South Coast Air Quality Management District
South Coast Air Quality Management DistrictSUMMARY MINUTES OF THE
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FRIDAY, November 1, 2002
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:
Councilmember Norma J. Glover, Chairman
Cities of Orange CountyWilliam A. Burke, Ed.D., Vice Chairman
Speaker of the Assembly AppointeeMayor Michael D. Antonovich
County of Los AngelesCouncilmember Hal Bernson (left at 1:35 p.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Western RegionMs. Jane W. Carney
Senate Rules Committee AppointeeCouncilmember Beatrice J. S. LaPisto-Kirtley (left at approximately 1:15 p.m.)
Cities of Los Angeles County - Eastern RegionMayor Ronald O. Loveridge (left at 1:55 p.m.)
Cities of Riverside CountySupervisor Jon D. Mikels (left at approximately 1:00 p.m.)
County of San BernardinoMayor Pro Tem Leonard Paulitz (left at 3:05 p.m.)
Cities of San Bernardino CountySupervisor James W. Silva
County of OrangeMs. Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta
Governor's AppointeeSupervisor S. Roy Wilson, Ed.D.
County of Riverside
Members absent:
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Glover called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m.
Opening Comments
Chairman Glover. Because of the large number of people present for the public hearing on Rule 1421 (Agenda Item No. 33), explained how the public hearing would be conducted and announced that there was overflow seating in two conference rooms, with audio and visual feed from the auditorium. Headsets were also available for Korean translation of the proceedings.
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta. Acknowledged
the following AQMD staff members for organizing the small business conference
held recently at the AQMD:
Oscar Abarca, Dr. Pom Pom Ganguli, Larry Kolczyk, Lourdes Cordova-Martinez,
and all of their staff. There were over 300 attendees at the conference
and it was very well received. Each small business was provided with a manual,
"Small Business Assistance Conference," which contained information
on receiving assistance from other entities as well as the AQMD (copies
provided to Board members). Chairman Glover acknowledged Ms. Verdugo-Peralta's
diligence in representing all four counties within the AQMD's jurisdiction.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2 (A) Amend Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings
2 (B) Amend Rule 1122 - Solvent Degreasers
2(C) Adopt Proposed Rule 1133 - Composting and Related
Operations - General Administrative Requirements,
Proposed Rule 1133.1 - Chipping and Grinding Activities, and Proposed Rule
1133.2 - Emission Reductions from
Co-Composting Operations
BOARD CALENDAR
Agenda Items No. 18 (Report on Changes to Risk Assessment Procedures for Rule 1401-New Source Review for Toxic Air Contaminants and Rule 212-Standards for Approving Permits) and No. 30 (Approve Financial Incentives Program to Assist Dry Cleaners Converting Perchloroethylene Machines to Non-Perc Alternatives within Time Period Six Months Prior to Compliance Date of July 1, 2004) were deferred by the Board for consideration in conjunction with Agenda Item No. 33 (Public Hearing to Amend Rule 1421 - Control of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations).
ON MOTION OF DR. BURKE, DULY SECONDED, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 1 THROUGH 17 AND 19 THROUGH 26, AS RECOMMENDED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Antonovich (except Agenda Items 8 and 16),
Bernson, Burke, Carney (except Agenda Item 5),
Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Mikels, Paulitz, Silva,
Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Antonovich (on Items 8 and 16) and Carney (on
Item 5).ABSENT: Loveridge.
Because of the significant public interest in the dry cleaning issue, Agenda Items Nos. 18, 30 and 33 were taken out of order.
PUBLIC HEARING
Jill Whynot, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report on Items 18, 30, and 33. An errata sheet listing two minor changes proposed by staff for Agenda Item No. 33 was distributed to Board members and copies made available to the public. One change was a clarification of the language in Subparagraph (d)(1)(H) of PAR 1421; the other was adjusting the compliance date in Subparagraph (g)(1) for submittal of an initial report by the facility owner/operator from January 1, 2003 to July 1, 2003.
Executive Officer Dr. Barry R. Wallerstein noted that Board members had received letters from the following: U.S. EPA Region IX, in support of PAR 1421; Karen Brown, Director of Small Business Division for EPA Small Business Omnsbudsman, expressing concern about using the AQAF funds; Senator Dick Ackerman, regarding his concern about using the AQAF funds and also the importance of conducting a fair assessment of the economic impacts of PAR Rule 1421 to industry; Senators John L. Burton, Gloria Romero, and Martha M. Escutia and Assemblymembers Fran Pavley, Jackie Goldberg, Paul Koretz, and Judy Chu, expressing support for PAR 1421; and a letter from the Office of the Governor, Governor's Small Business Reform Task Force expressing concerns about Rule 1421 and/or the use of the AQAF.
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta expressed her intent to introduce a motion to allow dry cleaners the option of meeting the Rule 1402 risk limit of 25 in one million. This option is given to large businesses, and she believes it is neither fair nor equitable that the smallest businesses should not have the same option. She also expressed concern regarding staff's current emission estimates for perc.
Dr. Wallerstein clarified that Board members had previously received copies of a proposed motion from Mr. Robert Wyman (representing industry) that was the same as the motion made by Ms. Verdugo-Peralta.MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA MOVED TO:
1) ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE TO THE ADOPTING RESOLUTION FOR PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1421:
"BE IT RESOLVED THAT District staff shall conduct additional review of the available information on perchloroethylene (perc) emissions from dry cleaning plants in determining allowable perc usage/usages under Rules 1401, 1402, and Rule 1421. This review shall be conducted by an independent third party or parties, who will include industry comments and consider the emissions information from dry cleaners in the New York State report, and if there are any others available, that was recently compiled by a professional engineering firm and submitted to District staff.2) INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH (d), EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS, OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1421 AS AN ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE OPTION:BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT District staff shall provide the Board with a report on the progress of this review within six months."
"(1) Compliance with Risk Based LimitsTHE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. ANTONOVICH.(a) an owner or operator of an existing facility may, by January 1, 2006, elect to comply with the action risk level established under Rule 1402. (b) on or after November 1, 2007, an owner or operator of a dry cleaner facility complying with Subparagraph (a) shall not operate a dry cleaning machine without a secondary control system. (c ) any owner or operator of any existing facility who demonstrates compliance with the action risk levels established under Rule 1402 shall not be subject to Subparagraphs 2(d), (e)(f) or (h) of this rule. "
Indicating that the Board could not vote on a motion until it had heard public testimony and closed the public hearing, Chairman Glover opened the public hearing. The Board heard testimony from the following individuals:
COOKE SUNOO, Governor's Small Business Reform Task Force, Office of the Governor, Governor Gray Davis
Made the following recommendations to the Board:
1) Amend Rule 1421 to reduce perc usage by dry cleaners to the acceptable risk level of 25 in 1 million rather than phasing it out. This risk level is much stronger than federal standards, is allowed for other industries, and the dry cleaning industry agrees to meet that standard. The industry by and large finds the alternative technologies inadequate in that they are either too labor intensive (wet cleaning), unproven (silicon-based), twice as expensive (liquefied carbon dioxide) or detrimental to the environment (petroleum-based hydrocarbon).
2) Maintain the CalCap Loan Fund of $5 million
to help small businesses from a variety of industries to comply with AQMD
rules and provide an additional $2 million in grants to the dry cleaning
industry to comply with Rule 1421. This will ensure that many small businesses
will receive compliance assistance now and in the future while simultaneously
providing the significant relief needed in this specific instance. (Submitted
Written Comments.)
Commented that in 1992, the Scientific Review
Panel associated with CARB under AB 1807 reviewed the toxicity of perc and
concluded, based on the available scientific evidence, that perc was an
animal and possible human carcinogen and should be considered and listed
as a toxic air contaminant. In 1992, perc was rated as a 2B carcinogen by
the International Agency for Research on Cancer; that classifies it as a
possible carcinogen. In 1995 the Agency relisted perc to Group 2A, a probable
carcinogen to humans. There are only 20 known human carcinogens. A designation
of "probable human carcinogen" indicates a high level of evidence.
The evidence of the toxicity of perc has increased in the past ten years
and the human based data is now stronger than it was in 1995.
Agreed with testimony provided by Dr. Froines.
Commented that in 1987 California developed a risk assessment for the drinking
water program for exposure through drinking water. More recently, California
prepared a public health goal (PHG) for perc in drinking water. The PHG
study considered both oral and inhalation intake of perc. There is now a
strong scientific conclusion of probable carcinogenicity of perc in humans.
Expressed concern about discharges of perc
to the sewer system, and stated that LACSD has been aggressively pursuing
reduction of perc discharges to the sewer system for ten years. Despite
their efforts, perc concentrations in the water produced by water reclamation
plants still occasionally exceed the 5 ppb drinking water criterion. Acknowledged
that the overwhelming majority of dry cleaners legally dispose of their
perc-containing wastewater, but it is possible that one or more dry cleaners
within their service area are performing illegal disposal. No adverse water
quality impacts are expected as a result of the proposed amendments to Rule
1421. While some perc dry cleaning facilities may opt to convert to water-based
cleaning, the wastewater discharged from water-based cleaning should be
similar to that of home washing machines, and thus readily handled by wastewater
treatment plants. (Submitted Written Comments.)
Commented that perc originating from dry
cleaners has found its way to groundwater through various inadvertent spills,
leaking containers, or containment and illegal disposal. In the Los Angeles
region alone there are hundreds of sites contaminated by dry cleaners. Perc
from dry cleaners is still a public concern and it is causing very high
costs for property owners to eventually remediate.
Expressed support for the motion introduced
by Ms. Verdugo-Peralta, and made the following comments.
(Submitted written comments, including petition with over 800 signatures urging
AQMD not to adopt the staff proposal.)
With respect to the flammability issue, Ms. Whynot indicated that the new solvents that are used are much less of a problem than previous solvents. They do have some flammability properties; however, the equipment is designed with that in consideration and is operated typically 30 degrees below the flashpoint. As to whether the garments themselves would be flammable, staff believes that is very unlikely because of the extremely small amount that would be present as residue in the clothes.
CHARLES J. KIM, Korean American Coalition; DEBBIE KIM, Walterla Cleaners;
DR. KEE W. HA, Korean American Federation of Los Angeles;
SCOTT BELL, Bryan's Cleaners
VIVIAN BOWERS, Bowers & Sons Cleaners
MICHAEL PARK, Federation of Korean Dry Cleaners Association
JOE TORRES, Department of Corrections
BYUNG YUL MOON and UNG-SIN NA, Korean Dry Cleaners of Los Angeles
Expressed support for the industry proposal and the motion introduced by Ms. Verdugo-Peralta. Concurred with comments from the industry group regarding problems with alternative technologies and economic hardship for dry cleaners to purchase new machines. Also, with respect to cancer/health risk, for some dry cleaners it has been a family business for several generations and they have not suffered any ill effects from perc exposure.
At Ms. Carney's request, Dr. Wallerstein commented on the effect of having dry cleaners comply with the Rule 1402 risk limit. When staff initiated the process of developing revisions to Rule 1421, which is also within the Board's air toxics control plan, staff did not have a predetermined outcome of what would be proposed. As the process developed, it seemed to staff that for the overwhelming majority of the dry cleaning industry a technology shift away from perc would be necessary to be able to get below the 25-in-one million risk level. On the economics side, staff was swayed by the fact that there were so many non-perc dry cleaners that seemed to be operating successfully.
Under Rule 1402 staff would request data from
the dry cleaners regarding their facilities, analyze the data, and determine
whether or not the facility is over the 25-in-one million risk level. If so,
the facility would be required to develop a risk reduction plan to get below
25 in one million within a three-year time period. Staff believes that would
require switching away from perc. Therefore, instead of having a phase-out
that occurs when the machine reaches the end of its useful life, the facility
would be under a much quicker time frame. With the industry proposal, they
are gambling that they will be able to convince AQMD staff that the
50 percent or 45 percent factor is wrong. If they fail, then those businesses
will have to convert to a non-perc alternative by January 1, 2006.
CLAUDIA ADAMS KANNE, consumer
Commented that she is currently being treated for toxic poisoning from perc. Urged the Board to ban perc and make sure consumers and workers are warned of its deadly effects. (Submitted Written Comments.)
SCOTT LUTZ, Bay Area AQMD
Clarified that they have approximately 950
dry cleaners in the Bay Area, approximately 150 of which currently use the
Exxon DF-2000. They had approximately 50 new permits last year; approximately
41 of which were DF-2000 and GreenEarth and 9 of which were perc. Indicated
that he found the data from New York to be somewhat unbelievable. He has been
in shops where there are hundreds of parts per million in the exhaust, and
to have hundreds of facilities tested and not have one of them exceed 2 ppm
in the exhaust seemed incredible to him. He expressed his belief that the
50 percent emission factor for fairly well maintained, fairly new secondary
control machines is realistic.
MOON NOH, San Clemente Dry Cleaning Center; ELI GICHON, Eli's Airport Cleaners; *PETER SINSHEIMER, Occidental College
Mr. Sinsheimer described for the Board the
Professional Wet Cleaning Commercialization Project. The point of the project
is to assist dry cleaners who are interested in converting to professional
wet cleaning and to also become demonstration sites. Mr. Noh was the first
person in their group to convert and
Mr. Gischon was the fifth. An evaluation of the first five cleaners to convert
was recently completed. With perc, each of the facilities successfully cleaned
96 percent of garments brought in by customers. As they converted to wet cleaning,
the same success rate was achieved by each of those cleaners. Each of the
cleaners that has converted has been able to retain 99 to 100 percent of the
customers that they had before. The only costs that they have found to be
greater in professional wet cleaning are detergent costs; there are a series
of costs that were higher for perc dry cleaning. Each of the cleaners experienced
no change in labor costs.
(*Submitted Written Comments.)
Mr. Bernson indicated that he would have to leave the meeting before the Board concluded public testimony on this item. However, he expressed concern that the dry cleaners are small business people who are being put to tests that the AQMD have not put other small business industries to, and he believes the burden proposed by staff is too much for this industry. He expressed support for the amendment proposed by Ms. Verdugo-Peralta, but suggested two changes to make it more equitable for everyone. First, remove the 15 year requirement completely and require replacement with a new technology other than perc only when that equipment wears out. Second, specify that dry cleaners who elect to replace their equipment sooner may get loan guarantees from the District to do this.
Given the number of persons who have requested to speak on this item, he believed other Board members might have to leave prior to conclusion of public testimony. He, therefore, suggested that the Board hear all the public testimony, close the public hearing, and continue the matter to the December 6, 2002 Board meeting for Board discussion and action only. Mr. Mikels concurred, indicating that he had to leave early as well.
Chairman Glover stated that the Board would hear all of the public testimony, close the public hearing, and continue Agenda Items 18, 30 and 33 to the December 6 Board meeting for action by the Board. Board members who left early would review tapes of public testimony they did not hear, in order to vote on these items at the December meeting.
Dr. Wilson commented that he could support
the amendment proposed by
Mr. Bernson, but believed it conflicted with the amendment put forward by
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta, which basically allows for the continued use of perc.
Mr. Bernson's amendment, as he understood it, was to phase out perc usage.
Dr. Wallerstein suggested adding a provision to Ms. Peralta's motion:
"(d) Notwithstanding 1 (a),(b) and (c) above, when existing equipment
wears out, it must be replaced with newer technology other than
perc."
Dr. Wilson suggested that the two motions be divided and voted on separately. Mr. Paulitz indicated his agreement, commenting that the two motions were contradictory and could not be blended together.
Public testimony was resumed on Agenda Items
18, 30 and 33.
(Mr. Mikels left at approximately 1:00 p.m.)
STEVE GREEN, dry cleanerAgreed with previous industry speakers on alternatives not being fully developed. Questioned giving grant monies for these technologies.
*TIM CARMICHAEL, TODD CAMPBELL, and LORI SHIMONOSHI, Coalition for
Clean Air
MARTHA ARGUELLO, Physicians for Social Responsibility
*BAHRAM FAZELI, Communities for a Better Environment
*GAIL FEUER, Natural Resources Defense Council
BRIAN MACHOVINA, California Coastkeeper Alliance
DAVID ROSENSTEIN, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life of Southern California*Submitted Written Comments
Urged the Board to adopt PAR 1421 with the following amendments: 1) the phase-out of all PERC dry cleaning within the next 10 years; and 2) dedicate sufficient funds to assist early adopters of non-toxic wet cleaning.
Made the following comments:
- The motions that have been put forth suggest that the Board trusts the chemical industry more than its own staff and would rather see small businesses continue to use a chemical that is known to cause cancer than to set up a system to phase that out. A toxic solvent should not be allowed to pollute our air and cause health problems when there are viable
non-toxic alternatives available. Alternatives are clearly technically feasible and cost effective.
- Given the many harmful health effects associated with perc exposure and the large number of people that are regularly exposed to perc, urged the Board to accelerate the phase-out from 17 years to 10 years. A 10-year phase-out is more than reasonable and would provide ample time for small business owners to fully recover their capital equipment investment. It is better for the business owners, as well as their neighbors, to phase out the use of perc.
- Adopting a perc phase-out would implement the Board's commitment to environmental justice. Pollution prevention is the best approach. It is a social justice issue to allow continued use of a toxic chemical. Dry cleaners are often located near schools, apartment buildings, and in commercial strip malls.
- One of every 10 wells in California are contaminated with perc. It is extremely expensive to clean up. Continued use of perc is an unnecessary risk.
- Expressed opposition to the motion by Ms. Verdugo-Peralta. There are differences between the big businesses subject to the 25-in-one million risk level and the dry cleaners. Questioned whether the dry cleaners have the ability and the money to prepare health risk assessments that show their risks. Also, questioned whether AQMD staff would be able to provide enforcement against more than 2,100 companies to ensure that the risks are below 25 in one million.
(Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley left at approximately 1:15 p.m. and Mr. Bernson left at 1:35 p.m., during public comment)
ANN HARGROVE, Wet Cleaning/NCA
LYNETTE WATTERSON, California Cleaners Association
KENNEY SLATTEN, CCA
SCOTT RICHARDS, dry cleaner
HY NOSS, former dry cleaner
JESSE ZARAGOZA, California Cleaners
KENNETH T. HAAN, Korean Dry Cleaners of Los Angeles
SONNY SHAH, Fifth Avenue Cleaners
DAVID NIK, Cameo Cleaners
JUNG KIM, Korean Dry Cleaners Association
BILL LA MARR, Small Business Alliance (Submitted Written Comments.)Expressed support for the motion introduced by Ms. Verdugo-Peralta. Concurred with comments from the industry group regarding problems with alternative technologies and economic hardship for dry cleaners to purchase new machines. Stated that the North Carolina agency did not find perc hazardous to humans. Independent parties should be used to evaluate alternatives. Also concurred with dry cleaners' comments in regard to not having suffered any ill effects from perc exposure. Opposed using the AQAF funds as a grant program.
