At 11:20 AM 1/1/2003 -0600, The Fool wrote:
>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57027,00.html
>
>Is the EPA Gutting Clean Air?
Come on Kneem, how come you never sent this article to the List? Is it
just because it doesn't fit your story-line about Bush trying to pollute as
much as possible?
JDG
New Rules In Works For Diesel Emissions
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01
The Bush administration is preparing new restrictions on life-threatening
emissions from off-road diesel-powered vehicles after decades of government
neglect of this major pollution source. In a turnabout from previous
battles over pollution policy, environmentalists have hailed the move,
while some industry groups are vigorously challenging it.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and Budget
are jointly drafting rules to reduce dangerous emissions from bulldozers,
tractors, irrigation machinery and other diesel-powered equipment. The
rules would force engine manufacturers to install state-of-the-art devices
for capturing and treating exhaust gases, and require oil refineries to
produce a low-sulfur diesel fuel required for anti-pollution devices.
The proposed rules -- to be formally announced next spring -- would slash
off-road diesel emissions by as much as 95 percent and bring them in line
with newly adopted standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses that
traverse the nation's highways. Off-road diesel engines have been held to a
much weaker standard than on-road vehicles since 1977.
After power plants, off-road diesel engines are among the largest sources
of pollutants that scientists have linked to premature deaths, lung cancer,
asthma and other serious upper respiratory illnesses, according to the EPA.
The drive to enact the new regulations is unusual because it pits the
administration and its frequent critics from the environmental community
against industry leaders over an issue with significant economic
ramifications. The proposed rules would save an estimated 8,300 lives a
year and tens of billions of dollars annually in medical costs and lost
workdays, according to government and private studies. But they also would
add billions of dollars to the operating costs of diesel engine
manufacturers and others who buy off-road equipment.
"This is going to impose some cost on industry and consumers," EPA
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman said recently, "but these regulations
are going to give us enormous health benefits that will far outweigh those
costs."
Environmental and public health groups, including the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the American Lung Association, the Clean Air Trust and an
association of state and territorial air pollution program administrators,
have generally praised the administration's efforts.
"The Bush administration had ample opportunity to dismantle the program,
and elected instead to sustain it under some serious political opposition,"
John Walke, an NRDC air quality expert, said recently. "The fact is, we're
facing a major health problem and they did the right thing."
Earlier this month, however, the unusual alliance threatened to come apart,
after several environmental groups accused the EPA and OMB of bowing to
industry pressure to delay the planned implementation of the new standards
by two years, until 2010, and to create an emissions credit trading program
that might weaken tough new standards for both on-road and off-road diesel
emissions. Environmental leaders became alarmed after learning that
American Petroleum Institute officials emerged from a Nov. 19 meeting with
OMB and EPA officials convinced that the EPA now favored extending the
deadline.
But with both the administration and environmental leaders eager to show
that they occasionally can work together on important policy issues, the
EPA offered reassurances that it would stick to a tough regulation, and
environmentalists released a letter outlining their concerns but pledging
to continue to cooperate.
The diesel fuel used in off-road equipment has a high sulfur concentration
of 3,000 parts per million that clogs anti-pollution devices and
contributes to harmful pollution particles. Under the original EPA
proposal, refineries would be required to cut the sulfur content of their
fuel to 15 parts per million by 2008, while engine manufacturers would have
to install pollution control equipment between 2009 and 2012, according to
EPA officials.
But EPA officials say they are leaning toward an alternative approach
strongly favored by industry that would require a modest interim reduction
in the sulfur content by 2007 and put off the new standard until 2010.
Diesel engine manufacturers would be given an additional two years to meet
the requirements for installing new anti-pollution devices.
"If we end up going with the two-step approach, it would be structured in a
way to get the same environmental benefit," said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, the
EPA's assistant administrator for air quality policy. "Things are not
slipping. We are still on track."
Environmentalists and public health groups have criticized President Bush
for repeatedly siding with industry in disputes over clean air standards,
especially those involving older, coal-fired power plants and refineries
that generate extensive air pollution. Yet the administration has
consistently and aggressively advocated tougher diesel emission standards
-- well beyond those imposed in Europe. It has also rejected previous pleas
of industry and lawmakers for more lenient regulations. Shortly after Bush
took office in January 2001, the EPA approved a Clinton administration rule
requiring swift and sharp reductions of as much as 95 percent in emissions
of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides from large diesel-powered trucks
and buses. That rule -- later affirmed by the courts -- begins to take
effect in 2007.
Administration officials say their current effort to slash off-road
emissions was prompted by the Supreme Court's unanimous decision last year
upholding the EPA's new particulate matter and ozone standards, plus a
growing body of scientific evidence on the adverse health effects of fine
particles of airborne soot produced by diesel engines. Officials including
John D. Graham, chief of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, were particularly impressed by cost-benefit analyses showing that
the potential costs to industry were overshadowed by long-term economic and
public health benefits.
But industry groups including diesel fuel refiners, engine makers, general
contractors and agricultural interests were troubled by the
administration's aggressive approach and vigorously lobbied to try to
weaken the proposal or delay its effective dates.
Some say the proposed rules would harm engine manufacturers, create diesel
fuel shortages by driving some refineries out of business and impose huge
new costs on consumers of diesel equipment and vehicles.
"What we've seen preliminarily is that there will be a whole lot of costs
for us and very uncertain benefits in terms of improving air quality," said
Rebeckah Freeman of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Leah Wood,
environmental counsel for Associated General Contractors of America, said,
"It is very hard to be supportive of things when the broad-based economic
effects are not taken into consideration."
"We're supportive [of new rules] and we recognize we can't sell diesel fuel
if it's perceived as dirty and contributing to pollution," said Ed Murphy,
a senior official at the American Petroleum Institute. "But we have done
studies showing it could reduce the supply of diesel to the markets. The
economics make it difficult for refiners to justify the investments you
have to make."
Administration officials are exploring ways to mitigate the rules' impact
on industry. For example, they are considering an approach that would allow
the use of market-based averaging and emissions credit trading between
off-road and highway engines. But Whitman said nothing will be done to
diminish the impact of the new emission rules for heavy-duty trucks and
buses. "We're not backing away from that at all," she said.
� 2002 The Washington Post Company
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern
them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female;
own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of
freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the
duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common
calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.
-US National Security Policy, 2002
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
