Minutes
Regular Meeting
of the
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board

June 15, 2005

The regular meeting of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board was called to order June 15, 2005, at 9:10 a.m. at Memorial Auditorium, 970 South 4^th Street, 1^st Floor Lobby, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Chair, Karen Cassidy. Lewis Hammond, Barbara Sexton Smith, Dr. 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, Scott Wegenast, Jess Goldsmith, Mitzi Powell, Cynthia Lee, Martha Gammons, Arthur Chang, Tom Pinto, and Irene Stephenson. Rebecca Fleischaker Couch, Cabinet for Community Development, was also present.

The following guests were present: Eleanor Self, Joan Lindop, Phil Baldyga, Joe Bina, Panaena Rue, Steve Henry, and Barbara Hedspeth, Sierra Club; Rich Robinson, American Synthetic Rubber Company, LLC.; Kevin Spangler, OxyVinyls; Jonathan Tinsley, Dorothy Roberts, Gracie Lewis, Alice Wade, Tim Duncan, and Eboni Cochran, Rubbertown Emergency Action Education and Defense Inc. (REACT); Susan Logsdon, Caldwell Tanks; Barbara Hall, Ford -Kentucky Truck Plant, Greg Long, Ford - Louisville Assembly Plant; Heidi McKenzie, Ford -Vehicle Operations; Dennis Karl, Ford; Ben Hoene, Marathon Ashland Petroleum; Jim Wade, Engelhard; Jonathan D. Miller, DuPont Dow Elastomers L.L.C.; Matt Wells, Alcoa/Reynolds Metals; Rachael Hamilton, Jason Daunt, and Dennis Conniff, Frost Brown Todd LLC; Leslie Barras and Meme Sweets Runyon, River Fields, Inc.; Brad Dillon, Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald; Rocky Comito, UAW Local 862/Ford Motor Company; Paige Mosser Theriac, Theriac Environmental Consultants Inc.; Sarah Lynn Cunningham, Kate Cunningham, and Polk Culpepper, citizens; Barbara Clark, Jefferson County Public Schools; Cheryl Farr, Arkema Inc.; Sharon Dodson and Sarah Scheetz, Louisville Gas and Electric Company; Tom Herman, Zeon Chemicals; Alice Simpson and Susan Clark, Noveon; Mike DeBusschere, Kentuckiana Engineering Company; Todd Royer, URS Corporation; Greg Brotzge, Kentucky Paint Council; Barbara Berman, Kentucky Academy of Physician Assistants (KAPA); Tom FitzGerald, Kentucky Resources Council; Carolyn Brown, Louisville Chemistry Partnership; Cheryl Fisher, E.I. DuPont; Jason Underwood, Greater Louisville Inc. (GLI); James McMillin, Louisville Peace Action Committee; Winnie Hepler, REACT and Justice Resource Center; Sally Craxton, Kentucky Alliance and All Mom’s; and Arnita Gadson, West Jefferson County Community Task Force.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the May 18, 2005, Regular Meeting and the June 1, 2005, Special Meeting were approved as distributed.

Staff Reports

1. Director

   Mr. Williams announced that Scott Wegenast will be leaving the District after next week. He has accepted a position with the American Association for Retired People (AARP) as their top lobbyist statewide. Mr. Williams said that the District appreciates his good work over the last year.

   Mr. Williams indicated that KAIRE’s request for proposal for the support contract is out for bid. He said that the KAIRE Program had a successful kickoff a couple weeks ago at Jefferson Square. The Mayor, Dr. Troutman, and Jane Walsh spoke at the kickoff. The kickoff is being replayed on Channel 25 and there is a tape available to view. Ms. Walsh made moving remarks about her 20-month-old child who has asthma.

   Mr. Williams noted that there has not been an exceedance of the 8-hour ozone standard so far this year. The May levels of PM_2.5 were higher than the May levels last year. The monitored levels of PM_2.5 for the first five months of 2005 have been higher than for the first five months of 2004.

   Mr. Williams said that the District had its budget hearing on June 7, 2005, before the Metro Council. It is being replayed on Channel 25 and there is a tape available to view.

   Mr. Williams said that yesterday the District received the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 mid-year evaluation report of the District’s progress under the Section 105 Air Planning Agreement (grant commitments). The EPA found that the District has made sufficient progress in meeting its grant commitments.

2. Lawn Care for Cleaner Air Awards

   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.

3. Air Quality Data

   The air quality monitoring reports were submitted for filing. A copy of each report is attached to the original minutes.

4. Enforcement Status

   The APCD Enforcement Status 06/08/2005  report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the original minutes.

5. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction, and Emergency Report

   The Malfunctions, Emergencies, Startups and Shutdowns received 05/09/2005 Through 06/07/2005  report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the original minutes.

Unfinished Business

1. Continued Board discussion of STAR Program regulations

Mr. Trout resumed discussions of Regulation 5.21 Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants. Section 2.6.4 specifies that the approved level of a modification of an environmental acceptability (EA) goal, or a lesser level as determined appropriate by the District, is added to otherwise applicable EA goal of section 2.5 or 2.8. The District may approve a modification not to exceed a Hazard Quotient (HQ) of 3.0 or a risk of 100x10^-6. Any greater risk would require the Board to approve a variance.

Mr. Trout said that section 2.9 would allow the EA goals to be increased on industrial property by a factor of 4.2 for carcinogens and 3 for noncarcinogenic risks, and on public roadways by a factor of 10 for carcinogens and 3 for noncarcinogenic risks. He emphasized, however, that these increases in the EA goals would have no effect on the EA goals applicable to any other location.

Mr. Trout explained that section 2.10 requires a reevaluation of environmental acceptability, pursuant to the section 4.11 procedure, if a section 2.9 factor was used and the land use changes and is no longer industrial property or public roadway.

Mr. Trout said that sections 2.11 and 2.12 require a periodic reevaluation of best available technology for toxics (T-BAT) if an EA goal is modified. If something has become available that would achieve either compliance with the goal or substantial progress, then the owner would have three years to implement that new T-BAT element.

Mr. Trout indicated that Section 4 contains the requirements and schedules for environmental acceptability. If EA is not demonstrated, then the company is required to develop an implementation plan. In general, the end dates are not significantly different than those originally proposed. The major proposed changes are the time period for the first enhanced emissions inventory of Category 1 TACs for the Title V companies (July to December 2005 instead of calendar year 2004) and the separation by a year of the schedules for Category 1 TACs and Category 2 TACs for the Group 2 stationary sources so they are not dealing with both sets of chemicals on the same schedule.

Mr. Trout said that section 4.8.1 includes the same limits for a proposed Risk Reduction Plan, a Hazard Quotient of 3.0 and a cancer risk of 100x10^-6, for an exceedance of a section 2.8 goal as was recommended for inclusion in section 2.6.3.

Mr. Trout said that Regulation 5.30 Report and Plan of Action for Identified Source Sectors requires the District to assess and develop a plan for the other source categories. The District recommends in Section 2.1, line 31, to change the due date for the District to submit the Report and Plan of Action to the Board from June 30, 2006, to June 30, 2007, but leave the date for completing reductions the same (2012). This allows the District an extra year to develop that plan.

Ms. Smith said that she was concerned that, by extending the date in 5.30 by an entire twelve months, there may not be a lot of activity until the end of that period. She said that she wants to assure that the stakeholder involvement process will be different than what was used in developing the Strategic Toxic Air Reduction (STAR) regulations. Mr. Williams responded that the date was changed to ensure that the District has ample time to prepare a thorough, adequate, comprehensive report and plan of action for the Board.

Public Comment

Winnie Hepler, REACT and Justice Resource Center, said she has been pleased with the proposed STAR Program and delighted that it has progressed to reality so swiftly and relatively smoothly. The purpose of the STAR Program is to significantly reduce toxic chemical air pollution in Louisville and thereby improve the health of citizens. She said that she doesn’t quite grasp the importance or value of recommending an upper limit of 100 in a million for carcinogens and a non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 3.0. This upper limit will give the District a broader range in which to operate before the Board must grant a variance. The risk goal should remain at one death per one million, with the risks of 7.5 and 10 per one million for individual plants and groups of industries. This goal should not be on the table for negotiation at this time. If, after a few years, the regulations prove to be impossibly stringent, then a proposed compromise may be offered for consideration by the public and the Board. She asked the Board to keep intact the STAR Program that has generated so much hope and good will. She urged the retention of the leak detection and repair program and that Regulation 5.30 require reductions as soon as possible.

Jim Wade, Environmental/Safety Manager, Engelhard, said his company has submitted two construction permit applications since January. One has been issued and one is still pending. Both applications are projects that will improve their dust collection system with no increase in emissions requested. He said that the District permit engineer has worked diligently to issue the permits as soon as possible, but has many other permit applications to review. The State of Kentucky’s procedure would require only a letter stating what they are doing to improve the environment. Mr. Wade is concerned that the demands of learning and implementing the STAR Program will have a detrimental effect on the already stressed permit issuance process.

Susan Logsdon, Caldwell Tanks, said that the STAR Program remains too far-reaching in its lists of chemicals and characterization of their toxicity. She said that the Board must act now to exercise some control over the District. She noted that Caldwell Tanks emits two tons per year of ethylbenzene, but that ethylbenzene is a major industrial chemical, is ubiquitous in air due to gasoline, vehicle emissions, paints, and household chemicals, and has never been found to cause cancer in humans. A 20-year study of 200 workers chronically exposed to ethylbenzene showed no incidents of cancer. She said that although ethylbenzene was not identified as a chemical of concern in the 2001 West Louisville Air Toxics Study, the District has included ethylbenzene in the STAR Program. The District has decided ethylbenzene causes cancer. She said that the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) included ethylbenzene on a list of “possible carcinogens,” along with other “possible” cancer-causing agents such as coffee and pickled vegetables. She said that the District is inappropriately using this list to justify its classification of ethylbenzene. The District has decided on a Benchmark Ambient Concentration (BAC) of 3 micrograms per cubic meter for ethylbenzene, a ridiculous level with no scientific basis. She said that she cannot evaluate the STAR program’s effect on the company’s other Category 4 emissions because the District hasn’t set BACs yet. This BAC table is the heart of STAR, and it is still less than half-finished. None of the 17 Category 3 chemicals are in the table yet, and only 5 of the 137 Category 4 chemicals were put in the May 31, 2005 revision. Ms. Logsdon urged the Board to exercise its duty to our community by limiting the District’s ability to use inappropriate equations and default values to determine BACs, and the discretion of the District to designate a contaminant as a carcinogen. She said that Caldwell Tanks supports the GLI on this and several other significant issues that urgently need the Board’s attention.

Ms. Smith inquired whether ethylbenzene was on the chemical list of 18. Mr. Williams responded that it was listed in Category 4, a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Mr. Trout added that ethylbenzene is listed by IARC as a carcinogen.

Jonathan Tinsley, Board Member, REACT, said the members of REACT and the people of the community strongly support the STAR Program as proposed and encourage the Board not to weaken the program. He said that a strong STAR Program will protect trees, animals, and the quality of air for this community mentioned in the District’s mission statement. He said that the people living in the Rubbertown community deserve quality air, and the pollutants in Rubbertown have a great impact on the community. He said that the Rubbertown polluters need to be held accountable and be required to comply with a strong program that will lead to a better quality of life and air. He said that he is still dealing with his heart problem which has caused him to lose his job, his home, and his health. He had found some information from different agencies having to do with a chemical fire and an explosion on the same weekend that he had his heart attack. He asked the Board to adopt a strong STAR Toxics Program.

Ms. Smith asked Mr. Tinsley whether he would support a program that would allow staff discretion to approve a risk of up to 100 in one million for variance requests and whether he would support the one-year extension of the deadline in Regulation 5.30. Mr. Tinsley responded that he would not.

Leslie Barras, River Fields, asked the Board to consider the changes to Regulation 5.21, specifically the issue of relaxing or modifying a standard to a goal to provide case-by-case discretion to relax the risk protection levels. She said that she has a very difficult time as a public policy matter reconciling this issue. The treatment of drinking water and the quality of drinking water that comes out of our taps at our homes and the quality and safety of the foods that we ingest are set at the most protective risk levels. She said that she has a difficult time in reconciling the fact as to why the public in our community is deserving of a less equivalent level of protection. She said that she has a difficult time explaining to people why, as a public policy matter, we are taking a different position and allowing for relaxed standards for a different media that poses hazardous risks to our community.

Ms. Smith asked Ms. Barras if she was opposed to the use of the term “goals” as opposed to the term “standards.” Ms. Barras responded that she was and that she is also opposed to relying on the District’s case-by-case discretion to relax the risk protection levels.

Jonathan D. Miller, Senior Environmental Specialist, DuPont Dow Elastomers, said that he wanted to highlight one particular point in the proposed STAR Program. This is the language in Section 2 of the May 17, 2005, version of proposed Regulation 5.20. This language starts out referencing two of the three recognized government bodies that have the job of evaluating substances to which there may be human exposure to determine whether the substances should be listed as known or suspected human carcinogens, based on sound science. But at subsection 2.1.4, the District appears to place itself on a par with the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer as qualified to make judgments about carcinogenicity. He asked why the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists is not included in this proposed regulation as a body that lists cancer-causing substances. More important, he asked that the Board challenge the District’s language in this proposed regulation. He questioned whether the District has the ability to do the sound science necessary to evaluate these substances. He said that the proposed language strikes him as inconsistent with the fundamental government principle of checks and balances, of separation of powers between branches of the government. He asked the Board to bear in mind this principle when considering the language of this regulation. He said that he believes that it is inappropriate to allow the District to be judge, jury, and final arbiter of the complex evaluation of what is and is not carcinogenic. He suggested that there are already checks and balances in the system to handle this determination.

Ms. Embry asked the District to explain the justification or rationale for allowing the District the discretion to determine that a chemical should be considered a carcinogen and how frequently the provision would be applied. She asked whether there would be a process for peer review. Mr. Trout responded that, although the District does not anticipate that the provision in section 2.1.4 would be used often, the District believes that it is appropriate for the District to have the authority to determine that a chemical should be treated as a carcinogen because there may be a company using a chemical in Louisville that is not used elsewhere, and thus, the chemical may not have been reviewed by a national or international agency. He said that a peer review process had not been specifically included in section 2.1.4, but that the information used by the District to make such a determination would be available to the public.

Dorothy Roberts, REACT, said that she is a long-time resident of the West End. In that time she has seen particles from chemicals settle on vehicles every morning and it ruins the paint. If these particles can ruin paint, then it is logical that these chemicals would also attack delicate lung tissue. The reports and results are in from study after study on toxic air pollution; we need to act now. She said that the STAR Program, as it was originally written, should be implemented. Our government is all for and by the people, so everybody should be included in the Board’s decision. Our city officials boast that we are a family city. She said that we need to use our technology to clean the air. Industry and the community can coexist.

Eleanor Self, Sierra Club, thanked the Board and the Staff for their diligent work on this issue and the product that is about to be produced for the betterment of our community. She said that she has some major concerns with the revisions to 5.21. She urged the Board to revert to the original proposed version. She said that she finds replacing the term “standards” with the term “goals” to be problematic. She is not convinced that allowing a greater risk is rational. She said that regarding the issue of whether the District or Board should make the decision on variances up to 100 in a million, the most important consideration is that the process be transparent. She encouraged the Board to re-think that provision and revert to the proposed version of Regulation 5.21. She also urged the Board not to change the submittal date in Regulation 5.30.

Gracie Lewis, REACT and African Americans Against Cancer, said that one year of meeting at the table has brought us full circle in the quest to enforce the Clean Air Act and implementation of the STAR Program. While cancer groups, such as the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the Kentucky African Americans Against Cancer, are annually holding health fairs, church programs, community festivals, radio and television shows, professional conferences, and school programs designed to reduce the incidence of cancer, recommended changes to the STAR Program would increase the risk of cancer. She said that the companies want to set a much higher risk level of 100 in one million for carcinogens. The federal guidelines call for a range of 1 to 100 in one million. She said that the District is proposing this change knowing full well that there are companies that produce and are using cancer-causing chemicals that increase the incidence of cancer in Rubbertown. This one change alone is totally and unconditionally unacceptable. She urged the Board to stick to the original proposed regulations in the STAR Program and to not accept the recommended change.

Joe Bina, resident of Southern Indiana, said he is concerned about the air we breathe that does not recognize geographical boundaries. He can’t choose not to breathe. He has no choice but to breathe the air that contains chloroprene, ethylbenzene, 1,3-butadiene, or any of the other 18 toxic materials that contaminate the air of Louisville. He heard Russ Barnett speak last week on 1,3-butadiene at a Rubbertown meeting and was surprised to learn that 80% of the 1,3-butadiene emissions are from only a handful of sources. He urged the Board to adopt a strong STAR Program.

Joan Lindop, Sierra Club, thanked the Board members for the considerable time they have spent on the STAR issue. The Sierra Club supports the regulations without lowering the risk protection levels. Their concern is that if more variances are handled by staff, then the public would be excluded from the process. She said that it is critical that citizens be informed of changes and variances in air regulations. The Sierra Club wants the strongest possible standards.

Alice Wade, REACT, said she has resided in the Rubbertown area for over 40 years with all the odors and pollution that are in the air. She said that the Rubbertown companies have had over 40 years to bring their equipment up to standards. The government should have required stringent rules for them long ago and, if it had, then the citizens wouldn’t be facing this problem now. She encouraged the Board to adopt the STAR Program as proposed without any concessions. She said that the citizens are tired of compromises.

Rich Robinson, American Synthetic Rubber Company (ASRC), reported an update on the progress the company is making as part of a Board agreement entered into last year. Later this month, ASRC will be breaking ground for the thermal oxidizer, the only remaining project left to be completed per the agreement. He said that he anticipates that the equipment will be installed and begin operation in the September/October time frame, followed by testing of the equipment using the required EPA methods. He said that ASRC plans to have the equipment fully operational by the end of the year as provided in the agreement. He requested that the Board take into account the company’s efforts with respect to the voluntary agreement as the Board considers revisions to the STAR Program.

Ms. Embry asked whether ASRC, under the technology they are applying now, would be able to meet the provisions of the STAR Program. Mr. Robinson replied that the emissions from the thermal oxidizer would meet the requirements of the STAR Program.

Rocky Comito, President, UAW Local 862/Ford Motor Company, said he presently represents over 12,000 UAW Local 862 Ford workers and retirees as well as over 25,000 union members in the Louisville and Jefferson County area. They want the cleanest air for the citizens of Jefferson County to breathe. He said, however, that the possible deterioration of the tax base resulting from the loss of good-paying industrial jobs must also be considered. These businesses bring hundreds of millions of dollars to Louisville. The air quality would improve only slightly without these businesses because they are presently responsible for only a very limited amount of the cancer risks in Louisville. These plants already operate under strict federal and state regulations. The STAR proposal would force various economic burdens on these facilities without addressing the predominant sources of air contaminants. He said that the inclusion in the STAR Program of variances implies that the restrictions are too stringent and the proposals are not obtainable. He said that businesses want to deal with absolutes and not variances; they want to be able to realistically meet their obligations to the community. He said they do endorse GLI’s initiative and urge Metro Louisville officials and the Board to support the GLI Task Force proposal.

Dennis Conniff, GLI Air Toxics Task Force, said that the presentations yesterday and today on the STAR Program were useful and helped his understanding of the intent the District had on some points. However, the information was limited in its scope, addressing only the changes that Version 3 of the STAR Program made to Version 2. He said that the Board still has to look at the program as a whole as it currently exists to determine what is reasonable and necessary pursuant to the Board’s statutory limitations and to achieve what would be a sound technical program. In addition, he said he was concerned that the Board is only hearing one side of the story, that of the District. He said that there needs to be full and complete discussion of issues with all sides. He said that the Task Force still does not believe that there has been a true, fully involved stakeholder process. If providing a stakeholder process is adequate for Regulation 5.30, why is it not adequate for the STAR Program. He said that there is not a toxicologist to pose questions to about how this program applies and its appropriateness, nor is there a modeler to pose questions to about whether the modeling will be done in an appropriate and technical sound matter. He said that he would like to have Dr. Klan, toxicologist, respond to a mis-characterization about the comments of industry regarding the use of IARC data. He said that he takes exception to the suggestions seen in the media that the only issue for the Board is how stringent this program can be. He said that the issue is whether the program is scientifically and technically sound and whether it is a reasonable way to address the problems that have been identified. He urged the Board not to go forward with a program that is flawed with the intent that it can be fixed later; fixing it later would be too late.

Tom Herman, Environmental Manager, Zeon Chemicals, asserted that the real risk to the community from their emissions is nothing near what some would have the Board members believe. Zeon is the main emitter of acrylonitrile (AN) in town. The company is pleased that its voluntary emission reduction program and preceding efforts are well reflected in the graph by the University of Louisville (U of L) in its recent analysis of Rubbertown ambient air data showing a 16% reduction per year over the last 4 years (2001-2005). He said that the current EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) review (to be completed in 2007) is likely to show that the current AN reference value may be up to 1000 times too severe. He said that Zeon has also reduced its emission of 1,3-butadiene (BD). However, they are a much smaller BD emitter relative to the others. The Zeon reductions, coupled with the substantial reductions of others, ought to dramatically reduce the ambient levels of BD later this year. He said that Zeon officials and others contend that ethyl acrylate (EA) is not an inhalation carcinogen. To their knowledge, no study indicates this effect. If the proposed STAR scheme regulates EA as such, and it is listed as a Category I chemical, then he said that the scheme is simply wrong and ought to be corrected, like ethylbenzene referred to earlier. He said that IARC only listed EA as a possible carcinogen, and it has not even been detected in more than 90% of the ambient air samples during the recent 4-year period. He said that it gives him confidence that Zeon and other Rubbertown industries present a low risk to the community from the negative findings of the U of L-directed Employee Health Surveillance Program (as described to this Board at a meeting last fall) and of two comprehensive recent epidemiology studies at other Rubbertown companies; the assertion by U of L’s Toxicologist Dr. Bill Waddell and others that the EPA cancer risk determinations for very low exposures are extraordinarily conservative and simply wrong; and documentation of risk management trends in recent Air and Waste Management articles. He added that considering these and other factors, they hope that the Board will be comfortable in selecting reasonable options for STAR, including applying residential risk values only to residential areas (using multipliers for other areas is pseudo-science at best), providing a workable range of risk levels, making the T-BAT definition realistic, and providing a fair assessment of fugitive emission impacts.

Tim Duncan, REACT, said that he fears that we are situated on a slope watching the STAR Program and with it our community sink rather than rise. He said that with this latest re-draft of the program, key provisions that would protect public health have been seriously compromised or removed. He cautioned that before there are any further relaxations, the Board members should remember that the West End and Rubbertown residents did not create the current intolerable situation caused by Rubbertown chemical plants and the unhealthy levels of toxic chemicals they release into the air we breathe. He said that the companies that are responsible for this situation and their well-paid representatives want the Board to weaken the STAR Program provisions to their satisfaction. He said that this has been a gut-wrenching two years for many involved in this situation and for many sitting at the table. The REACT members have listened during door-to-door canvassing efforts to people who angrily told them of air pollution so bad they couldn’t stay outside in their yards. He said that these people did not believe that this City, this Agency, and this Board had enough courage to pass and enforce serious measures to deal with toxic air pollution from industry, because businesses are too big and powerful. He said that we must not send a message to the rest of the nation that polluters or their paid representatives can write the City’s pollution policy, nor should we tell West End Rubbertown residents that the corporate bottom line is more important or even in balance with their health. He asked the Board to pass the strongest measures possible to clean our air and protect human health.

Sally Craxton, Kentucky Alliance and All Mom’s, said that she doesn’t want to wear a mask outside when she walks. The odors reach the East End where she resides. She said that voluntary measures do not work. She said that people who do not reside in the West End would not choose to live in the Rubbertown area, nor would those who spoke for the chemical companies choose to move their homes right beside the chemical plant. She suggested that if a couple of the companies from Rubbertown were moved to Prospect or Anchorage, then the parents would think about their children. The Courier-Journal ran an article two years ago about the two worst counties in the South East part of the country for air pollution. One county was in Georgia and the other was Jefferson County, Kentucky. She said that she has friends who work for the chemical companies and one of them said that their company is thinking about leaving town. Ms. Craxton asked whether there could be some tax incentives for those companies to install emissions controls or another cent added to the cigarette tax to provide funding for additional controls. She said that she doesn’t want the companies to leave, but we have to think of a better solution. She said that our motto should not be “Louisville, Kentucky, one of the most polluted counties in the South East” but rather it should be “Louisville, safe air for all.”

Rachael Hamilton, GLI Air Toxics Task Force, provided a copy of a presentation entitled “The Science of Risk Assessment” written by Dr. William Waddell, Professor and Chair, Emeritus, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, that was presented at the most recent Rubbertown Community Action Committee Meeting. This paper was also presented earlier this year to the Louisville Bar Association. The GLI Air Toxics Task Force believes that this information may be useful to the Board as it considers the STAR Program. She encouraged the Board to review the presentation and also to invite Dr. Waddell to give this presentation to the Board so that any questions the Board may have may be answered or clarified as necessary.

Ms. Smith asked whether the Board members would be interested in having a presentation by Dr. William Waddell. Chair Cassidy and other Board members responded not at this time.

Arnita Gadson, West Jefferson County Community Task Force, said that the original committee will be reconvened to track the measures taken pursuant to the ten options listed in the WLATS Risk Management Plan. Information on these measures would be available to those companies who request it. She thanked the Board and the District for a tiring and sometimes thankless effort to establish a complex program such as the STAR program. She said, however, that we are past the time for a decision to be made. The longer the decision process has been, the more diluted the program becomes. She said that there are some who have strongly supported the draft and proposed regulations but disagree with the newest recommended changes. She said that the public looks to the District to protect public health. This is a community health and quality of life issue. She said that no matter what stance you take, you are ultimately affecting the lives of your children as well as ours. If you allow yourself to lose focus of the facts you have done a disservice to the people who look to you for expertise and willingness to protect all of us. She said that she concurs with the staff having the responsibility for acting on modifications and believes that the standards of the previous draft should be retained. She said that identifying the standards as goals leaves too much room for interpretation. Ms. Gadson said that the Task Force has made few comments regarding the STAR Program regulations because the Task Force members trust the Board and the District to adopt a good program.

Eboni Cochran, REACT, said that the revision to the STAR Program released June 1 included several changes that she finds unacceptable. One of these changes is the decision to remove Regulation 1.21 Enhanced Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) Program. She said that an enhanced leak detection and repair program is greatly needed because fugitive release emissions are excessive here in Louisville. At the 40211 and 40216 ZIP codes alone, fugitive emissions reported to the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory were 433,957 pounds in 2002 and 526,418 pounds in 2003. She said that in the past, it has been documented by the EPA and other groups that emissions have been under-reported by industry. There is a chance that the over half a million pounds of fugitive emissions reported for 2003 for ZIP codes 40211 and 40216 is lower than the actual amount emitted. The levels of 1,3-butadiene during the first quarter of 2005 were higher at the monitors in the community than they were last year during the same time, except for the Shelbyville Road monitor. She said that she is disappointed at what seems to be the weakening of the program. She then read some comments on the STAR program from The Courier-Journal. She said that this is about health, economics as it pertains to residents, and who and what we value in this society. She said that although cancer is devastating, it is not the only result of these chemicals that are being emitted. There are also issues related to the nervous system, the reproductive process, cardiovascular disease, and so on. She said that the Board has a responsibility to the residents of this city who do not have any other recourse but to seek help from agencies and Boards like yourselves to improve their quality of life and, in some instances, save their lives. She asked the Board members to please be courageous and take a stand for the residents; it is long overdue.

Sarah Lynn Cunningham, Asthmatics, thanked the Board members for all the work they have been doing on this project. She said that there is a general consensus that there are about 100,000 people in this community with at least one respiratory disease or impairment. She said that she is not certain that the latest draft is perfect, but she is certain that perfectionism gets people nowhere in life. She said that she is certain that transparency and accountability are important, especially with respect to the toxics issue. She said that what she noticed about the five components of the star analogy is that the toxics program is incremental and requires industries to lay out on paper the specifics of their situation. The STAR program doesn’t require every company to do everything, just get started with information. She said that the Board needs to adopt this program, get it rolling, and there is plenty of time to fine tune any particular weaknesses in the system. Exemptions should not be provided before the program is started, and instances for relief need to be specifically documented.

Ms. Smith asked Ms. Cunningham for her opinion regarding the use of the term “goals” versus “standards” and the Staff’s discretion to make decisions on variances up to 100 in one million. Ms. Cunningham responded that she didn’t think getting caught up in semantics is a very useful idea. She said that she doesn’t have an opinion yet on the variance issue, but stalling is not good for health.

Dennis Karl, Regulatory Policy Manager for Stationary Sources in the U.S. and Canada, Ford Motor Company, said that after listening to all the comments and looking at all the comments that have been submitted, he has not heard anybody say “don’t regulate toxics.” It is a matter of degree. He said that there is nothing wrong with having institutional opposition to good regulations, especially in air toxics. There are still significant corrections that need to be made to the details of this program. He said that he has seen a lot of regulatory packages that have not elicited this level of concern over the details, suggesting that there are still significant structural problems. He said that he disagrees that the approaches in the STAR program are accepted and normal. He said that the EPA has dealt with many of the same issues in the coke oven maximum achievable control technology (MACT) residual risk paper just published. He said that it has taken Ford several months to do refined modeling for one of its facilities in Louisville. The results indicated that there are probably seven substances that would be at a level of concern and would require reductions. Four of these substances are attributed to natural gas by-products of combustion. Mr. Karl suggested that the Board take a step back and look at the details of the STAR Program.

Ms. Smith asked which structural problems Mr. Karl suggest she look at. Mr. Karl responded that it is a highly technical undertaking to talk about how to regulate air toxics. He said that he feels that a formal stakeholder group should have been established to discuss many of these matters and how best to put together a package that would address the most meaningful issues. There should have been meaningful discussions about how modeling should be applied and what the acceptable risk levels should be.

Meme Sweets Runyon, River Fields Inc., an organization with 2,000 members from 104 ZIP codes, strongly supports the STAR Program and urges the Board to adopt it. She said that River Fields is an active member of GLI, but does not agree with either the position or the strategy that GLI has undertaken on the STAR Program. She said it is unfortunate that GLI has decided not to be a part of the quite lengthy toxics process which River Fields and many others have been a part of for a number of years. She said that to extend the dialogue at this time would be unfair to the members of the public who have already invested a great deal of time, thought, and intellectual and technical analysis. The larger public plan which River Fields oversees is the Ohio River Corridor Master Plan. All of the goals and objectives under this plan were voted for by approximately 15 cities in Jefferson County. One of the 15 goals is that the air and water of the river corridor be clean. The neighborhoods around Rubbertown are a part of the Ohio River Corridor. One concern of River Fields is the difference between the words standards and goals. Another concern is the issue of variances and they ask that the Board look carefully at that question. They have seen them used with the Planning Commission and with the Metropolitan Sewer District on drainage and water quality and how they structure the variance has an enormous effect on the law. River Fields wrote to the Mayor in December and asked for the data supporting the suggested threat to industry if the STAR Program were to be adopted. She said she believes that the Board has all the information it needs to go ahead and do the correct thing for future generations.

Ms. Smith asked Ms. Runyon whether River Fields was in favor of adoption of the STAR Program and how they define highest standards. Ms. Runyon responded that they are supportive of the STAR Program without the change of the word standard to goal. Ms. Barras added that the highest risk standards means to achieve and maintain the risk protection levels provided by the proposed regulations.

Todd Royer, URS Corporation, said that he agrees with Mr. Williams’ comments that there is a large body of reference information and past precedent that should help the District determine T-BAT using good professional judgment and not just random subjectiveness. This is particularly true as long as the concept of T-BAT focuses primarily on technological feasibility and cost effectiveness. He said that his concern is that the concept of what the T-BAT analysis should include may be stretched by consideration of production limitations, restrictions on hours of operations, or rigorously weighing health and welfare benefits. He said that these are worthy considerations if, after the implementation of T-BAT, a source’s impact is still unacceptable. However, they do not belong as part of the control technology feasibility and cost effectiveness evaluation. He said that he supports the staff’s proposed risk goal adjustment factors for industrial property and public roadways and recommends consideration of a similar factor for other non-residential areas. This additional category would lower human exposure and might justify a factor similar to industrial sites and could be defined to exclude any sensitive sites such as schools, churches, and nursing homes.

Chair Cassidy asked how one would derive adjustment factors for other land use. Mr. Royer responded that one would weigh the actual expected exposure in those areas. He said that the District staff described 4.2 as a mathematically derived ratio of time periods. He said that there is some precedence for using a 10 factor for similar circumstances. He said that both of the numbers seem reasonable to him. There are other public areas that could be treated similarly.

Ms. Embry asked whether there was a cumulative risk to the public in consideration of the fact that they are not at a specific location of a roadway for a lengthy amount of time but they move from their homes to their work to a roadway, a parking lot, a park, and all over the county. She asked whether there is a justification for keeping the controls as they are in the current draft to account for the multiple exposure of individuals. Mr. Williams responded that, in general, people are always some place within the county. From a policy standpoint, it is preferable that people are protected wherever they are. He said that the staff has used established precedent to develop recommendations regarding industrial property and public roadways but does not support developing other factors.

Tom FitzGerald, Director, Kentucky Resources Council, said that for 21 years and longer the residents of West Jefferson County have lived with an untenable situation, one which the Board has the power to correct. The West County Community Task Force implemented a plan to obtain monitoring data to answer the question as to what somebody standing on the corner of 41st and Algonquin or Bells was breathing. He said that no one has seriously questioned the gathering of the data or the quality of the data that was gathered for the WLATS. The issue is how much risk should be posed to the public from stationary source toxic air pollutants. He said that the answer was reflected in the consensus of the Metro Council that we cannot tolerate business as usual and that this is a critical program to the health of this community. He said that it might be easier to wait until someone else deals with the problem, but the federal government is more than half a decade behind in addressing residual risks standards and is now being driven by judicially imposed deadlines. It will be well into the next decade before residual risk begins to be addressed at the federal level. It will be a long time for the state, which could not bring itself to ban back yard burning, the single largest source of dioxin exposure to citizens in this state, to develop a meaningful program to reduce the residual risks posed by air toxics in this community. He said that every single day there are children in this community who get up and go outside and are exposed, in an unconsenting, unknowing way, to avoidable risks. He said that the obligation of this Board regarding stakeholder involvement is met by publication of a legal notice, a 30-day comment period, a public hearing, and the development of a statement of consideration. He said that he was involved in the state Brownfields Task Force that came up with the presumptive standard in this state of one in one million cancer risk and a 1.0 noncancer HQ. There are some misunderstandings about some of the changes that have occurred. He said that at some point the Board should trust the judgment and the deliberation of a staff that has no other agenda other than protecting public health, and move forward.

Chair Cassidy asked Mr. FitzGerald’s opinion of “standard” versus “goal.” Mr. FitzGerald responded that it is irrelevant what these are called. What is important is what a company that exceeds the target risk levels is required to do. Under the proposed Regulation 5.21, T-BAT was only required to be considered. The District’s current draft requires that T-BAT be implemented. The initial proposal specified no upper bound risk level for which approval could be given. The recommended change includes an upper boundary of 100 in one million risk.

Ms. Smith asked Mr. FitzGerald whether he felt that we could afford to wait until 2007 to have a plan submitted to the Board under Regulation 5.30. Mr. FitzGerald responded by asking, with the District’s staff constraints, whether you want to require them to produce that plan at the same time they are trying to put the STAR Program in place, or do you want to provide additional flexibility to look at different options, given their other work loads.

Chair Cassidy asked Mr. FitzGerald for his opinion on allowing District staff to approve a risk level of up to 100 in one million. Mr. FitzGerald responded that if you look at the steps in the process where you would ever get to 100 in a million at the upper bound limit, if there were no variance and no modification process, then every one would either comply with the 1 in one million goal or they would come to the Board. The Board would be left with no standards for granting a variance. This proposal would require, before ever getting to the Board, that a company demonstrate that it has applied T-BAT and still not met the goals of 1 in one million and the interim goal of 7.5 in one million. If a company needs additional relief, then it would be required to do a risk reduction plan which would allow continued operation but would lower risks and require periodic re-review. He said that there are two issues, who makes the decision and what the standards are.

Greg Brotzge, Kentucky Paint Council, said that the council notes that there have been some positive changes in the regulations, especially the temporary withdrawal of the enhanced leak detection and repair regulation. However, the council continues to be concerned about the structure of the program and the level of uncertainty that it will mean for manufacturers in this community. The overall procedure to demonstrate compliance has changed somewhat but the core concerns raised back in February are still there. The council still believes that the standards in the STAR package are likely the most stringent in the country and that many businesses will not be able to meet them. While the District has given itself somewhat more latitude to grant a variance, they will still be managing the program by exception. The council also still believes that this package will hit smaller companies especially hard and is concerned that the level of small business assistance will be limited, given all of the District’s responsibilities. The council believes that the cost to all businesses, including compliance costs and increased permit fees, has not been fully explored and will be much greater than currently estimated. The council thinks that there are a number of other problems that still exist with the current regulations. He said that most of these problems have been expressed in the GLI issues paper and the council concurs with GLI’s comments. He said that the council believes that this package will have a detrimental effect on the local economy with only a minor benefit to air quality. He said that it is difficult to see how a manufacturer would want to expand or locate in this community with the level of uncertainty that these regulations entail. There is already anecdotal evidence of this package discouraging investment. He said that there will be significant reductions in emissions over the next few years with or without the STAR Program regulations. He urged the Board to carefully review the STAR package and not rush to adopt something that will impact this community for years to come.

Carolyn Brown, Louisville Chemistry Partnership, said that the Partnership commends the District for making certain positive changes such as pulling the LDAR regulation. However, the Partnership believes there are still a number of problems with the regulations, and it urges the Board to not rush to action, but take the time to fix the STAR Program regulations before it is too late. The Partnership has been circulating an electronic petition among the member companies’ employees for the last several weeks asking the Board to fix the STAR Program regulations before it is too late. The petition was presented to the Board with 353 signatures. She acknowledged that the petition was circulated prior to the release of the latest draft, but said that the concerns are still valid. She said that the Partnership supports the suggestions by GLI for improvement of the STAR Program regulations, and believes that these suggestions can still be incorporated into the package. She said that GLI has done a good job of laying out the remaining significant issues and the Partnership supports the GLI comments on the current regulations. She said that the Partnership reiterates its previously expressed concern about the District’s ability to implement this program under the timetable established, given the existing backlog of permit applications and the District’s other commitments under the State Implementation Plan. Local industry must be able to respond to changing market conditions, including changes in processes and raw materials, without waiting months for District action on permits. The Partnership is concerned that delays in timely review of applications will only be exacerbated by the implementation schedule for the STAR Program and the lack of flexibility in the STAR Program when changes in raw materials result in new or different toxic air contaminant emissions. She urged the Board to work with all stakeholders to make STAR a better regulatory program.

Chair Cassidy thanked everyone for their comments and the Board members for their questions.

The Board members discussed how they would proceed with the next special Board meeting, scheduled for Friday. Suggestions on amendments were requested to be written and submitted to the District prior to Tuesday’s meeting.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. The next special Board meeting is Friday, June 17, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at Memorial Auditorium, 970 South 4th Street, 2nd Floor Ball Room.