Tuesday, 19 June 2001 18:19 (ET)
Think tank blasts Lung Association report
By LISA TROSHINSKY for United Press International
WASHINGTON, June 19 (UPI) -- The American Lung Association's recent "State of the Air" report on air quality and pollution levels is misleading, according to a paper from the Reason Public Policy Institute. The paper accuses the ALA of using "shady methodology to inflate environmental harms."
"The ALA report could cause the public to demand billions of dollars in expenditures to clean up air that is already clean," writes Joel Schwartz, spokesperson for the libertarian RPPI, in the position paper "Breathe Easier: The American Lung Association's Misleading 'State of the Air 2001' Report."
The battle between the ALA and RPPI essentially hinges on one question: How much air pollution is too much? The ALA says air pollution is still formidable, and RPPI asserts the ALA is holding the nation accountable for even stricter air standards than does the Environmental Protection Agency.
ALA's second annual "State of the Air" report last month stated that air pollution is still on the rise in the United States. The report covered the latest available data, from 1997 through 999. Though the report acknowledges recent improvements in air quality in Southern California and Houston, it concludes that "the number of Americans living in areas that received an 'F' (failing grade for air quality) increased by more than 9 million compared with last year's report -- from 132 million to more than 141 million."
Worsening air quality in the southeastern states was cited as a major contributing factor, ALA spokesman Paul Billings told United Press International.
"ALA is not the health advocacy group people think it is," said Jerry Taylor, director of Natural Resource Studies at the libertarian CATO Institute in Washington. "The organization uses shady methodology to inflate environmental harms ... tendentious math and rhetoric."
A representative from the National Resources Defense Council, a liberal think tank in Washington, said Schwartz isn't disputing ALA's logic so much as the standard that supports the logic, which comes from the Environmental Protection Agency and is part of the 1997 Clean Air Act. The standard in question is EPA's definition of air pollution violation, which says if an air segment contains more than 85 parts of ozone per billion during an eight-hour period, that air segment has exceeded the ozone threshold, or has entered "non-attainment status."
"He (Schwartz) is criticizing the way the Clean Air Act was written, the commonly accepted way we determine air quality," said NRDC spokesperson Elliott Negin. "They (RPPI) have a problem with governmental regulation. Our position is you shouldn't even give them the time of day."
But the argument between ALA and RPPI isn't that clear cut. Although ALA's case is based on the EPA standard, the environmental lobbying group departs from EPA methodology when interpreting EPA data. What's more, EPA's monitoring data isn't always complete.
ALA's Billings explains. "Instead of defining areas' air quality by metropolitan regions, as does the EPA, ALA breaks down areas by counties," he said.
Often, multiple counties make up a metropolitan area. The problem is that county information isn't uniform. Some counties are monitored once by EPA, some are monitored more than once, and some are not monitored at all. To add to the confusion, not all counties are the same size and don't represent the same amount of people, he continued. Therefore, he says, ALA's conclusions are not exact, and could be conceived as guesses.
"We're prisoners to the data of EPA," Billings said.
Ed Hopkins, of the Washington-based Sierra Club, said: "The ALA report is as accurate a picture as possible without putting ozone monitors on everybody's back. RRPI quibbles around the edges of this report, but basically ALA did the best job it could have with the data it had."
Nevertheless, RPPI's Schwartz contends that ALA misconstrued EPA data by classifying an entire region a being in violation if only one of its counties exceeds the air ozone threshold.
"ALA cited a county as having a bad air day when at least one monitor somewhere in the country measured ozone at a level greater than or equal to 85 parts-per billion (ppb) averaged over an eight-hour period," Schwartz said. "In fact, many counties with high ozone levels at some monitoring sites actually have other large areas with clean air."
"Bad air doesn't stay in one place, it moves around in a region," Negin said. "There's a monitor near the Jefferson Memorial in Washington that we use for the entire district; it gives you a snapshot."
"People move around counties within the course of a day. Where do you draw the line?" Billings asks. "We think there should be monitoring everywhere, but we don't think any methodology would satisfy this critic (Schwartz) on this score."
Schwartz also accused ALA of holding the nation to higher air quality standards than does EPA.
"In the ALA grading system, counties with no pollution violations get a grade of 'A,' and those that average 3.3 or more days per year above the ozone standard get a grade of 'F.' This lumps Osceola, Fla., averaging 3.3 ozone violations per year, with Houston, which averages 61.5 violations per year," Schwartz said.
Billings admits that ALA deviates from EPA methodology by grading geographic areas differently.
"We looked at the number of days a region had an ozone score of 85 or higher, and if it was 10 days or more in a three-year period, we considered that an F," he said. "That same area could technically be in attainment under EPA standards. For example, in that three-year period, if all the bad air days were concentrated in one year, and the next two years had low pollution levels, EPA might consider that area in non-violation. Also, if Prince George's County air is bad, but the air in Washington is considered good on a given day, EPA would consider the entire metropolitan area in non-violation. Our methodology could be tougher (than EPA's) given the specific area.
"But at other times, EPA's figuring is stricter," Billings said. "EPA takes the fourth highest reading for an area for three consecutive years, and averages those readings for its rating. The entire three-year period could be considered in violation if for two of those years air quality falls under the threshold, but during the third year air quality pushes the average over 85. So, you could say, all in all, our standard is in the ball park of the EPA standard."
The report, "Breathe Easier: The American Lung Association's Misleading 'State of the Air 2001' Report," can be found on the RPPI website at rppi.org/rr102.html.
Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
Design copyright Scars Publications and Design. Copyright of individual pieces remain with the author. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
