EPA ROLLS OUT NEW STANDARD FOR FINE PARTICULATE MATTER

Farris Willingham
GHG Monitor
06/22/12

Complying with a U.S. District Court order, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed draft standards for fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) late last week that would tighten the emissions requirements from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to between 12 and 13 micrograms per cubic meter. The proposal will now undergo a nine-week public comment period and EPA said it plans on issuing its final rule Dec. 14. PM 2.5, fine particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter, are emitted by coal-fired power plants, diesel trucks and buses and can help form soot. The particles can penetrate a person’s lungs, causing adverse health effects like asthma, stroke and premature death, according to EPA. The agency said that the standard would create $88 million to $5.9 billion in annual benefits—primarily though decreased mortality rates and other avoided health issues—and would cost industry between $2.9 million and $69 million per year, depending on whether the 12 or 13 micrograms per cubic meter level is ultimately pursued in the final standard.

In a conference call with reporters June 15, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy emphasized that the standard would likely be easy for most counties to reach under their current pollution-control programs. She said 99 percent of counties in the U.S. are already on track to comply with the standard by its 2020 deadline, an accomplishment she attributed to other regulations currently in place. “Unlike most, if not all standards we set so far, we can move forward knowing that the federal government has already delivered reductions in PM pollution across the nation through already finalized rules under the Clean Air Act,” she said. “Through this rulemaking, EPA will determine what level of pollution we need to achieve across the country to protect American families from serious health consequences.”

Critics Say Standard Will Kill Jobs

Congressional critics of the proposal said it is too expensive and will kill jobs for only marginal benefits. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science Committee, said the regulation is unnecessary considering that “particulate matter emissions have plummeted 55 percent in the last decade.” “In advancing this regulation, I fear the Obama Administration has failed to make the case that the existing standard is not sufficient or that the underlying science has changed,” he said in a statement. “Rather, the decision appears to further demonstrate EPA’s regulate-at-all-costs mentality.” In a joint statement, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said EPA should retain its current standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. “Before ramming through new standards that could threaten jobs and our economy, we need to be sure of the science and the costs. Overly strict standards could force local economies into non-attainment, stifle economic growth, and lead to further job losses,” the two said.

Supporters of the new standard disagreed, citing the adverse health effects that stem from inhaling larger concentrations of particulate matter. In a statement, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the proposed rule “is an important step forward in protecting our families and children.” “When the rule to reduce soot pollution is finalized, there will be far fewer of these harmful health impacts, and it will have substantial health benefits in California and communities across the nation,” she said. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said the regulations “affirm… that there’s an urgent need to limit soot because of its deadly health effects. “The EPA’s soot safeguards will keep dangerous metals and chemicals out of the air we breathe to save thousands of lives and billions of dollars,” he said in a statement.

EPA Compelled to Update Standards by Court Order

EPA last revised its soot standards during the Bush Administration in 2006, but they were handed back by a federal appeals court in 2009 for being too lax on public health. Following the case, EPA promised to retool the standard as part of its five-year review period under the Clean Air Act. However, the agency failed to meet the rule’s deadline in October 2011, which prompted a coalition of 11 states to sue for EPA’s lack of action on the issue. The group filed a lawsuit against EPA in February in U.S. District Court. Late last month, a judge ruled that the agency was required to propose new regulations by June 7.