PORTABLE ENGINE REGISTRATION PROGRAM (PERP) UPDATE
The California Air Resources Board proposed various fee and definition changes to the Portable Engine Registration Program. Registration will now be open to “Resident” Tier 1 and Tier 2 engines only. Resident engines are those operated in California between March 1, 2004 and October 1, 2006. Tier 1 registration fees will be based on the year the engine was manufactured while Tier 2 registration fees will be based on the year the engine was purchased. In the event that no purchase date is available, the year the engine was first manufactured will be used. Beginning January 1, 2010, only current tier engines will be allowed to register.
A “registration” provision was added to allow a dealer taking possession of an engine prior to a tier change, a six month period to sell or register the engine. Owners or operators that order an engine prior to a tier change, but have not yet taken possession, will have six months to register the engine. The table below shows the fees for engines based on application submittal date.
Table 1. Application fees for registration
| Portable Engine Purchase Date/Manufacture Date | Application submitted on or Before 12/31/07 | Application Submitted in 2008 | Application Submitted in 2009 |
| 1996 | $2,353 | $3,130 | $5,000 |
| 1997 | $2,195 | $2,920 | $4,685 |
| 1998 | $2,038 | $2,710 | $4,370 |
| 1999 | $1,880 | $2,500 | $4,055 |
| 2000 | $1,723 | $2,290 | $3,740 |
| 2001 | $1,565 | $2,080 | $3,425 |
| 2002 | $1,408 | $1,870 | $3,110 |
| 2003 | $1,250 | $1,660 | $2,795 |
| 2004 | $1,093 | $1,450 | $2,480 |
| 2005 | $935 | $1,240 | $2,165 |
| 2006 | $778 | $1,030 | $1,850 |
Provisions have been added to give the Executive Officer or the local air District discretion to extend compliance dates up to one year. Local air Districts will also have discretion to permit engines not certified to a tier standard (tier standards are specified in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations).
New language to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate Matter from Portable Engines greater than 50 Horsepower allows an engine dealer or distributor to sell or register a new engine not meeting the most stringent emissions standard, so long as the following specific requirements are met:
A) At the time of taking possession, the engine met the most stringent emission standard in effect prior to the change for the horsepower range, and
B) The owner or operator provides verifiable information to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer or District and;
C) The engine is sold or registered within six months of the effective date of the change in emissions standards.
Engines operated in California between March 4, 2004 and October 1, 2006 are allowed to register in the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program until December 31, 2009. Portable diesel- fueled engines that are either resident engines [as defined in section 2452(hh) (3)], or meet the requirements outlined in title 17, may now be registered.
Applications for initial registration of portable engines are subject to the fee schedule outlined in Table 1. Some of the fees collected will be distributed to local air Districts and a portion will be retained by the Air Resources Board.
CHROME PLATING REGULATIONS TARGET HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM EMISSIONS
At its December 2006 meeting, the Air Resources Board adopted new regulations to reduce hexavalent chromium emissions. The regulations are in addition to already existing requirements for chrome plating, chromic acid anodizing, cooling towers, motor vehicle, mobile equipment coating and thermal spraying operations. “Hexavalent Chromium is an especially potent toxic air contaminant, so the measures the Board adopted are very stringent” said ARB Chairman, Dr. Robert Sawyer.
Hexavalent chromium is a carcinogen released during chrome plating and anodizing processes. Chromium plating is the electrical application of a coating of chromium onto a surface for decoration, corrosion protection, or for durability. The most familiar type of chromium plating is the decorative chromium plating process, which provides a bright, shiny finish onto objects such as wheels and plumbing fixtures.
The sale of electroplating equipment to untrained people is prohibited under the new regulation. The Board in California estimates that 43 percent of chromium plating or chromic acid anodizing facilities in the state are located within 100 meters of a sensitive receptor, such as a residence or school. Due to the carcinogenicity of hexavalent chromium (emitted from the operations), the state of California adopted the Air Toxics Control Measure for chromium plating.
The regulations require that chrome plating or anodizing businesses reduce their hexavalent chromium emissions to the fullest extent achievable by technology. New facilities will not be allowed to operate within 1,000 feet of residential or mixed use areas. New facilities will have to install High Efficiency Particulate Arrestors (HEPA) and meet an emissions rate of 0.0011 milligrams per ampere-hour. The site-specific risk assessment may be waived upon approval by the local air District.
Existing facilities will have to install controls. Additionally, employees responsible for compliance at the facility will have to attend training conducted by ARB staff. The following flow chart summarizes key requirements for existing facilities.
|  |
| |
| |||
|
| |
| ||||
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |||
|
| |
| ||||
|
| |
|
The cost to industry is projected to be 13.5 million dollars, with an individual facility cost of $46,000 per year. A federal control measure to regulate emissions from chromium plating and chromic acid anodizing is also in place.
CHANGES TO AGGREGATE AND RELATED OPERATIONS’ RULE
After working with the California Mining Association, the South Coast Air Quality Management District staff revised the emissions inventory for aggregate and related operations under rule 1157. The rule was originally adopted in January of 2005 to regulate particulate matter emissions (PM10) from the subject operations. The revised inventory shows 50 percent less emissions than previously calculated. The emissions are eleven times higher than those reported in the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan.
Staff estimates that approximately 389 facilities in the Basin are subject to the rule. Emissions for each facility are classified into three emissions sources: (1) process equipment (2) stockpiles and (3) road (paved/unpaved) emissions. Process equipment includes loading and unloading activities, hoppers, surge bins, conveyor transfer points, crushers, screens, milling equipment and truck load-outs. The following table shows a distribution by type of facility:
| Category | Number of facilities |
| Aggregate | 29 |
| Concrete Batching | 100 |
| Concrete Product | 152 |
| Crushed Miscellaneous Base | 25 |
| Hot Mix Asphalt | 45 |
| “Other” | 38 |
| Total | 389 |
The Southern California Rock Products Association submitted a written report strongly disagreeing with the emissions inventory used by the AQMD staff. The California Mining Association filed a lawsuit against AQMD, alleging that the rule was based on a “flawed emissions inventory.” Part of the settlement process included acknowledgement of the AQMD staff that the inventory needed revisions.
The initial figures for the inventory were calculated to be approximately 29 tons per day. The revised number is 13.7 tons per day. Uncontrolled emissions, originally calculated at 11 tons per day, are now reported at 5.3 tons per day. Staff agreed to assign a value of 95% control efficiency to water application based on the assumption that the industry will “strictly adhere to the PM10 control requirements of Rule 1157.”
After numerous discussions, industry and staff reached consensus on most of the issues. Unresolved issues include:
- Moisture content used as a proportional measurement to control efficiency
- Calculation method of stockpile emissions
- Confidentiality of individual survey forms for all responding facilities
District staff will use the revised emissions inventory for permitting, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and for annual emissions reporting.
UPDATE ON COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS’ STATE REGULATIONS
The state Air Resources Board has postponed the hearing date (originally scheduled for January 2007) for the composite wood products regulation to April 26, 2007. The staff is currently incorporating changes to the original proposal based on information submitted by industry groups.
Drafts of the regulation were released in May and June 2006. Meetings were held from July to October with various manufacturers and associations. Based on the input received, ARB staff proposes to modify several definitions as well as standards for hardwood plywood-veneer core and hardwood plywood- composite core. Third party certification procedures will be spelled out in upcoming ARB documents. Staff also proposes separate provisions for distributors and importers.
A Best Available Control Technology assessment has preliminarily shown an increase in the availability of commercial panels and resin systems meeting the proposed requirements. Staff also concluded that future resin technologies will be viable options. Staff has identified commercially available resin systems for:
- Hardwood plywood
- Particle board
- Medium density Fiberboard
The agency has announced that a formal staff report will be released shortly.