Home » Air

Category Archives: Air

Green Buildings are Better – Health


Green buildings have better indoor environmental qualities, and deliver direct health benefits to those who work in them or live in them.


Americans spend an average of 90% of their time indoors. Indoor environments with low air circulation can concentrate pollutants 2 to 5 times higher than in outdoor air. Contaminants found in indoor air include organic compounds (e.g. formaldehyde, pesticide, fire retardant), microbes (e.g. bacteria, mold), inorganic gases (e.g. ozone, carbon monoxide, radon), and particulate matter (second-hand smoke, dust, smoke from fires).

Building-related illnesses include infections (e.g. Legionnaire’s disease), headache, nausea, nasal and chest congestion, wheezing, eye problems, sore throat, fatigue, chills and fever, muscle pain, neurological symptoms, and dry skin. That’s quite a list, and it should be apparent that indoor environmental quality is very important to health and well-being.

Green buildings have better indoor environmental qualities, and deliver direct health benefits to those who work in them or live in them, according to a review conducted in 2015. The review looked at 17 different studies of the relationship between green buildings and health. Green buildings had lower levels of volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, allergens, nitrous oxide, smoke, and particulate matter.

The improved indoor environmental quality translated to improved self-reported health outcomes, and improved self-reported productivity. Only one study used objective health outcome metrics, but it is instructive. Thiel et al compared results at a children’s hospital in Pittsburgh before and after it moved from a non-green to a green facility. After the move, there was less employee turnover and open positions filled faster. Blood stream infection rates declined 70% and the number of corrections that had to be made to medical records declined 49%. Not only that, but patient mortality was expected to be 11% higher after the move, because the case load became more severe. However, the green hospital actually had a 19% decrease in patient mortality.

In a more traditional office setting, 263 employees were studied before and after they moved from a non-green building to a green one. After moving, they reported a 56% decrease in absences due to asthma and respiratory allergies, a 49% decrease in absences due to depression and stress, and an improvement in productivity (productivity was measured using an index that does not lend itself to a numerical comparison of before and after).

Thus, the data look promising for green buildings. At the same time, confounding factors could explain some of the improvements observed, and the fact that many studies used self-report data suggests that caution should be used in interpreting the studies. Studies using more objective data are needed.

What about the financial performance of green buildings? The next post will explore that.

Sources:

Allen, Joseph, Piers MacNaughton, Jose Laurent, Skye Flanigan, Erika Eitland, and John Spengler. 2015. “Green Buildings and Health.” Current Environmental Health Report. Downloaded 7/9/2017 from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40572-015-0063-y.pdf.

Singh, Amanjeet, Matt Syal, Sue Grady, and Sinem Korkmaz. 2010. “Effects of Green Buildings on Employee Health and Productivity.”

Thiel, C.L., Needy, K.L., Ries, R.J., Hupp, D., Bilec, M.M. (2014). “Building Design and Performance: A Comparative Longitudinal Assessment of a Children’s Hospital.” Building and the Environment. 78, August 2014, 130–136.
American Journal of Public Health. 1665-1668. Downloaded 7/9/2017 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920980.

U.S. Institute of Medicine. 2007. Green Healthcare Institutions: Health, Environment, and Economics: Workshop Summary, Chapter 4. The Health Aspects of Green Buildings. National Academies Press. Viewed online 6/10/2017 at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK54149.

Ozone Was the Most Important Air Pollutant in Missouri in 2016


Ozone was the most important air pollutant in Missouri on more days than any other. It increased its “lead” over PM2.5, which was second.


The Air Quality Index is a measure that combines the level of pollution from six criterion pollutants: ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and particulate matter between 2.5 and 10 micrometers (PM10). For a brief discussion of these pollutants, see Air Quality Update 2016.

Figure 1. Data source: Environmental Protection Agency.

Figure 1 shows the percentage of days for which each of the criterion pollutants was the most important one. The chart combines all 20 counties together. Since 2009 ozone has been the most important pollutant on more days than any of the other pollutants, and it extended its “lead” in 2016. PM2.5 was the most important pollutant on the second highest number of days. Since 2007, however, the percentage of days on which it was the most important pollutant has been trending lower. One or the other of these two pollutants was the most important on 85% of all days statewide.

Thirty years ago, ozone was a much less important pollutant than it is now. In 1983, it was the most important pollutant on fewer than 30% of the days statewide, but in 2016 it was the most important pollutant on 54% of the days. While we need ozone in the upper atmosphere to shield us from ultraviolet radiation, at ground level it is a strongly corrosive gas that is harmful to plants and animals (including us humans). We don’t emit it directly into the air. Rather, it is created when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (vapor from gasoline and other similar liquids) react in the presence of sunlight. These pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere by industrial facilities, electric power plants, and motor vehicles.

The second most important pollutant was PM2.5 (31% of days in 2016). These tiny particles were not recognized as dangerous until relatively recently, though now they are thought to be the most deadly form of air pollution. I can’t find anything that says so specifically, but I believe the zero readings in 1983 and 1993 means that PM2.5 wasn’t being measured in Missouri, not that it wasn’t a significant pollutant back then. The EPA significantly tightened its regulations for PM2.5 in 2012. In 2015, no Missouri county was determined to be noncompliant with the new standards, however data gaps from sensors just across the Mississippi River prevented determination of whether pollution from Missouri was causing a violation of standards in the Illinois side of the metro area. Thus, the counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, St. Louis, and St. Louis City were all called “unclassified.” Road vehicles, industrial emissions, power plants, and fires are important sources of PM2.5.

Sulfur dioxide used to be by far the most important pollutant. While it has not been eliminated and was still the most important pollutant on some days, good progress has been made on reducing SO2 emissions (9% of days in 2016). For the role of SO2 in background air pollution, see this post.

Don’t forget that Figure 1 does not show the levels of the six pollutants, it only shows the number of days on which each was the most important. As previous posts have clearly shown, air quality is better. As we have reduced some types of air pollution, apparently, other types have become more important.

Missouri has come a long way in improving its air quality. To a large extent, it did so in two ways: by kicking some of its coal habit (replacing coal with natural gas and oil as sources of energy), and by requiring large industrial emitters to install pollution control equipment. We have more work to do, especially with regard to ozone and PM2.5, but it has been a significant environmental success story.

Sources:

Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Index Report. This is a data portal operated by the EPA. Data for 2014, Missouri, and grouped by County downloaded on 11/6/2015 from http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Missouri State Implementation Plan: Infrastructure Elements for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard. Viewed online 3/30/2017 at https://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/adopted-isip-2012-pm2.5-naaqs.pdf.

Few Unhealthy Air Days in Missouri Counties

Figure 1. Data source: Environmental Protection Agency.

In the previous post, I reported on the percentage of days during which air quality was in the good range in 20 Missouri counties. It is one thing to ask whether a county’s air quality is good, and another to ask if it is so bad that it is unhealthy. This post focuses on the percentage of days with unhealthy air quality.

I looked at data from the EPA’s Air Quality System Data Mart for 20 Missouri counties. The data covered the years 2003-2016, plus the years 1983 and 1993 for a longer term perspective. For a fuller discussion of air quality and the data used for this post, and a map of the 20 counties, see my post Air Quality Update, 2016.

The EPA data distinguishes 4 levels of unhealthy air: Unhealthy for Sensitive Individuals, Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy, and Hazardous. No Missouri county was reported to have Very Unhealthy or Hazardous air quality for any of the years I studied. Figure 1 shows the percentage of monitored days for which air quality was either Unhealthy for Sensitive Individuals, or Unhealthy. The top chart shows a group of counties along the Mississippi River north or south of St. Louis. The middle chart shows a group of counties in the Kansas City-St. Joseph region. The bottom chart shows a group of widely dispersed counties outside of the other two areas.

(Click on chart for larger view).

The percentage of unhealthy air days was 3% or below for all Missouri counties . There were no unhealthy air days at all in 12 of the 20 counties. Compared to 2014, two counties in the Mississippi region and one in the Kansas City region showed very small increases (St. Charles, Jefferson, and Stoddard Counties). Jackson County showed a significant decrease and the City of St. Louis showed a very small decrease. The other counties all stayed the same.

It is heartening, and good for the lungs too, that no county in Missouri had a significant fraction of days on which the air quality was unhealthy. The state clearly has improved its air quality.

Sources:

Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Index Report. This is a data portal operated by the EPA. Data downloaded on 3/23/2017 from http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html.

Missouri Air Quality Improved in 2016

Figure 1. Data source: Environmental Protection Agency.

Air quality in 13 out of 20 counties in Missouri improved in 2016 compared to 2014, while air quality in 7 declined. The data come from the Air Quality System Data Mart maintained by the EPA , which contains data on the air quality of a number of Missouri counties going back to the early 1980s. For a fuller discussion of air quality and the data maintained by the EPA, or for a map of the counties, see my previous post.

Figures 1 shows the percent of monitored days on which the Air Quality Index was in the Good Range. The top chart is for a group of counties along the Mississippi River, the middle chart is for a group of counties in the Kansas City-St. Joseph region, and the bottom chart is for a widely scattered group of counties in neither of the other two groups.

(Click on chart for larger view.)

First, compared to 2014, the percentage of good air days increased in 13 out of the 20 counties. Most of the increases were small, but the percentage of good AQI days jumped by 31% in Cass County, by 28% in the Jackson County, by 19% in Buchanan County, and by 16% in the City of St. Louis. The increase in Jackson County is especially notable, as their trend had not been toward significant improvement for several years. It is hard to achieve a very high percentage of good AQI days in large cities, and both Jackson County and the City of St. Louis have made significant progress over the years.

The percentage of good AQI days fell in 7 counties. In three of them, the decline was greater than 10%: Stoddard County (-13%), Clinton County (-12%), and Perry County (-12%).

While the overall trend in 2016 was favorable compared to 2014, local factors seem to have controlled the variation between counties. The overall trend may not be attributable to weather, as it was almost 3°F warmer in 2016 than in 2014.

Second, in almost all Missouri counties the percentage of good air quality days was high in 2016. In no county was it below 60%, and it was 80% or above in 16 out of the 20 counties. As in previous years, the outstate group led in the percentage of good AQI days, which is expected because they don’t experience the concentration of pollution sources that large cities do.

In 2016, Stoddard County and the City of St. Louis tied for the lowest percentage of good air days of any county in Missouri: 64%. For Stoddard County, this represents a significant decline: they had 91% good AQI days in 2015. For the City of St. Louis, however, it represents a continuing trend of improvement from very poor AQI. St. Louis still has plenty of air quality challenges, but we’ve come a long way, baby!

Over a longer term, the chart for the Mississippi counties is encouraging. The lines start pretty low for some of the counties, but have a clear upward trend. The chart for the Other counties is also encouraging. The lines start pretty high, most had an upward trend for a number of years, and in recent years most seem to be staying high. The chart for the Kansas City-St. Joseph counties is more variable, showing yearly ups and downs. When I looked at the 2014 data, the air quality in most of the Kansas City-St. Joseph counties had declined since 1983. In 2016, that trend has largely been reversed.

Source:

Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Index Report. This is a data portal operated by the EPA. Data downloaded 3/23/2017 from http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html.

Air Quality Update, 2016

I last looked at Missouri air quality data through the year 2014. This post begins a series to update the information through 2016. First will come an introduction to the Air Quality Index (AQI) criterion pollutants, then a post on AQI trends over the years, and then a post on which are the most important pollutants.

Figure 1. The St. Louis Cathedral viewed from the Park Plaza on Black Tuesday (11/28/1939). Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Missouri has a notorious role in the annals of air quality. On November 28, 1939, a temperature inversion trapped pollutants in St. Louis; a thick cloud of dark smoke blanketed the city, blotting out the sun. The day came to be known as “Black Tuesday,” and it was one of the worst air quality events in recorded history. Figure 1 at right shows a view that day of the St. Louis Cathedral from (I think) the Park Plaza. More photos are available by searching on Google Images for “Black Tuesday St. Louis.”

Since then, many steps have been taken to reduce air pollution, and air quality has improved dramatically. Has the trend continued, or has the trend begun to backslide?

Since the 1980s the EPA has gathered air quality data from cities and counties in Missouri and maintained it in a national database. The following posts look at yearly data from 2003-2016. In addition, to give a longer term perspective, they include data for 1983 and 1993.

Figure 2. Missouri counties with AQI data. Data source: Environmental Protection Agency.

I have been following data for 20 counties in Missouri. Though the EPA data now includes 2 more counties, measuring began in them only recently, thus, meaningful trends over time cannot be inferred. Figure 2 is map showing the locations of the 20 counties. They can be gathered into three groups: a group along the Mississippi River, a group in the Kansas City-St. Joseph Area, and a widely dispersed group that does not fall into either of the other two groups.

The EPA constructs an air quality index based on measurements of 6 criterion pollutants: particulates smaller than 2.5 micrometers particulates between 2.5 and 10 micrometers, ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and sulphur dioxide.

.

Figure 3. Size difference between human hair and PM2.5 particle.

Particulates are tiny particles of matter that float around in the atmosphere. When we breathe, we inhale them, and if there are too many of them, they cause lung damage. There are 2 sizes: inhalable coarse particles have diameters between 2.5 and 10.0 micrometers, while fine particles have diameters less than 2.5 micrometers. How small is that? The diameter of a human hair is about 70 micrometers, so they are roughly 1/30 the width of a human hair. Figure 3 illustrates the size difference – these are really tiny particles. Recent evidence suggests that fine particles cause serious health problems; they get deep into the lungs, sometimes even getting into the bloodstream. (EPA 2015)

Ozone is a highly corrosive form of oxygen. High in the atmosphere, we need ozone in order to absorb ultra-violet radiation. But at ground levels, it is corrosive to plants and animals, and too much of it can cause lung damage.

Sulfur dioxide smells like rotten eggs. Too much of it causes lung damage, and it also reacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid, one of the main ingredients of acid rain. A series of posts I wrote on background air pollution shows that background levels of sulfur dioxide have decreased over the last 30 years. However, concentrations of it can still build up and affect public health near emission sources.

Nitrous oxide is corrosive and reacts with ozone and sunlight to form smog. It is also one of the main causes of acid rain. Background levels in the atmosphere have decreased, but it, too, can build up locally near emission sources.

Carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change, is not included in the list of pollutants monitored by the AQI.

The biggest sources of air pollution are power plants, industrial facilities, and cars. These tend to concentrate in urban areas, but air quality can be a concern anywhere; some of Missouri’s air quality monitoring stations are located near rural lead smelters, for instance. Indeed, in my countdown of the largest GHG emitting facilities in Missouri (here), I discovered that 7 out of 10 were located in rural areas. In addition, weather plays an important role in air quality. On some days, weather patterns allow pollution to disperse, but on others they trap it, causing air quality to worsen. Hot, sunny summer days are of particular concern, although unhealthy air quality can happen any time. Black Tuesday was in November, after all.

The EPA has established maximum levels of each pollutant, and reports the number of days on which there are violations. The EPA also combines the pollutants into an overall Air Quality Index, or AQI, in order to represent the overall healthfulness of the air. The AQI is a number, but it does not have an obvious meaning. Suppose the median AQI is 75 – what does that mean? So the EPA has created six broad AQI ranges: Good, Moderate, Unhealthy for Sensitive Individuals, Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy, and Hazardous. The EPA reports a yearly AQI number and the number of days in which the AQI falls in each range.

In the following posts, I will update Missouri’s AQI, then the specific pollutants that seem to cause repeated problems.

Sources:

Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Index Report. This is a data portal operated by the EPA. Data downloaded on 3/23/2017 from http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_aqi.html.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Particulate Matter: Basic Information. Viewed online 3/23/2017 at https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Look Back: Smoky St. Louis. This is a gallery of photos concerning the 1930s smog problem in St. Louis. Photo purchased online from http://stltoday.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=896392&CategoryID=23105.

Wikipedia. 1939 St. Louis Smog. Viewed 11/6/15 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_St._Louis_smog.

Invisible Pollution


You can’t always see air pollution in a photograph.


In the previous post I counted down the industrial facilities that are the 10 largest GHG emitters in Missouri, providing photos. Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is colorless and odorless: you can’t see it. What, then, do the photos I posted show? Here are a few more photos and a discussion of what can and can’t be seen in them.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set standards for atmospheric concentrations of 6 common air pollutants (aka criteria air pollutants). They are ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and two classes of particulates: particulates less than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.5), and those between 2.5 and 10 micrometers (PM10). (See here.) They are by no means the only air pollutants emitted by large industrial plants. Among the 10 largest GHG emitters in Missouri, other pollutants include carbon dioxide (of course!) plus as many as 15-20 toxic compounds, most commonly heavy metals like lead and mercury (EPA TRI Explorer). Heavy metals are contained in coal and released when it is burned, and are toxic even in small amounts.

At least 5 of these pollutants are colorless gases: ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. You can’t see them in the plume emitted by an industrial facility (or by your car, for that matter), they are invisible. The remaining compounds are contained in escaping particulates.

So, several of the pollutants can’t be readily seen in the plume of an industrial plant, but they are dangerous none-the-less. Generally, only escaping particulates are readily seen. Lets look at some examples:

(Click on photos for a larger view.)

Figure 1. The Sioux Energy Center Before Dawn on a Winter Day. Photo by John May.

Figure 1. The Sioux Energy Center Before Dawn on a Winter Day. Photo by John May.

Figure 2. Mississippi Lime Co. Ste. Genevieve Plant on a Winter Morning. Photo by John May.

Figure 2. Mississippi Lime Co. Ste. Genevieve Plant on a Winter Morning. Photo by John May.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the Sioux Energy Center and the Mississippi Lime Company Ste. Genevieve Plant. The photos show dramatic white plumes belching from the chimneys of these two plants. Those white plumes sure are dramatic, but they are not the problem. They are mostly steam – water vapor. It condenses when it hits the air on a cold morning, forming dramatic white clouds. The dark parts of the cloud are simply shadow where the cloud has become thick enough to block the sun.

The problem is what is hidden inside the white plume. That is where the air pollutants are. In addition, if you look at the buildings in Figure 2, you can see a gray haze. Those are particulates. I don’t know if they are PM2.5, PM10, or even larger particles, or perhaps a combination of all 3. While taking the photo in Figure 2, I noticed a definite rotten-egg smell. That is usually caused by sulfur dioxide, and it suggests that sulfur dioxide was being emitted by the plant. You can’t see it, however, it is colorless.

The Labadie Energy Center on a Spring Morning. Photo by John May.

Figure 3. The Labadie Energy Center on a Spring Morning. Photo by John May.

The Labadie Energy Center at Dawn on a Fall Morning. Photo by John May.

Figure 4. The Labadie Energy Center at Dawn on a Fall Morning. Photo by John May.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Figure 3 shows the Labadie Energy Center on a warm day in May. No billowing clouds of steam are visible, it wasn’t cold enough to condense them. With the naked eye you could barely make out a slight plume coming from the chimneys. By using a polarizing filter, I could make it just a bit more obvious. Here we have a photo of the real pollution being emitted by this power plant. I think it is probably fly ash – those PM2.5 and PM10 particles the EPA tracks. Figure 4 is a photo of the Labadie Energy Center on an October morning. If you look very hard, you can see a slight discoloration above the stacks, but man, is it hard to see! Unless the emissions are backlighted, or unless the photo is enhanced, it is very, very difficult to see the pollution that belches forth from these facilities.

Figure 4. The Thomas Hill Energy Center at Dusk on a Fall Day. Photo by John May.

Figure 5. The Thomas Hill Energy Center at Dusk on a Fall Day. Photo by John May.

Figure 6. The Hawthorn Plant on a Fall Day. Photo by John May.

Figure 6. The Hawthorn Plant on a Fall Day. Photo by John May.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5 shows the Thomas Hill Power Plant and Figure 6 shows the Hawthorne Plant. The plants were pumping out electricity, which means the boilers were burning, but no plume is visible above the chimneys. The conditions just weren’t right to be able to see it.

If you look at all the photos of power plants, you can see that they share one characteristic: a tall chimney. The one at New Madrid is 800 ft. tall, Iatan, Rush Island, and Labadie have stacks that are 700 ft. tall, Thomas Hill’s stack is 620 ft. tall, the Sioux Energy Center stack is 603 ft. tall, and so forth. Tall chimneys like this are expensive, so there is a reason for them. Most of the pollutants emitted out of the chimneys are poisonous. If they were emitted at ground level, they would blow with the wind and cause harm. In addition, almost all of them are regulated by the EPA. If the chimneys were less tall, there is a chance that the pollution could reach the ground at concentrations still high enough to put the plant in violation. By building very tall chimneys, the company ensures that by the time any of the pollutants reach the ground, they have been diluted sufficiently so that they don’t create a violation. If you look at the photo of the Mississippi Lime Co. Ste. Genevieve Plant, you can see that its chimneys are much shorter, and perhaps that is why I could smell the sulfur dioxide.

In one sense, this is a good strategy: people and property in close proximity aren’t exposed to high concentrations of the pollutants. In another sense, it is a bad strategy: it puts pollutants into the environment, where they accumulate and cause widespread damage. Thus, pollution from facilities here in the Midwest contributes to smog, acid rain, mercury accumulation in fish, and GHG build-up in the atmosphere.

Figure 7. The Labadie Energy Center Seen From Midtown St. Louis at Dusk on a Winter Day. Photo by John May.

Figure 7. The Labadie Energy Center Seen From Midtown St. Louis at Dusk on a Winter Day. Photo by John May.

One final photo: Figure 7 is a photo of the Labadie Energy Center taken on a winter day from the top of a building opposite Forest Park in St. Louis. Expand the photo and you can see the chimneys on the horizon. The plant is some 30 miles away from the camera. The plume rises more than 2,000 feet into the air before the steam evaporates. How much higher than that does the column of polluted hot air rise? I don’t know, but I would expect quite a bit. Even this visible plume dominates the otherwise empty sky and horizon.

These plants come with important economic benefits, which I reviewed in the first post of this series, and we couldn’t do without them. But their pollution is also a big deal.

So, the point is that you can’t necessarily see the pollution being emitted by a large industrial emitter. If the sun is in just the right spot, you might be able to barely make out some particulates. But the other pollutants are all invisible. On a cold day, the plant will emit billowing clouds of water vapor. Water vapor itself is mostly harmless, but it stands as a reminder of the invisible pollution hidden within.

Sources:

Environmental Protection Agency. TRI Explorer, Release Facility Report. Data accessed 12/21/2016 at https://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_release.facility.

May, John. 2015. “Air Quality Update 2014.” Mogreenstats.com. Viewed online 12/21/2016 at https://mogreenstats.com/2015/11/06/air-quality-update-2014.

Wikipedia. List of Tallest Buildings in Missouri. Viewed online 12/21/2016 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Missouri#Missouri.27s_tallest_structures.

Toxic Releases Increased in Missouri in 2013

The last 2 posts have reported specifics on some of the toxic chemicals released into the environment in Missouri in 2013. This post will broaden the view and discuss trends in toxic releases over time.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2015c.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2015c.

To some extent it is difficult to follow trends over time because of changes in the TRI program. Since the EPA began tracking toxic chemical releases in 1988, on 5 occasions the types of chemicals tracked has been expanded, or the levels at which reporting was required have been tightened. The first chart at right shows the national trend in chemicals reported to the EPA over time. The total amount of toxic chemicals reported to EPA peaked in 2000 and decreased until 2009, the bottom of a recession. Over that period, the amount decreased by more than 40%. Since 2009, however, the amount has increased by about 25%.

It is beyond the scope of this blog to explore why toxic chemicals reported to EPA should drop so significantly, then rebound so significantly. If you know the answer, please comment on this post and let us all know.

The chart shows that most toxic chemicals reported to the EPA are used in manufacturing productions (light blue). Next largest is production from other sectors (light sandy brown).

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2015b

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2015b

Well, chemicals reported to the EPA are different from releases, what about releases? In Missouri, releases increased by 3% between 2012 and 2013. Nationwide, they increased by 15%. Nationwide, the increase came primarily from increases in on-site disposal by the metal mining sector. In Missouri (see previous post), the largest increases came from the petroleum and metal mining industries. The second chart at right shows the data for Missouri. It includes only on-site releases, but as they account for 96% of all releases, the chart can be taken as representative of total releases.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2015a.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2015a.

The third chart shows the trend for the United States. This chart shows data for total releases. Both charts only go back to 2003.

(Click on charts for larger view.)

Because Missouri has been losing manufacturing over time, the possibility exists that the decline in toxic releases comes from the decline in manufacturing. To look at this possibility, one would want to plot toxic releases agains the amount of manufacturing in the state. But what is “the total amount of manufacturing” in a state? Is it the tonnage of goods produced? The economic value produced? The number of factories, or their total square footage? The number of people employed in manufacturing?

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2015a.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 2015a.

The fourth chart at right concerns the United States as a whole, and it uses economic value added as a proxy for total manufacturing. It also concerns toxic waste managed (red columns), not toxic waste released. With those caveats, the 2 data series do seem to follow each other, though not quite perfectly. For Missouri I found a time series of manufacturing employment, and I am using that as a proxy (fifth chart at right, red line). The chart considers toxic releases (blue line), not toxics managed.

Sources: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b. Financial Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2015.

Data sources: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b. Financial Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2015.

The chart shows that toxic releases and manufacturing employment do not follow a similar trajectory. Thus, while the decline in Missouri manufacturing may account for some of the decline in toxic releases, the story is more complex.

The fifth chart contains an additional year compared to the second, third, and fourth charts: 2002. Notice that between 2002 and 2003 toxic releases in Missouri increased by 40%. Since 2004, releases have decreased by 37%, but it still only puts us back to the level of releases we had in 2002 – no net improvement.

As I noted in the first post in this series, interpreting data in the TRI is complex. The most serious exposures to toxic chemicals probably happen to people who work with them regularly. You can’t assume that releases translate to public exposure. But you probably can infer the inverse: unless there is a release, the public can’t be exposed. These are poisonous chemicals. Lead, the most released chemical in Missouri, persists and accumulates in the environment and in the human body. It is worrisome to have toxic releases on the increase in Missouri and nationwide.

Sources:

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015a. Toxic Release Inventory: TRI National Analysis 2013.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015b. 2013 TRI Factsheet: State – Missouri. This is a webpage with data released in March, 2015. http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_factsheet.factsheet_forstate?pZip=&pCity=&pCounty=&pState=MO&pYear=2013&pDataSet=TRIQ2&pParent=NAT&pPrint=1.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015c. Factors to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data. http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents.factors_to_consider_6.15.15_final.pdf.

Financial Reserve Bank of St. Louis. FRED Economic Data: Manufacturing Employment in Missouri. FRED is a data portal accessed 12/10/15 at http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=MOMFGN.

Lead Is the Most Released Toxic Chemical in Missouri

In my previous post I discussed the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory. In this post, I will update toxic waste data for Missouri for 2013.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

Toxic releases can occur either onsite at the industrial facility that uses them, or offsite at some toxic materials treatment and storage facility. In Missouri, offsite releases account for only 4% of all releases. Nationally, they account for 2%, even less than in Missouri.

Materials can be released into the air, they can be discharged into surface water, and they can be dumped on the land. The first chart at right shows Missouri toxic releases by release category in 2013. By far the largest percentage, 82%, is dumped on the land.

.

.

 

Data source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

Data source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

Toxics can also be managed by recycling, by energy recovery, by treatment, or by other methods (listed from most desirable to least). The second chart at right shows Missouri managed toxic wastes in 2013. The largest amount is recycled for reuse. The next largest amount is treated to make it less toxic. Note that the total amount managed is more than 5 times the amount released.

.

.

.

.

Data source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

Data source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

The industries responsible for releasing the largest amounts of toxic chemicals are shown in the third chart. As in 2012, metal mining is the largest, accounting for virtually half of all toxic releases, and electric utilities are second. Releases from the food/beverage/tobacco industry continue to be larger than those from the chemicals or plastics & rubber industries, and it continues to blow my mind! The biggest change from 2012 is that releases from the petroleum industry were significantly reduced. Yearly releases from various industries tend to be volatile, so don’t be too aggressive interpreting a trend.

.

.

.

Data source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

Data source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

The chemicals that are most released in Missouri are shown in the next chart at right. As in 2012, compounds of lead zinc, barium and copper are the most released. The amount of lead and barium released actually increased from 2012. Elemental forms of many of these compounds are also released and tallied separately by the EPA.

Chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) are of most concern to the EPA. These are chemicals that remain in the environment and in the body. They build up over time, meaning that repeated small releases can lead to big trouble. Lead accounts for 98% of PBT releases nationwide. In Missouri, lead emissions are driven by mining activities. More lead was released in Missouri in 2012 than any other toxic compound – some 22.6 million pounds of it!

Mercury compounds are also a PBT of concern. Coal burning power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the United States. Nationwide, mercury emissions have been falling, from over 140,000 lb. in 2004 to under 80,000 in 2012. They increased in Missouri, however, rising from 5,004 to 9,850 pounds in 2013. One source in Joplin accounted for more than half of all statewide emissions.

Two other classes of PBTs include polycyclic aromatics and dioxin/dioxin-like compounds. In 2013 522,845 pounds of polycyclic aromatics were released in Missouri, while 0.07 pounds of dioxin/dioxin-like compounds. That may not seem like much dioxin, but this chemical is is toxic even in very, very small amounts. (EPA 2015c).

In the next post I will look at some toxic release trends over time.

Sources:

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015a. Toxic Release Inventory: TRI National Analysis 2013. Available online at www2.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/2013-tri-national-analysis.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015b. 2013 TRI Factsheet: State – Missouri. This is a webpage with data released in March, 2015. http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_factsheet.factsheet_forstate?pZip=&pCity=&pCounty=&pState=MO&pYear=2013&pDataSet=TRIQ2&pParent=NAT&pPrint=1.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015c. Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals Covered by the TRI Program. Web page accessed 12/2/15 at http://www2.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/persistent-bioaccumulative-toxic-pbt-chemicals-covered-tri.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015d. TRI Explorer, Chemical Report.

Toxic Chemical Waste 2013

This post begins a series to update information on toxic chemical releases in Missouri and nationwide. The most recent data is through 2013.

Many industrial processes require the use of toxic substances. These substances must be properly handled to prevent harm to people, land, and water. During the 1970s and early 1980s concerns grew about how toxic substances were being handled. For instance, tons of toxic waste were discovered dumped in the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls. Oil containing dioxin was sprayed on the streets of Times Beach, Missouri, turning it into a ghost town; people can’t live there to this day. In 1984, a malfunction at a chemical plant in Bhopal, India released a cloud of poisonous gas that killed more than 3,000 people overnight, and 15,000 – 20,000 eventually (5-7 times as many as were killed in the 9/11 attacks). Shortly thereafter, a serious release of toxic gas occurred in Institute, West Virginia.

Cement Creek, Colorado, location of a toxic release in August 2015. Photo by John May.

Cement Creek, Colorado, location of a toxic release in August 2015. The natural color of the rocks is grey. Photo by John May.

These concerns are hardly a thing of the past, however; just this summer, an accident at a mine in Colorado released millions of gallons of water contaminated with toxic heavy metals into Cement Creek (photo at right). Cement Creek flows into the Animas River, the only water source for several cities in Colorado and New Mexico.

Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1986, and the Pollution Prevention Act in 1990. These laws require facilities to report releases, transfers, and waste management activities of toxic materials.

The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program of the EPA gathers this information and makes it available to the public on their website. In addition, they publish an annual report covering the whole country, plus fact sheets for each of the 50 states. The TRI data does not cover all toxic materials and all facilities, but it does cover an important set of them.

After being used, toxic substances can be managed or released into the environment. In decreasing order of preference, managing them can mean improving industrial processes to use less toxic material to start with, recycling them, burning them to generate electricity, or treating them to make them less toxic. Where toxic materials are not managed, they can be injected into wells, stored, landfilled, emitted into the air, discharged into surface water, or spread over the land. They can be handled either on-site or off-site. Determining whether any of these activities represent a potential hazard to people, land, or water is complex. One cannot simply assume, for instance, that on-site means safe. On the other hand, one cannot assume that emission or discharge of the substance means that there is toxic exposure. The statistics in the TRI are only a starting point, and many factors must be taken into consideration when analyzing TRI data.

Number of Toxic Release Inventory Sites in Missouri, by County. Data source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

Number of Toxic Release Inventory Sites in Missouri, by County. Data source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

In 2013, 521 facilities in Missouri were covered by the Toxic Release Inventory, and 21,707 nationwide. On the map at right, each green circle represents a county in Missouri, with the number of TRI sites inside the circle. On the map at the TRI website, if you click on a green circle, the name of the county will pop up with some additional information. Unfortunately, the TRI website does not seem to have this map available for download in a form that labels the counties. The three counties with the most sites are Jackson County (45), Green County (27), and Franklin County (24). Having the most TRI sites does not necessarily mean the most toxic releases. One reason is that by far the most toxic waste is managed.

.

.

 

Missouri data in the blue columns should be read on the left axis. U.S. data in the red line should be read on the right axis. Data source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

Missouri data in the blue columns should be read on the left axis. U.S. data in the red line should be read on the right axis. Data source: Environmental Protection Agency 2015b.

.

The chart at right shows the data for Missouri and for the United States. About 84% of Missouri toxics are managed, only 16% are released. For the United States as a whole, a slightly higher percentage is managed, but really, the percentages are similar. Even though only 16% of toxic materials are released in Missouri, that still amounts to 72 million lb. In the following posts I’ll look into the releases in more detail.

Sources:

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015a. Toxic Release Inventory: TRI National Analysis 2013.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015b. 2013 TRI Factsheet: State – Missouri. This is a webpage with data released in March, 2015. http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_factsheet.factsheet_forstate?pZip=&pCity=&pCounty=&pState=MO&pYear=2013&pDataSet=TRIQ2&pParent=NAT&pPrint=1.

Summary of Missouri Air Quality in 2014

The last 4 posts have looked at air quality data for 20 Missouri counties for the years 2003-2014, plus 1983 and 1993 for a longer term perspective. They clearly show that Missouri has made dramatic progress in improving its air quality, but that more work remains to be done. This post summarizes the findings for 2014.

Fifteen out of twenty Missouri counties had no unhealthy air days in 2014. Most never had > 20% of unhealthy air days at any time covered by these statistics, only four did: St. Louis City, St. Louis County, Iron County, and Jefferson County. All four have cut the number to less than a quarter of its maximum value. The county with the highest percentage of unhealthy air days in 2014 was Jackson County, the location of Kansas City, at 14%. While that is a small fraction of total days, the trend is troubling, showing a persistent increase across the entire period (see chart in Few Unhealthy Air Days in Most Counties).

A soapbox moment:

I regard good air to breath as a basic human right. It goes right in there with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” How can you live, be free, and pursue happiness if you don’t have good air to breathe? I very well understand that our air will never be pristine, for there are too many natural phenomena that put gases and particulates into it (like forest fires and wind-blown dust). But none of us should have to live with asthma or chronic lung disease simply because others of us pollute and refuse to clean up our act.

If one takes a very long term perspective, it must be acknowledged that air pollution was not monitored reliably prior to the 1980s. However, the photos from Black Tuesday in 1939 show that St. Louis, at least, has come a very long way indeed. That is very good news for us all. The success our nation has achieved improving local air quality and background air pollution offer hope that we can successfully address other important environmental problems, if only we will.

End of soapbox moment.

Sources:

The data reviewed in this post comes from the previous four posts in this blog, Update on Missouri Air Quality, Air Quality Improves in 2013, Unhealthy Air Days Down from 2012, and Ozone and PM2.5 Are Our Most Important Air Pollutants