June 15, 2021

Via Electronic Mail

Ms. Gina Curvin, Chief

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program Manager
Field Operations Division – Montgomery Branch
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1350 Coliseum Boulevard
Montgomery, AL 36110-2059
gcurvin@adem.alabama.gov

RE: Comments on ADEM’s 2021 Ambient Air Monitoring Plan

Dear Ms. Curvin:

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)1 and GASP2 respectfully submit the
following comments on the Alabama Department of Environmental Management’s (ADEM)
Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan for 2021. Specifically, these comments address the
increasingly sparse monitoring network in the state, the need for monitoring in environmental
justice communities, and the need for specific, additional monitors to ensure maintenance of air
quality in the state. In addition, SELC and GASP ask that ADEM respond to each comment and
provide the records and documents requested.

I. Background

Over the past 20 years, Alabama has significantly reduced the number of monitors in its
network. Since 2010, the number of statewide active PM2.5 monitoring sites has been cut in half,
from 30 monitoring sites in 2010 to only 15 in 2021.3 ADEM removed PM2.5 monitors from
Florence and Dothan in 2011;4 Pelham in 2015;5 Childersburg in 2017;6 Gadsden and Tuscaloosa
                                                            
1
The Southern Environmental Law Center is a non-profit, regional environmental organization dedicated to
protecting natural resources, preserving special places, and promoting vibrant communities throughout the
Southeast. https://www.southernenvironment.org/.
2
GASP is a non-profit health advocacy organization fighting for healthy air in Alabama. We strive to reduce air
pollution through education and advocacy—because Alabamians deserve clean, healthy air.
http://www.gaspgroup.org.
3
AirData Air Quality Monitors, U.S. EPA (last visited June 8, 2021),
https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5f239fd3e72f424f98ef3d5def547eb5&ext ent=-
146.2334,13.1913,-46.3896,56.5319 (using the PM2.5 active and inactive layers in Alabama).
4
ADEM, State of Alabama Ambient Air Monitoring 2012 Consolidated Network Review (2012), at 7.
 
 

in 2018;7 and Dothan and Muscle Shoals in 2019.8 In 2014, ADEM closed down the last PM10
monitoring site in Mobile, Alabama.9 The same year, Jefferson County Department of Health
(JCDH) shut down PM10 monitors at Tarrant, Fairfield, Sloss Shuttlesworth, and McAdory.10 In
2017, ADEM shut down the Phenix City ozone monitor; JCDH also discontinued ozone
monitoring in Hoover.11 In 2019, ADEM discontinued ozone monitoring in Dothan and Muscle
Shoals.12 This is a slow strangulation of air monitoring in the state. SELC and GASP urge
ADEM to consider expanding Alabama’s air monitoring network, rather than reducing it, to
protect public health and the environment.

II. The monitoring network in Mobile, specifically in EJ communities, is

inadequate.

“Environmental justice” (“EJ”) is defined as “the fair treatment and meaningful

involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.”13 Under Executive Order 12,898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, all federal agencies must ensure that any
programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance that affect human health or the
environment, such as Alabama’s air monitoring program, do not directly use criteria, methods, or
practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.14 ADEM must also
consider environmental justice concerns to meet its mission, outlined in the Alabama
Environmental Management Act, to “assure for all citizens of the State a safe, healthful, and
productive environment.”15 However, as can be seen from Table 1 and additional information
below, some citizens bear a more significant portion of the pollution produced in this state.

Table 1, below on page 4, shows the poverty rate and the percentage of the population
which is White and Black for Alabama, Mobile County and communities surrounding the Mobile
area. This table shows the demographics of communities within a “chemical corridor” – a sixty-

                                                                                                                                                                                                
5
ADEM, State of Alabama Ambient Air Monitoring 2015 Consolidated Network Review (2015), at 6.
6
ADEM, State of Alabama Ambient Air Monitoring 2018 Consolidated Network Review (2018), at 6.
7
ADEM, State of Alabama Ambient Air Monitoring 2019 Network Review (2019), at 4.
8
ADEM, State of Alabama Ambient Air Monitoring 2020 Network Review (2020), at 4.
9
2015 Network Plan, supra note 5, at 7.
10
Id.
11
ADEM, State of Alabama Ambient Air Monitoring 2017 Network Review (2017), at 7-8.
12
2019 Network Review, supra note 7.
13
Environmental Justice, U.S. EPA, www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice (last visited June 11, 2021); see also
ADEM UPDATE, Vol. X No. 3, at 2 (July 19, 2017).
14
Exec. Order No. 12,898, § 1-101, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994), as amended by Exec. Order No. 12,948, 60
Fed. Reg. 6381 (Feb. 1, 1995).
15
See Ala. Code § 22-22A-2 (2015) (emphasis added) (“It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to improve the
ability of the state to respond in an efficient, comprehensive and coordinated manner to environmental problems,
and thereby assure for all citizens of the state a safe, healthful and productive environment.”).

  2
 
 

mile stretch of land in Mobile County that is home to at least 27 industrial facilities.16 In a 2019
EPA study, Alabama ranked fifth out of all the states in most toxic substances released into the
air,17 and Mobile County had the highest amount of reported toxic releases of all the counties in
the state, with 13.5 million pounds of total releases in 2017.18 Mobile County is home to 48
facilities registered on the Toxic Release Inventory (the TRI).19

                                                            
16
Chemicals: Catalyst for Growth, ALABAMA POWER, https://mobilechamber.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/2019_MAST_Brochure_MARCH28_in-order.pdf. A substantial portion of Alabama’s
chemicals sector is concentrated in the MAST Chemical Corridor, near the port city of Mobile. The MAST corridor
is home to 25 chemical manufacturers and a total of 27 facilities. Id.
17
Alabama ranks 5th for industrial toxic releases in air and water, AL.COM (Mar. 24, 2019),
https://www.al.com/news/2019/03/alabama-ranks-5th-for-industrial-toxic-releases-in-air-and-water.html.
18
Id.
19
2018 TRI Fact Sheet – Mobile County, U.S. EPA,
https://enviro.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_factsheet.factsheet?pYear=2018&pstate=AL&pcounty=Mobile&pParent=NAT
(last visited June 11, 2021).

  3
 
 

Table 1 – Select Alabama & Mobile Area Demographics

White20 Black Population
Area Poverty Rate
Population % %

Alabama21 65.3% 26.8% 15.5%

Mobile County22 56.5% 36.2% 17.7%

Mobile (city) 23 41.8% 51.5% 20.7%

Chickasaw24 47.5% 46% 37%

Prichard25 8.9% 89.7% 31.5%

63%27
Africatown26 2% 97%
(low income)
50%29
Crichton28 8% 90%
(low income)

                                                            
20
All demographic statistics given in this paragraph that identifies a group as white means “white alone, not
Hispanic or Latino.”
21
QuickFacts: Alabama, UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/AL/PST045219 (last visited June 10, 2021).
22
QuickFacts: Mobile County, AL, UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/mobilecountyalabama/RHI225219 (last visited June 9, 2021).
23
QuickFacts: Mobile city, AL, UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/mobilecityalabama/RHI225219 (last visited June 9, 2021).
24
QuickFacts: Chickasaw city, AL, UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/chickasawcityalabama/RHI225219 (last visited June 9, 2021).
25
QuickFacts: Prichard city, AL, UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/prichardcityalabama/PST045219 (last visited June 10, 2021).
26
Because Africatown is a historic neighborhood and not a municipality, the census bureau does not offer
demographic data. Therefore, the area around the Kimberly-Clark Corporation, which is located in Africatown, will
be used as a proxy to model Africatown demographics. ECHO reports from EPA.gov provide various socio-
economic of the population surrounding Kimberly-Clark. See Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (1 Mile),
ECHO Detailed Facility Report: Kimberly-Clark Corporation, U.S. EPA, https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-
report?fid=110058122259 (last visited June 11, 2021).
27
In order to survey a large enough population to generate statistics, the profile of the area surrounding Kimberly-
Clark had to be increased from 1 mile to 3 miles. Additionally, the statistics measure the percentage of residents
with low income and not necessarily below the federal poverty line. See Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area
(3 Mile), ECHO Detailed Facility Report: Kimberly-Clark Corporation, U.S. EPA, https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-
facility-report?fid=110058122259 (last visited June 11, 2021).
28
Because Crichton is a neighborhood and not a municipality, the census bureau does not offer demographic data.
Therefore, ASM Recycling, Inc., which is located in Crichton, will be used as a proxy to model Crichton
demographics. ECHO reports from EPA.gov provide various socio-economics of the population surrounding ASM
Recycling Inc. See Demographic Profile of Surrounding Area (1 Mile), ECHO Detailed Facility Report ASM
Recycling Inc., U.S. EPA, https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110009692840 (last visited June 11,
2021).
29
In order to survey a large enough population to generate statistics, the profile of the area surrounding ASM
Recycling Inc. had to be increased from 1 mile to 3 miles. Additionally, the statistics measure the percentage of
residents with low income and not necessarily below the federal poverty line. See Demographic Profile of
Surrounding Area (3 Mile), ECHO Detailed Facility Report ASM Recycling Inc., U.S. EPA,
https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110009692840 (last visited June 11, 2021).

  4
 
 

Illustratively, the EJ communities of Prichard, Chickasaw, Crichton and Africatown are

overburdened with sources of air pollution and are in some of the highest percentile categories
for pollution for the selected EJ Index air quality variables as shown in Table 2 below.30
Table 2 – EJ Index for Selected Variables from Mobile, AL EJ Areas
All data is expressed in percentile for State of Alabama/EPA Region 4/United States, respectively, for
each area. Percentile for State of Alabama is bolded.
EJ Index for
Selected
Prichard31 Chickasaw32 Creighton33 Africatown34
Variables

PM 2.5 89/82/84 90/84/85 82/75/78 90/83/84

Ozone 90/82/81 90/83/82 82/75/75 90/83/82
NATA Diesel PM 95/88/88 95/88/88 91/83/83 96/89/89
NATA Air Toxics
89/84/87 90/85/88 82/77/81 89/85/87
Cancer Risk
NATA
Respiratory 90/86/89 91/87/90 82/79/83 91/87/90
Hazard Index
Traffic Proximity
97/92/89 98/95/92 95/88/84 98/94/91
& Volume
                                                            
30
These Mobile EJ locations were in some of the highest percentiles for all the EJ categories, but Table 2 was
restricted to categories related to air quality.
31
EJScreen Report – 3 Mile Ring, U.S. EPA,
https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/mobile/EJSCREEN_mobile.aspx?geometry={%22x%22:-
88.078146,%22y%22:30.738648,%22spatialReference%22:{%22wkid%22:4326}}&unit=9035&areatype=&areaid
=&basemap=streets&distance=3 (last visited June 11, 2021). The EJScreen report was created using Stokley Garage
at the center of the 3-mile ring since it is located in Prichard near the center of town.
32
EJScreen Report – 3 Mile Ring, U.S. EPA,
https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/mobile/EJSCREEN_mobile.aspx?geometry={%22x%22:-
88.059471,%22y%22:30.758831,%22spatialReference%22:{%22wkid%22:4326}}&unit=9035&areatype=&areaid
=&basemap=streets&distance=3 (last visited June 11, 2021). The EJScreen report was created using Honeywell –
UOP LLC at the center of the 3-mile ring since it is located in Chickasaw, and it is a major air emissions source.
33
EJScreen Report – 3 Mile Ring, U.S. EPA,
https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/mobile/EJSCREEN_mobile.aspx?geometry={%22x%22:-
88.10607,%22y%22:30.70722,%22spatialReference%22:{%22wkid%22:4326}}&unit=9035&areatype=&areaid=&
basemap=streets&distance=3 (last visited June 11, 2021). This data is once again using ASM Recycling, Inc as a
proxy for the Crichton area. See supra note 28. Since the Creighton neighborhood is found in zip code 36607, a
search for all permitted facilities in this zip code was conducted. According to ECHO at EPA.gov, there are 34 total
facilities requiring permits, and six of those facilities required air permits. See ECHO Facility Search Results –
36607, U.S. EPA, https://echo.epa.gov/facilities/facility-search/results (last visited June 11, 2021).
34
EJScreen Report – 3 Mile Ring, U.S. EPA,
https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/mobile/EJSCREEN_mobile.aspx?geometry={%22x%22:-
88.0483,%22y%22:30.736214,%22spatialReference%22:{%22wkid%22:4326}}&unit=9035&areatype=&areaid=&
basemap=streets&distance=3 (last visited June 11, 2021). This data is once again using Kimberly-Clark Corporation
as a proxy for the Africatown area. See supra note 26. According to the company’s latest application for a Title V
permit renewal, Kimberly-Clark Corporation is considered a major source for NOx, CO, Filterable PM, PM10, PM2.5,
and VOC. See Major Source Operating Permit Renewal Application (MSOP No. 503-2012) – Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, Table 4-1 (Nov. 9, 2020),
http://lf.adem.alabama.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=104468086&dbid=0.

  5
 
 

Table 2 shows that all these EJ communities have some of the worst quality air in
Alabama. All four are in at least the 90th percentile in degraded air quality for the state of
Alabama except for Crichton. Even when the scope of comparison for these EJ communities is
broadened to all of Region 4 and the United States, they are still predominantly in at least the
80th percentile for all categories. When the data from Table 2 is analyzed with the data from
Table 1, it is clear that these predominantly EJ and Black communities have some of the worst
air quality in Alabama. The fact that Mobile is considered a “chemical corridor” poses a
particular danger to Black communities which also have high rates of poverty.35

Further, EPA’s recent executive order on the climate crisis renews support for Executive
Order 12,898 and calls for federal agencies to make environmental justice an integral part of
their missions.36 Executive action is to be taken by this Administration to tackle the climate crisis
at home by “immediate review of harmful rollbacks of standards that protect our air, water, and
communities” as well as increasing environmental justice monitoring and enforcement through
new or strengthened offices at the EPA, Department of Justice, and Department of Health and
Human Services.37 The Administration plans on strengthening clean air and water protections by
holding domestic polluters accountable for their actions and delivering environmental justice to
all communities in the United States.38 In its Environmental Justice Strategic Plan for 2016-2020
(“EJ 2020”), EPA outlined its goal to deepen environmental justice practice within its programs
to improve the health and environmental of overburdened communities.39 These actions by the
EPA underscore the agency’s commitment to ensuring that “vulnerable, environmentally
burdened, economically disadvantaged communities” have access to a safe and healthy
environment.40

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the EPA has a duty to cooperate with and to
assist States “in protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation's air resources by the
prevention and abatement of conditions which cause or contribute to air pollution which
endangers the public health or welfare.”41 This must require assisting and ensuring that states
have an adequate monitoring network so the public health and welfare is protected. This is
especially essential in predominantly impoverished and minority communities where lack of
monitoring can lead to a concentration of polluting facilities due to minimal regulation and
accountability. Insufficient monitoring enables facilities to pollute more.
                                                            
35
See Table 1, Select Alabama & Mobile Demographics.
36
Exec. Order No. 14,008, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619 (Jan. 27, 2021).
37
Press Release, The White House, Fact Sheet: President Biden Takes Executive Actions to Tackle the Climate
Crisis at Home and Abroad, Create Jobs, and Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal Government (January 27,
2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/27/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-
executive-actions-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad-create-jobs-and-restore-scientific-integrity-
across-federal-government/.
38
Id.
39
The U.S. EPA’s Environmental Justice Strategic Plan for 2016-2020, U.S. EPA (May 2016), at iii.
40
Id.
41
40 C.F.R. § 20.7(b).

  6
 
 

ADEM’s air monitoring network in Mobile, specifically in frontline communities, is

simply inadequate. SELC and GASP have been urging ADEM to include more monitoring in
this area, particularly PM10 monitors, for years. We once again urge ADEM to create a more
robust monitoring network, particularly in EJ communities around the Mobile Bay area.

III. SELC and GASP request that ADEM install additional ambient air monitors in
frontline EJ communities in Mobile County.

The CAA’s central purpose is to protect public health and welfare.42 A key driver for
achieving the Act’s public health goal is the requirement that all areas in the country comply
with primary (health-based) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which reflect the
maximum permissible levels of common pollutants in the ambient air.43 Certainly air permitting
fills an important public health safeguard where the NAAQS alone is insufficient to do so.44
Furthermore, if NAAQS compliance is a condition of the permit, the permit must contain
monitoring of a frequency and type sufficient to assure compliance.45 Thus, the relationship
between adequate monitoring and maintenance of the NAAQS is clear.

GASP has commented on various air permits for sources of air pollution in Mobile
County in the past year and has noticed a troubling trend: ADEM’s permits often do not include
adequate air monitoring to ensure compliance with the permit. In one instance concerning a
permit for the UOP, LLC facility located in the EJ community of Chickasaw,46 ADEM provided
no rationale for its monitoring regime for the renewal of the Title V permit for the source.47
                                                            
42
The EPA has established the NAAQS that it has deemed “requisite to protect the public health” and “the public
welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b); see 40 C.F.R. § 50.1 et seq.
43
42 U.S.C. §§ 7401, 7409.
44
Hawaiian Elec. Co. v. EPA, 723 F.2d 1440, 1446-7 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Congress repeatedly emphasized that
NAAQS alone were insufficient to protect public health and welfare.”).
45
See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2011).; see also 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(a)(3)(B).
46
Ramsey Sprague, President of the Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition (hereinafter “MEJAC”)
explained that “[MEJAC] was formed seven years ago by Africatown residents in response to a major influx of
industrial activities” and that the group has “been fighting very hard for the integrity of the Africatown
neighborhood plan itself, which calls for greater accountability for industrial pollution in the area.” Testimony of
Ramsey Sprague, President of the Mobile Environmental Justice Action Coalition, ADEM Hearing Transcript at 22
(Oct. 20, 2020). He further testified that MEJAC has “concerns about this UOP permit renewal … as a major source
and one of the largest, if not the largest, emitter in the toxic release inventory in the entire Africatown planning
area.” Id. He expressed concern about the lack of any facility-based monitoring except for visual inspection and
standard OSHA compliance, and noted that fence-line monitoring was needed, particularly on the north side of the
facility which is directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Id.
47
“The permit establishes a limit of ‘not more than one 6-minute average opacity greater than 20% in any 60-minute
period and no 6-minute average opacity greater than 40%’ for nearly every emission point. But to verify compliance,
ADEM only requires that visible emissions be checked ‘at least once per day on at least two days per calendar week
….’” Petition to Object to the Issuance of Title V Permit No. 503-8010 for UOP LLC Mobile Plant at 14-15, In re
UOP LLC Mobile Plant, No.503-8010 (2021), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-
04/documents/uop_llc_petition_4-2-21.pdf. “Moreover, while these visual inspection checks are to be based on EPA
Reference Method 9, ‘alternate test methods’ may be used with prior approval by ADEM (without any discussion as

  7
 
 

Similarly, in the renewal of the Title V permit for Plains Marketing, ADEM allows the source to
continue to emit VOCs without the required controls and fails to include the required monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.48 Where source-specific monitoring and
recordkeeping is inadequate in and around Mobile County, especially in EJ communities, ADEM
should include more fence-line ambient air monitors in Mobile County, particularly in the
overburdened Africatown, Crichton, Pritchard and Chickasaw communities.

IV. SELC and GASP request that ADEM install a special purpose monitor (SPM)
for a period of three years at the Barry Electric Generating Plant in order to
characterize SO2 emissions and ensure compliance with NAAQS.

The Barry Steam Electric Generating Plant (Plant Barry), a gas and coal-fired electric
generating facility owned and operated by Alabama Power Company, received a renewed Title V
Permit from ADEM on February 2, 2021 despite objections from Sierra Club and GASP over the
potential for violation of SO2 NAAQS.49 Sierra Club hired an expert to conduct a dispersion
modeling analysis for ambient air concentrations for comparison with the one-hour SO2
NAAQS, using SO2 limits ADEM proposed in the Draft Permit.50 These proposed limits were
included in the Final Permit.51 This modeling shows that permitted limits can result in SO2 levels
as high as 681 ug/m3 or 430 ug/m3 (depending on what limit one of the coal units complies
with), versus the NAAQS limit of 196.2 μg/m3 – exceedances over two or three times the
allowable health-based limit.52

The closest SO2 monitor in ADEM’s network is located nearly twenty miles away from Plant
Barry, creating a significant gap in data between the nearby communities and the actual
emissions from the plant. These emissions have a tremendous impact on neighboring
                                                                                                                                                                                                
to how these alternate methods can be determined—including whether or not those methods must be based on EPA-
approved alternatives or whether public input will be accepted). EPA must object to the Final Permit because it fails
to provide adequate rationale to the monitoring regime determinations for UOP Mobile Plant under 40 C.F.R. §
70.7(a)(5) with ADEM unable to assure proper compliance with limits.” Id. “The proposed monitoring for opacity is
not sufficient because it fails to ensure compliance on a continuous basis (a minimum two observations a week is far
from adequate to ensure compliance with a 1 hour standard).” Id. “The Draft Permit’s opacity monitoring
requirements are inadequate to assure compliance with the opacity limits therein because monitoring is too
infrequent, uses inadequate methods,” and is inconsistent with the relevant state and federal regulations.” Id. at 30.
48
See GASP Comment on ADEM’s Proposed Renewal of Title V Draft Permit No. 503-3013 to Plains Marketing,
L.P. (March 4, 2021) (on file with author).
49
Letter from Ronald W. Gore, ADEM to Mike Godfrey, Alabama Power Company, Plant Barry Title V Operating
Permit (Feb. 2, 2021); see also GASP and Sierra Club Comment on ADEM’s Proposed Renewal of Title V Draft
Permit No. 503-1001 (Oct. 22, 2020) (on file with author).
50
See Stephen Klafka, Barry Steam Electric Generating Plant, Bucks, Alabama, Evaluation of Compliance of the
June 30, 2020 Draft Operating Permit with the 1-hour NAAQS for SO2 (Aug. 31, 2020).
51
Letter from ADEM, supra note 49.
52
Klafka, supra note 50; see also Petition to Object to the Issuance of Title V Permit No. 503-1001 for Alabama
Power Company’s Barry Steam Electric Generating Plant, In re Barry Steam Electric Generating Plant, No. 503-
1001 (Apr. 2, 2021), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/apc_barry_petition_3-30-
21.pdf.

  8
 
 

communities, which are disproportionately Black and Indigenous. For instance, modeling shows
that fourteen nearby schools will experience violation of air quality standards due to SO2
emissions from the Plant.53 SELC and GASP request that ADEM install a special purpose
monitor for a period of three years at Plant Barry in order to characterize SO2 emissions and
determine whether permit limits are causing non-compliance with NAAQS.

V. SELC and GASP request that ADEM make publicly available the studies it cites
as the basis for attainment of particulate matter NAAQS in the Mobile area.

ADEM has previously provided the rationale that coal transport is down since the last
particulate matter monitor was in operation to show that the area remains in attainment for
particulate matter NAAQS. In response to the Mobile City Council’s 2016 inquiry into whether
coal dust is a concern for community health, ADEM states,

According to reliable records, the tonnage of coal being loaded and unloaded through the
Port of Mobile in recent years is substantially lower than in 2006. ADEM has also been
made aware of a number of coal dust measures that have been put in place at the port coal
handling facilities. Based on these factors, there is no reasonable expectation that the
amount of coal dust present in downtown Mobile is equal to or higher than levels present
in 2006.54

Despite years of community concern over these coal-handling facilities, the only response
provided by ADEM relies on monitoring results dating back to 2006 and unpublished records
showing that the tonnage of coal being transported through the Port of Mobile in recent years is
substantially lower than in 2006.55 This analysis should be updated, and ADEM must show that
PM standards are not being violated. SELC and GASP request that such records be made
available for public review.

VI. SELC and GASP request that ADEM place special purpose monitors in the
Auburn and Anniston areas in order to characterize ozone emissions and
provide a fuller picture of the state’s overall air quality.

There are currently no ozone monitors or PM2.5 monitors in the Anniston-Oxford and
Auburn-Opelika MSAs. Based on population size, and their proximity to Birmingham and
Atlanta, these MSAs would likely benefit from increased monitoring. ADEM states that these

                                                            
53
Press Release, Sierra Club, Sierra Club and GASP Petition EPA to Fight Dangerous Air Pollution at Plant Barry
(Apr. 2, 2021), https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2021/06/sierra-club-and-gasp-petition-epa-fight-
dangerous-air-pollution-plant-barry.
54
See Letter from Lance LeFleur, ADEM to Gina Gregory and Levon Manzie, City Council of Mobile (May 24,
2016), at 1.
55
Id.

  9
 
 

areas do not require monitors because of their close proximity to other monitors and the absence
of a design value, a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given location relative to the
level of the NAAQS.56 ADEM’s five-year network assessment found that if resources allowed,
an additional ozone site in Auburn would be likely; however, ADEM concluded no new sites
would be established.57 SELC and GASP request more information from ADEM about why
these monitors are not required under 40 C.F.R. Part 58, and ADEM’s plans to expand
monitoring efforts in the eastern part of the state.

SELC and GASP encourage ADEM to follow EPA’s suggestion to place a special
purpose monitor in the Auburn region to determine how well ozone levels correlate with
Montgomery and Phenix City.58 Further, SELC and GASP request that ADEM consider placing
such monitors in the Anniston area as well. Anniston is a midpoint between two major
Southeastern cities: Birmingham and Atlanta. According to the American Lung Association’s
2021 State of the Air Report, both Birmingham and Atlanta received a failing grade of “F” for
high ozone days.59 Given the ability of ozone precursors to travel hundreds of miles to form
ozone far from the original emission source, it would be prudent for ADEM to install more
monitors in the eastern part of the state between Birmingham and Atlanta.60

VII. SELC and GASP request that ADEM publicly provide information regarding
lead emissions from the Anniston Army Depot, including whether there is a
waiver for monitoring requirements under 40 C.F.R. Part 58.

Under 40 C.F.R. Part 58, Appendix D, non-airport sources emitting 0.50 or more tons per
year of lead are required to have a source-oriented monitor.61 In 2016, EPA required ADEM to
submit a source monitoring waiver request or an addendum proposing a source-oriented
monitoring site by December 31, 2016 for the Anniston Army Depot.62 No addendum to the
2016 Network Plan was publicly provided. Additionally, ADEM provided no waiver renewal
request in the 2020 Five-Year Network Assessment as required by 40 C.F.R. Part 58, Appendix
D.63 Thus, SELC and GASP request further information on whether ADEM received a waiver
                                                            
56
ADEM, State of Alabama Ambient Air Monitoring 2021 Network Review (2021), at 13; see also 40 C.F.R. Part
58, Appendix D, Table D-2, fn. 4 (stating that minimum monitoring requirements apply in the absence of a design
value); see also Air Quality Design Values, U.S. EPA, https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values (last
visited June 11, 2021).
57
Letter from Gregg Worley, EPA to Ron W. Gore, ADEM, U.S. EPA Comments and Recommendations on
Alabama’s Five-Year Network Assessment (Mar. 17, 2021).
58
Id.
59
American Lung Association, State of the Air 2021 (April 2021), https://www.lung.org/getmedia/17c6cb6c-8a38-
42a7-a3b0-6744011da370/sota-2021.pdf.
60
See Ground-Level Ozone Basics, U.S. EPA, https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ground-level-
ozone-basics (last visited June 8, 2021).
61
40 C.F.R. Part 58, Appendix D, 4.5(a).
62
See Letter from Jeanette M. Gettle, EPA to Ronald W. Gore, ADEM, 2016 State of Alabama Ambient Air
Monitoring Plan U.S. EPA Region 4 Comments and Recommendations (Nov. 4, 2016).
63
Letter from EPA, supra note 57; see also 40 C.F.R. Part 58, Appendix D, 4.5(a)(ii).

  10
 
 

and what the rationale is for such a waiver. If ADEM did not receive such waiver, SELC and
GASP request that ADEM submit an addendum to the 2021 Network Plan proposing a source-
oriented lead monitor at the Anniston Army Depot.

VIII. SELC and GASP request that ADEM respond to comments as part of its
submittal to EPA of the 2021 Network Plan.

Under 40 CFR § 58.10(a)(1), agencies must provide the public a 30-day review period to
submit comments on annual ambient air monitoring network plans and the “submitted plan shall
include and address, as appropriate, any received comments.”64 On June 26, 2020, SELC and
GASP jointly submitted comments to ADEM on the 2020 Ambient Air Monitoring Network
Plan.65 ADEM failed to respond to public commenters because “in its opinion the comments
were substantially the same as submitted during a previous year’s Network Plan public comment
process and no changes were warranted based on these comments.”66 The EPA disagreed,
concluding that submitted comments identified specific new comments that were raised “such as
the request for new information on the resources required to install and operate a PM10 monitor
near the coal terminal near the Port of Mobile.”67 Upon information and belief, ADEM failed to
provide SELC or GASP with a response to 2020 comments. Thus, SELC and GASP specifically
request that ADEM’s submittal to EPA of the 2021 Ambient Air Monitoring Plan include a
response to comments raised herein, as required by 40 CFR §58.10(a)(1). In addition to the new
comments raised this year, SELC and GASP also request that ADEM provide a response to last
year’s inquiry into the actual dollar amount of funding that would be required to be expended by
ADEM to install an additional PM10 monitor in Mobile.68

IX. Conclusion

SELC and GASP ask that ADEM expand Alabama’s air monitoring network, in order to
accomplish its essential surveillance function for critical pollutants such as ozone and particulate
matter. Without this oversight, Alabamians are in the dark with respect to their air quality.
Further, impoverished communities and communities of color continue to disproportionately
face the burden of air pollution in Alabama. It is ADEM and EPA’s duty to ensure that these
communities are adequately protected from air pollution.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

                                                            
64
40 CFR § 58.10(a)(1).
65
Letter from Caroline Freeman, EPA to Ronald W. Gore, ADEM, 2020 State of Alabama Ambient Air Monitoring
Plan U.S. EPA Comments and Recommendations (October 20, 2020), at 1.
66
Id.
67
Id.
68
Letter from Christina Andreen Tidwell, SELC and Haley Lewis, GASP to Gina Curvin, ADEM, Comments on
ADEM’s 2020 Ambient Air Monitoring Plan (June 26, 2020).

  11
 
 

Respectfully submitted,

Christina Andreen Tidwell

Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
2829 Second Avenue S., Ste. 282
Birmingham, AL 35233
tel: (205) 745-3060
fax: (205) 745-3064
email: ctidwell@selcal.org

Haley Lewis
Staff Attorney
GASP
2320 Highland Avenue S., Ste 270
Birmingham, AL 35205
tel: (205) 701-4272
email: haley@gaspgroup.org

  12