BOARD MEETING DATE: October 1, 2004
AGENDA NO. 24
Stationary Source Committee
SYNOPSIS:
The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, September 24, 2004. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be October 22, at 10:30 a.m., in Conference Room CC8.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file.
William Craycraft, Acting Chair
Stationary Source Committee
Attendance
The meeting began at 10:40a.m. Present were William Craycraft, Acting Chair, Jane Carney and Bill Postmus by Videoteleconference (left at 10:55a.m.). Absent were Ronald Loveridge and Dennis Yates.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
- Approve Grants to Schools to Retrofit Diesel Backup Generators with PM Traps and Approve Issuance of Program Announcement and Application Offering Additional Funds for PM Traps on School Diesel Backup Generators
Fred Minassian, Planning and Rules Manager, presented this item. In July 2002, AQMD set aside $250,000 from the State’s Backup Generator Program to fund PM traps on diesel backup generators (BUGs) at schools. Program Announcements were issued at various intervals seeking applications from schools. A total of eleven schools have submitted applications with some applicants seeking awards for multiple sites. Staff is recommending that the Board:
1) award funds to retrofit 27 school backup diesel generators in an amount not to exceed $382,500, consisting of $250,000 from the CARB BUG fund, and $132,500 from the Rule 1309.1 Priority Reserve Fund; and,
2) issue a new Program Announcement and Application (PA #2005-05) to retrofit school backup diesel generators with PM Traps in an amount not to exceed $250,000 from the Rule 1309.1 Priority Reserve Fund. Eligible backup generators are generators located at or within 500 feet of a school. These funds would assist schools to comply with the stringent requirements of Rule 1470 that controls emissions from diesel backup generators at schools.
- Rule 1157 – PM10 Emission Reductions from Aggregate Operations
- Holiday Month Meeting Schedule
- Status Update on Controlling Particulate Emissions from Underfired Charbroilers
- Update on RECLAIM White Paper and Informational Hearing
Lee Lockie, Director of Area Sources, presented this item. The purpose of proposed Rule 1157 is to reduce PM10 emissions from aggregate processing and related operations. Aggregate operations produce sand, gravel and crushed stone and process these materials for use in producing hot mix asphalt and redi-mix concrete. The proposed rule sets performance standards and process control options for the primary sources of emissions at these facilities including: loading and transferring of materials, conveyors, crushers, screening equipment, storage piles and internal paved and unpaved roads. The control technology methods include the use of dust suppressants (chemical and/or water), baghouses and enclosures for material processing operations. To reduce emissions and track out from the movement of aggregate trucks, there are proposed requirements for spill cleanup, rumble grates, wheel washers and load leveling. Exemptions are proposed where controls are infeasible. Compliance dates are July and November of 2005.
Committee Member Jane Carney did not participate in this item due to a possible conflict of interest.
Carol Coy, Deputy Executive Officer of Engineering & Compliance, brought to the attention of the Committee that there is no meeting scheduled for the month of December. Committee Members may want to consider combining the November and December meetings. The meeting is scheduled for November 19th. This will be scheduled as an action item at the next Stationary Source Committee meeting.
Jill Whynot, Planning and Rules Manager, provided an update on efforts to reduce emissions from under-fired charbroilers. This is a consent calendar item for the November Board meeting.
Rule 1138, which was adopted in 1997, reduced particulate and VOC emissions from chain-driven charbroilers by requiring catalysts. Cost-effective options to reduce emissions from under-fired charbroilers are still limited. There is an alternative type of broiler, but it is not reasonable to require restaurants to change to a different cooking method. There is one add-on control system that appears to be cost-effective only for the largest new restaurants.
Staff is recommending that the Board make findings of infeasibility and substitute emission reductions from other rules, as allowed under the 2003 AQMP. In future actions, staff will recommend that the permitting exemption be revised to require permits for under-fired charbroilers cooking large amounts of meat. BACT guidelines would be updated as well. If technology advancements occur in the future, staff may recommend further reductions from this source.
Board Member Craycraft asked for additional information regarding emissions per restaurant. The total PM10 inventory is over 11 tons from all cooking operations. There are approximately 30,000 restaurants in the basin and over 13,000 charbroilers.
Jill Whynot, Planning and Rules Manager, provided an update on RECLAIM rule development efforts. There will be an Informational Hearing at the October 1, 2004 Board meeting. The purpose of that item is to summarize the staff proposal and highlight other viewpoints and key issues, hear public comment, and get input that will be considered as rule development continues.
There was an extensive discussion at the September 23, 2004 Board Assistant’s briefing. Staff is working on a request that a table, summarizing various proposals, be provided before the Board meeting. There was also a meeting in the afternoon on September 23, 2004 to review technical data with industry representatives.
The staff proposal is for 7.8 tpd reduction by 2010, with 4 tons per day decrease in 2007 and the rest in equal increments over the next three years. Current power plant trading restrictions would remain until 2007 to avoid large number of credits entering the market, potentially delaying installation of controls by other facilities.
Two new issues since the last Stationary Source Committee briefing include whether market price can be a surrogate for BARCT and a recent request to consider allowing power plants to buy future credits for expansion needs. Other key issues that will be discussed at the Board meeting include the amount of reductions, how and when reductions will occur, potential exemptions from reductions for sources already at BARCT and issues related to cost-effectiveness, including equipment life, cost thresholds and the method used to calculate cost-effectiveness.
Staff will continue to work with interested parties. Rule amendments will come back to the Board in December 2004, at the earliest. Mr. Craycraft asked staff to work with all parties to move closer to consensus. Ms. Carney asked for a brief list of pros and cons, to accompany the summary chart staff that is preparing.
Four industry representatives had comments for the committee members. A representative of the Regulatory Flexibility Group commented that the staff proposal has an end point that is too low and that staff has underestimated future economic activity and cost of controls. He described a market model where reductions are done slowly, in increments, with a 4 ton reduction from 2008 to 2010 in phase one and additional reductions phased in if prices remain below $15,000 per ton. He stated that this approach allows for growth and, over time, could reach equivalent or greater reductions than the staff proposal. There is no clear answer to the question of how this approach meets the Health & Safety Code requirements, but he stated that previous program approvals have demonstrated equivalency on an aggregate basis.
A representative for a RECLAIM facility provided a handout summarizing his client’s situation and requested consideration for no further reductions for facilities at BARCT that are below normal production levels.
A representative from one of the refineries supported an across-the-board reduction and stated that growth may be understated.
A representative from WSPA said that cost-effectiveness is key to the discussion on the amount of reductions. He disagrees with cost estimates for refinery boilers and heaters. He appreciated the technical meeting that occurred and will continue to work with staff. Because RECLAIM BARCT has to be evaluated every three years, adjustments should be made in slow, small increments.
There was additional discussion regarding the comments made and a request from committee members to prepare pros & cons for each issue and a response to the industry written comments before the October 1st Board meeting.
A private citizen commented that RECLAIM should encourage renewable energy sources which could help accommodate growth.
WRITTEN REPORTS
All written reports were acknowledged by the Committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
September 24, 2004 Committee Agenda (without its attachments)
/ / /