COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT3 - - -4 Room 400, City Hall5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, April 30, 20096 1:40 p.m. 7 - - - 8 9 PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, CHAIR10 COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR.11 COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN12 COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO 13 BILL 090258 - An ordinance amending Sections14 3-306 and 3-401 of Title 3 ("Air Management Code") of The Philadelphia Code, to eliminate15 dual licensing and permitting requirements on air contaminant emitting facilities...16 17 18 19 20 - - -21 22 V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services23 Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 60024 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.267025 2 1
Good2 afternoon. The Committee on the3 Environment is now in session to hear4 testimony on Bill No. 090258.5 We have a quorum.6 Bill No. 090258 is an ordinance7 amending Section 3-306 and 3-401 of Title8 3 ("Air Management Code") of The9 Philadelphia Code to eliminate dual10 licensing and permitting requirements on11 air contaminant emitting facilities, and12 to clarify air pollution control13 standards, all under certain terms and14 conditions.15 Whoever is here from the16 Administration to testify, please17 approach the witness stand.18 (Witnesses approached witness19 table.)20
Please21 identify yourself for the record. Please22 pull the microphone close to you so we23 can hear, and proceed with your24 testimony.25 3 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581
Good afternoon. My2 name is Thomas Huynh.3 Chairman Kenney and members of4 the Committee of the Environment, my name5 is Thomas Huynh. I'm an Air Management6 Service Director of the Department of7 Public Health. Thank you for inviting me8 to testify on Bill --9
20 Air Management Services is the21 agency of the City with the regulatory22 responsibility to enforce federal, state23 and local air quality standards in24 entities that emit air pollutants in25 4 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 Philadelphia. 17 In 1995, Section 3-400 was adopted, which18 recognized and authorized adoption of the19 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania operating20 air permit program, often referred to as21 the Title V program. The Title V program22 is effectively required by the federal23 Clean Air Act. Before 1995, AMS issued24 air pollution permit and licenses for25 5 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 each individual piece of equipment at2 regulated facilities. As a result of the3 federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990,4 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania5 substantially amended its own Air6 Pollution Control Act to meet the federal7 requirements. 12 The Plan Approval and Operating13 Permit provisions apply to larger sources14 of air pollution and may allow applicants15 to combine several pieces of equipment16 into one Plan Approval and one Operating17 Permit instead of requiring several18 installation permits and operating19 licenses for each piece of equipment. It20 also includes a higher permit fee21 structure that is applicable throughout22 the state. 7 Under the proposed amendment,8 in cases where both Section 3-306 and9 3-400 apply, AMS will perform one plan10 approval or permit review and issue one11 comprehensive Plan Approval or permit12 pursuant to Section 3-400. Likewise,13 under this amendment, the fee under the14 more comprehensive state compliant15 Section 3-400 will apply. In short, this16 amendment will eliminate the redundant17 requirements of Section 3-306 and 3-400,18 eliminating unnecessary administrative19 burdens without impacting environmental20 objectives. 25 7 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 The second part of the Air2 Management Code which the Department3 seeks to amend is Section 3-401. The4 original language in Section 3-401 of the5 Code states its intent in Section6 3-401(1) to set an air pollution control7 program that is no less stringent and no8 more stringent than the requirements of9 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Air10 Pollution Control Act. 4 However, the language, as5 written, has created some confusion and6 misunderstanding by those entities7 regulated by this section. 18 I wish to thank the members of19 the Committee for your consideration for20 this matter. 22
Thank you23 very much.24 Sir, do you have anything to25 9 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 add?2
No, sir. I'm3 just here to help answer questions if you4 need them. My name is Patrick O'Neill5 and I'm the Divisional Deputy for6 Environmental Law for the Law Department.7
Fine.8 Any questions for these9 witnesses?10 (No response.)11
Seeing12 none, thank you very much for your13 testimony.14
Anyone else16 to testify on this bill?17 Please come forward.18 (Witness approached witness19 table.)20
Good afternoon,23 Chairman Kenney. My name is Michael24 Keough. I am the Treasurer for AFSCME25 10 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 Local 394. I'm here today with Warner2 Topping, our Vice-President.3
AFSCME Local 3946 is against the separation of Synagro,7 Philadelphia Biosolids Services,8 Philadelphia Renewable Biofuels or any9 other entity that they may be known as10 from the Water Department's Southwest11 Water Pollution Control Plant Title V12 permit. While we understand this is a13 contractual obligation, we feel this gave14 Synagro an unfair advantage over the old15 BRC, which has recently been given to16 them to operate.17 Local 394 gave testimony in18 November 2006 and again in June 200819 about the pollution issues regarding this20 and other similar plants throughout the21 United States. We feel this contract is22 a disservice to the community of Eastwick23 and the taxpayers of Philadelphia.24 I would like to leave you with25 11 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 a few questions to ponder.2 Who is Philadelphia Renewable3 Biofuels and why are they applying for4 this permit, not PBS, which is5 Philadelphia Biosolids Services?6 The new engineering firm, King7 Engineering, has built one 30-ton-per-day8 pelletizer. What facility was used as a9 baseline for this PBS operations10 emissions?11 Why are the emissions from the12 proposed facilities much less than13 Synagro's own pollution data used in14 their proposal to the City?15 If Synagro is a national leader16 in the operation of these plants, why17 didn't they have a handle on these18 emission numbers?19 And my last statement, all the20 plants promoted by Synagro during their21 lobbying efforts here in Council -22 Pinellas, Florida; Baltimore, Maryland;23 Sacramento, California; Honolulu,24 Hawaii - the total product throughput25 12 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 from all these plants combined is only 602 percent the capacity of the Philadelphia3 PBS plant. And last, but not least, the4 State of New York is actively trying to5 close the only facility on a par with6 this facility. Why?7 Thank you for your time and8 have a good day.9
Thank you10 very much. I appreciate your testimony,11 and I am aware of the union's position12 relative to Synagro. What I'm confused13 about is how this bill seems, to me14 anyway from the testimony, to be kind of15 meshing the state and city requirements16 together to kind of streamline it in a17 generic way, not specifically for Synagro18 or for anyone else you may be opposed to19 in the future. I assume that they would20 be separate votes that Council would have21 to take to do that, but this -- are you22 opposed to the bill or --23
We're opposed to24 the separation of the two facilities,25 13 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 which is the bill, correct.2
I3 understand your opposition to Synagro and4 I respect your position on it. I'm just5 wondering how this bill -- this bill6 seems to be more generically applied to7 any other organization that wants to come8 in and/or start a business here, and it9 streamlines the administrative part of10 it. How does that help your situation11 relative to Synagro?12
I understand that13 the bill is to streamline the law to14 allow this to happen. You are correct,15 we are looking at this at one tiny16 faction. If this bill is passed -- how17 can I put this without -- if this bill is18 passed, one of the first things that will19 be done is this facility, and we have a20 problem with that.21
But we22 still have to vote on this facility,23 right?24
But I2 wanted to make sure that no one was of3 the opinion or position that somehow4 passing this was approving Synagro.5
Can I get8 some clarification from the Law9 Department or the Administration on --10 could you please come up for the record.11 (Witnesses approached witness12 table.)13
You've14 heard the conversation back and forth.15 Perhaps you could talk -- again, just16 state your name one more time for the17 record.18
If I may, Patrick19 O'Neill. I'm the Divisional Deputy for20 Environmental Law for the City, and I21 assisted in actually drafting the22 original portion at issue, 3-400, of the23 Code and in this amendment.24 The simplest answer here25 15 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 probably is that the way that Synagro2 would get treated is exactly the same3 without this bill being passed or with it4 being passed. The legal implication, the5 permit conditions, none of that should6 change at all.7
How many8 other companies or how many other9 potential businesses in the City, if this10 were passed, could go through this11 streamlined process?12
Well, if I can13 clarify, to be fair, it doesn't really14 streamline the process. The process is15 going to remain the same. The only two16 things that are happening is that we're17 clarifying -- in one portion we're18 clarifying the fact that AMS has always19 had a portion of the Code that is more20 stringent than what is known as Title V21 of the Clean Air Act. That's the22 section -- the second change, 3-401, that23 says the Code -- where it currently24 states in the Code "to set an air25 16 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 pollution control program that is no less2 stringent and no more stringent than the3 requirements of the Commonwealth." And4 the point here is to eliminate the "no5 more stringent than" language, and the6 reason for that is that as the Code is7 already written, that's how it works.8 There are parts of the Philadelphia Air9 Management Code that are more stringent10 than state requirements, and that's the11 way it's always been, that's the way12 we've interpreted the statute, and we13 think that's the way it should be. The14 problem is that every once in a while15 when we're in the process of a compliance16 program or an enforcement program,17 somebody points out to this and says, Oh,18 you're not allowed to do anything more19 stringent than the state, and we say,20 Well, if you actually look at the rest of21 that section, it says, in Section 2,22 "nothing in this section or in the air23 pollution control program adopted shall24 be construed to repeal any more stringent25 17 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 air pollution control provisions now or2 hereinafter enacted under this Section of3 the Title." So that remains the same.4
Because we get10 this confusion all the time where people11 look at that first sentence in Section 112 of 3-401(1).13 I understand, if people read14 that, they read it by itself and they15 say, Okay, this program is to be no more16 stringent than the requirements of the17 Commonwealth, and they don't get down to18 the second part, and, frankly -- there19 are two problems. One is, they raise20 that all the time and --21
Companies that we24 regulate and that may be enforced25 18 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 against. I mean, I don't know if you2 want me to name the names of --3
Pretty much11 anybody with a significant enough amount12 of emissions that they might be subject13 to the Title V program.14
I mean, not15 that you were giving testimony on behalf16 of the union, but can you tell me as to17 why you would think they think that this18 somehow accelerates Synagro?19
I have no idea,20 other than Synagro has submitted a21 permit, a Title V permit application,22 which is currently being considered by23 Air Management Services.24
And if this25 19 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 bill were passed, how would that affect2 that process?3
Thank you.7 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.8 And, therefore, because this9 bill goes to impact other industries like10 you stated, refineries, auto body shops11 and the like, the bill then becomes12 universal and not just directed at the13 entity in question, Synagro?14
Right. A, it's15 absolutely universal, and, B, it's really16 more about straightening out some17 confusing language in the statute. As a18 matter of process, AMS already processes19 permits in this fashion and would20 continue to do so.21
I assume whenever24 you folks -- whenever the Council passes25 20 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 it.2
Thank you5 very much.6 Any other questions for this7 witness?8 (No response.)9
Any other10 questions for any witness?11 (No response.)12
What I13 think we're going to do is get the bill14 out of Committee without suspension and15 have some more discussion. I want to16 kind of move the process forward.17 I do believe that we're going18 to have, I'm sure, a full-blown debate on19 Synagro at some point in time, and20 Councilmembers could make their decision21 on that as they see fit based on input22 from the union, input from the23 Administration, but I think that this24 should maybe move forward one baby step25 21 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 so that we're helping to do what you want2 to do on all the other stuff.3 That concludes our hearing.4 The Chair recognizes5 Councilmember Blondell Reynolds Brown for6 a motion to report the bill out of7 Committee favorably.8
Surely,9 Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No.10 090258 be moved out of Committee with a11 favorable recommendation.12 (Duly seconded.)13
It's been14 moved and seconded.15 All in favor?16 (Aye.)17
There are21 none opposed. Bill No. 090258 will be22 reported out of this Committee favorably.23 Thank you for your attention24 and your cooperation in the hearing.25 22 4/30/09 - ENVIRONMENT - BILL 0902581 (Councilman Jones indicated to2 the