State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Sheraton Inn Hotel
2550 West Clinton Avenue
Las Vegas Room #2
Fresno, CA
October 4, 1976
10:00 a.m.
AGENDA
76-19-1 Approval of Minutes of August 24 Board Meeting.
76-19-2 Public Hearing to Review and Consider Amendment or
Adoption of New Source Review Rules for the Southern
California Air Pollution Control District.
76-19-3 Status Report on the Air Conservation Program.
76-19-4 Report on Vegetation Damage in the San Joaquin Valley.
76-19-5 Public Hearing for Consideration of Revisions to ARB
Conflict of Interest Code.
76-19-6 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel and Litigation
b. Research Proposals
ITEM NO.: 76-19-2
Public Hearing to Review and Consider Amendment or Adoption of
New Source Review Rules for the Southern California Air Pollution
Control District.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt as an amendment to the Rules and Regulations of the
Southern California Air Pollution Control District, new source
review rules as shown in the attached proposed rules, or as
amended by the Board.
SUMMARY
Both state and national ambient air quality standards are
frequently violated in the South Coast Air Basin. Regulation of
new source construction is an essential measure for bringing
about the attainment and maintenance of the standards in the
District. However, the Southern California Air Pollution Control
District's existing new source review rules have been found to be
ineffective.
Last year the Board suggested model new source review rules, and
asked the South Coast Air Basin Air Pollution Control Council to
consider revising its basin plan to include such rules. The
District staff has expended considerable effort to develop new
source review rules appropriate for the South Coast Air Basin,
and to evaluate the expected impacts of such rules. Although the
district has considered proposed rules at three public hearings,
it has not adopted such rules.
Under federal and state laws, the Board is required to adopt new
source review rules necessary to attain and maintain applicable
ambient air quality standards. Until such time as the necessary
rules are adopted, EPA will continue to regulate new sources in
the South Coast Air Basin.
The staff has worked with the District to develop proposed rules
which are appropriate for the Air Basin. These rules, which
reflect much of the input received by the ARB and the District
from representatives of affected businesses during the last
twelve months, will provide significant air quality benefits with
minimal impacts, if any, on economic growth in the Air Basin.
ITEM NO.: 76-19-13
Status Report on the Development of Air Conservation Program.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff should continue to develop the program outlined in the Plan
Development program attached to this report.
SUMMARY
At the February 19, 1976 meeting, the Board directed the staff to
develop further the Air Conservation Program. Staff has
completed a Plan Development Program (PDP) and has initiated the
program as outlined in the PDP. The PDP is now being mailed to
numerous organizations; staff is being assembled to work on the
program and advisory committees are being set up.
ITEM NO.: 76-19-4
Vegetation Damage Caused by Air Pollution in the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin, 1976.
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report.
SUMMARY
Air pollution damage to vegetation in the San Joaquin Valley has
been reported since 1960. In 1975, Art Millecan reported an
estimated 5% loss in cotton fiber yield (without any leaf
markings) and noted injury symptoms to other crops. The 1976
smog season is the first time air pollution injury to crops on
the Valley floor has been reported to be widespread. Oxidant
injury symptoms have been reported on sycamore (Bakersfield and
Fresno), on cotton, alfalfa and grapes (Arvin-Metler area), and
on beans and okra (Visalia).
The "oxidant dose over the air quality standard," which is
associated with known yield losses, is much lower in the San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin, than in the South Coast Air Basin,
where visible symptoms of injury are more common.
The injury symptoms have been diagnosed as caused by oxidant-SO2
synergism. Air quality data for both oxidant and SO2 are not
sufficient to support this diagnosis, but the data do not rule it
out.
Air pollution injury to sensitive forest trees has been reported
to be widespread in the Sierra Nevadas, from the Shaver Lake Area
(north east of Fresno) through the Squaw Valley area (east of
Fresno) to the Mineral King-Sequoia National Forest (southeast of
Fresno). Ponderosa pines, Jeffrey pines, sugar pines, white fir,
and black oak are showing oxidant injury symptoms. Air quality
data indicate sufficient oxidant doses to cause these symptoms.
The Forest Service reports that "smog diseases" symptoms are
worse in 1976 than they were in 1974. While the disease is in
"early" stages compared to that in the San Bernardino Mountains,
the forests on the Sierra Nevadas are being managed primarily for
timber production. Any increase in oxidant exposures will be
more harmful economically.
At present, methods of estimating the cost of the damage are not
available for SO2 and oxidant synergism. ARB has financed the
development of a method for estimating oxidant damage alone but
not oxidant in combination with SO2. At least 80% of the total
receipts from production of air pollution susceptible crops grown
in California are from susceptible crops grown in the San Joaquin
Valley Air Basin. A minimum estimate of 1% loss to susceptible
crops would be more than $32,000,000 based on 1975 receipts. If
air quality remains the same, the predicted losses should
continue at this level.
The losses to forests are more difficult to assess, since forests
are managed for "multiple uses"; however, the impact of even a 1%
reduction in timber production would be a serious impact for the
California economy.
To contain our losses at 1% requires improvement of existing air
quality and prevention of further increases in emissions.
ITEM NO.: 76-36
Public Hearing to Consider Revisions to Air Resources Board
Conflict of Interest Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 76-36.
SUMMARY
On June 4, 1974, at the primary election, the voters approved the
Political Reform Initiative (Proposition 9). This initiative
adopted the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code
81000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Chapter 7 of the Act, relating to Conflicts of Interest affects
the activities of the Board in the following two ways:
1. It sets forth a general prohibition against conflicts of
interest applicable to all officers and employees of the
Board, including all civil service employees.
2. It requires the Board to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of
Interest Code designating positions which involve the making
or participation in the making of decisions which may
foreseeably have a material effect on the financial interest
of the incumbent. Such designated employees are required to
file disclosure statements and to disqualify themselves from
participating in any action which may affect their financial
interests.
At its meeting of May 27, 1976, the Board adopted a proposed
Conflict of Interest Code which had been submitted to the Board
pursuant to the applicable requirements of the Political Reform
Act. The ARB Code was subsequently submitted to the Fair
Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for approval pursuant to
Government Code 87303. The FPPC has not, as yet, taken action
on the ARB Code.
In the meantime, at its meeting of August 10, 1976, the FPPC
revised its regulations in Title 2, California Administrative
Code, 18700.
The effect of this revision was to curtail the class of persons
who should be "designated employees" pursuant to conflict of
interest codes. Accordingly, our staff was informed by the
FPPC's Conflict of Interest staff that the ARB Code, as submitted
to FPPC, could not be approved without certain substantive
revisions to the categorization of ARB employees who are
"designated" pursuant to the ARB Code. The revisions
incorporated herein are intended, in part, to reflect the
revision to the FPPC's regulations and to address some of the
concerns raised by the FPPC's staff in connection therewith.
The staff recommends that the proposed revisions be adopted,
although the Code, as revised, will not technically become
effective until it has been approved by the FPPC. If any further
changes in the Code are required by the FPPC, the Code will be
resubmitted to the Board at a later meeting for further action.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 76-36
Staff Report 76-19-5
Air Resources Board Conflict of Interest Code, as
revised in incorporate proposed changes (Appendix I).
Public Hearing Notice (Appendix II)