Supplementary Material for Chapter 32

The Skies, the Limits: Assessing the Benefits and Drawbacks of Tighter U.S. Soot Emission Standards

This chapter is published as:

Cooke SL. 2016. The Skies, the Limits: Assessing the Benefits and Drawbacks of Tighter U.S. Soot Emission Standards. In: Byrne L (ed) Learner-Centered Teaching Activities for Environmental and Sustainability Studies. Springer, New York. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28543-6_32

Sandra L. Cooke

Department of Biology, High Point University, High Point, North Carolina, USA

This file contains the following supplementary material:

A: Links to and reproductions of news articles

… beginning on p. 1

D: Instructor’s discussion guide… beginning on p. 5

This chapter also has the following supplementary material, available on the chapter’s website:

B: Student handout with discussion questions
C: Presentation slides

Page 1

Supplementary Material A: Links to audio news story transcript and three news articles

NPR audio news story and transcript:

Shogren E (2012) EPA Targets Deadliest Pollution: Soot. Accessed 29 Jul 2015
If link is inactive, try searching the author or headline at Story is dated 17 December 2012

ALA press release:

(ALA) American Lung Association (2012) American Lung Association Applauds EPA Decision to Protect Public from Soot. Accessed 21 Jan 2016
This press release is reproduced with permission of the American Lung Association on page 2-3.

NAM press release:

(NAM) National Association of Manufacturers (2012) EPA Doubles Down on Regulations; Manufacturers and the Economy Lose. Regulations-Manufacturers-and-the-Economy-Lose.aspx. Accessed 29 Jul 2015
If link is inactive, try searching the headline at Press release is dated 14 December 2012

Blog post:

Peake T (2012) In Particulate Matter, the Particulars Matter. https://news.ncsu.edu/2012/10/tp-particulatematter/. Accessed 29 Jul 2015
This selection is reproduced with permission on page 4.

American Lung Association Applauds EPA Decision to Protect Public from Soot

Mother Who Lost Daughter from Asthma Attack Joins Lung Association Chief Medical Officer in commending Obama Administration's Stronger Particulate Matter Air Quality Standards

Washington, D.C. (December 14, 2012)

The American Lung Association applauds the Obama Administration's decision to set a much stronger national air quality standard on particulate matter (soot), one of the nation's most lethal air pollutants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set limits on airborne microscopic particles, following the findings by independent scientists that this pollutant causes premature death at levels well below what is currently considered safe.

"We know clearly that particle pollution is harmful at levels well below those previously deemed to be safe. Particle pollution causes premature deaths and illness, threatening the millions of Americans who breathe high levels of it," explained Norman H. Edelman, MD, Chief Medical Officer for the American Lung Association. "By setting a more protective standard, the EPA is stating that we as a nation must protect the health of the public by cleaning up even more of this lethal pollutant. Reducing particle pollution will prevent heart attacks and asthma attacks, and will keep children out of the emergency room and hospitals. It will save lives."

"I'm a mother who knows all too well how devastating an asthma attack can be," explained Lydia Rojas, a Lung Association volunteer from Oxnard, California who told EPA at a July public hearing about the death of her daughter, Steph, from an asthma attack at school. "The EPA's action today will mean that other moms whose children struggle to breathe because of soot pollution can know that much cleaner air is coming. Steph would have been 22 years old on Sunday, December 16. This is a wonderful birthday gift in her memory."

Particulate matter, also known as particle pollution or soot, is a mixture of liquid droplets and solid particles made of toxic chemicals, metals and smoke. These particles are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and even into the bloodstream, leading to tens of thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks and asthma attacks every year. Particles come from wide-ranging sources, including coal-fired power plants, industrial boilers, diesel vehicles and woodstoves.

The EPA tightened the limit, called the national ambient air quality standards, for the annual average level of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) from the outdated standard set in 1997 of 15 µg/m3. EPA made no changes to the 24-hour fine particle standard or the coarse particle standard (PM 10) despite evidence that both standards need strengthening.

"Initiatives that will reduce particle pollution from diesel trucks, power plants and other sources are already on the books and will help many areas of the country meet this new health standard, added Dr. Edelman. "But, the promise of the Clean Air Act, clean, healthy air for all, still needs to be kept. This new standard moves us closer to that goal."

The American Lung Association and the National Parks Conservation Association represented by Earthjustice took legal steps against the EPA to get the review completed as required by the Clean Air Act. The decision announced today completed that review. This decision also addressed the Lung Association's legal victory against EPA's flawed decision in 2008 to retain the annual standard set in 1997, a lawsuit joined by the Environmental Defense Fund and also represented by Earthjustice.

The American Lung Association's free State of the Air® smartphone app tracks current air quality conditions and next-day air quality forecasts for particle pollution and other widespread air pollutants. This tool, which is available for Apple and Android, can be a valuable resource for people living with lung disease like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), people with heart disease or diabetes, as well as older adults and children.

###

About the American Lung Association
The American Lung Association is the leading organization working to save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease, through research, education and advocacy. The work of the American Lung Association is focused on four strategic imperatives: to defeat lung cancer; to improve the air we breathe; to reduce the burden of lung disease on individuals and their families; and to eliminate tobacco use and tobacco-related diseases. For more information about the American Lung Association, a holder of the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Guide Seal, or to support the work it does, call 1-800-LUNGUSA (1-800-586-4872) or visit: Lung.org.

In Particulate Matter, the Particulars Matter

October 29, 2012 | By Tracey Peake

When statisticians start talking about PM, they aren’t referring to political leadership. PM stands for particulate matter, and it’s important because it has a direct effect on the health and well-being of anyone who breathes.

Statistician Montserrat Fuentes has built a career on looking at the effects of PM 2.5 (the 2.5 means that the particles measure less than 2.5 micrometers) on human health, and her work has helped environmental agencies develop their clean air policies. She, her colleague Brian Reich, and their graduate students at NC State are now looking at whether PM should be regulated merely by size, or by composition, and they’re doing it with statistical modeling.

Laura Boehm is interested in the correlation between the chemicals in particulate matter and their effect on respiratory and cardiovascular health. To do this, she’s created a model that measures PM 2.5 levels in the atmosphere at different locations across the country, takes into account the composition of the particulate matter in those locations, and references it against hospitalizations for cardiovascular conditions to see if there are correlations between types and amounts of PM 2.5 across the country. According to Boehm, the immense variation in PM composition across the country means that it’s vital to characterize the health effects of the component chemicals of the PM, not just the size. “So far, our model has successfully replicated previous findings about the impact of elemental carbon on cardiovascular disease,” she says. “So now we’re going to do similar modeling for all 22 of the major components of PM.” If Boehm’s work is successful, air-quality reporting and standards of the future will focus on the specific pollutant sources most relevant to human health.

Katarina Sucic and Elizabeth Mannshardt are looking at both indoor and outdoor sources of air pollution, to see if indoor sources – which are not regulated – should be subject to the same controls as outdoor pollution. They combined data from outdoor EPA monitoring stations as well as from indoor monitoring studies to see if exposure to indoor sources of pollution would have a significant impact on respiratory health. Thus far, their findings indicate that while exposure to pollution increases the risk of respiratory problems by about 2 percent, there isn’t a measurable difference between risks associated with indoor pollution versus outdoor pollution. Including both sources in air quality reporting, however, allows for a more accurate quantification of risk.

For Fuentes, studying these tiny particles leads to a much larger goal: “At the end of the day, these studies are going to give us a much better assessment of what we have in terms of pollution, and enable us to develop air-quality models that will inform and protect the public.”

Source: https://news.ncsu.edu/2012/10/tp-particulatematter/

Supplementary Material D: Instructor’s Discussion Guide

Supplementary File D: Instructor’s discussion guide

Box 1: Questions to Enhance Discussion

Do you think our class poll results would mirror that of the American public? That is, if we were to poll the U.S. (or North Carolina) public on their opinion of the new soot standard, what would the results look like?

How do an individual’s values and experiences influence their perception of this issue and of environmental issues more broadly?

Questions 1 and 2 may prompt students to think of the various stakeholders connected to this issue: adults and children with asthma, cancers, and other health concerns linked to air quality; public health officials; and employees in certain manufacturing industries and their families. Whether an individual is in favor or opposed to the new limit will likely depend on the stakeholder group with which they most identify. Some individuals may recognize air quality as an environmental justice issue, as there is a tendency for poor and minority groups to live in regions of degraded air quality (or degraded environmental conditions more broadly). Question 2 also brings up varying political perspectives: regardless of the potential benefits of the new limit, some individuals may believe that it should not be the government’s role to regulate industries (in other words, that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA too much power). On the other hand, some individuals may view air quality and other environmental issues as large, multi-faceted problems of a scale that warrants government intervention.

Does the recent trend in PM2.5 affect how strongly you do or do not support the new standard?

National average PM2.5 levels have slowly but steadily declined since 2000 and the most recently reported level is below the new standard of 12 g m-3. Some students may reason that a new standard is not needed because good progress has already been made. However, other students may note that despite the national trend there are still specific regions that do not meet the old standard and that, as detailed in the American Lung Association press release, there are still significant public health concerns linked to PM2.5.

The new soot limit has been in place since December 2012, but mitigation measures begin in 2015 and should be fully implemented by 2020. What type of monitoring or research should be done to determine if the tighter limit is more effective than the previous limit?

PM2.5 levels should of course continue to be monitored. Additionally, public health research on diseases and illnesses linked to PM2.5 will be needed. For example, scientists should continue to collect data on asthma rates in sensitive populations as well as the general population in urban to rural regions across the U.S. In a nutshell, the research that the EPA used to determine that the former PM2.5 limit was inadequate should continue to determine if the new standard is effective.

Small group discussion answer guide (accompanies student handout in ESM-B)

What did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently do regarding soot?

The EPA announced it will tighten the soot limit by 20%.

The EPA regulates six criteria pollutants. Under which category is soot?

Soot falls under the category of particulate matter (PM).

Summarize the arguments for and against this new soot standard, as presented in this news report.

The key argument for the stricter standard is that 15,000 lives would be saved, according to EPA calculations. Soot is linked to heart disease, lung cancer, diabetes, and other illnesses. The key argument against the standard is that it could cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and impede economic recovery in some regions.

What is PM2.5?

PM2.5 refers to fine particulates; that is, airborne particles that are 2.5 m in diameter or smaller. PM2.5 is often called soot, but it can include dust, dirt, organic compounds, metals, and liquid droplets.

In addition to what you noted in #3 above, what are some of the detailed reasons the ALA considers the EPA decision to be “great news?”

In addition to the various health effects of PM2.5, the press release mentions that the ALA had tried unsuccessfully to convince the EPA to revise the standard in 2008, indicating the ALA had been pushing for this decision for several years.

In addition to what you noted in #3 above, what are some of the detailed reasons NAM gives for opposing the EPA’s action?

The NAM argues that the new PM2.5 limit adds to an already burdensome number of regulations and will stifle job creation and economic growth.

Discuss this issue further in your group. Do you support the EPA’s action on PM2.5 and why? Or can your group not agree?

Many students tend to agree with the EPA’s action, and their reasoning boils down to “saving lives is more important that saving jobs.” However, some students do question (understandably!) the key arguments given by “both sides.” For example, they may ask how do scientists really know that the new standard will save 15,000 lives? How was that number estimated? How do industry experts know that the new limit will cost millions of dollars? Can they really predict how much it will stifle job creation?

What research question are Montserrat Fuentes and Brian Reich studying?

They are studying how PM affects human health. In particular, they are using data on the size and composition of PM to determine if either factor is linked to particular health outcomes.

What research question is Laura Boehme studying?

Similar to Fuentes and Reich, Laura Boehme is studying the association between specific chemicals in PM2.5 and respiratory and cardiovascular health. She is looking at 22 different chemical components of PM.

How might Fuentes’, Reich’s and Boehme’s research produce outcomes that both the ALA and NAM would find favorable?

Their research into the specific components of PM that are harmful could lead to future standards that target only the unhealthiest pollutants. Presumably these standards may exclude some types of PM emitted by manufacturers that are not harmful to health. In this way, it seems possible that more nuanced standards would protect public health but would be less burdensome to some industries compared to a blanket limit on all PM2.5.

Website References

(ALA) American Lung Association (2012) American Lung Association Applauds EPA Decision to Protect Public from Soot. Accessed 21 Jan 2016

Barboza T (2014) Obama administration limits on soot pollution upheld by appeals court. Accessed 5 Mar 2015

(EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013a) Particulate Matter. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/. Accessed 4 Nov 2014

(EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013b) Process of Reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/review.html. Accessed 9 Mar 2015

(EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Six Common Air Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/. Accessed 25 Feb 2015

Kelley D, Helgesen R (2005) On a Clear Day You Can See Forever. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=220&id=220. Accessed 22 Jul 2015

(NAM) National Association of Manufacturers (2012) EPA Doubles Down on Regulations; Manufacturers and the Economy Lose. Accessed 4 Nov 2014

PeakeT (2012) In Particulate Matter, the Particulars Matter. https://news.ncsu.edu/2012/10/tp-particulatematter/. Accessed 9 Mar 2015

Rowberg K (2000) Breathing Easy About New Air Pollution Standards. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection/detail.asp?case_id=422&id=422. Accessed 22 Jul 2015

Shogren E (2012) EPA Targets Deadliest Pollution: Soot. Accessed 4 Nov 2014

(WHO) World Health Organization (2014) Air quality deteriorating in many of the world’s cities. Accessed 9 Mar 2015

Page 1