1

The Air Quality Myth !

John Wargo, Yale University!Lectures 11-12!

Environmental Politics and Law!February 23-25, 2010!

“The nation's air quality has improved !dramatically in the past 25 years.”!

…EPA 2007!

It Depends...

What pollutants you choose to measure. (e.g.

PM)

What you know about the toxicity of the

pollutants.

Where you measure pollutants.

Where you spend your time...

How you behave....

Types of Legal Standards to

Control Air Quality •! Zoning: Land Use Segregation

•! Ceilings or Limits for Specific Chemicals

•! Precautionary: Prevention of Significant Deterioration

•! Staionary vs. Mobile Sources

•! Trans-boundary Flows of Pollution

•! Property Rights to Pollute: Cap and Trade Programs

•! Technology Forcing Standards

•! Fuel Content Regulations

•! Indoor Behavioral Regulation

•! Building Certification Standards

2

Air Quality Control Regions!

•! Each State Must Designate Areas As: "

•!Attainment: Meeting NAAQS"•!Non attainment"•!Unclassifiable"

•! State Implementation Plans"

•!Enforceable emissions limits"•!Methods for acquiring air quality data"•!Boundaries for the SIP "•!Enforcement program"•!Plans to control interstate & international pollution"•!Source monitoring and Reporting requirements"

CLEAN AIR ACT PROVISIONS

•! National Ambient Air Quality Standards

•! Primary NAAQS: acceptable levels that protect health

•! Secondary NAAQS: Protect environmental quality & property

•! Criteria Pollutants: Listing Statute (SDWA, End. Sp.)

•! Hazardous Air Pollutants

•! Technological Feasibility: Act is “technology forcing” and EPA may not consider economic and technological feasibility in

setting air quality standards.

CLEAN AIR ACT POLLUTANT TYPES

Criteria Pollutants

(Dangerous to Health)

Particulates

SO2

NOx

CO

Ozone

Lead

Hazardous Air Pollutants

Asbestos Beryllium

Mercury Arsenic

Vinyl chloride

Benzene

Radionuclides

Coke oven emissions

CLEAN AIR ACT POLLUTANTS CLASSIFICATIONS!

POLLUTANT! ! !NAAQS!

Particulates!

•! PM10 ! !50 µg/m3 (annual) / 150 µg/m3 (24hr)!

•! PM2.5 ! !15 µg/m3 “ / 65 µg/m3 !“!

SO2!

•! annual ! !0.030 ppm(80 µg/m3) !

•! 24 hr ! !0.14 ppm(365 µg/m3)! !!

NOx ! ! !0.053 ppm(100 µg/m3)

3

CLEAN AIR ACT POLLUTANTS!

Science and Politics of Averaging!

POLLUTANT ! ! !NAAQS (primary)!

Ozone (O3)""""!

•! 1-hour Average! !0.12 ppm(235 µg/m3)!

•! 8-hour Average! !0.08 ppm(157 µg/m3)!

Carbon Monoxide (CO)""""!

•! 8-hour Average! !9 ppm(10 mg/m3)""""!

•! 1-hour Average! !35 ppm(40 mg/m3)!

Lead (Pb)""""Quarterly Average !1.5 µg/m3 !!

HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

!!1970 CAA AUTHORIZED REGULATION OF HAP’S

!!BY 1990, 7 CHEMICALS WERE REGULATED

!!CONGRESS IN 1990 LISTED 189 CHEMICALS

!!1990 CAAA: ESTABLISHES CATEGORIES OF SOURCES

POWER PLANTS, GAS STATIONS, DRY CLEANERS

!!CATEGORIES: MAJOR AND MINOR SOURCES

!!MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY REQ’D

!!OFFSETS ALLOWED TO REDUCE HAP’S WITHIN PLANTS

Addiction to Movement

•! 235 million vehicles in US

•! 3 trillion miles traveled in US 2007

•! 200 billion gallons of fuel consumed

•! $600 billion per year @ $3 / gallon

•! 17.2 miles per gallon

Lag in Adoption of Tech Forcing Stds

EPA: 2000 Diesel Standards

•! 95% reduction in NOx

•! 90% reduction in PM

•!To Be Phased in 2006-2010 as engine design

changes…

•! When will they make a difference in air

quality?

4

PARTICULATE STANDARDS:"

Glacial Pace of Reform"

•! EPA issued revised particulate and ozone standards in 1997."

•! Agency focused health concerns on mortality studies, "

•! PM 10: a 4% increase in daily mortality with a 50 ug/m3 increase in "average daily levels. "

•! PM 2.5 Finer particles are more dangerous. "

What are the Latest PM 2.5 standards?

•! Annual: 15 !g/m3 (Daily averages, averaged over 3 years.

•! 24 Hour: 65 !g/m3 (98th % levels averaged over 3

years.

Whitman v. American Trucking

Associations 2001

U.S. Supreme Court No. 99-1257

The Clean Air Act “unambiguously bars cost

considerations from the standard setting

process.”

Further, it requires EPA to set standards

“requisite to protect the public health”, “allowing

an adequate margin of safety.”

HEALTH BENEFITS:

EPA estimated that the new standards, when

fully implemented in 2010, would result in

•! 8,300 fewer premature deaths,

•! 17,600 cases of childhood acute bronchitis,

•! 360,000 fewer asthma attacks.

5

US Power

Plants By

Location and Type of Fuel

Consumed

2000

US EPA

www.epa.gov

/cleanenergy.

CT Fuel Oil vs. Diesel

660 vs. 230 million g/yr

•! Home heating fuel is essentially the same as diesel fuel, although the sulfur content is higher.

•! Connecticut is exceptionally dependent on No. 2 fuel oil for heating purposes, and last year ranked 4th in the nation in raw consumption at more than 660 million gallons.

•! By contrast, 230 million gallons of diesel fuel were used for transport purposes.

•! Connecticut ranks 1st in the nation in fuel oil consumption per square mile of state area.

PARTICLE SIZE

A.! COARSE (>2.5 um): from soil and crustal materials

B.! FINE: (<2.5 & > .1 um): combustion byproducts

C.! ULTRA FINE: (<.1 um): quickly coagulate to larger particles.

6

Figure 1: DIESEL PM 2.5

CHEMICAL

COMPOSITION[i]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Elemental

Carbon

Organic

Carbon

Sulfate &

Nitrate

Metals &

Other

Elements

Other

%

Composition

of PM2.5

[i] EPA 2000. Health assessment document for diesel emissions. Chapter 2.

Wilson and Spengler, 1996

Harvard Press.

7

7 Million US Children Have Asthma

Asthma Is Number 1 Reason For School Absenteeism

Other Effects…Performance?

Socialization? Depression?

Mark Cullen, M.D. School of Medicine

3-22% of Children in CT Schools

Have M.D. Diagnosed Asthma

(A)!rats exposed to low concentrations of diesel exhaust.

(B)!(B) Rats exposed to high concentrations of diesel exhaust. Regardless of exposure concentration, most of the

particulate material is located in macrophages in the

lumens of alveoli and alveolar ducts. Arrows point to

particulate material in the interstitium.

Lung sections from rats exposed to diesel exhaust.

Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 109, Number 4, April 2001

Influence of Exposure Concentration or Dose on the Distribution of Particulate Material in Rat and Human Lungs Kristen J. Nikula,1 Val Vallyathan,2 Francis H. Y. Green,3 and Fletcher F. Hahn1

CT and U.S. Populations

Susceptible to Harmful Effects from Air Pollution

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Child

hood Ast

hma1

45, 1

50

Adult

Ast

hma1

46,1

51

Chro

nic B

ronch

itis1

47

Emphes

ema1

47

Coro

nary

Hea

rt D

isea

se14

8

Dia

betes

149,

152

CT

Su

sc

ep

tib

le P

op

ula

tio

n

(M

illi

on

s)

0

5

10

15

20

25

U.S

. S

us

ce

pti

ble

Po

pu

lati

on

(Mil

lio

ns

)

8

Connecticut 2005 Air Monitoring Network

New Haven Hourly PM2.5 by Month

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

0 2 4 6 810

12

14

16

18

20

22

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

John Wargo, Yale University

David Brown, NESCAUM

Nancy Alderman, EHHI

Mark Cullen, M.D. Professor Stanford University

Susan Addis, Former CT Comm. Of Health

Robert LaCamera, M.D. Professor Yale University

Michael Triahotis, UCONN ERI

Kevin Hood, UCONN ERI

Jared Yellen, UCONN ERI

9

•! 600,000 School Buses in US

Figure 7: Student Exposure to PM10

(ug/m3)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

07:3

7:2

6

08:0

4:2

6

08:3

1:2

6

08:5

8:2

6

09:2

5:2

6

09:5

2:2

6

10:1

9:2

6

10:4

6:2

6

11:1

3:2

6

11:4

0:2

6

12:0

7:2

6

12:3

4:2

6

13:0

1:2

6

13:2

8:2

6

13:5

5:2

6

14:2

2:2

6

14:4

9:2

6

15:1

6:2

6

15:4

3:2

6

WA

IT B

US

BU

S R

IDE

MA

TH

SC

IEN

CE

RE

AD

ING

GY

M

DA

RE

SO

C S

TU

D

BU

S R

IDE

WA

LK

HO

ME

MU

SIC

CA

FE

HO

ME

RM

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

07:4

5:5

7

08:0

1:0

7

08:1

6:1

7

08:3

1:2

7

08:4

6:3

7

09:0

1:4

7

09:1

6:5

7

09:3

2:0

7

09:4

7:1

7

10:0

2:2

7

10:1

7:3

7

10:3

2:4

7

10:4

7:5

7

11:0

3:0

7

11:1

8:1

7

11:3

3:2

7

11:4

8:3

7

12:0

3:4

7

12:1

8:5

7

12:3

4:0

7

12:4

9:1

7

13:0

4:2

7

13:1

9:3

7

13:3

4:4

7

13:4

9:5

7

14:0

5:0

7

14:2

0:1

7

14:3

5:2

7

14:5

0:3

7

15:0

5:4

7

10 sec avg 1 hr avg 8 hr avg

Bus Bus Gymnasium Outside Gymnasium Movies

MovementMovement

ClassClassroom

EFFECT OF AVERAGING PM2.5 OVER DIFFERENT PERIODS

PM2.5 (mg/m3)

10

Trucks and Buses in US

(Millions)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Year

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Figure 2: U.S. Trends in Diesel Fuel Consumption

30 Billion Gallons Per Year

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Billio

ns o

f G

allo

ns P

er Y

ear

[i]USDOT. FHA. 1998.

Figure 4: Millions of Hours Spent on School Buses by U.S. Children[i]

516

33

42123

3951

130

115134

5

14130

943528

5369

23

80

54114

785364

7121618

43

22290

916

15842

33195

12

485

76203

229

11560

31

665

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

AlabamaAlaska

ArizonaArkansas

CaliforniaColorado

ConnecticutDelaware

District of ColumbiaFlorida

GeorgiaHawaiiIdaho

IllinoisIndiana

IowaKansas

KentuckyLouisiana

MaineMaryland

MassachusettsMichigan

MinnesotaMississippi

MissouriMontanaNebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire

New JerseyNew Mexico

New YorkNorth CarolinaNorth Dakota

OhioOklahoma

OregonPennsylvaniaRhode Island

South CarolinaSouth Dakota

TenneseeTexasUtah

VermontVirginia

WashingtonWest Virginia

WisconsinWyoming

Millions of Hours Per Year

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

07:5

4:5

7

07:5

6:2

7

07:5

7:5

7

07:5

9:2

7

08:0

0:5

7

08:0

2:2

7

08:0

3:5

7

08:0

5:2

7

08:0

6:5

7

08:0

8:2

7

08:0

9:5

7

08:1

1:2

7

08:1

2:5

7

08:1

4:2

7

08:1

5:5

7

08:1

7:2

7

08:1

8:5

7

08:2

0:2

7

08:2

1:5

7

08:2

3:2

7

08:2

4:5

7

08:2

6:2

7

08:2

7:5

7

08:2

9:2

7

08:3

0:5

7

08:3

2:2

7

11-Apr

15-Mar

Children’s School Bus Exposure to

Diesel Exhaust

11

IDLING BUS

MOVING BUS

IDLING BUS

VENTILATION OF MOVING BUS

Bus Idling

Accumulation and Ventilation of PM 2.5

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

11:0

0:0

6

11:0

2:0

6

11:0

4:0

6

11:0

6:0

6

11:0

8:0

6

11:1

0:0

6

11:1

2:0

6

11:1

4:0

6

11:1

6:0

6

11:1

8:0

6

11:2

0:0

6

11:2

2:0

6

11:2

4:0

6

11:2

6:0

6

11:2

8:0

6

11:3

0:0

6

11:3

2:0

6

11:3

4:0

6

PM

2.5

ug

/m3

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

09:5

8:0

6

09:5

9:0

6

10:0

0:0

6

10:0

1:0

6

10:0

2:0

6

10:0

3:0

6

10:0

4:0

6

10:0

5:0

6

10:0

6:0

6

10:0

7:0

6

10:0

8:0

6

10:0

9:0

6

10:1

0:0

6

10:1

1:0

6

10:1

2:0

6

10:1

3:0

6

10:1

4:0

6

10:1

5:0

6

PM

2.5

ug

/m3

Moving Bus

Moving Bus

Idling Bus

Ventilation of Moving Bus

Idling Bus

Figure 13: PM 2.5

on Connecticut School Buses

Run 1

Run 2

Run 3

Run 4

Run 5

Run 6

Run 7

Run 8

Run 9

Run 1

0

Run 1

1

Run 1

2

Run 1

3

Run 1

4

Run 1

5

Run 1

6

Run 1

7

Run 1

8

Run 1

9

Run 2

1

Run 2

2

Run 2

3

Run 2

4

Run 2

5

Run 2

6

Run 2

7

0

50

100

150

200

250

PM

2.5

(u

g/m

3)

Maximum

75th %

25th %

Minimum

Mean

Red Line = Federal 24 Hour Daily Limit for PM2.5

PM2.5

Idling vs. Moving

PM 2.5: Idling vs. Moving Aug 22

020406080

100120140160

09

:18

:36

09

:39

:06

09

:59

:36

10

:20

:06

10

:40

:36

11

:01

:06

11

:21

:36

11

:42

:06

12

:13

:03

12

:33

:33

12

:54

:03

13

:14

:33

13

:35

:03

13

:55

:33

14

:16

:03

PM

2.5

(u

g.m

3)

IDLING

MOVING

PM 2.5: Idling vs. Moving Aug 27

0

50

100

150

200

250

09

:21

:47

09

:46

:57

10

:12

:07

10

:37

:17

11

:02

:27

11

:27

:37

11

:52

:47

12

:30

:06

12

:55

:16

13

:20

:26

13

:45

:36

14

:10

:46

14

:23

:46

PM

2.5

(u

g/m

3)

Idling

Moving

Queued Buses: Proximity of Doors to Tailpipes

12

Factors Affecting Variability of Diesel Exhaust Within School Buses:

• Window configuration: Open v. Closed.

• Idling Practices of the drivers,

• School Queuing Practices

• Location of Sampling Equipment on the Bus

• Route Characteristics: Length; Traffic; Elevation; Stops • Ambient Air Quality: Urban v. rural, proximity to polluters.

• Engine Type

• Engine Age

• Engine maintenance practices and schedule

• Condition of exhaust system • Exhaust pipe location (left or right rear)

• Heating and Ventilation: Fans, Filters;

• Fuel Type: High v. Low Sulfur

• Climatic conditions Temperature, Humidity, and Wind

PM 2.5

Levels at Connecticut Monitoring Sites [i]

95th % Confidence Interval of Average Daily Levels

0 5 10 15 20

East Hartford

Norwich

Hartford

Danbury

Stamford

State Mean

Bridgeport

Waterbury

New Haven 2

New Haven 1

PM 2.5 ug/m3 24-Hr Average

95% Confidence Interval

Federal 24-hr Annual Std: Red Line

Non Attainment Areas: Within 250 Miles of ULS Diesel Refineries Average Daily Concentrations During School Year

New Haven Background +School Bus PM 2.5

Levels

Red line depicts Federal PM 2.5

Standard of 15 ug/m3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

PM

2.5

ug

/m3

INDIVIDUAL BUS CONCENTRATIONS

New Haven Background

1 Hour Bus PM 2.5 Levels

2 Hour Bus PM 2.5 Levels

3 Hour Bus PM 2.5 Levels

13

Diesel Emissions

•! EU: promotes Diesel

–! to reduce CO2

–!> 20% of passenger vehicle fleet

•! US: restricts Diesel

–! to reduce fine Particulate Matter (PM)

–!< 3% of passenger vehicle fleet

•! Simultaneous precaution, but vs. conflicting risks

Recommendations for the Federal Government

1.! Retrofit Diesel Buses To Lower Emissions:

2.! Require Buses to Use Ultra Low Sulfur Fuels:

3.! Replace Bus Fleet With Low Emission Vehicles:

4.! Test Tailpipe Emissions:

5.! Set Passenger Cabin Air Quality Standards:

6.! Require School Bus Air Filtration Equipment:

7.! Federal Standards Should Assume Indoor and Vehicular

Exposures:

8.! Expand Air Quality Monitoring Network:

Recommendations for State Governments

1.! Prohibit School Bus Idling By Statute

2.! Retrofit Diesel Buses To Lower Emissions:

3.! Require School Buses to Use Low Sulfur Fuels:

4.! Replace Bus Fleet With Low Emission Vehicles:

5.! Set Priorities to Reduce Emissions and Exposure:

6.! Require Routine Maintenance:

7.! Test Tailpipe Emissions:

8.! Expand PM2.5 Monitoring Network:

Recommendations for Local Governments

1.! Enforce State Prohibition of Bus Idling:

2.! Adjust Contract Provisions to Lease Retrofitted

Vehicles and Require Clean Fuels:

3.! Set Priorities: Newest Buses to Longest Routes

4.! Limit Bus Ride Duration: More Buses

5.! Require Routine Maintenance

6.! Location of Bus Parking Lots:

14

EPA: 57% of Dioxin Emissions in US from Backyard

Barrel Burning of Garbage, Especially Plastic Wastes

Credit: Air Force Times

15