SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
OCTOBER 8, 1999

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1999

Notice having been 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 10:20 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

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

Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge
Cities of Riverside County

Vacant: Governor’s Appointee

Vice Chairman Glover called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m.

• Opening Comments

Vice Chairman Glover. Acknowledged visiting dignitaries from the Committee on Transport, Public Works, and Water Management of the Netherlands Parliament.

Lupe Valdez, DEO/Public Affairs & Transportation Programs. Introduced those members of the Committee who were present, and stated that several other international dignitaries had visited the District earlier in the week from Nepal, the German Federal Environmental Agency, Thailand Pollution Control District, and the Beijing Municipal Environmental Agency.

Agenda Item No. 33 was taken out of order.

CLOSED SESSION

33. Closed Session

The Board recessed to closed session at 9:42 a.m., pursuant to Government Code Sections:

• 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); and SCAQMD
v. EPA, et al., USDC No. SACV98-948 LHM (ANx); 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: SCAQMD Professional Employees Association and Teamsters Local 911).

The Board reconvened at 10:05 a.m.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Minutes of September 10, 1999 Board Meeting

2. Make Findings Regarding Board Member Assistant/Consultant

3. Approve Compensation Package for Designated Deputies

4. Execute Contracts for AQIP Proposals Received During the Second Quarter of 1999

5. Approve Salary and Benefit Adjustments for Noncontract Management, Confidential,
and Attorney Employees

6. Execute Contract for Data Collection to Track Effectiveness of Voluntary Ridesharing
and Other Emission Reduction Activities Among Employer Worksites Exempted from
Rule 2202

7. Amend Contract with Mikon Computer Systems, Inc. for New Integrated Financial
and Human Resources System

8. Approve Classification and Salary Recommendations and Add and Delete Positions

9. Establish List of Prequalified Providers of Temporary Employment Services

10. Approve MOU with SCAQMD Professional Employees Association Regarding
Professional Bargaining Unit

11. Establish Lists of Prequalified Counsel to (1) Represent the AQMD in Environmental
Law Litigation; (2) Represent and Advise the AQMD Hearing Board; and (3)
Represent the AQMD in Tort Liability Litigation

12. Recognize, Appropriate, and Reallocate Funds for PAMS Program

13. Recognize, Appropriate, and Reallocate Funds for PM2.5 Program

14. Appropriate and Reallocate Funds for Children’s Health Study

15. Recognize and Appropriate Grant Funds from EPA for Boiler Tune-up Outreach
Program

16. Execute Contracts for EV Charge as part of FY 1997-99 AB 2766 Discretionary Fund
Work Program

17. Status Report on Paperwork Reduction Efforts

18. Public Affairs Report

19. Hearing Board Variances and Appeals

20. Civil Filing and Civil Penalties Report

21. Rule and Control Measure Forecast

22. Lead Agency Projects and Environmental Documents Received by the AQMD

23. Status Report on Major Projects for Information Management Scheduled to Start
During First Six Months of FY 1999-2000

24. Report of RFPs and RFQs Scheduled for Release in October

Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley indicated that she would abstain from voting on Agenda Item No. 1, Minutes of September 10, 1999 Board Meeting, because she was not present at the meeting. Vice Chairman Glover indicated that, with Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley's abstention, the Board would not have the seven votes necessary to take action on the item; therefore, Agenda Item No. 1 was continued to the Board's November 5, 1999 meeting.

Agenda Items No. 5 and No. 8 were withheld for discussion.

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, and Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 2 THROUGH 4, 6, 7, AND 9 THROUGH 24 AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 99-29, PERMITTING EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS TO RETIREMENT TO BE MADE ON A PRETAX BASIS, AS RECOMMENDED.

25. Items Deferred from Consent Calendar

5. Approve Salary and Benefit Adjustments for Noncontract Management, Confidential, and Attorney Employees

ON MOTION OF MS. COAD, SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, and Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 99-27, AMENDING AQMD’S ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND SALARY RESOLUTION FOR MANAGEMENT, CONFIDENTIAL, AND ATTORNEY CLASSES, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

8. Approve Classification and Salary Recommendations and Add and Delete Positions

Raymond Whitmer, Teamsters Local 911, representing AQMD employees in the Office, Clerical, and Maintenance (OCM) and Technical and Enforcement (TE) bargaining units, addressed the Board regarding two issues in the staff proposal for this item. First, regarding the proposal to create two new trainee-level classifications in Information Management (IM), he expressed concern that Union bargaining representatives had not been informed of this particular proposal nor provided copies of the proposed classification description and salary level before this item was brought before the Board for consideration. He expressed the Union's belief that the difficulty IM has had in the turnover and retention of technical staff is mainly because the primary classification is underpaid, and that staff's proposal to add the two new positions will not resolve the problem.

The second issue was the proposed salary change for the two managers in Human Resources, which, Mr. Whitmer noted, would afford them approximately a 10 percent wage increase. Stating that one of the reasons cited in the backup material for the proposed salary change was the additional duties and responsibilities that the two managers have assumed, he emphasized that there are over 360 District employees in the two bargaining units represented by the Teamsters that, because of significant layoffs in the past, have also had to assume additional duties and responsibilities. Yet, when it is time to consider wages and benefits of those employees, they are ignored. He informed the Board that the Union had reached an impasse with District negotiators at the bargaining table, and asked that the Board, before moving forward with changing management positions and increasing management salaries, direct District negotiators to come to the bargaining table and work out a deal with the Union that is fair and equitable for the OCM/TE employees.

In response to Mr. Paulitz, Eudora Tharp, Acting Director of Administrative and Human Resources, stated that staff did meet and confer with the Union regarding the class specifications and that Union representatives expressed their full support of the two new classifications.

Sandra Ornelas, AQMD Senior Office Assistant/Teamsters Local 911, addressed the Board on Items No. 5 and No. 8. With respect to the Union's agreement on the two new classifications, she indicated that they had not realized at the time that the proposal would result in the forfeiture of an office assistant position. She commented that the District is underutilized in clerical positions, and it was her understanding that no clerical positions would be cut. While she was not against the proposed reclassifications based on the consultant's studies, she expressed her belief that there was favoritism involved because approximately a year and a half ago 28 District secretaries had petitioned for a classification study and they are still awaiting the results.

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, SECONDED BY MS. COAD, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, and Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 99-28, INCREASING THE SALARY RANGE FOR CONTRACTS MANAGER, FINANCE AND BUDGET MANAGER, AND HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER CLASSES, AND AMENDING AQMD’S SALARY RESOLUTION FOR PROCUREMENT MANAGER, FINANCIAL SERVICES MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER, ASSISTANT COMPUTER OPERATOR, ASSISTANT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIAN, AND LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT CLASSES, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

BOARD CALENDAR

26. Administrative Committee

27. Legislative Committee

28. Mobile Source Committee

29. Stationary Source Committee

30. Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, and Loveridge), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 26 THROUGH 30 AND ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING POSITION ON LEGISLATON, AS RECOMMENDED:

HR 2556 (Wolf) – National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act SUPPORT IN
CONCEPT

(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 10:20 a.m.)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

31. Amend Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations

Ms. Lee Lockie, Director of Area Sources, gave the staff report. An Addendum to Agenda Item No. 31 was distributed by staff to Board members, and copies made available to the public, setting forth the following revisions to PAR 1171:

Amend Subparagraph (b), Definitions, to include:

PACKAGING PRINTING is any lithographic, flexographic, gravure, or letterpress printing that results in identifying or beautifying paper, paperboard, or cardboard products to be used as containers, enclosures, wrappings, or boxes.

Amend Subparagraph (h), Exemptions, to include:

(h)(9) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to cleaning operations in printing pre-press or graphic arts pre-press areas, including the cleaning of film processors, color scanners, plate processors, film cleaning, and plate cleaning.

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

• Speaking in Support of PAR 1171

BARBARA KANEGSBERG, BFK Solutions

Stating that PAR 1171 is ambitious and technology forcing, suggested that the Rule 1171 Oversight Committee, on which she has been invited to participate, begin as soon as possible; and suggested the following areas of emphasis for the Committee: (i) track changes in federal and state reactivity science and policy; (ii) examine more closely viable cleaning systems, which will involve consideration of a number of chemicals and chemical-free processes; (iii) conduct an experimental study to determine the impact of vapor pressure on VOC levels; and (iv) consider the total environmental impact, including air and water and concern for the safety of the individual worker; not only of the chemical, but of the manufacturing processes. (Submitted Written Comments)

MARTIN LEDWITZ, Southern California Edison

Expressed support, particularly for the provisions of PAR 1171 pertaining to the electric utility industry and electric component cleaning, and commended District staff for working with industry in terms of the future technology assessment and modification of definitions in the rule.

GERALD BONETTO, Printing Industries of California

Expressed support for the year 2001 proposed VOC limits for cleanup solvent, which industry believes are achievable by 2001. Commented that while the printing industry believes the proposed VOC limits for 2005 are extremely ambitious, they have chosen not to oppose the 2005 limits or to offer alternatives because of two proposals made by District staff. First, that the 2005 limits will not be submitted to the U.S. EPA as part of the SIP. Second, a provision in PAR 1171, Subparagraph (d), which commits the District to performing a technology assessment on cleaning operations for, among other industries, printing processes.

BERNARD ZYSMAN, Occidental Chemical Corporation

Commented that during the past four years, Occidental has been working with the coating industry, the adhesives industry, and the solvent cleaning industry to develop low-VOC technology using parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF), a VOC-exempt material under District Rule 102. They have had considerable success and will continue to work with these industries to develop compliant technology.

EDWARD S. LEE, Guidant Corporation/HIMA

Commented that PAR 1171 will achieve additional emission reductions from this source category while ensuring the availability of effective cleaning solvents that meet the rigorous demands of the medical device manufacturing industry.

RUSSELL JOHNSON, Aerojet

Commented that using an inline aqueous cleaning system with a VOC-free cleaning solution, Aerojet is able to perform large-scale electronics cleaning in a manner that will comply with the requirements of PAR 1171 that become effective in the years 2001 and 2005. In addition, their aqueous cleaning process meets or exceeds their customer’s requirements and has resulted in additional contract awards. (Submitted Written Comments)

CURTIS COLEMAN, CMA Southern California Air Quality Alliance and California Aerospace
Environmental Association

Expressed appreciation to District staff for addressing their concerns during the development of PAR 1171, and stated that the linchpin of their support for PAR 1171 was the provision that the Tier II reduction package not be submitted to EPA until after the technology assessment.

RUBEN LAGUNA, PCL

1) Commented that PCL has formulated a solvent for automotive coatings application equipment cleaning which will comply with the 2001 VOC limit in the rule, and has been supplying the solvent for use within the basin as of July 1999. 2) Expressed concern regarding the 2005 VOC limit, but stated that PCL will continue to work with the District on meeting that particular requirement.

BILL PEARCE, The Boeing Company

Emphasized the importance of delaying submission of the 2005 VOC limits until after the technology assessment is completed, and expressed their belief that the final VOC limits should be based on the results of that technology assessment.

LARRY COZZO, Graco Inc.

Expressed hope that District staff and industry, in a team effort, get the technology assessment done in a practical and scientific manner to develop a realistic solution for the year 2005 and beyond.

KATY WOLF, Institute for Research and Technical Assistance

Commended District staff for working diligently to develop standards that would strike a balance between allowing industry to continue operating in a productive manner and also meeting the need to reduce VOC emissions in the basin.

DR. STEPHEN HANNA, 3D Systems Inc.

Commented that 3D manufactures stereolithography apparatus, a piece of equipment that models photocurable resin into shapes to design customer prototypes, and that they worked closely with District staff in developing an exemption to Rule 1171, Subparagraph (h)(3)(H). However, as it is written, Subparagraph (h)(3)(H) exempts the equipment, but not the models produced by the equipment. Requested, therefore, that Subparagraph (h)(3)(H) of PAR 1171 be modified to include the models.

Mr. Broadbent indicated that staff was agreeable to adding the words "and models" to the end of Subparagraph (h)(3)(H) of the rule.

• Speaking in Opposition to PAR 1171

MICHAEL SCHELL, Environmental Management Services/Anderson Lithograph

Commented that industry is at the end of the curve for gains in solvent cleaning. Noted that there are processes that require precision solvent cleaning, and there is no way around it. There is no technology, at least for the printing industry, foreseeable that will meet the 2005 VOC limits in PAR 1171. Expressed hope that the 2005 limits would be delayed until after the technology assessment. Expressed belief that PAR 1171 has been driven by political expediency. (Submitted Written Comments)

RITA LOOF, RadTech International

Expressed concern that the 2005 VOC limits would discourage the use of ultraviolet and electron beam (UV/EB) materials. Expressed concern, also, that the technology assessment being done after the rule limits are set; however, expressed RadTech's commitment to try to find solutions and to try to find compliant products for the 2005 limits. (Submitted Written Comments)

• No Position Expressed

BILL McCONACHIE, National Paint & Coatings Association (NPCA)

Raised the issue of inconsistency, in that PAR 1171 exempts cleaning of plastic parts used on motor vehicle assembly lines, but does not exempt those same parts when used in auto body shops. Requested that the cleaning of plastic parts in auto body shops be given an exemption for one year while this issue can be studied further.

Mr. Broadbent responded that the exemption in Rule 1171 for cleanup solvent used for motor vehicle manufacturing lines applies to only one facility in the basin. He explained that there are potential fire hazards associated with the electrostatic application gun and the use of aqueous based cleaning systems. Mr. McConachie's concern, the cleaning of plastic bumpers prior to painting, relates to all of the auto body shops in the basin; and it actually deals with an amendment that was made to the rule in 1996, requiring the shops to use a 70 grams per liter (gpl) aqueous based cleaning system prior to painting. Mr. Broadbent indicated that staff was agreeable to the one-year exemption requested, while staff works with NPCA on implementing use of the 70-gpl materials in the auto body shops. Staff prepared an additional addendum to address this issue. Copies of the addendum, setting forth the following modification to Subparagraph (h) of PAR 1171, were distributed to the Board and made available to the public:

(3)(C) Until December 31, 2000, the cleaning of polycarbonate plastics provided that the clean-up solvent does not exceed 780 grams of VOC per liter.

There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.

Written Comments Submitted by:

Michael J. Carroll, Latham & Watkins Attorneys at Law, on behalf of
Health Industry Manufacturers Association (HIMA)

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Bernson, Burke, and Loveridge), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 99-31, AMENDING RULE 1171 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF:

Subparagraph (b), Definitions:

"PACKAGING PRINTING is any lithographic, flexographic, gravure, or letterpress printing that results in identifying or beautifying paper, paperboard, or cardboard products to be used as containers, enclosures, wrappings, or boxes."

Subparagraph (h), Exemptions:

"(3)(C) Until December 31, 2000, the cleaning of polycarbonate plastics provided that the clean-up solvent does not exceed 780 grams of VOC per liter."

"(3)(H) Until June 30, 2005, the cleaning of photocurable resins from stereolithography equipment and models."

"(9) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to cleaning operations in printing pre-press or graphic arts pre-press areas, including the cleaning of film processors, color scanners, plate processors, film cleaning, and plate cleaning."

32. Amend Rule 1130 – Graphic Arts

Laki Tisopulos, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report. The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:

GERALD BONETTO, Printing Industries of California

Commented that the most significant change proposed for Rule 1130 is dropping the exemption limit from 8 pounds of VOC emissions per day to zero, which will bring many small printers under the rule. Because of the small amount of emissions from these facilities--less than 3 pounds/day--they are not required to have District permits. He expressed concern not with respect to the small printers not being able to comply with the VOC limits in the rule, but with the excessive recordkeeping requirements that may be placed on these companies. Noting that there is a working group on streamlining the recordkeeping process, he encouraged the Board to look at a streamlined recordkeeping method for permit-exempt facilities that are now subject to the requirements in Rule 1130.

Dr. Wallerstein indicated that he had discussed this issue with Mr. Bonetto and it would be addressed after the first phase of permit streamlining recommendations is completed.

RITA LOOF, RadTech International

Expressed belief that the staff proposal is incomplete because the staff report and the environmental assessment focus on waterborne materials and does not reflect the availability of radiation-cured inks and coatings. Recommended, therefore, that the Board not adopt PAR 1130 until the proposal includes all compliant technologies, specifically radiation-cured processes, by including in the rule a definition of UV/EB processes.

Dr. Tisopulos responded that it is not necessary to define UV/EB technology in the rule because it is well known, and the rule does not advocate particular technology. However, for clarification purposes, staff refined the staff report, as well as the non-heatset ink definition, which explicitly lists UV- and EB-based ink technology as an example. Staff believes that, with that clarification, the rule adequately addresses this issue and no additional changes to either the rule or the staff report are necessary.

JOHN BILLHEIMER, Small Business Coalition

With regard to elimination of the 8-pound exemption from the rule, commented that there will be small users who are not in the information system, do not participate in rulemaking, and yet are subject to Rule 1130 requirements. While at this time staff is unaware of any small users who cannot meet the rule requirements, his concern is that there may be small specialty operations that need the small user exemption. Suggested that the District place elimination of the 8-pound exemption on hold for one year so that it can be examined for all of the Regulation XI rules, most of which have a small user exemption or consistency with permit exemptions.

There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.

ON MOTION OF MR. MIKELS, SECONDED BY MS. COAD, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Bernson, Burke, and Loveridge), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 99-30, AMENDING RULE 1130 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD – (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)

Elsa Gutierrez, Sandra Ornelas, Hugo Morris, and Raymond Whitmer, expressed to the Board, on behalf of the AQMD employees represented by Teamsters Local 911, that the best and final employee wage and benefit offer from management is unacceptable because it is unfair, not up to par with wages and benefits for comparable positions at other agencies, does not give any consideration for the furloughs in the past nor the additional duties and responsibilities that these employees have had to assume as a result of the layoffs in the past, and does not allow for the increase in health care costs. They expressed the OCM/TE employees' frustration that recognition of their dedication, commitment, and efforts to contribute to bringing about a better financial stability at the District has not been equated in the wages/benefits package presented by District management as its best/final offer, and they asked that the Board direct District negotiators to go back to the bargaining table and attempt to work out an agreement with the Union representatives.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairman Glover at 11:25 a.m.

The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on October 8, 1999.

Respectfully Submitted,