BOARD MEETING DATE: January 10, 2003
AGENDA NO. 30

Proposal to Develop White Paper on Regulatory Options for Addressing Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution Emissions

SYNOPSIS: 

At its September 2002 meeting, the Board approved enhancements to the Environmental Justice Program for 2002-03. At the meeting, staff was directed to report back in reference to investigating the feasibility of rulemaking regarding cumulative impacts of air pollution beyond the AQMD requirements. This report fulfills that directive.

COMMITTEE: 

Stationary Source, November 22, 2002, Reviewed

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Direct Staff to:

1. form a Working Group including representatives from various stakeholder groups;
   
   
2. develop a White Paper on rulemaking options for addressing cumulative impacts as set forth in this Board letter; and
   
   
3. report back to the Board in April 2003.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

BACKGROUND

In October 1997, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Governing Board adopted ten Environmental Justice (EJ) Initiatives, along with four Guiding Principles, to address the potential adverse health effects of air pollution, including air toxics, and set forth a strategy to help ensure that clean air benefits are accorded to all residents and communities in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). In September 2002, the Governing Board approved enhancements to the EJ program for the Fiscal Year 2002-03. Addressing cumulative emission impacts is a key element of the EJ program enhancements. At the September meeting, the Governing Board directed staff to report back on the feasibility of rulemaking to further address cumulative impacts of air toxics beyond current AQMD requirements. This report fulfills that directive.

RECENT EFFORTS

Since the September Board meeting, several meetings have occurred with different stakeholder groups to solicit initial ideas and brainstorm concepts. In addition to internal meetings, staff held a brainstorming meeting with ARB regarding collaborative efforts in addressing cumulative impacts. Staff had a conference call with EPA representatives that have been working on tools and guidelines for cumulative impacts. Staff met with a group of industry representatives on November 15, 2002 and met twice with environmental and community groups (November 21 and December 17, 2002). The purpose of these meetings was to identify key issues, develop design principles, solicit ideas and solutions, and get initial reactions on potential concepts. At these meetings, the existing programs were described and some general initial concepts were introduced. These concepts included tighter air toxic standards for new and existing sources in EJ areas. They also included discussions of possible local air toxics mitigations. Both key stakeholder groups expressed interest in, and commitment to, the efforts to evaluate the feasibility of regulatory approaches to reduce impacts. Due to the complexity of the issues, all parties agreed that more time is needed for the evaluation and development of recommendations.

STAKEHOLDER INPUT

Key comments and interests from the industry and environmental/community organizations are summarized below.

    Scope

Relative to the scope of the program, industry’s input is to limit the initial scope of the program to cancer risks only. Also, regulatory actions should be recommended for mobile sources, as well as stationary sources. The environmental/community organizations recommended that the scope should include cancer risks, chronic impacts and particulates. Particulates should include all fine particulates, not just those particulate emissions associated with diesel exhaust.

    Design Principles

The objective of investigating options for addressing cumulative impacts is to evaluate the feasibility of a regulatory framework for further health risk reduction. Staff started the discussion with the following concepts for design principles:

• do not interfere with local land use decisions;
• allow for timely permitting and CEQA decisions;
• consider available resources; and
• be practical, technically feasible, cost effective, and within AQMD’s legal authority.

Industry suggested that the design principles include certainty, be risk- (not emissions-) based, and use a programmatic approach. In addition, in developing these programs, a baseline for reducing risk should be defined utilizing an updated MATES II database that reflects recent regulatory actions and focuses on defined EJ Areas or disproportionately impacted areas.

Environmental/community groups suggested that the design principles include:

• base decisions on the precautionary principle;
• decrease pollution on a localized basis in the most impacted areas;
• help improve local land use decisions, while not interfering with such decisions;
• for clarity, separate the design principles on timely permitting and CEQA;
• require effective enforcement of CEQA mitigation and monitoring requirements;
• don’t narrow to a strictly programmatic approach; and
• analyze decreasing emissions, exposures, and disease outcomes.

Initial concepts are to determine impacted areas based on poverty level and cancer risk. More discussion is needed with stakeholders on the above.

DRAFT WORKPLAN

Staff proposes the following:

1. January 2003 - establish a Working Group from various stakeholder interests, including EPA, ARB, industry, and environmental and community groups.
   
   
2. Monthly meetings of the Working Group to help develop and evaluate regulatory options.
   
   
3. Update the MATES II emissions inventory.
   
   
4. White Paper to the Board in April 2003 with recommendations for regulatory actions and schedule.
   
   
5. With Board approval of #4 above, report to the Board in October 2003 with proposed new or amended rules or progress updates, as appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION

Due to the complex nature of issues relating to cumulative impacts from air toxic emissions, staff believes more time is needed to evaluate options for a regulatory framework and to seek further consensus among stakeholder groups regarding recommended future action. Therefore, staff recommends the Board direct staff to:

1. form a Working Group including representatives from various interest groups;
   
   
2. conduct a feasibility study and develop a White Paper with recommendations regarding rulemaking for addressing cumulative impacts; and
   
   
3. report back to the Board in April 2003.

/ / /