BOARD MEETING DATE: November 5, 2010 AGENDA NO. 30

BOARD MEETING DATE: November 5, 2010
AGENDA NO. 30

REPORT:

Stationary Source Committee

SYNOPSIS:

The Stationary Source Committee met Friday, October 15, 2010. Following is a summary of that meeting. The next meeting will be November 19, at 10:30 a.m., in Conference Room CC8.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive and file.

Dennis Yates, Chair,
Stationary Source Committee

Attendance

The meeting began at 10:00 a.m. Present were Chair Dennis Yates, Board Members Jane Carney, Josie Gonzales, and Judith Mitchell. Absent were Board Members Bill Campbell and Ronald Loveridge.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

Adopt Rule 320 – Automatic Adjustment Based on Consumer Price Index for Regulation III Fees

Barbara Baird, District Counsel, gave the staff presentation on Proposed Rule 320. The rule would require that most Regulation III fees be automatically adjusted each year to reflect the change in the California CPI for the previous calendar year. At least eight (8) air districts already have similar automatic adjustments in their fee rules. The Board would retain the ability to adopt a different lower fee adjustment or no adjustment for any given year, but the automatic adjustment would then resume the following year unless the Board decided to do something different. In response to a question from Board Member Judith Mitchell, Ms. Baird clarified that as currently drafted, the fee rate would go down if the CPI for a given year was negative. There were no public comments at the committee meeting but two e-mails opposing the proposal were distributed, and Mayor Yates read them into the record.
Reg. XXX – Title V Permits
Reg. XVII – Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Jill Whynot, Director of Strategic Initiatives, provided a briefing on proposed amendments to Regulation XXX – Title V permits and a new rule for Regulation XVII – Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). These rules will go to the Board for consideration in November.

Ms. Whynot summarized what these programs entail and how GHGs will be added. Of 500 current Title V permits, approximately 50-60 may be large enough to trigger the thresholds established in U.S. EPA’s “Tailoring Rule.” Title V permits would need to include applicable requirements, which are currently only those related to BACT and/or permit conditions resulting from PSD review.

PSD requirements for GHGs include BACT and public notice. BACT for GHGs will be a case-by-case review. A U.S. EPA document for BACT for several categories of equipment is expected to be released in the next 2-3 weeks. If AQMD did not amend these rules, U.S. EPA would implement PSD and Title V, which could have potential for conflicting BACT determinations. Many of the comments from stakeholders have been resolved. There remains concern about the uncertainty of future BACT determinations.

There are also numerous lawsuits that could stop these federal permitting programs for GHGs. If this occurs, AQMD rules would be amended. However, “applicable requirements” as defined under Title V are only those related to PSD, which is being incorporated by reference.

Mohsen Nazemi, Deputy Executive Officer of Engineering and Compliance, added that CAPCOA has developed some guidance on BACT for GHGs. Barbara Baird noted that for the first six months, only facilities already required to have a PSD permit action for other reasons would need to have GHG review. That should be just a few facilities. That gives us an additional six months to better understand BACT for GHGs. In response to a Board Member question, Mr. Nazemi stated that only 1-2 dozen projects per year are expected to be over the PSD thresholds. Facilities can also reduce emissions or take a cap to stay out of PSD and Title V.
Rule 1143 – Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose Solvents
Naveen Berry, Planning & Rules Manager, presented a summary on Proposed Amended Rule (PAR) 1143. The amendment will propose an exemption for artist solvents and thinners that will make the rule more consistent with the state consumer products regulation by: (1) exempting artist solvents and thinners that are properly labeled and sold in containers that are one liter or less from applicable VOC limits; (2) defining artist solvents and thinners; and (3) making changes to the rule to clarify that all exempt products shall be subject to recordkeeping and reporting. The proposed amendment will result in 114 pounds of VOC emission reductions foregone per day. No public comments were received following the presentation

Ms. Carney indicated that she would not participate in agenda #4 due to conflict of interest as U.S. Battery is a source of income for her, at which time she left the meeting.
Rule 1420.1 – Emissions Standard for Lead from Large Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Facilities

Susan Nakamura, Planning and Rules Manager, summarized Proposed Rule 1420.1. Staff explained that the focal point of the proposal is to comply with the new U.S. EPA’s ambient concentration, which is 0.15 ug/m3. The proposed rule limits stack emissions at the facility to 0.045 lbs/hr to support achievement of the ambient concentration. The key issue remains should the emission limitation be lowered to 0.003 lbs/hr. In response to the Board’s interest, staff released two alternatives at the October 1, 2010 hearing that incorporated a 0.003 lb/hr emission limit for stack emissions. Staff concluded that these alternatives would require additional analysis. As a result, staff recommended a new alternative that would be to require a feasibility analysis for reaching 0.003 lb/hr as part of the compliance plan.

Mike Buckantz, RSR Corporation, spoke on behalf of Quemetco and handed out a chart and a table showing lead reductions achieved at the facility and stated this is also an air toxics rule and all possible reductions of lead emissions should be made. Quemetco has committed $40 million to installing controls similar to Quemetco at two other plants. They have shown that the technology is achievable and affordable to reduce total facility point source emissions to 0.003 lb/hr. Joe Dowd, Exide Technologies Vice President and General Manager, stated that there are only two lead acid battery recycling facilities west of Dallas. If one of those went out of business, it would remove part of the incentive to recycle. Exide intends to comply with the ambient lead standard controlling both stack and fugitive emissions. By controlling stack emissions to 0.003 lb/hr which is very expensive, they may not have the resources to properly address fugitive which may be the larger problem.