State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Summary of Board Meeting
October 26, 1995
Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
MEMBERS PRESENT: Hons. John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman
Eugene A. Boston, M.D.
Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E.
Lynne T. Edgerton, Esq.
M. Patricia Hilligoss
John S. Lagarias, P.E.
Jack C. Parnell
James W. Silva
|AGENDA ITEM #
Continuation of a Public Meeting to Consider the First Biennial Report to the Legislature on the Connelly-Areias-Chandler Rice Straw Burning Reduction Act of 1991
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
The staff recommended that the Board approve the draft report on the progress of the phase-down of rice straw burning in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin for submittal to the California Legislature. This item was carried over from the September Board meeting.
The Board discussed the draft report's recommendations and requested that specific concerns regarding health and economic impacts of the recommendations and the need for efforts to promote the development of alternatives to burning for disposal of rice straw be transmitted to the Legislature along with the report.
ORAL TESTIMONY: None
FORMAL BOARD ACTION:
The Board approved the submittal of the staff's report to the Legislature by a vote of 11 - 0.
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: TSD
STAFF REPORT: Yes (336 pages)
|95-11-1||Public Meeting to Consider Approval of Guidelines for
the Generation of Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits Through the
Purchase of New, Reduced Emission Heavy-duty Vehicles
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
The staff proposed the approval of guidelines for the generation of mobile source emission reduction credits as an addition to the existing guidelines for mobile source emission reduction credits. The guidelines provide direction to the air pollution control and air quality management districts in implementing local emission reduction credit programs.
The proposed additions to the guidelines allow purchasers of new reduced-emission heavy-duty vehicles to generate emission reduction credits for oxides of nitrogen. The basis for generation of these credits is that if the reduced-emission vehicle were not purchased and operated, a vehicle that meets the existing emission standards would be purchased and operated. The difference in emission rates between these two cases defines the amount of earned credit.
The proposed guidelines provide direction on vehicle eligibility, engine and vehicle certification, enforcement, credit calculation procedures, and the definition of credit life. The proposal was patterned after the existing guidelines for credit generation from the purchase of new reduced-emission urban buses. The urban bus guidelines were approved by the Board in February 1993.
Following the staff presentation and receipt of public testimony, the Board approved the guidelines with a modification. The modification involved a change to the guidelines' wording related to the need for in-use testing. The guidelines as proposed stated that "...it will be necessary..." to conduct in-use testing. The Board directed that "will" be changed to "may." The Board also directed the staff to circulate to interested parties the names and locations of facilities that have the capacity to conduct in-use testing appropriate for implementing the guidelines.
Greg Vlasek California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
FORMAL BOARD ACTION:
Approved Resolution 95-44, with the modification, by a vote of 11-0.
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: MSD
STAFF REPORT: Yes (18 pages)
|95-11-2||Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Test Methods
Designated for Determining the Benzene, Aromatic Hydrocarbon, Olefin and
Sulfur Content of Phase 2 Gasoline
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
Staff proposed that the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) amend its designation of the test methods used to measure the amount of benzene, aromatic hydrocarbons, olefins, and sulfur in gasoline. The updated methods would be used to determine if motor vehicle gasoline complies with the ARB's Phase 2 reformulated gasoline (RFG) requirements which were adopted in November 1991 and go into effect on March 1, 1996.
The specific recommendations were as follows:
(1) For the measurement of benzene replace ASTM D3606-87 and MLD 116
(2) For the measurement of aromatic hydrocarbons replace MLD 116 with
(3) For the measurement of olefins replace ASTM D1319-89 with ASTM
(4) For the measurement of sulfur replace ASTM D2622-87 with ASTM
(5) For the measurement of very low sulfur, in the range of 1 to less
ARB staff, in cooperation with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), has been striving to identify improved test methods for the determination of regulated fuels components.
Staff has conducted in-house evaluations of various test methods, participated in interlaboratory studies of test method precision, and held two workshops which were attended by members of the oil industry, instrument manufacturers and other interested parties. The proposed test methods are more precise and, in some cases, more accurate than the methods currently designated by the ARB. Generally, the proposed test methods reflect the consensus of the participants in this process.
Staff recommended ASTM D5580-9x for the measurement of benzene because it is more precise and less prone to interferences than the currently designated methods (ASTM D3606-87 and MLD 116).
For the measurement of aromatic hydrocarbons, staff recommended the designation of ASTM D5580-9x because it is less likely to have interferences than MLD 116, the method currently adopted. The proposed method is also the most reproducible of several alternative methods which were tested in parallel.
Staff recommended the adoption of ASTM D1319-9x for the measurement of olefins because this method is more relevant to oxygenated gasoline than the method currently adopted. Phase 2 gasoline must have an oxygen content of no less than 1.8 and no greater than 2.2 percent oxygen by weight.
Staff recommended the adoption of ASTM D2622-94 in place of ASTM D2622-87 for the measurement of sulfur in gasoline because the updated version (D2622-94) contains editorial changes which clarify the method. Staff also recommended that the calibration procedure and precision statement of ASTM D2622-94 be superseded by a revised calibration procedure and precision statement. The proposed revisions make the method more relevant to Phase 2 gasoline. Finally, staff recommended that results from ASTM D2622-94 be reported as sulfur concentrations no less than 30 ppm because the measurements become very imprecise below that concentration.
Staff recommended the designation of ASTM D5453-93 for the measurement of sulfur in very low sulfur gasoline (1 to less than 30 ppm). Because of the RFG regulations' averaging provisions and allowances made for alternative formulations, it is anticipated that gasoline blends will be produced at concentrations well below the flat limit of 40 ppm. ASTM D5453-93 was proposed because it is applicable in the concentration range of interest and is reasonably precise. Staff also recommended that ASTM D5453-93 be allowed for the measurement of higher levels of sulfur but a correlation must be established between ASTM D2622 and D5453-93. If a bias exists between the methods, then results obtained using ASTM must be corrected.
Staff recognized that all of the methods for sulfur determination are likely to undergo additional testing and modification in the near future. Staff will continue to monitor the development of these and other methods of analysis and, if appropriate, will recommend the improved method for adoption at a future rulemaking.
Based on data and industry input received, staff amended its proposal as follows:
(1) Redesignate the test method for aromatic hydrocarbons and benzene
(2) Extend the limit of applicability of the reproducibility equation
(3) Allow the use of ASTM D2622-94 (with modifications) for the determination
(4) Allow the use of ASTM D5453-93 for the determination of sulfur at
(5) Replace the reproducibility table published in the Staff Report
(6) Do not allow the reporting of values below the detection limit of
These changes will be part of a 15-day change package to be mailed out later this year.
Donald Bea Chevron
FORMAL BOARD ACTION:
Approved Resolution 95-45 by a vote of 11 - 0.
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: MLD
STAFF REPORT: Yes (27 pages)
|95-11-3||Public Meeting to Update the Board on the Technological
Progress of Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
As part of the ongoing review of the technological progress of ZEVs, the staff conducted a series of public forums in 1995. In addition, an independent battery technology advisory panel was appointed to evaluate the types of batteries likely to reach production before 2002 and the status of battery technology development. The staff provided an informational report to the Board to update them on information received to date. The battery panel also presented their preliminary results to the Board.
Since May 1995, the staff has conducted six public forums to assess issues related to the Board's ZEV program. These forums have focused on hybrid-electric vehicles (two forums), marketability, infrastructure availability, fleets, and technology. All major stakeholders in the ZEV program, including automobile manufacturers and dealers, battery manufacturers, electric utilities, start-up businesses, environmental groups, the oil industry, and consumers, have participated in one or more of the forums. The last scheduled forum will address benefits and costs of ZEVs.
The purpose of the battery technology advisory panel is to investigate batteries "worldwide" that might be commercially available for use in electric vehicles (EVs) in the 1998-2003 timeframe. The panel visited numerous battery and auto manufacturers, and solicited written information from others. The preliminary findings indicate that advanced batteries are on the immediate horizon. However, pilot-scale production and fleet testing of these batteries are needed before full-scale commercialization. The panel noted that close collaboration between battery and vehicle manufacturers is essential and that construction of battery production plants will only occur after commitments are received from auto makers.
Based on the forums and the preliminary findings from the battery panel, the staff has come to some preliminary conclusions about the ZEV program. These include: (1) lead-acid batteries are the primary high-volume option for 1998 EVs, (2) although some advanced batteries are possible in 1998, high production volumes of advanced batteries are not expected until about 2001, (3) realizing the promise of advanced batteries requires pilot production vehicle demonstrations using advanced batteries between now and 1999, and (4) the current ZEV requirement could be more responsive to these issues.
In responding to public comments, the Board directed staff to meet with fire chiefs to establish a working group to provide information to emergency response personnel and respond to their concerns. This working group should also involve automobile manufacturers. The staff will return in November 1995 to update the Board on the remaining public forum which focuses on the benefits and costs of ZEVs.
Jan Dunbar Sacramento Fire Dept.
Bill Somers &nb