News

EPA Weakens New Lead Rule After White House Objects

»

by: Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers

photo
The Environmental Protection Agency weakened a rule on airborne lead standards at the last minute so that fewer polluters would have their emissions monitored. (Art: Nigel Cole)

    Washington - After the White House intervened, the Environmental Protection Agency last week weakened a rule on airborne lead standards at the last minute so that fewer polluters would have their emissions monitored.

    The EPA on Oct. 16 announced that it would dramatically reduce the highest acceptable amount of airborne lead from 1.5 micrograms of lead per cubic meter to 0.15 micrograms. It was the first revision of the standard since EPA set it 30 years ago.

    However, a close look at documents publicly available, including e-mails from the EPA to the White House Office of Management and Budget, reveal that the OMB objected to the way the EPA had determined which lead-emitting battery recycling plants and other facilities would have to be monitored.

    EPA documents show that until the afternoon of Oct. 15, a court-imposed deadline for issuing the revised standard, the EPA proposed to require a monitor for any facility that emitted half a ton of lead or more a year.

    The e-mails indicate that the White House objected, and in the early evening of Oct. 15 the EPA set the level at 1 ton a year instead.

    According to EPA documents, 346 sites have emissions of half a ton a year or more. Raising the threshold to a ton reduced the number of monitored sites by 211, or more than 60 percent.

    The EPA also required states to place monitors in areas with populations of 500,000 or more. But the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that pushed for tougher lead standards to protect public health, said that a single monitor in a large city was different from a monitor placed near a plant.

    "We don't expect the urban monitors to be effective to get the hot spots that the site-specific monitors can get," said Gina Solomon, an NRDC scientist and a professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco. "The monitoring network has a lot of gaps in it."

    Airborne lead can be inhaled, but the main way people are exposed is when they ingest it from contaminated soil - for example, when children play in a contaminated area and put dirty hands to their mouths.

    The EPA originally estimated that at the half-ton annual emissions cutoff, it would need from 150 to 600 monitors, said EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn.

    Under the final rule with the 1-ton cutoff, the requirement will be 135 site-specific monitors and 101 urban monitors in areas of 500,000 or more people, she said. There are 133 monitors now.

    Milbourn said that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson set the requirement for monitoring at sites that emit 1 ton or more of lead a year because it was "an approach that would reduce the burden to states but would still assure monitoring around those sources" that might violate the air-quality standard.

    The Battery Council International, a trade group that represents U.S. lead battery makers and recyclers, told the EPA in public comments in August that the proposed half-ton threshold was "unjustifiably low."

    Milbourn said that state and local officials should monitor any site they think might violate the new EPA standard.

    "In other words, states may go beyond the minimum monitoring requirements," and EPA will help them identify sources that emit less than a ton per year but still might produce amounts of lead in the air that are higher than the rule allows, she said.

    Lead in the air was greatly reduced three decades ago when the government ordered it removed from gasoline, but it is still emitted by lead smelters, cement plants and steel mills.

    Scientific studies have found that lead is dangerous at much lower levels in the human body than previously thought. The studies show that children's nervous systems are especially vulnerable, and that lead exposure can result in IQ loss and damage to many internal systems.

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

The manipulation of the lead

The manipulation of the lead rules by the White House is a perfect example of de-regulation. De-regulation has been perhaps the single most important domestic issue for the Bush-Cheney Administration. A recent film, "A Snow Mobile for George" chronicles how de-regulation effects ordinary citizens and the environment they depend on. A cross country tour of de-regulation in America, this film tells the stories of salmon fishermen on the West Coast, cowboys in Wyoming, and firemen in New York City. Before the melt-down on Wall Street, de-regulation was plainly visible in our environment. Check out: www.asnowmobileforgeorge.com

Our so-called Republic has

Our so-called Republic has thrown the people overboard. The complacency of the American public is staggering. Billions for private profit, but not one cent for programs of social uplift. It's socialism for the rich, free market discipline for the rest of us, and duped Americans still think this is the best of all possible worlds? How about some trickle-up economics for a change? How about a Department of Peace? And where are the news stories about why the price of oil has dropped so precipitously? Supply and demand doesn't account for the bulk of it. Why is no one talking about this?

Of course it went this way!

Of course it went this way! No one cares about the people anymore and the wealthy do not have to live in polluted areas. Why is no one in any position of power protecting the rights and health of the general population? Why are only corporate interests protected? Unless and until we, the people, cease to be so "drugged" by continuous media infotainment, we will continue to be ignored and ultimately risk being destroyed by "corporate interests" which really means GREED.

The greed gang that

The greed gang that "arranges" with their cronies for such loose regulations may yet shoot themselves in the proverbial foot -- they may buy and drink designer water and avoid the contaminated sludge left for the masses, but where are they going to get designer air to breathe?