Louisiana’s Community Air Monitoring Reliability Act Protects Industry while Restricting the Rights of Affected Communities

Oil was first discovered in Louisiana and off its Gulf Coast in the early 1900s, and the petrochemical industry experienced exponential growth during the economic and technologic boom following World War II. ¹ Starting in the 1970s, awareness grew about adverse impacts, including toxic air and water emissions, prevalent childhood cancers, illegal dumping of hazardous waste, depreciated property values, and labor lockouts.^2,3 This heightened public awareness gave rise to the community-based environmental advocacy that Louisiana is now known for. ⁴ Many community-based organizations in Louisiana have become adept at data collection to document illegal activities by the petrochemical industry. ⁵ With the availability of low-cost sensors, a growing number of communities now have the ability to document the air pollution that threatens Louisiana residents’ health and well-being. We posit that by giving Louisiana community members the ability to collect and access data, they can educate themselves and each other, demonstrate how the petrochemical and waste management industries have poisoned the air, and use this information to effect policy change. The Community Air Monitoring Reliability Act (CAMRA) was thus designed to limit the public’s ability to acquire and use data in response to the petrochemical and waste management industries’ actions. ⁶ This systematic effort to prevent the acquisition and dissemination of data will inherently prevent the public from fighting sources of air pollution in their communities, allowing pollution to proliferate at the expense of public health and welfare. In this commentary, we introduce CAMRA, describe key stipulations of the law, and discuss how CAMRA impedes community members' understanding of their own risk and how CAMRA may violate Freedom of Speech.

On May 23, 2024, CAMRA ⁷ was signed into Louisiana State law by Governor Jeff Landry. CAMRA’s stated purpose is, “to establish standards for community air monitoring programs operated by entities to ensure that the data collected from such programs provides the public with access to accurate air quality information.” ⁸ CAMRA stipulates that violations may only be asserted with criteria air pollutant (CAP) monitoring that uses Federal Reference Methods (FRM) or Federal Equivalent Methods (FEM) approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with sample analysis performed by an approved laboratory. The FRMs are designed for use by states to maintain compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) within the Code of Federal Regulations ⁹ , and FEMs are sampling methods certified by the EPA to meet the same quality control targets. ¹⁰ States are required to use FRM or FEM equipment to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS. Now, CAMRA makes it such that communities can only allege violations of the NAAQS if they collect air quality data using the same caliber of methods as used by the U.S. EPA and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ).

CAMRA goes on to direct that data collected by any methods other than those specified within the text of the Code of Federal Regulations ¹¹ for demonstration of compliance with the NAAQS ¹² cannot be disseminated for the purpose of demonstrating violations, informing permit decisions, or in any judicial or administrative actions against an owner or operator of a stationary source of air pollution. Violation of CAMRA’s data publication prohibitions may result in a fine or penalty, which was estimated by the Environmental Integrity Project to be up to $32,500 per day with an additional $1,000,000 if the violations are determined to be willful. ¹³ Despite its stated purpose, CAMRA is clearly not designed to ensure that communities have the best possible data at their disposal. Instead, between the infeasible methodology requirements and the threat of financial penalty, the Louisiana Legislature’s passage of CAMRA intimidates community-based organizations and their partners and discourages the public from engaging in air quality monitoring that would inform communities of their health risks.

It is not feasible for many university researchers, let alone most community-based organizations, to obtain the FRM or FEM sampling equipment and conduct analyses in the certified laboratories necessary for data to be considered valid under CAMRA requirements. ¹⁴ FRM or FEM equipment costs many tens of thousands of dollars to purchase and operate. Their operation requires a staff person to attend to the samplers on a near-daily basis, which is not economically feasible for most community groups. Moreover, FRM or FEM equipment does not always conform to a community’s monitoring objectives because the averaging time smooths over short-term data peaks. For example, if the community is concerned about short-term concentration peaks potentially triggering asthma attacks among residents, they may prioritize samplers that can provide data with one-minute averages. Those samplers do not meet the requirements for compliance with the NAAQS, but FEM samplers typically average data over 1–24 hours and miss short-term peaks.

Community-based organizations and research partners often use low-cost sensor systems, typically comprised of an optical sensor and electronics that detect PM_2.5.^15,16,17 Low-cost sensor systems are more accessible and economical than FRMs or FEMs, and they typically suffice to answer important questions about whether the concentrations of CAPs or hazardous air pollutants are high enough to endanger a community. Although these sensors are known to have errors related to either their electronics or the response of particles to humidity, there are widely accepted approaches to correct these errors to address any concerns about biased or unreliable data. ¹⁸

CAMRA’s ¹⁹ interference with communities’ abilities to collect their own data and ascertain potential environmental health hazards is not about the potential for mistaking NAAQS compliance determinations. CAMRA’s ²⁰ restriction of communities or their research partners from communicating a suspected violation of the NAAQS unfairly prevents communities from understanding their potential for risk. Moreover, CAMRA is not necessary to reinforce the regulatory requirements of the NAAQS. Community sampling will never inhibit enforcement of the Clean Air Act, because the Clean Air Act and associated regulations for implementation of the NAAQS mandate that state, local, or tribal governments conduct their own sampling with FRM or FEM monitors to demonstrate a NAAQS violation. ²¹ In fact, community monitoring could complement regulatory monitoring by alerting the LDEQ to areas at risk for NAAQS violations to determine if FRM or FEM monitors are needed and filling in short timescale data to identify peak concentrations in areas suspected of being out of compliance.

In addition to its unrealistic data collection requirements, CAMRA’s restriction of how communities and researchers can disseminate or publish data is a clear violation of Freedom of Speech provisions within the First Amendment. CAMRA ²² stipulates that community air monitoring data cannot be “used, disclosed, or disseminated” for the purpose of supporting permitting decisions or lawsuits related to the impact of air pollution from a stationary source located in a community. In the next clause, CAMRA threatens that anyone who uses community-collected data to allege violations or noncompliance with the Clean Air Act, Louisiana Environmental Quality Act, or other laws can be held responsible for illegal data dissemination. In other words, a person could carry substantial financial liability for stating that data from a low-cost sensor shows that air pollutant concentrations are elevated above the level of the NAAQS. This wording is intentionally broad and threatening to community-based organizations and their research partners to dissuade reporting of any data. In many cases, air quality monitoring data are not collected for the sole purpose of affecting legal or policy decisions but to educate residents about local pollution that may impact their health. Thus, even if the original intent of air quality data is not to influence permitting or a lawsuit, the fact that the data could be “used, disclosed, or disseminated” in the future will put individuals at risk of violating CAMRA.

Lawmakers allege that CAMRA is meant to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate or otherwise low-quality data. But preventing the provision of air quality monitoring data to members of the public—regardless of whether the data contain errors and even if those errors are not correctable—does not meet the standard for any limitations on Free Speech identified by the Supreme Court: “obscenity, child pornography, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, and speech integral to criminal conduct.” ²³ Therefore, by using the flimsy premise of accuracy to prevent any dissemination of community-collected data, CAMRA unlawfully restricts Constitutional protections on speech.

Authors of CAMRA ²⁴ likely understand that data from community-generated measurements of air pollution do not pose a hazard to the public. Six Louisiana community-based organizations, including RISE St. James Louisiana, Micah Six Eight Mission, The Descendants Project, The Concerned Citizens of St. John Inc., Claiborne Avenue Alliance Design Studio, Inc., and Join for Clean Air, have bravely come together to seek declaratory relief (i.e., assertion of individuals’ rights) and injunctive relief (i.e., prohibition of the law from causing harm to individuals or groups) from CAMRA ²⁵ , reaffirming the rights of community members to collect and disseminate information about air quality and stopping the Louisiana State Legislature, the LDEQ, and the Louisiana Attorney General from restricting their Constitutionally-protected rights to Free Speech. An outcome in favor of community science will reinforce those rights while sending a message to other states that passage of similar laws will not stand in a Constitution-respecting democracy. An outcome against community science will portend the absence of democracy as we have come to know it.