Air Toxics in Michigan Beyond the USA Today Article Panel

1. Air Toxics in MichiganBeyond the USA Today Article Panel 2009 National Air Quality Conference Communicating Air Quality Track March 3rd, 2009 Laura J. DeGuire Air Quality Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

2. Reaction to the USA Today article‘The Smokestack Effect: Toxic Air and America's Schools’ • It’s good to remind the public to think about air quality and to support ways to improve it. • It’s not-so-good to mislead and panic the general population with allegations that their children are breathing toxic air and imply that the State air agency is negligent in duties to police it.

3. MDEQ appreciated … • Receiving a “heads up” about the USA Today article prior to its release. • USA Today Reporter Brad Heath speaking with our agency’s Chief Toxicologist to clarify questions about Michigan’s air program. • USA Today highlighting air toxics as a topic of public concern / awareness. • The expenditure of significant resources by USA Today to develop their story.

4. We were a bit surprised that … • USA Today refused to share complete Methodology … and because the work was not transparent, there is no way to check accuracy of their claims. • Flawed modeling & limited emission data sets used by reporters to calculate their estimation of exposures. • TRI data - limited application. • Stack emissions are not only drivers of air toxics, area & transportation emissions also significant. • Short term/grab samples taken near schools for the article. One time “snapshot” air quality samples don’t provide a clear, accurate picture. [Methodology is not comparable to FRM data.] • The Michigan Schools which USA Today identified as having the “worst” cancer risk were located far outside the heavily industrialized SE Michigan area.

5. Reality is … • Air agencies must follow established protocol of federal guidelines & accepted scientific procedures for our monitoring program. Every part of the process must be transparent, QA-QC’d, & open to scientific review. • Air agencies employ experienced staff. We anticipate where the worst air toxics concentrations are likely to occur & we monitor and model exposure levels to the best extent our resources allow. • No air agency has the resources to place a monitor at/near every school or hospital. If the EPA is planning to adjust our grant monies to enable our State to do more, we will gladly accept an increase.

6. Reality for Michigan is … • SE Michigan is one of the most studied areas in the nation. Outdoor and indoor air monitoring & air toxics studies are being – or recently have been – conducted by a plethora of government and academic agencies … even to the international level. • More than 40 studies are helping evaluate air in SE Michigan. These scientifically designed studies allow us to determine where the greatest risk exists.

7. STUDIES IN SE MICHIGAN Community Monitoring Project: Delray Mary Ann Heindorf, MDEQ Community Monitoring Project: Data Analysis Mary Ann Heindorf, MDEQ Levoglucosan/ Biomass Burning Study Amy Sullivan, CO State U Urban Organics Study Jamie Schauer, U of WI Continuous Fe Dearborn Jamie Schauer, U of WI Organic Speciation Phase II Jamie Schauer, U of WI Midwest Ammonia Study David Gay, IL State Water Survey RARE: Locomotive Study, Monica Paguia, EPA & Mike Koerber, LADCO Region 5 EPA Continuous Ion Analyzer Comparison Rodney Weber,Georgia Tech EPA/ ORD PM2.5 FEM Testing, Allen Park MetOne Vendors PM2.5 Continuous FEM Testing, Dearborn MetOne/Akrulogic Near Roadway Study Sue Kimbrough & Richard Shores EPA/ORD, Victoria Martinez FHWA, Thomas Hanf MDOT EPA/ORD, FHA, MDOT Air Monitoring / Modeling Health Studies Detroit Air Toxics Initiative (DATI) Robert Sills, MDEQ MDEQ Adverse Birth Out Comes Study MI Dept Com. Health; Mary Lee Hultin, MDEQ MDEQ, MDCH U of M, MSU National Urban Air Toxics Research Center (NUATRC) U of M; Mike Depa, MDEQ Detroit Asthma Morbidity and Traffic Study (DAMAT) MI Dept Com. Health; Mary Lee Hultin, MDEQ LADCO Mike Koerber Detroit Children's Health Study (DCHS) Lucas Neas, EPA/ORD Mechanistic Indicators of Childhood Asthma (MICA) Jane Gallagher , EPA SEAS Matt Landis, EPA/ORD EPA/ORD, Matt Landis & U of MI, Tim Dvonch Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study (DEARS) Ron Williams, EPA/ORD SEAS Satellite Study Tim Dvonch, U of MI Detroit Cardiovascular Health Study Rob Brook, U of M CRUISER Jeff Brook, Env. Canada Detroit PM Toxicology Study Ian Gilmour , EPA Health Canada Canadian Windsor, Ontario Exposure Assessment Study A. Wheeler, Health Canada Community Action Against Asthma EPA, U of M FUTURE STUDIES High-Resolution Collection of Fine Particulate Matter in Support of Source Apportionment Tim Dvonch U of MI Michigan Integrated Cohort and Animal Particle Study: Exposure Characterization Rob Brook U of MI and Jack Harkema, MSU U of M & MSU U of Pittsburgh Nitrogen Isotope Ammonia Tracer Study Slide courtesy of M. Heindorf, MDEQ in press Feb 2009

8. Reality for Michigan is … • SE MI Studies – The science is transparent & evaluation methods used, open for peer review. • EPA’s DEARS project is an especially important study. It will show how accurately stationary air monitoring predicts personal exposure. • Participants live near heavily industrialized areas that experience poor air quality. • They wore a personal monitor vest indoors and outside which will be compared with data from stationary filter monitors.

9. Reality for Michigan is … • MDEQ has worked closely with local stakeholder groups on the Detroit Air Toxics Initiative (DATI) monitoring & risk assessment study. • DATI was a first-of-its-kind study designed to characterize air toxics exposure and health risks. • Public meetings were held. • The summary document was printed in Spanish, English and Arabic.

10. Reality for Michigan is … • Michigan has been proactive about studying health issues & air pollutant / monitoring studies. MDEQ has worked closely with Public Health, research Universities, & partner agencies to pursue funding and conduct research regarding: • Determining association between air pollutants and the adverse birth outcomes. • Examining association of air pollution and asthma incidences (hospitalizations & emergency room visits.)

11. Then Now Problems with USA Today’s reporting and conclusions are … • Exposure to toxic air emissions: Modeled ≠ Actual • In recent years, all air emissions have been greatly reduced. Vehicles are cleaner & dirty ol’ industries got cleaned up … or shut down. • MI Power plants alone have invested hundreds of millions of dollars for controls.

12. Problems with USA Today’s reporting and conclusions are … • The claim that USA Today’s researchers used government’s own data and tools misleads. • USA Today (like many other non-govt. groups) does not use air data in the manner prescribed by air rules utilizing the same methodology/constraints that all air agencies must follow. • Model results were misrepresented. • Model used missed other emissions. • Ranking doesn’t equal cancer risk. • Modeling tools must be used correctly. A tool is a tool; how you use the tool makes all the difference.

13. Problems with USA Today’s reporting and conclusions are … • Responding to a report that includes one-time “grab” samples take staff off task … thus wasted our ever-dwindling resources. • What’s the comparative exposure risk? Let’s compare the relative risks from other toxic emissions. • Is a grab sample measuring benzene from nearby industry, or was a parent idling a badly tuned vehicle in the parking lot? • Is exposure to school bus exhaust fumes comparable? Even worse?

14. Problem is…that it confuses • The person identifying risk was not identified. MDEQ is unable to respond to claims from the mysterious “Dr. X”, the USA Today unidentified (expert?) scientist • Unfortunately … investigative journalism needs to have a bad situation or a bad guy. It’s easy to target the air agency as “unresponsive” to issue. It confuses the public. • The tone of the USA Today article was, “Here’s what they (the government) aren’t telling you.”

15. Public confusion … • Public just wants to know, “Is my air dirty?” • Ranking alone doesn’t indicate bad air. Three areas can meet every air health standard … and one will always have the worst air. • Exposure claim not realistic. One local Mich. school received a USA Today rating of “6” and yet the power plants identified [as cause] located >10 miles away. • RESI model used by USA Today doesn’t provide risk assessments, only ranking. Ranking doesn’t equal exposure: If three students get 100, 95 and 90 respectively on a test and a passing grade is 75, should any be viewed as ignorant?

16. Public confusion … • Implicationalone is all it takes to “stir the pot” in a news story. Once riled, the public won’t believe the truth. • It isn’t always clear who the pollution “culprit” is. Emissions that impact a community come from many sources and the worst polluter isn’t always a smokestack industry.

17. NEXT TIME - What the Media & Groups that report our data can do better • Set up a scientifically accurate and transparent study. If it can’t withstand peer review, it’s not good research. • Use EPA models correctly. • Use comparable monitoring tools. • Providebalance–recognize limitations of the tools. • Talk / Work with federal, state & local air agencies earlier in the process. • No mystery here … conclusions should not be made prior to first interaction. • Knowledgeable govt. staff input adds integrity to reporting. • Report the “good news” about improvements to the air quality too.

18. DEQ&USA Today share goals: We all want better air for everyone – especially our children. Science is the best driver – of both message & actions. Michigan DEQ asks that everyone work together toward this common goal … within the framework of established scientific principles.