BOARD MEETING DATE: April 2, 2004
AGENDA NO. 31
Stationary Source Committee
SYNOPSIS:
The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, March 26, 2004. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be April 23, at 10:30 a.m., in Conference Room CC8.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file.
Ronald Loveridge, Chairman
Stationary Source Committee
Attendance
The meeting began at 10:40 a.m. Present were Ronald Loveridge, Chairman, William Craycraft, Vice-Chairman Jane Carney (left at 12:04) and Dennis Yates. Dr. William Burke was appointed to the committee by Ronald Loveridge for this meeting and participated by videoteleconference. Absent was Committee Member Bill Postmus.
ACTION ITEM
- Annual Status Reports for
- Air Quality Management Plan Advisory Group
- Scientific, Technical & Modeling Peer Review Advisory Group
Zorik Pirveysian, Planning and Rules Manager, presented this item. In accordance with the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations regarding the operation of Board Advisory Groups, the annual status reports for the AQMP Advisory Group and the Scientific, Technical, and Modeling Peer Review Advisory Group were presented including the accomplishments made in 2003, goals and objectives for 2004, membership rosters, and the attendance records for these advisory groups.
Approved by the Committee.
- Home Rule Advisory Group 2003 Accomplishments
This item was carried over to the April meeting.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
- Reg. IX – Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPs) and
Reg. X – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Regulation III - Fees
Jill Whynot, Planning and Rules Manager, explained that this item is a routine update to incorporate federal requirements into AQMD rules. These are existing requirements and are listed in Regs IX and X to provide information to facilities in South Coast Basin.
Larry Bowen, Planning and Rules Manager, presented this item. Regulation III – Fees funds the AQMD Budget. The 2004-05 Budget projects a $ 12.4 million shortfall. The staff proposal is expected to reduce that shortfall by $ 3.1 million. The proposal includes an across-the-board increase of 1.6 % reflecting the change in the 2003 California Consumer Price Index. In addition, a number of specific fees have been adjusted to more closely recover AQMD costs for completion of those activities. There was a public workshop on the rule proposal in February. In addition, there will be two more Budget Advisory Committee meetings, two public workshops on the budget and two Board Budget workshops that will also address the proposed amendments to Regulation III before the public hearing on June 4.
Barry Wallerstein announced the following meeting schedule:
- The Budget Advisory Committee, March 31, 12:00 pm, CC8
- Public Budget Workshop and Reg. III Fee Amendments, April 22, 1:00 pm, CC2
- Governing Board Budget Workshop, April 30, 9:00 am, CC8
- Budget Advisory Committee, May 5, 12:00 pm, CC8
- Governing Board Budget Workshop, May 14, 10:30 am, CC8
- Public Budget Workshop, May 25, 1:00 pm, CC2
- Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust, Rule 1186.1 – PM10 Emission Reductions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations, and 403.1 – Supplemental Fugitive Dust Control Requirements for Coachella Valley Sources
- Addendum to the Air Toxic Control Plan
- Status Report on Proposed Rule 1470 – Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines
- Update on Rule 1173 - Mitigation Fees
- Report on OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines and CARB Interim Policy on Risk Management
Jill Whynot, Planning & Rules Manager, explained that Rule 1402, which covers toxic risk from existing facilities, refers to state guidance on risk assessment and requires a report to the Board when these guidelines are changed. Several recent changes have been made, the most notable will increase risk calculations by about 30 percent for workers in neighboring facilities. Time is needed to transition to using the new procedures. Staff proposes to report back to the Stationary Source Committee two months prior to implementing any changes. There were no questions or comments. - Execute Contract with Los Angeles County Agricultural Commission Department of Weights and Measures for Gasoline Vapor Recovery Inspections and Testing
This item was carried over to the April meeting. - NSR Report
Dr. Julia Lester, Planning and Rules Supervisor, presented a status report on PAR 403, 1186, and 403.1, comprehensive amendments to the AQMD’s fugitive dust rules. These amendments would implement 2003 AQMP control measure BCM-07 and the AQMD rulemaking portion of the 2002 Coachella Valley PM10 SIP control measures. She reviewed the proposed amendments to the rules and indicated that revised and/or new implementation handbooks have been prepared for Board approval. Emission reductions are estimated to be 1.7 tpd PM10 in 2006 at an annual cost of $2 million. Cost-effectiveness for the rule provisions range from $2,100 to $4,100 per ton of PM10 reduced. Remaining issues raised by U.S. EPA concern shelters as storage pile control and post-weed abatement stabilization. The Building Industry Association’s remaining concerns include property line definitions and requirements, and the response time for the dust control supervisor. Staff is working with U.S. EPA and BIA to resolve these issues. PAR 403, 1886, and 403.1 are scheduled for Board consideration at the April 2, 2004 public meeting. Additional fugitive dust rules for aggregate and cement processing operations are scheduled for Board consideration in summer 2004.
Jill Whynot, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff presentation on the Addendum to the Air Toxics Control Plan (ATCP). The first ATCP was approved in March 2000. The Addendum describes significant progress in many areas, updates the emissions inventory and projections, and discusses additional reductions anticipated from the 2003 AQMP and Cumulative Impacts Reduction Strategies. There will be a more comprehensive update to the ATCP after data from the MATES III sampling is completed.
Mobile Sources continue to be the most significant contributors to air toxics levels. At town hall and other meetings, localized neighborhood impacts are often a concern.
The Addendum projects more emission reductions than the original ATCP, if full implementation of the 2003 AQMP is realized. CARB and U.S. EPA have jurisdiction over sources that are contributing major portions of the inventory.
Three public consultation meetings were held. Key comments from several environmental and community groups included the need to recognize that there are many unknowns regarding air toxic health effects, and that monitoring and inventories need to be continually improved.
Ms. Carney asked about incorporating the Cumulative Impact Reduction Strategy as part of this document as staff is now making those strategies a commitment. Ms. Whynot explained that the ATCP is not a legally required or binding document. Each Cumulative Impact Reduction Strategy that would be a rule will go through the full CEQA and public process. Dr. Wallerstein provided an analogy that for criteria pollutants, a comprehensive plan is developed. The ATCP, at the Board’s direction, developed a similar plan to examine local, state and federal efforts. The ATCP was a first for any district or state agency. CARB is now developing something similar for the state.
Mr. Yates stated that he had received a previous inquiry whether the ATCP had any elements that would involve partnership with Homeland Security agencies working on terrorism from toxins. Dr. Wallerstein stated that staff would continue to work in full cooperation with other agencies.
Jill Whynot, Planning & Rules Manager, gave an update on PR1470, which is on the public hearing schedule for the April 2, 2004 Governing Board Meeting. This rule is for diesel PM emissions, a carcinogen, from stationary internal combustion engines (ICEs). The discussion focused on recent comments that are likely to be raised before the Board.
The key policy issue is related to proposed requirements that are more stringent than the state’s rule. The state rule is designed for routine non-emergency use. PR1470 would require control devices on engines operating on or near schools.
Industry has requested a delay, until the state rule is finalized. This may take three to six months. Staff is following the Board’s direction to proceed, has included CARB 15-day change items, and will report to the Stationary Source Committee if there are any substantial changes to the state rule, once it is finalized. Some industry groups have also expressed concern regarding the proposed more stringent requirements for engines on or near schools and state that there is not adequate justification for the increased control requirements. An example was given for a 350 hp engine with controls and 100 hours of use. The PM emissions would be less than one pound if controls were in place, compared to up to 40 pounds without controls for an older engine.
Parents and environmental/community groups contend that the proposed rule is not stringent enough. They request that engines on or near schools not be allowed to participate in demand response programs. This occurs only when the Independent System Operator (ISO) orders the engines in the program to run to prevent a power outage or shortage. Engines in this program that are new after January 2005 must be at the cleanest level. Existing engines must meet new engine standards by January 2005 and be at the cleanest level by January 2008 (new engine and controls).
PR1470 includes provisions for owners of four or more engines, under common ownership in the District, to use a phased schedule for compliance (2006 – 2009). Older engines and engines on or near schools must be addressed first.
Parents and environmental/community groups have requested that this schedule be expedited and that a mitigation fee be added if the original schedule is followed. Staff has not included this in the staff proposal. Priority is required for older engines and those near schools.
The socioeconomic assessment estimates total annual costs of $1.1 to 3.6 million for the total rule, including the more stringent portions of PR1470. The elements unique to PR1470 are estimated at $0.5 to 1.5 million per year.
Dr. Wallerstein added that AQMD is required by law to adopt a rule that is at least as stringent as the state rule; we are allowed to be more stringent, and the policy issue will be over the areas where PR1470 goes beyond the state requirements.
Mr. Yates inquired about engines that are mounted on wheels, such as the ones located in Big Bear. Frances Keeler, Senior Deputy District Counsel, explained that the issue for engines in Big Bear related to which program the engines were under - the state portable equipment program or local AQMD rules for stationary sources. The determination in this case was that these engines were stationary and subject to AQMD rules. Dr. Wallerstein discussed a policy challenge with respect to portable engines. Years ago, the state set up a registration program for portable engines that are used throughout the state to reduce costs of getting permits for each district. However, state regulations are less stringent than AQMD rules for this equipment.
CARB has recently approved a rule for portables that is also less effective than local rules. CAPCOA requested changes to the CARB rule in three areas – adding inexpensive hour meters, requiring notification so inspectors could check on the engines, and fees. The last item is still being discussed. CARB raised fees for the registration paperwork three-fold, but local districts, who must enforce the requirements, receive no additional revenue. Without these three changes, the rule is not enforceable. Dr. Wallerstein informed the committee that he will send a letter to CARB reiterating these concerns.
Three parents from the Claremont area addressed the committee. Ms. Rita Loof stated that since diesel PM is a toxic, standard cost-effectiveness is not applicable. However, the controls are still cost-effective. Greater stringency is warranted because 44 percent of the engines in the state are located in this district, which has the worst air pollution. She urged AQMD to continue its leadership role and not wait for the state rule to be finalized.
Ms. Loof also commented that in the past, AQMD did not allow emergency engines to be enrolled in demand reduction programs. She stated that AQMD should reinstate that philosophy, especially for engines near schools. She also requested that the timeline for multiple engines be accelerated. She requested the Board’s support for a more stringent rule, since these engines were exempt from Rule 1401, children’s health is affected, and the cost of health care is not included.
Dr. James Michener, an occupational physician and parent of two, said that diesel PM is a known carcinogen. Engines are run when children are at recess and they have no voice in this matter. It is worse to expose a child to a carcinogen than an adult, because a child has many more years for the cancer to express itself. Workers exposed to diesel PM have a higher rate of lung cancer.
Ms. Hope Hipner has a daughter attending school in Claremont. She urged the committee to adopt rules to address this type of problem and expressed that engines near schools should not participate in demand response programs. Protecting children’s health should be considered.
Mr. Greg Adams of Los Angeles County Sanitation District, speaking on behalf of wastewater treatment operators, spoke next. He emphasized that CARB worked on the state rule for three years and spent six months evaluating distance to schools. Senior staff at the CARB February 26, 2004 Public Hearing stated that the ATCM would result in zero or near zero risk to school children. Mr. Adams requested assistance from staff in helping facilities identify schools and distances. He stated that situations like the one in Claremont should be addressed using a focused approach, not a broad approach through a rule. Mr. Adams concluded by saying that the more stringent requirements of PR1470 are another layer that could result in local governments not purchasing diesel equipment, which will be needed for the next large earthquake.
Mr. Dan McGivney of Eastern Municipal Water District, speaking for a coalition of water districts, stated that the ATCM does not allow non-emergency use of engines during school hours. The difference for PR1470 is adding controls for emergency operation. The CARB estimated typical emergency use at seven hours/year, so the risk may not exist. He would like to see residual risk numbers for 200 hours of use.
Curt Coleman from CMA reiterated the need to justify any areas of increased stringency.
Dr. Wallerstein recalled the 2001 power crisis. The Governor’s Executive Order cancelled out all rules and permit conditions. These engines will run during any major emergency. Similar to the power plants in RECLAIM, which ran uncontrolled equipment during the power crisis, where we wished that controls had been in place earlier, emergency engines near schools could be in the same situation. This is an issue that the Board must carefully weigh.
Staff clarified that the CARB comments relate to non-emergency use. In addition, PR1470 would not restrict use during an emergency. Rather, it would result in engines on or near schools being controlled during such emergency use.
Mayor Loveridge asked Ms. Loof to restate her specific proposal. She responded that the schedule should be accelerated with no specific time suggested and the engines near schools should not be in demand response programs.
Mr. Craycraft asked staff to assist facilities to identify if they are near schools. Mr. Yates suggested that the industry representatives and parents should talk and that the parents should speak to their city planners, which they indicated they had done.
This item was carried over to the April meeting.
Due to time constraints, Mohsen Nazemi, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Engineering and Compliance, suggested the Committee Members review the provided material and contact him if they have any questions.
WRITTEN REPORTS
All written reports were acknowledged by the Committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:06 p.m.
March 26, 2004 Committee Agenda (without its attachments)
/ / /