State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Crystal Ballroom
Hotel San Franciscan
1231 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
February 23, 1978
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
78-4-1 Status Report Regarding Adoption by Local Air Pollution 1
Control Districts of Regulations for Controlling the
Emissions from Lightering Operations.
78-4-2 Status Report and Consideration of Model Rule Regarding 30
the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Development
of Coke Calcining Regulations.
78-4-3 Continuation of Hearing to Consider proposed Model Rule for
the Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Automobile
Assembly-Line Coating Operations.
78-4-4 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel & Litigation
b. Research Proposals
ITEM NO.: 78-4-1
Status Report Regarding Adoption by Local Air Pollution Control
Districts of Rules for the Control of Emissions from Lightering
Operations.
RECOMMENDATION
Delegate to the Executive Officer the authority to hold a meeting
for the purpose of modifying the model rule and to approve
changes in the model rule.
SUMMARY
Based on a staff report on lightering presented at its November
21, 1977 meeting, the Board approved a model rule which would
control both sulfur dioxide and organic gas emissions from
lightering and recommended that the rule be adopted by each
coastal air pollution control district in California. The Board
also directed that the staff report in January on the progress
made by the districts toward adoption of the rule.
As of this writing, the model rule has not been adopted by any of
the coastal air pollution control districts. The South Coast Air
Quality Management District has chosen to delay adoption at least
until funding arrangements have been completed for a study
intended to provide evidence concerning the amounts of emissions
transported from lightering areas to the southern California
mainland and until the Air Resources Board staff advises it of
anticipated changes to the model rule. The San Diego County air
Pollution Control district, although anxious to adopt a
lightering rule, has postponed adoption pending formal
notification by the Air Resources Board of changes to the rule
and assurance that other coastal districts from Ventura county to
the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District have postponed
adoption until they are furnished with a definition of those
California coastal waters lying off their coasts. Once the
definition is available, these districts will consider adoption
of the rule. The North Coast Air Basin Air Pollution Control
Council has resolved not to adopt the model rule and to refer its
jurisdiction over lightering operations to the Air Resources
Board. Because it appears unlikely that the oil transportation
industry would conduct lightering operations in waters off the
Del Norte, Humboldt or Mendocino County Air Pollution Control
Districts, however, the staff believes it unnecessary to apply
the model rule in those waters.
Information made available to the staff since the Board's
November 21 meeting indicates that certain modifications to the
model rule would facilitate adoption and enforcement. It is
recommended that the model rule be modified to:
1. Delete the definitions of Southern, Central and Northern
California Coastal Waters and insert instead a definition of
California Coastal Waters comprised of waters from the
California-Oregon border to the California-Mexico border;
2. Delete the interim control provision requiring 80 percent
control of organic gas emissions;
3. Prohibit the unloading of organic liquid cargo from a
lighter in a California port if such lighter has violated
any provision of the rule;
4. Delete the provision requiring that an exemption from a
prohibition of the rule be obtained from the district Air
Pollution Control Officer or Executive Officer in cases
where it can be reasonably foreseen that a vessel, for
safety reasons, will not be able to comply with the
prohibition;
5. Require monitoring of either the sulfur content of fuel used
to propel a lighter or the sulfur dioxide content of a
lighter's stack gases;
6. Require that lighter owners or operators take certain steps
to facilitate determinations of emissions by district
personnel;
7. Extend the compliance dates in recognition of the additional
time necessary for local districts to adopt and implement
the rule;
8. Incorporate various non-substantive language improvements.
ITEM NO.: 78-4-2
Status Report and Consideration of Model Rule Regarding the South
Coast Air Quality Management District's Development of Coke
Calcining Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Proposed Model Rule for Controlling Emissions of
Sulfur Oxides from Petroleum Coke Calcining Facilities as shown
in Exhibit A and recommend that such rule be considered for
adoption by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
SUMMARY
On November 22, 1977, the Board conducted a public hearing to
consider adoption of a model rule for the SCAQMD for controlling
sulfur oxides emissions from petroleum coke calcining kilns. As
a result of testimony presented at that time, the hearing was
continued to January and subsequently deferred to the February
Board meeting. Since November, staff has met with
representatives of the affected coke calcining companies and with
the SCAQMD staff. The District was to consider adoption of a
coke calcining rule at its January Board meeting, but has
deferred consideration of such a rule until July. Martin
Marietta Corporation plans to begin tests of its scrubber in
March or April. Great Lakes Carbon Corporation has hired Stanford
Research Institute (SRI) to evaluate the impact of suing
scrubbers on its kilns and will report on SRI's findings at the
Board meeting. In addition, Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
intends to test, over the next 13 months, the suitability of a
dry injection system for sulfur oxides control.
Based on information obtained since the November hearing, the
staff proposes that a model rule be approved for controlling
sulfur oxides emissions from these kilns.
ITEM NO.: 78-2-2
Proposed Model Rule for the Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
from Automobile Assembly-line coating Operations.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the model rule and direct the staff to transmit it to the
South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Bay Area Air
Pollution Control District for consideration as an amendment to
their rules and regulations.
SUMMARY
There are five automobile assembly plants in the state, three in
the South Coast Air Quality Management District and two in the
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. Volatile organic
compound emissions from these plants in 1977 totaled 30 tons per
day in the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District and 15 tons
per day in the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Two
of these plants use waterborne coatings with low organic solvent
contents, and as a result produce very low emissions, averaging
11 pounds per vehicle produced. The plants using solvent-borne
coatings emit an average of 29 pounds of solvent per vehicle
produced.
This report considers the feasibility of using waterborne
coatings in the three plants presently using solvent-borne
coatings. The costs and additional energy consumption necessary
to convert to use of waterborne coatings were estimated by Ford
and General Motors; however, such costs an energy estimates
appear to be exaggerated.
Equipment changes projected by Ford and General Motors to convert
to waterborne coatings at their plants included lengthening of
spray booths and ovens, changes to the vehicle conveyance
systems, and installation of air conditioning for spray booths.
Based on the information provided by Ford and General Motors and
on the staff's own analysis, costs estimated by Ford and General
Motors were reduced. The staff also believes that the lowered
solvent consumption in coatings and the discontinued use of
afterburners at the plants would more than offset the increased
energy consumption estimated by Ford and General Motors.
Emission reductions as a result of the regulations to be adopted
based on the model rule are estimated to be 27 tons per day, 21
in the Bay Area air Pollution Control District and 6 tons in the
South Coast Air Quality Management District.
An effective date of December 1, 1982 is recommended. this will
allow time for the automobile manufacturers to consider other
alternatives to waterborne coatings and to convert plants to use
of those coatings. In particular, General Motors expects to
decide on the possibility of using high-solids polyurethane
topcoats in mid 1980. The companies estimate that two to three
years are necessary to convert plants to use of alternate coating
systems.
Three other important points should be made. First, General
Motors is building a new plant in Oklahoma City that will use
waterborne coatings. Second, additional work needs to be done to
develop coatings with the 70% equivalent solids called for in the
model rule. If such a coating is not developed by 1982, the
staff feels that the rule should be amended to reflect the
highest solids coating available at that time, but no less than
the 62% presently available. The third important point is that a
new type of spray gun is presently being developed that may
eliminate the need for air conditioning spray booths. If this
hot air spray gun is successful, costs and energy consumption to
use waterborne coatings will be much lower.