39.

Amend Regulation XIII – New Source Review

        Dr. Laki Tisopulos, Assistant DEO/Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, gave the staff report.

        Ms. Carney noted that the proposed amendments arose out of one of Chairman Glover’s initiatives, and she commended her for seeing an opportunity which has resulted in a rule amendment that would be good for business and
non-harmful to the air.

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

LEE WALLACE, Sempra Energy Utilities
CURTIS COLEMAN, CMTA/Southern California Air Quality Alliance
UVE SILLAT, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance

        Expressed support for the proposed amendments and congratulated Chairman Glover on the successful accomplishment of Initiative No. 1.  The NSR Subcommittee has been actively meeting with the staffs of all three agencies involved – AQMD, CARB, and EPA -- and plans to continue to follow the implementation of these improvements, and, along with other stakeholders, will be working to bring forward further recommendations to improve flexibility of the NSR program.

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

Written Comments Submitted by:
Charles F. Timms, Jr., Attorney at Law, Broiles & Timms, LLP
 

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, DULY SECONDED, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent:  Aguiar), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 02-31, AMENDING RULES 1302, 1303, 1306, AND 1309, ADOPTING RULE 1309.2, AND CERTIFYING THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
 

       Chairman Glover stated that the Board would next consider Agenda Items 42 and 43, also continued from the November 1, 2002 Board meeting.  Dr. Burke recused himself from Agenda Item No. 42 because of a conflict of interest.
 

42.

Amend Rule 1173 - Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks and Release from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants

       Larry Bowen, Planning & Rules Manager, gave the staff report; and noted that copies of an errata sheet prepared by staff had been distributed to Board members and copies made available to the public.  The errata sheet contained changes, primarily clarifying language, recommended by WSPA.  The first recommended revision to PAR 1173 was to extend the compliance date for tagging components that are to be a part of the new inspection maintenance program from April 1, 2003 to September 1, 2003 to allow them sufficient time to physically identify those thousands of components.  Secondly, pursuant to Subparagraph (i)(3)(A) of the rule, facilities are required to report releases from pressure relief devices (PRDs) to the AQMD as soon as they are aware of the release.  The recommended revision would clarify this requirement by adding:  “… within one hour of such occurrence or within one hour of the time said person knew or reasonably should have known of its occurrence.”
 

        Chairman Glover acknowledged Ms. Carney’s efforts in serving on the Refinery Ad Hoc Committee, at the Chairman’s request, to work with industry on Rule 1173.

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

REID MORK, Ashland Specialty Chemical Company
CURTIS COLEMAN, CMTA, Southern California Air Quality Alliance

       Expressed concerns that the chemical companies have with PAR 1173 requirements pertaining to PRDs.  Unlike the refineries, chemical plants have very few pieces of equipment that operate under pressure; the majority of their equipment operate under ambient conditions.  The proposed amended rule will require these facilities to install monitoring devices on atmospheric equipment at significant costs – approximately $250,000 for the Ashland facility.  There is concern, also, that there are significant differences between the monitoring and recording requirements for chemical plants under federal NESHAPS and those contained in Rule 1173; and that if the facilities just comply with AQMD requirements, they may not meet the federal requirements.
 

        Dr. Tisopulos responded that, in working with industry on the proposed amended rule, two compliance options were developed:  the facility could either install electronic monitoring devices on PRDs, or use process parameter monitoring, i.e., monitor temperature, pressure, and so forth.  He noted that, as part of the adopting resolution for PAR 1173, staff was making a commitment to continue to work with industry and provide the Board with periodic updates, as well as amendments to the rule, as necessary.

JEFF CALLENDER, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)

        Commented that while WSPA did not agree with every provision of
PAR 1173, it was not opposing the rule.  Expressed the belief, however, of WSPA’s member companies that for the purposes of the SIP creditable emissions, the refining industry has reduced its VOC emissions in the South Coast Air Basin significantly beyond its proportional share of the total VOC inventory; and that further VOC reductions must be accomplished by regulation of non-refinery sources.  They continue to have concerns with the overall direction of rulemaking as it relates to the refining industry, and it seems to them that the emissions benefits diminish and the costs to industry increase.  They believe it is imperative that AQMD work with the refining industry to ensure that they maximize the benefits from their air quality investments.  To achieve that goal, WSPA requested that the AQMD join with industry to develop a more accurate inventory of their emissions in the basin prior to enacting any additional regulations on refiners.
 

        Ms. Carney noted that staff and industry worked diligently to reach agreement on PAR 1173; and that industry agreed to take significant steps, even though the actual emissions reductions are not large.  She expressed her belief that continued efforts to reduce VOCs in this basin, for certain stationary sources, are getting to the point of very low returns for the effort.  She indicated that having served on the Refinery Ad Hoc Committee had heightened her awareness about the cost that this industry is incurring to help achieve lower VOC emissions, and she stated that the AQMD needs to be certain to apply that same rigor across the board.

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

ON MOTION OF MS. CARNEY, SECONDED BY
MR. BERNSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent:  Aguiar, Burke, and Wilson), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 02-34, AMENDING RULE 1173 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO RULE 1173:

In Subparagraph (e)(3), extend the compliance date for tagging components that are to be a part of the new inspection maintenance program from April 1, 2003 to September 1, 2003.

In Subparagraph (i)(3)(A), add the following language (bold/underlined):  “… within one hour of such occurrence or within one hour of the time said person knew or reasonably should have known of its occurrence.”
 

43.

Amend Rule 1610 - Old-Vehicle Scrapping

        In the interest of time, staff waived presentation of an oral staff report on this item.  Copies of an errata sheet containing a correction to Subparagraph (c)(2) of PAR 1610 were distributed by staff to Board members and made available to the public.

        The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard public testimony from the following individual:

JON OWYANG, Market-Based Solutions

        Expressed support for PAR 1610, and thanked staff for its efforts to conform the rule to CARB’s regulation.

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

Written Comments Submitted by:
B. Morel
 

ON MOTION OF MR. BERNSON, SECONDED BY
DR. WILSON, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent:  Aguiar and Burke), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 02-35, AMENDING RULE 1610 AND CERTIFYING THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION TO RULE 1610:

Subparagraph (c)(2):
”… Scrappers intending to continue scrapping operations after December 6, 2002 shall submit a revised scrapping plan to the Executive Officer by January 1, 2002 2003.  The existing scrapping plan …”
 

40.

Amend Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings

  
        Dr. Laki Tisopulos, Assistant DEO/Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources, gave the staff report.  The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals.

HOWARD BERMAN, Dunn Edwards Paint Company

       Supported the rule in 1999 as proposed, and is continuing to work with the staff and with the agency in refining the rule.  While they have concerns with the proposed amended rule and believe that results from the technology assessments performed to date would justify certain amendments to the rule, recommended that the Board move forward and adopt the proposed amended rule.  (Submitted Written Comments)

ALBERT SILVERTON, Silvertown Products, Inc.

        Manufactures a product which is a protective film and a stain for exterior wood as well as interior wood.  This product has absolutely no VOC, and they have been manufacturing and marketing it since 1996.  As far as durability is concerned, it has a minimum of 3 years durability when one coat is applied.  (Submitted Written Comments)

MARTIN SCHLAGETER, Coalition for Clean Air

        Expressed support for the proposed amended rule, which addresses a very significant amount of emissions, and encouraged the Board’s adoption as proposed by staff.
 

TIM KINGSBURY, JFB Hart Coatings

        Expressed support of the proposed amended rule.  Commented that his company manufactures high performance low-VOC coatings based on technology acquired from Dr. Richard Hart approximately three years ago.  The principal categories of coatings they have developed thus far include floor coatings, clear wood finishes, industrial maintenance coatings and primers.  All of their coatings meet the 2003 limits in PAR 1113, most comply with the 2006 limits, and all have demonstrated excellent performance in many field applications.  In addition various independent testing companies have performed extensive ASTM testing of their coatings with good results to date.  (Submitted Written Comments)

JOHN MEANS, Universal Studios

       Commented in support of PAR 1113.  Every coating category regulated by Rule 1113 is used at their facility, and the coatings they use are fully compliant with the January 1, 2003 VOC limits in PAR 1113.  These coatings meet their requirements for appearance, including variety of colors, as well as durability.  In addition, they are currently using industrial maintenance coatings that meet the January 1, 2004 limits.  Some preparation and application methods have to be changed and not every manufacturer has adequate products in every category, but compliant products are available, they work well, they are durable, they will be better for the painter, better for the environment, and they will be a bridge to the next generation of coatings that will lead to even lower VOC products.
 

JOSEPH TASHJIAN, Ellis Paint Company

       Expressed concern that the VOC limit for swimming pool repair coatings has been lowered to 340 grams per liter (gpl), when the limit in the May 1999 amendments was 650 gpl.  They have been trying in their labs over the last 18 months to formulate a 340-VOC swimming pool repair coating and have not been successful.  Requested that the Board consider extending the implementation date for that category and allow them time to try and develop a product that will be adequate for swimming pool repair.  (Submitted Written Comments)

        Dr. Tisopulos responded that the 340 gpl limit was not part of the May 1999 amendments, but has been included in PAR 1113 at this time to conform AQMD’s rule with the CARB Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) coatings that will go into effect on January 1, 2003.  There are 16 air quality management districts that have already adopted that limit and they will be implemented on January 1, 2003.  With respect to the swimming pool repair coatings, companies will be allowed to sell their products for up to three years, provided they are manufactured prior to the effective date.  He suggested that Mr. Tashjian contact CARB to try to obtain the name of the manufacturers of compliant products which, according to Mr. Tashjian, were identified by CARB two or three years ago.
 

DEAN OWEN, Arizona Polymer Flooring

      Expressed concern with the proposed 100 gpl limit of VOC on floor coatings because it would eliminate the use of the best finished coat floor coating technology -- solvent borne two-component polyester urethane.  Because of viscosity constraints it is not possible to make this product and meet the 100 gpl VOC limit.  This coating has been the preferred top coat material for applications where the best abrasion resistance, gloss retention, and cleaning ability are required.  Replacement urethane technologies, water borne polyester, epoxy materials, do not meet all three of these requirements.  Requested that the Board reconsider and set the limit for high performance solvent based floor coatings at 250 gpl.
 

GERALD THOMPSON, BonaKemi USA

      Suggested that the word “steps” be added to the definition in PAR 1113 of “floor coatings,” and that “gymnasiums and bowling alleys” be removed, in order to make the definition consistent with CARB and EPA definitions.  (Submitted Written Comments)

JEFFERY MARGULIES, National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA)

       Commented that while NPCA appreciated the minor changes made by staff to PAR 1113, the rule before the Board was essentially the same rule that the Board adopted in May 1999 and was the subject of three years of litigation.  Industry is committed to working with the AQMD on achievable VOC reductions based on sound technology, and, in that light, believe that with modest adjustments the 2003 interim VOC limits can be met.  These limits will result in paints that are not of the quality presently available, but for the most part would be feasible both to make and to use.

       Expressed the NPCA’s concern, however, with the final limits proposed to be effective in 2006, which are based on technologies that are not proven to work for a large number of coating applications.  The NPCA believes that further reductions probably are achievable, but it would be unwise public policy and contrary to State law for the Board to adopt those final reductions before completion of the technology assessments.  NPCA further believes that more lengthy, costly litigation can be avoided if the Board rejects the proposal to adopt the final limits at this time and directs staff to work with industry on resolving the few remaining issues with the interim limits and identifying ways in which to achieve further feasible emissions reductions in 2006 and thereafter.  (Submitted Written Comments)
 

BARRY JENKIN, Benjamin Moore & Company

       Expressed concern that the proposed amended rule misrepresents a number of their products.  Specifically, one of their industrial maintenance coatings, traffic coatings, is listed as a floor paint.  Also a two-component industrial maintenance coating was listed as a homeowner floor coating.  By law those two coatings cannot be sold to the homeowner, thereby eliminating two supposedly compliant products.  Another coating AQMD staff has misrepresented is an industrial maintenance coal tar epoxy.  This is a dangerous product and not something they sell to the homeowner, yet it has been proposed as a general industrial maintenance coating.  Besides the fact of its misrepresentation, it is a black colored coating product for use only by water treatment facilities and not for general industrial use.  Implementation of the VOC limits for 2006 and 2008 would eliminate 75 to 90 percent of their company’s products, and the 2003 limits would eliminate coatings from their product line in the area of floor paints and varnishes.  Additionally, they would lose the ability to deliver a variety of colors and would be relegated to manufacturing and selling second and third line white paints.  Expressed concern also about the lack of definitions for shellacs and calcimine recoaters in the proposed rule.  (Submitted Written Comments)
 

       Dr. Tisopulos noted that staff relied on the technical data sheets released by the companies in identifying the coatings.  A few companies, including Benjamin Moore, identified some misprints and, based on the feedback received, staff revised the listings in the rule.
 

TONY HOBBS, Tnemec Company
*MADELYN HARDING, The Sherwin Williams Company
NORM MOWLER, Ameron International in Brea
LARRY CERENZIE, FSC Coatings
ROBERT NELSON, National Paint & Coatings Association
*STUART HAINES, Textured Coatings of America
       Expressed concern that the coating technologies to meet the proposed VOC limits in PAR 1113 for the year 2006 have not been field proven.  Commented that it would take more than simply reformulation for them to meet the 2006 limits, a totally new resin would be required, and it would have to be available at this time in order to begin the necessary field testing.  Indicated that the majority of the industry members of the technology assessment group felt that the assessments were not performed properly, questioned the analysis and presentation of data, and believed the data does not support the conclusions that were reached by staff.  In particular, there have been to date no long term longevity tests for the limits that will be going into effect in 2006.  Urged the Board not to approve the 2006 limits and to direct staff to work closely with the industry technology assessment group and consider their recommendations on further technology assessments.  (*Submitted Written Comments)
 

       In response to Mr. Paulitz, Dr. Tisopulos indicated that there was a difference in opinion in staff’s interpretation of what the technology assessment results indicate and the NPCA’s interpretation.  Also, when staff first initiated the two studies referenced – the NTS Outdoor Exposure Testing and the KTA-Tator Coatings Study -- staff requested that industry provide performance standards.  Industry failed to do so, and without that information, staff had to look at the products in their totality, which leaves the process subject to interpretation.

CHRISTOPHER FOSTER, Attorney, Law Offices of Smiland & Khachigian, on behalf of Textured Coatings of America, Ellis Paint Company, and Trinity Coatings

      1) Urged the Board to take no action on the staff proposal which was essentially re-adopting the 1999 amendments to Rule 1113.  The technical foundation for those amendments, he believes, did not exist then and it is clear that it does not exist today.  2) Commented that it appeared to him that AQMD staff had taken a narrow view of the language issued by the Appellate Court in invalidating the Board’s May 1999 adoption of PAR 1113.  3) Read excerpts from the judge’s opinion regarding the rule amendment drastically reducing the number of paints and coatings available on the market by lowering the allowable VOC levels; that approximately 97 percent of the 7,000 different paints and coatings would disappear by the time the amended rule was implemented in 2006; and what would be left would be paints and coatings that generally would not last as long and would be unsuitable in certain circumstances, for example, harsh weather or exposure to corrosive elements.
 

         Ms. Carney commented that while the Court can tell the Board whether it had the power to adopt a rule and whether the Board’s action was done pursuant to appropriate public procedure, the Court does not get to decide what the content of the rule should be.  She pointed out that the justice’s personal views on the rule content were dicta and did not have any bearing on the actual ruling in the case.
 

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

Written Comments Submitted by:
Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rulemaking Office, U.S. EPA, Region IX
Ron Widner, California Paint Council 

       In order to address the concern raised in public testimony about the long lead time necessary for testing compliant products for the 2006 and 2008 limits,
Ms. Carney recommended that a requirement be added to the resolution for
PAR 1113 that staff at the December 2003 and December 2004 Board meetings provide the Board with a thorough report on progress towards achieving compliant products with respect to the difficult categories for the 2006 limits, so that a determination can be made as to whether or not sufficient compliant products will be available for 2006.
 

DR. WILSON MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
NO. 02-32, AMENDING RULE 1113 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.  THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. CARNEY, WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, ACCEPTED BY
DR. WILSON AND INCORPORATED IN THE MOTION:

STAFF SHALL REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD AT THE  DECEMBER 2003 BOARD MEETING AND THE DECEMBER 2004 BOARD MEETING REGARDING PROGRESS MADE TOWARD ACHIEVING COMPLIANT PRODUCTS FOR THE 2006 VOC LIMITS UNDER RULE 1113.
 

       Mr. Silva and Mr. Bernson commented in favor of postponing Board action on PAR 1113 for 60 days, as requested by industry, because they felt there were still unanswered questions and perhaps staff and industry could work out a compromise.  They believed, also, that it was in the best interest of everybody to try to resolve the issues without any further litigation.
 

MR. SILVA MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON RULE 1113 TO THE
FEBRUARY 7, 2003 GOVERNING BOARD MEETING AND DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH INDUSTRY ON RESOLVING THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED RULE.  THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. BERNSON.
 

      Speaking in opposition to the substitute motion, Dr. Wilson expressed his belief that nothing could be accomplished in 60 days that had not already been discussed.  Industry had since 1999 to work out reasonable compromises, and staff indicated that they had listened to industry, made changes to the proposed amended rule, and only a few outstanding issues remained.  Secondly, the Board would have two new members in 60 days who would be unfamiliar with the history of this rule.  Thirdly, the reason for the previous litigation was because of the Board making compromises at the last minute after extensive staff work in putting the rule together.  He believed the Board should not make any compromises now, but should adopt the rule as it had been developed by staff. 

       Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley concurred with Dr. Wilson’s comments, and noted that if the Board did not adopt PAR 1113, the EPA could require that AQMD implement its 1994 AQMP, which is more drastic and does not have a phased-in approach to reducing emissions.  Mr. Paulitz and Chairman Glover expressed their concurrence with Dr. Wilson’s comments as well.
 

       Ms. Verdugo-Peralta expressed concern regarding the testimony that there are no resins available to even formulate compliant products for certain coating categories, and she did not believe there would be any detriment to the AQMD to postpone the hearing for 60 days and try to see if staff and industry could reach a compromise.

       Dr. Wilson commented that he believed Ms. Verdugo-Peralta’s concerns would be addressed by his motion, which allows for an annual review and report by staff on whether or not the future VOC limits can be met.
 

THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY MR. SILVA, AND SECONDED BY MR. BERNSON, TO:  1) CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON RULE 1113 TO THE FEBRUARY 7, 2003 GOVERNING BOARD MEETING;  AND 2) DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH INDUSTRY ON RESOLVING THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED RULE FAILED, FOR A LACK OF SEVEN CONCURRING VOTES, AS FOLLOWS:

AYES:      Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, Silva, and
                 Verdugo-Peralta.

NOES:      Carney, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Paulitz,
                  and Wilson.

ABSENT:   Aguiar.
 

THE MOTION BY DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY
MS. CARNEY, TO:  1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 02-32, AMENDING RULE 1113 AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF;  AND 2) DIRECT STAFF TO REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD AT THE  DECEMBER 2003 BOARD MEETING AND THE DECEMBER 2004 BOARD MEETING REGARDING PROGRESS MADE TOWARD ACHIEVING COMPLIANT PRODUCTS FOR THE 2006 VOC LIMITS UNDER RULE 1113, PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES:      Burke, Carney, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge,
                 Paulitz, Verdugo-Peralta, and Wilson.

NOES:      Antonovich, Bernson, and Silva.

ABSENT:  Aguiar.
 

41.

Amend Rule 1122 - Solvent Degreasers

       In the interest of time, staff waived an oral report for this item.  The public hearing was opened, and the Board heard testimony from the following individuals.

MARTIN SCHLAGETER, Coalition for Clean Air

        Expressed concern with the staff proposal, which was an extension of an exemption, and encouraged the Board to make sure that the AQMD is holding firm to compliance deadlines and not creating a situation that leads to indefinite exemptions.

UVE SILAT, Raytheon
MICHAEL BEASLEY, Boeing Satellite Systems
BILL PEARCE, The Boeing Company
CURTIS COLEMAN, Attorney at Law, on behalf of California Aerospace
Environmental Association and CMTA/Southern California Air Quality Alliance
       Requested that the exemption be extended for three years rather than the two years proposed by staff, which industry believes is not sufficient time for them to evaluate alternative technologies.  A three-year extension of the exemption, as originally proposed by staff, would be consistent with the technology assessment that AQMD staff prepared on PAR 1122.  These are very limited exemptions for very technical and specialized cleaning operations – satellite components, laser components, high precision electronic and optical components – where any contamination basically renders them useless.  In addition, the emissions from these operations are very low.

        Dr. Tisopulos responded that industry had over five years to switch to compliant technology, and many of them have managed to switch.  Staff has also noticed that the use of compliant solvents often necessitates a change in the process itself, which often takes longer than anticipated.  Therefore, staff believes two years is the adequate time to offer to industry to complete the conversion, with the understanding that staff will conduct another technology assessment a year before the compliance date.

PAUL ENGEL, Medennium Inc.
       Asked for clarification by staff as to whether their operation, the manufacture of intraocular acrylic lenses, is subject to the requirements of Rule 1122.

       Staff responded that the company is subject to the Rule 1122 exemption proposed by staff for a two-year extension, and agreed to meet with Mr. Engel to explain staff’s knowledge of the advances that have been made in cleaning those specific tools.

KATY WOLF, Institute for Technical and Research Assistance
       Commented that Rule 1122 primarily affects the high technology industry, which includes many Fortune 500 companies.  These companies have substantial resources as well as substantial technical expertise.  She expressed her opposition to the proposed extension of this exemption for the following reasons:  (1) In every category of the exemptions there are examples of companies that have actually made successful cost effective conversions.  It is not fair to the companies that have already spent the resources and devoted the time converting to alternatives to allow these other companies to have more time to comply.  (2) These companies have already had five years to comply and they are asking for three additional years instead of the two proposed by District staff.  It has been long enough; the technologies are available, so they should convert.  (3) It is inequitable to extend the exemption for this industry, which has wealthy companies in it who have substantial technical expertise, when the cleaning rules – Rule 1172 and Rule 1171 – have made other industries that are dominated by small companies convert.  Those companies all wanted exemptions and were probably as justified as this industry in asking for it, yet were not granted exemptions.  Every company and every industry has to do its part for reducing emissions.  Even if the emissions are small, they should have to reduce their emissions.

       Urged the Board not to adopt the extension; but if it does, make sure that these companies do not come back to the Board in a few years and get another extension.  IRTA is working with several companies to covert to compliant materials.  Once the companies learned that AQMD was proposing an extension of the exemption, they stopped work on the conversions.  These companies have the technology, they just need to do the work to convert; and they won’t do the work to convert unless the Board requires them to convert.
 

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

ON MOTION OF MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, SECONDED BY
MR. PAULITZ, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Aguiar), THE BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 02-33, AMENDING RULE 1122 AND CERTIFYING THE CEQA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
 

44.

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

 1.

Minutes of November 1, 2002 Board Meeting
 

 2.

Set Public Hearing January 10, 2003 to 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
 

 3.

Execute Contract to Cosponsor Development and Evaluation of Multiple Vehicle Type Expansion of Shared Electric Vehicle System
 

 4.

Amend Recipient for Forklift Projects under the State Emissions Mitigation Program
 

 5.

Execute Contracts for Purchase of Equipment to Establish Air Monitoring Station in Mira Loma
 

 6.

Issue RFP for Demonstration of Technologies to Reduce PM Emissions From Airport Ground Support Equipment in South Coast Air Basin
 

 7.

Approve Issuance of Program Announcement & Application to Solicit Projects Under CARB Emission Reduction Credit Bank
 

 8.

Approve Grants to Purchase up to 65 New CNG School Buses and Infrastructure, and Retrofit up to 447 Diesel Buses with PM Traps
 

 9.

Execute Contract to Purchase Voice Mail System Upgrade
 

10.

Execute Contract for Travel Agency Services
 

11.

Transfer Funds from Executive Officer Mitigation Account and Authorize Establishment of Five-Year Inspector Enhancement Program for the Marine Vessel Credit Generation Rule and Port Area Air Quality Program Enforcement
 

12.

Amend AQMD Conflict of Interest Code
 

13.

Establish Board Meeting Schedule for Calendar Year 2003
 

14.

Public Affairs Report
 

15.

Hearing Board Report
 

16.

Civil Filing and Civil Penalties Report
 

17.

Lead Agency Projects and Environmental Documents Received by AQMD
 

18.

Rule and Control Measure Forecast
 

19.

Report of RFPs and RFQs Scheduled for Release in December
 

20.

Status Report on Major Projects for Information Management Scheduled to Start During First Six Months of FY 2002-03
 

21.

Best Available Control Technology Guidelines Report
 

22.

Implementation Status of Control Measure WST-01 – Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste
 

23.

Items Deferred from Consent Calendar

 
        Mr. Greg Adams, of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, addressed the Board regarding Agenda Item No. 22.  He pointed out that the Board had heard several times already that many source categories are getting down to the bottom of available emissions reductions, and something needs to be done.  The manure category is a very large source of emissions, with 21.2 tons per day of ammonia and nearly 7 tons per day of VOC.  The PM10 available from the manure category is unquantified, but the AQMP suggests it could be very large in terms of emissions that come off roads, unpaved roads, stockpiles, and so forth.  The actual rule only requires an attrition of about 7 percent; largely because of dairies moving out of the area.  There is no additional imposition of controls or other technologies, and consequently no cost per ton has ever been calculated for that particular control measure.  Because of this emissions equity issue, there are source categories that are not being regulated to the extent that perhaps they should be regulated.  He suggested that the manure category should at least be asked to follow up on best management practices to get a quicker reduction and to help ease the burden on other source categories.
 

       Dr. Tisopulos responded that VOC emissions have been reduced from this category by more than 30 percent without air quality regulation.  That is slightly short of meeting the District’s AQMP goals, and that is why staff is developing the rule.  The details of the rule, however, will be discussed in the Stationary Source Committee and will be presented to the Board at its March 2003 meeting.

        Mr. Bernson commented, with respect to the practices of management and health issues, that is basically up to the cities and counties for their health departments and sanitation departments to enforce.
 

ON MOTION OF DR. BURKE, SECONDED BY
MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, THE BOARD APPROVED AGENDA ITEMS NOS. 1 THROUGH 22 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, INCLUDING:  ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
NO. 02-27, SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS FOR 2003; AND RESOLUTION NO. 02-29, PRESCRIBING THE COMPOSITION, DUTIES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL AND ADVISORY GROUPS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
 

AYES:       Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, Carney, Glover,
                  LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Paulitz, Silva,
                  Verdugo-Peralta (except Item No. 4), and Wilson.

NOES:       None.

ABSTAIN:  Verdugo-Peralta (on Item No. 4 only).

ABSENT:   Aguiar.

24.

Administrative Committee
 

25.

Investment Oversight Committee
 

26.

Legislative Committee
 

27.

Mobile Source Committee
 

28.

Stationary Source Committee
 

29.

Technology Committee
 

30.

Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
 

31.

California Air Resources Board Monthly Report
(No Written Material - Transcripts of the meetings are available at CARB's web site, www.arb.ca.gov.)
 

32.

California Fuel Cell Partnership Steering Team Meeting
 

33.

Amend Salary Resolution to Add Terms and Conditions of Designated Deputy
At-Will Employment
 

34.

Approve Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendations Regarding Operations of Board Advisory Groups
 

35.

Report on Rule 461 - Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing Implementation 

        Agenda Items No. 33 and No. 34 were pulled from the Board Calendar for discussion by Mr. Paulitz and Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley, respectively.
 

ON MOTION OF DR. WILSON, SECONDED BY DR. BURKE, AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent: Aguiar), THE BOARD RECEIVED AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS 24 THROUGH 32 AND 35 AND ADOPTED THE STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, AS RECOMMENDED.
 

33.

Amend Salary Resolution to Add Terms and Conditions of Designated Deputy
At-Will Employment

       Commenting that some of the raises in the Designated Deputy Annual Salaries Effective July 1, 2002 were in the 9 percent range and 4.5 percent range, and two of them were in the 1 percent range, which he did not believe was fair and equitable,
 

MR. PAULITZ MOVED APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 33 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH A MODIFICATION TO ARTICLE 7, DESIGNATED DEPUTY ANNUAL SALARIES, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2002, TO INCREASE THE SALARY FOR DIRECTOR OF AREA SOURCES FROM $109,799 TO $111,960 AND THE SALARY FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS OFFICER FROM $94,611 TO $97,412.  THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA.
 

        Ms. Carney commented that a Personnel Committee, consisting of Dr. Burke, Chairman Glover, and herself, reviewed this item and unanimously approved the recommendation.  The Committee looked at the qualifications for the positions, the level of responsibility, and what they thought was the appropriate pay scale for each position.  There were two positions that appeared to them to have gotten out of alignment, given the level of responsibility and the level of expertise necessary; and they were attempting to correct what they believed had been an inequity that had developed.
 

MR. BERNSON MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 02-28, AMENDING AQMD’S SALARY RESOLUTION TO ADOPT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
AT-WILL DESIGNATED DEPUTY APPOINTMENTS, INCLUDING ESTABLISHMENT OF DESIGNATED DEPUTY SALARY LEVELS, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.  THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY, AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
 

AYES:        Antonovich, Bernson, Burke, Carney, Glover,
                   LaPisto-Kirtley, Loveridge, Silva, and Wilson.

NOES:        Paulitz and Verdugo-Peralta.

ABSENT:    Aguiar.
 

MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA MOVED TO AMEND THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE SALARY 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.”
 

       Ms. Verdugo-Peralta clarified that the Board has had the authority in the past to approve or disapprove appointment of DEOs and she does not believe it is in the best interest of the Board or the AQMD to relinquish that authority. 
Dr. Wallerstein clarified that he has had for five and half years the authority to release people for inadequate performance or breaking the personnel rules, which he has had to do.
 

THE MOTION BY MS. VERDUGO-PERALTA WAS SECONDED BY MR. PAULITZ AND FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES:        Verdugo-Peralta.

NOES:        Bernson, Burke, Carney, Glover, LaPisto-Kirtley,
                   Loveridge, Silva, and Wilson.

ABSTAIN:  Antonovich and Paulitz.

ABSENT:    Aguiar.
 

34.

Approve Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendations Regarding Operations of Board Advisory Groups

       Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley commented that she was not against the recommendation to increase participation from academics and from the public sector in the advisory groups, as long as the size of the committee is not increased.  She also suggested that the appointments to the advisory groups by the Board Chairman be approved by the Administrative Committee.  Dr. Burke indicated that he was agreeable to the Administrative Committee confirming the appointments.

MS. LaPISTO-KIRTLEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 02-29, PRESCRIBING THE COMPOSITION, DUTIES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL AND ADVISORY GROUPS; AND APPROVE THE POLICY AND GUIDELINES AND CHARTER, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

   1)     INCREASE PARTICIPATION OF ACADEMIC AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION, WITHOUT INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE ADVISORY GROUP;

   2)     APPOINTMENT OR REAPPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY GROUP OR ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS BY THE BOARD CHAIR SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE.  THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY DR. WILSON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Absent:  Aguiar).

       The Board recessed to closed session at 1:05 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 action is Communities for a Better Environment v. Cenco Refining Company, et al., United States District Court Case No. 00-05665 AHM (RC).