A meeting of the SIP Advisory Panel to the Air Pollution Control Board of Jefferson County (Board) was called to order October 17, 2002, at 10:05 a.m. in the Board Room of the Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Chairman, Pat Moran, Stites and Harbison.
The following SIP Advisory Panel members were present: Tim Corrigan, Greater Louisville, Inc.; Barbara Hall, Ford Motor; Bill Herron, City Public Works; Jonathan Miller, DuPont Dow Elastomers; Randy Simon, KIPDA; Alex Talbott, Attorney; and Malcolm Winsper, Kentucky Motorcycle Association. There was not a quorum.
The following District staff were present: Art Williams, Jon Trout, Gayle Ballard, Doug Spillman, Cynthia Lee, Art Chang, Gary Flispart, Tom Pinto, Bruce Gaylord, Rebecca Stutsman, Barry Zalph, Eva Addison, and Irene Stephenson.
The following guests were present: Jason Williamson, Louisville Gas & Electric; Robert Gioffre, Gordon-Darby; and Cheryl-Lynne Patrick, Brown-Forman.
Mr. Trout indicated that there were more exceedances of the 8-hour ozone standard in 2002 than there had been over each of the last two years. The 1-hour Ozone Monitoring Report chart that was distributed listed all exceedances of 8-hour ozone standard, 1-hour ozone standard, and Ozone Action Days. There were two exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard during 2002. One was on July 15 at Shepherdsville and the other was on September 8 at New Albany. An exceedance of the 1-hour ozone standard was also recorded at Shepherdsville in 2001. Thus, during the 2000 to 2002 three-year period, New Albany recorded one 1-hour ozone exceedance and Shepherdsville recorded two 1-hour ozone exceedances. The Louisville area is still maintaining attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
Mr. Winsper asked for an explanation of the Louisville area being “on course” with the 1-hour ozone standard. Mr. Trout responded that a violation of the 1-hour ozone standard is, in simple terms, four exceedances in a three-year period.
Mr. Trout indicated that the 8-Hour Exceedance Summary lists 78 exceedances
occurring on 26 days. During 2001, there were 14 exceedances on 10 days and during 2000 there were 19 exceedances on 10 days. Mr. Trout explained the maximum and design values summary. The design value for a monitor is the average of the fourth highest reading at that monitor for each year for three consecutive years. Charlestown has the highest design value of 90 parts per billion (ppb); the 8-hour ozone standard is 84 ppb. Based upon the not-as-yet quality assured data for the 2000-to-2002 period, this would be a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard.
For two of the days that were forecasted as having an exceedance, and thus an Ozone Action Day was called, there was no exceedance, but for 14 of the days for which no exceedance was forecasted there was an exceedance.
The Chairman noted that historically there have been one or two monitors that were the drivers for our 1-hour ozone nonattainment status, typically the Charlestown monitor. However, Table 3: 8-Hour Exceedances shows all monitors as recording multiple exceedances.
Mr. Williams indicated that the District has analyzed the 8-hour ozone exceedance data. The two monitors with the highest total number of exceedances and highest design values are Charlestown and Buckner. These two monitors are the most downwind monitors in the Jefferson County area. The upwind monitors for the Louisville area monitor the ozone concentrations coming into the area. The downwind monitors then record the ozone concentrations resulting from the addition of the Louisville area’s emissions to the transported air pollution. Mr. Williams said that he believes that Jefferson County is a good focal point for the SIP Advisory Panel for action on what needs to be done to drop the area’s design value.
Mr. Trout noted it takes time and distance for the precursor emissions to react and form ozone; this is why the highest concentrations are generally not in the central part of an urban area but are found downwind 10-20 miles from the center of the urban area. Reviewing the meteorological conditions from the two days on which 1-hour ozone exceedances occurred, during the exceedance at Shepherdsville, the wind was from the north, picking up the precursor emissions from Louisville, and during the exceedance at New Albany, the wind was originally from the south, passing over the Louisville area and traveling north into Indiana, but then hooked around south back to Louisville.
Mr. Winsper inquired whether transport exceedances count against us. Mr. Trout responded that designations of nonattainment are based on concentrations monitored in an area. Mr. Simon added that Mammoth Cave experiences similar problems with exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard.
Mr. Trout said that Jefferson County did not show attainment of the new annual PM2.5 standard for the 1999-2001 three-year period. The average was 17.2 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) compared to the standard of 15.0 μg/m3. By adding the monitored readings this year to date, the 2000-2002 three-year average is a little higher than the 1999-2001 average. Mr. Williams added that the PM2.5 designation process and development of an implementation plan by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is lagging somewhat behind the EPA’s progress for the 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA has indicated that it would prefer to bring implementation schedules for these two pollutants closer together. The EPA could possibly accelerate its work on the PM2.5 implementation plan because of the similarity of sources that emit precursor emissions of ozone and fine particulates. From a regulatory standpoint it would be preferable to bring those two closer together to give agencies and communities the opportunity to develop more integrated attainment plans. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to do a 5-year review of each ambient air quality standard, which, for PM2.5 involves a reexamination of whether the 15 μg/m3 daily and 65 μg/m3 annual standards meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act for protecting public health with an adequate margin of safety.
Mr. Miller asked whether the data for particulate matter in the area included any results from the attempt to speciate what the fine particulate matter is. He also asked if there was any indication of a tie between fine particulate matter and ozone. Mr. Williams responded that speciation monitors for PM2.5 have been deployed. Lab analysis data have been received for November 2001 from a lab in North Carolina. The District has reviewed and analyzed the raw data only for peak values. A report that comprehensively and thoroughly analyzes the data should be available within the next year.
Ms. Lee added that when there are high levels of ozone, generally the PM2.5 levels will track the high ozone levels within 48 hours. There is a one- to two-day lag in the peaks for PM2.5. Mr. Trout mentioned that two days following the July 15 1-hour ozone exceedance there was an exceedance of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. There were two other exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard this year; those occurred on July 4 and 5. The continuous monitor at that site showed that the concentrations in the evening were higher, possibly caused by fireworks in the area.
Mr. Miller inquired whether the area designations for the 8-hour ozone standard and the PM2.5 standard should depend on whether those phenomena that caused those exceedances are linked. The data should provide some knowledge about what the fine particulate matter actually is and indicate what processes are taking place in the atmospheric under the conditions of exposure to sunlight and temperature that help produce ozone in unacceptable levels. There is a need to know what role PM2.5 plays in the formation of ozone. Mr. Williams responded that there are secondary atmospheric processes through which PM2.5 is formed as well as direct emissions of PM2.5 particles. Ozone is created entirely through atmospheric reactions, not from direct ozone emissions.
Mr. Simon inquired whether there was enough information from speciation to know if the monitored PM2.5 concentrations are predominately a combustion product rather than the emissions of inert materials. Mr. Williams responded that the combustion of fossil fuels generally is the largest component of PM2.5, however this fraction will vary from community to community. Some communities will have high percentages of carbon-containing fine particulate elements and some will have high percentages of sulfates or nitrates. The EPA envisions doing a PM2.5 SIP call, similar to the NOx SIP call. Mr. Williams said that he believes that it is premature for the EPA to focus on a PM2.5 SIP call when there is a lack of understanding about sources of precursor emissions. A PM2.5 SIP call is in the works within the next 18 months; it could take a couple of years before there is adequate understanding of the speciation issues.
Mr. Williams noted The Courier-Journal story identifying Jefferson County as the number one county out of 736 in the Southeast for relative risk to air toxic exposure. There is a crossover between ozone and toxics. Many volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are also considered toxics. Mr. Herron mentioned that the article referred to data occurring several years ago. The significance of the story is faulty when using data that are 4-8 years old. Mr. Williams responded that the EPA used the most recent data available. For toxic emissions, the EPA used the 1999 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data. There are changes in the 2000 TRI data; the emissions of six of the top 10 TRI pollutants in 1999 decreased in 2000.
Mr. Herron noted that the story lacked analysis and depth. Mr. Williams responded that he has had discussions regarding doing a follow-up piece to the article to put the EPA’s data into perspective. The EPA Region 4 office envisions doing periodic updates of this ranking to provide some basic indicators about whether communities ought to be paying attention to the area of air toxics along with where they stand relative to other communities and significant risk. There are legitimate issues in air toxics and the area’s air toxics monitoring project is not yet completed. The risk assessment and risk management processes are underway. Our community is ahead of others in terms of getting actual air toxics ambient air concentration data.
Mr. Herron inquired whether any data was available for the SIP Advisory Panel, either at this time or a future Panel meeting. Mr. Williams responded that Sciences International, a contractor, anticipates a draft Risk Assessment report by December for the Risk Assessment Work Group’s consideration. The first draft will have a year’s worth of monitoring data analyzed. The District intends to have a public review and comment period of 60 days. A final Risk Assessment document on the toxics should be available in March. The risk management development process is running in parallel with the risk assessment process. A meeting of the Risk Management Work Group is scheduled for this afternoon; the work group will be looking at what strategies and options exist for the community to lower the toxics if it is determined that there are unacceptable risks from air toxics.
Mr. Herron inquired about the DuPont Dow Elastomers shutdown that evolves in the next few years and how that impacts the West Louisville area. Mr. Miller responded that the primary pollutant emitted from DuPont Dow Elastomers is chloroprene, which is a toxic air pollutant and a VOC. In relative terms of photochemical reactivity of VOCs, chloroprene is highly reactive. DuPont Dow Elastomers emits approximately 360 tons per year of total VOC and 13 ½ ½ to 14 tons per year of NOx. The VOC emissions represent a significant contribution to the overall VOC emission inventory for point sources in Jefferson County. The announcement indicates that the shutdown is projected for the second half of 2005. However, this is a target date and there has to be recognition that a lot has to happen to make this date. Mr. Trout added that the VOC emissions from DuPont Dow Elastomers are approximately one ton per day; the total VOC emissions in Jefferson County were approximately 110 tons per day in 1999.
Mr. Trout explained that the EPA is developing an implementation plan for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA expects the implementation plan to be finalized before the final area designations are made so that the ramifications of proposing bigger or smaller nonattainment areas are known. The EPA is hoping to publish the proposed implementation plan by late December 2002 or January 2003. The States will be required to resubmit nonattainment area recommendations in the spring of 2003. The District will work with the Kentucky Division for Air Quality regarding the recommendation for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville area.
Based upon the monitored concentrations from this year and last year, it is most likely that the Louisville area will be designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Using the 1-hour ozone classification scheme from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments as a guide, a Marginal area classification would apply to areas with an 81-92 ppb design value for the 8-hour ozone standard. For the last three years the design value has been 90 ppb at Charlestown, which is a little lower than the cut point of 92 ppb. However, If the 2003 ozone concentrations are similar to the concentrations experienced in 2002, the 2001-2003 three-year design value would be higher than 92 ppb, which then might result in the EPA classifying the Louisville area as Moderate.
Mr. Williams noted that 2003 will likely be the determinative year for the Louisville area being classified as with Marginal or Moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. If the ozone concentrations in 2003 are like the higher concentrations in 1999, the Louisville area would have a 95 ppb design value for 2001-2003 and is likely to be classified as Moderate. If the ozone concentrations in 2003 are like the lower concentrations in 2001, the Louisville area would have a 90 ppb design value for 2001-2003 and is likely to be classified as Marginal. This presentation was given to the Board last month and the Board decided that it was appropriate for the SIP Advisory Panel to identify any additional strategies that this community could, and should, implement for the 2003 ozone season, to give the Louisville area the best chance for the least burdensome classification. It is hopeful the SIP Advisory Panel can accomplish this task over the next few months. The District staff will provide information, legwork, and analytical work, highlighting what other communities in the country have done and whether those control strategies would be technologically feasible and cost effective and whether they could be implemented during the 2003 ozone season.
The Chairman clarified that emission-reduction programs recommended to be implemented for the 2003 season will need to have a significant impact on ozone precursor emissions in order to overcome weather-related conditions. These programs need to be implemented by May 1, 2003. However, because the regulatory process has not begun, and companies would need a reasonable amount of time after regulation adoption to make significant changes, realistically, significant reductions would not likely occur for two years.
Mr. Williams noted that emission reduction strategies need to be arrayed along a temporal continuum, short term, medium term, and long term. Focus 2003, the District’s name for this project, would look at only short-term emission reduction strategies for consideration by the SIP Advisory Panel.
The Chairman reemphasized that he does not see regulation-mandated strategies requiring significant emission reductions by May 1 of next year. There is an opportunity to educate the public on actions that could be taken to reduce emissions. The SIP Advisory Panel will need to know how much emissions reduction is needed to have a significant impact on 2003 8-hour ozone concentrations. Looking at long-term ozone impacts would place a big commitment on this community. Achieving this goal in this economic climate to get people to commit millions of dollars on a rush budget is going to be a difficult project. There would be a lot of businesses moving out of Jefferson County. There is a roll for the SIP Advisory Panel, but it is more in line with starting a long-term process to develop an 8-hour ozone standard strategy for this community that will fit into the context of the EPA’s 8-hour implementation strategy. There are federal emission-reduction programs that will result in emission reductions in the time frame for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard by the EPA-established deadline. For example, the NOx SIP Call requires all emission reductions to occur by the spring of 2004 and the Tier II automobile and fuel standards begin in the 2006 to 2008 period. These federal programs will have a significant impact on region-wide emissions.
Mr. Williams noted that the Board would like to know if the SIP Advisory Panel believes that there are emission reduction strategies that should be implemented for the 2003 season. The SIP Advisory Panel has been invited to play a roll in evaluating the strategies and options. The District’s goal is to provide the Board with the information and analysis for which they have asked. The District extends the invitation the Board has made to engage in the short-term exercise. The SIP Advisory Panel also has an ongoing roll to help look at longer-term strategies.
Mr. Winsper asked when the 8-hour standard attainment plan is to be submitted to the EPA. Mr. Williams responded that once the designations are made, probably in 2004, the EPA would give States up to three years to submit an attainment plan, then, consistent with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments as they related to the 1-hour ozone standard, the attainment date would be set several years after that. In terms of target date to achieve attainment, the EPA has suggested that this would be 2009 or 2010. However, the immediate focus is how important is it to the business community and citizens concerned with public health to try to effect short-term improvements in our air quality so we have the least stringent 8-hour ozone nonattainment classification which would then determine the stringency of our mandatory requirements.
The Chairman added that there are two groups that lose the most by doing that. Assuming that the EPA can use an implementation plan comparable to the 1-hour ozone requirements in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, being classified as Marginal would give us the maximum amount of flexibility to reduce emissions as opposed to being classified as Moderate where there would be specific, mandatory requirements, including an inspection/maintenance program. Thus, if we would be classified as Moderate, House Bill 618 in effect goes away and we would keep the Vehicle Emissions Testing (VET) program.
Mr. Trout indicated that in for Moderate areas, not only was there a requirement for an inspection/maintenance program but there were many other mandatory control requirements, such as a 15% VOC reduction and NOx reasonably available control technology (RACT). Many of these mandatory requirements would fall on industry. If an area were classified as Marginal, the requirements were essentially to fix up the programs that they were already required to implement rather than to implement new control programs.
Mr. Simon suggested that the SIP Advisory Panel accept the Board’s invitation as presented by Mr. Williams. He said that the 8-hour ozone standard transportation conformity requirements start one year after designation. If there isn’t a SIP mobile source emissions budget in place, then transportation conformity is based on a build-no build comparison, which is a much tougher standard to meet in most cases than having an established mobile source emissions budget. There could be additional problems in 2005 if we haven’t worked on this. For the community’s sake, it is good to look at what can be done to reduce emissions even if it can’t be done for 2003.
The Chairman said that he thinks the SIP Advisory Panel can serve a valuable purpose. There is a problem getting interest in participation of the SIP Advisory Panel when we have an unrealistic, impossible goal. Some SIP Advisory Panel members will not make time for meetings in their busy schedules if we engage in an unrealistic process. We need to get the process for evaluating emission reduction strategies rolling for lots of different reasons, but on a different time frame.
Mr. Miller read his feasible measures list to help meet the District’s needs. A copy of this list is attached to the original minutes.
Mr. Herron noted there are resources in government to implement some of the measures.
Mr. Williams mentioned that the District created a new unit in the Agency called Environmental Programs. They have begun to study and develop programs and strategies in other areas such as land use, transportation policy, energy policies, sustainable development policies, the Lawn Care for Cleaner Air Program, urban heat island work, green roofs, green building design, and energy efficiency.
The Chairman said that he believed that it was important for the District staff to provide information regarding costs and implementation time. He suggested that the SIP Advisory Panel review, at its next meeting, a smaller list of options that includes only options that the District believes could be implemented in 2003. He asked the SIP Advisory Panel members to bring ideas back to the SIP Advisory Panel meeting in December. He asked the District staff to provide immediate notice of the next meeting to all of the SIP Advisory Panel members so that a quorum could be met.
Mr. Simon mentioned that KIPDA has a group that promotes ride sharing, car pooling, and van pooling. He will speak with them to see if there are major employers in the community that have not participated in these programs.
Mr. Williams said that the EPA has provided more guidance on Early Action Compacts and suggested that communities consider opting into this program. The District does not believe that developing an Early Action Compact is a viable option to pursue, but wanted the SIP Advisory Panel to be aware of it and consider it.
The Chairman asked the District staff to prepare a more concise list of recommended emission control strategies and provide the new list to the SIP Advisory Panel members a week before the next meeting.
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 2:00 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
________________________
Patrick J. Moran
Chairman
_______/signed/_______
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer