1 2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 3 AIR RESOURCES BOARD 4 5 6 7 8 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 9 10 CALIFORNIA EPA AIR RESOURCES BOARD PUBLIC MEETING 11 September 24, 1998 1115 Truxtun Avenue 12 Bakersfield, California 93301 13 9:30 a.m. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 REPORTED BY: Kimberlee R. Miller, 24 CSR No. 10869 Our File No. 1-49410 25 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 John D. Dunlap, III - Chairman 4 Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E. - Board Member 5 Lynne T. Edgerton - Board Member 6 Sally Rakow - Board Member 7 William F. Friedman - Board Member 8 Barbara Patrick - Board Member 9 Barbara Riordan - Board Member 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: The meeting will come to 2 order. 3 We'll have Supervisor Patrick lead us in 4 the Pledge of Allegiance. 5 Please join us. 6 (Supervisor Patrick led the Pledge of 7 Allegiance.) 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Supervisor 9 Patrick. 10 Ms. Hutchens, will you please call the 11 roll. 12 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 13 MR. CALHOUN: Here. 14 MS. HUTCHENS: DeSaulnier? 15 (No response.) 16 Edgerton? 17 MS. EDGERTON: Here. 18 MS. HUTCHENS: Friedman? 19 DR. FRIEDMAN: Here. 20 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 21 (No response.) 22 Patrick? 23 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 24 MS. HUTCHENS: Rakow? 25 MRS. RAKOW: Here. 3 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan? 2 MRS. RIORDAN: Here. 3 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? 4 (No response.) 5 MS. HUTCHENS: Silva? 6 (No response.) 7 Chairman Dunlap? 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here. 9 Thank you. 10 First of all, I would like to thank 11 Supervisor Patrick for playing host to our meeting. 12 We're appreciative of the brief time we've had in Kern 13 County, and we've certainly noted the hospitality has 14 been very pleasant for us to travel here. 15 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Thank you. It really 16 is an honor for us to host this meeting. We appreciate 17 very much that all you folks are willing to come to Kern 18 County. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 20 I would like to acknowledge the fact that 21 this board meeting is being broadcast on cable 22 television. It's my understanding that it's being shown 23 in a number of school classrooms in the county, and 24 we'll make note of that, and we'll make sure we're on 25 our best behavior and set good examples for the youth of 4 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the county. 2 With that, I think we'll jump into the 3 agenda. I would like to remind those of you present who 4 would like to present testimony to the Board on any of 5 today's agenda items to please sign up with the clerk of 6 the Board to our left, Ms. Hutchens. If you have a 7 written statement, we ask you provide her 20 copies so 8 that the whole Board and our executive staff may have 9 copies. 10 The first item on the agenda today is 11 98-10-1 -- public hearing to consider amendments to the 12 gasoline control additive regulation. 13 This item on today's agenda is the 14 consideration of amendments to the California regulation 15 requiring deposit control additives in motor vehicle 16 gasoline. 17 In 1990, the Board adopted a regulation 18 requiring that California motor vehicle gasoline contain 19 effective levels of deposit control additives. At the 20 1990 hearing, staff showed when deposits form on port 21 fuel injectors and intake valves, vehicles experience a 22 significant degradation and combustion efficiency and 23 the loss of performance. The use of effective deposit 24 control additives was found to restore vehicle 25 performance and thereby reduce excess emissions. 5 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 To implement the regulatory requirements, 2 the Board staff manages our Gasoline Certification 3 Program to ensure that California gasoline has adequate 4 deposit control performance. Under this program, 5 gasoline formulations are certified when an applicant 6 demonstrates that their gasoline can reduce and prevent 7 the buildup of deposits on port fuel injectors and 8 intake valves. 9 Since establishing the gasoline 10 certification over six years ago, the Board staff has 11 approved over 370 applications for gasoline 12 certification. Based on recent evaluations of 13 application for certification, and in conjunction with 14 information obtained from meetings with industry, the 15 staff is now proposing several amendments to the deposit 16 control additive regulation to improve the program's 17 effectiveness. 18 So at this point, I would like to ask 19 Mr. Kenny to introduce the item and begin staff's 20 position. 21 Good morning, Mike. 22 MR. KENNY: I'll get here. 23 Good morning. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You may have turned it 25 off. 6 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MR. KENNY: It's off? I think I need 2 help. It's on? Okay. I think we're on now. 3 Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Dunlap, 4 and members of the Board. 5 Today we are proposing amendments to 6 update and improve the current deposit control additive 7 regulation. We're also proposing an amendment to 8 preserve NOx emission benefit which has resulted in the 9 use of improved gasoline deposit additives and the 10 introduction of California reformulated gasoline. 11 Other amendments are being proposed to add 12 clarity and specificity to the regulation. The proposed 13 amendments are intended to update the regulatory 14 requirements based on staff's evaluation of the 15 performance of today's additives. The amendments 16 account for improvements in gasoline additive technology 17 and reduce deposit forming tendency of California 18 reformulated gasoline. 19 The proposed amendments will also simplify 20 certification performance testing while strengthening 21 performance demonstration criteria. 22 Now at this time, I would like to 23 introduce Mr. Jim Aguila who will give the staff's 24 presentation. 25 Jim. 7 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MR. AGUILA: Thank you. 2 Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of 3 the Board. As mentioned in the introduction, today we 4 are proposing several amendments to the gasoline 5 additive to update the program. 6 As you will see, the amendments will make 7 a regulation more effective, while simplifying the 8 certification process and reducing the cost of testing. 9 In addition, some information will be 10 presented to show that an unanticipated NOx benefit has 11 occurred due to improvements in gasoline and additive 12 technology. 13 The presentation will consist of some 14 general background information on the additive 15 regulation and a discussion of our proposed amendments 16 and the impacts. 17 In 1990, the Board adopted the gasoline 18 deposit control additive regulation to ensure that 19 commercial gasoline contained effective amounts of 20 additives to control both port fuel injector and intake 21 valve deposits. These fuel system deposits are known to 22 cause combustion inefficiencies and corresponding 23 adverse impacts on emissions. 24 Maintaining an acceptably low level of 25 fuel system deposits was proven to allow vehicles to 8 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 operate as designed and, thereby, avoid excess 2 emissions. 3 The regulation also established a Gasoline 4 Certification Program for the one-time approval of 5 commercial gasolines containing additives. 6 Under the program, gasoline marketers are 7 required to obtain certifications from the Air Resources 8 Board by demonstrating that their commercial gasoline 9 with additives complies with the performance standards 10 of the regulation. 11 Since implementing the gasoline additive 12 regulation in 1992, the staff has approved over 370 13 gasoline certifications. 14 To be certified, individuals must submit 15 an application demonstrating the effectiveness of the 16 additive using certification test gasoline. 17 This demonstration is made by conducting 18 vehicle tests using the applicant's test gasoline 19 containing the candidate additive. The test gasoline 20 must pass the performance standards for port fuel 21 injector and intake valve deposit keep-clean and also a 22 separate performance standard for port fuel injector 23 clean-up. 24 The vehicle tests are conducted in 25 accordance with the test methods prescribed in the 9 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 regulation. 2 Over the past year, the staff has been 3 evaluating several aspects of the gasoline deposit 4 control additive regulation to determine the need for 5 revisions. 6 Since combustion chamber deposits are not 7 addressed in the present regulation, we evaluated the 8 need to consider them at this time. In addition, staff 9 received information suggesting that potential benefits 10 might result from controlling combustion chamber 11 deposits. 12 In a separate evaluation, we found that 13 the current intake valve deposit standard may not 14 provide for the use of the most effective additives 15 within the commercial gasoline market. 16 In terms of port fuel injector deposit 17 control, today's additives have excellent performance, 18 thereby minimizing the need for separate keep-clean and 19 clean-up test requirements. 20 We also identified the need to update the 21 port fuel injector and intake valve deposit keep-clean 22 tests to reflect the newest version by the American 23 Society for Testing and Materials. 24 In developing the proposals, the staff 25 obtained available research from both public and private 10 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 sources. Along with the review of individual company 2 studies, staff reviewed studies published by the Society 3 of Automotive Engineers, among other information. 4 Staff also met with all major gasoline 5 additive manufactures and representatives from 6 automobile, oil, and motor vehicle testing companies. 7 Staff also conducted three public 8 workshops during this year. 9 Since the early 90's, significant amounts 10 of research have been conducted to gain a fundamental 11 understanding of combustion chamber deposits. Research 12 shows combustion chamber deposits are mainly caused by 13 unburned gasoline which contacts piston tops and 14 cylinder heads. 15 Commercial gasolines contribute to 16 combustion chamber deposits in two ways. First, the 17 heavy components of gasoline causes a certain level of 18 deposits. The gasoline's potential to create combustion 19 chamber deposits has been linked to the properties of 90 20 percent distillation temperature, aromatics, and 21 olefins. 22 Second, commercial gasolines also contains 23 additives for controlling port fuel injector and intake 24 valves deposits, but these additives also cause deposits 25 in the combustion chambers. Several studies indicate 11 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 both additive type and dose affect the amounts of 2 combustion chamber deposits that are formed. 3 Combustion chamber deposits have been 4 correlated to NOx emissions and octane requirement 5 increase, while providing a small fuel economy benefit. 6 Because of the reduced level of 90 percent 7 distillation temperature, aromatics, and olefins within 8 California reformulated gasoline and the use of modern 9 additives, today's gasoline has much less potential to 10 form combustion chamber deposits relative to the past. 11 As mentioned in the previous slide, 12 gasoline additives can cause combustion chamber 13 deposits. Studies found that the use of mineral oil 14 carrier fluids in additive packages along with high 15 additive dosage rates significantly increases the amount 16 of combustion chamber deposits. 17 However, in reviewing technical 18 information from our Gasoline Certification Program, 19 staff found that today's additive packages have been 20 significantly reformulated to use advanced synthetic 21 carrier fluids which are designed to minimize combustion 22 chamber deposit formation. 23 Modern additive packages also utilize more 24 effective detergent components resulting in dosage rates 25 at half the dose of older additive packages. Modern 12 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 additive packages with synthetic carrier fluids used at 2 lower dosage rates results in less combustion chamber 3 deposits. 4 Staff has compiled data from several 5 studies to characterize changes in combustion chamber 6 deposit forming potential due to changes in commercial 7 gasoline formulations. 8 This data suggests that California 9 reformulated gasoline with lower concentration of modern 10 additives produces about 25 percent less combustion 11 chamber deposit mass relative to pre-California 12 reformulated gasoline. 13 Several studies have found that when 14 combustion chamber deposits are removed from an engine, 15 NOx emissions are also lowered. 16 As a result of introducing California 17 cleaner burning gasoline in 1996 and modern additives, 18 levels of combustion chamber deposits in existing 19 vehicles were reduced by about 25 percent. This equates 20 to about a 5 percent unanticipated NOx decrease in the 21 1996 California motor vehicle fleet, or about 50 tons 22 per day of NOx reductions. 23 New vehicles which have operated only on 24 California reformulated gasoline will develop less 25 combustion chamber deposits and will experience less 13 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 adverse impact on NOx emissions. 2 We propose to cap the combustion chamber 3 deposit level to preserve the benefit that has occurred 4 due to the introduction of California reformulated 5 gasoline and improved additives. 6 Under this proposals, applicants would 7 have a choice of either meeting a maximum mass limit or 8 a percentage increase compared to a reference gasoline. 9 Staff established these standards based on 10 all available test data on California reformulated 11 gasoline, as well as information from other studies. 12 In terms of intake valve deposits, staff 13 has determined that the existing standard is not equally 14 protective of all vehicles in the California fleet. We 15 have reviewed information which indicates that some 16 in-use vehicles still exhibit elevated intake valve 17 deposit levels, despite the current standard. 18 Additionally, the referenced vehicle 19 intake valve deposit test procedure has a rather large 20 variability of about 30 percent and can potentially 21 allow marginally effective additives to pass. 22 To address these concerns, staff reviewed 23 the performance data of current additives to determine 24 if the intake valve deposit standard could be 25 strengthened. 14 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 We found that since introduction of 2 California reformulated gasoline in 1996, most additive 3 packages have demonstrated intake valve deposit 4 performance below 50 milligrams per valve. That's less 5 than half the current intake valve deposit standard. 6 We also found that gasoline marketers have 7 access to additives which can demonstrate performance 8 below 50 milligrams per valve. 9 By lowering the intake valve standard, we 10 would provide added assurance that only the more 11 effective additives will be used in commercial gasoline. 12 Therefore, staff proposes to lower the 13 intake valve -- the existing intake valve standard to 50 14 milligrams per day. 15 Presently, the regulation requires that 16 applicants conduct vehicle tests to show both port fuel 17 injector clean-up and keep-clean effectiveness. 18 Staff evaluated information which showed 19 that port fuel injector deposit clean-up tests may not 20 be necessary. 21 In evaluating the performance test results 22 from the certification program, staff found that modern 23 additive packages with effective intake valve deposit 24 control consistently demonstrated excellent port fuel 25 injector clean-up test performance. 15 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Therefore, in conjunction with the 2 proposed lower intake valve deposit standard, staff 3 believes that the port fuel injector deposit keep-clean 4 test is no longer available. Clean-up test, excuse me. 5 Elimination of the port fuel injector test 6 would result in a significant cost savings to the 7 industry because this test represents about 25 percent 8 of the cost for gasoline certification testing, or about 9 $10,000. 10 Therefore, staff proposes to eliminate the 11 port fuel injector deposit clean-up test requirements 12 from the regulation in conjunction with lowering the 13 intake valve deposit standard. 14 Staff also evaluated other aspects of the 15 regulation to determine the need for changes. 16 One area to be addressed relates to the 17 requirements governing the certification test gasoline. 18 Currently, the regulation does not provide enough 19 guidance to ensure that the test gasoline will be 20 representative of the commercial gasoline to be marketed 21 under the certification. 22 Other changes are needed to update the 23 vehicle test methods and to disallow existing 24 gasoline certifications which use older, less effective 25 additive technology. As discussed earlier, older 16 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 additive technology will likely cause an increase in 2 vehicle combustion chamber deposit levels. 3 To address these issues, staff proposes to 4 require a specific 90 percent distillation temperature 5 requirement for certification test gasoline. Staff also 6 proposes to require that applicants submit the 7 information on the components used to produce the 8 certification test gasoline. 9 For test methods, we are proposing to 10 update the intake valve deposit and port fuel injector 11 deposit keep-clean test with the most recent versions 12 from the American Society for Testing and Materials. We 13 also propose to include a new Air Resources Board test 14 method for combustion chamber deposit measure. This is 15 based on existing methods used by the Southwest Research 16 Institute and EG&G Automotive Research. 17 Finally, staff proposes to invalidate 18 gasoline certifications which were approved prior to the 19 introduction of California reformulated gasoline, and to 20 provide a phase-in period to allow applicants to 21 transition to the new performance standards. 22 During the public comment period, we 23 received two comments, one of which was verbal, seeking 24 clarification of the proposed new amended language 25 regarding invalidating older gasoline certifications. 17 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Staff agreed with the comments and now proposes to 2 modify our original proposal, which was contained in the 3 staff report, to include two minor administrative 4 clarifications. 5 These changes are indicated in the 6 modified proposed regulation order before you and are 7 shown in shaded text. 8 The impact of the proposed new combustion 9 chamber deposit standard will preserve the NOx benefit 10 which has resulted from improvements in gasoline and 11 additive technologies. 12 Also, lowering the intake valve deposit 13 standard to half the current standard will help ensure 14 the most effective additives be used in the gasoline 15 market. 16 From a cost perspective, today's proposals 17 will result in a significant savings for applicants 18 which certify new additive packages. Eliminating the 19 port fuel injector deposit clean-up test will save about 20 $10,000, while the addition of the new combustion 21 chamber deposit test will cost about $500, resulting in 22 a net savings of about $9500. 23 No other impacts were identified by staff. 24 We intend to continue our assessment of 25 the deposit control additive regulation, including the 18 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 combustion chamber deposit element. 2 We also plan to continue evaluating 3 potential alternative test means. 4 As part of our ongoing coordination with 5 the U.S. EPA, staff will closely follow their effort to 6 evaluate combustion chamber deposits. 7 Finally, staff plans to further refine the 8 NOx benefit from reduced combustion chamber deposit 9 formation. 10 In summary, we believe if adopted, the 11 amendments being proposed will substantially strengthen 12 the existing program to reflect today's advanced 13 gasoline and additive technology. 14 The proposals will also serve to preserve 15 the benefits provided by California reformulated 16 gasoline, while at the same time reducing the cost of 17 conducting certifications testing. 18 In conclusion, staff recommends that the 19 Board approve the amendments included in the modified 20 proposal. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 22 Mr. Schoning, would you please address the 23 process, prior to today, by which this item came before 24 us, and share any concerns or other comments you may 25 have with the Board at this juncture. 19 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 MR. SCHONING: Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman, 2 and members. The process was an extensive one, I can 3 assure you, and I shall. 4 The staff conducted three public workshops 5 prior to this item at issue as well as extensive 6 meetings individually with 14 individual companies, 7 industry associations with representatives from the fuel 8 additive industries including Ornight Additives Company, 9 the American Automotive Manufacturers' Association, the 10 Joint Auto Oil Coordinating Research Council, the 11 petroleum refining industry including Arco, Chevron 12 Products, Texaco Additives International, Exxon Research 13 Company and Mobile Technology Company, as well as 14 automotive testing facilities. 15 The staff also consulted with Southwest 16 Research Institute and EG&G Automotive Research, the two 17 principal contract testing facilities performing 18 combustion chamber deposit research. 19 The three public workshops were conducted 20 on the 24th of March through the 11th of June and 24th 21 of July of this year to which more than 600 stakeholders 22 were invited. These notices of these workshop were also 23 posted on the Air Resources Board website, and attendees 24 including the parties I've just mentioned as well as 25 members of the Association of International Automotive 20 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Manufactures, the California Trucking Association, major 2 independent and -- major and independent oil refiners 3 including Costco, Altamar, and Kern Oil, and the fuel 4 additive industry including Lubrazal, Ethel Additives, 5 Octel America and BASF. 6 Other invitees included emission control 7 districts -- California Energy Commission, Bureau of 8 Automotive Repair to Natural Resources and Defense 9 Council, and the Sierra Club. 10 The proposed regulation file staff report, 11 which are before you together with the Board hearing 12 notes, were mailed to all of these above parties on the 13 7th of August, and likewise made available on the ARB 14 website. 15 In sum, it would appear to us, 16 Mr. Chairman, and members of the staff, if anything it 17 went above and beyond the requisites of full and 18 effective public stakeholder involvement. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Schoning. 20 Do any of the Board members have questions 21 at this juncture, because we have one witness. 22 Joe? 23 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 24 The focus of my question is on 25 enforcement. I realize we have a certification 21 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 procedure that is in effect. What's our follow-up? Do 2 we take fuel samples also? 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Board Member 4 Calhoun, the compliance division does in certain -- 5 THE REPORTER: I don't' know your name -- 6 MR. SIMEROTH: I'm sorry. 7 THE REPORTER: -- I'm sorry. 8 MR. SIMEROTH: That's quite all right. My 9 name is Dean Simeroth, I'm with the Stationary Resource 10 Division. 11 And compliance division does the follow-up 12 enforcement testing. They basically monitor the records 13 of the terminals to ensure the correct additives and 14 correct amounts of additives are injected into each tank 15 of gasoline at the terminal or any other distribution 16 point where a delivery tank is loaded and going to a 17 service station. 18 We require the applicants to identify the 19 test methods if we need to take samples and verify 20 presence of additives. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 22 Why don't we -- Mrs. Rakow. 23 MRS. RAKOW: Yes, for a brief 24 clarification. 25 The letter from Chevron addressed some 22 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 confusion about some of the chemical issues, and I 2 wondered if that had been satisfactorily answered. 3 MR. SIMEROTH: Yes. Again, Mr. Simeroth. 4 We have talked to Chevron at least three 5 times since receiving the letters, and they're 6 comfortable that we understand the additive technology. 7 MRS. RAKOW: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any other questions? 9 We'll ask Steve Douglas from AAMA to come 10 forward. He is our sole witness. 11 MR. DOUGLAS: Good morning, Chairman 12 Dunlap, and members of the board. I'm Steve Douglas 13 with the American Automobile Manufacturers Association 14 and, obviously, gasoline controls are important to the 15 automobile industry. 16 I have submitted a statement, and I'll 17 just simply summarize that by saying we do support the 18 staff's proposals, fully support that. And further, 19 we're committed to working with them to develop new test 20 procedures or alternative test procedures as well as new 21 specifications where those may be appropriate. 22 Again, we appreciate the staff's work on 23 this, and we look forward to working with the staff and 24 the Board in the future. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Steve. 23 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Any questions of the witness? 2 Yes. Dr. Friedman and Ms. Edgerton. 3 DR. FRIEDMAN: Mr. Douglas' statement 4 makes the point that there can be a disassociation 5 between the results or on the effects of cleaning up 6 intake valve deposit versus PFID, that an additive can 7 come along which can have a beneficial effect on one and 8 not the other, or maybe even deleterious to the other. 9 Is that a reasonable likelihood? What is the science 10 that is behind that, and are we doing something that may 11 in the future need to be turned around if such an 12 additive becomes available? 13 MR. SIMEROTH: Dr. Friedman, our proposal 14 will keep three performance standards. One for intake 15 valve deposits, one for port fuel injector keep-clean, 16 and the third one the new proposal for combustion 17 chamber deposits. 18 We intend to keep the port fuel injector 19 deposit keep-clean into the future. We agree with the 20 comment you can have an additive that can do a good job 21 on the intake valve deposit but not necessarily in port 22 fuel injector deposits. They're in different locations 23 of the engine, and the formation characteristics are 24 different because of the temperatures and the materials 25 that are exposed. So you need both. We're not 24 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 proposing to get rid of -- but we are proposing the 2 clean-up port fuel injector deposit be eliminated. 3 We found in reviewing the records that any 4 time an additive does a good job on the other two, it 5 does a good job on the clean-up. So that's superfluous 6 to the cost and additional moneys paid out. 7 DR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ms. Edgerton. 9 MS. EDGERTON: Lynne Edgerton. 10 This is more of a comment about shared 11 success here. Sometimes the regulations which this 12 Board adopts, which are often cutting edge, do not 13 achieve the goals that we set for ourselves and then we 14 have to makeup shortfalls. This is a case where it's 15 important to celebrate that we have an unanticipated 5 16 percent reduction in NOx as a result of the introduction 17 of California reformulated gas. And I'm sure as 18 partners in cleaning up the air, the AAMA and the fuel 19 providers are as enthusiastic about it as we are, and 20 it's just as important to -- sometimes we're bigger 21 winners than we expect to be. I don't know if you have 22 any comment you would like to make on how nice that is. 23 MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, Ms. Edgerton. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any questions of the 25 witness? 25 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 All right. Good deal. 2 Thank you, Steve. 3 That will conclude the public testimony. 4 I'm going to ask staff to take a moment 5 and summarize the written submissions we have on this 6 item. 7 MR. SIMEROTH: Mr. Chairman, we have two 8 additional letters. One from Texaco Additives 9 International Research & Development supporting the 10 staff's proposal; one from Chevron that we discussed 11 earlier commenting on some technical comments about the 12 report, which we've clarified, and also we're making a 13 suggestion for improvement for the administrative parts. 14 And staff is proposing a change to address their 15 concern. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 17 Mr. Scheible, do you have anything you 18 want to add? 19 MR. SCHEIBLE: No, I don't. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I am now closing the 21 record on this agenda. However, the record will be 22 reopened when the 15-day notice of public availability 23 is issued. Written or oral comments received after this 24 hearing date or before the 15-day notice will not be 25 accepted as part of the official record on this item. 26 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 When the record is reopened for 15-day comment period, 2 the public may submit written comments on the proposed 3 changes which will be considered and responded to in the 4 final statement of reasons for the regulation. 5 Ex parte communication. Do we have any ex 6 parte that we need to report? 7 (No response.) 8 Very good. 9 We have before us a resolution, resolution 10 98-46 which contains the staff recommendation. 11 The Chair would entertain a motion and 12 second to adopt the staff proposal. 13 DR. FRIEDMAN: So moved. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Moved by Dr. Friedman; 15 seconded by Mr. Calhoun. 16 Any discussions we need to have further? 17 Very good. We'll proceed with a voice 18 vote. All those in favor of adopting resolution 98-46 19 please say aye. 20 (A chorus or ayes.) 21 Any opposed? 22 (No response.) 23 Very good. Motion carries. 24 Mr. Scheible, Mr. Simeroth, thank you very 25 much. I appreciate the hard work that went into this. 27 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 We'll proceed with the next item. 2 Before we do that, I have a few more 3 things to say about the broadcast today. It's also my 4 understanding that Centennial High School is here. Is 5 that true? 6 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Yes. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Welcome. We're glad to 8 have you with us. 9 I would like to acknowledge Linda Urata 10 (phonetic) of Project Clean Air, and Mr. Kelly Blanton, 11 superintendent of schools in Kern County for their 12 assistance in notifying the 250 school sites and 142,000 13 students of the opportunity to access our Board meeting 14 today. Although we do not have an exact count, I'm 15 pretty certain there's not 142,000 watching us. But 16 we've been advised that about over half of the 17 government classes in high school government classes are 18 listening to us now and they're experiencing another 19 phase of the public process as we're being broadcast 20 live on KGOB. 21 (Applause.) 22 Thank you. We'll allow some time for 23 that. 24 (Applause.) 25 And I might add, too, for the students, 28 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 it's kind of fun for us, too, to have you tuning in and 2 watching as we go about doing your business, the state's 3 business in trying to protect public health. 4 All right. We'll go to the next item 5 98-10-2 -- public hearing to consider amendments to the 6 designation criteria and amendments to the area 7 designations for the state and air quality standards. 8 This item is for the Board's annual 9 consideration of the staff's recommendation for making 10 changes in the designation criteria and in the area 11 designations for the state ambient air quality 12 standards. These annual reviews are required by the 13 state Health and Safety Code. 14 The changes to the criteria are not 15 substantive and are mainly to simplify and make 16 clarification. 17 Again this year, the changes to the area 18 designations are largely good news. 19 And at this point, I would like to again 20 introduce Mr. Kenny to kick off this agenda item and 21 begin staff's presentation. 22 Mike. 23 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, 24 again, members of the board. 25 As you mentioned, the staff is proposing 29 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 amendments to both designation criteria and area 2 designations for the state and the air quality 3 standards. The California Clean Air Act requires for 4 establishing a periodic review of the criteria used for 5 designating areas. 6 The Board last amended the designation 7 criteria in November of 1995. This year the staff 8 reviewed the criteria as part of Governor Wilson's 9 executive order W144-97 which requires an evaluation of 10 all regulations to see if any can be eliminated or 11 simplified. 12 Based upon this review, the staff is 13 determined the criteria could be clarified and 14 simplified in several areas. Therefore, staff is 15 proposing a number of substantive changes to the 16 criteria. The proposed changes would not add any new 17 requirements to the criteria. 18 The California Clean Air requires the 19 Board to use these criteria to designate each area of 20 the state as attainment, nonattainment or unclassified 21 for the pollutants for which there were state standards. 22 The Board must review these area 23 designations each year and update them with new 24 information on the date when it's appropriate. 25 The Board initially designates areas of 30 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 the state -- excuse me, the Board initially designated 2 areas of the state in 1989 and has amended these 3 regulations every year since then. 4 The staff proposes today that the Board 5 update the designations based on our review of the air 6 quality data for 1995 through 1997. 7 The good news that Chairman Dunlap refers 8 to is the redesignation of two areas to attainment for 9 the carbon monoxide standards: Fresno and Lake Tahoe. 10 With this proposal, only two areas in the state remain 11 nonattainment: Los Angeles County and Calexico in 12 Imperial County. 13 Besides carbon monoxide there is a change 14 from nonattainment to nonattainment-transitional for 15 ozone required by operation of law. 16 At the time the hearing notice was sent 17 out, staff had identified six districts that qualified 18 for such a change. However, after a review of the data 19 for 1998 to date, five of these districts have had four 20 more exceedances and, therefore, no longer qualify for 21 nonattainment-transitional. Thus, the staff does not 22 propose designations for these areas be modified. 23 In addition to the changes for carbon 24 monoxide and ozone, there's also one change to 25 nonattainment for PM10. The staff will not propose a 31 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 change for sulfates that was originally presented in the 2 hearing notice, and we'll discuss our rational in the 3 staff presentation. 4 Ms. Debora Popejoy, Manager of the Air 5 Quality Analysis Section in the Technical Support 6 Division will now present the staff's proposal. 7 Debora. 8 MS. POPEJOY: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. 9 Good morning, Chairman Dunlap, and members 10 of the Board. 11 As Mr. Kenny mentioned, the staff's 12 proposal this year includes amendments to both the 13 designation criteria and the area designations. 14 First, I need to tell you today's proposal 15 is not the same as was proposed in the staff report, and 16 I'll explain why later. The staff is proposing a number 17 of minor changes to the designation criteria for the 18 purpose of simplifying the language, clarifying 19 terminologies, and updating current practices. The 20 staff is recommending changes in the area designations 21 for three pollutants -- for three pollutants and four 22 areas. 