1. Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center (NUATRC) Applying the Findings of the First Air Toxics Workshop to Air Toxics Issues in Houston: How Can We Do Better? Craig Beskid, President June 12-13, 2007

2. ATW I Goals  Bring together air toxic research, technical, regulatory and policymaking communities  Exchange information about the status of air toxics research that may be relevant to local, state and national policy  Encourage communication, collaboration, and integration  Increase policy-relevant research opportunities

3. Critical Review of ATW I Findings  A review of the findings of the first air toxics workshop is important  Mixed success in implementing some of the concepts we discussed—for some we have more questions than answers  Reviewing these lessons learned can help us improve future research, and ultimately, reduced exposure

4. Increased Coordination, Integration and Collaboration Crucial  Over 30 groups in Houston working on air pollution issues  Clearly a diverse, committed pool of resources to bring to the table  Yet research over the past year and a half has often been closed and remains in “silos”

5. Relevant Research Should Drive Inquiry and Fill Gaps  The foundation of all air quality policy is the protection of the public health and welfare.  Research answers questions and fills data gaps to enable better assessment of risk, and more effective health protection.  Policy-relevant research starts with addressing public needs and asking the policymakers at all levels of government what their needs are—Dr. Palacio from Harris County discussed this eloquently at the first ATW.  Results over the past year—mixed.

6. Risk Communication Principles Enhance Understanding  Scientists that are most knowledgeable are often not trained in risk communication  Communicators often required to oversimplify issues—public misperceptions result  Over past year, there has been more discussion of air toxics risks and controls, but has knowledge or sophistication increased?  Are citizens and businesses working harder to reduce air toxics exposure and emissions through daily activities?

7. Identify Direct Links Between Air Toxics Exposure and Health Effects  Ambient measurements and modeling drives most of our current understanding of air toxics risk for regional and sub-regional populations  This approach is limited  The HEATS study, initiated in the past year by several of the workshop sponsors, is a major new attempt to directly collect exposure and health symptom data

8. Expedite Development and Use of New Technologies  New sampler technology development is crucial. Requires well-funded, longer-term, foundational research commitment  HEATS has methods development component to develop, test and refine air toxics samplers appropriate for unique Houston weather conditions  Insufficient time, funding, and specialized scientific expertise accounts in part for lack of data in this field

9. Focus Resources on Health Effects Risk Drivers  Maximize health protection and limited resources by focusing on air toxics exposures and emissions that drive health effects.  Additional collaborative exposure, health effects studies are key  For example, while reductions in emissions are good; reductions in emissions resulting in high exposures should be the priority.

10. Recommendations: A Case Study  Several organizations discussed the need for a major new exposure data collection study  PIs are Morandi/Stock at UTSPH, with key scientific participation from UTMB, RTI, EPA.  Funding partners are EPA, TCEQ, NUATRC, EHCMA, TERC  Advisory partners include Harris County and City of Houston

11. Rationale for HEATS  Funding partners believe that a major exposure data collection study was needed to provide crucial information  Two socio-demographically matched neighborhoods, Manchester and Aldine  Methods development phase  Personal exposure data related to ambient measurements  Health symptom data for future hypothesis generation analysis

12. Open Process  Iterative scope of work process involves PI development of scope, iterative review and discussion process by NUATRC SAP, other sponsors scientists  HEATS involves both basic, and “policy-relevant” research effort  Strong emphasis placed on broad-based consensus about methods and study design up front, to reduce debate about validity and relevance at the end

13. Policymaking Uses for HEATS Data  Regulatory agencies hope to discern the difference in exposure between two socio-demographically matched Houston populations—one with high traffic exposure, and the other with high traffic and industrial exposure  Compare exposure measurements to ambient measurements—how much can our ambient monitors tell us about individual citizens’ exposure?  Obtain health symptom data that may generate future hypotheses  Improve exposure measurement methods for Houston  Improve inputs to models, etc.

14. Communication Plan  TCEQ and NUATRC have funded a outreach, education and communication plan  Purpose of plan is to enhance communication and understanding of the study's findings and limitations for the study population, scientists, community, and policy makers  This should help with recruitment and community relations  Finally, will help policymakers make optimum use of the scientific findings of HEATS quickly and efficiently.

15. Challenges  Process has not been easy  Time required to develop methods, and build consensus.  Participants often at odds with need for data by regulatory agencies  Funding is a challenge—funding agencies have to account for funds spent  Development and testing of new technology does not develop along a straight line  Concerns that the inclusive process does not stifle traditional academic freedoms of PIs must be addressed

16. HEATS Process Recommendations  HEATS shows that collaboration between diverse funding entities and respected scientific institutions is possible— Challenges can be overcome  An inclusive process may be more cumbersome, but brings process checks, diverse expertise and perspectives and greater community buy-in to the study  Future study partners should clearly lay out expectations on both sides for clear and efficient participation  Funding partners and scientists should share a clear understanding of various funding contingencies up front

17. Conclusion  The first ATW generated a wealth of important collaboration and relevant findings  Progress has been made implementing ATW I findings in the Houston community. Much work remains and is continuing.  Facts must prevail over agendas or beliefs.  One case study, HEATS, shows that various of these findings can be implemented, and produce crucial air toxics information, but the path is not fast or easy.  This approach has much value, it requires participation, integration, and collaboration on a scale unseen in this community; however, progress is made every day.

18. Conclusion  Challenges and all, this process is still our best hope to solve public heath issues related to air toxics. Thank you for your attention. Questions?