Whoops, not so fast...

Last Friday I made a comment in my weekend wambling post that I was amazed that the EPA actually did the right thing and allowed tougher standards of airborne lead emissions, the first significant reduction in over thirty years. According to the EPA's own website, lead is a major environmental health hazard for young children. Research shows that blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood (µg/dL) in young children can result in lowered intelligence, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity, and antisocial behavior. However, there currently is no demonstrated safe concentration of lead in blood, and adverse health effects can occur at lower concentrations.

Well gee, I guess it was too good to be true. Today it was noted that the EPA under White House pressure decided to rollback the new standards at the last minute. The story here.

The following is from OMB Watch 10/21/08:

New monitoring requirement undercut by OMB

To address concerns that EPA's system for monitoring airborne lead pollution is inadequate, the agency announced an expansion of its monitoring network. However, officials at OMB watered down a new requirement, which could allow more than 100 polluting facilities to go unmonitored.

Critics say the Bush administration has allowed the national system for detecting airborne lead to founder. Currently, state and local authorities operate 133 monitors nationwide, according to an EPA spokesperson. In 1980, 800 monitors were in operation.

EPA used its revision to the air quality standard for lead to set criteria for the placement or relocation of new monitors. EPA estimates the new criteria will require an additional 236 monitors.

One criterion that triggers the placement of monitors is the amount of lead pollution emitted by industrial facilities. The new regulation requires state and local officials to set up monitors near sources emitting one ton or more of lead pollution per year. In a public proposal EPA unveiled in May, the agency signaled its intent to set the threshold between 200 kg and 600 kg (about 0.22 tons and 0.66 tons). An OMB Watch investigation of EPA's rulemaking docket discovered documents that indicate officials from OMB pushed for the weaker threshold requirement.

A draft of the final rule attached to an Oct. 13 e-mail from EPA to OMB contains language stating the emissions threshold would be set at 0.5 tons per year. The 0.5-ton threshold would have been consistent with EPA's May proposal.

But another e-mail from EPA to OMB sent late on Oct. 14 — less than 48 hours before the final rule was publicly announced — stated, "[I]f OMB wants a 1 ton threshold, it would have to provide a rationale for that point of view." The e-mail requested "a technical rationale, and not policy views." The final rule provides no such rationale.

The e-mail indicates EPA Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock spoke to officials at OMB, possibly Susan Dudley, the head of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA reviews and sometimes edits drafts of agency regulations.

Dudley and Peacock previously scuffled over the aforementioned ozone rulemaking in which EPA and White House officials disagreed over whether to set a separate standard to protect plant life. Dudley won that policy battle after President Bush was brought in to arbitrate.

The change from a 0.5-ton threshold to a one-ton threshold could have real consequences. EPA estimates the one-ton threshold will apply to 135 facilities. However, the 0.5-ton threshold would have applied to at least 259 facilities. The change means state and local officials will not be required to place new lead pollution monitors near at least 124 facilities that emit lead.