Evansville Environmental Protection Agency C.K. Newsome Center, Evansville, IN (812)

Transcription

1 Evansville Environmental Protection Agency C.K. Newsome Center, Evansville, IN (812) Vanderburgh County Health Department 420 Mulberry Street, Evansville IN (812) March 16, 2015 Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Center 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR To Whom It May Concern: Please accept and consider these joint comments on the proposed revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone. In partnership, we, the Director of the City of Evansville Environmental Protection Agency and the Vanderburgh County Ozone Officer, work to protect, preserve, and improve the air quality in Evansville, Vanderburgh County, and Southwest Indiana. In doing so, we perform enforcement of air quality protection rules, provide compliance assistance to regulated entities, and track, forecast, and research air quality conditions. In addition, one of the authors of this comment submission, Dr. Joanne Alexandrovich, is a member of the State of Indiana Environmental Rules Board, which is responsible for approving rules in Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code (or the Indiana State Implementation Plan or SIP). One of the most important aspects of our jobs is to communicate the complex issues of air quality to the public. It is with this background, expertise, and perspective that we jointly provide comment on this proposed revision to the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Revision - Primary Standard The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing that the current primary O 3 (ozone) 8-hour standard of ppm (75 ppb) is not requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. During its review, the EPA has called for comments on a new proposed standard of ppm (65-70 ppb) and will take comments on a proposed standard as low as 0.06 ppm (60 ppb). The EPA is proposing this revision to increase public health protection, including at-risk populations such as children, older adults, and people with asthma or other lung diseases, against an array of O 3-related health effects. The EPA is basing the proposed standard on available scientific evidence on human health effects associated with the presence of O 3 in the ambient air. The two main controlled human exposure studies that the EPA is basing the standard on examined respiratory effects associated with prolonged (6.6 hours) exposure to levels of 72 ppb and 60 ppb. Multi-city and single-city epidemiologic studies

2 were cited and report associations between short-term O 3 exposures and respiratory hospital admissions and respiratory emergency department visits. Upon review of the available studies, along with guidance from Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the EPA Administrator concluded that a revised standard level of 70 ppb would be expected to provide substantial protection against O 3 exposures of concern (for benchmark concentrations of 60, 70, 80 ppb) and O 3-induced lung function decrements, and would be expected to result in important reductions in the occurrence of such exposures and decrements, compared to the current standard. This is particularly the case for estimates of two or more occurrences of exposures of concern and lung function decrements. As the Director of the Evansville EPA and the Ozone Officer for the Vanderburgh County Health Department, we agree with the Administrator that the revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is appropriate and a revised 8-hour standard of 70 ppb would more than adequately protect the health and safety of members of our community. More studies and increased research needs to be done to eliminate the uncertainties associated with the findings of the detrimental effects on the respiratory system below 70 ppb. As the EPA is required to review these standards every five years, more information may be available the next time the standard is reviewed that may add additional clarification on the risks associated with exposures as low as 60 ppb. As the Administrator mentions, it is important to remember that the NAAQS are not meant to be a zerorisk standard. Instead, the NAAQS is meant to provide an adequate level of protection for public health. Setting the Ozone standard at 70 ppb, we feel, will do just that while setting a goal that is attainable for many regions of our country. Our community has consistently improved our air quality and we believe that we could achieve the standard of 70 ppb by the time compliance is measured. Federal regulations are helping to curtail ozone-forming emissions from surrounding power plants, the transportation sector, and industry, and we expect these effects will continue to reduce the precursors to ozone formation resulting in decreasing ambient ozone concentrations. Effective Public Engagement Based on a growing knowledge base of both the causes and effects of elevated air pollution, the messages we present to the public have changed over time. In the early days of our local Ozone Alert program, we emphasized reducing emissions in order to mitigate unhealthy air quality in order to remain in attainment. In recent years, we emphasized health messages first and promote mitigation as a secondary message. We fear that, should the ozone NAAQS be drastically lowered to 60 ppb, locally we may need to change the emphasis of our Air Quality Alert programs back to that of mitigation rather than health. There may be too many days during ozone season in which air quality exceeds the standard. For example, in 2012 (the worst ozone season recorded in the last three years), maximum ozone levels recorded by Evansville area monitors exceeded 60 ppb on 60 days (compared 28 over 70 ppb). If we issued Ozone Alerts on all 60 days exceeding 60 ppb, it is likely that the public would grow tired of the warnings, and simply ignore them. In order to avoid that, we will likely need to change our messages. We have, with documented skill, been providing reliable numerical ozone forecasts to the public since 2007, and we will continue to

3 do so. However, should the EPA dramatically lower the ozone standard to 60 ppb, instead of the upper bounds of the proposed range of 70 ppb, we may have to base our Ozone Alerts (enhanced public notice of elevated ozone pollution) on a level above the standard (because EPA has indicated the NAAQS will be used as the unhealthy for sensitive groups AQI benchmark) in order to sustain a consistent health warning message. It is important to maintain a balanced public message based on strong credible evidence. The evidence in this proposal may not be credible; it is rife with uncertainty. Therefore, it does not provide a basis for a clear public health message. We urge the EPA to set a standard as close to 70 ppb as possible. Doing so will help make communication with the public on the standard change, and the accompanying health messages, straightforward and commonsense. A change of 5 ppb (from 75 to 70 ppb) would not cause a dramatic alteration of the AQI scale, so current health effects messages could still be reasonably applied. In addition, the relatively minor (5 ppb) change would probably avoid the public perception that our air quality is getting worse, because many more Air Quality Alerts will be issued than have been in recent memory. Ozone NAAQS Revision - Secondary Standard We support setting the indicator, averaging time, form, and level of the secondary standard identical to that of the primary standard, and believe the level should be set at 70 ppb. According to the EPA modeling based on actual monitoring data, this level is a reasonable proxy for a W-126 value in the range recommended by CASAC. Retaining identical standards will also make implementation of the revised standard less complicated and negate the need for surrogacy policy with regards to determining air quality impacts during the permitting process. Revision to the Air Quality Index (AQI) The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a very useful tool for communicating air quality conditions and forecasts. We believe the standard of setting the level between moderate and unhealthy for sensitive groups at the level of the NAAQS is appropriate. Base the AQI on hourly averages instead of 8-hour averages While we agree AQI breakpoints should be adjusted to reflect a revised NAAQS, we believe using onehour ozone values to define the scale would avoid the confusion long averaging times created in communicating air quality conditions and health effects. In Indiana, hourly averages of air monitoring data including ozone, are readily available to the public over the internet. This is a fantastic development that empowers people interested in and concerned about air quality to be informed. A problem we have encountered repeatedly however, despite everyone s best efforts to explain the differences between a one-hour average and an 8-hour average, is that the health effects of the air quality are incorrectly interpreted. People often conclude that pollution has reached dangerous or unhealthy for sensitive groups (USG) levels when, for instance, ozone hits 76 ppb for one hour. The EPA s own ozone loops show Hourly Ozone AQI, but the AQI is not based on an hourly average. Blogs on air quality often discuss hourly peaks of code orange or code red range levels.

4 All of this confusion can be avoided if the EPA simply abandons an AQI for ozone based on an eight-hour average, and adopts an AQI for ozone based on a one-hour average. The EPA has established a surrogacy equation, so they can adjust the values for the breakpoints of a one-hour average to be representative of the 8-hour break points proposed in Table 6. The EPA could also choose to establish an equivalency between 8-hour averages and one-hour averages using the same method it used to establish an equivalency between W hour averages. We believe this is a proposal the EPA should seriously consider. With AQI based on hourly values, there would be no need to use a surrogate formula to estimate an 8-hour average in real time. Ozone maps would be based on measured (not estimated) data. And forecasting for hourly air quality index values would likely be easier. The AQI (Air Quality Index) and Communicating and Quantifying the Health Effects of Ozone Evansville, Indiana has had an Air Quality Alert and education program in place for over twenty years. Year after year, we work to provide objective information about air quality to the public. Our Ozone Alert program aims to notify the public of elevated ozone levels and has always been based on current NAAQS levels. In recent years, due to improved scientific understanding and communications, our Ozone Alert program has come under increased scrutiny because it is easy to check how well we do. Try as we might, we attempt to forecast when ozone reaches the unhealthy for sensitive groups (USG) level because it indicates an exceedance of the NAAQS. We don t always get it right. On several occasions where we missed the forecast, those errors have been presented by some environmentalists and media as failures to alert the public to dangerous levels of ozone pollution. We believe there is the general misperception by the public, including policy makers, and even air quality researchers and regulators, that when air quality exceeds the level of the NAAQS it is dangerous. The EPA s AQI guide provides reasonable health protection messages, based on what is known through medical research. However, somewhere along the way these common sense, rather non-frightening messages, get misconstrued as dangerous and deadly. An unhealthy for sensitive groups (USG) exceedance of the standard, even at the current level, is not described as dangerous in the AQI guide. However, the current criteria documents, such as the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and fact sheets for this rule and others, talk about premature deaths caused by ozone and other air pollutants. Does the EPA consider ozone above the NAAQS as dangerous and deadly? This question must be answered. Minimally, air quality educators need to know what to say to the public when asked if their air quality is dangerous, and how it causes premature mortality. Beyond that, we need simple, detailed cautionary information. For instance, should football or band practice be cancelled? Can children go out for recess? These are the kinds of questions we get each time we issue an Ozone Alert. In fact, at this time we cannot say that ozone levels between 60 and 70 ppb are truly dangerous. We don t fully understand how ozone causes premature death. The epidemiological models only measure an association between ozone and mortality. These uncertainties (the limitations of the models) are hard to explain, and in our opinion are certainly large enough to question the attribution of death to the effects of ozone. While ozone has documented impacts on a person s health like lung function detriments and inflammation, there is no documentation that shows a causal pathway to death

5 at ozone levels the public is currently exposed to in the United States. These are only modeled estimates from relatively weak associations in epidemiological studies. The general public doesn t understand this. In the fact sheet for this rule, the EPA included estimates of reductions in premature death and acute bronchitis (calculated for the RIA) as benefits to this rulemaking. The way the fact sheet reads and how the EPA promotes this rulemaking in other venues, people can be easily misled to believe that exposure to ozone kills people and gives them bronchitis. Without strong evidence of the mechanisms suspected in causing their bronchitis or reducing one s longevity from ozone, we believe that the EPA should leave this out of the rule and accompanying documents. Ozone Season and Implementation of Revised NAAQS Based on our knowledge of the conditions conducive to ozone formation in Southern Indiana, we concur that the appropriate regulatory ozone season for Indiana should be March through October. We suggest that at least one monitor be required to operate year round in any ozone nonattainment area. We believe that the data collected would provide information that will enhance knowledge of conditions associated with ozone production and perhaps provide more data that can be used in epidemiological studies. In addition, since current air quality conditions are available to the public through AirNow (and the Indiana air monitoring data website), the public, as well as air quality managers, forecasters, and modelers, will have better information about the condition of the atmosphere. We support the changes proposed in the averaging day in order to avoid double counting. Comment Summary Our comments on the proposed rule to revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone are summarized as follows: We believe the evidence supports the revision of the ozone NAAQS to the level of ppm (70 ppb), averaged over eight hours. This value is at the high end of the range deemed acceptable by the CASAC and in line with the recommendation of the EPA Administrator. We support setting the indicator, averaging time, form, and level of the secondary standard identical to that of the primary standard. While we agree it is appropriate to adjust the AQI scale to reflect the latest NAAQS revision, we propose the EPA consider basing the AQI scale on one-hour ozone levels comparable to 8-hour averages and the breakpoints proposed for a standard set at 70 ppb in Table 6 of the proposed rule. The EPA needs to revise talking points and fact sheets related to the health effects of ozone, specifically premature death and bronchitis in order to paint a clearer picture of actual, measured health effects consistent with the level of short-term ozone exposure. We agree that the ozone season for Indiana should be lengthened to March through October. We also recommend that a continuous ozone monitor be operated in all nonattainment areas. Finally, we wish to caution the EPA and the Administration to be certain that the final rule is supported by solid scientific evidence. The EPA should have a solid and workable plan to address the issues

6 associated with a new standard, such as background ozone and exemptions for exceptional events. The EPA and the Federal government must also provide the tools and monetary support necessary to help state and local environmental agencies plan for and implement the new standard. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this important matter. We trust you will consider our comments in your deliberations. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Jacob Keating, Director Evansville Environmental Protection Agency Joanne M. Alexandrovich, Ph.D. Vanderburgh County Ozone Officer