December 19, 2001
A public hearing of the Air Pollution Control Board of Jefferson County was called to order December 19, 2001, at 9:01 a.m. in the Board Room of the Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by Vice-Chair Karen Cassidy.
General Statement, Rules, and Purpose
The Chair read the opening announcement, rules, and purpose of the hearing, which was to review proposed amendments to Regulation 1.02, Definitions.
Amendment to Regulation 1.02 Definitions, Version #10, Draft #2 - Proposed, October 8, 2001.
Mr. Trout said that the main purpose of the proposed amendment to Regulation 1.02, Definitions, is to update the definitions to be consistent with the current definitions used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to remove more than 30 definitions that are no longer used in the District’s regulations. Also, there are several terms defined in this regulation that are used in only one regulation. These terms are proposed to be removed from Regulation 1.02, but are defined in the regulation in which they are used. In addition, the District is in the process of upgrading all regulations to use terms consistently. As an example, a whole plant site should be referred to as a “stationary source” and individual pieces of equipment that are related should be referred to as a “process.” If a process is subject to a control requirement within a regulation, that process is defined as an “affected facility” in that regulation.
Mr. Trout said that the only comments received during the Public Comment Period were the three from the EPA. The first dealt with the citation of the Clean Air Act. The paragraph numbers used were not correct; the EPA provided two acceptable citations. The Districts agreed and intends to recommend that “7401-7626” be replaced by “7401 et seq.” in section 1.1, line 15. The second comment dealt with the definition of “pollution prevention.” The EPA suggested that the phrase “more efficient use” be moved to the first portion of the second sentence. Mr. Trout said that this change would actually restrict the definition. After discussing this with the EPA, the EPA indicated that the definition would be approvable without the suggested change. The third comment was to include a definition for “emission unit” as “any part of a stationary source which emits or would have the potential to emit any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act.” Mr. Trout said that this definition really does not clarify the concept of a process; this definition could define anything from just a valve or flange in a chemical process up to the whole process. After discussing this issue with the EPA, it was concluded that this regulation would be approvable without the inclusion of the suggested definition for “emission unit.”
Mr. Trout said that the District intends to recommend that the Board adopted the amendment to Regulation 1.02 as proposed except for the replacement of the Clean Air Act citation of “7401-7626” with “7401 et seq.” in line 15, section 1.1.
Statements
None
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 a.m.
_________________________
Karen A. Cassidy
Vice-Chair
__________________________________
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer