State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
SHERATON-TOWN HOUSE
2961 Wilshire Boulevard
Regency Room
Los Angeles, CA
April 25, 1979
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
79-8-1 Approval of Minutes of March 21, 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . .001
79-8-2 Public Hearing to Consider a Petition Submitted by the. . . . 007
League of Women Voters of California for Review of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District's Approval
on the Permit Application of Shell Oil Company for the
Construction of the Onshore Crude Oil Distribution
Facility of the Outer Continental Shelf Beta Unit Development
79-8-3 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Chapter 4. . . . . 055
Concerning Control Strategies as a Revision to the State of
California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and
Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards
79-8-4 Final Report to the Air Resources Board by the Ad Hoc. . . . .372
Panel on Atmospheric Carcinogens
79-8-5 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel & Litigation
b. Research Proposals
c. Delegations to the Executive Officer
ITEM NO.: 79-8-2
Public Hearing to Consider Petition of the League of Women Voters
for Review of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
Permit Decision Regarding the Shell Beta Project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Board should assume jurisdiction to review the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD s) decision to issue a
permit to construct for the Shell Beta Project without
considering the impact of offshore emissions. The staff believes
the evidence presented to the Board will show that the SCAQMD s
decision to issue that permit is inconsistent with the purposes
of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code, and therefore
recommends that the Board modify shell's permit to incorporate a
tradeoff package and permit conditions which consider the
emissions from offshore activities.
SUMMARY
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40451, the League of
Women Voters petitioned the Air Resources Board to review the
action of the SCAQMD in issuing a permit to construct to Shell
Oil Company for the construction of an on-shore surge tank which
is associated with Shell's outer continental shelf Beta Project.
Section 40451 of the Health and Safety Code gives the Board the
authority to review the District's permit decision. Section
40451 also provides that, after holding a public hearing, the
Board may find the SCAQMD's action to be consistent or
inconsistent with the purposes of Division 26 of the Health and
Safety Code. If the Board finds that the district's action was
inconsistent with these purposes, the Board may take action to
modify the permit previously issued, or take other necessary and
appropriate actions.
The League's petition alleges that the SCAQMD issued a permit to
construct a surge tank to Shell Oil Company without considering
significant emissions from related offshore facilities. The air
quality impacts resulting from the Shell Beta Project, including
both onshore and offshore facilities, were addressed in the
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment titled Shell
OCS Beta Unit Development. The petition concludes that both
offshore and onshore emissions should be offset under the
district's new source review rule. The staff believes that
offshore facility is a part of the same stationary source as the
onshore surge tank under District rule 213, and concurs with the
League's contention that offshore emissions from Beta Project
should be subject to emissions offset requirements.
The staff has worked with representatives from Shell and Aminoil
(one of the co-lesses for the Beta Project) to develop a tradeoff
package for the Beta Project. The proposed package includes
emission reductions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxides of
sulfur (SOx) from aminoil's Huntington Beach oil field and
emission reductions of oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons (HC)
from Shell s Ventura oil field. At press time, Shell has agreed
to provide emission reductions of NOx, and SOx; however, an
executive meeting between Aminoil and shell will be held on April
17, 1979 to work out an agreement between Shell and Aminoil for
achieving the proposed offset package.
The staff believes that the District's approval of the permit to
construct without considering the significant offshore emissions
is inconsistent with the purposes of Division 26 of the health
and Safety Code, and the staff therefore recommends that the
Board amend the permit issued to Shell to incorporate mitigation
requirements.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
II. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
III. Permit Status and Environmental Impact Report . . . . . . . . . . . .7
IV. Emissions from the Proposed Shell Beta Project. . . . . . . . . . . .9
V. Air Quality Impact and Trade-Off Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
VI. Analysis of Issues Raised by League of Women Voters of
California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
VII. Proposed Offset Package and Permit Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . 17
VIII.Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
ITEM NO. 79-8-3
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Chapter 4, California Air
Quality Control Strategy, as a Revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 79-17
SUMMARY
This is a public hearing for the Board to consider adopting, as a
revision to the SIP, Chapter 4 which has been prepared to
describe, in one document, the various control measures contained
in the SIP for California. The chapter will also present to EPA
existing state implemented control measures, ARB s Category I
model rules for stationary sources, and some other measures which
will be considered for possible inclusion in the SIP in the
future.
Because no regulatory action is proposed in the adoption of the
chapter, there is no potential environmental impact.
Copies of this proposed chapter were distributed to all air
pollution control districts, nonattainment planning lead
agencies, and interested public.
ITEM NO.: 79-8-4
Final Report to the Air Resources Board by the Ad Hoc Panel on
Atmospheric Carcinogens.
RECOMMENDATION
None. This is an informational report.
SUMMARY
In November of 1977, the Ad Hoc Panel on Atmospheric Carcinogens
was formed at the request of Chairman Tom Quinn and Executive
Officer William H. Lewis, Jr. Its purpose is to assist in the
Board s understanding of the nature of the problem of atmospheric
carcinogens in California and to provide suggestions for actions,
wherever deemed necessary, to minimize the severity of the
problem. This final report is submitted to the Board by the Ad
Hoc Panel on Atmospheric Carcinogens in fulfillment of that
charge.
The report briefly summarizes some of the major principles of
importance in carcinogenesis, discusses relevant examples of
atmospheric carcinogens and mutagens, considers present
regulatory activities, and concludes with a list of
recommendations to the Board. It is not meant to be a
comprehensive review of the subject nor does it include a
complete listing of all of the current literature.
Table of Contents
Page
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Assessments, Conclusions, and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . .3
1. Introduction and Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
2. General Aspects of Carcinogenesis and Mutagenesis . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 Definitions and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Mechanism of Carcinogenesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Exposure to Airborne Carcinogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4 Examples of Carcinogens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5 Experimental Determination of Carcinogens. . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.6 Mutagenesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.7 Epidemiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.8 Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. Carcinogens and Mutagens in the Atmosphere. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1 Indoor-Outdoor Pollution Ratios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2 Tobacco Smoke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 Vinyl Chloride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4 Asbestos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.5 Benzene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.6 Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.7 Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.8 Nitrosamines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4. Epidemiological Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.1 Urban-Rural Differences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2 Migration Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.3 Correlations Between Lung Cancer Mortality Rates and
Indices of Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5. Sources and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.1 Carcinogens Emitted from Point Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.2 Carcinogens Emitted from Area Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3 Carcinogens Formed or Synthesized by Atmospheric
Reactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6. Regulation of Carcinogens and Mutagens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.1 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.3 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.4 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration . . . . . . 78
6.5 California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.6 New Jersey State Department of Environmental
Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
7. References and Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91