Air pollution standards draw widespread criticism

The US government approved new air pollution standards on Sept. 21, promising "cleaner air to all Americans," but health and environmental groups said the revised rules are too weak to protect against lung disease and other pollution-related ailments. The new standards pertain to fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) that is expelled from tailpipes, factory smokestacks, farm equipment and other sources. Exposure to PM is linked to several health conditions, from aggravated asthma to premature death in people with heart and lung disease, according to the EPA. The EPA's new rule lowers the limit on how much fine PM US citizens may be exposed to over a 24-hour period, cutting the existing standard of 65 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 35. However, it leaves the annual limit for fine PM in the air unchanged. It also rescinds the annual coarse particle standard, citing a lack of available evidence of an association between long-term exposure to coarse particles at current levels and adverse health effects. At a news conference, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson touted the rules as "the most protective air quality regulations in US history," and said, "All Americans deserve to breathe clean air. That's exactly what we're doing today." But Johnson's announcement of the rules drew harsh criticism from all sides of a long-running debate over PM regulation, including from some of the EPA scientists who had helped develop the new standards. Rogene Henderson, head of the EPA's scientific panel in charge of reviewing the agency's proposals, said the panel's recommendations to adopt tougher standards were ignored. Henderson said Johnson's decision to eliminate regulation of annual exposure to coarse PM is a step backward and would hinder attempts by researchers to study the health effects. Dozens of health groups–including the American Medical Association, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society and American Academy of Pediatrics–had also urged the agency to set tougher standards for short-term and long-term exposure to PM. "While almost any improvement in the weak 1997 standards is better than nothing, EPA's modest revisions cannot be justified," said John Kirkwood, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. "Thousands of studies–most funded by EPA itself–unmistakably demonstrate that PM is a dangerous air pollutant, endangering life and health at levels well below those announced by EPA today." Groups that represent US electric power companies, however, said the new rules were too stringent and compliance with those rules could cost the power industry an estimated $20 to $60 billion a year. "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 provide the health benefits EPA is seeking to achieve," Dan Riedinger, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, said. "Under the new standards, hundreds of counties that currently meet existing air quality standards will be in violation of the new ones, requiring tens of billions of dollars in annual expenditures to reduce emissions from all sectors of the economy." Environmentalists and health groups see the new EPA rules as a win for industry. Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, said the administration caved to industry pressure and based its decision on "political science, not real science." "This is a huge victory for big polluters, and a deadly setback for the breathing public," O'Donnell said. "It is the single worst action the Bush administration has taken on air pollution."