Nearly $100,000 in public and private dollars are being spent on lobbying and "sponsored research" in an effort to convince the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to designate Scott, Rock Island and Muscatine counties as "non-attainment" for fine particulate pollution.
The taxpayer money from the cities of Bettendorf, Davenport and Muscatine, Scott County and the Iowa Department of Economic Development is being used to help fund a study by noted University of Iowa researchers on "Understanding Iowa's Particulate Matter Episodes." The private funders of the $40,000 study include Alcoa, Blackhawk Foundry, Grain Processing Corporation, Muscatine Power and Water and IPSCO Steel.
Another $51,000 is being paid by the Quad City Development Group, the local advocacy organization for industry, to The Clark Group, a Washington, D.C. lobbying firm which specializes in air quality issues. The funds are being used for "strategic outreach" to federal agencies and for advice on environmental and legislative policies.
The firm has experience working with communities seeking to avoid "non-attainment" designations by EPA. In 2005, the firm was hired by the Middle Georgia Clean Air Coalition which sought unsuccessfully to avoid the "non-attainment" designation for ground-level ozone emissions.
The lobbying efforts are aimed at getting the EPA to narrow the area it designates as non-attainment for Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5). The industry lobbying group would like only those areas closest to the air monitors exceeding PM 2.5 standards to be classified "non-attainment."
The air monitors already exceeding the EPA's PM 2.5 standards are located at Garfield Elementary School, Muscatine, (near Grain Processing) and near Blackhawk Foundry, Davenport. Both Grain Processing and Blackhawk Foundry have promised the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) they will make upgrades to their facilities to lower PM 2.5 emissions. The IDNR has told the EPA it believes the clean up projects at Grain Processing and Blackhawk would bring the area into attainment for PM 2.5 emissions by 2014.
The EPA's decision on non-attainment status for the three-county area is expected by Dec. 18.
The city/industry consortium's "sponsored research" project has as a "key milestone" submission of a draft report by Dec. 15. "The timeline has been selected so that University of Iowa research results will be available concurrently with EPA decisions on non-attainment status in Iowa," according to the study design. The final research report is scheduled for Jan. 31, 2009.
Assistant Professor Charles Stanier and Professor Gregory Carmichael are conducting the project. Both are recognized experts in the formation of particulate matter in the atmosphere.
One of the key issues the report will focus on is wintertime regional particulate matter formation which the researchers contend "cannot be controlled by individual site-specific control measures, but require a broad regional control strategy, sometimes aimed at multiple types of pollutants that contribute to PM 2.5."
Among the chemical pollutants which Stanier has identified as contributing to PM 2.5 formation are nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants and ammonia nitrate from farm fertilizers.
"There is a possibility that a string of winters with above average PM episodes could put large portions of Eastern Iowa out of Clean Air Act compliance," the research study backgrounder says.
Local industries and public officials are concerned a non-attainment designation will make it more difficult to attract new industry, more expensive when existing industry seeks to expand, and impact transportation expansion projects, such as the proposed Interstate 74 Bridge. Industries in Rock Island County have argued in letters to the EPA that PM 2.5 emissions from the Illinois Quad Cities do not contribute to the monitor violations which occurred in Iowa.
According to the EPA in issuing its PM 2.5 regulations, the national standards "will prevent thousands of premature deaths from heart and lung disease, tens of thousands of hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and millions of absences from school and work every year."
PM 2.5 includes dust, smog and pollution smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter. Such particles deposit primarily in the lungs when inhaled.
If the area is designated as "non-attainment," the IDNR would be required to develop a State Implementation Plan designed to bring the region into compliance with the PM 2.5 standards. "The plan must include enforceable measures for reducing air pollutant emissions leading to the formation of fine particles in the atmosphere. The plan must also provide steps for the area to attain the PM 2.5 standards as quickly as possible, and the area must show how it will make reasonable progress toward attaining the standards," according to the EPA.
The regulation of PM 2.5 has a long and tortuous legal history.
According to the EPA's web site:
"After EPA issued the PM 2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards in July 1997, several industry organizations and state governments challenged EPA's action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit). Two years later, the court ruled in a split decision that the Clean Air Act, as applied by EPA in setting the 1997 standards for PM and ozone, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority to EPA.
"The ruling did not question the science or decision-making process used to establish the standards. The court remanded the PM 2.5 standards to EPA but did not vacate them. In June 1999, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and EPA petitioned the court for a rehearing en banc with the entire D.C. Circuit Court. On October 29, 1999, the court denied the petition for rehearing.
"The DOJ and EPA then filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in December 1999 to appeal the decision of the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court issued its decision to hear the appeal in November 2000. The Supreme Court issued its decision on the merits of the appeal on February 27, 2001. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that EPA's approach to setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in accordance with the CAA did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority.
"The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the constitutionality of the CAA provision that authorizes the Agency to set national air quality standards, stating that this provision 'fits comfortably within the scope of discretion permitted by our precedent.' The Supreme Court also affirmed that the CAA requires EPA to set standards at levels necessary to protect the public health and welfare, without considering the economic costs of implementing the standards. The Supreme Court remanded several other issues back to the D.C. Circuit, including the issue of whether EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in establishing the specific levels of the standards.
"The D.C. Circuit heard arguments in this remanded case in December 2001, and issued its decision on March 26, 2002. The D.C. Circuit found that the Agency had 'engaged in reasoned decision making,' rejecting the claim that the Agency had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in setting the levels of the standards. This last decision by the D.C. Circuit gave EPA a clear path to move forward with implementation of the PM 2.5 standards."
To download the background and rationale for the "Understanding Iowa's Particulate Matter Episodes" study by University of Iowa researchers Charles Stanier and Gregory Carmichael, CLICK HERE.
Below are direct links to EPA information on basic Particulate Matter information, FAQ on PM non-attainment designations and the basis for the PM 2.5 standards:
PM 2.5 designations
Basic information on PM 2.5
PM 2.5 standards
