BOARD MEETING DATE: July 9, 2010
AGENDA NO. 34

REPORT:

Stationary Source Committee

SYNOPSIS:

The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, June 18, 2010. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be July 23, at 10:30 a.m., in Conference Room CC8.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Receive and file.
 

Bill Campbell, Vice Chair,
Stationary Source Committee


Attendance

The meeting began at 10:35 a.m. Bill Campbell attended by VT (departed at 11:40). Present at AQMD were Jane Carney (departed at 11:50), Josie Gonzales and Judith Mitchell. Absent were Dennis Yates and Ronald Loveridge.

Ms. Carney indicated that she would not participate in agenda #1 due to conflict of interest as U.S. Battery is a source of income for her. Supervisor Campbell suggested that Item #1 be heard last.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

  1. Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
    Rule 1402 – Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources

    Susan Nakamura, Planning and Rules Manager, gave a presentation on the proposed amendments to Rule 1401, which is being amended to add and/or revise non-cancer health risk values for toxic air contaminants (TACs) that were approved by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).  Rule 1402 – Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Facilities is not being amended, but it uses the Rule 1401 list of TACs to set health risk limits for existing facilities.   A preliminary assessment of impacts is required for both rules when risk values are added or changed. 

    The preliminary impact assessment for the proposed rule amendment found no anticipated impacts for new, modified, or relocated equipment subject to Rule 1401 and no anticipated impacts for existing facilities subject to Rule 1402/AB2588.  Based on these findings, staff recommends the addition of new and revised non-cancer risk values for acetaldehyde, acrolein, arsenic, formaldehyde, fluorides, manganese, and mercury, to Rule 1401.  Set Hearing is scheduled for July 9, 2010 and Public Hearing on September 10, 2010. There were no Board Member or public comments on this item. 

  2. Rule 1146 & Rule 1146.1 Implementation Assessment Report

    Joe Cassmassi, Planning & Rules Manager, provided an update on the implementation of Rules 1146 and 1146.1 covering the availability and performance of ultra low NOx burners (ULNB) to meet the 9 ppm NOx emissions limit.  The presentation addressed the experience with the ULNB and 9 ppm emissions limit by the San Joaquin APCD and the District with burner installations and source testing.  Overall, the burners have been available and the source test data (primarily conducted by the SJVAPCD) has demonstrated compliance with the emissions limit.  Staff provided an assessment of the UNLB performance under different temperature and humidity conditions to provide a preliminary assessment of the impact of environmental conditions on burner performance.  The results of the preliminary analysis suggest little bias exists due to environmental factors although comments from the Task Force pointed out that the unit analyzed, which had flue gas recirculation and oxygen trim mechanisms, may not have been representative of the total universe of boilers currently operating.  Staff has committed to continue its evaluation on a larger boiler population to further assess the ULNB performance under a wider range of ambient conditions.

    Mr. Harvey Eder of the Public Solar Power Coalition commented to the Committee that solar systems should be considered as an alternate source of water heating in lieu of burner replacement.  Staff responded that Rules 1146 and 1146.1 were retrofit rules designed to lower NOx emissions for established industrial and commercial applications.  Staff also pointed out that the rule encouraged facility modernization, and as such, could accommodate new technology if applicable.  Board Member Mitchell asked whether staff has considered solar technology and inquired as to the cost of the burner replacement and the response of business to having to implement the rules. Board Member Carney also indicated that when we adopt a retrofit rule, we should look at other technologies. Staff responded that neither Rule 1146 nor Rule 1146.1 prevent any facility from using solar technology, and the retrofit ULNB costs varied based on size of the boilers and the number of burners needing replacement.  The dollar values ranged from approximately $6,000 to $30,000, but were site dependent.  Staff relayed comments from the burner manufacturers and installers present at the Task Force meeting, indicating that industry was very concerned with the cost of complying with the rule, particularly considering the state of the California economy.  Board Member Campbell commented that staff had fulfilled its commitment to report to the Board through the update, but requested that the cost data and implementations schedule be highlighted in the report to be submitted to the full Governing Board at the July 9, 2010 meeting.

  3. Rule 1110.2 – Technology Assessment Report

    Dr. Laki Tisopulos, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer with PRD&AS, provided a status report on the ongoing technology assessment regarding biogas-powered internal combustion engines subject to Rule 1110.2.  He indicated that staff is preparing an interim report for the July Board meeting to fulfill a resolution commitment in the 2008 amendment to Rule 1110.2.  The interim report will summarize staff’s actions to date, information compiled, including lessons learned from three current demonstration projects that are partially funded by AQMD.  Staff will follow up with another report upon completion of the demonstration projects, which, unfortunately, experienced delays in their start-up due to the permit moratorium.  He added that the delays experienced will likely necessitate an adjustment to the July 1, 2012 effective date of the rule and that staff will be ready to initiate formal rulemaking later on this year to address this need. 

    Supervisor Campbell expressed support for the collaborative effort between the District and regulated community in implementing demonstration projects. Representatives from the Los Angeles and Orange County Sanitation Districts, Eastern Municipal Water District and Riverside County commented that they would support an extension to the effective date and that staff’s views regarding the feasibility and cost of the controls in the interim report were too optimistic.  They suggested that staff wait for the completion of the demonstration projects prior to reaching any conclusion relative to the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of controlling biogas-powered engines.  Dr. Tisopulos responded that the test results thus far, although limited, allow staff to be optimistic about the feasibility of the controls and agreed that it would make sense to wait for the completion of the demonstration projects prior to finalizing the technology assessment.  Regarding the costs and cost effectiveness estimates, he added that the report simply reflected information provided by technology vendors as well as limited information available from some of the demonstration projects.  He added that as the demonstration projects progress and more real-world information becomes available, staff will be prepared to revise its estimates and present them as part of the final report.  Board Member Judith Mitchell indicated that since there is a small universe impacted by this requirement we should look at more data and expressed support for the amendment providing the regulated community with more time for compliance.           

    Supervisor Campbell left the meeting during Public Comment and Ms. Carney chaired the meeting. Ms. Carney left the meeting for item #1 and Josie Gonzales chaired the remainder of the meeting.

WRITTEN REPORTS  

Jane Carney had a question about the Penalty Report and Exxon Mobil’s large penalty. Nancy Feldman, District Prosecutor, explained that it wasn’t one penalty but several which added up to the large fine. Mr. Nazemi, Deputy Executive Officer of Engineering & Compliance, also explained that the list of rule violations in this report shows violations of RECLAIM, fugitive leaks and other miscellaneous violations, but no public nuisance violations were present.

All written reports were acknowledged by the Committee.

  1. Rule 1420.1 – Emissions Standards for Lead from Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Facilities

    Susan Nakamura, Planning and Rules Manager, gave a presentation on issues raised at the Stationary Source Committee of May 21, 2010. AQMD staff explained that the proposed rule includes core requirements and a compliance “contingency” plan that is a safety net to ensure that facilities will achieve the new ambient lead air quality standard. This approach is proactive and provides greater regulatory certainty and a more transparent public process to the affected facility and the public. It also recognizes the fact that there is no safe level for lead exposure. The compliance-plan-only approach can potentially delay the implementation of reduction measures because the review and approval process can be lengthy between AQMD staff and facility operators and it does not offer the same level of public participation as a typical rulemaking proceeding. Board Member Mitchell asked if AQMD staff was asking the Board to select or approve one of the three approaches for PR 1420.1. The AQMD staff clarified that staff was presenting the three approaches to help the Board members understand the thought process and evolution of the proposed rule. Board Member Mitchell stated that the rule development should aggressively move forward because of the harmful nature of lead and expressed her concern for lead exposure to the workers at the facilities. Barbara Baird, AQMD District Counsel, noted that last week, U.S. EPA proposed to designate the Los Angeles County portion of the air basin as non-attainment with the lead NAAQS, with a final designation to be set this October. She added that a SIP submittal will be required and that the proposed rule will put the agency underway with SIP implementation.

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

There were no public comments.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. 

Attachment (DOC, 56k)

Attendance Roster

 




This page updated: June 26, 2015
URL: ftp://lb1/hb/2010/July/100734a.htm