Back

Stationary Source Committee

SYNOPSIS: 

The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, January 28, 2000. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be February 25, 2000, at 10:30 a.m., in Conference Room CC8.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file.

Mee Hae Lee
Chair, Stationary Source Committee

 Attendance

The meeting began at 10:50 a.m. Present was Jon Mikels acting for Committee Chair Mee Hae Lee. Absent were Mee Hae Lee, Norma Glover, Ron Loveridge and Leonard Paulitz.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Rule 1150.1 – Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
   Laki Tisopulos, Manager, Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, presented this item. The proposed amendment to Rule 1150.1 is designed to implement the 1999 amendments to the 1997 plan. This amendment, which is mainly administrative, proposes to incorporate by reference the state regulations that establish requirements for final landfill covers and prohibit disposal of liquid and semi-liquid for Class III landfills. This would amount to 0.8 tons per day of VOC emission reductions. There were no adverse comments raised at the public consultation meeting that was held on January 27, 2000. This rule amendment will go to the Board for consideration at the March Board meeting.
   
   Supervisor Mikels expressed concern over problems that would arise from the District and ARB’s coordination of timing with regards to the fleet rule which was discussed at the December Stationary Source Committing meeting. Jack Broadbent responded by saying that the ARB Board will be taking ARB’s proposed rule up at their next Board meeting on February 24, 2000. District staff will coordinate rule making so that it is complimentary to ARB’s rule making.
   
   
2. Air Toxics Control Plan
   Jack Broadbent, Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, presented this item. Staff has been developing an Air Toxics Control Plan for the last several months. The purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive study to address air toxics in the Basin. This plan comes under the work of the MATES II study as well as the development of the Rule 1402 amendments. Staff has been meeting with ARB and EPA staff. Both ARB and EPA staff have expressed a willingness to work with the District to see what can be done to implement a number of measures that are being proposed as part of the plan. At the March Board meeting, staff will be seeking the Board’s direction to further develop the control strategies.
   
   With respect to stationary sources, staff is recommending implementation of the source specific rules that are a part of the Rule 1402 amendments. With mobile sources, staff believes there is much more that can be done with diesel particulate. The control strategies reflect those two areas. A series of workshops have been held where key issues have been discussed. Public comments include the questioning of the AQMD’s legal authority to adopt the plan, the need and goal of the plan and the role of the plan. It has been suggested that staff should conduct CEQA and socioeconomic analyses on the plan itself. There will be another public consultation meeting on February 14, 2000. Staff will continue to meet with ARB and EPA to develop the plan. The Air Toxics Control Plan is scheduled to go before the Board in March.
   
   
3. Rule 1402 – Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from New and Existing Sources and Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
   Elaine Chang, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, presented this item. Elaine focused on the latest staff proposal and highlighted the comments received over the last month. Rule 1402 is also one of the Environmental Justice Initiatives. The Board has asked the staff to expedite the development of Rule 1402. The existing Rule 1402 has a threshold of 100 in a million and a hazard index of five. Staff is now proposing to lower risk levels in two steps (25 in a million upon adoption of the proposed amendments and 10 in a million on and after January, 1, 2005) and hazard index to three. Staff is also proposing a shorter compliance period of three years rather than five years. A number of sources could potentially be affected by this rule amendment. About 50 facilities coming through the AB 2588 program have a risk level greater than 10 in a million. There are about 100 facilities that could potentially be subject to the proposed rule’s emission inventory requirement and about 8,000 smaller sources that could be affected through industry-wide categories.
   
   Staff has been working with both the environmental and business community in trying to balance their views and incorporate the key points into this rule. The environmental groups want one in a million but have discussed ten in a million with certain other provisions. They feel we need to have a more expedited compliance schedule and more stringent risk level for facilities located close to schools. In terms of public notification, the current proposal requires that once you have an approved reduction plan you report your progress every eighteen months until your risk level is below ten. The environmental groups would like to see this every six to twelve months. The business sector has asked to keep the existing significance threshold. Staff will continue with the working groups to try to satisfy both parties.
   
   Jill Whynot added that there is one minor change with Rule 1401 that goes along with Rule 1402. Since staff is taking the threshold in Rule 1402, down to ten in a million, the 100-meter cumulative risk threshold in Rule 1401 can be removed.
   
   
4. Inter-District ERC Transfer to the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District
   Mohsen Nazemi, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Engineering & Compliance gave a brief discussion on a request received from Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin to transfer ERCs from AQMD to the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District. An inter-district transfer of ERCs is allowed provided certain conditions are met. The specific requirement is that ERCs are generated in an upwind district which is classified as a worse non-attainment category under the Clean Air Act compared to the downwind district, and that air quality in the downwind district is overwhelmingly impacted by emissions from the upwind district. In order to make the transaction, both Governing Boards of the two Air Quality Management Districts must approve the transfer. Items to be considered before making the decision are air quality, public health and the regional economy. Staff is recommending approval of the transfer of ERCs for CO, PM10 and VOC, but to disapprove the transfer of NOx ERCs, due to the declining supply and increasing price for NOx ERCs.
   
   
5. Notice of Violation Penalty Summary
   The Committee acknowledged the summary report attached to the agenda
   
   
6. Rule Forecast Report
   The Committee acknowledged the report attached to the agenda.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Attachments

January 28, 2000 Committee Agenda (without its attachments)

/ / /