The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, September 27, 2002. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be October 25, 2002, at 10:30 a.m., in Conference Room CC8.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file.
Jon Mikels, Acting Chair
Stationary Source Committee
Attendance
The meeting began at 11:05 a.m. Present were Jon Mikels, acting Committee Chair, Jane Carney, Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta, and Leonard Paulitz (arrived at 11:34). Absent were Ron Loveridge and Norma Glover.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Reg. XIII – New Source Review
Larry Bowen, Planning and Rules Manager, presented this item on the proposal
to amend Rules 1302, 1303, 1306, 1309 and to adopt Rule 1302.2. The purpose of
the amendments is to enhance the availability of offset credits for use by new
and modi-fying stationary sources. The proposal implements Strategic
Initiative #1 and is pat-terned after the recommendations of the White Paper
approved by the Governing Board in May.
The proposal has four major elements. First, it allows for the generation and
use of short term credits as emission offsets. Second, it increases the
flexibility for existing sources by allowing internal netting of emissions for
temporary offsets at a source without triggering a subsequent NSR event when
the temporary offset is no longer required. Third, Rule 1302.2 establishes an
offset budget to provide a source of off-sets for facility operators that are
unable to secure sufficient offsets from the private market. Finally the
authorized filing time for ERC application submittal is to be ex-tended from
90 days to 180 days.
Issues include the approval of the internal netting provision for the SIP,
specification of the emission funding mechanism for the Offset Budget and the
effect of the Offset Budget credit pricing on the open market. Staff will
continue to work with the regu-latory agencies and the public to resolve these
issues before the November public hearing.
Rule 1173 - Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from
Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants
Larry Bowen, Planning and Rules Manager, presented this item. PAR 1173 will
fur-ther reduce VOC emissions at refineries, chemical plants and oil
production opera-tions. It implements portions of AQMP control measures FUG-04
and FUG-05 and satisfies commitments of the AQMD in the 1999 SIP Settlement
Agreement.
The rule further reduces emissions by expanding the inspection and repair
program to pumps in heavy hydrocarbon service and reducing leak limits and
allowable repair time for leaking components. The rule also establishes new
requirements for pres-sure release devices, including a requirement to connect
these devices to vapor re-covery or control if there is a significant or
multiple release events. The cost to con-trol a pressure relief device, should
it be required is a major issue with the refineries.
The rule is scheduled for public hearing on November 1, 2002.
Ron Wilkniss, WSPA representative, commented on the proposal, at Jane Carney's
request. Mr. Wilkniss has worked on the ad hoc refinery committee and
indicated that although WSPA has concerns with the staff proposal, they will
continue to work with the staff to resolve those issues.
Status Report on Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings
Dr. Laki Tisopulos, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Develop-ment
& Area Sources, gave a brief status report on Proposed Amended Rule 1113 -
Architectural Coatings. Rule 1113, which was amended on May 14, 1999, achieves
approximately 21.8 tons per day of VOC emission reductions. As a result of three
lawsuits, the status of that rule is currently under review by the California
Supreme Court. In the interim, to ensure the VOC reductions are achieved in a
timely manner, in the event that review is denied by the Court, staff is
proposing to readopt the May 14, 1999 amendments along with changes resulting
from a new proposed compliance date of January 1, 2003 for the interim rule
limits and other clarifying changes. Staff is proposing to move the Public
Hearing from November to December 2002.
Rule 1421 – Control of Perchloroethylene Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems
Jill Whynot, Planning and Rules Manager, gave an update on proposed
amendments to Rule 1421, which relates to dry cleaners. The public hearing
is scheduled for No-vember 1, 2002.
While dry cleaners have decreased emissions over the last decade (ATCM &
Rule 1421 requirements), dry cleaners still have remaining emissions that
cause cancer risks of concern. Staff did extensive testing to better
characterize emissions from dry cleaning equipment.
The rule development process has been extensive, with media interest and
lots of correspondence. Ms. Whynot passed around the front page of an
industry survey (800 signatures, including some from out of the area) and
samples of the ~85 letters received from citizens.
Non perc alternatives are viable, proven and cost-effective. The number of
alterna-tive cleaners in the Basin has been increasing steadily (in part due
to this pending rule and also because some landlords will not renew perc
leases due to concern about potential ground water contamination.)
Samples of four white silk scarves were shown. Stains (blood, ink, grease,
and lip-stick) were applied to each and they were randomly assigned as
control, wet clean-ing, solvent cleaning and perc cleaning. This was not a
scientific experiment, but a limited qualitative demonstration.
Staff's proposal attempts to recognize the small business nature of the
industry by giving 15 years use of equipment, a transition period, and
choice of alternatives.
The socio report has been finalized. The analysis includes the traditional
REMI model and a pilot test of the methodology for facility based analysis.
Using $17,500 as an incremental cost for solvent machines compared to perc,
the costs would be $4.3 million per year. (Costs are typically $10,000
difference.)
Regarding major stakeholder input, industry groups either support no change
to the rule or replacing 2/3 of the older equipment with the latest
technology. Even the lat-est technology has cancer risks up to 90 in a
million.
Environmental groups support the basic approach, but want replacements of
existing equipment to begin as soon as the rule is adopted and the length of
time for use be ten years. Additionally, they recommend that any financial
assistance be solely for wet cleaning or CO2. The committee discussed the
Air Quality Assistance Fund (AQAF) and reasons why it may have been under
utilized in the past. Staff indicated that this is a policy issue for the
Governing Board, independent of the rule.
The set hearing is October 4, with a November 1 Board meeting
Dr. Wallerstein commented that Board Member Verdugo-Peralta has expressed
con-cern over the use of money from the (AQAF) and at her request he
suggested that in the next few days, staff meet with her to discuss this
matter.
Power Plant Emission Control Technology
This item has been carried over to the October meeting.
WRITTEN REPORTS
All written reports were acknowledged by the Committee.
Public Comment
A representative from Coalition for Clean Air, commented on Rule 1421 and supported the staff proposal on Rule 1421 as well as the use of AQAF for dry cleaners.
South Coast Air Quality Management District