1

The Evaluation of Public Health Impacts – Permitting Sources of Air Pollution From Process Operations

NYS Conference of Environmental Health Directors

May 5, 2015

2

History

• Establishment of Air Pollution Control Board in 1957.

• “Rules to Prevent New Air Pollution” – adopted in1962.

• “Current Guides for Prevention of New Air Pollution”

• Part 187 “Contaminant Emissions from Processes, Exhaust

and Ventilation Systems” -1966.

• Focused on 81specific chemicals and 24 chemical classes.

• Environmental Rating System Concept First Developed.

3

4

History

• 6 NYCRR Part 212 - Processes and Exhaust and/or Ventilation

Systems – adopted in 1968.

• Process Source Handbook (Chapters 3900 & 4100) developed as

guidance documents for the control of toxic air contaminants

regulated under 6 NYCRR Part 212. (1972).

• December 1981, Air Guide – 1: Application of 6 NYCRR Part 212 –

Toxic Air Contaminants.(updated in 1983,1985)

• 6 NYCRR Part 212 – General Process Emission Sources (1985).

5

Beginnings: Dr. David Axelrod

“Axelrod’s influence on the government’s response to chemical

exposure cannot be measured solely by particular laws and

decisions. His impact was felt in the whole mode of government

decision making and its legal manifestations. Axelrod was a

vigorous proponent of risk assessment as a basis for

government action.”

Millock, 2009

General Counsel,

NYSDOH, 1980-1995

6

New York State Air Toxics Program

• 1991- New York State Air Guide-1: Guidelines For The Control of

Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants.

• Detailed permitting guidance on the application of Part 212

environmental rating process;

• Appendix A – Assignment of Environmental Ratings

• Appendix B – Ambient Air Quality Screening Analysis

• Appendix C – Toxicity Classifications and Guideline Development

Methodology

• Characterized as a risk based technology program.

7

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

• Major expansion of federal air toxics program.

• Identified 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs);

• Required the development of 174 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) – Technology first approach;

• Contained provisions for standards to protect health and the environment – Assessment of Residual Risk – Risk Second Approach;

• Now called Residual Risk and Technology Review

8

Source: Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (1994)

9

A New Era in Air Toxics Control

EPA Residual Risk Report to Congress (1999)

“ A successful comprehensive air toxics program will be one that

integrates the residual risk and other federal programs with

State and local programs and strengthens those existing

programs. Program integration will involve interactive sharing of

expertise, data, analyses and methodologies.”

10

Objectives of the New Part 212

• To control process emission sources in a manner that is

protective of public health and the environment.

• To provide regulatory assurance to businesses and the

public concerning emissions of toxic air contaminants.

• To provide consistency among Parts 200, 201 and 212 and

the federal NESHAP program.

11

Determining an Environmental Rating

• Toxic and other properties and the emission rate potential of the air contaminant;

• Location of the source with respect to residences or other sensitive environmental receptors, including consideration of the area’s anticipated growth;

• Emission dispersion characteristics at or near the source, taking into account the physical location of the source with respect to terrain; and

• Projected maximum cumulative impact taking into account emissions from all sources at the facility under review and the pre-existing ambient concentration of the air contaminant under review (background).

12

Environmental Ratings

A - An air contaminant whose discharge results or may result in serious adverse effects on receptors or environment.

B - An air contaminant whose discharge results or may result in only moderate or localized effects on receptors or environment.

C - An air contaminant whose discharge may result in localized adverse effects of an aesthetic or nuisance nature.

D – An air contaminant whose discharge will not result in measurable or observable effects on receptors, nor add to an existing or predictable atmospheric burden of that contaminant which may cause adverse effects, considering properties and concentrations of the emissions, isolated conditions, stack height and other factors.

13

Degree of Air Cleaning Required for Non-Criteria Air Contaminants

Gases and Liquid Particulate Emissions (Environmental Rating A, B, C or D)

and

Solid Particulate Emissions (Environmental Rating A or D)

‘EMISSION RATE POTENTIAL’

Environmental Rating

Less than 0.1 lbs/hr

and

lbs/yr ≤ PB trigger

≥ 0.1 to 1 lbs/hr

or

lbs/yr > PB trigger

≥ 1 to 10 lbs/hr

≥ 10 to 25 lbs/hr

Greater than

25 lbs/hr

A Guideline Concentration*

90%

99% 99.5% 99.5%

B Guideline Concentration* 90%

C Guideline Concentration* 75%

D NO AIR CLEANING REQUIRED

14

Short-term and Annual Guideline Concentration Table (SGCs & AGCs)

• Stand alone tables that Air Toxics Section updates every

three years;

• Last update was February 2014;

• Review and concurrence with NYSDOH Center for

Environmental Health;

• Contains AGC values for 1093 air contaminants;

• Contains SGC values for 327 air contaminants;

15

Sources of Information for SGCs/AGCs

NYSDOH Center for Environmental Health

NYSDEC Division of Air Resources

USEPA – Integrated Risk Information System

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

American Conference of Governmental & Industrial Hygienists

de minimus screening impact assignment values

16

Risk Management Guidance (Acceptable Risk)

• Non- cancer endpoints – do not exceed SGC/AGC, if there is an exceedance conduct a margin of exposure analysis.

• Cancer endpoints – individual contaminant does not exceed the ambient concentration associated with a one in one hundred thousand risk level (10-5) with BACT installed.

• Current federal RTR cancer risk management guidance – emissions from source category does not exceed the one in ten thousand risk level (10-4) no further reductions are necessary.

17

The Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Determining the level of acceptable risk is not a scientific

decision. The decision must be made by society or by public

officials who are directly responsible to society.

18

Air Toxics Monitoring in New York

• Network consist of 11 fixed monitoring sites across the state

which is maintained by the Bureau of Air Quality

Surveillance.

• Special Studies and Private Monitoring Networks

• Community Air Screen Program

19

20

What Air Toxics Are Monitored

• 45 volatile organic compounds measured by EPA TO-15 method;

• 11 carbonyl compounds measured by EPA T0-11a method;

• Sampling Frequency: 1 in 6 days; Sampling Time: 24 hrs;

• Includes 15 priority hazardous air pollutants under 112 (k) Urban Air Toxics Program;

• Includes all priority mobile source air toxics, with the exception of diesel particulate matter.

21

22

23

24

25

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18P

M u

g/m

3

2011 Wallkill Daily PM-10 Pb and 1 in 6 TSP Pb Site 3566-09

TSP Pb PM-10 Pb

26

27

Local Air Quality Concerns

Staff review of potential air quality impacts from new operations, facilities or permit modifications

Inquiries from citizens concerned about air quality by local activities

Odors, visual emissions or facility operations

Increased community involvement in air quality issues due to

Increased environmental literacy

Citizen science and portable air sampling instruments

28

Screening versus Monitoring Screening

Air sampling on a limited basis

Used to determine whether area has an air quality concern

Samples can be collected in places and at times reflecting potentially higher pollutant concentrations

Monitoring

Air samples collected for longer period than screening, e.g. 6 months, 1 year

Implemented after screening suggests air quality concern

Sited following specific EPA criteria

29

Community Air Screen Program

30

Results

• Community Air Screen

67 samples

22 community groups participated

Resampling took place four times

None of the sample results prompt long-term

monitoring

http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/81629.html

31

32

33

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Industrial Site (GIBI) Residential Site (BTRS)

An

nu

al A

vera

ge C

on

c. (

pp

b)

Benzene Concentration Study Year and Subsequent Years

Study Period (7/07-6/08)

1st Year Post Study (7/08-6-09)

2nd Year Post Study (7/09-6/10)

3rd Year Post Study (7/10-6/11)

4th Year Post Study (7/11-6/12)

5th Year Post Study (7/12-6/13)

6th Year Post Study (7/13-6/14)

2013 Statewide Ave.

Annual Guideline Conc. (AGC)

-57%

-48% -33%

-42% -37%

-20%

+1%

+1% -36% -12% -19% -12%

34

Thank You

• Thomas Gentile

• Chief, Air Toxics Section

• Division of Air Resources

• Tom.Gentile@dec.ny.gov

• (518) 402 – 8402

Connect with us:

Facebook: www.facebook.com/NYSDEC

Twitter: twitter.com/NYSDEC

Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/nysdec