BOARD MEETING DATE: February 12, 1999 AGENDA NO. 26
REPORT:
Stationary Source Committee
SYNOPSIS:
The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, January 22, 1999. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be February 19, 1999, 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, Committee Members Leonard Paulitz and Jon Mikels arriving at 11:15. Absent were Committee Members Ron Loveridge, and James Silva.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Rule 1103 – Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics Manufacturing Operations
Dave Schwien, Senior Enforcement Manager, presented this item. This rule is scheduled for a public hearing in March, 1999. There are approximately 80 companies regulated by this rule. The proposed amendments do not have any emission impact. However, they address concerns raised by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) during their review of the previous amendment to this rule. Federal laws require all rule deficiencies be corrected within eighteen months. The deadline for this rule revision is June, 1999.
Proposed rule amendments to address EPA and CARB concerns include:
remove language involving Executive Officer discretion
The proposed rule amendments were provided to EPA and CARB. Feedback from CARB was already incorporated into the proposed amendment. Staff is awaiting comments from EPA. Supervisor Mikels asked about the distinction between AQMD and CARB’s authority with respect to regulating the cosmetic industry. Staff responded that CARB comments are within their oversight authority for a submittal of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to EPA.
2. Rule 1142 – Marine Tank Vessel Operations
Pang Mueller, Senior Enforcement Manager, presented this item. Rule 1142 is going to the Board for amendment in March of this year. It has been approved into the SIP by EPA in 1994. However, District staff feels that there are a couple of features that can be enhanced. The main concern is that the rule doesn’t have a good means to determine whether the liquid being transferred complies with the rule. Also, there is a lack of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are necessary to verify compliance. The purpose of the amendment is to enhance those features of the rule. In addition, industry has expressed concern about noticing requirements that they felt are difficult to meet during their course of operation. This amendment establishes a method to determine if a liquid meets the emission limit of two pounds per 1,000 barrels when it is transferred. Also, monitoring requirements are added for the control equipment to insure that the equipment is operating properly and there are no fugitive leaks in the system. Staff has contacted the State Lands Commission who also regulates marine terminals and has adjusted our noticing requirements to be consistent with the state and allow more flexibility to the operator. Staff has also specified a method of calculating emissions that would be required for offset credits in conjunction with the use of Rule 1610. A draft copy of the rule has been sent to EPA and there is another conference call set for next week. EPA wants sufficient source tests to ensure that sources comply with the emission limit in the rule. There are currently twenty-nine marine terminals in the basin. Most are loading products that are less than two pounds per 1,000 gallons so they would likely be exempt from the majority of the requirements of this rule. Rule amendments would have the most impact on the four terminals that have control equipment in place.
3. Rule 1401 - New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminates
Jack Broadbent, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer of Stationary Source Compliance presented this item, which is a report on the staff’s work on the continued hearing for Rule 1401. At the last Board meeting, the Board continued the hearing on two issues: (1) staff’s proposal to change the effective date for the chronic and acute compounds to when the Scientific Review Panel approves the risk values for those compounds; and (2) addition of nickel compounds to the list.
Regarding the first issue, staff held a public consultation meeting on January 14, 1999. No significant concerns were provided regarding the staff proposal.
Relating to the second issue, the metal finishing industry contends that there are different forms of nickel, particularly soluble nickel, which they do not believe have the same degree of toxicity or carcinogenicity as other forms of nickel. The Metal Finishing Association of Southern California contracted with Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) to conduct a literature review and established a peer review group of about ten scientists. The peer review group concluded that the carcinogenicity of nickel cannot be determined at this time, because data is insufficient to establish a dose response between the inhalation of nickel compounds and carcinogenic response. The peer review scientists could not agree on how the nickel interacts with DNA to cause cancer cells to begin to grow. Staff is continuing to review the available information and will bring a recommendation to the next board meeting.
Randy Solganik, Air Quality Committee Chairman of the Metal Finishing Association of Southern California, provided additional information relative to the TERA Report Peer Review Committee meeting and how other agencies regulate nickel compounds. He gave a slide presentation showing that many regulatory agencies have not listed nickel as a carcinogen.
4. Status of Environmental Justice Initiatives:
Initiative #10: Rules 1401 and 1402
Jack Broadbent described the progress on this environmental justice initiative. The next working group meeting for Rule 1402 is January 28, 1999.
Initiative #2: Ambient Air Toxic Monitoring
Rudy Eden, Senior Manager of Laboratory Services, reported that progress is continuing on schedule. Rudy also provided the committee with notification of a solar workshop.
5. Rule Forecast Report
Jack Broadbent mentioned that the Architectural Coatings rule is schedule for April and is likely to be controversial.
6. Notice of Violation Penalty Summary
The Committee acknowledged the summary report attached to the agenda.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
Attachment (doc 22kb)
January 22, 1999 Committee Agenda (without its attachments)
/ / /