BOARD MEETING DATE: August 6, 2004
AGENDA NO. 34

Petitions by Communities for a Better Environment and Carlos Valdez, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 250 for Regulation XII Hearing on ConocoPhillips Company’s Permit Application for Los Angeles Refinery Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Project

SYNOPSIS:

Petitioners seek to appeal the issuance of a negative declaration under CEQA by the Executive Officer and seek to have a hearing before the Board regarding the issuance of a permit to ConocoPhillips. The holding of the hearing is discretionary with the Board pursuant to Rule 1201. The decision at the August 6, 2004 meeting will be whether to hold the hearing. If a hearing is held, it will be at a later date.

COMMITTEE:

Not Applicable

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Deny petitions for hearing on ConocoPhillips Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel permit to construct.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

The ConocoPhillips Los Angeles Refinery is proposing modifications to produce Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel as required by AQMD Rule 431.2 and EPA regulation. As part of this project, AQMD staff analyzed the environmental impacts of the project and determined that a Negative Declaration was the appropriate CEQA document. The project does not create any significant environmental impact so as to require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Indeed, by reducing the sulfur in diesel, the project will provide environmental benefits both locally and regionally.

This item is a request for the Board to hold a hearing pursuant to Regulation XII of the AQMD Rules on a permit to construct to be issued by the Executive Officer for an Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel project at the ConocoPhillips refinery. Whether to hold a hearing is discretionary with the Governing Board. Petitioners allege the Board must hear the case because only the Board may certify a CEQA document for an AQMD permit. As set forth in staff’s answer to the petitions, filed by the District Prosecutor, this argument is incorrect. Health & Safety Code section 42300 authorizes the Executive Officer to issue permits, and CEQA requires the entity responsible for approving the project (here issuing permits) to certify the CEQA documents. Therefore, the Executive Officer is the proper person to certify the CEQA documents in this case.

The primary issue raised by petitioners is whether AQMD should have prepared on EIR instead of a Negative Declaration for the project. This same issue has already been raised in lawsuits filed by petitioners against the AQMD.

If the Board decides to hold a hearing on the permits, the format is much like a trial, with testimony presented, if desired, and cross-examination of witnesses. The proceedings could be protracted and time-consuming, possibly taking days.

If the Board decides to hold a hearing, the hearing is to be held at the next regular meeting or at a special meeting. If the Board decides to hold a hearing, staff would recommend a special meeting since the September agenda is already full.

Proposal

Staff recommends denying the petitions for hearing in this case. The CEQA issues can properly be decided in court, without consuming this Board’s time. The Board has not held a hearing on a permit in at least the last 15 years, and there is no compelling reason to do so now.

Attachments (1,945 KB)

None.

/ / /