BOARD MEETING DATE: October 9, 1998 AGENDA NO. 37
REPORT:
Stationary Source Committee
SYNOPSIS:
The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, September 18, 1998. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be October 23, 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 11:00 a.m. Present were Committee Chair Mee Hae Lee and Committee Members Jon Mikels and Leonard Paulitz. Also in attendance was new Board Member Paul Woodruff. Absent were Committee Members Richard Alarcòn, Ron Loveridge, and James Silva.
Summary
The Committee reviewed the items on their agenda (attached). Comments were noted on the following items:
Rule 218 – Continuous Emissions Monitoring and Rule 218.1 – Continuous Emissions Monitoring Performance Specifications
John Higuchi, Manager of the Source Evaluation Branch of Applied Science and Technology Division, presented this item. He said this rule proposal is intended to clarify basic requirements, both administrative and technical. The rule is proposed to be divided into two parts with existing Rule 218 to address the administrative requirements and Rule 218.1 to cover the technical requirements.
The last time he was before the Committee, Mr. Higuchi related that members of the public had raised two concerns. Curt Coleman, representing the Southern California Air Quality Alliance, and Greg Adams, representing the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, had concerns regarding the three-year compliance period for existing monitoring systems to meet the new standards. They were also concerned over having multiple performance standards for CEMS, especially in light of Title V. Some facilities would have potentially conflicting federal requirements for some of their monitoring systems.
With respect to the three-year compliance period, Mr. Higuchi said staff modified these requirements by extending the compliance period to seven years. Also, after the seven-year initial period, the rule provides for a waiver that the facility can apply for, which is renewable every three years. He said this allows the operation of an existing CEMS to continue under the old requirements as long as the data are of sufficient quality and have not degraded over the years. The evaluation of whether this quality is adequate will be made on a historical basis and is compared to the original certified criteria.
Ms. Lee asked if the renewable three-year waivers are beyond the seven-year grace period. Mr. Higuchi confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Higuchi said, with respect to the issue of performance standards against which facilities would be certified, staff further modified the requirements to provide an option to the facility so they can choose to certify against the new performance standard or choose to comply with the federal standards. He said staff believes this provides facilities with the flexibility they desire, as there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
Mr. Paulitz asked if facilities have to pick one or the other, or can they have a mix. Mr. Higuchi said they must make a choice. Mr. Paulitz asked how AQMD would know which they choose. Mr. Higuchi said they would submit this with their application.
Mr. Mikels asked if there has been an equivalency determination by EPA between the requirements in 40CFR60 and Rule 218.1. Mr. Higuchi said there has not. Mr. Mikels asked if there is a risk in choosing Rule 218 over the 40CFR60. Mr. Higuchi said he believes Rule 218 is not submitted as a SIP rule because there are no emission reductions required. He said AQMD does submit it to EPA for review. Mr. Mikels asked if EPA has agreed that facilities may choose Rule 218.1 as an option to satisfy the requirements of 40CFR60. Mr. Higuchi said not to his knowledge, but he would check on this.
Ms. Lee was concerned that EPA may not accept the option a facility chooses and that we may be creating a confusing situation without all the answers or without having an agreement with EPA.
Director of Monitoring and Analysis Mel Zeldin clarified that EPA has not challenged the existing Rule 218 as these kinds of CEMS are acceptable and appropriate. The only concern would be where the federal aspects of Title V come in where the facility can opt for the 40CFR option for Title V applications if they deem it to be in their best interest to do so.
Acting Executive Officer Barry Wallerstein said Title V permits are sent to EPA for review so AQMD would find out at that time if they had any problems with the alternative compliance method approach. The first set of permits is with EPA and staff would check whether any Rule 218 comments had been made by EPA.
Mr. Mikels asked if a facility chooses Rule 218 as part of the Title V permit and EPA rejects it, what would happen then. Mr. Wallerstein said when they reject it they would indicate to us what is necessary to make it acceptable. Mr. Mikels asked if they had ever addressed the issue of equivalency of the two yet. Mr. Higuchi said some AQMD rules specify EPA federal performance requirements, and others specify AQMD performance requirements. He believes there have not yet been any Title V comments regarding this issue. Mr. Mikels suggested a disclaimer for facilities making option selections if this issue is unresolved.
Ms. Lee requested staff discuss this with EPA and if necessary, as AQMD provides options to the facility, have a disclaimer attached.
Mr. Paulitz asked why AQMD doesn’t just implement the federal rule. Mr. Higuchi said there is one major issue with the federal rule compared to Rule 218. As concentration and emission limits get lower in the District, the federal criteria for performance would make it extremely difficult to comply, as there is no de minimus absolute concentration PPM limit. The federal regulation uses a percentage of the measured value or a percentage of the applicable standard, whichever is greater. As emission rates go down, the required performance of 20% versus 10% of the applicable standard makes a substantial difference in the technical ability to comply. Mr. Paulitz asked if the federal standard is more stringent. Mr. Higuchi said yes; that is one of the major changes made.
Mr. Higuchi said it is not necessarily bad to be more stringent, but it is difficult to keep going back to recertify the analyzers. Mr. Zeldin said typically when percentage performance standards are set, they are established assuming that you have fairly large emission rates, if you are dealing with 30 PPM and you are allowed 10%, you have a 3-PPM range. But, when you get down to emissions levels at 3 PPM and take 10%, then you’re asking them to be within 0.3 PPM, which becomes technically difficult. He said we are recognizing that as you get lower, we need to expand the boundary to be reasonable.
Mr. Paulitz asked what happens if people adopt our standards because they are not quite as stringent and then find out EPA says they should have adopted the federal standard. Mr. Higuchi said staff is in conversations with EPA on the low-NOx turbine limit and they are interested in pursuing a study on measurability of low-NOx concentrations. They recognize the difficulties of low-NOx concentration, measurement, and test limits. He said he doesn’t think they will be difficult about it, but does agree we need to check with EPA. Ms. Lee asked if, in terms of time, if there is any reason we must have the Public Hearing in November. Mr. Higuchi said no. Ms. Lee asked if we could postpone the Public Hearing until there have been discussions with EPA. Mr. Zeldin said there should be no problem with that and staff would get clarification from EPA.
Mr. Mikels asked if there was anyone pursuing an earlier Public Hearing on Rule 218.1. Mr. Higuchi said no one in the public has mentioned it. Mr. Zeldin said the old rule is outdated and needs to be updated to reflect new technologies. The last time this rule was amended was in 1981. He said there is a lot of technical information that is no longer relevant. Ms. Lee said that unless there are objections or adverse consequences, the Public Hearing should be postponed until discussions with EPA take place. Staff agreed.
Rule 112 – Definition of Minor Violation and Guidelines for Issuance of Notice to Comply
Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Ed Pupka told the Committee that staff will bring Proposed Rule 112, Definition of Minor Violation and Guidelines for Issuance of Notice to Comply (NTC), to the November Board Meeting for consideration. PR 112 establishes a definition of what constitutes a minor violation and establishes within the rule criteria for issuance of a Notice to Comply. He said legislation enacted in 1996, that was later codified in the Health and Safety Code, required all local air districts, ARB, and the state water board to adopt, within their local regulations, a minor violation rule. The purpose was to limit enforcement action for minor violation issuance to an NTC to provide statewide consistency on how air districts define a minor violation. After the legislation was enacted, the District surveyed all air districts in California. Of those 34 air districts, 23 had no formal NTC program. Many of them were either not issuing NTCs at all, others were simply issuing Notices of Violation (NOVs), some were simply sending letters out to violators, and in some cases only verbal warnings were given. Mr. Pupka said this has been a problem for those facilities that have multiple operations throughout the state that are situated in various different air districts, as there is a very serious inconsistency in terms of how minor violations are handled.
Mr. Mikels asked if Mr. Pupka would distinguish between a recalcitrant violator and a chronic violation. Mr. Pupka said the District has adopted the language that ARB will be using. He said a chronic violation is a facility receiving two or more violations. For purposes of "chronic," it establishes a pattern of noncompliance at the same facility, same owner, or operator. The definition of "recalcitrant" is more broad-based and includes multiple facilities, or multiple operations, and not necessarily limited to similar violations, but can include multiple different kinds of violations. Mr. Mikels said he thinks "recalcitrant" is the wrong word. He said "recalcitrant’ means someone who knows what they should do and chooses not to do it.
District Prosecutor Peter Mieras said "recalcitrant" is in the statute and we are obligated to use the term. District Counsel Barbara Baird said the chronic violation has to be the same type. Recalcitrant can be anybody expressing disregard, even if it is not the same type of violation. There was concern that it doesn’t state this in the definition but it was determined that Item #7 of the rule does define recalcitrant.
Mr. Pupka said that a pattern of chronic violations could, at some point, become a recalcitrant violation.
Mr. Mikels asked why we are required to adopt the non-definition of "recalcitrant" from the statute. Mr. Mieras said we are required to adopt a rule that implements the legislation with the criteria that are specified in the legislation. That criterion employs the term "recalcitrant" violator, as well as chronic violation. He said it gives a concept for what the legislation supposedly means by these terms and staff is interpreting it to mean that if you have a single facility operating at multiple sites with different types of violations occurring, that two or more violations would be a recalcitrant violator. The word in Webster’s Dictionary generally means to be disagreeable. Mr. Mikels said if we had a violator who violated the same rule ten times, he would be termed "chronic."
Mr. Pupka in 1994, staff worked with the District Prosecutors Office to develop the NTC/NOV Guidelines, which delineate on a rule-by-rule basis those violations that would be considered minor on the first observance. He said those would be issued a NTC. Repeat incidences would be issued an NOV. At the time this guideline was issued as a public document, the intent was to specifically delineate minor violations for which we would issue an NTC.
Mr. Mikels asked if PR-112 language meant that any emission over the Stage I level would be considered a violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard and asked in what case does a minor violation constitute a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Mr. Pupka said this is not the intent and that a minor violation would never be issued for purposes of exceeding a National or State Standard.
Mr. Mikels said that the definition further defines what a minor violation is. He asked at what point does a minor violation cause a violation of State or National Air Quality Standards. Ms. Baird said she thinks this is probably relating to localized violations of NO2 and CO, where you can determine that a particular facility is causing a localized violation. Mr. Mikels said we need to make it clear we are talking about localized impacts and not ambient impacts, because the rule includes language about ambient standards as opposed to localized standards. Ms. Baird said it is still ambient standards, it is just a question of how wide and agreed this should be clarified.
In an effort to have consistency throughout the state, CAPCOA established a subcommittee to work on a model rule. It was recently disseminated to all air districts to utilize as boiler plate language to provide consistency throughout the state and level the playing field between the various air districts. CAPCOA, on their own, sponsored four different public consultation meetings. Two were held at the AQMD; one of them was intended to bring in those districts that border South Coast and one was specifically intended for businesses within the Basin. He said staff is looking at a more resource-efficient enforcement mechanism. There is a provision that allows facilities to do a "quick fix" in the presence of the inspector without issuance of a NTC, where staff is getting immediate compliance, avoiding paperwork, and eliminating the need to return for follow-up or recheck. He said this can get faster compliance times and builds a working relationship with industry. Also, issuance of an NTC avoids civil penalties, if they comply with the NTC. He said the proposed rule also establishes an appeal process as an option for facilities that are issued an NTC.
Mr. Pupka said there are specifics in the Health and Safety Code about what is and is not a minor violation. Minor violations cannot be knowing, willful, intentional, or grossly negligent, and cannot enable the violator to receive economic gain or benefit from noncompliance.
ARB is required to report back to the legislature on the status of the minor violations program throughout the state in the year 2000. The legislation requires a January 1, 2001, sunset clause which can be extended if additional legislation is enacted. He said there is a second District public workshop on September 29. There has been a lot of debate about the issue of de minimus emissions. He said originally the language that was brought forward by CAPCOA specifically excluded any increase of emissions. Staff feels they have been able to accommodate that in the proposed rule language through the already existing protocols that mirror rule language and provide for de minimus emissions. That includes things like open containers with solvent-soaked rags, a few drops a minute of perc, and provisions for de minimus surface emissions from landfills. He said another continuing issue is how to define a pattern in terms of a recalcitrant violator and chronic violations. Mr. Pupka said Peter Mieras has asked consideration of adding to the rule language a three-year limit, such that two or more minor violations occurring in a three-year period would be deemed a chronic violation and would be issued an NOV.
Greg Adams suggested a chronic violation timeframe be added. He asked if a facility that had two violations over ten years would be a chronic violator. He said what bothered him was that Brulte’s original legislation included the words "air contaminant." If it included air contaminant in the Health and Safety Code, that definition includes odors. He was concerned that odors are not addressed and are not allowed the same treatment. However, he said one could have an emission exceedance under this rule that the Executive Officer could order testing to go on and the facility could still operate while testing is going on. The facility could be given up to 30 days after the test results come in to correct the situation. But, upon two hours of odors from a landfill, an NOV is issued under the public nuisance provision. There is no emissions increase in this scenario at the landfill; just meteorological conditions. He said on a cold morning in the winter, odors hover over the ground and move along the valley floor. For an emission violation in excess of a permit limit, testing can be ordered, operation can continue, then, according to the law, the facility has 30 days to bring the unit into compliance. The same thing cannot be done with a two-hour odor violation.
Mr. Mieras said that in all discussions with CAPCOA and workshops with other attorneys around the state, it has been a unanimous view that public nuisances would not be included as possible minor violations. The problem with public nuisance is that a facility is affecting a considerable number of people by the violation that creates the odors. A negligible or de minimus emission exceedance, classical examples under our protocol, would be leaving a solvent container cap off the container for a period of time. He stated that it would not have the same effect as a public nuisance violation. Odors are seriously offensive and affect a lot of people and it takes a lot of staff resources to investigate. He said he couldn’t find any rationale to classify odor violations as minor in nature.
Mr. Pupka said we do not necessarily go out and issue an NOV for one, two, or even three complaints. There are criteria that are established for issuance of an NOV for purposes of public nuisance. In addition, if an inspector visits a facility in response to an odor complaint, irrespective of whether it is a landfill, if there is, as part of that operation, a noncompliance situation, whether they were operating contrary to a permit condition or a specific rule or regulation that establishes emission limits, they will be cited. The violation is for the operation problem, not the odor complaint per se.
Greg Adams said he believes "air contaminant" is used in the state law in the Health and Safety Code and this rule does not address that.
Ms. Lee asked if this was scheduled for Public Hearing in November. Mr. Pupka said that was correct and another workshop is scheduled for September 29. Ms. Lee asked staff to report back to the Committee if there are any developments from the workshop on September 29.
Execute Contract to Develop Additional Technologies to Monitor and Reduce Fugitive Emissions at Dry Cleaners
This item was reviewed by Stationary Source Compliance Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Jack Broadbent. The staff is recommending that AQMD execute a contract for a firm to develop additional technology to identify and mitigate fugitive emissions at dry cleaners. At the August Board meeting, an RFP was approved and all bids have been received.
Mr. Mikels observed that fugitive emissions at dry cleaners must be small. Mr. Broadbent said in general they are but the seals around the equipment get torn and worn out over time. Staff has found that the average dry cleaner, because of the leaks, can actually result in a risk greater than 10 in a million. These operations have good emission controls. They have both primary and secondary controls required under District rules but, over time, they can leak. Mr. Broadbent said the contractor would look at the problem and help us determine how to handle these leaks. A better monitoring device for the dry cleaner operators is needed. He said the hope is that this contract will help better define what those leak rates are and what kind of technology is available for the dry cleaners.
Mr. Broadbent said the process to evaluate the bids has not been completed. Two bids under evaluation are from IRTA and AVES. The panel reviewing bids includes dry cleaner association representatives, EPA, and AQMD. He said the panel would like another week to review the bids and would have a recommendation at the October Board Meeting.
Authorize 12 New Positions and the Transfer of Funds for the Enhanced Compliance Program for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
(The Administrative Committee also reviewed this item on September 18, 1998.)
Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Larry Bowen reported to the Committee that in May, Rule 301 was amended to provide a special fee to fund an enhanced service station compliance program. That fee is expected to raise about $1 million in revenue this fiscal year and additional revenue the following year if approved by the Board. The proposal, after looking at all options, is to hire additional compliance resources to enhance the program. He said those resources will be devoting their efforts to the training of the station operators, AQMD staff, testing companies, and others in the program. They will be working with ARB to identify the type of equipment that chronically fails and they will help with the process of de-certification and replacement of faulty equipment. They will also be conducting inspections to allow the District to get back to annual inspection of each service station, instead of once every two or three years.
Mr. Broadbent added the specific proposal is to hire nine journey-level inspectors (Air Quality Inspector II’s), a supervisor, and two clerical staff. The significance of this item beyond the gas station portion, is the fact that the agency as a whole has been bringing the staff complement level down over time and this last budget somewhat leveled out. He said this would result in a slight overall increase.
Ms. Lee said the percentage of noncompliance we have in the gas stations (85% noncompliance) is significant, and this program is completely fee paid. She asked what we would do with the second million dollars in the second year if we don’t need to continue. Mr. Broadbent said we would amend Rule 301.
Update on Action Items from the July 10, 1998 Rule 1401 Hearing
Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Jill Whynot presented this item. She said on the October Board agenda there is a follow-up action item from the July adoption of Rule 1401. She reviewed the three components. Ms. Whynot said when the amendments to Rule 1401 were adopted in July; the Board directed staff to return in October. The Board asked for a progress report on testing for metal plating operations. She said staff has been working with the metal plating finishing association and had a very good collaborative effort. There have been weekly meetings and visits to facilities and most of the source tests have been completed. She said staff is beginning to get preliminary data and it looks like, at least for sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid, the emission factors will be significantly lower than what we previously used. Therefore, any economic impacts by adding those compounds to the rule should be much less than anticipated.
The second direction of the Board was to come back with an assessment on what the 100m cumulative impact in Rule 1401 would do to the motion picture film processing industry. She said there was one facility that raised concern that because of the cumulative requirement they would not be able to grow or expand in the future. Ms. Whynot said staff have been working with the industry and have had several meetings, visited facilities, completed surveys, and have done a lot of work in that effort. She said they met with the industry yesterday and gave them a draft report that summarized staff’s findings. They are currently reviewing that document and should have comments by next week. The bottom line that staff has come up with is, even if one does not factor in possible switching to non-perc alternatives, and does not make assumptions on contemporaneous reductions or several of the other items in Rule 1401, that with the carbon absorption controls available, even the largest labs could double their production capability. Ms. Whynot said staff’s conclusion is that no problems are anticipated.
Ms. Lee asked if this includes the one facility, in particular, that raised this issue. Ms. Whynot said yes. They are one of the largest labs and they should be able to add quite a large number of pieces of equipment to their operations. She said industry representatives are reviewing the report now. Staff have had input from three of the approximately 20 labs already that think the assumptions used and the findings produced are valid. It is out for peer review with industry and staff will be looking for comments or concerns to incorporate in the final report.
Ms. Whynot said the third item from October was not specifically a Board directive, but it was one of the changes made to the rule. That had to do with when the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) changes a factor for determining the cancer or non-cancer impacts for compounds listed in the rule. The rule requires staff to report on impacts before staff updates those factors. OEHHA made changes to cancer factors in June, so it was too late to incorporate that in July Amendments. She said staff have a commitment to come back within 150 days. Ms. Whynot said of 55 compounds, about 25 become less stringent and about 29 got more stringent. Of those, there are some broad classes. Seven have to do with lead and nine have to do with dioxins and furans. She said staff is meeting with industry next week. A Notice of Intent to use the revised factors has been published. She said staff have not identified any significant environmental or economic impacts but want to talk with industry to see if they have any concerns or can help identify any affected sources.
Ms. Whynot reported on Item 6, Initiative #10: Rules 1401 and 1402. She said that in addition to the October meeting, staff was directed to come back in January to consider adding several compounds related to nickel plating. OEHHA has also identified or developed risk factors for some of the chemicals that are not currently on Table 1 in Rule 1401. She said in January staff will be back with a discussion on nickel plating, sodium hydroxide, and hydrochloric acid, as well as a list of new chemicals. Preliminary analysis on the additional compounds from OEHHA does not show large impacts for industry. Ms. Whynot said they are starting the Working Group again. The Rule 1401/1402 Working Group will meet next week, with an expanded composition to include mobile sources, if possible some local government representation and other sources, and will begin to address the issues of cumulative impact and the thresholds of the rule.
Status of Environmental Justice Initiatives:
Initiative #2 - Ambient Monitoring of Air Toxics:
Mr. Zeldin, Director of Monitoring and Analysis, presented an update of this initiative. He said they are getting into the routine portion of the program. The MATES sites are up and operating, and data is being collected. On the microscale side sampling has been completed at the Montclair, Torrance, and Costa Mesa sites. He said they are set to begin sampling at Boyle Heights within the next week and within two weeks at Corona. After that the next deployment for the platforms will be in Anaheim and Norwalk. He told the Committee that a Site Status Report would be provided each month so they can see the progress as we move from the preparation stage to the actual sampling stage. Mr. Zeldin said there are a number of sites to go, but work is on schedule. The Technical Review Group met on September 16 and provided some additional technical comments. Some of the discussion focused on the ways to convey the information in a preliminary sense to the public, recognizing that we won’t have meaningful results until the full year is completed. Those comments will be taken and staff will try to come up with a monthly package that we can provide to the public as effective feedback as to the status and progress of the program.
Initiative #8 - Field Inspection Technology: Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Dave Schwien presented a status report on Field Inspection Technology. He said this initiative deals with an evaluation of the inspectors’ abilities to measure emissions in the field and our laboratory analytical skills. The main aspect of this is the contract with Pacific Environmental Services. That contract report was due on September 11, 1998. They have negotiated with us and we have agreed to extend that deadline to the end of the month, September 30, 1998. At that time we will review the report then meet with the peer review group next month and discuss their analysis of the information and report to the Board at the December meeting. He said that in addition to that, there is an olfaction symposium in Baltimore, Maryland, at the end of September that he will be attending. It has to do with various types of equipment and techniques for measuring odors. This symposium will provide the latest developments in the field. Any information relevant to our activities will be incorporated into the report to the Board in December.
Initiative #10 - Rules 1401 and 1402:
(This item was covered under Agenda Item #5.)
Monthly Compliance Settlement Report
Peter Mieras said that at a recent Compliance Session it was suggested that the Monthly Civil Penalty Report be submitted to the Board. This report will be going to the Board through the Stationary Source Committee. It will be attached to the Committee agenda monthly.
Rule Forecast Report
Mr. Broadbent said this item is for the Committee’s information. He pointed out some of the key items on the Report. In October the Board will hear Rule 1469, an ATCM for hexachrome and Rule 2202, which are amendments in response to SB 432 (Lewis). In November, Rules 218 and 218.1 will be removed and in December 1158 – Storage, Handling, and Transport of Petroleum Coke will be held. Mr. Broadbent said that in the first part of next year a key rule, the Architectural Coating Rule, would be going to the Board again.
The meeting adjourned at 12 noon.
September 18, 1998 Committee Agenda (without its attachments)
/ / /