Table of Contents - Ambient Air - [National Ambient Air Quality Standards](https://publiclab.org/wiki/frac-sand-legislation#National+Ambient+Air+Quality+Standards) - [Air Toxics ](https://publiclab.org/wiki/frac-sand-legislation#Air+Toxics) - Wisconsin State Implementation Plan - Permits - Health (_coming soon_) - _Water Quality Regulations_ - _Non-Metallic Mining Program_ - _Town Ordinances_ - _Miscellaneous_ **** ##Ambient Air ###National Ambient Air Quality Standards The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are comprised of six common “criteria” pollutants which are commonly found throughout the United States and have demonstrable negative effects on human and environmental health: lead, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. The NAAQS (see the [federal register here](http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr50_main_02.tpl)) are reviewed and revised every 5 year, and through monitoring and regulation airborne pollution has progressively decreased since this system was adopted in 1971. The NAAQS are supposed to ‘‘accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge... of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare” from air pollution (Section 108(b)), and thus are dynamic and are expected to evolve with advances in scientific understanding of air pollution effects. “Health” and “welfare” have been interpreted through the NAAQS as a “primary” standard for human health and a “secondary” standard for the welfare of the environment, including ecological pressures. Since the intended purposes of primary and secondary standards are different (human health versus broader welfare), the scientific research needed to determine primary and secondary standards are different. Thus, newly discovered information may prompt a revision of one type of standard without impacting the other. In enforcement, primary standards do carry more weight than secondary standards, though states need to meet both. If an area does not achieve both primary and secondary standards for a criteria pollutant, then it is considered a “nonattainment” area, and the state (or states) where that area is located need to work with the federal government to develop a plan to improve the air quality such that it meets the NAAQS. This usually involves more permit restrictions for certain industries. ####Primary Standards Primary standards are set to protect human health at ‘‘the maximum permissible ambient air level . . . which will protect the health of any [sensitive] group of the population” with an adequate margin of safety (Section 109 (b)(1)). This means that the airborne contaminant concentration limits are set low enough that they protect human health, but are not any lower than is absolutely necessary to ensure a low enough risk of people’s health being negatively impacted by a pollutant. “Risk” in this sense is expressed as the estimated number of persons who will become ill per thousand or per million people exposed. Determining what risk is acceptable is a sociological question as much as a scientific one: they are mortality goal to reduce exposure-related death and illness from the broad population. The NAAQS primary standards are based on scientific health effects studies, but the standards must account for uncertainties in the scientific studies that could potentially underestimate the health effects of pollutants on not only healthy adults but also vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly. Primary standards are written to protect population-wide health, but not necessarily the health of every individual. Primary standards are set purely for health considerations and are not subject to economic analysis or feasibility studies, but the implementation of plans to achieve these standards (see [State Implementation plans below](https://publiclab.org/wiki/frac-sand-legislation#Wisconsin+State+Implementation+Plan) can take into account feasibility based on costs and best available control technologies (BACT). Having adequate primary standards is ultimately more economically advantageous for states because of the reduced heathcare costs of treating exposure-related illnesses. ####Secondary Standards Secondary standards aim to “protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of [the] pollutant in the ambient air’’ (Section 109 (b)(2)). Public welfare includes, but is not limited to ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being’’ (Section 302(h)). Like primary standards, secondary standards are set to ‘‘specify a level of air quality the attainment and maintenance of which ... **is requisite** [emphasis added] to protect the public…” meaning they are adequate to protect public welfare but are no more stringent than is necessary. ####Particulate Matter Particulate matter (PM) refers to airborne particles that can be inhaled. Please see the [particulate matter wiki](https://publiclab.org/wiki/pm) for much more detailed information about particulate matter. The EPA has designated two categories of particulate matter: coarse and fine. Coarse particles have a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (μm), are called PM10, and can be inhaled part-way into the lungs. Fine particles have a diameter less than 2.5 μm, are called PM2.5, and can be inhaled deep into the lungs, into the alveoli. It is important to note that particles up to 5 μm in diameter are considered “respirable,” meaning they can travel into the alveoli and be deposited there, with significant health consequences. Ultrafine particles, which are generally considered to be 0.1 μm or smaller, can even be absorbed directly into the bloodstream. However, there are not federal regulations concerning the ambient air concentration for respirable or ultrafine particulate matter, and they are not often monitored. There is a substantial gap between what is monitored as evidence of air quality (PM10 and PM2.5) and the air quality factors that can impact human health. [![ResirableParticlesImage_AllAboutFeed2012.JPG](//i.publiclab.org/system/images/photos/000/014/312/medium/ResirableParticlesImage_AllAboutFeed2012.JPG)](//i.publiclab.org/system/images/photos/000/014/312/original/ResirableParticlesImage_AllAboutFeed2012.JPG) _image from [Reducing the Health Hazard of Dust in Feed Processing by Giorgio Miscetti](http://www.allaboutfeed.net/Processing/General/2012/3/Reducing-the-health-hazard-of-dust-in-feed-processing-AAF012947W/)_ There are national ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 and PM10, and there are approximately 900 monitors throughout the United States that monitor them. See the [particulate matter monitoring wiki](https://publiclab.org/wiki/pm-monitoring) for information about monitoring techniques. Note that 900 monitors throughout the entirety of the United States creates a fairly sparse monitoring network, so the EPA and state governments rely heavily on contaminant modeling to assess the air quality in a given area. The standards for PM2.5 are in the form of annual average concentrations and daily concentration limits. The primary standards for PM2.5 are: annual mean concentration of less than 12.0 μm/m3, averaged over 3 years, 24-hour concentration of less than 35 μm/m3 for the 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years. The annual mean concentration is calculated by taking the average of all samples that pass quality assurance protocols (known as “credible samples”), for each of the last three years, and then taking the average of those three annual averages. The 98th percentile of the 24-hour samples is found by listing all of the credible 24-hour samples in order of highest to lowest concentrations. The 98th percentile is the 2nd percentile down from the highest concentration, or 98th up from the lowest concentration. For a sample size of 0-50, the 98th percentile would be taken as the highest concentration; for a sample size of 51-100, the 98th percentile would be taken as the second highest concentration; for a sample size of 101-150, the 98th percentile would be taken as the third highest concentration, etc. The 98th percentile concentration for each of three years would then be averaged to assess whether or not it met the primary standard. The secondary standards for PM2.5 are: annual mean concentration of less than 15.0 μm/m3, averaged over 3 years, 24-hour concentration of less than 35 μm/m3 for the 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years. The annual concentration and the 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations are determined as described above, under the PM2.5 primary standard. For PM10, both primary and secondary standards are a 24-hour concentration limit. For both primary and secondary standards, PM10 concentrations cannot exceed 150 μm/m3 more than once per year, averaged over three years. This means that a monitor can measure higher than 150 μm/m3 for a 24-hour sample up to three times over the course of three years. For more information about PM2.5 and PM10 standards, here are some useful resources: - http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/ - http://www3.epa.gov/pm/fastfacts.html - http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_index.html As mentioned above, if an area’s measured air does not meet the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants, it is considered “not in attainment” of those standards, and the state must work with the federal EPA to create a plan on how it will reach attainment with the standards. It is important to note that **the process of determining whether or not a state is in attainment can be very slow**. It requires at least three years of data, plus the time for coordination of a study, data quality assessment, and discussion of results. To officially demonstrate that a state is in nonattainment or is out of compliance with their state implementation plans can take an exhaustive amount of data. Often it is less difficult and more timely to demonstrate if a company is out of compliance with its emissions permit. ###Air Toxics In addition to the six criteria pollutants regulated through the [NAAQS](https://publiclab.org/wiki/frac-sand-legislation#National+Ambient+Air+Quality+Standards), the federal government regulates emissions of 187 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) also known as “air toxics.” Air toxics emissions limits are set to protect against “adverse environmental effects … which may reasonably be anticipated to wildlife … or significant degradation to environmental quality ([EPA Air Toxics](http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112a_def.html)).” The list of federal air toxics can be found [here](http://www.epa.gov/haps/initial-list-hazardous-air-pollutants-modifications). An important difference between NAAQS and HAPs regulations is that for NAAQS, the _exposure_ is regulated (i.e. the ambient air concentrations) not specific emissions, which are dealt with in state implementation plans and permitting; for HAPs _emissions_ are regulated but exposure is not. In some ways this makes logical sense to regulate pollution at its source rather than regulating results down the road. Simultaneously, it means that cumulative exposures to HAPs are almost certainly underestimated in areas where there are multiple emissions sources (like industrial zones, or more poignantly, residential neighborhoods amidst industrial clusters). States are tasked with the responsibility to enforce air toxics regulations, like they are tasked with implementation of NAAQS. States also may adopt and enforce stricter regulations on the federally recognized HAPs, and states may recognize additional chemicals that are not on the federal list. At least six states have adopted respirable crystalline silica as a hazardous air pollutant. For more information about these silica regulations, please see the [silica monitoring wiki](https://publiclab.org/wiki/pm-silica-monitoring). ####Monitoring and Reporting Another important difference between HAPs and NAAQS is that HAPs are not routinely monitored by government agencies. Federal and state environmental agencies do not have the physical or financial capacity to adequately measure air toxics throughout the country, and thus rely on emissions estimates and some emissions monitoring by industrial personnel. In order to apply for a new industrial permit, a proposed facility owner must calculate their estimated HAPs emissions, and they must comply with federal and state HAPs emissions limits. If the industry estimates that they will emit less than 10 tons per year of a single HAP and less than 25 tons per year cumulatively of HAPs, then by federal regulations, they do not need to monitor and report their HAPs emissions (though some states have stricter rules). For facilities that do emit more than 10 tons per years of a single HAP or 25 tons per year of combined HAPs, they must self-report their emissions to the state agency and the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). It does not come as a surprise that the EPA has found that “recent monitoring shows that facilities typically emit more HAP emissions than they actually report ([EPA NEI](http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiative-cutting-hazardous-air-pollutants)).” ####National Air Toxics Assessment The EPA recently conducted a National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) based on available HAPs emissions data and pollutant modeling. EPA compiled emissions data from state agencies and industrial facility self-reported emissions data in the [National Emissions Inventory](http://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory), which is updated approximately every three years. The purpose of the NATA is to provide to the public very broad estimations of exposure risk to toxic air pollutants in different parts of the country, but it should **not** be interpreted as explicit exposure data. The NATA webpage has useful sections discussing the [limitations of the assessment](http://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/nata-limitations), mostly deriving from lack of data, and clearly states “EPA suggests that the results of this assessment be used cautiously, as the overall quality and uncertainties of the assessment will vary from location to location as well as from pollutant to pollutant.” While it is good, responsible communication for the EPA to be so clear about the limitations of their assessment, it is also a very clear indication that the public does not have access to information to adequately assess and advocate for public health. A modeling parameter that is often overlooked by persons unfamiliar with computer modeling is the _resolution_ of the model. The federal EPA, with access to all of the possible emissions data and any relevant ambient air data, and using the best modeling techniques, is still quite limited in their ability to assess air quality conditions on a geographic scale that would be relevant to most individuals. For example, one of the primary modeling techniques (CMAQ) used in the NATA uses a 12 km x 12 km grid resolution. When looking at the entirety of the continental United States, a 12 km x 12 km grid looks fairly high resolution. However, as an individual standing on a street corner and concerned about their air quality, realizing that the modeling (not even actual measured data) blankets a 55 square-mile area with the same air quality conditions, might highlight for the individual the uncertainty of the modeling projections. The NATA does have finer resolution than the base CMAQ modeling because [it combines CMAQ with AERMOD](http://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2011-nata-assessment-methods), which has five data points within the 12 km x 12 km CMAQ grid. However, AERMOD has other drawbacks including non-conservation of mass. The combination modeling used in NATA is state-of-the-art based on available data, but its uncertainties and geographic scale limitations highlight the inability of the individual to learn relevant information about their daily exposure. ####Categories of Hazardous Air Pollutants Various national and international agencies categorize pollutants based on epidemiological information indicating whether or not they cause cancer in humans. The EPA maintains the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) about health effects of various chemicals in the environment, and IRIS uses the following classification scheme: - Group A: Carcinogenic to humans - Group B: Likely to be carcinogenic to humans - Group C: Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential - Group D: Inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential - Group E: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans State agencies can adopt these categories in hazardous air pollutant classifications. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has labeled respirable crystalline silica as “carcinogenic to humans” (see the [comprehensive IARC report](http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100C/mono100C-14.pdf)), and at least six U.S. states have adopted this categorization as well. ####Additional Resources Additional accessible information about air toxics can be found at: - http://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/nata-frequent-questions - http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ - http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/def/hap_method.html - http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/enforcement-basic-information ####Visible Emissions epa method 9, 22 -- opacity -- regional haze ###Wisconsin State Implementation Plan for Air Quality Standards **General Administrative Codes (Chapters 100-199)** **Air Pollution Control Administrative Codes (Chapters 400-499)** #####Permitting Process ####Additional steps other states have taken for air quality relevant to frac sand mining and processing link to silica monitoring page ###Health **PM4 Regulations** **Silicosis** **Group 1 Carcinogen**