AQMD Mapping Basic Strategy Changes in Air Pollution Fight

Fundamental changes in air pollution control tactics that could reshape Southern California’s war on smog for years are being mapped by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

One of two proposals, to be considered today by the AQMD board in El Monte, would close a loophole in air pollution regulations enjoyed principally by five proposed waste-to-energy plants.

The other, which is expected to be delayed until next year, would make it easier for new or expanding polluting industries of all kinds to operate in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The proposals come at a time when the four-county South Coast Air Basin acknowledges that it has no prospect of meeting the December, 1987, deadline for complying with the federal Clean Air Act standard for ozone. The proposals also present the politically diverse AQMD board with difficult environmental and economic choices

Already the loophole closure has generated opposition from business interests and support from environmentalists and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, while the plan to make it easier for polluting industries to locate in the basin has led the EPA, the state Air Resources Board and the Southern California Assn. of Governments to warn that it could threaten public health.

Until recently, the second proposal, to ease pollution restrictions, appeared to be on track. Now, James M. Lents, AQMD acting executive officer, says that the proposal will not come before the board for at least six to eight months.

The delay was prompted by growing opposition to a controversial tire-burning plant in Rialto and a waste-to-energy incinerator in Irwindale.

“I think the swing in the mood came when people started to look at the waste-to-energy projects,” Lents said in an interview.

At the heart of the proposed changes are the district’s efforts to control new and expanding sources of pollution while avoiding undue restrictions on economic growth.

Under the AQMD’s “new source review” regulation, any new or modified factories or plants whose emissions exceeded prescribed limits would be required to reduce pollution somewhere else to more than offset the new pollution they created. These reductions are called emission-reduction credits or “offsets.”

Offsets can either be earned by installing more controls elsewhere, shutting down existing emission sources, or buying the credits from other dischargers who have received credit for reducing pollution below the levels allowed them by the AQMD.

In practice, however, waste-to-energy and co-generation plants were largely exempted from the offset rule in 1982, when the California Legislature sought to encourage the development of new domestic sources of energy to reduce reliance on foreign oil. Last January, that exemption was repealed as priorities again shifted from energy to clean-air goals.

However, backers of several waste-to-energy projects escaped the effects of the loophole repeal because they had already filed applications for construction even though they had not actually received their permit to construct.

The proposal to close the loophole by changing AQMD Rule 1301 would make all proposed projects--including waste-to-energy and co-generation plants--comply with the latest requirements of the new source review in effect at the time they actually receive their permits, instead of those in effect when they filed their applications.

Among those who would now lose that loophole if Rule 1301 is changed are projects planned in Azusa, Commerce, Puente Hills, South Gate and Pomona.

Backers of the rule change said that its impact on the five projects would reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen alone by nearly nine tons a day. In comparison, about 1,000 tons a day of oxides of nitrogen are emitted throughout the basin.

The change in Rule 1301 is supported by the EPA, which has long prodded the AQMD to comply with various federal Clean Air Act requirements.

Fought by Oil Firms

But the rule change is opposed by major oil companies, utilities and others who have said that the changes would not only close a loophole enjoyed by waste-to-energy plants, but would make it nearly impossible for any business to plan for an expansion because they could not predict what rules would be in effect at the time the project was ready to become operational.

The second change to the new source review regulation involves AQMD Rule 1307. Basically, this rule establishes the value of the offsets, which depends on the distance of the proposed new source from the firm whose offsets it is acquiring.

Generally, the greater the distance between the sources, the greater the offset factor. The idea is that there would have to be greater reductions in air pollution farther away if there was to be any air quality improvement near the new source.

The proposed rule change would simply eliminate the so-called distance penalty and apply a uniform offset ratio throughout the basin regardless of the distance between the new source and where it obtained its offsets.

In contrast, the EPA is considering a more stringent emission reduction credit program and may soon revise its policy statement to require more--not fewer--emission reduction credits.

The AQMD staff developed the proposal at the behest of AQMD board members from the Inland Empire, who said the distance penalty kept new industries from locating in the eastern portion of the basin because most of the available offsets were in the western part. They also said air quality would be improved if commuting between the eastern and western regions was reduced.

Could Mean Dirtier Air

But opposition from state legislators, local officials and residents of the Cochella Valley, who were alarmed that the rule change would mean dirtier air in their communities, has prompted four AQMD board members to ask for more studies.

In addition, the proposal has been criticized by the EPA as a reversal in AQMD policy that “may threaten public health.” The state Air Resources Board called it “detrimental” to air pollution control efforts.

The EPA, the Air Resources Board and the Southern California Assn. of Governments have raised questions about the AQMD computer study that was cited to justify the changes. The association of governments said flatly that the AQMD’s use of the computer model to reach its conclusions was “a precarious over-extension of the model’s capabilities.”

Moreover, some San Bernardino County and Riverside County politicians who originally called for the rule change are having second thoughts in view of public opposition to proposals to build a new tire-burning plant in Rialto and a waste-to-energy incinerator in Irwindale. They are Ontario City Councilwoman Faye Dastrup, San Bernardino County Supervisor Robert Hammock, Riverside County Supervisor Norton Younglove and Hemet City Councilwoman Patricia Herron.

“I think that the Garb Oil project (to burn tires in Rialto) raised the level of awareness among the public,” said Dastrup, who represents San Bernardino County cities on the AQMD board. “I haven’t changed my position,” she insisted. “But, I just don’t think we have enough information.” She was among the four AQMD board members who want the project delayed.

Attorney Carl W. Sonne, who represents the Miller Brewing Co., situated near the proposed Irwindale incinerator, warned that the proposed rule change would make it “substantially easier” to build the incinerator because backers are having difficulty obtaining the necessary offset credits under the current, more stringent rule.

Sonne, wrote the AQMD on Aug. 18 that the rule change would mean a net increase from the Irwindale incinerator alone of 600 tons of nitrous oxides a year, 260 tons of sulfur dioxide, 180 tons of carbon monoxide, 84 tons of particulates, 18 tons of reactive organics and more than 1,600 pounds of lead.

Others, including officials from the Coachella Valley, are alarmed that their air will be dirtier.

Rancho Mirage Mayor Jeff Bleaman explained: “We were unaware of any of this until maybe three months ago. Whether that’s remiss on our part or just blind confidence in the ability of the AQMD to protect our air interests, I don’t know.”

Legislators Involved

In addition members of the California Legislature have entered the controversy. Gordon Browning, an aide to conservative Sen. H. L. Richardson (R-Arcadia), told AQMD staffers that unless they could show that emission credits allowed a new polluting source actually benefited the air in the new area, the Legislature might step in and impose tougher rules on the district.

In the end, however, it appears that new questions raised in the minds of AQMD board members from Riverside and San Bernardino counties have stopped the proposed rule in its tracks.

Said Herron: ‘We didn’t want the staff to be busy preparing something that was being done because originally they felt the Inland Empire was being discriminated against . . . only to find out that we might all vote against it.”