1. Links between Toxic in the Air and Children’s School Performance Presented by Dr. Byoung-Suk Kweon, University of Maryland Other Principal Investigator Dr. Paul Mohai, University of Michigan Post-doctoral Research Fellow Dr. Sangyun Lee, University of Michigan Sponsor The Kresge Foundation June 20, 2012

2. Article in Health Affairs examining air pollution burdens from industrial sources around schools available at: (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/5.toc)

3. Locations of 3660 public schools in the State of Michigan

4. Locations of 594 RSEI facilities in the State of Michigan

5. Total toxic concentration contours in the state of Michigan (2006 RSEI) Contours based on accumulated area of 1 km by 1 km grid cells in ascending order of total toxic concentration from 2006 Risk Screening Environmental Indicator

6. Total toxic concentration contours in the state of Michigan (2006 RSEI and Top 10 Percentile) Contours based on accumulated area of 1 km by 1 km grid cells in ascending order of total toxic concentration from 2006 Risk Screening Environmental Indicator

7. Estimating toxic air concentrations from industrial sources within 2 km of schools using areal apportionment Mean air toxic concentration within 2 km circle of the school = ∑ %CG i * TC i %CG i = Percent of area of the 2 km circle captured by grid cell i TC i = Total toxic concentration in grid cell i n i =1

8. Data obtained from Scorecard: http://www.scorecard.org. Top 12 chemicals in areas within 2 km of schools Develop mental Cardiov ascular Carcino genic Respirat ory Neurolo gical Diisocyanates Yes Manganese Yes Sulfuric Acid Yes Nickel Yes Chlorine Yes Chromium Yes Trimethyl- benzene Yes Hydrochloric Acid Yes Molybdenum trioxide Yes Lead Yes Cobalt Yes Glycol Ethers Yes 8

9. Changes in median air toxic concentrations, 1999-2006 Schools (Metro) = areas within 2 km of schools in Detroit Metro Area Schools (DET) = areas within 2 km of schools in Detroit

10. Deciles of TC by land area (sq km) Schools All Students White Students African American Students Hispanic Students Students in Free Lunch Program %%% 1 st Decile 6516,75413,2281701295732 1.81.01.10.10.21.2 2 nd Decile 7823,11821,7931934057,043 2.11.41.90.10.51.5 3 rd Decile 9532,26930,3543375379,441 2.62.02.60.10.72.0 4 th Decile 14750,16546,1241173137011,666 4.03.14.00.41.82.4 5 th Decile 18271,20863,34920743,27415,978 5.04.45.50.64.33.3 6 th Decile 233100,04589,11740643,92121,319 6.46.17.71.35.24.4 7 th Decile 268109,22987,44414,5453,94628,470 7.36.77.54.55.25.9 8 th Decile 305129,906113,0238,3154,70030,525 8.38.09.72.66.26.4 9 th Decile 514233,399181,57428,64110,41351,645 14.014.315.68.913.810.7 10 th Decile 1773863,629515,839262,68547,046298,984 48.453.044.481.562.162.2 Total3,6601,629,7221,161,845322,19775,741480,803 Deciles of total toxic concentration in Michigan and school-based demographics Total toxic concentration estimates are based on 2006 Risk Screening Environmental Indicator (RSEI) data.

11. Schools whose toxic concentration (TC) are greater than their districts’ Deciles of TC by school %Schools whose TCs exceed their Districts’ Ave. TC of Schools TC of District 1 st Decile0.00%N.A. 2 nd Decile10.26%0.620.48 3 rd Decile11.58%1.250.80 4 th Decile17.69%2.881.16 5 th Decile19.23%4.912.11 6 th Decile40.77%8.542.54 7 th Decile31.34%13.824.13 8 th Decile39.34% 20.886.96 9 th Decile 63.42%37.0113.81 10 th Decile 91.54%229.4022.46 Total toxic concentrations based on 2006 RSEI-GM and are within 2 km of schools. 11

12. Percent of students not meeting MEAP standards for English by percentiles of total toxic concentration MEAP scores are for 2007. Pollution estimates come from 2006 RSEI. Percent of students not meeting MEAP standards are based on averages across all schools in Michigan.

13. Percent of students not meeting MEAP standards for math by percentiles of total toxic concentration MEAP scores are for 2007. Pollution estimates come from 2006 RSEI. Percent of students not meeting MEAP standards are based on averages across all schools in Michigan.

14. N=2574 English Math Model 1Model 2 Model 1Model 2 Beta Total TC (1-58) —— —— Total TC (59-86) 0.20***0.07*** 0.18***0.06*** Total TC (87+) 0.39***0.07*** 0.37***0.08*** Rural areas — — Central cities 0.09*** 0.08*** Suburbs 0.06** 0.01 Student attendance rates -0.10*** -0.11*** Total Expenditure per pupil (district) -0.01 0.00 #Students 0.07*** 0.13*** Student/Teacher Ratio 0.03 0.05*** %Free lunch students 0.66*** 0.56*** R2R2 0.151***0.573*** 0.132***0.479*** Regression analysis of percent of students not meeting 2007 MEAP standards by total toxic concentration from 2006 RSEI * P <.05; ** P <.01; *** P <.001

15. Respiratory risk contours in the state of Michigan (2005 National Air Toxics Assessment) Contours based on accumulated area (in square kilometers) of census tracts in ascending order of respiratory risk estimates from 2005 NATA

16. Respiratory risk contours in the state of Michigan (2005 NATA and Top 10 Percentile) Contours based on accumulated area (in square kilometers) of census tracts in ascending order of respiratory risk estimates from 2005 NATA

17. Estimating cancer risk within 2 km of schools using areal apportionment Mean cancer risk within 2 km circle of the school = ∑ %CT i * CR i %CT i = Percent of the area of the circle captured by the tract i CR i = Cancer risk for the tract i n i =1

18. Deciles of respiratory risk by land area (sq km) Schools All Students White Students African American Students Hispanic Students Students in Free Lunch Program %%% 1 st Decile 294,9863,87626271264 0.80.3 0.0 0.3 2 nd Decile 235,6184,68135342,073 0.60.30.40.0 0.4 3 rd Decile 4410,0839,23086572,971 1.20.60.80.00.10.6 4 th Decile 10525,86323,9502203849,180 2.91.62.10.10.51.9 5 th Decile 9729,96028,0733476249,606 2.71.82.40.10.82.0 6 th Decile 14443,50740,5676961,26714,787 3.92.73.50.21.73.1 7 th Decile 19766,02160,5577713,04718,647 5.44.15.20.24.03.9 8 th Decile 289108,51598,7862,2894,75926,214 7.96.78.50.76.35.5 9 th Decile 484208,595188,3427,2607,51343,518 13.212.816.22.39.99.1 10 th Decile 22481,126,574703,783310,46758,029352,543 61.469.160.696.476.673.3 Total3,6601,629,7221,161,845322,19775,741480,803 Deciles of respiratory risk in Michigan and school- based demographics Respiratory risk estimates are based on 2005 NATA and include major, area, on-road mobile, non-road mobile, and background sources

19. Percentage of schools whose respiratory risk ratios are greater than their districts’ Deciles of RRR by school %Schools whose RRRs exceed their Districts’ Ave. RRR of Schools RRR of District 1 st Decile 18.31%0.5610.462 2 nd Decile 39.34%1.0150.565 3 rd Decile 47.27%1.5020.724 4 th Decile 63.39%1.9650.952 5 th Decile 63.93%2.5781.273 6 th Decile 74.59%3.4551.474 7 th Decile 81.97%4.4362.040 8 th Decile 93.72%5.7191.798 9 th Decile 100%6.9661.080 10 th Decile 100%8.2690.913 Respiratory risk ratio is based on 2002 NATA and includes major, area, on-road mobile, non-road mobile, and background sources 19

20. Percent of students not meeting MEAP standards for English by percentiles of total respiratory risk MEAP scores are for 2007. Pollution estimates come from 2005 NATA. Percent of students not meeting MEAP standards are based on averages across all schools in Michigan.

21. Percent of students not meeting MEAP standards for math by percentiles of total respiratory risk MEAP scores are for 2007. Pollution estimates come from 2005 NATA. Percent of students not meeting MEAP standards are based on averages across all schools in Michigan.

22. N=2574 English Math Model 1Model 2 Model 1Model 2 Beta Total respiratory risk (1-53) —— —— Total respiratory risk (54-82) 0.12***0.03* 0.11***0.02 Total respiratory risk (83+) 0.43***0.11*** 0.39***0.11*** Rural areas — — Central cities 0.09*** 0.08*** Suburbs 0.06** 0.01 Student attendance rates -0.16*** -0.17*** Total Expenditure per pupil (district) -0.01 0.00 #Students -0.03* 0.05** Student/Teacher Ratio 0.05*** 0.07*** %Free lunch students 0.63*** 0.53*** R2R2 0.168***0.629*** 0.139***0.504*** Regression analysis of percent of students not meeting 2007 MEAP standards by total respiratory risk from 2005 NATA * P <.05; ** P <.01; *** P <.001

23. Michigan school siting factors Norton, 2008

24. Policy implications Ensure cooperation among federal, state and local agencies Analyze potential school sites Require minimum distances between schools and environmental hazards Adopt environmental mitigation policies