BOARD MEETING DATE: November 14, 1997 AGENDA NO. 34


PROPOSAL:

Adopt Proposed Rule 2503 - Enforceable Procedures

SYNOPSIS:

Proposed Rule 2503 will expand on the enforceable procedures guidelines developed in Rule 2501 - Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP) and establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) requirements for applying AQIP emission reductions as an alternative to compliance with the emission limitation requirements of Regulation IV - Prohibitions and Regulation XI - Source Specific Standards. The proposed rule will also specify the quantification methodologies necessary to determine the amount of AQIP emission reductions required.

COMMITTEE:

Mobile Source, October 17, 1997, Reviewed

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  1. Certify that Proposed Rule 2503 - Enforceable Procedures is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and

  2. Adopt Proposed Rule 2503 - Enforceable Procedures.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env.
Acting Executive Officer


Background

The AQMD is developing a series of market-based incentive rules under Regulation XXV - Intercredit Trading. One element of the proposed Intercredit Trading Program which was adopted May 9, 1997, is Rule 2501 - Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP). Under Rule 2501, Regulation IV, XI and Rule 2202 sources that meet the eligibility requirementsair quality investment fund that will be used to provide equivalent emission reductions that will otherwise be required of AQIP participants. Participants can voluntarily submit a specified fee into the AQIP which will be used to fund projects that will produce equivalent or greater emission reductions.

Contingent to the participation of Regulation IV and XI sources in the Rule 2501 AQIP, is the availability of an adopted AQMD rule specifying enforceable procedures for using AQIP emission reductions. Thus, as part of the Resolution to Rule 2501, AQMD staff is committed to develop a rule prior to January 1, 1998, that specifies enforceable procedures for using AQIP emission reductions as required under subdivision (e) of Rule 2501. Proposed Rule 2503 - Enforceable Procedures is the fulfillment of that commitment.

Proposal

Proposed Rule 2503 specifies monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) requirements based on the guidelines outlined in Rule 2501. In addition to establishing enforceable MRR requirements, the proposed rule specifies the quantification methodologies for determining the amount of emission reductions required.

Monitoring Requirements

For most sources, Proposed Rule 2503 establishes a four-step hierarchy for appropriate monitoring test methods and frequency. The hierarchy is: (1) Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) if required under the existing applicable Regulation IV or XI rule, (2) monitoring requirements specified in the applicable Regulation IV or XI rule, (3) monitoring requirements specified in the applicable Permit to Construct/Operate, and (4) appropriate test or laboratory methods identified in Rule 2503 paragraph (e)(6). Monitoring of the emission limitation for sources using VOC-Containing Materials will be accomplished by requiring that documentation be provided specifying the VOC content of the material which meets the labeling requirements of Rule 443.1 - Labeling of Materials Containing Organic Solvents. Documents which may meet this requirement include Laboratory Analysis Reports, Material Safety Data Sheets, and Technical Data Sheets.

Recordkeeping Requirements

The recordkeeping provisions of Proposed Rule 2503 are designed to be consistent with the existing recordkeeping requirements of Regulation IV, XI, and XIII. For instance, recordkeeping requirements for sources using VOC-Containing Materials in coating or solvent processes are based on Rule 109 - Recordkeeping for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions and other similar requirements pursuant to Regulation XIII.

Reporting Requirements

Rule 2501 requires that summaries quantifying the amount of AQIP emission reductions used and remaining be submitted to the Executive Officer at six and twelve months from the Starting Investment Date in an approved format which summarizes the sources’ AQIP emission reduction activity on a monthly basis.

Quantification Methodologies

The proposed rule specifies the methodologies for determining the amount of emission reductions required to demonstrate compliance with Rule 2501. The emission quantification methodologies for the proposed rule establish the manner in which the amount of required AQIP emission reductions are to be calculated. The proposed rule provides two types of equations for determining the amount of required AQIP emission reductions: (1) for non-coating operations; and (2) for coating operations. These equations are dependent on the activity of the operation and are based on the difference between the emission limitations (concentration, percent by weight, or emission rate of a pollutant) during the Investment Period and currently allowed under existing requirements. Additional equations are specified for (1) determining the AQIP emission reduction remaining; and (2) the amount of adjustment to the AQIP emission reductions used due to the quantity of VOC-containing waste recycled.

Policy Issues

Over the past month, the AQMD staff has worked with environmental groups, business representatives, agencies (EPA and ARB), and other interested parties to resolve issues related to Proposed Rule 2503 to the degree feasible. Based on discussions with these parties and revisions to Proposed Rule 2503, the AQMD staff believes that it has addressed several issues that were outstanding in the Board Letter to the October 10, 1997 Set Hearing package for Proposed Rule 2503. Although not all the issues have been totally resolved, Table 1 provides a summary of these issues and the manner in which they were addressed.

Table 1: Summary of Recently Addressed Issues

Issue

How Addressed

Use of AQIP Emission Reductions as an Alternative to Monitoring Requirements Specified in Reg. IV and XI Rules

• Resolution commits staff to further evaluate the use of emission credits as an alternative to MRRs during the development of the Intercredit Trading Program.

Use of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to Document the VOC Content of Materials Used in the Program

• Resolution commits staff to work with EPA to further evaluate the effectiveness of using MSDS and Rule 443.1 - Labeling of Materials Containing Organic Solvents to demonstrate compliance with the VOC content in VOC-Containing Materials.

Use of Executive Officer Discretion in Evaluating and Applying Method 301 to Alternative MRRs

• Resolution commits staff to work with EPA to develop an efficient process to approve alternative test methods.

Only Reg. IV and XI Rules Which Are SIP Approved Should Be Referenced in the Monitoring Methods of PR 2503

• Resolution commits staff to work with EPA to develop an efficient process to approve test methods in locally amended AQMD rules for the SIP.

Although a number of issues under Proposed Rule 2503 have been addressed, there remain outstanding issues on which interested parties and/or staff disagree. Table 2 summarizes the three outstanding issues associated with Proposed Rule 2503 and characterizes the general position and comments from environmental groups, business representatives, and involved agencies (EPA and ARB). The three key outstanding issues are as follows: (1) Waste Adjustment; (2) Performance Adjustment Factor; and (3) source testing frequency. AQMD staff will continue to work with interested parties on identified issues. A more detailed discussion of these issues and other comments received is contained in the Final Staff Report.

AQMP & Legal Mandates

Proposed Rule 2503 satisfies the commitment that the Board made in the Resolution to Rule 2501 to develop a rule prior to January 1, 1998, that specifies enforceable procedures for using AQIP emission reductions as required under subdivision (e) of Rule 2501.

CEQA & Socioeconomic Analysis

The AQMD has reviewed the proposed project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15002(k) - Three Step Process, to determine which type of CEQA document to prepare for the proposed action. The AQMD has determined that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15321 - Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies, since the activity is covered by this Class 21 exemption for actions to enforce a rule adopted by a regulatory agency.

The Notice of Exemption, prepared pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines Section 15062 - Notice of Exemption, will be filed with the county clerks of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties immediately following the adoption of the proposal.

The AQMD has determined that the proposed rule would not generate any additional costs on affected sources because it specifies current MRR requirements as dictated in existing regulations for a voluntary program. As such, the proposed rule will not result in any adverse socioeconomic impacts.

Implementation Plan

Not Applicable

Resource Impacts

Not Applicable

Attachments

A. Rule Development Flow Chart

B. Resolution

C. Notice of Exemption

D. Rule Language

E. Staff Report

Issue

PR 2503

EPA or ARB Comments

Business Comments

Environmental Comments

1. Waste Adjustment of AQIPUsed

• Investors may adjust the AQIP emission reductions used (AQIPUsed) to reflect the VOC waste shipped offsite.

• The adjustment allowed is limited to the difference between the waste streams during the Investment Period and that which would otherwise occur if compliant products were to be used.

Position:

• Concern with the use of Waste Adjustment from PR 2503.

Comments:

• Waste adjustment was not considered in the underlying rules and therefore Waste Adjustment is not appropriate to consider in Rule 2501 or Proposed Rule 2503.

• Reduction of a mass-based emission requirement due to the Waste Adjustment may not be appropriate because the original limit is on a concentration basis.

• Policy decision pending.

Position:

• Retain the Waste Adjustment in PR 2503.

Comments:

• The Waste Adjustment more accurately determines the quantity of AQIP emission reductions used.

• Removing the Waste Adjustment is not significant, but removing it may be a disincentive to Investors with VOC waste.

Position:

• No specific position.

Comments:

• Support more conservative methods of quantifying the amount of AQIP emission reductions used.

2. Performance Adjustment Factor (PAF)

• The PAF accounts for changes in the performance/efficiency of using a source or product at the Allowable Emission Limit as compared with the Requested Emission Limit.

• In most cases the PAF will be equal to one.
- PAF < 1 indicates an
Investor must purchase
more emission reductions.
- PAF > 1 indicates an
Investor must purchase less
emission reductions.

• PAF other than one has a rigorous approval process, including third-party information.

Position:

• PAF > 1 should not be allowed.

Comments:

• Allowing sources to use a PAF that exceeds one undermines the technology forcing nature of Regulation XI requirements.

• PAF approval process may not necessarily be rigorous.

• Policy decision pending.

Position:

• Consensus with PR 2503.

Comments:

• Support the PAF concept to allow more accurate accounting of excess emissions.

Position:

• No specific position.

Comments:

• No specific comments.

Issue

PR 2503

EPA or ARB Comments

Business Comments

Environmental Comments

3. Source Testing Frequency

• Relies on frequency specified in Reg. IV, Reg. XI, or P/O conditions, otherwise a minimum three-year testing cycle.

• Test required within three months of Investment Period for existing BARCT.

Position:

• Require annual testing.

Comments:

• Annual testing needed to substantiate the validity of the Requested Emission Limit, unless equivalent means of verification are available.

Position:

• Consensus with PR 2503.

Comments:

• Monitoring frequency in proposed rule should be held to the same standard as the frequency of testing used to determine compliance with existing Reg. IV/XI rules.

• PR 2503 is even more stringent than existing protocols because it requires a test every three years.

Position:

• No specific position.

Comments:

• Support more frequent source testing.

• Concerned with existing source testing frequency under Reg. IV and Reg. XI.

/ / /

(Return to November Agenda)                                                 Return to December Agenda