CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
City Hall
Council Chambers
1501 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA
February 26, 1987
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
87-3-1 Public Hearing to Consider a Revision to the 001
State Implementation Plan for Kern County.
87-3-2 Informational Report on the List of Identified 057
and Candidate Toxic Air Contaminants.
87-3-3 Report to the Legislature: Local Air Pollution
Control District Subvention.
87-3-4 Joint Meeting of the Air Resources Board and the 132
Research Screening Committee: Annual Update of
the Board's Long-Range Research Plan.
Other Business
a. Closed Session
1. Personnel (as authorized by State Agency Open Meeting
Act, Govt. Code Sec. 11126(a).).
2. Litigation (Pursuant to the attorney-client privilege,
Evidence Code Sec. 950-962, and Govt. Code Sec.
11126(q).).
b. Research Proposals
c. Delegations to Executive Officer
ITEM NO.: 87-3-1
Public Hearing to Consider a Revision to the State Implementation
Plan for Kern County.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board further revise the "1986
Update to the Kern County Nonattainment Area Plan for Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide". The revisions would provide that additional
measures for the control of emissions of oxides of nitrogen which
the Board added to the Kern County Plan in August 1986 not be
required in western Kern County unless implementation of existing
reactive organic gas controls fails to attain the national ozone
standard. Additionally, the staff recommends that the Board
establish that the boundary between central and western Kern
County for this action is Interstate Highway 5.
DISCUSSION
The ozone reduction strategy set forth in the revision to the
State Implementation Plan for Kern County was adopted by the Air
Resources Board on August 22, 1986, and submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 21, 1986. This
strategy relies on the control of both reactive organic gas and
oxides of nitrogen emissions throughout the County. The staff
proposes that the Board further revise the Plan to modify that
control strategy for western Kern County. The control strategy
for central Kern County would remain unchanged.
The proposed revision was developed after the ARB investigated
the petroleum industry's contention that the national ambient air
quality standard for ozone may be attained in western Kern County
without the imposition of additional oxides of nitrogen emission
controls. The investigation revealed that: (1) the ozone problem
in western Kern County is less severe than that in central Kern
County; (2) existing control measures will result in substantial
reactive organic gas emission reductions late this year that may
be sufficient to attain the ozone standard; (3) it cannot be
determined at this time through modeling whether or not the ozone
standard would be attained without the control of emissions of
oxides of nitrogen; (4) oxides of nitrogen controls as scheduled
under the current Plan would not be in place until after 1988;
and (5) such oxides of nitrogen controls can still be implemented
expeditiously if the ozone standard is violated after the end of
1987.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS OF PROPOSED BOARD ACTION
Oxides of nitrogen emission controls contained in the Kern County
Plan would be deferred and possibly eliminated for western Kern
County if the ozone standard is attained because of the
anticipated reductions in reactive organic gas emissions. The
control of oxides of nitrogen emissions in addition to the
control of reactive organic gas emissions will not result in the
attainment of the ozone standard more expeditiously than will the
control of reactive organic gases alone. Therefore, there will
be no adverse impact on the air quality of Kern County by this
Board action.
ITEM NO.: 87-3-2
Public Meeting to Discuss the "Informational Report on the List
of Identified and Candidate Toxic Air Contaminants."
RECOMMENDATION
No recommendation. This is an informational report to the Board.
DISCUSSION
This report presents the latest update to the listing of
compounds to be considered in the Board's toxic air contaminants
program. The current listing "Status of Toxic Air Contaminants
Identification," reflects modifications made to the prior
listing. These modifications reflect information recently made
available on the various compounds and a format change to provide
additional information.
Health and Safety Code Section 39660(f) specifies factors that
the ARB must consider in setting priorities for the evaluation
and regulation of substances as toxic air contaminants. These
factors are "risk of harm to public health, amount or potential
amount of emissions, manner of usage of the substance in
California, persistence in the atmosphere, and ambient
concentrations in the community." Based on these factors, ARB
staff prepared and presented to the Board a "Preliminary Compound
Ranking" list in January 1984. That list was subsequently
updated in March 1985. The latest version of the list is titled
"Status of Toxic Air Contaminant Identification" (Status List).
Substances on the Status List are grouped in three categories.
Category I contains those substances which the Board has
identified as toxic air contaminants. Category II contains those
substances under review (II-A) or proposed review but not yet
scheduled (II-B). Category III contains substances which are of
possible concern, but for which there is insufficient information
to begin review. It is intended that this listing be dynamic and
will be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect new
information.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
Discussion of the "Informational Report on the List of Identified
and Candidate Toxic Air Contaminants" will provide the public
with information on which substances are or may be identified as
toxic air contaminants and on the priorities for reviewing
substances as potential toxic air contaminants. Issuance of the
list will not result in any economic, regulatory or environmental
impacts. However, if a substance on the Status List is reviewed
and identified as a toxic air contaminant, then regulations may
subsequently be developed which might result in economic,
regulatory or environmental impacts.
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE:
LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT SUBVENTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
II. BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
A. RESPONSIBILITY FOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL . . . . . . .3
B. FUNDING OF DISTRICT PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
1. CURRENT FUNDING SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
2. TRENDS IN DISTRICT FUNDING. . . . . . . . . . . 10
a. OVERALL TRENDS - FY 1979-80 TO
FY 1985-86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
b. SUBVENTION TRENDS - FY 1979-80 TO
FY 1985-86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
c. TREND IN LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS -
FY 1979-80 TO FY 1985-86. . . . . . . 13
d. TREND IN FEES - FY 1979-80 TO
FY 1985-86. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C. DISTRICT CONCERNS REGARDING FUNDING. . . . . . . . . 13
III. DISTRICT FEE AUTHORITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
IV. EVALUATION OF USE OF FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A. COMPARISON AMONG DISTRICTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B. POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL FEE REVENUE THROUGH MORE
EQUAL FEE SYSTEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
V. DISTRICT ACTIVITIES THAT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FUNDING . . . 24
A. BASIC MINIMUM PROGRAM FOR RURAL DISTRICTS. . . . . . 24
B. IMPROVED ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS. . . . . . . . . . . . 26
C. RECENT PROGRAM EXPANSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
D. OFFSETTING THE EFFECTS OF INFLATION. . . . . . . . . 29
VI. RURAL GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 . . . . . . . 31
A. ACTIVITIES FUNDED THROUGH GRANTS . . . . . . . . . . 31
B. IMPACT OF GRANTS ON RURAL DISTRICT PROGRAMS. . . . . 32
VII. ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH LOCAL REVENUES ARE NOT SUITABLE. . . 32
A. LIMITS ON THE USE OF LOCAL TAX REVENUES. . . . . . . 34
B. LIMITS ON THE USE OF FEES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
C. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
VIII.SUBVENTION CRITERIA TO ENCOURAGE GREATER USE OF FEES. . . 36
A. CURRENT CRITERIA FOR SUBVENTION DISTRIBUTION . . . . 36
B. RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA FOR
DISTRIBUTION OF SUBVENTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1. BUDGET LANGUAGE EXCERPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2. RURAL GRANTS GUIDANCE PACKAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3. WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
(PROPOSED)
LONG-RANGE RESEARCH PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. LONG-RANGE RESEARCH PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
A. DIESELS AND MOTOR VEHICLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
B. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
C. STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND
CONTROL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
D. REGIONAL AIR QUALITY STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
E. HEALTH EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
F. AGRICULTURAL DAMAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
III. RESEARCH BUDGET SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71