Michigan is experiencing many air quality issues that require informed decision-making. Meeting current air quality standards and addressing new standards is an ongoing challenge. Each time there are updates to air quality standards, the scenario in this lesson will likely be repeated. 

There have been ramifications of the June 2003 ozone episode presented in a previous lesson. During that episode, even Seney National Wildlife Refuge in the Upper Peninsula reported high ozone levels. The problem continued; another ozone episode happened in West Michigan in June 2005. Consequently, in April 2004, 25 counties in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula were designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being in nonattainment for ozone. This means that these counties did not meet the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone in place at that time. They were part of the 104 counties in the Midwest that did not attain standards.

There were a number of regulatory deadlines related to ozone nonattainment that needed to be met, and these counties were to work toward attaining the ozone standards. Some counties were classified as basic (less severe air pollution problems) and others were classified as marginal (more severe air pollution problems.) Areas designated as basic (15 counties) had until 2009 to meet the standards, while areas designated as marginal (10 counties) had until 2007 to meet the air quality standards. Michigan was required to present the EPA with a plan to reduce ozone by 2007. Public meetings were held throughout the state to discuss nonattainment issues and how to address them in the state plan.

In the Detroit area, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments’ Task Force on Air Quality met regularly to develop a strategy to address the ozone problem. Membership in the Task Force was broadbased and includes local government officials, private industry such as the large auto companies, utilities, MDEQ, EPA, and others.

The Task Force needed to determine the sources and trends of ozone precursors in order to formulate a strategy. Southeast Michigan’s total volatile organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions have decreased over the past 15 to 20 years. Major point sources of VOCs include auto assembly plants, cement manufacturing, and plastic auto parts coating. The major area sources are gasoline distribution, consumer and commercial products, and fireplaces. Mobile sources include emissions from automobiles, trucks, and the nonroad category. A study was conducted to evaluate the emission reduction potential of various fuels. The results suggested that multi-state cooperation on fuel blends could provide significant emission reductions.

Voluntary activities on Ozone Action Days, emission reductions already scheduled to occur (i.e., cleaner cars and trucks, reductions by utilities), transportation control measures, and reductions of VOC emissions by industry all help to reduce ozone levels. However, ozone transport makes Michigan’s situation very complex, as do the weather conditions in any given year.

Other regional problems are haze and particle pollution with its associated health effects. Throughout the nation, many areas do not meet particle pollution standards. The Detroit area (Wayne County and surrounding counties) is one of those regions experiencing elevated particle pollution (PM2.5) levels. In December 2004, seven counties in the Detroit metropolitan area were designated as in nonattainment for the PM2.5 standard. The area has until 2010 to come into attainment. In Wayne County, up to 40% of the localized particle pollution near one of the monitors may be coming from diesel trucks. Lower sulfur fuel and tighter standards for diesel emissions may help reduce this particle pollution. Also, particle pollution in this area may be coming from Toledo, Ohio.

Major policy decisions regarding meeting air quality standards must be made in the next few years. Making decisions is an important part of life for everyone. Solving a problem requires comparing alternatives and thinking about the likely results of one’s choices. The best kinds of decisions are those made after thinking about the possible alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each. There is a trade-off between waiting for all of the information and making the best decision based on the available evidence. Sometimes, what we all call

“common sense” dictates the best decision.

Some steps to good public decision-making are:

1. What is the problem or issue? Identify who and what may be affected by the problem and who and what may benefit from the decision.

2. What are the options for solving the problem? Focus on the most realistic solutions.

3. Is there enough information about each alternative? What is the quality of the information? Compare each alternative solution to the problem.

4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative? List advantages and disadvantages.

5. Which advantages and disadvantages are critical? Cross out those that do not really matter.

6. Which of the options seem to best solve the problem, considering the advantages and disadvantages of each? Make a decision on the preferred option(s).

7. Finally, share and discuss results publicly and with those affected by the decision even if you have already involved them in the process (Slotkin, 1994).

The combination of choices made by individuals, business and industry owners, and government over the years has had a huge impact on the quality of the air we breathe and the air pollution problems the world faces today.

Although this lesson presents a historical scenario, the problem-solving elements remain current. The U.S. EPA strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone in 2008 and revisiting the standards every five years is mandated. Stringent new standards could lead to nonattainment issues in Michigan far beyond those described.