EPA Scraps Implementation Guidance for 2006 PM 2.5 Rule

In response to a unanimous  January 4, 2013 court ruling, EPA has scrapped guidance to the states on how to follow fine particulate (PM 2.5) rules in the Clean Air Act, leaving states and the public uncertain of the new timelines. Earlier guidance, in a March 2, 2012 memo from EPA, was officially withdrawn on June 6. Review EPA’s summary of the NRDC v. EPA decision.

Under the previous timeline, Alaska was required to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) by December 14, 2012. This plan must demonstrate exactly what the state would do to fix the Fairbanks PM 2.5 nonattainment area. The state did not meet that deadline. Now, it is unclear what deadlines are in effect. A lawsuit filed May 2013 by WildEarth Guardians against EPA may help resolve questions about the schedule. See previous post WildEarth Guardians Challenges EPA to Restore Clean Air in Utah.

The case that caused the tangle was filed against EPA by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, American Lung Association, and Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, NRDC v. EPA, Order, Slip op., No. 08-1250 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 4, 2013).

How did the “good guys” demolish the schedule? They challenged EPA’s decision to apply the less stringent requirements of the Clean Air Act Part D, Subpart 1 of Title I (Subpart 1) rather than the more stringent requirements in Part D, Subpart 4 of Title I (Subpart 4). The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit agreed with NRDC, upsetting EPA’s apple cart of instructions for states to use in crafting SIPs to meet the 24-hour average National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 35 micrograms per cubic meter for PM 2.5.

But before pollution defenders–yes, that’s exactly what they are–crow joyously over the apparent evaporation of the timeline for meeting PM 2.5 attainment, they should look ahead at the cascade of costs to come.

What consequences will be put into effect? Based on the court’s order, EPA must repromulgate the implementation rules in compliance with Subpart 4, meaning stricter requirements in the future for sources that emit PM 2.5 and operate under a permit. However, since between 62.7% and 81.2% of Fairbanks’ winter PM 2.5 is from burning wood, the eventual arrival of more stringent requirements for sources that require permits (e.g. power plants) will not significantly improve local air quality. Local permitted sources, the coal and oil-fired power plants and the Flint Hills refinery, will be caught in the regulatory squeeze, raising operating costs and jacking up already sky-high electric rates.

Could the higher cost of point source emissions have been avoided? Yes. State and local leaders knew PM 2.5 levels were dangerously high before 2009, but pretended they could dodge the bullet. Now, the consequences of that irresponsibility are on the way, backed by the unanimous court order. The longer state and local governments drag their heels doing nothing to control unhealthy PM 2.5 emissions, the more catastrophic harm they cause to the local economy and public health.

Knows and unknowns. The science of tracing sources of PM 2.5 and its harm to public health are established matters of fact. Fairbanks’ extreme levels of winter smoke pollution from wood and coal stoves and boilers is well documented with large numbers of injuries and permanent damage in sworn court affidavits. The big unknown is now what schedule will be required to meet federal standards.

Fairbanks winter air pollution regularly violates the 24-hour standard of 35 µg/m³. In 2013, EPA conducted a required review–after being sued (are you seeing the pattern here?) — and lowered the annual standard from 15 µg/m³ to 12, citing health studies. Currently, Fairbanks is Alaska’s only PM nonattainment area. The lower annual standard may sweep up other air polluted Alaskan communities, putting them into nonattainment too.

What was EPA’s defense in the NRDC v. EPA case?

First, EPA argued the petitions for review were untimely. EPA contended the petitioners should have challenged EPA’s decision to proceed under Subpart 1 when EPA published the Final PM NAAQS Rule in 1997. The court disagreed.

Second, EPA argued that Subpart 4 only applied to larger particulate matter known as PM 10, and therefore it need not apply the stricter approach to PM 2.5. The court disagreed here as well, determining that PM 2.5 is a subset of PM 10 and therefore Subpart 4 applies.

What did the ruling determine? Prepare for tough love: “serious”, “stringent”, and “best available” controls. The court compared the less stringent and highly discretionary provisions in Subpart 1 to the bright-line requirements in Subpart 4. Under Subpart 4, EPA must classify a nonattainment area as “moderate,” and then reclassify the area as “serious” upon failure to attain.

Further, Subpart 4 sets a faster schedule for states to submit various types of SIPs than subpart 1, requiring that states meet the 24-hour standard by 2015, rather than up to 2024 under subpart 1. If areas classified “moderate” nonattainment for the standard miss their attainment deadline of 2015, under subpart 4 they are automatically reclassified as “serious” nonattainment zones which are subject to more stringent air pollution controls.

In addition, for particulate matter nonattainment areas classified as “serious” under Subpart 4, the attainment date may only be extended once, up to five years, and only if the SIP includes the “most stringent measures that are included in the [SIP] of any State or are achieved in practice in any State, and can feasibly be implemented in the area.” Subpart 4 requires the implementation of “reasonably available control measures” within four years of designation of a nonattainment area as “moderate.” Subpart 4 requires the implementation of “best available control measures” within four years of classification or reclassification of a nonattainment area as “serious.” Subpart 1 only requires the implementation of “reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable,” a far weaker and more subjective standard.

Despite the NRDC v. EPA petitioners’ request, the court did not set a definitive deadline for EPA to issue new rules consistent with its opinion.

>> Link to source: Brittany Lewis-Roberts, Somach Simmons & Dunn, Environmental Law and Policy Alert

From an air quality advocate prospective, forcing EPA to apply Subpart 4 instead of Subpart 1 is trading up. The price the seriously tough love to come is the current uncertainty in the attainment schedule.

Meanwhile, the WildEarth Guardians filed a suit against EPA on May 15 in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, claiming that EPA should by now have issued findings that Utah and Idaho failed to submit nonattainment SIPs under Subpart 4. Alaska is in the same boat, under the same schedule, but has done the least of any state to draft a SIP.

These findings of “failure to submit” pave the way for EPA to step in to directly regulate sources in those states under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if the states do not supply legally adequate SIPs within two years. A FIP is when EPA takes over to do what a state would not.

An EPA representative would not say whether EPA intends to replace the withdrawn guidance with a similar document, saying only that, “EPA will continue to work with states to address any questions that may come up as they continue to implement the 2006 PM2.5 standards according to Clean Air Act requirements.” From: EPA Scraps ‘Untenable’ Guide For States To Implement PM2.5 Air Standard, InsideEPA 6/11/2013

In the meantime, with the timeline up in the air, it is not clear when or if the state of Alaska will submit its SIP. No draft has been released for public review. The state only recently closed an RFP seeking a contractor to write the SIP. See previous post: State of Alaska Gives up on Meeting 2014 Deadline.

Waiting for healthy air to breathe is the same as not having it.

EPA has invited those with questions about the SIP timeline and implementation to “submit questions and raise issues through their EPA Regional Office contacts,” see EPA’s summary of the NRDC v. EPA decision. The Region 10 contact for the Fairbanks SIP is Lucy Edmondson <edmondson.lucy@epa.gov> (360)753-9082.

Read Full Post »

North Pole Clean Air Blog Informs Residents

A new blog was brought to our attention yesterday. North Pole Clean Air has published dozens of posts since April 2011. Many of the posts are medical studies documenting harms of PM 2.5 exposure. North Pole Clean Air’s tagline is: Particulate, Wood Smoke, and Coal Smoke Pollution in Interior Alaska. We’ve added a link on our website under “Blogs About Our Air” so you can easily get a breath of fresh ideas from North Pole Clean Air.

Several posts caught our attention:
The Community of Moose Creek Should Be Included in the Fairbanks North Star Borough PM2.5 Non-Attainment Area 
American Lung Association : Short Term Exposure to Particulate Pollution Can Kill
American Heart Association: No Safe Level of PM2.5
Particulate Pollution and Arrhythmia

The last one bothers us quite a bit, as we have a friend from North Pole who gets irregular heartbeats when exposed to high levels of smoke in his home. He can only lie in bed all day, listening to his heart’s skipping rhythms, wondering which will stop first: the smoke or the beating of his heart.

Thank you, North Pole Clean Air, for enriching the flow of information through your efforts.

Read Full Post »

Just to Breathe: Asthma in Our Schools Report

Just to Breathe: Asthma in our Schools Report

A new report from Clean Air Fairbanks on the rate of asthma in district schools and an examination of medical research lead to two conclusions:

 

 1) We must take extra precautions to protect a significant number of children in our schools who have been identified as unusually sensitive and vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. 

 

2) The elevated fine particulate pollution levels in our community could well be contributing to the development of asthma and triggering dangerous asthma attacks in our children.

Many of us don’t know what an asthma attack is like or what it would be like to try to help our own child during an asthma attack. Others know all too well what asthma does to a child and how it is an unwelcome and dangerously unpredictible guest that just won’t leave your family’s home.

Understanding Asthma Attacks

Get personal advice from a qualified health professional.

Signs of asthma in a 4-year-old on YouTube, young girl having an asthma attack in the hospital (1:06) 3/18/2009.

Recorded sound of asthma attack on YouTube, asthma wheezing (sound) (1:58). “Lost my inhaler, went to ER afterwards…”

(reenactment) 8-year old boy has a severe asthma attack, Rescue 911 Episode 619 (12:14), first aired 2/21/1995.

(reenactment) Wife has asthma attack & husband does rescue breathing, Rescue 911 Episode 707 (10:36), aired 2/15/1996.

Childhood Asthma (Asthma #4) (3:23). Nine million American children suffer from the chronic respiratory condition known as childhood-onset asthma. Source: Health Guru.

Asthma Attack (Asthma-Free School Zone) (2:21). Educational piece: A boy is having trouble breathing. A friend approaches and asks if he is has asthma. The boy nods yes. Other friends arrive and take a series of steps that help the boy feel better.

Health Science Channel 424 Recognizing an Asthma Attack in Your Child (4:14). Certain things cause, or trigger, “asthma attacks” or make asthma worse. Common asthma triggers are: infections in the airways; viral infections of the ear, nose, and throat; other infections (such as pneumonia); things in the environment (outside or indoor air you breathe); cigarette smoke; irritants in the air (air pollution); cold air; dry air; sudden changes in the weather.

Animation on how an asthma attack occurs from BupaHealth How an asthma attack occurs (2:12). Source: Bupa Health.

The Body of Evidence: Current Medical Research on Asthma in Children

“Children and infants are among the most susceptible to many of the air pollutants. In addition to associations between air pollution and respiratory symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and asthma hospitalizations, recent studies have found links between air pollution and preterm birth, infant mortality, deficits in lung growth, and possibly, development of asthma.”

“Persons with asthma are more sensitive than persons without asthma to air pollutants such as cigarette smoke, traffic emissions, and photochemical smog components. It has also been demonstrated that exposure to a mix of allergens and irritants can at times promote the development phase (induction) of the disease.”

All children are “sensitive” to PM 2.5 pollution. Children with asthma are “unusually sensitive.” See Judging Particulate Levels in Your Area. Special health precautions must be taken to protect children, especially children with asthma, from exposure to PM 2.5 pollution. Which is incredibly difficult when you don’t know the concentrations of PM 2.5 inside or outside.

“For the last several decades, high levels of outdoor air pollution have been associated with short-term increases in asthma morbidity and mortality.”

Asthma attack triggers include particle pollution from “smoke in the air from wood stoves, fireplaces, or burning vegetation.” [503KB]

To diagnose asthma, physicians can use a screening procedure with spirometry and step testing to identify school children with suspected undiagnosed asthma.

Since CDC tracking began in 2001, current asthma prevalence in children (0-17 years) has ranged from approximately 8.3% (2002) to 9.4% (2008). Environmental exposures such as environmental tobacco smoke, dust mites, cockroach allergen, outdoor air pollution (e.g., ozone, particulate matter), pets, and mold are considered important triggers of an asthma attack. Between 1997 and 2008, asthma attack prevalence rates have ranged from 5.2% (2005) to 5.8% (2002).

Also, see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report: The State of Childhood Asthma, United States 1980-2005 [365KB] 12/2006.

Approximately 8% of children in Alaska have asthma and asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism resulting in 14 million days missed annually in the US, according to the American Lung Association. 9.6% of children currently have asthma, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Self-reported data are subject to biases, including underestimation. See: EPA report Asthma Prevalence.

Read Full Post »

American Lung Assn: Short-term Exposure to Particle Pollution Can Kill

Woodsmoke particle taken from a human lung, 900x

According to the American Lung Association “short-term exposure to particle pollution can kill.” This statement puts our high PM 2.5 levels in a sobering context for visitors to our community as well as residents.

“Short-term” is also called the 24-hour average, reported in the Fairbanks North Star Borough from the downtown monitoring station and posted on the Air Quality Index.

From American Lung Association’s 2010 State of the Air report section on the health risks of particle pollution:

Deaths can occur on the very day that particle levels are high, or within one to two months afterward. Particle pollution does not just make people die a few days earlier than they might otherwise—these are deaths that would not have occurred if the air were cleaner.

Particle pollution also diminishes lung function, causes greater use of asthma medications and increased rates of school absenteeism, emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Other adverse effects can be coughing, wheezing, cardiac arrhythmias and heart attacks. According to the findings from some of the latest studies, short-term increases in particle pollution have been linked to:

• death from respiratory and cardiovascular causes, including strokes;
• mortality in infants and young children;
• increased numbers of heart attacks, especially among the elderly and in people with heart conditions;
• inflammation of lung tissue in young, healthy adults;
• increased hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, including strokes and congestive heart failure;
• increased emergency room visits for patients suffering from acute respiratory ailments;
• increased hospitalization for asthma among children; and
• increased severity of asthma attacks in children. 

The American Lung Association’s State of the Air report makes abundantly clear is that residents and visitors alike risk mortal danger just breathing in our community. Winter visitors travel to Fairbanks to see the aurora borealis, watch or experience dog mushing, marvel at world-class ice carving, cheer for curlers, ski trails through the boreal forest, and altogether appreciate the wonders of our community deep in the wilds of northern Alaska.

Electron Micrographs A: Control without particle exposure. B: Exposure to 1 μm particles (PM 2.5). Note the numerous particles (P) taken up inside the epithelial cells.

Dozens of times each winter our high fine particle levels exceed federal standards, often double or triple the standard of 35 micrograms per cubic meter. When you read the statement from the ALA report above, “Deaths can occur on the very day that particle levels are high,” you have to think twice whether it is safe for anyone here. There are other fine subarctic communities which welcome visitors to share in their winter traditions and experiences without the levels of smoke we routinely endure.

If you’re a visitor or a potential visitor, please consider alerting our Governor to your safety concerns regarding the smoke. Contact Governor Sean Parnell sean.parnell@alaska.gov and tell him the people are warm but the smoke is too thick. Please send us a copy of your note, cleanairfairbanks@gmail.com.

The State of Alaska Department of Health Division of Epidemiology reported on the association between elevated PM 2.5 and Fairbanks hospital admissions 8/30/2010 and also produced this State of Alaska Department of Health and Human Services fact sheet on the report.

Without doubt our Governor is aware of the air quality problem. The puzzle is why he’s done so little to reduce the smoke. It’s not blowing in from Canada’s Yukon Territory or crossing the Bering Strait from Russia. Our smoke is locally grown, right in our own neighborhoods. The sources of coal and wood smoke can be required to use cleaner heating fuels in the winter. Yes, that will cost more. But hospital bills are far steeper and the health of our loved ones is precious beyond price.

We treasure our visitors and love to show off our community at its best. Yet, we cannot recklessly promote winter tourism and hide our serious air quality problem behind a smokescreen of, well, smoke. That just wouldn’t be right.

Please help identify sources of smoke in your neighborhood and near your child’s school. See post: Report an Air Pollution Concern, Violation, or Emergency.

Read Full Post »

Curb Appeal + Smoke = NO SALE

Woodsmoke steals property values from neighboring homeowners. That’s not just unneighborly, that’s expensive.

Imagine you’re shopping for a house, and you found one, and it is just perfectly perfect for you and your family. This house is everything you always dreamed of, and it even glows with fabulous curb appeal. BUT WAIT, this house is just shrouded by smoke from a nearby wood burner. Still interested? NOT. You’re going to say, “Let’s look … somewhere else.” If it were you, would you ever come back to take another look at the house? Me neither.

Now, imagine you’re the homeowner trying to sell a lovely but smoke-shrouded home. A reasonable buyer would look … somewhere else. Do you think if you, as the seller, sweeten the deal by hiring a crew for a kitchen remodel or to pave the driveway that buyer will be back? What are the chances? Not likely.

Alaska law (AS 34.70) protects potential home buyers by requiring sellers to disclose known problems to buyers (before the potential buyer makes an offer). If the problem is not disclosed, damages can be up to three times the actual damages (AS 34.70.090). So, even if the homeowner is selling the house in the summer, whether using a realtor or not, winter smoke emissions from nearby wood burners must be disclosed to potential buyers. That’s a real deal killer.

Plus, sellers usually want to sell their home sooner, rather than later. What if your child has developed asthma and your doctor has recommended that you relocate. You need to go, before winter for sure. Having your home on the market unsold for longer because a buyer can’t be found turns your house into an illiquid investment, adding additional expenses to be borne by you when your family can least afford it.

The news of Fairbanks’ smoky air pollution is becoming notorious, whether on USA Today (“entombed in a shroud of pollution”) or the American Lung Association (“F” grade). Property values in the the borough’s most smoke-impacted neighborhoods may have already been brought down by excessive wood and coal smoke. This impact of smoke on certain neighborhoods would be especially dramatic in comparison to an overall rise in home sales in Fairbanks, according to “Home sales way up in Fairbanks, Alaska” in USA Today, 2/2/2010.

Businesses and families considering relocating to Fairbanks neighborhoods take the recognized air quality problems into account, and look… somewhere else if they can. Families have moved away to protect their children from dangerous smoke. What will it take to make clean air a priority for existing residents and homeowners?

Read Full Post »

What are Other Communities Doing?

Many communities share the struggle of Alaska communities in the Fairbanks North Star Borough (Fairbanks, Ester, Fox, Two Rivers, North Pole, and Moose Creek) to control woodsmoke and other PM 2.5 pollution. We are not alone. Read their stories, support their efforts, use what you learn to help our community.

Mothers & Others for Clean Air, based in Georgia, is a coalition of groups working together for clean air. The seven partner organizations are Georgia PTA, the American Lung Association of Georgia, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, Morehouse School of Medicine, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Georgia Conservancy (the fiscal agent).  

Institute for Washington’s Future, read their success story: “Cleaning Up the Air in Libby, Montana” Lynn’s blog.

FDNM article on “Trio of communities might offer insight into Fairbanks’ air pollution problem” 1/2010 describes efforts in Pinehurst, ID, Juneau, AK, and Libby, MT.

Wood Heat Organization Inc: Woodpile discussion site, outdoor burner link, “Tackling the Wood Smoke Problem in Your Community,” by John Gulland, 11/2009.

Visit Clean Air Revival (BurningIssues.org) home to better understand woodsmoke particle pollution and links to woodsmoke reference information, control efforts around the world and within the US, and self-protection sites. Also see American Lung Association’s woodsmoke position.

“Ban Needed on Outdoor Wood Boilers” by Nancy Alderman, opinion published in the New Haven Register, CT, 11/2009.

Efforts to regulate OWB [Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers] around the US: Vermont DEC fact sheet.

Clean Air Laporte, Indiana home and listing of lawsuits over OWBs.

Mass Clean Air, for Massachusetts and New England, includes article “Wood Smoke is More Damaging than Tobacco Smoke” by Mary J. Rozenberg, 2001.

Since Nov. 2010, DirtyAviston.com has been raising awareness of the smoke and harm from an outdoor wood boiler in the Village of Aviston, Clinton Co, Illinois.

On March 8, 2010, the City Council of Twinsburg, Summit County, Ohio voted to ban outdoor wood-burning furnaces or boilers. The vote was 7-0. Review this article in the Twinsburg Patch leading up to the vote “Outdoor Wood Furnaces May Get Smoked Out in Twinsburg” 2/8/2011.

Breathe Healthy Air, a coalition working to reduce woodsmoke in the Chicago vicinity and worldwide.

Post Carbon Institute Energy Bulletin home: also view, “Private Property Rights Extend to the Air,” FDNM, Dermot Cole 9/2/2010.

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency home: also see Wood Stoves & Fireplaces and article on winterizing your home.

Pollution Free Cities has “Wood-Burning Health Impacts” with a 2005 comprehensive health review on the health effects of woodsmoke and a link to the  1/14/2010 USA Today article which describes Fairbanks’ air pollution problem with this quote in the first paragraph: “entombed in a shroud of pollution.”

Canadian Clean Air Alliance fights for the rights of all to have clean air on their private property and opposes all wood and outdoor burning. They have a chapter in Alberta.

Wood Burner Smoke forum, Ontario, Canada: communities struggling with the problem of woodsmoke pollution. Includes a PowerPoint presentation and wealth of resources and links.

Larissa, an 8th grader from Germany living in India, writes Lala’s amazing blog and includes fine particulate related posts. Here’s one about PM 2.5 concentrations in R. K. Puram: Air Quality-Data Analysis. You go Larissa!

Armidale Air Quality Group home, based in NSW Australia. They also operate two other sites: Australian Air Quality Group Woodsmoke and Australian Air Quality Group News and Research.

Read Full Post »