State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Piccadilly Inn
2305 West Shaw Avenue
Regency Room
Fresno, CA
March 22, 1979
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
79-6-1 Approval of Minutes of February 21, 1979 001
Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption
of the Nonattainment Plans for Each County in the San Joaquin
Air Basin and for Mariposa County as Revisions to the State of
California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance
of National Ambient Air Quality Standards:
79-6-2 * Merced, Madera, Kings and Tulare Counties 005
79-6-3 * Mariposa County 061
79-6-4 * Kern County (Ozone and Carbon Monoxide) 076
79-6-5 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel & Litigation
b. Research Proposals
c. Delegations to the Executive Officer
ITEM NO.: 79-6-2
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Kings County, Madera
County, Merced County, and Tulare County Nonattanment Plans
(NAPs) as Revisions to the State Of California Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the Attainment and Maintenance of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Air Resources Board find the ozone control plans for the
Kings, Madera, Merced, and Tulare portions of the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin nonattainment area conditionally acceptable for
submission as 1979 Nonattainment Plans (NAPs).
SUMMARY
The Air Resources board (ARB) is the state agency responsible for
preparing and adopting the SIP for submission to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The nonattainment plans
under consideration were prepared in response to Sections 171
through 176 of the Clean air Act. For rural areas, EPA
guidelines essentially require that all reasonably available
controls for criteria pollutants be included in the nonattainment
area plans. Reasonable Further Progress and showing attainment
by 1982 are not required. Kings, Madera, Merced and Tulare
Counties are portions of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which
has been designated as a nonattainment area for ozone and
particulate matter. Tulare County has also been designated a
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide.
The four nonattainment area plans were prepared for adoption by
the respective lead agencies of each of the counties: the Kings
County air Pollution Control Board, the Madera County Air
Pollution Control Board, the Merced County Board of Supervisors,
and the Tulare County Association of Governments. Each of the
plans includes the available control measures which apply to
sources in these counties. Because transport of oxidants and
their precursors from upwind areas contributes significantly to
ozone concentrations in these rural areas, EPA's guidelines for
these areas do not require a demonstration that the ozone
standard will be met by 1982. Accordingly, the county NAPs
contain requests for extension of the attainment date for the
ozone standard beyond 1982 in order to study the influence of
pollutant transport and to determine attainment dates for these
areas.
The ARB staff is proposing a hearing on June 18 and 19, 1979 to
consider a nonattainment plan for particulate matter.
State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Staff Report
SIP REVISION - KINGS, MADERA, MERCED, AND TULARE COUNTIES
Table of Contents
Page
I. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
A. Plan Summaries for Kings, Madera, Merced, and Tulare
Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
B. Control Strategy Summary for Kings, Madera, Merced, and
Tulare County Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
C. Requirements for an Adequate Nonattainment Plan. . . . . . . . .5
D. Summary of findings and Recommended Board Actions. . . . . . . .7
1. Recommended Board Action to Meet CAA Sec. 172
Plan Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
2. Recommended Board Action on Stationary and Mobile
Source Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
II. Staff findings and Proposed ARB Amendments to the Kings,
Madera, Merced, and Tulare County NAPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A. Oxidant Control Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. CTG Measures and Category I ARB RACMs . . . . . . . . . . 18
2. ARB Category II-VI RACMs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Total Suspended Particulate Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C. New Source Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
D. Carbon Monoxide in Tulare County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
III. Continuing Planning and Implementation Program. . . . . . . . . . . 21
IV. Environmental Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
List of Tables and Figures
Tables I - III
Summary of Recommended Board Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figures I - IV
Impact of RACMs upon Projected Emissions for Kings, Madera,
Merced, and Tulare Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
ITEM NO.: 79-6-3
Public Hearing to Consider the Mariposa County Air Pollution
Control District Nonattainment Plan for Oxidants as a Revision to
the State of California Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Attainment and Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
RECOMMENDATION
Find Mariposa County is now an attainment area but that a New
Source Review rule is necessary to prevent future violations of
the ambient air quality standards, therefore a New Source Review
rule for Mariposa County that is acceptable to Air Resources
Board will be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
SUMMARY
The Air Resources Board (ARB) is the state agency for preparing
and adopting the SIP for submission to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The nonattainment plan under
consideration was prepared by local agencies in response to
Sections 171 through 176 of the Clean Air Act. An approvable
1979 SIP revision for a designated nonattainment area must
demonstrate the attainment of NAAQS for criteria pollutants no
later than December 31, 1982. Mariposa County was designated
nonattainment for only ozone, based on the previous national
standard of 0.08 ppm. The highest monitored value of ozone was
0.11 ppm. While Mariposa County no longer qualifies as a
nonattainment area because of the new 0.12 ppm standard, the
state standard of 0.10 ppm is being violated. Also, staff
recognizes there may be increased potential for industries to
locate in attainment areas. A New Source Review rule will be
necessary to assure Mariposa County is protected from potential
future violations of the national ozone standard, and we
recommend adoption of such a rule for the Mariposa County APCD at
a future public hearing, if the District does not take
appropriate action on its own by May 30, 1979.
