Notice having been duly given, the regular meeting of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board was held at District Headquarters, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Members present:
Dr. William Burke, Vice Chairman (left at 12:38 p.m.)
Speaker of the Assembly Appointee
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 9:45 a.m.; left at 12:38 p.m.)
County of Los Angeles
Councilman Marvin Braude (left at 12:38 p.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region
Mayor Candace Haggard
Cities of Orange County
Ms. Mee H. Lee
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge
Cities of Riverside County
Councilman Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino County
Supervisor James W. Silva
County of Orange
Councilwoman Nell Soto
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region
Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
Vacant:
Governor's Appointee
The meeting was called to order at 9:40 a.m. by Chairman Mikels.
James M. Lents, Ph.D., Executive Officer. Commented that, as discussed by the Board at its September 13, 1996 meeting, arrangements have been made for five environmental experts to conduct a peer review of the modeling efforts for the 1997 AQMP and to present the results of the review to the Board within a month.
Chairman Mikels. Suggested a Board retreat, so that the Board could, in an informal setting, discuss long range issues associated with the 1997 AQMP and attainment, such as AQMD participation in mobile source strategies. He will begin discussing details of the retreat with Dr. Lents and will keep Board members apprised as plans for the retreat develop.
Indicating that she thought the presentation given by staff to the Stationary Source Committee at its September 20, 1996 meeting would be interesting and helpful for all Board members, as well as the public, to hear, Ms. Lee introduced Pat Leyden, DEO of Stationary Source Compliance, to provide updates on Permit Processing and Compliance.
Ms. Leyden highlighted the new over-the-counter permit processing service launched by AQMD on October 1, 1996, whereby approximately four of AQMD’s simplest types of applications are accepted at the counter, verified for completeness, and processed.
With respect to compliance, as AQMD’s resources have decreased, the number of inspections has decreased for small sources and increased for major sources. The major sources produce approximately 92 percent of total reported NOx emissions and 80 percent of total reported ROG emissions. Compliance trends for 1991 through 1995 were as follows:
* Notice to Comply (NC) and Notice of Violation (NOV) statistics relatively constant for the last six years
* 1995 - Best year on record for all Major Sources inspected
* Very high compliance rate (86%) for RECLAIM Sources
* NCs and NOVs have decreased
* The priority is Small Business Assistance, Outreach, and Source Education
* Relatively constant over the last six years at approximately 10,000 per year
In response to comments by Ms. Soto, LaRonda Bowen, Public Advisor, indicated that staff does provide assistance to small businesses in completing the loan guaranty applications, and is presently working on an enhanced outreach plan for the Air Quality Assistance Fund (AQAF). The enhanced outreach plan will be included as part of the Public Advisor report for the November 8, 1996 Board meeting. She assured Ms. Soto that outreach staff who visit the offices of local legislators will bring along with them the brochures and information regarding the AQAF.
(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 9:45 a.m.)
Mr. Antonovich expressed his appreciation to the staffs of the AQMD, ARB, and the Cities of Palmdale and Lancaster for their involvement with AB 2666 (Knight) which was recently signed into law by the Governor, moving the Antelope Valley out of SCAQMD and into a separate air district of its own.
Chairman Mikels presented a plaque to Marilyn Morton, Co-Chair of the Ethnic Community Advisory Council from January 1992 through April 1996, in recognition of her leadership and dedication in increasing outreach to ethnic communities within the South Coast region and facilitating their participation in the quest for clean air.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Item No. 4 was held for discussion.
ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, AGENDA ITEMS 1, 2, 3 AND 5 THROUGH 16 , INCLUDING ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 96-19, CONVEYING TITLE TO CERTAIN PROPERTY OF THE DISTRICT AND ORDERING DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF SAID PROPERTY, WERE APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich (except Item #6), Braude, Burke, Haggard, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Antonovich (on Item #6 only).
ABSENT: None.
Ms. Soto expressed concerns regarding two of the four proposals recommended under this item: Proposal #1: Amend S.E. Hamilton & Co. Contract, and Proposal #2: Amend Davis & Associates Contract. It is her belief that AQMD staff is capable, or should be capable, of providing the technical support included in both of these proposals, rather than sole-source contracting the work out. Also, in contacting the MTA, she was told that the studies to be performed under the two proposals have already been done, and the information is available at AQMD’s request. Because there is a possibility of duplication of efforts under these proposals, she asked that these two items be deferred for further discussion. Ms. Soto also requested that in the future staff notify her, preferably by telephone, of any AQMD matters involving the MTA.
Dr. Burke questioned the necessity of the two proposals if the information is already available, and whether or not the proposals meet the legal criteria for sole-source contracting. He agreed with Ms. Soto that the proposals should be deferred for further discussion.
Peter Greenwald, General Counsel, responded that there are no statutory requirements for contracting of this type by the AQMD. The Board has adopted a policy, however, which specifies four provisions under which a sole-source contract may be justified. The provision used for these particular contracts is "other circumstances exist identifying sole source as being in the best interest of the AQMD". The Board must decide whether or not that is in fact the case for these proposals.
Mr. Paulitz commented that most of the concerns and questions regarding sole-source contracts that Board members have raised at Board meetings are raised, and satisfactorily addressed, at the Technology Committee meetings. He suggested that if staff, in the future, extend to Ms. Soto a courtesy call regarding any items related to the MTA, and that, if not already being done, all Board members are provided copies of the Technology Committee’s meeting agendas, some of the concerns will likely be mitigated.
Dr. Lents requested that the Board approve Proposals #3 and #4, and defer Proposals #1 and #2 only for further discussion.
MS. SOTO MOVED TO CONTINUE THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 TO THE NOVEMBER 8, 1996 BOARD MEETING:
"Authorize the Executive Officer to execute amendments to contract #95105 with S.E. Hamilton & Co. for an additional $16,500 and to contract #96051 with Davis & Associates for an additional $35,000."
THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED, AND PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT.
ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MS. LEE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO EXECUTE NEW CONTRACTS FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT WITH ROSE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR $50,000 AND AC PROPULSION, INC. FOR $50,000.
Catherine Witherspoon, Legislative Director, gave a brief update on the interim hearings that occurred subsequent to the September 20, 1996 Legislative Committee meeting. On September 25, 1996 the Senate Local Government Committee convened an interim hearing on Assemblywoman Napolitano’s bill, AB 3248, which addresses the AQMD’s public advisor/business outreach functions. At that hearing, they debated for two hours on the extent to which AQMD had already fulfilled the assemblywoman’s objectives. The Committee heard testimony from both sides of the issue, and was not convinced that any problem existed that the bill specifically addressed. Assemblywoman Napolitano is determined to carry forward her bill, and will be introducing new legislation in January 1997. In the meantime, she intends to convene two local hearings under her own auspices before the Legislature comes back into session.
ON MOTION OF MR. SILVA, SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT APPROVING RECEIPT AND FILE OF AGENDA ITEMS 17 THROUGH 24, AS RECOMMENDED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: A verbatim transcript of the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 25 has been prepared and is available for public review in the AQMD Library.
Chairman Mikels indicated that several requests for a continuance of this item were submitted to the Board. The proposed amended rule has generated a great amount of interest, and in order to provide an opportunity for everyone concerned to comment on the rule and to also avail themselves of all information available with regard to the rule, he planned to recommend, following public testimony, that the Board continue the public hearing to the November 8, 1996 Board meeting to receive further public testimony.
Jack Broadbent, Assistant DEO of Stationary Source Compliance, presented the staff report.
Mr. Silva questioned whether it was appropriate for the Board to consider at this time adopting amendments to the rule which would have effective dates five or more years in the future. Mr. Antonovich questioned why, if the technology has already been developed, the lower VOC limits are set for such advanced dates, and not sooner.
Mr. Broadbent responded that a number of manufacturers are already manufacturing low-VOC products, but not all manufacturers make those products. Staff therefore believed it appropriate to establish future effective dates which provide a reasonable time frame for those manufacturers to be able to invest in the research and development necessary to make and market the low-VOC products. Amending the rule so far in advance of the effective dates will also provide sufficient time for painting contractors to adjust to using the low-VOC paints. The rule includes a commitment by staff to conduct technology assessments one year prior to each of the future compliance dates for flats and lacquers so that staff can re-evaluate the availability of complying coatings and, if necessary, bring proposed rule amendments back to the Board.
In response to a question by Ms. Soto regarding involvement of small manufacturers in discussions on PAR 1113, Mr. Broadbent responded that small, medium and large companies have been involved. Should the Board adopt the proposed amendments, staff will provide training for painting contractors in the field, and also provide training classes for manufacturers and others.
Mr. Braude expressed his belief that AQMD’s experience and success in pushing technology is perhaps its most distinguished accomplishment. At his request, Ms. Leyden highlighted a few of the instances in which the AQMD was successful in contributing to the advancement of technology through technology-forcing regulations.
In response to a suggestion by Ms. Soto, Mr. Broadbent indicated that staff will include California Polytechnic University, Pomona among those to be considered for contracting further coating studies associated with Rule 1113.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
Speaking in support of PAR 1113:
LINDA WAADE, Coalition for Clean Air
GAIL RUDERMAN FEUER, Natural Resources Defense Council
Support the concept of the rule; however does not support the amendments proposed. As currently written, believes the rule is inadequate, specifically as it relates to the time lines. Zero-VOC flats are currently being manufactured by three or four different paint manufacturers, and the Coalition believes it is not practical or fair to give an additional 12 years for the rest of the industry to "catch up". The proposed amendment would move 25 percent of the emissions reductions that were included in the 1994 AQMP coatings measure into the infamous "black box" (emission reductions which rely on future technology advancement), and that is inappropriate since the technology exists today. Urged the Board to revise the rule to shorten the time lines for implementation of the lower VOC limits.
DAVID HERTZ, Architect and Educator at UCLA
Commented on the adverse health effects of VOC from inhaling paint fumes--to those applying the paints and for those in the buildings where the paints are applied.
BILL QUINN, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
LEE WALLACE, Pacific Enterprises/Southern California Gas Company
Encouraged staff and industry to work together, particularly during the next month, to try to find technically-achievable limits for the paints.
MARY ELLEN VOJTEK, Compliance Strategies
Related her recent experience with the use of low-VOC Glidden flat paint, and commented that she was pleased with the color and appearance; and within half-an-hour of painting, there were no paint fumes detectable.
JENNIFER BOWER, Orange County Fire Authority
Commented regarding the flammability of acetone. In comparing acetone to toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, butyl acetate and xylene; all of the substances were found to have identical physical and health classifications. Based on the hazard classifications, acetone does not pose any greater hazard in comparison.
*BRYAN BALLEW, Arrowhead Painting Contractors
BOB COLVEN, Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency
*JOHN BILLHEIMER, Consultant
Commented in support of the proposed exemption for areas located above 4,000 feet in elevation. (*Submitted Written Comments)
Speaking in opposition to PAR 1113:
BARRY JENKIN, Benjamin Moore & Company
1) Opposed the VOC limits proposed for 2001 and beyond--specifically for flats at 100 grams per liter (gpl) and 50 gpl because: (i) lower VOC favors low-quality paint; (ii) Method 24 is not accurate at low VOC levels on water-based products, so there is no reliable confirmation mechanism or enforcement mechanism at 100 gpl or 50 gpl; and (iii) as a national company, need formulating flexibility and uniformity to supply quality products for all their customers, this can’t be done at 100 or 50 gpl for flats. 2) Recommended: (i) a VOC limit of 200 gpl for exterior flats and 100 gpl for interior flats effective in 2001; (ii) that the rule require record retention by the manufacturer to be supplied on request rather than automatic data submission; and (iii) ongoing discussions to find ways of incorporating lower VOC paints into the rule and measuring compliance, including "zero VOC" products. (Submitted Written Comments)
BERT OSEN, Advance Finishes
FRED LEEGER, Fine Line Paint
CLIFFORD BURG, Painting & Decorating Contractors Association
Commented that low-VOC paints result in poor quality and increased prices. Suggested that the VOC limits be the same as the national standards.
ROBERT VANDERHOEK, Lilly Industries
Commenting that the proposed 550 gpl VOC limit for lacquers is based on Rule 1136, the rule that controls the use of lacquers for wood products in an industrial setting, pointed out that industrial customers under Rule 1136 use a lacquer coating specifically designed for their spray equipment in an environment which can be controlled to a certain degree. The painters are trained in the use of the product and the coating manufacturer works with the enduser to fine tune the product. Coating manufacturers are now, under PAR 1113, being asked to develop an off-the-shelf 550 gpl VOC lacquer that can be used by all contractors under a varied array of spraying equipment, which is a much more difficult task.
DAVID LLOYD, National Paint & Coatings Association
Commented that the proposed limit of 100 gpl VOC for flat coatings, to be effective July 1, 2001, as judged by today’s coating technology and reasonable expectations for the future, is too low to accommodate all of the current applications of flat coatings. (Submitted Written Comments)
CLAYTON MILLER, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition
Since the reformulation of architectural coatings is not to become effective for several years, urged the Board to defer action on PAR 1113 until the completion of several new surveys and research studies relevant to architectural coatings in progress or soon to begin. (Submitted Written Comments)
The Board recessed for lunch at 11:48 a.m., during which time the following closed session items were considered:
CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to closed session:
i) Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, to confer with its Labor Negotiator. Agency Negotiator: Nick Nikkila/Charles Goldstein. Employee Organization: Teamsters Local 911;
ii) Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to confer with its counsel regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party. Title of the litigation: Bruyn, et al. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. K018186;
iii) Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1), to confer with its counsel because, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the agency concerning one case.
(Mr. Antonovich, Mr. Braude and Dr. Burke left at 12:38 p.m.)
The Board reconvened at 12:38 p.m., and resumed the public hearing on Agenda Item 25.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Public testimony continued, with the following individuals commenting as a group in opposition to PAR 1113:
RAY ROBINSON, EL RAP
ROBERT WENDOLL, EL RAP
BUD JENKINS, Paint Consultant/President, Los Angeles Society for Coatings Technology
DAVID LEEHY, David A. Leehy & Associates
STEVE MURPHY, Murphy Industrial Coatings
MARTY BALOW, Frazee Paint
*AL SINGH, Surface Protection Industries
JERRY MULLNIX, Cal Western Paints, Inc.
*GIL MISLANG, Dunn-Edwards
H. SCOTT WASHBURN, Vista Paint Corporation
JOHN LONG, Smiland Paint Company
MICHAEL B. DAVIS, Teamsters Local #578
*CHRISTOPHER FOSTER, Attorney, Smiland & Khachigian
*Submitted Written Comments
In summary, the group recommended that the Board adopt those portions of the proposed amendments on which staff and the industry have agreed, and that the issues of contention--lower VOC limits for lacquers and flats--be not just delayed, but be completely removed from consideration until such time as there is up-to-date information and more sound science on which to base a recommendation for VOC content for those products. The following points were made with respect to the technological and socioeconomic assessments performed by AQMD staff:
The surveys of painting contractors done by AQMD to determine thinning practices in the field for architectural coatings were not extensive enough and did not reflect a true assessment because when AQMD personnel are present, contractors often stop conducting activities that they would normally do.
The socioeconomic impact assessment: (i) improperly assumes that the low-VOC limits will be met solely through reformulation; (ii) does not address the impacts on independent retail dealers; (iii) does not analyze the impacts to small businesses, nor competitiveness; (iv) does not rank the cost effectiveness of the AQMP measures; (v) does not address several alternatives to the proposed amendments that were discussed; and (vi) does not consider the adverse impacts that the rules may have on the working men and women and their families of the communities AQMD is trying to protect.
With respect to averaging, the concept should be pursued further, but the provision proposed by staff relies on manufacturer certifications that are essentially unverifiable, which makes averaging unenforceable, with the exception of paperwork violations.
There being no further testimony at this time,
MS. SOTO MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON RULE 1113 TO THE NOVEMBER 8, 1996 BOARD MEETING, AT WHICH TIME ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CONCLUDED. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. LEE, AND PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Braude and Burke).
Chairman Mikels thanked all those who presented testimony, and requested that those among them planning to comment again at the November 8 Board meeting not repeat comments they have already made.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Assemblyman Dick Ackerman, California Legislature
Curtis Coleman, Sherwin-Williams Company
Senator Ross Johnson, California State Senate
Assemblyman Steven T. Kuykendall, California Legislature
Senator John R. Lewis, California State Senate
Assemblyman Keith Olberg, California Legislature
Bernie Richter, Chairman, Assembly Committee on Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials, California Legislature
The staff report was given by Henry Hogo, Planning and Rules Manager. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
ROBERT WYMAN, Attorney, on behalf of COALESCE
CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney, on behalf of CMA/Southern California Air Quality Alliance
CAROL GOMEZ, Hughes Electronics
BILL QUINN, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
Expressed support of PR 1605 for the following reasons: (i) Repair of gross polluting vehicles is among the most cost effective measures that exist to clean up the air, and is another important move towards market-based programs which provide both economic and air quality benefits; (ii) PR 1605 will allow for the utilization of remote sensing in locations where it can be of its most optimum usage, for example, at high schools or colleges; (iii) it will not only provide employers with an additional option in meeting their emission reduction requirement, but could also provide a much needed public service by providing vehicle repairs to those who would not otherwise be able to afford them; (iv) it creates another mechanism to generate additional emission reduction credits; and (iv) combined with AQMD’s intercredit trading program, PR 1605 will provide more opportunities to achieve needed emission reductions for all the regulated community at a lower cost.
With regard to the technical adjustment factor, Mr. Quinn emphasized the need to adjust the factor on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, and to do so regularly, as additional data becomes available.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, DULY SECONDED, A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Antonovich, Braude and Burke), ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 96-20, ADOPTING RULE 1605 AND CERTIFYING THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)
There was no public comment on non-agenda items.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Mikels at 1:47 p.m.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on October 11, 1996.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
Jon D. Mikels, Chairman
ACRONYMS
AB = Assembly Bill
AQMD = (South Coast) Air Quality Management District
AQMP = Air Quality Management Plan
ARB/CARB = California Air Resources Board
COALESCE = Coalition for Local Environmental Solutions and a Competitive Economy
CMA = California Manufacturers Association
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EL RAP = Environmental Legislative & Regulatory Advocacy Program of the
Southern California Paint & Coatings Association
NOx = Oxides of Nitrogen
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
PR = Proposed Rule
RECLAIM = REgional CLean Air Incentives Market
ROG = Reactive Organic Gas
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound