STAR Program Formal Comment Response Document

Apcd

Informations

• Publié par: Awley
• Nombre de lectures: 31
• Langue: English

Extrait

STAR Program
Formal Comment/Response Document
Note: Lists of commenters and of acronyms and abbreviations used
may be found at the end of this document.
Section ... Comment ... From Comment No. District Response
Overall Comment Overall-1
The rules will have a significant adverse The Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
economic impact on area businesses while District (District) believes that
making no demonstrable difference in the implementation of the initial phase of the
potential risk targeted by the rules and STAR Program will result in meaningful
duplicating federal initiatives already in place reductions in the concentrations of the
to address potential risk. affected toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the
ACC vicinity of the affected stationary sources.
The District does not agree that the STAR
Program duplicates the results of federal
initiatives. See Responses to Comments
Overall-42 through -47.
Overall Comment Overall-2
No response is needed.We support the general framework of the
STAR Program, including its basic
assumptions, health risk goal (1 in 1 million
lifetime cancer risk), regulatory rulemaking
process, prioritization of covered chemical
affected companies, modeling requirements
and time frame for compliance.
ALA
Overall Comment Overall-3
The STAR program will not appreciably Cost and savings issues are addressed in the
reduce air toxics, does not adequately Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). The
consider the cost-benefit relationships District believes that the STAR Program is
associated with the program or the technical technically feasible and based on sound
and economic feasibility of the program, and science. In addition to establishing a
does not appear to be based on sound science. framework for a comprehensive toxics
AIK, LCP program, the proposed STAR regulations will
meaningfully reduce the risk from the largest
individual emission points of many chemicals
of concern.
Overall - 1 May 31, 2005STAR Program
Formal Comment/Response Document
Section ... Comment ... From Comment No. District Response
Overall Comment Overall-4
Louisville’s air is unhealthy, and the highest No response is needed.
priority of city government should be to
protect the health of its residents. Therefore,
we urge the Board to adopt the STAR
program and to pass a resolution that
recommends local control over local air.
3689 Cards
Overall-5Overall Comment
Our employer, Zeon Chemicals, has reduced The District acknowledges that the current
emissions of acrylonitrile (AN) and 1,3- level of emissions of some TACs from some
butadiene (BD) by over 71% since taking processes and process equipment will likely
over the facility in 1989. Under the STAR be found not to meet the proposed goals.
program the company may have to further This result is expected, because the
reduce AN and BD emissions by an concentrations of some TACs that are most
additional 97% at a cost of over $250,000 per logically attributed to the emissions from
ton. This is not reasonable. some of these processes and process
179 Cards (Zeon Employees) equipment were monitored in the ambient air
at higher than acceptable levels.
However, the conclusion that could be
reached is that such a previously high level of
risk justifies the need for a regulatory
program to protect public health and welfare.
Higher than acceptable levels of certain
TACs, such as BD and AN, constitute a
significant part of the underlying basis for the
STAR program.
Overall Comment Overall-6
The regulations are too conservative. The District will take land use and
Residential risk levels are applied anywhere demographic factors into account when
outside the plant, regardless of whether or not determining whether to approve a request to
people live there. modify an environmental acceptability goal
179 Cards (Zeon Employees) under Regulation 5.21 sections 2.3 and 2.6.
Additionally, the District will recommend to
the Board the inclusion of adjustment factors
applicable to Regulation 5.21 sections 2.2,
2.5, and 2.8, to be applied if the maximum
ambient concentration is on industrial
property or a public roadway.
Overall - 2 May 31, 2005STAR Program
Formal Comment/Response Document
Section ... Comment ... From Comment No. District Response
Overall Comment Overall-7
STAR deems ethyl acrylate to be a Ethyl acrylate is listed as a carcinogen by the
carcinogen, while other major references International Agency for Research on Cancer
(ACGIH, IRIS, NTP) do not. This is not (IARC).
reasonable.
179 Cards (Zeon Employees)
Overall-8Overall Comment
No response is needed.We support the revised regulations and urge
the Board to adopt the STAR program as
soon as possible.
Sierra Club, WJCCTF
Overall Comment Overall-9
Economic development and environmental No response is needed.
regulations are compatible, as demonstrated
by a study of the Los Angeles area’s South
Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) regulations by Ward F. Thomas,
a professor in the Department of Urban
Studies and Planning at California State
University, Northridge, and Paul Ong,
director of the University of California, Los
Angeles, Lewis Center for Regional Policy
Studies. The authors concluded that the
overall harmful impacts predicted by local
industry did not come to pass.
Sierra Club
Overall Comment Overall-10
Stringent air quality regulations have been No response is needed.
shown not to negatively affect productivity in
affected industries. An August 2001 study on
the effects of SCAQMD petroleum refining
industry regulations concluded that
productivity rose sharply during the period
that the most stringent local regulations came
into effect, a period when the productivity of
refineries elsewhere in the country was
falling.
Sierra Club
Overall - 3 May 31, 2005STAR Program
Formal Comment/Response Document
Section ... Comment ... From Comment No. District Response
Overall Comment Overall-11
The District should include the issue of Mobile source toxic emissions issues will be
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) to the STAR assessed pursuant to Regulation 5.30.
program. It is our desire to see RFG no Recommended strategies for attainment of the
longer mandated in the Louisville Metro area. 8-hour ozone standard will be developed by
RFG increases ozone levels and is harmful to the Air Quality Task Force appointed by the
the environment, expensive to produce, not Mayor.
energy efficient, costly to consume, and
harmful to older models of cars.
Libertarians/Stop the VET
Overall-12Overall Comment
The STAR program should include a health The purpose of the STAR Program is to
component that addresses the needs of develop and implement regulations and
citizens who live in close proximity to programs to ensure that the emissions of
emissions. TACs in Jefferson County are not “harmful to
NAACP the health and welfare of humans, animals,
and plants” (Regulation 5.01 Section 3; 401
KAR 63:020 Section 3). The goal of the
STAR program is to improve air quality and
thus to improve public health. The District,
however, is not authorized, pursuant to KRS
Chapter 77, to develop and implement
programs related to health care.
Overall Comment Overall-13
Wording should be included in all permits The purpose of the STAR Program is to
emphasizing due diligence of care for develop and implement regulations and
communities within a five-mile radius of the programs to ensure that the emissions of
permitted company. The wording should TACs in Jefferson County are not “harmful to
include steps to be taken and a time frame for the health and welfare of humans, animals,
completion and reporting. and plants.” This would include the
NAACP suggested five-mile radius of permitted
companies. The District agrees that permits
should include enforceable emission
standards and, as appropriate, compliance
schedules.
Overall - 4 May 31, 2005STAR Program
Formal Comment/Response Document
Section ... Comment ... From Comment No. District Response
Overall Comment Overall-14
The proposed regulations are overly broad, The District disagrees that the proposed
granting unprecedented authority to the regulations are overly broad or grant the
District which is both impractical and District inappropriate authority. The
unjustifiable. Examples are Regulations 1.06 regulations are well within the authority
secs. 1 and 2, 5.21 sec. 4.2, and 1.20 sec. granted to the District and the Board by KRS
1.1.2. Chapter 77. The District’s authority pursuant
NPCA to Regulation 1.06 Sections 1 and 2 exists in
the current regulation. Regulation 5.21
section 4.2 actually gives the Board the
authority to act, after a determination made
by the District. Pursuant to Regulation 1.20
section 1.1.2, the District would have to make
a determination that a malfunction may have
occurred.
Overall-15Overall Comment
There is no evidence that the proposed STAR The STAR Program does not establish a
-6regulations will allow Louisville residents to cumulative cancer risk goal of 1 q10 . In
meet the stated health risk goal of 1 in 1 fact, Regulation 5.21 establishes a cumulative
-6million lifetime ca