CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Dunfey Hotel
Golden Gate West Room
Second Floor
1770 S. Amphlett Blvd.
San Mateo, CA
March 9, 1989
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
89-4-1 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of 001
Regulations Regarding the Certification of
Methanol-Fueled Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle
Engines for Sale in the State of California.
89-4-2 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of an 202
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent
Chromium Emissions from Cooling Towers.
Research Proposals
Closed Session:
Litigation -- Authorized by Govt. Code Section 1126
(q)(2)(A).
ITEM #89-4-1
Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Regulations Regarding
the Certification of Methanol-Fueled Motor Vehicles and Motor
Vehicle Engines for Sale in the State of California.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board adopt amendments to the
standards and test procedures which are applicable to passenger
cards, light-duty trucks, medium-duty vehicles, and heavy-duty
engines.
DISCUSSION
This proposal specifies exhaust and evaporative emission
standards and certification test procedures for vehicles and
engines designed to run on methanol or blends of methanol and
unleaded gasoline. Exhaust and evaporative organic material
hydrocarbon equivalent (OMHCE) standards are proposed for all
methanol vehicle classes. These standards are numerically
equivalent to existing hydrocarbon standards, but are weighted to
account for differences in the composition of hydrocarbon
emissions from methanol vehicles and conventionally-fueled
vehicles.
All weight classes of otto-cycle (gasoline-type) methanol
vehicles and engines would be required to comply with the
California exhaust emission standards which are in effect for
comparable gasoline vehicles and engines. Diesel-cycle methanol
vehicles and engines would be required to meet all exhaust
emission standards which are in effect for comparable diesel fuel
vehicles.
Evaporative emission standards currently in effect for gasoline
vehicles would also be applicable to their methanol counterparts.
Diesel-cycle methanol vehicles would also be required to comply
with these standards.
The proposed test procedures to be included in the California
regulations are the test procedures recently proposed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (51 FR 30984 (August 29, 1986))
with the following exceptions:
1. Separate formaldehyde standards. The federal test
procedures include provisions for measuring formaldehyde
emissions. These data are used in calculating OMHCE values.
The proposed California regulations also include separate
formaldehyde exhaust emission standards for all classes of
methanol vehicles.
2. Test fuel specifications. The federal regulations contain a
very broad specification for methanol fuel. The proposed
California regulations include different specifications for
mileage-accumulation fuels and emission-test fuels for each
class of methanol vehicle.
3. Fuel-flexible vehicle (FFV) test procedure. The federal
methanol standards do not include a test procedure for the
certification of vehicles which can use varying mixtures of
methanol and unleaded gasoline. Because such vehicles can
serve as "transition vehicles" to encourage methanol vehicle
usage, the staff has developed a test protocol for the
certification of FFV's.
This proposal also includes modifications which involve
nonsubstantive language changes and corrections of typographical
errors in the existing California regulations and test
procedures.
The proposed standards and test procedures would be applicable to
all classes of dedicated methanol vehicles and engines and FFV's,
except urban buses, starting with the 1993 model year. The
standards and test procedures for urban buses would be applicable
beginning with 1991, except the formaldehyde, evaporative and
fill pipe standards, which would be applicable beginning with
1993 models.
ITEM #89-4-2
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Hexavalent
Chromium from Cooling Towers.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed control
measure to prohibit the use of hexavalent chromium-containing
compounds in cooling tower circulating water.
INTRODUCTION
In February 1988, the Board approved the Hexavalent Chromium
Control Plan, which described potential control measures for
emissions of hexavalent chromium. Two high-priority control
measures were identified. The first, a control measure for the
chrome plating industry, was adopted by the Board in February
1988.
The staff report, Proposed Hexavalet Chromium Control Measure for
Cooling Towers, presents the second potential control measure
identified in the plan - an ARB staff proposal to eliminate
hexavalent chromium emissions from cooling towers. The report
contains information on hexavalent chromium emissions, resulting
exposures and risks, technical feasibility of control and use of
substitutes, and the costs, benefits, and potential environmental
impacts of the proposed control measure.
CONCLUSION
The proposed measure would eliminate hexavalent chromium
emissions from cooling towers. The use of hexavalent chromium
substitutes in cooling tower circulating water is technically
feasible and is cost-effective. Therefore, we believe the lowest
achievable emission rate to be zero emissions, and the best
available control technology to be use of substitutes to chromate
treatments. This is the most effective control measure from a
public health standpoint, as it would eliminate cancer risk from
hexavalent chromium emissions from cooling towers. Additionally,
staff has evaluated potential health effects of substitutes and
found them to be less harmful. For these reasons, the staff
recommends that the Board adopt the proposed airborne toxic
control measure.