A public hearing of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board (Board) was called to order September 21, 2005, at 9:03 a.m. in the Board Room of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Chair, Karen Cassidy
The chairman read the opening announcement, rules, and purpose of the hearing of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board, which was to review two proposed Agreed Board Orders and five proposed amended regulations.
Terri Phelps, Enforcement Supervisor of the Air Pollution Control District (District), said that the owner of the Southland Terrace Shopping Center (Center), Southland Terrace Shopping Center LLC (Southland LLC), and the Center’s manager, Hogan Development Company (Hogan), allegedly violated federal and local asbestos abatement requirements.
Ms. Phelps explained that on May 1, 2003, District staff observed suspect friable asbestos-containing material being removed from a vacated department store space at the Center and deposited in open dumpsters outside the store. The District brought its concerns to the contractor’s attention and took samples of the suspect materials, which tested positive for asbestos. The following day, District staff returned to the site to advise the contractor to cease work and to secure the site. The District’s investigation found that workers untrained in asbestos abatement had removed up to 10,000 square feet of asbestos-containing materials without notification to the District and without following work practice requirements, such as keeping the material wet during removal, placing the material in leak-tight containers, and disposing the materials at an approved landfill. Southland LLC and Hogan later hired a certified asbestos abatement contractor to complete the project and properly dispose of the asbestos-containing materials. Both Southland LLC and Hogan have cooperated in the District’s investigation, in which it found documents showing that Southland LLC was aware of the extent of the asbestos present at the site and the measures that should have been taken to properly abate the asbestos.The District and Hogan have agreed to a settlement amount of $20,000. The District and Southland LLC have agreed to a settlement amount of $100,000, payable in four quarterly payments.
The District has also sent Notices of Violation to Elder Construction & Associates, the construction contractor; the Yana Elder Company, the general and asbestos abatement contractor; and Fred Radcliffe, an individual who worked for the Yana Elder Company as a project manager. The District has been unable to settle the cases against the remaining three responsible parties, and will soon file an administrative complaint against them, initiating an administrative hearing.
No statement was made.
Dr. Nadir Al-Shami asked if OSHA was called to check on the workers who were exposed to the asbestos. Ms. Phelps indicated that OSHA had investigated but that she was unsure of their actions or conclusions. Art Williams said that the District will look into this matter.
Lee Howard asked whether the penalty could or should have been higher. Ms. Phelps explained that, using the EPA’s penalty policy, the District has some discretion in establishing an appropriate penalty amount. The cooperation of both of these companies was one factor taken into account. Another factor is the economic benefit of noncompliance. In this instance, the eventual cleanup was more expensive than what the original demolition job would have cost, thus there was no savings for either company.
Jon Trout explained that the phrase “or may be” in section 5.6, that was adopted as part of the Strategic Toxic Air Reduction (STAR) Program, is proposed to be replaced by reference to “modeling of allowed emissions” so that the language is consistent with STAR Program Regulation 5.21 section 4.13 that addresses the same concept. He said that there was one comment filed opposed to this change, but when it was explained to the commenter that the intent of the phrase “modeling of allowed emissions” is to be the same as the phrase “or may be,” the commenter indicated that he no longer had concern with this change. Mr. Trout said that the District intends to recommend at today’s Board meeting that the Board adopt amended Regulation 1.06, as proposed, pending evaluation of any comments made at today’s Public Hearing.
No statement was made.
Mr. Trout explained that the purpose of the change to Regulation 1.15 is to update the regulation to identify the most recently published version of the Code of Federal Regulations. He said that the District received no written comment regarding this regulation and that the District intends to recommend at today’s Board meeting that the Board adopt amended Regulation 1.15, as proposed, pending evaluation of any comments made at today’s Public Hearing.
No statement was made.
Mr. Trout explained that the amendment to this regulation, that was revised as part of the STAR Program, is the addition of a definition of “peer review.” He said that after reviewing documents written by several federal agencies, the District believes that the explanation developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the most appropriate to use. He said that the only comment received was that a definition of “peer review” is not needed because the term is in common usage in the context in which it is used in Regulation 5.30. However, the Board had decided to include a definition of “peer review” for clarity. Mr. Trout said that the District intends to recommend at today’s Board meeting that the Board adopt amended Regulation 5.01, as proposed, pending evaluation of any comments made at today’s Public Hearing.
No statement was made.
Mr. Trout explained that this regulation is updated at least once a year. He said that the District received no written comment regarding this regulation. He indicated that, subsequent to the start of the formal comment period, the EPA published two Federal Register notices that affect Regulation 5.02, Part 63 Subpart FFFF and Part 63 Subpart WWWW. Identification of these additional Federal Register notices are included in Version #15, Draft #2 - Proposed - Revision 1, dated September 20, 2005. Mr. Trout said the District intends to recommend at today’s Board meeting that the Board adopt proposed amended Regulation 5.02 as modified in the September 20, 2005, Revision 1, pending evaluation of any comments made at today’s Public Hearing.
No statement was made.
Mr. Trout explained that this regulation is updated at least once a year. He said that the District received no written comment regarding this regulation. He indicated that, subsequent to the start of the formal comment period, the EPA published one Federal Register notice that affects Regulation 7.02, Part 60 Subpart Da. Identification of this additional Federal Register notice is included in Version #12, Draft #2 - Proposed - Revision 1, dated September 20, 2005. Mr. Trout said the District intends to recommend at today’s Board meeting that the Board adopt proposed amended Regulation 7.02 as modified in the September 20, 2005, Revision 1, pending evaluation of any comments made at today’s Public Hearing.
No statement was made.
The public hearing adjourned at 9:35 a.m.
_______/signed/_______
Karen Cassidy
Chair
_______/signed/_______
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer