Epa Adjusts Pollution Math Opponents Of Tough Clean Air Standards Seize Upon Glitch
The Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged Wednesday that it had over-estimated some of the health benefits of stricter air pollution standards the agency wants to impose this summer, an embarrassing admission that provided fresh ammunition for opponents of the proposed rules.
Citing a “data glitch,” the EPA lowered by one-fourth its prediction of the number of lives that would be saved each year under the new regulations designed to reduce smog and soot in U.S. cities.
Under the revised estimate, the new standards would prevent about 15,000 premature deaths each year, down from the original projection of 20,000.
It was a relatively minor adjustment by most standards, but or the EPA it came at an inopportune time. Ever since the EPA unveiled the regulations in November, the agency has been forced to defend itself against allegations that the proposals are not supported by scientific evidence.
Some of the most vocal critics saw Wednesday’s admission as a vindication.
“This is further proof of shaky justification for the new standards,” said Joel Bucher of the Washington-based Citizens for a Sound Economy, a conservative advocacy group. “In a hasty move to regulate everything that burns or blow in the wind, the EPA has sloppily analyzed the data.”
Bucher doubted that even the 15,000 figure would hold up under further scrutiny. “That figure assumes that you take everything else that EPA is saying at face value.” Supporters, though, said the miscalculation did nothing to change what they see as the essence of the problem: Needless loss of life due to unhealthy levels of industrial soot in the air.
“The fact remains that thousands of people are dying,” said Paul Billings of the America Lung Association. “Whether it’s 15,000 or 20,000 - these are estimates, anyway - it’s still too high.”
The EPA is seeking to tighten its restrictions on two kinds of air pollution: ozone, a component in smog, and fine soot particles known as particulates. Current standards do not do enough to protect public health, especially among people with respiratory problems, according to the EPA.
Opponents, including major manufacturers, utilities and other businesses, however, have vigorously opposed the new standards, saying the financial costs of complying would outweigh what they say would probably be marginal health benefits.
The new rules are expected to become final in June, but opponents in Congress have threatened to block their implementation.
The calculation error came in the EPA’s attempt to quantify the benefits of lower levels of fine particulates, which are given off by diesel engines as well as factories and power plants.
Agency officials blamed the mistake on a mislabeled chart in one of the 86 scientific studies on particulates that the agency reviewed.
In a kind of error that trips up math students, a number in the chart that was labeled as an arithmetic “median,” when it actually represented a “mean,” or average.
EPA statisticians then used the mislabeled figure to extrapolate the potential savings in human lives that would result from tighter standards. The error was only recently noticed by an independent scientist who was reviewing the EPA’s files.