Author Archives: Steven Sklyarevskiy

Posts by Steven Sklyarevskiy

Memo 3: Annotated Bibliography

Posted on April 15, 2013 by Steven Sklyarevskiy

To: Professor MacBride
From: Steven Sklyarevskiy
Date: April 15, 2013
Re: Annotated Bibliography

1. Pearce, J.L., S. Rathbun, G. Achtemeier, and L.P. Naeher. “Effect of distance, meteorology, and burn attributes on ground-level particulate matter emissions from prescribed fires.” Atmospheric Environment 56 (2012): 203-211. sciencedirect.com.

 

Summary:

From 2003 to 2007, experiments were conducted to understand the effects that particulate matter, specifically PM2.5, had on air quality. The study observed prescribed burns, a process which entails the controlled burning of specific land as an important part of forest management. The study took into account many factors including burn duration, burn size, mode of ignition, and regional background PM2.5. The study was done primarily to see the affected range of the smoke polluted by these burns and the results pointed to weather being an important part of the process. Depending on the wind and other climate factors, the smoke spread further affecting the firemen controlling the fire, locations near the burning area, and long range exposure to the environment.

 

Rationale:

I would like to use the information collected in this study to show the reader that pollution is not limited to trucks and factories. Furthermore, it helps my entire paper by showing the affects of particulate matter and the steps that can be taken to mitigate the consequences. Lastly, I would like to apply the methods used in the study to show the range that would be affected by New York City’s pollution with given specific climates. Just as the issue of sending waste to neighboring states is an issue with waste management, such is the process of burdening nearby cities and states with New York City pollution.

 

2. Toth, Pal, Arpad Palotas, Eric Eddings, Ross Whitaker, and JoAnn Lighty. “A novel framework for the quantitative analysis of high resolution transmission electron micrographs of soot I. Improved measurement of interlayer spacing.”Combustion and Flame 160, no. 5 (2013): 909-919. sciencedirect.com.

 

Summary:

What is soot anyway? Most people either do not know what soot actually is or have a rudimentary understanding of it. This journal explains what particulate matter is and more importantly the differences between different size particles. The journal also provides information about PM2.5 filters and their effectiveness. It explains how light spectrums can be used to filter certain components such as ammonium sulfate, hematite, goethite, and magnetite from the raw exhaust referred to as black carbon. These spectral filters can distinguish particulate matter from different sources such as cigarette smoke or diesel exhaust. The process uses a machine called a smoke screen reflectometer which shines light into smoke and can identify particles and density by observing transparency and reflective properties of the black carbon.

 

Rationale:

The information I gather from this journal will establish a base knowledge of black carbon and particulate matter so that the rest of my information will make sense.  It is important that this information be given at the beginning of the paper but I will likely separate the technology and mention it later in the paper. The technology introduced in the journal will show the reader some current progress being made and the effects that it will have on future disposal of black carbon. I intend the paper to start off neutral, shift to a negative portrayal of particulate matter, and finish with an optimistic outlook on how it can be improved.

 

3. Patel, Moloni, Steven Chillrud, K.C. Deepti, James Ross, and Patrick Kinney. “Traffic-related air pollutants and exhaled markers of airway inflammation and oxidative stress in New York City adolescents.” Environmental Research121 (2013): 71-78. sciencedirect.com

 

Summary:

This journal reveals studies done that show the effect of New York City air, heavily polluted by diesel fuel emissions, on both asthmatic and non-asthmatic children. The researchers would observe fluctuations in the air quality and the affect it had on the children at that time. They gathered air quality information from the air near schools and from the closest central air monitoring sites. They observed the children by collecting exhaled breath and hypothesized that all children would be affected but that asthmatics would have worse reactions. They found that both asthmatic and non-asthmatic children reacted negatively to the changes in the air: decreases in pH of exhaled air during increases of black carbon in the air and increased nitrogen dioxide causing oxidative stress. However, they were surprised to find that there was no observable difference between the effects on asthmatic and non-asthmatic children.

 

Rationale:

Not only does this journal tie the entire issue of particulate matter to New York City but it will also be one of my prime examples of the direct effects of pollution. This will help the reader understand why pollution of particulate matter is important to learn about and change because even though this was an experiment, the researchers only observed what already happens on a daily basis. This information will be presented after the reader has become acquainted with particulate matter and other air pollutants. It will be presented in tandem with sources that underscore the effects of particulate matter on the environment so that the scope of the problem can be seen.

 

4. Bahadur, Ranjit, Yan Feng, Lynn Russell, and V. Ramanathan. “Impact of California’s air pollution laws on black carbon and their implications for direct radiative forcing.” Atmospheric Environment 45, no. 5 (2011): 1162-1167. sciencedirect.com (accessed April 12, 2013).

 

Summary:

California has some of the worst air quality in the entire United States and has enacted laws in recent years to combat pollution. Researchers used the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network to observe air quality for the past 20 years. Ever since the California Heavy Truck rule enacted in 1987, which capped diesel emissions at 0.60 g BHP−1 h−1, the amount of black carbon released into the atmosphere has fallen around 50% in the passed 20 years. Although there was a severe drop in black carbon in the air, the concentration of aerosols such as nitrate and sulfate remained relatively unchanged.

 

Rationale:

The section of the research paper where this information will be used will be a presentation and dissection of air control policies enacted by both state and federal bodies. I will present the laws, give a small background and set goals for the law, and the recorded outcome. This will help show what programs and laws are effective and ineffective in dealing with particulate matter pollution. The information from this journal also proves the idea that the vast majority of black carbon and particulate matter is polluted via diesel fueled trucks and factories. I hope to find health studies that cover the same time span as this study to see if the decrease in black carbon emissions had a noticeable effect on the welfare of the people of California.

 

5. Chang, Hannah. “Domestic Mitigation of Black Carbon From Diesel Emissions.”Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 41, no. 2 (2011): 10126-10135. proquest.com/pais (accessed April 12, 2013).

 

Summary:

One of the primary ways that the Environmental Protection Agency regulates black carbon, among other emissions, is through the establishment of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act. The standards have changed many times in the past decades to include smaller and smaller particulate matter sizes. The report lists powers and actions taken by the EPA including emission caps on newly built diesel engines and encouraging voluntary control policies for existing diesel engines. Among actions taken at a national level, the report also addresses actions taken by the United Nations to spread awareness and mitigate the effects of black carbon emissions. For example, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen in December 2009 established the Safe Access to Firewood and Alternative Energy in Humanitarian Settings project, which continues to distribute fuel-efficient stoves in developing countries.

 

Rationale:

The legal component of pollution is one of the main pillars of the essay. The information in this study will be in the closing pages of this research paper and will give the reader some security that steps are being taken to fight particulate matter emissions. I will be sure to make note of national and international plans that have been effective as well as some that have failed. The end of the paper will describe plans that have been enacted in the past few years that have no yet yielded results and will be open-ended so that the reader can use information gained in the paper to evaluate these plans and decide on their effectiveness. Hopefully, this new insight and opinions will spark a willingness to participate in pollution politics and information regarding how to go about that will be included in the conclusion.

Where do we send the garbage?

Posted on April 13, 2013 by Steven Sklyarevskiy

On a national level, certain cities and towns have been specialized to process, incinerate, reclaim, and recycle waste that is both local to the area and often sent from other states. This allows for a larger and more centralized operation but increases pollution from the movement of the waste. The international level is pretty similar in these regards, garbage is shipped to poorer countries en masse as if swept under the carpet of the planet. The people of these countries are tasked with tedious and hazardous task of sorting and reclaiming whatever they can before incinerating the rest. Do you think that countries or states have a moral obligation to deal with their own waste or is the current model of collecting and centralizing the waste worth improving upon?

Memo 2: Timeline of Particulate Matter

Posted on March 19, 2013 by Steven Sklyarevskiy

To: Professor Macbride
From: Steven Sklyarevskiy
Date: 3/19/13
Re: Particulate Matter Pollution

1885: The first incinerator in the United States is built on Governor’s Island in New York City (Martin)

 

1960s: New York City was burning a third of its trash in 22 municipal incinerators and 2,500 apartment incinerators. (Martin)

 

1971: In preparation for an outright ban, New York City prohibited new buildings to be constructed with incinerators. (EPA)

 

1980s: Increasing amounts of data is published regarding particulate matter at sizes of 10 microns or smaller causing or exacerbating lower respiratory tract diseases, such as chronic bronchitis, asthma, pneumonia, lung cancer, and emphysema. (Lippmann)

 

1982: A petition by the National Resources Defense Council regarding sub-par air quality due to incineration made its way to the U.S. Congress. A study done by the General Accounting Office within Congress, revealed a failure of the EPA to enforce regulations over private oil burners, incinerators, and factories. David Cohen, spokesman for the Air Pollution Control Agency stated that this was the first time that ”the problems with incineration from residential buildings have been brought to the E.P.A.’s attention by alarmed citizens in a detailed study like this.” (Hevesi)

 

1987: The Environmental Protection Agency establishes the “one-expected-exceedance” standard, which allows for up to 150 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter of air. An area violates this standard if it exceeds the limit more than once a year over a three-year period. (EPA)

 

1987: The EPA drops Total Suspended Particles (TSP) as a standard of airborne particle measurement in favor of PM index. TSP measurements fluctuated with increases in wind speed whereas the PM index measurements were solely based on size. PM10 was selected as standard because particles of that size could enter the thorax and cause damage. (Lipman 2000)

 

1990: The last municipal incinerator was shut down. (Martin)

 

1993: The last remaining apartment incinerators were shut down. (Martin)

 

1997: The EPA implemented the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which lowered the standard for particle matter from 10 micrometers to 2.5 micrometers. Regions were separated into districts so it would be easier to see what areas do not meet the new standards. (Federal Register)

 

2007: The EPA adopts the Clean Air and Fine Particle Implementation Rule under the Clean Air Act, which sets specific parameters for the 39 areas (with a total population of 90 million) that did not meet the 1997 PM2.5 standards to do so. (EPA)

2012: The EPA announced a decrease in the amount of particulate matter that can be polluted from 15 micrometers per meter to 12 micrometers per meter. Analysis of this new standard is expected to yield a net benefit of $3.6 to $9 billion.

On December 14, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency raised the standard for particulate matter for particles 2.5 micrometers or less to 12 micrograms per cubic meter. (EPA)

 

2017: The Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to review the particulate matter (PM) standards and change them if necessary. (EPA)

 

2030: As part of PlaNYC, New York City has set out a plan to switch from #6 heating oil to #2, #4, natural gas, or bio diesel by 2015 and to drop #4 heating oil by 2030. (Ayala)

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Lippmann, M., ed. (2000). Environmental Toxicants, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.

Ayala, Shannon. “To Meet City Code but Not Follow Soot: The NYC “boiler Dilemma”” Examiner.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Federal Register. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Martin, Douglas. “City’s Last Waste Incinerator Is Torn Down.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 May 1999. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Hevesi, Dennis. “Hazard Seen for New York From Outdated Incinerators.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Dec. 1987. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

“Particulate Matter (PM) Standards – Table of Historical PM NAAQS.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

“Agriculture.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Engage: Who’s footing the bill?

Posted on March 2, 2013 by Steven Sklyarevskiy

The “New York Energy Policy” maps out the city’s plan to expand into the outer borough areas and rezone them to make them more appealing for commercial and residential development. While this will probably be a profitable endeavor for the growing businesses in that area and the city as a whole, there is an issue regarding expanding the existing power grid to supply the necessary energy. If we are already building new transformers and substations the logical plan would be to use exiting technology to waterproof the systems. In the article “Four Storms in Quick Succession Expose the Flaws in New York City’s Electrical System,” senior vice president of electrical operations, John Miksad, claimed that retrofitting the 10 substations shut down by Hurricane Sandy would cost $800 million dollars. Con Edison is hesitant to waterproof their systems because the consumer would have to cover the cost. Do you think that the city should, at least, cover the cost of waterproofing new critical energy distribution stations using the city’s budget or do you believe that the NYC residents and businesses should come together and pay for the protection?

Memo 1: Soot Pollution and Government Mitigation

Posted on February 13, 2013 by Steven Sklyarevskiy

To: Professor MacBride
From: Steven Sklyarevskiy
Date: 2/13/13
Re: Changing heating methods in NYC due to soot pollution

Fuel lobbies seem to be under the impression that clever names like “clean coal” and green, flowery designs are enough to make people overlook the harmful side-effects the have. However, it will take more than a good PR team to make New Yorkers overlook the dark plumes of soot that even billow out of their own buildings.

The EPA and Mayor Bloomberg have recently put out plans to reduce harmful soot pollution that have led to countless ailments including asthma and cancer. Although some may see this as a step in the right direction, a large amount of NYC infrastructure is out-of-date and would either have to cut down on the heat it produces or be overhauled to be able to handle other types of fuel. In my paper, I plan to research the way that poor and middle class apartment buildings produce heat, the harmful effects that the soot and other by-products have, and the plans put forward to prevent them, whether those plans are feasible and effective.

I plan on using online databases and articles for most of my research but I am also considering reaching out to the EPA, somebody in the NYC government, or even an ordinary landlord for an more human perspective.

The role that Mayor Bloomberg and the federal government play will determine if their plans will make things better or worse. Are they planning on just putting caps on soot polluted or will they actively be helping these old building come into the 21st century?

Comments by Steven Sklyarevskiy

"I have always loved living in New York City because of its incredible diversity. Not only are there people of countless different cultures and backgrounds but these people have a profound effect on how the city has changed over time. For a long time in the 1980s and 1990s the crime rate made NYC seem uninviting to people who wanted to make or change or even to those who just wanted to enjoy a pleasant afternoon. Now that crime has diminished severely, New Yorkers were given an opportunity to tweak the identity of the city to bring it into a new age. New parks, train stations, city sponsored events and activities have opened up for New Yorkers and tourists alike. The "right of the city" belongs to everyone and as such, anyone can find something in New York City that fits their interests or gives them enjoyment. In my opinion, the city should continue to fund projects both broad and specific to expand on the diversity of the infrastructure to meet the diversity of the people."
--( posted on Apr 8, 2013, commenting on the post Who’s city is it, anyway? )
 
"Ideally, "right to the city" should be an equal opportunity for all people in a city including tourists and visitors. Space should be used to accomodate as many people as possible without always conforming to the majority opinion. Niche interests should also be considered when planning a city's infrastructure to appeal to a broad and diverse population. The most important part of everyone's right to the city, in my opinion, are the "holes and chasms that exist between the planned formal structures." This idea embraced by Lefebvre but rejected by Van Eyck help shape the atmosphere of the city and encourage and active participation from the people to create an environment that they can consider their own. For example, a small patch of land might not have any commercial value or any specific purpose in general, unlike a skate park or similar installations, but people could have picnics there, play baseball, walk their dog, etc... Empty land is molded mentally by each person who goes there, establishing a certain atmosphere, without physically changing anything. These quiet oasi surrounded by the urban jungle are necessary refuges from the hustle and bustle of city life. For a few hours a day, each individual can walk through a park and have a unique and relaxing experience away from the usual city atmosphere."
--( posted on Apr 8, 2013, commenting on the post What is your right to the city ? )
 
"In "Incinerators in Disguise" almost every single example ended with the factory or plan being shut down because they couldn't back-up the claim of "zero emissions." It seems that politicians are therefore put in no-win position. They can claim that the plants will have zero emissions and cover up evidence to the contrary or be honest and face a large public resistance to any pollution at all. Although I'm usually skeptical of the government, I doubt that Bloomberg's administration would employ a waste management program without adequate research proving an acceptable amount of pollution. The difficult part would be to convince people to put a plant in their neighborhood. Mayor Bloomberg would have to work with Governor Cuomo to establish a waste management plan that would protect New York City from increased levels of pollution. It would be a step -up from sending trucks of waste across multiple states while allowing businesses and densely populated areas in New York City to continue to function."
--( posted on Feb 25, 2013, commenting on the post Engage: Successful waste management methods in NYC )
 
"New York City is, relative to other U.S. cities, pretty densely populated and highly commercial. If a method was discovered that truly had "zero emissions" there would hardly be a problem implementing it anywhere but with the amount of emissions already polluting New York air its unlikely that locals will take it lying down. In class we discussed the vehement opposition to garbage transport hubs being built and they only pollute the air via smell and truck fumes. Looking at the situation from an objective standpoint, its clear that these facilites need to be built somewhere but I can imagine anyone inviting them into their neighborhood with open arms. Although the idea of dropping these problems on another area seems inefficient and even cruel, a smaller town in New York State could house the processing plants instead of the city. This isn't a statement of superior value of city-dwellers but rather an objective view of the number of people affected by emissions and the value of New York City as an economic hub that can financially support the rest of the state. The choice here is a lesser of two evils, we must employ waste disposal technologies with the least comparative pollution in areas outside of New York City until a true "zero emission" technology can be tested and proven."
--( posted on Feb 25, 2013, commenting on the post Engage: Waste Incineration in our Community )