You are on page 1of 175

COMMENTS OF GASP ON PROPOSED REISSUANCE OF MAJOR SOURCE OPERATING PERMIT NO.

4-07-0001-03 TO ABC COKE, A DIVISION OF DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC.

Submitted April 18, 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Drummond Company, Inc. owns and operates the ABC Coke facility in Tarrant, Alabama. It has applied for renewal of a major source operating permit from the Jefferson County Department of Health. The permit, and decision to issue the permit, must conform to the Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, as well as certain other federal requirements. No person shall permit or cause air pollution by the discharge of any air contaminants for which no ambient air quality standards have been set. ABC Coke is required to demonstrate in its permit application that it will comply with this requirement. If it fails to make this demonstration, the Health Officer is required to deny the permit. Air pollution is defined as the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in such quantities and duration as are, or tend to be, injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or would interfere with the enjoyment of life or property throughout the County and in such territories of the County as shall be affected thereby. An air contaminant is defined as any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor, or any combination thereof, from whatever source. ABC Coke emits a number of carcinogens. Among these are Benzene, Naphthalene, and Arsenic. ABC Coke has failed to demonstrate in its application that the quantity and duration of these and other carcinogens in the outdoor atmosphere will not tend to be injurious to human health. Accordingly, the Health Officer must deny the ABC Coke permit. The Jefferson County Board of Health has declared that the incremental cancer risk from exposure to any individual carcinogen shall not exceed 1 in 100,000. GASP suggests that the incremental cumulative cancer risk from exposure to all carcinogens combined not exceed 5 in 100,000. Air monitoring results collected 1.5 miles away (near Walter Coke), suggest that these limits will be exceeded near ABC Coke. ABC Coke also emits odors and particulate matter. ABC Coke has failed to demonstrate that the quantity and duration of these air contaminants in the outdoor atmosphere will not tend to be injurious to human health, welfare or property and will not interfere with the enjoyment of life or property. Accordingly, the Health Officer must deny the ABC Coke permit. It is common knowledge that odors and particulate matter are interfering with nearby residents enjoyment of life and property. The emissions from ABC Coke will adversely and disproportionately impact a community that is composed of 66% African-Americans. The granting of the permit to ABC Coke will violate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations promulgated to implement the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Draft General Permit Condition 14 pertaining to control of fugitive dust from ABC Coke is based on a Board of Health regulation nearly identical to a rule adopted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. The latter rule has been declared unconstitutionally vague and restrictive. Therefore, the Health Officer must revise General Permit Condition 14 to ensure the prevention of fugitive dust emissions in a constitutional manner. Draft General Permit Condition 45 (Abatement of Obnoxious Odors) establishes unnecessary limits on the Health Officers power to abate unlawful odors. Specifically, the condition requires that odors be characterized as obnoxious by a Department inspector and that the Health Officer determine whether odor abatement measures are technically and economically feasible for the company to implement. None of these limitations are present in Board of Health regulations. General Permit Condition 45 should be revised so that it conforms to the requirements of Board of Health regulations. The quantity of emissions of Benzene and other air toxics by ABC Coke have not been measured. Emissions have only been estimated by ABC Coke. Estimated emissions are unreliable. Ambient concentrations of air toxics have not been measured near the ABC Coke facility. The Health Officer should require that ABC Coke use differential absorption light detection and ranging technology (DIAL) to measure ABC Cokes actual Benzene (and perhaps other hazardous air pollutant) emissions prior to issuance of the permit.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Overview .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ABC Coke Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Ambient Toxic Air Pollutant Monitoring and Cancer Risk Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Prohibition of Air Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 A. Cancer Risk from Exposure to Individual Air Toxic Emissions from ABC Coke .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Cumulative Cancer Risk from Exposure to Multiple Air Toxics Emissions from ABC Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Odor Emissions from ABC Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Particulate Emissions from ABC Coke .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

B.

C. D. VII. VIII. IX. X.

Draft General Permit Condition 14 is Unconstitutional and Unenforceable . . . . . . . . . 39 Restrictions in Draft Permit Condition 45 are not authorized by Regulation . . . . . . . . . 40 Differential Absorption Light Detection and Ranging Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 will violate EPA Regulations under Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Conclusions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Health Effects of Selected Air Toxics .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Mamie L. Williams v. Drummond Company, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 EJView Census 2010 Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

XI.

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C

iii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Drummond Co. Inc., ABC Coke Division and Neighboring Residential Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Drummond Co, Inc, ABC Coke Div Polycyclic Aromatic Compound Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Drummond Co, Inc, ABC Coke Div Benzene Emissions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Drummond Co, Inc, ABC Coke Div Naphthalene Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds .. . . . . . . . . 10 Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Benzene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Naphthalene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Summary of RSEI Model Results .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Comparison of RSEI Risk Scores for Drummond Co Inc, ABC Coke Division and Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Comparative Risk Scores for Fourteen Highest Risk Toxic Air Polluters in Jefferson County, AL (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Comparison of Walter Coke and ABC Coke RSEI Hazard Scores. . . . . . . . . . . 15 Comparison of Walter Coke and ABC Coke RSEI Risk Scores .. . . . . . . . . . . . 15 RESI Model Facility Risk Score Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Average Air Toxic Cancer Risks by Geographic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Cancer Risk from Air Toxics in Jefferson County Census Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ABC Coke and Surrounding Air Toxics Cancer Risk .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Location of Toxic Air Pollutant Monitors in Relation to ABC Coke . . . . . . . . . 21 Comparison of Walter Coke and ABC Coke Emissions of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 2:

Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9:

Figure 10:

Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Figure 14: Figure 15: Figure 16: Figure 17: Figure 18:

iv

Figure 19: Figure 20: Figure 21: Figure 22: Figure 23:

Comparison of Walter Coke and ABC Coke Emissions of Benzene . . . . . . . . . 23 Comparison of Walter Coke and ABC Coke Emissions of Naphthalene . . . . . . 23 Cancer Risk Drivers at Shuttlesworth Monitor (JCDH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Cancer Risk Drivers at Shuttlesworth Monitor (EPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Census Tract 109 Cancer Risk with 1.0 Mile Radius Circle Around ABC Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Census Block Groups Near ABC Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 24:

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Universe of Constituents of Coke Oven Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ABC Coke Emission Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Toxic/Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from ABC Coke .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Pollutant Emissions from ABC Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Other Air Pollutant Emissions from ABC Coke .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Chemicals Included in the Toxic Release Inventory Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Category.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Chronic Exposure Cancer Risk at Shuttlesworth Monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Census Block Group Data .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 5: Table 6:

Table 7: Table 8:

I.

Overview

The ABC Coke facility was constructed in 1918 and has been in operation ever since. The facility has been owned by Drummond Company, Inc. since 1985.1 It is located at Alabama Street and Huntsville Avenue in Tarrant, Alabama approximately 1.9 miles northwest of the Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport. Between ABC Coke and the Airport lies a densely populated residential area outlined in red in Figure 1. FIGURE 1 Drummond Co. Inc., ABC Coke Division and Neighboring Residential Area

Historical Map Works, Residential Genealogy, available at http://www.historicmapworks.com/Buildings/index.php?state=AL&city=Tarrant%20City&id=63 3 (accessed Mar. 6, 2014). 1

The ABC Coke facility produces coke and coke by-products that are sold or used in the coking process.2 ABC Coke is the largest merchant producer of foundry coke in the United States. The facility includes 132 coke ovens with an annual capacity of 730,000 tons of saleable coke.3 In 2012, ABC Coke produced 731,611 tons of coke. The utilities production facility consists primarily of three boilers that burn primarily coke oven gas.4 II. ABC Coke Emissions

ABC Cokes emissions are described by the Jefferson County Department of Health as follows: Emissions from the coke ovens include PM, SOx, NOx, VOCs, CO, and numerous organic compounds, including polycyclic organic matter (POM). POM is emitted from raw coal unloading, storage, and handling; mixing, crushing, and screening; blending; charging; leaks from doors, lids, and offtakes during coking; soaking, pushing coke from the oven; hot coke quenching; combustions stacks; and coke crushing, sizing, screening, handling, and storage. Volatile organic compounds are emitted from coke oven leaks, coke pushing, and coke quenching. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide are also emitted from coke oven leaks. Organic compounds soluble in benzene (BSO) are the major constituents of the PM emissions and are also included as VOCs. Among the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) included in the VOCs are benzene, toluene, xylenes, cyanide compounds, naphthalene, phenol, and POM, all of which are contained in coke oven gas. Emissions from the byproduct plant are primarily benzene and other light aromatics, POMs, cyanides, phenols, and light oils. Jefferson County Department of Health, Title V Operating Permit Evaluation (Nov. 7, 2013) at 4, available at http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/anr12.aspx?NoticeId=61&Type=2 (accessed Mar. 6, 2014). See also Table 1. Air contaminants emitted from the operation of the boilers include Particulate Matter (PM), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Oxides (SOx), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Id at 5. ABC Coke operates the sources of air contaminant emissions identified in Table 2.

Jefferson County Department of Health, Title V Operating Permit Evaluation (Nov. 7, 2013) at 1, available at http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/anr12.aspx?NoticeId=61&Type=2 (accessed Mar. 6, 2014). Drummond Co., Inc., ABC Coke, available at http://www.drummondco.com/ our-products/abc-coke/ (accessed Feb. 23, 2014).
4 3

Jefferson County Department of Health, supra note 2, at 5. 2

TABLE 1 Universe of Constituents of Coke Oven Emissions5

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Document for Coke Oven MACT Residual Risk, Table A-1 (Dec. 22, 2003), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/coke/ coke_rra.pdf. 3

TABLE 2 ABC Coke Emission Sources6


Emissions Unit No. 001 Source Description Boiler No. 9 - 174 MMBTU/Hr Nebraska (Fuel: Primarily Coke Oven Gas) Coke Oven Battery No. 6 Coking and Charging (29 Ovens) Operating Schedule 24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year Air Contaminants Visible Emissions (VE) Particulate Matter (PM) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Visible Emissions (VE) Coke Battery Emissions Particulate Emissions Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Visible Emissions (VE) Coke Battery Emissions Particulate Emissions Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Visible Emissions (VE) Coke Battery Emissions Particulate Emissions Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Visible Emissions (VE) Fugitive Emissions Benzene (VOC) Benzene (HAP) Benzene (VHAP) Visible Emissions (VE) Particulate Matter (PM) Particulate Matter (PM10) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

002

24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year

003

Coke Oven Battery No. 5 Coking and Charging (25 Ovens)

24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year

004

Coke Oven Battery No. 1 Coking and Charging (78 Ovens)

24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year

005

Coke By-Products Recovery Plant with Gas Blanketing

8,760 hours/year

007

Underfire Stack No. 4 associated with Coke Oven Batteries Nos. 5 and 6

24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year

Jefferson County Department of Health, Draft Major Source Operating Permit No. 407-0001-03 (Feb. 5, 2014), available at http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/anr12.aspx? NoticeId=61&Type=2 and http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/anr12.aspx?NoticeId=66&Type=2 (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). 4

008

Underfire Stack No. 1 associated with Coke Oven Battery No. 1

24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year

Visible Emissions (VE) Particulate Matter (PM) Particulate Matter (PM10) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Visible Emissions (VE) Particulate Matter (PM) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) or Sum of Concentration of Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene and Naphthalene Visible Emissions (VE) Particulate Matter (PM) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Visible Emissions (VE) Particulate Matter (PM) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Visible Emissions (VE) Particulate Matter (PM) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) or Sum of Concentration of Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene and Naphthalene Visible Emissions (VE)

018

South Coke Quenching Tower

24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year

019

Boiler No. 8 - 204 MMBTU/Hr Babcock & Wilcox (Fuel: Primarily Coke Oven Gas) Boiler No. 7 - 204 MMBTU/Hr Babcock & Wilcox (Fuel: Primarily Coke Oven Gas) North Coke Quenching Tower

24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year

020

24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year

024

24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year

031

Flare (Fuel: Coke Oven Gas)

24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year 24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year 24 hours/day 7 days/week 52 weeks/year Emergency Use Emergency Use

032

Coke Pushing Operations of Coke Battery Nos. 1, 5 and 6 Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Emergency Generator No. 1 Caterpillar 644 Hp Emergency Generator No. 2 Caterpillar 805 Hp

Visible Emissions (VE) Particulate Matter (PM) Visible Emissions (VE) Particulate Matter (PM) Visible Emissions (VE) Visible Emissions (VE)

034

035 036

Coke-oven emissions are defined as the benzene-soluble fraction of total particulate matter generated during coke production. These emissions are complex mixtures of dusts, vapors, and gases that typically include PAHs, formaldehyde, acrolein, aliphatic aldehydes, ammonia, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, phenol, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury. More than 60 organic compounds, including more than 40 PAHs, have been identified in air samples collected at coke plants. Coke-oven gas includes hydrogen, methane, ethane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ethylene, propylene, butylene, acetylene, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, oxygen, and nitrogen. Coke-oven gas tar includes pyridine, tar acids, naphthalene, creosote oil, and coal-tar pitch.7 Three sources of emission estimates have been made available to GASP. The first is the facility emissions data included in EPAs Toxics Release Inventory (1987-2012).8 The second is facility emissions data made public by the Jefferson County Department of Health on its website (2011- 2012).9 The third is a Facility Emissions Inventory (2011) made available to GASP by the Jefferson County Department of Health. All data have been provided by ABC Coke and almost all of the data are the result of calculated estimates rather than measurements. The emissions data for ABC Coke for 2011 and 2012 are summarized in Tables 3, 4 and 5.

National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Coke Oven Emissions, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/CokeOvenEmissions.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Search Results|Envirofacts, available at http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control_v2.tris_print?tris_id=35217BCCKDRAILR (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). Jefferson County Department of Health, EHS - Air Facilities Emissions, available at http://www.jcdh.org/EH/AnR/AnR05.aspx?Nbr=3111 (accessed Mar. 3, 2014) (2012 data). 6
9 8

TABLE 3 Toxic/Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from ABC Coke

TABLE 4 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Pollutant Emissions from ABC Coke

TABLE 5 Other Air Pollutant Emissions from ABC Coke

ABC Cokes ten-year history of Polycyclic Aromatic Compound emissions, Benzene emissions, and Naphthalene emissions are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively. This history does not indicate a declining trend. FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

It is noteworthy that fugitive emissions10 account for the majority of emissions from the ABC Coke facility. Figures 5, 6, and 7. This is significant because it means that additional controls on stack emissions may not be sufficient to achieve acceptable cancer risk levels in the neighboring community. It also means that monitoring of stack emissions alone will not be sufficient to characterize facility emissions.

Fugitive air emissions are all releases to air that are not released through a confined air stream. Fugitive emissions include equipment leaks, evaporative losses from surface impoundments and spills, and releases from building ventilation systems. 9

10

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

10

FIGURE 7

III.

Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model Results

The Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model is a computer-based screening tool developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that analyzes factors that may result in chronic human health risks.11 The RSEI model uses information from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), a publicly available database of information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities from industrial and federal facilities arrayed by facility, zip code, county, industry, and many other variables.12 Once again, the releases documented in TRI are often based on calculated estimates provided by industry rather than actual measurements. The RSEI model considers the following information: the amount of chemical released, the toxicity of the chemical, its fate and transport through the environment, the route and extent of human exposure, and the number of people affected. This information is used to create numerical values that can be added and compared in limitless ways to assess the relative risk of

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI), Basic Information, available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/ basic_information.html (accessed Mar. 3, 2014)
12

11

Id. 11

chemicals, facilities, regions, industries, or many other factors.13 The three primary scores produced by the RSEI model are the pounds score, the hazard score, and the risk score. A pounds score can be calculated that includes only the pounds of releases reported to TRI. A hazard score can be calculated by multiplying the pounds released by the chemical-specific toxicity weight for the exposure route (oral or inhalation) associated with the release. No exposure modeling or population estimates are involved in calculating a hazard score. A hazard score is a unitless measure that is not independently meaningful, but is a hazard-related estimate that can be compared to other estimates calculated using the same methods. A risk score may be calculated by multiplying the toxicity, surrogate dose, and population components. The surrogate dose is determined through pathway-specific modeling of the fate and transport of the chemical through the environment. A risk score is a unitless measure that is not independently meaningful, but is a risk-related estimate that can be compared to other estimates calculated using the same methods.14

These three scores are summarized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Figure 8. FIGURE 8 Summary of RSEI Model Results

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined the risk score for ABC Coke using the RSEI model and compared the results to the risk scores of other facilities in the same industry category, other facilities in Jefferson County, other facilities in Alabama, and other facilities in the United States. The results, shown in Figure 9, suggest that ABC Coke poses a significantly higher health risk than other facilities.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, User's Manual for RSEI Version 2.3.2 [1996 2011 TRI Data] (July 2013) at 5, available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/ rsei_users_manual_v2.3.2.pdf (accessed Mar. 3, 2014).
14

13

Id. at18-19. 12

FIGURE 9 Comparison of RSEI Risk Scores for Drummond Co Inc, ABC Coke Division and Others15

The RSEI model was also used to compare the health risk posed by all facilities emitting toxic air pollutants in Jefferson County during 2010. The results, depicted in Figure 10, suggest that the health risk posed by toxic air emissions from ABC Coke exceeded the health risk posed by every other facilitys toxic air emissions, including those of Walter Coke, Inc. The RSEI model was further used to compare the toxic emissions from ABC Coke and Walter Coke, Inc. Figure 11 shows that the hazard score of toxic air emissions (pounds released toxicity weight) from ABC Coke exceeded that of Walter Coke for all but one year during the period 2006 - 2010. Figure 12 shows that the risk score of toxic air emissions (pounds released toxicity weight population exposed) from ABC Coke exceeded that of Walter Coke during U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Search Results|Envirofacts, http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rsei.html?facid=35217BCCKDRAILR (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). The risk scores include all toxic releases, including those to water. However, 99.99% of the risk score in 2010 was due to releases to the air. 13
15

all but one year for the same period. The conclusion drawn from Figures 10, 11 and 12 is that, according to the RSEI model, the toxic air emissions from ABC Coke are the most threatening to human health. FIGURE 10 Comparative Risk Scores for Fourteen Highest Risk Toxic Air Polluters in Jefferson County, AL (2010)16

Finally, the RSEI model was used to identify the toxic chemicals emitted by ABC Coke during 2010 that present the greatest heath risk. Figure 13 shows that, in the RSEI model, three toxic chemicals (or chemical groups) accounted for 99.5% of the total health risk to exposed populations from ABC Coke emissions. These are Polyclyclic Aromatic Compounds, Benzene, and Naphthalene. Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds include those chemicals identified in Table 6 (including Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene). Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model, Version 2.3.2 (July 2013), available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/ (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). Results include fugitive and stack emissions of toxic air pollutants only. 14
16

FIGURE 11 Comparison of Walter Coke and ABC Coke RSEI Hazard Scores

FIGURE 12 Comparison of Walter Coke and ABC Coke RSEI Risk Scores

15

FIGURE 13

IV.

National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment Results

In 2011, EPA released the results of its 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) of air toxic emissions. The purpose of NATA is to identify and prioritize air toxics, emission source type, and locations that are of greatest potential concern in terms of contributing to population risk. EPA uses the results of these assessments in many ways, including: To work with communities in designing their own local-scale assessments, To set priorities for improving data in emissions inventories, and To help direct priorities for expanding and improving the network of air toxics monitoring.

*** The assessment includes four steps that focus on the 2005 emissions year: 1. 2. Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources Estimating ambient and exposure concentrations of air toxics across the United States 16

Chemicals Included in the EPCRA Section 313 PAC Categorya


Chemical Name Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)phenanthrene (chrysene) Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(j)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(j,k)fluorene (fluoranthene) Benzo(r,s,t)pentaphene Dibenz(a,h)acridine Dibenz(a,j)acridine Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Dibenzo(a,e)fluoranthene Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene 7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole 7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 3-Methylcholanthrene 5-Methylchrysene 1-Nitropyrene CAS Number 56-55-3 218-01-9 50-32-8 205-99-2 205-82-3 207-08-9 206-44-0 189-55-9 226-36-8 224-42-0 53-70-3 5385-75-1 192-65-4 189-64-0 191-30-0 194-59-2 57-97-6 193-39-5 56-49-5 3697-24-3 5522-43-0 Sources (1) Product of incomplete combustion (PIC); fossil fuels (FF) PIC; FF; coke plant exhaust PIC; FF; coal tar; municipal incinerator emissions PIC; FF PIC; FF; coal tar PIC; FF; coal tar PIC; FF; coal tar PIC; FF; coal tar PIC (particularly coal burning processes) PIC (particularly coal burning processes) PIC; FF; coal tar; gasoline engine exhaust tar PIC PIC; FF PIC; FF; coal tar PIC; coal gasification Coal burning processes; coal tar and coal distillates Produced in small quantities as a research chemical, not formed during combustion PIC; FF; coal tar Produced in small quantities as a research chemical, not formed during combustion PIC Diesel and gasoline engines; coal fired energy conversion plants; aluminum smelter stack gases

TABLE 6 Table 1-1 Chemicals Included in the Toxics Release Inventory Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Category

1 Reference: Aronson, and Howard,Protection P.H. Sources of Individual Listed in the PBT Chemical Pool, January Source: United States D., Environmental Agency, Office ofPAHs Environmental Information, Emergency 2000. Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Section 313: Guidance for Reporting Toxic Chemicals: Polycyclic a In addition to the PAC chemicalEPA category, the list ofWashington, EPCRA Section chemicals Aromatic Compounds Category, 260-B-01-03, DC,313 August 2001. includes benzo (g,h,i) perylene (a polycyclic aromatic compound). The reporting threshold for the PAC category is 100 lb/yr and the reporting threshold for benzo (g,h,i) perylene is 10 lb/yr.

2 17

3. 4.

Estimating population exposures across the United States Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including both cancer and noncancer effects

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NATA|National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/ (accessed Mar. 13, 2014). Once again, the air toxics emissions that are compiled in the inventory are provided by industries. The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment shows that the cancer risk from air toxics in Jefferson County is higher than the average cancer risk in Alabama and the United States. Indeed, Jefferson County has the highest cancer risk from air toxics among all counties in Alabama. More to the point however, the census tract where ABC Coke is located has a cancer risk from air toxics that is 54% higher than the Alabama average and 27% higher than the Jefferson County average. Figure 14. FIGURE 14 Average Air Toxic Cancer Risks by Geographic Area
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (2005)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also provided data for use with Google Earth to visualize the geographic areas impacted by air toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005 Assessment Results|2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/tables.html#int (accessed Mar. 13, 2014). Figure 15 shows gradations of cancer risk in Jefferson County estimated from the 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (the darker the gradation, the higher the cancer risk).

18

FIGURE 15 Cancer Risk from Air Toxics in Jefferson County Census Tracts
Source: National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (EPA, 2005)

Figure 16 shows ABC Coke and the surrounding Census Tracts and indicates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys estimate of the cancer risk in the Census Tract where ABC Coke is located. That risk is 106 in a million (1.06E-04).

19

FIGURE 16 ABC Coke and Surrounding Air Toxics Cancer Risk


Source: National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (EPA, 2005)

V.

Ambient Toxic Air Pollutant Monitoring and Cancer Risk Results

Although the Jefferson County Department of Health and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have, for limited periods of time, operated monitors to measure toxic air pollutants in the ambient air, none of these monitors have been located in close proximity to ABC Coke. Figure 17. The nearest monitor to ABC Coke is the Shuttlesworth Monitor located across Shuttlesworth Drive from Walter Coke and approximately 1.5 miles south-southwest of ABC Coke.17 Thus, these agencies have failed to obtain definitive measurements of air toxics concentrations in residential neighborhoods near ABC Coke.18

In each case, the assumption is made that the air quality data at the monitoring location is representative of exposures within some distance from the monitor (e.g., at the neighborhood level). * * * If the monitoring sites were unrepresentative of any location beyond where they were sited, the monitoring data may over- or underestimate the true health impacts at the unmonitored locations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4, North Birmingham Air Toxics Risk Assessment (Mar. 2013) at 36, available at http://www.epa.gov/ region4/air/airtoxic/North-Birmingham-Air-Toxics-Risk-Assessment-final-03282013.pdf (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). The risk and hazard assessment assumes that the sampling data are sufficient to draw conclusions regarding the populations that are localized near the monitors placement. Id.
18

17

Nor have these agencies produced any air quality modeling for toxic pollutants being (continued...) 20

FIGURE 17 Location of Toxic Air Pollutant Monitors in Relation to ABC Coke19

Nevertheless, we know from data submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Toxics Release Inventory that ABC Cokes emissions of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds, Benzene, and Naphthalene are at least as great as, if not more than, the emissions of Walter Coke. Figures 18, 19, and 20. We also know from the EPAs Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model that the ABC Coke facility presents a somewhat higher risk to nearby populations than the Walter Coke facility. See Figures 9 and 12. Based on these

(...continued) emitted by ABC Coke. Monitor locations are from Jefferson County Department of Health, Birmingham Air Toxics Study (Feb. 2009), available at http://www.jcdh.org/misc/ViewBLOB.aspx?BLOBId=182 (accessed Mar. 3, 2014), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4, supra note 17. Source locations are from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Facility Registry Service, http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html, adjusted to aerial photography. 21
19

18

facts, it is probable that the ambient air impacts of ABC Coke are similar to the ambient air impacts of Walter Coke, if not worse. Accordingly, the ambient air quality and health risk assessments prepared by the Jefferson County Department of Health and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency20 for the Shuttlesworth Monitor area provide insight into the probable ambient air quality and health risk near the ABC Coke facility.

FIGURE 18

Jefferson County Department of Health, supra note 19; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4, supra note 17. 22

20

FIGURE 19

FIGURE 20

23

The Birmingham Air Toxics Study was prepared by the Jefferson County Department of Health based on samples collected from July 15, 2005 to June 26, 2006. The Department offered the following conclusions about data collected at the Shuttlesworth Monitor: For the Shuttlesworth monitor, there were eleven potential risk drivers for chronic cancer risk: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, beryllium, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, naphthalene, p-dichlorobenzene and tetrachloroethylene. The cumulative chronic cancer risk for COPCs at Shuttlesworth was calculated to be 1.6610-4, which equates to an increased likelihood of 166 additional cases of cancer per one million chronic exposures and exceeds the 110-4 threshold for a risk driver. This is the only instance in which such a threshold is exceeded for any exposure in this study. Of this overall risk, the largest contributor was benzene, with a risk of 6.4010-5, accounting for 34% of total risk and which is the highest cancer risk value obtained for any single pollutant at a single monitoring location. There were eight potential risk drivers for chronic non-cancer exposure hazard at Shuttlesworth: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrolein, arsenic, benzene, manganese and naphthalene. The highest hazard quotient was 119.8 for acrolein, which was detected in 61% of the samples. The second highest hazard quotient was manganese, at 3.74, which was detected in 100% of the samples. Birmingham Air Toxics Study at 31. The cancer risk drivers identified in this study for the Shuttlesworth Monitor site are shown in Figure 21 and Table 7.21 The North Birmingham Air Toxics Risk Assessment was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency based on samples collected from June 2011 to August 2012. The Agency offered the following conclusions about the data collected at the Shuttlesworth Monitor: The Shuttlesworth Station site had a total cancer risk of 110-4. The risk drivers were benzene (37%), naphthalene (26%), arsenic (11%), 1,3-butadiene (5%), carbon tetrachloride (4%), 1,2-dichloroethane (4%) and benzo(a)pyrene (3%). Benzene had the highest risk (410-5) followed by naphthalene and arsenic (310-5 and 110-5, respectively). These three risk drivers contributed 74% of the total risk. Each of the remaining four risk drivers accounted for 5% or less each of the total risk. Five other COPCs (p-dichlorobenzene, hexavalent chromium, ethylbenzene, cadmium and dibenz(a,h)anthracene) had risk values of or above 110-6. Differences between the risk driver percentages reported in the Birmingham Air Toxics Study and Figure 21 and Table 7 are the result of unexplained errors and omissions in the Jefferson County Department of Healths calculation of risks. See e.g., Table 7 notes. 24
21

Id. at 28. At the Shuttlesworth Station site, the 95UCL HI was 1. Manganese (0.5), naphthalene (0.3), arsenic (0.2), benzene (0.2), 1,3-Butadiene (0.1), and cadmium (0.1) had HQs of 0.1 or above. Id. at 29. The cancer risk drivers identified in this study for the Shuttlesworth Monitor site are shown in Figure 22 and Table 7.

FIGURE 21

25

FIGURE 22

26

TABLE 7 Chronic Exposure Cancer Risk at Shuttlesworth Monitor


Jun 2011- Aug 2012 (EPA) Chemical Risk Benzene Naphthalene Arsenic 1,3-Butadiene Carbon Tetrachloride 1,2-Dichloroethane Benzo(a)pyrene p-Dichlorobenzene Acetaldehyde Hexavalent Chromium Ethylbenzene Cadmium Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Tetrachloroethylene Beryllium Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dichloromethane Methyl tert-Butyl Ether Formaldehyde CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK 1.07E-04 100% 1.54E-06 1.46E-06 1.20E-06 1.20E-06 6.40E-08 7.85E-08 7.60E-07 5.57E-07 1.88E-07 1.68E-07 6.09E-08 4.57E-08 1.43% 1.36% 1.12% 1.12% 0.06% 0.07% 0.71% 0.52% 0.17% 0.16% 0.06% 0.04% 4.00E-05 2.81E-05 1.16E-05 5.22E-06 4.42E-06 4.11E-06 3.65E-06 3.06E-06 Percent 37.22% 26.14% 10.79% 4.86% 4.11% 3.82% 3.40% 2.85% 3.29E-06 5.30E-06 3.56E-06 6.63E-07 2.81E-06* 7.93E-07 7.35E-07 1.77E-06 1.02E-06 5.01E-07 5.02E-07 3.03E-07 3.97E-07 6.68E-08 5.91E-09** 1.42E-07 2.26E-08 1.56E-04*** 2.11% 3.41% 2.29% 0.43% 1.81% 0.51% 0.47% 1.14% 0.66% 0.32% 0.32% 0.19% 0.26% 0.04% 0.00% 0.09% 0.01% 100% Risk 6.23E-05 1.94E-05 3.49E-05 7.35E-06 9.82E-06 Percent 40.03% 12.46% 22.42% 4.72% 6.31% Jul 2005- Jun 2006 (JCDH)

27

Table 7 notes: * JCDH did not calculate cancer risk for Ethylbenzene. Risk calculation based on 95% UCL= 1.233 g/m3 (determined by JCDH) and Inhalation Unit Risk = 0.0000025 (1/g/m3) (determined by U.S. EPA). ** JCDH did not calculate cancer risk for Dichloromethane. Risk calculation based on 95% UCL= 0.3475 g/m3 (determined by JCDH) and Inhalation Unit Risk = 0.000000017 (1/g/m3) (determined by U.S. EPA). *** Jefferson County Department of Health reports the cumulative risk at the Shuttlesworth Monitor site to be 1.66E-04. Birmingham Air Toxics Study (February 2009) at 1, 31, and 44, available at http://www.jcdh.org/misc/ ViewBLOB.aspx?BLOBId=182. However, the cancer risk values assigned to chemicals in Table D-4 of the BATS add up to 1.53E-04.

Table 7 demonstrates that a number of individual air toxics create a cancer risk (probability) exceeding 1 in 100,000, including Benzene, Naphthalene, and Arsenic. Many more individual air toxics create a cancer risk exceeding 1 in 1,000,000, including all the risk drivers identified by the Jefferson County Department of Health and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Table 7 also demonstrates that the cumulative cancer risk from exposure to all the air toxics listed exceeds 1 in 10,000. The potential health effects of exposure to various air toxics are described in Appendix A. VI. Prohibition of Air Pollution22

Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations,23 Paragraph 18.2.8(a) states that [t]he Health Officer shall deny an Operating Permit if the applicant does not show that every article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance, the use of which may cause the

GASP submits that the arguments made in this part demonstrate that the proposed issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 is not in compliance with the requirements of the approved Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP), 40 C.F.R. 52.5052.69, available at http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/sips/al/. The corresponding SIP provisions are as follows: Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations 18.2.8(a) 1.13 1.3 1.3 1.3
23

22

Alabama SIP 335-3-14-.03(1)(a) 335-3-1-.08 335-3-1-.02(1)(e) 335-3-1-.02(1)(d) 335-3-1-.02(1)(ss)

Subject Duty to deny permit Prohibition against air pollution Definition of air pollution Definition of air contaminant Definition of odor

Jefferson County Board of Health, Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, available at http://www.jcdh.org/misc/ViewBLOB.aspx?BLOBId=287. 28

issuance of air contaminants, is so designed, controlled, or equipped with such air pollution control equipment, that it is expected to operate without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants in violation of these rules and regulations. (Emphasis added). Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 provides: No person shall permit or cause air pollution, as defined in Part 1.3 of this Chapter by the discharge of any air contaminants for which no ambient air quality standards have been set under Section 1.7.l. (Emphasis added).24 An air contaminant is any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor, or any combination thereof, from whatever source. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.3. Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds, Benzene, Naphthalene, Arsenic, Odor, and Total Suspended Particulates (including particulate matter greater than 10 microns) are among the many air contaminants emitted into the air by ABC Coke. No ambient air quality standards have been set for these air contaminants under Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 1.7.1.25 Air pollution means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in such quantities and duration as are, or tend to be, injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or would interfere with the enjoyment of life or property throughout the County and in such territories of the County as shall be affected thereby. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.3. (Emphasis added). A. Cancer Risk from Exposure to Individual Air Toxic Emissions from ABC Coke

The permit application submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Health makes no showing that the individual carcinogens emitted by ABC Coke will comply with Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13, i.e., will not tend to be injurious

It does not appear that ABC Coke made any attempt to show in its application that its emissions comply with Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13. ABC Cokes emissions of toxic pollutants, noxious odors, and particulates and resulting harms to residents of Tarrant has been the subject of multiple lawsuits. E.g., Mamie L. Williams v. Drummond Company, Inc., No. CV-2008-02070 (Jefferson County Circuit Court, filed June 25, 2008) (Appendix B). See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). 29
25

24

to human health.26 In the absence of any showing by ABC Coke that it may be expected to operate without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants (i.e., carcinogens which tend to be injurious to human health) in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 (prohibition against causing air pollution), the Jefferson County Department of Health must deny the permit. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a). Not only did ABC Coke fail to make the required showing, the available evidence suggests that it cannot make the required showing. Table 7 demonstrates that a number of individual carcinogens were present in the outdoor atmosphere at the Shuttlesworth Monitor site (during July 2005-June 2006 and June 2011-August 2012) in such quantities and for such duration as tend to increase the probability (in excess of 1 in 100,000) of each person exposed over a lifetime contracting cancer. These carcinogens include Benzene, Naphthalene, and Arsenic. These carcinogens are likely to exist in the ambient air near the ABC Coke facility because of ABC Cokes emissions. Thus, it is probable that ABC Coke has permitted or caused air pollution by the discharge of individual air contaminants for which no ambient air quality standards have been set in violation of the prohibition in Part 1.13. If ABC Coke were to seek a variance from the prohibition against air pollution in Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13, it would have to do so under Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 3.1.2. That section, however, mandates as follows:
26

Moreover, the analysis of the permit application by the Jefferson County Department of Health demonstrates that the Department did not consider whether ABC Coke demonstrated compliance with Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13. See Jefferson County Department of Health, Title V Operating Permit Evaluation (Nov. 7, 2013), available at http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/anr12.aspx?NoticeId=66&Type=2 (accessed Mar. 6, 2014). Of course, [t]he Health Officer may issue an Operating Permit subject to conditions which will bring the operation of any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance within the standards of Paragraph 18.2.8(a) of this Part in which case the conditions shall be specified in writing. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 18.2.4. However, the proposed permit does not establish emission limitations on the specific air contaminants that are causing cancer risks to be elevated. Moreover, the authority of the Health Officer to impose permit conditions does not negate the obligation of the Health Officer to deny a permit if the applicant does not show that its facility may be expected to operate without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants in violation of Part 1.13 (emphasis added). Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a). See also, Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.4 (The Health Officer may issue an Operating Permit with revised conditions upon receipt of a new application, if the applicant demonstrates that the article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance can operate within the standards of Paragraph 18.2.8(a) of this Part under the revised conditions.) (emphasis added). 30

A variance will not be considered for approval under any circumstances if emissions from the source for which the variance is petitioned can be shown by computer modeling or ambient monitoring to cause outside the facility property line any of the following: *** (c) If the toxic emission is a carcinogen, an amount equal to or greater than that which would result in an individual having more than one (1) in one hundred thousand (100,000) chance of developing cancer over a lifetime (70 years) of exposure to that amount. Thus, the Board of Health has mandated that cancer risks for individual air toxics shall not exceed 1 in 100,000 outside a facility property line. Despite this limitation on the maximum permissible cancer risk, an unnamed administrative official(s) in the Jefferson County Department of Health, Environmental Health Services Air and Radiation Protection Division, determined that it is acceptable for the population near the Shuttlesworth Monitor and elsewhere to bear a cancer risk from chronic exposure to Benzene, Naphthalene and Arsenic greater than 110-5 (1 in 100,000).27 It would be incongruous for the Health Officer to determine that cancer risks higher than 1 in 100,000 are permissible under Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 when the Board of Health has declared those same cancer risks impermissible under Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 3.1.2. B. Cumulative Cancer Risk from Exposure to Multiple Air Toxics Emissions from ABC Coke

The permit application submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Health makes no showing that the multiple carcinogens emitted by ABC Coke will comply with Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13, i.e., will not tend to be injurious to human health.28 In the absence of any showing by ABC Coke that it may be expected to operate without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants (i.e., carcinogens which tend to be injurious to human health) in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 (prohibition against causing air pollution), the Jefferson County

Jefferson County Department of Health, supra note 19 at 50-51. The unnamed official(s) declared that cancer risks greater than 110-6 (1 in 1,000,000) but less than 110-4 are deserving of no mitigation because of inherent uncertainties in the risk assessment methodology. Id. The identified uncertainties, however, are common to all risk assessments and could just as well suggest that risks may actually be higher than stated.
28

27

See supra note 26. 31

Department of Health must deny the permit. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a). Not only did ABC Coke fail to make the required showing, the available evidence suggests that it cannot make the required showing. Table 7 demonstrates that multiple carcinogens were present in the outdoor atmosphere at the Shuttlesworth Monitor site (during July 2005-June 2006 and June 2011-August 2012) in such quantities and for such duration as tend to increase the probability (in excess of 1 in 10,000) of each person exposed over a lifetime contracting cancer. Similar air pollution is likely to exist near the ABC Coke facility because of ABC Cokes emissions. Thus, it is probable that ABC Coke has permitted or caused air pollution by the discharge of multiple air contaminants for which no ambient air quality standards have been set in violation of the prohibition in Part 1.13 No statute or rule prescribes what cancer risk level from exposure to multiple air contaminants is deemed acceptable. Nor has the Jefferson County Board of Health endorsed an acceptable cancer risk level from exposure to multiple toxic air pollutants.29 However, an unnamed administrative official(s) in the Jefferson County Department of Health, Environmental Health Services Air and Radiation Protection Division, has determined that it is acceptable for populations near the Shuttlesworth Monitor and elsewhere to bear a cumulative cancer risk from chronic exposure to multiple air toxics equal to or less than 110-4 (1 in 10,000).30 Birmingham Air Toxics Study at 51. This maximum acceptable risk is based on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency interpretation of the phrase ample margin of safety in subsection (f) of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(f). That interpretation states:

The Board of Health has, however, declared that no source shall be eligible for a variance if the toxic emission for which a variance is sought causes a cancer risk level of more than one in one-hundred thousand (1 in 100,000) outside the facility property line. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 3.1.2(c). The unnamed administrative official(s) declared that a cumulative cancer risk equal to 1.6610-4 (166 in 1,000,000) at the Shuttlesworth Monitor site is deserving of no mitigation because (1) subsequent to the monitoring time period of this study (July 2005-June 2006), several plants around this site have installed pollution control equipment and have implemented work practice standards (2006 and 2007) . . . resulting in direct reductions in air toxics emissions and concentrations and (2) the Department will continue to ensure compliance and enforcement. Birmingham Air Toxics Study at 52. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted its air toxics monitoring program between June 2011 and August 2012, the cancer risk for Benzene at the Shuttlesworth Monitor site was 36% lower, but not below 4.010-5 (4 in 100,000); the cancer risk for Naphthalene was 47% higher - almost 3.010-5 (3 in 100,000); and the cancer risk for Arsenic was 67% lower but not below 1.010-5 (1 in 100,000). The cumulative cancer risk at the Shuttlesworth Monitor, although it declined, remained at 1.0710-4 (1.07 in 10,000). North Birmingham Air Toxics Risk Assessment at 80. 32
30

29

In protecting public health with an ample margin of safety, EPA strives to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to health from HAPs by (1) protecting the greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than 110-6 (one in one million) and (2) limiting to no higher than approximately 110-4 (one in ten thousand) the estimated risk that a person living near a source would have if exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment and Modeling - Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library, Volume 1 - Technical Resource Manual, Part V - Risk-Based Decisionmaking (April 2004) at 27-5 to 27-6, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/data/risk/ vol_1/chapter_27.pdf (accessed Mar. 4, 2014).31 This statement of acceptable risk is not
31

In the 1970 Clean Air Act, Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676, the Administrator of EPA was required to prepare a list of hazardous air pollutants and to promulgate emission standards for each category or subcategory of sources at the level which in his judgment provides ample margin of safety to protect public health from such hazardous air pollutant. In National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Stryene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants, 54 Fed. Reg. 38044 (1989), EPA set forth its interpretation of ample margin of safety, as that term was used in the 1970 Clean Air Act. It said that the ample margin of safety was met if as many people as possible faced excess lifetime cancer risks no greater than one-in-one million, and that no person faced a risk greater than 100-in-one million (one-in-ten thousand). EPA also said that ample margin of safety allowed consideration of all health information . . . as well as other relevant factors including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision. 54 Fed. Reg. at 38045. Because EPAs progress in regulating hazardous air pollutants under the 1970 Clean Air Act provisions was slow, in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, 2531, Congress directed EPA first, to promulgate emission standards for hazardous air pollutants based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT), 42 U.S.C. 7412(d), and then, to promulgate emission standards in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health if emission standards based on MACT do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source . . . to less than one in one million. 42 U.S.C. 7412(f)(2)(A). Congress also expressly ratified the EPAs interpretation of ample margin of safety in National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Stryene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants, 54 Fed. Reg. 38044 (1989). 42 U.S.C. 7412(f)(2)(B). See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2008). (continued...) 33

binding on the Department. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency readily admits that notwithstanding its view of acceptable risk under the Clean Air Act, th[e] level of cancer
31

(...continued) In National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries, 70 Fed. Reg. 19992 (2005), the EPA explained: Section 112(f)(2)(A) does indeed require us to promulgate standards if the lifetime excess cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in a category or subcategory is greater than 1 in a million. It does not establish what the level of the standard might be. See A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, page 1789 (Conference Report), stating that [s]ection 112(f) contains a trigger for standards for non-threshold pollutants. * * * Rather, the level of the standard is to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Ample margin of safety is to be interpreted under the two-step formulation established by the Benzene NESHAP and CAA section 112(f)(2)(B). Under that formulation, there is no single risk level establishing what constitutes an ample margin of safety (69 FR 48348). Rather, the Benzene NESHAP approach codified in section 112(f)(2) is deliberately flexible, requiring consideration of a range of factors (among them estimates of quantitative risk, incidence, and numbers of exposed persons within various risk ranges; scientific uncertainties; and weight of evidence) when determining acceptability of risk (the first step in the ample margin of safety determination) (54 FR 38045). Determination of ample margin of safety, the second step of the process, requires further consideration of these factors, plus consideration of technical feasibility, cost, economic impact, and other factors (54 FR 38046). As we stated in our Residual Risk Report to Congress issued under CAA section 112(f)(1), we do not consider the 1 in a million individual additional cancer risk level as a bright line mandated level of protection for establishing residual risk standards, but rather as a trigger point to evaluate whether additional reductions are necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. This interpretation is supported by the interpretive language in the preamble to the Benzene NESHAP, which was incorporated by Congress in section 112(f)(2)(B). Id., 70 Fed. Reg. at 19995. The EPAs determination of acceptable cancer risk levels is based on statutory language applicable only to EPA and only to the promulgation of regulations limiting emissions for categories and subcategories of sources of hazardous air pollutants. 42 U.S.C. 7412(f). That statutory language has no application to the Jefferson County Department of Health and no application to permit proceedings undertaken by the Jefferson County Department of Health. 34

risk that is of concern is a matter of personal and community judgment . . .. North Birmingham Air Toxics Risk Assessment at 40. Several states and localities have made the judgment that greater protection from toxic air pollutants is appropriate.32 These State and local programs have focused on three methods for addressing air toxic emissions: (1) ambient air levels; (2) control technology standards; and (3) risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Residual Risk Report to Congress (Mar. 1999) at 14, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/ risk_rep.pdf. See e.g.,United States Government Accountability Office, Clean Air Act - EPA Should Improve the Management of Its Air Toxics Program, Appendix III: Profiles of State and Local Air Toxics Programs (June 2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/250607.pdf; Alabama Department of Environmental Management, National Air Toxics Survey (Feb. 26, 2009). GASP suggests that the maximum acceptable cancer risk from chronic exposure to multiple air contaminants should be 5.0 10-5 (5 in 100,000). This cancer risk level approximates the average State-wide cancer risk level and the average cancer risk level in Census Tract 011103 located in northeastern Jefferson County, as reported in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (2005). The people surrounding ABC Coke deserve the same freedom from air toxics and cancer that others in the County and State enjoy. C. Odor Emissions from ABC Coke

An air contaminant includes . . . any odor . . .from whatever source. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.3. Odor is defined as follows: Odor shall mean smells or aromas which are unpleasant to persons, or which tend to lessen human food and water intake, interfere with sleep, upset appetite, produce irritation of the upper respiratory tract, or cause symptoms of nausea, or which by their inherent chemical or physical nature, or method of processing, are, or may be, detrimental or dangerous to health. Odor and smell are used interchangeable therein. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.3. The permit application submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Health makes no showing that the odor emissions from ABC Coke will comply with Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 (prohibition against causing air pollution). In the absence of ABC Cokes demonstration that it may be expected to operate without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants (i.e., odors which tend to be injurious to human
32

More stringent standards adopted under State authority are permissible under the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C 7412(d)(7), 7412(l)(1), 7416. 35

health or interfere with the enjoyment of life or property) in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13, the Jefferson County Department of Health must deny the permit. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a).33 Not only did ABC Coke fail to make the required showing, the available evidence suggests that it cannot make the required showing. See e.g.: Unnamed person reports strong smell of moth balls in the air when ABC Coke releases white gas exhaust, Jefferson County Department of Health Complaint Investigation Report No. 17023 (Jan. 6, 2009); Unnamed person reports that odor smells horrible - like rotten eggs - in front of the ABC Coke facility, Jefferson County Department of Health Complaint Investigation Report No. 42147 (Feb. 15, 2014); Unnamed person, a life-long Tarrant resident, reports on March 24, 2014 that he suffers from nausea when he smells odors from ABC Coke - forwarded by GASP to Jefferson County Department of Health (April 4, 2014); Cynthia Rosgen, a Tarrant resident, expresses concern about the strange odors coming from ABC Coke - forwarded by GASP to Jefferson County Department of Health (April 4, 2014); Lathia Banks, who works in Tarrant, expresses concern about the noxious odors from ABC Coke, including a burnt toast smell - forwarded by GASP to Jefferson County Department of Health (April 4, 2014); Eddie and Joyce Holloway, residents of Tarrant, report on March 28, 2014 that they turn off their heat and air conditioning at night to avoid the odors that come into their home from ABC Coke. Their grandaughter doesnt want to go outside due to the odors they routinely smell; Nelson Brooke, reports that he frequently smells the stench that comes from ABC Coke that is very distinct. He notices more at night time and first thing in the morning. He stated that the complaints he has previously filed with the Jefferson County Department of Health about ABC Coke do not appear in the Departments ABC Coke file. Testimony of Nelson Brooke, Transcript of Public Hearing on ABC Coke Permit Reissuance (April 14, 2014).

33

See supra note 26. 36

D.

Particulate Emissions from ABC Coke

ABC Coke estimates that it emitted into the air more than 483 tons of Total Suspended Particulates in 2012. Table 5. The previous years estimate was more than 541 tons. Total Suspended Particulates (including particulate matter larger than 10 microns) are air contaminants for which no ambient air quality standards have been set under Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 1.7.l. The permit application submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Health makes no showing that the Total Suspended Particulates (including particulate matter larger than 10 microns) emitted from ABC Coke will comply with Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 (prohibition against causing air pollution). In the absence of ABC Cokes demonstration that it may be expected to operate without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants (i.e., Total Suspended Particulates, including particulate matter larger than 10 microns, that tends to be injurious to welfare, or property, or would interfere with the enjoyment of life or property) in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13, the Jefferson County Department of Health must deny the permit. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a).34 Not only did ABC Coke fail to make the required showing, the available evidence suggests that it cannot make the required showing. It is commonly known that particulate matter emissions can be injurious to welfare and property and interfere with enjoyment of life and property. Ambient particles can cause soiling of man-made surfaces. Soiling generally is considered an optical effect. Soiling changes the reflectance from opaque materials and reduces the transmission of light through transparent materials. Soiling can represent a significant detrimental effect, requiring increased frequency of cleaning of glass windows and concrete structures, washing and repainting of structures, and, in some cases, reduces the useful life of the object. Particles, especially carbon, may also help catalyze chemical reactions that result in the deterioration of materials . . .. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Dec. 2009) at 9-194, available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546 (accessed April 6, 2014). More importantly, the available evidence indicates that particulate matter emitted from ABC Coke is injurious to the welfare and property of nearby residents and interferes with their enjoyment of life and property. See e.g.: Unnamed person reported on March 26, 2014 that soot is in her home - forwarded by GASP to Jefferson County Department of Health (April 4, 2014);
34

See supra note 26. 37

Charline Todd reported on March 25, 2014 that soot comes into her apartment forwarded by GASP to Jefferson County Department of Health (April 4, 2014); Eddie Holloway, a resident of Tarrant, reported on March 28, 2014 that black soot routinely ends up on the floors that he cleans a lot - forwarded by GASP to Jefferson County Department of Health (April 4, 2014); Cynthia Rosgen, a resident of Tarrant, reported that when she walks around her apartment in white socks, by the end of the day they turn black and that she is concerned about the soot coming from ABC Coke - forwarded by GASP to Jefferson County Department of Health (April 4, 2014); Kenyyata Wallace, a resident of Tarrant, reported that her house is frequently covered in black soot from ABC Coke. - forwarded by GASP to Jefferson County Department of Health (April 4, 2014); LaJune White reports that black particles collect all over the windows of her home and You cant open your windows or sit on your deck because of all the pollutants. Fox News - WBRC, Tarrant citizens concerned about pollution from coke plant, available at http://www.myfoxal.com/story/25126936/ tarrant-citizens?utm_co; Bobby Hogan reported soot on our porches and the sides of our houses. Toxic City: Birminghams Dirty Secret (Documentary Trailer), available at http://vimeo.com/ 80386013; Dorothy Davis reports that dust from the ABC Coke plant will smother you to death at night and has coated all over her house; you cant keep it washed off - by the time you wash it off it just comes back. Dorothy Davis, excerpt from Toxic City: Birminghams Dirty Secret, available at http://youtu.be/4sewauGh-Iw; Margaret Curtis reports that [soot] is coming through the vents and everything. Either way you go, youre inhaling it. Something needs to be done about it. Testimony of Margaret Curtis, Transcript of Public Hearing on ABC Coke Permit Reissuance (April 14, 2014); Gail Carr, a resident of Presbyterian Manor, reports that she frequently sees soot that covers the walls. The walls were so bad they had to be repainted. Testimony of Gail Carr, Transcript of Public Hearing on ABC Coke Permit Reissuance (April 14, 2014);

38

Emily Harris, a resident of Presbyterian Manor, reports that soot is frequently all over her apartment. Testimony of Emily Harris, Transcript of Public Hearing on ABC Coke Permit Reissuance (April 14, 2014); Mr. Knoll, a resident of Presbyterian Manor, reports that a when he makes KoolAid the pitcher of water ends up with black particles in it, so he no longer makes Kool-Aid. When he runs his hand over his window sill, it is covered with black soot. Testimony of Mr. Knoll, Transcript of Public Hearing on ABC Coke Permit Reissuance (April 14, 2014); VII. Draft General Permit Condition 14 is Unconstitutional and Unenforceable35

Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 6.2 provides: 6.2 Fugitive Dust.

6.2.1 No person shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit any materials to be handled, transported, or stored; or a building, its appurtenances, or a road to be used, constructed, altered, repaired or demolished without taking reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Such reasonable precautions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Use, where possible, of water or chemicals for control of dust in the demolition of existing buildings or structures, construction operations, the grading of roads or the clearing of land; (b) Application of asphalt, oil, water, or suitable chemicals on dirt roads, materials stock piles, and other surfaces which create airborne dust problems; and (c) Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters (or other suitable control devices) to enclose and vent the handling of dust materials. Adequate containment methods shall be employed during sandblasting or other similar operations. 6.2.2 Visible Emissions Restrictions Beyond Lot Line. No person shall cause or permit the discharge of visible fugitive dust emissions beyond the lot line of the property on which the emissions originate. This regulation is the basis for most of General Permit Condition 14 of Draft Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03. Both the regulation and permit condition are unconstitutional and unenforceable.
35

GASP submits that the arguments made in this part demonstrate that the proposed issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 fails to adequately establish practically enforceable emissions limitations for the facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. 70.6(a). 39

In Ross Neely Express, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 437 So.2d 82 (Ala. 1983), the Alabama Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical State rule governing fugitive dust. The Court held that the requirement to take reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne was unconstitutionally vague and the prohibition against causing the discharge of visible fugitive dust emissions beyond the lot line was unreasonably and unconstitutionally restrictive. Accordingly, it is necessary that the Jefferson County Department of Health revise General Permit Condition 14 to accomplish control of fugitive dust emissions without language that is vague or unreasonably restrictive. Alternatively, the Department should include an additional condition in Draft Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 that will effectively control fugitive dust emissions without being constitutionally offensive. VIII. Restrictions in Draft Permit Condition 45 are not authorized by Regulation Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 6.2.3 provides: 6.2.3 When dust, fumes, gases, mist, odorous matter, vapors, or any combination thereof escape from a building or equipment in such a manner and amount as to cause a nuisance or to violate any rule or regulation, the Health Officer may order that the building or equipment in which processing, handling and storage are done be tightly closed and ventilated in such a way that all air and gases and air or gas-borne material leaving the building or equipment are treated by removal or destruction of air contaminants before discharge to the open air. General Permit Condition 45 in Draft Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 provides: Abatement of Obnoxious Odors This Operating Permit is issued with the condition that, should obnoxious odors arising from the plant operations be verified by Department inspectors, measures to abate the odorous emissions shall be taken upon a determination by this Department that these measures are technically and economically feasible. The language of this permit condition impermissibly imposes additional restrictions on implementation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 6.2.3. First, General Permit Condition 45 requires that odors be obnoxious and be verified by a Department inspector before the Health Officer may order abatement of the odors. There is no support for these restrictions in Section 6.2.3. Odors need not be characterized as obnoxious by a Department inspector to violate Section 6.2.3. They must either cause a nuisance or violate a rule or regulation such as Part 1.13 (prohibition against air pollution, including odors as defined in Part 1.3). Second, General Permit Condition 45 requires that the Department 40

determine that odor abatement measures be technically and economically feasible before they are required to be implemented. There is no support for this restriction in Section 6.2.3. Pursuant to Section 6.2.3, the Health Officer may order the abatement of odors that cause a nuisance or violate a regulation without making a prior determination of technical or economic feasibility. The restrictions included in General Permit Condition 45 make implementation of Section 6.2.3 more burdensome and less likely to be used to protect the public from unlawful odors. Accordingly, General Permit Condition 45 should be revised to mirror Section 6.2.3. IX. Differential Absorption Light Detection and Ranging Technology

Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 18.4.8 provides: Standard application form and required information. The following information shall be included in an application by a source for a permit under this Chapter: *** (c) The following emissions-related information: (3) Emissions rates of all pollutants in tons per year (tpy) and in such terms as are necessary to establish compliance consistent with the applicable standard reference test method, or alternative method approved by the Health Officer; In response to this requirement, ABC Coke submitted an application containing Attachment I 2012 Emission Inventory; and Attachment II - Potential Emission Inventory. These emission inventories estimate the emission rates of criteria and hazardous air pollutants, including Benzene. E.g., Attachment I, Summary of 2012 Emissions (actual) at pp. 11-1 to 11-3; and Attachment II, Table 11-1: Summary of 2012 [sic] Emissions (potential) at pp. 11-1 to 11-3. These emission rate estimates are almost entirely based on calculated estimates, not measurements. After a joint U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York Department of Environmental Conservation inspection of the Tonawanda Coke facility in Tonawanda, New York, the EPA issued an Emission Test Letter to Tonawanda Coke Corporation on July 6, 2009 pursuant to Section 114 of the Clean Air Act requiring that the company submit emission test protocols for fugitive Benzene emission testing (DIAL test) and facility stack emission testing (stack tests) within 30 days. The Letter included a requirement to use EPA Other Test Method 10 (OTM-10), differential absorption light detection and ranging technology (DIAL), to measure the mass emission rate of Benzene from each process area listed. Subsequently, the EPA issued an administrative order to the company on January 7, 2010 pursuant to Section 113(a) of the Clean Air Act directing the company to submit the Benzene testing protocol. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compliance Order CAA-02-2010-1001 (Jan. 7, 2010), available at http://www.epa.gov/region2/capp/TCC/TCC_AO_1_%20CAA-02-2010-1001.pdf (accessed Mar. 28, 2014). As a result of the DIAL testing, it was determined that the facility was emitting 90.8 tons/year of Benzene, rather than the 10 tons/year claimed by a company official. 41

Tonawanda News, Tona Coke grossly underestimated benzene levels (Sep. 30, 2010), available at http://www.tonawanda-news.com/local/x996174448/ Tona-Coke-grossly-underestimatedbenzene-levels (accessed Mar. 28, 2014). The company and the facilitys environmental manager were indicted, tried, and convicted on various environmental crimes. Tonawanda News, Tonawanda Coke Found Guilty (Mar. 28, 2013), available at http://www.tonawanda-news.com/local/x1916521195/TONAWANDA-COKE-FOUND-GUILTY (accessed Mar. 28, 2014). Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(c) provides: Before an Operating Permit is granted, the Health Officer may require the applicant to provide and maintain such facilities as are necessary for sampling and testing purposes in order to secure information that will disclose the nature, extent, quantity or degree of air contaminants discharged into the atmosphere from the article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance described in the Operating Permit. In the event of such a requirement, the Health Officer shall notify the applicant in writing of the required size, number, and location of the sampling platform; the access to the sampling platform; and the utilities for operating the sampling and testing equipment. The Health Officer may also require the applicant to install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment or methods, including enhanced monitoring methods prescribed under Section 504(b) or Section 114(a)(3); sample such emissions in accordance with such methods, at such locations, intervals, and procedures as may be specified; and provide such information as the Health Officer may require. The Health Officer can, and should, require that ABC Coke conduct DIAL testing of its Benzene emissions and perhaps other high risk hazardous air pollutants such as VOCs. It is highly likely that measured Benzene emissions will be significantly greater than estimated emissions. See Environmental Integrity Project, EPA Emission Factors vs. Actual Measurement: Summary of Recent DIAL/PFTIR Studies, available at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/ news_reports/documents/SummaryofDIALANDPFTIRStudies.pdf (accessed Mar. 28, 2014); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Enforcement Initiative: Cutting Hazardous Air Pollutants, available at http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiativecutting-hazardous-air-pollutants (Recent monitoring shows that facilities typically emit more HAP emissions than they actually report). If ABC Cokes Benzene emissions are significantly greater than have been reported, an investigation should be undertaken to ascertain whether required emission controls and practices are being effectively implemented. The residents of Tarrant, who have been burdened with the toxic emissions from ABC Coke for generations, deserve no less.

42

X.

Issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 will violate EPA Regulations under Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Jefferson County Department of Health is a recipient of financial assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.36 As such, the Department is obliged to comply with 40 C.F.R. 7.35(b), which provides: A recipient [of EPA financial assistance] shall not use criteria or methods of administering its program which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, national origin, or sex, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex. Even, [f]acially-neutral policies or practices that result in discriminatory effects violate EPAs Title VI regulations unless it is shown that they are justified and that there is no less discriminatory alternative. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Feb. 5, 1998) at 2, available at http://www.enviro-lawyer.com/Interim_Guidance.pdf; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting Programs (Draft Recipient Guidance) and Draft Revised Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Draft Revised Investigation Guidance), D. Summary of Key Stakeholder Issues Concerning EPA Title VI Guidance, 65 Fed. Reg. 39650, 39688 (2000). Effective January 23, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has included the following condition in financial assistance awards: In accepting this assistance agreement, the recipient acknowledges it has an affirmative obligation to implement effective Title VI compliance programs and ensure that its actions do not involve discriminatory treatment and do not have discriminatory effects even when facially neutral. The recipient must be prepared to demonstrate to EPA that such compliance programs exist and are being implemented or to otherwise demonstrate how it is meeting its Title VI obligations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Civil Rights Obligations (Jan. 23, 2013), available at http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/docs/pdf/terms_and_conditions.pdf (emphasis added). It does not

The Jefferson County Department of Health receives grant funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 43

36

appear that the Jefferson County Department of Health is implementing any kind of Title VI compliance program.37 The issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 by the Jefferson County Department of Health will authorize ABC Coke to emit numerous carcinogenic air toxics, offensive odors, and particulate matter into a nearby community. The 2005 NationalScale Air Toxics Assessment indicates that cancer risks in Census Tract 109 are 106 in a million (1.06E-04). Figure 23. This compares to an average risk of 73.5 in a million (7.35E-05) in Jefferson County and 49 in a million (4.90E-05) in the State of Alabama. There are an estimated 4,064 persons residing within 1.0 mile of ABC Coke. Sixty-six percent of these persons are classified as Black. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EJView Census 2010 Summary Report (Appendix C). For all census block groups shown in Figure 24, the average percent Black or African-American Alone is 66.7%. Table 8. Thus, the issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 will have a disproportionate and discriminatory effect on a class protected under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. XI. Conclusions

Based on the foregoing, GASP submits as follows: (1) The Health Officer should deny ABC Cokes application for issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 because ABC Coke has failed to demonstrate that its emissions of Benzene, Naphthalene and Arsenic will not result in a cancer risk level that exceeds 1.0E-05 (1 in 100,000) for each individual carcinogen and will not cause air pollution in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13; (2) The Health Officer should deny ABC Cokes application for issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 because ABC Coke has failed to demonstrate that its emission of multiple carcinogens will not result in a cumulative cancer risk level that exceeds 5.0E-05 (5 in 100,000) and will not cause air pollution in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13; In U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jefferson County Department of Health Title V and New Source Review Program Review (Dec. 23, 2005), available at http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/programevaluations/JeffersonCoAL_FinalReport.pdf (accessed April 2, 2014), EPA finds: JCHD does not have an Environmental Justice (EJ) Policy. Currently, JCHD does not consider EJ issues during the issuance of a permit. Demographics, cumulative effects and pre-existing burdens are not routinely evaluated as part of the permitting process. Id. at 6. 44
37

FIGURE 23 Census Tract 109 Cancer Risk with 1.0 Mile Radius Circle Around ABC Coke

FIGURE 24 Census Block Groups Near ABC Coke

45

TABLE 8 Census Block Group Data


Tract.Block Group Total Population Black or African-American Alone Tract.Block Group Total Population Black or AfricanAmerican Alone Tract.Block Group Total Population Black or African-American Alone Tract.Block Group Total Population Black or African-American Alone 463 679 109.07 807 57.4% 4,586 380 109.04 1,050 64.7% 372 561 109.01 615 61.8% 254 109.05 711 52.3% 427 4.01 619 90.06% 703 109.02 526 48.3% 320 109.06 684 62.4% 4.03 788 89.2% 427 109.03 596 53.7% 4.04 476 89.7%

TOTAL (All Selected Block Groups) 6,872 66.7%

(3) The Health Officer should deny ABC Cokes application for issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 because ABC Coke has failed to demonstrate that its emission of odors will not tend to be injurious to human health or interfere with the enjoyment of life or property and will not cause air pollution in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13; (4) The Health Officer should deny ABC Cokes application for issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 because ABC Coke has failed to demonstrate that its emission of total suspended particulates, including particulate matter larger than 10 microns, will not interfere with the enjoyment of life or property and will not cause air pollution in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 (5) The Health Officer should deny ABC Cokes application for issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03 because issuance of the permit would violate the civil rights of impacted minorities;

46

(6) The Health Officer should revise Draft General Permit Condition 14 (Fugitive Dust) so that it is not unconstitutionally vague and restrictive and will include enforceable provisions to prevent fugitive dust emissions; (7) The Health Officer should revise Draft General Permit Condition 45 (Abatement of Obnoxious Odors) so that it does not unnecessarily limit the Health Officers power to abate unlawful odors and conforms to the requirements of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 6.2.3; and (8) The Health Officer should require that ABC Coke use differential absorption light detection and ranging technology (DIAL) to measure ABC Cokes actual Benzene (and perhaps other hazardous air pollutant) emissions prior to issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0001-03.

47

APPENDIX A Health Effects of Selected Air Toxics Coke Oven Emissions Chronic (long-term) exposure to coke oven emissions in humans results in conjunctivitis, severe dermatitis, and lesions of the respiratory system and digestive system. Coke Oven Emissions are a Known Human Carcinogen. Exposure to coke oven emissions is a cause of lung cancer and kidney cancer in humans.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Coke Oven Emissions (Jan. 2000), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/cokeoven.html 2. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Coke Oven Emissions, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/ CokeOvenEmissions.pdf

Benzene
CAS# 71-43-2

Benzene causes harmful effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive bleeding and can affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection. Benzene is a Known Human Carcinogen. Long-term exposure to high levels of benzene in the air can cause leukemia, particularly acute myelogenous leukemia, often referred to as AML. This is a cancer of the blood-forming organs.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene: An Update (April 1998), available at http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=428659; 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Benzene (Jan. 2012), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/benzene.html 3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Benzene (Aug. 2007), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp3.pdf 4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for Benzene (Aug. 2007), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts3.pdf 5. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Benzene, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf

A-1

Naphthalene
CAS# 91-20-3

Exposure to large amounts of naphthalene may damage or destroy some of your red blood cells. This could cause you to have too few red blood cells until your body replaces the destroyed cells. This condition is called hemolytic anemia. Some symptoms of hemolytic anemia are fatigue, lack of appetite, restlessness, and pale skin. Exposure to large amounts of naphthalene may also cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, blood in the urine, and a yellow color to the skin. Rats and mice that breathed naphthalene vapors daily for a lifetime developed irritation and inflammation of their nose and lungs. Naphthalene is a Possible Human Carcinogen. Cancer from naphthalene exposure has been seen in animal studies. Some female mice that breathed naphthalene vapors daily for a lifetime developed lung tumors. Some male and female rats exposed to naphthalene in a similar manner also developed nose tumors.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxicological Review of Naphthalene (Aug. 1998), available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0436tr.pdf; 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Naphthalene (Jan. 2000), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/naphthal.html 3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene (Aug. 2005), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp67.pdf 4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene (Aug. 2005), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts67.pdf 5. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Naphthalene, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Naphthalene.pdf

A-2

Arsenic
CAS# 7440-38-2

Breathing high levels of inorganic arsenic can give you a sore throat or irritated lungs. Breathing low levels of inorganic arsenic for a long time can cause a darkening of the skin and the appearance of small "corns" or "warts" on the palms, soles, and torso. Arsenic is a Known Human Carcinogen. Inhalation of inorganic arsenic can cause irritation of the skin and mucous membranes and lung cancer.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Arsenic Compounds (Dec 2012), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/arsenic.html 2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Arsenic (Aug. 2007), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp2.pdf 3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for Arsenic (Aug. 2007), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2.pdf 4 National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Arsenic and Inorganic Arsenic Compounds, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ roc/twelfth/profiles/Arsenic.pdf

Carbon Tetrachloride
CAS# 56-23-5

High exposure to carbon tetrachloride can cause liver, kidney, and central nervous system damage. The liver is especially sensitive to carbon tetrachloride because it enlarges and cells are damaged or destroyed. Kidneys also are damaged, causing a build up of wastes in the blood. If exposure is very high, the nervous system, including the brain, is affected. People may feel intoxicated and experience headaches, dizziness, sleepiness, and nausea and vomiting. Carbon tetrachloride is a Probable Human Carcinogen. Breathing carbon tetrachloride for years caused liver tumors in animals. Mice that breathed carbon tetrachloride also developed tumors of the adrenal gland.

A-3

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxicological Review of Carbon Tetrachloride (Mar. 2010), available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0020tr.pdf 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Carbon Tetrachloride (Jan. 2000), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/carbonte.html 3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Carbon Tetrachloride (Aug. 2005), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp30.pdf 4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for Carbon Tetrachloride (Aug. 2005), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts30.pdf 5. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Carbon tetrachloride, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/ CarbonTetrachloride.pdf

1,2-Dichloroethane
CAS# 107-06-2

Nervous system disorders, liver and kidney diseases, and lung effects have been reported in humans inhaling large amounts of 1,2-dichloroethane. In laboratory animals, breathing or ingesting large amounts of 1,2-dichloroethane have also caused nervous system disorders and liver, kidney, and lung effects. Animal studies also suggest that 1,2-dichloroethane may damage the immune system. Kidney disease has also been seen in animals ingesting low doses of 1,2-dichloroethane for a long time. 1,2-Dichloroethane is a Probable Human Carcinogen. In animals, increases in the occurrence of stomach, mammary gland, liver, lung, and endometrium cancers have been seen following inhalation.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Ethylene Dichloride, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/di-ethan.html 2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for 1,2-Dichloroethane (Sep. 2001), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp38.pdf 3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for 1,2-Dichloroethane (Sep. 2001), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts38.pdf 4. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), 1,2-Dichloroethane, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/ Dichloroethane.pdf

A-4

Benzo(a)pyrene
CAS# 50-32-8

Benzo(a)pyrene is a Probable Human Carcinogen. Long-term repeated exposure to Benzo(a)pyrene has been found to cause cancer.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/polycycl.html 2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Aug. 1995), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp69.pdf 3. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011),Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/ PolycyclicAromaticHydrocarbons.pdf

p-Dichlorobenzene
CAS# 106-46-7

Inhaling the vapor or dusts of 1,4- dichlorobenzene at very high concentrations could be very irritating to your eyes and nose and cause burning and tearing of the eyes, coughing, difficult breathing, and an upset stomach. Dizziness, headaches, and liver problems have also been observed in people exposed to very high levels of 1,4-dichlorobenzene. Breathing eating 1,4-dichlorobenzene caused harmful effects in the liver of laboratory animals. Animal studies also found that 1,2- and 1,4-dichlorobenzene caused effects in the kidneys and blood. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene is a Possible Human Carcinogen.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 1,4Dichlorobenzene, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/dich-ben.html 2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Dichlorobenzenes (Aug. 2006), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp10.pdf 3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for Dichlorobenzenes (Aug. 2006), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts10.pdf 4. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Dichlorobenzene, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/ Dichlorobenzene.pdf

A-5

Acetaldehyde
CAS# 75-07-0

Acetaldehyde is a Probable Human Carcinogen.


1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Acetaldehyde, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/acetalde.html 2. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Acetaldehyde, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Acetaldehyde.pdf

Hexavalent Chromium
CAS# 18540-29-9

Breathing high levels of chromium(VI) can cause irritation to the lining of the nose, nose ulcers, runny nose, and breathing problems, such as asthma, cough, shortness of breath, or wheezing. Hexavalent Chromium is a Known Human Carcinogen. In workers, inhalation of chromium(VI) has been shown to cause lung cancer. Chromium(VI) also causes lung cancer in animals.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium (Aug. 1998), available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0144tr.pdf 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Chromium Compounds, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/chromium.html 3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Chromium (Sep. 2012), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp7.pdf 4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for Chromium (Oct. 2012), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts7.pdf 5. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Chromium Hexavalent Compounds, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/ profiles/ChromiumHexavalentCompounds.pdf

A-6

1,3-Butadiene
CAS# 106-99-0

In laboratory animals, 1,3-butadiene causes inflammation of nasal tissues, changes to lung, heart, and reproductive tissues, neurological effects, and blood changes. 1,3-Butadiene is a Known Human Carcinogen. Studies have shown that workers exposed to 1,3-butadiene may have an increased risk of cancers of the blood and lymphatic system. Animal studies found increases in a variety of tumor types from exposure to 1,3-butadiene.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene (Oct 2002), available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/butasup.pdf 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 1,3-Butadiene, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/butadien.html 3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for 1,3-Butadiene (Sep. 2012), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp28.pdf 4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for 1,3-Butadiene (Oct. 2012), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts28.pdf 5. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), 1,3-Butadiene, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Butadiene.pdf

Cadmium
CAS# 7440-43-9

Breathing high levels of cadmium can severely damage the lungs. Long-term exposure to lower levels of cadmium in air leads to a buildup of cadmium in the kidneys and possible kidney disease. Other long-term effects are lung damage and fragile bones. Cadmium is a Probable Human Carcinogen.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Cadmium Compounds, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/cadmium.html 2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Cadmium (Sep. 2012), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp5.pdf 3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for Cadmium (Oct. 2012), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts5.pdf 4. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/ profiles/Cadmium.pdf

A-7

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
CAS# 53-70-3

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene is a Probable Human Carcinogen.


1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/polycycl.html 2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Aug. 1995), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp69.pdf 3. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011),Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/ PolycyclicAromaticHydrocarbons.pdf

A-8

APPENDIX B

B-1

<T>1,4<END1>1<END2>12<END3>(305.64,36)<E4>11</E4>0<E5>0<E6>36<E7>11<E8>4/16/2014 12:00:00 AM08:59:38.2643117<E9></T>

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-10

B-11

B-12

B-13

B-14

B-15

B-16

B-17

B-18

B-19

B-20

B-21

B-22

B-23

B-24

B-25

B-26

B-27

B-28

B-29

B-30

B-31

B-32

B-33

B-34

B-35

B-36

B-37

B-38

B-39

B-40

B-41

B-42

B-43

B-44

B-45

B-46

B-47

B-48

B-49

B-50

B-51

B-52

B-53

B-54

B-55

B-56

B-57

B-58

B-59

B-60

B-61

B-62

B-63

B-64

B-65

B-66

B-67

B-68

B-69

B-70

B-71

B-72

B-73

B-74

B-75

B-76

B-77

B-78

B-79

B-80

B-81

B-82

B-83

B-84

B-85

B-86

B-87

B-88

B-89

B-90

B-91

B-92

B-93

B-94

B-95

B-96

B-97

B-98

B-99

B-100

B-101

B-102

B-103

B-104

B-105

B-106

B-107

B-108

B-109

B-110

B-111

B-112

B-113

APPENDIX C B

EJView Census 2010 Summary Report


Location:
-86.780429,33.582714

Study Area: 1.0 mile around the point location Summary Population Population Density (per sq. mile) Minority Population % Minority Households Housing Units Land Area (m2) % Land Area Water Area (m ) % Water Area Population by Race Total Population Reporting One Race White Black American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Some Other Race Population Reporting Two or More Races Total Hispanic Population Total Non-Hispanic Population White Alone Black Alone American Indian Alone Non-Hispanic Asian Alone Pacific Islander Alone Other Race Alone Two or More Races Alone Population by Sex Male Female Population by Age Age 0-4 Age 0-17 Age 18+ Age 65+ Households by Tenure Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Data Note: Detail may not sum to totals dues to rounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1.
2

Census 2010
4,064
2,250
3,038

75%
1,473

1,853 4,678,776 100% 3,597


0%

Number
4,064 3,999 1,105 2,663
34

Percent ------98% 27% 66%


1%

12 19 166 65 306 3,758 1,026


2,649

0% 0% 4% 2% 8% 92% 25%
65%

12 12 10 0 49

0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Number
1,882 2,182

Percent
46% 54%

Number
353 1,257
2,807 410

Percent
9%

31%
69%

10%

Number
1,473
648

Percent
44%
56%

826

C-1