BOARD MEETING STATE OF CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD JOE SERNA JR., CAL/EPA HEADQUARTERS BUILDING 1001 I STREET BYRON SHER AUDITORIUM SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 9:00 A.M. JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER LICENSE NUMBER 10063 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii APPEARANCES BOARD MEMBERS Dr. Robert F. Sawyer, Chairperson Ms. Sandra Berg Mrs. Barbara Riordan Ms. Dorene D'Adamo Supervisor Mark J. DeSaulnier Dr. Henry Gong Mayor Ronald O. Loveridge Supervisor Ron Roberts STAFF Ms. Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer Mr. Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Michael Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Mr. Tom Jennings, Acting Chief Counsel Mr. Steve Albu, Assistant Chief, Mobile Sources Control Division Mr. Robert Barham, Assistant Division Chief, Stationary Source Division Mr. Dipak Bishnu, Air Resources Engineer Mr. Richard Bode, Chief, Health and Exposure Assessment Branch Ms. Janette Brooks, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch Mr. Michael Carter, Chief, Emission Research & Regulatory Development Branch PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii APPEARANCES CONTINUED STAFF Dr. Bart Croes, Chief, Research Division Mr. Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Sources Control Division Mr. Robert Fletcher, Chief, Stationary Source Division Ms. Kitty Howard, Manager, Regulatory Assistance Section Ms. Peggy Jenkins, Manager, Indoor Exposure Assessment Section Mr. Bob Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel Dr. Ashi Lashgari, Research Division Mr. Stephan Lemieux, Manager, On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Section Mr. Mike McCarthy, Manager, Advanced Engineering Section Mr. Tom Montes, Air Resources Engineer Mr. Kirk Oliver, Senior Staff Counsel Mr. George Poppic, Senior Staff Counsel Mr. Shobna Sahni, Air Pollution Specialist Ms. Dorothy Shimer, Research Division Ms. Carla Takemoto, Manager, Technical Evaluation Section Mr. Mike Terris, Senior Staff Counsel Mr. Michael J. Tollstrup, Chief, Project Assessment Branch Mr. Floyd Vergara, Staff Counsel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. Don Anair, Union of Concerned Scientists Mr. Ed Appleton, MFASC/STA Mr. Brian Bateman, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Mr. Sam Bell, MFASC/STA Ms. Maria Brook, Willits Resident Mr. Jim Bury, Putzmeister, Inc. Mr. John Cabaniss, Association of International Auto Manufacturers Ms. Christi Collins, American Concrete Pumping Association Mr. Daniel Cunningham, MFASC/STA Mr. Mike Cusach, Conco Pumptin Mr. William Davis, APLA, EUCA, SCCA, MCOG & CIAEC Mr. Hank de Carbonel, Concrete Pumper Mr. Steve Douglas, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Ms. Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition Mr. Frank Grana, MFASC/STA Mr. Timothy Gundrum, International Truck & Engine Corporation Mr. Paramo Hernandez, MFASC/STA Mr. Dean High, MFASC/STA Ms. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association Ms. Jolynn Hoxie, Citizen Mr. Allan Jones, MFASC/STA PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. Chung Liu, South Coast Air Quality Management District Mr. Ray Lucas, MFASC/STA Mr. Bill Magavern, Sierra Club of California Mr. John Marrs, MFASC/STA Dr. Melanie Marty, Manager, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section Manager, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Mr. Chris McDonald, CFT Concrete Pumping Mr. Bryan McLelland, Citizen Mr. Jim Nolan, Interstate Concrete Pumping Mr. Alan Olick, MFASC/STA Ms. Amber Parsons, Performance Concrete Pumpinig Mr. Charles Pomeroy, MFASC/STA Mr. Ed Pupka, South Coast Air Quality Management District Ms. Sylvia Rodriguez, MFASC/STA Mr. Mark Rubick, Sacramento Concrete, Inc. Mr. David Rudin, Putzmeister, Inc. Ms. Anita Sison, Willits Resident Ms. Lisa Stegink, Engine Manufacturer's Association Mr. Mark Stepper, Cummins, Inc. Mr. Glen Stober, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Mr. James Thomas, Nabors Well Services Mr. Luke Tonachel, Natural Resources Defense Council PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi APPEARANCES CONTINUED ALSO PRESENT Mr. John Trajnowski, Ford Motor Co. Ms. Jill Whynot, South Coast Air Quality Management District Ms. Jane Williams, California Communities Against Toxics PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vii INDEX PAGE Pledge of Allegiance 1 Opening remarks by Chairperson Sawyer 1 Roll Call 12 Item 06-8-1 Chairperson Sawyer 2 Executive Officer Witherspoon 3 Staff Presentation 3 Board Discussion and Q&A 10 Item 06-8-2 Chairperson Sawyer 17 Staff Presentation 17 Board Discussion and Q&A 20 Motion 24 Vote 24 Item 06-8-3 Chairperson Sawyer 25 Executive Officer Witherspoon 25 Staff Presentation 27 Acting Ombudsman Ferreira 48 Board Discussion and Q&A 50 Ms. Whynot 72 Mr. Pupka 76 Mr. Bateman 86 Mr. Cunningham 88 Mr. Marrs 90 Ms. Rodriguez 95 Mr. Olick 97 Mr. Appleton 102 Mr. Grana 103 Mr. Jones 108 Mr. High 111 Mr. Hernandez 114 Mr. Lucas 115 Mr. Bell 118 Mr. Pomeroy 121 Ms. Williams 124 Ms. Forbis 141 Ms. Brook 145 Ms. Sison 149 Ms. Holmes-Gen 151 Mr. Magavern 153 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 viii INDEX CONTINUED PAGE Item 06-8-3(cont'd) Board Discussion and Q&A 155 Motion 190 Vote 190 Afternoon Session 192 Item 06-8-4 Chairperson Sawyer 192 Executive Officer Witherspoon 192 Staff Presentation 194 Acting Ombudsman Ferreira 212 Mr. Douglas 213 Mr. Cabaniss 220 Ms. Stegink 221 Mr. Stepper 230 Mr. Trajnowski 237 Mr. Gundrum 240 Mr. Anair 245 Mr. Tonachel 248 Ms. Holmes-Gen 250 Board Discussion and Q&A 252 Motion 254 Vote 254 Item 06-8-5 Chairperson Sawyer 254 Executive Officer Witherspoon 256 Staff Presentation 256 Acting Ombudsman Ferreira 273 Board Discussion and Q&A 274 Mr. Liu 275 Ms. Stegink 280 Board Discussion and Q&A 282 Motion 284 Vote 284 Public Comment 284 Adjournment 324 Reporter's Certificate 325 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Good morning. The September 3 28th, 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: Will the Clerk of the Board 10 please call the roll. 11 We don't have a quorum yet? 12 Okay. We'll have the roll as soon as we get our 13 sixth member here. 14 I have a few opening remarks before we get 15 started. I would like to address the witnesses signing up 16 to speak today. Please be aware, as usual we'll be 17 imposing a three-minute time limit so that everybody gets 18 a chance to speak. 19 I would like now for everyone in the room to note 20 where the exits are, on your right and your left and in 21 the rear. If exiting through the rear of the hearing 22 room, please follow the exit signs to the left passed the 23 restrooms. 24 In the event of a fire alarm, we will indeed 25 evacuate this room immediately, exit down the stairways, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 and you will receive directions on where to go. When the 2 "all clear" signal is given, we will return to the room. 3 Finally, I want to note the obvious. The future 4 of the Air Resources Board has been greatly altered by the 5 events of the past month. The Legislature passed and the 6 Governor yesterday signed the California Global Warming 7 Solutions Act of 2006. This bill assigns major 8 responsibility to the Air Resources Board for 9 implementation of both regulations and market-based 10 measures that will reduce California's 2020 greenhouse gas 11 emissions to those of 1990. Fortunately, other state 12 agencies, the California Energy Commission, the Public 13 Utilities Commission, the Resources Agency, the Integrated 14 Waste Management Board, and others will be working with 15 us. 16 We must remember that our primary mission remains 17 protecting the health of the people of California by 18 improving the quality of our air. 19 Issues of air quality and global warming are, of 20 course, interconnected, generally in a positive way so 21 that actions to improve air quality and to reduce 22 greenhouse gases reinforce each other. We will be 23 receiving our first report on planning for the 24 implementation of AB 32 at our October Board meeting. 25 Agenda Item 06-8-1. Anybody in the audience who PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 wishes to testify on today's agenda items, please sign up 2 with the Clerk of the Board. Also if you have a written 3 statement, please provide 30 copies when you sign up to 4 testify. 5 The first item on our agenda this morning is our 6 health update. For the past few years these monthly 7 updates have provided the Board with briefings on topics 8 related to our primary mission, to protect the public 9 health of Californians. This month staff will discuss 10 recently published research funded by the Air Resources 11 Board on cleaning products and air fresheners and their 12 potential indoor air quality impacts and health 13 implications. 14 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this 15 item. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 17 Sawyer, and good morning, members of the Board. 18 The research study we'll discuss today was 19 designed to meet two objectives: 20 First, state law directs ARB to assess total 21 exposures of Californians to toxic air contaminants, 22 including indoor exposures. This study provides data on 23 potential exposures to toxic air contaminants from the use 24 of cleaning products. 25 The second purpose of the study was to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 investigate the reactivity of fragrance compounds in 2 cleaning products. Preliminary work by other 3 investigators indicates that reactive chemistry converts 4 nontoxic pine and citrus fragrances into secondary 5 pollutants that may pose health impacts. 6 Dorothy Shimer, a member of the Health and 7 Exposure Assessment Branch will make the staff 8 presentation. 9 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 10 Presented as follows.) 11 MS. SHIMER: Well, thank you, Ms. Witherspoon. 12 And good morning Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. 13 Thank you for this opportunity to share results 14 from the recent ARB funded study on indoor air chemistry 15 and the possible health implications of this research. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. SHIMER: As just mentioned, the study had two 18 objectives: To identify and measure emissions of toxic 19 air contaminants from cleaning products and air 20 fresheners; and to identify and measure reaction products 21 when cleaning products with reactive compounds are exposed 22 to ozone. 23 The study was conducted at UC Berkeley and 24 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with Dr. William 25 Nazaroff as the principal investigator. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 --o0o-- 2 MS. SHIMER: Results of this project have been 3 published in four journal articles and a final research 4 report to ARB. The last article listed is in press. And 5 my presentation today will focus on the results from the 6 last three papers listed. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. SHIMER: The investigators conducted the 9 study in three sequential tasks. First they conducted a 10 shelf survey of hundreds of products; then selected 21 11 widely available products, which they screened for 12 compounds listed as toxic air contaminants and compounds 13 that are reactive with ozone. 14 They included at least one disinfectant, a 15 general purpose degreaser, a general purpose cleaner, wood 16 cleaner, furniture maintenance product, spot remover, 17 multipurpose solvent, and air freshener. 18 For the second task, six of the products were 19 selected for the measurement of their emissions in a 20 room-sized chamber during realistic cleaning procedures. 21 Both full strength and dilute forms of the product were 22 tested. 23 Finally three products were selected for more 24 detailed study in the presence and absence of ozone to 25 examine the resultant indoor chemistry and measure PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 secondary emissions. A general purpose cleaner, a 2 degreaser and an air freshener were tested at common usage 3 rates and the chamber condition simulated a residential 4 room. 5 In the large chamber, ozone was introduced in to 6 the room using a stream of 120 parts per billion, equal to 7 the one hour federal standard level. About half of this 8 ozone reacted with the surfaces inside the chamber, 9 leaving about 60 parts per billion available for reaction 10 during the experiment. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. SHIMER: For the second and third tasks of 13 the study the scientists developed precise protocols to 14 mop a floor, clean a cook top, and use plug-in air 15 fresheners. To answer the question posed by this slide, 16 it took one scientist to do the cleaning, and four or five 17 to gather the air quality measurements. 18 --o0o-- 19 MS. SHIMER: The primary emission results were 20 good news. Only three toxic air contaminants were 21 identified in the products tested. Six of the products 22 tested contained glycol ethers, with levels ranging from 23 .8 to 9.6 percent by weight. 24 Two-Butoxyethanol was the most prevalent, and if 25 the airborne concentrations when used in the cleaning PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 protocols were below the OEHHA acute reference level of 14 2 milligrams per cubic meter. 3 Direct emissions of TACs from cleaning products 4 and air fresheners did not appear to pose a risk to 5 building occupants during cleaning activities. However, 6 modeled scenarios indicate that a worst-case situation, 7 such as cleaning all interior windows with low 8 ventilation, may lead to exposure of 2-Butoxyethanol above 9 health guideline values. 10 Some products are now likely lower in VOC 11 content, because while the study was under way, ARB 12 regulations decreased the VOC limit by weight for 13 non-aerosol general purpose cleaners, general purpose 14 degreasers, and furniture maintenance products. Hence, 15 some currently available products will have lower VOC 16 content than the products studied. 17 And 12 of the products contained ozone-reactive 18 compounds at levels ranging from .23 percent to 26 percent 19 by weight. And these were primarily terpenes. 20 --o0o-- 21 MS. SHIMER: So what are terpenes? 22 Terpenes are a complex class of compounds found 23 in plant oils. Common terpenes in cleaning products and 24 air fresheners are alpha-pinene and d-limonene, which are 25 common to pine and citrus oils, respectively. These PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 compounds are used in cleaning products because of their 2 pleasant odors and favorable solvent properties. 3 Specifically they can remove grease and oil. 4 Terpenes are reactive VOCs and, thus, are subject 5 to the VOC limits for consumer products that I just 6 mentioned. 7 The Food and Drug Administration has classified 8 them as generally recognized as safe, meaning they are not 9 associated with adverse health effects. Although some may 10 cause irritation at very high levels. 11 In ambient air, oxidants such as ozone react with 12 terpenes to produce more irritating and toxic compounds 13 such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, formic acid 14 and acetic acid. Some of these products are toxic air 15 contaminants with documented irritant and carcinogenic 16 properties. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. SHIMER: In the chamber study with ozone, 19 reactive chemistry did indeed occur when cleaning products 20 were used. Formaldehyde levels were elevated by 9 to 16 21 parts per billion for the first four hours after cleaning. 22 These levels from a single cleaning event exceeded OEHHA's 23 chronic reference exposure level of 2.4 parts per billion, 24 and the Proposition 65 no significant risk level for 25 cancer of 1.6 part per billion. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 Particles were emitted as ultrafines. Then 2 aerosol aging processes led to particle growth from the 3 ultrafine to the accumulation mode. 4 Investigators estimated particle mass from 5 particle size and number for comparison to ambient air 6 quality standards. Results indicate that enough particles 7 were generated to increase the average PM2.5 mass by 30 to 8 90 micrograms per cubic meter over a 12-hour averaging 9 period. This concentration of ultrafine particles from a 10 single cleaning event is greater than the new national 11 24-hour standard for PM2.5 of 35 micrograms per cubic 12 meter. 13 In an attempt to understand the implication of 14 these results the investigator modeled some high-end use 15 scenarios to estimate exposure for a person using these 16 products. Calculations indicate formaldehyde intake could 17 exceed the Prop 65 no significant risk level for a 18 professional house cleaner and for a child who has an air 19 freshener as well as an ozone generator in his room. 20 --o0o-- 21 MS. SHIMER: The results of this study lead us to 22 several conclusions and related implications. The good 23 news, as stated earlier, is that very few toxic air 24 contaminants are directly emitted from cleaning products 25 and exposures are generally below guideline values. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 However, results of this study do have potential 2 health implications. The secondary emissions, that is, 3 the formaldehyde and particles that formed as a result of 4 the reaction of terpenes with ozone, may pose a previously 5 unrecognized exposure and health risk. Personal exposure 6 can be elevated due to the close proximity of the person 7 cleaning to the source of secondary pollutants. 8 As indicated in the AB 1173 report to the 9 Legislature on indoor air pollution in California, 10 continued research is needed on secondary indoor emissions 11 to better understand exposures. It's not adequate to 12 examine and assess only the directly emitted pollutants. 13 Lastly, these results support further reduction 14 of outdoor ozone levels and prevention of indoor ozone 15 emissions. 16 --o0o-- 17 MS. SHIMER: And this concludes my presentation. 18 And I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you may 19 have. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do Board members have any 21 questions? 22 Dr. Gong. 23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Very nicely done. Thank you, 24 Dr. Sawyer. 25 Two questions. One is: Were there any health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 effects related to these studies? I assume none of the 2 six scientists got ill from mopping the floors. But I 3 don't know that for a fact. 4 MS. SHIMER: No, that's correct. There were no 5 health effects. 6 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Okay. So far as we know. 7 And the other question is really related to 8 another oxidizing agent, and that's nitrogen dioxide or 9 NOx's. That to me is a more common indoor oxidizing agent 10 than even ozone, because we generate it ourselves quite 11 commonly in various households and offices. Have they 12 performed any nitrogen oxide studies? 13 MS. SHIMER: Yes. In this experiment, one of the 14 scenarios they did was that in the chamber they the 15 cleaning products and went through the cleaning protocol. 16 They also had ozone. NO2 I think was around 70 some parts 17 per billion. A trace amount of NO. 18 And they did find that some of the terpenes that 19 did not react with ozone-only reacted. So presumably the 20 nitrogen species went to a nitrate radical and reacted, 21 and they got different -- some different reaction products 22 and a decline of a couple of the terpenoids that did not 23 decline with ozone alone. 24 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Dr. Sawyer, we 25 have a quorum now, so it would be appropriate to take the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 roll. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Would the Clerk of the Board 3 please call the roll. 4 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Berg? 5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Present. 6 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. D'Adamo? 7 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Here. 8 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor DeSaulnier? 9 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Here. 10 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Dr. Gong? 11 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Present. 12 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Ms. Kennard? 13 Mayor Loveridge? 14 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Here. 15 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Patrick? 16 Ms. Riordan? 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Here. 18 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Supervisor Roberts? 19 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Here. 20 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Dr. Sawyer? 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Here. 22 BOARD CLERK ANDREONI: Mr. Chairman, we have a 23 quorum. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 25 Are there any other questions or comments from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 the Board? 2 Ms. D'Adamo. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: It just seems to me 4 intuitively that there should be a problem, because some 5 of those things smell horrible, some of those cleaning 6 products. And so I'm just curious as to why you -- what 7 methods you used for selection of the 21 products. Was it 8 based upon VOC content -- higher VOC contents? Did you 9 consider -- I mean I don't know exactly what I'm getting 10 at, except that there are certain products that just smell 11 so horrible and when they're used, you really do have to 12 have a window open. 13 MS. SHIMER: Yeah, the selection process, they 14 went through hundreds of products, and then kind of 15 narrowed it down to what they thought had the compounds of 16 interest, which were the terpenes and the TACs. And then 17 they went -- I think they selected about 50. They further 18 got the material safety data sheets, saw if the compounds 19 of interest were listed, and then they did a screening. 20 So they just kept, you know, narrowing the final three and 21 six products they would be studying. 22 And of the actual products they studied, one was 23 an aerosol product, and it was 26 percent terpene-type 24 compounds. The air freshener was about 13 percent. And 25 the general purpose cleaner was 7.6 percent or something PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 like that. 2 So they went through a selection process with the 3 material safety data sheets looking for compounds of 4 interest. Odor per se was not a consideration. 5 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. And then the other 6 question is: What about -- I guess there was some 7 analysis of direct exposure, in other words the person 8 that's using the product. Did you consider long-term 9 exposure, for example, housekeepers that are exposed to 10 this over an eight-hour period everyday, five days a week? 11 MS. SHIMER: Yeah, but that -- the investigator 12 did some modeling. And one of the scenarios he modeled 13 was a housekeeper who does this professionally. And that 14 person would be getting definitely above formaldehyde 15 levels. But, interestingly, the PM was not above other 16 levels. And that's -- it's kind of a difficult thing to 17 get a handle on because of different units. When you 18 consider exposure or dose, you have to consider not only 19 the high concentration in the room, but estimate the 20 amount of time you're in the room and the breathing rate. 21 And so even though there were some really high peaks, the 22 daily intake for particulate matter did not exceed an 23 equivalent standard -- federal standard. So they got 24 peaks that were really high. But averaged over a 24-hour 25 day, it didn't exceed the standard. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any other -- Dr. 2 Gong. 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: One follow-up question. 4 Are there sufficient lessons learned from this 5 series of research that the ARB can apply to its outreach 6 program and the information sheets, et cetera, to the 7 public? 8 MS. SHIMER: Certainly. This type of reactive 9 chemistry is known particularly in the ambient atmosphere. 10 I think this is a first time that it's been done to this 11 extent in the indoor environment. And some of the other 12 experiments they did included mitigation exercises. For 13 example, if the surface is rinsed with water after it's 14 cleaned, it greatly reduces the VOCs that can volatilize 15 and, hence, reactive chemistry that occurs. 16 Likewise, if paper towels, sponges, mops are 17 removed from the house after cleaning, you put them in 18 your garage or whatever, it has a huge impact. It can 19 reduce the emissions by 50 percent. So -- 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Doctor -- 21 MS. SHIMER: That's all. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Doctor, we did 23 talk about this at the staff level and what the 24 implications were and if we should be telling people not 25 to use pine and citrus cleaners through the whole ozone PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 season. But I think the most simple instruction is to do 2 it in the morning before the ozone levels are elevated and 3 do it with plenty of ventilation; and as Dorothy just 4 indicated, to get the cleaning products out of the house 5 when you're finished, and that would cut the exposure 6 quite a bit, because the ozone has to be present in order 7 for these secondary pollutants to form. 8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: And dilution of the 9 chemicals. 10 MS. SHIMER: Yeah, that -- excuse me -- that was 11 another scenario. They did dilute form. And obviously 12 less volatilization with dilute form. So only use as much 13 as you need. 14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So did you answer my question 15 about are we -- is the ARB going to implement it in any 16 outreach event? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. Yes, we 18 will. Not putting on an event, but update our materials 19 about indoor air cleaners, in the same way that we suggest 20 people jog during ozone season in the morning rather than 21 the afternoon, that kind of advice. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 23 Since we have no witnesses, is there any further 24 comment from the staff? 25 Since this is not a regulatory item, it's not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 necessary to officially close this record. 2 The next item on our addenda is 06-8-2, a 3 research proposal for the Board's consideration. 4 As usual, I will recuse myself from consideration 5 and approval of this proposal. 6 RESEARCH DIVISION CHIEF CROES: Dr. Lashgari will 7 present the staff presentation. 8 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 9 Presented as follows.) 10 DR. LASHGARI: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and 11 members of the Board. 12 Today we have one research proposal for your 13 review and approval. This proposal has been reviewed by 14 staff and approved by the Research Screening Committee. 15 I will briefly explain the problem addressed by 16 the proposal, its objectives and the expected results. 17 --o0o-- 18 DR. LASHGARI: Generally small and medium 19 commercial buildings are served by package rooftop 20 heating, ventilation and air conditioning, the so, called 21 HVAC units. Nail salons, hardware stores, restaurants, 22 mall shopping centers, auto parts dealers, grocery stores 23 and dental offices are a few of the diverse commercial 24 enterprises within the small and medium commercial 25 building sector. Californians likely spend a good deal of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 time breathing indoor air within these enterprises. 2 Aside from schools that have been studied to some 3 extent, information on these buildings' operation and 4 maintenance relevant to heating, ventilation and air 5 conditioning as well as indoor air quality is very 6 limited. 7 The California Energy Commission, with the 8 assistance of the Air Resources Board, has developed a 9 two-phase field study investigating the ventilation and 10 indoor air quality in small and medium commercial 11 buildings. 12 The first phase will be conducted by UC Berkeley 13 and was brought before the Board in April 2006. 14 This is the second phase of the larger project 15 the contractors will be UC Davis and Lawrence Berkeley 16 National Laboratory. The budget is a little more than $1 17 million and will be funded entirely by the California 18 Energy Commission. The duration of project is 27 months. 19 --o0o-- 20 DR. LASHGARI: With the help of an expert 21 advisory group, the survey part of the project, as 22 previously approved by the Board, will collect size, 23 occupancy, HVAC type and other particular information from 24 the California small and medium commercial building 25 sector. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 The objective of the first phase is to develop 2 statewide survey information on ventilation 3 characteristics, including design and performance for HVAC 4 systems and indoor air quality characteristics. The first 5 phase was also designed to guide the selection of 6 facilities for inspection and to create a contact list of 7 small and medium commercial building owners and operators 8 sufficient for properly conducting the field study 9 program. 10 --o0o-- 11 DR. LASHGARI: In the second phase the contractor 12 will collect relevant details on heating, ventilation and 13 air conditioning systems as well as indoor environmental 14 quality. 15 The kind of data that would be obtained includes: 16 Operation and maintenance of the HVAC and air 17 filtration systems; indoor air pollutant levels, 18 especially toxic air contaminants and potential pollutant 19 sources; and PM measurements inside and outside to 20 determine air exchange rates. 21 After thorough analysis the contractor will 22 produce the first statewide multi-climate regions 23 representative database that will be used by the 24 California Energy Commission to guide the development of 25 future building energy design standards that protect PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 indoor air quality and comfort in California. 2 --o0o-- 3 DR. LASHGARI: The successful execution of this 4 project reinforces the complementary roles of ARB and CEC 5 in setting building standards and providing indoor air 6 quality guidelines. Therefore, we request that you 7 approve the resolution for this research proposal. 8 Than you. And I will be happy to answer any 9 questions. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do Board members have any 11 questions? 12 Dr. Gong. 13 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 14 Just one quick question. I assume that the data 15 derived from this extensive study is not currently 16 available to a sufficient degree for making statements 17 about indoor air. Is that a safe statement? 18 DR. LASHGARI: That's correct. The data on small 19 and medium commercial buildings is very, very rare. 20 There's only one study that has been done nationwide, the 21 so-called VASE study by the Environmental Protection 22 Agency. And that only included 15 buildings out of the 23 100 buildings in the U.S. and California. And only 11 of 24 them were small and commercial -- medium commercial 25 buildings in California. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Why is that? Why is there 2 such scarce data? I mean I know we've been quite 3 concerned about outdoor air quality. But since we spend 4 more than 80 percent of our time indoors, it seems like 5 it's sort of a disproportionate certain here. 6 DR. LASHGARI: These studies require unique 7 expertise to carry them out. Also, they are tremendously 8 expensive. As you noticed, a million dollars per 40 9 buildings in the study. Also the base study, perhaps when 10 the tally is completed, costs relatively close to a 11 hundred million dollars. So they are not -- they are 12 difficult to do, they require expertise and they are 13 expensive. And small and commercial -- small and medium 14 commercial buildings are a very heterogeneous sector, as I 15 made mention to you. Nail salons to Home Depot type 16 stores, are all covered. Churches are covered. 17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So even 40 may not be that 18 representative of California buildings -- commercial 19 buildings? 20 DR. LASHGARI: It's our first effort, yeah. 21 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I assume that the results 22 derived here in California buildings will be able to be 23 extrapolated to other buildings in the United States? I 24 mean there's more than just California benefits from this 25 study too, I would assume. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 DR. LASHGARI: There certainly are aspects of 2 this study that can be extended. I should note, however, 3 that California within it has regional climates that are 4 very, very unique to it. Interior of the California has 5 climates that are very unique and, therefore, building 6 characteristics are very unique, the coastal areas. For 7 example, I doubt many people or many businesses run their 8 air conditioning in the San Francisco area, while in 9 Sacramento during summertime that is not the case. 10 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Just to follow up on that. 12 My hope would be when they choose the 40 to review, that 13 they do indeed look at the different climate areas of 14 California and then also the different maybe air basins 15 too, because, you know, you never know how people 16 function. And it would be interesting to see if people 17 maintain air-conditioners better in warmer climates. They 18 may not actually. But it would be interesting to see if 19 there is a difference of, you know, attentiveness to 20 changing filters, doing all those things that are 21 necessary, compared to those areas that may turn an 22 air-conditioner on a very few days during a year. 23 So I'm hopeful they'll do a broad look at 24 California, not just one area. 25 DR. LASHGARI: We will have four particular areas PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 in mind. One will be southern coastal, one will be 2 southern inland, one would be northern coastal and one 3 would be northern inland is what we're looking at. 4 But I do want to make mention that this is only a 5 first taste of a very, very large, very, very broad area 6 of California commercial enterprises. 7 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Oh, sure. 8 DR. LASHGARI: Perhaps a good chunk of California 9 commercial buildings are in this sector. We're talking 10 about tens of thousands of buildings. 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Absolutely. But at least 12 you're going to have four different regions to look at. 13 That's the main thing, I think. 14 DR. LASHGARI: Yes. 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Thank you. 16 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Just so that I'm clear on 17 what I'm voting on. On the Phase 2 field study, on the 18 first item, that is being funded by the California Energy 19 Commission. On the Phase 1 of the next item, we've 20 already approved that. 21 Is there additional funding that is being 22 approved here by approving these research? 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: There's no Air 24 Resources Board funding. But you're voting on the use of 25 the CEC funding. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: It's no problem. Thank you. 2 I just wanted to be clear. Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'd like to remind Board 4 members of our policy concerning ex parte communications. 5 While we may communicate off the record with outside 6 persons regarding Board rule making, we must disclose the 7 names of our contacts and the nature of the contents of 8 our communications on the record. This requirement 9 applies specifically to communications which take place 10 after the public agenda of the Board hearing has been 11 published. 12 Are there any communications that you need to 13 disclose? 14 Hearing none, I assume that all members of the 15 Board had the opportunity to review the proposal. And if 16 there are no additional concerns or comments, do I have a 17 motion to adopt Resolution No. 624? 18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So moved. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Second, Mr. Chairman. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And it's been moved and 21 seconded. 22 All those in favor please say aye. 23 (Ayes.) 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And opposed? 25 And please record me as abstaining. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 Since this is not a regulatory item, it is not 2 necessary to officially close the record. 3 The next item for our consideration is Agenda 4 Item 6-8-3, proposed amendments to airborne toxic control 5 measure for chrome plating and chromic acid anodizing 6 operations. 7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 8 Presented as follows.) 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: These amendments are 10 important from the perspective of reducing neighborhood 11 exposures to hexavalent chromium. They also take 12 advantage of the most advanced control technologies 13 available by updating what counts as BACT, or best 14 available control technology, for these facilities. 15 Ms. Witherspoon, would you please introduce this 16 item and begin staff's presentation. 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 18 Sawyer. 19 Hexavalent chromium is one of the most potent 20 compounds that the Board has identified as a toxic air 21 contaminant, second only to dioxins. Because of this 22 potency, exposures to hexavalent chromium are dangerous at 23 very small amounts. 24 And we have a special visitor with us today, Dr. 25 Melanie Marty, from the Office of Environmental Health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 Hazard Assessment, if you have questions about health 2 effects during the course of this item. 3 Over the years this Board and local air districts 4 have taken several regulatory actions to reduce public 5 exposure to hexavalent chromium. In 1998 -- excuse me -- 6 1988 this Board adopted chrome plating regulations and you 7 amended them ten years later, in 1998. Those regulations 8 together reduced statewide chrome emissions by more than 9 95 percent. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality 10 Management District adopted amendments in 2003 that 11 further reduced emissions from chrome operations in their 12 district. 13 As a result of these actions, ambient levels of 14 hexavalent chromium in California have been reduced by 70 15 percent over the last 15 years. 16 Unfortunately, there is still a significant 17 near-source risk. Staff has found several facilities that 18 pose a cancer risk in excess of 10 in a million per 19 persons exposed. Also, these facilities are frequently 20 located within communities, often near sensitive 21 receptors, such as homes, schools, and day care centers. 22 Our proposal today is designed to reduce this risk through 23 the application of best available control technology. 24 In our presentation and in the testimony today, 25 you'll hear a lot about the economic impacts of this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 regulation. Clearly some facilities will have difficulty 2 complying, particularly if they cannot recover their 3 investment costs through increased prices. And some may 4 stop working in the chrome plating profession altogether. 5 Staff is sensitive to the economic impacts of this 6 regulation and have incorporated flexibility wherever we 7 could to minimize costs. 8 You also hear that the rule is not stringent 9 enough because we are not recommending HEPA filters or the 10 equivalent for every source of hexavalent chrome. Staff 11 believes we've crafted a protective rule and that the 12 flexibility for smaller platers who use fume suppressants 13 will not pose an unreasonable risk. 14 I'll now turn the staff presentation over to Ms. 15 Shobna Sahni of the Stationary Source Division. 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Good morning, 17 Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board. 18 Today we are proposing for your consideration 19 amendments to the control measure for chromium plating. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: The presentation 22 will cover the topics on this slide. First, some 23 background on hexavalent chromium and chromium plating and 24 chromic acid anodizing facilities. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: In 1986 the Air 2 Resources Board identified hexavalent chromium as a toxic 3 air contaminant. The Board found that hexavalent chromium 4 is an extremely potent human carcinogen and that no level 5 of exposure is considered safe. Inhalation of this 6 compound causes lung cancer. Because of the extreme 7 potency of hexavalent chromium, even grams of emissions 8 pose a significant public health risk. 9 I'd like now to introduce Dr. Melanie Marty of 10 the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, who 11 will discuss some of the health impacts related to 12 exposure to hexavalent chromium. 13 --o0o-- 14 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION 15 MANAGER MARTY: Good morning, members of the Board. 16 There. Now I'm on. 17 Good morning. I just wanted to go over a few 18 things about hexavalent chromium to put it into 19 perspective why people are concerned about exposures. 20 Hexavalent chromium is a known human carcinogen. 21 It's been declared as such since at least 1980 by the 22 International Agency for Research on Cancer, U.S. EPA and 23 our National Toxicology Program all consider hexavalent 24 chromium to be a human carcinogen. It's also carcinogenic 25 in animals. There are literally dozens of worker studies PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 that have shown over the years high risks of lung 2 cancer -- and this is going back into the forties and with 3 case reports back in the thirties -- in the chromate 4 production, chrome pigment and chrome plating industries. 5 This is a very carcinogen in humans. It causes genetic 6 damage. In other words it damages your DNA. And that's 7 been shown in many studies. 8 --o0o-- 9 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION 10 MANAGER MARTY: In addition to being a carcinogen, 11 Chromium 6 also has other toxicity. It is an immune 12 sensitizer, which means it causes workers to become 13 allergic. So there are health effects in workers related 14 to dermatitis, which is some allergic reaction on your 15 skin. It's also a known occupational asthma hazard. So 16 individuals who become sensitized can then have allergic 17 asthma in response to exposure to hexavalent chromium. 18 It also increases the risk of noncancer 19 respiratory disease in workers, in putting measured 20 decreases in lung function, and damage to the lining of 21 the nose and the airways. 22 --o0o-- 23 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION 24 MANAGER MARTY: This table is meant to portray the potency 25 of hexavalent chromium in relation to other toxic air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 contaminants that have been identified by the Board. If 2 you assign hexavalent chromium a potency of 1 -- a 3 relative potency of 1, you can see that there's only one 4 other TAC so far identified by the Board that is more 5 potent than hexavalent chromium as a carcinogen. And that 6 is the dioxin and the whole class of chlorinated dioxins 7 and furans. 8 Cadmium is the next one down. And it's, you 9 know, only 3 percent of the potency basically of 10 hexavalent chromium. 11 A number of those, by the way, are known human 12 carcinogens. 13 --o0o-- 14 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION 15 MANAGER MARTY: The cancer potency factor that's been in 16 use for CalEPA, including ARB, was generated by CalEPA's 17 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment -- this 18 was back when we were in the Department of Health 19 Services -- using human studies. 20 We have kept our finger on the pulse in part 21 because our drinking water program is very involved in 22 looking at hexavalent chromium. And so we have kept pace 23 with the new human studies. These studies have reinforced 24 the status of hexavalent chromium as a potent human 25 carcinogen. In using the most recent study, that has very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 good exposure data -- that study is by Gibb and 2 colleagues -- we have looked at those data, looked again 3 at the potency, and it supports the potency we're already 4 using. You can use different models with those data, and 5 you get maybe a little under or a little over the existing 6 potency, but it does support. The use of that number is a 7 good -- it's a good number. 8 And that's it for me. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Thank you, Dr. 11 Marty. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: After 14 identification of hexavalent chromium as a toxic air 15 contaminant, airborne toxic control measures, or ATCMs, 16 were adopted to reduce emissions from many sources. 17 Air districts are required by law to implement 18 the ATCMs and can also adopt rules that are more 19 stringent. This was the case when the South Coast Air 20 Quality Management District amended their Rule 1469 to 21 further reduce emissions and exposure from chromium 22 operations. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Because of our 25 regulations, the regional risk from hexavalent chromium PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 has been significantly reduced. Ambient levels have 2 declined by about 70 percent. These levels continue to be 3 stable and low. Emissions from chromium plating and 4 chromic acid anodizing facilities do not contribute 5 significantly to ambient concentrations and regional 6 health risks. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: However, 9 near-source risk is still of concern. As a result of the 10 existing ATCM, emissions from some plating and anodizing 11 facilities have been controlled by 95 percent and other 12 facilities have controlled emissions by 99 percent. Other 13 air district rules or policies have also required further 14 control. 15 Even with these reductions, 30 percent of the 16 facilities currently have estimated cancer risk of greater 17 than or equal to 10 in a million. The focus of the staff 18 proposal today is to address these near-source risks. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: The next few 21 slides describe the chrome plating and anodizing 22 facilities in California. 23 First of all, there are three processes as shown 24 on the slide. Each of these processes requires parts to 25 be placed in a tank containing a chromium solution. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 During chrome plating when electrical current is applied 2 to the solution, the chromium deposits on to the part. 3 Thus the part is plated. 4 During the electrolysis bubbles are produced. 5 When they burst at the surface, a fine mist containing 6 hexavalent chromium is emitted. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: The difference 9 between hard and decorative plating is the thickness of 10 the deposit. 11 Hard chrome plating provides a relatively thick 12 layer of corrosion protection which is accomplished by 13 plating for very long periods of time. 14 Decorative chrome plating provides a thin layer. 15 And as shown on the slide, a typical application is a 16 shiny chrome-plated wheel. 17 The chromic acid anodizing process seals the 18 parts, providing corrosion and abrasion resistance. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: This slide shows 21 the distribution of the various chrome plating facilities. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: The next slide 24 shows a chrome plating tank. To plate parts, they are 25 hung from the bar shown in the picture and immersed in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 solution of chromium. When electricity is supplied to the 2 tank, the chromium and the solution deposits on to the 3 part. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: In 2003 our 6 survey identified 220 hexavalent chromium plating and 7 anodizing facilities and 10 decorative chrome plating 8 facilities using the trivalent chromium process. About 9 half of these businesses are small, with gross annual 10 revenue less than or equal to $1 million. 75 percent are 11 located in the South Coast Air District. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Emissions are 14 calculated using an emission factor and multiplying by 15 amp-hours, which is a measure of throughput. An amp-hour 16 is the amount of current applied to the tank over time. 17 Therefore, as amp-hours increase, emissions increase. 18 There is a wide distribution in facility size 19 based on throughput. This can be seen in the next slide. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Over 20 percent 22 of the facilities are small, with less than or equal to 23 20,000 annual amp-hours. About 30 percent of facilities 24 have annual amp-hours of over 1 million. Some of the 25 largest facilities have over 10 million amp-hours per PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 year. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Many control 4 methods are currently used to comply with the existing 5 ATCM. Most decorative plating operations use in-tank 6 controls, including chemical fume suppressants. These are 7 chemicals that reduce chromium emissions by reducing the 8 surface tension of the solution. 9 The picture shows a tank which is using polyballs 10 as part of the emission control. 11 --o0o-- 12 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: For most hard 13 chromium plating facilities add-on controls are required. 14 Some of the controls are listed on the slide. Generally 15 these types of controls are more efficient at reducing 16 emissions than are in-tank controls alone. Some districts 17 have required add-on controls to reduce emissions from 18 larger decorative chrome plating facilities. 19 HEPA filters, among the most common form of 20 add-on controls, have been shown to control emissions by 21 99.97 percent. Many facilities use a combination of 22 in-tank and add-on controls to reduce emissions. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Based on our 25 review of control technologies, we are redefining best PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 available control technology, or BACT, for this industry. 2 For intermediate and large facilities staff 3 believes BACT is use of HEPA filtration devices or other 4 controls which achieve an emission rate equivalent to HEPA 5 systems. 6 Large facilities with higher risk would be 7 required to use effective add-on controls to meet the 8 emission rate. 9 For small facilities that can achieve lower risk 10 levels with less efficient control methods, staff believes 11 BACT can be met through the use of specific chemical fume 12 suppressant which reduces emissions to .01 milligram per 13 amp-hour. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: We have 16 determined that there is a need for further control based 17 on factors shown here. In general, these sources have 18 elevated exposures, are located close to sensitive 19 receptors, and are located within communities. In 20 addition, BACT can significantly reduce risk. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: As mentioned, 23 staff believes further control is warranted because the 24 remaining cancer risk near many facilities is elevated. 25 As the table shows, about 30 percent of the facilities PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 have cancer risk greater than 10 per million exposed 2 people and another 30 percent have risk between 1 and 10 3 per million people exposed. 4 Although not shown, 40 percent of facilities have 5 estimated cancer risks of less than 1 per million people 6 exposed. 7 These numbers do not account for potential 8 fugitive emissions which, as we learned from our Barrio 9 Logan study, can be quite high. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Now I'd like to 12 summarize the proposed amendments, which are designed to 13 reduce these remaining near-source cancer risk. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: In accordance 16 with state law, the proposal would require BACT for all 17 facilities. By applying BACT, near-source risk for about 18 90 facilities would be reduced by up to 85 percent. 19 Overall cancer risks for over the 90 percent of the 20 facilities would be below 10 per million people exposed. 21 The proposal would also reduce exposure and risk 22 from new facilities by not allowing new operations in 23 communities. 24 Because we've learned that fugitive emissions 25 also impact communities, housekeeping requirements would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 reduce dust. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: This table shows 4 the proposed emission limits. As you can see, the 5 effective date of the requirements take into account 6 emission potentials and proximity to sensitive receptors. 7 To prevent the operation of new hexavalent 8 chromium and anodizing facilities near sensitive 9 receptors, the proposal would prohibit operation of these 10 new facilities in any area zoned residential or mixed use 11 or within 150 meters from the boundary of any such area. 12 As you will see when we discuss modifications, we 13 are proposing to increase this distance to 300 meters, 14 which would be consistent with ARB's land-use guidelines. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: We are also 17 proposing housekeeping measures to control dust emissions 18 and a training requirement to assure continuous 19 compliance. 20 We are also proposing to prohibit the sale or use 21 of chromium plating and anodizing kits by untrained 22 people. We have seen these kits for sale on the Internet 23 and in catalogs. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Facilities PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 complying with chemical fume suppressants would be 2 required to use one or more of the products listed here. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Staff has 5 proposed modified and new definitions. We would like to 6 highlight the definition of sensitive receptor. This 7 includes any residence, educational resources, day care 8 centers and health care facilities. This is consistent 9 with the thermal spring ATCM definition already approved 10 by the Board. 11 There's also an organizational change which would 12 renumber the ATCM. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: No substantial 15 changes are proposed for the sections listed here. 16 In addition, the appendices would be contained in 17 new section 93102.16. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: The next few 20 slides outline the benefits and impacts of the staff's 21 proposal. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: The greatest 24 benefit from adoption of the proposal would be a 25 significant reduction in near-source cancer risk. Note PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 that no facilities would have cancer risk over 100. Also 2 by applying BACT an additional 46 facilities would have 3 reduced cancer risk to below 10 per million people 4 exposed. 5 Only six facilities would have estimated cancer 6 risk of over 25 per million exposed people. These 7 facilities would be required to conduct a site-specific 8 analysis to determine if further measures to reduce risk 9 are necessary. 10 Seventy-four percent, or 162 facilities, would 11 have estimated cancer risk of less than or equal to 1 per 12 million exposed people. This is an increase of 72 13 facilities compared to the current status. 14 Overall, out of 220 facilities, 203 or, 92 15 percent, would have estimated cancer risk of less than or 16 equal to 10 per million exposed people. 17 Fugitive emissions that would be reduced through 18 housekeeping measures are not included in these health 19 risk numbers. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Because many of 22 the facilities are located in low-income and ethnically 23 diverse neighborhoods, these communities would realize a 24 significant benefit from implementation of the proposal. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: We did not 2 identify any significant adverse environmental impacts 3 that would occur from adoption of the proposed amendments. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: The total cost 6 of the proposal is estimated to be $14.2 million. Of this 7 amount, capital costs are estimated to be $9.6 million. 8 Ongoing costs of $3.6 million are also estimated. 9 Next slide please. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: These costs are 12 associated with, for example, filter replacement and 13 disposal, chemical fume suppressant use and electrical 14 uses to operate the equipment. 15 Reporting, source testing, permit renewal, et 16 cetera, costs are estimated to be $1 million. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: This slide shows 19 estimated individual facility costs. Note that 60 percent 20 of the facilities are in substantial compliance and after 21 the first year would have no new costs. 22 Costs for facilities installing add-on control 23 devices ranges from about 45,000 to 215,000 per year. 24 Intermediate size facilities successfully complying 25 without add-on controls would have initial cost of about PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 $10,000, with ongoing costs related to chemical fume 2 suppressants of between 100 to $200. 3 Average initial cost for a small facility using 4 chemical fume suppressants would be about $2,000 in the 5 first year only. After the first year, costs would be 6 about $100 for chemical fume suppressants. 7 Average initial costs for a facility in 8 substantial compliance would be about $5,000. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: While we 11 estimate the average profitability impacts for the 12 industry would not be significant, costs for some 13 individual businesses are expected to be significant and 14 may adversely impact their profitability. 15 Our cost analysis estimated that return of 16 owner's equity for some businesses may decline by up to 41 17 percent. Return on owner's equity is a measure of 18 profitability. 19 Some of these businesses may be able to secure 20 the necessary capital by participating in the loan 21 guarantee program. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Next I would 24 like to apprise you of several key issues. We will be 25 discussing our responses to the issues after the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 testimony, if necessary. 2 --o0o-- 3 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Comments have 4 been received that the cost of the proposal is high, while 5 emissions from plating and anodizing are low, about four 6 pounds per year. 7 Staff acknowledges that the costs are high. But 8 these businesses are located in communities and, to 9 protect these neighborhoods, require costly controls. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: We've had 12 comments related to the emission control approach. These 13 include that the provisions of South Coast AQMD Rule 1469 14 should be adopted statewide. We do not think this rule is 15 as prospective as our proposal because BACT is not 16 required for all facilities. 17 We've also been asked to provide flexibility for 18 facilities with over 200,000 amp-hours to meet the 19 emission rate without add-on controls. 20 In contrast to this, we've also been asked to 21 require HEPA filters for all facilities because these are 22 the most reliable control technologies. 23 We believe the proposal provides a good balance 24 between cost of control and health risks. Facilities 25 which present the highest risk should have the most PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 effective controls with operating parameters that are easy 2 to monitor. We also believe providing flexibility for 3 smaller facilities is appropriate because of their lower 4 risk. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: We've received 7 comments that use of the trivalent chromium should be 8 required for decorative chrome platers. We evaluated this 9 approach and have determined that it is not yet feasible 10 for all applications. 11 Comments have been received that the ATCM should 12 address situations where people are allowed to move in 13 close to plating facilities and that cumulative impacts 14 should be addressed. Our proposal is designed to reduce 15 emissions to the extent technology allows. We are hopeful 16 that the land-use guidance document will prevent the 17 situations where zoning changes allow siting of residences 18 near plating operations. With regard to cumulative 19 impacts, no methodology has yet been worked out to address 20 these situations. 21 To be consistent with the land-use guidance we've 22 been asked to extend the separation requirement for new 23 facilities to 300 meters. We agree and are proposing this 24 change. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: We are proposing 2 some modifications to our proposal. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: This slide shows 5 some of our proposed modifications. Of note is that we 6 are now proposing that the separation distance for new 7 facilities be increased from 150 meters to 300 meters. 8 This would be consistent with the earlier land-use 9 guidance. As a further measure of protection we are 10 proposing that new facilities could now operate within 300 11 meters -- could not operate within 300 meters of a school 12 or a school under construction. 13 Also the separation requirements for new 14 trivalent chromium facilities is proposed for deletion 15 because it is not a carcinogen. Instead trivalent 16 chromium facilities would be required to do a facility 17 site-specific risk analysis. 18 We are also clarifying that compliance training 19 would be required for the owner or a current employee. 20 --o0o-- 21 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: For facilities 22 currently using chemical fume suppressants to comply we 23 are proposing that within six months after the rule 24 becomes effective that these facilities must begin using 25 the specified chemical fume suppressants. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: This slide shows 3 some additional modifications. Most of these are to 4 further clarify various provisions. 5 One clarification would relate to alternatives to 6 be approved by U.S. EPA. 7 We are clarifying that the alternative relating 8 to equivalent emission reductions would only be applicable 9 for the existing standards in Section 93102.4A. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR POLLUTION SPECIALIST SAHNI: Staff's 12 recommendation. 13 We recommend that the Board adopt the proposed 14 amendments with the proposed modifications suggested by 15 staff. 16 Thank you. This concludes my presentation. We 17 would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 19 At this time would the representative of the 20 Ombudsman's office please describe the public 21 participation process that occurred while this item was 22 being developed and share any concerns or comments you may 23 have with the Board at this time. 24 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Yeah, could I ask a -- 25 ACTING OMBUDSMAN FERREIRA: Dr. Sawyer and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 members of the Board. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 3 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: You mentioned something 4 about a Barrio Logan study. Could you expand on that a 5 little bit. It seemed to be important, but maybe I just 6 missed it in the presentation. But what was -- 7 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: The 8 Barrio Logan study was -- this is Carla Takemoto, by the 9 way. 10 The Barrio Logan study was a air monitoring study 11 that we conducted in a neighborhood in San Diego. And 12 there were community concerns about the location of some 13 plating shops in relation to where residences were 14 located. And what we found in this study is that 15 emissions from a decorative chrome plating shop exceeded 16 what we would have expected if our emission rate and our 17 emission factor for decorative plating facilities was 18 correct. And as a result of this study we began an 19 evaluation of our own control measure to make sure that it 20 continued to provide the needed health protection. And 21 those findings were very important to us in this 22 evaluation. 23 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: What kind of distances 24 were involved? 25 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Actually PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 we had a situation where we had a residence located 2 directly between two plating shops, such that I would say 3 that the distance between the residence and the plating 4 shop was maybe 25 meters. And then on the other side of 5 the residence was a hard chrome plating operation that was 6 controlled with a HEPA filtration system. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We will be returning to the 8 Board members for questions following the Ombudsman's 9 statement. 10 ACTING OMBUDSMAN FERREIRA: Dr. Sawyer and 11 members of the Board. To develop this regulation staff 12 has worked with the chromium plating and anodizing 13 industry by contacting businesses individually. They also 14 worked with two industry associations Metal Finishing 15 Association of Southern California and Surface Technology 16 Association. Additionally staff contacted manufacturers 17 of chromium plating kits and chemical suppliers to the 18 plating industry. 19 The first stakeholder meeting was held in January 20 2002. The first draft regulatory concepts were shared 21 with stakeholders at the May 2006 workshops. The initial 22 draft of the regulation was posted on the website on June 23 7th and stakeholders were notified through a list serve. 24 There were four public workshops. The first 25 workshop was held on June 27th, the second on June 30th, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 the third on August 21st, and the fourth on August 23rd. 2 Staff also held nine workshops -- I'm sorry -- nine 3 stakeholder meetings. 4 The workshops and the work groups were held in 5 multiple areas of the state to ensure that all 6 stakeholders had an opportunity to participate. On 7 average, 20 to 30 stakeholders attended the meetings. 8 Generally the attendance was higher in southern California 9 than northern California. 10 Staff also had seven conference calls with air 11 districts, environmental groups, and the industry 12 associations. 13 Emissions testing was conducted in South Coast, 14 San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Metro, and Shasta County 15 Air Districts. 16 Over the course of the emissions testing program, 17 from 2003 to 2006, protocols for source testing and source 18 test reports were posted to the web for comments. The 19 source tests for Phase 1 of the emissions testing program 20 was conducted in the South Coast Air Basin during 2003 21 through April 2003 -- I'm sorry -- January 2003 through 22 April 2003. 23 Phase 2 of the testing program required 24 development of a new protocol. Because of this staff 25 sought stakeholder input on each test report. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 The Phase 2 source tests were conducted in 2 Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley and Shasta County. All 3 reports of the source tests were also posted to our 4 website. The staff report was released on August 11, 5 2006. It was noticed on the website on August 10, 2006. 6 The hearing notice and staff report were also 7 sent to our mailing list. Nearly 400 stakeholders 8 received the information through the mail, and 9 approximately 450 received the information via the list 10 serve. 11 This concludes my comments. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 13 Do any of the Board members have questions at 14 this time? 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I'll save mine. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. No? 17 Dr. Gong? 18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I'd just like to preface 19 this. I'm looking forward to the discussion period as 20 well. 21 My initial reading of the staff paper was I think 22 very favorable. I was very disappointed in one aspect of 23 the staff paper in that it did not call attention to the 24 air quality and land use handbook that was published in 25 April of last year. Perhaps I have a little bias in that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 because I sort of helped with that development. But I 2 think that's very important, because the chromium issue 3 was certainly one of the pivotal events pointed out in 4 that particular document. 5 And I realize it's only recommendations. But I 6 think as an organization, as a public health entity, in 7 essence, we need to be consistent in our numbers. And I'm 8 very happy that you made it consistent with your 9 modifications today. 10 And I think I'll just hold with that. Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 13 I just have a couple of questions to start out 14 with. 15 On slide number 37, you indicated that 60 percent 16 of the facilities are in substantial compliance. I was 17 wondering if those facilities are in a specific area. 18 And, secondly, what circumstances brought them under 19 compliance? 20 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: This is 21 Carla Takemoto. 22 The facilities are distributed in various parts 23 of the state where -- the air districts that do have 24 plating shops that are in substantial compliance. The 25 facilities are in substantial compliance for a number of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 reasons. Among them is that to comply with the current 2 ATCM requirements, many facilities already were required 3 to install add-on controls and reduce their emissions 4 significantly. And there are a number of facilities with 5 add-on controls are already -- that are fully complying 6 with the regulation. 7 There are additionally a number of small 8 facilities that are already using chemical fume 9 suppressants and the chemical fume suppressants that we 10 would specify for use here. And, again, use of those 11 chemical fume suppressants has already been required by 12 the current ATCM. 13 There are other situations where air district 14 rules have required controls beyond the ATCM. So there 15 are a variety of reasons that businesses are in 16 substantial compliance. 17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So of the 40 percent that are 18 left, are they not following the current rules, or were 19 they under the -- were they excepted -- were they 20 exceptions from the current rule? 21 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: No, the 22 current rule allows different levels of control depending 23 on emissions. So the 40 percent of facilities we feel are 24 in compliance with the existing ATCM. We have just 25 determined that by application of BACT that we will be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 able to further reduce the risk of those facilities 2 because there are technologies that allow us to further 3 reduce the risks. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Mrs. Berg, I'd 5 also say that we're dropping the threshold at which each 6 level of BACT applies. So this proposal's more stringent 7 than the one on the books. 8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But the 60 percent that are 9 of substantial compliance, that will not cost them any 10 additional -- 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's correct. 12 It's taking the other 40 percent and adding new costs to 13 them. 14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And that 40 percent will be 15 the ones that will be absorbing that 14 -- the number that 16 you put in your proposal? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. 18 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: They will 19 shoulder the bulk of those costs, that's correct. 20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: A majority of those are small 21 businesses? 22 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: A number 23 of them are small businesses, but it's probably about an 24 even split with businesses that are not small businesses 25 that would also shoulder some of those costs. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. And I'm confused, 2 since -- and I'm in full agreement that hexavalent 3 chromium chromate is a toxic chemical known. I'm confused 4 as to why the Toxic Hot Spot is not handling some of this 5 problem. 6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: The risks 7 that we have found from the facilities as we began our 8 evaluation here already considered that the "Hot Spots" 9 Program was fully implemented in the state. So even with 10 the "Hot Spots" Program we found that there was a general 11 residual risk from these facilities which we could address 12 by requiring BACT. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Mrs. Berg, I 14 think there's two answers to that question. First of all, 15 the "Hot Spots" Program does not impose a specific 16 outcome. It says if you're over 10-in-a-million risk, 17 that you must come up with a plan to reduce those risks, 18 but not to what level. So that's been a decision to be 19 made by each individual air district. 20 And then I also think that our work in Barrio 21 Logan and our source testing elsewhere has revealed to us 22 that the amount of control we thought we were getting from 23 the prior chrome rule in near-source applications was not 24 correct. That because of issues with operating and 25 maintenance, because of fugitive emissions, you're going PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 to have far more reliable control with a HEPA filter, 2 which is why we're proposing that for the biggest chrome 3 users today. 4 So it's been a combination of policy decisions 5 made at the local level, and not quite enough rigor in the 6 existing chrome rule to produce the desired result. 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Do I understand that fume 8 suppressant is as effective as HEPA filters if it is 9 implemented properly? 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's a big 11 "if". But -- 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But just given -- you know, I 13 guess I -- if fume suppressant is implemented properly, is 14 it as effective as HEPA filters? 15 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: We would 16 say that use of a chemical fume suppressant alone is not 17 equivalent to a HEPA filler. In fact, we would find that 18 it's about an order of magnitude better control with a 19 HEPA filter system. 20 We have looked at one source test result where a 21 combination of maybe two types of chemical fume 22 suppressants along with what is called polyballs -- 23 they're sort of like ping pong balls that you place across 24 the top of the tank. In this one source test they did 25 achieve a very low emission rate, which was in the same PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 ballpark as we would expect with a HEPA filter system. 2 And so that's -- based on sort of that combination of 3 controls as why we're providing that flexibility for the 4 medium-sized facilities. 5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And that would be for 6 everybody under the 200 amp-hours -- 200,000 amp-hours? 7 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: That's 8 correct. 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. And, finally, who's 10 doing the training for -- we're requiring an owner or an 11 employee to attend some training. Who's doing that 12 training? 13 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: We 14 already have an ARB training class designed to do this 15 type of training. So it would be an ARB-conducted class. 16 However, the South Coast has a training class as well that 17 would suffice. 18 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Is there any OSHA data that 19 suggests that plating employees suffer more long-term 20 health effects, do you know? 21 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION 22 MANAGER MARTY: Yes. 23 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yes? 24 OEHHA AIR TOXICOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY SECTION 25 MANAGER MARTY: Yes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. Thank you. 2 Thank you very much. 3 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: You know, since you've 4 used Barrio Logan as an example, would you complete the 5 story so my colleagues will know what the ending was with 6 that. I don't want them having heartburn over this. 7 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Well, I 8 guess the short answer to that is that the decorative 9 chrome plating shop was closed down. 10 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: By the APCD in San Diego. 11 (Laughter.) 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Mayor Roberts, 13 for asking that question. 14 Are there other Board questions? 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And the 16 HEPA-equipped facility was allowed to continue operation 17 as not posing -- 18 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Because it didn't pose a 19 risk there. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: -- a significant 21 risk to the adjacent neighbors, even though they were 22 very, very close. 23 BOARD MEMBER ROBERTS: Yeah. And you all should 24 understand, this is one of those very old communities 25 where it's hard to even understand the history of whether PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 the industrial came first or -- it's on the edge of the 2 port in a very industrial area, and there's been 3 encroachments of housing into the industrial and 4 industrial into the housing. So it was an inherited 5 issue. And I think the work of the ARB staff along with 6 the APCD, Air Pollution Control District, staff is to be 7 commended. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 9 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Good to hear the end of 10 the story. 11 The other -- quick question. We have this letter 12 from Caswell Electroplating in Miniature. I take it our 13 current rules as we're proposing would essentially say no 14 to these kits? 15 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: That is 16 the proposal before you today, yes. 17 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: And the reason for that 18 is there's -- 19 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Well, 20 these kits are sold to do-it-yourselfers that may have 21 this little plating bath setup in their garage. And their 22 really is little to no oversight of the emissions or 23 controlling that type of process. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Okay. I'm warming up now. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 (Laughter.) 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Need a filter. I thought no 3 one was going to say anything. Here they come. 4 But a couple things. One is clarification on 5 Table 33, Near-Source Cancer Risk Reduction. 6 I just wanted to be clear in my mind what you're 7 saying with that, with the risk greater than 10 in a 8 million, before and after, 63 and then 17. 9 Does that mean that there are still 17 facilities 10 who have a risk greater than 10 in a million even with the 11 staff proposal? 12 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Yes, 13 that's what that -- that's what the information says. 14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: As was said. How is that 15 possible? 16 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Well -- 17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I mean how did -- shouldn't 18 they all be in compliance? 19 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Well, 20 they would be in full compliance. But the situation -- as 21 you'll recall, we kind of talked about that emissions are 22 related to throughput and that's amp-hours. So eventually 23 a facility is going to operate so many amp-hours that, 24 even with having the most stringent control, that they 25 will exceed the risk threshold of 10 per million. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 that's just based on the size, how much plating they do. 2 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So it goes in cycles in a 3 sense or -- 4 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Cycles? 5 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Cycles of plating. 6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: No, that 7 would be the emissions over the course of a year would 8 lead to a cancer risk in excess of 10. 9 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Dr. 10 Gong, we -- this is Bob Fletcher -- we also have a 11 provision in the regulation for facilities that emit more 12 than a specified level. I think that's 15 grams. Then we 13 require them to do a site-specific risk analysis, so 14 that -- for these very large facilities we want to make 15 sure that the districts have the right data. There will 16 be site-specific considerations to take into account in 17 that case to determine whether any additional risk 18 reduction is appropriate. 19 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So are you saying you'll 20 pre-identify some of these potentially large output 21 units and -- 22 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: 23 They'll be identified as part of the compliance 24 process, yes. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: All right. So you're just PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 using a placeholder a 17 here, is that -- I don't -- 2 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Yes. 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And this is 4 the risks that's next to the facility. There may or may 5 not be a residential or a sensitive receptor there. So 6 through this process we'll find out exactly how many 7 people are exposed in these situations and what more might 8 be done about it. 9 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So this could be 0 or a 5, 10 for that matter? 11 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: It will be a 12 number less than 17. We don't know yet exactly what it 13 will be. 14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Okay. Interesting how you 15 did that. I didn't -- okay. 16 Barrio Logan. Interesting story. 17 My question is: How typical is Barrio Logan? Or 18 can you call it typical? I guess it's what you would call 19 a worst-case scenario. But do you see many of these 20 throughout the state anymore? 21 We're using it, for example, in the land-use 22 booklet and even now in the staff paper as an example, as 23 a poster child or something. But -- because ARB has done 24 a study of it and obviously we have data. But what does 25 it represent, in a sense of, is it typical, is it what PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 we're -- 2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Well, I 3 think in terms of proximity to sensitive receptors, the 4 Barrio Logan situation was not that unusual. We have 5 found that of the current facilities there's over 40 6 percent of them that have a sensitive receptor within a 7 100 meters. 8 We have also found that this particular plating 9 shop probably was not doing very good housekeeping 10 measures, so fugitive emissions probably played a large 11 impact on the emissions from the facility. 12 But the Barrio Logan experience is just one 13 supporting piece of information from our proposal. It's 14 not the -- it's not really the basis of our proposal. 15 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Okay. Slide 36, Cost 16 Impacts. This is the business end of the cost impacts. 17 I would also advise staff and the Board that 18 there are also health impacts that are not tallied up in 19 your slide. And I'm sure OEHHA can provide numbers if 20 necessary. But obviously, if we're trying to protect 21 public health and avoid certain cancers, et cetera, and 22 noncancer endpoints, there are costs associated with that, 23 as I well know. 24 So I think you're looking at one side of the 25 equation. But there's also another, again, health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 economics side of the equation as well, and we should not 2 overlook that in our decision making. 3 And the last point I'd just like to bring up is, 4 I'm still in a quandary as to receptors -- sensitive 5 receptors moving in closer to a chromium facility. What 6 assurances do I have that these people, through no fault 7 of their own necessarily, and, for that matter, no fault 8 of the chromium factory -- how do we try to protect public 9 health in that situation? Are there regs or anything like 10 that that we can use or lean on? Because, again, 11 preexisting plants, receptors moving in because the land 12 is cheaper there, et cetera -- whatever -- poor land use 13 decision making by powers to be. 14 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: And I 15 think we've tried to address this issue to the extent 16 possible. And we believe that we're addressing it 17 partially by requiring emissions to be reduced to as low 18 as technology allows. 19 We also are dealing with new facilities by not 20 allowing them to operate in any such area where there 21 would be a school or residence, things like that. 22 And we also think that the land-use guidance 23 handbook will be helpful in this area, such that 24 situations that we see today will not occur again. 25 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you for your comments. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 I'm sure some of these challenges will be commented on 2 during a subsequent period. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 5 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Thank you, Mr. 6 Chairman. 7 Maybe I'm imagining this, but I'm hearing either 8 a slight contradiction between the staff report and your 9 comments today in regards to best available control 10 measure for the smaller facility. So, in the staff report 11 it says that the high efficiency particulate arrester you 12 can reach the same equivalence with chemical fume 13 suppressants for the smaller facilities. But then today, 14 at least what I heard, was less of an equivocation, that 15 the HEPA is just -- that's best available control 16 technology, period. 17 So the question for me would be: Why not just 18 require that for all of the facilities? 19 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Well, we 20 have tiers of requirements, and those are pretty much 21 related to risk from the facilities. And what we've found 22 for small facilities, that we can reduce their risk to 23 very low levels by using a cheaper technology, such as a 24 chemical fume suppressant. 25 However, as facilities grow in terms of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 throughput and emissions, you reach a level where the 2 control provided by fume suppressants is not sufficient to 3 address the risk. And that's why we would be 4 considered -- why we would be requiring tighter controls 5 meeting lower emission rates for facilities with higher 6 throughput. 7 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Are we more concerned 8 with the cost for the smaller operators or is this -- are 9 we more focused on what is best available control 10 technology or an equivalent? 11 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I would say both. 12 That we are more open to taking a risk with the smaller 13 facilities because their emissions are lower and if 14 something goes wrong or you lose a margin of control, 15 you're still not over a large risk to the adjacent 16 population. But our greatest confidence is with the HEPA 17 filters. And so above 200,000 amp-hours we think that 18 really should be the requirement. 19 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Well, not to pick on 20 Ron, but in the case of Barrio Logan, that was a small 21 operation. Where would that have fit? 22 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: The 23 amp-hours from the plating shop in Barrio Logan probably 24 would have fallen into the intermediate-size facilities, 25 but closer to the bottom range, closer to 20,000 than PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 closer to 200,000. 2 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And do you have more 3 problems as a general rule with the smaller operators in 4 terms of housekeeping -- you used that word -- and 5 compliance? As a general rule, just intuitively, having 6 been here for a long time, that seems to be the case. 7 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: I guess 8 there's a pretty wide spectrum. From the facilities that 9 we have visited over the course of our evaluation, we see 10 a wide range of varying degrees of cleanliness, and it 11 doesn't necessarily relate to size. 12 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: I do 13 think that the facilities that are HEPA controlled though 14 are generally cleaner than the other facilities because 15 they don't have the potential for the fugitive emissions 16 to get out. 17 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: So do you have an 18 estimate if you just required HEPA for everyone what the 19 consequences would be for business, how many of those 20 facilities might go out of business, how many might be 21 forced to move? And how difficult is it to move these 22 facilities? 23 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Let me -- 24 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Sorry. For a group 25 that didn't have any questions ten minutes ago -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 (Laughter.) 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, let me just 3 remind you of the cost differential. A HEPA device is 4 going to run 50,000 a year and the fumes depressants are 5 going to run 10,000 a year. 6 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Understood. But I'm 7 trying to get that in the context of -- 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right. 9 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, I think 10 our view was the smaller facilities have much lower levels 11 of businesses and revenue, that it would be -- that the 12 smaller you get, it gets much, much more difficult to 13 generate enough income so that as a business to say, "I 14 can put that control on and still be viable." 15 So we kind of did a balancing act. We believe 16 that HEPA day in and day out, year after year, is much 17 more effective than the emission standard. And we've 18 got -- we've seen multiple source test data to show that. 19 That the in-tank technologies can perform well. It 20 involves some more risks. But for the smaller facilities, 21 since their base emission rate is much, much lower, we can 22 still achieve very low risk levels. 23 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I understand. I 24 appreciate what you're trying to do. As a small business 25 owner, I know what you're trying to do. But in the other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 case I think we're trying to balance that, as you have, 2 versus the health risks to environmental justice 3 community. 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And, quite 5 frankly, with chrome, we view chrome as a very, very 6 threatening toxic contaminant that needs to be handled 7 extremely carefully, if at all, in communities. We 8 probably would prefer a situation, as we are proposing for 9 new facilities, to isolate them from people. We have a 10 situation where they're adjacent. So we felt incumbent on 11 us to propose the best control that we could get to get 12 risks reduced as much as possible. And in some cases we 13 said, you know what, the risk is very low, so maybe we can 14 get by with a somewhat lesser level. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Just one last question. 16 How difficult would it be to move some of these 17 facilities? And have some of them moved? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think more 19 likely they'd consolidate, you know, so that you would 20 have one of the larger players putting in the HEPA and 21 taking the business, and the smaller ones would fall away. 22 And the lamp shops that chrome, you know, the base of the 23 lamp, in the back; and if not their main business, would 24 send it out instead of doing it on-site. And that kind of 25 thing, where it wouldn't be an incidental part of your PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 business, you'd have to go to a central shop for the 2 chrome part. 3 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: But just 4 thinking out loud, if we're talking for these smaller 5 people of 50,000 or $100,000 investment, you can't move 6 for that amount of money in California. You just -- you 7 can't add two rooms to your house. 8 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Just 9 a comment. 10 There are about 50 facilities that are less than 11 20,000 amp-hours. So the cost we think would be roughly 12 an additional $5 million capital cost. 13 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And most of these, I 14 assume, proportionately are in South Coast? 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. 16 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. 17 Chairman. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: If we're concerned about the 20 17 remaining facilities and that they're out of -- or 21 they're over the 1 in 10 million because of the amount of 22 volume they put through, consolidation would not be the 23 answer; wouldn't that be true? 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Remote 25 consolidation would be the answer. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yeah, but how many platers 2 are in the Mojave Desert? I mean -- 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's going to 4 be -- economics will drive it depending on where you 5 ultimately put the line and who stays in business and who 6 goes out. But I think consolidation is inherently more 7 risky. And of those 17, as Mr. Scheible indicated, some 8 of them are not immediately adjacent. It's chrome platers 9 on an aerodynamic facility -- or aerospace facilities, you 10 know, that kind of thing. So they might be very far from 11 the fence line. So it all depends. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But they're not likely to 13 take outside jobs? 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No. But there 15 could be others where, you know, it's well inside an 16 industrial area, not in light mixed industrial, which is 17 where we're seeing a lot of the chrome platers right now. 18 BOARD MEMBER BERG: When we first -- when you 19 first started the regulations for this industry, how many 20 facilities were there, in 2000? 21 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: I think 22 probably -- back in 1988 we estimated there were probably 23 about twice as many facilities as we have today. And we 24 think that there are about 220 hexavalent chromium and 25 anodizing facilities today. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And when South 2 Coast went through its 2003 rule making, I believe they 3 observed a decline of 20 percent. But they can testify -- 4 20 to 30 percent -- they could testify to that. 5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And do we feel we're moving 6 it to somebody else's backyard? 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: No, I think we're 8 moving it to a more professional standard, that the price 9 of doing business in California is to use a HEPA filter. 10 And so that indicates who stays in and who gets out. 11 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 13 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Question in ignorance. 14 But is this a technology which is fading away? 15 Is there something taking its place? 16 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: The use 17 of the hexavalent chromium process, is that your question, 18 sir? 19 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Basically. 20 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: There are 21 a number of alternative processes that may work for very 22 specific types of applications. But in terms of their 23 being a general overall replacement for the hexavalent 24 chromium process, we don't believe that there is such a 25 replacement yet. Although, research continues to go on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 and there continues to be improvements in alternative 2 processes. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Fortunately we're going to 4 have the opportunity to hear from the affected industry. 5 Before we do that, I'd like to take a ten-minute 6 break for our court reporter. And we'll resume at 20 7 minutes to 11. 8 (Thereupon a recess was taken.) 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We'll now begin the public 10 testimony. 11 The first three speakers are Jill Whynot, Ed 12 Pupka, and Brian Bateman. 13 And, again, I would remind you that we're at a 14 three-minute limit. 15 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 16 Presented as follows.) 17 MS. WHYNOT: Good morning. My name is Jill 18 Whynot, and I'm very pleased today to present some 19 comments on behalf of the South Coast Air Quality staff. 20 The next slide please. 21 --o0o-- 22 MS. WHYNOT: We've had a negotiated rule making 23 on the books since May of 2003. At that time it was the 24 most stringent rule anywhere in the country. But because 25 of our experience with that rule, we believe that both the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 ATCM that's proposed by the staff today and our current 2 rule can and should be improved. And what we're offering 3 is a package that when taken together will not only 4 provide better public health, but it will also enhance the 5 current proposal before you today. 6 Next slide please. 7 --o0o-- 8 MS. WHYNOT: I think the key issue -- and you'll 9 hear a lot of testimony about it today -- is the fume 10 suppressants versus the add-on controls, or the HEPA 11 filters. We believe that both approaches can be very 12 effective. 13 Fume suppressants can be 99.5 percent effective 14 in reducing pollution. It's actually a pollution 15 prevention because the emissions don't get out of the 16 tank. And it's a volume source. That's important for a 17 slide I'll show in a moment. 18 The HEPA systems are certified by the 19 manufacturers to be 99.97 percent. So they are more 20 effective. 21 But either technology has potential problems. 22 They both need consistent operation by trained personnel. 23 And we've found that the HEPA system, you know, potential 24 area of problems there, is it's very dependent on getting 25 the emissions to the collection device. If they don't get PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 captured or collected efficiently, then you're going to 2 have a lower emission reduction. 3 Next slide please. 4 --o0o-- 5 MS. WHYNOT: This slide is actually from page 72 6 of the staff report, and it illustrates that the risk 7 reduction is different from the volume or point source. 8 Next slide. 9 --o0o-- 10 MS. WHYNOT: What we did was we took the same 11 data and just graphed it on a linear scale on the X axis. 12 And then if you can click for me again. 13 You can see that there's a difference. You get 14 90 percent reduction in the risk from a volume source like 15 a fume suppressant within 100 meters -- 16 And next. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. WHYNOT: -- and you get 90 percent reduction 19 from a point source at about 180 meters. So it's just to 20 point out that they behave differently. 21 Next slide please. 22 --o0o-- 23 MS. WHYNOT: We've put together an attachment to 24 a letter that we provided to the Board members in the 25 staff. And basically it -- we're suggesting that this be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 taken as a package. The basic difference with the staff 2 proposal is it gets to the same place or better, but it's 3 technology neutral. And it would allow flexibility for 4 industry, but require them to demonstrate through source 5 tests. And with all the other things that we're adding, 6 we think you can get to the same health protective level 7 or better with less economic impacts. 8 We also think that for the larger facilities that 9 are meeting the most stringent emission level with the 10 maximum technology, that instead of requiring them to go 11 through the very expensive process of an AB 25588, or "Hot 12 Spots" Report, that you let that be the option. But we 13 also think that they should meet the toughest technology. 14 The third point here, it sounds like the staff 15 has also provided -- an that is as an addition today. 16 Next please. 17 --o0o-- 18 MS. WHYNOT: Our proposal in general shortens the 19 timelines. And as your staff has also recommended, that 20 in addition to adding the controls in the interim, if it's 21 not impossible, for technical reasons they should start 22 using fume suppressants. 23 Our proposal also has a backstop. So if you're 24 not using the best controls and you have three 25 emission-related violations in a five-year period, then PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 you're required then to step up and do those more 2 stringent controls. 3 And also we're suggesting that there needs to be 4 a lot more enforcement presence. We're testing, you know, 5 minimum numbers of inspections at facilities -- 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Could you conclude please. 7 MS. WHYNOT: Yes. 8 -- more frequent source tests, record keeping and 9 training. 10 Next slide. 11 --o0o-- 12 MS. WHYNOT: So basically we're requesting that 13 the list of changes that we have provided be considered as 14 part of a 15-day change package. And if it's not possible 15 to do that, then a 30-day delay would be all that we would 16 request. 17 Thank you very much. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 19 Ed Pupka. 20 MR. PUPKA: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer, Board 21 members. My name is Edwin Pupka. I'm a Senior 22 Enforcement Manager for the South Coast Air Quality 23 Management District. 24 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 25 Presented as follows.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 MR. PUPKA: In follow-up to my colleague's 2 presentation on key policy issues as they relate to fume 3 suppressants and HEPA filtrations, cancer risks and also 4 the districts's recommendations to improve the State ATCM, 5 I want to take just a few minutes and bring the Board up 6 to date on compliance status as it relates to various 7 metal plating operations in the South Coast Air Basin. 8 As was previously noted, there are approximately 9 155 metal platers within our jurisdiction. That is down 10 from about 173 when our Rule 1469 was amended. We 11 comprise about 75 percent of the total facilities that are 12 operating statewide. 13 In our May 2003 amendments our governing board 14 took a slightly different approach, one of which you have 15 seen today, that looked not necessarily at setting 16 emission standards based solely on process type but also 17 on the associated health risk as it relates to various 18 impacted receptors within specified distances away from 19 the facility. 20 It also provided for options including 21 alternative compliance needs as well. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. PUPKA: Compliance trends with the original 24 Rule 1469 requirements initially were poor. An audit was 25 conducted by the Air Resources Board -- actually it was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 multimedia audit which included air, waste and water -- 2 conducted back in late 1999, showed a compliance rate of 3 about 22 percent. Three years later, a significant 4 improvement, up to 86 percent. And then since our May 5 2000 amendments, our rule compliance with the most latest 6 revisions has been relatively good. 7 Next slide please. 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. PUPKA: Before you is just a summary of 10 facility compliance data. Since amendments in May 2003 up 11 into September 1st of this year, our field inspection 12 staff have conducted approximately 1300 inspections at 13 these various metal plating facilities. Many of them have 14 been visited two, three and four times, depending on their 15 proximity to receptors and also what we're seeing in terms 16 of their compliance trends and challenges. 17 Notice the violations. Relatively flat and 18 constant. But we are seeing a significant decrease in the 19 notices to comply that are issued for record keeping, 20 reporting and monitoring. 21 Also, as you will see, very low rates of 22 noncompliance with fume suppressant violations. 23 --o0o-- 24 MR. PUPKA: In general what we're seeing in the 25 field: Increased inspection frequency definitely PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 increases compliance. Increases in inspection frequency 2 also speaks to sustained compliance. 3 As Ms. Whynot pointed out in her presentation, 4 operator attention counts for both fume suppressants and 5 also add-on controls. 6 Challenges that we see in the field: HEPA 7 filters can be turned off. They could even be bypassed or 8 even replaced with lower efficiency filters. 9 Fume suppressants similarly are not without their 10 challenges. 11 --o0o-- 12 MR. PUPKA: Recently one of our inspectors in the 13 field came across this facility that had been relocated 14 within our jurisdiction. What you see before you is the 15 mist eliminator and also the gauges that show the pressure 16 drop across the equipment. 17 The slide on the right shows the magnehelic 18 gauges. All of them are at zero. After speaking with the 19 operator, we learned that a fuse had blown out. And they 20 had no idea as to how long it had been blown out. But 21 essentially every piece of that air pollution control 22 device was nonfunctional, including the HEPA filtration 23 system. 24 --o0o-- 25 MR. PUPKA: This isn't necessarily to say that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 the fume suppressants, chemical suppressants are any more 2 effective than the HEPA filtration system. What we would 3 like to leave you with is just to remind you that those 4 fume suppressants, which you've already testified to, 5 which are only about a half a percent lower of reduction 6 in efficiency as HEPA filters, are a pollution-prevention 7 approach because emissions are minimized before they leave 8 the tank. 9 The list of changes that are before you today is 10 meant to be implemented in total. We believe that it 11 offers flexibility for industry to meet the very stringent 12 emission limits in a technology-neutral fashion while 13 providing the very most protective of health in terms of 14 the ATCM. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 17 Dr. Gong. 18 BOARD MEMBER GONG: A question about the fume 19 suppressants. 20 The violations that you were able to pick up, 21 what are those kinds of violations? Is it -- was it the 22 three -- 23 MR. PUPKA: The three that we had noted over the 24 last few years. One of them related to the fact that they 25 were not actually testing for surface tension. The other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 two were the fact that one was not maintained, the other 2 one actually did not have a suppressant at all. So each 3 one of them slightly different. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mrs. Riordan. 5 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. To the staff -- and 6 I'm going to go back a little bit to Ms. Whynot's 7 testimony. I wanted to catch both at one time. 8 What responses do you have to some of their 9 suggestions? 10 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: To the 11 South Coast Proposal today? 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. 13 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Well, we 14 did evaluate the proposal and we did talk to some South 15 Coast staff so that we could better understand the 16 proposal. And as Ms. Whynot mentioned, some of the items 17 that she discussed this morning we thought were very good 18 improvements to our proposal and we are proposing them as 19 modifications to our proposal today. And that would be 20 relating to using the specified chemical fume suppressants 21 in a shorter amount of time. 22 And we also thought the schools issue that Ms. 23 Whynot brought up, that was very important. 24 But in terms of the overall emission 25 requirements, we still would believe that for those larger PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 emitting facilities, that the add-on control device is the 2 more effective, more reliable control. 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you. 4 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Also, we 5 received that the beginning of the week. And it's fairly 6 complicated, especially on some of the enforcement 7 provision sides. So those are things that districts can 8 do if they desire. And before we would go with those, 9 we'd need to talk to the other districts. 10 Secondly, basically we and the South Coast are in 11 agreement that more stringent standards can and ought to 12 be applied to the sources than they were able to do three 13 years ago. So that was -- and really the other discussion 14 of what's the best technique and how do you assure it? 15 I'm sure you'll hear more about that issue as time goes 16 on. 17 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 19 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Maybe you could just go 20 through the -- there were about -- there's seven 21 suggestions -- just pick them up so I know which ones are 22 included in modifications and -- 23 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: As Mike's pulling 24 that up -- I mean my general reaction in reading them -- 25 and we did need to talk to staff -- district staff to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 understand them. But essentially what they appear to do 2 is delete the HEPA requirement and substitute for it 3 adjustments in the timetable for when controls go in, 4 added enforcement provisions, to be sure that the fume 5 suppressants are as effective as the district asserts that 6 they are. We still have difference of opinion, even under 7 best circumstances, how good the fume suppressants are. 8 So it wasn't so -- it's a package proposal rather 9 than a point by point, except for the ones that Carla 10 indicated on treatment of schools, the early application 11 of suppressants while we're waiting for the HEPA to come 12 later, and the 300-meter boundary. 13 But let's see if Mike identified other isolated 14 pieces. Or staff's going to do it. 15 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Going 16 over the points from Ms. Whynot's presentation, I think 17 Ms. Witherspoon already covered the first one, the 18 technology neutral. And I already made some comments on 19 that. 20 The second comment about allowing the option of 21 meeting the emission rate here for facilities with greater 22 that 15 grams per year of emissions, what we understand 23 from talking to South Coast staff is that this emission 24 rate presented here is achieved by a combination of HEPA 25 and chemical fume suppressants together. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 And we are aware of some facilities, because of 2 the type of operation that they have, that they are not 3 able to use chemical fume suppressants. So in all cases, 4 this may not be possible. And applications where you 5 can't use fume suppressants would be some aerospace 6 applications or military applications. And we've heard 7 from those industries that you can't use fume suppressants 8 all the time. So we have concerns about this emission 9 rate being achievable. 10 We did include in our modifications the schools 11 requirement there. 12 Shorter compliance timelines. Well, I guess in 13 general some of their -- the overall compliance timelines 14 may be slightly shorter, but we would require controls for 15 some facilities in a shorter timeframe than this proposal 16 would. 17 The point on fume suppressants, we are making 18 that change. 19 The backstop provision. I guess because our 20 proposal would already require those facilities to have 21 add-on controls, there wouldn't be this backstop 22 requirement needed. The controls would already be in 23 place. 24 In terms of the inspections and source testing, 25 record keeping and training. The inspections, that would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 be a sort of case-by-case air district decision. Source 2 testing, again that's at the discretion of the air 3 district. If they would want to require more frequent 4 source testing, they can do that. Our ATCM would require 5 an initial test to demonstrate compliance. 6 Record keeping. The regulation already has 7 fairly extensive record-keeping requirements. 8 And the training class. We are proposing that 9 there be a training class for operators. And the South 10 Coast has a training class as well. 11 So does that address your comments, Ms. Riordan? 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. And I think the 13 Mayor's too, yes. 14 Thank you. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: One thing I want 16 to bring to the Board's attention, and I think the Bay 17 Area witness will talk about this, state law is structured 18 in such a way that air districts must adopt ATCMs that are 19 at least as stringent as the Air Resources Board. They 20 may be more stringent. They also have an opportunity to 21 demonstrate equivalence. 22 So the choice if -- this is what you ultimately 23 do not do -- switch to the South Coast package proposal as 24 compared to ARB's package of requirements does not 25 foreclose this discussion from going on, if South Coast PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 believes they can demonstrate equivalence overall with 2 what we are recommending to you. Or even a different 3 approach, if the Bay Area has a different approach. But 4 we can come back to that later today. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Next, Brian Bateman. 6 And then we'll have Daniel Cunningham, John Marrs and 7 Sylvia Rodriguez. 8 MR. BATEMAN: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and 9 members of the Board. My name is Brian Bateman. I'm the 10 Director of Engineering at the Bay Area Air Quality 11 Management District. 12 We have 17 chrome plating facilities in the Bay 13 Area. Ten of these are decorative plating operations. 14 The other seven are hard chrome facilities. 15 We've seen some very significant emission 16 reductions from our chrome platers over the years. These 17 reductions were made in response to the existing ATCM and 18 to the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program. We think this 19 represents a great success story in terms of public health 20 protection. 21 The proposed amendments to the ATCM have much 22 more stringent emissions standards than the existing rule. 23 We support these standards and the additional public 24 health benefits they'll provide. Most of our facilities 25 will need to implement additional control measures to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 comply with these standards. 2 We feel that it's important to give these 3 facilities the flexibility to comply with the new emission 4 standards using a variety of control options. A lot of 5 progress has been made in improving the effectiveness of 6 plating bath pollution prevention measures over the years. 7 And the proposed emission standards are likely to push the 8 development of these technologies even further. We're 9 still a few years off from the effective date of these new 10 amendments and we think that we should give the technology 11 a chance to develop. Because of this, we favor a 12 technology-neutral approach that does not explicitly 13 require the use of add-on controls. 14 This increased flexibility could be achieved by 15 removing the explicit requirement for add-on controls for 16 greater than 200,000 amp-hour per year facilities while 17 retaining the proposed emission standard. 18 And I'd like to conclude by thanking the ARB 19 staff for their work on this ATCM. We very much 20 appreciate all the hard work that Bob Fletcher and his 21 staff at SSD have put into this. 22 Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 24 Daniel Cunningham. 25 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 Presented as follows.) 2 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. Good morning, Dr. 3 Sawyer and Board members. My name is Dan Cunningham. I'm 4 the Executive Director of the Metal finishing Association 5 of Southern California and the Surface Technology 6 Association in northern California. 7 My background in this industry -- I've been in 8 the industry for 27 years. I graduated from UCLA in 1979. 9 I worked actually at a hard chrome shop near LAX for 12 10 and a half years. Then I worked at an anodizing company 11 that did chromic acid anodizing for another 4 and a half 12 years, until I took this position 11 years ago. 13 Our two associations make up about 200 metal 14 finishing job shops in California, with the average size 15 being 20 to 25 employees. We are very proactive small 16 business trade associations. We offer monthly compliance 17 seminars, meetings, newsletters. We have a state-approved 18 storm water monitoring group we've had for 14 years. We 19 feel that our members are well informed on all current and 20 pending environmental health and safety regulations. 21 We are a very small but important industry to the 22 manufacturing base in California. We protect metal parts 23 and other manufactured parts, to make them last longer, 24 work better, thus saving countless natural resources for 25 several decades. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 MFASC and STA have a long history of working with 2 virtually every regulatory agency in California, including 3 CARB, South Coast and Bay Area AQMDs. 4 We continue to work with EPA Regional 9 and DTSC 5 on the Southern California Goals Program and Environmental 6 Management System Series. For several years we were on 7 the steering committee for EPA Regional 9 Merit 8 Partnership for Pollution Prevention. We currently Chair 9 the Industry Advisory Council for the Sanitation Districts 10 of Los Angeles County. And for over 18 months we worked 11 with South Coast on the negotiated rule making for Rule 12 1469, which is now the most stringent air reg in the 13 country and addresses most, if not all, the concerns we 14 are talking about here today. 15 This is a negotiated rule-making process where 16 all the parties signed off on the end, including some of 17 the environmental groups and AQMD staff. 18 For our efforts we won two clean air awards from 19 South Coast, one in 1992 for a chrome plating 20 demonstration project, and one in 2003 for our 21 participation in Rule 1469 negotiated rule making. 22 It is critical to note that since 1986 our 23 industry has reduced hexavalent chrome emissions by over 24 99.9 plus percent and are willing to comply with even more 25 stringent regulations. All we ask is for the flexibility PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 to meet whatever that target number is. If it's .0015 2 milligrams per amp-hour, give us the flexibility to do 3 that. 4 We feel that the South Coast proposal even 5 addresses better the near-source concerns that staff was 6 proposing. And it also addresses the increased 7 inspections, certifying training, record keeping, 8 certified fume suppressants, compliance assistance, 9 proximity to sensitive receptors, and a three-strikes 10 provision. 11 In closing, I'd like to state that this industry 12 cares about the environment, about our workers, about our 13 neighbors; and that past land-use decisions placing 14 schools near plating shops or houses or whatever should 15 not have been done, but has to be addressed now, and we 16 feel that we are addressing that at this time. 17 This industry wants to be part of the solution, 18 not a part of the problem. And we hope you'll consider 19 the proposals and maybe a short postponement so we can 20 work together to get all this done together. 21 Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 23 John Marrs. 24 MR. MARRS: Hi. My name's John Marrs. I am Vice 25 President and General Manager of Chrome Craft, that is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 located here in Sacramento. It's a family-owned business, 2 and we employ 36 people in our facility. I'm also a 3 member -- a board member of the Surface Technology 4 Association here in northern California. 5 Our facility, we perform industrial hard chroming 6 as a part of our manufacturing and repairing operations. 7 And about 17 percent of our revenue comes from outside the 8 State of California. 9 Slide 5 please. 10 --o0o-- 11 MR. MARRS: What we would like to present is some 12 information regarding the chrome emissions and costs. 13 Metal finishers represent about 4 pounds out of 14 the total 3,000 pounds of chromium emissions in the state. 15 The proposed ATCM seeks to reduce 2.2 pounds of Chromium 6 16 from the metal finishing industry, which is .0724 percent 17 of the statewide total. 18 Staff suggests that the cost of this reduction is 19 14.2 million. But I believe that that figure is even 20 higher. 21 Next slide please. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. MARRS: The risk from metal finishing 24 industry is low. The total calculated cancer risk from 25 all metal finishers has been calculated to be about 4.1 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 persons per 70 years exposure. The statewide risk has 2 been computed to be greater than 1,000 for the total 3 statewide risk. 4 The proposed air toxic measure seeks to reduce 5 our risks to less than 1 in a million. And that's 6 something that we support. 7 Next slide please. 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. MARRS: The standard, as has been stated, is 10 that the ATCM is looking to be .0015 milligrams of Chrome 11 6 per amp-hour for facilities that are over 20,000 12 amp-hours in the year. 13 There are about 60 facilities within the 20,000 14 to 200,000 amp-hours per year category. Current standard 15 for that is .01 milligrams or better for the South Coast 16 or .04 milligrams or better for the rest of the state. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I need to ask you to 18 conclude please. 19 MR. MARRS: Okay. My greatest concern is that we 20 get flexibility in meeting the proposed regulations and 21 that they be included in the regulations to ease the 22 financial burden placed on businesses. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Mr. Chairman, I just have a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 quick question. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 3 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Good morning. 4 MR. MARRS: Good morning. 5 BOARD MEMBER BERG: In your business you said you 6 had about 30 to 35 employees. What category would you 7 fall in? Above the 20,000 amp-hours? 8 MR. MARRS: Definitely. We would be 9 considered -- last year we were in about the 20 million 10 category. Hard chrome plating requires a lot more 11 amperage, and so we are in the highest category. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And you're currently using 13 what types of controls? 14 MR. MARRS: We are using a HEPA filter currently. 15 And at our present level of emissions, we are well below 16 current proposed limits. 17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. Thank you very much. 18 MR. MARRS: You're welcome. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 20 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes. You mention in one of 21 your slides that there are 3,000 pounds of Chromium 6 22 emissions in the state? 23 MR. MARRS: Yes. 24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Could you give me the sources 25 of that 3,000 pounds besides the industry? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 MR. MARRS: Definitely. That can be found from 2 the staff sources that -- that's on the website that they 3 publish. So staff can confirm that. 4 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Dr. Gong, 5 that is our emission inventory data. 6 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But what other types of 7 sources produce that type -- 8 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Oh. What 9 we have found is that probably the largest emissions of 10 hexavalent chromium are from combustion of fossil fuels. 11 And that's true from point sources as well as I think 12 probably off-road mobile sources. But there is also some 13 other sources. But combustion is a large part of it. 14 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Then that leads to my 15 question I guess about: Are we controlling those sources 16 in that sense, the chromium? I mean I'm -- we're talking 17 about four pounds, I guess. 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, I would 19 say, one, there's a lot of uncertainty in those emission 20 estimates. And many of them are old and have not been 21 focused upon. Second, those are basically trace levels of 22 chrome in fuels. So we're -- we're not aware that they 23 are causing, you know, elevated risk close to sources. 24 Although we probably need to lock at that more and need re 25 refine the inventory. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 We know generally that ambient levels are low. 2 And as we've said before, this measure really isn't 3 designed to reduce general ambient exposure to chrome. 4 It's designed to ensure that those that live close to 5 chrome facilities have risk reduced to very low levels. 6 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I guess I would then say that 7 that value of 3,000 pounds should have an asterisk with 8 those caveats if it's on our web page, because it -- I 9 mean it looks like someone could just pull it out and say, 10 "You have 3,000 pounds out there," you know. So I'm 11 just -- it's a little confusing obviously if you say that. 12 Thank you. 13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: We agree. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 15 Sylvia Rodriguez. And then we'll Alan Olick, Ed 16 Appleton and Frank Grana. 17 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. My name is Sylvia 18 Rodriguez. I've been in the metal finishing field for 23 19 years now. I am the President and General Manager of Amex 20 Plating, Incorporated, which is located in Santa Clara. 21 I employ 33 people. And together we generate 22 approximately $2 1/2 million in annual revenue. 23 Incidentally, our medical insurance covers about 110 24 lives. 25 I also serve as the National Director for the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 National Association of Metal Finishers. And our trade 2 association wanted to lock at risk. 3 Our consultant, Dean High, prepared these slides. 4 And we are in agreement that the proposed ATCM 5 standards -- requirements -- excuse me -- seeks 1 to 1 6 million reduction in cancer risk or less for exposed 7 people. 8 Our association wanted to assess the risk by 9 location and facility size. And we determined that 75 10 percent of the facilities where Rule 1469 was implemented 11 lie within the South Coast District, and that represents 12 0.5 cancer risks over a seven-year span. And 25 percent 13 of the facilities lie outside of the state -- excuse me -- 14 outside of the region. 15 --o0o-- 16 MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's a complicated table. But I 17 want to point out that it breaks down facilities by 18 ampere-hour per year. 19 Specifically the table illustrates that the 20 cancer burden facilities outside of the South Coast 21 District -- if you look at two of them, the medium size -- 22 1 million to 5 million ampere-hours per year, that risk is 23 at 1.254. And facilities at 5 million to 15 million, 24 cancer risk was determined to be at 1.633. 25 And I want also for you to note at those PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 facilities of the size 20,000 to 200,000 ampere-hours per 2 year, that cancer burden was determined to be at 0.128. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 5 Alan Olick. 6 MR. OLICK: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer. Board members 7 and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Alan Olick. I'm 8 President of General Plating and Bright Plating and Alpha 9 Polishing, all located in Los Angeles, California. I've 10 been in the metal finishing industries for 37 years. 11 Prior to that I was a school teacher. 12 I'm concerned about health risks. And my company 13 employs between 70 people and 100 people, with 14 capabilities of supporting 500 people. The business is 15 leaving the country left and right. I have many, many 16 customers locally that are all relatively high-end 17 customers: Architectural, jewelry, and automotive. Every 18 one of those customers will go out of the country if we 19 impose the rules that were working on here, not equally to 20 the rest of the United States and the rest of the world. 21 Dean High has worked with us. He's an 22 environmentalist, as all of you are, and I consider myself 23 as well. 24 --o0o-- 25 MR. OLICK: And understanding the risk -- this is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 slide 1. Very little actual testing was conducted for the 2 proposed ATCM. The modeling requires many assumptions. 3 Each step estimating, risk always errs to hippy health 4 protective. Certain evaluations like determining cancer 5 risk must be done to inform the decision makers on how 6 safe is safe. 7 Slide 2 please. 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. OLICK: The modeling scenario overestimated 10 risk. All facilities released Chrome 6 -- using a 11 one-year Pasadena meteorological data study. 12 All point sources had one-foot stacks. Very very 13 low. Staff based modeling for 95 percent of facilities by 14 using different assumptions for small facilities. 15 Modeling less than 5,000 ampere-hours versus proposed ATCM 16 set for less than 20,000 ampere hours. Hypothetical 17 exposure considers worst point, not actual receptor. 18 My company produces -- or uses over 1 million 19 ampere-hours of hexavalent chrome a year. We use best 20 available technology fume suppressants. We have a full 21 time laboratory fella who's examining the tanks six, seven 22 times a day. We've had no significant violations in the 23 past 12 years. And some of the violations are only minor 24 paperwork errors. We will do better. 25 And I wish to have you all examine what we're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 being asked to do. We're being asked to do the 2 impossible. We're being asked to go from what's 3 relatively okay to absolute zero. And there is no 4 absolute zero in anything. And the 3100 pounds of chrome 5 that they're talking about in the atmosphere from other 6 sources, jet fuels, diesel fuels and mobile sources, I 7 think has to be considered more than 4 to 5 pounds of 8 chromic acid from metal platers disbursed across the 9 state. 10 Thank you very much for the opportunity. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 12 Mayor Loveridge. 13 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Sir? 14 MR. OLICK: Oh, I'm sorry. 15 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: We've talked about 16 technology neutral. And your own assessment of that 17 issue? 18 MR. OLICK: Excuse me? 19 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: One of -- see, one of 20 the key issues here has been the notion of technology 21 being -- technology neutral, something that's been offered 22 by the South Coast and the Bay Area districts. So given 23 your experience in this, could you comment on that issue 24 of technology neutral? 25 MR. OLICK: Well, we're all using the latest PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 technology with fume suppressants and teaching the 2 employees on how to handle chromic acid safely; designing 3 parts so they have the least amount of gassing possible, 4 which would give you the gas bubbles that they claim burst 5 and go into the atmosphere. 6 Another point was, they're talking about 7 housekeeping. And chromic acid is a -- it's a granular 8 substance. It comes in a bucket. You open it and add it 9 to the tank. And they're concerned that when you open it 10 to the tank -- open it and add it to the tank, that the 11 dusting occurs. Well, in my plant we actually punch holes 12 in the bucket and slowly submerge the entire bucket into 13 the chromic tank to dissolve the chrome, not having any 14 dusting. 15 So there's a lot of things that are very easy to 16 do that common sense and good training can avoid, rather 17 than having to buy a piece of equipment that costs 18 hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain it. And 19 people think that that piece of equipment will be the 20 panacea, when really it's good training and good people 21 that is what it would take. 22 Any other questions? 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 24 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I was wondering if Dr. Marty 25 or ARB staff have any comments to the speaker's slides on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 risk -- understanding risk. 2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: I think 3 we'd need to go back to a different slide than what we 4 have here to look at those -- the numbers. Could we -- 5 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: Well, 6 let me just comment on that. The discussion on cancer 7 burden that was raised is one that is done in some risk 8 analysis. For this application we don't think it's 9 appropriate because it's -- what we're really faced with 10 here is the near source. So we acknowledge that the 11 cancer burden calculation is not going to be great, the 12 number will be small, as I identified in the analysis. 13 The difficulty here is that you're dealing with 14 discrete facilities in communities. And so that the 15 number of people that you're exposing is generally going 16 to be small, so your cancer burden calculation will be 17 small. 18 Relative to the modeling assumptions that were 19 raised in one of slides, the Pasadena met set is generally 20 a -- kind of a mid-level met set. We recognize that there 21 are other met sets that will give you other data. We 22 selected Pasadena as one in the L.A. Basin that is a 23 fairly average met set. West L.A. is one that's often 24 used as a worst case. And clearly you'll get higher 25 numbers if you use that met set. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 So we can go through the other modeling 2 assumptions if you would like as well. 3 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Thank you. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 5 Ed Appleton. 6 MR. APPLETON: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and Board 7 members. My name is Ed Appleton. I'm a with Metal 8 Finishing Marketers located in Los Angeles. We are 9 probably considered a midsize company representing 47 10 employees and their families. 11 I've been involved in the electroplating industry 12 since 1975, with family ties that go back to 1932. 13 During the 31 years of my experience in this 14 industry I have seen many positive changes in regards to 15 our environment. I have seen cooperative input between 16 our industry and regulatory agencies. 17 --o0o-- 18 MR. APPLETON: But personally I'm very concerned 19 about the survival of our industry. In the next couple of 20 slides we would like to address some technology issues 21 presented and some requests to be proposed before the 22 Board. 23 The staff claims that add-on control, HEPA 24 filtration, are best available control and are the only 25 technology that may be used for operations in companies PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 greater than 2,000 amp-hours per year. 2 Also, documentary evidence submitted showing 3 alternatives include in-tank controls can achieve equal or 4 better emission results. 5 Whereas the cost difference of installation and 6 ongoing maintenance is large. 7 --o0o-- 8 MR. APPLETON: We are asking the Board to find a 9 balance that will be a workable solution for all. We 10 respect the efforts of the Board in maintaining an 11 environmental -- environment for our beautiful state, in 12 which I'm a native southern Californian and proud of it. 13 We have three requests that we would request 14 changes by metal finishers that we would like to present 15 to you. One is the flexibility to reach these emission 16 standards; number 2, use of all approved technologies to 17 reach these emission standards; and, number 3, consider 18 risk to setting emission standards. 19 Thank you very much. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 21 Frank Grana. And then we'll have Allan Jones, 22 Dean High, and Paramo Hernandez. 23 MR. GRANA: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer and Board 24 members. My name is Frank Grana. I'm an owner of 25 California Electroplating located in Los Angeles. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 California Electroplating is a second generation 2 midsize chrome plating shop and employ about 50 employees. 3 I'm here today to talk about the alternatives 4 available. As you see in our slide, flexibility. We 5 chose to meet the Rule 1469 by running a source test, 6 which I'd like to submit. And in our source test we far 7 exceeded -- or far surpassed the limits that were put on 8 us. We used a Fumetrol 140, a Dis-Mist NP, and we also 9 added polyballs to increase the amount of control. 10 --o0o-- 11 MR. GRANA: During our test, which was overseen 12 by the Metal Finishing Association of Southern California, 13 our results were quite low. We had a results of .00013, 14 almost -- or more than ten times below the control 15 measure. 16 And at this point I would just like to say that 17 we would welcome the Board to retest us, to come and see 18 our facility, to see that it is possible to get there 19 without the thousands of dollars spent on equipment. You 20 know, I mean proof is in the pudding, and we did it and we 21 passed with flying colors. 22 So I mean in closing I'd just like to say thank 23 you for the time. And, once again, please, if you'd like 24 to retest, we're more than available to do that. 25 Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 2 Mayor Loveridge. 3 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Could staff respond 4 to -- I mean I think this really becomes the issue of 5 whether or not there are -- this technology neutral, 6 looking for the best possible ways, or whether there's 7 only one way to do this. 8 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: We are 9 aware of this source test and we do recognize that under 10 these conditions that they were able to achieve these 11 emission rates with this combination of in-tank controls. 12 Also be aware that this is a single test. And we 13 have lots of source test data that we use in our 14 evaluation that leads us to continue to believe that the 15 add-on control device is the better control. 16 While this test does have very low emission 17 rates, we do have a couple of concerns with the test per 18 se in terms of if the test was run in a way that would be 19 typical of a decorative chromium plating facility. And 20 were we're not sure that the results of this one test are 21 a good enough basis to override what we have learned about 22 HEPA filters and similar control devices over the years. 23 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: I'd 24 also add that, you know, in addition to the source test, 25 while it may achieve this at this point during this source PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 test, we are concerned about the ongoing operation of 2 these facilities. This requires that there be a blanket 3 of foam over the tank at all times. And that is generated 4 when you begin plating. So you have issue associated with 5 creating, you know, the foam blanket. So we do have some 6 concerns about this technology on a continuous basis as 7 well. 8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Mr. Chairman? 9 Why don't we have the same concern about whether 10 they're changing out the HEPA filters or they're keeping 11 the pressure as we saw in the South Coast Air Quality? I 12 mean I understand what the concerns are. But at the end 13 of the day it really comes down to, is the business owner 14 going to follow the rules? And most business owners 15 really truly want to follow the rules and some don't. And 16 you're going to be able to find the ones that don't in any 17 industry. 18 So I'm concerned with the HEPA filters. Why am I 19 not hearing from staff the same concerns about the 20 maintenance and what is needed on those? 21 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: I 22 think you're not hearing that same concern, because HEPA 23 is a much more established technology. I mean we have 24 over 30 source tests that have been run on HEPA filters. 25 There are a number of those operating in the South Coast PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 District already. You saw from the data that the South 2 Coast provided that they did find one facility. I think 3 that wasn't -- yeah, that was a HEPA filter system. And 4 they will find that from time to time. 5 But I think that the history that we have with 6 HEPA filtration in this application and other applications 7 and the ability to have measurable and documentable data 8 on pressure drop that allows you to see what's happening 9 all the time as opposed to a visual measured -- you know, 10 measurement as part of the monitoring and record keeping 11 and reporting, it just gives us much more confidence that 12 the HEPA is able to operate effectively for a continuous 13 period of time. 14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But are then we saying that 15 companies such as this gentleman's who -- or the other 16 gentlemen that spoke that have hired staff to monitor 17 these things and are following their procedures, that we 18 just don't trust them, that they're not capable or 19 qualified to make these decisions? 20 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: I 21 don't think it's so much a question of trust. Obviously, 22 you know, good business owners are going to try to do the 23 best they can. The problem that we have with the 24 technology itself is the nature of how it operates in the 25 tank specifically. And the fact that in order to have a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 blanket over the tank at all times, then you have to have 2 current going through the tank at all times. In some 3 facilities you're not running that way. You're on and 4 you're off. You're running in batches. And we just don't 5 have enough information about how that blanket forms, the 6 length of time it takes for that blanket to form. It's 7 not like whipping cream where you just sort of spray it 8 over the top of the tank and then begin plating. It's 9 generated from mist within -- you know, or from additives 10 within the tank itself that causes the blanket to form. 11 So you could potentially be generating emissions prior to 12 even the initiating of the plating. 13 So we have some concerns about that aspect of it. 14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 15 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 16 Allan Jones. 17 --o0o-- 18 MR. JONES: Good morning, Chairman and Board 19 members. I'm Allan Jones, from Adeltech, an industry 20 supplier to the metal plating industry. I have a PhD in 21 physical chemistry. I have 25 years experience in metal 22 finishing. And for 22 years I've been in the Worldwide 23 Research and Development Group Adeltech. And I'm a group 24 leader performing research and development on functional 25 and decorative chromium plating and mist suppressant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 processes and the application of mist suppressants. I've 2 conducted numerous studies and given many presentations on 3 mist or fume suppressants. 4 Approved technologies are shown on this slide. 5 In-tank controls are good and effective technology. They 6 include mist suppressants, foam blankets and polyballs. 7 Fume suppressants work by lowering the surface 8 tension and forming a foam. They are very effective. 9 They are chemically stable. So if you make an addition, 10 it's not gone in a matter of minutes or hours. It can 11 stay in that tank at that surface tension for days, 12 depending upon how many amp-hours pass through the 13 process. 14 Foam blankets add an additional lawyer of 15 protection. They are very effective. I think the Board 16 raised issues about explosions. Those are not a problem 17 with proper technology and current chemistry and proper 18 procedures when used. 19 Polyballs add a mechanical barrier to the system. 20 And as we've seen in the prior speaker, his data shows 21 that these -- a combination of these three systems are 22 very effective. Staff assumed that foam blankets were 23 unacceptable and failed to certify them, with no testing 24 or analysis by the staff. 25 As I just said, Cal Electro showed very low PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 emission values, about an order of magnitude below the 2 proposed limit. South Coast Air Quality certifies foam 3 blankets. 4 On this slide we see certified fume suppressants. 5 Adeltech is one of world's leaders in supplying chemicals 6 to the metal finishing industry. And Fumetrol 140 is one 7 of our premier products. And with this Fumetrol 140 and a 8 certain surface tension, you get very low emission limits. 9 In combination, Fumetrol 140 working with Dis-Mist NP can 10 even reduce those emissions down further by orders of 11 magnitude. 12 As you can see, the usage regulations according 13 to South Coast for a combination process means that these 14 two combinations -- the surface tension has to be below a 15 certain limit, there has to be a certain amount of foam on 16 the plating tank during plating, and it has to cover 95 17 percent of the area. 18 Fume suppressants and mist suppressants and foam 19 blankets are very effective control processes. They also 20 control in the tank preventing chromium from getting 21 outside of the tank and causing fugitive emissions that 22 we've seen may be a problem in some cases. 23 Please give us a chance to demonstrated this 24 technology, that these technologies are very effective. 25 And just one last comment. I know this morning PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 I've heard that this Board is involved in global warming. 2 And HEPA filters are very power intensive, requiring a lot 3 of fans and exhaust motors. And as we've heard already, 4 this will lead to additional needs for generation, 5 possibly from fossil fuels, which may additionally 6 contribute to pollution and also to hexavalent chromium. 7 Thank you for your attention. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 9 Dean High. 10 MR. HIGH: Good morning. My name is Dean High. 11 I'm a technical consultant to the industry group here 12 today. 13 --o0o-- 14 MR. HIGH: And I conducted the risk evaluations 15 for the PA ATCM as well as two alternatives. 16 Earlier speakers addressed two of the requests 17 that we have before this Board, to give us some relaxation 18 or freedom or flexibility. And I will address the third 19 one, which is to focus on the small facilities in the 20 20 to 200,000 category. And it represents a compromise, what 21 we're proposing, between what the PA ATCM would do and 22 what the Rule 1469 statewide would do. 23 We propose that those facilities in this category 24 be allowed to meet an emission rate of .01 milligram per 25 amp-hour if they can meet an MICR of 1 in a million. This PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 emission rate is the same as the tiny categories, the 2 under 20,000 category, and it also meets the 1 in a 3 million requirement, which is consistent with the new 4 structure review rules in SCAQMD and elsewhere across the 5 State. 6 I will explain those a little better in more 7 detail in just a minute. 8 --o0o-- 9 MR. HIGH: The next slide is one -- I just want 10 to call to your attention a couple of points on it. If 11 you look at the cancer burden in each of the categories, 12 you see it's only in three category where there's any 13 difference between Rule 1469 statewide and the PA ATCM. 14 And the total for all facilities, between the two rules, 15 is about a half of a cancer case. 16 The other thing to call to your attention is 17 that -- look at the cancer burden difference up there in 18 the 20,000 to 200,000 category, and you'll see that it's 19 only .02. 20 Next slide. 21 --o0o-- 22 MR. HIGH: Now, addressing the 20 to 200,000 23 category again. We only have about nine facilities on the 24 far right column -- there's nine facilities that are less 25 than 25 meters from a resident or a sensitive receptor. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 And those facilities, we would say, have to meet the 2 .0015. 3 But the other facilities, there's 36 others in 4 that category that are not now compliant with the .0015. 5 And we're suggesting that those 36, because of their 6 emission rate or their distance from the receptors, should 7 be allowed to meet .01 if they can in fact demonstrate 8 that they're complying with a 1 in a million health risk. 9 Each facility when they do a compliance plan -- 10 as you implement this ATCM statewide and the local 11 districts adopt the appropriate rules, they have to supply 12 a compliance plan showing how they are going to comply. 13 Well, in that they would then have a calculation showing 14 that the MICR for both the MEIR or the MEIW would be below 15 1 in a million, to be allowed to operate at .01 milligrams 16 per amp-hour. Otherwise they would have to meet the 17 .0015. 18 If the Board approves this modification, the 19 increased emissions statewide will be .074 pounds per 20 year, the increased cancer burden will be only .0035 over 21 a 70-year period, the public health will still be 22 protected, and the savings in capital and O&M costs will 23 be in the millions. 24 Thank you. I'll answer any questions. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 Questions? 2 If not, Paramo Hernandez. And then we'll have 3 Ray Lucas, Sam Bell and Charles Pomeroy. 4 MR. HERNANDEZ: Good morning, Dr. Sawyer. My 5 name is Paramo Hernandez. I work as a processing engineer 6 at Alta Plating and Chemical Corporation here in 7 Sacramento. This company is dedicated to serve the metal 8 finishing needs of a variety of industries, including the 9 military. 10 Among our different processes we operate the 11 corrective chromium tank that uses about 40,000 amp-hours 12 per year. We control emissions with the fume 13 suppressants. 14 In addition, I own a small company that consults 15 to small platers in the region. We do everything for 16 them, from waste treatment consulting to training of 17 employees. And among those things, I run the -- analysis 18 for about five companies. They, all of them, are between 19 30 and 40,000 amp-hours per year. And they -- all of them 20 control their emissions with fume suppressants. Most of 21 them keep their surface tension between 30 and 35 dynes 22 per centimeter. 23 Many of those companies are located far away from 24 people, far away from houses -- housing. One of them is 25 almost one-quarter of a mile away. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 So I am here today to support the three proposals 2 of the Surface Technology Association. 3 Thank you very much. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 5 Ray Lucas. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. LUCAS: Ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ray 8 Lucas and I am President of Valley Chrome Plating in 9 Clovis as well as the President of the National 10 Association of Metal finishers. 11 We are a family-run business with over 100 12 employees. And our only business is the manufacturing of 13 semi-truck bumpers for the heavy-duty aftermarket. My 14 company currently has sales of $15 million, and over 90 15 percent of our product is shipped out of state, with over 16 55 percent of that east of the Mississippi. 17 I'd like to talk about the economic impact for a 18 minute. 19 The staff report stated that the cost of the 20 measure is 14.2 million, which is to be borne by about 90 21 facilities. The staff report also identified that a 22 decline on the return of owner's equity will average about 23 9 percent. Ten percent is significant. If you assume a 24 margin of error of plus or minus 1 percent, we're already 25 at the significant, being 10 percent. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 Using CARB data and economics from 2 Environmentrics, determined that the return on owner's 3 equity declined to actually be 44 to 60 percent. This 4 demonstrates a significant adverse effect on business. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. LUCAS: If adopted as drafted, the ATCM 7 causes the closure of 68 California facilities, which is 8 30 percent, a loss of over 3800 jobs, and a ripple effect 9 through the manufacturing business in California. 10 This ripple effect for me would be moving out of 11 the State of California. It would not only affect my 12 employees and their families, but would affect companies 13 in the local economy such as producers of cardboard for my 14 product, machine tool sales, recyclers for steel product, 15 and a host of others. 16 I would guess that many hundreds of Californians 17 would be impacted by this rule just by the relocation of 18 my one company alone. Add the effect of 50 to 100 other 19 hex chrome platers moving or, more likely, just closing, 20 and this ripple effect will affect thousands of 21 Californians. 22 Also there's an impact on out-of-state 23 competitiveness. My company is the only company in 24 California that manufactures truck bumpers. And my only 25 competition is in Alabama and Tennessee. So these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 companies would not be affected like I would, so it would 2 be an unfair business advantage for them. 3 If passed, the proposed ATCM will cost $154 4 million for cancer case avoided. The highest previous 5 CARB-approved ATCM is 18.6 million, resulting in over an 6 8-fold increase from your highest previous. 7 The economic analysis by Environmentrics on these 8 concerns is found in the MAFSC/STA submission. 9 I urge you to postpone your decision and consider 10 a rule similar to 1469. 11 Thank you. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 13 Mayor Loveridge. 14 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: If this rule was 15 technology neutral, what impact would it have on the slide 16 that's before us? 17 MR. LUCAS: Could you repeat that question. I'm 18 kind of nervous. 19 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: If you need some help, 20 maybe -- I mean this is a very -- I mean a very strong 21 slide. But I was asking -- it seems to me a major issue 22 has been this notion of technology flexibility. And if 23 there was technology flexibility, as South Coast and the 24 Bay Area districts have identified as a possible choice, 25 what impact would that have on your statement before us? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 MR. LUCAS: Well, I'm in the 9 million amp-hours 2 per year range. So I would have no choice but to put on 3 HEPA filtration. If we went with the Rule 1469, it would 4 cost me some money. But I guaranty you that staff's 5 estimate of $50,000 for control technology would not apply 6 in my case. It would be closer to 150,000 or $200,000. I 7 could comply with 1469 for far less than that. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Mr. Lucas, I think that was 10 the question. If we were -- if we looked at technology 11 neutral, so you had the ability to meet the emissions by 12 proving which technology you wanted to use, do you feel 13 that that would change the economic impact? 14 MR. LUCAS: I believe it would, yes. I think it 15 would be far more economical for me if I was able to meet 16 the rule however I needed to. 17 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Charles Pomeroy. And then 19 we'll Jane Williams, Paula Forbis, and Maria Brook. 20 Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. I skipped over Sam 21 Bell. 22 --o0o-- 23 MR. BELL: Good morning, Mr. Sawyer and members 24 of the Board. My name is Sam Bell, I'm a family owner of 25 Metal Surfaces, Incorporated, which is located in Bell PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 Gardens, California. We are an engineering plating job 2 shop. I employ about 150 people, and we support through 3 insurance and benefits about 500 family members. 4 I'm affiliated with the Board of Directors for 5 the National Association of Metal Finishing, for the Metal 6 Finishing Association of Southern California, and I'm the 7 past President of Metal Finishing Association of Southern 8 California. I also am the Chair of the Industry Advisory 9 Council with the L.A. County Sanitation Districts. 10 I was a signatory in good faith on 1469 with the 11 negotiated rule making and had counted on that being a 12 done deal. It looks like it's gone a step further than 13 that at this point in time. 14 The industry that I serve: The automobile 15 industry, the aerospace industry, medical, the energy 16 industry, communications, computer industry, among other 17 industries. If I give up my black chrome operation, which 18 I can easily do, but I will lose a lot of this synergetic 19 processes that I process for these other facilities. 20 Black chrome is a minor portion of my operation. I'm just 21 over the 200,000 limit. But if I elect to give that up, 22 then I would lose a lot of the synergy of other processes 23 that we perform. 24 Our customer base is from all over the United 25 States, California. And we're having to compete against PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 other American companies that have outsourced overseas 2 into Mexico, companies that have fewer environmental 3 regulations and less government oversight. So it becomes 4 an unfair business advantage to become more strict than 5 what we need to be to meet the new rule. 6 As far as communications with agencies, I've 7 invited and have given tours of our facility to regulators 8 and politicians to demonstrate to them the necessity and 9 ability of our industry. 10 We consider ourselves to be global 11 environmentalists. What we treat here keeps it from being 12 treated worst somewhere else throughout the world. 13 The SCAQMD's alternative, we feel, is acceptable 14 in almost everything that they propose, and that the 15 alternative will help industry and lessen the economic 16 impact. 17 --o0o-- 18 MR. BELL: The alternative compares favorably 19 with the SCAQMD's suggestion other than the three 20 modifications that our industry was asking for through Mr. 21 Dean High. Before you is the chart that kind of shows 22 differences. And if you look at the different items, on 23 the right-hand column almost everything is in concert with 24 the SCAQMD's requirement except the one that you see up 25 there in blue that has been proposed in the -- in our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 comments to the Board. 2 Thank you very much. Any questions? 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 4 If not, now Mr. Pomeroy. 5 MR. POMEROY: Thank you. 6 --o0o-- 7 MR. POMEROY: Last night I was thinking about the 8 proposed ATCM and the metal finisher associations that I 9 represent when I opened a fortune cookie. It says, "You 10 have the ability to nurture and work creatively with 11 others." 12 (Laughter.) 13 MR. POMEROY: We have come really close to 14 reaching a solution that achieves CARB's objectives, but 15 at a high cost to this industry. I think that fortune was 16 meant to convey the opportunity for the metal finishing 17 associations to further work together with CARB to reach a 18 mutually satisfactory solution. Our multiple written 19 submissions and testimony show economic concerns 20 substantiating the extreme cost of this proposal. And I 21 can discuss them with you. 22 The economic issues are but one powerful reason 23 to postpone a decision today so that CARB and the 24 stakeholders can reconsider more options. Still, the 25 metal finisher associations can agree to most of today's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 proposal. The metal finishers associations want to 2 protect human health and the environment, and three 3 changes they offer can reach that goal at a fraction of 4 the current proposal's costs. 5 --o0o-- 6 MR. POMEROY: Those three: 7 Change No. 1: Provide flexibility -- technology 8 neutral, as you call it -- to achieve the 0015 milligram 9 per amp-hour standard. Mandatory and expensive equipment 10 installations make no economic, legal or practical sense 11 if other options are available and have been demonstrated, 12 such as we've shown today. 13 Change No. 2: The metal finishers associations 14 want all technologies fairly and objectively considered, 15 including foam blankets. We ask that actual testing be 16 performed on this type of technologies and others before 17 rejecting viable solutions that protect human health. 18 The third change is: We want site risk to drive 19 the need for more control at facilities operating at less 20 than 200 milligrams per amp -- or 200,000 amp-hours per 21 year. This means facilities at 25 meters or greater from 22 sensitive receptors that can demonstrate 1 in a million 23 risk or less should meet .01 milligrams versus the double 24 015. The proposal uses 1 in a million risk for facilities 25 less than 200,000 amp-hours a year. It's consistent with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 a the 20,000 amp-hour a year standard. 2 The option is safe and health protective. We'd 3 like you to adopt these changes. Two of our changes are 4 in the AQMD proposal, which is a framework we could 5 discuss and agree to. We hope you'll consider postponing 6 your decision so that the various proposals can be 7 considered. 8 Despite the cost, metal finishers associations 9 agreed to most of today's proposal. We are so close to 10 mutual agreement. We want the final chance for the 11 fortune. And like the fortune said, "To nurture and work 12 creatively with CARB to reach common ground." The metal 13 finishers have done it before, can do so again. We ask 14 for that chance. 15 And I'm ready to answer any and all of the 16 questions from the slides you've seen presented today. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are there any questions from 18 the Board? 19 I would like to thank you for putting together, 20 organizing the presentation which you've had over the last 21 hour or so. I think it was very logically presented and 22 it provided us contact with a range of people who are 23 involved in your industry. 24 So thank you for putting that together. 25 MR. POMEROY: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Next, Jane Williams. 2 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Dr. Sawyer, members of 3 the Board. I'm Jane Williams. I'm the Executive Director 4 of California Communities Against Toxics, which is a 5 statewide network of over 70 environmental justice 6 organizations in the state. Many of them represent 7 communities or actually are communities living next to 8 chrome plating facilities. 9 And you've heard a lot of very interesting 10 testimony today, with industry wanting compliance 11 flexibility. Most of my members would not support 12 compliance flexibility because they feel they've been 13 victimized by a lack of compliance with these types of 14 facilities. 15 The proposal that you have before you is a 16 protective proposal that relies upon redundant air 17 pollution control systems to help control the risk from 18 these facilities, which I know that some members of 19 industry think that there is no risk remaining from these 20 facilities. But actually even with current controls, I 21 can tell you that we have four cancer cluster 22 investigations over the last three years next to chrome 23 plating facilities. 24 We have 18 children with leukemia next to the 25 Marquin facility. We had a cancer cluster investigation PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 in Upland that folks are concerned could be related to a 2 chrome plating facility. And back in the eighties we had 3 basically a reproductive health cluster investigation next 4 to a facility here in Sacramento near Calvine Florin. And 5 as well, there's some folks here that are going to talk 6 about the Remco facility. And then of course many of you 7 are familiar with the Suva School problem that we had in 8 Los Angeles, which was one of the impetuses for South 9 Coast's regulation. 10 So I just want to remind you that -- there's been 11 a lot of talk here about the $14 million cost. One child 12 cancer is about a million dollars to treat. So Dr. Gong's 13 emphasis on the public health problems and the public 14 health costs is very real. 15 There's a bit of a wrinkle here that I need to 16 make the Board aware of, however. The staff proposal was 17 relying upon fume suppressants that are actually based 18 upon a chemical that's being phased out. Its PFAS 19 P-F-A-S. It's sub-class of PFOS, which many of you may be 20 aware of is being phased out by U.S. EPA. 21 I had my toxicologist do some research this 22 morning. And I don't -- it wasn't mentioned in the staff 23 report. But the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board actually 24 forwarded a report back in March of this year basically 25 saying that PFAS, which is what is in these chemical PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 suppressants that are being used, has the same structure 2 activity relationships of PFOS. They're a developmental 3 toxin, a reproductive toxin and a carcinogen. And there's 4 epidemiological studies linking them to bladder cancer. 5 So this all points to, you know, a very difficult 6 policy decision. It's very clear that these facilities 7 need more regulations, that with the existing current 8 controls -- you know, it could be that there's a 9 compliance problem that's causing really dramatic public 10 health impacts next to the facilities. It could be that 11 even with the current controls that, you know, we're never 12 going to get the kind of reductions in risk that we 13 actually need next to these facilities. 14 And one of the things that I would like the Board 15 to think about is that the Department of Defense is 16 engaging on a very, very productive effort, spending a lot 17 of money, with a goal of phasing out the use of hexavalent 18 chromium for all Department of Defense applications. And 19 as you're going to hear from the folks at Remco, they 20 actually used to plate the tops of carriers because -- 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude 22 please. 23 MS. WILLIAMS: So if the Department of Defense 24 can get a goal of phasing out the use of chrome plating, I 25 would urge the Board to be thinking about this and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 basically piggybacking on that effort, since it's very 2 clear that the risks from these facilities is very high 3 and we're not sure what the risks are from the fume 4 suppressants. 5 Thank you. 6 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Excuse me. Could I ask a 8 question? 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Do you have any feel for the 11 number of facilities that are close to sensitive receptors 12 out of the 220 facilities we're looking at? 13 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, from my own personal 14 experience -- I mean we have active disease cluster 15 investigations at five facilities. And I know that 16 there's a website that L.A.U.S.D. has that actually maps 17 where schools are in the L.A.U.S.D. area and facilities of 18 concern which include chrome plating facilities. I don't 19 have an exact number. 20 But just from my own personal experience, 21 there's -- you know, it's a very significant problem. It 22 was one of the reasons that we put so much effort into the 23 land-use planning handbook, was to try to give land-use 24 planners and at least new schools that are being built 25 some direction on how to, you know, deal with siting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 chrome plating facilities. 2 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But do you think it would be 3 fair to say if we really could get down and deal with 4 facilities that are -- just for whatever reason, they're 5 just not located at the right place, if we really dealt 6 with those and didn't put the rest of the burden -- I mean 7 had controls on the industry, but not to the point where 8 we're shutting them down -- would that make sense? 9 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I think my members would say 10 that it's not just co-location at schools. It's 11 co-location with residents as well. 12 BOARD MEMBER BERG: No, residences. I agree. 13 No, I mean residence within that sense. 14 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, you know, I know that your 15 staff would tell you that the -- you know, the emissions 16 drop off fairly significantly within a certain buffer zone 17 distance, and you are -- the staff is requesting a 18 300-meter buffer zone. And the way that that proposal is 19 written, it would actually creative a disincentive for 20 planners to put sensitive receptors, to put kids and 21 residences there. But, you know, and you're asking me a 22 question that I would have to really give some thought to. 23 You're saying that let's not burden the entire industry 24 because we've got these few -- 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: No. Is it possible to make PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 them neutral and then deal with the ones that are right 2 next door that -- I don't know. It's just a thought I was 3 just asking you. 4 MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah. I mean I would just submit 5 that I -- you know, $14 million for the staff's proposal 6 to me seems like a very modest cost. And I would also 7 just add that we had supported creating a pot of funding 8 at the California Pollution Control Financing Authority 9 for grants and loans to small businesses to comply with 10 this type of rule because of the tremendous risk that it 11 poses. And I mean I have spoken with ARB staff about 12 this. If we would be supportive, both administration and 13 in the Legislature to move forward with a sort of the 14 second wave of what was in Nunez bill to create more 15 funding that would be available. This is certainly a 16 very, very high risk type of industry, very problematic. 17 I am totally understanding that the small business 18 component of it needs that kind of government to support. 19 And that was what the California Pollution Control 20 Financing Authority was originally created to do, was to 21 provide low interest loans and grants exactly for this 22 thing. 23 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 24 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank. 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Mrs. Berg, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 answer to your question about how many facilities are 2 located near residences. Ninety of the 220 are within 100 3 meters. 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you very much. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 6 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Jane, could you come 7 back. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just a couple of 9 questions. 10 Realistically, what sort of funding opportunities 11 are there through the California Pollution -- I don't 12 recall the name of the fund. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The California 14 Air Pollution Control Financing Authority. They have a 15 modest amount of money every year, I think in the 1 to $3 16 million range. 17 And what Ms. Williams was referring to is a 18 legislative proposal that would piggyback on the perk 19 funding source where dry cleaners are being levied a fee 20 to be administered in helping them comply with future 21 rules. And the same idea was raised for chrome, and it 22 didn't pass the Legislature at the time for whatever 23 reason. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. And then also a 25 question on the -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Excuse 2 me. I have more information on funding that may be 3 available for these facilities. 4 The Legislature did pass and the Governor signed 5 a program that would provide for loan guarantees for small 6 chrome plating businesses. And if you would like more 7 information about that program, we do have someone here 8 from the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency that 9 is administering the program that could give you some more 10 details of that if you're interested. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I think it would be 12 helpful just to have a little bit of information now on 13 the interest rate and... 14 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: This is 15 Mr. Glenn Stober from Business, Transportation and 16 Housing. 17 MR. STOBER: Answer to the question about the 18 loan guaranty program. State for a number of years has 19 provided access to capital for small businesses through 20 loan guarantees. AB 721 expands our program now to 21 provide a component for metal plating facilities. 22 And the real benefit from it is, you know, if a 23 company that has to comply with these new regulations is 24 having difficulty getting financing on their own, you 25 know, through a bank, that we can work with the bank PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 through our financial development corporations that we've 2 got it on the state to try to arrange that financing by 3 guarantying a portion of the loan. 4 It doesn't fit for everybody because with regard 5 to interest rate, you know, we're dealing with bank 6 interest rates basically, we're dealing with the private 7 sector in term of lending. 8 Normally in the past on environmental type of 9 financing programs when the state has wanted to do a 10 low-interest-type of thing, it's always been a direct loan 11 by the state because the state can basically subsidize 12 that type of financing, dealing with, you know, bank 13 loans, we'll be dealing with the private sector. But we 14 will be extending credit to some of these companies that 15 they otherwise wouldn't be able to get. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. And then also a 17 question regarding the chemical that is being phased out. 18 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: The PFOS 19 compounds. Yes, this is a -- pretty much it is the active 20 ingredient in a chemical fume suppressant. It is the 21 ingredient that allows the surface tension to be reduced. 22 I am not sure that "phaseout" is exactly the correct way 23 to characterize it. There is a possibility that these 24 compounds could become subject to a significant new use 25 rule at the -- by U.S. EPA, is thinking about expanding. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 But it is our understanding in talking to U.S. EPA about 2 this that they wouldn't necessarily be phasing out the 3 compounds. But anybody wanting to use them would have to 4 go through a review process to see if that would be an 5 acceptable use of these compounds, such that it -- 6 "phaseout" maybe isn't the exact terminology. 7 And we obviously are aware of this. And we do 8 address it in the staff report and recognize that there 9 could be some small impact. But we're not really aware of 10 any other compound that is as effective at reducing the 11 emissions from these tanks. They're stable compounds so 12 they stand up to the rigor of the bath environment. 13 But there are really no direct air emissions of 14 these chemicals. They stay with the bath. And they are 15 not present on the plated part once it's plated. So the 16 amount of PFOS that would actually be entered into the 17 environment from their use in plating we estimate is a 18 very, very, very small amount. 19 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Do you have plans to 20 follow up on the issue or, you know, contingency plans in 21 the event that it becomes more serious of an issue than 22 what you described? 23 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Well, 24 obviously if use of these compounds would become 25 prohibited, we probably would have to come back to this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 Board and with amendments to the rule, because clearly we 2 are relying on the chemical fume suppressants that contain 3 this compound for compliance for a number of facilities. 4 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And I guess I don't really 5 understand the nature of the suppressant. Is the entire 6 package hinged on that? In other words what would happen 7 if individuals invest in the new technology -- businesses 8 invest in the new technology and then later on the 9 worst-case scenario, the chemical is phased out? 10 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Well, the 11 proposal before you today, the facilities that would be 12 relying on fume suppressants as the sole control, those 13 are the very small facilities, businesses that under the 14 staff's proposal would be required to put an add-on 15 control device, they would still be able to comply with 16 our emission rates without the use of fume suppressants. 17 However, most facilities that have the option to use fume 18 suppressants will do that, because it is a mechanism to 19 save the wear on their filters and the loading on their 20 filters. 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Thank you. 22 MS. WILLIAMS: You know, just to clarify. It's 23 the chemical itself that's being phased out, not the fume 24 suppressants. In fact, U.S. EPA has a consent decree with 25 3M where they've actually already phased out 80 percent of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 the use of PFOS. And by 2020 they're going to phase out 2 another 15 percent. So it's chemical itself, not this 3 particular use. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 5 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Chromium is obviously 6 bad stuff. But you -- just very quickly, you had kind of 7 an interesting call at the end, somehow we ought to hook 8 our efforts with the Defense Department. You have any 9 policy thoughts about what that possibility is? 10 MS. WILLIAMS: You know, the Defense Department's 11 holding a large conference back in -- back east later in 12 October, where they're going to be rolling out a lot of 13 the research that they've done and alternatives. What I'm 14 saying is is that you may want to take a look, say, two 15 years from now about what the alternatives are. The 16 industry itself and the state can't spend -- you know, 17 they're literally spending over $10 million to come up 18 with alternatives to hexavalent chromium. They have a 19 goal of not using any chromium at all through the entire 20 Department of Defense. And the key thing there is that 21 it's the hardness as well as the actual protection of the 22 metal. And, you know, when you look in the staff report, 23 you'll see the trivalent chromium. Some people say it 24 doesn't require -- it doesn't have the hardness that's 25 required for certain uses. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 And so what I'm saying is is that -- you know, if 2 it's good enough for a bomber, it's good enough for a 3 bumper. If the DOD can configured this out for their uses 4 that they require for the defense industry, then we should 5 be taking a look at that. And we shouldn't just like let 6 this rule go by and then sort of not look at it again for 7 another ten years when, you know, the Department of 8 Defense is really putting a major technological investment 9 into this problem and this question. And they're doing it 10 primarily because of worker health and safety issues. 11 Any more questions? 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Ms. Williams and 13 I talked about this issue before the hearing. And I said, 14 yes, of course we will stay apprised of those 15 developments. We examined whether the rule could require 16 sources to go to trivalent chromium and get rid of hex 17 chromium for the kind of plating that's being regulated 18 today, and concluded it was not feasible yet for hardness 19 reasons, for color reasons. But the industry itself -- 20 and, as Jane indicated, the military wants to get away 21 from hexavalent chromium because it is so toxic. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yes. Quick question for 24 staff about the foam blankets. I assume that the staff is 25 less confident about the foam blankets. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 Could you clarify that a little bit? 2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Sure. 3 First of all, we are not really prohibiting the use of the 4 foam blankets as industry has suggested. But what we are 5 requiring is that if industry wants to use a foam blanket, 6 they must also use it in combination with one of the 7 specified chemical fume suppressants. 8 We do have some issues with the foaming type of 9 chemical fume suppressant because, as was alluded to 10 earlier, you do need to put current into the bath to build 11 the foam. And this is not an instantaneous process. It 12 will begin foaming, but it will take a little bit of time, 13 maybe a minute, maybe two minutes, to build to the correct 14 thickness. So over that time, you potentially have 15 emissions that are not controlled to the extent that you 16 would be led to believe from the source test that we have 17 here. 18 And in point of fact, we know of some platers 19 that have a permit condition that they're supposed to use 20 a foam blanket all the time while they're plating. And in 21 this instance, what a plater was doing was he would take a 22 junk part, put it into his bath, and begin plating to 23 build the foam. Now, I have my foam blanket, so now I 24 will do my plating. But we've had all of these emissions 25 because he was trying to build the foam blanket. So we do PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 have concerns about use of them and the way decorative 2 plating is done. It's not an ongoing process where you're 3 constantly applying current. Sometimes you won't use your 4 bath more than several times a day. So every time you'd 5 have to go through the process of rebuilding the foam 6 blanket. 7 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: I'd 8 just like to clarify too, just to make sure there's no 9 confusion. There was a comment about the SCAQMD 10 certifying the foam blanket. And they have done that in 11 combination with a fume suppressant in order to meet the 12 .01 standard. So that is not a certification to the .0015 13 standard. And for the reasons Carla outlined, we are not 14 accepting that certification even to meet the .01 because 15 of the concerns that we have. You can use it, but you 16 must use it in combination with a certified fume 17 suppressant. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mrs. Riordan. 19 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 20 Just to staff. If the chrome plater had done the 21 process correctly, not put in the old part and what have 22 you, would then everything have worked appropriately in 23 your mind? 24 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: You mean 25 in terms of actually correctly plating his part? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Yes. 2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: He would 3 have correctly plated his part. But the emission control 4 would not be what we would have anticipated because he 5 would not have the foam blanket built. 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Right. But if he had it 7 built correctly -- 8 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Yes. 9 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: -- then everything else 10 is -- from that point on is going to happen? 11 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Yes. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. So essentially what 13 you're saying is, if it is not done appropriately, it 14 doesn't work? I mean there are, you know, imperfections. 15 But isn't that true of almost any process that we look at? 16 I mean if you have somebody that's incorrectly, you know, 17 administering these, that you can have these variations 18 which cause then the emissions to occur? 19 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: I 20 wouldn't say that he was being incorrect. He was a 21 following a permit condition to build the foam blanket 22 before he began plating. 23 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: But could he have been 24 educated to do it in a way that was, you know, correct? 25 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Mrs. Riordan, I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 think what's going on here is that when you build the 2 blanket, you get emissions. And so if once it's built you 3 plate continuously, then during the time you're plating 4 continuously you don't get those blanket-building 5 emissions. And so if you have intermittent operations you 6 have to keep rebuilding, and there's just emissions 7 associated with rebuilding. 8 The HEPA filter is insensitive to on, off, on, 9 off, on, off. So that's why the HEPA filter is more 10 protective and has more emissions control than the 11 suppressant -- than the foam blanket just, you know, side 12 by side. 13 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I think I'm confused, because 14 I think we heard testimony that says that the blanket can 15 last for two or three days. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Did you hear that 17 answer? The lower surface tension lasts two to three 18 days, but not the blanket. 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Okay. 20 AIR QUALITY MEASURES BRANCH CHIEF BROOKS: This 21 is Janet Brooks. I wanted to also clarify that with the 22 foaming fume suppressant that's just used alone that South 23 Coast certified, that is to the emission rate that allows 24 more emissions. The alternative process that we have for 25 the intermediate facilities, that is to meet a very, very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 low emission rate that's equivalent to what add-on 2 controls could do. 3 So I think what you were talking about was if the 4 fume suppressant -- a foaming fume suppressant is used 5 alone, once the foam has built, you know, what is it 6 emitting to? Well, it's emitting to that .01. But we 7 don't think that's enough for the really big facilities. 8 They need to control to .0015. And we don't think with 9 the foaming suppressant alone they can meet that low 10 emission rate. But you heard about a source test where 11 they had a foaming fume suppressant plus polyballs -- 12 other, you know, things in the tank to help the control 13 where they got the lower emission rate that we're shooting 14 for. 15 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I think you bring up a very 16 good point. And, that is, that each facility operator 17 knows their business best. And if they can put together 18 technologies that meet the rule -- that's what I'm 19 struggling -- doesn't that make sense? 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Paula Forbis. 21 MS. FORBIS: Good morning, Chairman Sawyer and 22 members of the Board. My name is Paula Forbis and I'm 23 here today representing Environmental Health Coalition. 24 EHC is a grass-roots organization with a 26-year 25 history of working on issues of environmental justice in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 communities of color in San Diego. We submitted written 2 comments on behalf of EHC and 13 other environmental and 3 environmental justice organizations from around the state. 4 EHC was pleased to work with ARB in the San Diego 5 APCD to address problems with Master Plating in the Barrio 6 Logan community of San Diego. As has been mentioned here 7 today, Master Plating was a small chrome plater, operating 8 at less than 40,000 ampere-hours per year. It was found 9 through an ARB monitoring program to be causing a cancer 10 risk of 114 cancers per million to the residents located 11 next door, the Martinez family. 12 And just in point of fact to the discussion that 13 you just had, they were using the Dismist NP foam blanket 14 as their control technology and were found to be in 15 compliance with that by both APCD and ARB at the time 16 these high emissions were recorded. 17 As you can see from the photo that I passed 18 around, the poster of the poster child, if you will, this 19 is an issue of extreme proximity. Master Plating was 20 located about six feet from the Martinez family household. 21 And a child that moved in next door to that facility was 22 diagnosed with very severe asthma within months of moving 23 in. His mother was diagnosed with severe asthma several 24 years later. And since the closure of Master Plating 25 their symptoms have almost disappeared. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 As was mentioned, Master Plating has since ceased 2 operation. But we're still deeply concerned about this 3 issue because we know that it was not an isolated incident 4 and that plating shops are still located next to homes and 5 schools in low income communities of color around the 6 state. It is in this context that I want to thank your 7 staff for their hard work on this issue and say that while 8 we find this proposal to be a big improvement over the 9 current ATCM, we would request that you adopt the proposed 10 ATCM with one major amendment. And that is simply that at 11 a minimum all existing sources within 1,000 feet or 300 12 meters of a sensitive receptor be equipped with HEPA 13 filtration or equivalent add-on controls. 14 As was noted in the staff report and repeatedly 15 mentioned today by your staff, add-on controls are the 16 most effective means of controlling hexavalent chromium. 17 With efficiency ratings of 99.97 percent, they are 85 18 percent more effective than fume suppressants alone. And 19 fume suppressants are simply not as effective, even when 20 used in combination with mechanical suppressants such as 21 polyballs. 22 ARB's own testing program showed that by a 23 contrast add-am pollution control devices provide a 24 consistent level of control regardless of operating 25 parameters. However, the proposed ATCM does not require PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 add-on controls for small and intermediate facilities due 2 to the supposedly small health risks that they pose to 3 their neighbors. 4 Yet there are two reasons that the actual cancer 5 risks from these facilities is likely to be higher than is 6 indicated in the staff report. First, the cancer risk 7 assessment completed for volume sources, those sources 8 using fume suppressants as their mechanism of control, 9 arrived at a cancer risk of 1 per million at a distance of 10 20 meters, or 60 feet, from the facility. 11 Again, facilities like Master Plating and others 12 around the state have residents that are located well 13 within that distance. And the ARB staff report notes that 14 they cannot accurately calculate what the risk is to those 15 extreme near-source receptors. 16 Also, the staff report notes that fugitive dust 17 from these facilities may add to the risk. And that is 18 not included in the risk assessment due to a lack of 19 information about the issue. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I need to ask you to 21 conclude please. 22 MS. FORBIS: Okay. Nor is there a plan for 23 follow-up testing for the dust control measures as to 24 determine their effectiveness after the fact. 25 Requiring add-on controls for existing sources PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 also brings a measure of internal consistency to your rule 2 and treats new sources the same as existing sources, and 3 is also consistent with your air quality and land-use 4 handbook. 5 For existing chrome platers within a thousand 6 feet of a receptor not to be -- existing chrome platers 7 within a thousand feet of a sensitive receptor are not 8 being required to relocate. What we are asking is that 9 they be required to put on the most reliable and most 10 effective technology that's available. That's HEPA 11 filtration or an equivalent add-on control. 12 The residence that live next door to these 13 facilities have suffered for too long and they deserve at 14 least that much from you. 15 Thank you very much. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 17 All right. Our final three speakers will be 18 Anita Sison, Bonnie Holmes-Gen, and Bill Magavern. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Marisa Brook 20 first. 21 MS. BROOK: Maria Brook. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'm sorry. 23 Maria Brook. 24 MS. BROOK: Thank you for your patience. 25 My name is Maria Brook. I am from the Town of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 Willits in the County of Mendocino. 2 I have a three-minute content. But because of my 3 legal blindness, it may take me a little longer. Please 4 indulge me. 5 I am an unwilling entrant in the worst-case 6 scenario derby. I come from a small town that from 1964 7 to 1996 the one major industry was a chrome plating 8 plant -- heavy chrome -- called Remco. This plant ran 9 three full shifts around the clock in service to Pentagon 10 contracts for plating aircraft carrier decks and 11 long-range missile hydraulics. 12 They illegally and wantonly dumped toxic waste 13 throughout the town and the entire surrounding valley. We 14 are now struggling with the huge plumes of solvents and 15 heavy metals, most prevalently hex chrome. And the 16 remediation process is still in the early stages even 17 though it has been ten years that the plant has closed. 18 We now know that it was the unrestrained air 19 emissions that posed the greatest threat to our health. 20 And the consequences of breathing hex chrome our only now 21 being manifested. This is because the plant is located 22 directly across a very small street from the junior high 23 school and the hospital. You are farther away from me 24 right now than the plant was. The plant was closer to me 25 than you are if I was in the school yard. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 I want to say that sensitive receptors have 2 names. And I share with you Jeannie. She was raised and 3 went to school in Willits. And after her high school 4 graduation, she moved away to the Bay Area, as the 5 majority of our young people do from rural areas. She 6 went to college, worked hard, got married and had two 7 children, a son and a daughter. 8 One and a half years ago she complained of 9 persistent cough and unexplained weight loss. She was 10 treated for emphysema and counseled on eating disorders. 11 It was only by chance that a routine x-ray located stage 4 12 cancer that had already metastasized to her brain and 13 bones. 14 None of her doctors thought to look for lung 15 cancer, despite her classic symptoms, because she was only 16 27 years old. 17 I'm sorry. I do get emotional. I was that 18 family's midwife. 19 Jeannie died six months ago, a tragic death. And 20 it would be as tragic if she had been hit by a bus. The 21 greater tragedy is she is just the first, but certainly 22 not the last, of cancer fatalities due to inhaled hex 23 chromium in people under 35. As our school children were 24 exposed and are now leaving the latency period, the bill 25 has come due. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 What we need of this Board is simple: Strong 2 regulatory standards to keep the toxics contained 3 effectively and even stronger consequences for 4 noncompliance, to truly prevent emissions on every working 5 level. 6 I hope our towns -- and there are many of them -- 7 the lethal experience that we are undergoing serves as a 8 warning and an example of why the new regulations are so 9 necessary. The cost of compliance pales in comparison to 10 the cost the state will bear assuming medical care for 11 those people, like myself, my family members and my entire 12 town, which has been designated at risk by ATSDR and the 13 California Department of Health Services. 14 We are now labeled as having a preexisting 15 condition for simply breathing. Of course, this means 16 more people will be without health coverage and fall upon 17 the state for their medical care. 18 I urge you as a citizen to perform your duties 19 with good conscience. I urge you as a taxpayer to place 20 the burden of prevention upon the industry that benefits. 21 And I urge you as a mother and grandmother to help protect 22 the good people in all of these impact and impact-possible 23 areas from the ongoing pain of ill health, fear and dread 24 that our children are under a death sentence waiting to be 25 randomly called to their execution. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 Thank you. I welcome your questions. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 3 Do we have any questions from the Board? 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: No. But thank you very much 5 for coming. And I know it was a lot of trouble. And that 6 was -- I appreciate that. 7 MS. BROOK: Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Anita Sison. 9 MS. SISON: Thank you very much for hearing this 10 public commentary. My name is Anita Sison. Excuse me for 11 a second. 12 I also live in Willitts. And I've come here to 13 put a human face on hexavalent chrome and the whole 14 industry, because I have heard so many of the statistics 15 and the percentages and the amount of variabilities as to 16 how many people will be affected and what the economic 17 cost to an industry would be, which are all very valid 18 points. 19 But there's not much of the human element 20 involved in this entire hearing, in my viewpoint. I have 21 one son who has severe neurological problems. I have 22 property that's within the plume of this site that is now 23 no longer functioning. My son is 22 years old. I don't 24 know whether or not his symptoms are due to this exposure, 25 because I don't see any reports from anyone talking about PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 how does this affect infants, children, women of 2 child-bearing age, the elderly, the human cost, which I 3 think is much more dramatic than any cost to an industry 4 to put extra ventilation, extra facilities to make this 5 heavily toxic substance -- it will never be nonexistent. 6 The universe always has all the atoms still in the air. 7 So whether or not you put a HEPA filter on it or 8 not, it's still going to be around for somebody else to 9 take care of. 10 The site has been closed for ten years. There is 11 still very little happening in our community. And I 12 would -- in terms of remediation. There is lawsuits 13 involved. There is all kinds of legalese happening. 14 But what I would like this commission to look at 15 is possibly come to our town. We are the perfect petri 16 dish for what happens with a site. We've been closed down 17 for ten years, and the residual effect is still coming on 18 and on and on. 19 If you want a site, we're the perfect ones. I 20 realize that we don't have the population base that might 21 be statistically accurate, but we're a start. And that 22 would be my request. 23 Thank you very much. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you, Ms. Sison. 25 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I just would like to say PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 thank you again. I know that it's hard to come and the 2 inconvenience of driving and coming. And I really 3 appreciate that you took the time. 4 MS. SISON: Thank you. It's not an 5 inconvenience. And I wish more people were here to speak 6 to you from the human side of this industry. 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I appreciate you putting a 8 face to it. 9 MS. SISON: Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 11 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Good afternoon. Bonnie 12 Holmes-Gen with the American Lung Association of 13 California. 14 And as a health organization, we are of course 15 extremely concerned with the public health toll of 16 chromium emissions and the high cancer risk and the other 17 respiratory health impacts. You've heard a very moving 18 and human discussion of the public health toll, the human 19 toll, the emotional toll of people that are living in 20 close proximity to these facilities. And I can't even 21 imagine having to live with my family having to breathe in 22 those emissions day after day. 23 As you've said, it's of course very difficult to 24 quantify those public health impacts, to quantify the 25 impact -- the costs of the cancers, the costs of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 asthma attacks, medical expenses, hospitalizations, 2 medications, premature death. But we are -- we know that 3 those costs are extremely high and we believe that the 4 public health costs far overwhelm any cost of regulation 5 that you're considering today. 6 We're here basically to back up the 7 recommendations of the Environmental Health Coalition, the 8 California Community Against Toxics, and the community 9 groups. We are pleased that you are considering updating 10 the chrome regulation today. We support the 11 technology-based approach in the regulation. We think 12 that's important. We appreciate the tremendous amount of 13 work that's gone into this regulation. And what we are 14 urging you today is to build on the strong base that the 15 staff has presented to you with, adopt the regulation but 16 strengthening it, take it one step further and provide 17 that additional public health protection by requiring that 18 HEPA filters or equivalent control devices must be 19 required for all chrome platers within 1,000 feet of 20 sensitive receptors. 21 So we're urging that you again build on the 22 strong base, but just go one step forward to make sure 23 that the regulation is as protective as it can be, 24 especially for the sensitive receptors -- that term sounds 25 so clinical -- for the people, the children in the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 schools, for the people in the hospitals and health care 2 facilities, people living close to these facilities. I 3 think you have a good definition of sensitive receptors in 4 the reg. 5 This specific change will make sure that you're 6 adopting a regulation that provides the greatest level of 7 public health protection, that will be using technologies 8 that are reliable and effective, and will make sure that 9 the regulation is consistent with the land-use handbook, 10 which we also fully supported. 11 Thank you for the time. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 13 Bill Magavern. 14 MR. MAGAVERN: Mr. Chairman and Board members. 15 I'm Bill Magavern with Sierra Club of California. And 16 we've been concerned about chromium pollution for a number 17 of years. We worked a few years ago with the Assembly 18 Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee and 19 worked with speaker Nunez and his staff on their proposal 20 to make some funding available through the program that 21 was described to you earlier. 22 And like the Lung Association, we support the 23 proposal, but with the strengthening amendment that was 24 proposed by the Environmental Health Coalition. And I 25 think there are several good reasons for adopting that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 And I think the industry presentation was very 2 well organized. And I appreciate the fact that the 3 industry really came to this with a constructive attitude. 4 But I think what the communities are asking for 5 here is really very reasonable and very compelling, 6 because what we're saying is that for those sites where 7 the emissions are coming very close to the people in the 8 homes, the schools, the hospitals, that we should require 9 the add-on controls, the HEPA filters or anything 10 equivalent, if that exists. 11 And really the staff report points to that. It 12 identifies those controls as the best available control 13 technology. It says that they will give us an 85 percent 14 reduction in the cancer risk. And right there you can see 15 that this is what we need to do. 16 I also think that we need to look at whether with 17 the fume suppressants we would be allowing for the 18 substitution of another toxin here. And this is something 19 that I think we need to look at generally when we're 20 talking about how we're going to prevent pollution, is 21 let's not allow for a material that we have now identified 22 as being toxic to be introduced more widely. 23 This is a persistent biocumulative toxin. I'm 24 talking of course about the PFOS. And it is addressed in 25 the report, but I think there needs to be a more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 comprehensive evaluation. 2 And what I don't see in the report is any 3 indication that the experts on pollution prevention and 4 hazardous materials at the Department of Toxic Substances 5 Control were consulted on this. If they were, that would 6 be good to know about. But I think in general, within 7 this building, the different boards, departments and 8 offices need so move toward more of a multimedia approach, 9 and to be looking at, "Well, if we're substituting 10 something and saying that this is going to be good for 11 controlling pollution in one area, is there a danger that 12 we're actually increasing use of a toxin somewhere?" 13 So for all those reasons I think that at least in 14 those areas where you do have people breathing nearby, we 15 need to make sure that all the facilities have the add-on 16 control of the HEPA filtration. 17 Thank you very much. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 19 Ms. Witherspoon. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes, Dr. Sawyer. 21 I indicated earlier that we would talk again about how the 22 rule leaves this hearing room and is implemented locally. 23 And I just want to go back to that point, because 24 as you consider what rule it is you want to adopt, there 25 is a provision of state law that allows that dialogue and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 debate to continue in local air districts. And it's 2 relatively short, so I'm going to read you some key 3 clauses in state law. 4 And this is in the Health & Safety Code in the 5 Toxic Air Contaminant Section. 6 "Where an airborne toxic control measure requires 7 the use of a specified method or methods to reduce, avoid 8 or eliminate the emissions of a toxic air contaminant, a 9 source may submit to the District an alternative method or 10 methods that will achieve an equal or greater amount of 11 reduction in emissions of and risks associated with that 12 toxic air contaminant. The District shall approve the 13 proposed alternative method or methods if the operator of 14 the source demonstrates that the method is or the methods 15 are enforceable, that equal or greater amounts of 16 reduction in emissions and risks will be achieved, and it 17 will occur within the same time period as the ATCM." 18 And the paragraph at the very end goes on to say, 19 "The District shall notify the State Board of any action 20 it proposes to take pursuant to this subdivision." 21 So whether you adopt HEPA or not, whether you 22 embrace foam blankets or not, individual source operators 23 may propose to the air district they are in alternatives 24 to those controls. And they bear the burden of proof. 25 And it's the district's call. It doesn't come back to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 executive officer of the Air Resources Board for my 2 evaluation or to you for your evaluation except through 3 notification. 4 And this is true for every toxic control measure 5 that you ever adopt, not just this one, that that process 6 can go on locally. 7 Did you have a question, Dr. Gong? 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I guess this is a rather 9 technically complex thing to deal with. For example, if 10 we had a HEPA requirement, does that mean that each source 11 would have to demonstrate what the HEPA would have given? 12 And how do you go about doing that? 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The law simply 14 provides for this option. How it's practically implicated 15 depends on the burden of proof that the district 16 establishes for the source to convince the district that 17 their counter-proposal is as good as the state ATCM. So 18 that will be a judge locally. 19 Now, we aren't entirely out of the process. Of 20 course we need to be notified. Of course we'll have an 21 opinion, a technical opinion about what is a sufficient 22 demonstration. But it's between the applicant and the 23 district, with our ATCM -- the state's ATCM as the 24 backstop, what alternatives can be considered. 25 So you don't have to answer every question today PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 about alternatives. There is this pathway to look at -- 2 to continue looking at them. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: It seems like it would be 4 much more straightforward if there were a performance 5 standard though to demonstrate different technologies 6 meeting the same requirement. 7 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: I tend to 8 agree. And I think part of what comes out is this, we 9 say, technologically neutral. And why is our proposal the 10 way it is? Well, the proposal's the way it is because 11 we've got more than a decade of experience looking at a 12 technology, HEPA Filters, that we have dozens of source 13 tests. And the source tests show that on average it 14 performs at 75 percent below the passing level for the 15 certification. And you go out and you get a guaranty with 16 this technology. And so we said, "That works, we're 17 convinced it works. That should be the standard." Now, 18 we have the prospect of other things coming along. And in 19 reality we have one facility and one test that shows that 20 it can meet the standard level. 21 But that's a long way from showing equivalent 22 performance. So we've elected to recommend a sure thing. 23 And I guess the issue comes down to: What do we do if 24 other things come along and in reality, in the real world, 25 offer the same environmental protection and emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 reduction? And do we -- what kind of mechanism do we do 2 that? We have a mechanism in state law that allows that 3 to happen to the district. 4 We would clearly -- if the industry wants to go 5 that way and we have it for the smaller sources, we need 6 to work on that to ensure that we understand what it is. 7 And then if it is truly equivalent in terms of health 8 protection and emission reductions over time, that would 9 open the door for I think a change in the ATCM in the 10 future. 11 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I -- this is 12 very helpful though. I had not remembered that ATCM, you 13 know, sort of understanding that allows for the new 14 technology or existing technology. And I think it is 15 right that someone who is using it then has that burden. 16 Either they using it or the provider of the technology 17 also can assist in proving that. 18 So I've derived a lot of comfort from your 19 explanation and reminding us what is in the law that 20 allows for us to then move forward. 21 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Mr. Chairman, 22 for the record, the provision Ms. Witherspoon was 23 referring to was Health & Safety Code Section 39666 24 Subsection F. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Just tell me. I have no 2 idea about this. But I have some kind of chrome plant and 3 I figured out another technology that works, meets all the 4 performance standards. Do I -- what's the timeline on it? 5 What's the schedule? I mean I claim I have it and I want 6 to work with the district. Do I have to -- I mean help me 7 understand what an alternative technology choice really 8 means. I mean is that a real choice or is it just the 9 rhetoric of choice? 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The rule that 11 staff is proposing to you has different implementation 12 dates, between two and five years, for moving to the best 13 fume suppressants and to HEPA filters, depending on how 14 close you are to receptors. And so districts have to 15 match. When they either readopt our rule by reference or 16 adopt their own version of it locally, they have to be on 17 the same timetable. 18 So I would say before the rule is applicable to 19 an individual facility, if that facility wants to comply 20 by another method, it needs to bring its test results, 21 argumentation, et cetera, into the district and make their 22 case and get technical review at a district. 23 Now, is it a real option or not? I think it's 24 very hard to prove equivalence with HEPA filtration. The 25 package proposal that the South Coast submitted to us was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 a combination for that reason. And so they had at the 2 very, very largest facilities, like half a dozen or so, 3 HEPA plus fume suppressants to get added control from 4 those facilities to make up numerically for a little less 5 control on the face of it for the smaller facilities, and 6 then juggling the time tables around. 7 So it might be hard for a single facility to make 8 the case. But if the source test you saw today is 9 indicative of how operations can be maintained over all 10 operations of a chrome plater, then it's not impossible. 11 So it's a very promising result. It's not definitive, and 12 there would need to be, you know, replication of those 13 data, examination of the on-again, off-again problem, or 14 anything else that should be looked at. 15 But I think it's within the realm of possibility. 16 And facing a HEPA requirement will stimulate an awful lot 17 of activity to come up with something as good and that's 18 cheaper. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: If you choose to go that 21 route, typically how long does it take to gear up and 22 install a HEPA filter? And also, are there backlogs as 23 far as ordering and actually getting it over to the plant? 24 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: We 25 actually estimate that there should be about a minimum of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 two years to allow for the whole process of designing, 2 purchasing, installing HEPA filtration systems. So that's 3 kind of why you see the timing in the proposal that we 4 have before you today, is we think that is the amount of 5 time that's needed. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So this alternative 7 strategy wouldn't work for someone that's at the early 8 end? 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, the rule 10 does not take effect the moment you adopt it. We have to 11 go through -- do we have 15-day changes on this one? -- so 12 we have 15-day changes. We have an additional comment 13 period. We have to file it with the Office of 14 Administrative Law. A few more months are going to go by 15 just processing whatever your decision is today. And so 16 that certainly is time that can be spent on examination of 17 alternatives. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: And the two year is 19 closest -- the group that comes in at two years is closest 20 to the sensitive receptors? 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Receptors, right. 22 And largest amp-hours. 23 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Okay. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 25 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yeah. Perhaps PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 Mr. Jenne can correct me if I'm wrong. But normally on 2 ATCMs the compliance period wouldn't start -- the clock 3 wouldn't start running for the compliance period until 4 four months after the ATCM becomes effective as a matter 5 of state law. 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It might be six. 7 I was wondering the same thing. The districts have six 8 months to adopt the equivalent or better. And does that 9 eat into the compliance period or add to it? 10 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE: Well, the districts 11 have a choice. They can adopt their own ATCM, in which 12 case they do it within that four month period. Or they 13 can just go ahead and enforce the state ATCM. So if they 14 chose that latter option, that wouldn't add any time to 15 the process. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: It's the 17 processing time that gives you a -- 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Supervisor DeSaulnier. 19 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: It's my turn. 20 I guess my concern is, and given what, Catherine, 21 you just said about the Health & Safety Code, is it -- 22 maybe it's semantics or how we approach this. But my 23 concern -- as long as the chemical fuel suppressants are 24 the equal -- I guess that's where you landed. But then 25 how do you enforce that? And given that there's a limited PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 number of facilities, it gives me an added level of 2 comfort that you're able to. So that if the Bay Area Air 3 District and South Coast is right and there are 4 improvements, that's fine. We're sort of fuel neutral on 5 this. But having said that, wouldn't it better for us 6 given what the Health & Safety Code says that we put the 7 language of the Environmental Health Coalition as an 8 amendment? Then, as I understand what you said, 9 individual facilities could still come into the air 10 district and say, "We believe we can achieve equivalence 11 in terms of emissions by doing chemical fuel 12 suppressants." 13 So we're getting to this -- I just -- 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Before I 15 answer -- 16 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I'm pretty certain 17 we're getting to the same destination. And there's a 18 certain amount -- there's certainty both from a health 19 standpoint, emissions standpoint. And strikes me that 20 helps the operators as well from a financial standpoint, 21 although it might not be where they want to be right now. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Before I answer 23 Supervisor DeSaulnier's question, let me just clarify for 24 the Board. The staff proposal is below 20,000 amp-hours, 25 fume suppressants; 20 to 200,000, HEPA or fume PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 suppressants if you can shows equivalence; and above 2 200,000, HEPA only, because we don't believe that it's 3 going to be equivalent and, you know, putting the -- 4 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: -- the larger. 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yeah. And so you 6 just asked me what if we said HEPA only for 20 to 200,000, 7 which is the enviro proposal. 8 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Well, HEPA filtration 9 systems or equivalent add-on pollution control devices. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Right, which -- 11 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: But that would still 12 allow under the Health & Safety Code -- pardon me for 13 interrupting -- as I understood what you said, the 14 applicants to come in to the individual air districts and 15 say, "We've got something that's the equivalent or that." 16 Am I understanding what you said? 17 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: You are 18 understanding what I said, or -- yeah, we're understanding 19 each other. But I need staff's help on the equivalency 20 demonstration in our rule versus the one contemplated in 21 the Health & Safety Code and why they would be different, 22 or are they the same? 23 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I guess it's just a 24 question of approach for me. 25 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE: Well, the Health & PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 Safety Code doesn't say anything about how the equivalency 2 demonstration is supposed to be made. It just says that 3 this -- this says a source can come in with a district and 4 they can apply and say, "We think we got some evidence 5 that demonstrates that our alternative approach is 6 equivalent." And then it's really going to be up to the 7 district and the source to have a dialogue and decide 8 whether the evidence is sufficient or how they want to 9 proceed at that point. 10 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: It just seems to me we 11 got the best of both worlds under that circumstance. 12 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE: And I might also add 13 that the -- 14 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And in the amendment. 15 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE: I might also add 16 that the Health & Safety Code provision is available, 17 whether or not the ATCM is amended. The ATCM could go 18 forward exactly as proposed and sources would still have 19 this option under the Health & Safety Code to do that 20 alternative demonstration. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Within the rule 22 we have articulated how you have to do the demonstration 23 of equivalence for 20,000 200,000. And Carla will explain 24 that. 25 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And let me just finish. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 It strikes me that the higher standard in terms 2 of your confidence is the HEPA standard. So if you use 3 that language, it strikes me it does raise the bar a 4 little bit, but it provides more certainty that you're 5 actually going to get the equivalent. 6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: I guess 7 I'm here to address how you would go about the equivalency 8 demonstration. And the rule would require each facility, 9 whether it's putting on an add-on control device or 10 whether it would be one of the facilities that would have 11 the flexibility, they would be required to do what is 12 called a performance test, which really means a source 13 test, to demonstration that they do meet that emission 14 rate. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Catherine, did the 16 sources know this prior to coming in here, that the Health 17 & Safety Code provided them this outlet? 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I don't think 19 that they did. And, in fact, the district staff brought 20 it to our -- your district staff brought it to our 21 attention. 22 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Well, you know we do 23 excellent work in the Bay Area. Of course we pay for it 24 too. 25 (Laughter.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I'd forgotten 2 this clause was in the Health & Safety Code as well. But 3 it did change the debate about how much you need to change 4 versus how much can go on locally. 5 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: If I 6 can add just a little bit on the equivalency 7 determination. And in my experience in sort of doing 8 equivalency with U.S. EPA, we have taken a broad 9 interpretation of what that means. But in this case I 10 think what we would want to have is not only the 11 performance standard, but a series of monitoring and 12 record keeping requirements that would assure us that it 13 would achieve equivalent compliance on an ongoing basis. 14 Of course we have no approval authority. But we would 15 want to work with the districts to define what those MRR 16 requirements are that ensure the continuous compliance. 17 And I think that is something that the districts would 18 want as well. 19 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: So last question to 20 Catherine perhaps or to staff. 21 If we did the amendment but we also gave 22 direction to work with the sources on the provision in the 23 Health & Safety Code, could you do those kind of 24 performance standards or clarify within the 30 days in the 25 follow-up, or at least provide an avenue to do that? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Oh. 2 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: You want 30 days to 3 think about it? 4 (Laughter.) 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Mr. Scheible and 6 I were just discussing. I mean this is so odd that we 7 have set in our rule medium-sized facilities have the 8 equivalency option and you don't have it for big, and then 9 state law says you have it for everybody. So the question 10 that I was just asking him is: Would it actually be more 11 protective if for the big ones we articulated what the 12 equivalency standard had to be? Which is what Mr. 13 Fletcher was just talking about. 14 But back to what we crafted. It was our 15 understanding people would go to fume suppressants, that 16 they would -- in combination with polyballs, and with the 17 risk and the source test, they would reach for the best, 18 and we would essentially allow it. And that we were 19 making a presumption about the economic burdens of this 20 rule, not requiring HEPA for all of them unless you had 21 very proximate receptors. 22 And to flip the presumption around and say it's 23 going to be HEPA unless you really convince us that you've 24 got it and you can get back out. I mean I'm struggling 25 myself with where the burden of proof is in our rule and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 if we're just talking a little bit in circles here. 2 So I'm looking both to Mr. Scheible and Mr. 3 Fletcher to help me with this on what you have to prove to 4 get out of HEPA in our medium-sized category and then how 5 we carry that into the large category. Because we don't 6 have it. We just said -- we've presumptively said it has 7 to be HEPA. 8 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And my only interest is 9 we get equivalencies is what I'm concerned with. And I 10 want to make sure the bar's set at the appropriate rate. 11 STATIONARY SOURCE DIVISION CHIEF FLETCHER: I was 12 going to mention that I don't think that 30 days would 13 allow us to do that. I think that what is going to be 14 required is an evaluation of the technology on essentially 15 a case-by-case basis. Each of the facilities is going to 16 have their own configurations where some technologies may 17 have more applicability because of the types of plating 18 that they do and their ability to sustain the polyball, 19 foam blanket, mist suppressant, or what is collectively 20 called the in-tank controls. I think that is a little bit 21 difficult. 22 When we set the greater than 200,000 at HEPA 23 only, I think what we were trying to do is to set a higher 24 standard for equivalency than what would be available in 25 the 20 to 200,000 amp-hour category. And we were hoping PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 that the districts would take a much more strident look at 2 those facilities to ensure that they were taking into 3 consideration the receptors nearby and this concept of 4 continuous compliance. 5 I think we can work with the districts, I think 6 we can work with the industry to define, you know, the 7 general parameters. And I think that can be handled under 8 a resolution consideration. 9 But I think under the existing structure of the 10 regulation, we were trying to set a higher standard for 11 equivalency and for public health protection, because we 12 felt that the 20 to 200,000 had a little bit more 13 flexibility. 14 And I guess the code provides the equivalency for 15 the source. And I'm concerned that there's an equally 16 firm confidence in the communities around it that they've 17 gotten equivalency. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I need to correct 19 what -- I just chatted with staff. I need to correct an 20 impression I left a moment ago that we thought in the 21 medium-sized facilities that it wouldn't end up being out 22 of control. Staff actually thinks that it will. And so 23 even with the equivalency demonstration we have so far, 24 unless, you know, the technologies really come through, 25 the alternative technologies, we're going to see add-on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 controls in the very large and in the mediums. 2 What the enviro proposal -- how it's different 3 from that, it says everybody within a thousand feet uses 4 HEPA. So the less than 20,000 amp-hours go to HEPA, which 5 means they're gone. 6 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I'm sorry, Catherine. 7 But under the Health & Safety Code, there's still a 8 provision for them to come in and prove equivalence. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. But these 10 are very, very small businesses. And so economically they 11 couldn't afford the HEPA economically, they probably 12 couldn't afford the lawyers, the consultants, the 13 whatever, unless their trade association did it for them, 14 to come in and say they had the alternative. 15 So I think what it means to drive HEPA all the 16 way down to under 20,000 is under 20,000's gone, those 17 living -- you know, those operating within a thousand feet 18 of a house. So I mean it's still before you, is that the 19 right thing to do? 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Dr. Gong. 21 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Quick conceptual question, 22 pursuant to what Ms. Witherspoon said minutes ago. 23 Am I understanding you correctly, is that -- in 24 my mind this is sort of like an exception to the rule 25 because this is an ATCM, that the air districts can get PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 these appeals then from sources, and as long as they show 2 equivalency but not less than equivalent methods that it's 3 up to the local air district to say "yea" or "nay" and 4 then they also need to present it to this Board? Or how 5 does that work? 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: They need to 7 notify us. 8 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I see. So they make the 9 final decision in that regard. 10 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: That's the way 11 law's structured, yes. 12 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And, 13 remember, the law in general says districts are primarily 14 responsible for stationary sources. With toxics it makes 15 a difference and says the State Board shall set statewide 16 standards. So -- 17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: I see. But they carry it out? 18 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And now it 19 goes back and says, but even where the state has set 20 statewide standards, you still have discretion so long as 21 you are convinced that the use of the discretion is as 22 protective. 23 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Is this -- 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: And you can be 25 more stringent too. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Well, usually I think they 2 could be more stringent, not less stringent. So then the 3 question I have is: Is this going to weaken whatever 4 decision we make here at this level if a source shows that 5 this method, you know, is just a bit under or a bit over? 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Well, it 7 doesn't weaken it under the law. But the issue is who 8 gets to decide. 9 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Yeah. 10 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And I think 11 the way the law is structured is the district gets to 12 call. And we can overturn that, but it's a very difficult 13 process. So the district in most cases will be the 14 deciding agency over: Is this more effective -- as 15 effective or more effective? And therefore I'm going to 16 allow it in my district for my residents. 17 BOARD MEMBER GONG: So the local districts 18 determine equivalency -- 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Right. 20 BOARD MEMBER GONG: -- and can get by with that, 21 more or less? 22 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Right. And 23 maybe in this case we should go work with the -- there's 24 three districts that are primarily affected going to say, 25 how would one set this up and work it so that it doesn't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 have to be done on the each each time? And we could agree 2 up front to that. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. Berg. 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I'm a little uncomfortable 5 with the span of our conversation today and where it's 6 kind of gone. And so I'm not sure that my recommendation 7 wouldn't be to return this back to staff and get with 8 industry and get with the districts and get it worked out. 9 I'm concerned in my vote as to what really I'm voting for. 10 And my concerns are on both sides. I'm really concerned 11 on the near source, the extreme near source. And I'm not 12 sure that because of the nature of this toxin that maybe 13 extreme near sources shouldn't be there any more. And I'm 14 not opposed to looking at defining extreme near source, 15 which in my view would not be 300 meters. But next 16 door -- plating companies probably shouldn't be next door 17 to residences anymore. And how they got there and so 18 forth, that's unfortunate. But maybe that is something we 19 should look at. 20 And then you have the 300 meter issue. And then 21 we have over 300 meters, which is -- and if we put the 22 extreme HEPA filters on those and don't allow them to come 23 back and decide what is their best control performance, 24 not that we're lessening the rule. 25 And so when I look at these issues, I wonder if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 we haven't fleshed out some things that need to be looked 2 at. 3 Then I also -- my last things are the strong 4 consequences. I'm very in favor for that. And we didn't 5 hear too much about inspection. And there was an issue 6 brought up of record keeping. Don't they have to record 7 keep anyway? And they should. So if they have, then if 8 they were doing the fume suppressants or the blanket or 9 any combination of these things, we should have the 10 records anyway. 11 And so I think I'm more confused than when I 12 started. I apologize. 13 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mayor Loveridge. 14 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Let me -- I was going to 15 go in a different direction. But I think it's a question 16 of would we be better served by a month of a chance for 17 the districts and the industry to come back? 18 Catherine, your reaction to that. 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We can always 20 take time. I don't think the -- 21 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Yeah, I wasn't looking 22 for extending -- for time, but whether or not further 23 conversation with the districts so it's clear what the 24 role of the districts are, and so the industry understands 25 the choices before it, would they be better served by a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 delay -- or a continuance for one month? 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I don't believe 3 so, no, but with the one exception of should we have an 4 extreme near-source requirement. Because staff came in 5 today with strengthening proposals, to go from 300 to a 6 thousand feet, to have fume suppressants early rather than 7 later for when we had HEPA later. And I consider the 8 question that Ms. Berg just raised another strengthening 9 at the very low end for extreme near sources. Then we'd 10 have to pick that boundary. 11 If it was clear enough that that was the will of 12 the Board, that could be a 15-day change. It wouldn't 13 take another month. 14 I do think on the issue of air district/ARB 15 relations, that's longer than a month. And it always is. 16 And also it's source specific, device specific. What's 17 the protocol going to be for proving out one method versus 18 another? And we'd want to spend quality time with the 19 industry on what those burdens were. They've learned 20 today -- and they're very well represented here -- that 21 this clause exists. And I'm sure the wheels in their 22 brains are churning on how we might apply this going 23 forward and what the burdens of proof would be. 24 So a month won't change that. If there's a split 25 on the Board on where HEPA presumption should or shouldn't PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 apply, then, you know, maybe you need more time to come to 2 a consensus. 3 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Let me follow up then. 4 Just a couple. One, the stuff's bad. Bad stuff, needs to 5 go away. I'm really kind of intrigued by trying to 6 accelerate and connecting with the Defense Department. 7 And I think we ought to have some attention to that role. 8 And I think that not only it's receptors. What 9 bothers me is the workers, I mean when you talk about 10 jobs. But somebody it's not simply runs into this 11 occasionally, but has to live with it day in and day out. 12 It seems to me it's a difficult thing to ask somebody to 13 do. 14 But I would like to ask Jill Whynot if she would 15 just respond from the point of view of the South Coast 16 district of whether or not the role the district has, as 17 going to frame this as clear, whether it would be -- and I 18 guess I'm particularly puzzled by whether or not what you 19 and Ed presented could in fact happen under the kind of 20 framework that's being discussed today. 21 MS. WHYNOT: Well, thank you very much. And I'm 22 glad you asked me up here, because I've been itching in my 23 seat to make a few comments. 24 I think what the staff at the AQMD is proposing, 25 to set the emission limit, actually achieves the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 alternative compliance. And it's much better to set it in 2 the rule than to have dozens of facilities come in and 3 deal with the district staff, take a lot of their time and 4 resources, our time and resources, and argue each point. 5 Whereas, if you set in the rule it's .0015 milligrams per 6 amp-hour with HEPA, fume suppressants, scrubbers, whatever 7 combination, you do it with a source test, then you're 8 there. And you don't have to deal with individual 9 facilities petitioning. And it's a much better clear 10 signal of where the target is and how you're going to get 11 there. 12 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: ARB staff would 13 oppose doing it that way, because we believe the signal 14 should be it's HEPA unless you can prove equivalence. And 15 to set a standard and not express our technical view that 16 HEPA's the best is the wrong signal. 17 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Okay. 18 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm confused. 19 (Laughter.) 20 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: If we could take slide 26 21 from staff's presentation. 22 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And now the attorney is 23 going to come in. 24 (Laughter.) 25 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: I'm just trying to put PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 everything into various boxes here. And overall I like 2 Supervisor DeSaulnier's approach, because under that 3 approach we're still voicing a preference for HEPA, and 4 then we just follow existing law -- or we allow the 5 facilities to follow existing law as far as going back to 6 the local district. 7 But looking at this chart, I'm just wanting to 8 make sure that I understand what your intention was, 9 Supervisor DeSaulnier. Were you considering HEPA at the 10 under 20,000 or were you looking at some variation on the 11 between 20 and 200? 12 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: No. Dede, I was just 13 looking at the Environmental Health Coalition's actual 14 language, which says, "HEPA filtration" -- this would be 15 in the amendment -- "HEPA filtration systems or equivalent 16 add-on pollution control devices are the best control 17 technology and should be required for all chrome platers 18 in the State of California that are located within a 19 thousand feet of the sensitive receptor, with the 20 additional knowledge that individual companies could come 21 in and ask under the Health & Safety Code to demonstrate 22 equivalency." 23 And the one thing I would add since I've got the 24 microphone: Catherine, couldn't we give direction to the 25 three air districts to work collaboratively so each PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 individual doesn't have to come in? Maybe there's a 2 hybrid of what South Coast is suggesting. So rather than 3 have them all come in, the three districts particularly, 4 South Coast brings them in and basically said, "This is 5 what we think equivalency is." 6 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: We absolutely 7 could and we absolutely should. And the way that I would 8 interpret the enviro coalition proposal on this table, 9 sort of connecting back to Ms. D'Adamo's question, is that 10 under 20,000 would read -- did you say a thousand meters 11 or is it a thousand feet? -- thousand feet, so 300 meters. 12 And then it would have that same .0015 amp-hour, which is 13 equivalent to HEPA, and it would not have the asterisk 14 that said you don't have the equivalency option. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Right. 16 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: How many facilities are we 17 talking about? Do you have -- right now it's 48 total. 18 How many do we peel off? 19 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Out of 20 the 48 how many -- 21 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Within 300 meters. 22 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: Actually 23 we don't have data that go out that far. 24 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Because basically, Ms. 25 Witherspoon, you had indicated earlier that these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 facilities are so small we're basically recognizing that 2 they wouldn't have an option with HEPA and that we would 3 be making a determination as a board that there are 4 overriding public health concerns because of the sensitive 5 receptors. 6 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: But we're 7 saying they're small and we're also saying they're 8 emissions because their work is very low, their emissions 9 are low. Therefore, we believe that we can get very good 10 risk reduction and low levels of -- and high level of 11 health protection without going to HEPA. And concurrently 12 I think it's also true to say, I think the vast majority 13 of these will be within a thousand feet of a resident. 14 And most of them will not have the financial resources to 15 afford a HEPA filter. 16 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Or to come in -- 17 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: The 18 consequences of adopting that approach for this class will 19 be economically quite significant. 20 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And I guess my point 21 is, if we can deal with the air districts -- and, 22 Catherine, you indicated we could, that we could work with 23 them collectively so they don't have to go out -- no 24 offense to attorneys -- and have all that up front cost, 25 that we could basically ask -- and I'm sure -- I think we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 have seven facilities in the Bay Area. Obviously South 2 Coast has more. But I assume that we would want to do 3 that anyway. 4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yeah, and the 5 trade association will bear some of the burden. It's 6 just -- what would the timetable be too? You'd make the 7 effective date two years? 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I would say we need 9 to give these people a lot of time under that category. 10 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: That's fine with me. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: These are smaller 12 businesses. 13 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Five because the 14 risk is so low. 15 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: My problem is you're 16 saying we're going to get equivalency. But then in the 17 same breath we seem to be saying but we don't think they 18 can prove it. And I -- 19 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: Okay. For 20 these small guys we were proposing a standard of .01. And 21 we know that fume suppressants meet that. So if we went 22 with the other proposal, I think we would be proposing a 23 more stringent standard for these that would likely force 24 HEPA filters. 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, it seems to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 me in the Barrio Logan study we did learn some things 2 about the fumes -- am I wrong in remembering that one was 3 closed but one is still existing, but that when we did the 4 testing, which was substantial, that that one could 5 continue by doing certain things to suppress the 6 emissions. 7 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: The one that 8 closed had a foam blanket. It didn't have a fume 9 suppressant. So we think had they had a fume suppressant, 10 it might not have been so bad. But it was also a bad 11 operator. And the one that's still open is HEPA. 12 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Oh, is HEPA, is that 13 right? 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Okay. Thank you very 16 much. 17 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: What size are they in 18 terms of -- 19 TECHNICAL EVALUATION MANAGER TAKEMOTO: They 20 would fall within the large category. I believe they have 21 several million amp-hours a year. 22 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: I was thinking they were 23 smaller. 24 SENIOR STAFF COUNSEL JENNE: Ms. D'Adamo, I 25 wanted to clarify one thing. When you see the two years PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 and five years dates, when it says effective date, that 2 means from the date the regulation is operative, it's been 3 through OAL. So really what that means most likely is 4 about two years and nine or ten months. Because it 5 typically would be about nine months from now when the 6 Regulation would go based on our previous experience with 7 timing. 8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: One of the things that's 9 important to me is when we see data like from California 10 Electroplating that has gone through the trouble of 11 setting up testing, having it observed, third party, and 12 comes with data, that's a significant commitment. And 13 here is a company that is below what we're requiring. And 14 I just don't feel that it is necessary to tell an operator 15 like that, no, we don't trust -- I mean I think the data 16 has to -- and you have to review the data and we want to 17 make sure. But to tell that individual, "No, you've got 18 to put HEPA filters because we sleep better at night," I 19 just -- I'm uncomfortable with that. 20 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, if you 21 recall, it's not just because we sleep better at night. 22 It's because there will still be some inherent 23 differences. And you may remember another slide that said 24 even after HEPA filters, we had 17 of the very largest 25 facilities, they were in excess of 10 million per cancer PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 risk, and we were going to require site-specific analyses 2 to see what else could be done and if in fact all of them 3 have proximate receptors or not. 4 So HEPA still, you know, is going to give us that 5 added bit of control, we think. And we're creating the 6 opportunity for all the way down to 20,000 amp-hours to 7 bring in these alternative cases. But going for HEPA in 8 the greater than -- are you saying above 200,000 we should 9 also consider it and say it could be as good? 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: You know, right now, my -- 11 and I really don't know how to go on this -- but my 12 thinking is we have a problem with extreme near sources. 13 Those are people that are living next to or down the 14 street, like a block, next to plating companies. That 15 sounds like a really poor idea to me now, given what we 16 know. 17 Then after that, so more than size it seems to me 18 that exposure to this toxic chemical next door is a very 19 bad public policy for human health. After that, it's a 20 matter of the industry meeting performance standards. And 21 so I think what I'm looking at is identifying an extreme 22 near-source range, which I don't think I agree is 300 23 meters, but I would certainly lean to the staff to say 24 what is an extreme near source. When I look at this 25 picture, I don't -- you know, I'm not sure it gives me PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 much comfort that the people on the other side use a HEPA 2 filter and they do those millions of amp-hours. 3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yeah, what I'm 4 hearing is a great deal of agreement between you, 5 Supervisor DeSaulnier and Ms. D'Adamo about within the 6 impact zone it should be HEPA. That's what I think I'm 7 hearing. And then I would like to ask, Supervisor 8 DeSaulnier and DeDe D'Adamo, do you feel like Ms. Berg 9 does, is outside of a thousand feet if there should be 10 more flexibility or not? Because we have given you rule 11 requirements driven by amp-hours, and they could be 12 reconstructed to be driven by proximity. 13 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Yeah, that's fine with 14 me. 15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: So the difference 16 is that proximity of course can change as land use 17 continues to change in California. And that will be an 18 issue for us. 19 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: And that's in the 20 amendment -- that's in language of the amendment. 21 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yeah. Now, that 22 that's the proposal, I would agree with the 30-day -- to 23 bring you back, one versus the other, who's affected, how 24 the costs fall out, if you go with proximity as your 25 principal driving factor on HEPA or not versus hours. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 we could bring this back to you at the November -- what is 2 it? -- at the October hearing and talk about that. 3 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: If I could just add 4 that -- 5 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Oh, October's an 6 early Board meeting, so it's only three weeks away. 7 November might be better. 8 And November's a two-day hearing. Can you all be 9 there for two days? It's in San Francisco. 10 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yes. 11 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Those of us who are 12 outside of San Francisco can make it. 13 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Actually I'll be in 14 Sacramento. But I'll be there for the second day, yes. 15 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, what I was going to 16 add -- I'm comfortable with where you're headed, but just 17 wanted to maybe throw out another idea for the small 18 operators. Some distance that is extremely close, as Ms. 19 Berg indicates. Maybe a hundred meters or less. And the 20 chemical suppressant being maybe Phase 1 at six months. 21 And then Phase 2, maybe give the larger operators an 22 opportunity to find some other options and kick in Phase 2 23 for basically a HEPA standard or equivalency at five years 24 or even seven years, putting them slightly behind, because 25 the 20,000 to 200,000 above hundred meters has five years. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Well, give us 2 time to chew on this. How about it? 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, it sounds like we're 4 headed to a delay, which will give a chance to work out 5 some of these things. It seems like there are a lot of 6 technical issues that need to be clarified on how to deal 7 with this. But I think you're hearing the direction from 8 the Board, that we want it to be protective, we want it to 9 be particularly protective for people who are close by. 10 But we also want some clarification on these equivalencies 11 and how that would really work. 12 Dr. Gong. 13 BOARD MEMBER GONG: Just a comment. 14 Again, to remind you, the land-use handbook says 15 1,000 feet from sensitive receptor. So I'd like to make 16 sure that we're consistent. Or that there's an exception, 17 we should try to explain that as best we can. 18 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: I think the staff 19 proposal is that for a new facility coming in within a 20 thousand feet you have to use HEPA -- for anybody coming 21 in. 22 BOARD MEMBER GONG: There's some discussion about 23 shortening the distance. And I didn't capture all of that 24 discussion. But, again, I just wanted to remind you about 25 the handbook. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER SCHEIBLE: And if 2 there's a closer distance, we'll explain with how the risk 3 for those facilities is small even though distance is 4 less. That's a generic, kind of all facilities should -- 5 want this type of buffer. But in reality for a very small 6 source, a somewhat smaller buffer provides for pretty good 7 risk protection. 8 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, I'd be 9 happy to make a motion, since it seems like we're there. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 11 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: I'd move that we 12 continue this till the November hearing -- the second day 13 of the November hearing. And for me, the option I would 14 like to look at is the staff recommendation. I think you 15 all have done a really good job. I don't think any of us 16 are suggesting with a complicated issue. But to add the 17 language that the Environmental Health Coalition -- that's 18 what I would like to look at and other iterations. But 19 with some language for our staff to work with the three 20 affected air districts to help the operators be able to 21 come in collectively to demonstrate equivalency. 22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I second. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Are we ready to vote on the 24 motion? 25 All those in favor please say aye. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 (Ayes.) 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 3 Okay. We'll revisit this in November. 4 Thank you all very much who came today to 5 participate in this hearing. 6 We will now take a break for lunch. We have a 7 long day ahead of us. So a half hour, is that -- 8 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Mr. Sawyer, I 9 made a mistake. Artavia had been suggesting to me to 10 prompt you to close the record before the vote on the 11 hearing. And I sort of thought it was good to have this 12 free-flowing discussion and you'd be able to ask the South 13 Coast. But if it's your intent that the record be closed 14 now until a 15-day comment period opens, my recommendation 15 is to move and do that now. 16 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Wouldn't it be best to 17 leave it open? So my motion would be that we would 18 actually leave the comment period open and continue it 19 till November. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I don't see that there will 21 be any problem with having additional information during 22 this period of time. So let's just leave it open, which 23 means we don't have to do anything. 24 Okay. We will resume at 2 o'clock, promptly. 25 (Thereupon a lunch break was taken.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: The Air Resources Board is 3 now back in session. 4 The next agenda item is 6-8-4, proposed 5 amendments to Air Resources Board's on-board diagnostic 6 system requirements, also known as OBD II. 7 The OBD program is important because it insures 8 that vehicles meet our emission standards in-use and 9 remain clean for their useful lives. 10 When emission problems are detected, drivers are 11 alerted by a warning light. When they go to a repair 12 station or their vehicle dealer, technicians can access 13 diagnostic information in the OBD II system to identify 14 the nature of the problem. That helps it to be fixed 15 correctly. 16 OBD II systems have become part of California's 17 Smog Check program for 1996 and newer gasoline-powered 18 vehicles. We need to add diesel vehicles to that program 19 as soon as we reasonably can, working with the Bureau of 20 Automotive Repair. 21 Ms. Witherspoon. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 23 Sawyer. 24 Since the OBD II regulations were last amended in 25 2002, the staff has identified several changes that need PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 to be made. Most of the modifications we are proposing 2 today are related to OBD requirements for light-duty 3 diesel vehicles. However, we are also making a few 4 adjustments to the requirements for gasoline vehicles and 5 aligning medium-duty diesel requirements with the 6 heavy-duty OBD regulations you adopted last year. 7 Finally, staff is making conforming changes to 8 the enforcement provisions and updating the list of 9 emission controls subject to ARB's warranty provision. 10 Before I turn to staff's presentation I would 11 like to take this opportunity to recognize Mike McCarthy, 12 Manager of the Advanced Engineering Section in the Mobile 13 Source Control Division, seated behind me today -- raise 14 your hand -- who just received the Society of Automotive 15 Engineering's 2006 Henry Souther award in recognition of 16 his outstanding contributions to the field. This award 17 acknowledges Mike's leadership in accomplishing 18 standardization necessary to make the OBD II systems in 19 today's vehicles accessible through a single diagnostic 20 connector. This allows the Smog Check program to 21 efficiently interrogate the OBD II systems for faulty 22 components and permits technicians to rapidly download 23 diagnostic information that assists motorists in obtaining 24 repairs for their vehicles quickly and correctly the first 25 time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 The automotive companies regulated by ARB 2 actively supported Mike's receipt of the award in 3 recognition of his exceptional and highly respected 4 efforts. The award was presented to Mike two weeks ago 5 during the SAE's OBD symposium in Toulouse, France, where 6 Mike was an invited presenter. 7 I'll now turn the presentation over to Mr. Tom 8 Montes of the Mobile Source Control Division. 9 (Applause.) 10 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 11 Presented as follows.) 12 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: Thank you, Ms. 13 Witherspoon. 14 Good morning, Chairman Sawyer, members of the 15 Board. I'm here today to present a proposal to amend the 16 OBD II regulation and the emissions warranty regulations. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: I will start 19 today's presentation by providing some background on the 20 OBD II program before giving you a brief overview of the 21 proposed changes applicable to gasoline and diesel 22 vehicles and a few other related items. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: OBD II was 25 originally adopted in 1989, and all 1996 and subsequent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 light- and medium-duty vehicles are equipped with this 2 system. 3 The OBD system is comprised of software in the 4 vehicle's on-board computer, and it uses sensors that 5 measure parameters such as temperature, pressure, air 6 flow, and air/fuel ratio. As sensors and components 7 deteriorate, emissions may increase. Vehicle emissions 8 can be correlated to sensor or component deterioration 9 through emission testing of vehicles with deteriorated 10 components installed. 11 Within OBD some emission components are monitored 12 to a threshold. That is, a malfunction has to be detected 13 when emissions exceed a specific level, such as 1.5 times 14 the tailpipe standard. For less critical emission 15 components, the components are monitored only for a proper 16 function -- that is, does the component work or not? 17 When a component has been determined to be 18 malfunctioning, a warning light is illuminated. 19 Additionally, information about the malfunction can be 20 downloaded from the vehicle using a standardized hand-held 21 scan tool. 22 The Board requires staff to report on the status 23 of proposed changes in the OBD program on a regular basis. 24 The last update of these requirements took place in 2002. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: Implementation 2 and improvements are needed for the OBD regulation to keep 3 up with new vehicle technologies, to incorporate 4 technician input, and to close the loop from lessons 5 learned during the time of certification. 6 These changes ensure that the OBD regulation is 7 relevant to current vehicle technology and that the OBD 8 systems are robustly detecting malfunctions in use. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: Today there are 11 over 120 million cars on U.S. roads with OBD systems. 12 This makes up more than 50 percent of the in-use vehicle 13 fleet. Over 6 trillion on-road miles have been 14 accumulated by vehicles with OBD systems. And there are 15 25 states in the U.S. currently using OBD as part of their 16 vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. There are 17 nearly 13,000 smog check OBD inspections per day in 18 California alone. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: I'll now provide 21 a brief overview of the gasoline OBD requirements and some 22 of the amendments being proposed. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: OBD requirements 25 for gasoline vehicles have been in place since the 1996 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 model year. Staff and industry both have learned much 2 over the last ten years. And staff believes that the 3 gasoline OBD program is performing well. 4 Today staff is proposing few changes for light- 5 and medium-duty gasoline vehicles. The changes are mostly 6 the result of in-use testing in which some malfunctions 7 have been observed to go undetected under unique 8 circumstances. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: The first area 11 where the need for improvements has been identified is the 12 diagnostic requirements for rear oxygen sensors. The rear 13 sensor is primarily used for monitoring the performance of 14 the catalyst. In-use testing has discovered some 15 deteriorated catalysts not being detected as well as 16 expected. Analysis has found that the rear oxygen sensor 17 can be the cause. As these sensors deteriorate, they may 18 allow a catalyst malfunction to go undetected. 19 And although the current regulation does contain 20 language to address this type of deterioration in the rear 21 oxygen sensor, staff is now proposing more clearly defined 22 monitoring strategies that will applicable beginning in 23 the 2009 model year to ensure deteriorated catalysts are 24 robustly detected. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: A second issue 2 that has been discovered through in-use testing is 3 cylinder imbalance. When the air/fuel ratio across the 4 cylinder deviates significantly, catalyst efficiency 5 decreases, resulting in increased tailpipe emissions. In 6 most cases current OBD II systems do not detect such a 7 failure. 8 Therefore, staff is proposing that cylinder 9 air/fuel ratio imbalance be monitored. Possible 10 monitoring strategies involve a closer examination of 11 detailed data from both the front and rear oxygen sensors 12 in the exhaust to determine if significant air/fuel 13 deviations exist. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: A third monitor 16 with proposed changes is for cold-start strategies. Since 17 most emissions occur during the first minute of a drive 18 cycle, when the engine and catalyst are cold, 19 manufacturers have developed cold start emission reduction 20 strategies. 21 These cold-start strategies are used to 22 accelerate catalyst warm-up and often include briefly 23 retarding the ignition timing and increasing engine idle 24 speed. 25 The current regulation requires detection of a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 199 1 malfunction when emissions exceed 1.5 times the emission 2 standard. 3 --o0o-- 4 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: As manufacturers 5 have introduced monitors in the last few years, staff has 6 noticed significant differences in how they are 7 calibrated. In some cases manufacturers have implemented 8 system monitors that look at the overall impact of the 9 cold-start strategy. While this can be very good at 10 detecting substantial emission problems, this approach can 11 result in a diagnostic that requires several components to 12 fail before an overall system fault is detected, even 13 though each individual component failure also causes 14 increased emissions. 15 To address this, staff is proposing to further 16 require monitoring of each individual cold start element 17 and detection of a malfunction when any one of them 18 completely fails. 19 As industry has argued, this will result in 20 faults being detected with a smaller emission impact. 21 However, this change is consistent with existing OBD 22 requirements in which individual components that increase 23 emissions must at a minimum be diagnosed for proper 24 function. Any emission-related component that completely 25 fails to function is clearly broken and should be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 200 1 repaired. 2 To address manufacturers' concerns that 3 monitoring to the stringency proposed by staff may not be 4 feasible across their product line, staff has added 5 language expressly limiting monitoring to the extent 6 technically feasible. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: Now I will cover 9 the proposed OBD requirements for diesel vehicles. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: Staff is 12 proposing significant changes and additions for diesel 13 monitoring. The approach staff has taken is twofold. For 14 medium-duty vehicles diesels have always had a significant 15 presence in California, primarily in full-size pickup 16 trucks. And these vehicles typically use engines that are 17 also used in heavy-duty applications and, accordingly, 18 staff is proposing to align the OBD II requirements with 19 the recently adopted heavy-duty OBD requirements. 20 For passenger cars and light-duty trucks, 21 gasoline is the dominant technology in the fleet. And the 22 past and future OBD requirements have been focused as 23 such. 24 However, improvements in diesel emission controls 25 are rapidly emerging, making their ability to compete with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 201 1 gasoline a reality. Accordingly, staff is proposing to 2 provide a phase-in with interim flexibility for light-duty 3 diesels else to allow the technology to evolve and the OBD 4 technology to catch up with the gasoline vehicles by the 5 2013 model year. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: Consistent with 8 gasoline, diesel OBD will require manufacturers to monitor 9 the most important emission control systems to an emission 10 threshold. Specifically, when deterioration of a 11 component causes emissions to exceed a defined level 12 relative to the emission standard, a malfunction must be 13 detected. As mentioned on the previous slide, the 14 thresholds for medium-duty vehicles are aligned with those 15 previously adopted for heavy-duty vehicles. 16 The thresholds are an interim level in 2010 and 17 drop down to the final thresholds in 2013. However, 18 unlike heavy duty, which begins OBD in 2010, medium duty 19 has had OBD since 1997. And the proposal includes revised 20 thresholds for the 2007 through 2009 model year that 21 reflect the levels of currently available technology. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: For light-duty 24 vehicles, the ultimate goal is to achieve parity with 25 gasoline OBD capability by monitoring the components to an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 202 1 equivalent level of stringency. However, diesel 2 monitoring technology needs some time to catch up. 3 Staff's proposal allows diesels to enter the market as 4 early as 2007 to test consumer response and achieve 5 potential greenhouse gas benefits. Over time the 6 thresholds move closer to gasoline thresholds, with drops 7 in 2010 and 2013. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: To help 10 illustrate, this table summarizes the equivalent gasoline 11 thresholds in the blue numbers in the first column, while 12 the red numbers in right-hand columns reflect the first 13 level of interim thresholds applicable to diesel in 2007. 14 In general, the emission levels where a 15 malfunction must be detected on a diesel range from 2.5 to 16 5 times the emission standard, while gasoline is typically 17 1.75 or 1.5 times the standard. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: The yellow 20 numbers in the right-hand columns show the second 21 intermediate levels that must be met in the 2010 model 22 year. These thresholds reflect increased stringency and 23 range from 2 to 4 times the standard. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: And by the 2013 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 203 1 model year these interim levels would be phased-out and 2 diesels would need to meet essentially the same levels as 3 gasoline vehicles. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: Obviously, there 6 is some risk involved in allowing the introduction of 7 diesels that have less rigorous monitoring than their 8 gasoline counterparts. During this interim period, 9 components will have to deteriorate further before a 10 malfunction will be detected. As one measure to help 11 minimize that risk, staff is proposing to require 12 additional testing for light-duty diesel vehicles. 13 Specifically, manufacturers will have to run additional 14 in-use testing at both low and high mileage points to 15 ensure in-use vehicles are meeting the tailpipe emission 16 standards. 17 In addition to being subject to recall if the 18 vehicles are found to be non-compliant, the proposed 19 language requires manufacturers to fund programs to offset 20 any excess emissions as a result of the non-compliance. 21 Staff has also committed to pursuing incorporation of 22 diesels into the Smog Check program and the proposed Board 23 resolution includes language to memorialize staff's 24 commitment. Inclusion in Smog Check will ensure that 25 vehicles with detected malfunctions will be repaired. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 204 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: With today's 3 proposal, there are a few items that are of particular 4 concern to industry regarding diesels. 5 The first of these issues is the emission levels 6 of the thresholds themselves. Industry has expressed 7 concern that the levels are too stringent given the 8 timeframe and technologies that exist, and that the 9 workload is too great to accomplish the task. 10 However, staff has developed the thresholds after 11 meeting with manufacturers and suppliers, and believes 12 that the proposed levels should be achievable by 13 manufacturers in the proposed timeframe. The thresholds 14 continue to be technology forcing in many cases, 15 especially for the final thresholds in future years. But 16 staff has provided the necessary lead time and interim 17 relief to allow industry to successfully get there. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: The next issue 20 involves adjustment factors. And I would like to provide 21 some background and context before discussing the issue 22 regarding the factors. 23 A unique requirement of some diesel emission 24 controls is that they must periodically be controlled 25 differently to essentially purge stored emissions. A good PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 205 1 example is a PM filter that traps and accumulates 2 particulate matter, or soot. Periodically, such as once 3 every 300 to 500 miles, the PM filter must be regenerated 4 to burn off or purge this accumulated PM so it can resume 5 proper filtering. 6 When this regeneration occurs, emission levels 7 can be very high, well above the emission standards. 8 These regeneration events are triggered by the on-board 9 computer and are generally completely transparent to the 10 vehicle operator. 11 To account for these occasional excursions of 12 high emissions, the certification procedures require 13 manufacturers to test and measure how often such events 14 occur and how high the emissions are during the event and 15 essentially average those emissions in with their baseline 16 emission measurements. 17 Manufacturers develop so-called adjustment 18 factors that include the appropriate fraction of emissions 19 from these regeneration events and are applied to their 20 emission results before comparing them to the tailpipe 21 standards. Adjusted emissions represent the true average 22 in-use emission levels. 23 --o0o-- 24 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: As a simple 25 example to help illustrate, this graph shows the emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 206 1 levels that may occur from a diesel vehicle. For the most 2 part, the vehicle emits below the emission standards shown 3 as 1.0 on this graph. However, when a regeneration event 4 occurs, emissions substantially increase and may exceed 5 the emission standard by factors as large as 10 or more. 6 Adjustment factors are used to measure this spike and 7 spread it out over the entire time, giving a true average 8 emission level from the vehicle. 9 --o0o-- 10 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: With that 11 background on regeneration emissions and their role in 12 adjustment factors, I'd like to discuss the issue 13 regarding adjustment factors. 14 As is required for tailpipe certification, 15 staff's proposal requires manufacturers to develop and use 16 adjustment factors when calibrating OBD threshold 17 monitors. However, this does require additional work and 18 testing by the manufacturer to comprehend the impact that 19 malfunctioning components will have on regeneration events 20 and emissions. In some cases it may have no impact. In 21 others it could change how often the events occur or the 22 magnitude of the emission spike when they do occur. 23 Industry has argued that the impact of adjustment 24 factors was not considered in developing already stringent 25 technology-forcing thresholds, and requiring their use PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 207 1 only reduces their chance for success. Further, the 2 workload to develop baseline adjustment factors is 3 substantial and to do it iteratively for all monitors is a 4 huge task. Given this, industry has argued that a delay 5 until at least 2010 has to happen before use of adjustment 6 factors is required. 7 Staff has modified the original proposal to 8 provides additional relief prior to 2010. Specifically, 9 manufacturers would be allowed to apply the baseline 10 adjustment factors instead of developing specific ones for 11 each OBD monitor. This would eliminate the need for any 12 additional workload to calculate the new adjustment 13 factors. 14 For one specific monitor, namely, the oxidation 15 catalyst, manufacturers would be required to develop a 16 specific adjustment factor starting in 2008. For all 17 other monitors, manufacturers would still have until 2010 18 before they would have to develop unique adjustment 19 factors. 20 Further, regarding the workload, to develop 21 unique factors for each monitor, staff expects 22 manufacturers will make qualitative comparisons to the 23 baseline adjustment factors to determine what, if any, 24 change is merited. In some cases such an evaluation would 25 require nothing more than engineering calculations and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 208 1 analysis; while in other cases additional testing may be 2 required. 3 Failure to include the adjustment factor in some 4 form or another would mean that the emission spike during 5 regeneration is ignored and manufacturers would not be 6 held accountable for their actual in-use emission levels 7 when a malfunction occurs. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: For diesels there 10 is one more issue that I would like to provide some 11 background information on before discussing the details of 12 the issue itself. 13 Under some operating conditions manufacturers 14 legally invoke engine protection strategies that bypass 15 one or more emission controls and increase emissions. 16 These strategies are defined in the proposal as 17 emission-increasing auxiliary emission control devices, or 18 EI-AECDs. Such bypass strategies are reviewed and 19 approved by ARB during the certification process. 20 Manufacturers submit data to justify the need for the 21 strategies and quantify the emission impact. ARB approval 22 is based solely on manufacturers' data obtained from a few 23 in-use vehicles. Staff has no practical way of validating 24 these date and is concerned that such strategies can be 25 used to compensate for inadequate engine and emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 209 1 control system designs that cannot meet the rigors of 2 normal vehicle usage. 3 ARB needs to know how often manufacturers 4 actually derate or shut off emission controls in use to 5 ensure these strategies are not being abused. Without 6 such knowledge, emissions from vehicles in use could be 7 much higher than expected. 8 --o0o-- 9 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: With that as the 10 background, staff has proposed a simple requirement for 11 the OBD system to track cumulative vehicle operation while 12 these bypass strategies are invoked. 13 Manufacturers would implement this requirement by 14 adding software in the on-board computer to do the 15 tracking. And it would not require additional emission 16 testing by the manufacturer. 17 The on-board computer would store bypass 18 operation time, and the data could then be downloaded from 19 the vehicle computer and compared to the data provided by 20 the manufacturer at the time of certification. It is also 21 worth noting that many of these vehicles already track 22 some engine operating conditions, such as total engine run 23 time or idle time. So the concept of using the on-board 24 computer to track a specific operating condition is not a 25 new concept. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 210 1 This proposal has been an issue of controversy 2 with the manufacturers. Manufacturers argue that the OBD 3 regulation is not the proper place for such a requirement, 4 because they believe how often they bypass emission 5 controls has nothing to do with OBD or detecting 6 malfunctions. 7 Staff believes it is the proper place because OBD 8 is the only regulation that specifies standardized data 9 that must be available from the on-board computer 10 including data to help technicians repair vehicles, data 11 to help facilitate smog check or other inspections of 12 vehicles, and data to help ARB staff confirm compliance 13 with the regulatory requirements. 14 Manufacturers also argue that these strategies 15 are highly confidential and this requirement would 16 facilitate reverse engineering. However, this tracking 17 would not provide any realtime indication of when a 18 strategy is active. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: Lastly, I would 21 like to cover two other items included in the proposal 22 before you today. 23 The first includes necessary changes to align the 24 OBD enforcement regulation with the revised thresholds and 25 phase-ins already discussing. Additional specification PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 211 1 was also added regarding enforcement actions that prevent 2 the vehicle from getting a proper smog check inspection. 3 Switching gears away from OBD for a moment, the 4 second item includes a minor change in the emission 5 warranty regulation. Currently a portion of the 6 emission-related components that have high repair costs 7 are covered for 7 years or 70,000 miles. However, 8 coverage of those parts is contingent on an outdated 9 warranty parts list that does not include all of the 10 technology on today's cars. 11 The proposed changes address that very list by 12 removing the reference to it to ensure all parts that are 13 emission related and exceed the repair cost would be 14 covered by the high cost warranty. 15 --o0o-- 16 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: To wrap up 17 today's presentation I would like to summarize, that 18 effective OBD systems are essential to assuring emissions 19 remain low throughout the life of the vehicle. Robust OBD 20 systems are as important as the tailpipe emission 21 standards themselves. 22 As a whole, gasoline OBD systems are doing the 23 job they were designed to do and doing it very well. Ten 24 years of experience has led to very mature gasoline 25 diagnostics, with only minor modifications being proposed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 212 1 today. 2 Diesel OBD, on the other hand, is largely new and 3 the diagnostics, along with the technology, need time to 4 develop to become as effective by 2013. 5 --o0o-- 6 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER MONTES: Staff's 7 recommendation is to adopt the proposed regulations with 8 15 day changes and to direct staff to conduct a biennial 9 review, as has been done in the past. 10 And this concludes the staff presentation. And I 11 thank you for your attention. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 13 Ms. Ferreira, would you present the Ombudsman's 14 report and any concerns that you may have to the Board. 15 ACTING OMBUDSMAN FERREIRA: Yes. Dr. Sawyer and 16 members of the Board. This regulation has been developed 17 with input from individual manufacturers of passenger 18 cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles and 19 engines, as well as their associations including the 20 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of 21 International Automobile Manufactures, and the Engine 22 Manufacturers Association and their legal counsel. 23 Staff began the regulatory efforts in 2005. In 24 November 2005 they held a workshop in El Monte. 25 Approximately 45 stakeholders attended the workshop, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 213 1 representing the vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, 2 associations, and aftermarket repair industry. Also staff 3 held numerous meetings with individual manufacturers as 4 well as their associations. 5 The staff report was published on August 11th, 6 2006, and posted to the ARB's website that same date. 7 Hard copy and list serve notifications were sent 8 to the stakeholders. More than 650 stakeholders received 9 the report via hard copy and nearly 400 received it 10 through the mail. 11 This concludes my comments. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 13 Are there any questions from the Board members? 14 I really had expected all of the Board members to 15 read the 172 pages of Title 13, Section 1968.2. But 16 perhaps only an engineer could find that exciting. 17 (Laughter.) 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I would like to call now the 19 first three witnesses who have signed up. And this will 20 be Steve Douglas, John Cabaniss, And Lisa Stegink. 21 MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of 22 the Board. I'm Steven Douglas with the Alliance of 23 Automobile Manufacturers. The Alliance is a trade 24 association of nine car and light truck manufacturers. 25 And before I get on with my substantive comments, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 214 1 I'd like to just commend ARB staff and the automobile 2 manufacturers on the hard work and the diligence over the 3 last 18 months of putting this together. 4 The regulations before you represent literally 5 thousands of meetings, phone calls, conference calls, 6 e-mails and workshops between ARB staff, the automobile 7 manufacturers, the Tier 1 suppliers, the associations and 8 other interest parties. So it's a lot of work. And of 9 the many, many issues that we've started with, we're down 10 to just a few. So I think that's a -- it's just a 11 tremendous amount of work. 12 The issues that we have are nonetheless 13 important. 14 And we should also say up front that we believe 15 in the on-board diagnostic system. We believe that the 16 systems accurately monitor the vehicle emission system. 17 We believe the systems effectively alert the operator when 18 a malfunction occurs, and that they effectively direct the 19 repair technician to the problem when a problem occurs. 20 So with that background, I'd like to turn to our 21 suggested changes. 22 First, we support the comments and the 23 recommendation of the Engine Manufacturers Association and 24 of our member companies who will testify later. The 25 intent of our suggestions is to provide a robust OBD PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 215 1 system, while focusing very scarce engineering resources 2 on those changes which provide the most benefit. I've 3 provided written comments which provide more detail, and 4 they also add some additional recommendations. 5 So just in the interests of time I'd like to 6 focus my comments on only four areas. And those are 7 additional testing for light-duty diesel vehicles, cold 8 start emission reduction strategies, infrequent 9 regeneration adjustment factors, and the CVN CAL-ID 10 database. 11 First, additional testing for light-duty diesels. 12 Vehicles sold in California willfully comply with the 13 emission requirements, the durability requirements, and 14 the OBD requirements for the full useful life of the 15 vehicles. Nonetheless we understand that some are still 16 concerned that light-duty diesel vehicles will fail to 17 meet the emission standards and the higher thresholds will 18 allow those emissions to go undetected. 19 Although we believe this concern is misplaced and 20 that the additional testing is unnecessary, we're willing 21 to accept some additional testing to confirm the emissions 22 of light-duty diesel vehicles. 23 However, the proposed testing is difficult. It's 24 involved. It dramatically increases the burden on 25 manufacturers and strains already limited resources that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 216 1 should be devoted to developing and testing more robust 2 emission control systems. 