‘Environmental Justice’ and facility-related health risk scrutiny coming to a community near you By Scott D. Cohen, P.E., C.I.H.
T
hree years ago, California Asphalt magazine published an article describing changes in health risk assessment (HRA) cancer risk methodologies. It described how cancer risk had increased on paper, air district actions as they scrambled to respond, and recommended ways that operators could prepare, including the following recommendations: • Know what’s in the air district engineering files by submitting a record request. • Be certain that emissions inventories submitted are as accurate as possible (e.g., inclusion of control efficiencies assigned during recent permit modifications). • Develop site-specific parameters and substitute them for default parameters that predict greater emissions. Air toxics programs are retrospective. Emissions are assessed for health risk many months to years after they are submitted. Waiting for an HRA to be requested before determining site-specific data may be too late depending on air district preferences/policy and whether conditions on-site remain representative of conditions that existed during the inventory year. • Perform an HRA on last year’s emissions inventory using the new methodology to see where the facility stands with respect to the cancer-risk threshold in your air district and take actions to refine the results, if necessary. Better yet, perform an HRA on the facility potential to emit (PTE) to know the maximum risk possible.
Hopefully, right now you’re thinking, “Yeah, we did all that. Tell me something new.” What’s new is the current renewed public interest, participation, monitoring and other features of the environmental justice movement as embodied in Assembly Bill 617 (AB617), titled “Nonvehicular Air Pollution: Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants” (authored in 2017 by Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens). In addition, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed updates to the list of toxic air contaminants that must be reported by stationary 20
sources under the existing Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB2588, authored by Assemblyman Lloyd Connelly, D-Sacramento) What follows are the latest developments that are certain to impact asphalt pavement industry in California. AB617 – Environmental justice bill goes beyond the Clean Air Act AB617 provides regulatory authority separate from existing federal and state air quality laws, which theoretically expands the scope of sources that may be regulated and control measures that may be enforced. The intent of AB617 is to develop a collaborative relationship between CARB and local air districts to facilitate community participation, provide a science-based foundation supporting the identification of communities with high cumulative exposure burdens, accelerate the development and use of advanced air-monitoring methods and equipment, and support the use of new mobile and stationary source technology. To achieve those goals, AB617 requires six significant measures: (1) Annual Reporting; (2) Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (“BARCT”); (3) a Statewide Clearinghouse of BARCT; (4) Community Air Monitoring; (5) Community Emissions Reduction Programs; and (6) Increased Penalties. The “Regulation for the Reporting of Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxics Air Contaminants” also known as the California Toxics Rule (CTR), requires annual reporting of criteria and toxic emissions data using a uniform statewide system. During a recent CARB Board Meeting, a board member suggested expansion of the list of facilities required to report beyond the statutory amount (about 1,600). CARB staff then brought back to the Board a rule that required about 50,000 facilities to report, which was later withdrawn so that the original language could be approved. Although local air districts oppose expanding reporting applicability, CARB staff has yet to cease efforts to amend CTR so that more facilities will be required to report. CalAPA submitted a letter opposing that rule change as well as provisions of the existing rule, which requires asphalt plants to report regardless of the amount of emissions generated (i.e., zero threshold trigger). There is concern among industry surrounding California Asphalt Magazine • 2020 Environmental Issue
