State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Summary of Board Meeting
July 22, 1999
Bay Area AQMD Building
Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E.
Lynne T. Edgerton, Esq.
William F. Friedman, M.D.
Matthew R. McKinnon
AGENDA ITEM #
|99-6-1||Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Revision to the Ozone State Implementation Plan for the San Francisco
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
On July 10, 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) redesignated the San Francisco Bay Area from attainment to nonattainment because of the numerous violations of the one-hour federal ozone standard in 1995 and 1996. U.S. EPA required the Bay Area to submit a plan by June 15, 1999 that demonstrated attainment by the deadline of November 15, 2000. The 1999 San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the One-Hour National Ozone Standard (Bay Area Plan) relies primarily on the benefits of measures already in place to attain within one year. The Bay Area Plan also contains the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (Bay Area District) commitment to achieve 20 tons per day (tpd) of new reductions in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions through increased enforcement of refueling controls at gas stations and adoption of five new rules. The Bay Area District and its two co-lead agencies, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (Continued) adopted the Bay Area Plan in June and submitted it to ARB on July 1, 1999.
The Board approved the Bay Area Plan as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone, including the following specific elements: the 1995 emission inventory, the attainment assessment, the control strategy, the new transportation conformity budget, and the contingency measures.
At the hearing, industry representatives supported the plan, but expressed disappointment that the Bay Area District and the Board did not seek SIP credit for the Bay Area District's "Spare the Air" program. The Bay Area District did not include SIP credit for the program because it did not have the "backstop" control measure that U.S. EPA required. Environmentalists questioned the adequacy of the plan's emission reductions, as there had been violations on July 11 and 12, even though most of the plan's projected emission reductions had already occurred. Staff agreed that a majority of the projected emissions had occurred, but pointed out that the Bay Area District has committed to 20 tpd in new VOC emission reductions. Environmentalists also strongly criticized MTC for not including new transportation control measures (TCMs) in the plan, identified four new TCMs, and asked the Board to review the legal authority of MTC to pursue the four TCMs. The Board directed staff to work with MTC on the legal review.
Cindy Tuck Bay Area Council
Bay Area League of Industrial Associations
California Council for Environmental and
Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group
Western States Petroleum Association
Susan Shara Lockheed
Greg Perry Citizen
John Holtzclaw Sierra Club
FORMAL BOARD ACTION:
Approved Resolution 99-30 by a unanimous vote.
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: PTSD
STAFF REPORT: Yes (40 pages)
|99-6-2||Public Meeting to Consider Proposed Guidance for Power Plant Siting and Best Available Control Technology
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
The staff requested the Board approve the Guidance for Power Plant Siting and Best Available Control Technology (Guidance) and to direct staff to forward the Guidance to air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts) for use in the siting of power plants. The Guidance was drafted to promote consistency in district review of new power plant projects and to provide project proponents with an understanding of what ARB staff's position will be in its review of power plant projects.
Guidance was proposed in the areas of Best Available Control Technology (BACT), emission offsets, ambient air quality impact analysis, health risk assessment, and other permitting considerations. Staff also presented clarifications to selected items in the Guidance.
The Board heard testimony from Chris Tooker and Tim Shippy, which supported the staff's proposal. Gary Rubenstein gave testimony in general support of the staff's proposal, with the suggestion to raise carbon monoxide (CO) and ammonia slip emission levels. Allan Bedwell testified that emission levels for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), CO, and ammonia slip from combined-cycle and cogeneration power plants should be lowered. Lizanne Reynolds gave testimony supporting lower CO and ammonia slip emission levels, and asked that the Board recognize that BACT determinations are an on-going process. Shannon Broome testified that the NOx emission level for combined-cycle and cogeneration power plants is too low, the Guidance should clarify that it refers to "California BACT," and that emission levels for simple-cycle power plants should be clarified to apply within a specific temperature range. Staff agreed to include language clarifying California BACT, and the applicability of the BACT emission levels to simple-cycle power plants. Chuck Solt testified on the current state of Catalytica's XONON control technology.
Jack Brunton provided testimony emphasizing the importance of considering operating conditions before deeming an emission level as achieved in practice. Richard Smith testified on the need for flexibility in ammonia slip due to load following. Andrew Washington asked staff if it intended to recommend that only natural gas fuel supplied from a regulated utility be allowed. Staff responded that the recommendation was not meant to require that fuel be supplied from a regulated utility, but rather that fuel sulfur content be limited.
The Board unanimously approved Resolution 99-31, as amended. The amendments included the Board directing staff to evaluate the need for modifications and updates to the Guidance with approval through the Executive Officer, to resolve low emission level measurement issues, and to make clarifications to the Guidance as a result of discussion at the Board meeting. Due to items discussed at the meeting and the evolving nature of power plant control technologies, the Board directed staff to report back to the Board within 6 months with an update.
Chris Tooker California Energy Commission
Tim Shippy Peerless Manufacturing Co.
Gary Rubenstein Sierra Research
Allan Bedwell Goal Line Environmental Technologies
Lizanne Reynolds California Unions for Reliable Energy
Shannon Broome General Electric
Chuck Solt Catalytica
Jack Brunton Sempra Energy
Richard Smith Modesto Irrigation District
Andrew Washington Ogden Energy
FORMAL BOARD ACTION:
Approved Resolution 99-31, as amended, by a unanimous vote.
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: SSD
STAFF REPORT: Yes (141 pages)
|99-6-3||Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Clean Fuels Regulations Regarding Clean Fuel Outlets|
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
The staff presented to the Board amendments that would update and streamline the Clean Fuels Regulations to better reflect the current state of the low-emission vehicle (LEV) market and make the regulations more efficient.
Staff proposed amendments that would modify the method used to determine the number of vehicles qualifying towards the 20,000 vehicle trigger by discounting fleet operated vehicles by 75 percent to account for their use of non-retail facilities.
Staff also proposed amendments that would modify the method used to determine the number of clean fuel outlets required by including the volume of fuel used by the fleet vehicles qualifying towards the vehicle trigger, eliminating the fuel volume discount provided to flexible-fuel vehicles to account for their use of gasoline, and reducing the assumed annual clean fuel outlet throughput. Staff also proposed to extend the credit for existing public facilities to all clean fuels.
Staff also proposed amendments to allow the Executive Officer to make certain adjustments based on the fueling demands of alternative fuel LEVs. The proposed amendments would allow the Executive Officer to reduce the discount provided to fleet vehicles qualifying towards the vehicle trigger, and to adjust the required number of clean fuel outlets based on fueling demands and actual market conditions. The public would be notified of any adjustments made by the Executive Officer and would be provided with an opportunity to comment.
Staff also proposed amendments that would streamline reporting requirements for affected industry, reduce the ARB's bi-annual notification requirements to oil companies, simplify the amenity requirements for clean fuel outlets, and remove obsolete sections.
Finally, staff proposed sunset provisions that would remove the requirements to site clean fuel outlets for a particular clean fuel when 10 percent of the retail gasoline stations in the State have been equipped to dispense that fuel.
The Board heard public testimony from representatives of the Western States Petroluem Association, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Comments on the proposed amendments were generally supportive, although WSPA would have preferred a repeal of