State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD


Summary of Board Meeting
August 27, 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

AGENDA ITEM #

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

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

The proposed identification of diesel exhaust as a TAC received much attention from both the public and the Legislature, and many misconceptions arose. Towards correcting these misconceptions, the Senate Transportation Committee held an informational hearing on August 4th and heard from expert panels on the future of diesel fuel use in California and related health effects. A number of Legislators had asked the ARB to defer action until this Legislative hearing took place. Out of respect for this request, the ARB proceeded with the July 30th hearing and took testimony, but deferred action on the item until the next Board hearing on August 27, 1998.

Comments at the July Board hearing focused on three themes: the form of the listing, the use of risk values, and the potential litigation under Proposition 65.

Since the July Board hearing, staff worked with a broad spectrum of stakeholders to address these issues. Staff identified an approach that was consistent with the scientific information assembled by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), acceptable to a broad coalition, and fully effective in protecting public health.

The first issue centered on the concerns that given the continuing advances in engine technology and fuel, the nature of the emissions may change to a point where the toxic components are not of concern, thus making it inappropriate to list diesel exhaust as a TAC. In response to this comment, the staff determined that the listing could be clarified to focus on the pollutants in diesel exhaust of greatest concern, or the particulate and organic vapor emissions.

The second issue concerned how the range of risk health numbers, which were derived from older studies, could be used to characterize risk from today's new diesel engines and fuels. In response, the staff indicated that the range of unit risk estimates reflect the best available scientific information from over 30 human studies. However, it's acknowledged that there have been reductions in mass emissions as a result of new engine technologies and fuel reformulations, and that further research should be followed. Staff also plans to develop risk management guidelines for the local air districts to use in their permitting and other stationary source programs.

The third issue focused on the potential litigation under Proposition 65 that may be generated as a result of the listing of diesel exhaust as a TAC. The listing of diesel exhaust under AB 1807 and the warning requirements of Proposition 65 are two different programs which act separately and operate independently of each other. The staff is also sensitive to concerns voiced at the July hearing regarding the potential use of the reported unit risk values in the context of civil litigation. Therefore, the staff proposed that language be included in the Board's resolution that acknowledges this and specifies that the proper courts must determine whether the use of the risk values is appropriate for specific sources, fuel formulations, engine technologies, and exposures at issue in any such litigation.

The staff proposed a modification to the original proposal, and recommended that the Board identify "particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines" as a TAC. This was acceptable to industry, OEHHA, the SRP, and the environmental groups because many of the organic vapor phase substances in diesel exhaust are already listed as TACs and other organics can be controlled under the ARB's criteria pollutant program. Staff also recommended that the Board direct staff to begin the risk management phase and to form a diesel emissions risk management working group to coordinate efforts to develop a needs assessment for diesel emissions and to develop risk management guidelines for air districts to use in their permitting and other stationary programs.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

Kelly Jensen
California Chamber of Commerce

Jeff Sickenger
WSPA

Dr. Chung S. Lui
SCAQMD

Bonnie Holmes-Gen
Sierra Club California

Jed Mandel
EMA

Allen Schaffer
American Trucking Assoc.

Todd Campbell
Coalition for Clean Air

Janet Hathaway
Natural Resources Defense Council

Stephanie Williams
Calif. Trucking Assoc.

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

Approved Resolution 98-35 by a unanimous vote.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: SSD

STAFF REPORT: Yes

98-9-1 Public Meeting to Consider Approval of Triennial Progress Reports and Plan Revisions Developed Under the California Clean Air Act

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), air districts are to develop plans to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practicable date. Districts are to revisit these plans every three years, beginning in 1994.

The purpose of this meeting was to consider approval of the triennial progress reports, and the triennial revisions to the air quality attainment plans developed by local districts, to meet CCAA requirements. Seventeen districts submitted triennial progress reports and plan revisions for consideration. Triennial progress reports and plan revisions for the San Joaquin Valley, Santa Barbara, and Imperial County have not yet been submitted for approval. These updates will be considered at a future public meeting. The 1997 plan revision for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) was approved by the Air Resources Board (ARB) in January 1998. ARB staff reviewed the progress reports and plan revisions and focused on the progress made over the last 3 years with respect to district rulemaking and air quality improvement. Staff also reviewed the districts' rulemaking commitments to determine if the every feasible measure requirement continued to be met.

Based on the review, the ARB staff recommended full approval of the triennial progress reports and plan revisions for the Bay Area AQMD, Butte County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Feather River AQMD, Kern County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, Glenn County APCD, Colusa County APCD, Tehama County APCD, Shasta County APCD, San Diego County APCD, and San Luis Obispo County APCD; and conditionally approved the triennial plan revisions for the Bay Area AQMD, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, El Dorado County APCD, Placer County APCD, Yolo-Solano AQMD, and Ventura County APCD. In each case, the conditional approval pertained to district review of selected control measures to determine if further emission reductions are achievable. The staff further recommended the conditional approvals revert to full approvals once the Executive Officer determines that the identified conditions have been met.

A district representative from the Bay Area AQMD described the importance of the Bay Area's plan revision, outlined the aggressive rulemaking schedule for the next 3 years and expressed support for Board approval of the Bay Area AQMD's (Bay Area) triennial progress report and plan revision. A representative from the Monterey Bay Unified APCD (Monterey Bay) also expressed support for the approval of the Bay Area triennial progress report and plan revision, stating that the Monterey Bay staff had worked closely with Bay Area staff on the development of the plan revision and Monterey Bay will benefit from the emission reductions realized in the Bay Area. He also expressed his appreciation for the ARB staff who worked with Monterey Bay staff on the preparation of their triennial progress report and plan revision.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

Ellen Garvey
Bay Area AQMD

Douglas Quetin
Monterey Bay Unified APCD

Kathy Reheis
WSPA

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

Approved Resolution 98-36 by a unanimous vote.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: EO/OAQTP

STAFF REPORT: Yes (76 pages)

98-9-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the California Cleaner-Burning Gasoline Regulations

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

Staff recommended raising the "cap" limit on the oxygen content of gasoline to 3.5 percent by weight and eliminating in CO attainment areas the requirement for oxygen in gasoline in the winter. Also, staff proposed four technical changes to the Board's gasoline regulations.

Also, the changes were part of a more extensive set of changes requested by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) for providing more technical and legal flexibility in the use of oxygenates in gasoline. Staff has worked extensively on these additional requests but will need more time and more data to develop recommendations on them.

The rescission of the minimum oxygen content in winter gasoline will apply to all of the state except the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The rescission will take effect upon approval by OAL except in Fresno and Madera Counties and in Lake Tahoe, where it will take effect in 2001.

The higher oxygen cap would allow the use of ethanol in gasoline at contents up to ten percent by volume. Gasoline with ten percent ethanol is exempted from the Board's Reid Vapor Pressure limit unless the Board makes a finding, per criteria stated in section 43830 (g) of the Health and Safety Code, that such gasoline would cause greater ozone-forming potential of emissions than does gasoline meeting all the Board's standards for gasoline.

The Board heard testimony regarding staff's proposals from representatives from WSPA, environmental groups and the ethanol industry. WSPA supported rescission of the minimum oxygen content proposal and was neutral on the other items. WSPA requested that implementation of the rescission be expedited. The environmental groups expressed concern about potential increases in emissions if the oxygen cap was increased without a finding on the ozone forming potential increase from gasoline with ten percent ethanol. The ethanol industry supported increasing the oxygen cap so that ten percent ethanol could be used in gasoline this winter.

The Board voted to rescind the winter oxygen requirement as recommended by staff and to make the four recommended technical changes to the regulations. The Board did not adopt the proposed new oxygen cap, but decided to continue consideration of the cap change for oxygen to December and at that time consider a finding regarding the ozone-forming potential of gasoline with ten percent ethanol. The Board instructed staff to facilitate approval by the U.S. EPA in removing the winter oxygen requirement from the State Implementation Plan for CO.

ORAL TESTIMONY:

Todd Campbell
Coalition for Clean Air

Mike Kulakowski
Western States Petroleum Association

Al Jessel
Chevron

Tom Koehler
Ethanol Industry

Janet Hathaway
Natural Resources Defense Council

Catherine Witherspoon American Methanol Institute

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

Approved Resolution 98-37, with modifications, by unanimous approval.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: SSD

STAFF REPORT: Yes

98-5-6 Continuation of a Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption, Amendment, and Repeal of Regulations Regarding Certification Procedures and Test Procedures for Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

This item was continued from the May 21, 1998 public hearing. The original proposal in May consisted of adding two new procedures and amending 13 existing test procedures. In August the staff proposed that the Board adopt one new test procedure and amend 12 existing test procedures. Adoption of two procedures is deferred until 1999 at which time a new public hearing notice will be issued. These procedures are used to certify gasoline vapor recovery systems for gasoline dispensing facilities, bulk plants, terminals, cargo tanks, and novel facilities.

The new test procedure, called the tie-tank test, is used to check if the plumbing of the gas station's underground tanks is connected properly. The other major change is a temporary exemption for airport refueling cargo tanks from the requirement to vent vapors into a control system prior to testing. This exemption will expire when two certified systems are available to collect vapors from air refueling cargo tanks. Other revisions are editorial in nature.

The original proposal included two procedures which are deferred to a future public hearing in 1999. The two procedures dealt with testing Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) equipped vehicles and with testing to determine the volume ratio of air return to the underground tank to the amount of gasoline dispensed (A/L) during a vehicle refueling.

ORAL TESTIMONY: None

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

Approved Resolution 98-27 by a unanimous vote.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: MLD

STAFF REPORT: Yes (200 pages)

98-9-3 Public Hearing to Consider the Amendment of Regulations Regarding Stationary Source Test Methods

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:

Staff presented a proposal to amend twenty existing Stationary Source Test Methods. The proposed changes were requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that ARB test methods are harmonized with applicable federal test methods.

The methods affected are ARB Methods 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5A, 5E, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13A, 13B, 15, 16, 16A, 17, 20 and 21. The adopted test methods are referenced in Sections 94101-94161, Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR). These methods are used to determine compliance with local air pollution control or air quality management district emission regulations, to evaluate the effectiveness of air pollution control equipment, and to support control measure development for the criteria and toxic pollutant stationary source programs.

ORAL TESTIMONY: None

FORMAL BOARD ACTION:

Approved Resolution 98-38 by a unanimous vote.

RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: MLD

STAFF REPORT: