Sunday, May 08, 2005

OPINION/COMMENTARY

States Battle EPA over Clean Air Designations

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has erroneously designated several regions across the country as out of compliance with federal standards for soot and particulate matter, according to government officials in several states. While some of their objections have convinced EPA to reconsider nonattainment designations, others are likely to be decided in federal court. New, more stringent federal standards regarding airborne particulate matter (PM) and soot are being implemented across the country. In December 2004 EPA provided notice that 225 counties in 20 states had failed to meet the new standards. Those counties must submit to EPA a compliance implementation plan by 2008 and meet the new standards by 2010. Counties that fail to meet the mandates will lose federal transportation money. The compliance implementation mandates are expected to take a heavy economic toll on regions currently not in compliance with the new standards. Industry is unlikely to establish operations in a region where new and costly soot abatement programs are necessary, especially when other regions of the state and country do not impose such costly mandates. "When you're out there trying to get businesses and industry to come to your community, and to have a black cloud hanging unfairly, that's a big hit," explained Vince Griffin, vice president of environmental and energy policy for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, in the March 8 Indianapolis Star. "A lot of counties will not even get up to bat." Local officials frequently assert EPA's reading stations are placed in unfair locations unrepresentative of regional air quality. Officials also argue EPA misidentifies the offending region by failing to hold upwind counties responsible for particulate matter that drifts into other counties and regions. Moreover, "Some (pollution) forms after a chemical reaction, so you could see emissions from one county impacting another county," EPA air expert Jim Mooney told the Star....

===

No comments: