Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

939 Ellis Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Staff Report 

Proposed Amendments 

to 

Regulation 12, Miscellaneous Standards of Performance 

Rule 12, Flares at Petroleum Refineries 

 March 3, 2006 

Prepared by: 

Alex Ezersky 

Principal Air Quality Specialist 

Planning and Research Division 

Reviewed by: 

Kathleen Walsh 

Assistant Counsel 
Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................2

II. BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................3

III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS......................................................................5

IV. EMISSIONS.................................................................................................6

V. ECONOMIC IMPACTS................................................................................8 

A. Introduction..........................................................................................8

B. Discussion ...........................................................................................8

C. Socioeconomic Impacts .........................................................10 

D. District Staff Impacts...............................................................10

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.................................................................10

VII. REGULATORY IMPACTS.......................................................................11

VII. RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.........................................................12

A. Introduction........................................................................................12

B. Stationary Source Committee Report................................................12 

C. Public Comment.....................................................................12 

X. CONCLUSION .........................................................................................13
2

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

On July 20, 2005, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (District) 

adopted a ground breaking refinery flare control rule (Regulation 12: 

Miscellaneous Standards of Performance, Rule 12: Flares at Petroleum 

Refineries). The new rule is intended to reduce emissions from flares at 

petroleum refineries by reducing the magnitude and duration of flaring events. 

The new rule requires each Bay Area refinery to develop and implement a Flare 

Minimization Plan (FMP) for each flare subject to the rule and to update the plan 

annually. In addition, the refiners must conduct a causal analysis when 

significant flaring occurs and develop and submit an annual report to provide 

information about the cause of flaring at lower flow rates. Refiners must operate 

their flares in accordance with the FMP except for flaring in emergency 

situations. The initial FMP for each refinery must be submitted to the District by 

August 1, 2006. 

The rule embodies a continuous improvement process focused on reducing all 

air pollutants from all flaring. A fundamental requirement of the regulation is the 

investigation to determine primary cause and contributing factors for flaring 

(causal analysis) in order to develop prevention measures to avoid or minimize 

flaring. The rule includes two requirements for submitting an analysis of the 

cause(s) of flaring depending on the amount of vent gas flared. 

The first reporting requirement calls for submission of a causal analysis report to 

the District within 60 days following the end of the month in which a reportable 

flaring event occurs. A reportable flaring event is currently defined as any flaring 

where more than 500,000 standard cubic feet per day (scfd) of vent gas is flared. 

The second reporting provision requires an annual report to the Air Pollution 

Control Officer (APCO) that summarizes the use of a flare at rates less than 

500,000 scfd where sulfur dioxide emissions are greater than 500 pounds per 

day. The summary must include the reasons for the flaring and prevention 

measures considered or implemented. Reporting of flaring resulting in sulfur 

dioxide emissions in excess of 500 pounds (regardless of the flow rate) is 

required twelve months after approval of the initial FMP and annually thereafter. 

Both provisions require determination of cause, identification of prevention 

measures and incorporation of prevention measures into the FMP. 

These provisions are the subject of the proposed rule amendments. The 

proposal is to change the annual reporting requirement for lower-volume flaring 

(less than 500,000 scfd) where emissions of sulfur dioxide exceed 500 pounds 

per day. The change would require the analysis and reporting of this lowervolume flaring to occur on the same schedule specified for flaring events greater 

than 500,000 scfd, i.e., within 60 days following the end of the month in which a 

reportable flaring event occurs. The proposed change would take effect upon 

adoption by the District Board of Directors. There have been 49 of these lower-
3

volume flaring events over the past two years; 28 in 2004 and 21 in 2005. 

The reason for the proposed amendment is to ensure that the prevention 

measures developed from the investigations into lower-volume flaring with sulfur 

dioxide emissions greater than 500 pounds per day are incorporated into the 

initial FMPs. 

In addition, the proposal would specify that the report of causal analysis for a 

reportable flaring event must include the volume of vent gas flared and the 

calculated emissions (methane, non-methane hydrocarbon and sulfur dioxide). 

This information is necessary to provide the context necessary for a 

comprehensive report. The proposal would also clarify the application of the 

causal analysis provision for refineries with cascade and backup systems. 

 II. BACKGROUND 

The District’s flare control rule, Regulation 12, Rule 12, recognizes that a flare is 

first and foremost a safety device. Specifically, the rule allows flaring in an 

emergency if necessary to prevent an accident, hazard or release of vent gas 

directly to the atmosphere. All other flaring must be consistent with the FMP 

developed by each refinery. 

The FMP includes information about the flare system or systems at the refinery 

and a list of feasible prevention measures to be implemented on an expedited 

schedule. The prevention measures are to be developed in conjunction with the 

causal analysis of reportable flaring events and the annual reports of the analysis 

of lower-volume flaring with sulfur dioxide emissions in excess of 500 pounds per 

day. 

The current regulation includes a requirement to conduct an investigation to 

evaluate any reportable flaring event, i.e., flaring where more than 500,000 scfd 

of vent gas is combusted. The purpose of the investigation is to identify the 

cause (or causes) of the flaring and the means to avoid flaring from that cause in 

the future if feasible. In addition to the causal analyses for reportable flaring 

events, beginning 12 months after approval of the initial FMP, each facility is 

required to submit an annual report to the District that includes an evaluation of 

flaring at volumes less than 500,000 scfd where the calculated sulfur dioxide 

emissions are greater than 500 pounds per day. These formal evaluation 

processes will ensure that each refinery makes continuous improvement and 

progress toward minimizing flaring from any cause. 

All feasible prevention measures identified through either of the reporting 

methods described above are to be incorporated in the FMP with a schedule for 

expeditious implementation of those measures. The FMP must be updated 

annually to incorporate the prevention measures identified during the previous 

year as well as any significant changes in process equipment or operational 

procedures related to flares. Any flaring that occurs after submission of the initial 
4

FMP must be consistent with the current plan. 

The requirement to conduct an investigation into the reasons for flaring was 

originally proposed in Regulation 12, Rule 11: Flare Monitoring at Petroleum 

Refineries. Under that regulation, for any 24-hour period during which more than 

1 million standard cubic feet (scf) of vent gas is flared, a description of the flaring 

including the cause, time of occurrence and duration, the source or equipment 

from which the vent gas originated, and any measures taken to reduce or 

eliminate flaring must be submitted to the District in a monthly report. This 

provision was effective on the date of rule adoption, June 4, 2003. The data 

included in the monthly report became more encompassing as other provisions in 

the rule became effective; specifically the requirements to continuously monitor 

vent gas flow and to sample vent gas and analyze for composition. These data 

were used to consider various thresholds of a causal analysis in the development 

of the flare control rule. 

A lower threshold to conduct a causal analysis was proposed for the new flare 

control rule, Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at Petroleum Refineries. Two 

reporting requirements were developed to cover all significant flaring events in an 

efficient and thorough manner. The first reporting requirement calls for a causal 

analysis to be completed where more than 500,000 scfd of vent gas is flared. 

This report is due 60 days following the end of the month in which the flaring 

event occurs. The second reporting provision requires a summary of the use of a 

flare at rates less than 500,000 scfd of vent gas where sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions are greater than 500 pounds per day. This report is due annually 

effective 12 months after approval of the original FMP. 

A breakdown of the number of flaring events for 2004 and 2005 is shown in 

Table 1. This data was obtained from the monthly reports required by the flare 

monitoring rule. The 2005 data incorporates January through November 2005. 

Also, the Tesoro data excludes the Ammonia Plant flare, because of an ongoing 

verification audit. 

Table 1. Summary of Flaring Events at Bay Area Refineries 

a

 Data through November 2005 

b

 Excludes Ammonia Plant Flare 

Facility Events Less than 500,000 scfd 

and Greater than 500 lbs SO2 per 

day 

Events Greater than 500,000 scfd 

 2004 2005a 2004 2005a

Chevron 0 2 38 21 

ConocoPhillips 8 9 12 38 

Shell 0 1 89 30 

Tesorob 4 2 72 64 

Valero 16 7 90 21 

Total 28 21 301 174 
5

The data in the table shows that most flaring would require a causal analysis 

under the existing threshold for causal analysis (greater than 500,000 scfd vent 

gas). The lower threshold represents a small portion of all flaring, but these 

lower-flow events with sulfur dioxide emissions at levels of concern may have 

different causes than the greater than 500,000 scfd events. Staff has concluded 

that requiring analysis of certain lower-volume flaring (greater than 500 pounds 

per day SO2) for inclusion in the initial FMP will insure that each refinery is 

creating a flare minimization strategy that will best address the causes of all 

flaring of concern at each refinery. 

III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

The proposed amendments will change the annual reporting provision for the 

flaring events of less than 500,000 scfd but greater than 500 lbs SO2 per day. 

The change would require the analysis and reporting of this lower-volume flaring 

to occur on the same schedule specified for reportable flaring events, i.e., within 

60 days following the end of the month in which the flaring occurs. The proposed 

change would take effect upon adoption by the District Board of Directors. 

Specifically, the proposal would amend the current definition of “reportable flaring 

event” for which a causal analysis is required within 60 days of the end of the 

month in which the flaring occurs, i.e., any flaring of more than 500,000 scfd vent 

gas, to include any flaring at rates below 500,000 scfd where the calculated SO2

emissions are greater than 500 pounds per day. The current rule requires the 

owner or operator of a flare subject to the rule to submit an annual report 

covering such lower-volume flaring beginning 12 months after approval of a 

refinery’s initial FMP. By moving up the schedule for analysis of lower-volume 

flaring with emissions of SO2 in excess of 500 pounds per day, the District will 

insure that the initial FMPs will account for and address the causes of all 

significant flaring. 

 

The proposal also includes an amendment specifying that the causal analysis 

must include the calculated methane, non-methane and sulfur dioxide emissions. 

The reports currently submitted include this information or the data necessary to 

calculate this information. This amendment will insure that all refineries submit 

this information a manner most efficient for staff use. 

Finally, the definition of a reportable flaring event has been amended to clarify 

that the total volume is calculated on a cumulative basis for flare systems. This 

clarification is necessary to identify when a reportable flaring event begins and 

ends for systems that are operated as a backup or staged flares or flares in a 

cascade (common piping configured either in series or parallel where the flare 

vent gas may be distributed to more than one flare).
6

IV. Emissions 

Flares produce air pollutants through two primary mechanisms. The first 

mechanism is incomplete combustion of a gas stream, because like all 

combustion devices, flares do not combust all of the fuel directed to them. The 

second mechanism of pollutant generation is the oxidation of flare gases to form 

other pollutants. As an example, the gases that are burned in flares typically 

contain sulfur in varying amounts. Combustion oxidizes these sulfur compounds 

to form sulfur dioxide, a criteria pollutant. In addition, combustion also produces 

relatively minor amounts of nitrogen oxides through oxidation of the nitrogen in 

flare gas or atmospheric nitrogen in combustion air. The flare control rule 

adopted by the District last year will reduce emissions from flaring as described 

in the staff report for Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at Petroleum Refineries. 

The proposed amendments are administrative in nature and will not have a 

significant emissions impact. The amendments will require a causal analysis for 

the lower-volume events with SO2 emissions in excess of 500 pounds per day on 

the same schedule as the higher volume events. This will insure that prevention 

measures for these lower-volume events are incorporated into the initial FMPs. 

In addition, the proposed amendments include a clarification of the application of 

the requirements to cascade, staged or backup flare systems and a provision to 

ensure that the report to the District providing the causal analysis for a flaring 

event includes calculated emissions for that event. No change in the amount of 

emission reductions from implementation of the flare control rule as adopted July 

20, 2005 are expected as a result of the proposed amendments; however, some 

reductions may occur earlier than under the current rule if prevention measures 

for these lower-volume flaring events are identified and implemented through the 

initial FMPs. 

Current Flare Emission Estimate 

The estimated emissions from flares, on an average daily basis for all facilities in 

2004, are approximately 2 tons/day of total organic compounds (approximately 

1.5 tons/day of non-methane organic compounds and 0.5 tons/day methane). 

The daily emissions range from 0 to 12 tons/day of total organic compounds. For 

sulfur dioxide, the average daily emission rate is approximately 4 tons/day and 

ranges from 0 to 61 tons/day. 

To illustrate the offsite impact of emissions associated with lower-volume flaring, 

staff modeled two days (April 21 and 22, 2004) of flaring at the Chevron refinery 

where the volume of vent gas flared was less than one-million standard cubic 

feet per calendar day and the calculated sulfur dioxide emissions were greater 

than 500 pounds per day. The results of the modeling are illustrated in the 

Figure 1. 
7

Figure 1. Modeled Lower-Volume Flaring Event 

t

Upper number :4/21/04 max. monitored 

Lower number: 4/22/04 max. monitored

Flares

Monitoring stations

Richmond-7th St

Gertrude

Castro Street

Golden Gate

xx ppb

xx ppb

April 21 1-hour average impact area

April 22 1-hour average impact area

4/22/04 max. modeled SO2= 32 ppb (5 AM PDT)

4/21/04 max modeled SO2= 72 ppb (3 PM PDT)

SO2 Ambient Air Quality Standard

 California 1-hour: 250 ppb

April 21 and 22, 2004 Chevron Flaring Event

Maximum 1-hour SO2 Air Concentration (ppb)

2 ppb

2 ppb

64 ppb

48 ppb

14 ppb

15 ppb

2 ppb

39 ppb

In Figure 1, above, Richmond area monitoring stations (Gertrude, Richmond - 7th

Street, Castro Street, and Golden Gate) are indicated by the white dots. The 

boxes next to each station contain the recorded concentration of SO2 in parts per 

billion (ppb) at that station for April 21 (upper, purple) and April 22 (lower, blue). 

The areas within the 10 ppb isopleths (April 21 near the Richmond - 7th Street 

Station in purple and April 22 southeast of the Golden Gate Station in blue) show 

the modeled ground level concentration of SO2 in ppb. Chevron’s flares are 

located directly west of the Gertrude Station (in red). 

On each of the two days several flares were in operation at rates less than onemillion standard cubic feet per day with calculated SO2 emissions of over 7500 

and 2500 pounds per day, respectively. The isopleths show that the modeling 

estimates concentrations consistent with data from nearby ambient air quality 

monitors. The modeling shows a one-hour maximum concentration of 72 ppb for 

April 21 and 32 ppb for April 22. The ambient air quality standard for a one-hour 

concentration of SO2 is 250 ppb. Nevertheless, these isopleths show an impact 

on the nearby community. For this reason, the inclusion of prevention measures 
8

directed at lower-volume flaring with SO2 emissions greater than 500 pounds per 

day in the initial FMP will lessen the emissions impact of flaring on those who live 

and work within affected areas. 

V. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

A. Introduction

This section discusses the estimated costs associated with the proposed 

amendments. The California Health & Safety Code states, in part, that districts 

shall endeavor to achieve and maintain State ambient air quality standards for 

ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide by the earliest 

practicable date. In developing regulations to achieve this objective, districts 

shall consider the cost-effectiveness of their air quality programs, rules, 

regulations, and enforcement practices in addition to other relevant factors, and 

shall strive to achieve the most efficient methods of air pollution control. 

However, priority shall be placed upon expeditious progress toward the goal of 

healthful air.1

Regulation 12-12 requires refineries to develop the prevention measures they will 

implement to reduce flaring. The regulation by design ensures that the most cost 

effective means for achieving this goal will be implemented. That is, it is 

reasonable to expect that each refinery, given the flexibility provided by the 

structure of the rule, will include the most cost-effective prevention measures 

available for each iteration of the flare minimization plan, thus insuring the 

continuous improvement at the least cost. 

This was the determination of the District in adopting the current flare control 

rule. The conclusion is equally applicable to the proposed amendments. 

B. Discussion 

Determination and Reporting of Cause 

The cost for the determining and reporting of cause is dependant on the number 

of reportable flaring events and the complexity of each event. The data from the 

flare monitoring monthly reports, which was used in the cost analysis for 

Regulation 12-12, shows 243 occurrences where the volume of vent gas flared 

was greater than 500,000 scfd in 2004 for all facilities. In the development of 

Regulation 12-12, staff estimated costs of determining and reporting cause at an 

hourly rate of $50.00 per hour for 12 hours per event. The total was 

approximately $145,800 for all facilities per year. The cost for an individual 

refinery will be much less. Moreover, staff expected this cost to drop in time as 

 

1

 California Health and Safety Code section 40910 
9

facilities minimize the number of events and become more proficient in 

investigations. 

The initial cost analysis was based on a hypothetical 67 events per facility. A 

review of Table 1 shows that, even including lower-volume flaring where sulfur 

dioxide emissions exceed 500 pounds per day, no facility would have had 

reportable flaring events in excess of 67 events in 2005. Staff anticipates the 

downward trend in the number of reportable flaring events to continue, with a 

concomitant drop in these costs. Therefore, although there may be additional 

causal analyses required in the first year (or two) of implementation of the flare 

control rule under this proposal, the additional causal analyses required by these 

amendments will create no significant increase in the costs assumed for the 

current version of Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at Petroleum Refineries when 

adopted in July of 2005. 

Prevention Measures 

The cost effectiveness analysis for Regulation 12, Rule 12 was estimated for two 

scenarios selected to represent the range of options among prevention 

measures. The first estimate, representing a costly prevention measure, 

considered an example of a refinery that had performed a hazard analysis for 

Contra Costa County and had upgraded the flare gas recovery system. A less 

costly prevention measure was also considered where startup and shutdown 

schedule adjustments resulted in a reduction of flaring, which included cost of 

lost production. The costs of these prevention measures were estimated to vary 

from $1,603 to $1,527 per ton of all pollutants for the first year and from $800 to 

$1500 per ton thereafter. 

Currently, Regulation 12, Rule 12 requires the prevention measures developed 

for the lower-volume events to be included in the FMPs following inclusion in an 

annual report. While the proposed amendments may result in earlier 

implementation of one or more prevention measures, the costs of those 

measures would not exceed those identified when Regulation 12-12 was 

originally proposed and adopted. 

Annual Reports and Updates 

The proposed administrative amendments merely change the scheduling of the 

analysis and reporting of lower-volume flaring. Under the current rule, all flaring 

with sulfur dioxide emissions in excess of 500 pounds per day per day is 

addressed in a report to be submitted 12 months after approval of the initial FMP 

and annually thereafter. As amended, these events will have to be analyzed in a 

report submitted within 60 days following the end of the month in which the 

flaring occurs, consistent with the high volume events. Although, as discussed 

above, there may be more causal analyses required in the first year (or two) 

under the program, and prevention measures associated with these events may 

be scheduled for implementation earlier, the costs will not exceed the costs 
10

estimated for implementation of the current rule. Refineries will not, however, 

incur the costs of preparing the annual report. 

C. Socioeconomic Impacts 

Section 40728.5 of the Health and Safety Code requires an air district to assess 

the socioeconomic impacts of the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule if the 

rule is one that “will significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations.” 

Applied Economic Development of Berkeley, California, prepared a 

socioeconomic analysis for the initial proposed Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at 

Petroleum Refineries. The analysis concludes that the affected refineries should 

be able to absorb the costs of compliance with the proposed rule without 

significant economic dislocation or loss of jobs. 

The proposed amendments are administrative changes; they expedite reporting 

of lower-volume events so that any prevention measures specifically developed 

for this type of flaring can be incorporated into the initial FMP. The affect on air 

quality and emissions will result from the various measures refineries put into 

place to reduce flaring, not from these administrative requirements. In any event, 

the proposed amendments would not change the conclusion of the 

socioeconomic analysis for the initial proposed Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at 

Petroleum Refineries. 

D. District Staff Impacts 

In the staff report for the adopted Regulation 12-12, staff identified that it will take 

a total of 1.5 FTE at an average staff level of a Senior Engineer to implement the 

rule. The total cost was estimated to exceed $250,000. The proposed 

amendments do not add significantly to staff impacts, and in some cases may 

reduce those impacts. By specifying that the refinery must provide the volume 

of vent gas and calculated emission data, staff resources necessary to perform 

the calculations from raw data will not be needed. In addition, staff time will no 

longer be required to review annual reports. 

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the District prepared an 

Initial Study during the development of the original flare control rule (Regulation 

12, Rule 12) to determine whether it would result in any significant environmental 

impacts. The study and subsequent Environmental Impact Report discussed 

certain potential significant environmental impacts, but ultimately concluded that 

the proposed rule would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. 

Based on this determination (and others), the District adopted the flare control 

rule in July of 2005. 

The amendments now proposed are administrative changes to the original flare 

control rule; they expedite reporting and development of prevention measures 
11

and incorporation of lower-volume events into the initial FMP. The District has 

determined that there is no possibility the proposed amendments could cause 

any significant environmental effect; therefore, they are exempt from the 

provisions of CEQA in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 

15061(b)(3). In fact, the amendments would not constitute a “project” under 

CEQA because they do not have the potential to result in either a direct physical 

change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change 

in the environment. (Public Resource Code section 21065; State CEQA 

Guidelines section 15378.) 

VII. REGULATORY IMPACTS 

Section 40727.2 of the Health and Safety Code requires an air district, in 

adopting, amending, or repealing an air district regulation, to identify existing 

federal and district air pollution control requirements for the equipment or source 

type affected by the proposed change in district rules. The district must then 

note any differences between these existing requirements and the requirements 

imposed by the proposed change. Table 2 is a matrix of the thresholds and 

reporting requirements, including the responsible agency. 

Table 2. Reporting Thresholds and Requirements 

Agency Regulation Requirement Threshold Responsible Agency 

BAAQMD Reg. 12-12 Causal Analysis > 500,000 scfd BAAQMD 

EPA Emergency 

Planning and 

Community 

Right-to-Know 

Act (EPCRA) 

and Section 

112(r) of the 

Clean Air Act

Notification to Local 

Emergency 

Response 

Committee/Agency 

500 lbs SO2

100 lbs 

Hydrogen 

Sulfide 

Local Emergency 

Response 

Committee/Agency 

BAAQMD Reg. 12-12 

Proposed 

Amendments 

Causal Analysis Any flaring 

greater than 

500 lbs/day of 

SO2

BAAQMD 

Federal Requirements 

Federal Title 3 requirements include reporting and planning provisions at 

specified thresholds. The focus of these requirements is emergency response 

and community right to know. Adequate release response plans and timely 

notification to responsible agencies are required. 

EPA has entered into consent decrees with all Bay Area refineries. These 
12

decrees, among other requirements, contain increments of progress for the 

application of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to all flares. NSPS 

limit sulfur oxides in vent gases combusted in a flare installed after June 11, 1973 

(40 CFR Part 60, Subpart J, Section 60.104). Flaring caused by upset gases or 

fuel gas from relief valve leakage or other emergency malfunctions is exempt 

from the standard. 

VIII. RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

A. Introduction 

Staff posted a request for comments on the proposed amendments to Regulation 

12-12 on December 23, 2005. Three written comments were received in support 

of the proposed amendments. 

As part of the development of the original regulation staff had undertaken an 

extensive rule development process in order to receive input from all affected 

parties. These efforts included the formation of a technical working group, public 

meetings, workshops and presentations to the District Board of Directors 

Stationary Source Committee. This process is described in the staff report for 

Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at Petroleum Refineries. 

Staff has formed an implementation team to ensure thorough review of and 

compliance with the causal analyses and prevention measures submitted to the 

District by each facility. The team consists of District staff from the Engineering, 

Enforcement, Planning and Legal Divisions. The team meets regularly to 

evaluate submittals and make recommendations, which have been incorporated 

into the proposed amendments. In addition, the team meets with refinery staff as 

questions and the need for clarification and consistency arise. 

B. Stationary Source Committee Reports 

At the flare control rule adoption hearing on July 20, 2005, staff was directed to 

provide an update to the Stationary Source Committee on the cumulative impacts 

of a lower threshold for causal analysis. The minutes of that meeting can be 

found at on the District’s web site at the following address, 

(http://www.baaqmd.gov/brd/brddirectors/agendas_minutes.htm). 

Staff has reported to the Stationary Source Committee at each meeting since 

rule adoption. At the meeting of November 28, 2005 the Committee 

recommended consideration of amendments to include a causal analysis of 

lower-volume flaring where 500 pounds per day of SO2 is emitted on the same 

schedule as for events involving flaring of vent gas at flow rates in excess of 

500,000 scfd. The agenda of that meeting can be found on the District’s web site 

at the same address. 
13

C. Public Comment 

The proposed rule amendments were made available for public comment and 

posted on the District’s web site. Two comments expressed concern over 

proposed language in the definition of a reportable flaring event. The proposed 

language, which was intended to define the end of a reportable flaring event by 

specifying a volume of vent gas as the endpoint, was deemed confusing. As 

suggested, it has been deleted. The definition as proposed identifies the end of 

an event as either a specified rate or when water seal integrity is established and 

explains that for certain systems where more than one flare may burn vent gas, 

the total volume is calculated on a cumulative basis. 

IX. CONCLUSION 

The proposed amendments to Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at Petroleum 

Refineries, are intended to ensure that information about lower-volume flaring 

where sulfur dioxide emissions are greater than 500 pounds per day is available 

for inclusion in the initial Flare Minimization Plans. Pursuant to Health and Safety 

Code Section 40727, new regulations must meet standards of necessity, 

authority, clarity, consistency, non-duplicity and reference. The proposed 

amended regulation is: 

• Necessary to protect public health by reducing ozone precursor emissions, and 

to reduce exposures to toxic air contaminants, sulfur dioxide and particulate 

matter by insuring that feasible prevention measures to reduce or avoid use of 

flares at petroleum refineries are identified and scheduled for implementation 

on an expedited schedule; 

• Authorized by California Health and Safety Code section 40702; 

• Clear, in that the new regulation specifically delineates the affected industry, 

compliance options and administrative requirements for industry subject to this 

rule; 

• Consistent with other District rules, and not in conflict with State or federal law; 

• Non-duplicative of other statutes, rules or regulations; and 

• The proposed regulation properly references the applicable District rules and 

test methods and does not reference other existing law. 

The proposed amendments are not subject to CEQA because they do not 

constitute a “project” as defined in State law and the CEQA Guidelines and 

because it can be determined with certainty that the amendments have no 

possibility of causing any significant environmental effects. 
14

The proposed amendments will not increase the costs of implementing 

Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at Petroleum Refineries. Staff has analyzed the 

cost of the additional causal analysis and found them to be within the total 

number of analysis projected in the original adoption of Regulation 12, Rule 12 

and the potential for early implementation of one or more prevention measures 

would not increase the costs estimated for the adoption of the current rule. 

Staff recommends the adoption of the proposed amendments to Regulation 12: 

Miscellaneous Standards of Performance, Rule 12: Flares at Petroleum 

Refineries, and approval of the filing of a CEQA Notice of Exemption.