Rationing health protection: a proposal to exempt nuisance dust from US Clean Air Act regulations

Our plain-English summary of Rationing health protection: a proposal to exempt nuisance dust from US Clean Air Act regulations, by T.J. Centner, G. Colson (Journal of Environmental Management, 2013).

The study

• Authors: T.J. Centner, G. Colson
• Journal: Journal of Environmental Management
• Published: 2013;117:219-25
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

The US House of Representative has passed a bill called the "Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act" (Dust Act) that would exempt most types of particulate matter (PM) in rural areas from the air quality controls of the US Clean Air Act. The Dust Act would markedly change the country's air quality standards. An examination of the proposed provisions shows that they would exempt non-combustion PM pollutants from mining, smelting, petroleum production, and power generation from existing air quality standards. Persons downwind from pollutants generated in rural areas could be exposed to concentrations of carcinogenic heavy metals, asbestos, and benzene known to adversely affect their health and ecological resources. Existing federal air quality standards based on science would be replaced by a flexible standard that rations health protection.

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In plain English

This article was a policy and legal analysis, not a study of people or of measurements. The authors examined the "Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act" (HR 1633), a bill passed by the US House of Representatives in December 2011. The bill would exempt "nuisance dust" in rural areas from the particulate matter rules of the Clean Air Act wherever a state, tribal, or local law regulates nuisance dust. Using the bill's text and a simple formal model, the authors argued that federal standards would apply only when the benefits of applying them outweighed the costs and the dust caused substantial adverse public health and welfare effects. They argued the exemption would reach beyond farm dust to non-combustion pollution from mining, smelting, and oil and gas drilling, and to secondary pollutants from power plants. Asbestos appeared only briefly. The authors stated that asbestos is a natural material covered by the bill's definition, and that earthmoving and mining often release naturally-occurring asbestos, citing other work. The article reported no asbestos measurements or health data of its own. The authors concluded that the bill would ration health protection.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Policy and legal analysis of a proposed US bill, with a simple formal (cost-benefit) model and a worked numerical illustration; no original data collection
• Who was studied: Not a study of people. The subject was the text of HR 1633, the "Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act", passed by the US House of Representatives in December 2011, and its effect on rural areas of the United States
• Exposure: Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) defined in the bill as "nuisance dust" from rural activities. The authors stated that this would include asbestos as a natural material, and that earthmoving and mining release naturally-occurring asbestos and silicates. No fiber types or doses were given
• Main results:
  • The authors described the exemption as applying to particulate matter emitted in rural areas whenever a local, tribal, or state law regulates nuisance dust
  • The authors argued that the bill's exemption is not limited to farm dust but would cover particulate pollutants from commercial and industrial activities typically conducted in rural areas
  • The authors stated that earthmoving and mining often release naturally-occurring asbestos and silicates from soils and rocks. They cited other work (Poulton, 2010) for this rather than their own data
  • In a hypothetical example, an area had 180 micrograms per cubic meter of PM10 over 24 hours: 100 from rural nuisance dust and 80 from non-rural and combustion sources. The federal limit is 150. Under the bill, only the 80 would be counted, so the area would not be classed as a nonattainment area
  • The authors argued the bill would increase the EPA's workload. Depending on how rural areas are defined, the EPA might need to calculate benefits and costs for more than 3000 areas
  • The authors argued that people downwind of rural nuisance dust sources would lose federal protection
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the bill would ration health protection in two situations: when costs exceed benefits even though adverse effects are substantial, and when adverse effects are judged insubstantial even though benefits exceed costs. They also concluded that proponents misrepresent the bill as only an exemption for agricultural dust

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Carcinogenic.

Related studies

• Risk of human health by particulate matter as a source of air pollution--comparison with tobacco smoking — M. Enomoto, W.J. Tierney, et al. (2008)
• The assessment of particulate matter emitted from stone-crushing industry by correlating rock textures with particles generated after comminution and dispersed in air environment — G. Belardi, G. Vignaroli, et al. (2013)
• Asbestos dust concentrations in ship repairing: a practical approach to improving asbestos hygiene in naval dockyards — P.G. Harries (1971)
• Present threshold limit value in the U.S.A. for asbestos dust: a critique — E.L. Schall (1965)
• The legacy of World Trade Center dust — J.M. Samet, A.S. Geyh, et al. (2007)
• A comparison of the results from intra-pleural and intra-peritoneal studies with those from inhalation and intratracheal tests for the assessment of pulmonary responses to inhalable dusts and fibres — G. Drummond, R. Bevan, et al. (2016)

Browse more research in Journal of Environmental Management, or return to medical research.