Hydrogen sulfide needs Hazardous Air Pollutant listing under CAA Title III – Sierra Club letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson
Nonprofit sign-on letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson
Published: March 30, 2009
Intro/Letter excerpt: (from http://www.earthworksaction.org/library/detail/hydrogen_sulfide_needs_hazardous_air_pollutant_listing_under_caa_title_iii)
The community, environmental, and public health organizations named below request that you formally list Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), as defined in Title III, section 112(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA). We assert that EPA must act to address adverse H2S impacts based on evidence of harmful exposures in numerous communities and its toxicological effects at low concentrations such as non-cancer effects and emerging evidence that H2S is a genotoxic agent, meaning it damages DNA. EPA has assessed the need to list H2S as a HAP, but no formal listing action has been taken. H2S is clearly an unlisted hazardous air pollutant.
……
(Full letter can be viewed at: http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/H2SLetterToEPA.pdf)
……
Conclusion
Public health scientists have recognized for over a decade that hydrogen sulfide is a potent neurotoxin, and chronic
exposure to low ambient levels causes irreversible damage to the brain and central nervous system. Ultra-low levels
of H2S down to 25 ppb have been associated with acute exposure causing eye irritation in community settings in the
United States, Europe and New Zealand. Now emerging scientific evidence supports H2S causes neuron death,
confirming findings by Kilburn of irreversible brain damage. The latest scientific findings suggest H2S causes DNA
damage as a genotoxic agent, which EPA can no longer ignore. The potential carcinogenic implications of H2S
demand that EPA act to protect public health.
Children are among the most susceptible to this poison gas, and EPA needs to do a more effective job of protecting
schoolchildren from H2S impacts. Today, it is unacceptable for communities to have to continue suffering the ill
effects of H2S when the technology to monitor and control H2S emissions exists. As EPA has learned in the last four
decades, environmental injustice is a significant fact of life for thousands of communities in this nation and these
residents all have a right to clean, safe air.
It’s time for the EPA to take action to formally acknowledge hydrogen sulfide’s clear toxicity at low concentrations.
As Administrator, you have CAA authority under section 112(b)(2) to act based on a pollutant that poses or may
pose “…a threat of adverse human health effects…” Health studies confirm the need for EPA to list H2S under
section 112(b) of the CAA and Title III, since routine daily exposure effects are not addressed under the accidental
release provisions in section 112(r) of the CAA, where H2S is currently regulated. However, section 112(r) is not
designed or intended to address daily exposures at sublethal concentrations, but section 112(b) can bridge this gap.
EPA, in addition, needs to require annual reporting of H2S as a toxic substance under the Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) reporting program, since H2S is not reported due to an administrative stay issued August 22, 1994 evidently
under a legal threat by the American Petroleum Institute. It’s extraordinary that industry has delayed reporting of
H2S for twenty years. EPA needs a TRI reporting threshold of 1.0 pound for H2S and not 10,000 pounds as was
originally the requirement. We request that EPA immediately lift the administrative stay on H2S and require TRI
reporting in the next TRI submission cycle. The TRI data would also help EPA compile more accurate H2S data.
Please respond to this request for EPA to take action to list H2S under section 112(b) of the CAA. Address the
EPA’s response to Neil Carman at the contact information listed below.
Respectfully yours,
Neil J. Carman, Ph.D.
Sierra Club’s Clean Air Team and the
Lone Start Chapter of the Sierra Club
1202 San Antonio St, Austin, TX 78701
Tel 512-472-1767; Fax 512-477-8526
(This letter was also sent/signed by the following organizations: National Environmental Justice and Community Partnerships Director; Citizens for Environmental Justice; Community In-Powerment and Development Association; Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund; Environmental Integrity Project; Galveston Houston Association for Smog Prevention & Mothers for Clean Air; Global Community Monitor, National Refinery Reform Campaign & National Bucket Brigade Coalition; Downwinders At Risk; Groups Allied to Stop Pollution; The People’s Advocate; Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper; Louisiana Environmental Action Network; EARTHWORKS’, and Oil & Gas Accountability Project; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Sustainable Energy & Economic Development Coalition; Citizens Against Environmental Destruction; Northeast Ohio Gas Accountability Project; Huron Environmental Activist League; Don’t Waste Arizona; Cook Inletkeeper; Protect All Children’s Environment.)
The Summer of Sulfur Timeline
On January 7, 2011, the Eastern Carolina Council of Government (ECC) issued a letter to the town of MHC which contained an attached 3 page proposal describing, in detail, the PCS facility to be built at the MHC port. This letter included a complete project description on the sulfur melting plant. The ECC informed the town that they had until January 21 to comment on the proposal.