23 I think I'm one slide ahead. I'm sorry. 24 I think I lost my slides here. Okay. 25 The first is to confirm ozone 32 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 redesignations for one district that occurs by operation 2 of law; the second is to redesignate two areas for the 3 CO standard; and the third is to redesignate one county 4 for PM10 standard. 5 Today's presentation will be in four 6 parts: overview of the designation criteria, the 7 proposed changes to the criteria, the areas with 8 proposed changes in designations, and areas without 9 changes in designations. 10 So let me start first with a brief 11 overview of the provisions of the designation criteria. 12 The Health and Safety Code Section 39607(e) requires the 13 Air Resources Board to establish designation criteria 14 and also review the criteria periodically to ensure 15 their relevance. In addition, the Health and Safety 16 Code Section 39608 requires the Board use these 17 designation criteria to update the area designations 18 annually. 19 The criteria specify what type of data can 20 be used to make the designations. The Board must use 21 data for record, which are those air quality data that 22 meet specific siting and quality assurance requirements. 23 For the most part, these are data collected by the 24 Board, the local districts, and certain state and 25 federal agencies. When adequate air quality data are 33 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 not available, however, the Board may use relevant data 2 such as those for emissions, meteorology, topography, 3 and populations. 4 The criteria also will specify the size of 5 the areas to be designated. The size of the designated 6 area varies depending on the nature of the pollutant and 7 other factors. In general, an air basin is the area 8 used for designating the regional pollutants such as 9 ozone, nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter, 10 sulfates, and visibility reducing particles. The 11 county is generally the area used for designating the 12 primary pollutants: carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, 13 lead, and hydrogen sulfide. But in 14 all cases -- 15 THE REPORTER: Excuse me, I'm going to 16 have ask you slow down just a little bit. You're going 17 a little fast. 18 MS. POPEJOY: Okay. 19 But in all cases, the Board may designate 20 a smaller area such as an urbanized area if the Board 21 finds that the smaller area has distinctly different air 22 quality, topography, and emissions. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: If I may interject to 24 give the court reporter some comfort. Much of this is 25 written and we'll promise to give it to you. We'll take 34 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 a little pressure off of you. 2 THE REPORTER: Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Relax and let 4 them go ahead and we'll get that to you. 5 MS. POPEJOY: Another provision of the 6 criteria defined highly irregular or infrequent events. 7 Identifying an exceedance as affected by highly 8 irregular or infrequent event excludes the exceedance 9 from nonattainment designation decisions. The Board 10 determines area designations based on whether an area 11 has any violations in the latest three-year period. 12 Exceedances are those air quality 13 concentrations that are higher than the numerical value 14 of the standard. But an exceedance is not considered as 15 a violation if it is identified by the staff as affected 16 by highly or irregular of infrequent event. There are 17 three types of these events, and they are considered in 18 the order listed here in this slide. 19 First, an extreme concentration event is 20 determined using a statistical procedure which 21 calculates an expected peak day concentration, or EPDC, 22 for each pollutant for each monitoring site. The EPDC 23 is the concentration that is expected to recur on 24 average once per year. A measured exceedance that is 25 greater than the EPDC is not considered a violation 35 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 because it is expected to recur less frequently than 2 once per year. 3 Second, an exceptional event is a 4 specific, identifiable event that is beyond regulatory 5 control. Examples of exceptional events include forest 6 fires and chemical spills. An exceedance that is 7 affected by an exceptional even is not considered a 8 violation. 9 Lastly, an unusual concentration event may 10 be used to exclude an anomalous value. To have been 11 considered as effective by this event, the exceedance 12 must be determined to impact only the local area and 13 must not be expected to recur. This event can only be 14 identified for areas currently designated as attainment 15 or unclassified, and can be reevaluated the following 16 year when more data are available. 17 Now, let's take a look at the designation 18 categories. There are four categories. An area is 19 designated as attainment if there are no violations of 20 the relevant state standard in the area during the last 21 three years. Again, a violation is not an exceedance -- 22 again, a violation is an exceedance that is not affected 23 by a highly irregular or infrequent event. 24 An area is designated as nonattainment if 25 there is at least one violation in the area during the 36 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 last three years. 2 The nonattainment-transitional category 3 may be used to signal a possible improvement in air 4 quality for a nonattainment area. The requirements are 5 different for ozone than other pollutants. For ozone, 6 an area must have three of fewer exceedances at each 7 monitoring site in the last calendar year. This change 8 occurs by operation of law and does not require action 9 by the Board. However, the staff needs to evaluate the 10 data to ensure that the area indeed qualifies for 11 redesignation. 12 Also this category -- also for this 13 category the designated area is the air district rather 14 than air basin or county. For pollutants other than 15 ozone, an area must have two or fewer violations at each 16 site in the area within the last calendar year. The 17 change to nonattainment-transitional for pollutants 18 other than ozone does require the Board's approval. 19 Finally, an area is designated as 20 unclassified if there are insufficient data to designate 21 the area as either attainment or nonattainment. 22 Now that I have explained provisions of 23 the criteria, let me present the Board's proposal. 24 As Mr. Kenny mentioned, the staff 25 initiated the review of the criteria to comply with 37 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Governor Wilson's Executive Order. This order requires 2 a sunset review of the regulations to determine if the 3 regulations or any section of the regulations can be 4 deleted. Based upon our review, we determined that no 5 part of either the designation criteria or the 6 designation regulation should be retired at this time. 7 However, in the process of our review, we decided some 8 minor changes in the criteria should improve the 9 regulations. These changes are listed in this and the 10 next two slides. 11 I should emphasize these changes merely 12 reflect the current practice in making designations. 13 They do not change the manner in which the designations 14 will be made. Some of these changes update the language 15 in the criteria to reflect current practices, make the 16 regulation internally consistent, and delete unnecessary 17 and obsolete language. One such change reflects that 18 the Board designates geographic areas other than just 19 air basins, such as counties and other urban areas. 20 Further, the staff proposes to replace the word "shall" 21 in all the instances with the word "will" in order to 22 provide a consistent terminology throughout the 23 criteria. 24 The next group of changes deal with the 25 nonattainment/transitional designations. One change 38 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 provides a separate section in the criteria for each 2 designation category including nonattainment- 3 transitional category so as to make the criteria easier 4 to use and interpret. 5 The next change in the criteria allows a 6 portion of a district to be designated as 7 nonattainment-transitional for ozone. This is needed 8 because some districts span more than one air basin. 9 One air basin portion of a district may qualify for this 10 transitional category before the other air basin 11 portion. This change in the criteria allows the 12 qualifying portion to be so designated without having to 13 wait until all portions of the district qualify. 14 Within the same section of the criteria, 15 another change provides a description of the current 16 practices where the staff also reviews the current 17 year's data in evaluating districts for the 18 nonattainment-transitional category for ozone. Because 19 designation for this category is based on only year's of 20 data, this designation is highly susceptible to 21 year-to-year changes in meteorology, and a district may 22 move back and forth between this category and the 23 nonattainment category. Thus, when the data for the 24 last calendar year signals the nonattainment- 25 transitional designation, the staff reviews the current 39 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 year's data. If there are more than three ozone 2 exceedances in the current year, the staff recommends 3 that the area remain designated as nonattainment. 4 Another group of changes clarifies the 5 term data for record to indicate the types of qualifying 6 data, and to specify more clearly the time schedules of 7 when data become data for record. 8 The next change to the designation 9 criteria revises the section on highly irregular and 10 infrequent events to show the order in which these three 11 types of events are evaluated by staff. The extreme 12 concentration event is evaluated first, the exceptional 13 then, and lastly the unusual concentration event. This 14 does not represent any change in the procedure, because 15 this is the order in which the staff has evaluated these 16 events in the past annual reviews. 17 The same section of the criteria 18 incorporates a referenced document that describes the 19 calculation procedure for determining extreme 20 concentration events. There have been minor 21 modifications to the statistical procedure and the 22 computer program listed in the document since the 23 document was originally incorporated. A proposed change 24 to this section substitutes a new document to be 25 incorporated by the reference that updates the 40 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 calculation procedures and the computer code. 2 Now let me present the staff's proposed 3 changes to the area designations themselves. 4 This slide gives an overview of the area 5 designations. The staff is confirming the change in 6 designation to nonattainment-transitional for ozone for 7 one district that occurs by operation of law. In 8 addition, the staff is proposing to redesignate two 9 areas to attainment for CO and one area to nonattainment 10 for particulate matter. 11 Redesignation from nonattainment to 12 nonattainment-transitional for ozone occurs by operation 13 of law. But the data must first be evaluated by the 14 staff to establish that a district qualifies for this 15 designation, and then the staff confirms this at the 16 Board hearing. 17 At the time of the publication of the 18 hearing notice and the staff report, the staff had 19 identified six districts that qualified for 20 nonattainment-transitional based on the data from 1997. 21 But since that time, the ozone data from 1998 show that 22 five of those six districts have recorded more than 23 three exceedances of the state standard thus far in 24 1998. 25 As I mentioned earlier, three or more 41 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 exceedances in the current year would disqualify a 2 district from the nonattainment-transitional 3 designation. 4 Therefore, the staff now confirms that 5 only one district qualifies to be redesignated as 6 nonattainment-transitional for ozone, which is the 7 Colusa County Air Pollution Control District in the 8 Sacramento Valley Air Basin. 9 There are six districts that would qualify 10 for nonattainment-transitional phase in 1997 data but do 11 not qualify in 1998. These include the Bay Area Air 12 Quality Management District, which already had three 13 exceedances in 1998 at the time the staff report was 14 published. The five districts whose 1998 exceedances 15 were learned of by the staff after the hearing notice 16 are: the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control 17 District, the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution 18 Control District, the Yolo/Solano Air Quality Management 19 District, the Tehama County Air Pollution Control 20 District, and the Mountain Counties Air Basin portion of 21 Placer County Air Pollution Control District. 22 The Board and districts staff have 23 reviewed the exceedances and certify that the data meet 24 the requirements to be considered as data for record for 25 1998. And, therefore, the staff recommend that these 42 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 district remain designated as nonattainment for ozone. 2 The staff proposes to redesignate two 3 areas to attainment for carbon monoxide. There are 4 three state CO standards: a one-hour standard, which is 5 applicable to the entire state, and two eight-hour 6 standards: one for Lake Tahoe Air Basin and one for the 7 rest of the state. The Tahoe standard is more stringent 8 because of the affects of CO at high altitude. The 9 eight-hour standard is the controlling standard for 10 reaching CO attainment. 11 The staff proposes to redesignate Fresno 12 urbanized area from nonattainment to attainment. The 13 site with the highest eight-hour concentrations is the 14 Fisher Street site in Fresno. This site had only one 15 exceedance which occurred in November 1995 and qualifies 16 as an extreme concentration since it is greater than the 17 calculated EPDC. This site was missing data for the 18 month of november 1996, which is typically one of the 19 months with high annual concentration. 20 In order to have complete data to 21 calculate an EPDC, the staff substituted the data from 22 November 1995 for the November 1996 data. But first the 23 staff compared the data for '95 with '96 for all sites 24 in Fresno County and determined that the concentrations 25 in 1995 were higher than in 1996. 43 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 The staff concluded that this data 2 substitution for the Fisher Street site overestimated 3 the concentrations that would have been measured in 4 1996. Therefore, calculating an EPDC with this data 5 substitution ensures that the staff is not excluding an 6 exceedance that should be considered a violation of the 7 standard. Since there are no exceedances in Fresno 8 County, the staff recommends that entire Fresno County 9 be designated as attainment for the CO standard. 10 The staff also proposes to redesignate the 11 Lake Tahoe Air Basin portion of El Dorado County from 12 nonattainment-transitional to attainment for CO. There 13 was only one exceedance of the Tahoe CO standard, and 14 the staff has determined that this exceedance qualifies 15 as an extreme concentration event. Therefore, staff 16 recommends this portion of El Dorado Country be 17 redesignated as attainment for the CO standards. 18 The last redesignation is for suspended 19 particulate matter or PM10. The staff proposes to 20 redesignate Lassen County from unclassified to 21 nonattainment for PM10. Lassen County is designated as 22 unclassified due to a lack of historical PM10 data for 23 that county. 24 PM10 monitoring began in October of 1996 25 on a one in six day sampling schedule. Based on data 44 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 through the end of 1997, there have been three 2 exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard of 50 3 micrograms per cubic meter, and the measurements are: 4 84, 65, and 53 micrograms per cubic meter. 5 The staff evaluated the data and found 6 that none of the exceedances can be excluded as affected 7 by a highly irregular or infrequent event. Therefore, 8 the staff determined that Lassen County meets the 9 conditions for the nonattainment designation. As a 10 result, the entire Northeast Plateau Air Basin would now 11 be designated as nonattainment for PM10. 12 That concludes the staff's proposal for 13 the redesignations. Now I need to discuss the areas for 14 which staff does not recommend for redesignation. These 15 include four areas regarding two pollutants as listed on 16 this slide. 17 Inyo and Plumas county are designated as 18 unclassified for ozone. There was one exceedance of the 19 standard in 1996 for Inyo County and one in 1995 for 20 Plumas County. These exceedances qualify as unusual 21 concentrations and are, thus, excluded from 22 consideration as violation. The staff recommends that 23 Inyo and Plumas county remain unclassified until more 24 complete data are available and attainment can be 25 verified. 45 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 The north coast portion of Sonoma County 2 is designated as attainment for the ozone standard. 3 There were three exceedances at the Healdsburg site 4 during 1995 through 1997. The calculated EPDC excludes 5 all three exceedances as extreme concentrations. Thus, 6 the staff does not recommend redesignation to 7 nonattainment. 8 The fourth area is San Diego County and 9 the pollutant is sulfates. At the time when the staff 10 report and hearing notice were published, the staff had 11 proposed redesignation of San Diego County to 12 nonattainment for the state sulfates standard. However, 13 the staff now does not propose this redesignation, and I 14 will explain why with these next two slides. 15 A 24-hour sulfate concentration of 27 16 micrograms per cubic meter was recorded on May 16, 1997, 17 at the San Diego 12th Avenue monitoring site. This is 18 an exceedance because it is higher than the state 19 sulfates standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. 20 Although this is the only exceedance at 21 the site, there were four other relatively high sulfate 22 concentrations in the range of 20 to 24 micrograms per 23 cubic meter in the last three years. Based on a 24 calculated EPDC of 31 micrograms per cubic meter, the 25 staff concluded the exceedance was not an extreme 46 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 concentration. Furthermore, the exceedance occurred in 2 the sampling frequency of once every six days. In other 3 words, there might be additional exceedances if sulfate 4 were sampled more frequently. 5 For the above reasons, the staff had 6 originally identified a redesignation for San Diego 7 County from attainment to nonattainment for sulfates. 8 The staff analyzed the available air 9 quality, meteorological, and emission data, and believes 10 the logical source of the problem is possibly a power 11 plant in the Rosarito area of Mexico. This plant alone 12 emits more than five times the sulfur dioxide emissions 13 of all San Diego County. 14 The management of the power facility has 15 indicated that in or around the year 2000, two of the 16 six boilers at the plant will be converted to burning 17 natural gas, which has a considerably lower sulfur 18 content than the fuel oil currently being used. If this 19 occurs as planned, it will reduce the sulfur dioxide 20 emissions and possibly help lower the sulfate 21 concentrations in San Diego County. 22 After a further evaluation of the data, 23 the staff does not propose a redesignation of San Diego 24 County to nonattainment for sulfates. Additional review 25 of the data revealed that the data for 1995 at the 12th 47 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Street site are not complete for a one in six day 2 sampling frequently, and, therefore, the calculated EPDC 3 is not valid for determining it's extreme 4 concentrations. 5 However, since this is the first 6 exceedance in 14 years, the staff recommends excluding 7 the exceedance of unusual concentration and maintaining 8 San Diego's attainment designation at this time. When 9 complete data are available, staff will reevaluate the 10 exclusion as an extreme concentration. 11 Since staff does not recommend change in 12 sulfate designation, the San Diego County Air Pollution 13 Control District has agreed to take some actions in 14 response to the sulfates exceedance. The district will 15 increase the sampling frequency for sulfates from one in 16 six days to once every third day in order to ascertain 17 whether or not there is an ambient sulfates problem in 18 the county. 19 In addition, the district will include a 20 notice to the public of the potential sulfate problem 21 through it's annual air quality report which will be 22 published in October. 23 That concludes my presentation. I'd be 24 glad to answer any questions. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Debora. 48 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Any questions -- before we do that, I 2 think we'll hear from Mr. Schoning and then come back to 3 any questions. 4 Jim. 5 MR. SCHONING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 6 members. 7 In the initial development of the proposed 8 regulation, staff sought information from all 35 local 9 air districts in the state regarding these changes and 10 recommended designations. The item was "workshopped" on 11 the 26th of June of this summer in Sacramento. The 12 notice of this workshop was sent to more than 2500 13 stakeholders including air districts, businesses, 14 governmental, and environmental organizations. The 15 workshop notice and background materials were also 16 posted on the ARB website. 17 Two stakeholders attended the workshop: 18 one from California Transportation Department and the 19 other from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution 20 Control District. 21 On August 7th, 1998, staff report 22 contained proposed regulation was sent to approximately 23 100 individuals including all air districts, Western 24 States Petroleum Association, the Bay Area League of 25 Industrial Associations, and California Council for 49 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Environmental and Economic Balance. 2 Following release of staff's report in 3 August, staff revised the report for a number of 4 district designations, as I've just indicated to you, 5 based on data collected during the current 1998 calendar 6 year. Staff contacted the air pollution control 7 officers from the six affected districts in the area -- 8 Monterey Bay, Placer, Tehama, San Luis Obispo, and 9 Solano -- during the most recent couple of weeks, during 10 the period from September 4 through September 22, to 11 notify them of the changes and to hear their comments on 12 them. Additionally, staff spoke just this week with 13 California Council for Environmental and Economic 14 Balance and others to share the most recent changes and 15 to hear their views and concerns. 16 Changes for area designation from 17 nonattainment-transition to nonattainment will have no 18 regulatory impacts on the state, and will add clarity 19 and consistency in planning and decision-making 20 processes. 21 If the Board does approve the report in 22 view of the recent changes made to it, there will be a 23 legally required 15-day extension for public 24 notification and comment, and it would be our suggestion 25 that the 2500 person mailing list referred to above be 50 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 used for the purpose of that notification. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Jim. 3 Any Board members have questions? 4 Yes. Dr. Friedman. 5 DR. FRIEDMAN: One minor question. What 6 is the duration of time -- I'm speaking about the San 7 Diego sulfate issue -- with the invigorated testing? 8 How long will it take before we know if we need the 9 already obtained new level? 10 MS. POPEJOY: Well, we see the high 11 concentrations usually occur in winter and spring 12 because of the meteorology. You see high sulfate 13 concentrations under fog conditions, and that's the time 14 of the year that San Diego gets their fog. 15 The increased monitoring will occur 16 starting October 1st. So 1998 data will not give us any 17 additional clues to the problems of sulfate. So we'll 18 have to wait until winter and spring of 1999 to see how 19 that frequency might affect the concentrations that we 20 see. 21 DR. FRIEDMAN: So you don't see any 22 alterations for at least a year? 23 MS. POPEJOY: Probably not. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Supervisor Patrick. 25 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: I have a question, 51 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 and I'm not exactly sure you can answer it. But it has 2 to do with the meteorologists' analysis of the weather 3 this year. 4 I'm sure in these particular districts 5 they thought they were doing fine, and now they have 6 over three exceedances. Is this considered to be an 7 anomaly by the meteorologists? 8 MS. POPEJOY: Actually, last year was an 9 anomaly. We have -- actually, we have two years that 10 are a little on the extreme of normal. Last year was an 11 El Nino and fairly cool year. When you have cooler 12 weather, you don't have nearly the build up of the ozone 13 as you see. 14 For May and June we had -- El Nino 15 continued into May and June, so we had a fairly cool May 16 and June. July came and it got pretty hot. So this 17 last summer it's been a little hotter than normal, but 18 last summer was much cooler than normal. 19 So we have two extremes that are now 20 balancing each other out. And that's one of the reasons 21 we make our designations based on three years of data is 22 to sort of balance the meteorology a little bit. If we 23 were making designations based only one year at a time, 24 we would have areas flopping from nonattainment to 25 attainment and vice versa quite often. And that is not 52 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 helpful in planning, making planning decisions. You 2 can't turn on and turn off control strategies on a 3 yearly basis. 4 So we have two years that are sort of the 5 extreme of the norm, but follow back to back of each 6 other. 7 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: But in 1995 and 1996 8 they were in attainment? 9 MS. POPEJOY: No. No. No. These 10 nonattainment-transitional areas? No, they are not in 11 attainment in 1995 and '96. 12 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: So it's just the last 13 two years that -- 14 MS. POPEJOY: And 1997 they had three or 15 fewer exceedance, and then 1998 they had more than 16 three. 17 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: I understood you to 18 say you were looking at '95 through '97. 19 MS. POPEJOY: Right. The 20 nonattainment-transitional is based on one year's worth 21 of data. That's just 1997. 22 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: I see. 23 MS. POPEJOY: That was legislation that 24 was adopted I think in 1992. 25 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: So they were exceed 53 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 in '95 and '96. The anomaly year was really in 1997? 2 MS. POPEJOY: Right. 3 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: When it was cooler 4 and now are back into this phase again. 5 MS. POPEJOY: Right. Right. So they 6 remain as nonattainment as they have been since 1989. 7 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. We have no 9 witnesses that have signed up, but I'll ask staff to 10 summarize any written comments they received. 11 MS. POPEJOY: We only received one and 12 that was, of course, from San Diego. They sent a letter 13 asking us to again review the data and can we exclude it 14 as either an exceptional event or an unusual 15 concentration event. So we reevaluated and came up with 16 these conclusions and have already stated. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And you've reflected 18 those conclusions in a positive way based upon their 19 letter, correct? 20 MS. POPEJOY: Correct. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Great. 22 I'll now -- Mr. Kenny, do you have 23 anything else you want to add? 24 MR. KENNY: No, I don't. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'll now close the 54 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 record on this agenda items. However, the record will 2 be reopened when the 15-day notice of public 3 availability is issued. Written or oral comments 4 received after this hearing date but before the 15-day 5 notice is issued will not be accepted as part of the 6 official record on this item. When the record is 7 reopened for a 15-day comment period, the public may 8 submit written comments on the proposed changes which 9 will be considered and responded to in the final 10 statement of reasons for the regulation. 11 Ex parte communication. Any to report? 12 (No response.) 13 We have before us resolution dash 90 -- 14 excuse me, 98-47 which contains the staff 15 recommendations. 16 The Chair would entertain a motion. 17 MRS. RIORDAN: I would so moved. 18 DR. FRIEDMAN: Seconded. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Moved by Mrs. Riordan; 20 seconded by Dr. Friedman. 21 Anything we need to discuss on resolution 22 98-47? 23 All right. We'll proceed with voice vote. 24 All those in favor say aye. 25 (Chorus of ayes.) 55 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 Any opposed? 2 (No response.) 3 Very good. 4 Thank you, staff. Appreciate your wading 5 through that for us. 6 What I would like to do, I'm going to 7 take -- I know there's some folks who have signed up to 8 testify on Item 3. I'm going to move that be the last 9 one. We're going to make quick work, I hope, of Item 10 No. 4. 11 So I'm going to ask Lynn Terry to come 12 forward. 13 In the meantime, for our high school 14 student visitors, I've asked Barbara Riordan to take a 15 moment and explain to you a bit of background on the 16 Board so you have a context of who we are and what we're 17 about. So I'll turn the time over to her. 18 I should mention, though, that on this 19 Board, sitting up here today, I believe we have at least 20 four current or former educators and a couple -- 21 Supervisor Patrick is well-known for having taught 22 elementary school level, and I believe Barbara Riordan 23 has as well. Both Sally Rakow and Bill Friedman have 24 taught or lectured young people, too. So we've got a 25 lot of people interested in your welfare and knowing 56 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 about us. So I'll have Barbara say a few words about 2 that. 3 MRS. RIORDAN: I'm going to borrow your 4 microphone, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 5 I thought it might be helpful not only for 6 the students who are here but for those who may be 7 watching us to know a little bit more about this Board 8 and what we do. 9 We consist of 11 members, and while we're 10 not all here today due to illness and a prior 11 commitment, there are a variety of people here who are 12 chosen by the governor of the State of California to 13 serve on this Board. We serve at his pleasure, but we 14 are confirmed by the State Senate. So we must go 15 through a confirmation process. 16 We do meet certain qualifications that are 17 set out in law, and five members are chosen from boards 18 of local air quality management districts. 19 And for those of you who are from this 20 area, Supervisor Patrick is your representative because 21 she serves on the air district board from this area, and 22 she was chosen by the Governor to represent this area. 23 So she's essentially your special representative. 24 Then there are some people who are called 25 out in law very specific to be members of this Board. 57 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 They must have specific expertise. One is in automotive 2 engineering or closely related field, that's Mr. 3 Calhoun; one must have expertise in science or 4 agricultural law, and the person that represents that 5 area is Ms. Edgerton in law. Our agricultural member is 6 missing, unfortunately, today. One must be a physician 7 or surgeon or health effects expert, and you can guess 8 to my right here Dr. Friedman is that individual. And 9 then one person -- one of the three remaining members 10 must have some expertise in air pollution control and 11 meet some of the qualifications that are set out and 12 mentioned above. And the other two members are public 13 members, Mrs. Rakow is one of those public members. And 14 then our Chairman, and I'm not sure if you're a public 15 member or not, but he's the most hard working. 16 All of us are part-time with the exception 17 of the Chairman. He is full time, and he has the 18 responsibility of seeing that everything moves forward. 19 We meet in a variety of locations; 20 primarily in Sacramento. We are at this time, of 21 course, fortunate enough to be in Bakersfield. 22 We have two main areas of offices in 23 Sacramento and in El Monte, in the southern part of 24 California, where we do a lot of testing. So that's a 25 very interesting office. 58 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 What we are about is really quite simple. 2 We set and enforce emission standards for motor 3 vehicles, fuels, and consumer products, because they go 4 all over the state, and so they need to have state 5 standards. 6 We set health phase air quality standards. 7 We also conduct research. We have a very large research 8 program that we monitor. And we monitor air quality, 9 and we just had a discussion about that a moment ago. 10 We also talk about toxic air contaminants. 11 We also do some outreach that I think is 12 very important in the field of education and helping 13 businesses to comply with these air quality standards. 14 I think that the most important thing for 15 you to know is that these 11 members don't do it by 16 themselves. There are over a thousand employees in the 17 State Air Resources Department, and these are the people 18 who really do the work. We simply are a review Board, 19 and Mr. Dunlap is responsible for that, seeing that 20 things get done, along with Mr. Kenny. 21 We have a budget, a very substantial 22 budget of -- what is it now? 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: 147. 24 MRS. RIORDAN: 147, $147 million each year 25 to carry out these programs. It's a sizable program. 59 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 The basic mission of this Board is to 2 provide healthy air for all of us here in the State of 3 California, which is most important, because if we don't 4 have healthy air, we don't have much in the way of 5 opportunities for this very golden state. 6 And I think that will conclude my remarks, 7 Mr. Chairman. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Excellent. 9 Thank you. 10 Did that help a little bit give you some 11 context? Okay. Good. 12 By the way, I might add it's a great 13 career to go into. So if you like environmental 14 protection and want to learn more about it, I'm certain 15 you can write to us and we'll send you information and 16 tell you -- and give you some suggestions on fields of 17 study, if you would like, for when you go to college. 18 We need good people helping us with this, so take a look 19 at environmental protection for a career. 20 We'll move into the next item, which will 21 be our fourth item. 98-10-4 -- public meeting to 22 consider a resolution supporting use of federal air 23 quality related transportation funds to purchase 24 cleaner, alternative fueled school and transit buses. 25 This item is to consider a resolution 60 BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES 1-888-326-5900 1 regarding the use of federal transportation dollars to 2 purchase these clean school and public transit buses. 3 Recent passage by Congress of the Transportation Equity 4 Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21, provides new and 5 unprecedented opportunities to replace diesel-powered 6 buses with alternative-fueled buses, thereby decreasing 7 exposure to diesel particulate emission as we also meet 8 our SIP commitments for NOx reductions. 9 The Board last considered federal 10 transportation expenditures in 1995 when we passed a 11 resolution endorsing the use of congestion mitigation 12 and air quality improvement funds as incentives to 13 accelerate the introduction of low NOx engines for heavy 14 duty vehicles in the Sacramento region. 15 During Mrs. Rakow's tenure as a mem