A special meeting of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board was called to order June 21, 2005, at 9:09 a.m. in the First Floor Lobby of Memorial Auditorium, 970 South 4th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, by Chair Karen Cassidy. Lee Howard, Lewis Hammond, Sandra Withers, Barbara Sexton Smith, Dr. Nadir Al-Shami, and Carolyn Embry were also present. A quorum was present.
The following Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District) staff members were present: Art Williams, Jon Trout, Jess Goldsmith, Cynthia Lee, Terri Phelps, Martha Gammons, Chris Cunningham, Tom Pinto, Mitzi Powell, Donna Anthony, and Irene Stephenson, and Assistant County Attorneys Lauren Anderson, Stacy Fritze, and Ashley May Nash.
The following guests were present:
Paige Mosser Theriac, Theriac Environmental Consultants, Inc.; Jonathan Tinsley, Rubbertown Emergency Action Education and Defense, Inc. (REACT); Sarah Scheetz, Louisville Gas & Electric Company; Dennis Conniff, Greater Louisville Inc. (GLI) Air Toxics Task Force; Ben Hoene, Marathon Ashland Petroleum; Cheryl Fisher, E.I. DuPont; Corinne Greenberg, Linebach Funkhouser Inc.; Rich Robinson, American Synthetic Rubber Company; Susan Logsdon, Caldwell Tanks; Jonathan Miller, DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC; Tim Corrigan, GLI; Winnie Hepler, REACT and Justice Resource Center; Eboni Cochran, REACT, James McMillin, Louisville Peace Action Committee, Amy Shir, Progressives Unite 1; Edward Dusch, Louisville Medical Center Steam Plant; Cathy Hinks, Metropolitan Housing Coalition; Jason Underwood, GLI; Peggy Kidwell, Criminologist/People’s Agenda; Robert H. Bush, Jr., Sierra Club/St. William Church; Leslie Barras, citizen; Susan Clark, Noveon; Brad Dillon, Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald; Robert Bottom, citizen; Arnita Gadson, West Jefferson County Community Task Force; Tom FitzGerald, Kentucky Resources Council; Sarah Lynn Cunningham, Asthmatics; Emily C. Boone, citizen, Clifton Community Council; Kevin Spangler, Oxy Vinyls; Greg Long, Ford Louisville Assembly Plant; Barbara Hall, Ford Kentucky Truck Plant; Matt Wells, Alcoa/Reynolds Metals; Rachael Hamilton, Frost Brown Todd; Jason Daust, Frost Brown Todd; Sharon Dodson, LG&E; Alice Simpson, Noveon; Stephanie Holleman, Süd-Chemie, Inc; Phil Baldyga, Sierra Club/Citizen; Kenneth Madison, Riverside; Cheryl Farr, Arkema Inc.; Joan Lindop, Sierra Club; Eleanor Self, Sierra Club; Cameron Lawrence, media; Nancy Demartra, citizen; and Dave Newman, Kentucky Motorcycle Association.
| MOTION: | Ms. Embry moved to adopt the Strategic Toxic Air Reduction (STAR) Program regulations as listed on the agenda. |
|---|
Ms. Embry expressed thanks to Mayor Abramson for his vision in initiating the STAR Program. She thanked the staff for an incredible job and an outstanding regulatory package that is protective of public health and at the same time responsive to, and inclusive of, concerns that have been raised by various sectors in our community. She said that it is important for everyone to understand that this regulatory program is being proposed to respond to health threats to county residents from toxic chemicals in our urban air. This is a threat that is documented by numerous studies, one of which found levels of some chemicals in our air several hundred times what is considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many of these chemicals are known carcinogens. She said that as we move through our discussion today, we should keep public health concerns in the forefront and let protection of public health guide our decision making.
Mr. Williams said that the District has carefully considered the effects of the amendments that the Board members at the special Board meeting on June 17th requested the District to draft. The goal is to protect public health with a fair and reasonable program and provide clarity, certainty, and flexibility. The District supports ten of the 21 amendments, two of those with some reservations. It is the District’s assessment that the other eleven amendments could weaken the STAR Program, in some cases dramatically. Therefore, Mr. Williams said that the District will urge the Board not to approve those eleven amendments.
Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that, if the Board adopts the STAR Program regulations package today, that the effective date of the regulations be July 1, 2005, rather than today. The reason for delaying the effective date is so that final versions of the regulations, including any amendments that are approved, are available when they go into effect. The Board agreed with the recommendation of a July 1, 2005, effective date.
Mr. Trout identified several technical corrections to the May 31, 2005, Draft #3 of Regulation 5.21. He also explained that the copies of the STAR Program regulations that were distributed for today’s meeting show only changes from the current versions of the regulations, for those that are existing regulations, and the final recommended text of the new regulations. The regulation package that had been distributed for the June 1, 2005, special Board meeting showed, with double underlines, changes that the District recommended be made to the proposed regulations, based upon the comments made during the formal Public Review process.
Regulation 5.20 Methodology for Determining Benchmark Ambient Concentration of a Toxic Air Contaminant
Section 2.1.3 Determination that a Toxic Air Contaminant is a Carcinogen
Subject: IARC Group 2B list
The suggested change would remove the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) “Group 2B: The agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans” list as an authoritative source for determining that a toxic air contaminant (TAC) is a carcinogen.
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout said that the District believes that the IARC Group 2B should be retained. IARC also has a Group 3 list, “The agent (mixture, or exposure circumstance) is not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.” Inclusion on the Group 2B list, “The agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans” indicates that there was information reviewed by IARC to classify a chemical as possibly being carcinogenic to humans. Some of the chemicals on the IARC 2B list are included on the National Toxicology Program (NTP) list of chemicals “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen,” which is included in section 2.1.2 and which has not been suggested to be deleted. Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that the Board not adopt this amendment.
| VOTE: | 2 votes in favor, 5 votes against: The motion failed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.20 Methodology for Determining Benchmark Ambient Concentration of a Toxic Air Contaminant
Section 2.1.1 Determination that a Toxic Air Contaminant is a Carcinogen
3.3.1 Cancer Risk Benchmark Determination Methodology
3.3.2
Issue: BACC based on established California and Michigan risk numbers
The suggested change would eliminate the use of California and Michigan unit risk estimates (UREs), thereby decreasing the number of carcinogens with available UREs to only those listed by the EPA in IRIS.
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 2 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout said that this suggested change would significantly weaken the STAR Program by removing credible sources of established UREs. The District notes that Section 12 Volume 1 of the EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library identifies the California program as a credible source of both cancer and noncancer risk levels. Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that the Board not adopt this amendment.
| VOTE: | 1 vote in favor, 6 votes against: The motion failed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.20 Methodology for Determining Benchmark Ambient Concentration of a Toxic Air Contaminant
Section 2.1 Determination that a Toxic Air Contaminant is a Carcinogen
Issue: ATSDR as an authoritative source for determining that a TAC is a carcinogen
Add the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) as an authoritative source for listing a chemical as a carcinogen, which would potentially add to the list of chemicals that are determined to be a carcinogen.
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout said that the addition of the ATSDR as an authoritative source for listing a chemical as a carcinogen would potentially add to the list of chemicals that are determined to be a carcinogen. However, the Internet reference to the ATSDR home page provided to the District does not reasonably direct one to a list of chemicals considered as carcinogens by the ATSDR. Additionally, because the ATSDR deals mainly with contaminated soils and groundwater, the chemicals of concern are often different than the chemicals of concern for Jefferson County as air emissions. The District’s earlier review of ATSDR information found that of chemicals for which the ATSDR would provide unique information, most were pesticides and not of current concern for the STAR Program. Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that the Board not adopt this amendment.
When asked if there were a down side to adding the ATSDR as a source of information to determine whether a chemical should be determined to be a carcinogen, Mr. Williams said that there was not, however the District did not believe that there was much value to be gained by including the ATSDR. He explained that the inclusion of a third authoritative source would not cause a conflict with other information sources because a chemical would be treated as a carcinogen if any specified information source identified the chemical as a carcinogen, regardless of the treatment by the other information sources. He said that adding the ATSDR would not have a consequential effect on the District’s workload.
| VOTE: | 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.20 Methodology for Determining Benchmark Ambient Concentration of a Toxic Air Contaminant
Section 2.1.4 Determination that a Toxic Air Contaminant is a Carcinogen
2.1.4.1, 2.1.4.2, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2
Issue: District-determined carcinogens: use of peer-reviewed information, opportunity for public review and written comment, and consideration of all relevant information
Both Option 1 and Option 2 would insert a requirement that information used to determine whether a chemical should be considered a carcinogen must be “peer reviewed.” Option 1 has one global reference in section 2.1.4; Option 2 has four specific references in sections 2.1.4.1, 2.1.4.1, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2.
Option 1 would also require an opportunity for public review and written comment before the District makes a final determination whether a chemical should be considered a carcinogen.
Option 2 would remove the requirement that consideration be given to all relevant information.
| MOTION: |
Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 4, Option 2, as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout said that a test of the credibility of the results of a scientific study is that the study is peer reviewed. The District agrees that information that forms the basis of determining that a chemical is a carcinogen should be peer reviewed. He said that both approaches taken to identify peer review are acceptable. However, the District does not believe that a process that allows a decision to be based on one set of information while excluding other relevant information is representative of sound science, and thus does not recommend approval of Option 2. Mr. Williams added that striking this phrase would not prohibit the District from considering all relevant information, it would just not be required to do so.
It was noted that there are differing terms in the first two sentences of section 2.2.1, using “peer-reviewed scientific evidence” in the first sentence (assuming that part of the phrase recommended to be deleted includes the word “information”) and “information” in the second sentence.
| MOTION: | Ms. Smith moved to amend the motion for adoption of Option 2 of Amendment No. 4 by replacing “information” in the second sentence of section 2.2.1 with “peer-reviewed scientific evidence.” |
|---|
| VOTE: | The motion to amend the main motion passed. |
|---|
| VOTE: | On the main motion to adopt Option 2 of Amendment No. 4 with the adopted change to the wording in the second sentence of section 2.2.1: 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
| MOTION: | Ms. Embry moved the adoption of Amendment No. 4, Option 1, as drafted by the District, except for the removal of the term “peer-reviewed” in the third line of section 2.1.4. |
|---|
Mr. Trout said that having an opportunity for public review and written comment provides additional transparency and accountability to the process by which the District would determine that a toxic air contaminant should be considered to be a carcinogen. This requirement had not been included in Option 2. He said that the District recommends that the Board adopt this amendment
| VOTE: | On the motion to adopt Option 1 of Amendment No. 4, as drafted by the District except for the removal of the term “peer-reviewed” in the third line of section 2.1.4: 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.01 General Provisions
Section 1 Definitions
Issue: Add definition of “peer reviewed”
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 5 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout said that although the District agrees that information relied upon in making certain decisions should be peer reviewed, the District disagrees that, in general, a definition of “peer reviewed” is needed in the District’s regulations, or, in particular, that the suggested definition should be incorporated. A term that is commonly used does not need to be defined if its specific use would be consistent with the general understanding of that term. The District believes that the term “peer reviewed” is commonly used in the scientific community, is well understood, and would not be used to mean something different in the District’s regulations. Further, the District notes that the term “peer reviewed” is used in many federal statutes and regulations without an accompanying definition. The District did not find an authoritative source, such as the EPA, for an established definition of “peer reviewed.”
Mr. Williams suggested that the Board direct the District over the next month to develop a definition of “peer review.” He said this approach would be preferable to adopting a definition now and then, a month later, start a rulemaking process to change the adopted definition.
Mr. Howard withdrew his motion for action on Amendment No. 5; the District will develop a recommended definition of “peer review” for review at the July 20th Board meeting.
Regulation 5.20 Methodology for Determining Benchmark Ambient Concentration of a Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 3.3.4 Cancer Risk Benchmark Determination Methodology
Issue: Methodology for deriving a unit risk estimate (URE)
The suggested change would remove the five specific EPA methodologies for determining a URE and replace them with a general reference to the EPA Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library (ATRA Reference Library).
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 6 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout explained that Section 12 of Volume 1 of the ATRA Reference Library includes a section discussing dose-response assessment for cancer effects and a list of 19 references, some of which are the specific references in the proposed regulation which this amendment would remove. He emphasized that the reference to the ATRA Reference Library would not include the newest methodology that was released by the EPA in March 2005, which is identified in the District’s proposed section 3.3.4.1. Further, replacing the identification of the five specific methodologies with a general reference to the ATRA Reference Library would decrease the clarity of the regulation. He noted that all five methodologies referred to in the current draft are EPA-approved methodologies. Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that the Board not adopt this amendment.
Mr. Trout clarified that section 3.3.4 identifies the acceptable methodologies for deriving the unit risk estimate, and thus the benchmark ambient concentration, for a chemical that is determined to be a carcinogen. This is different, and separate, from the issue of establishing a default benchmark ambient concentration for a chemical that is determined to be a carcinogen but for which a unit risk estimate or benchmark ambient concentration has not been derived.
Mr. Howard withdrew his motion for action on Amendment No. 6.
Regulation 5.20 Methodology for Determining Benchmark Ambient Concentration of a Toxic Air Contaminant
Section 3 Cancer Risk Benchmark Determination Methodology
Issue: Default BACC
The suggested change would eliminate the default value for a benchmark ambient concentration for a carcinogen (BACC) and instead state that if a BACC cannot be determined, then the TAC shall be evaluated only on the basis of its chronic noncancer risk.
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 7 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout said that the purpose of establishing a default benchmark ambient concentration (BAC) for a chemical that has been determined to be a carcinogen but for which a BAC has not been derived is to protect public health. If the carcinogenic effects of a chemical are not considered, and a BAC is derived based only on noncarcinogenic effects, then it is likely that the allowed emissions would be at least one hundred times greater than the level that would be considered environmentally acceptable, which is not an alternative recommended by the District. He said that the other alternative would be not to allow the emission of that chemical until a BAC is derived. The most reasonable approach that protects public health is the establishment of a default value. He said that the District recommends that the Board not adopt this amendment.
Ms. Smith discussed her concerns with the proposed default value and said that the comments on this issue indicated that toxicologists disagree with this approach. Mr. Trout responded that he believes the comments mean that the default value is not the concentration that represents a 1 in one million risk for a specific chemical. Mr. Trout said that he agrees with the comment, but the District has not said that the default value is the 1 in one million risk concentration for any specific chemical, but that this concentration, if met, would provide a 90 percent likelihood that the emission would be environmentally acceptable. The default value is the result of a statistical analysis of the BACs derived for many other carcinogens. The reason for a default value is that, until a BAC specific for that carcinogen is derived, public health is protected. Methodologies for deriving a unit risk estimate, and thus a BAC, for a carcinogen were the focus of the issue discussed in Amendment No. 6.
| VOTE: | 3 votes in favor, 4 votes against: The motion failed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.20 Methodology for Determining Benchmark Ambient Concentration of a Toxic Air Contaminant
Section 4 Chronic Noncancer Risk Benchmark Determination Methodology
Issue: Methodologies for determining the BAC for the chronic noncancer effects of a chemical (BACNC)
The suggested change would eliminate all proposed methods for deriving a BACNC except for a Reference Concentration (RfC) published by the EPA in IRIS. This would exclude values derived by the EPA and published in IRIS based upon oral animal studies (with the appropriate safeguards established by the EPA for a different route of exposure); the California numbers; the Michigan numbers; and occupational exposure values, which are used by many air pollution control programs for chronic noncancer effects. The suggested change would also eliminate the default value. To replace these methods of deriving a BACNC, the amendment would add a reference to the EPA ATRA Reference Library Volume 1 Section 12, which contains references to other documents and methodologies.
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 8 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout said that all of the methodologies that would be removed by this amendment are based on sound science, noting that the California numbers are not only recognized by the EPA in the ATRA Reference Library but are listed as the number three source of toxicity values for chemicals. The replacement reference to the EPA ATRA Reference Library Volume 1 Section 12 would provide only references to other documents and methodologies for how a noncancer risk number would be developed. He said that the District recommends that the Board not adopt this amendment.
Mr. Howard withdrew his motion for action on Amendment No. 8.
Regulation 5.21 Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 1 Definitions
Issue: Production limits in the definition of T-BAT
This amendment would remove the concept of production limitations, including limitations on the hours of operation, as an element to be reviewed for compliance with the requirement for best available technology for toxics (T-BAT).
| MOTION: | Ms. Smith moved the adoption of Amendment No. 9 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout said that the deletion of “production limitations including limitations on the hours of operation” would remove a measure that would be a lower priority for the District to pursue but would still allow the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to a T-BAT requirement to consider accepting such restrictions to lower its ambient concentrations. He said that the District recommends that the Board adopt this amendment.
| VOTE: | 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.21 Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 1 Definitions
Issue: T-BAT definition, define “technically feasible”
The suggested change would: (1) exclude consideration of health and welfare effects and consider only cost effectiveness, (2) narrow the scope of applicability to techniques that have been achieved in practice for the type of source, category of source, or modification, conflicting with section 2.3.2, which acknowledges technology transfer, (3) exclude relevant sources of information, including the New and Emerging Environmental Technologies (NEET) Clean Air Technologies Database, and (4) remove identification of work practices, equipment maintenance measures (including leak detection and repair), and upset condition prevention measures.
Mr. Howard withdrew Amendment No. 10.
Regulation 5.21 Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 1.3 and 1.6 Definitions
Issue: Date for existing vs. new/modified process or process equipment
The suggested change moves the date differentiating between an existing and new or modified process or process equipment from January 14, 2005, the beginning of the public comment period, to June 1, 2005, the release date of the District’s recommended changes to the proposed STAR Program regulations. The District further recommended changing the suggested June 1, 2005, date to July 1, 2005, the date that the District will recommend be the effective date of the STAR Program regulations.
| MOTION: | Ms. Smith moved the adoption of Amendment No. 11 as drafted by the District, including the District-recommended change to July 1, 2005. |
|---|
Mr. Trout explained the District’s recommendation that the date differentiating existing and new/modified processes or process equipment be further changed to coincide with the District-recommended effective date if the Board adopts the STAR Program regulations. He noted that the Category 1 and 2 TACs from a process or process equipment that would be defined as existing rather than new or modified would still undergo an environmental acceptability review pursuant to Section 4. If the July 1, 2005, date is approved and the effective date of the regulation is also July 1, 2005, then language regarding permits issued between the date differentiating existing and new/modified processes and process equipment and the effective date of the regulation will be removed. With the District-recommended change to using July 1, the District recommends the qualification that a permit application be administratively complete on that date to be considered “existing.” Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that the Board adopt this amendment as modified by the District.
| VOTE: | 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.21 Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 2.3 and 2.6 Ambient Goals for Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants
Issue: Requirement for T-BAT
The suggested change is to require T-BAT pursuant to a modification of an EA goal only if the EA goal of 7.5×10-6 in section 2.5.3 would be exceeded.
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 12 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout explained that the suggested change is to require T-BAT pursuant to a modification of an EA goal only if the EA goal of 7.5×10-6 in section 2.5.3 would be exceeded. He said that the District believes that this suggested change would be a substantial weakening of the STAR Program. In many air pollution control agency toxics programs, the EPA’s programs, and the Clean Air Act Section 112(f) residual risk program, 1×10-6 is the established goal. Not requiring the application of reasonable and available controls when the risk resulting from the emission of a single chemical from a single process or process equipment exceeds this goal has the effect of significantly diminishing the value of this goal. By so doing, the cumulative effect of allowing emissions that do not meet this goal is to allow an overall increase in emissions, thus an overall increase in exposure to carcinogens. Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that the Board not adopt this amendment.
| VOTE: | 1 vote in favor, 6 votes against: The motion failed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.21 Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 5 (New) Public Review and Comment Notification List
Issue: Increased public notification
This amendment would require the District to maintain a list of people to be notified of a request for modification of an environmental acceptability goal and of all opportunities for public review and comment provided by Regulation 5.21.
| MOTION: | Ms. Embry moved the adoption of Amendment No. 13 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout explained that direct notification of interested members of the public would inform more people of the opportunity for review and comment than would newspaper publication only. Notification of receipt of a request for a modification of an EA goal would allow the public to review the request prior to the limited formal opportunity for review. He said that the District recommends that the Board adopt this amendment.
| VOTE: | 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.21 Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 2.6 Ambient Goals for Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants
Issue: Authority for approving modification of an EA goal exceeding 7.5×10-6
As discussed in the STAR Program Formal Comment/Response Document, the District recommended that modification of the EA goal in section 2.5.3 be approvable up to a risk level of 100×10-6 through an administrative process instead of a formal variance approved by the Board. The suggested change would authorize the District to approve modifications up to a risk level of 25×10-6; modifications with a risk level from 26×10-6 to 100×10-6 would be decided by the Board. While the requirement for public review and comment would provide the opportunity for a public hearing for modifications approved by the District, a public hearing would be mandatory for modifications from 26×10-6 to 100×10-6.
| MOTION: | Ms. Embry moved the adoption of Amendment No. 14 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Williams said that the District believes that a risk level of 25 in one million is an acceptable level at which to change from District approval to Board approval of a request for a modification of an EA goal. This amendment would provide additional transparency and Board accountability for modifications exceeding a risk level of 25×10-6. Mr. Williams said that the District supports this amendment, despite some concern about a possible increased workload for the Board.
| VOTE: | 5 votes in favor, 1 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.21 Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 4.1 Demonstration of Environmental Acceptability and Compliance Plans for Permitted Stationary Sources
Issue: TRI year for Category 2 TAC exemption
The suggested change would replace the non-reporting of 2002 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data for exemption from applicability of a Category 2 TAC with 2008 for Group 1 stationary sources and 2009 for Group 2 stationary sources. At the June 17 special Board meeting, the District indicated that this would conflict with the schedule in Regulation 5.21 Section 4 for demonstrating environmental acceptability, making the environmental acceptability demonstration due before the suggested year had finished, and proposed instead to change the inventory year to reflect 2006 emissions. However, because, pursuant to Regulation 1.06, the first year that is the basis to report enhanced Category 2 TAC emissions inventory is 2006 for Category 1 stationary sources and 2007 for Category 2 stationary sources, the District alternative recommends that the exemption date for a Category 2 TAC be 2006 for Group 1 stationary sources and 2007 for Group 2 stationary sources.
| MOTION: | Ms. Smith moved the adoption of Amendment No. 15, District Alternative, as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout explained the rationale for the District’s revised recommendation of 2006 for Category 1 stationary sources and 2007 for Category 2 stationary sources. He said that this would allow affected companies the opportunity to reduce existing emissions of a Category 2 TAC to a level below the amount that is required to be reported to EPA’s TRI Program. However, he noted that Category 2 TAC emissions thus exempted from the requirement to demonstrate environmental acceptability pursuant to Section 4 are still subject to the requirement to demonstrate environmental acceptability for new and modified processes and process equipment pursuant to Section 3. He said that the District recommends that the Board adopt the District alternative to this amendment.
In response to a question of whether the requirement to report the emissions of a particular chemical to the TRI Program was the equivalent of meeting the environmental acceptability goal of the STAR Program, Mr. Trout said that the District has not made this determination. However, he said that the proposed regulations would give the District the authority to require the submittal of enhanced emissions inventory information and a compliance plan if the District determined that the concentration of a chemical exempted pursuant to the provision in this amendment was not environmentally acceptable.
| VOTE: | 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.21 Environmental Acceptability for Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 4.13 Demonstration of Environmental Acceptability and Compliance Plans for Permitted Stationary Sources
Issue: Reduction based
on concentration that “may be” greater than EA goal
The suggested change is to delete the phrase “or may be” from the first sentence. The District recommends additional language to clarify this intent.
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 16 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout explained that the intent of the language in proposed section 4.13 was that “is” greater than an EA goal would be based on ambient air monitoring, and “may be” greater than an EA goal would be based on dispersion modeling of allowed emissions. The District’s recommended change would specifically state these two bases for requiring action pursuant to this section. He said that the District recommends that the Board adopt this amendment as written, which includes the additional clarifying language.
| VOTE: | 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.22 Procedures for Determining the Maximum Ambient Concentration of a Toxic Air Contaminant
Section 6 (new) Implementation Guidance
5.1 Tier 4 EPA-Approved Dispersion Model
Issue: Texas fugitive emission modeling factor; use of AERMOD
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 17, Option 3, as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout explained the three options:
| Option 1: | A new Section 6 would be added that would allow the use of the 0.6 correction factor for modeled fugitive emissions that was developed by the (then) Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and detailed in a March 6, 2002, document. |
| Option 2: | The AERMOD model would be specifically added to section 5.1.1 to allow its use as an option before its formal inclusion in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W, Appendix A. |
| Option 3: | The Texas fugitive emission modeling 0.6 correction factor would be allowed until the EPA formally approves AERMOD. If a company used the correction factor option, then the company would be required to make a new demonstration of environmental acceptability based on use of the AERMOD model. |
Mr. Trout said that the District is comfortable with allowing the use of AERMOD, because it is already being allowed by some other air pollution control agencies and the EPA’s ATRA Reference Library identifies AERMOD as a modeling tool. He said that the District recommends that the Board adopt Option 2 of this amendment.
Mr. Howard withdrew the motion for the adoption of Option 3.
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 17, Option 2, as drafted by the District. |
|---|
| VOTE: | 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.23 Categories of Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 2 Category 2 Toxic Air Contaminants
Issue: Category 2 TACs that are not Urban Air Toxics or Hazardous Air Pollutants
The suggested change would remove any Category 2 TAC that is neither listed by the EPA as an Urban Air Toxic or by the Clean Air Act as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP).
| MOTION: | Mr. Howard moved the adoption of Amendment No. 18 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Mr. Trout explained that in the EPA Region 4 Relative Risk Screening Analysis, the reported actual emissions of the TACs suggested to be removed from Category 2 were found to have a substantial contribution to the risk pursuant to the TRI/RSEI (Toxics Release Inventory/Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators model) portion of the analysis. Thus, for Jefferson County, the emission of these chemicals may be of significance, even if they are not of sufficient national concern to be listed by the EPA as an Urban Air Toxic or a HAP. Inclusion as a Category 2 TAC requires that an assessment for environmental acceptability be made. If the emissions are found to meet the EA goals, then no control requirements are needed. Mr. Trout said that the District recommends that the Board not adopt this amendment.
| VOTE: | 1 vote in favor, 6 votes against: The motion failed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.23 Categories of Toxic Air Contaminants
Section 2 Category 2 Toxic Air Contaminants
Issue: Applicability of Category 2 TACs to existing processes and process equipment
The suggested change would apply the requirements of Regulation 5.21 for Category 2 TACs only to new or modified processes or process equipment, that is, there would be no STAR Program requirements for existing processes and process equipment relative to Category 2 TACs.
| MOTION: | Ms. Smith moved the adoption of Amendment No. 19 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
In response to a question regarding whether the Category 2 TACs were monitored in the West Louisville Air Toxics Study (WLATS) and whether any were found at levels of concern, Mr. Williams confirmed that although the WLATS may have monitored for these chemicals, none was monitored at a level of concern. He continued, however, that the reason this category was recommended for inclusion in the STAR Program is that actual emissions of these chemicals were reported and, based upon the countywide screening modeling and risk assessment performed by the EPA, the EPA determined that ambient air concentrations were at levels that could be of concern, suggesting that further evaluation is needed. He said that the District strongly opposes removing the Category 2 TACs from the STAR Program requirements to identify emissions and evaluate environmental acceptability.
Ms. Smith withdrew her motion for action on Amendment No. 19
Regulation 5.30 Report and Plan of Action for Identified Source Sectors
Section 2 Report and Plan of Action
Issue: Due date for
District’s proposed Report and Plan of Action
The suggested change would reinstate the proposed date of June 30, 2006, as the deadline for the District to submit to the Board a proposed Report and Plan of Action to assess and address the risk to human health and welfare from ambient air concentrations of TACs from minor stationary sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and mobile sources.
| MOTION: | Ms. Smith moved the adoption of Amendment No. 21 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Ms. Smith emphasized the importance of developing a plan to assess and address the many other sources of toxic emissions. She said she recognizes that this report and plan of action will be much more difficult then the current package of regulations. By setting the due date as June 2006 instead of June 2007, the Board would establish its intent to not only reduce emissions from stationary sources but also to address the significant problems from these other source categories. She said that waiting 24 months for a plan is too long.
Mr. Williams said that the District agrees with the importance of developing a plan to assess and address the many other sources of toxic emissions. However, he said that the District may need more time to do an adequate job, including the implementation of a stakeholder process, and thus may request additional time from the Board. He said that the District will provide updates to the Board on the District’s progress in developing the plan pursuant to Regulation 5.30.
Ms. Embry expressed some concerns about the time frame, particularly with respect to putting together a stakeholder group/citizens advisory committee and giving the group adequate time to complete this task. However, she stated that she would expect the District to keep the Board informed throughout the process particularly if the District believed it needed more time.
| VOTE: | 6 votes in favor, 1 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Regulation 5.30 Report and Plan of Action for Identified Source Sectors
Section 2 Report and Plan of Action
Issue: Time line and
description of stakeholder process for District’s proposed Report and
Plan of Action
The suggested change would require the District to submit to the Board, by the September 21, 2005, Board meeting, a time line and description of the proposed stakeholder process for assessing and addressing the risk to human health and welfare from ambient air concentrations of TACs from minor stationary sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources, and mobile sources.
| MOTION: | Ms. Smith moved the adoption of Amendment No. 20 as drafted by the District. |
|---|
Ms. Smith indicated that her expectation is that the District would develop a basic outline of a time line and not a detailed report.
| VOTE: | 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Chair Cassidy stated that the next vote is on the main motion, to adopt the STAR Program regulations as modified by Amendment Nos. 3, 4 (Option 2 as modified and Option 1 as modified), 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 (District Alternative), 16, 17 (Option 2), 20, and 21.
| VOTE: | 7 votes in favor, 0 vote against: The motion passed. |
|---|
Dr. Cassidy said that this was a historic moment for the Board. The Board’s work is not yet done, as evidenced by public comments, particularly with respect to the STAR Program regulations. The Board expects the District to develop the time line for addressing the many other toxic emission source categories.
Dr. Cassidy expressed her appreciation of the District staff members for their thoroughness, many extra hours of work, focus on public health, and service to the community. She also expressed a special note of appreciation to the Board members for their open, fair-minded review of very complex issues, and their many hours of public service. Finally, she thanked the public for attending the many meetings and keeping the Board members on track. She said that, while the STAR Program may not be perfect,
she is proud of the work that we’ve done together and the ultimate outcome that the STAR Program will have for our community.The meeting adjourned at 1:27 p.m.
________________________
Karen Cassidy
Chair
_______/signed/_______
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer