A special meeting of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board was called to order March 31, 2004, at 9:59 a.m. in the Board Room of the Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Chair, Karen Cassidy. Lewis Hammond, Barbara Sexton Smith, Sandra Withers, Nadir Al-Shami, and Carolyn Embry were present. A quorum was present.
The following Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District) staff members were present: Art Williams, Jon Trout, Lauren Anderson, Jesse Goldsmith, Terri Phelps, Cynthia Lee, Mitzi Powell, Diane Hazellief, Martha Gammons, Phyllis Fitzgerald, Tom Pinto, Gary Flispart, Bob Dorzback, Doug Spillman, and Irene Stephenson.
The following guests were present: Regina Henry, Kosmos Cement; John Riley and Donna Mancini, Stop the Vet; Brad Dillon, Greenebaum Doll & McDonald; Diana Turner, DuPont Dow Elastomers; Sarah Lynn Cunningham, People with Lungs; Ruben Pulliam, Fred Withers, Lu Withers, and Roosevelt Roberts, Rubbertown Emergency Action (REACT); Kris Moore, LPTS; Ray Pierce, Flowervale Leemont Pierce Neighborhood Association; Dave Newman and JR Black, Kentucky Motorcycle Association; Tom FitzGerald, Kentucky Resources Council; Bonnie Avery, citizen; Joan Lindop, Sierra Club of Greater Louisville; and Winnie Hepler, REACT - Justice Resource Center.
Mr. Williams noted that, as Mr. Trout had indicated at the public hearing, the District is not asking the Board to take action today on these proposed Agreements. This special meeting is being held in part to get today’s public hearing and any comments from that on the record before action is taken. There was a comment received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that was referred to but not discussed in detail at the public hearing. The EPA has asked several clarifying questions and requested additional information. There has been a reference to one of the EPA’s comment, which indicated concern about taking SIP credit for Regulation 6.18. There have been follow-up discussions with the EPA since receiving that comment and the District believes that the EPA made an error in its assessment of the Regulation 6.18 issue. Fundamentally, however, the EPA’s comments reflect that the District has continued to work with the EPA to address the outstanding issues. The EPA’s comment letter was filed with the Court in the federal litigation as an exhibit to an informational memorandum. The memorandum was filed to keep the Court advised of significant developments and also because the Court had encouraged the parties to work cooperatively together. The District believes from the EPA’s comment letter that if we can effectively address the various concerns and questions raised, the revision will be approvable. There are no indications from the EPA’s letter to the contrary. As another commenter highlighted, there are four legal requirements for SIP credits: they must be quantifiable, enforceable, permanent, and surplus. In part because of the nature of the EPA’s questions, the District is not asking the Board to take action today. It will probably take a couple of weeks to go through EPA’s detailed comments and respond to them. The District anticipates bringing a revised document that answers the EPA’s questions back to the Board at the April 21st meeting.
Mr. Trout noted that four written comments were received during the public comment period. The Kosmos Cement comment indicated that its plant manager had changed and asked the District to change the reporting requirements that were part of the NOx RACT plan. The District is looking at that issue to see whether it is appropriate at this point to change Kosmos’ reporting requirements. Kosmos’ comments contained nothing contrary to what was proposed.
Mr. Trout said that Eboni Neal Cochran had suggested that we should be getting reductions from retrofitting school buses and Transit Authority of River City (TARC) buses, the city shouldn’t use Explorers, but should use hybrid vehicles, and the District needs to address toxic air pollution.
Mr. Trout said Tom FitzGerald, Kentucky Resources Council, had submitted written comments, which Mr. FitzGerald had summarized during the public hearing. His written comments will be made available to the Board members.
Mr. Trout then briefed the Board on EPA’s comments. The first major comment was that the District needed to discuss the air quality impacts of the change in emission reductions. As mentioned at the public hearing, there are issues regarding NOx emissions, volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and ozone. For example, an increase in NOx emissions actually reduces ozone in the short term, but creates more ozone downwind. The District will be putting together the information that the EPA requested in its comments and in a follow-up conference call between the EPA and the District. Also, as Mr. Williams indicated earlier, the EPA has agreed that it was incorrect in its assertion that the reduction in VOC emissions due to Regulation 6.18 was a reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirement and therefore could not be used. Regarding Kosmos, the EPA asked for more complete documentation of the emissions changes and the rate of emissions of the cement kiln before the NOx RACT requirement. The EPA’s final comment was that the District needed to do a formal SIP submittal, which is being done.
Mr. Trout said that the significant issue regarding using NOx SIP Call emission reductions from LG&E is that the EPA will require that an equivalent amount of NOx allowances to be retired so that LG&E can’t trade them to some other company. The EPA also asked for additional details of the NOx/VOC ratios and other background information.
Ms. Embry commented that regardless of what the EPA may or may not find approvable, the Board has an obligation to the community to require offsetting emissions that will indeed make the air cleaner. She said that she believed that the review criteria should include whether reductions are real and whether existing reductions occurred after the close of the VET Program or will be new reductions that haven’t yet occurred yet. In addition, she said that the reductions should be comparable in their effect on the formation of ozone to the reductions that would have occurred from implementation of the VET Program and the reductions should not have otherwise been required by another program.
Chair Cassidy asked about a comment made that these Agreements would not be permanent. Mr. Trout responded that if the Board approves changes to the NOx RACT plans and they become part of the SIP, they will indeed be permanent and enforceable. Both Kosmos and LG&E have continuous in-stack NOx monitors so the District will know what their emissions are.
Chair Cassidy asked for clarification as to whether the documents with LG&E and Kosmos would be Agreements or Board Orders and what the difference is. Mr. Trout responded that the District is calling these Agreements, but they have the same function and enforceability as Board Orders.
Mr. Williams, in addressing Ms. Embry’s comments and concerns, noted that the initial SIP submittal to end the VET had been made in a timely fashion to the EPA and that the submittal had satisfied the EPA’s concerns about the 1-hour ozone standard. The EPA raised no concerns regarding the 1-hour ozone standard in its October 27th letter to the District. Rather, the EPA’s concern, as expressed in that letter, was that ending the VET Program could interfere with attainment of the future 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. Revising the SIP to include offsetting emission reductions addresses that specific issue. In the longer term, we will need to achieve attainment with the 8-hour and PM2.5 standards. Mr. Williams added that the issue at hand is not about how the community will meet the future requirements for the 8-hour ozone standard. It is a follow-through on the process that began when this Board took action to terminate the VET program as required by state law. The issues that have followed from that, about whether or not that was legal, are before the federal court. The District is addressing those issues in that forum.
To develop an recommended plan for meeting these new standards, Mayor Abramson has appointed the Air Quality Task Force that began meeting in January. The Task Force will identify, evaluate, and recommend strategies to this Board to achieve cleaner air and attainment of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards. The Mayor has established a time frame for developing a recommended strategy on a much shorter schedule that will be required by the EPA. With regards to the recommended strategy, Mr. Williams said that no option has been taken off the table. The Air Quality Task Force has the ability to look at whether an inspection and maintenance program would be an appropriate strategy to recommend to the Board for achieving clean air in the future.
Ms. Smith asked whether the revised Agreement would result in permanent, enforceable, quantifiable reductions regarding Kosmos. Mr. Williams indicated that it would. Ms. Smith also asked whether it would be possible for LG&E to comply with the proposed required reductions by taking using credits or allowances for reductions that occurred in areas that don’t necessarily affect the air quality in our area. Mr. Trout responded absolutely not. Unlike the NOx SIP call and the acid rain program, which are trading programs, the NOx RACT requirements that are in the SIP and the revisions to those establish emission limits for specific emissions units. These limits cannot meet that by trading. Compliance is based upon the emissions unit’s actual emission rate.
The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
_______/signed/_______
Karen Cassidy
Chair
_______/signed/_______
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer