Utah's Air Quality Issues: Problems and Solutions [Illustrated] 160781708X, 9781607817086

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Introduction by Hal Crimmel
1. Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas: Air Quality and the Visitor Experience by Chris Zajchowski
2. What’s in the Inversion?: Particulate Matter Pollution in Northern Utah by Kerry E. Kelly
3. Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change: Air Quality in Rural Utah by Seth Arens
4. Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health by Brian Moench
5. Air Pollution Control in Utah: The Legal Framework by James A. Holtkamp
6. The Economics of Air Quality in Utah by Therese C. Grijalva and Matthew Gnagey
7. Mobile Source Pollution and the Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air by Will Speigle
8. Environmental Justice and Advocacy by Mark A. Stevenson and Denni Cawley
9. Designed for Clean Air: The Role of Urban Planning and Transit in Solving Wasatch Front Air Quality Issues by Eric C. Ewert
10. Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah by Robert Davies
Appendix: Air Quality Resources for Readers
Contributors
Index

Citation preview

Utah’s Air Quality Issues

Utah’s Air Quality Issues Problems and Solutions

Edited by

HAL CRIMMEL

The University of Utah Press Salt Lake City

Copyright © 2020 by The University of Utah Press. All rights reserved. The Defiance House Man colophon is a registered trademark of The University of Utah Press. It is based on a four-­foot-tall Ancient Puebloan pictograph (late PIII) near Glen Canyon, Utah. Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-Publication Data Names: Crimmel, Hal, 1966– editor. Title: Utah’s air quality issues : problems and solutions / edited by Hal Crimmel. Description: Salt Lake City : The University of Utah Press, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2019004892 (print) | LCCN 2019006630 (ebook) | ISBN 9781607817093 () | ISBN 9781607817086 (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Air quality — ​Utah. | Air — ​Pollution  — ​Utah. | Air quality management — ​Utah. Classification: LCC TD883.5.U8 (ebook) | LCC TD883.5.U8 U865 2019 (print) | DDC 363.739/209792 — ​dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019004892 Errata and further information on this and other titles available online at UofUpress.com Printed and bound in the United States of America.

Contents



List of Figures   ix



List of Tables    xi

Introduction  1

Hal Crimmel

1.

Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas: Air Quality and the Visitor Experience   17 Chris Zajchowski

2.

What’s in the Inversion?: Particulate Matter Pollution in Northern Utah   38 Kerry E. Kelly

3.

Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change: Air Quality in Rural Utah   66 Seth Arens

4.

Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health   98 Brian Moench

5.

Air Pollution Control in Utah: The Legal Framework   134 James A. Holtkamp

6.

The Economics of Air Quality in Utah   155 Therese C. Grijalva and Matthew Gnagey

7.

Mobile Source Pollution and the Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air   174 Will Speigle

vii

viii

Contents

8.

Environmental Justice and Advocacy   194 Mark A. Stevenson and Denni Cawley

9.

Designed for Clean Air: The Role of Urban Planning and Transit in Solving Wasatch Front Air Quality Issues   224 Eric C. Ewert

10. Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah   245

Robert Davies



Appendix: Air Quality Resources for Readers   267

Contributors  273 Index  277

Figures

Frontispiece: Map of Utah. 1.1. Photo panel from the University of Utah’s

Mountain Meteorology Group representing four air quality condition categories 27 1.2. The effect of air pollution on recreationists’ actions 29 2.1. Average composition of PM2.5 during winter inversions (2010–2011) along the Wasatch Front 40 2.2. Winter-­average source contributions from DAQ emission i­ nventories in Salt Lake, Cache, and Provo non-­attainment areas. 44 2.3. Projected change in PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 2010–2019 45 2.4. Public perception of pollution sources vs. actual pollution sources 47 2.5. PM2.5 pollution source attribution study 49 2.6. Contribution of brown carbon (wood burning) to PM2.5 levels during winter 2016 51 2.7. Percentage of days that exceed the PM2.5 24–hour NAAQS, and percentage of days that 24–hour PM2.5 concentrations are below 12.5 μg/m3 59 3.1. Map of Utah 72 3.2. Salt Lake City and Uintah Basin Ozone air quality conditions exceedances 79 3.3. Salt Lake City and Park City ozone pollution 89 7.1. VOC emissions sources 175 7.2. NOx emissions sources 176 7.3. CO emissions sources 176 7.4. Utah sources of electricity 178 7.5. National sources of electricity 178 ix

x

Figures

7.6. Emissions reductions due to Tier 2 and Tier 3 Fuels 182 7.7. Parameters of EPA federal test procedure 187 7.8. Parameters of EPA US06 or supplemental test procedure 188 7.9. Parameters of EPA SC03-­supplemental federal test procedure with air conditioning 188 10.1. Spatial distribution of temperature change over the last 130 years 248 10.2. Rise in global average surface temperature 249 10.3. Rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 60 years 250 10.4. Twenty-­first century climate projections 255 10.5. Historical human climate vs. year 2100 projections 257 10.6. North American temperature projections 258 10.7. North American soil moisture projections 258

Tables

6.1. Willingness-­to-pay for a one percent improvement in air quality (per person or household) 167 6.2. Comparison benefit estimates for improvements in air quality 168

xi

Introduction HAL CRIMMEL

It’s Not Really Haze

On clear winter days in northern Utah, you can see over one hundred miles west across the Great Salt Lake Desert to the high ranges in Nevada. To the south, the snowcapped peaks of the Wasatch Mountains jut against a sky so hopefully blue it begs the question why live any place else. Today is not one of those bright clear days. In fact, it is another day when the Wasatch Front, the urbanized corridor stretching 100 miles north–south from Ogden to Salt Lake City to Provo, is again cloaked by brownish-yellow smog. As the air quality worsens, schools keep children inside at recess to protect their health. Emergency room visits increase as asthma patients’ symptoms worsen.1 Area hospitals admit a higher number of heart attack and stroke patients. For healthy individuals, elevated levels of pollution yield scratchy throats, congested sinuses, coughs, headaches, and irritated eyes, among other maladies. In fact, medical research has repeatedly documented how air pollution aggravates asthma, plays a role in premature births, weakens immune systems, contributes to depression, and is responsible for increased numbers of heart attacks, strokes, and cancers. Furthermore, recent research suggests that air pollution impacts fertility by decreasing sperm motility and count and alters DNA, affecting future generations. (See chapter four for a discussion of the impacts of air pollution on human health.) In the last half of this decade, Utahns have begun to demand action. The 2014 Clean Air Rally was one of the largest public protests in Utah’s 1

2

Introduction

history and was the largest air pollution rally in the nation’s history.2 An unbroken six-­week stretch of air pollution brought families, clean air advocates, some politicians, and over five thousand people from all walks of life to the steps of the Utah State Capitol to call attention to the reluctance of the state’s leadership to boldly address the air quality problem. Frustration was evident. Throughout the crowd, protestors wore gas masks, while others carried satirical “Utah: Life Polluted” signs, a play on the state’s license plate “Utah: Life Elevated.” Finally Dr. Brian Moench, founder of the 300–physician strong air quality advocacy group Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, stepped to the podium. He thundered into the microphone, “Clean Air, No Excuses!” The crowd, exasperated by years of inaction, roared with approval. This time, perhaps, state leaders will finally get the message: Maintaining the status quo will not protect our health and way of life. What brought me to the rally? I am not a protester by habit. But after moving to Utah, each winter coincided with a sinus infection that required medical treatment. Initially I was oblivious to Utah’s air quality issues, having never considered pollution anything more than a temporary nuisance when visiting huge cities such as New York or Chicago, notorious in decades past for their summer smog. And since weather forecasts in Utah euphemistically referred to periods of smog as “haze,” a disservice that generally persists to this day, it took years before I suspected that the sinus troubles had anything to do with the bad air. Haze is a meteorological term that refers to microscopic particles of dust, smoke, or industrial pollution. Weather forecasts predicting “widespread haze” are not entirely inaccurate. But only recently, as air quality advocates have made clear that winter “haze” generally means “smog” has the term “haze” meant anything alarming to the average person. If television meteorologists inform the public about important weather events, then it seems reasonable to consistently provide the public with information about smog episodes as well, particularly because these impact people’s ability to be outdoors. Referring to Utah’s smog as “haze” is at the very least a disservice. The questions started coming: “What is that stuff ? Should we be living in it?” Soon, I discovered the state’s daily air quality forecasts. Foul-­smelling

Introduction 3

air correlated with air quality alerts issued by Utah’s Division of Air Quality. These alerts indicated that pollution levels exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “safe” threshold, though the medical community considers no level of air pollution “safe.” I became increasingly aware of different types of air pollution, whether from the refineries or from motor vehicles without pollution control devices. On days when burning solid fuel was banned I could smell coal and wood smoke in my neighborhood. Yet it also became clear my commuting, recreation, and day-­to-day activities all contributed to dirty air. I was part of the problem. Utah’s reputation as an outdoor mecca can make it hard to accept that air in the northern part of the state was often unhealthy though friends, colleagues, and neighbors seemed unconcerned, or unwilling to acknowledge the problem. “Well, we’re at least better than China,” was a common response. Officials would claim that the pollution is only a few days each year. Still others suffered in silence or watched their children suffer during pollution spikes, unsure of what to do aside from using a nebulizer or visiting the emergency room. But then people started organizing. Breathe Utah, Utah Moms for Clean Air, HEAL Utah, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, the Cache Clean Air Consortium, and the Clean Air Caucus at the Utah State Legislature began to work to change the status quo, offering hope for change. In 2017, a group of Utah’s business leaders, including Zions Bank and Mark Miller Toyota, sent a five–page letter to Governor Gary Herbert calling for the Governor’s Office, the Utah Division of Air Quality, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, and the Utah Air Quality Board to propose “bold strategies for addressing air pollution in Utah.” 3 There are very good reasons to push for further improvements. In 2019 the American Lung Association ranked Salt Lake City 8th nationally out of 217 metropolitan areas for the worst short-­term PM2.5 particle pollution in the nation, and gave Salt Lake, Utah, Davis and Weber counties an “F” grade for ozone and for short-­term PM2.5 particle pollution.4 The health risks of poor air are well-­documented. Breathing for a 24–hour period the toxic stew of chemicals and compounds present during Utah’s severe pollution episodes has been equated with smoking one pack of cigarettes during that same time period. Data taken from blood samples of smokers and those exposed to Utah’s air pollution exhibit similar biomarkers in

4

Introduction

the bloodstream, chemicals that indicate the presence of the body’s attempts to fight off inflammation. According to the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, “the signature physiologic consequence of air pollution is the same as cigarette smoke: a low-­grade arterial inflammation, ­arteriole narrowing, and vascular prothrombotic changes.” 5 Prothrombotic changes cause strokes, heart attacks, and the formation of blot clots that obstruct and often block blood vessels. In a clean-­living state with the lowest rate of tobacco use in the nation, medical evidence has been starting to get the public’s attention, but not all seem persuaded — ​even clean air rallies have drawn counter-­protesters, such as a group that drove to the Utah State Capitol in 2015 to rev engines and spew exhaust.6 Comments in public media forums and the responses of many elected state officials have downplayed concerns or attacked those calling attention to air quality issues. Hence the frustration of the thousands of people on the steps of the Utah Capitol on that January day, and the relief at feeling that perhaps meaningful change might be possible. This book has its origins in this story. Realistic Hope

Since the beginning of the industrial era, air pollution has been a stubborn problem, especially in crowded urban areas. Air pollution in London and other European cities steadily worsened during the 1800s as the tonnage of coal burned to power industry and generate electricity grew. The most infamous air pollution event not attributable to a single event such as Chernobyl or the 1984 Bhopal, India, toxic gas release took place just over sixty years ago. In December 1952, a combination of unusual weather patterns and the burning of low-­grade coal caused the Great Smog of London, a five–day event that killed thousands and led to new clean air laws in Britain. In the United States, the Donora Smog event was and remains the worst short-­term air pollution-­related disaster in the nation’s history. Airborne pollutants became trapped in the valley, home to the small steel mill town of Donora, Pennsylvania, killing at least twenty people and sickening thousands more.7 Today the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that globally more than “80 percent of people living in urban areas that monitor air pollution are exposed to air quality levels that exceed” the WHO established

Introduction 5

limits.8 When rural areas are included, an even greater percent — ​nine out of 10 people — ​“breathe air containing high levels of pollutants.” Nearly one out of nine deaths globally — ​some seven million people annually — ​are attributed to poor air quality, which leaves no doubt that bad air is an issue of global concern.9 In the United States, the statistics are better, but still sobering. During the 2015–2017 period, 43 percent of all Americans lived in areas with compromised air quality.10 From Fairbanks to Los Angeles and from California’s Central Valley to the Midwest’s industrial heartland, air pollution is a significant problem.11 The number of Americans exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution has increased steadily in recent years, from 125 million in the 2017 report, covering 2013–2015, to about 134 million people in the 2018 report, covering 2014–2016, to 141 million in the 2019 report, which covers 2015–2017.12 The health and social costs are high. An MIT study estimated the number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution in the U.S. at 200,000, for instance.13 Without considering the impact of carbon pollution on the climate, air pollution has and continues to impact the places where we live. Though subsequent chapters in the book will cover the topics addressed in the following paragraphs, it nevertheless may be helpful to provide a brief primer on air pollution. The EPA regulates six types of criteria pollutants: ground-­level ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOx), lead (Pb), and carbon monoxide (CO). Of the six measured by the EPA, two pollutants are closely monitored in the United States and around the globe. Small particulate matter, material that is 2.5 microm­eters or less in diameter, PM2.5 is produced by burning combustible fuels and indirectly by recombination of airborne pollutants in the atmosphere. These particles lodge deep in the lungs and have significant health impacts such as cardiovascular disorders. Ground-­ level ozone (O3) of which diesel exhaust with its large NOx emissions, is a significant contributor.14 Not to be confused with the “good” ozone in the upper atmosphere that filters out harmful UV radiation, ground-­level ozone is formed, typically in the summer months, when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are exposed in the atmosphere to sunlight. Ground-­level ozone is a respiratory irritant that severely impacts lung development in children and lung function in adults.

6

Introduction

It is often described as “sunburn on the lungs.” Other contributors to air pollution are smog precursors, such as VOCs found in paints, varnishes, resins, hairspray, refinery emissions, solvents, and agricultural chemicals. All pollutants impact air quality, but the EPA’s major monitoring efforts focus on the six listed above. Across Utah, air pollution is produced by almost every aspect of the twenty-­first century economy — ​coal-­fired power plants, vehicles, airplanes, industry, woodburning, small businesses, sand and gravel operations, oil and gas production, and agriculture. The pollution travels across multiple jurisdictions–counties, cities, and townships. It also arrives from out-­of-state sources, like wildfire smoke blown in from Idaho, California, Oregon, and Washington as well as from international sources. Scientists increasingly understand how intercontinental and hemispheric pollution plays a role in air quality even in areas with few local sources of pollution.15 For example, air pollution in China impacts the western United States. Satellite images show plumes of pollution being carried across the Pacific on the jet stream. A study points to background levels of ozone that are 65 percent higher in the western United States as a result of trans-­Pacific pollution.16 In the future, Utah’s existing air quality problems may also be exacerbated by climate change, which will result in hotter temperatures and a reduced snowpack in what is already an arid state (see chapter ten for more information). This in turn will result in more dust being blown into the atmosphere, larger and more intense wildfires emitting massive amounts of smoke into the atmosphere, and elevated levels of ground-­level ozone, as subsequent chapters explain. Global issues such as climate change will have a local and regional impact and are yet another reminder that improving air quality requires cooperation on many levels. Airborne pollution affects human health whether in the form of premature births or premature deaths, or in the form of asthma, heart attacks, strokes, cancers, autism, or decreased sperm motility. In 2014, startling research published in China suggests air pollution may profoundly impact the fertility of Chinese men and women. A combination of poor sperm quality and weakened eggs has left an estimated 40 million Chinese infertile. Affluent Chinese are paying surrogate mothers in the United States up to $100,000 per baby, mostly in the South and Midwest, to carry a baby to

Introduction 7

term.17 Increasing evidence is emerging that air pollution plays a significant role in the decline in fertility in the United States as well.18 In Utah, as elsewhere across the globe, including China and India, recent public demands for action on air quality have been galvanized by the narrative of health, an important reframing that contrasts with the current dominant industrial and political narrative that claims curbing air pollution impacts jobs and the economy. In fact, in the developed world, the opposite appears to be true. Low levels of air pollution are attractive to companies looking to relocate or start businesses. A recent study focused on the dollar value of embracing wind and solar energies in the United States estimated the air quality and public health benefits stemming from renewable energy to be between $30 and $133 billion nationally, and the climate benefits to be between $5 and $106 billion.19 In developing nations, high levels of air pollution impacts profitability in two ways: One, when pollution levels become too high workers have to stay at home for health reasons resulting in business coming to a standstill, and two, governments require factories to shut down or restrict production.20 We have started to see similar problems surface in Utah, as employers lose desirable employees once job candidates learn about the state’s air quality issues. Historically, citizens have driven clean air efforts, not governments. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the Salt Lake Valley suffered from severe air pollution. Completion in 1869 of the transcontinental railroad north of Salt Lake fueled commerce and soon coal smoke from homes, businesses, and railroads fouled the air. In 1881, letters to the ­editor of the local Deseret News complained about “the smoke ­nuisance.” By 1919, the Salt Lake Valley was the largest smelter district in the country and soot deposits left grime everywhere.21 Citizens groups such as the Ladies’ Literary Club (1877) began to advocate for cleaning up the environment. Citizen pressure led to many initiatives. In 1890, the Salt Lake City Council passed an ordinance to prohibit the burning of highly polluting bituminous, a form of soft coal, though the regulation was rarely enforced. Farmers filed lawsuits against polluting smelters whose emissions led to crop damage. In 1914, the city began a process of requiring furnaces to have an operating permit. Citizens’ Committees composed of educators, scouts, business owners, and private citizens worked to tackle

8

Introduction

the problem. Technology played a role as well, as natural gas piped in from Wyoming arrived in 1929, which made it possible to make the shift from coal to this cleaner fuel option. Then, after World War II, most furnaces converted from coal to natural gas, solving one problem just as another emerged: mobile source pollution as the automobile became the primary means of transport.22 The story played out in a similar fashion nationally, as documented in such books as Don’t Breathe the Air: Air Pollution and U.S. Environmental Politics, 1945–1970, which focuses on how air pollution became a social and public health issue in the 1960s. Using case studies from Los Angeles, New York, and Florida, the book discusses “how local efforts helped create both the modern environmental movement and federal environmental policy.” 23 Unlike other environmental issues that might have a smaller footprint and be easier to avoid for those with the financial means, such as toxic waste dumps or a polluted body of water, air pollution haunts everyone. Across the Salt Lake, Utah, Toole, and Cache County valleys as well as the Uinta Basin, every community, no matter how affluent, experiences air pollution. Those with limited financial resources often live closest to freeways, refineries, and other heavy industries and are exposed to more pollution. Short of moving to a distant region free of air pollution or another state, most of the 1.3 million people living in the northern Utah metro areas cannot escape Utah’s bad air. A 2014 survey of a thousand citizens from a well-­regarded public interest planning group found that “poor air quality” was the biggest drawback to living in the state, outpolling the second-­ranked drawback (lack of diversity) by a 2–1 margin.24 From unusually high asthma rates to autism to visible smog, air quality has gained increasing attention as a result of stepped-­up awareness campaigns. Newspaper and television coverage at the local and national levels, the Clean Air rallies at the Capitol in 2014 and 2015, and a generally frustrated citizenry continue to make this topic a priority for many in northern Utah. It increasingly is a topic of significant concern for communities within the Uinta Basin surrounding the oil and gas fields of eastern Utah, where fugitive hydrocarbon emissions have led to severe winter ozone pollution. Awareness is often the first step to motivate a broad cross-­ section of the population to do something about what can seem apocalyptic during the most severe episodes of winter pollution. The scope and scale of such pollution events can make change seem

Introduction 9

impossible. But today many are working toward solutions. There is an air quality caucus at the Utah State legislature. Politicians are under increased scrutiny when voting on clean air legislation. Numerous bills have passed the state legislature and have been signed into law by the governor. In fall 2018, Governor Gary Herbert proposed $100 million to tackle air quality issues in the state, and in 2019 the state legislature approved $28 million in one-­time air quality appropriations.25 This funding, in combination with EPA-­mandated State Implementation Plans (SIPs), provides a meaningful opportunity to make significant changes that can help improve the state’s air quality for decades to come. (See chapter five for more information on SIPs.) Other bright spots include Salt Lake City’s multi-­facted commitment to improve air quality via a goal of “powering 50 percent of municipal electricity needs with clean energy by 2020” and “working with Rocky Mountain Power on transitioning the entire community to net–100 percent clean energy by 2032,” among other initiatives.26 In May of 2019 Kennecott Utah Copper announced that it would shut its last coal-­fired power plant and shift all its electrical sources “to renewable energy certificates purchased from Rocky Mountain Power,” primarily wind and solar.27 There have been other numerous small- and medium-sized victories. The recent adoption and phase-­in of the new Tier-3 gasoline standards, retrofitting or retiring older diesel school buses, Provo’s Clean Air Toolkit, shifting power plant fuel sources from coal to cleaner-­burning natural gas such as at the Intermountain Plant near Delta by 2025, and changes to building codes are positive steps. But as the severity of 2017 summer ozone pollution along the Wasatch Front — ​the worst in a decade — ​made clear, we now have two significant pollution seasons: winter and summer. More action is needed so that we can enjoy cleaner air now — ​not just in some distant future. The Contents of This Book: An Overview

Utah’s Air Quality Issues: Problems and Solutions is targeted to those wanting to know about air quality, including the issues, problems, and solutions. It is written for the general public and for subject matter experts. The book is not necessarily organized for a cover-­to-cover read. As such, readers will find that some topics, such as explanation of the types and origins of pollutants or of regulatory structure, may appear more than

10

Introduction

once. This approach is intentional. Readers may find the repetition of new ideas helpful in understanding some of the more complex issues covered in the text. We begin with a chapter titled “Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas: Air Quality and the Visitor Experience,” by tourism and recreation expert Chris Zajchowski. This chapter offers analysis of air quality in national parks and federally- or state-­protected lands, with an eye toward seeking solutions to traffic congestion in popular places such as Zion National Park and the Wasatch Front’s Cottonwood Canyons. Chemist Kerry E. Kelly contributes chapter two, “What’s In the Inversion?: Particle Matter Pollution in Northern Utah.” This chapter examines the chemistry of air pollution. It provides an essential discussion on how meteorological conditions and different types of pollutants combine in the atmosphere to create the winter pollution problem. Identifying and measuring pollutants helps appropriately target reduction strategies, because simply decreasing the volume of pollution does not always translate to a reduction in the concentration of the pollutants, like fine particulate matter (PM2.5). In chapter three, “Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change: Air Quality in Rural Utah,” air quality scientist Seth Arens describes the cause and consequences of rural air pollution, a growing concern in Utah. Arens identifies issues facing the Uinta Basin, Utah’s main oil and gas producing region, as well as dust pollution and the increased presence of ozone pollution in Park City and the Wasatch Mountains. Chapter four, “Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health,” by physician Brian Moench describes the health impacts of exposure to air pollution, which include compromised health for the young, adults, and elderly alike. Perhaps most startling is the number of studies linking air pollution to prenatal complications, which can lead to birth complications, resulting in life-­long adversity that may extend to future generations. This chapter may prove disturbing to many readers but having a clear grasp of the medical facts should lend increased urgency in the ­struggle to curb pollution. Chapter five, “Air Pollution Control in Utah: The Legal Framework,” by attorney James A. Holtkamp provides an expert overview and analysis

Introduction 11

of the legal and regulatory landscape of controlling air pollution. This complex collection of laws and regulations, including the federal Clean Air Act, are powerful tools — ​when enforced  — ​in making significant strides toward cleaning our air. In chapter six, “The Economics of Air Quality in Utah,” economics professors Therese C. Grijalva and Matthew Gnagey discuss various ­models for assigning a cost to air pollution. The costs range from lost tourist dollars as well as increased health care costs, along with the less-­ easily quanti­fiable quality-­of-life costs. According to Grijalva and Gnagey, “economics encourage a thoughtful analysis of the full scope of benefits and costs to guide effective policy” (see chapter six). Chapter seven, “Mobile Source Pollution and the Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air,” by automotive technology professor Will Speigle details what factors determine the type and amount of air pollution emitted by cars, trucks, and yard power equipment, such as lawnmowers or leaf blowers. Speigle identifies loopholes that should be closed as well as ways that readers can make meaningful choices that, when taken collectively, could lead to better air in our neighborhoods and cities. In chapter eight, “Environmental Justice and Advocacy,” anthropologist Mark A. Stevenson and Denni Cawley, former Executive Director of Utah Physicians for Healthy Environment, provides an overview of the ways in which environmental justice concerns, citizen advocacy, and public policy have and will continue to play a vital role in shaping air quality outcomes. The growing population in Northern Utah demands solutions that benefit all, including our most vulnerable citizens. In chapter nine, “Designed for Clean Air: The Role of Urban Planning and Transit in Solving Wasatch Front Air Quality Issues,” Eric C. Ewert explores how an expanding population and urban sprawl challenge attempts to improve air quality. Modern metropolitan regions have been designed for cars, not people. Changes in development patterns, transit, and lifestyle will be necessary if we are to make strides toward improving air quality as the population and economy continue to grow. Chapter ten, “Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah,” by physicist and climatologist Robert Davies examines the impact of carbon dioxide pollution as temperature increases across Utah.

12

Introduction

If climate models are accurate, notes Davies, air pollution in Utah will worsen in coming decades due to increased dust in the atmosphere and a higher concentration of summer ground-­level ozone. Finally, there is a “Resources for Readers” section at the end of the volume. This section provides a listing and description of websites relevant to air quality at the local, state, national, and international levels. It is my hope that these additional resources will provide another set of resources for readers interested in learning more about the issues addressed in this book. The Best Hope is Hope — ​A Success Story?

It’s too early to tell whether the story in Utah will have a positive ending. Many variables are in the mix. One question is the severity and precise impacts to the state from climate change. Will sharp increases in summer temperatures worsen the summer ozone problem? Will the current administration be successful in rolling back federal regulations, such as the EPA’s Clean Power Plan? Will the Clean Air Act be weakened? Will international agreements be honored? Will the population increase faster than regulatory improvements can keep pace with? Can technological advancements in the areas of renewable energy and energy storage, mobility, and urban planning keep pace? Will the new inland port in Salt Lake City mean a huge spike of new diesel-­powered vehicles entering our airshed? Galvanizing public determination to make Utah a place where the air is cleaner year-­round is a success. Increased awareness of how small sources of pollution, such as lawnmowers, snowblowers, backyard grills, and household cleaning products contribute to the larger pollution picture helps to change behavior. Teaching students at all levels about air quality will create a citizenry aware of the benefits of a cleaner environment. Stricter federal laws, more state regulations, and city and county regulations offer hope as well. The State of Utah will continue to act in accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act as well as hopefully embrace proven strategies enacted in other states to clean the air. Such measures might include technological or policy solutions, such as those proposed in a 19–point plan to control dust, eliminate two-­stroke engines, monitor industrial pollution, promote cleaner vehicles, and more.28

Introduction 13

We might also look overseas to proven policies that reduce emissions. In some parts of Austria, autobahn speeds have been reduced from 130/100 kph to 80 kph, which has correlated with significant decreases in NO2 and NOx emissions.29 Such reductions are good for the region at large and especially for those living in close proximity to autobahns. In 2017, France and Great Britain indicated that gasoline and diesel-­powered vehicles will be completely phased out by 2040.30 Norway plans to do the same by 2025, and India plans to ban the sale of gasoline and diesel-­ powered cars by 2030.31 China, now the largest automobile market in the world by volume, is planning to phase out the sale of petroleum-­f ueled vehicles and is currently crafting a ban.32 Manufacturers themselves are embracing the change. General Motors, for example is planning on making the shift to an all-­electric fleet.33 Electric semi-­trucks from Tesla or Cummins, the diesel engine manufacturer, are now a reality, and other manufacturers, such Freightliner and MAN are road testing their trucks. While it may seem like a radical idea for Utah, a similar phased-­in ban on the sale of gasoline and diesel-­powered vehicles over 20 years would show immediate results in regions with poor air quality. No potential solution should be off the table as we strive to address the vexing problem of air pollution. On a daily basis, citizens can see obvious targets for pollution reduction — ​clouds of dust blowing from gravel pits and from uncovered truckloads of sand and gravel, black and brown smoke coming from refineries, smoke from fast-­food restaurant exhaust vents, unfiltered diesel exhaust from older heavy trucks, and even the Front Runner locomotives. Until such visible sources of pollution are controlled and until the winter inversions and periods of ozone pollution are drastically reduced, the public will continue to advocate for better education, policies, regulation, and enforcement that will improve air quality. The universal human quality of hope and determination yields the greatest promise for the future. The current movement to improve Utah’s air quality reflects the hard-­working and hopeful spirit of its people. Every step made toward better air is a reaffirmation of that hope and can-­do spirit of the state’s citizenry, and each step ensures the future success of our state as an enviable place to work and live.

14

Introduction

Notes 1. Beard, J. D., C. Beck, R. Graham, et al., “Winter Temperature Inversions and

Emergency Department Visits for Asthma in Salt Lake County, Utah, 2003– 2008.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120, no. 10 (2012): 1385–1390. 2. Napier-­Pierce, J., “Clean Air Rally Draws Thousands to Capitol,” The Salt Lake Tribune, January 26, 2014, http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57447995&​ itype=CMSID. 3. Utah Business Leaders, Letter to Governor Gary Herbert, Utah Department of Air Quality, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, and Utah Air Quality Board, Last modified August 29, 2017, https://www.scribd.com/document​ /357561560/0108-­001#from_embed. 4. “State of the Air 2019,” American Lung Association, Last modified 2019, https://​www​.lung.org/our-­initiatives/healthy-­air/sota/city-­rankings/states/utah​ /salt​-l­ ake​.html. 5. “Heart and Blood Vessels,” Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Last modified December 15, 2018, http://uphe.org/air-­pollution-health/­cardiovascular​ -­system/. 6. Bare, S., “Anti-­Clean Air Rally in Utah?” Huff Post Green, February 2, 2015, https:​ //​archive.ph/FdTs9. 7. Davis, D., When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle Against Pollution, (New York: Basic Books, 2002). 8. “WHO Global Ambient Air Quality Database,” World Health Organization, Last modified 2018, http://www.who.int/airpollution/data/cities/en/. 9. “9 Out of Ten People Worldwide Breathe Polluted Air, But More Countries Are Taking Action,” World Health Organization, Last modified May 2, 2018, https:// www.who.int/news-­room/detail/02-­0 5-2018-­9 -out-­of-10-­people-worldwide​ -­­breathe-polluted-­air-but-­more-countries-­are-taking-­action. 10. “Key Findings,” The State of the Air 2019, American Lung Association, Last modi­ fied 2019, https://www.lung.org/our-­initiatives/healthy-­air/sota/key-­findings/. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Caiazzo, F., A. Ashok, I. A. Waitz, et al., “Air Pollution and Early Deaths in the United States, Part I: Quantifying the Impact of Major Sectors In 2005.” Atmospheric Environment 79, (2015): 198–208. 14. Eddy, M., and J. Ewing, “As Europe Sours on Diesel, Germany Fights to Save It,” The New York Times, August 2, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02​ /­business/energy-­environment/germany-­diesel-car-­emissions.html. 15. “Executive Body for the Convention on Long-­range Transboundary Air Pollution Workplan for 2016–2017,” United National Economic and Social Council, Last modified 2016, https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/lrtap/­ E xecutive​ Body/E_ECE_EB_AIR_133.Add.1.pdf. 16. Lin, M., L. W. Horowitz, R. Payton, et al., “US Surface Ozone Trends and Extremes from 1980–2014: Quantifying the Roles of Rising Asian Emissions,

Introduction 15 ­ omestic Controls, Wildfires, and Climate.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics D Discussions 17, no. 4 (2016): 2943–2970, doi:10.5194/acp-­2016-1093. 17. Keating, F., “Wealthy Chinese Rent American Wombs Due to Rise in Infertility Rates,” International Business Times, February 1, 2014, https://www.ibtimes​ .co.uk/wealthy-­chinese-rent-­american-wombs-­due-rise-­infertility-rates-­v ideo​ -1434757. 18. Rubes, J., S. Selevan, D. Evenson, et al., “Episodic Air Pollution is Associated with Increased DNA Fragmentation in Human Sperm Without Other Changes in Semen Quality.” Human Reproduction 20, no. 10 (2005): 2776–2783. 19. Millstein, D., R. Wiser, M. Bollinger, et al., “The Climate and Air-­Quality Benefits of Wind and Solar Power in the United States.” Nature Energy 6, no. 9 (2017): 17134. 20. Safi, M., “Indian Government Declares Delhi Air Pollution an Emergency,” The Guardian, November 6, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/06​ /delhi-­air-pollution-­closes-schools-­for-three-­days. 21. Alexander, T. G., “Cooperation, Conflict, and Compromise: Women, Men, and the Environment in Salt Lake City 1890–1930.” BYU Studies Quarterly 35, no. 1 (1995): 7–39. 22. Ibid. 23. Dewey, S. H., Don’t Breathe the Air: Air Pollution and U.S. Environmental Politics, 1945–1970, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000). 24. “2014 Values Study Results,” Envision Utah, Last modified in 2014, http://www​ .envisionutah.org/images/Final_values_study_report.pdf. 25. Baird, S., “2019 Utah State Legislature Roundup,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Last modified March 18, 2019, https://deq.utah.gov/communica​ tion/news/featured/2019-­utah-state-­legislature-roundup. 26. “Climate Positive 2040,” Salt Lake City Corporation, Department of Sustainability, Last modified March 2017, http://www.slcdocs.com/slcgreen/CP0319.pdf. 27. Pierce, S. D., and B. Maffly, “Good News for Salt Lake Valley’s Air: Kennecott to Close its Last Coal Plant, Shift to Renewable Energy,” The Salt Lake Tribune, May 2, 2019, https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/05/01/kennecott-­is-closing-­its/. 28. O’Donoghue, A. J., “Clean Air Advocates Detail 19–Point Plan to Attack Utah’s Pollution Problem,” Deseret News, January 17, 2017, https://www.deseretnews​ .com/article/865671255/Clean-­air-advocates-­detail-19-­p oint-plan-­to-attack​ -­Utahs-pollution-­problem.html. 29. Lichtblau, G., “Tempo Limit 80 in Salzburg,” Last modified June 11, 2014, http:// www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/aktuelles/veranstaltungen/2014/04​ _Lichtblau_Emi_Immiwirkung_Salzburg_A1.pdf. 30. Ewing, J., “France Plans to End Sales of Gas and Diesel Cars by 2040,” The New York Times, July 6, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/business/energy​ -­environment/france-­cars-ban-­gas-diesel.html. 31. Sengupta, S., “Both Climate Leader and Oil Giant? A Norwegian Paradox,” The New York Times, June 17, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/world​

16

Introduction

/­europe​/norway-­climate-oil.html; Warrington, A., “India Aiming for All-­Electric Car Fleet by 2030; Petrol and Diesel to be Tanked,” Future Centre, May 16, 2017, https://thefuturescentre.org/signals-­of-change/16947/india-­aiming-all-­electric​ -car-­fleet-2030-­petrol-and-­diesel-be-­tanked. 32. “China Looks at Ending Sales of Gasoline Cars,” CNBC, September 10, 2017, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/10/china-­looks-at-­ending-sales-­of-gasoline-­cars​ .html. 33. Davies, A., “General Motors is Going All Electric,” Wired, October 2, 2017, https://www.wired.com/story/general-­motors-electric-­cars-plan-­gm/.

1 Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas Air Quality and the Visitor Experience CHRIS ZAJCHOWSKI

On a clear day in Arches National Park a visitor can see well over a hundred miles. Ancient sandstone deposits weathered by water and wind flank the park’s main road and punctuate an austere landscape that stretches, seemingly, for an eternity. Yet, despite the time and energy spent waiting in line to access the park, surprisingly few visitors venture beyond the most accessible trails. As they leapfrog between turnouts, caravanning from one feature to the next on the park road, most can only hazard a guess at what exists in the margins of their photographs, the out-of-focus area beyond the park boundaries. The distant desert backdrop, framed by spires and windows, remains visibly accessible but physically elusive. When I entered the line of red taillights, two hundred and thirty miles north of Arches, I was reminded, again, of these margins. This time my partner, Nicole, and I were pressed against the fault line of the Wasatch Mountains on a dim, January morning. Like the visitors to Southern Utah’s red rock canyons, we too were seeking a novel experience — a powder ski day to punctuate the monotony of the winter inversion. It seemed we were not alone in our escape. We joined many of Salt Lake Valley’s million-plus residents, heading for the hills. As we slowly crawled along the highway, inching closer to mountains that promised fresh snow, I thought of the visitors at the entrance gate to Arches. We stared at similar taillights. We proceeded at a similar snail’s pace. We shared a similar anxiety: When would we escape all the traffic —all these people? 17

18

Chapter 1

As we idled in this line of cars at the base of the Wasatch Mountains, I was reminded of the advice of the Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hahn. Stoplights and taillights are invitations to breathe, to be mindful of ourselves, each other, and our surroundings. Breathing is an act to center the mind, dispel egocentric anxieties and worries, and return to the broader world.1 Breathing in Salt Lake City, however, comes with a catch. The promise of fresh snow pulled us to the mountains. The need to escape polluted air pushed us out of the city. As Utah transplants, Nicole and I had just endured our first Salt Lake City winter inversion. The emissions from our car, our home, and the furnace that provided our winter warmth had, over the past week, collected in a pool of cold, viscous-­like air. We had been literally breathing our own exhaust for a week. Our attempts to follow any sage advice on breathing and centeredness were both physically and psychologically labored. Nevertheless, one hour later, we finally broke free of the traffic and the cold-­air pool below. A steady stream of cars followed us, all jockeying for parking at a local ski resort. Emerging, their drivers and passengers looked burdened by the congestion of the highway and in their sinuses. For Nicole and I, while we looked forward to a day in the mountains, the thought of returning filled us with apprehension. Why can’t someone seem to fix this problem? Breathing in Parks and Protected Areas

Parks and protected areas have always been places to breathe. Since the founding of the National Park Service (NPS) in 1916, urban and rural dwellers have flocked to our nation’s iconic parks in Model Ts, locomotives, and minivans to breathe the crisp mountain air of Glacier National Park or be bathed by the ocean breezes of Mount Desert Island in Acadia National Park. John Muir spoke of the High Sierra as having air “as delicious to the lungs as nectar to the tongue.” 2 In Utah, this type of mountain air is familiar to the 80 percent of the state’s population who reside along the Wasatch Front and escape to the nearby National Forests for respite. For those who live farther south, the still, desert air of the Colorado Plateau is equally arresting. The right to breathe in our nation’s parks has been lauded in poetry and codified in prose. The Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964 allowed



Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas

19

for the preservation of over 100 million acres in an “untrammeled” or “primeval” condition.3 Then, in 1977, amendments to the Clean Air Act explicitly designed protections for natural areas from the growing threat of air pollution. Subsequent amendments and programs, such as the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, spearheaded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), secured further protection and ‘enhancement’ of the airsheds of parks and wilderness areas.4 (For further reading on the legal and regulatory landscape of air pollution, see chapter five.) Accordingly, the NPS, along with the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management, have been making progress to restore impaired viewsheds and reduce the health risks of recreating in and on our nation’s mountains, rivers, canyons, and plateaus. There is good reason for these efforts. Despite the common view of these parks and protected areas as places to experience nature unimpaired, degraded air continues to creep into the margins. One out of three NPS units still exceed EPA regulations for air pollution.5 So, while a 2013 NPS survey from 73 park units found that 88 and 90 percent of visitors rate both clean air and scenic vistas as either extremely or very important, respectively, a separate 2016 survey reported 89 percent of visitors experienced reduced visibility within Utah’s “Mighty Five” — ​Arches, Bryce, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, and Zion.6,7 For a half-­century, these issues facing Utah’s national parks and protected areas have paled in comparison to the challenges faced by our neighbor to the south. In Grand Canyon National Park, persistent haze from visitors’ personal automobiles, upwind metro areas, regional mining, and coal-­fired power plants combine with transboundary pollution from southern California and Las Vegas to regularly envelop the canyon.8 As a result, visitors hoping to enjoy the majesty of the canyon must filter their views through particulate matter and other pollutants. While great strides have been made, the future of Grand Canyon’s air, like the future of the air quality in many wilderness areas, still resides in the courts — ​currently caught in litigation between the EPA and the State of Arizona.9 For Grand Canyon National Park and other parks and protected areas plagued with air pollution, visibility isn’t the only impact. Respired particulate matter becomes deeply embedded in the lung tissue of park visitors and employees, leading to a variety of harmful respiratory and cardiac

20

Chapter 1

illnesses and emergencies.10 (For further reading on the health impacts of air pollution, see chapter four.) Other pollutants can have additional negative effects. Ozone not only affects our breathing but is also harmful to plant life, stunting photosynthesis and growth.11 Mercury deposition originating from coal-­fired power plants accumulates within the food web, traveling from zooplankton and invertebrates to birds, fish, and large predators; nitrogen and sulfur deposits saturate soils and acidify lakes, streams, and park monuments.12 Beyond the health effects to visitors, the biota of parks and protected areas disproportionately shoulder the cost of air pollution. The Human Factor

It should come as no surprise that humans are the source of most of the air pollution present in our parks and protected areas. Unlike the perceived uncertainty surrounding larger, systemic environmental issues like climate change, human contributions to air pollution are visible in real-­ time, as cars idle in line at the entrance gates to national parks across the country. While wildfire can degrade air quality and increase regional haze concerns, fires ignited by fireworks, careless camping practices, or from clearing brush, such as the 2017 Brian Head fire, are undeniably caused by people.13 Power plants that provide energy, agriculture that supplies food, factories that manufacture goods, and vehicles that transport us and our goods, all contribute to the degradation of local, regional, national, and international air quality. Human culpability in bringing air pollution to those cherished untrammeled and pristine lands is undeniable. So the question is not if cars, homes, and factories contribute to the degradation of air quality experienced in parks and protected areas, but rather how much they contribute. How much particulate matter does a procession of personal vehicles up Little Cottonwood Canyon create on an average winter weekend? How much degradation of the viewshed in Canyonlands National Park is acceptable? And, ultimately, how much exhaust are we willing to breathe? These types of questions focused on the stewardship of our parks and protected areas have roiled us as a nation for decades, from the damming of Hetch Hetchy in Yosemite National Park through the ongoing conflict over drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Utahns are no ­strangers



Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas

21

to these debates. The patchwork of federal public land designations that comprise roughly two-­thirds of the state have put us time-­and-again in the national spotlight. The preservation of river canyons in Dinosaur ­National Monument came at the cost of damming Glen Canyon to form Lake Powell.14 Today, the “Take Back Our Lands” movement, which advocates for the ceding of federal land within Utah back to the state, threatens new national monuments, such as Bears Ears.15 These large-­scale conflicts that take place on the national stage mirror the regular, local disagreements and controversies in Utah backyards. Crowding and resource degradation in Millcreek Canyon, located within the Uinta–Wasatch–Cache National Forest (UWCNF), led to alternating schedule for off-­leash dog and mountain bike use, as well as a fee booth at the canyon’s base. As we continue to navigate these local and national debates in Utah, escalating park visitation statistics and growing urban communities proximal to public lands suggest that we will see heightened controversy over the state of one of our most essential natural resources — ​ air quality.16 Research in Parks

The conversations and controversies that engulf the future of our natural resources within parks and protected areas often occur in the public arena. The information that fuels the dialogue, however, is largely derived from park science. Natural and social science research in our parks and protected areas explores what some refer to as the “reciprocal” relationship between biophysical elements of parks and socio-­cultural factors, the latter of which include visitors.17 In air quality scholarship, pollutant monitoring and visitor research in Appalachia informs how air pollution in Great Smoky Mountain National Park physically and psychologically affects visitors.18 Social science methods, such as questionnaires, interviews, photo diaries, and other tools, provide a way to gauge visitor attitude toward degraded air quality conditions. It also clarifies which proposed park management solutions are palatable, or at least tolerable, to restore a region’s airshed.19 Yet, while the natural science employed in parks and protected areas measures “how much” pollution is created by any given source, the social science research illuminates what solutions the public will, ultimately, support. It brings the out-­of-focus attitudes, values, and

22

Chapter 1

beliefs that so-­often operate in the margins, into direct comparison with the public’s actions or inactions to confront air pollution in these places they profess to love. Social science park research seeks to understand one of the most unique, dynamic, and dangerous species that frequent public lands — ​ ­humans. Yet, despite a wealth of social science park research, studies that investigate visitors’ attitudes and beliefs toward air pollution, along with their corresponding behaviors, is less common.20 Behavioral research in park and protected areas has been, until recently, concerned with other, more tangible impacts, such as the number of people present at a popular overlook, the presence or absence of litter, or the degradation of soils through the creation of new trails, campsites, and off-­highway vehicle routes.21 And, on the other end of the spectrum, researchers have investigated visitors’ perspectives toward and behaviors resulting from the complex and large-­scale environmental issues, such as climate change, on public lands.22 Air quality social science research has remained, in a sense, stuck in the middle. Complicating the development of social science research focused on air pollution, the measurement of visual perception of pollution is complex and often influenced by a variety of physical factors (e.g., sunlight, precipitation, and cloud cover).23 In spite of these challenges, within parks and protected areas with visible haze, researchers have assessed visitor preferences for different air quality conditions; overwhelmingly, clean air and scenic vistas continue to rate among the top five attributes sought by visitors to national parks.24 Perceptions regarding regional haze and visitor preferences for pristine air quality conditions have comprised the bulk of existing air quality social science research in parks and protected areas. Yet, it would seem the question is less whether or not people might approve of varying l­ evels of haze, but rather what are they willing to do, what actions are they willing to take, to attain better air quality? Haze is simply a harbinger for the various health impacts to humans and the ecosystems present in parks and protected areas. Human attitudes and preferences surrounding clean air, much like other environmental issues, don’t necessarily predict behavior.25 Various studies in urban and municipal parks have shared the averting behavior or displacement of walkers, joggers, and outdoor enthusiasts from their leisure pursuits during days with poor air quality.26 Re-



Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas

23

search investigating what visitors and recreationists say they plan to do to in order to conserve or restore air resources has, however, been limited in air pollution park research.27 Similarly, research sharing the perceptions of management solutions proposed to solve the challenges air pollution in public lands in Utah has also been limited. The following pages discuss issues related to visitor behavior in the context of two protected areas within the state. These studies point to tangible actions that can improve Utah’s airsheds, within the context of its complex air pollution challenges. The first focuses on the alternative transportation system in Zion National Park, and the second focuses on winter outdoor recreationists in the UWCNF. Zion National Park

We first travel to Zion National Park in southwest Utah. Many of Zion’s towering canyon walls, created, in part, through the uplift of gigantic blocks of sedimentary rock, have been dramatically carved by the steady flow of the Virgin River, as it proceeds southwest to join the Colorado at Lake Mead. The Virgin River canyon, inhabited for thousands of years by Native Americans, is the focus of today’s tourists. At the end of the twentieth century, a dramatic increase in human visitation — ​reaching 2.5 million annual visitors — ​filled the Zion Canyon, bringing plumes of vehicle exhaust from personal automobiles. In the 1990s, congestion in Zion Canyon necessitated change. In addition to crowding from increased visitor use, poor air quality threatened the visitor experience.28 This combination of factors spurred the park to adopt a mandatory shuttle system for visitors during peak season, March through October. Today, visitors to Zion Canyon ride one of its propane-­ powered buses to access park features like Angels Landing or the Temple of Sinawava, the famous gateway to the Narrows.29 The shuttle liberated traffic bottlenecks that previously marred the park experience and reduced parking problems.30 Additionally, visitors can now enjoy the majesty of the park without worrying about breathing exhaust from numerous personal vehicles. Following the implementation of the mandatory shuttle system at Zion in 2000, a team of researchers from Southern Utah University and Utah State University embarked on a multi-­year visitor assessment to gauge ­perceptions of the park’s shuttle system.31 Alternative Transit Systems

24

Chapter 1

(ATS) had been previously implemented in other national park units, such as ­Yosemite, Grand Canyon, and Denali, yet most systems had been voluntary. In Zion, the researchers surveyed visitors in 2000, 2003, and 2010 to assess their perceptions of the mandatory shuttle experience, gathering scores on variables such as accessibility, crowding, freedom, and shuttle efficiency. Additionally, researchers also assessed visitors’ perceptions of “experiential” factors, such as scenic beauty, tranquility, and air quality. Ultimately, researchers were curious whether shuttle riders would warm to a new, mandatory transportation mode compared with their personal vehicles. The results were astounding. Over the course of ten years, visitors’ ratings of the shuttle service improved dramatically. While initially hesitant to give up their personal automobiles, visitors embraced the freedoms associated with riding the bus (i.e., not having to fight for parking, battle long lines of cars, or keep one’s eyes on the road). They overwhelmingly approved of what they experienced. Multiple shuttle stops, relatively short wait times, as well as helpful information provided both on the bus and prior to their park visit, appeared to significantly impact visitors’ approval of the shuttle system. The authors of the study found that visitors’ willingness to ride a shuttle improved with each survey — ​from 67 percent in 2000 to 96 percent in 2003 to 98 percent in 2010.32 By 2010, visitors expressed an overwhelmingly positive opinion of ATS that researchers believed would translate to other parks and protected areas with similarly well-­run shuttles.33 Air quality and the visitor experience appear to have been positively influenced by the adoption of a mandatory shuttle system in Zion ­National Park.34 However, the question moving forward for Zion and its gateway communities is what to now do with skyrocketing visitation and the displacement of the air pollution and traffic congestion problems from Zion Canyon to the surrounding communities of Rockville and Springdale.35 Springdale hosts stops for the Zion Canyon shuttle, which, while encouraging local commerce, have also increased traffic and infrastructure demands.36 Additionally, as Zion’s visitation has continued to boast high levels of visitation — ​over 4.3 million annual visitors in 2018 — ​new transit and visitor use management solutions are on the horizon.37,38



Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas

25

Uinta–Wasatch–Cache National Forest

Five hours north of Zion National Park, the protected areas adjacent to the Salt Lake metropolitan area have a decidedly different challenge. Salt Lake City’s proximity to Forest Service lands, including the wilderness areas within UWCNF, provides the region’s one million-­plus residents, as well as tourists from around the globe, with unique four-­season recreation opportunities. Unlike Zion, which sees the bulk of its visitation in the spring, summer, and fall, the canyons along the Wasatch Front are busy year-­round. World-­class ski resorts, such as Alta or Snowbird, provide residents and visitors with access to mountain slopes, which lie within a 45–minute drive from downtown Salt Lake City. Annually, over 4.5 million skiers, snowboarders, and tourists converge on these resorts for winter recreation, and an even greater number of visitors frequent these higher-­elevation refuges in the summer to escape the heat.39 Designated wilderness areas are nestled in between these resorts, canyon roads, private property, and multiple-­use land, creating a patchwork of land designations in one of the busiest national forests in the country.40 Unlike Zion, where, prior to the shuttle system, visitors brought their air pollution with them, what’s interesting about the visitors to the Wasatch Mountains is what they leave behind. A 2013 study showed the results of ten years of traffic data, correlating higher traffic counts in the mountain canyons with poor winter air quality days in the valley below.41 When the air quality in the valley reached an unhealthy level, many of the region’s residents head for higher ground. This pattern has been supported by recent studies, showing a similar trend.42 This Valley Flight creates a “wicked feedback loop” — ​a situation where decisions and action exacerbate the root problem.43 The wicked feedback loop involving winter recreationists in Salt Lake City looks something like this: 1. poor air quality pushes residents into the mountains; 2. when these residents drive to the mountains, they degrade air quality further; 3. when residents return from the mountains, they are greeted by worsened air quality that they, in part, helped to create; and 4. subsequently, poor air quality forces these residents back into their cars to go back to the mountains again.

26

Chapter 1

What’s particularly “wicked” about this environmental context is these visitors to Forest Service lands face the proverbial catch-­22. If they stay in the urban valleys to recreate, they expose themselves to elevated pollution levels. If they head for the hills, they may breathe clean air for a few hours, but, by driving, further foul the air they regularly breathe at home. And, even if the percent contribution of skiers to the overall air pollution problems in the valleys is relatively small, mobile source emissions from cars, trucks, and airplanes do account for roughly 50 percent of poor winter air quality.44 And, if urban residents choose to drive for a discretionary, leisure-­time activity, like skiing, we might assume they are even more likely to drive for more essential activities, such as dropping off children at school, going grocery shopping, or heading to work, further degrading the air quality. These assumptions and this feedback loop provided the rationale for a University of Utah study.45 In the 2015–2016 winter season, we surveyed winter backcountry recreationists, individuals who engage in non-­ motorized activities, such as ski touring, split-­boarding, and ­snowshoeing, regarding their transportation choices for accessing winter outdoor recreation in the UWCNF. Similar to Zion Canyon, there are public bus routes that operate during the winter in two of the main canyons in the Wasatch Front–Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons. However, in contrast to Zion’s mandatory shuttle, the ski buses available to visitors in the Wasatch are voluntary and require a fee. In this study, we used a mixed-­methods approach to survey over four-­ hundred winter outdoor recreationist regarding their perspectives of poor air quality, their stated transportation practices for winter outdoor recreation, and their proposed solutions to reduce the air pollution challenges the region faces (see Figure 1). We found that winter recreationists predominately viewed any degree of air pollution as unacceptable (99 percent) but were largely unwilling or uninterested in using the canyon shuttle service (62 percent). While ATS users at Zion National Park associated the shuttle system with high levels of freedom, accessibility, efficiency, and comfort, the Wasatch winter recreationists felt the buses did not meet their fundamental needs. As one recreationist commented, “I think we tend not to ride the buses, because they tend to not stop at the places we want to tour or the timing of that can be more difficult.” 46

Photo panel from the University of Utah's Mountain Meteorology Group representing four air quality condition categories.

Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas

Good PM 2.5 = 0 – 12 µg/m³

Moderate PM 2.5 = 12.1 – 35.4 µg/m³

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups PM 2.5 = 35.5 – 55.4 µg/m³

Unhealthy PM 2.5 = 55.5 – 150.4 µg/m³

27

FIGURE 1.1. Photo panel from the University of Utah’s Mountain Meteorology

Group representing four air quality condition categories. Note: Photos correspond with Air Quality Index (AQI) condition classes. Beginning with an initial batch of twenty representative photos, final photos were selected for the panel using a q-sort process.

Other participants in the qualitative portion of the study discussed the infrequency and unreliability of the buses, as well as the lack of comfort they afforded, when compared with personal automobiles. As one skier noted, Then when you’re done and you’re wet and cold and standing and waiting on a bus is kind of less than exciting. So, compare it to a warm car with a seat heater, [it] is much more pleasant at the end of the day. So that’s why I tend to do the driving.47 Both these negative perceptions of the shuttle bus, as well as preferred transportation choices for personal automobiles, were reflected in the quantitative findings. A majority of winter outdoor recreationists stated

28

Chapter 1

that, regardless of the level of degradation of the valley air quality, they would drive their personal automobiles. For these individuals, carpooling was a preferred method to reduce their personal impact on the airshed (62 percent), while still allowing for the perceived freedom they desired. That said, it appeared that many of these outdoor recreationists were displaced from pursuing winter outdoor recreation during air pollution events (45 percent), either choosing to stay at home or simply not heading to the mountains. For some individuals staying home was part of a broader ethical dilemma. One skier recounted a conversation with his father: He was trying to tell me to get up the canyon because the air was bad, and I was trying to tell him that’s perpetuating the problem: “You have to understand it’d perpetuating the problem, me getting in my car to get out of the bad air.” He’s like, “Well, you need to take care of yourself before you take care of others.” I was arguing, “Well, everyone else is equally as important as myself.” 48 The implications of this study shed light on how a segment of regular UWCNF visitors view poor air quality and are willing-­or unwilling-­to change their recreation. While 99 percent of participants surveyed stated someone should take action for the air pollution challenges plaguing the region, most refused to take public transit (62 percent), which would ultimately reduce their own personal contributions.49 For participants in the qualitative survey, this gap between their attitudes toward poor air quality and their behaviors was explained, in part, by how they perceived of their agency within the enormity of the air pollution challenge. For example, one Wasatch visitor commented that even though she acknowledged her contribution, she felt it was relatively small when compared to other sources. I guess we do contribute to the air quality by driving up to go backcountry skiing, but we drive everywhere no matter what we’re doing in our society–whether it’s going to the grocery store, going to a movie indoors, or going backcountry skiing.50 This comment belies a fundamental issue apparent throughout both phases of the study. While everyone wanted better air quality, they were

Figure 1.2: The effect of air pollution on recreationists’ actions

Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas

29

100% Air Quality Effect

80%

No Air Quality Effect

60% 40% 20% 0%

Require Action

Carpool

Recreate Indoors

Stay Home

Use Public Transit

FIGUREdata 1.2. Thereflects effect of air pollution on recreationists’ actions. Note: effect This data This the pooled, self-reported

reflects the pooled, self-reported effect of air quality condition classes (good,

moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, and unhealthy) on moderate, a variety of recreof air quality condition classes (good, ation behaviors. For example, over these four condition classes, 54 percent of

unhealthy sensitive groups, unhealthy) on a whereas winter outdoorfor recreations would “Recreate Indoors” (Air Quality Effect), 43 percent reported that they would still head up the canyons to ski (“No Air

variety of (Reprinted recreation behaviors. For Recreation example, Quality Effect”). with permission of National andover Park Association.)

these four condition classes, 54% of winter outdoor

unclear if their own personal actions could make a(Air difference. As a result, recreations would “Recreate Indoors” Quality

it appeared many were unwilling to bear the burden of a public transpor-

Effect), whereas 43%not reported tation system they felt did meet theirthat needs.they would still

head up the canyons to ski (“No Air Quality Effect”).

Future Breathing in Parks and Protected Areas

Together, these two studies highlight the challenges residents face in fighting for clean air in and around parks and protected areas, as well as one potential solution — ​the adoption of an efficient, comfortable, and accessible alternative transit system. In the coming years, the collaborative planning processes taking place along the Wasatch Front and the recent appropriation of $66 million in state transit dollars may yield a ­mandatory transit system similar to Zion’s, trains and tunnels, or a or toll-­based system in Little and Big Cottonwood Canyons.51 As participants in the qualitative portion of the winter outdoor recreationists study indicated, they were not categorically against these types of options; they simply didn’t perceive the current system was meeting their needs: I think it would be really hard if the canyon was closed to most traffic and you were forced to take a bus, but if the bus ran really

30

Chapter 1

regularly and stopped at all the backcountry trailheads, I feel like that would be reasonable, such that you could count on a bus coming by in ten minutes to hop on or something . . . so that you could easily get up and down the canyon.52 Additionally, the stated willingness to take public transit in a different park or protected areas (i.e., Zion) surfaced in our findings as well. There needs to be an element of pay-­to-play. [. . .] You’re going to have to do something as far as giving people transportation. [. . .] We just came back from Zion two weeks ago. And I marvel at the bus system they have there.53 In other words, once established, a well-­run public transit system may elicit a similar positive response from these outdoor recreationists who live along the Wasatch Front. That said, as current issues in Zion indicate, the solutions we prescribe to improve air quality in parks and protected areas are dependent on the distance of the horizon. In other words, the implementation of ATS in public lands suffering from crowding and air pollution may serve to improve air quality in the short term, but not completely solve the problem. Until recently, Zion’s effective shuttle system worked well in Zion Canyon, but it increasingly functions less-­successfully with ever-­rising visitation. Similarly, moving the traffic and congestion from the Cottonwood Canyons to communities along the Wasatch Front may serve to simply re-­ locate the problem of traffic and associated air pollution, consolidating and exacerbating the issue, rather than solving it altogether. In the short-­term, the future of air quality in public lands may be aided by ATS, but the long-­term preservation and enhancement of these airsheds requires more than technical solutions.54 (For further reading on the technical solutions to mobile source pollution, see chapter seven.) Annual public lands visitation statistics, along with Utah’s urban populations, are a moving target, continually on the rise. The population residing along the Wasatch Front is expected to double by 2050, in part, due to the “healthy outdoor lifestyle” Salt Lake City and its surrounding communities offer.55 This slated growth begs the question: Where will these additional million-­and-a-­half people go to pursue their winter outdoor recreation?



Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas

31

Find Another Park

As the National Park Service celebrated its Centennial in 2016, the slogan “Find Your Park” has been replaced by some with the tongue-­and-cheek mantra “Find Another Park.” 56 This simple idea that there may be limits to the number of people who can visit a park cuts to the marrow of the existential crisis enshrined in the dual mandate of the NPS — ​to provide unfettered access to all, while protecting the biological, geological, and cultural features present within park boundaries. Developing a human “carrying capacity” — ​the number of individuals who can exist in a finite amount of space without causing undue harm to themselves, their experience, or the environment — ​is ultimately both a subjective and interdisciplinary endeavor. It cuts across the natural and social sciences in such a way that any objective metric is fundamentally impossible.57 As former Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Wenk commented, defining carrying capacity for parks and protected areas illustrates the complexity of developing standards to limit use: Is it OK to have 3,000 or 4,000 people standing around waiting for Old Faithful to go off, standing there like they’re packed into a stadium for a college or high school or professional football or basketball game? Is that OK? Is that the experience they expect? Or is it a carrying capacity that has to do with front country and backcountry trails. Is a half-­hour wait to see a grizzly bear if you’re in a car the right amount of time or is that too long. Or should you have to wait at all?58 Yet, this acknowledgement of the subjective, social element in designing capacity does not change the necessity to confront the degradation of airsheds in our public lands. As Zion has discovered, more buses didn’t eliminate the crowding problems in the park-­though they did improve air quality-­they relocated it to gateway communities. In short, it seems we may do well to return to park science’s roots by returning to research focused on carrying capacity and crowding. While many, including the NPS, view limiting use as a last resort, it’s clear the moving target of ever-­increasing visitation does not afford the untrammeled and pristine conditions expected from our public lands. Additionally, studies that examine visitors’ attitudes and beliefs with their actual behaviors are crucial. These studies can be used to check assumptions

32

Chapter 1

regarding visitors’ presumably rational behaviors against data that may very well prove otherwise. Finally, with the shifting of visitation statistics and resulting shift in visitor impacts, it would seem scholarship focused on “shifting baselines” is especially prudent in air quality park research.59 Each generation of park visitors may have widely divergent views on what constitutes acceptable levels of haze, an untrammeled airshed, or an appropriate amount of pollution. Research that serves to capture these differences may help to indicate where we have been, as well as where we are going. Conclusion

In The Hour of the Land, Terry Tempest Williams argues that National Parks are “breathing spaces, in a time when we’re all holding our breath.” 60 This would seem to hold true for the UWCNF, Zion, and other parks and protected areas that might offer a healthy refuge for our lungs, contaminated with the pollution from our cities. That said, unhealthy levels of pollution, both particulate and ozone, do reach into Utah’s national forests and parks. Within these same protected areas, vehicle exhaust contributes to the visible haze that obscures our view, but we do not yet fully know how to tackle the problem with our collective will. It seems fitting to acknowledge that a large part of this challenge appears to stem from the fact that freedom is enshrined into the lexicon of our public lands — ​the freedom to visit when we want and how we want. Unfortunately, for most people, rules and regulations that might clear the air also appear to infringe upon these personal freedoms. Edward Abbey decried the “industrial tourism” he saw change the face of Arches National Park, and he took issue with the mantra that the “parks are for the people.” 61 At a time when people both inside and outside of parks are holding their breath, it may be time to revisit the park management proposals Abbey outlined fifty years ago in Desert Solitaire. Is the personal automobile necessary for visitation to our parks and protected areas? Or, as Abbey suggested, are any automobiles — ​shuttles, cars, trucks, or m ­ opeds  — ​necessary at all? It is unlikely land management agencies will adopt any of Abbey’s proposals, though many will laud his audacity. In the meantime, both



Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas

33

managers and visitors alike will continue to focus on point-­source emissions, such those from coal-­fired power plants, which affect visibility in southeastern Utah’s national parks.62 They will also, likely, continue adding shuttles to transport increasing numbers of visitors to and from the scenic and recreational spots, or in the case of Arches National Park, implement a vehicle reservation system.63 These prudent strategies will stave off, at least for a while, the unpalatable conversation surrounding limits on visitor use, which is perhaps the only management solution that can fully restore the airsheds in many national parks and protected areas. And so, honest conversation about too many visitors to our parks and protected areas will likely remain in the margins of our view, occluded by a human haze we are not yet willing to see. Notes 1. Hahn, T. N., Peace Is Every Step (New York: Bantam Books, 1991). 2. Muir, J., My First Summer in the Sierra (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1911). 3. Nash, R. F., Wilderness and the American Mind, Fifth Edition (New Haven: Yale

University, 1967); Mace, B. L., J. D. Marquit, and S. C. Bates, “Visibility and Natural Quiet in National Parks and Wilderness Areas: Psychological Considerations.” Environment and Behavior 36 (2004): 5–31. 4. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, H. R. 6161, 95th Cong, (1977). 5. Hammitt, W. E., D. N. Cole, and C. A. Monz, Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management (Hoboken: Wiley, 2015). 6. Kulesza, C., Y. Le, M. Littlejohn, and S. J. Hollenhorst, National Park Service Visitor Values and Perceptions of Clean Air, Scenic View and Dark Night Skies (Moscow, ID: Park Sciences Unit, 2013). 7. Boyle, K. J., R. Paterson, R. Carson, et al., “Valuing Shifts in the Distribution of Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas in the United States.” Journal of Environmental Management 173 (2016): 10–22. 8. Kenkel, J. A., T. Sisk, K. Hultine, et al., “Cars and Canyons: Understanding Roadside Impacts of Automobile Pollution in Grand Canyon National Park.” Park Science 30, no. 2 (2013): 52–57. 9. Wasser, M., “Federal judge orders Arizona to Clean up Grand Canyon Air Pollution,” Phoenix New Times, February 26, 2016, https://www.phoenixnew​ times.com/news/federal-­judge-orders-­arizona-to-­clean-up-­grand-canyon-­air​ -­pollution-­8084739. 10. An, R., and X. Xan, “Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Leisure-­ Time Physical Inactivity Among U.S. Adults.” Public Health 129, no.12 (2015): 1637–1644.

34

Chapter 1

11. “Air Quality in National Parks: Trends (2000–2009) and Conditions (2005–

2009),” National Park Service, Last modified 2013, https://irma.nps.gov/Data​ Store/Reference/Profile/2197275. 12. Hammitt, W. E., D. N. Cole, and C. A. Monz, Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management (Hoboken: Wiley, 2015). 13. Whitehurst, L., “Man Charged in Igniting Massive Brian Head Fire,” KSL.com, July 25, 2017, https://www.ksl.com/article/45164503. 14. McPhee, J., Encounters with the Archdruid (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1971). 15. Moe, R., “President Obama, Make Bears Ears a National Monument,” The Washing­ton Post, July 19, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/preserve​-these​ -beautiful-desert-lands/2016/07/19/316d1c4e-­4dda-11e6-­aa14-e0c1087f7583​_story​ .html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3244a799afa6; Moulton,  K., “Western Law­ makers Gather in Utah to Talk Federal Land Takeover,” The Salt Lake Tribune, April 19, 2014, http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=57836973&itype=cmsid. 16. McCombs, B., “Air Quality Concerns With Bill Allowing Wood Burning to Cook,” U.S. News & World Report, March 16, 2017, https://www.usnews.com​/news​/ best​ -­states/utah/articles/2017-­03-16/air-­quality-concerns-­with-bill​-­allowing​-wood​ -­burning-to-­cook. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503254747. 17. Hammitt, W. E., D. N. Cole, and C. A. Monz, Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management (Hoboken: Wiley, 2015). 18. “Air Quality in the National Parks,” 2nd edition, National Park Service, (Lakewood, CO: Air Resources Division); Giradot, S. P., P. B. Ryan, S. M. Smith, et al., “Ozone and PM2.5 Exposure and Acute Pulmonary Health Effects: A Study of Hikers in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.” Environmental Health Perspective 4, no. 7 (2005): 1044–1052. 19. Malm, B., Visibility: The Seeing of Near and Distant Landscape Features (Cambridge: Elsevier, 2016). 20. Keiser, D., G. Lade, and I. Rudik, “Air Pollution and Visitation at U.S. National Parks.” Science Advances 4, no.7 (2018): 1–6, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat1613. 21. Manning, R. E., Studies in Outdoor Recreation, (Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2010). 22. Brownlee, M., and K. Leong, “Climate Change, Management Decisions, and the Visitor Experience: The Role of Social Science Research.” Park Science 28, no 2 (2011): 21–25; De Urioste-­Stone, S. M., L. Le, et al., “Nature-­Based Tourism and Climate Change Risk: Visitors’ Perceptions in Mount Desert Island, Maine.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 13 (2016): 57–65; Brownlee, M., J. Hallo, B. Wright, et al., “Visiting a Climate Influenced National Park: The Stability of Climate Change Perceptions.” Environmental Management 52, no. 5 (2013): 1132–1148. 23. Mace, B. L., J. D. Marquit, and S. C. Bates, “Visibility and Natural Quiet in National Parks and Wilderness Areas: Psychological Considerations.” Environment and Behavior 36 (2004): 5–31. 24. Kulesza, C., Y. Le, M. Littlejohn, and S. J. Hollenhorst, National Park Service



Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas

35

Visitor Values and Perceptions of Clean Air, Scenic View and Dark Night Skies (Moscow, ID: Park Sciences Unit, 2013). 25. Heberlein, T. A., Navigating Environmental Attitudes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); Gardner, T. A., and P. C. Stern, Environmental Problems and Human Behavior (Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002). 26. Noonan, D. S., “Smoggy with a Chance of Altruism: The Effects of Ozone Alerts on Outdoor Recreation and Driving in Atlanta.” Policy Studies Journal 42, no. 1 (2014): 122–145; Wen, X., L. Balluz, and A. Mokdad, “Association Between Media Alerts of Air Quality Index and Change of Outdoor Activity Among Adult Asthma in Six States.” Journal of Community Health 34, no. 1 (2009): 40–46; Roberts, J. D., J. D. Voss, and B. Knight, “The Association of Ambient Air Pollution and Physical Inactivity in The United States.” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014): 90143; Bresahan, B., M. Dickie, and S. Gerking, “Averting Behavior and Urban Air Pollution.” Land Economics 73, no. 3 (1997): 340– 357. 27. Mace, B. L., J. D. Marquit, and S. C. Bates, “Visitor Assessment of the Mandatory Alternative Transportation System at Zion National Park.” Environmental Management 52, no. 5 (2013): 1271–1285. 28. Ibid. 29. “Shuttle System,” National Park Service, Last modified February 18, 2019, https:// www.nps.gov/zion/planyourvisit/shuttle-­system.htm. 30. Rose, J., Are Social and Environmental Justice Incompatible Ideas? (Salt Lake City: Utah University Press, 2010). 31. Mace, B. L., J. D. Marquit, and S. C. Bates, “Visibility and Natural Quiet in National Parks and Wilderness Areas: Psychological Considerations.” Environment and Behavior 36 (2004): 5–31. 32. Ibid. 33. Wadsworth, R., “This is what Zion National Park might do to solve overcrowding issues; how to comment,” St George News, July 18, 2017, http://www.stgeorgeutah​ .com/news/archive/2017/07/18/raw-­this-is-­what-zion-­national-park-­might-do​ -to-solve-­overcrowding-issues-­how-to-­comment/#.WW96_IjyuUn. 34. Roof, C. J., B. Kim, G. Fleming, et al., Noise and Air Quality Implications of Alternative Transportation Systems: Zion and Acadia National Park Case Studies (Cambridge: US Department of Transportation, 2002). 35. Applegate, J., “Lines and Traffic; Zion Park Looks for Answers,” St George News, August 3, 2016, https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2016/08/03/jla​-crowds​ -lines-­and-traffic-­zion-park-­looks-for-­answers/#.XEvf7i2ZPOQ. 36. Marquit, J. D., and B. L. Mace, “Park Visitor and Gateway Community Perceptions of Mandatory Shuttle Buses,” in Sustainable Transportation in ­Natural and Protected Areas, ed. Francesco Orsi, (New York: Routledge, 2015); Repan­ shek, K., “Record Visitation Strained Some National Parks This Year, Creating Concern Over What 2016 Might Bring,” National Parks Conservation Association, December 16, 2015, https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2015/12/record​ -visitation​-strained-­some-national-­parks-year-­creating-concern-­over-what​-­2016​ -might.

36

Chapter 1

37. “Annual Park Recreation Visits: Zion National Park,” National Park Service, Last

modified March 7, 2019, https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Spe​ cific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%20(1904%20 -%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=ZION. 38. Davidson, L., “Changes Coming to Cottonwood Canyons as They Win Biggest Share of $100 Million Jackpot to Reduce Traffic Congestion,” The Salt Lake Tribune, May 14, 2018, https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/05/11​ /changes-­coming-to-cotton​wood-canyons-­as-they-­w in-biggest-­share-of-­100​ -million-­jackpot-to-reduce​-traffic-­congestion/. 39. “Utah Ski Areas Set All-­Time Skier Visit Record During 2016–17 Season,” SGB Media, June 20, 2017, https://sgbonline.com/utah-­ski-areas-­set-all-­time-skier​ -visit-record-­during-2016-­17-season/. 40. Wilkinson, J., “The New Competing Uses: Balancing Recreation with Preservation in Utah’s Wasatch Mountains.” Journal of Land Resources and Environmental Law 24, no.3 (2004): 561–586. 41. Tribby, C. P., H. M. Miller, Y. Song, and K. R. Smith, “Do Air Quality Alerts Reduce Traffic? An Analysis of Traffic Data from the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area.” Transport Policy 30 (2013): 173–185. 42. Zajchowski, C. A. B., and J. N. Rose, “Sensitive Leisure: Writing the Lived Experience of Air Pollution.” Leisure Sciences 40, no. 1–2 (2018): 1–14, https://www​.tandf​ online.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490400.2018.1448026; Zhang, H., and J. Smith, “Weather and Air Quality Drive the Winter Use of Utah’s Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons.” Sustainability 10, no. 10 (2018): 1–12. 43. Hogarth, R. M., Educating Intuition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001); Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher, Planning With Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy (New York: Routledge, 2010). 44. “Division of Air Quality 2013 Annual Report,” Utah Division of Air Quality, Last  modified 2014, https://digitallibrary.utah.gov/awweb/awarchive?item​=​69​ 193. 45. Zajchowski, C. A. B., M. T. J. Brownlee, M. Blackater, et al., “‘Can You Take Me Higher?’: Normative Thresholds for Air Quality in the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area.” Journal of Leisure Research, 50, no. 2 (2019): 1–24, DOI: 10.1080​ /00222216.2018.1560238. 46. Ibid. 47. Ibid. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. Ibid. 51. “The Central Wasatch Commission,” Central Wasatch Commission, Last modified 2018, https://cwc.utah.gov/; McKellar, K., “Trains, Tunnels Still ‘On the Table’ for Cottonwood Canyon Transportation, Officials Say,” KSL, September 18, 2018, https://www.ksl.com/article/46392518/trains-­tunnels-still-­on-the-­table​-for-­ cottonwood-canyon-­transportation-officials-­say; Davidson, L., “Changes Com-



Breathing in Utah’s Parks and Protected Areas

37

ing to Cottonwood Canyons as They Win Biggest Share of $100 Million Jackpot to Reduce Traffic Congestion,” The Salt Lake Tribune, May 14, 2018, https://www​ .sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/05/11/changes-­coming-to-­cottonwood​-canyons​ -as-they-­win-biggest-­share-of-­100-million-­jackpot-to-­reduce-traffic​-­congestion/. 52. Zajchowski, C. A. B., M. T. J. Brownlee, et al., “‘Can You Take Me Higher?’: Normative Thresholds for Air Quality in the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area.” Journal of Leisure Research, 50, no. 2 (2019): 1–24, DOI: 10.1080/00222216.2018.1560238. 53. Ibid. 54. Dustin, D. L., and L. McAvoy, “Hardining’ National Parks.” Environmental Ethics 2, no.1 (1980): 39–44; O’Donoghue,A. J., “Chevron’s S.L. Refinery Will Produce Low-­sulfur Fuel in 2019,” Deseret News, April 18, 2017, http://www.deseretnews​ .com​/article/865678115/Chevrons-­SL-refinery-­will-produce-­low-sulfur-­f uel​-in​ -2019.html. 55. “A Snapshot of 2050: An Analysis of Projected Population Change in Utah,” Utah Foundation, Last modified April 15, 2014, http://www.utahfoundation.org​ /­reports/snapshot-­2050-analysis-­projected-population-­change-utah/. 56. Repanshek, K., “Record Visitation Strained Some National Parks This Year, Creating Concern Over What 2016 Might Bring,” National Parks Conservation Association, Last modified December 16, 2015, https://www.nationalparks​­traveler​ .org/2015/12/record-­v isitation-strained-­s ome-national-­parks-year-­creating​ -concern-­over-what-­2016-might. 57. Manning, R. E., Parks and Carrying Capacity: Commons Without Tragedy (Washington: Island Press, 2007). 58. Repanshek, K., “Record Visitation Strained Some National Parks This Year, Creating Concern Over What 2016 Might Bring,” National Parks Conservation Association, Last modified December 16, 2015, https://www.nationalparks­traveler​ .org/2015/12/record-­v isitation-strained-­s ome-national-­parks-year-­creating​ -­concern​-­over-what-­2016-might. 59. Pauly, D., “Anecdotes and the Shifting Baseline Syndrome of Fisheries.” Trends in Ecology & Evolutions 10, no. 10 (1995): 430; Gladstone, W., B. Curley, and M. R. Shokri, “Environmental Impacts of Tourism in the Gulf and the Red Sea,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 72, no. 2 (2013): 375–388. 60. Williams, T. T., The Hour of Land: A Personal Topography of America’s National Parks (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016). 61. Abbey, E., Desert Solitaire (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1988). 62. “EPA Revisits Utah’s Regional Haze Plan for Better Air Quality,” Fox 13, July 18, 2017, https://fox13now.com/2017/07/18/in-­salt-lake-­city-epa-­chief-reopens​ -­obama​-era-­ruling-on-­utahs-regional-­haze-plan/; Herndon, R., “Utah Politicians Move to Repeal EPA’s Regional Haze Rule,” Moab Sun News, March 16, 2017, http://www.moabsunnews.com/news/article_2e414e9e-­0a5b-11e7-­ab43-db09​11​ 26​16​10.html. 63. “Traffic Congestion Management Plan,” National Park Service, Last modified December 12, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/arch/getinvolved/tcmp.htm.

2 What’s in the Inversion? Particulate Matter Pollution in Northern Utah KERRY E. KELLY

Anyone who has spent a winter in northern Utah’s metropolitan areas or perhaps even a few days as a visitor will encounter periods where something doesn’t seem right with the air. It smells dirty. It burns the eyes and throat. Pollution would seem to be the culprit. What is the source of this pollution? What is in the air we are breathing? This chapter seeks to provide answers to these questions. Temperature Inversions/Persistent Cold Air Pools

Winters along Utah’s Wasatch Front and other nearby valleys are punctuated by “persistent temperature inversions” that can last days or even weeks.1 These inversions occur when normal atmospheric conditions invert, trapping a layer of cold air under a layer of warm air. The warm layer acts like a lid, trapping emissions from vehicles, homes, businesses, and industrial processes in the cold air near the valley floor. The pollution trapped in the valley is produced by direct particle emissions as well as particle precursors that react in the cold layer of air to form “secondary” PM2.5. Inversions are common in the winter months (November through February).2 Inversions are characterized by low temperatures (typically below 32°F), low wind speeds, high relative humidity (greater than 50 percent), and stable atmospheric conditions. During a typical winter, the Wasatch Front exceeds the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQs) on 18 days, and these exceedances are four times more common 38



What’s in the Inversion?

39

when the valley is snow covered. During an extreme winter inversion in 2004, 24–hour PM2.5 concentrations reached 132.5 μg/m3 in the Cache Valley. Daily averages are typically within the range of 50–70 μg/m3.3 These periodic inversions, accompanied by high levels of particulate matter (PM), create significant health and quality-­of-life consequences for the region’s citizens that result in increased incidences of asthma, juvenile arthritis, and pre-­term birth and mortality.4,5 (For a detailed exploration of the health impacts of air pollution, see chapter four. For a discussion of the economic and quality-­of-life impacts, see chapter six.) In 2019, the American Lung Association gave northern Utah’s Salt Lake County a grade of “F” for short-­term levels of PM2.5 and for ozone.6 Recent surveys report that poor air quality ranks as the number one detractor to quality of life among Utah residents and improving air quality is a top priority, just behind improving public education.7 What is Particulate Pollution?

Particulate matter pollution is a complex mixture of airborne solid par­ ticles and liquid droplets. It includes components, such as nitrates, sulfates, organic material, metals, and dust. The size of a particle is directly linked to its potential for causing adverse health effects (see chapter four). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates two size ranges of PM through its NAAQS: • PM2.5 is known as fine particulate matter and is 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. PM2.5 can be directly emitted from many sources, including automobiles or forest fires. It can also form when gases emitted from automobiles, industry, and consumer products react in the air. The EPA has a 24–hour standard for PM2.5 of 35 µg/m3. • PM10 is known as coarse particulate matter and is ten micrometers in diameter or smaller. PM10 includes PM2.5 as well as PM from entrained road dust, soil, and dusty industries, such as gravel-­pit operations. The EPA has a 24–hour standard for PM10 of 150 µg/m3. Pollution Sources

Atmospheric conditions, snow cover, and solar radiation dictate the frequency, intensity, and duration of temperature inversions. The pollution levels that build under the inversion are a result of the local sources of

40

Chapter 2

FIGURE 2.1. Average composition of PM2.5 during winter inversions (2010–2011) along the Wasatch Front. The Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) collected PM2.5 samples every other day in January and February 2010 and 2011. This figure represents the average composition on those inversion days. Data from DAQ, Utah State Implementation Plan. Salt Lake City, UT, 2014.

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Figure 2.1 shows the typical composition of PM2.5 during an inversion along the Wasatch Front. Most of the PM2.5 does not come directly from tailpipe or smokestack sources, but rather is formed in the atmosphere from a set of precursors through a photochemical process, which is accentuated by winter inversion conditions. (For further reading on the atmospheric chemistry of wintertime inversions, see chapter three.) The important precursors to PM2.5 along the Wasatch Front and in the Cache Valley are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and ammonia (NH3). These precursors react to form the following secondary particulates: ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3), ammonium sulfate ((NH4)2SO4), and ammonium chloride (NH4Cl). In total, these secondary particulates account for 60–80 percent of PM2.5 during inversions.8 The sources of the PM2.5 precursors are discussed in the section on Pol-



What’s in the Inversion?

41

lution Sources in this chapter. In general, the source of precursors includes combustion emissions, paints and coatings, consumer products, and emissions from industrial and natural sources. Ammonium chloride is an unusual component of PM2.5. The source of chlorine is not clear, but it could come from the Great Salt Lake and industry, like U.S. Magnesium LLC, or road salting. Vehicle emissions and wood combustion/cooking are the largest primary source of PM2.5 in the winter. The methods used to measure the main components in the PM2.5 ­samples do not fully account for the total mass when summed together, resulting in 11 percent missing mass. However, the percentage of the known PM2.5 mass is typically assumed to provide a good representation of the PM2.5 composition. Understanding the formation of secondary particulate matter under winter inversion conditions is critical to reduce PM2.5 levels effectively. When considering emission reduction strategies, it is important to understand that reducing one pound of indirect PM2.5 emissions will not result in a corresponding one-­pound reduction in the burden of PM2.5 emissions to the airshed. The offset between the reduction in the PM2.5 precursors and PM2.5 burden is due to the non-­linearity in photochemical reactions that occur in the atmosphere. Further complicating matters, individual VOC compounds have different photochemical activities. Consequently, reducing some VOC species will be more effective in reducing PM2.5 than reducing others. For example, ethylene is approximately 10 times more photochemically reactive than propane. So, reducing ethylene would be more effective for reducing PM2.5 formation than reducing propane. These photochemical reactions are also important for summer ozone/smog and PM2.5 formation. The reactions leading to winter PM2.5 formation remain poorly understood, partly due to a lack of observations. However, ongoing studies aim to develop a better understanding of winter PM2.5 chemistry here in Utah and elsewhere, as the Wasatch Front is far from the only location that experiences inversions and associated high PM2.5 levels. Due to similar topographies and weather patterns, California’s San Joaquin Valley, Beijing, Mexico City, and Tehran also experience inversions with accompanied high levels of PM2.5.9 These regions present unique challenges when attempting to understand, predict, and improve air quality, but they may also offer insights into Utah’s challenges.

42

Chapter 2

Pollution Distribution and Exposure

Pollution levels, even PM2.5 levels during an inversion, are not spatially uniform. Although the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has a handful of high-­quality, well-­calibrated instruments to meet federal monitoring requirements, limited measurements may not represent pollution gradients within a city.10 Limited studies along the Wasatch Front suggest that PM2.5 levels decrease slightly with elevation and decrease as one moves away from the urban center of Salt Lake City.11 Exposure varies as well. Because individuals spend much of their time indoors, especially during the winter, ambient measurements of outdoor PM2.5 may not reflect individual levels of exposure.12 Indoor environments often have higher levels of PM2.5 than outdoor environments.13 But during winter inversions, indoor levels of PM2.5 are generally lower than outdoor levels, and consequently individuals can limit their PM2.5 exposure by reducing time spent outdoors and either exercising indoors or at elevations above the inversion ceiling (see chapter one).14 Regulatory Status

The EPA has two PM2.5 standards: a 24–hour standard of 35 μg/m3 and an annual standard of 12 μg/m3. Utah meets the annual standard in all areas of the state. Salt Lake and Davis counties and parts of Utah, Weber, Box Elder, and Tooele counties exceed the 24–hour standard during winter inversions.15 As a result, in 2017, the EPA designated two “serious” non­ attainment areas: Provo and Salt Lake, including Davis and Weber counties and portions of Tooele and Box Elder counties and one moderate area: Cache.16 The EPA also designated Salt Lake, Utah, and portions of Weber county as moderate nonattainment areas for PM10.17 Although these areas exceeded the PM10 NAAQS in the 1990s, they have remained below the standards, and the Utah DAQ is working with the EPA to re-­designate these areas as PM10 maintenance areas. To address the PM2.5 challenge, it is critical to understand what the types of pollution are and where they originate from. The sources are typically determined by two complementary methods: an emissions inventory and a source-­attribution study, which will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter.



What’s in the Inversion?

43

Emissions Inventory

An emissions inventory is an accounting strategy to estimate the daily and/or annual releases of pollutants into the atmosphere for all emission sources in a geographical region. Emission source categories include: • On-­road mobile sources: anything with wheels that operates on public roads, including automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, and buses. • Off-­road mobile sources: equipment that can be moved from one location to another but does not operate on public roads, such as backhoes, tractors, lawnmowers, aircraft, trains, motorboats, and all-­terrain v­ ehicles. • Point sources: stationary industrial sources like refineries, power plants, and factories. Generally, point sources emit at least 100 tons per year of any criteria pollutants monitored by the EPA. The pollutants include: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen ­dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and PM. However, this 100-­ton-­per-­year threshold for point sources can be lowered under certain circumstances, such as when states are developing plans to address a serious nonattainment designation. In this case, the threshold is 70 tons per year. • Area sources: a broad category of sources including smaller industrial facilities, building heating, consumer products, and residential wood burning that are inventoried by source type. The DAQ, the EPA, and other organizations use emissions inventories to inform policy decisions, as inputs for air-­quality models, and to track the effects of policy decisions. The DAQ performed a detailed emissions inventory for their State Implementation Plan (SIP) in 2014 and updated it for their 2018 SIP.18 The inventory revealed that on-­road mobile sources were the greatest contributor to direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions (51 percent) in the Salt Lake County nonattainment area, followed by area sources (27 percent), point sources (12 percent), and non-­road mobile sources (10 percent) (see Figure 2.2).19 In the Logan (Cache Valley) maintenance area, area sources provided the largest contribution, while point sources were less significant.20 The largest contributors in the Provo nonattainment area were mobile and area sources compared to Salt Lake County, while non-­road

Chapter 2

44

Point 3%

Point 2%

Nonroad 10%

Nonroad 8%

Nonroad 13%

Point 12%

Mobile 45%

Mobile 51% Area 27%

Salt Lake Salt Lake

Area 40%

Cache Cache

Mobile 55%

Area 34%

Provo Provo

FIGURE 2.2. 2014 winter-average source contributions from DAQ emission inventories in Salt Lake, Cache, and Provo non-attainment areas. (Data from DAQ, Utah State Implementation Plan, Salt Lake City, UT, 2014.)

mobile and point were less significant.21 It is important to note that Figure 2.2 represents average winter emissions for the region overall. At the local level and over shorter periods, these relative contributions may differ significantly. For instance, communities in close proximity to a gravel pit or where individuals burn wood may find these sources be the biggest contributors to ground-level PM. Figure 2.3 shows how PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions are projected to change between 2010 and 2019. In particular, total PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions are projected to decrease by 100 ton/day between 2010 and 2019.22 Mobile sources are the largest contributor to these reductions, which is in part due to new vehicles that must meet increasingly stringent emission standards. The oldest and most polluting vehicles are aging out of the fleet and being replaced by cleaner-technology vehicles. Non-road vehicle emissions also show reductions between 2010 and 2019 as a result of increasingly stringent emission requirements. The EPA regulates mobile emission standards at the national level. (For further reading on this topic, see chapter seven.) Area-source emissions also are on the decline as a result of numerous rules passed as part of the 2014 and 2018 SIPs, which regulate everything from residential wood burning to the composition of paints and coatings and hairspray. Point-source emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors have increased between 2010 and 2019.23 The Reasonably Available Control Technology

What’s in the Inversion?

45

10 9 8

PM2.5 (on/day)

200

PM2.5 and precursors (ton/day)

180 160 140

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

120

0

100

Mobile

Area 2010

Nonroad 2014

Point

2019

80 60 40 20 0

Mobile

Area 2010

Nonroad 2014

Point

2019

FIGURE 2.3. Projected change in PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 2010–201. Data

includes total PM2.5 and precursor emissions and direct PM2.5 emissions (inset) for a typical winter workday in the Salt Lake County nonattainment area. Total PM2.5 and precursor emissions include the sum of NOx, VOC, SO2, NH3, and primary PM2.5. (Data from DAQ, Utah State Implementation Plan, Salt Lake City, UT, 2014.)

(RACT) requirements put into effect as part of the SIPs mitigated the rate of increase. RACT is the lowest emission limit that a particular source can achieve through the application of a control technology that is reasonably available and is technologically and economically feasible. For example, Utah’s 2014 PM2.5 SIP contained RACT requirement for refineries to install flare-gas recovery systems to reduce hydrocarbon flaring. Looking further into the future, as population along the Wasatch Front increases by 1.5 million over the next 30 years, contributions from area sources are anticipated to increase.24 This source of pollution is generally proportional to population, and vehicle miles traveled are expected to increase over the same period. Depending on vehicle emission technology, mobile-source contributions to PM levels may also increase as a result.25

46

Chapter 2

Consequently, it is difficult to predict whether mobile-­source contributions will continue to decrease beyond 2019. Scientists and regulators have high confidence in the quality of some of the emissions data upon which decisions are based. Point sources, such as power plants, refineries and smelters, have continuous emission monitors on their stacks, and the companies regularly report actual emissions. In addition, mobile-­source emissions are based on fuel consumption, actual information on the vehicle fleet, and sophisticated modeling of emissions. (For more on this topic, see chapter seven.) Other sources of emissions are more uncertain. Some industries, such as refineries, have miles of pipelines, hundreds of valves and flanges, and numerous tanks. These pieces of equipment can release VOCs, a PM2.5 precursor. Although these industries have leak-­detection and repair programs, the quantity of these fugitive emissions are much less certain than those reported from continuous monitoring devices. (For more on this topic, see chapter three.) Furthermore, many other emission estimates, such as contributions from wood burning, dry cleaning, printing and graphics, and consumer products, are based on population size and emission factors. These emission factors are not generally Utah specific. Using these emission factors can lead to emission estimates of variable quality. Wood burning, a significant source of pollution, has garnered increased attention in recent years and is discussed in more detail in the following sections. In the past few years, the EPA has updated its guidance on estimating emissions from wood burning. Currently, the DAQ’s inventory estimates that wood burning contributes 17 percent of direct PM2.5 emissions in the Salt Lake non-­attainment area on a typical winter day.26 It is interesting to compare the differences between the public’s perception of emission sources and the DAQ’s emission inventory. In 2014, the Utah Foundation surveyed individuals about their perceptions regarding pollution sources. Figure 2.4 compares their responses to the Utah DAQ’s 2014 emission inventory.27 This figure illustrates several interesting points. The public believes that point sources are a greater contributor to PM2.5 pollution than the state inventory. The public also underestimates the contribution of area and mobile sources. Three reasons for this may exist. First, the point sources have stacks, making them highly visible contributors to pollution. Second, it may be easier to imagine that some large,



What’s in the Inversion? Perceived

Percent Contribution

60

Inventory

58

45

44

39 30

27

15

0

47

15 Point

17 Area

Mobile

FIGURE 2.4. Public perception of pollution sources vs. actual pollution sources. This is a comparison of DAQ emissions inventory from the 2014 SIP and the Utah Foundation’s survey of public perception of emission sources. Note that in this figure mobile sources include on-­road and off-­road sources.

faceless organization needs to reduce their emissions rather than to imagine that individuals need to reduce their own driving emissions. Third, the public may have difficulty differentiating between point sources and area sources, which include light industry. Source-­attribution studies

One strategy to validate the state inventory is to perform a source-­ attribution study. These studies use the natural “fingerprint” from particle sources, which provide a natural complement to emissions inventories. For example, particles originating from a diesel engine tend to have large quantities of elemental carbon and traces of manganese and iron from the lubricants.28 Particles that originate from wood combustion tend to have large quantities of organic carbon and traces of potassium.29 Source-­ attribution studies use chemical analysis of PM collected on filters and statistical tools, such as the EPA’s positive matrix factorization (PMF), Unmix, or chemical mass balance, to estimate the sources of the par­ ticulate matter. In order to achieve good results, source attribution requires tens to hundreds of samples and experience in interpretation of the results.

48

Chapter 2

A few source attribution studies have been performed along the Wasatch Front.30 Studies in summer (2002) and winter (2010) identified three primary PM sources: mobile diesel and mobile gasoline, as well as secondary aerosols.31 The 2010 study also identified wood smoke and dust material as primary PM sources. These studies provide a good starting point to examine the sources of PM2.5 matter during the winter along the Wasatch Front. I partnered with other researchers to perform a source attribution study using publicly available PM2.5 composition data from the DAQ for May 2007 through May 2011 for Bountiful (227 samples), Lindon (227 samples), and Salt Lake City (429 samples).32 We used two different source-­attribution methods  — ​PMF and Unmix.33 Figure 2.5 shows the average results, which confirmed the large contributions of ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, and ammonium chloride (60–80 percent) to PM2.5 levels. Ammonium chloride is an unusual component of PM2.5, contributing 10–15 percent of PM2.5 on days when the 24–hour PM2.5 ambient concentration exceeded 30 μg/m3. As indicated previously, the source of the chlorine is unclear although it could come from the Great Salt Lake, U.S. Magnesium LLC, or road salting. The largest primary contributors to PM2.5 at the Hawthorne monitoring station (Salt Lake City) were wood-­burning emissions (12–18 percent of total PM2.5) and gasoline-­ fueled ­vehicles (7–15 percent of total PM2.5). These results generally agree with a recent study, which estimates wood burning contributed 18–22 percent (3.3 μg/m3) to PM2.5 in Lindon and Bountiful, respectively.34 Another recent DAQ source attribution study found that wood burning contributed 16.2 percent of total PM2.5 at the Hawthorne monitoring station (Salt Lake City) on average during the winter, with lower contributions on days when PM2.5 concentrations exceeded 35 μg/m3.35 This DAQ study is discussed in more detail in the next section. In general, the source-­attribution results confirm the state inventory with two exceptions. The source-­attribution studies suggest that (1) during the winter, wood burning and cooking contribute more than the state-­ inventory estimates, and (2) during the remainder of the year wind-­blown dust contributes more than the inventory estimates.36 The state inventory does not include wind-­blown dust from natural sources, so it is not surprising that the inventory underestimates levels of wind-­blown dust in this

Figure 2.5

What’s in the Inversion?

49

FIGURE 2.5. PM2.5 pollution source attribution study. This shows the average con-

tributions to PM2.5 concentrations at the Hawthorne monitoring station during the winter (2008–2011) when PM2.5 concentration exceeded 20 μg/m3. These results are the average of two source-attribution methods. (Data from Daher 2017.)

arid region. (For further discussion of the impacts of dust on air quality, see chapter three.) As with emissions inventories, source-attribution studies have weaknesses. Because these studies rely on PM samples from a limited number of locations, these locations may not be representative of PM contributions at the county or airshed level. For example, the Hawthorne monitoring station is located in a middle-income neighborhood with older homes that tend to have wood-burning devices, so it may be more affected by local wood burning than other locations. In addition, source-attribution methods like PMF and UNMIX identify factors that are predominantly, but not exclusively, related to one source. For example, a factor identified as predominantly ammonium nitrate aerosol likely forms from a combination of primary and secondary sources, including gasoline engines, diesel engines, and wood burning/cooking, even though these sources may also have separately identified factors. Hence, source attribution should be

50

Chapter 2

considered along with other information, such as an emissions inventory, when identifying the sources of PM pollution. What is clear is that source attribution identified a potentially important PM2.5 reduction strategy — ​ wood burning. Understanding the Impact of Wood Burning on PM2.5 Levels

As a result of the uncertainty surrounding wood burning emissions, public concern, and the difficulty in identifying other cost-­effective strategies to reduce contributions to PM levels, the DAQ and researchers have employed several strategies to obtain a better understanding of the contributions of burning wood to PM2.5 levels. These strategies include using a levoglucosan “fingerprint,” brown-­carbon measurements, and surveys. One fingerprint study used a common wood-­burning marker, levo­ glucosan, other PM species (when available), and PMF source attribution.37 This study collected over 100 24–hr samples during the winter of 2015 and 2016 in Salt Lake City (Hawthorne), the Cache Valley (Smithfield), North Provo, and Brigham City. Levoglucosan measurements require collection of PM on a filter, careful storage, and analysis by extraction followed by high-­performance anion exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection. The preliminary results from Salt Lake City (Hawthorne) suggest that wood burning contributes 16.2 percent to PM2.5 concentrations during the winter. The results also suggest that wood burning does occur during mandatory no-­burn conditions, as well as to a lesser extent on days when it is permitted.38 The levoglucosan analysis is labor intensive and expensive. Consequently, sampling can only be performed at limited locations over limited periods. However, it is generally a better indicator of fresh wood smoke than potassium or the inorganic signatures used in other source-­attribution studies.39 Students at the University of Utah Department of Chemical Engineering performed brown-­carbon measurements. The students were able to see and smell sites where residential wood burning was taking place, and these observations coincided with 25–200 percent increases in ground-­ level brown carbon and PM2.5 levels, indicating that an individual burning wood may substantially increase PM levels at nearby homes. Their results also found that wood burning, as indicated by brown carbon contributions, contributes more to PM2.5 on Fridays, Saturdays, and holidays com-



What’s in the Inversion? Delta C

1400

No burn

NY Eve

0.04

Sunday

0.035

Friday

Friday

1000

0.045

Saturday

Saturday

Saturday

1200

0.03

800

0.025 Christmas Eve

600

0.02

PM 2.5 (mg/m3)

Delta C (ng/m3)

PM 2.5

51

0.015

400

0.01 200

0.005

No burn

0

0

1/

1/

1/

1 6/

1 4/

6

6

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

6

1 /3

9 /2

7 /2

5 /2

3 /2

1 /2

9 /1

7 /1

1 2/

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

FIGURE 2.6. Contribution of brown carbon (wood burning) to PM2.5 levels

during winter 2016, Hawthorne monitoring station. Arrows denote no-­burn days. (Data from Daher 2017.)

pared to weekdays (see Figure 2.6). This result suggests that recreational wood burning is a more important contributor than need-­based burning and that wood burning is occurring during mandatory no–burn conditions. The measurements were collected with a 7–channel aethalometer during the winter of 2016. The aethalometer measures light adsorption at multiple wavelengths and can be used to estimate contributions from brown carbon, which is indicative of biomass burning.40 These findings, although pilot in nature, may have important implications for enforcement of wood burning restrictions and for the health of the community. Survey

For the SIPs and planning purposes, the DAQ estimates wood-­burning emissions using the EPA’s residential wood combustion tool, which consists of a spreadsheet listing emissions factors, such as the types of wood available in a region, the dryness of the wood, and the percent of

52

Chapter 2

homeowners expected to burn wood.41 This tool uses wood consumption and emission estimates based on averages from the U.S. Department of Agricultural surveys performed in the 1990s for various regions of the country. In an effort to better understand wood-­burning practices and consequently wood-­burning emissions, the DAQ commissioned a survey of residents of Cache, Box Elder, Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Utah counties (2,690 responses). They found that 0.9 percent of residents heat with wood compared to 88 percent with natural gas and 8.6 percent with electricity.42 Approximately one–third of respondents reported having a wood-­burning appliance (32 percent), while two–thirds did not (68 percent).43 For those with a wood-­burning appliance, 42 percent burned wood in these appliances in the previous 12 months. These devices are less prevalent in newer homes compared to older homes. The EPA has regional wood-­consumption estimates for the United States, and it is possible to compare these estimates to the recent DAQ survey for two categories: fireplaces and fireplace inserts/woodstoves. The DAQ’s estimates suggest nine percent higher wood-­consumption from fireplaces compared to the EPA’s tool for all wood-­burning appliances. Interestingly, all counties except Salt Lake County reported significantly lower consumption rates than the EPA’s tool, but this nine percent overall increase is dominated by the large population of Salt Lake County. For fireplace inserts, the survey suggests a 46 percent lower wood-­ consumption rate, and for woodstoves the survey suggests 41 percent lower wood-­consumption rate. There was insufficient data to differentiate between wood consumption in uncertified, EPA-­certified, and catalytic inserts/stoves.44 This survey was conducted during a mild winter in 2014. If it were performed during a colder winter, the results may have differed. In addition, survey participants, particularly in urban areas, may not understand the measurement of a cord of wood leading to inaccurate estimates of fuel consumption. Summary of wood-­burning contributions

Estimates of wood-­burning’s contributions to winter PM2.5 vary somewhat. One reason for this variation is that when PM2.5 concentrations are high, there are large percentages of ammonium sulfate, ammonium n ­ itrate,



What’s in the Inversion?

53

and ammonium chloride, which thereby reduce the percent contri­bution of wood burning. Furthermore, wood-­burning activity v­ aries with the day of the week and with temperature. Studies with limited samples can be more affected by these differences. Finally, some studies consider only direct wood-­smoke emissions, while other studies include contributions from direct and aged wood-­smoke. Regardless of the exact percent contribution, wood burning is still a significant contributor to winter PM2.5 levels, and it is occurring during mandatory no-­burn periods. Finally, the contributions from wood burning can vary dramatically within a neighborhood. An individual burning wood can cause substantial increases in PM levels for their neighbors. Policies to Reduce PM Levels

After the EPA designated areas along the Wasatch Front and in Cache County as nonattainment for PM2.5, in 2012 the DAQ initiated a multi-­year process to develop a SIP to reduce PM2.5 and PM2.5 ­precursor emissions and to meet the standard. Note that in the Logan PM2.5 non­attainment area 24–hour PM2.5 levels had declined for the 2015–17 period, and as of 2018 the Logan area was redesignated as a PM2.5 maintenance area. Through the SIP development process, the DAQ identified the sources of emissions through emission inventories, developed a model to mimic atmospheric conditions, and used this model to test potential emission-­ reduction strategies. The DAQ developed four: one in 2014 for the Cache Valley, one in 2014 and one in 2018 for Utah Valley, and one in 2014 and one in 2018 for the Salt Lake Valley.45 Under the 2014 SIPs, Salt Lake County sought to reduce direct PM2.5 emissions by 0.62 tons/day and decrease PM2.5 precursors by 25 tons/day between 2016 and 2020. The majority of these reductions resulted from improved engine technologies for on-­road and off-­road vehicles.46 These standards are governed by the EPA, and as time progresses, cleaner vehicles work their way through the fleet. Additional reductions are seen in area sources due to the rules developed as part of the SIPs. These include regulation of the formulation of paints, coatings, and consumer products, as well as regulation of printing, graphics, and parts-­cleaning activities. Since the SIP was adopted, the state continues to seek strategies, such as phasing in ultra-­low-NOx water heaters, to reduce contributors to PM2.5

54

Chapter 2

formation.47 The SIPs for the Utah and Cache valleys should also lead to substantial emission reductions. Under these same SIPs, point sources of pollution are required to implement Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT). This requirement may necessitate refineries to institute flare-­gas recovery systems and industries to use low-­NOx burners. On May 10, 2017, the EPA raised the classification of the Salt Lake City and Provo nonattainment areas to “serious” from “moderate” for PM2.5.48 As a result, Utah recently completed a new SIP. This SIP required point sources to implement Best Available Control Technologies (BACT). In addition, industries that were not historically considered as a major source will now be considered in this BACT analysis. In the 2014 SIPs, sources that emit 100 tons per year of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors were required to implement RACT. In the serious non-­attainment SIP, sources that emit 70 tons per year or more of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors were required to implement BACT.49 In addition to these actions, a number of nonprofit organizations, such as Breathe Utah, a local nonprofit organization, and the Utah Clean Air Partnership (UCAIR), have been promoting policies and behavior changes to reduce PM2.5 burdens (see chapter eight). These changes include reducing cold-­starts, which are a significant contributor to mobile-­ source emissions, encouraging the use of carpools and mass transit, turning down thermostats in homes and businesses, keeping vehicles well maintained, retrofitting school buses with diesel particulate traps, and avoiding wood burning during poor air-­quality events. Policies to Reduce Wood-­burning Emissions

Identifying strategies to reduce PM2.5 concentrations is a challenge for the Wasatch Front and Cache Valley. While the point sources are h ­ eavily regulated, mobile sources are regulated at the federal level, and the state has already issued numerous rules addressing area sources under the SIPs. At this point, identifying strategies that will reduce PM2.5 burdens by even one percent are difficult to find. Although the exact contribution of wood burning to PM2.5 levels along the Wasatch Front remains somewhat uncertain, even the lowest estimates of wood-­burning’s contributions (5.7 percent) are at least similar to the contributions from all of the oil refineries in the Salt Lake nonattainment area (3–4 percent).50 At the high



What’s in the Inversion?

55

range, 16.6–22 percent, wood burning would appear to be a significant contributor to air pollution, and thus one worthy of continued education and enforcement.51 In addition, burning wood generates 150 to 3000 times more PM2.5 per unit of heat compared to heating with natural gas, with the higher estimate for fireplaces.52 During startup and shutdown, wood-­burning devices have even higher emissions relative to natural-­gas combustion. Therefore, a limited number of homes burning wood can disproportionately impair air quality. Consequently, the DAQ and community organizations have focused energy on reducing wood burning along the Wasatch Front and Cache Valley on high PM days. Several common-­sense strategies have been considered, including proactively calling no-­burn conditions, only permitting the sale of EPA-­ certified wood stoves in the non-­attainment areas, educating the public on the relationship between winter solid-­fuel burning and health, and more vigorous enforcement. Solid-­f uel burning restrictions cover wood burning, coal burning, and any other solid fuel used for comfort heating. Historically, the DAQ called a mandatory no-­burn condition when PM2.5 levels exceeded the NAAQS. Under the 2014 PM2.5 SIPs, the DAQ has the ability to call mandatory no-­burn conditions when PM levels are predicted to exceed the NAAQS.53 Currently, the DAQ issues a “voluntary” no-­burn condition if PM2.5 levels exceed 12 but not 25 μg/m3 over a three–day period. If the concentra­ tions rises over 25 μg/m3, DAQ issues a “mandatory” no-­burn condition, which prohibits the burning of solid-­f uel in residences and businesses for comfort heating. Residences that have a solid-­f uel burning device as the sole source of heat are allowed to burn during no-­burn conditions. The DAQ also began working with local media outlets and the Utah Department of Transportation to publicize the three–day forecast for air quality and burn conditions. Consequently, these conditions are now publicized widely in the media and placed on electronic billboards along the freeway. UCAIR began running public-­service announcements to encourage Utahns to follow burning rules and to discourage winter, residential wood burning. (For further reading on the role of nonprofits and community engagement see chapter eight.) By raising attention to this cause, the DAQ received additional complaints about wood burning on no-­burn days. In 2012–2013, DAQ received 71 complaints. One year later, the number

56

Chapter 2

of complaints increased to 298. Between 2014 to 2017, complaints have ranged from 82 to 124 per year. The Salt Lake County Health Department addresses wood-­burning complaints. In the fall of 2014, Governor Gary Herbert asked the Air Quality Board to propose for public comment a season-­long ban on solid-­f uel burning for the Wasatch Front non-­attainment areas. In spite of some reservations, the board proposed this rule and held seven hearings. The proposal was spectacularly unpopular. The public hearings were attended by hundreds of individuals with the overwhelming majority opposed to the burning ban. The board members received over 5,000 email messages in the form of a petition asking them to withdraw the proposal. The public’s concerns included economic hardship, the need for backup heat in case of an emergency, and government overreach. In addition, many individuals said that they enjoyed the ambiance of a fire and the smell, while others cited Utah’s pioneer tradition. Economic hardship is a real concern that was not addressed in the proposed ban. In fact, the ban was proposed in some areas that did not have natural gas infrastructure, and propane can be significantly more expensive than natural gas. Furthermore, limited pilot studies suggest that solid fuel is more common in older neighborhoods with middle or lower incomes, though these economically based arguments concerns could be addressed with programs offering financial assistance. In fact, in August of 2018, the DAQ began offering up to $3800 to eligible residents to exchange their wood-­burning appliances for a natural gas or propane-­f ueled device. In July 2019 a new program, funded by the state legislature will take effect.54 Another area of opposition came from the local home and hearth trade organization, which feared a decline in sales of their wood-­burning products. It is hard to overstate how forcefully this group fought the proposed solid-­f uel burning ban. The group coordinated a petition, brought solid-­f uel-burning devices to the hearings, suggested language for letters to legislators and members of the Air Quality Board, and developed an informational website. Their website, however, lacked critical information and neglected to show that natural gas emits 1/150th to 1/3,000th of the PM2.5 per unit of heat compared to heating with a wood-­burning device.55 As a result of the trade group’s lobbying efforts, in February of 2015, the state withdrew the proposal for a season-­long ban on solid-­f uel burning.



What’s in the Inversion?

57

The legislature then attempted to forbid the Air Quality Board from regulating residential solid-­f uel burning, although this did not pass. The legislature did, however, prevent the Air Quality Board from imposing a total ban on solid-­f uel burning, but provided funding for the DAQ to evaluate a two–stage no-­burn period and replaced 35 sole-­source wood heaters with natural gas heating.56 Local government and nonprofit efforts to address wood burning may be more successful than the ill-­fated proposed solid-­fuel-burning ban. The Salt Lake County Health Department, for example, assists the DAQ in enforcing no-­burn periods and has passed an ordinance that whenever the state declares a voluntary no-­burn period in Salt Lake County, the county has a mandatory no-­burn period.57 Particulate Matter from Wildfires and Wind-­blown Dust

Although Utah’s Wasatch Front and Cache Valley experience challenges with high levels of PM2.5 during the winter associated with local pollution sources, these areas can also experience high levels of PM associated with wildfires and windblown dust events. Wildfires directly emit substantial amounts of particles and precursors that result in PM formation.58 Wildfires occur every year, typically in summer and fall in the Intermountain West. In recent years, the number and size of the fires have also been increasing.59 In addition, wildfires can cause increased PM levels for days or weeks across a broad multi-­state area. High-­wind events and the associated wind-­blown dust generate coarse particulate matter (PM10). These events are the primary causes of the continued classification of Salt Lake and Provo as PM10 nonattainment areas. The flux of coarse PM is brought to the region by high winds, typically from the south, that transport dust from surfaces with limited vegetation, such as the Sevier Dry Lake, Tule Dry Lake, the Great Salt Lake Desert, and Milford Flat, an area burned by Utah’s largest wildfire in 2007.60 The University of Utah Department of Atmospheric Sciences is currently studying the contribution of dust from the exposed portions of the Great Salt Lake lakebed. The mountain valley topography in this region tends to funnel dust-­bearing winds toward the Wasatch Front. Since 1930 the Wasatch Front experienced an average of 4.7 dust events per year. These events produced elevated PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. Coarse PM concentrations produced by dust events exceed the NAAQS on approximately 0.9 day per year.61

58

Chapter 2

The DAQ is working with the EPA to declare episodes where coarse PM exceeds the NAAQS that are associated with dust events and/or wildfires as exceptional events. This classification is important because exceptional events are not included in the evaluation of NAAQS attainment. Residents of the region can still experience health impacts from elevated levels of PM, regardless of whether the events qualify as an exceptional event. Furthermore, the changing climate may result in increased droughts, which in turn will result in enhanced wildfire activity and less vegetation covering desert soils, both of which can aggravate episodes of elevated coarse PM.62 Are PM2.5 Levels Getting Better or Worse?

The DAQ’s inventory and projections suggest that emissions leading to PM2.5 formation will decrease between 2010 and 2019, as previously detailed in Figure 2.3. However, PM2.5 levels are the result of a combination of meteorological conditions, topography, chemistry, and emissions. Determining whether air quality is improving as a result of increasingly stringent regulations is difficult because of the large meteorologically driven winter-­to-winter variations in the number of PM2.5 exceedances. The DAQ has been tracking the fraction of days that exceed the PM2.5 NAAQs and the fraction of days with good air quality, defined as 24–hour PM2.5 concentration of less than 12.5 μg/m3 (Figure 2.7). The DAQ data indicate that good air-­quality days are becoming more frequent, while days with an exceedance are decreasing, a finding reinforced by a recent study examining 40 years of air quality and meteorological data from the Wasatch Front.63 Both the DAQ data and the 40–year study suggest that PM2.5 pollution is improving modestly. These findings are good news. But as the health impacts of poor air quality — ​even at lower levels — ​­become better known, the state needs to continue to take the lead in making further improvements in air quality. How Does the Wasatch Front’s Air-­quality Future Look?

Attaining and maintaining air quality that meets the NAAQS will likely remain a challenge in this region because of population growth and climate change. The population of the Wasatch Front is expected to increase by 1.5 million over the next 30 years.64 (For a further discussion of Utah



What’s in the Inversion?

59

FIGURE 2.7. Percentage of days that exceed the PM2.5 24–hour NAAQS, and percentage of days that 24–hour PM2.5 concentrations are below 12.5 μg/m3. A   24-­hour PM2.5 concentration below 12.5 μg/m3 was classified as a “good day.” (Data from DAQ.)

demographic trends and their impacts, see chapter nine.) As a result, the demand for heating, transportation, and energy will increase, and in turn, energy consumption will generally lead to increased emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. The potential effects of climate change on air quality in this region are likely significant. As discussed in the previous section, warmer temperatures and increased drought may lead to increased frequency and severity of wildfires and increased concentration of wind-­blown dust. As the temperature rises, ozone concentrations are also expected to rise (see chapter ten for a discussion). The effect of climate change on winter inversions and PM2.5 levels is difficult to predict. Climate change is expected to cause more stagnant atmospheric conditions, which would lead to longer inversion periods.65 However, warmer temperatures and less snow on the ground will reduce the intensity of inversions and likely reduce the PM2.5 levels. In spite of these uncertainties, individuals, communities, and policy makers must continue to identify and adopt effective strategies to meet the NAAQS and maintain ambient levels of PM2.5. The strategies will likely

60

Chapter 2

include improved planning, mass transit, energy efficiency, control of industrial sources, and technology improvements (see chapter seven and chapter nine). In addition, ongoing and future research can help ensure that policy makers are selecting the most effective strategies to reduce the contributors to poor air quality. Acknowldgement Thanks to the DAQ staff — ​Dr. Nancy Daher, Joel Karmazyn, Brock LeBaron, and David McNeil — ​for their thoughtful review of the chapter.

Notes 1. Whiteman, C. D., S. W. Hoch, J. D. Horel, et al., “Relationship Between Particu-

late Air Pollution and Meteorological Variables in Utah’s Salt Lake Valley.” Atmospheric Environment 94, (2014): 742–753, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.012. 2. Ibid. 3. Malek, E., T. Davis, R. S. Martin, et al., “Meteorological and Environmental Aspects of One of the Worst National Air Pollution Episodes (January 2004) in Logan, Cache Valley, Utah, USA.” Atmospheric Research 79, no. 2 (2006): 108– 122, doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2005.05.003. 4. Beard, J. D., C. Beck, R. Graham, et al., “Winter Temperature Inversions and Emergency Department Visits for Asthma in Salt Lake County, Utah, 2003–​ 2008.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120, no. 10 (2012): 1385–1390, doi:10​ .1289/ehp.1104349; Zeft, A. S., S. Prahalad, S. Lefevre, et al., “Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 27, no. 5 (2009): 877–884; Hackmann, D., and E. Sjoberg, “Ambient Air Pollution and Pregnancy Outcomes — ​A Study of Functional Form and Policy.” Air Quality, Atmosphere, & Health 10, no. 2 (2016): 1–9. 5. Pope, C. A., R. T. Burnett, M. J. Thun, et al., “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-­term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 9 (2002): 1132–1141. 6. “State of the Air 2019,” American Lung Association, Last modified 2019, https://​www.lung.org/our-­initiatives/healthy-­air/sota/city-­rankings/states/utah​ /salt​-l­ ake.html. 7. “Envision Utah Values Study Results,” Envision Utah, Last modified 2014, https:// www.envisionutah.org/tools/values-­studies; Lee, J., “Survey: Utahns Most Concerned About Education, Air Quality,” Deseret News, February 8, 2014, https:// www.deseretnews.com/article/865595994/Survey-­Utahns-most​-­concerned​ -about-­education-air-­quality.html. 8. Kelly, K. E., R. Kotchenruther, R. Kuprov, et al., “Receptor Model Source Attributions for Utah’s Salt Lake City Airshed and the Impacts of Wintertime Secondary Ammonium Nitrate and Ammonium Chloride Aerosol.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 63, no. 5 (2013): 575–590.



What’s in the Inversion?

61

9. Afsarmanesh, N., “Smog Blog: World Class Pollution Brings Tehran to a Halt.”

Scientific American, March 2, 2013, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observa​ tions​/smog-­blog-world-­class-pollution-­brings-tehran-­to-a-­halt/; Molina, L.  T., C. E. Kolb, B. de Foy, et  al., “Air Quality in North America’s Most Populous City: An Overview of MCMA–2003 Campaign.” Atmospheric Chemistry and ­Physics 7, no. 1 (2017): 3113–3177, doi:10.5194/acpd-­7-3113–2007; Watson, J. G., and J. C. Chow, “A Wintertime PM2.5 Episode at the Fresno, CA, Supersite.” Atmospheric Environment 36, no. 3 (2002): 465–475, doi:10.1016/S1352-­2310(01)​003​ 09-­0; Zhang, Y. L., and F. Cao, “Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) in China at a City Level.” Science Reports 5, (2015): 14884, doi:10.1038/srep14884. 10. Bell, M. L., K. Ebisu, and R. D. Peng, “Community-­level Spatial Heterogeneity of Chemical Constituent Levels of Fine Particulates and Implications for Epidemiological Research.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 21, no. 4 (2011): 372–384. 11. Silcox, G. D., K. E. Kelly, E. T. Crosmanet, et al., “Wintertime PM2.5 Concentrations During Persistent, Multi-­Day Cold-­Air Pools in a Mountain Valley.” Atmospheric Environment 46, (2012): 17–24, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.10.041; TRAX, “Meteorological and Air Quality Data,” Last modified 2019, http://meso1​ .chpc.utah.edu/mesotrax/. 12. “Report on the Environment: Indoor Air Quality,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last Modified July 16, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/report-­environment​ /­indoor-­air-quality. 13. Ibid. 14. Laumbach, R., Q. Meng, and H. Kipen, “What Can Individuals Do To Reduce Personal Health Risks From Air Pollution?” Journal of Thoracic Disease 7, no. 1 (2015): 96–107, https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/tepollutants/p/particulate-­matter​ /­pm25/serious-­area-state-­implementation-plans/index.htm. 15. “Serious Area PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Development,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/pollutants/p​ /­particulate-­matter/pm25/serious-­area-state-­implementation-plans/index.htm. 16. Penrod, E., “EPA Labels Utah Air Quality Problems ‘Serious’,” The Salt Lake Tribune, May 3, 2017, https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5240322&itype​ =CMSID; “PM2.5 Moderate Area State Implementation Plans SIP 2009-­2014,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Accessed May 7, 2019, https://deq​ .utah.gov/legacy/pollutants/p/particulate-­matter/pm25/moderate-­area-state​ -­implementation-plans.htm. 17. “Green Book: Utah Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified March 31, 2019, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ut.html. 18. “Utah State Implementation Plan: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter, Serious Area PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City, UT Nonattainment Area,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Division of Air Quality, Last modified September 5, 2018, https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air​ -­quality/pm25-­serious-sip/DAQ-­2018-013088.pdf.

62

Chapter 2

19. “Salt Lake Area Source BACM Analysis DRAFT,” Utah Department of Environ-

mental Quality: Air Quality, Last modified August 21, 2017, https://documents​ .deq.utah.gov/air-­quality/pm25-­serious-sip/DAQ-­2017-011687.pdf. 20. “PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 2018 State of the Environment Report (AQ),” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Air Quality, Last modified January 8, 2019, https://deq.utah.gov/communication/state-­of-the-­environment​ -report/pm2-­5-state-­implementation-plans-­sips-2018-­state-of-­the-environment​ -­report-aq; “Logan Area Source BACM Analysis DRAFT,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Air Quality, Last modified August 21, 2017, https://docu​ ments.deq.utah.gov/air-­quality/pm25-­serious-sip/DAQ-­2017-011685.pdf. 21. “Provo Area Source BACM Analysis DRAFT,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Air Quality, Last modified August 21, 2017, https://documents.deq​ .utah.gov/air-­quality/pm25-­serious-sip/DAQ-­2017-011686.pdf. 22. “Utah State Implementation Plan: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter, Serious Area PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City, UT Nonattainment Area,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Division of Air Quality, Last modified September 5, 2018, https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air​ -­quality/pm25-­serious-sip/DAQ-­2018-013088.pdf. 23. Ibid. 24. Baker, S., “Planning for Growth on the Wasatch Front,” Deseret News, March 30, 2012, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765564317/In-­our-opinion-­Planning​ -for​-g­ rowth-on-­the-Wasatch-­Front.html. 25. “Wasatch Front Regional Council Air Quality Memorandum,” Wasatch Front Regional Council, Last modified August 22, 2013, http://wfrc.org/Programs/Air​ Quality/AirQualityMemoArchive/AQ%20memo29_RTP2040_FINAL.pdf. 26. Pennell, C., personal communication, April 2017. 27. “The Air We Breathe: A Broad Analysis of Utah’s Air Quality and Policy Solutions,” Utah Foundation, Last modified January 23, 2014, http://www.utah​founda​ tion.org/reports/the-­air-we-­breathe-a-­broad-analysis-­of-utahs-­air​ -quality​ -­and-policy-­solutions-2/. 28. Maykut, N., J. Lewtas, E. Kim, et al., “Source Apportionment of PM2.5 at an Urban IMPROVE Site in Seattle, Washington.” Environmental Science & Technology 37, no. 22 (2003): 5135–5142; Wu, C. F., T. V. Larson, S. Y. Wu, et al., “Source Apportionment of PM(2.5) and Selected Hazardous Air Pollutants in Seattle,” Science of the Total Environment 386, no. 1–3 (2007): 42–52. 29. Jeong, C. H., L. M. McGuire, D. Herod, et al., “Receptor Model Based Identification of PM2.5 Sources in Canadian Cities.” Atmospheric Pollution Research 2, no. 2 (2011): 158–171. 30. Hansen, J. C., W. R. Woolwine III, L. Bateset, et al., “Semicontinuous PM2.5 and PM10 Mass and Composition Measurements in Lindon, Utah, During Winter 2007.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 60, no. 3 (2010): 346–55. 31. Ibid. 32. Kelly, K. E., Kotchenruther, R. Kuprov, et al., “Receptor Model Source Attribu-



What’s in the Inversion?

63

tions for Utah’s Salt Lake City Airshed and the Impacts of Wintertime Secondary Ammonium Nitrate and Ammonium Chloride Aerosol.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 63, no. 5 (2013): 575–590. 33. Lewis, C. W., G. A. Norris, T. L. Conner, et al., “Source Apportionment of Phoenix PM2.5 Aerosol with the Unmix Receptor Model.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Assocication 53, no. 3 (2003): 325–338; Norris, G., R. Vedantham, K. Wade, et al., “EPA Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) 3.0 Fundamentals & User Guide,” Last modified April 2014, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production​ /­files/2015-­02/documents/pmf_5.0_user_guide.pdf. 34. Kotchenruther, R. A., “Source Apportionment of PM 2.5 at Multiple Northwest U.S. Sites : Assessing Regional Winter Wood Smoke Impacts from Residential Wood Combustion.” Atmospheric Environment 142, (2016): 210–219, doi:10.1016​ /j.atmosenv.2016.07.048. 35. Daher, N., “Levoglucosan: Identifying Wood-­burning Contributions to PM,” Paper presented at the Utah Science for Solutions Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2017. 36. Hansen, J. C., W. R. Woolwine III, L. Bateset, et al., “Semicontinuous PM2.5 and PM10 Mass and Composition Measurements in Lindon, Utah, During Winter 2007.” Journal of Air Waste Management Association 60, no. 3 (2010): 346–355; Kelly, K. E., Kotchenruther, R. Kuprov, et al., “Receptor Model Source Attributions for Utah’s Salt Lake City Airshed and the Impacts of Wintertime Secondary Ammonium Nitrate and Ammonium Chloride Aerosol.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 63, no. 5 (2013): 575–590. 37. Simoneit, B. R. T., J. J. Schauer, C. G. Nolte, et al., “Levoglucosan, A Tracer for Cellulose in Biomass Burning and Atmospheric Particles.” Atmospheric Environment 33, no. 2 (1999): 173–182. 38. Daher, N., “Levoglucosan: Identifying Wood-­burning Contributions to PM,” Paper presented at the Utah Science for Solutions Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2017. 39. Kelly, K. E., Kotchenruther, R. Kuprov, et al., “Receptor Model Source Attributions for Utah’s Salt Lake City Airshed and the Impacts of Wintertime Secondary Ammonium Nitrate and Ammonium Chloride Aerosol.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 63, no. 5 (2013): 575–590; Kotchenruther, R. A., “Source Apportionment of PM 2.5 at Multiple Northwest U.S. Sites : Assessing Regional Winter Wood Smoke Impacts from Residential Wood Combustion.” Atmospheric Environment 142, (2016): 210–219, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.07.048. 40. Brown, R. J. C., D. M. Butterfield, S. L. Goddard, et al., “Wavelength Dependent Light Absorption as a Cost Effective, Real-­time Surrogate for Ambient Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.” Atmospheric Environment 127, (2016): 125–132, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.12.032. 41. “Residential Wood Combustion,” Volume III, Chapter 2, Eastern Research Group for the EPA, January 2001, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-­08​ /­documents/iii02_apr2001.pdf.

64

Chapter 2

42. “Northern Utah Air Quality Survey,” Utah Division of Air Quality, Last modi­

fied September 5, 2015, https://deq.utah.gov/air-­quality/northern-­utah-wood​ -­burning-survey. 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid. 45. “Utah State Implementation Plan: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter, Serious Area PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City, UT Nonattainment Area,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Division of Air Quality, Last modified September 5, 2018, https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air​ -­quality/pm25-­serious-sip/DAQ-­2018-013088.pdf. 46. “PM2.5 Moderate Area State Implementation Plans SIP 2009–2014,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Accessed May 7, 2019, https://deq.utah​.gov​ /legacy​/pollutants/p/particulate-­matter/pm25/moderate-­area-state-­implemen​ tation​-plans.htm. 47. “Air Quality: New Water Heater Rule Will Help Reduce Wintertime Air Pollution,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Air Quality, Last modified July 2, 2018, https://deq.utah.gov/communication/news/air-­quality-new-­water​ -heater​-r­ ule-will-­help-reduce-­wintertime-air-­pollution. 48. “Utah State Implementation Plan: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter, Serious Area PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City, UT Nonattainment Area,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Division of Air Quality, Last modified September 5, 2018, https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air​ -­quality/pm25-­serious-sip/DAQ-­2018-013088.pdf. 49. “Control Strategies: Serious Area PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Development,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, Last modified May 7, 2019, https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/pollutants/p/particulate​ -­matter/pm25/serious-­area-state-­implementation-plans/control-­strategies.htm. 50. “Utah State Implementation Plan: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter, Serious Area PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City, UT Nonattainment Area,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Division of Air Quality, Last modified September 5, 2018, https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air​ -­quality/pm25-­serious-sip/DAQ-­2018-013088.pdf. 51. Kotchenruther, R. A., “Source Apportionment of PM 2.5 at Multiple Northwest U.S. Sites : Assessing Regional Winter Wood Smoke Impacts from Residential Wood Combustion.” Atmospheric Environment 142, (2016): 210–219, doi:10​.1016​ /j.atmosenv.2016.07.048. 52. “Burn Wise Energy Efficiency,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified November 15, 2016, https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/burnwise/burn-­wise​ -energy-­efficiency_.html. 53. “Utah State Implementation Plan: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter, Serious Area PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City, UT Nonattainment Area,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Division of Air Quality, Last modified September 5, 2018, https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air​ -­quality/pm25-­serious-sip/DAQ-­2018-013088.pdf.



What’s in the Inversion?

65

54. “Wood Stove Conversion Assistance Program,” Utah Department of Environ-

mental Quality, Division of Air Quality, Last modified May 1, 2019, https://deq​ .utah.gov/air-­quality/wood-­stove-conversion-­assistance-program. 55. O’Donoghue, A. J., “Off the Table for Now in Utah, Wood Smoke Regulations Fuel Fights Elsewhere in U.S.,” Deseret News, March 9, 2015, https://www.deseret​ news.com/article/865623772/States-­burn-over-­wood-smoke-­rules.html. 56. McKellar, K., “Air Quality Advocates Call Prohibition of Wood-­Burning Ban a Slap in the Face,” Deseret News, April 1, 2015, https://www.deseretnews.com​ /­article/865625491/Governor-­signs-regulation-­preventing-full-­wood-burning​ -­ban​.html. 57. “Wood Burning,” Salt Lake County Health Department, Last modified May 7, 2019, https://slco.org/health/air-­quality/wood-­burning/. 58. Jaffe, D., W. Hafner, D. Chand, et al., “Interannual Variations in PM2.5 due to Wildfires in the Western United States.” Environmental Science & Technology 42, no. 8 (2008): 2812–2818, doi:10.1021/es702755v. 59. Dennison, P. E., S. C. Arnold, J. Brewer, et  al., “Large Wildfire Trends in the Western United States, 1984–2011.” Geophysical Research Letters 41, no. 8 (2014): 2928–2933, doi:10.1002/2014GL060535. 60. Hahnenberger, M., and K. Nicoll, “Meteorological Characteristics of Dust Storm Events in the Eastern Great Basin of Utah, U.S.A.” Atmospheric Environment 60, (2012): 601–612, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.029. 61. Ibid. 62. Skiles, S. M., D. V. Mallia, A. G. Hallar, et al., “Implications of a Shrinking Great Salt Lake for Dust on Snow Deposition in the Wasatch Mountains, UT, as Informed by a Source to Sink Case Study from the 13–14 April 2017 Dust Event.” Environmental Research Letters 13, no. 12 (2018): 1–9, 124031, DOI: 10.1088/1748​ -­9326​/aaefd8. 63. Whiteman, C. D., S. W. Hoch, J. D. Horel, et al., “Relationship Between Particulate Air Pollution and Meteorological Variables in Utah’s Salt Lake Valley.” Atmospheric Environment 94, (2014): 742–753, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.06.012. 64. Baker, S., “Planning for Growth on the Wasatch Front,” Deseret News, March 30, 2012, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765564317/In-­our-opinion-­Planning​ -for​-g­ rowth-on-­the-Wasatch-­Front.html. 65. Jacob, D. J., and D. A. Winner, “Effect of Climate Change on Air Quality,” Atmosospheric Environment 43, No. 1 (2009): 51–63.

3 Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change Air Quality in Rural Utah SETH ARENS

Utah’s most publicized air quality problems are found along the urbanized Wasatch Front stretching from Provo to Ogden. Long periods of clear, cold weather during winter create valley temperature inversions, trapping pollutants that periodically produce some of the worst air quality in the nation.1 Nitrogen gases (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from urban sources are the primary components of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), as well as ozone. (For further discussion of the chemistry of air pollution, see chapter two.) Because of the large and growing population, the volume of emissions, and the geography of the Wasatch Front, it is not surprising that episodes of poor air quality have become a major concern of urban Utah residents. Few, however, are aware of rural Utah’s air pollution issues. Despite being sparsely populated, rural Utah also experiences periodic episodes of poor air quality, primarily ozone pollution. The ozone concentration often exceeds the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) east of the Wasatch Front, in the Wasatch Mountains, at remote sites in western and southern Utah, and in the Uinta Basin. (For a map referencing Utah locations, see Figure 3.3.) Ozone typically forms during the summer, but the Uinta Basin often experiences high ozone episodes during the winter. In fact, this region periodically experiences some of the worst ozone air pollution in the nation.2 Rural Utah air quality is further degraded by 66



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

67

particulate matter pollution, produced by dust storms. In sum, even rural areas must contend with the health and environmental consequences of poor air quality. Ozone Pollution in Rural Utah

Ozone is a simple and highly reactive molecule comprised of three oxygen atoms (O3) and is both essential and harmful to many forms of life. Ozone that forms in the stratosphere, 9–31 miles above Earth’s surface, absorbs a portion of incoming ultraviolet radiation that can damage plant and animal tissue. However, ozone that forms in the troposphere, zero to nine miles above the Earth’s surface, is harmful to human health at high concentrations. It is commonly a health concern during the summer months. Ozone is particularly concerning because it is known to cause a variety of human health issues, including difficulty breathing, coughing, respiratory inflammation, aggravation of pre-­existing lung diseases, and increased incidence of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.3 Ozone is a strong oxidant that can irritate the lungs, much like sunburn can damage skin. Exposure to ozone can increase mortality rates, especially when coincident with particulate matter pollution.4 (For further reading on the impacts of air pollution to human health, see chapter four.) Certain tree and shrub species in Utah such as aspen, ash, willow serviceberry, sycamore, locust and pine, are especially sensitive to ozone, which can lead to foliar damage, growth reductions, and mortality.5,6 Although air pollutants like ozone or sulfur dioxide can significantly impact natural ecosystems, air quality standards are designed to protect human health, not environmental health. Ozone is one of six criteria air pollutants regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The air standards set by the EPA are designed to protect human health. Ozone is measured in the atmosphere as a concentration that typically varies from 0–200 parts per billion (ppb). The EPA lowered the ozone air quality standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb in 2015.7 The standard is calculated as an eight–hour rolling average. As such, ozone concentrations in this chapter are expressed as daily maximum 8–hour averages unless otherwise noted. If the ozone concentration in a location is greater than 70 ppb for four or more days during a calendar year, the location is considered to be in violation of the ozone standard. Other EPA criteria pollutants

68

Chapter 3

include carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter smaller than 10 μm (PM10), and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 μm (PM2.5). Utah is compliant with air quality standards for CO, SO2, and NO2, but high concentrations of ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 are observed in rural and urban Utah.8 While monitored by the EPA, ozone is not considered a primary pollutant. Primary pollutants are directly emitted from a natural or human-­ caused source. Ozone is a secondary pollutant, meaning that it forms in the atmosphere through chemical reactions with other primary ­pollutants. Primary pollutants that form ozone come from either local emission of ozone precursors or atmospheric transport of ozone or its precursors from regional or global sources. Ozone precursors include VOCs, NOx (specifically NO2), and other less common nitrogen gases. NOx and VOCs are emitted from a variety of human and natural sources. Most NOx in the troposphere is emitted in the form of nitric oxide (NO), which forms during high-­temperature combustion that enables a reaction between N2 and O2. The dominant source of NO emissions is motor vehicles as well as biomass burning for heat and electricity generation. In 2014, anthropogenic sources accounted for nearly all of the estimated 170,000 tons of NOx emitted in Utah.9 Less prevalent, but measurable natural sources of NOx gases include wildfires, soil processes, and lightning.10 VOCs are carbon-­based compounds that typically exist as gases in the atmosphere. These compounds originate from natural and anthropogenic sources. Many VOCs are recognizable due to their strong odor, like paint or the pungent smell of a coniferous forest. These natural emissions are not insignificant. Isoprene from plants, like aspen and oak trees, mono­ terpene from many conifer tree species, and a variety of VOCs from desert vegetation comprise over 70 percent of the 950,000 tons of VOCs emitted in Utah.11 Though regulators must be concerned about all sources of VOCs, these natural sources are out of our control. The 30 percent created by humans, however, is within our control. VOC emissions from on- and off-­road vehicles, solvents, paints, and oil and natural gas production, are the dominant anthropogenic source of VOCs.12 In the presence of strong ultraviolet radiation, these precursors photo­ chemically react in the troposphere to form ozone. In fact, weather and



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

69

climate play a critical role in forming ozone. A primary driver of ozone formation on an annual basis is the presence, or absence, of ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The amount of incoming ultraviolet radiation ­varies seasonally by a factor of two to three.13 Ozone concentration typically peaks in the spring and summer months when incoming ultraviolet radiation reaches its peak. High ozone concentrations do not occur on cloudy days in the summer, even in an urban environment with high levels of NOx and VOCs. Ozone pollution typically occurs at locations within or downwind of urban areas. In Utah, high ozone most commonly forms along Wasatch Front cities during the summer. High and potentially unhealthy levels of ozone also can form in rural areas of Utah during the summer, spring, and winter. To illustrate this, consider three cases of ozone pollution in rural Utah. One: high summer ozone forms in the Wasatch Mountains and mountain valley towns to the east of the Wasatch Front.14 Two: high ozone in spring and summer can form in very rural areas of western and southern Utah due to a variety of atmospheric transport mechanisms.15 Three: extremely high levels of ozone form under specific winter weather conditions in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. In these locations, ozone can reach twice the NAAQS for ozone due to high emissions of VOCs from oil and gas production.16 Ozone Pollution in the Wasatch Mountains and Mountain Valleys

The Wasatch Front is a uniquely situated urban region where 2.2 million people live within 30 miles of relatively pristine and protected mountain ecosystems. National forest, including nine wilderness areas, occupies the Wasatch Mountains directly adjacent to Ogden, Salt Lake City, and Provo. Tourists from around the world visit northern Utah to ski the low-­density snow supporting the world-­class resorts along the Wasatch Mountains. During periods of poor winter air quality, the higher elevations of the Wasatch Mountains offer a respite from the unhealthy, ­stagnant air locked in the valleys. (For a detailed discussion of the relationship ­between ­recreation and air quality, see chapter one.) The general public understands that while strong temperature inversions trap winter air ­pollution

70

Chapter 3

in the Wasatch Front valleys, clear skies and clean air lie above the inversion layer in the mountains. The same pattern is not true in summer. During summer, ozone pollution in the Wasatch Front valleys contributes to poor air quality in the Wasatch Mountains and mountain valley towns to the east of the Wasatch Front. When high ozone levels form in Salt Lake City, ozone concentrations in adjacent areas of the Wasatch Mountains and Park City typically experience similarly high ozone concentrations. Like many other urban areas in the western United States, summer ozone in the Wasatch Front can exceed the national ozone air quality standard of 70 ppb. Unhealthy air quality due to high ozone does not occur throughout the entire summer, but occurs when environmental conditions are optimal for ozone formation: hot temperatures, clear skies, and stagnant high-­pressure systems.17 Ozone in Wasatch Front cities can exceed the standard for more than 20 days each summer.18 Locations downwind of cities with relatively high NOx and VOC emissions experience the highest ozone levels in the region. Los Angeles and Mexico City are the only other cities in North America with both severe ozone pollution and a downwind mountain range.19 The ozone air quality problem in both Los Angeles and Mexico City is more severe than in Utah, but the small mountain valley towns along the Wasatch Mountains downwind of major urban centers also experience a similar pollution problem. In the 1970s ozone routinely exceeded 300 ppb in Los Angeles and still often exceeds 100 ppb.20 In Mexico City, ozone during the 2000s was greater than Mexico’s ozone standard of 110 ppb on most days of the year.21 High ozone concentrations are toxic to some plant species, and prolonged exposure to ozone can damage leaves, reduce tree growth, increase tree mortality, and change the species composition of mountain ecosystems.22 For tree species sensitive to ozone, such as Jeffrey and ponderosa pines, high ozone concentrations cause damage to needles, premature needle senescence, reduced needle size, and reduced tree growth.23 In the San Bernardino Mountains, 30 miles downwind of Los Angeles, exposure to high ozone also increased the probability of tree mortality from the effects of drought or attack by bark beetles. In ozone-­damaged pine forests, beetle populations grew faster and killed more trees compared to healthy pine forests.24 High ozone in mountains adjacent to Mexico City caused widespread sacred fir mortality that required extensive reforestation efforts.



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

71

Several ozone-­sensitive species of pine experienced similar effects in the San Bernardino Mountains of California.25 The impact of ozone on forest health in the Wasatch Mountains has not been studied directly, but one effort found unexplained reductions in the growth of Wasatch Mountain Douglas fir trees compared to trees in the less-­polluted Bear River Range. Reductions in growth could not be explained by drought, temperature, or insect outbreaks, but large site differences in ozone concen­trations e­ xisted.26 Much less is understood about the spatial extent and severity of ozone pollution in the Wasatch Mountains and mountain valley towns compared to cities of the Wasatch Front. EPA air quality regulations require Utah to monitor ozone in Wasatch Front cities but not in the mountains or towns downwind. Although scientific understanding of air pollution transport in urban areas suggests that the Wasatch Mountains and towns such as Park City may experience elevated ozone levels, it was not observed in these locations until 2010 (see Figure 3.1.).27 The number of days that exceeded the ozone standard in Park City varied from one day in 2010 to 20 days in 2012.28 The ozone concentration in Park City exceeded the standard seven days more than in Salt Lake City in 2012. The opposite pattern occurred in 2013 when Salt Lake City experienced more than twice as many days with ozone greater than 70 ppb compared to Park City. Other mountain valley towns downwind of the Wasatch Front also experienced multiple days with ozone greater than 70 ppb in 2012, including Huntsville (six days), Morgan (five days), Kamas (five days), and Heber (fourteen days). These towns share several features in common with Park City. They are located 15–20 miles downwind of Wasatch Front cities in mountain valleys 5,000– 7,000 feet in elevation, connected geographically to the Wasatch Front by river valleys, and have low populations with limited local sources of ozone precursors. Very few observations of ozone concentrations at locations above 7,000 feet in Utah exist and none are published in peer-­reviewed scientific literature. Parleys Summit, a site at 7,100 feet between Salt Lake City and Park City, had similar ozone concentrations but experienced more days exceeding the ozone standard (23 days) compared to other sites in mountain valleys east of the Wasatch Front.29 Unpublished ozone data collected at 8,500 feet elevation in Alta, Utah, show that  ­summer

FIGURE 3.1. Map of Utah.



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

73

ozone concentrations were significantly higher than in Salt Lake City, especially at night.30 The primary cause of high ozone in the Wasatch Mountains and mountain valley towns is the direct transport of ozone formed in Wasatch Front cities. In 2012, ozone was monitored at six sites in the Park City/ Kamas region east of Salt Lake City. The timing of peak ozone increased from Salt Lake City to Park City to Kamas, demonstrating the movement of pollution from west to east on the prevailing winds. The transport of ozone to Park City and other mountain valleys is also facilitated by diurnal flows of air from the Great Salt Lake to the mountains. The Great Salt Lake is a closed basin saline lake surrounded by mountains rising up to 7,000 feet above current lake elevation of 4,193 feet. Episodes of high ozone in the Wasatch Front typically form during periods of high pressure with high temperatures, clear skies, and light winds. Under these conditions, air flows from the lake to the mountains and back to the lake. As air temperature warms in the morning over the Great Salt Lake, a lake breeze forms, blowing from the center of the lake towards the mountains in all directions. The lake breeze transports air from the lake and adjacent urban areas to the mountains and mountain valleys. Local topography channels air up mountain canyons, creating daytime up-­canyon winds that transport urban air masses into the mountains. At night, when air temperatures cool, denser air descends down mountain slopes and canyons, causing nighttime down canyon winds, transporting air back through the urban environment to the Great Salt Lake. The recirculation of urban air masses from lake to mountains due to the persistent high-­pressure system over northern Utah can lead to a gradual build-­up of ozone and pollution over a period of days to a week.31 Other factors may contribute to elevated ozone observed in mountain valleys. As indicated previously, vegetation emits VOCs, which can contribute to ozone formation, and urban air masses traveling up Parleys Canyon may carry biogenic VOC emissions. Ultraviolet radiation at high elevation sites may also act to speed up ozone formation in the Wasatch Mountains. Finally, the long-­range transport of ozone precursors may contribute to elevated ozone in mountain valley towns. High elevation sites are more

74

Chapter 3

likely to receive pollutants transported at higher elevations in the atmosphere.32 Pollutants transported in the troposphere can reach the ground surface when an air mass descends or it encounters higher elevation areas like the Wasatch Mountains. Long range transport of ozone precursors, like wildfire smoke impacts Wasatch Mountain valleys. During the summer 2012, an active fire season in the western United States burned over 9.3 million acres nationally, the fourth most since 1960.33 Wildfires are sources of both NOx and VOCs. Fires burning in central Idaho affected Salt Lake City in August 2012, elevating PM2.5 and ozone. Wildfire smoke was estimated to contribute 19 ppb to a peak ozone concentration of 83 ppb and likely impacted mountain valley sites during this period.34 The number and severity of high ozone episodes in northern Utah varies widely and depends on specific weather conditions and the prevalence of transport from regional emission sources. One must take care in making broad generalizations about air quality in general in the Wasatch Mountains and mountain valley towns because data is limited to three years. However, it is important to understand that ozone pollution exists in the Wasatch Mountains and mountain valley towns and its severity is similar to ozone pollution in Wasatch Front cities. Health advisories warning Utahns of unhealthy air quality exist for all cities of the Wasatch Front, but health advisories and air pollution forecasts are not issued for the Wasatch Mountains or mountain valley towns. When ozone concentrations are high in the Wasatch Front, it is also likely high in the Wasatch Mountains and mountain valley towns. During high ozone events, individuals should limit outdoor activity, especially heavy exertion, to avoid exposure to unhealthy air quality. Rural Ozone and Atmospheric Transport

Ozone pollution also impacts rural locations in western and southern Utah. Elevated ozone at rural sites is caused by high background ozone, defined as the concentration of ozone found in the absence of local or regional emissions. High background ozone forms in the western United States from atmospheric transport from several sources, including stratospheric ozone, ozone transported from Asia and other U.S. cities, and wildfires. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite images show large pollution plumes flowing across the Pacific



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

75

Ocean on the jetstream. (For further reading on this topic, see chapter one.) Background ozone in the western United States typically peaks in the spring, with lower levels occurring during summer when local emissions drive ozone formation. By way of comparison, background ozone concentrations entering the western United States at sea level in California range from 42 ppb in spring to 27 ppb in summer.35 Higher elevation locations on the West Coast experienced increased background ozone, with a spring average of 45 ppb at 1,920 feet in Washington and 54 ppb at 9,065 feet on Mt. Bachelor in central Oregon. The Intermountain West also experiences high spring background ozone, typically ranging from 40–45 ppb with episodic peaks of 65–​ 70 ppb.36 Atmospheric and air quality models validate that background ozone increases with elevation in the West and is attributed to NOx formed by lightning, biogenic emissions of isoprene, wildfires, and stratospheric ozone intrusion.37 From a regulatory perspective, especially in the context of a lower national ozone standard, high background ozone presents a challenge for meeting ozone air quality standards since a large portion of ozone in the rural West is caused by factors outside of the control of state or federal regulatory agencies. Ozone concentrations periodically exceed the national ozone standard in many rural locations throughout Utah and the western United States, especially at higher elevations. Long-­term observations of ozone from several remote national park sites in or near Utah, including Great Basin, Zion, and Canyonlands National Parks, experience elevated levels. The design values for compliance with the ozone standards, defined as a three– year average of the fourth highest annual eight–hour average of ozone, is around 70 ppb at Great Basin and Zion National Parks and around 65 ppb for Canyonlands National Park.38 All three of these sites are remote with no nearby emission sources to explain high ozone. Multiple years of ozone observations from several rural sites in western and southern Utah found previously unmeasured high ozone during late spring and early summer. In Wendover, a small town on the border of Nevada, 120 miles west of Salt Lake City, ozone concentrations were elevated, but lower than the ozone standard with peak ozone concentrations of 66 ppb in 2010 and 70 ppb in 2011. At Desert Range, a remote U.S. Forest Service research station 35 miles east of Great Basin National Park, ozone concentrations

76

Chapter 3

peaked at 74 ppb in 2011 and 76 ppb in 2012. The maximum and fourth highest ozone concentrations at a rural Washington County site west of St. George were 78 ppb and 72 ppb in 2011 and 80 ppb and 76 ppb in 2012. High ozone was observed at many rural, western Utah sites in 2010–2012 but unexplained spatial variability exists. For example, ozone concentrations in 2011 near Fillmore, 70 miles northeast of Desert Range, peaked at 61 ppb. Differences in elevation do not adequately explain this variability. An analysis of air mass back-­trajectories indicate that air masses originated from urban areas like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, or San Francisco on some but not all high ozone days.39 High ozone exists in rural regions of Utah and the West without ­inputs from local emission sources due to four types of atmospheric transport. One, ozone and ozone precursors are transported from regional urban sources, such as Las Vegas and Los Angeles.40 Two, ozone is transported from large reservoirs of ozone in the stratosphere in a process called stratospheric ozone intrusion.41 Three, ozone and ozone precursors are transported from Asia to the western U.S.; these can enhance ozone concentrations by 3–10 ppb.42 Four, smoke from regional wildfires carries elevated concentrations of ozone precursors and can enhance ozone formation.43 All four mechanisms of atmospheric transport periodically cause elevated ozone at very rural sites in Utah and pose significant challenges to Utah’s ability to comply with the ozone standard. The Unusual Case of Winter Ozone in the Uinta Basin

Episodes of unhealthy particulate matter pollution are common in the valleys of the Wasatch Front during inversions, which trap all urban emissions near ground surface. PM2.5, like ozone, forms secondarily and can reach levels nearly three times the national air quality standard of 35 μg m-­3. NOx and VOC gases build up in a stagnant urban atmosphere when temperature inversions persist and PM2.5 concentrations gradually increase. Despite the presence of NOx and VOCs in abundant concentrations, high ozone does not occur in winter due to low incoming solar radiation caused by low winter sun angles. Background levels of ozone during winter are typically 35–50 ppb, meaning that urban ozone pollution, as discussed previously, is typically a summer phenomenon.44



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

77

But running counter to air pollution norms, severe ozone pollution epi­sodes occur in northeastern Utah’s Uinta Basin during the winter. These ozone peaks are derived entirely from local emission sources. Persistent temperature inversions trap VOC-­rich emissions from over 12,000 oil and gas wells, and a snow-­covered landscape amplifies incoming ultraviolet radiation. The combination of these factors leads to extremely high concentrations of ozone that forms rapidly. Winter ozone pollution in the Uinta Basin requires very specific weather conditions. When the Uinta Basin is snow-­covered and persistent temperature inversions form, ozone can reach levels nearly double the national ozone air quality standard. In the absence of snow, ozone does not form, despite persistent temperature inversions that trap VOX and NOx near the surface. Prior to 2005, high ozone during winter was not observed in the United States. During January–March 2005, scientists found that ozone exceeded the national standard on fourteen days in the Upper Green River Basin of rural western Wyoming. Continued ozone monitoring revealed that ozone exceeded the national standard on at least ten days in 2006, 2008, and 2011, with a peak concentration of 123 ppb in 2011.45 The Upper Green River Basin is a relatively high elevation (~2,000 m) valley surrounded on three sides by mountains. Episodes of high ozone formed during January–­ March, when weather conditions were optimal for the formation of persistent temperature inversions. Under clear skies with cold temperatures, light winds, and snow on the ground, warmer air several hundred feet above the valley floors trapped denser cold air at the ground surface. Air trapped near the ground surface under inversion conditions becomes highly concentrated with VOCs and NOx from thousands of natural gas wells. Snow on the ground surface is highly reflective and serves to a­ mplify incoming ultraviolet radiation. Under these conditions ozone can form very rapidly. In 2008, ozone was observed to increase from 45–115 ppb in only five hours.46 Since 2012, ozone exceeded 70 ppb on only six days. Then in 2009, high winter ozone levels were discovered in a second location: the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. Winter ozone pollution in the Uinta Basin does not occur every year, but during years when conditions are favorable. The poor air quality found

78

Chapter 3

there poses one of Utah’s most serious health risks. Unlike the Wasatch Front, where nearly 2.2 million Utahns live, only 53,000 people reside in the Uinta Basin, a mountain valley with an average elevation of approximately 4,800 feet. Most residents live in the towns of Duchesne, Roosevelt, and Vernal. Nearly 12,000 actively producing oil and natural gas wells in the Uinta Basin emit large quantities of VOCs and NOx that accounted for 77 percent of NOx emissions and 74 percent of VOC emissions annually, and 97 percent of VOC emissions during the ­winter.47 Though plants are a major annual source of VOC emissions, they are not a factor during winter. Other winter ozone precursor emission sources include NOx and VOCs from mobile and area sources and the 500–­megawatt Bonanza natural gas-­fired power plant.48 Historically, ozone, PM2.5, and NOx were first monitored in the Uinta Basin in 2006 but elevated winter ozone was not observed. In 2009, perhaps motivated by the high winter ozone observations in Wyoming, the EPA established two air-­quality monitoring sites in oil and gas producing regions of the Basin, recording a peak ozone concentration of 124 ppb. Following the “discovery” of high winter ozone in the Uinta Basin, a s­ eries of collaborative studies were undertaken to understand the extent of ozone pollution and the meteorological conditions and atmospheric chemistry that produced the events.49 National air quality standards for ozone and other criteria pollutants are set at specific levels to protect human health. Most days in Utah that exceed the ozone air quality standard have ozone concentrations between 70–85 ppb and are classified by the EPA Air Quality Index as unhealthy for sensitive groups, which include individuals who are young, old, or have pre-­existing respiratory or cardiovascular problems. The highest ozone concentrations observed in Utah since 2010 occurred in the Uinta Basin. While few high ozone days outside of the Uinta Basin are classified as unhealthy for sensitive groups, many days in the Uinta Basin are classified as such. As Figure 3.2 shows, since 2010, residents of the Uinta Basin breathed “very unhealthy air” on 39 days and “unhealthy air” on 57 days due to ozone pollution. Over that same period in Salt Lake City, there were no days with very unhealthy air and only four days with unhealthy air when ozone was the primary pollutant.

Figure 3.2

50

Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

Very Unhealthy

Unhealthy

79

Unhealthy Sensitive Groups

45 40 35

Days

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

UB SLC

UB SLC

UB SLC

UB SLC

UB SLC

UB SLC

UB SLC

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

FIGURE 3.2. Salt Lake City and Uintah Basin ozone air quality conditions exceedNumber of days when ozone air quality conditions are classified “unhealthy

ances. This shows the number of days when ozone air quality conditions are for sensitive groups”, “unhealthy”, and “very unhealthy” defined as by the classifi ed “unhealthy for sensitive groups,” “unhealthy,” and “veryas unhealthy” defi ned by the Air Quality Index in the Uinta Basin (UB) and Salt Lake City (SLC). Air Quality Index in the Uinta Basin (UB) and Salt Lake City (SLC). Data Data for Salt Lake City is from the EPA and that from the Uinta Basin is from from the Uinta Basin is from Uintah County. Uintah County. (Data from DAQ, “Utah Area Designation Recommendations for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” 2016.)

If the comparison of health risk between air quality in Salt Lake City and the Uinta Basin is expanded to include all pollutants, Salt Lake City still experiences far fewer unhealthy air quality days and no days with very unhealthy air quality.50 Health impacts of air pollution are often accounted for with metrics such as emergency room visits for respiratory problems or asthma, incidence of disease, or mortality. (For further reading on the health impacts of air pollution, see chapter four.) In 2013, a resident of the Uinta Basin and the University of Utah School of Medicine raised concerns of the effects of air pollution on pregnant women and infants, citing an anecdotal increase in stillbirths.51 The Utah Health Department responded to the perceived increase in stillbirths by conducting a review of adverse birth outcomes (i.e., small-for gestational-age births, infant deaths, and stillbirths) in the

80

Chapter 3

three counties of the Uinta Basin. Adverse birth outcomes were higher in the Uinta Basin compared to all of Utah, with 20 percent of pregnancies resulting in adverse birth outcomes compared to 16 percent in the state. Infant deaths were significantly higher in the Uinta Basin compared to all of Utah. Higher rates of small-­for gestational-­age births and higher rates of stillbirths were found in the Uinta Basin compared to Utah, but differences were not statistically significant. While the stillbirth rate in the Uinta Basin was lower than the rest of the state, the number of stillbirths in 2012–2013 was higher than the long-­term Uinta Basin average, supporting anecdotal observations. The Health Department concluded “from an observational perspective, this investigation found evidence of public health concerns regarding infant deaths and stillbirths.” 52 The study was not designed to attribute changes in adverse birth outcomes to specific causes, such as socio-­economic factors, maternal health risks, maternal lifestyle, or environmental factors like air pollution. Attributing environmental factors to changes in adverse birth outcomes is particularly challenging and often inconclusive, but exposure to hazardous pollution generally increases risk for adverse birth outcomes. Ultimately, there is not empirical evidence to support a hypothesis that unhealthy levels of ozone pollution in the Uinta Basin caused observed increases in adverse birth outcomes. Let’s look in closer detail at the factors that cause this severe ozone pollution in the Uinta Basin. Production at oil and gas fields yields a distinct mix of NOx and VOCs that is very different to pollution in other urban environments, like Los Angeles or Salt Lake City.53 The composition of VOCs in the Uinta Basin during persistent winter temperature inversions is very similar to the composition of raw natural gas. The most abundant VOCs are alkanes, which include propane, iso-­butane, n-­butane, iso-­ pentane, n-­pentane, and formaldehyde. Alkanes are shorter chain carbon molecules and the least reactive in ozone formation compared to other types of VOC. Despite relatively low reactivity rates, very high observed concentrations make alkanes the most important VOCs in Uinta Basin ozone formation. The aromatic VOCs, toluene and xylene, were observed in relatively low concentrations, but high reactivity rates make them important to ozone formation too, although to a lesser extent than alkanes. Thus, relatively small reductions in aromatic VOC emission could be just as effective as large reductions to alkane emissions at controlling ozone



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

81

concentrations. Alkenes, another class of VOCs, were present only in very low abundance.54 The total amount of ozone a VOC forms is dependent on both its reactivity rate and its abundance. Sources of NOx emissions are different from sources of VOCs and occur in different locations. Ambient NOx concentrations were highly correlated with vehicle traffic. Mobile sources, both distinct from and related to oil and gas production, are the dominant source of NOx emissions.55 Because NOx rapidly reacts with VOCs to form ozone, the concentration of NOx remains relatively low during pollution events. Snow, the second factor, plays two important roles in the formation of winter ozone. Snow cover reflects incoming solar radiation due to its high albedo. By reflecting incoming morning solar radiation, the cold air near the surface does not warm and in the absence of strong winds, an inversion develops. In addition, the high albedo of snow effectively increases the amount of ultraviolet radiation available to catalyze the ozone reaction by a factor of 1.6 to 1.9. Incoming ultraviolet radiation participates in ozone formation twice; once as it travels to the ground and once as it is reflected from the ground back into the atmosphere. When snow is present in the Uinta Basin, the amount of ultraviolet radiation available to produce ozone concentrations in the winter is similar to the summer.56 The effect of snow albedo does not typically enhance available ultraviolet radiation enough to form high ozone concentrations in December and early January because incoming solar radiation is at its minimum. Peak concentrations of ozone in the Uinta Basin typically lag behind the strongest temperature inversions by one month. The worst ozone pollution events typically occur in late January to early March, although 2013 was an exception when the highest ozone concentrations were observed in December.57 Statistical analysis of the meteorological and high ozone events in the Uinta Basin found that ozone formation was particularly sensitive to sun angle, with higher ozone concentrations typically occurring in late winter.58 The Uinta Basin is large area, roughly 4,000 square miles, and ozone concentrations vary spatially. Some locations within the Basin experience more severe, longer duration ozone events and more frequent high ozone days. From 2011–2014, ozone exceeded the national ozone standard 50 times with a maximum concentration of 116 ppb in Roosevelt compared to 81 times and a maximum ozone concentration of 142 ppb in Ouray.59 The

82

Chapter 3

Ouray site is located near the lowest elevations of the Uinta Basin and is directly adjacent to the densest area of natural gas production. Roosevelt is located approximately 30 miles to the northeast and 400 feet higher in elevation than Ouray. A less dense area of oil production lies just to the north of Roosevelt. During periods of valley inversions, 90 percent of variability in ozone concentrations across the Basin was explained by elevation and proximity to oil and gas production.60 Ozone concentrations typically ­increased with decreasing elevation and ozone was higher at sites closer to oil and gas wells, making clear that hydrocarbon production is the root cause of winter air pollution in the Uinta Basin. Temperature inversions and coincident high ozone episodes tend to form sooner and last longer at lower elevations along the Uinta Basin. Since most of the highest pollution levels tend to occur in the oil and gas fields, workers receive significantly more exposure to ozone pollution than others. Fortunately, the majority of the basin’s population lives in Duchesne, Roosevelt, and Vernal, where the concentration and duration of ozone is mitigated by higher elevation and distance from the oil and gas fields. Since 2009, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, the EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and university researchers carefully studied ozone pollution in the Uintah Basin. The results of long-­term air quality monitoring projects prompted the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to designate parts of Uintah and Duchesne Counties below 6,250 feet in elevation as areas of marginal nonattainment of the ozone standard on May 1, 2018. A marginal nonattainment area for ozone does not force the state into mandatory regulatory actions, such as the development of a State Implementation Plan. Under this 2018 designation, Uinta Basin nonattainment areas must meet the ozone standard of 70 ppb within three years. Utah air quality regulators instituted new emissions standards to limit certain VOCs important in ozone formation. A voluntary emissions reduction program sponsored by the EPA may help meet the ozone standard by 2021.61 Weather and climate are the unknown factors in the Uinta Basin ozone problem. The incidence of weather conditions conducive to forming persistent temperature inversions is the major driver of ozone formation. If persistent temperature inversions form less frequently, ozone pollution



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

83

in the Uinta Basin will be less severe and frequent, regardless of precursor emissions. However, if temperature inversions form more frequently, with greater strength or duration, ozone pollution may continue, even with modest emissions reductions. An analysis of 63 years of meteorological data from the Uinta Basin and ozone data from 2009–2013 indicate that weather conditions causing severe ozone episodes occur every six to seven years.62 Based on calculations of the available historic data, the Uinta Basin would attain an ozone standard of 75 ppb (not 70 ppb) in 44 percent of the years. This estimate assumes both that emissions remain constant at 2009–2013 levels and that the climate patterns of the past 63 years continue in the future. It is likely that emissions will decrease over the next ten years due to EPA regulation and voluntary action by oil and gas companies that should reduce the frequency and severity of ozone pollution episodes.63 Dust Storms

Dust storms, common throughout most of Utah, form when strong winds blow across very dry and sparsely vegetated landscapes, entraining relatively large dust particles and transporting them downwind. During dust storms, soils from one location are transported by wind to another location. The atmospheric transport of dust contributes to air quality ­problems and human health concerns. The dust also affects ecosystems and water quality. The concentration of particulate matter can be extremely high during dust events with hourly PM10 reaching five times the 24–hour PM10 standard of 150 μg m-­3. PM2.5 concentrations are relatively lower than PM10 during dust events but can also exceed the national standard. Human health risks from particulate matter pollution include respiratory and cardiovascular impairment.64 Utah is the second driest state in the nation and contains several large deserts, including the Great Salt Lake, Escalante, and Sevier Deserts. Semidesert or desert landscapes cover the majority of Utah. Most dust emissions originate during periods of drought with very low soil moisture from barren or disturbed desert landscapes. Playas, or dry lake beds, cover approximately five percent of Utah’s land surface. Playas, including Sevier Dry Lake, Tule Dry Lake, Great Salt Lake, and many other smaller evaporative basins, are the most common dust sources in Utah. Another source of dust in Salt Lake City is

84

Chapter 3

the Milford Fire scar. In 2007, 360,700 acres burned in the Milford Valley of west-­central Utah. The effect of the fire and attempts to restore that landscape left soils readily available for transport.65 Other sources of dust include the Escalante Desert and Sevier Desert in Utah, the Black Rock Desert and Carson Sink in Nevada, and the Mojave Desert in California and Nevada. Dust storms are a natural phenomenon but human activities likely increase the frequency and severity of dust pollution events. Atmospheric transport and deposition of dust originating in rural areas of Utah and Nevada pose both rural and urban health risks when PM10 and PM2.5 levels dramatically spike for a period of a few hours. (For more detail on health risks, see chapter four.) Though most weather data is used to characterize the frequency and severity of dust storms in urban Utah, it is important to acknowledge that dust storms also expose rural populations to health risks. Direct records of dust storms, through measurements of PM10 in Salt Lake City, show that the 24–hour PM10 standard of 150 μg m-­3 was exceeded about one time per year (1993–2010). Many more dust storms occur each year that do not exceed the national PM10 standard. Weather records from Salt Lake City International Airport show that dust storms occurred on four to five days each year since 1930. In the rural central Utah town of Delta, dust events have occurred roughly twice a year from a 1973–2010.66 Even at the remote Island in the Sky mesa of Canyonlands National Park at 6,000 feet, dust pollution was comparable to polluted urban areas of the U.S.67 Dust storm frequency varies greatly by year with some years experiencing no dust events to a maximum of 15 dust events in 1934, during the Dust Bowl. Dust storms typically occur in March–May, with the peak number of dust event days in April. Nearly 60 percent of the total amount of dust transported occurs during April.68 The formation of dust storms, like other rural Utah air quality issues, arises during specific weather conditions. In arid Utah, the most common dust-­forming weather patterns are strong prefrontal south to southwesterly winds that occur ahead of cold fronts in the Great Basin during spring. The geography of western Utah is particularly conducive to long-­range dust transport. Strong south to southwesterly winds that entrain dust during drought conditions are channeled and strengthened by the north–south oriented mountain ranges



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

85

of western Utah. In Salt Lake City, northwesterly winds also trigger dust events that likely originate from expansive salt flats surrounding the Great Salt Lake. Trends in both dust storm frequency and the total mass of dust transported decreased since 1930 in Salt Lake City. While this trend was not statistically significant, it may represent a change in dust emissions due to changes in grazing practices stemming from the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934.69 Dust emissions from desert landscapes and atmospheric transport is a natural phenomenon, but the frequency and severity of dust storms is enhanced by human activities, such as agriculture, grazing, and mining. Intensive agriculture and the tilling of landscapes can mobilize dust for transport under drought conditions. Livestock grazing can increase dust emissions from desert and semidesert regions. Many desert landscapes in Utah are covered with a mix of vascular plants and cryptobiotic crusts, an organism that is a symbiosis between photosynthetic blue-­green algae, lichen, and moss that covers bare soils with a black moss-­like mat. Cryptobiotic crusts serve to stabilize the soils in desert ecosystems, protecting soil from wind erosion. Cattle, humans, or vehicles disturb crusts, decreasing coverage while increasing the amount of dust available for transport.70 Analysis of sediments from alpine lakes in the Uinta Mountains of Utah and the San Juan Mountains of Colorado indicate that dust deposition increased dramatically after 1870, which roughly coincides with western U.S. settlement and accompanying increases in agriculture, grazing, and mining. Dust deposition in the San Juan Mountains increased by 500 percent compared to a 5,000 year average with dramatic increases in calcium, potassium, nitrogen, phosphorus, and magnesium.71 Lake sedi­ ments provide a chronological record of atmospheric dust inputs to the region. A 1,700–year lake sediment record from three lakes in northeastern Utah’s Uinta Mountains showed increased dust deposition after 1870 and annual mass of dust deposition similar to that observed in the Wind River Mountains of Wyoming but less than the dusty San Juan Mountains. Chemical analysis of dust in lake sediments showed that dust originated from mining operations in the Wasatch Mountains and Nevada and from agriculture.72 Atmospheric transport of dust provides important input

86

Chapter 3

e­ lements and nutrients important for plant growth and ecosystem biogeochemical cycling. The dust influx provides nutrients that are especially important in nutrient-­poor subalpine and alpine ecosystems.73 Atmospheric transport and deposition of dust may have another important, but indirect effect on people in Utah: the availability of water. Most municipalities and farmers in Utah rely on water resources originating from mountain snow. Both the amount and the timing of snowmelt is important to water availability throughout the state. Mountain snowpack acts as a natural reservoir for water. Precipitation falls as snow during ­winter and slowly melts throughout the spring and summer. The availability of water from runoff in the summer is important, because the demand from agriculture and outdoor urban uses peaks with maximum summer temperatures. Atmospheric deposition of dust can cause mountain snow to melt sooner and reduce the amount of water from runoff. Freshly fallen snow has a very high albedo, reflecting as much as 90 percent of incoming radiation back into the atmosphere. As dust accumulates on and darkens snow, more short-­wave solar radiation is absorbed and the snow melts faster. Extensive research and monitoring at an alpine and subalpine site in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado found the deposition of dust from 87 dust events from 2003–2013. In the same location, snowpack melt occurred 21–51 days earlier. Additionally, the timing of peak runoff on the Colorado River at Lee’s Ferry has shifted three weeks earlier, reducing runoff volume by five percent.74 The shift in snowmelt also affects transpiration by plants. When snow melts sooner, plants have a longer season to photosynthesize and transpire a larger volume of water, accounting for the additional loss of water to runoff volume.75 Atmospheric transport and dust deposition varies both interannually and spatially, affecting snowmelt and water availability. Impacts on conditions in Utah are often the result of what takes place beyond state boundaries. The San Juan Mountains are the first major barrier to winds travelling across the Colorado Plateau and Escalante Desert and receive a uniquely large mass of dust deposition. Measurements of dust deposition at a site on Grand Mesa, north of the San Juan Mountains, was lower, but still caused snow to melt 15–30 days sooner.76 Changes in the amount and timing of runoff may impact Utah as two of the three major rivers draining the San Juan Mountains flow into the Upper Colorado



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

87

Basin, including the San Juan River, which is a major water source for rural areas of southeastern Utah. Impacts of dust deposition on snowmelt in Utah are not quantitatively understood and most mountain ranges in Utah likely experience less dust deposition than the San Juan Mountains. The frequency of dust events observed in Salt Lake City was considerably lower than that observed in the San Juan Mountains. From 2003–2010, 30 dust events were identified using meteorological observations at a rate of 4.3 events per year, similar to the 1930–2010 average.77 In the San Juan Mountains, 87 dust events were observed from 2003–2013 at a rate of 7.9 events per year.78 Experimental additions of dust to a subalpine forest in the Wasatch Mountains caused only small reductions in snow water equivalent, but the effect of dust on snowmelt in a forest is less than in alpine areas due to lower incoming shortwave radiation. The lower relative frequency of dust events in Salt Lake City suggests that impacts to the timing and amount of runoff are less in the Wasatch Mountains compared to the San Juan Mountains, which is good news for water users in the metro area. Impacts of Air Quality Regulation and Climate Change

The reduction of the national ozone air quality standard to 70 ppb in 2015 began an EPA-­mandated timeline, requiring all areas of Utah to comply with the ozone standard by 2024. The first step in the regulatory timeline was for the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) to designate regions of Utah as either attainment or nonattainment areas for ozone. (For a discussion of the legal and regulatory framework of air quality in Utah, see chapter five.) Utah identified three regions that fail to meet the ozone standard: Northern Wasatch Front, Southern Wasatch Front, and the Uinta Basin ozone nonattainment areas. The Northern Wasatch Front nonattainment area includes Salt Lake, Davis, western Weber, and eastern Tooele counties. The Southern Wasatch Front nonattainment area includes western Utah County. Although nonattainment areas typically use jurisdictional boundaries, the Uinta Basin nonattainment area is made up of portions of Duchesne and Uintah Counties below 6,000 feet. In spring 2018, the EPA designated the Wasatch Front and parts of the Uinta Basin marginal nonattainment areas.79 Some notable ­omissions from nonattainment areas include mountain valley towns in eastern Weber,

88

Chapter 3

­ organ, Summit, and Wasatch Counties, where high ozone was observed. M These regions were not included in Wasatch Front nonattainment areas because emissions from the Wasatch Front, not mountain valley counties, were responsible for elevated ozone. This decision argues that as the Wasatch Front comes into compliance with the ozone standard, so will downwind counties.80 UDEQ justified designating only areas in the Uinta Basin below 6,000 feet as nonattainment for ozone due to the unique nature of Uinta Basin ozone pollution. As discussed previously, temperature inversions trap ozone and its precursors in a layer that varies in thickness from 300–1,300 feet, and emissions important Uinta Basin winter ozone formation originate from within the Basin below 6,000 feet. In essence, the nature of temperature inversions isolate the area from regionally transported emissions.81 Given that all emission sources of ozone precursors originate as small point or area sources within the Basin, it is reasonable to expect that the Uinta Basin can eventually meet ozone air quality standards. Compliance with the ozone standard will require a level of cooperation between multiple levels of government that is not typically necessary in urban nonattainment areas. Many oil and gas operations of the Uinta Basin are located on Bureau of Land Management, or Tribal lands, where UDEQ has no regulatory authority. Despite the severity of periodic ozone pollution in the Uinta Basin, ozone concentrations are more likely to be reduced here compared to other areas of rural Utah where high background ozone and atmospheric transport from out-of-state sources drive elevated ozone. The incidence of ozone and dust pollution events depends on specific weather conditions. In the context of climate change, weather patterns that led to poor air quality episodes in the past may not occur with the same frequency or intensity in the future. Global climate models predict temperature increases of 4.5°–6°F by 2055 and 6°–10.5° F by 2085 in Utah. (For more on the impacts of climate change on air quality in Utah, see chapter ten.) Precipitation is projected to increase slightly over northern Utah and decrease slightly over southern Utah, but models do not agree on the direction of precipitation change.82 Projected higher temperatures mean many areas in Utah will receive less precipitation as snow and more winter rain. If Uinta Basin snow cover occurs less frequently, high ozone events will also occur less frequently, regardless of local emissions. It is ­important



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

89

FIGURE 3.3. Salt Lake City and Park City ozone pollution. (Data from DAQ, “Ozone: EPA Designates Marginal Nonattainment Areas in Utah,” 2018.)

to note that the impacts of climate change on temperature, precipitation, and precipitation type will likely occur on longer timescales than the regulation of emission sources in the Uinta Basin. Projections of climate and air quality conditions for 2050 indicate a large increase in the frequency and severity of PM2.5 pollution from wildfires.83 Ozone pollution is predicted to decrease at remote western national parks under moderate global emission scenarios, but background ozone will likely remain high as global emissions remain elevated due to the impact from atmospheric transport from Asia.84 An increase in wildfire events and high emissions from Asia may contribute to high background ozone in rural Utah. Finally, warmer temperatures by mid- and late-­century will decrease soil moisture and likely increase incidence of drought in desert landscapes, which may lead to increases in dust emissions and dust storm frequency. Notes 1. “State of the Air 2019,” American Lung Association, Last modified Accessed April

28, 2019, https://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-­air/state-­of-the-­air​ /­sota-­2019-full.pdf. 2. Lyman, S., and T. Tran, “Inversion Structure and Winter Ozone Distribution in the Uintah Basin, Utah, U.S.A.” Atmospheric Environment 123, Part A (2015): 156–165.

90

Chapter 3

3. “Health Effects of Ozone,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified

October 10, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/ground-­level-ozone-­pollution/health​ -­effects-ozone-­pollution. 4. Chen, T., W. G. Kuschner, J. Gokhale, et  al., “Outdoor Air Pollution: Ozone Health Effects.” American Journal of the Medical Science 333, no. 4 (2007): 244–48; Jerrett, M., R. Burnett, C. A. Pope, et al., “Long-­Term Ozone Exposure and Mortality.” New England Journal of Medicine 360, no. 11 (2009): 1085–95, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0803894; van Zelm, R., P. Preiss, T. van Goethem, et al., “Regionalized Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Air Pollution on the Global Scale: Damage to Human Health and Vegetation.” Atmospheric Environment 134, (2016): 129–37, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.044. 5. “Ozone-­sensitive Species in the National Park System,” National Park Service, Last modified July 8, 2015, https://irma.nps.gov/NPSpecies/Reports/System​ wide/List%20of%20Ozone-­sensitive%20Species. 6. Arbaugh, M., A. Bytnerowicz, N. Grulke, et al., “Photochemical Smog Effects in Mixed Conifer Forest Along a Natural Gradient of Ozone and Nitrogen Deposition in the San Bernardino Mountains.” Environment International 29, no. 2–3 (2003): 401–406, doi:10.1016/S0160-­4120(02)00176-­9; de Lourdes de Bauer, M., and T. Hernández-­Tejeda, “A Review of Ozone-­Induced Effects on the Forests of Central Mexico.” Environmental Pollution 147, no. 3 (2007): 446–453, doi:10​ .1016/j.envpol.2006.12.020. 7. “National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone,” Federal Register: The Daily Journal of the United States Government, October 26, 2015, 80 FR 65291, https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/26/2015- ­26594/national-­ambient​ -air-­quality-standards-­for-ozone. 8. “Utah Area Designations for the 2015 8-­hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, Last modified September 2016, https://www.epa.gov/sites/­production​ /­ files/2016-­ 11/documents/ut-­ rec​ -tsd​ .pdf; Whiteman, C. D., S. W. Hoch, J. D. Horel, et al., “Relationship Between Particulate Pollution and Meteorological Variables in Utah’s Salt Lake Valley.” Atmospheric Environment 94, (2014): 742– 753; Steenburgh, J. W., J. D. Massey, and T. H. Painter, “Episodic Dust Events of Utah’s Wasatch Front and Adjoining Region.” Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 51, no. 4 (2012): 1654–1669, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-­D-12-­07.1. 9. “2014 Statewide Emissions,” Utah Division of Air Quality, Last modified June 22, 2018, https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air-­quality/planning/inventory/DAQ​ -­2018-009122.pdf. 10. Finlayson-­Pitts, B. J., and J. N. Pitts, Jr., Chemistry of the Upper and Lower Atmosphere, (San Diego: Academic Press, 2000). 11. Guenther, A., “Seasonal and Spatial Variations in Natural Volatile Organic Compound Emissions.” Ecological Applications 7, no. 1 (1997): 34–45, doi:10.1890/1051​ -­0761(1997)007[0034:SASVIN]2.0.CO;2. 12. “Utah Division of Air Quality 2014 Annual Report,” Utah Division of Air Qual-



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

91

ity, Last modified 2014. https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/divisions/air-­quality/docs​ /2015/02Feb/2014DAQAnnualReport_FINAL.pdf. 13. Cui, X., S. Gu, X. Zhao, et al., “Diurnal and Seasonal Variations of UV Radiation on the Northern Edge of the Qinghai-­Tibetan Plateau.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 148, no. 1 (2008): 144–51, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.09.008. 14. Baasandorj, M., S. Arens, and M. Yang, “Salt Lake City Ozone Precursor Study,” Utah Division of Air Quality, Last modified 2015, https://documents.deq.utah​ .gov/air-­quality/technical-­analysis/DAQ-­2017-009748.pdf; Barker, G. “Ozone Levels in Summit County as High as Salt Lake City,” ParkRecord.com, June 19, 2012, https://www.parkrecord.com/news/ozone-­levels-in-­summit-county-­as​ -high-­as-salt-­lake-city/. 15. Arens, S., “2010 Ozone Special Study,” Utah Division of Air Quality, Last Modified October 7, 2011, https://www.slideshare.net/StateofUtah/utah-ozone-study​ -201011-preliminary-results. 16. Lyman S., and T. Tran, “Inversion Structure and Winter Ozone Distribution in the Uintah Basin, Utah, U.S.A.” Atmospheric Environment 123, Part A (2015): 156–165. 17. Horel, J., E. Crosman, A. Jacques, et al., “Summer Ozone Concentrations in the Vicinity of the Great Salt Lake.” Atmospheric Science Letters 17, no. 6 (2016): 480– 486, doi:10.1002/asl.680. 18. “Air Data: Air Quality Collected From Outdoor Monitors Across the U.S.,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified October 28, 2019, https://www.epa​ .gov/outdoor-­air-quality-­data. 19. Bytnerowicz, A., M. Arbaugh, S. Schilling, et al., “Air Pollution Distribution Patterns in the San Bernardino Mountains of Southern California: A 40–Year Perspective.” The Scientific World Journal 7, (2007): 98–109, doi:10.1100/tsw.2007.57. 20. Ibid. 21. de Lourdes de Bauer, M., and T. Hernández-­Tejeda, “A Review of Ozone-­Induced Effects on the Forests of Central Mexico.” Environmental Pollution 147, no. 3 (2007): 446–453, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2006.12.020. 22. Arbaugh, M., A. Bytnerowicz, N. Grulke, et al., “Photochemical Smog Effects in Mixed Conifer Forest along a Natural Gradient of Ozone and Nitrogen Deposition in the San Bernardino Mountains.” Environment International 29, no. 2–3 (2003): 401–406, doi:10.1016/S0160-­4120(02)00176-­9. 23. Ibid; Bytnerowicz, A., M. Arbaugh, S. Schilling, et al., “Air Pollution Distribution Patterns in the San Bernardino Mountains of Southern California: A 40–Year Perspective.” Scientific World Journal 7, Supplement 1 (2007): 98–109; Takemoto, B. K., A. Bytnerowicz, and M. E. Fenn, “Current and Future Effects of Ozone and Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition on California’s Mixed Conifer Forests.” Forest Ecology and Management 144, no. 1–3 (2001): 159–173. 24. Dahlsten, D. L., D. L. Rowney, and R. N. Kickert, “Effects of Oxidant Air Pollutants on Western Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) Populations in Southern California.” Environmental Pollution 96, no. 3 (1997): 415–23, doi:10.1016/S0269​

92

Chapter 3

-­7491(97)00040-­7; Eatough Jones, M., T. D. Paine, M. E. Fenn, et al., “Influence of Ozone and Nitrogen Deposition on Bark Beetle Activity under Drought Conditions.” Forest Ecology and Management 200, no. 1–3 (2004): 67–76. 25. de Lourdes de Bauer, M., and T. Hernández-­Tejeda, “A Review of Ozone-­Induced Effects on the Forests of Central Mexico.” Environmental Pollution 147, no. 3 (2007): 446–453, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2006.12.020. 26. Wager, D. J., and F. A. Baker, “Potential Effects of Ozone, Climate, and Spruce Budworm on Douglas-­Fir Growth in the Wasatch Mountains.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research-­Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 33, no. 5 (2003): 910–21, doi:10.1139/x02-­211. 27. Arens, S., “2010 Ozone Special Study,” Utah Division of Air Quality, Last modified October 7, 2011, https://www.slideshare.net/StateofUtah/utah-­ozone-study​ -­201011-preliminary-­results. 28. Arens, S. “2012 Utah Ozone Study,” Salt Lake City, UT, 2012, http://www.deq.utah​ .gov/Pollutants/O/ozone/docs/2013/05May/2012_Utah_Ozone_Study.pdf. 29. Ibid. 30. Arens, S., unpublished research, 2010. 31. Horel, J., E. Crosman, A. Jacques, et al., “Summer Ozone Concentrations in the Vicinity of the Great Salt Lake.” Atmospheric Science Letters 17, no. 6 (2016): 480– 486, doi:10.1002/asl.680. 32. Musselman, R. C., and J. L. Korfmacher, “Ozone in Remote Areas of the Southern Rocky Mountains.” Atmospheric Environment 82, (2013): 383–90, doi:10.1016/j​ .atmosenv.2013.10.051. 33. “Total Wildland Fires and Acres (1960–2015),” National Interagency Fire Center, https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html. 34. Baylon, P., D. A. Jaffe, N. L. Wigder, et al., “Ozone Enhancement in Western US Wildfire Plumes at the Mt. Bachelor Observatory: The Role of NOx.” Atmospheric Environment 109, (2015): 297–304, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.013. 35. Cooper, O. R., S. J. Oltmans, B. J. Johnson, et al., “Measurement of Western U.S. Baseline Ozone from the Surface to the Tropopause and Assessment of Downwind Impact Regions.” Journal of Geophysical Reviews Atmospheres 116, no. D21 (2011): 1–23, doi:10.1029/2011JD016095. 36. Cooper, O. R., A. O. Langford, D. D. Parrish, et al., “Challenges of a Lowered U.S. Ozone Standard.” Science 348, no. 6239 (2015): 1096–97, doi:10.1126/science.aaa​ 5748. 37. Fiore, A. M., J. T. Oberman, M. Y. Lin, et al., “Estimating North American Background Ozone in U.S. Surface Air with Two Independent Global Models : Variability, Uncertainties, and Recommendations.” Atmospheric Environment 96, (2014): 284–300, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.07.045. 38. Cooper, O. R., A. O. Langford, D. D. Parrish, et al., “Challenges of a Lowered U.S. Ozone Standard.” Science 348, no. 6239 (2015): 1096–97, doi:10.1126/science.aaa​ 5748. 39. Arens, S., “2010 Ozone Special Study,” Utah Division of Air Quality, Last modi-



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

93

fied October 7, 2011, https://www.slideshare.net/StateofUtah/utah-­ozone-study​ -­201011-preliminary-­results. 40. Ibid; Langford, A. O., C. J. Senff, R. J. Alvarez, et al., “Long-­R ange Transport of Ozone from the Los Angeles Basin: A Case Study.” Geophysical Research Letters 37, no. 6 (2010): 1–5, doi:10.1029/2010GL042507. 41. Lin, M., A. M. Fiore, L. W. Horowitz, et al., “Transport of Asian Ozone Pollution into Surface Air over the Western United States in Spring.” Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 117, no. D21 (2012): 1–21, doi:10.1029/2011JD016961; Christensen, J. N., P. Weiss-­Penzias, R. Fine, et al., “Unraveling the Sources of Ground Level Ozone in the Intermountain Western United States Using Pb Isotopes.” The Science of the Total Environment 530–531, (2015): 519–525, doi:10.1016/j​ .­scitotenv.2015.04.054; Langford, A. O., C. J. Senff, R. J. Alvarez II, et  al., “An Overview of the 2013 Las Vegas Ozone Study (LVOS): Impact of Stratospheric Intrusions and Long-­R ange Transport on Surface Air Quality.” Atmospheric Environment 109, (2015): 305–322, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.08.040. 42. Christensen, J. N., P. Weiss-­Penzias, R. Fine, et al., “Unraveling the Sources of Ground Level Ozone in the Intermountain Western United States Using Pb Isotopes.” The Science of the Total Environment 530–531, (2015): 519–525, doi:10.1016​ /j.scitotenv.2015.04.054; Lin, M., A. M. Fiore, L. W. Horowitz, et al., “Transport of Asian Ozone Pollution into Surface Air over the Western United States in Spring.” Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 117, no. D21 (2012): 1–21, doi:10​.1029​/2011JD016961; Brown-­Steiner, B., and P. Hess, “Asian Influence on Surface Ozone in the United States: A Comparison of Chemistry, Seasonality, and Transport Mechanisms.” Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 116, no. 17 (2011): 1–14, doi:10.1029/2011JD015846. 43. Baylon, P., D. A. Jaffe, N. L. Wigder, et al., “Ozone Enhancement in Western US Wildfire Plumes at the Mt. Bachelor Observatory: The Role of NOx.” Atmospheric Environment 109, (2015): 297–304, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.09.013; Jaffe, D. A., N. Wigder, N. Downey, et al., “Impact of Wildfires on Ozone Exceptional Events in the Western U.S.” Environmental Science & Technology 47, no. 19 (2015): 11065–11072. 44. Logan, J. A., “Ozone in Rural Areas of the United States.” Journal of Geophysical Research 94, no. 6D (1989): 8511–8532. 45. “EPA Air Data: Ozone Exceedances,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified October 29, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-­ air-quality-­ data; “Final Report 2011 Upper Green River Ozone Study,” Meterological Solutions, Inc., ENVIRON, and T & B Systems, Last modified October 2011, http://sgirt​ .webfactional.com/filesearch/content/Air Quality Division/Programs/Ozone​ / ­Winter Ozone-­Winter Ozone Study/2011_UGWOS-­Monitoring-Final-­Report​ .pdf. 46. Schnell, R. C., S. J. Oltmans, R. R. Neely, et al., “Rapid Photochemical Production of Ozone at High Concentrations in Rural Site during Winter.” Nature Geoscience 2, no. 2 (2009): 120–122, doi:10.1038/ngeo415.

94

Chapter 3

47. “Oil and Gas Facts,” Utah Department of Natural Resources, Department of

Oil, Gas and Mining, Last modified 2019, https://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/oilgasweb​ /­facts​/facts-­main.xhtml. 48. “2014 State Summary of Emissions by Source,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Last modified June 22, 2018, https://documents.deq.utah.gov​/­air​ -­quality/planning/inventory/DAQ-­2018-010181.pdf. 49. Martin, R., K. Moore, M. Mansfiled, et al., “Final Report 2012 Uintah Basin Winter Ozone and Air Quality Study December 2010–March 2011,” Last modified June 14, 2011, https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/destinations/u/uintah-­basin/ozone​ /­docs/2013/02Feb/edl201011reportozonefinal.pdf. 50. “EPA Air Data: Ozone Exceedances,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified October 29, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-­air-quality-­data. 51. Stewart, K., and B. Maffly, “Is Air Pollution Causing Vernal’s Neonatal Deaths to Rise?” The Salt Lake Tribune, May 11, 2014, http://archive.sltrib.com/article​ .php?id=57914660&itype=CMSID; Solotaroff, P., “What’s Killing the Babies of Vernal, UT?” Rolling Stone, June 22, 2015, https://www.rollingstone.com/culture​ /culture-­news/whats-­killing-the-­babies-of-­vernal-utah-­33666/. 52. “Adverse Birth Outcomes Statistical Review Investigating the TriCounty Health Department Study Area (Daggett, Duchesne and Uintah Counties), Utah, 1991– 2013,” Utah Department of Health, Last modified March 17, 2015, http://health​ .utah.gov/enviroepi/appletree/TriCountyABO/TriCounty_ABO.pdf. 53. Edwards, P. M., S. S. Brown, J. M. Roberts, et al., “High Winter Ozone Pollution from Carbonyl Photolysis in an Oil and Gas Basin.” Nature 514, no. 7522 (2014): 351–354, doi:10.1038/nature13767; Stoeckenius, T., “Final Report 2014 Uinta Basin Winter Ozone Study,” Last modified February 2015, http://www.deq.utah​ .gov​/ ­locations/U/uintahbasin/ozone/docs/2015/02Feb/UBWOS_2014_Final​ .pdf. 54. Koss, A. R., J. de Gouw, C. Warneke, et al., “Photochemical Aging of Volatile Organic Compounds Associated with Oil and Natural Gas Extraction in the Uintah Basin, UT, during a Wintertime Ozone Formation Event.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 15, no. 10 (2015): 5727–5741, doi:10.5194/acp-­15-5727-­2015. 55. Martin, R., K. Moore, M. Mansfiled, et al., “Final Report 2012 Uintah Basin Winter Ozone and Air Quality Study December 2010– March 2011,” Last modified June 14, 2011, https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/destinations/u/uintah-­basin/ozone​ /­docs/2013/02Feb/edl201011reportozonefinal.pdf. 56. Ibid. 57. Stoeckenius, T., “Final Report 2014 Uinta Basin Winter Ozone Study,” February 2015, https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/destinations/u/uintah-­basin/ozone/docs/2015​ /02​Feb/UBWOS_2014_Final.pdf. 58. Mansfield, M. L., and C. F. Hall, “Statistical Analysis of Winter Ozone Events.” Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health 6, no. 4 (2013): 687–699, doi:10.1007/s11869-­013​ -0204-­0. 59. “EPA Air Data: Ozone Exceedances,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified October 29, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-­air-quality-­data.



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

95

60. Lyman, S., and T. Tran, “Inversion Structure and Winter Ozone Distribution

in the Uintah Basin, Utah, U.S.A.” Atmospheric Environment 123, Part A (2015): 156–165. 61. “Utah Area Designation Recommendations for the 2015 8–hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, Last modified May 5, 2019, https://documents.deq.utah​ .gov/air-­quality/planning/air-­quality-policy/DAQ-­2017-002501.pdf. 62. Mansfield, M. L., and C. F. Hall, “Statistical Analysis of Winter Ozone Events.” Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health 6, no. 4 (2013): 687–699, doi:10.1007/s11869-­013​ -0204-­0. 63. Ibid. 64. van Zelm, R., P. Preiss, T. van Goethem, et al., “Regionalized Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Air Pollution on the Global Scale: Damage to Human Health and Vegetation.” Atmospheric Environment 134, (2016): 129–37, doi:10.1016/j​ .­atmosenv.2016.03.044; Pope, C. A., R. T. Burnett, M. J. Thun, et al., “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality and Long-­Term Exposure to Fine Paticulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 9 (2014): 1132–1141. 65. Hahnenberger, M., and K. Nicoll, “Geomorphic and Land Cover Identification of Dust Sources in the Eastern Great Basin of Utah, U.S.A.” Geomorphology 204, (2014): 657–72, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.09.013; Miller, M. E., M. A. Bowker, R. L. Reynolds, et al., “Post-­Fire Land Treatments and Wind Erosion—Lessons from the Milford Flat Fire, UT, USA.” Aeolian Research 7, (2012): 29–44, doi:10​ .1016​/j.aeolia.2012.04.001. 66. Steenburgh, J. W., J. D. Massey, and T. H. Painter, “Episodic Dust Events of Utah’s Wasatch Front and Adjoining Region.” Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 51, no. 4 (2012): 1654–1669, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-­D-12-­07.1; Hahnenberger, M., and K. Nicoll, “Meteorological Characteristics of Dust Storm Events in the Eastern Great Basin of Utah, U.S.A.” Atmospheric Environment 60, (2012): 601–612, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.029. 67. Neff, J. C., A. P. Ballantyne, G. L. Farmer, et al., “Increasing Eolian Dust Deposition in the Western United States Linked to Human Activity.” Nature Geoscience 1, (2008): 189–195, doi:doi:10.1038/ngeo133. 68. Steenburgh, J. W., J. D. Massey, and T. H. Painter, “Episodic Dust Events of Utah’s Wasatch Front and Adjoining Region.” Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 51, no. 4 (2012): 1654–1669, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-­D-12-­07.1; Hahnenberger, M., and K. Nicoll, “Meteorological Characteristics of Dust Storm Events in the Eastern Great Basin of Utah, U.S.A.” Atmospheric Environment 60, (2012): 601–612, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.029. 69. Ibid; Neff, J. C., A. P. Ballantyne, G. L. Farmer, et al., “Increasing Eolian Dust Deposition in the Western United States Linked to Human Activity.” Nature Geoscience 1, (2008): 189–195, doi:doi:10.1038/ngeo133. 70. Belnap, J., and D. A. Gillette, “Vulnerability of Desert Biological Soil Crusts to Wind Erosion: The Influences of Crust Development, Soil Texture, and

96

Chapter 3

­Disturbance.” Journal of Arid Environments 39, no. 2 (1998): 133–42, https://doi​ .org​/10​.1006​/jare.1998.0388. 71. Neff, J. C., A. P. Ballantyne, G. L. Farmer, et al., “Increasing Eolian Dust Deposition in the Western United States Linked to Human Activity.” Nature ­Geoscience 1, (2008): 189–195, doi:doi:10.1038/ngeo133; Munroe, J. S., “Properties of Modern Dust Accumulating in the Uinta Mountains, Utah, USA, and Implications for the Regional Dust System of the Rocky Mountains.” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 39, no. 14 (2014): 1979–88, doi:10.1002/esp.3608. 72. Reynolds, R. L., J. S. Mordecai, J. G. Rosenbaum, et al., “Compositional Changes in Sediments of Subalpine Lakes, Uinta Mountains (Utah): Evidence for the Effects of Human Activity on Atmospheric Dust Inputs.” Journal of Paleolimnology 44, no. 1 (2010): 161–175, doi:10.1007/s10933-­009-9394-­8; Kada, J., M. Heit, and K. M. Miller, “Chronology of Anthropogenic Trace Element Input to Four Utah Lakes Reconstructed Using Sediment Cores.” Water Air and Soil Pollution 75, no. 3 (1994): 353–369. 73. Neff, J. C., A. P. Ballantyne, G. L. Farmer, et al., “Increasing Eolian Dust Deposition in the Western United States Linked to Human Activity.” Nature Geoscience 1, (2008): 189–195, doi:doi:10.1038/ngeo133. 74. Painter, T. H., S. Mckenzie Skiles, J. S. Deems, et al., “Dust Radiative Forcing in Snow of the Upper Colorado River Basin : A 6 Year Record of Energy Balance, Radiation, and Dust Concentrations.” Water Resources Research 48, no. 7 (2012): 1–14, doi:10.1029/2012WR011985. 75. Painter, T. H., J. S. Deems, J. Belnap, et al., “Response of Colorado River Runoff to Dust Radiative Forcing in Snow.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 104, no. 40 (2010): 17125–17130, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913139107; Painter, T. H., S. Mckenzie Skiles, J. S. Deems, et al., “Dust Radiative Forcing in Snow of the Upper Colorado River Basin : A 6 Year Record of Energy Balance, Radiation, and Dust Concentrations.” Water Resources Research 48, no. 7 (2012): 1–14, doi:10.1029/2012WR011985. 76. Mckenzie Skiles, S., T. H. Painter, J. Belnap, et al., “Regional Variability in Dust-­ on-Snow Processes and Impacts in the Upper Colorado River Basin.” Hydrological Processes 29, no. 26 (2015): 5397–5413, doi:10.1002/hyp.10569. 77. Steenburgh, J. W., J. D. Massey, and T. H. Painter, “Episodic Dust Events of Utah’s Wasatch Front and Adjoining Region.” Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 51, no. 4 (2012): 1654–1669, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-­D-12-­07.1. 78. Mckenzie Skiles, S., T. H. Painter, J. Belnap, et al., “Regional Variability in Dust-­ on-Snow Processes and Impacts in the Upper Colorado River Basin.” Hydrologi­ cal Processes 29, no. 26 (2015): 5397–5413, doi:10.1002/hyp.10569. 79. “Ozone: EPA Designates Marginal Nonattainment Areas in Utah,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Last modified May 2, 2018, https://deq.utah.gov​ /communication/news/ozone-­marginal-nonattainment-­areas-utah. 80. “Utah Area Designation Recommendations for the 2015 8–hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality,



Ozone, Dust, and Climate Change

97

Division of Air Quality, Last modified May 5, 2019, https://documents.deq.utah​ .gov/air-­quality/planning/air-­quality-policy/DAQ-­2017-002501.pdf. 81. Stoeckenius, T., “Final Report 2014 Uinta Basin Winter Ozone Study,” Last modi­ fied February 2015, https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/destinations/u/uintah-­basin​ /­ozone/docs/2015/02Feb/UBWOS_2014_Final.pdf. 82. “MACA CMIP5 Statistically Downscaled Climate Projections: MACA Summary Layers,” U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, Last modified February 2, 2018, https://toolkit.climate.gov/tool/maca-­cmip5-statistically-­downscaled-climate​ -­projections. 83. Liu, J., L. J. Coco, M. P. Mickley, et al., “Particulate Air Pollution from Wildfires in the Western US under Climate Change.” Climatic Change 138, no. 3–4 (2016): 1–12, doi:10.1007/s10584-­016-1762-­6. 84. Martin, M. V., C. L. Heald, J. F. Lamarque, et al., “How Emissions, Climate, and Land Use Change Will Impact Mid-­Century Air Quality over the United States: A Focus on Effects at National Parks.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 15, no. 5 (2015): 2805–2823, doi:10.5194/acp-­15-2805-­2015.

4 Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health BRIAN MOENCH

The name “London fog,” has a certain allure to it, historically evoking mystery (Sherlock Holmes), danger (Jack the Ripper), style and sophistication (the famous clothing line). The name “London Smog” is much more pernicious, but far more descriptively accurate. London was the site of the most infamous air pollution event of the modern world, the Great London Smog of 1952. On Friday, Dec. 5, 1952, a meteorological inversion began setting up over London. Cold air was trapped by a high-pressure system of warm air above. Emissions from public diesel buses, industrial smokestacks, and coal from home furnaces quickly became concentrated near ground level. A 30–mile wide patch of smog became so thick that people reported not even being able to see their feet as they walked. The smog paralyzed the city. Transportation ground to a halt. A slippery black “ooze” coated sidewalks, walls, clothes, and faces. Indoor movie theaters closed because the smog obscured the screens. The Great London Smog was much more than a noxious, eerie, aesthetic affliction. It was deadly. The event lasted less than five days, but it had a devastating impact on the city’s inhabitants. Initially, 4,000 people died, primarily from pneumonia and bronchitis; most of the victims were at both extreme ends of the age spectrum.1 But mortality rates didn’t return to normal for six months, and looking back, epidemiologists estimate that the five–day event cost 12,000 Londoners their lives and hospitalized an additional 150,000.2 This weekend 98



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

99

inversion episode is regarded as the sentinel air pollution event of modern civilization in the twentieth century, leading to the shaping of public opinion and the first modern air quality regulations. Pictures, movies, and dramatizations of the event almost seem like fiction. But it was all too real, and continues to impact lives today.3 More recent studies of the aftermath of the 1952 Great London Smog greatly expand our understanding of the residual health consequences of air pollution. Researchers looked at the rates of lung disease among the survivors who were either in utero, or in the first year of life during the Friday to Tuesday event. Sixty years later, those who were exposed to just that one weekend of smog, reported an increased rate of asthma (20 percent) during childhood and adolescence compared to unexposed controls. The presence of asthma that persisted into adulthood was 8–10 percent higher.4 This study is only one of hundreds that demonstrate even short-­term air pollution can have life-­long consequences if the exposure occurs during critical developmental windows of fetal life. A more comprehensive review of air pollution and fetal development will be dealt with later in this chapter. Most of the discussion of air pollution in Utah centers on our winter inversions, when the particulate pollution can be reminiscent of the London Smog. Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) was formed as a response to a dense, month-­long winter inversion in January 2007 that blanketed the Wasatch Front. The lack of attention the inversion received from the media, lawmakers, the public, or even health professionals seemed like an odd and inexplicable disconnect. As physicians, the original members of UPHE knew that the accumulation of pollution was a health hazard, but our knowledge only scratched the surface of what medical research had already established. It felt like the destroying angel depicted in the movie, The Ten Commandments, had descended upon the cities of the Wasatch Front, but no one was even talking about it. It was apparent to UPHE that virtually no one realized the depth of community-­ wide danger that was unfolding. At first glance, Utah’s pollution problem seems to be episodic and limited to inversion season. During a typical winter, residents endure about 14 days of much higher than average particulate pollution. There is the temptation to approach the problem with some resignation — ​two weeks

100

Chapter 4

of “Londonesque” smog is what we must put up with for the benefit of having our beautiful mountains, which unfortunately act as a natural and formidable barrier to pollution dispersion. But resignation springs from ignorance and misconception among the public, politicians, and regulators. Even among health professionals, a lack of familiarity with the medi­ cal science is the norm. The Great London Smog event illustrates several facts about air pollution and health that contradict those misconceptions. 1. Contrary to the very existence of federal air quality standards, there is no safe level of air pollution.5 Even concentrations well below the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate pollution and ozone are not safe. Specifically we know even low concentrations have a strong association with premature death. The existence of NAAQS, while certainly better than not having standards, also has the unfortunate effect of implying that meeting those standards eliminates the public health hazards. That is hardly the case. The EPA has an advisory board, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), theoretically staffed by the nation’s best air pollution researchers and experts. Regrettably, the NAAQS are not set by the scientists themselves, but ultimately by bureaucrats who often don’t follow their recommendations. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, polluting industries and their allies in Congress have a long history of applying enough public and behind the scenes political pressure to keep the NAAQS weaker than the science alone would dictate. 2. Virtually everyone is affected whether or not they have overt symptoms. For most people it shortens their lifespan. A pregnant mother is unlikely to have any symptoms even if her baby is being harmed. The symptoms for an elderly adult may only manifest after the damage has been done, such as with a heart attack, stroke, or the evidence of cancer has emerged. 3. Although everyone is affected, there are genetic differences in disease susceptibility provoked by air pollution. Moreover, the coexistence of other diseases, like diabetes, can magnify the potential for other d ­ isorders. 4. Even short-­term air pollution matters. The London Smog weekend is the quintessential example.



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

101

5. Average pollution levels don’t tell the whole story. Wasatch Front air pollution averages are cited as being typical of similarly sized cities and thereby often downplayed by government and industry officials. But citing just air pollution averages is misleading in that they don’t reveal how harmful acute short-­term pollution can be. By way of illustration, imagine a house in Oklahoma’s tornado alley destroyed in seconds by a tornado with wind speeds of 240 mph. The 24–hour average of the wind speed at the house’s front door was normal, but the house was still destroyed. The average air pollution over London during all of 1952 was likely normal, but thousands of people still succumbed to that single, short-­term smog event. 6. Timing is critical. Brief exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy has a much different impact on one’s life compared to a brief exposure at middle age or even during adolescence. 7. What is important is not the tons of pollution emitted into the air, but the type and amount a person or community actually inhales. The name of this concept is “intake fraction.” This approach takes into account microenvironments, the atmospheric behavior of different types of pollution, and how many people actually inhale the pollution.6 Regulators focus on how much pollution is emitted, but the intake fraction is a more effective measure of the impact on public health. 8. Not all pollution is created equal. The same concentrations of particulate pollution can have much different consequences depending on the type and source of the pollution, the size of the particles, and the chemicals that may be attached to them. The damage they do can be much different. Let’s follow the journey of a pollution particle that has the potential to cause the most harm. The particle is inhaled, reaching the tiny air sacs in the lungs, the alveoli. From the lungs, the ­particle is picked up by the bloodstream and distributed to just about any cell in the body. The particle can then penetrate the cell membrane, enter the cell, and interact with the nucleus where the chromosomes reside. At each point along this journey, smaller particles have an ­advantage in reaching the nucleus. An ultrafine particle (0.1 micron and smaller) has a much greater potential for toxicity than a fine particle (2.5 ­microns and smaller). At our official monitoring stations, pollution ­concentrations

102

Chapter 4

are determined by measuring the weight of PM2.5 particles captured on a filter. A few larger particles will weigh as much as hundreds of smaller particles, and both will contribute equally to what is announced as the PM2.5 level. Yet the hundreds of smaller particles can do much more damage because of the journey just described, a crucial fact not addressed by current regulations. 9. Microenvironments matter. Pollution is not evenly distributed throughout a community. Local pollution sources, like corridors of heavy traffic, wood burning stoves and restaurants, gravel pits, and commercial diesel truck rest stops can create dramatically different levels of pollution within even a few blocks. (For more on this topic, see chapter two and chapter eight.) This factor is largely ignored in strategies for achieving compliance with clean air standards. (For a discussion of the economic considerations related to pollution control see chapter six, and for a discussion of the legal framework see chapter five.) Air Pollution and the Cardiovascular System

Invariably, media reports of air pollution events, policy debates, and much of lay public discussions focus on how air pollution affects the lungs, the sensation of shortness of breath and asthma attacks. But the detrimental effects of pollution extend far beyond the lungs. In fact, the greatest impact of air pollution on community mortality stems from its effect on the cardiovascular system. To begin a discussion of air pollution’s health consequences, let’s start at the microscopic level. Similar to the physiologic consequences of cigarette smoke, both ozone and particulate pollution produce a low grade, systemic inflammation leading to small artery narrowing that enhances clotting mechanisms. Chemical markers of these changes are found even in young healthy adults who have been breathing pollution. When particulate pollution is inhaled, it makes its way through the lungs to the bloodstream where it can become deposited in major organs of the body, including the heart, brain, liver, spleen, and kidneys.7 As with the inhalation of cigarette smoke, the effect can be almost immediate. Within 15 minutes, the inhaled particles appear in the blood and urine of human subjects — ​indeed, a recent study found evidence of pollution particles in the urine of children.8 These particles can remain in the



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

103

body for at least three months.9 Chronic exposure to even low concentrations of pollution is also associated with an acceleration of atherosclerosis and significant arteriolar narrowing and stiffness. Moreover, those particles preferentially accumulate within the lining of blood vessels, at sites where inflammation, narrowing, and atherosclerotic plaque already exist, exacerbating the inflammation and reducing blood flow.10 Some, but not all of the inhaled particles will dissolve or disintegrate in body tissues over time, eventually being eliminated in urine, stool, and by the lymph system. But the particles may leave a toxic calling card, including fragments of heavy metals, like mercury, chromium, nickel, lead, cadmium, arsenic, and radionuclides. These metals have a wide range of toxicities due to free radical formation and oxidative stress leading to cell membrane damage.11 The heavy metals bind to DNA and nuclear proteins, and act like imposters for useful elements like calcium, hitching a ride on red blood cells where the metals can be deposited in the bones and teeth. Within minutes of exposure to air pollution, average blood pressure increases, causing arteries to stiffen, affecting all organs.12 An increase in blood pressure has even been documented in newborns and children.13 Over time, the inflammation increases the thickness of the lining of blood vessels and impairs their integrity. This is particularly insidious for microscopic vessels, narrowing the diameter of blood vessels throughout the arterial system that leads to rigidity, a decrease in blood flow, an acceleration of the growth of atherosclerosis as part of the aging process itself. These changes ultimately increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes, and are found even in the blood vessels of young, otherwise healthy adults.14 Pollution episodes lasting only a few days, like Utah’s winter inversions, can exact a toll on health by quickly and dramatically ramping up body-­wide levels of inflammation.15 Conversely, air filtration units have been shown to reduce in-­home particulate pollution, as well as the resulting inflammation, albeit with some delay.16 Furthermore, air pollution exposure alters the lipid profile of the blood, decreasing helpful high-­density lipids (HDLs).17 With these biochemical and physiologic studies as a backdrop, it is no surprise that an enormous body of epidemiologic research shows that air pollution contributes to a list of clinical diseases and poor health outcomes

104

Chapter 4

every bit as long as what is attributed to smoking cigarettes.18 At the top of that list are four of the five leading causes of death: heart attacks, strokes, respiratory disease, and cancer.19 The World Health Organization estimates that air pollution is responsible for one in nine deaths worldwide, with heart attacks and strokes being the most common cause. The same vascular changes that are responsible for heart attacks are also responsible for pollution related strokes. Numerous studies show significantly higher rates of strokes with chronic and acute exposure, including within as little as hours after the onset of a spike in pollution.20 As of 2019, the EPA’s annual standard for fine particulate pollution (PM2.5) was 12 μg/m3. However, a growing body of research since 2006 suggests particulate pollution is hazardous well below 12 μg/m3. In fact, as mentioned above, there is no safe level of air pollution, and that relation­ ship continues right down to the lower limits of pollution that we can measure. Landmark studies have shown that for every 1 μg/m3 PM2.5 of chronic exposure, deaths from all causes increase approximately one percent.21 Thus, at 12 μg/m3, community death rates increase by about 12 percent. Many studies suggest that the relationship however may not be linear, but instead hyperbolic. That means that per unit of exposure, lower concentrations have more health impact than higher concentrations. This non-­linear relationship is also found with the “personal pollution” of smoking cigarettes and the risk of heart attacks and strokes. For men smoking just one cigarette a day, the risk is nearly half as much as smoking a full pack.22 Additional deaths accrue from acute pollution episodes not reflected in annual averages, such as the 1952 London Smog or Utah’s winter inversions. Ozone exposure causes additional mortality, increasing death rates by about one percent for every 10 ppb in short term spikes.23 The EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone is 70 ppb. That means ozone levels that meet national standards, still increase mortality in the United States by an additional seven percent.24 According to the best research we have, air quality meeting the National Ambient Air ­Quality Standard for PM2.5 and ozone, would still increase mortality rates by about 17 percent.25 This is clearly not “safe” air pollution any more than driving a little drunk can be considered safe driving. These and many more studies illustrate that the EPA’s regulatory thresholds, while better



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

105

than nothing, are not rigid scientific conclusions, but compromises overlaid with political calculations and value judgements. There has been the suspicion that most deaths related to air pollution are explained by the “harvesting effect” — ​frail, elderly people dying from heart and lung disease a little earlier than they otherwise would. Indeed, this subset of the population is at highest risk from air pollution mortality. New studies show that the average mortality victim of air pollution is about 79 years old, but loses ten to eleven years of their life expectancy,26 hardly a trivial shortening of life. Researchers at MIT estimated that air pollution is responsible for 210,000 deaths annually in the United States.27 A pollution-­triggered heart attack is likely to be a more immediate consequence of exposure in older age groups compared to younger patients. Nonetheless, younger patients are still sensitive to obstructive cardiovascular effects of air pollution.28 The increased mortality effect of exposure persists for decades. The air pollution breathed by those watching The Brady Bunch in the 1970s, continues to increase their risk of a premature death today.29 Episodes of air pollution much shorter than the Great London Smog event are capable of triggering heart attacks and strokes by increasing blood vessel clotting susceptibility and destabilizing vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques. One study showed that pollution typical of heavy traffic congestion can triple the risk of a heart attack within an hour after exposure.30 Women are particularly vulnerable. It is worth noting that the air pollution in the cabin of a vehicle stuck in traffic is about twice as high that found as outside the vehicle.31 Another study found that a very modest spike in PM2.5, between 15 and 40 μg/m3, was associated with an increase in the risk of stroke by 34 percent within 24 hours. The risk was found to be greatest within 12 to 14 hours after exposure to air pollution.32 There are other mechanisms by which air pollution can trigger sudden death. Numerous studies show that air pollution can disturb the electrical signaling within the heart, causing dangerous and even fatal abnormal rhythms.33 Blood clots originating in the legs and pelvis can migrate to the heart and lungs causing acute lung dysfunction or even death. Because of air pollution’s enhancement of blood clotting mechanisms, there is a remarkable correlation with rates of deep vein thrombosis, which is even

106

Chapter 4

stronger for diabetics.34 Enlarged muscles may attract a lot of attention at the beach, but the only thing an enlarged heart muscle will attract is a hospital bed. When the blood vessels are narrowed and thickened, the heart has a more difficult time pumping against that resistance. Over time, the heart enlarges, which is one of the reasons why high blood pressure must be treated. Because of pollution’s effect on the blood vessels, people living near heavy traffic develop an oversized muscle mass of the right side of the heart.35 Numerous clinical and laboratory studies have shown that air pollution also decreases the performance of the heart muscle, with consequences ranging from decreased performance in athletes to increased hospitalizations and death for patients with heart failure.36 In fact, a study in animals found that in utero exposure to particulate pollution was associated with impaired performance of the primary pumping mechanism of the heart in adulthood.37 Other long-­term health effects of air pollution during fetal development will be explored in more detail later in this chapter. Air Pollution and the Lungs

Human lungs are remarkable organs in that they allow the constant exchange of massive amounts of oxygen and carbon dioxide. But they are also, literally, a warehouse-­sized sponge, absorbing and storing pollution. If you flattened out an average pair of human adult lungs, including the 500 million alveoli, the tiny air sacs where gas exchange occurs, the resulting surface area would equal that of a full-­size tennis court. Now imagine twenty tennis courts, representing an average rate of 20 breaths per minute for an adult at rest. Imagine how much pollution could land on the surface of 29,000 tennis courts, which represent the number of breaths that a person takes in 24 hours. Since not every alveoli participates in every breath, let’s reduce the image to 15,000 tennis courts. The amount of pollution that can land on 15,000 tennis courts is roughly the amount of pollution that your lungs can inhale every day. And lungs are the gateway for most pollution entering the body. Air pollution decreases lung function in otherwise healthy individuals, exacerbates virtually all pulmonary diseases, and contributes to respiratory infections.38 It also plays an aggravating, and likely causative role in reactive airways disease (asthma).39 Inhalation of particles can lead



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

107

­ irectly to scarring of the lungs.40 Pollution changes the composition of, d and increases the population of, the bacterial flora and immunoglobulin that inhabit the airways.41 It is associated with increased rates of hospitalization and death from respiratory diseases of virtually every type, from neonates to the elderly.42 Brief exposure to ozone and particulate matter reduces lung function even in young healthy adults, and the reduction can last for a week after the pollution exposure has ended.43 Long-­term exposure to ozone and particulate matter also increases overall mortality, especially from respiratory diseases.44 Air pollution can permanently inhibit lung growth in children, preventing them from ever achieving their full adult lung capacity, which would normally occur at the approximate age of 20.45 During lectures I often ask the audience, “How many of you have dreams that your child will grow up to be a world class athlete?” Most parents raise their hands. Then I have to tell them the bad news. Most children who grow up on the Wasatch Front will have lost enough lung function that they will have little chance of becoming an Olympic athlete in an endurance sport. That they should instead shoot for bowling or checkers is not what starry-­eyed parents want to hear. After reaching their peak, the average person loses about one percent of their lung capacity with every year of aging. If someone never achieves their full lung capacity, that decline begins from a lower level, and there are few things that correlate more with life expectancy than lung capacity. In fact, even merely prenatal exposure can reduce fetal lung development, impairing lifelong lung function and increasing susceptibility to respiratory infections later in life.46 Air Pollution and Fetal Development

For decades physicians have known enough to advise women who may be pregnant to avoid almost all medicines, drugs, alcohol, and exposure to cigarette smoke. With this information in hand, that precaution should expand widely to exposure to other potential toxins in air, water, food, consumer goods, cleaning supplies, and personal care products. While air pollution is obviously not the only source of toxins for a pregnant mother, it is certainly one of the most important, most ­ubiquitous,

108

Chapter 4

and one about which there is a limit to what a mother can do to reduce her exposure. Utah perennially ranks first or second in fertility rates among all 50 states. On any given day, about 48,000 women are pregnant in Utah.47 At some point during their pregnancy, almost all these women will have to breathe air pollution at levels that, even by the EPA’s loose standards, are officially designed as “unhealthy for sensitive groups.” Nothing is more sensitive than a fetus. Even if the episode is short-­lived, this pollution could compromise the integrity of fetal development. It was once thought that the placenta acted as a barrier that shielded a human embryo from most environmental toxins. Now we know, unfortunately, that is not the case.48 There are very few opportunities to compensate for defective or inadequate organ development in utero. There is no second chance at normal embryonic brain formation. Perhaps the most disturbing realization from pollution research is that babies are essentially born “pre-­polluted.” Researchers working with the Environmental Working Group studied the umbilical cord blood of 10 U.S. babies and they found a total of 287 industrial chemicals. Of those, 180 were known carcinogens, 217 were toxic to the brain, and 208 had been found to cause developmental dis­orders and birth defects in animals. Obviously some chemicals had m ­ ultiple toxic effects, and the likely number is far more than 287, because they only tested for about 400 chemicals.49 The greatest adverse effect of air pollution on public health might very well be how exposure of the pregnant mother adversely affects fetal development. Particulate matter, chemicals and heavy metals like lead, mercury, dioxins, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) can cross the placenta and interfere with normal organ development. Moreover, the systemic inflammatory process triggered by ozone can also interfere with critical organ development, suppress the immune system, and set the stage for diseases later in life.50 Air Pollution’s Effect on Genetics and Epigenetics

Performance of a computer requires proper functioning hardware and software. If either is defective the computer will not function as designed. In the world of microbiology, genes operate like computer hardware and chemical attachments to genes, i.e., “epigenetics,” function like a ­computer’s



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

109

software, telling the hardware what to perform. Generally it requires less of an environmental toxin to precipitate dysfunction than to cause “­genetic damage,” a term often used to describe actual breaking of the covalent bonds of DNA. Both genetic damage and epigenetic dysfunction are important in provoking disease, and both can be passed on to future progeny. Making matters worse, for some toxins, like mercury, levels in fetal blood generally exceed those of the mother.51 Multiple generations can be harmed by a single exposure. Pollution inhaled by a pregnant mother can affect her health, and then her fetus. But if the fetus is a female, her eggs can also be affected, making a third generation vulnerable. Although sperm itself is not produced until adolescence, testicular development begins in utero. Both a male and female fetus can pass increased risk for disease, morbidity, and reproductive disorders on to subsequent generations.52 Three generations of mice show the chemical markers associated with asthma, mediated by exposing only the first generation during pregnancy to air pollution.53 The mechanism of intergenerational disease transfer is alteration of gene expression — ​in other words, epigenetic changes impairing the immune system of the animals. Exposure can impair sperm quality and function, fragment sperm DNA, and trigger aneuploidy (the wrong number of chromosomes), ultimately risking fertility and genetic integrity of any progeny.54 New research in lab animals takes these concerns to a new level. Merely “preconception” exposure to air pollution, with no exposure after conception, at a level only slightly above the EPA’s 24 hour standard for PM2.5, is enough to cause impaired heart function, decreased heart muscle mass, activated an oxidative stress response and triggered systemic inflammation through genetic or epigenetic changes, later on in adulthood.55 The moral to this story is powerful. Even future generations will be harmed by the air pollution breathed today by future parents. Genes play a critical role in maintaining virtually every aspect of good health. Exposure even to brief episodes of pollution at critical stages in the development of the human embryo can cause a person to experience an increased likelihood of multiple chronic diseases, including those of the heart, lungs, immune and endocrine systems, and the brain. For example, ultrafine particulate pollution can affect development of the fetal brain

110

Chapter 4

in numerous ways, one of which is changing the epigenetics of neuro-­ protective genes on nerve cells.56 Another way in which air pollution impacts fetuses is via mitochondria, which are subcellular structures that can be thought of as mini-­power plants providing the necessary energy for the cell to survive and function properly. Changes in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) can serve as a marker of cumulative oxidative stress. Increased PM2.5 during the third trimester of pregnancy is associated with decreased mtDNA content, suggesting heightened sensitivity to this kind of biological damage in a fetus. Simi­ larly, mitochondrial 8-­hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-­OHdG), a blood marker of oxidative stress and DNA damage, was found to be elevated in both mother and umbilical cord blood, after particulate matter exposure. Chemical attachments to DNA, like methyl groups (a carbon atom with three hydrogen atoms), can alter the activity of the involved DNA segment. Changes in the methylation of DNA are one avenue of triggering adverse epigenetic changes. Placental mitochondrial methylation of DNA is positively associated with maternal air pollution exposure, which is inversely associated with mitochondrial DNA content. This is likely a reflection of air pollution causing mitochondrial death.57 Another way in which genes are impacted has to do with telomeres, which are repeating sequences of DNA at the ends of chromosomes that act much like the end caps of shoelaces, protecting the chromosomes and keeping them from unraveling. Every time a cell divides it loses a little of its telomere length, ultimately limiting the number of divisions. The downside is that limits a cell’s lifespan and is one of the things that ­prevents us from achieving immortality. The upside is that telomere ­attrition is thought to protect against the unlimited proliferation of cancer cells. Telomere shortening corresponds with aging, even further with age related diseases, such as chronic inflammation and oxidative stress, and is associated with early death. On the other hand, a large study of almost 65,000 people over 22 years found that genetically long telomeres were also associated with a higher risk of cancer deaths.58 However, even in patients eventually diagnosed with cancer, a pattern of premature ­telomere shortening was found in the years preceding the cancer diagnosis. Then the accelerated telomere shrinkage stopped three to four years prior to



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

111

the cancer diagnosis.59 In fact, testing for the length of telomeres has been advocated as a marker of how rapidly cells are aging, and therefore a predictor of health risks and life expectancy years in advance of old age. An enzyme, telomerase reverse transcriptase (TRT), acts as a protector of telomeres. If an organism has strong TRT then it can live long after it should otherwise have died. The Rolling Stones’ Keith Richards must have amazing TRT, for instance. Air pollution shortens telomeres, accelerating the aging process.60 One study showed that five μg/m3 of PM2.5 (less than half of the EPA’s annual standard) was associated with a nine percent decrease in telomere length in umbilical cord blood and a 13 percent decrease in the placental telomeres. The most vulnerable period during gestation appears to be the second trimester.61 The initial length of telomeres at birth is largely a function of environ­ mental factors; inheritance plays only a minor role. The length of placental telomeres plays a significant role in determining a person’s life expectancy. Air pollution may shorten the length of placental telomeres, leaving a strong imprint on life expectancy.62 Air Pollution and Pregnancy

Genetic damage, epigenetic changes, and shortened telomeres are not the only way that air pollution can threaten a fetus. As mentioned previously, the signature physiologic consequence of air pollution is a low-­grade arterial inflammation, arteriolar narrowing, and increased vulnerability to clot formation. These outcomes affect blood flow throughout the body and to all organs, including the placenta. Any impairment of placental function can negatively affect fetal development and viability of the baby itself. Researchers have documented air pollution’s connection to impaired placental arterial formation, reduced placental blood flow, and even an increase in the cross section of vessels on the fetal side of the placenta, a compensatory response to reduced blood flow on the mother side of the placenta.63 Even more alarming is that in laboratory animals the placenta can be impaired even if the mother’s exposure occurred prior to pregnancy, but not during.64 If blood flow to the developing embryo or fetus is compromised, then biologic stress can be the end result. Air pollution

112

Chapter 4

during pregnancy precipitates the chemical markers of inflammation, a prelude to pregnancy complications in the near-­term and chronic disease vulnerability later in life.65 C-­reactive protein is a blood marker for systemic inflammation. High C-­reactive protein levels during pregnancy, measured before the third trimester, are correlated with air pollution exposure to the mother.66 For every 10 μg/m3 of PM2.5, the risk of intrauterine inflammation (IUI) was found to be increased 240 percent. IUI contributes to, or is a mechanism for, multiple types of pregnancy complications. The inflammatory response, vascular insult, and chromosomal perturbations are the likely common pathways for the wide-­range of adverse clinical outcomes with air pollution exposure, including those related to pregnancy.67 Premature birth, defined as a birth before 37 weeks gestation, is one of most common pregnancy complications. It affects about 10 percent of babies born in the U.S.68 Prematurity interrupts pregnancy prior to full development of important organ systems (i.e., brain, lungs, liver, etc.). It is the leading cause of death near delivery in otherwise normal newborns, and a major contributor to respiratory failure, gastrointestinal problems, inadequate brain development, seizures, bleeding into the brain, jaundice, prolonged ICU stays, and SIDS. Premature babies that succeed in avoiding or overcoming these serious consequences are still left with increased risks for cerebral palsy, loss of hearing and vision, impaired cognition, behavioral disorders, chronic lung disease, hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes throughout life.69 Numerous studies link outdoor air pollution to premature births. One large study linked 2.7 million preterm births per year in the U.S., 18 percent of all pre-­term births, to particulate pollution.70 Another noteworthy example came from the 9/11 dust cloud produced by the collapse of the Twin Towers in 2001. That event was shown to be associated with significantly higher rates of premature birth and low birth weight in the babies of pregnant women in Manhattan, nearest the site. The study’s authors stated, “the impacts are especially pronounced for fetuses exposed in the first trimester, and for male fetuses. We estimate that in this group, exposure to the dust cloud more than doubled the probability of premature delivery and had similarly large effects on the probability of low birth weight.” 71 This is more evidence that even short-­term air pollution expo-



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

113

sure can affect the developing fetus, and therefore life-­long health. Even one- to two-­day episodes of air pollution can trigger premature births.72 Low birth weight syndrome (LBW) and intra-­uterine growth retarda­ tion (IUGR) refer to smaller than normal babies carried to term. This affects about eight percent of newborns and the list of short-­term and long-­term consequences are very similar, including higher rates of stillbirths. Air pollution exposure significantly increases the rates of LBW and IUGR.73 Even incense burning during pregnancy is associated with smaller weight babies with a smaller head circumference.74 Smoke is bad for babies, whether it comes from cigarettes, fireplaces, candles, barbecues, tailpipes, or smokestacks. Normal thyroid function is critical to fetal growth and development, especially for the fetal brain. Particulate pollution is associated with reduced thyroid hormone, even at levels below the EPA’s standards.75 Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) is a protein that augments the growth, maturation, and differentiation of neurons. It functions much like Brain Miracle-­Gro. It is an important contributor to fetal brain development, in concert with the thyroid hormone. The fetus benefits from gene expression for BDNF coming from the placenta, which is also reduced with pollution exposure.76 Knowing that air pollution affects the blood vessels, it is no surprise to find that it has a strong association with hypertension during pregnancy and pre-­eclampsia, a pregnancy complication consisting of high blood pressure and organ damage, primarily to kidneys and the liver.77 With this disorder both the mother and baby are at risk, and air pollution increases the risk of premature birth over 200 percent.78 Premature rupture of membranes is another important pregnancy complication that predisposes both the mother and baby to increased risk, including infection and hemorrhaging. Membrane rupture has been less studied, but also appears to be correlated with air pollution.79 Gestational diabetes occurs in up to 14 percent of pregnancies, threatens the mother and baby, and involves interference with the production or use of insulin provoked by placental hormones. The incidence of gestational diabetes increases with both PM2.5 and ozone exposure.80 Given air pollution’s capability of delaying and impairing fetal development it would seem logical to find increased rates of birth defects.

114

Chapter 4

I­ ndeed, higher rates of various congenital and nervous system defects are found with pregnant mothers exposed to more air pollution, especially to air toxins, like benzene.81 A study of over 220,000 births from across the U.S. showed that both chronic and acute ozone exposure (during the week prior to delivery) increased the risk of stillbirth.82 The authors concluded that about 8,000 stillbirths per year in the United States could be caused by ozone exposure. For the week prior to delivery, the correlation was an 8–10 percent increase in stillbirths for every 10 ppb ozone. With the EPA standard currently 70 ppb, this study is further evidence that air quality that meets national standards still allows significant community mortality. Miscarriage, a fetal death before 20 weeks gestation, is more difficult to study, but has also been shown to increase with exposure to vehicle-­ generated air pollution.83 This study suggests that the primary culprit in particulate air pollution’s adverse effect on pregnancy outcomes is PAHs, which are often attached to air pollution particles, rather than the particles themselves. This is more evidence that not all air pollution is created equal. Pollution sources that create high levels of PAHs, such as wood smoke, diesel exhaust, and industrial pollution, deserve particular scrutiny from regulators.84 Air Pollution and the Brain and Nervous System

Air pollution particles can find their way into virtually any cell in the body, which initiates an immune response and inflammation. This affects the brain, causing neuronal damage, neuronal loss, loss of brain mass, cortical stress measured by EEG, enhancement of Alzheimer type-­abnormal filamentous proteins, and cerebrovascular damage. Many of these changes can be found in children and young adults.85 The inflammation can cause specialized cells that line blood vessels in the brain, called the “blood-­brain barrier,” to lose their normal function. With these defenses down, the barrier is no longer able to prevent foreign particles, chemicals, and the body’s own molecules of inflammation from entering the brain.86 The immune response to the inflammation can also include the release of antibodies to nerves themselves. Reduced blood flow can be the result of this inflammatory process. Anatomic evidence of blood and oxygen



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

115

deprived areas of the brain appear on MRI scans as spots of White Matter Hyper-­intensities (WMH), found throughout the brain, but primarily in the pre-­frontal cortex, an area of the brain impaired in people who mani­ fest poor decision-­making ability, aggressive, and antisocial behavior.87 The WMH interfere with nerve-­to-nerve signaling and impair brain function, like brain “dead zones.” WMH used to be considered an expected hallmark of advanced aging; now we know otherwise.88 The presence of WMH doubles the risk of dementia and triples the risk of a stroke. WMH impair physical coordination, increase the risk of depression, and are inversely associated with intelligence. These foreboding WMHs are found even in children and young adults exposed to high levels of air pollution, and seldom found in children breathing clean air.89 Air pollution particles and their attached heavy metals and toxic chemicals can actually end up inside the brain from two routes. One is through the lungs and then the bloodstream, facilitated by a compromised blood-­ brain barrier. Another route is through the nose. Pollution particles can attach themselves to the lining of the nose, then to the olfactory nerve fibers in the nose, and ultimately migrate directly back to the brain stem itself. One example of these air pollution particles is the toxic, nano-­sized particles from high temperature fossil fuel combustion called “magnetites” that have been found at autopsies in people as young as three years old.90 Think of magnetites as an energy zapping, havoc wreaking, “kryptonite” on the human brain. People with higher concentrations of these metallic nanoparticles are known to be at higher risk for Alzheimer’s. These particles, comprised of iron oxide, platinum, nickel and cobalt, can originate from industrial, vehicle, or other sources of pollution. Researchers found “millions of these particles per gram of brain tissue” after studying numerous autopsies. Magnetites were responsible for an average of 1/100th of the weight of the brains examined.91 Research in both humans and animals has shown that prenatal exposure to pollution harms the architecture of the brain. In mice prenatal exposure to diesel exhaust results in impaired mental activity as adults.92 Researchers from UCLA found a linear relationship between the amount of PAHs a pregnant mother is exposed to and the loss of brain white matter. There was no safe level of PAH exposure identified.93 The loss of white matter, brain volume, and PAH exposure in turn was correlated directly

116

Chapter 4

with cognitive loss and behavioral disorders measured later on in childhood.94 Numerous other studies show a link between pregnant mothers’ exposure to the full range of air pollution components — ​PAHs, traffic pollution, coal combustion emissions, carbon monoxide, benzene, and nitrogen oxides — ​and decreased intelligence measured later on in childhood.95 Animal studies examining the effect of pollution exposure during what would correspond to the first month of human life, show loss of brain mass around the ventricles, pockets of cerebrospinal fluid in the center of the brain, causing abnormal enlargement of the ventricles.96 In humans this anatomical anomaly is associated with schizophrenia, autism, attention deficit disorder, developmental delays, and cognition handicaps. Well over 150 clinical studies confirm that pollution exposure is associated with almost the full range of neurologic disorders, ­including lower intelligence, diminished motor function, attention deficit and behavioral problems, accelerated dementia, memory and cognitive loss in ­elderly adults, higher rates of strokes, multiple sclerosis, impaired olfactory sense, Parkinson’s, and other neurodegenerative diseases, like depression, anxiety, and suicide. White matter loss in the elderly also corresponds to air pollution exposure.97 Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease are characterized anatomically by abnormal brain architecture, loss of brain volume, aberrant biochemi­ cal and neurotransmitter function, and the deposition of abnormal protein tangles and plaques in the brain, like “tau” and beta amyloid. Air pollution is a likely a contributor to the growing worldwide epidemic of Alzheimer’s, responsible for about 20 percent of the disease according to one study.98 Children are more vulnerable to air pollution than adults. They inhale more pollution because of a higher respiratory rate compared to their body mass, and they have a higher heart rate, which combine to disseminate more pollution particles throughout the body. The protective barriers from specialized cells lining the lungs, blood vessels of the brain, the nose, and the GI tract are less well developed than that of an adult. These factors increase a child’s exposure, subjecting them to a chronic state of environmental stress provoking dysregulation of genes that control inflammation, immune response, cell viability, and communication between brain cells. At the same time, because of the “in progress” developmental status of the



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

117

fetal, infant, and childhood brain and nervous system, the damage can be much greater.99 Childhood brain disorders associated with pollution have been well documented by a robust body of experimental, clinical, epidemiologic and pathology research. Although autism carries a unique and alarming stigma, and it can be profoundly life altering, it is only one point on the wide spectrum of childhood and developmental disorders of the brain that have a strong connection to environmental neurotoxins. Air pollution is one of the important delivery mechanisms for those toxins. The connection between autism and air pollution grows steadily stronger.100 That should be of particular concern to Utahns because Utah has had the highest rates of autism of any state in the country, until being recently eclipsed by New Jersey. According to the CDC in 2012, one of out of every 32 Utah boys has been diagnosed with some form of autism.101 Air Pollution and Cancer

No nation is more infamous for their air pollution than China, even though some cities in India and other parts of the world are often under similar dense blankets of smog. In November 2013, an eight–year old Chinese girl became the youngest known victim of lung cancer, with no known risk other than toxic air.102 The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared air pollution the most important environmental cause of cancer, more important than second-­hand cigarette smoke.103 They placed it in the Group I category, the same as asbestos and ionizing radiation. The most common cancers associated with air pollution are the same as with smoking — ​lung and bladder cancer — ​with about 15 percent of all lung cancer deaths coming from air pollution.104 However, for just about every type of cancer — ​lung, bladder, breast, prostate, ovarian, cervical, brain, eye, nasal, pharyngeal, laryngeal, esophageal, liver, stomach, pancreatic, and childhood leukemia — ​at least one study has found a statistical connec­ tion to air pollution.105 For breast cancer, the most common cancer in women, there are now several studies showing a connection to air pollution. One study showed that for every five ppb of NOx , there was a 25–30 percent increase in the risk of post-­menopausal breast cancer in women.106 By extrapolating the Wasatch Front average NOx , 40 ppb, one might expect an increase in

118

Chapter 4

breast cancer risk by about 250 percent. To put that in context, smoking increases the chance of lung cancer about 1500 percent.107 Increased rates of multiple childhood cancers, such as brain cancer are associated with prenatal pollution exposure at levels common to cities in the United States. Notably, a study shows that victims of childhood acute myeloid leukemia have significantly higher levels of nanoparticles from air pollution in their blood.108 Air pollution is associated with decreased survival in patients with all types of cancer, especially breast cancer.109 Plausible explanations for air pollution’s carcinogenic potential at the molecular level involve many of the same pathways for other morbidities — ​inflammation, immunosuppression, oxidative stress, epigenetic changes, and defective repair mechanisms and replication of DNA.110 Air Pollution and Metabolic and Miscellaneous Disorders

There are now more than 50 studies that show a connection between air pollution and metabolic disorders like type II diabetes, and a few that have found a connection to type I diabetes and obesity. It is a two-­way street. Diabetics are more vulnerable to all of the previously discussed adverse outcomes with pollution exposure.111 Long- and short-­term air pollution exposure decreases insulin sensitivity, even in children.112 Chronic inflammation, like with so many other morbidities, is the likely common denominator as it can interfere with function of the insulin-­producing beta cells in the pancreas.113 There is much national hand wringing and scolding of America for becoming a nation afflicted with obesity. In my own practice of medicine over the last 38 years I deal firsthand with the steadily increasing girth of our population. Indeed, gastric bypass operations have become an industry in and of themselves, including now even being offered to teenagers. While there are many factors involved in this trend, one factor seldom discussed is the relationship to endocrine disrupting chemicals and environmental contaminants. Air pollution promotes obesity and metabolic syndrome, and the mechanism is almost undoubtedly its provocation of chronic ­inflammation.114 Prenatal pollution exposure has a particularly strong association with childhood obesity.115



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

119

Particulate pollution is ingested from air, food, water, and hand to mouth activity. Furthermore, after initial inhalation into the lungs, much of the particulates are cleared by mucociliatory transport into the intestine. Upon arrival to the GI tract, the particles can alter the composition and function of bacterial flora, increase bowel inflammation, affect digestion, and make the intestinal barrier more permeable allowing greater passage of bacteria from intestines into the bloodstream.116 Other epidemiologic research shows the clinical connection between air pollution and several common bowel disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and appendicitis, including the risk of perforated appendicitis.117 Miscellaneous consequences of air pollution exposure include an increase in rates of infant mortality and SIDS, lupus, juvenile arthritis, sleep apnea, and reduced kidney function.118 For those who think nothing is as important as how they look, know that air pollution not only accelerates aging inside the body but also accelerates aging on the outside. It depletes anti-­oxidants from skin, making you look older, with more pigment spots and more wrinkles than normal for your age.119 Not only will clean air make you look better, it will also make you feel better. Researchers found a significant, inverse correlation between air pollution and happiness. Like a negative feedback loop, unhappiness leads to more air pollution,120 although this study did not identify the mechanism. I venture to guess that reading about all the health consequences of air pollution can bring even more unhappiness. But despite the aphorism that ignorance is bliss, I believe the more we know about the health consequences of air pollution, the more likely we are to demand public policy that will give us clean air. Notes 1. Klein, C., “The Great Smog of 1952,” The History Channel, Last modified August

22, 2018, http://www.history.com/news/the-­killer-fog-­that-blanketed-­london​ -60-­years-ago. 2. Bell, M. L., D. L. Davis, and T. Fletcher, “A Retrospective Assessment of Mortality from the London Smog Episode of 1952: The Role of Influenza and Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 112, no. 1 (2004): 6–8, doi:10.1289/ehp​ .6539.

120

Chapter 4

3. Bharadwaj, P., J. G. Zivin, J. T. Mullin, et al., “Early Life Exposure to the Great

Smog of 1952 and the Development of Asthma.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 194, no 12 (2016): 1475–1472, https://doi.org/10.1164​ /rccm.201603-­0451OC. 4. Ibid. 5. Di, Q., Y. Wang, Z. Zanobetti, et al., “Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population.” New England Journal of Medicine 376, no. 26 (2017): 2513–2522, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1702747. 6. Ibid. 7. Peters, A., B. Veronesi, L. Calderón-­Garcidueñas, et al., “Translocation and Potential Neurological Effects of Fine and Ultrafine Particles: A Critical Update.” Particle and Fibre Toxicology 3, no. 13 (2006), doi: 10.1186/1743-­8977-3-­13. 8. Saenen, N. D., H. Bové, C. Steuwe, et al., “Children’s “Urinary Environmental Carbon Load: A Novel Marker Reflecting Residential Ambient Air Pollution Exposure?” American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 196, no. 7 (2017): 873–881, www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/rccm.201704-­0797OC. 9. Miller, M. R., J. B. Raftis, J. P. Langrish, et al., “Inhaled Nanoparticles Accumulate at Sites of Vascular Disease.” ACS Nano 11, no. 5 (2017): 4542–4552, doi:10.1021​ /­acsnano.6b08551. 10. Ibid. 11. Tchounwou, P. B., C. G., Yedjou, A. K. Patlolla, et al., “Heavy Metal Toxicity and the Environment.” Experienta Supplementum 101, (2012): 133–64, doi:10.1007​ /978-­3-7643-­8340-4_6. 12. Urch, B., F. Silverman, P. Corey, et  al., “Acute Blood Pressure Responses in Healthy Adults During Controlled Air Pollution Exposures.” Environmental Health Perspectives 113, no. 8 (2005): 1052–1055, doi:10.1289/ehp.7785. 13. Pieters, N., G. Koppen, M. Van Poppel, et al., “Blood Pressure and Same-­Day Exposure to Air Pollution at School: Associations with Nano-­Sized to Coarse PM in Children.” Environmental Health Perspectives 123, no. 7 (2015): 737–42, doi:10.1289/ehp.1408121. 14. Kaufman, J. D., S. D. Adar, R. G. Barr, et al., “Association Between Air Pollution and Coronary Artery Calcification Within Six Metropolitan Areas in the USA (The Multi-­Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution): A Longitudinal Cohort Study.” Lancet 388, no. 10045 (2016): 696–704, doi:10.1016/S0140​- ­6736​ (16)00378-­0. 15. Li, W., K. S. Dorans, E. H. Wilker, et al., “Short-­Term Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution and Biomarkers of Systemic Inflammation: The Framingham Heart Study.” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 37, no. 9 (2017): 1793– 1800, doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.117.309799. 16. Chen, R., A. Zhou, H. Chen, et al., “Cardiopulmonary Benefits of Reducing Indoor Particles of Outdoor Origin: A Randomized, Double-­Blind Crossover Trial of Air Purifiers.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 65, no. 21 (2015): 2279–2287, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.553.



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

121

17. Bind, M. A., A. Peters, P. Koutrakis, et al., “Quantile Regression Analysis of the

Distributional Effects of Air Pollution on Blood Pressure, Heart Rate Variability, Blood Lipids, and Biomarkers of Inflammation in Elderly American Men: The Normative Aging Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 8 (2016): 1189–1198, doi:10.1289/ehp.1510044. 18. Lin, H., Z. M. Qian, Y. Guo, et al., “The Attributable Risk of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Due to Ambient Fine Particulate Pollution Among Older Adults.” Environment International 113, (2018): 143–148, doi: 10.1016/j.envint​ .2018.01.029. 19. Markus, M. B., “The Top Ten Leading Causes of Death in the U.S.,” CBS News, June 30, 2016, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-­leading-causes-­of-death-­in​ -the-­us/. 20. Huang, F., Y. Luo, Y. Guo, et al., “Particulate Matter and Hospital Admissions for Stroke in Beijing, China: Modification Effects by Ambient Temperature.” Journal of the American Heart Association 5, no. 7 (2016): pii: e003437, doi:10.1161​ /JAHA.116.003437; Shah, A. S., K. K. Lee, D. A. McAllister, et al., “Short Term Exposure to Air Pollution and Stroke.” The BMJ 350 (2015): 1–10. 21. Di, Q., Y. Wang, Z. Zanobetti et al., “Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population.” New England Journal of Medicine 376, no. 26 (2017): 2513–2522, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1702747. 22. Hackshaw, A., J. K. Morris, S. Boniface, et al., “Low Cigarette Consumption and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke: Meta-­Analysis of 141 Cohort S­ tudies in 55 Study Reports.” BMJ Clinical Research 360, no. j5855 (2018): 1–15, doi: 10.1136​ /bmj.j5855. 23. Bell, M. L., A. Zanobetti, F. Dominici, et al., “Who is More Affected by Ozone Pollution? A Systematic Review and Meta-­Analysis.” American Journal of Epidemiology 180, no. 1 (2014): 15–28, doi:10.1093/aje/kwu115. 24. Di, Q., Y. Wang, Z. Zanobetti et al., “Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population.” New England Journal of Medicine 376, no. 26 (2017): 2513–2522, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1702747. 25. Ibid; Cromar, K. R., L. A. Gladson, M. Ghazipura, et al., “Estimated Excess Morbidity and Mortality Associated with Air Pollution above ATS-­Recommended Standards, 2013–2015.” The Annals of the American Thoracic Society 15, no. 5 (2018): 542–550, https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201710-­785EH. 26. Thurston, G. D., R. T. Burnett, M. C. Turner, et  al., “Ischemic Heart Disease ­Mortality and Long-­Term Exposure to Source-­Related Components of U.S. Fine Particle Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 6 (2016): 785– 794. 27. Caiazzo, F., A. Ashok, I. A. Waitz, et al., “Air Pollution and Early Deaths in the United States, Part I: Quantifying the Impact of Major Sectors in 2005.” Atmospheric Environment 79, (2013): 198–208. 28. Collart, P., M. Dramaix, A. Levêque, et al., “Short-­Term Effects of Air Pollution on Hospitalization for Acute Myocardial Infarction: Age Effect on Lag Pattern.”

122

Chapter 4

International Journal of Environmental Health Research 27, no. 1 (2017): 68–81, doi:10.1080/09603123.2016.1268678. 29. Hansell, A., R. E. Ghosh, M. Blangiardo, et al., “Historic Air Pollution Exposure and Long-­Term Mortality Risks in England and Wales: Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.” Thorax 71, no. 4 (2015): 1–9, doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-­2015-207111. 30. Peters, A., S. van Klot, M. Heier, et al., “Exposure to Traffic and the Onset of Myocardial Infarction.” The New England Journal of Medicine 351, (2004): 1721–1730, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa040203. 31. Vreeland, H., R. Weber, M. Bergin, et al., “Oxidative Potential of PM 2.5 During Atlanta Rush Hour: Measurements of In-­Vehicle Dithiothreitol (DTT) Activity.” Atmospheric Environment 165, (2017): 169, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.06.044. 32. Wellenius, G. A., M. R. Burger, B. A. Coull, “Ambient Air Pollution and the Risk of Acute Ischemic Stroke.” Archives of Internal Medicine 172, no. 3 (2012): 229–234. 33. Davoodi, G., A. Y. Sharif, A. Kazemisaed, et al., “Comparison of Heart Rate Variability and Cardiac Arrhythmias in Polluted and Clean Air Episodes in Healthy Individuals.” Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine 15, no. 4 (2010): 217–221. 34. Baccarelli, A., I. Martinelli, A. Zanobetti, et al., “Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution and Risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis.” Archives of Internal Medicine 168, no. 9 (2008): 920–927. 35. Leary, P. J., R. G. Barr, D. A. Bluemke, et al., “The Relationship of Roadway Proximity and NOx With Right Ventricular Structure and Function: The MESA-­Right Ventricle And MESA-­Air Studies.” Poster presented at the ATS Conference, Philadelphia, PA, May 2013. 36. Cakmak, S., R. Dales, J. Leech, et al., “The Influence of Air Pollution on Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Function and Exercise Capacity: Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS).” Environmental Research 111, no. 8 (2011): 1309–1312, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2011.09.016. 37. Gorr, M. W., M. Veltin, T. Velin, et al., “Early Life Exposure to Air Pollution Induces Adult Cardiac Dysfunction.” American Journal of Physiology — ​Heart and Circulatory Physiology 307, no. 9 (2014): H1353–H1360, doi:10.1152/ ajpheart​.00​5​ 26​.2014. 38. Andersen, Z. J., M. Huidberg, S. S. Jensen, et al., “Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Long-­Term Exposure to Traffic-­Related Air Pollution: A Cohort Study.” American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 183, no. 4 (2011): 455–461, doi:10.1164/rccm.201006-­0937OC. 39. Kim, B. J., J. H. Seo, Y. H. Jung, et al., “Air Pollution Interacts with Past Episodes of Bronchiolitis in the Development of Asthma.” Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 68, no. 4 (2013): 517–523, doi:10.1111/all.12104. 40. Pinkerton, K. E., F. H. Y. Green, C. Saiki, et al., “Distribution of Particulate Matter and Tissue Remodeling in the Human Lung.” Environmental Health Perspectives 108, no. 11 (2000): 1063–1069.



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

123

41. Li, N., F. He, B. Liao, et al., “Exposure to Ambient Particulate Matter Alters the

Microbial Composition and Induces Immune Changes in Rat Lung.” Respiratory Research 18, no. 1 (2017): 1–10, doi:10.1186/s12931-­017-0626-­6. 42. Karr, C. J., P. A. Demers, M. W. Koehoorn, et al., “Influence of Ambient Air Pollutant Sources on Clinical Encounters for Infant Bronchiolitis.” American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 180, no. 10 (2009): 995–1001. 43. Schelegle, E. S., C. A. Morales, W. F. Walby, et al., “6.6 Hour Inhalation of Ozone Concentrations from 60 to 87 Parts per Billion in Healthy Humans.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 180, no. 3 (2009): 265–272. 44. Jerrett, M., R. T. Burnett, C. A. Pope, et al., “Long-­Term Ozone Exposure and Mortality.” New England Journal of Medicine 360, no. 11 (2009): 1085–1095; Bell, M. L., R. D. Peng, and F. Dominici, “The Exposure-­Response Curve for Ozone and Risk of Mortality and the Adequacy of Current Ozone Regulations.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114, no. 4 (2006): 532–536; Faustini, A., M. Stafoggia, G. Berti, et al., “The Relationship Between Ambient Particulate Matter and Respiratory Mortality: A Multi-­City Study in Italy.” European Respiratory Journal 38, no. 3 (2011): 538–547. 45. Gauderman, W. J., G. F. Gillilan, H. Vora, et al., “Association Between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth in Southern California Children: Results from a Second Cohort.” American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 166, no. 1 (2002): 76–84; Gauderman, W. J., E. Avol, G. F. Gilliland, et al., “The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age.” New England Journal of Medicine 351, (2004): 1057–1067; Gauderman, W. J., R. Urman, E. Avol, et al., “Association of Improved Air Quality with Lung Development in Children.” New England Journal of Medicine 372, no. 10 (2015): 905–913, doi:10.1056​ /NEJMoa1414123. 46. Jedrychowski, W. A., F. P. Perera, U. Maugeri, et al., “Effect of Prenatal Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter on Ventilatory Lung Function of Preschool Children of Non-­Smoking Mothers.” Paediatric Perinatal Epidemiology 24, no. 5 (2010): 492–501, doi:10.1111/j.1365-­3016.2010.01136.x. 47. “Complete Health Indicator Report of Birth Rates,” Public Health Indicator Based Information System, Utah Department of Health, Last modified November 14, 2018, https://ibis.health.utah.gov/indicator/complete_profile/BrthRat​ .html. 48. Wick, P., A. Malek, P. Mauser, et al., “Barrier Capacity of Human Placenta for Nanosized Materials.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118, no. 3: (2010): 432–436. 49. “Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns,” Environmental Working Group, Last modified July 14, 2005, http://www.ewg.org/research/body-­burden-pollu​ tion​-n ­ ewborns#.WXU3FVKZNSw. 50. Zhang, A., H. Hu, B. N. Sánchez, et al., “Association between Prenatal Lead Exposure and Blood Pressure in Female Offspring.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120, no. 3 (2011): 445–450, http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103736.

124

Chapter 4

51. Santos, E. O., I. M. de Jesus, V. de Magalhães, et al., “Correlation Between Blood

Mercury Levels in Mothers and Newborns in Itaitube, Pará State, Brazil.” Cadernos de Saúde Pública 23, no. 4 (2007): S622–S629, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590​ /­S0102-­311X2007001600022. 52. Bruner-­Tran, K. L., and K. G. Osteen, “Developmental Exposure to TCDD Reduces Fertility and Negatively Affects Pregnancy Outcomes Across Multiple Generations.” Reproductive Toxicology 31, no. 4 (2011): 344–350, http://dx.doi​.org​​/10​ .1016/j.reprotox.2010.10.003. 53. Gregory, D. J., L. Kobzik, Z. Yang, et  al., “Transgenerational Transmission of Asthma Risk After Exposure to Environmental Particles During Pregnancy.” American Journal of Physiology—Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology 313, no. 2 (2017) L395–L405, doi:10.1152/ajplung.00035.2017. 54. Jurewicz, J., M. Radwan, W. Sobala, et al., “The Relationship Between Exposure to Air Pollution and Sperm Disomy.” Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 56, no. 1 (2015): 50–59, doi:10.1002/em.21883; Rubes, J., S. G. Selevan, D. P. Evenson, et al., “Episodic Air Pollution Is Associated with Increased DNA Fragmentation in Human Sperm Without Other Changes in Semen Quality.” Human Reproduction 20, no. 10 (2005): 2776–2783, doi:10.1093/humrep/dei122; Han, X., N. Zhou, Z. Cui, et al., “Association between Urinary Polycyclic Aromatic Hydro­ carbon Metabolites and Sperm DNA Damage: A Population Study in Chong­ qing, China.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 5 (2011): 652–657, doi​:​ 10​.1289/ehp. 1002340; Slama, R., S. Bottagisi, I. Solansky, et al., “Short-­Term Impact of Atmospheric Pollution on Fecundability.” Epidemiology 24, no. 6, (2013): 871–879. 55. Tanwar, V., J. M. Adelstein, J. A. Grimmer, et  al., “Preconception Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter Leads to Cardiac Dysfunction in Adult Male Offspring.” Journal of the American Heart Association 7, no. 24 (2018), doi:10.1161​ /­JAHA.118.010797. 56. Hongying, W., F. Liang, G. Meng, et al., “Redox/methylation Mediated Abnormal DNA Methylation as Regulators of Ambient Fine Particulate Matter-­Induced Neurodevelopment Related Impairment in Human Neuronal Cells.” Scientific Reports 6, no. 33402 (2016): 1–13, doi:10.1038/srep33402. 57. Janssen, B. G., H. M. Byun, W. Gyselaers, et al., “Placental Mitochondrial Methylation and Exposure to Airborne Particulate Matter in the Early Life Environment: An ENVIRONAGE Birth Cohort Study.” Epigenetics 10, no. 6 (2015): 536–544. 58. Rode, L., B. Nordestgaard, S. E. Bojesen, et al., “Peripheral Blood Leukocyte Telomere Length and Mortality Among 64 637 Individuals from the General Population.” JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 107, no. 6 (2015): djv074, doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv074. 59. Hou, L., B. T. Joyce, T. Gao, et al., “Blood Telomere Length Attrition and Cancer Development in the Normative Aging Study Cohort.” EBioMedicine 2, no. 6 (2015): 591–596. 60. Lin, N., X. Mu, G. Wang, et al., “Accumulative Effects of Indoor Air Pollution



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

125

Exposure on Leukocyte Telomere Length Among Non-­Smokers.” Environmental Pollution 227, (2017): 1–7, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.04.054. 61. Martens, D. S., B. Cox, B. G. Janssen, et al., “Prenatal Air Pollution and Newborns’ Predisposition to Accelerated Biological Aging.” JAMA Pediatrics 171, no. 12 (2017): 1160–1167, doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3024. 62. Bijnens, E., M. P. Zeegers, M. Gielen, et al., “Lower Placental Telomere Length May Be Attributed to Maternal Residential Traffic Exposure; A Twin Study.” Environment International 79, (2015): 1–7, doi:10.1016/j.envint.2015.02.008. 63. Hettfleisch, K., L. S. Bernardes, M. A. Carvalho, et al., “Short-­Term Exposure to Urban Air Pollution and Influences on Placental Vascularization Indexes.” Environmental Health Perspectives 125, no. 4 (2017): 753–759, doi:10.1289/EHP300. 64. Soto, S. F., J. O. de Melo, G. D’Aprile Marchesi, et  al., “Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter in the Air Alters Placental Structure and the Renin-­Angiotensin System.” PLoS One 12, no. 8 (2017): e0183314, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183314. 65. Martens, D. S., S. Gouveia, N. Madhloum, et al., “Neonatal Cord Blood Oxylipins and Exposure to Particulate Matter in the Early-­Life Environment: An ENVIRONAGE Birth Cohort Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 125, no. 4 (2017): 691–698. 66. Lee, P. C., E. O. Talbott, J. M. Roberts, et al., “Particulate Air Pollution Exposure and C-­reactive Protein During Early Pregnancy.” Epidemiology 22, no. 4 (2011): 524–531. 67. Nachman, R., G. Mao, X. Zhnag, et al., “Intrauterine Inflammation and Maternal Exposure to Ambient PM2.5 during Preconception and Specific Periods of Pregnancy: The Boston Birth Cohort.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 10 (2016): 1608–1615, doi:10.1289/EHP243. 68. “Premature Birth,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Last modified November 5, 2018, https://www​ .cdc.gov/features/prematurebirth/index.html. 69. Saigal, S., K. L. Day, R. J. Van Lieshout, et al., “Health, Wealth, Social Integration, and Sexuality of Extremely Low-­Birth-Weight Prematurely Born Adults in the Fourth Decade of Life.” JAMA Pediatrics 170, no. 7 (2016): 678–686, doi:10.1001​ /jamapediatrics.2016.0289; Porta, D., S. Narduzzi, C. Badaloni, et al., “Air Pollution and Cognitive Development at Age Seven in a Prospective Italian Birth Cohort.” Epidemiology 27, no. 2 (2016): 228–236; “Preterm Birth,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Last modified April 24, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth​ /­maternalinfanthealth/pretermbirth.htm. 70. Malley, C. S., J. C. Kuylenstierna, H. W. Vallack, et al., “Preterm Birth Associated with Maternal Fine Particulate Matter Exposure: A Global, Regional and National Assessment.” Environment International 101 (2017): 173–182, doi:10.1016/j​ .envint.2017.01.023. 71. Currie, J., and H. Schwandt, “The 9/11 Dust Cloud and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Reconsideration.” The Journal of Human Resources 51, no. 4 (2016): 805–831, doi:10.3368/jhr.51.4.0714-­6533R.

126

Chapter 4

72. Li, S., Y. Gao and G. Williams, “Acute Impact of Hourly Ambient Air Pollution on

Preterm Birth.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 10 (2016): 1623–1629, doi:10.1289/EHP200. 73. Clemens, T., S. Turner, and C. Dibben, “Maternal Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution and Fetal Growth in North-­East Scotland: A Population-­Based Study Using Routine Ultrasound Scans.” Environment International 107 (2017): 216– 226, doi:10.1016/j.envint.2017.07.018. 74. Chen, L. Y., and C. Ho, “Incense Burning During Pregnancy and Birth Weight and Head Circumference among Term Births: The Taiwan Birth Cohort Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 9 (2016): 1487–92, doi:10.1289/ehp​ .1509922. 75. Janssen, B. G., N. D. Saenen, H. A. Roels, et al., “Fetal Thyroid Function, Birth Weight, and in Utero Exposure to Fine Particle Air Pollution: A Birth Cohort Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 125, no. 4 (2017): 699–705. 76. Saenen, N. D., M. Plusquin, E. Bijnens, “In Utero Fine Particle Air Pollution and Placental Expression of Genes in the Brain-­Derived Neurotrophic Factor Signaling Pathway: An ENVIRONAGE Birth Cohort Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 123, no. 8 (2016): 834–840, doi:10.1289/ehp.1408549. 77. Wu, J., C. Ren, R. J. Delfinom, et al., “Association Between Local Traffic-­Generated Air Pollution and Preeclampsia and Preterm Delivery in the South Coast Air Basin of California.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117, no. 11 (2009): 1773– 1779. 78. Ibid. 79. Dadvand, P., X. Basagaña, and F. Figueras, “Air Pollution and Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes: A Spatiotemporal Analysis.” American Journal of Epidemiology 179, no. 2 (2014): 200–207. 80. Hu, H., S. Ha, B. H. Henderson, et al., “Association of Atmospheric Particulate Matter and Ozone with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.” Environmental Health Perspectives 123, no. 9 (2015): 853–859. 81. Dadvand, P., J. Rankin, S. Rushton, et al., “Ambient Air Pollution and Congenital Heart Disease; A Register-­Based Study.” Environmental Research 111, no. 3 (2011): 435–441. 82. Faiz, A. G. G. Rhoads, K. Demissie, et al., “Ambient Air Pollution and the Risk of Stillbirth.” American Journal of Epidemiology 176, no. 4 (2012): 308–316; Mendola, P., S. Ha, A. Z. Pollack, et al., “Chronic and Acute Ozone Exposure in the Week Prior to Delivery Is Associated with the Risk of Stillbirth.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14, no. 7 (2017): pii–E731, doi:10.3390/ijerph14070731. 83. Green, R. S., B. Malig, G. C. Windham, et al., “Residential Exposure to Traffic and Spontaneous Abortion.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117, no. 12 (2009): 1939–1944, doi:10.1289/ehp.0900943. 84. Jedrychowski, W. A., R. Majewska, J. D. Spengler, et al., “Prenatal Exposure to Fine Particles and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Birth Outcomes: A



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

127

Two-­Pollutant Approach.” International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 90, (2017): 255–264, doi:10.1007/s00420-­016-1192-­9. 85. Calderón-­Garcidueñas, L., W. Reed, R. R. Maronpot, et al., “Brain Inflammation and Alzheimer’s-­Like Pathology in Individuals Exposed to Severe Air Pollution.” Toxicologic Pathology 32, no. 6 (2004): 650–658. 86. Hartz, A., B. Bauer, M. L. Block, et al., “Diesel Exhaust Particles Induce Oxidative Stress, Proinflammatory Signaling, and P-­Glycoprotein, Up-­Regulation at the Blood-­Brain Barrier.” The FASEB Journal 22, no. 8 (2008): 2723–2733. 87. Yang, Y., A. L. Glenn, and A. Raine, “Brain Abnormalities in Antisocial Individuals: Implications for the Law.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law 26, no. 1 (2008): 65–83, doi:10.1002/bsl.788. 88. Wardlaw, J. M., M. C. Valdés Hernández, and S. Muñoz-­Maniega, “What Are White Matter Hyperintensities Made of ?” Journal of the American Heart Association 4, no. 6 (2015): e001140, doi:10.1161/JAHA.114.001140. 89. Calderón-­Garcidueñas, L., A. M. Tiscareño, M. Styner, et al., “White Matter Hyperintensities, Systemic Inflammation, Brain Growth, and Cognitive Functions in Children Exposed to Air Pollution.” Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 31, no. 1 (2012): 183–191. 90. Oberdörster, G., Z. Sharp, V. Atudorei, et al., “Translocation of Inhaled Ultrafine Particles to the Brain.” Inhalation Toxicology 16, no. 6–7 (2004): 437–445; Maher, B., I. A. Ahmed, V. Karloukovski, et al., “Magnetite Pollution Nanoparticles in the Human Brain.” PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, no. 39 (2016): 10797–10801, doi:10.1073/pnas​ .1605941113. 91. González-­Maciel, A., R. Reynoso-­Robles, R. Torres-­Jardón, et al., “Combustion-­ Derived Nanoparticles in Key Brain Target Cells and Organelles in Young Urbanites: Culprit Hidden in Plain Sight in Alzheimer’s Disease Development.” Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 59, no. 1 (2017): 189–208, doi:10.3233/JAD-­170012. 92. Bolton, J. L., N. C. Huff, S. H. Smith, et al., “Maternal Stress and Effects of Prenatal Air Pollution on Offspring Mental Health Outcomes in Mice.” Environmental Health Perspectives 121, no. 9 (2013): 1075–1082. 93. Peterson, B., V. A. Rauh, R. Bansal, et al., “Effects of Prenatal Exposure to Air Pollutants (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) on the Development of Brain White Matter, Cognition, and Behavior in Later Childhood.” JAMA Psychiatry 72, no. 6 (2015): 531–540, doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.57. 94. Perera, F., D. Tang, S. Wang, et al., “Prenatal Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Exposure and Child Behavior at age 6–7.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120, No. 6 (2012): 921–926. 95. Perera, F., Z. Li, R. Whyatt, et al., “Prenatal Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydro­ carbon Exposure and Child IQ At Age 5 Years.” Pediatrics 124, no. 2 (2009): e195– e202, doi:10.1542/peds.2008-­3506; Edwards, S. C., W. Jedrychowski, M. Butscher, et al., “Prenatal Exposure to Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Children’s Intelligence at Age 5 in a Prospective Cohort Study in P ­ oland.”

128

Chapter 4

­ nvironmental Health Perspectives 118, no. 9 (2010): 1326-­1331, doi:10.1289​/­ehp​ E .0901070; Zhou, Z., T. Li, Z. Zhou, et al., “Benefits of Reducing Prenatal Exposure to Coal-­Burning Pollutants to Children’s Neurodevelopment in China.” Environmental Health Perspectives 116, no. 10 (2008): 1396–1400, doi:10.1289​ /ehp​.11480; Perera, F., D. Tang, S. Wang, et al., “Prenatal Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Exposure and Child Behavior at Age 6–7.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120, no. 6 (2012): 921–926; Perera, F., K. Weiland, M. Neidell, et al., “Prenatal Exposure to Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and IQ: Estimated Benefit of Pollution Reduction.” Journal of Public Health Policy 35, no. 3 (2014): 327–336, doi:10.1057/jphp.2014.14; Kim, E., H. Park, Y. Hong, et al., “Prenatal Exposure to PM10 and NO2 and Children’s Neurodevelopment from Birth to 24 Months Of Age: Mothers and Children’s Environmental Health (MOCEH) Study.” Science of the Total Environment 481, no. 15 (2015): 439–445, doi:​10​.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.107; Jedrychowski, W. A., F. P. Perera, D. Camann, et al., “Prenatal Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Cognitive Dysfunction in Children.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 22, no. 5 (2014): 3631–3639; Perera, F. P, H. Chang, D. Tang, et al., “Early-­Life Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and ADHD Behavior Problems.” PLoS ONE 9, no. 11 (2014): e111670, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111670. 96. Allen, J., X. Liu, S. Pelkowski, et al., “Early Postnatal Exposure to Ultrafine Particulate Matter Air Pollution: Persistent Ventriculomegaly, Neurochemical Disruption, and Glial Activation Preferentially in Male Mice.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122, no. 9 (2014): 939–945. 97. Chen, J. C., X. Wang, G. A. Wellenius, et al., “Ambient Air Pollution and Neurotoxicity on Brain Structure: Evidence From Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study.” Annals of Neurology 78, no. 3 (2015): 466–476. 98. Levesque, S., T. Taetzsch, M. E. Lull, et al., “Diesel Exhaust Activates and Primes Microglia: Air Pollution, Neuroinflammation and Regulation of Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 8 (2011): 1149–1155; Jung, C. R., Y. T. Lin and B. F. Hwang, “Ozone, Particulate Matter, and Newly Diagnosed Alzheimer’s Disease: A Population-­Based Cohort Study in Taiwan.” Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 44, no. 2 (2015): 573–584, doi:10.3233/JAD-­140855. 99. Saigal, S., K. L. Day, R. J. Van Lieshout, et al., “Health, Wealth, Social Integration, and Sexuality of Extremely Low-­Birth-Weight Prematurely Born Adults in the Fourth Decade of Life.” JAMA Pediatrics 170, no. 7 (2016): 678–686, doi:10.1001​ /jamapediatrics.2016.0289; Porta, D., S. Narduzzi, C. Badaloni, et al., “Air Pollution and Cognitive Development at Age Seven in a Prospective Italian Birth Cohort.” Epidemiology 27, no. 2 (2016): 228–236. 100. Kim, D., H. Volk, S. Girirajan, et al., “The Joint Effect of Air Pollution Exposure and Copy Number Variation on Risk for Autism.” Autism Research 10, no. 9 (2017): 1470–1480, doi:10.1002/aur.1799; Lam, J., P. Sutton, A. Kalkbrenner, et al., “A Systematic Review and Meta-­Analysis of Multiple Airborne Pollutants and Autism Spectrum Disorder.” PLoS One 11, no. 9 (2016): e0161851, doi:10.1371​



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

129

/­journal​.pone.0161851; Flores-­Pajot, M. C., M. Ofner, M. T. Do, et al., “Childhood Autism Spectrum Disorders and Exposure To Nitrogen Dioxide, and Particulate Matter Air Pollution: A Review and Meta-­Analysis.” Environmental Research 151 (2016): 30317–30316, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2016.07.030; Allen, J. L., G. Oberdorster, K. Morris-­Schaffer, et al., “Developmental Neurotoxicity of Inhaled Ambient Ultra­fine Particle Air Pollution: Parallels with Neuropathological and Behavioral Features of Autism and Other Neurodevelopmental Dis­orders.” Neuro­Toxicology 59, (2015): 30048–30056, doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2015.12.014; Dickerson, A. S., M. H. Rahbar, I. Han, et al., “Autism Spectrum Disorder Prevalence and Proximity to Industrial Facilities Releasing Arsenic, Lead Or Mercury.” Science of the Total Environment 536, (2015): 245–251, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv​ .2015.07.024; Talbott, E. O., V. C. Arena, J. R. Rager, et al., “Fine Particulate Matter and the Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Environmental Research 140 (2015): 414–420; Kalkbrenner, A. E., G. C. Windham, M. L. Serre, et al., “Particulate Matter Exposure, Prenatal and Postnatal Windows of Susceptibility, and Autism Spectrum Disorders.” Epidemiology 20, no 1. (2015): 30–42; von Ehrenstein, O. S., H. Aralis, M. Cockburn, et al., “In Utero Exposure to Toxic Air Pollutants and Risk of Childhood Autism.” Epidemiology 25, no. 6 (2014): 851–858; Volk, H. E., T. Kerin, F. Lurmann, et al., “Autism Spectrum Disorder: Inter­action of Air Pollution with the MET Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Gene.” Epi­demiology 25, no. 1 (2014): 44–57, doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000030; Volk, H. E., I. Hertz-­ Picciotto, L. Delwiche, et al., “Residential Proximity to Freeways and Autism in the CHARGE Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 6 (2011): 873– 877; Rzhetsky, A., S. C. Bagley, K. Wang, et al., “Environmental and State-­Level Regulatory Factors Affect the Incidence of Autism and Intellectual Disability.” PLoS Computational Biology 10, no. 3 (2014): e1003518, doi:10.1371​/­journal.pcbi​ .1003518; Becerra, T., M. Wilhelm, J. Olsen, et al., “Ambient Air Pollution and Autism in Los Angeles County, California.” Environmental Health Perspectives 121, no. 3 (2013): 380–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1205827; Jung, C. R., Y. T. Lin, B. F. Hwang, et al., “Air Pollution and Newly Diagnostic Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Population-­Based Cohort Study in Taiwan.” PLoS One 8, no. 9 (2013): e75510; Windham, G. C., L. Zhang, R. Gunier, et al., “Autism Spectrum Disorders in Relation to Distribution of Hazardous Air Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114, no. 9 (2006): 1438– 1444; Rossignol, D. A., S. J. Genuis, and R. E. Frye, “Environmental Toxicants and Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review.” Translational Psychiatry 4, no. 2 (2014): e360, doi:10.1038/tp.2014.4; Lyall, K., R. J. Schmidt, and I. Hertz Picciotto, “Maternal Lifestyle and Environmental Risk Factors for Autism Spectrum Disorders.” International Journal of Epidemiology 43, no. 2 (2014): 443–464; Raz, R., A. L. Roberts, K. Lyall, et al., “Autism Spectrum Disorder and Particulate Matter Air Pollution Before, During, and After Pregnancy: A Nested Case-­ Control Analysis Within the Nurses’ Health Study II Cohort.” Environmental Health Perspectives 123, no. 3 (2014): 264–270.

130

Chapter 4

101. Lyon, J., “Utah Has Nation’s Highest Autism Rate, CDC Report Says,” The Salt

Lake Tribune, March 30, 2012, http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=53816934​ &itype=CMSID. 102. Wong, E., “An 8-­Year Old Girl’s Cancer is Blamed on Air Pollution,” The New York Times, November 5, 2018, https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/05​ /an-­8-year-­old-girls-­lung-cancer-­is-blamed-­on-air-­pollution/. 103. “Outdoor Air Pollution a Leading Cause of Cancer, Say UN Health Experts,” UN News, October 17, 2013, https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/10/453222-­outdoor​ -air-­pollution-leading-­cause-cancer-­say-un-­health-experts. 104. Franchini, M., P. M. Mannucci, S. Harari, F. Pontoni, and E. Croci, “The Health and Economic Burden of Air Pollution.” The American Journal of Medicine 128, no. 9 (2015): 931–932, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.03.021. 105. Raaschou-­Nielsen, O., Z. Jovanovic Andersen, M. Hvidberg, et al., “Lung Cancer Incidence and Long-­Term Exposure to Air Pollution from Traffic.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 6 (2011): 860–865. 106. Crouse, D. L., M. S. Goldberg, N. A. Ross, et al., “Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Is Associated with Exposure to Traffic-­Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: A Case–Control Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118, no. 11 (2010): 1578–1583, doi:10.1289/ ehp.1002221. 107. “Lung Cancer,” Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Last modified July 19, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm. 108. Visani, G., A. Manti, L. Valentini, et al., “Environmental Nanoparticles Are Significantly Over-­E xpressed in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.” Leukemia Research 50, (2016): 50–56; von Ehrenstein, O., J. E. Heck, A. S. Park, et al., “In Utero and Early-­Life Exposure to Ambient Air Toxics and Childhood Brain Tumors: A Population-­Based Case–Control Study in California, USA.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 7 (2016): 1093–1099, doi:10.1289/ehp.1408582. 109. Ho, C. K., C. Y. Peng, and C. Y. Yang, “Traffic Air Pollution and Risk of Death from Bladder Cancer in Taiwan Using Petrol Station Density as a Pollutant Indicator.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 73, no. 1 (2010): 23–32, doi:10.1080/15287390903248869; Hu, H., A. B. Dailey, H. Kan, et al., “The Effect of Atmospheric Particulate Matter on Survival of Breast Cancer Among U.S. Females.” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 139, no. 1 (2013): 217–226; Hung, L. J., T. F. Chan, C. H. Wu, et al., “Traffic Air Pollution and Risk of Death from Ovarian Cancer in Taiwan: Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) as a Proxy Marker.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 75, no. 3 (2012): 174–182; Grant, W. B., “Air Pollution in Relation to U.S. Cancer Mortality Rates: An Ecological Study; Likely Role of Carbonaceous Aerosols and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.” Anticancer Research 29, no. 9 (2009): 3537–3545; Wong, C. M., H. Tsang. H. K. Lai, et al., “Cancer Mortality Risks from Long-­term Exposure to Ambient Fine Particle.” Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevention 25, no. 5 (2016): 839–845, doi:10.1158/1055-­9965.EPI-­15-0626.



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

131

110. Mehta, M., L. C. Chen, T. Gordon, et al., “Particulate Matter Inhibits DNA Repair

and Enhances Mutagenesis.” Mutation Research 657, no. 2 (2008): 116–121.

111. Pearson, J., C. Bachireddy, S. Shyamprasad, et al., “Association Between Fine

Particulate Matter and Diabetes Prevalence in the U.S.” Diabetes Care 33, no. 10 (2010): 2196–2201, doi:10.2337/ dc10-­0698; Krämer, U., C. Herder, D. Sugiri, et al., “Traffic-­related Air Pollution and Incident Type 2 Diabetes: Results from the SALIA Cohort Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118, no. 9 (2010): 1273–1279, doi:10.1289/ehp.0901689; Coogan, P. F., L. F. White, M. Jerrett, et al., “Air Pollution and Incidence of Hypertension and Diabetes in African American Women Living in Los Angeles.” Circulation 125, no. 6 (2012): 767–772; Liu, C., Z. Ying, J. Harkema, et al., “Epidemiological and Experimental Links between Air Pollution and Type 2 Diabetes.” Toxicologic Pathology 41, no. 2 (2012): 361– 373; Park, S. K., and W. Wang, “Ambient Air Pollution and Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Epidemiologic Research.” Current Environmental Health Reports 1, no. 3 (2014): 275–286; Li, C., D. Fang, D. Xu, et al., “Mechanisms in Endocrinology: Main Air Pollutants and Diabetes-­A ssociated Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-­Analysis.” The European Journal of Endocrinology 171, no. 5 (2014): R183–R190; Park, S. K., S. D. Adar, M. S. O’Neill, et al., “Long-­Term Exposure to Air Pollution and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a Multiethnic Cohort.” American Journal of Epidemiology 181, no. 5 (2015): 327–336; Malmqvist, E., H. E. Larsson, I. Jönsson, et al., “Maternal Exposure to Air Pollution and Type 1 Diabetes—Accounting For Genetic Factors.” Environmental Research 140, (2015): 268–274, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2015.03.024; Meo, S. A., A. N. Memon, S. A. Sheikh, et al., “Effect of Environmental Air Pollution on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.” European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 19, no. 1 (2015): 123–128. 112. Xu, X., C. Liu, Z. Xu, et al., “Long-­term Exposure to Ambient Fine Particulate Pollution Induces Insulin Resistance and Mitochondrial Alteration in Adipose Tissue.” Toxicological Sciences 124, no. 1 (2011): 88–98. 113. Makaji, E., S. Raha, M. G. Wade, et al., “Effect of Environmental Contaminants on Beta Cell Function.” International Journal of Toxicology 30, no. 4 (2011): 410–418; Khafaie, M. A, S. S. Salvi, A. Ojha, et al., “Systemic Inflammation (C-­ Reactive Protein) in Type 2 Diabetic Patients Is Associated With Ambient Air Pollution in Pune City, India.” Diabetes Care 36, no. 3 (2012): 625–630; Liu, C., X. Xu, Y. Bai, et al., “Air Pollution–Susceptibility to Inflammation and Insulin Resistance: Influence of CCR2 Pathways in Mice.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122, no. 1 (2014): 17–26, doi:10.1289/ehp. 1306841; Nemmar, A., S. Al-­ Salam, S. Beegam, et al., “Pancreatic Effects of Diesel Exhaust Particles in Mice with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.” Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry 33, no. 2 (2014): 413–422; Haberzettl, P., T. E. O’Toole, A. Bhatnagar, et al., “Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution Causes Vascular Insulin Resistance by Inducing Pulmonary Oxidative Stress.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 12 (2016): 1830–1839; Wolf, K., A. Popp, A. Schneider, et al., “Association Between

132

Chapter 4

­ ong-­Term ­E xposure to Air Pollution and Biomarkers Related to Insulin ReL sistance, Subclinical Inflammation and Adipokines.” Diabetes 65, no. 11 (2016): 3314–3326, https://doi​.org/10.2337/db15-­1567. 114. Wei, Y., J, Zhang, Z. Li, et al., “Chronic Exposure to Air Pollution Particles Increases the Risk of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome: Findings from a Natural Experiment in Beijing.” The FASEB Journal 30 (2016): 2115–2122, https://doi.org​ /10.1096/fj.201500142. 115. Rundle, A., L. Hoepner, A. Hassoun, et al., “Association of Childhood Obesity with Maternal Exposure to Ambient Air Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons During Pregnancy.” American Journal of Epidemiology 175, no. 11 (2012): 1163– 1172, doi:10.1093/aje/kwr45. 116. Salim, S. Y., G. G. Kaplan, and K. L. Madsen, “Air Pollution Effects on the Gut Microbiota.A Link Between Exposure and Inflammatory Disease.” Gut Microbes 5 no. 2 (2014): 215–219, doi:10.4161/gmic.27251. 117. Beamish, L. A., A. R. Osornio-­Vargas, E. Wine, et al., “Air Pollution: An Environmental Factor Contributing to Intestinal Disease.” Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis 5, no. 4 (2011): 279–286, doi:10.1016/j.crohns.2011.02.017; Kaplan, G. G., G. Hubbard, J. Korzenik, et al., “The Inflammatory Bowel Diseases and Ambient Air Pollution: A Novel Association.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 105, no. 11 (2010): 2412–2419, doi:10.1038/ajg.2010.252; Kaplan, G. G., E. Dixon, R. Panaccione, et al., “Effect of Ambient Air Pollution on the Incidence of Appendicitis.” Canadian Medial Association Journal 181, no. 9 (2009) 591–597, doi:10.1503​ /cmaj.082068; Kaplan, G. G., D. Tanyingoh, E. Dixon, et al., “Ambient Ozone Concentrations and the Risk of Perforated and Nonperforated Appendicitis: A Multicity Case-­Crossover Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 121, no. 8 (2013): 939–943. 118. Litchfield, I., B. F. Hwang, and J. Jaakkola, “The Role of Air Pollution as a Determinant of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-­ analysis.” Epidemiology 22, no. 1 (2011): S165–S166. doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000​ 392182.47995.3c; Scheers, H., S. M. Mwalili, C. Faes, et al., “Does Air Pollution Trigger Infant Mortality in Western Europe? A Case-­Crossover Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 7 (2011): 1017–1022, doi:10.1289/ehp.1002913; Bernatsky, S., M. Fournier, C. A. Pineau, et al., “Associations Between Ambient Fine Particulate Levels and Disease Activity in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE).” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 1 (2010): 45–49, http://dx.doi​ .org/ 10.1289/ehp.1002123; Zeft, A. S., S. Prahalad, S. Lefevre, et al., “Juvenile Idio­ pathic Arthritis and Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Clinical and Experimental Rheumotology 27, no. 5 (2009): 877–884; Zeft, A. S., S. Prahalad, R. Schneider, et al., “Systemic Onset Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Clinical and Experimental Rheumotology 34, no. 5 (2016): 946; Zanobetti, A., S. Redline, J. Schwartz, et al., “Associations of PM 10 With Sleep and Sleep-­Disordered Breathing in Adults from Seven U.S. Urban Areas.” American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 182,



Air Pollution and Its Impacts on Human Health

133

no. 6 (2010): 819–825; Lue, S., G. A. Wellnius, E. H. Wilker, et al., “Residential Proximity to Major Roadways and Renal Function.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 67 (2013): 629–634, doi:10.1136/jech-­2012-202307; Slama, R., S. Bottagisi, I. Solansky, et al., “Short-­Term Impact of Atmospheric Pollution on Fecundability.” Epidemiology 24, no. 6, (2013): 871–879. 119. Vierkötter, A., T. Schikowski, U. Ranft, et al., “Airborne Particle Exposure and Extrinsic Skin Aging.” Journal of Investigative Dermatology 130, no. 12 (2010): 2719–2726. 120. Byron, L., and M. Arvin, “Happiness and Air Pollution: Evidence from 14 European Countries.” International Journal of Green Economics 6, no. 4 (2012): 331–335.

5 Air Pollution Control in Utah The Legal Framework JAMES A. HOLTKAMP

The effort to improve Utah’s air quality takes place on many fronts, from scientific research into the chemistry of air pollution to citizen activism. Defending existing laws and regulations, advocating for and implementing new laws and regulations, and ensuring all of the above are enforced are tools central to cleaning Utah’s air. For some, the legal framework is too stringent. Discussion frequently focuses on the perceived economic hardships (see chapter six) or restriction of “freedom” as in the case of illegally modified diesel pickup trucks — the so-called “coal rollers” that emit copious amounts of black soot from tailpipes.1 For others, the legal and enforcement framework seems too lax, when point source polluters are allowed to expand operations and introduce more pollutants into the airshed and mobile source emissions seem to be neither regulated nor enforced as stringently as they could be. Perhaps the law is the most powerful tool available to control air pollution, and no discussion of air pollution in Utah (or elsewhere, for that matter) can be complete without examining the legal framework. For those outside of the legal profession — and perhaps for many within the profession — this web of laws and regulations can seem complex. This chapter seeks to explain the legal landscape of air pollution control in a way useful to general readers and legal professionals alike. To begin, a brief history of legal framework will help. The regulation of emissions of air pollution from industrial facilities, cars and trucks and 134



Air Pollution Control in Utah

135

other sources is governed by a combination of federal and state laws and regulations. The Federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the “CAA”), provides the federal statutory framework for regulation of air pollution.2 The CAA establishes “cooperative federalism,” in regulating air emissions, meaning that the underlying policy of the CAA is for states to e­ nforce clean air requirements pursuant to regulations and guidance issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Utah Air Conservation Act (the ACA) establishes the authority under state law to administer programs for the control and mitigation of air pollution.3 Within the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) administers air pollution regulations in the state. Ambient Air Quality

A major objective of the CAA and the ACA is to protect ambient air quality thereby protecting public health and welfare. (For an overview of the health impacts of air pollution, see chapter four.) For purposes of the statutes, “ambient air” is the air outside of enclosed structures, and in the case of industrial facilities, the air outside of the fence line or other boundary of the property.4 The CAA requires the EPA to promulgate primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each air p ­ ollutant, “the emissions of which . . .cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” and which “results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources.” 5 A “primary” NAAQS is “requisite to protect the public health,” and a “secondary” NAAQS is “requisite to protect the public welfare.” 6 The EPA has established NAAQS for six “criteria pollutants.” These include ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead.7 Of these, the two most pervasive criteria pollutants both nationally and in Utah are ozone and particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns, known as “PM2.5” or “fine particulate matter.” “Coarse particulate matter” or “PM10” consists of particles between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter. Within one year after a NAAQS has been promulgated or revised by the EPA, the governor of each state is required to submit to the EPA a list

136

Chapter 5

designating areas in the state that are not in attainment with the NAAQS (“nonattainment areas”), in attainment with the NAAQS (“attainment areas”), or not classifiable because of a lack of sufficient information (“unclassifiable areas”).8 The EPA makes the final determination of the area designations based on the governor’s submittal, or, if the governor does not submit designations within the required time frame, the EPA makes the designation itself.9 The State of Utah contains final nonattainment areas for ozone and final nonattainment areas for PM2.5. The ozone n ­ onattainment areas are along the heavily urbanized Wasatch Front and in the Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah, a site of intensive oil and gas development. Utah’s PM2.5 nonattainment areas are along parts of the Wasatch Front, in Tooele County and Cache County,10 where the small city of Logan and the surrounding agricultural communities are finding they have a big-­city air pollution problem. State Implementation Plans

The CAA requires each state to submit to the EPA “a plan which provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of the NAAQS in each nonattainment area.11 The plan, called a State Implementation Plan (SIP), must be submitted within 3 years after EPA issues or revises a NAAQS.12 Among other things, a SIP is required to include: • “[E]nforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques. . .as may be necessary to meet the applicable requirements. . .” of the CAA; • Provisions “for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to. . . monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality. . . .” and for “the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator [of the EPA] may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant” for which a NAAQS has been established; • A program for “regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved,” including applicable permit programs;



Air Pollution Control in Utah

137

• Requirements for monitoring and reporting emissions from individual sources; • “[A]ssurances that the State . . .will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State (and as appropriate, local) law to carry out” the SIP; and • Provisions for enforcement of the requirements in the SIP.13 Additional SIP provisions may be required depending on the severity of violation of the particular NAAQS. Before submitting the SIP plan to the EPA, the state is required to provide public notice and opportunity for comment.14 In Utah, the proposed SIP is subject to the same requirements for public notice and comment as are proposed state rules under the Utah Administrative Procedures Act.15 The EPA has issued detailed rules and guidance addressing the NAAQS process, the data necessary to determine whether the NAAQS has been attained, the content of SIPs, and other NAAQS and SIP requirements. These rules include “Implementation Rules,” which set forth the guidelines and requirements governing the development of a SIP for a particular NAAQS.16 Hazardous Air Pollutants

The six criteria pollutants are not the only air pollutants emitted from man-­made sources (although ozone is not directly emitted, it is a result of chemical reactions involving nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sunlight, and other factors — ​and PM2.5 in part results from VOCs and other gaseous emissions). (For a discussion of the chemistry of air pollution, see chapter two.) There are hundreds of other emissions, many of which are classified as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). An emission is classified as a HAP if it is included in a list of 189 HAPs in section 112(b) of the CAA or if it is added to the list pursuant to a process provided in the CAA.17 The EPA is required to identify categories of sources of HAPs and to issue “emissions standards for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants.” 18 These standards, known as National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) “require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions” of

138

Chapter 5

the HAPs and may not be less stringent than the emission control achieved by the best controlled similar source.19 The upper limit of NESHAP may not be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources in the category or by the best performing five sources in a category or subcategory with fewer than 30 sources.20 NESHAPs apply to a “major source” of HAPs, which is defined as a source emitting in excess of 10 tons per year of a HAP or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs, although the EPA may establish a lower threshold depending on the potency of the HAP and other factors.21 The CAA also requires the EPA to set standards for certain categories of “area sources” of HAPs, which are sources that do not meet the major source threshold on an individual basis but collectively present “a threat of adverse effects to human health or the environment (by such sources individually or in the aggregate) warranting regulation.” 22 Examples of area sources of HAPs for which standards have been issued by the EPA include dry cleaners and hospital sterilizers.23 Visibility Protection

One might think that air pollution is largely a problem found in cities, but many rural and wilderness regions suffer from degraded air quality as well. (For a discussion of rural air quality, see chapter three, and for a discussion of public lands, recreation, and air quality, see chapter one.) Air pollution from urban areas and large sources can travel long distances and affect visibility in remote areas, a condition known as “regional haze.” The CAA requires the EPA to issue rules to enhance and protect visibility in “class I federal areas,” which include national wilderness areas exceeding 5,000 acres in size and national parks exceeding 6,000 acres in size that were in existence as of August 7, 1977.24 A state or tribe may also designate an area as class I under certain circumstances.25 In Utah, the class I areas subject to visibility protection include Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, and Zion National Parks.26 The CAA requires that major sources which commenced construction between August, 1962 and August 1977 which cause or contribute to degradation of visibility in Class I areas install “best available retrofit technology” to control “any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility.” 27 Other sources that



Air Pollution Control in Utah

139

contribute to visibility degradation are subject to requirements to take “measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal” of visibility improvement in class I areas.28 In 2015, UDAQ submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to implement the regional haze program. The proposed revision would require additional control of nitrogen oxides and PM10 at the PacifiCorp Hunter and Huntington coal-­fired power plants in central Utah. In July 2016, the EPA issued a rule approving in part and disapproving in part the revisions.29 The EPA determined that the proposed controls did not go far enough to control nitrogen oxides and required installation of significant additional controls.30 UDAQ and PacifiCorp appealed this decision to the Federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The EPA determined it would reconsider the rule and moved to hold the appeal in abeyance pending reconsideration. The appeal remains abated as of the publication date of this book. Permitting of Major Sources

To help preserve air quality in areas in attainment with the NAAQS, the CAA includes a permitting process. The owner or operator of a new major source of air emissions or any modification of an existing source in an attainment or unclassifiable area, which will significantly increase emissions, must obtain a permit before commencing construction.31 The purpose of the permit requirement is to “prevent significant deterioration of air quality.” 32 As such, the attainment areas are referred to as Prevent Significant Deterioration (PSD) areas. The term “major source” is defined as a source with the potential to emit over a specified amount of emissions expressed in tons per year. “Potential to emit” means “the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design,” which includes enforceable limitations, including pollution control equipment, hours of operation, or type or amount of fuel combusted.33 In areas in attainment with the NAAQS, the major source threshold is 100 tons per year of emissions of the specified pollutant for sources within source categories listed in the CAA and 250 tons per year for sources not in one of the listed source categories.34 For sources within a nonattainment area, the major source threshold varies depending on the severity of nonattainment of the applicable NAAQS, and a new major source is

140

Chapter 5

required to secure offsetting emissions reductions.35 In Utah, examples of major sources include PacifiCorp’s Hunter and Huntington coal-­fired power plants, the refineries in northern Salt Lake and southern Davis counties, and the Rio Tinto Kennecott copper smelter and refinery complex just south of the Great Salt Lake. The owner or operator may not commence construction of the major source or major modification of an existing source without first obtaining a permit, which in Utah is issued by UDAQ, unless the source or proposed source is in Indian Country, in which case the EPA or the tribal authority is the permitting agency.36 “Indian Country” in Utah includes the present-­ day reservations in Utah, along with a large portion of eastern Utah that was once within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation but was opened to non-­Indian settlement over a century ago.37 “Minor sources” are new or modified sources that do not meet the major source potential to emit thresholds but are still required to obtain a permit from UDAQ prior to commencing construction.38 However, the requirements for such minor source permits are less rigorous than those for major sources. The minor source requirements are less stringent because to require a minor source to install the same controls as a major source would be prohibitively expensive. Utah (and most states) are actually ahead of the federal government in regulating minor sources, because federal law does not require permits for minor sources (except in Indian Country where there is no state jurisdiction). In Utah, a minor source permit will require the installation of emission controls, but not at the same level as a major source, although minor sources in a nonattainment area may be subject to tighter emission controls. A new major source or major modification of an existing source is required to comply with the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), which sets minimum emission requirements for the applicable category of sources.39 The source is also subject to Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements if it is in a PSD area or Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) requirements if it is in a nonattainment area.40 BACT or LAER, as applicable, must be at least as stringent as the a­ pplicable NSPS.41 A typical control technology for particulate matter emissions, for example, is a baghouse consisting of fabric filters that capture the particulate matter that would otherwise be emitted.



Air Pollution Control in Utah

141

Both new and existing sources emitting in excess of 100 tons per year of criteria pollutants or their precursors or which are major sources of HAPs are required to obtain an operating permit. This permit aggregates all of the air-­related legal requirements and limitations on the source, establishes emissions monitoring and reporting requirements, and provides for certification by the source of compliance with applicable air quality-­ related requirements.42 The operating permit must be renewed every five years. It is issued by the UDAQ, unless the source is in Indian Country, in which case the permit is issued by the EPA.43 It is important to understand that a major source is not uncontrolled. For example, the typical requirements for a major source of particulate matter or sulfur dioxide is to control 90 to 99 percent of emissions. For hazardous air pollutants, the controls are usually even more stringent, sometimes requiring 100 percent removal of the emissions before release to the atmosphere.44 Approximately half of the PM2.5 precursors emitted along the Wasatch Front are from vehicle emissions, with major sources contributing only around 11–13 percent. The rest are from “area sources” (e.g., dry cleaners, repair shops, light manufacturing, commercial bakeries, large restaurants, etc.).45 Emission controls at major sources along the Wasatch Front have been significantly tightened so there may be little room for further improvement. Air Quality Regulation in Utah

Utah regulates air quality through the UDAQ and the Utah Air Quality Board. The Board consists of nine members, including the executive director of UDEQ and citizens representing statutorily specified interests.46 Board members are appointed by the governor and serve a four–year term.47 The Board is empowered to make rules and standards to control, abate, and prevent air pollution and to issue and enforce orders necessary to ensure compliance with such requirements.48 The Director of UDAQ is appointed by the executive director of UDEQ, who administers the agency and serves as the executive secretary of the Board.49 Utah has its own unique topography and sources of air emissions. The Wasatch Front and Cache County, and indeed most of the Great Basin, is prone to inversions during the winter when cold air is trapped between

142

Chapter 5

snow-­covered ground and a layer of warmer air in place because of a high-­ pressure system. Absent a storm or other weather system, which clears out stagnant air, the inversions remain in place in the valleys and along the urban Wasatch Front corridor and in Cache County. The pollutants from vehicles, industrial sources, residences, and commercial facilities accumulate. (For discussions of geography, climate and atmospheric chemistry, see chapters two and three.) Unlike regulation of stationary sources of air pollution, the EPA under the CAA set standards for direct tailpipe and engine emissions from motor vehicles.50 The state’s involvement is limited to having only the right to petition the EPA for a variance from the federal standards based on California standards.51 States are free to adopt policies affecting overall vehicle emissions, such as incentives for development and use of mass transit, design of road and highway systems, parking policies, and growth planning to foster fewer vehicle miles traveled. (For a discussion of v­ ehicle pollution control technologies, regulations and enforcement, see chapter seven.) PM2.5 In Utah

PM2.5 particles are tiny, only a fraction of the width of a human hair. Commonly called fine particulate matter, PM2.5 is typically a product of the emissions of nitrogen oxides from combustion sources and of the emissions of VOCs, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia.52 (For discussions of atmospheric chemistry, see chapters two and three.) PM2.5 particles are so small that they can exhibit the characteristics of solids, liquids, or gases, and once inhaled, the body’s natural defense mechanisms are inadequate to expel them. (For a discussion of the health effects, see chapter four.) The EPA originally issued a NAAQS for particulate matter without reference to the size of the particles.53 However, improvements in atmospheric science and public health advancements resulted in the issuance of a PM10 NAAQS in 1987 and ultimately a PM2.5 NAAQS in 1997.54 In 2013, the EPA lowered the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) while retaining the 24–hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 μg/m3.55 As of 2019 there were three PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Utah. The Logan, UT–ID area includes parts of Cache County and southern I­ daho’s



Air Pollution Control in Utah

143

Franklin County. All or parts of Box Elder, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Weber Counties comprise the Salt Lake City PM2.5 nonattainment area. A part of Utah County comprises the Provo nonattainment area.56 The areas were designated as nonattainment because of winter episodes in which the 24–hour PM2.5 standard is exceeded, even though the State is in attainment with the annual PM2.5 standard.57 The PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Utah were originally classified as “Moderate” under the statutory classifications in the CAA. However, as a result of a federal court of appeals decision regarding the applicable section of the CAA governing PM2.5 area classifications, the Provo and Salt Lake City areas were reclassified as “Serious.” 58 The consequence of the reclassification is that the state was required to submit Serious PM2.5 nonattainment SIPs by December 31, 2017, and will have until December 31, 2019, to come into compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS in the Salt Lake City and Provo PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The measures to be implemented for compliance will be more stringent than those applicable to a Moderate nonattainment area.59 In 2014, the Utah Air Quality Board approved and UDAQ submitted the PM2.5 SIPs for each of the PM2.5 nonattainment areas to the EPA, which will serve as the basis for the more rigorous Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area SIPs.60 The number of SIPs depends on the number of nonattainment areas and NAAQS that are violated. Each SIP includes measures to be taken by major sources, area sources, and transportation planners, including VOC collection from under­ ground gasoline storage tanks, restrictions on wood burning, energy efficiency programs, application of reasonably available control measures to large sources, and controls on various categories of smaller sources. In addition, as newer, more efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels become available, PM2.5 emissions from tailpipe emissions should decline. Ozone

In October 2015, the EPA published revised primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone, setting the standard at 0.070 parts per million (ppm), measured as the fourth highest daily maximum eight–hour average concentration, averaged over three years.61 The revision of the NAAQS followed a review of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which had set both the primary

144

Chapter 5

and secondary NAAQS at 0.075 ppm, using the same averaging methodology.62 The new 0.070 ppm standard will result in significantly more controls on major and area sources. Ground-­level ozone is not directly emitted by stationary or mobile sources, but rather is the result of chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving nitrogen oxide and/or volatile organic compounds. The reactions depend in large part on temperature, sunlight, and ambient moisture. Nitrogen oxide is a product of combustion, including burning of gasoline and diesel in mobile sources, coal, natural gas and oil in industrial and utility boilers, natural gas or wood in residential and commercial heating systems, and any other combustion process. VOCs are organic chemicals that evaporate or sublimate into the atmosphere. (For discussions on this topic, see chapter three and chapter two.) In November 2016, the EPA published the proposed “Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications and State Implementation Plan Requirements” in the Federal Register.63 The proposal addresses the applicable timelines for 2015 Ozone NAAQS SIP submittals, the requirements pertaining to classification of areas as attainment or nonattainment for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, the requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), and Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for existing sources of NOx and VOCs, and the transition from the prior 2008 ozone NAAQS to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. RACT is defined as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility,” determined on a case-­by-case basis.64 Similarly, RACM consists of “control measures that are reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility.” 65 On September 29, 2016, Utah Governor Gary Herbert sent his recommendations to the EPA for area designations and nonattainment boundaries in Utah for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.66 Salt Lake and Davis Counties and portions of Weber, Tooele, and Utah counties and portions of Uintah and Duchesne counties were recommended to be designated as nonattainment, although areas under the EPA or tribal jurisdiction for air quality purposes in the Uintah Basin were not included in the recommended



Air Pollution Control in Utah

145

designations. Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Garfield, San Juan, and Washington counties were recommended to be designated as attainment for the ozone NAAQS, and all other areas of the state were recommended to be designated as “attainment/unclassifiable.” 67 The UDAQ staff prepared an extensive technical analysis to support the recommendations.68 The analy­sis includes information on the ambient air quality monitoring results and other data leading to the recommendations. The EPA notified the Governor of its response to the recommendations by letter of December 20, 2017, and issued its final determination on April 30, 2018.69 Based on the low level of exceedance of the ozone NAAQS, the areas along the Wasatch are classified as Marginal Ozone nonattainment areas, which is the lowest classification of ozone. Although the Uinta Basin is also designated as a Marginal Ozone nonattainment area, it may be bumped to a Moderate Ozone nonattainment area depending on the next three–year average. The ozone nonattainment areas along the Wasatch Front exceed the NAAQS due to summer ozone formation, driven largely by NOx emissions from vehicles and from stationary sources of combustion. The ozone nonattainment area in the Uinta Basin is based on exceedances of the ozone NAAQS in the winter when persistent snow cover and atmospheric temperature inversions trap ozone formed from VOCs emitted by oil and gas wells, processing facilities and mobile sources such as crude oil tanker trucks. (For a discussion of ozone pollution in the Uinta Basin, see chapter three.) The boundaries of the ozone nonattainment areas along the Wasatch Front are consistent with the boundaries of the PM2.5 non-­attainment areas. This makes sense because VOCs and NOx are also precursors of ambient PM2.5.70 The Uinta Basin ozone nonattainment area is restricted to Duchesne and Uintah Counties below a contiguous external perimeter of 6,250 feet in elevation. This includes mesas and buttes above 6,250 feet in elevation that are surrounded on all sides by land lower than 6,250 feet. The CAA requires that an ozone nonattainment area be classified in a particular category based upon design values that reflect the level of exceedance of the ozone NAAQS.71 The statutory categories are Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme.72 The categories were established with reference to the ozone NAAQS as it existed when the 1990 Clean Air

146

Chapter 5

Act Amendments were enacted, which was 0.120 parts per million over a one-­hour period.73 It should be noted that Salt Lake and Davis Counties are as of May 2019 “Ozone Maintenance Areas” as a result of their prior designation as nonattainment for ozone under the 1979 ozone NAAQS and their subsequent “attainment demonstration.” 74 As a result, Salt Lake and Davis Counties are subject to the provisions of a maintenance plan, which sets forth the measures required to maintain compliance with the NAAQS and the steps triggered if and when the NAAQS is violated again.75 In order to classify nonattainment areas into the statutory categories when the ozone NAAQS were modified in 1997 and 2008, the EPA began using a methodology based upon the ratios of the statutory design value classification thresholds to the ozone NAAQS in place as of 1990.76 As a result, the majority of ozone nonattainment areas in the U.S., including those for Utah, are classified as marginal nonattainment areas.77 The requirements to be included in an ozone nonattainment area SIP depend upon the classification of the area. The official classification of the recommended area (Marginal, Moderate, Serious, or Extreme) is ultimately made by the EPA as part of its final decision on the designations.78 Within two years from the effective date of the EPA’s final decision on the nonattainment recommendation, states with marginal nonattainment areas under the 2015 ozone NAAQS are required to submit SIP ­provisions to the EPA, which include a current inventory of actual emissions of nitrogen oxide and VOCs from all sources.79 A baseline year emissions inventory is also to be submitted within 24 months after the effective date of the nonattainment area designation and every three years thereafter.80 The source emissions statements are to be submitted annually, but the state may waive the requirement to submit emissions statements for any category of sources that emit less than 25 tons per year of nitrogen oxide or VOCs if the emissions can be calculated from emissions factors or other methods approved by the EPA.81 It is important to note that if the VOCs in an ozone nonattainment area are also hazardous, they are subject to the applicable National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The state must submit SIP revisions that “require permits . . . for the construction and operation of each new and modified stationary source (with respect to ozone) to be located in the area” two years after being



Air Pollution Control in Utah

147

designated a marginal ozone nonattainment area.82 The permit requirements apply to a new source with the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of nitrogen oxide or VOCs or a physical change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that would result in an increase of 40 tons per year or more of these pollutants,83 except that in the Salt Lake/ Davis County Ozone Maintenance Areas, a “major source” is a source which emits or has the potential to emit fifty tons per year or more of nitrogen oxide, and the threshold for triggering a permit for a modification is 25 tons per year of nitrogen oxide in those areas.84 An applicant for a permit to construct or modify a new s­tationary source, among other requirements, must have obtained “sufficient emission reductions...such that total allowable emissions from existing sources in the region, from new or modified sources which are not major emitting facilities, and from the proposed source will be sufficiently less than total emissions from existing sources. . .so as to represent . . . reasonable further progress” towards attainment, meaning that ambient levels of the pollutant will be reduced.85 The UDAQ maintains an Emissions Reduction Credit Registry showing those emission reduction credits that meet the established criteria for offsets for purposes of permitting a new source or modification in a nonattainment area.86 The criteria for creating a emissions reduction credit is that the reduction in emissions be surplus (i.e., is not otherwise required by an air pollution related legal requirement), permanent (i.e., not subject to recurrence so as to avoid double-­counting), quantifiable, and federally enforceable.87 For purposes of stationary source permitting in a marginal ozone nonattainment area, “the ratio of total emission reductions of volatile organic compounds to total increased emissions of such air pollutant shall be 1.1 to 1.” 88 However, the offset ratio for NOx is 1.2 to 1 in the Salt Lake and Davis County ozone maintenance areas, which is a slightly more stringent requirement.89 In sum, the intent of this permitting process assures progress toward attainment by lowering ambient pollution in nonattainment areas. A SIP for a marginal ozone nonattainment area is not required to contain RACM or RACT provisions.90 The state is required to maintain a vehicle inspection and maintenance program at least as stringent as that in place prior to the designation.91 (For further reading on vehicle inspection and maintenance, see chapter seven.)

148

Chapter 5

The CAA provides that each ozone nonattainment area classification is required to attain the NAAQS “as expeditiously as possible but not later than” a specified period following date of enactment of the CAA Amendments.92 As those statutory time periods apply to the ozone NAAQS in effect in 1990, the EPA has reset the attainment periods each time the NAAQS has been modified. Currently, the regulations for the implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS provide that for marginal ozone non­ attainment areas, the attainment date is three years after the effective date of designation of the area.93 The EPA is proposing to retain those requirements. As such, Utah would have three years from the effective date of the designation to demonstrate attainment with the 2015 ozone NAAQS.94 Regulation of Air Quality Under Utah Law

Under the “cooperative federalism” model of the CAA, Utah is charged with implementing the measures to attain the federal NAAQS, including issuing permits, monitoring and modeling emissions, enforcing compliance with pollution control standards, and developing plans to achieve attainment and to improve visibility in national parks. The Utah Air Conservation Act and the detailed Utah Air Quality Rules promulgated by the Air Quality Board under the authority of the Act establish how the UDAQ will administer its responsibilities to regulate air pollution and work toward achievement of the applicable national standards.95 State law also includes various provisions not tied to the federal CAA that are designed to improve air quality and reduce emissions from vehicles, including grants and tax credits for replacement of older vehicles with newer, lower-­emitting vehicles and conversion to alternative fuels.96 Enforcement

The primary responsibility for inspecting sources of emissions and enforcing air quality requirements lies with the state, except with regard to vehicle tailpipe emissions and fuel standards. The UDAQ has authority under the Utah Air Conservation Act “to enter at reasonable time and upon reasonable notice in or upon public or private property for the purposes of inspecting and investigating conditions and plant records concerning possible air pollution.” 97 The EPA also has authority to conduct inspections, but generally such inspections are conducted by states, like Utah, that have been delegated authority to do so by the EPA.98



Air Pollution Control in Utah

149

Both the Utah Air Conservation Act and the federal CAA provide for civil and criminal penalties for violation of air quality standards and requirements. The Utah statute provides for civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day for each violation.99 The Utah statute also provides for criminal fines and imprisonment for knowing or willful violations.100 The UDAQ may bring an action for injunctive relief against a person or entity that has failed to comply with a legal requirement or when necessary to protect health and welfare.101 The amount of civil penalties varies depending on whether the operator has undertaken good faith efforts to comply, the degree of willfulness and/or negligence in committing the violation, the operator’s history of compliance, the economic benefit derived by the operator from the non-­compliance, and the operator’s ability to pay.102 The amount of the civil penalty also depends on the severity of the violation, and each day of noncompliance counts as a separate violation.103 Thus, a civil penalty will range from a few thousand to several hundred thousand dollars or more. The UDAQ has an enforcement branch that regularly inspects and, where appropriate, assesses penalties for violations by facilities subject to air quality regulations. The federal CAA provides for civil and criminal penalties and injunctions.104 Civil penalties are periodically adjusted for inflation, with the current maximum level set at $95,284 per day for each violation.105 The EPA has authority to “overfile” or independently bring an enforcement action if it determines that the state agency has not diligently prosecuted an enforcement action, which rarely happens in Utah.106 The federal Clean Air Act provides for “citizen suits” in which a person or entity that otherwise can demonstrate that it is or may be harmed can file a lawsuit in federal court to enforce an emission standard or order issued by the EPA or a requirement in an approved SIP.107 This type of lawsuit cannot begin until the plaintiff has given at least 60 days’ notice to the EPA, the state, and the alleged violator of its intent to file the action.108 Neither the EPA nor the state is “diligently prosecuting a civil action” in federal or state court to require compliance.109 The Utah Air Conservation Act does not provide for citizen suits to enforce state air requirements. However, to the extent that a state ­requirement is part of an approved SIP, it becomes a federally enforceable requirement and can thus be the basis for a citizen suit under the federal

150

Chapter 5

CAA.110 Although there have not been many citizen suits in Utah, one that had a significant effect was filed in the 1990s, alleging that the EPA had failed to meet deadlines for development of a PM10 SIP in Utah County. The case was settled, resulting in UDAQ issuing its first PM10 SIP.111 Conclusion

The federal and state laws and regulations governing air pollution in Utah are complex and ever changing. These requirements have significantly improved air quality in Utah, but there is much still to be done, as is evident on a winter inversion day or a hot summer afternoon. Required reductions in emissions from businesses and manufacturers are not enough. Individual choices by Utahns, whether from the type of vehicles driven to the energy used in homes and businesses, to electing committed policymakers are necessary to continue improving air quality. Improvements in air quality and enhanced economic well-­being are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Declaration of Purpose of the Federal Clean Air Act reflects this dual benefit. The purpose of the Act is “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” 112 Designing and implementing air quality requirements should not forgo the ability to earn a decent living and provide for families. By the same token, significant lifestyle and economic benefits that come from improvements in public health resulting from cleaner air should not be ignored. The road to a vibrant, economically strong community with good air quality is not an easy one, but it is achievable through thoughtful choices, a shared vision, and a willingness to make some sacrifices for the general good. Future generations deserve this. Notes 1. Tabuchi, H., “’Rolling Coal’ in Diesel Trucks, to Rebel and Provoke,” The New

York Times, September 4, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business​ /energy-­environment/rolling-­coal-in-­diesel-trucks-­to-rebel-­and-provoke.html. 2. Reitze, A., “The Legislative History of U.S. Air Pollution Control,” Houston Law Review 36 (1999): 696–702. 3. Utah Code Ann. § 19-­2-101 et seq. 4. Utah Code Ann. § 26-­38-1.



Air Pollution Control in Utah

151

5. 42 U.S.C. § 7408(a)(1)(A) and (B). 6. 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b). 7. 40 CFR Part 50. 8. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(A). 9. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(1)(B). 10. “Green Book: Utah Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by

Year for All Criteria Pollutants,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified March 31, 2019, https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ut.html. 11. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1). 12. Ibid. 13. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(C); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(F); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(E); 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A). 14. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1). 15. Utah Code Ann. § 63G-­3-201. 16. 40 CFR Parts 51; 40 CFR Parts 52. 17. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b)(2) and (3). 18. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c); 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1). 19. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2). 20. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3). 21. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(a)(1). 22. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)(3). 23. 40 CFR 63, Subpart M; 40 CFR 63, Subpart WWWWW. 24. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7491-­92; 42 U.S.C. § 7472(a); Public Law 95–95; 91 Stat. 731 (1977). 25. 42 U.S.C. § 7474. 26. “List of Areas Protected by the Regional Haze Program,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified 1971, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/list-­ 156​ -mandatory-­class-i-­federal-areas. 27. 42 U.S.C. §7491(b)(2)(A). 28. 42 U.S.C. §7491(b)(2). 29. 81 Fed. Reg. 43894 (July 5, 2016). 30. 40 CFR 52.2336. 31. 42 U.S.C. § 7475. 32. 42 U.SC. § 7470(4). 33. 40 CFR 52.21(b)(4). 34. 42 U.S.C. 7479. 35. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(c); 42 U.S.C. § 7503. 36. UAC R307-­403; UAC R307-­4-5; 42 U.S.C. § 7601(d). 37. Indian Country is a term used in both state and federal documents; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. State of Utah, 96-4073 (1997). 38. UAC R307-­401. 39. 42 U.S.C. § 7411; 40 CFR Part 60. 40. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4); 42 U.S.C. § 7503(a)(2). 41. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7479(3) and 7501(3).

152

Chapter 5

42. 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(a); 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7661c(b) and (c); 40 CFR

70.6(a)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 7661b(b).

43. 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(iii); UAC R307-­415; 42 U.S.C. § 7601(d). 44. Reitze, A. W., and R. Lowell, “Control of Hazardous Air Pollution.” Boston College

Environmental Affairs Law Review 28, no. 2 (2014): 229–362, https://lawdigital​ commons.bc.edu/ealr/vol28/iss2/2. 45. Call, B., “Understanding Utah’s Air Quality,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Air Quality, Last modified April 26, 2019, https://deq.utah.gov/commu​ nication/news/featured/understanding-­utahs-air-­quality. 46. Utah Code Ann. § 19-­2-103(1). 47. Utah Code Ann. §19-­2-103(1)(b) and (5). 48. Utah Code Ann. § 19-­2-104. 49. Utah Code Ann. § 19-­2-107. 50. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7543(a) and 7545(a). 51. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7507 and 7545(c)(4)(B). 52. “Particulate Matter Overview,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality,” Last modified April 28, 2019, http://www.deq.utah.gov/Pollutants/P/pm/pm25/back​ ground.htm. 53. 36 Fed. Reg. 8186. 54. 52 Fed. Reg. 24634; 62 Fed. Reg. 38652. 55. 78 Fed. Reg. 3086. 56. “2006 24-­hour PM2.5 Standard — ​Region 8 Final Designations, October 2009,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified February 23, 2016, https:// www3.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/final/region8.htm. 57. “Particulate Matter Overview,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, https://www.epa.gov/pm-­pollution. 58. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 59. “Particulate Matter Overview,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, https://www.epa.gov/pm-­pollution. 60. “Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter, PM2.5 SIP for the Logan, UT-­ID Nonattainment Area,” State Implementation Plan, Last modified December 3, 2014, https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/laws-­and-rules​ /air-­quality/sip/docs/2014/12Dec/SIP%20IX .A.23_Logan_FINAL_Adopted​ 12-­3-2014.pdf; “Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter, PM2.5 SIP for the Salt Lake City, UT Nonattainment Area,” Utah State Implementation Plan, Last modified December 3, 2014, https://deq.utah.gov​ /­legacy/laws-­and-rules/air-­quality/sip/docs/2014/12Dec/SIP%20IX.A.21_SLC_ FINAL_Adopted%2012-­3-14.pdf; “Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter, PM2.5 SIP for the Provo, UT Nonattainment Area,” Utah State Implementation Plan, Last modified December 3, 2014, https://deq.utah​ .gov/legacy/laws-­and-rules/air-­quality/sip/docs/2014/12Dec/SIP%20IX.A.22_ PROVO_FINAL_Adopted%2012-­3-14.pdf. 61. 80 Fed. Reg. 65292.



Air Pollution Control in Utah

153

62. 73 Fed. Reg. 16436. 63. 81 Fed. Reg. 81276. 64. 81 Fed. Reg. 55156. 65. Ibid. 66. Letter from Governor Gary Herbert to Shaun McGrath, Regional Administra-

tor, EPA Region 8, Last modified September 29, 2016, https://www.epa.gov/sites​ /production/files/2016-­11/documents/ut-­rec.pdf. 67. Ibid. 68. “Utah Area Designation Recommendations for the 2015 8-­Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Utah Division of Air Quality, Last modified September 2016, https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air-­quality/planning/air-­quality​ -policy/DAQ-­2017-002501.pdf. 69. 83 Fed. Reg. 25776. 70. DAQ Recommendation at 30. 71. “Air Quality Design Values,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified August 9, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/air-­trends/air-­quality-design-­values. 72. 42 U.S.C. § 7511(a). 73. “Ground-­level Ozone Pollution,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified February 20, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/ozone-­pollution/table-­historical​ -ozone-­national-ambient-­air-quality-­standards-naaqs. 74. See 57 Fed. Reg. 28621; 62 Fed. Reg. 38213. 75. 78 Fed. Reg. 59242. 76. 83 Fed. Reg. 10376. 77. 81 Fed. Reg. 81276, 81284, Table 2. 78. 81 Fed. Reg. 81276, 81283. 79. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(a)(1); 81 Fed. Reg. 81276, 81298; 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(a)(3)(B); 81 Fed. Reg. 81276, 81298-­99. 80. Proposed 40 CFR 1305, 81 Fed. Reg. 81276, 81298, 81314-­15. 81. 42 U.S.C. § 7811a(a)(3)(B)(i); 42 U.S.C. § 7811a(a)(3)(B)(ii). 82. 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a)(2)(C). 83. 42 U.S.C. § 7602(j); 40 CFR 51.1114 and 1659a)(1)(iv)(A)(1) and (2)(i); 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(A) and (x)(A). 84. UAC R 307-­420-5(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7602(j); 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(1) and (2)(i) and 40 CFR 51.1114. 85. 42 U.S.C. § 7503(a)(1)(A). 86. “Emission Credits Offset Registry,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Air Quality, Last modified January 14, 2019, https://deq.utah.gov/air-­quality​ /emission-­credits-offset-­registry. 87. 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, § IV.c.3.i (1). 88. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(a)(4). 89. UAC R307-­420-5(3). 90. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(a)(2)(A); (57 Fed. Reg. 28621. 91. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(a)(2)(B).

154

Chapter 5

92. 42 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1). 93. 40 CFR 51.1103(a). 94. 81 Fed. Reg. 81276, 81280. 95. Utah Code Ann. Title 19, Chap. 2; UAC R307. 96. Utah Code Ann. § 19-­2-201 et seq.; Utah Code Ann. § 19-­2-301 et seq. 97. Utah Code Ann. § 19-­2-107(2)(b)(ii). 98. 42 U.S.C. §7414. 99. Utah Code Ann. § 19-­2-115(2)(a). 100. Utah Code Ann. § 19-­2-115(3) through (8). 101. Utah Code Ann. § 19-­2-116. 102. UAC R307-­130-3. 103. UAC R307-­130-2. 104. 42 U.S.C. §7413. 105. 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 104–

134, title III, § 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1321–373; Pub. L. 105–362, title XIII, § 1301(a), 112 Stat. 3293; Pub. L. 114–74, title VII, § 701(b), 129 Stat. 599; 82 Fed. Reg. 3635. 106. 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a); Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004); Harmon Industries v. Browner, 191 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 1999). 107. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a). 108. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(1). 109. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(2). 110. 40 CFR 52.23; 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a). 111. “PM10 State Implementation Plans and Maintenance Plans,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, last modified May 2, 2019, https://deq.utah.gov/legacy​ /­pollutants/p/particulate-­matter/pm10/state-­implementation-plan.htm. 112. 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1).

6 The Economics of Air Quality in Utah THERESE C. GRIJALVA and MATTHEW GNAGEY

Utah’s economy and citizens benefit from a healthy environment that includes clean air with views unobstructed by pollution. The state generally recognizes that the abundance and diversity of its natural amenities contribute to social and economic well-being. The state also recognizes that poor air quality significantly harms residents and the Utah economy. It has an adverse effect on human health and on daily activities. (For a detailed discussion of the health impacts, see chapter four.) When air quality is poor, schoolchildren are required to stay indoors during recess. Adults choose not to bike, walk, run or participate in other outdoor activities. Poor air quality also affects the perception of the quality of life in Utah, particularly in areas hardest hit by pollution, including Cache County, the Wasatch Front, and the Uinta Basin.1 Further, poor air quality may have significant negative economic impacts on one of the most important industries for the state — tourism.2 Nonresident tourism significantly benefits the Utah economy, bringing new dollars into the economy. Tourism-related industries, particularly accommodation and food services, benefit the state. Domestic person-trips (leisure and business) to Utah increased 20 percent in 2015. Utah national park visitation increased 16 percent in 2015 compared to 2014, and an additional 21 percent in 2016 compared to 2015.3 In 2015, resident and nonresident travelers spent $8.17 billion in Utah, generating about 142,500 total jobs and $1.15 billion in state and local tax revenues.4 Nonresident spending, typically about two to three times more than resident spending, 155

156

Chapter 6

accounts for nearly $6 billion of this total.5 Unlike resident spending that recirculates dollars within the Utah economy, nonresident spending injects new dollars into circulation, indirectly benefiting the entire state by creating new jobs and raising wages and salaries. If Utah’s air quality detrimentally affects tourism, then the state could see slower economic growth in all sectors of the economy. In addition to the benefits of tourism, several hundred outdoor companies have chosen to do business in Utah, including Amer Sports (brands include Salomon, Atomic, Arc’Teryx, etc.), Black Diamond, Petzl, Enve Composites, and Rossignol, among others citing Utah as a fantastic place to live and raise a family, with unlimited opportunities for outdoor recreation.6 Further, economic studies of migration typically show that there is a positive correlation between the outdoor amenities of an area and migration to those areas.7 These examples demonstrate the role that natural resources and natural amenities can play in the economic growth of a region. Unfortunately, pollution along the Wasatch Front, where the majority of Utahns live, is an issue of significant local concern and has made national headlines. Counties along the Wasatch Front and in the Cache Valley consistently receive below average or failing grades for air quality from the American Lung Association, with an overall grade for the state worsening each year.8 Many out-of-state visitors who come for the Sundance Film Festival indicate that the pollution would deter them from ever moving to the state.9 If the state’s air quality worsens, nonresident travel might decline and impact Utah’s economy. The Utah economy grows as more goods and services are produced. However, this growth is not entirely positive. Economic growth often generates harmful pollution, which imposes significant costs on society, harms the natural environment, and reduces quality of life. In an ideal world, economic calculations would play a role in determining the balance between the production of goods and services and the regulation of pollution. This approach would determine when the amount of pollution comes at too high a cost. Reducing pollution measured by what society would be willing to pay is a difficult calculation. The costs of what society has to forego to reduce pollution are directly measured by market behavior, such as the reduction in production and jobs. Thus costs are emphasized relative to benefits. A complete benefit-­cost analysis



The Economics of Air Quality in Utah

157

(BCA) helps identify the optimal level of pollution to abate. This is the point where benefits of reducing pollution are the greatest in comparison to the costs. Deciding how much pollution to reduce hinges on using accurate techniques for measuring the true cost of pollution to society or the benefits of not having pollution. While economic research examining the value of air quality does not directly use Utah data, the results demonstrate that clean air has significant economic value in communities across the United States. These findings suggest the same would hold true in Utah. This chapter describes how economics can be used to model pollution costs, as well as the benefits of improving air quality. It identifies the various costs associated with pollution, and presents the results of various economic studies on the value of clean air. It concludes with what these estimates mean for Utah and clean air. Markets and Externalities

By way of background, economists model pollution as an external cost that arises from either the production or consumption of goods sold in markets. The primary sources of air pollution in Utah are emitted by motor vehicles, heating buildings, area sources, and industrial processes.10 Society benefits from the availability of many goods and services provided by markets, and firms profit from the sale of these goods. For example, society values the convenience of travel with cars and airplanes, and many enjoy snuggling up to a wood-­burning fireplace or stove during the winter. While there are direct benefits, society must reconcile the costs imposed on everyone from the poor air quality that results from those activities. These costs include, for example, health care expenditures that would other­wise not be incurred, a reduction in life expectancies, expenditures to mitigate the harmful effects of pollution, any range of changes in behavior to cope with worsening air, and losses in aesthetic benefits arising from smog and limited visibility. To wit, pollution is an external cost, but every member of the society is affected by the market transaction. External Costs of Air Pollution

When externalities are not included in the market price of a good, markets will not work in the way that economists, and society in general, believe that they should. As a result, products with negative externalized costs are

158

Chapter 6

overproduced and over-­consumed. In economic speak, markets will fail to allocate resources efficiently. Because air pollution is not priced into the driving of vehicles, heating of homes, and industrial production, the result is too much air pollution in Utah. Health costs can be measured as the impact on quality of life as a result of illness, or as the direct additional health expenditures incurred as a result of poor air quality. While all members of society in one way or another are harmed by pollution, the distribution of costs is not equal (see chapter eight). Certain populations are unfairly burdened by the health costs, particularly those living in proximity to high sources of pollution, as well as those with respiratory illnesses, the elderly, pregnant women, and children with developing lungs and immune systems (see chapter four). Pollution affects everyone by raising blood pressure and shortening life expectancies. Research demonstrates that a decrease of 10μg/m3 in the concentration of PM2.5 was associated with an increase in mean life expectancy of 0.35 years. This correlation was stronger in urban areas.11 Annual ozone and particulate matter (PM) pollution that originates from burning combustible fuels account for approximately 200,000 early deaths in the United States.12 Along the Wasatch Front, air pollution shortens the life span of residents on average by about two years (see chapter four). What are the economic costs of air pollution reducing lifespans? In the United States empirical estimates of the benefit to society for saving a life is $130,000 per year saved.13 When aggregated by all residents, air pollution along the Wasatch Front would therefore cost society $325 billion due to shorter estimated lifespans. This estimate does not include losses in quality of life, health expenditures incurred by individuals, or mitigating activities, implying the $325 billion is an estimated lower bound of the trust cost.14 Given this large estimated cost of air pollution, it is not surprising that research suggests that every dollar spent on reducing air pollution saves $10 due to reductions in health care costs, premature deaths, and in other measurable areas.15 Some Utahns have taken it upon themselves to mitigate the adverse effects of air pollution. They invest in solar panels, fuel-­efficient automobiles, or purchase a home at a higher elevation to reduce exposure to poor quality air. On a smaller scale, individuals may install air filters in their homes, wear masks to filter particulate matter, or engage in behavior to avoid exposure to air pollution, such as staying indoors on hazardous air



The Economics of Air Quality in Utah

159

quality days. Even schools are restricting student activities on poor air days by restricting children from playing outdoors at recess. To discourage drivers from idling their engines in school pick-­up and drop-­off zones, schools throughout the state have installed “Turn Your Key, Be Idle Free,” signs given by the nonprofit Utah Clean Cities Coalition. These averting (or mitigating) expenditures and behaviors are costs imposed on society from pollution that are often not included in a BCA of pollution control. As such, it is difficult to measure the cumulative behavioral response in everyday life to avoid air pollution. Typically, public policy discussions about regulating pollution focus on some of the factors identified above. But an overlooked cost of air pollution is the loss in visibility or aesthetic environmental quality. Many people enjoy scenic vistas and travel great distances to experience them. (For a discussion of air quality and public lands, see chapter one.) Additionally, households often prefer to live in areas and purchase homes offering panoramic views. The loss in aesthetic value caused by poor visibility is another cost of pollution incurred by society.16 When policymakers only account for one or two of the costs of pollution, they underestimate the overall damages to society. Policies are not geared toward removing enough pollution. In summary, a complete assessment of the costs of pollution would include capturing the following: (1) the economic damages associated with medical expenses; (2) the economic value of reduction in life expectancies; (3) economic expenditures to avert the harms caused by pollution; and (4) any additional nonmarket values associated with a loss in aesthetic quality or changes in behavior. A reduction in any of these external costs of pollution will benefit society. In the next section, these benefits are compared with the cost of pollution reduction measures to help inform policymakers of goals for pollution reduction. Benefit Cost Analysis

Economics can play an important role in providing a bottom-­line rationale for investing in measures to reduce air pollution. The purpose of this section, therefore, is to provide estimates for the economic value of clean air and to describe the role that benefit-­cost analysis plays in establishing an efficient and cost-­effective way to regulate air quality. A full benefit-­cost analysis would include measuring the benefits for a reduction in pollution

160

Chapter 6

and compare it with the costs associated with achieving that level of pollution reduction. Support for BCA is found in many environmental policies and Executive Orders issued by the President of the United States. Federal policies, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Orders (EO 12291, February 17, 1981 under President Reagan and EO 12866, September 3, 1993 under President Clinton), affect all federal agencies and validate the use of BCA for environmental policy. EO 12291 is designed to reduce the burden that federal regulation has on the economy by requiring that all federal agencies use BCA to analyze the impact on the private sector for new major regulations. Although EO 12866 supersedes EO 12291, EO 12866 still requires a BCA for significant regulatory actions, where net benefits include environmental, public health and safety advantages, distributive impacts, and equity.17 At the regulatory level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employs many economists who routinely measure the benefits and costs of policy. The costs of private and public efforts to meet the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment requirements are expected to be $65 billion annually by 2020. In comparison, the estimated value of improvements in air quality is estimated to be almost $2 trillion during the same period.18 Thus, the benefits clearly exceed the costs of efforts to comply with the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. One way to think about the benefits of clean air is to think about what people would be willing to pay to avoid the damages or costs of pollution. For example, comparing all of the medical expenses associated with increased respiratory illnesses or other health problems to a reduction in medical expenses following pollution reduction policies would be a quantifiable benefit of pollution abatement. People would be willing to pay to retain the health benefits and avoid having to endure pollution. However, limiting the analysis to only health benefits misses some larger economic benefits associated with pollution abatement. People benefit from a healthy environment in the same way they bene­ fit from quality goods and services. The value a person places on an economic good is measured by the maximum amount of money a person is willing to spend on it. As such, people are willing to forgo some market goods and services in order to live in a healthy environment. A wonderful



The Economics of Air Quality in Utah

161

quote by Aldo Leopold found in “Goose Music,” expresses his recognition of the value of the environment: If wild birds and animals are a social asset, how much of an asset are they? It is easy to say that some of us, afflicted with hereditary hunting fever, cannot live satisfactory lives without them. What is a wild goose worth? As compared with other sources of health and  pleasure, what is its value in the common denominator of d ­ ollars? I have a ticket to the symphony. It stood me two iron men. They were well spent, but if I had to choose, I would forgo the experience for the sight of the big gander that sailed honking into my decoys at daybreak this morning. It was bitter cold and I was all thumbs, so I blithely missed him. But miss or no miss, I saw him, I heard the wind whistle through his set wings as he came honking out of the gray west, and I felt him so that even now I tingle at the recollection. I doubt not that this very gander has given ten other men two dollars’ worth of thrills. Therefore I say he is worth at least twenty dollars to the human race.19 In this example, Leopold is willing to forego the symphony experience, and by doing so he associates a value of at least two iron men, that is, two dollars, to the experience of seeing the gander. Economists use the term willingness-­to-pay (WTP) to represent the value or the benefit an individual places on a good, service, or activity. WTP represents what we are willing to forego, like Aldo Leopold and the symphony experience. Examples of WTP for the environment include individuals who choose lower paying jobs to live in environmentally appealing areas, when people spend more on housing to live near or benefit from environmental amenities, or when they pay a premium to vacation in pristine natural areas. The marginal willingness-­to-pay (MWTP) is the same as marginal benefit, or more commonly known as demand. In this approach, what an individual is WTP for one unit of a good represents the value or benefit they get by having the good. As an individual acquires more of a particular good, the person is less willing to pay to acquire another one. MWTP for

162

Chapter 6

reducing pollution follows the law of diminishing marginal benefits. At first, a person will place greater value on reducing pollution, but at some point additional reductions are less beneficial and the MWTP falls. Low levels of pollution are relatively easy and inexpensive to abate. For example, a natural gas furnace allows one to eliminate the use of solid fuel burning devices, such as woodstoves. (For further discussion of this topic, see chapter two.) Once initial levels are abated, it becomes increasingly more expensive to abate pollution, and more laws and regulations need to be written and technologies developed. Abatement does not come freely. Governments, firms, and individuals or households incur abatement costs. From the perspective of government, time and money spent writing new laws and regulations, monitoring polluters, and enforcing policy reduces spending in other beneficial areas, such as welfare, Medicaid, or Medicare. From a business ­perspective, new production techniques must be implemented.20 From i­ndividual and household perspectives, the costs of abatement include changing behavior to reduce pollution, such as not heating homes with wood or choosing to take public transportation rather than drive. Bringing the concepts of diminishing marginal benefits and increasing opportunity costs together suggests that cleaning up initial levels of pollution yield the greatest benefit to society. Some might argue that at a certain point removing more pollution may not warrant the additional use of scarce resources. The benefit is simply lower than what might be gained by deploying resources elsewhere, suggesting that zero pollution is rarely optimal from an economic standpoint. If, however, the pollution problem poses significant damages to society and can be cleaned up for a relatively low cost, then the optimal solution would be to eliminate the problem entirely. Lead is an example where complete elimination from gasoline has been deemed optimal in the United States, and successful policies were enacted to achieve this. Methods for Estimating the Economic Value of Clean Air

It is difficult to assess the value for environmental goods and services, because there are no markets for these quality of life goods. As such, we have developed nonmarket valuation, a set of methods to estimate WTP for environmental goods and services, such as air pollution abatement. With



The Economics of Air Quality in Utah

163

this information policymakers are able to assess the benefits and costs of air quality regulations with the goal of designing policies that yield the greatest net benefit to society. Nonmarket valuation is an informational input in designing regulations and helps identify how clean is clean enough. There are two advantages of this approach. First, placing a dollar value on the environment makes clear that it too has value, as do goods and services. Valuing the environment in this way avoids pitting environmental policy against the economy. Second, nonmarket environmental valuation demonstrates that public policies need not embrace an “all or nothing” perspective.21 Nonmarket valuation is a commonly accepted tool in policy analysis and is a component of many environmental policies and Executive Orders issued by the President of the United States. Nonmarket valuation has also been used to assess environmental hazards and economic costs in natural source damage assessment cases.22 The value individuals place on environmental nonmarket goods are typically obtained by survey methods or through actual behavior in the marketplace. The methods are described below. The Contingent Valuation Method

The most common survey method is known as the contingent valuation method (CVM). The CVM involves constructing a hypothetical scenario representing a real proposed environmental policy change. The analysis then determines how much an individual would be willing to pay for specific environmental services arising from the policy. Carefully designed and implemented CVM surveys can provide estimates of the total economic value of resources. This approach includes using values of environmental services and passive use or non-­use values of environmental services, which includes the intrinsic value placed upon knowing that ecosystems are healthy for future generations, known as bequest values. For example, the total economic value of pollution abatement includes reductions in health damages, averting behavior expenditures, aesthetic benefits, and any other reasons members of society value clean air. Studies have used the CVM in many areas and contexts, including light pollution, damage from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, in-­stream flows, air pollution visibility, and air pollution-­related morbidity risks.23

164

Chapter 6

There are hundreds of CVM studies devoted to air pollution and visibility. Here we mention a few prominent studies conducted in the United States to demonstrate that air quality has significant monetary value. One study examined the value of visibility in the Four Corners region of the Southwest, an area designated by the EPA as a “Prevention of Significant Deterioration Air Quality” area. The authors found that residents of the region were willing to pay up to $82 per year to prevent visibility from deteriorating from 75 miles to 25 miles.24 Another study estimated the economic value of maintaining visibility in national parklands in the Southwest by surveying over 600 households in Denver, Albuquerque, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The research found that WTP ranged from $6.61 in Chicago to $9.64 in Los Angeles.25 This research doesn’t mean that individuals should have to pay a fee to enjoy clean air. Rather it demonstrates that people do value clean air. Here in Utah, a study of Weber County residents found that over 50 percent of survey respondents would be willing to pay $25 for one day of improved air quality during high periods of pollution.26 A back of the envelope calculation suggests that if 50 percent of residents along the Wasatch Front are willing to pay at least $25 per day to avoid air quality from reaching 35.5 µg m3 for particulate matter or 0.071 ppm ozone (i.e., Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups), the aggregate benefit to residents for each day with improvement in air quality would be over $25 million. During the 2008–2009 winter, the number of days measured at “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” or higher along the Wasatch Front ranged from seven days in Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber Counties to a high of 17 days in Cache County.27 Assuming $25 per day per resident, the value of avoiding 10 bad air quality days is worth $250 million annually to those living along the Wasatch Front. Revealed Preference Approaches

Another way of measuring the value of clean air is to consider actual market­place decisions, such as home sale prices. Final home sale prices can be used to estimate the nonmarket economic benefits, or implicit prices, associated with environmental quality, such as reductions in air, water, noise, and light pollution, as well as the benefits of aesthetic views and proximity to green space or natural resource recreational sites.28



The Economics of Air Quality in Utah

165

It is possible to assess the total economic value of air quality by looking at the premium that homeowners are willing to pay for clean air. For example, consider two identical houses. One is located in an area that is pollution-­free with clean air. This home has a higher sales price than a similar home in a region with poor air quality. The price difference represents the amount that a homeowner is willing to pay for clean air. The results show that people are willing to pay for clean air in the areas they live. One meta-­analysis of home property values found that the mean MWTP for a one-­unit reduction in total suspended particulates ranges from $31.16 (for Chicago) to $103.38 (Washington) (reported in 1982–1984 dollars).29 A study in Chicago showed the demand for air quality has an even greater dollar value. The MWTP for a one-­unit reduction (µ/m3) in PM10 is $268 to $363 (1989–1990 dollars) and $878 to $1036 for a 0.001 parts per million reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2).30 In the Bay Area of California people are willing to pay $54 to $178 to avoid an additional unit of SO2, $90 to $180 for ozone, and $94 to $104 for PM10.31 Another study shows that the median household would be willing to pay $149 to $185 (1982–1984 dollars) for a one-­unit reduction in average ambient concentrations of PM10. Research suggests that these amounts may be lower bounds of the true values because the analyses assume that there is no cost associated with moving.32 If mobility is costly, then conventional techniques actually understate the true MWTP for air quality. Yet another way to examine the costs of air pollution is to model the relationship between an environmental contaminant and observed damages, like health outcomes. For example, one study found that a one-­ percent reduction in total suspended particulates reduced infant mortality by 0.35 percent at the county level across the United States.33 While this approach only estimates one type of health outcome, there are many bene­ fits from reducing particular contaminants, all of which would need to be assessed with a similar study.34 Damages resulting from air pollution can also be measured by the cost of hospital and emergency room visits. Between 2005 and 2007 almost 30,000 hospital and emergency-­room visits in California could have been avoided if federal clean air standards had been met. These hospital costs were approximately $193 million.35 This amount is only a partial estimate of the total damages and does not include other non-­hospital medical

166

Chapter 6

visits (or lost work days) due to air pollution. Given pollution levels in the state, it is reasonable to expect that Utah would also experience elevated health care costs. The cost of pollution can also be measured by looking at the expendi­ tures individuals incur to avert environmental risk. This may include collecting expenditure data on the purchase of air filters or measuring the losses incurred by society when they make decisions about outdoor activity to avoid the dangers posed by poor air quality. This method does not measure total economic value. It only measures one of the costs associated with air pollution. Studies show that people adjust daily activities to mitigate acute health effects from air pollution, especially those who experience smog-­related symptoms. These findings suggest that damage function methods that ignore averting behavior will be biased downward.36 Averting behavior may be considered in policy discussions of air quality, however, it needs to be noted that these estimates provide only a snapshot of some of the benefits of clean air. One last way to measure the cost of air pollution is to estimate compensating wage differentials (CWD), a wage premium for exposure to environmental hazards. A CWD approach looks at a cross-­section of regional or metropolitan areas to determine how wages and salaries are affected by a city’s amenities. The premise is that employers in less attractive areas, such as high crime or poor air quality, will be required to pay higher wages and salaries to compensate workers. Employers located in cities rich with environmental amenities can offer lower wages and salaries, because workers receive compensation from the other benefit of the region.37 The approach is especially beneficial when levels of amenities or d ­ isamenities are uniform within a city. Data from the United Kingdom shows that working in a pollution intensive industry requires a wage premium. A so called “dirty job” requires a wage premium of about 0.25 percent and over 15 percent for individuals who work in one of the five dirtiest industries.38 Air quality valuation studies, such as those found in the Environmental Valuation Research Inventory (EVRI), are quite extensive. A meta-­analysis is a quantitative technique that can be used to synthesize the results from numerous studies. One 2011 meta-­analysis of over fifty air quality v­ aluation studies found that the average WTP for a one percent improvement in air quality is $96.17 (2009 dollars) per person per year. The pollutants cov-



The Economics of Air Quality in Utah

167

TABLE 6.1: Willingness-to-pay for a one percent improvement in

air quality (per person or household). (Data from Noonan 2011.) Measure

Ozone PM or TSP SO2 NOX Lead Other

Number of estimates

67 141 18 36 6 60

Mean WTP (2009 $)

$32.59 $174.08 $26.35 $57.14 $34.80 $25.94

ered by these studies include ozone, PM2.5, Total Suspended Particulate (TSP), SO2, carbon monoxide, lead, and nitrous oxides.39 Care should be taken when averaging estimates as annual per-­person WTP estimates for a one percent improvement in air quality vary by pollutant, as shown in Table 6.1.40 The value for a one percent improvement in PM or TSP is greater than the average of $96.17 (2009 dollars), while the values for the other criteria pollutants are less. In addition, Table 6.2 shows the benefit estimates (in 2016 dollars) for reducing a unit of SO2 in parts per million, which ranges from $56.78 to just over $1,913. This difference may be driven by variables in the research study, including the region of analysis. The benefit estimates (in 2016 dollars) for a one-unit reduction of PM10 measured in micrograms per cubic meter (µ/m3) range from $98.85 to $670.53, which are driven by differences in the research study and region. Along Utah’s Wasatch Front, PM is a significant pollution concern as these small particles can enter the lungs and bloodstream and cause heart and respiratory problems. The reduction in PM10 benefit estimates obtained from prior studies can be used to approximate the WTP of living in an area that meets the definition of having good air quality. The results are presented in the last column of Table 6.2. To illustrate this point, consider two identical homes. One is located in an area plagued by “unhealthy” air and one in a region with “good” air. The home located in the healthy area has 43.5 µ/m3 less PM2.5 than the home located in the unhealthy area. Using benefit estimates from prior studies and assuming constant marginal benefits or MWTP, this home would sell for a premium ranging from $4,300 to over $21,500 if all other

Description

242 MSAs: PM10 (µ/m3)

Hospital visits over two years in  California Average across many air ­pollutants   (per percentage point)

Chattopadhyay (1999) Bajari et al. (2012) Bajari et al. (2012) Bajari et al. (2012)

Bayer et al. (2009)

Romley et al. (2010)

*ppm = parts per million **rounded to figures

Noonan (2011)

Chicago: Particulate Matter  (PM10) (µ/m3) Chicago: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) (ppm*) Bay Area: SO2 (ppm) Bay Area: Ozone (O3) (ppm) Bay Area: PM10 (µ/m3)

Chattopadhyay (1999)

Prevent visibility from deteriorating (annual) from 75 to 25 miles Schultze (1983) Maintain visibility in parklands (national) Smith and Huang (1995) Total Suspended Particulates (µ/m3)

Rowe et al. (1980)

Authors (year)

$6.61–9.64

SP, CVM

$193.00 million

RP

$96.17

$149.00–185.00

SP & RP (meta-analysis)

$495.05–670.53

$75.53–250.59

$16.02–23.37

$240.26

Benefit estimate (2016 $)

$108.22

$213.69 million

$361.17–448.44

$878.00–1,036.00 $1,621.83–1,913.69 $54.00–178.00 $56.78–187.17 $90.00–180.00 $94.64–189.28 $94.00–104.00 $98.85–109.36

RP, HPM

RP, HPM RP, HPM RP, HPM RP, HPM

RP, HPM $31.16–103.38 (meta-analysis) RP, HPM $268.00–363.00

$82.00

Benefit estimate (original)

SP, CVM

Method

TABLE 6.2: Comparison benefit estimates for improvements in air quality

$4300.00– 4757.00 $15,711.00– 19,507.00

$21,535.00– 29,168.00

Benefit of a 43.5 µ/m3 reduction in PM10 (2016 $)**



The Economics of Air Quality in Utah

169

environmental indicators are held constant. For example, the result is interpreted as the average value that each resident in the area places on having healthy air. Conclusion

This chapter demonstrates the failure of markets to account for the costs associated with pollution. The economic solution is carefully designed policies to achieve optimal pollution levels. Market-­levels of pollution are not optimal, but at the same time the complete elimination of pollution is rarely achievable. Economically determining how much pollution is too much pollution requires an evaluation of the benefits and costs of pollution abatement. The difficulty lies in determining what society is WTP for a cleaner environment. Nonmarket valuation techniques are used by economists to measure WTP, in monetary terms, of environmental quality, such as clean air. These benefits are compared to the various approaches and associated costs of abating pollution. Prior research shows that individuals are willing to pay significant amounts to reduce pollution. The benefits of pollution reduction greatly outweigh the costs. At the time of this writing, the Governor of Utah addressed the importance of air quality and implicitly noted that the benefits of clean air extend to nonmarket passive use values. Utahns have a shared responsibility in keeping the air clean, but to ensure this, it is important to design efficient environmental policy with incentives to dissuade polluting behaviors. This requires knowing how much society is willing to pay for less pollution and comparing these benefits to the costs of reducing pollution. Governor Herbert’s public policy priorities include enhancing education and enforcement of Utah’s air quality regulations, researching the science of pollution, sharing information and data with multiple agencies, advancing new initiatives to address pollution from homes and buildings, and working with automobile dealers to bring cleaner vehicles to Utah. All these efforts come with a cost. Considering the limited resources of the Utah government, there may be little to spend on these initiatives. Economics encourages a thoughtful analysis of the full scope of benefits and costs to guide effective policy.

170

Chapter 6

Notes 1. O’Donoghue, A. J., “Utah Residents Rank Air Pollution as No. 1 Threat to

Quality of Life,” Deseret News, January 25, 2015, https://www.deseretnews.com​ /­article/865620440/Utah-­residents-rank-­air-pollution-­as-No-­1-threat-­to-quality​ -­of-life.html. 2. Christensen, L., “Tourism Leaders Talk Utah’s Branding, Challenges as Recreation Draw,” Utah Business, January 10, 2017, https://utahbusiness.com/tourism​ -­leaders-talk-­utahs-branding-­challenges-recreation-­draw/. 3. “Calendar Year 2015—Utah Travels America Visitor Profile Report,” TNS Global, Last modified 2015, https://travel.utah.gov/wp-­ content/uploads/CY15-­ Utah​ -Report-­Draft-for-­Dave.pdf. 4. Leaver, J., “The State of Utah’s Travel and Tourism Industry 2017,” Kem C. Gardiner Policy Institute, The University of Utah, Last modified April 2017, https:// gardner.utah.edu/wp-­content/uploads/TravelandTourismRepFinal2017.pdf. 5. Leaver, J., “The State of Utah’s Tourism, Travel, and Recreation Industry.” Utah Economic and Business Review 73, no. 4 (2014): 1–15, https://gardner.utah.edu​ /­wp-­content/uploads/2015/08/UEBR2015no1_jledit.pdf. 6. Ibid. 7. Carruthers, J. I., and A. C. Vias, “Urban, Suburban, and Exurban Sprawl in the Rocky Mountain West: Evidence from Regional Adjustment Models.” Journal of Regional Science 45, no. 1 (2015): 21–48; Eichman, H., G. L. Hunt, J. Kerkvliet, and A. Plantinga, “Local Employment Growth, Migration, and Public Land Policy: Evidence from the Northwest Forest Plan.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 35, no. 2 (2010): 316–333; Wu, J., and S. Mishra, “Natural Amenities, Human Capital, and Economic Growth.” In Frontiers in Resource and Rural Economics: Human-­Nature, Rural-­Urban Interdependencies. Washington, D.C. 2008. 8. “State of the Air,” American Lung Association, Last modified 2017, http://www​ .lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-­air/state-­of-the-­air/state-­of-the-­air-2017​ .pdf. 9. Piatt, Richard, “Bad Air Quality Becomes a ‘Turn Off ’ for Utah Visitors,” The Salt Lake Tribune, January 20, 2014, http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=28​ 429885&fm=most_popular. 10. “Inventory Report,” Utah Department of Air Quality Emissions, Last modified January 8, 2019, https://deq.utah.gov/communication/state-­of-the-­environment​ -report/division-­air-quality2017-­state-environment-­report. 11. Correia, A. W., C. A. Pope III, D. W. Dockery, et al., “Effect of Air Pollution Control on Life Expectancy in the United States: An Analysis of 545 U.S. Counties for the Period from 2000–2007.” Epidemiology 24, no. 1 (2013): 23–31. 12. Caiazzo, F., A. Ashok, I. A. Waitz, et al., “Air Pollution and Early Deaths in the United States, Part I: Quantifying the Impact of Major Sectors in 2005.” Atmospheric Environment 79, November (2013): 198–208. 13. Viscusi, W., and J. Aldy, “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of



The Economics of Air Quality in Utah

171

­ arket Estimates Throughout the World.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27, M no. 1 (2003): 5–76, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41761102. 14. “Air Pollution and Public Health in Utah,” Environmental Public Health Tracking, Utah Department of Health, Last modified 2015, http://health.utah.gov​ /­enviroepi/healthyhomes/epht/AirPollution_PublicHealth.pdf. 15. Fahys, Judy, “A Dollar Spent on Cutting Air Pollution Saves $10, Says BYU Economist,” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 5, 2013, http://archive.sltrib.com/story​ .php​?ref=/sltrib/politics/55025904-­90/company-­cutting-development-­economic​ .html​.csp,%20Accessed%20August%2015. 16. Poudyal, N. C., B. Paudel, and G. T. Green, “Estimating the Impact of Impaired Visibility on the Demand for Visits to National Parks.” Tourism Economics 19, no. 2 (2013): 433–452, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.5367/te.2013.0204. 17. Executive Order 13258; Executive Order 13422 amended EO 12866. 18. “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified 2011, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production​ /­files/2015-­07/documents/costfullreport.pdf. 19. “Goose Music,” in Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold, ed. Luna B. Leopold (New York: Oxford University Press), 168; Luna B. Leopold, Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold, (New York: Oxford University Press), 168–169. 20. Greenstone, M., J. A. List, and C. Syverson, “The Effects of Environmental Regulation on the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing.” MIT Department of Economics Working Paper, no. 12–24 (2012). 21. Loomis, J., “Economic Values without Prices: The Importance of Nonmarket Values and Valuation for Informing Public Policy Debates.” Choices 20, no.3 (2005): 179–182. 22. Jones, C. A., “Use of Non-­market Valuation Methods in the Courtroom: Recent Affirmative Precedents in Natural Resource Damage Assessments.” Water Resources Update 109, no. 1 (2005): 10–18. 23. Simpson, S. N., and B. G. Hana, “Willingness to Pay for a Clear Night Sky: Use of the Contingent Valuation Method.” Applied Economic Letters 17, no. 11 (2010): 1095–1103; Carson, R. T., R. C. Mitchell, M. Hanemann, et al., “Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.” Environmental and Resource Economics 25, no. 3 (2003): 257–286; Berrens, R. P., P. Ganderton, and C. L. Silva, “Valuing the Protection of Minimum Instream Flows in New Mexico.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21, no. 2 (1996): 294–309; Loomis, J. B., “Estimating the Public’s Values for Instream Flow: Economic Techniques and Dollar Values.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34, no. 5 (1998): 1007–1014, doi:10.1111​/j.1752-­1688.1998​ .tb04149.x; Rowe, R. D., R. C. D’Arge, and D. B. Brookshire, “An Experiment on the Economic Value of Visibility.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7, no. 1 (1980): 1–19; Schulze, W. D., D. B. Brookshire, E. G. Walther, et al., “The Economic Benefits of Preserving Visibility in the National Parklands

172

Chapter 6

of the Southwest.” Natural Resources Journal 23, no. 1 (1983): 149–173; Vassanadumrongdee, S., S. Matsuoka, and H. Shirakawa, “Meta-­Analysis of Contingent Valuation Studies on Air Pollution-­Related Morbidity Risks.” Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 6, no. 1 (2004): 11–47. 24. Rowe, R. D., R. C. D’Arge, and D. B. Brookshire, “An Experiment on the Economic Value of Visibility.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7, no. 1 (1980): 1–19. 25. Schulze, W. D., D. B. Brookshire, E. G. Walther, et al., “The Economic Benefits of Preserving Visibility in the National Parklands of the Southwest.” Natural Resources Journal 23, no. 1 (1983): 149–173. 26. Beckstead, N., D. Breen, A. Gardiner, et al., “Valuing Clean Air in Weber County, Utah.” ERGO, no. 3 (2008): 17–25. 27. “Utah Historical Summary,” Winter Air Quality Alert Program, Last modified March 20, 2019, http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/woodburn​ summary.pdf. 28. Myrick Freeman III, A., Joseph A. Herriges, and Catherine L. Kling, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods, Third Edition. (New York: RFF Press, 2014). 29. Smith, K. V., and J. Huang, “Can Markets Value Air Quality? A Meta-­Analysis of Hedonic Property Value Models.” Journal of Political Economy 103, no. 1 (1995): 209–227. 30. Chattopadhyay, S., “Estimating the Demand for Air Quality: New Evidence Based on the Chicago Housing Market.” Land Economics 75, no. 1 (1999): 22–38. 31. Bajari, P., J. C. Fruehwirth, K. I. Kim, and C. Timmins, “A Rational Expectations Approach to Hedonic Price Regressions with Time-­Varying Unobserved Product Attributes: The Price of Pollution.” American Economic Review 102, no. 5 (2012): 1898–1926. 32. Bayer, P., N. Keohane, and C. Timmins, “Migration and Hedonic Valuation: The Case of Air Quality.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58, no. 1 (2009): 1–14. 33. Chay, K. Y., and M. Greenstone, “The Impact of Air Pollution on Infant Mortality: Evidence from Geographic Variation in Pollution Shocks Induced by a Recession.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, no. 3 (2003): 1121–1167. 34. Ordway, Denise-­Marie, and Leighton Walter Kille, “The Health Effects and Costs of Air Pollution: Research Roundup,” Journalist’s Resource: Research on Today’s News Topics, Harvard Kennedy School, Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Last modified December 7, 2015, http://journalists​ ­resource.org/studies/environment/pollution-­environment/health-­effects-costs​ -­air​-pollution-­research-roundup. 35. Romley, J. A., A. Hackbarth, and D. P. Goldman, “The Impact of Air Quality on Hospital Spending,” Technical Report, Last modified 2010, https://www.rand​ .org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2010/RAND_TR777.pdf.



The Economics of Air Quality in Utah

173

36. Bresnahan, B. W., M. Dickie, and S. Gerking, “Averting Behavior and Urban Air

Pollution.” Land Economics 73, no. 3 (1997): 340–357.

37. Roback, J., “Wages, Rents and the Quality of Life.” Journal of Political Economy

90, no. 6 (1982): 1257–1278.

38. Cole, M. A., R. J. R. Elliott, and J. K. Lindley, “Dirty Money: Is There a Wage

Premium for Working in a Pollution Intensive Industry?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 39, no. 2 (2009): 161–180. 39. Noonan, D. S., “How Much Do We Care About the Air? Evidence on the Value of Air Quality Improvements.” American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Last modified December 14, 2011, http://www.aei.org/publication​ /how-­much-do-­we-care-­about-the-­air-evidence-­on-the-­v alue-of-­air-quality​ -­improvements/. 40. Ibid.

7 Mobile Source Pollution and the Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air WILL SPEIGLE

If you’ve ever driven a car, truck, or motorcycle or mowed your lawn with a gas-powered mower in Utah, you have contributed to air pollution in the state. This fact is an uncomfortable one, especially for those concerned about air quality. It might be simpler emotionally (and politically) to blame others, especially big fixed-point source polluters, than to look in the mirror and consider one’s own complicity in air pollution. These personal contributions — driving to the store, mowing the lawn, taking a flight — may seem small, especially when one sees pollution concentrated around refineries, but multiply these actions by hundreds of thousands of people and such mobile sources of pollution accumulate. Estimates vary slightly, but approximately 50 percent of the air pollution along the urbanized Wasatch Front comes from mobile source pollution, which is emitted from non-fixed sources. These sources include airplanes, automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, construction equipment, and power equipment, such as lawnmowers, snow blowers, weed trimmers, and the like. Motor vehicles are one of the primary contributors to the air pollution that hangs over cities in general, including the Wasatch Front. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality measures the concentration of specific chemicals, like volatile organic compounds (VOCs), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO), to pro-

174



The Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air

175

FIGURE 7.1. VOC emissions sources. (Data from Utah DAQ 2016 Annual Report.)

duce a statewide map of these pollutants. Figures 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 provide the latest data from the Utah Division of Air Quality 2016 Annual Report.1 VOC emissions from on-­road mobile and non-­road mobile account for only four percent of the total inventory for Utah (see Figure 7.1). Naturally occurring VOC emissions from biogenics account for 73 percent of the state’s total inventory. (For more on this topic, see chapter three.) If a resident wants to live in denial of their contribution to pollution, one might conclude that trees and decaying organic material is the biggest contributor to pollutants. The small percentage from mobile source emissions seems insignificant as to not pose a threat. Unfortunately there is much more to the story. VOCs are only one pollutant that contributes to the problem of photochemical smog. Figure 7.2 illustrates the sources of NOx, the other pollutant required to create photochemical smog.2 Combined on-­road mobile and non-­road mobile sources account for 45 percent of total pollution, even when accounting for naturally occurring pollutants. These maps clarify how significant anthropogenic pollution is, as well as the role of mobile source pollution in adding to total volume of NOx emissions and ultimately photo­chemical smog.

176

Chapter 7

FIGURE 7.2. NOx emissions sources. (Data from Utah DAQ 2016 Annual Report.)

FIGURE 7.3. CO emissions sources. (Data from Utah DAQ 2016 Annual Report.)

Figure 7.3 maps the concentration of CO. It is important to note that on-­road mobile and non-­road mobile sources account for 59 percent of the total emissions inventory. This significant mobile source pollutant is primarily a human health concern.3 What these three charts illustrate is that it is difficult to calculate an



The Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air

177

exact percentage as to how much of our air quality problems are a direct result of mobile source emissions. But there is no denying that a major source of our air quality problem comes from driving cars and yard care. Each type of mobile source emits varying amounts of pollution that might not be proportional to the amount of fuel burned. This complication poses numerous problems but also offers great opportunities for improving air quality. It is easy to feel despair at being trapped in a system that requires fossil fuels to function in society. But the good news is that much can be done and continues to be done to drive emissions reductions. Whether making personal choices or supporting new regulations designed to reduce mobile source pollution, there is reason for optimism. This chapter focuses on the various types of mobile source pollution and the challenges and opportunities present in reducing this portion of the emissions inventory. It explores further how our best opportunity for reducing these emissions may come from federal regulations and technological improvements, where the former often drives the latter. Mobile source emissions are challenging to regulate in many ways. In contrast to fixed emissions sources, such as factories and refineries, where highly efficient pollution control devices and emissions monitoring equipment can be installed, mobile unit emissions are more difficult to monitor. This complication hinders the design of efficient pollution control devices. There are other issues as well. Due to the number of vehicles on the road, personal vehicles will always be a very large percentage of the emissions inventory. Of course, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles could change this trend, especially if the electricity comes from renewable energy. Currently, data from the U.S. Department of Energy suggests even electric vehicles are not a perfect solution because 71.9 percent of electricity in Utah is from coal.4 Generation of this electricity results in a significant amount of particulate matter, NOx, mercury, sulfur di­oxide, and CO2 emissions. (For more on this topic, see chapter 10.) As the charts below indicate, hybrid vehicles offer a cleaner option than an all-­electric or even a plug-­in electric hybrid. Plug-­in electric hybrids running on gasoline are less efficient than a full hybrid (see Figure 7.4). In addition, a gasoline powered vehicle that gets over 35 miles per gallon generally is producing less CO2 than an all-­electric vehicle in

178

Chapter 7 State Averages for UT Electricity Sources

Coal: 71.88%

Annual Emissions per Vehicle

Solar: 5.38% Wind: 2.55% Hydro: 2.23% Geothermal: 1.26 Other Fossil: 0.33% Biomass: 0.20% 1 / 2

Pounds of CO2 Equivalent

Natural Gas: 16.08%

15k 10k 5k 0k

Hybrid Gasoline

All Plug-in Electric Hybrid

FIGURE 7.4. Utah sources of electricity. (Data from United States Department

of Energy.) National Averages Electricity Sources

Natural Gas: 31.82% Annual Emissions per Vehicle

Nuclear: 20.12% Hydro: 7.34% Wind: 6.36% Biomass: 1.60% Solar: 1.32% Oil: 0.53% 1 / 2

Pounds of CO2 Equivalent

Coal: 30.19%

15k 10k 5k 0k

All Plug-in Electric Hybrid

Hybrid Gasoline

FIGURE 7.5. National sources of electricity. (Data from Utah DAQ 2016 A ­ nnual ­Report.)

northern Utah (see Figure 7.5). These charts, however, only show part of the picture. CO2 emissions may not directly impact air quality but it does impact climate that could affect air quality in the future (see chapter ten). As with most solutions there is a trade-­off. On one hand driving an electric vehicle avoids producing local tailpipe emissions. On the other hand, electric vehicles have a very long tailpipe in the form of coal-­fired power plant smokestacks that emit pollution elsewhere, dispersing it generally in rural areas. (See chapter three for a discussion of rural air pollution.) Compared to national averages, the state’s reliance on coal for generating electricity is more than double the national average.5



The Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air

179

Federal regulations have played the most significant role in regulating and reducing emissions from mobile source pollution. (For a discussion of the legal framework of air pollution, see chapter five.) Currently vehicle emissions standards are set by two different entities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets emissions standards for vehicles sold in the United States. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) sets standards for vehicles sold in California. While each set of standards is similar, each focuses on reducing some pollutants more than others. The reasoning is sound. Each area has some naturally occurring emissions, such as biogenic VOC emissions that when combined with another pollutant result in photochemical smog. The naturally occurring emissions are tracked by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and are significant in quantity. Natural sources, however, are impossible to regulate or reduce. Instead the focus is to reduce emissions generated by human activities to prevent air quality problems. For example, smog forms when NOx and VOCs combine in the presence of sunlight. Eliminating either of the required components reduces smog formation. Adding more VOCs to a region with naturally occurring VOC does not increase smog formation. But smog forms rapidly when NOx from tailpipe emissions enter the system. There has been a constant tug-­of-war between reducing NOx and increasing VOC or reducing VOC and increasing NOx. Up until the mid– 2000s, the technology did not exist to control both effectively. Now due to advancements in emission control technology, future vehicle emission standards will set a total combined amount of NOx and VOC that can be emitted. By 2025 both CARB and EPA emissions standards will be the same. According to one study, the majority of the pollution emitted from vehicles occurs from a cold startup.6 Eliminating as many cold starts as possible will increase the life of a vehicle as well as reduce emissions by a considerable amount. Emission controls on motor vehicles began in the 1960s. In the beginning, emission standards consisted of emissions control devices installed on vehicles. The first attempt at emission control was a mandate by California to install Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV ) systems in 1961. The first Federal tailpipe emissions standard was established in 1968. At the time, technology to reduce tailpipe emissions was limited, but the 1961 law was the catalyst that started the trend to clean automobile emissions.

180

Chapter 7

Subsequently, five major changes have contributed to the decline in automotive emissions. Vehicle technology has improved engine management and emissions control systems. Fuels are burning cleaner, which also contributes to emissions control device longevity. Emissions standards are constantly evolving, accelerating the rate that vehicles are becoming cleaner. Manufactures have performed the initial emissions certification, allowing them to bring new vehicles to market more quickly. Effective emissions inspection/maintenance programs keep the vehicles running cleaner over their useful life. Each of these advances will be discussed below. Vehicle Technology Advancements

As emissions and fuel economy standards evolve, so must technology to keep pace. Modern vehicles share very little with cars of the sixties. Advancements in electronics allow for very sophisticated controls of the entire vehicle. Modern materials and computer modeling allow for the design and manufacture of lightweight components to save fuel, while meeting the federal useful life requirements. In addition, more accurate failure detection methods alert the driver to emissions-­related failures. Cleaner Fuels

Strict standards regarding detergents and additives in fuel reduces the incidence of plugged injectors and the associated misfires, even on older vehicles. A more recent change is the reduction in the sulfur content of fuel. Sulfur in crude oil can be difficult to remove during the refining process. Sulfur in fuels is emitted as SO2, which reacts with moisture in the atmosphere to create sulfuric acid, resulting in acid rain. The sulfur in the fuel also coats the catalytic converter, rendering it inoperative. In the past, sulfur content was as high as 1000 ppm in many parts of the United States. Starting in 2004, the standard was set at 120 ppm and capped at 300  ppm. By 2006, the standard was reduced to 30-­ppm average and capped at 80 ppm. The new Tier 3 gasoline standards coming into effect in 2017 further reduce the sulfur content to 10-­ppm average.7 The reduction in sulfur content should have a significant impact on mobile source pollution. The lifetime emissions of a vehicle are determined by how efficient the emissions control devices operate over the life of the vehicle. Due to the high sulfur content many catalytic converters



The Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air

181

have been contaminated, which increases the tailpipe emissions as the vehicle ages. Reducing the sulfur content will ensure the catalyst is efficient over the duration of the vehicle’s use. The reduction in sulfur content also improves the performance of a contaminated catalyst. As a result all vehicles on the road, even older ones with currently contaminated catalytic converters, will have reduced emissions. These reformulated fuels are welcome, but it took a considerable amount of time to reach this achievement. The reason for the delay is purely political. The petroleum refining industry has successfully lobbied against installing devices to remove the sulfur due to the initial cost of changing the refining process. According to a study by the EPA, meeting the Tier 3 fuel standards will add approximately half a cent per gallon of fuel.8 Evolving Federal Emissions Standards

If a manufacturer wants to sell a vehicle in the United States, it must meet certain emissions standards.9 While the emission standards are constantly evolving, the amount of improvement with each standard is staggering. Currently four Federal standards are on the books that categorize passenger vehicles. Tier 0 vehicles include vehicles built before 1996. Tier 1 vehicles were phased-­in beginning in 1994 with total compliance by 1996. Tier 2 vehicles were phased-­in beginning in 2004 with total compliance by 2007. Tier 3 consists of future standards, with phase-­in beginning 2017 and total compliance by 2025. Each one of the standards has multiple levels at which the vehicle can be certified. In general, tier 2 vehicles are significantly cleaner than tier 1 vehicles, and tier 3 vehicles are significantly cleaner than tier 2. For ex­ ample, the standard for NOx in 1975 was 3.1 grams per mile. The 2007 Tier 2 average is .07 grams per mile.10 Tailpipe emissions standards are also constantly evolving. The future Tier 3 standard combines both Non-­ Methane Organic Gases (NMOG) and NOx as a single measurement. The total combined standard will be 0.03 grams per mile. Clearly, cars are getting cleaner very quickly due to the evolving federal emission standards. The chart below lists combined NOx and NMOG for modern vehicles starting in 1996 (see Figure 7.6). Evolving emissions standards play an essential role in improving air quality. More vehicles are on the road, traveling greater distances. In

182

Chapter 7 Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3

1000 900

910

800 700

mg / ml

600 Tier 1 Tier 2 (Bin 5) Tier 3

500 400 300

82% Reduction

200

81% Reduction

100

30 0 VOC + NOX

FIGURE 7.6. Emissions reductions due to Tier 2 and Tier 3 Fuels. (Data from United

States Environmental Protection Agency.)

a­ ddition, vehicles are being developed that are cleaner and less polluting. Without any additional controls, emissions would decline with the intro­ duction of a new standard, and then rise again with an increase in the number of vehicle miles travelled. Enforcing and Validating Manufacturers’ Compliance to Emissions Standards

Due to the lengthy process of navigating a vehicle through the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) certification, the EPA now allows auto manufacturers to self-certify their cars. This results in greater flexibility in research, develop­ment, and production. It also allows the manufacturers to offer vehicles for sale more quickly. However, if the manufacturer does not perform the compliance testing in time, they are not allowed to sell in the United States. That is part of the reason there is no 1983 Model Year Corvette and no 1996 Jeep Wrangler. The EPA also does Selective Enforcement Audits (SEA) to ensure the manufacturers are properly certifying the vehicle. If it is found that the



The Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air

183

manufacturer is abusing this privilege, they lose their ability to self-­certify. While this seems like a check, concern remains. In 2016 the news broke about the VW emissions cheating scandal. Subsequent probes identified other manufacturers, including Audi, Mercedes-­ Benz, and Fiat Chrysler.11 BMW and Porsche have been drawn in as well. These manufacturers certified that their diesel engines met current standards, but the vehicles did not meet all of the standards following an EPA test. They were eventually caught by an automotive research facility at the University of West Virginia doing in-­use emissions testing while driving on actual roads. The EPA found that tailpipe emissions were about 40 times the Federal standards for NOx.12 The Volkswagen case was especially notorious due to their meticulous approach to cheating. Very specific programs and sensor inputs were used to tell when the vehicle was being driven on the FTP drive cycle so that it could run off a different calibration in the vehicle’s Powertrain Control Module to pass the tests. When the module detected the car was not being tested, it switched over to a calibration that delivered more horsepower and better fuel economy, along with far greater emissions. The manufacturer chose to cheat the test to avoid installing exhaust after-­treatment systems that would increase the final cost of the vehicle. The discovery that one of the world’s largest manufacturers had cheated prompted evaluations of other manufacturers, who were also found to be sidestepping regulations in similar ways. Effective Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Programs

Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs are essential to ensure vehicles remain clean throughout their useful life cycle. The state, however, must decide whether or not to implement a program. In some cases the EPA can require that a state implement an emissions reduction plan that involves emissions testing but only if that area is a non-­attainment area. One of the benefits to a vehicle emissions inspection program is that it encourages vehicle maintenance, which is not just changing the oil and replacing brakes. Vehicle maintenance also includes replacing or repairing any components that affect the operation of the powertrain. There are many devices installed on the vehicle that are a relatively inexpensive and simple to repair. If the vehicle is operated for a significant length of time when systems are in failure, the failure can cascade, resulting in far more

184

Chapter 7

expensive systems to repair. A good example is an oxygen sensor. Failure of this system will not prevent the vehicle from running but can greatly increase tailpipe emissions. If the sensor is not replaced in a timely manner it will cause failures of other components, such as the catalytic converter, which is a far more expensive component to replace. Fortunately, the oxygen sensor is a fairly inexpensive and easy component to replace. Another benefit of an I/M program is that it discourages emissions system tampering. Since emissions control devices were first installed on vehicles, the driving public has tried to defeat them. This trend began with the first catalytic converters. These devices contained a large amount of precious metals and are worth a significant amount of money. Secondly, vehicle owners believed that those components were causing a loss of horsepower. While this argument was true in the 1970s, technology had improved since the mid–1990s. The installed emissions control systems have little to no effect on power output or fuel economy. In fact, defeating some of the systems will result in catastrophic engine failure in some cases. The future of emissions testing programs remains unclear. As the number of older vehicles on the road declines and technology advances, we might see constant remote monitoring — ​a future “check engine” light that will alert the pertinent regulatory agency as soon as the emissions malfunction is detected. The vehicle owner would then be required to have the vehicle repaired within a short period. The Single Largest Contributor to Reducing Vehicle Emissions

The automotive industry faces many challenges when trying to reduce air pollution from vehicles on the national level. An emissions program helps significantly in specific areas with air quality problems, but most of the country does not have an emissions testing program to ensure the vehicles are not polluting. Many lessons were learned with the first emissions programs to create an effective I/M program. The original programs were limited by the time between a malfunction and its repair. An annual tailpipe-­testing program only alerts the owner of a vehicle in failure during the test. If the vehicle is operated in an area that does not have an I/M program, they will likely never be aware there is a fault with the vehicle. An early warning system alerts the owner of a malfunction to prevent drivability problems and an



The Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air

185

increase in emissions. During the early years, emissions control systems lacked a way to notify the owner that a system had failed and required repair. This need led the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to develop an on-­board emissions monitoring system. The result was On-­Board Diagnostics (OBD). OBD, and emissions system fault detection and notification process, consists of the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), the related sensor inputs and outputs, the monitored emissions control systems, a standardized Data Link Connector (DLC) to connect the vehicle to an off-­board computer, and a Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) to alert the operator to vehicle malfunctions. It was required for all vehicles sold in the United States beginning in 1996. Prior to this requirement there was no standardization on fault detection, failure thresholds, communication protocols, or Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) illumination. OBD utilizes many components fuel injected vehicles already had installed. What is unique about OBD is the way it leverages the on-­board components to monitor the emissions control devices for degradation of performance. It also lays a framework for the collection of the test results to report to an off-­board computer for emissions testing purposes. The OBD system is designed to evaluate the emission control systems and powertrain for proper operation. If the OBD system detects a singular problem that may cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the FTP standards (the exact threshold can vary), the MIL is illuminated and the appropriate Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) and engine operating conditions will be stored in PCM memory (Freeze Frame). Through MIL illumination, the OBD system notifies the vehicle operator that an emission-­related fault has been detected, and the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible. This system reduces harmful emissions contributed to the atmosphere. While tailpipe testing was designed only to catch cars that were egregious polluters, this approach fails under increasingly stringent emissions standards. OBD technology is effective, because it tests emissions control systems while in use. Advantageously, the OBD test is directly tied to the FTP, ensuring on-­board testing is more consistent with the initial vehicle certification. OBD allows for a lower fail threshold based directly on the FTP standards.

186

Chapter 7

One of the largest benefits to OBD is the early warning of a malfunction. The MIL illumination is now standardized and can only indicate that an emissions related malfunction exists. The MIL is not used for another purpose, such as a service reminder light. By responding to the MIL and having the vehicle repaired, the vehicle operator reduces the amount of time the malfunction persists and reduces the amount of pollution contributed to the environment. This approach also prevents other malfunctions from occurring, such as a prematurely deteriorated catalytic converter. Stored malfunction related information also enhances malfunction diagnosis and repair/repair verification. The vehicle sets a Diagnostic Trouble Code or DTC for each malfunction it detects. The format and definition for each DTC is clearly defined by SAE standards. A DTC is the same regardless of vehicle make or model. OBD also requires that freeze frame data, a snapshot of vehicle operating conditions at the time a malfunction is detected, be stored. The FTP has been around since the 1970s, and the EPA uses this test to determine compliance to applicable emissions standards. It is intended to represent typical driving patterns and was initially based upon a 1970s commute in Los Angeles, California. Pre-­production, production line, and in-­use vehicles are tested to verify they meet these standards, which were designed to test the vehicle under several different simulated operating conditions and measure evaporative and exhaust emissions. The FTP consists of a prep drive cycle to prepare the vehicle and then two separate tests (see Figure 7.7). The diurnal evaporative emissions test is designed to heat the fuel system and measure evaporative emissions. For this test, the vehicle is housed in an airtight building, and the total evaporative emissions are measured. The fuel system is heated using a heated wrap on the fuel tank to simulate the warming and cooling cycle of a parked vehicle throughout the day. The second test, the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), is designed to measure tailpipe and evaporative emissions. The UDDS consists of three phases — ​a cold start phase, transient phase, and hot start phase. The test-­driving portion consists of 1,874 seconds. This test has been updated with two supplemental procedures beginning in the 2000 model year. It was found that the original 1970s test did not accurately represent aggressive driving behavior, rapid speed fluctuations, driving



The Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air

187

FIGURE 7.7. Parameters of EPA federal test procedure.

behavior following startup, and the use of air conditioning. The US06 test (see Figure 7.8) represents aggressive and micro-­transient driving, and the SC03 test (see Figure 7.9) represents driving immediately following startup and driving with the air conditioning operating. The advantage of OBD testing over tailpipe emissions testing is its function during the entire FTP drive cycle. Tailpipe testing attempts to simulate the FTP by one of three ways. The common idle test evaluates the vehicle at idle and under no load. The Acceleration Simulation Mode tests the vehicle under load, simulating a very small portion of the FTP test. The most comprehensive tailpipe test, the IM240 emissions test, is the most accurate. It uses 240 seconds of the FTP during its testing, but it requires expensive dynamometers and trained drivers to follow the drive trace. Why Some Areas Have Emissions Testing Programs and Other do not

The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for several pollutants. If an area does not meet the criteria, the state is required to implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to get the air quality into attainment. The EPA evaluates and deems whether or not it is

FIGURE 7.8. Parameters of EPA US06 or supplemental test procedure.

FIGURE 7.9. Parameters of EPA SC03-­supplemental

federal test procedure with air conditioning.



The Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air

189

adequate. The SIP can be sent back to the state for revision. If the actions set in place do not reach NAAQS, the EPA may limit federal funding, and the Federal Highway Administration may not approve additional road construction through the Motor Vehicles Emissions Budget (MVEB).13 The budget represents a cap on emissions and represents the “holding capacity” of the area. For areas in non-­attainment, a cap is placed on the regional transportation network, preventing the state from building new roads and business and could potentially limit economic growth. Utah has delegated the responsibility of establishing an emissions testing and inspection program for each of the non-­attainment counties. Only a few counties test because the majority of the population resides in a fairly small portion of the state. As it happens, those counties are the ones defined as non-­attainment areas by the EPA. Individual county programs make it more difficult to regulate emissions because monitoring is done infrequently. Tailpipe emissions are tested once a year at most in certain counties. Even when it is tested, the tailpipe emissions pass/fail threshold is only designed to catch gross polluters. Many people try to defeat or “cheat” the test without really realizing they are doing it. Many who drive a vehicle out of compliance are unaware of the environmental impact of the malfunction. They simply find a way to get the vehicle to pass emissions. The most common cases are done unwittingly. Others reset the on-­board computer’s memory to fool testing devices. The OBD system on vehicles from 1996 onward runs tests of the systems as frequently as it can when conditions are met to run the test. Some systems do not affect the perceived performance of the vehicle but test emissions systems. Some only test when conditions are right. In some situations, it might be months before the on-­board tests run. For example, evaporative emissions systems and the catalyst results are stored in the Powertrain Control Module (PCM) and retrieved when the vehicle is tested by the county for emissions. By plugging in the emissions analyzer to the v­ ehicle’s diagnostic port, it shows whether or not failures are detected. In some areas due to weather or altitude, it can be very difficult to run all of the monitors. Some areas have allowances for certain monitors to remain off yet still allow the vehicle to pass the emissions test. Unfortunately, the most common emissions failures are in those systems that infrequently

190

Chapter 7

run. By clearing the vehicle computer’s memory right before running an emissions test, the systems that might have caused a failure have not had a chance to test themselves, and thus not set any failure codes that would trigger a check engine light. The vehicle is then able to pass with a failed emissions control system. The second category is people who cheat the emissions test willfully. For example, a diesel truck can be very clean if it is not modified and maintained as per the manufacturer’s recommendations. The problem is there is a tremendous amount of horsepower and fuel economy to be gained through aftermarket tuning devices that are illegal. Surprisingly, many of these cheat devices are openly advertised and sold with the capability to cheat emissions tests. Another significant problem with the emissions programs is the number of people registering a known polluting vehicle in a neighboring county that does not have an emissions testing program. In addition, an older vehicle can be registered under the vintage license plate program. In Utah, cars registered in this way are not intended for daily use. Since cars with vintage plates do not require emissions inspections, many people use the vintage plates to register older vehicles that are otherwise unable to pass emissions testing. Enforcement is necessary for those who are improperly using the vintage plates, or the vintage plates need to go away and have people properly register and pass emissions if the vehicles are to be driven on the road. The future is uncertain. Evolving standards will require new technologies to improve air quality. If there is a pause in these standards, pollution from the ever-­increasing number of vehicle miles traveled will worsen. Current efforts are reducing pollution from mobile sources. But it is up to Utah residents to make the small changes necessary to build on past progress and make greater strides toward the goal of cleaner air. What Can Individuals do to Reduce the Impact of Mobile Source Pollution?

Driving newer cars reduces mobile pollution. The amount of pollution being emitted from vehicles is being reduced at an exponential rate due to evolving standards. The difference between a 1997 model year vehicle that meets Tier 1 standards and 2007 model year vehicle that meets Tier 2



The Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air

191

standard is significant. Tier 2 vehicles are approximately 77 percent to 90 percent cleaner than Tier 1 vehicles.14 A 1991 Geo Metro, for instance, while getting great fuel economy and low CO2 emissions also produces more harmful emissions compared to a large SUV that meets current standards but that has much higher CO2 emissions due to its higher amount of fuel consumption. Another aspect of vehicle choice is purchasing vehicles with stated fuel economy and smog ratings. A modern vehicle is capable of getting incredible fuel economy while meeting very strict emissions standards. In many cases the fuel savings alone can equal or surpass the cost of a car payment. Driving an old, polluting vehicle getting 11 miles per gallon for 15,000 miles a year generally costs more than purchasing a newer, fuel-­ efficient vehicle. Vehicle maintenance also keeps pollution down. Maintaining a v­ ehicle requires doing the manufacturer recommended services and fixing any system that could affect engine performance. “Manufacturer Recommended” means not just the proper weight of oil, but the proper specification as well. Many manufacturers have oil that meets certain specification such as the General Motors DEXOS specification. That oil is designed specifically for a particular motor and emissions control system. Using the incorrect oil will likely result in other failures, such as contaminating the substrate on the catalytic converter as well as various types of ­serious internal damage to the engine. The best value is a dealership oil change that uses components and products that meet the manufacturers’ ­requirements. In addition to cars, hundreds of thousands of small engines also contribute to mobile source pollution. Gasoline-­powered Lawn and Garden Equipment (GLGE) can pollute more than automobiles. Though they might consume only a small amount of fuel, the engines typically are not as efficient and produce more emissions than a larger engine using more fuel. According to an EPA study, 26.7 million tons of pollutants were emitted by GLGE, accounting for approximately 24–45 percent of all non-­ Road mobile emissions.15 Considering how infrequently GLGE are used, this estimate suggests these machines are a significant contributing source of pollution. The EPA estimates that GLGE engines produce as much as five percent of the nation’s total air pollution.16 One study compared the

192

Chapter 7

emissions from a 2011 Ford Raptor (a pickup truck with a large 6.2 liter high performance engine) and an Echo two-­stroke leaf blower.17 This study discovered that the leaf blower produced nearly 300 times more NMOG per minute of operation than the truck. To equal the NMOG emissions from a half hour of yard work with the leaf blower, the truck would need to travel 3,887 miles to produce the same amount of pollution. In addition, all gasoline-­powered devices release hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, especially those not equipped with or having only a primitive evaporative emissions control system. This includes most lawn and garden equipment. Even when not in use, such devices are contributing to air pollution. Gasoline storage in small cans is another element of the impact of gas-­ powered lawn and garden air pollution equipment. The gas cans found in garages and sheds are a significant source of evaporative emissions, and older vented cans should be replaced with newer sealed cans. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality has in the past offered gas can exchange programs to replace older gas cans with new ones at no cost. To reduce the impact of local emissions from lawn and garden equipment, one great option is newer cordless electric mowers, trimmers, and snow throwers. Thanks to advancements in lithium ion battery technology and brushless motors, battery-­powered devices offer ease of use, power, and run time on par with gasoline-­powered versions. Mobile source pollution is a significant contributor to Utah’s degraded air quality. Individual choice from vehicle purchase to maintenance can go a long way toward improving air quality. Plug-­in electrics and hybrids are one good place to start. In a similar fashion, replacing lawn and garden power equipment that does not require gasoline can also reduce emissions. Notes 1. “Utah Division of Air Quality 2016 Annual Report,” Division of Air Quality,

Last modified 2016, https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air-­quality/annual-­reports​ /­DAQ-­2017-001541.pdf. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. “Emissions from Hybrid and Plug-­In Electric Vehicles,” U.S. Department of Energy, Last modified April 2019, https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric​ _emissions.php.



The Role of New Vehicle Technologies in Cleaning the Air

193

5. Ibid. 6. Martin, R. S., C. Woods, and J. Thomas, “Assessment of Automobile Start and

Idling Emissions Under Utah Specific Conditions,” Utah Division of Air Quality, Last modified May 2017, https://documents.deq.utah.gov/air-­quality/technical​ -­analysis/DAQ-­2017-011068.pdf. 7. “Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified April 28,2014, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-­2014​ -04-­28/pdf/2014-­06954.pdf. 8. Ibid. 9. “Regulations for Smog, Soot, and Other Air Pollution from Passenger Cars & Trucks,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified April 5, 2019, https:// www.epa.gov/regulations-­emissions-vehicles-­and-engines/regulations-­smog​ -soot-­and-other-­air-pollution-­passenger. 10. Ibid. 11. Cremer, A., and Marcus Wacket, “Audi Emissions Scandal: Germany Says it Detects New Cheating,” Reuters, June 1, 2017, http://www.autoblog.com/2017/06/01​ /audi-­emissions-scandal-­germany-says-­it-detects-­new-cheating/; Bomey, N., “Mercedes-­Benz Parent Daimler Issues Huge Recall as Diesel Emissions Questions Linger,” USA Today, July 18, 2017, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money​ /cars/2017/07/18/mercedes-­benz-daimler-­diesel-recall/488389001/; Ewing, J., “Fiat Chrysler to Modify 100,000 Vehicles After Accusations of Emissions Cheating,” The New York Times, May 19, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19​ /­business/energy-­environment/fiat-­chrysler-diesel-­emissions.html. 12. Ewing, J., “Volkswagen Says 11 Million Cars Worldwide Are Affected in ­Diesel Deception,” The New York Times, September 22, 2015, https://www.nytimes​.com​ /2015/09/23/business/international/volkswagen-­diesel-car-­scandal.html. 13. “Air Quality Planning for Transportation Officials,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Last modified June 28, 2017, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment​ /­air_quality/publications/air_quality_planning/aqplan09.cfm. 14. Pickerill, K., Today’s Technician: Automotive Engine Performance, 6th Edition, (Boston: Cengage Learning, 2013), 319. 15. Banks. J. L., “National Emissions from Lawn and Garden Equipment,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified April 15, 2015, https://www.epa.gov​ /­sites/production/files/2015-­09/documents/banks.pdf. 16. Ibid. 17. Kavanagh, J., “Emissions Test: Car vs. Truck vs. Leaf Blower,” Edmunds, Last modified December 4, 2011, https://www.edmunds.com/car-­reviews/features​ /emissions-test-car-­vs-truck-­vs-leaf-­blower.html.

8 Environmental Justice and Advocacy MARK A. STEVENSON and DENNI CAWLEY

Introduction

In this chapter we explore the intersection of environmental justice concerns, advocacy, and public policy surrounding air quality issues in Utah. Focusing primarily on the Wasatch Front, we examine the variety of ways in which environmental justice, the observation that environmental exposures and associated health impacts are unevenly distributed across geographic and social space, is defined, measured, and put into practice by a variety of organizations in the pursuit of cleaner air.1 This examination reveals both the complexity of the issue, as well as the range of effective collective responses. The Wasatch Front’s air quality challenges are caught up in a tangle of interrelated domains of private sector activity and public policy areas, including energy, transportation, housing, urban planning, industry, public health, education, and economic development. This complexity is also reflected in the “policy community” of public, nonprofit, and private sector individuals and institutions engaged in the collaborative and often contested process of defining the scope of the problem and the nature of potential solutions. Concerns about air quality in Utah have gained greater prominence in the past decade due to population growth and the associated sprawl, as well as mounting evidence from research pointing to health risks of poor air quality. Due to its visibility and evident health effects, poor air quality along the Wasatch Front has mobilized public opinion in a way that no other environmental issue in Utah has, putting pressure on state and local 194



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

195

governments to enact regulatory responses to a problem that threatens public health, economic development, and overall quality of life in the region. Daily air quality updates and related health warnings, online real-­ time air quality data, and reminders to carpool or take public transportation have become part of the informational fabric of daily life in the region. A number of non­profit groups have focused almost entirely on air quality with the goal of raising awareness and educating policymakers and the public using the latest research, analysis, and policy advocacy. These nonprofit organizations have become a significant catalyst for the formation of a “policy community” in which state and local governments, public agencies, higher education, and community groups engage in collaborative approaches to tackle the complex issues around air quality. We conducted interviews with individuals from a variety of public sector, aca­ demic, and nonprofit organizations to understand how the participants perceive and map their respective roles with regard to air quality. These topics will be explored in the following: • How is environmental justice defined relative to air quality concerns? • How are populations vulnerable to air pollution defined? • What metrics or measures are being used to quantify the problem? • What are the gaps in knowledge and/or awareness that need to be addressed? • What role do clean air advocates play in the mobilization of public opinion and the formulation of public policy regarding air quality in Utah? • How can environmental justice be taken fully into account within the air quality policy community? From these conversations, clean air advocacy groups have emerged as a significant force in the air quality policy field, forming a loosely ­organized ecosystem in which groups have informally sorted themselves into a variety of niches, focusing on particular aspects of air quality issues and distinctive organizational strategies to effect change. However, the role of environmental justice in air quality remains in its early stages in Utah, due in part to problems of measurement, a lack of data at finer scales, and the need for shared definitions or criteria for policy approaches. What emerges is a growing convergence of interest and collaborative initiatives

196

Chapter 8

aimed at resolving these challenges. These concepts will be explored in more detail below. It is also important to note that while this chapter focuses on environmental justice and advocacy for air quality along the Wasatch Front, there are equally pressing and important environmental justice, air quality, and health issues in other regions of Utah. These include rapid urbanization in Washington County and significant air pollution in the Uinta Basin, where oil and gas production expose nearby communities to volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, one component in the formation of ground-­level ozone pollution. (For more on this topic, see chapter three and for more on the health effects of ground-­level ozone, see chapter four.) Environmental Justice and Vulnerable Populations

Environmental exposures and associated health impacts are unevenly distributed across geographic and social space.2 Crucial to understanding the environmental justice dimensions of poor air quality is the ability to quantify and map the distribution of its detrimental effects. The spatial and socioeconomic distribution of the effects of poor air quality is perhaps the least understood aspect of the problem. The ability to map the overlapping distribution of pollution and vulnerable populations goes to the heart of environmental justice concerns. To begin, it is important to understand environmental justice as it relates to air quality regulators, advocates, and the research community. From a health perspective, there is mounting evidence for diverse negative health impacts of air pollution across a range of populations, even with exposures to levels of air pollutants that meet or fall below National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).3 Chronic and elevated short-­term exposure to particulate matter and ozone increase the rates of respiratory illness, stroke, heart attacks, pregnancy complications, infant mortality, and sudden death. Federal standards are inadequate to capture the synergistic effects of various sources of pollution in the human body. Vulnerable populations bear the brunt of social and economic costs of the effect of air pollution on health. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

197

regulations, and policies.”4 Numerous studies have proposed frameworks for including environmental justice concerns in modeling, measuring, predicting, and/or preventing environmental health risks, but these approaches are complicated by variation in demographic, spatial, and regulatory contexts for air pollution.5 As such, the adoption of a one size fits all framework is problematic. Another challenge lies in the definition and quantification of environmental justice on a variety of scales. For example, “traditional chemical-­ by-chemical and source-­specific assessments of potential health risks of environmental hazards do not reflect the multiple environmental and ­social stressors faced by vulnerable communities, which can act additively or synergistically to harm health.” 6 These assessments include studies that call for the incorporation of metrics, such as access to air quality information, more sophisticated understandings of inequality that do not rely on a single variable, and an understanding of “cumulative impacts” that combines spatial proximity, exposures and health risks, and measures of social vulnerability.7 Other studies point to conceptual confusion about the meaning of environmental justice as it is deployed by advocates and policymakers in distinguishing between its descriptive and normative dimensions. In proposing a framework for incorporating environmental justice into the regulatory development process, one must tackle the variable use of the terms “fairness” and “justice.” These words often have different definitions, contributing to the perception that environmental justice “as a concept is vague, abstract, and difficult to define in practical real-­world terms.”8 ­Simply, environmental inequalities are observable, quantitative differences in harmful environmental conditions, inequalities that are unnecessary and can be changed. For example, the California Energy Commission defines “environmental justice communities” as those residents who are predominantly minorities or low-­income. They also identify causation factors, such as those residents who are excluded from the environmental policy setting or decision-­making process, who are subjected to a disproportionate impact from one or more environmental hazards, and who experience disparate implementation of environmental regulations, requirements, practices, and activities in their communities. Environmental justice efforts attempt to address the inequities of environmental protection in these communities.9

198

Chapter 8

The EPA embarked on its commitment to environmental justice in 1994 in the wake of Executive Order (EO) 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-­Income Populations. This order mandates that the EPA “identify and address any disproportionate environmental and health impacts that its policies, activities, and programs may have on minority and low-­income populations.” 10 Part of this effort has involved providing analytical tools and rubrics for the assessment of environmental justice impacts, as well as financial support for community, local, and tribal organizations working to “understand and address exposure to multiple environmental harms and risks.” 11 Groups in Utah that have received the EPA’s Environmental Justice Small Grants Program as of 2016 include Comunidades Unidas, the Repertory Dance Theater, and the Utah Society for Environmental Education. These groups have developed education and outreach projects in Rose Park and West Salt Lake that focus on waste and recycling, air pollution and respiratory health, housing, and indoor air quality.12 In the 2016 technical guidance document, the EPA section defining “meaningful involvement” highlights recognition of the need to involve affected communities and stakeholders in rule-­making and decision-­ making processes.13 This approach acknowledges the important role of community-­based and advocacy organizations in raising awareness of environmental justice as an issue. Since the 1960s, environmental justice represents a convergence of the environmental movement with the Civil Rights movement. Actions by communities of color in urban and rural settings work to redress environmental racism related to issues such as waste disposal and pollution from industrial facilities.14 Our goal in this chapter is to better understand how or if environmental justice concepts are defined, measured, and incorporated into the formulation of air quality policy in Utah. The common thread that emerged in interviews with stakeholders across the organizational spectrum was the lack of more granular, detailed monitoring data and the need to model the socioeconomic factors that co-­determine unevenly distributed air pollution vulnerabilities and impacts. What emerges is that beyond the requirements imposed by the EPA, environmental justice around air quality considerations is in its early stages in Utah.15 Asked to define vulnerable populations, policy-­makers and advocates gave a variety of responses generally focused on spatial proximity to point



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

199

sources of air pollution and disparate health impacts. Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) Director Bryce Bird defined vulnerability as the “spatial analysis of air pollution concentrations,” noting that the DAQ focuses air quality monitoring, “where the highest expected public exposure would be.” 16 For Royal DeLegge, Director of Environmental Health at the Salt Lake County Health Department, “vulnerable populations are basically defined by, [and] through the perspective of determinants of health. And socio-­economic status, ethnicity, race, gender, all of those and more are determinants of health, and we can clearly identify in many cases disparities in providing health services.”17 He also noted the spatial dimension in terms of proximity to emissions sources. Communities close to fence-­line emissions, emissions in close proximity to a neighborhood, cluster of homes, or individual homes, are often most keenly aware and well-­informed of the health risks inherent in exposure. Their experiences are often the tripwire for initiating policy action. In December 2016, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment submitted comments to the EPA regarding proposed updates to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants from petroleum refineries around the United States and, in particular, in north Salt Lake City and southern Davis County. They noted the existence of refineries in the midst of densely populated areas and submitting comments “on behalf of our members and the public at large.” 18 These comments included powerful testimonials that revealed the negative impacts of fence-­line refinery emissions on the quality of life for residents of the area. Though data indicates that mobile sources of PM2.5 pollution — ​vehicles  — ​are a larger contributor to overall pollution levels in the Salt Lake Valley, the fact remains that the areas surrounding refineries suffer from heavy fence-­line levels of air pollution.19 Residents are keenly aware of the situation. Sunny Strasburg, a mother in Salt Lake City, wrote to the EPA, “I can barely stand the smells and pollution . . .there is a sickening, chemical odor emanating from the refinery.” 20 Another mother of small children from North Salt Lake wrote that the pollution is now year-round and visible. I can see it rise up over my home as the day gets longer. I am forced to keep my children indoors and have air purifiers and HEPA filters for our HVAC but truthfully this doesn’t solve much. I understand this problem is layered, but the refineries

200

Chapter 8

are VERY OLD and I can physically SEE heavy late-night burns during heavy inversions. I can SMELL the pollution from the refineries and it sticks to our clothes!21 Another family living near the refineries commented on the strong odor of petroleum fumes, on the black smoke pouring from refinery smokestacks, on the pollution that settles in low-­lying areas on cool mornings, and expressed concern for pregnant women and children who live in the area. Such testimonials put a human face on the hazards of air pollution often lost in the numbers and percentages found in reports. From an environmental justice perspective, accurate, real-­time mapping of vulnerable populations’ exposure to air pollution is the critical gap in the existing data. Yet the identification of environmental justice communities solely on the basis of proximity to known points sources can sometimes lead to an overly reductionist narrative. This approach focuses on areas like Rose Park and the nearby refineries, although those emissions also affect middle-­income neighborhoods in Bountiful, Woods Cross, and North Salt Lake.22 While the refineries are often cast as an “easy villain,” former HEAL Utah Executive Director Matt Pacenza notes that the issues in Utah are not as “clear cut” in comparison to areas such as the metro Los Angeles region, where clearly defined sources such as highways, rail yards and the port are disproportionately located near minority communities. Pacenza notes that that the “class- and race-­based component” of environmental justice incorporates a spectrum of other social factors that compound health vulnerabilities. An environmental justice approach can sometimes be applied as a lens that only partially encompasses the challenges faced by minority and low-­income communities for whom air quality may not be a very high priority compared to other issues such as “housing affordability and the quality of education and access to health care and immigrant rights.” 23 Such systemic issues relating to disenfranchisement, socioeconomic status, and location, all shape air quality impacts in disparate ways. These factors include access to efficient mass transit, a living wage, the availability of health care and affordable housing. “So when you have all those systems in place, a lot of the other issues go away,” says State Represen-



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

201

tative Angela Romero.24 The intersection of air quality with other socio­ economic factors further confounds the degree of community resilience in terms of uneven access to air quality information. This also affects the data that flows back into the policymaking process, due to such factors as the underreporting of health complications due to lack of health care access and/or because of lack of trust or fear because of immigration status.25 Measuring Environmental Justice

As the discussion above shows, environmental justice and vulnerable populations are defined and/or operationalized through the application of varying legal/regulatory, scientific, and advocacy frames within the Utah air quality policy community. What emerges in discussions with air quality advocates and policymakers is the lack of a mandatory application of environmental justice principles to the formulation of local regulatory policy. Additional challenges include finding ways to quantify environmental justice dimensions under current regulatory requirements.26 EPA standards to measure environmental risk are related to the public health impacts from air pollution and governed by complex protocols defined by the Clean Air Act, a full recounting of which are beyond the scope of this chapter. (For a detailed discussion of the legal and regulatory framework, see chapter five.) Under the terms of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set NAAQS for six of the most common “criteria air pollutants” (i.e., ground-­level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead) at levels that protect public health.27 (For a thorough discussion of atmospheric chemistry, see chapter two and chapter three and for a discussion of the legal and regulatory framework, see chapter five.) In accordance with EPA requirements for monitoring criteria pollutants and adherence to NAAQS, the Utah DAQ deploys air quality monitors to uphold the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy (NAAMS), which determines the types of monitoring equipment, computer modeling objectives, and locations monitored.28 The placement of the network of monitors must be reviewed every five years. According to DAQ Director Bird, the location of the monitors provide: representative monitoring of urban areas that cross a specific population threshold, or protective monitoring of specified areas once criteria pollutants are detected. As Bird

202

Chapter 8

notes, vulnerability is defined by “spatial analysis of air pollution concentrations,” and the DAQ must focus their monitoring “where the highest expected public exposure would be” based on population concentrations. Monitoring data serves a wide array of purposes, but the environmental justice dimension (e.g., disparities of impacts along socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic lines) is not included in these mandated uses.29 As Bird explains, although environmental justice concerns are not explicitly incorporated in the regulations promulgated by the EPA, it’s part of the background that defines how they change things and move to meet their mandate, but once the federal regulations are in place on the core programs, there is no environmental justice requirement or conditions, it’s all just population and emissions-based.30 While the spatial distribution of air pollutants is crucial to understanding environmental justice impacts, Bird points out that the mission of the DAQ to protect all residents from the harmful impacts of air pollutants means that “it’s basically blind to what kind of people they are or where they are.” 31 The goal being to “predict and protect” sites with the highest levels of criteria pollutants in accordance with EPA standards. Potential pollution “hotspots,” such as Rose Park are monitored based on spatial modeling that predicts “an area of expected high concentrations.” 32 This monitoring is driven by proximity to point and area sources, rather than primarily by socioeconomic characteristics as a potential environmental justice community, for which there are currently few widely accepted or available metrics beyond census block data. In the past decade, the EPA has initiated efforts to incorporate environmental justice concerns in regulatory decisions under terms of EO 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-­Income Populations. This agenda for advancing a “science of environmental justice” includes the recognition that addressing these data gaps must include “community-­based tools for assessing disproportionate impacts and methods for investigating the joint contributions of physical and social environments to health disparities.” 33 The most recent EPA initiative at providing environmental justice data consists of the deployment of Environmental Justice Screen (EJScreen),



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

203

“an environmental justice mapping and screening tool that provides the EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators.” 34 Combining environmental with demographic indicators, EJScreen incorporates recommendations from the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) in providing a uniform data set that enables national comparisons across EPA regions, while cautioning that these “environmental indicators are only screening-­level proxies for actual health impacts. This is particularly true for the “proximity indicators,” including emissions, ambient levels, individual exposures, and toxicity, which lack adequate resolution of ­single census blocks. The EPA further cautions that although EJScreen was developed as a tool to screen potential areas of environmental risk for further review, it does not mandate state-­level use and there is “no mandate or guidance expressed or implied that state governments or other entities should use the tool or its underlying data.” 35 These caveats emphasize the challenges highlighted repeatedly by individuals in the air quality policy community in Utah. It is also echoed in the scientific and policy literature, namely the lack of higher resolution, real-­time, source-­specific assessments of environmental health risks.36 Nationally, air quality advocates have long critiqued regulators’ established approach to measuring air quality by placing monitors away from point sources to “represent the airshed as a whole” and only reactively requiring “fence-­line monitoring” in response to complaints or specific release events.37 Mandated fence-­line monitoring of point sources, such as refineries, only began in 2015. At this time, the EPA required refineries to conduct their own fence-­line emissions monitoring using passive samplers, primarily focusing on benzene. This data is sent straight to the EPA, and the Utah DAQ receives the data well after the fact. This chain of data reporting also pertains to the protective monitoring done in response to the detection of elevated levels of criteria pollutants. For example, while spikes of formaldehyde and methylene chloride detected by the Bountiful EPA monitors led to additional monitoring and research by the Utah DAQ in the area, they had to submit all the sensor canisters to the EPA and wait for the data to be returned to them before they could begin analysis.38 Ensuring widespread public access to information regarding air quality has become a critical tool both for public and nonprofit stakeholders.

204

Chapter 8

This approach fosters greater public awareness and engagement to improve air quality on many levels, from building political consensus for meaningful policy action to encouraging voluntary action at the individual and household level to reduce the emission of air pollutants. These tools include air quality apps developed by the EPA (AirNow) and DAQ’s UtahAir app, as well as highway signs and daily air quality updates and action recommendations that are now widely disseminated by local news media.39 Echoing calls for more localized air quality monitoring, Purpleair. org, began offering “citizen’s air monitors” for purchase in 2016.40 These low-­cost monitors measure particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) and transmit localized, real-­time data to a website, giving Utah residents the opportunity to participate in data collection and compare readings to the results from DAQ monitors.41 Air quality advocates and researchers recognize the educational potential of such efforts in building a broader culture of awareness surrounding the science of air quality monitoring. For example, University of Utah researcher Kerry E. Kelly received funding from the National Science Foundation to bring Lego kits into area schools for students to build simple air quality sensors. This approach educates students on the operation, reliability, and ability to collect data and contribute to the network. While praising the educational potential of initiatives, such as ­Purpleair​ .org, Kelly cautions that such public-­facing data requires some thought as to community interaction with and interpretation of sensor data, particularly the question as to how communities interpret data in terms of health implications. The current system of air quality alerts is based on 24 hour averages, “but even though people equate that level with one hour that’s not exactly what it was meant to do. And then further extrapolating to minute-­by-minute measurements, nobody really knows what that would be, because there’s not a lot of health data to support that.” 42 Despite such uncertainties, sensitive populations, like those with severe asthma, could find value in the low-­cost PM sensors. Kelly notes that although the ­PurpleAir monitors tend to track overall air quality trends very well, they are less accurate at measuring absolute values compared to the very expensive and carefully calibrated DAQ monitors. Kelly worries that the



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

205

discrepancy in values between the systems can lead to public suspicion of data emanating from state agencies.43 As she points out, the density of the current DAQ monitor network makes the detection of local hotspots difficult. “If an area is being disproportionately affected by these air toxics, it’s (a) hard to figure out, and (b) even if you do figure it out, there’s a problem that it’s very hard to pinpoint that source,” she said.44 As such, low-­cost air monitors continue to be useful in identifying hotspots. The problems of measurement are further exacerbated by the uniquely complex geographic and meteorological conditions that make computer modeling particularly difficult for the Wasatch Front. As Bryce Bird notes, EPA computer models were developed for contexts east of the Mississippi where there are minimal “terrain impacts, very little topography, and the meteorology is very uniform.” 45 The DAQ has “spent a lot of time and resources over the past 15 years fine-­tuning and refining the models for our area.” They have sought legislative funding for research, model development, and the purchase of supercomputer nodes from the University of Utah to adapt EPA models to local conditions.46 This complexity makes the reliance on individual monitors problematic when assigning levels of public health risk for any given 24 hour period. Daniel Mendoza, Research Assistant Professor at the University of Utah, refers to this as the “Hawthorne effect,” his own shorthand term for the fact that air quality alerts in the Salt Lake Valley are currently based on the oldest sampling monitor deployed by the DAQ at Hawthorne Elementary School, located at 1700 S and 700 E in Salt Lake City. The data generated by the newer ­stations at Herriman and Rose Park are not yet incorporated into the three-­year average of readings required by the EPA to demonstrate compliance with NAAQS for PM2.5 pollution. The critical issue identified by many in the air quality policy community is the lack of adequate tools to provide spatially and temporally fine-­ grained data on emissions sources, population exposures, and potential health impacts. The EPA acknowledges that tools such as EJScreen are not suited to analyze the risks at the census-­block level. They have begun a systematic effort to foster more detailed, region-­specific modeling and measurement of cumulative risk assessments that incorporate social as well as environmental stressors.47 Local air policy stakeholders, as well

206

Chapter 8

as local academic researchers working in partnership with DAQ, the Salt Lake County Health Department, Utah Department of Transportation and other agencies believe this is the best approach.48 Mendoza and his colleagues model exposure gradients across the Salt Lake Valley, taking advantage of the continuous record of CO2 emissions in Salt Lake City since 2001 generated by monitors operated by the University of Utah. This research utilizes the Hestia Model, a sophisticated computer model first developed by Arizona State University researcher Kevin Gurney. Hestia models emissions at the level of individual buildings and streets to develop a “healthy, sustainability and urban planning tool” that enables planners to “visualize the urban metabolism.” 49 Such efforts have resulted in ground-­breaking work that aims to understand the “quantity of greenhouse gases co-­emitted with air quality-­relevant pollutants, and how much co-­benefits in carbon reduction and air quality improvement can be realized.” 50 By expanding the network of existing CO2 monitors deployed by the University of Utah to include mobile, real-­time data from monitors mounted on TRAX trains, and with support from SLC Green, the Utah Department of Transportation, and the Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mendoza and his colleagues are working to adapt Hestia to track other pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen, sulfur oxides, and as fine particulates.51 The TRAX monitors reveal exposure gradients that can be mapped onto areas with varying socioeconomic characteristics where “we see exposure levels that vary very much in line with socio-­ economic status, mainly income.” 52 For Mendoza, “socioeconomic injustice” is embodied in a greater understanding of these exposure gradients, as well as the additive health effects and geographic and socioeconomic distribution “in different parts of the valley” of short-­term spikes versus chronic, baseline exposures to airborne pollutants that cause respiratory exacerbations.53 In addition to more spatially specific monitoring for specific pollutants, another crucial source of data are local studies aimed at tracking specific exposure pathways and the distribution of health impacts. As DAQ Director Bird notes, while local health data and studies from the Utah Department of Health and other sources “is used to feedback into the EPA analysis that the EPA uses when they set standards and develop programs...



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

207

it’s not directly impacting our day-­to-day regulatory activities” once the NAAQS are set.54 Data about the distribution of health impacts is crucial for state and local agencies, as well as clean air advocates concerned with local regulation, planning, and the mitigation of public health impacts. One area that has the potential to bring about positive change in relation to air quality is an increased focus on the health determinants of environmental justice. By using data-­based models to identify which populations seem to be suffering the most from environmental factors, state and local agencies can contribute to an understanding of where the health risks from air pollution are greatest. For the Salt Lake County Health Department, this involves engaging in their own monitoring in order to gain more granular data, since the state’s monitoring system is “not very finely tuned to small area emissions.” 55 The Salt Lake County Health Department has embarked on collaborations with a broad spectrum of nonprofit advocacy groups as well as numerous public sector organizations, including the University of Utah Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Salt Lake City’s Sustainability Department, and the Utah Clean Cities Coalition on initiatives such as anti-­idling education campaigns and building air quality monitoring units for use in schools in Salt Lake County. (For more information about Breathe Utah, HEAL Utah, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, and UCAIR, see Air Quality Resources For R ­ eaders.) These collaborative partnerships between public sector agencies, local researchers, and air quality advocacy groups support research, monitoring, and outreach activities allow the air quality policy community to leverage their collective resources to advance the shared goal of improved air quality. The nonprofit air quality advocacy sector plays an important role in engaging policymakers and the public. They also play a role in translating the research outcomes into actionable policy recommendations and for greater community engagement on air quality. Air Quality Advocacy and Public Policy

In the pursuit of broadly shared goals around the improvement of air quality in Utah, nonprofits tend to pursue niche specializations and collaborations simultaneously. While the history of nonprofit environmental organizations is beyond the scope of this chapter, it begins with student protests against pollution from Geneva Steel in the 1980s.56 In 1998,

208

Chapter 8

community-­based groups such as Families Against Incinerator Risk, the forerunner of today’s HEAL Utah, formed in opposition to the chemical weapons incinerator at the Tooele Army Depot and, later, dioxin pollution from MagCorp (now U.S. Magnesium) and the Davis County Garbage Incinerator.57 The 1990s saw growing momentum on air quality issues with the creation of networks that brought together public sector, private sector, and nonprofit groups, such as the Wasatch Clean Air Coalition, the Western Regional Air Partnership, and Utah Clean Cities.58 Air quality gained further attention as a significant public health concern as physicians such as Dr. Brian Moench, founder of Utah Physicians for Healthy Environment (UPHE), spoke out about the grave health risks of exposure to air pollution. Their work in turn inspired Cherise Udell to form Utah Moms for Clean Air. Since the 1990s, the environmental nonprofit sector in Utah has expanded beyond specific point sources of pollutants. Mirroring national trends, formerly distinct policy domains have become increasingly linked through a convergence under the umbrella terms of sustainable development and climate action. As such, this allows new and unexpected linkages between nonprofit and public and private sector stakeholders around innovative, collaborative approaches to sustainable growth, regional planning, energy policy, transportation policy, housing, and public health,59 all of which are relevant to air quality issues. Moving beyond the “single issue/single source” paradigm of environmental action, the air quality policy community has in this way increasingly engaged with a spectrum of adjacent policy areas in addressing both the causes and solutions to air quality concerns. Recognizing the interconnectedness of air quality in terms of measurement, awareness-­building, and policy action is the central challenge faced by air quality advocates. Air quality discussions along the Wasatch Front center on the challenges of population growth and sustainable growth strategies for regional planning processes. This governance framework has become nationally recognized in the urban planning literature as “the Utah Model.” 60 This approach prioritizes local control in addressing regional “smart growth” strategies through persuasion and incremental, bottom-­up measures at municipal and county levels. The Utah Model first emerged in the 1990s with the creation of Envision Utah, a



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

209

unique form of “nonregulatory public/private partnership” that addresses the challenges of smart growth in the face of political reluctance at the state level to engage in regional planning efforts.61 The partnership between the Utah Transit Authority and Envision Utah in the planning and consensus-­building that enabled the build-­out of the Wasatch Front public transit infrastructure is lauded in the planning literature as the signature achievement of the Utah Model.62 While Envision Utah’s public opinion research avoids explicitly environmental language, the overarching concept of “quality of life” encompasses a host of interrelated issues pertaining to sustainable development, including air, water, transportation, energy, housing, etc. Because of its perceived success, the Utah Model has created an organizational precedent whose lineage can be seen in subsequent organizations, such as UCAIR and the Mountain Accord. This approach solidifies a non-­confrontational culture of stakeholder collaboration and supports an incremental, bottom-­up “nonregulatory” approach to sustainable growth issues in which information, education and persuasion are key. This consensus-­driven model, combined with the conservative politi­ cal culture of the state, requires that air quality nonprofit groups pay careful attention to messaging, avoiding the perceived backlash that could result from the use of explicitly environmental appeals. Clean air advocates use a spectrum of approaches to find solutions to poor air quality. One is by advocating for legislative solutions through lobbying, which is a limited avenue for those groups with 501c3 nonprofit status. Another strategy involves engaging the community to speak out on clean air issues by sharing information on health impacts, air quality data, or potential sources of pollution. Collaboration with partners within the nonprofit sector, regional economic development authorities, business and religious institutions, and public health agencies, provide a compelling message to impact air quality policy. Cultivating these relationships can lead to meaningful change. The stakeholder-­driven approach to policy shapes and constrains the strategic options available to air quality advocates, as they attempt to navi­ gate the tension between collaboration and confrontation in influencing public policy. A confrontational approach that identifies “villains and

210

Chapter 8

v­ ictims” or which equates policy inaction with human suffering can lead to marginalization or exclusion from stakeholder policy processes in Utah. Collaborative approaches can be successful though at time painstakingly slow. Stronger community voice and action have led to the mitigation or removal of potential point sources of pollution. However, this can also backfire when politics or the strong voice of a few overpower the rest. Choosing appropriate strategies brings results. According to DAQ Director Bird, “advocacy groups have really helped both on the funding side, the public education and outreach side, and [on] just the general awareness of air quality issues.” 63 While acknowledging that organizations operating in the same policy space are to some extent competing for the same limited financial resources, Deborah Burney-­Sigman of Breathe Utah believes it’s important for nonprofits to use their resources most efficiently by “making sure that everybody is playing to their strengths and to their mission.” 64 The scope and timing of air quality advocacy is contingent on organizational capacity, as well as financial and human resource constraints, particularly the ability to maintain paid staff. Full-­time policy analysts provide meaningful input into both the legislative and regulatory processes. Rather than spending time mobilizing in response to “bad legislation,” proactive engagement with the policy process requires the kind of consistent follow-­through and attendance at innumerable legislative and regulatory meetings that only paid staff will generally have the ability to pursue. C ­ ontinuing to focus on the legislative and the regulatory aspects of air quality policy are significant areas where nonprofits can advocate for clean air. Operationally, the engagement of air quality nonprofits with the political system is shaped by the annual cycles of the winter state legislative session and the late spring–summer period during which legislative hearings, state agency regulatory meetings, and proposals for bills for the upcoming legislative session are formulated. Similarly, building public awareness, rallies, and public opinion mobilization are shaped by a strategic orientation to the timing of the Utah legislative session. These efforts are often facilitated by spikes in pollution due to winter inversions or elevated levels of ground-­level ozone or wildfire smoke in summer. During the “all hands



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

211

on deck” period of the state legislative session, pieces of proposed legislation become sites of mobilization as clean air advocate groups seek to activate their volunteers and public action via the informational churn of legislative updates, email, social media, and local news outlets. Many clean air advocacy groups engage closely with the Clean Air Caucus within the Utah legislature to set the agenda for upcoming legislative sessions and provide input and/or informational resources on specific measures, such as the regulation of open burning, fireworks, and addressing noncompliant diesel vehicles. Advocacy groups were also closely involved in providing input into the hearings around the latest iteration of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) during the summer of 2017, which was required in response to EPA reclassification of nonattainment areas along the Wasatch Front — ​areas that do not meet federal air quality standards — ​from Moderate to Serious.65 Education as advocacy is a central component of the work of non­ profits who seek to educate policymakers at the municipal, county, and state level concerning air quality issues, as well as the general community. As noted earlier, local colleges and universities also play a crucial role in collaborative partnerships in the air quality policy community, with research projects playing an important role in generating informational resources for policymaking and community outreach on air quality. Researchers engage in a range of projects in collaboration with and/or commissioned by the EPA, the Wasatch Front Regional Council, the Salt Lake County Health Department, Utah Department of Transportation, DAQ, and other entities. Advocacy groups are often seen as allies by public agencies, such as DAQ. These collaborations strengthen the case, either directly with legislators or through the demonstration of public support for particular policy initiatives or funding requests for monitoring and research. Outreach and specific engagement of environmental justice communities on air quality issues is a work in progress in Utah. The primary environmental justice focus within the air quality advocacy community seems to be on community awareness and engagement building within potential environmental justice communities. Despite limited work by some groups with Spanish-­language media, they could strengthen their

212

Chapter 8

work by translating more educational materials into Spanish and other minority languages.66 It is important that these education materials not only be simply translated but adapted to fit the different cultural contexts of the communities. The intersection of environmental justice issues with a host of other issues (e.g., income, housing, health care, transportation, and education) often exceeds the capacity of most air quality advocacy groups to address in a comprehensive, integrated manner. Outreach and communication efforts, however, are underway, including collaborative work between ­advocacy groups and area researchers, presentations on air quality issues and monitoring at local schools, and public meetings with community councils and leaders. Education is seen as central to environmental justice. It’s essential that “the coming generations understand and embrace Utah’s air quality challenges.” 67 Apart from communities along the I–15 corridor, the west side of Salt Lake City and those areas close to refinery fence-­lines in North Salt Lake and Bountiful, other areas of environmental justice concern include the communities in the Uintah Basin, particularly the Uintah and Ouray reservations. Due to the impact of oil and gas extraction, the Uintah Basin has seen unusually high concentrations of wintertime ozone. After years of study, the EPA has designated the Uinta Basin as a “Marginal Nonattainment” area on May 1, 2018.68 (For more on air pollution in the Uinta Basin and attempts to regulate it, see chapter three and chapter five.) Under the terms of the Clean Air Act, the Utah DAQ has no authority in tribal areas. As such, the EPA has the authority to regulate emissions on reservations, although laws governing tribal sovereignty dictates that tribal air agencies must maintain their own ambient monitoring systems.69 At the same time the Utah DAQ has completed significant research in the region and has worked in an advisory capacity with tribal communities in the area. Research indicates that the oil and gas industry is the cause of the severe winter ozone problem (see chapter three). According to Bird, “we still feel an obligation to work on protecting the people out there, and we worked very closely with the Ute Tribe.”70 The environmental justice challenges across the Uinta Basin differ from the Wasatch Front, which also was designated on May 1, 2018, as a “Marginal Nonattainment” area by the EPA. While the industry provides many well-­paying jobs in a region with a



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

213

l­ imited economic base, citizen and political support for action on cleaner air may be limited despite the documented health risks. (For a discussion of the health impacts of ozone see chapter four.) In addition, the engagement of air quality advocacy groups with the Uintah Basin is often minimal due to economic limitations, where the bulk of their staff, volunteers, and ­donors are based along the Wasatch Front. Encouraging to note is the added voice of newly formed groups, such as the SLC Air Protectors, a Native American-­led organization inspired by Standing Rock, who have offered their voice to this discussion. Successes, Innovation and Challenges for the Future

Anyone who looks out of the window on a winter inversion day along the Wasatch Front could be excused for questioning whether Utah has had any success in addressing its air quality challenge. As DAQ Director Bird reported to a state legislative committee in 2015, overall emissions of criteria pollutants in Utah dropped 30 percent between 2002 and 2011, while still failing to meet federal standards on about five per cent of days annually.71 Any advances in air quality could backslide in the face of projected population growth. Lawmakers still question air pollution despite the fact that emission spikes on noncompliance days are sometimes the highest in the nation. Rather, they profess “excessively negative reports about pollution [which] have caused residents undue concern about air quality.” 72 At the same time, constituents know all too well from personal experience the profound and increasingly medically documented health impacts of air pollution. This exchange highlights that air quality is a moving target, one contingent on changing conditions (e.g., population growth), evolving standards, and an increasingly extensive knowledge about the distribution of poor air quality and its effects on public health. The air quality policy community can point to successes in raising public awareness and addressing specific point sources of air pollution. HEAL Utah’s early success in restricting emissions from MagCorp and the Davis County Garbage Incinerator, as well as recent legislative and regulatory successes, will “ensure a transition to cleaner burning hot water heaters.” 73 This work also increases the statute of limitations for the state to prosecute polluters and mobilize a mass messaging campaign to legislators in support of updates to the Utah Energy Code. Support has also

214

Chapter 8

been built for proposed federal Tier 3 pollution standards for cars and trucks, support which included Republican state legislators and Governor Herbert. In the K–12 educational outreach space, Breathe Utah has engaged professional presenters to “make sure that kids think that learning about air quality is something cool and valuable.” 74 This approach argues for school-­based air quality education as an effective, long-­term way to build a broader knowledge base about air quality. (For more on Breathe Utah’s work and partnerships, see information under “Breathe Utah” in the Appendix: Air Quality Resources for Readers.) To accelerate air quality and health education and intervention, groups such as UPHE led significant efforts to reduce pollution. For example, UPHE joined residents of the Foxboro district of North Salt Lake who were suffering adverse health effects from the Stericycle medical waste incinerator. Their combined action resulted in a DEQ enforcement action against the company for emissions. The company agreed to relocate the facility to a less populated area in Tooele County.75 More recently, UPHE has taken the local lead, with the support of other nonprofit partner organizations to bring Salt Lake City into the Unmask My City initiative, a global coalition of doctors and healthcare professionals working on air pollution and climate change.76 Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the air quality policy sector has been in the elevation of the issue in terms of public awareness. Public opinion polls and the results of large-­scale surveys by Envision Utah have consistently shown improving air quality to be one of the top priorities to improve Utah’s quality of life.77 Such survey results identify the disconnect between levels of public concern and levels of funding for air quality, especially when compared to water, education, or transportation. While difficult to quantify, the persistent work done by air quality advocates continues to educate and engage the broader public through press releases, research, school presentations, community organization, policy engagement, and public protest. Their efforts ensure that air quality and related public health issues will continue to hold a central role in shaping the importance of the issue in public opinion. Quantifying specific legislative success stories from air quality advocates remains elusive. Their accomplishments are embedded in the on-



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

215

going policy process, and much of the work is done collaboratively and behind the scenes. Having a seat at the table does not necessarily translate into outright legislative victories, as attested by legislative defeats in 2017 on issues such as restrictions on wood burning or the maintenance of incentives for residential solar and electric vehicles. Despite this, the persistent voices representing public interest can and do provide a consistent, countervailing force towards greater transparency, compromise, and accountability beyond narrow interests or short-­term thinking. Nor does this collaborative policy environment exclude more confrontational approaches, from public protest to litigation aimed at public agencies by groups, such as UPHE or Western Resource Advocates around issues of policy formulation, implementation, or enforcement.78 Beyond legislative and regulatory processes, the organizational basis for many policy communities is increasingly shaped by organizational innovations that have put Utah in the national spotlight as a model for sustainable growth planning. The public-­private partnership model for “quality growth” represented by Envision Utah, has created a forum in which scenarios for sustainable development can integrate air quality concerns with adjacent policy fields to build public awareness and broad consensus among stakeholders for desirable outcomes. Among the challenges of such collaborative planning processes is the exclusion of social justice concerns, advocates, or critical perspectives in the name of ideological “neutrality” and/or the risk of co-­optation by economic and/or political interests. This latter concern is evident in the early critique of the composition, role, and potential conflicts of interest that critics have argued are evident in UCAIR.79 Created by Utah Governor Gary Herbert, the 501c3 organization UCAIR is a public-­private partnership “created to make it easier for individuals, businesses and communities to make small changes to improve Utah’s air.” This approach emphasizes voluntary rather than regulatory approaches to improving air quality in arguing that “[g]overnment agencies continue to regulate what they can to improve air quality but the majority of emissions in Utah come from sources that are difficult to regulate — ​vehicles, homes and small businesses. Reducing these emissions sources is dependent on small measures that individuals choose to take.” 80 UCAIR has strongly supported innovative air quality solutions through grants, working on ads that highlight the importance of

216

Chapter 8

i­ ndividual actions to improve air quality, and encouraging collaborations and informal information-­sharing between members of its network. It is vital that environmental and social justice outcomes are integrated in sustainable growth models that hold the promise of continued economic growth through targeted government intervention and policy innovations in integrative, sustainable planning.81 This approach could also provide a broad and potentially inclusive vehicle to spark conversation about otherwise politically divisive issues. At another level, success can be understood when looking at the generally collaborative inclusion of advocates’ voices in legal and regulatory processes. In “small world” policy communities such as air quality, it is the density and quality of networks and relationships that can sometimes prove decisive in motivating agreement or compromise. An ­additional form of organizational innovation in the air quality and broader sustainability policy communities has been the creation of networks of public, private, and nonprofit sector organizations designed to enhance networked capacity-­building and leverage collective relationships in the pursuit of common policy goals. In addition to coalition groups such as the Utah Clean Air Alliance, the Utah Clean Cities Coalition, Utah Clean Energy, Salt Lake City and its Department of Sustainability have played an instrumental role as a founder or participant in a variety of environmental coalitions.82 Nationally, the Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability (SLCgreen) under the leadership of Director Vicki Bennett is active in the Urban Sustainability Directors Network and its new global initiative, the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance. On the Wasatch Front, they have recently convened two networking groups, the Utah Climate Action Network and the Wasatch Clean Air Network.83 Perhaps the most pressing issue in terms of the significant future challenge in addressing air quality issues in Utah has to do with population growth. Although the bulk of the projected population growth will occur on the Wasatch Front and the St. George region, the subsequent demand on Utah’s largely coal-­fired power generation will drive up emissions in other, less inhabited parts of the state, as well as increasing the combination of area, mobile and point sources of pollutants on the Wasatch Front. This trend is particularly alarming from a public health perspective, given Salt Lake City’s recent air quality rating as sixth worse in the nation by



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

217

the American Lung Association and mounting research as to its negative health effects.84 These health effects will be exacerbated by the impact of climate change in Utah, as will the severity of winter inversions.85 (For more on climate change and its impact on Utah, see chapter ten.) In many ways Utah has become a national model for collaborative, integrative forms of policy innovation and data-­driven decision-­making which, political challenges notwithstanding, provide at least the tools for potential solutions to the state’s unique air quality challenges. And it is imperative that Utahns do so, given that these challenges will only intensify in the face of rapid population growth and the exacerbating effects on air quality of rising temperatures due to anthropogenic climate change. The roadmap to a potentially inclusive set of solutions for improving air quality in Utah under the broad, values-­driven rubric of “quality of life” has been laid out. It remains to be seen whether and how long it will take for Utahns to rise to the challenges in the near future. Notes 1. Buzzelli, M., “Bourdieu Does Environmental Justice? Probing the Linkages Be-

tween Population Health and Air Pollution Epidemiology.” Health and Place 13, no. 1 (2007): 3–13; Gouveia, N., “Addressing Environmental Health Inequalities.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13, no. 9 (2016): 858–60. 2. Ibid.; ibid. 3. “Air Pollution Associated with Acute Respiratory Distress Hospitalization of Elderly,” Science Daily, May 23,2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018​/05​ /180523133403.htm; Calderón-­Garcidueñas, L., A. González-­Maciel, R. Reynoso-­ Robles, et al., “Hallmarks of Alzheimer Disease are Evolving Relentlessly in Metropolitan Mexico City Infants, Children and Young Adults APOE4 Carriers Have Higher Suicide Risk and Higher Odds of Reaching NFT Stage V at ≤ 40 Years of Age.” Environmental Research 164 (2018): 475–487, 10.1016/j.envres.2018.03.023; Horne, B. D., E. A. Joy, M. G. Hofmann, et al., “Short-­term Elevation of Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Acute Lower Respiratory Infection.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 198, no. 6 (2018): 759–766, doi: 10.1164/rccm.201709​-­1883OC; Pirozzi, C. S., D. L. Mendoza, Y. Xu, et al., “Short-­ Term Particulate Air Pollution Exposure is Associated with Increased Severity of Respiratory and Quality of Life Symptoms in Patients with Fibrotic S­ arcoidosis.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 6 (2018): 1077. 4. “Environmental Justice,” Environmental Protection Agency, last modified August 8, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.

218

Chapter 8

5. Miranda, M. L., S. E. Edwards, M. H. Keating, and C. J. Paul, “Making the En-

vironmental Justice Grade: The Relative Burden of Air Pollution Exposure in the United States.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8, no. 12 (2011): 1755–1771; Nweke, O., “A Framework for Integrating Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8, no. 12 (2011): 2373; Sadd, J. L., M. Pastor, R.  Morello-­Frosch, et al., “Playing it Safe: Assessing Cumulative Impact and Social Vulnerability Through an Environmental Justice Screening Method in the South Coast Air Basin, California.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8, no. 5 (2011): 1441–1459. 6. Sadd, J. L., M. Pastor, R. Morello-­Frosch, J. Scoggins, and B. Jesdale. “Playing it Safe: Assessing Cumulative Impact and Social Vulnerability Through an Environmental Justice Screening Method in the South Coast Air Basin, California.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8, no. 5 (2011): 1442. 7. Buzzelli, M., “Bourdieu Does Environmental Justice? Probing the Linkages Between Population Health and Air Pollution Epidemiology.” Health & Place 13, no. 1 (2011): 3–13. 8. Phillips, C., and K. Sexton, “Science and Policy Implications of Defining Environmental Justice.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9 (1999): 9–17, 10.1038/sj.jea.7500022. 9. “Environmental Justice,” California Energy Commission, Last modified ­October 2003, http://www.energy.ca.gov/public_adviser/environmental_justice_faq​ .html. 10. Nweke, O. C., D. Payne-­Sturges, L. Garcia, et al., “Symposium on Integrating the Science of Environmental Justice into Decision-­making at the Environmental Protection Agency: An Overview.” American Journal of Public Health 101 Suppl 1, S1 (2011): 19. 11. “Environmental Justice Small Grants Program,” Environmental Protection Agency, last modified April 11, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice​ /environmental-­justice-small-­grants-program. 12. “2 Utah groups receive environmental justice grants,” KSL.com, December 17, 2011, https://www.ksl.com/?sid=18495058; “West Salt Lake (Utah) Project Earns EPA Environmental Justice Grant,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified October 1, 2010, https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618​525​ a9efb85257359003fb69d/35926a075c168c7d85257beb00630124!OpenDocument. 13. “Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analy­ sis,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified April 10, 2017. https:// www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-­06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf. 14. “The Environmental Justice Movement,” Natural Resources Defense Council, Last modified March 17, 2016, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/environmental​ -­justice-movement; Bullard, R., Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality (Boulder: Westview Press, 1990).



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

219

15. “UDOT Environmental MOI,” Utah Department of Transportation, Last modi-

fied September 2018, https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf ?n=1321471​ 6962114339. 16. Bryce Bird, personal communication, May 19, 2017. 17. Royal DeLegge, personal communication, June 16, 2017. 18. “Comments by Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Member Statements, National Emissions Standards: Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Petroleum Refinery Sector,” EPA-­HQ-OAR-­2010-0682-­0872, UPHE, Last modified December 19, 2016, https://www.regulations.gov/searchResults?rpp=50​&po​=0​ &s​=EPA​-­HQ-OAR-­2010-0682. 19. “Understanding Utah’s Air Quality,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Last modified December 26, 2018, https://deq.utah.gov/communication/news​ /­featured/understanding-­utahs-air-­quality. 20. “Comments by Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Member Statements,” EPA-­HQ-OAR-­2010-0682-­0872, Last modified December 16, 2016, https://www.regulations.gov/searchResults?rpp=50&po=0&s=EPA-­HQ-OAR​ -­2010​-0682. 21. Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. “Comments by Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Member Statements.” Comments submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding National Emissions Standards, Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Petroleum Refinery Sector EPA-HQ​-OAR​ -2010-0682-0872, December 16, 2016. 22. Matt Pacenza, personal communication, May 26, 2017. 23. Ibid. 24. Angela Romero, personal communication, May 17, 2017. 25. Ibid. 26. Nweke, O., “A Framework for Integrating Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8, no. 12 (2016): 2366–2385, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8062366. 27. “Criteria Air Pollutants,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified June 28, 2017, https://www.epa.gov/criteria-­air-pollutants. 28. “Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy for State, Local, and Tribal Air Agencies,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified September 29, 2016, https:// www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/monitorstrat/AAMS%20for%20SLTs%20 %20-%20FINAL%20Dec%202008.pdf. 29. Ibid. 30. Bryce Bird, personal communication, May 19, 2017. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Nweke, O. C., D. Payne-­Sturges, L. Garcia, et al., “Symposium on Integrating the Science of Environmental Justice into Decision-­making at the Environmental Protection Agency: An Overview.” American Journal of Public Health 101, Suppl 1(2011): 19–20.

220

Chapter 8

34. “EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool, What is

EJSCREEN?” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified August 10, 2016, https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-­ejscreen. 35. “EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. Limitations and Caveats in Using EJSCREEN,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified June 9, 2015, https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/limitations-­and-caveats-­using​ -ejscreen. 36. Ottinger, G., “Citizen Engineers at the Fenceline: Environmental Regulators Would do a Better Job Protecting Air Quality and Public Health if They Worked with Local Communities.” Issues in Science and Technology 32, no. 2 (2016): 72– 78; Sadd, J. L., M. Pastor, R. Morello-­Frosch, et al., “Playing it Safe: Assessing Cumulative Impact and Social Vulnerability Through an Environmental Justice Screening Method in the South Coast Air Basin, California.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8, no. 5 (2011): 1441–1459. 37. Ottinger, G., “Citizen Engineers at the Fenceline: Environmental Regulators Would do a Better Job Protecting Air Quality and Public Health if They Worked with Local Communities.” Issues in Science and Technology 32, no. 2 (2016): 73. 38. Bryce Bird, personal communication, May 19, 2017. 39. Harrison, P., “Air Quality App Puts Air Info at Your Fingertips,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Last modified July 28, 2014, https://deq.utah​ .gov/news/ai-­quality-app. 40. “Frequently Asked Questions,” PurpleAir, Last modified in 2017, https://www​ .purpleair.com/faq. 41. “PurpleAir.org’s Citizen Air Monitors,” Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, http://uphe.org/citizen-­air-monitors/. 42. Kerry E. Kelly, personal communication, May 19, 2017. 43. Nelson, K., “Dirty Air Monitors: Are They Telling us the Whole Truth?” Good4Utah.com, February 28, 2016, http://www.good4utah.com/news/local​ -­news​/dirty​-­air-monitors-­are-they-­telling-us-­the-whole-­truth/382744964. 44. Kerry E. Kelly, personal communication, May 19, 2017. 45. Bryce Bird, personal communication, May 19, 2017. 46. Ibid. 47. Nweke, O. C., D. Payne-­Sturges, L. Garcia, et al., “Symposium on Integrating the Science of Environmental Justice into Decision-­making at the Environmental Protection Agency: An Overview.” American Journal of Public Health 101, Suppl 1(2011): 21. 48. Kerry E. Kelly, personal communication, May 19, 2017. 49. Rojas-­Burke, J., “A New Way to Track and Combat Air Pollution in Salt Lake City: University of Utah Researchers are Generating Building-­by-Building Details on Greenhouse Gas and Pollutant Emissions in Salt Lake County,” University of Utah, Last modified May 4, 2015, https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases​ /tracking-­slc-air-­pollution/. 50. Lin, J., L. Mitchell, E. Crosman, D. Mendoza, et al., “CO2 and Carbon Emissions from Cities: Linkages to Air Quality, Socioeconomic Activity and Stakeholders



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

221

in the Salt Lake City Urban Area.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society November (2018): 2325–2339, doi:10.1175​/BAMS-­D-17-­0037.1. 51. Mitchell, L. E., E. T. Crosman, A. A. Jacques, et al., “Monitoring of Greenhouse Gases and Pollutants Across an Urban Area Using a Light-­rail Public Transit Platform.” Atmospheric Environment 187 (2018): 9–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j​ .atmosenv.2018.05.044. 52. Daniel Mendoza, personal communication, May 15, 2017. 53. Ibid. 54. Bryce Bird, personal communication, May 19, 2017. 55. Royal DeLegge, personal communication, June 16, 2017. 56. Moore, T., “Democratizing the Air: The Salt Lake Women’s Chamber of Commerce and Air Pollution, 1936–1945.” Environmental History 12, no. 1 (2007): 80–106. 57. “History,” Heal Utah, Last modified 2019, http://www.healutah.org/about/history/. 58. Kathy Van Dame, personal communication, February 8, 2018. 59. Gibbs, D., and R. Krueger, “Containing the Contradictions of Rapid Development?: New Economy Spaces and Sustainable Urban Development,” In The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe (New York: The Guilford Press, 2007), 95–122. 60. Harkness, P., “Utah’s Secret Weapon for Long-­R ange Planning,” Governing, Last modified March 2015, http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation​ -­infrastructure/gov-­utah-secret-­weapon-growth-­planning.html; Matheson, A., “Envision Utah: Building Communities on Values,” in Regional Planning for a Sustainable America: How Creative Programs are Promoting Prosperity and Saving the Environment (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2011): 154–166; Scheer, B., “The Utah Model: Lessons for Regional Planning,” University of Las Vegas, Last modified December 2012, https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/brook​ ings​_pubs/21/. 61. Matheson, A. “Envision Utah: Building Communities on Values,” in Regional Planning for a Sustainable America: How Creative Programs are Promoting Prosperity and Saving the Environment (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2011): 155. 62. Lewis, P., and M. Westervelt, “Lessons Learned From the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) System Expansion,” Eno Center for Transportation, Last modified November 2013, https://www.enotrans.org/wp-­content/uploads/2015/09/Utah.pdf; Scheer, B., “The Utah Model: Lessons for Regional Planning,” University of Las Vegas, Last modified December 2012, https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/brook​ ings​_pubs/21/. 63. Bryce Bird, personal communication, May 19, 2017. 64. Deborah Burney-­Sigman, personal communication, June 14, 2017. 65. “Serious Area PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Development,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Last modified November 30, 2018, https:// deq.utah.gov/legacy/pollutants/p/particulate-­matter/pm25/serious-­area-state​ -­implementation-plans/public-­participation.htm.

222

Chapter 8

66. Matt Pacenza, personal communication, May 26, 2017. 67. Deborah Burney-­Sigman, personal communication, June 14, 2017. 68. “EPA Designates Areas of ‘Marginal’ Compliance for Ozone Pollution,” Utah

Department of Environmental Quality, Last modified May 1, 2018, https://docu​ ments​.deq.utah.gov/communication-­office/press-­releases/2018-­05-01-­Ozone​ .pdf. 69. “Tribal Air and Climate Resources,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified March 14, 2019, https://www.epa.gov/tribal-­air. 70. Bryce Bird, personal communication, May 19, 2017. 71. Penrod. E., “Utah Air Quality Director Warns of Pollution Relapse; Lawmakers Say Reports Are Unduly Negative,” The Salt Lake Tribune, July 18, 2015, https:// www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2015/07/18/utah-­air-quality-­director-warns-­of​ -pollution-­relapse-lawmakers-­say-reports-­are-unduly-­negative/. 72. “Clean Air History,” Heal Utah, Last modified 2019, https://www.healutah.org​ /­archive-­clean-air-­history/. 73. Deborah Burney-­Sigman, personal communication, June 14, 2017. 74. Smardon. A., “Air Quality Permit for Incinerator in Tooele County Open for Public Comment,” KUER, April 16, 2016, http://kuer.org/post/air-­quality-permit​ -­incinerator-tooele-­county-open-­public-comment#stream/0. 75. “Unmask My City,” Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Last modified 2019, http://uphe.org/priority-­issues/unmask-­my-city/. 76. “The Air We Breathe: A Broad Analysis of Utah’s Air Quality and Policy Solutions,” Utah Foundation, Last modified January 23, 2014, http://www​.utahfoun​ dation.org/reports/the-­air-we-­breathe-a-­broad-analysis-­of-utahs-­air​-quality​ -­and-policy-­solutions-2/; O’Donoghue. A., “Utah Residents Rank Air Pollution as No. 1 Threat to Quality of Life,” Deseret News, January 26, 2015, http://www​ .deseretnews.com/article/865620440/Utah-­residents-rank-­air-pollution-­as-No​ -­1-threat-­to-quality-­of-life.html; “Your Utah, Your Future—Air Quality Survey Results,” Envision Utah, Last modified 2019, http://yourutahyourfuture​.org​ /­topics/air-­quality/item/48-­your-utah-­your-future-­survey-results. 77. “Our Mission,” Western Resource Advocates, Last modified 2019, https://west​ ern​resourceadvocates.org/about/vision-­mission/; “Utah Air Pollution,” Western Resource Advocates, Last modified 2019, https://westernresourceadvocates.org​ /­utah-­air-pollution/. 78. Fahys. J., “Utah Clean-­Air Initiative Short on Openness?” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 25, 2015, http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=56490512&itype=CMSID. 79. “About UCAIR,” UCAIR Utah Clean Air Partnership, Last modified 2019, http:// www.ucair.org/about/. 80. Gibbs, D., and R. Krueger, “Containing the Contradictions of Rapid Development?: New Economy Spaces and Sustainable Urban Development,” In The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe (New York: The Guilford Press, 2007), 95–122. 81. “About Utah Clean Cities,” Utah Clean Cities Coalition, Last modified 2017,



Environmental Justice and Advocacy

223

http://utahcleancities.org/about/; “What We Do,” Utah Clean Energy, Last modified 2016, https://utahcleanenergy.org/about-­us/what-­we-do; “Clean Air is Necessary for a Healthy Utah Citizenry and a Vibrant Utah Economy,” Utah Clean Air Alliance, Last modified 2019, http://utahcleanairalliance.org/?page_id=2. 82. “About the Network,” Utah Climate Action Network, Last modified 2019, http:// www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/about-­the-network.html. 83. Penrod. E., “American Lung Association Ranks SLC in Top 10 for Worst Air Quality,” The Salt Lake Tribune, April 18, 2017, http://archive.sltrib.com/­article​ .php?id=3799747&itype=CMSID; “New Research,” Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Last modified December 15, 2018, http://uphe.org/air-pollution​ -health/new-­research/. 84. Opsahl, K., “USU: Climate Change Can Play Role in Poor Air Quality,” HJNews. com, Last modified 2017, http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/usu-­climate-change​ -can​-play-­role-in-­poor-air-­quality/article_2ed3d13f-­2b15-5efd-­8421-00d8ae0f79​ f8​.html; Spencer, M., E. Stembridge, and L. Phillips, “Climate Change and Public Health in Utah,” http://health.utah.gov/enviroepi/publications/Climate%20 Change%20Booklet%20WEB%20compressed.pdf.

9 Designed for Clean Air The Role of Urban Planning and Transit in Solving Wasatch Front Air Quality Issues ERIC C. EWERT

The cold brown January morning fog signifies another bad air day along the Wasatch Front. This is the fourth Orange Air Day in a row in Utah’s metropolitan counties, and we’ve had at least a dozen of these terrible days so far this winter. Though many want to take action to clean up our sullied air, the irresistible temptation of growth challenges our ability to improve the region’s air quality. At the heart of this complex issue is the state’s economic system, city structure, and lifestyle choices. For Utah, all efforts to improve air quality have the potential to be offset by rapid population growth, a landscape built for vehicles and not people, political and economic pressures, and a deeply held preference for single family homes and personal automobiles. The Wasatch Front’s unique geography is partially to blame for the region’s poor air quality. Winter inversions along with the mountains to the east and light breezes from the west create a perfect atmospheric trap. (For specifics, see chapters two and three.) While it’s true that inversions create the atmospheric trap, it is the lifestyle of residents and a machine-dominated economy and transportation system that fill the trap with pollution. How did this serious health, environmental, and economic problem emerge? One answer is quite simple. Utahns designed and built their communities for cars, not people. Every new subdivision, strip mall, freeway lane, and far-flung housing development encourages people to 224



Designed for Clean Air

225

drive. And drive they do. According to the Federal Highway Administration, Utahns drive more miles every year, now reaching nearly 15,500 per driver per year, and up 10 percent in just the last five years. Only five states in the country had greater increases in miles driven. Utahns drive more than 1,000 miles per year above the national average, placing the state in the top 15 driving states in the nation. It’s also significant to note that Utahns have more registered vehicles than licensed drivers (111 vehicles for every 100 drivers).1 These figures do not count the increase in RVs, ATVs, ORVs, snowmobiles, boats, lawnmowers, leaf blowers, snow blowers, string trimmers, chain saws, and every other sort of motorized and polluting gadget. The real problem, though, is that Utah’s urban and suburban landscapes require driving, usually solo, everywhere to do anything. Many live in one place, work in another, shop in still another, recreate in yet another, and so on. Many residents don’t think twice about this situation or feel they have few options for change. It has simply become a way of life. Though the costs to health and well-­being are high, broad demographic trends and the built environment present significant challenges to cleaning up our sullied air. Perhaps the most powerful trend is Utah’s incredible population growth. In late 2016, the U.S. Census Bureau named Utah the fastest growing state in the nation. In a single year, the state grew just over two percent and topped three million people for the first time by adding 60,585 people in just 12 months.2 That growth is not spread evenly across the state. Overwhelmingly, it is concentrated among the metropolitan counties that make up the Wasatch Front. Except for St. George in southwestern Utah, almost all of the state’s growth was added to the 150–mile urban corridor that connects Logan in the north to Santaquin City south of Provo. According to the decennial U.S. Census, Utah grew 23.8 percent in the last decade and 29.6 percent in the 1990s. From 1960–2010 Utah has burgeoned by an extraordinary 210 percent. The rest of the booming American West averaged only 156 percent over the same period. Since 2010, Utah has added 397,220 people, representing a 14.4 percent population increase.3 All of the counties that make up the Wasatch Front reported sustained growth during this period, but the truly astounding numbers appear at the smaller Census tract level. In a new study, the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analyzed building permits and housing

226

Chapter 9

and construction data to estimate population growth in Salt Lake and Utah County Census tracts from 2010 to 2016. Census tract 1130.20 (part of Daybreak in South Jordan) grew 63.6 percent, adding 7,424 people in just six years. Two tracts in Herriman, immediately south of Daybreak, grew 63.6 percent and 71.3 percent respectively. And just over the border in Utah County, a Lehi area tract grew an astonishing 128.4 percent, adding nearly 5,000 new residents and more than doubling in size. In fact the only Census tract in either county to lose population in six years, was tract 1128.18, where the Utah State Prison’s population dropped by 751 inmates.4 These fast-­growing areas now tackle a new problem: tremendous traffic congestion. And with gridlock comes the inevitable “victim of success” derivative, air pollution.5 As will be discussed later, nearly all of that growth has been for detached single family residences (as the Census calls them) on individual lots. In 2017 and 2018, Utah’s growth rate abated only enough (less than 0.1 percent) for Nevada and Idaho to overtake it.6 With the nation’s highest fertility rates and steady immigration, especially from California, Utah may top the state growth rates again in the coming years. The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute estimates that the state will reach a population of six million by 2065. As it is now, roughly half of that growth will come from net natural increase (births minus deaths), and the other half will come from net in-­migration (people moving in minus those moving out of the state).7 Twice today’s current population will have a tremendous impact on air quality if no significant mitigation occurs. Of course, every new Utah resident, by birth or immigration, eventually increases demand for housing, schools, stores, water, waste disposal, sewerage, parking, and especially transportation. To belabor the role of cars, SUVs, and trucks in fouling the state’s air is no hyperbole. Fifty percent of air pollution comes from vehicles. Houses and buildings contribute another 32 percent, and industry adds the remaining 11 percent.8 These proportions are why the physical design of our communities and the ways in which we traverse them are so influential on the quality of the state’s air. The more Utah grows, especially outward and at low population densities, the greater the need for driving, and of course, the larger the negative impact on air quality. There are already more than one million houses and cars in Utah, with thousands more added every year.



Designed for Clean Air

227

Land development is another factor that leads to degraded air quality. For the most part, it’s been done in a low density, sprawling, and car-­ dependent fashion. Looking down on urban Utah from an airplane, one can see the overwhelming amount of space given over to transportation. Geographers call it “machine space,” which is devoted to serving vehicles through parking lots, streets, roads, and highways, and is full of drive-­ thru banks, pharmacies, fast-­food restaurants, and residential driveways, carports and garages. Add to that total railroads, runways and airports, loading ramps, and truck bays, and well over half of city spaces are for vehicles and not for people.9 The new proposed inland shipping port in northwestern Salt Lake City would only add to this tremendous expanse of concrete and asphalt, which already impacts the urban environment in myriad ways. Surface water runoff is greatly increased since rainfall and snowmelt can’t soak into the ground. This water is often contaminated by pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, salt, and especially by materials associated with v­ ehicles, such as lubricants and fuels, tire particles, and radiator, brake, and transmission fluids. These contaminants often end up attached to dust that when disturbed by passing vehicles, joins other particulate pollution above the city. The spread of hard surfaces also changes the temperature around and above cities. Because of the re-­radiation effect, cities tend to capture sunlight and then release it at night, a warming effect known as the “urban heat island.” Warming urban temperatures interact with evaporation and affect air quality. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “elevated temperatures can directly increase the rate of ground-­level ozone formation.” Higher urban temperatures also demand more energy production to run air conditioners which can lead to increased emissions from coal-­fired power plants, facilities which currently generate 72 percent of Utah’s electricity.10 The very character of American cities demands multiple car trips for every person in a typical household. In the early twentieth century, ­cities began to enact zoning codes to separate incompatible land use, such as heavy industry and factories from residential areas. This zoning had only limited effect until the rise of personal car ownership by m ­ iddle class residents after WWII. Armed with the G.I. Bill and Veterans Affairs loans, many Americans were able to buy a house for the first time, and,

228

Chapter 9

importantly, earn an income to afford one. Given the choice, they longed for a single family home out in suburbia and away from the noise of the crowded city. Real estate developers with great influence over zoning laws began to rearrange the American city to favor single-­use zones, such as residential, commercial, governmental, retail, and industrial.11 As large department and grocery stores, consolidated furniture, housewares and hardware stores, and shopping malls began to spring up along busy roadways, neighborhood storefronts began to hemorrhage customers and eventually shuttered their doors.12 Rather than visit businesses within a block or two of home, a personal vehicle was now needed to access retail stores. Work and school commutes soon followed a similar pattern of greater distances to ever more destinations. The demise of the nation’s city streetcar systems also proved to be a powerful shaper of the modern urban landscape. Some 34,000 miles of streetcar lines carried most residents around nearly every American city in the 1920s. But with the rise of bus lines, land-­use laws, political d ­ ecisions, economic viability, and especially residents’ preferences, personal vehicles and the landscapes built to support them became the norm by mid-­ century. By the 1970s, reliable mass transit was rare in most U.S. cities and cars had become king.13 This dependence on automobiles has only increased over time. According to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), the I-­15/I-­80 eastbound interchange in Salt Lake City carried 294,000 cars per day in 2016. Thirty years earlier, in 1986, the same interchange carried less than half the cars, with 145,000 counted per day.14 And that is just one intersection. For the entire Salt Lake County in 2016, UDOT estimates nearly 27 million vehicle miles driven each day, or a staggering 9.8 billion vehicle miles driven per year. That is the equivalent of roughly 50 round trips to the sun from Earth. At first glance, these figures seem utterly impossible, but simple math confirms them. Assume greater Salt Lake County has a population of one million drivers. If they drive a single-­occupancy ­vehicle 27 miles in a day, the astonishing mileage total is reached. Of course, ­drivers in Utah, Davis, Weber, and adjacent counties contribute billions of miles and air pollution to these astounding totals as well.15 According to the Federal Highway Administration, the average Ameri­ can household made 9.6 vehicle trips per day in 2009. The typical employee traveled 13.2 miles to work and spent 25.5 minutes each way (or



Designed for Clean Air

229

nearly an hour round-­trip) getting there on average.16 All three of these data points have increased in the ten years since this survey was completed. The average one-­way commute time to work for Utahns is a little better (21.4 minutes in 2011, but still totaling 134 commuting hours or a total of 5.5 days per year). It’s very likely that most of these trips will be solo. In Utah, 80 percent of commuters travel alone by personal vehicle and they tend to travel far from where they live, which in the end, leads to more vehicle emissions. Statewide, 18.1 percent of Utah commuters cross county lines to get to work. For Davis County, Utah’s third most populous county, and essentially a bedroom community to Weber and Salt Lake Counties, that figure is a staggering 46.9 percent of workers.17 Thus, roughly half the county’s workers leave and return each weekday, and that is just for work commuting. Add trips for shopping, school, visiting, and the figures increase. These figures are hard to determine because driving patterns are so complex and individual, and as we’ll see later, this is one reason planning for mass transit is so challenging in Utah. All of this low density and car-­dependent decentralized development is collectively termed urban sprawl, which study after study links to declining air quality. In one key article published in the Journal of Environmental Management, researchers looked at 45 large U.S. metropolitan areas over a 13-­year period. They found that urban areas ranking high in a quantitative index for sprawl experienced a greater number of days when ozone levels exceeded federal guidelines. In contrast, more spatially compact metro areas had fewer days in violation over the same period.18 Other studies have found the same correlation between sprawl and pollution in rapidly growing, car-­dominated international cities as people commute greater distances.19 These data make sense; unless the percent of electric vehicle ownerships rises, more car trips over greater distances will result in more vehicle emissions. In a recent study, Utah placed second only to Nevada in its rate of urban sprawl from 2000 to 2010. And over the last three decades, Utah ranked seventh among all states for undeveloped land being transformed by development. In Salt Lake County for example, 47.2 square miles of land were developed between 2000 and 2010.20 The figure was 84 square miles for the Provo–Orem metro area and 37.5 square miles for the Ogden–Layton urban area over the same period. Out of nearly 500 urban areas surveyed nationwide, the rate of sprawl in these three Utah

230

Chapter 9

urban areas, ranked in the top 100 (Provo–Orem was 42nd). Over the same period, total land covered in Utah by urban areas grew 17.6 percent, second again only to Nevada’s 18.7 percent growth rate.21 That represents an enormous amount of additional pavement, concrete, and rooftops, and a tremendous loss of farmland and open space. U.S. Highway 89 in northern Utah was once nicknamed the “Fruit Way” when its bucolic margins were dominated by cherry, apricot, and peach orchards. Today, nearly every field from Brigham City to Salt Lake City has been converted to suburban and urban landscapes with anachronistic names like Orchard Creek Estates.22 These low density residential landscapes demand ever more vehicles and vehicle trips, all of which add their emissions to our compromised airshed. Responding to such tremendous development along U.S. 89 (and the concomitant increase in traffic), UDOT has proposed and approved a $275 million upgrade to full freeway status for the highway. Nearby residents, despite using the road daily, are opposed to its expansion, citing among many concerns, increased air pollution.23 They have organized “Residents’ Voices United on 89” (ReVU89) and plan legal action challenging UDOT. Without the project though, UDOT predicts that traffic congestion will increase 20–35 percent along the roadway by 2040.24 As if this wasn’t worry enough, a recent University of Utah study found that urban sprawl stunts upward economic mobility. Their results showed that “upward mobility is significantly higher in compact areas than in sprawling areas.” 25 Many factors are involved, but the study noted that longer distances between economic and educational opportunities diminish a person’s ability to take advantage of them. Sociologists have also warned for years that suburbia is bad for relationships. All those solo car trips, impersonal shopping destinations, distant workplaces, and inside-­ the-house entertainment do not build personal relationships between family members, friends, and neighbors, and do not contribute to a strong community. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that, “the trouble with the suburbs is that big houses with big yards, set behind wide streets and long driveways, make socializing much harder.” And over the eons, “human beings have (developed) an innate need to socialize with one another.” 26 Happily, Utah’s close-­knit, neighborhood-­based sense of community helps to overcome many of these social obstacles often found in suburbia.



Designed for Clean Air

231

The negative effects of sprawl on health are certainly physical as well as psychological. In a tremendous number of studies, doctors warn that a completely motorized lifestyle is the key contributing factor in the nation’s obesity epidemic. When people spend more time in a car than on their feet, physical well-­being suffers.27 Clearly, urban sprawl has broad social implications for individuals and society alike, as evidenced by degraded air quality and health. Yet suburbs remain the dominant development model, and have an enduring appeal for many of their residents. One reason is that suburbanization is a massive money-­maker, which means that economic and political forces are overwhelmingly aligned to support it. Sprawling car dependent suburbs use a lot of resources, but at the same time they generate jobs and profits. A sizable portion (some would say the largest) of the entire national economy relies on building houses, furnishing them, and then servicing their residents with roads, utilities, shopping, and entertainment. In a perverse way, air pollution, like traffic congestion, is a measure of economic success. All of those ­vehicles and consumers are fueling the economy with their trips and purchases. Their combined emissions are a visible reminder of just how affluent and mobile Americans have become, and represent a paradigm that few wish to change. Vehicles themselves prove to be mighty economic engines. After purchasing the car, according to The American Automobile Association, gas, maintenance, insurance, registration, repairs, and interest on the car loan push the total annual cost of car ownership to $9,146 for a small sedan. For larger, specialty, or luxury vehicles, that yearly cost goes up.28 These costs of course, do not include the negative impact vehicles have on the environment and people. According to economists, these “externalities” are not accounted for by the price of gas nor the monthly car payment itself. If health care expenditures and climate change charges (externalities) were factored in, (see chapter six) the price of a gallon of gasoline would increase $3.80 above the current pump price according to researchers at Duke University. For dirtier diesel fuel, it would jump another dollar to $4.80 per gallon above the prevailing price.29 Raising the current nationwide average price of gasoline from a near historic low of $2.10 per gallon in early 2019 to $5.90 would substantially influence people’s car choices and driving habits. Such a price would also dramatically alter urban

232

Chapter 9

­ lanning, delivery of goods and services, commuting, traveling, recreatp ing, and designing homes and buildings. When, for a brief time in 2012, gas approached $4 per gallon, Americans actually changed the types of vehicles bought and the drives made. Mass transit ridership was up, and hybrid and electric vehicle sales in 2013 exploded nearly 230 percent above those of 2012.30 Today, with cheap gas, SUVs rule the road and small car sales have plummeted.31 Like larger vehicles, larger homes and buildings contribute significantly to air pollution. 2015 witnessed a milestone in living space incongruity. While the number of residents per American household had reached an all-­time low of 2.54, the average house size had reached an all-­time high of nearly 2,700 square feet. That works out to 1,000 more square feet when compared to a typical 1975 home and nearly twice the living space per person in the household.32 According to The Residential Energy Consumption Survey, insulation, windows, roofing, appliances, and heating/­ cooling systems improved energy efficiency of modern homes, but the super-­sizing of houses has completely negated this progress. The survey found that “as square footage increases, the burden on heating and cooling equipment rises, lighting requirements increase, and the likelihood that the household uses more than one refrigerator increases.” 33 Energy Star appliances and LED lighting help, but most modern larger homes tend to require more electronic devices, using more power. In one fortunate change in residential trends, lot sizes are shrinking, which does help slow urban sprawl by increasing housing density. According to the Census Bureau’s Survey of Construction, while average home size in the United States has grown 24 percent in the last 15 years, lot sizes shrank by 10 percent. This is not true everywhere though. Lot sizes in Utah have remained unchanged over the 15-­year period.34 Strangely, even large homes and lots don’t seem to offer enough space. Many Ameri­ cans are forced to rent a self-­storage unit because their house is full and their garage doesn’t have room to park a car. Self-­storage unit construction spending has quadrupled in the last ten years to nearly $4 billion. Nearly 10 percent of U.S. households now rent such a unit, and nationwide, the industry provides more than seven square feet of storage space for every single person in the country.35 In Utah, despite adding more self-­storage units, occupancy has grown from 75 percent in 2013 to 92 percent in



Designed for Clean Air

233

2017.36 These storage units and the drives to and from them, add ever more emissions to the load carried by the atmosphere. The politics of our current state and national economic system prove to be a mighty force contaminating the air as well. Through campaign contributions, politicians are strongly influenced by the business interests that make money supporting a car-­addicted culture. In Utah the two largest recognizable industries making campaign contributions were real estate and oil and gas companies.37 These companies hire lobbyists to make sure that nothing much changes in city halls, planning agencies, county commissioners’ offices, and state legislatures. The most profound example of this detrimental political-­economic relationship involves climate change, but it, as a Guardian report ably demonstrated, equally applies to air pollution as well.38 Through a brilliantly organized and financed campaign of obfuscation, climate change deniers have systematically challenged facts, science, and even common sense to successfully prohibit anything of real substance to regulate and reduce the use of fossil fuels and clean up the air. Politicians and business leaders routinely claim that the costs associated with enacting anti-­pollution measures are too great a financial burden. Some Utah leaders petitioned the EPA to relax agency air quality standards, arguing that they needed much more time to reach compliance levels and resisted nearly every attempt to strengthen air monitoring and emissions guidelines.39 Proposed measures to expand the vehicle emissions programs to rural counties, regulate diesel pickup trucks and heavy-­duty trucks, require cleaner burning gasoline, promote alternative energy sources, and further scrub industry were often deemed too costly or too cumbersome to enact even when requested by some of the Utah businesses themselves.40 This kind of bookkeeping ignores the externality costs of bad air and assumes poor health is the price of doing business (see chapter six). Somehow, this accounting conflated quantity of economic activity (no matter how costly) with quality of life. Voters, suffering from the effects of poor air, are finally beginning to take notice. Several candidates have been propelled to election victory based on a clean air platform, most notably, Ben McAdams, Utah’s new 4th congressional district representative. As a result of voter demand, a long list of “clean air bills” has been proposed. In the 2018 Utah Legislative session, no fewer than 10 bills and resolutions and six appropriations

234

Chapter 9

r­ equests, all aimed at cleaning up the air, were introduced and debated.41 In the end, two good bills were passed. HB 101 creates a pilot diesel emissions testing program in Utah County, and HCR 7 establishes a Concurrent Resolution that promotes environmental and economic stewardship and provides funding for more research, monitoring, and staffing at the state Division of Air Quality. Additionally, three bills were partially passed or survived to be introduced again. HB 479 requires a new credit system to get zero emissions vehicles into Utah. HB 171 will increase penalties for those who cheat on their emissions test, and SB 136 established the option of a local sales tax of 0.2 percent to pay for transit. The trade-­off for that bill, though, was the levy of new electric vehicle and hybrid vehicle fees.42 The 2019 Utah Legislative Session opened with great fanfare when a $100 million budget proposal for high-­impact air pollution-­reduction projects was proposed by Governor Gary Herbert’s office. After 45 days of debate, lawmakers settled on $28 million in legislation and one-­time funding for air-­quality projects.43 In the end, numerous clean air appropriations were funded and some meaningful air quality legislation was passed. For example, money was allocated to build electric vehicle charging stations, replace pre-­2007 state vehicles, install air quality monitors on TRAX lines, and encourage teleworking in rural Utah for state employees. Legislative highlights include: HB 139, which increases penalties for excessive vehicle emissions; HB 411, a community renewable energy incentive; HB 353, a pilot program to reduce single occupancy vehicles; HCR 11, which encourages the purchase of cleaner Tier 3 gasoline; and others.44 Many other air protection proposals failed though, and advocates have pledged to reintroduce them next year. Given the enormous health, economic, environmental, and quality of life problems associated with declining or only slowly improving air quality in Utah, what can the state’s residents do to resist the colossal forces that continue to stymie progress? The simplest answer is to do exactly the opposite of what we’ve been doing for the last century. City planners, green designers, energy auditors, community builders, and conservation groups have known for years what to do. They plan and build and live as people did before cars were the norm. While a great reduction in population growth would solve many of our environmental problems in Utah, it’s not likely to happen. Instead, we must grow far more wisely and sus-



Designed for Clean Air

235

tainably. To continue business as usual is recklessly expensive both for our communities and the people who occupy them. The solutions outlined below are simple in concept, but tremendously difficult to implement because they challenge our fundamental lifestyle and the landscapes we’ve built to support it. It will not be easy. In a recent survey, 95 percent of Utahans said they were very or somewhat satisfied with Utah’s quality of life. While nationally 61 percent of Americans expect to live in detached single-­family homes, Utah claims 75 percent. Inconsistently, more than half of the survey respondents valued walkability, recreational opportunities, bike lanes, and green space, yet only a quarter ranked public transit as a priority even though it allows machine space to be devoted to those other, highly valued land uses.45 In fact, very few prioritize transit when shopping for a home, and most are very reluctant to fund it. In short, resi­ dents favor single family homes (and the sprawl that comes with them) but also value the quality of the environment. Shaking these contradictory beliefs will take nothing short of a revolution and challenge planners with a nearly impossible task to balance personal preference and community sustainability. As the title of this chapter suggests, the state has designed its way into poor air quality. It is now time to design our way out of it. Solutions to Utah’s air quality issues fall into several categories, including transportation, housing, planning, technology, legislation, and regulation. The solutions also tend to divide between those that penalize poor decisions and those that incentivize good decisions. To solve a problem as complicated as polluted air along the Wasatch Front, a mix of all of these strategies must be adopted and implemented. Let’s start with planning for people instead of vehicles. Before cars reigned supreme, people walked, rode bikes, and took mass transit. They were able to do so because the places they were going were never very far away. By desegregating land use and zoning, multiple urban functions like shopping, health care, restaurants, and housing can be located close together again. This is termed “mixed use” planning, and it can either be built into new development or imposed upon existing development through infilling, high density building, and zoning changes. In urban Utah, mixed use planning has begun, especially in Salt Lake City because of the high cost of single-­family homes. High-­ density housing is one way to counter Utah’s 3.3 percent annual housing

236

Chapter 9

price increase, which is the nation’s fourth highest over the last quarter century.46 The Kem C. Gardner study noted some bright spots in Wasatch Front Census tract growth through high-­density residential development and successful infilling by redevelopment of vacated lands.47 Various incentives and tax breaks administered by public/private partnerships are the usual means by which mixed use planning occurs. Planners and politicians must strive to build diverse-­f unction landscapes for people to choose multifamily dwellings and smaller homes. Once the distances between destinations decreases, people will select means other than cars to get around. This is especially true when bike lanes and walking paths are constructed to be safe, well lighted, and pleasant to traverse. Such design features encourage people to get out of their cars and travel by other means. By design then, machine space and air pollution decrease concomitantly. Mass transit forms a large part of this more sustainable urban future. Often termed “transit oriented development,” or TODs, bus, trolley, or light rail stops can become the epicenters of mixed land use locations. Once off the bus or train, people can find most services and goods that they routinely need within close proximity. As planners at the University of Utah and many others have stated, too often we plan for mobility rather than accessibility. The difference is significant. Mobility is about moving people (and their cars) over great distances. Accessibility is about getting people what they need easily and with little necessity to travel a long distance. In this analysis, to be close to somewhere is more important than being able to go far fast. Unfortunately, most planning prioritizes the latter.48 Often, “new urbanism” as this progressive planning is often called, is really a rediscovery of old urban paradigms. Before cars for example, centrality was king. Centrality was why Main Streets, downtowns, and central business districts thrived and held all of the important functions of cities. They were anchored by mass transit, contained mixed functions, developed at high density (with skyscrapers for example), and were easily reached by most people. Centrality is the way Transit Oriented Development and revitalizing downtowns are able to again compete. Young people are at the forefront of the move from far-­flung suburbs that require a long drive. By some measures, it seems that they are less addicted to the car culture than their parents and grandparents and, im-



Designed for Clean Air

237

portantly, are not as committed to the American dream of single-­family detached home ownership.49 To this group we can add some empty nesters and retirees who no longer need a big yard and house and who want access to all the amenities that downtowns have to offer. There is still plenty of debate on whether this move is by choice or by economic necessity, especially for young people. But it does present a wonderful opportunity to change urban landscapes with a changing generation.50 If we commit to planning for people and incentivize their well-­being, the reverse needs to be true for cars. All the true costs of car ownership must be paid for by the vehicle’s owner/driver. And the revenue accrued through these costs must be redirected toward people. These proposals will be unpopular, but the subsidy has gone the other way in favor of cars for decades. To all the externality costs of car ownership, air pollution should be added. It should be expensive and inconvenient to park a car, which in turn encourages people to find an alternative. Substantial v­ ehicle registration fees and taxes should be based not on the value or age of the vehicle, but on its fuel economy and its weight since these are most directly correlated to pollution and impacts on roads and traffic accident severity. Green vehicles, such as electric and high mileage cars with low emissions, should receive tax breaks, lower registration fees, and preferred parking. (For more about vehicle trends, see chapter seven.) Ride-­hailing services such as Uber and Lyft, autonomous vehicles, and the Amazon drone deliveries that make the news so often these days, really presage a future where not everyone needs their own personal vehicle. Technologically, these alternatives are possible right now, not in some distant science fiction future. Cities across the country are rediscovering bicycles. With proper planning for bike lanes, parking, safety, and sharing programs, bicycles can bridge the gap between vehicles and walking. Fortunately, they have no emissions and the added benefit of physical activity. China in particular, has embraced bike sharing programs to help combat its severe air pollution.51 Currently, in the U.S., a number of redevelopment companies are poised to transform abandoned parking lots into a great variety of business, residential, and recreational spaces, a trend currently underway in Salt Lake City. They see a car-­free future as a tremendous opportunity to convert machine space into living space and take advantage of already existing infrastructure and population.52

238

Chapter 9

Even with the best mixed use, high density, and TOD planning, we’ll still have too many cars driving too many miles, but strategies exist that could help mitigate this fact. Fuel-­efficient vehicles as well as hybrid and plug-­in electrics can minimize the emissions released during those car trips. Road systems must be built to minimize the time consuming and increased pollution caused by stop-­and-go traffic. And although likely to be wildly unpopular, highway speed limits must be reduced. Just like the U.S. did in 1973 in response to high oil prices, a drop in speed limits would reduce fuel consumption as well as pollution. Driving 55 instead of 80 miles-­per-hour uses 30 percent less fuel and reduces emissions by the same amount. It also saves lives as speed is the second most common cause of automobile accidents.53 Employers could do much to remove vehicles from our roads by encouraging telecommuting, teleconferencing, distributing free bus passes, and promoting carpooling. For ­employers, the money saved by reducing the costs of building and maintaining parking may easily offset the cost of bus passes and improved communications equipment. The technology for a distributed workplace already exists. What impedes its deployment is the firmly entrenched expectation that we have to travel to a workplace to do work, to be productive, and, of course, to be supervised. Out in suburbia, the true price of big home ownership must factor into planning and development. As noted earlier, large and widely spaced homes cost more in every way. Builders of these homes should pay the true increased costs for utilities, school busing, mail delivery, police and fire protection, snow removal, street maintenance, and the like through development and impact fees.54 Those fees will raise the cost of large houses in sprawling suburbs, and thus encourage potential home buyers to choose more sustainable options. Likewise, other financial enticements are available, such as the reduction of the federal and state mortgage tax breaks that encourage buying a big house in a low-­density car suburb in the first place. The new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 trimmed this some, but only for interest on debt worth more than $750,000, which will affect only the wealthiest home buyers.55 Instead, there could be incentives that lower interest rates and insurance costs for smaller and more densely built housing and businesses. Furthermore, energy efficiency, using green building materials, water conservation systems, CO2 sinks, renewable en-



Designed for Clean Air

239

ergy production, and smaller building footprints might be encouraged through a mix of tax and mortgage savings. These proposals go against the grain but can help point to the costs of low density suburbia for the homeowner and the entire community.56 Of course, this firmly challenges the age-­old, bedrock American dream of single family homeownership. Through a creative suite of incentives and fair market costs, a pleasant and palatable alternative could be developed to counter that venerable dream. The simple hard truth is this. If Utah continues to rapidly expand its population and accommodate the growth in the same low-­density, car-­ dominated fashion that it has always done, other air quality solutions may be cancelled out by increased emissions. It will be very difficult for Utahns to maintain the same economic and structural status quo and still protect their air. Somehow, with a steering wheel in hand, the garage door closing on a big house, and a long commute in front of them, many people judge that awful haze in the air to be someone else’s problem. Yet it is their problem too. Planning for that different future is often wrapped up in the comprehensive term “smart growth.” Smart growth is variously defined as “a way to build cities, towns, and neighborhoods that are economically prosperous, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable.” 57 It is in many ways, an antidote to what we’ve been doing for decades, but it “has generated considerable controversy because stakeholders affected by urban planning policies have conflicting interests and divergent moral and political viewpoints.” 58 One way around this, experts suggest, is to employ the principles of “deliberative democracy–an approach to resolving controversial public-­policy questions that emphasizes open, deliberative debate among the affected parties as an alternative to voting.” 59 If clean air advocates can convince all parties that they have a stake in a healthier future, they’ll have a better chance to bring them into an honest discussion. (For a discussion of citizen and nonprofit advocacy work, see chapter eight.) For example, Salt Lake County evaluated a proposed mega-­development called the Olympia Hills project near Herriman in June 2018. If approved, it would allow for 8,765 units to be built on only 938 acres of unincorporated land, and house an estimated 25,000 to 33,000 residents at popu­ lation densities unseen along the Wasatch Front. Nearby communities resisted this high-­density development, but planners at Envision Utah

240

Chapter 9

believe such mixed use and clustered growth projects to be the only way to simultaneously address housing and land shortages, home affordability, road congestion, and air pollution. There is no doubt that the region will grow, they said — ​the question is how and still remain livable?60 The controversial Olympia Hills project has been rejected and revised numerous times now, and is currently resubmitted as a “master-­planned community. . .firmly rooted in smart growth and the idea of closely coordinating land use and housing with transportation and job centers.” One developer went so far as to say that “no one will have to drive here . . . cars are optional.” 61 Whether this new smart growth passes public muster and is economically viable remains to be seen. And it certainly is a test for what development direction Utahns are willing to travel going forward. Framed this way, then, quality of life and air quality are inseparable. It will take a fundamental paradigm shift in the way Utahns do everything, including politics in the state, to facilitate these changes. Commuters can begin that shift the next time they have the chance to carpool, walk, bicycle, or ride the bus, FrontRunner, or TRAX. Residents can enable the transformation the next time they consider buying a large home far from where they work. Voters can bring about change the next time they cast a ballot. And all Utahns can profoundly feel the urgency with each breath. With much smarter growth, the next generation of Utahns will be glad that today’s residents chose sustainability over business as usual, and every­one will breathe a little easier. Notes 1. Megna, M., “Average Miles Driven Per Year By State,” Car Insurance.com, Last

modified July 26, 2017, https://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/average-­miles​ -driven-­per-year-­by-state.aspx. 2. “Utah is Nation’s Fastest-­Growing State,” U.S. Census Bureau, Last modified December 20, 2016, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-­releases/2016/cb16​ -­214.html. 3. “Quick Facts, Utah,” U.S. Census Bureau, Last modified July 1, 2018, https://www​ .census.gov/quickfacts/UT. 4. Davidson, L., “Population is Booming in Salt Lake, Utah County Neighborhoods—With One Exception,” The Salt Lake Tribune, January 4, 2018, https:// www​.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/01/04/population-­is-booming-­in-salt-­lake​ -utah​-county-neighborhoods-­with-one-­exception/. 5. Semerad, T., “The growth won’t stop and neither will the traffic. Mayors in southwest Salt Lake County say the state should do more to improve roads,” The Salt



Designed for Clean Air

241

Lake Tribune, March 4, 2019, https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/03/03/growth​ -­wont-stop-­neither/. 6. “Nevada and Idaho Are the Nation’s Fastest-­Growing States,” U.S. Census Bureau, Last modified December 19, 2018, https://www.census.gov/newsroom​/­press​ -­releases/2018/estimates-­national-state.html. 7. “Population Projections,” University of Utah Policy Institute, Last modified 2018, http://gardner.utah.edu/demographics/population-­projections/. 8. “The Air We Breathe,” KUED Public Television, February 5, 2014, http://www​ .kued.org/whatson/the-­air-we-­breathe/background/pollution-­sources. 9. Horvath, R. J., “Machine Space.” Geographical Review 64, no. 2 (1974): 167–188, https://www.jstor.org/stable/213809. 10. “Electricity Sources and Emissions,” United States Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center, https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric​ _emissions.php; “Heat Island Impacts,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified March 1, 2019, https://www.epa.gov/heat-­islands/heat-­island-impacts​ #emissions. 11. Silver, C., “Zoning in 20th-­Century American Cities,” Oxford Research Encyclopedias, May 2016, http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acre​ fore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-­9780199329175-e-­209. 12. Jacobus, R., and K. Chapple, “What Difference Can a Few Stores Make?: Retail and Neighborhood Revitalization,” The Center for Community Innovation of Berkeley, June 2010, https://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/sites/default​​ /­f iles/what_difference_can_a_few_stores_make_retail_and_neighborhood​ _­revitalization.pdf ?width=1200&height=800&iframe=true. 13. Martin, J., “Streetcars: The Transit System America Threw Away,” Governing, Last modified June 2014, http://www.governing.com/columns/urban-­notebook/gov​ -the-transit-­system-we-­threw-away.html. 14. “Interchange Ramp Volumes,” Utah Department of Transportation, Last modified March 22, 2018, https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f ?p=100:pg:0::::V,T:,1292. 15. “Traffic Statistics,” Utah Department of Transportation, Last modified March 22, 2018, https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f ?p=100:pg:0::::V,T:,507. 16. “Household Travel in America,” Federal Highway Administration, Last modified November 7, 2014, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2010cpr/chap1.cfm. 17. Robson, J., “Cross-­County Commuting,” Trendlines: Perspectives on Utah’s Economy, Last modified April 18, 2013, 16–17, https://www.slideshare.net/State​ of Utah/trendlines-­spring-2013. 18. Stone Jr., B., “Urban Sprawl and Air Quality in Large US Cities.” Journal of Environmental Management 86, no. 4 (2008): 688–698. 19. “The Health Impacts of Urban Sprawl: Air Pollution,” Ontario College of Family Physicians, September 2005, http://ocfp.on.ca/docs/committee-­documents​ /­urban​-­sprawl---volume-­1---air-­pollution.pdf. 20. O’Donoghue, A. J., “Utah Among States With Greatest Urban Sprawl,” Deseret News, April 21, 2014, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865601517/Utah​ -­among-​states-­with-greatest-­urban-sprawl.html.

242

Chapter 9

21. Davidson, L., “Study: Utah Has the Second-­Fastest Urban Sprawl,” The Salt Lake

Tribune, April 18, 2014, http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/politics​ /57836608-­90/area-­areas-growth-­numbersusa.html.csp. 22. Larsen, L., “Utah’s Fruit Way: Famous Farming District Giving Way to Development,” Ogden Standard-­E xaminer, June 10, 2016, http://www.standard.net​ /Local/2016/06/10/Utah-­Fruit-Way-­Famous-farming-­district-giving-­w ay-to​ -­development. 23. Davidson, L., “UDOT Decides to Convert U.S. 89 in Davis County Into a Freeway—B Grass-­Roots Group Plans to Sue to Block It,” The Salt Lake Tribune, March 14, 2018, https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/03/14/despite-­contro​ versy-udot-­to-convert-­us-89-­in-davis-­county-to-­freeway-connecting-­i-15​-­and​-i​ -­84/. 24. Shaw, M., “UDOT US 89 Project to Start Next Spring, Group Plans to Fight Construction,” The Standard Examiner, March 17, 2018, https://www.standard​ .net/news/local/udot-­us-project-­set-to-­start-next-­spring-group-­plans/article​ _bc913a71-­7b90-57ad-­b431-735a8e4560eb.html. 25. Ewing, R., “Urban Sprawl Stunts Upward Mobility, U Study Finds,” UNEWS, University of Utah, January 26, 2016, https://unews.utah.edu/urban-­sprawl​ -stunts-­upward-mobility-­u-study-­finds/. 26. Weller, C., “There May Be an Evolutionary Reason Suburbia Feels So Miserable,” Business Insider, September 15, 2016, http://www.businessinsider.com/why​ -­suburbs-are-­bad-2016-­9. 27. Vaidyanathan, G., “Study Links Sprawl, Obesity,” The New York Times, September 9, 2010, https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/09​ /09greenwire-­study-links-­sprawl-obesity-­10432.html?ref=earth. 28. “Cost to Own a Vehicle,” American Automobile Association, Last modified August 23, 2017, http://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/cost-­to-own-­a-vehicle/. 29. Awre, J., “With ‘True Cost’ of Emissions Factored In, Gasoline Would Cost $3.80 More Than the Pump Price,” Clean Technica, Last modified March 8, 2015, https://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/08/true-­cost-emissions-­factored-gasoline​ -cost-3-­80-gallon-­pump-price-­new-research-­finds/. 30. Shanhan, Z., “EV Sales up 228.88% in 2013,” Clean Technica, Last modified January 7 2014, https://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/07/ev-­sales-228-­88-2013-­2013​ -electric-­hybrid-vehicle-­sales-report/. 31. Bomey, N., “Deals Get Sweeter as Buyers Sour on Cars in July,” USA Today, August 1, 2017, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/08/01/july-­us​ -auto-­sales/528244001/. 32. Perry, M. J., “New US Homes Today are 1000 Feet Larger. . . ,” American Enterprise Institute, Last modified June 5, 2016, http://www.aei.org/publication/new-­us​ -homes-­today-are-­1000-square-­feet-larger-­than-in-­1973-and-­living-space-­per​ -person-­has-nearly-­doubled/. 33. Friedlander, D., “Study Confirms that Big Houses Have Big Energy Needs,” Life Edited, Last modified February 15, 2013, http://lifeedited.com/study-­confirms​ -that-­big-houses-­have-big-­energy-needs/.



Designed for Clean Air

243

34. Lee, J., “New Homes are Getting Bigger, and Lots are Getting Smaller,” Zillow

Porchlight, Last modified October 1, 2015, https://www.zillow.com/blog/bigger​ -­homes-smaller-­lots-184558/. 35. Harris, A., “U.S. Self-­Storage Industry Statistics,” Sparefoot, Last modified February 8, 2018, https://www.sparefoot.com/self-­storage/news/1432-­self-storage​ -­industry​-statistics/. 36. Casady, M., “A ‘Peak’ at the Utah Storage Market,” Sparefoot, Last modified June 12, 2017, https://www.sparefoot.com/self-­storage/news/5445-­utah-self-­storage​ -development/. 37. “Election Overview for Utah,” FollowTheMoney.org, Last modified 2019, https:// www.followthemoney.org/tools/election-­overview?s=UT&y=2018. 38. Vidal, J., “Climate Change Politics is Blinding Us to the Devastating Effects of Dirty Air,” The Guardian, February 20, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com​ /­commentisfree/2016/feb/20/climate-­change-dirty-­air-pollution​-global-warm​ ing​-s­ ave-lives. 39. McCombs, B., “Trump Administration Halts Pollution Controls at Utah Plants,” Chicago Tribune, September 13, 2017. http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles​ /travel/sns-­bc-ut--coal-­plants-pollution-­rules-20170911-­story.html. 40. Penrod, E., “Utah Business Leaders Decry Utah Governor’s Lack of ‘Will’ to Improve Air Quality,” The Salt Lake Tribune, August 29, 2017, https://www​ .­sltrib.com​/­news/environment/2017/08/30/utah-­business-leaders-­decry-utah​ -­governors​-lack-­of-will-­to-improve-­air-quality/. 41. Gehrke, R., “Legislature Still Has a Long Way to Go Before it Can Take a Bow For Clearing Utah’s Filthy Air,” The Salt Lake Tribune, January 18, 2018, https://www​ .sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/01/18/gehrke-­legislature-still-­has-a-­long-way-­to​ -go-­before-it-­can-take-­a-bow-­for-clearing-­utahs-filthy-­air/. 42. Soltysiak, A., “Legislative Session Wrap-­Up: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” Sierra Club Utah Chapter, Last modified March 15, 2018, https://utah.sierraclub​ .org/articles/2018-­legislative-session-­good-bad-­and-ugly. 43. Baird, S., “2019 Utah State Legislature Roundup,” Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Last modified March 18, 2019, https://deq.utah.gov/communi​ cation/news/featured/2019-­utah-state-­legislature-roundup. 44. “2019 Utah Legislative Tracker,” Utah Chapter, Sierra Club, Last modified March 15, 2019, https://utah.sierraclub.org/priority-­bills. 45. Riddle, I., “New Study Shows That Utahans Continue to Prefer Sprawl,” Building Salt Lake, November 9, 2015. https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/new-­study​ -shows-­that-utahns-­continue-to-­prefer-sprawl/. 46. Gorrell, M., “Trying to Stem the Skyrocketing Price of Utah Housing is Goal of New Salt Lake Chamber Coalition,” The Salt Lake Tribune, May 1, 2018. https:// www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/01/trying-­to-stem-­the-skyrocketing-­price-of​-­utah​ -housing-­is-goal-­of-new-­salt-lake-­chamber-coalition/. 47. “Small Area Estimates 2010-­2016: Salt Lake County and Utah County,” Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Last modified July 1, 2016, http://gardner.utah.edu​/­area​ -estimates-salt-­lake-utah-­county/.

244

Chapter 9

48. Ewing, R., “Accessibility vs. Mobility: The Right Methodology,” Planning, Last

modified July 2012, http://www.arch.utah.edu/pdFs/Research%20You%20Can​ %20​Use​/newsletter/Research_July12.pdf. 49. Hunt, E., “Meet the Numtotots: the millennials who find fixing public transport sexy,” The Guardian, July 5, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018​ /jul​/​05​/meet-­the-numtots-­the-millennials-­who-find-­fi xing-public-­transit-sexy​ -­urbanist-memes. 50. Kotkin, J., “Are Millennials Turning Their Backs on the American Dream?” Daily Beast, November 10, 2013, https://www.thedailybeast.com/are-­millennials​ -turning-­their-backs-­on-the-­american-dream. 51. Campbell, C., “The Trouble with Sharing: China’s Bike Fever Has Reached Saturation Point,” Time Magazine, April 2, 2108, http://time.com/5218323/china​ -­bicycles-sharing-­economy/. 52. Fickenscher, L., “Retailers Might Turn Parking Lot Dead Space Into Biz Opportunity,” New York Post, June 6, 2017, https://nypost.com/2017/06/06/retailers​ -might-turn-­parking-lot-­dead-space-­into-biz-­opportunity/. 53. Castleman, T., “55 MPH Speed Limit Makes Economic, Political, and Environmental Sense,” U.S. News and World Report, July 27, 2009, https://www.us​ news​.com/opinion/articles/2009/07/27/55-­mph-speed-­limit-makes-­economic​ -political-­and-environmental-­sense. 54. Snyder, K., and L. Bird, “Paying the Costs of Sprawl: Using Fair-­Share Costing to Control Sprawl,” U.S. Department of Energy, Last modified December 1998, http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/sprawl.pdf. 55. “Publication 963 (2018), Home Mortgage Interest Deduction,” IRS, https://www​ .irs.gov/publications/p936. 56. Maier, C., “Solutions to Solving Urban Sprawl,” Bizfluent, September, 26, 2017, https://bizfluent.com/info-­8136057-solutions-­solving-urban-­sprawl.html. 57. “Smart Growth Defined,” Smart Growth America, Last modified 2019, https:// smartgrowthamerica.org/our-­vision/what-­is-smart-­growth/. 58. David B. Resnik, “Urban Sprawl, Smart Growth, and Deliberative Democracy,” National Institutes of Health, Last modified October 2010. https://www.ncbi.nlm​ .nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936977/. 59. Ibid. 60. Gehrke, R., “Building Mini-­Mansions on Big Lots is Not Sustainable Growth, But We Should Find Some Consensus on the Mega Development Near Herri­ man,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 11, 2108, https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics​ /2018/06/11/gehrke-­our-semi-­rural-exurban-­life-is-­not-sustainable-­but-we-­can​ -find-­some-consensus-­on-herriman-­area-development. 61. Semerad, T., “Call it Olympia Hills 2.0–the Controversial Development Near Herriman is Back, with Fewer Houses and a Aision of a Futuristic Company Town,” The Salt Lake Tribune, March 10, 2019, https://www.sltrib.com/news​ /2019/03/10/call-­it-olympia-­hills/.

10 Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah ROBERT DAVIES

When it comes to air pollution, most of us tend to think of dirty black stuff billowing out of smokestacks and tailpipes, stuff full of toxic chemicals and particles that impact our health. In northern Utah, air pollution becomes especially acute during the winter months when visible levels of grimy particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution become trapped in our urban valleys. Increasingly, summer ozone pollution is also beginning to pose an equally severe problem, as a result of higher temperature and increased sunshine brought on by extended periods of high pressure.1 Rarely, though, do we think of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a form of pollution. It’s an odorless, colorless gas fundamental to life on the planet. How could it be pollution? This chapter describes why carbon dioxide emissions — whether in Utah or around the world — are a form of air pollution that will continue to have extremely significant impacts on air quality and on our quality of life. The full narrative, then, is this. Air pollution both causes climate change and arises from it. And the scale is not minor. On either side of the equation, pollution is massive. And while it’s tempting, even seductive, to believe that the consequences and risks of this pollution are in the future, the truth is the impacts are already significant and intensifying, everywhere around the world. Since the 1970s, the planet has warmed at an average rate of about 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.2 Over this same period in Utah, however, the rate is more than double that — over 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit per 245

246

Chapter 10

decade.3 The reason for this large difference is not complicated: land surfaces warm faster than water, and dry air warms faster than moist air. As planetary warming continues, then, states like Utah will continue to warm at a greater rate than the global average. Temperature change is only the tip of the climate change iceberg. Like a balloon that bulges on one side when poked on the other, no part of the system can be disturbed without influencing all the others. Everything, as they say, is connected. And so a change in temperature begets other changes, including the amount and location of precipitation.4 Iconic ­species, such as the cutthroat trout and American pika, are under increasing stress due to a changing climate.5 Warmer winters are allowing insects like the pine beetle to overwinter, devastating millions of trees throughout the West.6 Increased temperatures and aridity, combined with dead trees associated with beetle kill, also create the conditions for bigger and hotter wildfires, which are occurring throughout the West.7 And still, the story doesn’t end here. As impacts wend their way through the natural systems that surround us, the embedded human systems are also feeling the strain. Health impacts related to ground-­level ozone, extreme temperatures, and airborne particulates are on the rise.8 (For more on the health impacts of air pollution, see chapter four.) In a state where most people get most of their water from snowmelt, water planners are attempting to adapt to a rain-­driven, rather than snow-­driven hydrology.9 As ski seasons shorten and traditional crops see increased stress, communities adapted to winter tourism and agriculture are seeing cracks in their economic foundations. Park City has lost six weeks of winter days below freezing, while invasive species, bigger swings in temperature extremes, and a disrupted hydrologic cycle pose challenges for traditional Utah crops, particularly fruit.10 Impacts are already underway, not only for Pacific islanders in Kiribati who are in the process of permanently abandoning their entire nation to sea level rise and Alaskan natives in Shishmaref who are losing their village to coastal erosion and flooding from intensifying storms, but right here at home in Sandy and Saint George, Bluff and Brigham City, ­Panguitch and Hyrum. And these impacts are intensifying as the warming itself accelerates―all attributable, at their core, to carbon pollution.



Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah

247

To better contextualize the deep relationship between air pollution and climate change, it’s worth a closer look at how it connects to the quality of our air and then apply that understanding to our lives here in this amazing Utah landscape. Climate Change — ​A Primer

Earth’s climate arises from a complex set of interactions — ​between sun, land and atmosphere; water, life, and ice. Together these elements and their interactions comprise the Earth System. To grasp the workings of this system, then, we have to synthesize a broad spectrum of science. There are disciplines, sub disciplines, and sub-­sub disciplines to be studied individually and in concert. Physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, oceanography and the many subdisciplines these fields comprise―atmospheric chemistry, radiative transfer, phenology, glaciology, isotopic analysis―the list is long. Understanding this enormously intricate climate system, then, to the level that we do, stands as one of humanity’s great intellectual and scientific achievements, emerging from centuries of scientific development and the efforts of thousands of people. I take the time to mention this because only after some level of contemplation does one begin to sense the scale of effort and accomplishment involved. And while our knowledge of the climate system remains far from complete, it is by no means nascent. It is also important to note that while the science of climate is indeed complex, the science of climate change is more complex still. It includes the science of impacts of changing climate―on both natural and human systems; the science of mitigating the change that is underway; and the science of adapting to changes―both present and future. And, as if the full collection of physical sciences weren’t enough, the science of climate change also comprises the social sciences―of risk management, culture, behavior psychology, economics, and politics. With all of this said, it may seem surprising that, in the end, the fantastically detailed scientific story of modern climate change can be d ­ istilled into a remarkably simple plot: (i) Earth is warming; (ii) because of us; (iii)  disrupting the entire planetary climate system; (iv) with extreme risk to humans and human civilization in the coming decades. These conclusions derive from many, many independent lines of evidence and

248

Chapter 10 1892-1896

2012-2016

FIGURE 10.1 Temperature change (five year average) as a function of location relative to the mid-20th century ― from universally

cooler (up to10.1. 2ºC) inSpatial the late-19th century, to universally warmer (up to 2ºC) today. [Note flip in greythe scalelast between figures.] [Adapted FIGURE distribution of temperature change over 130 years. from NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio, visualizations by Lori Perkins, 2016]

(Data from NASA Scientific Visualization Studio.)

are considered scientific knowledge by an overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community. Let’s take each in turn. Earth is Warming

The first thing we know with very high confidence is that Earth is warming. Globally.11 As of 2017, Earth’s global average surface temperature (i.e., land, ocean, and lower atmosphere) has warmed approximately 1.1°C since the late nineteenth century. In fact, the past three consecutive years have all set progressively higher global average temperature records.12 And while a little more than one degree of warming may not sound like much from the perspective of our daily lives, we’ll see in a bit that a one-degree change in the average planetary temperature is indeed significant, particularly on the geologically blistering pace over which it has happened. The knowledge of this warming reaches us from many independent lines of evidence (with each line itself comprising many, many data sets). This includes land and sea surface temperature data going back 130 years or so, weather balloon data going back 70 years or so, and even satellitebased remote-sensing measurements of the lower atmosphere going back nearly 40 years. All told, many witnesses to the same event are all telling essentially the same story.13 Additionally, while the planet is unequivocally warming, it is not warming uniformly (see Figure 10.1). Specifically, the high northern latitudes are warming faster than the tropics, and the continents are warming faster than the oceans. But when averaged over all locations, the story shows a steady upward trend in tem-

Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah

249

FIGURE 10.2. Rise in global average surface temperature. (Data from NASA GISS.)

perature throughout the late twentieth century and continuing today (see Figure 10.2). Because of Us

The second thing we know with high confidence is why the planet is warming. And not to put too fine a point on it, but it’s because of us.14 Specifically, this planetary warming is being driven by a number of pollutants that human civilization is releasing into the atmosphere in enormous quantities. Chief among these substances is carbon dioxide (CO2), emitted principally from the burning of fossil fuels, though it’s worth noting that land use changes, deforestation, and high-impact agriculture are also significant sources of additional CO2. As a result of these emissions, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen nearly 50 percent over the past 200 years, with the greatest increase in the last 50 years (see Figure 10.3). This rise in atmospheric CO2 is important because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Owing to their molecular structures, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and even water vapor absorb energy that is leaving the Earth in the form of light and convert that energy into thermal energy―warmth. In other words, adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere means energy that once escaped the Earth System is now being trapped instead. And that means the planet warms. This, then, is what we mean by the term “anthropogenic” global warming: caused by humans.

250

Chapter 10

FIGURE 10.3. Rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 60 years.

(Data from NOAA.)

Disrupting the Climate

The third thing we know with high confidence is that this ongoing and accelerating global warming is disrupting the entire planetary climate system. Change in temperature cascades through Earth’s system. And while the details of these changes can be complex, the underlying principle is simple. Everything is connected. A perfect example of this connection is illustrated by the water cycle. Warmer air holds more moisture, so raising the temperature intensifies evaporation. As a result, dry places tend to get drier.15 But then when storms come, there’s more water available in the air (called “precipitable water”) so precipitation also intensifies.16 Combined, this increased evaporation and heavier precipitation is what climate scientists call an intensification of the hydrologic cycle. By itself this change already represents a profound impact to the planetary system. But this impact only scratches the surface. Because as we’ve said: changing the temperature changes every thing else. The frozen portion of the planet, called the cryosphere, is not immune to changes in planetary temperature.17 The cryosphere is melting, including continental ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctica), mountain glaciers



Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah

251

(Himalayas, Andes, Alps and Rockies), sea ice (surrounding Antarctica and the north polar ice cap), tundra, glaciers, and even seasonal snowpack. Instruments tell us the planet is warming, and observations reveal that the Earth System itself is behaving in a manner consistent with that warming. The oceans are changing.18 Sea level is rising. The volume is increasing not only from glacial melting, but also from the thermal expansion of water. Further, the oceans are acidifying.19 As atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, more of the gas dissolves into the oceans. Through a series of chemical reactions, the carbon dioxide transforms into carbonic acid, which is affecting life in the ocean, today.20 Oceanic circulation, one of the primary drivers of heat around the planet, is also changing, both at the surface, as temperature gradients change, and vertically, as melting ice changes salinity and density. The atmosphere is also changing. Different latitudes warm at different rates, and the fundamental circulation patterns are shifting with changes in the temperature gradients.21 The jet stream, the primary storm track for mid-­latitude weather systems, is weakening and exhibiting much greater amplitudes of oscillation. Cloud formation is changing, as is the chemical composition of the jet stream.22 Parts of the stratosphere are actually cooling.23 All of this is bringing noticeable impacts to Utahns. The jet stream represents the boundary between warm tropical air to the south and cold, polar air to the north. As the jet stream oscillates, it pulls warm air further north and cooler air further south. The result of making these oscillations bigger is that different regions experience increasing extremes. Warmer air is pulled further north than in the past, and cooler air drops further south. Life changes. The organisms that make up Earth’s biosphere are changing in response to warmer conditions. All of these changes to the physical environment, in turn, are having a profound impact on global ecosystems. Life cycles are adjusting to earlier springs and later winters. Species are migrating poleward and upward. Many species are being driven to functional, or even total, extinction. Life on Earth has two ways to deal with a changing environment: migrate or adapt genetically. Both have their ­limits. Physical barriers, both natural and human, hamper migration. ­Genetic adaptation requires many generations of natural selection, which is fine if you’re a fruit fly, not so fine if you’re a grizzly bear or a pica or a

252

Chapter 10

trout. Paleo-­biologists have identified five great extinction events in the history of life on Earth, each driven by a changing climate. Ecologists are now referring to our current dramatically elevated extinction rate as a sixth great extinction.24 And while anthropogenic climate disruption is not the only stressor on Earth’s species, it is nevertheless a powerful one. All of this together, then, is what we mean by the term climate change. Changing the planetary temperature changes where it rains and where it doesn’t. It changes where it snows and where it doesn’t. It changes the frequency and intensity of storms, droughts, and heat waves. It changes weather variability. It changes watersheds and landscapes, affecting where things grow and where they don’t. It changes where critters live and where they don’t. It changes where people can grow food and where they can’t, and where they can get water and where they can’t. It changes water quality and air quality, soils and vegetation, health risks, and local economies. Everything. Changes. Finally, in a warming world, humans change. Entirely immersed as we are in the Earth system, and permeated its every component, the Anthroposphere, which comprises all the human elements on the planet is now feeling the consequences of a rapidly changing environment. Climate change reflects and refracts through every facet of this jewel we call human civilization. There are now observable impacts on food, water, health, transportation, economies, and even political stability.25 In many cases these impacts have been significant, in some cases even severe. Human civilization arose in a period of remarkably stable global climatic conditions. The Holocene, as geologists refer to these past 12,000 years or so, has been characterized by with largely reliable weather cycles, such as the Asian monsoons, and stable shorelines. And it is in the context of this environmental stability, known as “stationarity” that human civilization has emerged. But stationarity no longer applies. The climate system is no longer in equilibrium; rather, it is in transition to a wholly new state. The climate of the past thirty years is no longer predictive for the climate of the next thirty years. As a result, the intricate infrastructure of an increasingly globalized human presence on this planet can no longer be taken for granted. Our human systems are finely tuned to the environment from which they emerged; in a very real sense they have been naturally selected not just for their functions (transportation, water supply, food



Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah

253

supply, population center) but for their environment, which is now in a state of rapid flux. As a result, there is every reason to suspect these systems will perform less reliably. There is abundant evidence that this is already happening. Whole communities in the Arctic — ​and whole nations in the Pacific — ​are relocating.26 Droughts, demonstrably intensified by climate change, have contributed to food shocks and stressed whole societies past tipping points.27 Nowhere has this been more evident than in Syria, unleashing cascading consequences that include mass human migration, refugee crises, and civil war. Diseases like malaria, Zika and hantavirus are even moving outside their historical geographic confines. Climate change is not another term―and certainly not a softer term― for global warming. Climate change, driven by global warming, comprises far more impact and risk than global warming alone. Though these impacts to environments, ecosystems, and people are not democratic in their intensity, they are nevertheless discernible and intensifying everywhere. Many Utahns view themselves as largely d ­ etached from the stereotypical impacts of climate change, such as rising seas, hurri­canes, and melting ice. But Utahns must prepare for higher tempera­ tures, reduction in the spring snowpack, changes to ecosystems (e.g., bark beetle infestations), a trend toward bigger and hotter wildfires, and elevated ozone concentrations in urban environments.28 Alarmingly, temperatures in Utah have been rising at nearly twice the global average. And we are seeing impacts as a result. Not only are average temperatures rising, we see a shift toward higher temperature extremes, as well. The town of Tooele, for example, recorded four days above 103°F in the entire 20th Century. In the first decade of this century alone, the region experienced 28 days at 103°F. In a state where winter sports are a multi-­billion dollar industry, and where most people get most of their water from melting snow, loss of snow­ pack is a concern both economically as a matter of long-­term viability. As the state’s urban population grows, air quality is rapidly becoming a top health issue. At the same time, in a state in which fossil fuel extraction is a significant source of livelihood for some communities, economic ­insecurity is a growing concern, arising from a nexus of events. The Supreme Court, in an endangerment finding has upheld an Environmental Protection Agency finding of carbon dioxide as a pollutant subject to

254

Chapter 10

regulation.29 Alternatives exist to fossil fuel, as witnessed by the rapidly increasing adoption of low-carbon wind and solar-generated electricity, both at the utility scale and in so-called “distributed” networks of rooftop installation, and in the increasing numbers of electric vehicles on the roads.30 These factors contribute to a policy drumbeat for putting a price on carbon that grows louder by the day. With Extreme Risks for Humans

The fourth thing that we now know with high confidence, is that continuing this climatic disruption brings with it extreme risks for humans. This somber assessment derives from (i) our observations of the impacts to date to both natural and human systems; and (ii) the use of models to project how much more warming will occur in the coming decades. Analyzing impacts from increasing temperature to date, from the standpoint of gauging future risks, is perhaps the best calibration tool available. This methodology isn’t perfect. For one thing, there is no reason a priori to assume impacts will be linear with temperature change. Complex systems, as a rule, are decidedly nonlinear, meaning equal perturbations do not produce equal response. Still, if one-degree of temperature rise produces noticeable impacts, it is reasonable from a risk management perspective to assume more temperature rise will produce more impact. Then there’s the question of effects that have not yet emerged, but no doubt will as temperature continues to rise. Some systems will exhibit impacts immediately, others will have thresholds. Ocean sea level begins to rise immediately as warming water expands, but the contribution from ice melt won’t begin until temperatures rise above 0°C. Clearly then, having some empirical knowledge of how systems are already responding is key. But it’s not the whole enchilada. We also need some sense of how much additional warming is to come, and for this we need models. The term “model” here, simply means physics. Not climate physics just regular old physics―the same physics that allows us to build smartphones and microwave ovens―applied to the climate system. It’s an important point to keep in mind when discussing if the models are “right” But as simple as this question may seem, it’s actually nonsensical from the perspective of science. Models are not crystal balls; they are tools. Asking if a model is right, is like asking if a hammer is right. The more relevant question is whether the model is useful. The unequivocal answer

Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah

255

FIGURE 10.4. Twenty-first century climate projections under low- and high-carbon

emissions scenarios. (Data from IPCC AR5 WGI.)

is yes. Does this mean the models are perfect? Of course not. The models can’t address every aspect of the climate system, and the aspects that they do address are addressed imperfectly. Not knowing everything isn’t the same as not knowing anything. As with a hammer, the level of utility depends on who’s using it. And here’s a useful point to keep in mind. Physics is physics. And, it turns out, the same physics that allows us to build digital cameras and point them at the Earth from the edge of the solar system also tells us that a certain number of greenhouse gas molecules will warm the planet by such-and-such amount. There is street cred, here, and it stems from the fact that, climate models are built on well-worn physics. So while these models cannot precisely predict every aspect of the changes ahead, they are helping us project, or bracket, a range of possible futures. Projections

So with our suitcase of caveat and qualification duly packed, let’s take a look at what the physics is telling us. Based on the ensemble studies (i.e., the average of many models, run many times), Figure 10.4 depicts modeling results for the evolution of global average surface temperature through the end of this century.

256

Chapter 10

What we see is a spread of possible futures, from an additional 1°C of temperature by 2100 to perhaps an additional 4.5°C, keeping in mind that we have already experienced roughly 1°C of rise above preindustrial values. Such a wide spread of possibilities reflects quite a bit of uncertainty in the projections. It tempts one to think the models are not very good. But in fact, most of the uncertainty in these projections is not from an uncertainty in the physics but from an uncertainty in how humans will choose to move forward. A low-­carbon scenario reflects a society that moves aggressively away from fossil fuels quickly. Under this scenario, we expect a smaller temperature rise. On the other hand, a high-­carbon scenario reflects a society that continues burning fossil fuels. Under this scenario, we experience more extreme temperature rise. It is also worth pointing out that, in addition to how much temperature rise we can expect this century, the low- and high-­emissions scenarios also differ fundamentally in predicting temperature rise beyond this century. On the low-­emissions end, temperatures are likely to level off toward the end of this century and stabilize. On the high end, however, temperature does not level off this century but continues to rise. Put another way, under a low-­emissions scenario we may hope to stabilize our climate in a state at least close to that of the Holocene conditions we’ve enjoyed for the past 10,000 years. Under continued high-­emissions, however, it is overwhelmingly likely that we will transition to a new climate state dramatically different than that has been our home since we humans first emerged from the planetary gene pool. Now, it may not seem like it, but these projections actually contain some good news. The physics is telling us that the change in front of us is entirely up to us. To put the scale of this risk into perspective, Figure 10.5 is a thermometer in Fahrenheit. On the left, 45°F is Earth’s temperature at the height of the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago. On the right, 75°F, the warmest we believe the planet has ever been, about 55 million years ago. The green oval is the climate in which we humans evolved and have always inhabited. The region between the two lines is the climate in which human civilization evolved. The purple oval is the climate to which we can expect to transition this century if we do not take meaning ful actions. The ovals do not overlap, even on a low-­emissions scenario. We are in the process of leaving be-

Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah

257

FIGURE 10.5. Historical human climate vs. year 2100 projections. (Data from IPCC

AR5 WGIII.)

hind the climate that shaped humankind. Some scientists have likened this transition to moving to a new planet. Despite model complexity, projecting future global average temperatures or a globally intensified hydrologic cycle is relatively straightforward. How all of this plays out regionally is a tougher nut to crack. Owing to a greatly expanded set of variables and uncertainties, projecting how changes will unfold in different places across the planet is difficult. While models provide useful guidance, the uncertainties are higher. And from the perspective of risk management, more uncertainty means more risk. So with this additional nuance in mind, and to further convey a sense of the choice before us, let’s review three sets of projections of regional interest. North American Temperatures. Figure 10.6 depicts projections for North American temperature change, relative to late-twentieth century averages. The map shows temperature anomaly, not temperature. We see that under a low-emissions scenario much of the United States can expect to warm an additional 3–5°F. Under a high-emissions scenario, the warming increases an additional 8–13°F, with portions of the Arctic warming as much as 25°F.31 North American Soil Moisture. Also of high importance is soil moisture. Figure 10.7 depicts end-of-century North American soil moisture projections for moderate- and high-emissions scenarios.

258

Chapter 10

FIGURE 10.6. North American temperature projections. (Data from NASA Scientific Visualization Studio.)

FIGURE 10.7. North American soil moisture projections. (Data from NASA Scientific

Visualization Studio.)

Models that combine temperature and precipitation produce these projections. In the moderate-emissions scenario, most of the United States and Central America experience drying through mid-century, largely stabilizing afterward as carbon emissions presumably are reduced. Under the high-emissions scenario that is akin to the current situation, the United States and Central America dry through mid-century, which then greatly



Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah

259

intensifies for the second half of the century as temperatures continue to rise. The agricultural scientists, ecologists, and economists who assess these results categorize the moderate emissions scenario as serious and the high emissions scenario as catastrophic. Interpreting Risk

These projections, together with observations of impacts to date, bring us to the point of interpreting this science from the standpoint of risk. If complete loss of spring snowpack in the Rockies, 25°F of Arctic warming, and dramatic drying of much of the United States and Central America seem extreme to you, then your instinct has not led you astray and you are not alone. I’ve already asserted that science has assessed the risk to humans as extreme. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) IPCC has in fact devoted an entire working group (WG II) to this question Quotes from three prominent climate scientists are largely representative of the opinions of mainstream climate change scientists. Lonnie Thompson, a paleoclimatologist and Distinguished University Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at The Ohio State University has said, “virtually all [climatologists] are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.” 32 Kevin Anderson, a noted carbon systems modeler, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, and an advisor to the British Government on climate change is equally stark. “There is a widespread view that a 4°C future is incompatible with an organized global community. . .is likely to go beyond adaptation . . .is devastating to the majority of ecosystems . . . and has a high probability of not being stable.” 33 Finally, James Hansen, former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the most prolific climate researchers in the world, puts it this way. “A 2°C change is a recipe for disaster. Global warming of 2°C would be well outside the Holocene range and far into the dangerous range. We have a really sensitive climate system . . . and we have only witnessed so far a fraction of the results.” 34 Many dedicated scientists who have spent their careers working to understand the changes in the climate system have expressed similar ­sentiments. What remains is the future we can expect, absent meaningful change.

260

Chapter 10

Conclusion

Scientists agree that the data shows with high confidence that climate change is happening. The planet is warming and this warming is driven by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. The planetary-­scale disruption of the climate system and our current trajectory of change, poses extreme risks for humans. What remains is whether science has anything to say about managing this risk. The short answer is yes. These impacts and how to deal with them are the topic of this book. But even as we delve into this topic of adaptation, it’s worth pausing to consider that this term “adaptation” can be deceiving, even soothing. “Yes, there are changes coming, but we shall adapt.” And certainly, this is already happening, often successfully. But we must not lull ourselves into complacency. While it is true that we can be flexible and adjust to accommodate changes in the landscape, at some point we will hit the breaking point and adaptation will no longer be possible. For the island nation of Tuvalu, there is no adaptation to a two-­meter sea level rise. For the farmers of Kansas, there are no crop adaptations to a world that has warmed six degrees or more and desiccated their lands, and for the people whose drinking water flows from the Himalayas there is no adapting to a world in which the glaciers from which they drink are gone. Consequently, the question of mitigating change should not be ignored―because at the moment we risk consequences that would seem to go beyond adaptation. And so we conclude with a few words about what the science has to say about limiting the warming to come. Carbon Budget

The basic roadmap for limiting warming is straightforward, summed up by the following: 1. Additional disruption of the climate system is directly tied to how much additional carbon is added to the atmosphere: More carbon = more risk. 2. Physics can estimate a dangerous level of planetary warming, beyond which risks to humans rise sharply. We currently believe this level to be an additional one degree of warming, for a total of 2°C. 3. Physics can calculate a carbon budget to determine how much more carbon the atmosphere can hold and still maintain a reasonable chance of staying below this dangerous level of warming.



Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah

261

There are a number of estimates, but roughly speaking the 2°C carbon budget is about 900–1,100 billion tons of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2).35 Absent significant shifts in the way energy is produced and consumed, we are likely to burn through this budget in the next two decades. Finally, this budget represents about one-­sixth of identified conventional carbon reserves, consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas currently available for extraction. If one includes nonconventional resources (i.e., those requiring extraction techniques such as fracking and tar sands mining), our 2°C budget is less than one-­tenth of our reserves. And so, not to put too fine a point on it, what physics has to say about mitigating our risk is that we must stop dumping carbon into the atmosphere, we must do so soon, and in order to do so we must move aggressively away from fossil fuels. Physics also has one more thing to say. We don’t actually need any new technology to do this. We don’t need to invent anything new. We simply need to move toward massive deployment of existing technologies. Consider that in the first three months of 2016, the United States added about 1,300 megawatts of renewable energy capacity, mostly wind and solar. That’s enough energy to power about a quarter-­million homes. In that same timeframe we added only 8 MW of natural gas, and a whopping zero megawatts of coal, oil, and nuclear generation capacity. We know how to do this — ​we just have to do it faster. Here at home, Utahns have a significant role to play in reducing greenhouse gas pollution. Utah generates roughly 85 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels, mostly coal (>80 percent) and some natural gas.36 Burning coal to produce electricity is one of the single largest sources of the carbon dioxide that ends up in the atmosphere. It’s also a source of more air pollutants, including sulfate aerosols (think acid rain) and heavy metals (think lead, mercury, arsenic, thorium, and strontium). More than two-­ dozen heavy metals, toxic to biologic systems, can be found in coal.37 Utah is also a major center of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a means of recovering natural gas. Natural gas is primarily methane, composed of four hydrogen atoms and a central carbon atom (CH4). Fracking releases methane trapped in sedimentary rock. It is forced up the well where it is captured and piped and trucked all around the country. Unfortunately, this process is leaky and methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, far more potent than carbon dioxide. Molecule-­for-molecule, methane traps 28 times more energy in the Earth System over the course of a

262

Chapter 10

century than CO2, and a whopping 84 times more energy over the course of two decades.38 As an unfortunate bonus, methane also gives rise to ground-­level ozone, itself highly toxic to all creatures that breathe. Livestock are also sources of methane. Cow burps (not farts) are another important source of methane. Though it can seem comical at first blush, industrial animal agriculture worldwide is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for between 13–18 percent of emissions.39 This means that a meaningful response to climate change involves more than transforming our energy system. It means transforming our food system as well. And once again Utah, with its stake in industrial animal agriculture, has a role to play. Connecting to the Broader World

At this point, it is clear that human-­produced air pollution contributes to an ongoing, extensive and accelerating disruption of the planetary climate system — ​aka, climate change. The vaporous exhalations of our modern lives are the very root from which anthropogenic climate disruption emerges. Greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane) along with atmospheric aerosols (microscopic particles that both absorb and reflect sunlight) are altering the planetary energy balance, warming the atmosphere, land, and oceans. But the connection of climate change to air pollution does not end here. Indeed, it is only just beginning. Once underway a warming climate gives rise to a much larger taxonomy of additional pollutions. Here in Utah, for example, warming-­enhanced forest fires throw up smoke and particulates that dry lake beds that in turn become sources of dust, often laden with toxic flotsam (heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, and neurotoxins). (For a discussion of the health effects, see chapter four.) Warmer temperatures result in elevated ground-­level ozone concentrations along the densely populated Wasatch Front. Everything is connected. These issues are not separate from climate change, but inextricably tied to it. And this is true for critical societal issues as well. From rising seas to climate refugees, from failed crops to failed states, all of these outcomes trace back, at least in part, to air pollution. What we emit into our atmosphere matters — ​whether we fully recognize or acknowledge that fact or not. We need solutions: we can stand on the tracks with our eyes closed, but the freight train bearing down doesn’t go away.



Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah

263

Notes 1. Penrod, E., “Salt Lake City Debuts on List of Ozone-­polluted Areas,” The Salt

Lake Tribune, April 19, 2017, http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5178820&​ itype=CMSID; Penrod, E., “July Is the New January: Ozone Levels Skyrocket over Wasatch Front as Inversion-­like Conditions Settle In,” The Salt Lake Tribune, August 2, 2017, http://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/08/02​/­july​ -is-the-­new-january-­ozone-skyrockets-­over-wasatch-­front-as-­inversion-like​ -­conditions-settle-­in/. 2. “Climate at a Glance,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Last modified April 2019, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/. 3. Ibid. 4. Gillies, R. R., S. Y. Wang, and M. R. Booth, “Observational and Synoptic Analyses of the Winter Precipitation Regime Change Over Utah.” Journal of Climate 25, no. 13 (2012): 4679–4698. 5. Mulfeld, C. C., R. P. Kovatch, R. Al-­Chokhachy, et al., “Legacy Introductions and Climatic Variation Explain Spatiotemporal Patterns of Invasive Hybridization in Native Trout.” Global Change Biology 23, no. 11 (2017): 4663–4674; Beever, E. A., J. D. Perrine, T. Rickman, et al., “Pika (Ochotona princeps) Losses From Two Isolated Regions Reflect Temperature and Water Balance But Reflect Habitat Area in a Mainland Region.” Journal of Mammalogy 97, no. 6 (2016): 1495–1511. 6. Breshears, D., N. S. Cobb, P. Rich, et al., “Regional Vegetation Die-­off in Response to Global-­Change-Type Drought.” PNAS 102, no. 42 (2005): 15144–15148. 7. Abatzogloua, J. T., and A. P. Williams, “Wildfires—Impact of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Wildfire Across Western U.S. Forests.” PNAS 113, no. 42 (2016): 11770–11775. 8. “Climate Change and Public Health in Utah,” Utah Department of Health, Last modified April 23, 2015, http://health.utah.gov/enviroepi/healthyhomes/epht​ /­AirPollution_PublicHealth.pdf. 9. “Recommended State Water Strategy,” Compiled by the Governor’s Water Strategy Advisory Team Invited by The Honorable Gary R. Herbert, Governor, State of Utah, Facilitated by Envision Utah, Last modified July 2017, https://le.utah​ .gov/interim/2017/pdf/00003613.pdf. 10. “What Climate Change Means for Utah,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified August 2016, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-­09/docu​ ments/climate-­change-ut.pdf. 11. “Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapters 1–10,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, 2013. 12. “NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally,” NASA, Last modified May 2, 2019, https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/. 13. “Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapters 1–10,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, 2013. 14. “Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapter 10,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, 2013.

264

Chapter 10

15. “Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Section 2.5,” Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, 2013.

16. “Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Section 2.6.2,” Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, 2013.

17. “Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapter 4,” Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, 2013.

18. “Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapter 3,” Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, 2013.

19. Doney, S. C., “The Growing Human Footprint on Coastal and Open-­Ocean Bio-

geochemistry.” Science 328, no.5985 (2010): 1512–1516.

20. “Ocean Acidification,” Ocean: Find Your Blue, Smithsonian Institution, Last

modified April 2018, https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-­life/invertebrates/ocean​-a­ cidifi​ cation. 21. “Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Section 2.7,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, 2013. 22. Lewis, A. C., M. J. Evans, J. Methven, et al., “Chemical Composition Observed Over the Mid-­Atlantic and the Detection of Pollution Signatures Far from Source Regions.” Journal of Geophysical Research 112, no. D10S39 (2007), doi:10.1029​/20​ 06​JD007584. 23. Santer, B. D., J. F. Paintera, C. Bonfils, et al., “Human and Natural Influences on the Changing Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere.” PNAS 110, no. 43 (2013): 17235–17240. 24. Barnosky, A. D., N. Matzke, S. Tomiya, et al., “Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?” Nature 471, no. 7336 (2011): 51–57. 25. Kelley, C. P., S. Mohtadi, M. A. Cane, et al., “Climate Change in the Fertile Crescent and Implications of the Recent Syrian Drought.” PNAS 112, no. 11 (2015): 3241–3246, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4371967/. 26. Edmond, C., “5 Places Relocating People Because of Climate Change,” World Economic Forum, Last modified June 29, 2017, https://www.weforum.org​ /­agenda​/2017/06/5-­places-relocating-­people-because-­of-climate-­change/. 27. Kelley, C. P., S. Mohtadi, M. A. Cane, et al., “Climate Change in the Fertile Crescent and Implications of the Recent Syrian Drought.” PNAS 112, no. 11 (2015): 3241–3246, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4371967/. 28. Penrod, E., “July Is the New January: Ozone Levels Skyrocket over Wasatch Front as Inversion-­like Conditions Settle In,” The Salt Lake Tribune, August 2, 2017, http://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/08/02/july-­is-the-­new​ -january-­ozone-skyrockets-­over-wasatch-­front-as-­inversion-like-­conditions​ -settle-­in/. 29. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Environmental Protection Agency, Last modified May 3, 2019, http://web.archive.org/web/20160307123411/https://www​ 3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/.



Carbon Pollution and the Impacts of Climate Disruption on Utah

265

30. Millstein, D., R. Wiser, M. Bolinger, et al., “The Climate and Air-­Quality Benefits

of Wind and Solar Power in the United States.” Nature Energy 2, no. 9 (2017): 1–6.

31. Cohen, J., and P. Lynch, “Heating Up,” NASA Scientific Visualization Studio and

NASA Center for Climate Simulation, Last modified February 25, 2014, https:// svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11453. 32. Thompson, L. G., “Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options.” The Behavior Analyst 33, no. 2 (2010): 153–170. 33. Roberts, D., “The Brutal Logic of Climate Change,” Grist, Dec. 9, 2011, https:// grist.org/climate-­policy/2011-­12-08-­the-brutal-­logic-of-­climate-change​-­miti​ga​ tion/; Anderson, K., “Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous—Brutal Numbers and Tenuous Hope,” Development Dialogue 3, (2012): 16–40, http://www​ .whatnext.org/resources/Publications/Volume-­III/Single-­articles/wnv3​_ander​ sson_144.pdf. 34. Hansen, J., P. Kharecha, M. Sato, et al., “Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature,” PLoS ONE 8, no. 12 (2013): e81648, https://doi.org/10.1371​ /­journal.pone.0081648. 35. “Remaining Carbon Budget,” Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Last modified December 2018, https://www.mcc-­berlin​ .net/en/research/co2-­budget.html. 36. “Utah State Profile and Energy Estimates,” U.S Energy Information Administration, Last modified January 17, 2019, https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=UT#tabs-­4 . 37. “Coal and Air Pollution,” Union of Concerned Scientists, Last modified December 19, 2017, https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-­energy/coal-­and-other-­fossil-fuels​ /­coal-­air-pollution. 38. “Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Chapter 8,” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations, 2013. 39. “Animal Agriculture’s Impact on Climate Change,” Climate Nexus, Last modified May 3, 2019, https://climatenexus.org/climate-­issues/food/animal-­agricultures​ -impact-­on-climate-­change/.

Appendix: Air Quality Resources for Readers

This collection of resources points readers to real time air quality maps, ideas for improving air quality and tutorials on the types of pollutants. AirNow: Utah Air Quality https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.local_state&​state​id=46 This site is maintained by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and displays air quality across the United States. Available are air quality reports and maps to zip code-­specific areas. The site includes links to studies, resources for teachers, children and the elderly, health tips, an air quality comparison function, international air quality resources, and more. The resources are also available in Spanish and in other languages. Air Quality and Health Salt Lake County Health Department http://slco.org/health/air-­quality/ The Salt Lake County Health Department provides air quality resources, among them a link for reporting violations of county wood-­burning bans. American Lung Association www.lung.org The American Lung Association publishes the annual “State of the Air” report, which details counties within the United States that rate for harmful levels of ozone (smog) and particle pollution. The data is recorded over a three–year period and details trends for metropolitan areas over the past decade. The report also ranks the least polluted regions of the country. Berkeley Earth Air Quality Realtime Map http://berkeleyearth.org/air-­quality-real-­time-map/ This website provides real-­time particulate matter (PM2.5) data from around the globe.

267

268

Appendix

Breathe Utah http://www.breatheutah.org This site provides useful information about air quality issues in Utah, including resources for getting involved in improving the state’s air. Breathe Utah partners with a broad coalition of organizations to develop educational programs and curriculum, including the Utah Society for Environmental Education, the Utah Clean Cities Coalition, Utah Asthma Program, Intermountain Healthcare, and the Cache Clean Air Consortium. Breathing Stories: Utah Voices for Clean Air https://www.torreyhouse.org/breathing-­stories This chapbook from Torrey House Press compiles the stories from Utahns. One copy was given to each state legislator at the start of the 2018 legislative session. Cache Clean Air Consortium (CCAC) http://www.cachecleanairconsortium.org/ The mission of the Cache Clean Air Consortium is to facilitate community partnerships with the aim of developing strategies to improve air quality in the Cache Valley of northern Utah. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) https://www.cdc.gov/air/infographics.htm/ The federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a wealth of resources related to air quality. There are explanations of the different types of air pollutants and their impacts on human health, including additional links to toxicity reports and maps prepared by the United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The CDC site also provides information for air quality professionals, as well as a link to “Air Quality and Outdoor Activity Guidance for Schools” (https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/airquality/pdfs/Air_Quality_and​ _Outdoor_Activity_Guidance.pdf ). Envision Utah: Air Quality http://www.envisionutah.org The mission of Envision Utah is to engage “people to create and sustain communities that are beautiful, prosperous, healthy and neighborly for current and future residents.” The website contains links to air quality projects and suggestions emerging from a broad spectrum of community stakeholders. Leaders for Clean Air http://leadersforcleanair.org/ This group of business and academic leaders aims to install enough electric vehicle charging stations for 100,000 commuters along the Wasatch Front. Many members of this group recently sent a five–page letter to Governor Gary Herbert encouraging him to take more aggressive action to improve the state’s air quality.



Air Quality Resources for Readers

269

Program for Air Quality, Health, and Society University of Utah http://www.airquality.utah.edu/ The Program for Air Quality, Health, and Society at the University of Utah explores Utah’s air quality problems including the associated health issues. The site has a variety of resources that encourage users to read recent news on air quality, attend events, understand the problem of Utah air quality, and even apply to have their air quality research funded through the university. Purple Air http://www.purpleair.org/ Purple Air is a nationwide grassroots network of air pollution monitoring systems maintained by individuals. These monitoring devices provide air quality readings at the neighborhood level, including many in Utah. Devices cost less than $200 to purchase and they connect to the internet. Toxics Release Inventory Program https://www.epa.gov/toxics-­release-inventory-­tri-program This site is maintained by the United States EPA and “offers analyses and interactive maps showing data at a state, county, city, and zip code level.” Users can research the amount of toxic chemicals released into the air, water, or stored in a facility anywhere in the country. The data is available on individual polluters and the types of chemicals released. Unmask My City http://unmaskmycity.org/ Unmask My City is a global organization founded by health care professionals in order to “promote practical solutions and create tangible city level policy changes that drive a clear, downward global trend in urban air pollution by 2030.” The organization seeks a reduction in the amount of fossil fuel burned and a transition to renewable forms of energy with the goal of influencing policies to help cities “meet the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines.” Utah Asthma Program http://health.utah.gov/asthma/airquality/recess.html This website, maintained by the Utah Department of Health, provides information about asthma and indoor and outdoor air quality. It includes information on winter and summer air pollution, wood smoke, and wildfires, including links to additional resources that track wildfires nationally and within the state of Utah. The “Utah ­Recess Guidance for Schools” provides resources for families with school-­age children.

270

Appendix

Utah Clean Air Partnership (UCAIR) http://www.ucair.org/ This state-­wide clean air partnership is user-­friendly and dedicated to all things air quality in Utah, including links for education about air quality, information about research and action grants, and a lengthy list of tools for navigating Utah air quality issues. Utah Clean Cities Coalition (UCC) http://utahcleancities.org/ The mission of the Utah Clean Cities Coalition is “to advance the energy, economic and environmental security of the United States by supporting local decisions to adopt practices that reduce the use of petroleum in the transportation sector.” The organization has partnered with other groups within the state and the public on the Idle Free Utah and Clear the Air Challenge programs. Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Air Quality (DAQ) http://deq.utah.gov/Divisions/daq/index.htm The Utah Division of Air Quality is a state agency under the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. The website is an important source of information, providing reports, including the state’s annual air quality report, updates to regulatory issues, information on types of pollutants, the regulatory landscape, and news updates. Utah Department of Environmental Quality: Current Conditions http://air.utah.gov/ This site shows current Utah air quality conditions, updated hourly for all monitored counties across the state. It also provides a three–day air quality forecast and trend charts. This information is also available via the UtahAir app that is available for free to the public. Utah Department of Transportation TravelWise Initiative (UDOT) https://travelwise.utah.gov/ This website provides information for how to reduce congestion, improve mobility and air quality, and save money, through such strategies as carpooling, telecommuting, using public transportation, alternate work schedules, trip chaining, and active transportation, such as walking or bicycling. UDOT also maintains electronic highway signs encouraging the public to reduce driving during periods of impaired air quality. Utah Moms for Clean Air https://www.facebook.com/groups/56252534318/ Utah Moms for Clean Air is an independent grassroots organization founded by Utah mothers. The site shares information and encourages communication on air quality issues.



Air Quality Resources for Readers

271

Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) http://uphe.org/ This organization was founded by physicians and “is dedicated to protecting the health and well being of the citizens of Utah by promoting science-­based health education and interventions that result in progressive, measurable improvements to the environment.” UPHE has been at the forefront of air quality activism, both in communicating the health impacts of air pollution to the public and pursuing legal action against polluters. The site explains the health impacts of air pollution, lists past successes, and current and future projects. UtahSierran: “Utah Air Quality” http://utah.sierraclub.org/content/utah-­air-quality The Utah chapter of the Sierra Club, an independent group dedicated to preserving and appreciating the environment, maintains this air quality page. It offers an overview of air quality issues in Utah and sets forth a list of objectives that the group believes will make positive steps toward a cleaner-­breathing Utah. World Health Organization (WHO) http://www.who.int/topics/air_pollution/en/ The World Health Organization provides a reliable source of data and information about global air pollution, including pollution stemming from transborder sources.

Contributors

Seth Arens is a research scientist for Western Water Assessment, a climate research program based at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Seth earned a BA from Colby College in Maine and MS degrees in Biology from the University of Alaska, Anchorage and the University of Utah. He worked as an environmental scientist for the Utah Division of Air Quality for five years, focusing on research about ozone in rural Utah. Denni Cawley is former executive director of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, a public interest, environmental nonprofit dedicated to protecting the health and well being of Utahns by promoting science-­based health education and interventions that result in progressive and measurable improvements to the environment. She is currently Director of Professional Education at Utah Valley University. Denni developed partnerships and programs over the last seventeen years for U.S. and international organizations in the areas of environmental policy, health, and ­education. Hal Crimmel is founding co-­chair of Weber State University’s Environmental Issues Committee and Rodney H. Brady Distinguished Professor of English. Hal focuses on environmental and sustainability issues, including writing and co-­producing the 2018 film The Rights of Nature: A Global Movement, the books Desert Water: The Future of Utah’s Water Resources; Dinosaur: Four Seasons on the Green and Yampa Rivers; and Teaching in the Field: Working with Students in the Outdoor Classroom, among others. Robert Davies is associate professor of professional practice with Utah State University’s Department of Physics. His work focuses on synthesizing and communicating a broad range of Earth and human systems science through a lens of human sustainability. He is also co-­creator of The Crossroads Project, weaving together science, ­imagery, and music that brings to bear the power of performance art on critical science ­messaging. He lives and works in Logan. Eric C. Ewert is professor and chair of the Department of Geography at Weber State University. His current research and teaching interests include environmental studies, the American West, population, historical, and economic geography, and geospatial technologies. Eric has lived in western states from Arizona to Alaska. A lifelong and 273

274

Contributors

mesmerized observer of the region, his research and writing focus on the rapid demographic and economic change occurring in the American West and the costs associated with such environmental and cultural transgressions. He has delivered more than two dozen papers at regional and national conferences and traveled widely in the Americas and Europe. Matthew Gnagey is assistant professor of economics at Weber State University. He received his BS from Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia and MA and PhD degrees from the Ohio State University. His research is focused on understanding the environmental and economic impacts of land use, and the valuation of environmental amenities. He is passionate about local issues in Utah, but also conducts research in Indonesia where he worked prior to academia. Therese C. Grijalva is the Rodney H. Brady Distinguished Professor of Economics in the John B. Goddard School of Business and Economics at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah. Therese has an MBA from Cleveland State University and a PhD in environmental economics from the University of New Mexico. Her research focuses on using surveys and experiments to determine the values individuals have for environmental goods and services. Most recently, she has been exploring how individual attitudes about climate change influence discount rates that are employed in analyzing climate change mitigation strategies. James A. Holtkamp is an attorney at Holland & Hart LLP in Salt Lake City and ­senior fellow at the University of Utah College of Law. He received his BA from Brigham Young University and his JD from George Washington University. He focuses on air quality regulation, climate change, and energy development. He began his legal career on the staff of the U.S. Senate Watergate Committee and in the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Interior. Kerry E. Kelly is assistant professor of chemical engineering at the University of Utah. She has a BS from Purdue University, an MS from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a PhD from the University of Utah. She served on Utah’s Air Quality Board for the past eight years, and co-­founded the University of Utah’s Program for Air Quality, Health and Society. Her research focuses on air quality, combustion particles, and the energy and air-­quality nexus. Brian Moench is the board president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. He was the former chairman of the Department of Anesthesia at Holy Cross Hospital and has been in private practice anesthesia in Salt Lake City since 1981. Brian taught public health and the environment in the University of Utah Honors Program. He has given hundreds of community and university lectures and written editorials published in newspapers throughout the country on the impacts of air pollution.

Contributors

275

Will Speigle is assistant professor in the Automotive Technology Department at Weber State University. He is also an instructor for the National Center for Automotive Science and Technology at Weber State University, with a focus on teaching vehicle emissions control system diagnosis and repair around the country. He also worked as service engineer for Ford Motor Company and a trainer at General P ­ hysics, providing training at vehicle assembly plants prior to teaching at WSU. Mark A. Stevenson is assistant professor of anthropology in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Weber State University. He received his BA from the State University of New York at Oneonta and his MA and PhD from Temple University. His current research focuses on employment, labor markets, and activism in the nonprofit arts and environmental sectors. He also studies the interrelations between sustainability, responses to climate change, and environmental policy. Chris Zajchowski serves as assistant professor of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Studies at Old Dominion University in Virginia. He is a recent graduate of the University of Utah, where his dissertation focused on the human dimensions of air quality in parks and protected areas. His interdisciplinary research explores how human-­ environmental interactions occur within protected area contexts, airshed policy, and management, as well as risk perceptions and decision-­making in outdoor recreation pursuits.

Index

Note: all entries printed in italics refer to figures, illustrations, or tables. nitrogen oxides; particulate matter; volatile organic compounds; winter inversions air quality forecasts, 2–3 Air Quality Index (AQI), 27 alkanes, and ozone pollution in Uinta Basin, 80 Alta (Utah), 71, 73 Alternative Transit Systems (ATS), 23–24, 30 Alzheimer’s disease, 115, 116 ambient air quality, as objective of Clean Air Act and Air Conservation Act, 135 American Automobile Association, 231 American Lung Association, 3, 156, 217 ammonia, and ammonium: and pre­ cursors to particulate pollution, 40–41; and winter inversions in northern Utah, 41, 48, 49 Anderson, Kevin, 258 “anthropogenic” global warming, 249–50 anthroposphere, and climate change, 252–53 Arches National Park, 17, 32, 33 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 20 area sources: of hazardous air p ­ ollutants (HAPs), 138; winter inversions and particulate pollution in northern Utah, 43, 44 Arens, Seth, 10 Arizona State University, 206

abatement costs, and economics of air pollution, 162 Abbey, Edward, 32 Acceleration Simulation Mode, 187 accessibility, and urban planning, 236 adaptation, and climate change, 260 advocacy groups, and air quality, 194–217 aging, and health impacts of air pollution, 111, 119 agriculture. See livestock Air Conservation Act (ACA), 134 AirNow, 267 air pollution: economics of in Utah, 155–69; environmental justice and advocacy groups in Utah, 194–217; and impact of climate change on Utah, 245–52; impacts of on human health, 6–7, 98–119; legal framework for control of in Utah, 134–50; mobile sources of and new vehicle technologies, 174–92; overview of volume contents, 9–12; ozone, dust, and climate change as issues in rural Utah, 66–89; and particulate matter air pollution in northern Utah, 38–60; prospects for improvement in Utah, 12–13; and realistic hope for change in Utah, 4–9; and urban planning in Utah, 224–40; and use of term “haze,” 1–4; and visitor experience in Utah parks and protected areas, 17–33. See also carbon dioxide; 277

278

Index

asthma, and health impacts of air ­pollution, 99, 269 atherosclerosis, air pollution and ­acceleration of, 103 atmosphere: and climate change, 251; and transport of dust in rural Utah, 84, 85–86; and transport of ozone pollution in rural Utah, 74–76 Austria, and reduction of highway speeds, 13 autism, 117 automotive industry, 183, 184. See also motor vehicles average planetary temperature, 248, 249 background ozone, and air quality standards, 75 battery-powered devices, and lawn or garden equipment, 192 Bears Ears National Monument, 21 benefit-cost analysis (BCA), and economics of air pollution, 156–57, 159–62, 167, 168, 169 Bennett, Vicki, 216 Berkeley Earth Air Quality Realtime Map, 267 Best Available Control Technology (BACT), 54, 140 Bhopal (India), 1984 toxic gas release, 4 bike lanes, and urban planning, 236, 237 biomarkers, of air pollution, 3–4 biosphere, and climate change, 251 Bird, Bryce, 199, 201–2, 205, 206–7, 210, 212, 213 blood-brain barrier, 114 blood clots, 105 blood pressure, 103, 113 Bonanza natural gas-fired power plant, 78 bowel disorders, 119 brain, and health impacts of air pollution, 114–17 breast cancer, 117–18 Breathe Utah, 3, 54, 210, 214, 268

Breathing Stories: Utah Voices for Clean Air (Torrey House), 268 Brian Head fire (2017), 20 brown-carbon measurements, and particulate pollution from wood burning, 50–51 Bureau of Land Management, 88 Burney-Sigman, Deborah, 210 Cache Clean Air Consortium (CCAC), 268 Cache Valley (Utah): number of days measured at “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups,” 164; winter inversions and particulate pollution in, 43 California: and ozone pollution, 70, 75; and vehicle emissions standards, 179; and winter inversions, 41 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 185 California Energy Commission, 197 cancer, and health impacts of air pollution, 110, 117–18 Canyonlands National Park, 20, 75, 84 carbon budget, and climate change, 260–62 carbon dioxide: and impact of climate disruption on Utah, 245–52; and mobile vehicles as source of pollution, 176 Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, 216 cardiovascular system, and health ­impacts of air pollution, 102–6 catalytic converters, and motor vehicle emissions, 180–81, 184 Cawley, Denni, 11 Centers for Disease Control and ­Prevention (CDC), 117, 268 centrality, and urban planning, 236 Chernobyl nuclear accident, 4 children, and health impacts of air pollution, 107, 116–17, 118. See also fetal development China: and bike sharing programs,

Index 237; cancer and air pollution in, 117; efforts to reduce air pollution in, 13; impact of air pollution on fertility in, 6–7; impact of air pollution from on western U.S., 6; and winter inversions with particulate pollution, 41 cigarette smoke, health effects of air pollution compared to, 3, 4, 102, 104 citizen’s air monitors, 204 Citizens’ Committees (Utah), 7–8 citizen suits, under federal Clean Air Act, 149–50 civil penalties, and violations of air quality standards, 149 Clean Air Act (CAA), 19, 135, 136–37, 139–41, 145–46, 148, 149, 150, 160, 201 Clean Air Caucus (Utah State Legislature), 3, 9, 55, 57, 211 Clean Air Rally (2014, 2015), 1–2, 4, 8 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), 100 Clean Air Toolkit (Provo, Utah), 9 climate change: and air quality regulation in rural Utah, 88–89; impact of on air quality problems in Utah, 6; impact of carbon pollution and climate disruption on Utah, 245–52; and ozone pollution in rural Utah, 82–83, 88–89; winter inversions and particulate pollution in northern Utah, 59. See also snow cover; temperature coal, and generation of electricity in Utah, 139, 140, 177–78, 261. See also fossil fuels “coal rollers” (illegally modified diesel pickup trucks), 134, 190 coarse particulate matter, and particulate pollution, 39 cold starts, and motor vehicle emissions, 179 Colorado River, and climate change, 86 Communidades Unidas, 198 compensating wage differentials

279

(CWD), and exposure to environmental hazards, 166 contingent valuation method (CVM), and economics of air pollution, 163–64 cooperative federalism, and Clean Air Act, 135, 148 county programs, and tailpipe emissions tests, 189 C-reactive protein, and inflammation, 112 criminal penalties, for violation of air quality standards, 149 cryosphere, and climate change, 250–51 cryptobiotic crusts, and dust emissions, 85 DAQ. See Utah Division of Air Quality Data Link Connector (DLC), 185 Davies, Robert, 11–12 Davis County (Utah), and driving patterns, 229 Davis County Garbage Incinerator, 208, 213 deaths, number of due to air pollution in U.S., 105. See also life expectancy deep vein thrombosis, 105–6 DeLegge, Royal, 199 Delta (Utah), 84 dementia, 115. See also Alzheimer’s disease Department of Transportation (Utah), 55 Deseret News, 7 desert(s), and dust emissions in rural Utah, 83 Desert Range (U.S. Forest Service research station), 75–76 Desert Solitaire (Abbey 1988), 32 diabetes, and health impacts of air pollution, 113, 118 Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC), 185 Dinosaur National Monument, 21 diurnal evaporative emissions test, 186

280

Index

DNA, and effects of air pollution on genetics, 110 Donora Smog event (Pennsylvania), 4 Don’t Breathe the Air: Air Pollution and U.S. Environmental Politics, 1945–1970 (Dewey 2000), 8 Duchesne (Utah), 78, 82 Dust Bowl (1934), 84 dust events. See wind-blown dust Earth System, and climate change, 247, 251 economics and economy: of air pollution in Utah, 155–69; and benefits of low levels of air pollution, 7; and urban planning, 230, 231, 237; and wood-burning bans, 56 education, and air quality advocacy, 211–12, 214. See also schools electricity, coal and generation of in Utah, 139, 140, 177–78, 261 electric motor vehicles, 177–78, 192 emissions inventory, winter inversions and particulate pollution in northern Utah, 43–47 Emissions Reduction Credit Registry, 147 employment, and wage premiums in pollution intensive industries, 166. See also workplace environmental justice, and air quality advocacy groups, 194–217 Environmental Justice Screen (EJScreen), 202–3 Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, 198 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): and economics of air pollution, 160; and environmental justice, 196–97, 198, 202–3; and particulate pollution from wood burning, 52; and regulation of criteria pollutants, 5–6; and regulation of ozone, 67,

144; and regulation of particulate matter pollution, 39, 42, 43, 104; and study of ozone pollution in Uinta Basin, 82; and urban heat islands, 227; vehicle emission standards and testing, 142, 179, 181–82, 187, 188, 189–90. See also AirNow; National Ambient Air Quality Standards; State Implementation Plans (SIPs), 9; Toxics Release Inventory Program Environmental Valuation Research Inventory (EVRI), 166–67 Environmental Working Group, 108 Envision Utah, 208–9, 214, 215, 239–40, 268 epigenetics. See genetics ethylene, and particulate matter pollution, 41 Ewert, Eric C., 11 Executive Orders (EOs), and environmental policy, 160, 163, 198, 202 external costs, and economics of air pollution, 157–59 extinction events, and climate change, 252 Federal Highway Administration, 188, 225, 228 Federal Test Procedure (FTP), and motor vehicle emissions, 182, 185–87 fence-line emissions, and environmental justice, 199–200, 203 fetal development, and health impacts of air pollution, 107–8. See also pregnancy Fillmore (Utah), 76 fine particulate matter, and particulate pollution, 39 fingerprint study, of particulate pollution from wood burning, 50 forest fires. See wildfires fossil fuels, and climate change, 261. See also coal; gasoline; oil and gas pro-

Index duction fields; petroleum refining industry Four Corners region, and study of value of visibility, 164 France, and reduction of air pollution, 13 FTP. See Federal Test Procedure gasoline: and motor vehicle emissions, 180–81, 191; urban planning and price of, 231–32. See also fossil fuels; oil and gas production fields; petroleum refining industry Gasoline-powered Lawn and Garden Equipment (GLGE), 191–92 General Motors, 13 genetics, effects of air pollution on, 108–11 geography: and long-range dust transport in western Utah, 84–85; and winter inversions in Wasatch Front, 224 global warming. See “anthropogenic” global warming; climate change; greenhouse gases; temperature Gnagey, Matthew, 11 Grand Canyon National Park, 19 Grand Mesa (Colorado), 86 Great Basin National Park, 75 Great Salt Lake (Utah), and ozone pollution, 73 Great Salt Lake Desert (Utah), 57 Great Smog of London (1952), 4, 98–99, 100, 101 Great Smoky Mountain National Park, 21 greenhouse gases, and climate change, 249, 261–62 Grijalva, Therese C., 11 Guardian, The (newspaper), 233 Gurney, Kevin, 206 Hahn, Thich Nhat, 18 Hansen, James, 258

281

“harvesting effect,” and health impacts of air pollution, 105 “Hawthorne effect,” and air quality alerts, 205 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), 137–38 haze: as meteorological term, 2; air pollution control in Utah and “­regional,” 138, 139 health: and economics of air pollution in Utah, 158, 160, 165–66; impacts of air pollution on, 6–7, 98–119; ozone pollution and adverse birth outcomes in Uinta Basin, 79–80; and urban planning, 231. See also asthma; cancer; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; diabetes; life expectancy; Salt Lake County Health Department; Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment HEAL Utah, 3, 208, 213 heart attacks, 105 heavy metals, in air pollution, 103 Heber (Utah), 71 Herbert, Gary, 9, 55, 144, 169, 215, 234 Herriman (Utah), 226 Hestia Model, 206 Himalayas, and climate change, 260 history, of air pollution, 4, 7–9. See also Great Smog of London Holtkamp, James A., 10–11 hotspots, and air quality monitoring, 205 Hour of the Land, The: A Personal Topography of America’s National Parks (Williams 2016), 32 housing: and economics of air pollution, 164–65; and urban planning, 232–33, 235–36, 238–39 Hunter and Huntington coal-fired power plants, 139, 140 Huntsville (Utah), 71 hybrid motor vehicles, 177–78, 192

282

Index

hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), 261–62 “Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area ­Classifications and State Implementation Plan Requirements” (EPA 2016), 144 inflammation, and health impacts of air pollution, 103, 112, 114, 118 inland shipping port, proposal for in Salt Lake City, 227 Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs, and motor vehicle emissions, 183–85 “intake fraction,” and impact of air pollution on public health, 101 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 258 Intermountain Plant (Delta, Utah), 9 Iran, and winter inversions in ­Tehran, 41 jet stream, and climate change, 251 Journal of Environmental Management, 229 Kamas (Utah), 71, 73 Kelly, Kerry E., 10, 204–5 Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute (­University of Utah), 225–26, 236 Kennecott Utah Copper, 9 Ladies’ Literary Club, 7 lake sediment records, of dust deposition, 85 land development, and air quality issues, 227, 229–30 Leaders for Clean Air, 268 legal system, and regulation of air pollution in Utah , 134–50. See also Environmental Protection Agency; public policy; Utah

Leopold, Aldo, 161 levoglucosan, and particulate pollution from wood-burning sources, 50 life expectancy, impact of air pollution on, 105, 158. See also deaths livestock: dust emissions and grazing of, 85; and greenhouse gas emissions, 262 Logan (Utah), 135, 142 Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER), 140 lungs, and health impacts of air pollution, 106–7, 117 MagCorp, 213 magnetities, and health impacts of air pollution, 115 maintenance, of motor vehicles, 183–84, 191 Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL), 185, 186 mandatory shuttle system, in Zion National Park, 23–24 marginal willingness-to-pay (MWTP), and economics of air pollution, 161–62, 165, 167, 169 markets, and economics of air pollution, 157, 169 Mark Miller Toyota, 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 5, 105 Mass transit, and urban planning, 236. See also transportation systems McAdams, Ben, 233 measurement, of environmental justice, 201–7 media, and coverage of Clean Air ­R allies in Utah, 8. See also Deseret News; Guardian Mendoza, Daniel, 205, 206 metabolic disorders, and health impacts of air pollution, 118–19 methane, and hydraulic fracturing, 261–62

Index methylation, of DNA, 110 Mexico City: and ozone pollution, 70–71; and winter inversions, 41 microenvironments, and distribution of air pollution, 102 Milford Flat (Utah), 57 Milford Valley (Utah), 57, 84 Millcreek Canyon (Utah), 21 minor sources, and regulation of air pollution in Utah, 140 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), 110 “mixed use” urban planning, 235 mobility, and urban planning, 236. See also transportation systems models, of climate systems, 254–55 Moench, Brian, 2, 10, 208 Morgan (Utah), 71 mortality. See life expectancy motor vehicles: and efforts to reduce air pollution, 13; Environmental Protection Agency and standards for emissions, 142, 179; population growth in Utah and air pollution from, 226; and reduction of highway speed limits, 13, 238; role of new vehicle technologies in reduction of sources of air pollution, 174–92; winter inversions and sources of particulate pollution in northern Utah, 43, 44, 45–46, 48. See also transportation systems Motor Vehicles Emissions Budget (MVEB), 189 Mountain Meteorology Group, 27 Muir, John, 18 National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy (NAAMS), 201–2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQs), 38–39, 100, 104, 135–​36, 143–44, 187, 201 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), 137–38

283

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), 203 National Environmental Policy Act (1981), 160 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 74, 82 National Park Service (NPS), 18, 19, 31 Native Americans, and regulation of air pollution on tribal lands in Utah, 140, 141, 212–13 natural gas, and hydraulic fracturing, 261–62. See also oil and gas production fields nervous system, and health impacts of air pollution, 114–17 New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), 140 New York, and health effects of 9/11 dust cloud, 112 nitrogen oxides: and motor vehicles as source of pollution, 174, 175; and ozone pollution, 68; as precursor to particulate pollution, 40–41 no-burn condition, and wood burning, 55–57 nonattainment areas: for ozone pollution in Utah, 87–88, 135, 145; for particulate matter pollution in Utah, 42, 135, 142–43 nonmarket valuation, and economics of air pollution in Utah, 163, 169 Non-Methane Organic Gases (NMOG), 181, 182, 192 nonprofit organizations, and air quality advocacy in Utah, 195, 207–13 non-road vehicle emissions, and particulate pollution in northern Utah, 44 Northern Wasatch Front nonattainment area, 87–88 obesity, and health impacts of air pollution, 118 oceans, and climate change, 251

284

Index

oil and gas production fields, and ozone pollution in Uinta Basin, 80, 82, 88. See also natural gas; petroleum refining industry Olympia Hills Project, 239–40 On-Board Diagnostics (OBD), 185–87, 189 Orange Air Day, 224 Oregon, and background ozone, 75 Ouray (Utah), 81–82 oxygen sensors, and motor vehicle emissions, 184 ozone, and air pollution: health impacts of, 104–5, 107, 114; and legal framework for air quality regulation in Utah, 143–48; and overview of air pollution, 5; problem of in rural Utah, 66–83, 87–89 Pacenza, Matt, 200 PacifiCorp, and coal-fired power plants, 139, 140 Park City (Utah), 71, 73, 246 Parkinson’s disease, 115 parks and protected areas, air quality and visitor experience in Utah, 17–33. See also Bears Ears National Monument; Canyonlands National Park; Dinosaur National Monument; Grand Canyon National Park; Great Basin National Park; Great Smoky Mountain National Park; tourism; Zion National Park Parleys Summit (Utah), 71, 73 particulate matter, and air pollution: health impacts of, 101–2, 104, 112, 119; nonattainment areas and regulation of in Utah, 142–43; overview of, 5; and winter inversions in northern Utah, 38–60 permitting process, and Clean Air Act, 139–41 persistent temperature inversions, 38 petroleum refining industry, 45, 181,

199–200. See also gasoline; oil and gas production fields physics, and climate models, 254, 255, 260, 261 pine beetle, and climate change, 246 plant life: impact of air pollution on in Utah parks, 20; and ozone pollution, 67, 70–71; shift in snowmelt and transpiration by, 86; volatile organic compounds from, 68 playas, and dust storms, 83 point sources, winter inversions and particulate pollution in northern Utah, 43, 44–45 politics, and urban planning, 233–34. See also legal system; public policy; Utah population growth, and air q ­ uality ­issues in Utah, 58–59, 216–17, 225–​ 26, 239 Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV ) systems, 179 positive matrix factorization (PMF), 47 Powertrain Control Module (PCM), 185, 189 pregnancy, and health impacts of air pollution, 6–7, 79–80, 101, 107–8, 111–14 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration Air Quality” area, 164 Prevent Significant Deterioration (PSD) areas, 139 Program for Air Quality, Health, and Society, 269 projections, of climate change, 255–59 Provo (Utah), 43, 143 public health, adverse effect of air ­pollution on, 108 public lands, federal designation of in Utah, 21. See also parks and protected areas public policy, and air quality advocacy in Utah, 207–13. See also politics Purple Air, 204, 269

Index quality of life: and air quality advocacy in Utah, 209, 217; air quality and perception of in Utah, 155; and economics of air pollution in Utah, 158, 162 Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), 144 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), 44–45, 54, 144 Regional Haze Rule (1999), 19 Repertory Dance Theater, 198 research: on air quality and winter recreation in Wasatch Mountains, 25–29; on air quality in parks and protected areas in Utah, 21–23; on ozone pollution in Uinta Basin, 82; source-attribution studies on winter inversions and particulate pollution in northern Utah, 47–50; on value of visibility in Four Corners region, 164 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 232 “Residents’ Voices United on 89” (ReVU89), 230 Resources for Readers, and descriptions of websites, 12, 267–71 revealed preference approaches, and economics of air pollution, 164–69 ride-hailing services, 237 Rio Tinto Kennecott copper smelter and refinery, 140 Rockville (Utah), 24 Rocky Mountain Power, 9 Romero, Angela, 201 Roosevelt (Utah), 78, 81, 82 Rose Park (Utah), 202 St. George (Utah), 76 Salt Lake City: and commitment to improve air quality, 9; and dust emissions, 83–84, 85; as nonattain-

285

ment area for particulate pollution, 143; and winter inversion, 18. See also Wasatch Front Salt Lake City Council, 7 Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability. See SLCgreen Salt Lake County Health Department, 56, 199, 207, 267 San Bernardino Mountains (California), and ozone pollution, 70 San Joaquin Valley (California), and winter inversions, 41 San Juan Mountains (Colorado), and dust deposition, 85, 86, 87 San Juan River (Utah), 87 schools: and air pollution alerts in Utah, 159, 269; and education on air quality, 214. See also education secondary particulate matter, and ­winter inversions, 41 secondary pollutants, ozone as, 68 Selective Enforcement Audits (SEA), 182–83 Sevier Dry Lake (Utah), 57 Sierra Club, 271 SLC green, 206, 216 “smart growth,” and urban planning, 239, 240 smog, and use of term “haze,” 2 snow cover: dust deposition and availability of water in rural Utah, 86–87; and formation of winter ozone in Uinta Basin, 81. See also climate change; temperature social sciences, and research on air pollution in parks, 22 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 185 soil moisture, and climate change, 257, 258 source-attribution studies, winter inversions and particulate pollution in northern Utah, 47–50 Southern Utah University, 23–24

286

Index

Southern Wasatch Front nonattainment area, 87–88 Spanish, and educational materials, 212 Speigle, Will, 11 Springdale (Utah), 24 State Implementation Plans (SIPs), 9, 43, 53–54, 136–37, 143, 146, 187 Stericycle medical waste incinerator, 214 Stevenson, Mark A., 11 Strasburg, Sunny, 199 stratospheric ozone intrusion, and ozone pollution, 76 streetcar systems, and urban landscape, 228 strokes, and health impacts of air ­pollution, 105, 115 suburbs, and urban planning, 230–31, 238–39 sulfur, in motor vehicle emissions, 180–81 sulfur dioxide, and precursors to ­particulate pollution, 40–41 Sundance Film Festival, 156 sustainable development, and air ­quality advocacy, 208, 216 “Take Back Our Lands” movement, 21 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, 238 Taylor Grazing Act (1934), 85 telomeres, and DNA, 110–11 temperature: climate change and ozone pollution in rural Utah, 88–89; and climate disruption from carbon pollution in Utah, 246, 248–49, 253, 254, 257–59; and urban heat islands, 227. See also climate change; snow cover temperature inversions. See winter inversions Thompson, Lonnie, 258 toluene, and ozone formation, 80 Tooele (Utah), 253 Torrey House Press, 268 tourism: and economics of air pollution

in Utah, 155–56; study of air quality and winter recreation in Wasatch Mountains, 25–29. See also parks and protected areas Toxics Release Inventory Program, 269 transit oriented development (TODs), 236 transportation systems: and air quality advocacy in Utah, 209; air quality and winter recreation in Wasatch Mountains, 25–29 alternative in Zion National Park, 23–24; and urban planning, 236. See also motor vehicles TravelWise Initiative, 270 TRAX monitors, 206 Tule Dry Lake (Utah), 57 Tuvalu (Pacific), 260 UCAIR. See Utah Clean Air Partnership Udell, Cherise, 208 Uinta Basin (Utah): and air quality advocacy, 212–13; and ozone pollution, 66, 76–83, 88, 145, 196 Uinta Mountains (Utah), and dust deposition, 85 Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF), 21, 25–29 ultraviolet radiation, and ozone pollution, 68, 69, 81 “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups” days, and Wasatch Front, 164 U.S. Magnesium, 208 United Kingdom: and reduction of air pollution, 13; and wage premiums for work in pollution intensive industries, 166. See also Great Smog of London University of Utah, 25, 50, 79, 205, 206, 225–26, 230, 236, 269 University of West Virginia, 183 Unmask My City, 269

Index Upper Green River Basin (Wyoming), 77 Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), 186–87 “urban heat islands,” and temperature, 227 urban planning, and air quality issues in Wasatch Front, 224–40 Utah: air pollution issues in rural areas of, 66–89; air quality and visitor experience in parks, 17–33; breast cancer rates and air pollution in, 117–18; and citizen clean air efforts, 7–9; economics of air pollution in, 155–69; environmental justice and advocacy groups in, 194–217; and health impacts of air pollution, 99–102; impact of climate change from carbon pollution on, 245–52; and legal framework for air pollution control, 134–50; mobile source pollution and new vehicle technologies, 174–92; overview of air quality issues, 1–4; and prospects for improvement of air quality, 12–13; sources of pollution in, 6; urban planning and air quality issues, 224– 40; winter inversions and particulate matter air pollution in northern, 38–60. See also Salt Lake City; Uinta Basin; Utah Department of Environmental Quality; Utah Division of Air Quality; Wasatch Front Utah Administrative Procedures Act, 137 UtahAir app, 204, 270 Utah Air Conservation Act, 148, 149–50 Utah Air Quality Board, 141, 143 Utah Air Quality Rules, 148 Utah Asthma Program, 269 Utah Clean Air Partnership (UCAIR), 54, 215, 270 Utah Clean Cities Coalition (UCC), 159, 207, 270

287

Utah Climate Action Network, 216 Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), 82, 87–88, 139, 192, 270 Utah Department of Health, 269 Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), 206, 228, 270 Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), 3, 40, 42, 43, 45, 52, 53–54, 55, 58, 140, 141, 143, 145, 147, 148, 174–75, 199, 201–2, 211 Utah Energy Code, 213 Utah Health Department, 79–80 “Utah Model,” in urban planning ­literature, 208–9 Utah Moms for Clean Air, 3, 208, 270 Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE), 2, 3, 4, 99, 199, 208, 214, 271 “Utah Recess Guidance for Schools,” 269 Utah Society for Environmental ­Education, 198 Utah State University, 23–24 Utah Transit Authority, 209 Ute Tribe, 212 Vernal (Utah), 78, 82 vintage license plate program, 190 visibility: and economics of air pollution in Utah, 159, 164; and legal framework for control of air pollution in Utah, 138–39; perception of and social science research on air quality in Utah parks and protected areas, 22 volatile organic compounds (VOCs): oil and gas production in Uinta Basin and, 80–81; and overview of air pollution, 6; and ozone pollution, 68; and precursors to particulate pollution, 40–41 Volkswagen, and auto emissions ­scandal, 183

288

Index

vulnerable populations, and environmental justice, 196–201 walking paths, and urban planning, 236 Wasatch Clean Air Network, 216 Wasatch Front: and air quality advocacy groups, 194, 196; and impact of air pollution on life expectancy, 158; motor vehicles as source of pollution, 174; number of days measured at “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups,” 164; and ozone pollution, 69–70, 145; urban planning and air quality issues in, 224–40. See also Salt Lake City; Wasatch Mountains Wasatch Front Regional Council, 206 Wasatch Mountains: ozone pollution in, 69–71, 73–74; study of air quality and winter recreation in, 25–29. See also Wasatch Front Washington County (Utah), 75, 196 water, atmospheric transport of dust and availability of, 86 water cycle, and climate change, 250 Weber County (Utah), 164 websites, and Resources for Readers, 12, 267–71 Wendover (Utah), 75 Wenk, Daniel, 31 White Matter Hyper-intensities (WMH), 115 “wicked feedback loop,” air quality and winter recreation in Utah, 25–26 Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964, 18–19 wildfires: and climate change, 246, 262; and human impact on parks

and protected areas, 20; and ozone pollution in rural Utah, 74, 76, 89; and particulate pollution in northern Utah, 57–58; and Utah Asthma Program, 269 Williams, Terry Tempest, 32 willingness-to-pay (WTP), and economics of air pollution, 161–62, 164, 166–67 wind-blown dust: and air quality issues in rural Utah, 83–87; winter inversions and particulate pollution in northern Utah, 48–49, 57–58 Wind River Mountains (Wyoming), 85 winter inversions: and geography of Wasatch Front, 224; health impacts of, 99–100; and particulate matter pollution in northern Utah, 38–60 wood burning, winter inversions and particulate pollution in northern Utah, 45, 48, 49, 50–53, 54–57 workplace, and transportation issues, 238. See also employment World Health Organization (WHO), 4–5, 117, 271 Wyoming, winter ozone observations in, 78 xylene, and ozone formation, 80 Yellowstone National Park, 31 Yosemite National Park, 20 Zajchowski, Chris, 10 Zion National Park, 23–24, 30, 75 Zions Bank, 3 zoning codes, and urban planning, 227