State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
State Office Building
107 South Broadway
Los Angeles, CA
January 26, 1977
77-2-1 Minutes Vol. I
77-2-2 Status of Abatement Proceedings by the Vol. I
Southern California Air Pollution Control
District regarding Kaiser Steel Corporations
77-2-3 Status Report on Emissions Control Vol. I
Regulations for Coke Ovens.
77-2-4 Public Hearing on the Effective Date of Vol. I-IV
Portions of Rule 463, Pertaining to Floating
Roof Tank Seal Requirements.
77-2-5 Public Hearing on Certification of Vapor Vol. V
Recovery System at Bulk Plants and Terminals
and on Delivery Vessels.
77-2-6 Continuation of Hearing to Consider Amendments Vol. V
to the Agricultural Burning Regulations.
77-2-7 Other Business - Vol. V
a. Executive Session - Personnel and Vol. V
b. Research Proposals
Note: If necessary, the Board will meet Thursday,
January 27, 1977 in the Boulevard Room of the
ITEM NO. 77-2-2
Status Report on Abatement Proceedings by the Southern California
Air Pollution Control District Hearing Board Regarding kaiser
Steel Corporation's Fontana Plant.
The Hearing Board of the Southern California Air Pollution
Control District, on December 16, 1976, held a hearing to
consider the adoption of an abatement order and the granting of a
variance for Kaiser Steel Corporation's Fontana facility. The
hearing was continued until December 23, 1976 at which time
action on the abatement proceeding was deferred until after the
Air Resources Board had considered a new regulation for coke
ovens. The Hearing Board also granted Kaiser a variance on
December 23, 1976 to operate its coke ovens in violation of
Southern California Air Pollution Control District Rule 401 and
Health and Safety Code Section 41701 until March 24, 1977, at
which time a further hearing is scheduled.
ITEM NO. 77-2-3
Status Report on Emissions Control Regulations for Coke Ovens.
Approve the model coke oven regulation as outlined in this report
and submit to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
with a recommendation for adoption as a District Rule.
At the November 24, 1976 Board meeting of the Air Resources
Board, the staff presented to the Board a report entitled "Coke
Oven Emissions, Miscellaneous Emissions, and Their Control at
Kaiser Steel's Fontana Steel-Making Facility." The report
discusses the findings of a September 13-16, 1976 inspection of
Kaiser Steel by the Enforcement Branch, Kaiser Steel's failure to
control emissions from the coke ovens and other parts of the
plant, the problems with enforcement of existing district
regulations for coke ovens, and some of the best control
technologies available in the steel industry. At the November
meeting the Board directed the staff of the Stationary Source
Control Division to investigate the control technology available
in the steel industry, and to develop and present for Board
approval in January 1977 model regulations for particulate matter
emissions from coke ovens that reflect that control technology.
This report is in response to that request.
Based on the best available control technology on coke oven
emissions, the staff is recommending to the Board for approval, a
model regulation which is designed to encourage the use of or
practice of these more advanced controls. Several coke plants in
the steel industry have been observed to comply with the proposed
ITEM NO.: 77-2-4
Public Hearing on the Effective Date of Sealing Requirements for
Floating Roof Tanks in Southern California Air Pollution Control
District Rule 463.
That the Board determine whether adequate efforts have been made
by industry to comply with Rule 463 of the Southern California
Air Pollution Control District and, if a positive determination
is made, to extend the effective date of the no-gap criterion for
only as long as necessary to provide owners of tanks sufficient
time to implement ways of complying with the no-gap criterion or
with such other criteria as the Board may adopt based on the
results of tests now being conducted. It is also recommended
that the Board direct the staff to develop modifications to Rule
463 based on the latest available data regarding the effects of
seal design and other factors on floating roof tank emissions.
At its meeting of June 25, 1976, the Board amended Rule 463 of
the Southern California Air Pollution Control District relating
to storage tanks to require, in part, that, effective February 1,
1977, there shall be no measurable gap between the tank wall and
the roof edge. Since that meeting, 1) owners report that they
have spent approximately 2.3 million dollars in unsuccessful
attempts to comply with Rule 463; 2) owners indicate that they
need more time to complete their studies; 3) coating of the
joints and rivets of riveted tanks have commenced; 4) tests on a
model tank by Chicago Bridge & Iron have advanced the
understanding of emission characteristics and indicate that the
addition of a double seal may limit emission more than a no-gap
criterion alone; 5) tests by WOGA have not been completed; 6)
Mobil Oil has commenced tests on a model tank at Princeton, N.J.;
7) it has been determined that vapor recovery at 90 percent
efficiency may not be as effective in limiting emissions as a
floating roof; and 8) small independent oil producers which own
storage tanks indicated that Rule 463 creates a hardship for
ITEM NO.: 77-2-5
Public Hearing - Certification and Test Procedures for Gasoline
Vapor Recovery Systems for Bulk Plants, Terminals and Delivery
Adopt Resolution 77-1, thereby adding Sections 94002, 94003 and
94004 to Title 17, California Administrative Code and adopting:
1. "Certification and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery
Systems at Gasoline Terminals" dated January 26, 1977;
2. "Certification and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery
Systems at Gasoline Bulk Plants" dated January 26, 1977; and
3. "Certification and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery
Systems of Gasoline Delivery Tanks" dated January 26, 1977;
as shown in Exhibits I, II and III, respectively.
This is a public hearing for the consideration of certification
and test procedures for gasoline vapor recovery systems for
terminals, bulk plants and delivery tanks. The proposed
procedures deal with the following: application procedures, fees
to be charged, performance standards, requirements for granting
certification, test procedures to be used for determining
efficiency, and conduct of the testing. The proposed procedures
were discussed at the Board meeting on December 15, 1976. Since
the issuance of the public hearing notice the staff has revised
the terminal procedures to allow the Board more discretion in
establishing test conditions and has included a variance
procedure in the delivery tank procedures.
ITEM NO.: 77-2-6
Continuation of Hearing to Consider Amendments to the
Agricultural Burning Regulations.
As directed by the Board, the staff has obtained information
1) Effects of additional burning on ambient air quality.
2) Effects of additional air pollution on the agriculture
3) Effects of burning cotton gin waste containing arsenic and
other toxic chemicals.
4) Special permissive burn days for cotton gin waste.
5) Alternatives to open burning of cotton gin waste.
6) Legal consequences of possible EPA rejection.
The emission of additional hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and
carbon monoxide into the air in the southern section of the San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin will further hinder the attainment and
maintenance of the ambient air quality standards for suspended
particulate matter, carbon monoxide and oxidant. It is projected
that if all cotton gin waste is burned, a 3.6% increase in
oxidant would result. This increase would be expected to reduce
the alfalfa crop in that area by 0.18%, or $148,500. A decline
in production would also be expected for other oxidant sensitive
crops such as cotton, grapes and citrus.
Burning cotton gin waste containing arsenic and other toxic
chemicals does not appear to be a serious health hazard.
Burning should be conducted between February and June, and
burning large volumes of waste should be avoided in May and June
due to probable crop damage.
There are alternatives to open burning being implemented at this
time. These are plowing the waste back into the soil, feeding
animals (limited use), and hauling to disposal sites. There are
also alternatives being developed. These are use of waste as an
energy source, as compost for organic mulch, and as an animal
feed. At the present time the vast majority of cotton gin waste
is returned to the land as a soil conditioner or as land fill.
To date the Executive Officer has not received a reply from the
Environmental Protection Agency concerning the addition of the
modification of the "Agricultural Burning Guidelines" to the
State Implementation Plan. The staff will make an oral
presentation on this matter at the hearing.