VJEL Staff Editor: Ciara Hopkins
Faculty Member: Jennifer Rushlow
Wildfires, Soot Standards, and an EPA in Flux
This year, the western United States has seen some of the most devastating wildfires in recent history. From Colorado to California and north to Washington, by November 2, 2020, 8.6 million acres of land has burned in over 47,000 wildfires. This is approximately 2.2 million more acres burned than the last 10-year average. These wildfires often start when dry lightning strikes extremely dry ground that is easily ignited. The fires then flourish in the absence of rain and are spread by gusty winds and dry grass and brush. The wildfires have not only led to massive burning of National Forests and National Parks; they have also caused thousands of homes to be destroyed, thousands of people to evacuate, millions of dollars of property damage, increased air pollution and attendant widespread public health risks.
Since the beginning of the 2020 wildfires, millions of people have been under “Spare the Air” alerts, meaning that breathing outdoor air is a health hazard and they should stay inside as much as possible to limit exposure. Wildfires emit various pollutants, but the biggest health risk is fine particulate matter (PM2.5), also known as soot. About 90% of particle mass emitted from wildfires is PM2.5. PM2.5 is made of microscopic particles that penetrate deep in the lungs and can be very dangerous to health. Once PM2.5 is inhaled into the lungs, the body releases the same immune cells it would deploy to attack a virus. However, particulate matter cannot be broken down by that immune response and therefore results in inflammation. The body will naturally try to push the particles out by coughing, but that can cause more inflammation. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), particulate pollution can affect anyone’s health, but is worse for people who have preexisting health conditions, like heart or lung disease. A person who experiences short-term (hours, days) or long-term (months, years) exposure to PM2.5 as a result of breathing smoky air may experience immediate health impacts including irritation of airways, coughing and difficulty breathing, aggravated asthma, and premature death in people with pre-existing heart or lung disease.
People in the western United States were previously exposed to extreme wildfire-related air pollution no more than a few times in their lives. Now, people are being exposed to pollution from wildfires every year, and for longer stretches of time. It is especially important to discuss the health impacts resulting from increased air pollution this year because of the global pandemic, COVID-19. We know that COVID-19 is a respiratory illness that attacks the lungs, just as particulate matter pollution does, and some studies have linked polluted areas to more severe COVID-19 cases. The combination of the wildfires and the pandemic endanger public health and safety and come at a particularly troubling time as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump Administration has rejected adopting stricter air quality standards despite the fact that studies have shown stricter standards would save lives.
The EPA oversees regulation of pollutants like particulate matter through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS, governed by the Clean Air Act, are based solely on public health and welfare protection. Each NAAQS must be reviewed by the EPA every five years to ensure adequate stringency. The review process requires an in-depth review of current science and expert input. During the review process, the EPA relies on its staff, the Administrator, and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s (CASAC’s) advice. The CASAC is supposed to be a panel of experts that act as an independent advisor to the EPA Administrator. They research air quality, sources of pollution, and strategies to maintain air quality standards and then advise the Administrator on whether to revise the existing standards or create new standards to protect public health. After reviewing the CASAC’s advice, the EPA Administrator publishes a proposed rulemaking, takes public comments and holds public hearings, and then a final rule is issued. Historically, this program has been successful in protecting public health, as it has reduced total emissions of the six criteria pollutants by 71% in the last 40 years. However, to keep the program successful, the process must be followed.
The EPA concluded the last 5-year review of the PM2.5 NAAQS standards in 2013 and determined the existing standards for PM2.5 were inadequate to protect public health. At that time, EPA tightened the standard from the 2006 rule (15 micrograms per cubic meter a year of PM2.5) to the lower standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter a year. In 2014, the 5-year review process started again and was to be completed in fall 2020. However, when Trump took office in 2017, EPA began making significant changes to the review process before ultimately deciding to retain the PM NAAQS, against scientists’ recommendations. Some of Trump’s notable changes to the NAAQS review process are: (1) the membership requirements for the CASAC, which is supposed to be an independent expert committee; (2) accelerating the review process, decreasing the rigor of the review; (3) tasking the CASAC with review of ozone and PM NAAQS, eliminating the independent review panel historically convened to assist the CASAC; and (4) eliminating the Risk/Exposure Assessment phase of review, thus reducing scientific review and eliminating a chance for public comment. The CASAC was supposed to be a committee of independent scientific experts, but Trump’s EPA administration disbanded the panel of scientists that had been appointed by Obama and instead appointed a group of former government officials and industry consultants. As a result of the new CASAC being largely unqualified to evaluate the threats of particulate matter pollution to public health, CASAC asked the EPA to either reinstate the CASAC group appointed under the Obama Administration, or hire private consultants. The Trump Administration opted to hire more industry consultants, further reducing transparency of the process. CASAC ultimately ignored scientists’ recommendations that particulate matter NAAQS needed to be tightened to meet the Clean Air Act’s standard of protecting public health.
The EPA announced its proposed rule retaining the PM2.5 standard on April 14, 2020. In his announcement, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler stated that the decision was “based on review of scientific literature and recommendation from our independent science advisors. . .” However, EPA staff scientists cited several studies in a January 2020 policy assessment that showed stronger standards would improve public health to a statistically significant degree. The epidemiological studies referenced in the assessment showed a greater understanding of how even limited exposure to PM2.5 could have long-term health effects and exacerbate underlying conditions. Some of the studies reported that PM2.5 health effects correlate with mortality rates in multiple U.S. cities. Several studies also concluded that declines in ambient PM2.5 concentrations over time are associated with decreases in mortality rate, increases in life expectancy, and improvements in respiratory health. But, perhaps the most compelling evidence in the assessment was a study that showed that retaining the current PM2.5 standards would allow for 16,000-17,000 PM2.5 related deaths from ischemic heart disease in only one year. With six weeks remaining before President Elect Biden’s inauguration, the EPA finalized its decision to retain the PM standard on December 7, 2020.
Based on epidemiological studies available, the current allowable levels of particulate matter are too high. As we have seen, there is a broad range of scientific data showing that PM pollution endangers public health. This is especially true for environmental justice communities. Due to racial inequalities in housing and wealth, PM2.5 disproportionately affects Black and Latino communities as they are more likely to be exposed to higher concentrations of pollution. In addition, a Harvard study has linked particulate matter pollution and COVID-19, finding that COVID-19 patients who live in polluted areas were more likely to die from the disease than those living in less polluted areas. This study, which is now peer reviewed, concluded that there is an 11% increased risk of death from COVID-19 for every 1 microgram per cubic meter increase in PM2.5 exposure.
Additionally, as climate change continues to exacerbate factors like temperature, drought, and wind, which creates the perfect conditions for wildfires; we are likely to see increased deforestation leading to wildlife displacement ultimately resulting in an increase in zoonotic diseases. Connecting the dots between pollution caused by wildfires and zoonotic diseases, like COVID-19, demonstrates how important it is that we address PM2.5 in a meaningful way. The pandemic coupled with the raging wildfires in the western United States has brought attention to how we regulate air pollution and shows that the EPA’s decision to retain the current PM2.5 standard disregards the agency’s duty to carry out the primary purpose of the Clean Air Actto protect public health.
Moving forward, we can only speculate how the Biden Administration will handle the environmental rollbacks made by Trump. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress may be able to repeal some of Trump’s deregulatory actions. However, now that the final rule is published in the Federal Register, it cannot be modified without going through the rulemaking process again. It also cannot be revoked by Executive Order. This points to the possibility that Biden may not be able to undo the PM rule. The next best thing would be to dismiss the CASAC appointed by Trump and reappoint CASAC members appointed by Obama before the next scientific review process begins. Additionally, a court challenge should not be ruled out considering Trump’s CASAC blatantly ignored scientific experts’ advice that tightening PM standards would save lives. While we can’t be certain about how the Biden Administration will address the new PM rule, we should remain resolute in our ability to influence the new administration and advocate for clean air for all.