## 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 SU MMARY.............................................................................2

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

III. PROPOSED AM ENDMEN TS......................................................................5

IV. EMISSIONS

................................................................................................. 6

V. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

................................................................................ 8

A. Introducti on..........................................................................................8

B. Discussi on ...........................................................................................8 C. Socioeconomic Impacts .........................................................10

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

VI. ENVIRONMENTA L IMPACT S.................................................................10

VII. REGULATORY IMPACT S.......................................................................11

VII. RULE DEVELOPME NT PROC ESS.........................................................12

A. Introduc tion........................................................................................12 B. Stationary Source Committee Report................................................12
C. Public Comment.....................................................................12

X. CONCL USION .........................................................................................132 

### I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On July 20, 2005, the Ba y Area Air Quality Management District (District) adopted a ground breaking refinery flar e 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 m agnitude and duration of flaring events.

The new rule requires each Bay Area re finery to develop and implement a Flare Minimization Plan (FMP) for each flare s ubject to the rule and to update the plan annually. In addition, the refiners mu st conduct a causal analysis when significant flaring occurs and develop and submit an annual report to provide information about the cause of flaring at lo wer flow rates. Refiners must operate

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

situations. The initial FMP for each refi nery must be submitted to the District by August 1, 2006.

The rule embodies a continuous improv ement process focused on reducing all air pollutants from all flaring. A fundament al requirement of t he regulation is the investigation to determine primary caus e and contributing factors for flaring (causal analysis) in order to develop prev ention measures to avoid or minimize flaring. The rule includes two requi rements for submitting an analysis of the cause(s) of flaring depending on t he 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 c ubic feet per day (scfd) of vent gas is flared. The second reporting provision require s an annual report to the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) that summarizes t he use of a flare at rates less than 500,000 scfd where sulfur di oxide emissions are greater than 500 pounds per day. The summary must include the r easons for the flaring and prevention measures considered or impl emented. Reporting of flar ing 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 prev ention 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) wher e emissions of sulfur dioxide exceed 500 poundsper day. The change would require the analysis and reporting of this lowervolume flaring to occur on the same sc hedule specified for fl aring events greater than 500,000 scfd, i.e., withi n 60 days following the end of the month in which a reportable flaring event occurs. T he proposed change would take effect upon adoption by the District Boar d 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 in vestigations 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 t hat the report of causal analysis for a reportable flaring event must include t he volume of vent gas flared and the calculated emissions (methane, non-met hane hydrocarbon and sulfur dioxide). This information is necessary to pr ovide 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. Specif ically, the rule allows flaring in an emergency if necessary to prevent an a ccident, hazard or release of vent gas directly to the atmosphere. All other flaring must be cons istent with the FMP developed by each refinery.

The FMP includes information about the fl are system or systems at the refinery and a list of feasible prevention meas ures to be implem ented on an expedited schedule. The prevention measures ar e to be developed in conjunction with the causal analysis of reportable flaring ev ents and the annual reports of the analysis of lower-volume flaring with sulfur diox ide emissions in excess of 500 pounds per day.

The current regulation includes a require ment 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 fr om 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 ca lculated sulfur dioxide emissions are greater than 500 pounds per day. These formal evaluation processes will ensure that each refiner y makes continuous improvement and progress toward minimizing flaring from any cause.

All feasible prevention measures ident ified through either of the reporting

methods described above are to be incor porated in the FMP with a schedule for expeditious implementation of those measures. The FMP must be updated annually to incorporate the prevention measures identif ied during the previous year as well as any significant changes in process equipment or operational procedures related to flares. Any flaring t hat occurs after submission of the initial4 FMP must be consistent with the current plan.

The requirement to conduct an investigat ion into the reasons for flaring was originally proposed in Regulation 12, Ru le 11: Flare Monitoring at Petroleum

Refineries. Under that r egulation, 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 sour ce 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 analysi s 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: Fl ares at Petroleum Refineries. Two reporting requirements were developed to cover all significant flaring events in an efficient and thorough manner. The first r eporting 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 provis ion requires a summary of the use of a

flare at rates less than 500,000 scfd of vent gas wh ere sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions are greater t han 500 pounds per day. This report is due annually effective 12 months after approval of the original FMP.

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

Table 1. This data was obtained from t he monthly reports r equired by the flare monitoring rule. The 2005 data incor porates January through November 2005. Also, the Tesoro data excludes the Amm onia 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 2005 a 2004 2005 a

Chevron 0 2 38 21 ConocoPhillips 8 9 12 38

Shell 0 1 89 30

Tesoro b 4 2 72 64

Valero 16 7 90 21

Total 28 21 301 1745 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-v olume flaring (greater than 500 pounds per day SO 2 ) 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 SO 2 per day. The change would require the analysis and r eporting of this lower-volume flaring to occur on the same schedule specified fo r reportable flaring events, i.e., within 60 days following the end of t he month in which the flaring occurs. The proposed change would take effect upon adoption by the District Board of Directors.

Specifically, the proposal w ould amend the current definit ion of “reportable flaring event” for which a causal analysis is r equired 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 bel ow 500,000 scfd where the calculated SO 2 emissions are greater t han 500 pounds per day. The cu rrent rule requires the owner or operator of a flare subject to the rule to submit an annual report covering such lower-volume flaring begi nning 12 months after approval of a refinery’s initial FMP. By moving up the schedule for analysis of lower-volume flaring with emissions of SO 2 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-me thane and sulfur dioxide emissions. The reports currently submitted include th is 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 cu mulative basis for flare systems. This clarification is necessary to identify when a reportable flaring event begins and ends for systems that are oper ated as a backup or staged fl ares or flares in a cascade (common piping confi gured 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 tw o primary mechanisms. The first mechanism is incomplete combustion of a gas stream, because like all combustion devices, flares do not combust a ll of the fuel directed to them. The second mechanism of pollutant generation is the oxidation of flare gases to form other pollutants. As an ex ample, the gases that are burned in flares typically contain sulfur in varying amounts. Com bustion oxidizes these sulfur compounds to form sulfur dioxide, a criteria pollut ant. In addition, combustion also produces relatively minor amounts of nitrogen oxides through oxidation of the nitrogen in flare gas or atmospheric nitrogen in com bustion air. The flare control rule adopted by the District last year will reduce emissions fr om flaring as described in the staff report for Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at Petroleum Refineries.

The proposed amendments are administr ative in nature and will not have a significant emissions impact. The am endments will require a causal analysis for

the lower-volume events with SO 2 emissions in excess of 500 pounds per day on the same schedule as the higher volume ev ents. This will insure that prevention

measures for these lower-volume events ar e incorporated into the initial FMPs. In addition, the proposed amendments include a clarification of th e application of the requirements to cascade, staged or backup flare systems and a provision to ensure that the report to t he District providing the causal analysis for a flaring

event includes calculated emissions for t hat event. No change in the amount of emission reductions from impl ementation of the flare c ontrol 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 t ons/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 fr om 0 to 12 tons/day of total organic compounds. For sulfur dioxide, the aver age daily emission rate is approximately 4 tons/day and ranges from 0 to 61 tons/day.

To illustrate the offsite impact of emissi ons 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 flar ed was less than one-million standard cubic feet per calendar day and t he calculated sulfur dioxi de 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 Ai r Concentration (ppb)

2 ppb 2 ppb

64 ppb 48 ppb 14 ppb 15 ppb 2 ppb 39 ppb

In Figure 1, above, Richmond area monito ring stations (Gertrude, Richmond - 7 th
Street, Castro Street, and Golden Gate) ar e indicated by the white dots. The

boxes next to each station contai n the recorded concentration of SO 2 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 - 7 th Street Station in purple and April 22 southeast of the Golden Gate Station in blue) show the modeled ground level concentration of SO 2 in ppb. Chevron’s flares are located directly west of t he 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 SO 2 emissions of over 7500 and 2500 pounds per day, respectively. The isopleths show that the modeling

estimates concentrations consistent wit h 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 am bient air quality standard for a one-hour

concentration of SO 2 is 250 ppb. Nevertheless, t hese isopleths show an impact on the nearby community. For this reason, the inclusion of prevention measures8 directed at lower-volume flaring with SO 2 emissions greater than 500 pounds per day in the initial FMP will le ssen 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 par t, that districts
shall endeavor to achieve and maintain St ate ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulf ur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide by the earliest practicable date. In devel oping 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 effici ent methods of air pollution control. However, priority shall be placed upon ex peditious progress toward the goal of

healthful air. 1

Regulation 12-12 requires refineries to dev elop the prevention measures they will implement to reduce flaring. The regulation by design ens ures 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 mo st cost-effective prevention measures

available for each iteration of the flar e minimization plan, thus insuring the continuous improvement at the least cost.

This was the determination of the Distric t in adopting the curr ent 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 repor ting 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, whic h was used in the cost analysis for Regulation 12-12, shows 243 occurrences w here 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 repor ting cause at an hourly rate of $50.00 per hour for 12 hours per event. The total was approximately $145,800 for all fa cilities 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 409109 facilities minimize the number of ev ents and become more proficient in investigations.

The initial cost analysis was based on a hy pothetical 67 events per facility. A review of Table 1 shows that, even incl uding 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 ev ents to continue, with a concomitant drop in these costs. Ther efore, 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 addi tional causal analyses required by these amendments will create no signifi cant 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 Regulat ion 12, Rule 12 was estimated for two scenarios selected to represent t he range of options among prevention measures. The first estimate, repres enting 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 prevent ion measures were estimated to vary from $1,603 to $1,527 per ton of all pollut ants for the first year and from $800 to $1500 per ton thereafter.

Currently, Regulation 12, Rule 12 requi res the prevention measures developed

for the lower-volume events to be included in the FMPs following inclusion in an annual report. While the proposed am endments may result in earlier implementation of one or more prevention measures, the costs of those

measures would not exceed those i dentified 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 ex cess of 500 pounds per day per day is addressed in a report to be submitted 12 m onths after approval of the initial FMP and annually thereafter. As amended, thes e 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 prevent ion measures associated with these events may be scheduled for implementation earlier, the costs will not exceed the costs10 estimated for implementation of the cu rrent 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 propos ed Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at Petroleum Refineries. The analysis concl udes that the affected refineries should be able to absorb the costs of comp liance with the proposed rule without significant economic dislocation or loss of jobs.

The proposed amendments are administrat ive changes; they expedite reporting of lower-volume events so that any prev ention 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 re quirements. In any event, the proposed amendments would not change the conclusion of the socioeconomic analysis for the initial propos ed 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 leve l of a Senior Engineer to implement the

rule. The total cost was estima ted to exceed $250,000. The proposed amendments do not add signific antly 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 devel opment of the original flar e control rule (Regulation 12, Rule 12) to determine w hether it would result in any significant environmental impacts. The study and subsequent En vironmental Impact Report discussed certain potential significant environmental impacts, but ultimately concluded that the proposed rule would not have any signifi cant 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 administrat ive changes to the original flare control rule; they expedite reporting and development of pr evention measures11 and incorporation of lower-volume events in to the initial FMP. The District has

determined that there is no possibility the proposed amendments could cause any significant environmental effect; t herefore, they are exempt from the provisions of CEQA in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). In fact, the amendments w ould 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 Resour ce 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 distri ct rules. The district must then note any differences between these exis ting requirements and the requirements imposed by the proposed change. Table 2 is a matrix of the thresholds and reporting requirements, incl uding 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 SO 2 100 lbs Hydrogen
Sulfide Local Emergency Response Committee/Agency

BAAQMD Reg. 12-12 Proposed

Amendments Causal Analysis Any flaring greater than 500 lbs/day of

SO 2 BAAQMD

Federal Requirements

Federal Title 3 requirements include reporting and planning provisions at specified thresholds. The focus of t hese requirements is emergency response and community right to know. Adequate release response plans and timely notification to responsib le agencies are required.

EPA has entered into consent decrees wit h all Bay Area refineries. These12 decrees, among other require ments, contain increment s of progress for the application of New Source Performanc e Standards (NSPS) to all flares. NSPS limit sulfur oxides in vent gases combust ed 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 regul ation staff had undertaken an extensive rule development pr ocess 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 pr evention 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 recomm endations, which have been incorporated into the proposed amendments. In addition, the team meets with refinery staff as questions and the need for clarific ation 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 si te at the following address, ( http://www.baaqmd.gov/brd/brddi rectors/agendas_minutes.htm ).

Staff has reported to the Stationary S ource Committee at each meeting since rule adoption. At the meeting of November 28, 2005 the Committee

recommended consideration of amendment s to include a causal analysis of lower-volume flaring where 500 pounds per day of SO 2 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 t hat 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. Tw o comments expressed concern over proposed language in the definit ion of a reportable flar ing 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 w hen water seal integrit y is established and explains that for certain systems wher e 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 emi ssions are greater than 500 poun ds per day is available

for inclusion in the initial Flare Minimiza tion Plans. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40727, new regulations mu st meet standards of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non-duplicity and refer ence. The proposed amended regulation is:

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

to reduce exposures to toxic air contam inants, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter by insuring that feasible preventi on 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 specif ically delineates t he affected industry,

compliance options and administrative requi rements for industry subject to this rule;

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

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

• The proposed regulation properly referenc es 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 cert ainty that the amendments have no possibility of causing any signifi cant environmental effects.14 The proposed amendments will not increas e the costs of implementing Regulation 12, Rule 12: Flares at Petr oleum 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 im plementation of one or mo re 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.