1 / 35

North Birmingham Air Toxics Update

North Birmingham Air Toxics Update . May 21, 2013 Metro 4 SESARM Air Directors Meeting Jefferson County Department of Health Corey Masuca, PE, PhD. 2005-2006 Birmingham Air Toxics Study Purpose.

hester
Download Presentation

North Birmingham Air Toxics Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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)

  3. 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.

  4. 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

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

  6. 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

  7. 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

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

  9. North Birmingham Pilot Air Toxics Monitoring Study

  10. 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.

  11. 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).

  12. 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

  13. Where are the monitors located?

  14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

  15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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)

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

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

  27. 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

  28. 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

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

  30. 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

  31. 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

More Related