CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR RESOURCES BOARD Air Resources Board Board Hearing Room, Lower Level 2020 "L" Street Sacramento, CA January 14, 1993 9:30 a.m. AGENDA Page 93-1-1 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of an 001 Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting. 93-1-2 Public Meeting to Consider Retention of 075 Regulations Regarding the State One-Hour Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide. 93-1-3 Public Meeting to Consider Amendments to 154 Certification Requirements and Procedures for Low-Emission Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles. 93-1-4 Public Meeting to Consider Research Proposals. 278 Closed Session: Litigation -- Authorized by Govt. Code Section 11126 (q)(1); Valley Spreader v. Air Resources Board. Western States Petroleum Association v. Air Resources Board, Sierra Club v. Air Resources Board, Dunn Edwards Corporation v. Air Resources Board, Citizens for a Better Environment v. Air Resources Board, Exxon Corporation v. Air Resources Board, The Aerosol Group v. Air Resources Board. January 15, 1993 8:30 a.m. Those items listed above which are not completed on January 14 will be heard beginning at 8:30 on January 15. ITEM NO.: 93-1-1 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of a Statewide Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting Facilities. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed regulation, which requires the use of the best available control technology to reduce cadmium, arsenic, and nickel emissions from non-ferrous metal melting operations. DISCUSSION Cadmium, arsenic, and nickel have been identified by the Air Resources Board as toxic air contaminants with no identifiable threshold level. Lead is currently being evaluated for identification as a toxic air contaminant. These metals are often present as contaminants or added to impart desirable properties to non-ferrous metals. These metals may be emitted from facilities that melt lead, copper, zinc, aluminum, or their alloys, in a furnace. this includes smelters, foundries, galvanizers, and other metal melting facilities. At end-of-stack temperatures, these metals are emitted mainly as small particles. Currently, particulate matter emissions from some melting operations, and occasionally from pouring operations, may be collected and emitted from a stack either directly or through an air pollution control device. Based on an industry survey conducted in 1991, we estimate that 2,000 pounds of nickel, and 300,000 pounds of lead per year are emitted from an estimated 280 facilities. The estimated potential statewide cancer burden attributable to cadmium, arsenic, and nickel emissions from non-ferrous metal melting facilities is 102 excess cancer cases over 70 years. The lead emissions from these facilities translate to another 9 potential cases over 70 years. The lead emissions from these facilities translate to another 9 potential cases over 70 years. The highest maximum individual risks from these facilities are 700-800 in a million; for about 12 percent of facilities, the maximum individual risk is estimated to be over 100 in a million. Cadmium, arsenic, and nickel emissions contribute about 90 percent of the risk in most cases. SUMMARY AND IMPACTS Staff developed the proposed control measure in consultation with the affected industry and the air districts, through a process that included releasing draft versions of the regulation and supporting information for comments, conducting four workshops, and discussing the proposal at industry association meetings. The proposed control measure requires the application of best available control technology to reduce emissions from melting and pouring operations and fugitive emissions from non-ferrous metal melting facilities. The proposed control measure will reduce the cancer risk from non-ferrous metal melting facilities from the current level of 111 potential cases to about 52 potential cases over 70 years, a 47 percent reduction. For a facility that does not have any emission controls, emissions and risk will be reduced by 95 percent; the overall extent of risk reduction is less than 95 percent because some facilities already have emission controls. The proposal includes exemptions from control for certain types and sizes of facilities. It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of small businesses affected by the regulation will qualify for an exemption. The total annualized cost for all facilities is estimated to be 1.7 million dollars. The proposed reductions will cost an average of 2 million dollars per potential lifetime cancer case avoided. This is in the range of toxic control measures adopted by the Board (0.1 to 70 million dollars per case). In addition to a reduction in potential cancer cases, the proposed control measure would result in a reduction in the airborne concentrations of lead. Indirect environmental benefits include reduced worker exposure to pollutants through effective emission collection equipment and fugitive control, and a decrease in water pollution caused by airborne toxics settling on or being washed into water. Potential adverse environmental impacts associated with this control measure that are expected to occur include increased power plant emissions due to increased electricity needed to operate the required pollution control equipment and increased quantities of particulate matter or sludge collected by the air pollution control equipment. The significance of these adverse impacts is considered to be minimal or readily mitigated. Mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, such as hazardous waste disposal sites for particulate waste captured by pollution control devices, are currently in place. ITEM NO.: 93-1-2 Public Meeting to Consider Retention of Regulations Regarding the State One-Hour Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board retain the current one-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide at 0.25 ppm. DISCUSSION Air Resources Board staff and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment staff have reviewed the recent health and welfare effects studies and concur in their recommendation to the Board that the current State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide is adequately protective of public health and welfare, and regulatory action to revise the standard is not necessary at this time. SUMMARY AND IMPACTS The proposed retention of the one-hour Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide, alone, will have no negative environmental or economic impacts. Ambient air quality standards establish the maximum allowable levels of air pollutants, although they should not be interpreted as permitting or encouraging the degradation of air quality superior to the standards. However, specific control measures may be developed to attain the level of the standard. Once standards are attained and maintained, the air quality will be improved with corresponding benefits to the environment and public health and welfare. ITEM NO.: 93-1-3 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Certification Requirements and Procedures for Low-Emission Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Air Resources Board approve the proposed amendments to the motor vehicle emission test procedures for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. These amendments would establish reactivity adjustment factors for certifying reformulated gasoline transitional low-emission vehicles (TLEVs) and low-emission vehicles (LEVs), additional test procedure requirements for hybrid electric vehicles, methane reactivity adjustment factors for natural gas vehicles, and other changes to clarify the certification test procedures or to make their application to low-emission vehicles more practical. DISCUSSION Following a September 1990 public hearing, the Air Resources Board adopted regulations for low-emission vehicles which established stringent new exhaust emission standards and fleet average phase-in requirements. As part of this rulemaking, the Board also approved a process to periodically review the status of implementation of the regulations and to consider appropriate regulatory modifications. The review of the status of implementation was conducted at a June 11, 1992 Board meeting. The November 12, 1992 hearing will be held to consider regulatory amendments proposed by the Board's staff to the low-emission vehicle regulations and general certification requirements and procedures for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. SUMMARY AND IMPACTS The proposed regulatory action would affect a wide variety of subjects related to the certification and implementation of light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. Perhaps most significantly, the staff proposal would establish reactivity adjustment factors for certifying TLEVs and LEVs on Phase 2 reformulated gasoline. These factors would be based on speciated emission testing conducted by the staff in accordance with previously adopted regulations. The staff proposal also contains test procedure modifications for hybrid electric vehicles that are generally intended to ensure that the emission impacts of hybrids are properly accounted for. To this end, determining the battery-only range and measuring the exhaust emissions due to evaporative canister purging would be required for certifying hybrid electrics. Other amendments proposed by the staff include requiring natural gas vehicles to account for methane emissions through the use of methane reactivity adjustment factors, modifying the 50 degrees F requirement for low-emission vehicles, inserting specific penalty provisions for violating the low-emission vehicle requirements, allowing the use of fuel-fired heaters under specified conditions for zero-emission vehicles, establishing 20 degrees F carbon monoxide standards, and adding test procedures for certifying ethanol-fueled vehicles. For the purpose of evaluating potential emission impacts, the proposed amendments are appropriately viewed as part of the larger low-emission vehicle regulatory program. The amendments are not expected to change the emissions reductions that were originally projected to result from the low-emission reactivity adjustment factors further facilitates the use of cleaner burning fuels in low-emission vehicles. The structure of the reactivity adjustment process is intended to equalize the ozone impact of emission vehicle standards. Thus, the net effect on ambient ozone should be no different for such a vehicle than for a conventional gasoline vehicle certified to the same low-emission vehicle standard. The staff also does not expect that the proposed amendments will result in any adverse economic impacts. Several of the modifications should make it somewhat easier and more practical for vehicle manufacturers to meet the requirements of the low-emission vehicle program. These modifications should result in some cost savings. Some of the proposed amendments will create additional certification requirements (e.g., for hybrid electric vehicles). Overall, the staff believes that the proposed modifications would result in no significant cost impacts.