BOARD MEETING DATE: October 6, 2006 AGENDA NO. 30

BOARD MEETING DATE: October 6, 2006
AGENDA NO. 30

REPORT:

Stationary Source Committee

SYNOPSIS:

The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, September 22, 2006. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be October 27, at 10:30 a.m., in Conference Room CC8.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file.

Dennis Yates, Chair Jane Carney, Member (Acting Chair)
Stationary Source Committee Stationary Source Committee

Attendance

The meeting began at 10:40 a.m. Present were Jane Carney (Acting Chair until the arrival of Dennis Yates) and Dennis Yates (arrived at 11:30). Absent were Ron Loveridge and Gary Ovitt.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

Proposed Amendments to Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations

Lee Lockie updated the committee on the proposal which is scheduled for consideration by the Board on October 6, 2006. Based on a public comment from the Los Angeles Times at the Board’s July 14, 2006 meeting, the Board directed staff to further evaluate portions of the rule that are applicable to newsprint. Ms. Lockie reported that staff had completed its evaluation and recommends that the Board proceed with the implementation of the 100 grams per liter VOC limit for clean up solvents for ink application equipment used for lithographic printing on newsprint.

Ms Lockie stated that four major newspapers and one commercial printer were in full compliance with the requirements of the proposed amendment, some for periods of time from 3 months to 5 years. In addition, six compliant blanket wash materials and three pipe roller/inter train/ink rail compliant products were identified that have been used successfully by the newsprint industry.

During the public comment period, Mr. Mark Anderson of the Los Angeles Times requested a delay in the implementation date for newsprint to January 1, 2008, a delay consistent with that recently granted by the Board to the rest of the lithographic printing industry. The basis for the LA Times request was stated in a written letter to the committee which can be summarized as follows:

there is no objective distinction between newspaper and the other commercial processes;

residues left by new formulations can cause equipment failures; and

long-term compatibility between new formulations and equipment materials has not been proven.

Staff responded by stating that the industry’s own technical research arm, the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation, in a 2002 report prepared under contract with the district for a portion of the rule’s technology assessment, concluded at that time that the cleaning of newsprint inks was already at the rule’s targeted emission standards largely due to the fact that these inks are much easier to clean due to their non-drying nature and low viscosity. Actual field studies conducted by another consultant confirmed these conclusions and also confirmed that residues can be easily rinsed. Reports of equipment failures were reported by one commercial facility, but there was no evidence presented that this was caused by cleaning materials. Further recent meetings between AQMD staff and newsprint printers have confirmed adequate performance, long-term compatibility and no equipment failures due to low-VOC cleaning materials.

Mr. Andersen also referred to certain comments made at the Technical Advisory Meeting the day before about the potential of certain low-VOC, ester-based cleaners to cause irreversible swelling on the rollers that may lead to catastrophic failures. He has also referred to certain findings of the study indicating the incompatibility of certain low-VOC cleaners with some substrates. Staff believes that these arguments are largely irrelevant to the issues raised by LA Times at the Board meeting in July which focused on the cleaning of pipe rollers, ink trays and ink rollers. This is because pipe rollers and ink trays are made of metal and therefore, there can be no swelling with metal substrates. Relative to the ink rollers, staff has identified several compliant low-VOC products that are already in use by other newsprint operations in the Basin and has shared the list of these products with LA Times.

Relative to the swelling and/or incompatibility comment, staff indicated that there were some anectodal comments made by some participants about the Technology Assessment but these discussions were inconclusive. In addition, the comments made at the meeting were about commercial printing operations and not newsprint operation. While some participants referred to the potential irreversible swelling with respect to some cleaner/rubber substrate combinations, they also referred to the potential loss of plasticizers during the reversible swelling with respect to conventional solvent/rubber combinations which may also adversely impact the life of the rollers. Roller manufacturers present at the meeting pointed out that any contact of the rollers with solvents will negatively impact the life of their product. Relative to the incompatibility argument, while some of the low VOC cleaners were found to be incompatible with certain rubber substrates, the study also revealed that several widely used high-VOC conventional solvent to be incompatible with certain substrates. The consensus reached by the group was that the failures were largely due to the unrealistically harsh laboratory testing conditions the substrates were subjected to and the results should be viewed as a comparative performance as opposed to a pass/fail. It should also be pointed out that the study identified low-VOC products with no compatibility issues.

Staff reiterated that compliant products are available and being used successfully by other newsprint operations with no performance or compatibility issues.

Mr. Anderson acknowledged that his firm had not yet begun full-scale testing of new formulations in use by other printers.

Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities

Lee Lockie, Director of Area Sources, presented an overview of the proposed amendments to Rule 1403. Rule 1403 was developed to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities. Clarifying amendments have been proposed by the Chief Prosecutor’s office and the Engineering & Compliance office to improve rule clarity, enforceability and overall rule effectiveness. These changes are administrative in nature and do not require CEQA or socioeconomic analyses. The rule proposal was revised to address comments received pursuant to the public workshop. The staff will bring this rule forward to the Governing Board for Set Hearing on October 6, 2006 and Public Hearing on November 3, 2006.

Draft Recommendations Regarding Public Notification Procedures During Flare Events

Cher Snyder, Air Quality and Analysis Compliance Supervisor, presented this item. On November 4, 2005, Rule 1118 was amended to continue allowing flares to operate as safety devices while minimizing emissions releases from flaring events. Board Resolution No. 2005-32 formalized the ongoing commitment of staff, working with industry, local communities, and local government agencies, to recommend strategies for implementing community notification requirements set forth in the amended rule. Stakeholders formed a Working Group and explored options for implementing appropriate public notification procedures for flare events. Recommendations include (1) launching the enhanced AQMD flare website; (2) maintaining sampling equipment at AQMD’s Carson office for quick deployment in local communities; (3) surveying community residents about notification needs; (4) developing a specific work plan to improve sub-regional notification systems and initiating the process through local Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) first-responder groups; (5) identifying funds to help CAER enhance or replace existing public communication infrastructure and procedures and purchase equipment to sample and speciate flare emissions; (6) convening the Working Group on a quarterly basis to review progress; and (7) reporting milestones semi-annually to the Board.

Status Report on 2007 AQMP Stationary Control Strategies

Presentation waived.

Update on Proposed Rule 410 – Odor Abatement for Solid Waste Transfer Stations and Processing Facilities

Susan Nakamura, Planning and Rules Manager, provided a brief summary of the remaining key issues for Proposed Rule 410. The main issue raised by industry representatives is the need for Proposed Rule 410. Staff has responded to this comment that there is a need for Proposed Rule 410 to provide a proactive approach to minimize odors from solid waste transfer stations and materials recovery facilities (MRFs).

Industry representatives requested a delay in the public hearing and requested to have a meeting with Dr. Barry Wallerstein to discuss the socioeconomic analysis and other key issues. Some industry representatives expressed their concern for the need for Proposed Rule 410 and commented that they believe the socioeconomic analysis underestimated the compliance costs associated with implementation of Proposed Rule 410. Dr. Wallerstein has scheduled meeting with industry representatives on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 to discuss their concerns. Dr. Howard Levenson from the California Integrated Waste Management Board commented that they still question the need for Proposed Rule 410; however, the specific concerns regarding the implementation of Proposed Rule 410 have been addressed.

Proposed Amendments to Rule 1309.1 – Priority Reserve

Mohsen Nazemi, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Engineering & Compliance, provided a brief presentation on this item. Mr. Nazemi indicated that at the September 8, 2006, Governing Board Meeting a number of community members expressed concerns about amendments to Rule 1309.1, which could allow certain power plants that are proposed to be located in an Environmental Justice (EJ) area or near schools to obtain emission credits from AQMD’s offset bank in order to receive permits to construct. At the Board Hearing, the Board adopted the staff’s proposed amendments to Rule 1309.1. However, staff was also directed to evaluate additional criteria that power plant projects proposed to be located in an EJ area or near a school would have to meet before access to emission credits could be granted through the Priority Reserve.

Mr. Nazemi gave a report to the Committee outlining some initial concepts about specific criteria that could be required based on project location and emission impacts. These criteria included for example more stringent risk thresholds, PM 10 and PM2.5 impact thresholds, greater mitigations fees and requirements for additional mitigations or controls on cooling tower emissions. The report also included information on the range of power plant emissions and toxic risks, and the licensing process of the California Energy Commission (CEC).

Board Member Jane Carney commented on the problem of entrepreneurs deciding to site these plants near schools or other sensitive receptors or in areas that already have high ambient PM10 or PM2.5 concentration levels. She said that high ambient emissions should be taken into account in availability of offsets from AQMD offset bank and in the AQMD permitting process. Board Member Dennis Yates expressed concern about the emission impacts from these facilities, but was also concerned that the state may overturn the AQMD permit process if it is too onerous to allow new plants to be constructed. During the public comment period, Mike Carroll of Latham and Watkins indicated that he represents a number of power plant projects and although the CEC process is very strenuous and evaluates all environmental impacts and allows public input, if the additional criteria being proposed can be met by the power plant projects that he represents, they would consider them. He indicated that he will continue to participate in the development of the criteria. A representative from the National Resources Defense Council also provided comments indicating that he was happy that AQMD is looking into additional criteria, but this should have been done before the rule was adopted, rather than after. He also indicated that if at the end these power plants are still allowed to be built then he felt that the criteria were not adequate.

OTHER BUSINESS

Elaine Chang announced that there will be a Board letter on the October Board agenda to initiate the public process in addressing diesel internal combustion engines related to the District’s permitting, AB 2588 and other programs.