BOARD MEETING DATE: June 2, 2006
AGENDA NO. 23
Stationary Source Committee
SYNOPSIS:
The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, May 26, 2006. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be June 23, at 10:30 a.m., in Conference Room CC8.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and file.
Jane Carney, Acting Chair
Stationary Source Committee
Attendance
The meeting began at 10:35 a.m. Present were Jane Carney, Dennis Yates and Gary Ovitt. Absent was Ronald Loveridge.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
1. Rule 219 – Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II
Lee Lockie, Director of Area Sources, stated that at the May meeting of the Board, the Board amended Rule 219 but continued consideration of subsection (q)(1) and a portion of (q)(2) to the June 2 Board meeting. This section related to a modified exemption for non-emergency i.c. engines and gasoline storage and dispensing equipment for agricultural sources. The continuation was granted in response to a request from the California Farm Bureau for additional time for public review of staff’s proposal.
She noted that staff will be recommending that the Board continue this item for another 30 days, to the July meeting, to allow sufficient time for communication of the final proposal to farm bureau membership.
Staff has had two meetings with the industry representatives in the last month and has discussed the elements of a standard streamlined permit.
Ms. Lockie concluded by saying that, with respect to the issue of UV/EB materials and related equipment, staff is preparing to make a recommendation to the Board at the June meeting. This issue was discussed at the Permit Streamlining Task Force at its meeting last week and members felt that staff was taking a reasonable approach. Staff is concerned that even low emitting materials may have a high mass emission due to potentially high volumes of material throughput.
After public comment from Rita Loof of RADTECH, Mohsen Nazemi and Laki Tisopulos responded that UV/EB exemptions will be studied along with other low-emitting technologies as part of an overall proposal to amend Rule 219 in the first half of next year. There were three other public comments from Gerry Bonetto, Ray Lewandowski and Krishna Nand requesting clarification of Rule 219 language with respect to UV/EB Test Method and 3-D Hilography Technology and ammonia storage exemptions.
2. PAR 1113 – Architectural Coatings
Larry Bowen, Planning and Rules Manager, presented this item. Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings regulates the largest single source of VOC emissions in the AQMD and there are a number of lower VOC limits that are to go into effect July 1, 2006. The results from the third party technical assessments, and staff’s evaluation of the technology including fields study and input from manufacturers and end users indicates there are numerous compliant coatings at the new limits with some few exceptions. Staff is recommending amendments to address those exceptions that will result in some short term emissions foregone and additional permanent emission reductions from the lowering of the limits of three specialty coating categories.
Supervisor Antonovich offered a motion at the May regular Board meeting to continue public hearing on the proposed amendments to September to allow staff to further work with the industry to close the gap on the wide range of differences and in the interim delay implementation of the limits about to go into effect until October 2006. Also, the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) is recommending an alternative proposal to roll back standards that staff believes would result in sizable VOC emission reductions permanently foregone as well as significant additional short term emissions foregone.
Staff expects to present to the Board all three proposals, the staff recommendation, Supervisor Antonovich’s motion and the NPCA alternative, at the June 2 hearing. Adoption of the staff proposal is recommended. Ms. Carney indicated that she would be interested to find out what kind of warning labels are provided on the products with respect to exposure to users of the products that contain TBAC.
3. Best Available Control Technology Guidelines report and Amendments
This item was carried over to the June meeting.
4. Status Update for Rule 410 – Odor Abatement for Solid
Waste Transfer Stations
and Processing Facilities
Susan Nakamura, Planning and Rules Manager, provided a status update of the development of Proposed Rule 410. At the September 2005 Stationary Source Committee Meeting, AQMD staff provided a status update of PR 410. At that meeting representatives from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) had commented regarding concerns for the proposed rule. AQMD staff has revised its proposal based on comments from the CIWMB and other stakeholders. Proposed Rule 410 would allow facilities to either submit an Odor Management Plan (OMP) to the Local Enforcement Agency or through PR 410. The OMP must identify odor control methods for their tipping floor, material recovery facility, and green waste operations. New and modified facilities would also be required to submit an Odor Management Plan. In addition new and modified facilities would also be required to either enclose their tipping floor and MRF or ensure that there is a buffer zone around the facility. The AQMD staff highlighted two key issues regarding dual enforcement and the definition of new and modified facilities. PR 410 is schedule to be set for hearing in July and will be presented to the Governing Board for approval at the September Governing Board Meeting.
Mayor Dennis Yates commented that he would personally support the proposal if the AQMD staff has the agreement of CIWMB. In addition, Bill LaMarr questioned whether or not the staff has incorporated cost recovery mechanisms in the proposed rule. Paul Ryan, representing waste haulers, commented that the AQMD staff needs to revise its complaint protocol for receiving complaints and notifying affected facilities. In addition, Mr. Ryan expressed his concern for agency overlap and dual enforcement.
5. Quarterly Report on Rule 1118 Implementation
Pang Mueller, Senior Manager, Engineering and Compliance, presented this item. As part of amended Rule 1118 to reduce flare emissions, the Governing Board adopted a resolution directing staff to work with community members, industry, and other regulatory agencies. Outlined in her presentation were the issues discussed at the working group meetings regarding public notification procedures. Also discussed were Contra Costa County’s Community Warning System, and the status and costs of the Monitoring Pilot Program regarding the sulfur and the higher heating value analyzers in the South Coast Air Basin. Ms. Mueller concluded her presentation by comparing emissions from refineries during the 1st quarter of 2006 to that of their annual SOx emission targets. Board Member, Jane Carney inquired as to why the 1st quarter emission targets were quite a bit lower than the annual SOx emission targets. Mr. Mike Wang of WSPA addressed Ms. Carney’s question by offering his own handout and oral presentation on “Amended Rule 1118 – Control of Emissions from Refinery Flares” and indicated that the refineries are continuing to improve operational practices to minimize flaring. On behalf of WSPA, Mr. Wang expressed that an extension of the deadline for the installation of monitoring equipment may be necessary due to the complexity in engineering and installation of these projects, and for data validation. Finally, Mr. Ken Hudson of BP commented to the Committee that staff’s efforts of bringing together the interested parties of industry, fire departments, cities, and the community were to be commended.
6. Potential Links to Websites for EJ Enhancement of AB2588 Web Information
This item was carried over to the June meeting.
WRITTEN REPORTS
All written reports were acknowledged by the Committee.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments at this meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
Attachment
(DOC 60 KB)
May 26, 2006 Committee Agenda (without its attachments)