Increased air testing looms in Fairbanks’ future
Published Sunday, March 23, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!A state air quality specialist said Wednesday that the borough should consider refining a comprehensive testing regime aimed at pinning down the source of Fairbanks’ most common type of air pollution.
The specialist, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Air Quality Director Tom Chapple, told transportation officials the wintertime testing plan, rolled out by the Fairbanks North Star Borough earlier this winter, may place too little emphasis on actually reducing pollution in the near future.
The list is aimed at preparing for yet-to-be-identified restrictions targeting a classification of air pollution termed “particulate” pollution. The regulations could cover emissions from certain types of home heating systems, cars or industry and would be needed in the next few years to meet stringent federal air quality standards.
The borough’s tentative testing schedule would run through next winter and include 14 individual steps. The steps range from tests of tailpipe emissions to space-heating systems. The $2 million cost would be funded through federal transportation grants.
Chapple acknowledged that Fairbanks officials need to develop “some level of confidence” of the precise sources of the air pollution before they can create solutions. He said the pollution problem in Fairbanks is complex.
“We’re trying to tackle some questions here that haven’t been answered elsewhere in the country,” Chapple said, speaking at a Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System Policy Committee meeting Wednesday.
Borough Mayor Jim Whitaker said air quality specialists from the local level, the state and the Environmental Protection Agency contributed to the proposed testing regime but that he would be open to input from more specialists. He said all three agencies want the pollution testing to be thorough enough that its conclusions can withstand scrutiny from other agencies.
“I’ve learned a long time ago that we’re much better off increasing the probability of having a successful outcome by utilizing the information than relying on guesswork,” Whitaker said.
Chapple said local officials shouldn’t wait too long before taking steps to actually reduce pollution, suggesting each study on the list will, in itself, raise more questions that need to be addressed. He suggested the borough look to spend some of the $2 million study to prepare steps aimed at directly reducing pollution.
Particulate pollution consists largely of bits of airborne dust tiny enough — a fraction of the diameter of a human hair — to find their way deep into the lungs when inhaled during normal breathing. Three years ago, the EPA tightened the permissible level of particulates in a community’s atmosphere, a change that left Fairbanks facing the significant challenge of cleaning up its air space.
Contact staff writer Christopher Eshleman at 459-7582.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
That's right the EPA has moved the Goal Post's.
Fairbanks was recently placed in maintenance status regarding CO emissions.
Meeting the CO compliance and being placed in maintenance category status had nothing to do with implentation of IM testing, or regulations but nature alone without any cost's imposed on society reduced the number and length of inversions within the community which in turn reduced the chance for exceeding the CO standards.
Having said that now the EPA has changed the standards for Particulate matter which is not only produced by diesel, wood, and but can also just be dust blowing in the wind.
I also find it interesting that nearly all the testing stations are within just a few miles of power plants and each other. This hardly seems representative of the community as a whole. Instead I believe that the locations are confined to close to each other and would not give a good representation of all of Fairbanks air quality.
Another interesting note:
When the State reports to the EPA that they have found a non-attainment location they get additional funding from the Federal government.....bias testing/location placment anyone?
What a scam! They already know that the particulates come from the burning of high-sulfur heating oil and wood stoves. Banning the use of either is out of the question in our arctic climate. If the borough were to start enforcing the burning ban with heating oil at $3.60 a gallon there would be riots at the assembly meeting.
Anchorage does not have a particulate problem. The reason is simple, they heat their homes with natural gas, which emits no particulates. If the legislature can get a gas pipeline to Fairbanks we will no longer have a particulate problem either and will have wasted another $2 million dollars
I certainly hope that none of the $2 million dollars is coming out of my property taxes. This study is essentially a jobs program for the air quality staff that would have been out of a job next year when the I/M program ends.
Comments about the EPA standards and moving the goal post suggest that foreign dust, volcanic ash and just road dust are causing many places in Alaska to fail the new attainment standards (prior to the new standard all of Alaska was in attainment).
The comments then go on about how more studies and more testing should be conducted. Out of the whole comments to the EPA there was no suggestions of how they might correct for the conditions for which they are concerned about.
As far as I could tell, based on the information provided the only way to meet attainment would to pave every inch of Alaska to prevent the wind from dispersing dust throughout the communities.
Or digging up all surface dust and returning it to the country of origin with a bill for the cost of reclamation....or maybe everyone should be required to live in bubble suits since many of the contaminants are of natural origin and cannot be managed....
fairbanks has weather conditions that no other city that the epa covers has to face. mainly it is those winter inversion layers in ultra cold temps. everyone knows this. any human activity is going to create problems in those conditions. are there any solutions short of depopulating fairbanks?
The reason the EPA "moved the goal posts" is because the latest research has demonstrated that small particulate air pollution is more harmful than previously realized. That is why the switch was made to ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel as well (which I believe is a good thing given that many diesel truck owners in Fairbanks seem to forget how to turn off their trucks for 6 months of the year). As an asthmatic who has enough challenges breathing, I am glad the EPA and the DEC are taking steps to improve the air quality of Fairbanks. And blaming the problem on foreign dust, without acknowledging that local pollution sources are a big part of the problem is wishful thinking.
AKhusky Go read it for yourself.
I didn't just pull that out of my A__.
The comments about dust, volcanoe ash etc..
That information was on the State of Alaska DEC website.
I am sorry to here you have Asthma, but does this mean we must regulate to the lowest common Denominator?
Not everyone is affected and the latest studies are still limited in scope to give us a real picture of causualty much less causation of human illness related to particle inhalation.
Look,
Basically this attainment none attainment crap is about money being able to claim non-attainment gets more money from the feds for more measuring and studies, claiming attainment reduces or eliminates funding = bad.
Honestly, there should be measuring stations, daily warnings should be disseminated when needed to allow people to take precautions.
All measurements should be collected and a time weighted average for a complete year of all measurements should be the determining factor to conclude that a community overall has or hasn't obtained attainment.
I bet if a time weighted average for the whole year of all measurements were taken and days that forest fires and other natural weather occurences (out of the control human beings at present) were removed from the yearly average FNSB and Alaska for that matter would never be marked as non attainment area.
Right now that isn't the case but it really should be. It would eliminate funding from the FEDS (our other pocket) and onerous regulations,taxes,or licensing that likely are being developed even now, none of which would create a measurable benefit or effect.
User6244:
I looked at the information on the DEC website. I do not argue that dust, volcanic ash, and other sources of particulate matter are an issue in Alaska. I know first hand that pollen and dust present in the interior in the spring and summer can be problematic. I also do not dispute that money is ultimately the issue (access to federal highway dollars). However, if that is the hook that makes a community pay attention to its air quality (or lack of it), then so be it.
In the Fairbanks area, the issue is mostly one of FINE particulate matter (PM 2.5) that is created primarily through the combustion process (e.g. coal-fired power plants; automobile engines; home heating systems—oil and wood; and yes, forest fires). I understand your argument for averaging particulate levels over a longer time period (you suggested a year), and that would certainly reduce the number of days that Fairbanks or the FNSB are in non-attainment.
I disagree with that approach because it serves to mask the problem that exists during the winter when non-attainment is due to human activities. My non-scientific nose and eyes tell me that air quality in the Fairbanks area has declined noticeably in the last 3 or so years since fuel oil prices have risen so drastically. It is more often than not that I smell smoke in the air, and see a blue haze. Long-term exposure (all winter, year-after-year) to particulate levels that are noticeable without scientific equipment can not be good for anyone, with or without bad lungs. I would prefer to err on the side of caution and control fine particulates, than to be told after the fact that my risk to cancer and heart disease have been significantly elevated because no action was taken to control particulate matter in my community. To this end, I deliberately did not use my back-up wood stove, much to the chagrin of my wife (I made the assumption that my Monitor heater emits fewer particulates than my low tech wood stove).
Okay so you would like to err on the side of caution.
So what is it that you suggest be done?
Ban the use of wood stoves?
Increase the cost of oil to 5 dollars a gallon?
Trap more animals for there fur so you we can turn the thermostat down below 65?
Require people to live in corporate housing near there place of work?
Require everyone to upgrade there furnace?
If you can't aford it, will the state and feds redistribute wealth to allow them to be obtained freely ( well at least free for those who can jump through all the hoops like a well trained dog)?
Sue other Countries, sue the manufacturers of vehicles, (this will be of course to aid in redistribution of wealth)?..
The DEC sure didn't have answers short more grants and more sniffers and people to watch the sniffers...
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.