MEETING HIGHLIGHTS

Pom Pom Ganguli welcomed the SRC members and the audience to the second SRC meeting of 2000. The topics listed below were discussed during the meeting.

1. Minutes from the January SRC meeting

4. Proposed Regulation XIII amendments
5. Role of the SRC

• In reference to the paragraph titled "Overall Purpose" (at the top of page 3), I feel that the SRC should be involved in efforts to change a BACT determination if their is a need to do so, as was the case for the LTO BACT determination at Alta Dena Dairy. (Greg Adams)

• In reference to Steve Barhite’s comments (third paragraph, page 5) regarding equipment included in the EPA’s clearinghouse as being LAER candidates, is a LAER candidate the same thing as a BACT determination? (Ed Cancilla)

Item: Section 5B of the La Paloma BACT listing should include information on both the SCR and SCO-NOx equipment, not just the SCO-NOx equipment.

Response: The listing was updated to include information on the SCR equipment.

Item: CO2 Plant BACT Determination Update

District staff has decided to change the BACT determination for the CO2 plant that will be operated by BOC Gases. The thermal oxidizer to control the VOC emissions from the plant specified by the initial permit to construct will not be required. The permit will be reissued with different permit conditions and a new BACT determination form will be presented to the SRC in the near future.

Item: Small Boiler BACT Update.

District staff received a copy of another source test that was performed at Corcoran State Prison (3 runs, 30 minutes each) and the highest NOx level was 6.5 ppm corrected to 3% oxygen. Staff also learned that the San Joaquin Valley AQMD issued another permit with a 12 ppm NOx limit for a small boiler at the La Paloma generating station. Based on the above, it appears that this air district considers 12 ppm as achieved in practice for small boilers. The District recently permitted a small Clayton boiler (rated at 12.6 MMbtu/hour) at 12 ppm NOx based on the results of a source test that was conducted in May 1999. The boiler was tested at three different loads, and the highest NOx level was 11 ppm corrected to 3% oxygen. At this time, staff intends to delay the issuance of an updated boiler BACT guidance document until after the proposed Regulation XIII amendments and minor source BACT Guidelines are adopted by the Board.

The BACT SRC is a committee that is subject to the Brown Act and because of that the proceedings must comply with certain requirements that are specified in the government code.

Notice requirements vary depending on whether it’s a regular meeting, a special meeting, or an emergency meeting. Most SRC meetings would be classified as regular meetings. All regular SRC meetings must be properly noticed and there must be a written agenda posted (in a location accessible to the public, including handicap accessibility) at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. The committee members must also receive 72 hours notice and a copy of the agenda. The agenda for a special meeting must be posted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Special meetings may be called by the presiding officer, or by a majority of the committee members.

The agenda must state the items that will be discussed at the meeting and it must include a public comment period. For each item on the agenda there should be a brief description that does not exceed 20 words. In general there should not be any discussion of items that are not on the agenda except in response to questions posed by members of the public during the public comment period. During the public comment period, members of the public may comment on any matter within the committee’s subject matter jurisdiction.

 Items may be added to the agenda of a regular meeting after the 72 hours agenda posting if a determination is made by 2/3 of the committee members present at the meeting that "there is a need to take immediate action" and that the need for action came to the attention of the District subsequent to the agenda being posted. If less than 2/3 of the committee members are present, then there must be a unanimous vote of those members present. For special meetings, no items not included in the agenda may be discussed during the meeting.

SRC meetings are open to the public, and persons attending the meetings are not required to sign the attendance sheet. Members of the public are permitted to comment on any agenda item during or prior to the committee’s consideration of the item. In addition, members of the public may comment on any matter within the committee’s jurisdiction during the public comment period. Speakers may be limited to a specified period of time (e.g., three minutes) and they are not prohibited from criticizing the agency's policies, procedures, etc. However, if members of the public become disruptive, they can be asked to curtail their comments or (if that fails) leave the meeting. In cases where the entire meeting becomes disruptive (and you can’t restore order), all members of the public can be asked to leave the meeting. One exception is that news media personnel can stay at the meeting as long as they are not participating in the disruption.

Telephone conference calls can be used for the benefit of both the public and committee members in connection with any SRC meeting. When teleconferencing is used, agendas must be posted at all the teleconferencing locations. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the meeting notice and agenda, and the teleconference location must be accessible to the public (including handicap access). You can have a teleconference location outside the District as long as a quorum of committee members is inside the District.

Serial meetings are prohibited by the Brown Act. A serial meeting occurs when committee members speak to each other to come to a collective concurrence. Committee members need to be careful regarding the types of communications they have with each other, and they should not attempt to obtain collective concurrence regarding issues relative to the committee. Subcommittees (containing less than a quorum of committee members) established for a limited time period to report back on a specific issue are not subject to the Brown Act.

• Are there conflict of interest issues associated with the Brown Act? (Greg Adams)

• Does the Brown Act apply to all District advisory groups? (Greg Adams)

• The Energy Commission has addressed the teleconferencing issue by setting up an 800 number and putting it on the agenda so that anyone can dial in and participate in the meeting. Could the District adopt this approach? (Gary Rubenstein)

• Committee members frequently send e-mails to each other regarding issues stemming from a SRC meeting. Is that a violation of the Brown Act? (Hal Taback)

• The meeting agenda should not include an item titled "Open Discussion" because the Brown Act requires a brief description of each item that is included in the agenda. Open discussion could mean a discussion of anything. (Gloria White-Brown)

Staff did not receive any comments regarding the Section I BACT listings (i.e., Application Numbers 359772, 362616, and 362406) that were submitted to the committee at the January meeting. Therefore, staff will proceed to post those listings on the BACT web page. Staff made some minor changes to the Section II listing (for gas turbines) based on comments submitted by Gary Rubenstein.

Two BACT listings for small boilers (heat input < 20 MMbtu/hour) were submitted to the committee (Application Numbers 362486 and 363025). Both boilers will utilize low-NOx burners to comply with NOx emission limits. The hospital boiler (Application Number 363025) will be equipped with a dual fuel burner, and the backup fuel will be Amber 363. Written comments regarding these listings are due within two weeks, and staff will respond to any comments at next month’s meeting.

• Is "premix metal fiber burner" a generic term for the burner? (Greg Adams)

• What is the efficiency of the boilers? (Deanna Haines)

• What is Amber 363 fuel? (Hal Taback)

• Why is the boiler allowed to operate at 40 ppm with Amber 363 when 30 ppm has been achieved in practice? (Steve Hernandez)

Staff is in the process of amending Regulation XIII (New Source Review) to create different BACT requirements for major and minor sources. For major sources, staff will utilize the current Part A and B BACT Guidelines, and for minor sources, staff will create Parts C and D of the BACT Guidelines. Part C will be policy and procedures and Part D will be the BACT listings. For Part D, staff is considering a return to the previous way the District applied BACT, that is, by listing source categories and the applicable BACT limits. This approach will provide a higher degree of specificity and certainty for minor sources that are trying to determine BACT requirements. The procedure for updating Part D (with new and more stringent BACT determinations) will follow SB 456 requirements. Staff expects to have Parts C and D developed at the time of the Board meeting, and there will be one or two public workshops to discuss the contents of these documents. With the exception of boilers, spray booths, and possibly engines, BACT for most of the categories included in Part D will be similar to what was published in the 1998 version of the BACT Guidelines.

For major sources, there will not be any changes to the BACT update process. Staff is currently in the process of identifying the sources that will be subject to major source BACT (i.e., LAER). In cases where it is not clear if a facility is a major source, the District may require a facility cap that limits the emissions to sub major source thresholds. The major source emissions thresholds are defined in Rule 1302.

 Role of SRC

A draft document (dated 2/17/00) that describes the role of the SRC was provided at the meeting. The document delineates the overall purpose of the SRC, the specific role of SRC members, and the specific role of AQMD staff. The document has been reviewed by the subcommittee and their recommendations have been incorporated into the document. For new and more stringent BACT determinations, SRC members will have 30-days to review and comment on the appropriateness of the BACT determination. For other BACT listings, there will be a 2-step process: (1) staff will provide the BACT listings to the committee, and (2) committee members will have two weeks after the SRC meeting to submit written comments to the District. District staff will respond to the written comments at the following meeting. When needed, permitting staff will be brought in to respond to specific issues.

• Since recent BACT determinations have been made on a case-by-case basis, how is the District going to establish BACT requirements for minor sources? (Katy Wolf)

• What involvement (if any) will the committee have in the minor source BACT development process? (Gary Rubenstein)

• Will the new minor source BACT updates (Part D) that are more stringent than what is included in the 1998 BACT Guidelines be subject to public comment? (Katy Wolf)

• For the reciprocating engines, will there be any difference between minor and major source BACT? (Karl Lany)

• There are some sources that are in RECLAIM that are minor sources under Title I. Will Regulation XX be amended to include minor source BACT? (Jocelyn Thompson)

• For minor source categories where add-on controls are not cost effective below a certain threshold (e.g., spray booth applications with VOC emissions < 39 pounds/day), will the District specify super compliant materials as BACT when use of these materials is technically feasible and cost effective at a much lower emission threshold? (Rita Loof)

• The District needs to clarify whether or not HAP emissions can be used to classify a facility as a major source. (Katy Wolf)

• For minor source BACT, will the cost effectiveness analyses follow the District’s previously used methodology, or will a new methodology be developed? Also, does staff intend to update the cost effectiveness limits? (Richard Davis)

• The AQMD staff role as delineated in the draft Role of the SRC document should include a third item that stipulates that AQMD staff should provide raw data related to the BACT determination as requested. There may be cases where such information is needed in order to fully understand the BACT determination. (Deanna Haines)

• Is the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse available on the web? (Greg Danenhauer)

• The California Air Resources Board’s ICAT program provides money to persons who are trying to bring innovative clean air technologies to commercialization. The program has $1,000,000 available, and proposals are due by March 2000. (Bob Giorgis)

There was no further discussion and the meeting was closed. The next meeting is scheduled for March 23, 2000, in Conference Room GB. Note that meeting information is available on the AQMD web page.