The regular meeting of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board was called to order March 19, 2003, at 9:01 a.m. in the Board Room of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Chairman, Joseph Vibbert. Karen Cassidy, Lewis Hammond, Lee Howard, and Barbara Sexton Smith were present. A quorum was present.
The following Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District) staff members were present: Art Williams, Jon Trout, Jesse Goldsmith, Terri Phelps, Mitzi Powell, Rebecca Stutsman, Cynthia Lee, Bruce Gaylord, Art Chang, Eva Addison, Martha Gammons, Diane Hazellief, Marty Layman, Phyllis Fitzgerald, Bob Dorzback, TJ Jessie, Dee Lynch, Doug Spillman, Derek Henderson, Keith Earle, and Irene Stephenson.
The following guests were present: Jonathan Miller, DuPont Dow Elastomers L.L.C.; Paul Gadson, Southern Graphic Systems; Tim Corrigan and Annette Dupont-Ewing, Greater Louisville, Inc.; Bob Ehrler, Frost, Brown, Todd L.L.C.; Jack Nevin, TRIMARC TMC; Robert Gioffre, Gordon-Darby; Paul Howard, Tetra Tech EMI; Dora Colon and Matt Wells, Reynolds Metal Plant 1; Clint Elliott, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs; Carolyn Embry, American Lung Association; Brad Dillon, Greenebaum Doll & McDonald; Dave Newman, KY Motorcycle Association; Barbara Hall, Ford Kentucky Truck; Glen Logan, Ford Motor Company; Pat Moran, Stites & Harbison; Lorrie Green and Raquel Goreman, Alcoa Louisville Laminating; Jim Wade, Engelhard; Tom Herman, Zeon Chemicals; Marlene Zeckner Pardee and Sarah Scheetz, Louisville Gas & Electric; Jana Zigrye, Rohm & Haas Company; Tom Fitzgerald, KY Resources Council; Winnie Hepler, Justice Resource Center; Michael Brady, Smith Management Group; Adrian Sanders and Kim Thompson, Dixie Elementary School; and Judy and David Koreck, Valley Station.
The minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of February 19, 2003, were approved, as distributed, and filed.
Mr. Trout presented an overview of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) January 22, 2003, draft implementation regulation that will establish the federal requirements for meeting the 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA has indicated that the proposed regulation will be published in the next one to two months.
The EPA had originally developed an 8-hour ozone implementation plan based upon the requirements of Subpart 1 Nonattainment Areas in General of Part D Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas of the Clean Air Act. Until the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Section 172 of Subpart 1 established the same time frame for areas not attaining a particular National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) to meet that NAAQS. The attainment plan for those areas was required to include reasonably available control measures (RACM) and achieve reasonable further progress (RFP). However, Section 172 did not specify specific RACM requirements or establish specific RFP requirements.
In contrast, Subpart 2 Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas to the Clean Air Act, that was added by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to address the 1-hour ozone nonattainment problems, established the Marginal/Moderate/Serious/ Severe/ Extreme classification system and set 3/6/9/15/17/20-year attainment time frames based upon the classification (Section 181) and established specific control measure requirements and reasonable further progress requirements (Section 182). For example, a Moderate area had a 6-year time frame for attaining the 1-hour ozone standard and was required to have a vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, require Stage II controls at gasoline service stations, reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions by 15%, and establish reasonably available control technology (RACT) for both VOC and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
In February 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA may not ignore the more prescriptive requirements of Subpart 2 in establishing requirements for areas not meeting the new 8-hour ozone standard. The January 22, 2003, draft implementation plan includes several options to address the Subpart 1/Subpart 2 deficiency noted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
With respect to classifications, the EPA’s Option 1 tracked the Subpart 2 structure for the 1-hour ozone standard, adjusting for the numerical difference between the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone standards. In this option, an 8-hour ozone design value of 0.092 part per million (ppm) would be the dividing line between Marginal and Moderate classifications. The 2000-to-2002 8-hour ozone design value for the Louisville area is 0.0903 ppm, which would then result in a Marginal classification. However, if the monitored ozone concentrations in 2003 would be the same as in 2002, then the 2001-to-2003 8-hour ozone design value for the Louisville area would be 0.0953 ppm, which would then result in a Moderate classification. In this option, areas would be required to meet the prescriptive Subpart 2 requirements.
The EPA’s Option 2 would first separate nonattainment areas by their 1-hour ozone design value, with 0.121 ppm as the dividing value. The Louisville area’s 1-hour ozone design value is 0.114 ppm, which would put the Louisville area in the group that would be required to meet the general Subpart 1 requirements.
In addition the establishing attainment plan requirements, the EPA’s draft implementation plan addressed the areas of transportation conformity and new source review. Information regarding the EPA’s draft implementation plan can be accessed on the EPA’s website at "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr/". A copy of the slides for Mr. Trout's presentation is attached to the original minutes.
Ms. Smith asked when clear requirements for the Louisville area would be established. Mr. Williams responded that the EPA sent its package of proposed options to the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review during the first week in January. The OMB customarily takes up to 90 days to review federal agency proposals. The OMB review might be concluded by the end of March or the first week in April. Because the EPA worked collaboratively with the OMB as this proposal was prepared, the EPA does not expect the OMB to require substantial changes. The EPA’s current schedule is to officially propose the 8-hour ozone implementation plan regulation in mid April, have a 30- to 60-day public comment period, and finalize the regulation by the end of this calendar year.
The April 15, 2003, submittal date for the governors to recommend 8-hour ozone county designation has been delayed until July 15, 2003. These recommendations will be based upon the 2000, 2001, and 2002 8-hour ozone monitoring data. At the end of the 2003 ozone seasons, the governors may modify their recommendations based upon 2001-to-2003 8-hour ozone monitoring data. The EPA will make final designations by April 2004.
Mr. Williams continued that typically the EPA provides a three-year period to develop an attainment plan.
Mr. Hammond, Chairman of the Policy Committee, asked Mr. Trout to summarize the discussion that occurred at the Thursday, March 13, 2003, meeting. Mr. Trout said that the District explained the twelve Focus 2003 emission reduction measures that the District believes the Board should consider for implementation during the 2003 ozone season. There was considerable discussion regarding the suggested 3% VOC (or NOx) reduction from the stationary sources that emitted more than 50 tons per year of VOC during 2001. The two other measures for which a regulation would be drafted would include a provision that would not require the implementation of measures that are determined by the company not to be feasible. There was little comment from the public regarding the other measures. Some of these other measures were recommended by the SIP Advisory Panel.
The Policy Committee directed the District to re-evaluate the District’s recommended emission reduction measures, in particular the 3% reduction measure, in light of the comments that were made by the public and the committee members. The District should then report to the Board at the March Board meeting what measures they believe are appropriate for Board consideration.
Chairman Vibbert started the discussion by noting that during last year’s ozone season there were 80 exceedances that occurred on 30 days. He indicated that, while many of the speakers at the Policy Committee meeting expressed concerns with some of the District-recommended mandatory emission reduction measures, each speaker expressed a concerned about the quality of air and the health conditions of the general population.
Mr. Williams said that after reviewing the recommended Focus 2003 emission reduction measures in light of the comments made at the March 13 Policy Committee meeting, the District believes that the package of strategies for the 2003 ozone season is fair, balanced, achievable, reasonable, and flexible for the community. Mr. Williams said that the District could not reasonably ask for more reductions than the District is recommending, but the District could not responsibly ask for less to be done to minimize ozone concentrations this summer. The District is aware of the short-term impacts that can occur to individual companies or the companies collectively. However, equally important is the long-term economic viability of the community. There would be significantly more adverse economic impacts to the Louisville economic base if the area were to be classified as Moderate instead of Marginal. The District has tried to balance these short-term and long-term economic impacts.
The District proposes drafting the three regulations for Board and public review. The regulation promulgation process provides several opportunities for public input, and drafting actual language would provide the explanation as to how the reduction concepts would be implemented.
Mr. Trout indicated that the Focus 2003: District Recommendations document is the same one that was passed out at the March 19 Policy Committee meeting with the exception that the imprecise reference to a "cap and trade" program in the first measure is replaced with reference to an "emission reduction amount and trade" program. This component was not intended to place actual emission caps, and thus production caps, on these stationary sources. The District is looking for a certain amount of reduction in ozone precursor emissions that would otherwise occur this summer, allowing for maximum flexibility in achieving these reductions.
A No. 9.8 employee commute option (ECO) was added to the consolidated commuter choice program, a measure that was recommended by the SIP Advisory Panel. The ECO component is not intended to be mandatory, and the 25% is merely a recommended target for the reduction of the number of cars in an employer’s parking lot on a daily basis. The 25% level is the level that was specified in §182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act for Severe areas.
A copy of Focus 2003: District Recommendations is attached to the original minutes.
With respect to the 3% reduction measure, Mr. Williams said there are 19 companies involved, with three companies, Ford, Reynolds, and LG&E, each having two stationary sources. The approach that this option has is a collective target for those stationary sources. The District is trying to achieve the total reductions, allowing for trading and providing significant flexibility for each stationary source.
The District intends to include many different categories of flexibility for meeting these requirements. The 3% reduction is not an annual requirement but is to be achieved relative to the emissions during only the June 15 to September 15 time period. There will be an adjustment made that focuses on this three-month time period. Reductions achieved during this period would have a 10% multiplier applied. Long-term, permanent reductions and changes in processes that are durable over time are a preferable approach. Therefore, an additional 15% multiplier for a long-term implemented reduction strategies would be applied. Reductions that have occurred or are occurring from steps that began to be implemented after October 31, 2002, the end of the 2002 ozone season, would be creditable. The baseline for calculating the 3% target would be change from 1999 to 2001, the most recent completed emissions inventory for these stationary sources. Many of the stationary sources have reduced their VOC emissions during that time period; therefore 3% of the 2001 level of emissions would result in a lower target.
Companies that can encourage commuter choice options such as car-pooling, TARC, and similar strategies would be allowed to take credit towards the 3% requirement and an additional multiplier of 15% would apply. Companies that would reduce their production schedules or their shutdown schedules during this 3-month period would receive credit for those reductions. If a company were to move one week of their shutdown to this period there would be zero emissions for the week, which would be an 8% reduction over the three-month period. NOx emission reductions could be substituted for VOC emission reductions on a one-for-one basis. Credit for both pollution prevention strategies and best management practice strategies that result in quantifiable, verifiable emission reductions would be creditable. Companies would be allowed to pay a specified amount on a per-pound basis into the Air Quality Trust Fund, for increased District activities during this ozone season, or fund projects in other sectors of the community to implement other emission reduction projects.
Mr. Williams added that the 3% reduction level has been within the framework of the Clean Air Act since the 1990 amendments. If the Louisville area had not achieved attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and been bumped up to Serious, a 3% per year reduction would have been required to meet the reasonable further progress requirement. The District cannot easily translate the quantity of emission reductions that have been identified into a guaranteed reduction in monitored ozone concentrations. However, the District believes that the 3% level is a fair, reasonable, and achievable goal. These strategies move the community toward improved air quality in the 2003 ozone season.
Mr. Williams said that it is unlikely that all of the companies in the industrial source category are operating all control equipment constantly under conditions that would result in maximum control efficiency. The District believes that with the suggested flexibility options, it is reasonable for industry to meet this collective goal. The District will address the safety concern that was raised by identifying that safety issues are part of the feasibility review for potential emission reduction measures. One of the principle guiding themes for the District’s recommendations was that there should be equity across each source sector. Stationary, area, and mobile sources all contribute to the ozone problem and thus should all contribute towards the solution.
Mr. Vibbert noted that each public comment during this Board meeting will be limited to two minutes, with the Chairman’s discretion to allot a third minute.
Mr. Miller, DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC, said there were other issues that had not been raised during the Policy Committee meeting due to the lack of time and length of meeting. Industry believes that regulations are the wrong way to approach reductions for this summer. The District has not considered the implications associated with trying to implement an effective and meaningful emission trading program. The District has not considered the need to make permanent revisions, particularly to those facilities that already have their Title V permits. Industry is concerned about the practical enforceability issue regarding how facilities are going to monitor their operations and keep records and reports on these emissions. The desired goal that is supported in principal needs to be addressed by industry on a voluntary basis.
Mr. Miller indicated at the Policy Committee meeting that there are measures that his company may be able to do. If operations were totally under their control, then he would agree that making achieving reductions mandatory as opposed to voluntary would not make a difference. However, the problem with these strategies is that the short time frame available is not reasonable. Too many of their facilities have emissions that are in whole or in large part dependant upon production. They are being told to spend money, either through emission reduction projects, to buy emission credits through someone else, or to put in the Air Quality Trust Fund. Businesses do not have money immediately available to meet needs that weren’t in the company’s budget forecast.
Mr. Corrigan, representing Greater Louisville, Inc. (GLI), Air Quality Task Force (Task Force), said that GLI instituted a task force in June 2002 to look at short-term options and strategies that could be implemented for all sources, stationary, mobile, and area. These recommendations were presented to the District staff and the SIP Advisory Panel. He was going to reiterate the same concerns made at the Policy Committee meeting, but with some of the flexibility items proposed, his concern is with how the flexibility options would be implemented and how are the credits would work. The Task Force will have a lot more questions before they can make a formal statement as to where they stand on each one of these options. The Task Force would like to see how much credit would be given to each option. Another concern is mandatory versus voluntary. He said that many of the listed industries are looking at voluntary ways to help the 2003 ozone season. The GLI Task Force is against a mandatory regulation.
Mr. Logan, Ford Motor Company, said that he is going to hold comments until such time as he sees the proposed regulations and needs a little more detail on the proposal.
Mr. Moran, chairman of the SIP Advisory Panel, said that the SIP Advisory Panel worked with the District for months in developing its recommendation to the Board. This is not the plan that the SIP Advisory Panel recommended. The Panel recommended voluntary industrial reduction because the time frame was not feasible to mandate a 3% cut. The District would need to enforce requirements on a permit-by-permit basis and there is no way of doing that with the flexibility that the District has suggested. The District’s plan is not balanced; it treats industrial sources much differently than area sources and mobile sources because mandatory reductions for only industry would be established. For example, the recommendation for the airport would be an encouragement from the Board to do something.
Mr. Moran said that industry has provided leadership in this community and worked with the District to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. Industry anticipates working with the District in the future to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. Mr. Moran encouraged the Board to approve the SIP Advisory Panel’s recommended plan. The EPA’s preferred option does not include classifying areas as Marginal or Moderate, but instead would treat two-thirds of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas the same. The Louisville area is not going to attain the 8-hour ozone standard by the end of the 2003 ozone season; we need the SIP Advisory Panel to start moving forward with the long-term plan.
Ms. Embry, Director of Environmental Affairs, American Lung Association, said that the District should move forward aggressively toward achieving the goal of clean air for the Louisville area. This area is not attaining the 8-hour ozone standard and will continue to violate this standard for some time. This means that our community does not have clean air and public health is not being protected, with thousands of people at risk, particularly people with severe lung ailments. She said that the SIP Advisory Panel selection process was a very flawed process and did not consider individual strategies on a case-by-case basis. The SIP Advisory Panel members were asked to vote for their favorite emission reduction measures. The result was a short list of top vote getters. The SIP Advisory Panel did not go back and consider one by one the other options on the list and either reject them or endorse them. There were other emission reduction measures on that list that might have been very valuable to this discussion.
In reviewing the District’s list of emission reduction measures presented to the Board this morning, Ms. Embry said that it is obvious that most of them are voluntary measures, and certainly the American Lung Association endorses all of these voluntary measures. Every sector of the community should play a role in reducing air pollution and individuals should be encouraged more and more to take personal responsibilities for their own pollution reduction. However, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that these voluntary measures alone are going to make any appreciable difference in our air quality this summer. If real pollution reduction is going to be achieved, it is going to require some tough decisions and the implementation of emission reduction measures that will yield quantifiable, permanent, meaningful reductions. We all want to work together, we want to be fair, equitable, and reasonable.
Ms. Embry acknowledged that the industrial community has generally worked cooperatively with the District. However, if Congress had caved in every time industry, the utilities, or the automobile manufactories balked at proposed regulations, saying that they couldn’t meet the deadlines, the deadlines were too stringent, not cost effective, or would reek economic havoc, we would not be where we are today in achieving the clean air goals that we have already achieved. Ms. Embry asked the Board members to act boldly and courageously in leading our community toward the goal of cleaner air.
Mr. FitzGerald, Director of Kentucky Resources Council, said that the Louisville area is on the bubble between Marginal and Moderate. He said that while there are those who may wish that we do nothing, industry wants to defer having any capital expenses at this point. We could just wait to be classified as Moderate and then meaningful emission reduction measures would be required. However, we can’t afford to wait; the goal of the Clean Air Act is not to achieve marginally healthy air. He stated that it is unreasonable for GLI and for the industrial sector to expect that stationary sources will be immune from the obligation to achieve further reductions, particularly because GLI’s did not support the continuation of the Vehicle Emissions Testing VET) program, and its anticipated closure will potentially worsen the air quality this summer as more vehicles become non-compliant in anticipation of the end of the program in October. We need real, measurable, quantifiable, durable throughout the season, verifiable, and cost-effective reductions. We are not going to effect meaningful emission reductions with electronic signs on the roads telling people that it is an Ozone Action Day and they really shouldn’t be driving. Flexibility must not become a mantra for doing nothing or having requirements so loose that they result in little or no progress. If the goal is reduction during the summer ozone season, I question whether bonuses for off-season reductions will help achieve that goal.
Concerning mandatory versus voluntary, Mr. FitzGerald said that there are a range of things that companies can and should be doing, because the companies’ emissions represent inefficiencies in their processes. If they are concerned about not achieving additional stack emissions, then require each company to put together a facility-specific plan. Emission reductions may be from stack or non-stack sources, scheduling changes, or any number of other options that could vary the summer rate and the timing of emissions. Let industry have that flexibility. The District should allow industry to make these changes outside of the context of modifications to their Title V permits, but the District should ensure that the reductions are verifiable and enforceable. I would suggest that, because all VOCs do not have the same potential to create ozone and don’t have the same impact on human health, the District try to speciate the VOCs and target reductions in air toxics so that there is the double benefit of reducing ozone precursor emissions and also improving air quality with respect to toxics.
Ms. Hepler, Environmental Committee of the Justice Resource Center, indicated that she has emphysema and has her own personal monitoring gage; breathing is problematic for her on most days in Louisville. The residents of West Louisville have suffered many years with little relief. She said that the Justice Resource Center is very pleased with the 3% reduction plan. A new organization, the Fence Line Action Group, that includes people from outside the West Louisville area, recognizes how very serious Louisville’s air pollution problems are.
Because Rubbertown industries, the Louisville Gas & Electric Company (LG&E), and the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD), and others continue to be in denial regarding our air pollution problems, Ms. Hepler said that she wonders whether voluntary compliance measures would be effective. She believes that having mandatory emission reduction measures would more realistically result in improved air quality. She said that she was delighted that the airport issues have been addressed.
Ms. Smith asked the District whether it had planned on asking the industry companies for their current plans for making voluntary reductions. She also asked why the District would not also treat the airport, United Parcel Service (UPS), and the other airlines as industry and recommend mandatory rather than voluntary emission reduction measures. Ms. Smith said that she had heard, and asked the District to verify, that UPS had negotiated a long-term contract to purchase oil at $30 a barrel and are the only ones that have done that, and additionally whether UPS has asked the pilots to shut off unneeded engines within 15 seconds of being on the ground. She also asked whether the District could ask the industrial plants for their shut down schedules and whether they were planning on moving shut down periods to the June through September time period. She asked whether moving shut down periods to this time period would make a difference in air quality from what was done during previous years.
Mr. Williams responded that the District recommended requiring the larger-emitting companies to undergo an assessment of potential emission reduction measures and submit these plans to the District. He said that the District will seek to verify the information concerning UPS. The District will ask these companies for their projected summer shut down schedules.
Dr. Cassidy asked what the District’s expectations are for the eight areas of flexibility and whether the industries can collect their data within a relative short time frame so that the District could track the effectiveness of this program. She said that, as recommended in emission reduction measures Numbers 10, 11, and 12, $150,000 would be provided from District penalty funds for government agencies that should already be doing these functions. On the other hand, she noted that there is no recommended funding for the employee commute option (ECO) program in voluntary measure Number 9.8, but the District calculated significant emission reductions resulting from this measure. She asked whether funds should be proposed for providing the major employers with an incentive to achieve the goal of this measure. She stated that if fewer people drove, then some of the other measures would not be necessary.
Mr. Williams noted that the industries already have monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, so establishing emissions and emission reductions would occur in the normal course of their business. For the non-industrial source emission reduction strategies, such as encouraging car-pooling or providing discounts or subsidies for TARC tickets, a District staff member would work with the companies to help them quantify emission reduction benefits. This is done fairly routinely by District staff to complete mobile source modeling.
For recommended emission reduction measures Numbers 10 and 11, Mr. Williams said that the District proposes to provide additional resources for more and faster work than would otherwise occur on the stop light signalization program. For example, Public Works is constrained by its own budget resources as to how much work on these stop light signalization projects can be done and over what time period. This can help them make a meaningful increase and acceleration in the work done by Public Works on the very important mobile source strategy of helping to eliminate congestion by improving the signalization process. The speed limit enforcement recommendation would provide additional resources to allow the Louisville Metro Police Department to increase enforcement of the speed limits on the interstate highways in Jefferson County.
With respect to the ECO program, Mr. Williams explained that the first hope is that the private-sector employers would work with their own employees to develop approaches and strategies for reducing commuter traffic by using their own resources. There is a proposal for an increase of $100,000 for public education outreach. The District would develop public media messages through the Kentuckiana Air Education (KAIRE) program that would educate the public on the connection between the transportation choices that they make and air quality. This additional public education would increase the effectiveness of employer-sponsored programs. As a flexibility option, there is a bonus proposed for emission reductions from these ECO programs and credit could be provided for the industry 3% emission reduction goal. There is a telecommuting option that could reduce the number of commuter trips. The District, on its own initiative, became the first Jefferson County government agency to propose and implement staff telecommuting. The District would encourage the employers to review all of the potential emission reduction measures and select the ones that are the more environmentally effective.
Chairman Vibbert informed the Board members that the District has requested Board direction regarding Focus 2003. He noted that there are several representatives from industry in the audience and asked Mr. Miller, DuPont Dow Elastomers L.L.C., and Mr. Logan, Ford Motor Company, whether their control equipment was being operated at maximum efficiency or could additional reductions be achieved by changing the operating parameters. Mr. Miller responded that improving the efficiency of their condensers is not very likely because reducing the gas stream any further would cause the condenser to freeze which would actually increase emissions. Mr Logan responded that the design efficiency of their thermal oxidizers is 98% and they could not increase the control efficiency.
Dr. Cassidy suggested having the Policy Committee further review the District’s recommended emission reduction measures. Mr. Howard suggested that the District discuss the issue further with industry and then have further review by the Policy Committee. Chairman Vibbert noted that most of the comments and concerns have been focused on the Number 1 emission reduction measure. Emission reduction measures Numbers 2 to 12 have received due attention from the District, the community, and the Board members. He asked whether the Board members believe that the District should be encouraged to pursue the voluntary measures.
Ms. Smith asked whether the intended recipients of the proposed $50,000 penalty fund monies are aware of what is being proposed and whether these agencies believe that the labor resources would be available to in fact accomplish these objectives. Mr. Williams responded that the District has had discussions with Public Works and the Police Department and that the labor resources could be available if this additional funding were provided. The District would operate the lawn mower trade-in program and the $100,000 additional public education outreach would expand the current programs.
Mr. Williams said that the District requests expressions of concern of the Board members and would appreciate such feedback from the Board members today. He said that draft regulations to implement emission reduction measures Numbers 1, 3, and 6 would be prepared so that the details of these proposed measures could be reviewed. Reviewing draft regulations would be the start of the process for Board consideration, and the regulation process would include both a written comment period and a public hearing. The Board would then have the opportunity to take the full range of actions on such proposed regulations.
Dr. Cassidy noted that several Board members have requested that any draft regulation incorporating the mandatory measures be reviewed by the Policy Committee before being presented to the full Board. She said that she believes that there are members of the Board who aren’t behind these mandatory measures. Some of the public comments suggested that some of these measures are not feasible for the industry to implement.
Mr. Lee clarified that the items in question, whether they are in the form of a regulation or voluntary, would not occur until approved by the Board. He asked whether the ECO program would realistically achieve a 25% increase in employee commute vehicle occupancy and whether the stated benefit of 1,500 lbs a day is realistic. He noted that the District’s proposed emission reduction measures Numbers 10, 11, and 12, for which $150,000 in funding is proposed, would effect only a few hundred pounds of VOC emission reduction. Mr. Howard indicated that he is not comfortable moving forward with emission reduction measures Numbers 10, 11, and 12.
Mr. Williams responded that he anticipates that the District’s draft regulation addressing the 3% emission reduction measure would include the specifics of the flexible items that he listed toady. The Board could then review the draft regulation as it deemed appropriate. He requested that the Policy Committee meet before the next Board meeting. Mr. Trout explained that the 25% target for the ECO program was contained in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments as a mandatory measure for Severe ozone nonattainment areas. He clarified that for emission reduction Number 10, the benefit is the significant decrease in NOx emissions.
Ms. Smith asked whether it would be appropriate to ask whether industry would be interested in and willing to develop ECO programs if funding were to be available. Mr. Williams said that the District could ask industry regarding their interest in developing District-funded ECO programs.
Chairman Vibbert indicated that the consensus of the Board was that the District should proceed with implementing all of the emission reduction measures included in the District’s Focus 2003 recommendations with the exception of the regulatory measures in emission reduction measures Numbers 1, 3, and 6. Chairman Vibbert asked Mr. Williams whether he had enough information from the Board regarding the direction to be taken by the District. Mr. Williams indicated that he did.
Mr. Williams said that there are no other items on which he would report today. The other reports have been provided to the Board members.
Ms. Fitzgerald introduced Lawn Care for Cleaner Air Award recipients Adrian Sanders, Principal, Dixie Elementary School, and Kim Thompson, a parent of a child attending Dixie Elementary School, who have been working on the gardens at this school. Ms. Fitzgerald mentioned that they also had received the Fred Wiche Award at Operation Brightside this morning.
Ms. Fitzgerald introduced Lawn Care for Cleaner Air Award recipients Judy and David Koreck from Valley Station.
Mr. Williams announced that the Lawn Care for Cleaner Air Awards program received a national EPA Award for one of the most innovative programs in the country. Ms. Fitzgerald will be accepting this award tomorrow from EPA Administrator Christine Whitman, in Washington, DC.
The list of this month’s Lawn Care for Cleaner Air Award recipients was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the original minutes.
Chairman Vibbert announced that Barbara Sexton Smith was recognized as a community angel for providing health and assistance in our community, leaving her mark on those she aided. She has provided help in the way of fund raising from a number of different organizations, such as the Olmstead Outrageous Halloween Party, West Louisville Boy’s Choir, and chaired the Kentucky Interfaith Community Dare to Care Hunger Walk that raised more than $70,000 for the undernourished of the world.
The Air Quality Data Reports were submitted for filing. A copy of each report is attached to the original minutes.
The VET report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the original minutes.
The APCD Enforcement Status 3/11/2003 report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the original minutes.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
_______/signed/_______
Joseph D. Vibbert
Chairman
_______/signed/_______
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer