ShareThis Page
News

Pa. among states suing EPA to lower soot levels

| Monday, Dec. 18, 2006

ALBANY, N.Y. - More than a dozen states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today to lower soot levels from smokestacks and exhaust pipes, a move the state officials argue would save thousands of lives.

The states argue that the Bush administration is ignoring science and its own experts in refusing to slightly reduce the allowed threshold for soot. The "fine particulate matter" in soot contributes to premature death, chronic respiratory disease and asthma attacks, said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The pollution also leads to more hospital admissions and other public health costs, he said.

Officials from Pennsylvania, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia joined New York in the action filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

"It is unfortunate that this coalition of states must resort to legal action to get the EPA to do its job — protect the environment and the public health," said Spitzer, the Democratic governor-elect.

The EPA said it considered new research cited by the state officials. But the agency decided research that prompted a previous reduction was more reliable and didn't justify a further cut, according to EPA statements. The agency said it will consider the new studies in the next five-year review.

"Where the science was clear, we took clear action," said EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood. "EPA significantly strengthened the previous daily standard — by nearly 50 percent."

"EPA has not followed the clean air law," countered New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, a Republican. "My office will work in conjunction with ... other concerned states to ensure that EPA takes appropriate action."

The emissions, described as much smaller than a grain of sand, come from automobiles, power plants, factories and wood fires.

The states want to reduce the current limit of 15 micrograms of soot allowed per cubic foot of air. States say even a reduction of 1 microgram would save as many as 11,000 lives. They don't agree on a specific amount to cut the limit.

The federal Clean Air Act requires a review every five years to determine if air pollution standards should be adjusted. The states argue this compels the EPA to act. The states want the federal court to find the EPA failed to obey its "Congressional mandate to protect the environment and the public health," according to a statement from Spitzer's office.

Last week, a group called Earthjustice, which includes the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association and Environmental Defense, sued the EPA over the same issue.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me