Back

PROPOSAL:

Amend Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants (Continued from February 12, 1999 Board meeting)

SYNOPSIS:

At the February 12, 1999 public hearing, the Board heard testimony regarding addition of nickel compounds. The public hearing was closed, and deliberations were continued to the March 12, 1999 meeting.

COMMITTEE:

Stationary Source, February 19, 1999, Reviewed

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Adopt the attached resolution (from the February 12, 1999 Board package);
2. Certify the attached Addendum to the Final Environmental Assessment (certified at the July 10, 1998 Board meeting) for Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, (from the February 12, 1999 Board package); and
3. Amend Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, as proposed, in accordance with the attached resolution.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

This Board letter summarizes testimony from the January 8 and February 12, 1999 public hearings on Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants. The February 12, 1999 Board Package, (Item #30) is attached.

On January 8 and February 12, 1999, the Governing Board held public hearings to consider amendments to Rule 1401 regarding the addition of nickel compounds and consideration of proposed changes to some of the effective dates in Table I. After testimony at the February 12, 1999 meeting, the public hearing was closed, and deliberations were continued to the March 12, 1999 meeting.

During the public hearings, the Board heard testimony from many parties regarding nickel. Following is a summary of the key issues raised at the January and February Governing Board meetings. More detailed summaries are contained in the minutes for these meetings.

Is Soluble Nickel a Carcinogen?

A number of speakers representing the Metal Finishers Association of Southern California (MFASC) testified that there is uncertainty in the scientific community on this issue. Information was presented by Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA) on a draft literature review and its peer review process. Their conclusion is that ‘the carcinogenicity of soluble nickel cannot be determined’. It was noted that two agencies, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have made similar determinations. In addition, there was testimony that different mechanisms exist for soluble and insoluble nickel entrance into cells.

Speakers from the California Air Resources Board and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and written comments from the lead Scientific Review Panel member in 1991, reiterated their positions that all forms of nickel are potential human carcinogens.

As the staff presentation demonstrated, many other reputable agencies (federal and international) concur with these experts, including the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), International Committee for Nickel Carcinogenesis in Man (ICNCM), National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), National Toxicological Program (NTP), and Directorate General XI, Commission on European Communities.

Written or verbal testimony in support of adding nickel to the rule were presented from physicians, researchers, and three environmental groups. Based on the weight of evidence, staff recommends that soluble nickel be treated as a human carcinogen.

Assessment of Economic Impacts

Concerns were raised regarding the employment and economic impacts on the plating industry, particularly small businesses. Nickel plating is a common process and supports general manufacturing in the Basin. Many of the businesses have few employees and the MFASC testified that additional expenses for control equipment would be a burden. Concerns were also expressed that staff did not meet legal obligations relative to the socioeconomic assessment.

As documented in the previous Board packages, all applicable legal requirements for the socioeconomic assessment have been met. In addition, staff employed a contractor to evaluate costs for a typical small, medium, and large plating facility. The AQMD and contractor worked with the MFASC to identify the facilities and conduct the evaluations. The range of costs validated the information used in the socioeconomic analysis for the July 1998 Board meeting. Regional and industry costs and job impacts were analyzed using the Regional Economic Model Incorporated (REMI) model, a state-of-the-art program. This information has been part of several previous Board packages and staff presentations.

Recommendation

Staff continues to recommend adding nickel compounds to Rule 1401. This is based on an extensive review by staff of available information, including the draft TERA report and observations from attending the peer review meeting, epidemiology and animal studies, information from OEHHA and other agencies, and literature reviews relevant to this topic.

Risks from nickel plating tanks can be substantial. Control equipment is available to reduce nickel emissions. An assessment of the costs to the plating industry relative to revenue demonstrates that such costs are consistent with toxic reductions required from other industries. Adding nickel to Rule 1401 would affect only new or relocated tanks or modified tanks that increase emissions.

After careful consideration of all information collectively, staff continues to recommend adding nickel and nickel compounds to Rule 1401.

Staff also recommends a change in the effective date for some compounds in Table I of Rule 1401 consistent with the commitment made by staff during rule development that the rule would be based on SRP finalized risk values. This proposal has not resulted in any concerns from industry or the public.

Attachments

February 12, 1999 Board Package

/ / /