Ruby Rañoa•2 years ago BackgroundBelow are Earth Forward Group’s responses to the research questions posed by the Bermuda Clean Air Coalition in a private message to the Earth Forward Group, along with the discussion questions posed by the Government of Bermuda.Do the regulations and reporting standards in the Clean Air Act and its amendments have enough teeth?Below, I address my concerns with the application and execution of the current Clean Air Act of 1991, including the Clean Air Regulations of 1993 and the proposed changes in the Clean Air Act Amendment of 2024.General ConcernsAs stated by Walter Roban in his press conference On June 19th, 2024, these amendments are considered a “periodic refinement” of the Clean Air Act of 1991. In the 31 years since its last amendment in 1993, significant improvements have been made in air quality standards globally, including the implementation of more stringent controls on chemical use, particulate matter, and greenhouse gas emissions. To avoid falling further behind other developed countries’ air quality standards, the Government of Bermuda should require more frequent reviews of the standards contained in the Clean Air Act of 1991 at a determined interval, including offering periods of public consultation during these review periods. For example, the United States’ Clear Air Act requires the USEPA to review their air quality standards every five years.The following sections are referenced directly from the Consultation Draft of the Clear Air Amendment Regulations 2024:Schedule 2 (Regulation 7)Soot is considered an Inhable Particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.5) under USEPA guidelines, and therefore should therefore be addressed by this Amendment Act. It should not be addressed elsewhere or at a later date, as it cannot be separated from this discussion of ambient air quality.Schedule 3 (Regulation 7A)I am uncertain why the Government of Bermuda has chosen to source its air quality standards and methods from three distinct international entities: the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the European Union, and the United Kingdom. Notably, the USEPA’s regulations are generally considered more stringent than the UK’s, and particularly regarding fine particulate matter (PM2.5), a significant concern for the Bermuda public, USEPA standards exceed those of the EU. As I additionally mention later in this document, I recommend incorporating the World Health Organization (WHO) emissions standards to the fullest extent possible. Where WHO standards are not feasible, either the USEPA or EU’s emissions standards should be utilized to fill the gaps to help standardize the methodology used for monitoring across the island.If the Government chooses to regulate by USEPA standards, then all monitoring methods (including indicative air quality measurements), emissions standards, and equipment should also follow suit. The same logic applies if the Government chose to regulate by the EU’s standards. However, utilizing all three standards simultaneously can create unnecessary confusion in monitoring methods and equipment, which may complicate the regulatory process.Schedule 4 (Regulation 7B)In relation to the new odour regulations and detection methods, I have the following concerns:
Is there a reasonable and realistic amount of qualified odour detectors on island and available regionally for them to be reliable?
Will odour detectors be consistently monitoring on a scheduled basis and data shared publicly, or only when the public complains?
Will “neighbors” (the public) have a reliable way to make complaints of nuisance odour detection? How quickly will odour detectors be deployed on these occasions?
How will best available technologies for odour regulation be determined and regulated?
The following sections are referenced directly from the Consultation Draft of the Clean Air Amendment Act 2024 Bill:Fourth Schedule (Section 12A)To avoid malpractice, the “[a]ssessment of the equipment, components and consumables that are considered to be causing the exceedances of air contaminants over the limits provided in the Regulations” should be conducted by a verified, capable/certified third-party assessor.Section 12BThe Government should ensure that the public consultation component involved in each Air Quality Action Plan will be meaningful. This should include a reasonable amount of time for public response and a proper method of communicating it to the public to allow all relevant stakeholders a fair chance to participate. The latter may include publishing related information in multiple languages, posting within different community boards, and allow the public to sign up for email updates. Additionally, the Government should implement a process to ensure that public comment will genuinely be considered and not just held to fulfill a requirement.How should enforcement powers under the Clean Air Act 1991 and the Clean Air Regulations 1993 be increased? Should fines be increased, what would you consider an appropriate amount to deter behaviours that pollute the ambient air?The Government should have more strictly defined consequences for shutting down an emitting entity either temporarily or advancing into a permanent stop order (in reference to the Clean Air Act 1991, Emission Control Orders and Stop Orders). For example, if emissions exceed the regulation threshold a certain number of times, or if emissions are above a certain extreme threshold, the emitting entity is issued an immediate permanent stop order. There could also be worsening consequences (e.g., fines and/or imprisonment time) depending on the number of times an emitting entity exceeds the regulation threshold. Currently, as the Act is written, consequences appear arbitrary; it gives the Minister the right to take action, but no assurance that he will.It is important to note that the consequences, including fines and imprisonment, are significantly more severe in the EU, UK, and US, highlighting the seriousness of air quality as a public issue. For example, the UK has recently taken the approach to implementing unlimited financial penalties for environmental offenses, including air pollution. Additionally, in the United States, fines imposed on organizations are higher than those imposed on individuals. Therefore, this conversation should not be around maximum fines and consequences, but instead the minimum allowable for each offense, depending on individual versus organizational circumstances.Additionally, a fixed portion of the fine money should be invested back into the neighboring community. These investments should fund mitigation measures that prevent bad air quality in the future (e.g., renewable energy projects to reduce reliance on the current polluting power generation facilities) and/or into local clinics to address health care concerns with prior air quality issues.What air quality limits should be established for the outside ambient air we breathe? Do the regulations and standards in the Clean Air Act and its amendments cover enough toxins and dangerous particulates coming out of BELCO?As previously stated, I suggest to use the WHO air quality emissions standards to the fullest extent possible, and then implementing the sole adoption of either the USEPA or the EU’s air quality emissions standards instead of sourcing from three distinct entities (the USEPA, EU, and UK).As fine particulate matter is a major air quality concern amongst the Bermuda public (e.g., soot), the strictest emissions standards should be set specifically for this primary pollutant. The seven countries with the cleanest air implement the World Health Organization’s recommendations for PM2.5, which state that yearly averages of PM2.5 should not exceed 5 µg/m3. Additionally, this report states that Bermuda’s PM2.5 concentrations fell within safe levels, which is directly contrasted by the increasing citizen complaints about soot and related air pollution from the BELCO power plants. This raises concerns about the suitability, spacing, and methodology of Bermuda’s current monitoring stations, as the real-life air quality appears to differ from the reported data. This topic will be discussed in further detail later in the document.An additional concern among residents is acid rain, primarily caused by sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), air pollutants which are also emitted from the BELCO power plants. As two other primary pollutants for Bermuda, I again recommend adopting the WHO air quality standards. These standards suggest that SO₂ concentrations should not exceed 40 µg/m³ averaged over 24 hours, and NO₂ concentrations should not exceed 25 µg/m³ averaged over 24 hours and 10 µg/m³ annually. Compared to Bermuda’s current regulations of 125 µg/m³ of SO₂ averaged over 24 hours and 40 µg/m³ of NO₂ averaged annually, implementing these stricter standards would provide a much more effective approach to mitigating air pollution and its resulting acid rain.What other standards should be created under the new regulations with respect to ambient air?Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas that is more than 28 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere, making methane a critical target for climate efforts. Furthermore, when methane is emitted, it can contribute to ozone formation, a harmful air pollutant that is proposed to be regulated by the 2024 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Approximately 97% of Bermuda’s methane (CH4) emissions stem from waste management practices, a figure significantly higher than that of the US (18%) and the UK (approximately 25%). This means that Bermdua’s methane would largely be released through the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Regulating methane would help control Bermuda’s greenhouse gas emissions and reduce ambient ozone levels, improving air quality and making it easier to meet ozone standards. Best practices and technology would help tackle this issue, including the following potential solution:Anaerobic DigestionAnaerobic digestion can process food waste diverted from traditional waste streams through a dedicated collection system and from food waste delivered by arriving cruise ships. The benefits of anaerobic digestion for food waste are threefold: it generates energy through biogas, thereby reducing reliance on fossil fuel-based power and associated emissions; it diverts methane emissions, thus reducing ambient ozone production; and it produces high-quality compost locally.Methane is additionally released through livestock and other agricultural activities, of which the public has complained of the resulting odours (also see here). Best practices and technology would help tackle this issue, including the following potential solutions:Manure CoversImpermeable covers are particularly suited for dairy farms, primarily addressing related odour issues. Permeable covers can reduce odor by 40-65%. Geotextile covers, which are very economical at $0.03 per foot, are highly effective in reducing odor by up to 90%. Impermeable covers boast a lifespan of approximately 20 years and prevent rainwater from seeping into manure, reducing the need for treatment. Moreover, impermeable covers can easily incorporate methane-reducing technology to mitigate both odor and emissions.Anaerobic DigestionAnaerobic digestion is also an effective solution for processing cow manure, offering several benefits. It involves the breakdown of organic matter in manure by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen, producing biogas that can be used for energy generation. This process not only reduces the volume of manure but also mitigates methane emissions. By capturing and utilizing biogas, anaerobic digestion helps decrease reliance on fossil fuels and lowers greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the digestate produced can be used as nutrient-rich fertilizer, promoting sustainable agricultural practices.Are there enough monitoring stations and are they the right type? What additional locations should be monitored for ambient air quality? What types of controlled plants that pollute require additional monitoring and from what location? When comparing Figures 1 and 2, it is evident that the majority of ambient air monitoring stations are concentrated in Pembroke Parish, the most densely populated area in Bermuda. However, aside from a single station at Waller’s Point (Figure 1), which is located in the least populated parish, none of the other eight parishes have monitoring stations. Consequently, the citizens in Sandys, Southampton, Warwick, Paget, Smith’s, and Hamilton parishes are not represented at all by air quality monitoring stations. The WHO recommends one air quality monitoring station per square kilometer, which would equate to approximately 53 total stations on Bermuda total. Air quality should be monitored not only directly at the source and downwind of known polluting locations but also at various sites throughout the island. This approach ensures the detection of unlicensed polluters and addresses other potential issues that could be degrading Bermuda’s air quality.Figure 1. Ambient air quality monitoring stations in Bermuda (Source)Figure 2. A population density map of Bermuda by parish using 2016 Census data (Source)Of the nine current monitoring stations, only three of them are up to the USEPA standards that some of Bermuda’s standards and methodology is based on (Figure 1). What do the “indicative” monitoring stations measure and how are they different from the stations that are up to USEPA standards? Is the Government able to make recommendations on how to move forward and properly regulate polluting entities based on the indicative monitoring station data? If not, these air monitoring stations cannot be relied upon for regulatory monitoring and can only provide limited value by informing the spatial distribution of pollutants.
