South Coast Air Quality Management District

1.

Minutes of July 20, 2001 Board Meeting

2.

Set Public Hearings September 21, 2001 to Consider Amendments and/or Adoption to AQMD Rules and Regulations

1. Amend Rule 1124 - Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations

2. Amend Rule 102 -Definition of Terms

3.

Execute Contract to Monitor Power Production by Microturbine Generators

4.

Execute Contract to Support Development and Demonstration of Advanced Home Refueling Appliance for CNG Vehicles

5.

Execute Contract to Conduct Special Particulate Monitoring at Selected Sites in South Coast Air Basin

6.

Issue RFP to Assess, Develop and Demonstrate Low-VOC Cleaning Solvents for Cleaning of Lithographic Printing Ink Application Equipment

7.

Execute Contract for Development of Alternative Fuel Vehicle-Training Program with Advanced Transportation Technology Initiative of California Community Colleges

8.

Authorize Additional Funding from AES Settlement Fund for Installation of Microturbine Equipment

9.

Amend Contract with Cal Poly Pomona Foundation Inc. for Student Cooperative Program

10.

Execute Contract for Security Guard Services at Diamond Bar Headquarters

11.

Execute Contracts for Community Outreach Program Assistance

12.

Execute Contract for Redesign of Permit Application Forms

13.

Public Affairs Report

14.

Hearing Board Report

15.

Civil Filing and Civil Penalties Report

16.

Lead Agency Projects and Environmental Documents Received by the AQMD

17.

Rule and Control Measure Forecast

18.

Report of RFPs and RFQs Scheduled for Release in August

19.

Report on AQMD Performance Audit for FY Ending June 2000

Note: The Administrative Committee, at the August 10, 2001 meeting, continued this item to the September 14, 2001 Administrative Committee meeting to recommend approval at the September 21, 2001 Board Meeting.

20.

Status Report on Major Projects for Information Management Scheduled to Start During First Six Months of FY 2001-02

21.

Agenda Items Nos. 9, 11, and 12 were pulled for comment/discussion.

9.

Amend Contract with Cal Poly Pomona Foundation Inc. for Student Cooperative Program

In response to a question by Ms. Verdugo-Peralta, staff noted that the Student Co-op Program is open to students from colleges and universities other than Cal Poly Pomona and the AQMD has had interns from other universities participate in the program. At Ms. Verdugo-Peralta’s suggestion, Dr. Wallerstein agreed to place the announcement regarding the Co-op positions under the employment section on AQMD’s website.

11.

Execute Contracts for Community Outreach Program Assistance

Mr. Antonovich commended the Administrative Committee for their efforts and Dr. Burke for his vision and leadership to ensure policy and program participation by all of the communities in the South Coast region.

12.

Execute Contract for Redesign of Permit Application Forms

Mr. Antonovich, Ms. Carney, and Chairman Burke raised questions regarding progress staff has made in eliminating the permit backlog and whether staff expects to meet the December 2001 target previously committed to by staff, as well as the establishment of and ability to meet performance standards and optimum efficiency for permit processing. Carol Coy, DEO of Engineering & Compliance, answered in the affirmative, and Ms. Glover stated that the Permit Streamlining Committee, chaired by Mr. Loveridge and herself, would prepare a white paper to be presented to the Board setting forth the Committee’s goals and accomplishments and responding to the questions raised by Board members.

ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, SECONDED BY
MS. CARNEY AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH 18, AND 20, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

22.

Administrative Committee

23.

Legislative Committee

24.

Mobile Source Committee

25.

Stationary Source Committee

26.

Technology Committee

27.

California Air Resources Board Monthly Report

28.

California Fuel Cell Partnership Steering Team Meeting

ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, SECONDED BY
MR. SILVA, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED* (Absent: Bernson, LaPisto-Kirtley, and Loveridge), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 22 THROUGH 28 AND ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS ON LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED:

AB 1390 (Firebaugh) – Air Pollution Programs SUPPORT

ABX2 60 (Hollingsworth) – Standby and Portable
Backup Generators OPPOSE

SBX2 24 (Knight) – Emission Reduction Credits;
Energy-Producing Facilities OPPOSE

HR 318 (McGovern) – Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2001 SUPPORT

HR 906 (McGovern) – Mass Transit Tax Credit Act of 2001 SUPPORT

S 217 (Schumer) – Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2001 SUPPORT

*Note: Mr. Antonovich abstained on SBX2 24.

29.

Execute Contracts to Upgrade Existing CNG Fueling Stations

In response to Ms. Verdugo-Peralta, Chung Liu, DEO of Science & Technology Advancement, clarified that the fueling station upgrades proposed for funding are not the same stations that the AQMD previously provided funding for in March 2001.

Annabel Cook, Consultant, addressed the Board on behalf of the Orange County Council of Governments to express their support for Item 29. She emphasized that, as cities--and also public and private fleets beyond city government--evaluate the possibility of purchasing alternative fuel vehicles, it is essential that there is existing infrastructure that is reliable and convenient.

DR. WILSON MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 29 AS RECOMMENDED. THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED, AND CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: Bernson, Carney, Glover, Paulitz, Silva,
Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.

NOES: None.

ABSTAIN: Antonovich, Burke, and Mikels.

ABSENT: LaPisto-Kirtley and Loveridge.

30.

Status Report on Implementation of Rule 1193 - Clean On-Road Residential and Commercial Waste Collection Vehicles

Henry Hogo, ADEO of Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, gave the staff report on the status of alternative-fuel usage in the waste hauling industry, state of technology relative to dual-fuel technologies, alternative-fuel infrastructure development, and potential implementation issues. Staff needs to work with operators on an individual basis and will continue to seek funding assistance for alternative fuel vehicles in terms of infrastructure development. Staff believes there is no need at the present time for a rule amendment, but may propose rule amendments when the duel fuel technology is certified to meet the PM requirements.

Mr. Bernson expressed his belief that perhaps the Carl Moyer Program should be adjusted to give municipalities or counties priority for receipt of funds, since, he felt, private sector companies could pay for the alternative fuel vehicles with fee increases. Dr. Wallerstein indicated that staff would discuss that suggestion with CARB staff.

Mr. Mikels and Mr. Paulitz expressed their disagreement with Mr. Bernson’s suggestion because waste collection/hauling is a public service, often contracted for by local governments, and the public is the beneficiary of that service, regardless of who provides it.

The following individuals addressed the Board to comment on Item 30:

CHUCK TOBIN, Burtec Waste Industry
*KENT STODDARD, Waste Management, Inc.
KELLY ASTOR, Solid Waste Association of Orange County,
Los Angeles County Waste Management Association, Inland Empire Disposable Association, and California Refuse Southern District
PAUL RYAN, Inland Empire Disposal Association and Los Angeles County Waste Management Association
*MARK HUNSBERGER, Power Systems Associates
JOHN MCNAMARA, Taormina Industries
*Submitted Written Comments

The key comments by industry were as follows.

Dual Fuel Technology. Indicating that Burtec operates a number of dual fuel vehicles both in collection services and transfer stations, Mr. Tobin volunteered to participate in AQMD’s in-use emission testing program for certification of dual-fueled vehicles. Mr. Hunsberger recommended removal of the sunset date in Rule 1193 for purchase of dual-fueled vehicles, indicating that Power Systems had made refinements to the dual fuel technology so that it operates primarily on the alternative fuel and had been issued certification for the technology from CARB in May 2001.

Refueling Infrastructure for Alternative-Fueled Vehicles. Emphasized the need for development of small-scale stations and that the LNG refueling infrastructure needs to be increased significantly. Indicated that operators are experiencing safety issues with respect to shop retrofits because there are few people that specialize in the work necessary to make the shops safety compliant. Suggested adding an exemption in the rule so that a refuse hauler would not have to purchase the alternative-fueled trucks if there is no refueling station within a certain radius of the facility.

Funding Assistance Programs. The incentive money has been essential in helping accelerate the conversion from diesel to natural gas. In an open commercial market, absent such an incentive, an operator will tend to drive the diesel truck as long as possible to avoid truck replacement and the significant incremental cost of purchasing a natural gas vehicle. With regard to the delivery of solid waste handling services in this state, California is overwhelmingly privatized. They are willing to take on the obligation necessary to convert to the clean vehicles, but need the support of the programs that help fund it. Suggested that the Board examine ways of providing additional funding to the small companies as they become subject to the rule requirements.

Natural Gas Availability. Expressed concern regarding the availability of LNG, since there is only one supplier and the fuel has to be trucked in from Arizona, and the impact on the price of the fuel delivered when there is only one supplier. Suggested that additional emphasis be placed on promoting LNG technology, which some believe has proven more successful than CNG in terms of its performance characteristics. However, in addition to the shortage of availability of LNG, existing funding sources for LNG appear to be inadequate. Mr. Stoddard expressed Waste Management’s belief that landfill gas that is currently being flared could be treated and liquefied and could become a reliable and affordable source of LNG. Indicated their interest in working with AQMD on a demonstration project on this potential affordable renewable LNG supply. Suggested that AQMD and local governments set a high priority on attracting and possibly funding projects for LNG suppliers to build one or more liquefiers in the South Coast Air Basin.

Variance Process. Expressed concern that it is a cumbersome process; it is costly; and, if everyone in the group is similarly situated, it should not be the obligation in their judgment for each individual fleet operator to seek a variance.

Written Comments Submitted by:
Paul Relis, CR&R Incorporated
Rick Wade, Palm Springs Disposal Services

Chairman Burke asked that the Technology Committee Chairman have staff investigate the potential of the liquefication of landfill gas as a means of promoting LNG technology.

In response to a question by Ms. Carney as to the in-use emissions testing on the dual-fueled vehicle that has been certified by CARB, Mr. Hogo stated that staff has received in-use data and has sent the data to CARB. At the present time, the dual-fueled vehicle is being tested with the addition of a particulate trap in order to meet a condition in Rule 1193 that dual-fueled vehicles not only meet a NOx standard, but also meet a PM level of alternative-fueled engines.

Mr. Mikels questioned why an exemption for fleets in the absence of fueling stations within a certain radius, which was included in the other 1190 series of fleet rules, was not included in Rule 1193. Mr. Hogo responded that in discussions with operators during rule development, it became apparent that the infrastructure for the waste collection vehicles would be developed mainly at transfer stations and landfills as opposed to an individual operator’s facility. The County of Los Angeles has applied for funding to install the first LNG facility at the La Puente landfill.

Indicating that there are other LNG refueling infrastructure projects under discussion at this time, Dr. Wallerstein commented that staff would like to follow through on Chairman Burke’s direction to staff to bring before the Technology Committee discussion on possible ways of meeting the requirements of industry and working with industry to further facilitate acceleration of the installation of LNG facilities in the basin. What has happened is that within the past year, industry has made the decision that LNG is preferred over CNG. Once they decided to convert to LNG, they can make the investment to install a fueling station at their facility and apply for the available grant funds through the AQMD.

In light of comments by staff and industry representatives that in the interim until these fueling stations are built there is one LNG supplier (from Arizona) that is providing mobile refueling of the refuse collection vehicles, at a premium cost, Chairman Burke directed staff to come back to the Board in 30 to 60 days with a proposed temporary exemption until there are LNG refueling stations in place or a plan for construction of temporary and/or permanent fueling stations so that industry can comply with the rule in a feasible manner.

Ms. Carney cautioned against the Board sending a message that it supports a broad exemption to the rule, which has only been in effect since July 1, 2001. The Board was aware at the time it adopted Rule 1193 that the LNG refueling infrastructure was not in place. Industry’s position appears to be that it is awkward, but the rule is working.

ON MOTION OF MS. GLOVER, SECONDED BY
MR. PAULITZ, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: LaPisto-Kirtley and Loveridge), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED THE REPORT ON AGENDA ITEM NO. 30 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

31.

Status Report on Staff Evaluation of Hydrogen-Compatibility of Natural Gas Fueling Stations and Recommendations for Potential Funding

Chung Liu, DEO of Science and Technology Advancement, gave the staff report and introduced the Hydrogen Compatibility Study Team members and the review panel of experts.

Ms. Verdugo-Peralta suggested that the item be continued to a later date to allow Board members sufficient time to review the report because of the length and technical language contained in the report. With respect to staff’s recommended actions on this item, rather than spending $50,000 on a hydrogen fueling station template (Recommendation No. 1), she suggested that staff research the issue further. She indicated that it was her understanding that the Department of Energy has conducted similar efforts relative to templates and the $50,000 could instead go directly to the incremental cost to build a CNG hydrogen-compatible refueling station.

With respect to Recommendation No. 2, she expressed her support for Option A. However, she commented that the compressor issue is a key component to determining the feasibility of hydrogen-compatible natural gas fueling stations. She expressed her belief that had there been a hydrogen compressor manufacturer on the panel, the key questions would have been answered; and for that reason, she considered the report incomplete. Option B relates to a hydrogen fueling facility only, and she believes it is important to have equipment that is compatible for CNG as well.

Mr. Paulitz and Ms. Glover concurred with Ms. Verdugo-Peralta in the need for a continuance; not only to allow Board members time to review the report, but to have this item brought before the Technology Committee again, with a presentation to the Committee by the technical team, before bringing it back to the full Board. Ms. Glover suggested a continuance of 60 days.

Ms. Carney questioned whether the AQMD would lose the opportunity to have the electrical and mechanical upgrades done for the five CNG fueling stations (Option A of Recommendation No. 2) if this item is continued for 60 days, because of the planning and/or construction that has already commenced for those stations.

At Dr .Wallerstein’s request, Mr. Herbert Burnett, a member of the Hydrogen Compatibility Study Team, addressed the Board to respond to Ms. Carney. He commented that out of the 20 sites the study team visited, the 5 sites proposed were those where they believed hydrogen could be deployed consistent with CNG. Many of the sites were eliminated because of tight schedules, limited space, and/or significant cost. A delay of 60 days or more, he believed, could cause some of the 5 sites to drop out as well.

The following individuals addressed the Board to comment on Item No. 31.

WOODROW W. CLARK, Ph.D., Office of Governor Gray Davis
Commented that there may never be a definitive point when everything is decided, even in 60 or 90 days or a year; and he hoped the Board would at least start with the five stations proposed. Indicating that what AQMD does impacts not only our region, but the State of California and the nation, as well as the Pacific Rim, he noted that it is important that the State and AQMD work together and move these issues ahead.

SHANNON BAXTER, Ph.D., California Air Resources Board
Commented that the California Fuel Cell Partnership is considering cooperative actions to introduce fuel cell vehicles into early fleets, which is the pilot phase of the commercialization process. These vehicles will all be hydrogen fueled. Expressed belief that this is a perfect opportunity for government to step in to assist in facilitating commercialization of hydrogen fuel. The hydrogen team of experts assembled by AQMD is well known across the country, but there is a weakness in the study in that no compressor manufacturers were considered or consulted.

Dr. Wallerstein clarified that the study team surveyed compressor manufacturers. The reason there was not a compressor manufacturer on the study team was because staff wanted to get an overall review rather than having a particular vendor attempting to promote their product.

ON MOTION OF MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: LaPisto-Kirtley and Loveridge), THE BOARD:

1) AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO MODIFY FIVE CONTRACTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD AT ITS JULY 20, 2001 MEETING WITH $110,000 FROM THE CLEAN FUELS FUND FOR GENERIC ELECTRIC AND MECHANICAL UPGRADES ($25,000 to Pinnacle CNG Company; $35,000 to Valley Vista Services; $17,500 to City of Placentia; $32,500 to Pickens Fuel Corporation for two sites); AND

2) REFERRED THIS ITEM TO THE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER REVIEW, WITH A REPORT TO THE BOARD IN 60 DAYS INCLUDING THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE COMPRESSOR MANUFACTURERS SULZER, COMPAIR, RIX, AND PINNACLE REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF COMPATABILITY BETWEEN CNG AND HYDROGEN.

32.

Amend Rule 1122 - Solvent Degreasers

Ms. Lee Lockie, Director of Area Sources, gave the staff report. Copies of an errata sheet for Agenda Item No. 32 were distributed to Board members and made available to the public. The errata sheet contained proposed language to be added to the Resolution for PAR 1122 regarding a listing of all exemptions granted to facilities subject to subparagraph (k)(2) of Rule 1122, a technology assessment of film resistor cleaning to be conducted, and a technology assessment related to the 2006 VOC limit for vapor degreasers. In addition the errata sheet contained proposed revisions to subparagraphs (b)(5) and (k)(2).

The public hearing was opened and the Board heard from the following individuals.

TIM CARMICHAEL, Coalition for Clean Air
Expressed support for PAR 1122, particularly the provision that will reduce the use of perchloroethylene, which is highly toxic. Urged the Board to make several changes to the staff proposal: 1) Do not believe there is a compelling justification for the 2006 implementation date for open top vapor degreasers; the technology is widely available today. 2) The same applies to the proposed exemptions; the technology is available now and there are companies that have moved forward and are demonstrating that the technology works or an alternative process works. 3) Urged the Board to move ahead with a 2003 time frame for Rule 1122. (Submitted Written Comments.)

Ms. Lockie responded that staff visited approximately 30 facilities, and approximately 6 of those specifically mentioned amortization problems as a compliance need with 1999 amendments to the rule. Staff wanted to recognize that for those companies, but also the 2006 limit is based on uncertainties in certain high precision applications and where customers have certain specifications where they may take considerable time to work with the customers to adjust their particular needs and trust a new type of cleaning method.

CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney at Law, on behalf of California Aerospace Environmental Association and California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Commented that their members make high precision electronic circuits or electronic components for satellites where some of these aqueous cleaning solutions that may work for 90 to 95 percent of the other applications will not work in their situations. Expressed belief that if the Board moves the 2006 date up to 2003, these companies will not be allowed the time they need to find and prove the zero-VOC or low-VOC alternatives. They will be forced to use airless or air-tight degreasers, which are extremely costly. Urged the Board to support the staff recommendation.

RICHARD GUSTAFSON, Phillip Services
Expressed their belief that Rule 1122 is unnecessary. Questioned the VOC savings that AQMD staff expects from PAR 1122, and commented that on any given day in California at drugstores and home improvement centers there are far more VOCs sold in the form of nail polish and rubbing alcohol, lacquer, thinner, mineral spirits, and so forth than this rule will ever save.

BOB OLSON, Finishing Equipment
Expressed opposition to PAR 1122 because: 1) this is a VOC-limiting rule, and degreasers using solvents that are subject to federal NESHAPS requirements should not be incorporated in the rule; 2) cold cleaning is addressed under Rule 1171, and should not be included in Rule 1122; 3) the airless cleaning systems required by the rule are expensive and impractical, and the company that manufactured these systems has gone bankrupt. (Submitted Written Comments)

BARBARA KANEGSBERG, BFK Solutions
Indicating that she participated in the Rule 1122 committee as an independent expert in precision cleaning and contamination control, expressed disagreement with the staff recommendations on PAR 1122 and her belief that many of the proposed revisions are ill-advised and impose certain technologies in an arbitrary manner. The proposed amendments essentially mandate that component manufacturers clean with diluted water solvent blends. There is no compelling evidence that such processes, which frequently require high temperature and high force, will result in positive benefits to the environment. In addition, believes the cost calculations and projected impacts in the staff report are not realistic. Urged the AQMD to conduct a more thorough evaluation of the full impact of the proposed amendments.

DR. STEPHEN HANNA, 3D Systems, Inc.
Commented that despite over two years of extensive testing, they have been unable to find any low-VOC or exempt cleaning agent that can clean stereo lithography prototypes and maintain their precision nature, which typically is on the order of thousandths of an inch. Requested that the January 2003 sunset date for the current exemption for their process be extended until at least December 2003 to allow additional time for research.

CRAIG McCLURE, Blairs Metal Polishing
Commented that they have tried aqueous cleaners, but have found none that are successful in cleaning the solid brass products that they polish and then clearcoat. An airless system is not feasible; it would cost approximately $900,000 for one unit that they are not certain would clean the product sufficiently.

DR. KATY WOLF, Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA)
Expressed support for staff’s proposal to phase out the use of toxics and VOC solvents used in vapor degreasers and to lower the VOC content of the batch load cold cleaning solvent. Commented that the rule requires companies using toxics such as PERC and vapor degreasers to convert to alternatives by
January 1, 2003; however, VOC solvents do not need to convert until 2006. Expressed concern that in the interim three years, companies that presently use PERC will convert to impropalbromite (MPB)—a compound presently classified as a VOC for which there is data that it is a reproductive toxin. IRTA intends to petition EPA to add MPB to the hazardous air pollutant list and the toxic release inventory list, as well as petitioning the State of California to add MPB to AB 2588 and Proposition 65 lists; and believe that MPB will ultimately be added to District Rules 1401 and 1402 lists. Therefore, recommended that the Board move up the date for compliance with VOC solvents from 2006 to 2004, or at least 2005.

Dr. Chang responded that staff believes it has provided protection against the MPB issue in the interim years by proposing resolution language that staff will monitor the conversion. Once the source converts from PERC to MPB, that will trigger NSR or BACT; and staff will evaluate on an individual basis that the best available control technology will apply. Also, if MPB is listed as a toxic, then AQMD Rule 1401 will be triggered to review the health risk of the new source.

PHIL SCHMIDT, Forward Technology
Indicated that he served as a panel member for PAR 1122; however, was not aware of the proposed revision to the definition for airless/air-tight systems until being informed of the errata sheet just prior to start of the board meeting.

Ms. Lockie responded that staff was recently contacted by a number of airless/air-tight manufacturers requesting that staff clarify the definition to add the word "vacuum." Staff believes this change is a simple clarification of the way the definition has been interpreted by AQMD engineers for BACT purposes, and it does not rule out any equipment covered by the previous definition.

Mr. Schmidt commented that Forward Technology has spent several hundred thousand dollars developing a low lock air-tight system, and the inclusion of the word "vacuum" into the airless/air-tight initiative precludes this technology from being part of the definition.

Dr. Chang responded that it was not staff’s intent to qualify or disqualify any system by the proposed revision, and that any other alternative cleaning system that can achieve equivalent emissions would be considered compliant technology. Mr. Schmidt questioned how to go about receiving approval for the system, as the rule states that "Any person may use an airless/air-tight batch cleaning system or a District, CARB, and U.S. EPA approved alternative cleaning methods that achieves equivalent emissions."

MR. MIKELS MOVED TO ADD AN ASTERISK TO SUBSECTION (b)(5) OF PAR 1122 INDICATING THAT THE WORD "VACUUM" WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE CLEANING SYSTEM THAT ACHIEVES EQUIVALENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS AS AIRLESS/AIR-TIGHT CLEANING SYSTEMS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN BURKE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Antonovich, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, and Paulitz).

SUE BRINKMAN, Caddack Electronics
A manufacturer of high precision film resistors, asked that the Board allow them more time to implement the rule changes at their company, which currently uses NESHAPS solvents in permitted cold batch cleaners. While aqueous cleaners have worked successfully in operations similar to Caddack’s, they are not compatible with the proprietary materials used by Caddack. AQMD has offered to conduct tests, but have indicated that there are no guarantees after the tests are completed of future amendments that might help Caddack’s situation. In addition, Caddack currently has no direct competition in the world and cannot agree to the exposure that this test would provide to their proprietary technology. (Submitted Written Comments)

Dr. Wallerstein indicated that one of staff’s concerns is the lack of any hard data from the company regarding their previous tests showing that an aqueous cleaner will not work. In terms of having to reveal the actual formulation of their material, staff can work around that. Staff is only interested in the end product’s performance and whether that performance is sustained when the aqueous materials are used. Staff proposes to have the tests conducted, report back to the Stationary Source Committee by 2002, and, if deemed necessary, come back to the Board with a proposed amendment to the rule.

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

At Mr. Mikels’ request, Dr. Chang responded to the concern expressed regarding the cost effectiveness of the proposed requirements for open top vapor degreasers for companies with small amounts of emissions. Staff recognizes that the cost would be significant for those companies and therefore proposed an exemption [subparagraph (k)(2)] for electronic aerospace operations that emit less than 22 pounds per month. Also, the effective date of January 1, 2006 will allow companies time to find the most cost effective system that is suitable for their operation. In addition, included in the Resolution for PAR 1122 is direction to staff to conduct a technology assessment by 2005 for the 2006 VOC limit for vapor degreasers.

Dr. Wallerstein expressed concern regarding the Board’s inclusion of an asterisk in the definition for airless/air-tight cleaning system [subparagraph (b)(5)], and recommended that the Board delete the word "vacuum" from the definition if the Board feels that what staff has presented as an equivalency provision in the rule is inadequate. Staff believes the asterisk and associated statement may cloud the definition; therefore, staff’s preference would be to not include "vacuum" or to include "vacuum" with the acknowledgement that there is an equivalency provision in the rule.

Ms. Carney recommended that the word "vacuum" not be included in the definition. Mr. Mikels commented that the purpose of the asterisk was to ensure that no company that meets the emission reduction intent of the rule is penalized by the addition of the word "vacuum." He did not necessarily want to exclude the word "vacuum" because the Board was not given any detailed information on the implication of adding it to the definition.

MS. CARNEY MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1122 TO THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2001 BOARD MEETING TO ALLOW TIME FOR STAFF TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS RAISED REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION TO ADD THE WORD "VACUUM" TO THE DEFINITION OF "AIRLESS/AIR-TIGHT CLEANING SYSTEM" IN SUBSECTION (b)(5) AND THE BOARD’S MOTION TO ADD AN ASTERISK INDICATING THAT THE WORD "VACUUM" WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM THAT ACHIEVES EQUIVALENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. ANTONOVICH AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: LaPisto-Kirtley and Loveridge).

Since the public hearing on PAR 1122 had been closed, District Counsel Barbara Baird advised the Board that the public hearing would have to be reopened for the limited purpose of addressing any proposed amendments to subsection (b)(5).

34.

Approve Funding Process for PM10 Trap Retrofit on School Buses or Other Emission Reduction Projects Using Mitigation Fees Collected under
Rule 1309.1 - Priority Reserve

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MR. SILVA, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Bernson,
LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, and Verdugo-Peralta), THE BOARD CONTINUED AGENDA ITEM NO. 34 TO THE
SEPTEMBER 21, 2001 BOARD MEETING TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR PREPARATION OF REQUESTED TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND CONSIDERATION OF OTHER FACTORS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

Mira Loma residents Larry Ewell, Karen Bradford, and Collen Smethers and Penny Newman, of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, addressed the Board regarding the problem they are having with diesel and particulate emissions from trucks in the Mira Loma and Glen Avon areas because of industrial development and the steadily increasing number of warehouses and distribution centers in their communities.

Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff has reviewed the EIRs for these facilities and where appropriate suggested mitigation measures. In addition, he indicated that there may be funds provided through the AQMD’s Technology Advancement Office for implementation of certain measures directed at these warehousing operations, such as electrifying and cleaning up the vehicles.

Ms. Carney commented that the AQMD should be able to inform them in October 2001, when the AQMP and PM Attainment Plan is available, of what needs to be done to reduce the PM10 levels in Mira Loma.

A MOTION WAS DULY MADE AND SECONDED TO ADD THE CASE OF HUNTINGTON vs. SCAQMD TO THE CLOSED SESSION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBERS ANTONOVICH, BERNSON, BURKE, LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, LOVERIDGE, MIKELS, AND SILVA BEING ABSENT.

33.

Closed Session

      The Board adjourned to closed session at 12:55 p.m.:

• pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a) to confer with its counsel regarding pending litigation which has been initiated formally and to which the District is a party--the actions are: AES Huntington Beach, LLC, SCAQMD Hearing Board Case No. 5202-1 (Appeal by the City of Huntington Beach); AES Huntington Beach, LLC, SCAQMD Hearing Board Case No. 5202-2; and Daylon Huntington vs. SCAQMD; and

• pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(c) to confer with its counsel to decide, based on existing facts and circumstances, whether to initiate litigation (new - one case).

      Following closed session, Ms. Baird stated that there would be a report filed with the office of the Clerk of the Boards regarding actions taken by the Board in closed session.

      The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on August 17, 2001.