BOARD MEETING DATE: July 11, 2008
AGENDA NO. 42

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Adopt the attached resolution:

1. Certifying the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for Rule 1158 – Storage, Handling, and Transport of Coke, Coal and Sulfur;
2. Amending Rule 1158 – Storage, Handling, and Transport of Coke, Coal and Sulfur.

 

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

Rule 1158 was adopted in 1983 and covered only petroleum coke operations. Monitoring data collected in the 1990’s indicated many facilities under Rule 1158 were responsible for public nuisances (Rule 402) and for violating fugitive dust-control requirements of Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. During site visits, staff found poor housekeeping and general malfunction of equipment in many cases. The 1999 rule amendment added coal and sulfur to the rule’s provisions and tightened requirements to reduce PM emissions. The rule mandated all coke piles and new coal and sulfur piles be enclosed (storage, unloading and transfer operations) and set a visible dust standard. The road surfaces and vehicle movement areas where material accumulated had to be paved to allow cleaning. Trucks and trailers transporting materials had to be covered, be leak resistant, and cleaned before leaving the facility.

The current rule amendments are proposed to further improve the clarity of the rule and cover operations that are not explicitly listed but intended to be covered by the rule, and add flexibility through additional exemptions.

Proposal

Five proposed definitions are added to the rule: “coker pit,” “dewatering truck-loading bin,” “permanent water recycling system dewatering bed,” “separation pond,” and “slurry bin.” All of these definitions were questioned in a recent Hearing Board case. Two definitions are clarified and one is deleted because the phrase is not repeated elsewhere in the rule. Additionally, three definitions have been corrected for typographical inaccuracies.

Clarifying language is proposed for several sections of the rule. Railcars are added to several provisions relative to storage/transport (subdivision (d)) and end-users (subdivision (e)). The 1999 amendments to Rule 1158 intended to reduce fugitive dust emissions during transport of coke which was predominantly done with trucks. Consequently, the rule language focused on requiring explicit dust controls on trucks. However, the industry dynamics have changed and railcars are now being used to load and transport coal into and coke out of the Basin. Thus, it is prudent to clarify that railcars are subject to the same type of requirements as trucks regarding loading and transporting of materials. Railcars are currently specifically named in the rule for purposes of unloading requirements. These amendments clarify that railcars used in the transport or storage of materials must be controlled to limit emissions.

The language in Compliance Schedule (subdivision (g)) was originally included in the rule to provide a phased-in compliance schedule. All of these dates are now past so much of the language in the subdivision is obsolete and proposed for deletion. One paragraph in Compliance Determination and Performance Information (subdivision (i)) references a subparagraph in Compliance Schedule (subdivision (g)) that is being deleted and it too is proposed for deletion. Language in Exemptions (subdivision (k)) also contains obsolete dates and is proposed for deletion. Four new exemptions are proposed for additional flexibility. The first applies to an exemption from enclosure requirements for front-end loaders actively transporting moist material or material associated with a “hot coke” incident. The second exempts coal in railcars from enclosure if the transported material originated out of state and is moistened upon arrival at a District facility. The third exemption applies to storage structures undergoing routine maintenance so long as specific parameters are met to prohibit emissions. The fourth pertains to permanent water recycling system dewatering beds being exempt from enclosure if they meet specific performance standards. Three exemptions have clarifying language proposed.
 

Public Workshops

A public workshop was held March 25, 2008 with approximately 25 people attending. Comments received through the close of comments April 16, 2008 are addressed in the draft Staff Report. Additionally, staff met with representatives from six facilities and a trade organization between the May 16, 2008 Stationary Source Committee meeting and the public hearing.
 

Key Issues

Railcars are being added to several provisions of the rule to provide consistency with a recent Hearing Board case and the original intent of the rule. Industry representatives requested that the exemption for railcars carrying coal from out-of-state, if they are watered, be extended to coke. Staff does not support this because coal and coke are different materials with coke having a greater emissions potential due to its friability.

Some industry representatives commented that the definitions added to the proposal were too restrictive. Staff believes the terms reflect the rule’s intent to limit emissions. There was a request for flexibility in the enclosure requirements for the use of chemical stabilizers. Language is proposed to allow this flexibility, provided the method proposed is proven to be effective in preventing visible PM emissions.

An exemption was requested for “small users” and/or “insignificant sources”. Staff does not support this proposal because the Basin does not meet attainment for PM emission standards for the state or federal government. A request was also made relative to storage of packaged materials outside of an enclosure. Staff feels this is a potential emissions source due to environmental degradation of the packaging materials over an extended period of time and also due to potential mishandling; therefore, the packaged materials should be kept in enclosed storage. An exemption was sought for routine maintenance for storage structures and language is proposed to allow this. An exemption was requested for transporting “hot coke” and language has been clarified to show this has been the rule’s intent. Finally, an exemption was sought for permanent dewatering beds and language has been proposed to allow this exemption from enclosure so long as specific performance standards are met to restrict emissions.
 

CEQA and Socioeconomic Impacts

The AQMD, as lead agency, has reviewed the proposed amended Rule 1158 pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15002 (k)(2) and codified in the AQMD’s Certified Regulatory Program (Rule 110). A Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15070 and §15252 for the proposed amendments to Rule 1158 because the proposed project will generate no significant adverse environmental impacts. The Draft EA was circulated for a 30-day public review period from May 14, 2008 to June 12, 2008. Two comment letters on the Draft EA were received and responses to the comment letters have been included in the Final EA. Changes to the project description do not change the conclusions made in the Draft EA or worsen the environmental impact analyzed in the Draft EA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(c)(2), recirculation is not necessary since the information provided does not result in new avoidable significant effects.

Some facilities will have expenditures because they are not in compliance with the existing rule, not due to any proposed rule changes. The proposed exemptions are projected to result in savings to the affected facilities.
 

AQMP and Legal Mandates

The proposed amendments were not associated with a control measure in the 2007 AQMP. Rather, it is the result of a recent Hearing Board case and seeks to clarify in the rule that which was verified by the Hearing Board as to the intent and applicability of the rule. The AQMD obtains authority to adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations from Health and Safety Code §§39002, 40000, and 40001.
 

Implementation Plan

The proposed amendments do not materially affect the structure or function of existing programs associated with the implementation of Rule 1158 – Storage, Handling, and Transport of Coke, Coal and Sulfur. Staff is available to assist facilities affected by the proposed amendments.
 

Resource Impacts

Current AQMD resources are sufficient to implement and enforce proposed amended Rule 1158.
 

Attachments (exe 6068 kb)

1. Summary of Proposal
2. Key Issues and Responses
3. Rule Development Process
4. Key Contacts List
5. Resolution
6. Rule Language
7. Final Staff Report
8. CEQA