Lincoln Plaza
Auditorium, First Floor
400 "P" Street
Sacramento, CA
March 27, 1987
9:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
87-5-1 Public Meeting to Consider Approval of a 001
Suggested Control Measure for Control of
Ethanol Emissions from Winery Fermentation
Tanks (Continued from January 22, 1987).
87-5-2 Public Meeting Consider the Control Plan 019
for Airborne Ethylene Dichloride.
87-5-3 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to 120
Regulations Regarding Exhaust Emission
Certification Test Procedures Applicable to
New Motorcycles.
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.: 87-5-1
Public Meeting to Consider Approval of a Suggested Control
Measure for Control of Ethanol Emissions from Winery Fermentation
Tanks (Continued from January 22, 1987).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board approve the "Plan for a
Demonstration Program to Determine the Technical Feasibility,
Availability, and Cost to Control Ethanol Emissions from Winery
Fermentation Tanks." The staff also recommends that the Board
not take action on the SCM for winery fermentation tanks until
completion of the proposed demonstration program. The staff
further recommends that the Board notify the Technical Review
Group (TRG) of its action with respect to the SCM.
DISCUSSION
At the January 22, 1987, Board meeting, the TRG, in conjunction
with the ARB staff, presented to the Board a Suggested Control
Measure for Control of Ethanol Emissions from Winery Fermentation
Tanks. The proposed SCM would have required the use of add-on
controls to achieve a 90 percent reduction in the ethanol content
of the exhaust gases from large fermentation tanks. In testimony
presented at the January Board meeting, representatives of the
Wine Institute, a trade organization of the California wine
industry, expressed their concerns about the costs and
feasibility of the control equipment, the potential for
contamination of the wine, and disposal of the wastewater
generated by several of the control technologies. After
considering these issues, the Board directed the staff to work
with the Wine Institute in preparing a proposal for a
demonstration project to further evaluate the control
technologies and the associated costs. The Board item was
continued to the March meeting.
The staff, representatives of the Wine Institute, and a TRG
representative have developed and agreed upon a demonstration
program proposal which is being presented today for the Board's
approval. The demonstration program plan calls for an Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives from the ARB,
the wine industry, and possibly the TRG, to develop and implement
the demonstration program. The program would consist of two
separate phases. Phase I, to be conducted during the 1987
fermentation season, would consist of a pilot-scale program to
evaluate three of the control technologies (scrubbing, carbon
adsorption, and catalytic incineration) using 1,000-gallon or
larger tanks. Tank usage patterns at three Fresno area wineries
would also be evaluated to determine the number of tanks that
would need to be ducted and to develop cost estimates for each
winery. At the end of Phase I, the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
would decide, based on the results of the study, whether to
continue to Phase II. Phase II of the demonstration program,
would consist of a full-scale demonstration on at least one
50,000-gallon or larger tank using one of the control
technologies. At the end of Phase II (or Phase I, if the program
does not continue into Phase II), the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
would present its findings in writing to the Board, which would
then reconsider the SCM at a public meeting and determine the
availability and appropriate level of control and applicability,
and establish an implementation schedule.
ITEM NO.: 87-5-2
Control Plan for Airborne Ethylene Dichloride.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that no controls for EDC be developed at
this time. However, if ambient concentrations and the
corresponding risks are quantifiable with a higher degree of
certainty than estimated in this report, the staff will reassess
control of specific sources and report its findings to the Board.
DISCUSSION
Ethylene dichloride was identified as a toxic air contaminant by
the Board in September 1985. State law directs that once a
substance is identified as a TAC, the Board's Executive Officer
shall prepare a report on the need for and appropriate degree of
control of emissions. The statute contemplates that the report
will serve as the basis for control measures. However, staff is
not recommending development of EDC control measures for reasons
discussed in the report. The report addresses the uses and
emissions of EDC, the exposure and risks, the persistence of EDC
in the ambient air, control measures which could be developed,
and the potential for reduced risk through implementation of
control measures for EDC.
The staff estimates that by 1990, ethylene dichloride emissions
will decrease 80% from 1983 rates without further emission
controls. The risk of cancer from ambient EDC is expected to
decrease accordingly; the risk to the general population is
expected to be less than one excess lifetime cancer per million
people in 1990 and later. Additional health effects near large
identified EDC uncontrolled point sources are also small (fewer
than one excess cancer statewide in 70 years).
The low risk identified (.5 case per million per 70 years
exposure in the S.C.A.B.) using health conservative assumptions
leads the staff to the conclusion that control measures should
not be proposed at this time. Additionally, the EDC modeling
data are so uncertain that the staff cannot state that the
expensive EDC controls would result in a quantifiable reduction
in the health risk.
The staff will continue to monitor the ambient concentrations of
EDC. If the staff determines that the EDC ambient concentrations
and corresponding risks are significantly greater than estimated
in the report, staff will reassess control of the specific EDC
sources and report its findings to the Board.
ITEM NO.: 87-5-3
Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Regulations Regarding
Exhaust Emission Certification Test Procedures Applicable to New
Motorcycles.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board amend Sections 1958(b) and
(c), 1976(b), and 2290, Title 13, California Administrative Code
to incorporate updated federal certification test procedures for
determining new motorcycle compliance with the exhaust emission
standards. The proposed amendments also contain California-specific
requirements. The proposed amendments will be
applicable to 1988 and subsequent model year motorcycles.
DISCUSSION
The Board's motorcycle certification test procedures are used to
determine if new motorcycles comply with California's exhaust
emission standards. The California motorcycle certification
procedures, which were adopted in 1978, are the federal
procedures as they existed on April 15, 1978. Since 1978, EPA
has amended the federal procedures on numerous occasions. Many
of these changes parallel the amendments that EPA made to the
light-duty vehicle certification program. The staff proposes
that the Board formally incorporate into the California
regulations the revised federal certification test procedures for
motorcycles as they existed on July 7, 1986, with amendments
necessary to reflect California specific requirements. This
proposal will generally align California's certification test
procedures for new motorcycles with those of the federal
government.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS OF PROPOSED BOARD ACTION
The proposed regulatory amendments will allow manufacturers to
utilize certification test procedures in California which are
closely aligned with the federal test procedures used nationally.
This should provide a slight cost savings to manufacturers. No
environmental impact will result from this proposal.