State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
State Office Building
1350 Front Street, Room B-109
San Diego, CA
May 25, 1977
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
77-11-1 Approval of the Minutes of the November 23, 1976 Board
Meeting.
77-11-2 Public Hearing to Consider Revising Southeast Desert
and San Diego Air Basin Boundaries.
77-11-3 Consideration of Model Upset/Breakdown Regulations.
77-11-4 Status Report on the Rules for Controlling SOx
Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin.
77-11-5 Consideration of Proposed Model Rules for Controlling
NOx Emissions from Electrical Power Generating Plants
in the South Coast Air Basin.
77-11-6 Status Report on Rules for Controlling NOx Emissions
from Non-Electrical Power Generating Steam Boilers and
Process Heaters in the South Coast Air Basin.
77-11-7 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel & Litigation
b. Research Proposals
ITEM NO.: 77-11-2
Public Hearing to Consider Changing the Boundary Between the
Southeast Desert Air Basin and the San Diego Air Basin.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 77-19 thereby amending Title 17 of the
California Administrative Code to change the boundary line common
to the San Diego and Southeast Desert Air Basins so that
effective July 1, 1977 the San Diego Air Basin will have the same
boundary as San Diego County.
SUMMARY
A resolution adopted by the Control Council of the Southeast
Desert Air Basin on February 16, 1977, and a letter of March 3,
1977 from San Diego County Supervisor Jim Bates, writing pursuant
to the request of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
Board, request the Air Resources Board to change the boundaries
of the San Diego and Southeast Desert Air Basins so that San
Diego County and San Diego Air Basin have an identical boundary.
The staff finds that the present air basin boundary which makes a
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Board member a
member of the Southeast Desert air Basin Air Pollution Control
Council. Causes administrative burdens (principally travel)
which do not result in significant air quality benefits either
the Southeast Desert or the San Diego Air Basin.
ITEM NO.: 77-11-3
Consideration of Model Upset/Breakdown Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 77-17, thereby approving a Model Upset/Breakdown
Rule (with attached Hearing Board Standards and Guidelines).
SUMMARY
On December 15, 1976, the staff reported a number of deficiencies
with respect to existing local air pollution control district
upset/breakdown rules and regulations, and prepared a draft
suggested rule for adoption by local districts to remove the
deficiencies. The Board directed the staff to conduct a public
workshop and consult with EPA on the draft suggested rule, then
report back with a model rule for approval by the Board. In this
item, the staff reports on the comments received at the workshop
and from EPA, and proposed approval of a Model Upset/Breakdown
Rule (with Hearing Board Standards and Guidelines) which reflects
such comments. If approved, the model rule will be forwarded to
basinwide control councils and districts for adoption.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 77-17
Proposed Model Upset/Breakdown rule (and Hearing
Board Standards and Guidelines)
Staff Report 77-11-3
Table 1 - Upset/Breakdown Rules in December 15
Staff Report
December 15 Suggested Upset/Breakdown Rule
Letters from Humboldt, Santa Barbara and PG&E
December 23 Letter on Workshop
Sample Hearing Board Findings and Order
Suggested Hearing Board Order
ITEM NO.: 77-11-4
Status of proposed Model Rules for the Control of Sulfur Oxides
Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin.
RECOMMENDATION
None. This is an informational report.
SUMMARY
At its August 24, 1976 meeting, the Board directed the staff to
develop rules for controlling sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in
the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Ventura County,
and the southern portion of Santa Barbara County. Preliminary
suggested rules were developed by the staff and were the subject
of a February 23, 1977 workshop. This is an informational report
on the status of the development of these rules.
During and subsequent to the workshop comments were received on
each of the four SO2 rules: 1) sulfur content of fuels; 2)
sulfur emissions from marine vessels; 3) sulfur processing
facilities; and 4) concentration of sulfur compounds. Concern
was expressed regarding the limited time frame allowed to respond
to the rules. It was stated that additional time was needed to
provide the staff detailed data and information necessary for
full assessment of the technological feasibility and economic
reasonableness of the proposals.
ITEM NO.: 77-11-6
Status of Proposed Model Rules for the Control of Oxides to
Nitrogen Emissions from Non-Electric Power Generating Steam
Boilers and Process Heaters in the South Coast Air Basin.
RECOMMENDATION
None. This is an informational report.
SUMMARY
The California one hour ambient air quality standard for nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) of 0.25 parts per million is frequently violated in
the South Coast Air Basin on wide margins. Projected trends of
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions illustrate that attainment of
the NO2 ambient air quality standard will be impossible without
further control of NOx emissions.
At its August 24, 1976 meeting, the Board directed the staff to
develop rules for controlling NOx emissions in the South Coast
Air Basin as it was constituted then. Preliminary suggested
rules on this subject were developed by the staff and discussed
at a workshop on February 24, 1977. This is an information
report on the status of the development of the subject rule which
applies to non-electric power generating steam boilers and
process heaters with heat input rates equal to or greater than
2.5 million kilo calories (10 million British Thermal Units) per
hour. These sources are currently not controlled in the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Ventura County, and
Southern Santa Barbara County.
During and subsequent to the February 24, 1977 workshop,
representatives of industry and other interested persons
expressed concern for the limited time allowed for response to
the staff's preliminary proposal. They indicated a need for
additional time to provide the staff detailed data and
information necessary for full assessment of the technological
feasibility and economic reasonableness of the proposal.