State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Summary of Board Meeting
October 28, 1999
Air Resources Board
Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Hons. Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chairman
Doreen D'Adamo
C. Hugh Friedman
William F. Friedman, M.D.
Matthew R. McKinnon
Barbara Patrick
Barbara Riordan
AGENDA ITEM #
| 99-8-1 | Public Meeting to Consider Adoption of Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM: Staff proposed amendments to the existing California consumer products regulation which would add volatile organic compound (VOC) limits for two additional categories of consumer products, and would lower the VOC limits for 15 previously regulated categories. Staff also proposed amendments that would expand the reporting requirements for manufacturers of regulated consumer products containing perchloroethylene or methylene chloride. Finally, staff proposed changes to the definitions in the regulations, and numerous other clarifying changes. The proposed amendments fulfill, in part, the Air Resources Board's (ARB) commitments in a recent State Implementation Plan (SIP) lawsuit settlement agreement. The agreement requires ARB to adopt regulations in 1999 that will achieve a 12 ton per day (TPD) reduction in VOC emissions in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in 2010. The proposed amendments would achieve an estimated 8 TPD reduction in the SCAB in 2010, or about two-thirds of the overall commitment for 1999. The staff proposal included some modifications to the original proposal mailed out for public comment. Specifically, the staff proposed changes to the VOC limits for four product categories: double-phase aerosol air fresheners, nonaerosol general purpose cleaners, nonaerosol general purpose degreasers, and nonaerosol glass cleaners. Staff also proposed modifications to the definitions of "dilutable" and "premixed" auto windshield washer fluids, and the addition of a provision clarifying that the VOC content of premixed auto windshield washer fluids is to be determined as provided in the container, without dilution. Staff also proposed to investigate the need to include additional high elevation areas of the state in the definition of "Type A" areas. Type A areas are those that experience colder temperatures and require higher VOC windshield washer fluids to provide greater protection from freezing. Nine individuals testified at the hearing. Five individuals (representatives of the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association; Amway Corporation; Reckitt & Colman; S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc.; and the Consumer Group of the Sherwin Williams Company) expressed either support or acceptance of the proposed limits, with the changes proposed by staff at the hearing. Two individuals (representatives of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, and the Automotive Chemical Manufacturers Council) expressed general support except for the proposal for auto windshield washer fluids. Two individuals (representatives of the Allied Signal Consumer Products Group and Pennzoil-Quaker State) expressed opposition to the proposal for auto windshield washer fluids. The representatives expressed concerns about the proposed one percent VOC limit, the adequacy of the ARB's survey data, and the size limitations in the definition of dilutable products. ARB staff noted that an estimated 50 percent of the market already complies with the proposed one percent limit. ARB staff also explained that the survey data were supplemented with additional information provided by industry and compared well with U.S. EPA data and the SIP inventory. Finally, ARB commented that the size limitation in the definition of dilutable products reflects current industry practice and is necessary to preserve the emission reductions from the proposal. ORAL TESTIMONY:
FORMAL BOARD ACTION: Approved Resolution 99-34 by a unanimous vote. RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: SSD STAFF REPORT: Yes (225 pages) |
||||||||||||||||||
| 99-8-2 | Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's California
Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision for 1995-1997 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. Air Resources Board (ARB) staff evaluated the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's (District's) Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision, 1995-1997 (1997 Triennial Update) for ozone against the applicable CCAA provisions. The staff concluded that the District has made progress by adopting eight control measures since 1994. However, the 1997 Triennial Update did not satisfy the CCAA requirements for implementation of all feasible measures and expeditious rulemaking progress. Based on the staff's analysis and its own findings, the Board conditionally approved the 1997 Triennial Update. The conditions imposed on the District are: adoption of eight measures by year-end 2000; prioritization and adoption of four measures per year from 2001-2003 to achieve emission reductions; inclusion of the prioritized rule adoption schedule with estimated reductions in the next triennial plan; revision of the District's cost-effectiveness thresholds; and submittal of annual progress reports to ARB. The conditions relieve the District of its obligation to adopt a specific measure if the District demonstrates that the measure is not technically feasible, not cost-effective, or the emission inventory does not justify rulemaking. At the hearing, the District representative described the difficulty of reducing ozone levels in the San Joaquin Valley and stated his acceptance of a conditional approval. He also agreed that the District would be able to adopt new control measures for stationary sources at the rate of four per year. He emphasized that the District would work cooperatively with ARB to adopt and implement strategies to reduce both stationary and mobile source emissions. A representative of the Western States Petroleum Association supported the conditional approval, but requested that ARB not apply a Aone size fits all@ approach to District control measures and cost-effectiveness thresholds. ORAL TESTIMONY:
FORMAL BOARD ACTION: Approved Resolution 99-35 by unanimous vote. RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: PTSD/AQTPB STAFF REPORT: Yes (47 pages) |
||||||||||||||||||
| 99-8-3 | Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Fee Regulation for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM: The Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (the Act) requires the ARB to adopt a fee regulation to recover the costs incurred by the State to implement and administer the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Fee Regulation for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 (Fee Regulation) recovers the State's Program costs by allocating portions of the State costs among the air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts). The Fee Regulation requires each district to collect fees from facilities subject to the requirements of the Act in order to recover the State's and each district's Program costs and to provide to the ARB each district's share of the State's Program costs. The proposed Fee Regulation will adopt fee schedules, containing per facility fees, for the five districts that requested the ARB by April 1, 1999, to include them in the Fee Regulation. The remaining 30 districts must adopt their own fee schedule. The fees assessed through this regulation will be used to: provide assistance to districts, facility operators, and the general public in implementing the emission inventory requirements of the Program; collect air toxics emission inventory data and maintain an air toxics emissions database; review and approve health risk assessments; develop health risk assessment guidelines; develop risk reduction guidelines and provide assistance to districts and facilities; and provide assistance with public notification procedures. For fiscal year 1999-2000, the staff proposed to use the same method for allocating the State's cost among districts as was used for fiscal year 1998-99. That method allocates State costs to the districts based on the health risk of facilities in the districts as determined by risk assessment results or prioritization scores. The staff proposed to keep the same fee amounts per fee category as last year, including the $35 per year fee for industry-wide facilities. The staff proposed to continue to exempt low risk facilities from paying the State portion of fees. These facilities are defined as those with health risk assessment results below 1.0 cancer case per million and hazard indices below 0.1 or a prioritization score of 10.0 or below. Facilities with risks and scores above those thresholds will continue to pay fees according to a schedule that assigns higher fees to facilities having higher risks and levels of complexity. The staff proposal reduces State Program costs to $1,207,000, representing a five percent reduction from fiscal year 1998-99. Approximately forty-two percent of the budget supports ARB activities and fifty-eight percent supports activities of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The staff believes this year's five percent reduction in Program costs will not affect the State's ability to implement an effective Program. ORAL TESTIMONY: None FORMAL BOARD ACTION: Approved Resolution 99-36 by a unanimous vote. RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: PTSD STAFF REPORT: Yes (157 pages) |
||||||||||||||||||
| 99-8-4 | Public Meeting to Consider a Status Report on the Air Resources Board's Heavy-Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection
Program SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM: In December 1997, the Air Resources Board adopted updated regulations governing the Board's Heavy-Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program. The program, in its current form, consists of two elements: random roadside inspections and periodic fleet inspections. These two elements have been enforced since June 1 and July 1, 1998, respectively. Staff presented a status report on the history and activities of the administration of this program and related topics and issues. ORAL TESTIMONY:
FORMAL BOARD ACTION: None RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: MSOD STAFF REPORT: None |