Notice having been duly given, the special meeting of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board was held at District Headquarters, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Present and sitting as a Committee of the Board were:
Councilmember Norma J. Glover, Vice Chairman
Cities of Orange County
Supervisor Jon D. Mikels
County of San Bernardino
Wayne H. Nastri
Governor�s Appointee
Councilmember Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino County
Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting was called to order by Chairman Burke at 9:05 a.m.
BOARD CALENDAR
Cliff Gladstein and Dennis Zane of Gladstein & Associates gave the briefing.
There were no closing remarks or public comment.
ADJOURNMENT
FRIDAY, JULY 10, 1998
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:
Councilmember Norma J. Glover, Vice Chairman
Cities of Orange County
Councilmember Richard Alarcón (arrived at 9:50 a.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 9:55 a.m.)
County of Los Angeles
Ms. Mee H. Lee (left at 12:05 p.m.)
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
Supervisor Jon D. Mikels
County of San Bernardino
Wayne H. Nastri
Governor�s Appointee
Councilmember Leonard Paulitz
Councilmember Nell Soto (arrived at 10:35 a.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region
Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
Members Absent:
Supervisor James W. Silva
County of Orange
Chairman Burke called the meeting to order at 9:37 a.m. Agenda Items Nos. 42 and 41 were taken out of order.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Laki Tisopulos, Planning Manager, gave the staff report and noted that copies of staff�s modified recommendation on this item were distributed to Board members and also made available to the public. The modified staff recommendation included three items: (i) continuation of the public hearing on Rule 1610 to the August 14, 1998 Board meeting for consideration of permanent destruction of the emissions-related engine components; (ii) additional rule clarifications for Subparagraphs (f)(4), (g), (k)(6) and (k)(7) of PAR 1610; and (iii) a replacement Notice of Exemption from CEQA requirements for PAR 1610.
Acting Executive Officer Dr. Barry Wallerstein added that in addition to the changes stated in the modified recommendation, staff recommended that the vehicle smog check requirement [Subparagraph (h)(1)] be changed from three months to one month.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
RAY BEGGS, Association of California Car Clubs (ACCC)
JOHN SIGLER, ACCC/Classic Thunderbird International
Speaking in opposition to PAR 1610, expressed concern with the proposed permanent destruction of engine parts because the car hobbyists will lose a source of scarce to nonexistent engine blocks needed for restoration of automobiles. This will affect not only automobile hobbyists/collectors, but the general motoring public as well.
FRANK BOHANAN, Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)
Expressed: (i) support for continuing the public hearing with regard to parts destruction; (ii) belief that mandatory parts destruction is in direct violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 44120(a) as it pertains to maximizing the salvage value of parts that are taken off the scrapped vehicles; and (iii) belief, based on discussions with EPA, that EPA approval is not contingent upon parts being destroyed. There is the option of not granting credits for any parts which are resold and, based on the small number of parts which are resold, SEMA believes that would not be a problem in terms of credit forfeiture; yet it would be significant to collectors and people who need those parts. (Submitted Written Comments)
JON OWYANG, Market-Based Solutions
1) Commented that whatever decision the Board makes on the issue of parts recycling and engine destruction, it needs to make sure that classic cars are accounted for and somehow separated from any discussion of total vehicle destruction. 2) Expressed belief that windshield wipers and brake lights are not critical items and should be moved from Subparagraph (g)(2) to Subparagraph (g)(3) of PAR 1610. 3) Recommended modifying Subparagraph (g)(3) to allow no more than two failures in the non-critical components. Currently, the staff proposal allows no more than one.
Mr. Tisopolus responded that staff recommends that the Board adopt the amendments proposed by staff at this time, and after several months of experience with the amended rule, it can be further refined, if appropriate, when staff brings the rule back to the Board in early 1999.
AL BOWSER, Auto Club of Southern California
Expressed support for PAR 1610, and suggested that the amended rule be phased in 60 to 90 days after the State of California implements the vehicle scrapping component of enhanced Smog Check II.
Dr. Wallerstein noted that the provision in PAR 1610 disqualifying vehicles that are within 30 days of a smog check from scrapping under Rule 1610 will keep the two programs separate.
SHIPRA BANSAL, Communities for a Better Environment
Expressed opposition to PAR 1610 and recommended that Rule 1610 be revoked because it worsens the environmental injustice that already exists, and it is still seriously flawed. (Submitted Written Comments)
JACK KITOWSKI, Air Resources Board
Expressed support for PAR 1610 and ARB�s belief that District staff has done a good job on the difficult task of developing criteria that will help address the concern that the emission benefits expected are not being realized. With regard to the issue of parts on the vehicle being recycled, if every part of the vehicle can come off and be reused, that only propagates the life of other vehicles. When ARB develops its proposal for a statewide measure, it will propose that there be no parts recycling allowed, and it would encourage the District to do that as well.
In response to Mr. Nastri, Dr. Wallerstein clarified that because EPA states that destruction of the engine and the carburetor and fuel injectors is required for federal approval, counsel believes that the Board can take action on that issue at its August 14, 1998 meeting. Regarding full destruction of the vehicles, counsel has advised that staff wait until after January 1999, after the ARB has taken action on its rulemaking, to bring that issue back to the Board. Staff, therefore, recommends that the engine destruction issue be continued to the August 1998 Board meeting for action by the Board.
MR. NASTRI MOVED TO ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING THE THREE ITEMS SET FORTH IN THE MODIFICATION TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 42 RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ.
Mr. Alarcón stated his intent to vote no on the second item listed in staff�s modifications to PAR 1610. Mr. Nastri indicated that he was agreeable to bifurcating the motion and voting on each of the three items separately.
MR. NASTRI MOVED TO: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 98-21, AMENDING RULE 1610 AND CERTIFYING THE EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS; AND 2) APPROVE ITEM NO. 1 LISTED IN THE MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 42, CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON RULE 1610 TO THE AUGUST 14, 1998 BOARD MEETING TO CONSIDER PERMANENT DESTRUCTION OF ENGINES, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Loveridge, Silva and Soto).
MR. NASTRI MOVED APPROVAL OF ITEM NO. 2 LISTED IN THE MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 42, ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS TO RULE 1610, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, and Wilson.
NOES: Alarcón.
ABSENT: Loveridge, Silva and Soto.
MR. NASTRI MOVED APPROVAL OF ITEM NO. 3 LISTED IN THE MODIFICATIONS TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 42, REPLACEMENT OF THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Alarcón.
ABSENT: Loveridge, Silva and Soto.
Chairman Burke recused himself from participating in the Board�s consideration of Item No. 41 because of a potential conflict of interest, and Vice Chairman Glover presided over the proceedings.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
FRANK MYCROFT, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)/Cal-EPA
Commented on the carcinogenic potential of soluble nickel compounds that are used in nickel plating plants. Epidemiological research continues to find increased risk of lung cancer for workers exposed to soluble nickel compounds. OEHHA strongly feels that there is sufficient evidence to continue reviewing soluble nickel compounds as being potentially carcinogenic in humans.
GEORGE DeRITTER, DuPont Corporation
Commented in support of the addition of perchloroethylene (perc) to Rule 1401 and the District�s recommendation not to allow an exemption for the motion picture film industry. Several companies, including DuPont, have spent significant resources developing alternatives for this industry. DuPont�s alternative has been successfully tested in several film cleaning labs in this district.
*GAIL RUDERMAN FEUER, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air
JAIRUS RAMOS, Environmental Justice Through Education and Action (EJTEA)
1) Urged the Board not to weaken the rule by granting exemptions to the various industries, but to adopt the amended rule as proposed to protect the people, primarily low income minorities, living in the communities where there are many toxic emitting facilities located. There are alternatives that are cost effective and technologically feasible for each of the industries that are asking for exemptions from Rule 1401. Expressed belief that there is no reason for any delays, and therefore opposed the proposed 90-day extension/continuance for the metal plating industry. (*NRDC Submitted Written Comments)
2) Urged the Board to direct staff to develop a solution to the problem of cumulative impacts and to report back to the Board on that issue by the December 1998 Board meeting, when the Board will be holding a hearing on Rule 1402, and for the Board to take action regarding cumulative impacts by its March 1999 meeting.
MIKE NEWHOUSE, concerned citizen
Expressed belief that there should be no exemptions provided from Rule 1401 except for emergency internal combustion engines. With regard to the proposed 150-day waiting period for updating risk factors, expressed belief that once the risk factors are identified, the changes should be incorporated in the rule without delay in order to protect public health.
SHIPRA BANSAL, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
ALVARO LUJAN, MARIA ELENA SANCHEZ, and ALICIA RIVERA, CBE - La Causa
Presented results of a multi-year study, "Holding our Breath - An Assessment of Cumulative Health Risk and Local Air Policy in Southeast Los Angeles", which found that residents in certain areas of Southeast Los Angeles are exposed to emission levels up to 72 times what is considered safe by Cal-EPA, and that cloisters of facilities together are causing significant impacts even though individual facilities separately may not be causing a significant impact. Given this data, urged the Board to adopt a strong Rule 1401, with a resolution that commits the District to re-examining cumulative impacts and developing policy and regulation to help protect the health of people who are exposed to emissions from multiple facilities. (Submitted Written Comments)
JOHN BILLHEIMER, Reality Group
Suggested a gradual phase-in of the rule requirements and that PAR 1401 be limited at this time to: (i) materials proven under Rule 1402 and AB 2588 to be widely used in the workplace, and (ii) the five most significant Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) cited in the District�s socioeconomic analysis for PAR 1401--SIC codes 36 (Electronics), 13 (Oil & Gas), 30 (Rubber & Plastics), 34 (Fabricated Metal), and 20 (Food). (Submitted Written Comments)
MIKE CARROLL, Attorney, on behalf of Regulatory Flexibility Group
Expressing belief that the cancer and non-cancer risk limits contained in PAR 1401 are very stringent but appropriate for new and modified permit units, commented that while larger companies may be better situated to absorb the costs or to move operations out of the basin than small companies, there will be economic impacts to both big business and small business as a result of the proposed rule amendments.
KATY WOLF, Institute for Research and Technical Assistance
Urged the Board not to grant exemptions for the vapor degreasing and motion picture film processing industries that are seeking exemption from the requirements of PAR 1401 pertaining to use of perc, because viable cost-effective alternatives are available for these industries.
BARBARA KANEGSBERG, BFK Solutions
Commented that while there are alternative materials available for the motion picture film industry to use, there are several conditions that the substitutes need to meet which have not yet occurred: (i) it must be compatible with the film, and not dissolve it; (ii) it needs to work well in the equipment, and not evaporate or damage the equipment; and (iii) it has to clean the film effectively.
NICK AVEDISSIAN, Quaker City Plating Ltd
Asked that the Board require more study and justification for adding over 100 chemicals to the list in Rule 1401 because there is still much to learn about the health consequences of low levels of toxic chemicals in the environment, and the proposed amendment will have a serious economic impact on the metal finishing industry. (Submitted Written Comments)
BOB OLSON, Finishing Equipment Incorporated
Requested that perc not be included in PAR 1401 or that an exemption from the rule be provided for the use of perc in vapor degreasing operations. While aqueous cleaning methods work for some vapor degreasing applications, there are drawbacks in many cases, such as the aircraft industry.
