SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
MAY, 14, 1999

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

Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 9:55 a.m.)
County of Los Angeles

Supervisor Cynthia P. Coad
County of Orange

Mayor Bea LaPisto-Kirtley
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region

Ms. Mee H. Lee
Senate Rules Committee Appointee

Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge (left at 12:55 p.m.)
Cities of Riverside County

Supervisor Jon D. Mikels
County of San Bernardino

Mayor Pro Tem Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino County

Supervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside

Members Absent:

Dr. William Burke, Chairman
Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

Councilmember Hal Bernson
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region

Vacant:

Governor’s Appointee
Vice Chairman Glover called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m.

• Opening Comments

Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env., Executive Officer. Announced that in recognition of the District's student intern program in its laboratory section, the District recently received an outstanding employer award from the California Cooperative Education Association. The District was nominated for the award by California State University, Fullerton.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Minutes of April 9, 1999 Board Meeting
2. Execute Contract to Cosponsor Evaluation of Methanol Fuel Quality Specifications
   for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells
3. Execute Contract to Cost-Share Development and Demonstration of Zero- and
   Low-VOC Resin Technology for Advanced Control Measure Development
4. This item was withdrawn by staff.
5. Execute Contract to Purchase Telemetry Computer
6. Amend Contracts with Cordoba Corporation, Majesco Software, Metamor Information Technology Services and Sierra Cybernetics, Inc. to Provide Short- and Long-Term
   Systems Development and Maintenance Support
7. Execute Memoranda of Understanding with Councils of Governments for Outreach
   Assistance to Local Jurisdictions Utilizing AB 2766 Subvention Funds
8. Issue RFP for Management Firm to Operate Diamond Bar Headquarters Cafeteria
9. Report of RFPs and RFQs Scheduled for Release in May
10. Purchase Upper-Air Radar Wind Profiler
11. Amend Contract for Rule 1186 PM10-Efficient Street Sweeper Evaluations
12. Approve Issuance of Five RFPs for TCM Programs and Programmatic Outreach as
    Part of the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 AB 2766 Discretionary Fund Work Program
13. Participate in MIT's Proposal to Link Various Air Quality Planning Models
14. Public Affairs Report
15. Progress Report on Public Awareness and Education Programs to Reduce VOC
    Emissions
16. Hearing Board Variances and Appeals
17. Civil Filing and Civil Penalties Report
18. Rule and Control Measure Forecast
19. Report on Feasibility of Emission Reductions from Under-fired Charbroilers
20. Status Report on Major Projects for Information Management Scheduled to Start
    During Last Six Months of FY 1998-99
21. Lead Agency Projects and Environmental Documents Received by the AQMD
    
    Agenda Items Nos. 7 and 19 were withheld for discussion.

ON MOTION OF MR. PAULITZ, SECONDED BY MR. MIKELS, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH 6, 8 THROUGH 18, 20 AND 21, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES	Coad, Glover (except Item #2), LaPisto-Kirtley, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, and Wilson.
NOES	None
ABSTAIN:	Glover (on Item #2 only).
ABSENT:	Antonovich, Bernson, and Burke.

22. :Items Deferred from Consent Calendar

7. Execute Memoranda of Understanding with Councils of Governments for Outreach
Assistance to Local Jurisdictions Utilizing AB 2766 Subvention Funds

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, SECONDED BY
DR. WILSON AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, and Burke), THE BOARD:

1) AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE FOLLOWING COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENTS: SOUTH BAY CITIES COG ($25,000), ORANGE COUNTY COG ($25,000), SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SANBAG) ($25,000), AND THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COG ($25,000), FOR A ONE-YEAR PILOT PROJECT TO PROVIDE OUTREACH ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE AB 2766 MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE SUBVENTION FUND PROGRAM, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE TOTAL VALUE OF THIS PROJECT IS NOT TO EXCEED $100,000.

2) DIRECTED STAFF TO WORK WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COG TO ENSURE THAT THE MONIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE THREE (3) OTHER COGS WITHIN THE COUNTY AND THAT THE MOU STATE THAT ANY ACTIVITIES HOSTED BY THE LEAD COG MUST BE OPEN TO ANY LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITY.

19. Report on Feasibility of Emission Reductions from Under-fired Charbroilers
    
    Mark Taylor addressed the Board on behalf of the California Restaurant Association to request that the Board delay initiation of the rulemaking process for control technologies for commercial under-fired charbroilers for 90 days to allow their technical staff time to review the report of the study conducted by CE-CERT.

ON MOTION OF MR. MIKELS, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, and Burke), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEM NO. 19 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

BOARD CALENDAR

23. Administrative Committee
24. Legislative Committee
25. Mobile Source Committee
26. Stationary Source Committee
27. Technology Committee
28. Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee

ON MOTION OF MS. COAD, SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, and Burke), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 23 THROUGH 28, ADOPTING THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED:

AB 71 (Cunneen) – HOV Lanes	SUPPORT
SB 115 (Solis) -- Environmental Protection	WATCH
SB 192 (Perata) -- Motor Fuel Labeling	SUPPORT
SB 529 (Bowen) -- Fuel Impacts	SUPPORT
SB 989 (Sher) -- Phase-out of MTBE	SUPPORT
SB 1195 (Hayden) -- Particulate Matter: South Coast AQMD	SUPPORT with AMENDMENTS

30. Rule 2202 Emissions Equivalency Task Force Recommendations and Final Status Report

Rene Brandt, City of Los Angeles, expressed the City's support for the recommendations of the task force and expressed appreciation to District staff for agreeing to report back annually to the Board on the emission reduction shortfall.

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, SECONDED BY
MR. MIKELS AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, and Burke), THE BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE EMISSIONS EQUIVALENCY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COVER THE EMISSION REDUCTION SHORTFALL CREATED BY SB 432, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

30. Inter-District Transfer of Emission Reduction Credits for High Desert Power Project

ON MOTION OF MS. COAD, SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, and Burke), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION
NO. 99-16, APPROVING THE INTER-DISTRICT TRANSFER OF EMISSION OFFSETS TO THE MOJAVE DESERT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE HIGH DESERT POWER PROJECT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Agenda Items No. 31 and No. 32 were considered together.

31. Adopt Executive Officer's FY 1999-2000 AQMD Budget and Work Program
    Rick Pearce, DEO/Chief Financial Officer, gave the staff report.
32. Amend Regulation III - Fees and Rescind Rule 301.2 - Amnesty for Unpermitted Equipment and Rule 310 - Fee Schedules
    
    Jill Whynot, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report. Copies of an errata sheet containing the following clarifications by staff to PAR 301 and PAR 307.1 were distributed to Board members and made available to the public:
    
    Rule 301, Subparagraph (y), Second Sentence:
    
    "A deposit of tThe established permit application fees found in the applicable permit fee tables and provisions of Rule 301(c) shall be paid at the time of filing with the remainder additional overtime fee billed following permit issuance."
    
    Rule 307.1, page 15, line 2 of Table 1:
    
    The District Fee was corrected from "$368" to "$386".
    
    The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony regarding Items 31 and 32 from the following individuals:
    
    CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney, on behalf of CMA Southern California Air Quality Alliance
    
    Expressing appreciation to District staff for its recommendation to forgo significant fee increases until the results of the efficiency improvements can be instituted, urged the Board to approve the proposed amendments to Regulation III and adopt the FY 1999-2000 AQMD budget as recommended by staff
    
    RON WILKNISS, Western States Petroleum Association
    
    Requested clarification as to whether the second $12-per-nozzle fee increase for service stations in FY 2000-2001 would occur automatically or upon justification by District staff.
    
    Dr. Wallerstein responded that the increase was being deferred until next year's budget discussion, at which time it will be addressed based on an analysis of the agency's needs.

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, and Burke), THE BOARD:

1) REMOVED FROM RESERVES AND DESIGNATIONS ALL AMOUNTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FY 1998-99 BUDGET;

2) APPROVED TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS OF $85,974,150;

3) APPROVED AN UNDESIGNATED FUND BALANCE OF $9,443,936 AND TOTAL RESERVES AND DESIGNATIONS OF $24,186,936;

4) RECOGNIZED ESTIMATED REVENUES OF $85,036,700;

5) ESTABLISHED THE CLEAN FUELS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR FY 1999-2000, AND TRANSFER OF THE BALANCE, AS OF JUNE 30, 1999, OF THE CLEAN FUELS RESERVE IN THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CLEAN FUELS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND;

6) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 99-11, AMENDING THE SALARY RESOLUTION TO EFFECT JOB CLASSIFICATION TITLE CHANGES IN HUMAN RESOURCES;

7) APPROPRIATED $30,000 FROM THE DESIGNATION FOR ENHANCED COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES TO THE FY 1998-99 BUDGET OF THE OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND COMPLIANCE, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES MAJOR OBJECT, OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNT, FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIFTEEN LAPTOP COMPUTERS FOR FIELD COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS; AND

8) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 99-12, AMENDING REGULATION III, INCLUDING RULES 301, 303, 304, 304.1, 306, 307, 307.1, 308, 309, AND 311 AND RESCINDING RULES 301.2 AND 310, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

Rule 301, Subparagraph (y), Second Sentence:

"A deposit of tThe established permit application fees found in the applicable permit fee tables and provisions of Rule 301(c) shall be paid at the time of filing with the remainder additional overtime fee billed following permit issuance."

Rule 307.1, page 15, line 2 of Table 1:

The District Fee was corrected from "$368" to "$386".

33. Amend Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings
    
    Jack Broadbent, DEO/Planning, Area Sources, and Rule Development, gave the staff report. Staff distributed to the Board copies of an Addendum which contained revisions to the resolution and rule language, based on recent comments from industry and USEPA.

(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 10:10 a.m.)

The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:

• Speaking in support of PAR 1113:

*ED EDWARDS, JIM EDWARDS, KEN EDWARDS and HOWARD BERMAN,
Dunn-Edwards Paint Corporation

*PETER VENTURINI, Air Resources Board
*KAFI MacLEOD, Natural Resources Defense Council and Coalition for Clean Air
PREETI GHUMAN, Los Angeles County Sanitation District
HENRY WHEELER, Park Water Company
TIM CONKIN, City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
ANDY ROGERSON, California Department of Transportation
JOHN CLARK, Metropolitan Water District
BOB STEEL, Specialty Industrial Coatings Corporation
MICHAEL MOURAD, Poly-Carb, Inc.
ROBERT HENDERSON, Coatings Resource Corporation
*Submitted Written Comments

Key Comments:

• The proposed rule is costly to the paint industry, but believe the averaging provision will allow the District to meet the legal requirements and industry to be able to provide quality coatings to its customers in the future.

• The technology is possible in certain areas; for example, Dunn-Edwards has anti-graffiti paints that work and meet the 2006 VOC limit. The District has addressed additional problematic areas by revising the staff proposal and allowing higher limits, i.e., corrosion protection in non-industrial environments.

• Believe the compliance timelines included in the rule along with consideration of reactivity and the averaging provision should allow each coating manufacturer to comply in the manner that is best for them. The staff proposal provides flexibility requested by industry.

• Dunn-Edwards worked diligently through Congress to obtain funding in the amount of
  $3 million for a state-of-the-art reactivity chamber at UC Riverside. This chamber will enable them to determine for the first time in real world ratios the actual reactivity of many of the solvents used in paint.

• The AQMP does include commitments to reduce VOC emissions from architectural coatings by 75 percent by 2010. These amendments to Rule 1113 are a necessary step toward meeting these SIP commitments, reducing architectural coating emissions by 22 tons per day. The ARB concurred with District staff's assessment that the proposed limits are technologically feasible by the effective dates proposed.

• Concerned that the proposed amendment will not achieve the full 59 tons per day of VOC reductions committed to in the 1994 SIP, the NRDC and Coalition for Clean Air urged the Board to direct staff to accelerate development of rule amendments to close the approximately 25 tons per day shortfall in emissions reductions and examine those categories where proposed future limits range from 100 to 250 gpl to determine whether these can be reduced to the more protective level of 50 gpl.

• Representatives of public agencies providing essential public services commented that the essential public services coating category addressed their concerns and they look forward to working with the District in evaluating low- and zero-VOC coatings as part of the technology assessments.

• There are many products available that meet the limits of the proposed amended rule and equipment to effectively apply these materials. Some of these products have been in the field for over 18 years, with exceptional performance. The coatings that failed 20 years ago, will have the same failures 20 years from now. It is not because of the raw materials being forced on coating manufacturers, it is the design of the coating, the chemistry of the coating, and the applicator. It does not matter if it is zero-VOC or 500 gpl VOC; if you use the best available technology and the best application, it will work.

• The staff report includes nearly all of the alternative approaches requested by industry at the beginning of the rulemaking process.

• Speaking in opposition to PAR 1113:

GEORGE NICHOL, Robison-Prezioso, Inc.
RICHARD DRISKO, Society for Protective Coatings
PAUL BEEMER, Henry Company
RAY ROBINSON, EL RAP
*WILLIAM SMILAND and KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN, Smiland & Khachigian, on behalf
of Southern California Paint & Coatings Alliance (SCPCA)
CHRISTOPHER FOSTER, Attorney, on behalf of ALARM Caucas
DAVID LEEHY, Vista Paint Corporation and EL RAP
*YIN AYE, Technical Advisory Group
KEVIN WORRALL, STUART HAINES, and JAY HAINES, Textured Coatings of America
ROBERT NOVIELI, Rohm and Haas Company
JERRY MULNIX and DONNA WALTMAN, Cal Western Paint
RAY PETERS, Fine Line Paint Company
MARIO GALVAN, All American Home Center
JASON LOPEZ, J.L. Painting
RON BOGDANOVICH, Conco Paint Company
STEVE MURPHY, Murphy Industrial Coatings and Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (PDCA)
MARK ROBSON, Ram-Mar Painting and PDCA
GARY DAVIS, Industry Consultant
BOB SMILAND and MARK HALE, Smiland Paint Company
GREG QUINN, Los Angeles County Painting and Decorating Contractors Association
TOM PUETT, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local Union No. 95
SANDRA SKOMMESA, Ellis Paint Company
BERT OSEN, Organic Polymer Chemist
SCOT HOLLAND, painting contractor
MADELYN HARDING, The Sherwin-Williams Company
CURTIS COLEMAN, CMA/Southern California Air Quality Alliance
*VERNE MANSON, Southern California Decorating Products Association
*Submitted Written Comments

Key Comments

• Have used currently available low-VOC products and their experience--not laboratory test panels, but actual field usage--is that they have significantly more problems with the low-VOC products than with the higher-VOC coatings. Lowering the VOC levels further at this point will only increase the number of failures. This costs the companies money, costs their customers money, and there is no real benefit, since rework will only negate any of the perceived benefits.

• The District accepted the claims by public agencies that the lack of proven protective coating technologies would result in an accelerated damage to the public infrastructure and would then impact upon the essential service to the public of reliable water delivery and highway integrity, and modified the proposed rule to allow higher VOC material for these types of agencies. Believe the same criteria that were accepted apply also to private facilities.

Dr. Wallerstein clarified that in consideration of the fact that there are special certification procedures that public works facilities must go through, the proposed amended rule includes a new category for essential public service coatings with a higher interim VOC limit of 340 grams per liter (gpl) effective July 1, 2002.

• There are federal specifications and national specifications for asphaltic primers for roof coatings, which, as a practical matter, cannot be met with the proposed VOC limits for primers. This is a specialty item, representing a very small amount of the total emission reduction burden.

• Even if the technology were available to meet the proposed limits, industry cannot afford it; the costs are staggering. Believe Rule 1113 will outlaw approximately 7,000 product lines, that is, paints that are on the market right now. The cost of this, EL RAP believes, the District has seriously underestimated; they believe it costs about $250,000 to reformulate a product, and if the two figures were multiplied, you come up with a figure that is more than the whole industry is worth..

• The SCPCA urged the Board to consider the costs that the staff does not address in its report: the fair market value of the 7,000 formulas taken (about $200 million), the sunk cost of unsuccessful reformulation, massive cost to 5,000 retail dealers and a thousand contractors, anti-competitive effects, 25,000 jobs at very serious risks, millions of consumer dollars, probably several hundred million a year in raw material price increases alone; labor costs probably higher. Other non-paint substitutes which may be more serious from an environmental point of view will take over, such as wallpaper, the glue used to put wallpaper on, the various processes used to manufacture aluminum siding, stucco, all the various substitute building products that cover substrates.

• Mr. Foster commented that EPA adopted a national rule in September of 1998, which goes into effect in September 1999, and EPA was charged with adopting the most effective means of regulating the organic compounds in consumer products to ameliorate the ozone problem. What the Board has been presented with today is a rule that is directly and severely in conflict with the national rule adopted by EPA. There may be other areas in which this Board can regulate, but the manufacture and sale of architectural coatings has now been preempted by the EPA national rule.

General Counsel Peter Greenwald responded that Mr. Foster represented plaintiffs in a recent court case where the same issue was raised and the court ruled against the speaker's clients on that issue and for the District, so staff believes it is on firm ground in stating that the District does have the authority to adopt PAR 1113.

• Believe one of the reasons why there have been 20 amendments made to Rule 1113 is that the District does not employ anyone that is a technical paint person--no formulators on staff and no applicators on staff other than the maintenance employee who paints the District's building. Questioned District's summary of test results from the NTS study, particularly with respect to drying times; appears as though no one has done quality control on the information and that no one with technical expertise has reviewed it.

• Suggested that the Board consider a 90 day extension to allow industry to review some of the field applications which are so vital to know what the real facts are, because what works in the lab does not always work in the field.

• Small businesses that are niche manufacturers of specialty products cannot take advantage of the proposed averaging provision as the large manufacturers can and they will be unable to compete.

• There are a number of application areas that require a high level of coatings performance, specifically high-performance industrial maintenance coatings. The current state of water based coatings technology still does not offer the viable alternatives needed to meet the aggressive VOC limits proposed in the amendment to Rule 1113 in specific with the time frame involved.

• Under PAR 1113, the consumer will be forced to use inferior products, will be forced to pay a higher price for that product, and also be forced to have his house painted much more frequently.

• With the lack of total information from the NTS study summaries and with the surprise of new categories that was just added that industry has not had a chance to review and discuss, strongly recommend the Board vote no on PAR 1113. If not, asked that the Board delay for 90 days and allow the courtesy to industry to review the new current information.

Mr. Broadbent responded that the addendum addresses concerns that had been raised to staff only 24 to 48 hours before the Board meeting, which include: (i) concerns relative to tanks that have to be coated for storage of oxygenated solvents and other types of chemicals that are used in refinery applications; (ii) clarifications relative to specialty categories, as well as revisions to the recycled coatings; and (iii) a staff proposal to provide more time for small manufacturers to meet the final limits, based on comments by smaller manufacturers that have had difficulties in trying to use the averaging provisions in the rule.

• Problems with low-VOC coatings include: mud cracking, aeration, solvent entrapment, accelerated degradation of the coating, yellowing enamel, lacquer peeling, and varnishes that run.

• There is no clear consensus within the scientific community that the proposed amended rule will help clean the air in Southern California.

• With regard to the 2002 VOC limits, Sherwin-Williams expressed concerns on specific small subcategories and recommended that rather than take action at this time, the Board direct staff to continue discussions with industry and continue action for another month on the following specific subcategories, which represent a small proportion of the emission reductions for the architectural coatings category: specifically, in the stain category, recommend a subcategory for interior semi-transparent wood stains with a VOC level of 350 gpl; in the floor coating category recommended a subcategorization between single component and multi-component floor coatings; in the primer category, recommended a specialty primer for wood and chalky substrates; in the sealer category, the waterproofing wood sealers and interior wood sealers are needed as a subcategory; and for industrial maintenance there are now two categories proposed in the addendum, one for chemical storage tank coatings and one for essential public service coatings. Recommended that somewhere between those two the definition needs to be modified to address storage of petroleum and other chemicals besides the oxygenated solvents, oxygenated solvent mixtures, and acid based products specified . For each of these small subcategories, would like District staff to continue working with industry to come up with a better resolution.

• There was concern expressed by CMA, with the recent history of EPA reviewing existing District rules and identifying a number of rules as not being approvable because in EPA's view they represent impermissible rule relaxations, that even if in the future Rule 1113 were amended to provide flexibility or to provide for niche products, it may not be allowable under the SIP. Suggested that the technology-forcing 2006 and later limits not be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision until such time as the technology review has been done and an identification of where compliant coatings are available that provide adequate service and any adjustments to the rule have been made.

• No position stated:

*JIM SELL and JEFFREY MARGULIES, National Paint & Coatings Association

Requested that the Board delay consideration of these amendments for a 90-day period or at least a 30-day period because there are still significant unanswered questions which more time could be used in resolving. Asked that the Board consider including a specialty primer category in Rule 1113 which would allow for the use of a higher VOC primer and thereby avoid problems of cleanup and deterioration of the top coating which would go over that primer.

Expressed belief that the consensus viewpoint of the industry is that the 2006 limits are not within the foreseeable technology of the industry, and waiting until 2005 to do a technology assessment will be too late. Proposed that District staff establish an increments of progress system as a mechanism for determining which coatings the lower VOC limits should be applied to in 2006, and asked that the Board include a resolution instructing staff to work with industry on this proposal.

Dr. Wallerstein responded that subsequent to meeting with Mr. Sells to discuss NPCA's concerns, staff prepared revisions to sections (b), (c), (d) and (g) of PAR 1113 for the Board's consideration. The revisions were:

(b)(45)

SPECIALTY PRIMERS is a coating formulated and recommended for application to a substrate to seal fire, smoke or water damage; or to condition excessively chalky surfaces. An excessively chalky surface is one that is defined as having chalk rating of four or less as determined by ASTM D-4214 – Photographic Reference Standard No. 1 or the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology "Pictorial Standards for Coatings Defects".

(c)(2) Table of Standards

Specialty Primers                                   350                                     100

(d)(6)	The labels of all specialty primers shall include the statement "For Fire-, Smoke-, Water-Damaged, or Excessively Chalky Substrates Only" prominently displayed, effective July 1, 2002.
(g)(10)	Manufacturers of specialty primers shall submit an annual report to the Executive Officer within three months of the end of the calendar year. The report shall include for each specialty primer, the number of gallons sold in the District.

MARCY NICHOLS, TruServ Manufacturing

Commented that the NTS study was initiated by the District and industry over a year ago. The District indicated initially that the results from the study would be critical to developing the VOC limits for the Rule 1113 amendments, but because the study was not completed in time, vital components have been left out of the proposed amendments. Questioned how industry could be expected to reformulate coatings in three years when the District could not get results from a simple comparative study completed in one year.

JEB STUART, Building Industries Association

Expressed concern about the impact these amendments might have on the quality, durability and cost of the coatings they use, and commented that it seemed like a reasonable request from the industry to wait until the NTS study is completed and reviewed and discussed by the advisory committee.

There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed

Written Comments Submitted by:

E.B. Bradley Co., Don Lorey Econ One, at request of EL RAP, Report: Economic Analysis of Proposed Amendment
to Rule 1113 of South Coast Air Quality Management District Metropolitan Water District, John E. Clark, Manager, Regulatory Affairs Branch Roy Wilson W.P. Equipment, Roy L. Wilson, owner The Better Paint Tray LLC, H. Douglas Hocking, President U.S. EPA, Region IX, Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rulemaking Office
(also, numerous letters from paint contractors and concerned citizens/consumers)

MS. LEE MOVED TO :

1. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 99-13, AMENDING RULE 1113 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. SAID RECOMMENDATION INCLUDED THE MODIFICATIONS TO RULE 1113 AND THE RESOLUTION CONTAINED IN THE ADDENDUM FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 33 AND THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

   (b)(45)	SPECIALTY PRIMERS is a coating formulated and recommended for application to a substrate to seal fire, smoke or water damage; or to condition excessively chalky surfaces. An excessively chalky surface is one that is defined as having chalk rating of four or less as determined by ASTM D-4214 – Photographic Reference Standard No. 1 or the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology "Pictorial Standards for Coatings Defects".
   (c)(2)	Table of Standards
   Specialty Primers                             350                               100
   	(d)(6) The labels of all specialty primers shall include the statement "For Fire-, Smoke-, Water-Damaged, or Excessively Chalky Substrates Only" prominently displayed, effective July 1, 2002. (g)(10) Manufacturers of specialty primers shall submit an annual report to the Executive Officer within three months of the end of the calendar year. The report shall include for each specialty primer, the number of gallons sold in the District.

2. DIRECT STAFF TO REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD IN 30 DAYS ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY NEW CONCERNS NOT YET ADDRESSED RAISED BY EL RAP AND THE OTHER INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. MIKELS.

In response to questions by Mr. Paulitz, Mr. Broadbent stated that the majority of amendments to Rule 1113 since its adoption in 1977 have been to provide industry more time or exemptions. With respect to the formation of ozone and the reactivity of VOCs, District staff has committed in the resolution for PAR 1113 to work with industry and other stakeholders on assessing the reactivity of architectural coatings and to take the data gathered into consideration for future amendments to the rule. As far as the NTS study not being complete, the study was divided into different phases. The laboratory work comparing low- and zero-VOC coatings to higher VOC formulations is complete. The next phase of the study, exterior weatherability analysis, involves exposing panels to the outside environment for a considerable amount of time. Staff plans to incorporate the results of that work as part of the future technical assessments.

At Vice Chairman Glover's request,

MS. LEE, WITH THERE BEING NO OBJECTION BY MR. MIKELS, SECONDER TO THE MOTION, AMENDED HER MOTION TO:

1) INCLUDE THAT THE BOARD DIRECT STAFF TO (i) CONTINUE THE ARCHITECTURAL COATING WORKING GROUP UNTIL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINAL LIMITS, (ii) PROVIDE ANNUAL STATUS REPORTS, INCORPORATING ANY INFORMATION GATHERED THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS AND ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURERS PERTAINING TO THE STATE-OF-COATING TECHNOLOGY, AND (iii) SET UP A SPECIAL LONG-TERM WORKING GROUP TO ASSIST WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AVERAGING COMPLIANCE OPTION AND ADDRESS ISSUES RELATIVE TO NICHE MARKET COATINGS; AND

2) CHANGE THE PERIOD OF TIME FROM 30 DAYS TO 90 DAYS FOR STAFF TO REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY NEW CONCERNS NOT YET ADDRESSED RAISED BY EL RAP AND THE OTHER INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Mr. Antonovich commented that he was troubled by the fact that the District was modifying the rule for certain public and private sector as a result of the negative impacts that the rule would have on them, but attempting to mandate a rule for the general public even though it has these negative impacts. He expressed his belief that the District should be spending its resources on cleaning up the environment with cost-effective regulations aimed at the major emission sources instead of questionable smaller sources involved with the basic necessities of maintaining equipment, structures, infrastructure, and one's home.

Ms. Coad, an active graffiti paint-out volunteer and participant in projects for painting the homes of low-income seniors and disabled individuals, expressed concern that PAR 1113 indicates a trend which will directly affect the do-it-yourselfers, small businesses, and individual entrepreneurs of Southern California. She questioned if, indeed, frequent paintings emit more VOCs over a ten-year span than if the paint had a durability of five or ten years. She also expressed concern regarding companies leaving Southern California and the resulting job losses. She indicated that she had planned to vote against PAR 1113, but she appreciated the amendments to the motion and was hopeful that some solutions could be found to the industry/consumers concerns within the next 90 days.

Mr. Broadbent responded that testimony had been presented that there are low- and zero-VOC coating formulations available which perform well and do not require frequent repainting. That issue will be examined as part of the technical assessments and staff will report back to the Board with adjustments to the rule as necessary.

Expressing support for the motion, as amended, Mr. Loveridge commented on staff's collaborative examination of rulemaking and the support for the proposed amended rule expressed by ARB and EPA.

THE MOTION BY MS. LEE, SECONDED BY MR. MIKELS, AS AMENDED, TO:

1)	ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 99-13, AMENDING RULE 1113 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. SAID RECOMMENDATION INCLUDED THE MODIFICATIONS TO RULE 1113 AND THE RESOLUTION AS SET FORTH IN THE ADDENDUM TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 33 AND THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
	(b)(45) SPECIALTY PRIMERS is a coating formulated and recommended for application to a substrate to seal fire, smoke or water damage; or to condition excessively chalky surfaces. An excessively chalky surface is one that is defined as having chalk rating of four or less as determined by ASTM D-4214 – Photographic Reference Standard No. 1 or the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology "Pictorial Standards for Coatings Defects". ( c)(2) Table of Standards Specialty Primers 350                     100          (d)(6) The labels of all specialty primers shall include the statement "For Fire-, Smoke-, Water-Damaged, or Excessively Chalky Substrates Only" prominently displayed, effective July 1, (g)(10) Manufacturers of specialty primers shall submit an annual report to the Executive Officer within three months of the end of the calendar year. The report shall include for each specialty primer, the number of gallons sold in the District.
AND
2)	DIRECT STAFF TO (i) REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD IN 90 DAYS ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANY NEW CONCERNS NOT YET ADDRESSED RAISED BY EL RAP AND THE OTHER INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, (ii) CONTINUE THE ARCHITECTURAL COATING WORKING GROUP UNTIL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FINAL LIMITS, (iii) PROVIDE ANNUAL STATUS REPORTS, INCORPORATING ANY INFORMATION GATHERED THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS AND ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURERS PERTAINING TO THE STATE-OF-COATING TECHNOLOGY, and (iv) SET UP A SPECIAL LONG-TERM WORKING GROUP TO ASSIST WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AVERAGING COMPLIANCE OPTION AND ADDRESS ISSUES RELATIVE TO NICHE MARKET COATINGS,
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES Coad, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Lee, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, and Wilson. NOES Antonovich. ABSENT Bernson and Burke.

34. Amend Rule 462 - Organic Liquid Loading

Carol Coy, DEO/Engineering & Compliance, briefly summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:

SARA HEAD, Equilon Enterprises LLC

Expressed support for the proposed amendment, which specifically corrects a deficiency related to CARB certification of non-gasoline loading facilities.

FRANK DARGAVAGE, Ashland Chemical

Expressed support of PAR 462 and requested that District staff provide them with a list of approved source test companies as soon as possible to avoid scheduling problems with the source test company and allow sufficient time to perform the test and analyze the data.

Ms. Coy indicated that the list of approved source test companies would be ready within 30 days.

(Mr. Loveridge left at 12:55 p.m.)

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, DULY SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Bernson, Burke, Loveridge and Mikels), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 99-14, AMENDING RULE 462 AND CERTIFYING THE EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

35. Amend Rule 218 - Continuous Emission Monitoring and Adopt Proposed Rule 218.1 - Continuous Emission Monitoring Performance Specifications

Staff waived an oral report for this item. Copies of an errata sheet, setting forth changes to PAR 218 to provide for semi-annual submission of CEMS data summary within 30 days following the end of the six-month period being reported, were distributed to Board members and made available to the public. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:

CURTIS COLEMAN, CMA/Southern California Air Quality Alliance

Expressed support for the staff recommendation and appreciation to staff for including in the proposed amendments provisions that allow for an alternative of CEMS certification pursuant to federal standards.

GREG ADAMS, Los Angeles County Sanitation District

Speaking in support of the proposed amendments, commented that this is an example of where there was an aggressive initial local rule, the federal standards have caught up, and now the duplication is being eliminated.

ON MOTION OF MR. MIKELS, DULY SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Bernson, Burke and Loveridge), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 99-15, AMENDING RULES 218 AND 218.1 AND CERTIFYING THE EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS TO RULE 218 TO provide for semi-annual submission of CEMS data summary within 30 days following the end of the six-month period being reported, AS SET FORTH IN THE ERRATA SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 35.

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 1:00 p.m., pursuant to Government Code Section:

• 54956.9(a), to confer with its counsel regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party--the titles of the litigation are: Coalition for Clean Air, et al. v. SCAQMD, et al., USDC Case No. 97-6916 HLH (SHx), SCAQMD v. EPA, et al., USDC No. SACV98-948 LHM (ANx), and Louis Langsam v. SCAQMD, LASC No. BS055249; and
• 54957.6(a), to meet with designated representatives regarding salaries and benefits of represented and unrepresented employees, or regarding mandatory subjects within the scope of representation of its represented employees. Negotiator: Eudora Tharp. Organizations: San Bernardino Public Employees Association and Teamster's Local 911.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no action taken in closed session to report, the meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairman Glover.

The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on May 14, 1999.

 

 

	Respectfully Submitted,
	SAUNDRA McDANIEL Senior Deputy Clerk

Date Minutes Approved: ________________________

____________________________________________
Dr. William Burke, Chairman

Respectfully Submitted,