A Guardian analysis reveals that US regulators and corporations, particularly in Michigan, frequently fail to meet data collection rules and best practices for measuring air quality impact of planned factories. This raises concerns about the reliability of pollution data and whether air around large factories is safe, with instances of companies using distant, cleaner air monitors instead of onsite or closer, more representative ones, leading to potential underreporting of pollution and public health risks.
US pollution measurement practices raise questions about reliability of data
Air pollutionEnvironmentUnited States
AI Summary
TL;DR: Key points with love ❤️A Guardian analysis reveals that US regulators and corporations, particularly in Michigan, frequently fail to meet data collection rules and best practices for measuring air quality impact of planned factories. This raises concerns about the reliability of pollution data and whether air around large factories is safe, with instances of companies using distant, cleaner air monitors instead of onsite or closer, more representative ones, leading to potential underreporting of pollution and public health risks.
Trending- 1 Late 1970s: EPA issued a rule not requiring companies to provide air quality monitoring data.
- 2 2013: A federal court agreed with Earthjustice and Sierra Club that the Clean Air Act explicitly called for data.
- 3 2014-2024: Air pollution permit applications in Michigan did not meet data collection rules or best practices over 90% of the time.
- 4 2016: Michigan environmental regulators approved a permit for FCA Chrysler (Stellantis) to increase particulate matter emissions, using a distant monitor.
- 5 2018: Arbor Hills landfill applied to increase sulfur dioxide emissions, using data from Allen Park (22 miles away).
- 6 2021: Inflation Reduction Act provided funding for air quality monitors, but Michigan didn't expand its network.
- 7 2023: Billerud wanted to expand its Escanaba mill, used readings from 150 miles away; Edward C Levy Co applied to add particulate matter near Zug Island.
- 8 Late 2023: State approved Edward C Levy Co permit despite nearby monitor showing violation risk.
- 9 Current: Lawsuit against EGLE's decision on Edward C Levy Co is in a state appeals court.
- Air around many large factories may not be safe to breathe
- Public health risks (lung disease, cancer, other health problems)
- Potential violation of federal pollution limits (National Ambient Air Quality Standards - NAAQS)
- Lawsuits against Michigan regulators over permit approvals
- Lack of transparency and accountability in environmental permitting
- Public distrust in regulatory bodies
- Companies not required to take steps like installing better pollution controls or reducing pollution at other facilities
What: A Guardian analysis found that air pollution permit applications in Michigan (2014-2024) did not meet data collection rules or best practices over 90% of the time, raising concerns about the reliability of air quality data around large factories. Companies often use distant, cleaner air monitors instead of onsite or closer, more representative ones.
When: 2014-2024 (period of permit applications reviewed), 2016 (Stellantis permit approval), 2023 (Billerud expansion, Edward C Levy Co permit approval), late 1970s (EPA rule issued), 2013 (federal court ruling), 2018 (Arbor Hills landfill application), 2021 (Inflation Reduction Act passed). Article published 2025-07-11.
Where: Michigan (Sterling Heights, New Haven, Escanaba, Houghton Lake, Potawatomi, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Northville Township, Monroe), South-west Detroit, Zug Island, Allen Park, United States.
Why: Regulators and corporations allegedly manipulate or inadequately collect air quality data to push through industrial projects, potentially understating pollution levels and compromising public health. The EPA's past rules and current practices, along with state agencies exploiting 'gray areas,' contribute to the issue.
How: Companies use distant air monitors (sometimes hundreds of miles away, or in rural areas) instead of onsite or closer, more representative ones; some collect no data when required; state agencies (like EGLE) approve permits despite questionable data, rarely requiring onsite monitoring; a 2013 federal court ruling requiring data was circumvented by EPA allowing existing, often unrepresentative, data.