Board Meeting Summary for July 30, 1998
State of California

Summary of Board Meeting
July 30, 1998

Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
Sacramento, California

MEMBERS PRESENT: Hons. John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman
Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E.
Mark DeSaulnier
William F. Friedman, M.D.
Jack C. Parnell
Barbara Patrick
Sally Rakow
Barbara Riordan
Ron Roberts
James W. Silva


98-6-1 Continuation of a Public Hearing to Consider the Appeal of the City of Los Angeles from Order No. 070297-04 ot the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District


This item is a continuation of an appeal considered by the Board at its June 25, 1998 public hearing. The appeal by the City of Los Angeles (City) stemmed from two orders issued by the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (District). One would require the City to pay fees of $1,482, 485 to the District and the other would require the City to implement certain PM-10 control measures on the dry bed of Owens Lake. The control measures consist of a combination of shallow flooding, managed vegetation, and gravel covering.

At its May 22, 1998 hearing, the Board denied the City's appeal of the fee order but continued the hearing of the City's appeal of required control measures at Owens Lake to the June 25, 1998 hearing. At the June public hearing, the City and the District requested the Board to further continue the matter until the Board's July hearing, in order to give the parties additional time to finalize a settlement agreement. The Board agreed to the request. The Board also adopted a written Decision and Findings document to finalize the Board's May 22 decision regarding the fee order, but directed the Executive Officer to delay serving this document on the parties until no earlier than July 31, 1998.

On July 15, 1998, the two parties issued a joint statement announcing that the negotiating teams from both parties had developed a proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to resolve the disputes concerning the District's adoption of PM-10 control measures contained in the Owens Valley State Implementation Plan (SIP). The MOA, which was approved by the District Board and the governing Board of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Los Angeles City Council, contains a commitment by the City to attain the federal PM-10 standards by applicable deadlines in the Clean Air Act and according to specific timetables and milestones identified in the agreement. The MOA also contains a commitment by the District to adopt a SIP revision that conforms to the terms of the agreement.

Pursuant to the wishes of the City and the District, the Board voted to further continue the appeal of the control measure order until the December Board hearing, at which point there would be a revision to the SIP incorporating the agreements of the MOA. Also, prior to the adoption of the SIP revision, the Board instructed the City and the District to provide a written update. The Board also directed staff to serve on the City and the District the Board's June 25th decision regarding the Project Budget Order. Finally, the Board took off the calendar any other pending City appeals of District orders.


Andrea Lawrence
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District

Jerry Gene
LA Department of Water and Power

Brian Lamb
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District

Philip Shiner
City of Los Angeles

Todd Campbell
Coalition for Clean Air


See above.


98-8-1 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of a Regulatory Amendment Identifying Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant


Staff presented their proposal to the Air Resources Board for the identification of diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) as required under California's air toxics law, Assembly Bill (AB) 1807. Diesel exhaust entered the TAC identification program in 1989. The program was established in 1983 by AB 1807 and is designed to protect the public health of Californians by reducing emissions of TACs. Under this program, the ARB staff prepared the assessment of emissions and exposure to diesel exhaust and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) prepared an evaluation of the health effects of diesel exhaust. Both these assessments were combined to create the "Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a TAC" report.

Since 1989, the ARB staff has held a number of scientific workshops and public meetings to solicit input from outside scientists, industry, environmental groups, and the public on the diesel exhaust report. Subsequently, the report was reviewed and approved by the State's Scientific Review Panel (SRP) on Toxic Air Contaminants in April 1998.

At the meeting, ARB staff presented the key exposure findings followed by the OEHHA's key health effects findings. Dr. John Froines, Chairman of the SRP, presented the findings of the SRP.

The Board also heard testimony from many interested parties, including the affected industries, industry associations, environmental groups, local air pollution control districts, and other interested individuals. Some of the key issues center on the wording of the listing, the use of the range of risks health numbers, and the potential litigation under Proposition 65. ARB and the OEHHA staff responded to each of these issues.

In conclusion, the Board voted to defer action on the listing of diesel exhaust as a TAC until its August 1998 meeting. The hearing was continued as a result of requests from a number of Legislators to defer action until after the August 4th Senate Transportation Committee hearing on the Future of Diesel Fuel and Related Health Effects.


Ellen Garvey

Paul Knepprath
American Lung Assoc.

Allan Zaremberg
State Chamber of Commerce

Richard McCann

Bill Bunn
Engine Manufacturers Assoc. (EMA)

Jed Mandel

John Duerr
Detroit Diesel

Mohsen Sohi
Allied Signal

Dave Smith

Allen Schaffer
American Trucking Assoc.

Stephanie Williams
Calif. Trucking Assoc.

Janet Hathaway
Natural Resources Defense Council

Dan Eisentrager
Calif. Bus Assoc.

Merlin Fagan
Farm Bureau

Roger Isom
Nisei Farmers League

Todd Campbell
Coalition for Clean Air

Bonnie Holmes Gen
Sierra Club

Tim Carmichael
Coaltion for Clean Air



98-8-2 Public Meeting to Consider a Report by the Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Panel


The Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Panel was established by ARB in 1996. The goal of the Panel was to assist ARB by providing an independent assessment regarding the potential for fuel cell technology to become a viable option for zero or near-zero emission vehicles within the next five to ten years. The Panel has just completed a fact- finding study in which they collected and evaluated information on fuel cell technologies that are being researched and developed worldwide for transportation applications. Dr. Fritz Kalhammer, Panel Chairman, made a presentation to the Board on the work and conclusions of the Panel.

The Panel has concluded that all leading automobile manufacturers have selected the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell for their programs. The Panel believes that PEM fuel cell stack technology has advanced significantly over the last few years and is now capable of meeting motor vehicle performance requirements. Hydrogen is not considered a feasible fuel for light-duty vehicles in the near future. Therefore, the Panel believes that methanol, gasoline, or petroleum distillates are the most likely candidate fuels and will need to be reformed on-board into a hydrogen-rich gas for a fuel cell engine. The Panel does not believe that fuel processors have achieved all of the necessary technical requirements yet; however, processor technology has advanced to the proof-of- principle stage. One of the most significant challenges that must be addressed is the ability to manufacture a fuel cell vehicle with costs comparable to conventional gasoline vehicles. Low cost design and manufacturing methods are only now being established. The Panel believes that large-volume manufacturing (e.g. 100,000 vehicles per year) will be essential for achieving cost-competitiveness. The Panel discussed possible schedules for the commercial availability of fuel cell vehicles. Fuel cell vehicles could be available in the 2004 to 2005 timeframe by two or three manufacturers if all outstanding technical issues are able to be satisfactorily addressed. Current and future investments in the development of this technology are estimated to be over one billion dollars by the Panel.


Ken Smith




98-8-3 Public Meeting to Update the Board on the Status of the ARB's Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program and ZEV Technology


In 1990, ARB approved the Low-Emission Vehicle and Clean Fuels regulations. These regulations required that the seven largest auto manufacturers produce ZEVs beginning in 1998. In March 1996, due to the state of battery technology, ARB modified the regulations by eliminating the ZEV requirement during the 1998 to 2002 timeframe. The ZEV requirement for 2003 was retained. At the same time, the seven largest auto makers and ARB signed Memoranda of Agreements (MOAs) to accelerate the development of advanced batteries. Staff made a presentation to the Board which described the progress of the auto manufacturers in complying with the MOAs, the status of ARB activities related to the MOAs, and the progress achieved in advanced battery development.

Under the MOAs, the auto manufacturers are responsible for, among other things, demonstrating advanced battery electric vehicles in California. ARB staff reported that over 750 electric vehicles had been placed in California to date. All auto manufacturers have either met their 1998 MOA obligations to demonstrate advanced battery vehicles, or are expected to do so by the end of the year. ARB is involved in a number of activities to support the ZEV program including the EV Loan Program which is designed to encourage the lease or purchase of ZEVs by state and other public fleets.

ARB staff also provided an analysis of the progress that has been achieved since 1996 for the four most promising batteries for commercialization in 2003: nickel-metal hydride, sodium-nickel chloride, lithium-ion and lithium-polymer. The nickel metal- hydride battery offers good overall performance and is currently used by Honda and Toyota. The greatest challenge is reducing the high cost. The sodium-nickel chloride is the most proven of the advanced batteries; however, it operates at high temperature and thus has costs associated with its use. The lithium-ion battery currently exhibits high cost and inadequate calendar life. Efforts are ongoing to address these issues. Finally, the lithium-polymer battery has made good progress in terms of performance, cost reductions, and manufacturability, but full-size battery packs have not yet been demonstrated in vehicles. ARB staff concluded that significant progress in the development of advanced batteries has been achieved. Staff will continue to monitor battery technology and costs over the next two years and report back to the Board in 2000.


David Hermance

Cecile Martin
California Electric Transportation Coalition

Mike Wirsch

Enid Joffe
Edison EV

Howard Levin

Janet Hathaway



STAFF REPORT: Yes (38 pages)