Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Farmers say EPA 'dust-up' is over nothing

As the Environmental Protection Agency considers tougher regulations for farm dust, some farmers say dust isn't a real pollutant and is an accepted part of rural life. "EPA is reviewing its airborne pollutant standards, as required every five years under the Clean Air Act," Rick Callahan of The Associated Press reports. "It's looking both at its standards for tiny particles of industrial pollution, and slightly larger particles called 'coarse particulate matter' that include dust." Indiana grain farmer Charles Schmitt called tougher dust regulations "ridiculous" and told Callahan, "Mother Nature has more to do with it than we do — there's going to be dust and dirt no matter what."

"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," Callahan writes. Agriculture groups and farmers say those concerns are overstated, and "tighter rules could hurt rural areas, which they fear might exceed new limits and be required to implement plans to reduce dust," Callahan writes. In a July letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, nearly two dozen farm-state senators urged the agency to keep current standards.

"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 figure out a solution," said Janice Nolen, vice president for national policy and advocacy for the American Lung Association, which favors stricter regulations. Industry advocates maintain the concern is much ado about nothing. "When you get out into the agricultural areas of this country what you have is dust — dust is a part of doing business," Tamara Thies, chief environmental counsel for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, told Callahan. "And most of rural dust is just dust." EPA is expected to announce any proposed changes in February; it would finalize a new rule by October 2011. (Read more)

No comments: