AQMD Adopts Scaled-Back Pollution Rule
Over the objections of its own experts and outraged environmentalists, the Southland’s air quality board Friday adopted an industry-authored version of a measure designed to protect residential neighborhoods from fumes linked to cancer and other serious health dangers.
The unanimous vote by the South Coast Air Quality Management District culminated nine months of acrimonious debate and delays over how stringently to control toxic chemicals that industries release into Southern California’s air.
The decision came despite a stern warning from the AQMD staff that the downscaled measure “will result in risk reduction for very few people” and admonishments from environmentalists that the public would be better off with no regulation.
“It’s a dark day for public health and unfortunately a very bright day for toxic emitters,” said Dennis Zane, executive director of the Coalition for Clean Air.
Most AQMD board members said they are not convinced that the health risk to people inhaling the chemicals is great enough to justify the high cost of more stringent controls. A staff-written measure rejected Friday by the AQMD board would have been 10 times more protective of public health but would have cost industries at least $10 million a year.
“We’d cause more economic damage with our good intentions than we would benefit public health,” AQMD board member Stephen Albright said of the tougher proposal.
Southland industries--battered by the recession and subject to some of the nation’s most stringent smog rules--hailed the vote as a prudent move, given the scientific uncertainty of cancer risk from toxic chemicals. Los Angeles attorney Robert Wyman, who represents four aerospace firms and several oil companies, said the new regulation “strikes the right balance” between protecting public health and the economy. More stringent controls might have driven businesses out of the region, he said.
Under the regulation, if the health risk in a community exceeds a certain threshold for cancer and other diseases, a company must alter its manufacturing techniques to reduce emissions of benzene, chromium, arsenic and 114 other chemicals. Companies have five years to comply.
Where to set the threshold was what stirred up so much debate and anxiety. The AQMD board is required by state law to reduce toxic air pollution, but the law gives it great leeway in deciding how much risk is acceptable.
The program adopted Friday will affect only companies posing the most severe health risk. An estimated 250 businesses--ranging from aerospace concerns to metal-plating shops--in the four counties will be affected. About 7,000 businesses were targeted in the AQMD’s original proposal.
The AQMD estimates that the new rule will cost the 250 industries $1.2 million a year, about one-eighth as much as the tougher proposal. Industry officials say the cost will be 10 times higher.
Controlling toxic emissions produced by industries has been one of the most volatile issues faced by the AQMD in recent years. It delayed making its decision on five occasions.
Because they could not reach agreement with the AQMD staff, several major industries decided to craft their own plans. The standard approved Friday was written by aerospace companies, including Northrop, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas and Hughes Aircraft and oil refineries such as Chevron and Shell.
Every year industries in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties emit an estimated 68 million pounds of pollutants into the air that have been linked by medical experts to cancer, birth defects and other serious diseases. The AQMD estimates that more than 10,000 residents of the four-county region will develop cancer in their lifetimes as a result of exposure to air toxics from industries.
Most of the largest emitters are in Los Angeles County, mainly the Wilmington-Carson and Burbank areas, which have large numbers of industrial plants close to residential neighborhoods.
AQMD officials say the regulation will reduce industrial air pollution for about 70,000 people living in toxic hot spots in the four counties. Another 1.3 million residents who are exposed to a risk many health experts deem significant remain unprotected.
Most state and federal pollution regulations are based on a standard that allows between one and 10 cancer cases among every 1 million people. The new AQMD standard is 100 cancer cases in every 1 million people. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has generally considered that level “an unacceptable risk” when setting most rules.
The new rule does favor big business, AQMD Executive Officer James Lents said after Friday’s vote. “I do think the board has become extra-sensitive to the economy. We’ve certainly been beat up enough about that issue and that is being reflected in their decision.”
But Lents said the action was better than none at all because people living near the largest sources of toxic pollution will get some protection.
Environmental activists charged that the air quality board is creating “human sacrifice zones.”
“It is the weakest standard in the country for air toxics. It is sending the wrong message, and the public needs to know they are not being protected,” said Gail Feuer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Los Angeles.
“This is worse than nothing,” she said, “because this will be held up as a model for other cities.”
Much of the board’s debate focused on the inexact science of estimating the health risk of toxic pollution.
In coming up with the estimates, actual cases of cancer are not counted. Instead, the assessments reflect the odds of cancer based largely on what is known about workers who use toxic chemicals and laboratory experiments on animals.
AQMD Board member Norton Younglove said he was “very, very nervous” about imposing a costly rule grounded on risk assessments that are “not based on the real world.”
Although three board members--Marvin Braude, Leonard Paulitz and S. Roy Wilson--favored a more stringent rule, they voted with the majority after failing to persuade the eight other members.
Calling the standard set by the board “way out of line,” Braude said “the public generally will look at this as not a serious effort to face up to the problem.”
