The regular meeting of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board was called to order May 9, 2003, at 10:40 a.m. in the Board Room of the Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Chair, 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, Mitzi Powell, Martha Gammons, Marty Layman, Tom Pinto, Bob Dorzback, Dee Lynch, Doug Spillman, Eva Addison, Stephen Taylor, Eric Brown, and Irene Stephenson.
The following guests were present: Winnie Hepler, Justice Resource Center; Dave Newman, Kentucky Motorcycle Association; Greg Long, Ford Motor Company; Amarjit Gill, Cemex, Houston, Texas; Tim Corrigan, Greater Louisville, Inc.; Mike Bascom, Sierra Club; Pat Moran, Stites & Harbison; Brad Dillon, Greenebaum Doll & McDonald; Jonathan Miller, DuPont Dow Elastomers L.L.C.; Cheryl-Lynne Patrick and Charlie Scholtz, Brown-Forman Distillery Company; Danny Carroll, Alcan; Dora Colon and Raquel Gorena, Alcoa Packaging and Consumer Group; Jason Wilkerson, Louisville, Gas & Electric Company; Regina Henry, Cemex-Kosmos Cement; Shannon Tivitt, Louisville Metro Development Authority; Robert Gioffre, Gordon-Darby; Gregory Brotzge, Kentucky Paint Council; Tom FitzGerald, KY Resources Council; and Pat Simrall and Maurice Edelen, Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc.
Mr. Trout noted that minor changes were made to the text on page 6 of the March 19, 2003, Board meeting minutes, to reflect an accurate representation of Jonathan Miller’s comments. Mr. Hammond noted that guest Adrian Sanford’s name, representing Dixie Elementary, was misspelled. The minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 19, 2003, with these changes were approved and filed.
The Chairman said that the District is recommending Board action on proposed new Regulations 6.51 and 6.52 and proposed amended Regulation 6.18. The Board members have read and considered a number of issues pertaining to feasibility, measurable reductions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) present and future actions, economic impact on the community, fairness of the proposals, safety issues, and the desire to impact the air quality of the Louisville community.
Mr. Williams thanked the Board members for their careful consideration of these issues. The District wants to put into context the regulation package with the broader Focus 2003 strategy that the Board has endorsed. There are many initiatives that are or will be under way, such as some aggressive pollution prevention strategies, the lawn mower rebate trade-in program, working with the airport, improving speed limit enforcement, and traffic signalization improvement throughout the community. The proposed industrial sector regulations are part of the broader package that addresses many sources and sectors in the community. Mr. Williams said that the District believes that this proposed regulation package will improve air quality during this crucial ozone season, which will benefit the community’s longer-term regulatory status. These proposed regulations are flexible and provide many compliance options to the companies, such as the trading opportunity and the multipliers that have been incorporated into Regulation 6.51.
Mr. Trout explained that proposed Regulation 6.51 would be a new regulation. The District is required to make the Board aware of any unresolved controversy regarding proposed regulations for which the District recommends action by the Board. The Board has been provided with a document that identifies the unresolved issues raised during both the written public comment period and the public hearing and the District’s responses to the adverse comments.
Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that the Board adopt proposed Regulation 6.51, VOC Emission Reductions for 2003, identified as Version #1, Draft #3 - Proposed, April 1, 2003, as proposed except for the change from 53.5 to 44.0 for the VOC Pounds Per Summer Day number for United Distillery, Stitzel-Weller in line 55.
Dr. Cassidy asked whether the Board was voting on all three proposed regulations. The Chairman responded that each regulation would be voted on individually.
Motion: Mr. Hammond moved the adoption of proposed new Regulation 6.51
Dr. Cassidy said that she takes her role as a Board member very seriously and feels that the Board needs to make sound public policy to protect our air and assure the health of our economy. Dr. Cassidy stated that she is voting against this proposed regulation because a regulatory approach is not appropriate at this time. It is not feasible in terms of time and safety. It is not based on sound science; computer modeling has not been performed to show the impact from the proposed reductions. It is not based on the EPA’s preferred option. This regulation is too limiting and regulates only industry. Clean air is the responsibility of each citizen of Metro Louisville. It places an unreasonable burden and is unfair to regulate one sector.
Motion: Dr. Cassidy moved to amend the main motion so that the main motion would be to send Regulation 6.51 back to the District with no further action to be taken. A roll-call vote was requested.
Dr. Cassidy voted yes. Ms. Smith voted yes. Mr. Howard voted yes. Mr. Hammond voted yes.
The amendment to the main motion passed with four affirmative votes.
Mr. Trout indicated that a vote on the main motion, as amended, was now needed. To clarify, the main motion, as amended, was to send Regulation 6.51 back to the District with no further action to be taken. A roll-call vote was requested.
Dr. Cassidy voted yes. Ms. Smith voted yes. Mr. Howard voted yes. Mr. Hammond voted yes.
The main motion, as amended, passed with four affirmative votes.
Mr. Trout said that the Board has been provided with a document that identifies the unresolved issues concerning proposed amended Regulation 6.18 that were raised during both the written public comment period and the public hearing and the District’s responses to the adverse comments. Mr. Trout indicated that the District recommends a wording change in section 4.5.2, line 111, to clarify whether material changes determined to be feasible are voluntary or mandatory. The recommended language would read: “Submit in writing, to the District, the results of the determination made pursuant to section 4.5.1 and a description of any changes, determined to be feasible, that the owner or operator has decided to make during that time period.”
Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that the Board adopt proposed amended Regulation 6.18 Standards of Performance for Solvent Metal Cleaning Equipment, identified as Version #7, Draft #3 - Proposed, April 2, 2003, as proposed except for the recommended wording change in section 4.5.2, line 111.
Motion: Mr. Hammond moved to adopt amended Regulation 6.18 as recommended by the District.
Mr. Howard asked whether the District had included a de minimis provision for materials that had a very low VOC content, an issue that had been raised during the public hearing. Mr. Trout responded that the District does agree that it is reasonable to have such a de minimis level included in both Regulations 6.18 and 6.52. However the District’s ability to include a de minimis level is different for these two regulations. Because Regulation 6.52 is a District-initiated new regulation that the District is not intending to submit to the EPA’s for inclusion in the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP), a de minimis level could be included. However, at this time, the District does not have sufficient information upon which to base establishing an appropriate de minimis level. Mr. Trout said that the District encourages the industrial sector to submit information regarding this issue.
On the other hand, Regulation 6.18 is an existing regulation whose current version is in the Kentucky SIP and was required by the EPA to meet certain provisions. These provisions do not provide for such a de minimis level. Therefore, the District believes that EPA approval of the inclusion of a de minimis level in Regulation 6.18 would not be granted and the current version would remain in the Kentucky SIP and would be federally enforceable.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Trout said that the Board has been provided with a document that identifies the unresolved issues concerning proposed amended Regulation 6.18 that were raised during both the written public comment period and the public hearing and the District’s responses to the adverse comments. Mr. Trout indicated that the District recommends two changes, that would be the same in lines 43 and 55, to clarify the voluntary nature of changing solvents. The first sentence in Sections 3 and 4 would read: “To the extent feasible, the owner or operator of an affected facility should, during the control period, meet ...” The recommended change would remove the word “shall,” which implies that the owner or operator would be required to make a change that is determined to be feasible and replace it with the word “should,” which would not make such a change mandatory. The provision to look at options for lower VOC solvent cleaners would, however, remain mandatory.
Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that the Board adopt proposed new Regulation 6.52, Standards of Performance for Solvent Cleaning Operations Associated with Commercial Surface Coating and Printing Processes, identified as Version #1, Draft #1 - Proposed, March 28, 2003, as proposed except for the recommended wording change to the first sentence in Sections 3 and 4, lines 43 and 55.
Motion: Mr. Hammond moved to adopt proposed new Regulation 6.52 as recommended by the District.
Ms. Smith asked for clarification of Mr. Trout’s explanation to Mr. Howard concerning the addition of a solvent VOC de minimis level to Regulation 6.18. Mr. Trout responded that, because proposed new Regulation 6.52 is not required by the EPA, the District has discretion for providing a de minimis level. As stated in the comment and response document, the District would encourage the industrial sector to work with the District to develop an appropriate de minimis level. An agreed-upon de minimis level could then be used as a guideline for the owner or operator of an affected facility to use in making a determination of feasibility. If the current material used at an affected facility had a VOC content lower than the agreed-upon de minimis level, then a change could be determined by the owner or operator not to be feasible because the potential reduction in VOC emissions would be minimal.
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to amend the main motion by including a provision that Regulation 6.52 would be approved with the understanding that the District would work with industry to develop a reasonable de minimis material VOC level below which consideration of alternative cleaning solvents would not be required.
The motion to amend the main motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Trout clarified that the amended main motion is to adopt proposed new Regulation 6.52 as recommended by the District with the requirement that the District would work with industry to develop a reasonable de minimis material VOC level below which consideration of alternative cleaning solvents would not be required.
The amended main motion passed unanimously.
Dr. Cassidy said that she felt it was the duty of each Board member to participate in some way, as the Board has asked the other sectors, to reduce ozone precursor emissions this summer. To this end, she developed, and gave to each Board member, a Citizen’s Clean Air Commitment list of activities, asking each Board member to identify the measures to which he or she is willing to commit. She asked Mr. Trout to collect the completed commitment from each Board member. Dr. Cassidy also developed, and placed on the table, a Business Clean Air Commitment list of activities for any interested company representative. Dr. Cassidy requested that the District look at how to promote this commitment further. The Chairman noted that Dr. Cassidy’s commitment requests do not require any action to be taken by the Board.
Mr. FitzGerald said that he was concerned about the statement that the District would undertake discussions with industry regarding the establishment of a de minimis level applicable to Regulation 6.52. He indicated that the rest of the community also has an interest in VOC emission reductions and should not be excluded from such discussions, although this should be a moot issue because there is no de minimis level included in the adopted regulation. If there is to be a de minimis level adopted, it should be reflected in the regulation. Any effort to grant case-by-case exemptions from the requirements of an adopted regulation will run into some resistance.
The Chairman noted that one of the thoughts that have been presented this morning is that many of the initiatives by the community, business, and industry to improve the quality of air in our community will be on a voluntary basis. There are times when implementing voluntary actions is not a primary priority. It would be very encouraging to see representatives of the business community and industry coming forward with some definite recommendations or a definite plan of actions they intend to do on a voluntary basis to help to continue to clean the air in our community.
The meeting adjourned at 11:16 a.m.
_______/signed/_______
Joseph D. Vibbert
Chairman
_______/signed/_______
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer