Air Quality Officials Propose Tougher Controls on Carcinogens

In an effort to lower the risk of cancer to people who live near a wide array of businesses ranging from metal platers to gasoline stations, regional air quality officials called Thursday for tougher controls on emissions of carcinogenic air contaminants.

Under a proposal to be voted on in two weeks by the board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, new businesses would be prohibited from opening unless they could comply with a tough new standard on 10 targeted cancer-causing air toxics.

The rule would also cover existing businesses whenever they relocate within the South Coast Air Basin or create more pollution by modifying existing equipment.

Businesses most likely to be denied a permit to operate under the new rule are new gasoline stations and companies involved in paint stripping and furniture refurbishing, foam manufacturing and some metal plating.

It is estimated that 30,000 tons of cancer-causing toxic air contaminants are spewed into the four-county air basin each year, taking an annual toll of 200 lives.

While environmental pollution is believed to account for only 2% of all cancer cases, AQMD officials said they were obligated to act.

“The 10 compounds that we are proposing to regulate are the highest-risk carcinogenic compounds that we know of in California. These substances from the business community must be regulated,” AQMD Deputy Executive Officer Pat Nemeth said.

In the past, caps on emissions have been chiefly used to reduce smog. Moreover, the emission caps were limited by the availability of technological controls and did not always reduce cancer risks to acceptable levels.

Under the new rule, even those businesses that were willing to install the best pollution controls possible would not be exempted.

The district staff’s push for a formal air toxics rule comes amid growing concern over air pollutants that don’t necessarily cause smog, but do pose cancer risks.

For the last three years, the AQMD has attempted with mixed success to enforce a policy requiring businesses to limit their release of cancer-causing air toxics so that the risks of cancer posed to humans is no greater than 1 in 100,000.

However, the district limited its enforcement to all but the largest polluters. And even this effort was successfully challenged by some industries that accused the AQMD of exceeding its authority. These critics argued that a mere policy--as opposed to a formal rule such as the AQMD is now proposing--lacked the force of law.

Under the new proposal, any new business or existing business that wanted to relocate or modify its polluting equipment would be required to close down the equipment unless air toxics emissions could be lowered so that an individual exposed to the source would have less than one chance in 100,000 of contracting cancer over a 70-year lifetime.

Because the proposed rule covers 10 cancer-causing air toxics, contrasted with the 33 covered by the policy now, district officials conceded that it is possible that some businesses could actually increase their emissions. But they said the substances not covered under the proposed rule are less dangerous than those included.

Opponents of the rule, led by a coalition of industries in the basin, are urging the district to accept a higher risk of one additional cancer case per 10,000, instead of one in 100,000. They argue in a report that the more stringent risk standard proposed by the AQMD staff “may not reflect meaningful differences in health effects.”

“There comes a point in time when one is chasing after a (health) benefit that is negligible,” said attorney Robert Wyman, speaking for the industry coalition, the Air Toxics Regulatory Group. However, in terms of economic impact on business, the differences between a risk standard of one in 100,000 and one in 10,000 would be considerable, he said.

“A large number of sources will have permits denied,” Wyman said.

Nemeth denied that. “I think this will not have a significant impact on industry,” she told reporters.

Nemeth said a staff review of 6,000 requests for permits last year found that if the new rule had been in effect, two permits would have been denied on grounds that control equipment would have failed to reduce cancer risks to acceptable levels.

While business interests called for a more lenient cancer risk standard, environmentalists called for a rule tougher than proposed by the staff.

Barbara Edelman of the Coalition for Clean Air said Thursday that the rule should also cover existing emission sources as well as new or modified ones, and non-cancerous toxic air contaminants as well as carcinogens.

“At this very moment, people are exposed to carcinogens that will not be controlled by this rule. For an agency that prides itself as being the most stringent in the nation, this rule falls far short of a high standard,” Edelman said.