South Coast Air Quality Management District
South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictSUMMARY MINUTES OF THE
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 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:
William A. Burke, Ed.D., Chairman
Speaker of the Assembly AppointeeCouncilmember Norma J. Glover, Vice Chairman (arrived at 9:35 a.m.)
Cities of Orange CountySupervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 10:15 a.m.)
County of Los AngelesMs. Jane W. Carney
Senate Rules Committee AppointeeSupervisor Cynthia P. Coad, Ed.D. (left at 11:55 a.m.)
County of OrangeMayor Ronald O. Loveridge (left at 10:50 a.m.)
Cities of Riverside CountySupervisor Jon D. Mikels
County of San BernardinoMayor Pro Tem Leonard Paulitz
Cities of San Bernardino CountyCynthia Verdugo-Peralta
Governor�s AppointeeSupervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
Members Absent:
Councilmember Hal Bernson
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western RegionCouncilmember Beatrice J. S. LaPisto-Kirtley
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern Region
Chairman Burke called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
Mr. Mikels. Suggested that the recruitment process be undertaken to fill the recently-vacated position of General Counsel, which is a Board-appointed position. Executive Officer Dr. Barry R.Wallerstein responded that, after discussions with the Chair and Vice Chair, he was preparing a proposal, at their direction, for the Board to make potential adjustments to District Counsel Barbara Baird's contract. Mr. Mikels stated his concern is that the recruitment should be conducted under the Board's direction. Chairman Burke stated that the process was not being subverted, and that the item will be added to the agenda for the October 20, 2000 Board meeting after review by the Administrative Committee.
Mr. Paulitz. Congratulated the ARB, of which Chairman Burke is a member, on keeping the EV mandate; and commended Chairman Burke personally for that effort.
Chairman Burke commented that because of the limitations on the amount of power provided by batteries, he questioned the expenditure of billions of dollars more on EV technology alone. Therefore, he had recommended to the ARB staff that they study the inclusion of fuel cell technology in the ZEV mandate, since fuel cell technology seems to have a greater potential for a more utilitarian low-cost vehicle than electric technology.
Dr. Wallerstein. Regarding Item No. 2B on the agenda (Set Hearings for Rules 219, 481, 1107, 1141, 1141.1, 1141.2, and 1162), noted a modification to the staff recommendation to change the hearing date from October 20, 2000 to November 17, 2000 in order to provide a 60-day public notice in lieu of the required 30-day notice.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(B) Rules 219, 481, 1107, 1141, 1141.1, 1141.2, and 1162
(C) Proposed Rule 1196 - Clean On-Road Heavy-Duty Public Fleet Vehicles
Agenda Items No. 9 and No. 23 were held for discussion.
ON MOTION OF MR. PAULITZ, SECONDED BY
MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, Glover, and LaPisto-Kirtley), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH 8 AND 10 THROUGH 22, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
9. Approve Compensation Package for Designated Deputy
Commenting that this item concerned an important position--Assistant DEO/Public Affairs and Transportation--she believed more Board members should be present to vote on the item, and therefore,
MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA MOVED TO CONTINUE AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 TO THE OCTOBER 20, 2000 BOARD MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. MIKELS AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, Glover, and
LaPisto-Kirtley).At Mr. Paulitz's request, Chairman Burke directed staff to provide information on the recruitment, screening, and selection process for the position to Board members in sufficient time for their review prior to the October 20 Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 23 was tabled until after the public hearing items.
BOARD CALENDAR
ON MOTION OF MR. PAULITZ, DULY SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, Glover, and LaPisto-Kirtley), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 25 THROUGH 31 AND ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED:
AB 1877 (Maldonado) -- Air District Rules & Regulations
From "Watch/Seek Amendment" to SUPPORTAB 2061 (Lowenthal) -- Zero-Emission Vehicles:
Alternative Diesel Fuel SUPPORTSB 1298 (Bowen) -- Distributed Generation
unless Amended" to NEUTRAL
From "OpposeSB 1300 (Sher) -- California Clean Air Act SUPPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Agenda Items No. 33 and No. 34 were taken out of order at the Chairman's direction.
Dr. Laki Tisopulos, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report. Staff distributed to Board members, and made available to the public, copies of an Addendum to Agenda Item #33, which contained the following revisions to the proposed amended rule:
1) Addition of the following paragraph to the Resolution for PAR 1168:
"WHEREAS, the Governing Board finds and determines, taking into consideration the factors in Section (d)(4)(D) of the Governing Board Procedures, that the modifications adopted which have been made to Proposed Amended Rule 1168 - Adhesives and Sealant Applications since notice of public hearing was published do not significantly change the meaning of the proposed amended rule within the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 40726 and would not constitute significant new information pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5;"
2) Modification of PAR 1168, Subparagraph (k) Exemptions, as follows:
"(k)(5) Until September 1, 2001, the provisions of this rule shall not apply to any facility that uses less than one pint of total adhesives and sealants in any one day. Notwithstanding, a facility that has purchased an adhesive or sealant pursuant to this exemption may continue its use up to one pint in any one day, provided that the product was purchased prior to September 15, 2000."
(Ms. Glover arrived at 9:35 a.m., during the staff report.)
Dr. Coad commented that she was pleased that by limiting the VOC content of the adhesives to the point where it can predominantly be complied with by water-based formulations, it would indirectly address the misuse (inhaling) of the ingredients in these adhesives by youths.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
*ALLEN IRISH, National Paint & Coatings Association
*MATT STEWART, DAP, Inc.
FRED WALNUT, TACC/Illinois Tool WorksCommented that PAR 1168 applies to container sizes not regulated by CARB--those greater than 16 ounces in size--and will have the effect of requiring consumers to use the same formulations as industrial users of contact adhesives. The alternative to low-VOC technology is waterborne technology, and most consumer users are not equipped to use waterborne products successfully. The industrial end-user is more sophisticated and able to deal with the more fickle waterborne formulations, and has the delivery equipment required, such as infrared ovens and special clamping mechanisms. Requested that the Board include an exemption in the rule for retail contact cements sold in containers of 32 ounces or less. (*Submitted written comments and samples of DAP water-based adhesive in one-quart containers.)
PETER WHITTINGHAM, Environmental Mediation, on behalf of Industrial Brush Corporation
Commented that Industrial Brush Corporation (IBC) manufactures brushes that are used in the cleaning, peeling, and polishing of a wide variety of produce, and, to their knowledge, IBC is the only company in the United States that manufactures these specific types of brushes. The adhesive used to attach the brush to its core, Nylox, exceeds the existing VOC content limit in Rule 1168--which will be reduced under the proposed amendment. Despite efforts to locate a low-VOC adhesive for its operation, the Nylox adhesive is the only compound which meets IBC's specific product applications and satisfies customer demands. IBC is pursuing the possibility of add-on control equipment that could potentially reduce its VOC emissions by 80 percent, thus allowing IBC to continue use of its present adhesive. IBC has petitioned the AQMD Hearing Board for a variance to continue use of the Nylox adhesive while meeting with vendors of emission control equipment and continuing research to locate a suitable compliant alternative adhesive.
Requested that the Board instruct staff to work with IBC to better understand their issues and their constraints, which staff has already committed to doing, and that staff report back to the Board in a timely manner as to the best way in which to address IBC's operation. (Submitted Written Comments).
- Speaking in Opposition to PAR 1168:
ROBERT MAINDELLE, Wilsonart International
Expressed support for the inclusion of an exemption from Rule 1168 for retail contact adhesive blended specifically for consumer use. Commented that while CARB considers products packaged up to 16 fluid ounces as a consumer adhesive, Wilsonart manufactures quart- and gallon-sized adhesives geared specifically towards the consumer.
- Speaking in Support of PAR 1168
DENNIS STEIN, 3M
Expressed 3M's belief that PAR 1168 will achieve needed emission reductions and provide available technology products that will assist AQMD in its efforts to improve air quality.
BOB SCHNEIDER, Truss Joist
Expressed appreciation to AQMD staff for reviewing their issues and concerns, and including language in the proposed amended rule to address structural wood members which will provide approximately a 35 percent reduction in the "as applied" VOC content of the adhesive that they are using, and allow them to continue to produce their products.
RITA LOOF, RadTech International
Commended staff for their recognition of the environmental benefits of ultraviolet and electron beam (EB) coatings technology, in the form of an exemption; and requested that the words "electron beam" be added to exemption (k)(12). While EB operations are not considered light curable, the emissions and method of cure for EB adhesives would be similar to the light curable adhesives.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Robert G. Braun, Flexible Products CompanyWith respect to the requested exemption for adhesives designed for consumer use,
Dr. Tisopulos responded that Rule 1168 regulates commercial/industrial uses only. Adhesives used by consumers are regulated by CARB; therefore, any issue with regard to the consumer use should be addressed to CARB. PAR 1168 exempts facilities that use less than one pint (16 oz.) total of adhesives and sealants in one day, until 2001. CARB's consumer products regulation applies to products in containers of 16 ounces or less. In addition, staff included an explicit exemption in the rule, Subparagraph (k)(14), which states that the provisions of Rule 1168 do not apply to adhesives subject to CARB's consumer products regulation.DR. COAD MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT RESOLUTION
NO. 00-26, AMENDING RULE 1168 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO THE RESOLUTION AND THE RULE:Addition of the following paragraph to the Resolution for PAR 1168:
"WHEREAS, the Governing Board finds and determines, taking into consideration the factors in Section (d)(4)(D) of the Governing Board Procedures, that the modifications adopted which have been made to Proposed Amended Rule 1168 - Adhesives and Sealant Applications since notice of public hearing was published do not significantly change the meaning of the proposed amended rule within the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 40726 and would not constitute significant new information pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5;"
Modification of PAR 1168, Subparagraph (k) Exemptions, as follows:
"(k)(5) Until September 1, 2001, the provisions of this rule shall not apply to any facility that uses less than one pint of total adhesives and sealants in any one day. Notwithstanding, a facility that has purchased an adhesive or sealant pursuant to this exemption may continue its use up to one pint in any one day, provided that the product was purchased prior to
September 15, 2000."THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Burke, Coad, Glover, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz,
Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: *Carney.
ABSENT: Antonovich, Bernson, and LaPisto-Kirtley.
*Conflict of interest.
Ms. Lee Lockie, Director of Area Sources, gave the staff report.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals, speaking in opposition to PR 1131:
KIMBERLY RUSCIO, Nutrilite Division, Amway Corporation
Commented that small amounts of VOC-containing ingredients, such as flavorings and extracts, are batched together with many organic-based compounds to form the core of the food bars manufactured by Nutrilite. Reformulation of these incidental ingredients is not an option, and significant manpower and expenses will be required for testing of VOC content, determining emission rates, and recordkeeping to comply with the rule requirements. Requested that if the Board does approve PR 1131 as written, that AQMD staff continue to work with Nutrilite during the implementation phase of the rule to find ways to mitigate the impact to their business.
JOHN BILLHEIMER, Environmental Reality
Expressed concern that the staff report for PR 1131 rehashes the control strategy for VOC reductions from coatings, with which AQMD has extensive experience; however, the food manufacturing/processing industry is a new venture for AQMD, and the processes involved are not comparable to coating processes. Commented that the issued raised by Nutrilite is not discussed in the staff report, and there are many other facilities that will be similarly affected. Suggested that the Board reject the staff report , and direct staff to return to the workshop stage and document the workshop results in the staff report, with reference to the processes that are cited in the rule applicability.
(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 10:15 a.m., during public testimony.)
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Broadbent responded that PR 1131 affects 26 facilities that are large businesses for which the District has conducted an extensive public outreach and participation effort with respect to development of this rule. In response to Dr. Coad, Mr. Broadbent indicated that he believes the reason why there were not more individuals present to speak on this item is because they are all well-versed as to what staff is proposing and are already moving forward to install control equipment or reformulate their products. Staff believes the proposed rule is technically feasible and cost effective. He added that staff does intend to work with Nutrilite, as requested, to determine ways in which they can comply with the rule. Ms. Lockie commented that she believes Nutrilite's operation may be well below the exemption threshold that is contained in PR 1131, and will work with the company to determine their VOC content.
Dr. Coad expressed concern with regard to limiting or altering solvents used for sterilization. Because there is a significant difference in terms of the sterilization process for milk that is refrigerated, versus milk that is stored in containers on a shelf, she questioned whether the rule would affect the availability of juice and milk packaged in non-refrigerated cardboard containers.
Mr. Broadbent responded that the sterilization processes applicable to PR 1131 involve use of solvents for sterilizing of equipment used for food processing and extracting processes. Staff has worked extensively with this industry to develop alternative solvents that will also meet the sterilization needs for the industry. Those facilities that choose to use alcohol and certain other compounds for sterilization will have the option of installing control equipment that will remove those air contaminants in the exhaust stream.
Commenting that she did not feel her concerns regarding the sterilization procedures for non-refrigerated milk and juices in cardboard containers had been fully addressed and she would like staff to come back with a more definitive answer,
MS. COAD MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE OCTOBER 20, 2000 BOARD MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DR. BURKE, AND FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Antonovich, Burke, Carney, Coad, Glover, and Wilson.
NOES: Paulitz and Verdugo-Peralta.
ABSENT: Bernson and LaPisto-Kirtley.
The Chairman announced that the motion failed1 and,
DR. WILSON MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 00-27, ADOPTING RULE 1131 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. CARNEY, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Burke, Carney, Glover, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.
NOES: Antonovich and Coad.
ABSENT: Bernson and LaPisto-Kirtley.
1The voting machine failed to register votes cast by Board Members Loveridge and Mikels.
Dr. Elaine Chang, Asst. DEO/Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources, gave the staff report.
Chairman Burke commented that because of the information received by Board members, including communications from CARB, the CEC, and the Governor's office, he intended to make a motion for the Board to approve the staff report with an effective date in 2006 for the low-sulfur diesel fuel requirements of PAR 431.2, instead of 2004, in order to conform to the standard that EPA has indicated it intends to set. The 2006 date, he believes, will address concerns related to price spiking and the impact to small business operators, such as truck drivers.
In response to Dr. Wallerstein, Chairman Burke indicated that it was his intent that the 2006 effective date be January 1, 2006, in order to receive the full benefit of the proposal for the 2006 attainment year for PM10. It was his intent, also, that the proposed mitigation fee be deleted from PAR 431.2, as the proposed change in the effective date would make the mitigation fee unnecessary.
CHAIRMAN BURKE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 00-25, AMENDING RULE 431.2 AND FINDING THAT THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM AMENDING RULE 431.2 ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY PREPARED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED FLEET VEHICLE RULES AND RELATED RULE AMENDMENTS AND THAT NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO PAR 431.2:
"(c)(2) Prior to
June 1, 2004January 1, 2006, a refiner or importer who elects to produce or supply low-sulfur diesel to be marketed as such shall notify the Executive Officer of such intent in writing. The sulfur content of low-sulfur diesel supplied shall not exceed 15 ppm by weight.""(c )(3) On or after
June 1, 2004January 1, 2006, a refiner or importer shall not produce or supply any diesel fuel for any stationary or mobile source application in the District, unless:
(A) Tthe diesel fuel is low-sulfur diesel for which the sulfur content shall not exceed 15 ppm by weight, or
(B) The refiner or importer is in compliance with subdivision (I) and the fuel sulfur content does not exceed the limit specified in subparagraph (I)(1)(B)."Delete subparagraph "(i) Mitigation Fees," and change subparagraph "(j) Exemptions" to "(i) Exemptions."
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER.
Staff distributed to Board members, and made copies available to the public, an Addendum to Agenda Item #32 which contained recommended revisions to PAR 431.2 in accordance with Chairman Burke's motion.
In response to Mr. Mikels, Dr. Wallerstein indicated that CARB's draft diesel risk management plan proposes dates in 2005 or 2006 for a fuel specification.
At Mr. Mikels' suggestion,
DR. WILSON MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 00-25, AMENDING RULE 431.2 AND FINDING THAT THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM AMENDING RULE 431.2 ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY PREPARED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED FLEET VEHICLE RULES AND RELATED RULE AMENDMENTS AND THAT NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO PAR 431.2:
"(c)(2) Prior to
June 1, 2004January 1, 2005, a refiner or importer who elects to produce or supply low-sulfur diesel to be marketed as such shall notify the Executive Officer of such intent in writing. The sulfur content of low-sulfur diesel supplied shall not exceed 15 ppm by weight.""(c)(3) On or after
June 1, 2004January 1, 2005, a refiner or importer shall not produce or supply any diesel fuel for any stationary or mobile source application in the District, unless:
(A) Tthe diesel fuel is low-sulfur diesel for which the sulfur content shall not exceed 15 ppm by weight, or
(B) T the refiner or importer is in compliance with subdivision (I) and the fuel sulfur content does not exceed the limit specified in subparagraph (I)(1)(B)."Insert the following provision after subparagraph (c )(3):
"(c)(4) The effective date specified in paragraph (c )(3) shall be extended to match a later compliance date adopted by the California Air Resources Board, not later than June 1, 2006, applicable to refiners and importers in the South Coast District."
Delete subparagraph "(i) Mitigation Fees," and change subparagraph "(j) Exemptions" to "(i) Exemptions."
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
SENATOR RICHARD POLANCO
Expressed his hope that Chairman Burke's proposal would embrace the federal standard as to the time and the impact to small independent operators and those who would use the fuel. Commented that the staff proposal would have tremendous adverse impacts, particularly for those who depend on diesel fuel in providing a livelihood. Suggested that the AQMD work with all the entities that are affected by PAR 431.2 and develop a strategy that can bring together the type of resources that will provide the opportunity to remove existing polluting diesels and provide the kinds of incentives to maintain the livelihoods of those individuals who have to maintain families and other obligations.
PAUL RYAN, California Refuse Removal Council
Requested that the Board delay the adoption of the PAR 431. 2 to assure that the time frames of implementation coincide with the adoption of state and federal standards. Adopting the rule amendments now will place the South Coast region at a disadvantage in reaching state-mandated recycling goals. (Submitted Written Comments.)
- Speaking in Opposition to PAR 431.2:
KEN GILLILAND, Western Growers Association
Commented that agricultural growers, packers, and shippers rely on both commercial and private carriers to move their commodities to local and distant markets, and have little or no ability to pass increased input costs to buyers. The proposed unilateral adoption of mandatory low-sulfur diesel in the South Coast region will significantly harm their members who operate in the region by increasing input costs dramatically. It may also increase fuel shortages, as the oil industry does not appear to be able to consistently deliver the new fuel to users. Either higher prices or inconsistent supplies would logistically and economically impede a grower's ability to harvest and transport crops. With both statewide and national fuel standards pending, adopting local rules will make it more contentious and difficult for transition into a more uniform standard.
Indicating that he had to leave the meeting to attend an engagement in Riverside,
Mr. Loveridge expressed his support for Chairman Burke's motion. He noted that there is currently a legislative proposal pending regarding incentives to help truckers meet low-sulfur diesel fuel standards in advance of effective dates and guidelines; and he suggested that the proposal be referred to the Board's Legislative Committee to report back to the Board at the earliest time possible.
(Mr. Loveridge left at 10:50 a.m.)
DAVID SMITH, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)/BP ARCO
Expressing support for low-sulfur diesel and the application of particulate traps, commented that there is no need for AQMD to adopt a standard at this time. WSPA members have voluntarily agreed to produce 30,000 barrels of low-sulfur diesel fuel, which is approximately three times what is required for AQMD's fleet rules. By adopting a low-sulfur standard now, the AQMD will place this air district at an economic disadvantage and will have marketplace impacts that Southern California cannot afford. Believed the mitigation fee option was a policy that AQMD should avoid because it discourages the production of low-sulfur diesel, since the fee is cheaper in many cases than what it would cost for manufacturers to make the product. Further, it places the emission reductions that AQMD expects in jeopardy because it will create a market where low-sulfur and high-sulfur fuel will be mixed together. (Submitted Written Comments.)
*ROD SPACKMAN, Chevron Corporation
*TOM TRUEBLOOD, International Truck & Engine Company
ROBERT SULNICK, South Coast Clean Air Partnership
*STEPHANIE WILLIAMS, California Trucking AssociationSupported consistency among the South Coast district, CARB and EPA rulemakings for a fuel rule with a June 2006 implementation date for the availability of 15 ppm sulfur fuel. Emphasized that the particulate traps only work with low-sulfur diesel, and commingling of low-sulfur and high-sulfur fuels will inhibit the effectiveness of the particulate traps. (*Submitted Written Comments.)
- Speaking in Support of PAR 431.2
GLADYS MEADE, American Lung Association
*TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean Air
*JULIE MASTERS, Natural Resources Defense Council
STEVE FARKAS, Paramount Petroleum Corporation/Western Independent Refiners Assn.
AGUSTIN EICHWALD, LUIS MARQUEZ, Communities for a Better Environment
*Submitted Written CommentsCommented that compliant products are ready and available, and the 2004 proposed compliance date provides ample flexibility. Recommended, therefore, that the Board adopt the 2004 date, or at the very least 2005. While EPA and CARB are proposing to enact a low-sulfur rule by 2005 or 2006, the South Coast has the worst air quality in the country, and therefore needs the emissions benefits from this rule more than any other area.
Pointed out that diesel after-treatment devices require low-sulfur diesel to work properly. If manufacturers cannot ensure a supply of the low-sulfur fuel until 2006, the benefits of after-treatment devices will not be realized until even later.
Urged the Board, if Chairman Burke's motion passes, to include a request to CARB and the CEC--and to the Governor, if the Board wishes--to consider accelerating the schedule that is now proposed at the state level because of the need for PM10 attainment in the South Coast region. The available technology for particulate traps which may be so important in reducing PM10 can only proceed rapidly if there is low-sulfur diesel fuel available.
Suggested that the Board make the rule mandatory for all suppliers and end-users, because in order to achieve relevant emission reductions, mobile sources must be included.
Expressed belief that the mitigation fee is not an equal tradeoff for noncompliance with the rule, it is unnecessary, and should be removed from the rule. While the fee calculation is based solely on the emission benefits from not burning low-sulfur fuel, it does not account for the emission benefits lost by not using diesel after-treatment devices.
Requested that Rule 431.2 be revisited if future EPA and CARB rules on low-sulfur diesel contain small refiner provisions. This concept is set forth in the resolution contained in the staff proposal. In recognition of the high per gallon cost of capital to refiners and the challenges small refiners face in securing financing for capital projects necessary to produce low-sulfur diesel, suggested that Rule 431.2 provide small refiners a compliance extension, depending on what effective date is adopted by the Board.
CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney on behalf of California Manufacturers and Technology Association Southern California Air Quality Alliance
Expressed support for the proposal to reduce the sulfur in diesel fuel, but emphasized the importance of that being done in coordination with the ARB.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Note: In addition to those noted above, written comments were submitted for the record by numerous individuals, companies, agencies, groups, and organizations.
With respect to trying to get uniformity among the EPA, ARB, and the AQMD,
Mr. Paulitz pointed out that the Clean Air Act gave special authority to the State of California to regulate, and the State has given AQMD authority to regulate, because the South Coast district is in severe nonattainment. He noted that if AQMD applied to the South Coast the same rules as the rest of the nation, this basin would not be livable.With regard to a January 2006 versus June 2006 effective date, Dr. Wallerstein clarified, at Chairman Burke's request, that under current federal law, the South Coast air district is required to meet the federal PM10 standard in 2006. There is a 24-hour standard and an annual average standard. Approximately 6 tons/day of emission reductions are expected from the low-sulfur fuel alone, with additional reductions if particulate traps are utilized. If the low-sulfur fuel is not implemented as soon as possible, staff is concerned that AQMD will be unable to achieve attainment in 2006. Further, the proposed EPA regulation that has been referenced requires not only the refiners, but the end-users as well to comply in June 2006, and the refiners have informed District staff it takes approximately six months to have their product flow through the system to ensure that the end-users are using it and have depleted the higher sulfur material. Therefore, staff believes a January date is consistent with the EPA June date and encouraged the Board, at a minimum, to specify January, recognizing that the fuel will not yield a full benefit for the attainment year and there are consequences to not attaining the federal standard.
Commenting that much of the testimony heard and the comment letters received emphasized the importance of being consistent with CARB's fuel standard, Dr. Wilson clarified that is the reason that his substitute motion would change the dates in Subparagraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) from 2006 to 2005, with the additional stipulation that if the CARB rule should move that date either forward or backward that staff be directed to bring Rule 431.2 back to the Board for amendment.
With respect to proposed Subparagraph (c)(4) which staff prepared and distributed to Board members, Dr. Wilson clarified that in the event that CARB establishes an effective date for its low-sulfur fuel standard either in 2004 or 2006, instead of the anticipated date of June 2005, that AQMD Rule 431.2 would change automatically to coincide with the date set by ARB.
A UNANIMOUS VOTE WAS CAST BY THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT (Absent: Bernson, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge) APPROVING THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
NO. 00-25, AMENDING RULE 431.2 AND FINDING THAT THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM AMENDING RULE 431.2 ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY PREPARED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED FLEET VEHICLE RULES AND RELATED RULE AMENDMENTS AND THAT NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO PAR 431.2:"(c)(2) Prior to
June 1, 2004January 1, 2005, a refiner or importer who elects to produce or supply low-sulfur diesel to be marketed as such shall notify the Executive Officer of such intent in writing. The sulfur content of low-sulfur diesel supplied shall not exceed 15 ppm by weight.""(c)(3) On or after
June 1, 2004January 1, 2005, a refiner or importer shall not produce or supply any diesel fuel for any stationary or mobile source application in the District, unless:
(A) Tthe diesel fuel is low-sulfur diesel for which the sulfur content shall not exceed 15 ppm by weight, or
(B) The refiner or importer is in compliance with subdivision (I) and the fuel sulfur content does not exceed the limit specified in subparagraph (I)(1)(B)."Insert the following provision after subparagraph (c )(3):
"(c)(4) The effective date specified in paragraph (c )(3) shall be extended to match a later compliance date adopted by the California Air Resources Board, not later than June 1, 2006, applicable to refiners and importers in the South Coast District."
Delete subparagraph "(i) Mitigation Fees," and change subparagraph
"(j) Exemptions" to "(i) Exemptions."The public hearings were interrupted so that the Board could take action on Agenda Items No. 23 and Other Business Items Nos. 36 through 38.
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
Dr. Jean Ospital gave a brief presentation on the item. Mr. Mikels suggested a continuance of this item because of unresolved issues with regard to the comparability and the use of the unit risk factors when one does not exist for the alternative fueled engines to be able to directly compare emissions. Indicating his agreement,
DR. BURKE MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE ISSUE RELATED TO THE USE OF UNIT RISK FACTORS IN THE ABSENCE OF A RISK FACTOR FOR ALTERNATIVE FUELED ENGINES AND THE COMPARABILITY OF THE DATA THAT IS BEING USED, AND BRING THE ITEM BACK TO THE BOARD AT ITS NOVEMBER 17, 2000 MEETING. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. MIKELS, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge).
(Dr. Coad left at 11:55 a.m.)
OTHER BUSINESS
The following individuals addressed the Board to comment on this item:
JULIE MASTERS, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Urged the Board to grant Communities for a Better Environment's (CBE) request for a public hearing on the CENCO Refinery permit applications. The public has expressed substantial concern over the environmental impacts that the refinery will have in their neighborhoods, and NRDC believed the Board should allow the public an opportunity to be heard on an issue that affects their health.
JOCELYN THOMPSON, Attorney at Law, on behalf of CENCO Refinery Company
Commented that the permitting and CEQA process for CENCO's permit applications is one of the most comprehensive and meticulous in her experience in terms of the number of rules considered by AQMD staff, the amount of information requested of CENCO and submitted by them to AQMD, and the extra outreach to the public through notices, meetings, and hearings. Urged the Board to deny CBE's request for a public hearing, as recommended by AQMD staff.
SCOTT KUHN, Staff Attorney, JESUS TORRES, PAUL WEAVER, and
AGUSTIN EICHWALD, Communities for a Better Environment
JAMES FLORES, resident, City of Santa Fe SpringsCommented that prior to shutdown of the refinery in July 1995 it was, under the ownership of Powerine Oil Company, one of the largest pollution sources in the basin and had one of the worst accident and safety records in the basin. Thus, CENCO's application in October 1998 for a change of operator to allow it to operate the refinery prompted significant concern among community residents. There are businesses, day care centers, and hospitals located near the refinery that moved to the area because they were told the refinery would never reopen. While AQMD has held public meetings in the community regarding the CENCO permit applications, these meetings were held before the EPA issued a notice of violation to CENCO. Therefore, CBE believed the public has the right to know why AQMD is proceeding with issuing permits to CENCO when EPA has indicated it violates federal law.
District Prosecutor Peter Mieras pointed out that the AQMD Hearing Board has issued an Order for Abatement against CENCO. Before any piece of equipment at the refinery can be operated, CENCO must come back to the Hearing Board, in a public hearing, and make a detailed showing that every piece of equipment that it intends to operate will operate in full compliance with all applicable state and local air quality rules. Further, that will only occur after there has been a demonstration to the staff that the limited amount of utility equipment that needs to be operated to get the balance of the equipment in good repair can also be operated in full compliance.
With regard to the notice of violation issued by EPA to CENCO, AQMD staff, when confronted with the ministerial obligation to reinstate the old Powerine permit and to process the change of operator from Powerine to CENCO, met with EPA and discussed the fact that, under state law, AQMD was obligated to reinstate the permit and issue the change of operator application. The EPA had no objections at that time. However, subsequent to AQMD issuing the applications to CENCO and obtaining an Order for Abatement from the Hearing Board to protect the community because the District was concerned about the refinery not being operated for three years, EPA issued the notice of violation. The 47 applications before the AQMD meet all of the AQMD's permitting rules and requirements. The existing equipment covered by the reinstatement and the change of operator application does not need NSR because it is existing equipment. The EPA, however, has a different view. CENCO has sued EPA, and that is a matter between EPA and CENCO which will be adjudicated in court. The AQMD's obligation is to follow state law and to follow its own rules and regulations which require the AQMD to issue the permits.
TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean Air
Expressed the Coalition's belief that the community has a right to at least have a forum to express their views and concerns, with the facility that is reopening; and noted that there is an EPA action and there is also an action by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
Acknowledging that the community has legitimate concerns about a refinery operating in their neighborhood, Dr. Wallerstein noted that the land use decision rests with the City of Santa Fe Springs, which has acted on the conditional use permits. Relative to the air quality permits, AQMD is processing those permits according to the AQMD's rules and regulations, and has gone above and beyond the rules and regulations in certain aspects. After the permits are issued, staff will continue to go above and beyond in terms of communication and working with the community. If AQMD staff issues the permits to CENCO and if the public believes that it erred in doing so, they have the ability under AQMD rules and regulations to petition the Hearing Board.
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta commented that she has spoken to officials from the City of Santa Fe Springs on several occasions because she has concerns about how the people in the community will be affected by reopening of the refinery. She expressed her belief, however, that it would not be in the interest of the community as a whole if AQMD does not issue the permits, based on the fact that CENCO has committed to making the needed improvements to the refinery, and staff's assurance that CENCO will be made to do so pursuant to the rules and regulations of this district.
ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, THE BOARD DENIED THE PETITION BY CBE FOR A REGULATION XII PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR CENCO REFINERY COMPANY, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Carney, Glover, Mikels, Paulitz,
Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Burke.
ABSENT: Bernson, Coad, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge.
ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, DULY SECONDED AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Coad, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED THE ISSUANCE OF RFP #P2001-18 FOR A COORDINATOR, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $75,000, TO PLAN AND PRESENT AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AIR QUALITY TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, DULY SECONDED AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Coad, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT:
1) THE PROPOSED COMPENSATION RATE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS FOR CONSULTANT AS DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHMENT TO THE PROPOSAL;
2) MS. RHONDA REYES IS A BOARD MEMBER CONSULTANT; AND
3) THE CONSULTANT CLASSIFICATION IS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, PURSUANT TO BOARD POLICY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Dr. Wallerstein noted that there was public testimony expected both in opposition and in support of the proposed amendments. Therefore, staff recommended that the item be continued to the October 20 Board meeting, so that there are more Board members present to consider the item.
ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, SECONDED BY
MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, Coad, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON RULES 1302, 1303, 1306, AND 2000 TO OCTOBER 20, 2000 BOARD MEETING.
CLOSED SESSION
Dr. Wallerstein indicated that closed session would be waived, with the understanding that the Board had previously authorized the Finance Committee to work with the Executive Officer on the finalization of the lease of a portion of AQMD's Diamond Bar Headquarters building for the Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce, and staff was now prepared to present that item to the Finance Committee.
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.
-o-
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta expressed her appreciation to AQMD staff for the Small Business Innovative Research Conference held recently, and commended Dr. Wallerstein, Larry Kolczak, Lupe Valdez, Lourdes Cordova-Martinez, Kathy Stevens, and the entire staff involved for their professionalism.
-o-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Burke at 12:35 p.m.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on September 15, 2000.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
William A. Burke, Ed.D., Chairman
ACRONYMS
CARB = California Air Resources Board
CEC = California Energy Commission
CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
FY = Fiscal Year
NSR = New Source Review
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
PR = Proposed Rule
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound
ZEV = Zero Emission Vehicle