BOARD MEETING DATE: September 11, 1998 AGENDA NO. 32
REPORT:
Stationary Source Committee
SYNOPSIS:
The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, August 28, 1998. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be September 18, 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 2:36 p.m. Present was Committee Chair Mee Hae Lee. Absent were Committee Members Richard Alarcòn, Ron Loveridge, Jon Mikels, Leonard Paulitz, and James Silva. Because there was not a quorum, the Committee reviewed the agenda items, but took no action.
Summary
The Committee reviewed the items on their agenda (attached). Comments were noted on the following items:
Public Advisor LaRonda Bowen said this new Public Awareness and Education Program was in the 1994 AQMP. She said it is the first time that the District is taking a public education approach as a control measure. This is the first of two such measures. CTS-03 scheduled for November and CTS-04 both are educational approaches to emission reductions. In CTS-04 there are five categories: beauty and nail salons, laboratory fume hoods, promotion of clean fuels, leather finishing and repair, and coating applications on ceramic products. Three of these categories have emission reduction strategies. Rules adopted for the last two categories appear to be sufficient and staff is not recommending any further action at this time. She said the primary issue regarding the nail and beauty salons is odors. Between 1986 and 1994 the District received complaints regarding over 185 nail salons and 60 beauty salons. Since that time, ARB, which has authority for most consumer products, has adopted reformulation regulations for mousse, hair styling gel, and hair spray. Acetone has been de-listed and methyl methacrylate monomer (MMA) has been restricted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). MMA was the item causing the worst odor problems.
Ms. Lee asked if ARB regulates only those products brought into California. Ms. Bowen said MMA (which caused the worst odors) is now regulated by the FDA and is a national regulation.
Ms. Bowen said the American Lung Association and the City of Los Angeles are working on a pilot program of outreach to the Korean community on the MMA issue. Based on the pilot program’s outcome the effort may be extended to the Spanish-speaking community as well. Additionally, the District and ARB are drafting an article for nail and beauty salon publications. Ms. Bowen provided a brochure on MMA and said that this brochure will be provided to District inspectors as they go out to the salons. She said monitoring will continue on complaints received by the District, but recently there have been only two complaints involving nail and beauty salons.
In the area of laboratory fume hoods, Ms. Bowen said the issue was whether vapors from fume hoods could be controlled with carbon canisters to clean the exit gases. EPA is now deciding whether or not to develop a regulation for the entire industry. EPA has expressed preliminary comment that current pollution prevention practices may be sufficiently effective that carbon canisters may not be necessary. Also, there have been changes in the way the industry operates. Smaller samples for analysis are used and chemicals are now recovered and reused. There is also a small-scale chemistry pollution prevention effort going on. She said brochures would be available to the Committee at their next meeting. Ms. Bowen said the District will be bringing together high schools, colleges, community colleges, and universities to see to what extent, in our basin, outdated laboratory practices are still being used and to encourage use of small-scale, low-emission technology. The EPA is also developing an environmental management assistance guide that will be on the Internet. When copies are available they will be provided to those attending workshops and focus groups.
Ms. Bowen said in the area of service stations, the issue is that there was no information mechanism for consumers to know which stations offer alternative fuels and ultra-clean gasoline. She said considering the penetration that the District expects alternative fuel vehicles to have in the marketplace by 2010, public outreach is necessary to provide this information. Several web sites now provide information on clean and alternative fueling sites. Additionally, the MSRC proposed development of highway signs to direct drivers to electric vehicle charging station locations. She said the District will be seeking links on clean fuel sites so that people visiting our web page will be able to access this information readily. Also, workshops and meetings will be coordinated to identify opportunities to distribute information.
Regarding the ceramics and leather finishing areas, Ms. Bowen said neither the District, ARB, nor EPA staff has identified sufficient emissions to warrant additional attention, given the rules already adopted, and staff is not recommending any further action at this time.
Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Ed Pupka presented this item. He said that this pilot program would go before the Board in September. At that meeting, following a presentation by Danian Hopp of the Orange County Permit Assistance Center, staff will request the Board to consider approving this joint agreement between AQMD and several other environmental permitting agencies. Mr. Pupka said in 1996 state law was enacted that provided for the establishment of a Permit Consolidation Zone Pilot Program. The intent behind this development was (1) to simplify environmental permitting and (2) to simplify environmental protection. The criteria for the pilot program provide that counties and cities may apply either individually or collectively to the state for designation as a Permit Consolidation Zone. Criteria also specify that there cannot be more than 20 permit consolidation zones designated statewide. Presently there are four zones that are under development. Two of them are the cities of Bakersfield and Fresno, Kern County, and South Orange County. Mr. Pupka said it was important to point out that participation in the Zone is strictly voluntary on behalf of the participating counties, cities, permitting agencies, and the applicant. He said one of the key components of facility compliance within the Zone pilot program is a facility compliance plan. It represents one consolidated cross-media permit. AQMD, as well as all other participating permitting environmental agencies will be evaluating these requests on a case-by-case basis. Within the criteria for processing a facility compliance plan through a zone, there are specific scheduling criteria to be met. Sixty days in advance of the facility submitting a facility compliance plan for review, there is a pre-submission process (consultation period) whereby the zone administrator and those environmental permitting agencies, and the actual permittees themselves, work together to insure all information required for the facility compliance plan is included. Following that 60-day consultation period, the facility will submit the plan for review. Those reviewing agencies have 45 days to review the plan for determination of completeness or, in the event it is not complete, return it to the applicant. Following that, there is a 30-day review of a revised plan. If again the plan is not acceptable, it is returned, and there is an appeal process specific to each agency or, if the applicant chooses, they may re-file and go through the process again. As a third option, they may opt out and submit individual permit applications with the individual permitting agencies.
Acting Executive Officer Barry Wallerstein emphasized that a key point is that there is a 60-day pre-filing period where the applicant and environmental permitting agencies meet to discuss the required information necessary to review and approve a facility compliance plan. Following this consultation period, the intent is for a 45-day approval process for anyone coming through this program, and there are issues the Board needs to consider relative to potential permitting inequities.
Mr. Pupka said the District also had concerns about the timing for permits that may require complex review, CEQA analysis, or public notice. Staff has requested that for purposes of the pre-submission process, the time be extended to 120 days to allow the District adequate time for review. He said some of the benefits of the Zone are that it provides for integration of both local and state regulatory permitting approval processes. Also, environmental protection could be enhanced in the pre-consultation process as stakeholders are able to identify potential permitting or compliance problems early on. The Zone concept is an outgrowth of the current Orange County Permit Assistance program in which the District is an active participant, and is also similar to the AQMD’s Green Carpet Program.
Mr. Pupka reiterated that some AQMD applications processed through the Zone under a 45-day turnaround time might be expedited more quickly than those that come directly through the District. This could result in disproportionate impacts to other applicants who file permit applications directly with the District. The Board may wish to consider the recent amendments to Rule 301 which established an optional express permit processing fee for those applicants requesting a quicker processing time. Dr. Wallerstein said that in the first year or so there would probably not be a large number of applicants going through the Zone. It would be a Board policy decision as to whether or not they want to assess expedited permitting.
Mr. Pupka said the initial goal of the Zone is to attempt to process one facility compliance plan between now and January and, because parties are at the agreement-signing stage, there are still procedures and protocols to be developed.
John Billheimer, Reliability Group, said the program was positive for complex permit applications that require extensive analysis and plans, but is offputting to smaller applicants, who make up about 90% of permit applications. He suggested a comparison study on the impacts of the program. Mr. Pupka said this program is voluntary for applicants who want their applications processed through the Zone and placed into one single consolidated facility compliance plan. He said that as part of this development process, over the next several months, a comparison would be done to assess the benefits of applications processed through the Zone or expedited through the individual environmental permitting agency.
Danian Hopp, Orange County Permit Assistance, said that of the proposed 23 participating agencies, 22 have approved the agreement. If the AQMD approves it, he said they would be in a position to have the zone designated and move forward with the pilot program. Ms. Lee asked for clarification that the AQMD was the remaining agency to approve this program. Mr. Hopp said yes.
Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Larry Bowen noted that Rule 461 is the gasoline vapor recovery rule, and that periodic reports on the compliance action plan have been brought to the Committee in the past. The heart of the plan is to inspect all the gasoline stations as quickly as possible. The staff in the Local Commercial and Community Health group have been trained, and inspectors of gasoline stations are working overtime to accomplish this. In addition, inspectors in the Major Source group are also conducting inspections. About 70% of the initial inspections are complete and this phase should be concluded in the next couple of months.
Ms. Lee asked if they are on schedule with the initial inspections. Mr. Bowen said staff had hoped to accomplish the inspections sooner, but are finding that there are some issues that have caused inspections to take longer than average. In addition to conducting visual inspections, staff wanted to be able to test some of the newer systems. Test equipment has been purchased and the training of inspectors to use the equipment is underway. He said staff would like some of the testing to be contracted to source testing companies which the Board has approved. Mr. Bowen said they would be meeting with industry to explain that process. Within the next month or so staff will bring forward a proposal for additional resources. He said during the Budget and Fee process earlier this year, there was a fee dedicated to fund additional resources to devote to the service station program for the next year or two to implement the program. He said there were issues, not just with our agency, but throughout the state, as well as with the ARB and other districts in the country about some of the systems and components. Staff is working with industry and those agencies to resolve the system concerns. Mr. Bowen said the rule requires us to train, not just our staff, but those who will be doing inspections periodically to demonstrate compliance. At the conclusion of the action plan staff will look at changes that need to be made to Rule 461. A few changes that will be concentrated on are: (1) quality of the installation of the systems, repair, and testing; (2) annual compliance testing; (3) successful compliance test and annual self-compliance inspection as a condition for permit renewal; (4) clarification of requirements to ensure correction of specific equipment defects; and (5) assessment of the requirement for daily inspections.
Ms. Lee asked if the self-inspection program was working. Stationary Source Compliance Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Jack Broadbent said it was not. Mr. Bowen explained that it is usually not the station operator that performs the installation, repair, and testing of the vapor recovery equipment. The station operator requires experts hired for that purpose. He said that their expertise could not always be relied upon. Ms. Lee asked if staff is thinking about tying the self-inspection concept with the permit renewal. Mr. Bowen said that rather than completely eliminating the self-inspection program, staff would like to see if there are elements that can be fixed to make it a successful program. Ms. Lee said she believed some resources were being reallocated toward inspections and that a reorganization would address how the inspections were accomplished. Mr. Bowen said that was correct.
Ms. Lee said the concept of self inspections was a good idea at the time, but if it hasn’t worked, unless there is some way to ensure it works, then we should look at some other ways to remedy the situation. Mr. Bowen said one of the least successful portions of the program was asking the operator to do a daily inspection of his equipment and to maintain records.
Ms. Lee asked who certifies the contractors hired by the station operator. Mr. Bowen said the AQMD does not certify them and other districts have been actively trying for several years to encourage the ARB (which certifies source testing companies) to certify these contractors. Ms. Lee said it appears there is a group of people who are selling an expertise and providing a service that the owners themselves are not able to provide, but who are not certified by anyone, yet there is considerable reliance on what they are providing. She said we must find some mechanism to legitimatize their function; otherwise, their value is lost. If there is no body or agency that certifies these contractors, she said we should look at how we use the information we get from them. Mr. Bowen said our source testing, and that of some other districts, requires an inspector be present during testing; the inspector verifies the testing was done correctly and signs that it has been completed. Some districts use this as a condition before a station can be opened and operated. He said this is a large commitment. The approach being looked at is to not be present at every inspection, but to do audit samples. Ms. Lee said this should be looked at before recommendations are brought back. She said she was favorable to reallocating resources if needed.
Ron Wilkniss, Western States Petroleum Association, said the ARB recently created an Executive Committee that the AQMD has a seat on. One of the 30 items being discussed is the certification issue. He said it is an issue of concern among many in the state. Ms. Lee asked to be kept up to date on what that committee is doing.
CEQA Permit Applicability Checklist
Planning Manager Henry Hogo said that at the urging of District Counsel, staff has developed a CEQA Permit Applicability Checklist. CEQA applies to any public agency where projects are undertaken for funding and issuance of permits by a public agency. The current process is that when engineers receive a permit application, they make a determination whether there are any significant environmental issues. If not, the permit proceeds for further evaluation. However, if there are environmental issues identified, further evaluation is performed by AQMD CEQA staff.. The issue with the current process is that the review is not standardized and there is no written documentation of the CEQA evaluation.
Stationary Source Compliance Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Carol Coy added that although the engineer’s conclusion is documented in the permit file, staff wants to ensure consistency. She said that is why Mr. Hogo is presenting this joint effort by a number of staff work groups. Ms. Lee asked how long this procedure has been in effect; Ms. Coy responded that this is standing practice.
Mr. Hogo said that besides not being standardized, the current process can result in a delay in permit approval as evaluation proceeds between the engineers and CEQA staff. He said the staff has developed a checklist they believe will work, based on the 15 environmental areas that CEQA covers. CEQA staff looked at their biggest projects and determined there were five chief of environmental impact. Staff believe if they cover these five areas they would cover the central issues relative to CEQA;. they are air quality, water resources, transportation, noise, and public services. Staff has developed a draft form and taken it out for public comment.
The draft applicability form has two sections. The first section asks whether a CEQA document has already been prepared for the project. If so, there is no need for further CEQA review. The second question is whether the project is exempt under certain types of categories under CEQA. If so, there is no need for further review. If the project doesn’t fall under the first section, the applicant would then go through a series of questions relative to air quality and other environmental areas. If "yes" is checked in any of these areas, further evaluation would be triggered. Mr. Hogo said originally staff envisioned that the permit applicant would fill out this form and it would be part of the permit package as part of the Form 400 series and staff would provide a guidance or instruction sheet to go along with the form. The form would be filled out by the applicants, submitted to the permit engineer and, based on the answers on the form, the engineer could make a quick determination whether the project is exempt or if there is no impact and do a notice of exemption. If there were potential impacts, then further review would be required and would go to the CEQA staff. The potential impacts could lead to a full EIR, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Negative Declaration. All those determinations would have to be made as part of the permit approval process. Staff has taken this form to meetings with regulated industry as well as environmental organizations and received input from those groups. The form was taken to a public consultation meeting on July 8 and received some comments. The main concerns that have arisen are that the form creates an additional step in the permit process. In addition, comments were received that some of AQMD’s trigger levels, in particular transportation and wastewater and discharge, need to be consistent with other lead agency assumptions. Staff is looking into these issues and is proposing that Form 400-A, which is the main form that every applicant must fill out, could take care of exemption questions. Staff believes this could eliminate 10-20% of the applicants from filling out Form 400-B.
Ms. Lee observed that this did not appear to be an onerous form to fill out as it only requires checking "yes" and "no" boxes. Ms. Coy said there was a sincere effort to identify inapplicable projects so applicants could just check a box and stop there. Mr. Hogo said most concerns have been raised from members of the Permit Streamlining Task Force and there will be further discussions with them. He said they have received constructive comments from some of the members and will continue looking at potential revisions to the form. Other comments suggested testing the form in a pilot program internally and soliciting volunteers to go through the checklist to see how much longer it would take to go through the process. Staff is going through that step now and believes, in about 60 days, they will be able to bring back a revised form to this committee as well as the Governing Board for their approval.
Mr. Wilkniss said the staff was very receptive to suggestions. Industry’s concerns were not how long it would take to fill out the form, but what it does to the permitting process.
Execute Agreement with ARB and Amend Existing Contract with National Technical Systems for Phase II Assessment Study of Architectural Coatings
(This item was also reviewed by the Administrative Committee on August 21, 1998)
Jack Broadbent said this item involves an ongoing contract with National Technical
Systems to do some durability testing for low-VOC coatings. ARB staff has expressed a
desire to augment that contract by $20,000. This is being brought to both the Stationary
Source Committee and the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee did raise
a specific concern that they were seeing this item before the Stationary Source Committee
and made their approval conditional on the Stationary Source Committee’s approval of
this project.
Update on Rule 1151 – Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations
Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Fred Lettice presented this item. He said there are approximately 3,000-4,000 autobody shops in the Basin that do refinishing. Approximately 9.2 tons per day of VOC emissions are estimated from these operations. Many coating manufacturers received a product variance for their basecoat/clearcoat products in December 1996 and have been selling these products under that variance for the last year and a half. The product variance will expire this December and, based on state law, may not be extended again. He said many manufacturers have come in to request the rule be amended to extend the compliance date for the basecoat/clearcoat for approximately 3-4 months. This would allow coatings meeting the current 4.5 pounds/gallon variance limit to be used as they try to produce compliant coatings with the existing 3.5 pounds/gallon rule limit. Two of the manufacturers have come up with new products that meet the 3.5 pounds/gallon limit and are marketing those products at this time, and have been since March and June, respectively, of this year. The other manufacturers are working on developing compliant products. They expect to have products available for the market in November or December. They are asking for this 3-4 month additional time frame to allow them to get their products out in the market and train the autobody shops in their use before the VOC content reverts back to 3.5 pounds/gallon. Staff has visited several shops that are using the new materials and have found them to be very satisfactory in both spot jobs and complete paint jobs. The automotive refinishing industry has some concerns with respect to this new product. Regarding new 2.1 pounds/gallon clearcoats that use parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF), which is an exempt compound, industry has expressed concern with respect to disposal costs, health and safety issues (because of the PCBTF), coating costs, and availability and training on this particular product. Staff is working with industry and manufacturers to resolve these issues. Staff believes the disposal costs will not increase and, that therefore, this is no longer an issue.
Staff’s recommendation is to amend Rule 1151 to allow the continued use of 4.5 basecoat/clearcoat topcoats until April 1, 1999, to allow sufficient time for coating manufacturers to train end users in proper use of the new 2.1 pounds/gallon clearcoats.
John Billheimer said the two-year product variance takes care of the manufacturer breaking in a new material, but doesn’t leave a period for the user to adapt to the new material. He said the industry is getting into an era where traditional petroleum-extracted solvents are not enough to accomplish the objectives. The solvent in question is synthetic and has elements that lay people aren’t yet prepared to accept. He said much of this industry is in the collision business and costs are fixed by insurance and not by the market. Costs cannot be passed on, and must be absorbed by the business.
Initiative #2 - Ambient Monitoring of Air Toxics: Senior Manager of Laboratory Services Rudy Eden gave an update of the MATES-II and Microscale Study. He said all ten MATES sites are now up and operational. Also, laboratory analyses for April and May samples are completed. The microscale sampling is completed in Pacoima for spring and most of the summer; Hawthorne spring and summer sampling is completed; Montclair sampling is completed; and sampling is in progress at Torrance and Costa Mesa. Mr. Eden said the Technical Review Group had one concern relative to the microscale inventory process and that process will be changed. Currently, a quarter-mile radius circle is drawn around the sampling location and an inventory is done within that radius. The revised process will consider the same survey size but in a pattern only upwind of the sampling platform. He said finalization of the next microscale locations in Boyle Heights and Norwalk are being completed. Mr. Eden also discussed a Summary of MATES-II data through May.
Initiative #8 - Field Inspection Technology: Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Dave Schwien presented a status report on Field Inspection Technology. He said this item concerned evaluation of AQMD capability to measure emissions in the field as well as do analytical work in headquarters’ laboratory. The main effort is being accomplished under a contract awarded to Pacific Environmental Services. The work plan was submitted as of July 24; comments were submitted and revisions made and approved on August 5. Mr. Schwien said the contract should come to a close with the submittal of a final report by the contractor on September 11. He said they would meet with the Peer Review Group to review the consultant’s recommendations in late September. Final recommendations are proposed for December of this year.
Initiative #10 - Rules 1401 and 1402:
Stationary Source Compliance Senior Manager Jill Whynot presented this item. She said that amendments to Rule 1401 in July added compounds and non-cancer impacts. At the Board’s direction, staff will be going back to the Board for their consideration of additional nickel compounds, sodium hydroxide, and hydrochloric acid. Ms. Whynot said that a progress report on source tests and a report on 100m cumulative requirements for motion picture film labs will be presented in October. In January 1999 staff will return to the Board for consideration of adding additional nickel compounds, sodium hydroxide, and hydrochloric acid and to add some carcinogens that the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has recently given risk factors. A preliminary review indicates that there should not significant impact to industry from adding these compounds, but work is being done to make sure the economic and environmental impacts are fully understood. Ms. Whynot said background work is being done to prepare for the first Working Group meeting on Rule 1402 sometime in September. Also, analysis is being done on AB 2588 data and the potential impacts of adjusting the threshold in that rule, and brainstorming on different options where cumulative impacts in Rules 1401 and 1402 might be addressed.
John Billheimer asked about sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid and whether those are related to the nickel projects or if there has been an estimate of how pervasive those are throughout all industrial operations. Ms. Whynot said that they are primarily used in plating operations by metal platers, but are also used by some electronic industries.
Ms. Coy said that compliance statistics (through midyear) were reviewed at the Board’s Compliance Study Session last month. A quarterly schedule is proposed, whereby third-quarter statistics would come to this Committee in November. Next month, Peter Mieras will begin regular compliance reports. In November there will be a third-quarter report and then in February the annual report for the close of the year, and all statistics will be available. Those statistics will be attached to the agenda from that point on. Ms. Coy also noted that Rule 1107 – Coating of Metal Parts and Products was amended at the August Governing Board meeting. An information agenda item has been added to the September Governing Board meeting agenda, to report back that staff has visited Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps and reviewed their coating needs. She said they have found that many of the pumps they manufacture have to undergo extreme performance circumstances. Staff has been able to identify several compliant coatings and compliance options available for their uses. The information item will explain these actions to assist the company.
Jack Broadbent said that the following rules are on the September Board agenda: Proposed Rule 219 – Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Reg. II, Proposed Rule Rule 222 – Filing Requirements for Non-Permitted Equipment, and Rule 401 – Visible Emissions. On October’s agenda is Proposed Rule 1469, which would replace existing Rule 1169 by adopting the state’s new Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome plating; there is also a follow-up to Rule 1610 – Old Vehicle Scrapping. Mr. Broadbent said that a report would be attached to future agendas.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Attachments
August 28, 1998 Committee Agenda (without its attachments)
/ / /