A meeting of the SIP Advisory Panel to the Air Pollution Control Board of Jefferson County was called to order December 10, 2002, at 2:10 p.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: Wayne Cassady for Larry McFall, Riverport Authority; Tim Corrigan, Greater Louisville, Inc.; Barbara Hall, Ford Motor Company; Bill Herron, City Public Works; Mike Kuzmich, TARC; Judith McCandless, KY Conservation Committee; Jonathan Miller, DuPont Dow Elastomers; Caryl Pfeiffer, LG&E; Don Satterly, KY Gasoline Dealers Association; Heidi Saunders, Citizen; Randy Simon, KIPDA; Alex Talbott, Attorney; Steve Wellborn, Kentucky Petroleum Council; and Martha Gammons, Small Business Ombudsman. A quorum was present.
The following District staff were present: Art Williams, Jon Trout, Gayle Ballard, Doug Spillman, Cindy Lee, Art Chang, Diane Hazellief, Rebecca Stutsman, Gary Flispart, Bruce Gaylord, Phyllis Fitzgerald, and Irene Stephenson.
Motion: Mr. Satterly moved to approve minutes from November 22, 1999, May 9, 2000, September 12, 2000, November 14, 2000, March 13, 2001, April 10, 2001, June 12, 2001, September 11, 2001, and December 11, 2001 as distributed.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Trout explained to the SIP Advisory Panel (Panel) that there were three different lists of emission control measures that should be considered today. The first list, Feasible Measures for 2003, Presented by Jonathan Miller, is a written version of the suggestions that Mr. Miller made at the October 17, 2002, Panel meeting. The second list, State Implementation Plan Advisory Panel 11/9/2002, was developed by Alex Talbott. The third list, dated December 4, 2002, Focus 2003: Stationary Source Options, Area Source Options, Mobile Source Options, and Government and Public Agency Options, was developed by the District Staff.
The District’s document was based upon the more extensive lists of emission reduction measure options that were distributed at the October 17, 2002, Panel meeting. The October lists had included emission reduction measures that the Panel reviewed several years ago along with emission reduction measures that have been contained in attainment demonstrations, maintenance plans, and 15% and 9% emission reduction State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the various non-attainment areas in the country. Mr. Trout recognized Mr. Spillman’s work in reviewing several years’ worth of Federal Register notices to develop the list of SIP-approved emission reduction measures. The District then developed a comprehensive list of approximately 120 potential emission reduction measures and evaluated each measure. The District’s document, in table form, includes the Emission Reduction Measures, whether the measure would be continuous or episodic; whether the emissions are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or oxides of nitrogen (NOx); (a place for) the actual emissions from the source category in the 1999 emissions inventory; an evaluation of the magnitude of the current emissions from the source category, rated low to high; an evaluation of whether there are known emission reduction measures, rated high to low; an evaluation of the magnitude of potential emission reductions from the emission reduction measure, rated high to low; an evaluation of whether the emission reduction measure is reasonable to implement, from technical, economic, and acceptability aspects; an evaluation of whether the emission reduction measure could be implemented during the 2003 ozone season, rated high to low; the total points from the five relative ranking factors; and (a place for) the projected potential 2003 reduction in emissions resulting from implementation of the emission reduction measure.
The District staff then prioritized the emission reduction measures and developed the December 4, 2002, list of approximately 60 emission reduction measures that the District believed should be considered by the Panel at the December 10th meeting. Mr. Trout indicated that the emission reduction measures that were not included in the December 4, 2002, list may be important for future consideration for ultimate attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
The Chairman said that as the Panel goes through the process of evaluating the emission reduction measures, costs will need to be evaluated and justified. Additional information regarding the magnitude of emission reductions and costs will be needed.
Mr. Williams indicated that the 2003 ozone season would be determinative of our regulatory status under the 8-hour ozone framework. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will use the 2003, 2002, and 2001 8-hour ozone data as the basis of the area’s design value. There were many exceedances on the 8-hour ozone standard during 2002; there were far fewer exceedances in 2001. The design value based on the three most recent years, 2000 to 2002, of data is 90 parts per billion (ppb). In 2002, there were 76 exceedances that occurred on 28 days. The Panel’s goal is to identify measures that could reduce ozone precursor emissions in 2003 to minimize the monitored ozone concentrations, thus minimizing the design value that will be used to classify degree of nonattainment of the Louisville area.
The Chairman indicated that it is clear that the Louisville will not be in attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard and some emission reduction measures will be needed to improve the air quality in the community. The Panel needs to focus on what makes sense at the local community level. There are national programs that will significantly reduce ozone precursor emissions, although most of them will not result in reductions for at least two or three years. The questions is how much early, local community-based reductions are justified. The Panel’s recommendation to the Air Pollution Control Board (Board) should balance these issues. The District’s list shows both strategies that would be voluntary and strategies that would need to be regulatory in nature.
Mr. Williams noted that the District is looking for effectiveness in achieving real reductions. The measures can be achieved by a voluntary basis or a more command-and-control approach. Each strategy requires a different level of effort, whether it is a government agency or the private sector that is responsible for implementing the strategy. The total package should be achievable. If the Panel’s recommendation to the Board is comprised of reasonable measures across several sectors, the Panel will have accomplished its goal for the community to improve both public health and the economic viability.
Mr. Talbott explained his list of feasible measures designed to make an impact in the 2003 ozone season. These pertain to Ozone Action Days. A copy is attached to the original minutes.
Mr. Trout noted that the EPA released the schedule for area designations for the 8-hour ozone standard. The states will be required to submit new designation recommendations based on 2000-2002 in April 2003. After reviewing the recommendations, the EPA will propose the area designations it believes to be appropriate. By the end of 2003, the states will have an opportunity to submit their 2003 data and have their designations based upon the 2001 to 2003 three-year period. The EPA will publish final area designations in April 2004.
Mr. Williams informed the Panel that Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) money is available for several of the ozone education outreach strategies. The District expects $400,000 to be available for educational outreach components. At the State level, the available CMAQ funds are in the range of 12 to 15 million dollars, but only part of that money is reserved for the Louisville area. Over the next two years, when the 8-hour ozone designations are made, potentially 18-30 Kentucky Counties will become nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard and thus become eligible for CMAQ funding. The total amount of CMAQ funds available will not increase because more counties are eligible.
Mr. Kuzmich of the Transit Authority of River City (TARC) would like to beef up the KAIRE Program that started last summer. The CMAQ funding available this year is not sufficient to reinstitute the 25 cent bus fare program for the summer. He said that TARC would like to focus on the educational outreach programs that are available and is looking for CMAQ grants to partner with the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA) Van Pool Program.
The Chairman proposed to take an hour for input from Panel members and the public at the next Panel meeting. Then the Panel should decide which emission reduction measures should be recommended to the Board for implementation. He suggested that each Panel member be given five stickers to vote for his or her recommended strategies, with the four or five strategies receiving the most votes being recommended to the Board.
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 2:00 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
________________________
Patrick J. Moran
Chairman
_______/signed/_______
Jonathan L. Trout
Secretary-Treasurer