ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Environment

Fighting Soot In The Air

Clean Air: Industry claims that environment agency, by tightening the rules for fine-particle pollution, could harm job creation

by Glenn Hess
December 14, 2012

In the name of public health, restrictions on soot and other fine-particle pollution emitted by power plants, oil refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities were significantly tightened by the Environmental Protection Agency today. The agency has essentially hit the reset button on the U.S. air quality standard for this type of pollution, lowering the limit from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to 12 micrograms per cubic meter.

By “fulfilling the promise of the Clean Air Act,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson says, “we will save lives and reduce the burden of illness in our communities, and families across the country will benefit from the simple fact of being able to breathe cleaner air.”

But industry groups say the more stringent standard isn’t needed because the existing standard, set in 1997, has led to major reductions in fine-particle pollution.

“EPA’s new rule is unnecessary and could drive up costs for new and expanding businesses trying to hire employees,” says Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s main trade association.

“There is no compelling scientific evidence for the policy decision to develop more stringent standards. The existing standards are working and will continue improving air quality,” Feldman asserts. With current control measures, he says, particulate pollution could be reduced by more than 20% in the next couple of years.

Environmental activists and public health advocates praised EPA’s action.

“Today’s decision is nothing short of historic,” says Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch. “It is the first time EPA has ever tightened the critical long-term soot standard first set 15 years ago.”

“EPA’s long-awaited standards for soot are an important win for the American people and our environment,” adds John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “By strengthening the standards for soot, metals, and other pollution, the EPA is doing its job under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from dangerous air pollution.”

Norman H. Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, says it has been established that particle pollution is harmful at levels well below those previously deemed to be safe. “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,” he remarks.

Fine-particle pollution can penetrate deep into the lungs and has been linked to a variety of health problems, including heart attacks and strokes, as well as acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma among children.

EPA estimates the health benefits of the revised standard will result in cost savings that range from $4 billion to more than $9 billion per year. The estimated implementation costs for the tightened rule range from $53 million to $350 million.

EPA projects that 99% of U.S. counties will meet the updated standard without taking any additional action. The agency expects that fewer than 10 counties, out of the more than 3,000 counties in the U.S., will need to develop plans to reduce fine-particle pollution levels through various pollution control measures to meet the tighter standard.

X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment