Interview transcript:

Terry Gerton Your office recently took a closer look at how EPA oversees state and local air monitoring schedules. I’m wondering, was there a specific concern or a trend that raised the alarm with you?

Paul Bergstrand We came across a study from 2021 that had some analysis showing that there was a difference in pollution levels when air monitors were off compared to when they were on, and this interests us in several ways. So just to be clear, it is completely normal for monitors to be off. It happens because monitors have a schedule where they’re designed to be off or where there is some kind of technical difficulty that they’re correcting. But what interested us is the fact that there was a difference between when they were on and off in terms of pollution levels. They should be the same. And so we wanted to take a closer look for ourselves to see how the EPA is overseeing this issue and if they were doing anything to fix it.

Terry Gerton You looked at thousands of monitoring sites. What did you discover about the trends once you dug into the data?

Paul Bergstrand We use satellite and model data as alternatives to data from regulatory air monitors to compare air quality when monitoring sites are off and when they’re on. And we found that for a fine particulate matter, which was the focus of our evaluation, it amounted to an average increase of 4% for monitors that operate on daily schedule and 9% for sites that operate in one every three days. And then separately, we found that 35.7% of intermittent modelers had worse air quality on average when they were offline.

Terry Gerton What difference does that make for public health?

Paul Bergstrand Well, importantly, the EPA sets standards for air quality, and if the standards aren’t met, then the area is in non-attainment. And that means that there can be harmful cardiovascular effects, reduce visibility, contribute to water acidification. And so poor data quality means that some areas that should be in non-attainment might not be designated correctly.

Terry Gerton There’s an interesting catch-22 here around transparency. The EPA publishes the monitoring schedule online, which we would think would be good, and people can know about that, but it creates some perverse incentives for the regulated agencies. Talk us through how that works.

Paul Bergstrand Yes, it has been their regular practice to publish those schedules. But I want to note that our analysis did not indicate any malicious behavior. But it is a concern that someone could take advantage of that scheduling to choose to conduct maintenance and shut down a monitor when they know there will be increased ambient air pollution. So it was a concern of ours and the EPA saw the concern and they took action actually during our work and decided not to publish the 2025 schedule. And they’ve agreed to continue not to publish the schedule.

Terry Gerton Is that the best solution here? Are there other factors that you might consider or recommend?

Paul Bergstrand Well, in addition to that, we’ve asked them to do some more data analysis during their quality control checks of state and local data. And this would mean using some of the techniques we had in our report that they could replicate and improve upon to come up with their own analysis to look for data that might be poor or missing.

Terry Gerton You also flag that local agencies may have incentives to under-report pollution. So again, we have some mixed messages kind of happening here. What drives those incentives?

Paul Bergstrand Again, we did not identify any malicious behavior, but as you say, there are incentives. If the EPA does designate a state as a non-attainment, there are expensive controls they have to put in place. So there is that incentive to try and hide the pollution, so to speak, so they can eliminate the data point basically from the data the EPA is collecting. But it also could be completely normal that the data points are missing, and that’s why we’re suggesting that the EPA do its own analysis.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Paul Bergstrand. He is Assistant Inspector General, Office of Special Review and Evaluation for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of the Inspector General. Does EPA have the capacity and the tools to strengthen the oversight in that way that you were just recommending?

Paul Bergstrand We think they do. They can use similar or improved statistical methods using these alternative satellite data and modeling to help the quality control checks. That’s the way.

Terry Gerton Are they using those tools now?

Paul Bergstrand I can’t speak to what they’re doing now, whether they are or not, but we know they’ve done it in the past. They’ve done in 2022, where they looked at missing air pollution data from 2002 to 2018.

Terry Gerton So you mentioned that EPA was taking action to address some of your concerns even as the evaluation was going on. Are there further recommendations that you’ve made that you hope the EPA takes action on?

Paul Bergstrand Yes, I mean, they’ve agreed to both of our recommendations. And that second recommendation is that they incorporate some of these analyses into really spot-checking. And what’s important is that they can improve upon what we did to identify pollution that’s under-reported.

Terry Gerton Are there things that communities should be doing themselves to maybe fill in gaps where the EPA isn’t monitoring or just get better data out to their citizens?

Paul Bergstrand I don’t, we didn’t look at that aspect in our report, but it’s a very interesting one. And I know there are maybe some grant programs or programs to get local air monitors, but in my experience, and I’m not speaking from the body of this report here, but in my experience, those are not used to do to collect regulatory data. So I’m quite sure on how to connect those dots from maybe your citizen-scientist using an air monitor to the data being used by the EPA.

Terry Gerton We’ve done a quick overview of your report and its findings and recommendations, but one of the things I want to point out to folks is that this information is really accessible. You’ve done an interesting job of making it available through what’s called a story map. Tell us about how EPA is using that kind of a tool to get this kind of information out.

Paul Bergstrand Yes, we wanted to be innovative in the way we’re portraying this complex status so it’s more accessible. And a story map is a web-friendly format where you can scroll at your leisure to look at dynamic information, graphics, maps. Just another way to present the information to the audience that we think has a lot of possibilities.

Terry Gerton So I don’t have to print off 100-page paper and put it under my pillow so I can absorb it while I sleep. This is very cool. Are you using it in other reports?

Paul Bergstrand We hope to be. This was our first one and it was sort of a pilot project. We are definitely going to be looking forward to more opportunities to use it.

The post Does your air quality data tell the whole story? Why some communities are at risk first appeared on Federal News Network.