State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
State Water Resources Control Board
Hearing Room
901 P' Street
Sacramento, CA
July 26, 1983
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
84-11-1 Consideration of the Petition of Citizens for 001
a Better Environment Regarding the Monitoring
of Flare Emissions in Oil Refineries in the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District and the
South Coast Air Quality Management District.
84-11-2 Status Report to the Board Regarding the Impact of
the Program for Certification of Federally Certified
Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks for Sale in
California (AB 965).
84-11-3 Status Report on State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Call and SIP Implementation in the South Coast Air
Basin.
84-11-4 Other Business
a. Closed Session
1. Personnel (as authorized by State Agency Open
Meeting Act, Govt. Code Sec. 11126(a).)
2. Litigation (Pursuant to the attorney-client
privilege, Evidence Code Sec. 950-962, and
Govt. Code Sec. 11126(q).)
b. Research Proposals
c. Delegations to Executive Officer
FOR FURTHER INQUIRIES PLEASE CONTACT THE BOARD SECRETARY:
Harold Holmes
1102 Q' Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322-5594
SMOKING NOT PERMITTED AT MEETINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD.
ITEM NO.: 84-11-1
Consideration of the Petition of Citizens for a Better
Environment Regarding the Monitoring of Flare Emissions in Oil
Refineries in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and
the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board deny the petition.
DISCUSSION
CBE states that the districts and the Board have the legal
authority and obligation to produce an accurate emissions
inventory, to compile information on sulfur dioxide emissions
from refinery flares, and to require refinery operators to
monitor sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen emissions from
refinery flares. CBE further states that sulfur dioxide
emissions from flares can be substantial, that the BAAQMD does
not include sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, or oxides of
nitrogen emissions from flares in the district emissions
inventory, and that monitoring equipment for sulfur dioxide
emissions from flares is technically feasible. CBE states that
the districts have failed to meet their responsibilities because
they have not adopted rules requiring flare monitoring.
A. Request for Determination of Availability, Technological
Feasibility, and Economic Reasonableness of Flare Emissions
Monitoring Devices.
Sections 42701 and 42702 of the Health and Safety Code require
the Board to determine the availability, technological
feasibility and economic reasonableness of monitoring devices and
to specify the types of sources to which they apply. Such a
determination, which is a highly technical matter, cannot be made
at this time because of insufficient information. The lack of a
basis for making the determination is discussed in depth in Part
V-D of this report. When adequate information is available, the
staff will seek a determination from the Board. The staff
recommends that CBE's request for an immediate determination be
denied.
B. Request for Determination of the Contribution of Flare
Emissions to Acid Deposition.
To comply with this request, it is necessary to have an inventory
of refinery flare emissions and an estimate of the relationship
between emissions and acid deposition. As required by Sections
399900 through 39915 of the Health and Safety Code the Board is
currently involved in a five-year study of the contribution of
all sources of emissions to acid deposition. Because the Board
is already involved in the study, and because the adequacy of the
inventory is addressed by CBE's third basic request, the staff
recommends that CBE's request be denied.
C. Request for Regulations Requiring Refiners to Monitor Flare
Emissions.
The petition may read as requesting adoption of rules in either
of two different forms. On the one hand, it appears that CBE is
asking that the Board adopt rules on behalf of the districts;
such regulations would have the same force and effect as rules
adopted by the districts themselves. On the other hand, the
petition may be read as requesting that the Board adopt the rules
as its own, although they would be applicable only in the two
specified districts. The following discussion addresses both
possible forms of the requested rules.
1. Request for Adoption of Rules on Behalf of the
Districts.
The Board may adopt rules on behalf of a district only after
finding that the district has failed to meet its legal
responsibilities or has not adopted rules likely to achieve
and maintain the state ambient air quality standards.
Because this process necessarily involves reviewing the
adequacy of district, the staff recommends that the Board
generally not grant a petition from the public requesting
adoption of a rule on behalf of a district unless the
petitioner has first petitioned the district or there is
other clear evidence that the district has considered and
rejected the proposed rules.
CBE has not previously petitioned the BAAQMD or South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for adoption of
refinery flare monitoring rules. While the president of the
West Contra Costa Conservation League states that ten years
ago she requested that the BAAQMD monitor refinery flares, a
request so long ago does not indicate that the district has
considered the request based on current information and, in
any case, the request was not directed to the SCAQMD. A
letter from the Executive Officer of the SCAQMD in response
to CBE's petition to the Board is shown in Appendix C. That
letter states that the petition is based on incomplete and
erroneous information, that flare emissions monitoring is
difficult and that the staffs of the BAAQMD, the SCAQMD, and
the ARB should review the available information to consider
means to reduce emissions from refinery flares. As of the
date of preparation of this report, comments have not been
received from the BAAQMD.
2. Request for Adoption of Board Rules.
The staff also recommends that the Board deny the petition
for adoption of the Board's own regulations, with the
understanding that it may be renewed following an
unsuccessful petitioning of the districts.
The Board has the authority to adopt on its own behalf rules
of the sort requested by CBE as long as they are determined
to be necessary. However, local districts have the primary
responsibility over air pollution from stationary sources
such as oil refineries. While the Board is required to
inventory emissions of air pollutants, it must use the data
of local districts and other local and state agencies to the
fullest extent. In developing the statewide point source
emissions inventory, the Board has historically relied
almost entirely on data generated from the districts. CBE
asserts that the districts have failed to meet their
responsibilities because they do not require flare
monitoring, and asks that the requested rules apply only in
the two named districts. In light of these considerations,
staff believes it is appropriate for the Board to defer
action until the districts have first considered requests
from CBE.
D. Other Issues
CBE states that sulfur dioxide emissions from flares may be
substantial and that flare monitoring for sulfur dioxide is
technically feasible. The BAAQMD flare inventory, mentioned in
CBE's petition, has been changed since CBE evaluated it and now
shows six tons per day of sulfur dioxide emissions rather than no
emissions at the time of CBE's evaluation. Flares emit oxides of
nitrogen, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. However, monitoring
these pollutants presents tremendous technical difficulties. It
may be possible to obtain a reasonably accurate inventory of all
pollutants from flares by using emission factors rather than by
requiring monitoring at all refineries.