FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q: “American Lung Association State of the Air: 2003” shows some improvements in the numbers of Americans at risk from smog. Is that a good sign for the future?

A: No. The slight improvements we see are primarily due to changes in weather—not long-lasting air pollution cleanup efforts. In fact, preliminary data show that the hotter summer of 2002 may roll back some of the improvements highlighted here, changes we’ll note for next year’s report. We can’t rely on Mother Nature to take care of human-made air pollution. We have to clean up the messes we made. The American Lung Association will continue to fight for stronger air pollution control strategies. We need to clean up diesel vehicles and off-road machinery as well as diesel fuels. We need to require that older power plants meet the stricter emissions standards for newer power plants. And it means that we need to promote the use of zero emission vehicles and reduce emissions from other commercial sources.

Q: What does it mean to get an “A”?

A: Any area that received an “A” stayed within the ozone standard during 1999-2001.That means that smog levels stayed within ranges that US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies as “Good” or “Moderate.” Receiving an “A,” however, does not mean that an area is out of danger forever. It means that individuals and industry must minimize air pollution emissions so that air quality does not degrade to unhealthful levels. Also, some very sensitive individuals (e.g., people with asthma) may experience health problems even at levels in the “Moderate” category.

Q: Why did my city/county receive the same “F” grade as Los Angeles and Houston, which have much more severe ozone problems than my region?

A: There are two reasons for this. First, grades in “American Lung Association State of the Air: 2003” are based on the number of days a county’s air reached unhealthy levels, as described by EPA’s Air Quality Index. Counties receiving an “F” had too many days in the orange, red or purple zone, which are the levels EPA considers unhealthy.

Second, the air quality in your region may be much worse than you realize. Smog is not only an urban phenomenon or one found in just a few pockets of the country. More than 137 million Americans are at risk from unhealthy levels of ozone air pollution. Just because Los Angeles or Houston has dirtier air than your county, that doesn’t mean that the air in your county doesn’t make people sick, too.

Q: Why did my county get an “F” when the neighboring counties got better grades?

A: Though ozone pollution problems are typically regional in scope, some variation in ozone levels can occur across counties in metropolitan areas. While these variations are usually not large, they maybe sufficient to result in one county receiving an “F” score while a neighboring county receives a “D” because the weighted average score for their air quality is just below the “F” cutoff point. Factors that can influence these variations in ozone levels include where monitors are located relative to pollution sources, prevailing winds, and localized climatic conditions. To learn more about sources and trends in smog in your region of the nation, access “American Lung Association State of the Air: 2003” online at www.lungusa.org. You can type in your zip code and get information on your county, your state, and the larger region where you live.

Q: Does this grade mean that my state or city government isn’t doing enough to control ozone air pollution?

A: Not necessarily. Grades in the report are based solely on the quality of the air in areas and do not reflect an assessment of efforts to implement controls that improve air quality. For example, some of the most stringent controls in the nation are in California, put in place there to fight their serious problems with smog. The quality of your air (and subsequent grade), however, can be the result of a few things.

It may mean that the region has not put strict air pollution control policies in place or is not aggressively enforcing those regulations. But it also may mean that air pollution is traveling with air currents from one polluted region into your area, which worsens local air pollution. Or the bad grade may mean that, despite strict local and state air pollution policies, the region still needs to cut emissions from vehicles and other private and industrial sources (i.e., gasoline-powered lawn equipment, power plants, etc.). Unless emissions decline, hot summer weather will continue to result in dangerous air pollution levels.

Individuals can help control ozone air pollution by limiting car trips and carpooling, filling up gas tanks after dusk, using mass transit, limiting use of gasoline-powered lawn equipment and grills, conserving electricity, and supporting strict air pollution control policies.

Q: Why isn’t my county listed?

A: The report is based on data gathered by ozone monitors, which are placed in more than 692 counties in the United States, representing a population base of more than 198 million Americans. Counties not included in the report are counties in which no ozone monitors are stationed. Monitors are placed by state and local air pollution control agencies and some agencies of the federal government based on EPA requirements and guidance, as well as state/local judgment on need.

Q: My metro area/county received a good grade for ozone, but our air is dirty! How can that be?

A: Ozone is not the only air pollutant that causes dirty air. Among the long list of pollutants, another common one is particulate matter, or soot, which causes particulate air pollution. Some areas that have no or few unhealthy ozone days may still have unhealthy air from particulate air pollution. Particulate air pollution is especially harmful to people with lung disease. Exposure to particulate matter can be deadly. Data from new particulate monitors throughout the country will be reported in “American Lung Association State of the Air: 2004”.

Q: Since this is the first “American Lung Association State of the Air” report that includes 2001 data, how do the events of 9/11 affect the reported air quality?

A: This report analyzes ozone, which would not have been affected significantly by the terror attacks in New York and Washington, DC. The greater impact would likely be in particulate air pollution, which is not covered in this report. Both the New York City and the Washington, DC metro areas have historically unhealthy air because of high ozone levels; both rank among the 25 most ozone-polluted metropolitan areas four years in a row.

Q: Why does “American Lung Association State of the Air: 2003” use data from 1999-2001 rather than the summer of 2002?

A: The report is based on the most recent quality-assured data from the EPA, which is from 1999-2001. Newer data are becoming available, but they have not yet been fully reviewed by the states and EPA.

Q: How does this report differ from other reports? Is this just repackaging old information?

A: While this report is similar in scope to “American Lung Association State of the Air” reports released in May 2000, May 2001 and May 2002, the data and grades are different because they are based on the ozone levels that occurred during different years. It’s important to look at the reports over time because, together, they illustrate that ozone air pollution is neither a fluke nor a problem in isolated geographic areas. And while results may be affected by weather, it is clear that we have not done enough as a nation to cut emissions. Subsequently, more than 137 million Americans are potentially at risk for health problems caused by dangerous levels of ozone.

Q: Why are states still relying on air quality standards from 1979?

A: : Once EPA adopted more protective new standards for ozone in 1997, the Agency was required by law to designate “nonattainment areas” for the new ozone standard by 2001. A nonattaiment area is one or more counties that have air dirtier than the national standards for a specific pollutant. Once the EPA designates a nonattainment area, several automatic controls are to be put into place, and the state or local air pollution office are to begin work on a plan to reduce air pollution by a specified goal date.

By 2002, the EPA had not designated any such areas, despite years of monitoring data documenting that many such areas exist, including evidence in “American Lung Association State of the Air” reports. Consequently, nearly six years after the tougher standards were adopted, the states were still relying on the same weaker standards they’ve used since 1979. That will now change, however. The American Lung Association and eight environmental groups took legal action against EPA in 2002 to require them to make these designations, so that communities could begin the work of meeting the standards adopted in 1997. The EPA agreed to formally make those designations by April 2004.

Q: How does the ozone compare with the 1970s and 1980s?

A: Ozone levels have improved dramatically as a result of controls instituted by the Clean Air Act, which became law in 1970. For example, between 1982 and 2001 (time span shown in Appendix B of “American Lung Association State of the Air: 2003”), concentrations of ozone decreased up to 11 percent, based on an eight-hour measurement. The improvements are a result of the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as carried out by the work of federal, state and local air pollution control agencies and their community partners.

“American Lung Association State of the Air: 2003” identified significant gains in air pollution control during the 1980s; however, those improvements leveled off in the 1990s. In some parts of the nation, ozone levels went up in the 1990s. The potential weakening of critical provisions in the Clean Air Act, coupled with population growth, more cars, and more vehicle miles traveled, are threatening to reverse hard-won reductions in air pollution over the past 30 years. The American Lung Association continues to fight for stronger air pollution control strategies. This means we need to clean up diesel vehicles and off-road machinery as well as diesel fuels. We need to require that older power plants meet the stricter emissions standards for newer power plants. And it means that we need to promote the use of zero emission vehicles and reduce emissions from other commercial sources.

• State of the Air: 2003 Home