Hearthlist Digest #303 - Saturday, May 15, 1999 vent free risk by "tony)(by way of [email protected]" <[email protected]> AP story on court ruling blocking new PM 2.5 and Ozone standards by "John Crouch" <[email protected]> Federal Court Ruling by "Grant Darrow" <[email protected]>
(back) Subject: vent free risk From: [email protected] (tony) (by way of [email protected]) Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 14:56:44 -0400 (EDT) O.K. I don't know if that casualty occurred, although I attended the vent free seminar at HPA and it was reaffirmed that no death has ever occurred (as of that time). BUT, what if a death occurred from a gas grill (they could explode if faulty) would everybody stop selling gas grills? What about selling chain saws, automobiles, guns, etc.? If we were all afraid to sell anything that could be prove to be harmful in some way, we wouldn't even have a functioning economy. No one would repair brakes on a car, work with electricity, even sell food! My attitude is there are systems in place to regulate all these industries, including liability insurance, so sell what the public wants to buy! Tony Palmer
(back) Subject: AP story on court ruling blocking new PM 2.5 and Ozone standards From: "John Crouch" <[email protected]> (by way of [email protected]) Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 14:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Court Voids EPA Air-Pollution Rules By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) A federal appeals court blocked the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday from imposing tougher air quality requirements the agency says are needed to protect people with respiratory problems and children. The ruling by a three-judge panel, acting on a lawsuit by a number of industry groups, was a major defeat for the Clinton administration, which has viewed the air regulations as one of its top environmental accomplishments. Although the EPA said it will ask the Justice Department to appeal, the ruling halted any further enforcement of rules imposed in July 1997 that require states to dramatically reduce the amount of ozone, or smog, and microscopic soot they may allow in the air. The administration is "deeply disappointed" by the ruling, said White House press secretary Joe Lockhart. "We will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that the American people are adequately protected against ... harmful air pollutants." The three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected claims by the industry groups that the regulations were based on incomplete and poor science and were too costly. But two of the three judges concluded the EPA failed to justify the pollution levels it selected as minimum requirements to protect public health. The agency "construed (sections of) the Clean Air Act so loosely as to render them unconstitutional delegations of legislative power," wrote Judges Douglas H. Ginsburg and Stephen F. Williams. Judge David S. Tatel, who joined the other two judges in some of the decision, nevertheless, issued a strong dissent on this key point. The EPA, in fact, used "reasonable explanations" for setting the standards it chose, wrote Tatel. The regulations imposed much tougher health standards for smog-causing ozone and opened the way for the first time for regulation of microscopic soot. The tighter standards put hundreds of counties in violation of federal air quality standards. A broad array of industry groups, from electric utilities to trucking companies, vigorously fought the regulations, arguing they would require costly pollution reductions while the health benefits had yet to be shown. The EPA has argued that current ozone and soot standards do not protect certain segments of the population, including small children, the elderly and people with respiratory ailments. When they were imposed, Vice President Al Gore called the tougher requirements "the most significant steps in a generation to protect the American people, especially our children, from air pollution." The revised air standards limited ozone, an essential part of smog, to 0.08 parts per million, instead of 0.12 parts per million under the old requirement. And for the first time they required that states regulate microscopic particulates, or soot, from power plants, cars and other sources down to 2.5 microns, or 28 times smaller than the width of a human hair. The appeals court panel, with Tatel dissenting, said the EPA did not establish clear "principles" to support those specific standards and, instead, selected them arbitrarily. Industry representatives and critics of the regulations in Congress quickly applauded the decision. "It's a big victory, one of the biggest," said Robin Conrad, senior vice president for litigation at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. She said the ruling acknowledged industry's claim that the EPA in setting the standard was "picking numbers out of the hat." The EPA will have to "start the process all over again ... and justify its numbers," she said. "The decision shows that EPA Administrator Carol Browner clearly overreached her authority," said Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., who has argued the new standards were too burdensome on business. The decision stunned EPA officials and many environmentalists. "This ruling is a direct assault on the principle of health-based air quality protection," said David Hawkins, head of the air and energy office of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Gene Karpinski, executive director of U.S. Public Interest Research Group, called it "an outrageous decision on behalf of the polluters and ... a severe threat to public health." (14 May 1999 18:07 EDT) John Crouch Director of Government Relations Hearth Products Association 7840 Madison Ave, suite 185 Fair Oaks, California 95628 916.536.2390 voice 888.206.7556 Pager (U.S. only) 916.536.2392 telefax [email protected] www.hearthassoc.org
(back) Subject: Federal Court Ruling From: Grant Darrow <[email protected]> (by way of [email protected]) Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 14:59:32 -0400 (EDT) When the City of La Grande asked me to once again sit on their air quality advisory committee to deal with 2.5, i told them the new standard was unrealistic, unwarranted, as well as unattainable. I was also convinced that throwing down a new standard on a community that had just voluntarily met and exceeded everyones expectations would destroy what we had gained by simple education and volunteerism. I politely said no. One of the great ironies of La Grandes success is that 3 months AFTER La Grande had completed its goals Congress excepted our SIP (State Implementation Plan) and entered it into the federal Register. The Sip had been written and submitted for the Feds review 3 years proior. Under this new proposed standard, La Grande has been grappling with regulation for the sake of regulation. In the beginning of this new go around I and the City Council asked, why La Grande? DEQ said because we where so well regulated before and all the infastructure for monitoring is in place, lucky us. My personal frustration with having won a big battle only to fight it again goes beyound words, so todays news that a Federal Court also agrees that the new standard is unwarranted and has thrown it out brings relief that the only thing to keep me awake tonight is thinking about that hugh fireplace chimney restoration job I start on Monday...... willieweep, last of the climbing sweeps