Comments of Gasp On Proposed Reissuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 To Walter Coke, Inc.

COMMENTS OF GASP
ON PROPOSED REISSUANCE OF
MAJOR SOURCE OPERATING PERMIT NO. 4-07-0355-03
TO WALTER COKE, INC.
Submitted June 16, 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Walter Coke, Inc. owns and operates the Walter Coke facility in Birmingham, Alabama.
It has applied for renewal of a major source operating permit from the Jefferson County
Department of Health. The permit, and decision to issue the permit, must conform to the
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, as well as certain other federal
requirements. p. 1.
No person shall permit or cause air pollution by the discharge of any air contaminants for
which no ambient air quality standards have been set. Walter Coke is required to demonstrate in
its permit application that it will comply with this requirement. If it fails to make this
demonstration, the Health Officer is required to deny the permit. pp. 26-27.
“Air pollution” is defined as “the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air
contaminants in such quantities and duration as are, or tend to be, injurious to human health or
welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or would interfere with the enjoyment of life or
property throughout the County and in such territories of the County as shall be affected
thereby.” An “air contaminant” is defined as “any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor, or
any combination thereof, from whatever source.” p. 27.
Walter Coke emits a number of carcinogens. Among these are Benzene, Naphthalene,
and Arsenic. Walter Coke has failed to demonstrate in its application that the quantity and
duration of these and other carcinogens in the outdoor atmosphere will not tend to be injurious to
human health. Accordingly, the Health Officer must deny the Walter Coke permit. The
Jefferson County Board of Health has declared that the incremental cancer risk from exposure to
any individual carcinogen shall not exceed 1 in 100,000. GASP suggests that the incremental
cumulative cancer risk from exposure to all carcinogens combined not exceed 5 in 100,000. Air
monitoring results collected near Walter Coke suggest that these limits will be exceeded near
Walter Coke. pp. 28-34.
Walter Coke also emits odors and particulate matter. Walter Coke has failed to
demonstrate that the quantity and duration of these air contaminants in the outdoor atmosphere
will not tend to be injurious to human health, welfare or property and will not interfere with the
enjoyment of life or property. Accordingly, the Health Officer must deny the Walter Coke
permit. It is common knowledge that odors and particulate matter are interfering with nearby
residents enjoyment of life and property. pp. 34-40.
Walter Coke has not shown that every article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance
that may cause the emission of air contaminants, is designed, controlled or equipped with air
pollution control equipment capable of preventing violations. Indeed, semi-annual compliance
reports submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Health show repeated violations.
Accordingly, the Health Officer must deny the Walter Coke permit. pp. 40-41.
i
Draft Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 contains multiple conditions that reference control of
fugitive dust and visible emissions in compliance with Part 6.2 of the Jefferson County Air
Pollution Control Rules and Regulations. This regulation, and the permit conditions derived
therefrom, are nearly identical to a rule adopted by the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management. The latter rule has been declared unconstitutionally vague and restrictive.
Therefore, the Health Officer must revise all permit conditions based on control of fugitive dust
and visible emissions in compliance with Part 6.2 to ensure the prevention of fugitive dust and
visible emissions in a constitutional manner. pp. 41-42.
Draft General Permit Condition 45 (Abatement of Obnoxious Odors) establishes

unnecessary limits on the Health Officer’s power to abate unlawful odors. Specifically, the
condition requires that odors be characterized as “obnoxious” by a Department inspector and that
the Health Officer determine whether odor abatement measures are “technically and
economically feasible” for the company to implement. None of these limitations are present in
Board of Health regulations. General Permit Condition 45 should be revised so that it conforms
to the requirements of Board of Health regulations. pp. 42-43.
The total quantity of emissions of Benzene and other air toxics from the Walter Coke
facility have not been measured. Total emissions have only been estimated by Walter Coke.
Estimated emissions are unreliable. The Health Officer should require that Walter Coke use
differential absorption light detection and ranging technology (DIAL) to measure Walter Coke’s
actual Benzene (and perhaps other hazardous air pollutant) emissions prior to issuance of the
permit. pp. 43-44.
The emissions from Walter Coke will adversely and disproportionately impact
communities that are comprised of 85.1% African-Americans. The granting of the permit to
Walter Coke will violate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations promulgated to
implement the Civil Rights Act of 1964. pp. 45-46.
The JCDH provided Walter Coke’s Title V permit application to GASP with all
emissions data and signatories redacted. This redaction is not permissible under applicable law.
The Health Officer should withhold issuance Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 until after the emissions
data and signatories have been disclosed and a second public comment period and hearing are
provided. p. 46.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Overview .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Walter Coke’s Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
III. Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
IV. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
V. Ambient Toxic Air Pollutant Monitoring and Cancer Risk (June 2005-
August 2006 & July 2011-June 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
VI. Prohibition of Air Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A. Walter Coke failed to demonstrate that emissions of individual carcinogens

will not tend to be injurious to human health. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
B. Walter Coke failed to demonstrate that emissions of multiple carcinogens

will not tend to be injurious to human health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
C. Walter Coke failed to demonstrate that emissions of odors will not tend
to be injurious to human health or interfere with the enjoyment of life
or property .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
D. Walter Coke failed to demonstrate that emissions of particulates will

not tend to be injurious to welfare or property or interfere with the
enjoyment of life or property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
VII. Walter Coke Failed to Demonstrate that Air Pollution Controls are Adequate
to Prevent Violations .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
VIII. Draft Permit Conditions Implementing Part 6.2 are Unconstitutional

and Unenforceable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
IX. Restrictions in Draft General Permit Condition 45 are not authorized

by Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
X. Use of Differential Absorption Light Detection and Ranging Technology

is Necessary to Quantify Walter Coke Emissions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
XI. Issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 will violate
EPA Regulations under Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
iii
XII. JCDH Failed to Disclose Emission and Other Non-Trade Secret Information
in Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
XIII. Conclusions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
APPENDICES
Appendix A Health Effects of Selected Air Toxics .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Appendix B Moore v. Walter Coke, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-01391

(N.D. Ala. filed April 25, 2011) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Appendix C Morrison v. Drummond Company, Inc., et al., No. 01-CV-2013-

905019 (Jefferson County Cir. Ct. filed Dec. 19, 2013) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Appendix D Toxic City: Birmingham’s Dirty Secret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D
Appendix E Semi-annual Compliance Reports (Jul. 2009-Dec. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Appendix F GASP Public Records Request (Apr. 22, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Appendix G Walter Coke’s Redacted Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
Appendix H GASP Public Records Request (May 12, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Walter Coke - Surrounding Communities, and Nearby Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2 Walter Coke Polycyclic Aromatic Compound Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 3 Walter Coke Benzene Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 4 Walter Coke Naphthalene Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 5 Walter Coke Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Polycyclic

Aromatic Compounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 6 Walter Coke Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Benzene .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 7 Walter Coke Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Naphthalene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
iv
Figure 8 Summary of RSEI Model Results .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 9 Comparison of RSEI Risk Scores for Walter Coke and Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 10 Comparative Risk Scores for Fourteen Highest Risk Toxic

Air Polluters in Jefferson County, AL (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 11 RESI Model Facility Risk Score Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 12 Average Air Toxic Cancer Risks by Geographic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 13 Cancer Risk from Air Toxics in Jefferson County Census Tracts . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 14 Walter Coke and Surrounding Air Toxics Cancer Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 15 Location of Toxic Air Pollutant Monitors in Relation to Walter Coke .. . . . . . . 21
Figure 16 Cancer Risk Drivers at Shuttlesworth Monitor (JCDH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 17 Cancer Risk Drivers at Shuttlesworth Monitor (EPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Universe of Constituents of Coke Oven Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2 Walter Coke Emission Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3 Toxic/Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Walter Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Pollutant Emissions

from Walter Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 5 Other Air Pollutant Emissions from Walter Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 6 Chemicals Included in the Toxic Release Inventory Polycyclic

Aromatic Compounds Category.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 7 Chronic Exposure Cancer Risk at Shuttlesworth Monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
v
I. Overview
The Walter Coke facility began operation in 1919 and has been in operation ever since.
The facility, owned by Walter Coke, Inc. since 2009,1 is located at 3500 F.L. Shuttlesworth Drive
in Birmingham, Alabama approximately 1.6 miles west-northwest of the Birmingham-
Shuttlesworth International Airport. Surrounding Walter Coke are the residential communities of
Fairmont, Collegeville, and Harriman Park. Figure 1. About 7,900 people live within one mile
of the site, including about 970 children, about 1600 women of child-bearing age, and about
1,000 adults aged 65 or older.2
The Walter Coke facility is a coke by-products manufacturing facility and a utilities
production facility.3 The facility includes three coke oven batteries comprised of 120 coke ovens.
The utilities production facility includes three steam generators.4
II. Walter Coke’s Emissions
Walter Coke’s emissions are described by the Jefferson County Department of Health as
follows:
Emissions from the coke ovens include PM, SOx, NOx, VOCs,
CO and numerous organic compounds, including polycyclic
organic matter (POM). PM is emitted from raw coal unloading,
storage, and handling; mixing, crushing, and screening; blending;
charging; leaks from doors, lids, and offtakes during coking;
soaking, pushing coke from the oven; hot coke quenching;
combustions stacks; and coke crushing, sizing, screening, handling,
and storage. Volatile organic compounds are emitted from coke
oven leaks, coke pushing, and coke quenching. Sulfur dioxide,
1
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Health Consultation - Assessment of Soil Exposures in Communities Adjacent
to the Walter Coke, Inc. Site at 2, available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/WalterCokeInc/
WalterCokeIncHC%28Final%2908012013_508.pdf; Walter Energy, Inc.|WLT,
http://walterenergy.com/operationscenter/coke/coke-history.html.
2
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, supra note 1.
3
Jefferson County Department of Health, Title V Operating Permit Evaluation (Feb 24,
2014) at 1, available at http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/anr12.aspx?NoticeId=71&Type=2
4
Id. at 2, 6.
1
insert FIGURE 1
2
nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide are also emitted from coke oven leaks.
Organic compounds soluble in benzene (BSO) are the major constituents of the
PM emissions and are also included as VOCs. Among the hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) included in the VOCs are benzene, toluene, xylenes, cyanide
compounds, naphthalene, phenol, and POM, all of which are contained in coke
oven gas. Emissions from the byproduct plant are primarily benzene and other
light aromatics, POMs, cyanides, phenols, and light oils. Substantial emissions
also result from ancillary operations such as boilers, wastewater treatment,
cooling towers, and roads.
Jefferson County Department of Health, Title V Operating Permit Evaluation (Feb. 24, 2014) at
4, available at http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/anr12.aspx?NoticeId=71&Type=2 (accessed May 6,
2014). See also Table 1. Air contaminants emitted from the operation of the boilers include
Particulate Matter (PM), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Oxides (SOx), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx),
and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Id at 65, 68, 71. Walter Coke operates the sources of
air contaminant emissions identified in Table 2.
3
TABLE 1
Universe of Constituents of Coke Oven Emissions5
5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Document for Coke Oven
MACT Residual Risk, Table A-1 (Dec. 22, 2003), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/coke/
coke_rra.pdf.
4
TABLE 2
Walter Coke Emission Sources6
Emissions Operating
Source Description Air Contaminants
Unit No. Schedule
001 Coke By-Products Recovery 8,760 hours/year Visible Emissions (VE)

