BOARD MEETING DATE: September 9, 2005
AGENDA NO. 38

Petitions by Communities for a Better Environment and by Carlos Valdez, Salvador A. Guerrero, Salvador P. Guerrero, Jose Guerrero, Jason Guerrero, 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 a hearing before the Governing Board to appeal the issuance of a negative declaration under CEQA by the Executive Officer for the ConocoPhillips Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Project. The holding of the hearing is discretionary with the Board pursuant to Rule 1201. The decision at the September 9, 2005 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 the petitions for a hearing on ConocoPhillips- Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel permit to construct.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

This is the third petition for a Regulation XII hearing filed by Petitioners on the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Project at the ConocoPhillips Los Angeles Refinery. The first petition was denied by the Board and the second was untimely, since the permit had already issued and no additional permits were pending. The ConocoPhillips Los Angeles Refinery is proposing modifications to produce Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel as required by AQMD Rule 431.2 and EPA regulations. District staff analyzed the environmental impacts of the project. Staff determined that the project does not create any significant environmental impact so as to require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. By reducing the sulfur in diesel, the project will provide environmental benefits both locally and regionally. A Negative Declaration was certified on June 18, 2004. Minor modifications were required, and an Addendum to the Negative Declaration was certified on September 21, 2004. Following these actions, petitioners challenged the adequacy of these documents in Superior Court. The Court upheld the Negative Declaration on August 1, 2005.

Currently, during the review of the second permit application, District staff determined that more stringent BACT needs to be applied to the heater for this project. Instead of Low NOx burners, SCR needs to be employed. This modification does not create any significant environmental impacts, so staff prepared and circulated for comment a subsequent negative declaration. The document has not yet been certified.

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 SCR for the heater for the ultra low sulfur diesel project. SCR is a more stringent control than the control that was initially proposed. Whether to hold a hearing is discretionary with the Governing Board.

The primary issue raised by petitioners in this current petition is whether AQMD should have prepared on EIR instead of a subsequent Negative Declaration for the project. The petitioners continue to raise many of the same issues already decided by the Court. In addition, petitioners raise issues regarding the transfer, storage, and use of ammonia and formation of particulate matter for the SCR unit. District staff disagrees with petitioners’ assessments, and adheres to its initial determination that a subsequent Negative Declaration is the appropriate document to assess the modifications. In accordance with Regulation XII a full response to the Petition will be provided by the Executive Officer by September 2, 2005.

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 October 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 involving the Board. The Board denied the earlier petitions by these petitioners related to this project, and no changes in circumstances have occurred that would create a compelling reason to hear these petitions now.

Attachments

None.

/ / /