I just got back from the meeting. If you took out City staff and officials and the TCEQ staff there may have been a half dozen people. The format was odd to me. There was a powerpoint presentation going on autopilot behind the TCEQ research people. They provided a large bound book with all the data for the few of us that wanted it (I got one). They had the Cliff notes version, a 2-page handout, for everyone else. But it didn't really matter, not many came. There was no formal presentation. So I just started asking questions about the science behind the study. I asked about the location of the monitoring, the frequency, the security put in place to safeguard collection, reading and interpreting of the data. I asked how much it cost to do the study. I was told about $400,000. I told them I thought that was not very much for a study the likes of which they were representing, in my own personal first-hand experience. I asked about the logic behind the placement of the stations, the height of the collection snorkel, whether the stations were networked and remotely operated. I asked about alternate types of monitoring, as opposed to the canister sampling (VOCs) that they used. I asked if it really seemed statistically significant to use 20 random days out of 365 and form conclusions. I was assured that all was proper. I am pretty sure they knew I didn't agree with them by the time I was finished. I had about an hour to quiz them all by myself. One of the TCEQ gents, a friendly man named Darrell, gave conflicting information to what the young lady PhD would give. He acquiesced to her comments in every case. They have spent 2 years to collect 20 days each from 4 monitoring sites plus 5 days each from 4 other "portable" monitoring stations at the schools. Clearly, I am no expert. But the methodology just seems illogical from my experience and common sense viewpoint.
Comments from Sal Mier:
What TCEQ has produced is not a health study. Public health agencies look at much more than what TCEQ offered in this most recent document. A public health agency looks at health outcomes (cancers, birth defects, etc.) in both humans and animals, reviews epidemiological studies conducted in the community, and recommends additional epidemiological studies as necessary. Most importantly, when attempting to determine the impact of toxic emissions, they will attempt to determine the validity of the air monitoring data and its usefulness and appropriateness for making judgments about public health. A regulatory agency such as TCEQ does not have the training, mandate, mission or appropriate scientists and tools to adequately do this job.
TCEQ clearly states in its missions statement that it “.. strives to protect our state's human and natural resources consistent with sustainable economic development.” Therein lies the crux of the problem. We too support and promote sustainable economic development – but not at the cost of public health.
Although TCEQ did not refer to their evaluation as a “health study” it was sold and marketed to the community as a public health impact study. TCEQ should have clearly articulated that there evaluation had limitations and based on their limited study they could not fully identify all health risks to the community. They should have also made the caveat that ATSDR and TDSHS were conducting a very different kind of evaluation and one that looked more broadly at a variety of issues that might impact on public health. Instead the TCEQ document was sold as a study upon which definite health judgments could be made -- assuring the community that they should no longer be concerned about air emissions impacting adversely on their health.
The true verdict regarding the public health of our community is still pending. ATSDR has committed to do an in depth analysis of the adequacy of the TCEQ data for evaluating public health in Midlothian. They will look at meteorology as well as dispersion modeling for identification of hot spots. They will also look at the adequacy of the monitoring data – for example, were samples of mercury (which is easily vaporized) analyzed in both vapor and particulate forms; PM2.5 (the most dangerous airborne particles) – the list goes on. ATSDR will also be comparing the emission values against a completely different set of health assessment comparison value standards.
It would be prudent to wait until ATSDR/TDSHS issues its report before making declarations of any kind. All we are asking for is that all cards that impact public health be dealt face-up.
Comments from a resident in Cement Valley:
It was the same old b___ s___. (She filled in the blanks). Honeycutt and the rest of his TCEQ gang was their, the mayor, city council, industry I would say 20 to 30 people on that side. They had a screen up with a presentation running. There was no presentation by ANYONE. It was just come and ask who ever questions. I over heard Boyce bragging to Randy Loftis (reporter at the Dallas Morning News) that he hopes this puts an end to this, that our air is clean.
A waste of time.
My comments:
With the feedback on the meeting last night, I'm going to leave my questions for the City of Midlothian and MISD for another time. Although when the ATSDR gives its findings on Midlothian, I expect with all the interest the mayor and city councilmen have about the health of the residents of Midlothian, they will of course attend that meeting as well, and make sure those results are published on the front page of the Midlothian Mirror just like TCEQ's.
As far as last night, the TCEQ tested for pollution over 20 select days and found things pretty normal. The local industries were told what days the tests would be performed. The tests were performed when the wet kilns were shut down. The tests were not performed in areas closest to the plants.
It's like testing for lightning in Dallas on a sunny day.
One thing is clear from the meeting last night. Since the TCEQ now believes it is the Texas State Department of Public Health, next time you need a flu shot, contact the TCEQ.
0 comments:
Post a Comment