A public hearing of the Air Pollution Control Board of Jefferson County was called to order April 17, 2002, at 9:02 a.m. in the Board Room of the Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by Chairman pro tem Lee Howard.

The Chairman read the opening announcement, rules, and purpose of the hearing, which was to review one new regulation, an amendment to one regulation, the repeal of one regulation, and one agreed board order.

1. New Regulation 1.19 Administrative Hearings, Version #1, Draft #5 - Proposed, January 30, 2002

Mr. Trout explained that new Regulation 1.19 would establish an administrative hearing process for resolving alleged violations and providing an opportunity to be heard for persons who consider themselves aggrieved by actions on Board orders or permits. In 1994, the Kentucky legislature adopted KRS 77.310 Proceedings for alleged violations of chapter or regulations and for petitions for a hearing on board orders or determinations -- Hearing officers and KRS 77.315 Appeals from final orders of board -- Appeals from Circuit Court orders. These new sections provide the authority for the District to establish an administrative hearing process. After holding an administrative hearing, the hearing officer would prepare a report and recommended order for final decision by the Air Pollution Control Board. This administrative hearing process would replace the Board hearing process identified in Regulation 1.08 Administrative Procedures Section 7 Appeals to the Board.

Mr. Trout said the only comment received during the written comment period was that the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (DAQ) intended to grant prior concurrence, indicating that an administrative hearing process was consistent with state requirements.

Mr. Trout stated that the District intends to recommend that the Board approve this regulation as proposed, pending evaluation of any comments made at the public hearing.

Mr. Trout indicated that yesterday the District received a letter via FAX from the DAQ granting prior concurrence for Regulation 1.19.

2. Amendment to Regulation 6.18 Standards of Performance for Existing Solvent Metal Cleaning Equipment Version #6, Draft #2 - Proposed, January 26, 2002

3. Repeal of Regulation 7.18 Standards of Performance for New Solvent Metal Cleaning Equipment Version #6, Draft #1 - Proposed, January 3, 2002

Mr. Trout explained that the main purpose of the proposed amendment is to remove requirements that are no longer applicable. In early 2000, a requirement was added that specified that after March 1, 2000, no solvent with a vapor pressure greater than 1 mm Hg may be sold for or used in cold cleaners in Jefferson County. Because the cold cleaner material compliance date is now in the past, other requirements for solvents with higher vapor pressures are no longer applicable, and therefore may be removed. Additionally, Regulation 7.18 is being combined with Regulation 6.18 because both regulations have identical requirements and differ only in the applicability to existing or new affected facilities. By combining these regulations, Regulation 7.18 is no longer needed and is proposed to be repealed.

Mr. Trout said the only comment received during the written comment period was that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had no comment on these regulations.

Mr. Trout indicated that the District intends to recommend that the Board approve Regulation 6.18 as proposed and repeal Regulation 7.18, pending evaluation of any comments made at the public hearing.

Mr. Trout indicated that yesterday the District received a letter via FAX from the DAQ granting prior concurrence for the amendment to Regulation 6.18 and the repeal of Regulation 7.18.

Ms. Phelps explained that the purpose of the proposed Agreed Board Order (ABO) is to resolve the alleged violation of certain federal and District regulations by DuPont Dow Elastomers, L.L.C. (Company). The ABO requires the Company to pay an administrative penalty and establishes a compliance plan and schedule. The Company has agreed to the terms of the ABO.

In order to develop alternative test methods, the Company had requested, in October of 2001, that the EPA and the District approve an extension of the deadline by which the Company was required to comply with the performance testing requirement of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart U. The District denied this request because it did not meet the federal regulatory criteria for granting an extension. The Company missed its performance testing deadline. The Company has submitted its proposed alternative test methods to the EPA and expects to conduct these performance tests within 6 weeks of receiving approval.

Mr. Hesse asked what type of action the Board would take if the testing documents that the emissions requirements are not met. Ms. Phelps replied that there could be further enforcement action for noncompliance.

Statements

No statement was made.

Adjournment

The public hearing adjourned at 9:13 a.m.