State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Staff Report
SIP REVISION - MARIPOSA COUNTY
Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
A. Mariposa County Plan Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
B. Requirements for an Adequate Nonattainment Plan. . . . . . . . .3
C. Summary of Findings and Recommended Board Actions. . . . . . . .4
1. Recommended board Action to Meet CAA Sec. 172
Plan Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2. Recommended Board Action on Stationary Source
Control Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
III. Staff Findings and Proposed ARB Amendments to Mariposa
County NAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
A. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
B. Stationary Source Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
1. NSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
IV. Continuing Planning and Implementation Program. . . . . . . . . . . .8
V. Environmental Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Appendix A: Portion of the Mariposa County Nonattainment Plan
ITEM NO.: 79-6-4
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Kern County Air
Quality Maintenance Plan/Nonattainment Plan (AQMP/NAP) as a
Revision to the State of California Implementation Plan (SIP) for
the Attainment and Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Air Resources Board find the oxidant, sulfur dioxide,
and carbon monoxide control plans (AQMP/NAP) for the Kern County
nonattainment area conditionally acceptable for submission as a
1979 Nonattainment Plan (NAP). Staff has defined additional
actions which should be taken by the Kern County Air Pollution
Control Board to satisfy the requirements for a 1979 NAP.
SUMMARY
The Air Resources Board (ARB) is the state agency responsible for
preparing and adopting the SIP for submission to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The nonattainment plan
under consideration was prepared by the Kern County Air Pollution
Control Board and the Kern County Council of governments in
response to Sections 171 through 176 of the Clean Air Act. An
approvable 1979 SIP revision for a designated nonattainment area
must demonstrate the attainment of NAAQS for criteria pollutants
no later than December 31, 1982, except that extensions may,
under specified conditions, be requested to December 31, 1987 for
ozone and carbon monoxide. The San Joaquin Valley air Basin, of
which Kern County is a portion, has been designated nonattainment
for ozone and particulate matter. Kern County has been
designated a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and for
sulfur dioxide.
The plan consists of a set of air quality measures for oil
production and refining, other industrial operations, motor
vehicles, and transportation. These control measures include
regulations to be adopted by the Kern County Air Pollution
Control board as well as other measures to be developed and
implemented by local, state, and federal government agencies.
The plan is designed to compensate for increases in emissions
associated with the regional growth projection.
The ARB staff finds that the kern plan with amendments will
fulfill the Clean Air Act requirements for submission of a 1979
Nonattainment Plan (NAP). The staff is concerned, however, that
any delay in the implementation in the plan will jeopardize
attainment of the federal ozone standard by the end of 1982.
Staff recommends the deletion of certain tactics for traffic flow
improvement and the addition of certain reasonably available
control measures on stationary sources.
The Kern plan projects attainment of the ozone standard by 1982;
approval of this projections and other portions of the Kern
AQMP/NAP is contingent upon a number of additional actions which
ARB staff has identified.
The ARB staff is proposing a hearing on June 18 and 19, 1979 to
consider a nonattainment plan for particulate matter. State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Staff Report
SIP REVISION - KERN CO.
Table of Contents
Page
I. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
A. Summary of the Kern Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
B. Control Strategy Summary of Kern County NAP. . . . . . . . . . .2
C. Requirments for an Adequate Nonattainment Plan . . . . . . . . .4
D. Summary of Findings and Recommended Air Resources Board
Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
1. Recommended Board Action to Meet CAA Sec. 172
Plan Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
2. Recommended Board Action on Stationary and Mobile
Source Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
E. Graphic Illustration of Plan Reductions. . . . . . . . . . . . 15
II. Staff Findings and Proposed ARB Amendments. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. Oxidant Control Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. CTG Measures and Category I RACMs . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. ARB Category II-VI RACMs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3. Delection of Tactics from the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B. Carbon Monoxide Control Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C. SO2 Control Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Rule for Control of SOx Emissions from Steam
Generators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2. NAA Designation for SO2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
D. Total Suspended Particulate Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
E. Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Rollback vs. EKMA for Oxidant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2. Rollback Model for CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3. SO2 Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
F. New Source Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
G. Tranpsortation Control Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
H. Local Plan Conformity with the State Implementation
Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
III. Continuing Planning & Implementation Program. . . . . . . . . . . . 40
IV. Environmental Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A. Oxidant and Carbon Monoxide Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B. SO2 Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44