North Birmingham Air Toxics Update

1. North Birmingham Air Toxics Update May 21, 2013 Metro 4 SESARM Air Directors Meeting Jefferson County Department of Health Corey Masuca, PE, PhD

2. 2005-2006 Birmingham Air Toxics StudyPurpose • Determine air toxic concentrations in Jefferson County (Providence, East Thomas, Shuttlesworth, North Birmingham) • Determine relative risks of cancer and noncancer health endpoints based on monitored concentrations (risk assessment) • Risk range of 1 in a million to 1 in 10,000 (cancer) • Hazard Quotient/Index of >1 (noncancer)

4. 2005-2006 Birmingham Air Toxics Study • Individual and cumulative cancer risks below acceptable risk levels, except at Shuttlesworth site • Risk Management Plan • Promulgate and implement air toxic regulations - 2006 and 2007 • Require fugitive emission controls for • paved/unpaved roads • storage piles • raw material and product handling operations • Building capture improvements (PM 2.5 SIP) – 2008 to 2011.

5. School Air Toxics Project History • December 2008 USA Today Articles • Selection of Schools • USA Today • National Air Toxics Assessment • Other factors • North Birmingham Schools • Lewis • Riggins • North Birmingham • Tarrant Elementary

6. North Birmingham Schools • Suspect Sources • Coke plants • Steel facilities • Chemical facility • Driver Pollutants • Benzene • Arsenic • BAP • Lead

7. School Air Toxics Screening Study • 1-in-6 day sampling • 24 hours/sample • 10+ samples/school • August to December 2009 • Meteorological data • Screening study – additional monitoring warranted? • Health based comparison values

8. Birmingham SAT Results • Compared daily and average monitored values with acute and chronic screening levels • All measured and estimated averages below comparison levels, except: • Estimated benzene value at Riggins • Estimated manganese value at Lewis • All based on a few measurements

11. Results inconclusive • Need to conduct additional, longer-term monitoring

12. North Birmingham Pilot Air Toxics Monitoring Study

13. What is the purpose of the study? • Air toxics concentrations in North Birmingham communities will be evaluated and compared to health risk numbers. • Recent studies suggest possible health risks from long-term exposure to certain pollutants. • Multiple sources of pollution may result in a harmful mixture of pollutants that may affect a community.

14. What does the study involve? • Air monitoring occurred for one year starting in June 2011 to August 2012. • Three pollutant groups will be monitored: • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) • Metals • Samples were collected once every six days for a 24 hr period. • Weather data collected (wind speed & direction).

15. Where are the monitors located? • Monitors are sited to best assess concentrations in the communities. • Monitors are often sited on or near public buildings such as schools, fire departments, health centers, etc. • Good partners; supportive of air monitoring • Access to electricity to operate monitors • More secure

16. Where are the monitors located?

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

19. How was the data be evaluated? • Data was analyzed by an approved laboratory and reported to Jefferson County & EPA. • Data was compared to health risk numbers during the study. • A risk assessment was completed using all valid data.

20. What is Risk? Probability of health effect from some cause, for example: • Physical car crash • Biological flu • Chemical pollutants Our focus – risk from breathing air toxics -pollutants that may cause cancer or other serious health effect

21. What is a Risk Assessment? • Tool we use to estimate potential for health effects of pollution in large groups • Does not predict an individual’s illness • Does not identify cause of an individual’s illness • Risk assessment is based on • Concentration of pollutant in the air • How long we breathe the pollutant • How toxic the pollutant is

22. North Birmingham Pilot Air Toxics Monitoring Project – Sampling Plan • Address questions from the School Air Toxics study • Evaluate air quality over a longer period of time • ~12 months (June 2011 – August 2012) • 1:6 day sampling frequency; 24 hrs per day • Monitor specific pollutant groups (over 90 chemicals) • Volatile organic compounds (e.g., benzene, 1,3-butadiene) • Metals (e.g., lead, manganese) • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (e.g., naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene)

23. Risk Assessment - based on caution • Concentration of pollutant in the air • Year of air sampling data at 4 locations • Use values higher than average concentration • How long we breathe the pollutant • Don’t know for sure • Presume 24 hours/day for 70 years • How toxic the pollutant is • Don’t usually have human studies • To be cautious, risk assessments overestimate risk

25. North Birmingham Pilot Air Toxics Monitoring Project - Summary of Results • Non-cancer: low potential for long-term effects • Benzene exceeded acute benchmark 3 times at Fairmont • Cancer risk = 1/10,000 • Benzene • Naphthalene

26. Benzene • Colorless very flammable liquid • Used in vehicle fuels, solvents, detergents, explosives, drugs • Released from: • Burning coal, oil • Gas stations • Vehicle exhaust • Cigarette smoke • Industrial uses typically as solvent • Short-term exposure → drowsiness, dizziness, skin & respiratory tract irritation • Long-term exposure → blood disorders, cancer • Concentrations over 5 times as high as average urban value at EPA’s National Air Toxics Trend Sites • Concentrations fell ~33% compared to 2005-2006 at Shuttlesworth site.

27. Naphthalene • White solid or powder • Used to produce • Phthalic anhydride, insecticides, mothballs • Released from: • Burning coal and oil • Mothballs • Short-term exposure → hemolytic anemia, neurological and liver damage • Long-term exposure → cataracts, lung inflammation, possibly cancer • Concentrations over 9 times as high as average urban value at EPA’s National Air Toxics Trend Sites • Concentrations increased ~40% compared to 2005-2006

28. Is this Safe? • Important question; Many opinions • 1987 court told EPA to determine “safe” or “acceptable” level for rulemaking • Comment from citizens, industry, governments • Conclusion • Protect individuals to about 1/10,000 risk • Strive to protect to about 1/1,000,000 risk considering technological feasibility, cost • North Birmingham risk estimated at 1/10,000

29. North Birmingham Air Toxics Conclusions • EPA and JCDH want to reduce air toxics risk in North Birmingham • Shuttlesworth risk estimate decreased since 2005-2006 Birmingham Air Toxics Study

30. What has happened since 2006? • Some sources closed • New regulations • Large industry • Smaller industry • Vehicles

31. What has happened since 2006? • Inspection, permitting, enforcement • Multiple inspections each month • Enforcement actions • More controls in place • Collaborative efforts going beyond regulation • Equipment and maintenance improvements • Work practice improvements • Education of industry staff

32. Looking Ahead • Continuing Enforcement • Industry • Vehicles • Monitoring • Collaboration • Emergency evacuation plan • Other issues identified by the community • Voluntary programs like anti-idling campaigns • Workshop on permitting • Risk assessment and pollution prevention report

33. Lessons Learned North Birmingham community very active in a number of issues including environment Several lawsuits have been filed and settled in the area

34. Lesson Learned • Community Assessment Division very active in our reach to the community including attending neighborhood meetings and giving updates • The USEPA has been very active in participating in outreach to the community through numerous communications including hosting several meetings within the different communities in North Birmingham

35. Lessons Learned • Concurrent soil sampling by the USEPA, added pressure • CBS 42 (local news station) has focused on environmental issues and has completed a documentary about soil and air pollution in the community; numerous interviews