SCOTT VINEBURG, concerned citizen
Commented that he was a dry cleaner; his father and grandfather were dry cleaners also. His father died in January 1993 of kidney cancer; he was 55 years old, did not smoke or drink, was not overweight, and had no family history of kidney disease or cancer. He expressed his belief that the time has come to make this industry safer for the customers, for the cleaners, and for the environment.
DEBORAH DAVIS, Cleaner by Nature
Indicated that her business cleans approximately 70 percent of their volume in silicone and the remaining 30 percent in wet cleaning. Requested that Paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 1421 include liquid silicone as an acceptable alternative along with wet cleaning and CO2. Second, liquid silicone should be named in the financial incentive program as a distinct category. Further requested that the allowable grant for silicone be increased to the same level as for wet cleaning and CO2 -- $10,000. (Submitted Written Comments.)
Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff was favorable toward silicone. There are health studies going through the final review at this time and staff is waiting for that until making the type of changes requested by Ms. Davis.
(Mr. Loveridge left at 1:55 p.m.)
SAM BEJACH, concerned citizen
Commented that he was a Viet Nam era supply officer who oversaw shipboard dry cleaning operations, and he had first-hand experience with men that were sick as a result of the dry cleaning.
DAANTJE MEIJE, concerned citizen
Submitted documentation relating to a study by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in which 1,708 dry cleaning workers were exposed to perc for at least a one-year period before 1960. Out of that number, 769 died by 1990, 209 of which died of cancer. Expressed support for phase-out of perc.
TIMOTHY MALLOY, UCLA School of Law
Commented that the staff proposal gives the dry cleaners choices. Pollution prevention should be implemented where it can be used. With respect to the industry proposal, based on past history, he does not believe the dry cleaners will be able to maintain their operations below the 25-in-one million risk level.
KATY WOLF, Institute for Research and Technical Assistance
Commented that up until five years ago, she would have said that perc can never be banned in the dry cleaning industry. She has now revised her view and expressed strong support of the staff proposal to phase out perc. First, there are alternatives that are very well demonstrated. Second, the alternatives that are available, with one exception, are cost-comparable to perc. Third, dry cleaning
with perc poses an unacceptable risk to the surrounding community. Note the Board has banned perc in similar operations to the dry cleaners, such as vapor degreasers. The workers and the dry cleaners themselves are exposed to high concentrations of perc. Virtually all dry cleaners have contaminated their sites and will eventually be liable for cleaning up those sites.RANJI GEORGE, concerned citizen
Commented in support of wet cleaning technology, and stated that
95 percent of clothes can be successfully wet cleaned.EVAN COHEN, Exponent, Inc., on behalf of Chlorine Chemistry Council
Commented that the Revised Draft Environmental Assessment: presents an overly conservative assessment of the risks of perc as it is used in dry cleaning; fails to provide an assessment of health risks associated with the likely alternative solvents that would replace perc; and overestimates the potential cancer risks from the use of perc in dry cleaning. The overestimate is due to several factors, including the overestimation of emissions from perc machines, a calculation error, and exposure assumptions that are more conservative than those used by other regulatory agencies. If these overly conservative assumptions are adjusted and the calculation error is taken into account, the estimated risks associated with use of perc in dry cleaning establishments are less than 2 in one million, rather than the range of 16 to 140 in one million estimated in the Revised Draft EA. (Submitted Written Comments.)
STEVE LEVINE, Quail Capital Corporation
Commented that the loan guarantee process can be simplified immensely. Expressed belief that by not continuing the program, by giving the money away, the AQMD is actually penalizing those that may not need the equipment today, but may need the money at a later time and it will not be available.
GENE BECK, EnviroTech Financial
Opposed liquidation of the AQAF as proposed by staff. Submitted letters to the Board opposing Agenda Item No. 30 from: U.S. EPA, Senator Ackerman, University of California, California Trade & Commerce, Woodwork Institute of California, City of Buena Park, Blowtherm Southern California, Advanced Recycling Sciences, and Adwest Technologies.
ROBERT M. SAENZ, Inland Empire Small Business Financial Development Corporation
With regard to Agenda Item No. 30, expressed belief that the funds would be better used in a revolving loan guarantee program.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Written Comments Submitted by:
Agenda Item No. 30
Karen V. Brown, Small Business Ombudsman, U.S. EPA
Ted K. Bradshaw, Associate Professor, University of California, Davis
Stanley R. (Rob) Gustafson, Woodwork Institute of California
James A. Young, California Trade & Commerce Agency
Art Brown, Councilman, City of Buena Park
Chris Kane, General Manager, Blowtherm Southern California
Sudheer Helekar, Advanced Recycling Sciences, Inc.
Joseph R. Terry, Adwest Technologies, Inc.
Agenda Item No. 33
Yong Pyon, Bona Fide Cleaners
Richard Kinsman, Director, Global Technologies, LLC
Judith S. Schreiber, Ph.D., Environmental Protection Bureau, State of New York,
Office of the Attorney General
David Cotter, CEO, Textile Care Allied Trades Association, Inc.
Jerilyn Lopez Mendoza, Policy Director, Environmental Defense
Pantorium Cleaners, Inc.
James E. Douglas, Technical Director, GreenEarth Cleaning
Concerned citizens: Kathy Reynolds, Glenys Norwood, Shaelene Ibbetson,
Jack Perrodin, Susan Patton, Debbie Winderman, Larry Baird, Elena Barnes,
James Starkweather, Sean Mikha, Doug Reyes, Norma P. Berger,
Susan R. Ellis, Judy D. Glass and David E. Glass, M.D., Maxine Jordan,
Michael R. Blaha, Esq., Stephen L. Kanne, Brad Rosenberg, Rochelle Linick,
Annette van Duren, Thom & Melissa Brennan
(Mr. Paulitz left at 3:05 p.m.)
Chairman Glover stated that the public hearing was closed with respect to public testimony, and Agenda Items 18, 30 and 33 were continued to the December 6, 2002 board meeting for Board deliberation and action only.Principal Deputy District Counsel Kurt Wiese commented that he would be sending a memo to Board members pointing out that the deliberations would have to be on the record that was before the Board at this time.
ON MOTION OF DR. BURKE, SECONDED BY MR. ANTONOVICH, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 27 AS RECOMMENDED.
MS. CARNEY MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM
NO. 28, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF:1) ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION AMENDING AQMD'S SALARY RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AT-WILL DESIGNATED DEPUTY APPOINTMENTS, INCLUDING ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIGNATED DEPUTY SALARY LEVELS; AND
2) AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH DESIGNATED DEPUTIES REGARDING VOLUNTARILY GIVING UP EXISTING CONTRACTS AND BECOMING SUBJECT TO THE SALARY RESOLUTION TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AT-WILL DESIGNATED DEPUTY APPOINTMENTS. (DESIGNATED DEPUTIES WHO CHOSE NOT TO GIVE UP EXISTING CONTRACTS WOULD REMAIN UNDER CONTRACT, WITH EXISTING CONTRACT END DATES AND WITH NO COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT.)
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DR. WILSON.
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta commented that, much like the executive branch within our country, there are checks and balances; and she proposed the following amendment to the Resolution amending AQMD's Salary Resolution because she is not sure at this time that the appropriate checks and balances are in place.
"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, State of California, in regular session assembled on November 1, 2002, does hereby amend AQMD's Salary Resolution to adopt Terms and Conditions of At-Will Designated Deputy Appointments, eliminating pay-for-performance and appointment end datesand making the Executive Officer responsible and accountable for making and ending Designated Deputy appointments, and, effective July 1, 2002, adopting new salaries for Designated Deputies who voluntarily give up existing contracts and become subject to the amended Salary Resolution Terms and Conditions of At-Will Designated Deputy Appointments. The Governing Board will continue to be responsible for making and ending designated deputy appointments."
Ms. Carney commented that this item was discussed at great length by the Personnel Committee and also by the Board in closed session, and she thought the Board had come to an understanding of how the personnel policies of the AQMD were going to work and that there were appropriate checks and balances. The Personnel Committee felt that the system should work on more of a merit basis and having the controls that are in the salary resolution in place, rather than having appointments, salary increases, and so forth come before the Board and then the Board members getting lobbied by people seeking designated deputy positions.
Ms. Verdugo-Peralta responded that the Board has the ability to be able to review a package, whether it is from one person that is seeking a scientific position or an administrative position. She is reluctant to give up that authority in that sense.
MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO MODIFY THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE RESOLUTION AS FOLLOWS:"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, State of California, in regular session assembled on November 1, 2002, does hereby amend AQMD's Salary Resolution to adopt Terms and Conditions of At-Will Designated Deputy Appointments, eliminating pay-for-performance and appointment end dates and
making the Executive Officer responsible and accountable for making and ending Designated Deputy appointments, and, effective July 1, 2002, adopting new salaries for Designated Deputies who voluntarily give up existing contracts and become subject to the amended Salary Resolution Terms and Conditions of At-Will Designated Deputy Appointments.The Governing Board will continue to be responsible for making and ending designated deputy appointments."
THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED, AND FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Antonovich, Silva, and Verdugo-Peralta. NOES: Burke, Carney, Glover, and Wilson. ABSENT: Bernson, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, and
Paulitz.THE MAIN MOTION BY MS. CARNEY, SECONDED BY
DR. WILSON, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 28 AS RECOMMENDED:1) ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION AMENDING AQMD'S SALARY RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AT-WILL DESIGNATED DEPUTY APPOINTMENTS, INCLUDING ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIGNATED DEPUTY SALARY LEVELS; AND
2) AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH DESIGNATED DEPUTIES REGARDING VOLUNTARILY GIVING UP EXISTING CONTRACTS AND BECOMING SUBJECT TO THE SALARY RESOLUTION TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AT-WILL DESIGNATED DEPUTY APPOINTMENTS. (DESIGNATED DEPUTIES WHO CHOSE NOT TO GIVE UP EXISTING CONTRACTS WOULD REMAIN UNDER CONTRACT, WITH EXISTING CONTRACT END DATES AND WITH NO COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT.)
FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN (7) CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:
AYES: Burke, Carney, Glover, Silva, and Wilson. NOES: Antonovich and Verdugo-Peralta. ABSENT: Bernson, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, and
Paulitz.
There being no action by the Board on the item, Agenda Item No. 28 was continued by operation of Board procedures to the December 6, 2002 Board meeting
ON MOTION OF MS. CARNEY, SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEM NO. 29 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
ON MOTION OF MS. CARNEY, SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Bernson, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Mikels, and Paulitz), THE BOARD CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS NOS. 31, 32, AND 34 TO THE DECEMBER 6, 2002 BOARD MEETING.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3)
There was no public comment on non-agenda items.
CLOSED SESSION – (No Written Material)
The Board recessed to closed session at 3:30 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 Communities for a Better Environment v. Cenco Refining Company, et al., United States District Court Case No. 00-05665 AHM (RC).
ADJOURNMENT
|
Following closed session, Mr. Wiese announced that there were no actions taken by the Board in closed session to report; and the meeting was adjourned. |
||
|
The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on November 1, 2002. |
|
Respectfully Submitted, SAUNDRA McDANIEL |
|
Date Minutes Approved: ________________________ ____________________________________________ |
ACRONYMS
AQAF = Air Quality Assistance Fund
AQIP = Air Quality Investment Program
CARB = California Air Resources Board
CO2 = Carbon Dioxide
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
FY = Fiscal Year
PAR = Proposed Amended Rule
RFQ = Request for Quotations
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound