State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Summary of Board Meeting
May 21, 1998
Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Hons.||John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman
Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E.
Lynne T. Edgerton, Esq.
William F. Friedman, M.D.
Jack C. Parnell
James W. Silva
AGENDA ITEM #
|98-5-1||Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Airborne Toxic Control
Measure for Emissions of Hexavalent Chromium from Chrome Plating and Chromic
Acid Anodizing Operations
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
The staff presented a proposal to amend the airborne toxic control measure for chrome plating and chromic acid anodizing operations to consolidate the State and federal chrome plating requirements into a single regulation, while maintaining the public health protection goals of both regulations. The amendments also clarify and simplify many of the federal requirements.
The proposal would amend the existing Chrome Plating ATCM to include a specific applicability statement and to expand the applicability to trivalent chrome operations, in addition to the currently regulated hexavalent chrome operations. The emission limitations for hard chrome operations remain unchanged. The emission limitations for decorative chrome and chromic acid anodizing operations would be replaced with emissions limitations from the federal chrome plating regulation. The proposal would add performance test requirements, inspection and maintenance requirements, monitoring provisions, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and requirements for requesting alternative provisions.
Changes proposed by the staff at the Board hearing included changes to section (k) - Approval of Alternative Requirements. In section (k), staff proposed to delete the reference to the 45-day limit for U.S. EPA to approve or disapprove an alternative requirement. Staff also proposed to amend Table (k)(1) to require U.S. EPA's approval of alternatives until U.S. EPA delegates this authority to State and local agencies. Several other modifications were proposed to clarify the intent of the original amendments.
ORAL TESTIMONY: None
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: SSD
|98-5-2||Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ethylene Oxide Airborne
Toxic Control Measure for Sterilizers and Aerators
The staff proposed to amend the airborne toxic control measure for ethylene oxide sterilizers and aerators to clarify and simplify the compliance and testing requirements, and to consolidate the State and federal requirements for these operations into a single regulation, while maintaining the same degree of public health protection as the existing ATCM. The amendments also clarify and simplify many of the federal requirements.
The proposed amendments separate the ATCM into two parts, creating a new section (regulation) for large commercial sterilizers and aerators, and adding to that section performance test requirements, inspection and maintenance requirements, monitoring provisions, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and requirements for requesting alternative provisions. The proposed amendments also clarify and streamline several of the compliance determination requirements of the ATCM for non-commercial and small commercial facilities. These amendments do the following: allow calculation instead of measurement of EtO entering the control device; add an alternative combined sterilizer/aerator control efficiency requirement; substitute a liquid discharge EtO limit for the existing prohibition of discharge of sterilizer exhaust pump working fluid; and, modify the source testing method, ARB Method 431, to include a water test method and clarify and improve the method.
Representatives from Griffith Micro Science, a commercial sterilizer
and aerator company that operates two large facilities in California, spoke
of their safety concerns regarding the control of a portion of their process
called the backdraft valve. Griffith believes that control of the backdraft
valve emission stream with their current pollution control equipment presents
a risk of fire and explosion. In response to Griffith's concern, the Board
directed the staff to conduct a follow- up investigation of this issue
and report back to them.
|98-5-3||Public Meeting to Consider a Draft Report: Planned Air Pollution
Research for Fiscal Year 1998-1999
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
This report presents the Air Resources Board's Planned Air Pollution
Research for Fiscal Year 1998-1999. Twenty-two projects are proposed. Sixteen
are recommended for funding and six are recommended if funding is available.
Approximately half of the projects propose research on particulate matter.
The remaining projects propose research of various types, including demonstration
of fast charging stations for electric vehicles and information gathering
for control strategy development for stationary sources. Six research ideas
were received from the public and developed into five projects that are
included in the report. The proposed research budget for fiscal year 1998-1999
|98-5-4||Consideration of Research Proposals
The Board approved Resolutions 98-22 and 98-23 by a unanimous vote.
|98-5-5||Public Meeting to Consider Fiscal Year 1997-98 Grant Awards for
the Rice Straw Demonstration Project Fund
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
The Air Resources Board staff presented project and evaluation summaries for the three projects recommended for fiscal year 1997-98 grant awards for the Rice Straw Demonstration Project Fund. Grant requests were evaluated by expert reviewers using the funding criteria adopted by the Board at its January 29, 1998, public meeting. The Board approved three resolutions awarding grants totaling $2,070,000 to the following three projects:
"Preprocessing of Rice Straw for Multiple Products" by Anderson Hay & Grain Co., Inc. for $500,000;
"Bioboard Plant for Colusa, California" by FiberTech USA, Inc. for $750,000;
"Production of Fermented Animal Feeds from Sacramento Valley Rice Straw: Prototype and Commercial Pilot" by MBI International for $820,000.
|98-5-6||Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption, Amendment, and Repeal of
Regulations Regarding Certification Procedures and Test Procedures for
Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems
The staff proposed addition of two new vapor recovery test procedures and revisions to 15 other certification and test procedures. These ARB certification and test procedures are used to certify prototype systems and determine compliance of further installed systems. One of the new procedures, "TP-201.2D - Determination of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Compatibility of Phase II Vapor Recovery Systems of Dispensing Facilities," was the focus of testimony, which was so varied and complex that staff did not have immediate answers to some of the questions raised. As a result, the Board deferred action on this item until July.
James W. Healy