State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD State Office Building 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Room 1194 San Francisco, CA January 10, 1974 9:30 a.m. AGENDA 74-2-1 Approval of Minutes of December 18, 1973 Meeting. 74-2-2 Public Hearing - Proposed Enforcement Action With Respect to Variances for Stationary Sources. 74-2-3 Consideration of Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District Enforcement Actions - Yolo County Rice Mills. 74-2-4 Staff Report - Responses from Local APCD's Concerning Kraft Pulp Mill Control Programs. 74-2-5 Consideration of State Implementation Plan Revision to Provide Indirect Source Review Procedures. 74-2-6 Other Business - a. Research Proposals b. Executive Session - Personnel and Litigation 74-2-7 Remarks from Audience - End of Morning and Afternoon Sessions. ITEM NO.: 74-2-2 Public Hearing on Proposed Enforcement Action With Respect to Variances for Stationary Sources. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 74-1, which would allow for the assumption of the powers, in certain air pollution control districts to enforce applicable regulations or to grant or modify variances, including conditions thereto and compliance schedules. This would avoid direct enforcement action by the Environmental Protection Agency. SUMMARY 1. The EPA has indicated that if approvable compliance schedules are not received from the State by March 15, 1974, EPA will bypass state and local air pollution control authority and take direct enforcement action. 2. To avoid direct EPA enforcement action, the Air Resources Board should: a) Assume the powers of the districts listed in Exhibit I, Resolution 74-1 to take appropriate legal action to enforce local regulation or to grant or modify variances, including conditions thereto, and compliance schedules for the sources listed in Exhibit I. This action would be taken pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 39054, 39054.2, 39273, 39274, and 39276. b) Continue this hearing until March 12, 1974 with respect to the assumption of the powers of the Districts listed in Exhibits II and III, Resolution 74-1, to take appropriate legal action to enforce local regulations or to grant or modify variances, including conditions thereto, and compliance schedules for the sources listed in Exhibits II and III. ITEM NO.: 74-2-3 Consideration of Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District Enforcement Actions - Yolo County Rice Mills. RECOMMENDATION Instruct the Executive Officer to: 1) write the District Hearing Board and request that variance/compliance schedules be established for all sources denied permits to operate, and 2) request the district to determine whether proposed housekeeping procedures for the bin on drier Number 2 would solve the problems attributable to this source. The matter should be continued to February 14, 1974. INTRODUCTION In October, 1973 the staff received public complaints and inquiries indicating a problem with emissions from rice drying and milling operations in West Sacramento, which is in the jurisdiction of the Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District. The staff established an ambient air suspended particulate concentration monitoring facility in the area and confirmed the problem. In response to the complaint, the Board held a public hearing on November 13, 1973 to consider whether emissions from the Rice Growers Association (RGA) and Rice Mills products (RMP) rice plants were in compliance with applicable rule and regulations of the District, and whether the District had taken reasonable action to enforce it regulations if emissions were not in compliance. District personnel testified that a meeting of the district hearing board was scheduled for December 11, 1973 to consider variances for both companies. The ARB's November 13, 1973 hearing was continued until the January 10, 1974 meeting to allow for consideration of the district hearing board actions. ARB STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING DISTRICT ACTIONS The District Hearing Board issues variances for 3 of the 7 RGA sources for which a variance was requested. Emissions from the sources for which a variance was not issued will be controlled by RGA on its own time schedule. It would have been better if the Hearing Board had issued variances which required installation of control equipment on a predetermined schedule for all seven sources. This would establish officially the compliance schedule the company outlined for those sources the hearing board feels that variances are not needed. If the schedule was not met, the district could then take immediate enforcement action, thereby preventing the possibility of emissions from the noncomplying source causing problems during the next drying season. The District believes this was not necessary because it has denied the company permits to operate without appropriate control during the next harvest season. The variance issued for drier Number 2 did not include control of emissions, beyond housekeeping, from the bin near the top of the drier. Fine material is emitted from this elevated source and may contribute to the problem in the trailer court. The district should determine that housekeeping, without control equipment will solve the problem. POSSIBLE BOARD ACTION At the close of the hearing, the Air Resources Board, may: 1. Find the District Hearing Board actions inadequate and take appropriate legal action pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 39274 to enforce the local air pollution control plan, including the emission standards and enforcement procedures therein, and may take any action the District is authorized to take; 2. Instruct the Executive Officer to: a) write the District Hearing Board and request that variance/compliance schedules be established for all sources denied permits to operate, and b) request the district to determine whether proposed housekeeping procedures for the bin on drier Number 2 would solve the problems attributable to this source. The matter should be continued to February 14, 1974, and 3. Find that the District has taken reasonable steps to control this problem and require no further action. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends alternative Number 2 and that the entire matter be continued to February 14, 1974, to consider the District's response. ITEM NO.: 74-2-4 Informational Report on District Responses to the Report "Kraft Pulp Mill Emissions in California". RECOMMENDATION Continue to follow the actions being taken by the Humboldt County Air Pollution Control District and the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District to implement the recommendations made in the kraft pulp mill report. Follow the action being taken by EPA concerning the compliance schedule adopted by the Shasta County Air Pollution Control District for the Simpson Lee Paper Company. DISCUSSION At the November 13, 1973 Air Resources Board meeting in Sacramento, a report "Kraft Pulp Mill Emissions in California" was discussed. As a result of this discussion, the Board directed the staff to transmit the recommendations made in the report to the three Districts in which pulp mills are located and to report to the Board on January 10, 1974 on the responses of the Districts to the recommendations. The Humboldt County Air Pollution Control District and the Bay Area Air Pollution Control district are both taking positive actions to implement the recommendation made in the report. The Shasta County Air Pollution Control District has adopted a compliance schedule for the Simpson Lee Paper Company with a final compliance date of January 15, 1976. The Board had recommended that a compliance schedule be adopted that would bring particulate emissions from the mill into compliance with District regulations by EPA cutoff date July 31, 1975. EPA has stated that the compliance schedule as adopted cannot be approved and that further action will be taken. The other recommendations made for Shasta County will be implemented. ITEM NO.: 74-2-4 Informational Report on District Responses to the Report "Kraft Pulp Mill Emissions in California". DISCUSSION At the May 2, 1973 Air Resources Board meeting in Eureka, the Board directed the staff to investigate the variance granted the Simpson Lee Paper Company in shasta County and to prepare a report on the program that the two pulp mills in Humboldt County were implementing to reduce odor emissions. In order to accomplish these tasks, the staff studied the programs currently used to control odor emissions at the four kraft pulp mills located in California. At the November 13, 1973 Air Resources Board meeting in Sacramento, a report "Kraft Pulp Mill Emissions in California" was discussed in detail. Representatives of the Humboldt County Air Pollution Countrol Distirct, the Shasta County Air Pollution Control District, and the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District and representatives of the four kraft pulp mills made presentations to the Board. After hearing these comments, the Board directed the staff to transmit to the appropriate districts the recommendations made in the report and to report back to the Board on January 10, 1974 on the districts' responses. Letters transmitting the recommendations were mailed on November 23, 1973 (letter attached). ITEM NO.: 74-2-5 Consideration of State Implementation Plan Revision to Provide for Indirect Source Review Procedures. RECOMMENDATION To be made After Board's Wednesday, January 9, 1974 workshop on this subject. SUMMARY The Board help public hearings on November 13, 1973 and December 18, 1973 to consider amendments to the State Implementation Plan to provide for the review and regulation of indirect sources of air pollution. Action on the proposed amendments was deferred until January 10, 1974 to provide time to receive additional testimony on the proposal as revised on December 18, 1973. Action was also deferred so that the indirect source review plan expected to be promulgated by EPA could be considered; EPA has, however, deferred promulgation of a plan from mid-December to the end of January. ATTACHMENTS: Summary of written testimony received after December 7, 1973 on Air Resources Board Indirect Source Proposal. Summary of testimony presented at December 18, 1973 Public Hearing on Air Resources Board Indirect source Proposal. Summary of Testimony presented at EPA public hearing on its proposed indirect source regulations. December 18, 1973 proposal.