제 목 : Tough New Air Standards Spark Debate
일 자 : 1997년 03월
제공처 : Safety & health
The Environmental Protection Agency's tough new proposed airquality
standards for particulate matter and ozone have sparked a fierce debate
between many industries, state governments, and environmental and health
activists.
The two pollutants are among the most widespread form of harmful air
pollution, according to the EPA. Together, they contribute to acute
health effects ranging from premature deaths to preventable respiratory
problems.
Particulate matter refers to fineparticle pollution, dust or soot that
results from combustion by power plants or large incinerators. These
small particles can penetrate deep into human lungs and cause a variety
of respiratory problems, including premature deaths. Ozone is a compotnent
of smog. Repeated human exposure to ozone can cause permanent structural
damage to the lungs, aggravate asthma, and cause respiratory problems
and diseases.
Current airquality standards regulate larger,coarse particles of air
pollution; the proposed standards would regulate smaller particles for
the first time, while continuing to regulate larger particles.
The proposed standards would further lower the amount of ozone emissions
allowed over an eight-hour period, rather than the current one-hour period.
Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Congress requires the EPA to
review and incorporate the best avai1able science into public health
standards to protect the public from air pollution. "The EPA proposal
would provide new protection to nearly 133 million people, including
40 million children," says Carol Browner, EPA administrator. "The
scientific evidence tells us that the current standards fail to provide
adequate public health protection, especially for children."
According to the EPA, the proposed standards would result in the
following benefits for public health and the environment:
·Reduce premature deaths due to particulate pollution by 50
percent, or approximately 20,000 per year, and reduce serious
respiratory problems in children by 250,000 cases per year
·Reduce aggravated asthma episodes by more than 250,000 cases per year
·Reduce chronic bronchitis by an estimated 60,000 cases per year
·Cut haze and visibility problems by as much as 77 percent in some
areas,including national parks
·Result in more than l.5 million fewer cases of significant breathing
problems
·Significantly reduce the need for hospital admissions, missed school
and work days, restricted activity, and emergency room visits
for respiratory problems
·Reduce by nearly $l billion the agricultural crop losses due to
ozone pollution
at the Natural Resource Defense Council, welcomes the EPA's proposal.
"EPA is responding to the overwhelming evidence that these pollutants
are harming people's health and shortening lives," he says.
"Acknowledging the harmful effects of these pollutants is the first
step in protecting the public from them." Under the new standards,
hundreds of urban areas, including Chicago, New York, Salt Lake City,
Detroit, Cleveland and Washington,D.C., would no longer be incompliance
with the Clean Air Act.
According to several industry groups, such noncompliance, or non-
attainment, would hurt the economy of those areas,
"The new standards will prevent businesses from expanding,and new
companies won't be able to move into an area without putting somebody
else out of business," says Owen Drey, associate director of Environ-
mental Quality Policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.
"The restrictions that the new, more stringent standards will have
on business expansion and start-up will have a chilling effect on
economic growth in this country."
Fifteen governors and big-city mayors have expressed their opposi-
tion to the proposed standards.They say the standards will put their
regions into noncompliance and hurt local economies. Kentucky Governor
Paul Patton says he wants President Clinton to "intervene in this
crucial,ill-conceived proposal by the EPA to add costs where no benefit
will be achieved."
Health activists, however, support the proposed regulations as
long-needed measures to protect the public health from two of the most
pervasive air pollutants. "The proposed air-quality standards will usher
in a new era of public health protections for millions of people," says
Thomas F. Gibson, president of the American Lung Association.
"Many recent scientific studies have shown that current standards are
too weak to protect children with asthma.
They are too weak to protect the elderly. They are too weak to protect
the millions of people with lung and heart disease.They are even too weak
to protect healthy adults who exercise outdoors."
Some industry representatives argue that the costs of complying with
the proposed regulations will exceed their benefits. When cities are
in nonattainment, it "can mean the loss of federal highway funds,
mandatory car pooling and restrictions on household items such as
lawn mowers and fireplaces," says Drey of the National Association of
Manufacturers. "The effect sanctions like these would have on the
pocketbooks and quality oflife in ordinary households is astounding.
When it comes to cleaning up air pollution, heavy costs are placed
directly on Consumers.
Environmental groups say that such claims exaggerate the costs of
compliance, and that the improvements in air quality could save the
country $120 billion a year in lower healthcare costs and fewer missed
workdays.
According to Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council,
"America's polluting industries have launched a milliondollar war
on the truth, and we've decided to fight back with facts."
The EPA is expected to issue the final regulation in June l997.
The proposed rule is available on the EPA's lnternet home page at
httP://www.epa.gov/airlinks.
It is also available by modem through the Technology Transfer
Network at(9l9) 54l-5742 under "Recently Signed Rules." For technical
information, contact Jeff Clark in the EPA's Once office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards at (919) 54l-5557.
|