Tighten smog rules? Industry fights proposal

updated 3:48 p.m. ET March 5, 2008

WASHINGTON - Big industries are waging an intense lobbying effort to block new, tougher limits on air pollution that is blamed for thousands of heart attacks, deaths and cases of asthma, bronchitis and other breathing problems.

The Environmental Protection Agency is to decide within weeks whether to reduce the allowable amount of ozone — commonly referred to as smog — in the air.

A tougher standard would require hundreds of counties across the country to find new ways to reduce smog-causing emissions of nitrogen oxides and chemical compounds from tailpipes and smokestacks.

Groups representing manufacturers, automakers, electric utilities, grocers and cement makers met with White House officials recently in a last-ditch effort to keep the health standard unchanged. They argued that tightening it would be costly and harm the economy in areas that will have to find additional air pollution controls.

Edison Electric Institute officials made their case directly to the White House Office of Management and Budget, which has to sign off on whatever the EPA decides.

"Our position is that the existing standard adopted in 1997 should remain in place," said Daniel Riedinger, a spokesman for the group, which represents investor-owned power companies.

Keith McCoy, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said his group told the same White House office that the EPA was not considering the economic impact.

Oil and chemical companies also have pressed their case for leaving the current requirements alone in meetings on Capitol Hill and with the Bush administration. A dozen senators and the Agriculture Department urged the EPA not to tamper with the existing standard.

On the other side are health experts who conclude that tens of millions of people, particularly the elderly and small children, are still being harmed by poor air quality.

The EPA said last summer that the current health standard — no more than 80 parts of ozone for every billion parts of air — does not provide needed protection against asthma, heart attacks and respiratory problems.

Health benefits estimated
The EPA has estimated a reduction to 70 parts per billion could result annually in 2,300 fewer nonfatal heart attacks; 48,000 fewer respiratory problems, acute bronchitis and asthma attacks; 7,600 fewer respiratory related hospital visits, and 890,000 fewer days when people miss work or school.

Under court order to review the standard, the EPA must decide by mid-March on what to do.

"The less pollution in the air, the fewer people are going to get sick, fewer children will have asthma attacks, fewer people are going to die," says Janice Nolen of the American Lung Association, which has argued along with almost every other health and medical group to tighten the smog standard issued in 1997.

The federal health standards set air quality benchmarks that states and local officials must strive to meet through various pollution reduction measures, or risk federal sanctions such as the loss of federal highway money. The law says the standard must be based on protecting public health and not cost, a position the Supreme Court has reinforced.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has acknowledged the standard should be tightened, but he has been unwilling to go as far as health scientists say is needed to protect older Americans, children and the 20 million people that suffer from asthma.

The EPA's independent science advisory panel recommended a standard of between 60 and 70 parts per billion, as did a second EPA advisory board on children's health.

'Political compromise' expected
Both industry lobbyists and environmentalists say they believe Johnson has taken the view that the standard should be tightened to 75 parts per billion — an approach that doesn't satisfy either industry or health experts.

"It's a political compromise," says Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, an advocacy group. Even so, he adds, "every major industry is ... putting the squeeze on" to get the White House to leave the current standard in place.

"The results vary but most studies show a steady reduction in the public health burden as the standard is tightened," said Jonathan Levy of the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis.

Levy co-authored a 2006 study that examined the health benefits of tougher smog restrictions in California. It found that tightening the ozone standard to 70 parts per billion would annually result in 270 fewer premature deaths, 280 fewer emergency room visits for asthma and 1,800 fewer hospital admissions for respiratory disease in the state — a reduction of 75 percent in all three categories.

Another study estimated 3,800 premature deaths would be avoided nationwide.

MORE FROM ENVIRONMENT

Environment Section Front

G-8 leaders agree on temperature cap Australian town bans bottled water sales Hope vs. hype: Chasing after ‘green’ jobs Environmentalists unfurl Mt. Rushmore banner Two states ready for first open wolf hunts Curbing wildfires vs. storing carbon? Rice concrete can cut greenhouse emissions G-8 cash sought for climate change Panel urges outdoor spending Shrinking sheep mystery solved: Blame warming Environment Section Front   Add Environment headlines to your news reader: