Quantcast
Connect with us

Trump’s EPA disbanded our clean air science panel. We met anyway – and found that particle pollution regulations aren’t protecting public health

Published

on

- Commentary

Since 1980, emissions of six common air pollutants have decreased by 67%, thanks largely to government regulation. At the same time, U.S. gross domestic product has increased by 165%. While some assert that regulation acts as a drag on the economy, this record indicates that environmental protection does not have to undercut economic growth.

I have studied air pollution and air quality for over 30 years, and have been directly involved for a decade with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reviews of scientific findings on air pollution. This includes seven years of service on the agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and stints on 10 specialized panels focused on individual pollutants.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is currently reviewing the national standard for regulating particulate matter – tiny solid particles and droplets that measure a fraction of the width of a human hair and penetrate deeply into the lungs when inhaled. Health effects of exposure to fine particulate air pollution include respiratory, cardiovascular and other diseases and premature death.

To help fill this gap, we reconvened ourselves independently, and have met over the past year to produce scientific advice for EPA aimed at protecting public health. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that advocates for the use of rigorous, independent science to solve global problems, hosted our most recent meeting on Oct. 10 and Oct. 11, 2019. We reported our conclusions directly to the EPA, and panel members donated their time and expertise.But on Oct. 10, 2018, I and other scientists on a panel that advised the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee on this issue learned that the EPA abruptly disbanded our panel. Now the particulate matter review is moving forward without the scientific expertise and experience that it needs.

In contrast, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee has been restructured over the past several years with new appointees who appear to be developing advice aimed at pleasing the EPA administrator.

A serious threat to public health

Fine particle air pollution comes from many sources, including burning fossil fuels. Today more than 20 million Americans live in areas with high levels of fine particles.

Average annual fine particulate levels in the U.S. fell by nearly 25% between 2009 and 2016, but this trend may be reversing. Increasingly frequent and severe wildfires, such as those currently raging in California, are one likely source.

ADVERTISEMENT

A recent study found that fine particle levels rose 5.5% between 2016 and 2018 and estimated that this increase was associated with some 9,700 premature deaths in 2018 that would not have occurred otherwise. Our panel noted the recent uptick in fine particle levels in our latest report, released last week.

Science-based standards

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to conduct regular reviews of national air quality standards. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s job is to review the “latest scientific knowledge” underpinning regulations for major air pollutants. If the science indicates that existing standards are not adequately protecting public health, the agency must revise them.

The committee has seven members, appointed by the EPA administrator. But air pollution standards draw on many scientific disciplines, including air quality, epidemiology, toxicology, medicine, biostatistics, ecology, climate and risk assessment. For decades, EPA has organized panels of additional experts to help the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee review the latest research – until now.

ADVERTISEMENT

Our nongovernmental panel has multiple experts in epidemiology, toxicology, medicine, exposure assessment, risk assessment, statistics, air quality measurement and modeling. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee doesn’t have an epidemiologist, although epidemiology is a central discipline in analyzing health effects from exposure to fine particle pollution.

In fact, the committee admitted this, and asked the EPA in April 2019 to reinstate our panel. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler refused. Instead he appointed a smaller group that is not allowed to deliberate with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

ADVERTISEMENT

Breaking the review process

EPA officials began undermining the scientific review process in 2017, when then-Administrator Scott Pruitt wrote a memorandum that bars scholars who hold EPA research grants from serving on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. But often these are precisely the highly respected scientific leaders that the committee needs.

The federal government has long recognized that holding a research grant does not infringe on a scientist’s “ability to offer independent scientific advice.” In contrast, Pruitt allowed people who received funding from regulated industries to serve on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

On Oct. 10, 2018, Pruitt’s successor, Andrew Wheeler, replaced five Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members. The committee now includes one researcher, staff from one federal and four state agencies and an industry consultant. Wheeler has also shortened the science review schedule and dropped key assessment documents from the review.

ADVERTISEMENT

Air quality in San Francisco deteriorates over 3 weeks in November 2018 as smoke from Northern California wildfires reaches the city.

Ignoring the science

Past Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee reviews of national air quality standards took three years on average. They focused on three major EPA staff reports that 1) summarized scientific findings on health effects, 2) established the scientific basis for quantifying health risk and 3) identified potential options for retaining, revising or rescinding current standards or setting a new ones. These steps were carefully designed to clearly establish the science before making judgments about policy.

Now, however, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s Integrated Science Assessment on particulate air pollution – the first step in the three-stage sequence – is still in draft form, and EPA is introducing policy issues before the science is settled. We expect that the agency will be sued for this and other procedural irregularities.

Our panel met publicly to carry out a scientific review of EPA’s policy assessment. We concluded that existing annual and 24-hour standards for fine particle air pollution are not protective of public health.

Currently, federal regulations set an annual standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, or ug/m3. We recommend lowering this standard to a range of 8-10 ug/m3. Similarly, we recommend revising the existing 24-hour standard – which applies to short-term pollution spikes – from 35 ug/m3 to 25-30 ug/m3.

ADVERTISEMENT

These scientific findings are based on consistent epidemiological evidence from multiple studies, at ambient concentrations below the levels of the current standards. The epidemiologic results are supported by results from toxicological and controlled human studies.

In contrast, when the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee met on Oct. 24 and Oct. 25, two of its six members supported tightening the relevant standards, but the other four concluded that existing standards are good enough. This view ignores compelling new evidence, including the largest-ever U.S. epidemiologic study for fine particles, published in 2017. This study and others clearly show adverse health effects – including premature death – at exposure levels below current U.S. standards.

We believe the EPA should follow the law, which requires a thorough review of the science underpinning air pollution standards. A first step would be reappointing our panel to provide the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee with the expertise on particulate matter that it needs.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Nov. 26, 2018.

ADVERTISEMENT

[ Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter. ]The Conversation

By H. Christopher Frey, Glenn E. Futrell Distinguished University Professor of Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Why Americans are afraid to have babies

Published

on

Many Democrats are completely fixated on getting Donald Trump out of the Oval Office, no matter what it takes (or which Democratic presidential candidate). While that's certainly an important and obvious goal, the political stakes in 2020 are far, far greater than that.

This article first appeared in Salon.

Yes, there are compounding, existential and political crises that go beyond corrupt Beltway intrigue so much of the media fixates on.

Capitalism is in crisis. It is manifested in the deterioration in local conditions, a decline in the birthrate as well as in entrepreneurship.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Stop praising anti-Trump evangelicals: Their embrace of authoritarianism is a big part of the problem

Published

on

At this critical moment for American democracy our media landscape is doing a poor job in its coverage of conservative white evangelicals. Coverage of this relatively large segment of the population is characterized by, on the one hand, effusive praise for the slightest milquetoast criticism of Donald Trump, and on the other, by a periodic parade of nearly interchangeable unfounded predictions about how evangelical youth are going to change America’s most radically right-wing demographic for the better—any day now. In the words of the great sage Bullwinkle J. Moose, “This time for sure!”

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Decoding the Christian paradox: Evangelical historian explains how right-wingers ignore Jesus to support a corrupt and greedy president

Published

on

To quote the bumper sticker: "What would Jesus do?"

Assuming that he existed and held the views imputed to him, Jesus Christ would not support Donald Trump.

Donald Trump's behavior, values, policies and their consequences are the opposite of what Jesus Christ represented. Trump has put migrants and refugees in cages and delighted in their suffering. He feels contempt for the poor, the sick, the vulnerable and the needy. He has lied at least 16,000 times. He is corrupt and wildly greedy.

Continue Reading
 
 
close-image