BOARD MEETING DATE: July 11, 2003
AGENDA NO. 35

Amend Rule 219 – Equipment Not Requiring a Permit Pursuant to Regulation II

SYNOPSIS:

Proposed amendments to Rule 219 will exempt several types of equipment with limited potential for emissions from permitting requirements and clarify fee obligations for previously exempt equipment. The proposal also reorganizes the rule and adds an index to make it easier to locate and understand the exemptions.

COMMITTEE:

Stationary Source, June 27, 2003, Reviewed

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolution:

1. Certifying the Notice of Exemption for Proposed Amended Rule 219 – Equipment Not Requiring a Permit Pursuant to Regulation II.
    
2. Amending Rule 219 – Equipment Not Requiring a Permit Pursuant to Regulation II.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

Rule 219 – Equipment Not Requiring a Permit Pursuant to Regulation II is an administrative rule that was first adopted in 1976. It exempts equipment emitting small amounts of air contaminants from requiring an AQMD permit. The primary purpose of amending Rule 219 this year is to exempt certain small emission sources from written permits and to further clarify or revise existing exemptions. Rule 219 was last amended in November 2000.

Public/Rule Development Process

Staff held a public workshop on May 7, 2003 to solicit comments on the proposed rule. All comments have been addressed in the attached staff report.

Proposal

The proposed amendments to Rule 219 will exempt certain equipment with a very small potential for emissions:

• Closed loop solvent recovery systems with refrigerated or water-cooled condensers used for recovery of waste solvent generated on-site;
• Foam application equipment using two-component polyurethane foam where no VOC, chlorofluorocarbon, or methylene chloride containing blowing agent is used, and for control equipment exclusively venting this equipment;
• Toner refilling and associated control equipment; and
• Organic solvent storage tanks that have no VOC emissions.

The amendments will revise or clarify a number of existing exemptions as shown below:

• Provide for a one gallon per day exemption per facility for organic solvent usage in food and pharmaceutical processing equipment;
• Change cleaning solvent exemptions from 50 to 25 grams of VOC per liter; and
• Clarify that (1) permitted emission fee obligations begin on January 1 and July 1 following the date the rule is amended to remove an exemption and (2) applicants still have up to one year to apply for permits for previously exempt equipment.

Vapor pressure is not used as a factor in rule development and has been removed from most rules. In earlier drafts of Proposed Amended Rule 219, staff proposed replacing the vapor pressure exemptions with a limit of 5 tons of VOC emissions per year for lubricant operations at a facility. Based on further internal review, staff is now proposing to retain the existing exemptions until a more appropriate mass emission limit is evaluated to ensure consistency amongst various regulatory programs.

The rule has also been reorganized to make it easier to identify exemptions by:

• Creating an index at the beginning of the rule;
• Moving rule exceptions from the Preamble to the end of the rule and replacing the Preamble with a Purpose section to clarify the rule intent;
• Relocating and re-titling certain exemption categories to create a more logical grouping of exemptions.

Key Issues

Two key issues were encountered during rule development. First, several commenters requested the establishment of de minimus values for several exemptions where no such values currently exist. This would allow equipment with emissions below a specified level to be exempt. Staff agreed to establish a de minimus level for organic solvent usage in food and pharmaceutical processing equipment. Also, staff was asked to consider exemptions for storage of aqueous solutions of hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acid. Since these are toxic air contaminants, a risk assessment is necessary to determine whether permits should be required. Therefore, an outright exemption may not be appropriate at this time. However, staff will continue to further evaluate this issue. Second, staff added language to clarify that annual emission fees for permitted equipment apply on the date that this rule is amended. In response to this clarification, staff was asked to state in the staff report that up to one year is still allowed for filing permit applications for previously exempt equipment. Language was added to the staff report to fulfill this request.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15002 (k)(1), staff has reviewed the proposed amendments to Rule 219 and has determined with certainty that the proposed project does not have the potential to adversely impact air quality or any other environmental area. Staff has concluded that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15061 (b)(3) – Review for Exemption. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15062 – Notice of Exemption and will be filed with the county clerks of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties immediately following the adoption of the proposed amended rule.

Socioeconomic Assessment

The proposed amendments to Rule 219 would exempt closed loop solvent recovery systems, foam insulation application equipment, toner refilling equipment, and organic solvent storage tanks from AQMD permit requirements. Currently, facilities with these pieces of equipment are required to pay an annual fee to renew their operating permits. Under the proposed amendments, these facilities would no longer have to pay such fees. As a result, the proposed amendments are expected to result in potential savings to the affected facilities. The remaining elements of the proposed amendments are administrative in nature and will not have adverse socioeconomic impacts on affected sources.

Legislative Authority and Legal Mandates

The California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) authorizes the AQMD to establish a permit system to enforce its rules and regulations. The Air Pollution Streamlining Act of 1992 requires air pollution control districts to initiate procedures to assist businesses with complying with rule requirements in an expedited fashion. The proposed changes to Rule 219 are consistent with AQMD’s legislative authority and legal mandates to streamline its operations without reducing protection of public health and the environment.

Resource Impact

Staff estimates a revenue loss of between $40,000 to $50,000 in annual operating fees to the AQMD which translates to savings to operators of this equipment. However, diversion of permitting and enforcement resources to other necessary projects may compensate for fees lost from the proposed newly-exempt equipment units and processes.

Attachments

Summary of Proposal
Key Issues and Responses
Rule Development Process
Key Contacts List
Resolution
Proposed Rule Language
Staff Report
Notice of Exemption

/ / /