A public hearing of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board was called to order February 19, 2003, at 9:03 a.m. in the Board Room of the Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Chairman, Joseph Vibbert.
The Chairman read the opening announcement, rules, and purpose of the hearing, which was to review two proposed amended regulations and one proposed Board Order.
Mr. Trout explained that Regulation 1.15 is the global reference in the District’s regulations to the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Title 40. If, when referencing a 40 CFR regulation in a District regulation, a date is not specified, then the date identified in Regulation 1.15 would establish the version of the 40 CFR regulation that is referenced in the District regulation. The federal government updates the published 40 CFR book once a year, current as of July 1st of each year. The proposed amendment identifies the published book, current as of July 1, 2002, instead of July 1, 2001.
Mr. Trout said that during the written comment period the only comment received was from the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (DAQ). The DAQ determined that this proposed regulation conforms with the current federal regulations and therefore prior concurrence is granted.
Mr. Trout said that the District intends to recommend that the Board adopt proposed amended Regulation 1.15 Version of Federal Regulations Incorporated by Reference, Version #10, Draft #1 - Proposed, January 6, 2003, at today’s Board meeting, pending evaluation of any comments made at today’s Public Hearing.
No statement was made.
Mr. Trout explained that Regulation 7.02 is the District’s adoption of the federal New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60). This regulation would be impacted by the update of Regulation 1.15, thus any change that occurred before July 1, 2002, would be included in the published July 1, 2002, book version of 40 CFR Part 60. Any Federal Register notice regarding a 40 CFR Part 60 regulation that occurred after July 1, 2002, would need to be cited in Regulation 7.02 for this regulation to be current. However, there has not been any change or addition to 40 CFR Part 60 since July 1, 2002, so no additional citation is necessary for this regulation to be current.
Mr. Trout said that during the written comment period the only comment received was from the DAQ. The DAQ determined that this proposed regulation conforms with the current federal regulations and therefore prior concurrence is granted.
Mr. Trout said that the District intends to recommend that the Board adopt proposed amended Regulation 7.02 Federal New Source Performance Standards Incorporated by Reference, Version #10, Draft #1 - Proposed, January 6, 2003, at today’s Board meeting, pending evaluation of any comments made at today’s Public Hearing.
No statement was made.
Ms. Phelps summarized the proposed Board Order for Kent Feeds, Inc. that alleges the company violated District regulations and Board Order No. 2-90, would require the installation and operation of a control device to control odors, and would require the payment of a $3,000 administrative penalty. The company has agreed to the terms of the Board Order and has already paid the administrative penalty. The proposed Board Order would supersede Board Order No. 2-90.
In September 2001, the District had begun receiving complaints of strong and objectionable odors in the community surrounding Kent Feeds. During an investigation, the District found that the company removed a control device that had been required by the Board in 1990, added a third molasses cooker, made product ingredient changes, installed a heat exchanger in place of the original scrubber, and installed an odor maskant system. The replacement odor control equipment was inadequate to abate the odors from the modified molasses cooking process. On January 17, 2002, the District issued a construction permit for a thermal oxidizer to control the odors from the molasses cooking process. The District has not received any complaints of odors from the facility since the thermal oxidizer was installed.
The Chairman clarified that all of the equipment was in place and the offense was more of a nuisance than a health hazard.
No statement was made.
The public hearing adjourned at 9:10 a.m.
_______/signed/_______
Joseph D. Vibbert
Chairman
_______/signed/_______
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer