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 Richard Alarcón (arrived at 10:08 a.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 10:30 a.m.)
County of Los Angeles
Ms. Mee H. Lee
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge
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 (left at approximately 12:20 p.m.) BR>County of Orange
Councilmember Nell Soto (left at approximately 12:10 p.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region
Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
Members Absent:
Dr. William Burke, Chairman
Speaker of the Assembly Appointee
Vice Chairman Glover called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m.
• Opening Comments
Ms. Glover. Announced that the AQMD was co-recipient of the 1997 Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Award for Excellence in Government recently presented by the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance to the District for its participation in the "Success is in the Air" campaign. The award was handed over to staff for display at AQMD Headquarters.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Items Nos. 2, 3 and 16 through 20 were held for discussion.
• Items Deferred from Consent Calendar
Mr. John Billheimer and Mr. Robert Anderson addressed the Board on behalf of the Small Business Coalition regarding the staff proposal to restore the higher processing fee from 15% to 50% for failing to obtain a Permit to Construct (P/C) prior to installing and operating permittable equipment. They raised the question of whether a P/C is really meaningful for small operations when installing "off-the-shelf" items such as spray booths. When a small business submits a permit application for a spray booth, their experience has been that the business usually receives a Permit to Operate within three to six months—there is no P/C issued. (Submitted Written Comments)
Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Acting Executive Officer, responded that staff does issue P/Cs for many spray booths. However, there are a number of categories, including spray booths, for which staff is currently evaluating the need for the current permit and is looking at alternative ways to register and insure that the equipment is properly constructed relative to air pollution controls. Staff will incorporate these evaluations in the upcoming permit streamlining activities.
Ms. Soto asked that staff also evaluate small furniture manufacturing operations as part of that effort.
Dr. Wallerstein stated that the recommendation on this item is for a 4 percent increase in salary for Intergovernmental Affairs Director Oscar F. Abarca.
Commenting that he has had excellent dealings with Mr. Abarca and his office has received many letters and telephone calls over the past three years describing the quality of work that Mr. Abarca has done,
Ms. Soto commented that people are very satisfied with Mr. Abarca’s work performance, as was demonstrated by the applause received when she noted at a Los Angeles division League of Cities’ meeting that Mr. Abarca would once again be working with Los Angeles County jurisdictions.
Dr. Wilson commented that he is not comfortable with the concept of arbitrarily setting salaries at the Board level, and that the item should either be referred back to staff or to the Personnel Committee.
In response to Ms. Lee, Dr. Wallerstein stated that the range of compensation increases for designated deputies last approved by the Board was from 1 percent to 3.4 percent, with one exception. There is another employee, Larry Rhinehart, who shares the same title, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer, but has slightly different duties. Mr. Abarca has reporting to him the Freedom of Information Act Request Response Team, which is a significant additional duty, and in addition to that, the number of cities within his purview is larger than that of Mr. Rhinehart. Mr. Rhinehart’s salary is $80,780, and Dr. Wallerstein believed a salary differential between the two of roughly $1,181 was appropriate.
Expressing his concurrence with the comments made by Dr. Wilson,
AYES: Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Paulitz, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels, Nastri and Silva.
ABSENT: Alarcón, Antonovich and Burke.
THE MOTION BY MR. SILVA, SECONDED BY MS. SOTO, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 AS RECOMMENDED, WITH A SALARY INCREASE OF 6 PERCENT INSTEAD OF THE 4 PERCENT INCREASE RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Nastri, Silva and Soto.
NOES: Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz and Wilson.
ABSENT: Alarcón, Antonovich and Burke.
MS. SOTO MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. SILVA, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Mikels.
ABSENT: Alarcón, Antonovich and Burke.
Ms. Soto expressed concern regarding what appeared to her to be misrepresentation of the value of some of the proposed AB 2766 projects and the amount of emission reductions expected. She noted that there was disparity among the items, such as a proposed sidewalk enhancement project providing 540 pounds of emission reductions and purchase of 7 electric vehicles providing only 420 pounds of emission reductions. She asked that staff do a comparison of the projects that are being funded.
Curtis Coleman, Attorney, addressed the Board on behalf of the CMA Southern California Air Quality Alliance, and expressed support for the item as recommended by staff. In addition, he expressed for the record the Alliance’s belief that the District is required to follow the SB 456 procedure of 12 months of data in determining whether or not a particular technology has been achieved in practice. The EPA has maintained that LAER can be determined based on 6 months of data. That, however, appears to the Alliance to be based on an internal staff policy and not an official, binding federal regulation. Until such time as there is an official federal regulation that would then override the state law, it is their belief that state law should be determinative of the District’s procedures in determining "achieved in practice".
(Mr. Alarcón arrived at 10:08 a.m.)
Ms. Soto commented that although the recommended profile reflects what she is concerned about, she wanted to emphasize that, to her, one of the outstanding requisites should be the candidate’s ability to follow through with what the Board has worked hard at this past year with respect to increasing the involvement of the affected communities, regulated businesses and local government in the District’s decision-making process.
AYES: Glover, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Nastri, Paulitz, Silva, Soto and Wilson.
NOES: Alarcón.
ABSENT: Antonovich and Burke.
La Ronda Bowen, Public Advisor, gave the staff report. Vice Chairman Glover noted for the record the comments submitted by Mr. Gene Beck, Small Business Coalition, expressing their support for the item as recommended by staff.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Gene Beck and Ed Laird, Small Business Coalition
Dr. Anupom Ganguli, Senior Manager/Stationary Source Compliance, gave the staff report. An errata sheet with attached revisions to Attachments A, B and C of the Staff Report were distributed to Board members, and copies were made available to the public. The revisions consisted primarily of minor typographical corrections, and do not change the BACT determination in any substantial way.
Staff also distributed to the Board copies of letters from U.S. EPA (dated April 9, 1998), ARB (dated April 10, 1998) and three manufacturers (Cormetech, Inc., Engelhard Corporation and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.) regarding the NOx limit that is contained in the gas turbine BACT determination. The three letters from manufacturers state that the 2.5 ppm level is achievable and will be guaranteed by vendors of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units, a technology which has been used for more than 10 years to control NOx in various industrial applications. The U.S. EPA letter and the ARB letter support the BACT determinations that staff has made; as well as the SB 456 interpretation by General Counsel.
Mr. Silva questioned staff as to the applicability of the SCONOX technology for units larger than the 32 megawatt (MW) gas turbine for which the technology has been demonstrated to be capable of achieving the proposed 2.5 ppm NOx level. He also questioned what the impact to air quality in the basin would be if the BACT standard causes delays or the elimination of new power generator projects.
Dr. Ganguli responded that staff believes the SCONOX technology is applicable to larger units also, and the new power generators will be able to meet the proposed standard of 2.5 ppm NOx at a 15 minute average. The EPA has also pointed out to staff that federal LAER will be set at basically the same level—2 ppm NOx with a 3-hour rolling average. New power plants that are subject to LAER would be required to meet that level here and elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Nastri expressed concern with the limited demonstration that has been achieved with the SCONOX technology, and the fact that staff only recently received information from the manufacturers regarding the SCR technology and has not had an opportunity to discuss and review it with the manufacturers. He asked staff what the net effect would be on the permitting population if the Board were to refer the issue of the 2.5 ppm standard for gas turbines to a committee and/or continue it for 30 days.
Dr. Ganguli responded that there are no permit applications pending at this time for natural gas fired turbines, so there would be no problem with staff returning to the Board in 30 or 60 days with this item.
Ms. Soto brought attention to the letter to staff which Board members received dated February 13, 1998 from Peter H. Weiner of the Law Firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP in which Mr. Weiner addresses recent comments by Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, including their position that the proposed BACT/LAER emission levels for batch vapor degreasers will have negative impacts on minority communities. She wondered if this would affect the Board’s environmental justice edict, and asked staff for clarification.
Dr. Ganguli responded that staff disagrees with the comments by Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, and does not believe there will be negative impacts to communities. The emissions limit that staff is proposing as BACT for the degreasers will reduce solvent usage, move companies toward other options which are non-VOC/non-toxic, and lower the level of exposure for workers.
(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 10:30 a.m.)
Speaking in Opposition to the Proposed BACT/LAER standard for gas turbines
CHUCK SOLT, Catalytica
Commented that Catalytica is trying to introduce a new technology called catalytic combustion, which has no adverse environmental impacts. They have guaranteed the catalytic combustion technology at less than 3 ppm—in many engines, it will be less than 1 ppm. The level that is proposed by District staff, however, is set exactly at the level that was achieved -- 2.5 ppm-- and it does not provide any margin for engine-to-engine variations, model-to-model variations, load variations, ambient conditions, and other factors which can effect the emissions. Also, urged the Board to reconsider the implementation of an efficiency standard, because without it, the user is encouraged to chose a less efficient, lower ppm machine. (Submitted Written Comments)
Dr. Ganguli responded that the law does not allow the District to raise the achieved-in-practice standard to accommodate everyone with new technology. The standard is set at the level achieved by the best of the group; and, in this case, the best technology has achieved 2 ppm. Staff is allowing a half ppm margin in view of fluctuations at that level. In terms of the efficiency, these engines are highly efficient and staff has failed to find any engines where there is a significant enough efficiency correction which would raise the 2.5 or the 2 ppm standard substantially.
*ANDREW C. WELCH, High Desert Power Project
*LESLIE WITHERSPOON, Solar Turbines Incorporated
NEAL POSPISIL, Calpine Corporation
DON H. BECKHAM, U.S. Generating Company
JOE PATCH, Patch Engineering & Construction
SAMUEL WEHN, Enron Corporation
GLEN MAYER, Consultant, representing NRG Energy, Inc.
HOWARD BALENTINE, High Desert Power Project
ZORAN RAUSAVLJEVICH, Fluor Daniel
MALCOLM WEISS, Attorney, representing Solar Turbines
SHARON RUBALCAVA, Attorney, representing Enron
JOAN HEREDIA, Woodward Clyde Consultants
*Submitted Written Comments
The main issues raised were:
¬ Staff’s recommendation for BACT on gas turbines is based on a single technology (SCONOX) which has not been proven on the size turbines that are being looked at for new development of power plants. The SCONOX equipment has not been sold to anyone, and it is only installed on one plant which is owned by the equipment manufacturer. Several public meetings have been held, and SCR was never mentioned as being able to reach the proposed NOx level of 2.5 ppm. This causes concern because the Board’s action on the proposed NOx level could not only have an impact within the district, but also throughout the state and nationally. The technology has not been proved over the full range of equipment sizes, and, as such, power producers would be unable to secure the guarantees and financing to build new power plants
¬ It is premature, due to technical, reliability, durability, and economical concerns and unanswered questions, to assume applicability of the SCONOX to all sizes of gas turbines. There is also concern with NOx measurement using CEMs for any technology at a single digit level. Experts show that less than 30 ppm is plus or minus 6 in accuracy. Therefore, the proposed BACT guideline emission level for gas turbines should be limited to the same gas turbine size category on which the emission level was demonstrated—25 to 32 MW.
¬ In reviewing the data in the staff report on the turbine utilizing SCONOX, find that the equipment not meeting the 2.5 ppm level seven percent of the time. Staff has indicated that there are reasons why, i.e., startup, shutdown, etc., but the regulated companies need to be able to meet the standard consistently.
Speaking in Support of the Proposed BACT/LAER standard for gas turbines
LEE WALLACE, Pacific Enterprises/Southern California Gas Company
Because of the far-reaching implications of the decision today, urged the Board to take a more deliberative approach to its decision. Made two recommendations: 1) Add a statement in the BACT determination such as, "Permitting authorities planning to issue permits for future combined cycle gas turbine systems firing exclusively on natural gas, and subject to LAER, must recognize this limit which in most cases would result in a LAER determination of 2 ppm", in order to put the regulated community on adequate notice as to what they have to try to meet. 2) Since there is no permit yet pending, asked that the Board refer technological issues and issues related solely to the District’s authority and responsibility for permitting on a case-by-case basis to the BACT Scientific Review Committee.
Staff responded that U.S. EPA believes the emission rates identified in the guidelines for both vapor degreasers and gas turbines greater than or equal to 3 MW represent LAER as of the day of the Board’s adoption of the standards for subject sources. Staff could, however, ask the EPA to update the federal LAER clearinghouse on the basis of our permitting actions, as opposed to our guideline actions. Therefore, the District would be obliged to issue permits with those limitations. Staff believes that delaying the updates to the BACT guidelines would be a disservice to the regulated community.
STEVEN A. BROILES, Attorney, representing Goal Line Technologies
Commenting that the SCONOX technology is the second technology to achieve 2.5 ppm, the first being the SCR ammonia system, referred to the Campbell Soup operation in Sacramento for which source tests indicate that the ammonia system achieved 2.47 ppm for a 104 MW turbine. Also, referred to a letter attached to the letter from EPA from a manufacturer, relating to a project at the Brooklyn Naval Yard. They indicate that it is a 286 MW facility—the largest unit which is manufactured—which is meeting the 2.5 ppm and has been doing so since 1995.
In response to questions by Board members, Dr. Ganguli indicated that staff was focused on the SCONOX technology, and when the scale-up issue was raised, staff contacted SCR vendors and were told they could supply the technology for any size gas turbine. With respect to the Campbell Soup facility, staff believes it is a 104MW turbine with a permit limit of 3 ppm NOx, and the actual emissions have been measured at 2.47 ppm. Staff does not know over what period of time that is averaged, and believes the equipment has only been in operation for approximately six months. However, staff has not had the opportunity to review any of the data regarding that particular operation.
TOM GIRDLESTONE, Goal Line Environmental Technologies
Commented that the SCONOX was developed by Goal Line to be implemented into large, what was previously called cogen plants, and are now defined as merchant plants. In doing that, Goal Line scaled the system down from very large utility plants that are currently in operation down to the level at which they operate SCONOX at their 30 MW plant.
Speaking in Opposition to the Proposed BACT/LAER standard for the vapor degreasers
*JANE NOWOTNY, Attorney, on behalf of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
*BOB OLSON, Finishing Equipment
STEVE RISOTTO, Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance
*Submitted Written Comments
¬ If the Board adopts the guidelines as proposed, it will be acting in violation of state law. California Health and Safety Code Section 40440.11(c) requires the District to perform certain evaluations before it revises its BACT Guidelines to something more stringent than the existing BACT guideline for any piece of equipment. Recommend that the Board send the guidelines back to the BACT Scientific Review Committee to be put through the 40440.11(c) process.
General Counsel responded that the proposal to have the BACT guidelines go through the SB 456 process, even though the agency has an obligation on each permit to determine LAER as of the time the permit is issued, would potentially result in a situation where the BACT guidelines are out of date or indicate less stringent control technologies than are being required as LAER. The BACT guidelines were intended to provide information to applicants to apprise them of the requirements that they would face in filing applications.
¬ The emission limits established by the District are not based solely upon the airless/airtight technology. These emission limits are based on add-on control devices commonly referred to as carbon absorption systems. The EPA considers carbon absorption systems as expensive and that they have cross media impacts, and discourages their use.
¬ The airless/airtight systems are not only expensive to purchase, but also expensive to maintain and operate and has a limited ability to handle a wide variety of endusers applications. Additionally, there will be a considerable increase of hazardous waste being generated; waste which has to be manifested and transported through our local cities and towns.
¬ Concerned that the District would propose such an extremely low emission rate as BACT for modification and relocation of existing open top vapor degreasers, when as recently as September 1997, the District concluded, "It is technically infeasible to modify existing open top equipment to an airless vapor system. Therefore, compliance with Rule 1122 is BACT for equipment modifications". The draft staff report also concluded that a requirement to replace existing open top degreasers with airless equipment would result in an incremental cost as high as $26,200 per ton.
¬ The proposed guideline for the vapor degreasers raises environmental concerns and environmental justice concerns. There is no way to retrofit open top vapor degreasers to comply with the new guideline. If a company is using a certain chemical in its open top vapor degreaser and switches to using something that is less toxic but contains VOCs, BACT is triggered. With the new guideline, the company would have to purchase a very expensive airless or airtight degreaser. The emissions would be less toxic, but there would be more emissions.
Note: Mr. Bob Olson also read into the record letters from State Assemblyman Bruce Thompson and Senator Raymond N. Haynes requesting that this agenda item be made available for public discussion.
Speaking in Support of the Proposed BACT/LAER standard for the vapor degreasers
ROBERT P. MUSSELMAN, Forward Technology Industries, Inc.
Explained the technology for the load-lock vapor degreaser which will meet the proposed Tier 1 BACT level.
KATY WOLF, Institute for Research and Technical Assistance
Expressed support for the proposed BACT guidelines, particularly for vapor degreasers. Most facilities using toxic and VOC solvents—perhaps as much as 95 percent—can convert to waterbased cleaners. For the facilities that cannot convert to waterbased cleaners, there are a variety of other options, i.e., use of exempt chemicals, use of "no clean" technologies, use of abrasion technology, and use of spectroscopic technologies.
PETER H. WEINER, Attorney, on behalf of Serec Corporation
There are over 40 airless vapor degreasers under permit in the U.S., many of which operate in this District. This equipment has been demonstrated and achieved in practice, many of the units for more than a year. It works across the full range of solvents, the full range of materials, and the cost is feasible—not only for large companies, but for small companies as well. With respect to the environmental justice issue, with the BACT level proposed for vapor degreasers, emissions will be reduced, work place exposures, especially to high risk workers, will be reduced, and there is no evidence that the environment in communities of color will be adversely affected. On the contrary, all the evidence is that it will be improved. Third, with regard to SB 456 applicability, agreed with the ARB’s statement that "the District is not required or permitted to perform the analysis set forth in SB 456 when it is establishing its own BACT guideline, as long as that guideline is not more stringent than federal LAER." Supports an online system which will notify the public in the future as soon as possible that new LAER issues are under review.
Comments on BACT/LAER:
BILL QUINN, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
Expressed support for the item as recommended by staff. Three years ago, CCEEB worked with Senator Kelley in sponsoring SB 456, which established a public process to evaluate technology that the District is considering as BACT. Recently, the EPA has trumped the District’s BACT-setting process by making their own determinations. The EPA does not have set procedures that it uses to evaluate new technologies, and the business community, the environmental community, the minority community, and other stakeholders are all completely shut out of the decision process. There are no warranty requirements, no consideration of costs and little opportunity for challenges. CCEEB’s goal is to preserve as much of the SB 456 process as possible, and asked that the Board take three specific steps in dealing with these issues:
1) When EPA makes these determinations, the District should limit the application of the technology to the greatest degree possible and consistent with the available data from real world experience, at least until the technology has gone through the full SB 456 process. Suggested that the NOx level for natural gas fired turbines proposed by staff be limited to equipment rated within a size range close to what was demonstrated, and that the Board delay the BACT determination until staff can work with the regulated community and others to determine the appropriate size application.
2) Asked that the Board direct staff to continue to use the SB 456 process whenever it is amending the BACT guidelines where no permits are pending.
3) Asked that Board direct staff to continue its efforts to work with EPA in developing an EPA process that recognizes the value and incorporates the benefits in the SB 456 process.
CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney, representing CMA Southern California Air Quality Alliance and California Aerospace Environmental Association
Speaking in opposition to the staff proposal, expressed belief that what staff has done is taken a process where the District has to determine what has been achieved in practice for a particular source category, and turned it around so that now the applicant has to prove that it will not work in a particular situation. Based on the comments in the staff report, the final decisions could be made by the staff and the control equipment manufacturer in consultation as to whether it’s feasible and applicable to that situation. He believes that is inappropriate.
With respect to the proposed level for vapor degreasers, believe what will happen is that people who cannot use aqueous solvents and are faced with the possibility of having to spend tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars for an airless or airtight degreasing system, which they cannot afford and are worried about maintenance expenses and breakdowns, move to a vapor degreaser that is controlled under the NESHAP with a solvent that is not a VOC, but may be a toxic, thereby increasing toxic air emissions. Hoped that staff would at least monitor that situation and provide reports back to the District if in fact that does occur.
GAIL RUDERMAN FEUER, Natural Resources Defense Council and Coalition for Clean Air
Expressed support for the item as recommended by staff. Regarding the issue of SB 456, urged the Board to take the advice of its counsel that the District must apply LAER and in this case, where staff and EPA have determined that for each of these categories the BACT requirements proposed are LAER, the District is required by the federal Clean Air Act to make that determination as BACT. With respect to the environmental justice issue raised, expressed belief that the principal letter asserting this is from Ms. Nowotny on behalf of the Great Lakes Chemical Company, which has an interest in this matter because they provide the solvents. If the Board makes this BACT determination on vapor degreasers, their business will probably decrease because companies will use less solvent.
(Ms. Soto and Mr. Silva left during public testimony)
-o-
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SCAG representative Arnie Sherwood commented that SCAG’s Regional Council was scheduled to adopt the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) on April 16, 1988. Conformity for the RTP lapses on April 14, 1988, so there is a jeopardy of funding loss. It is also necessary that the emission budgets be approved at this time in order for SCAG to complete its portion of the 1998 State Transportation Improvement Program, a six-year program with an estimated value of $1.5 billion, which the California Transportation Commission plans to approve on June 2, 1998.
Mr. Mikels questioned staff as to whether or not the emission budgets were part of the 1997 AQMP approved by the Board.
Elaine Chang, Planning Director, responded that the PM10 emissions budgets were approved as part of the 1997 AQMP, but only up to the year 2006, which was the expected attainment year for PM10.
-o-
• Items Deferred from Consent Calendar (Continued)
Public comment on this item continued and was concluded.
Written Comments Submitted by:
W. Caffey Norman, III, Patton Boggs, L.L.P.
Leslie Witherspoon and Wilfred Hung, Solar Turbines Incorporated
Peter T.E. Gebhard, III, Serec Corporation
Mr. Mikels expressed his concern and belief that the action the Board takes on this item should be consistent with the principle that the Board has heretofore applied, of not necessarily negatively impacting local businesses by making a decision that would require reconstruction of a project and installation of new equipment because they have not met a standard that others whose technology cannot quite meet that standard have tried to talk the Board out of adopting.
Dr. Wallerstein commented that the guidelines before the Board are advisory, the actual decision will be made during the permitting process. The reason for the other item on the agenda regarding BACT/LAER (Item No. 17, Recommendation for Coordination Agreement with EPA on BACT/LAER) was to try and improve communication coordination so that there is no after-the-fact second-guessing by U.S. EPA.
Mr. Nastri commented that he would support the proposed BACT determination level of 2.5 ppm only for the turbine size for which real data has been provided, and to have staff review and report back to the Board on the validity of the data and information provided to the Board.
BOARD CALENDAR
Mr. Alarcón noted that staff received communication from the City of Los Angeles indicating their concern that AB 1368 may impact AB 2766 funding for local jurisdictions.
Lupe Valdez, DEO/Public Affairs & Local Government Assistance, commented that staff has been in communication with Assemblyman Villaraigosa’s staff and have been assured that the language of the bill will be changed so that there is no reference and no confusion with AB 2766 funds.
AB 1368 (Villaraigosa) – Diesel Engine Replacement Program SUPPORT and SPONSOR
SB 1857 (Brulte) – Diesel Engine Replacement Program: Financing SUPPORT and SPONSOR
AB 1702 (Figueroa) – Transit Passes SUPPORT
AB 2667 (Miller) SCAQMD Plans OPPOSE unless AMENDED
SB 1643 (Hayden) – SCAQMD Compliance SUPPORT
SB 1651 (Polanco ) - Leaf Blowers No Position
SB 2077 (Mountjoy) – AQMD Board Member Personal Modes of Transportation OPPOSE unless AMENDED
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Jack Broadbent, Assistant DEO/Stationary Source Compliance, gave the staff report. An errata sheet was distributed by staff to Board members, and copies made available to the public, changing the recommended fee adjustment amount from $100,000 to $150,000. The original value reflects estimated facility counts and average costs as available in February 1998. The new value is based on actual facility counts and individual facility calculations which only recently became available to staff.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individual:
CURTIS COLEMAN, CMA Southern California Air Quality Alliance
Expressed support for the staff recommendation and asked the Board to approve the item as recommended.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
The staff report was given by Carol Coy, Assistant DEO/Stationary Source Compliance. An errata sheet was distributed by staff to Board members, and copies made available to the public, containing additional revisions to PAR 210, Subparagraphs (b) and (d)(2), and Regulation II – Lists and Criteria, to provide clarifications recently requested by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District regarding time limits for permit processing.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individual:
JOHN BILLHEIMER, Consultant
Expressing opposition to the proposed amendments, commented that the District’s permitting procedures are primarily oriented towards large sources. Over the approximately 10 years that Rule 210 has been in effect, the District has created and organized approximately 20 data forms that contain for particular industries the essential data required to process a permit. He suggested that Rule 210 be referred back to staff for further evaluation as to its purpose with respect to the 90 percent of the people it applies to rather than just 10 percent. In doing so, the District could take the approximately 20 data forms and determine that those forms, if properly filled out, would be automatically deemed complete for the numerical majority of applications, and then pare down the text of Rule 210 to only that which is essential for major sources that are going into CEQA and other high-level analyses. (Submitted Written Comments)
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Coy gave the staff report, and noted the errata sheet which was distributed to Board members and copies made available to the public. Two issues arose recently regarding this item. One, there was concern regarding regulatory responsibility for landfill emissions control expressed at the public hearing held at the February 13, 1998 Board meeting. Specifically, the concern, which was referred to the Technology Committee, was that the financing for power projects could be jeopardized by including landfill gas collection system operators as responsible parties for environmental compliance. After discussing the situation with a number of banks and a specialty power project financing firm, staff found no basis for this concern. Instead, all the firms stated that the risks were manageable and of little concern to them due to recent court decisions, indemnity agreements and the availability of insurance.
The second issue concerns the definition of "perimeter" in PAR 1150.1, and staff has been working with the California Integrated Waste Management Board to clarify rule requirements regarding subsurface probes. District regulations and state regulations both use the term "perimeter", with two different meanings. Staff recently reached agreement with state staff and have changed PAR 1150.1 to substitute the term "refuse boundary" for "perimeter" to avoid confusion with the state regulations. In addition, language was added to the staff report to provide clarification for all the landfill owners and operators. Staff recommended that the Board amend Rule 1150.1 and rescind Rule 1150.2, incorporating the addendum language submitted to the Board.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
FRANK CAPONI, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Expressed support for the proposed amendments and commented that he does not know how the District will be able to accomplish its permit streamlining without the cooperation and involvement of EPA, which the District has been unable to obtain--not for lack of trying on the staff’s part—on issues such as the proposed amendments to Rule 1150.1.
ANDREW WASHINGTON, Ogden Power Pacific, Inc.
Speaking in support of the proposed amendments, commented that he has been working with staff since the February public hearing and is agreeable to the modifications recommended by staff.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)
CLOSED SESSION/ADJOURNMENT
• 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, U.S. District Court Case No. 97-6916 HLH (SHx); and Communities for a Better Environment, et al. v. SCAQMD, et al., EPA file No. 10 R-97-R9, an administrative action before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
• 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, one case. The facts and circumstances are termination of the DEO for Technical Support Services.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on April 10, 1998.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
Dr. William Burke, Chairman
ACRONYMS
AQMD = (South Coast) Air Quality Management District
AQMP = Air Quality Management Plan
ARB/CARB = (California) Air Resources Board
BACT = Best Available Control Technology
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
CMA = California Manufacturers Association
CNG = Compressed Natural Gas
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
FY = Fiscal Year
LAER = Lowest Achievable Emissions Reduction
LNG = Liquefied Natural Gas
NESHAP = National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOx = Oxides of Nitrogen
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
PM10 = Particulate Matter < 10 microns
RFQ = Request for Quotations
SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound