If Springfield’s air is already polluted, how can the EPA permit more new air pollution?
I can’t answer this question; but it is what I’m wondering.
Look @ this chart, that graphs the amount of smog (also known as “PM 2.5″) Springfield enjoyed last year:
Visualize a horizontal line @ 15 “um/g 3 LC”; b/c that’s where the blue line should be. Here’s the EPA’s legal definition of how much “PM 2.5″ is allowed in our air:
You’ll notice the EPA averages the “PM 2.5″ over 3 years, so let’s look at how much “PM 2.5″ Springfield enjoyed in 2010 & 2009:
In tomorrow’s post, I will present and contemplate the #s found in these MA DEP reports.
Before I go, though, I read this last night in the latest “amcoutdoors,” the magazine of the Appalachian Mountain Club:
“AMC is moving forward with legal action regarding the EPA’s 2008 Federal Ozone Air Quality Standards. AMC and others are reactivating the original 2008 lawsuit against the EPA for its issuance of an unacceptable standard at 75 parts per billion (ppb), when health science supports a standard in the 60 to 70 ppb range. In addition, the suit will address the inaction on adopting a meaningful secondary ozone standard to protect plants and forest, as supported by EPA’s own science staff. The filing is part of a joint action with AMC, EarthJustice, the American Lung Association, and others.”
Read more about the AMC’s legal action—which interests me, b/c it 1) is by activist standards, a very conservative organization, and 2) is working with the Lung Association, whose “F” grade for our air quality prompted me to investigate it.
Related posts:
- How the EPA regulates particulate matter (PM), & how PMed is Springfield
- Using EPA & MA DEP data & reports to understand our air quality
- Comments submitted to the EPA concerning the permitting of the Pioneer Valley Energy Center
- Consider: a new oil & natural gas burning electricity-generating plant in Westfield
- Do you know what your air quality is? (Hint: “F”)
