# Renee Sharp Bill Walker

### 2 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

# Acknowledgments

Thanks to Joann Lu and Samantha Scola of the California Air Resources Board and Leland Deck of ABT Associates for help with data. Thanks to Kent Bransford, Bob Gould, Amy Kyle and Gina Solomon, who reviewed and commented on the report. Thanks to Liza West and her staff at EMS West for help with press materials and release of the report. At EWG, thanks to Richard Wiles and Jane Houlihan, who read many drafts and made many helpful suggestions, and to Tim Greenleaf, who designed the report and produced the graphics. This report was primarily made possible by grants from the Steven and Michelle Kirsch Foundation and the As You Sow Foundation. Additional support for EWG’s air pollution work in California comes from The California Wellness Foundation, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, the Clarence T. Heller Charitable Foundation and the Homeland Foundation. Opinions expressed are those of the authors, who are responsible for any errors of fact of misinterpretation.

Environmental Working Group EWG is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C., and Oakland, CA. EWG uses information technology to conduct research and inform the public on a range of environmental issues, particularly those affecting public health. To order a copy Copies of this report may be ordered from EWG’s Washington office for $20 each plus $3 for postage and handling. (DC residents add 6 percent sales tax.) Send orders to 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 600, Washington DC 20009

On the Internet This report and other EWG publications are available online at www.ewg.org.

### 3 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

## Particle Civics 

# Table of Contents

Chapter 1: A Life and Death Decision............................................... Page 7 Chapter 2: California’s Particulate Problem..................................... Page 17 Chapter 3: Air Pollution, Illness, and Death.................................... Page 25 Chapter 4: Particle Civics.................................................................. Page 31 Chapter 5: Who’s Against Clean Air?............................................... Page 37

### 4 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP

### 5 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

## Particle Civics 

# Executive Summary

Airborne soot and dust, technically known as particulate air pollution, causes or contributes to the deaths of more Californians than car accidents, murder and AIDS combined. State health officials are proposing new air pollution rules that could save or extend more than 6,500 lives a year, but the proposal faces strong and well-financed opposition from major oil companies and automakers. In California, respiratory illnesses caused or made worse by airborne particulate matter (PM) are responsible for 9,300 deaths, 16,000 hospital visits, 600,000 asthma attacks and five million lost work days each year. By saving lives and preventing illnesses, tougher standards could save more than half a billion dollars a year. In recent years, hundreds of studies worldwide have shown that PM pollution kills people. Both short- and long-term exposure to particulate pollution at levels lower than the levels currently experienced by millions of California residents can cause death. The proposed new PM standards are the first new regulations developed in response to a landmark 1999 state law requiring that air pollution standards must be adequate to protect children’s health. Statewide, total PM emissions are on the rise, and the great majority of Californians are exposed to potentially harmful levels. The worst particulate pollution in the state is found in Imperial County. But far more Californians are affected by the severe problems in the South Coast Air Basin, covering greater Los Angeles, which has the highest PM levels of any U.S. metro area, and the eight-county San Joaquin Valley, which is among the six worst areas in the nation. EWG estimates that the proposed new standards could save more than 4,200 lives a year in the South Coast Air Basin, and more than 800 lives a year in the San Joaquin Valley. EWG urges the Air Resources Board to resist pressure from polluters and adopt the PM standards recommended by state scientists. Exemptions for agriculture should be eliminated. To further protect children and other sensitive populations, ARB should also set eight-hour PM standards, as it has for ozone. Finally, the state PM standards must be more rigorously enforced. 

## Tougher state standards for particulate air pollution could save more than 6,500 lives and

half a billion dollars a year.

### 6 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP

### 7 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

# A Life and Death Decision

Particulate air pollution causes or contributes to the deaths of more Californians than car accidents, murder and AIDS combined, according to an analysis of state data by Environmental Working Group. EWG’s investigation found that state health officials are proposing new air pollution rules that could save or extend more than 6,500 lives a year, but the safer standards face entrenched opposition from a deep-pockets alliance of major oil companies and automakers. Airborne microscopic particles, much smaller than the width of a human hair, are known as particulate matter, or PM. (The smallest particles are often called “fine” particulates; the larger ones, still very tiny, are called “coarse” particulates.) California Department of Health Services (DHS) data shows that respiratory illnesses caused or made worse by PM pollution are responsible for the deaths of more than 9,300 Californians a year. That is three times more than are killed in car accidents, 4.6 times more than those who are victims of homicide and six times the number who die of AIDS. (Table 1.) What’s more, even this number is an underestimate of the total number of PM-related deaths each year since it includes all deaths due to long-term exposure but only includes some of those due to short-term exposure to particulate air pollution 1

. The air polluters’ lobby tries to divert attention from the overwhelming evidence that particulate matter is deadly by arguing that compliance with the “impossibly stringent” proposed new standards would be too costly and would not produce

Source: EWG, from California Department of Health Services 1999. Table 1. Particulate air pollution in California causes or contributes to more than 9,000 deaths each year. Cause of Death Number of Deaths in 1999 Particulate air pollution 9,340 Motor vehicle accidents 3,140 Suicide 3,047 Accidental poisonings 2,221 Homicide 2,042 HIV/AIDS 1,558 Accidental falls 1,202 Drownings 397

### 8 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP “any greater protection of public health than the current California standards.” (Ford 2002, AAM 2002.) But EWG’s five-month review of hundreds of state, national and international studies found just the opposite: By saving lives and preventing illnesses, tougher PM standards could save the state and its citizens more than half a billion dollars a year.

The price tag: $1 billion a year Each year, PM pollution is responsible for more than 16,000 hospital or emergency room admissions, at an estimated health care cost of $132 million. PM-triggered illnesses also cause Californians to miss almost five million work days a year, a loss to the state’s economy of more than $880 million 2. More difficult to put a price tag on are the thousands of less severe illnesses that result every year from PM pollution, including 600,000 asthma attacks and 13,500 cases of chronic bronchitis in California. (Tables 2, 3.) Particulates, which are taken deep into the lungs by inhalation, have been linked with a long list of respiratory ailments such as chronic cough, chest pain, breathlessness, wheezing, phlegm, chronic bronchitis, decreased lung growth, decreased lung function, and the exacerbation of asthma symptoms.

Table 2. Proposed new standards would prevent hundreds of thousands of illnesses each year.

Source: EWG, from ARB/OEHHA 2001, EWG 2002. Notes: In this table, the long-term mortality values are for PM2.5 and the short-term mortality values are for PM10. Long-term mortality is deaths from long-term exposure to particulates, whileshort-term is deaths from short-term exposure. Because the estimates of long-term mortality include some but not all short-term deaths, the two cannot be added together to get an estimate of total mortality. Ages Considered Cases at Current PM Levels Cases Under Proposed Standards Cases Avoided Cases Reduced by
Long-term Mortality 30+ 9390 2865 6525 69% Short-term Mortality All 4063 1772 2291 56% Chronic Bronchitis 27+ 13530 5696 7835 58% Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hospital Admissions 65+ 2115 923 1192 56% Pneumonia Hospital Admissions 65+ 3061 1340 1721 56% Cardiovascular Disease Hospital Admissions 65+ 5452 2395 3057 56% Asthma Hospital Admissions 64- 1624 692 933 57% Asthma Emergency Room Visits 64- 3992 1691 2301 58% Asthma Attacks All 592736 254466 338270 57%

### 9 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUPPM concentrations have also been shown to be associated with hospital admissions for a wide variety of cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, including asthma. Groups particularly at risk include children, the elderly, people who already suffer from respiratory illness, and those of low socioeconomic status, who tend to live in areas where particulate pollution is most severe. In recent years, a major international scientific effort has produced a flood of studies that has clearly established that PM pollution can kill people. Epidemiological studies have been conducted in over 200 cities worldwide, examining the effects of different exposure durations, and accounting for contributing factors including age, smoking habits, weather, and otherpollutants. The results have been remarkably consistent: Both short- and longterm exposure to particulate pollution at levels lower than currently experienced by millions of California residents can cause death. Compared to just a few years ago, scientists today are much more likely to say plainly that PM kills, than that it contributes to death. California’s current PM standards were set in 1982. New standards proposed by scientists at the state Air Resources Board (ARB) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) would reduce the number of PM-triggered deaths and illnesses dramatically. The scientists say cutting allowable levels of PM to recommended levels will reduce deaths by at least 69 percent, asthma attacks by 57 percent, hospital visits by 56 percent and cases of chronic bronchitis by 58 percent. (Table 2.) Statewide, the recommended standards would result in an annual reduction of about 3 percent of all mortality in the population above age 30. (ARB/OEHHA 2001.) EWG estimates that these new PM-standards would also result in savings of state direct and indirect costs of more than $580 million a year. (Table 3.)

The Children’s Environmental Health Act Gov. Gray Davis’ appointed ARB directors are scheduled to vote on the proposed new standards in June 2002. Their decision is being watched closely by health and environmental officials and researchers across the country. In 1999, California enacted the landmark Children’s Environmental Health Act (SB 25), the first law anywhere in the U.S. to require that air pollution standards must be stringent enough to protect children – as opposed to almost all other environmental regulations designed to protect the average adult male. SB 25 required the ARB to review all of the state’s air pollution standards to determine whether they adequately protect children. A preliminary review determined that the current PM standards were inadequate and that revising them should be ARB’s highest priority. Other standards determined to be inadequate must be revised at a rate of one a year 3 . The proposed PM standards could again make California the national leader in air quality standards to protect public health – but not if the air polluters’ lobby gets its way.
The Western States Petroleum Association, the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, the Engine Manufacturers Association and other industry groups and individual companies have mounted a well-financed major campaign against the proposed 

## Hundreds of studies worldwide confirm that exposure to particulate pollution at levels lower than millions of Californians

breathe can cause death.

### 10 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP standards. Their tactics are familiar: carping on minor inconsistencies betweenscientific studies, exaggerating uncertainties although PM is perhaps the moststudied type of air pollutant, and drawing on industry-funded studies to dispute the overwhelming consensus of peer-reviewed academic and government research. If their campaign, for which a small army of lobbyists in Sacramento has millions of dollars to spend, is only partly successful in watering down the proposed standards, thousands more Californians will die from dirty air each year. Unlike most other air pollutants, particulates are regulated by size. Particles with diameters less than or equal to 10 microns are called PM10 and are often referred to as “coarse particles.” Particulates with diameters less than or equal Table 3. Costs Associated With PM10-related Illness in California.

Source: ARB/OEHHA 2001, EWG 2002, Abt 2000, U.S. Census 2000. Notes: 1) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 6.02 days with a mean charge of $11,722 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 2) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 7.01 days with a mean charge of $13,929 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 3) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 5.44 days with a mean charge of $17,794 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 4) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 3.03 days with a mean charge of $6,303 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 5) The average asthma ER visit cost is $299 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 6) The median per-day income of California residents in the year 2000 was $180. (US Census 2002) Ages Considered Number at Current PM10 Level Cost at Current PM10 Level (1999 $) Number Avoided Under Proposed New Standards Savings Under Proposed New

Standards
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hos p ital Admissions 1 65+ 2,115 $24,792,990 1,192 $13,972,624

Pneumonia Hospital Admissions 2 65+ 3,061 $42,639,263 1,721 $23,971,809

Cardiovascular Disease Hospital Admissions 3 65+ 5,452 $34,362,621 3,057 $19,268,271

Asthma Hospital Admissions 4 64- 1,624 $28,904,937 933 $16,601,802

Asthma Emergency Room Visits 5 64- 3,992 $1,193,527 2,301 $687,999

Work Loss Days 6 64- 4,910,652 $883,917,360 2,814,815 $506,666,700

Total 4,926,896 $1,015,810,698 2,824,019 $581,169,205

### 11 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP to 2.5 microns are called PM2.5 and are often referred to as “fine particles.” (A single human hair has a diameter of 50 to 100 microns.) California’s current standards regulate only PM10, but the proposed new standards would also cover PM2.5. PM contains heavy metals, nitrates, sulfates, aerosols and other toxic chemicals, as well as ordinary soot, soil, dust and smoke from both man-made and natural sources, including cars, industrial pollution and unpaved roads. Recent research suggests that PM from industrial and other man-made sources is more harmful to human health than dust from natural sources. (See Chapter 3.) The makeup of PM pollution varies considerably among different locations and at different times of the year (or even day) in the same location. As a result, two areas in California with the same level of particulates in the air may have distinctly different PM problems, and within counties where overall PM levels are relatively low, individual cities or neighborhoods may be exposed to high levels. Although annual average PM levels have declined in recent years, only small, mostly rural Lake County is in full compliance with current state standards. Statewide, total PM emissions are on the rise, and the great majority of Californians are exposed to potentially harmful levels:

♦ Over 99 percent of Californians breathe air that violates the current PM10 standards during at least part of the year. (ARB/ OEHHA 2000.)

♦ Fifty-five of fifty-eight counties have average annual PM10 concentrations that exceed the proposed standards and fourteen counties (or portions of counties) have average annual concentrations that are at least twice as high, based on the last three years of ARB monitoring data 4. (Table 4.)

♦ Forty-three counties (or portions of counties) have average annual PM2.5 concentrations that exceed the proposed standards, based on the last two years of ARB monitoring data 5

. (Table 4.)

Preventing deaths and asthma The worst particulate pollution in the state is found in Imperial County (and an adjoining part of Riverside County). But far more Californians are affected by the severe problems in the South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties) which consistently records the highest PM levels of any U.S. metro area, and the eight-county San Joaquin Valley, which ranks among the six worst air basins in the country for particulate pollution. (Grossi 2002, Table 4.) Considering the same factors state scientists used in calculating statewide PM-related deaths and illnesses, EWG estimates that the proposed new standards could prevent or delay more than 4,200 deaths a year in the South Coast Air Basin, and more than 800 deaths a year in 

## The Los Angeles– Riverside metro area has the worst particulate air pollution in the U.S., and the San Joaquin Valley's problem is also among the worst.

### 12 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP Table 4. 55 of California's 58 counties are not in full compliance with existing PM standards.
Source: EWG, from ARB/ OEHHA 2001. County Portion of County* PM10 Annual Average ( u g /m 3 ) ** PM2.5 Annual Average ( u g /m 3 ) *** Alameda 21.7 15.8 Al p ine 16.7 8.5 Amador 23.0 16.6 Butte 24.5 12.3 Calveras 23.0 16.6 Colusa 24.5 12.3 Contra Costa 21.7 15.8 Del Norte 17.5 7.5
El Dorado Lake Tahoe Basin 20.8 7.5

El Dorado Mountain Counties Basin 23.0 16.6
Fresno 39.5 22.3 Glenn 24.5 12.3 Humbolt 17.5 7.5 Im p erial 70.2 13.1 In y o 16.7 8.5 Kern Mojave Basin 21.6 10

Kern San Joaquin Basin 39.5 22.3
Kin g s 39.5 22.3 Lake 10.8 ≤ 5 Lassen 13.0 ≤ 5 Los Angeles Mojave Basin 21.6 10
Los Angeles South Coast Basin 40.7 22.2
Madera 39.5 22.3 Marin 21.7 15.8 Mari p osa 23.0 16.6 Mendocino 17.5 7.5 Merced 39.5 22.3 Modoc 13.0 ≤ 5 Mono 16.7 8.5 Montere y 24.2 7.5 Na p a 21.7 15.8 Nevada 23.0 16.6 Oran g e 40.7 22.2
Placer Lake Tahoe Basin 20.8 7.5

Placer Sac Valley Basin 24.5 12.3
Plumas 23.0 16.6 Riverside Mojave Basin 21.6 10

Riverside Salton Sea Basin 70.2 13.1

Riverside South Coast Basin 40.7 22.2
Sacramento 24.5 12.3 San Benito 24.2 7.5 San Bernardino Mojave Basin 21.6 10

San Bernardino South Coast Basin 40.7 22.2
San Die g o 28.8 15.6 21.7 15.8 San Joa q uin 39.5 22.3 23.0 11.8 San Mateo 21.7 15.8 23.0 11.8 Santa Clara 21.7 15.8 Santa Cruz 24.2 7.5 Shasta 24.5 12.3 Sierra 23.0 16.6 Siski y ou 13.0 ≤ 5
Solano Sac Valley Basin 24.5 12.3

Solano San Francisco Basin 21.7 15.8

Sonoma North Coast Basin 17.5 7.5

Sonoma San Francisco Basin 21.7 15.8
Stanislaus 39.5 22.3 Sutter 24.5 12.3 Tehama 24.5 12.3 Trinit y 17.5 7.5 Tulare 39.5 22.3 Tuolumne 23.0 16.6 Ventura 23.0 11.8 Yolo 24.5 12.3 Yuba 24.5 12.3 San Luis Obis p o

Santa Barbara San Francisco

### 13 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP the San Joaquin Valley. Each year, more than 76,000 asthma attacks could be averted in Riverside and San Bernardino counties alone. (Table 5.) In December 2001, ARB and OEHHA staff scientists proposed that California’s annual PM10 standard be lowered by one-third, from 30 micrograms per cubic meter of air (μ g/m 3 ) to 20 micrograms, and that an annual state PM2.5 standard be set at 12 μg/m 3 . But the agencies also had to decide about standards for short-term (24-hour) exposures to PM. They proposed to leave the short-term standard for PM10 unchanged at 50 μg/m 3 . They at first opted not to propose a state short-term standard for PM2.5, continuing to rely on the federal level of 65 μg/m 3 . After criticism from an external scientific review panel and pressure from state environmental advocates, however, ARB and OEHHA decided a state short-term PM2.5 standard was necessary, and in March 2002 proposed a level of 25 μg/m 3 . (Figures 1 and 2.) When the ARB directors meet to set the final standards, the stakes are high. If the annual PM10 standard is strengthened only slightly to 28 

### μ g/m 3 , and the PM2.5 standard is set at the federal level of 15 

### μ g/m 3 , as the oil companies and automakers advocate, the result would be 3,000 more premature deaths, 3,000 more hospital admissions, 1,000 more emergency room visits for asthma, 3,500 more cases of chronic bronchitis, and 150,000 more asthma attacks each year than if the standards were set at the proposed levels. For thousands of Californians, it will be literally a life-and-death decision.



## Recommendations

♦ Directors of the Air Resources Board should resist pressure from polluters and adopt both the annual and short-term PM10 and PM2.5 standards recommended by state scientists.

♦ The de facto state exemption from PM regulations for most agricultural activities – a major source of particulate pollution in California – should be eliminated.

♦ To further protect children and other sensitive populations from acute levels of particulates, ARB should also set shorter-term standards for PM10 and PM2.5, on the model of the state’s eight-hour standard for ozone air pollution.

♦ The PM standards adopted by the state should be rigorously enforced. Currently the standards are non-binding, making enforcement inconsistent and ineffective. 

## Gov. Davis' air quality board should adopt

the tougher regulations recommended by

state scientists, and enforce them rigorously.

### 14 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

## Footnotes

1This figure is for estimated mortality due to long-term exposures to PM2.5 air pollution. It is difficult to arrive at an absolute number of PM-related deaths because of overlap in various estimates. For instance, the figures for long-term mortality are believed to encompass some but not all short-term deaths, and therefore estimates of short and long-term mortality can not be simply added together to get an estimate of total mortality.

2 The median per-day income of California residents in the year 2000 was $180 (=46,802 dollars per year / 260 work days per year). (U.S. Census Bureau 2000.) The actual number of work days lost to PM10-related illness is 4,910,652. (OEHHA/ARB 2001.) The estimated cost to the state’s economy is the product of these two numbers.

3 OEHHA categorized the air pollutants under review into two tiers based on the agency’s assessments of potential risks to public health. The first tier includes PM, ozone and nitrogen dioxide. The second tier includes lead, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen sulfide.’ (OEHHA/ARB 2001.)

4 Average PM10 levels were calculated by ARB using the last three years of data available (1998-2000). (OEHHA/ARB 2001.)

5 Average PM2.5 levels were calculated by ARB using the last two years of data (1999- 2000), which is all the monitoring data available. (OEHHA/ARB 2001.)

### 15 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP

### 16 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP

### 17 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

# California’s Particulate Problem

Emissions of particulates have been increasing in California for decades, from 2,017 tons of PM10 per day in 1980, to 2,240 tons per day in 1990, to 2,312 tons per day in 2000. (ARB 2001.) However, the increase has been far from uniform across the state. During this period, PM10 emissions in some counties have remained relatively steady or declined, while other counties have seen a marked increase. For instance, between 1975 and 2000, emissions in San Bernardino County increased by 93 percent and in San Diego County by 70 percent. (ARB 2001.) The increase in emissions comes from many sources, but one clear cause is the ever-growing dependence on automobiles: From 1975 to 2000 the number of vehicle miles traveled in California more than doubled, from 351 million miles per day to 800 million. (ARB 2001.)

While the total amount of emissions continues to rise, concentrations of PM10 measured by air quality monitors have actually declined. Statewide, annual mean concentrations measured by the state’s 250 air monitors dropped 20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

### Figure 1. Proposed and Existing PM2.5 Standards

Proposed California Annual Standard Current Federal Annual Standard Proposed California

24-hour Standard Current Federal 24-hour Standard

### 18 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP percent between 1988 and 1999, from about 80 

### μg/m 3 to 60. A big reason for this apparent discrepancy is that most of the monitors are in the South Coast Air Basin, where in recent years progress has been made in reducing PM emissions. Since the current PM standards were adopted in 1982, improvements in air quality have been achieved statewide, but today all counties except Lake County still fail to meet the state’s short-term PM10 standard. (Lassen, Modoc and Siskyou counties lack enough data to measure compliance.) Twenty counties fail to meet even the considerably weaker federal short-term PM10 standard.’ (Table 4.)

Problem areasIn most areas of the state with elevated PM levels, the problem is not limited to shortterm spikes in concentration but is a year-round concern. By far the highest levels are found in Imperial County and an adjacent portion of Riverside County, with an annual average of 70 

### μg/m 3 of PM10 – almost 3.5 times the proposed state standard. But annual levels of 40 

### μg/m 3 or more of PM10 – twice the proposed standard–– are recorded in twelve other counties or portions of counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Merced, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Stanislaus, San Joaquin and Tulare. (Table 4.) PM differs from many other types of air pollution in that it is not a single compound, but rather a highly complex mixture of small solid particles and

Figure 2. Proposed and Existing PM10 Standards.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Proposed California Annual Standard Current California Annual Standard Current Federal Annual Standard Current California

24-hour Standard Current Federal 24-hour Standard

### 19 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP Table 5. Consequences of PM exposure, by county. Source: EWG, from ARB/OEHHA 2001.

County Deaths Due to PM2.5 at Current Levels Fewer Deaths if Proposed Standards Achieved Deaths Due to PM10 at Current Levels Fewer Deaths if Proposed Standards Achieved Admissions due to PM10 at Current Levels Fewer Admissions if Proposed Standards Achieved Visits Due to PM10 at Current Levels Fewer Visits if Proposed Standards Achieved Attacks Due to PM10 at Current Levels Fewer Attacks if Proposed Standards Achieved Days lost due to PM10 at current levels Fewer Days Lost if Proposed Standards Achieved Alameda 317 178 92 13 36 5 89 13 12,944 1,861 142,140 15,940

Alpine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 93 0 Amador 12 7 4 1 1 0 2 1 349 80 3,334 626 Butte 32 3 24 8 6 2 14 5 2,257 704 21,072 5,629 Calveras 14 9 5 1 1 0 3 1 404 93 3,845 723

Colusa 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 209 65 2,053 548 Contra Costa 197 111 63 9 23 3 58 8 8,507 1,223 92,286 10,349

Del Norte 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 160 0 2,156 0 El Dorado 85 52 13 2 4 1 10 2 1,503 304 15,576 2,534 Fresno 311 243 126 83 49 33 121 81 17,894 11,905 138,277 99,442

Glenn 4 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 294 92 2,835 757

Humbolt

0 0 7 0 2 0 5 0 735 0 9,922 0 Imperial 15 4 38 32 17 15 41 35 6,370 5,348 40,840 42,511

Inyo 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 93 0 1,242 0 Kern 223 172 98 61 37 23 90 57 13,296 8,317 106,695 69,919 Kings 40 31 16 11 8 5 20 14 2,898 1,928 23,021 16,556

Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 2,639 0

Lassen

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 78 0 2,061 0 Los Angeles 3555 2,759 1,387 930 599 405 1,469 997 217,366 146,105 1,672,103 1,220,537 Madera 50 39 21 14 7 5 18 12 2,756 1,833 21,026 15,121 Marin 55 31 16 2 6 1 15 2 2,217 319 23,452 2,630

Mariposa 6 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 170 39 1,644 309

Mendocino

0 0 5 0 1 0 3 0 501 0 6,680 0 Merced 79 62 32 21 13 9 32 22 4,713 3,136 36,585 26,310 Modoc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 521 0

Mono 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 1,016 0 Monterey 0 0 27 8 12 4 30 9 4,391 1,318 44,102 11,262 Napa 37 21 11 2 3 0 7 1 1,114 160 11,536 1,294 Nevada 30 18 9 2 2 1 6 1 916 211 8,804 1,655 Orange 956 744 410 277 182 124 447 306 66,218 44,928 506,007 374,751 Placer 25 2 21 6 7 2 19 6 2,733 832 26,429 6,869

Plumas 7 4 2 0 1 0 1 0 207 48 1,981 372 Riverside 583 431 353 256 112 82 272 200 42,149 30,675 296,622 243,660 Sacramento 132 12 106 33 37 12 92 29 13,594 4,238 133,938 35,779

San Benito 0 0 3 1 2 0 4 1 582 175 5,969 1,524

San Bernardino

486 370 231 144 95 60 234 147 34,127 21,263 276,676 180,041 San Diego 560 308 279 131 110 52 273 130 40,465 19,074 358,663 159,824

San Francisco 203 114 60 9 19 3 46 7 6,964 1,001 73,543 8,247 San Joaquin 251 196 101 67 34 23 84 57 12,616 8,393 96,729 69,562

San Luis Obispo 26 0 21 5 7 2 16 4 2,471 581 24,534 4,727 San Mateo 150 84 45 6 17 2 42 6 6,340 912 67,890 7,613

Santa Barbara 37 0 29 7 11 3 27 6 4,000 940 40,532 7,809 Santa Clara 271 152 82 12 42 6 104 15 15,085 2,169 166,914 18,718 Santa Cruz 0 0 20 6 8 2 19 6 2,793 838 28,076 7,170 Shasta 25 2 19 6 5 1 12 4 1,814 566 17,043 4,553

Sierra 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 35 8 339 64 Siskiyou 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 102 0 2,428 0 Solano 60 29 23 5 11 2 26 5 3,790 773 40,655 6,672 Sonoma 99 56 35 4 11 1 26 4 3,938 520 42,970 4,336 Stanislaus 193 150 79 52 27 18 67 45 10,006 6,657 76,857 55,272

Sutter 9 1 7 2 2 1 6 2 877 273 8,519 2,276

Tehama

9 1 7 2 2 1 4 1 623 194 5,802 1,550

Trinity

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 966 0 Tulare 145 113 58 38 23 15 56 37 8,238 5,481 63,764 45,855 Tuolumne 18 11 5 1 1 0 3 1 542 125 5,148 968 Ventura 57 0 47 11 21 5 52 12 7,544 1,773 78,649 15,153 Yolo 15 1 13 4 5 2 13 4 1,874 584 18,826 5,029

Yuba 8 1 6 2 2 1 5 1 669 209 6626 1,770 Total 9,390 6,525 4,063 2,291 1,624 933 3,992 2,301 592,736 338,270 4,910,652 2,814,815

Long-term mortality Work Loss Days Asthma Attacks

Short-term mortality Asthma Emergency Room Visits Asthma Hospital Admissions

### 20 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP liquid droplets suspended in air. These particles may be emitted directly into the air or they may form in the atmosphere from “precursor” chemicals such as sulfur and nitrogen compounds. Substances that comprise PM range from soot, soil, organics, dust, and smoke to heavy metals, aerosols, nitrates, and sulfates. The makeup of PM pollution varies considerably among different locations and at different times of the year (or even day) in the same location. The diverse composition and distribution of particulate pollution makes it especially difficult to assess and control. Particulate pollution comes from both natural and human sources. The five leading sources of PM10 emissions in California are in the catchall category of “dust” – unpaved road dust, paved road dust, and windblown dust together comprise about 55 percent of the total, with construction and agriculture each contributing another 9 percent. (Table 6.) Other significant human sources of PM10 emissions are industrial pollution and fuel combustion (6 percent combined), fireplaces and wood stoves (6 percent), burning waste (6 percent) and vehicle exhaust (5 percent). (ARB 2000a.) Unlike most air pollutants, which are regulated based on their chemical composition, particles are regulated based on their size: those with diameters greater than 10 microns, those with diameters less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), and those with diameters equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). (One micron is one millionth of a meter, and a single human hair has a diameter of 50 to 100 microns.) The human respiratory system can filter out most particles larger than 10 microns. But as the particles get smaller they are

Table 6. Sources of PM10 pollution in California.

* includes cars, trucks, airplanes, trains, and boats
Source: EWG, from ARB 2000.

PM10 Source Tons of PM10 Emitted per Year Percent of Total Unpaved road dust 235,060 27% Paved road dust 140,890 16% Windblown dust 106,945 12% Construction 74,825 9% Farming 79,935 9% Woodstoves & fireplaces 51,465 6% Waste burning 50,735 6% Mobile vehicles* 45,625 5% Wildfires 31,755 4% Industrial 32,485 4% Fuel combustion 15,695 2% Other 11,315 1% Total 876,730 100%

### 21 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP Table 7. Comparison of PM2.5 (Fine Particles) and PM10 (Coarse Particles).

Source: EWG, from US EPA 1996. FINE COARSE Formed from Gases Lar g e solids/dro p lets Formed by Chemical reaction Mechanical disruption ( crushin g, g rindin g, etc. ) Nucleation Eva p oration of s p ra y s Condensation Sus p ension of dusts Coa g ulation Eva p oration
Composed of Sulfate Resus p ended dusts Nitrate Soil, dust, street dust Ammonium Oxides of crustal elements H y dro g en ion Sea salt, calcium carbonate Elemental carbon Pollen, mold, fun g al s p ores Or g anic com p ounds Plant/animal fra g ments Metals Tire wear debris Particle-bound water
Solubility Lar g el y soluble Lar g el y insoluble

Sources Combusiton of coal, oil, gasoline, diesel, wood Resuspension of industrial dust and soil tracked onto roads and streets Atmospheric transformation products of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and or g anics Suspension from disturbed soil, e.g. farming, mining
High temperature processes, smelters, steel mills
, etc. Biological sources

Construction Coal and oil combustion Ocean spray

Lifetime Da y s to weeks Minutes to hours Travel distance 100s to 1000s of kilometers <1 to 10s of kilometers

### 22 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP able to penetrate deeper into the lungs, and are harder for the body to remove. Therefore, over the past two decades, researchers and regulators have focused on ever-smaller inhalable particles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency first set standards for PM10 in 1987 and set standards for PM2.5 in 1997. PM10 and PM2.5 also differ in their sources, how they are formed, composition, and lifetime in the atmosphere. Fine particulates are generated from fossil fuel combustion and other high-temperature processes, are formed from gases which then react and coagulate in the atmosphere and persist in the air for days or weeks. Coarse particulates are usually generated from the suspension of dust from natural or man-made sources, are composed of very small particles or droplets rather than gases, and remain in the air for minutes to hours. (Table 7.) (U.S. EPA 1996.)

Dust in the wind More than 70 percent of PM10 emissions in the state are from “dust,” which includes wind-blown dust from paved and unpaved roads, farming and ranching, and construction sites. Agriculture is a major source of PM10, but its impact is somewhat hidden because ag-related emissions fall into a number of different categories: farming operations, windblown dust, waste burning, industrial processes and farm vehicles. All told, California agriculture produces 459 tons of PM10 a day, or more than 167,500 tons a year. The farm-related particulates problem is so severe in the San Joaquin Valley that the region has repeatedly been unable to meet federal PM standards, and stands to lose more than $2 billion in federal highway funds if the eight counties can’t achieve a five percent annual reduction in particulate levels – the only air basin in the country to be hit with such sanctions. Yet the agricultural industry is exempt from most air pollution laws. The federal Clean Air Act exempts emissions from farm equipment of less than 175

Table 8. Leading Industrial Sources of PM10 Pollution in California.

Source: EWG, from ARB 2001. Facility Name City Tons of PM10 Emitted per Year ADM Inc (Wood Products) Benicia 1,376 US Borax Boron 614 Kern Oil & Refining Bakersfield 544 IMC Chemicals Trona 526 Mitsubishi Cement Lucerne Valley 472 Chevron El Segundo 472 Arco Carson 452 Ampine (Wood Products) Martell 447 Port of Stockton Stockton 436 Martinez Refining Company Martinez 433

### 23 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP horsepower. Strictly speaking, California doesn’t exempt farm sources from air pollution regulations , but does exempt farm operations from having to obtain an air pollution permit – and without the conditions attached to a permit, there is no effective control on emissions. The EPA has announced that it will commission the National Academy of Sciences to study agricultural sources of air pollution, which could lead to full-scale regulation of air pollution from farming operations. Dirty diesels “Mobile” sources (vehicles) contribute about 5 percent of California’s annual PM10 emissions. Passenger cars and light trucks are responsible for about a quarter of this pollution, with most of the rest coming from heavy duty trucks, farm and construction and both commercial and recreational boats. But the bad actor of the category is diesel fuel. Even though diesel-fueled vehicles make up only 4 percent of the 31 million vehicles on the road in California, diesels are responsible for 53 percent of all auto-related PM emissions in California. (ARB 2000b.) And in addition to the adverse health effects associated with all other sources of particulate matter, diesel PM contains many known carcinogens. ARB estimates that diesel-derived PM is responsible for 900 excess cases of cancer per 1 million people exposed over a 70-year lifetime, accounting for 70 percent of the known statewide cancer risk from outdoor air toxics. (ARB 2000b.) Industrial emissions account for about 4 percent of California’s PM10 pollution. The list of the leading industrial polluters includes petrochemical companies like Chevron, Arco and other refiners, but by far the worst offender is ADM Inc., a manufacturer of wood products in Benicia, Solano County, with more than 1,300 tons emitted in 2000. (Table 8.) Collectively, the ten worst industrial PM polluters in the state emitted 5,300 tons of PM10 in 2000. 

## Agriculture is the largest industry

in California and a major

source of particulates, but is exempt from most air pollution rules.

### 24 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP

### 25 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

# Air Pollution, Illness, and Death

Scientists began investigating the link between air pollution, illness and death in response to a number of severe air pollution episodes that sickened and killed thousands of residents in the United States, England and Belgium between 1930 and 1952. Most of the early research looked the effects of very high pollution levels, but more recent inquiry has focused on how low-to-moderate levels of particulates and other air pollutants affect human health. In the past decade the amount of research in this area has exploded, as literally hundreds of studies have been conducted just on the relationship between particulates and death. The scientific consensus is undebatable: Particulates are significantly more harmful than previously realized, and levels well below current state and federal air quality standards can cause or contribute to death. PM pollution has been linked to an array of respiratory ailments in children and adults, including chronic cough, chest pain, breathlessness, wheezing, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. (Abbey et al. 1995a,b, Pope and Dockery 1991, Braun-Fahulander et al. 1992, Hruba et al. 2001, Zemp et al. 1999.) PM also affects overall lung functioning. Researchers have found that levels of PM commonly experienced by Californians are associated with small but significant decreases in the ability of both children and adults to take and hold deep breaths. (Hoek et al., 1998, Raizenne et al. 1996, Ackerman-Liebrich et al. 1997.) Kids + PM = Damaged lungs More troubling, PM can also retard the growth of children’s lungs. The Children’s Health Study, a long-term investigation of the health effects of air pollution conducted on more than 3,500 children from 12 communities in Southern California, found that PM10 and PM2.5 exposure was associated with decreases in both lung function and lung growth. (Peters et al. 1999, Gauderman et al. 2000.) A follow-up study found that children who moved to areas with lower PM levels showed increased lung growth and functioning, while lung growth and function continued to decline in those who moved to areas with even higher PM levels. (Avol et al. 2001.) Wherever the link has been investigated, including many studies conducted in California, the results have been consistent: For every 10 micrograms of PM10 added to every cubic meter of air, symptoms of respiratory illness increase, with some studies showing increases of up to 40 percent. State scientists estimate that more than 13,500 current cases of chronic bronchitis in Californians 

## Relatively small increases in airbone particulates can significantly increase the incidence of respiratory disease and death.

### 26 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP over the age of 27 are due to particulate air pollution. PM is also responsible for upper respiratory symptoms in an estimated 418,000 California children between the ages of 9 and 11, for lower respiratory symptoms in almost 400,000 children between the ages of 7 and 14, and almost five million lost days of work each year for PM-related illnesses 1 . (ARB/OEHHA 2001.) Between 1980 and 1994 the prevalence of asthma in the United States increased by more than 75 percent. (Mannino et al., 1998.) Asthma now affects more than 10 million adults and almost five million children. While the current scientific consensus holds that PM pollution does not cause asthma, studies in California and elsewhere have repeatedly found that PM can significantly exacerbate the disease. Both PM2.5 and PM10 are associated with many different measures of the severity of asthma, including frequency of attacks, increased use of medication, emergency room visits and hospitalization. (Ostro 2001, Delfino 1998, Pope and Dockery 1992, Yu et al. 2000, Gielen et al. 1997.) A study of asthmatic African-American children in Los Angeles found that one-hour maximum levels, 24-hour averages, and multi-day averages of PM10 were all associated with increases in asthmatic symptoms. (Ostro et al 2001.) State scientists estimate that almost 600,000 asthma attacks, almost 4,000 emergency room visits and more than 1,600 hospital admissions each year are linked to PM-induced asthma. PM is also associated with increased hospital visits for illnesses other than asthma. Research in dozens of cities in California and other states has consistently found that short-term PM10 and PM2.5 exposures are associated with hospital admissions for cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases such as heart attack, congestive heart failure, cardiac arrhythmia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. (Linn et al 2000, Moolgavkar 2000 a,b, Samet et al 2000a, Sheppard et al 1999, among others). Overall, these studies have found that for each 10-microgram increase in PM10 levels in a cubic meter of air, hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases rose by 1.25 to 5 percent. (ARB/OEHHA 2001.) This holds true in locations where PM10 pollution was at low to moderate levels, as well as where levels were high. Data for PM2.5 is more sparse, but suggests that incremental increases in fine particulates may be associated with even greater increases in hospital admissions. State scientists estimate each year PM10 pollution is responsible for 2,100 hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 3,000 admissions for pneumonia and 5,500 admissions for cardiovascular diseases. These estimates account only for people age 65 and older, but research has found increases in hospital admissions for these illnesses among younger people as well. (Table 9.) Common sense says that breathing polluted air daily over an extended period of time is more dangerous than exposure for a few hours or days. Observed increases in mortality from short-term PM exposures are three to four times lower than those from long-term exposures. (ARB/OEHHA 2001.) Yet the impact of short-term PM exposures on public health cannot be ignored. ARB cautions that annual PM averages “do not give an accurate indication of the 

## The state's proposed 24- hour particulate

standards may not cover a short enough exposure period

to fully protect public health.

### 27 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP seasonal nature of emissions.” (ARB 2001.) Averaging means that an area could meet annual standards but have significantly higher PM levels for part of the year, and acutely high levels for a few days of the year. Shorter-term standard may be needed A 24-hour standard may actually not be short enough to protect public health, as there is evidence that exposure to high levels of particulates over shorter time periods can have significant health effects. One study found that exposure for only two hours was associated with the onset of heart attack symptoms. (Peters et al. 2001.) ARB says it may consider shorter-term standards in the future. In 1993, Harvard researchers published the results of a 16-year study of 8,000 people in six cities, which found that residents of the city with the highest levels of particulates had a 26 percent higher death rate than the people livingin the least polluted city. (Dockery et al. 1993.) An even more extensive sevenyear study conducted of more than 550,000 people in 151 metropolitan areas found that residents of cities with the highest PM10 had a 17 percent higher mortality rate than those residing in cities with the lowest levels. (Pope et al. 1995.) These long-term studies have convincingly shown that chronic exposure to particulate matter increases death rates, but recent research shows that short-term PM exposure also is associated with increased mortality. Studies in over 200 cities worldwide – cities with significantly different climates, racial profiles, weather patterns, pollution sources and pollution severity – have found a consistent connection between daily PM levels and daily mortality rates. These studies accounted for numerous other factors such as smoking, age, poverty, weather and other pollutants. Dr. James Ware of the Harvard School of Public Health summarized the findings: “The evidence in support of an association between the concentration of particulate air pollution and the mortality rate is consistent, is not affected by differences in statistical methods, and can be generalized.” (Ware 2000.) In assessing the health risks of a given pollutant, the standard scientific assumption is that risks decrease as exposure rates decrease, and that no harmful effects occur below a certain threshold. But PM does not fit this model. Studies show that the relationship between PM concentration and death is not a tapering curve but a straight line – that is, the health effects of particulates are directly proportional to the level of exposure. No exposure level, including levels below current state and federal standards, has been found at which PM does not have a measurable effect on mortality. (Pope 2000, Daniels et al. 2000.) This has important implications for the development of state air quality standards, which are required to determine the level above which a pollutant is known to harm sensitive populations and incorporate a margin of safety to protect them. (ARB/OEHHA 2001.) 

## “The evidence in support of an

association between the concentration of

particulate air pollution and the

mortality rate is consistent."

– Dr. James Ware, Harvard School of Public Health.

### 28 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP Environmental pollutants do not affect everyone equally, but have greater impact on the very young, the very old, the poor, and those with pre-existing illnesses. The highest rates of PM-related death are among the elderly, especially those with heart or lung diseases.

PM and SIDSBut research into PM’s effects on infants and children has found links to preterm birth or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (crib death). Most of these studies have been conducted outside the U.S., but indicate a 2 to 4 percent increase in mortality for each 10 micrograms of PM10 in a cubic meter of air. (Loomis et al. 1999, Ostro et al. 1999a.) A study of 98,000 newborns in Southern California born between 1989 and 1993 concluded that the likelihood of pre-term birth was significantly associated with elevated PM levels during the six weeks before birth. (Ritz 2000.) Some critics argue that PM-related mortality is not a major public health concern, because most deaths are of people who are already ill and only shorten life by days or weeks. Yet in recent years scientists who have thoroughly investigatedthis notion found it wasn’t true. For instance, studies have found that out-ofhospital deaths are between two and four times more strongly related to PM pollution than in-hospital deaths. This indicates that it is not just the critically ill who are more likely to die on days of high PM exposure. (Schwartz 2000, 2001b.) Addressing this issue, the ARB and OEHHA say PM-related mortality is “not the result of just a few days of life shortening . . . it appears that significant reductions in life expectancy may be involved.” (ARB/OEHHA 2001.) Not all particles are created equal. Research indicates that people are much less sensitive to dust and particulates from other natural sources than industrial emissions and auto exhaust. Two studies have found that exposure to particles derived from motor vehicles, coal combustion, and iron and steel manufacturing was significantly associated with daily mortality, while exposure to particles from soil was either not associated or less significantly associated with increased mortality. (Laden et al. 2000, Ozkaynak and Thurston 1987.) Another study was conducted after researchers in Utah noted that hospital admissions and deaths declined following the temporary shutdown of a local steel mill. (Pope 1989.) Scientists then exposed rats to a constant amount of particulates collected before, during and after the mill’s closure and found that animals exposed to particulates collected while the mill was closed showed much lower rates of lung damage and related symptoms. (Dye et al. 2001.) The policy implications are clear: The largest sources of particulates, such as road dust, may not be as harmful as particulates from smaller sources such industrial emissions or auto exhaust. PM-related illnesses carry significant economic impacts. For example, hospital visits for PM-induced COPD, pneumonia and cardiovascular diseases in the population aged 65 and over and visits for pollution-induced asthma in the population under 65 total $132 million a year (Table 3). PM-related illnesses cause Californians to miss almost 5 million work days a year, costing the state’s economy more than $880 million 2 . Considering just these costs, the

### 29 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP price of PM air pollution in California exceeds $1 billion a year. (Table 3.) This does not take into consideration many hospital and non-hospital costs of other minor and serious PM-related illnesses. If California’s air quality met the proposed PM standards, an estimated $584 million could be saved each year, cutting the costs of particulate air pollution by more than half. (Table 3.) And if lower standards were reached, these costs would be reduced even further. By achieving a mean ambient PM10 level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter – just 5 micrograms less than the proposed standards – an additional $200 million would be saved each year.



## Footnotes

1The studies on which OEHHA based their estimates of PM-related illnesses only looked at certain age groups. OEHHA/ARB decided not to extrapolate the results to other age groups and, instead, estimated the illness figures for only these same age groups.

2 The median per-day income of California residents in the year 2000 was $180 (=46,802 / 260). (US Census Bureau 2000) The actual number of work days lost to PM10-related illness is 4,910,652. (OEHHA/ARB 2001) The estimated cost to the state’s economy is the product of these two numbers. 

## Proposed state standards would prevent hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks each year.

### 30 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP

### 31 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

## Particle Civics



# Particle Civics

California has long been a national and global leader in pioneering efforts to improve air quality to protect public health. California developed the nation’s first vehicle emission control program in 1963, instituted the nation’s first heavy-duty diesel truck standards in 1973, and was the first state to sell unleadedgasoline in 1976. California has also been a trendsetter in developing healthbased ambient air quality standards that reflect the most current science available. The existing PM10 standards are a perfect example. In the late 1970s, ARB scientists were among the first to recognize that particulates with diameters of 10 microns or less (PM10) posed more of a human health risk than those with larger diameters. At that time, state and federal air quality standards treated this highly diverse group of compounds as one category called total solid particulates (TSP). But the ARB determined that separate standards were needed for PM10, which took effect in 1982. It took five more years for the U.S. EPA to follow suit, but the federal standards were set 1.5 to three times weaker than the state standards. Since then, entire libraries of research on particulates and health have been published. There is no disagreement in the scientific and regulatory committees: PM has more profound negative effects on human health than ever before realized, and these effects are measurable at concentrations at or below current air quality standards. This research has established that particles with diameters less than 2.5 microns, or PM2.5, may be particularly hazardous to human health, making the need for tougher and more comprehensive standards more urgent. Priority: Protecting kids The need for a revision of California’s particulate standards was highlighted with the passage of the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act of 1999 (SB 25 by State Sen. Martha Escutia.) As part of the Act, the ARB and OEHHA were required to review all existing health-based ambient air quality standards in California to determine whether they protected infants and children, as well as other sensitive populations, with a sufficient margin of safety. During this review, it became clear that the current levels of particulate matter in California were responsible for significant and measurable health effects, not 

## California is the first state to require that air pollution standards be tough enough to protect children, rather than adult males.

### 32 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP only on children but the public as a whole. As result, the agencies made PM standards the top priority for revision. In December of 2001 the agencies proposed that California’s annual mean PM10 standard be lowered by a third, and added a new standard for PM2.5 that is slightly more stringent than the corresponding federal standard. They recommended leaving the short-term standard for PM10 at current levels, and opted not to recommend establishment of a short-term standard for PM2.5. However, after criticism from an independent scientific review panel and pressure from the environmental community, ARB and OEHHA proposed a short-term standard for PM2.5 that is more than twice as stringent as the existing federal standard. (Figures 1 and 2.) The proposed annual standards would dramatically reduce the number of air pollution-related health problems in California. If these standards were attained, thousands of deaths and injuries would be prevented each year: 6,525 premature deaths, 6,903 hospital admissions for respiratory illness, 2,301 emergency room visits for asthma, 7,835 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 338,270 asthma attacks. (Table 9.) Overall, the number of PM10-induced illnesses and deaths would decrease by an average of 60 percent, and PM2.5 illnesses and deaths would be cut in half. Because these figures account only for certain illnesses and age groups, the actual health benefits of reducing PM levels would be even greater. How many will die? If the standards were set at levels slightly more stringent than those being proposed by the ARB, even more lives would be saved and illnesses avoided. For example, if California met an annual mean PM10 standard of 15 

### μ g/m 3 and an annual mean PM2.5 standard of 10 

### μg/m 3 an additional 1,900 premature deaths, 2,700 respiratory hospital admissions, 850 emergency room visits for asthma, 3,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, and 127,000 asthma attacks could be avoided each year. Overall, PM-induced deaths and illnesses would drop by almost 80 percent. The consequences of moving in the other direction, toward less stringent standards advocated by the oil and auto industries, would be deadly. EWG analysis shows that if the annual PM10 standard was weakened only slightly from proposed levels, to 28 

### μ g/m 3 , and the annual PM2.5 standard was set to correspond with the federal standard of 15 

### μg/m 3 , there would be 4,000 more premature deaths, 3,000 more hospital admissions, 1,000 more emergency room visits for asthma, 3,500 more cases of chronic bronchitis, and 150,000 more asthma attacks each year. The question facing the ARB board next month is grim: How many people will California allow to die or become ill each year from the very air they breathe? 

## How many people will California allow to die or become ill each year from the very air they breathe?

### 33 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP

### 34 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP

Table 9. Savings from Reducing PM-related Illnesses. Source: ARB/OEHHA 2001, EWG 2002, Abt 2000, US Census 2000.

PM2.5 Ages Considered Number at current annual average PM2.5 level Cost at current level (1999 $) Number if proposed standard achieved Number fewer if proposed standard was achieved

Percent fewer Dollars saved if proposed standard was achieved Additional number saved if proposed standard was tightened to 10 ug/m3 Additional dollars saved if standard was tightened to 10 ug/m3

Long-term Mortality 1 30+ 9,390 - 2,865 6,525 69% - 1,895 -

Short-term Mortality All 4,011 - 2,066 1,945 48% - 573 -

Chronic Bronchitis 2 27+ 11,409 N/A 5,660 5,749 50% N/A 1,612 N/A

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hospital Admissions 3 65+ 1,243 $14,575,966 642 601 48% $7,529,519 179 $2,098,238

Pneumonia Hospital Admissions 4 65+ 1,791 $24,947,738 927 864 48% $12,914,520 258 $3,593,682

Cardiovascular Disease Hospital Admissions 5 65+ 3,173 $19,999,436 1,646 1,527 48% $10,376,736 456 $2,874,168

Asthma Hospital Admissions 6 64- 950 $16,912,004 481 470 49% $8,550,392 133 $2,366,602

Asthma Emergency Room
Visits 7 64- 2,352 $703,156 1,185 1,167 50% $348,933 330 $98,670

Work Loss Days 8 64- 2,923,535 $526,236,300 175,151 1,445,535 49% $260,196,300 354,479 $63,806,290

Total

$603,374,599 $299,916,400 $74,837,650

PM10 Ages Considered Number at current annual average PM10 level

Cost at current level (1999 $) Number if proposed standard achieved Number fewer if proposed standard was achieved

Percent fewer Dollars saved if proposed standard was achieved Additional number saved if proposed standard was tightened to 15 ug/m 3 Additional dollars saved if standard was tightened to 15 ug/m3

Long-term Mortality 9 30+ 7,470 - 978 6,492 87% - N/A -

Short-term Mortality All 4,063 - 1,772 2,291 56% - N/A -

Chronic Bronchitis 10 27+ 13,530 N/A 5,696 7,835 58% N/A 2,902 N/A

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hospital Admissions 11 65+ 2,115 $24,792,990 923 1,192 56% $10,815,492 463 $5,427,286

Pneumonia Hospital Admissions 12 65+ 3,061 $42,639,263 1,340 1,721 56% $18,664,007 671 $9,346,359

Cardiovascular Disease Hospital Admissions 13 65+ 5,452 $34,362,621 2,395 3,057 56% $15,096,981 1,195 $7,532,085

Asthma Hospital Admissions 15 64- 1,624 $28,904,937 692 933 57% $12,311,563 346 $6,156,724

Asthma Emergency Room Visits 15 64- 3,992 $1,193,527 1,691 2,301 58% $687,999 850 $254,150

Work Loss Days 16 64- 4,910,652 $883,917,360 254,466 2,814,815 57% $506,666,700 953,659 $171,658,534

Total

$1,015,810,698 $564,242,742 $200,375,138

### 35 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP Notes - Table 9 1) The reason why the number of PM2.5-related deaths is higher than the number of PM10-related deaths even though PM2.5 particles are a subset ofPM10 particles is related to the study which ARB/OEHHA based their calculations of long-term mortality. This study (Krewski et al. 2000) found longterm mortality to be assocaited only with the fine (PM2.5) fraction of PM10. Although the other major long-term mortality study (Dockery et al. 1993) did find an association between chronic exposure and mortality, ARB/ OEHHA decided to based their calculations on the Krewski et al. (2000) study. See ARB/OEHHA 2001 for futher details. 2) The costs related to chronic bronchitis could not be calculated. 3) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 6.02 days with a mean charge of $11,722 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 4) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 7.01 days with a mean charge of $13,929 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 5) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 5.44 days with a mean charge of $17,794 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 6) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 3.03 days with a mean charge of $6,303 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 7) The average asthma ER visit cost is $299 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 8) The median per-day income of California residents in the year 2000 was $180. (US Census 2002) 9) The number of PM10 related deaths at an annual average of 15 ug/m3 was not calculated because no studies have been done on mortality where PM10 is less than 18; as a result OEHHA/ARB uses 18 ug/m3 as background level. 10) The costs related to chronic bronchitis could not be calculated. 11) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 6.02 days with a mean charge of $11,722 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 12) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 7.01 days with a mean charge of $13,929 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 13) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 5.44 days with a mean charge of $17,794 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 14) Hospital charge cost only. Mean hospital stay is 3.03 days with a mean charge of $6,303 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 15) The average asthma ER visit cost is $299 (1999 dollars). (Abt 2000) 16) The median per-day income of California residents in the year 2000 was $180. (US Census 2002)

### 36 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP

### 37 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

## Particle Civics 

# Who’s Against Clean Air?

Lobbyists for the petrochemical industry, automakers and engine manufacturers have mounted a major campaign against the PM standards proposed by the Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The dirty-air lobby includes the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, representing 13 U.S. and international automakers; Western States Petroleum Association, representing 36 oil companies; and the Engine Manufacturers Association, representing 27 companies. Individual corporations include ExxonMobil, General Electric and BP (formerly British Petroleum) ranked by Forbes as the second, third and fourth most powerful corporations in the world. According to records filed with the California Secretary of State, 22 industry associations and individual companies opposed to tougher particulate standards spent more than $7.5 million in 2001 on lobbying at the State Capitol. (Table 10.) Most of these associations and companies have full-time lobbyists in Sacramento or are represented by one or more lobbying firms, some of whom employ whole teams of lobbyists. Their lobbying activity is in addition to hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to state politicians made by the associations and companies each year. Just three members of the Western States Petroleum Association – BP, Occidental Petroleum and ChevronTexaco–– collectively gave $175,000 to Gov. Gray Davis in 2000-2001. (CalAccess 2002.)

The truth behind the smokescreen Here’s a sampling of their arguments against cleaner air, and the truth behind the smokescreen:

♦ The Alliance of Auto Manufacturers and Engine Manufacturers Association claim the proposed tougher standards will not “result in any greater protection of public health than the current California standards.” (AAM 2002.) But the peer-reviewed risk assessment by state scientists found that attaining the “recommended standards would result in a reduction of . . . about 3 percent of all mortality in the population above age 30.” (ARB/OEHHA 2001.)

♦ According to the Western States Petroleum Association, “as much or more public health benefit would be gained from uniform reduction targets than from a single statewide standard.” (WSPA 

## Oil companies and automakers opposed to cleaner air gave Gov. Davis $175,000 in the current election cycle.

### 38 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 2002.) But because the heaviest particulate pollution is found in lower-income communities of color, such a policy would perpetuate existing environmental inequities”– as if people who live in highly polluted areas have less right to clean air.

♦ Ford Motor Co. says the proposed standards are “impossibly stringent . . . with practically no hope of attainment.” (Ford 2002.) It is hard to take this claim seriously when the auto industry’s estimates of the cost of complying with other recent air quality regulations have been inflated by a factor of 14. (Browner 1997.) The attack on California’s proposed particulate standards is a rerun of the same special interests’ efforts to derail tough standards at the federal level. In 1996, the U.S. EPA proposed for the first time to regulate PM2.5, after research had shown strong links between fine particles and death. The EPA proposed to cut allowable levels of PM2.5 in half, saving an estimated 35,000 lives a year nationwide. In California those standards would have saved an estimated 2,500 lives. In reviewing the EPA’s 1997 proposal, the Air Resources Board went further, recommending an even tougher PM2.5 standard that would have saved an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 additional lives in the state. Even before the EPA and ARB announced their proposals, more than 650 industry associations and companies banded together as the Air Quality Standards Coalition. The coalition included the National Association of Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Edison Electric Institute, National Mining Association, American Forest and Paper Association, and American Trucking Association. Goodbye to barbecues? The coalition spent $1.5 million on a nationwide lobbying and misinformation campaign, and millions more on industry-funded “sound science” to undermine the peer-reviewed science relied on by the EPA. They spread exaggerated claims about how the proposed standards would impact the American way of life –for example, forcing an end to backyard barbecues. (Skrzycki 1996) Afake “grassroots” group called Citizens for a Sound Democracy targeted AfricanAmericans and Latinos, warning that the cost of new standards was too high for small minority-owned businesses. (Washington Post 1996.) To the contrary, in 1997 EWG found that residents of communities of color in California would benefit the most from tougher PM standards, because people in communities of color were nearly three times more likely to breathe dangerous levels of PM pollution than Californians living in predominantly white communities. Based on then-current population and pollution data, residents of communities of color had a 54 percent chance of breathing unsafe levels of particulates, compared to a 19 percent chance for predominantly white communities. (EWG 1997a.) 

## Residents of communities of

color, who are

more likely

to breathe dangerous levels of particulate pollution, would benefit most from cleaner air.

### 39 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP After the standards were adopted by the Clinton Administration, the American Trucking Association challenged them in court, claiming that EPA had overstepped its authority in setting the regulations and that the agency should consider the cost of compliance as well as the benefits to public health. ATA’s arguments were dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001. The ruling stated that the law clearly established the agency’s right to set standards and that the Act “unambiguously bars cost considerations.” But the Supreme Court also sent parts of the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for clarification. In March 2002 the appeals court affirmed its ruling that “EPA must err on the side of caution – setting the [standards] at whatever level it deems necessary and sufficient to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, taking into account both the available evidence and the inevitable scientific uncertainties.” The unanimous appeals court ruling ended five years of counterattack by the opponents of cleaner air. In that period, according to EPA’s estimates, 175,000 Americans died from PM pollution whose lives would have been saved or extended if air quality goals represented by the proposed standards had been achieved.

Table 10. Opponents of new PM standards spent almost $7.5 million to lobby against cleaner air in 2001.

Source: Compiled from lobbying and campaign finance reports as filed with the California Secretary of State. Available at http://CAL-ACCESS.ss.ca.gov Lobbying Expenditures 2001 Contributions to Gov. Davis, current election cycle Western States Petroleum Association $2,137,100 BP America $1,253,634 $80,000 Chevron Texaco $760,456 $35,000 General Motors Corporation $549,434 Equilon Enterprises $521,600 Ford Motor Company $418,742 Phillips Petroleum $396,143 General Electric $255,774 Nuevo Energy Company $174,207 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. $161,790 Aera Energy LLC $151,466 Occidental Petroleum $135,225 $60,000 Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corp. $120,983 Exxon Mobil $112,937 Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. $85,673 DaimlerChrysler Corporation $51,213 Kinder Morgan Energy Enterprises $44,921 Caterpillar Inc. $41,735 Deere and Company $36,348 Nissan North America $25,156 Venoco Inc. $3,000 TOTAL $7,437,537 $175,000

### 40 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP

### 41 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP 

## Particle Civics



# References

Ackermann-Liebrich U, L Philippe, J Schwartz, C Schindler, C Monn, G Bolognini, JP Bongard, O Brandli, G Domenighetti, S Elsasser, L Grize, W Karrer, R Keller, H Keller-Wossidlo, N Kunzli, BW Martin, TC Medici, AP Perruchoud, MH Schoni, JM Tschopp, B Villiger, B Wuthrich, JP Zellweger, and E Zemp. 1997. Lung function and long term exposure to air pollutants in Switzerland. Study on Air Pollution and Lung Diseases in Adults (SAPALDIA) Team. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 155(1):122-9. Abbey DE, BE Ostro, F Petersen, and RJ Burchette. 1995a. Chronic respiratory symptoms associated with estimated long-term ambient concentrations of fine particulates less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5) and other air pollutants. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 5(2):137-59. Abbey DE, BE Ostro, G Fraser, T Vancuren, and RJ Burchette. 1995b. Estimating fine particulates less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM 2.5) from airport visibility data in California. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 5:161-80. Abt. Associates, Inc. 2000. The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions. Prepared for Clean Air Task Force. Bethesda, MD.

Air Resources Board. 2001. The 2001 California almanac of emissions and air quality. ARB Planning and Technical Support Division. Draft. November 30, 2001. California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Resources Board. 2000. 2000 Emission Inventory. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ emisinv/emsmain/ emsmain.htm.

Air Resources Board. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan for Diesel PM Emissions. Draft. July 13 2000.

Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2000. Adequacy of California’s Ambient Air Quality Standards: Senate Bill 25 – Children’s Environmental Health Protection. Draft. Sept. 12, 2000

Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2001. Review of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. Report to the Air Quality Advisory Committee.

### 42 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP Alliance of Auto Manufacturers. 2002. Review and critique of CalEPA November 30, 2001 Public Review Draft. Jan. 10, 2002. Avol EL, WJ Gauderman, SM Tan, SJ London, JM Peters. 2001. Respiratory effects of relocating to areas of differing air pollution levels. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 164 (11):2067-72.
Braun-Fahrlander C, U Ackermann-Liebrich, J Schwartz, HP Gnehm, M Rutishauser, HU Wanner. 1992. Air pollution and respiratory symptoms in preschool children. Am Rev Respir Dis. 145(1):42-7 Browner, C. M. 1997. Oral Testimony of Carol M. Browner, Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. February 12, 1997. California Department of Health Services. 1999. Major causes of death and death rates by race/ethnicity. Table 5-11. Center for Health Statistics. http://www.dhs. cahwnet.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/vssdata/1999 Data/ 99Ch5Excel/ 5-11-1999Pre.xlsDaniels MJ, F Dominici, JM Samet, SL Zeger. 2000. Estimating particulate mattermortality dose-response curves and threshold levels: an analysis of daily timeseries for the 20 largest US cities. Am J Epidemiol. 152(5): 397-406. Delfino, RJ, RS Zeiger, JM Seltzer, and DH Street. 1998. Symptoms in pediatricasthmatics and air pollution: differences in effects by symptom severity, antiinflammatory medication use and particulate averaging time. Environmental Health Perspectives. 106: 751-761. Dockery DW, CA Pope III, X Xu, JD Spengler, JH Ware, ME Fay, et al. 1993. An association between air pollution and mortality in six US cities. New England Journal of Medicine. 329:1753-9. Dye JA, JR Lehman, JK McGee, DR Winsettm, AD Ledbetter, JI Everitt, AJ Ghio, and DL Costa. 2001. Acute pulmonary toxicity of particulate matter filter extracts in rats: coherence with epidemiologic studies in Utah valley residents. Environmental Health Perspectives. 109 (Suppl 3): 395-403. Environmental Working Group. 1997. Smokestacks and smokescreens. Big polluters, big profits and the fight for cleaner air. Washington, DC. www.ewg.or g/r eports/smoke Environmental Working Group. 1997a. People of Color in California Breathe the Most Heavily Polluted Air. Washington, DC. www.ewg.or g/r eports/ caminority/caminority.html Ford Motor Company. 2002. Untitled comments on ARB/OEHHA Public Review Draft of Nov. 30, 2001. January 9, 2002.

### 43 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP Gauderman WJ, R McConnell, F Gilland, S London, D Thomas, E Avol, H Vora, K Berhane, EB Rappaport, F Lurmann, HG Margolis, and J Peters. 2000. Association between air pollution and lung function growth in southern California children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 162 (4 Pt 1):1383-90. Gielen MH, SC van der Zee, JH van Wijnen, CJ van Steen, and B Brunekeef. 1997. Acute effects of summer air pollution on respiratory health of asthmatic children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 155:2105-8. Grossi M. 2002. Officials pull Valley air plan Move is intended to avoid delay of road-project funds. The Fresno Bee. February 22, 2002. Hoek G, DW Dockery, CA Pope III, LM Neas, W Roemer, and B Brunekreef. 1998. Association between PM10 and decrements in peak expiratory flow rates in children: reanalysis of data from five panel studies. Eur Respir J. 11:1307-11. Hruba F, E Fabianova, K Koppova, JJ Vandenberg. 2001. Childhood respiratory symptoms, hospital admissions, and long-term exposure to airborne particulate matter. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 11(1):33-40. Krewski D, R Burnett, MS Goldberg, K Koover, J Siemiatycki, M Jerrett et al. 2000. Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. Res Rep Health Eff Inst (A special report of the Institute’s Particle Epidemiology Reanalysis Project). Laden F, LM Neas, DE Dockery, and J. Schwartz. 2000. Association of fine particulate matter from different sources with daily mortality in six US cities. Environmental Health Perspectives. 108 (10): 941-947. Loomis D, M Castillejos, DR Gold, W McDonnell, and VH Borja-Aburto. 1999. Air pollution and infant mortality in Mexico City. Epidemiology. 10(2):118-23. Linn WS, Y Szlachcic, H Gong Jr., PL Kinney, and R Zweidinger. 2000. Air pollution and daily hospital admissions in metropolitan Los Angeles. Environmental Health Perspectives. 108:427-34.
Mannino DM, DM Homa, CA Pertowski, A Ashizawa, LL Nixon, CA Johnson, LB Ball, E Jack, and DS Kang. 1998. Surveillance for asthma—United States, 1960-1995. Mor Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ. 47(1):1-27. Moolgavkar, S.H. 2000a. Air pollution and daily mortality in three US counties. Environmental Health Perspectives. 108(8): 777-84. Moolgavkar, S.H. 2000b. Air pollution and hospital admissions for diseases of the circulatory system in three US metropolitan areas. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 50: 1199-1206.

### 44 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP Ostro, B, M Lipsett, J Mann, H Braxton-Owens and M White. 2001. Air pollution and exacerbation of asthma in African-American children in Los Angeles. Epidemiology 12(2): 200-208. Ostro BD, L Chestnut, V Nuntavarn, and L Adit. 1999. The impact of particulate matter on daily mortality in Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 49:100-7. Ozkaynak H and GD Thurston. 1987. Associations between 1980 U.S. mortality rates and alternative measures of airborne particle concentration. Risk Anal. 7:449-461. Pope CA III. 2000. Epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution and human health: biologic mechanisms and who’s at risk? Environmental Health Perspectives. 108(Supp 4): 713-23. Pope CA. 1989. Respiratory disease associated with community air pollution and a steel mill, Utah Valley. Am J Public Health. 79: 623-628. Pope CA III, MJ Thun, MM Namboodiri, DW Dockery, JS Evans, Fe Speizer et al. 1995. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of US adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 151:669-74. Pope CA III and DW Dockery. 1992. Acute health effects of PM10 on symptomatic and asymptomatic children. Am Rev Respir Dis. 145: 1123-8. Pope CA III, DW Dockery, J Spenglerf, ME Raizenne. 1991. Respiratory health and PM10 pollution- a daily time series analysis. American Review of Respiratory Diseases. 144:668-74. Peters A, DW Dockery, JE Muller, and MA Mittleman. 2001. Increased particulate air pollution and the triggering of myocardial infaction. Circulation 103: 2810- 5. Peters JM, E Avol, WJ Gauderman, WS Linn, W Navidi, SJ London, H Margolis, E Rappaport, H Vora, H Gong, Jr, and DC Thomas. 1999. A study of twelve Southern California communities with differing levels and types of air pollution. II. Effects on pulmonary function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 159(3):768-75. Raizenne, M., L.M. Neas, A.I. Damokosh, D.W. Dockery, J.D. Spengler, P. Koutrakis, J.H. Ware, and F.E. Speizer. 1996. Health symptoms of acid aerosols on North American children: Pulmonary function. Environmental Health Perspectives 104(5): 506-514. Ritz, B, F Yu, G Chapa, and S Fruin. 2000. Effect of air pollution on preterm birth among children born in Southern California between 1989 and 1993. Epidemiology 11(5): 502-511. Samet JM, SL Zeger, F Dominici, F Curriero, I Coursac, DW Dockery et al. 2000. The national morbidity, mortality, and air pollution study. Part II: Morbidity

### 45 E NVIRONMENTAL

### W ORKING 

### G ROUP and mortality from air pollution in the United States. Res Rep Health Eff Inst (94 Pt 2):5-79. Schwartz J. 2001a. Air pollution and blood markers of cardiovascular risk. Environmental Health Perspectives. 109(Suppl 3): 405-9. Schwartz J. 2001b. Is there harvesting in the association of airborne particles with daily deaths and hospital admissions? Epidemiology. 12(1):55-61. Schwartz J. 2000. Harvesting and long term exposure effects in the relationship between air pollution and mortality. Am J Epidemiology. 151:440-8. Sheppard, L., D. Levy, G. Norris, T. Larson, and J. Koenig. 1999. Effects of ambient air pollution on nonelderly asthma hospital admissions in Seattle, WA, 1987-1994. Epidemiology 10(1): 23-30. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Income 2000. Median Household Income by State. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income00/statemhi.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information: OAQPS staff paper. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-452\R-96-013. Ware, JA. 2000. Particulate air pollution and mortality- Clearing the air. The New England Journal of Medicine. 343(24): 1798-1799.

Western States Petroleum Association. 2002. Comments on the California Environmental Protection Agency November 30, 2001 draft report. A report to the Western States Petroleum Association [from] Exxon Mobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. Jan. 11, 2002. Whitman, David. 2001. Fields of Fire. U.S. News & World Report, September 3, 2001. Yu O, L Sheppard, T Lumley, JQ Koenig, and GG Shapiro. 2000. Effects of ambient air pollution on symptoms of asthma in Seattle-area children enrolled in the CAMP study. Environmental Health Perspectives. 108(12): 1209-14.Zemp, E, S Elsasser, C Schindler, N Kunzli, AP Perruchoud, et al. 1999. Longterm ambient air pollution and respiratory symptoms in adults (SAPALDIA Study). Am J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 159: 1257-1266.