State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Redding County Courthouse
1500 Court Street
Redding, CA
March 7, 1973
9:30 a.m.
AGENDA
73-5-1 Approval of Minutes of February 21, 1973 Meeting.
73-5-2 Consideration of Local Rules and Regulations for
Agricultural Processing Plants.
73-5-3 Report on the Status of the Programs to Regulate
Agricultural Burning.
73-5-4 Report on Environmental Protection Agency Hearings on
Transportation Control for the South Coast Air Basin.
73-5-5 Consideration of Transportation Controls for San
Francisco and San Diego Air Basins, and Sacramento and
Fresno Areas.
73-5-6 Report on Air Basin Boundaries.
A. Report of Emission and Control Committee on
Proposed Mountain Counties Air Basin.
B. Staff Report on Request for Changes in other
Boundaries.
73-5-7 Other Business.
73-5-8 Remarks from the Audience.
ITEM NO.: 73-5-2
Consideration of local rules and regulations for agricultural
processing plants.
RECOMMENDATION
Glenn County's Rules and Regulations should be revised to conform
with the requirements specified in the Sacramento Valley Air
Basin Implementation Plan. If necessary, the Board should hold a
public hearing to consider revising Glenn County's definition of
"Agricultural Operations." The Board may with to adopt
Resolution 73-9, thereby declaring its intention to hold a public
hearing.
FACTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Application of local regulations to agricultural operations.
a. In most air pollution control districts, agricultural
operations are not exempted from grain loading and
process weight rules.
b. Some of the districts in Sacramento Valley exempt
agricultural operations in the growing of crops and
raising of fowls and animals from grain loading and
process weight rules. These operations, however, are
not amenable to control by these regulations.
c. Smoke from fires for the growing of crops and raising
of fowls and animals is exempted from Health and Safety
Code Section 39077 (nuisance) and Section 39077.1
(Ringelmann).
2. Requirements of the Implementation Plan of the Sacramento
Valley Air Basin Coordinating Council.
a. The Sacramento Valley Air Basin Coordinating Council
Implementation Plan defines "agricultural operations"
as: "The growing and harvesting of crops, including
timber, or the raising of fowls, animals or bees, for
the primary purpose of earning a living.
b. The Sacramento Valley Air Basin Coordinating Council
Implementation Plan also calls for process weight and
grain loading regulations to control particulate
emissions and a permit system which requires permits
for construction, modification, or operation of any
potential new source of air pollution. For existing
sources, the plan requires either registration or a
permit system. Agricultural implements used in
agricultural operations on the farm, however, are
generally exempted from the permit system.
Agricultural operations as defined in the
implementation plan are not subject to process weight
and grain loading regulation or the permit to operate
system.
c. All counties except Glenn County in the Sacramento
Valley Air Basin have adopted a definition for
agricultural operations consistent with the
implementation plan. Glenn County's definition of
"agricultural operations" is:
"The growing and harvesting of crops, including
timber, or the raising of fowls, animals, fish, or
bees, for the primary purpose of earning a living,
and any support or processing operation that is
seasonal in nature and necessary to the successful
starting, growing, harvesting and preserving of
such crops."
d. All air pollution control districts in the Sacramento
Valley Air Basin have adopted process weight and grain
loading regulations to control particulate matter.
3. Problems.
a. Because of the way "agricultural operations" is
defined, some existing agricultural processing plants
are not subject to the nuisance, Ringelmann, grain
loading and process weight rules in Glenn County. New
dryers in Glenn County will be required to meet grain
loading and process weight rules and to obtain
authority to construct but not permit to operate.
b. This exception provided by Glenn County has cause
enforcement problems in other counties in the air
basin.
c. The Colusa County Air Pollution Control District has
asked the Board to consider a similar exemption for
Colusa County. (See attached letter.)
d. The enforcement problem encountered in other districts
was brought to the attention of the Board's Emissions
and Control Committee at the Sacramento Valley Air
Basin Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, January 19,
1973.
e. The major agricultural processing operation in Glenn
County is rice drying. Most dryers are in sparsely
populated areas. One is in the City of Willows.
f. The dryer in Willows has been a source of complaint.
Conclusions
The dryers in Glenn County, particularly the one in Willows,
should be controlled as are dryers in other districts. The Glenn
County rules and regulations should be amended to require control
of emissions from the dryers and other agricultural processing
plants that are currently exempted.
ITEM NO.: 73-5-3
Status Report on State and Local Programs to Regulate
Agricultural Burning.
RECOMMENDATION
This report was prepared in response to a request by the Board
for information on the quantities of materials burned on
"permissive-burn" and "no-burn" days and information on actions
taken to enforce agricultural burning Implementation Plans by
local districts.
DISCUSSION
1. The program to regulate Agricultural Burning was initiated
with the promulgation of the Board's Agricultural Burning
Guidelines on March 17, 1971, as required under Section
39298.2 of the California Health and Safety Code. These
Guidelines provided the basis for local control districts to
regulate the burning of agricultural waste in the following
six air basins: Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Bay
Area, South Coast, North Central Coast, and South Central
Coast. Guidelines for regulating range improvement and
forest management burning and the burning of agricultural
waste in the entire state where promulgated on June 21,
1972.
2. The Air Pollution Control Districts in the original 6 air
basins were required to adopt implementation plans for
regulation of the burning of agricultural waste by September
20, 1971. The plans were required to include provisions
regarding preparation of the waste as well as enforcement
procedures, which included issuance of permits by fire
protection agencies. The Bay Area, orange and San
Bernardino Air Pollution Control Districts and a portion of
Los Angeles County were not required to submit their plans
because these districts had established regulations to
control agricultural burning before September 20, 1965.
3. The guidelines allow the burning of agricultural waste on
days designated by the Board as "permissive-burn" days. The
issuance of burning notices began on September 27, 1971.
The districts are permitted to authorize burning on days
designated as "no-burn" days if the denial of such burning
permits would threaten imminent and substantial economic
loss to the farmer.
4. The Guidelines adopted on March 17, 1971 required quarterly
reports of permits issued for burning on "no-burn" days. A
report of burning on "permissive-burn" days was not required
by the Guidelines. The districts were asked to provide
information on the amount of wastes burned on
permissive-burn days. The information is being used to evaluate
the effect of the program.
Guidelines adopted on June 21, 1972 expanded this reporting
program to required reports of agricultural burning on
"permissive-burn" days as well as on "no-burn" days. The
first reports under the new reporting program are due from
the districts in late April 1973.
5. The primary responsibility for the regulation of
Agricultural Burning rests with the local district. This
includes enforcement of the burning ban on "no-burn" days
and requiring that all burning be done in accordance with
conditions specified in the permit. The district has the
additional responsibility to insure that authority to burn
on a "no-burn" day is given only if there is a threat of
imminent and substantial economic loss.
The legal avenues available to the districts to prevent
burning on "no-burn" days and burning without a permit
include warnings, citations, and court prosecution. A
violation of the Agricultural Burning Regulations is a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail
not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding five
hundred dollars ($500), or both, and the cost of putting out
the fire. District enforcement actions taken during 1972 by
air basin as reported informally by the districts are
summarized in Table 1.
Of the 31 districts required to regulate agricultural
burning in 1972, 15 did not report that enforcement actions
were necessary.
One problem in district enforcement is the lack of specific
criteria for determining "threat of imminent and substantial
economic loss' prior to issuance of a permit to burn on
"no-burn" days. Some districts do not issue any such permits;
others do so only on the advice of the Agricultural
Commissioner's office. Other districts issue such permits
only to destroy a disease or pest which cannot be controlled
by any other means.
Permits to allow burning on a "no-burn" day must be reported
to the Board. The report must include a summary of reasons
why denial of such permit would threaten imminent and
substantial economic loss.
There have been 574 permits reported in 1972 (the reports
for the period October 1 to December 31 have not all been
submitted). The reports for 25 of the permits did not
contain sufficient detail to determine a threat of imminent
and substantial economic loss. Further information was
requested from the district for these permits. In most of
the 25 cases the districts could not substantiate the
issuing of a permit to burn on a "no-burn" day. The
districts reported that their records did not show the
reasons, and could not recall the reasons because the
permits were issued several months ago. Of the remaining
549 permits, 31 were issued for reasons clearly indicating
imminent and substantial economic loss. These permits were
issued to control disease and pests. The other 518 permits
were issued for the following reasons: (1) burn before
spraying or fertilizing, (2) burn for double cropping, (3)
burn for orchard conversion, (4) to meet equipment schedules
or utilize contracted labor, and (5) burn before rain.
Enforcement is a problem in many districts that have small
staffs and large amounts of agricultural burning. Few
districts have the resources to inspect each proposed burn
site prior to the burn, although several do inspect each
proposed burn site prior to allowing burning on a "no-burn"
day. Few districts reported having field patrols on
"no-burn" days. In many districts, however, the public and the
agricultural operators take an active interest in the
program and assist the district in enforcement.
6. The Board staff has been working with the districts in
establishing active enforcement programs. We have been
reviewing the district reports on permits issued on
"no-burn" days. We have not, however, gone into the field to
check possible violations. It is not clear at this time
what level of enforcement by the Board staff would be
necessary. Routine field visits would require personnel not
included in the present budget. Randomly scheduled aircraft
surveillance on a few days during the burn season is being
explored as a means for enforcement.
7. The districts are required by the guidelines to report data
regarding permits issued to burn on "no-burn" days. The
daily tonnage of material burned was estimated for each
permit in addition to verifying the validity of the seasons
for issuing the permit. Reports for the period January 1 to
September 30 of 1972 have been received from all but one
district. Reports for the period October 1 to December 31,
1972 are not complete. Figure I shows the number of permits
issued for burning and the estimated tonnage of material
burned on "no-burn" days. Figure II shows the amounts and
percentage of waste reported burned on "permissive-burn" and
"no-burn" days. The amount of material burned on "no-burn"
days in some cases is a high percentage of the total waste
burned. In others, the percentage may be small, but the
total amount of waste is large (over 114,000 tons for a
three month period in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin).
The districts were asked to report the daily amount of
material burned on "permissive-burn" days. Some districts
submitted incomplete information; others did not submit any.
Many districts submitted copies of the burning permits
issued (approximately 35,000 were reviewed by the board's
staff for the period January 1 to September 30, 1972). Most
of the information presented in figure II regarding the
waste burned on "permissive-burn" days was estimated from
the information stated in the burning permits. The accuracy
or completeness of the information is not known. Figure III
shows the amount of waste reported burned for the period
January 1 to September 30, 1972.
8. Hand tabulation of the information from burning permits is
time consuming and results produced from manual manipulation
of the information are inaccurate. A computer system for
reporting the daily amount of waste burned is being
developed. This system requires that the amount of waste
burned by each agricultural operator be logged daily by the
district or fire control agency. This information will be
forwarded to the Board staff and transferred to a computer
data bank.
Daily totals for each crop type in each district will then
be made available to the district. This system is
anticipated to be in use by May 1, 1973. The information to
be provided by the computer should enable comparison of
daily amounts of waste burned with air quality measurements.
ITEM NO.: 73-5-4
EPA hearings on transportation controls for the South Coast Air
Basin.
RECOMMENDATIONS
None. This is an information report.
SUMMARY
Vice Chairman H. Sullivan presented testimony at the
Environmental Protection Agency hearing on transportation
controls on March 6, 1973 in Los Angeles, California. This is
the first of series of nine hearings to be held in the South
Coast Air Basin. A copy of EPA's hearing notice is attached.
ITEM NO.: 73-5-5
Consideration of Transportation Controls for San Francisco Bay
Area, San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Valley Air
Basins.
RECOMMENDATION
Develop transportation control plans for the San Francisco Bay
Area, San Diego, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Valley Air
Basins; hold public hearings on these proposed plans and submit
the plans to EPA after adoption.
FACTS AND DISCUSSION
1. When EPA issued its approval/disapproval of the State
Implementation Plan on May 31, 1972 ("Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans"), it included the
requirement that the State submit a transportation control
plan to EPA before February 15, 1973 for the South Coast,
San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento Valley, and
San Joaquin Valley Air Basins.
2. On September 6, 1972, a court order from the U.S. District
Court for the Central district of California (City of
Riverside, et.al. V. Ruckelshaus) directed EPA to propose
before January 15, 1973, a transportation plan that would be
capable of achieving the oxidant standard in the South Coast
Air Basin.
3. The EPA has proposed a plan for the South Coast Air Basin.
Hearings on the proposed plan are being conducted during the
month of March in several areas in the Air Basin, a schedule
of the hearings is included under agenda item 4. The
Board's comments were presented by Mr. Harold Sullivan at
the March 5, 1973 hearing.
4. On January 31, 1973, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (National Resources Defense
Council, Inc. V. EPA) extended the February 15, 1973
deadline for submittal of transportation plans to April 15,
1973.
5. The staff is developing plans for submission to EPA. The
plans are expected to include:
a. An emission inventory which includes data acquired
after the original Implementation Plan was completed.
b. A revision of control strategy, taking into account the
information developed by the staff and obtained by the
Board at public meetings on gaseous fuel conversion, on
short-term motor vehicle emission control and on NOx
control from stationary sources.
c. Specific proposals on a program of inspection and
maintenance; conversion of vehicles to use gaseous
fuels; program of control emissions from used cars,
including installation of catalytic devices; and
control of evaporative emissions from petroleum
marketing.
d. Report on the status of proposal on evaporative control
of emissions from used cars.
e. Discussion of the feasibility of reducing traffic in
San Diego, Bay Area and South Coast Air Basins.
f. Incorporation of the effects of Federal proposals for
control of aircraft.
6. The new emission inventory is being developed; a copy should
be available at the board meeting on March 7. The
preliminary data indicate that implementation of the
technical measures listed in 5c above would enable the San
Joaquin and Sacramento Valley Air Basins to come close to
the oxidant standard. Additional measures of traffic
reduction are needed, however, for the South Coast, Bay Area
and San Diego Air Basins.
7. The staff proposes to include in the plans the following
actions.
a. ARB has contacted, and will work with local authorities
on transportation plans that consider air quality.
b. The State has recognized the need for transportation
planning that takes into account air quality.
c. A Department of Transportation will be established on
July 1, 1973. A State Transportation Plan which
includes consideration of air pollutants will be
developed by January 1, 1976.
8. The staff has scheduled a meeting with representatives of
the BAAPCD and of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
to discuss specific items to be included in the
transportation plan for the Bay Area. A meeting with San
Diego County representatives although not yet arranged, is
expected to take place late in March.
9. Considering the time required to develop the plans, the time
for scheduling and for advance notices of public hearings
and for modifying the proposed plans after the hearings it
will be June of this year at the earliest before the plans
are ready for delivery to EPA.
10. The plan for the South Coast Air Basin would not include
specific methods for VMT reduction because of the EPA
hearings which are considering these strategies.
ITEM NO.: 73-5-6A
Proposed Mountain Counties Air Basin.
RECOMMENDATION
None, this is information related to agenda item 73-5-6B
concerning the status of all present requests for air basin
boundary changes.
SUMMARY
The Emissions and Control Committee held a public hearing on
February 9, 1973 in Placerville, California to consider the
request of several mountain counties in the Sacramento Valley and
San Joaquin Valley Air Basins that the Air Resources Board
establish a new Mountain Counties Air Basin. Attached is a draft
summary of the testimony presented.
ITEM NO.: 73-5-7B
Status Report on Requests For Change in Air Basin Boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report.
DISCUSSION
1. Subsequent to the establishment of the boundaries for air
basins on November 20, 1968, four changes in basin
boundaries were made. The boundaries in Kern, Siskiyou,
Solano and Sonoma Counties were changed in response to
requests from the various counties. The Environmental
Protection Agency administration have not made corresponding
changes in Federal Air Quality Control Regions. (See
attached map).
2. Recently, several requests have been submitted to the Board
concerning air basin boundary changes. San Diego County has
requested to be removed from the Southeast Desert Air Basin
making the entire county a single air basin. Lake County
has made a similar request. Several mountain counties in
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins have
requested the formation of a Mountain Counties Air Basin.
3. A public hearing was held, February 9, 1973, on the creation
of a Mountain Counties Air Basin.
4. On February 7, the Board directed its Emissions and Control
Committee to review the overall air basin concept and report
back with its recommendations.
5. The staff has forwarded to the Emissions and Control
Committee for study, copies of the original TAC report, the
Bureau of Air Sanitation report, the recently revised report
on air basins and various Board agenda materials for
consideration of boundary changes.
6. The staff is assisting the Board's Emissions and Control
Committee in the review of criteria for setting basin
boundaries.
7. The Counties requesting the changes have been informed that
their requests are being evaluated by the Board's Committee
on Emissions and Control.
ITEM NO.: 73-5-7A
EPA hearing on aircraft emission standards.
RECOMMENDATION
None. This is an information report.
SUMMARY
The staff presented testimony at the Environmental Protection
Agency's hearing in Los Angeles urging the EPA to consider using
the Ringelmann Rule for the control of visible emissions and
tightening of the proposed exhaust emission standards in order
that aircraft emissions control program be consistent with the
goal of achieving the air quality standards by 1977. Copies of
the proposed EPA regulations and staff testimony are attached.
ITEM NO.: 73-5-7B
Accreditations of the Carter Carburetor Device.
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of Resolution 73-11.
SUMMARY
At the February 21 meeting, the Board adopted a motion
accrediting the Carter Carburetor retrofit exhaust device for
1966070 vehicles. The adoption of attached Resolution 73-11 will
confirm the Board's action for record purposes.
ITEM NO.: 73-5-7C
Tentative Schedule of Meeting Places and Dates.
RECOMMENDATION
Confirm schedule.
SUMMARY
Attached is a tentative schedule for Board meeting dates through
December 1973. Adoption of this list will delete the meeting
presently scheduled for Tahoe, California on June 7, 1973.