CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Auditorium, First Floor
400 "P" Street
May 10, 1990
90-5-1 Public hearing to Consider the Adoption of an 001
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Ethylene
Oxide Emissions from Sterilizers and Aerators.
90-5-2 Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of 605
Permit Fee Regulations for Nonvehicular Sources
Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act.
90-5-3 Public hearing to Consider the Adoption of 662
Regulations Regarding the Atmospheric Acidity
Protection Program Fees.
90-5-4 Consideration of Appointment of Modeling ---
Advisory Committee Members.
90-5-5 Consideration of Research Proposals: 690
Proposal Number 1611-141 entitled "Chronic Toxicity of
Mixed Air Pollutants: Phase II", submitted by the
University of California, Irvine for a total amount not
to exceed $535,720.
Proposal Number 215-37 entitled "Single Cell Probes for
Acid and Oxidant Exposures", submitted by the
University of California, Irvine, for a total amount
not to exceed $63,469.
Proposal Number 218-37, entitled "Filter preparation
and Training for CADMP Dry Deposition Network,"
submitted by Desert Research Institute for a total
amount not to exceed $51,149.38.
ITEM NO.: 90-5-1
Public hearing to consider the adoption of a statewide airborne
toxic control measure for ethylene oxide emissions from
sterilizers and aerators.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed regulation,
which requires the use of the best available control technology
to reduce ethylene oxide emissions from sterilizers and aerators.
Uses of Ethylene Oxide
Ethylene oxide (EtO) was identified by the Air Resources Board in
November 1987 as a toxic air contaminant with no identifiable
threshold level. EtO is a colorless gas which is an effective
and therefore widely used biocide; it is used to kill bacteria
and other micro-organisms on or in items which may be damaged by
other sterilization methods, such as steam or radiation. The
pesticidal use of EtO is regulated by the Department of Food and
Agriculture. About 1.4 million pounds of EtO were used in 1989
for sterilization and fumigation; users include medical products
manufacturers, contract sterilizers, food fumigators, and
hospitals and clinics. Because EtO is explosive in air over a
wide range of concentrations, it is often used in an
EtO-chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)mixture to reduce the risk of fire
Most EtO sterilization is carried out in a chamber where the
material is exposed to EtO that is piped in from nearby storage
tanks. After sterilization is complete, the EtO is vented. Some
EtO remains in the sterilized material and must be allowed to
dissipate before the material can be handled or used normally.
This aeration process can be done in the sterilization chamber,
in a special aeration chamber, or in a specially-ventilated room.
Emissions of Ethylene Oxide
In most cases, the EtO vented from the sterilization chamber and
diffusing out of the treated material during aeration is emitted
to the air; a few large facilities in California use control
equipment to reduce emissions from the sterilizer. Emissions of
EtO were estimated to be 800,000 pounds in 1989. Four-fifths of
the emissions come from fewer than one-tenth of the estimated 650
sources. These high-emitting facilities are primarily commercial
facilities including medical and food product manufacturers, and
Potential Cancer Risk
Estimates of potential cancer risk are based on the carcinogenic
potency factor developed by the Department of Health Services,
and predicted ambient concentrations of EtO from air quality
modeling studies. EtO emissions translate to a potential
statewide cancer burden of 360-510 excess cases over a 70 year
period. The maximum individual risks near sources are expected
to be in the range of 1000-3000 in a million for most commercial
facilities, and 100-1000 in a million for large hospitals.
Control Measure Description
The control measure requires facilities to report EtO use and
other information to the local district, and to reduce EtO
emissions by specific degrees. The emission limits are
technology-based, and are expressed as percent control
efficiencies required for larger emitters. Control of both
sterilizer and aerator exhaust streams is required for those
categories where it is technically feasible. Very low emitters,
where control is not technically feasible, are not subject to
control efficiency requirements.
Benefits of the Control Measure
This control measure is expected to reduce statewide EtO
emissions by about 99 percent, relative to 1989 emissions. This
corresponds to a reduction of potential excess cancer burden
statewide over 70 years from the current level of 360 to 510
cases to about 4 to 6 cases, and a reduction in maximum
individual cancer risk to the range of 1 to 10 in a million for
all but the largest-emission facilities (where near-source risks
after control may be as high as 80 in a million). The districts
may decide to perform site-specific impact assessments as a part
of the permitting process for the largest-emitting facilities.
The cost of complying with the proposed control measure includes
capital costs such as equipment cost, installation and retrofit
cost, permit and testing costs, and operating and maintenance
The annualized cost of complying with the proposed control
measure is estimated to be $200 for control-exempt facilities
(those using under 4 pounds per year of EtO), $23,000 for small
facilities (those using 4-400 lbs/year), $35,000 for medium
facilities (those using 400-5,000 lbs/year), and $135,000 for
large facilities (those using over 5,000 lbs/year). These are
typical costs; the cost for some large commercial facilities may
be two to three times the typical cost, because aeration process
modifications will likely be necessary to achieve aeration
emissions control. The cost per cancer case avoided ranges from
$500,000 to $18 million per potential case avoided. A few small
businesses may be impacted adversely by the cost of complying
with the control measure, and we have identified possible sources
of financing for these and other small businesses. In terms of
the cost of goods or services, the costs of compliance are
estimated to be on the order of 0.1 percent of the cost of a
hospital bed-day, or 3-10% of sterilization costs for a
No significant environmental impacts are expected to occur as a
result of this control measure. The primary impacts that may
occur are the production of ethylene glycol and carbon dioxide,
which are end products of EtO destruction by control devices.
Several disposal options are available for the liquid glycol,
including recycling as a chemical feedstock, disposal as a
hazardous waste or, where acceptable, release to wastewater and
treatment in regional sewage treatment plants. We were not able
to identify feasible mitigation measures for the carbon dioxide
that may be released to the atmosphere as a result of this
control measure. Emissions of CFC-12 are not expected to
increase as a result of the control measure; to the extent the
measure encourages more efficient use of EtO-CFC mixtures, it may
actually lead to a decrease in CFC-12 emissions.
ITEM NO.: 90-5-2
Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Permit Fee Regulations
for Nonvehicular Sources Pursuant to the California Clean Air
The staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed
regulations for recovery of costs incurred by the Air Resources
Board (ARB) during fiscal year 1990-91 to implement those
provisions of the California Clean Air Act related to
The California Clean Air Act requires the ARB to develop new
programs and to expand existing programs to address the problem
of air pollution in California. To defray the additional costs
to the ARB of implementing programs and activities related to
nonvehicular sources pursuant to the Act, Section 39612 of the
Health and Safety Code authorizes the ARB to require districts to
collect fees from the holders of permits for sources which are
located in nonattainment areas and which emit 500 tons or more
per year of any nonattainment pollutant or precursor. The
staff's proposal would implement Section 39612 by requiring
districts to collect the fees authorized by the Act and to
transmit the fees to the ARB for deposit into the Air Pollution
Control Fund. Districts would be required to assess each
qualifying facility a fee of $13.40 per ton of emissions of
nonattainment pollutants and precursors.
The staff has developed the proposed fee regulations in
consultation with affected districts. Also, the staff held a
public consultation meeting to which affected facilities and
members of the public and districts were invited.
SUMMARY AND IMPACTS OF PROPOSED BOARD ACTION
Adoption of the proposed regulations are not expected to result
in any adverse health, safety or environmental impacts.
The cost to individual companies ranges from approximately $6,700
for the smallest facility subject to the regulations to
approximately $467,200 for a multi-facility business. No small
businesses have been identified that would be subject to the
ITEM NO.: 90-5-3
Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Regulations Regarding
the Atmospheric Acidity Protection Program Fees.
Staff is recommending adoption of emissions fee regulations to
defray in part the costs to the Air Resources Board of the
Atmospheric Acidity Protection Program for fiscal year 1990-91.
In the Atmospheric Acidity Protection Act of 1988 (Stats. 1988,
ch. 1518, Health and Safety Code Sections 39900-39911), the
Legislature made a finding that the deposition of atmospheric
acidity resulting from other than natural sources is occurring in
various regions of California. The Legislature also found that
the continued deposition of acidity, alone or in combination with
other man-made pollutants and naturally occurring phenomena,
could have potential significant adverse effects on public
health, the environment and the economy. The Legislature
directed the Board to adopt and implement the Atmospheric Acidity
Protection Program to determine the nature and extent of
potential damage to public health and the state's ecosystems
which may be expected to result from atmospheric acidity. The
Legislature also directed the Board to adopt and implement the
Atmospheric Acidity Protection Program to determine the nature
and extent of potential damage to public health and the state's
ecosystems which may be expected to result from atmospheric
acidity. The legislature also directed the Board to develop
measures which may be needed for the protection of public health
and sensitive ecosystems within the state. To enable the Board
to carry out these activities, the Act authorized the Board to
require the districts, beginning July 1, 1988, to impose
additional variance and permit fees on nonvehicular sources
authorized by permit to emit 500 tons per year or more of either
sulfur oxides or nitrogen oxides. The total amount of funds
collected by additional fees, exclusive of district costs, shall
not exceed $1,500,00 for any fiscal year or the amount
appropriated from State funds by the Legislature for the
Atmospheric Acidity Protection Program, whichever is less.
The proposed amendment of Sections 90620, 90621, 90622, 90623 and
adoption of a new Section 90621.1, Article 1, Subchapter 3.6,
Chapter 1, Part III, Title 17, California Code of Regulations,
would apply to fiscal year 1990-91. The proposed regulations
provide for the collection of fees by the districts and
forwarding of the fees to the Air Resources Board for deposit
into the Air Pollution Control Fund, for the collection of
additional fees by the districts to cover administrative costs,
and for exemption of districts from the fee collection
requirements for good cause. The regulations would specify that
compliance with the fee requirements shall be based on the
amounts of emissions as determined by the Board's Executive
Officer on March 5, 1990. The regulations would also require the
collection of fees from sources identified after March 5, 1990.
The fees to be collected by districts are based upon estimated
emissions data of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides from sources
emitting 500 tons or more per year of either of the two
pollutants for calendar year 1988. The specific dollar per ton
value was calculated by dividing $1,500,000 (amount to be
collected) by the total estimated emissions of sulfur oxides and
nitrogen oxides from sources emitting 500 tons or more per year.
The proposed fees have been adjusted upward by a factor of ten
percent to cover unforeseen undercollection for reasons such as
unanticipated closing of businesses.
No significant adverse impacts are anticipated by the Board's
adoption of the proposed emissions fee regulations.