Comment on Amendments to AMR VI to Philadelphia. Health Dept.
September 9, 2022
Dear Mr. Hartung, cc Dr. Bettigole and Dr. Raval-Nelson,
Below are our biggest concerns and recommendations. Thank you in advance for a thorough consideration of a long and detailed comment on the set of documents made available to us. I want to warn you that I will rake AMS over the coals.
I. Introduction
Regardless of the silver lining selling point, a long needed update to the list of AMS recognized toxins, the AMR VI documents we had access to would allow AMS the discretion to decide, like a grim reaper cartoon character, in a case by case basis, whether to welcome a cancer risk more than twice the present risk in any Philadelphia census tract. The documents, by omitting any provision, or mention of provision elsewhere, for informing and the listening to the public, would keep data on toxics emitting from most facilities unreported, and therefore hidden from the public. In a nutshell, to these drafts, No thank you. The Department must do better, or the public shall have to find its way forward and rewrite the regulation.
The Department has new leadership and a window of opportunity to clarify its internal culture. Simplicity of mission, as stated in City Code, is to protect public health. Any compromise to the mission damages the very people whose taxes are a main source of funding for their health protection. An applicant requesting a permit to contaminate the air cannot be considered by the Department of Health as a “paying client,’ deserving of compromises within the regulations, in order to protect profit margins. The Department must reject influence to that effect from other departments, or nonelected powers.
II. General Recommendation: The Health department needs to pick a clear linear path and position itself to follow the EPA Strategy for Reducing Health Risks in Urban Areas. It’s three goals are the following:
Reduce by 75% the risk of cancer associated with air toxics from both large and small commercial and industrial sources
Substantially reduce non-cancer health risks (e.g. birth defects and reproductive effects) associated with air toxics from small commercial and industrial sources
Address and prevent disproportionate impacts of air toxics hazards, such as those in areas known as “hot spots,” and on sensitive populations in urban areas, including: children, the elderly, minority and low-income communities.
III. Specific Recommendations for AMR VI Draft Documents
A. Regarding “Amendments to AMR VI”
1. Remove the Exemptions subsection from Section II, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Pages 8-9
All facilities that require an air contamination permits should report a list of toxic emissions to the Health Department. AMS has the responsibility to collect that information and make sure it is included in Public Notice. It also has to send it to the State of PA. If that kind of report is too arduous to demand from certain applicants, then those particular applicants should not be considered responsible enough to be allowed to dump poison in the air.
Exemption #(4)- for all non-title V facilities is the worst of the five exemptions. It translates to 93.7% of all permitted facilities currently operating in Philadelphia, even synthetic minors, which have the capacity to operate as major sources, and do, for much of the year.
AMR VI does not state that AMS will estimate toxic emissions for non Title V sources, or mention them in permits, or publish them as part of public notice, or send them to PA DEP. Therefore, these emissions could simply go unrecorded, “unnoticed” by an uninformed public, and become absent from State records.
AMS has an entrenched tradition of not including HAPS in public notices for minor plants, even though Title 25 PA State Code Chapter 127.45 clearly requires all facilities requiring an air pollution permit to include all emissions in public notice. AMS is quick to say that their job is to follow City regulations. But how about AMR VIII, which adopts Chapter 127? Its attorneys should be aware that City regulations are allowed to be more stringent, but not less stringent, than any chapter of state code, like the one in AMR VIII.
AMS has enjoyed shirking Chapter 127.45, by clinging to an archaic exemption in the Noticing Section of the original AMR VI. This exemption is for ALL fuel burning facilities! But Chapter 127 does not “grandfather in” pre-existing local rules which undermine state standards.
In the AMS Revised “Inter Office Memo of 11/21/2017, a technical document for the SEPTA Midvale CHP, AMS justified the City’s snub of State code by citing the AMR VI exemption under the heading “Evaluation of HAP Emissions, Air Toxics” on p6. AMS had not included HAPS in public notice, or in any documents published on their website before the public comment period, or after during the 5 months of deliberation, until finally 8 days before issuing the plan approval, AMS quietly provided the list of HAPS and some plans for management in the revised Inter Office Memo and placed it on their website.
“An analysis of the HAP Emissions vis a vi Air Management Regulation (AMR) VI, governing Toxic Air Contaminants, was not required for the CHP project because emissions generated from sources that combust commercial fuel, like natural gas, are exempt. See AMR VI. § II.C.”
The practical reason why Chapter 127.45 requires public notice of HAPS for minor sources is simply that their toxic emissions can cause significant health risks. Two local examples of synthetic minor sources that spew concerning amounts of toxics into lungs, eyes, vegetable gardens, are below.
The former PES Refinery is no longer Title V. Benzene, at above EPA threshold levels, still bubbles up from underground pools and escapes equipment being disassembled on site. Exemption #(4) removes the obligation for HILCO or Sunoco Evergreen Clean Up Operation to report benzene at the property. AMS could choose not to monitor this benzene and report the levels to DEP, since the property has “minor permits.” Neighbors will have no way to know about the benzene in their air. Does Philadelphia Health Department want the public to simply rely on DEP and EPA interventions?
SEPTA's CHP in Nicetown has a “synthetic minor” permit. The plant was cited in April 2022 (EPA ECHO website) for failing a stack test for non methane VOC emissions. With Noticing Exemption #(4), it’s unclear whether stack tests there will stop testing for toxics. Any new facility like SEPTA’s may not be obligated to do stack tests for undeclared, unidentified toxic emissions.
2. Reinstate the original wording, which mandated an applicant to list toxic emissions including their quantities, and which also mandated the applicant to communicate the date when toxic emissions would begin- or did begin. SECTION II Notice Requirements A. Notice of Emission (4)(1) Page 7.
Reasons why:
All applicants for air contamination permits must have to list the toxics emissions including their amounts. (The word “may” also means “maybe not,” depending on something vague.)
If a Department form will be used, it should not be flexible about requiring the information than AMR VI used to require, and a copy of the form should be provided in this AMR VI document.
The applicant should reveal the date when emissions are to begin or already began.
This is how it looks right now:
(4)(1) Notice shall include a list identifying be made on a form as prescribed by the Department, and may require applicants to identify the toxic air contaminants emitted; the associated areas or operations within the facility from which the toxic air contaminants are emitted; and provide estimates of the maximum hourly, daily and annual emission rates for each toxic air contaminant emitted from the specified areas or operations within the facility; and the date when the emission of each toxic air contaminant began or is expected to begin. facility.”
To fix these problems, try this:
4)(1) Notice shall include a list identifying the toxic air contaminants emitted; the associated areas or operations within the facility from which the toxic air contaminants are emitted; and provide estimates of the maximum hourly, daily and annual emission rates for each toxic air contaminant emitted from the specified areas or operations within the facility; and the date when the emission of each toxic air contaminant began or is expected to begin. All of this information will be entered on an official Department form as shown below…
3. The Health Department, not the applicants, should do health risk assessments in SECTION III. REGISTRATION, REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS C. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (2) Page 10
There is a conflict of interest if the polluter (the applicant) does the health risk assessment. If AMS is worried about funds to pay its staff to do this, the applicant for an air contamination permit can certainly pay a standardized fee to compensate the Department.
Here is the language which needs to be changed: “(2) The Department shall require the applicant for any permit or license for any source of toxic air contaminants affected by this Regulation to submit an assessment…”
It should say: : “(2) The Department shall do an assessment of health risk or hazard...”
4. Reinstate the original paragraph prohibiting a facility from emitting more than the approved toxic emissions! SECTION III C. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Page 11
Right now it is crossed out!
(3) In approving an installation permit or operating license for any facility to emit or discharge a toxic air contaminant, the Department shall specify the maximum allowable emission rates and the other conditions under which approval is granted. Any increase in emissions over the approved maximum allowable emission rates, without first obtaining approval from the Department is prohibited.
B. Regarding Technical Guidelines to AMR VI
1. Remove all exemptions in Appendix B. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSION SOURCES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A RISK ANALYSIS page 23.
The worst exemption is:
(iv) Boilers and heaters with no more than 50 million BTU per hour capacity, burning only natural gas, and with an exhaust stack at least 20-foot tall and at least 10 feet away from the facility property line.
50 million BTU/hr. is a large major sized facility. The approximate threshold for a Title V is a little over half the size (29million BTU/hr.) In PA code, there is a noticing exemption for gas burning facilities up to 10 million BTU/hr. This means that even our state, which is heavily invested in natural gas drilling and sales, recognizes the importance of toxics from gas burning facilities larger than 10million BTU/hr.
Appendix B prefaces Health risk assessment exemption (iv) with the statement saying that Air Management Services determined a facility this large would have minimal toxic emissions. There is no explanation how it was determined. PA code Title 25, Chapter 127.36(c) requires an explanation. "In developing health risk based emission standards or operating practice requirements, the Department will provide a rationale and explanation for the standards or requirements." In summary, this exemption specifically benefits the natural gas industry, not public health. All health risk exemptions in Appendix B should be eliminated.
2. The Health Department should pause on Thresholds for Toxics and organize a transparent peer review process in order to make adjustments to Thresholds. Pages 3-10.
The calculations are highly questionable and calculations are not explained, as required by PA Code Title 25 Chapter 127.36(c)
· One obvious red flag is that more than half (99) of New Jersey's thresholds are lower (more protective) than the new Philadelphia thresholds, while only 8 of Philadelphia's are lower than New Jersey's. 93 are the same. Who is using up to date science and accurate math?
· Another glaring red flag is the huge range of thresholds, from 0.007 lbs. to 2000 lbs./year, for 18 toxins flagged by California Air Toxics Program as too poisonous to even have a threshold. California Air Toxics Program flags the following toxins. The AMS thresholds in pounds/year are placed after each toxin.
Asbestos 0.007 lbs., Benzene (C6H6) 7 lbs., 1,3-Butadiene (C4H6) 1.8 lbs., Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4; tetra chloromethane) 9 lbs., chloroform (CHCl3) 2.3 lbs., Dibensonfuran 1000 lbs., Ethylene Dibromide (BrCH2CH2Br; 1,2-dibromoethane) 0.09 lbs., Ethylene Dichloride (ClCH2CH2Cl; 1,2-dichloroethane) 2 lbs., Ethylene Oxide (1,2-epoxyethane) 0.01 lbs., Formaldehyde (HCHO) 4 lbs., Methylene Chloride (CH2Cl2; Dichloromethane) 2000 lbs., Perchloroethylene (C2Cl4; Tetrachloroethylene) 9 lbs., Trichloroethylene (CCl2CHCl; Trichloroethene) 10 lbs., Vinyl chloride (C2H3Cl; Chloroethylene) 6 lbs., Inorganic Arsenic (arsenic compounds) 0.01 lbs., Cadmium (metallic cadmium, cadmium compounds) (cadmium oxide) 0.01lbs, Hexavalent chromium (Cr (VI)) 0.0045 lbs., Inorganic Lead 2 lbs., Nickel (metallic nickel and inorganic nickel compounds) 0.2 lbs.
3. The Health Department (AMS), not the applicant, should be the responsible party that creates mitigation plans to reduce health risk. IV Risk Mitigation Plan Page 18
The applicant is the polluter and has a conflict of interest.
4. We summarized and support these 7 recommendations made by Earth Justice and Clean Air Council in their 29-page comment. Two NAGP opinions are in bold italics.
The cancer risk guideline benchmark for undue health hazard of 100-in-1 million must be reduced to 10-in-1-million, unless the Department assesses all cumulative health risks as described in the EJ/CAC comments, in which case it can be 25-in-1million. 100-in-1 million allows for more than twice the risk currently existing in Philadelphia. (US EPA AirToxScreen puts Philadelphia cancer risk from air pollution between 30 and 40 in a million.)
AMR VI and the Technical Guidelines must add comprehensive provisions for public notice and public input on the health risk assessments and risk mitigation plans. There’s no mention of requiring public meetings or a process for a public challenge to a permit or to an AMS decision. The public needs to be provided with the necessary information in a timely manner to make informed decisions and take appropriate action to protect health.
The Board should commit to review and revise these regulations every 5 years, with advanced public notice and a 60 day comment period.
AMS should use readily available scientific methods for calculating cumulative impacts in health risk assessment. The amended AMR VI method for calculating health risks vastly underestimates the risks. Modern methods for calculating aggregate and cumulative risks of toxic exposures are readily accessible science and are regularly used by the EPA.
Risk Mitigation plans must ensure pollution reduction and control. “Case-by-case review” should not occur unless it is clearly defined. NAGP is against “case by case review” because it encourages corruption. Acceptable standards for mitigations should be defined and monitored with mandated consequences if the plan is not followed. More mitigation strategies should be added to the suggested list.
Exceptions to the rule are not justified and should be eliminated because exempted facilities could most harm public health.
The Health Department is obligated to use its mandate and authorization to protect public health in accordance with city code and Article 1, section 27 of the PA Constitution- "...The people have the right to breathe clean air..."
C. Regarding Health Risk Assessment Technical Support Document for AMR VI Amendment
1. Add all missing EPA identified HAPS in the List of Toxic Air Contaminants (Hazardous Air Pollutants).
If all missing HAPS are mentioned in the FAQ for AMR VI- (Radionuclides and Fine Mineral Fibers) then AMS should follow EPA guidance on radionuclides. As soon as EPA guidance on Fine Mineral Fibers could comes out, follow it.
2.1.1 Dispersion Model
The AERMOD computer model is only as reliable as the inputs from the user. Background air input is key, but is not mentioned in the document. If AMS staff uses background air the way it did when looking at SEPTA’s CHP, taking samples from an air monitoring station almost 4 miles away, no one will trust AERMOD calculations.
2.1.3 Meteorological Data
“Meteorological data sets include ground level weather observation data and upper air profile data.” I see nothing about weather except wind pattern.
Data collected in the years 2010-2014 were used. Old data. Why?
“The ground level data were the Philadelphia International Airport data sets.” Looking at an airport next to a small town would be perfect, but Philly is a big city with different elevations and terrains. Since wind patterns and wind speeds vary from neighborhood to neighborhood- even from block to block, the Department could set up weather stations and create a data base for wind patterns.
2.1.4 Stack Parameters and Emission Rates
“Emissions were assumed to occur 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.”
For a synthetic minor, it’s not reliable math to look at annual emissions and divide by 365 because they run at full capacity sometimes and under capacity at other times.
2.1.6 Receptor Grid
“Modeling was performed assuming flat terrain within the modeled distance range.” Not appropriate in a hilly city like Philadelphia. AEMOD offers terrain inputs. Is this a mistake?
2.1.7 Model Input and Output
“Using this process, tables of worst-case hourly and annual impacts by stack height and distance were created for stacks from 15 ft to 250 ft …”
15 ft stacks? Does this mean that Health assessments will be done for the smallest minor facilities?
Review of the AMS permitting and emission inventory data showed that at least 57% of approximately 1100 stacks (or release points) permitted in Philadelphia (not including small sources that are not reported in the emission inventories) are no more than 40 feet high.”
40 ft stacks are not for Title V sources. Perhaps AMS does know that it should require health risk assessments for minor sources?
IV. Conclusion
It’s aggravating that the AMR VI drafts failed to address the need to improve health and prevent a rise in our cancer rate. The Department knows Philadelphia’s cancer rate is the worst in the state and that PA’s rate is above the national average. The Department should know that most of Philadelphia is designated as environmental justice neighborhoods, and that it’s own published disease and mortality levels in the city correlate to air pollution levels
This comment is directed towards the City attorneys who we assume will read it, even though they may try to deny that state code is mandatory in Philadelphia, or that the Department’s mission is aligned with EPA guidance. They may try to craft complex excuses for loopholes and exemptions as necessary for protecting the City’s overall economic health, so everyone can live better. That approach simply is not going to work. The comments are also squarely directed towards the hope that the new leadership of the Health Department will earn our trust.
Sincerely,
Lynn Robinson
Director, Neighbors Against the Gas Plants
Nixthegasplants@gmail.com
215-888-1894