Tag Archives: air pollution

PM2.5 not likely associated with premature deaths

James E. Enstrom. Scientific Distortions in Fine Particulate Matter Epidemiology. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 23 Number 1 Spring 2018

The theoretical prevention of premature deaths from the inhalation of fine particulate matter is being used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to justify the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and multibillion dollar regulations across the U.S., including the EPA Clean Power Plan and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Truck and Bus Regulation. The epidemiology is severely flawed. Fine particulates probably make no significant contribution to premature mortality in the U.S. The publication of null findings has been blocked or marginalized and studies claiming excess mortality need to be reassessed. click here

USEPA revises New Source Review (NSR) guidance, simplifies permitting

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a guidance to clear up uncertainties in obtaining air quality permits required to build or modify facilities, like power plants and refineries. click here

Junk Science Supported by New England Journal of Medicine

“This letter is not a letter to the editor, hoping for publication, so that the authors might comment on or criticize some article in the NEJM. We write to complain that there is a continuing scandal of scientific integrity at the NEJM—junk science in air pollution epidemiology is being sponsored by what most would consider the iconic medical journal of America.” click here

Statistics Invalidate Air Pollution Death Claims

“Clearly we don’t know everything about asthma, but there is little evidence to suggest that air pollution from traffic makes much difference.” click here

China Air Pollution Study has Serious Weaknesses; Non-conclusive

Peng Yin, Guojun He, Maoyong Fan, Kowk Yan Chiu, Maorong Fan, Chang Liu, An Xue, Tong Liu, Yuhang Pan, Quan Mu, Maigeng Zhou. Particulate air pollution and mortality in 38 of China’s largest cities: time series analysis. BMJ 2017;356:j667 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j667

The findings of this particular study (click here) and been seriously questioned (click here). If not considered, cigarette smoking is a huge confounding factor in any study involving the respiratory system. Confidence limits on the analysis must be considered when evaluating data.

How do Climate Models Account for Klyuchevskaya Sopka?

An honest question. What about the particulate and gas emissions from volcanoes?

“The volcanic ash cloud has spread over an area of almost 13,500 square feet. It has drifted 124 miles southeast toward the Sea of Okhotsk, in the Pacific Ocean. “click here

USEPA Cross-State Air Pollution Rule vacated (overturned)

The majority ruling below. Click here for full opinion.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Some emissions of air pollutants affect air quality in the States where the pollutants are emitted. Some emissions of air pollutants travel across State boundaries and affect air quality in downwind States. To deal with that complex regulatory challenge, Congress did not authorize EPA to simply adopt limits on emissions as EPA deemed reasonable. Rather, Congress set up a federalism-based system of air pollution control. Under this cooperative federalism approach, both the Federal Government and the States play significant roles. The Federal Government sets air quality standards for pollutants. The States have the primary responsibility for determining how to meet those standards and regulating sources within their borders.

In addition, and of primary relevance here, upwind States must prevent sources within their borders from emitting federally determined “amounts” of pollution that travel across State lines and “contribute significantly” to a downwind State’s “nonattainment” of federal air quality standards. That requirement is sometimes called the “good neighbor” provision.

In August 2011, to implement the statutory good neighbor requirement, EPA promulgated the rule at issue in this case, the Transport Rule, also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The Transport Rule defines emissions reduction responsibilities for 28 upwind States based on those States’ contributions to downwind States’ air quality problems. The Rule limits emissions from upwind States’ coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, among other sources. Those power plants generate the majority of electricity used in the United States, but they also emit pollutants that affect air quality. The Transport Rule targets two of those pollutants, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Various States, local governments, industry groups, and labor organizations have petitioned for review of the Transport Rule. Although the facts here are complicated, the legal principles that govern this case are straightforward: Absent a claim of constitutional authority (and there is none here), executive agencies may exercise only the authority conferred by statute, and agencies may not transgress statutory limits on that authority.

Here, EPA’s Transport Rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority in two independent respects. First, the statutory text grants EPA authority to require upwind States to reduce only their own significant contributions to a downwind State’s nonattainment. But under the Transport Rule, upwind States may be required to reduce emissions by more than their own significant contributions to a downwind State’s nonattainment. EPA has used the good neighbor provision to impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind States without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text. Whatever its merits as a policy matter, EPA’s Transport Rule violates the statute. Second, the Clean Air Act affords States the initial opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the good neighbor provision. But here, when EPA quantified States’ good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the States the initial opportunity to implement the required reductions with respect to sources within their borders. Instead, EPA quantified States’ good neighbor obligations and simultaneously set forth EPA-designed Federal Implementation Plans, or FIPs, to implement those obligations at the State level. By doing so, EPA departed from its consistent prior approach to implementing the good neighbor provision and violated the Act.

For each of those two independent reasons, EPA’s Transport Rule violates federal law. Therefore, the Rule must be vacated.