Mon/Fayette DEIS Comments
Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP) Comments
RE: Mon-Fayette Expressway, PA Route 51 to I-376
5/24/02 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation
Section 404 Permit Application
Table of Contents
I. Comments Relevant to the DEIS as a Whole
- Unreasonable restrictions on document availability and comment period duration.
- Failure to consider a no toll road alternative
- Failure to consider alternatives permitting the exercise of eminent domain over railroad property
- Failures to assess input data and/or to analyze those data in the scientifically most defensible way
II. Comments on Section 4.G. Air Quality
- Failure to quantitatively examine all criteria pollutants
- The DEIS assertions about ozone attainment are incorrect
- Present Allegheny County particulate concentrations, which the DEIS totally ignores, do not meet the federal standards
- Failure to specify what is meant by “worst case”
- Failure to state whether employed computer models have been calibrated and/or validated
- Modeling with overly optimistic assumptions
- Failure to use pertinent and reliable input data
- Failure to provide probable error estimates
- Failure to quantitatively examine hazardous pollutants associated with mobile source emissions
- Failure to update the regional air quality planning conformity analysis
- Failure to quantitatively examine the effects of the fugitive dust emissions during project construction
- Failure to consider the possibility that the project may require a permit under CAA Title V
Introduction
GASP came into existence nearly 35 years ago, with the mission, as stated in its Bylaws, “to obtain for the residents of southwestern Pennsylvania clean air, water and land in order to create the healthy, sustainable environment and quality of life to which we are entitled.” These Comments on the DEIS are presented in conformity with this mission. No significance should be attached to the order in which these Comments are presented; insofar as GASP is concerned Comments under the main heading II are just as important as those under the main heading I, and later Comments under each main heading are just as important as earlier Comments. Nor should any significance be attached to the fact that we have singled out Section 4.G. Air Quality for detailed commenting, but have not commented in detail on, e.g., Section 4.E.6 Wetlands, or Section 4.F. Noise; especially in view of the commenting impediments stemming from the limited comment period duration and the document availability restrictions (see Comment A below), GASP has decided that its modest resources would not permit the timely filing of carefully considered detailed comments–and GASP’s Comments are carefully considered–for more than one DEIS Section.
GASP emphasizes that the Comments herein are GASP’s only formally submitted Comments; as such they replace and supersede any oral or written testimony that previously may have been offered by GASP representatives at public hearings on the proposed Mon/Fayette Route 51 to I-376 Toll Road. GASP further emphasizes that these Comments do not address the pros and cons of constructing the proposed Toll Road, whose impact is the subject of the DEIS. Rather the sole purpose of these Comments is to elucidate the numerous ways in which GASP has found the DEIS fails to meet NEPA requirements. In GASP’s opinion these failures are so egregious (and GASP’s concentration on the single DEIS Section 4.G surely cannot have revealed all the DEIS failures!) that in its present form the DEIS does not even begin to provide decisionmakers and the public the needed “full and fair discussion” of the impact of the project. 40 CFR S1502.1.
GASP therefore formally recommends that, to meet NEPA requirements and as mandated by 40 CFR S 1502.9(c)(1), the present DEIS be succeeded not by a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) but by a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which in essence needs to be a complete revision of the present DEIS. Hopefully this SEIS will remedy the deficiencies of the present DEIS; equally hopefully the public will have a full opportunity to comment on the SEIS without the unfairly limited comment period and the unreasonable restrictions on the availability of underlying reports that have made responsible commenting on the present DEIS so difficult (again see Comment A below). GASP reserves the right to formally object should the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) and/or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reject this recommendation and issue an FEIS instead of an SEIS.
GASP closes this Introduction with the information that, after reviewing the DEIS as best GASP could in light of the DEIS’ deficiencies, GASP has concluded the project’s cons far outweigh its pros, for every one of the alternatives examined in DEIS Chapter 3. GASP therefore states on the record that, on the basis of the information presently available to it, GASP is opposed to the project and recommends the proposed Toll Road be disapproved. This opposition is not to be considered inflexible, however; GASP, in keeping with its history, will review the hoped-for SEIS with an open mind, seeking only to ascertain whether or not support for the project would be consistent with GASP’s mission.
(back to Table of Contents)
I. Comments Relevant to the DEIS as a Whole
A. Unreasonable restrictions on document availability and comment period duration. The NEPA regulations mandate that the “interested or affected” public be given a full opportunity to meaningfully comment on the DEIS. 40 CFR SS 1500.2(d) and 1503.1(a)(4). The NEPA regulations also recognize that reviewing an environmental impact statement for the purpose of filing comments can be an arduous process; thus the regulations assert that the text of such statements “shall normally be less than 150 pages and for proposals of unusual scope or complexity shall normally be less than 300 pages.” 40 CFR S 1502.7. The DEIS is fully 647 pages long. The crucial DEIS Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences comprises 473 pages on its own. Moreover the many voluminous “reports, Technical Support Data and associated project plans and information” on which the DEIS is based (the documents described on DEIS pp. PR-1 and PR-2, hereinafter simply the “underlying reports”) were made available to the public during office hours only, at the inconveniently located PTC New Stanton office only. In addition, one of the underlying reports, the very important “Determination of Effects Report”, had not been completed but merely was “in progress” when the DEIS was issued (DEIS p. PR-1).
On these just stated facts alone, the original limitation that comments must be submitted no later than 75 days after release of the DEIS cannot be said to have been in keeping with NEPA intents and requirements. In particular, as GASP and a number of other environmental organizations pointed out to the FHWA in a 6/12/02 letter (attached hereto and incorporated into these GASP Comments as Exhibit A), the aforementioned facts would foreclose many interested citizens from being able to adequately review the underlying reports before having to submit their comments. Nevertheless the FHWA, in a letter dated 6/14/02 (attached hereto and incorporated into these GASP Comments as Exhibit B) refused the 6/12/02 letter’s requests that: (i) the underlying documents be made more readily available, e.g., at more locations than merely New Stanton, and in evening hours as well as during PTC office hours; and (ii) the deadline for submitting comments be extended to a date that would permit adequate review of the DEIS.
On or about 7/1/02, however, the FHWA did extend the original comment deadline another 25 days, to 9/9/02, but did not accede to any of the other requests made in Exhibit A. Thereafter GASP again wrote the FHWA on 7/5/02, thanking the FHWA for this deadline extension, but urging nonetheless that the refusals in the 6/14/02 letter be reconsidered. This 7/5/02 letter (attached hereto and incorporated into these GASP Comments as Exhibit C) pointed out that as of 7/5/02 GASP, a small Pittsburgh-based environmental organization which has to rely on volunteers having other commitments, had been unable to find a representative in a position to review the underlying documents in New Stanton during PTC regular office hours. Exhibit C also pointed out that GASP had ascertained the University of Pittsburgh Hillman Library, which even during the summer is open at night and on weekends, was willing to accept the underlying documents and make them available to the general public. Evidently being able to review the documents at Hillman Library would greatly alleviate the reviewing difficulties being encountered by GASP and other Allegheny County residents (the Pennsylvania residents who would be most affected by the proposed project).
Exhibit C, while renewing the requests made in Exhibit A, therefore requested that at the very least: (i) arrangements be made forthwith to send the Hillman library a set of the underlying documents; and (ii) the comment deadline be again extended, to the date 75 days after Hillman receives the underlying documents and is able to make them available for public review. These very reasonable minimal requests were refused by the FHWA in a brief letter dated 7/11/02 (attached hereto and incorporated into these GASP Comments as Exhibit D). Exhibit D did agree to extend, to an undefined extent beyond regular office hours, the document reviewing hours at New Stanton; neither Exhibit D nor any subsequent FHWA letter or action has extended the comment deadline beyond the 9/9/02 date set on or about 7/1/02.
On 8/16/02 GASP finally was able to perform its one and only review of the underlying documents, courtesy of a GASP Board member who agreed to take a day off from work to visit New Stanton during the hours 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM (PTC working hours ended at 3:30 PM, but a PTC employee who would stay past 3:30 PM was found). Although this GASP representative was knowledgeable, the review inevitably was inefficient and superficial, for the following reasons: (a) The underlying documents were contained in as many as 30 file boxes or so, and were not usefully indexed (as they would have been at the Hillman Library) although the file boxes were labeled by the pertinent DEIS Chapter subheadings. (b) No PTC employees were available to help locate documents (in contrast to Hillman Library, where helpful librarians would have been available). (c) It was not possible to make immediate copies of more interesting documents (again in contrast to Hillman Library); at New Stanton it only was possible to order photocopies for future delivery.
GASP maintains that the preceding paragraphs of this Comment unquestionably demonstrate that the PTC and FHWA deliberately imposed unreasonable restrictions on document availability and comment period duration, restrictions which have denied the entire “interested or affected” public, including GASP, their NEPA-mandated full opportunity to meaningfully comment on the DEIS. The most obvious remedy for this failure to meet NEPA requirements is to reopen the call for comments, with document availability and comment period duration sufficiently improved (as compared to the availability and duration this Comment has discussed) that the public’s opportunity to submit meaningful comments surely will meet the NEPA standard.
As explained in the Introduction, however, GASP does not recommend this just stated remedy. Because even the limited opportunity the public has had for submitting meaningful comments already has revealed so many deficiencies in the DEIS, GASP believes it would be preferable and more in keeping with NEPA’s intent to: (i) first fully revise the present DEIS in accordance with the already submitted comments; and then (ii) reissue the revised DEIS as an SEIS, with the same full opportunity to comment on the SEIS as should have been given to the present DEIS. GASP therefore so recommends. GASP herewith states its firm belief that under the facts this Comment has recounted, issuance of an FEIS rather than an SEIS would violate NEPA’s intent and requirements.
(back to Table of Contents)
B. Failure to consider a no toll road alternative. On p. ES-6 the DEIS states: “In 1985 the Pennsylvania General Assembly assigned the planning of a new highway in the Mon/Fayette study area to the PTC due to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PENNDOT) limited funding for capital improvement projects throughout Pennsylvania (Act 61-Turnpike Organization, Extension and Toll Road Conversion Act). Since Act 61 assigned the development of this highway to the PTC, which can only legally build toll facilities, the proposed PA Route 51 to I-376 Project is being developed as a limited-access tolled highway.”
This revealing quotation evidences that the DEIS has not given any consideration whatsoever to the perfectly reasonable possibility that the proposed Mon/Fayette project, if really worth constructing and whatever its route, may better serve the public interest and/or the environment as a freely accessed highway than as a toll road. GASP maintains that this deficiency alone (never mind all the other DEIS deficiencies discussed in these Comments) has deprived the decisionmakers and the public of the “full and fair discussion” of the project’s impact that NEPA requires. 40 CFR S 1502.1. The mere bureaucratic impediment that the Pennsylvania Legislature has assigned the planning of the project to the PTC “which can only legally build toll facilities” does not excuse the DEIS failure to consider the pros and cons of a no toll alternative to the so-called “North Shore Alternative” the DEIS favors and recommends constructing (p. ES-15).
In short, if the public and/or the environment will be better served by a no toll highway then, especially in view of the enormous estimated cost of the DEIS recommended alternative in public funds ($1.886 billion, see DEIS p. 5-3), the DEIS very likely should have recommended a no toll highway; it then would be up to the Pennsylvania Legislature to find a way to build the recommended (after full consideration of all alternatives, both toll and no toll) no toll highway, whether by amending the present legislative restrictions on the projects the PTC can undertake or by other means. The DEIS must be revised so as to include a careful evaluation of the pros and cons of a no toll alternative, which evaluation of course will have to include traffic volumes and patterns pertinent to a no toll rather than a toll highway. Whether or not such a revised DEIS chooses to recommend a no toll alternative, under NEPA the decisionmakers and the public are entitled, indeed required, to have a full evaluation of that alternative.
Before closing this Comment, GASP remarks for the record that the Legislature’s assignment to the PTC of “the planning of a new highway” (language from p. ES-6 quoted above), rather than “the examination of whether a new highway should be constructed”, suggests violations of NEPA precepts that alternatives must not be prejudged and that the DEIS must not be employed as a means to justify decisions already made. 40 CFR S 1502.2. In a sense GASP is asking whether decisionmakers and the public can be confident in the conclusions of this PTC-prepared DEIS when the legislative delegation of power to the PTC limits the PTC to building specific highway projects. GASP will not further pursue this suggested deficiency of the DEIS at this time, however, but reserves the right to do so in the future, especially if the recommended SEIS appears to support the validity of the suggestion.
(back to Table of Contents)
C. Failure to consider alternatives permitting the exercise of eminent domain over railroad property. On pp. ES-11 to ES-13 the DEIS explains that a factor in the PTC decision to favor the North Shore Alternative was: “the PTC is not permitted to exercise its power of eminent domain over railroad property.” Because of this prohibition, the DEIS does not furnish the decisionmakers and the public any comparison of the North Shore and South Shore alternatives under the additional alternative that exercise of eminent domain over railroad property would have been permissible.
Much as in Comment B above, this mere bureaucratic impediment that the PTC can’t exercise eminent domain over railroad property has deprived the decisionmakers and the public of the “full and fair discussion” of the project’s impact that NEPA requires. The DEIS must be revised so as to include a careful comparison of all alternatives considered, not merely the North and South Shore Alternatives, under the additional alternative that exercise of eminent domain over railroad property would have been permissible. If the public and/or the environment would be better served by an alternative that exercises eminent domain over railroad property than by any alternative that does not employ such eminent domain powers, then–again especially in view of the enormous estimated cost of the DEIS recommended North Shore Alternative in public funds–the DEIS very likely should have recommended this eminent domain exercising alternative; it then would be up to the Pennsylvania Legislature to find a way to build the recommended (after full consideration of all alternatives, both those exercising eminent domain over railroad property and those that do not) eminent domain employing alternative, whether by modifying the present legal restrictions on the PTC’s eminent domain powers or by other means.
(back to Table of Contents)
D. Failures to assess input data and/or to analyze those data in the scientifically most defensible way. GASP’s Comments under main heading II below reveal serious deficiencies in the data assessment and data analysis procedures the DEIS has employed in reaching its conclusions concerning the air quality impacts of the project (see pp. 4-399 to 4-401). During its review of the entire DEIS, before deciding to confine its detailed comments to a single Section, namely Section 4.G. Air Quality, GASP noted that many other DEIS Sections appeared to suffer from the same deficiencies. These deficiencies, and the below Comments which discuss them in the Air Quality context, include:
(a) Failure to furnish estimates (e.g., standard deviations)–along with explanations of how those estimates were obtained–of the probable errors associated with numerical averages on which the DEIS has relied. See Comment 8.
(b) Failure to carefully specify what is meant by “worst case” circumstances, when the DEIS claims to have made predictions for such circumstances. See Comment 4.
(c) Failure to state whether the computer models the DEIS employed to arrive at its predictions were calibrated and/or validated, and if so whether they were calibrated and/or validated for the specific traffic, weather and terrain conditions that are pertinent to those DEIS predictions. See Comment 5.
(d) Modeling with unrealistically optimistic assumptions and/or failure to make sure that the modeling predictions include “worst case” assumptions. See Comment 6.
(e) Failure to make any assessments of the reliability and pertinence of the input data on which the DEIS modeling predictions are based. See Comment 7.
Because GASP admittedly has not reviewed other Sections of the DEIS as carefully as it has reviewed the Air Quality Section 4.G, GASP refrains from explicitly designating herein those other DEIS Sections which GASP believes may suffer from one or more deficiencies of the above-listed types (a)-(e). GASP does assert, without qualification, that any Section of the DEIS which manifests any of the above-listed deficiencies fails to provide decisionmakers and the public the “full and fair discussion” of the impact of the project that NEPA requires. GASP further recommends, therefore, that–before preparing the SEIS GASP is recommending–those preparers carefully review all DEIS Sections for the presence of such deficiencies. Unless those deficiencies are corrected when the DEIS is revised and re-issued as a SEIS, the SEIS (like its DEIS predecessor) will fail to meet NEPA requirements.
(back to Table of Contents)
II. Section 4.G. Air Quality (pp. 4-399 to 4-401)
1. Failure to quantitatively examine all criteria pollutants. The entire DEIS discussion of the possible air quality impacts of the project is confined to these just cited three pages. In accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. SS7401ff, the EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), necessary to protect the public health and welfare, for six so-called criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulates and sulfur oxides. Yet the DEIS quantitatively examines the effect of the project on the concentrations of only one of these six criteria pollutants, namely CO.
The DEIS seemingly attempts to justify its failure to examine the possible effect of the project on ozone concentrations with the bald assertion that “the greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area. . . is designated as an attainment area for ozone”. As is elaborated in Comment 2 immediately below, however, this DEIS assertion about ozone pertains to the so-called one hour ozone standard only, and wholly overlooks the existence of an eight hour ozone standard which is violated in the greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area. The DEIS makes no mention whatsoever of the existence of NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide, particulates, lead and sulfur oxides.
On the basis of these just recounted facts alone, the DEIS does not provide decisionmakers and the public the “full and fair discussion” of the impact of the project on air quality that NEPA requires. 40 CFR S1502.1. To be acceptable, the DEIS must be revised (see 40 CFR S1502.9) so as to adequately describe the anticipated effects of the project on the concentrations of each of the six criteria pollutants.
(back to Table of Contents)
2. The DEIS assertions about ozone attainment are incorrect. The DEIS deficiencies described in the preceding Comment 1 are especially egregious in that the greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area actually is not unqualifiedly “in attainment” for ozone; in so stating the DEIS is both misleading and fatally incomplete. There are two ozone standards, a one hour standard and an eight hour standard. The greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area is in attainment for the one hour standard, but just barely so; indeed in 2001 the one hour ozone concentrations at two Allegheny County monitors equaled (though they did not exceed) the allowed maximum concentration of 0.12 parts per million (ppm).1 On the other hand the Allegheny County ozone concentrations do not meet, and indeed never have met, the 8 hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm.2 Although the EPA has not yet begun to enforce the 8 hour ozone standard, there can be little doubt the EPA will do so before the project is completed.
Moreover, as the CAA regulations explicitly recognize [40 CFR Parts 79-80] and the preparers of the DEIS should have known, motor vehicles are important contributors to ozone concentrations, via emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and hydrocarbons. To be acceptable, the DEIS must be revised so as to: (i) quantitatively estimate the expected increments in ozone levels attributable to the increased vehicle traffic the project will bring into the Pittsburgh area; and then (ii) compare the resultant estimated total ozone concentrations with the ozone NAAQS, for both the eight hour and the one hour standards. Furthermore NEPA requires estimates, not only of the direct impacts of project-induced ozone on the population in the greater Pittsburgh area, but also of the indirect effects of this ozone. 40 CFR S1508.8(b). Thus, since Allegheny County is part of the Northeast Ozone Transport Region set up by Congress under the CAA [42 U.S.C. S7511c], the revised DEIS also must estimate the impacts of the project-induced ozone level increments on downwind ozone attainment, for both the one hour and the eight hour standards.
(back to Table of Contents)
3. Present Allegheny County particulate concentrations, which the DEIS totally ignores, do not meet the federal standards. The DEIS deficiencies described in Comment 1 above also are egregious in that—once again as the preparers of the DEIS should have known—the greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area is not in attainment for particulates. There are two separate sets of standards: (i) for particulates having an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less, usually termed PM10 particulates; and (ii) for particulates having an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less, known as PM2.5 particulates. Allegheny County does meet the standards for PM10 particulates, although with rather little leeway at a number of monitoring sites3; but, although the data still are scarce, Allegheny County apparently fails to meet the PM2.5 standard by a wide margin4.
Not only are these facts about present Allegheny County particulate concentrations not mentioned in the DEIS, but the DEIS additionally fails to point out that the recommended North Shore Alternative will run only 1300 feet or so from an area in the City of Clairton (part of Allegheny County) wherein is located a coke plant which is an enormous source of particulates.5 Motor vehicle emissions of NOX and hydrocarbons are known to contribute to PM2.5 concentrations via subsequent chemical reactions; motor traffic contributes to PM10 concentrations via road and tire abrasion, as well as by resuspending dust; diesel trucks, which GASP understands the project hopes to attract, are visually obvious sources of particulates.6 To be acceptable, therefore, the DEIS must be revised so as to quantitatively estimate, and then to compare with the NAAQS for both PM10 and PM2.5, the expected total particulate concentrations in the greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area when project traffic is taken into account. Because of the coke plant, moreover, the estimates which are the subject of this comment evidently should especially carefully focus on the particulate levels at residences immediately downwind of the plant.
(back to Table of Contents)
4. Failure to specify what is meant by “worst case”. As pointed out in Comment 1 above, the DEIS has made quantitative predictions of air pollutant concentrations for only one pollutant, the criteria pollutant CO. These predictions are contained in Table 4-G-1. The DEIS states that Table 4-G-1 provides a summary of “worst case” one-hour CO concentrations. GASP applauds the fact that Table 4-G-1 presents worst case predictions, because having predictions about worst case (not merely average) pollutant concentrations is essential for intelligent evaluation of the validity of the DEIS conclusion, based on Table 4-G-1, that the project will not cause violations of the CO NAAQS.
Unfortunately the DEIS does not give the reader the slightest clue as to how “worst case” is defined for Table 4-G-1. For example, the DEIS does not even state whether “worst case” is defined in terms of traffic levels only, or whether the definition also includes weather conditions which often (as, e.g., in the cases of ozone and particulates, recall Comments 2 and 3 above) greatly affect observed pollutant concentrations. Nor does the DEIS state how often its “worst case” conditions may be expected to occur. Evidently information about what is meant by “worst case”, and how often a “worst case” may be expected to occur, is especially needed for intelligent evaluation of pollutant predictions when, as in the cases of the ozone and particulate concentrations discussed in Comments 2 and 3 above, some NAAQS standards already are exceeded while others are just barely met.
Accordingly when the preparers revise the present DEIS to meet the deficiency pointed out in Comment 1, as they must if they want the DEIS to be acceptable under NEPA, their predicted criteria pollutant concentrations should pertain to worst case as well as average conditions–with “worst case” carefully defined and the expected “worst case” frequencies specified–for all six of the criteria pollutants. Otherwise the revised DEIS still will not meet the requirements NEPA imposes.
(back to Table of Contents)
5. Failure to state whether employed computer models have been calibrated and/or validated. Comment 1 and other preceding Comments have explained that to be acceptable the DEIS must be revised so as to adequately describe the anticipated effects of the project on the concentrations of each of the six criteria pollutants. The quantitative estimates of criteria pollutant concentrations that the revised DEIS must provide inevitably will be based on computer models. For example, the predicted CO concentrations listed in Table 4-G-1 are based on the MOBILE5A and CAL3QHC computer models (p. 4-399).
GASP applauds the DEIS for specifying the computer models employed in constructing Table 4-G-1. Unfortunately merely naming the computer models the DEIS employed conveys almost no useful information to the non-specialist decisionmakers and public who are attempting to evaluate the DEIS assessments of the project’s impacts. Thus the revised DEIS should be careful to not merely identify each of the computer models it has employed, but—for each such model–to also: (i) state whether or not the model has received EPA approval; (ii) even if EPA-approved, state explicitly whether or not the model has been calibrated (model results tested against known past observations) and/or validated (model predictions tested against observations made after the predictions were computed); (iii) furnish some quantitative indication of how well the model performed in those calibration and validation tests; (iv) explain whether those calibration and/or validation tests were performed for the specific traffic, weather and terrain conditions that the revised DEIS has postulated; and (v) if the model has been approved by EPA, state whether it has been approved for use under the above underlined conditions. The DEIS also should explain whether EPA had been consulted in the choice of the models used and/or otherwise had provided guidance in determining the appropriate models.
GASP maintains that–especially because the predictions of unvalidated computer models are of highly doubtful utility, and the predictions of uncalibrated models are of zero utility7–failure of the revised DEIS to provide all the information called for in the preceding paragraph would equate to failure of the revised DEIS to furnish decisionmakers and the public the “full and fair discussion” of the impact of the project on air quality that NEPA requires, even if the revised DEIS seemingly meets all the precepts enunciated in the preceding Comments 1 to 4. In this connection it is noteworthy that: (i) much of the greater Pittsburgh terrain is unusual (containing, e.g., sharp cliffs rising abruptly from river fronts); and (ii) the recommended North Shore Alternative will run through precisely the sort of terrain as has just been described. Consequently having the calibration and validation information called for in the preceding paragraph will be especially urgent for evaluations of the ozone and particulate predictions discussed in Comments 2 and 3 above, for reasons explained in those Comments.
(back to Table of Contents)
6. Modeling with overly optimistic assumptions. The DEIS indicates that the behavior of some of the predicted CO concentrations listed in Table 4-G-1 “may be attributed to the fact that while volumes are expected to increase, emission rates are expected to decrease with the production of cleaner cars, and also cleaner fuels” (p. 4-400). This expectation that cars and fuels will be “cleaner” in the future is nothing more than an assumption, and certainly not a “worst case” assumption. The use of this assumption illustrates the pertinence of GASP’s insistence, in Comment 4 above, that the DEIS interpretation of “worst case” scenarios must be carefully defined. The DEIS is obviously deficient in: (i) not specifying precisely what “cleaner” emission rates during which years were employed in the computer models which yielded Table 4-G-1; and (ii) not explaining why it is reasonable to believe that those emission rates will be achieved in the years the DEIS postulates. If the revised DEIS chooses to retain this “cleaner” assumption, then it also must provide the information called for in items (i) and (ii) immediately above.
Whether or not this “cleaner” assumption is retained, however, the revised DEIS predictions called for in earlier Comments must include predictions computed on the alternative assumption that cars and fuels will be no “cleaner” in the future than at present, and should even include predictions computed on the assumption that cars and fuels will be somewhat (though not improbably so) “dirtier” than at present. Otherwise the revised DEIS, even if it comports with the precepts enunciated in Comments 1 to 5 above, still will fail to provide decisionmakers and the public the “full and fair discussion” of the project’s impact on air quality that NEPA requires. Of course the revised DEIS is entitled to explain, and indeed should explain, why its preparers do or do not believe that future vehicles traversing the projected highway are likely to have the specific emission rates employed under the various alternative assumptions discussed in this paragraph.
(back to Table of Contents)
7. Failure to use pertinent and reliable input data. The outputs of computer models are based on input data. Thus no matter how well calibrated and validated may be the computer models whose predictions the DEIS presents, those predictions will be no more accurate and pertinent to the effect being modeled than are the input data employed. In short, the revised DEIS quantitative estimates called for in Comment 1 and other preceding Comments must be based not only on calibrated and validated models, but also on input data that are sufficiently pertinent and reliable to warrant whatever conclusions the revised DEIS seeks to draw from those estimates.
Comment 6 above can be regarded as a criticism of the DEIS for failing to offer any reasons to believe that its “cleaner” emission assumption, however specified, could be relied on. Even leaving aside the reliability of this “cleaner” emission assumption, however, it is unclear whether the immediately preceding paragraph’s important criterion–namely that the input data must be sufficiently pertinent and reliable to warrant the conclusions drawn—can be said to be satisfied for the CO concentrations reproduced in Table 4-G-1, which start from baseline CO concentrations measured as long ago as 1997 at monitoring stations which are at least “four miles from the project area” (p. 4-399). Certainly the preparers of the DEIS have not even attempted to convincingly argue that, despite these input data weaknesses, Table 4-G-1 does demonstrate the project will not cause exceedances of the CO NAAQS at locations close to the highway in the year 2030 (see p. 4-399), a date more than 30 years after the 1997 year when the data on which Table 4-G-1 is based were obtained.
Accordingly GASP maintains that–for each of the six criteria pollutants–the revised DEIS must convincingly explain why its input data are sufficiently reliable and pertinent to warrant use in computer models projecting far into the future. Failing such convincing explanations the concentration predictions called for in Comment 1 will not be sufficiently reliable and pertinent to furnish decisionmakers and the public the “full and fair discussion” of the project’s impact on air quality that NEPA requires, even if the revised DEIS seemingly meets all the precepts enunciated in the preceding Comments 1 to 6. For reasons thoroughly discussed in those preceding Comments, the criterion that the revised DEIS predictions must be based on sufficiently reliable and pertinent input data will be especially important for intelligent evaluation of the predicted ozone and particulate concentrations at times after the project has been constructed.
(back to Table of Contents)
8. Failure to provide probable error estimates. As pointed out in Comment 1 above, the DEIS has made quantitative predictions of air pollutant concentrations for only one pollutant, the criteria pollutant CO. These predictions are contained in Table 4-G-1. Unfortunately the DEIS provides no information whatsoever (e.g., standard deviations) from which decisionmakers and the public could estimate the likelihood that any given predicted CO concentration listed in Table 4-G-1 will be significantly exceeded in actuality. Estimates of such likelihoods are essential for intelligent evaluation of the validity of the DEIS conclusion, based on Table 4-G-1, that the project will not cause violations of the CO NAAQS.
In short, irrespective of having failed to quantitatively examine the effect of the project on the five non-CO criteria pollutants, the DEIS failure to furnish estimates of the probable errors in its predicted CO concentrations constitutes a failure to provide decisionmakers and the public with the “full and fair” discussion of the impact of the project on air pollutant concentrations that NEPA requires.8 When the preparers revise the present DEIS to meet the deficiencies pointed out in Comment 1 and other preceding Comments, as they must if they want the DEIS to be acceptable under NEPA, their predicted concentrations of the six criteria pollutants should be accompanied by estimates of the probable errors of each and every one of those predictions.
Moreover those probable error estimates should be accompanied by explanations of how they were obtained; to be acceptable those explanations should involve, but should not be limited to, examinations of the expected error contributions stemming from computer model inadequacies and input data uncertainties (recall Comments 5-7 above). Without such explanations, decisionmakers and the public will have no way to ascertain whether the probable error estimates called for in the preceding paragraph have a rational basis. Without such explanations, therefore, the revised DEIS–even if it does furnish the probable error estimates called for–still will not meet the requirements NEPA imposes.
GASP hardly needs to emphasize that probable error estimates surely are urgently required by decisionmakers and the public when, as in the cases of the ozone and particulate concentrations discussed in Comments 2 and 3 above, some NAAQS standards already are exceeded while others are just barely met.
(back to Table of Contents)
9. Failure to quantitatively examine hazardous pollutants associated with mobile source emissions. The CAA regulates not only the priority pollutants, but also approximately two hundred other hazardous air pollutants which may cause serious health effects, the so-called NESHAPS. 42 U.S.C. S7412(b). Cars and trucks are known to emit a number of chemicals on the NESHAPS list, including, e.g., benzene, formaldehyde and 1,3 butadiene). 42 U.S.C. S7521(l)(1). Moreover several recent studies have concluded that cancer incidence is correlated with exposure to highway emissions.9 Yet the DEIS does not even mention the possibility that emissions of toxic organic fumes from vehicles traveling the proposed expressway may affect the health of residents in its vicinity.
Therefore by failing to quantitatively examine the NESHAPS pollutants associated with mobile source emissions, the DEIS–on this basis alone and irrespective of the other deficiencies discussed in Comments 1 to 8 above–has not furnished decisionmakers and the public the “full and fair discussion” of the impact of the project on air quality that NEPA requires. To meet NEPA requirements the DEIS–in addition to the revisions called for in preceding comments–must be revised so as to carefully assess the health risks which NESHAPS emissions from project traffic will impose on residents of the greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area.
(back to Table of Contents)
10. Failure to update the regional air quality planning conformity analysis. The DEIS asserts that it is in conformity with CAA regional air quality planning requirements. This assertion is based on the project’s alleged inclusion in the “Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission’s (SPC) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRP)”, which was adopted in August 2000 (DEIS p. 4-401). Unfortunately this document is out of date. The DEIS should have referred to the latest SPC conformity determination report10 dated June 2002, only a few days after the date (5/24/02) on the DEIS. Because of this close temporal coincidence, it is evident that the data on which the SPC has based its 6/02 conformity determination must also have been available to the preparers of the DEIS.
Even ignoring this failure of the DEIS to refer to the most recent SPC conformity determination, the DEIS apparently is deficient in that the DEIS text on p. 4-401 suggests that the SPC’s 8/00 LRP did not take into account the latest NAAQS for ozone and particulates–in particular the eight hour ozone standard and the PM2.5 standard, which as explained in Comments 2 and 3 are not met in the greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area. GASP is forced to base this Comment on the aforesaid “suggestion” because it has not been able to review the LRP and the DEIS does not state precisely what NAAQS the LRP took into account. It is a fact, however, that the aforementioned SPC 6/02 report also ignores the eight hour ozone standard and the PM2.5 standard.
If GASP’s surmise that the LRP did not take into account the latest NAAQS is correct, then the DEIS must be revised accordingly, since the DEIS reliance on the LRP obviously was mistaken. Moreover, unless an SPC conformity determination which does take into account the 8 hour ozone and PM2.5 standards is available when revision of the DEIS is undertaken, the revised DEIS will have to discuss its conformity or lack of conformity with the SIP without reference to any conformity determinations by the SPC. In this connection GASP further notes that the present DEIS’s uncritical reliance on the LRP in effect has incorporated the LRP into the DEIS by reference, although the DEIS does not make any explicit assertion to that effect. The LRP is not included in the DEIS Appendix D, Index of Technical Support Data. GASP maintains that this lack of inclusion is a violation of 40 CFR S1502.21; if the revised DEIS does rely on a (hopefully consistent with the latest NAAQS) SPC conformity determination, then the revised DEIS must include the SPC document describing this conformity determination in its Index of Technical Support Data.
(back to Table of Contents)
11. Failure to quantitatively examine the effects of the fugitive dust emissions during project construction. The DEIS recognizes that construction of the project will fill the air in the construction vicinity with enormous quantities of so-called fugitive dust. Nevertheless all the DEIS says about fugitive dust is “During construction, fugitive dust emissions will be controlled according to 25 Pa. Code S123.1″ But S123.1 does not impose any limits on the fugitive dust emissions the project construction will engender. Such limits are imposed by S123.2 (fugitive emissions must be invisible once they pass beyond the property limits of the generating source) and S123.41 (the emissions must meet certain “opacity” restrictions).
It is far from obvious that the project emissions can be controlled sufficiently to meet the requirements of S123.2 and S123.41 without the expenditure of very large sums, which sums the DEIS should have estimated as relevant to the full and fair discussion of the project’s impacts that NEPA requires. But even if the requirements of those Pa. Code sections can be met without inordinate expenditures, the DEIS should have assessed the impacts of those dust emissions, on the PM10 and PM2.5 particulate concentrations in the greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area as well as on the health and comfort of residents in the construction vicinity. There can be little doubt that fugitive dust contains particulates of sizes less than 10 micrometers; there is no acceptable reason for the DEIS to totally ignore the dirt, physical discomfort and possible breathing difficulties which the residents in the vicinity will have to endure during construction.
GASP maintains, therefore, that–irrespective of all the other revisions urged in previous Comments–to meet NEPA requirements the DEIS must be revised to quantitatively assess the impacts of the project’s dust emissions on particulate concentrations as well as on the health and comfort of residents in the construction vicinity.
(back to Table of Contents)
12. Failure to consider the possibility that the project may require a permit under CAA Title V. GASP raises the possibility that the project should be considered to be a major source under CAA Title V, and therefore required to obtain a so-called Title V permit. 42 U.S.C. S7661. The DEIS has not at all considered this possibility. GASP maintains that the preparers of the DEIS should consider this possibility in their revised DEIS, or else explain convincingly why the possibility need not be considered.
(back to Table of Contents)