1.

ON A MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich, Loveridge, and Paulitz), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

2.

(A). Amend Rule 1401 - New Source Review of Toxic Air
       Contaminants, and Report on Impacts Relative to Sources Subject
       to Rule 1402 - Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing
       Sources

(B). Amend Regulation III - Fees

(C). Amend 1309.1 - Priority Reserve

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY MR. SILVA, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich, Loveridge, and Paulitz), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS 2 THROUGH 4 AND 6 THROUGH 23, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

25.

Items Deferred from Consent Calendar

5. Execute Contract to Develop Design Outlining Feasibility and Necessary Steps
    to Convert CNG Fueling Station to Hydrogen Fueling Service

            Ms. Verdugo-Peralta requested that staff provide periodic updates on this
    item to the Technology Committee.

ON MOTION OF MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA, SECONDED BY DR. WILSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich and Loveridge), THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

24.

        Ms. Verdugo-Peralta commented that it appeared that the emission reductions expected to be generated by the projects contracted to date using the RECLAIM Mitigation Fee Program could fall short of producing the 768 tons of emission reductions required pursuant to Rule 2020 by the year 2003.

        Dr. Wallerstein responded that the required emission reductions are expected to be generated if staff implements all of the projects, including those approved by the Board under Agenda Item No. 11 (Execute Contracts to Fund Marine Vessel Projects under RECLAIM Executive Order Mitigation Program). In addition, if necessary, staff will bring other projects to the Board for approval within 30 to 60 days. Staff has been awaiting U.S. EPA approval of the RECLAIM rules, and has been hesitant to bring the projects to the Board without having that approval and knowing that EPA would honor the ERCs. He has been assured that EPA will approve the rules by April 30, 2002.

ON MOTION OF MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA, SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Antonovich and Loveridge), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEM NO. 24 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

DR. BURKE MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECEIVE AND FILE AGENDA ITEMS 26 THROUGH 33 AND ADOPT THE FOLLOWING POSITION ON LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED: 

AB 1058 (Pavley) - Vehicle Emissions                         SUPPORT

THE MOTION WAS DULY SECONDED, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES:      Antonovich (except Item #28, which included
                 "support" position on AB 1058), Bernson, Burke,
                 Carney, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Mikels, Paulitz,
                 Silva (except Item #28, which included "support"
                 position on AB 1058), Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.

NOES:     Antonovich and Silva (on Item #28 only, which
                 included "support" position on AB 1058).

ABSENT: Loveridge.

34.

        Dr. Julia Lester, Program Supervisor/Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, gave the staff report. Ms. Carney expressed concern about the AQMD not having jurisdiction over the odor issue with respect to composting operations. Dr. Wallerstein noted that the air pollutants of concern also cause the odors; therefore, controlling the emissions for ozone purposes or particulate purposes will have a side benefit of reducing the odors.

        Ms. Carney entered into the record a letter dated March 28, 2002 to Board Members Wilson, Loveridge, and Carney from Robert A. Nelson, of the Riverside County Waste Management Department. With respect to staff’s recommendation to seek funding from the state legislature to implement state-of-the-art composting methods, she expressed her belief that composting operations are an extension of the sewer system and that the costs should be borne by the public; provided it is not out of line with the benefits that are achieved.

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

LINDA MOULTON-PATTERSON and STEVE JONES, (CIWMB)
        1) Expressed support for two aspects of AQMD’s technical assessment report: -- the phased approach to implementation of PR 1133 and the formation of the Technical Advisory Committee -- and requested that CIWMB participate on the Committee. 2) Commented that CIWMB is currently undergoing revisions to its composting regulations that include requirements addressing odor reductions which are directly related to reduced emissions, and would commit to incorporating additional requirements, such as best management practices, to address multimedia issues, including air emissions concerns. Urged the Board to consider a collaborative effort to identify workable best management practices and include the best management practices as part of the control strategies in PR 1133.

GRAEME R. DONALDSON, Colmac Energy & Biomass to Fuel Conversion
        Expressed the following concerns: (i) there is insufficient data on chipping and grinding operations for inclusion in PR 1133; (ii) the issue is composting, not conversion of biomass to energy, which is what their company does; and (iii) the present draft form of PR 1133 contains unreasonable time constraints (five days and three days, respectively) on the removal of processed and unprocessed material. Commented that CIWMB is exempting the agricultural conversion of biomass to energy from its proposed composting regulations, and requested that AQMD consider including the same type of exemption in PR 1133.

GREG ADAMS and MARY JANE FOLEY, on behalf of Southern California
Alliance of POTWs (SCAP)
        Commented that SCAP has collected approximately $170,000 from its member agencies and intends to study and quantify the emissions profile from aerated static piles (ASPs). Biosolids will be combined with greenwaste and then aerated continuously for a period of 60 days at an existing Griffith Park site in the City of Los Angeles. SCAP is confident that this type of practice will reduce emissions and will reduce the odors that have traditionally been associated with these facilities. Requested that AQMD staff await the results of the SCAP ASP study, to be completed in mid-October, and evaluate those results, not only with respect to Phase II, but also revisit Phase I and include those results as much as possible. Expressed belief it is conceivable that the results of SCAP’s study will completely achieve and exceed the AQMD’s emission reduction goals at a fraction of the total costs. Requested that the Board direct staff to remain flexible with respect to establishing emission reduction goals and leaving the design of these biological processes and biological control systems to the experts.

        Dr. Lester responded that staff still has concerns about the capture efficiency and whether these piles can truly be run continuously under aeration, but is agreeable to leaving it to the experts and interested in seeing the results of their study.

KEN PRETELL, Taormina Industries
        1) Expressed concern regarding double counting of throughputs for calculation of baseline VOC emissions values from greenwaste. 2) Recommended that the holding time limits for chipping and grinding facilities be in line with current industry practice of 20 to 30 days. 3) Recommended that the impact on AB 939 compliance for the cities in the Basin be further addressed by AQMD staff in the Technical Assessment to account for upcoming changes in organics regulations, construction and demolition inert debris diversion, and the unique nature of the composting industry. 4) Suggested that the greenwaste emission measurements conducted by AQMD staff be submitted for peer review prior to publication or rule development, that staff utilize technical information from literature and experienced scientists in the Basin in developing the emissions model for the composting industry, and that staff provide technical information from the two sampling events at the Inland Empire composting facility for review by the Technical Advisory Committee. (Submitted Written Comments)

        Dr. Lester responded that the emissions reported by staff are from the composting facilities only, therefore, staff does not believe any double counting has occurred. Staff is awaiting final analysis of the CIWMB tests to be able to determine emissions from the chipping/grinding facilities, and, at that point, will take due care not to do double counting and share that with working group members to make sure that does not happen.

JEFFRY MOFFATT, on behalf of California Refuse Removal Council – Southern District, Inland Empire Disposal Association, Los Angeles County Waste Management Association, and Solid Waste Association of Orange County
        Requested that the Board amend the recommended action to include:
(i) periodic reports to the appropriate Board Committee on progress being made to develop Rule 1133 and an analysis of the impacts on continued implementation of AB 939 organics programs in the District; (ii) a determination for the need to develop a series of rules, similar to the fleet rules, to address the unique problems characteristic of individual sectors of composting and related operations;
(iii) sufficient time allowed to revise the Technology Assessment and to promote good science to develop cost effective management practices that produce exemplary improvements to air quality, while at the same time, protecting fragile composting and related operations. (Submitted Written Comments)

DANIEL McGIVNEY, Eastern Municipal Water District
        Commented that biosolids disposal and reuse is a big issue at this time, and agencies would prefer to reuse it rather than dispose of it. Typically, the only disposal option is in landfills. There are public perception issues and land use issues associated with reuse, and agencies are attempting to find a way to handle it in their own area in a method that is publicly accepted, supports beneficial reuse, and can be done in a cost effective manner.

        Mr. Bernson expressed concern with regard to the excessive noise and vibrations from greenwaste composting sites that carry for quite a distance.
Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff will address that as part of the environmental assessment in looking at companion environmental issues.

GARY VAN DORST, City of Redlands
        Commented that AQMD staff should be open to an inclusive rulemaking process, including the need to revisit the economic analysis and emissions data. Requested to be included as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee.

DAVE STAHOVICH, representing Supervisor Bob Buster, Riverside County Board of Supervisors
        Commented that Riverside County has not allowed the dumping of biosolids in landfills for many years. Much of the sludge from Southern California is finding its way to Riverside County, and composting facilities are being built in communities throughout the county. They have had nine years of experience in dealing with odor problems from a composting site in the Temescal Canyon. Other facilities across the nation are fully enclosed and are affordable and work.

MIKE CAPELLINO, concerned citizen, resident of Cherry Valley, California
        Commented that Synagro intends to operate a biosolids composting facility in Corona, California, and his understanding is that odors will not be detectable two miles from the site. However, there are presently a number of people residing closer than two miles to the site, and he is concerned with the health issues as well as the odor issue. With regard to the SCAP ASP study, San Joaquin Composting, the largest such facility in the United States, made an attempt at closed ASP composting, which failed; and he does not believe it will work at the Griffith Park facility. He commented that he would be in favor of completely enclosing all sites to eliminate the pollutants.

        Ms. Carney asked if the study to be conducted by SCAP will only involve testing emissions very close to the aerated piles or if there would also be samples taken farther away. She stated that she believes distance is going to be an issue and the AQMD will need to have downwind information.

        Dr. Wallerstein responded that staff is attempting to determine VOC and ammonia emissions, not odors, since the prohibition exists in state law relative to odors; therefore, there would usually be no testing downwind of the site. However, if the Board desired, staff, as part of its observations, could have an inspector there to conduct odor detection downwind.

MICHELLE RANDALL, concerned citizen
        Submitted a petition, with 58 signatures of individuals living/working in the Temescal Canyon area, requesting that the Board require: (i) partial enclosure and filtering with ASP composting of all greenwaste composting sites, and (ii) full enclosure and filtering with ASP composting of all sewage sludge composting sites.

DAVID FACE, concerned citizen
        Commented that there is a composting facility less than two miles from his neighborhood and they have put up with a lot of unpleasant odors over the years. He is also located close to the new proposed facility for Inland Composting. There have been many promises made about enclosing the facility and containing the odors. Submitted a petition with 111 signatures from residents and employees living and working in the Colton/Grand Terrace area requesting that the Board require: (i) partial enclosure and filtering with ASP composting of all greenwaste composting sites, and (ii) full enclosure and filtering with ASP composting of all sewage sludge composting sites.

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

        Dr. Wilson commented on Riverside County’s history of biosolids facilities that tried many things to address the odors, but were unsuccessful. Although he is willing to look at the results of SCAP’s ASP study, he asked that staff examine total enclosure of large biosolids facilities. With regard to chipping and grinding, he suggested that staff study the impact of exempting biomass facilities.

        Ms. Verdugo-Peralta commented that there is obviously concern from the communities and she believes it is important that the Board address odor issues.

        Mr. Silva suggested, since there are several distinctive areas of the composting and related operations, that staff examine the possibility of dividing Rule 1133 into a series of rules similar to what the Board did with the fleet rules.

DR. WILSON MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO:

1)   PRESENT A SERIES OF PROPOSED
      RULES TO CONTROL EMISSIONS
      FROM COMPOSTING AND RELATED
      OPERATIONS, BASED ON THE
      RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
      TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, FOR
      BOARD CONSIDERATION NO LATER
      THAN FALL 2002;

2)  ESTABLISH A TECHNICAL ADVISORY
     COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE ON-GOING
     TECHNICAL STUDIES OF
     COST-EFFECTIVE COMPOSTING
     CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND
     MANAGEMENT PRACTICES;

3)  WORK WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS,
     INCLUDING THE CALIFORNIA
     INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
     BOARD, LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES, AND
     SANITATION DISTRICTS, TO SEEK
     SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR CONTROL
     TECHNOLOGY FOR USE BY THE
     GREENWASTE COMPOSTING
      INDUSTRY; AND

4)  CONTINUE TO UPDATE THE
     STATIONARY SOURCE COMMITTEE,
     ON A MONTHLY BASIS, ON THE
     STUDIES THAT ARE ONGOING,
     INCLUDING STUDIES THAT WILL
    ADDRESS COMMENTS MADE BY BOARD
    MEMBERS.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. SILVA, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Loveridge).

        Dr. Elaine Chang, DEO of Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, commented that this item concerned a routine update to reflect EPA’s actions; and that AQMD’s rules were being amended by reference to EPA rules.

ON A MOTION DULY MADE, SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (Absent: Loveridge), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 02-11, AMENDING REGULATION IX AND CERTIFYING THE EXEMPTION FROM CEQA REQUIREMENTS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

        There was no public comment on non-agenda items.

        Ms. Verdugo-Peralta reminded Board members that Honda’s fuel cell vehicle and the new hybrid Honda Civic were being shown at AQMD headquarters, and Board members were invited to test drive the vehicles.

• 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 action is MacDougall v. Thomas and AQMD, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. GC027653;

• 54957, regarding public employee discipline, dismissal, or release; and

• 54956.8, to provide direction to its negotiator regarding the price and terms for a lease of real property and the extension of a lease of real property. The properties are a portion of the District Headquarters at 21835 E. Copley Drive, Suite 1114, and 21845 E. Copley Drive, Suite 1137, Diamond Bar, California 91765. The negotiator is Sylvia Oroz. The parties to the negotiations are: General Services Administration for the Department of Treasury (Savings Bond Marketing Unit) and the Franchise Business Activity -- West, respectively.

The Board recessed to closed session at 11:00 a.m.

        Following closed session, District Counsel Barbara Baird announced that there was no action taken in closed session to report, and the meeting was adjourned to 9:30 a.m., April 19, 2002, for the purpose of conducting the Board’s Workshop on the Executive Officer’s FY 2002-03 Budget and Work Program and Proposed Amendments to Regulation III - Fees. The workshop will be held at AQMD Headquarters, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, in Conference Room CC8.

        The foregoing is a true statement of the proceedings held by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on April 5, 2002.

Respectfully Submitted,
 
 

SAUNDRA McDANIEL
Senior Deputy Clerk

____________________________________________
                     Norma J. Glover, Chairman