California's Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area has the nation's worst fine-particle air pollution, an environmental group has found in a survey intended to pressure the Bush administration to adopt a tougher standard for the toxic particles.
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — California's Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area has the nation's worst fine-particle air pollution, an environmental group has found in a survey intended to pressure the Bush administration to adopt a tougher standard for the toxic particles.
Fine particles such as diesel soot are linked to heart disease, cancer, stunted lung growth in children and premature death. The microscopic particles -- one-35th the diameter of a human hair -- penetrate the lungs and other tissues to cause a variety of damage, researchers say.
Six of the 10 most-polluted areas are in California, including Los Angeles, Bakersfield and several agricultural communities in the Central Valley, according to the survey released Thursday by Environment California Research and Policy Center.
The Los Angeles-based advocacy group, funded by memberships and donors such as the California Endowment, explained its survey at a news conference Thursday morning in San Bernardino.
The group is identifying the nation's most-polluted communities as part of its effort to pressure the Bush administration to adopt more stringent health standards for fine-particle pollution. The survey is based on 2004 air-pollution data collected by states.
!ADVERTISEMENT!
Health standards are used to develop rules to regulate emissions from cars, trucks, trains, factories and other sources.
Also on Thursday, Gov. Schwarzenegger sent representatives to an unrelated Riverside meeting to hear local and regional officials' suggestions on how to cut pollution from the goods-movement industry, a major source of fine-particle pollution.
His proposed $68 billion bond measure to build freeways and other infrastructure contains about $1 billion dedicated to improving air quality -- if the Legislature and voters pass the measure. Southern California air-quality experts estimate that cleaning up pollution from the ports and cargo industry would cost 10 times that much.
Last month, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson proposed looser standards for fine particles than those recommended by EPA science advisers and staff.
"They are clearly protecting the polluters at the expense of public health," Moira Chapin, an Environment California associate, said in a news briefing outside San Bernardino City Hall.
The EPA is accepting public comments on the proposed standard. A final decision is expected in September.
Eryn Witcher, EPA press secretary, defended the proposal. "Based on the best available science that we have studied to date, EPA has a proposal for public comment that aims to protect public health and improve air quality while recognizing that the science of particulate matter continues to evolve and contains uncertainties on many levels," she said in an e-mail.
Air-quality data shows the Inland area has a long way to go before meeting any of the health standards, proposed or existing. Pollution from particles 2.5 microns or smaller averaged 50 percent more than the EPA contends is healthy. The South Coast air basin, which includes Los Angeles and the Inland area, faces a federal deadline of 2015 to meet federal clean-air standards.
Fine-particle pollution is a result primarily of vehicle and factory emissions. Ammonia from dairy waste also can contribute to the problem. The South Coast air basin and the San Joaquin Valley, which both have high levels of fine particles, frequently have atmospheric inversion layers that trap such pollution in the valleys, said Gennet Paauwe, a California Air Resources Board spokeswoman.
In Southern California, emissions from boats, trains and trucks serving the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are a major source of fine particles. Schwarzenegger's bond measure would provide $1 billion for unspecified pollution controls for the cargo industry.
"That amount can achieve a huge reduction in emissions and a huge health benefit," Cindy Tuck, a California Environmental Protection Agency official, said in a meeting with air-quality regulators, public officials and clean-air advocates.
Such controls could include using lower-emission trucks to serve the ports and outfitting ships to run on electricity instead of their diesel engines when they dock at the ports.
Paul Wuebben, a South Coast Air Quality Management District official, said cleaning up port pollution would cost as much as $8 billion to $10 billion. He said he wants the state to ensure that expansion of rails and other port-related facilities won't cause additional harm to the environment. The bond issue would include $3 billion for such expansion.
Penny Newman, an environmentalist based in northwest Riverside County, served on a state panel examining the future of the goods-movement industry in Southern California.
She said she's worried that $1 billion won't be enough to offset additional pollution from port expansion.
She also doesn't want public money to be used to help railroads and other port businesses make pollution cuts. The companies should cover those costs, she said.
Mike Wintemute, a deputy secretary with the state EPA, said he doesn't know whether air-pollution improvements funded by the bonds would result in cleaner air even as ports expand. That would depend on the technology, growth of the port activity and other variables, he said.
Source: Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
Contact Info:
