Published January 28 in Quad City Times
By John B. Askew
Administrator, Region 7, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
On Jan. 6, the Quad-City Times published an editorial with the headline “EPA unjustly condemns Q-C.” We believe that some of the points expressed by the editorial board were inaccurate and misrepresent the work of the Environmental Protection Agency for the people who work and live in the Quad-City area.
First and foremost, we want people to understand that air quality as it relates to public health has to be our No. 1 concern. We have to ensure the best possible environment for the citizens of the Quad-City area and their children. It is our fundamental and statutory responsibility.
EPA announced the decision Dec. 22 that portions of Muscatine, Scott and Rock Island counties are designated nonattainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards fine particle matter standard. The decision was not made lightly and culminates more than 12 months work with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and area agencies analyzing scientific data. My staff has met with Iowa DNR and area agencies and we do know the area. The determination was made after examination of data from 2005-2007, the most current certified air quality data.
EPA weighs nine factors to help determine the boundaries of a nonattainment area. By law, the boundaries must include areas violating the standard as well as areas with pollution sources that are contributing to the problem. The nine factors include pollutant emissions, air quality data, population density and degree of urbanization, traffic and community patterns, growth, meteorology, geography, jurisdiction, and the sophistication of emission control resources. These factors are the same that cities and the chamber of commerce would use to plan utilities, municipal utilities and highways, and attract potential new businesses and federal development funds.
EPA staff believes that scientific data analysis has shown numerous industrial sources of fine particle pollution in Scott and Muscatine counties. All of those pollution sources are in the area designations. EPA excluded a majority of the rural portion of the counties from the nonattainment area as noted in EPA’s technical support document because we felt they did not significantly contribute to pollution in the area.
In our analysis, we have to look at the overall picture of the region and assess what areas need to be included to allow the state the flexibility to tailor the controls to best fit the area and bring air quality back to healthful levels in the quickest possible amount of time.
Iowa DNR also has let the EPA know that 2006-2008 monitoring data shows that the area does meet the standard. As a result, the state may take advantage of a provision that allows the newer data to be certified and used as evidence of attainment. Even under this circumstance, EPA believes additional pollution reductions are warranted to ensure area air quality remains healthy.
If the data is properly certified and demonstrates compliance with the health-based standard, EPA can lift the nonattainment designation. We believe there are still problems to be addressed to ensure people have clean healthy air to breathe. We expect the state and area officials will work to reduce pollution to ensure the area doesn’t continue to alternate between compliance and noncompliance with the standard.
John B. Askew is regional administrator, U.S. EPA Region 7 based in Kansas City. He can be contacted via email at r7actionline@epa.gov