One week later, on January 14, 2011 Town Manager Randy Martin, Mayor Jones, City Planning Director Linda Staab, and Councilman George Ballou attended the Local Emergency Planning Committee meeting. Mayor Jones mentioned this meeting in his timeline (but failed to state that he was present at this meeting). There was discussion at this meeting of PCS’ plans to melt sulfur at the MHC port. Mayor Jones promised to, “Put the port facilities on our agenda for our next meeting to get an update.”
On May 20, 2011, Morehead City sent a letter to Brad Newland of the NC Division of Air Quality confirming that the PCS melting facility was a permitted use in the Industrial Port (IP) district. The letter mentions “melting solid sulfur to form liquid, then transferring liquid sulfur from the port to barges for transport to Aurora”. Morehead City Planning Director Linda Staab signed this letter.
In his timeline, Mayor Jones stated that on June 8, 2011, he and EDC Director Miles Stempin discussed the proposed sulfur melting facility which would receive incentives from the Dept. of Commerce. After this, a month passed with no public discussion, public hearing or public notification.
One month later, on July 8, 2011, the Carteret County New Times ran a front page story on the proposed PCS sulfur melting facility. Jet Matthews, owner of Morehead City Yacht Basin, had received a certified letter from PCS notifying him of the PCS CAMA permit application. This was the only permit notification required under state law. After digging, he found out the true scope of the project and went to the paper with the story.
On July 11, 2011, Mayor Richard Stanley of Beaufort signs a resolution opposing the Sulfur melting facility. Mayor Jones went on record opposing the facility on JULY 12.
On JULY 12, 2011, 122 citizens attended a Morehead City Council meeting to voice their anger, dismay, frustration, and shock over the facility and the lack of public notification. And as they say, the rest is history. Gov. Perdue made her announcement on Wed. July 27.
The ECC project description given to MHC, minutes from the Local services Planning Committee meeting, the MHC Zoning Determination Letter, and the Town of Beaufort resolution (documents referenced above) can all be seen in their original form using the links below.
Referenced Documents:
2011-01-07 Eastern Carolina Council – NC Intergovernmental Review Process Review and Comment Form
2011-01-14 Minutes – Carteret County Local Emergency Planning Committee
Zoning changes aren’t that difficult
By Frank Tursi, assistant director of the N.C. Coastal Federation
If the now dead sulfur smelter wasn’t to your liking, how would you like a slaughterhouse at the state port? Imagine the railroad stock cars lumbering down Arendell Street toward their mooing occupants’ final destination as T-bones and rib eyes and porterhouses. Tourists might not take to the sight readily, but PETA certainly would. It would open a branch office in Morehead City from which to stage its daily protests at the port gate.
On second thought, you say a slaughterhouse isn’t a good idea. Then how about an iron foundry, steel mill or an aluminum smelter at the port? Belching smokestacks towering over the waterfront would add a sort of industrial elegance to the skyline, don’t you think?
We can see you’re not impressed. Maybe a nitroglycerin factory at the port would be more in keeping with downtown. No smoke, unless of course something goes terribly wrong. And, then, no more downtown.
If all this sounds pretty crazy, you need to spend some time with the Morehead City zoning ordinance. We know, we know! Zoning? You’d rather get a root canal or have your mother-in-law announce she’s extending her summer visit until Christmas. But this is important stuff to the future of the town and the port. And it’s not that difficult. Really!
All of the things listed above — the slaughterhouse, the iron foundry, the munitions factory, all of it — are currently allowed at the port under Morehead City’s zoning ordinance. Other things that we suspect many would find more offensive than the sulfur smelter could also be built there.
Read more… (also contains letters to the Editor)
State of NC not exempt from zoning laws; MHC could declare a moratorium on port building permits
Is the State of North Carolina exempt from zoning laws?
I don’t think so. Here’s a section of the statute that allows cities to zone land:
G.S. 160A‑392. Part applicable to buildings constructed by State and its subdivisions; exception.
All of the provisions of this Part are hereby made applicable to the erection, construction, and use of buildings by the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions.
Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or local law or ordinance, no land owned by the State of North Carolina may be included within an overlay district or a special use or conditional use district without approval of the Council of State. (1951, c. 1203, s. 1; 1971, c. 698, s. 1; 1985, c. 607, s. 2; 2004‑199, s. 41(e); 2005‑280, s. 1.)
The statute then defines “overlay districts,” as zoning districts that overlay another district “in which additional requirements are imposed on certain properties.” Special use districts or conditional use districts are those “in which uses are permitted only upon the issuance of a special use permit or a conditional use permit and conditional zoning districts, in which site plans and individualized development conditions are imposed.”
The IP zone is none of those things. Therefore, MHC has the authority to zone the port without the Council of State’s approval.
So we all know what’s involved in order for MHC to declare a moratorium on building permits in the IP zone, here are the relevant statutory requirements:
G.S. 160A‑381. Grant of power.
(e) As provided in this subsection, cities may adopt temporary moratoria on any city development approval required by law. The duration of any moratorium shall be reasonable in light of the specific conditions that warrant imposition of the moratorium and may not exceed the period of time necessary to correct, modify, or resolve such conditions. Except in cases of imminent and substantial threat to public health or safety, before adopting an ordinance imposing a development moratorium with a duration of 60 days or any shorter period, the governing board shall hold a public hearing and shall publish a notice of the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the area not less than seven days before the date set for the hearing. A development moratorium with a duration of 61 days or longer, and any extension of a moratorium so that the total duration is 61 days or longer, is subject to the notice and hearing requirements of G.S. 160A‑364. Absent an imminent threat to public health or safety, a development moratorium adopted pursuant to this section shall not apply to any project for which a valid building permit issued pursuant to G.S. 160A‑417 is outstanding, to any project for which a conditional use permit application or special use permit application has been accepted, to development set forth in a site‑specific or phased development plan approved pursuant to G.S. 160A‑385.1, to development for which substantial expenditures have already been made in good faith reliance on a prior valid administrative or quasi‑judicial permit or approval, or to preliminary or final subdivision plats that have been accepted for review by the city prior to the call for public hearing to adopt the moratorium. Any preliminary subdivision plat accepted for review by the city prior to the call for public hearing, if subsequently approved, shall be allowed to proceed to final plat approval without being subject to the moratorium.
Any ordinance establishing a development moratorium must expressly include at the time of adoption each of the following:
(1) A clear statement of the problems or conditions necessitating the moratorium and what courses of action, alternative to a moratorium, were considered by the city and why those alternative courses of action were not deemed adequate.
(2) A clear statement of the development approvals subject to the moratorium and how a moratorium on those approvals will address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium.
(3) An express date for termination of the moratorium and a statement setting forth why that duration is reasonably necessary to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium.
(4) A clear statement of the actions, and the schedule for those actions, proposed to be taken by the city during the duration of the moratorium to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium.
No moratorium may be subsequently renewed or extended for any additional period unless the city shall have taken all reasonable and feasible steps proposed to be taken by the city in its ordinance establishing the moratorium to address the problems or conditions leading to imposition of the moratorium and unless new facts and conditions warrant an extension. Any ordinance renewing or extending a development moratorium must expressly include, at the time of adoption, the findings set forth in subdivisions (1) through (4) of this subsection, including what new facts or conditions warrant the extension.
Any person aggrieved by the imposition of a moratorium on development approvals required by law may apply to the appropriate division of the General Court of Justice for an order enjoining the enforcement of the moratorium, and the court shall have jurisdiction to issue that order. Actions brought pursuant to this section shall be set down for immediate hearing, and subsequent proceedings in those actions shall be accorded priority by the trial and appellate courts. In any such action, the city shall have the burden of showing compliance with the procedural requirements of this subsection.
Frank Tursi, assistant director
N.C. Coastal Federation
3609 Highway 24 (Ocean)
Newport, NC 28570
252-393-8185
252-241-3505 (cell)
Become a N.C. Coastal Federation Facebook Fan
PDF File of Document: Zoning & Moratorium – Frank Tursi letter
REMINDER: Clean County Presentation at Morehead City Town Council Meeting
- The Morehead City Town Council meets at 5:30 p.m. this Tuesday (August 9) at the Municipal Chambers, 202 S. 8th St., Morehead City.
One of the agenda items is a presentation on dry sulfur by the Clean County Coalition. The group continues to oppose any plans by PCS Phosphate/PotashCorp to handle and process dry sulfur at the Port of Morehead City.
The citizens’ group recently sent a letter to the Town Council asking for a review of the zoning ordinance pertaining to the Port-Industrial District. The Coalition believes that storage of dry sulfur at the Port should not be a “permitted use.”
The group advocates amending the ordinance to remove any permitted use that “would offend the community by excessive noise, odor, smoke, dust, airborne debris or any other objectionable characteristic, which might be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of surrounding neighborhoods and the community.”
Jerry Eborn, Chair of The Morehead City Port Committee, said that his organization is planning to attend Tuesday’s Town Council meeting to show its “support for the Morehead City Port, the jobs it has created and the economic impact it has provided to our area. We have a few people who are going to speak. We may have some T-shirts, also,” Eborn said.
State of North Carolina’s Recommendation on Boundaries For the 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
June 2, 2011
Governor Beverly Perdue
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide the State of North Carolina’s recommendation onboundaries for the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard(NAAQS). This package is in response to the promulgation of a revised primary 1-hour SO2standard by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on June 2, 2010. TheUSEPA has instructed the States to submit their recommendations for area designationboundaries by June 3, 2011. The USEPA will notify the states if they intend to modify thestates’ boundary recommendation no later than February, 2012. These notification letters fromthe USEPA will begin a 60-day period during which the States can provide additionalinformation to support their boundary recommendation. The final designations for the primary1-hour SO2 standard will be made by the USEPA by June 3, 2012 and will subsequently bepublished in the Federal Register and codified in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 CFR 81.
Full Document: NC_SO2_Boundary_Recommendation_Narrative_6-2-11
Revisions to the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Monitoring Network and Data Reporting Requirements for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
An EPA Publication, produced by:
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
June 2010
Overview
• On June 2, 2010 EPA strengthened the primary National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) toimprove public health protection
• Specifically, EPA replaced the existing annual and 24-hour primarySO2 standards with a new 1-hour SO2 standard set at 75 parts perbillion (ppb) to better protect public health by reducing people’sexposure to high short-term (5-minutes to 24 hours)concentrations of SO2
• This final standard is consistent with the recommendations of theClean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)• This final rule does not cover the secondary SO2 standard, whichEPA is reviewing separately as part of a joint review of the welfareeffects associated with deposition of SO2 and NO2 (to becompleted in 2012)
• EPA is revising the ambient air monitoring requirements forSO2. States must make necessary adjustments to theirmonitoring network to meet the new requirements by January 1,2013.
• EPA is also describing our planned hybrid approach forimplementing the new 1-hour SO2 standard. The approachwould rely on air dispersion modeling of SO2 sources andambient monitoring to determine compliance with the new standard.
• This final rule also changes the Air Quality Index to include therevised SO2 standard.
• For more information, http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/
Full Publication: epa sulfur 20100603presentation
Fact Sheet: epa sulfur rule
Includes the following sections of summary information:
- Summary of Action (Overview…shown above)
- SO2 and Public Health
- Revising the SO2 Monitoring Network
- Anticipated Approach To Implementing The New SO2 Standard
- Background
- For More Information
Tuesday, August 16 – MHC Planning Board
MHC Planning Board, Tuesday, August 16.
MHC C3 members will request zoning changes on port industrial locations and also request a moritorium on all future developments at the port until such time as new proposed zoning has been completed.
See attached letter to MHC and Press release. Again, public support for this initiative is important.
Tuesday, Aug. 9th at 5:30pm Morehead City Town Council Meeting – Clean County Coalition: Presentation on Dry Sulfur Pellets
MOREHEAD CITY TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
Clean County Coalition: Presentation on Dry Sulfur Pellets
Tuesday: August 9 – Regular Morehead City Town Board – Old police station (202 South 8th Street), 2nd floor 5:30pm
During PUBLIC COMMENT: C3 members from Morehead City will give 20 minute presentation on properties, hazards and explosive nature of dry sulfur pellets and dust.
Public is urged to attend to learn about dry sulfur and to support MHC residents in their efforts on proposed new zoning language.
Beverly Perdue’s Excecutive Order No. 99: Ports and Local Economy Compatibility
WHEREAS,…… (refer to Executive Order No. 99, with seal for the full executive order)
NOW, THEREFORE, by the power vested in me as Governor by the laws and Constitution of the State of North Carolina, IT IS ORDERED:
Section 1. The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall continue its study of the State’s maritime logistics. In coordination with the Governor’s Logistics Task Force and the North Carolina State Ports Authority, the Department’s study shall specifically identify activities at and uses of the Wilmington and Morehead City ports that are not incompatible with the underlying economic base and existing predominant economic sectors supported by the surrounding community.
Section 2. This Executive Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until rescinded.
Documents Galore on Sulfur Plant
These links are from the North Carolina Coastal Federation Website (www.nccoast.org):
Resolutions Opposing the Sulfur Facility
At present there have been resolutions written opposing the facility by: the Town of Morehead City, Beaufort, Atlantic Beach, Emerald Isle, Pine Knoll Shores, the Carteret County Commissioners, the Carteret County Economic Development Council, the Carteret County Chamber of Commerce, the Carteret County Association of Realtors, the Crystal Coast Tourism Development Authority and the Downtown Morehead City Revitalization Association.
