South Coast Air Quality Management District
South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictSUMMARY MINUTES OF THE
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FRIDAY, AUGUST 18, 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
Cities of Orange CountySupervisor Michael D. Antonovich (arrived at 9:50 a.m.)
County of Los AngelesMs. Jane W. Carney
Senate Rules Committee AppointeeCouncilmember Beatrice J. S. LaPisto-Kirtley
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern RegionMayor Ronald O. Loveridge
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 RegionSupervisor Cynthia P. Coad, Ed.D.
County of Orange
Chairman Burke called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
Chairman Burke. On behalf of the AQMD, gave recognition and expressed gratitude to the young professionals who had served as student interns at AQMD during the summer.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(B) Rule 1168 - Adhesive Applications
2. Set Public Hearing September 15, 2000 to Consider Amendments and/or Adoption to AQMD Rules and Regulations
(A) Proposed Rule 1131 - Food Manufacturing and Processing Operations
John Billheimer, Consultant/Environmental Reality, addressed the Board and expressed concern regarding the availability and/or feasibility of replacement solvents noted in the staff report for PR 1131, particularly PCTBF and methyl acetate. He noted that while there are usually comparable professionals from large businesses to rebut the District's position, PR 1131 generally affects small businesses that do not have the legal or technical resources to counter the District's staff report.
ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, SECONDED BY
MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH 23, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:AYES: Burke, Carney (except Items #2B and #4), Glover,
LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Carney (Items #2B and #4 only).
ABSENT: Antonovich, Bernson, and Coad.
BOARD CALENDAR
ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, DULY SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, and Coad), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 25 THROUGH 30 AND ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED:
ACR 133 (Torlakson) -- Traffic Congestion SUPPORT
SB 1298 (Bowen/Peace) -- Distributed Generation OPPOSE unless AMENDED
SB 1345 (Peace) -- Solar Energy Systems SUPPORT
SB 2191 (Soto) -- Truck Traffic Congestion SUPPORT with
AMENDMENTHR 1966 (Millender-McDonald) -- Asthma Awareness,
Education & Treatment Act of 1999 SUPPORTHR 4501 (Bilbray) -- Gridlock Mitigation and Commuter
Flexibility Act of 2000 SUPPORT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Alene Taber, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report. Staff distributed to Board members, and made available to the public, copies of Proposed Revisions to Agenda Item No. 31, which contained recommended changes to the Resolution for PR 1186.1 to address concerns that were raised by environmental community representatives, and to change the wording from "ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel" to "low-sulfur diesel fuel" throughout the proposed rule.
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
ROBERT SULNICK, South Coast Clean Air Partnership (SCCAP)
Opposed PR 1186.1 as written, and requested that the Board consider amending the rule to include a low-sulfur diesel option. Expressed disagreement with the percentages and methodology for calculating diesel equivalency, and suggested side-by-side comparison tests of low-sulfur diesel technology and CNG technology.
Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, responded that staff has been conducting working group sessions and public consultation meetings on the equivalency calculation, and as provided for in the resolution, staff will bring this issue before the Board for discussion at the September 15, 2000 Board meeting.
DAVE SMITH, BP/ARCO
Commented that while BP supports the concept to reduce the emissions, it opposes the proposed rule because BP believes it exceeds the District's authority to regulate fleets that must consist of 15 or more vehicles. The proposed rule would regulate owners of street sweepers that have as few as one street sweeper, if they have a contract to provide street sweeping services to a city or governmental agency that has more than 15 vehicles. (Submitted Written Comments.)
With respect to the legal authority, District Counsel Barbara Baird responded that the authority in the statute includes all fleets that are either owned or have a contractual or lessee relationship with a city, so that if the city chose to contract with several different entities to provide services, the entire city fleet would be covered by the rule, assuming the city fleet exceeded 15 vehicles. Any other interpretation of the statutory language, she believed, would be frustrating the intent of the legislation to include such fleets and not allow them to be contracted out.
JULIE MASTERS, Natural Resources Defense Council
TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean AirExpressed support for PR 1186.1, and urged the Board to make three amendments which they believe will ensure that communities receive the maximum health benefits from the proposed rule. First, advance the implementation date of the rule from 2002 to 2001. Alternative fuel technologies for sweeper operations, both using natural gas and propane, are mature and are being used successfully by many fleets. Second, the rule currently defines alternative fuel technologies to be technically infeasible if there is no refueling station within five miles of the storage facility. Urged the Board to limit a finding of technical infeasibility with the five mile exemption when there is no fueling station within five miles of the storage facility or within five miles of the route that the sweeper takes to reach its destination. Third, that the sunset provision be moved up from 2005 to 2004. They do not believe it is necessary to give sweepers such a long time, especially since many street sweepers operate on propane and the infrastructure for propane is relatively inexpensive. (Submitted Written Comments.)
Staff responded that PR 1186.1 is crafted so that only a small percentage of the fleet operators would need to take advantage of the five-mile exemption; and that by 2005, none of them will need the exemption. Staff emphasized that not only are natural gas sweepers available, but propane sweepers as well. Since propane is so widely available, staff believes there will be a wide accessibility of fueling stations for these fleets. In the event there is not, these fleet operators will be required to install particulate traps on the vehicles and operate on low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Ms. Carney questioned why staff proposed an implementation date of July 1, 2002 instead of 2001 and a sunset date of July 1, 2005 if propane is readily accessible.
Jack Broadbent, DEO/Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, responded that staff developed the July 1, 2002 implementation date because Rule 1186 - PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations, which is geared toward the same sources, has a January 1, 2000 date for procurement of PM10-efficient street sweepers. Staff, therefore, believed it would be prudent to have a requirement in Rule 1186.1 that would allow lead time for the equipment manufacturers to incorporate this technology in their new street sweepers. The proposed July 1, 2005 sunset date was developed by staff, in coordination with the street sweeping community, considering when the infrastructure would be available for all of the different street sweepers, including the specialty niches, such as those that handle large trash or highway speeds or asphalt paving situations. Staff emphasized that the burden of proof will be on the fleet operator to prove to the District that it has insurmountable technical difficulties.
Chairman Burke indicated that he believes there should be exemptions provided if there is an overriding technical prohibition of the production of a vehicle, but that should not be a reason for prolonging the sunset portion of the rule.
Dr. Wallerstein suggested that staff modify its proposal to move the sunset provision up one year to July 1, 2004, with the understanding that as that date approaches, if there is a problem, staff will come back to the Board and propose an extension of that date, if necessary.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Enrique Chiock, American Lung Association
of Los Angeles CountyMS. CARNEY MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 00-21, ADOPTING RULE 1186.1 AND APPROVING THE FINDING THAT POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM ADOPTING RULE 1186.1 ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED FLEET VEHICLE RULES AND RELATED RULE AMENDMENTS, AND NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE MODIFICATIONS TO RULE 1186.1 AND THE ADOPTING RESOLUTION AS SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 31, AND THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION TO SUBPARAGRAPH (d)(1)(B) OF RULE 1186.1:
"(B) Before July 1,
20052004, if the fleet operator has an approved Technical Infeasibility Certification for this individual purchase or lease, as described in subdivision (e),"THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich, Bernson, and Coad).
MS. CARNEY MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE SUBPARAGRAPH (d)(4) OF PR 1194, PERTAINING TO TAXICABS ONLY, TO THE OCTOBER 20, 2000 BOARD MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION, AND CONSIDER THE REMAINDER OF PROPOSED RULE 1194 FOR ACTION AT THIS TIME. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA, AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Carney, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Burke.
ABSENT: Antonovich, Bernson, and Coad.
Jack Broadbent gave the staff report on PR 1194.
(Mr. Antonovich arrived at 9:50 a.m., during the staff report.)
The public hearing on PR 1194--except for the portion of the rule regarding taxicabs--was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
DAVE SMITH, BP (for Robert Sulnick, SCCAP)
Opposed PR 1194, and requested that the Board consider amending the rule to include a low-sulfur diesel option. Expressed disagreement with the percentages and methodology for calculating diesel equivalency, and suggested side-by-side comparison tests of low-sulfur diesel technology and CNG technology.
MICHAEL FIELD, Xpress Shuttle
Expressed support for PR 1194. Commented that Xpress operates a door-to-door van service throughout Los Angeles and five counties, primarily at LAX. Of their 130 vehicles, approximately 20 percent are alternative fueled, and their contract with LAX has a stringent schedule for converting their fleet to alternative fuel.
ANDREW LITTLEFAIR, Pickens Fuel Corp.
Speaking in support of PR 1194, commented that Pickens currently has 13 additional natural gas fueling stations under construction, the majority of which will be completed by the first quarter of 2001. Pickens currently operates two natural gas fueling stations at LAX and Palm Springs Airport, and will in the near future have stations at John Wayne and Burbank airports.
JULIE MASTERS, Natural Resources Defense Council
JERILYN MENDOZA, Environmental Defense
TODD CAMPBELL, Coalition for Clean AirExpressed support for a strong airport ground access rule to protect public health in the South Coast region; and requested that the Board direct staff to come back to the Board with a proposal to include taxicabs in Rule 1194 by no later than the October Board meeting. In addition, urged the Board to adopt two amendments to PR 1194. First, to require shuttle van fleets to purchase super ultra low emitting vehicles (SULEVs) when SULEV sales in California reach an appropriate percentage of the market. Second, to remove the two-year phase-in before shuttle van fleets are required to purchase all ULEV vehicles, because ULEVs will be readily available in 2001. (Submitted Written Comments.)
MIKE STEVENS, LAX Expansion No
Expressed support for PR 1194. However, expressed concern that allowing an extension of time to consider taxicabs as part of the proposed fleet rules sends the wrong message, and could be the first step to exclude taxicabs from the proposed fleet rules.
GENE HAUCK, Supershuttle
Commented that Supershuttle, which voluntarily began a program five years ago to convert as many of its vehicles to CNG as possible, is committed to using alternative fueled vehicles; however, it will not achieve the 100 percent level by 2002, as required by subparagraph (d)(2)(B) of PR 1194. Therefore, requested an exemption from the 100 percent alternative fuel vehicle requirement, allowing Supershuttle to evaluate the availability of alternative fuel vehicles and the fueling infrastructure at the time, and continue its conversion process as appropriate for its business�which Supershuttle believes will be 50 percent.
Dr. Wallerstein responded that the PR 1194 that was originally set for hearing required that 100 percent of new purchases be alternative fuel vehicles. After discussion with Mr. Hauck, staff modified the proposed rule to require 50 percent the first year, and 100 percent in 2002. Further, as mentioned by Mr. Field, there are provisions under the franchise agreements with LAX which promote alternative fuel for 100 percent of the total fleet--not just new vehicle purchases. Proposed Rule 1194 only pertains to new purchases. Staff will continue to monitor the implementation status and the fueling infrastructure, and if a change in the 2002 date becomes necessary, staff will bring Rule 1194 back before the Board for amendment.
MS. B.J. KIRWAN, Attorney at Law, on behalf of 9 Los Angeles Taxicab Franchises
Expressed support for the two-month continuance on the taxicab issue, and commented that they will use the additional time to work on the rule, particularly the financing and an exemption if there is no financing available.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Enrique Chiock, American Lung Association of Los Angeles County
Nettabai Ahmed, Independent Cab Company
ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 00-22, ADOPTING RULE 1194, EXCLUDING SUBPARAGRAPH (d)(4), AND APPROVING THE FINDING THAT THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM ADOPTING RULE 1194 ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CERTIFIED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED FLEET VEHICLE RULES AND RELATED RULE AMENDMENTS, AND THAT NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich, Carney, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, Paulitz, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: Burke.
In the interest of time, staff waived a formal report on this item. The public hearing was opened. There being no requests from the public to comment on this item, the public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson and Coad), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 00-23:
- AMENDING RULE 1401;
- CERTIFYING THE ADDENDUM TO THE JUNE 1998 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AT THE JULY 1998 GOVERNING BOARD MEETING FOR RULE 1401 AND THE MARCH 2000 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR RULES 1402 AND 1401;
- RECEIVING AND FILING A REPORT ON POTENTIAL IMPACTS RELATIVE TO SOURCES SUBJECT TO RULE 1402; AND
- ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF MAY 19, 2001 FOR USING THE NEW AND UPDATED RISK VALUES IN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR RULE 1402, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Amend Rule 109 - Recordkeeping for Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions
Dr. Anupom Ganguli, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report and noted that copies of an Addendum for Agenda Item No. 34 had been distributed to Board members and made available to the public, with the following language proposed by staff for addition to the Resolution for PAR 109:
"WHEREAS, the AQMD Governing Board recognizes that supercompliant materials, materials with less than 50 grams per liter of volatile organic compounds (VOC), such as ultra violet (UV) cured coatings, Electron Beam (EB) cured coatings and other substances are being developed and used to lower the emissions of VOCs from many operations, and the Board intends to encourage and facilitate the usage of such clean products;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AQMD Governing Board directs staff to work with the suppliers and producers of supercompliant materials, the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine if some or all usage of such material should be exempt from the recordkeeping requirements of Rule 109, and report back to the Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Task Force within 4 months, which shall make further recommendations to the Governing Board on this matter no later than January 1, 2001."
The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals speaking in opposition to PAR 109:
RITA LOOF, Rad Tech International
KEVIN LaPIERRE, Sun Chemical/Rad Tech
GORDON JONES, UCB-Radcure
DON SUDDUTH, Lightwave Energy Systems Company1) Noting that the current exemption in the rule applies only to waterborne cleaners and degreasers, urged the Board to include an exemption from recordkeeping for UV and EB materials which contain less than 50 gpl of VOCs. Commented that District staff has raised concerns regarding the VOC content of UV/EB materials and the large usage of these materials. However, UV and EB materials would appear to have negligible VOCs, based on the fact that these materials are exempt from District permitting, are considered BACT, and are listed in the District�s AQMD as control strategies. Also, EPA has conducted several studies that determined that UV/EB processes eliminate emissions altogether, and therefore are considered Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) in the EPA's clearinghouse. With regard to the large usage issue, District staff has estimated that the largest user of UV materials in the basin uses 15,000 to 18,000 gallons per year of material. Even with these large usages, the facility only emits 22 pounds per year of VOC from its UV operations. In comparison, VOC emissions from the 40,000 exempted waterborne cleaners are 70 times greater than those from the UV and EB operations.
2) Expressed concern that the current test method used to evaluate the VOC content of energy curable products is not valid for the conditions that the products will be exposed to, and suggested that a new test method or another form of evaluation of VOC content be investigated and implemented over the current Method 24. Requested that the exemption be granted for use of the UV/EB materials. If the VOC content is determined to be more significant than what industry believes, the exemption could be removed, which they believe is preferable to penalizing the UV/EB industry and requiring them to submit to the District numerous records reporting no emissions.
Dr. Wallerstein commented that UV/EB technology is good technology, which District staff supports, but there are unresolved issues regarding the quantification of emissions and how that is reflected in the rule language. The EPA has informed staff that it will approve PAR 109 as submitted by staff; however, EPA may not continue to approve the proposed amended rule if the requested exemption for UV/EB operations is included. Therefore, staff would like additional time to examine the UV/EB issue, work with the industry and the Board�s recordkeeping task force, and also work with U.S. EPA to ensure its approval of an exemption for UV/EB coating operations.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
ON MOTION OF MR. LOVERIDGE, SECONDED BY MS. GLOVER, AND CARRIED UANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson and Coad), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 00-24, AMENDING RULE 109 AND CERTIFYING THE EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE MODIFICATION TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE TO THE RESOLUTION:
"WHEREAS, the AQMD Governing Board recognizes that supercompliant materials, materials with less than 50 grams per liter of volatile organic compounds (VOC), such as ultra violet (UV) cured coatings, Electron Beam (EB) cured coatings and other substances are being developed and used to lower the emissions of VOCs from many operations, and the Board intends to encourage and facilitate the usage of such clean products;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the AQMD Governing Board directs staff to work with the suppliers and producers of supercompliant materials, the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine if some or all usage of such material should be exempt from the recordkeeping requirements of Rule 109, and report back to the Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Task Force within 4 months, which shall make further recommendations to the Governing Board on this matter no later than January 1, 2001."
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)
The following individuals addressed the Board to express their concern regarding the significant increase in the price of RECLAIM trading credits (RTCs), and to request that the District provide relief to the small companies that cannot afford the high price of RTCs.
NICK DRAKOS, Custom Alloy Light Metals
Commented that the intent of the RECLAIM program was to give businesses the option of buying credits or lowering emissions, whichever is the most cost-effective. Buying credits has always been the most cost-effective; however, the cost of credits has risen from .50 cents per pound to $35 per pound in an eight-month period, and there has been no time for businesses to react, plan, or make an informed business decision. Secondly, Custom Alloy has taken steps to reduce emissions by applying in October 1999 for a permit to modify an existing furnace with oxy-fuel burners; however, the company has not yet received a permit.
RENE KUALHEIM, Tri-Alloy, Inc.
Commented that their facility has BACT installed already, and there is nothing further they can do to reduce emissions. With the price of credits at $35/lb., Tri-Alloy will need to purchase approximately $350,000 worth of credits this year. Tri-Alloy is a small company, and that amount of money will likely force them out of business�if not this year, then next year.
RON COFFEEN, Carlton Forge Works
Commented that 18 new BACT furnaces were installed at their facility in the last three years. When RECLAIM was started, they were not given credit for their low-emitting equipment and the emissions were always overreported, by as much as 13,000 lbs. of NOx per year. At current RTC prices, they could be paying $450,000 for emissions not generated. A complete equipment review is being conducted, and the company will be applying for administrative changes to adjust these values. The major problem is there is no way they could have anticipated a 100 times increase in RTC cost in one year, or could have had administrative changes approved in time to avoid paying high prices for emissions not generated.
TONY ENDRES, Consultant/Energy Services Corp.
1) Commented that in 1993, he suggested a 50-ton limit, extracting the large emitters and creating a different environment for them. He believes this would allow a better trading market for the smaller companies. 2) Encouraged the District to add more engineering staff so that permits could be processed in a more timely manner. 3) Suggested that if the companies that are being required to overreport emissions were allowed to apply for these reductions and have them retroactive back to January 2000 for Cycle I facilities and back to July 1999 for Cycle 2 facilities, where a company could redo its quarterly certifications to reflect actual emissions rather than emissions not generated, it would allow those companies to reduce their costs.
MALCOLM HENSLEY, Match Masters Dyeing & Finishing
Commented that Match Masters decided in 1999 to purchase two quick waters and a new boiler to replace their older equipment, and submitted permit applications to the District in November 1999. Quick waters are new hot water heating devices that use 40 percent less natural gas to get the equivalent therms. The NOx rating on these devices are 12ppm. The new boiler has a NOx rating of 12ppm, compared to the 80ppm burner on the old boiler. However, because of the high cost of NOx credits at this time, the company has had to forgo purchasing the second quick water unit.
PETER NASH, Shultz Steel Company
Commented that normally at this time of the year, they would purchase credits to offset their first six months of operation. This year, however, they are going to wait. If they have to purchase credits at the current prices, it would cost their company approximately $1.5 million.
STEVE HERNANDEZ, Pacific Environmental Services
Commented that the companies he represent (Match Master and Tissurama Industries) have numerous tenter frames and dryers at their facilities, which cannot be retrofitted or modified as simply as other devices. The cost of a new tenter frame is approximately $1 million, and the cost to retrofit a tenter frame approximately $500,000.
Mr. Antonovich inquired as to the delay in permit processing, and what was being done to assist those companies/industries that are unable to retrofit because the technology is either unavailable or too expensive.
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta expressed concern that the smaller companies may not be aware of the best control technologies that are available and cost-effective. She inquired as to whether the District could provide a list of cost-effective recommendations to the affected companies.
Dr. Wallerstein responded that the initial allocations that were made in the RECLAIM program were done to cap facilities at "nonrecessionary" levels. The market has tightened, and with the power plants now working overtime to supply power for Southern California and the rest of the western United States, they have been buying up the RTCs. The power plants can afford to pay virtually any price for the RTCs and still make a profit on selling electricity. Staff has attempted to get the power producers to agree to be placed under stipulated orders of abatement, and to cease buying up the market. At the time the RECLAIM rules were adopted, these power producing companies were subject to Rule 1135, which would have required selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology to be installed on all power producing equipment. Through the order for abatement process, the District is requiring SCR to be installed at the power companies so that this situation does not occur again next summer.
Carol Coy, DEO/Engineering & Compliance, responded that NOx credits were available up through the spring for only $2/lb; so, this is a problem that has occurred only in the last two to three months. District staff has been in contact with approximately 15 to 20 companies, and believe that there were approximately 30 companies that needed to purchase significant emission credits in the reconciliation period. Those of them that have been talking with District staff recognize that prices always go up during the reconciliation period, and they should have purchased credits earlier. Staff has offered those companies that have contacted the District the opportunity to work with the District�s Chief Prosecutor's office to evaluate whether an order for abatement is possible, whereby the facility can stipulate to a penalty, stipulate to control equipment add-on, and then any excess emissions over the facility�s allocation can be deducted from the subsequent year�s allocations. Staff has also attempted to assist individuals in locating lower cost RTCs, by developing a list which groups RECLAIM companies by those that have had several pounds, 10,000 pounds, or more than 10,000 pounds of RTCs that appear to have been available and not used in the past.
Dr. Wallerstein commented that staff will be sending further correspondence to the affected companies clarifying the order for abatement process. Staff intends to bring a set of recommendations to the Board later this year for changes to the program to prevent a similar set of issues occurring in the future, as well as providing the statistics on the price and the fluctuations in the market. In addition, District staff is expediting permit processing to have controls installed at the affected facilities as quickly as possible. Staff has been implementing the recommendations of the Permit Streamlining Task Force, and while there have been improvements made, there is still work to be done.
(Ms. Glover left at 11:10 a.m., and Mr. Loveridge left at 11:20 a.m., during public comment.)
CLOSED SESSION
The Board recessed to closed session at 11:30 a.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 (re approval of rules), United States District Court Case No. CB 98-9789 HLH (ANx); and Communities for a Better Environment v. Cenco Refining Company, et al., United States District Court Case No. 00-05665 (AJWx); and
- 54956.8, to provide direction to its negotiator regarding the price and terms for a lease of real property. The property is a portion of the District Headquarters building at 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. The negotiator is Sylvia Oroz. The party to the negotiation is the Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce.
ADJOURNMENT
Following closed session, District Counsel Barbara Baird announced that a written report of action taken by the Board in closed session would be available for public inspection in the Clerk of the Board�s Office (within 1 day); and the meeting was adjourned at 11:44 a.m.
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on August 18, 2000.
Respectfully Submitted,
SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________
____________________________________________
William A. Burke, Ed.D., Chairman
ACRONYMS
AQIP = Air Quality Investment Program
BACT = Best Available Control Technology
CNG = Compressed Natural Gas
DEO = Deputy Executive Officer
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
LAX = Los Angeles International Airport
MOU = Memorandum of Understanding
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
PR = Proposed Rule
RFP = Request for Proposals
RFQ = Request for Quotations
TCM = Transportation Control Measure
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound