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
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 10:25 a.m.)
County of Los Angeles
Ms. Mee H. Lee
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge (left at 12:10 p.m.)
Cities of Riverside County
Supervisor Jon D. Mikels
County of San Bernardino
Wayne H. Nastri
Governor’s Appointee
Councilmember Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino County
Supervisor James W. Silva
County of Orange
Councilmember Nell Soto
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region
Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
The meeting was called to order at 9:42 a.m. by Chairman Burke.
• Opening Comments
Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env., Acting Executive Officer. Announced that at the Second Inland Empire Minority Business Expo presented by Hispanic Business Update on November 21, 1997, the AQMD was recognized as "Minority Business Advocate of the Year" for 1997 and presented a plaque, which will be displayed in the awards case at AQMD Headquarters.
Ms. Soto. Noted that Board members were provided copies of a resolution passed by the Ethnic Community Advisory Group in support of Chairman Burke’s letter dated November 26, 1997 urging the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority to discontinue its efforts to convert buses from clean fuels to diesel fuel.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Items 1 and 16 were held for discussion.
Dr. Wallerstein commented that subsequent to preparation of the board letter for this item, staff was able to locate more than half of the missing equipment listed in the board letter. Copies of the revised board letter reflecting this change were distributed to Board members and made available to the public.
Mr. Paulitz questioned how the equipment became missing or stolen, given the AQMD’s procedures for securing and accounting for equipment. He also expressed concern that this matter was not brought to the Board’s attention sooner, since the inventory was conducted in 1995.
Dr. Wallerstein expressed his belief that staff needs to do a better job of enforcing the current procedure, and indicated that staff intends to conduct a 60-day review of the current procedure and method of enforcement and will report back to the Board at a later date with enhanced procedures. Dr. Wallerstein also noted his intent to bring this type of information to the Board in a more timely manner on an annual basis.
-o-
Chairman Burke recused himself from participating in Board consideration of Agenda Items Nos. 44 and 45.
-o-
The following individuals addressed the Board to comment on Agenda Items
Nos. 3, 18, 23 and 25.
RON WILKNISS, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and Western Independent Refiners Association (WIRA)
Commented that they are discussing with AQMD staff a set of requirements that would work well for both industry and the AQMD; and expect that these discussions will result in a proposed rule which will be presented to the Board in January that will differ from the rule included in the present board package.
WAYNE LeBAIL, Van Waters & Rogers Inc.
Speaking in opposition to the proposed limit of 50 grams per liter VOC content, as used, for cold cleaners, expressed concerns and suggested that the criteria should be "VOC evaporation of no more than 1 pound per day". His particular product would not violate the 1 pound-per-day limit; yet under the proposed BACT guidelines for cold cleaners, his product is not allowed to be used in Southern California.
In response to Chairman Burke’s direction to staff to provide Board members a written response to the issues raised by Mr. LeBail, Dr. Wallerstein indicated that staff will incorporate this issue into the report on vapor degreaser BACT, scheduled for the January 9, 1998 Board meeting.
LARRY GALVAN, Councilman, City of Cudahy
Expressing his concern with particle emissions in the area, submitted a paper towel which he used to wipe particles from his car windshield earlier in the morning.
Ms. Soto suggested that she and Mr. Galvan meet to discuss his concerns, and
Dr. Wallerstein indicated that staff will perform an analysis on the types of particles on the paper towel.
CLIFF McAULIFFE, W.R. Grace Corporation
As a participant in the California Trucking Association (CTA) study, as well as the field studies leading up to development of Rule 1171, requested to be included in the comparative tests for aqueous solvents versus petroleum solvents in order to show that they can make water-based cleaners work effectively.
STEPHANIE WILLIAMS, California Trucking Association
Commenting that the water-based cleaning systems tested did not meet the industry’s requirements for extra heavy-duty grease and grime in heavy-duty truck repair and maintenance activities, asked that the Board direct the Technology Advancement office to conduct an additional study on the heavy grime segment.
Dr. Wallerstein noted that a revised board letter was prepared for this item which includes a further study and lead responsibility will be assigned to the Technology Advancement office. Copies of the revised board letter were distributed to Board members and made available to the public.
BILL SHEAFFER, Mirachem Corporation
Expressed belief, as a participant in the CTA study, that the objective of the study--to demonstrate that one could effectively clean parts and operate a heavy-duty truck repair facility without the use of petro-chemical solvents--was achieved.
In response to Ms. Soto’s request that staff respond in writing to industry’s concerns about cost and engine failure, Dr. Wallerstein recommended that staff incorporate its response in the study design that staff will work out with the industry.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Ray Bramel, R.B. Truck Repair
-o-
Chairman Burke indicated that Mr. Alarcón wished to comment on Agenda Item No. 11.
Mr. Alarcón questioned why Burbank was selected for location of the monitoring system in the San Fernando Valley. He expressed concern that Burbank does not reflect what he would typically identify as a community where environmental justice would be a concern; for example, an area of high concentration of poor, minority people, such as Pacoima.
Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff was agreeable to reconsidering location of the monitoring device in the San Fernando Valley and setting the site at an alternative location.
MR. ALARCÓN MOVED THAT THE BOARD GIVE CONSIDERATION TO OTHER COMMUNITIES OF THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE MONITORING DEVICE. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY
MS. SOTO.
Mr. Mikels commented that the Board needs to understand exactly what environmental justice means so that they know how to apply the concept in real practice.
Commenting that a panel of distinguished experts has sat with AQMD staff and collectively, over a period of approximately six weeks held many meetings and determined what makes the most sense from a scientific basis, Mr. Nastri expressed his belief that the issue of environmental justice is not an issue of how the data is collected, but what the data tells us in terms of patterns. He was supportive of the sampling locations proposed because they are in the best locations to collect the data that will give the distribution patterns over the entire region, and will allow staff to make the determination on how it impacts environmental justice. Through computer modeling, it will be possible to assess the relative impact to communities of color and to communities that are economically disadvantaged.
Ms. Soto expressed her support for the comments made by Mr. Alarcón. Commenting that placing the monitoring devices in Burbank or Palos Verdes--whether or not it shows the relative impacts for the entire region--does not indicate to people in those areas which certain legislators believe have been ignored in the past that they are being taken into consideration. It was her understanding that it was the Board’s intent when it adopted the environmental justice initiatives, to give more consideration to those areas which have been ignored in the past. She suggested that perhaps the Board should
re-visit the environmental justice paper to clarify the Board’s position.
Mr. Alarcón clarified that he was not saying that Burbank is not the best location; he is only seeking information from staff as to what the criteria was for selection, and why Burbank was chosen over any other places in the San Fernando Valley. He supported Ms. Soto’s suggestion to re-visit the Board’s position on what environmental justice means, expressing his belief that the Board’s work relative to environmental justice should clearly be tied to the long-standing obnoxious impacts on poor and/or minority communities.
As the one who introduced the environmental justice initiatives, Chairman Burke commented that to him, environmental justice means leveling the playing field for all people and it does not include any geographic, economic or racial prejudices. People in those areas that have been unrepresented in the past--no mater what their economic condition or their color--will now be given the same consideration as everybody else.
Mr. Mikels expressed his belief that environmental justice applies to everyone, or it has no meaning whatsoever.
Since the Board had already taken action approving this agenda item and
Mr. Alarcón indicated that he did not want to hold up purchase of the monitoring systems, Chairman Burke directed staff to provide detailed information to Mr. Alarcón and Ms. Soto as to why Burbank was selected as the location for a monitoring site in San Fernando Valley, with the understanding that Mr. Alarcón may bring this issue back before the Board at its January 9, 1998 meeting if staff has not satisfactorily addressed his concern.
-o-
(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 10:25 a.m., during Board discussion.)
Referring to the statement on page 11 of the Minutes that staff would bring back to the Board at its December meeting a resolution outlining the problems which AQMD staff is encountering with EPA, Ms. Soto noted that there was no such resolution included in the December board package.
Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff is in the process of preparing the resolution. Staff has had difficulty establishing a meeting with EPA’s regional administrator’s office, but expects to have a date set for January 1998.
BOARD CALENDAR
31. Administrative Committee
32. Investment Oversight Committee
33. Legislative Committee
34. Stationary Source Committee
35. Technology Committee
36. Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
37. Air Resources Board Monthly Meeting
38. Amend Section 111 of the Administrative Code Regarding District Board Members’ Expenses
Commenting that the proposed amendment is not clear as to how "oversight" or "unanticipated travel" is being defined, Mr. Mikels expressed his belief that the policy proposed has a high potential for unequal or disproportionate application.
Chairman Burke commented that the proposed policy is necessary to cover rare instances, and he does not believe it represents a large economic liability or policy abuse. He suggested that perhaps the Board should place a cap on the dollar amount, on an annual basis, so that a Board member cannot abuse the privilege of taking unanticipated travel.
Mr. Mikels clarified that his main concern was the application of this policy in an ad hoc fashion; and placing a dollar amount on it does not define what is meant by inadvertence or oversight.
39. Request Board Discussion of its Procedures for Standing Committees of the Board
Mr. Mikels commented that an incident occurred at the November Administrative Committee meeting which called into question the Board’s policy with regard to participation by members of the Board at committee meetings when they are not members of the committee; specifically, whether or not the Board member is allowed to speak only under the public comment portion of the meeting.
Chairman Burke commented that each committee chair is allowed to operate their committee the way they see best, within the structure of the Board’s current policy. Since the Board does not have a formal policy on this particular issue, however, he established a Policy Committee, to which he appointed Mr. Loveridge (chair), Ms. Glover and Mr. Nastri, to work with General Counsel to establish a formal policy regarding Board members’ participation during committee meetings when they are not members of that committee.
40. Consider Board Review of Permits for Multi-Year, Multi-Phase Projects
Ms. Leyden reported that this item was in response to the Board’s direction to staff at the November 15, 1997 informational hearing on the Los Angeles Export Terminal (LAXT) project. Staff recommended a 60-day continuance so that a public workshop can be held to receive public comment and return to the Board with a final policy proposal.
At the request of Mr. Antonovich, staff was directed to include a provision to review the policy after it has been in effect for 12 months.
The following individuals addressed the Board to comment on this item:
RON WILKNISS, WSPA and WIRA
GREG ADAMS, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
*FRANK DRYDEN, Southern California Alliance of POTWs
CURTIS COLEMAN, California Manufacturers Association Southern California Air Quality
Alliance and California Aerospace Environmental Association
*Submitted Written Comments
Addressed the potential impacts and ramifications of the proposed policy, and supported a 60-day continuance to allow for adequate public input on the proposed policy and for industry to work with AQMD staff to develop a policy that is best for everyone.
41. Review of Proposed Action by the Acting Executive Officer Regarding Rule 1158 Plan for the Los Angeles Export Facility (LAXT)
Noting that the Board’s interest and leadership by conducting the informational hearing at Peck Park and by requesting follow-up information on petroleum coke related issues at LAXT and other sites has resulted in a remarkable amount of progress related to the LAXT site,
Dr. Wallerstein provided a brief overview of the status of the staff’s review of LAXT’s Rule 1158 Interim Petroleum Coke Handling and Storage Plan; and reported briefly on the health risk assessment and cost analyses previously requested by the Board. To LAXT’s credit, it has stepped forward and has agreed to several progressive steps in terms of dust control in order to be responsive to community concerns.
Ms. Soto brought attention to a letter dated December 11, 1997 from the National Treasury Employee’s Union (NTEU) to Dr. Burke, expressing their concerns and urging the Board to disapprove LAXT’s Interim Petroleum Coke Handling and Storage Plan.
Chairman Burke responded that while he had not seen the letter until now and has not spoken with anyone from the NTEU, he has been in communication with the attorney representing the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), which initially brought the LAXT matter before the Board. It is his understanding that the ILWU is satisfied with the LAXT’s Plan, submitted to the AQMD on November 25, 1997.
Chairman Burke commended staff for working so quickly and effectively, with the assistance of Mr. Alarcón and Councilman Rudy Svorinich, to resolve this matter.
Staff was given the letter from NTEU and instructed to address their comments.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Dennis Kortheuer, LAXT Action Committee
41(A) Executive Officer Selection Process
Chairman Burke commented that the philosophical basis of the Administrative Committee’s recommendation that the full Board, rather than an executive search firm, review candidates and make the selection for Executive Officer was so that the Board could have the opportunity to select the best person available, without being subjected to the filtering of outside organizations such as an employment agency.
As a member of the Executive Officer Search Firm Proposal Evaluation Panel, which recommended to the Administrative Committee that the Panel, in conjunction with AQMD staff, conduct the recruitment for Executive Officer, Mr. Paulitz explained why he voted against the Panel’s recommendation. He has no objection to involving the entire Board, except he believes, from past experience, that all members will not participate or will not participate equally. He felt that the Board should not burden the staff with trying to conduct a national search, and pointed out that there is also a potential conflict of interest if the Acting Executive Officer will be directing the search for a position for which he will probably be a candidate. Therefore, he suggested that the Board choose one of the three search firms which responded to the RFP. After the search firm has interviewed Board members as to the type of qualities they are looking for in a candidate, then the search firm could conduct the recruiting, screen applicants and bring the most qualified candidates to the full Board, or those Board members who wish to participate, to interview those candidates.
Speaking in support of the motion, Mr. Loveridge expressed his belief that using executive search firms is important because it is an active, rather than passive, search for a director. It has been his experience in 18 years as a councilmember and as a member of special districts that passively waiting for people to submit applications often does not result in getting the best possible candidates.
Ms. Soto commented that in her 11 years on the Pomona City Council, she has found that the Council got the best candidates when they conducted the search themselves, rather than using a search firm. She expressed her belief that no one knows the Board’s concerns better than the Board members themselves, as well as what the Board believes is necessary to be able to operate this agency with the best success possible.
Mr. Alarcón expressed his belief that the Board should not lock itself into any one position with respect to using executive search firms, because there are times when search firms are useful. Adding that he believes the fundamental question is whether the Board believes it has the talent among AQMD staff to lead this agency or whether the Board wants to search for talent outside the agency, he questioned whether it was worthwhile to spend money on a search firm if Board members believe they are going to hire someone within the organization.
Mr. Paulitz indicated that he has no objection to allowing the Acting Executive Officer to compete for the permanent Executive Officer position, and suggested that if the majority of the Board wants to select the current Acting Executive Officer for the permanent position, that the Board should take that action now, and not spend any more money. If, however, the majority of the Board wants to review and interview candidates from outside the agency, then he believes the proper way to do that is through a search firm.
Commenting that the issue of whether or not an executive search firm should handle the process is the key point as to whether or not the Board considers internal staff people for the position, Mr. Mikels asked that the Board vote first on whether or not it would like to have an executive search firm review and make the selection of an Executive Officer.
Mr. Alarcón, who along with Mr. Nastri was not a member of the Board at the time the Board decided to exclude candidates for Acting Executive Officer from competing for the Executive Officer position, commented that it was his standard of hiring the best possible candidate which drove him to introduce the motion in the Administrative Committee meeting to allow anyone to compete for the Executive Officer position, regardless of any past agreement not to seek the position. That standard, he believes, cannot be met if candidates are excluded.
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Loveridge.
ABSTAIN: Lee.
ABSENT: None.
MR. PAULITZ MOVED TO REFER THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SELECTION PROCESS BACK TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SEARCH FIRM PROPOSAL EVALUATION PANEL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE BOARD AT A LATER DATE. THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED.
Mr. Loveridge and Mr. Mikels commented on the need for the Board to give direction to the Panel as to whether or not the executive search will be handled in-house by staff, among which may be candidates for the position, or whether or not it is going to be handled by an outside firm. Mr. Mikels indicated that he wished to amend the motion in order to include that an executive search firm be employed to conduct the search. In response,
MR. PAULITZ WITHDREW THIS MOTION.
MR. MIKELS MOVED TO REFER THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SELECTION PROCESS BACK TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SEARCH FIRM PROPOSAL EVALUATION PANEL, WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD THAT AN EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM BE EMPLOYED TO CONDUCT THE SEARCH FOR THE PERMANENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER POSITION, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING STAFF CONDUCT THAT SEARCH. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. LOVERIDGE.
Mr. Antonovich, Mr. Nastri and Ms. Glover indicated that in their experiences, they have seen successes and failures both in using a search firm and without using a search firm, and neither way is a panacea. Mr. Nastri expressed his belief that the Board members--if they commit as a Board to participate fully--can successfully handle review of candidates and selection of an Executive Officer; and as a world class organization, the AQMD will not have any shortage of qualified names from which to choose.
AYES: Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz and Wilson.
NOES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Nastri, Silva and Soto.
ABSENT: None.
MR. ANTONOVICH MOVED TO HAVE THE FULL BOARD RATHER THAN AN EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM REVIEW CANDIDATES AND MAKE THE SELECTION OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER.
In response to Mikels, Dr. Burke clarified that the Panel, with the assistance of staff, will post and recruit candidates for the position of Executive Officer and present to the Board a list of candidates for action.
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Nastri, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Lee, Loveridge, Mikels and Paulitz.
ABSENT: None.
(Mr. Loveridge left at 12:10 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Pat Leyden, DEO/Stationary Source Compliance, reported that this item was continued by the Board from the November 14, 1997 Board meeting. Staff, U.S. EPA, and industry have since reached an agreement on acceptable language which will exempt certain AQMD permitted portable equipment from the requirement to be included in the Title V permit. Copies of the revised rule language were distributed to Board members and made available to the public. Also, EPA will be issuing a policy to exempt all non-road engines from being covered under Title V permits. Staff will be working with industry and EPA to streamline compliance certification for non-exempt portable equipment.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
BOB NICKSIN, Southern California Gas Company
CURTIS COLEMAN, California Manufacturers Association Southern California Air Quality
Alliance and California Aerospace Environmental Association
MIKE CARROLL, Attorney, on behalf of Regulatory Flexibility Group
Expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts to find a solution, and to the Board for setting this matter aside for a month so that a solution acceptable to all the parties could be found; and urged the Board to adopt the rule amendment as proposed.
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air
Asked for clarification as to the statement in the staff report that there would be no direct impacts on air quality as a result of the proposed rule amendment.
Ms. Leyden responded that the statement is there because the proposed rule amendment does not change whether or not the equipment needs an underlying permit, and it does not change any of the emission standards required of the equipment pursuant to the underlying rules.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Elaine Chang, Director of Planning, gave the staff report. This item was also continued by the Board from the November 14, 1997 Board meeting. Since the November meeting, staff has been working with EPA and has made progress on resolving outstanding issues, but there are still issues which they were unable to resolve. Staff submitted to the Board proposed revisions to PR 2503, as well as additional language for the adopting resolution for PR 2503 to direct staff to submit Rule 2501 and Rule 2503 for EPA’s consideration under Project XL for fast track approval and to receive national recognition that these programs represent real world test of innovative strategies. Copies of the proposed revisions and additional resolution language were made available to the public.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
BILL QUINN, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
Expressed support for PR 2503; concern that while we have an administration that is pushing credit-based programs, EPA--in particular Region IX--seems to be fighting this every step of the way; and hope that, with the help of the Board and AQMD staff and the business and environmental communities, EPA will understand the importance of these programs and approve it as well.
MIKE CARROLL, Attorney, on behalf of Regulatory Flexibility Group
Commended the Board and AQMD staff for being out ahead of EPA and the rest of the country in pushing, advocating and implementing market-based programs.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
-o-
Chairman Burke commented that while he was in Europe recently, he had the opportunity to see a new type of solar panel, developed in Japan, which looks like a normal transparent glass window found in every home or office, but it actually generates electricity to power the structure. He asked that staff investigate this technology, which he believes, if available and applicable, could have an enormous impact all over the world, and specifically in the South Coast region.
-o-
CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to closed session at 12:25 p.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 action is entitled Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. SCAQMD, U.S. District Court Case No. 976916JSL (SHx);
• Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1), to confer with counsel because based on existing facts and circumstances there is a significant exposure to litigation against the agency--one case. The facts and circumstances are termination of the DEO of Technical Support Services.
ADJOURNMENT
Following closed session, Ms. Glover announced that the Board meeting was adjourned for the lack of a quorum. Agenda Items Nos. 44 (Adopt Proposed Rule 1146.2 - Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers) and 45 (Amend Regulation IX - New Source Performance Standards) were, by operation of procedure, continued to the
January 9, 1998 Board meeting.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on December 12, 1997.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
Dr. William Burke, Chairman
ACRONYMS
AB = Assembly Bill
AQIP = Air Quality Investment Program
AQMD = (South Coast) Air Quality Management District
AQMP = Air Quality Management Plan
ARB/CARB = (California) Air Resources Board
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
FY = Fiscal Year
MSRC = Mobile Source (Air Pollution Reduction) Review Committee
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
PR = Proposed Rule
RFP/RFQ = Request for Proposals/Quotations
TCM = Transportation Control Measure
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound