CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Air Resources Board*
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
Sacramento, CA
July 8, 1993
9:30 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
93-8-1 Public Meeting to Consider the Proposed Risk 001
Management Guidelines for New and Modified
Sources of Toxic Air Pollutants.
93-8-2 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the 053
Air Toxics Hot Spots Fee Regulation.
93-8-3 Public Meeting to Consider the Identification 266
of Air Quality-Related Indicators for Reporting
Progress in Attaining the State Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
*Off-street parking is available in the parking lot to the west
and adjacent to 2020 L Street. Enter this lot from L Street or
20th Street. Overflow parking is available in the parking lot
across the street from 2020 L on the UPPER LEVEL ONLY. Enter
this lot from 20th Street. The cost for all day parking in these
lots is $2.00. After parking in either lot, see the Security
Officer in the lobby of 2020 L to make payment (exact change
please).
ITEM NO.: 93-8-1
Public Meeting to Consider the Proposed Risk Management
Guidelines for New and Modified Sources of Toxic Air Pollutants.
RECOMMENDATION
The ARB staff recommends the Board approve the proposed
guidelines.
DISCUSSION
The ARB staff is proposing guidelines to assist local air
pollution control districts and air quality management districts
in making permitting decisions for new and modified sources of
toxic air pollutants. We have prepared these guidelines in
response to our Board's direction. At the October 1991 hearing
to identify perchloroethylene as a toxic air contaminant, the
Board heard testimony from many people that risk management
decisions were being made without considering the uncertainties
inherent in the present risk assessment process. As a result,
the Board directed the ARB staff to develop tools and methods to
assist risk managers in making risk management decisions.
These guidelines were developed through a series of workshops and
meetings with representatives from the districts, environmental
groups, trade associations, industry, and governmental agencies.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS
The guidelines suggest that districts use a combination of
specific risk levels and an action range to evaluate new and
modified sources of toxic air pollutants. Specific risk levels
of 1 per million (cancer) and a total hazard index of 0.2
(noncancer) are suggested for triggering the installation of the
best available control technology for toxics (T-BACT). An upper
level maximum risk of 100 per million (cancer) and a total hazard
index of 10 (noncancer) are suggested. An action range (between
10 and 100 per million and between 1 and 10 total hazard index)
is suggested. In the action range, other factors such s benefits
of the project, uncertainty in the risk assessment process, legal
mandates, and the impact to sensitive receptors can be
considered. A discussion of these other factors would be
provided in a Specific Findings Report. The Air Pollution
Control Officer (APCO) would review this report and prepare
findings supporting a decision to approve or deny the project.
The districts are not legally required to implement these
guidelines. These guidelines are not regulatory, and hence not
binding on the districts.
We believe the guidelines are important for the following
reasons. First, recognizing the uncertainty and variability
inherent in current risk assessment methodology, the action range
approach provides flexibility by allowing other factors to be
considered when making a permitting decision. Second, the
guidelines will provide a Board-approved methodology for
districts to use when considering risk in the permitting of new
and modified sources. This provides the districts with a
foundation for defending permit decisions. And third, the
guidelines promote a uniform framework within which districts can
accommodate their specific needs. A uniform framework will
provide businesses and industries with a consistent regulatory
approach statewide and minimize duplication of federal, state,
and district requirement.
ITEM NO.: 93-8-2
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Amendments to the Air
Toxics Hot Spots Program Fee Regulation for Fiscal Year 1993-94.
RECOMMENDATION
The Air Resources board (ARB) staff recommends that the Board
adopt the proposed amendments to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Fee
Regulation for Recovery of fiscal year 1993-94 state and air
pollution control district costs attributable to the Hot Spots
Program.
DISCUSSION
The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987
(the Act) requires the Board to adopt a regulation which recovers
costs incurred by the ARB, Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA), and local air pollution control districts
(districts) in implementing the Act. The Hot Spots Fee
Regulation was first adopted in 1988, assessing fees on all
facilities subject to the Act as required. The Regulation is
reviewed each year and amended as necessary to reflect changes in
state and district costs and in the basis used to calculate fees.
The Act required the ARB to adopt facility Hot Spots fees, as
part of the Fee Regulation, for districts that provide board-approved
district program costs to the ARB by April 1. The
proposed amendments would establish fees for 12 districts that
met this requirement. The other 22 districts are required to
adopt district fee rules to recover the districts' share of state
costs as specified in the Regulation.
The proposed amendments were developed through a series of seven
public workshops, meetings with affected industries and industry
associations, meetings with district representatives, and
meetings of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Fee Regulation committee.
This Committee is made up of representatives from the districts,
the OEHHA, and the ARB.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS
To comply with recent legislation, the staff proposes two major
amendments to the Fee Regulation for fiscal year 1993-94. The
first major amendment is to change the basis for calculating fees
from the criteria pollutant inventory to one based on toxics
releases and facility priority, as required by Senate Bill 1378,
Mccorquodale, 1992. Assessments to the districts to recover
state costs and the calculation of facility fees would be based
on workload and the number of facilities each district has in
specific Hot Spots Program categories. Thus, fees are directly
related to toxic emissions and account for workload, facility
complexity, and risk priority.
The second major change is the increase in state program costs.
This increase is required to perform work mandated by Senate Bill
1731, Calderon, 1992. The Governor's proposed budget for the Hot
Spots Program for fiscal year 1993-94 reflects an increase of
$1.9 million to implement Senate Bill 1731, Calderon. With the
proposed increases, the total state cost would be $5.6 million.
In light of comments received at the public workshops in April,
and in recognition of the state's current economic condition, the
staff proposes to reduce costs associated with Senate Bill 1731
implementation by $457,000. This would reduce the proposed state
costs to $5,170,000. The proposed reduction in state costs will
affect planned program activities for implementing Senate Bill
1731 in fiscal year 1993-94, however.
Total district costs for fiscal year 1993-94 are expected to be
$9 million for a total program cost of $14.2 million. Of the
total district and state costs, 64 percent are district costs,
and 36 percent are state costs.
The staff will also present a 5-year Hot Spots Program resource
plan to the Board at the hearing.
Environmental Impacts. Adopting these amendments is not expected
to result in any adverse health, safety, or environmental
impacts.
Economic Impacts. Based on an economic impact analysis,
California businesses overall seem able to absorb the costs of
the fees without significant impact on their profitability.
However, some businesses operating with little or no margin of
profitability may experience significant adverse impacts by
paying these fees.