Plant with Gas Blanketing, Fugitive Emissions (FE)
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)-
Benzene
Benzene
009 Coke Battery No. 5 - Coking 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

and Charging 7 days/week Coke Battery Emissions
52 weeks/year Particulate Emissions
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)


016 Underfire Stack of Coking 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

Batteries Nos. 3 and 4 7 days/week Particulate Matter (PM)
52 weeks/year Particulate Matter (PM10)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
017 Underfire Stack of Coking 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

Battery No. 5 7 days/week Particulate Matter (PM)
52 weeks/year Particulate Matter (PM10)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
6
Jefferson County Department of Health, Draft Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-
07-0355-03 (Feb. 24, 2014), available at http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/
anr12.aspx?NoticeId=70&Type=2 and http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/
anr12.aspx?NoticeId=71&Type=2 (accessed May 6, 2014).
5
018 South Coke Quenching 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)
Tower 7 days/week Particulate Matter (PM)
52 weeks/year Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) or Sum of
Concentration of Benzene,
Benzo(a)pyrene and Naphthalene
019 North Coke Quenching 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

Tower 7 days/week Particulate Matter (PM)
52 weeks/year Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) or Sum of
Concentration of Benzene,
Benzo(a)pyrene and Naphthalene
021 Coke Pushing Operations of 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

Coking Batteries Nos. 3, 4 7 days/week Particulate Matter (PM)
and 5 52 weeks/year
029 Coke Pushing Operations of 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

Coking Batteries Nos. 3, 4 7 days/week Particulate Matter (PM)
and 5 52 weeks/year Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
031 Steam Generator No. 3 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

7 days/week Particulate Matter (PM)
52 weeks/year Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
032 Steam Generator No. 4 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

52 weeks/year Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
034 Primary Crushers with Wet 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

Suppression 7 days/week Particulate Matter (PM)
52 weeks/year
035 Wheel Wash 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

52 weeks/year
036 Emergency Generators-5 (2 Emergency Use Visible Emissions (VE)

Diesel and 3 Natural Gas)
6
“Coke-oven emissions” are defined as the benzene-soluble fraction of total particulate
matter generated during coke production. These emissions are complex mixtures of dusts,
vapors, and gases that typically include PAHs, formaldehyde, acrolein, aliphatic aldehydes,
ammonia, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, phenol, cadmium, arsenic, and mercury. More than
60 organic compounds, including more than 40 PAHs, have been identified in air samples
collected at coke plants. Coke-oven gas includes hydrogen, methane, ethane, carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, ethylene, propylene, butylene, acetylene, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, oxygen,
and nitrogen. Coke-oven gas tar includes pyridine, tar acids, naphthalene, creosote oil, and
coal-tar pitch.7
Two sources of emissions estimates have been made available to GASP. The first is the
facility emissions data included in EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (1987-2012 data).8 The
second source is facility emissions data made public by the Jefferson County Department of
Health (2011- 2013 data).9 All data have been provided by Walter Coke and almost all of the
data are the result of calculated estimates rather than measurements. The emissions data for
Walter Coke for 2011, 2012, and 2013 are summarized in Tables 3, 4 and 5.
7
National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on
Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition (2011), Coke Oven Emissions, available at
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/CokeOvenEmissions.pdf
8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Search Results|Envirofacts, available at
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control_v2.tris_print?tris_id=35207SLSSN35003 (accessed
May 6, 2014).
9
Jefferson County Department of Health, Annual Emissions - Walter Coke, Inc. (2011-
2013).
7
TABLE 3
Toxic/Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Walter Coke
TABLE 4
National Ambient Air Quality Standard Pollutant Emissions from Walter Coke
TABLE 5
Other Air Pollutant Emissions from Walter Coke
8
Walter Coke’s ten-year history of Polycyclic Aromatic Compound emissions, Benzene
emissions, and Naphthalene emissions are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The trend
lines (red, straight lines) for these historical emissions do not indicate a significant declining
trend.
FIGURE 2
Walter Coke Polycyclic Aromatic Compound Emissions
Source: U.S. EPA, Toxics Release Inventory
FIGURE 3
Walter Coke Benzene Emissions
9
FIGURE 4
Walter Coke Naphthalene Emissions
It is noteworthy that fugitive emissions10 account for the majority of emissions from the
Walter Coke facility. Figures 5, 6, and 7. This is significant because it means that additional
controls on stack emissions may not be sufficient to achieve “acceptable” cancer risk levels in the
neighboring community. It also means that monitoring of stack emissions alone will not be
sufficient to characterize facility emissions.
10
Fugitive air emissions are all releases to air that are not released through a confined air
stream. Fugitive emissions include equipment leaks, evaporative losses from surface
impoundments and spills, and releases from building ventilation systems.
10
FIGURE 5
Walter Coke Stack and Fugitive Emissions
of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds
FIGURE 6
Walter Coke Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Benzene
11
FIGURE 7
Walter Coke Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Naphthalene
III. Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model (2010)
The Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model is a computer-based

screening tool developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that analyzes factors that
may result in chronic human health risks.11 The RSEI model uses information from the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI), a publicly available database of information on toxic chemical releases
and other waste management activities from industrial and federal facilities arrayed by facility,
zip code, county, industry, and many other variables.12 Once again, the releases documented in
TRI are often based on calculated estimates provided by industry rather than actual
measurements.
The RSEI model considers the following information: the amount of chemical released,
the toxicity of the chemical, its fate and transport through the environment, the route and extent
of human exposure, and the number of people affected. This information is used to create
numerical values that can be added and compared in limitless ways to assess the relative risk of
11
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators
(RSEI), Basic Information, available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/
basic_information.html (accessed Mar. 3, 2014)
12
Id.
12
chemicals, facilities, regions, industries, or many other factors.13 The three primary “scores”
produced by the RSEI model are the pounds score, the hazard score, and the risk score.
• A pounds score can be calculated that includes only the pounds of releases
reported to TRI.
• A hazard score can be calculated by multiplying the pounds released by the

chemical-specific toxicity weight for the exposure route (oral or inhalation)
associated with the release. No exposure modeling or population estimates are
involved in calculating a hazard score. A hazard score is a unitless measure that is
not independently meaningful, but is a hazard-related estimate that can be
compared to other estimates calculated using the same methods.
• A risk score may be calculated by multiplying the toxicity, surrogate dose, and
population components. The surrogate dose is determined through
pathway-specific modeling of the fate and transport of the chemical through the
environment. A risk score is a unitless measure that is not independently
meaningful, but is a risk-related estimate that can be compared to other estimates
calculated using the same methods.14
These three scores are summarized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Figure 8.
FIGURE 8
Summary of RSEI Model Results
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined the risk score for Walter
Coke using the RSEI model and compared the results to the risk scores of other facilities in the
same industry category, other facilities in Jefferson County, other facilities in Alabama, and other
facilities in the United States. The results, shown in Figure 9, suggest that Walter Coke poses a
significantly higher health risk than other facilities.
13
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, User’s Manual for RSEI Version 2.3.2 [1996 -
2011 TRI Data] (July 2013) at 5, available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/pubs/
rsei_users_manual_v2.3.2.pdf (accessed Mar. 3, 2014).
14
Id. at 18-19.
13
FIGURE 9
Comparison of RSEI Risk Scores for Walter Coke and Others15
The RSEI model was also used to compare the health risk posed by all facilities emitting
toxic air pollutants in Jefferson County during 2010. The results, depicted in Figure 10, suggest
that the health risk posed by toxic air emissions from Walter Coke exceeded the health risk posed
by every other facility’s toxic air emissions, except those of ABC Coke.
15
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, TRI Search Results|Envirofacts,
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rsei.html?facid=35207SLSSN35003 (accessed Mar. 3, 2014). The
risk scores include all toxic releases, including those to water. However, 99.99% of the risk
score in 2010 was due to releases to the air.
14
FIGURE 10
Comparative Risk Scores for Fourteen Highest Risk
Toxic Air Polluters in Jefferson County, AL (2010)16
Finally, the RSEI model was used to identify the toxic chemicals emitted by Walter Coke
during 2010 that present the greatest heath risk. Figure 11 shows that, in the RSEI model, three
toxic chemicals (or chemical groups) accounted for 99.4% of the total health risk to exposed
populations from Walter Coke emissions. These are Polyclyclic Aromatic Compounds, Benzene,
and Naphthalene. Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds include those chemicals identified in Table
6 (including Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene).
16
Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk-Screening Environmental
Indicators Model, Version 2.3.2 (July 2013), available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/
(accessed Mar. 3, 2014). Results include fugitive and stack emissions of toxic air pollutants
only.
15
FIGURE 11
RSEI Model Facility Risk Score Drivers for Walter Coke (2010)
IV. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (2005)
In 2011, EPA released the results of its 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) of air toxic emissions. The purpose of NATA is to identify
and prioritize air toxics, emission source type, and locations that are of greatest
potential concern in terms of contributing to population risk. EPA uses the results
of these assessments in many ways, including:
• To work with communities in designing their own local-scale assessments,

• To set priorities for improving data in emissions inventories, and
• To help direct priorities for expanding and improving the network of air
toxics monitoring.
***
The assessment includes four steps that focus on the 2005 emissions year:
1. Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from

outdoor sources
16
[Insert PAC Table 6]
17
2. Estimating ambient and exposure concentrations of air toxics across the
United States
3. Estimating population exposures across the United States
4. Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics
including both cancer and noncancer effects
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NATA|National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, available

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/ (accessed Mar. 13, 2014). Once again, the air toxics
emissions that are compiled in the inventory are provided by industries.
The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment shows that the cancer risk from air toxics in
Jefferson County is higher than the average cancer risk in Alabama and the United States.
Indeed, Jefferson County has the highest cancer risk from air toxics among all counties in
Alabama. More to the point however, the census tract where Walter Coke is located has a cancer
risk from air toxics that is 171% higher than the Alabama average and 81% higher than the
Jefferson County average. Figure 12.
FIGURE 12
Average Air Toxic Cancer Risks by Geographic Area
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (2005)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has also provided data for use with Google
Earth to visualize the geographic areas impacted by air toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2005 Assessment Results|2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/tables.html#int (accessed Mar. 13, 2014). Figure 13
shows gradations of cancer risk in Jefferson County estimated from the 2005 National-Scale Air
Toxics Assessment (the darker the gradation, the higher the cancer risk).
18
FIGURE 13
Cancer Risk from Air Toxics in Jefferson County Census Tracts
Source: National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (EPA, 2005)
Figure 14 shows Walter Coke and the surrounding Census Tracts and indicates the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s estimate of the cancer risk in the Census Tract where Walter
Coke is located. That risk is 133 in a million (1.33E-04). The Census Tract adjacent to the
southern property line of Walter Coke (Collegeville) has an estimated cancer risk of 142 in a
million (1.42E-04).
19
FIGURE 14
Walter Coke and Surrounding Air Toxics Cancer Risk
Source: National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (EPA, 2005)
V. Ambient Toxic Air Pollutant Monitoring and Cancer Risk (June 2005-
August 2006 & July 2011-June 2012)
The Jefferson County Department of Health and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
have, for limited periods of time, operated monitors to measure toxic air pollutants in the ambient
air near Walter Coke. Figure 15. The monitor nearest to and most impacted by Walter Coke is
the Shuttlesworth Monitor located across Shuttlesworth Drive from Walter Coke.17
17
“In each case, the assumption is made that the air quality data at the monitoring
location is representative of exposures within some distance from the monitor (e.g., at the
neighborhood level). * * * If the monitoring sites were unrepresentative of any location beyond
where they were sited, the monitoring data may over- or underestimate the true health impacts at
the unmonitored locations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4, North
Birmingham Air Toxics Risk Assessment (Mar. 2013) at 36, available at http://www.epa.gov/
region4/air/airtoxic/North-Birmingham-Air-Toxics-Risk-Assessment-final-03282013.pdf
(accessed Mar. 3, 2014). “The risk and hazard assessment assumes that the sampling data are
sufficient to draw conclusions regarding the populations that are localized near the monitor’s
placement.” Id.
20
FIGURE 15
Location of Toxic Air Pollutant Monitors in Relation to Walter Coke18
Accordingly, the monitoring performed by the Jefferson County Department of Health and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency19 at the Shuttlesworth Monitor provide insight into the
ambient air quality and health risk nearest the Walter Coke facility.
18
Monitor locations are from Jefferson County Department of Health, Birmingham Air
Toxics Study (Feb. 2009), available at http://www.jcdh.org/misc/ViewBLOB.aspx?BLOBId=182
(accessed Mar. 3, 2014), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4, supra note17.
Source locations are from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Facility Registry Service,
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html, adjusted to aerial photography.
19
Jefferson County Department of Health, supra note 18; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region 4, supra note 17.
21
The Birmingham Air Toxics Study was prepared by the Jefferson County Department of
Health based on samples collected from July 15, 2005 to June 26, 2006. The Department offered
the following conclusions about data collected at the Shuttlesworth Monitor:
For the Shuttlesworth monitor, there were eleven potential risk drivers for chronic
cancer risk: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene,
beryllium, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, naphthalene,
p-dichlorobenzene and tetrachloroethylene. The cumulative chronic cancer risk
for COPCs at Shuttlesworth was calculated to be 1.66×10-4, which equates to an
increased likelihood of 166 additional cases of cancer per one million chronic
exposures and exceeds the 1×10-4 threshold for a risk driver. This is the only
instance in which such a threshold is exceeded for any exposure in this study. Of
this overall risk, the largest contributor was benzene, with a risk of 6.40×10-5,
accounting for 34% of total risk and which is the highest cancer risk value
obtained for any single pollutant at a single monitoring location.
There were eight potential risk drivers for chronic non-cancer exposure hazard at
Shuttlesworth: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acetonitrile, acrolein, arsenic,
benzene, manganese and naphthalene. The highest hazard quotient was 119.8 for
acrolein, which was detected in 61% of the samples. The second highest hazard
quotient was manganese, at 3.74, which was detected in 100% of the samples.
Birmingham Air Toxics Study at 31. The cancer risk drivers identified in this study for the
Shuttlesworth Monitor site are shown in Figure 16 and Table 7.20
The North Birmingham Air Toxics Risk Assessment was prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency based on samples collected from June 2011 to August 2012.
The Agency offered the following conclusions about the data collected at the Shuttlesworth
Monitor:
The Shuttlesworth Station site had a total cancer risk of 1×10-4. The risk drivers
were benzene (37%), naphthalene (26%), arsenic (11%), 1,3-butadiene (5%),
carbon tetrachloride (4%), 1,2-dichloroethane (4%) and benzo(a)pyrene (3%).
Benzene had the highest risk (4×10-5) followed by naphthalene and arsenic (3×10-5
and 1×10-5, respectively). These three risk drivers contributed 74% of the total
risk. Each of the remaining four risk drivers accounted for 5% or less each of the
total risk. Five other COPCs (p-dichlorobenzene, hexavalent chromium,
ethylbenzene, cadmium and dibenz(a,h)anthracene) had risk values of or above
1×10-6.
20
Differences between the risk driver percentages reported in the Birmingham Air Toxics
Study and Figure 16 and Table 7 are the result of unexplained errors and omissions in the
Jefferson County Department of Health’s calculation of risks. See e.g., Table 7 notes.
22
Id. at 28.
At the Shuttlesworth Station site, the 95UCL HI was 1. Manganese (0.5),

naphthalene (0.3), arsenic (0.2), benzene (0.2), 1,3-Butadiene (0.1), and cadmium
(0.1) had HQs of 0.1 or above.
Id. at 29. The cancer risk drivers identified in this study for the Shuttlesworth Monitor site are
shown in Figure 17 and Table 7.
FIGURE 16
23
FIGURE 17
24
TABLE 7
Chronic Exposure Cancer Risk at Shuttlesworth Monitor
Jun 2011- Aug 2012 (EPA) Jul 2005- Jun 2006 (JCDH)
Chemical
Risk Percent Risk Percent
Benzene 4.00E-05 37.22% 6.23E-05 40.03%
Naphthalene 2.81E-05 26.14% 1.94E-05 12.46%
Arsenic 1.16E-05 10.79% 3.49E-05 22.42%
1,3-Butadiene 5.22E-06 4.86% 7.35E-06 4.72%
Carbon Tetrachloride 4.42E-06 4.11% 9.82E-06 6.31%
1,2-Dichloroethane 4.11E-06 3.82%
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.65E-06 3.40% 3.29E-06 2.11%
p-Dichlorobenzene 3.06E-06 2.85% 5.30E-06 3.41%
Acetaldehyde 3.56E-06 2.29%
Hexavalent Chromium 1.54E-06 1.43% 6.63E-07 0.43%
Ethylbenzene 1.46E-06 1.36% 2.81E-06* 1.81%
Cadmium 1.20E-06 1.12% 7.93E-07 0.51%
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.20E-06 1.12% 7.35E-07 0.47%
Tetrachloroethylene 6.40E-08 0.06% 1.77E-06 1.14%
Beryllium 7.85E-08 0.07% 1.02E-06 0.66%
Benzo(a)anthracene 7.60E-07 0.71% 5.01E-07 0.32%
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5.57E-07 0.52% 5.02E-07 0.32%
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.88E-07 0.17% 3.03E-07 0.19%
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.68E-07 0.16% 3.97E-07 0.26%
Chrysene 6.09E-08 0.06% 6.68E-08 0.04%
Dichloromethane 4.57E-08 0.04% 5.91E-09** 0.00%
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether 1.42E-07 0.09%
Formaldehyde 2.26E-08 0.01%
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK 1.07E-04 100% 1.56E-04*** 100%
25
Table 7 notes:
* JCDH did not calculate cancer risk for Ethylbenzene. Risk calculation based on 95% UCL= 1.233 µg/m3
(determined by JCDH) and Inhalation Unit Risk = 0.0000025 (1/µg/m3) (determined by U.S. EPA).
** JCDH did not calculate cancer risk for Dichloromethane. Risk calculation based on 95% UCL= 0.3475 µg/m3
(determined by JCDH) and Inhalation Unit Risk = 0.000000017 (1/µg/m3) (determined by U.S. EPA).
*** Jefferson County Department of Health reports the cumulative risk at the Shuttlesworth Monitor site to be
1.66E-04. Birmingham Air Toxics Study (February 2009) at 1, 31, and 44, available at http://www.jcdh.org/misc/
ViewBLOB.aspx?BLOBId=182. However, the cancer risk values assigned to chemicals in Table D-4 of the
BATS add up to 1.53E-04.
Table 7 demonstrates that a number of individual air toxics create a cancer risk
(probability) exceeding 1 in 100,000, including Benzene, Naphthalene, and Arsenic. Many more
individual air toxics create a cancer risk exceeding 1 in 1,000,000, including all the “risk drivers”
identified by the Jefferson County Department of Health and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Table 7 also demonstrates that the cumulative cancer risk from exposure to all the air
toxics listed exceeds 1 in 10,000. The potential health effects of exposure to various air toxics
are described in Appendix A.
VI. Prohibition of Air Pollution21
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations,22 Paragraph 18.2.8(a)
states that “[t]he Health Officer shall deny an Operating Permit if the applicant does not show
that every article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance, the use of which may cause the
21
GASP submits that the arguments made in this part demonstrate that the proposed
issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 is not in compliance with the
requirements of the approved Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP), 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.50-
52.69, available at http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/sips/al/. The corresponding SIP provisions
are as follows:
Jefferson County Air

Pollution Control Rules
and Regulations Alabama SIP Subject
18.2.8(a) 335-3-14-.03(1)(a) Duty to deny permit
1.13 335-3-1-.08 Prohibition against “air pollution”
1.3 335-3-1-.02(1)(e) Definition of “air pollution”
1.3 335-3-1-.02(1)(d) Definition of “air contaminant”
1.3 335-3-1-.02(1)(ss) Definition of “odor”
22
Jefferson County Board of Health, Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and
Regulations, available at http://www.jcdh.org/misc/ViewBLOB.aspx?BLOBId=287.
26
issuance of air contaminants, is so designed, controlled, or equipped with such air pollution
control equipment, that it is expected to operate without emitting or without causing to be
emitted air contaminants in violation of these rules and regulations.” (Emphasis added).
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 provides:
No person shall permit or cause air pollution, as defined in Part 1.3 of this
Chapter by the discharge of any air contaminants for which no ambient air quality
standards have been set under Section 1.7.l.
(Emphasis added).23
An “air contaminant” is “any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor, or any
combination thereof, from whatever source.” Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and
Regulations, Part 1.3. Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds, Benzene, Naphthalene, Arsenic, Odor,
and Total Suspended Particulates (including particulate matter greater than 10 microns) are
among the many air contaminants emitted into the air by Walter Coke. No “ambient air quality
standards” have been set for these air contaminants under Jefferson County Air Pollution Control
Rules and Regulations, Section 1.7.1.24
“Air pollution” means “the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air
contaminants in such quantities and duration as are, or tend to be, injurious to human health or
welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or would interfere with the enjoyment of life or
property throughout the County and in such territories of the County as shall be affected
thereby.” Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.3. (Emphasis
added).
23
It does not appear that Walter Coke made any attempt to show in its application that its
emissions comply with Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13.
Walter Coke’s emissions of toxic pollutants and particulates and resulting harms to residents of
Collegeville, Harriman Park and Fairmont have been the subject of multiple lawsuits. E.g.,
Moore v. Walter Coke, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-01391 (N.D. Ala. filed April 25, 2011) (class action for
property contamination/damage) (Appendix B); Morrison v. Drummond Company, Inc., et al.,
No. 01-CV-2013-905019 (Jefferson County Cir. Ct. filed Dec. 19, 2013) (personal injury from
exposure to toxic pollutants) (Appendix C).
24
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
available at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (accessed Mar. 3, 2014).
27
A. Failure to demonstrate that emissions of individual carcinogens will not tend
to be injurious to human health
The permit application submitted to the Jefferson County Department of Health makes no
showing that the individual carcinogens emitted by Walter Coke will comply with Jefferson
County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13, i.e., will not tend to be injurious
to human health.25 In the absence of any showing by Walter Coke that it may be expected to
operate without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants (i.e., carcinogens
which tend to be injurious to human health) in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 (prohibition against causing “air pollution”), the
Jefferson County Department of Health must deny the permit. Jefferson County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a).26
Not only did Walter Coke fail to make the required showing, the available evidence
suggests that it cannot make the required showing. Table 7 demonstrates that a number of
individual carcinogens were present in the outdoor atmosphere at the Shuttlesworth Monitor site
(during July 2005-June 2006 and June 2011-August 2012) in such quantities and for such
duration as tend to increase the probability (in excess of 1 in 100,000) of each person exposed
over a lifetime contracting cancer. These carcinogens include Benzene, Naphthalene, and
Arsenic. These carcinogens exist in the ambient air near the Walter Coke facility because of
25
Moreover, the analysis of the permit application by the Jefferson County Department
of Health demonstrates that the Department did not consider whether Walter Coke demonstrated
compliance with Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13. See
Jefferson County Department of Health, Title V Operating Permit Evaluation (Feb. 24, 2014),
available at http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/anr12.aspx?NoticeId=71&Type=2 (accessed Mar. 6,
2014).
26
Of course, “[t]he Health Officer may issue an Operating Permit subject to conditions
which will bring the operation of any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance within the
standards of Paragraph 18.2.8(a) of this Part in which case the conditions shall be specified in
writing.” Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 18.2.4.
However, the proposed permit does not establish emission limitations on the specific air
contaminants that are causing cancer risks to be elevated. Moreover, the authority of the Health
Officer to impose permit conditions does not negate the obligation of the Health Officer to deny a
permit if the applicant does not show that its facility may be expected to operate without emitting
or without causing to be emitted air contaminants in violation of Part 1.13 (emphasis added).
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a). See also,
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.4 (“The Health
Officer may issue an Operating Permit with revised conditions upon receipt of a new application,
if the applicant demonstrates that the article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance can
operate within the standards of Paragraph 18.2.8(a) of this Part under the revised conditions.”)
(emphasis added).
28
Walter Coke’s emissions. Thus, Walter Coke has permitted or caused “air pollution” by the
discharge of individual air contaminants for which no ambient air quality standards have been set
in violation of the prohibition in Part 1.13.
If Walter Coke were to seek a variance from the prohibition against “air pollution” in
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13, it would have to do so
under Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 3.1.2. That
section, however, mandates as follows:
A variance will not be considered for approval under any circumstances if

emissions from the source for which the variance is petitioned can be shown by
computer modeling or ambient monitoring to cause outside the facility property
line any of the following:
***
(c) If the toxic emission is a carcinogen, an amount equal to or greater than that
which would result in an individual having more than one (1) in one hundred
thousand (100,000) chance of developing cancer over a lifetime (70 years) of
exposure to that amount.
Thus, the Board of Health has mandated that cancer risks for individual air toxics shall not
exceed 1 in 100,000 outside a facility property line.
Despite this limitation on the maximum permissible cancer risk, an unnamed

administrative official(s) in the Jefferson County Department of Health, Environmental Health
Services Air and Radiation Protection Division, determined that it is “acceptable” for the
population near the Shuttlesworth Monitor and elsewhere to bear a cancer risk from chronic
exposure to Benzene, Naphthalene and Arsenic greater than 1×10-5 (1 in 100,000).27 It would be
incongruous for the Health Officer to determine that cancer risks higher than 1 in 100,000 are
permissible under Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 when
the Board of Health has declared those same cancer risks impermissible under Jefferson County
Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 3.1.2.
27
Jefferson County Department of Health, supra note 19 at 50-51. The unnamed
official(s) declared that cancer risks greater than 1×10-6 (1 in 1,000,000) but less than 1×10-4 are
deserving of no mitigation because of inherent uncertainties in the risk assessment methodology.
Id. The identified uncertainties, however, are common to all risk assessments and could just as
well suggest that risks may actually be higher than stated.
29
B. Failure to demonstrate that emissions of multiple carcinogens will not tend to
be injurious to human health
showing that the multiple carcinogens emitted by Walter Coke will comply with Jefferson
County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13, i.e., will not tend to be injurious
to human health.28 In the absence of any showing by Walter Coke that it may be expected to
operate without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants (i.e., carcinogens
which tend to be injurious to human health) in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 (prohibition against causing “air pollution”), the
Jefferson County Department of Health must deny the permit. Jefferson County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a).29
suggests that it cannot make the required showing. Table 7 demonstrates that multiple
carcinogens were present in the outdoor atmosphere at the Shuttlesworth Monitor site (during
July 2005-June 2006 and June 2011-August 2012) in such quantities and for such duration as
tend to increase the probability (in excess of 1 in 10,000) of each person exposed over a lifetime
contracting cancer. Thus, Walter Coke has permitted or caused “air pollution” by the discharge
of multiple air contaminants for which no ambient air quality standards have been set in violation
of the prohibition in Part 1.13
No statute or rule prescribes what cancer risk level from exposure to multiple air
contaminants is deemed “acceptable.” Nor has the Jefferson County Board of Health endorsed
an “acceptable” cancer risk level from exposure to multiple toxic air pollutants.30 However, an
unnamed administrative official(s) in the Jefferson County Department of Health, Environmental
Health Services Air and Radiation Protection Division, has determined that it is “acceptable” for
populations near the Shuttlesworth Monitor and elsewhere to bear a cumulative cancer risk from
chronic exposure to multiple air toxics equal to or less than 1×10-4 (1 in 10,000).31 Birmingham
28
See supra note 25.
29
See supra note 26.
30
The Board of Health has, however, declared that no source shall be eligible for a
variance if the toxic emission for which a variance is sought causes a cancer risk level of more
than one in one-hundred thousand (1 in 100,000) outside the facility property line. Jefferson
County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 3.1.2(c).
31
The unnamed administrative official(s) declared that a cumulative cancer risk equal to
1.66×10-4 (166 in 1,000,000) at the Shuttlesworth Monitor site is deserving of no mitigation
because (1) subsequent to the monitoring time period of this study (July 2005-June 2006),
(continued...)
30
Air Toxics Study at 51. This maximum “acceptable” risk is based on a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency interpretation of the phrase “ample margin of safety” in subsection (f) of
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f). That interpretation states:
In protecting public health with an ample margin of safety, EPA strives to provide
maximum feasible protection against risks to health from HAPs by (1) protecting
the greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no
higher than 1×10-6 (one in one million) and (2) limiting to no higher than
approximately 1×10-4 (one in ten thousand) the estimated risk that a person living
near a source would have if exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for
70 years.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment and Modeling - Air Toxics Risk
Assessment Reference Library, Volume 1 - Technical Resource Manual, Part V - Risk-Based
Decisionmaking (April 2004) at 27-5 to 27-6, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/data/risk/
vol_1/chapter_27.pdf (accessed Mar. 4, 2014).32 This statement of “acceptable” risk is not
31
(...continued)
“several plants around this site have installed pollution control equipment and have implemented
work practice standards (2006 and 2007) . . . resulting in direct reductions in air toxics emissions
and concentrations” and (2) the Department will continue to ensure compliance and enforcement.
Birmingham Air Toxics Study at 52. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted
its air toxics monitoring program between June 2011 and August 2012, the cancer risk for
Benzene at the Shuttlesworth Monitor site was 36% lower, but not below 4.0×10-5 (4 in
100,000); the cancer risk for Naphthalene was 47% higher - almost 3.0×10-5 (3 in 100,000); and
the cancer risk for Arsenic was 67% lower but not below 1.0×10-5 (1 in 100,000). The
cumulative cancer risk at the Shuttlesworth Monitor, although it declined, remained at 1.07×10-4
(1.07 in 10,000). North Birmingham Air Toxics Risk Assessment at 80.
32
In the 1970 Clean Air Act, Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676, the Administrator of
EPA was required to prepare a list of hazardous air pollutants and to promulgate emission
standards for each category or subcategory of sources “at the level which in his judgment
provides ample margin of safety to protect public health from such hazardous air pollutant.” In
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Benzene Emissions from
Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Stryene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene
Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants, 54 Fed. Reg. 38044 (1989), EPA set
forth its interpretation of “ample margin of safety,” as that term was used in the 1970 Clean Air
Act. It said that the “ample margin of safety” was met if as many people as possible faced excess
lifetime cancer risks no greater than one-in-one million, and that no person faced a risk greater
than 100-in-one million (one-in-ten thousand). EPA also said that “ample margin of safety”
allowed “consideration of all health information . . . as well as other relevant factors including
costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each
(continued...)
31
32
(...continued)
particular decision.” 54 Fed. Reg. at 38045.
Because EPA’s progress in regulating hazardous air pollutants under the 1970 Clean Air
Act provisions was slow, in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat.
2399, 2531, Congress directed EPA first, to promulgate emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants based on maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”), 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d),
and then, to promulgate emission standards in order to provide an “ample margin of safety” to
protect public health if emission standards based on MACT “do not reduce lifetime excess cancer
risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source . . . to less than one in one
million.” 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2)(A). Congress also expressly ratified the EPA’s interpretation
of “ample margin of safety” in National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP): Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Stryene Plants,
Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants, 54
Fed. Reg. 38044 (1989). 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2)(B). See Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
In National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries, 70 Fed. Reg. 19992 (2005), the
EPA explained:
Section 112(f)(2)(A) does indeed require us to promulgate standards if the

“lifetime excess cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from a
source in a category or subcategory” is greater than 1 in a million. It does not
establish what the level of the standard might be. See “A Legislative History of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” page 1789 (Conference Report), stating
that “[s]ection 112(f) contains a trigger for standards for non-threshold pollutants.
* * *” Rather, the level of the standard is to “provide an ample margin of safety”
to protect public health. “Ample margin of safety” is to be interpreted under the
two-step formulation established by the Benzene NESHAP and CAA section
112(f)(2)(B).
Under that formulation, there is no single risk level establishing what

constitutes an ample margin of safety (69 FR 48348). Rather, the Benzene
NESHAP approach codified in section 112(f)(2) is deliberately flexible, requiring
consideration of a range of factors (among them estimates of quantitative risk,
incidence, and numbers of exposed persons within various risk ranges; scientific
uncertainties; and weight of evidence) when determining acceptability of risk (the
first step in the ample margin of safety determination) (54 FR 38045).
Determination of ample margin of safety, the second step of the process, requires
further consideration of these factors, plus consideration of technical feasibility,
cost, economic impact, and other factors (54 FR 38046). As we stated in our
(continued...)
32
binding on the Department. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency readily admits
that notwithstanding its view of “acceptable” risk under the Clean Air Act, “th[e] level of cancer
risk that is of concern is a matter of personal and community judgment . . ..” North Birmingham
Air Toxics Risk Assessment at 40.
Several states and localities have made the judgment that greater protection from toxic air
pollutants is appropriate.33 These “State and local programs have focused on three methods for
addressing air toxic emissions: (1) ambient air levels; (2) control technology standards; and (3)
risk assessment.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Residual Risk Report to Congress
(March 1999) at 14, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/ risk_rep.pdf. See
e.g.,United States Government Accountability Office, Clean Air Act - EPA Should Improve the
Management of Its Air Toxics Program, Appendix III: Profiles of State and Local Air Toxics
Programs (June 2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/250607.pdf; Alabama
Department of Environmental Management, National Air Toxics Survey (Feb. 26, 2009).
GASP suggests that the maximum “acceptable” cancer risk from chronic exposure to
multiple air contaminants should be 5.0 × 10-5 (5 in 100,000). This cancer risk level
approximates the average State-wide cancer risk level and the average cancer risk level in Census
Tract 111.03 (2000) located in northeastern Jefferson County, as reported in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (2005).34 The people
32
(...continued)
“Residual Risk Report to Congress” issued under CAA section 112(f)(1), we do
not consider the 1 in a million individual additional cancer risk level as a “bright
line” mandated level of protection for establishing residual risk standards, but
rather as a trigger point to evaluate whether additional reductions are necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. This interpretation is
supported by the interpretive language in the preamble to the Benzene NESHAP,
which was incorporated by Congress in section 112(f)(2)(B).
Id., 70 Fed. Reg. at 19995.
The EPA’s determination of “acceptable” cancer risk levels is based on statutory

language applicable only to EPA and only to the promulgation of regulations limiting emissions
for categories and subcategories of sources of hazardous air pollutants. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(f).
That statutory language has no application to the Jefferson County Department of Health and no
application to permit proceedings undertaken by the Jefferson County Department of Health.
33
More stringent standards adopted under State authority are permissible under the Clean
Air Act. 42 U.S.C §§ 7412(d)(7), 7412(l)(1), 7416.
34
Census Tract 111.03 (2000) has been divided into Census Tracts 111.10 and 111.11
(continued...)
33
surrounding Walter Coke deserve the same freedom from air toxics and cancer that others in the
County and State enjoy.
C. Failure to demonstrate that emission of odors will not tend to be injurious to

human health or interfere with the enjoyment of life or property
An “air contaminant” includes “. . . any odor . . .from whatever source.” Jefferson

County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.3. “Odor” is defined as follows:
“Odor” shall mean smells or aromas which are unpleasant to persons, or which
tend to lessen human food and water intake, interfere with sleep, upset appetite,
produce irritation of the upper respiratory tract, or cause symptoms of nausea, or
which by their inherent chemical or physical nature, or method of processing, are,
or may be, detrimental or dangerous to health. Odor and smell are used
interchangeable therein.
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.3.
showing that the odor emissions from Walter Coke will comply with Jefferson County Air
Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 (prohibition against causing “air
pollution”).35 In the absence of Walter Coke’s demonstration that it may be expected to operate
without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants (i.e., odors which tend to be
injurious to human health or interfere with the enjoyment of life or property) in violation of
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13, the Jefferson County
Department of Health must deny the permit. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and
Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a).36
34
(...continued)
(2010).
35
See supra note 25.
36
Of course, “[t]he Health Officer may issue an Operating Permit subject to conditions
which will bring the operation of any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance within the
standards of Paragraph 18.2.8(a) of this Part in which case the conditions shall be specified in
writing.” Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 18.2.4. The
authority of the Health Officer to impose permit conditions does not negate the obligation of the
Health Officer to deny a permit if the applicant does not show that its facility may be expected to
operate without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants in violation of Part
1.13 (emphasis added). Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations,
Paragraph 18.2.8(a). See also, Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations,
(continued...)
34
suggests that it cannot make the required showing. See e.g.:
Testimony of Mary Jean Lamay before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public
Hearing for a Permit Renewal for Walter Coke Manufacturing (May 20, 2014) at 14:
If I'm on the front porch and they have got that plant fired up, I can smell it.
Testimony of Edward Maddox before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public
Hearing for a Permit Renewal for Walter Coke Manufacturing (May 20, 2014 ) at 41 :
Sometimes you can travel that road, and the scent is so bad, you have to roll your
windows up. You just can't stand it. It gives you a headache.
Statement by Marva Ingram, Cleaner air for Birmingham?, Weld for Birmingham (June 11,
2014) (Ingram said that the air on her property smelled like rotten eggs at times).
D. Failure to demonstrate that emissions of particulates will not tend to be

injurious to welfare or property or interfere with the enjoyment of life or
property
Walter Coke estimates that it emitted into the air more than 537 tons of Total Suspended
Particulates in 2012. Table 5. Total Suspended Particulates (including particulate matter larger
than 10 microns) are air contaminants for which no ambient air quality standards have been set
under Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 1.7.l.
showing that the Total Suspended Particulates (including particulate matter larger than 10
microns) emitted from Walter Coke will comply with Jefferson County Air Pollution Control
Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13 (prohibition against causing “air pollution”).37 In the absence of
Walter Coke’s demonstration that it may be expected to operate without emitting or without
causing to be emitted air contaminants (i.e., Total Suspended Particulates, including particulate
matter larger than 10 microns, that tends to be injurious to welfare, or property, or would
interfere with the enjoyment of life or property) in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution
36
(...continued)
Paragraph 18.2.4 (“The Health Officer may issue an Operating Permit with revised conditions
upon receipt of a new application, if the applicant demonstrates that the article, machine,
equipment, or other contrivance can operate within the standards of Paragraph 18.2.8(a) of this
Part under the revised conditions.”) (emphasis added).
37
See supra note 25.
35
Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13, the Jefferson County Department of Health must deny
the permit. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a).38
suggests that it cannot make the required showing. It is commonly known that particulate matter
emissions can be injurious to welfare and property and interfere with enjoyment of life and
property.
Ambient particles can cause soiling of man-made surfaces. Soiling generally is

considered an optical effect. Soiling changes the reflectance from opaque
materials and reduces the transmission of light through transparent materials.
Soiling can represent a significant detrimental effect, requiring increased
frequency of cleaning of glass windows and concrete structures, washing and
repainting of structures, and, in some cases, reduces the useful life of the object.
Particles, especially carbon, may also help catalyze chemical reactions that result
in the deterioration of materials . . ..
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter
(Dec. 2009) at 9-194, available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546
(accessed April 6, 2014). More importantly, the available evidence indicates that particulate
matter emitted from Walter Coke is injurious to the welfare and property of nearby residents and
interferes with their enjoyment of life and property. See e.g.:
Testimony of Mary Jean Lamay before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public
I have lived in Norwood for five years, and the first thing I would like to say is
from the moment I arrived, I knew there was a coke plant very near by. There is
only 14 coke plants left in the United States. We have two of them just under a
mile and a half from my house. On a daily basis, I have cleaned soot up from
inside my house and outside my house. We have all done it. It's so bad at my
house in Norwood a mile and a half away that generally when I get through
dusting, especially on the front porch, I have to throw those rags away. And if I
don't go jump in the shower after I have been dusting, I will not be breathing at
100 percent that next night or that next day. So it definitely affects.
Testimony of Thurman Thomas before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public
Hearing for a Permit Renewal for Walter Coke Manufacturing (May 20, 2014) at 20-21:
When I was a child growing up, that dust would be on everything. Black dust
would settle on the porches, on the cars, on the windows, the doors. You open the
38
See supra note 36.
36
house -- we had no air-conditioning. Open the windows, the dust would be on all
the furniture, on the flooring. Later in life, when I was able to buy an automobile,
it was a white '56 Chevy. I had to wash it every day because the dust that would
sit on it, if you allowed it to stay, it would rust the paint. So that was metal, and
there was pollutants in the air. I have lung problems now as a result of that.
Testimony of Lorraine Barker before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public Hearing
for a Permit Renewal for Walter Coke Manufacturing (May 20, 2014) at 23-24:
I have Hardy panel siding on my house. I have a -- had a brand new deck, just
painted my porch a year and a half ago, a mocha color. It is black now. I have
white rocks, gray rocks, in the front of my yard.
We have just bought a brand new car. It will be two years coming up in
September. I was washing the windows in the car today. I just couldn't just spray
the window wash on it. I had to literally wipe it, wash it, over and over, because
that fine little -- and the health department said emission. I say it's dirt. There's
something in it. It's like little fine little grains of dirt, and it sticks.
My rocks now are black. They are not gray anymore. Even the trees in my
yard, before the summer is over, the leaves turn black.
Testimony of Elvie Hill before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public Hearing for a
Permit Renewal for Walter Coke Manufacturing (May 20, 2014) at 25-26:
[W]here I live and I go outside in the morning, I clean my porch. I wash -- I have
white furniture on my porch. I wash it and sweep the porch out to go back later
and sit on it. Once I go back, it's full of all this little black soot and stuff again.
We painted our house on the inside. We can't open our windows because
you open your windows because you want some cool air. It has to be painted
again because all this soot -- I clean it and dust every day. But all this little soot
and stuff, it's not white any more. It is embedded into the paint. So now you
have to repaint. You want to sit on your deck and maybe eat a meal, drink a cup
of coffee. You have to cover it up because this little granular stuff that falls, it
gets all in your food and everything. So we are -- like Ms. Barker said, the trees.
Right now the rain has washed all the soot and whatever it is , the little coal stuff,
off of it. But they are so black. Even my flowers, you can't even tell what -- they
were green, you know.
Testimony of Jefferica Poindexter before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public
37
I have lived in Collegeville with my grandparents over the years, moved them to
Norwood. And in Norwood we had black soot on the back of our house. And no
matter how many times we paint it, the soot always came back.
Testimony of Edward Maddox before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public
I live at 914 53rd Street North. I was raised in Harrimon Park, and I can relate to
what you stated, Mr. Hill. My father, the soot, the dust, my father would call that
-- he called it cinders. He had a '62 Chevrolet Impala. He had to get up in the
morning and wash that car. If he didn't, it would turn yellow. My mom would
hang clothes on the clothes line sometimes. She would have to take them off
and wash the clothes again because of those cinders.
***
I went to a funeral Saturday on Shuttlesworth. You could not see through the
windows in that house because of the cloudiness in the windows because of that
plant. And this house was sitting on Shuttlesworth Road, right down from the
monitor you spoke of.
Testimony of Wanda King before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public Hearing
I came to Collegeville at age six. I have lived there and raised two children there,
married, had two kids. I had one that was diagnosed with asthma, and he had it so
bad until I could not let him go out at all. I had to keep the windows shut. Back
then they told us the only thing that was good was to use soap, which was Dial
soap, and water. And you could imagine what Dial soap and water do to wood
furniture. I had to wash his room and keep it sealed and use the soap to clean the
furniture to keep the soot out.
Also I had a daughter who was diagnosed with chronic sinuses, and they
told me that they knew that hay fever did not exist normally in Alabama. But if
they didn't know any better, they would have sworn she had hay fever. Then later
on, she was diagnosed with a pseudotumor in her right eye, and they said that
came from her eyes being open to stuff just blowing in. And I would constantly
have to keep washing her eyes because she would always rub them. And little
kids, they don't wash their hands. They just eat stuff and rub and touch things.
And the soot was terrible because when morning hit, it was cloudy, and it was
black stuff all over the clothes. We washed clothes and hang them on the line.
We had to take them down and rewash them as was said earlier.
38
Then on top of that, we didn't know any longer. We grew food,
vegetables, right there in the projects. And guess what we did? We ate it, not
knowing any better. And it was just amazing, you know, that we sat and ate that
stuff. And they knew it was a problem, and no one never saw fit to tell us "hey,
y'all are poisoning yourself" because they are allowing this to happen to us. And
I'm angry about it. I'm mad. I'm mad about it.
And then on top of that, I watched my father suffer for six months with
lymph nodes cancer. And I never could imagine my dad would have lymph nodes
cancer. It was all behind his nose and behind his eye socket where he breathed in
this stuff. I'm mad. I'm mad about this. And I think something needs to be done
today. I don't think it needs to wait. I know that it has been going on too long.
Testimony of Ernestine Moorer before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public
I had to leave three years ago because it was killing me. But the main thing, the
reason I know it was terrible because one morning I got up and went on my front
porch. And the porch, we had to get the house with the high power washer and
wash down several times. The stuff was so strong, it was getting in the house,
seeping in the house. Okay. When I looked at the trees and the trees -- the leaves
on the trees was dirty, the spirit of God told me get up and get out. It's time to
move. If I hadn't, I would have been dead and gone.
Testimony of Charles Parker before the Jefferson County Department of Health, Public Hearing
I have been living in College Hill for 70 years in deception and soot and pollution.
I remember as a child, I used to have to sweep the porch twice a day because of
the soot and the pollution and things on the porch. Mother would wash the
clothes at least twice from the soot, where it would collect the soot and stuff like
this.
Statement by Bobby Hogan, Toxic City: Birmingham’s Dirty Secret at 5:56 (Soot covering his
and his neighbors’ porches, houses, vinyl siding. He rinses his bricks off once a week and can see
the soot washing off the house. He can see the soot in his tub when he takes a bath.) (Appendix
D)
Statement by Vivian Starks, Toxic City: Birmingham’s Dirty Secret at 6:16 (Large piles of black
soot are visible. When the wind blows, you can see the soot blowing around the neighborhood.)
(Appendix D)
39
Statement of Charles R. Barber Jr., Cleaner air for Birmingham?, Weld for Birmingham (June
11, 2014) (“I remember growing up as a child, sweeping the soot off the porch, and then you
come back later, and you have to sweep it off again.” He described building a deck back in 2000
and not being able to keep it clean from the soot. “I’ve tried cleaning it off several times, pressure
washing it, even putting Thompson’s WaterSeal on it. Still, the soot comes back.”)
VII. Walter Coke Failed to Demonstrate that Air Pollution Controls are Adequate
to Prevent Violations
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(a)
provides:
The Health Officer shall deny an Operating Permit if the applicant does
not show that every article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance, the use of
which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, is so designed, controlled, or
equipped with such air pollution control equipment, that it is expected to operate
without emitting or without causing to be emitted air contaminants in violation of
these rules and regulations.
Walter Coke has not shown that every article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance that may
cause the emission of air contaminants, is designed, controlled or equipped with air pollution
control equipment capable of preventing violations of the Jefferson County Air Pollution Control
Rules and Regulations. Indeed, semi-annual compliance reports submitted to the Jefferson
County Department of Health for the period from July 2009 through December 2013 show that
articles, machines, equipment or other contrivances operated by Walter Coke are not designed,
controlled or equipped with adequate air pollution control equipment to operate without emitting
or causing to be emitted air contaminants in violation of the Jefferson County Air Pollution
Control Rules and Regulations. Appendix E.39 In the absence of Walter Coke’s demonstration
that it has implemented air pollution controls adequate to prevent violations, the Health Officer
39
Moreover, the analysis of the permit application by the Jefferson County Department
of Health demonstrates that the Department did not consider whether Walter Coke demonstrated
that its air pollution controls are adequate to achieve compliance with the Jefferson County Air
Pollution Control Rules and Moreover, the analysis of the permit application by the Jefferson
County Department of Health demonstrates that the Department did not consider whether Walter
Coke demonstrated compliance with the Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and
Regulations. See Jefferson County Department of Health, Title V Operating Permit Evaluation
(Feb. 24, 2014), available at http://www.jcdh.org/eh/anr/anr12.aspx?NoticeId=71&Type=2
(accessed Mar. 6, 2014).
40
must deny the permit. Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph
18.2.8(a).40
VIII. Draft Permit Conditions Implementing Part 6.2 are Unconstitutional and
Unenforceable41
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 6.2 provides:
6.2 Fugitive Dust.
6.2.1 No person shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit any materials to be handled,
transported, or stored; or a building, its appurtenances, or a road to be used,
constructed, altered, repaired or demolished without taking reasonable
precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Such
reasonable precautions shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) Use, where possible, of water or chemicals for control of dust in the
demolition of existing buildings or structures, construction operations, the
grading of roads or the clearing of land;
(b) Application of asphalt, oil, water, or suitable chemicals on dirt roads,
materials stock piles, and other surfaces which create airborne dust
problems; and
(c) Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters (or other suitable
control devices) to enclose and vent the handling of dust materials.
Adequate containment methods shall be employed during sandblasting or
other similar operations.
6.2.2 Visible Emissions Restrictions Beyond Lot Line. No person shall cause or
permit the discharge of visible fugitive dust emissions beyond the lot line of the
property on which the emissions originate.
This regulation is the basis for many conditions of Draft Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-
07-0355-03.42 Both the regulation and permit conditions are unconstitutional and unenforceable.
40
See supra note 36.
41
GASP submits that the arguments made in this part demonstrate that the proposed
issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 fails to adequately establish
practically enforceable emissions limitations for the facility, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(a).
42
All permit provisions citing Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and
Regulations, Part 6.2 and “fugitive emissions” or “visible emissions.”
41
In Ross Neely Express, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 437
So.2d 82 (Ala. 1983), the Alabama Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical State rule
governing fugitive dust. The Court held that the requirement to take “reasonable” precautions to
prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne was unconstitutionally vague and the
prohibition against causing the discharge of visible fugitive dust emissions beyond the lot line
was unreasonably and unconstitutionally restrictive.
Accordingly, it is necessary that the Jefferson County Department of Health revise all
permit conditions based on Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part
6.2 to accomplish control of fugitive dust emissions without language that is vague or
unreasonably restrictive. Alternatively, the Department should include an additional condition in
Draft Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 that will effectively control fugitive and
visible dust emissions without being constitutionally offensive.
IX. Restrictions in Draft Permit Condition 45 are not authorized by Regulation
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 6.2.3 provides:
6.2.3 When dust, fumes, gases, mist, odorous matter, vapors, or any
combination thereof escape from a building or equipment in such a manner and
amount as to cause a nuisance or to violate any rule or regulation, the Health
Officer may order that the building or equipment in which processing, handling
and storage are done be tightly closed and ventilated in such a way that all air and
gases and air or gas-borne material leaving the building or equipment are treated
by removal or destruction of air contaminants before discharge to the open air.
General Permit Condition 45 in Draft Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03
provides:
Abatement of Obnoxious Odors
This Operating Permit is issued with the condition that, should obnoxious odors
arising from the plant operations be verified by Department inspectors, measures
to abate the odorous emissions shall be taken upon a determination by this
Department that these measures are technically and economically feasible.
The language of this permit condition impermissibly imposes additional restrictions on

implementation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 6.2.3.
First, General Permit Condition 45 requires that odors be “obnoxious” and be verified by a
Department inspector before the Health Officer may order abatement of the odors. There is no
support for these restrictions in Section 6.2.3. Odors need not be characterized as “obnoxious”
by a Department inspector to violate Section 6.2.3. They must either cause a nuisance or violate
a rule or regulation such as Part 1.13 (prohibition against “air pollution,” including odors as
42
defined in Part 1.3). Second, General Permit Condition 45 requires that the Department
determine that odor abatement measures be “technically and economically feasible” before they
are required to be implemented. There is no support for this restriction in Section 6.2.3.
Pursuant to Section 6.2.3, the Health Officer may order the abatement of odors that cause a
nuisance or violate a regulation without making a prior determination of technical or economic
feasibility. The restrictions included in General Permit Condition 45 make implementation of
Section 6.2.3 more burdensome and less likely to be used to protect the public from unlawful
odors. Accordingly, General Permit Condition 45 should be revised to mirror Section 6.2.3.
X. Use of Differential Absorption Light Detection and Ranging Technology

is Necessary to Quantify Walter Coke Emissions
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Section 18.4.8 provides:
Standard application form and required information. The following information

shall be included in an application by a source for a permit under this Chapter:
***
(c) The following emissions-related information:
(3) Emissions rates of all pollutants in tons per year (tpy) and in such
terms as are necessary to establish compliance consistent with the
applicable standard reference test method, or alternative method
approved by the Health Officer;
In response to this requirement, Walter Coke submitted an application containing Attachment I -

2012 Emission Inventory. This emission inventory includes estimates of emission rates of
criteria and hazardous air pollutants, including Benzene. These emission rate estimates are
almost entirely based on calculated estimates, not measurements.
After a joint U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New York Department of
Environmental Conservation inspection of the Tonawanda Coke facility in Tonawanda, New
York, the EPA issued an Emission Test Letter to Tonawanda Coke Corporation on July 6, 2009
pursuant to Section 114 of the Clean Air Act requiring that the company submit emission test
protocols for fugitive Benzene emission testing (DIAL test) and facility stack emission testing
(stack tests) within 30 days. The Letter included a requirement to use EPA Other Test Method
10 (OTM-10), differential absorption light detection and ranging technology (DIAL), to measure
the mass emission rate of Benzene from each process area listed. Subsequently, the EPA issued
an administrative order to the company on January 7, 2010 pursuant to Section 113(a) of the
Clean Air Act directing the company to submit the Benzene testing protocol. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Compliance Order CAA-02-2010-1001 (Jan. 7, 2010),
available at http://www.epa.gov/region2/capp/TCC/TCC_AO_1_%20CAA-02-2010-1001.pdf
(accessed Mar. 28, 2014). As a result of the DIAL testing, it was determined that the facility was
emitting 90.8 tons/year of Benzene, rather than the 10 tons/year claimed by a company official.
Tonawanda News, Tona Coke grossly underestimated benzene levels (Sep. 30, 2010), available
43
at http://www.tonawanda-news.com/local/x996174448/ Tona-Coke-grossly-underestimated-
benzene-levels (accessed Mar. 28, 2014). The company and the facility’s environmental
manager were indicted, tried, and convicted on various environmental crimes. Tonawanda
News, Tonawanda Coke Found Guilty (Mar. 28, 2013), available at
http://www.tonawanda-news.com/local/x1916521195/TONAWANDA-COKE-FOUND-GUILTY
(accessed Mar. 28, 2014).
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Paragraph 18.2.8(c)
provides:
Before an Operating Permit is granted, the Health Officer may require the
applicant to provide and maintain such facilities as are necessary for sampling and
testing purposes in order to secure information that will disclose the nature,
extent, quantity or degree of air contaminants discharged into the atmosphere
from the article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance described in the
Operating Permit. In the event of such a requirement, the Health Officer shall
notify the applicant in writing of the required size, number, and location of the
sampling platform; the access to the sampling platform; and the utilities for
operating the sampling and testing equipment. The Health Officer may also
require the applicant to install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment or
methods, including enhanced monitoring methods prescribed under Section
504(b) or Section 114(a)(3); sample such emissions in accordance with such
methods, at such locations, intervals, and procedures as may be specified; and
provide such information as the Health Officer may require.
The Health Officer can, and should, require that Walter Coke conduct DIAL testing of its
Benzene emissions and perhaps other high risk hazardous air pollutants such as VOCs. It is
highly likely that measured Benzene emissions will be significantly greater than estimated
emissions. See Environmental Integrity Project, EPA Emission Factors vs. Actual Measurement:
Summary of Recent DIAL/PFTIR Studies, available at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/
news_reports/documents/SummaryofDIALANDPFTIRStudies.pdf (accessed Mar. 28, 2014);
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Enforcement Initiative: Cutting Hazardous Air
Pollutants, available at http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiative-
cutting-hazardous-air-pollutants (“Recent monitoring shows that facilities typically emit more
HAP emissions than they actually report”). If Walter Coke’s Benzene emissions are significantly
greater than have been reported, an investigation should be undertaken to ascertain whether
required emission controls and practices are being effectively implemented. The residents of
North Birmingham, who have been burdened with the toxic emissions from Walter Coke for
generations, deserve no less.
44
XI. Issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 will violate
EPA Regulations under Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Jefferson County Department of Health is a recipient of financial assistance from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.43 As such, the Department is obliged to comply with 40
C.F.R. § 7.35(b), which provides:
A recipient [of EPA financial assistance] shall not use criteria or methods of
administering its program which have the effect of subjecting individuals to
discrimination because of their race, color, national origin, or sex, or have the
effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of
the program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, national origin,
or sex.
Even, “[f]acially-neutral policies or practices that result in discriminatory effects violate EPA’s
Title VI regulations unless it is shown that they are justified and that there is no less
discriminatory alternative.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Guidance for
Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Feb. 5, 1998) at 2,
available at http://www.enviro-lawyer.com/Interim_Guidance.pdf; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Draft Title VI Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering
Environmental Permitting Programs (Draft Recipient Guidance) and Draft Revised Guidance for
Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (Draft Revised
Investigation Guidance), D. Summary of Key Stakeholder Issues Concerning EPA Title VI
Guidance, 65 Fed. Reg. 39650, 39688 (2000).
Effective January 23, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has included the
following condition in financial assistance awards:
In accepting this assistance agreement, the recipient acknowledges it has an

affirmative obligation to implement effective Title VI compliance programs and
ensure that its actions do not involve discriminatory treatment and do not have
discriminatory effects even when facially neutral. The recipient must be prepared
to demonstrate to EPA that such compliance programs exist and are being
implemented or to otherwise demonstrate how it is meeting its Title VI
obligations.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Civil Rights Obligations (Jan. 23, 2013), available at
http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/docs/pdf/terms_and_conditions.pdf (emphasis added). It does not
43
The Jefferson County Department of Health receives grant funding from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
45
appear that the Jefferson County Department of Health is implementing any kind of Title VI
compliance program.44
The issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 by the Jefferson
County Department of Health will authorize Walter Coke to emit numerous carcinogenic air
toxics, offensive odors, and particulate matter into nearby communities. There are an estimated
7,918 persons residing within 1.0 mile of Walter Coke. Eighty-five percent of these persons are
classified as “Black.” Figure 1. The issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-
0355-03 will have an adverse and disproportionate or discriminatory effect on a class protected
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
XII. JCDH Failed to Disclose Emission and Other Non-Trade Secret Information
in Application
On April 22, 2014, GASP submitted to JCDH a written request to review the Walter
Coke permit application, emissions testing data, emissions estimates and bases, application and
company-provided analyses, and other documents. Appendix F. In response, the JCDH
provided Walter Coke’s Title V permit application to GASP with all emissions data and
signatories redacted. Appendix G. These redactions are not permissible under Jefferson County
Air Pollution Control Regulations, Part 1.6; the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act, Ala. Code §
22-28-20; and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7414(c) and 7661b(e).
On May 12, 2014, GASP demanded that the Health Officer provide GASP with Walter
Coke’s justification for the redactions made in the application. GASP also requested that the
Health Officer provide a copy of his determination that the “showing” made by Walter Coke, Inc.
is “satisfactory.” Appendix H. No response has been received from the Health Officer.
Until the application – with the unlawful redactions removed – has been made available
and the public has had a fair and meaningful opportunity to comment on the application, no
permit should be granted.
44
In U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jefferson County Department of Health
Title V and New Source Review Program Review (Dec. 23, 2005), available at
http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/programevaluations/JeffersonCoAL_FinalReport.pdf
(accessed April 2, 2014), EPA finds:
JCHD does not have an Environmental Justice (EJ) Policy. Currently, JCHD does
not consider EJ issues during the issuance of a permit. Demographics, cumulative
effects and pre-existing burdens are not routinely evaluated as part of the
permitting process.
Id. at 6.
46
XIII. Conclusions
Based on the foregoing, GASP submits as follows:
(1) The Health Officer should deny Walter Coke’s application for issuance of Major
Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 because Walter Coke has failed to demonstrate that
its emissions of Benzene, Naphthalene and Arsenic will not result in a cancer risk level that
exceeds 1.0E-05 (1 in 100,000) for each individual carcinogen and will not cause “air pollution”
in violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13;
its emission of multiple carcinogens will not result in a cumulative cancer risk level that exceeds
5.0E-05 (5 in 100,000) and will not cause “air pollution” in violation of Jefferson County Air
Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13;
its emission of odors will not tend to be injurious to human health or interfere with the enjoyment
of life or property and will not cause “air pollution” in violation of Jefferson County Air
Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13;
its emission of total suspended particulates, including particulate matter larger than 10 microns,
will not interfere with the enjoyment of life or property and will not cause “air pollution” in
violation of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations, Part 1.13
its air pollution controls are adequate to prevent violations;
Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 because issuance of the permit would violate the
civil rights of impacted minorities;
(7) The Health Officer should revise all conditions of Draft Major Source Operating
Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 that address Jefferson County Air Pollution Control Rules and
Regulations, Part 6.2 (Fugitive Dust) so that they are not unconstitutionally vague and restrictive
and will include enforceable provisions to prevent fugitive and visible dust emissions;
(8) The Health Officer should revise Draft General Permit Condition 45 (Abatement of
Obnoxious Odors) so that it does not unnecessarily limit the Health Officer’s power to abate
47
unlawful odors and conforms to the requirements of Jefferson County Air Pollution Control
Rules and Regulations, Section 6.2.3;
(9) The Health Officer should require that Walter Coke use differential absorption light
detection and ranging technology (DIAL) to measure Walter Coke’s actual Benzene (and perhaps
other hazardous air pollutant) emissions prior to issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No.
4-07-0355-03; and
(10) The Health Officer should withhold issuance of Major Source Operating Permit No.
4-07-0355-03 because the Jefferson County Department of Health allowed emissions data and
other information to be unlawfully withheld from public disclosure during the comment period.
48
APPENDIX A
Health Effects of Selected Air Toxics
Coke Oven Emissions

Chronic (long-term) exposure to coke oven emissions in humans results in conjunctivitis,
severe dermatitis, and lesions of the respiratory system and digestive system.
Coke Oven Emissions are a “Known Human Carcinogen.” Exposure to coke oven emissions
is a cause of lung cancer and kidney cancer in humans.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Coke Oven
Emissions (Jan. 2000), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/cokeoven.html
2. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth
Edition (2011), Coke Oven Emissions, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/
CokeOvenEmissions.pdf
Benzene
CAS# 71-43-2
Benzene causes harmful effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood
cells leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive bleeding and can affect the immune
system, increasing the chance for infection.
Benzene is a “Known Human Carcinogen.” Long-term exposure to high levels of benzene in

the air can cause leukemia, particularly acute myelogenous leukemia, often referred to as
AML. This is a cancer of the blood-forming organs.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene: An Update (April 1998), available
at http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=428659;
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Benzene (Jan.
2012), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/benzene.html
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Benzene (Aug. 2007), available
at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp3.pdf
4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for Benzene (Aug. 2007), available at
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts3.pdf
Edition (2011), Benzene, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf
A-1
Naphthalene
CAS# 91-20-3
Exposure to large amounts of naphthalene may damage or destroy some of your red blood
cells. This could cause you to have too few red blood cells until your body replaces the
destroyed cells. This condition is called hemolytic anemia. Some symptoms of hemolytic
anemia are fatigue, lack of appetite, restlessness, and pale skin. Exposure to large amounts of
naphthalene may also cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, blood in the urine, and a yellow
color to the skin. Rats and mice that breathed naphthalene vapors daily for a lifetime
developed irritation and inflammation of their nose and lungs.
Naphthalene is a “Possible Human Carcinogen.” Cancer from naphthalene exposure has been
seen in animal studies. Some female mice that breathed naphthalene vapors daily for a
lifetime developed lung tumors. Some male and female rats exposed to naphthalene in a
similar manner also developed nose tumors.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxicological Review of Naphthalene (Aug. 1998), available at
http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0436tr.pdf;
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Naphthalene
(Jan. 2000), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/naphthal.html
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Naphthalene,
1-methylnaphthalene, and 2-methylnaphthalene (Aug. 2005), available at
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp67.pdf
4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene,
2-Methylnaphthalene (Aug. 2005), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts67.pdf
Edition (2011), Naphthalene, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Naphthalene.pdf
A-2
Arsenic
CAS# 7440-38-2
Breathing high levels of inorganic arsenic can give you a sore throat or irritated lungs.
Breathing low levels of inorganic arsenic for a long time can cause a darkening of the skin and
the appearance of small "corns" or "warts" on the palms, soles, and torso.
Arsenic is a “Known Human Carcinogen.” Inhalation of inorganic arsenic can cause irritation
of the skin and mucous membranes and lung cancer.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Arsenic
Compounds (Dec 2012), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/arsenic.html
2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Arsenic (Aug. 2007), available
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ToxFAQs for Arsenic (Aug. 2007), available at
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2.pdf
4 National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth
Edition (2011), Arsenic and Inorganic Arsenic Compounds, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/
roc/twelfth/profiles/Arsenic.pdf
Carbon Tetrachloride
CAS# 56-23-5
High exposure to carbon tetrachloride can cause liver, kidney, and central nervous system
damage. The liver is especially sensitive to carbon tetrachloride because it enlarges and cells
are damaged or destroyed. Kidneys also are damaged, causing a build up of wastes in the
blood.
If exposure is very high, the nervous system, including the brain, is affected. People may feel
intoxicated and experience headaches, dizziness, sleepiness, and nausea and vomiting.
Carbon tetrachloride is a “Probable Human Carcinogen.” Breathing carbon tetrachloride for

years caused liver tumors in animals. Mice that breathed carbon tetrachloride also developed
tumors of the adrenal gland.
A-3
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxicological Review of Carbon Tetrachloride (Mar. 2010), available
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0020tr.pdf
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Carbon
Tetrachloride (Jan. 2000), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/carbonte.html
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Carbon Tetrachloride (Aug.
2005), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp30.pdf
4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
ToxFAQs for Carbon Tetrachloride (Aug. 2005), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts30.pdf
Edition (2011), Carbon tetrachloride, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/
CarbonTetrachloride.pdf
1,2-Dichloroethane
CAS# 107-06-2
Nervous system disorders, liver and kidney diseases, and lung effects have been reported in
humans inhaling large amounts of 1,2-dichloroethane. In laboratory animals, breathing or
ingesting large amounts of 1,2-dichloroethane have also caused nervous system disorders and
liver, kidney, and lung effects. Animal studies also suggest that 1,2-dichloroethane may
damage the immune system. Kidney disease has also been seen in animals ingesting low doses
of 1,2-dichloroethane for a long time.
1,2-Dichloroethane is a “Probable Human Carcinogen.” In animals, increases in the

occurrence of stomach, mammary gland, liver, lung, and endometrium cancers have been seen
following inhalation.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Ethylene
Dichloride, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/di-ethan.html
2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for 1,2-Dichloroethane (Sep. 2001),
available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp38.pdf
ToxFAQs for 1,2-Dichloroethane (Sep. 2001), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts38.pdf
Edition (2011), 1,2-Dichloroethane, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/
Dichloroethane.pdf
A-4
Benzo(a)pyrene
CAS# 50-32-8
Benzo(a)pyrene is a “Probable Human Carcinogen.” Long-term repeated exposure to

Benzo(a)pyrene has been found to cause cancer.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Polycyclic
Organic Matter (POM), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/polycycl.html
2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Aug. 1995), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp69.pdf
Edition (2011),Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/
PolycyclicAromaticHydrocarbons.pdf
p-Dichlorobenzene
CAS# 106-46-7
Inhaling the vapor or dusts of 1,4- dichlorobenzene at very high concentrations could be very
irritating to your eyes and nose and cause burning and tearing of the eyes, coughing, difficult
breathing, and an upset stomach. Dizziness, headaches, and liver problems have also been
observed in people exposed to very high levels of 1,4-dichlorobenzene.
Breathing eating 1,4-dichlorobenzene caused harmful effects in the liver of laboratory animals.
Animal studies also found that 1,2- and 1,4-dichlorobenzene caused effects in the kidneys and
blood.
1,4-Dichlorobenzene is a “Possible Human Carcinogen.”

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 1,4-
Dichlorobenzene, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/dich-ben.html
2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Dichlorobenzenes (Aug. 2006),
ToxFAQs for Dichlorobenzenes (Aug. 2006), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts10.pdf
Edition (2011), Dichlorobenzene, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/
Dichlorobenzene.pdf
A-5
Acetaldehyde
CAS# 75-07-0
Acetaldehyde is a “Probable Human Carcinogen.”

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Acetaldehyde,
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/acetalde.html
Edition (2011), Acetaldehyde, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Acetaldehyde.pdf
Hexavalent Chromium
CAS# 18540-29-9
Breathing high levels of chromium(VI) can cause irritation to the lining of the nose, nose
ulcers, runny nose, and breathing problems, such as asthma, cough, shortness of breath, or
wheezing.
Hexavalent Chromium is a “Known Human Carcinogen.” In workers, inhalation of

chromium(VI) has been shown to cause lung cancer. Chromium(VI) also causes lung cancer
in animals.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium (Aug. 1998),
available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0144tr.pdf
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Chromium
Compounds, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/chromium.html
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Chromium (Sep. 2012),
ToxFAQs for Chromium (Oct. 2012), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts7.pdf
Edition (2011), Chromium Hexavalent Compounds, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/
profiles/ChromiumHexavalentCompounds.pdf
A-6
1,3-Butadiene
CAS# 106-99-0
In laboratory animals, 1,3-butadiene causes inflammation of nasal tissues, changes to lung,

heart, and reproductive tissues, neurological effects, and blood changes.
1,3-Butadiene is a “Known Human Carcinogen.” Studies have shown that workers exposed to
1,3-butadiene may have an increased risk of cancers of the blood and lymphatic system.
Animal studies found increases in a variety of tumor types from exposure to 1,3-butadiene.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene (Oct 2002), available at
http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/butasup.pdf
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 1,3-Butadiene,
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/butadien.html
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for 1,3-Butadiene (Sep. 2012),
ToxFAQs for 1,3-Butadiene (Oct. 2012), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts28.pdf
Edition (2011), 1,3-Butadiene, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Butadiene.pdf
Cadmium
CAS# 7440-43-9
Breathing high levels of cadmium can severely damage the lungs. Long-term exposure to
lower levels of cadmium in air leads to a buildup of cadmium in the kidneys and possible
kidney disease. Other long-term effects are lung damage and fragile bones.
Cadmium is a “Probable Human Carcinogen.”

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Cadmium
Compounds, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/cadmium.html
2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Cadmium (Sep. 2012), available
ToxFAQs for Cadmium (Oct. 2012), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts5.pdf
Edition (2011), Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/
profiles/Cadmium.pdf
A-7
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
CAS# 53-70-3
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene is a “Probable Human Carcinogen.”

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Polycyclic
Organic Matter (POM), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/polycycl.html
2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Aug. 1995), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp69.pdf
Edition (2011),Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/
PolycyclicAromaticHydrocarbons.pdf
A-8
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H

Comments of Gasp On Proposed Reissuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 To Walter Coke, Inc.

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Comments of Gasp On Proposed Reissuance of Major Source Operating Permit No. 4-07-0355-03 To Walter Coke, Inc.

Caricato da

Copyright:

COMMENTS OF GASP

MAJOR SOURCE OPERATING PERMIT NO. 4-07-0355-03

TO WALTER COKE, INC.

Submitted June 16, 2014

Draft General Permit Condition 45 (Abatement of Obnoxious Odors) establishes

II. Walter Coke’s Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

III. Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

IV. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

VI. Prohibition of Air Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

A. Walter Coke failed to demonstrate that emissions of individual carcinogens

B. Walter Coke failed to demonstrate that emissions of multiple carcinogens

D. Walter Coke failed to demonstrate that emissions of particulates will

VIII. Draft Permit Conditions Implementing Part 6.2 are Unconstitutional

IX. Restrictions in Draft General Permit Condition 45 are not authorized

X. Use of Differential Absorption Light Detection and Ranging Technology

Appendix A Health Effects of Selected Air Toxics .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B Moore v. Walter Coke, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-01391

Appendix C Morrison v. Drummond Company, Inc., et al., No. 01-CV-2013-

Appendix D Toxic City: Birmingham’s Dirty Secret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D

Appendix E Semi-annual Compliance Reports (Jul. 2009-Dec. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Appendix F GASP Public Records Request (Apr. 22, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G Walter Coke’s Redacted Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Appendix H GASP Public Records Request (May 12, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

Figure 1 Walter Coke - Surrounding Communities, and Nearby Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 2 Walter Coke Polycyclic Aromatic Compound Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 3 Walter Coke Benzene Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 4 Walter Coke Naphthalene Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 5 Walter Coke Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Polycyclic

Figure 6 Walter Coke Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Benzene .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 7 Walter Coke Stack and Fugitive Emissions of Naphthalene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 10 Comparative Risk Scores for Fourteen Highest Risk Toxic

Figure 11 RESI Model Facility Risk Score Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 12 Average Air Toxic Cancer Risks by Geographic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 14 Walter Coke and Surrounding Air Toxics Cancer Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 15 Location of Toxic Air Pollutant Monitors in Relation to Walter Coke .. . . . . . . 21

Figure 16 Cancer Risk Drivers at Shuttlesworth Monitor (JCDH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 17 Cancer Risk Drivers at Shuttlesworth Monitor (EPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 1 Universe of Constituents of Coke Oven Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2 Walter Coke Emission Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 3 Toxic/Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Walter Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 4 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Pollutant Emissions

Table 5 Other Air Pollutant Emissions from Walter Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 6 Chemicals Included in the Toxic Release Inventory Polycyclic

Table 7 Chronic Exposure Cancer Risk at Shuttlesworth Monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

II. Walter Coke’s Emissions

001 Coke By-Products Recovery 8,760 hours/year Visible Emissions (VE)

009 Coke Battery No. 5 - Coking 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

012 Coke Battery No. 4 - Coking 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

015 Coke Battery No. 3 - Coking 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

016 Underfire Stack of Coking 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

017 Underfire Stack of Coking 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

019 North Coke Quenching 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

021 Coke Pushing Operations of 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

029 Coke Pushing Operations of 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

031 Steam Generator No. 3 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

032 Steam Generator No. 4 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

034 Primary Crushers with Wet 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

035 Wheel Wash 24 hours/day Visible Emissions (VE)

036 Emergency Generators-5 (2 Emergency Use Visible Emissions (VE)

III. Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model (2010)

The Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model is a computer-based

• A hazard score can be calculated by multiplying the pounds released by the

IV. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (2005)

• To work with communities in designing their own local-scale assessments,

1. Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NATA|National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment, available