EPA’s Unjustified Particulate Matter Proposal

Three good reasons EPA should shelve a proposal to tighten its air pollution standard governing particulate matter:

Science doesn’t justify it.Current control programs are working.A more stringent standard could harm jobs and economic growth.

EPA is scheduled to hold public hearings on its PM 2.5 standard today in Philadelphia and Sacramento – part of a commenting period that runs into August. The proposal, which is to be finalized by the end of the year, would tighten the standard from 15 micrograms per cubic meter to 12 or 13 micrograms.

API’s Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs, discussed the proposal during a conference call with reporters:

“Changing the standard should be supported by clear scientific analysis. The science in this case cannot demonstrate a proven ‘cause and effect’ between levels below the current standard and health consequences. In part, this is because in EPA’s analysis it failed to adequately address confounding factors. EPA also assumed rather than demonstrated a linear relationship between pollution and health effects, concluding that harm to health must occur even at very low levels.”

Feldman, who was to deliver testimony in Philadelphia, said a tighter standard could result in higher costs for providing and using energy, meaning fewer businesses would be created, fewer would expand and fewer workers would be hired. Feldman:

“Existing control programs are working. According to EPA, between 2000 and 2010, concentrations of PM 2.5 in the air fell by 27 percent. As a result, more than three-fourths of Americans today live in areas where air quality meets today’s standards.”

Dr. Julie Goodman of Gradient, an expert in toxicology, epidemiology and in assessing health risks from chemicals in products and the environment, also joined the call. Goodman said EPA has not produced “coherent evidence” that a new PM standard is necessary:

“There’s no evidence that lowering (the standard) 2 to 3 micrograms will have any effect on health. In other words, there’ll be no (real) health benefits from lowering the standard.”

Goodman’s remarks for the Philadelphia hearing can be read here.

View the original article here