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 10:45 a.m.)
County of Los Angeles
Ms. Mee H. Lee
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
Wayne H. Nastri
Governor’s Appointee
Councilmember Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino County
Councilmember Nell Soto
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region
Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
Members Absent:
Supervisor Jon D. Mikels
County of San Bernardino
Supervisor James W. Silva
County of Orange
The meeting was called to order at 9:42 a.m. by Chairman Burke.
• Opening Comments
Chairman Burke. 1) Announced the appointment of Charlene Hatakeyama, Mayor Pro Tem of the City of La Palma, to serve, at Ms. Glover’s recommendation, on the Local Government & Small Business Assistance Advisory Group in place of Orange County Supervisor Thomas W. Wilson, who would no longer be able to serve.
• Swearing in of Reappointed Board Members Richard Alarcón and S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
Chairman Burke administered the oath of office to Mr. Alarcón and Dr. Wilson, who were reappointed as the representatives on the Board for the Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region and the County of Riverside, respectively, for terms ending January 15, 2002.
• Opening Comments (Continued)
Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env., Acting Executive Officer. 1) Noted that staff distributed errata sheets to the Board containing the following amendments:
• Agenda Item No. 2 (Set Public Hearing to Amend Rule 102 - Definition of Terms) -- clarification regarding CEQA and Socioeconomic Analysis, and a copy of the negative declaration prepared relative to that analysis.
• Agenda Item No. 14 (Issue RFP to Evaluate Low-NOx Combustion Systems for Natural Gas-Fired Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers) -- clarifications on the RFP.
Copies of the errata sheets were made available to the public, and the clarifications were incorporated into staff’s recommendations on the two items.
2) Stated that the voting machine was malfunctioning at the time and, therefore, the Board would have to vote by roll call for this meeting.
Ms. Soto. Commented on the recent grand opening of the California ScienCenter, and urged everyone to visit the center to see the displays, including the display funded by AQMD which she believes is a wonderful way for people to find out the history of AQMD and what the agency is doing.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Items 2, 7, and 11 were held for discussion.
The following individuals addressed the Board to comment on this item:
GEORGE R. DeRITTER, DuPont Corporation
STAN LEVIN, Asahi Glass America - Chemicals Division
1) Pointed out that the chart contained in the board letter for this item which outlines the rule development process for the proposed rule amendment was misleading, in that it has the public consultation meeting occurring before the "set hearing" item.
2) Expressed opposition to setting the hearing at this time, and requested that the Board delay this item until after the public consultation meeting has taken place, as is the AQMD’s normal procedure and the procedure which their companies followed when bringing their products to the Board for exemptions such as the exemption which is being sought by 3M Company for its HFE product.
In response to Ms. Soto, Dr. Wallerstein clarified that this is an administrative type of item, and the dispute largely centers around trying to obtain the market share. The compounds which are proposed to be added to the list of exempt compounds in
Rule 102 have been identified by U.S. EPA as non-VOC exempt materials. When EPA takes action to exempt substances, the District then adds those substances to the list in Rule 102. Any other chemical would follow the same procedure, and therefore, staff did not recommend delaying the item. If the Board were to delay this item, it would have the effect of limiting certain regulated companies to a smaller selection of compliant products from which to choose. The error made in the chart outlining the rule development process was unintentional. The public consultation meeting will be held before the March 13, 1998 public hearing, and if there are any issues which arise at the public consultation meeting, staff would make appropriate changes at the time of the public hearing.
BETTY-JANE KIRWAN, Attorney, on behalf of 3M Company
KURT WARNER, 3M Company
Commented that there would be no benefit to the public in delaying the public hearing in this matter, but it would adversely impact 3M Company, competitively. The compound for which they are requesting an exemption is VOC-free, ozone depleting-free, and low-toxic. This helps AQMD meet its clean air goals, it helps 3M put its products on the market, and it helps manufacturers in the basin switch from ozone depleting chemicals and VOC chemicals. The U.S. EPA had a lengthy comment period before it de-listed the same chemicals. There were no comments, except for positive comments, to EPA when that action was done.
Ms. Soto commented that she would be voting "no" on this item because she believes, in all fairness, that it should be delayed.
AYES: Alarcón, Burke, Glover, Lee, Nastri, Paulitz and Wilson.
NOES: Soto.
ABSENT: Antonovich, Loveridge, Mikels and Silva.
The following individuals addressed the Board to comment on this item:
*CARLOS J. PORRAS, Communities for a Better Environment
Opposed the proposal to execute a contract with Market-Based Solutions regarding generating MSERCs through old-vehicle scrapping pursuant to District Rule 1610 because recent events and developments--including a article in the periodical New Times which was highly critical of Rule 1610--generated information which calls into question the efficiency, enforceability and handling of the Rule 1610 car scrapping program. Asked that the Board suspend all MSERCs until a thorough investigation could be conducted. (Submitted Written Comments)
FRANK BOHANAN, Specialty Equipment Market Association
Expressed concern that vehicle scrapping programs have a negative effect in terms of vehicles which are desirable to car collectors and vehicle enthusiasts. Also, people of low and fixed incomes need inexpensive transportation; and if the parts and vehicle supply is dried up, the price of these vehicles will go up. Likewise, if the parts are not available, people can get exemptions from the Bureau of Automotive Repair and the vehicle will be allowed to continue operating at a higher polluting level. Lastly, the program as it is structured offers no assurance that any replacement vehicle will be cleaner than the scrapped vehicle.
DR. JORGE R. MANCILLAS, on behalf of Senator Tom Hayden
Commented that it is important that this issue be reconsidered, particularly in light of the fact that the agency has undergone changes in the composition of the Board and leadership of the staff. What is at stake is the credibility of the promise by the Board that there will be new initiatives under the leadership of Chairman Burke, in particular, that the burden of resolving the problem of air pollution is not shifted to one community or another. The AQMD is the subject of a lawsuit by a number of environmental groups, including CBE, on the issue that this program unfairly shifts the burden of cleaning the air to some segments of the population. Senator Hayden will look into the possibility of having hearings in the legislature to have an appropriate body consider all the information, evaluate the issues, and issue an opinion. Senator Hayden is also working on introducing a bill that will bring additional resources to the AQMD to increase its ability to monitor compliance.
JON OWYANG, Market-Based Solutions
Commented that the real issue is Rule 2202, and whether or not vehicle scrapping provides equivalent emissions reductions. The typical employer is reducing 2.5 to 3 times the emissions that they would have under the traditional rideshare programs. So, even if there are errors in the protocols, there is a 250-to-300 percent improvement in air quality for the same regulation.
BRIAN D. MAYER, Ecoscrap, Inc.
Commented that this item is about mobile source emission control, and a way to achieve that control. The agencies and the businesses that are regulated under this rule are scattered throughout the four-county basin. Vehicles that are retired under Rule 1610 come from that same four-county basin. The comments about environmental justice and the lawsuits going on are not related to Rule 2202 in any way. These particular regulated facilities are throughout the basin; not in any one community.
Dr. Burke pointed out that there are only five members of the current Board that were involved in the adoption of Rule 1610 five years ago. As one of those five, he was not opposed to Rule 1610, but he has always expressed concern with respect to people circumventing the system. With respect to the New Times article, he questioned why the AQMD employees cited in the article would wait until this time to voice concerns if they believe the program has been flawed for so long.
Ms. Soto commented that while she opposes car scrapping, she believes the real issue is that certain employees who are saying the Rule 1610 car scrapping program is flawed should have come forward before, rather than waiting until now to attack the integrity of the Acting Executive Officer, who was not in charge at the time.
Mr. Alarcón commented that he is not opposed to the concept of car scrapping, but is concerned that the program is not being used in a way that benefits those communities that are impacted by the emissions of the companies that are using the car scrapping program. Also, there have been serious questions raised relative to the District’s capability of effectively monitoring and inspecting the car scrapping program. Until both of these issues are clarified, he would not support any car scrapping efforts.
In response to Ms. Soto’s suggestion that the car scrapping issue be referred to the Environmental Justice Task Force, Chairman Burke indicated that Mr. Nastri, Chairman of the Technology Committee, had agreed to form a task force to look into the car scrapping issue.
Mr. Paulitz commented that as one of those Board members who was here when Rule 1610 was adopted, he asked many questions at that time, one of which was whether the vehicles were required to be registered, insured, and operating. The Board was assured at the time that all of those conditions would be addressed. He has concern as to how the AQMD is monitoring this program because he hears advertisements on the radio everyday asking people to donate their old vehicles, and there is no mention of the vehicles having to be operable, registered or have a smog check. He wondered, therefore, if the District is taking vehicles that are not emitting into the air, giving them MSERCs and giving those credits to a stationary source that is emitting into the air. Therefore, he believes the car scrapping program should be reviewed again. He also agreed with Mr. Alarcón that the two proposals should be bifurcated, and that the Board should vote on the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) proposal.
Dr. Wallerstein noted that a memo was distributed to Board members before the meeting that outlined the issues raised in the articles and provided a staff response on a point-by-point basis. He also noted in the memo that these new issues that have been brought to his attention do deserve an evaluation. He will be meeting with all of the field enforcement staff to go over issues and clarify powers that they have under enforcement; he intends to make personal site visits; and he is also exploring the possibility of hiring an outside contractor to examine some of the fundamental issues. He assured the Board that the car scrapping program is being conducted in the manner stipulated by ARB guidelines.
(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 10:45 a.m.)
Mr. Alarcón added that he does not appreciate being in the all-inclusive "we" that continues to defend this program in the face of a lot of criticism, because he has serious concerns about it. Bifurcating the issue gives the Board members the opportunity to vote "yes" on one, and "no" on the other. He would vote against the entire matter; but if he had the opportunity to vote on each item, he would vote for one and against the other.
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Paulitz, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Glover, Lee and Nastri.
ABSENT: Loveridge, Mikels and Silva.
Clarifying that Chairman Burke has asked the Technology Committee to review Rule 1610 and report back to the Board on the status of the program,
AYES: Antonovich, Glover, Lee, and Nastri.
NOES: Alarcón, Burke, Paulitz, Soto and Wilson.
ABSENT: Loveridge, Mikels and Silva.
The following individuals addressed the Board to comment on this item:
DEBORAH KURILCHYK, Southern California Edison
JOHN COX, EV-1 Club
ENID JOFFE, Edison EV
KYLE DAVIS, Southern California Edison
Expressed support for advancing the contract as recommended, and expressed belief that The Planning Center is the appropriate manager to expedite the project because of its earlier work on the EVCharge program. With respect to the sole-source issue, the recommendation is to subcontract with local contractors to perform the work, with The Planning Center at the lead. Urged the Board to accept that recommendation and approve the item.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Marvin V. Rush A.S.C.
Gardner L. Harris
Commenting that she had discussed her concerns regarding this contract with staff and with representatives on the MSRC,
Ms. Soto explained that the purpose of the delay is to ask staff and the MSRC to consider whether an RFP should be issued to solicit proposals for the EV signage. While The Planning Center is well-qualified to perform the work, she believes there are other firms which can perform the work and should be allowed to bid on this contract. Through subcontracting, private sector expertise on EV infrastructure can be spread throughout all four counties. The Board has consistently voiced concern about the use of sole-source contracting, and she believes this contract offers a good opportunity to get cost-savings connected with competitive bids. In addition, because this is a major allocation of public funding ($500,000), she believes the AQMD and the MSRC should retain control of the bidding process.
Mr. Alarcón commented that if The Planning Center is the only one capable of performing the work, then it is the only one that would meet the bid. Therefore, he does not see the problem with going out to bid, and avoiding the potential liability that another company might argue that they are equally qualified to do the work, but were not afforded the opportunity.
Michelle Kirkhoff, Vice Chair of the MSRC Technical Advisory Committee, addressed the Board to respond to Mr. Alarcón’s questions. She indicated that, to her knowledge, there are no other entities besides The Planning Center --private or public--that are placing signage. Further, she believes, in her experience in working with other entities, that The Planning Center is the only one capable with the knowledge, the placement, and the relationship with the site owners, the cities, and CalTrans.
Mr. Paulitz commented that The Planning Center started at the beginning with promoting the idea of EVs and promoting the idea of charging stations and signage. The recommendation on this item was approved unanimously by the MSRC. The board letter states that this work will be subcontracted by The Planning Center through qualifying vendors on a competitive and geographical basis throughout the region. The Planning Center has performed much of the preliminary work, and he believes it should be allowed to continue.
Ms. Soto stated that she left the MSRC meeting early and did not participate in their vote on this item. She clarified that she is not against The Planning Center doing the planning for the signage, but she has concern about giving the money to one center for them to determine then who are the ones that are going to do the subcontracting. She believes the Board should have some input as to what work will be performed by whom. She suggested that The Planning Center also be included in the discussion to determine what part of the work, to the maximum extent possible, can be performed by subcontractors.
Mr. Alarcón commented that while he believes the number of EV owners is small enough that detailed information can be provided to them directly for much less than $50,000, he does believe that the signage is part of the infrastructure that’s necessary to promote EV usage. Also, he understands that it will be a complex issue dealing with the hundreds of jurisdictions within the SCAQMD area, and for that reason it is important to have a group such as The Planning Center managing the work.
Expressing his support for the item as recommended, Dr. Wilson stated that he would be voting against the motion to delay, because he believes the Board is micromanaging what has already been thoroughly debated and analyzed and brought to the Board with a unanimous recommendation from the MSRC.
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Nastri and Soto.
NOES: Paulitz and Wilson.
ABSENT: Loveridge, Mikels and Silva.
BOARD CALENDAR
Mr. Nastri indicated that he had not realized that the other items on the Consent Calendar had been approved by the Board, and he needed to recuse himself on Item No. 3 (Execute Contract for Legislative Representation in Washington, D.C.) because of a potential conflict of interest.
ON MOTION OF MR. ANTONOVICH, DULY SECONDED, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Alarcón, Antonovich, Burke, Glover, Lee, Paulitz, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Nastri.
ABSENT: Loveridge, Mikels and Silva.
BOARD CALENDAR (Continued)
Mr. Paulitz noted that the MSRC did approve Agenda Item No. 11 unanimously, and that he was unaware at that time that Ms. Soto was not present.
Dr. Wallerstein noted that the Home Rule Working Group, to which the Board has asked Ms. Glover, Ms. Soto and Dr. Wilson to be the liaisons, discussed the process by which the U.S. EPA determines LAER and whether or not there is adequate public input to that process in coordination with the local program. At Ms. Glover’s request, staff prepared the following language to include in the Resolution:
Also, in the "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" paragraph of the Resolution indicate that the "LAER/BACT determinations" would be an issue that AQMD needs to work out with U.S. EPA.
The following individuals addressed the Board to speak on this item:
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air and Natural Resources Defense Council
1) Regarding reference made in the Resolution to their lawsuit, clarified that they are not suing to force the implementation of infeasible measures. They are suing to enforce the implementation of all feasible measures; and where not feasible, find alternatives that are feasible that achieve the same emission reductions.
2) Expressed belief that EPA should be moving quickly to make a determination on the 1997 AQMP, although they believe EPA should disapprove the Plan. On the SIP-gap issue, expressed agreement and support for AQMD’s interest in moving rule approval along as quickly as possible. Expressed disagreement with the AQMD on Title III. There is potential for resolving the remaining issues, and they believe anything that moves AQMD away from the negotiating table would be counterproductive. With respect to Title V, encouraged AQMD to continue working with EPA. The environmental community has serious concerns about disproportionate impacts associated with emissions trading programs, and also do not believe that the pursuit of trading programs at this time is consistent with this Board’s recently-identified priority of environmental justice. Expressed strong support for allocation of more federal funding to AQMD, and are eager to work with the District to pursue this both with Region IX in San Francisco and also in Washington, D.C. (Submitted Written Comments)
BILL QUINN, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
MICHAEL CARROLL, Attorney, on behalf of Regulatory Flexibility Group
CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney, on behalf of CMA Southern California Air Quality Alliance
RON WILKNISS, Western States Petroleum Association
Commented on the SIP-gap issue and the impact it has had on local industry as far as frustration and liability; and urged the Board to adopt the proposed resolution, with the inclusion of Ms. Glover’s addition.
"WHEREAS, the U.S. EPA process for determining Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) are not adequately coordinated with State programs and do not include an opportunity for public comment;"
Also, in the "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" paragraph of the Resolution indicate that the "LAER/BACT determinations" would be an issue that AQMD needs to work out with U.S. EPA.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The staff report was given by Carol Coy, Assistant DEO/Stationary Source Compliance. The public hearing was opened. There being no requests from the public to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed.
Staff waived an oral report for this item. The public hearing was opened. There being no requests from the public to speak on this item, the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Wallerstein gave the staff report. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air and Natural Resources Defense Council
Expressed their support for the Executive Officer’s proposed goals for the coming year, and their belief that the AQMD should concentrate more resources on emission reduction rules and control measures, and fewer resources on developing trading programs. Suggested several specific areas where they believe AQMD could improve: 1) Create a dedicated team of rule development staff that could focus on developing rules and getting them to the Board so that the agency could do a better job of meeting its rule adoption and implementation schedule. 2) Dedicate a team to work specifically on area source issues and developing control measures to deal with those sources. 3) Increase the number of inspectors and the number of inspections. 4) Consider maintaining the 1997 budget--at least for one more year--without additional cuts. 5) Consistent with the Board’s environmental justice initiatives, AQMD could do much better in monitoring for toxics and fine particulates in this region.
Chairman Burke stated that the Acting Executive Officer has been talking to various board members about each of the issues raised by Mr. Carmichael.
ROBERT ANDERSON, Small Business Coalition
Expressed support for the goals and objectives, with the following refinements: 1) The AQMD should give more attention to small business, and recognize that small business is an essential part of the economy. 2) Requested assistance in the area of obtaining District permits for small package equipment, such as spray booths. Presently, when a company submits a permit application to AQMD for a spray booth, it only takes 2-to-5 days to install the spray booth, therefore, no permit to construct is issued. It may, however, take many months for the company to receive a permit to operate, and in the meantime, the spray booth cannot be operated. 3) Expressing concern that the coating and solvent industry may not be able to reduce VOC levels any further than it already has--without at the cost of business--asked, if further reductions are required, that research be conducted on reformulation and possible alternative products.
JOHN BILLHEIMER, Small Business Coalition
Expressed support, and suggested, because there is never really an open discussion of the procedures of the District, that the goals and objectives be subjected to a workshop-type forum, in the same manner as rules. Referring to a graph in the staff report which indicated that over the past 5 years, 5 percent of technology funds have been devoted to small business and 95 percent to mobile sources, commented that it may be that the District has decided--wisely, in his opinion--that all future money should be invested in mobile sources because that is the only way that clean air is going to be achieved and that stationary sources have reached their limit. (Submitted Written Comments)
Chairman Burke asked that staff consider Mr. Billheimer’s suggestion regarding a public workshop on the District’s goals and objectives.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Staff waived an oral report for this item. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
ANDREW WASHINGTON, Ogden Power Pacific
Expressed opposition to the proposed amendment because it will unfairly shift the burden of compliance from the landfill owner to the operator of the landfill gas collection system.
Ms. Coy responded that federal law requires that the gas reduction efficiencies be monitored and reported on by the owners and operators of the equipment. She suggested that staff work with the two site operators and help them develop a compliance plan that will divide the responsibilities appropriately between them.
MR. TUDOR WILLIAMS, Cambrian Energy Systems
Speaking in opposition to the proposed rule amendment, expressed concern that: 1) the amendment makes the equipment operator liable for something over which they have no control. Rules 1150.1 and 1150.2 involve surface emissions, and that is the fundamental responsibility of the landfill owner. 2) The landfill owner has a "closure fund" set aside for this sort of situation. 3) If the Board adopts this amendment, many of their projects may revert back to having the owner take care of the gas collection/destruction and there will be no energy conservation or environmental projects that AQMD wants to promote, and the new technology which they are currently in the process of funding--at a cost of $40 million--will not go forward.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Soto commented that the Environmental Justice Task Force held its first meeting on January 30, 1998, and she believes the meeting went very well. Also, she attended the AQMD Town Hall Meeting held in Huntington Park. Following that meeting, she proposed that the elected officials and community leaders for the cities of Southeast Los Angeles form a group that could work with AQMD on air quality-related issues. Hopefully, they will form advisory groups to advise AQMD on the problems that exist out there; and the Board can tackle problems that its constituency believes exist before the problems become major.
Mr. Nastri added that he was also present at that town hall meeting, and one of the things he saw that was consistent with the previous town hall meeting was that there were many concerns expressed for media other than air. Staff was asked to attempt to get representatives from the Department of Toxic Substances Control, The Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and, to the extent possible, U.S. EPA to participate in the town hall meetings. He believes it is important to get other agencies involved on this issue so that the concerns of the people can really be addressed.
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.
CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to closed session at 1:16 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. 97-6916 HLH (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
There being no action to report as a result of closed session, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman Burke.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on February 13, 1998.
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
HFE = Hydrofluoroether
MOU = Memorandum of Understanding
MSERC = Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credit
PAMS = Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations
PR = Proposed Rule
RFP = Request for Proposals
SIP = State Implementation Plan
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound