Switchboard, from NRDC › Diane Bailey's Blog

Unrelenting Air Pollution in California's San Joaquin Valley This Winter

2012-02-02T16:43:43Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

The Center on Race, Poverty and The Environment recently reported that California’s San Joaquin Valley is experiencing the worst air quality in decades. Despite the many reports of exceptionally bad air quality in the Valley this winter, the response has been a muted ho-hum: What’s new? What are we going to do about it?

This is serious. Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator, acknowledged the gravity of the situation as he swung through the Valley last week announcing a Valley Plan and new funding: "Four times more people die in the San Joaquin Valley from air pollution than they do from traffic fatalities." Additional funding for some new air pollution controls is nice, but is there a real commitment? And what is the local San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District doing about it? Not a lot. Kevin Hall, director of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition explains:

“During this prolonged red-air season, not a single Air Alert was (or will be) issued by the Valley Air Board. Children ran and played through recesses. Evening football games were played. Seniors took morning walks. Joggers went on their runs. Little did they know the damage being done to their lungs,their hearts,their futures—and the immune systems of their future descendants. Not once did the regional agency formed to address this public health crisis issue a word of warning.”

The air district blames the high air pollution situation on weather. However, the stagnant air that is making things so unhealthy is trapping extremely high levels of pollution – levels that don’t seem to be coming down the way you would expect them to over the years. For all the work towards clean air in the San Joaquin Valley, fine particulate pollution has gone down just ten percent over the past decade (see 2000 and 2010 emissions here).

The ho-hum attitude of the air district has created an emergency unfolding in slow motion. Not only is the air pollution increasing asthma and other respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, and a long list of other ill effects, it may be altering the brains of a whole generation subjected to the constant onslaught of fine particle pollution. A recent study reported Alzheimer’s like changes to the brains of children living in areas with very high air pollution. This adds to a growing body of evidence that air pollution is inhibiting normal brain development, leading to lower IQs and possibly contributing to autism. The Wall Street Journal ran a good article summarizing these impacts last Fall.

The biggest sources of fine particulate pollution in the San Joaquin Valley are farming operations, “managed” burning, residential burning (a.k.a fireplaces), and diesel trucks. Dr. Alex Sherriffs , newly appointed to the California Air Resources Board, recently wrote a letter to the editor urging people to stop burning wood in their fireplaces: “Our Valley has had a string of unhealthy air days, and I see it in the asthma visits to my office and patients with lung disease struggling to breathe. “ Curbing fireplace use is a good start, but the Valley needs more decisive action. As the air district continues approving new permits for coal burning, and relying on feeble, mainly voluntary and incentive-based air quality programs, they are essentially looking the other way as another generation of children grows up wheezing and developmentally encumbered. It is passed time for them to get serious about meeting air quality standards in the Valley and fulfilling their mission to safeguard the public’s health.

Note to Planners: Homes next to Freeways, not a good idea

2011-12-16T00:27:07Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

A new study called At a Crossroads in Our Region’s Health came out yesterday, detailing how we can ensure that new housing in the Bay Area keeps residents safe from toxic air pollution. The report looks at Priority Development Areas (PDAs) in the urban areas and maps them in relation to diesel freight facilities like freeways and port terminals, which can pose serious health hazards to residents that are too close (also see this and this). The good news is that most of the land within PDAs isn’t impacted by these freight zones, so a little careful planning can go a long way towards preventing major health impacts to future residents.

Too many people already live and go to school too close to major diesel sources. For example, according to the American Housing Survey, approximately 17% of households were located within 300ft of a 4 lane highway, railroad, or airport in 2009. Rental units are more likely to be located near these major transportation facilities and substantial literature has documented inequalities in exposure to toxic pollutants with respect to race and socioeconomic status. It may not have been clear when these homes and schools were built, but we now know with certainty that close proximity to busy diesel transportation corridors is associated with serious health impacts. So we can and must do everything possible to avoid repeating mistakes of the past; we can keep new housing developments out of harm’s way.

Separately, we looked at housing developments in San Francisco from 2004 to 2010 to see how high the soot levels and cancer risks were from nearby busy roadways (within 1,000 feet). Only a handful of these developments have levels of soot that are significant enough to raise serious health concerns according to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidelines.

Crossroads1.pdf

crossroads2.pdf

More than a dozen housing developments have elevated cancer risk levels of concern, due to busy roadway proximity; these are all within several hundred feet of those roadways. Majority of the recent housing projects in San Francisco don’t have elevated cancer risks of concern. The projects that do show higher levels can, in all likelihood, add mitigations to address those concerns, like high efficiency air filters or vegetative screens. Some progressive cities like San Francisco and Oakland already require this for new developments that are close to freeways and other major air toxics sources.

In other areas, we are relying on planners to consider the health impacts of diesel pollution and similar sources, in their housing plans. The Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) now under development by the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the perfect place to consider these issues and offer safeguards to protect future residents. We urge MTC to prioritize those areas identified by the Crossroads study as being safe for development in the SCS and to restrict development in freight impacted areas, requiring the best mitigations possible where health impacts are projected to be significant. MTC has the opportunity to show leadership in ensuring that smart growth in our region is truly healthy.

San Francisco Steps Up to Address Air Pollution from America's Cup Yacht Races

2011-12-02T00:38:21Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

As San Francisco prepares for the America’s Cup 34 yacht races over the next few years, much criticism has been raised over environmental and community impacts of this massive event. With the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the event coming out today, we are very pleased to see one of our top tier issues, significant air pollution, fully mitigated with a robust set of measures. If all of these measures go forward, San Francisco will experience improved air quality and public health as a result of this event.

How can a yacht race cause significant air pollution and who cares here in San Francisco, where the air is relatively clean?

Well, San Francisco does have toxic hotspots of air pollution, with the East side officially recognized by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as disproportionately impacted by toxic air pollution in its Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program. And yachts tend to run on very dirty diesel engines, as do support vessels, generators used for power, private spectator boats and much of the construction equipment that will be hard at work building out venues for the race. Of greatest concern was the plan to shut down the new shore-power service that has allowed cruise ships to power down dirty engines while docked in San Francisco so that they can run on clean, hydro-based grid power. The combined air pollution impacts of the whole project including disabling shore-power would have been enormous:

Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions - a precursor to smog – totaling more than from all Bay Area refineries combined;
Fine particulate pollution would have been greater than all diesel trucks in San Francisco; and
Organics (“ROG”) - another smog precursor including many carcinogens – would have been twice as high as from all gas stations in San Francisco.

Together with other environmental and health advocates, we have had an extended dialogue with port and city officials over air pollution and public health concerns. The Final EIR released today represents a major effort on the part of port and city staff to address these concerns and for that, we thank them. The mitigation package in the Final EIR includes significant pollution reduction measures such as a major shore-side power project at the Pier 70 shipyard, additional clean construction requirements including the use of grid power instead of diesel generators where possible, cleaner marine fuels, cleaner race-sponsored boats, shore-side power for yachts and a swifter return to shore-side power for cruise ships at pier 27.

If all of these measures go forward, San Francisco will benefit from cleaner air as a result of this project. This effort to address air pollution from the races shows that the City of San Francisco is serious about making the America’s Cup a green event.

Poisoned Places: New Report Shows Hundreds of Communities Engulfed in Dangerous Air Pollution from Well Known Sources.

2011-11-08T23:47:31Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

The Center for Public Integrity released a study yesterday together with NPR revealing roughly 1,600 facilities that are known by US EPA to be “high priority violators” of the Clean Air Act in urgent need of clean up. Poisoned Places shows how millions of Americans are bombarded with toxic chemicals from industrial facilities like power plants, refineries and cement plants. Nearly 300 of the high priority violators have been in urgent need of clean up for at least a decade.

Over 400 dirty plants are part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's internal Clean Air Act "watch list" including “serious or chronic violators of the act that have faced no formal enforcement action for many months.” Ohio, Texas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Louisiana are home to many of the plants on the list, which until now, has not been made public. It’s worth noting that Conoco-Phillips, which has been loudly complaining about environmental regulations, has 5 dirty plants on that Watch List. Valero, which aggressively fought California’s global warming laws, bankrolling Prop 23, tops that with 8 dirty plants on the watch list.

Why would regulators allow these polluters to continue sickening surrounding communities? Actually, EPA has been hard at work developing measures to curb toxic emissions from the biggest sources – power plants, cement plants, boilers and other industrial emitters. Unfortunately, Congress has launched a full scale assault on public health and the environment, delaying and potentially rolling back these important safeguards. These attacks on EPA in the name of cost-cutting are akin to removing soap from public restrooms to save money. For example, several of the most effective air quality measures on hold right now would save as many as 25,000 American lives and prevent up to 171,000 cases of aggravated asthma every year, when implemented, saving billions of dollars in health costs.

While Congress interferes with these critically needed clean air measures, real people are suffering. A wide slate of health impacts from early death to developmental delays, heart attacks, asthma, cancer and birth defects have been associated with industrial air pollution. Delaying power plant cleanup alone, could cause an additional 139,000 premature deaths, 58,000 heart attacks, and 1 million asthma attacks.

This analysis covering industrial facilities only is alarming by itself. Even worse, many of the communities with large concentrations of the dirtiest sources are also impacted by heavily polluting freight facilities. For example, Chicago, a major national rail hub, has many of the worst facilities clustered around its rail yards and airports, alongside residential neighborhoods. Houston, the largest petro-chemical complex in the nation, has some of the dirtiest facilities concentrated along major transportation corridors and shipping terminals, all with homes nearby. Los Angeles and Long Beach, home to the two largest ports in the nation, have many of the dirtiest facilities along major freight corridors, rail yards and port terminals, intermingled with thousands of homes.

Communities will continue to bear serious health impacts from toxic air pollution until Congress gets out of the way so that EPA can do its job cleaning up dirty polluters. If you’re concerned about the Congressional logjam allowing high priority violators and Watch List dirty polluters to continue treating our skies like sewers, here’s what you can do.

Diesel Pollution and Asthma: More evidence that the two are closely linked

2011-09-30T05:14:56Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

A new study of infants and young children living in areas of Tucson, Arizona with elevated diesel pollution found that they are more likely than other kids to suffer from early childhood wheezing, a potential asthma indicator. This is one more study to add to an already large body of evidence connecting diesel pollution and asthma. Here’s a summary of that literature.

In addition to increasing the frequency and severity of asthma symptoms, diesel exhaust can lead to inflammation of the airways that can cause or worsen asthma. One major study found that components of diesel exhaust including particulate matter can cause biologic responses that are related to asthma; this exposure is associated with the inflammatory and immune responses involved in asthma.

Attending School Near A Major Roadway Increases Asthma

A Northern California study surveying over 1,000 elementary school students found higher rates of asthma and bronchitis symptoms in children attending schools near busy roads and freeways.
A study of thirteen Southern California communities found that children exposed to traffic-related pollution in school were more likely to develop asthma irrespective of residential exposure.
A recent nationwide study of almost 9,000 public schools found that approximately one third of students were likely to be at increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory disorders due to close proximity of their school to a freeway.
A study of almost 1500 children in Dutch schools found a positive relationship between school proximity to freeways and asthma occurrence with truck traffic intensity.
Surveys among thousands of junior high school students in Jakarta also revealed a link between traffic levels and respiratory impacts including phlegm, persistent cough and asthma.

Living Near A Major Roadway is Strongly Associated with Asthma

A comprehensive literature review of children’s exposure to traffic emissions done recently by the Health Effects Institute concluded that the evidence is “sufficient to infer a causal association for exacerbation of asthma.”
Many studies have shown that proximity of residences to heavy traffic levels is associated with respiratory impacts such as cough, wheeze, persistent cough, asthma, and hospital admissions for asthma.
The California Children’s Health Study, which began in 1992, found an 89 percent increase in the likelihood of being diagnosed with asthma for those children living close to freeways versus those living farther away.
A recent review of California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) data revealed a three-fold increase in asthma related hospital visits among children living in high traffic density areas.
A similar study based on CHIS data attributes a 92 percent increase in asthma symptoms among those living near the highest traffic densities, and suggests that impacts may be disproportionately worse among those in poverty due to heightened vulnerability.
A study of nearly 10,000 children in England found that wheezing illness, including asthma, was more likely with increasing proximity of a child's home to main roads, with the greatest risk being for children living within 300 feet of the road.
A study in rural New York found that children living in neighborhoods with heavy diesel truck traffic within 650 feet of their homes had increased risks of asthma hospitalization.
A Dutch study of over 1,000 children found that asthma, wheeze, cough, and runny nose were significantly more common in children living within 330 feet of freeways; and higher asthma rates were significantly associated with increasing levels of diesel truck traffic.
Another Dutch study found that traffic-related pollution was associated with increased respiratory infections and some measures of asthma and allergies among four year olds who were monitored since birth.

With all of this evidence of the links between diesel pollution and asthma and the epidemic rates of asthma that have been on the rise, it is particularly troubling to see federal asthma programs in jeopardy of losing their funding. Click here to support two key federal efforts to reduce the burden of asthma.

Sources:

Miyamoto T., Epidemiology of pollution-induced airway disease in Japan, Allergy; 52(38 Suppl):30-34, 1997.

Albright, JF and RA Goldstein, Airborne pollutants and the immune system, Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 114(2):232-8, 1996.

Sagai M, A Furuyama and T Ichinose, Biological effects of diesel exhaust particles (DEP). III. Pathogenesis of asthma like symptoms in mice, Free Radic Biol Med;21(2):199-209, 1996.

Pandya, R.J. et. al., Diesel Exhaust and Asthma: Hypotheses and Molecular Mechanisms of Action, Environmental Health Perspecitves, Volume 110, Supplement 1, February 2002.

Kim, J. et al. Traffic-related air pollution and respiratory health: East Bay Children’s Respiratory Health Study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2004;170: 520-526.

McConnell, R. et al. Childhood Incident Asthma and Traffic-Related Air Pollution at Home and School. Environmental Health Perspectives 2010; 118(7): 1021-1026.

Speizer, F. E. and B. G. Ferris, Jr. Exposure to automobile exhaust. I. Prevalence of respiratory symptoms and disease. Archives of Environmental Health 1973;26(6):313-8.

van Vliet, P., M. Knape, et al. Motor vehicle exhaust and chronic respiratory symptoms in children living near freeways. Environmental Research 1997; 74(2):122-32.

Appatova, A.S., et al. Proximal exposure of public schools and students to major roadways: a nationwide US survey. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2008; 51(5): 631-646.

Duki, M.I.Z., Sudarmadi, S., Suzuki, S., Kawada, T., & Tri-Tugaswati, A. Effect of Air Pollution on Respiratory Health in Indonesia and its Economic Cost. Arch Environmental Health 2003; 58: 135–143.

Nicolai, T., Carr, D., Weiland, S.K., Duhme, H., Von Ehrenstein, O., Wagner, C., & Von Mutius. Urban traffic and pollutant exposure related to respiratory outcomes and atopy in a large sample of children. Eur Respir J. 2003;21: 956–963.

Brunekreef, B; Janssen, NA; de Hartog, J; Harssema, H; Knape, M; van Vliet, P. Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in children living near motor-ways. Epidemiology 1997; 8(3): 298-303.

Duhme, H., S. K. Weiland, et al. The association between self-reported symptoms of asthma and allergic rhinitis and self-reported traffic density on street of residence in adolescents. Epidemiology 1996; 7(6): 578-582.

Edwards, J., S. Walters, et al. Hospital admissions for asthma in preschool children: relationship to major roads in Birmingham, United Kingdom. Archives of Environmental Health 1994; 49(4): 223-227.

Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution. Traffic-Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects. Health Effects Institute Special Report 17, January 2010.

Gauderman WJ et al. Childhood Asthma and Exposure to Traffic and Nitrogen Dioxide. Epidemiology 2005; 16:737-743.

McConnell R, Berhane K, Yao L, Jerrett M, Lurmann F, Gilliland F, et al. 2006. Traffic, susceptibility, and childhood. Environ Health Perspect 2006; 114(5):766-772.

Wilhelm et. al. Environmental Public Health Tracking of Childhood Asthma Using California Health Interview Survey, Traffic, and Outdoor Air Pollution Data. Environmental Health Perspectives 2008;116(8):1254-1260.

Meng et. al. Are Frequent Asthma Symptoms Among Low-Income Individuals Related to Heavy Traffic Near Homes, Vulnerabilities, or Both? AEP 2008; 18(5):343-350.

Venn et al. Living Near A Main Road and the Risk of Wheezing Illness in Children. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2001; 164:2177-2180.

Lin, Munsie, Hwang, Fitzgerald, and Cayo.. Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic. Environmental Research, Section A 2002; 88:73-81.

English P., Neutra R., Scalf R. Sullivan M. Waller L. Zhu L. Examining Associations Between Childhood Asthma and Traffic Flow Using a Geographic Information System. Environmental Health Perspectives 1999; 107(9):761-767.

Brauer, M., et al.. Air pollution and development of asthma, allergy and infections in a birth cohort. Eur Respir J 2007; 29:879-888.

Zero Emission Cargo Equipment: CARB Could Help Make It Happen

2011-09-22T05:34:11Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) considers amendments to its measure cleaning up diesel cargo handling equipment at ports and railyards tomorrow. Along with the many minor amendments proposed, CARB has the opportunity to greatly advance Zero Emission Container Movement Systems that are much cleaner and more efficient than their diesel predecessors.

The Cargo handling equipment regulation provides much needed relief from air pollution in some of the most heavily impacted communities. For example, this equipment produces nearly a quarter of the diesel soot from California’s largest rail yards, like those in Commerce and San Bernardino where fenceline communities have suffered serious health impacts from those operations.

Fortunately there are many clean alternatives to diesel cargo equipment and these are being advanced by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. CARB can play an important role bringing these clean technologies into widespread use by conducting a technology assessment, incorporating incentives in the cargo equipment regulation, and supporting Zero Emission Container Movement projects.

I hope that CARB will embrace its role as clean air and climate leader and accelerate the early use of zero emission cargo handling equipment.

Getting slicked by big oil.

2011-09-17T06:02:39Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Or should we say getting tarred by big oil?

This tarry goop (aka heavy crude oil) packs a polar ice cap melting wallop, with carbon pollution from extracting and upgrading that can cause 3 to 5 times as much carbon pollution as conventional crude oil. On a full lifecycle basis, gasoline produced from these heavier and dirtier crude oils could emit on average 20 percent greater emissions.

This week, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released the latest version of the proposed cap-and-trade regulation that includes a provision for the next two years that could open the door to refineries using much heavier and dirtier crude oils.

Image source: http://geoestratos.com.mx/englishgeo/geoenglish1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=106&Itemid=99

The new proposal focuses on the process instead of the final product (i.e., gasoline, diesel), thereby potentially favoring larger refiners using more carbon-intense, heavier crudes compared to regular crude oils. This latest proposal is a major departure from earlier versions, known as “single output barrel” that NRDC supported because they were appropriately focused on the carbon intensity of refined fuels – the final product that consumers purchase at the pump.

The new proposal could also reward refiners of the dirtiest, most carbon intensive crude with the same level of public assistance as their competitors using cleaner grades of crude oil. If carbon prices stay close to the floor (starting at $10/tonne) refiners could save more money by switching to cheaper, dirtier crudes, than compliance with the new cap-and-trade regulation will cost them, resulting in more emissions. To the serious detriment of California.

In fact, if half the fuels in California were to shift to dirtier crude, not only would carbon emissions from the refining sector dramatically increase, other pollutants would rise leading to increased health impacts that could top 45 additional premature deaths and over 700 more asthma events per year from additional air pollution at a health cost of over $300 million. The additional air pollution would also contribute to other illnesses and lost productivity.

CARB has set a two year limit to this program, at which time it is slated to improve, but we fully expect Big Oil to continue to use all its political power to keep pushing the deadline back, removing barriers to shift towards heavy crudes. Even if CARB overcomes Big Oil and maintains the scheduled program improvement, the latest proposal for the refining sector in the cap-and-trade program has other challenges. It relies on too many free allocations of carbon credits, so that facilities using carbon intense fuels and processing won’t feel a great pinch. The benchmarks behind the program are based on proprietary industry data, assembled by a long-time industry consulting groups named Solomon; this lack of public transparency thwarts accountability. Finally, the design of the program obscures the use of very dirty, heavy crude oils that require more carbon-intensive processing like “coking”. This mutes incentives to improve performance, and likely furthers the carbon-intensive status quo.

While this is a very disappointing outcome for the refining sector in the cap-and-trade program, there are several other avenues to reduce carbon and co-pollutant emissions from this sector. A special provision related to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the High Carbon Intensive Crude Oil provision, could play a pivotal role in preventing backsliding on crude quality and total sector carbon emissions. CARB is also planning to require large industrial sources including refineries to implement certain cost-effective measures identified by industrial audits taking place later this year. It is imperative that CARB maintains a strong commitment to these two measures to ensure progress in the refining sector. Without them, California’s future could be soaked in heavy crude.

Who doesn't want to clean up trucks in Oakland?

2011-08-04T22:05:55Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

This afternoon Alameda County Supervisors Nate Miley and Scott Haggerty are hosting a hearing to “give local Port truckers an opportunity to share their concerns about the Drayage Truck Rule.” Why is Alameda County revisiting these important public health protections for Oakland residents living along the busy 880 freight corridor? It is puzzling given that both Supervisors are board members of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and they each have messages on their webpages: “We care about the environment.” With a big green leaf icon.

This hearing plays to calls from local truck companies that do not want to follow the state clean up schedule for diesel rigs serving big ports and rail yards. Roughly 2.800 diesel trucks that travel through Oakland neighborhoods suffering from some of the highest asthma rates in the state, have yet to apply simple soot filters according to the drayage truck registry. These trucks are polluting roughly ten times the amount of soot as the 1,750 newer trucks with modern controls servicing the Port of Oakland and the additional 1,700 that have invested in soot filter retrofits according to information obtained from this registry.

Former Alameda County Health Department Director and Health Officer Dr. Anthony Iton spoke frequently of the need to address diesel pollution in Oakland neighborhoods: “As you are aware, West Oakland asthma hospitalization rates are 2.3 times the County average and West Oakland residents experience a 2.5 times greater lifetime risk of cancer than Bay Area residents in general, in no small part due to dirty diesel trucks.”

I urge the Alameda County Supervisors to heed the advice of their health department and consider the health toll of diesel truck pollution on the surrounding community. Please support the preservation of the drayage truck regulation to give residents of West Oakland, East Oakland and communities along 880 the relief from oppressive diesel pollution that they need.

California tells ships to stop bypassing clean fuel zone

2011-06-23T04:56:11Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

California’s Air Resources Board meets tomorrow to close a major loophole undermining clean shipping fuel requirements adopted two years ago. NRDC has been to court to defend these important rules several times (here and here), and the court agrees that California has the right to protect its coastal residents from major health hazards associated with ocean going vessels burning toxics-laden bunker fuel.

California’s Clean Fuel Zone for international ships is one of the cornerstones of a statewide emission reduction plan to curb pollution from cargo coming into our ports, rail yards and distribution centers. Pollution from these diesel freight sources is associated with several thousand premature deaths each year; the Clean Shipping Fuel Zone by itself is expected to drastically reduce premature deaths, asthma and other severe health problems.

Unfortunately, since the regulation was adopted, roughly half of the ships traveling to the busy ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are skirting the Clean Fuel Zone by cutting through the Navy’s Point Mugu Missile Test range. Cutting through the Navy’s training waters is not only a bad idea for safety reasons, but also is done at the detriment of California’s air quality.

Thanks to these shippers traveling outside of the Clean Fuel Zone, we aren’t seeing nearly the benefits we should from the clean shipping fuel requirements. This may have saved shippers some money by allowing them to use cheap and dirty bunker fuel, but it made for longer voyages that use more fuel, release more greenhouse gases and interfere with Naval operations.

The proposed changes to the clean fuel rule aren’t perfect; we have concerns over the two year delay for phase two of the clean fuel requirements. This is reportedly required to deal with technical issues, but several major shipping lines (Maersk and APL) have already been using the very clean “phase 2” fuels since 2006 in some areas. The proposal also cuts non-compliance fees in half, sending the wrong message that ships can continue to use dirty fuel as long as they pay the fee to pollute. On balance however, extending the Clean Fuel Zone so that all ships travelling in California waters are clean is a major victory for public health.

Looking ahead, California must continue its leadership on clean shipping by setting statewide limits on ship speeds. Ships that travel too fast waste fuel, risk strikes with whales and other marine life, and release more toxic air pollution as well as greenhouse gases. Together with the Clean Shipping fuel measure, Vessel Speed Reduction was included by CARB in the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan of 2006. It was also included in the scoping plan for AB 32 and shortly thereafter development of the measure began. Unfortunately the Vessel Speed Reduction measure has since languished. It’s time to get this important global warming, health and marine mammal protection measure finished.

If Kids Could Vote, Clean Air Would Rule the Day

2011-06-08T14:56:44Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Our society goes to great lengths to protect children’s health, from fancy car seats to an elaborate system of recalls on any faulty children’s products. And why shouldn’t we take extra precautions to protect the most vulnerable among us and our future? Somehow when it comes to protecting children from the very well known health hazards of air pollution, however, we continually fall short. Consider that nearly 37 million children live in areas with unhealthy air due to ozone smog or soot pollution.

Many illnesses associated with pollution have been on the rise. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that one in ten American children suffers from asthma, a ten percent increase over the last decade. Over the past three decades the rates of mortality from childhood cancers have decreased dramatically – we’re doing a better job treating and curing children - yet the rates of cancer incidence among children have increased 30 percent during that period.

A recent report on disease clusters by my colleagues included many clusters of childhood cancer and birth defects throughout the United States. It’s nearly impossible to find the precise cause of these clusters but in many cases there is ample evidence of environmental contamination nearby. For example:

Researchers have found that children in Houston, Texas who live within two miles of the industrial Ship Channel have a 56 percent greater chance of getting leukemia. This area is home to the largest petro-chemical complex in the country and experiences the highest air concentrations of benzene and 1,3-butadiene (both known carcinogens) in the country.
A confirmed cluster of Downs Syndrome cases has been documented in Midlothian, Texas. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is studying the area, which reportedly has higher rates of leukemia and other childhood cancers, birth defects, and higher rates of respiratory problems. Residents are concerned about pollution from three cement plants and a steel-recycling mill.

It’s well known that children and infants are uniquely at risk from air pollution both because of physiological susceptibility and greater relative exposure. Children often have greater exposures to environmental contaminants; consider children playing outside and toddlers mouthing toys. Compared to adults, children, on a body-weight basis, ingest more dust and soil and breathe more air. They are also more susceptible to the health impacts of pollutants because their bodies are immature and still developing. In particular, children are more susceptible to certain cancers and reproductive problems, and they have a longer expected lifetime in which to develop illness after an exposure.

One thing is clear: A recent slate of clean up measures from US EPA covering power plants, boilers, and cement plants, would go a long way toward protecting the health of children and vulnerable populations. These proposals would put an end to the practice among these industrial sources of treating our skies like sewers. The dirty coal and fossil fuel smoke stacks that EPA seeks to regulate emit vast quantities of soot, smog-forming chemicals and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as mercury, lead, and dangerous aromatics, many of which pose excessive health hazards to children.

Exposure to fine particulate matter or soot has been linked to birth defects, low birth weights, and premature births, in addition to a range of severe health impact to the general population.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) can have a toxic effect on the airways, leading to inflammation, asthmatic reactions, and worsening of allergies and asthma symptoms.
Ozone smog contributes to decreased lung function, increased respiratory symptoms, asthma, emergency room visits, and hospital admissions.
Mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin for which coal-fired power plants, boilers, and cement plants contribute to half of all emissions in the United States, is associated with neurological, developmental, and behavioral problems, such as lower IQ, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and impaired memory and motor skills. Hundreds of thousands of newborns each year may be over exposed to mercury in utero, increasing their risk of neuro-developmental effects. This mercury contamination is associated with hundreds of excess cases per year of a level of cognitive impairment that would be considered mental retardation, which costs up to $3.3 billion for annual care.
Lead causes a wide array of severe health impacts including neurological, cardiovascular, and immune effects. Children are particularly sensitive to the effects of lead, which include sensory, motor, cognitive and behavioral impacts, resulting in reduced IQ scores and academic achievement, as well as attention deficit problems.
Complex aromatic chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are known to be especially toxic to infants and children. These substances are known to cross the placenta to harm the unborn fetus, contributing to fetal mortality, increased cancer risk and birth defects. Prenatal exposure to PAHs may also be a risk factor for the early development of asthma-related symptoms and can adversely affect children’s cognitive development, leading to diminished school performance. Exposure of children to PAHs at levels measured in polluted areas can also adversely affect IQ.

As the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee holds its hearing on Air Quality and Public Health today, I hope they consider the very well established heightened vulnerability of children to air pollution and the fact that there are many simple measures to dramatically improve air quality and reduce health impacts to our children. If kids could vote, their support for EPA regulations to clean up our air would be a no brainer.

References identifying health impacts to infants and children from various pollutants:

Schwartz J, Slater D, Larson TV, Person WE, Koenig JQ. “Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Emergency Room Visits for Asthma in Seattle.” Am Rev Respir Dis, 1993 Apr; 147(4):826-31.

Ritz B, Wilhelm M, Zhao Y. “Air Pollution and Infant Death in Southern California, 1989–2000.” Pediatrics, 2000 Aug:118(2):493-502.

Wilhelm M, Ritz B. “Residential Proximity to Traffic and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, 1994–1996.” Environ Health Perspect, 2003 Feb; 111(2):207-16.

Wilhelm M, Ritz B. “Local Variations in CO and Particulate Air Pollution and Adverse Birth outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, USA.” Environ Health Perspect, 2005 Sep:113(9):1212-21.

Davies, R.J., Rusznak, C., Devalia, J.L.: “Why is allergy increasing?—environmental factors.” Clinical Experiment Allergy 28 (Suppl 6):8–14, 1998.

Myers GJ, Davidson PW. Prenatal mercury exposure and children: Neurologic, developmental, and behavioral research. Environ Health Perspect 106(Suppl 3): 841-847, 1998.

Grandjean P, White RF, Weihe P, Jorgensen PJ. Neurotoxic risk caused by stable and variable exposure to methylmercury from seafood. Ambul Pediatr. 3(1):18-23, 2003.

Debes F, Budtz-Jørgensen E, Weihe P, White RF, Grandjean P. Impact of prenatal methylmercury exposure on neurobehavioral function at age 14 years. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 28(5):536-47, 2006.

Oken E, Wright RO, Kleinman KP, Bellinger D, Amarasiriwardena CJ, Hu H, Rich-Edwards JW, Gillman MW. Maternal fish consumption, hair mercury, and infant cognition in a U.S. Cohort. Environ Health Perspect. 113(10):1376-80, 2005.

Oken E, Radesky JS, Wright RO, Bellinger DC, Amarasiriwardena CJ, Kleinman KP, Hu H, Gillman MW. Maternal fish intake during pregnancy, blood mercury levels, and child cognition at age 3 years in a US cohort. Am J Epidemiol.167(10):1171-81, 2008.

Myers GJ, Thurston SW, Pearson AT, Davidson PW, Cox C, Shamlaye CF, Cernichiari E, Clarkson TW. Postnatal exposure to methyl mercury from fish consumption: a review and new data from the Seychelles Child Development Study. Neurotoxicol. 30(3):338-49, 2009.

Yoshida M, Shimizu N, Suzuki M, Watanabe C, Satoh M, Mori K, Yasutake A. Emergence of delayed methylmercury toxicity after perinatal exposure in metallothionein-null and wild-type C57BL mice. Environ Health Perspect. 116(6):746-51, 2008.

Mahaffey KR, Clickner RP, Bodurow CC. Blood organic mercury and dietary mercury intake: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 and 2000. Environ Health Perspect. 112(5):562-70, 2004.

Trasande, Leonardo, Schecter, Clyde, Haynes, Karla A., and Landrigan Phillip. Mental Retardation and Prenatial Methylmercury Toxicity. 2006 Am Journal of Industrial Medicine. 49:153-158.

Trasande, Leonardo, Schecter, Clyde, Haynes, Karla A., and Landrigan Phillip. 2006. Applying Cost Analyses to Drive Policy that Protects Children Mercury as a Case Study. Ann. N.Y. Acad.Sci. 1076:911-923.

Salmon A.G. and Meehan T. Potential Impact of Environmental Exposures to Polycyclic Organic Material (POM) on Children’s Health, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/public/kids/pdf/PAHs%20on%20Children's%20Health.pdf

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Statement for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). August 1995. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=120&tid=25

Perera FP. DNA Damage from Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Measured by Benzo[a]pyrene-DNA Adducts in Mothers and Newborns from Northern Manhattan, The World Trade Center Area, Poland, and ChinaCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14(3):709–14.

Perera FP, Rauh V, Tsai WY, Kinney P, Camann D, et al. (2003) Effects of transplacental exposure to environmental pollutants on birth outcomes in amultiethnic population. Environ Health Perspect 111: 201–205.

Perera FP et. al. Effect of Prenatal Exposure to Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons on Neurodevelopment in the First 3 Years of Life among Inner-City ChildrenEnviron Health Perspect 114:1287–1292 (2006).

Perera, FP et. al. Prenatal Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Exposure and Child IQ at Age 5 Years. Pediatrics 2009;124:e195–e202.

24 Million Americans Gasping for Air

2011-05-05T17:07:01Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

That’s what a Center for Disease Control and Prevention newsletter, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, reported yesterday: 24.6 million Americans suffer from asthma, a 12 percent increase over the last decade. One in every ten children has asthma and the prevalence increases with poverty – 13.5% of poor children have asthma; rates are highest for black children – one in six suffer from asthma. This disease costs $56 billion each year when medical costs, missed school and work days and premature deaths are tallied.

The CDC report presents a mind-numbing flurry of numbers documenting the misery and suffering of millions of Americans, from the number of children rushed to the ER to how many school days they miss (and work days their parents miss). What it doesn’t tell you is that air pollution is a major trigger for asthma attacks and can even cause asthma to develop in previously healthy people (also see this study). Studies have documented how ER visits of children with asthma go up with pollution levels.

The good news is that there are plenty of steps that we can take to reduce air pollution. EPA’s recently proposed clean-up standards for power plants alone would go a long way in improving our air quality so that asthmatics can breathe a little easier. The standards would modernize power plants, removing millions of tons of air pollution every year and preventing hundreds of thousands of illnesses. With one in twelve Americans suffering from asthma, this clean-up measure can’t come soon enough.

A Different Kind of Black Lung

2011-02-16T00:14:14Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Maybe it’s news of the historic sit in against Mountain-top removal style coal mining going in Kentucky right now, but somehow Valentine’s Day got me thinking: Dear Utilities, where’s the love? Pollution from our nation’s coal power plants is making hundreds of thousands of people sick every year.

Coal, one of the dirtiest substances on the planet, is filling our lungs with black soot. This isn’t exactly the Black Lung associated with mining, but it’s close. A recent report tallies the annual public health burden of coal power in the U.S. as:

13,200 premature deaths,
9,700 hospital admissions,
12,300 ER visits for Asthma,
20,400 heart attacks,
8,000 cases of chronic bronchitis,
217,600 asthma attacks, and
1.6 million lost work days.
Total health costs for these impacts exceed $100 billion per year.

Thankfully EPA is set to update clean air rules on coal and other fossil fuel power plants, but not if some Members of Congress have their way (Please write them).

The thing is, as my colleague notes, Latinos and other minorities are hit the hardest from coal power plant pollution. In fact, the Air of Injustice report estimates that Thirty-nine percent of the Latino population lives within 30 miles of a power plant – the distance within which the maximum effects of fine particle soot from the smokestack plume are expected to occur. For example, Chicago is home to two of the oldest, dirtiest coal-fired power plants, situated in the densely populated and largely Latino neighborhoods of Little Village and Pilsen; pollution from the coal plants have cost these two communities over $100 million in health and environmental damages per year. Making matters worse, the mercury emissions from coal plants contaminate fish, posing a major health hazard to subsistence fishers, who are also often minorities.

The good news is that plans for at least 150 new coal plants have been stopped in their tracks. In addition to avoiding the tremendous health toll of these plants, ending the reign of King Coal has avoided more than 500 million tons of global warming pollution as well. But we can’t rest on our laurels because our lungs are still clogged with all the black soot from the existing 500 plus dirty coal plants, until EPA acts to clean them up or we make the transition to cleaner energy that doesn’t pollute our air and water.

Diesel Pollution Hurts Polar Bears Too

2011-01-28T05:15:02Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

The California diesel clean-up program is quite possibly the largest program to control a potent global warming pollutant, black carbon, although not officially recognized as a climate program under AB 32. Diesel engines are the largest source of black carbon in most industrialized areas, presenting a major opportunity to stop some of the epic warming occurring in the Arctic, while other important climate policies are adopted. Some studies estimate that black carbon has contributed to roughly half of the warming that the Arctic has experienced over the last century.

With current technology, such as diesel particulate filters, more than 90 percent of black carbon from diesel engines could be eliminated virtually overnight. In fact, the California diesel program has already cut in half the black carbon concentrations in the air compared to twenty years ago, which is good news for the Sierra Snowpack, which has been impacted by black carbon and global warming. The California Diesel Control Program is expected to reduce black carbon 75 percent by 2020, amounting to 2 to 8 Million Metric Tons of CO2-equivalent reductions (MMT CO2e, using a methodology proposed by ARB; see p. 52). A similar program at the national level could yield reductions of 100 MMT CO2e or more.

With a steady stream of reports of epic melting in the Arctic (recent reports here and here) and the related potential for significant increases in sea level and other perilous impacts, the California diesel programs are something to celebrate and adopt far and wide.

California Diesel Measures: A Look at the Big Picture

2011-01-26T23:49:51Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

After the California Air Board voted to delay and weaken key diesel regulations last month, the mood among environmental, health and community advocates was pretty glum. And more than a few businesses (like these) that invested in clean equipment and technology were also disappointed.

One bright spot was the diesel measure covering trucks that serve major ports and railyards, “drayage trucks,” which was actually strengthened a lot. Some community advocates still questioned how that could be a victory in the face of all the other diesel rollbacks. No doubt that the delays cause real health impacts - we estimated 380 fewer lives saved in 2014 due to delayed clean up. How could the board give up those health benefits? Well, the regulatory weakening was in the name of economic relief as a result of the recession. Unfortunately, respiratory relief took a backseat leaving the million plus Californians living near freeways to stew in the worst pollution for several more years. Ok, that was the bad news.

Where does California’s diesel clean up program stand?

The good news is that California still has the largest diesel clean-up program out there, ensuring major public health, air quality, global climate and economic benefits. Our state has a suite of more than a dozen diesel clean-up measures covering: Transit buses, trash trucks, tugs & ferries, refrigeration units, generators, cargo and airport equipment, construction equipment, port trucks, all other heavy-duty trucks, shorepower and clean fuel for ships, and engine idling limits for school buses and trucks. Restrictions for most of these have already begun. The rules have resulted in fuel savings of over 100 million gallons of diesel each year and thousands of lives saved because of reduced pollution.

What Changed in December?

The amendments to the diesel regulations for trucks and off-road equipment generally gave an extra two to four years to comply with the clean up requirements and in some cases relaxed the requirements. Diesel pollution from these sources is still slated to be cut in half between now and 2014 despite these delays.

Statewide Trucks and Buses: Beginning in 2015 all trucks older than 20 years will have to be replaced. Many trucks that lack particulate filters will have to install them between 2012 and 2014. All school buses built before 1977 must be replaced by 2012 and those lacking filters must install them by 2014.
Off-road Equipment: Diesel off-road vehicles and equipment used in construction and other commercial and industrial applications were given four extra years to comply with the original regulation, with large fleets beginning clean up in 2014. Retrofits with filters are no longer mandatory.
Drayage Trucks: Recent changes closed several unintended loopholes (like this one) that undermined compliance; dirty trucks can no longer serve ports and railyards. This was truly a major victory for fenceline communities.
Incentives and Loan Funds: In addition to certain exemptions and special credits to ease financial burdens in these regulations, more than $160 million in grants and loans are available to clean up trucks over the next year. Earlier this week, the state announced $250 million in incentive funding for diesel clean up, covering more than 5,000 trucks, among other freight related sources.

What next?

Opportunities to achieve early diesel emission reductions remain, not only with the incentive and loan programs mentioned above but with local actions to require cleaner equipment. For example, just a week before CARB met last December the Metro in Los Angeles voted to develop a clean construction policy for MTA funded projects, including the $40 billion worth of projects financed by Measure R. Additionally, several more statewide regulations are planned for diesel engines, including farm equipment and potentially for certain trucks to improve efficiency (e.g. hybrid delivery trucks).

The bottom line: While there are still some improvements and additions to be made, California’s Diesel Control Program stands out as a tremendous model of air quality and public health safeguards for others to replicate. Tune in tomorrow for an assessment of the climate benefits of the program.

Cleaning Up Dirty Diesels Is a Good Investment in Our Communities

2010-12-16T06:39:45Z

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

Air districts representing the areas of California with the worst air quality – the greater Los Angeles area and San Joaquin Valley – expressed concern yesterday over the proposed relaxations to the state diesel regulations. Their letter explains that it is impossible for these regions to meet federal air standards without significant reductions in emissions from diesel trucks and off-road equipment. The letter goes on that “…the proposed relaxations leave little or no margin for error in relation to the reductions needed to…” meet federal standards and that failure to do so will subject those regions to “devastating sanctions under the federal Clean Air Act.”

The fact is that California has the worst air quality in the nation, largely due to diesel pollution. The recession has resulted in a slight decrease in emission from the diesel sectors due to reduced activity. However, the recession-induced reductions in trucking pollution are minimal – almost imperceptible in the most populous area, Southern California (see CARB presentation on inventory updates, slides 29-32). What’s more, when the economy does recover, we’ll see a spike in diesel emissions as a dirty, older fleet of equipment goes back to work, since investments in clean, new equipment will have slowed.

All that is to say that communities criss-crossed by freeways are suffering from unbearable pollution levels now and these impacts are likely to continue unabated for several more years unless some of the early clean up requirements of the original diesel regulations are reinstated. This raises some serious environmental and social justice concerns once the demographics of those vulnerable communities are considered. Communities that experience the highest traffic levels not only in Southern California but throughout California are on average more likely to be poorer and have a greater percentage of minority residents. We looked at three different areas to see who lives closest to freeways and found significant disparities between freeway impacted communities and the larger area.

Hundreds of thousands of Californians live within one quarter mile of a major freeway carrying diesel trucks. In the three communities we analyzed, a distinct disparity was evident, showing that those living closest to a freeway were less likely to be white and families were more likely to fall below the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development designation for Very Low Income.

It is of paramount importance to offer these areas immediate relief from the severe pollution levels that they experience. Cleaning up California’s older, dirty diesels is a good investment in these communities. US EPA estimates $13 in health savings for every dollar invested to clean up diesel engines, which is a deal every Californian who cares about clean air should support. As we consider modifications to ease certain clean up requirements during this economic downturn, we cannot waiver in our commitment to protect public health.