State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
State Office Building
350 McAllister, Room 1194
San Francisco, CA
September 26, 1979
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
79-21-1 Approval of Minutes from July 26, 1979
79-21-2 Consideration of Amendments to Rule 424, Kern County
Air Pollution Control District
79-21-3 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Rules and
Regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
Research Proposals
September 27, 1979
10:00 a.m.
79-22-1 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to State
Regulations Which Limit the Lead Content of Gasoline
Sold in California
79-22-2 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Chapter 27 as a
Revision to the State of California Implementation Plan
for the Attainment and Maintenance of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead
79-22-3 Status Report on Proposed Model Rule for the Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds from Gravure, Flexography
and Wallpaper Screen Printing Operations
ITEM NO.: 79-21-3
Public Hearing to Review and Consider Amendments to the Rules and
Regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution 79-69, thereby amending Regulations 2, 3, 10,
14, 18, 20, and 21 as set forth in Attachment A hereto, or as may
be amended by the Board.
SUMMARY
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is one of the many areas in
the State where the state and national ambient air quality
standards for oxidant are not expected to be attained by December
31, 1982. This is supported by the emission and air quality
analysis contained in the 1979 Bay Area Air Quality Plan which
was reviewed by the Board at its July 26 meeting. Section 41601
of the Health and Safety Code requires that Basin wide Air
Pollution Control plans include emission limitations and rules
and regulations which will, within a reasonable time, achieve and
maintain the state ambient air quality standards. It has been
the Board's policy to require that all reasonably available
control measures be used to control emissions from stationary
sources in areas of the State which now exceed and are expected
to continue to exceed the ambient air quality standards such as
is the case in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
The Air Resources Board staff has worked with the Bay area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to revise its Rules and
Regulations, however, the District appears unwilling to make
further revisions to several of its regulations which do not
require the use of reasonably available control measures. These
measures include:
a. Regulation 3: Control of Reactive Organic
Emissions, and
Regulation: 21: Control of Organic Compound
Emissions from Solvent Metal
Cleaning Operations
b. Regulation 10: Valves at Petroleum Refinery Complexes
c. Regulation 14: Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Metal Container and
Closure Coating and Coil Coating
d. Regulation 17: Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Light-and Medium-Duty
Motor Vehicle Assembly Plants
e. Regulation 18: Control of Organic Compound Emissions
from Petroleum Refinery Complexes
f. Regulation 19: Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Surface Coating of Large
Appliances and Metal Furniture
g. Regulation 20: Control of Cutback Asphalts
h. Regulation 2: Permits (including new source
review)
The proposed amendments would require greater emission reductions
than are required by the present regulations, and in some
instances would assure the continued use of some controls which
now are voluntarily employed. The proposed amendments would also
clarify certain provisions of the regulations which are ambiguous
and which may present enforcement problems. Therefore, the staff
recommends that the Board amend the above named regulations to
make them as effective as the ARB model rules or, in the case of
Regulation 18, as effective as the ARB staff suggested rules.
In terms of the environmental and economic impact assessments,
staff believes that the proposed rules are expected to improve
air quality, are not expected to have substantial impacts on
other areas of the environment, and are not expected to present
an unreasonable economic hardship on business. Further, Staff
believes the proposed amendments will provide reductions in
energy and resource consumption.