CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
Sacramento, CA
January 14, 1993
9:30 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
93-1-1 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of an 001
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of
Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting.
93-1-2 Public Meeting to Consider Retention of 075
Regulations Regarding the State One-Hour Ambient
Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide.
93-1-3 Public Meeting to Consider Amendments to 154
Certification Requirements and Procedures for
Low-Emission Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks,
and Medium-Duty Vehicles.
93-1-4 Public Meeting to Consider Research Proposals. 278
Closed Session:
Litigation -- Authorized by Govt. Code Section 11126
(q)(1); Valley Spreader v. Air Resources Board.
Western States Petroleum Association v. Air Resources
Board, Sierra Club v. Air Resources Board, Dunn Edwards
Corporation v. Air Resources Board, Citizens for a
Better Environment v. Air Resources Board, Exxon
Corporation v. Air Resources Board, The Aerosol Group
v. Air Resources Board.
January 15, 1993
8:30 a.m.
Those items listed above which are not completed on January 14
will be heard beginning at 8:30 on January 15.
ITEM NO.: 93-1-1
Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of a Statewide Airborne
Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal
Melting Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed regulation,
which requires the use of the best available control technology
to reduce cadmium, arsenic, and nickel emissions from non-ferrous
metal melting operations.
DISCUSSION
Cadmium, arsenic, and nickel have been identified by the Air
Resources Board as toxic air contaminants with no identifiable
threshold level. Lead is currently being evaluated for
identification as a toxic air contaminant. These metals are
often present as contaminants or added to impart desirable
properties to non-ferrous metals. These metals may be emitted
from facilities that melt lead, copper, zinc, aluminum, or their
alloys, in a furnace. this includes smelters, foundries,
galvanizers, and other metal melting facilities. At end-of-stack
temperatures, these metals are emitted mainly as small particles.
Currently, particulate matter emissions from some melting
operations, and occasionally from pouring operations, may be
collected and emitted from a stack either directly or through an
air pollution control device. Based on an industry survey
conducted in 1991, we estimate that 2,000 pounds of nickel, and
300,000 pounds of lead per year are emitted from an estimated 280
facilities.
The estimated potential statewide cancer burden attributable to
cadmium, arsenic, and nickel emissions from non-ferrous metal
melting facilities is 102 excess cancer cases over 70 years. The
lead emissions from these facilities translate to another 9
potential cases over 70 years. The lead emissions from these
facilities translate to another 9 potential cases over 70 years.
The highest maximum individual risks from these facilities are
700-800 in a million; for about 12 percent of facilities, the
maximum individual risk is estimated to be over 100 in a million.
Cadmium, arsenic, and nickel emissions contribute about 90
percent of the risk in most cases.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS
Staff developed the proposed control measure in consultation with
the affected industry and the air districts, through a process
that included releasing draft versions of the regulation and
supporting information for comments, conducting four workshops,
and discussing the proposal at industry association meetings.
The proposed control measure requires the application of best
available control technology to reduce emissions from melting and
pouring operations and fugitive emissions from non-ferrous metal
melting facilities. The proposed control measure will reduce the
cancer risk from non-ferrous metal melting facilities from the
current level of 111 potential cases to about 52 potential cases
over 70 years, a 47 percent reduction. For a facility that does
not have any emission controls, emissions and risk will be
reduced by 95 percent; the overall extent of risk reduction is
less than 95 percent because some facilities already have
emission controls.
The proposal includes exemptions from control for certain types
and sizes of facilities. It is estimated that approximately 60
percent of small businesses affected by the regulation will
qualify for an exemption.
The total annualized cost for all facilities is estimated to be
1.7 million dollars. The proposed reductions will cost an
average of 2 million dollars per potential lifetime cancer case
avoided. This is in the range of toxic control measures adopted
by the Board (0.1 to 70 million dollars per case).
In addition to a reduction in potential cancer cases, the
proposed control measure would result in a reduction in the
airborne concentrations of lead. Indirect environmental benefits
include reduced worker exposure to pollutants through effective
emission collection equipment and fugitive control, and a
decrease in water pollution caused by airborne toxics settling on
or being washed into water.
Potential adverse environmental impacts associated with this
control measure that are expected to occur include increased
power plant emissions due to increased electricity needed to
operate the required pollution control equipment and increased
quantities of particulate matter or sludge collected by the air
pollution control equipment. The significance of these adverse
impacts is considered to be minimal or readily mitigated.
Mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, such as
hazardous waste disposal sites for particulate waste captured by
pollution control devices, are currently in place.
ITEM NO.: 93-1-2
Public Meeting to Consider Retention of Regulations Regarding the
State One-Hour Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board retain the current one-hour
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide at 0.25 ppm.
DISCUSSION
Air Resources Board staff and Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment staff have reviewed the recent health and
welfare effects studies and concur in their recommendation to the
Board that the current State Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Nitrogen Dioxide is adequately protective of public health and
welfare, and regulatory action to revise the standard is not
necessary at this time.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS
The proposed retention of the one-hour Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide, alone, will have no negative
environmental or economic impacts. Ambient air quality standards
establish the maximum allowable levels of air pollutants,
although they should not be interpreted as permitting or
encouraging the degradation of air quality superior to the
standards. However, specific control measures may be developed
to attain the level of the standard. Once standards are attained
and maintained, the air quality will be improved with
corresponding benefits to the environment and public health and
welfare.
ITEM NO.: 93-1-3
Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Certification
Requirements and Procedures for Low-Emission Passenger Cars,
Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Air Resources Board approve the
proposed amendments to the motor vehicle emission test procedures
for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. These amendments would
establish reactivity adjustment factors for certifying
reformulated gasoline transitional low-emission vehicles (TLEVs)
and low-emission vehicles (LEVs), additional test procedure
requirements for hybrid electric vehicles, methane reactivity
adjustment factors for natural gas vehicles, and other changes to
clarify the certification test procedures or to make their
application to low-emission vehicles more practical.
DISCUSSION
Following a September 1990 public hearing, the Air Resources
Board adopted regulations for low-emission vehicles which
established stringent new exhaust emission standards and fleet
average phase-in requirements. As part of this rulemaking, the
Board also approved a process to periodically review the status
of implementation of the regulations and to consider appropriate
regulatory modifications. The review of the status of
implementation was conducted at a June 11, 1992 Board meeting.
The November 12, 1992 hearing will be held to consider regulatory
amendments proposed by the Board's staff to the low-emission
vehicle regulations and general certification requirements and
procedures for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS
The proposed regulatory action would affect a wide variety of
subjects related to the certification and implementation of
light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. Perhaps most significantly,
the staff proposal would establish reactivity adjustment factors
for certifying TLEVs and LEVs on Phase 2 reformulated gasoline.
These factors would be based on speciated emission testing
conducted by the staff in accordance with previously adopted
regulations.
The staff proposal also contains test procedure modifications for
hybrid electric vehicles that are generally intended to ensure
that the emission impacts of hybrids are properly accounted for.
To this end, determining the battery-only range and measuring the
exhaust emissions due to evaporative canister purging would be
required for certifying hybrid electrics.
Other amendments proposed by the staff include requiring natural
gas vehicles to account for methane emissions through the use of
methane reactivity adjustment factors, modifying the 50 degrees F
requirement for low-emission vehicles, inserting specific penalty
provisions for violating the low-emission vehicle requirements,
allowing the use of fuel-fired heaters under specified conditions
for zero-emission vehicles, establishing 20 degrees F carbon
monoxide standards, and adding test procedures for certifying
ethanol-fueled vehicles.
For the purpose of evaluating potential emission impacts, the
proposed amendments are appropriately viewed as part of the
larger low-emission vehicle regulatory program. The amendments
are not expected to change the emissions reductions that were
originally projected to result from the low-emission reactivity
adjustment factors further facilitates the use of cleaner burning
fuels in low-emission vehicles. The structure of the reactivity
adjustment process is intended to equalize the ozone impact of
emission vehicle standards. Thus, the net effect on ambient
ozone should be no different for such a vehicle than for a
conventional gasoline vehicle certified to the same low-emission
vehicle standard.
The staff also does not expect that the proposed amendments will
result in any adverse economic impacts. Several of the
modifications should make it somewhat easier and more practical
for vehicle manufacturers to meet the requirements of the low-emission
vehicle program. These modifications should result in
some cost savings. Some of the proposed amendments will create
additional certification requirements (e.g., for hybrid electric
vehicles). Overall, the staff believes that the proposed
modifications would result in no significant cost impacts.