintops we remove the more trees we remove. I actually had a college student tell me during the Reagan years that grass used just as much CO2 and gave off just as much oxygen as trees. That is how idiotic the hypnotized can be!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
03:29 AM on 01/08/2010
...I'm sure it is, let's put controls on old coal fired power plants and not exempt them, as Gore did, from having to upgrade pollution controls when they expand capacity...

http://www.debatethis.org/gore/enviro/

He's a charlatan, who smells a good con, and almost got his wick dipped before the e-milk spilled...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NotFooledByDistractions
03:52 PM on 01/07/2010
I sure hope Houston is one of the areas to be hit with fines and forced to clean up. On a summer day you can look east from any high rise downtown building and see a brown layer of muck floating on the skyline. There's no telling what we've all been breathing all these years.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:05 PM on 01/07/2010
Keep electing Republicans and keep pretending that there is no role for government in mandating environmental laws.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
03:31 AM on 01/08/2010
...I heard Bush exempted Dallas-Ft Worth from Clean Air requirements and fine particulates are particularly (pun) hazardous to your health up-country thar'...
03:48 PM on 01/07/2010
First the government should stop spraying us with effing chemtrails. My city is being hit daily with chemtrail spraying. They are relentless and they have the nerve to set standards for the air we breathe?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
03:33 AM on 01/08/2010
...is that true? Because chemtrails is already proven to be the most effective way to lower global temperatures by fine particulates in the upper atmosphere, maybe that's why the cold wave?...
photo
primordialsoup
I have a micro-bio, therefore I am.
03:37 PM on 01/07/2010
It's interesting that the article compares cost to business to comply with the new regulations versus loss to business because of lost productivity due to pollution-caused illness. Is money all that matters anymore? If business is polluting and causing harm to citizens, they should be made to pay for the cost of health care to the citizens they are harming, and then made to clean up their polluting ways. Corporations have far too much power in establishing policy.
03:09 PM on 01/07/2010
BS! 20 years means "don't even worry about it."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:20 PM on 01/07/2010
Yeah I noticed that too. First they do not define a new spec - just some nebulous range of 60-70ppb. The present spec is 75ppb. Measurement error for atmospheric ozone is in the range of 5-10% - almost ALL of the proposed spec change. How to you make a spec change that is almost all contained by the measurement error. Bogus science. These guys would get an 'F' if in my class.

And "will be phased in over the next 20yrs". What a joke.

They know there is no science to back this up. That is why the sheepishness. They just want to appeal to emotions. And they do it very well. Witness the posts on this thread.
photo
FormerReaganite
Government Regulations Save Lives
11:50 AM on 01/10/2010
It should be phased in over the next 2 years.

In "20 years" the standards should be more like 10 ppb, not 60
03:07 PM on 01/07/2010
Sure... let's penalize businesses more in a bad economy for nonsensical reasons.

Is this administration trying to run business out of the country or what???
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Riverman
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
03:11 PM on 01/07/2010
How do you figure this is based on nonsense and why do you figure businesses can only respond by failing and if these were good times you would be arguing that this is no time to rock the boat. Thanks for the hot air it sure is cold here today.
06:04 PM on 01/07/2010
This will cost companies Billions at a time when most are hurting... the change/improvement here has been sited as contaminants the size of a tennis ball in a swimming pool (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100107/ap_on_bi_ge/us_epa_smog)...

So what' the point? Why do this now? Who's helped by this? Only hurts businesses (business are Americans).
photo
FormerReaganite
Government Regulations Save Lives
11:38 AM on 01/10/2010
"Is this administration trying to run business out of the country or what???"

Clinton-Bush already did that with their ill-advised "free-trade" agreements.

Control of air toxics has never "chased out industry."
02:38 PM on 01/07/2010
The New York Times reported this:

"Depending on the final standard, EPA said its proposal would yield health benefits between $13 billion and $100 billion. The estimated cost for implementing the draft rule range from $19 billion to $90 billion."

If the EPA is correct, these healthcare benefits would not only be financial but would be real health benefits to the people who live in this area. I am encouraged by this, but in the back of my mind I remember that this is the same EPA whose man-made global warming philosophy is based on faulty science.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Riverman
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
02:51 PM on 01/07/2010
If there is something wrong with the science show your work. The people who have PhDs and actually work in the fields related to climate science are satisfied that it is real and man made. You may remember the mob of global warming scientist at Copenhagen or that paper published in the Journal science proving that it is all a mistake? Me neither as they don't exist. This has all been pointed out to you many times yet you just repeat the same old discredited BS. Seems you have an agenda that has nothing to do with honesty
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Riverman
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
03:02 PM on 01/07/2010
That darn typest

"mob of global warming denying scientist" :)
photo
Lemmy
There Are Americans, then there are Liberals . .
12:57 PM on 01/08/2010
Is this the same group of PhDs whose bretheren specialize in manipulating climate data in order to fit preconceived hypotheses? The same group of PhD's whose bretheren engage in stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Yeah, lots of credibility there . . . .
03:13 PM on 01/07/2010
The implementation of cap and trade to help reduce acid rain yielded HUGE financial gains for America (various studies now avaliable on the web).

The same can be said of the clean air act, etc.

I tend to trust the late stage estimates by the EPA.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Riverman
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
02:36 PM on 01/07/2010
It has been suggested here that there is no scientific basis for this change. So here you go

http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=smog.page1
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:46 PM on 01/07/2010
What is meant by "Air Quality Descriptor: Good, Moderate, etc" This is a platitudenal metric. Emotion based, not quantified.

The chart also lists 65ppb to 84ppb in the same 'Moderate' category. So we spend $19bill per year with no improvement in category. All that money, and no improvement according to their metric.

What is quantifiable difference to health of 65ppb vs 75ppb. The data does not exist. The article you reference is full of 'mays' and 'possibles'. No reference to a controlled scientific study to say 65ppb is better than 75ppb.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Riverman
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
03:00 PM on 01/07/2010
You are parroting the tobacco criminals when they argued that doctors saying that smoking was addictive and killing their patients were just making it all up and that they could not prove it to an unquestionable certainty that tobacco was bad in any way. See the thing is the Doctors were being honest and responsible players while the Tobacco industry was denying truth for the sake of profits. Smog is making us sick and yes even killing people. You can disregard those facts but I will not. You are not interested in facts so why pretend
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Riverman
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
03:05 PM on 01/07/2010
You are parroting the tobacco criminals when they argued that doctors saying that smoking was addictive and killing their patients where just making it all up and that they could not prove to an unquestionable certainty that tobacco was bad in any way. See the thing is the Doctors were being honest and responsible players while the Tobacco industry was denying truth for the sake of profits. Smog is making us sick and yes even killing people. You can disregard those facts but I will not.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:32 PM on 01/07/2010
From the article:
"The Bush standard adopted in 2008 was 75 parts per billion"
"The EPA proposal presents a range for the allowable concentration of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, from 60 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion."
"The stricter limit comes with additional costs, from $19 billion up to $90 billion a year by 2020, according to EPA."

From the Tech Journal 'International Journal of Remote Sensing, Volume 15, Issue 16'
"Ozone measurements are subject to errors caused by interfering gases that absorb solar ultraviolet radiation in the region of the Dobson instrument's wavelengths (300-400 nm). In the urban area of Athens, the measured S02 and N02 mixing ratios have been found to lead to total ozone errors of up to 2-5 per cent."

So, we will spend $19Billion per year for an EPA spec change that is just barely above the measurement error. Great.

WHERE ARE THE FACTS that say 60-70ppb is any healthier than 75ppb? NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE SUGGEST ANY FACTS TO SUPPORT THIS.

Why? the facts do not exist.