## ..

17 MINUTES VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CO NTROL BOARD CARMEN RAMIREZ, COUNC I L MEM BER, C ITY OF OXNARD
- CHA I R LINDA PARKS, SUPER VI SOR, COUNTY OF VENTURA
- VICE C HAIR STEVE BENNETT, SUPER VI SOR, CO UNTY OF VENTURA BRIAN BRENNAN, COUNCIL MEMBER, C ITY OF SA N BUENA VENTURA PETER C. FOY, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF VENTURA KATHY I. LONG, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF VENTURA MIKE MORGAN , COUNC I L MEMBER , CITY OF CAMARIL LO JONATHAN SHARKEY, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF PORT H U ENEME DOUG TUCKER, COUNCIL MEMBER , CITY OF FILLMORE JOHN C. ZARAGOZA, SUPERV I SOR, COUNTY OF VENTURA November 12 , 20 1 3 at 11:00 a.m.

Public Heari ng Regarding the Approva l of Proposed New Rule 74.31, Meta l Working F lui ds and Direct-Contact Lubricants, and Proposed Amendments to Ru l e 23 , Exemptions from Permit; Approval to Use Ca l iforni a Enviro n mental Qua li ty Act (CEQA) Categorical Exemptions for New Rule 74.31, and Proposed Revisions to Rule 23; Approval of, and Adoption of, the Proposed Legislative Findings for New Rule 74.31 and the Rev i sions to Rule 23; and Direct the Air Pollu t ion Co n tro l Officer, or Hi s Designee, to File a CEQA Notice of Exemption Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sectio n 15062

. (X) All board m embers are p r esent , excep t Board Members Tucker and Foy . (X) The following persons are heard : Stan Cowan and M ike Pearse. (X) Th e Board holds a public hearing. (X) Upon motion of Board Member Morgan, seconded by Board M ember Sharkey, and duly carried, the Board hereby app roves the attached staff recommendations

.

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that th e annexed instrum ent I s a true and correct copy of the document which Is on file In this office

. Mi chae l Powers, C l erk o f the Board of Superv i sors, County of Ventura, State of California.

Item #9 11/12/13

# 0 Vonturo County

**~** Air Pollution Contro l Di s trict
November 12, 20 13

/\ir Po lluti on Contro l Board 800 South V ictoria Avenue Ventura , CA. 93009 669 ( ovolly Square Drive Vcnluoo , Cololornio 93003 **rel805/64~** 1400 lox 805/6<15·1 d44 www VCClfXd org Michoo l Villegas Air Pollution Control Officer

SU BJE CT: PUBUC I fEA RING TO APPROV I ·: PROPOSED NEW RULE 74.3 1 , METALWORK I NG fLUIDS AND DIRECT-CONTACT LUBRICANTS, AND PROPOSED

**AMENDMl ~N**  **S** TO RULE 23, EXEMPTIONS fROM PERMIT ; AND D ETERMINAT ION THAT BOTII RULE-M/\K ING PROJECTS

**ARI ~**  CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNI/\ HNV IORNM ENTAL QUALITY ACT RECOMMEN DED ACTIONS: I
. Approve the use of CEQA Catego rical Exemptions for new Rule 74.3 I , and proposed revis

. ion s to Ru le 23 (Attachment I). 2
. Approve and adopt the proposed Legislative Findings for new Rule 74.3 I and the revisions to Rule 23, (Attachment 2). 3. Approve and Adopt new Rule 74.3 1 and revi sed Ru le 23(Attachments 3 and 4). 4. Direct the Clerk of the Boar d to forward two certified minute orders , and an affidavit of' publication of the public hearin g notice for a ll proposed actions to the Air Pollution Contro l District within twenty clays. 5. Direct Air Pollution Control Oftice r or hi s des ignee to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline s Section 15062
. STATEM ENT Of MATTER FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION: f3ackg round As a nonattainment area for the state ozone ambient air quality standards, Ventura County is s ubject to the terms and co ndition s or the Ca lif ornia Clean Air Act (Health & Sa l' cty Code § 39000 e t seq.). In particular, Health and Safety Code Section 40914 , subdi v is ion (a) requires that a local air pollution co ntrol di strict in a nonattainment area show a five perce nt annual emiss ion reduction in di s trict-wide air pollutant emis s io ns. But s ubdivi sion 40914(b) of the ll ea lth & Safety Code provide s an exemption from this annual five p ercent reduction in district

wide emissions s howing i 

## r the local air pollution control district uses an alternative emissionAir Pollution Contro l Board November 12, 20 13 Page 2 reduction str ategy that (I) is equal to o r better than the district-wide emission reduction effort ; (2) includes "all feasible measures" of air pollutant emission reduction; and (3) promulgates an expeditious adopt ion schedule for "all feasible measures." Proposed new Rule 74.31 is designed to reduce reactive organic compound (ROC) emissions from the usc or metalworking fluids and direct contact lu bricants at machine s hops, metal product

**numul~1cturers,** sheet metal fabricators, and meta l forgi ng operations. ROC is a precursor to the formation of ozone, which is a public health hazard. 

## Ir your f3oard decides to adopt thi s new rule, it will require operators of these stationary sources of air pollution to rep l ace hi gh-ROC lubricants, cutting oils, coo l ants, corrosion inhibitors, and other metalworking f'l uicl s w ith low - ROC meta lworking fluids

. This new ru le is expected to produce 

### a sign ificant amount of ROC em iss ion reductions (approximately 4 1 ton s per year) from a prev ious ly uncontrolled em issio n source category. A 2006 Technology Assessment performed by the I nstitute for Research and Assistance ( IRTA) l'or the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQM D) about a similar air pollution control rule in that jurisdiction provided the research and technical justification for this proposed new rule adoption. Proposed New and Amended Existing Rule Action The rule is based on SCAQMD Rule 1144, wh ich was a collaborative effort between SCAQMD and industry represented by the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (I LMA), a national trade association. APCD staff has worked c losely with the l argest metalworking fluid manufacturer and ILM A member, W.S. Dodge Oil. A letter of support from Dodge Oil for this rule adoption has been included as Attachment 5. The fo ll owing quote f i·om the letter cxcmplilies thei r support: ''We (Dodge Oil) be li eve Rule 74.31, which c lo sely follows SCAQMD Rule 1144, is an outs tandin g example of s imultaneously protecting our enviro nment whil e all owing

**manuf~1cturcrs** to continue to prosper." The proposal to amend Rule 23, Exemptions from Permit, is a companion rule-making action to proposed new Rule 74.31. Amended Rule 23 wi ll c larif y that existing sources cutTently exempt fi·om APCD permit requirements, including approximate l y 300 machine shops in the county, w ill continue to retain their permit exemption status. A lso, existing metal torging operations, which current l y arc required to obtain and maintain APCD permits because of their particulate matter emissions in addition to ROC emissions , will still be required to obtain and maintain those permits

. ·r hus , the proposed amendments to Rule 

### 21 will maintain the status quo by not n.:quiring any existing source to obtain an APCD permi t if they currently are not required to have one. Expected Em ission Reductions and Cost Analysis Estimated 

### ROC emissions in Ventura County from metalworking fluids and direct contact lubri cants subject to the proposed rule are 76 ton s of ROC per year bused on a comparative1\ir Pollution Cont rol Board Nove mb er 12, 20 I J Page J 

### analysis of Ventura County em is sio ns from this source cat egory based upon a survey performed by the SCAQMD. Estimated em iss ion reductions from the proposed rule action arc about 4 

### I tons ROC per year or a 54 percent reduction. These ROC emi ss ion reductions are expected to come from the replacement of high-ROC metalworking fluid s with low-RO C lluids, including medium nnpthenic oi ls, paraffinic oi ls, vegetable o il s, synthetic or semi-syntheti c oils, or waterreducible fluid s. Low ROC products are cu rrently available for each of the categories in Rule 74.31, 

### as the metalworking industry has already spent millions ofdollars in r esea rch and rct ormu lation costs to comply with SCAQMD Rule 11 44. 

### The costs of these product reformulation s have not been passed on to end use rs , resulting in minima l cost to machine shops. In fact, new emulsion-type products may all ow for increas ed production rates and extend tool lif e by 5 0 

### percent or great0r, resulting in a net sav ings to the end user. This proposed new rule does not r equ ire any metalworking stationary source operator to in stall add-on control devices to comp l y with the rule, wh i ch can be expens ive, especially for smaller sources. The cost-e1Jectiveness ana lysis tor thi s proposed new ru l e was based on the 2006 

### IRTA Technology Assessment and SCAQMD Rule 1144 

### staff Reports. The cost-c f Tcctiveness of replacing the high-ROC meta l working fluids with low

- RO C products ranges rrom an annual cost savings of $7,500 

### to $0.40 

### per pound cost of ROC reduced. This indicates that this rule-making proposal is very cost-cflective especially r elative to new emission sources, which may be required to spend as much as $9 .00 

### per pound of ROC reduced to in stall best available control tec hnology (BACT) pursuant to District Rule 26 New Source Review. The sta ff report (Attachment 6) contains a more comprehens i ve analysis of emiss ion r eduction and soc ioeconomic impacts. Another important aspect of this proposal is that administrative costs ofcompliance to local industry will be minimal. For all affected sources, except three permitted metal forging operations, APCD permits and emission source recordkceping will not be required. In stead, the proposal contains a sa le s pr ohibition of noncompliant metalworking flu id s to prohibit the sale or distribution of such tluids havin g an ROC content exceeding the limits speciiled in the rule. 

### SC AQMD Rule I I44 con tains a similar sales prohibition on noncompliant metalworking Ouids. This rule provision places the burden ofcompliance on the metalworking fluid manufacturers to only supp ly l egal products and to educate their suppliers and customers of the rule's requirements. Sal es prohibitions are an c l'f cctive tool to enforce rules directed at nonpermittcd sources and have been adopted in several APCD rules including rules regulating architectural coatings, auto refinishin g, adhes i ves, and pl easure crall coatings. Public Comments on thie Rule-Making Action A public consultation meeting was held on April 29, 20 

### I 3. That meeting was attended by Custom Unique Machine S hop , Smith Precision, and W.S. Dodge Oil (ILMA Representative). On July I, 2 013, 

### staff he l d a public workshop that was attcndcd by Silvas Oi l (distributor), I las s Automation, Blaser Swiss lube (t1uid manufacturer), W.S. Dodge Oil, and ILMA' s ge neral counsel. Also, staff received several minor comments from EPA, which have been included in the proposed rule, and no comments were received from AIU3. Staff has worked closely withAir Pollution Co ntrol Board November 1 2,2 013 Pnge 4 TLMA who suppot1 s this rul e adoption that will reduce sign ificant ROC emissions with little impact on the regulated community. 1LMA is interested in this Ventura County regulation beca use they would like to see the SCAQMD rule adopted nationwide for rule uniformity purposes. On August 27, 20 t 3, by unanimous vote, the Advisory Committee recommended approval of new Rule 74.31 and proposed revisions to Rule 23(Attachment 7). PROPOS ED STATUTORY FINDINGS: In accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 40703,40727,40727.2, 40728.5 and 40920.6(a), your Board must adopt findings of nec ess ity , authority , clarity, consistency, non duplication, reterence , cost-etTectiveness , incremental cost-effectiveness, and socioeconomic impacts, based upon r eleva nt information presented at the public hearing, prior to adopting new Rule 74.3 I and related amendments to existing Rule 23

.. Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2 requires a written analysis, comparison, and consideration of existing air pollution regulations that apply to the same type of source. Therefore , if yo ur Board approves the proposed revisions to these rules , it is recommended that your Board also adopt the proposed tindings that address these statutory requirements (Attachment 2)

. The proposed new Rule74.31 and proposed revisions to Rule 23 have been determined by Di stri ct staff to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality 1\.ct (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section s 15307, Protection ofNatural Resources, and 15308, Protection of Environment. The Notice of Exemption with respect to these CEQA exemptions is included as Attachment I. Thi s board item has been reviewed by County Counsel. If you have any questions , please contact Mike Villegas at 645-1440 or Stan Cowen at 645-1408.

Attachments: I. 2. 3. 4. 

### 5. 6. 

### 7. Propo sed Notice of CEQA Ex' emption Propo sed I .eg is lative Findings Proposed new Rule 74.3 1 Strikeout/under! ine version of revised Rule 23 Letter of support from W .S. Dod ge Oil final S taff Report Advisory Committee Voting Record ·,