|
IL | Our Quincy Herald Whig had an article today on the EPA's proposed dust regs.
You will probably have to sign up to get to the article and view the digital pages.
I will try to copy and paste
The American Lung Assoc. is noted to be one of the ones behind it.
Farmers fear dust rules
won’t refl ect rural life
INDIANAPOLIS — As they begin the fall harvest,
wary farmers are watching a federal debate
over whether to clamp down on one of rural life’s
constant companions — the dust clouds that farm
machinery kick up in fi elds and along unpaved
roads.
Farming groups have urged the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to retain its current
standards for dust, soot and other microscopic
particles, arguing that tighter restrictions would
be unworkable and that dust isn’t a real pollutant.
Grain farmer Charles Schmitt, who farms
about 2,000 acres of corn and soybeans near the
southwestern Indiana town of Haubstadt, called
the possibility of tougher rules on dust “ridiculous.”
The 59-year-old, who’s farmed for more than
four decades, said there’s little farmers can do to
reduce dust, especially after a dry summer like
this year’s that left his fi elds parched.
“Mother Nature has more to do with it than we
do — there’s going to be dust and dirt no matter
what,” Schmitt said.
The EPA is reviewing its airborne pollutant
standards, as required every fi ve years under the
Clean Air Act. It’s looking both at its standards
for tiny particles of industrial pollution, and
slightly larger particles called “coarse particulate
matter” that include dust.
Supporters of tougher restrictions said they’re
needed to help clear the air of tiny grains that
can lodge deep in the lungs, worsening heart and
respiratory problems.
But farming and livestock groups and some
lawmakers call those risks overstated. They argue
that tighter rules could hurt rural areas,
which they fear might exceed new limits and be
required to implement plans to reduce dust.
In July, nearly two dozen senators from farm
states urged EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in
a joint letter to keep in place the current particulate
standards, approved in 2006.
Tougher standards, their letter warned, would
result in “extremely burdensome” dust control
measures to bring regions into compliance and
“could slow economic development and impose
signifi cant cost to farmers and businesses.”
The American Lung Association has urged the
EPA to adopt stricter limits. The group maintains
that offi cials could reduce dust, from paving gravel
roads to encouraging farmers to grow more of
their crops using no-till approaches that reduce
the need for tractor work.
See GRANT, Page 5
See DUST, Page 5E
president for national policy and advocacy,
said the agricultural industry’s claims mirror
those other industries raised when they
faced EPA restrictions.
“Every industry that sees that they’re
going to have to clean up have had the same
concerns and we’ve seen time and again
where they were able to fi gure out a solution,”
she said.
Nolen said it’s not just loose soil that
blows around and off farms — the particles
also include diesel exhaust from farm machinery,
animal waste and herbicides and
insecticides.
The EPA’s scientifi c advisers told the
agency this summer that the agency could
better protect public health by replacing
the existing standard of 150 micrograms
of coarse particles per cubic meter with a
standard between 65 and 85 micrograms
per cubic meter.
The agency is expected to release a fi nal
document next month spelling out its options
for revising the standards. The EPA
plans to announce any proposed changes
in February, and will likely approve a fi nal
updated rule by October 2011. The agency
would then determine which areas of the
nation don’t meet those new standards.
The EPA said in a statement that it is
“committed to issuing air quality standards
for particle pollution that are scientifi cally
sound.”
But the American Farm Bureau Federation
contends there’s no scientifi c evidence
supporting a need for tighter regulations on
dust and that farm dust is different from
the particles released by industry.
Rick Krause, the group’s senior director
of congressional relations, said there’s no
effective and economical way for farmers
to reduce dust levels. He said it’s wrong to
lump farm dust in with industrial pollution
and car fumes.
Tamara Thies, chief environmental
counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association, said tougher rules would penalize
agricultural areas, particularly those
in more arid regions where dust is a nearly
constant presence.
“When you get out into the agricultural
areas of this country what you have is dust
— dust is a part of doing business. And most
of rural dust is just dust,” she said.
Oklahoma cattle rancher Jason Hitch,
who owns and operates his family’s 12,000-
acre ranch near the Panhandle town of
Guymon with his brother Chris, said dust
permeates everything in the wind-swept,
semiarid region where many roads are
packed dirt. It gets in his eyes, mouth and
nose, but Hitch said he’s so accustomed to it
he hardly notices.
Hitch Ranch, a fi fth-generation operation
that also includes hogs and crops, is
buffeted by relentless winds and gets only
about 16 inches of precipitation a year.
Hitch said it would be prohibitively expensive
and impractical for his workers, for
example, to dampen the soil while farming
to reduce dust levels. Hitch thinks federal
offi cials just don’t understand life on the
Great Plains.
“We spend a lot of time cussing and discussing
what goes on in Washington and
what they come up with. We don’t feel like
they’re very much in touch with production
agriculture,” he said
| |
|
Article on EPA dust regulations
