Abate Technologies International, Inc.

ATI QUARTERLY
3rd QUARTER 2007

 

 

AQMD ANNUAL EMISSIONS REPORTS

Who is required to file?

  • Facilities in the Annual Operating Permit Emission Fee Program; those are companies who pay annual emissions for permitted equipment. Such facilities are subject to AQMD Rule 301(e) and are required to file when exceeding the corresponding reporting thresholds;
  • Facilities whose permitted plus all un-permitted emissions equal 4 tons or more per year of criteria pollutants (VOCs, NOx, SOx, PM, Specific Organics); or 100 tons or more per year of CO.
  • Facilities, which had emissions [thresholds specified in Rule 301(e)] of specific Toxic Air Contaminants or ozone depleting compounds, listed in form TAC;
  • Facilities who, prior to July 1, 2000 had equipment listed as exempt. There is no fee associated with these exempt emissions but they must be reported.
  • Facilities that receive a 2006-2007 Annual Emissions Report Package.

What if I miss the deadline?

The SCAQMD 2006-2007 Annual Emissions Report is due on August 30, 2007. If a facility misses the deadline and owes an emission fee, late payment penalties in the form of a percentage of the emission fees will apply. The penalties are set forth in AQMD Rule 301(e)(10)(B) and are as follows:

Payment received Penalties
Less than 30 days after 8/30/07 5% of reported amount
30 to 90 days after 8/30/07 15% of reported amount
91 days to 1 year after 8/30/07 25% of reported amount
More than 1 year after 8/30/07 50% of reported amount

After submitting my report I found out I estimated emissions incorrectly

Companies who pay their emissions fees on time but underestimated their emissions, which resulted in underpayment to SCAQMD, can re-submit the report subject to underpayment penalties. If the underpayment is corrected within one year from the filing deadline and more than 90% of the amount due was paid, there are no penalties. However, if payment was less than 90% of the amount due, the penalty is 15% of the underpayment amount. When the underpayment is determined more than one year and sixty days from the official due date, fee rates and penalties will be assessed based on 301(e)(10)(D). Fees are determined based on rates in effect for the year when the emissions are actually reported, and not the year wherein the emissions occurred.

A facility can file a refund request when overestimating of the emissions resulted in overpayment to AQMD. The refund request must be submitted in writing as set forth in Rule 301. Form A can also be used to request refunds associated with the current reporting period.

Recent changes

  • There will be NO EXTENSIONS granted for late report submittal this year.
  • Fees are increased by 10% compared to last year’s fee rates.
  • AB 2588 Phase 1A facilities are required to file their quadrennial report under the 06-07 AER program.
  • New activity codes for the following processes:
    • Aggregate, Asphalt, Concrete, and Cement Plants
    • Brick Manufacturing
    • Electrical Equipment and Semi-Conductor Manufacturing
    • Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
    • Textile Products Manufacturing
    • Chemical Manufacturing
    • Open Spray Operation
    • Landfill Operation
    • Tank Degassing Operation
    • Laboratory R & D
    • Sterilization Process
  • Particulate matter emission factors for asphalt, concrete and aggregate products plants have been revised to reflect recent changes to Rules 1156 and 1157.
  • New emission factors to calculate VOC emissions from Polyester Resin Operations.
  • New calculation methodology and particulate matter emission factors for Abrasive Blasting Operations.
  • New material codes and emission factors for lubricant oil, rust inhibitor and varnishing oil operations

Special circumstances

The AQMD has a Fee Review Committee to handle issues regarding fees and penalties.

 

CHANGES IN RULE 219 MAY IMPACT PRINTING AND COATING

Effective immediately, permits will be required for certain types of equipment and processes that in aggregate emit greater than 4 tons per year of air contaminants. The requirements were part of recent changes to SCAQMD Rule 219 –Equipment Not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II.

In response to requests from certain industries, SCAQMD agreed to limit applicability of the requirement to facilities that currently do not hold any AQMD permits. The adopted rule requires filings under Rule 222 in lieu of regular written permits for large (greater than 4 tons per year) emission sources. These requirements can be found under Rule 219 (s)(3) and are applicable to:

  • Printing Operations
  • Coating, adhesive and resin operations
  • Hand application of solvents for cleaning purposes

Facilities that already have AQMD permits and have 4 tons or more of emissions will not be subject to a Rule 222 filing. A facility having less than 4 tons per year of emissions from the specified equipment in aggregate will not be subject to a Rule 222 filing.

The rule now contains language that may exempt coating spray machines under section (l)(6). The previous exemption for radiation cured processes has been curtailed and the equipment may require either Rule 222 registration or a permit.

 

HIGHLIGHTS OF RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS UNDER PERP

The Portable Engine Registration Program (PERP) is a statewide program. Under the PERP, all registered engines must have hour meters, fuel meters or other approved operation tracking devices. Annual reports are due by March of 2008. Maintenance records must be kept on a project basis.

As part of the recordkeeping requirements, identification placards must be affixed on all registered engines and equipment units. The placards, in addition to the identification stickers, are issued upon renewal of existing registered engines and equipment units. A written copy of rental or lease agreements must be kept on site.

Operators are required to contact the home district to arrange for an inspection, within 45 days of the initial registration or renewal date. Change of ownership applications must be submitted within 30 days of actual ownership change.

Resident engines must submit proof of operation in California between March 1, 2004 and October 1, 2006. Documentation may include company name, equipment inventory, purchase records, usage records and maintenance records.

Engines not meeting emission standards will have to pay extra registration fees, back registration fees, back inspection fees, plus the current registration fee.

For purposes of the application process, the following information may be required:

  • Company name
  • PERP registration number
  • Specification of method used to record engine operation
  • Location
  • Fuel usage
  • Maintenance schedule
  • New guidelines for ammonia emissions from poultry and dairy operations.

 

CHANGES TO AQMD RULE 1470 ADOPTED

Rule 1470 — Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines— implements the state requirements of the Air Resources Board’s Air Toxics Control Measure.

On June 1, 2007, the South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted amendments to the rule to allow owners/operators of new direct-drive emergency standby fire pumps to install a new engine which meets Tier 2 Off-Road Compression Ignition Engine Standards (Title 13 CCR Section 2423) for up to three years past the effective date of the more stringent Tier 3 emission standards, or until a Tier 3 engine becomes available, whichever is sooner. The agency reports that the amendment is needed as there are currently no Tier 3 direct-drive emergency standby fire pump engines available.

The rule as amended requires that new engines used in a demand response program meet the more stringent Best Available Control Technology Guidelines for Non-Major Polluting Facilities for spark ignition engines. Existing engines used in demand response programs are not impacted.

 

STATE GREEN CHEMISTRY PROGRAM SEEKS TO REDUCE TOXICS

The California Environmental Protection Agency has launched a green chemistry initiative through the Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC). The program’s goal is to “fundamentally change how government and business work together to deal with waste before it is generated.”

The program would shift the current focus on capturing and storing hazardous waste to reducing or eliminating toxic chemical use altogether. “This initiative will provide a scientific basis and economic opportunity for environmentally safe products”—commented Maureen Gorsen, the director of DTSC.

According to the DTSC, green chemistry practitioners are those who have a “cradle to cradle” approach by designing new products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances. The program will have recommendations for developing evaluations of risk, reducing exposure, encouraging less toxic industrial processes and identifying safer, non-chemical alternatives.

 

CAL POLY SAN LUIS OBISPO PROPOSES NEW VOC TEST METHOD FOR COATINGS

In 2005, the California Air Resources Board awarded a contract of almost $250,000 to the California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, to develop a volatile organic compound (VOC) test method for architectural coatings.  The agency takes the position that the currently  approved Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) method (Method 24), is not reliable for the analysis of low VOC water-borne coatings or solvent-borne coatings with high levels of exempt compounds.  Method 24 also becomes problematic for multi-component coatings, reactive diluent-containing coatings, high solids coatings, and low solids coatings.  The method’s unreliability is blamed on its indirect measurement of VOCs via a weight loss analysis, which consists of subtracting the water and exempt compound content from the total volatile content of the coating.

The Cal Poly method consists of a direct VOC test based on the ASTM D6866, which was originally developed by Cal Poly.  The VOC content is determined by direct injection, headspace analysis and solid phase microextraction using gas chromatography with both flame ionization and mass spectral detection.  The new method was recently used in collaboration between Cal Poly and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to determine the VOC content of various architectural coatings.

The headspace analysis is performed by placing a small (roughly 20 milligrams or less) sample of coating in a 20 milliliter vial and sealed with an aluminum crimp cap.  Any volatiles are sealed within the vial.  The vial is transferred to an oven and heated to temperatures ranging from 100 to 150 degrees Celsius, for up to 20 minutes.  A portion of the headspace is transferred to a gas chromatograph where the components are separated on a capillary column and measured by either flame ionization or mass spectral detection.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District recently announced that it plans to contract with Cal Poly to perform further studies to extrapolate the method to other types of non-architectural coatings, such as those used in the printing and coatings industries.

Home ] Up ]

Send mail to info@abatetech.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 1998 - 2017 Abate Technologies International, Inc.