By ’20, EPA wants tighter rule on soot to go into full effect

Correction: Pulaski County is one of 66 counties in the country that does not meet the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed soot pollution standard. This article incorrectly described the status of Arkansas counties.

— The Environmental Protection Agency announced a new standard for soot pollution Friday, forcing industry, utilities and local governments to find ways to reduce emissions of particles linked to thousands of cases of disease and death each year, government officials said.

The agency, acting under a court deadline, is proposing a standard of 12 micrograms per 35.31 cubic feet of air, a significant tightening from the previous standard of 15 micrograms, set in 1997, which a federal court found too weak to adequately protect public health. The new standard is in the middle of the range of 11-13 micrograms that the EPA’s science advisory panel recommended.

Twelve micrograms is roughly equivalent to 0.0000004 of an ounce.

Communities must meet the new standard by 2020 or face possible federal fines.

The EPA based its action on health studies that found exposure to fine particles led to a marked increase in heart and lung disease, acute asthma attacks and early death. Older people, adults with heart and lung conditions, and children are particularly susceptible to the ill effects of inhaling soot particles.

The agency estimates the net benefit of the new rule at $2.3 billion to $5.9 billion a year.

Today 66 counties in eight states do not meet the new standard, but the EPA estimates that by 2020, when the rule is fully in force, only seven counties, all in California, will still be out of compliance. Other rules already in effect governing mercury, sulfur and other pollution from vehicles, factories and power plants will bring about that reduction.

No Arkansas county is among the 66 not in compliance, a spokesman for the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality said Friday.

“We know clearly that par- ticle pollution is harmful at levels well below those previously deemed to be safe,” Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “By setting a more protective standard, the EPA is stating that we as a nation must protect the health of the public by cleaning up even more of this lethal pollutant.”

“It will save lives,” he said.

Utility industry officials pleaded with the EPA to delay the release of the new rule, arguing that the standard is based on incomplete science and would impose costly new burdens on states and cities.

Utilities, joined by trade associations representing manufacturers, chemical companies and the oil and gas industry, said the new rule would push many communities into noncompliance, making it more difficult to obtain permits for new businesses that create jobs.

Scott Segal, representing a coalition of coal companies and utilities, wrote to Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, urging her to pull back the proposed rule. He cited a 2011 study saying that citing counties for noncompliance “increases energy prices, reduces manufacturing productivity and causes local manufacturing companies to exit the areas that are designated as being in nonattainment.”

Advocates of the new rule said the industry complaints were overblown.

“While the health benefits are extensive, opponents of common-sense pollution standards are repeating false timeworn claims that clean air is too costly,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Information for this article was contributed by David Smith of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Business, Pages 27 on 12/15/2012

Upcoming Events