BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD LONG BEACH CONVENTION & ENTERTAINMENT CENTER 300 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD SEASIDE BALLROOM LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 2006 9:00 A.M. TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Robert Sawyer, Chairperson Dr. Henry Gong, Jr. Ms. Lydia H. Kennard Mr. Ronald O. Loveridge Supervisor Barbara Patrick Mrs. Barbara Riordan Mr. Ron Roberts STAFF Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Tom Jennings, Chief Counsel Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer Ms. Kathleen Tschogl, Ombudsman Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Ms. Lori Andreoni, Board Secretary Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch, RD Mr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division Mr. Dan Donohoue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch Dr. Deborah Drechsler, Research Division Ms. Cynthia Marvin, Assistant Division Chief, PTSD PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Ms. Al Day, Long Beach African American Chamber of Commerce Mr. Dave Beeman, ILWV Local Union 13 Mr. Jack Broadbent, BAAQMD Ms. Sandy Cajas, Regional Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Mr. Todd Campbell, Clean Energy Mr. Richard Cassman, Long Beach USD Mr. Stephen Clark, SSA Marine Mr. Kim Craft, IBEW Local Union 11 Mr. Terry Dressler, Santa Barbara County APCD and CAPCOA Mr. Michael Eaves, CA NGV Coalition Mr. Sean Edgar, Clean Fleets Coaliltion Mayor Larry Forester, Signal Hill, CA Mr. T.L. Garrett, Pacific Merchant Shipping Merchant Shipping Association Mr. Ronald Gastelum, LA Area Chamber of Commerce Ms. Elina Green, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma Mr. Peter Greenwald, South Coast AQMD Ms. Janet Gunter, Citizen Mr. Larry Henderson, IBEW Local Union 11 Mr. Bob Hoffman, Dock Watts, LLC Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association Ms. Andrea Hricko, Union of Southern CA Mr. Rahul Iyer, Primafuel, Inc. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Ms. Ellen Johnck, Bay Planning Coalition of San Francisco Bay Mr. Tom Jordan, SJAPCD Mr. Robert Kanter, Port of Long Beach Ms. Gordana Kidrpeoglou, Coalition for a Safe Environment A.C.L.V. Ms. Marisela Knott, Goods Movement Emission Reduction Ms. Patty Krebs, IEA Mr. Frank O'Brien, Harbor Watts, Economic Development Corp. Mr. Noel Park, San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners Coalition Ms. Marie Malahi, Coalition for a Safe Environment Mr. Kirk Marckwald, Association of American Railroads Mr. Jesse Marquez, Coalition for a Safe Environment Ms. Julie Masters,NRDC Ms. Lena Maun-DeSantis, Port of Los Angeles Mr. John Miller, M.D. Ms. Bry Myown, Long Beach Citizens for Utility Mr. Danial Nord, Resident Ms. Cathy Reheis-Boyd, WSPA Ms. Dawn Sanders, CMTA Mr. Martin Schlageter, Coalition for Clean Air Ms. Julia Scoville, Coalition for a Safe Environment Mr. Lupe Valdez, Union Pacific PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Ms. Elizabeth Warren, Future Ports Ms. Stephanie Williams, CTA Ms. Kathleen Woodfield, SPPHC Mr. David Wright, Pacific Energy Partners Mr. Robert Wyman, Maritine Goods Movement Coalition PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Item 06-4-1 Chairperson Sawyer 4 Executive Officer Witherspoon 5 Staff Presentation 5 Q&A 12 Item 06-4-2 Chairperson Sawyer 13 Staff Presentation 14 Q&A 17 Motion 18 Vote 18 Item 06-4-3 Chairperson Sawyer 18 Executive Officer Witherspoon 21 Staff Presentation 27 Q&A 92 Mayor Forester 99 Mr. Lyou 101 Mr. Craft 104 Mr. Nord 106 Mr. Miller 108 Ms. Gunter 110 Ms. Malahi 112 Mr. Marquez 115 Ms. Kidrpeoglou 118 Ms. Scoville 120 Ms. Woodfield 122 Ms. Knott 124 Ms. DeSantis 126 Mr. Kanter 129 Mr. O'Brien 133 Mr. Hoffman 134 Ms. Green 137 Mr. Garrett 140 Mr. Dressler 143 Mr. Greenwald 145 Mr. Jordan 149 Mr. Broadbent 151 Mr. Wyman 154 Mr. Henderson 156 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vii INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Item 06-4-3 Ms. Hricko 158 Ms. Valdez 161 Mr. Perez 162 Ms. Reheis-Body 164 Ms. Masters 167 Ms. Johnck 169 Mr. Campbell 172 Ms. Holmes-Gen 175 Ms. Krebs 178 Mr. Eaves 180 Mr. Edgar 181 Ms. Williams 184 Ms. Sanders 186 Ms. Warren 187 Mr. Beeman 189 Mr. Cassman 191 Mr. Marckwald 192 Mr. Wright 195 Ms. Cajas 196 Mr. Day 197 Mr. Schlageter 198 Ms. Myown 202 Mr. Clark 203 Q&A 207 Motion 216 Vote 217 Public Comment Adjournment 218 Reporter's Certificate 219 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Good morning. The April 3 20th, 2006, public meeting of the Air Resources Board will 4 now come to order. 5 Would all please rise and join me in the Pledge 6 of Allegiance? 7 (Thereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was 8 recited in unison.) 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'd like to make a few 10 opening remarks before we get started this morning. 11 First, I would like to note the we've lost 12 Patricia Salas Pineda as a Board member. She's concluded 13 her responsibility at Toyota time and service on the Board 14 and she's asked to be relieved at this time. 15 I would also note that very important study came 16 out since our last meeting. The National Academy of 17 Science study issued its summary report on how mobile 18 source regulations across the country are faring. 19 Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences examined 20 the role of the California Air Resources Board and the 21 U.S. EPA in setting particular standards. The National 22 Academy of Science found that the original basis for 23 authorizing California to regulate mobile sources ahead of 24 the federal government still held, that the Air Resources 25 Board exercises that authority judiciously, and that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 California's pioneering efforts to continue for the good 2 of the state and nation. Congratulations to our staff. 3 I mention that not just for bragging rights, but 4 because I believe it's the kind of spirit we need to bring 5 to the goods movement sector where once again California 6 finds itself in a pioneering role. We are the nation's 7 seaport, and we need to take our state and our nation into 8 a new paradigm for cleaner, greener international trade. 9 The second thing I want to mention is the 10 Governor's Climate Action Summit on April 11th in 11 San Francisco which I was able to participate in which he 12 talked about the latest Action Plan. For those of you who 13 were not able to attend, please be aware there will be 14 five more mini summits in the month of May convened by the 15 Governor's Climate Action Team of which the Air Resources 16 Board is a member. And you're all welcome to participate. 17 These will cover the state from Humboldt to San Diego. 18 Please watch for notice for those public hearings on 19 Cal/EPA's website. 20 I also would like to thank the South Coast Air 21 Quality Management District for their hospitality in 22 greeting the Air Resources Board Coast Air Quality 23 Management District retreat which was held last month. 24 I'd like to especially thank Supervisor Ron Roberts for 25 helping us to arrange the long requested and much PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 anticipated Board retreat -- Mayor Loveridge. Not Ron 2 Loverage, Mayor Loveridge. Somebody wrote down the wrong 3 name on my script without having edited it before. Thanks 4 a lot, Ron. We certainly appreciate bringing the two 5 Boards together. I personally gained a great deal out of 6 the opportunity to learn more about the district's 7 objectives for the year and our discussion how we can work 8 together more effectively on key air quality issues. I'm 9 sure my colleagues who were there and attended learned and 10 benefited from the experience as well. 11 We anticipate there will be some important people 12 in the audience today, not that you're not all important, 13 but I mean legislative people. And we will recognize them 14 when we learn who's here. 15 I do want to thank you all for coming. I look 16 forward to your comments to the Board later this morning. 17 Those who you who may have schedules which constraints 18 your time to be here, be sure to let us know when you need 19 to testify, and we'll put you on the program to 20 accommodate your personal schedules. 21 I would like to informal the witnesses who will 22 be talking today that we will be observing our usual 23 three-minute time limit so everybody gets a chance to 24 speak. I would also like you to put your testimony into 25 your own words and not to read statements which we already PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 have before us. It's much more effective to just tell us 2 the importance points you wish to make. 3 I would also like to note that translation 4 services are available in Spanish for those who wish to 5 use it. Head sets are available outside the hearing room 6 at the attendance sign-up table. And can we have the 7 notice repeated in Spanish. 8 (Thereupon it was translated into Spanish.) 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 10 If you have written statements, I would remind 11 you that it would be helpful to us if you could provide 30 12 copies at the time you sign up to testify. 13 The first item on the agenda today is Item 06-4-1 14 dealing with an update on the health effects of nitrogen 15 dioxide. This presentation is important to the Board 16 because later this year staff will be bringing 17 recommendations to us for revisions to the current health 18 nitrogen dioxide standard. And as you know, this issue 19 relates to our diesel retrofit program. Setting standards 20 to protect public health is one of the Board's most 21 important functions, and I think it is vital we keep 22 current with emerging research so we're sure our standards 23 are protective enough. 24 Ms. Witherspoon will you please introduce the 25 staff presentation? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: This morning 2 staff will highlight findings from a controlled clinical 3 study that investigated the influence of nitrogen dioxide 4 exposure allergic asthmatics. Dr. Deborah Drechsler from 5 the Research Division will make the staff presentation. 6 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 7 presented as follows.) 8 DR. DRECHSLER: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and 9 members of the Board. 10 --o0o-- 11 DR. DRECHSLER: Staff from the ARB and Office Of 12 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment are currently 13 reviewing State ambient air quality standards for nitrogen 14 dioxide, NO2 for short. The standard was last reviewed in 15 1992. The current review was mandated by the 16 Environmental Health Protection Act, Senate Bill 25 which 17 required all State ambient air quality standards be 18 prioritized for review to ensure that they adequately 19 protect public health, particularly that in infants and 20 children. Staff will be bringing you recommendations for 21 revised NO2 standards later this year. 22 --o0o-- 23 DR. DRECHSLER: As was mentioned -- 24 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Chairman, if I could 25 interrupt for a moment. I see we now have a quorum. So I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 suggest the Board Clerk take the roll and then we continue 2 with the presentation. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would the clerk please take 4 the roll? 5 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 6 Ms. D'Adamo? 7 Supervisor DeSaulnier? 8 Dr. Gong? 9 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Here. 10 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 11 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Here. 12 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mayor Loveridge? 13 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Here. 14 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Patrick? 15 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Here. 16 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Ms. Riordan? 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 18 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 19 Dr. Sawyer. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Here. 21 SECRETARY ANDREONI: Mr. Chairman, we have a 22 quorum. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. Excuse 24 me, Dr. Drechsler, for the interruption. It's good to 25 have official quorum. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 DR. DRECHSLER: Thank you. 2 Ambient air quality standards define maximum safe 3 exposure. 4 One of the key considerations in ambient air 5 quality standard review is identifying sub-populations 6 that may be more vulnerable to air pollutants than the 7 average, such as asthmatics and children, so that the 8 standards can adequately protect them. 9 The result of the 1992 NO2 standard review was 10 that the Board retained the existing one-hour standard of 11 .25 parts per million. Asthmatics were identified as a 12 vulnerable group with reference to NO2 in the course of 13 the standard review. 14 As you know, the health effects of air pollution 15 on asthmatics has been a concern of the Board for some 16 time. To give a perspective on the magnitude of this 17 issue, over 300,000 California residents visited the 18 emergency room in 2001 because of their asthma. 19 Today, we will discuss a key paper identified in 20 our review that suggests that the existing NO2 standard is 21 not adequately protect asthmatics. 22 --o0o-- 23 DR. DRECHSLER: Health effects of air pollution 24 are investigated using several approaches. In the case of 25 NO2, results from controlled exposure studies and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 epidemiologic studies do not agree. 2 Controlled exposures studies involve exposure of 3 humans to a fixed amount of pollutant an enclosed chamber. 4 This type of study usually focuses on effects such as lung 5 function and symptoms. Controlled studies investigating 6 the health effects of NO2 that found significant changes 7 in symptoms or lung function in normal or asthmatic 8 subject only with exposure to concentrations to NO2 above 9 .5 parts per million. 10 In contrast, epidemiologic studies, which 11 investigate responses on a population level, have 12 demonstrated statistical association between health 13 effects and NO2 concentrations at and below the .25 parts 14 per million. These effects include various indicators of 15 asthmatic exacerbation, such as emergency room visits, 16 decreased lung function, increased symptoms, and increased 17 medication use. Epidemiologic studies have also 18 associated ambient concentrations of NO2 with 19 hospitalizations and emergency room visit for heart and 20 lung disorders and premature mortality as well. 21 The effects I have just discussed are termed 22 clinical effects because they are relatively obvious 23 effects, and can be measured with standardized medical 24 tests. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 DR. DRECHSLER: On the previous slide, we saw 2 that at similar NO2 concentrations, controlled exposure 3 studies showed no affects, while epidemiological studies 4 did. This presents the question: How does NO2 exacerbate 5 asthma? NO2 is an oxygen pollutant like ozone, although 6 it is considerably less potent in cause and effects. 7 Several studies suggest that NO2 may induce subtle effects 8 in asthmatics that do not show up in ordinary medical 9 tests. These are termed sub-clinical effects, and these 10 are generally present without our recognizing them. 11 Sub-clinical effects include such things as increased 12 airway inflammation and increased response to allergen, 13 both of which are features of asthma. Some researchers 14 have suggested that these subtle effects could worsen 15 asthma to the point of clinically important effects such 16 as increased medication use, emergency room visits, or 17 hospitalization result. 18 --o0o-- 19 DR. DRECHSLER: The results lead to the question 20 that's the subject of today's paper: Does NO2 exposure 21 increase allergic inflammation in the airways of 22 asthmatics? 23 The paper we're considering today is a controlled 24 human exposure study that investigated this question. The 25 paper is entitled, "Brief exposures to NO2 augment the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 allergic inflammation in asthmatics." The study is by 2 Barck and colleagues from the Karolinska Institute in 3 Stockholm, Sweden. The paper, published in 2005, explored 4 the hypothesis that nitrogen dioxide exposure increases 5 allergic responses in the lungs of asthmatics who undergo 6 an allergen challenge several hours after nitrogen dioxide 7 exposure. 8 --o0o-- 9 DR. DRECHSLER: The subjects in this study were 10 18 mild asthmatics who were allergic to either Timothy 11 grass or birth tree pollen. Each subject participated in 12 exposure to filtered air and .26 parts per million 13 nitrogen dioxide with each of the two experimental 14 sessions conducted over a three-day period. 15 On the first day, the subjects inhaled filtered 16 air or nitrogen dioxide for 15 minutes, followed three or 17 four hours later by an allergen inhalation challenge. On 18 the second day, the subjects inhaled the same atmosphere 19 for two 15-minute periods, followed by an allergen 20 challenge. Endpoints included symptoms, lung function, 21 inflammatory cells, and biochemicals in sputum and blood 22 and were measured pre- and post exposure on each day, and 23 on the morning of day three. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. DRECHSLER: As seen in previous studies, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 there were no changes in lung function or symptoms in 2 response to either the air allergen or NO2 allergen 3 exposures. However, an intriguing and important 4 sub-clinical effect did occur. While there was no change 5 in the number of inflammatory cells in the lungs, one type 6 of inflammatory cell, the eosinophil, was activated 7 following the NO2 exposure and not the filtered air 8 exposure. The eosinophils are a special type of immune 9 cell that is involved in allergic responses. When these 10 cells are activated, they release a protein that initiates 11 allergic inflammation. The concentration of this protein 12 increased about six fold in sputum and two fold in blood 13 with NO2 exposure compared to filtered air exposure. 14 As noted earlier, previous controlled human 15 studies suggest that asthmatics do not have significant 16 responses to exposure to NO2 alone. These results suggest 17 that NO2 and allergen interact in a way that amplifies 18 allergic responses in the lungs of allergic asthmatics. 19 The findings of this paper lead to several 20 conclusions. 21 --o0o-- 22 DR. DRECHSLER: First, that NO2 exposure 23 amplifies allergic responses in the lungs of allergic 24 asthmatics. This is important because the majority of 25 asthmatics have allergic asthma, and simultaneous NO2 and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 allergen exposure is the typical pattern in the real 2 world. Next, amplification of allergic responses provides 3 a biologically plausible explanation for epidemiologic 4 findings of asthma exacerbation with NO2 exposure. 5 Finally, these results, along with those of 6 several other papers, led staff to conclude that the 7 existing State NO2 standard has no margin of safety and 8 should be revised. The draft staff report and 9 recommendations for the state NO2 standard were released 10 for public comment on April 14th. The Office of 11 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has recommended 12 that the NO2 standard be lowered, and staff will be 13 bringing you recommendations for revision of the standard 14 later this year. 15 Thank you for your attention. And we'd be happy 16 to answer any questions you may have. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Dr. Drechsler. 18 We appreciate having a review early and getting us ready 19 for what's coming later in the year. 20 Do any of the Board members have questions? 21 Dr. Gong. 22 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Usual obligatory comment. I 23 thought this was an excellent selection of a scientific 24 article for you to bring up on the health update. 25 As Dr. Drechsler knows, nitrogen dioxide has sort PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 of been a mysterious oxidizing agent particularly in 2 clinical studies where we both have experience in. And we 3 always wondered why can't we see more health effects such 4 as symptoms or reduced lung function. 5 And, actually, I believe these Swedish 6 investigators did find some reduction in lung function in 7 the previous article. I have to review that in detail. 8 Here, what you're showing is that there are some subtle 9 immune cell effects which actually provide a mechanism for 10 subsequent health effects on a more clinical scale. And I 11 think it brings up the fact akin to ozone that when we're 12 dealing with mixtures of gasses and particles, we can 13 actually see subtle effects combined from just 14 sub-clinical effects. And I think that this is another 15 reason to consider nitrogen dioxide as a criterion 16 pollutant because of its widespread exposure. Obviously, 17 we cannot regulate unlimited exposure to pollen or grasses 18 very well, so so much for that. But at least we can do 19 something from this point. Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other 21 questions or comments from the Board members? 22 I have no requests from the public to speak. 23 Does the staff have any further comments? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Nothing here. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Since this is not a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 regulatory item, it's not necessary to officially close 2 the record. 3 Our next item on the agenda this morning is Item 4 Number 6-4-2, two Research proposals for the Board's 5 consideration. Each has been reviewed and approved by the 6 Board's Research Screening Committee. These proposals 7 involve researchers at U.C. Berkeley and Irvine. 8 And as I stated in my first Board meeting, I will 9 recuse myself from consideration and approval of all 10 research proposals that involve research at the University 11 of California for one year in order to avoid any 12 appearance of conflicts of interest or bias due to my long 13 association with the university. 14 With that, would the staff please introduce the 15 proposal? 16 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 17 presented as follows.) 18 DR. DRECHSLER: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer. Good 19 morning, members of the Board. 20 Today, we are presenting two research proposals 21 for your approval. These proposals were part of the 22 2005-2006 research plan approved by the Board last July. 23 Each of these proposals has been reviewed by staff and 24 approved by the Research Screening Committee. I will 25 briefly explain the hypotheses, objectives, and expected PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 results for each proposal. 2 --o0o-- 3 DR. DRECHSLER: Several epidemiologic studies 4 have examined the effects of their pollution exposure on 5 lung growth and development in children. The results of 6 these studies suggest that exposure to elevated 7 concentrations of several air pollutants, including fine 8 particulate matter, PM2.5, may lead to retardation of lung 9 growth and development that is permanent. This study will 10 use an animal model to test the hypothesis that chronic 11 PM2.5 exposure during the period of lung growth and 12 development will cause oxidated stress and tissue injury 13 that alters lung development and lung function attained at 14 adulthood. The animals will be exposed to PM2.5 from 15 weaning until maximum lung size is obtained. 16 The study will also determine whether growth and 17 developmental deficits will persist once PM2.5 exposures 18 are terminated. This study will provide critical 19 information on the link between PM2.5 exposure and 20 impaired development of lung function in children and 21 addresses an important data gap that was identified during 22 the recent review of the State ambient air quality 23 standards for particulate matter. 24 --o0o-- 25 DR. DRECHSLER: The California Energy Commission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 has defined small and medium commercial buildings as any 2 low-rise building served by packaged rooftop heating, 3 ventilation, and air conditioning units. Due to the 4 largely disaggragated heterogeneous nature of commercial 5 enterprise, information on these buildings' operation and 6 maintenance is very limited. 7 Californians spend approximately 25 percent of 8 their time away from home primarily in commercial 9 buildings. Thus, time spent in these buildings has the 10 potential to significantly impact Californians' overall 11 quality of life. Through a survey, this project will 12 collect relevant details on heating, ventilating, and air 13 conditioning systems as well as indoor environmental 14 quality. The contractor will produce the first 15 representative database that will be used by the 16 California Energy Commission to guide development of 17 future building energy design standards that protect 18 indoor air quality and comfort in California. 19 We recommend that you accept these proposals and 20 you approve funding for the project. And we'd be happy to 21 answer questions about the project. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I have an informational 23 question, a procedural one, not about the substance of it. 24 But when we do things for the California Energy 25 Commission, is there a tradition of that and how does that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 work? 2 MOBILE SOURCE DIVISION CONTROL CHIEF CROSS: We 3 do two types of projects with the California Energy 4 Commission: Projects where we jointly fund work. We have 5 an upcoming study in Wilmington where we're trying to do 6 that. And then projects like this one where the CEC 7 completely funds the project and we take advantage of our 8 staff's expertise in indoor air quality. 9 The program, there's been a lot of money that's 10 come our way through this process, and we see this as a 11 big advantage. But the administrative requirements for 12 the CEC are much more detailed than ours. And we're 13 finding that our contractors have difficulty meeting all 14 of the requirements which we don't believe necessarily 15 have a lot of value to the project. And so we're 16 struggling a little bit with trying to work with them 17 directly on -- since we both are State agencies, trying to 18 smooth out the process. But our process is equivalent to 19 meeting the requirements the CEC has. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 21 Comments from the Board? 22 Dr. Gong. 23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: One comment I just wanted to 24 share with the Board to remind the Board that the animal 25 study, the effects of health, particles, and lung growth PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 and disease actually is a very nice follow-up study to the 2 children's health study conducted by USC where the ARB are 3 looking at reduced lung function growth and various 4 exposures in our communities, particularly in Southern 5 California. So I think this will be a very nice tag-along 6 study to show possible mechanisms of that. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other 8 questions from Board members? 9 If not, I would remind Board members of our 10 policy concerning ex parte communications. While we may 11 communicate off the record with outside persons regarding 12 Board rulemaking, we must disclose the names of our 13 contacts and the nature of the contents on the record. 14 This requirement applies specifically to communications 15 which take place after the public agenda of the Board 16 hearing has been published. 17 Are there any communications that you need to 18 disclose? Apparently not. 19 Have all members of the Board had an opportunity 20 to review the proposals? Are there any additional 21 concerns or comments? 22 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: No. Mr. Chairman, I would 23 move on Resolution 6-12 and 6-13. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Is there a second? 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Second. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All in favor? 2 (Ayes) 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 4 The Resolution is carried. 5 Since this is not a regulatory item, it's not 6 necessary to officially close the record. 7 We've now come to the heart of our agenda today, 8 Item 6-4-3, the proposed Emission Reduction Plan for ports 9 and goods movement in California. 10 Let me say that it was my request we hold this 11 hearing at Long Beach, and it's pretty apparent that we're 12 in the center of goods movement. You cannot look across 13 Long Beach without seeing trains. 14 Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger recognized the 15 critical nature of goods movement in California to both 16 the state's economy and its environment. Goods movement 17 contributes to California's prosperity, particularly in 18 Southern California, but in other regions of the state as 19 well. At the same time, it's putting enormous pressure on 20 California's infrastructure. Even more serious, goods 21 movement is responsible for a substantial and growing 22 portion of statewide air pollutant emissions with all the 23 adverse health effects and community impacts. 24 Now is the time to take action to redress these 25 adverse effects and impacts. The Governor understands PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 this dilemma and has taken proactive steps to address it. 2 Last year, he created a cabinet level working group 3 co-chaired by Cal/EPA and the Business, Transportation, 4 and Housing Agency to develop a detailed Goods Movement 5 Action Plan consistent with the following principles. It 6 is the policy of this Administration to improve and expand 7 California's goods movement industry and infrastructure in 8 a manner which will generate jobs, increase mobility, and 9 relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality, and 10 protect public health, enhance public and port safety, and 11 improve Californians' quality of life. 12 The Air Resources Board has participated directly 13 in the Goods Movement Action Plan's development and is a 14 member of the multi-stakeholder integrated committee. In 15 addition, to address our broader mandate to reduce all 16 sources of air pollution in California, the Air Resources 17 Board staff ran a parallel process to the Cal/EPA, 18 Business, Transportation, and Housing plan which resulted 19 in the more detailed Emission Reductions Plan for goods 20 movement sources that is before the Board today. 21 I've had an opportunity to attend some of the 22 meetings on the Air Resources Board Emission Reduction 23 Plan and also the joint agency meetings on goods movement. 24 There is a great deal of work underway and an equally 25 intense public debate about how California should address PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 both the promise and the drawbacks of expanded trade and 2 goods movement in California. 3 This problem did not occur overnight and it won't 4 be resolved overnight either. Realistically, we're 5 looking at a decade or more of concerted effort to address 6 these issues. Our hearing today is an important beginning 7 to the dialogue, but by no means is it the last word on 8 how this multi-faceted problem will be resolved or by 9 whom. The Emission Reduction Plan represents a starting 10 point and a vision of where we need to be. The exact 11 mechanisms for each individual strategy are yet to be 12 defined. The draft plan is an important accomplishment 13 because it clearly lays out what we need to do. The 14 engineering aspects are clear. What needs the most 15 attention now is the implementation, how to fund the plan, 16 when to regulate, when to rely on partnerships or other 17 non-regulatory mechanisms or when federal or international 18 action is the only viable option. 19 Staff estimates that health effect impacts 20 associated with goods movement will be cut by more than 60 21 percent, including the effect of regulatory actions this 22 Board has already taken. Cancer risk will be reduced 23 consistent with our statewide goal of 85 percent of diesel 24 risk reduction by 2020. We will also meet the federal 25 ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate by PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 the applicable deadlines. 2 That's not enough, obviously. We need to do even 3 more to meet California's more stringent air quality 4 standards and to mitigate all remaining hot spots. The 5 plan is an important beginning. 6 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this 7 item? 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. And thank 9 you, Dr. Sawyer. 10 The plan before you provides a framework and 11 specific actions that are critical to reducing emissions 12 and public health impacts from goods movement in 13 California. In staff's view, time is of the essence. The 14 existing air quality problems near ports, rail yards, and 15 freeways and other corridors need immediate attention. 16 The growth that is coming -- with the growth that is 17 coming, we also need to lay out a multi-year strategy so 18 that California can meet State and federal health-based 19 air quality standards. 20 The goals of the Emission Reduction Plan are far 21 reaching and will be very challenging to meet. Staff has 22 tried to be as clear as possible about the nature of the 23 challenge beginning with the health impacts analysis. In 24 terms of strategies, we've tried equally hard to outline 25 what it will take to meet our public health goals. What PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 we've come up with is a backbone of ARB regulatory efforts 2 along with funding and incentive programs, actions by U.S. 3 EPA and air districts and various initiatives by ports, 4 railroads, shipping companies, and other industry sectors. 5 As things unfold, the strategies will need to 6 reflect new information as is always the case in the 7 regulatory development process. With this plan in 8 particular, uncertainties regarding potential bond funding 9 and other financing mechanisms will be with us for a 10 while. However, there's plenty to do in the mean time. 11 This plan proposes an aggressive work effort for the next 12 few years, and we expect to update the Board frequently on 13 this topic. Specifically, we propose to report back to 14 you this fall on how the implementation is going and every 15 six months thereafter. 16 Something I would like to clarify at this 17 juncture since it has become a point of confusion is the 18 relationship between ARB's Emission Reduction Plan and the 19 Administration's Goods Movement Action Plan as put forth 20 by Cal/EPA and Business, Transportation, and Housing 21 Agency. Dr. Sawyer already talked about the parallel 22 process that's been going on. The question that has been 23 raised is whether the plans match up or not. And if they 24 don't, are there any inconsistencies that we need to be 25 worried about? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 The short story is that the Administration's 2 Goods Movement Action Plan is focused primarily on port 3 congestion and port impacts. The genesis was a desire for 4 California's ports to be more efficient and remain 5 competitive relative into the future. Legislative 6 concerns over emissions impacts by the port and the high 7 profile Port of Los Angeles' no net increase task force on 8 air quality also played a formative role in the early 9 development of the Administration's Goods Movement Action 10 Plan. 11 The Cal/EPA and BT&H plan reaches out farther 12 than the port's proper since the four main corridors for 13 goods transport are to California's eastern border through 14 San Diego, down the Central Valley and in and around the 15 San Francisco/Bay Area. The single highest priority for 16 the Administration has always been what's happening at the 17 ports and to the goods flowing in and out of those entry 18 points. 19 ARB's Emission Reduction Plan captures all of the 20 same emission sources and more. Because we regulate on an 21 emission category basis and on a statewide basis, staff 22 believes it makes more sense for ARB to talk about all the 23 trucks and all the harbor craft and all the locomotive 24 emissions rather than just a sub-set of them. 25 Also, staff found that our first draft confused PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 people since they couldn't see how the Emission Reduction 2 Plan matched up with the State Implementation Plan 3 obligations, our regulatory calendar or with the Board's 4 prior diesel risk reduction policies. 5 So in the second draft, which is before you 6 today, we cast a much broader net to include all domestic 7 and international goods movement. And we retained all 8 harbor craft activity so the Board and public can see the 9 entire universe before us. Now there's a little bit of 10 confusion on the other side. If ARB's plan is broader, 11 how does it relate back to the Administration's Goods 12 Movement Action Plan? 13 The answer is the strategies we are proposing to 14 the Board today are the same strategies we need, whether 15 we're looking through a port-specific lens or statewide 16 lens. But the bond debate that is going on in the State 17 Legislature is dealing more with the narrow ports-related 18 problem. The two billion that's been proposed for air 19 quality mitigation is focused at the ports, principally. 20 To help clarify where the plans match up and 21 where they don't, staff has committed to disaggregate this 22 plan for Cal/EPA and BT&H so they can see the costs and 23 benefits along with the specific goods movement corridors, 24 which they are using as the template for infrastructure 25 projects. So we'll do that for their benefit. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 On a related front, we've been asked whether 2 ARB's Emission Reduction Plan considered the benefits of 3 proposed infrastructure projects in reducing future 4 emissions. The short answer to that question is partly. 5 We are relying upon a mode shift from trucks to rail to 6 achieve some of the emission reductions in the plan, and 7 that means we're also relying on some of the underlying 8 projects that will enable that to happen. But we did not 9 calculate the effect of grade crossings on the eastern 10 Alameda Corridor on truck or train emissions at this time 11 because the truck turnover overwhelms any effect the speed 12 adjustments may provide and we don't have data available 13 to make speed corrections to locomotive emission profiles. 14 That's something we can take a closer look at in the 15 future. But it doesn't fundamentally change our 16 recommendations to you today. 17 The last comment I want to make concerns what 18 exactly is the Board voting on today. We'll cover that 19 more in staff presentation. But as a preview, staff is 20 asking you to endorse the emission reduction goals we've 21 been operating under since last January when the goods 22 movement process started. Staff is also asking the Board 23 to approve our near-term action plan and the overall 24 vision of what we're trying to do. 25 Finally, we are recommending that you direct PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 staff to move forward on developing specific emission 2 reduction measures over the next several months. You 3 aren't voting on any specific measure today or locking in 4 any details of those measures. Each and every measure 5 will return to you for a full public hearing at the 6 appropriate time after lengthy public consultation and 7 refinement. If needed, we will also come back to you with 8 any significant changes to our sector-specific strategies 9 so you can advise and direct us on completion of the 10 ultimate control measures. 11 The Emission Reduction Plan is a lengthy, complex 12 document. Accordingly, the staff presentation this 13 morning has several discreet elements. We will pause 14 after each one to give you an opportunity to ask questions 15 before we go on to the next segment. I would like to now 16 ask Richard Bode, Chief of our Health Exposures Assessment 17 Branch, and Cynthia Marvin, Assistant Chief of the 18 Planning and Technical Support Division to give the staff 19 presentation. 20 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 21 presented as follows.) 22 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 23 Thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. And good morning, Dr. Sawyer 24 and members of the Board. 25 This morning we are presenting the proposed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement which 2 presents a wholistic view of air quality impacts from 3 these operations in California and a framework for needed 4 actions to reduce those impacts. 5 --o0o-- 6 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 7 There are multiple factors driving the need for this plan. 8 The Administration's Goods Movement Action Plan 9 is being developed by the Business, Transportation, and 10 Housing Agency, and the California Environmental 11 Protection Agency in order to identify the infrastructure 12 and mitigation needed to support the state's fast growing 13 international goods movement industry. This Emission 14 Reduction Plan is a key component to mitigate the air 15 quality impacts of existing and future operations. 16 The Board's community health and environmental 17 justice programs have highlighted the need to aggressively 18 reduce air pollution from our ports, rail yards, and high 19 traffic corridors that handle both international and 20 domestic movement. Nearby communities suffer 21 disproportionate health impacts from major goods movement 22 facilities. 23 In 2000, the Air Resources Board set ambitious 24 goals for land-based sources to reduce the health risk 25 from diesel particulate matter. The full universe of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 goods movement sources on land and at sea requires the 2 same effort to protect the affected communities. 3 Emissions of goods movement also contribute to 4 California's high regional pollution level, hindering our 5 progress in meeting air quality standards for airborne 6 particles and ozone. Reducing these emissions is 7 essential to meet our obligation for State Implementation 8 Plans, or SIPs, that show how each region will meet the 9 federal air quality standards by their statutory 10 deadlines. 11 Each of these drivers calls for a comprehensive 12 analysis and strategy to significantly reduce the air 13 pollution impacts on the goods movement across California. 14 --o0o-- 15 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 16 Given the scope of the proposed plan, our staff 17 presentation today will be longer than usual to work our 18 way through each of the plan elements. As Ms. Witherspoon 19 mentioned, we'll break up our presentation into pieces, 20 pausing at the end of each segment for questions from 21 Board members. 22 My presentation begins with a description of the 23 health impacts analysis that we performed for the goods 24 movement. Then I'll turn the presentation over to Cynthia 25 Marvin to touch on milestones, the plan development, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 delve into understanding of emissions from goods movement 2 and proposed strategies to reduce them. 3 Following that, Cynthia will summarize the 4 benefits and costs associated with implementing the plan 5 and discuss major issues raised in public comments, 6 propose a series of near-term actions to spur progress and 7 conclude with staff's recommendation for Board action 8 today. 9 --o0o-- 10 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 11 So let me begin with my brief discussion of the health 12 impacts analysis for goods movement. The analysis was 13 conducted by ARB scientists and engineers using a 14 methodology that has been previously peer reviewed and 15 endorsed by State, national, international agencies. We 16 also received valuable support and advice from the 17 nationally recognized health experts. 18 --o0o-- 19 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 20 The focus of our analysis was on the impacts of 21 particulate matter an ozone. These two pollutants are 22 responsible for more than 95 percent of the known risk of 23 outdoor air pollution. Diesel engines directly emit PM, 24 but also gaseous pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, 25 sulfur oxides, reactive organic gasses that form secondary PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 particles, or secondary pollutants. These include 2 particle nitrates, sulfates, and organic aerosols, and 3 also ozone. In addition to diesel PM, we also estimated 4 to impacts of other primary PM from goods movements such 5 as brake and tire wear. 6 We were not able to estimate the impacts from PM 7 sulfates. The impact of sulfates from ship emissions of 8 sulfur oxides is confounded by the transport of emissions 9 from Mexico and possibly Asia and from emissions from 10 marine organisms in the ocean. For the past year, we have 11 had an intense technical analysis to resolve this issue. 12 It's involved five university groups, U.S. EPA, and 13 Environment Canada, for a possible SOx Emission Control 14 Area, or SECA, request. We should have preliminary 15 results by the end of year. 16 --o0o-- 17 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 18 We estimated the health impacts from goods movement for a 19 set of health endpoints which the evidence supports a 20 quantitative relationship. Based upon 2005 emissions, we 21 estimate that the statewide goods movement emissions 22 contribute to 2400 premature deaths and thousands of cases 23 of hospital admissions, acute bronchitis, asthma, and 24 other lower respiratory symptoms and millions of school 25 absences and lost work days and restricted activity days. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 The uncertainties associated with these health 2 endpoint estimates are at least a factor of too large. 3 For example, for premature deaths, the range is estimated 4 to be between 720 and 4,100 deaths per year. 5 --o0o-- 6 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 7 To quantify the health impacts due to goods movement, we 8 used a peer-reviewed methodology that's been endorsed by 9 the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health 10 Organization, U.S. EPA, and other organizations. The Air 11 Resources Board has used this methodology to support the 12 ambient air quality standards for PM in 2002 and the ozone 13 standards in 2005, both of which were peer reviewed by our 14 Air Quality Advisory Committee. We also used this 15 methodology for all of the diesel engine regulations over 16 the last ten years. Some questioned the use of this 17 methodology, but we believe it's substantially been 18 endorsed and peer reviewed. 19 In this methodology, air quality monitoring and 20 emissions data are used in conjunction with health 21 information from epidemiological studies to estimate the 22 total health impacts associated with air pollution levels. 23 We then apportion to the goods movement according to the 24 fraction of emission source type in each geographic 25 location. For the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 used an air quality model to estimate diesel PM from goods 2 movement emissions to strengthen our quantifiable impacts. 3 --o0o-- 4 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 5 To estimate the effect of PM exposure on premature death, 6 we relied on results from the American Cancer Society's 7 study as reported by the lead author, Dr. Arden Pope, in 8 2002. The investigators followed a group of half a 9 million people in the United States for over 16 years. 10 Within this group was a sub-group of 300,000 adults which 11 lived in 51 cities where PM2.5 monitoring occurred. This 12 study had a strong association to long-term exposure to 13 PM2.5 and premature death. 14 Last month, we discussed a newer study by Dr. 15 Michael Jerrett which improved the exposure estimation for 16 Los Angeles residents that were a sub-group of the 17 American Cancer Society study. Dr. Jerrett's results 18 demonstrate that the exposure gradients within a city show 19 PM2.5 effects on premature death to be greater than those 20 across cities. However, the uncertainty range is wider 21 than that in the national study since a smaller number of 22 participants were considered. It's important to remember 23 too and recognize that Dr. Jerrett's results don't mean 24 that more people are dying in California. But it shows 25 the influence of air pollution may be greater than we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 previously believed. 2 In order to reconcile the results of these two 3 studies and other studies on premature death that have 4 been published, we will seek the advise of national 5 experts in the next several months on how best to blend 6 the strengths of all published studies on PM and premature 7 death. We'll bring our results back to the Board in late 8 fall, and we will also include an estimate of the health 9 impacts of sulfate particles in that update. 10 --o0o-- 11 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 12 In our health analysis, we recognized there are numerous 13 health effects associated with air pollution exposures. 14 However, we chose to quantify health impacts for eight 15 major health endpoints for which the evidence is most 16 strongly suggestive of a cause and effect relationship and 17 for which there is sufficient information available to 18 quantify those impacts. 19 We followed a systematic process to identify air 20 pollution related health effects with a consistent signal, 21 relying exclusively on peer-reviewed literature and 22 working in consultation with the Office of Environmental 23 Hazard Assessment and U.S. EPA. 24 In some cases, the chosen health endpoint 25 reported included other sub-categories of health effects. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 For example, all caused premature deaths, including deaths 2 related to both heart disease and lung cancer. In other 3 cases, the health effect could not be quantified due to 4 insufficient information. An example was lung function 5 growth and reduced lung function growth and the onset of 6 asthma could not be included in our primary analysis due 7 to a lack of baseline incidence rates. These remaining 8 unquantified health effects are discussed in the 9 qualitative sense in the report. 10 --o0o-- 11 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 12 Activities near the ports make up a major component of the 13 emissions associated with goods movement. In October 14 2005, the Air Resources Board published a draft risk 15 assessment of the areas around the Ports of Los Angeles 16 and Long Beach. The Port assessment found that the areas 17 with the greatest impact outside of the port boundaries 18 have an estimated cancer risk of 500 in a million, 19 impacting about 50,000 people. The areas where cancer 20 risk is reduced are more widespread and affected many more 21 people. 22 --o0o-- 23 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 24 Locomotives contribute to goods movement emissions. 25 In October 2004, the Air Resources Board PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 published a study on the Roseville rail yard. Air quality 2 modeling predicted potential cancer risk greater than 500 3 in a million based on 70 years of exposure, offsite, and 4 adjacent to the maintenance operation areas. Results to 5 the risk levels and affected populations are listed on 6 this slide. 7 Risk assessments were 16 additional rail yards in 8 California will be developed over the next two years. 9 --o0o-- 10 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 11 Last year, the Air Resources Board published a Land Use 12 and Air Quality Handbook that states that living near 13 freeways and other high traffic roads in areas would 14 increase the risk of cancer on the order of 300 to 1700 15 per million risk. The high end estimate applies to people 16 living near high truck traffic. 17 --o0o-- 18 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 19 To put our non-cancer health effects estimates for goods 20 movement into perspective, we compare the results in the 21 estimated impacts due to air pollution overall, statewide 22 we estimate that 9,000 premature deaths would be avoided 23 annually if PM and ozone levels were reduced to obtain the 24 State ambient air quality standards. Of these, 2400 are 25 associated with goods movement. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 Regarding cancer, in California's urban areas, 2 the average cancer risk due to air toxic exposure ranges 3 from 500 to 1,000 chances per 1 million over a 70-year 4 lifetime. 5 --o0o-- 6 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 7 To put an economic value behind the estimated health 8 impacts, we used the unit valuations established by U.S. 9 EPA through their peer review process. 10 The values of the current goods movement health 11 impacts are listed on the slide. For example, 2400 12 premature deaths associated with goods movement are valued 13 at $19 million. 14 --o0o-- 15 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 16 When the draft Emission Reduction Plan was released in 17 December 2005, our health impacts analysis was peer 18 reviewed by 11 nationally known experts in fields such as 19 emissions inventory, air quality and exposure, health 20 impacts quantification and economic valuation are 21 identified on this slide. 22 These peer reviewers responded with very helpful 23 comments which strengthened our estimation approach and 24 led to the results we're presenting to you today. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 2 The results you see today are based on the best available 3 studies on health impacts of air pollution exposures. It 4 showed PM to be responsible for the majority of public 5 health impacts from exposures to air pollution, and the 6 goods movement accounts for a substantial portion of the 7 total impacts. 8 --o0o-- 9 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 10 Over the next six months, we will consult with national 11 experts on health impact estimation in PM mortality 12 studies and on how to best incorporate the newly and 13 recently published studies on PM and premature death into 14 our analysis. We plan to go through the University of 15 California's Office of the President for a formal peer 16 review. We will also estimate the health impacts of 17 sulfate particles in our update to the Board later in the 18 year. 19 That ends my presentation on the health impacts 20 analysis. We'd be happy to take any questions from Board 21 members. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there questions from 23 Board members? 24 Dr. Gong. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 It's a nice presentation. I have just several 2 hopefully quick questions. Do you have an upper boundary 3 for the sulfate risk you were talking about, even though 4 you don't have data on it? But is there any approximate 5 upper range for that problem? 6 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: This is Bart 7 Croes. 8 It's actually difficult to put an upper range 9 because there's such a large potential contribution from 10 transport from Mexico and Asia as well as there's a 11 biogenic natural source of sulfates. So the upper bound 12 is actually very extreme and on the order of 25 to 30 13 percent of the numbers that you see before you today. 14 Really have as part of our work on the SOx emission 15 control area with U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, we 16 have -- we initiated about five studies with university 17 researchers a year ago. And we expected those studies 18 will resolve this issue of separating out the influence of 19 California sources from Mexican, Asia, and natural 20 sources. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Bart, could you 22 explain to the whole Board why the sulfate issue matters, 23 what the broad policy issue is? 24 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: The sulfates are 25 a major component of PM2.5 in Southern California, despite PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 the low sulfur fuels that we have. And the measurements 2 that we've observed in the state are about half of the 3 nitrate levels. And you see that nitrate is a major 4 contributor to the health effects associated with the 5 goods movement. So sulfate potentially is as important. 6 And as we've controlled the land-based sources, 7 the uncontrolled sources, the ships become increasingly 8 important. And so we really believe that you need to 9 quantify those impacts in order to get a true picture of 10 the health effects associated with the goods movement. 11 And I think the ships as part of the work we're doing with 12 environment and U.S. EPA potentially can be controlled 13 much easier in terms of the cost of the technology and 14 some of the land-based sources which are controlled to a 15 very high extent. 16 BOARD MEMBER GONG: What I was concerned about is 17 that we know there are going to be more ships coming in, 18 and therefore potentially greater sulfate exposures coming 19 in as well. So I think that review and valuation of the 20 sulfate is very important. 21 MOBILE SOURCE DIVISION CONTROL CHIEF CROSS: Part 22 of our ongoing work with U.S. EPA, Environment Canada as 23 well as the states of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon is to 24 project the growth in the ship movement across the Pacific 25 over the next 15 years and estimate the sulfate impacts on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 California as well as the entire west coast of North 2 America. 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Another question. Richard, 4 you did a nice job of summarizing why you picked certain 5 endpoints. I was a little surprised there were only six 6 endpoints, but I assume those were the best endpoints you 7 could find that had sufficient supporting data; is that 8 correct? 9 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 10 We actually had eight endpoints in the report, so we kind 11 of shrunk them down for the presentation here. 12 BOARD MEMBER GONG: There are more I believe in 13 the report. 14 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 15 Some of the endpoints -- there are many studies on the 16 health effects of PM. Some of the health endpoints 17 overlap. In other words, there are quite a few studies 18 that dealt with lower respiratory symptoms as well as 19 asthma attacks and hospital admissions. 20 One concern we had was not to present information 21 that might allow people to double count the impacts. Some 22 of the studies looked at some of the respiratory effects 23 and included all the different health endpoints, and some 24 only looked at sub-sets. So we felt some of the larger 25 studies that looked at all the health impacts were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 actually more substantial so we included those. 2 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Is there much of a risk of -- 3 because they come from different data sets, is there any 4 big risk of double dipping, double counting these medical 5 diagnosis at least for these six? 6 HEALTH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF BODE: 7 Not in the way we presented them we believe in the report 8 right now. Is that what you meant? Our concern was if we 9 had actually put a table in that had results using each of 10 the studies that we felt could support some of these 11 health endpoints, that we'd end up with -- it would be 12 easy to take that and count them all up. But some 13 studies, as I said previously, that dealt with respiratory 14 effects included both asthma attacks as well as hospital 15 admissions. So we use the larger group to present that 16 data. 17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 18 And just a final comment. The discussion about 19 the epidemiological studies, Dr. Jerrett's study, having 20 read that, as we've discussed previously, makes me think 21 we're underestimating the health numbers. And if we're 22 underestimating health numbers based on whatever national 23 expert committee consensus there is later on, that really 24 I would think significantly changes the whole model and 25 therefore even the economic benefits of trying to preserve PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 lives. 2 And there was one comment that I remember in the 3 report itself that said that we could prevent so many 4 deaths. I don't remember the numbers. But we would still 5 have 800, I can't remember the number, non-preventable 6 deaths. And that to me is a big number -- based on Arden 7 Pope's study results. So that's like two 747s crashing if 8 you think about it. But, again, I think that we may be 9 underestimating deaths. And these efforts to try to 10 prevent these deaths I think are even more important and 11 urgent in that regard. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Gong, it is a 13 big number. And it might be bigger still when we finish 14 with the scientific review process. 15 We want to point out the numbers we're estimating 16 for premature deaths are for exposure over the state 17 ambient air quality standards. The plan that you have 18 before you today lays out a strategy to get to the federal 19 standards by 2020, we will need to do more to come down to 20 State standards after that date. And by then, we will 21 resolve that problem of the residual premature deaths 22 we're estimating once we get to State standards. But 23 you're right, it is significant. It's why we have to do 24 more than the plan you have today. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I just wanted to express my PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 concern about that. Thank you very much. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other 3 questions at this time from the Board? 4 Will staff continue then. 5 --o0o-- 6 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: With the health 7 impacts from goods movement providing the impetus for 8 action, I'll briefly describe how we developed the 9 proposed Emission Reduction Plan, then go into the 10 specific strategy proposals. 11 --o0o-- 12 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: You saw this 13 graphic in the December update of the Administration's 14 Goods Movement Action Plan which Ms. Witherspoon 15 discussed. This plan focuses on the transport of 16 international cargo, both import and export. Our Emission 17 Reduction Plan is a discrete product to help address air 18 quality mitigation for all goods movement activities. We 19 were asked to expedite development of the draft plan so 20 that specific proposals for air quality solutions were 21 available as the transportation projects to improve and 22 expand the infrastructure were being discussed. 23 The co-chairs of the public health and 24 environmental impact mitigation work group held a special 25 meeting on December 15th to solicit public feedback on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 first draft of the Emission Reduction Plan. The 2 strategies in the Emission Reduction Plan feed directly 3 into the list of candidate mitigation actions in the 4 current draft of the Phase II action plan being developed 5 by the Administration with substantial input from 6 stakeholders on the integrating working group. 7 --o0o-- 8 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: On December 9 1st, we published the first draft of the Emission 10 Reduction Plan which focused on port activities and the 11 associated transport of international goods throughout 12 California. 13 This focus was directly responsive to the 14 projected growth in international trade through the ports 15 and the proposed expansion of the goods movement system to 16 accommodate that growth. The statewide emissions impacts 17 and the reduction strategies all address the sub-set of 18 total goods movement. 19 In the December draft, we posed the question 20 about whether the plan should encompass domestic goods 21 movement as well. The response was a resounding "yes." 22 The draft plan included many emission reduction 23 strategies, but fell short of achieving the goal for 24 diesel PM risk reduction. We also sought specific 25 suggestions on how to remedy this problem. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 After several public meetings and a three-month 2 public comment period on the draft plan, we released a 3 revised proposal by March 21st. This is the version you 4 have before you today. 5 The proposed plan includes all emissions and 6 impacts associated with goods movement by land or sea in 7 California capturing international and domestic trade. 8 Essentially, this meant including all emissions from heavy 9 trucks and locomotives, instead of just the sub-set 10 associated with international goods. 11 This plan does not include goods moved by air. 12 Air cargo in a small fraction of the total value of goods 13 moved in California. The Administration has committed to 14 look at air cargo operations in future phases of the Goods 15 Movement Action Plan. ARB and the local air districts 16 will reflect aircraft emissions in the upcoming SIPs and 17 highlight the need for tougher emission controls on the 18 planes. 19 This expanded scope of the March plan resulted in 20 greater emissions, health impacts, costs, and benefits 21 than quantified in the draft plan. 22 We also added analyses of the regional impacts 23 for five key areas: The South Coast, the San Joaquin 24 Valley, the Bay Area, San Diego, and the Sacramento 25 region. With the changes described above and addition of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 a new strategy, the proposed plan now achieves its goals. 2 --o0o-- 3 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: To kick off 4 plan development, last October we held community scoping 5 sessions in Long Beach and in Oakland. We continued to 6 focus our outreach efforts on communities highly impacted 7 by goods movement. To cover the full spectrum of issues, 8 we worked with the California Environmental Protection 9 Agency and the Business, Transportation, and Housing 10 Agency on joint community meetings that addressed both the 11 Goods Movement Action Plan and our draft Emission 12 Reduction Plan. 13 In February and March of this year, we held 14 evening meetings at a community center in Wilmington 15 adjacent to the Port of Los Angeles as shown on the slide. 16 This location is directly on the water. The lights you 17 see in the background on the left are from ships docked 18 just a couple hundred feet away. We also met in an 19 elementary school cafeteria in Commerce near the nexus of 20 two major rail yards and the I-710 freeway; in Oakland 21 near the port and freeways there; and in Fresno with its 22 two major highways and rail lines. 23 We heard concerns and suggestions from residents 24 and community groups from local government 25 representatives, environmental organizations, academics, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 technology developers, and the industries that run 2 California's goods movement system. We considered all of 3 that input together with numerous written comments in 4 developing the revised draft Emission Reduction Plan. 5 --o0o-- 6 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Next we'll look 7 at what the plan covers, goods movement emission trends, 8 and our public healths goals for the plan. Then I'll walk 9 you through the emission reduction strategies described in 10 the plan for each source sector. 11 --o0o-- 12 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: There's a 13 health threat today from the existing level of emissions 14 from goods movement across the state, especially near 15 ports, rail yards, and high traffic corridors. 16 We know that growth in international trade 17 coupled with California's own population and economic 18 growth will exacerbate the problem without further action. 19 Like the statewide air pollution problem, we know 20 that the most significant contributor is the fleet of 21 existing diesel engines that need new controls or 22 replacement sooner than otherwise would occur. 23 --o0o-- 24 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The plan 25 includes emissions from heaviest diesel trucks that haul PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 containers and other large loads from all locomotives, all 2 ships operating in port and out to 24 nautical miles off 3 the coast, including both cargo and cruise ships, all 4 harbor craft like tugs, ferries, and fishing vessels, and 5 the diesel-fueled cargo handling equipment used at ports 6 and intermodal rail yards. 7 For the sake of completeness, we also included 8 the emissions from transport refrigeration units 9 associated with goods movement in the inventory and in the 10 health analyses in this plan. The Board has already 11 adopted controls to reduce those emissions. 12 --o0o-- 13 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Goods movement 14 sources now contribute about 70 percent of all diesel PM 15 emissions statewide and about 30 percent of nitrogen 16 oxides, or NOx; and 30 percent of sulfur oxides, or SOx. 17 Goods movement contributes less than 5 percent of the 18 reactive organic gas, or ROG, emissions statewide. The 19 share of emissions from goods movement will increase with 20 growth unless we implement further controls. 21 --o0o-- 22 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Between the 23 2001 starting point for the plan and 2020, we estimate 24 that international cargo will triple, while California's 25 population, truck travel, and rail cargo will increase by PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 a lesser amount. 2 Emissions are projected to grow more slowly 3 because of the improved efficiencies and emission 4 controls. For example, instead of tripling the number of 5 ship visits to accommodate the increase in international 6 trade, shippers are buying larger vessels to carry more 7 cargo on each load. This results in lower emission per 8 unit of cargo carried. 9 All the numbers in this plan and presentation are 10 inclusive of growth. When we show a decline in emissions 11 overtime, it means the controls overcome the effects of 12 growth and bring the resulting emissions down below the 13 starting levels. To understand how growth is likely to 14 change the picture of the future, it's useful to look at 15 how each sector contributes to the overall goods movement 16 emission. The bottom line is that trucks dominate the 17 emission inventory today, and ships will dominate in the 18 future with the existing control program. 19 --o0o-- 20 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The left-hand 21 pie chart shows the total 53 tons per day of diesel PM 22 emissions from goods movement in year 2005, the trucks in 23 green account for nearly two-thirds of the emission, 24 followed by ships in orange, locomotives, harbor craft, 25 and cargo handling equipment. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 On the right, can you see by 2020 trucks and 2 ships have reversed positions due to stringent emission 3 standards already in place for trucks and the lack of such 4 standards for ships. 5 Although we show these pies as the same size, 6 please note that the turnover of the truck fleet to 7 cleaner engines drives the total diesel PM emissions from 8 goods movement down from 53 tons per day to 36 tons per 9 day by 2020. Implementing the strategies in this plan 10 would further reduce these levels. 11 --o0o-- 12 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: For nitrogen 13 oxides, we see a similar trend, about a 30 percent overall 14 decline in emissions between 2005 and 2020 with the share 15 from trucks decreasing and ships increasing. The 2020 pie 16 also shows that the share from locomotive emissions will 17 grow without further controls. 18 --o0o-- 19 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: For sulfur 20 oxides, total goods movement emissions will increase over 21 time, essentially doubling between the 2005 and 2020 due 22 to growth of the ships sector and the lack of effective 23 fuel or engine standards for this sector. 24 The 2020 pie does not reflect the benefits of the 25 fuel cell sulfur restrictions that the Board adopted in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 December for auxiliary ship engines. SOx emissions from 2 the other sources become negligible by 2020 because of the 3 strict limits already set by the Board and U.S. EPA on the 4 sulfur content of their fuels. 5 With that brief overview of the current and 6 future emissions from goods movement, we turn to our goals 7 to reduce these emissions and the associated health risk. 8 --o0o-- 9 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: In the plan, we 10 identify four goals for goods movement related emissions. 11 As Ms. Witherspoon mentioned, we are seeking your approval 12 of these goals today. 13 The first goal is no net increase in emissions 14 between 2001 and 2010. Specifically, to reduce statewide 15 goods movement emissions back to 2001 levels and as far 16 below those levels as possible to accelerate the health 17 benefits of the plan. This initial goal was carried over 18 from the Port of Los Angeles' no net increase effort. 19 The second goal is to dramatically reduce the 20 health risk from diesel particulate matter emissions, 21 specifically to reduce the statewide health risk from 22 diesel PM from goods movement sources 85 percent relative 23 to 2000 levels. This goal includes an adjustment to the 24 mass of diesel PM emissions to roughly account for 25 exposure. The effect is to recognize that a ton of diesel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 PM emitted by a truck or train operating in the community 2 has a larger health impact than a ton of diesel PM emitted 3 by a ship out at sea. 4 --o0o-- 5 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The third and 6 fourth goals relate to attainment of the federal air 7 quality standards for fine particles and ozone. For the 8 South Coast, our very preliminary estimate of the NOx 9 reductions needed from international goods movement is a 10 30 percent reduction from 2015 projected emissions and a 11 50 percent reduction from projected 2020 levels. 12 We added the fourth goal in the proposed plan to 13 explicitly recognize the need to apply the strategies 14 statewide to add all regions in attaining air quality 15 standards. 16 Full implementation of the strategies in the 17 proposed plan would meet all of these goals for 2010, 18 2015, and 2020. But ARB's responsibility to reduce goods 19 movement emissions to fully protect public health would 20 continue beyond implementation of the strategies in the 21 plan. 22 --o0o-- 23 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: We recognize 24 that future work remains beyond the 2020 horizon of this 25 plan to achieve attainment of California air quality PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 standards and more stringent standards that may be 2 established based on new health studies, and localized 3 risk will still need attention. Implementation of the 4 plan strategies would significantly reduce but not 5 eliminate the health impacts in neighborhoods near major 6 goods movement facilities. We need to continue working to 7 abate these remaining hot spots. I'll address this 8 further under the issue segment of the presentation. 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: We envision a 11 mix of implementation mechanisms to achieve the plan's 12 goals. Regulations adopted by this Board or other federal 13 or local air agencies are the framework for the 14 significant emissions reductions in the plan. ARB staff 15 recommends the Board use its regulatory authority to the 16 maximum extent feasible. 17 Incentive programs are also an essential element 18 for those sectors where the profit margin of the industry 19 are not adequate to support the aggressive actions needed 20 to protect public health. Owner/operators of a single 21 port truck or single commercial fishing vessel are likely 22 examples. Port leases, voluntary agreements with 23 enforceable provisions, or trading programs are all 24 potential mechanisms to supplement regulations and 25 incentives. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 In the proposed plan, we intentionally left the 2 door open on the specific implementation mechanism for 3 each strategy unless rulemaking is already underway. 4 Instead, we focused on the technology or the emission 5 reduction benchmark that we believe can and must be 6 achieved. 7 Before I proceed, are there any general questions 8 from Board members about the emissions, goals, or 9 implementation approaches? 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I believe there are none. 11 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Okay. Moving 12 right along then. 13 --o0o-- 14 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: This next 15 segment of the presentation is the heart of the plan, the 16 strategies that we're proposing to effectively reduce 17 emissions and health risk. 18 --o0o-- 19 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Beginning with 20 ships, I'll provide the essential context for each sector 21 and highlight the key new strategies. With a three-fold 22 increase in international trade, we expect that ship 23 emissions will double by 2020 without future action. 24 Current international standards are inadequate to address 25 either the fuels or the engine emissions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 Current national standards set by U.S. EPA are 2 very minimal and apply only to U.S. flagged ships built 3 after 2001. U.S. EPA is working on a new regulation, but 4 proposes to apply it only to new ship engines. 5 Most of the 1900 ships that visit California each 6 year use a bunker fuel that averages about 25,000 parts 7 per million of sulfur compared to this Board's limit of 15 8 parts per million in the diesel fuel for other sources. 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Like the 11 approach that is driving our progress on land, we envision 12 dramatically cleaner new engines and dramatically lower 13 sulfur in marine fuels as a crucial part of our strategy 14 for the ships that dock in California's ports or travel 15 along the coast. 16 Other approaches include: Add on or retrofit 17 controls for existing ship engines, operational changes 18 that reduce emissions like lowering vessel speeds when 19 approaching California ports, and use of shore-based 20 electrical power at dock called cold ironing, instead of 21 running the ship's auxiliary engines to provide this power 22 in port. This is a critical strategy to reduce the health 23 risk. 24 --o0o-- 25 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: ARB's risk PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 assessment for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach 2 identified emissions from ships in port as one of the most 3 significant risk contributors. In response to this 4 information, staff prioritized strategies to cut these 5 emissions as quickly as possible. 6 In December, you adopted the rule to cut sulfur 7 levels in the fuels used by ship auxiliary engines in and 8 near the ports limiting sulfur to 5,000 parts per million 9 by 2007 and down to 1,000 PPM by 2010. 10 This action needs to be supplemented with a 11 strategy to cut ship emissions while at dock. There are 12 two potential approaches. 13 The first is to plug the ship into shore-based 14 electrical power which avoids running any of the ship's 15 engines. The second is to run the ship's auxiliary 16 engines as is the current custom, but to capture and 17 control these emissions. One such option is to channel or 18 funnel the engine exhaust to a powerful emission control 19 device mounted on a specialized barge alongside the ship. 20 Such a barge could be repositioned to serve the next ship. 21 The second approach is less effective at reducing 22 emissions than electrical power, but may be more feasible 23 for infrequent visitors. 24 Given the promise of shore power to substantially 25 reduce emissions and risk, ARB staff undertook a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 comprehensive analysis. 2 --o0o-- 3 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Last month, we 4 released a 275-page draft report for public comment that 5 presents the results of our shore power evaluation. 6 The report describes what the ports are already 7 doing, then evaluates the feasibility and cost 8 effectiveness of using shore power while docked in 9 California ports. It quantifies the cost to equip ships 10 and terminals with the appropriate technology to allow 11 shore power use. It quantifies the cost savings from 12 consuming less fuel and the cost of the electricity that 13 would be used in place of the fuel. 14 Ship modifications would run from half a million 15 to $1.5 million per ship, making it most cost effective 16 for ships that visit our port frequently. 17 Terminal improvements would run about $3.5 18 million with another $1.5 million cost for each ship berth 19 at the terminal, again making it most cost effective for 20 terminals with high ship traffic. 21 The emission benefits account for both the 22 reduction in ship engine operation and the increased power 23 plant operation to supply the electricity. 24 The conclusions in this draft report are: 25 Shore power is feasible and cost effective for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 many ships and several large port terminals, especially 2 for ships making multiple visits to California ports over 3 the course of a year. 4 The benefits to cost ratio is the highest for 5 container ships which are responsible for more than half 6 of all at-dock emissions. Passengers ships and 7 refrigerated cargo ships are also attractive candidates 8 for shore power. 9 The most feasible and cost effective ports to 10 equip for shore power are the major ports in Los Angeles, 11 Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and Port 12 Hueneme in Ventura County. Most of the costs and benefits 13 would be realized from the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach 14 because they handle the highest volume of ships. 15 --o0o-- 16 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The plan calls 17 for a sizable investment in the dock-side infrastructure 18 and ship modifications to facilitate use of shore power 19 for frequent visitors. The plan proposes the targets 20 shown on the slide for the percent of ship visit using 21 shore power and alternative dockside measures to control 22 emissions. 23 The year 2010 target is to have 20 percent of 24 ship visits plugging into shower power and another 20 25 percent of the visits using alternative measures. By the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 year 2020, all ships would need to be using some form of 2 at-dock emission controls with 80 percent plugging into 3 shore power. This strategy could be implemented via port 4 lease agreements, other enforceable agreement, or 5 regulatory action by the Air Resources Board or the local 6 air districts. 7 The plan proposes that we aggressively pursue 8 this strategy in concert with the local air districts as 9 an action that can substantially reduce pollutant exposure 10 near ports. 11 --o0o-- 12 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The emissions 13 from ships at sea whether going to or from a California 14 port or transiting along the coast also impact on-shore 15 pollution levels. 16 In our health and risk analyses, we recognize 17 that some of the diesel PM emissions at sea fall into the 18 ocean or get diluted before reaching land. However, we 19 assume that all NOx and all SOx emissions eventually blow 20 over the shore to react with other compounds and form fine 21 particles or ozone. 22 The key strategies to reduce ship emissions at 23 sea include requirements for lower sulfur fuels, 24 retrofitting emission controls on main and auxiliary 25 engines during major engine rebuilds, and bringing much PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 lower emitting ships into California service. 2 We believe the same types of advanced control 3 technologies being developed for trucks and off-road 4 diesel equipment can be scaled up to work on ship engines 5 but with slightly lower efficiencies. 6 The plan identifies two steps for cleaner 7 engines. 8 Step 1 is emission levels 30 percent below the 9 current international standards. We believe this could be 10 achieved by 2010 on new ships or by retrofitting controls 11 on existing ships. 12 Step 2 is the best control technology parallel to 13 other diesel engines. We anticipate this would be roughly 14 90 percent control of NOx emissions and at least 60 15 percent control of diesel PM emissions. We also expect 16 these engines could be available by 2015. 17 --o0o-- 18 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Once cleaner 19 ships are built in response to customer demand, we need a 20 mechanism to preferentially bring them to California 21 service. This mechanism could be port lease conditions, 22 enforceable agreements with the shipping lines, or 23 possibly some type of regulatory action. 24 The plan proposes the targets shown on the slide 25 to ramp up the percent of ship visits using cleaner PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 technology each year, beginning with one-fifth of ship 2 visits employing technology that reduces ship emissions 30 3 percent below current standards by 2010. The year 2020 4 target is fully half of the visits from ships equipped 5 with the best technology. 6 As the Board is aware, the advanced control 7 technology being developed for diesel engines requires low 8 sulfur fuels. There are several ways to shift the 9 shipping industry to these fuels. 10 --o0o-- 11 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Under 12 international law, ships can run on fuel with sulfur 13 levels up to 45,000 parts per million. Ships visiting 14 California average sulfur levels of about 25,000 PPM. 15 There are provisions in international maritime 16 law to create SOx emission control areas, or SECAs, with 17 sulfur levels capped at 15,000 parts per million. ARB 18 staff is doing extensive technical work to support a U.S. 19 EPA evaluation of a potential North American SECA 20 extending along the west coast of the U.S., Mexico, and 21 Canada. 22 The plan recognizes that a CEQA would need to go 23 below the typical sulfur levels, down to at least 5,000 24 parts per million or lower to serve California's needs. 25 Given the competitive nature of the ports and the impact PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 on California from ships passing by the coast that don't 2 shop here, an effective west coast SECA would clearly 3 benefit California. 4 But like other provisions that are subject to 5 national and international actions, a SECA may not go far 6 enough or fast enough to dramatically reduce the 7 contribution of SOx from ships to on-shore particulate 8 matter in California. 9 The Board can also consider California 10 rulemaking, like its regulation for auxiliary fuels, to 11 secure cleaner main engine fuels sooner. 12 Do the Board members have any questions on the 13 ship section? 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The number of 60 percent PM 15 control as best technology beginning 2015, that seems low 16 to me. Where does that come from? That's on your slide 17 number 39. 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I believe 19 that was the estimate of what we could get. It was over 20 and beyond on the fuel control on the main engine. But it 21 didn't employ a particulate scrubber type of technology. 22 I assumed the ship had SCR and that the SCR system and 23 other engine system changes would be a 60 percent 24 reduction. So if you went to something like a particulate 25 scrubber, you could get greater reductions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Why wasn't that taken as 2 best technology? 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We hadn't 4 seen that demonstrated yet to the degree we had confidence 5 at SCR. I think we have to investigate that. And if we 6 can find better technologies that are out there, then we 7 would put those in as a goal. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: It would seem to me the trap 9 technology which was just being applied to the large 10 diesel engines and shored diesel engines certainly this 11 principle is applicable to the huge diesel engines that 12 are on the ships. Perhaps more easily even. 13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Potentially. 14 We had no experience to date with such a large system. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do we know if the Europeans 16 are working on such a system? 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE. I don't know. 18 Does staff know? 19 EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT BRANCH CHIEF DONOHOUE: This 20 is Dan Donohoue. 21 At the current time, we have not seen any work 22 done so far on any larger scale particulate filters on 23 these ships. So basically in combination with selective 24 catalytic reduction, we at the current time were not 25 looking at the diesel particulate filters. It's certainly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 a technology we're going to pursue. It's not a 2 technology -- it's a technology that would have to be 3 designed into the vessel. And that's not happening yet. 4 But it certainly is something we're going to continue to 5 look at. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 7 Are there any other questions? 8 If not, would staff continue, please? 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Harbor craft 11 comprise a small fraction of the goods movement emissions, 12 but they can have a high impact on coastal communities 13 because they tend to operate close to shore. To fully 14 capture all of the port sources that contribute to health 15 risks in those nearby communities and to develop a 16 cohesive control strategy, we included all commercial 17 harbor craft in the plan from tugs that assist ships to 18 passenger ferries, to fishing vessels. 19 The tightest current standards for harbor craft 20 engines require only 30 percent control of NOx and 45 21 percent control of PM. Retrofits and repowers on existing 22 engines can be feasible and cost effective, but the space 23 on board certain vessels may limit the options. 24 The Board extended its 15 parts per million low 25 sulfur fuel limits to harbor craft with implementation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 beginning in 2007. California's commercial fishing 2 industry is facing difficult economic times due to 3 decreasing supplies and increasing global competition. An 4 owner/operator of a single fishing boat may need incentive 5 to finance the technology upgrades envisioned in this 6 plan. 7 --o0o-- 8 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The most 9 critical strategy for harbor craft is an ARB diesel fleet 10 rule for existing engines. Rule development is already 11 well underway with Board consideration anticipated late 12 this year or early next year. The rule will likely 13 require a combination of replacement, add-on control 14 technology, and/or use of alternative fuels to meet lower 15 emission standards. 16 If ports expand their shore power capability, 17 tugs could take advantage of access to that power source 18 instead of running their engines while waiting for the 19 next ship to assist. U.S. EPA has proposed tighter 20 emission standards for new engines based on the advance 21 diesel engine controls being developed for trucks and 22 off-road equipment with implementation expected by 2015. 23 If U.S. EPA does not set sufficiently effective standards, 24 ARB staff proposes to develop California regulations to do 25 so. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 Are there any questions on the harbor craft 2 sector? 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Apparently not. 4 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Okay. 5 Switching from sea to land, let's start with the biggest 6 source of goods emissions today, the heaviest diesel 7 trucks. 8 --o0o-- 9 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Despite the 10 tremendous fleet turnover to cleaner trucks, there are 11 still high localized impacts from the fleets of older 12 dirtier trucks still on the road. The national and 13 California standards for advanced control technology on 14 new diesel trucks set the benchmark for the level of 15 control achievable by diesel engines and other 16 applications. With your addition of on-board diagnostic 17 requirements for those engines, fleet turnover will 18 provide the bulk of the goods movement emission reduction 19 from our existing control programs. As a result, total 20 truck emissions will continue to decline over time, 21 despite growth. 22 In the proposed plan, we use new data from truck 23 emissions testing that tell us the existing control 24 program is relatively more effective in reducing PM 25 emissions and slightly less effective in reducing NOx PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 emissions over time than previously projected. We 2 factored this improved understanding into the strategies 3 to further reduce truck emissions. 4 These changes don't alter the conclusion, though. 5 It's still the existing truck fleet that needs to be 6 cleaned up, especially the older, dirtier trucks like 7 those used in port service. And as with fishing vessels, 8 we expect an owner/operator of a single port truck would 9 need incentives to financial the upgrade to cleaner 10 technology. 11 --o0o-- 12 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: There are two 13 significant new strategies in the plan to reduce truck 14 emissions. First, a combined rule and incentive program 15 to modernize the fleet of old trucks that directly service 16 California ports. And second, a diesel fleet rule for 17 privately owned trucks. I'll describe both of these 18 strategies further in a moment. 19 Communities also want more enforcement of the 20 Board's five-minute idling limits for diesel trucks. We 21 agree, and we're working on it. We propose to increase 22 partnerships with local governments to allow more local 23 enforcement as well. 24 Finally, the Board already adopted the rule in 25 January to require international trucks operating in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 California to meet the applicable U.S. emission standards, 2 anticipating an increase in truck traffic from Mexico 3 under NAFTA. I'd like to focus on the first two 4 strategies now. 5 --o0o-- 6 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The fleet of 7 roughly 12,000 drayage trucks that directly service 8 California's ports is significantly older and higher 9 emitting than a typical long haul truck. Communities near 10 the ports are exposed to emissions from those trucks as 11 they pass through en route to the port, as they wait to 12 load or off load cargo, and as drivers seek meals or other 13 services in the community. Upgrading these trucks to a 14 cleaner technology is a top priority. 15 Last week, ARB staff released an extensive report 16 that examines the benefits and costs of several options to 17 accomplish this upgrade. We included the most effective 18 option in the proposed Emission Reduction Plan as a 19 placeholder. 20 --o0o-- 21 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: We see a need 22 for three elements to make this program work. First, 23 financial incentives to replace the oldest port trucks and 24 upgrade the rest with add-on controls. Second, an ARB 25 rule to push port truck owners towards these available PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 incentives. And third, a provision for ports to serve as 2 the gatekeepers to ensure that trucks newly introduced to 3 port service after the modernization program are as clean 4 as the upgraded fleet. 5 Beyond those concepts, the specifics of this 6 program need extensive public discussion. We're seeking 7 comments on the draft port truck report to help refine 8 their analyses and recommendations. 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The rule for 11 privately-owned truck fleets has been on our agenda since 12 Board adoption of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan in 2000. 13 The Board has already established requirements for the 14 other on-road diesel vehicles, specifically transit buses, 15 refuse trucks, and public or utility truck fleets. 16 When we expanded the scope of the draft Remission 17 Reduction Plan to capture transport of domestic as well as 18 international cargo, we captured all of the heavy diesel 19 truck emissions in the plan universe. But the draft plan 20 strategies can only addressed port trucks. As a result, 21 we needed an additional strategy to reduce emissions from 22 the rest of the older privately-owned truck fleet. At the 23 same time, ARB's staff was just preparing to launch the 24 public process to develop this private fleets rule. 25 In the plan, we included a very general PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 description of the approach and the public process 2 recognizing that specifics would be defined during rule 3 development. To estimate the potential benefits of the 4 rule, we applied a scenario based on prior ARB diesel 5 fleet rule requirements for replacements and retrofits, 6 but explicitly noted that the assumptions in the scenario 7 would not constrain the staff or the Board during the rule 8 development process. 9 It is ARB staff's intention to conduct our 10 customary, rigorous, technical, and economic analyses in a 11 full public process and to propose a new fleets rule based 12 on the enriched understanding of the issues. 13 Can we answer any questions on the truck 14 strategies? 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Apparently there are no 16 questions. Please go on. 17 --o0o-- 18 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Moving along to 19 locomotives then. The locomotive fleet in the South Coast 20 will be 65 percent cleaner by 2010. This is the result of 21 the railroads turning over nearly 100 percent of the fleet 22 to models meeting U.S. EPA's Tier 2 emissions standards as 23 part of a 1998 agreement to accelerate introduction of 24 this technology preferentially in the South Coast region. 25 The projected growth in statewide locomotive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 emissions will overcome the effect of existing controls in 2 this sector by 2020 unless we do more. Low sulfur diesel 3 fuel for this sector is being introduced in three steps. 4 First, in 2007, under ARB's rule for locomotives that 5 operate within California. Second, in 2008 for at least 6 80 percent of the interstate locomotives under the recent 7 2005 rail yard agreement, and nationwide in 2012. 8 Because the highest community risks are 9 associated with the locomotive operations in rail yards 10 rather than in long distance service, we'll focus on this 11 area first. 12 --o0o-- 13 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The Board is 14 quite familiar with the 2005 MOU to reduce localized risk 15 from diesel PM at rail yards. I'd like to give you a 16 brief update on what's happening now. 17 The statewide restrictions on unnecessary idling 18 are in place. And ARB has started training both staff and 19 local district inspectors to enforce these limits. 20 The railroads, ARB, and some local air districts 21 have begun the community meetings for each major rail yard 22 to discuss the healths risk assessments that must be 23 completed over the next two years. 24 And staff will hold a public meeting next week to 25 kick off the process with the effective communities to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 identify potential new control measures to reduce the 2 health risk from rail yard operations. 3 There are two types of new strategies in the plan 4 to further reduce locomotive emissions. 5 --o0o-- 6 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The first 7 addresses the switcher or other local locomotives that 8 operate primarily at the rail yards. While these 9 locomotives comprise a small portion of the overall 10 emissions, they contribute a significant portion of the 11 health risk because they tend to be older, dirtier models, 12 and all of their operations occur in close proximity to 13 residents. 14 The strategy entails upgrading the fleet of 15 switcher and local yard locomotives to cleaner models that 16 we expect can achieve 95 percent control of diesel PM and 17 at least 70 percent NOx control. 18 --o0o-- 19 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The key new 20 strategy for long haul or line haul locomotives has two 21 parts. The first is for U.S. EPA to set much more 22 effective national Tier 3 emission standards that would 23 spur production of locomotives with advanced diesel 24 control technology. We would expect these to include 25 computerized diagnostics and anti-idling devices starting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 in 2011. We're also on record advocating that U.S. EPA 2 require uncontrolled or poorly controlled locomotives to 3 be rebuilt cleaner than originally manufactured. 4 The second strategy is a mechanism to get the 5 railroads to preferentially bring those new Tier 3 6 locomotives to California service. We envision that 7 existing locomotives could be replaced in the California 8 fleet at the rate of 10 percent per year starting in 2012. 9 The result would be 90 percent of the fleet meeting Tier 3 10 standards by 2020. 11 We envision that this could be accomplished via 12 an enforceable agreement with the railroads using the 13 successful 1998 agreement that is replacing virtually the 14 entire locomotive fleet in the South Coast as a model. 15 Before the Tier 3 locomotives are available, it 16 may also be possible to retrofit these long-haul 17 locomotive to accept diesel PM control devices or to allow 18 use of alternative fuels. Several demonstration programs 19 are beginning. 20 Can we answer any questions on the locomotive 21 sector? 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: When will we know about the 23 EPA Tier 3 regulations? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I believe the 25 schedule for release of the advance notice of rulemaking PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 is late this year. And we have talked to EPA at the staff 2 level about the concepts they're pursuing, the degree of 3 particulate and NOx controls, the issues they're 4 encountering with the two locomotive manufacturers and how 5 we might be of assistance. And they intend to go final 6 next year and to begin implementation in about 2012. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. Please continue. 8 --o0o-- 9 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Moving on to 10 the last sector, cargo handling equipment used at ports 11 and intermodal rail yards. 12 --o0o-- 13 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Existing 14 national and state standards for new engines require 15 introduction of advanced diesel controls starting in 2012. 16 ARB's risk assessment for the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach 17 identified cargo handling equipment as one of the top two 18 drivers for near-source risk. This makes reducing 19 emissions from the existing cargo handling equipment a 20 high priority. 21 --o0o-- 22 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The Board has 23 already established requirements to accelerate cleanup of 24 the cargo handling fleet with its December rulemaking. 25 This is the primary reduction strategy in the plan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 The goal is 85 percent effective PM control 2 devices on every piece of equipment. This would ideally 3 be accomplished as quickly as possible, but certainly 4 completed no later than 2015. 5 I've walked you through each sector that we're 6 proposing new emission reduction strategies for, but these 7 strategies are not the only actions being proposed or 8 taken to clean up pollution from goods movement sources. 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Throughout the 11 Emission Reduction Plan, we highlight activities of the 12 ports, railroads, local agencies, and U.S. EPA to reduce 13 emissions or improve efficiency in the goods movement 14 system. For example, ports are developing new tools to 15 reduce emissions from their operations through leasing 16 authorities, funding for cleaner equipment, and more 17 efficient logistics. I'll touch on one example at each of 18 the major ports. 19 The Port of Los Angeles is implementing a 20 comprehensive leasing policy to include clean air 21 requirements in new and revised port leases. Conditions 22 might include use of shore side power for ships as well as 23 cleaner fuels for ships and land-based sources. 24 The Port of Long Beach has upgraded its fleet of 25 cargo handling equipment adding catalysts to more than 600 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 piece of equipment and expanding its use of alternative 2 fuels. 3 And the Port of Oakland has launched an 4 Internet-based logistics service to reduce the transport 5 of empty containers. 6 Shipping companies are participating in a 7 voluntary agreement to reduce the speed of vessels 8 entering or leaving Southern California ports. Almost 9 half of all ships are complying with the speed goals. 10 These programs and many others described in the plan for 11 other agencies are important contributors to reaching the 12 goals of the plan either by directly reducing emissions or 13 by demonstrating the effectiveness of new technology or 14 policies. We expect these efforts to continue and expand 15 as part of California's comprehensive response to mitigate 16 the impacts of goods movement. 17 --o0o-- 18 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Partnerships 19 will be critical to our success implementing this plan and 20 achieving its goals. The industries that move goods in 21 the month from ports and shipping line to railroads and 22 trucking are all in a position to partner with the air 23 agencies in finding ways to cut emissions from their 24 operations and in pursuing funding sources where essential 25 to success. For example, it will be critical to partner PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 with the owner/operators of port trucks in developing the 2 incentives for port truck modernization. 3 Air districts like the South Coast and Bay Area 4 with major ports, other coastal districts with off-shore 5 ship traffic, Placer and other districts with major rail 6 yards, and the Inland Valley districts with their high 7 truck traffic corridors are also key partners in 8 translating the strategies in the plan into effective 9 actions. 10 Whether a region's focus is on State 11 Implementation Plan needs or on reducing the localized 12 health risk around goods movement facilities, ARB staff 13 would like to work in concert with the affected air 14 districts to realize the needed emission reductions. 15 The local governments that make land use 16 decisions play a vital role in reducing the health impacts 17 from goods movement by developing and maintaining 18 appropriate buffer zones around intensely concentrated 19 goods movement operations and by being responsive to 20 community proposals for mitigation of goods movement 21 activities. We also hope to partner more effectively with 22 local governments to increase compliance with the 23 statewide idling restrictions for both trucks and 24 locomotives. 25 Finally, U.S. EPA and the federal government have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 the authority and responsibility for several key actions 2 to support plan implementation. We intend to continue 3 working closely with our federal counterparts to ensure 4 that California's needs are met both to support attainment 5 of the federal air quality standards and to substantially 6 cut the health risk from goods movement. 7 Next slide. 8 --o0o-- 9 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Now let's shift 10 gears and move on to how the proposed plan performs. What 11 are its benefits and costs? 12 --o0o-- 13 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: I'm happy to 14 say full implementation of the plan's strategies would 15 achieve all four goals. Specifically, the plan goes 16 further than no net increase, reducing statewide goods 17 movement emissions not only back to 2001 levels by 2010 18 but another 20 to 40 percent below those 2001 emission 19 levels. 20 The plan reduces the statewide health risk from 21 diesel PM by just over 85 percent by 2020. Please 22 remember this evaluation adjusts the emissions to roughly 23 account for exposure. 24 The plan reduces emissions well below the 25 preliminary SIP targets for NOx in the South Coast. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 And by applying the strategies statewide, the 2 plan would achieve similar levels of emission reductions 3 between 2001 and 2020 whether you look at statewide totals 4 or any of the five regions that we analyzed. 5 In all cases, we expect roughly 70 to 80 percent 6 reduction in diesel PM over this time frame, 50 to 60 7 percent reduction in NOx emissions, and 80 to 90 percent 8 reduction in SOx emissions from goods movement sources 9 between 2001 and 2020. 10 --o0o-- 11 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Of the 12 estimated 2400 premature deaths the plan attributes to 13 goods movement today, the combination of our existing air 14 quality program and the new strategies in this plan would 15 reduce emissions to avoid over 1500 premature deaths by 16 2020, with corresponding reductions in other health 17 impacts like hospitalizations for health and lung disease, 18 asthma and bronchitis. 19 --o0o-- 20 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: These benefits 21 come at a cumulative cost of 6 to $10 billion between 2006 22 and 2020. We envision this cost would be borne primarily 23 by the goods movement industry supplemented with public or 24 private funding for critical incentive programs. To put 25 the 15-year cumulative cost of the plan into perspective, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 goods movement contributes over $200 billion each year to 2 California's economy. 3 Moreover, the plan costs would be more than 4 repaid by health savings. An investment in these 5 strategies would yield 3 to $8 in benefits from health 6 impacts avoided for every $1 spent on controls. 7 Do the Board members have any questions on the 8 benefits or costs of the plan? 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 10 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Question. I was just looking 11 at Table 3 on the executive summary list of strategies to 12 reduce emissions from ports and goods movement, you have 13 nicely summarized many of these strategies including 14 rulemakings by the ARB. There are numerous strategies. 15 And I'm trying to reduce it in my brain to say, well, you 16 have a whole list of these things. Can the staff 17 prioritize or give some grasp which, for example, of these 18 strategies we need to do by a certain time, their highest 19 priority in that regard. Another way to do that is to say 20 which are the easiest to achieve, but that's too easy. So 21 I just need to have some kind of milestone using that gear 22 shift, if you will. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Gong, there 24 are two ways that we would prioritize the pace of rule 25 making. One of them is mass emissions contribution to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 problem. And you saw from the pie charts early on that 2 today the large contribution is trucks. Trucks receive an 3 enormous attention from ARB and U.S. EPA for engineering 4 new standards and now we're going to move into the 5 cleaning up the legacy fleet. And in the future, vessels 6 are the largest mass contributor. 7 The other filter that we use is the risk 8 exposure. How close, how approximate are the sources to 9 residents and workers. And that kind of analysis caused 10 us to move up the cargo handling rule much sooner than we 11 originally intended to bring it to you. Because we saw 12 from our risk analysis in the Port of L.A. and Long Beach 13 that shoreside activities had an enormous impact on nearby 14 populations. And then it also caused us to bump up our 15 electrification proposal on the order of 80 percent by 16 2020. And the sulfate analysis we talked about earlier is 17 telling us that vessel fuel de-sulfurization has to happen 18 much faster and not be one of the last things that we do, 19 but be one of the early things we need to do. So we're 20 always looking at mass and we're looking at exposure to 21 guide us. And then some of it is just how long will it 22 take to actually do the measure. 23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So we could -- 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We will be 25 showing you a schedule of near-term regulatory actions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 that we're proposing to get to work on a little later. 2 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So that's the list of things 3 we need to do soon? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. But we 5 need to do them all in about two to three years. So 6 there's not a lot of sifting between them. They're all on 7 the near-term action list. 8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Okay. 9 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Shall I 10 proceed? 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Please. 12 --o0o-- 13 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: In prior 14 meetings, in written comments, stakeholders have raised 15 issues that are relevant to the plan before you. I'd like 16 to give you our perspective on several of these major 17 issues. Commenters assert that the health impacts 18 assessment underestimate the premature deaths linked to 19 air pollution from goods movement. 20 We agree that inclusion of the Jerrett study on 21 premature death in Los Angeles and others would change our 22 mortality estimates for all air pollution, not just the 23 fraction attributed to goods movement. 24 Because of the greater uncertainty in some of the 25 new analyses and the importance of the results to all of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 our air quality programs, we are seeking expert advise on 2 how to best incorporate or blend the new results with the 3 foundation established by the Pope study used in the 4 proposed plan. We expect to resolve these questions and 5 update the Board late this year with the results. 6 It's important to update the science, but the 7 bottom line is that the health impacts from good movements 8 are too high today by any credible estimate and would 9 worsen with growth unless we aggressively pursue new 10 emission reductions. 11 --o0o-- 12 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Some commenters 13 don't believe the initial statewide goal for no net 14 increase by 2010 is stringent enough, even though the plan 15 would exceed the goal reducing emissions 20 to 40 percent 16 below the target levels. They urge the Board to impose 17 this no net increase goal on each source sector instead of 18 on the goods movement system as a whole. 19 The trucks, locomotives, cargo handling 20 equipment, and harbor craft sectors could all meet a no 21 net increase goal individually. But it would not be 22 feasible for ships by 2010 unless the number of ship 23 visits to California ports is restricted. We're not 24 recommending that approach in the Emission Reduction Plan. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: As we 2 acknowledged earlier in the presentation, the plan reduces 3 but does not eliminate the localized health risk near 4 major goods movement facilities. We're proposing to 5 respond to this concern by initiating a public process to 6 identify additional strategies to reduce localized health 7 risk concurrent with plan implementation. 8 One of the first conclusions you reach when 9 evaluating solutions for localized impacts is that land 10 use decisions matter. As the Board is aware, ARB doesn't 11 have land use authority, but the Board approved an air 12 quality and land use handbook in 2005. Staff will 13 continue advising local land use decision makers as part 14 of our outreach on this handbook. 15 --o0o-- 16 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Regarding 17 funding. Private industry will need to pay the lion's 18 share of the investment cost for the cleaner technology 19 described in this plan. As mentioned in the strategy 20 discussion, financial incentives are an essential 21 mechanism to support equipment upgrades in some narrow 22 sectors. 23 The Governor's proposed strategic growth 24 initiative including one billion in general obligation 25 bonds with an equal match to mitigate the air quality PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 impacts of port-related goods movement is pending 2 discussions with the Legislature. It's not on the June 3 ballot. The role for container fees or other financing 4 mechanisms is uncertain at this time. 5 Whether there is a bond or not, we still expect 6 the goods movement industry to participate in seeking and 7 securing other mechanisms for funding. Despite these 8 uncertainties, we believe the plan should proceed. We 9 propose to bring back an update to the Board later this 10 year on the status of these and any other funding 11 approaches. 12 --o0o-- 13 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The plan 14 describes a comprehensive vision of how emissions from all 15 goods movement sources could be more effectively reduced. 16 By design, it focuses on identifying technology or 17 performance benchmarks, but not on resolving specific 18 questions about exactly which agency or entity is best 19 positioned at this time to make each strategy happen. 20 However, ARB staff recommends that the Board use 21 its regulatory power to the maximum extent allowed by law 22 or practical considerations to implement the plan 23 strategies. 24 If the Board approved the general strategy 25 described in the plan today, our next step would be to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 begin developing regulations and converting the strategy 2 into appropriate SIP measures for each region. SIPs much 3 contain adopted regulations or legally enforceable 4 commitments to new measures by agencies with the authority 5 and funding to implement them. ARB staff is beginning 6 development of the new statewide strategy for 2007 ozone 7 SIPs and the 2008 fine particulate SIPs over the next few 8 months. 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Commenters have 11 asked the Board to delete MOUs or trading programs as 12 possible mechanisms to implement the strategies in the 13 plan. Staff's recommendation is to keep all options on 14 the table for discussion. 15 The Board has already established procedures to 16 deal with these types of voluntary programs. Of course, 17 any such program would have to become enforceable and 18 would have to consider community impacts. 19 --o0o-- 20 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: All goods 21 movement industries affected by the plan are nervous about 22 the ambitious targets proposed in the plan. The trucking 23 industry is concerned that the plan will dictate exactly 24 what the final port truck modernization program and the 25 private truck fleets rule would look like. They asked the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 Board to delay action on the plan to work out these 2 details. 3 We believe these details are appropriately 4 resolved in the much more extensive public process that 5 would follow Board action on the plan today. 6 The purpose of this plan is to propose a 7 direction and general concepts for staff to pursue to cut 8 emissions from each sector. The draft port truck report 9 that's out for public comment analyses multiple options to 10 support the public debate over the best approach. Since 11 the private public fleets rule is just beginning 12 development, there will be many opportunities to provide 13 relevant data for the particular industry and to recommend 14 specific rule provisions to staff. 15 The bottom line is that the technical analyses 16 and the public process on each strategy, not this plan, 17 will determine the specifics of any program that ARB staff 18 formally propose to the Board for adoption. The scenarios 19 described in this plan do not constrain ARB's ability to 20 go in a different direction if we're convinced it is the 21 most effective. We encourage anyone who is interested in 22 or concerned about these strategies to actively 23 participate in the subsequent public processes to flush 24 out the details of each proposal. 25 Next slide. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 --o0o-- 2 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: In the final 3 two short segments of the presentation, I'll highlight 4 recent and proposed near-term actions, then conclude with 5 staff's recommendations to the Board. 6 --o0o-- 7 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: The Board has 8 recently adopted several key rulemakings to reduce 9 emissions from goods movement, including low sulfur fuel 10 for most applications, truck idling limits, sulfur limits 11 and ship auxiliary engine fuels, the diesel fuel rule for 12 cargo handling equipment, a ban on cruise ship 13 incineration close to California's coast, and requirements 14 for international border trucks. 15 --o0o-- 16 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: ARB staff has 17 also completed several other projects to support our goods 18 movement initiative. Starting with the risk assessment 19 for the Roseville rail yard that resulted in the 2005 20 agreement with the railroads to reduce diesel PM risk at 21 rail yards. 22 Then the risk assessment for the Ports of 23 Los Angeles and Long Beach that prioritized the Board's 24 rulemaking for cargo handling equipment and ship auxiliary 25 engine fuels. And most recently, the draft ARB reports on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 shore power for ships that is the first significant 2 technical step towards implementation. 3 Finally, the port truck report released last week 4 that is already stimulating much discussion about 5 additional data to better understand the industry as well 6 as the optimum technical approach to upgrade the fleet. 7 --o0o-- 8 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Recognizing the 9 urgent need for further emission reductions, we are 10 proposing that the Board approve the following list of 11 near-term action items for ARB staff to pursue. We 12 believe that staff should initiate development of ARB 13 rulemaking or effective alternatives between now and 2007 14 to cut emissions from port trucks and privately-owned 15 truck fleets to implement low sulfur marine propulsion 16 engine fuels, to increase the use of shore power by ships 17 and harbor craft, to clean up the harbor craft fleets, to 18 set new harbor craft engine standards, to upgrade the 19 switcher and local yard locomotives, and to bring cleaner 20 ships to California. 21 In the same time frame, we need U.S. EPA to 22 complement California's efforts and set advance technology 23 emission standards for new and rebuilt locomotives both 24 auxiliary and main engines on all ships operating in U.S. 25 water and new harbor craft engines. We also expect U.S. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 EPA to propose a SOx emission control area for the west 2 coast of North America largely based on technical work 3 being done by ARB staff. 4 --o0o-- 5 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: Another 6 near-term activity is the anticipated completion of the 7 Phase II Goods Movement Action Plan this summer focused on 8 improving the transport of international goods around the 9 state and mitigating its impacts. 10 One of the key principles in the draft Action 11 Plan is simultaneous and continuous improvement in both 12 infrastructure and mitigation for goods movement. The 13 Phase II Action Plan relies on ARB Emission Reduction Plan 14 to set emission targets for four goods movement corridors 15 in the state in each of the three milestone years that you 16 see. 17 It also calls on ARB to verify progress towards 18 those targets starting in 2008 and then after each 19 milestone year. 20 The proposed Emission Reduction Plan is 21 consistent with the progress goals and the verification 22 approach outlined in the Action Plan. But the Emission 23 Reduction Plan covers both international and domestic 24 goods movement to address our other air quality agendas. 25 As Ms. Witherspoon mentioned, we expect to work with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 California EPA and the Business, Transportation, and 2 Housing Agency to identify the international components of 3 our Emission Reduction Plan that apply to the four 4 corridors used in the Goods Movement Action plan. 5 --o0o-- 6 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: I'll conclude 7 this presentation with ARB staff's recommendation for your 8 consideration today. 9 --o0o-- 10 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: We recommend 11 that the Board approve the goals in the proposed Emission 12 Reduction Plan, the overall overarching strategy to reduce 13 emissions, and the list of near-term action items on slide 14 71. 15 --o0o-- 16 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF MARVIN: In addition, we 17 recommend that you direct staff to expeditiously pursue 18 proposed ARB rules and other actions; to initiate a public 19 process to identify additional strategies to reduce 20 localized health risk; and to report back to the Board in 21 November and every six months thereafter at the pleasure 22 of the Board. 23 I'd like to conclude the presentation. And 24 especially I'd like to thank the Board members for your 25 patience and attention through this extensive review of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 the plan. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And I want to thank Mike 3 Scheible and the entire team of Air Resources Board staff 4 members who prepared what we have before us today. 5 Do Board members have questions of staff at this 6 time? 7 Dr. Gong or Mrs. Riordan? 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Not really a question, but 9 just to comment and say it was a Herculean effort, was 10 done very well. And I appreciated very much its clarity 11 and the presentation this morning that allowed us I think 12 to focus on what our efforts should be near-term, 13 long-term. And I thank you very much. 14 The two programs that -- one would be the 15 modification of the trucks. That would be in the report 16 that just came out. And your other report, I'm not sure I 17 have a copy of it, but I would be very greatful to you to 18 get a copy sent to me. I would appreciate that. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We brought those 20 to the hearing today. It should have been at your table, 21 but we'll get them to you momentarily. Both the cooling 22 ironing report and the drayage truck report. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: It was an excellent summary, 25 of a very complicated topic. And I appreciate the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 highlighting and emphasis here and there. I had questions 2 regarding the funding slide. There's only one slide on 3 there, but it think it's obviously an important topic as 4 to how we can all purchase all these changes that we're 5 thinking about. In there, in that slide, the last line 6 was role of container fees or other potential funding 7 sources, uncertain. I would just asking what did you mean 8 by uncertain? I'm uncertain by what you mean by 9 uncertain. 10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, the 11 mechanism by which such fees would be generated is 12 uncertain. There's been proposals over the last couple of 13 years for legislation that was basically assigned or 14 establish a fee that would then go for environmental 15 mitigation. There are couple of programs, the Pier Pass 16 and Alameda Corridor, where agreements have been entered 17 into by basically the industry to pay fees to reimburse 18 the costs of the capital project or to cover the cost of 19 the Pier Pass Program. So that's another mechanism that 20 might be used. 21 And what we've done is trying to show -- give a 22 perspective of if the truck modernization program or the 23 cold ironing effort were to be funded with container fees 24 for that part of the industry, what it would be in terms 25 of what amount it would be and how it would increase the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 cost of the shipping containers throughout California. 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I would also add, 3 because we've urge the Board to use its regulatory 4 authority whenever possible, the implication when you 5 impose regulations is that the private industry bears the 6 cost. We also stress where we think that's not possible 7 in the case of small fishing vessels and drayage trucks. 8 And the issue will be where to draw that line and how much 9 funding comes through state directed action or these 10 voluntary agreements. 11 Mr. Scheible neglected to mention tariffs as 12 well, which is another mechanism the ports have for 13 collection of resources to apply to particular uses. In 14 every case, the legality is quite complex. And we're 15 still not experts in all of the aspects of the different 16 funding mechanisms. And so that's going to need a lot of 17 attention. A bond is easy if we had it to implement. 18 That's the easiest of all. And if we don't have that 19 luxury, we will have to become experts in these other 20 mechanisms. 21 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And two rules 22 the Board adopted in December, the assumption is the 23 industry will pay completely for the cost of modernizing 24 container handling equipment and for increased cost of the 25 distillate low sulfur fuels that must be burned beginning PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 in 2007. 2 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I guess what I'm reacting to 3 is I think that the funding will be a challenge as to 4 where you actually get this support, financial support. 5 And I don't think we should preclude anything at the 6 moment, especially at this early phase, I guess container 7 fees or whatever. 8 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I have a related question. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Kennard. 10 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I too had some concerns 11 about the funding, because should the Board adopt this 12 resolution, it would all be for not if we can't present a 13 strategy to fund all these initiatives. 14 So assuming that the Board votes positively on 15 this recommendation, I think it might be helpful for in 16 your six month review to come back with a much more 17 detailed analysis on the sources of the uses of the 18 funding or the initiatives that you believe will go 19 forward. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We intend to do 21 that very much. And when I said we might need to come 22 back to you for direction on sector specific strategies, I 23 was alluding to the drayage truck measure. If there are 24 no bonds, we have to rethink that completely, we will 25 finance it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 2 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Let me follow the 3 direction of the two previous questions. The 4 administrative plan on the goods movement action, it has 5 not made final calls for how improvement should be funded; 6 is that correct? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That is correct. 8 The Administration's plan is trying to influence the 9 expenditures of local transportation dollars, federal 10 transportation dollars, and to use as enticement new bond 11 funds directed in a matching capacity to projects that the 12 Administration thinks are vitally important to relieve 13 congestion around the ports. And so bonds matter to 14 whether or not those infrastructure projects come to 15 fruition. All of them are in the regional transportation 16 plans, but not in the same priority order that the 17 Administration would like to see. 18 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just an observation. I 19 don't think there's any more important issue before 20 Southern California than goods movement. It was sort of 21 summarized by a conference that took place here is the 22 quest for faster freight and cleaner air. They obviously 23 go in tandem. There's a working consensus paper SCAG has 24 which estimates the infrastructure cost of 26 billion and 25 the environemental cost, 10 billion. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 It seems to me unless we're able to identify 2 collectively and soon a major funding source, a lot of 3 this talk about goods movement simply becomes idle talk 4 and the problems continue. It may be beyond the scope of 5 our meeting today. But I think it's time that this region 6 and the state cross the finish line and indeed find ways 7 to fund both the infrastructure costs and the 8 environmental costs. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: One of the things 10 the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency has begun 11 talking about are multi-year revisits of this bond 12 proposal. For example, because although the Governor came 13 out with $50 billion at the outset, the Legislature 14 already decided to cut that back to about half, you know, 15 in the current date. And again, the 50 billion was not 16 consistent with the Administration's own estimates what 17 was needed over the next several years. So they began 18 talking about a multi-year strategy through the 2020 19 horizon where they would keep adding to the total. But 20 you're quite right. We have to keep our eye on that all 21 the time. 22 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Well, just the current 23 infrastructure bond proposal, that's a down payment on 24 what is required. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: If there are no other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 comments or questions from the Board at this time, I would 2 propose we take a ten-minute break for our court reporter. 3 Then we will begin the public testimony. 4 For those of you who want to plan ahead, I 5 anticipate we'll have about an hour-and-a-half of public 6 testimony before we take a lunch break. Again, those of 7 you who may have time constraints on your availability to 8 provide testimony, make certain we know that, and we'll 9 try to accommodate you. 10 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken.) 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I would remind you that I 12 will be instituting a three-minute limit, which could be 13 extended by Board member questions. And I will be listing 14 the next three speakers at a time. So if you hear your 15 name, please come forward so you can be ready to give us 16 your comments. 17 The first three speakers are Mayor Forester, 18 Signal Hill; Joe Lyou, and Noel Park. 19 Mayor Forester, thank you for coming. 20 MAYOR FORESTER: Thank you. Thank you for having 21 me here. Just so you know, I'm the Mayor of Signal Hill, 22 which is that little hill. It's the geographic center of 23 Long Beach. I'm here today as also a representative of 24 what's called the Coalition for Practical Regulation, 43 25 of the 88 cities in L.A. County. And if you want to know PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 those cities, I provided you a copy with my comments and 2 all the cities are listed on the left hand side. 3 Our cities are particularly affected by the air 4 quality impacts related to the goods movement in the ports 5 of Long Beach and L.A. We support the Air Resources 6 Board's efforts to address environmental impacts on our 7 local ports and impacts from goods movement in our region. 8 Our cities also understand the ports are one of the major 9 economic engines for our region, state, and nation. Our 10 communities have undertaken the difficult task of 11 balancing environmental improvements with goods movements 12 and economic development. We believe the Air Resources 13 Board must do the same. And it's a balancing act. 14 Our cities have been particularly proactive with 15 exploring alternatives and market-based approaches to 16 reducing water pollution. Taking a page from the air 17 emissions market-trading plan over a decade ago, we have 18 been applying this alternative to reducing trash in the 19 harbor and local rivers. 20 We recently participated in funding with the U.S. 21 EPA a study on a market-based approach to reducing the 22 amount of trash found in Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor 23 area. The second phase of the study conducts a pilot 24 program involving all the stakeholders of the government 25 and private sector. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 This market-based alternative has engaged the 2 public and private sector in searching for solutions to 3 water pollution by crafting a plan that increases 4 flexibility in the finding's solutions and lowers 5 implementation costs. We believe in the long run this 6 alternative will provide to be a more effective and timely 7 regulation. 8 We appreciate the Board meeting of the State 9 Board to review the linkage between air pollution and 10 water pollution in Southern California which we had 11 several months ago. This outside-the-box thinking 12 approach is necessary and a worthwhile development since 13 the problems with air and water pollution are large and 14 involve numerous stakeholders. We urge you to think 15 outside the box when considering alternatives to the 16 Emission Reduction Plan for the ports and goods movements. 17 The outside-the-box alternative exists in the 18 Maritime Goods Movement Coalition and it's plan for 19 marketing and trading. It will provide greater near-term 20 health benefits, lowered implementation costs, and be more 21 effective in the regulation in the long run. This plan 22 could be a win-win for all the stakeholders. Again, I ask 23 that my statements be entered into the record, and I thank 24 you for the time. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much, Mayor. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 Are there any questions? 2 The next speaker, Joe Lyou, Noel Park. And then 3 we'll have Kim Craft, Daniel Nord, and John Miller. 4 MR. LYOU: Thank you very much for your courtesy. 5 My friend, Dr. John Miller, will speak in a minute and 6 he'll say a little more about his phrase the diesel death 7 zone that he coined. I would only say welcome to the 8 diesel death zone. And I compliment you on your courage 9 in venturing hitherto to help us to protect our 10 communities. 11 As I think about the response -- I'm the 12 President of the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners Coalition 13 and also a member of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood 14 Counsel. The response in our community I think, to those 15 of us who study this situation, is about equally divided 16 between anger and fear. You know, if you look at the 17 MATES II study, which we stumbled upon in the year 2000 18 and the raw data, you would see our community, front line 19 community, is arguably the hottest of the hot spots in the 20 South Coast Air Basin when it comes to this diesel 21 particulate air pollution. And so we desperately need 22 your help. 23 We think that what we need to do is adopt an 24 aggressive plan now with specific time lines and implement 25 measures through mandatory rules. We have zero confidence PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 in voluntary emissions training and MOUs. Please use your 2 regulatory power now. 3 As we have engaged with two courts and with this 4 industry, I was playing a word association game with 5 myself this morning. And the words that came to my mind 6 were obfuscation, stalling, spin, and recalcitrance. 7 We are making very little headway. The existing 8 programs are token programs. The growth overwhelms them 9 everyday. We need you to step in. 10 Mr. Chairman, you said something at the beginning 11 about the pioneering efforts to continue for the good of 12 the state. The pioneering efforts of CARB are absolutely 13 true, for example, in the automotive field where you've 14 been so effective. We need you to please bring that full 15 force to the diesel pollution field. 16 I'd like to finish up talking about container 17 fees. A lot of you mentioned the cost of all of this and 18 rightfully so. We have zero interest in having these 19 costs continue to be externalized onto us. And Senator 20 Alan Lowenthal as you know has proposed this legislation 21 to impose container fees, which has been assailed by 22 squadrons of lobbyists and declared a job killer and so on 23 and so forth. 24 But interestingly, the Los Angeles Times 25 mentioned the other day that a 40-foot container holds PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 12,300 shoe boxes. And Senator Lowenthal's proposed fee 2 was $30 for 20-foot equivalent unit, which is $60 per 3 40-foot container. If you do the math, you find out that 4 equates to slightly less than half a cent per pair of 5 tennis shoes. 6 So one of my neighbors says, "Gee wiz, what kind 7 of an industry won't pay a half a cent a pair of shoes to 8 clean up its mess?" If you extrapolate the size of a shoe 9 box to a big screen TV or a cell phone or whatever, pretty 10 soon it becomes pretty obvious that we're talking about 11 pennies per unit. And it's totally asymmetrical. So, 12 please, use your regulatory powers and aggressively go 13 after this. 14 Somebody told me a minute ago it was John Maynard 15 Kaines who said, "In the long run, we're all dead." Okay. 16 Many of us sort of middle aged and older folks can't wait 17 until 2020. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 19 Kim Craft. 20 MR. CRAFT: Good morning. My name is Kim Craft. 21 I'm here today representing Local 11 International 22 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 23 We currently have 8,000 members and families who 24 live in the Los Angeles community, about 1500 of them who 25 live here in the Port of Long Beach and in the San Pedro PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 area. 2 I'm here today to say that we support the ARB's 3 efforts to address the environmental impacts in the Port 4 of Long Beach and Los Angeles. However, it is important 5 that we balance environmental protection with the need to 6 secure California jobs and economy and allow the economy 7 to continue to grow and prosper. 8 With that said, we do believe that the 9 Committee's recommendation today goes a long ways towards 10 those efforts. But I would also like to address some of 11 the additional strategies to reduce local health risks in 12 our community. 13 We've recently in just a little ways up the Long 14 Beach freeway built a $10 million training facility to 15 train construction workers to build the infrastructure of 16 the future. At that facility, we installed one of the 17 tenth largest solar powered systems in the United States 18 to power the facility. That facility is 144,000 square 19 feet. The solar panels on that building are going to 20 generate 9,000 kilowatt hours of power a year. With that, 21 we will reduce emissions as far as sulfur dioxide by 1,638 22 pounds; by nitric oxide, 3,250 pounds; and by carbon 23 dioxide, 1,000,540 pounds per year. 24 In this harbor, there's going to be a need for 25 administrative buildings. There's going to be a need for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 maintenance facilities. And if we go to solar power 2 alternatives not only in this harbor, but get behind this 3 and support this throughout the Los Angeles community, we 4 can go a long ways to share common goals. And the IBW is 5 leading the way in this technology. And we've done it by 6 investing in our community and showing and leading the way 7 to show how effective we can be. 8 And we're going to have an open house the 27th of 9 this month to show the community of Los Angeles how we 10 can, in fact, support growth and do it in an 11 environmentally friendly way. Later on today, another one 12 of our members is going to get up and speak to you about 13 how important and how effective this shore power can be in 14 the harbor. Thank you very much for your time. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 16 MR. CRAFT: And I've got copies I'll leave with 17 the clerk. I've got this system that we've installed and 18 how effective it is. Thank you. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 20 Daniel Nord. 21 MR. NORD: I'm a resident, homeowner, and small 22 business owner in San Pedro. My neighborhood adjacent to 23 the Port of Los Angeles is a diverse one. It is also a 24 neighborhood filled with disenfranchised people, renters 25 who don't feel they have a stake in the community, English PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 as a second language immigrants, military personnel who 2 are not allowed to speak regarding political matters, 3 homeless, and mentally ill and others. These are 4 thousands of people who live right next to the Port of 5 Los Angeles who are most effected by port activities and 6 goods movement who would never come to meetings such as 7 this or neighborhood counsel meetings or speak at any 8 other public forum. 9 I do not claim to represent all these people, but 10 I live and work among them. I live and work and eat and 11 sleep in the same toxic brown cloud generated from port 12 activity that hovers over our community, the human buffer 13 zone. Many of us are extremely concerned. According to 14 some statistics, the annual premature death rate due to 15 cancer in my neighborhood is one in 200. The childhood 16 asthma rate is abnormally high, and there are untold death 17 and health care costs that are borne by our local 18 community, and beyond that, borne by hundreds of thousands 19 of residents in our air basin. 20 I'm tired of wiping the black particulates off 21 the fruit that I pick from my lemon tree, fruit that I'm 22 afraid to eat. I'm so extremely sad to hear of another 23 port worker, a friend, a non-smoker with throat cancer or 24 another friend with cardiopulmonary disease. I 25 wholeheartedly support your efforts to create this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 Emission Reduction Plan, and I applaud your recognition 2 that the no net increase slogan, although it makes a great 3 sound bit, is insufficient. Although this Action Plan is 4 a crucial step, I understand that it is in actuality a 5 non-regulatory plan. In addition and as part of this 6 important effort, I'm asking you to develop short term 7 mitigation regulations. 8 And I urge you to enact a moratorium on port 9 growth and development that does not meet real clean air 10 standards. We need legislation. The feel-good voluntary 11 handshake deals between ports and their industrial 12 partners proclaiming valued cleanup efforts are not 13 enough. They have been for the most part PR opportunities 14 for polluters who continue to move forward as they have in 15 the past. 16 Legislation addressing immediate, short-term, and 17 long-term air quality issues will be the only real 18 standards to which these powerful businesses will adhere. 19 I'm encouraged by this Emission Reduction Plan, but we 20 need aggressive action right now. Please initiate and 21 expedite regulation and legislation for short-term as well 22 as long-term measures. Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 24 John Miller, and then we'll have Janet Gunter, 25 Marie Malahi, and Jesse Marquez. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 MR. MILLER: Good morning, Board members. I'm 2 Dr. John Miller. I'm a Board certified emergency room 3 physician. I live at the head waters of this diesel death 4 zone here in San Pedro and work within the diesel death 5 zone that extends out across the South Coast Air Basin. 6 I work in the ER. This is a place where the 7 rubber meets the road on this issue. In the emergency 8 room, we see the victims of all these health problems. 9 All the industry, PR, the green wash, and the green spin 10 evaporates in the ER. All this happy green talk about the 11 future evaporates when I'm confronted with men, women, and 12 children sick and dying with the conditions that the 13 medical literature demonstrate that are caused by or made 14 worse by this pollution. This problem is right now. 15 It's my job -- we try to save people's lives in 16 the ER. But sometimes when we have people with heart 17 attacks or bad attacks of chronic obstructive pulmonary 18 disease or asthma, we don't save those patients. Or we 19 can't save these patients in the case of lung cancer. And 20 it's often my job I have to go and sit down with the 21 family and tell them that their family member didn't make 22 it. And I'm damn tired of doing that, and some of that is 23 being caused by all this pollution. 24 You have before you on page ES a Resolution. But 25 on page ES-1 of the proposed Emissions Reduction Plan is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 stated an important goal of the plan. Phase 1 of the 2 Action Plan was to "ensure sufficiently localized risk 3 reduction in each affected community." That's in this 4 plan right here. 5 However, the four goals in the actual Resolution 6 before you totally drop this goal of localized risk 7 reduction. You have a different and diminished set of 8 goals before you than was produced in this plan. 9 I want to ask the Board to put the goal of 10 ensuring sufficient localized risk reduction back into the 11 goals of the Resolution. As members of the port 12 communities, we're concerned that risk reduction in our 13 communities will not be reduced as much as that compared 14 to statewide populations because of the influence and the 15 unique sources of ocean going vessels, harbor craft, cargo 16 handling equipment that we face. 17 I don't see that the taxpayers should have to pay 18 all these externalized costs that have been generated by 19 this industry. This industry has had a free ride. The 20 industry that has had a free ride so far should be made to 21 pay the costs of fixing this problem and to compensate the 22 victims of the disease and death they have caused. Diesel 23 exhaust air pollution is the asbestos of this century. 24 It's even bad for residential real estate values near the 25 port. I figure using Concerned Scientist's data -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Miller, could you 2 conclude your comments, please? 3 MR. MILLER: It's costing us $464,000 per shift 4 call in health care costs right now. Thank you. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 6 Janet Gunter. 7 MS. GUNTER: Good afternoon. I wanted to stress 8 I'm a local resident in San Pedro. And I want to stress 9 to you also the absolute importance of paying attention to 10 the local area that is so much more adversely effected at 11 this time by pollution levels. 12 Just a little story. In the year about 2000, I 13 went to visit a local L.A. attorney on the issue of this 14 pollution and the ramifications of health impacts, Tom 15 Girardi. This man was critical in the Erin Brockovich 16 case and was instrumental in moving that case forward to 17 ultimate win. 18 He was then at the time handling a case with the 19 customs workers here in the port area, and that facility 20 has now been moved. But in that 18 months prior to their 21 filing a suit, six of them had been diagnosed with 22 cancers. Some that of breast and lung as well. And 23 Mr. Girardi said some really impactful things to me at 24 that point. He said, "I know I'm going to lose this case. 25 I'm putting $250,000 of month into fighting this." He PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 says, "But there's no chance of winning it because proving 2 causation is going to be so impossible. What I would have 3 to do in order to prove that the ports have been 4 responsible for these people's disease is rip open the 5 chests of them and produce the diseased organ emblazoned 6 with the seal of the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach." And 7 that unfortunately was how hard the case he perceived it 8 as being. And he, in fact, was right. He ended up 9 dropping the case. 10 The problem is that now we see -- actually, it's 11 not a problem for us as plaintiffs, because we're getting 12 more and more evidence and more and more substantiation of 13 that liability and of that causation by the ports. 14 We need to take a heads-up now. The tentative 15 language that we see all the time like "encouraging 16 improvements" and "incentives" and "voluntary" and "best 17 attempts" and "best efforts," and "we expect to" or "hope 18 to," they have to be replaced with real tangible words 19 that are going to make a difference like, "we will 20 require." "We are restricting." "We are demanding." "We 21 are going to enforce." Because other than -- if we don't 22 ever see that, this case, the next case that you see is 23 going to be a major case. And it's going to have multiple 24 people attached to it and multiple names. And it's going 25 to represent billions of dollars because of these problems PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 that are being caused and they directly lie at the feet of 2 these ports. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 4 Marie Malahi. 5 MS. MALAHI: Hi. Name is Marie Malahi, and I 6 have my children with me. We're residents of San Pedro 7 about two, three blocks away from the port right at the 8 off-ramp of the Harbor Freeway. 9 I know I have only a short time to talk, so I'm 10 going to give you the basic facts as much as I can. It's 11 very difficult to put ten years of health problems into a 12 very small period of time. 13 Nine out of ten of my family are suffering from 14 many health-related problems, including asthma, 15 non-seasonal allergies, year round allergies, chronic 16 sinusitis, rhinitis, bronchitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, 17 systemic scleroderma, and fibromyalgia. My uncle died of 18 lung cancer two years ago. My mother, congestive heart 19 failure. My dad had a heart attack. My son has had 20 multiple ear surgeries and now has semi-permanent to 21 permanent tubes in his ears and can't go swimming like a 22 normal child. He's had sinus surgery at four-and-a-half 23 at Children's Hospital, and he's had croup three times in 24 the last year, which is unheard of for a child to have 25 croup at eight years old for the first time. My mom has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 developed severe asthma at 50 years old and actually moved 2 to the other side of San Pedro closer to the ocean 3 thinking it's going to be better. It hasn't been. 4 My kids, my nephew, and my mother all use 5 nebulizers regularly and medication for asthma. My 6 husband, who didn't move down to San Pedro until we got 7 married about ten years ago, has now had pneumonia, severe 8 ear infections, and tubes put in his ears. He's never 9 seen a doctor a day in his life before that, neither has 10 my family before moving to San Pedro, meaning my parents 11 or my sisters. 12 My grandmother, my father, and myself both have 13 been diagnosed in the last five years with chronic 14 bronchitis and sinusitis. My parent, my sister -- I told 15 you that. 16 When the Santa Anas blow or when we have very 17 poor air quality, my air conditioner goes on. It doesn't 18 matter if it's winter. It doesn't matter if it's in the 19 middle of the night. My children start having really 20 severe problems. Even I can't move. I feel tired. I 21 can't get any air in my chest. We have a living air 22 purifier that was given to us by someone who read one of 23 our stories in the local newspaper. Thank God for that, 24 because at least now my son doesn't go to sleep coughing 25 himself to sleep anymore. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 My daughter has developed asthma and was 2 diagnosed at nine months old with asthma and bad 3 allergies. She even brings the nebulizer to me when she's 4 having problems herself. Okay. 5 I have several outstanding medical bills due to 6 health problems and no way to pay them. My kids are 7 currently uninsured. My husband is out of work. And my 8 story is just one of many just in my neighborhood. Okay. 9 My neighborhood is filled with asthmatic people, 10 both young and old, all undeserving of having this air 11 pollution related or caused problem. And sorry, but 12 building another recreational center or offering a 13 baseball field to the community in the shadows of the port 14 just seems a little ironic to me when everybody's just 15 going to be breathing a hell of a lot more deeply and 16 harder of this polluted air. 17 I have had several doctors tell me it's all 18 because of the air quality. But isn't air quality and air 19 pollution the same thing? 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Could you conclude your 21 remarks? 22 MS. MALAHI: Yes. I'm almost finished. 23 Isn't air quality and air pollution the same 24 thing? Why don't we just call it by its true name, air 25 pollution level? It's about the amount of pollutants in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 the air. And once that fact is accepted, then maybe, just 2 maybe, something will finally be done about the so-called 3 air quality -- well, actually, sorry, the air pollution 4 level. It's not such a pretty name when you call it that. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. And 7 thank you for bringing your children. 8 Jesse Marquez. And next we'll have Julie 9 Scoville, Gordana Kidrpeoglou, and Kathleen Woodfield. 10 MR. MARQUEZ: Thank you very much for this 11 opportunity to come into our community so we can speak. 12 My name is Jesse Marquez. I'm Executive Director of the 13 Coalition for a Safe Environment. I live at 613 North 14 Avenue. That's four blocks from the Port of L.A., 20 15 blocks from the Port of Long Beach, and about 15 blocks 16 from the Alameda Corridor. 17 I want to first thank you and all your staff for 18 the work you've done. However, now we need to fine tune 19 this document. 20 It must be the purpose of this report to 21 eliminate air pollution and its impact on public health 22 and the environment, not to minimize it to an acceptable 23 level. 24 As Board members, you may be thinking that you 25 must make a balance between the business industry and the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 public. But I first want to show you -- want you to show 2 me where has there been any balance in the past? Tell me, 3 how many of you are suffering from lung cancer? How many 4 ports CEOs? How many Board of Harbor Commissioners? How 5 many shipping companies CEOs? How many retail CEOs are 6 suffering from lung cancer? You'll find out the answer is 7 none. None today. None last year. None in any previous 8 years. So never has been a balance. We need you to do 9 the right thing. 10 I asked you to show me where the public has given 11 ARB, any port, any shipping company, any goods movement 12 industry the right or permission to pollute our air, to 13 pollute our environment, to give us cancer, to give us 14 cardiopulmonary disease, to give us asthma, or any one of 15 over 30 different health problems. We gave no one that 16 permission. 17 We now ask you to clean up the pollution and 18 improve our health. Does technology exist today to reduce 19 air pollution? The answer is yes. Technology exists this 20 very day right now to eliminate over 80 percent of all air 21 pollution. It does exist. And in the next two to five 22 years, that percentage can increase with other new 23 emerging alternative technologies that are coming online. 24 You must embrace. You must adopt. And you must 25 support these technologies and these equipment that can PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 help eliminate any pollution and environmental impact. 2 You ask about the cost. I can tell you about the 3 cost. Why isn't there any documentation in this report 4 that tells you the cost to switch from the most polluting 5 bunker fuel to the lowest sulfur diesel fuel? Well, we 6 have looked into it. It's less than two cents added to 7 the retail cost of any product coming in a container. How 8 much does it cost to add the best available control 9 technologies? Less than two cents added to any retail 10 product. What does it cost to add the new emergency 11 technology? Two cents or less. And what does it cost for 12 health care? About three to five cents. So for about a 13 dime if your staff was to go back and calculate what would 14 that cost be, it's about ten cents. 15 You show me one industry in the last 20 years 16 that made any significant change to improve the 17 environment or public health. It was none. It took the 18 communities of San Pedro and Wilmington to sue the Port of 19 L.A. in the China shipping lawsuit to make anything 20 happen. Since there's been one cold ironing terminal, how 21 many more have voluntarily gone online? None. Absolutely 22 none. 23 What have the Board of Harbor Commissioners 24 proved that's going to reduce any significant pollution in 25 the next five years? None. We need you to take action. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 We need you to impose the most strictest standards. We 2 need you to be the leaders to go forward and tell 3 Legislators, our Senators, and our Assemblymembers and our 4 Governor to make this plan happen, we need to have these 5 rules, these regulations, and these technologies and these 6 plans adopted. Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 8 Gordona Kidrpeoglou. Excuse me. 9 MS. KIDRPEOGLOU: Hello. My name is Gordona 10 Kidrpeolou, and I live at 231 West 11th Street, San Pedro. 11 I've been a resident in San Pedro since 1964. I seen 12 changes, quite a lot. My husband is a merchant marine, so 13 I'm pretty familiar. It was a time that he was a 14 fisherman, but we destroyed that industry. We destroy 15 everything possible, instead of taking responsibility and 16 putting responsibility on the companies that pollute and 17 destroy. Make them be responsible. Like you saw those 18 little kids. For every child, because that's our duty as 19 human beings. 20 And I'm very proud to be with Jesse on his side, 21 because Jesse is a roll model to a lot of people. Maybe 22 you don't agree. Maybe a lot of people don't agree. But 23 you know what? There is one thing we have to think about 24 it. Not ourselves, not our greed. Ourself as a human 25 being, stand there and fight for what's right: Humanity. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 Just because you're not capable to live in Palos Verdes 2 and have clean air, people down on the docks where I live, 3 they have to breathe too. And we all have to breathe. We 4 all need clean air. We don't want to be sick. There are 5 so many big companies they don't want to take 6 responsibility for anything. It's up to you to make them 7 see. 8 Jesse said it. It doesn't cost too much, but our 9 lives are worth something. We are human beings. We don't 10 ask for much. We just want to breathe clean air. Don't 11 you all agree with that? Isn't that a part of everyone of 12 us here, to be decent, to be human? Thank you. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 14 Julia Scoville. 15 MS. SCOVILLE: Hi. My name is Julia Scoville. I 16 live in San Pedro, and I'm a retired registered nurse and 17 a member of the Coalition for a Safe Environment and the 18 Gray Panthers of Long Beach. 19 When I worked as an RN, I worked considerably in 20 the respiratory unit, and I witnessed during the high 21 pollution days our admissions of respiratory problems 22 doubled, but in acute stages. And it was quite 23 frightening to have your person with asthma coming in 24 during the acute stage. You have to really do things 25 quickly. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 And also people, especially the seniors who had 2 emphysema and could get along fairly well on most days, 3 during the acute pollution days, they would go into a 4 stage of crisis and they required immediate attention 5 also. 6 In the mean time, in Wilmington, we had children 7 who suffered acute asthmatic attacks. And I know that I 8 would pass by the outpatient clinics, and it was crowded 9 on those days. 10 I, myself, developed a sore throat and -- a 11 chronic sore throat and a chronic cough. I lived on a 12 boat in the marina across from the Matson Lines. And at 13 that time I was an officer with the Gray Panthers of Long 14 Beach and attended the Council meetings. Senator 15 Lowenthal called for a hearing on air pollution. That was 16 over ten years ago. And he had a number of people 17 testify, including scientists. And I went to one of the 18 scientists after he testified and asked what he would 19 recommend that I do, because I was developing this chronic 20 condition. He said, "The only solution is to move." 21 Well, that was okay. I could drop the lines and take off 22 for another area. But people whose homes are right there 23 can't do that. So we still have this problem, and I know 24 Senator Lowenthal has been working on it all this time. 25 I suggest to your Board, adopt the following PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 items: 2 Number one, to enact the most stringent air 3 pollution control standards in California with time 4 limits. 5 Also number two, a harbor community mitigation 6 plan to reduce the pollution by 90 percent within the next 7 ten years. 8 Make the ports and private businesses pay for 9 their share of pollution cleanup, including the education 10 of doctors and nurses who are taking care of the victims 11 of this pollution. 12 I also urge you to study and explore and 13 implement non-polluting methods of transportation. They 14 exist and the technology is there. All we need to do is 15 the will to change. Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 17 Kathleen Woodfield. And next will be Marisela 18 Knott, Lena Maun DeSantis, and Robert Kanter. 19 MS. WOODFIELD: Good afternoon, Board. And thank 20 you for this opportunity. My name is Kathleen Woodfield. 21 I'm with the San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners' Coalition. I 22 live in San Pedro. 23 I also would like you to recognize the change in 24 the goals that we feel, the local people feel, is to our 25 detriment. You've been asked to approve the goals. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 Please, I hope that the testimony you're hearing from the 2 local people compels you to put the goals back to where 3 they were on a previous draft, which was to focus energy 4 towards local communities and bringing those -- reducing 5 those risks to the local communities. This has been 6 removed. It needs to be placed back into the Resolution 7 6-14. 8 What it does as it is now is it sends the message 9 to us yet again that our communities are expendable, 10 disposal communities. We are not. We are human beings, 11 as what was mentioned by a prior speaker. We have 12 children. We're raising families. We're trying to live 13 our lives. And we're being poisoned. And we need your 14 help. 15 I have a couple of concerns additional to that. 16 My concern is some of the health risks seem to be based on 17 2001-2002 activity. We know that the port activity has 18 increased greatly over the last few years. So I would 19 imagine that would automatically lead to an understatement 20 of health risks. 21 The other concern I had, as I always have when I 22 see how much of a change or of an improvement will be made 23 by any regulation or new policy, is that I think there's 24 an assumption of 100 percent compliance, and I don't think 25 that happens in the real world. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 The other issue that I want to bring up to you is 2 my grave concern about how the environmental impact 3 reports are conducted at the Port of Los Angeles and I 4 assume at the Port of Long Beach as well, which is that 5 the overriding considerations clause is invoked over and 6 over again in these EIRs. What the overriding 7 consideration clause is, is basically in my opinion the 8 Achilles heel of CEQA. It's being exploited by the ports. 9 It allows for the port to take the position that the 10 project they are looking at is so economically beneficial 11 that it overrides the health risk concerns that are 12 brought on by the additional reduction in air quality or 13 pollution. 14 We have asked the Port of Los Angeles not to do 15 this any more, to take care of this overage through their 16 strategic plan. In other words, instead of exploiting 17 this opportunity or loophole that's in CEQA, they can 18 still maintain a commitment to reducing down to zero any 19 increase in air pollution by offsetting with an existing 20 project already in place. 21 I see I have one second. Thank you very much. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 23 Marisela Knott. 24 MS. KNOTT: Good morning, Board members. My name 25 is Marisela Knott, and I'm a community member in the city PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 of Commerce. 2 For our community, this Goods Movement Plan 3 doesn't clearly identify enforceable mechanisms for 4 decreasing emissions. Our communities which are inundated 5 already with the flux of rail and trucks each day will not 6 see a decrease but an increase in emission exposure with 7 the growth. 8 We also feel it appalling that with all the 9 evidences shown today, goods movement doesn't have a 10 subtitle with a caution saying, "goods movement creates 11 illnesses and causes death." 12 And as community members that live in a constant 13 exposure, we feel that we are not prioritized and 14 mitigated. There is a brick wall that divides my property 15 with the railroad maintenance facility adjacent to me. 16 But emissions don't restrict barriers. And, therefore, 17 our communities and others just like ours are exposed to 18 the greatest susceptibility to health-related illnesses. 19 We, the public, have asked that growth use 20 another source of -- to be mitigated such as more 21 stringent mitigation. Like thinking outside the box, 22 avenues such as electric rail, we ask that the Air 23 Resources Board no longer allow communities to be 24 bombarded with the flux of environmental injustice. And 25 we ask that the corporate -- that you incorporate in this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 plan more stringent and implement strategies for reducing 2 exposure to our communities. Thank you for your time. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sawyer, 5 before we go to the next witness, I believe we're moving 6 away from community members into ports. I want to address 7 the issue that's been raised a couple times about staff 8 abandoning its attention to localized impacts, because I 9 think there is a misunderstanding. That is absolutely not 10 the case. Our regulatory schedule is prioritized by what 11 effects communities the most. 12 Our diesel risk reduction target of 85 percent by 13 2020 also is focused on where exposures are the greatest. 14 And we weigh those more heavily than just mass emissions 15 reductions. And then in the draft Resolution for you, 16 we're attempting to come up with additional quantitative 17 goals for local areas. We don't know what they are yet. 18 So at the bottom of page 4, there is a resolve that the 19 Board direct staff concurrent with plan implementation to 20 initiate a public process to identify additional 21 strategies to further reduce localized health risk from 22 goods movement. 23 And we've been talking to both community and 24 environmental organizations about what that might look 25 like and start working on those ideas. So it's not gone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 from the plan. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you for pointing that 3 out. I certainly concur with the importance of dealing 4 with the impacted communities. 5 Lena Maun DeSantis. 6 MS. DE SANTIS: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer and 7 members of the Board. For the record, I'm Lena Maun 8 DeSantis, and I'm an environmental specialist at the Port 9 of Los Angeles. I want to thank you for the opportunity 10 to address the Board today on behalf of the Port. 11 As you may know, the Ports of Los Angeles and 12 Long Beach are in the final stages of crafting a Clean Air 13 Plan which we anticipate releasing to the public in May of 14 this year. 15 While we support the Board's effort in addressing 16 the emissions associated with the ports and international 17 goods movement in California, we believe that the Board's 18 proposed statewide mitigation strategies -- 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Could you get a little 20 closer to the microphone, please? 21 MS. DE SANTIS: Sorry. 22 While we support the Board's efforts in 23 addressing the emissions associated with the ports and 24 international goods movement in California, we believe 25 that the Board's proposed statewide mitigation strategy PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 may be too broad and tends the fall short of the port's 2 stated goal to eliminate community health risks 3 attributable to diesel particulate matter emissions. 4 Additionally, adequate funding is imperative to 5 address and resolve the emissions impacts. Both the ports 6 and the South Coast AQMD have pledged significant funding, 7 and urge CARB to also contribute at equivalent levels. 8 In the absence of funding, statewide regulations 9 would remove funding from the South Coast regions and 10 bring about emission reductions statewide. 11 Our specific comments on December 2005 draft 12 report were submitted in writing prior to today's meeting. 13 The comments also pertain to the March 2006 report. 14 Your staff has been very supportive in providing 15 both their time and expertise during the development of 16 the Port's Clean Air Plan. We also continue to benefit 17 from CARB's research efforts, especially related to 18 estimating and testing emissions specific to goods 19 movement. We look forward to working with your staff as 20 we further develop and implement our clean air strategy 21 which is complimentary to your own and above all 22 protective of public health. We thank you for your time 23 today. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 25 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Quick comment maybe PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 directly to staff. Would it be possible since their 2 report is coming out in May, perhaps the June meeting we 3 can schedule a time for the L.A. and Long Beach report to 4 be presented to the Board? 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's something 6 we'd want to talk to the Port of L.A. about. They should 7 present their own plan probably rather than us presenting 8 it. Are you asking us to invite them? 9 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I'd like to see if we 10 can invite them to present. 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We're very eager 12 to see their plan. We haven't been able to tease too many 13 details out of them. So as soon as it's available, we'll 14 be looking at it. 15 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Let me say that one more 16 time. What I'd like to do is invite them to come to the 17 CARB meeting so we can see the plan and they can at least 18 give a highlight and overview if that's possible. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Sure. It's 20 possible. We'll talk to them about it. 21 MS. DE SANTIS: I'll pass that on. And I'm sure 22 we would love to attend as well. Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 24 Robert Kanter. 25 MR. KANTER: Good morning. My name is Bob PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 Kanter. I'm Director of Planning and Environmental 2 Affairs for the Port of Long Beach. I'm here today to 3 provide comments on behalf of the port. 4 I would like to thank the Chairman and the Board 5 for this opportunity to provide input on the CARB's 6 strategies for reducing air impacts of the maritime goods 7 movement sector. We appreciate the efforts of the CARB 8 staff whom we've worked with consistently over the years 9 and that's been a very good working relationship. 10 This has helped us identify not only the problems 11 but also some of the strategies for tackling the air 12 quality problems that we face. Strategies laid out in 13 your air Emission Reduction Plan largely are drawn from 14 the previous work. So the work of the ports, the 15 regulatory agencies, and the local communities, and 16 they're all critical for moving forward to improve the air 17 quality and reducing the impacts on the local communities. 18 As you know, the Port of Long Beach has been an 19 active participants in efforts to reduce air emissions 20 from maritime goods movement sources. We recently teamed 21 with you and had a very good success with our cargo 22 handling equipment program where we virtually retrofitted 23 100 percent of the cargo handling equipment here in the 24 Port of Long Beach. And we recognize that's an interim 25 step, but it's a big step along the way. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 As the Board moves forward with implementation of 2 the proposals contained in your plan, we believe that it's 3 important to remember the Port of Long Beach will also be 4 moving forward in parallel with some of our own reduction 5 strategies. Many of those strategies have been outlined 6 in your plan but will be followed and included in 7 environmental covenants for new and renegotiated leases 8 that we are currently doing in the Port of Long Beach. 9 Those are also consistent with our policies for the green 10 port. 11 While the port will work expeditiously to 12 implement these strategies, for example, cold ironing, and 13 other requirements, it is important to remember that over 14 the next five years there are limited legal opportunities 15 for us to open those leases and to actually impose those 16 strategies on prospective tenants or current tenants. And 17 recognizing that, we feel that it's important to move 18 forward with other strategies in concert with you and 19 other agencies. 20 As discussed in your Emission Reduction Plan, the 21 maritime industry represents an area where traditional 22 command and control regulations may be impractical or have 23 questionable legal basis. Accordingly, the ports are 24 asking the CARB staff continue to work with the port and 25 other maritime sector representatives to identify PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 strategies that can most quickly be implemented in order 2 to bring these air emission benefits to us now, not in the 3 future. 4 One of the strategies the port would like CARB to 5 support, and it's one you'll hear a little bit more about 6 Bob Wyman's market-based strategies, incentive-based 7 strategies that the Maritime Goods Movement Coalition has 8 proposed and your staff has embraced. We believe that 9 this is one approach that is important, and we think that 10 we should look at that again in the absence of some legal 11 authority. The port believes such market-based strategies 12 may provide the best tool for bringing emissions -- 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Could you conclude your 14 remarks, please? 15 MR. KANTER: Sure will. 16 While there are many near-term strategies that we 17 need to follow right now, we also recognize that there's 18 national/international avenues that should be pursued, and 19 we recommend pursuit of those immediately, and we will 20 participate. Thank you. 21 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I had a question for 22 Mr. Kanter. 23 I was curious about your statement that you could 24 impose certain regulations into your leases until they 25 expire. Most commercial leases -- and I know in our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 context in the aviation world, our leases require our 2 tenants to abide by all regulations and rules adopted by 3 local government. So that would, in fact, give you some 4 kind of context in which to impose the regulations. 5 MR. KANTER: Our current leases and all future 6 leases already require that they abide by all the rules 7 and regulations. That's not a fact. But if you have some 8 measures that are not currently in regulation and you 9 would like to impose them, then that's a negotiated -- 10 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I just want to make sure I 11 was clear on that broader -- 12 MR. KANTER: Absolutely. 13 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: The next three speakers are 15 Frank O'Brien, Bob Hoffman, and Elina Green. 16 Frank O'Brien. 17 MR. O'BRIEN: Yes. Good afternoon. My name is 18 Frank O'Brien. I live in San Pedro. I work in San Pedro. 19 I'm here speaking on behalf of the Air Quality 20 Subcommittee of the Port Community Advisory Committee at 21 the Port of L.A. And we discussed in great detail the 22 staff report, the proposed Emission Plan, and we are 23 urging and recommending adoption of the plan with the 24 following comments with further action by staff. 25 First, we are recommending that there be an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 aggressive strategy developed to address oceangoing 2 vessels. We think that's really critical. 3 Secondly, one of the great values of the plan is 4 not just the regulatory scheme that it outlines, but also 5 it's a very important information resource. For example, 6 your policies that have been put forth on local land use 7 are very useful to us at the local level. 8 The analysis of the implementation measures 9 doesn't always address enough some of the bottlenecks that 10 exist at the local agency approval process. This was 11 alluded to by Kathleen Woodfield when she talked about the 12 Statement of Overriding Considerations. So we'd like to 13 ask that staff be directed to prepare an analysis of some 14 of the local agencies decision making procedures 15 particularly with respect to CEQA and NEPA that may 16 represent hurdles to implementation. 17 And finally, I'd like to talk a little bit about 18 the proposed short-haul truck measures. The measures make 19 sense. However, that industry is extremely fragmented. 20 We do not want to see the dollar investment by government 21 go into perpetuating such a fundamentally inequitable 22 system. So we'll be looking at this particular piece to 23 make sure the mechanisms for the retrofits and trade-outs 24 are part of the overall public policy goals of, among 25 other things, good working conditions, et cetera. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 Thank you very much. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 3 Bob Hoffman. 4 MR. HOFFMAN: Good afternoon. I'm Bob Hoffman. 5 I represent Dock Watts, which is a California-based 6 company focused on shore power and cold ironing 7 development and implementation. I want to thank you for 8 the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon and applaud 9 ARB for the work they've done or data they've put together 10 for shore power, particularly Mike Waugh, and the recent 11 shore power study. 12 I've submitted comments actually addressed to 13 Cindy Tuck, because she was part of the Goods Movement 14 Action Plan, and those I think were posted. So I'll just 15 summarize those quickly and add a few other comments 16 specifically to the cold iron. 17 One, as I said earlier, is the aspect of 18 emissions concentration, and that cold iron definitely 19 does mitigate or reduce emissions concentrations in the 20 port community. That should be highlighted. The other 21 thing about cold ironing that hasn't been highlighted is 22 this is a verifiable emissions source. It's verified by 23 the electric meter. For every megawatt hour that spins, 24 there's a correlation directly to emissions reductions by 25 emissions pounds per megawatt hour. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 There's a need for standards for cold ironing. 2 That's one of the areas we need to accomplish before we 3 implement. Basically, the types of connections and the 4 wave between utilities, the electric industry, and the 5 marine industry, maritime industry needs to coordinate on 6 those standards. There are clear criteria of what makes 7 sense for cold ironing and what doesn't. Dock Watts 8 doesn't believe all ships should be cold ironing or any 9 specific hard targets of 80 percent or 60. We should get 10 cold ironing in the ships that make the most sense sooner. 11 There's a little bit of, if we build it, they will come. 12 And over time as California has proven other industries, 13 we may set a precedent where more and more ships around 14 the world will be cold iron fitted and then it will just 15 happen. 16 A key thing that's missing is the competitive 17 power supply from the utilities. We've been using 18 conventional or standard utility rates. I think we need 19 to encourage the utilities and the coordination with the 20 PUC to develop cold ironing of environmental specific 21 rates. Cold ironing is a very unique utility customer 22 class. 23 And the final comments were there's need for 24 economic incentives. 25 And on just general comments of what I've heard PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 today, I actually agree with the Mayor of Signal Hill and 2 Bob Kanter that we need to incorporate a market-based 3 solution and cap and trade type programs. My fear is that 4 if we have command and control mandates that you'll 5 eliminate the motivation for people to work with you and 6 accommodate this. And we'll just be stuck in a regulatory 7 morass. 8 It's similar in my mind to a high speed Internet. 9 Ten years ago we didn't even know what that was. Today, 10 if you go to a hotel room and you don't see a high speed 11 internet cable, or Y-Fi, you're a little upset. 12 So cold ironing in ten years is that, where ships 13 actually come in and expect that. Our examples of 14 incentive-based motivation to in stream. The example I 15 come from, I'm from the power industry is renewable 16 energy. Renewable energy, windmills and solar wouldn't 17 have happened unless there were incentives. There's 18 production tax credits, depreciation, and rebate programs 19 that promoted it. And today wind energy is actually a 20 lower cost per kilowatt hour than natural gas fire 21 generation. So it does work. There are ways to create 22 incentives. Another example is recycling programs. 23 So I'd encourage the ARB to work with the CEC and 24 the PUC and other California agencies as well as federal 25 to come up with a collective solution that makes sense for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 all involved. 2 Thank you very much for your time. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 4 Elina Green, and then we'll have T.L. Garrett, 5 Terry Dressler, and Peter Greenwald. 6 MS. GREEN: Good afternoon. Thank you for the 7 opportunity to speak. My name is Elina Green. I'm the 8 Project Manager for the Long Beach Alliance for Children 9 with Asthma. We serve -- we are a broad-based coalition 10 primarily serving families of children with asthma in Long 11 Beach and surrounding communities. 12 You may be aware that Long Beach is a hot spot. 13 We do have a 15 percent rate of lifetime ever diagnosed 14 asthma in children as compared with an 8 percent rate in 15 L.A. County overall. 16 Our families are surrounded by the impacts of the 17 goods movement. They live near the 710 freeway. The 18 ports, the trains, and the trucks pass through their 19 neighborhood delivering containers to and from the ports. 20 This Emission Reduction Plan is proposing to 21 protect the children that we serve. It mentions 860,000 22 school absences in 2020 would be decreased to 270,000 with 23 this plan. Additionally, 42,000 asthma symptoms without 24 the plan would be decreased to 21,000 with the plan. 25 My question is, what about those 21,000 asthma PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 symptoms and 270,000 school absences that are not included 2 in this plan? 3 I'm pleased that the ARB has taken the first step 4 towards creating an Emission Reduction Plan for goods 5 movement as a whole. However, the current plan does not 6 adequately protect the health of all Californians, in 7 particular the Californians that we serve. 8 Reducing risk in local neighborhoods must be a 9 consideration in this plan. Our communities live in these 10 hot spots where risk may be even higher than stated in the 11 ARB's Emission Reduction Plan. 12 Locally, what we have done is we have a 13 neighborhood assessment team who goes into these areas, 14 these local hot spots, and conducts traffic counting and 15 particulate matter monitoring to try to begin documenting 16 that there are variabilities in the impacts in these 17 communities. These are volunteer mothers who have 18 children with asthma and are directly impacted by the 19 goods movement. They started near Hudson School here 20 locally which is directly adjacent to the Terminal Island 21 freeway and near a proposed rail yard. And there they did 22 count on one afternoon in July 580 trucks passing in one 23 hour, demonstrating there is a high impact. And in fact, 24 Hudson Elementary School has requested air filters for 25 their school to try to protect them against these impacts. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 But I'm asking is this the correct way to really 2 respond to the impacts the children are experiencing in 3 these communities? 4 So please consider the health of the children who 5 are not protected by this draft of the Emission Reduction 6 Plan because of the lack of localized health impacts being 7 considered and set the precedent now by adopting deadlines 8 for the implementation of this plan and creating a more 9 aggressive plan. Thank you so much. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 11 T.L. Garrett. 12 MR. GARRETT: Good afternoon. Thank you for the 13 opportunity. My name is T.L. Garrett. I'm a Vice 14 President with the Pacific Merchant and Shipping 15 Association. I've also had the privilege of serving on 16 the Goods Movement Action Plan Integrating Committee and 17 as the co-chair for one of the Subcommittees. And as part 18 of that plan development, I have seen the tremendous work 19 and effort put forth by CARB staff, the long hours they've 20 put into bringing this plan forward today, and they should 21 be commended for the tremendous effort. 22 However, I think as a result of that effort and 23 particularly expediting this plan preparation, there's a 24 lot of areas within the plan that are not specifically 25 addressed or there's not enough information within the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 plan for us to review it. I would site things like the 2 growth forecast in particular. There's better information 3 in this draft than there was in the previous, but there's 4 still a lot of missing information. 5 Catherine stated earlier, and I really 6 appreciated her comments, on how this was associated with 7 the Goods Movement Action Plan, because I'm one of those 8 people that had a misperception. I thought they are 9 intricately linked. And now I'm hearing they're not. 10 However, I would suggest that particularly when you're 11 looking at things like the growth forecast, that without 12 the infrastructure development to support this movement of 13 cargo through California to allow us to grow the economy 14 and do it in an environmentally responsible and friendly 15 manner, that they are going to fall apart. They are 16 dependant upon each other ultimately. 17 So what we would like to respectfully request 18 this morning is that you continue this process as part of 19 the overall State Implementation Plan. We think this is a 20 necessary element of it. We also think it makes sense to 21 put the overall goods movement element within context of 22 the overall State attainment strategies. 23 There are some elements in this Goods Movement 24 Plan like passenger vessels that we don't understand why 25 they're in there, particularly when air cargo has been PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 excluded. 2 We'd also like you to direct your staff to go 3 back and in concert with the Goods Movement Action Plan 4 look at the environmental benefit of moving forward with 5 California's infrastructures that will allow us to grow 6 the economy while improving the environment. 7 And finally, we'd like to suggest that the plan 8 needs a lot of innovative thinking to achieve the goals, 9 and we do support the goals. Some of the approaches, MOUs 10 have been mentioned as one way of getting there, voluntary 11 agreements until regulations catch up. The Maritime Goods 12 Movement Coalition has been mentioned as a strategy that 13 might give the industry some additional flexibility to 14 achieve these goals sooner and at less cost. We believe 15 all of these strategies need to remain on the table as we 16 move forward to meeting these goals. Thank you very much. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 18 Mayor Loveridge. 19 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just two quick 20 questions. One little bit -- what is your association? 21 And second, do you have any policy papers representing 22 your position on this issue? 23 MR. GARRETT: Well, we submitted written comments 24 on all the documents, the Goods Movement Action Plan, and 25 the Emission Reduction Plans, both drafts. And they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 should be part of our public record. But I'd be happy to 2 provide those to you directly. 3 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Tell me what your 4 association is. 5 MR. GARRETT: We're a trade association. We 6 represent the terminal operators and ocean carrier lines 7 that bring cargoes in and out of the west coast. We have 8 offices in Seattle, Long Beach, and San Francisco. We 9 represent roughly 90 percent of containerized cargo that 10 comes in and out of the west coast and the United States. 11 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Okay. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 13 Terry Dressler. 14 MR. DRESSLER: Dr. Sawyer, members of the Board. 15 My name is Terry Dressler. I'm the Air Pollution Control 16 Officer and Director of the Santa Barbara County Air 17 Pollution Control District. And today I'm also 18 representing the California Air Pollution Control 19 Officers' Association. 20 CAPCOA strongly approves the Air Resources 21 Board's efforts to develop the comprehensive plan to 22 reduce the air quality impacts in goods movement. We are 23 very pleased to see the emission reductions from 24 heavy-duty trucks used in domestic goods movement have 25 been included in the plan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 As we have identified to your Board, we believe 2 the air quality and public health benefits from the plan 3 would be improved by the following enhancements. We 4 believe that the goal to achieve 2001 emission levels in 5 2010 should be applied to each emission source sector 6 individually to the greatest extent feasible. Due to 7 emission reduction strategies already adopted, emissions 8 under the base case are already forecasted to climb to 9 under 2001 levels by 2010. We fully understand the 10 significant challenge presented by the oceangoing vessel 11 emission sector. However, in order to achieve the 12 greatest benefit to public health, the plan's goals should 13 reflect implementation of all controls that can be 14 feasibly implemented, not simply those that have already 15 been adopted. 16 Secondly, we believe that approval of this 17 strategic plan should be followed by a prompt development 18 of an implementation plan which specifies adoption of 19 emission control measures by State, regional, and local 20 government to the maximum extent of their authority. 21 Finally, the State should work closely with local 22 governments and air quality districts and actively achieve 23 public input in all phases of the plan's implementation. 24 My remaining comments regard goods movement 25 related air pollution emissions that are of specific PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 concern to Santa Barbara County. While port areas are the 2 most noticeable receptor of trade-related pollutants, it 3 is important to know that Santa Barbara County is also 4 significantly effected by pollution generated by goods 5 movement. Marine vessel traffic that transits between 6 Southern California ports and Asia passes directly through 7 the Santa Barbara channel at cruising speed emitting 8 pollutants at a greater rate than when the vessels are at 9 port. 10 In 2005, the Santa Barbara channel had over 7,000 11 transits from over 1,400 vessels resulting in over 14,000 12 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions. That represented over 13 40 percent of the NOx emissions generated in Santa Barbara 14 County. By 2020, we expect over 13,000 transits per year, 15 which would result in NOx emissions of over 31,000 tons 16 and make up over 74 percent of the NOx emissions in Santa 17 Barbara County. These air pollution emissions from goods 18 movement would cancel out all of our expected on-shore 19 emission reductions and degrade the air quality of Santa 20 Barbara County. And this is a significant public health 21 concern for us. 22 I strongly encourage you to include the air 23 quality and public health impacts of oceangoing vessels 24 transiting California's coastal waters, not just in port 25 areas. Your plan should also address these impacts and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 provide for feasible mitigation measures. Thank you very 2 much. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We'll take Peter Greenwald, 4 Tom Jordan, and Jack Broadbent, and then following that we 5 will have a lunch break. 6 Peter Greenwald. 7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 8 presented as follows.) 9 MR. GREENWALD: Good afternoon. My name is Peter 10 Greenwald, Senior Policy Advisor for the South Coast Air 11 Quality Management District. 12 The AQMD supports adoption of this plan today and 13 urges CARB to quickly develop enforceable mechanisms to 14 carry it out. We wish to acknowledge the hard work of 15 CARB, particularly Mike Scheible. The plan is not perfect 16 or complete. Most notably, it does not include a 17 mechanism to enforce or implement the measures. We urge 18 you to develop specific schedules to adopt regulations 19 utilizing this authority of the State of California to the 20 maximum extent possible to regulate the sources that are 21 subjects of the plan. 22 In addition, we urge you to support and 23 ultimately incorporate into the plan the efforts of ports 24 and local air districts and other local governments to do 25 as much as possible using market participant authorities PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 and indirect source authorities and other regulatory 2 authorities. 3 Finally, any implementation schedule should not 4 include any delays to wait action by the federal 5 government or any international maritime association. 6 History has shown we cannot rely upon those bodies to 7 adopt emissions standards that are sufficiently stringent 8 for the severe air quality needs we have here in Southern 9 California. We need to work to solve our air quality 10 problems here and now. 11 --o0o-- 12 MR. GREENWALD: Second point I'd like to make has 13 to do with the goals. We urge you to strengthen -- next 14 slide. 15 --o0o-- 16 MR. GREENWALD: We urge you to strengthen the 17 emission goals stated in the plan for the year 2010. That 18 goal is to achieve emissions levels that existed in the 19 year 2001. 20 --o0o-- 21 MR. GREENWALD: As shown by the slide, however, 22 the 2001 level emissions will be achieved in the year 2010 23 even without implementation of any measures in the plan. 24 And that is due to the affects of existing regulations 25 that are on the books today. The situation that arose PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 because your staff responded to comments made by our 2 districts and others to broaden the scope of this plan 3 from international goods movement to all goods movement. 4 This included more truck emissions which are trending down 5 due to existing regulation. 6 The goals are important. They are the measure by 7 which the public assesses program progress, and they send 8 important signals to operators of sources. We, thus, urge 9 you to amend the year 2010 goal to be equal the emissions 10 levels that could be achieved in that year through full 11 implementation of the plan. This slide shows NOx. 12 Next slide. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. GREENWALD: Same picture is shown for 15 particulate matter. 16 Next slide. 17 --o0o-- 18 MR. GREENWALD: We urge you to include a goal in 19 the plan of achieving acceptable health risks from toxic 20 emissions from ports, rail yards, and other facilities. 21 The plan's risk reduction goal will likely not be 22 sufficient to reduce risks below commonly accepted 23 measures of significance near all major facilities. 24 Finally, we urge you to direct your staff to, 25 during plan implementation, seek to strengthen the control PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 measures to the extent possible. We particularly want to 2 focus on one measure, that related to sulfur content of 3 fuels used in marine vessel main engines. Reducing the 4 sulfur content of these fuels is the single most important 5 particulate matter control measure for non-road sources. 6 The plan proposes to take currently atrociously high 7 sulfur content levels of approximately 25,000 parts per 8 million down to 15,000 parts per million by 2010 and 5,000 9 parts per million by 2015. We believe there are 10 opportunities to accelerate the schedule and to take 11 sulfur levels down below 5,000 parts per million. 12 In closing, we look forward to working with your 13 staff and the Board in implementing this plan in an 14 expeditious and enforceable manner. Thank you very much. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 16 Comments from staff? 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TERRY: One point of 18 clarification on the goals. The goal is actually, if you 19 read the fine print, it is to meet no net increase by 2010 20 from 2001 and the maximum that's achievable beyond that. 21 And the plan performs well beyond that by 20 to 40 percent 22 varying according to pollutant. 23 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And if I 24 could add a comment. My name has been mentioned by two 25 people now as getting the credit for the plan. There are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 lots of folks at ARB that worked much harder than I worked 2 on this. Hopefully my inspiration to them made them work 3 harder, but the credit for the plan needs to go to them, 4 not me. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, whether it's 6 inspiration or a whip, thank you very much. 7 Tom Jordan. 8 MR. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of 9 the Board. My name is Tom Jordan. I'm the Special 10 Projects Administrator with the San Joaquin Valley Air 11 District. 12 I'm here today to tell the Board the district 13 supports the implementation of this plan. The district 14 submitted comments back in February asking the scope of 15 the plan be expanded to include truck goods movement and 16 goods movement within the state of California. That's 17 extremely important to the San Joaquin Valley. We're a 18 through corridor with I-5, 99, major rail lines running 19 through our district, as well as having a port on the 20 northern end of our valley. And emission reductions from 21 those categories are extremely important. 22 It's been mentioned here in the port areas this 23 is a hot spot for asthma with 15 percent asthma rates. 24 I'd just like to mention that in the San Joaquin Valley, 25 the San Joaquin Valley could be called the hot spot for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 asthma. We run about 16 percent of the kids in the San 2 Joaquin Valley have asthma as well. And so this expansion 3 of the plan is extremely important. 4 Finally, as my other colleagues have mentioned, 5 we're glad the plan has set out goals and is meeting those 6 goals, but we'd like to emphasize that as time goes on, 7 the Board should continue to look at these strategies of 8 goods movement and implement all feasible control measures 9 to continue to get reductions from goods movement in 10 California. Thanks. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I just want 13 to congratulate Mr. Jordan on his new job. I noted that 14 in the CAPCOA newsletter. 15 MR. JORDAN: Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Jack Broadbent. 17 MR. BROADBENT: Good morning, Mr. Chair and 18 members of the Board. My name is Jack Broadbent. I'm the 19 Executive Officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management 20 District. 21 Unfortunately, I have the distinction of talking 22 to you just before lunch, because I know that's what's on 23 your mind particularly, in addition to all the testimony 24 you've heard here this morning and this afternoon. 25 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 staff is here to, of course, support the adoption of the 2 Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan. We are very much 3 appreciative of the efforts by staff to hear some of our 4 concerns about incorporating not just international trade 5 but also including the maritime ports. We very much want 6 to express our appreciation for those changes. 7 Wanted to just mention a couple of points. 8 Reducing diesel particular emissions from goods movement 9 in the Bay Area is actually one of our highest priorities. 10 We believe that the exposure to diesel risk in and around 11 west Oakland is the highest risk in the Bay Area. And, 12 indeed, we have a number of efforts underway to 13 concentrate to try to address the exposure to diesel 14 emissions in and around west Oakland. 15 The comprehensive strategy before you we believe 16 provides a solid framework for building a cooperative 17 regional effort to accelerate our efforts. We at the 18 district are working very closely and have been for some 19 time with our regional partners, the Metropolitan 20 Transportation Commission, as well as ABAG. We indeed 21 funded the MTC's regional goods movement study and 22 co-hosted an all-world faster freight, cleaner air 23 conference recently. So this is something that is very 24 important to us. 25 Very much a part of these efforts to reduce the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 emissions includes also -- as I know you all know this, is 2 working with the local communities. ARB staff needs to be 3 appropriately highlighted and thanked for their including 4 basically as a fundamental pre-requisite as part of the 5 plan working with the communities. And we would, of 6 course, continue to urge that as part of this 7 implementation. 8 Finally, while urging the Board to adopt today, 9 we also want to urge the staff to incorporate and 10 strengthen the plan as has been highlighted by both 11 Mr. Dressler and Mr. Greenwald. We believe and support 12 their points that have been raised to you on how the plan 13 can be further amended. But, however, we believe that it 14 makes sense to adopt today to come back as it becomes a 15 living document and begin to become implemented. 16 So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Board to 17 adopt the staff proposal but to request it updated in the 18 future as the full Goods Movement Plan becomes put into 19 place -- the Governor's full Goods Movement Plan for the 20 State of California. Thank you very much. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 22 We will resume at 2:15, at which time Robert 23 Wyman, Larry Henderson, and Andrea Hricko will be the 24 first to speak. 25 (Thereupon a lunch recess was taken.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We will resume the hearing 2 for notice of the public. And again, the first three 3 people to be heard from will be Roberts Wyman, Larry 4 Henderson, and Andrea Hricko. 5 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Mr. Chairman, we are 6 employing two Spanish translators. Their services have 7 not been used for the last hour or two. And if anybody 8 would like to use their services this afternoon, please 9 notify them over there. Otherwise, we're going to send 10 them home. Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 12 MR. WYMAN: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and 13 members of the Board. Good afternoon. Thank you for the 14 opportunity to testify. My name is Bob Wyman. I'm with 15 Latham & Watkins. And I'm here this afternoon on behalf 16 of the Maritime Goods Movement Coalition. You've heard 17 reference to our coalition before. We are a coalition of 18 public and private port and goods movement related 19 entities who have come together to propose an integrated 20 market-based strategy for dealing with emissions from 21 pollutants. Our proposal is contained in Attachment G of 22 the staff's Emission Reduction Plan and is also referred 23 to here at the end of the text. 24 Let me begin my remarks by briefly summarizing 25 the two key elements of our proposal and then end by PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 commenting on some of the issues that have been raised 2 during the public comment period. 3 First and most important part of the proposal is 4 our belief that the state needs a single integrated plan 5 to deal with this issue as opposed to piecemeal 6 approaches. It may be that we have regional differences 7 to be sure. But we think it's very important for the 8 sector both for emissions performance and for the economy 9 that the approach be integrated. In our view, that should 10 result in the setting of performance standards, emission 11 performance standards for each sector of the goods 12 movement industry with significant flexibility provided to 13 those who are subject to those regulations. 14 The second component of the program that is 15 fundamental to our proposal is that it would be market 16 based. 17 The details of our concept are contained in 18 Attachment G. But let me just draw your attention to what 19 we see as three fundamental advantages to this program. A 20 market-based approach we think would help plug gaps in 21 legal authority. It would accelerate emission reductions 22 and health benefits. It could also be achieved at lower 23 costs, perhaps as much as 25 percent or more lower, 24 savings billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. 25 Two issues have been raised that stand out. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 first is, can you provide flexibility without hurting some 2 areas? We think so. We've designed our proposal with 3 those comments in mind to ensure that while credits can be 4 generated anywhere, they can only be used in areas that 5 already meet health benchmarks that would be established, 6 thereby ensuring that we would not make local problem 7 worse. And certainly we would accelerate improvement in 8 all other local areas. 9 The second is the claim that somehow our proposal 10 would allow people to pay to pollute. In truth, I would 11 say our proposal would make polluters pay. There is no 12 better way to ensure emission reductions than to put a 13 price on it. 14 You also need, as the Board has discussed, to 15 find sources of financing for these investments. Legally 16 permissible flexible sources of financing, and that's what 17 our proposal would do. 18 There are a lot of details. There's a lot to 19 discuss. But my time is up. And what I ask the Board to 20 do now is simply to authorize the staff to work with the 21 public and with us to develop this proposal so it can come 22 back before your Board so you can consider the details. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 25 Larry Henderson. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 MR. HENDERSON: Good afternoon, Board and hard 2 working staff. My name is Larry Henderson. I represent 3 8,000 members of IBEW Local 11. And like my partner 4 before me, probably the fourth man here, we have 1500 5 members living and working right here in the Port of 6 Los Angeles and Long Beach, Lakewood areas. And I'm here 7 to say that we all support the Air Resources Board's 8 effort and address the environmental impacts on the ports 9 of California. And yet it's still important that we 10 balance it with the ability not to hurt the economy and 11 the work and the jobs. 12 The IBEW is supportive of these goals, and we 13 were fortunate enough to be low bidder on Pier G in the 14 Port of Long Beach which engages cold ironing and all 15 their new pier projects. We were also first in Port of 16 Los Angeles on the AMP program in the barge, the China 17 ocean shipping. So we're standing here always ready to go 18 on this cold ironing. It's the thing of the future. 19 The cold ironing, the Navy has been doing it 20 forever. They did this when Pier T was the Navy base. 21 Whenever ships would pull in there, they'd plug them in. 22 They do it all over the world. 23 A ship idling puts out emissions of about one ton 24 a day. Now I've got some facts here. Come from the AMP 25 opening ceremony back in January of 2004. The Alternate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 Maritime Power facts are AMP ships eliminate an estimated 2 one ton of NOx and PM per day in port as compared to ships 3 using conventional and residual marine fuel at idling. 4 One AMP vessel call eliminates NOx emissions equivalent to 5 about 69,000 diesel truck miles, enough to drive around 6 the world three times. 7 While docked, AMPed ships remained plugged in for 8 the entire time it takes to load and unload the 9 containers. AMP technology, as known in the Port of 10 Los Angeles, is known as cold ironing in the Port of Long 11 Beach, is currently used for some barges and tug boats and 12 cruise ships in Alaska. Use of this technology for 13 container ships is unique in the world, to the Port of 14 Los Angeles, and also now Long Beach. One wharf box could 15 simultaneously charge more than 1,000 electric cars. 16 Appreciate you listening to me today. And thank 17 you very much for your time. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 19 Andrea Hricko, and next will be Lupe Valdez, Roy 20 Perez, and Cathy Reheis-Boyd. 21 MS. HRICKO: Thank you for this opportunity to 22 present comments. My name is Andrea Hricko, and I'm 23 Associate Professor of Preventive Medicine at USC. I'm 24 also Director of the Outreach Program at the Southern 25 California Environmental Health Sciences Center. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 In those capacities, I'm a colleague of the 2 scientists at USC and UCLA who are conducting important 3 air pollution research, including the Children's Health 4 Study and research on ultra-fine particles. 5 The plan before you today represents a huge 6 effort on the part of the ARB staff members, and we thank 7 them. But the plan is a difficult one on which to 8 comment. On the one hand, the ARB staff describes 9 significant health threats, important goals to reach, and 10 an urgency to take action. For example, the plan states, 11 "Timing is crucial. There is already a public health 12 threat that needs to be abated as quickly as possible 13 while we prepare for even greater growth in international 14 trade." 15 Within the draft plan lays out a series of 16 measures that at times reads like a wish list rather than 17 an aggressive and mandatory plan with deadlines to clean 18 up the air. Thus, we urge you to direct staff to make the 19 plan you adopt as strong and as aggressive as possible so 20 it will truly reach its goals and protect public health. 21 We know a lot about the health effects of air 22 pollution. USC studies have shown that air pollution is 23 linked to reduced lung function growth, increased 24 cardiovascular deaths, more asthma near freeways, 25 increased school absences. And that when kids move away PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 from Southern California, their lungs improve. From UCLA 2 studies, we know that pregnant women living near freeways 3 have more premature babies, and we know the toxicity of 4 ultra fine particles. We even know that ultra fine 5 particles can get into the brain. 6 The ARB has quantified only some of these 7 effects, so the plan underestimates the health risks. 8 Even so, the ARB staff estimates that currently there are 9 2400 deaths a year associated with pollution from ports 10 and goods movement. With an increase in trade and all the 11 ports, all the plans' provisions in place, the ARB 12 estimates there will still be 800 deaths a year in 2020. 13 That is why we need a stronger and more aggressive plan to 14 protect public health. 15 The plan says that risks are greater for those 16 living near ports, rail yards, freeways, and distribution 17 centers. That is why we need the plan to require measures 18 to reduce the localized risks which are effecting lower 19 income often minority communities who live in those areas. 20 The plan states and I quote, "Air pollution from trade and 21 goods movement is a major public health concern." 22 I would argue that 2400 deaths a year today and 23 more than 800 deaths a year in 2020 actually constitutes a 24 public health crisis in our state. Can you imagine the 25 response there would be if we had more than 2,000 deaths a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 year from the avian flu or West Nile Virus? And then if 2 the State said they have a plan to reduce that number to 3 below 900 in 15 years? That situation would never be 4 accepted. All the world's experts would be trying to 5 solve the problem. The residents who live near ports, 6 rail yards, freeways need no less of a response. 7 I urge you to adopt the plan you're considering, 8 but I urge you to direct staff to add deadlines, mandatory 9 rules, and a detailed plan on how local risk will be 10 reduced to health protective levels in effected 11 communities. I also ask you to direct the staff to 12 research and quantify all the health outcomes related to 13 goods movement, pollutants, and report back to the Board 14 with those findings. 15 And I would urge you to put the goal about 16 localized risk back into the Resolution. The goal is 17 missing. The goal was in the executive summary and in the 18 plan about localized risk. It was Goal Number 4, and it's 19 been removed from the Resolution goals. So we would urge 20 you to put that back in. Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 22 Lupe Valdez. 23 MS. VALDEZ: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer and 24 ARB Board members, as well as staff and individuals in the 25 audience. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 My name is Lupe Valdez. I'm here today in front 2 of you representing Union Pacific Railroad. Thank you for 3 the opportunity to speak and address this very important 4 issue. 5 My comments are more in the category of 6 recommendations opposed to opposition, so I want to be 7 real clear on that. We strongly believe the partnership 8 that ARB has established with the railroads in California 9 is producing tangible benefits to the people of 10 California, especially those living near rail yards. We 11 agree that there is a lot to be done, but believe that 12 linking and integrating a plan would be beneficial to all. 13 We also believe UP's commitment to replace 60 14 switcher engines in the South Coast basin in the next 15 two years will also have an incredible benefit to the 16 residents living near our rail yards. We believe these 17 engines will exceed current EPA standards substantially 18 and may even qualify for ultra low emission status. 19 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you and 20 address to you my comments today. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 22 Roy Perez. 23 MR. PEREZ: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 24 My name is Roy Perez, and I'm representing the Los Angeles 25 Metropolitan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. And the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 Metropolitan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is composed of 2 over 300 hispanic men and women that own and operate 3 businesses in the Los Angeles area, particularly near the 4 Port of Los Angeles. 5 I'm here today to say that the Los Angeles 6 Metropolitan Hispanics Chamber of Commerce supports the 7 Air Resource Board efforts to address environmental 8 impacts of the Ports of Los Angeles. However, I must 9 emphasize it is important that we balance our 10 environmental protection with the need to ensure that 11 California's jobs and the economy are allowed to continue 12 and prosper and grow. As well, that our Chamber also 13 believes the best way to protect these jobs, our 14 environment, and the state's economy is to support the 15 Maritime Goods Movement Coalition alternative emission 16 reduction proposal. Simply put, the alternative Emission 17 Reduction Plan will allow the regulated community the 18 flexibility and the choice to design and propose emission 19 reduction plans that meet their individual and unique 20 needs, while also meeting all the State and federal air 21 quality requirements and standards. 22 The MGM alternative plan provides strong 23 incentives and benefits for businesses to take quick and 24 decisive actions to reduce the emissions. In addition, to 25 allow flexibility and the options, the alternative plan PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 also encourages reductions in emissions earlier in the 2 areas that are closest impacted by these communities. 3 In closing, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Hispanic 4 Chamber of Commerce reiterates our view that California 5 can and must improve the environment while at the same 6 time protecting the economy and jobs at the ports within 7 the goods movement sector. The proactive approach 8 provided with the MGM coalition's plan we believe will do 9 this. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Hispanic Chamber of 10 Commerce urges the Air Resources Board to support the MGM 11 plan. And that being said, ladies and gentlemen, thank 12 you for the opportunity. We bid you good afternoon. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 14 Cathy Reheis-Boyd. 15 MS. REHEIS-BOYD: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and 16 members of the Board. My name is Cathy Reheis-Boyd. I'm 17 the Chief Operating Officer of the Western States 18 Petroleum Association. 19 WSPA has been very actively involved in this 20 process. We have submitted written comments through the 21 process, and those are on the record already. We 22 submitted those electronically. I myself am a member of 23 the Goods Movement Work Group and have been through the 24 process on the Goods Movement Action Plan. 25 Our members own and operate marine petroleum PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 infrastructure facilities in the ports, and the ports are 2 the prime vehicle for us to deliver our product to market. 3 Approximately 35 percent of the crude oil refined in this 4 state is handled by the marine terminals in the 5 Los Angeles basin alone. And as you all know, the demand 6 for these fuels is increasing, and it certainly exceeds 7 our in-state refining capacity. So imports are very 8 important. And, therefore, the role of the ports are very 9 important in meeting our energy needs of this state. 10 The California Energy Commission also has noted 11 this in their recent report, and they have identified 12 expanded marine oil import terminals as one of the top 13 priorities for California in meeting these needs. And we 14 certainly support the public health goals and the air 15 quality goals in your plan today, and we're also very 16 appreciative of the staff's efforts to allow this program 17 to proceed and to take into account the importance of the 18 economy and jobs in that equation. 19 I'm not going to whine too much, because Lynn 20 Terry told me I couldn't. So seriously, there's a lot of 21 information that you have put on the table today. And all 22 I'd like to say is relative to the emissions inventory and 23 the public health impacts that you posted recently, 24 there's over 100 pages that I am still finding my way 25 through. And I just hope that the Board -- and I know you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 will -- will allow the process to be fluid enough and work 2 in progress so we can give you constructive comments as we 3 go through the year towards the Goods Movement Air Quality 4 Plan. 5 The last note is just certainly this marine 6 landscape is a new frontier and it has a lot of challenges 7 before us. And we are members of the Maritime Goods 8 Movement Coalition that you've heard about. We support 9 that plan. We appreciate the staff's efforts for 10 including it as Appendix G and it's Section 5D. We do 11 think it meets both air quality goals as well as focuses 12 on the community risk. And I think Mr. Wyman made that 13 point very clear. We're not challenging your goals. 14 We're not challenging your timelines. We're just really 15 putting a path forward that we think can deliver what you 16 want faster, quicker, lower cost, in a way that protects 17 the communities first and foremost. 18 So with that, I just note that on Slide 55 in 19 your 76-slide presentation, I hope we can add the word 20 "energy providers" to your partnerships critical to 21 success. We were sort of missing off there, and I felt 22 left out. So if you could include us as a partner, we'd 23 certainly like that. We think we are. 24 And then my favorite slide is Slide 66 which 25 says, "Leave all options on the table." PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 So with that, thank you. And I'd be happy to 2 answer any questions. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. And 4 I'm sure you were very inclusive, and we want the energy 5 providers as part of the team. 6 MS. REHEIS-BOYD: Thank you very much. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The next three speakers are 8 Julie Masters, Ellen Johnck, and Todd Campbell. Is Julie 9 Masters here? 10 MS. MASTERS: Good afternoon. I'm Julie Masters. 11 I'm an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense 12 Council. And I'm here to urge you to adopt this plan 13 today as a framework for action and to get started 14 immediately on implementation. We'd like to thank staff 15 for their really good work on this plan so far. 16 But I'm also here to ask you to direct staff to 17 make the plan as strong and aggressive as possible. As 18 you've heard, the goods movement sector takes 2400 lives 19 every year. In fact, likely more, according to staff. 20 And unless we control pollution from those sources, 21 regions like the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley 22 will not reach attainment with federal and State 23 standards. 24 Accordingly, we need your clear leadership and 25 direction to ensure that this plan delivers on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 Administration's promise to protect public health. 2 Specifically, we ask the following. 3 First, while the potential measures that have 4 been identified in the draft ERP are an excellent start, 5 the plan currently lacks commitment to develop or 6 implement any one of these measures or to make them 7 enforceable. It fails to specify adoption and 8 implementation dates for these measures. And without this 9 critical information, staff cannot accurately quantify 10 emission reductions, and we cannot be sure that the 11 critical health goals set out in the plan will be met. 12 Accordingly, we ask the Board to direct staff to 13 provide the specificity for each measure to the same 14 extent as is required in the State Implementation Plan. 15 And we also ask they do this by the June Board hearing or 16 as soon thereafter as possible. We understand that staff 17 is planning to wrap the ERP into the SIP process by 2008, 18 but we need them to act sooner. 19 In particular, the Schwarzenegger Administration 20 is planning to release its Goods Movement Action Plan in 21 June, which will not only, as staff says, ease congestion, 22 but will seek to triple goods movement for the state and 23 worsen the state of our air quality. This plan will be 24 very detailed in terms of the specific freeway and rail 25 projects to be expanded and as well as the timeline for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 commencement and completion of construction. The plan to 2 protect public health needs to be equally as specific by 3 the same time. 4 Second, we urge the Board to direct staff to use 5 its regulatory authority to the greatest extent possible 6 before even considering non-regulatory options. Right now 7 the Resolution before you would allow staff to choose or 8 regulate or not at its sole discretion. But staff made it 9 very clear in the draft ERP that full implementation of 10 each identified measure is necessary in order to achieve 11 the minimum health goals that are set out in the plan. We 12 believe the only way to achieve this is to make measures 13 mandatory whenever it is legally possible. 14 Other options that have been suggested, like 15 MOUs, lack enforcement mechanisms and public 16 accountability. Also they often represent a compromised 17 position and less than what the agency could require. 18 Similarly, the trading program that has been proposed 19 could result in a pay-to-pollute system that would 20 inevitably trade off one feasible measure for another and 21 again lead to less than full implementation than what is 22 needed to reach that critical health goal. 23 So in sum, this is an industry that has done very 24 little on its own to voluntaryly control the pollution it 25 creates. We cannot afford to leave it to them to fix the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 problem. So we need you to be aggressive and direct 2 staff. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 4 Ellen Johnck. 5 MS. JOHNCK: Boards members, good afternoon. I'm 6 Ellen Johnck. And I'm Executive Director of the 7 San Francisco Bay Planning Coalition. So I'm pleased to 8 personally be here to bring you the Bay Area's support for 9 the plan. 10 The Bay Planning Coalition founded in 1983 11 represents a broad spectrum of the maritime industry and 12 local property owners and local government around the nine 13 county and into the delta region. We're dedicated to 14 balanced regulation of bay resources to support economic 15 prosperity and environmental protection. 16 The plan has some very laudable aspects to it, 17 and we support its thrust. Does not address the real 18 problem, though. So what's the real problem? As you 19 know, there will continue to be an ever-increasing 20 population in the state with particular impact in our 21 coastal port areas. The expanding population carries with 22 it an ever-increasing demand for goods and services with 23 resulting air quality impacts and congestion. This is a 24 challenge and a significant problem which must be 25 confronted and solved to enable us to have smart growth. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 A source-by-source, project-by-project regulatory 2 approach is inadequate to meet this challenge of the 21st 3 century. More simply stated, we think it's a path to 4 gridlock. And with gridlock, you cannot have effective 5 emissions reductions. 6 So what is our solution and our recommendation to 7 you? Locally developed alternative compliance strategies, 8 an integrated regional plan. You do recognize that growth 9 is going to occur in the plan, but you do not effectively 10 really say that it could occur through an integrated 11 regional plan emission reduction strategy. 12 So we ask you to include a plank in your plan. 13 You do have the MGM proposal in there which is Appendix G. 14 But we ask you to include a plank that effectively says we 15 endorse and accept what can happen with an integrated 16 regional plan. 17 Our initiative in the Bay Area really gives 18 people the opportunity to work in partnership with local 19 government. We have started to work with our local air 20 district, with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission 21 and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Some of the 22 elements of our plan include a baseline of reliable 23 information on regional emission sources. We want to 24 identify performance measures to reach target reductions 25 for each source. We want to analyze the relative cost PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 benefit of these measures, engaging most directly the 2 community and set up a very strict timetable. Plans are 3 best implemented at the local level where there is a good 4 opportunity to develop private/public partnerships and 5 collaboration for integrated strategies that achieve the 6 greatest air quality benefit in a cost effective manner. 7 These plans typically link land use decision 8 making processes with environmental and community 9 mitigation, and essential infrastructure projects. We 10 need predictability and flexibility. We can agree with 11 setting targets and reduction goals and performance 12 standards. However, we believe that with an integrated 13 regional plan, you can give us the really good opportunity 14 to move forward. And we encourage you to consider this 15 plank for an integrated regional plan. And we look 16 forward to working with you and our local Air Board on 17 this process. Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 19 Todd Campbell, and then Bonnie Holmes-Gen, Patty 20 Krebs, and Mike Eaves. 21 MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, members of the 22 Board, you may know me as the Vice Mayor of the sixth city 23 of the nation, but I'm here before you today as the 24 Director of Public Policy for Clean Energy. 25 I just want to touch real quickly on some calls PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 for balance. And I really need to urge this Board, 2 because I think the Emissions Reduction Plan is critical 3 that when you have a $19 1/2 billion per year in health 4 impacts, there's been a tremendous imbalance for quite 5 some time. And the call for urgency -- not to re-echo 6 what Freeman's quote -- President Freeman's quote was in 7 the paper today, truly, truly is needed. And I know each 8 of you are committed to clean air. 9 I think it's just important for us to recognize 10 that you are being called upon today even from many 11 members of the community to move beyond even what staff 12 has proposed before you. 13 I think what the community is calling for is they 14 recognize their health benefits are in the red. And even 15 with the Emissions Reduction Plan, even if it was fully 16 enforced and your emissions forecast were completely 17 perfect and our regulatory programs were completely 18 accurate, we're still leaving over 800 lives per year on 19 the table. And I think that what we have to recognize is 20 that we cannot -- I don't know if someone knows, but this 21 has stopped. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I failed to start it. You 23 have another minute. 24 MR. CAMPBELL: I just wanted to make sure you 25 were aware of that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 I think that, you know, being a part of industry, 2 industry has a commitment. And certainly, I believe that 3 this field or this particular part of industry has been in 4 the black for some time. It is such a growing industry 5 that it's projected to be tripling in terms of growth. 6 And, you know, the absolute need for this plan to move not 7 just to be like a SIP, but to have actual mitigation 8 measures with actual timelines and to reinforce some of 9 the comments, we need a plan that commits to actual 10 emission targets, as the Air Quality Management District 11 and others have mentioned, for the 2010 deadline. And I 12 think that clearly needs to be stated in this plan. 13 I think that today even though I think you're 14 always being urged to be called to the duty that you've 15 been called upon, more importantly, you need to do that 16 today, not only to move beyond or to put in those 17 mitigation measures that are sorely needed, but also to 18 look beyond what I would say the quick fix of just fixing 19 diesel engines. 20 And I mention that in particular raising the CRC 21 study that was supported not only by this agency but other 22 agencies overall. For the last ten years, we've seen very 23 little progress in our view of diesel emissions reductions 24 with regards to the technology. If you look at some of 25 the in-use emissions from 1986 diesel engine to a 2003 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 engine, the NOx emission benefits at least from that 2 particular study really don't show much improvement at 3 all. And the fact that the particulate matter devices or 4 the PM trap devices continually fail to reduce NO2 and the 5 importance of nitrates, we're looking at how can we get 6 across the finish line. This is 25 percent of emissions 7 sources for this region. I can't tell what you the 8 percentage is for the other regions. Because this is the 9 region close to my heart. But I will tell you that we 10 need your vigorous, vigorous action. 11 I urge you to consider the Resolution. I urge 12 you to make it stronger by not just falling into an MOU 13 complacency. I think you should try to push all the 14 levers and all the legal enforcement you can with every 15 source of emission in and around the state to see if you 16 can push that forward as well. 17 I know my time is out. And I'm assuming it is, 18 because I have zero still here. But I just want to say I 19 thank you for your time. I urge you to consider the 20 energy crisis that we're -- the fuel diversity issue, in 21 addition to the emission benefits that natural gas and 22 other alternative fuels provide the Air Resources Board 23 has leveraged to reuse emissions. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON LLOYD: Thank you. 25 Bonnie Holmes-Gen. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Chairman Sawyer and members of 2 the Board, thank you for the opportunity to stand up and 3 speak to you today. I'm with the American Lung 4 Association of California, and I'm here to support the 5 Emission Reduction Plan because we at the American Lung 6 Association are extremely concerned about the health 7 effects that are resulting from ports and goods movement 8 operations, the localized health effects, and the 9 statewide health effects. We're especially concerned 10 about the millions of Californians with lung disease, such 11 as asthma, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary 12 disease, and the millions of children in California that 13 are suffering from asthma. And as you know, the asthma 14 rates are increasing tremendously. 15 The particulate matter from the ports and goods 16 movements is worsening these illnesses and causing asthma 17 attacks, worsening quality of life, cutting short learning 18 opportunities in children. 19 I know that you're aware that the report 20 underestimates the health impacts, and we just think it's 21 important that you underscore that fact and we look 22 forward to additional information on some of the other 23 healths endpoints that are not discussed: Emergency room 24 visits, heart attacks, strokes, lung cancers, and other 25 outcomes from particlate pollution. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 We want to applaud the work that's been done on 2 the Emission Reduction Plan. But we also share the 3 frustration that's been expressed by community members. 4 The plan is certainly an important first step in 5 committing the state to address goods movement emisions on 6 a comprehensive basis. But we share the impatience, 7 because these control measures are needed now. And 2400 8 premature deaths and 19 billion in health care costs is 9 unacceptable. And communities have been baring the burden 10 of this pollution for a very, very long time. It's hard 11 to wait even two more years for specific measures. 12 We strongly support the recommendations in the 13 joint letter that you received from health environmental 14 community groups, including the desire and the urging for 15 more specific timetables and action plans that the key 16 regulatory measures for specific interim goals to be added 17 into the plans so we can measure our progress, and for 18 community risk reduction goals. 19 And I would note along with others, I appreciate 20 the Resolution does have a mention of reducing community 21 risk and having some working groups to discuss this. But 22 I would urge you just to add it back in. You know, Number 23 5, therefore be it resolved, the specific goals are 1, 2, 24 3, 4, and add the Goal Number 5 of reducing community risk 25 from diesel pollution. That would help to assure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 everybody that that is a key goal and specific plan that 2 that the Air Board is going to pursue. 3 I just want to speak a moment on funding is one 4 of the key issues that has already been raised, the need 5 for billions of dollars of funding to implement cleaner 6 technology in diesel controls. We urge the Board to back 7 container fees as a fair and effective mechanism to pay 8 for the needed measures. 9 But we also urge the Board to become a strong 10 advocate for pursuing new funding, not just bond funding, 11 but private funding from private industry that's 12 benefiting from port operations. This is such a key part 13 of implementing this plan, and we think there should be 14 something in the Resolution that you're adopting today -- 15 I'm finishing it up. This is my concluding sentence -- to 16 stress the importance of the Board communicating a strong 17 need for and pursuing new sources of funding to meet the 18 billions of dollars we need to implement these measures. 19 In conclusion, we support the plan. We look 20 forward to working with you. And we appreciate that -- we 21 hope and expect you will take a strong role in pursuing 22 new funding to implement these measures. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 24 Patty Krebs. 25 MS. KREBS: Good afternoon. I'm Patty Krebs from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 the Industrial Environmental Association. IEA represents 2 companies who have operations at the ports of L.A., Long 3 Beach, and primarily the Port of San Diego. 4 We are here to offer our support for the 5 alternate Emissions Reduction Plan as submitted to you by 6 the Maritime Goods Movement Coalition, the MGM plan. We 7 think it's a very careful, well thought out, and 8 structured approach to address the overarching goals of 9 the goods movement initiative that will both increase the 10 economic production of the state and also address the 11 neighborhood impacts of the goods movement. 12 Some points I'd like to emphasize, first the use 13 of emission reduction credits. We think ERC's offering a 14 very good path to achieve the air quality mitigation. 15 The second point is flexibility of facilities to 16 design their own program. Just within our membership, we 17 have companies with very different types of operations. 18 They're very diverse. What works for one may not even 19 apply to another. So we would like to see the performance 20 targets set and then let the business design the program 21 to make it work for them. 22 And the third thing on the issue of targets, we 23 hope that the targets will accommodate growth. The Port 24 of San Diego is a good example. At the 10th Avenue Marine 25 Terminal, they're currently at about 50 percent capacity, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 and they're just starting to realize the benefits that 2 come to them from goods movement. We do appreciate that 3 ARB has acknowledged this growth forecast in the technical 4 supplement. 5 And I would like to reiterate Bay Area's comments 6 that were just made that in this case we think some 7 regional approaches should also be considered. 8 And lastly, I again want to thank you for the ARB 9 Land Use Guide Book. I use it all the time. It's a very 10 valuable tool for good planning. Some of the things we're 11 talking about here today probably would never have 12 occurred in the first place and won't occur in the future 13 because of that guide book. So I thank you again for 14 that. And, again, I would urge your support for the MGM 15 plan. Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 17 Mike Eaves, and then we will have Sean Edgar, 18 Stephanie Williams, and Dawn Sanders. 19 MR. EAVES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 20 members of the Board. My name is Mike Eaves. I'm with 21 the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition. And we'd 22 like to chime in and applaud the ARB's efforts in pulling 23 together a very comprehensive plan that includes the total 24 goods movement activity in California. The coalition 25 supports the goals and strategies defined in the plan. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 But like others today, we do recommend the 2010 goal be 2 strengthened. 3 We have a concern that the plan relies heavily on 4 time as being a solution and implementation of future 5 standards that are beyond ARB's authority. We think the 6 critical issue is really what can the Air Resources Board 7 do now. 8 The public obviously this morning is crying for 9 an implementation plan. And we have concerns that a plan 10 that has control measures implemented in five, ten, 11 fifteen years into the future may increase near-term 12 health impacts and maybe those aren't properly accounted 13 for in the plan. So we're urging the Air Resources Board 14 to strengthen the near-term goals and objectives to use 15 your maximum regulatory authority and help define an 16 implementation plan somewhat before the November time 17 frame. I think that if you look at -- you know, if we get 18 a plan back in November, we could find ourselves in a 19 situation where we actually lose one to two years in 20 actually getting regulations on the books to make things 21 happen. And I think that the public that was here this 22 morning really needs your help in making things happen. 23 So thank you very much. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 25 Sean Edgar. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 MR. EDGAR: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and Board 2 members. Sean Edgar appearing on behalf of the Clean 3 Fleets Coaltion, an association of family-operated 4 recycling and transportation companies serving California 5 families with solid waste management service. 6 You may be aware that the recycling bin in front 7 of your house and 24 million other Californians is now 8 part of the international economy as those goods are taken 9 into facilities where they're processed and then 10 transported largely through the port facilities to 11 destinations on the Pacific Rim where they get further 12 processed and turned into that cardboard box that comes 13 back as a shoe box somehow or another. 14 So our take on the current regulation, current 15 package that is being proposed for port trucks, although 16 our collection vehicles, which I'll speak to you about in 17 a moment, are entirely captured in the first private fleet 18 retrofit rule this Board handed out, we also have vehicles 19 that are used and we subcontract trucking to go through 20 the port facilities. 21 So I want to speak to you just a few moments this 22 afternoon on sharing what information we have on the truck 23 modernization and port truck aspect and a little bit 24 beyond the theoretical. I want to talk to you about the 25 solid waste vehicle regulation which was the first private PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 on-road fleet rule that this Board handed out. And Dr. 2 Gong talked earlier about uncertainty. And perhaps I 3 could add we were some of the biggest sceptics on the 4 front end because in Y2K or year 2000, the crisis that 5 didn't happen, as I remember, I had a little bit more hair 6 then and less weight. I think all my faculties were 7 working. Because we exactly looked at the uncertainty 8 issue, Dr. Gong, and we said that technology has to work 9 and the economics and equity were all issues that we 10 considered and the Board considered when the regulation 11 was passed. 12 I'm here to tell you that time's changed, they 13 say the same. A lot of those issues still exist. But I 14 want to shed a little bit of light with regard to what I 15 see going forward and how we can apply some of these 16 provisions to the subject package of regulations. 17 First, the technology must work. I think that's 18 improving, because we've seen consistent improvement in 19 technology with all different ill. And with regard to 20 economics, I think that's going to entirely govern how 21 cleaner technology can be rolled out. And our observation 22 in advance of the regulation and since the regulation, 23 none of our customers have called any of our companies 24 asking to be the first one to pay more or receive a 25 reduction in service from their garbage or recycling PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 company. So we've learned a few things along the way. 2 And I guess I'm ready to close up on what have we learned. 3 Has our rule been a complete failure? No. Has the rule 4 been a complete success? We have yet to see. 5 And is that actually clicking on me? 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 7 MR. EDGAR: I will wrap up by saying the take 8 away is the next half of our fleet will be the biggest 9 challenge as we transition into this plan. And I know 10 Stephanie Williams is going to talk about the effect on 11 the independent owner/operators. And I'll leave it with 12 that. Thank you very much for your time. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 14 Stephanie Williams. 15 MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. My name is 16 Stephanie Williams. I'm Senior Vice President of the 17 California Trucking Association. 18 We're very disappointed in the process of this 19 plan. How can we have a goods movement plan without 20 truckers at the table? I've never seen a railroad or ship 21 bring goods to a store. So we would appreciate if the 22 trucking portions of the plan were removed. Leave the 23 emission reductions in. We'll get there. We're 24 progressive. We have a plan of our own. But let us be 25 part of the process. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 Just to give you some examples of how flawed out 2 this plan is, there are 1,475,000 trucks that paid 25 3 percent of the excise tax in the state left out. Those 4 are the interstate trucks that take the goods from the 5 warehouse to where they're going to go. So that's how 6 flawed the trucking part of it is. Because we're paying 7 taxes, 25 percent of the road taxes. But they're not even 8 in the plan. There are not 120,000 Class A trucks in 9 California. There are 1.8 million. 10 So we need trucks to sit down and work together 11 and come up with a way to clean the air. There's a very 12 simple way to go about doing this. Trucks are not a 13 utility. We have to be able to cover our costs to move 14 freight. If you subsidize us and make us a utility, we'll 15 be on welfare for the rest of years. It's impossible to 16 do that. We're not a public service. 17 We support some of the environmental statements 18 about this GMG, whatever this is. Not only are we living 19 in these communities and driving trucks in these 20 communities, but to let the Fortune 500 companies pollute 21 more and pay for our trucks so we can stay at the bottom 22 of the food chain is completely unacceptable. This is an 23 Enron plan. It's not fair. We have the bottom of the 24 barrel, the owner/operator, who makes $13 an hour going to 25 subsidize international trade. There's something wrong PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 with that. 2 Just to give you an idea of how this works, the 3 pieces of the international trade, 19 percent of the money 4 to move a container from China is -- the consolidater in 5 China which is $1,000. Fifty-nine percent of the money to 6 move it is the ocean carrier at $3200. Twenty percent is 7 the railroad if you were going to move it out of 8 California. And that would be 1100. The truck portion is 9 2 percent, or $100. So the person that makes $100 a move 10 out of the $5400 container move from China is going to pay 11 for the pollution reduction. Something is backwards here. 12 We need to turn this upside down. The Fortune 500 13 companies need to play too and they need to play fair. 14 And this plan is anything but fair. Thank you. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Stephanie. 16 Dawn Sanders. And then we will have Elizabeth 17 Warren, Dave Beeman, and Miguel Lopez. 18 MS. SANDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. 19 My name is Dawn Sanders. I'm with McCue and Associates 20 representing today the California Manufacturers and 21 Technology Association. 22 CMTA would like to urge the Air Resources Board 23 to consider alternative market-based plans that may 24 provide a more efficient and effective manner in which to 25 address emission reductions in California. One PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 alternative that CMTA would support is outlined in 2 Appendix G of the report. The Goods Movement Attainment 3 Plan as proposed by the Maritime Goods Movement Coalition, 4 the plan that has been mentioned by previous speakers, 5 would allow flexibility and choice for program operators 6 to meet the reduction goals. The plan provides incentives 7 for operators, operator compliance, lower associated 8 costs, greater economic opportunities, all of which are 9 designed to meet air quality goals and standards. 10 The MGM proposal would provide more flexibility 11 for compliance, but in a manner that achieves the goals 12 and premise of the plan. CMTA is not suggesting that the 13 reductions should not be considered or instituted. 14 Rather, we believe there are other market-based 15 alternatives that provide a more efficient and effective 16 way to meet these goals. The Goods Movement Attainment 17 Plan is one such option that CMTA is in support of and 18 urges the Board to consider. 19 Thank you for your time. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 21 Elizabeth Warren. 22 MS. WARREN: Good afternoon, Chairman Sawyer, 23 Board members, and staff. Thank you for this opportunity 24 to provide our comments on the plan. 25 I'm Elizabeth Warren. I'm the Executive Director PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 of Future Ports. Future Ports is a recently formed 2 membership-based organization representing a wide group of 3 port and shipping supply chain providers, users, and 4 manufacturers. Many our members live and work in San 5 Pedro/Bay Area, and they are justly concerned for the 6 quality of air they breathe as they live, work, and play 7 in the area. 8 However, our members are equally concerned about 9 the creation and retention of the jobs provided by the 10 goods movement logistics industry. It has been said 11 quality of life begins with a job. We'd like to remind 12 the ARB that jobs created are not just for the local 13 region, but for the economic engine of our state's ports 14 creates jobs for millions of Californians and U.S. workers 15 alike. 16 The concept of a clean environment and economic 17 growth are not mutually exclusive. And these efforts must 18 occur simultaneously for all of our communities to prosper 19 in a healthy environment. 20 We have several comments on the plan in its 21 current form. Overall, we approve of the general concept 22 of the plan, and no one can dispute the fact that the 23 health risks need to be greatly reduced. However, from 24 the technical side, we want to ensure that the health 25 risks are not unfairly evaluated when it comes to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 approach used in comparing diesel emissions from different 2 sources. 3 From a business perspective, it is critical that 4 we implement a plan that is flexible in order to take 5 advantage of the technology and the tools currently 6 available and those yet to be developed. Flexibility will 7 provide the incentive for business to develop technology 8 and processes that achieve the reductions in emissions 9 required. We agree with the ARB to keep all options on 10 the table. 11 Market-based strategies will provide the 12 financial reward to those who develop the best 13 technologies and are able to get them to market fastest 14 and most cost effective. 15 We urge the ARB to remain a leader in developing 16 partnerships with the stakeholders and communities 17 effected by the goods movement industry. Initiatives such 18 as the MOU with the railroads is a great example of how 19 collaboration and public/private partnerships can provide 20 win-win solutions without litigation or legislation which 21 saves us all enormous quantities of time and money. 22 Thank you again for your consideration of our 23 comments. And we commend the efforts of the ARB to 24 address these issues. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 Dave Beeman. 2 MR. BEEMAN: Good afternoon. I represent the 3 International Longshore and Warehouse Union. And 4 specifically, I'm the Health and Benefits Officer for 5 Local 13. 6 We're speaking in support of all of the plan's 7 components, but also to request consideration of the six 8 items that appear on page 2 of our statement of April 9 20th. 10 We are the first line of exposure. And as stated 11 in that statement, we're the canaries in the coalmine. 12 But more importantly, we are the poster children of the 13 diesel generation. And I'd like to bring a little bit 14 more personal face to this if I may, other than my own. I 15 I'm speaking today in place of one of our members, our 16 area director who is currently in the hospital recovering 17 from lung surgery, having had approximately one-third of 18 one of his lungs removed. This gentleman's worked in this 19 industry for over 35 years. And at one point in time we 20 worked in open hatches with asbestos. We handled sacks of 21 asbestos. And back then, no one had any clue that that 22 was a hazardous material who took that home to their 23 families after work when they wear that clothing home. 24 And at some point in time, we believe that many of our 25 retirees are going to suffer from the affects of that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 exposure. 2 Currently, we have a membership of over 7,000 3 just in Local 13. With our widows, our pensioners, and 4 our spouses and dependent children, just in Local 13 alone 5 here in Los Angeles and Long Beach, we have a membership 6 of almost 9900. In San Pedro and the surrounding 7 communities, that represents 6,000 of our members that 8 live in this immediate air basin. Our membership of Local 9 63, which is our clerking division has roughly 1200 10 members as well as 400 in the foreman's local, and another 11 8,000 plus part-time workers in our casual work force. 12 That represents over 17,000 people that 13 potentially are exposed to these materials on a daily 14 basis. And we appreciate all of the efforts that are 15 ongoing to address the issues that we see here today. 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 18 Richard Cassman. Excuse me. Next is Miguel 19 Lopez. Is Miguel not here? 20 Then the next three are Richard Cassman, Kirk 21 Markwald, and David Wright. 22 MR. CASSMAN: Good afternoon. My name is Richard 23 Cassman. I'm with Long Beach Unified School District. 24 And wanted to take this opportunity to -- we're all in 25 support of clean air. But the Long Beach Unified School PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 District is responsible for providing schools, 95 of them, 2 95,000 students, largest employer in the city of Long 3 Beach. But one thing we're concerned about with the plan 4 as proposed is that it does not appear to recognize the 5 unique nature of school facilities. And under California 6 law, schools are one of the most regulated facilities in 7 the state of California. And those regulations are many. 8 Many more than other agencies or businesses are required 9 to comply with. 10 The concern that the school district has in the 11 business office is that the regulations or statutes that 12 may be adopted by this plan may put the school district in 13 a bind in regard to these other regulations that they must 14 already comply with, particularly related to new school 15 construction or the remodeling of existing schools. So 16 what the school district is asking is that the Board give 17 particular attention to the regulations that apply to 18 schools in the Long Beach community and that the direct 19 and indirect impacts on school facilities would be 20 something that we can live with towards the adoption of 21 regulations that would clean up our air, but also not put 22 us out of business as far as regulations that we can't get 23 there from here, for instance, in regard to doing what we 24 have to do in the area of educating our students. 25 School districts would be happy to meet and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 provide some of this information if questions are desired 2 or answers to those so that those things can be addressed. 3 Thank you very much. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 5 Kirk Markwald. 6 MR. MARCKWALD: Chairman Sawyer and members, 7 thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I'm Kirk 8 Markwald representing the Association of American 9 Railroads, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union 10 Pacific Railroads. Both have submitted written comments 11 for the record. I'm also a member of the Integrated 12 Committee of the Goods Movement Action Plan as well as the 13 co-chair of the infrastructure sub-working group of that 14 group. 15 I think your staff has done an excellent job in 16 pulling together a complicated set of information for your 17 consideration in the forming of this initial plan. I 18 certainly agree with the idea of going forward today and 19 as they indicated adopting the strategy in the near-term 20 actions. 21 I would suggest that -- I agree certainly with 22 what Jack Broadbent said of making it a living plan, 23 because there are other pieces that are very important. 24 And I think how the Goods Movement Action Plan comes down 25 and what the pieces of that plan are about really need to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 be looked at in relationship to your plan. And I think 2 there would be time down the road for various different 3 pieces to come together. I think that's a very important 4 one. And obviously if there is a bond measure and the 5 bond measure has to do with environmental mitigation, 6 knowing what that is and how that may effect your queuing 7 of the various measures in this plan, I think ultimately 8 is something for future consideration. 9 We certainly also support the idea of another and 10 perhaps broader peer review process that the staff 11 outlined earlier and be happy to work together with the 12 staff and ultimately the peer reviewers in that process. 13 I do have three suggestions. 14 First, this question of being able to bring your 15 Emission Reduction Plan together with the Goods Movement 16 Action Plan in the bond proposal I think is very 17 important. 18 Second, I would urge you to keep the full range 19 of alternatives, both regulatory and voluntary programs, 20 in your tool kit. And the staff can decide what the best 21 one -- I think the plan itself says there will be maximum 22 use of regulatory approach. But in some other cases, 23 voluntary agreements may make good sense. 24 And, finally, something I don't think has been 25 very much talked about, the goods movement system is just PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 that. It is a web of providers. It is a web of signals 2 that are being sent, sent in many cases by people who are 3 not in this room at all; the beneficial users of cargo or 4 the owners of cargo, I should say, the logicians who do 5 worldwide logistics. These people really need to be 6 brought into the debate and the discussion if, in fact, 7 we're going to have a smart and efficient plan in 8 California. 9 With that having been said, both the railroads 10 are committed to continue to working with your staff and 11 other regulatory agencies to promote additional fair, 12 efficient emission reductions in the movement of goods in 13 California. 14 Thank you very much. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 16 Next is David Wright. And after that is Sandy 17 Cajas, Fran Inman, and Martin Schlageter. 18 MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon. My name is David 19 Wright. I'm an Executive Vice President for Pacific 20 Energy Partners which is a California-based company that 21 operates crude oil pipelines, petroleum marine terminals, 22 and products terminals. 23 We are working to develop a new deep water crude 24 oil import marine terminal in the Port of Los Angeles. We 25 hope to have a draft EIR issued in the near future. We PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 have discussed this project with several members of CARB 2 staff, so they're aware of it. 3 The basic problem here in California is that 4 we're running out of oil. And many jobs and many 5 industries rely on that oil to drive the basic economics 6 of the state. For example, our projections are in 7 Southern California in the next ten years, we will need to 8 import an additional 400,000 barrels a day just to meet 9 the local demand. That is a very significant amount of 10 oil to import, and there's no infrastructure available to 11 import that oil. 12 In terms of the plan, we agree that California 13 has a very serious air quality issue, particularly around 14 the ports. We have several points we'd like to make about 15 this. 16 One, there needs to be a balance in the 17 regulations to manage air quality. This is a balance 18 between the efforts to clean it up and the California 19 economy. 20 Second, the burden of the emission cleanup needs 21 to be fairly distributed so that no one project, group, or 22 region needs to carry an unproportional share of the 23 cleanup. 24 Third, the standards need to be clearly defined. 25 I think this is one of the biggest problems today for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 people that have new projects is trying to decide, you 2 know, what do you have to meet? What are the standards? 3 My last point is that the method to achieve these 4 standards needs to be flexible, needs to be performance 5 based, and not prescriptive. Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 7 Sandy Cajas. 8 MS. CAJAS: Good afternoon, Chairman and Board. 9 I will give out half of my time to Al Day, Interim 10 President of the Long Beach African American Chamber of 11 Commerce. 12 My name is Sandy Cajas. I'm President of the 13 Regional Hispanic Chamber of Commerce representing 14 business in Wilmington, Long Beach, San Pedro, and Harbor 15 cities. 16 I'm here today to say that we also support ARB's 17 efforts to ensure that we have clean air at the ports and 18 surrounding communities. It is important that whatever 19 decision you make, it takes into account the need to keep 20 our local businesses healthy and growing. We recognize 21 it's a necessity to address the environmental impacts at 22 the Port of Long Beach in Los Angeles. We believe this 23 can be done by working together in a balanced way. 24 We believe that the Maritime Goods Movement 25 Coalition Alternative Emission Reduction Proposal included PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 in Appendix G of the ARB Emission Reduction Plan does just 2 that. 3 We urge ARB support the draft MGM plan. Thank 4 you for allowing me time to speak. 5 MR. DAY: Good afternoon. I'm Al Day, Interim 6 Chairman of the Long Beach African American Chamber of 7 Commerce, and I'm here in accordance with Sandy and her 8 Chamber in respects to our understanding of the Marine 9 Goods Movement. 10 We would like to say that we are concerned about 11 the environment, but we are also very concerned about the 12 jobs and the flow of goods to our nation. Recognizing 13 that Long Beach/Los Angeles is the key highway to get 14 goods to the rest of the country, we think that has to be 15 given major consideration. Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 17 Fran Inman. Fran is not here. 18 Then Martin Schlageter. 19 MR. SCHLAGETER: Hello. Martin Schlageter with 20 the Coalition for Clean Air. Appreciate the chance to be 21 here today and all of your patience and understanding as 22 we in the broader sense have brought you our concerns and 23 our interests. 24 You obviously are aware that what you are taking 25 on here is of the utmost importance. And for that, I want PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 199 1 to thank the staff for their great and hurried work over 2 the many months proceeding this to put together a very 3 important document that we support here today that we 4 support as a launch pad for action. 5 I don't know about you, but we've sat through a 6 lot of comments today, and I'm really excited that we get 7 some action on the table and move out some regulations 8 here that's going to clean up the air in California. 9 It is, as you heard by the compelling testimony 10 from community members today, is us putting our faith in 11 you, the Board, to carry out an aggressive plan to ensure 12 public health protection. We come to you with the 13 integrated plan that folks have been calling for in front 14 of you. One that spells out the various sources of 15 pollution in this goods movement sector and spells out a 16 series of strategies to take those on. Each of those 17 obviously needs more specificity. But this plan is in 18 front of you. And what it needs now is an ongoing 19 vigilance from you to make sure that this is aggressively 20 pursued and that regulations are in place that require the 21 polluters to clean up and to pay to clean up. 22 Toward the end of what is the next set of steps, 23 I'm really pleased to see the list in the Resolution in 24 front of you today of six or seven regulations that are 25 proposed as next steps. I'm interested in seeing a time PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 200 1 line for those as soon as possible. We want to set that 2 on a real course so that we get some assurance we're going 3 to have reductions coming out of that list of options. 4 And I'll echo the comments earlier of the need to 5 put the goal on local risk reduction back into your 6 Resolution. It must be a mistake that it's not in there. 7 Clearly, that's a goal of the ARB. It fits within your EJ 8 policy, and it's something that should be driving any 9 convention of a working group or whatever to determine 10 further specificity or strategies. It must be guided by 11 this goal. 12 And I think it's a critical goal to have in, 13 especially as I look at the goal which I find somewhat 14 weak around South Coast levels of pollution. You specify 15 out some interim goals on South Coast at 2015 and 2020, 16 both of which are reductions from projected levels of 17 pollution. Even though as it was shown earlier, bringing 18 us back to levels of 2001 is the minimum that you should 19 be doing. So I think bringing back in that local risk 20 reduction goal was critical to any move forward to develop 21 strategies on that. 22 It was -- I see my time is up. Let me wrap up 23 with just a couple thoughts. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Please conclude. 25 MR. SCHLAGETER: It is this next set of actions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 201 1 which we're asking you to prioritize. And this 2 prioritization should make sure that staff is focused on 3 regulation and bringing the reductions that are needed to 4 protect public health, not sending them or allowing them 5 to spend time on a wild goose chase of voluntary measures 6 that we can't ever ensure compliance with or some trading 7 scheme. I will just leave you with the thought that -- 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask that you 9 conclude. 10 MR. SCHLAGETER: Please let me conclude by saying 11 thank you and by saying that every time a regulation comes 12 in front of you and an industry member takes this podium 13 and takes up more than their three minutes suggesting you 14 weaken it, think of the 880 people that still aren't in 15 your goal every year that are dying. And I encourage you 16 to exceed the measures that you have set forth here, 17 exceed those goals. And I hope that you go home this 18 weekend after action today and be proud of your work and 19 have a happy Earth Day. Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Our four remaining speakers 21 are Alex Marquez, Danilo Marquez, Bry Myown, and Stephen 22 Clark. 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sawyer, when 24 you get to the end of the witness list, we're going to 25 suggest if it's not ready by then a brief recess. We have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 202 1 made a few changes to the draft Resolution in response to 2 the comments and the nodding you're doing up there to 3 highlight localized risk reduction, to highlight going 4 below no net increase by 2010 to the maximum extent 5 feasible, and to clarify the rulemaking schedule on the 6 page for the Resolution. So they're working on that in 7 the staff room. We might need a brief break to get it to 8 you and the audience before you begin your deliberations. 9 You may well have other changes than that. I just want to 10 give you -- 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Alex Marquez. No. 12 Danilo Marquez. We have written statements from both of 13 them, so we'll take those into the record. 14 Bry Myown. 15 MS. MYOWN: Good afternoon. I want to thank you 16 for the plan and thank you for holding this hearing in 17 Long Beach and express my dismay that apparently no 18 official representatives of my city of Long Beach have 19 been here to give testimony today. So as a resident, I 20 want to thank you and caution you not to breathe too 21 deeply while you are here. 22 In general, I support the plan with strengthening 23 measures such as those requested by the National Resources 24 Defense Council, Coalition for Clean Air, American Lung 25 Association, and others. But I must express to you the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 203 1 great conflict with which I do so. I'm not in the habit 2 of striking a balance with negotiating with or in any way 3 enabling serial killers. And this is what is occurring in 4 my community, a serial killing. 5 And I want to explain for a moment that my 6 community is not merely suffering predictable excess 7 cancers and cardiopulmonary disease and not merely baring 8 the externalized health care costs. But we also bare the 9 entire externalized infrastructure, security, economic 10 risk, and risk management costs of these industries. We 11 are increasingly a target. Our economy is not an engine 12 for us. Our poverty numbers are growing in direct 13 proportion to port expansion. Our democracy is suffering. 14 And all we are asking to deal with this is could we please 15 have a moment and catch our breath. 16 I hope that you will please adopt the mandatory 17 deadlines, rules, and enforcement that have been 18 requested, but I want to speak to the issue of financing. 19 People asked for goods shippers to pay. They ask for the 20 public, who in all cases will ultimately pay. But no one 21 has mentioned the fact that the Ports of Long Beach and 22 Los Angeles occupy State tidelands granted by the State 23 under homerule charters specifically so that they might 24 construct and manage port operations. And the income from 25 those operations is restricted to tidelands spending. It PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 204 1 is a source of income that should be dedicated to 2 mitigating and removing the impacts they inflict before 3 one penny is spent on expanding one more inch. 4 Thank you very much for being here. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 6 Stephen Clark. 7 MR. CLARK: Hello. My name is Stephen Clark. I 8 didn't plan on talking. I don't have a prepared speech, 9 I'm sorry. But just listening today, I felt I needed to 10 step up. 11 I'm the maintenance manager for SSA Marine. I'm 12 a serial killer, I guess. SSA's policy is to be as green 13 as possible. We installed the DOC mufflers three years 14 ago. We're working right now on L&G testing to convert 15 our fleets over. We are very pro-emissions. We will do 16 anything we can to get that done. That is the company's 17 policy. 18 Now I'd like to speak to you as a personal 19 mechanic. A year ago I used to install these mufflers. I 20 was the shop foreman. Whatever you decide here, I'm the 21 one that will be putting it in place. I'm the one that's 22 going to make it work. 23 The only problem I see is too many bean counters, 24 is what we call them. We need some people that work with 25 this stuff. Right now, I'm working with the Port of Long PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 205 1 Beach that would make cold ironing obsolete like the 2 typewriter at 100th the cost. Get the people that work 3 with this stuff involved. It will save you a lot of money 4 and a lot of grief. Thank you. 5 Something else, I got some more time. I keep 6 hearing about rail is going to improve your situation. 7 Wrong. It's not going to happen. It's not going to 8 relieve the congestion. It's not going to relieve the 9 smog. 10 Containers that come in are designated for the 11 rail months before they get there. So unless more 12 containers are dedicated to the rail, which they're not -- 13 they're either rail or local. So I don't see how that's 14 going to help the situation at all. Rail is a necessary 15 evil for us. It's not a profitable situation. It takes 16 up too much land. 17 Just leave your options open. Get some input 18 from the people that have to make this stuff work. SSA's 19 policy is to do anything we can. We are working with L&G. 20 We're working on everything we can. Right now a Tier 4 21 engine is not even available. But that's where we're 22 heading. Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 24 That concludes the public testimony part of our 25 hearing. Since this is not a regulatory item, it's not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 206 1 necessary to officially close the record. 2 And should we take a brief break now while we get 3 the revise proposed Resolution? 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You do need to do 5 ex parte, even though it's non-regulatory. So you could 6 do that while we're waiting for the Resolution 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Fine. We'll go ahead and do 8 that. 9 The mandatory statement, although this is not a 10 regulatory item. The Board is taking action today, 11 therefore our legal staff advises we need to declare any 12 ex partes communication in the 30-day period prior to this 13 Board hearing. Do any of my colleagues have any ex parte 14 communications to report? And we'll start with Member 15 Gong. 16 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes. I had a teleconference 17 on April 17th with Tom Plenys, Martin Schlageter -- excuse 18 my pronunciation, Julie Masters, and Adrienne Martinez 19 representing the Coalition for Clean Air and NRDC, 20 respectively. And their discussion today represents what 21 we discussed during this conference call. That's all I 22 have. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I also had a telephone 24 conference on the 17th of April with Martin Schlageter and 25 Tom Plenys from the Coalition of Clean Air, and Martin's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 207 1 testimony mirrored that conversation. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: On the 12th of April, I had 3 a meeting in my office with Catherine Reheis-Boyd and 4 Tupper Hull of the Western States Petroleum Association. 5 And our discussion mirrored what they presented today. 6 On the 18th of April, I met with Robert Wyman. 7 And what he said today reflected what we discussed in my 8 office. 9 And I participated in a conference call on the 10 18th of April with Martin Schlageter, Bonnie Holmes-Gen, 11 and Julie Masters of Coalition of Clear Air, American Lung 12 Association, and NRDC. And what we discussed reflected 13 what they stated today. 14 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I had 15 two. One was on April 18th, I had a phone conversation 16 with Tom Plenys of the Coalition for Clean Air, Diane 17 Bailey of NRDC, and Carolina Simunovic from the Fresno 18 Metro Ministry. And that conversation closely mirrored 19 written testimony that we had received several days prior. 20 And then yesterday I had phone conversation with 21 Cathy Reheis-Boyd, and that mirrored the testimony that 22 she gave today. 23 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: I had a conversation, 24 telephone conversation, on April 17th with Diane Bailey of 25 the NRDC, and that conversation paralleled to points made PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 208 1 in their letter April 14th. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. That completes 3 the ex parte statements. And we'll await the revised 4 Resolution. 5 Although, I have to one perhaps typographical 6 error. On page 3 at the top -- 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Page 3? 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The original Resolution, 9 anyway. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It refers to the 11 five main sectors. And either I'm not counting the commas 12 right or I only count four. There should be a commas 13 after ships prior the harbor craft. Ships and harbor 14 craft are two different sections. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: So we're going to 17 take a five or ten-minute break while we await the 18 Resolution? 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 20 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I did have some 21 questions. Maybe it might be useful so we can conclude. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I think that's fine. 23 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: For instance, the 24 preliminary comments. This is obviously a fundamental 25 problem before the state of California and before Southern PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 209 1 California talking about goods movement and clean air 2 going in tandem and not an either-or. I'm not quite sure 3 Mike, how much applause you deserve and how much your 4 team. Because I think this is -- I surmise if you look 5 back at your own tenure here this is probably the bringing 6 together under the kind of pressure that was an 7 outstanding document. Don't have many examples. So 8 congratulations to an outstanding work. 9 I do think that what this means is we all need to 10 continue to be at the table with the regulatory groups and 11 private groups, public agencies. 12 But let me just ask Robert Wyman's question. 13 He's not precluded from being at the table with this 14 proposal; is that correct? 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No. He 16 absolutely is not. Nor are the opponents to his proposal. 17 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Julie Master's question 18 of be more specific in terms of the timelines. Is that 19 being picked up? Would you comment on that? That is a 20 theme several people raised. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yeah. I thought 22 that we had taken care of it in the original Resolution by 23 specifying the initiation of rule development and dates by 24 which we would return to the Board with actual control 25 measures, though we don't yet have interim milestones PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 210 1 beyond our preliminary attainment targets for the South 2 Coast. We have the 2010 no net increase. We have the 3 2015 NOx reduction target for Southern California, and we 4 have 2020 for everything else. And any other milestones 5 have yet to be delineated. But we do have recommended to 6 you and we do have the Resolution. So I'll point you to 7 what I'm talking about at the -- 8 CHIEF COUNSEL JENNINGS: Catherine, we've 9 distributed the Resolution to the Board members. We're 10 making copies for the public. So if you read in what 11 you're proposing to add, I think that would be a good way 12 for everyone to know what it is. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'm referring to 14 on page 5 the second "be it further resolved," which has 15 to do with near-term actions that we're recommending you 16 direct us to undertake. And in the first draft of this 17 document, we said, "The Board approved the near-term 18 actions identified in the staff presentation and directs 19 the Executive Officer to initiate in 2006 and bring to the 20 Board by 2007 effective regulations or equivalent emission 21 reduction strategies for," and then we list seven 22 categories to regulate or do the equivalent. 23 The proposed changes are to recognize that some 24 of that work might not make it to the Board until '08. So 25 it says, "to initiate in 2006 and bring to the Board in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 211 1 2007 and 2008 effective regulations." We'll make every 2 effort to get '07 here by the end of next year, but 3 realisticly we'll slip into '08 before we're done. And I 4 think the kind of issues you heard in the testimony today 5 speak to the complexity of each and every one of these 6 rules. And so we don't want to short circuit the public 7 dialogue about how to construct them, but we do want to 8 move aggressively. So that's a change there. 9 And I think it's responsive to NRDC's and many 10 other commenters, when are you going to do regs, we've 11 spelled it right out in the Resolution. And we will 12 report to you every six months on where we are with that 13 process. 14 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: The one Bonnie 15 Holmes-Gen and others brought up, localized risk, you want 16 to read that into the record? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. I'll do 18 that too. On page -- 19 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Four. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Page 4, the first 21 major, "now therefore be it resolved," and the first four 22 resolves -- there's actually two changes we're proposing. 23 We had four resolves that had to do with no net increase, 24 the diesel risk reduction, the attainment targets for the 25 South Coast, and attainment elsewhere. And we have added PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 212 1 a fifth as Bonnie Holmes-Gen requested, and it reads five, 2 "make every feasible effort to reduce localized risk in 3 communities adjacent to goods movement facilities as 4 expeditiously as possible." 5 And then back on number one which has to do with 6 no net increase, it had originally read, "reduce total 7 statewide, international, and domestic goods movement 8 emissions back to 2001 levels or below by the year 2010." 9 And now it reads, "reduce total statewide, international, 10 and domestic goods movement emissions to the greatest 11 extent possible and at least back to 2001 levels by the 12 year 2010," which is what we meant all along. We just 13 didn't say so properly in the Resolution. 14 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Two other quick points. 15 One, Kirk Marckwald I thought brought up a point of how 16 this needs to be somehow connected with, integrated with 17 the whole improvement plan as it's coming forward. And I 18 think that's obviously something that we're going to do. 19 We're not standing ourselves. We're going to integrate 20 ourselves into the overall planning effort. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Everybody has a 22 different interpretation of what integrating the two plans 23 means. We've been asked by the Business, Transportation, 24 and Housing Agency to pull back out of our comprehensive 25 plan the control measures and the emission calculations PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 213 1 that are for the specific corridors that they're focusing 2 infrastructure projects in. And those are the Port of 3 L.A., Long Beach out to the eastern border, San Diego, 4 Central Valley, and the San Francisco/Bay Area. So we 5 will do those calculations. We didn't lose prior 6 boundaries of our analysis. 7 There was also testimony that we needed to 8 integrate the beneficial effects of infrastructure 9 development on our own emission reductions plan, and we 10 will do that. 11 Some people want -- are concerned the projects 12 will be adverse and that we don't have enough mitigation 13 here. Generally, that's something that is dealt with in 14 CEQA analyses on a project by project basis. We've tried 15 to scope it out. And we've been talking to Caltrans about 16 how to do that, you know, sort of preliminary scoping, 17 rough CEQA -- not full-blown CEQA, but you know based on 18 what think the volumes are going to be, the changes to 19 speeds, what the traffic models tell us the result would 20 be. But none of that work is finished yet. 21 And then of course the biggest comment that many 22 people made is we don't know what's going to happen with 23 the financing of these with the Goods Movement Action Plan 24 with the bonds, with any other agreements that are struck 25 related to infrastructure, security, and where money might PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 214 1 come from that we partake of. And so we have to be 2 vigilant about what's going on there and relate it back to 3 this plan. And I do think it needs to be a living 4 document. I think it's Martin Schlageter and Kirk 5 Marckwald both said, we have to keep it fresh and current 6 with what's happening around us. 7 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Last comment, just going 8 to page 4, the first point which you've modified from the 9 original, and let me ask you if it was worded something to 10 the extent as follows, your reaction to it. If you said, 11 "reduce total statewide, international, and domestic 12 emissions by year 2010 to the levels projected in the plan 13 with full implementation of control measures," how would 14 you respond to that? 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, I mean, 16 it's what we mean by these words. We've kind of lost the 17 no net increase concept. We've gone beyond. And I 18 understand you're hinting at what Peter Greenwald's 19 testimony was that we should -- I think they're both 20 equally vague. Unless you pinpointed what those tonnages 21 were and then we start to get a little bit squishy because 22 they're approximations. It's our best estimate now that 23 we're certainly going to meet no net increase and we're 24 going to over exceed that target on the order of 20 to 40 25 percent depending on which pollutant you look at and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 215 1 depending on whether our calculations are accurate. 2 So I would be nervous about being tied down to 20 3 or 40 percent. The phrasing you suggested I think is 4 identical to the phrasing here, because they come from the 5 same place. That's what staff is trying to do. 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Our hope and 7 intention is to implement all the measures and get the 8 maximum emission reductions we can by 2010. We can't 9 guarantee you those will be exactly the same that we put 10 into the -- estimated as part of the draft plan. But we 11 want to get the maximum emission reduction we can from the 12 measures as quickly as possible. 13 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Can we say that? 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's what we 15 did say, the maximum extent or greatest extent is the 16 wording that signifies what we will do every time we write 17 a rule. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there other comments by 19 Board members on the Resolution? 20 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I think the amendments are 21 good. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: That's why we have public 23 hearings, so we can make Resolutions better. 24 BOARD MEMBER KENNARD: I don't have a specific 25 comment on the Resolution, but I do have a more global PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 216 1 comment that's relative to funding. And we heard a lot of 2 commentary on the funding. And my personal opinion is we 3 should continue to encourage the very industry that causes 4 the pollution to be on the forefront of the cleanup 5 process. And there's lots of industries that have stepped 6 up to the plate in terms of user fees, et cetera, to fund 7 the mitigation. It should not be directly put on the 8 burden of the individual community to fund these. And as 9 we talked about earlier, the funding is yet unclear. And 10 I know you are going to spend a good amount of time on 11 that. But my personal perspective is that the shipping 12 industry in particular should step up to the plate in this 13 regard. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: If there are no other 15 comments, do I have a motion to adopt? 16 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, first of all, 17 I like the amendments that are made. I think a lot of 18 people sort of maybe tune in to this hearing and then 19 don't see where we've come from or where we're going in a 20 sense. And this isn't the start of a process. This is a 21 process that's been going on for some time. This is a 22 significant start to regulating and dealing with some key 23 sectors, some key parts of the economy and the community 24 that need addressing, and their large box of things that 25 we haven't been in earlier efforts. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 217 1 But I think the changes, I think the -- I'm in 2 favor of approving and would move that we do approve this 3 Resolution. And encourage staff to come back to us as 4 swiftly as humanly possible so we can can start to see 5 these changes be initiated and have the chance -- the 6 greatest chance to be able to fulfill the goals of seeing 7 these reductions before 2010. 8 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I'll second the motion. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We have a motion to adopt 10 the Resolution as presented to us. 11 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: As amended by staff 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: As amended by staff. 13 All those in favor please say aye. 14 (Ayes) 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Any opposed? 16 I thank you all very much. 17 I want to make a few comments at the end before 18 we adjourn. One is in addition to thanking the staff in 19 preparing the documentation behind this, I want to thank 20 the staff who made it possible for us to come to Long 21 Beach and did all the work in setting things up and 22 allowing us to run as smoothly as we do in Sacramento. 23 And I think the hearing proves what an advantage 24 it is. We heard from the people who manage the ports. We 25 heard from the people who breathe the air. We heard the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 218 1 people who treat the people who breathe the air. We heard 2 the people who govern the cities in this area. We heard 3 from the people that work in the ports and people who run 4 the school systems, and more, and many more. I think it's 5 important in our deliberations that we do hear from people 6 who are most affected. And by going to where those people 7 are, we hear more of them. And, therefore, I think we 8 must continue to do this in the future. 9 I have no requests for comments from the public. 10 Are there any requests for additional comments on any 11 topics from members of the Board? 12 If not, do I have a motion to adjourn? 13 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: So moved. 14 SUPERVISOR PATRICK: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All those in favor? 16 (Ayes) 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We are adjourned. 18 (Thereupon the California Air Resources Board 19 adjourned at 4:11 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 219 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, TIFFANY C. KRAFT, a Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered 4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify: 5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, 7 Tiffany C. Kraft, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the 8 State of California, and thereafter transcribed into 9 typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said hearing. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 4th day of May, 2006. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIFFANY C. KRAFT, CSR, RPR 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 License No. 12277 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345