A public hearing of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board (Board) was called to order March 16, 2005, at 9:05 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 Public Hearing, which was to review one Agreed Board Order.
Terri Phelps summarized the Agreed Board Order with Kosmos Cement Company (Kosmos) that alleges on a minimum of 20 occasions between July 2003 and November 2004 Kosmos violated Regulation 1.14 by failing to take precautions to prevent fugitive particulate emissions from becoming airborne beyond the plant property. In each instance of an alleged violation, the District observed airborne particulate emissions beyond the plant property or collected samples that were analyzed and found to be cement dust or other materials used in the manufacture of cement. In each case, the wind direction for the period of time immediately preceding the complaint was from the direction of the Kosmos Plant.
Since December 2003, Kosmos has implemented a number of measures to better control fugitive particulate emissions, including repairing a hole in the wall of the clinker building that was allowing particulate emissions to escape, paving entrances to the plant on Dixie Highway that were a source of fugitive particulate emissions, treating in-plant roads with chemical dust suppressant on a regular basis, periodically sweeping the east shoulder and median of Dixie Highway in front of the plant to remove materials that cause dusty conditions, installing a dust suppressant system in the ground limestone storage area, and installing dust collection systems for the clinker storage building and the hot tank area. Kosmos has agreed to the terms of the order, which includes a settlement in the amount of $20,150.
Regina Henry, Environmental Manager at Kosmos, confirmed that Kosmos agrees to the order and provided two signed copies of the Agreed Board Order and a check in the amount of $20,150. She said that the allegations against Kosmos were based upon microscopic analyses that concluded that the particulate matter in the samples taken by the District was cement dust. Kosmos would like to propose x-ray diffraction as an alternate analysis technique for identifying particulate matter. The benefit of this alternate analysis technique is that x-ray diffraction would provide a more exact identification of the hydrate form of the cement particles, allowing Kosmos to more precisely determine the process responsible for the fugitive particulate emissions. This would allow Kosmos to more quickly and definitely take corrective actions. Ms. Henry said that, under certain limitations, Kosmos is willing to pay for the increased cost for x-ray diffraction testing for samples taken in the area surrounding the Kosmos facility.
Mr. Howard asked whether Kosmos officials feel that the particulate matter may not be coming from their facility and whether they can perform the x-ray diffraction analysis on site. Ms. Henry responded that the particulate matter may be coming from their facility but they would like to further pinpoint the source of the emissions. Kosmos has the capability of performing x-ray diffraction on site, but it is not the laboratory quality that an outside testing lab could perform. Kosmos has laboratory-quality x-ray diffraction equipment at its Tampa, Florida, laboratory facility.
Ms. Smith asked what would keep Kosmos from moving forward with this kind of testing and whether Kosmos has an estimate of the increased cost. Ms. Henry responded that Kosmos is now performing x-ray diffraction analysis of fugitive particulate emission samples, but suggested that the District also use this technique for analyzing samples. She said that the cost may be two to three times more than the microscope analysis that the District currently uses. The Kosmos laboratory in Tampa operates as a testing facility for all Cemex cement plants located in North America.
Mr. Howard asked Ms. Phelps whether the District considered contracting for the more expensive testing technique. Ms. Phelps responded that the last quote received on the cost of x-ray diffraction was $500 per analysis for a local lab to conduct. Mr. Howard asked whether the increased cost would be passed on to Kosmos or would the District have to absorb it. Ms. Phelps responded that Kosmos officials had suggested that they might be willing to participate in the cost. However, the District has confidence that the microscopic analysis is sufficient to identify whether the sample was cement particles.
Ms. Smith asked how many fugitive particulate emission incidents would there possibly be in one 12-month period. Ms. Phelps responded that this order covers a little over a year and there were 20 instances. However, Kosmos has installed new emission control equipment and the District does expect the problem to be significantly reduced.
Ms. Embry asked, if the Board were to accept this recommendation for the more costly analysis technique, would the District recommend using x-ray diffraction for all particulate samples and not just for those likely to come from Kosmos. Ms. Phelps responded that the District agrees that it should, and does, have a standard methodology for sample analysis, that being microscopic analysis. This less expensive analysis provides a significant amount of information that is generally sufficient for the District’s investigations. While there may be situations where the District would need a more sophisticated analysis to be performed, the added expense is not justified for most investigations. However, if Kosmos wants a more in-depth analysis for its review of the precise cause of excess emissions, then Kosmos could pay for its own analysis.
Chair Cassidy asked Ms. Henry to clarify that the reason for a more in-depth analysis is so Kosmos can determine where the fugitive emissions are coming from and is asking the District to pay for this additional cost. Ms. Henry responded that the point of agreeing on an analysis method is so they can determine the composition of the material and Kosmos will pay the increased cost of the third-party analysis.
Mr. Williams added that the context for the offer from Kosmos is when the District is deciding whether to take an enforcement action and the sample analysis is important in establishing the composition of the material and the likely source of the emissions. He said that the District would not rely upon an analysis performed by the Kosmos lab as a basis for an enforcement action. The District would consider allowing Kosmos to pay for an x-ray diffraction analysis performed by an independent lab in an enforcement context. Mr. Williams said that if the Kosmos officials feel that using the information from the more expensive x-ray diffraction analysis would allow the company to determine the source of emissions, then Kosmos does not need the District’s permission.
The public hearing adjourned at 9:23 a.m.
________________________
Karen Cassidy
Chair
_______/signed/_______
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer