Overview
Title
Air Plan Approval; KY; Gasoline Loading Facilities at Existing Bulk Terminals and New Bulk Plants
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA wants to change some rules in Jefferson County, Kentucky, about how gasoline is moved around. They want to check the trucks for leaks using a new test instead of a sticker to make sure the air stays clean.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing changes to the air quality regulations in Jefferson County, Kentucky. These changes involve updating the standards for facilities that load gasoline to include new testing and recordkeeping rules for gasoline tank trucks, instead of requiring a pressure vacuum test sticker. The revisions aim to ensure these regulations are in line with the Clean Air Act and other federal standards. The EPA is seeking public comments on this proposal until February 22, 2021.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Energy and Environment Cabinet (Cabinet) on September 5, 2019. The revisions were submitted by the Cabinet on behalf of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District) and include amendments related to the standards for existing gasoline loading facilities at bulk terminals and new gasoline loading facilities at bulk plants. The amendments to these standards replace a requirement for gasoline tank trucks to possess a valid Kentucky pressure vacuum test sticker with a requirement for specific vapor tightness testing and recordkeeping procedures, clarify rule applicability, and remove language stating that a pressure measuring device will be supplied by the District. EPA is proposing to approve the revisions because they are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed updates to air quality standards, specifically for gasoline loading facilities, in Jefferson County, Kentucky. These changes aim to align with the Clean Air Act by modifying existing regulations for gasoline tank trucks. The proposed revisions eliminate the need for a pressure vacuum test sticker and instead introduce specific testing for vapor tightness and require detailed recordkeeping of these tests.
General Summary
The EPA's proposal involves updating standards related to gasoline loading at bulk terminals and plants in Jefferson County. The key change is replacing a previous requirement for pressure vacuum test stickers on gasoline tank trucks with new standards for annual vapor tightness testing. This includes maintaining records of these tests, which is considered more rigorous and in line with federal standards.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One primary concern is the use of complex technical language and references to specific regulatory requirements, which could be challenging for the general public to understand. The proposal mentions non-existent regulations, such as "Regulation 6.37," leading to potential confusion about previous requirements or expectations. Furthermore, the document discusses an exception made for the phrase "or an alternate procedure approved by the District" without fully explaining its implications.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this proposal may not have a direct daily impact but is essential in ensuring air quality and public health by controlling volatile organic compound emissions from gasoline facilities. It reflects efforts to modernize and enhance environmental protection measures, although the technical nature of the document may hinder widespread public engagement or understanding.
Stakeholder Impact
For stakeholders directly involved, such as operators of gasoline loading facilities, these changes could mean adjusting to new compliance standards, which might involve logistical adjustments in testing and recordkeeping practices. While this could initially pose challenges, in the long term, it could lead to improved operational standards and possibly reduced emissions, benefiting both the environment and public health.
Overall, the proposed rule reflects an advancement in environmental regulation aimed at enhancing air quality. However, clear communication and outreach are necessary to ensure those impacted understand the changes and what is required for compliance.
Issues
• The document contains a high level of technical language and references to specific regulations (e.g., EPA Method 27, 40 CFR 60), which may be difficult for non-experts to understand.
• There is a reference to 'Regulation 6.37', which is stated to not exist, yet mentioned in the context of prior requirements. This could cause confusion.
• The exception of the phrase 'or an alternate procedure approved by the District' is noted, but it is not clear why this exception is being made or what implications it may have.
• The method for submitting comments is detailed, but there may be a missed opportunity for increasing public engagement through simpler instructions or additional outreach.
• The document references various executive orders and acts, which might be unfamiliar to readers lacking a background in regulatory processes.
• The document is heavily laden with references to specific code sections (e.g., 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX) and subsections (e.g., subsection 3.6.4.2), which could pose an accessibility issue for a general audience.