<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Gina Solomon's Blog: U.S. Law and Policy</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/gsolomon//57</id>
   <updated>2008-04-09T20:42:18Z</updated>
   
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Enterprise 1.52</generator>

<entry>
   <title>Air pollution standards: Will the next debacle be about lead?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/will_the_next_ozone_debacle_be.html" />
   <id>tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/gsolomon//57.1055</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-17T22:01:31Z</published>
   <updated>2008-04-09T20:42:18Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[This past week, the EPA gave itself another black eye by&nbsp;adopting a standard for ozone (smog) pollution that EPA science advisors say is inadequate to protect human health or the environment. Check out the Washington Post story here. Worse still,...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>Gina Solomon</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="Health and the Environment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="U.S. Law and Policy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="14" label="airpollution" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="1109" label="cleanairact" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="225" label="EPA" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="458" label="lead" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="1803" label="leadpoisoning" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="223" label="ozone" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="435" label="simplesteps" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/">
      <![CDATA[<p>This past week, the EPA gave itself another black eye by&nbsp;adopting a standard for ozone (smog) pollution that EPA science advisors say is inadequate to protect human health or the environment. Check out the Washington Post story <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/12/AR2008031202362.html">here</a>. Worse still, documents have since come out showing that the White House trumped both the scientists and the EPA -- requiring the Agency to issue a <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DIRTY_AIR?SITE=AP&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">weaker rule</a> than originally intended.</p><p>I care a lot about ozone air pollution, since I see asthmatic people all the time who are affected on &quot;spare the air&quot; days, and I know the scientific evidence that shows how unhealthy the current ozone standard is for my patients. But I&#39;m also really worried about the signal this sends for other important air quality decisions in the EPA pipeline over the coming months. </p><p>The EPA air quality standard for toxic lead was set in 1978.&nbsp;Decades of science later, it&#39;s now clear that&nbsp;the 30 year old standard won&#39;t protect children&#39;s health. A great community group, the <a href="http://www.moenviron.org/airqualityhealth.asp">Missouri Coalition for the Environment</a>, sued EPA to force them to revisit this outdated standard. Now EPA must act by September. You might think this will be a good thing, since lead is generally recognized to be the number one environmental&nbsp;threat to children&#39;s health. But this Administration has shown how much it cares about human health when it set the ozone standard last week.</p><p>In fact, the EPA Administrator is seriously considering <a href="http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/pb/fs20071204.html">alternatives</a> that include completely eliminating the air quality standard for lead, or keeping in place the 1978 standard. These proposals are totally at odds with the unanimous opinion of two EPA <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/epa-considers-removing-lead-protections.html">scientific advisory committees</a>. We expect a formal proposal from EPA within the next month. </p><p>Stay tuned for this key decision. We&#39;ll need all the help we can get if EPA proposes to throw public health out the window again.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>
