Back

REPORT:

Stationary Source Committee

SYNOPSIS:

The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, January 23, 1998. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be February 20, 1998, at 11:00 a.m., in Conference Room CC8.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and File.

Mee Hae Lee
Chair, Stationary Source Committee

Attendance

The meeting began at 11:10 a.m. Present were Committee Chair Mee Hae Lee and Committee Members Richard Alarcòn, Jon Mikels, Leonard Paulitz, and James Silva (who left at 12 noon). Absent was Committee Member Ronald Loveridge. Board Member Nell Soto participated on the Committee and Board Member Wayne Nastri participated after a committee member left. Board Chairman William Burke and Board Member Roy Wilson attended as observers.

Summary

The Committee reviewed the items on their agenda (attached). Comments were noted on the following items:

1. Board Review of Permits for Multi-Year, Multi-Phase Projects (Item #5 on the Agenda)

Deputy Executive Officer of Stationary Source Compliance Pat Leyden told the Committee that this item was being brought back, to report on the Public Consultation Meeting held on December 7, 1997. The Public Consultation meeting resulted in a second alternative which would identify large, significant projects on the monthly CEQA Report to the Board. She told the Committee she had received comment letters from Southern California Edison and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and another, handed to her that morning, from Curtis Coleman, representing the California Manufacturers Association (CMA). Both Southern California Edison and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power recommends using the CEQA process. Ms. Leyden said Mr. Coleman would report on his comment letter.

Mr. Coleman, representing CMA/Southern California Air Quality Alliance, recommended (1) use of the CEQA process to identify impacts and mitigation measures, and (2) extend the one-year approval to three years. Mr. Coleman gave some examples of large projects and their problems. His suggestion was for more discussions on this issue to take place.

Greg Adams, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, said he believes the Board already has the authority to review controversial projects through Regulation XII and Rule 205. The ramifications on contracts underway and this threat of changing a BACT determination is particularly onerous and sends out a horrible message to everyone trying to conduct business in the South Coast Basin. He said the need was to fix the determination at the beginning, not to revisit it time and time again.

Ron Wilkniss, Western States Petroleum Association, said the ramifications of decisions made today impact not only profit-moded projects but also environmental projects.

Jon Mikels expressed concern that once a permit to construct has been issued, it could be revoked and a project could be terminated after investments have been made. This undermines confidence in the entire government process. In terms of the overall South Coast Basin, if a permit to construct is not something you can carry through on, it is not worth the paper its printed on. A permit to construct is something you should be able to count on.

Leonard Paulitz said, while the concept is good, you should do the job correctly up front. The problem is the "hurry up get me my permit, I’ve got to get going" mentality. The District, in trying to short-cut the process, may give a permit that on hind sight they shouldn’t have, or should have done better. On the other side, sometimes that’s OK for short-term, one-year projects, but for 2-3 year projects, technology may change, as in the LAXT project, and there may be a need to revisit the requirements.

Mee Lee said the second alternative offered was, in her opinion, a better proposal, and was less restrictive than the first alternative. It allows the Board to receive more information and retain the authority it already has. She asked Mr. Coleman if the intent of his recommendation was to preclude the Board from a Regulation XII hearing in the first three years.

Curtis Coleman said yes, but it doesn’t preclude that a permit could be revoked. But, the proper procedure for revoking a permit to construct, is provided by the Health and Safety Code which authorizes the Hearing Board to hold a hearing to decide on specific grounds whether or not it can be revoked. He thinks there is a remedy, but not a Regulation XII remedy.

Mr. Alarcòn said he thinks the LAXT project is a good reason why we should keep the rules as they are. It demonstrated that we can change mid-stream and improve the process without multi-year review. If we had had multi-year review, it would have greatly hampered the decision to have this economic investment in the first place.

Mr. Mikels said he would be opposed to either alternative if the ending dollar amount of the project is greatly affected because of AQMD’s policy of reviewing such projects.

Ms. Leyden explained the District’s practice, which is to give 24 months from the start of a project and if a request is made for a third extension, it will be given if there has been some investment in the project. Most projects get 36 months. If you have not started the project in 36 months, a discussion takes place to see if BACT has changed.

Mr. Mikels said that more time to look at this item is needed. Ms. Lee agreed.

Mr. Mikels asked if the two 12-month extensions could be denied. Ms. Leyden said we grant extensions; but, Mr. Mikels is correct, it is a discretionary decision. Mr. Mikels said he felt 36 months should be the length of the initial permit to construct. This would provide more certainty for businesses, and align the length of the District’s permit with the length of many building permits. Staff agreed to report back to the Committee within the next few months.

2. Public Outreach for Rule 1171 and Rule 1122 (Item #2 on the Agenda)

Pat Leyden explained what has been done on public outreach on these rules, which were adopted last year and the year before. She said that Rule 1122 represents the largest emission reduction rule adopted last year (40 tons of VOC emissions) and covered many locations for unpermitted equipment. (In the interest of time, the staff presentation was waived, to allow time for several people from out of town to speak.)

John Hauser of Safety-Kleen Corporation said the District’s outreach efforts have been somewhat successful. He said there is a need for proper waste treatment disposal. He told the Committee that an aqueous solution task force has been developed to provide education through free seminars and a direct mail campaign, as well as telemarketing efforts. Mr. Hauser said the District needs to do more to educate communities, especially small businesses.

Jack Miller of Santa Monica Nissan told the Committee he was involved in a pilot program using water-based projects. Some products worked very well for them and they are in negotiations with several companies and will be changing over to water-based products permanently.

Ernie Pelz of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power said he was part of a pilot program to test water-based products (cleaners). They have changed to water-based products and like them very much. Also, they are very economical.

3. Rule Development Summary: 1997 Accomplishments and 1998 Objectives (Item #1 on the Agenda)

Pat Leyden gave a very brief presentation. She told the Committee that each year this item is brought to them. Last year there were 43 rules before the Board. Thirty-five of the rules were administrative, five were emission reduction rules, and three were rule relaxations. In terms of tons, the degreasing rules represented 42.5 tons of VOC. Another big item was portable internal combustion engines. That program has been turned over to CARB. Ms. Leyden said there are 50 administrative rules on the 1998 schedule and 7 emission reduction rules. The NOx rule was adopted at the Board’s first meeting this year. There are two VOC emissions rules, the architectural coatings rule (about 20 tons) and the livestock waste control rule (about 3 1/2 tons). Ms. Leyden said that in addition, a big rule effort will be in: Intercredit Trading, Rules 1401 and 1402, and Title III streamlining. (Note: The full report is attached.)

4. Rule 1168 - Adhesive Applications (Item #3 on the Agenda)

Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Anupom Ganguli waived the staff presentation on this rule (in the interest of time). Dr. Ganguli explained that this was a "catch up" rule and was not controversial.

5. Rule 1150.1 - Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Rule 1150.2 - Control of Gaseous Emissions from Inactive Landfills (Item #4 on the Agenda)

Stationary Source Compliance Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Carol Coy told the Committee that Rule 1150.1 will be heard in February. This rule combines the requirements for active and inactive landfill emissions control and incorporates SIP changes that EPA wanted to federally approve these rules. It also incorporates a number of procedural guidelines staff issued to waste site operators that have been used as part of the rule in the past and makes them enforceable at EPA’s request. In addition, EPA has promulgated a new source performance standard for landfills and this action incorporates those new federal requirements under one rule. Staff is proposing to rescind Rule 1150.2 - Inactive Landfills, to roll all landfill requirements into one rule.

One policy issue is a that a number of waste site operators have requested that AQMD rescind and reduce some of the air toxic monitoring requirements that were in the previous two rules. Staff is not proposing that now. They think a more appropriate time to address this would be at the time that EPA promulgates a new MACT standard for landfill emissions (expected in the year 2000).

Mr. Paulitz asked if the operators wanted to rescind the rule because there are less toxics now. Ms. Coy said there is still a large amount of monitoring that goes on at the District and, in the past decade, there is a large amount of information from the landfills with the installation of the gas control systems required under Rule 1150.1. She said there have been considerable toxic emission reductions from all these facilities documented concurrent with the general emissions reductions seen from control equipment installation.

6. Update on the Air Quality Assistance Fund (Item #6 on the Agenda)

Public Advisor La Ronda Bowen waived her presentation in the interest of time. This item will be brought back next month.

7. Status of Environmental Justice Initiatives (Item #7 on the Agenda)

Initiative #2: Director of Applied Science and Technology Mel Zeldin gave a status report on this initiative. He summarized the actions to date saying three subgroups have been formed for the technical review group, focusing on key aspects of the program. On the monitoring site selection, they are recommending to the Board the approval of a third mobile platform to improve our capability of monitoring around the Basin, in support of the program. As for the inventory development, the RFP was released in December and a bidders conference was held about two weeks ago. There were about 19 attendees, representing 12 companies. Mr. Zeldin said upcoming actions include subgroup meetings this month, primarily by conference calls. The main technical review group is scheduled to convene on February 4. The due dates for the proposals for the inventory closed yesterday, and five proposals were received. Staff is now in the process of developing a monitoring and laboratory protocol document which will be the basis for the program. Three items are recommended for Board action at the February meeting. The first is to recognize $110,000 to the District’s fund from penalties from both Texaco and Mobil and, then to appropriate that $110,000 to the ASTD budget for temporary services to support the field work. Finally, the Board will be asked to reallocate the $400,000 that was approved in December to support a third mobile platform and the needed equipment and staffing. A savings was realized from the original $400,000 due to lower-than-expected bids for equipment, and cooperation from ARB in relocating their Upland toxic monitoring site to Fontana.

The Committee recommends that this item be submitted to the full Board for consideration.

Initiative #8: Carol Coy gave a report on the proposed RFP for technical assistance that will support this initiative. The major work in the last four weeks was to complete the RFP as well as to have AST and SSC staff begin a review of all citizen complaints that have come into the agency over the last two years. She told the Committee that resident complaints are being looked at in order to better analyze what types of contaminants have been of concern to the general communities in the Basin. This information will be provided to the selected contractor under this RFP. The RFP reallocates $45,000 within the SSC budget in order to fund this new study, and sets out all the requirements to conduct the state-of-the-science review of both our laboratory, instrumentation, and methods, as well as the field instrumentation that is used to support our field inspection program. The consultant will review all of this, determine our current capabilities, and then come forward with any recommendations on potential upgrades to our current equipment, in order to increase and make our field presence more effective and better serve the residents of our area.

The Committee recommends that this item be submitted to the full Board for consideration.

Initiative #10: Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Jill Whynot reported on activities going on in the Rules 1401 and 1402 arena. She told the Committee there was a very successful conference last month. A rule development working group is being assembled; the first meeting will be in February. An initial approach is splitting the project into two phases. She said they will be addressing the addition of compounds to Rule 1401 and adding the non-cancer impacts into a Board package in May of this year. Then, later this year, they will be looking at the Rule 1402 issue which will be evaluating risk thresholds. Staff has begun to update potential impacts of the rule on industry, as well as the environment. The Notice of Preparation on the initial Rule 1401 project for the Environmental Assessment process, will go out before the end of the month. In addition, they are looking at parallel efforts to address ongoing changes in risk assessment methodologies.

Board Member Wayne Nastri expressed support of what staff is doing on Rules 1401 and 1402, and said he thought the Toxics Workshop in December was very worthwhile.

8. John Billheimer expressed concern regarding the availability of TAO reports. He said that projects go to the Board to be funded, then there is no way for the public to know what has been accomplished when the project is finished.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:17 p.m.

Attachments

1. January 23, 1998 Committee Agenda (without its attachments)

2. Annual Rule Report

/ / /