State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Ambassador Hotel
Ambassador Room
3400 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA
March 23, 1978
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
78-6-1 Consideration of a Petition from the Center for
Law in the Public Interest Regarding Alleged
Failure of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District to Adopt Best Available Technology
Regulations by December 31, 1977.
78-6-2 Consideration of Model Rule for the Control of
Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from New Gas-Fired
Fan Type Central Furnaces.
78-6-3 Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider
proposed Emissions Warranty Regulations (continued
from March 22).
78-6-4 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel & Litigation
b. Research Proposals
ITEM NO.: 78-6-1
Consideration of a Petition from the Center for Law in the Public
Interest Regarding Alleged Failure of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District to Adopt Best Available Technology
Regulations by December 31, 1977.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Adopt Resolution 78-23 and thereby 1) advise the district
that its failure to adopt the rules was inconsistent with
the purposes of division 26 of the Health and Safety Code;
2) request the district to work with ARB staff to develop
and adopt rules representing the best available
technological practices for control of all pollutants,
including sulfur oxides; and 3) schedule a formal public
hearing for July, 1978 under Health and Safety Code Section
40451 to consider the Center for Law petition and to make
such formal findings and orders as may be appropriate under
Section 40451.
Health and Safety Code Section 40440(a) provides that:
Not later than December 31, 1977, the south coast
district board shall adopt rules and regulations that
are not in conflict with federal and state laws and
regulations and reflect the best available
technological and administrative practices ....
A petition submitted by the Center for Law in the Public
Interest requests that the ARB make findings and take action
regarding the south coast district's failure to adopt by
December 31, 1977 certain SO2 control rules which had been
proposed for adoption by the district's staff. Under Health
and Safety Code Section 40451(c), a public hearing is
required before findings may be made or action may be taken.
Since this is not a formal public hearing, this report does
not recommend findings or formal action at this time,
pursuant to said section of the Health and Safety Code. The
report, however, does generally discuss the Health and
Safety Code requirement that the south coast district adopt
by December 31, 1977, rules reflecting Best Available
Technological and Administrative Practices (BATAP), and
outlines the procedures for appealing (as the Center has
done) the district's failure to adopt such rules by that
date.
The SCAQMD Board at its December 2, 1977 meeting voted to
postpone consideration of five proposed SO2 control rules,
pending the completion of a study on the SO2/sulfate problem
in general and an analysis of present and future control
strategies. The Center's petition is based on SCAQMD's
failure, by postponing adoption of appropriate SO2 control
rules, to comply with the requirements of Section 40440(a),
which is quoted above.
The petition is filed pursuant to Section 40451(a):
Within 30 days of any action, or failure to act, by the
south coast district board, any aggrieved person may
petition the state board to review such action or
failure to act ....
It requests that the ARB, pursuant to Section 40451(c),
direct the SCAQMD to adopt the five proposed rules
immediately. Section 40451 provides:
The state board may find the action or failure to act
of the south coast district board to be consistent or
inconsistent with the purposes of this division. Prior
to making any such finding, the state board shall hold
a public hearing, on the matter in the south coast
district. Upon finding that the action, or failure to
act, was inconsistent with the purposes of this
division, the state board may (1) direct that
appropriate action be taken by the south coast district
board to implement and effectuate the purposes of this
division, (2) take such action itself, (3) refer the
matter to any other state agency having jurisdiction,
or (4) any combination of the foregoing. In taking
such action, the state board is vested with all the
powers of the south coast district board.
When the district voted to postpone action on the SO2
control rules proposed by its staff, it requested and relied
upon an opinion from its counsel regarding the legal
significance of the December 31 deadline in Section 40440(a)
and the meaning of the term "best available technological
and administrative practices" (BATAP). District counsel
advised that the December 31 deadline was "directory" rather
than "mandatory," and that the use of the phrase "BATAP"
means that the district should not require any control
technology which is not already in use "under field
conditions." After reviewing the opinion of the District
counsel and the provisions of the law which were the subject
of the opinion, the ARB legal staff has concluded that the
district opinion incorrectly interprets the letter and
intent of the law.
Since the Board meeting of March 23 is not a formal public
hearing on the petition, the ARB should not make findings or
take action pursuant to that section at this time. The ARB
should instead notify the petitioners and the district that
it believes that the delay in adopting rules which reflect
BATAP for all air pollutants, including SO2, is inconsistent
with Section 40440(a). It should also notify the district
that it does not believe that the five SO2 rule proposed by
district staff may not represent BATAP, and that ARB staff
is currently developing a set of model rules for SO2 control
which are scheduled to be presented to the Board in May and
June, 1978. The ARB should request that the district work
closely with ARB staff to develop and adopt as soon as
possible rules representing the best available technological
practices.
APPENDICES: I. Copy of Health and Safety code Section 40451
II. Petition of the Center for Law in the Public
Interest
Exhibit A: Minutes of 12/2/77 meeting of
SCAQMD
Exhibit B: Proposed Rule 1105 and staff
report
Exhibit C: Proposed Rule 1109 and staff
report
Exhibit D: Proposed Rule 1109.1 and staff
report
Exhibit E: Proposed Rule 1109.2 and staff
report
Exhibit F: Proposed Rule 1119 and staff
report
Exhibit G: Letter from Center for Law in
the Public Interest to Mr.
A.A. McCandless, Chairman
SCAQMD
III. Opinion of District Counsel, January 5, 1978
ITEM NO.: 78-6-2
Proposed Model Rule for the Control of Oxides of Nitrogen
Emissions from New Gas-Fired Fan Type Central Furnaces.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the model rule and direct the staff to transmit it
to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Bay
Area Air Pollution Control District for consideration as an
amendment to their rules and regulations; and
2. Approve Resolution 78-14 supporting the efforts of the
Energy Commission to encourage the use of solar energy.
SUMMARY
Emissions of oxides of nitrogen from space heating equipment
including gas-fired fan type central furnaces constitute
approximately one percent of the total inventory of NOx
statewide. The impact of these emissions may be greater than the
figure of one percent indicates, because these emissions are
concentrated in the season when the ambient air quality standard
has been exceeded and the emissions are released close to the
ground.
Approximately 50 tons of NOx are emitted per day statewide from
all residential space heating equipment, with approximately 30 of
these tons emanating from gas-fired fan type central furnaces.
Technology which will reduce emissions of NOx from this source by
over 80 percent is available.
Utilization of solar energy has a great potential for reduction
of emissions, since it supplants fossil fuel combustion and the
concomitant emissions of air pollutants.
A rule patterned after the model rule and adopted in the three
major air basins would reduce NOx emissions by approximately 18
tons per day by the year 1990, after the program will have been
in effect for six years. This level of control can be achieved
at a cost-effectiveness ratio of $0.90 per pound of NOx reduced,
with an average cost increase per furnace of $17. No adverse
environmental impacts are anticipated as a consequence of the
control strategy.