Metal Finishing Association of Southern California (MFASC)
LARRY STRAW, Attorney at Law, on behalf of MFASC
HARRY LEVY, Gene�s Plating Works
DEAN HIGH, Pacific Environmental Services
DANIEL CUNNINGHAM, Executive Director, MFASC
RANDY SOLGANIK, Air Quality Committee, MFASC
1) Commented that there is a lack of set procedures for determining compliance with PAR 1401. District staff will perform source testing to try to develop procedures and, for that reason, District staff has asked for a 90-day continuance with respect to incorporating soluble nickel, sodium hydroxide, and hydrochloric acid--compounds which are used in metal finishing operations. One of the Association�s primary concerns, however, is that 90 days may not be sufficient time; previous tests have taken as long as two years. The Association, in conjunction with federal EPA, has also contracted to have source testing conducted and expects to have data from that study available in six months. Additionally, three years ago, CARB commissioned a nickel emission and control technology study that is expected to be available by November 1998, and the Association would like to review the results of that study before these three compounds are included in Rule 1401.
2) Expressed concern also that once PAR 1401 is implemented and OEHHA changes its risk factors, there could be a significant tightening of the rule based on what OEHHA decides. The Board should have the responsibility to the community to examine these numbers as they come from OEHHA and determine what the ramifications could be for the metal finishing industry. (Submitted Written Comments)
LEE ADLER, California Cleaners Association
Commenting that they are still debating with staff regarding what the appropriate inputs are for the model that is used to determine the risk factor, and suggested that the Board direct staff to report back to the Board regarding the impacts to the drycleaning industry. (Submitted Written Comments)
JOHN T. DANG, Deluxe Laboratories
SCOTT ANDERSON, Dames & Moore, on behalf of Deluxe Laboratories
COLIN MOSSMAN, Deluxe Laboratories
Based on a technical assessment which they conducted to evaluate the impacts of
PAR 1401 on the motion picture film processing industry, expressed disagreement with several of the conclusions in staff�s technical assessment. Under PAR 1401, the cumulative risk threshold drops from 100 in a million to 10 in a million, which would severely limit their ability to expand or to improve their processes to reduce the risk, which is their goal. Therefore, they are requesting a five year extension of the 100 in a million cumulative risk threshold for the use of perc in motion picture film processing to allow the industry time to research, build and test new equipment and processes. Expressed support for District staff�s proposal contained in the errata for PAR 1401 to allow staff 90 days to evaluate the potential impacts of the 100 meters cumulative impact requirement in Rule 1401 to the motion picture film processing industry.
GEORGE PETRASEK, Associated Plating
Expressed opposition to the inclusion of nickel, sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid to the list in PAR 1401, as well as the new permitting requirements, and urged the Board to either not adopt PAR 1401 or to provide amendments that will exempt nickel plating, in particular, from the rule. (Submitted Written Comments)
Written Comments Submitted by:
Al Vasquez, Al�s Plating Co., Inc.
Alan Olick, General Plating Company
Allan Smith, M.D., Ph.D. and Peggy Lopipero, M.P.H., U.C. Berkeley, School of Public Health
Andy DiRado, South Coast Fashion Jewelry Processing
Anthony R. Revier, Uyemura International Corporation
Carlos Cabrillo, Mil-Spec Plating Corporation
Don Leiker, K & L Anodizing Corporation
Gary Dekermenjian, Gardena Plating Company
George Brennan, Electrolizing Inc.
Gregg Halligan, Precision Anodizing & Plating, Inc.
Jerre Reid, Reid Metal Finishing
Joe Trentalange, Valley Plating Works, Inc.
John F. Laffey, C-Brite Metal Finishing, Inc.
John H. Wood, Clarke Fire Protection Products
Mary Ann Mendoza, Veling Plating Co., Inc.
Michael Gustin, Santa Ana Plating
Paul T. Kuslits, Atotech USA Inc.
Paulamarie Young, Spence Electroplating Company
Richard Fratello, Model Plating Company, Inc.
Stephen C. Connor, Christensen Plating Works, Inc.
Stephen P. Risotto, Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc.
Steve Crest, Stabile Plating Co., Inc.
MR. NASTRI MOVED TO: 1) BIFURCATE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION; AND 2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 98-20, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PAR 1401, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION STATED IN THE ERRATA SHEETS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. LEE.
Ms. Lee indicated that she was supportive of amending Item No. 4 of staff�s recommended actions to continue the hearing for consideration of adding more nickel compounds to the list of toxic air contaminants in Rule 1401 to the January 1999 Board meeting, instead of the September 11, 1998 Board meeting, in order to allow the industry and the District to work together for six months to complete their study.
Ms. Soto commented that she supports the concerns of the communities and feels very strongly about the 90-day extension; however, she would support a six-month extension, provided industry did not request another extension.
Mr. Antonovich indicated that he would be supportive of extending until the January 1999 Board meeting the portion of PAR 1401 dealing with the motion picture film processing industry and to also have staff work with that industry on alternative cleaning compounds.
THE MOTION BY MR. NASTRI, SECONDED BY MS. LEE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 98-20, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PAR 1401, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION SET FORTH IN THE ERRATA SHEETS, WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Loveridge and Silva).
ON MOTION OF MR. NASTRI, SECONDED BY MS. SOTO AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Loveridge and Soto), THE BOARD AMENDED RULE 1401 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ON MOTION OF MR. NASTRI, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Loveridge and Silva), THE BOARD ADOPTED THE STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MS. LEE MOVED TO AMEND ITEM NO. 4 OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ON PAR 1401 TO CONTINUE THE HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADDING MORE NICKEL COMPOUNDS TO THE LIST OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS IN RULE 1401 TO THE JANUARY 1999 BOARD MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. ANTONOVICH, AND FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Antonovich, Glover, Lee, Nastri, Paulitz and Soto.
NOES: Mikels and Wilson.
ABSENT: Alarcón, Burke, Loveridge and Silva.
MR. ANTONOVICH MOVED TO AMEND ITEM NO. 4 OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ON PAR 1401 TO CONTINUE THE HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADDING PERCHLOROETHYLENE (PERC) FOR MOTION PICTURE FILM CLEANING AND PRINTING PROCESSES TO THE LIST OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS IN RULE 1401 TO THE JANUARY 1999 BOARD MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, AND FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Antonovich, Glover, Lee and Soto.
NOES: Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz and Wilson.
ABSENT: Alarcón, Burke, Loveridge and Silva.
MR. MIKELS MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADDING MORE NICKEL COMPOUNDS, SODIUM HYDROXIDE, AND HYDROCHLORIC ACID TO THE LIST OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS IN RULE 1401 TO THE SEPTEMBER 11, 1998 BOARD MEETING, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DR. WILSON AND FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Glover, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Antonovich and Lee.
ABSENT: Alarcón, Burke, Loveridge and Silva.
In response to Mr. Nastri, staff clarified that soluble nickel and hydrochloric acid are crossed out in the PAR 1401 staff report, and sodium hydroxide is crossed out in the errata sheet. Therefore, those three compounds are not on the list in the proposed amended rule recommended by staff.
MR. MIKELS MOVED TO ADD NICKEL COMPOUNDS, SODIUM HYDROXIDE, AND HYDROCHLORIC ACID BACK ON THE LIST OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS IN RULE 1401. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ.
MR. NASTRI MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADDING MORE NICKEL COMPOUNDS, SODIUM HYDROXIDE, AND HYDROCHLORIC ACID TO THE LIST OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS IN RULE 1401 TO THE JANUARY 1999 BOARD MEETING, WITH A STATUS REPORT BY STAFF TO THE BOARD WITHIN 90 DAYS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Glover, Lee, Nastri, Paulitz, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels.
ABSENT: Alarcón, Burke, Loveridge and Silva.
THE MOTION BY MR. MIKELS, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, TO ADD NICKEL COMPOUNDS, SODIUM HYDROXIDE, AND HYDROCHLORIC ACID BACK ON THE LIST OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS IN RULE 1401 FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz and Wilson.
NOES: Antonovich, Glover, Lee and Soto.
ABSENT: Alarcón, Burke, Loveridge and Silva.
(Ms. Lee left at 12:05 p.m.)
CONSENT CALENDAR
ON MOTION OF MS. SOTO, DULY SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge and Silva), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Agenda Item No. 3 was held for discussion.
ON MOTION OF MS. SOTO, SECONDED BY MR. NASTRI AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge and Silva), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS NOS. 2, 4, AND 7 THROUGH 31(A), AS RECOMMENDED.
46. Items Deferred from Consent Calendar
3. Approve Compensation Package for Two Designated Deputies
Dr. Wilson commented that he would prefer delaying this item until after the appointment of a permanent Executive Officer, if that could be done without jeopardizing the organization.
General Counsel Peter Greenwald responded that both contracts expire on July 31, 1998. However, the Executive Officer has the authority to extend those contracts for a period of up to 90 days without a change in compensation.
DR. WILSON MOVED TO DELAY AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 UNTIL AFTER THE APPOINTMENT OF AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, AND FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Antonovich, Glover, Nastri, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels and Paulitz.
ABSENT: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge and Silva.
Mr. Mikels commented that the contracts are "at will" contracts, in which case if there is any issue, those contracts could simply be terminated at any point. Mr. Greenwald added that if there is termination for no cause, however, a severance package is triggered.
MR. MIKELS MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, AND FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Antonovich, Glover, Mikels, Nastri and Paulitz.
NOES: Soto and Wilson.
ABSENT: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge and Silva.
By operation of Board procedures, Agenda Item No. 3 was continued to the August 14, 1998 Board meeting.
BOARD CALENDAR
Mr. Nastri requested that the Minutes of the Administrative Committee meeting be corrected to reflect that he is no longer a member of that committee.
Agenda Items No. 38 and No. 39 were held for discussion.
ON MOTION OF MS. SOTO, SECONDED BY MR. NASTRI AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge and Silva), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 32 THROUGH 37 AS RECOMMENDED.
MR. PAULITZ MOVED TO RECEIVE AND FILE AGENDA ITEM NO. 38 AS RECOMMENDED, AND REQUEST THAT MR. SILVA, THE BOARD�S REPRESENTATIVE ON THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD, REQUEST ARB STAFF TO INDICATE IN THE ARB MONTHLY MEETING SUMMARY HOW EACH BOARD MEMBER VOTES ON THOSE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE NOT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge and Silva).
Expressing his disagreement with the recommendation that a Board member must be present during the interview screening process to be eligible to vote in selecting the final candidates,
MR. ANTONOVICH MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM
NO. 39 AS RECOMMENDED, EXCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT THAT A BOARD MEMBER MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE INTERVIEW SCREENING PROCESS TO BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN SELECTING THE FINAL CANDIDATES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. NASTRI AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge and Silva).
Commenting that the Board had already taken action on this item, and that perhaps a motion to reconsider the item would be appropriate so that there is actually something before the Board on which the parties addressing the Board could have an impact,
MR. MIKELS MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE BACT/LAER GUIDELINES FOR NATURAL GAS-FIRED TURBINES RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE BOARD AT ITS APRIL 10 AND JUNE 12, 1998 BOARD MEETINGS, FOR PURPOSES OF HEARING ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. SOTO.
Vice Chairman Glover stated that the individuals requesting to address the Board attended the June 12 Board meeting and submitted requests to speak on this item at that time. However, they were not called on to comment at the time the item was taken up by the Board and requested at the end of the meeting that they be allowed to comment. The item was therefore placed on the agenda for the July Board meeting so that all of the affected parties could be present.
Mr. Greenwald pointed out that, under Board procedures, the passage of a motion to reconsider will suspend all action that was based upon the previously passed motion. Therefore, if the motion by Mr. Mikels passed, the Board�s previous action in receiving and filing the BACT Guidelines would be suspended.
At Mr. Mikels� request, Dr. Wallerstein reported that approximately 90 days ago, the Board took action to receive and file a 2.5 ppm level for smaller size turbines established by staff in the BACT/LAER Guidelines. Then, at the June 12, 1998 Board meeting, staff returned as requested by the Board to extend the 2.5 ppm level to the larger size turbines. This is a receive-and-file item; staff makes the determinations on behalf of the District on a case-by-case basis.
MR. MIKELS WITHDREW HIS PREVIOUS MOTION AND MOVED TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE BACT/LAER GUIDELINES FOR NATURAL GAS-FIRED TURBINES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. SOTO AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge and Silva).
The Board received testimony from the following individuals:
JOHN H. GOSS, Solar Turbines, Inc.
Expressed concern that: (i) the demonstrated technology on which the 2.5 ppm level was based has not been demonstrated on smaller turbines; and (ii) the decision to reduce the BACT level will be viewed by the entire country as setting a new standard, and it will have a chilling effect on those turbine manufacturers that are developing technologies to drive emissions down without adding costly cleanup devices in the exhaust stream. Therefore, requested that the Board direct District staff to reopen the study and reconsider the determination that the 2.5 ppm level applies to all turbines from 3 megawatts to 32 megawatts, and limit it instead to turbines of the size that was demonstrated in the technology demonstration.
WILFRED HUNG, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, B133 Committee
Commented that the Emission Measurement Branch of EPA and the International Gas Turbine Institute are in agreement with the concerns raised by the B133 Committee regarding the measurements taken at the federal site where the SCONOX technology was demonstrated, and have provided funding to the Committee for the development of new standards in the measurement of low NOx concentration from stationary gas turbines. The B 133 Committee welcomed the participation by the AQMD on the project, and suggested that adoption of the amendment to the BACT/LAER Guidelines be delayed until a new measurement standard is established. (Submitted Written Comments)
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Staff waived presentation of an oral report, and the public hearing was opened. There being no requests from the public to comment on this item, the public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION OF MR. PAULITZ, SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge and Silva), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-22, CERTIFYING THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS AND AMENDING RULES 1612 AND 1620, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Dr. Wallerstein stated that staff�s recommendation was to continue this item to the August 14, 1998 Board meeting in order to resolve outstanding issues with U.S. EPA and SCAG.
ON MOTION OF MR. MIKELS, SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Alarcón, Lee, Loveridge and Silva), THE BOARD CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON RULE 1902 TO THE AUGUST 14, 1998 BOARD MEETING AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Staff waived presentation of an oral report, and the public hearing was opened. There being no requests from the public to comment on this item, the public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION OF MR. MIKELS, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Alarcón, Burke, Lee, Loveridge and Silva), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-23, CERTIFYING THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS AND RESCINDING RULE 432, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)
CLOSED SESSION/ADJOURNMENT
The Board adjourned to closed session at 10:45 a.m., pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to confer with counsel regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party. The actions are entitled Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. SCAQMD, et al., U.S. District Court Case No. 97-6916 HLH (SHx); and Louis Langsam, Arbitration Case No. 93-52.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on July 10, 1998.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
Dr. William Burke, Chairman
ACRONYMS
AB = Assembly Bill
AQMD = (South Coast) Air Quality Management District
ARB/CARB = (California) Air Resources Board
BACT = Best Available Control Technology
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
EV = Electric Vehicle
FY = Fiscal Year
LAER = Lowest Achievable Emissions Reduction
MSRC = Mobile Source (Air Pollution Reduction) Review Committee
RFP = Request for Proposals
RFQ = Request for Quotations
SB = Senate Bill
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound