BOARD MEETING DATE: May 7, 2010
AGENDA NO. 25
REPORT:
Stationary Source Committee
SYNOPSIS:
The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, April 16, 2010. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be May 21, 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 10:30 a.m. Present were Jane Carney (acting chair) (left at 11:55 a.m.), Josie Gonzales and Judith Mitchell. Absent were Dennis Yates, Bill Campbell and Ronald Loveridge.
Acting Chair Jane Carney announced that agenda item #’s 1, 2 and 6 will be heard out of order. Ms. Carney indicated that for these items she had possible conflicts of interest. Ms. Carney indicated that she would not participate in item # 1 due to a potential conflict as Loma Linda University Medical Center is a source of income for her, item #2 due to a conflict as U.S. Battery is a source of income for her and #6 due to a conflict as Modular Metal Fabricators, Inc. is a source of income for her.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Clean Communities Plan Community Pilot Programs
Susan Nakamura, Planning and Rules Manager, provided an overview of the Pilot Program for developing Community Exposure Reduction Plans contained in the 2010 Draft Clean Communities Plan (CCP) that was released for public comment at the April 2, 2010 Board meeting. Board Member Mitchell asked if there would be 2 separate stakeholder meetings for the two selected communities. Staff responded that there would be. Board Member Gonzales wants the plan structure to be proactive rather than reactive, and to use in-house, established information to overlay the plan. Board Member Gonzales also wants to be aggressive in the approach and to formulate the plan to be the shared vision of area and community. The plan needs to be put together well by the time it goes back to the Board. Board Member Mitchell stated that both regions have high rail traffic and asked how that will be addressed. Barbara Baird commented that it cannot be answered at this time due to pending litigation on the locomotive regulations. Oscar Abarca also commented that other agencies would be brought in to address mobile sources where AQMD authority is limited. Small Businesses Alliance representative Bill LaMarr stated he hopes that the plan’s approach is sensitive to small businesses and to continue cooperative meetings in the future. Board Member Gonzales added that the plan approach would need to be conscientious to small businesses. Coalition for Clean Air representative Luis Morales commented that the CCP should also identify opportunities for businesses to improve their communities green initiatives.
Extension of Permits to Construct Pursuant to the Chairman’s “Helping Hand Initiative for 2009”
Brian Yeh, Senior Engineering Manager, provided a status update on one of the elements for the “Governing Board’s Helping Hand Initiative for 2009”. This element deals with the extension of Permits to Construct that are issued to businesses for the construction of their projects.
The “Governing Board’s Helping Hand Initiative for 2009” was introduced by Chairman Burke and supplemented by other Governing Board members at the January 9, 2009, Board meeting. This initiative was intended to provide a “helping hand” to stakeholders during the economic downturn while the District was working towards the clean air goals. Based on the Board’s directive, staff developed a work plan to implement all components of this initiative. This implementation work plan was approved by the Governing Board at the February 6, 2009 Board Meeting.
Part of the “Helping Hand Initiative” was to provide enhanced customer service activities for permit applicants and permit holders. One of the key elements of this initiative was to offer one-year extensions for Permits to Construct that have already been issued to the businesses to accommodate their financing delays. This element is necessary because District Rule 205 specifies that a Permit to Construct expires one year from the date of issuance, unless the permit is extended. Under the economic downturn, some businesses could not complete their projects within one year due to various financial issues. A one-year permit extension would provide these businesses with necessary time to overcome their difficulty in securing their financing.
To ensure consistent implementation of this element, a policy guidance document was issued on March 26, 2009 to provide staff with guidelines on the procedure to grant the one-year permit extension. Staff has granted extensions to over sixty Permits to Construct for businesses in 2009 to address their various needs. However, due to the slow improvements in economy, businesses continue to request the one-year extension this year for the permits that we issued in 2009. For the same reasons, some businesses are requesting staff to provide them with another one-year extension for their permits that we extended last year.
To address this issue, staff’s intent is to continue to offer the one-year extension for Permits to Construct that were issued in 2009 and allow a second year extension for Permits to Construct that were already extended last year. As a part of the approval process, staff will review all permit extension requests carefully to ensure that the projects are not subject to any new toxics requirements resulting from adoption of new rules or addition of new compounds to existing rules that could cause a toxic impact.
During the public comment period a representative from Coalition for Clean Air asked if AQMD staff was going to conduct a cost benefit analysis for each permit prior to granting the extension. Mr. Nazemi indicated that the cost impact is to the businesses, which have to reapply and pay redundant fees to obtain the same permits which AQMD has already issued. AQMD staff was not contemplating to conduct any additional cost benefit analysis.
Rule 1143 – Consumer Products & Multi-Purpose Solvents
Naveen Berry, Planning & Rules Manager provided an oral report on the Proposed Amended Rule 1143, summarizing that on April 1, 2010, the Los Angeles County Superior Court kept Rule 1143 in effect with the exception of the final VOC limit of 25 g/L for consumer paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents. Staff is proposing to rescind the 25 g/L VOC limit at the June 4, 2010 Governing Board meeting to comply with the judgment and writ issued. This proposed amendment will result in foregoing 3.81 tons per day of VOC emission reductions. Staff plans to readopt the 25 g/L VOC limit subsequent to addressing the CEQA-related issues raised by the Court at the July 9, 2010 Governing Board meeting. The public or the committee did not have any additional questions or comments.
Rule 102 – Definition of Terms
Mr. Naveen Berry presented a status report on the most recent available information on Dimethyl Carbonate (DMC) including actions taken by other agencies. Given the new data on DMC and remaining health issues pertaining to the compound, Mr. Berry asked the Committee for guidance on the need for a worker exposure study and whether to pursue VOC exemption for DMC. Representatives from the public opposed the exemption idea and maintained their concerns about the potential health concerns, especially from DMC’s metabolite, methanol. Other industry members expressed support for the exemption. The Committee indicated that staff should not pursue a general exemption, but rather consider limited exemptions for industrial applications. In addition, the Committee asked staff to present the DMC issue in front of the entire Governing Board at a later time when additional information from the U.S. EPA study on methanol carcinogenicity becomes available.
Written reports were taken out of order.
WRITTEN REPORTS
All written reports were acknowledged by the Committee.
Acting Committee chair Jane Carney left the meeting. Supervisor Gonzales chaired the remainder of the meeting.
Rule 317 – Clean Air Act Non-Attainment Fees
Dr. Laki Tisopulos, Assistant Deputy Executive Officer with the Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources gave the staff presentation on this item and briefed the Committee on comments received during the Public Consultation meeting on March 23. Relative to an inquiry from the public regarding how new (post-2010) equipment installed in existing major sources will be treated for baseline purposes, Dr. Tisopulos responded that for new facilities with equipment meeting BACT standards and emissions fully offset, the baseline emissions will be based on the facility’s potential to emit. For existing facilities installing new equipment, however, the scenario may be more complicated depending whether the facility provides offsets for the newly added equipment or not and Dr. Tisopulos recommended that the issue is further discussed after the meeting. Relative to an inquiry as to how the crediting of Regulation III fees will be implemented, Dr. Chang responded that staff is working on an implementation mechanism that is aligned with the Reg III fees to address the cash flow issue and that many more public meetings will be held on this issue. The representative of the Small Business Alliance reiterated his comments from earlier SSC meetings that he remains concerned about the financial ramifications of this program on his members even with the proposed improvements by staff. Supervisor Gonzales recommended that staff incorporate all comment received as it proceeds with finalizing its proposal prior to the May hearing.
Rule 1420.1 – Emissions Standards for Lead from Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Facilities
This item was continued.
Rule 1144 – Vanishing Oils and Rust Inhibitors
This item was continued.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
Attachments (DOC, 55k)
Attendance Roster