In addition, on October 10, 2001, U.S. EPA issued a partial approval and partial disapproval of the BAAQMD State Implementation Plan (SIP) amendments because of concerns that two limited exemptions in Regulation 8, Rule 5 (8-5-111, 8-5-112) were written in such a way that they could be interpreted to apply under more circumstances than appropriate (see 66 Fed. Reg. 51568). The proposed amendments would revise these exemptions to comply with U.S. EPA guidance. These amendments have been reviewed by U.S. EPA staff and found to adequately address their concerns.

Finally, the rule has been extensively reorganized by putting regulatory requirements in a table so that it is much easier to understand. A number of minor clarifications and improvements have also been made to the rule. All of these changes are described in the Staff Report.

Floating roof tanks typically are equipped with both a primary and secondary seal. The inspection frequencies for these seals and for the tank fittings currently range from once every year to once every ten years, depending on the tank design and seal installation date. The proposed amendments would impose an inspection frequency of twice per year for every seal and fitting, except for those on internal floating roof tanks. The frequency of complete inspections of internal floating roof tank seals and fittings will not increase from the current requirement of once every ten years. However, the frequency of visual inspections of secondary seals and fittings on internal floating roof tanks will increase from once per year to twice per year. Internal floating roof tanks pose an inspection challenge because the design of these tanks, where the floating roof is enclosed by another roof, allows potentially dangerous concentrations of organic gases to build up above the enclosed roof. This issue will be examined in Further Study Measure FS-10 to ensure that all practical measures are taken to adequately monitor seal and fitting compliance for these tanks.

First, Section 8-5-502 requires an annual source test for emission control devices used during tank degassing. Staff intended to add language clarifying that this test be performed before an emission control system is used, rather than at an unspecified time. Discussions with affected parties suggest that real-time monitoring with portable analyzers may be a more reliable and cost-effective monitoring method than an annual source test. This possibility will be examined in Further Study Measure FS-10. Thus, the previously proposed amendments have been removed, and this section will remain unchanged.

Secondly, Staff proposed to amend Sections 8-5-117 and 8-5-301 to limit emissions where organic blanket gases are used on tanks storing low-vapor pressure liquids. This proposal would close a loophole in the rule. Industry representatives have requested clarification of the requirement, a 6-month implementation delay to allow all affected tanks to be brought into compliance, and an exclusion for natural gas blanketing. To clarify the requirements, which are intended to specify that these tanks be maintained in a “gas tight” condition, they have been moved from Sections 8-5-117 and 8-5-301 to Section 8-5-307. Because the proposed implementation delay is not excessive and because natural gas is not the primary concern driving this change, Section 8-5-307 specifies an effective date of July 1, 2003 and excludes natural gas blanketing.

Finally, Staff proposed to revise the definition of "gas tight" in Section 8-5-206 to lower the standard from 10,000 ppm to 100 ppm, except for pressure vacuum valves which would be subject to a 500 ppm standard. Industry representatives requested a clarification that atmospheric pressure relief valves be subject to the same standard as pressure vacuum valves. Because this proposal is consistent with Regulation 8, Rule 18 ("Equipment Leaks"), Section 8-5-206 has been revised to incorporate this clarification.

Under Health and Safety Code section 40726, changes from the publicly noticed text can be made as long as they are not “so substantial as to significantly affect the meaning of the proposed rule or regulation.” Otherwise, Health and Safety Code section 40726 requires that the Board not take action on the changed text before its next regular meeting and that the Board allow further written and oral comment before taking final action. The changes have been noted in double underline and double strikethrough. These changes do not affect any calculated emission reductions or CEQA findings. Although staff believes that these changes are not substantial, staff nevertheless recommends that the public hearing be continued and that further comment, if any, be taken from interested persons and considered, and that final action be deferred until the continued public hearing is closed at the November 20, 2002 regular meeting of the Board.

A CEQA analysis has been prepared by Jones and Stokes of Sacramento, California, concluding that the proposed amendments would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. Attached is a Negative Declaration for the proposed amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080(c) and CEQA Guidelines 15070 et seq.

The California Air Resource Board has reviewed the proposed amendments and has notified the District that it has no comments. U.S. EPA has reviewed the proposed amendments related to exemptions 8-5-111 and 8-5-112 and has found these amendments satisfactory. The draft amendments were discussed at a public workshop on June 27, 2002 and have been discussed with interested parties, including CBE and other environmental organizations, as well as with WSPA and the affected regulated community. The proposed regulation was revised based on comments received at the workshop and subsequent comments. The final proposal and CEQA negative declaration have been circulated for public comment.

The proposed amendments, a staff report, the socioeconomic analysis, and the CEQA negative declaration and initial study are attached.

Respectfully submitted,

William C. Norton
Chief Executive Officer