CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Auditorium, First Floor
400 "P" Street
May 12, 1988
88-6-1 Fourth Annual Joint Meeting of the Air Resources
Board and Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air
Air Contaminants; Discussion of AB 1807 Process.
88-6-2 Consideration of a Report to the California 001
Legislature on the Ability of Diesel Pile-Driving
Hammers to Meet opacity Standards.
88-6-3 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to 057
Agricultural Burning Regulations for the South
Central Coast Air Basin [Please note the change
in meeting time form the time stated in the public
hearing notice for this item].
a. Closed Session
Personnel (as authorized by State Agency Open Meeting
Act, Govt. Code Sec. 11126(a).)
b. Research Proposals
c. Delegations to Executive Officer
ITEM NO. 88-6-2
Public Meeting to Consider a Report to the California Legislature
on the Feasibility for Diesel Pile-Driving Hammers to Meet
The staff recommends that the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board)
approve the staff's report and direct the Executive Officer to
forward the report to the Legislature.
Requirement for report.
Section 41701.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as amended by
AB561 (Fizzelle, 1987), requires the ARB to prepare, in
consultation with the districts, and submit to the Legislature a
study to determine whether it is technically and economically
feasible for diesel pile-driving hammers to meet opacity
standards which are more stringent than Number 2 on the
Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of
In evaluating the feasibility for diesel pile-driving hammers to
meet opacity standards which are more stringent than Number 2 on
the Ringelmann Chart, the staff held three meetings with industry
and air pollution control district representatives, had numerous
conversations with representatives of the local districts, and
discussed its conclusions and recommendations with the Statewide
Technical Review Group (TRG). Based on these discussions, the
staff has concluded that the technical and economic feasibility
of meeting a Ringelmann limit more stringent than number 2 varies
with the type of soil in which driving occurs. In relatively
hard soils it is technically and economically feasible to achieve
Ringelmann 1 levels, while in soft soils it is neither
technically nor economically feasible to achieve Ringelmann 1.
The type of soil, and thus the feasibility of achieving
Ringelmann 1, can vary with the geographical area.
Recommended requirements for diesel pile-driving hammers.
The staff has developed recommendations that would educe visible
emissions from diesel pile-driving hammers. The first
recommendation is a requirement that hammer operators obtain
permits-to-operate from the local air pollution control districts
for the operation of hammers. The second recommendation would
require hammer operators to comply with either a Ringelmann 1 or
a Ringelmann 2 opacity standard. The hammer operator could
choose which Ringelmann limit with which to comply. However, if
the hammer operator chose to comply with the Ringelmann 2
requirement, the operator would also be subject to the following
operating conditions on its permit-to-operate to ensure that
emissions are minimized.
1) The use of kerosene fuel; and
2) The use of smoke suppressing fuel additives; and
3) The use of synthetic lubrication oils.
The use of other equipment or fuel may be imposed by the
districts as appropriate.
For the air pollution control districts to be able to implement
the staff's recommendations, Section 41701 of the health and
Safety Code may have to be amended to allow hammer operators a 4
minute per pile averaging time for determining compliance with
the Ringelmann 2 standard.
ITEM NO. 88-6-3
Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Agricultural Burning
Regulations for the South Central Coast Air Basin.
The staff proposes that the board amend the Agricultural Burning
Guidelines applicable to the South Central Coast Air Basin
(SCCAB) by: (1) dividing the basin into three subbasins for
purposes of permissive burn day determinations, and (2) adopting
individual meteorological criteria for the designation of
permissive burn days in each subbasin.
The regulation proposed to amended is Title 17, California Code
of Regulations, Section 80210.
The SCCAB is composed of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and
Ventura Counties. The Air Resources Board issues daily
"permissive burn" or "no burn" agricultural burning decisions for
the SCCAB and other air basins. Under the present agricultural
burning criteria, one such decision is issued daily for the
entire SCCAB. By subdividing the SCCAB and developing separate
criteria for each subbasin, the permissive burn day declarations
will be better tailored to the area affected than is now possible
when burn days are declared for the entire air basin.
The three proposed subbasins would consist of: (1) all of the
area in the basin above 3,000 feet in elevation; (2) all of the
area in the basin below 3,000 feet which lies in San Luis Obispo
County and the portion of Santa Barbara County other than the
southern coastal portion; and (3) all of the area in the basin
below 3,000 feet which lies in Ventura County and in the southern
coastal portion of Santa Barbara County. The southern coastal
portion of Santa Barbara is all of the county which lies
generally south of the southern ridge line of the Santa Ynez
The proposed criteria would be similar to those adopted in 1982
for the three subbasins in the North Central Coast Air Basin.
For the high level subbasin, the proposed criteria are based on
the mean heights of the 500 millibar level. For the northern and
the southern low level subbasins, the proposed criteria are based
on the expected maximum mixing heights and the strength of the
expected onshore airflow (that is, the windspeed). An analysis
of a 150-day period during 1986 showed that the proposed criteria
would have resulted in a similar number of burn days for the high
level and northern low level subbasins and a slightly reduced
number of burn days for the southern low level subbasin.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROPOSED BOARD ACTION
In preparing the proposal, the staff worked with the staffs of
the three local districts and jointly held two public workshops
in the basin to discuss the proposal with all interested parties.
Based on these discussions, the staff believes that there are no
significant adverse environmental or cost impacts that would
result from the proposed regulations. The amendments are
expected to result in some improvement in air quality in the