breathing easier in sw detroit: mitigating fugitive dust with vegetation
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
1/121
Breathing Easier in Southwest Detroit:Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
University of Michigan: Urban and Regional PlanningApril 2008
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
2/121
University of Michigan - Urban and Regional Planning Program
2007-2008 Capstone Project Team
Students
William Brodnax
Mark HansfordTyler Kinley
Carolyn Pivirotto
Shilpy Singh
Jeff Storrar
Benjamin Stupka
Erin Thoresen
Jonathan VanDerZee
Faculty
Eric Dueweke
Larissa Larsen
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
3/121
Acknowledgements
The University of Michigan graduate student capstone wishes to extend our
appreciation to Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision and the Southeast
Michigan Council of Governments for providing support and direction for this
community project:
Lisa Goldstein, SDEV Executive Director
Angela Riess, Environmental Planner, SEMCOG
Joan Weidner, Senior Planner, Transportation Programs, SEMCOG
In addition, we wish to thank the following individuals and organizations for
the valuable assistance they provided toward the successful completion of
this project:
Ann Burns, SEMCOG
Jason Cousino, DTE Energy
Margaret Dewar, Urban and Regional Planning Program, University of
Michigan Christopher Dick, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
University of Michigan
James Earl, Severstal North America
Billy Gallegos, City of Albuquerque
Roger Gaudette, Ford Motor Company
Jen Green, Spatial and Numeric Services Librarian, University of
Michigan
MaryCarol Hunter, School of Natural Resources and Environment,
University of Michigan
Susan Katsiyiannis, City of Dearborn
Jerry Krawiec, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Frank Marsik, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space
Sciences, University of Michigan
Kent Murray, Department of Natural Sciences, University of Michigan
Dearborn
David Nowak, Urban Forests, Human Health, and Environmental
Quality, State University of New York
Roberta Urbani, DTE Energy
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
4/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
5/121
Table of Contents
Executive Summary..........................................................................................
Section 1: Introduction.....................................................................................
Section 2: Fugitive Dust and Particulate Matter............................................
Section 3: Context.............................................................................................
Geographic Description.........................................................................
History, Culture, and Community...........................................................
Detroit Metropolitan Area.........................................................
Southwest Detroit......................................................................
Southeastern Dearborn.............................................................
Project Area Demographics...................................................................Biophysical.............................................................................................
Health Implications.................................................................................
Section 4: Understanding Air Quality Regulations.......................................
National Regulations..............................................................................
State Regulation and Control.................................................................
Michigan Fugitive Dust Regulations.........................................
Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act..............
Fugitive Dust Regulations in Michigans SIP............................
Additional Fugitive Dust Rules in Michigan..............................
Section 5: Fugitive Dust and Particulate Matter Sources.............................
Major Stationary Sources.......................................................................
National Regulations for Major Stationary Sources..................
Local Regulations for Major Stationary Sources......................
Stationary Source Inventory...................................................................
Major Mobile Sources............................................................................
National Regulations for Mobile Sources.................................
1
3
7
11
11
12
12
13
14
1415
16
23
23
24
25
26
28
28
31
32
32
34
34
37
37
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
6/121
Local Regulations for Mobile Sources......................................
Mobile Source Inventory........................................................................
New Bridges..............................................................................
Truck Routes............................................................................
Trucking Facilities..................................................................................
Fugitive Dust Sources............................................................................
Unregulated Facilities...............................................................
Source Selection.......................................................................
Additional Considerations.........................................................
Section 6: Strategies for Mitigating Fugitive Dust........................................
Mechanical Solutions and Standard Practice........................................
Bioengineering and Vegetation..............................................................
The Role of Vegetation in Removing Air Pollution.................................
Mechanisms of Pollution Removal............................................
Quantification of PM10
Removal by Vegetation.........................
Species Specific........................................................................Location Specific.......................................................................
Section 7: Implementation of Mitigation Strategies......................................
Site Characteristics................................................................................
Soil Characteristics................................................................................
Climate...................................................................................................
Plant Selection and Plant List................................................................
Site Selection Process...........................................................................
Site #1: Mellon/Dix................................................................................
Site #46: Ormond St/Luther St..............................................................
Site #47: Pleasant St/Beatrice St..........................................................Site #49: Marion Ave.............................................................................
Section 8: Conclusion.......................................................................................
Bibliography.......................................................................................................
Appendix A: Health Research..........................................................................
Appendix B: Plant List.....................................................................................
Appendix C: Invasive Species.........................................................................
Appendix D: Stormwater Research.................................................................
Appendix E: Site Inventory..............................................................................
Appendix F: Community Partners...................................................................
38
38
38
39
39
40
40
40
41
45
46
50
51
51
52
5354
59
60
61
63
64
65
67
68
6970
73
75
83
85
99
101
110
112
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
7/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
8/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
9/121
Executive Summary
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 1
This project focuses on mitigating the impact of coarse particulates such as
fugitive dust by using bioengineering strategies that incorporate the use of
vegetation. The use of vegetation is a practical and cost-effective land use
practice that can help suppress airborne particulates, thus improving local air
quality. Although this report makes frequent reference to particulate matter
(PM), the recommended bioengineering strategies center on mitigating the
impacts from unregulated sources of fugitive dust including industrial facilities
and activities, unpaved and barren land, or unwashed roadways.
Although much of the American landscape is now categorized as post-indus-
trial, pockets of intense industrial activity remain. One of the most concen-
trated pockets of heavy industrial manufacturing in the United States exists in
Southeast Michigan at the confluence of Southwest Detroit and SoutheasternDearborn. Fugitive dust is a prominent source of ambient air pollution in this
area and it emanates from numerous unpaved lots, storage piles, and rail
yards. In 2004, the United States Environmental Protection Agency desig-
nated the seven-county Southeast Michigan region as a non-attainment area
for the fine particulate matter (PM2.5
) standard. A three-mile airshed buffer
around each of the two air monitors recording the highest PM levels in the
area defines our project boundaries.
Public health studies increasingly warn that exposure to ambient particu-
late matter has significant health implications. In addition to employees of
industrial facilities, approximately 152,000 nearby residents are constantlyexposed to elevated particulate levels. Federal and state authorities are
working with the largest industries to implement technical solutions to miti-
gate stationary stack emissions and initiate fugitive dust management strate-
gies. However, within the project area there are many smaller industries
and transportation companies that contribute to the fugitive dust problem but
are not regularly monitored. The goal of this project is to identify long-term
interventions that will reduce fugitive dust with bioengineering techniques that
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
10/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 2
can be used at large industrial sources as well as smaller and less regulated
sources. To achieve this, university students and faculty worked with the
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, and Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision, a local
grassroots environmental justice organization.
This report provides an overarching framework for mitigating fugitive dust
using vegetation. It demonstrates the effectiveness of vegetation as a long-
term strategy to manage fugitive dust. Vegetation may be used to supple-
ment shorter-term mechanical solutions that primarily block or suppress
dust. Specifically, vegetation reduces fugitive dust by absorbing and filtering
airborne particulates, reducing local temperature variability, and blocking
wind and airborne particles. In order to demonstrate these strategies in
practice, this report identifies a number of specific bioengineering techniques
that can be used on a variety of sites. Each of these techniques is designed
to maximize the effectiveness of vegetation in dust mitigation. They may be
used not only as described for particular sites within the study area, but canalso serve as templates for sites in areas where fugitive dust poses health
risks outside of Southeast Michigan.
This report is divided into several sections. The first is an overview that
describes particulate matter and fugitive dust and also provides a context for
the project by describing the history and demographics of Southwest Detroit
and Southeastern Dearborn. The second section discusses the health impli-
cations of exposure to fugitive dust, highlighting its effects on cardiovascular
and respiratory systems. Third, the report outlines particulate and fugitive
dust regulations, which provide an understanding of the legal framework that
governs particulate pollution. The fourth section includes an inventory ofparticulate matter sources in the project area. Fifth, the report describes spe-
cific mitigation strategies, including both mechanical and vegetative solution
and how they are effective. Finally, the last section includes area-specific
implementation plans. This section contains potential demonstration sites
and examples of vegetative strategies. It also references a comprehensive
plant list located in the appendix. Additionally, the plan identifies community
partners who are likely to fund, install, and maintain these initiatives and dis-
seminate information to residents and business owners.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
11/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 3
1 Introduction
Although much of the Ameri-
can landscape is now cat-
egorized as post-industrial,
pockets of intense industrial
activity remain. One of the
most concentrated pockets
of heavy industrial manufac-
turing in the United States
exists in Southeast Michigan
at the confluence of South-
west Detroit and Southeastern
Dearborn. Contrary to other
industrial pockets, facilities in this area are expanding. From an air quality
perspective, stationary sources and mobile source pollution from vehicles
are significant generators of air pollution, specifically particulate matter (PM)
and fugitive dust. While state and federal agencies regularly monitor and
regulate PM, fugitive dust is often overlooked. Fugitive dust and particulate
matter are environmental hazards with serious health implications for local
residents and employees.
Fugitive dust and PM are terms used to describe a group of solid particles
and liquid droplets of various size, shape, and chemical composition that can
be suspended in the lower atmosphere for days or weeks.1 These particu-
lates can originate from storage piles and unpaved roads or from stationaryand mobile sources in the form of stack and auto emissions. High concen-
tration levels in the area are caused by the clustering of industrial facilities,
transportation infrastructure, and an abundance of fugitive dust sources. In
addition, natural meteorological processes can further exacerbate air pollu-
tion, endangering human health and the environment.
Public health and environmental studies increasingly warn of the adverse
Salina Elementary School, Detroit
Source: salina-int.dearbornschools.org
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
12/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t
impacts associated with these pollutants. Statistics from the Detroit area
indicate that exposure to particulates can induce negative health effects in
the pulmonary, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems.2 Young children, in-
dividuals suffering from respiratory illnesses, and the elderly are most at risk
for pollution induced health complications, resulting in additional emergency
department visits, hospital admissions, and even death.3 Studies also show
that fugitive dust and PM negatively impact natural habitats and ecosystems.
Particles that settle on soil and water can alter the nutrient and chemical bal-
ance that plants and animals need to survive.
The project area is defined by 3-mile air-shed buffers around two Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) air monitors located at De-
troits Southwestern High School and Salina Elementary School in Dearborn
(see Figure 1). Industrial facilities in the area include, but are not limited
to, coal-fired utilities, municipal waste incinerators, sewage sludge incinera-
tors, refineries, iron/steel manufacturers, coke ovens, and chemical plants.4
This is also the site of the busiest United StatesCanada border crossing fortrucks.5 With the addition of a proposed second bridge from Windsor to De-
troit in the area, traffic across the United States-Canada border at this loca-
tion is projected to increase.6 In addition, several local facilities are planning
expansion projects that will increase traffic volumes throughout the area and
4
Figure 1: 3-Mile Air-Shed Buffers Defining Project Area
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
13/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 5
potentially generate additional mobile source pollution. The combination and
concentration of these activities will likely exacerbate the particulate pollution
problem, including fugitive dust. Federal and state authorities are work-
ing with the largest industries to implement technical solutions to mitigate
stationary stack emissions and initiate fugitive dust management strategies.
However, located within the project area are many smaller industries and
transportation companies that contribute to the fugitive dust problem but are
not regularly monitored.
Because of the adverse health and environmental effects, several forms of
PM are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to meet annual and daily National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act. In 2004, the EPA designated the seven-
county Southeastern Michigan region as a non-attainment area for the fine
particulate matter (PM2.5
) standard. The Southwestern High School and
Salina Elementary School air monitoring stations exceed the PM2.5
annual
arithmetic mean standard of 15g/m3
(micrograms per cubic meter), withmeasurements of 16.4g/m3 and 18.2g/m3 respectively.7 Through traditional
regulatory processes and creative mitigation strategies, MDEQ and South-
east Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) are working to bring the
region into attainment by 2010.8
Ensuring environmentally healthy neighborhoods is an important goal for
residents of Southeast Michigan.9 To this end, University of Michigan gradu-
ate students and faculty in collaboration with Southwest Detroit Environmen-
tal Vision (SDEV), a local grassroots environmental non-profit, and SEMCOG
propose supplementing current regulatory processes with a set of bioengi-
neering strategies to mitigate fugitive dust and particulate matter in South-west Detroit and Southeastern Dearborn. The use of vegetation is a practical
and cost-effective land use practice that can aid in suppressing airborne par-
ticulates, thus improving the local environment for all. This report provides
a framework for how to implement appropriate bioengineering strategies at
prioritized sites throughout the area.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
14/121
1Ahrens, D. (2003). Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather,Climate, and the Environment. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc.
2 Keeler G. J., Dvonch T., Yip F., Parker E. A., Israel B. A., Marsik F. J., et al. (2002) Assessmentof personal and community-level exposures to particulate matter among children with asthma
in Detroit, Michigan, as part of Community Action Against Asthma (CAAA). Environmental Health
Perspective 110(2),173181.
3 Michigan Department of Community Health. (2002). Preventable Hospitalizations and Rates
per 10,000 Population for Patients under 18 Years of Age by Selected Leading Diagnoses,
19962000. Lansing, MI: Division for Vital Records and Statistics.
4 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Retrieved February 3, 2008 from
http://www.epa.gov/midwestcleandiesel/sectors/border/index.html.
5 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Retrieved February 3, 2008from http://
www.epa.gov/midwestcleandiesel/sectors/border/index.html.
6 United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Retrieved February 3, 2008from http://
www.epa.gov/midwestcleandiesel/sectors/border/index.html.
7 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (2006). Retrieved November 18, 2007 from
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-aqd-air-reports-05AQReport.pdf.
8 State of Michigan. Department of Environmental Quality (2008). State Implementation Plan
Submittal for Fine Particulate Matter (draft). Lansing, MI.
9 City of Detroit (2004). Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/plandevl/
advplanning/pdfs/MPlan/MPlan_2004/Master%20Plan%20Revision%20-%20Citywide%20Poli-
cies.pdf.
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 6
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
15/121
2 Fugitive Dust andParticulate Matter
Particulate matter is a term used to describe a group of solid particles and
liquid droplets of various size, shape, and chemical composition that can be
suspended in the lower atmosphere for days or even weeks. The EPA cat-
egorizes PM as pollution from both primary and secondary sources. Primary
particles are emitted directly from a source including dust and dirt from
unpaved roads, barren fields, wood burning stoves, or fires.1 Secondary
particles are formed through the reaction of chemicals, mainly sulfur dioxides
and nitrogen oxides, in the atmosphere. These are usually emitted from in-
dustrial smokestacks and automobiles, particularly diesel fueled commercial
vehicles. This project focuses on primary particles that form fugitive dust.
MDEQ defines fugitive dust in two ways. Section R336.1106(k) of the Michi-
gan Air Pollution Control Rules defines fugitive dust as particulate matter
which can originate from indoor or outdoor industrial or commercial process-
es, activities, or operations and is emitted into the outer air through building
openings and general exhaust ventilation.2 Fugitive dust is more broadly
defined as PM that comes from unintended activities including soil distur-
bances by wind or from human activities such as walking or driving through
an unpaved parking lot.3
Particle size is the determi-
nant for PM regulations be-
cause the size of particles is
directly linked to their poten-tial for causing health prob-
lems.4 Air quality regulations
regulate two sizes of PM (see
Figure 2): PM10
, particulate
matter that is 10 micrometers
in diameter or less, and PM2.5
,
particulate matter that is 2.5Source: EPA Office of Research and Development
Figure 2: Size of Particulate Matter
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 7
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
16/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t
micrometers in diameter or less. PM2.5
is generally considered fine particles,
while PM10
is generally considered inhalable coarse particles. This project
is focused on mitigating the impact of inhalable coarse particles, or PM10
and
higher, because they are the primary components of fugitive dust generated
by industrial facilities and unpaved or unwashed roadways.
Along with anthropogenic activities, natural meteorological processes such
as precipitation, wind patterns, and atmospheric stability influence particulate
pollution concentrations. Precipitation acts to cleanse the air of particulates
as cloud droplets and ice crystals form around airborne particulates and
fall to the ground in the form or rain or snow. Wind patterns determine how
quickly pollutants mix with the surrounding air and where they will settle on
the ground. Strong winds quickly dilute dirty air in the surrounding cleaner
air, while lighter winds lead to less atmospheric mixing and a greater concen-
tration of pollutants. Atmospheric stability determines whether air masses
will mix horizontally or vertically. Meteorological research suggests that
normal changing atmospheric stability, from stable in the early morning toconditionally unstable in the afternoon, can have a profound effect on the
daily concentrations of pollution.5 A stable atmosphere generally resists
vertical air movement, instead spreading pollutants horizontally in the lower
atmosphere. The worst air pollution often occurs in stable atmospheres
when atmospheric stagnation dominates, combining light winds with poor
vertical mixing.
8
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
17/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 9
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Retrieved February 15, 2008 fromhttp://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/basic.html.
2 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2007). Retrieved February 16, 2008, fromhttp://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3310_4148-11396--,00.html.
3 Ibid.
4 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Retrieved February 16, 2008, from
http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/health.html.
5Ahrens, D. (2003). Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, and the Environ-
ment. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
18/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 10
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
19/121
3 Context
Geography
The project area is located in Southeast Michigan (see Figure 3). The seven-county region includes Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair,
Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties and is home to the majority of the states
population and economic activity. Interstates 94 and 75 and several rail lines
connect the area to northern Michigan and the Midwest. The eastern bound-
ary of the region is the Detroit River, which forms the international border with
Canada.
Detroit, located on the banks of the Detroit River in Wayne County, is the
states largest city. The city and its metropolitan area encompass many
diverse neighborhoods. The project area is located a few miles southwest of
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 11
Figure 3: Southeast Michigan Context Map
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
20/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t
downtown Detroit and is defined by 3-mile air-shed buffers surrounding two
MDEQ air monitoring stations located at Southwestern High School in Detroit
and Salina Elementary School in Dearborn. The air-shed buffers contain por-
tions of several municipalities, including Detroit, Dearborn, Melvindale, River
Rouge, and Windsor, Canada. The bioengineering strategies outlined in this
report are tailored to Southeastern Michigan neighborhoods.
History, Culture, and Community
Detroit Metropolitan Area
Settled by the French in 1701 and changing hands multiple times throughout
its early history, the City of Detroit was incorporated as the new capital of the
Michigan Territory in 1815. The Detroit region grew throughout the 19th cen-
tury as a shipping, shipbuilding, and manufacturing center.1 Detroit became
an immigrant city, attracting Germans, Irish, Greeks, Italians, Poles, Serbs,
Croats, and others with a variety of labor and trade opportunities. The popu-
lation and economic activity rapidly increased during the Industrial Revolutionand Detroit quickly became one of the busiest ports in the world.
Laborers from Europe and throughout America moved to the region as
Detroit expanded upward and outward. Population and economic growth
surged with the invention and success of the automobile, and Detroits
growth mirrored that success, incorporating automotive manufacturing
and associated heavy industrial plants into its economic base. Four major
automobile manufacturers including Ford Motor Company, General Motors,
Chrysler, and American Motors, established their headquarters in Detroits
metropolitan area in the early 20th century. By the mid-20th century Detroit
had become a major commercial center of the Midwest and, arguably, thetransportation center of the world.
As jobs became increasingly mobile and market competition increased, the
auto industry began to decline in the latter half of the 20th century. The
regions economic dependence on the automobile industry, coupled with
racial tensions, brought extensive unemployment, segregation, and crime
to the city. Population rapidly declined as people and businesses migrated
to suburban neighborhoods, leading to the physical, economic, and social
deterioration of Detroits central city. In recent years, the Big Three automak-
ers loss of market shares to foreign competition has led to further economic
hardship in the region.
The SEMCOG Economic and Demographic Outlook for SE Michigan
Through 2035describes the regions economy as being in the midst of an
economic crisisprobably the worst in our lifetime. The crux of Detroits
struggle is the recent restructuring of the auto makers, specifically Chrysler,
Ford, and General Motors, whose market share has dropped from a high of
72.6 percent in 1995 to the current 2008 level of 49.4 percent, with a mod-
12
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
21/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 13
est downward drift as the most probable future. The location quotient, which
measures the concentration of a particular business sector in a local area
compared to that of the nation as a whole, shows that the areas auto manu-
facturing is 7.8, reflecting a concentration 7.8 times greater than the national
average. Although long considered a manufacturing center, the manufactur-
ing location quotient for Southeastern Michigan without the auto industrydrops to .78, which is far below the national average. This clearly highlights
the regions strong dependence on this industry.
Regional job growth within the past 10 years has also been weak, and SEM-
COG projects that this trend will continue in the coming years, but with cer-
tain areas of the economy showing modest promise. Employment in govern-
ment and health care surpassed that provided by the auto industry, and has
grown every year since 2001.2 The woes of the auto industry are projected
to continue in the near-term as economic restructuring continues, although
SEMCOG forecasts stabilization after 2012. Despite economic uncertainty,
the Southeast Michigan region continues to function as the economic centerof the state and remains home to nearly 4.5 million people. Communities
located within the project area, specifically Southwest Detroit, Southeastern
Dearborn, Melvindale, and River Rouge, are defined in large part by blue-
collar ethnic neighborhoods dependent upon the nearby manufacturing jobs
and local entrepreneurship.
Southwest Detroit
In the late 1800s Southwest Detroit was home to a wide array of industries
attracted by the easy access to the Detroit River and to the railroad lines
located in the district. Interestingly, salt (found in the subterranean salt beds
beneath Detroit) was a major factor in the rapid industrialization of this area,and sparked a salt-based chemical industry on and near Zug Island. During
this time, twelve of Detroits twenty largest manufacturing companies were
located in Southwest Detroit. Small industries and manufacturers supported
the larger manufacturing companies. Technical skills and knowledge gained
by employees at these companies were key elements in the early success of
the auto industry.
Despite Detroits economic decline over the past several decades, Southwest
Detroit continues to attract immigrants whose businesses spur economic
activity and contribute to a sense of community. Located two miles out-
side of downtown and reflecting the large, concentrated Latino population,
Southwest Detroit is home to a neighborhood often referred to as Mexican-
town. Attracted by an abundance of jobs and reasonably priced housing,
immigrants from the Jalisco region in Mexico have been making their way to
Detroit since the 1920s, with immigration rates increasing since the mid-
twentieth century. While the construction of an expressway through Mexican-
town during the 1970s would have split the neighborhood in two, additional
immigration during this time helped to maintain the areas economic vitality.
In the early 1900s, twelve
of Detroits twenty largest
manufacturing companies
were located in SouthwestDetroit.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
22/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t
Estimates indicate that the most recent wave added 20,000 people to the
neighborhood.3 Mexicantown is home to some of the strongest neighbor-
hood commercial districts in the city and the Latino population is considered
the key economic force behind the neighborhoods strength, as indicated by
few empty storefronts and recent construction projects along Bagley Street
and West Vernor Highway, the two main commercial corridors.4
Southeastern Dearborn
Dearborn was incorporated as a city in 1927 and quickly merged with the
Springwells neighborhood to form its current boundaries. Starting in the
late 1940s, and influenced by Middle Eastern economic and political condi-
tions, Dearborn attracted Arabic immigrants with job opportunities offered
at Michigans automobile factories, particularly the Ford Motor Companys
Rouge River plant.5 Once a destination for families fleeing downtown Detroit
in the 1960s, Southeastern Dearborn experienced a rapid influx of Arab im-
migrants and is now home to the largest concentration of Arab-Americans in
the United States.6
Dearborns Arabic population maintains its cultural identity through steady
immigration, a strong sense of community, and cultural anchors such as the
Dearborn Mosque, which was the second mosque built in the United States.7
The city is also home to the Islamic Center of Americathe largest mosque
in North America. Much like Southwest Detroit, Southeastern Dearborn
relies on the strength of its immigrant community through tough economic
times. For instance, the Dearborn area witnessed a 6.9 percent increase in
employment from 1990 to 2000, and area forecasts estimate a 5.8 percent
increase through 2035.8
Demographics
The demographic composition of the project area is difficult to accurately
identify because it encompasses multiple neighborhoods in several cities.
Based on an analysis of 2000 U.S. Census data, the population in the project
area is approximately 152,977.9 Figure 4 illustrates the population density in
the project area. The populations that face the greatest health risks from ex-
posure to PM and fugitive dust are those under 5 and over 65 years of age,
as well as individuals that suffer from respiratory disease. About 20.5 per-
cent of the area population, or 31,332 residents, fall into this demographic.
A variety of races are represented within the study area. Approximately 56
percent of residents are white and about 20 percent are black. Additionally,
about 27 percent of the total population identifies themselves as Latino. It is
important to note that while 75 percent of Southeastern Dearborn is white,
this statistic belies the fact that about 30 percent of Dearborns population
is Arabic.10 It is also noteworthy that while the City of Detroit experienced
a consistent population decline since the 1950s, specific neighborhoods in
14
Southeastern Dearborn
is home to the largest
concentration of Arab-
Americans in the United
States
The populations that face
the greatest health risks
from exposure to PM and
fugitive dust are those un-
der 5 and over 65 years of
age, as well as individuals
that suffer from respiratory
disease.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
23/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 15
the study area have experienced population growth. Much of the Detroit
portion of the study area falls into Cluster 5, an area designated by the City
of Detroits Planning and Development Department. Within Cluster 5, the
Springwells neighborhood population increased about 10 percent from 1990
to 2000. The Latino population in Cluster 5 doubled from 4,432 to 9,858 resi-
dents during this period.11 Additionally, between 1990 and 2000, the Vernor-
Junction neighborhood (located in Cluster 5) experienced a population
increase of 0.04 percent, while the Latino population grew by 61.2 percent.12
Approximately 57,661 total housing units exist in the project area. Of these,
about 10 percent are vacant, 48 percent are owner-occupied, and 42 percent
are renter-occupied. Much of the housing stock was constructed during the
1940s and the subsequent post-WWII housing boom to accommodate an ex-
panding workforce. Today, approximately 35 percent of the jobs available in
the project area are in blue-collar professions such as construction, manufac-
turing, wholesale trade, transportation, and warehousing. Median household
income is $28,364, considerably lower than the state level of $47,182 and
the national level of $48,451.13
Biophysical Conditions
The 32-mile Detroit River forms the eastern boundary of the project area
and connects Lake Saint Clair and the upper Great Lakes with the lower
Great Lakes. The river provides an important commercial shipping link in the
Great Lakes and is a drinking water source for many Detroit Metro residents.
However, the EPA designates the 607-square mile Detroit River watershed,
including the 107-square mile City of Detroit sewershed, as an Area of
Figure 4: Population Density in Project Area
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
24/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t
Concern, citing eleven beneficial use impairments due to urban and indus-
trial development in the watershed, bacteria, PCBs, PAHs, metals, oils and
greases[from] sewer overflows, municipal and industrial dischargesand
stormwater runoff.14 The Rouge River and Ecorse River tributaries mean-
der westward through these highly urbanized watersheds in the metro area
before draining into the Detroit River.
In the early 1800s, coastal wetlands along the Detroit River shoreline were
contiguous and nearly one mile wide on both sides of the river. They were
described as a pristine paradise with abundant edible fruits, lush meadows,
forests, fish, and wildlife.15 Since then, the river ecosystem changed dra-
matically due to the level of development near the river and the hardening of
the shoreline by pilings and breakwalls. Development now claims over 99
percent of the coastal wetlands that were once present in the early 1800s,
resulting in the loss of habitat, natural flood control, erosion protection, and
sediment removal.16 Efforts to restore the remaining wetlands threatened by
development and pollution are ongoing.
Tree canopy and open space in the area are rapidly declining due to devel-
opment, disease, and poor maintenance, leading to an increase in storm-
water runoff and declining air and water quality. In addition, Dutch Elm
Disease and the Emerald Ash Borer destroyed much of the tree canopy over
the past half century. Urbanization of land in the Rouge and Ecorse River
Watersheds continues to increase faster than population.17 Isolated patches
of green space and vacant and abandoned land scattered throughout the
neighborhoods illustrate this trend.
Health Implications of Particulate Air Pollution
Epidemiological research shows that human exposure to PM has a number
of adverse health impacts. Studies dating back to the 1970s consistently
find that PM10
penetrates the defense mechanisms of the upper and middle
regions of the respiratory tract.18 More recent evidence shows that human
exposure to fine particles, such as PM2.5
, may be even more of a concern.
For instance, PM as large as 10 micrometers tends to impact the upper and
middle regions of the respiratory tract, while PM2.5
micrometers and smaller is
more likely to be inhaled deep into the lungs, making its way into the bodys
lower respiratory system where it stays for long periods of time.19&20 PM2.5
also tends to be a greater concern because it can be more toxic due to its
chemical composition. The health implications from exposure to PM include
decreased lung function, more frequent asthma symptoms, increased asth-
ma attacks, more frequent emergency department visits, additional hospital
admissions, and increased numbers of deaths.21 Table 1 includes the EPA
list of findings for health effects associated with exposure to fine and coarse
particles.
16
Development now claims
over 99 percent of the
coastal wetlands that were
once present along the
Detroit River, resulting in
the loss of habitat, natural
flood control, erosion
protection, and sediment
removal.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
25/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 17
Table 1:
Health Effects Associated with Exposure to Fine & Coarse Particles22
Short-term exposure to
PM2.5
Long-term exposure to
PM2.5
Short-term exposure to
PM10
Premature death in
people with heart and lung
disease
Premature death in
people with heart and lung
disease, including death
from lung cancer
Premature death for those
with heart or lung disease
Non-fatal heart attacks Reduced lung function Hospital admissions for
heart disease
Increased hospital admis-
sions, emergency room
visits and doctors visits
for respiratory diseases
Development of chronic
respiratory disease in
children
Increased hospital admis-
sions and doctors visits
for respiratory disease
Increased hospital admis-
sion and ER visits forcardiovascular diseases
Increased respiratory
symptoms in children
Increased respiratory
symptoms such as cough-
ing, wheezing and short-
ness of breath
Decreased lung function
Lung function changes,
especially in children and
people with lung disease
such as asthma
Changes in heart rate
variability
Irregular heartbeat
Research concludes that children are at greater risk from exposure to air pol-
lution, including fine particles. This is primarily because (1) their bodies are
still growing, (2) they take in a greater volume of air per pound of body weight
than adults, and (3) they spend more time outdoors doing physical activi-
ties.23 The elderly and individuals with asthma also are at greater risk than
middle-aged adults. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the distribution of childern and
the elderly in the project area.
In addition to having adverse impacts on the human respiratory system,
recent research shows that PM may have adverse effects on the human
cardiovascular system. Studies consistently find an association between
cardiovascular hospital admissions, mortality, and outdoor air pollution, par-
ticularly concentrations of PM less than or equal to 2.5 or 10 micrometers in
diameter.24 These studies support associations between PM and the risk of
ischemia and arrhythmias, increased blood pressure, decreased heart rate
variability, and increased circulating markers of inflammation of thrombosis,
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
26/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 18
all of which are markers of cardiovascular health.25 The components of PM
that adversely impact the cardiovascular system are not entirely known. As
a result, research has more recently focused on specific elements within PM
to identify which elementsor interactions between elementsare contribut-
ing factors associated with compromised cardiovascular health. A number
of these studies focus on the metals often found in PM. Using a popula-
tion of 39 boilermakers, a recent study examined the effects of those metal
Figure 5: Distribution of Population Age 5 and Under
Figure 6: Distribution of Population Age 65 and Over
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
27/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 19
components used in industrial activities on the autonomic nervous system.
The metals studied included vanadium, nickel, chromium, lead, copper, and
manganese, all of which are common components of PM2.5
. The authors
observed a connection between exposure to the airborne metals and signifi-
cant discrepancy in cardiac autonomic function.26 Although the U.S. main-
tains ambient air standards for PM10
and PM2.5
, such health effects described
above are often observed at levels below current U.S. National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for particulate air pollution.27
Also of concern for the project area population are the chemical concentra-
tions found in PM. Research suggests that the driving force behind the
adverse cardiovascular health impacts may be the concentrations of airborne
metals found in PM, many of which are carcinogenic. According to Wayne
State Universitys database (detroitkidsdata.org), carcinogenic air discharges
for zip code 48209, which overlays a large portion of the project area, repre-
sent 69.6 percent of all carcinogenic discharges in the city.28
Health statistics for the City of Detroit clearly demonstrate the negative
effects of land use patterns in which residential homes are situated near con-
centrations of industrial facilities and activities. Fourteen percent of Detroits
children have been diagnosed with asthma while an additional 14.3 percent
go undiagnosed.29 According to the 2004 Detroit Health and Wellness Proj-
ect report, chronic lower respiratory disease was one of the top five causes
of death among children of all races/ethnicities ages 10 to 19 in Detroit
during the 2003-2004 year. Furthermore, the Michigan Department of Com-
munity Health reports that hospitalization rate for asthma among children in
Detroit is more than three times the statewide average.30 It is safe to say that
if local residents continue to be exposed to the current PM and fugitive dustlevels, their health and quality of life will continue to decline.
Please see Appendix A for more information about the health implications of
particulate matter exposure.
The Michigan Department
of Community Health
reports that hospitalization
rate for asthma among
children in Detroit is more
than three times the state-
wide average.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
28/121
1 The Columbia Encyclopedia. (2007). Detroit, City, United States. Sixth Edition.
2 Ibid.
3 Bonisteel, S. (2007) Fox News, January 11, 2007, Retrieved March 3, 2008, from www.fox-
news.com/story/0,2933,243180,00.html.
4 Ibid.
5 Belton, P. In the Way of the Prophet: Ideologies and Institutions in Dearborn, Michigan,
Americas Muslim Capitol, The Next American City, (3), Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://americancity.org/magazine/article/in-the-way-of-the-prophet-ideologies-and-institutions-belton/.
6Arab American Institute, Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://www.aaiusa.org/founda-tion/358/arab-americans.
7 Ibid.
8 SEMCOG. (2003). Regional Development Forecast Community Detail Report. Retrieved
March 2, 2008, from http://library.semcog.org/InmagicGenie/DocumentFolder/RegionalDevelopm
entForecast_2030CommunityDetail.pdf.
9 U.S. Census. (2000). Retrieved March 2, 2008, from www.census.gov.
10 U.S. Census. (2003). The Arab Population: 2000. Census 2000 Brief. December 2003, Re-
trieved February 16, 2008 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-23.pdf.
11 City of Detroit, Master Plan. (2004). 5-11. Retrieved February 16, 2008 from http://www.
ci.detroit.mi.us/plandevl/advplanning/pdfs/MPlan/MPlan_2004/Cluster5.
12 City of Detroit, Master Plan. (2004). Table 5-6.
13 United States Census Bureau. (2006).
14 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Retrieved February 3, 2008, from
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/detroit.html.
15 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Retrieved February 3, 2008, from
http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/indicators/wetlands.html.
16 Ibid.
17American Forests. (2006). Urban Ecosystem Analysis: SE Michigan and City of Detroit. Re-trieved February 3, 2008 from http://americanforests.org/downloads/rea/AF_Detroit.pdf.
18 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Retrieved November 28, 2007 from
http://www.epa.gov/eogapti1/module6/matter/character/character.htm.
19 Dockery, D., Pope, C., Xiping, X., Spengler, J. et al. (1993). An Association between Air Pol-
lution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities. New England Journal of Medicine, 329,1753-1759.
20 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Retrieved November 28, 2007 from
http://www.epa.gov/eogapti1/module6/matter/character/character.htm.21 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Retrieved October 29, 2007 from
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903.
22 Ibid.
23 Ritchie, I. (2007). Effects of PM2.5 on Childrens Health in Indiana. Issue Paper for: Summitfor Childrens Environmental Health at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Re-
trieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.ceh.iu.edu/Documents/Fine%20Particles.pdf.
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 20
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
29/121
24 Delfino, R. J., Constantinos S., and Malik, S. (2005) Potential role of ultrafine particles inassociations between airborne particle mass and cardiovascular health. Environmental Health
Perspectives. 113.8(934),13.
25 Ibid.
26 Magari, S., Schwartz, J., Williams, P., Hauser, R., Smith, T., Christiani, D. (2002). The as-
sociation of particulate air metal concentrations with heart rate variability. Environmental HealthPerspectives, 110, 875-879.
27 Pope, C., Bates, D., and Raizenned, M. (1995). Health Effects of Particulate Air Pollution:Time for Reassessment? Environmental Health Perspectives, 103(5), 472-480.
28 Detroit Kids Data. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from detroitkidsdata.org.
29 Lewis, T. C., Robins, T. G., Dvonch, J. T., Keeler, G. J., Fuyuen, Y. (2005). Air PollutionAs-
sociated Changes in Lung Function among Asthmatic Children in Detroit. Environmental HealthPerspectives, 113(1068), 175.
30 Michigan Department of Community Health. (2002). Preventable Hospitalizations and Rates
per 10,000 Population for Patients under 18 Years of Age by Selected Leading Diagnoses,
19962000. Lansing, MI: Division for Vital Records and Statistics.
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 21
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
30/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 22
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
31/121
4 Understanding Air QualityRegulations for ParticulateMatter and Fugivtive Dust
National Regulations and Control
The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act established National Ambient AirQuality Standards for six criteria pollutants:
1. particulate matter
2. ozone
3. lead
4. sulfur dioxide
5. carbon monoxide
6. nitrogen oxide
Standards for these six pollutants were adopted because they are consid-
ered to be harmful to the public and environment. The Clean Air Act sets
primary and secondary standards for criteria pollutants (see Table 2).
Primary standards protect public health including sensitive populations,
while secondary standards protect public welfare in terms of visibility, agri-
cultural economy, and building stock. Regulations establish further distinc-
tions within the primary and secondary standards for PM, including annual
and 24-hour standards. The current standard for PM2.5
for a 24-hour period
is 35 micrograms/cubic meter (g/m3), while the annual standard is 15g/
m3. The current 24-hour standard for PM10
is 150g/m3; however, the an-
nual standard has been revoked because available evidence generally does
not suggest a link between long-term exposure to current levels of coarse
particles and health problems.1 Standards for PM are based on an average
of daily or yearly measurements. Annual PM2.5
standards are averaged over
a three-year period and must not exceed 15g/m3. 24-hour PM2.5
standards
are also averaged over three years. The 98th percentile of this three-year
average must not exceed 35g/m3. The Clean Air Act requires states to have
air quality monitoring stations that provide data used to produce air quality
statistics. Air quality statistics are used to determine whether a geographical
area complies with NAAQS.
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 23
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
32/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 24
Table 2:
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution2
Pollutant Primary
Standards
Averaging Times Secondary
Standards
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Revoked Annual
(Arith. Mean)150 g/m3 24-hour
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5
)
15 g/m3 Annual
(Arith. Mean)
Same as Primary
35 g/m3 24-hour
State Regulation and Control
The Clean Air Act requires every state to adopt a State Implementation Plan
(SIP). An SIP contains the control measures and strategies to both attain
and maintain NAAQS, including particulate matter in the form of fugitivedust.4 Typical elements of an SIP include state-issued and EPA-approved
orders requiring pollution control at individual companies, federal air quality
regulations, and planning documents such as area-specific compilations of
emissions estimates and computer simulations demonstrating that the regu-
latory limits will provide timely compliance with NAAQS.5 The development
of an SIP must follow a specific process. Every state is required to provide
a public comment period for each proposed element within an SIP.6 Follow-
ing public input, control measures and strategies are submitted to the EPA.
Once submissions are approved by the EPA, they are incorporated into the
federally approved SIP. Given the number of air quality elements required in
an SIP by the Clean Air Act, the document is quite extensive. For example,
required elements for PM include: air pollution control regulations; emission
inventories; monitoring networks; attainment demonstrations; and enforce-
ment mechanisms.7 Thus, an SIP is not one comprehensive document ap-
proved on a regular basis by the EPA. Instead, it is a living document which
can be revised to address the unique air pollution problems in a given state.
It should be noted that states do adopt air quality legislation that is not incor-
Particulate Matter Levels in Dearborn and Detroit
MDEQs 2006 Annual Air Quality Report shows that the two monitoring sta-
tions in the study area measure at levels exceeding annual and 24-hour PM2.5
standards.
3
The Dearborn monitor shows the highest PM10readings in thestate at 31.3g/m3. Consequently, the State of Michigan is required by the
Clean Air Act to develop and adopt controls and strategies that will bring all
non-attainment areas into compliance. The methods by which controls and
strategies are identified for the EPA are incorporated in a State Implementation
Plan (SIP).
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
33/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 25
porated into an SIP. For instance, several of Michigans fugitive dust control
rules are not incorporated in the states SIP.
Michigan Fugitive Dust Regulation
Michigan has specific rules associated with the generation and control of
fugitive dust, a number of which are incorporated into Michigans SIP. De-pending on the type of fugitive dust source, local air quality measurements,
or the level of public concern, fugitive dust sources may be required to devel-
op a fugitive dust program. A fugitive dust program is an operating program
[] designed to significantly reduce the fugitive dust emissions to the lowest
level that a particular source is capable of achieving by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available, based on technological and
economic feasibility.8 In addition to the fugitive dust provisions in Michigans
SIP, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act and Michigan
Rule 336.1901 also provide specific rules associated with potential fugitive
dust generating facilities. The following rules apply to fugitive dust sources in
Wayne County:
Part 55 of the Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Act, 1994, as Amended
Section 324.2424Fugitive Dust Sources & Emissions
Section 324.5525Definitions
Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules
Section R 336.1371Fugitive Dust Control Programs
Section R 336.1372Fugitive Dust Control Methods
Section R 336.1901Air Contaminants, prohibited
These rules define three ways a facility or site may be required to develop a
fugitive dust program. A fugitive dust program may be required if:
1. A potential fugitive dust generating activity is located within
a designated nonattainment area (Section 324.2424)
This rule targets air polluting industrial facilities that are
located in areas with excessive PM levels and that
must obtain air pollution permits through MDEQ.
2. MDEQ determines that an area has excessive PM
concentrations or receives a substantial number of com-
plaints regarding fugitive dust emissions (Rule 336.1371)
This rule targets facilities and activities that process,
use, store, transport, or convey bulk materials from a
highly emitting dust source.
Depending on the type of
fugitive dust source, local
air quality measurements,
or the level of public
concern, fugitive dust
sources may be required
to develop a fugitive dust
program.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
34/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 26
3. A fugitive dust source is determined to be a public
nuisance (Rule 336.1901)
This rule targets a person that causes or allows air
contamination in quantities that jeopardize the health
and welfare of the public.
Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act Requirements
Section 324.5524, Part 55, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Pro-
tection Act (NREPA) includes requirements for potential fugitive dust generat-
ing activities in nonattainment areas. Specifically, it requires that potential fu-
gitive dust generating activities in designated nonattainment areas (1) adopt
and implement fugitive dust programs and (2) meet certain opacity limits.
The original intent of this measure was to help ensure areas that have been
determined to not meet PM10
air quality standards effectively address the re-
duction of local PM levels. Facilities required to have fugitive dust programs
include those with the following standard industrial classification (SIC) codes:
SIC 10-14Mining Operations
SIC 20-39Manufacturing Operations
SIC 40Railroad Transportation
SIC 42Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing
SIC 491Electric Services
SIC 495Sanitary Services
SIC 496Steam Supply
Facilities that fall within one of these codes cannot cause or allow fugitive
dust from a road, lot, or storage pile to reach an opacity measurement great-
er than 5 percent, as measured by EPA Protocol Reference Method 9D.9 Inaddition, Section R 325.5524 (2) states that any facility falling within these
codes cannot cause or allow the emission of fugitive dust from any other fugi-
tive dust source that has an opacity greater than 20 percent, as determined
by test method 9D.10 This may include, for example, the handling of a bulk
material storage pile, which constitutes an active storage pile. The NREPA
also requires that these regulated facilities adopt suppression methods for
particular fugitive dust activities. Typical fugitive dust generating activities
and suppression methods recommended by MDEQ are outlined in Table 3.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
35/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 27
Table 3:
Fugitive Dust Generating Activities and Suppression Methods11
Source Suppression Method
Material Storage Pile Protect with cover, enclosed, sprayed
with water or a surfactant solution, ortreated by an equivalent method
Conveyor loading operations to storage
piles
Utilize spray systems, telescopic chutes,
stone ladders, or other equivalent
methods
Batch loading operations from storage
piles
Utilize spray systems, limit drop heights,
enclosures, or other equivalent methods
Unloading operations from storage piles Utilize rake reclaimers, bucket wheel
reclaimers, underpile conveying,
pneumatic conveying with baghouse,
water sprays, gravity-feed plow reclaim-
ers, front-end loaders with limited dropheight, or other equivalent method
Traffic pattern access areas surround-
ing storage piles and all traffic patterns
roads and parking facilities
Pave or treat with water, oils, or chemi-
cal dust suppressants
Unloading and transporting operations
of materials collected by pollution control
equipment
Utilize spraying, pelletizing, screw con-
veying, or other equivalent method
Crushers, grinding mills, screening
operations, bucket elevators, conveyor
transfer points, conveying bagging op-
erations, storage bins, and fine product
truck and railcar loading operations
Spray with water or a surfactant solu-
tion, utilize choke-feeding, or equivalent
method
Although Section 324.5524 of the NREPA was originally adopted to reduce
PM10
levels in nonattainment areas, its provisions are still used to control
fugitive dust generating activities in Wayne County. As a result, these re-
quirements are currently incorporated into the most commonly used method
to regulate fugitive dust sources: the Permit to Install or the New Source
Review process. For instance, compliance with NREPA is usually ad-
dressed during the air permitting process. In accordance with Michigan Rule
336.1201, a facility that has the potential to emit air pollution must go through
the New Source Review process and obtain a Permit to Install prior to the
installation, construction, reconstruction, relocation, or modification of equip-
ment that emits air contaminants.12 The Permit to Install is a state license
to emit air contamination into the ambient air. It provides a list of conditions
with which the responsible person or company must comply. Conditions
typically limit the emission of air contaminants, restrict hours of operation,
limit the amount and type of raw material used, and require the operation
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
36/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 28
of air pollution control equipment.13 Based on the New Source Review, and
applicable NREPA provisions, a facility within a nonattainment (or previously
nonattainment) area may be required to include a fugitive dust program as a
condition of the Permit to Install.
Fugitive Dust Rules Included in Michigans SIP
Statewide fugitive dust provisions are included in Part 3, Emissions Limi-
tations and Prohibitions, of Michigans SIP. According to Michigan Rule
336.1371, in response to excessive PM measurements or a substantial
number of complaints, the MDEQ may request a fugitive dust suppression
program from a facility that processes, uses, stores, transports, or conveys
bulk materials from a highly emitting dust source.14 Highly emitting dust
sources include the loading and unloading of open storage piles, transporting
bulk materials, outdoor conveying, construction, renovation, and demolition,
inactive storage piles, building ventilations, roads and lots.
Requirements for a fugitive dust program under Michigan Rule 336.1371 areprovided in Michigan Rule 336.1372. The requirements are divided accord-
ing to the type of fugitive dust generating activity or source, including:
Open storage piles of bulk material
Transporting of bulk materials
Outdoor conveying
Roads and lots
Inactive storage piles
Building ventilation
Construction, renovation, or demolition
Fugitive dust programs under Michigan Rule 336.1371 are reviewed and
approved by MDEQ. After approval of the program, responsible parties must
maintain the control schedule documented in the program. Fugitive dust
programs can be revised if facility circumstances change.
Additional Michigan Fugitive Dust Rules
While not included in the fugitive dust section of Michigans SIP, Michigan
Rule 336.901 also applies to the control of fugitive dust. Michigan Rule
336.901 states that a person cannot cause or permit air contamination in
quantities that cause (a) injurious effects to human health or safety, animal
life, plant life of significant value, or property or (b) unreasonable interference
with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
37/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 29
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final Revisions to the National Ambi-ent Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution (Particulate Matter).
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Retrieved January 31, 2008 fromhttp://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/standards.html.
3 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2006) Annual Air Quality Report. 27-35.
Retrieved November 18, 2007 from http://michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-aqd-air-reports-06AQReport_216544_7.pdf.
4 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Approval and Promulgation of AirQuality Implementation Plans. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/
EPA-AIR/2006/September/Day-06/a14708.htm.
5 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.). State Implementation Plan Overview.
Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3310_30151_3
0154---,00.html.
6 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Revised Format of 40 CFR Part 52 for Materials Being
Incorporated by Reference. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/September/Day-06/a14708.htm.
7 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2008). State Implementation Plan Submittalfor Particulate Matter2.5. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from http://michigan.gov/documents/
deq/deq-aqd-air-aqe-sip-pm25-1-14-08_223446_7.pdf.
8 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2005). Managing Fugitive Dust: A Guide for
Compliance with the Air Regulatory Requirements for Particulate Matter Generation.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2007). Air Quality Regulations. Re-trieved January 23, 2008, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ess-p2tas-
FVGuidech1_199604_7.pdf.
13 Ibid
14 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2005).
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
38/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 30
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
39/121
5 Fugitive Dust and ParticulateMatter Sources
Fugitive dust pollution can come from a variety of sources. Consequently,
it is often difficult to identify the direct source of fugitive dust because it canconsist of any activity, process, or unintended consequence that produces
unaccounted for PM. Examples of these unintended emissions include an
automobile driving on an unpaved or dirt-covered roadway, a strong wind
blowing uncontrolled soil from a large bulk material storage pile, or a heavy
commercial vehicle exiting a construction or unpaved industrial site. In addi-
tion, emission can occur from a variety of land uses including major industrial
sites, public roadways, or private residential properties. While some of the
largest major sources in Michigan are required to implement fugitive dust
programs, a significant number of dust generating facilities and activities go
unmonitored and untreated. This report identifies many of these facilities and
activities in the project area and suggests mitigation strategies to help reducePM levels. This report also identifies major stationary and mobile sources of
PM in the area. This is a necessary step in mitigating fugitive dust because it
helps identify facilities that are likely to have implemented a fugitive dust pro-
gram required by Michigan air quality provisions. Additionally, a clear under-
standing of current PM generation in the area helps guide the most effective
long-term mitigation strategies. For instance, a number of industrial facili-
ties in the area plan to expand their operations over the next several years.
Focusing mitigation strategies in close proximity to these areas may prove
ineffective once expansion projects take place and facilities and surrounding
landscape are altered.
It is important to acknowledge that state and federal air quality regulations
provide the framework for monitoring and mitigating PM2.5
and PM10
from ma-
jor stationary and mobile sources. Consequently, this report does not specifi-
cally recommend or solicit amendments to existing air quality regulations for
these facilities. However, because it is important to understand the rules
that apply to the generation of PM in relation to fugitive dust, the changes to
these regulations are outlined in the following section.
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 31
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
40/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 32
In February 2008, MDEQ issued a draft version of the State Implementation
Plan Submittal for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5).1 The draft outlines both
national and local controls designed to ensure that PM2.5
in the region and,
particularly in the project area, will meet the 24-hour and annual NAAQS
standards. The document states that the controls will contribute to a down-
ward trend in PM emissions in the entire region, and particularly the monitors
in the project area. Using air quality monitoring data, MDEQ and SEMCOG
reviewed local conditions, evaluated the implementation of adopted controls,
and have determined that the area will meet NAAQS for PM2.5
by 2010.
The following section provides an overview of the major PM stationary
sources, mobile sources, and the significant changes taking place, as well as
the efforts currently underway to reduce PM levels in the project area. Most
importantly, it identifies potential fugitive dust sources.
Major Stationary Sources
There are 42 major stationary
sources of PM in the project area
(see Figure 7 and associated
table). These sources are gener-
ally industrial facilities, including
large facilities like the Marathon
Oil Refinery and Severstal Steel.
Currently, 29 percent of the land
in the project area is classified as
industrial activity, equivalent to ap-
proximately 20,600 acres. While industrial facilities in the area emit a varietyof chemicals, including known air toxics that result in the formation of sec-
ondary PM (sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides), they also emit a substantial
amount of primary PM. According to MDEQ, the major stationary facilities
who have obtained air pollution permits in the area contributed to at least
1,234,392 pounds of PM10
and 323,551 pounds of PM2.5
in 2004.2
National Regulations for Major Stationary Sources
The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) is a national level program that works to
significantly reduce sulfates and nitrates through the use of a cap-and-trade
pollution reduction approach. Adopted in 2004, CAIR requires states to make
major reductions in air pollution from all major stationary sources by 2015.The two options that a state has to comply with CAIR regulations are to re-
quire power plants to participate in an EPA administered interstate cap-and-
trade program, or to allow power plants to meet an individual state emis-
sions budget through measures of the states own design.3 According to the
EPA, CAIR will produce $85 to $100 billion in annual health benefits, prevent
17,000 premature deaths annually, reduce millions of lost work and school
days, and reduce tens of thousands of non-fatal heart attacks and hospital
Currently, 29 percent of
the land in the project area
is classified as industrial
activity, equivalent to ap-
proximately 20,600 acres.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
41/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 33
Figure 7: Point Source Map
Key for Point Source Map
Site # Source Site # Source
1 Comprehensive Environmental Solutions 22 Sunoco Inc
2 Darling International Inc 23 Marathon Ashland Petroleum
3 Dearborn Industrial Generation 24 US Gypsum Company
4 BP Products North America 25 BASF Corporation
5 DTE River Rouge Power Plant 26 Crown Plating Co
6 US Steel Great Lakes Works 27 Honeywell
7 Carmeuse/River Rouge 28 National Steel Corp
8 Detroit WWTP 29 Fritz Products
9 Ford Motor Co 30 Fabricon Products
10 Ford Motor River Rouge Complex 31 EDW C Levy DO Plant 6
11 Ford Elm St Boiler House 32 Detroit Salt
12 Ford Motor Company - R&E and Elm St PP 33 Detroit Electro-Coatings Company
13 Severstal 34 IPMC Aquisition LLC
14 DTE Delray Power Plant 35 EDW C Levy Plant 1
15 St Marys Cement 36 Reily Plating/Mlok Incorporated
16 Detroit Public Lighting - Mistersky Power 37 Kasle Steel Corp
17 Magni Industries 38 Ferrous Environmental Recycling Corp
18 Spartan Industrial 39 Coca Cola Bottling Co
19 Equilon Enterprises 40 Hispanic MFG/Gonzalez MFG
20 Owens Corning Trumbull Div 41 Carmeuse/Detroit Lime
21 Cadillac Asphalt Products 42 Daimler Chrysler - McGraw
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
42/121
B r e a t h i n g E a s i e r i n S o u t h w e s t D e t r o i t 34
admissions by year 2015.4 According to MDEQs draft version of the State
Implementation Plan Submittal for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), the imple-
mentation of CAIR will result in major reductions of sulfates and nitrates, two
of the most significant contributors to PM2.5
at monitors showing violations of
the standards throughout the nonattainment area.5
Local Regulations for Major Stationary Sources
The strategy in the State Implementation Plan Submittal for Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) to bring the project area into attainment for PM
2.5includes local
controls for specific facilities. Three facilities, Severstal Steel, U.S. Steel, and
the Marathon Petroleum Company, will be required to undergo local controls
to reduce PM2.5
production. MDEQ chose these facilities because they emit
the highest levels of PM and because they are especially close to the air
quality monitors reporting levels that exceed NAAQS standards. Data from
MDEQs draft version of the State Implementation Plan Submittal for Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) indicates that significant amounts of PM2.5 likely
come predominantly from local upwind industrial sources, and that control of
these sources, primarily the nearby steel mill (Severstal), will bring the area
into attainment of the annual PM2.5
standard by 2010.6
Consequently, Severstal Steel will be installing several baghouses, eliminat-
ing torch cutting on-site, reducing the opacity of emissions from scarfing
operations, and reducing the smoking of torpedo cars. Severstal will also
take the following actions to offset their PM2.5
emissions: retrofit local school
buses, retrofit diesel equipment on-site, and plant trees around their facility.
U.S. Steel has already replaced a baghouse that has decreased its PM2.5
emissions. Marathon Oil will add nitrogen oxide controls to their facilities, as
well an electrostatic precipitator to catch PM before it is emitted. Marathon
has also recently applied for a permit to build a new coking unit and as a re-
sult has agreed to several voluntary community benefits to help offset its PM
output. The community benefits include retrofitting school buses, enhancing
street sweeping on public roads near the plant, installing air monitors near
the facility, installing PM controls on the trucks that will transport the pro-
cessed coke, and purchasing PM10
off-sets from retired plants. The area will
also benefit from the retrofitting of 40 diesel switch engines.
Stationary Source Inventory
Table 4 on the following pages lists major facilities in the project area, the pri-
mary industrial activity they engage in, the amount of land they occupy, and
the amount of PM they reported emitted in 2004.
-
7/28/2019 Breathing Easier in SW Detroit: Mitigating Fugitive Dust with Vegetation
43/121
U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n : U r b a n + R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m 35
Table 4:
Stationary Source Inventory
Name
Land Area
(acres) Activity
2002 Emissions (in tons)
NOX
SO2
PM10
VOC
BP Products North America -
River Rouge
29 Stores and loads BP gas 0 0 0 52
Cadillac Asphalt Products 14.6 Produces asphalt products fro highway con-
struction projects
7 0 1 10
Carmeuse/Detroit Lime 3.5 Produces stone, clay, lime, and glass products 556 47 29 0
Carmeuse/River Rouge 4.8 Serves as a delivery terminal for stone, clay,
lime and glass products
327 55 111 0
City of Detroit: Waste Water
Treatment Plant
125 Processes the waste-water for the entire
Metro-Detroit region, largest single-site waste-
water treatment facilities in the United States
276 42 52 52
Coca Cola Bottling Company 9.1 Markets, distributes, and produces bottled and
canned beverage products for The Coca-Cola
Company
2 0 0 0
Comprehensive Environmental
Solutions
19 Processes industrial waste oils, oil-contami-
nated waste, wastewater, waste sludge, and
other solid waste
0 0 0 0
Crown Plating Company 0.5 Plates and polishes electrical equipment 0 0 0 0
Daimler Chrysler - McGraw 38 "Cuts, shapes, and tempers glass since for
clear and tinted windshields,
side glass, backlights, and liftgates"
8 0 0 5
Darling International 9 Processes animal and food waste products
into useful commercial goods, including tallow,
protein meals, and yellow grease
19 17 5 12
Dearborn Industrial Genera-
tion
11 Generates 550 megawatts of power with
natural gas
484 78 870 5
Detroit Edision - River Rouge
Power Plant
101.9 Generates 527 megawatts of electr icity with
coal-burning
5143 38 1619 45
Detroit Edison - Delray Power
Plant
37.9 Generates 350 megawatts of power with coal-
burning, Detroits first power plant
17 0 0 1
Detroit Electro-Coatings Com-
pany LLC
23.1 Coats, packages, assembles, warehouses and
distributes electric equipment
1 0 0 6
Detroit Public Light - Mistersky
Power Station
18 Generates 160 megawatts of electricity with
coal-burning
208 11 2 4
Detroit Salt 26.8 Mines rock salt from under the city of Detroit
and distributes the product in bulk as road
deicing salt to governments and other entities
in Michigan
0 1 0 0
EDW C Levy DO Plant 1 26.8 Produces, quarries, and stores stone and
other aggregate materials
0 1 0 0
EDW C Levy DO Plant 6 10.3 Produces, quarries, and stores stone and
other aggregate materials