South Coast Air Quality Management District
South Coast Air Quality Management District
BOARD MEETING DATE: October 19, 2001 AGENDA NO. 33
Stationary Source Committee
SYNOPSIS:
The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, September 28, 2001. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be October 26, 2001, at 10:30 a.m., in Conference Room CC8.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file.
Norma J. Glover, Acting Chairman
Stationary Source Committee
Attendance
The meeting began at 10:35 a.m. Present were Norma Glover, acting Committee Chair, Jon Mikels, Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta and Leonard Paulitz (arrived at 10:42). Absent were Ron Loveridge, Committee Chair and Jane Carney.
ACTION ITEMS
Joe Cassmassi, Senior Meteorologist, Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources, presented this item which was also reviewed by the Mobile Source Committee. EPA issued its Interim Wildland Fire Policy in 1998, which focused on enhanced smoke management. In March of 2000, ARB revised Title 17 – "Smoke Management Guidelines for Agricultural and Wildland Burning" which requires air districts to adopt smoke management programs by the end of 2001. AQMD has been operating a smoke management program since its inception and meets the requirements outlined in Title 17. A staff report is being prepared and will be given to the Committee, which describes the existing program. Staff will be following up with proposed amendments to Rule 444 in December. Amendments would include a cap for the number of acres that are burned and list incentives a burner can implement to determine burn priority. Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta asked if this applies to only controlled burns and inquired about EPA policy. Mr. Cassmassi explained that it includes both controlled and agricultural burns and confirmed that EPA requires that states adopt a smoke management program. Jon Mikels asked if the CEQA handbook threshold is used and whether the lower localized thresholds will be applied. Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer of Planning and Rules, will report back to the Committee regarding these two questions.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Jill Whynot, Manager, Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, presented this item. This rule amendment would extend the state standard opacity for under-fired charbroilers rather than the more stringent standard, for an additional four years. She reported EPA does not have any objections to this portion of the rule.
Laki Tisopulos, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources, presented this item. The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate permitting of new Electric Generating Facilities (EGFs) by allowing temporary access to AQMD's Priority Reserve account for SO2 and CO credits. Dr. Tisopulos summarized the current credit demand and supply. The Priority Reserve account offers credits to essential public services and innovative research projects. A second account has been set up as a general account. Essentially, credits are being used to offset the emissions for small facilities or those that emit less than four tons per year. Committee Member Jon Mikels asked about the difference between the Priority Reserve and the General account. Both Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources and William Thompson, Senior Manager, Engineering and Compliance, explained that the Priority Reserve holds a guaranteed amount and the remainder is in the general account. Dr. Tisopulos reported that applications for nine projects have been received and there are another nine anticipated that will amount to slightly less than 9,000 megawatts. The total demand for credits will be approximately 700 lbs. for SO2 and 6,700 lbs. for CO and 4,500 for particulates. These numbers change on a weekly basis. Committee Member Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta asked if the numbers change so frequently, how can someone be allowed to use these credits, when the availability of credits is unknown. Dr. Tisopulos explained that it is difficult to estimate the total demand. This is accomplished by accepting all the projects, with the understanding that some may not materialize. Mr. Mikels expressed concern over power plants using up the available credits, causing others to lose out. Ms. Verdugo-Peralta asked for a current accounting of what credits are available and how long these credits will be reserved for power plant projects. Dr. Tisopulos explained that this would be temporary access to the priority reserve through the year 2003 and the projects need to come online within three years of permit issuance. Mr. Thompson explained that there is a cost to access the priority reserve, and the cost for the credits is set at a level that staff believes will provide an incentive for project proponents to seek credits in the market. Fees collected by the District will be used to fund emission reduction projects.
Mr. Mikels asked about the basis for determining the future supply and demand for power projected by the California Energy Commission, given we have enough energy for several years into the future. Mohsen Nazemi, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer of Engineering and Compliance, explained that the state has an 8,000 megawatt import capacity and has historically been very lucky to get that import from the Pacific Northwest and neighboring states. Due to various reasons, last year that import capacity was strictly limited and was not coming into the state.
Mr. Mikels expressed concern over staff’s proposal to remove the mandatory requirement to sell electricity to the state. Mr. Nazemi expressed that complications could occur, since the requirement that had been imposed in our rules was to obtain long-term contracts to sell power to the state. If the District required sale under a certain stage alert, it would become a short-term requirement and it would depend on what price they offer to sell power for, and whether or not the state is willing to buy power at that price. It becomes a more difficult requirement to determine what happens when the alert is over and they didn’t or couldn’t sell during that time. Are their ERCs still good or will we take them back? Jon Mikels asked that Mr. Nazemi address these issues. Elaine Chang suggested staff work with Legal to incorporate language which would specify certain criteria or conditions under which electricity would be required to be made available to in-state consumption such as when there is a stage one alert or when a state agency is looking for megawatts.
Laki Tisopulos, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources, presented this item. The purpose of this rule amendment is to reduce the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions from composite operations. Some of the ways proposed to reduce emissions are to require nonatomizing application technologies for spraying gel coat and resin materials and also to reduce the monomer content. Benefits of the proposal would be emission reductions of 5.4 tons per day with a potential cost savings. Staff continues to meet with industry on remaining issues. This item will go to the Board for consideration in November.
Carol Coy, Deputy Executive Officer of Engineering and Compliance, advised the Committee that Tania Christman would be contacting them on their preference for November and December committee meeting dates. Meetings would normally be held on November 23 and December 28. Ms. Coy suggested that the November and December meetings be combined and held in early December, as they were last year. Staff will coordinate with the Mobile Source Committee as well.
William Thompson, Senior Manager of Engineering and Compliance presented this report. Staff is required to annually prepare an NSR effectiveness examination to make sure that our rules comply with federal requirements. This report examines the District offsets used and those returned by facilities no longer claiming credits. Mr. Thompson showed graphs that illustrated the trends in the District credit balances. He explained that these results were preliminary and that there were only three years on which to base the trends. Trends for ROG, NOx and CO showed a gradual decline with the District running out of credits around the 2015 – 2020 timeframe. Balances for SOx and Particulate Matter (PM) were stable. This means that demand is slightly exceeding supply for ROG, NOx and CO whereas they are approximately equal for SOx and PM. While balances are tracked, improvements are being made in data collection methods.
Pang Mueller, Senior Manager of Engineering and Compliance presented this monthly report to the Committee on the receipt of NOx control equipment applications that have been submitted since the beginning of this year. Since last month, there have been only two additional NOx control applications submitted. As far as RTCs are concerned, prices have continued to drop, averaging $12.00 per pound for NOx. The price for SOx ranges from $1.70 to $7.75 per pound.
WRITTEN REPORTS
The committee acknowledged the report.
The Committee acknowledged the report.
The Committee acknowledged the report.
The Committee acknowledged the report.
John Billheimer handed out materials to the Committee, regarding the issue of statutory requirement for finding of Necessity in the case of Rule 1137, for their information.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
September 28, 2001 Committee Agenda (without its attachments)
/ / /