The approval of the Intercounty Connector by the Federal Highway Administration earlier this year was based on a flawed process that papered over numerous issues. This approval is being challenged in two different lawsuits.
The first lawsuit is being brought by Environmental Defense and Sierra Club in the DC District Court, challenging the approval of the ICC by the Federal Highway Administration and metropolitan Washington’s Transportation Planning Board.
The Environmental Defense and Sierra Club raise three major objections to the Project.
First, the ICC was approved without a proper evaluation of the effects of the ICC on local particle pollution. EPA recently tightened the national health standard for particle (soot) pollution to provide greater protection to what is the deadliest pollutant regulated in the US. The Project was approved without even considering whether emissions from the Project would violate the new EPA standard. All the monitors within 300meters of major highways in the Washington metropolitan area violate the national health standard for particle pollution. The air pollution analysis ignored this evidence and concluded that emissions from the Project will not violate the standards because a monitor located more than 1-1/2 miles from major highways is not violating the standards. SHA offered no evidence to show that air pollution levels far from a highway is representative of the pollution levels experienced by neighborhoods, schools, and parks within 500 meters to highways such as I-95, I-270, and I-370. The ICC will increase traffic and pollution on these and other highways. Monitoring of soot pollution close to such roads is needed to ensure that the ICC will not exacerbate existing violations of federal air pollution health standards.
Second, the air pollution analysis failed to quantify the impacts of dangerous toxic pollutants for which EPA has not set federal standards. Maryland’s air pollution program prohibits levels of benzene, 1,3 butadiene and other toxic components of vehicle exhaust that cause a greater than 1 in 100,000 risk of cancer. EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment shows that emissions of these pollutants along I-95 exceed these limits. But the highway was approved without estimating these risks, and without considering whether they are in the public interest. More effort is needed to ensure that the ICC will not harm the health of people living, working, or going to schools near the highway.
Third, Congress last year strengthened a requirement in federal transportation law requiring that transportation projects be funded only if they “minimize fuel consumption.” This mandate is designed to reduce US emissions of greenhouse gas pollution, and increase our national energy independence. The suit challenges approval of the ICC because this requirement was not considered by the transportation agencies at any stage in the evaluation of alternatives to the project.
