What Does the EPA Know that the EIB & NMED Ignore?

A local realtor recently brought to the attention of the Alto Coalition for Environmental Preservation a news release published February 7, 2024.  In the article, the Environmental Protection Agency reveals it has finalized stronger standards for particulate matter pollution.  For the past two and a half years the Alto CEP has maintained that the proposed concrete batch plant in Alto would create an unhealthy environment for residents, wildlife, and vegetation in the immediate area; the location was inappropriate.

The timing of the press release brings to the forefront two (of many) major concerns of the Alto CEP.  The first concerns the Environment Improvement Board’s decision to overturn the New Mexico Environment Department’s cabinet denial of the contractor’s application filed June 14, 2021.  The second concerns the applicant’s response to section 16-J: Sensitive Areas, on that same application.

The release states that “In June 2021, (the) EPA announced it would reconsider the December 2020 decision to retain the 2012 standards because the available scientific evidence and technical information indicated that the standards may not be adequate to protect public health and welfare.” (emphasis Alto CEP). Yes, two plus years ago.  It was in June 2021 that residents opposed the location of the proposed Alto concrete batch plant to protect their “health and welfare.”  And NMED denied the permit.  The contractor appealed the decision to the Environmental Improvement Board as was his right.

As its title indicates, the EIB had to be aware of the EPA’s review of the “… nearly 700,000 written public comments on the (new standards) proposal and heard from more than 300 members of the public during a multi-day virtual pubic hearing.”  The EPA also “… considered the thousands of studies in the 2019 PM Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) and the Supplement to the 2019 ISA … which support a causal relationship between long- and short-term exposure to PM 2.5* and cardiovascular effects, respiratory effects, nervous system effects, and cancer.”  (emphasis Alto CEP).  Specifically, the EPA states that a stronger PM standard by 2032 will create health benefits by “… avoiding up to 4,500 premature deaths, 5,700 cases of asthma onset, 800,000 cases of asthma symptoms, 290,000 lost workdays, 300 incidences of stroke/lung cancer…” and other listed hospital system savings.  The new standards, “… based on the best available science as required by the Clean Air Act, … (will) reduce pollution from power plants, vehicles, and industrial facilities….”  (emphasis Alto CEP)  Concrete batch plants are industrial facilities.  Why did the EIB never mention the ongoing (at the time of their hearing) research that would prove particularly meaningful in protecting the “public health and welfare” of the residents surrounding the proposed Alto facility?

Secondly, the integrity of the contractor’s answer to the application’s question, “Are there schools or hospitals or other sensitive areas near the facility?” is of concern.  His answer was, and still is, “No.”  NMED in its November 2004 “Report on  Environmental Justice in New Mexico” considered children and the elderly “vulnerable populations.”  This latest EPA report states that, “Particle pollution is of great concern to those with heart or lung disease and other vulnerable communities, including children (and) older adults ….”  Michael S. Regan, EPA Administrator, states, “This final air quality standard will save lives and make all people healthier, especially within America’s most vulnerable and overburdened communities.”

Many of the residents living within the sacrifice zone of the proposed concrete batch plant are retired immuno-compromised elderly who sought an improved quality of life by living in a more rural, quieter, and cleaner environment. There are medical doctors who have advised patients that relocating is their only alternative if the plant becomes operational.  Several families are raising children within the immediate proximity of the proposed plant.  The children’s camp in the same area is a year-round operation that enjoys peak activity during the summer months which corresponds with a concrete batch plant’s maximum output.  “The science is crystal clear … fine particle pollution is a killer.  The people who suffer most are children and older Americans….” states Abigail Dillen, President of Earthjustice.  Again, why did the EIB ignore the people it is tasked to protect?  And why does the contractor not acknowledge these “sensitive areas” even after more than twenty application modifications?  Most importantly, why is the contractor ignoring the health and well-being of his neighbors?

Judge Sugg based his denial of the Alto CEP’s Preliminary Injunction on inaccurate and incomplete information.  It does seem that if the EIB had considered all evidence as tasked in the 2004 New Mexico Environmental Justice report, the final vote would have been different and Judge Sugg would have had a better, ethical understanding of the circumstances effecting those living and working within the newly created sacrifice zone of the proposed concrete batch plant.

The EPA report delves into a huge quantity of mathematically computed information as a result of its multi-year study to strengthen air pollution standards and one consideration solidifies the opposition to the proposed Alto plant – it is the “ … proximity of populations at increased risk of PM2.5 related health effects …” that needs to be addressed.

From the beginning, it was the location of the proposed plant that stymied the local residents.  Why didn’t the contractor vigorously explore the alternatives that were offered?  Why doesn’t the contractor relocate to his 145 acre property five miles to the north where he has his rock crushing facility?  Why does he continue the fiscal punishment with which he has burdened his neighbors?  By all accounts, including concerns of  the concrete industry, the health hazards are very real – proximity kills.

In its attempt to “… protect (the) public health and welfare …” of all Americans, the EPA has added another 445 page document to the over 200,000 pages of well-intentioned government regulations.  The implementation and enforcement of these regulations cannot cure the root cause of sacrifice zones; these laws cannot mend a broken moral compass.      

 *Particle pollution includes fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller, and coarse particles (PM10), which have diameters between 2.5 and 10 micrometers.  Fine particles can be emitted directly from a variety of sources including industrial processes.  Coarse particles include road dust that is kicked-up by traffic.