March 17, 2000 Board Minutes

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
MARCH 17, 2000

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:

Dr. William Burke, Chairman
Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

Councilmember Norma J. Glover, Vice Chairman
Cities of Orange County

Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich
County of Los Angeles

Councilmember Hal Bernson (left at 2:15 p.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western Region

Ms. Jane W. Carney
Senate Rules Committee Appointee

Mayor Beatrice J. S. LaPisto-Kirtley
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region

Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge
Cities of Riverside County

Supervisor Jon D. Mikels (left at 2:05 p.m.)
County of San Bernardino

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

Members Absent:

Supervisor Cynthia P. Coad, Ed.D.
County of Orange

Mayor Pro Tem Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino County

Vacant:

Governor’s Appointee

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

Swearing in of Newly-Appointed Board Member

Chairman Burke administered the oath of office to Jane W. Carney, who was appointed to the Governing Board by the Senate Rules Committee for a term ending January 15, 2004.

Presentation of Retirement Awards

Chairman Burke presented retirement awards to Hugh Wagoner and Ginny McGee, for 23 and 13 years, respectively, of dedicated District service. Ms. McGee, Governing Board Liaison, was also presented with a Certificate of Appreciation from the Board.

Because of the numerous requests from the public to comment on Agenda Item No. 35, the item was taken out of order.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Amend Rule 1402 - Control of Toxic Air Contaminants form Existing Sources and
Rule 1401 - New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants

        Elaine Chang, Assistant DEO of Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, gave the staff report. PAR 1402 contains a dual regulatory approach: one risk-based; the other technology-based. Under the risk based approach, approximately 40 facilities will be required to prepare toxic inventory health risk assessments and, if necessary, risk reduction plans. The proposed amendments to Rule 1402 contain two sets of thresholds: significant risk level and action risk level. The first consists of a cancer risk of 100 in a million and a hazard index of 5, which already exists in Rule 1402; however, staff proposes to add a new action risk level consisting of a cancer risk of 10 in a million, a hazard index of 3, and a cancer burden of 0.5. Under the technology-based approach, staff intends to address up to 7500 facilities through 8 industry-specific regulations.

        In terms of small business concerns regarding the potential of the future source specific rules, staff incorporated into the Board resolution several clarifications and commitments on how the future rule development will evolve. Staff recommended that the Board amend Rule 1401 and Rule 1402 as proposed, including several clarifications and modifications as indicated in the errata sheets which were distributed to the Board and copies made available to the public.

        The public hearing was opened. The Board first heard brief presentations by representatives of the environmental community and representatives of the regulated community.

Environmental Community:

TIM CARMICHAEL, Director, Coalition for Clean Air; DR. FELIX AGUILAR, President, Physicians for Social Responsibility; and CARLOS PORRAS, Communities for a Better Environment

Expressing their belief that 10 in a million is the highest cancer risk standard that should be set, suggested four amendments to the staff proposal: (i) set a date certain by which companies will have to comply with the 10 in a million standard, and eliminate the provision for unlimited extensions to comply with that standard; (ii) lower the hazard index to 1.0 to provide parity with the risk standard proposed for cancer; (iii) require that the threshold for reporting toxic emissions be 10 in a million instead of 100 in a million; and (iv) instruct staff to come back to the Board with a proposal to address cumulative risk and to better protect sensitive receptors, such as schools, hospitals, and other vulnerable populations. Although they preferred a cancer risk standard of 1 in a million, expressed support for the 10 in a million standard if the Board accepted their suggested amendments.

Regulated Community:

CURTIS L. COLEMAN, Attorney on behalf of California Manufacturers Association; GERALD BENETTO, California Small Business Alliance; and ROBERT WYMAN, Attorney representing Regulatory Flexibility Group

Commented that: (i) PAR 1402 will be costly and difficult for industry, and will impose additional burdens on the one source category that already poses the least risk from air toxics�stationary sources; (ii) the reduction in risk levels from Rule 1402 affecting 40 facilities would not be noticeable in terms of what the overall risk levels are in the basin according to the MATES-II study; and (iii) EPA has consistently determined that an excess cancer risk of 100 in a million is an appropriate level to protect the public health. Suggested as an alternative to the staff proposal, a two-tier program. For the first tier, an action level for individual risk of 50 in a million and a cancer burden of 1.0, to apply to every Rule 1402 facility in the basin. Under the second tier of the proposal, if a Rule 1402 facility were located within 500 feet of one or more other Rule 1402 facilities and if their combined estimated cancer burden exceeded 1, then each facility would also be required to meet a cancer burden of less than 0.5. Lastly, all facilities should have the option of complying with Rule 1402 as an incentive for reducing their risk early.

Dr. Chang responded to the requested changes to PAR 1402 as follows.

Environmental Community�s Proposal:

Allow facilities only one extension to comply with the 10 in a million standard.
Staff believes many of the facilities will need time to allow technology development and testing of the technologies. The extension staff is providing in the rule would require certain criteria to be met, i.e., demonstration that the technology is not commercially available and exceeds certain cost criteria, so that a facility is required to make expeditious efforts without necessarily closing down the business.

Lower the hazard index to 1 and the cancer burden to 0.05.
This would bring thousands of companies under the rule, which the District does not have the resources to handle. Staff would also need to analyze how the facilities could reduce the cancer burden below 0.5, which, to a certain extent, is driven by land-use decisions and the population, and not within the control of the facilities.

Lower the screening value for reporting emissions from 100 in a million to 10 in a million.
Staff does not have the resources to handle the additional 5,000 to 6,000 facilities that would be subject to Rule 1402 inventory reporting with a 10 in a million screening value. Staff indicated, however, that if the screening value were lowered to 25 in a million, staff would be able to handle the additional 120 to 150 facilities that would have to meet the reporting requirement.

Bring a proposal back to the Board to address cumulative risk.
Staff believes the proposed action level of 10 in a million addresses cumulative impacts to the extent that the District is able to without getting involved in potential land-use decisions by assigning a certain quota for an area as to the allowable cancer risk. There would also be the matter of determining how to apportion the cancer risk burden for existing sources. In addition, staff believes the Air Toxics Control Plan (Agenda Item No. 34) will address the true cumulative impacts among both stationary and mobile sources.

Regulated Community�s Proposal:

Action risk level of 50 in a million, and a cancer burden of 0.5 for Rule 1402 facilities located within 500 feet of each other and having a combined cancer burden more than 1.
Staff believes a 50 in a million threshold would be significantly too high. There are very few facilities that would be affected by a 50 in a million standard, and those few facilities are not likely to be located within 500 feet of one another. Also, to staff's knowledge, all the facilities in the basin, in essence, are below the suggested cancer burden of 1. Dr. Wallerstein recommended that the Board not adopt the industry's proposal.

Following the presentations by the environmental community and the regulated community, the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:

Speaking in Support of PAR 1402:

ALVARO HUERTA, Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE)
JOE DEVINNY, concerned citizen
*BAHRAM FAZELI, CBE (Submitted letter from six doctors at UCLA School of Medicine)
LINDA MARQUEZ, CBE/La Causa
MAYELI HERNANDEZ, CBE/Youth Environmental Justice
JAMES FLORES, CBE, Santa Fe Springs
RAUL LEJANO, UCLA Department of Urban Planning
PATRICK BURNS, CBE
JUAN GARCIA, Huntington Park Residents
CAROL OJEDA-KIMBROUGH, concerned citizen
SUZANA TAPIA, CBE
STEVE FLEISCHLI, Santa Monica Bay Keeper
DENISE NG, concerned citizen
ADRIAN ALVAREZ, Los Angeles Gardeners Association
OPHELIA HERNANDEZ, Huntington Park Residents
MARTIN HERNANDEZ, Labor Community Strategy Center/Bus Riders Union
WAYDE HUNTER, North Valley Coalition of Concerned Citizens, Inc.
TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean Air
MARTIN SCHLAGETER, Sierra Club
GAIL RUDERMAN FEUER, Natural Resources Defense Council
ESTHER SIMMONS (read comments by Nicole Wilkin) and KIM THOMPSON (read
comments by Sherree Kiser), North Valley Coalition

*Submitted Written Comments

Urged the Board to strengthen Rule 1402 in order to protect the public health, and expressed support for the amendments to PAR 1402 suggested in the environmental community's proposal.

Speaking in Opposition to PAR 1402:

JOSHUA COHEN, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
BILL QUINN, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
CHARLES AARNI, Chevron Products Company
*JOHN BILLHEIMER, Environmental Reality
MAGGIE PERALES, concerned citizen, Suva community
BILL PEARCE, The Boeing Company
*GIDEON KRACOV, Attorney, Rose, Klein & Marias LLP
GARY STAFFORD, California Furniture Manufacturing Association
MILLIE YAMADA, Northrop Grumman
RANDY SOLGANIK, Metal Finishing Association of Southern California (MFASC)
DENNIS BECVAR, Pacific Environmental Services/MFASC
*LARRY STRAW, Attorney on behalf of MFASC
CAROL FOSS McCRACKEN, Foss Plating/MFASC
WILLARD BELL, Metal Surfaces, Inc.
CANDIDA VAZQUEZ, Padres de Canoga Park
PAUL CHOE, Korean Dry Cleaners Association of Southern California
RAY RANGWALA, Dry Cleaner
CAROLYN REPOVICH VARIAN, California Dry Cleaners Association
JACKIE SMITH, California Dry Cleaners Association
CHRIS COBADA, Aztlan Liberation Organization
DOUG KORTHOF, concerned citizen
DANIEL CUNNINGHAM, MFASC
JEFF SCHWARZ, California Dry Cleaners Association
ALONZO REAL, concerned citizen

*Submitted Written Comments

        Industry representatives expressed support for the alternative amendments to Rule 1402 suggested in the regulated community's proposal. Concerned citizens and neighborhood/community representatives urged the Board to adopt a 1 in a million action risk level and to not allow unlimited extensions for facilities to comply with the standard. Representatives of the metal finishing industry called for additional review of the MATES-II data for hexavalent chromium and nickel. Representatives of the dry cleaning industry expressed their concern regarding the financial burden that additional regulation would pose to dry cleaners, primarily small, family-owned businesses.

NO POSITION:

DR. MELANIE MARTY, Cal/EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

        Explained the process that OEHHA goes through in generating the cancer potency factors, unit risk factors, and reference exposure levels that are used in the toxic air contaminants programs in California, including AB 2588.

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

    Written Comments Submitted by:
    Peter D. Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division, Air
        Resources Board
    Ernestine Barrett
    Robert Wyman, Attorney at Law (copy of article from June 8, 1998
        edition of LA Times)

        In response to comments by MFASC representatives regarding collection of data in the MATES-II program for hexavalent chromium and nickel, Mel Zeldin, Assistant DEO of Science & Technology Advancement, explained that EPA requires the AQMD in its PM2.5 program to collect field blanks to make sure that there is no contamination. Considering the low levels that the AQMD is able to measure since the latest update of its lab equipment, it is not surprising that there were measurements of hexavalent chromium above the detection limit. The numbers indicated that they are within the realm of acceptable limits for passive collection, but there is no indication of contamination; therefore, the data is valid. With regard to the nickel, there is a disparity between ARB and AQMD laboratories. Staff will be seeking comparative samples between the two laboratories using known reference samples and expects to resolve that issue.

        Dr. Wallerstein pointed out that the dry cleaners and metal plating industries will be taken out of Rule 1402 and addressed through industry specific rules. As indicated in the Board resolution, staff will bring those specific requirements back to the Board within two years. The industry specific concerns and issues can be addressed at the time of the rulemaking.

        There was extensive discussion by the Board on staff's proposed amendments and the changes to PAR 1402 proposed by the environmental and the regulated communities. Mr. Loveridge commented in favor of decreasing the screening level for reporting emissions, and requiring compliance by a date certain rather than unlimited extensions. Chairman Burke agreed that compliance should not be open-ended, and he suggested that requests for extension of compliance plans be brought before the Board to decide. He also questioned why sensitive receptors were not more acutely defined in the rule.

        With respect to the screening level for reporting emissions, Dr. Wallerstein indicated that if the Board wanted to strengthen that aspect of the rule, staff would recommend setting the level at 25 in a million at this time, and when staff comes back to the Board in two years with a report on how implementation of the rule is proceeding, the Board could decide if it wanted to set the screening level at 10 in a million, which would require emissions reporting from small businesses such as dry cleaners and gas stations that have traditionally been exempt from reporting their annual emissions to the District. Staff would need to develop the reporting forms and instructions for these businesses, and significant outreach would be required.

        Regarding sensitive receptors, Dr. Wallerstein noted that the issue was raised during the public workshop process, particularly with respect to schools. The way that PAR 1402 is structured, facilities that are located near schools will be included in the first tier of facilities to be controlled under Rule 1402. In addition, one of the source specific rules staff is proposing is for equipment used to sterilize instruments at hospitals, facilities that are frequently utilized by sensitive receptors.

DR. WILSON MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 35 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE MODIFICATIONS IN THE ERRATA SHEETS, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

Subparagraph (e)(2) of Rule 1402: limit the number of extensions which the Executive Officer can grant a facility to only one 2-year extension and require that any requests for additional extensions be brought before the Governing Board; and

Change the reporting threshold from 100 in a million to 25 in a million for facilities that have to report their toxic emissions.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DR. BURKE.

        Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley expressed concern, with regard to requests for additional extensions being brought before the Board, that it would be a complex and tedious matter for the Board to hear. She expressed her belief that it would be more appropriate for staff to handle requests for extensions because there would be more flexibility, and she was also concerned about the possibility of forcing a facility out of business. Chairman Burke suggested an alternative of having the full hearing on additional plan extensions before the Stationary Source Committee, with a recommendation from the Committee to the Board. Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley indicated her agreement to that procedure.

        Ms. Glover commented that she could not support the 10 in a million action risk level because she was concerned with the economic impact it would have on small businesses and family-operated businesses.

        Dr. Wallerstein responded that the goal for the approximately 7500 facilities that will be addressed through industry specific rules will be 10 in a million. However, each rule will be brought before the Board separately and socioeconomic impact analyses will be done for each. If the technology does not exist, or if the impacts are too severe, staff will recommend an appropriate level and the Board will have the opportunity to decide for each specific industry accordingly.

        Mr. Mikels raised questions regarding the procedure for the compliance plan extensions being brought to the Board through the Stationary Source Committee. In response,

DR. WILSON AMENDED HIS MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE BOARD FOR ADDITIONAL TIME EXTENSIONS, INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE STATIONARY SOURCE COMMITTEE.

        Mr. Antonovich and Mr. Bernson expressed concern with the economic impact the 10 in a million action risk level would have on businesses, and indicated that they would be supportive of changing that risk level to 25 in a million.

        Ms. Carney commented that there is no threat to small businesses from PAR 1402, with the changes proposed by Dr. Wilson, unless the Board is unable to look at the source specific rules as they are brought before the Board and make changes, if changes are in order. She expressed her belief that the 10 in a million risk level for the 40 facilities that would be affected by the rule change is appropriate, and the Board would take a significant step forward in addressing the toxic air contaminants problem by adopting the proposed amended rule.

THE MOTION BY DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY DR. BURKE, TO:
1) APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 35 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE MODIFICATIONS IN THE ERRATA SHEETS, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

Subparagraph (e)(2) of Rule 1402: limit the number of extensions which the Executive Officer can grant a facility to only one 2-year extension and require that any requests for additional extensions be brought before the Governing Board; and

Change the reporting threshold from 100 in a million to 25 in a million for facilities that have to report their toxic emissions;

AND 2) DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD A PROCEDURE FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION OF RULE 1402 COMPLIANCE PLAN EXTENSIONS, INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE STATIONARY SOURCE COMMITTEE

FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:

AYES: Burke, Carney, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, and Wilson.

NOES: Antonovich, Bernson, and Glover.

ABSENT: Coad and Paulitz.

MR. LOVERIDGE MOVED TO: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 00-6, AMENDING RULE 1402 AND RULE 1401 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE MODIFICATIONS IN THE ERRATA SHEETS, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

Subparagraph (e)(2) of Rule 1402: limit the number of extensions which the Executive Officer can grant a facility to only one 2-year extension and require that any requests for additional extensions be brought before the Governing Board;

Change the reporting threshold from 100 in a million to 25 in a million for facilities that have to report their toxic emissions; and

Change the action risk level in Rule 1402 from 10 in a million to 25 in a million

AND 2) DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE BOARD FOR ADDITIONAL TIME EXTENSIONS, INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE STATIONARY SOURCE COMMITTEE.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. BERNSON, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, Carney, Glover,
LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, and Wilson.

NOES: Mikels.

ABSENT: Coad and Paulitz.

(Mr. Mikels left at 2:05 p.m.)

CONSENT CALENDAR

Minutes of February 18, 2000 Board Meeting
Set Public Hearings April 21, 2000 and May 19, 2000 to Consider Amendments and/or Adoption to AQMD Rules and Regulations

Set Hearings April 21, 2000 for:

(A) Regulation IX - Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources

(B) Rule 461 - Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing

Set Hearings May 19, 2000 for:

(C) Proposed Rule 1191 - Light- and Medium-Duty Public Fleet Vehicles

Authorize AQMD Membership in California Fuel Cell Partnership as Full Partner
Execute Agreement to Cost-Share Determination of Non-Registration Rates of On-Road Vehicles
Amend Contracts for Labor and Employment Law
Execute Contract to Purchase Gas Chromatograph System for Speciation and Measurement of Ambient Volatile Organic Compounds
Award Contract to Purchase Transportable Continuous Emission Monitoring System
Recognize and Appropriate Funds for PM2.5 Program
Amend Contract with Ecotek for Privatization of Portions of Annual Emissions Report Program
Approve Receipt and Donation of Eight Air Quality Exhibits to Non-Profit Educational Group
This item was withdrawn by staff.

Modify Board Meeting Time for Calendar Year 2000
Adopt Update of Technology Advancement Plan for Clean Fuels Program and Approve Technology Advancement Annual Report
Public Affairs Report
Report to Legislature and CARB on AQMD's Regulatory Activities for Calendar Year 1999
Hearing Board Variances and Appeals
Civil Filing and Civil Penalties Report
Rule and Control Measure Forecast
Lead Agency Projects and Environmental Documents Received by the AQMD
Status Report on Major Projects for Information Management Scheduled to Start
During Last Six Months of FY 1999-2000
FY 1999-00 Contract Activity

Agenda Items Nos. 2(B), 2(C) and 9 were held for discussion.

ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD:

1) APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1, 2(A), 3 THROUGH 8 AND 10 THROUGH 21, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF; AND

2) ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS NO. 00-2, SETTING THE TIME OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS; AND NO. 00-3, ADOPTING THE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT PLAN FOR THE CLEAN FUELS PROGRAM FOR 2000 AND APPROVING THE TAO ANNUAL REPORT.

Items Deferred from Consent Calendar

2(C). Set Hearing May 19, 2000 for Proposed Rule 1191 - Light- and Medium-Duty
         Public Fleet Vehicles

        Robert Sulnick, South Coast Clean Air Partnership, addressed the Board to request a delay of the public hearing on Proposed Rule 1191 to allow adequate time for public review of and comment on the CEQA documentation which was released to the public on March 10, 2000, as well as the socioeconomic analysis for the proposed rule, which has not yet been published. (Submitted Written Comments)

        Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff was agreeable to postponing the public hearing an additional 30 days.

Written Comments Submitted by:
Assemblymember John Longville, Assembly California Legislature

ON MOTION OF CHAIRMAN BURKE, SECONDED BY
MR. BERNSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD SET A PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 16, 2000 FOR PROPOSED RULE 1191.

(Mr. Bernson left at 2:15 p.m.)

2(B). Set Hearing April 21, 2000 for Rule 461 - Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing

        Because of a potential conflict of interest, Chairman Burke did not participate on this item.

        Mike Geyer, Independent Service Station Owners/Operators, requested a delay of the public hearing on PAR 461 because many aspects of the proposed amended rule may be in conflict with CARB's enhanced vapor recovery rule, which industry has not had the opportunity to examine. Secondly, the socioeconomic analysis does not estimate all of the impacts on small independent dealers.

        Jack Broadbent, DEO of Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, responded that staff will be meeting with industry representatives prior to the April 21 hearing date to discuss the possibility of incorporating into PAR 461 certain alternatives raised by industry at the public workshop.

NO BOARD ACTION REQUIRED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING.

9. Amend Contract with Ecotek for Privatization of Portions of Annual Emissions Report Program

        John Billheimer, Enviro Reality, expressed his support for renewal of the contract with Ecotek and offered two suggestions for the future: (i) direct disk-to-disk filing of emissions inventory forms by electronic mail or similar method; and (ii) set up a data base to allow vendor sharing of manufacturers safety data specification (MSDS) sheets, so that information can be referenced by the vendor instead of having to send the MSDS documents along with the emissions inventory.

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, SECONDED BY
DR. WILSON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD AUTHORIZED THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH ECOTEK, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $250,000 TO EXERCISE THE THIRD-YEAR RENEWAL OPTION FOR PRIVATIZATION OF PORTIONS OF THE ANNUAL EMISSIONS REPORT PROGRAM, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

BOARD CALENDAR

Administrative Committee
Legislative Committee
Mobile Source Committee
Stationary Source Committee
Technology Committee
Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
Air Resources Board Monthly Report

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY
MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Bernson, Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 23 THROUGH 29 AND ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED:

AB 1450 (Calderon) -- Permitting of Composting Operations Neutral; Seek Clarification

SB 89 (Escutia) -- Environmental Justice Support and Suggest Clarifying Amendments

AB 654 (Cardoza) -- Rendering Plant Odor Support with Amendment

SB 1427 (Rainey) -- Transit Pass Tax Credits Support

S 645 (Feinstein) -- Reformulated Gasoline Support

S 1886 (Inhofe) -- Reformulated Gasoline Requirements Support

Receive Recommendations Stemming from Millennium Board Retreat and Direct Staff to Implement Specified Actions as Part of FY 2000-01 Budget and Work Program

ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD:

1) ACCEPTED THE SUGGESTIONS DEVELOPED THROUGH THE MILLENNIUM GOALS RETREAT PROCESS, AS DETAILED IN THE ACTION INITIATIVES; AND

2) DIRECTED STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION INITIATIVES, INCLUDING ACTIVITIES DIRECTED TOWARD THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF SENIOR RESIDENTS, UPON APPROVAL OF THE FY 2000-01 BUDGET.

Approve AQMD Annual Investment Policy and Interim Delegation of Authority to Appointed Treasurer to Invest AQMD Funds

ON MOTION OF MS. CARNEY, SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD: 1) APPROVED THE ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY; AND 2) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 00-4, DELEGATING INTERIM AUTHORITY, UNTIL JULY 1, 2000, TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY TREASURER TO INVEST AND REINVEST AQMD FUNDS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

Best Available Control Technology Guidelines Report

ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, DULY SECONDED AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED THE BACT GUIDELINES REPORT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study II - Final Report

        In the interest of time, staff waived an oral report on this item. The following individuals addressed the Board to speak on the item:

        DR. MELANIE MARTY, Cal/EPA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)

        Explained the process that OEHHA went through to arrive at the diesel exhaust unit risk factor, beginning in 1989, when the ARB requested that OEHHA examine diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant. Noted that while OEHHA has been criticized for using railroad worker studies for determining the diesel exhaust unit risk factor, other investigators outside of OEHHA have performed similar studies based on transport workers and truckers and published risk estimates very similar to OEHHA's. Also, pointed out that while U.S. EPA in its latest health effects assessment decided not to quantitate the potency of diesel exhaust emissions, pending a new analysis of the trucker study, it has stated that diesel exhaust is a likely human carcinogen and is proceeding with regulations to address the issue.

JULIE MASTERS, Natural Resources Defense Council

        Expressed support for the general conclusions from the fixed site program portion of the MATES-II study, particularly the conclusion that the estimated carcinogenic risk in the basin from air toxics is about 1400 per million people, approximately 70 percent of which is attributable to diesel particulates. Disagreed, however, with the conclusions from the microscale study portion of the report, which was intended to address the environmental justice issues by monitoring for hot spots in the basin. Cautioned the Board that the study was based on an inadequate site selection process, an inadequate number of sites, and an inadequate amount of monitoring time at each site location and, therefore, cannot authoritatively capture the issue of toxic hot spots emissions. Urged the Board to (i) approve the MATES-II report; (ii) clarify in the Board resolution that AQMD regards the microscale study portion of the report as a pilot study only, and that any tentative findings regarding the existence or non-existence of localized hot spots cannot be relied upon authoritatively; and (iii) direct AQMD staff to perform additional basinwide monitoring and modeling of potential hot spots in order to achieve more comprehensive results.

BOB FLETCHER, Air Resources Board

        Expressed ARB's concurrence with the findings in the MATES-II final report, and encouraged the Board to approve the report. Commented that ARB agrees that diesel particulates account for a major part of the air toxics exposure risk in the South Coast Air Basin, and it has adopted regulations that are expected to reduce particulate matter emissions from
on-road mobile sources by approximately 60 percent by the year 2010. With regard to the microscale monitoring that was designed to identify toxic hot spots, indicated that ARB is currently conducting additional special purpose monitoring in individual communities to try to better understand this issue, and encouraged the AQMD to continue to work with ARB and other stakeholders as they examine the cumulative risk and individual hot spots issue. Indicated that the risk estimates cited in the MATES-II report are not necessarily absolute numbers, but are best used as indicators that allow AQMD to compare pollutants, control options, and the effectiveness of the overall air toxics reduction efforts.

DR. H. ANDREW GRAY, DR. WILLIAM BUNN, and TIMOTHY FRENCH,
Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)

        1) Opposed the staff recommendation to receive and file the MATES-II final report.
Dr. Gray, author of the original study in 1982 that provided the data used in MATES-II to estimate ambient diesel exhaust emission levels, commented that there have been significant changes since 1982 in the underlying data for diesel and elemental carbon emissions. In addition, the elemental carbon surrogate method used in the MATES-II study cannot provide a reliable estimate of diesel concentrations for 1999. Furthermore, numerous inconsistencies and errors were discovered in the draft MATES-II report, many of which, he believes, have not been adequately addressed in the final report.

        2) Indicated that several members of the technical review group that was created to oversee the MATES-II study had concerns regarding model performance and other data analysis issues that were not addressed adequately or ignored completely, and, therefore, had expressed doubt regarding the credibility of the final report. Commenting that the MATES-II report has not had the benefit of independent scientific peer review or validation, which is unacceptable considering the impacts of the report and the nationwide attention that it is receiving, urged the Board to direct staff to work with stakeholders to establish a peer review panel of leading scientists and researchers to address and resolve the critical issues and uncertainties that call the report's methodologies into question.

PETER OKUROWSKI, Association of American Railroads

        Speaking in opposition to the staff recommendation to receive and file the MATES-II final report, urged the Board to delay the item as suggested by EMA representatives, and to clarify in the report, where it indicates that comments were made about the validity of using elemental carbon as a surrogate and the 1.04 factor, that the comment came from the person who developed the study, Dr. Gray.

        In response to a question by Mr. Antonovich regarding including the clarifications requested by Mr. Okurowski in the report, Dr. Wallerstein indicated that staff double-checked the calculations, and, if anything, using Dr. Gray's method appears to have underestimated the diesel contribution. He pointed out that the science will continue to evolve and the MATES-II report does not preclude continuing discussions with ARB staff and others on future efforts.

TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air

        Noted that those who were questioning the conclusions in the report related to the apportionment of the diesel/mobile source risk versus the stationary source risk were all in the employ of the engine manufacturers or the diesel industry or the trucking industry. Requested that the Board direct staff to delete the conclusion that there are not toxic hot spots in the basin.

STEPHANIE WILLIAMS, California Trucking Association

        Speaking in opposition to the staff recommendation, commented that the MATES-II report is based on poor science and it contradicts census data and CalTrans data relating to truck traffic, diesel emission levels, and deaths from lung cancer. Requested that the Board not accept the report, but send it out for independent review and have the report re-analyzed.

DENISE NG, concerned citizen

        Requested that the Board not approve the MATES-II report because of inadequate criteria, the high level of uncertainty, failure to monitor areas with major air pollution, and measuring for only 30 air pollutants.

        In response to Mr. Loveridge, Mel Zeldin, Assistant DEO of Science & Technology Advancement, indicated that the MATES-II technical review group was involved in the process from beginning to end, and met on a regular basis throughout the course of the project. The technical review group held its last meeting in January 2000 and provided generally positive comments on the draft version of the MATES-II final report which was released to the public in November of 1999.

        Mr. Loveridge commented that he believed the 15 members of the MATES-II technical review group were as good a peer group as could be identified, and that it would strengthen the final report to have a position paper from the group.

        Mr. Antonovich indicated that he would like to have a written summary of the public comments made at this meeting and staff's responses to those comments provided to the Board at its April 21, 2000 meeting.

Written Comments Submitted by:

Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chairman, Air Resources Board
Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region IX
Lee Hobbs, Hobbs Trucking Co.

ON MOTION OF MR. LOVERIDGE, SECONDED BY
MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Bernson, Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD: 1) RECEIVED AND FILED THE MATES-II FINAL REPORT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF; AND 2) DIRECTED STAFF TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD AT ITS APRIL 21, 2000 MEETING (i) A SUMMARY POSITION PAPER OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUP ON THE MATES-II FINAL REPORT, AND (ii) A SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS MADE AT THE MARCH 17, 2000 BOARD MEETING REGARDING THE MATES-II FINAL REPORT AND STAFF'S REPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS.

Final Draft Air Toxics Control Plan

Bob Fletcher, Air Resources Board; Lee Wallace, Sempra Energy/Southern California Gas Company; and Tim Carmichael, Coalition for Clean Air, expressed their support for the staff recommendation. Mr. Carmichael commented that in the future, the AQMD needs to do more in the way of pollution prevention, as opposed to its current and historical approach of pollution control. He suggested that AQMD increase its efforts in promoting new technologies and alternative processes that create no pollution.

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY
MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 00-5, APPROVING THE FINAL DRAFT AIR TOXICS CONTROL PLAN AS A PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTIONS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)

Annual RECLAIM Audit Report for 1998 Compliance Year

In the interest of time, staff waived an oral report on this item. The public hearing was opened. There being no requests from the public to speak on the item, the public hearing was closed.

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, SECONDED BY
MS. CARNEY, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD APPROVED THE ANNUAL RECLAIM AUDIT REPORT FOR THE 1998 COMPLIANCE YEAR, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

Amend Rule 1150.1 - Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

In the interest of time, staff waived an oral report on this item. The public hearing was opened. There being no requests from the public to speak on the item, the public hearing was closed.

ON MOTION OF MR. LOVERIDGE, SECONDED BY
MR. ANTONOVICH, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Coad, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 00-7, AMENDING RULE 1150.1 AND CERTIFYING THE EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

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

Closed Session

The Board recessed to closed session at 2:57 p.m.., pursuant to Government Code Sections:

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 SCAQMD
v. EPA, United States District Court Case No. CV 98-9789-HLH (ANx) and In re Affected Coatings Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4094; and

54956.9(c) to confer with its counsel to decide, based on existing facts and circumstances, whether to initiate litigation (1 case) and to discuss a case in which it has decided to initiate litigation (1 case).

ADJOURNMENT

Following closed session, District Counsel Barbara Baird announced that there was no action taken in closed session to report; and the meeting was adjourned by Chairman Burke at 3:05 p.m..

The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on March 17, 2000.

Respectfully Submitted,

SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk

Date Minutes Approved: ________________________

____________________________________________
Dr. William Burke, Chairman

ACRONYMS
AB = Assembly Bill
ARB = Air Resources Board
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
EV = Electric Vehicle
MSRC = Mobile Source (Air Pollution Reduction) Review Committee
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
RFP = Request for Proposals
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound

This page updated: July 08, 2015
URL: ftp://lb1/hb/2000/April/0003min.html