A public hearing of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board (Board) was called to order October 20, 2004, at 9:10 a.m. in the Board Room of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Chair, Dr. Karen Cassidy
The chairman read the opening announcement, rules, and purpose of the hearing of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board, which was to review one Agreed Board Order and one Construction Permit.
Ms. Terri Phelps, Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District) Enforcement Supervisor, said that the proposed Agreed Board Order (Order) alleges that 800 Condominiums, LLC, 800 Consultants, Inc., and American Invsco Development Corporation (collectively the “Responsible Parties”) violated federal and local asbestos abatement requirements at the 800 Building. She explained that in November 2000 the District received a complaint alleging that workers who were not trained in asbestos abatement were being directed to remove asbestos containing materials from apartments at the 800 Building. The District conducted an investigation and found evidence that asbestos-containing materials had been removed and disposed of by untrained workers and that local and federal work practice requirements, such as keeping the asbestos containing materials wet during the removal, placing the materials in leak tight containers, and disposing the materials in an approved landfill, had not been followed. The Responsible Parties also failed to notify the District of the abatement projects and to have a supervisor on site who was certified in asbestos abatement. After the District began it’s investigation, the companies hired a certified asbestos abatement contractor to complete the project.
Ms. Phelps said that the Responsible Parties have agreed to the terms of the Order. The Order requires the Responsible Parties to pay to the District a civil penalty of $60,000. This settlement amount will be made in four quarterly payments; the first payment of $15,000 has been made. This settlement amount is based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Asbestos Penalty Policy.
Ms. Phelps said that the District intends to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed Agreed Board Order with the Responsible Parties, pending evaluation of any comments made at today’s Public Hearing.
Mr. Art Williams, District Director, explained that as required by the May 25, 2004, Enforceable Board Agreement with American Synthetic Rubber Company (ASRC), the company is required to install and begin operating by the end of 2005 a thermal oxidizer to replace the flare system as the primary control device for the 1,3-butadiene emissions. ASRC submitted a construction permit application for the thermal oxidizer. After review, the District developed a draft permit and provided an opportunity for written comments on the draft permit. Today’s Public Hearing fulfills the Board’s motion that the public be provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft permit. Public comments were received from the Sierra Club and Rubbertown Emergency Action (REACT). As part of the efforts to address issues of concern, the District facilitated a meeting on Monday, October 18, between representatives of ASRC, the Sierra Club, REACT, and the West Jefferson County Community Task Force.
Mr. Williams said that as a result of this facilitated meeting, additional provisions for the permit were identified. One provision would require redundant flow rate and temperature monitoring systems so that if the main monitoring system experiences a problem, then there would be a backup system in place so that these parameters would continue to be monitored. A general agreement has been reached with ASRC to provide a report to the District within 6 - 8 months after the construction permit is issued in which ASRC would identify any additional redundant measures or equipment or any additional spare parts that could be maintained on site to help ensure that the down time for the thermal oxidizer would be minimized. Mr. Williams said that the District intends on finalizing the language in the permit as early as today and issue the permit no later than by the end of this week. The permit, in general authorizes the construction of the thermal oxidizer with appropriate controls, monitoring, reporting, leak detections, and various other provisions.
Mr. Ron Musgnug, American Synthetic Rubber Company (ASRC), made a slide presentation "Emission Reduction Plans - Thermal Oxidizer" that provided information on the thermal oxidizer that will be installed as part of the May 25, 2004, Enforceable Board Agreement. A copy of the slides is attached to the original minutes.
Ms. Smith asked what the highest temperature the thermal oxidizer will reach in operation. Mr. Musgnug responded that the broad design they are using for vendor selection is between 1400 °F to 1800 °F. Mr. Goldsmith added that the District has permitted some thermal oxidizers that achieve a 99.5% control efficiency while operating at 1400 °F. Ms. Smith was interested in knowing whether there were any examples either in Metro Louisville or the nation for which the operating temperature was above 1800 °F and the control efficiency was higher than 99.5%. She said that the emission of the remaining 0.5% could still represent a significant problem. Mr. Melton, John Zink Company, said that the technology is available to go above 1900 °F. The John Zink Company guarantees a 99.5% control efficiency, but expects that the actual control efficiency would be significantly higher, in the range of 99.9% to 99.95%.
Ms. Carolyn Embry suggested that this question be posed to the EPA as to what control efficiency rate is feasible for this process. Having this information would let the Board members know what was possible.
Ms. Embry asked how would the emissions of 1,3-butadiene after the implementation of the control measures at ASRC compare with the proposed 1-in-1-million risk factor of the Strategic Toxic Air Reduction (STAR) Program. Mr. Williams responded that, as drafted, ASRC would be subject to the requirements and would have to go through the same evaluative steps that would be required of any major or moderate company. This would include modeling emissions and evaluating the concentrations against the 1-in-1 million risk level, if that is what is adopted. If the emissions result in concentrations that are greater than that standard, the company would be either required to develop an emission reduction plan that further reduces emissions to get to that standard or could undertake a very public process to be authorized to have a higher risk. Mr. Musgnug added that ASRC asked various vendors whether they could achieve a 100% control efficiency and was informed that a 100% control efficiency is not achievable; there will always be some residual emission. Mr. Musgnug said that ASRC would reduce emissions as much as possible, but that the maximum reduction that could be achieved cannot be determined until the equipment is installed and actual operating parameters and variability can be determined.
The Reverend Fred Withers, REACT, said that he applauds Mr. Musgnug and ASRC for trying to make changes for the betterment of the community. The Rev. Withers asked whether the construction plans took into account human error or natural disasters. He noted that the whole southwestern part of Jefferson County is on two major faults that run through Kentucky. He asked if the construction would be able to withstand a possible earthquake, and if not, then there will be leaks. Mr. Melton responded that when they design a piece of equipment, they consider the earthquake zone, wind loading, and various other factors, including the applicable local building code requirements. There are also safety margins designed into the equipment and installation. Mr. Musgnug added that ASRC is maintaining the existing flare, so that if there were a catastrophic failure of the thermal oxidizer system, the 1,3-butadiene emissions from the entire plant would be ducted to the elevated flare stack.
The Reverend Tim Duncan, REACT, said that REACT had submitted written comments concerning the construction permit and also participated in the meeting earlier with the Sierra Club and ASRC concerning their construction permit. He said that REACT would like to add to its written comments because what was said today really underscores the importance that the STAR Program be adopted by this Board. The Rev. Duncan added that he has become familiarized with what is coming out of those smoke stacks and the effect that those emissions are having upon the community living around those smoke stacks. He said that the number that we keep uppermost in our minds concerning the STAR Program is, no matter what happens, the 1-in-1-million risk goal that must be achieved. If anything that these companies install or plan to install does not reduce emissions to the level needed to attain a risk level of 1 in 1 million, then the equipment does not achieve what needs to be done to ensure the safety of the community living around the industry. We would be negotiating with people’s lives if we do not hold onto the key 1-in-1-million risk goal. He said that the Board should not relax this goal and the STAR Program needs to be discussed, passed, and implemented as soon as possible. He said that industry should not be allowed to drag out the process to adopt this program. It has been over a year since industry first talked to the Mayor about voluntary agreements.
Mr. Howard asked what a 1-in-1-million risk personally means to the Rev. Duncan and how that risk level affects the community. The Rev. Duncan responded that there should not be any more than 1 in 1 million additional cases of cancer that would be caused by the emissions coming from those chemical plants.
David Newman, Kentucky Motorcycle Association, asked the representative from the John Zink Company whether any type of waste is derived from this process and, if so, how is this waste product handled. Mr. Melton responded that the thermal oxidation process is used to get rid of waste. The only thing that comes out of a thermal oxidizer is carbon dioxide, water vapor, a little excess oxygen, the nitrogen that is in the air, and a very small amount of material that does not burn. There would not be a water waste from the thermal oxidizer because the thermal oxidizer would not have a scrubber to remove particulates.
The public hearing adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
_______/signed/_______
Lee Howard
Vice-Chairman
for
Karen Cassidy
Chair
_______/signed/_______
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer