Epa Seeks More Rigorous Clean Air Levels Industry Cites Cost, Lifestyle Changes In Opposing Tougher Standards For Ozone, Tiny Particles

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing tough new standards for ozone and tiny particles in the air, despite opposition from industry.

The announcement kicks off what’s sure to be a lively debate over the proposed standards, which take effect next year.

“EPA based its proposal on a thorough review of the best available science. We are now hoping to hear from a wide range of the American people,” EPA Administrator Carol Browner said Wednesday at a Washington, D.C., press conference.

The new particulate standard will cut premature deaths by 40,000 people each year and reduce 250,000 annual cases of respiratory problems in children, Browner predicted.

Industry managers say the new standards will cost too much and will force significant lifestyle changes. Clean air groups say they’re necessary to protect public health.

EPA is moving to curb ozone, the principal component of smog, and set a new standard for small airborne particles.

The acceptable level of ozone in the air would be reduced from an average 120 parts per billion measured over one hour to 80 parts per billion over eight hours.

The proposed standard for very small particles would be 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air daily, with a 15-microgram annual average.

The particles, measuring as small as 2.5 microns in diameter, can go deep into the lung, bypassing the body’s normal defenses. A human hair is about 70 microns wide.

Current Clean Air Act standards apply only to particles 10 microns or larger. The 150-microgram daily standard for these coarser particles would be maintained.

The tiny PM 2.5 particles come from combustion sources: industry smoke-stacks, cars, wood stoves and agricultural field burning, including Kentucky bluegrass fields near Spokane.

Spokane doesn’t violate current standards for ozone. But in the past, it has repeatedly violated the PM 10 particulate standard.

EPA agreed this year not to punish Spokane for flunking the current standard under a new “natural events” policy. That’s because much of Spokane’s PM 10 problem is caused by wind-blown agricultural dust the city can’t control.

But new studies show the smaller, PM 2.5 combustion particles are much more dangerous than previously known.

The EPA reviewed more than 200 studies before concluding that current standards do not adequately protect public health, Browner said.

The agency was under a court order to propose the new standards by this Friday. The American Lung Association had sued EPA, saying current regulations aren’t protecting public health.

The decision was a setback for industry, which mounted a massive lobbying campaign through the National Association of Manufacturers.

Industry’s Air Quality Standards Coalition argued the scientific evidence was sketchy and the impact too expensive.

They also predicted states and cities might have to impose Draconian controls to meet the standard, including travel restrictions, mandatory car pooling and limits on pleasure boats, lawn mowers and barbecues.

“The proposals … carry a huge price tag for consumers, state and local governments, small businesses and large industries,” the coalition said in a statement this week.

Public health will benefit from the tough new standards, said Eric Skelton, Spokane’s top air quality official. He listened Wednesday to Browner’s press conference.

“They are saying this is the most peer-reviewed health effects information they’ve ever had,” Skelton said.

According to the EPA’s analysis, the new standard will be costly to implement - approximately $6 billion a year.

But that will be outweighed by more than $100 billion a year in reduced health costs to people with lung disease, including children with asthma.

Seventy-four metropolitan areas - down from 98 six years ago - do not comply with the current federal particulate standard.

After a public hearing, the EPA expects to make the proposed rules permanent by June. The particle standards must be in place by 2002, and the ozone controls by 2000. It will then take up to five years for the states to implement them.

The EPA is taking written comments on the proposed rules through Jan. 29 at:

Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102)

Attention: Docket No. A-95-54

U.S. EPA

401 M Street S.W.

Washington, DC 20460

The proposed regulations also may be reviewed on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/airlinks

, DataTimes MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: QUESTIONS Here are answers to some basic questions about the tougher air-pollution standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday: Q. Why are these changes being proposed? A. Health groups successfully sued the EPA to force it to re-examine the scientific evidence on pollution. That evidence indicates that ozone and tiny airborne particles can cause health problems at much lower levels than once thought. Q. Whom does ozone hurt? A. Studies indicate that asthma sufferers and others with respiratory problems - particularly children and the elderly - have more problems and higher rates of hospitalization when ozone levels are high. Q. Where do very small airborne particles come from and why are they dangerous? A. The smallest particles - those less than 2.5 microns in size - are usually tiny specks of soot and ash produced in the burning of fuels such as coal and diesel fuel. These tiny motes (a typical human hair is 70 microns wide) can lodge deep in lungs and contribute to serious respiratory problems. Q. What are the most important proposed standards? A. The acceptable level of ozone in the air would be lowered from an average of 120 parts per billion measured over one hour to 80 parts per billion measured over eight hours. The proposed standard for very small particles would limit them to 50 micrograms per cubic meter daily. Q. When would the proposed standards take effect? A. It could take an additional five years before the rules are implemented by the states. Q. How might the new rules change the lives of Americans? A. Reducing levels of very small particles may make driving, heat and power more expensive as industry passes on the costs of producing and using cleaner fuels. In some communities where air pollution is serious, there may be lifestyle changes, such as less use of the barbecue in summer and the fireplace in winter. Knight-Ridder