May 12, 2023
Ever wonder what all those EPA rules were about and what they accomplished (or not) over the past decades in the USA. Consider/review the following emails between EPA and Alan DiCara, Editor, Public Interest News Network, here:
RE: PRESS: Public Interest News Network response 2
| Oct 8, 2021, 2:27 PM |  Reply | ||
| ||||
Alan,
Can you please re-send the PDF?
I see only our email correspondence in the PDF. I do not see an article in the PDF.
Thank you,
Melissa
Melissa A. Sullivan (She/Her/Hers)
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
202 913 3840
From: Alan DiCara <alandicara@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 2:21 PM
To: Sullivan, Melissa <sullivan.melissa@epa.gov>
Subject: Re: PRESS: Public Interest News Network response 2
If you scroll to the very bottom of my previous email, you should find the attached draft PDF.
Re: verbatim use: that is not my intent; my hope is to share good links from EPA to important and relevant info. Notice I did not use any quotation marks. I am a staff of ONE and so I cannot research as much as I might wish and do hope to get others to participate and do so. Suggestions on how to share EPA's info and links are most welcome. Thanks- Alan
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 2:00 PM Sullivan, Melissa <sullivan.melissa@epa.gov> wrote:
Hi again, Alan:
Did you mean to send an attached article? I only see email correspondence in the attached.
Also, our responses are meant for background not to be published verbatim.
Thank you,
Melissa
Melissa A. Sullivan (She/Her/Hers)
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
202 913 3840
From: Alan DiCara <alandicara@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 1:54 PM
To: Sullivan, Melissa <sullivan.melissa@epa.gov>
Subject: Re: PRESS: Public Interest News Network response 2
Will do-
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 1:31 PM Sullivan, Melissa <sullivan.melissa@epa.gov> wrote:
Alan,
Please use press@epa.gov as the contact.
Thank you,
Melissa
On Oct 8, 2021, at 1:28 PM, Alan DiCara <alandicara@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks much for the followup and info which I plan to use soon in an article. Would it be ok to list you as a contact person for interested people and news orgs to check with for more info? Thanks again- Alan
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:42 PM Sullivan, Melissa <sullivan.melissa@epa.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon Alan,
Please see our responses below.
-I see the reductions for the listed pollutants are all in double digits, some more than others. Are there any regulated pollutants not listed?
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants (also known as "criteria air pollutants").
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-
air-pollutants
The Clean Air Act also requires the EPA to regulate toxic air pollutants, also known as air toxics, from categories of industrial facilities in two phases.
-Also, while double digits are encouraging it seems, I wonder if we divide the totals by 50 years (since 1970) if the per annum rates will also be considered as 'dramatic'?
EPA publishes an annual interactive report tracking progress in controlling air pollution since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. The report includes interactive graphics that enable citizens, policymakers, and stakeholders to view and download detailed information by pollutant, geographic location and year. The latest report can be found here: https://gispub.epa.gov/air/
trendsreport/2021/
Specifically, the second graph on the Air Trends Report, “Air Quality Trends Show Clean Air Progress,” shows national air pollutant concentration averages for key air pollutants in relation to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as well as air pollutant emissions totals from year to year since 1990. https://gispub.epa.gov/air/
trendsreport/2021/#air_trends
More comprehensive data, as well as data prior to 1990, can be found through EPA’s Air Emissions Inventories: https://www.epa.gov/air-
emissions-inventories.
-For pollutants like ozone whose reductions are lower, why is this? For instance, had the US been able to pass rules to mandate higher per gallon vehicles more so than was done, would that, a priori, have helped? In states mandating even higher mpg's than federal laws/regulations, did ozone and others go down more?
Ground-level ozone forms when emissions of NOx and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight. NOx emissions result primarily from stationary fuel combustion and highway vehicles, and VOC emissions result as a byproduct of industrial processes.
More information on sources of various air pollutants can be found on the graph “Understanding Emission Sources Helps Control Air Pollution” on the latest air trends report: https://gispub.epa.gov/air/
trendsreport/2021/#sources
Air quality concentrations can vary year to year, influenced not only by pollution emissions but also by natural events, such as dust storms and wildfires, and variations in weather.
EPA’s national and regional rules to reduce emissions of pollutants that form ground level ozone help state and local governments meet the Agency’s national air quality standards. Actions include vehicle and transportation standards, regional haze and visibility rules, and regular reviews of the NAAQS. More information on ground-level ozone and ozone standards can be found here: https://www.epa.gov/ground-
level-ozone-pollution
-Reflecting on global pollution and increased global population and economic development among nations, is there any spreadsheet scorecard showing/comparing pollution levels over time, eg: among nations grouped by continent/area like North America, South America, Europe, China, India, Japan, Africa, Australia, Polynesia and others? My thought is many nations did not pass or may not enforce air pollution regulations for many reasons and as their increased populations and development and use of pollutant-causing technologies and transportation, coupled with a lack of environmental control technologies, perhaps their rates of pollution increased?
While EPA does not track air pollution outside of the United States, the Agency works in partnership with the Department of State to collect Air Quality Monitoring data from U.S. embassies and consulates around the world to inform U.S. personnel and citizens overseas.
https://www.airnow.gov/
international/us-embassies- and-consulates
Thank you,
Melissa
Melissa A. Sullivan (She/Her/Hers)
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
202 913 3840
From: Alan DiCara <alandicara@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 7:24 PM
To: Carroll, Timothy <Carroll.Timothy@epa.gov>
Cc: Jones, Enesta <Jones.Enesta@epa.gov>; EPA Press Office <Press@epa.gov>
Subject: Re: Inquiry on Air Pollution
Hello Mr Carroll and Crew,
Thanks much for this info which I will use to begin writing an article which I will first send a draft to you in a few days if that is ok so you may comment on it and correct any errors and maybe suggest changes to better educate the public. A few thoughts now:
-I see the reductions for the listed pollutants are all in double digits, some more than others. Are there any regulated pollutants not listed?
-Also, while double digits are encouraging it seems, I wonder if we divide the totals by 50 years (since 1970) if the per annum rates will also be considered as 'dramatic'?
-For pollutants like ozone whose reductions are lower, why is this? For instance, had the US been able to pass rules to mandate higher per gallon vehicles more so than was done, would that, a priori, have helped? In states mandating even higher mpg's than federal laws/regulations, did ozone and others go down more?
-Reflecting on global pollution and increased global population and economic development among nations, is there any spreadsheet scorecard showing/comparing pollution levels over time, eg: among nations grouped by continent/area like North America, South America, Europe, China, India, Japan, Africa, Australia, Polynesia and others? My thought is many nations did not pass or may not enforce air pollution regulations for many reasons and as their increased populations and development and use of pollutant-causing technologies and transportation, coupled with a lack of environmental control technologies, perhaps their rates of pollution increased?
Thanks much for your help-
Alan DiCara, Public Interest News Network
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 5:28 PM Carroll, Timothy <Carroll.Timothy@epa.gov> wrote:
Hi Alan, stepping in for my colleagues to ensure you received this response to your questions. Please let us know if you have any follow-ups and we are happy to work through those.
Since the implementation of the Clean Air Act in 1970, air quality in the U.S. has dramatically improved, and the combined emissions of criteria and precursor pollutants have dropped by 78%. And with the implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, concentrations of air pollutants across the United States have continued to fall. Nationally, concentrations of air pollutants have dropped significantly since 1990:
· Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour, ↓ 73%
· Lead (Pb) 3-Month Average, ↓ 86% (from 2010)
· Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual, ↓ 61%
· Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour, ↓ 54%
· Ozone (O3) 8-Hour, ↓ 25%
· Particulate Matter 10 microns (PM10) 24-Hour, ↓ 26%
· Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) Annual, ↓ 41% (from 2000)
· Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 24-Hour, ↓ 30% (from 2000)
· Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-Hour, ↓ 91%
· Numerous air toxics have declined with percentages varying by pollutant
Despite increases in air concentrations of pollutants associated with fires, carbon monoxide and particle pollution, national average air quality concentrations remain below the current, national standards.
But more can be done. During his first days in office President Biden issued a series of Executive Orders that set a clear direction for EPA and this administration, to protect public health, address the climate crisis, and promote environmental justice. We are taking those directives seriously, following science and the law.
In his day-one executive order, President Biden directed EPA to review the decisions issued by the prior administration not to tighten standards for ozone and particulate matter. As a result of this review, EPA has decided to reconsider the previous administration’s decision to retain the standards for particular matter. EPA is taking this step, because available scientific evidence and technical information indicate that the current standards may not be adequate to protect public health and welfare, as required by the Clean Air Act. EPA is also looking closely at the science to determine next steps for ozone standards.
Regarding climate change, EPA is considering rulemaking proposals to address some of our nation’s largest sources of both climate- and health-harming pollution, such as the transportation, oil and natural gas, and power sectors. EPA has ongoing programs to measure greenhouse gas emissions data; improve energy efficiency; evaluate policy options, costs, and benefits; advance climate change science; promote best practices to reduce GHG emissions internationally; and to help communities and businesses across the United States reduce GHG emissions and improve resilience to the impacts of climate change.
Learn more about air pollution trends though 2020 here: https://gispub.epa.gov/
air/trendsreport/2021/#home
Learn more about climate change and EPA activities to address it here: https://www.epa.gov/
climate-change
From: Jones, Enesta <Jones.Enesta@epa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 2:11 PM
To: Alan DiCara <alandicara@gmail.com>
Cc: EPA Press Office <Press@epa.gov>
Subject: Re: Inquiry on Air Pollution
Thanks, Alan. We are checking. I am also noting your 10/1 deadline.
On Sep 23, 2021, at 10:49 AM, Alan DiCara <alandicara@gmail.com> wrote:
first here: http://
publicinterestnewsnetwork.com/ (my website which needs and will be updated) -and shortly thereafter: at any and all other newspapers I sometimes contact to offer news stories free to edit, print, research and publish as they see fit including the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, and possibly others (and which they may or may not publish) as well as news media like the AP, UPA, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox tv and radio stations - national and/or local.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:30 AM Jones, Enesta <Jones.Enesta@epa.gov> wrote:
Where will the story publish?
On Sep 23, 2021, at 10:29 AM, Alan DiCara <alandicara@gmail.com> wrote:
October 1st, 2021.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:09 AM Jones, Enesta <Jones.Enesta@epa.gov> wrote:
Hi Alan,
My colleague Richard shared your request below. Can you please provide your deadline as well as which outlet is planning to publish your story?
Thanks,
Enesta
Dear Mr Haeuber at the EPA,
Thank-you Mr Haeuber for your reply below about my questions re air pollution. And thanks for finding my inquiry.
Given today's news that the UN's World Health Organization has determined that air pollution is even more toxic than originally believed and so results in millions getting sicker and dying, I have a few 'lay person' questions:
-Are our state/federal air pollution laws being properly and adequately enforced, by whom, when, and how do we/you know? And if not, then what?
-There is much adieu about 'climate change' especially during wildfire season out West. As you/we know, these wildfires have been getting worse, growing and polluting more and more each year with predictable adverse health and environmental effects. What exactly are EPA staff doing and have done to compel state and federal governments and private polluters who somehow tolerate these fires on their many properties year in and year out to comply with our regulations and what's needed and mandated to halt and prevent pollution and adverse health/environmental effects this year and in past years - and with what effect, if any? From our view here in Eastern USA and globally, people are getting sicker, the air is being polluted more than ever, and no one, not federal nor state governments, are doing what is needed to obey existing laws and regulations and put out and prevent these fires in the first place. Why is this?
-Do we need to replace EPA with some other national agency to get totally unnecessary pollution ended and reduce the adverse climate changes and bad effects on humans, wildlife and the global and national environment?
Thanks-
Alan DiCara, Public Interest News Network
