Bush’s EPA to drop lead air pollution limits?

December 7, 2006

Even by the admittedly low standards of the Bush administration, this seems unusually low. (thanks to several readers for the heads-up)

The Bush administration is considering doing away with health standards that cut lead from gasoline, widely regarded as one of the nation’s biggest clean-air accomplishments.

Battery makers, lead smelters, refiners all have lobbied the administration to do away with the Clean Air Act limits.

The Carter administration first took action against lead 30 years ago after it was identified as an air pollutant, and now the administration is at least considering a rollback. Bush administration officials apparently acknowledged the possibility of dropping the health standards for lead air pollution, but said revoking 1976 standards might be justified “given the significantly changed circumstances.”

This isn’t an area of personal expertise, but it appears Bush officials and industry lobbyists are the only ones who agree with this analysis. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, noting the nerve damage lead can do to children, said, “This deregulatory effort cannot be defended.”

John Walke, a former EPA lawyer who is now the clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, added, “The Democrats just took over the Congress, and they’re talking about something as dangerous and idiotic as eliminating the national health standard for air pollution?” It just doesn’t add up.”

Clean Air Watch suggests it’s about pushing the EPA’s political appointees over its scientists before a new Democratic congressional majority can do anything about it.

The new approach will downgrade the role of EPA’s science advisers, who recently urged the agency to set tougher national clean air standards for soot and more recently for smog. Perhaps this is the ultimate Bush administration payback for the attempts by the science advisers to base clean air standards on science. (Which they are supposed to be).

EPA’s new approach will politicize the process for setting clean-air standards. It will boost the role of political appointees at the agency…. This appears to be the first in a series of industry-friendly moves by the Bush EPA before the new Congress is installed.

The agency will adopt the strategy urged by the oil industry, which has sought for months to downgrade the influence of EPA’s science advisers as part of the industry strategy to prevent tougher clean-air requirements. Under this new approach, the science advisers will be permitted to comment on EPA “advanced notices” of proposed rules, just like anyone else. That’s a huge change from the status quo. Right now, the independent scientists have a far more active role as they interact frequently with EPA career scientists.

At this point, I should emphasize that the AP report noted that this change is being “considered,” and has not been implemented yet. But if the administration does go through with it, expect Congress to have a serious fit.

Maybe the Republicans realized that only stupid people are voting for them, and lead poisoning makes people… stupid.

Seriously, this looks like a push to the right so that when the Dems get in, their pushing to the left will be negated somewhat to begin with. More blowing up the tracks, as it were.

  • I hate to bring up the “I word” or impeachment, but that may be the only way to deal with Bush and his policies. Lowering clean air standards is pretty darn serious and is obviously a favor to large corporations. I shudder to think about how much more damage Bush and his policies will do in the next two years, with or without his lap dog congress. Remember how much power the executive branch has already with administrative directives, which don’t always require congressional oversight. People in the know say he has already gutted the EPA and what about FEEMA? We’re happy about the last election, but don’t sell these crooks short. They are very bad people.

  • The Democrats just took over the Congress, and they’re talking about something as dangerous and idiotic as eliminating the national health standard for air pollution?” It just doesn’t add up

    Casting the Democrats as free market hating obstructionists, disobeying the will of the executive branch DOES ADD up though….

    If DEMS are smart they can use this against Bush et. al. by tying lead to childhood problems…maybe they can bring out the Democratic version of the snowflake babies for a photo -op!!!!!

    yet again this proves

    Republicans ….LOVE THE FETUS….HATE THE CHILD

  • I’m an environmental engineer but this is still out of my purview. My first question is what do refiners have to gain by adding lead to gasoline? My second question is have auto manufacturers been consulted about this? I was under the impression that motors produced for current car models would be damaged by leaded gasoline.

    Can any petroleum or mechanical engineers shed some light?

  • Thanks, Greg H. I thought I was (possibly) mis-remembering that lead was added to gasoline. That why there was such a furor in this country when unleaded was more expensive than regular. I also have been given to understand that diesel gas is less expensive to produce than regular or unleaded, but costs more at the pump.

    I’m still waiting for someone to explain THAT to me.

  • “he EPA says concentrations of lead in the air have dropped more than 90 percent in the past 2 1/2 decades.”

    Here I was, thinking that The Clean Air Act may have had something to do with that.

    (Hey, I know where there’s a government for sale. Bidding starts at…)

  • Maybe this is the White House’s punishment to the American people for electing the Democrats in charge of Congress.

  • More examples pof Georgie’s “spirit of bipartisanship” he declared he believed in on November 8. Actually, it should be “bipartisanship spirit”, which is known as “b.s.” for short.

    You know, they really are Orcs, and they really do live in Mordor.

  • Lead was added to gasoline. This was done for a number of reasons:

    1. To improve the way that gasoline burned.

    2. To reduce or eliminated the “knocking” sound caused by premature ignition in high-performance large engines and in smaller, high-compression engines.

    3. Lead also provided lubrication, which prevented the close-fitting parts of the engine from chafing against one another.

    New cars however, require the use of lead-free gasoline. This is because new cars come with catalytic converters (pollution control devices), and lead destroys the substance used as the catalyst.

    The diesel deal: My understanding is that it is related to the fact that the US is just flat out of refining capacity. The US is now importing large amounts of already refined finished products – much more expensive that refining it at home. Additionally, the US refineries are more focused on producing gasoline than on diesel. Hence the pricing structure.

  • Bush just thinks that if you need iron in yer diet, well, lead is heavier, so it must be better for ya! And since lead levels are down, he is the one to bring them back up!
    Heck, his mommy never stopped him from eating those flakes when he was a child, and he turned out ok!
    Who says he’s stupid?

  • I second Greg H’s question. Wouldn’t it cost the auto and oil industries more to re-tool back to engines that can run on leaded gas at this point? It seems kind of bizarre, but maybe it’s just a cheap trick to annoy the Dems.

    The Reps are useless for pretty much everything so this kind of petty knavery might just be the only thing they’re capable of at this point.

  • To second Nance, adding lead back in to gasoline wouldn’t be particulary hard on automanufacturers, they’d just remove the catalytic converters and make some minor changes to the exhaust systems to accomodate the removal (it has to do with back pressure and other assorted oddities). Refiners on the other hand would have to make a few changes. Notably get lead producers back into their supply chain.

    Hmmm…I wonder who’s pushing for the change?

  • “You know, they really are Orcs, and they really do live in Mordor.”

    Actually, there really ARE Orcs, they really ARE from Mordor, and they really HAVE taken over America.

  • Earlier this year the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that some forms of lead (inorganic compounds) are probable human carcinogens. This agency also concluded that “impaired cognition, attention and language function have been observed in children at blood lead levels previously thought to be harmless.”

    EPA is currently reviewing the health standards for lead, with a legal obligation to strengthen those standards if the health science dictates. Accordingly, these recent scientific developments in our understanding of the greater hazards of lead are likely the best explanation for the seemingly mystifying push by the Bush administration EPA and polluting industries to scrap the lead health standard altogether: if the current lead health standard is recognized to be unsafe and subsequently strengthened, this will end up requiring industry to adopt more protective lead control measures to safeguard public health. That sensible outcome is what the Bush EPA and industry are fighting to avoid.

    • Comments are closed.