3 We simply ask the Board to adopt reasonable 4 testing requirements that provide flexibility to 5 manufacturers and not to add further testing beyond those 6 already proposed. 7 The second issue is cold start emission reduction 8 strategy that the staff has mentioned. The majority of 9 vehicle emissions occur when the vehicle is started and 10 the catalyst is cold. This is known as cold start 11 emissions. Manufacturers have developed a number of 12 strategies to reduce these emissions including, among 13 others, increasing the engine RPM on start-up or retarding 14 spark. Recognizing the impact that these strategies have, 15 the ARB adopted standards in 2002 to turn on the "check 16 engine" light if emissions exceeded 50 percent of the 17 standard, or 1.5 times the standard. 18 The proposed changes add an additional 19 requirement: To turn on the "check engine" light if any 20 commanded element doesn't perform properly, regardless of 21 the emissions impact. We've discussed this with the staff 22 on a number of occasions. They view the cold start 23 requirement as similar to comprehensive component 24 monitoring. 25 ARB established comprehensive component PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 217 1 monitoring to assist the repair technicians by requiring 2 manufacturers to turn on the "check engine" light for any 3 component that cause emissions to increase by 15 percent 4 or more. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I must ask you to conclude 6 in light of our three-minute rule. 7 MR. DOUGLAS: Okay. For cold start we'd ask you 8 adopt a requirement to put in an emission threshold on 9 there of 15 percent, the exact same criteria you had for 10 comprehensive component monitoring. 11 The only other issue is the infrequent 12 regeneration adjustment. That is a big issue for the 13 automobile manufacturers. It does increase the stringency 14 of the standards. And there is virtually no time to meet 15 a 2008 requirement for the oxidation catalyst. 16 Thank you. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 18 Does staff have any comments on the request? 19 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER McCARTHY: 20 On the first item for in-use diesel testing, we 21 had indeed added language to require the manufacturers to 22 test these diesels in the exact same manner that we test 23 them at ARB if we were to do investigation for in-use 24 compliance testing. That is, we seek out ten vehicles and 25 bring them into our lab and test them. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 218 1 That said, I know our staff internally have been 2 working on ways to speed up that process and expedite that 3 process and look at samples of vehicles that gives -- 4 smaller samples that give equally confident -- equal 5 confidence that they will be meeting the standards. 6 And so we have included some language in the 7 provision for testing that allows them to sort of follow 8 along with any improvements we make in our own testing, so 9 that they again can mimic our testing. And if that heads 10 down a path of testing fewer vehicles to get the same 11 amount of confidence, I think that would -- it would 12 automatically apply for them as well. It does provide 13 some room for improvements to come along and then to pick 14 up -- still do the testing, still give us equivalent 15 assurance that they're meeting the standards. And I think 16 that will help address their concern on the in-use 17 testing. 18 On the second item, on cold start emission 19 reductions, we do believe that cold start emission 20 reduction strategies are specifically added just to reduce 21 emissions. They're not a component that's put on the car 22 that has a -- for another purpose and has a subsequent 23 reaction that impacts emissions. These are strategies 24 they've specifically designed to help meet the emission 25 standards. And as cars get cleaner, we find more and more PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 219 1 manufacturers that have strategies of components that 2 collectively bring the car down to the low levels, but 3 individually have a small impact. And in keeping with the 4 tradition of trying to know everything about the car and 5 how it's doing, we have kept the requirement that if any 6 individual element completely fails, that is, they command 7 an increase in idle speed and get no increase in idle 8 speed, or they command retarded spark and get no 9 additional spark retarded, then they would have to detect 10 a malfunction, and making sure each of these individual 11 elements we think is key in OBD, to make sure that the 12 overall car is performing as well as it can be without 13 having several things wrong at the same time. 14 And the third item was the CVN -- 15 MR. DOUGLAS: Yeah, CVN CAL-ID. 16 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER McCARTHY: 17 The CVN CAL-ID database, it's actually a test -- a data 18 that's spit out of the car that we use during smog check 19 or will use at smog check. And we actually are providing 20 a separate mail-out to help manufacturers with a template 21 for that. And I think in principle we don't have a 22 problem with their agreement that we put this in place to 23 start that standardized data template in 2008 model year, 24 as they've suggested. So I don't think that will be a 25 problem for us to make that change. That gives us and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 220 1 them time to put the data into that format. 2 And the last one, the infrequent regeneration 3 adjustment factor, I think we'll hear more about it. And 4 I think I'll wait and comment on it after we've heard from 5 EMA and the others about the same. I think we'll get some 6 more information about it. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Fine. Thank you very much. 8 MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: John Cabaniss. 10 MR. CABANISS: Good afternoon. My name's John 11 Cabaniss and I'm Director of Environment and Energy for 12 the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. 13 I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments 14 today on the proposed changes to the OBD rules. We too 15 would like to thank ARB staff for the hard work and the 16 accommodations they've made to us over the past 18 months 17 in working on our issues and comments. And as Steve said, 18 that was a very worthwhile effort in terms of addressing 19 most of our issues. 20 As you know, the OBD rules are complicated. 21 That's evidenced by the 172 page draft. The OBD 22 thresholds and standards being proposed today are truly 23 technology forcing. Technical challenges remain. And 24 this is especially true for diesels, where OBD technology 25 is in its infancy compared to gasoline monitoring. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 221 1 It's essential that the dialogue between auto 2 makers and ARB staff continues. That's true both for the 3 biennial process that we -- in reviewing the rules, but 4 also in the interim to have a routine dialogue to discuss 5 progress and any issues that arise. 6 We believe it's also important for the 7 regulations to contain flexibility to allow staff to 8 adjust requirements as they deem appropriate. 9 While IAM is neutral on the proposed regulations, 10 we fully agree with ARB that OBD systems are an important 11 and necessary tool for ensuring in-use compliance for 12 vehicles throughout their useful lives. We do not object 13 to further developing and implementing more robust 14 systems. However, we believe it is critical that OBD 15 requirements do not become obstacles for the development 16 and deployment of advanced vehicle technologies needed to 17 address overall environmental goals. 18 Finally, I would note that IAM also supports the 19 comments being presented today by the Alliance and the 20 Engine Manufacturers Association. 21 Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 23 Lisa Stegink. And then we'll have Mark Stepper, 24 John Trajnowski and Timothy Gundrum. 25 MS. STEGINK: Good afternoon. I'm Lisa Stegink, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 222 1 here today on behalf of the Engine Manufacturers 2 Association. EMA supports the comments of the Alliance 3 and the IAM, so I will not repeat those. 4 My comments address the medium-duty aspects of 5 this rule, all of which will be difficult and challenging 6 for engine manufacturers to meet. As you figured out, the 7 OBD rule is pretty technical and very complex. 8 Today we're specifically asking the Board for 9 relief on one narrow issue that -- which should not be 10 implemented, the requirement to develop the unique 11 infrequent regeneration adjustment factors for the NMHC or 12 diesel oxidation catalyst, or DOC, in 2008. 13 EMA asks the Board to postpone that requirement 14 until 2010 for several reasons. The first two are timing 15 and workload. Manufacturers have finished their engine 16 and OBD systems designs for 2007 and are in the process of 17 certifying those engine products. Those 2007 engines will 18 be carried over into 2008 and 2009 until the next change 19 of emission standards in 2010. 20 Manufacturers already are deeply engaged in 21 developing the engine and OBD technology necessary to meet 22 the 2010 standards and in meeting in-use program 23 requirements, which will come up after this item. Adding 24 unique IRAFs, as we call them, adjustment factors adds one 25 more burden that would further strain manufacturers' PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 223 1 already limited resources. Even without any other work to 2 do, 2008 is right around the corner in design terms, and 3 there's not enough time to develop and validate new 4 monitoring strategies for 2008. 5 We agree that it is appropriate to look at and 6 consider applying adjustment factors to account for the 7 potential emission effects of infrequent regeneration 8 events. But it's simply too late to require unique 9 adjustment factors for 2008. 10 The first two were timing and workload. The 11 third reason is need. Manufacturers have other systems in 12 place that will help control emissions and turn on the MIL 13 if a partially failed DOC does not properly regenerate. 14 Those systems developed as back-ups and to ensure 15 performance will help control emissions by turning on the 16 MIL and making sure the engines get repaired. 17 The fourth reason is stringency. Adding 18 adjustment factors to the calculations makes the OBD 19 thresholds tougher to meet. These thresholds already have 20 been set at the very limits of what ARB thinks 21 manufacturers can achieve. At this late date ARB should 22 not impose this very narrow unique requirement for DOC 23 adjustment factors in 2008. We're asking for the 24 additional modest time until 2010. And we'd ask that you 25 direct the staff to postpone that requirement. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 224 1 One other issue that we think was an oversight. 2 We see in the 15-day language that ARB is proposing to 3 give light duty additional time in the switch over from 4 lower to higher ratios for rate-based monitoring. This is 5 again a separate issue. We believe it's also appropriate 6 to give medium duty the same relief for the 2013 and 2014 7 model years, and we ask you to direct staff to make that 8 change as well. 9 Thank you. 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 11 Would staff respond on those two requests. 12 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER McCARTHY: 13 Sure. The second one on the in-use ratios, we 14 actually -- I think we concur with EMA in that the -- we 15 afforded light duty some allowance for a couple years to 16 transition. And it's appropriate to provide that same 17 transition time for medium-duty diesels. So we would put 18 that change in with our 15-day changes to allow two more 19 years of transition time for them on the ratios that 20 affect how optimum monitors run in use. 21 On the first issue, the bigger item is the 22 infrequent regeneration. As we explained in our 23 presentation, the adjustment factors are there solely to 24 account for regeneration emissions and that spike that 25 occurs and spread that out. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 225 1 The oxidation catalyst was singled out by us 2 because its primary role is to help regeneration. And so 3 it's emission benefit is primarily during the regeneration 4 event. And when it's deteriorated or malfunctioning, the 5 already substantial emissions during regen can get even 6 higher, substantially higher. And so we had focused on 7 that -- on the catalyst so that when they achieved -- try 8 to achieve a regeneration, they tend to add extra 9 hydrocarbons into the exhaust. If the catalyst has 10 deteriorated and not converted them, those hydrocarbons 11 can pass straight through that catalyst and out the 12 tailpipe. So it feeds itself as something that can be a 13 substantial emission impact during regen. 14 And if we do not have an account for the 15 adjustment factor starting to designate specifically for a 16 malfunction in DOC, we have a little bit of an unchecked 17 situation. 18 As Lisa mentioned, they do have bounds in there 19 on how much fuel they'll add. They have other safety 20 measures in there to try to protect the equipment and 21 place some limits on it. But we don't have a very 22 objective bound that we can hold all manufacturers to and 23 emissions can be very, very high during that. So that's 24 why we had singled that catalyst out for 2008 to start 25 them on the track of thinking about the effect on regen PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 226 1 when that component malfunctions and making sure we've got 2 safeguards in place to limit how bad hydrocarbon emissions 3 can get during that event. 4 That said, we have added a little bit of language 5 to help try to ease their workload burden. And we have 6 provided an alternative to -- establishing a full 7 adjustment factor in 2008, we provided an alternative that 8 would make them bound the condition up a little bit better 9 by performing a couple emission tests with regen and with 10 a deteriorated catalyst that would help us have some idea 11 that the situation is bound without doing the extensive 12 work that would be needed to get the exact adjustment 13 factor. And we think that helps define the workload, 14 provide a meaningful amount of limitation on a workload, 15 while also still getting us some objective standard that 16 we can hold them accountable to, as well as all 17 manufacturers, to the same level. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 19 Ms. Berg. 20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: And then with that adjustment 21 when would the full regulation be in effect? 22 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER McCARTHY: 23 In 2010 the manufacturers would be responsible to 24 properly do the adjustment factor for all the 25 malfunctions. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 227 1 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So would that work for you? 2 MS. STEGINK: Are you asking me if the 15-day 3 change? 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Yes. 5 MS. STEGINK: Okay. Well, we still have the 6 issue of the timing, which is really -- I mean I just want 7 to emphasize that 2008 for engine manufacturers is really 8 upon them now. So it's very difficult. It's really very 9 late in the process for us. 10 As to the 15 day language, we did see that this 11 morning. We've had a lot of discussions over the last 12 couple of days on this issue. We haven't yet been able to 13 evaluate whether that does address it. We have to really 14 take some time and get all the manufacturers involved in 15 looking at it. It may address some of the testing issues, 16 at first glance, and some of the workload issues. But it 17 still doesn't address as far as we think right now -- and, 18 again, as I said, we haven't had much time to look at it 19 and to really consider it -- it really doesn't address the 20 need to change and develop new technology really for just 21 one year away. 22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 23 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Could I 24 add one thing, Mr. Chairman? 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes, Tom. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 228 1 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: This is 2 clearly a short period of time and it's clearly to some 3 degree forcing. They're not quite sure whether they can 4 comply or not. And we recognize that. But we think this 5 is a pretty important issue, because if that catalyst was 6 gone, we've seen data that said the emissions go up by 60 7 times the standard -- 6-0 -- which is a big impact when 8 you spread it out even over a 300 mile trip. 9 There's another offramp here though to address 10 the short timeframe. And, that is, in all of our OBD when 11 the changes are relatively new, we provide for 12 deficiencies. And what a deficiency is is if you try and 13 fail, you can claim a deficiency and not have to fully 14 meet the requirements. If you fail to try, you can't. 15 But in this case they're already trying. And the question 16 I think the various manufacturers have is, "Am I close 17 enough or am I not close enough?" They're not quite sure. 18 And so if they try and fail, they can use a deficiency. 19 They get three free deficiencies in 2008. So that means 20 three things on the OBD system could be less than in 21 compliance, or not in compliance, as long as they tried. 22 And so we think that's a pretty good offramp. 23 Even if they used up all three and they needed a 24 fourth, they're able to do that and they simply pay in 25 this case I think a $50 an engine penalty for it. So PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 229 1 there's no chance that it will cause, "Oh, my goodness, I 2 can't produce this vehicle in 2008 model year." 3 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Well, and what I'm hearing on 4 the 15-day change is that you're going to require 5 additional data but not the full regulation in effect 6 until 2010. Am I understanding that correctly? 7 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No, I 8 think what the change does is provide a mechanism to 9 reduce the workload and the amount of testing that would 10 be required to make the demonstration that they're in 11 compliance for 2008. So it's trying to address their 12 second point, which is the workload that's needed in this 13 relatively short period of time. 14 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So they would need to come up 15 with the programing and whatever needs to be done to the 16 on-board diagnostic to determine this infrequent 17 regeneration factors by 2008? 18 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yes. 19 BOARD MEMBER BERG: But what you're saying is 20 that you're going to lighten the load for the testing 21 purposes and so forth and delay that -- I mean you'll ramp 22 it up until it's in full effect in 2010? 23 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Right. 24 So that for 2008 there's a lower cost way, less timely 25 testing burden to make the demonstration. And then if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 230 1 they make it and if they find out they're in trouble, 2 they're not able to have a system that works, then they've 3 got these deficiencies that they can use to basically say 4 "oops," and it will be okay. And we do that because we 5 know that these are challenging and that some mistakes or 6 some, you know, developments just won't come quite as far 7 as one had hoped. And that's what the provision's there 8 for. It's been there on gasoline side since 1996 as well. 9 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Thank you. 10 MS. STEGINK: May I comment briefly on the 11 deficiencies? 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. 13 MS. STEGINK: We do support having deficiencies, 14 because they're absolutely needed. So we appreciate the 15 fact that they're in there, and manufacturers do need them 16 and will use them. My only caution is to be sure -- to 17 make sure or to be aware of not using deficiencies as a 18 replacement for doing a thorough upfront technological 19 feasibility analysis. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 21 Mark Stepper. 22 MR. STEPPER: Good afternoon, chairman and 23 members of the Board. My name is Mark Stepper and I work 24 for Cummins, Incorporated. I'm a director in the Product 25 Environmental Management area there. And I'm responsible PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 231 1 for the OBD certification of our diesel engines. I'm here 2 today to provide Cummins' input on the proposed changes to 3 the OBD II regulation. 4 I'd like to start off by saying Cummins is a 5 member of the EMA and fully supports the comments that 6 have been -- the written comments that have been submitted 7 by the Engine Manufacturers Association. 8 Over the course of the past year, culminating in 9 a number of meetings that we've had in the past months and 10 a flurry of calls and discussions this past week and last 11 few days, we've been able to work with staff and industry 12 to make some needed changes in the OBD rule. The staff 13 themselves have made theirselves available for these 14 meetings and calls. And there's been a lot of spirited 15 discussions, as you might think there would be. 16 And OBD II is not a simple diagnostic add-on. 17 It's a very stringent -- add-on to stringent emission 18 standards. The required OBD systems demand much 19 engineering resources and technical ingenuity, as does the 20 development of the compliant emissions control systems. 21 So the OBD workload is nearly or maybe more so than the 22 emissions workload. 23 When very demanding OBD requirements are made 24 coincident with a stringency change in the emission 25 standards, which is the case for the 2007 model year, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 232 1 Cummins is finding it difficult to complete the 2 development of the basic emission control systems in time 3 and to finalize the development of the systems that are 4 required to satisfy these OBD II requirements. 5 As I mentioned above, the staff has met with us 6 both in person and on the phone numerous times in an 7 attempt to address our issues without compromising the 8 needed diagnostic systems for these new emission 9 technologies. 10 The changes included in the 15-day package that 11 we've seen just this morning here represent what we 12 believe to be the outcome of the discussions. And we'll 13 need to spend more time studying that, but we think it 14 gives us a workable rule. Still sets the bar plenty high, 15 but a workable rule. And we recommend that you adopt the 16 15-day notice changes that are proposed. 17 But there is still another issue I would like to 18 address. And, that is, the timing of these changes. 19 Today, September 28th, 2006, is a pretty late time to be 20 making changes for the 2007 model year product that is -- 21 has been delivered already for some and is getting ready 22 to be delivered by others. Now, as I mentioned, these 23 changes are needed and we couldn't live without some of 24 the changes getting folded in to the rule, so those are 25 the ones we want for sure. But I'd like to say that this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 233 1 topic should have been addressed at a hearing months or 2 even a year ago. Cummins and other manufacturers have EO 3 approvals that have provisions contingent on the outcome 4 of this hearing. We think this is an unreasonable 5 jeopardy. 6 In addition, we've held off on submitting other 7 applications pending the outcome of this hearing. It is 8 unreasonable that we should be put in this kind of a 9 position. These issues are complex and take a lot of time 10 to address. We just encourage the process to get started 11 earlier. 12 This issue was to have been heard by the Board 13 earlier but was delayed, not once but twice. And even the 14 original hearing was late in the development cycle for the 15 2007 model year products. 16 I request that the Board and the staff commit 17 themselves to address OBD biennial review changes in an 18 earlier development cycle. 19 I thank you for the opportunity to provide input 20 into the process here. And at this time I'd be glad to 21 answer any questions you might have. 22 BOARD MEMBER BERG: So does 2008 work better? 23 MR. STEPPER: Well, there's some of the changes 24 that are proposed for a 2008 model year with the 2008 25 requirement for the DOC and factoring in this new PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 234 1 requirement of IRAFs. The number of changes for '07 were 2 really to adjust the thresholds for the monitors that are 3 required for the 2007 model year product. 4 So I think, in short, probably moving that out to 5 '08 probably wouldn't make too much of a difference 6 because those products are petty well developed as well. 7 BOARD MEMBER BERG: I see. Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Does staff want to comment 9 on the timing? 10 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SECTION MANAGER McCARTHY: 11 There are requirements. As we've said in the 12 presentation, medium-duty, including diesel, have had to 13 meet OBD since 1996 and 1997 model year. So even at the 14 2002, the last time we visited this item in 2002, there 15 were requirements in place and adopted on the books for 16 2007 and subsequent diesels. 17 Part of what Mark was talking about is today we 18 are changing some of those, revising those -- actually 19 revising the thresholds higher to give them a chance to 20 comply based on what the technology is capable of doing 21 today. 22 And so that's why we are making changes. They do 23 need them to apply in the 2007 model year because we're 24 making it easier for them to comply in many situations. 25 The adjustment factors is one that's become a newer item PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 235 1 of discussion. Prior to 2007 model year, diesel 2 manufacturers did not have these infrequent regeneration 3 events, and so they -- it was all new for them for 4 certification in 2007 as well as for OBD. There hasn't 5 been any -- much discussion about it prior to then because 6 it was never used or required. And that's why it's -- the 7 adjustment factors is one item that's come up more 8 recently. 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sawyer, we 10 also had a significant amount of work on the light-duty 11 elements of the rule -- light-duty diesel, which were 12 principally responsible for the delay. Had we broken it 13 into two parts, we might have been able to get medium-duty 14 here sooner, but we were trying to be efficient with staff 15 resources as well. 16 So it's not our preferred way of operating, but 17 we wanted to get it all done in one go so we have 18 gasoline, light-duty and medium-duty. And light-duty 19 diesel took the most time. 20 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Is the regeneration the big 21 issue here for 2007? 22 MR. STEPPER: I would say it's just one. The 23 2007 model year products will come out with a new diesel 24 particulate filters to be able to comply with new emission 25 standards. So that new technology requires this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 236 1 regeneration process, which is a new requirement. And the 2 infrequent regeneration adjustment factors that you're 3 hearing about today is something that came along new when 4 that type of emission device was required to be able to 5 satisfy emission standards. 6 So the dealing with those adjustment factors is 7 something that both EPA and ARB are even having difficulty 8 finalizing how they should be treated just for the 9 emission standards certification itself, let alone the 10 add-on work for the OBD monitoring. So it's just the new 11 technology, these adjustment factors are new and how to 12 deal with them. So I think another year or two down the 13 road it won't be nearly as problematic because we'll all 14 be more familiar with them. 15 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: 16 Well, we were struggling with the fact that we 17 needed to adjust virtually all of the factors that applied 18 to OBD for diesel compared to what we're used to for 19 gasoline. So it was a larger task than just what's 20 disputed here. It was a very -- you know, a huge 21 technical task to assess each one of these monitoring 22 requirements and figure out what to do with it. And I 23 think what we've ended up with is good, but it took a 24 while to fight through all of the issues. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 237 1 MR. STEPPER: Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: John Trajnowski. 3 MR. TRAJNOWSKI: Good afternoon. My name is John 4 Trajnowski and I'm a regulatory engineer with Ford Motor 5 Company's Vehicle Environmental Engineering staff. I'm 6 here today to present Ford's position on the proposed 7 changes to the OBD II requirements. 8 As a preliminary matter, Ford supports -- fully 9 supports the comments submitted by the Alliance of 10 Automobile Manufacturers and the Engine Manufacturers 11 Association, and we participated in the development of 12 those comments. So, therefore, for the sake of time I 13 will confine my statement to two significant issues and 14 that readdress all the issues raised by EMA and the 15 Alliance. 16 The first issue regards the requirement to apply 17 unique infrequent regeneration adjustment factors to the 18 diesel oxidation catalyst malfunction threshold. 19 The proposed changes would require us to develop 20 an entirely new monitoring strategy on our medium-duty 21 diesel vehicles in 2008. And this simply does not provide 22 enough -- us with enough lead time to fully develop and 23 validate an entirely new monitoring strategy and implement 24 it into production in just a little over a year's time. 25 If we are forced to do so, we would have to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 238 1 significantly cut short our validation process and, in 2 turn, run a much higher risk of false malfunction 3 indicator lights illuminating in the field, which could 4 result in the replacement of a perfectly good catalyst at 5 a very large expense to industry, to the vehicle owner, 6 with no air quality benefit. 7 Therefore, we urge the Board to delay the 8 requirement until 2010 so that we will have sufficient 9 lead time to properly validate and implement a new 10 monitoring strategy. And implement it in a timeframe that 11 is consistent with other changes that will be required for 12 the OBD II system. 13 The second issue involves the proposal to enhance 14 the existing monitoring requirements for the cold start 15 emission reduction strategies for both the gasoline and 16 the diesel vehicles. 17 These are strategies that we use to heat up the 18 catalyst faster during a cold start, such as retarding the 19 spark timing or increasing idle speed. 20 Ford's current monitoring strategy determines the 21 catalyst temperature during the warm-up to ensure that it 22 reaches a minimum temperature by a sufficient time period. 23 So if we don't achieve the minimum temperature because of 24 a malfunction, we'll light the MIL. 25 The ARB proposal would add requirements for us to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 239 1 also directly monitor all of the individual components 2 that could affect catalyst warm-up, such as spark timing 3 or engine idle speed, no matter how little we may try to 4 modulate them during the start, and with no consideration 5 on how much or how little they may affect emissions. 6 This could result in a false MIL if, for example, 7 the vehicle was filled with bad fuel and the engine 8 control strategy increased the spark timing during the 9 cold start to keep the engine from stalling. 10 Therefore, Ford does not support adoption of the 11 new -- additional monitoring of individual components of 12 the cold start strategy, because it is repetitive and 13 prone to false results. 14 At a minimum, the Board should direct the ARB 15 staff to revise the requirement to include a minimum 16 emissions threshold for individual components, similar to 17 the comprehensive component monitoring requirements and 18 criteria, such that the component would not require 19 monitoring unless it can affect emissions by more than 15 20 percent of the standard on an FTP test. 21 So in closing I'd just like to thank you for this 22 time. And I'll be happy to take any questions you may 23 have. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 25 Are there any questions from the Board? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 240 1 If not, thank you very much. 2 Timothy Gundrum. 3 MR. GUNDRUM: Good afternoon and thank you. 4 My name is Tim Gundrum and I'm responsible for 5 OBD certification and compliance for International Truck 6 and Engine Corporation. 7 First of all, I would like to say that 8 International supports the comments of the Engine 9 Manufacturers Association. 10 But I wish to speak to you today specifically 11 about the proposed requirement to establish a unique 12 infrequent regeneration adjustment factor for the NMHC 13 catalyst monitor beginning in the 2008 model year. This 14 means developing and demonstrating thresholds that 15 incorporate the effect of NMHC catalyst deterioration on 16 infrequent regenerations. 17 While there are several reasons why we believe 18 this provision should not be included in the rule, I wish 19 to concentrate on one, namely, that it is unnecessary, 20 since it would provide little incremental benefit over 21 containment measures that manufacturers already have in 22 their control strategies. 23 There are many reasons why manufacturers place 24 boundaries on the control of infrequent regeneration: 25 Fuel economy, performance, reliability, and durability. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 241 1 These affect the manufacturer's bottom line through 2 customer dissatisfaction and warranty costs. 3 During the regeneration of the PM filter, the 4 NMHC catalyst, also known as the DOC, is used to raise the 5 exhaust temperature by burning fuel introduced into the 6 exhaust. Some of the limitations placed on this process 7 include determining whether the amount of heat at the 8 outlet of the DOC is comparable to what is expected, 9 placing a time limit on the length of regeneration 10 attempts, and monitoring regeneration for minimum 11 effectiveness. 12 Regenerations are aborted or avoided and errors 13 are flagged when it becomes obvious that there is a 14 problem. Thus, the emissions impact of a DOC malfunction 15 will be limited. Engine manufacturers do not 16 indiscriminately increase fuel levels in order to achieve 17 regeneration when a DOC has deteriorated. Upper 18 boundaries are placed on these levels and they are based 19 on extensive laboratory and field test data. 20 In summary, we feel that the containment measures 21 that manufacturers already have in their control 22 strategies ensure that the concerns of ARB will not be 23 realized. We believe that there will be little or no 24 benefit of going through the exercise of creating 25 malfunction thresholds, incorporating special infrequent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 242 1 regeneration adjustment factors for the case of a 2 deteriorated DOC, and it would also be a monumental task. 3 We urge the Board to at least delay this 4 requirement until 2010 so that in the interim we can work 5 together to determine the most effective way to eliminate 6 ARB's concerns. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 9 Staff have a comment on what we've heard? 10 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Let me 11 make a couple comments on it. 12 We understand that the manufacturers don't want 13 to squirt unlimited amount of fuel into the filter because 14 it could -- you know, ultimately you could have so much 15 fuel in there, you could cause a fire. So there's some 16 limits on the amount of fuel that would be put in to help 17 with regeneration. And with a defective catalyst there's 18 some limit on how much hydrocarbons might result from that 19 and be emitted into the atmosphere. But as I indicated 20 before, you know, some of the data we've seen recently 21 shows that if the oxidation catalyst, or we call it the 22 DOC catalyst, is completely failed, this could result in 23 things -- our charts show 10 times -- as much as 60 times 24 increase in emissions, which doesn't sound to me like 25 limited control. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 243 1 Second of all, just as of yesterday we had 2 discussions with several manufacturers who described what 3 the limits were, the mechanical or electronic limits on 4 how much fuel could be injected and other limits they've 5 put on the system. But the problem was that none of them 6 could show us what the emission impact is. And given the 7 other data showing very high emission increase, that 8 worries us. 9 So what it boils down to one more time is that if 10 the emission impact is not very large because they have 11 constrained -- put limits on how much extra fuel could be 12 injected for regeneration and other types of limits, then, 13 you know, they don't have a problem. And to find that out 14 is -- we've provided some mechanisms to try to do it in a 15 relatively efficient manner so that it could be done 16 before 2008. If in fact they find out that the impact is 17 big, even with these limits, on emissions -- the impact on 18 emissions and they go over the threshold, then that does 19 require them to design an entire new type of monitor, one 20 that can actually be calibrated to emissions instead of 21 more of a functional type. And when that happens, they 22 would be in trouble, except we have this offramp with 23 deficiencies. 24 So that again fits into the -- in my view, into 25 something we want them to try. But if they fail, there's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 244 1 an offramp. The reason to make them try is because we 2 think this is an important issue that could result in lots 3 of emissions. And they couldn't show us even as of 4 yesterday whether or not that will occur. 5 So we have some data, some engineering judgment 6 that this could be a serious enough issue to bother to 7 pull this forward two years, just this one monitor. If 8 we're wrong and they can constrain it, it's going to be a 9 little bit of testing and that's all that's going to be 10 required. If it's a big impact, they're going to have to 11 try to mitigate it. If they can't mitigate it, they get 12 to use a deficiency. Something they don't want to do, but 13 at least they tried, and we might end up with constrained 14 emissions. And we don't know, there's other models that, 15 you know, we -- could be introduced in '08 that we haven't 16 even seen yet. And we would like to send the signal on 17 those, "Please design it the right way from a low 18 emissions standpoint as you're doing the designs that 19 you're finishing up right now." 20 So, you know, it is a bit of -- you know, there's 21 arguments both ways, we will concede. But this was one 22 that we thought was worthy of your consideration to be 23 pulled out and made a little bit more stringent, but with 24 enough insurance policy that it won't stop anybody from 25 selling a truck in '08. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 245 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 2 Our final three speakers are Don Anair, Luke 3 Tonachel, and Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 4 Don Anair. 5 MR. ANAIR: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer, members 6 of the Board. 7 I'd just like to voice some concerns about the 8 changes being proposed to the OBD requirements for the 9 light-duty diesel vehicles. 10 The current emission standards for light-duty 11 vehicles broke the mold by setting equivalent emission 12 standards for both diesel and gasoline vehicles. And 13 diesel emission controls have evolved and are poised to 14 meet the standards in the coming years. However, by 15 relaxing the OBD requirements for diesel, we are afraid 16 that diesel vehicles and their gasoline vehicle 17 counterparts will no longer be on a level playing field. 18 As a result, diesel vehicles operating in California may 19 emit more tailpipe pollution than their gasoline 20 counterparts. 21 The measures outlined by staff are absolutely 22 necessary to provide a minimum level of assurance that the 23 emission control systems on these light-duty diesel 24 vehicles are performing throughout their useful life. So 25 I'd just like to point out the requirements that staff has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 246 1 proposed and our support for them. 2 The in-use testing requirements are critical, 3 because in the absence of the Smog Check program for 4 light-duty diesel vehicles there is no assurance that 5 light-duty diesel vehicles will be meeting the 6 requirements of the full useful life. 7 Staff's proposal calls for two testing points, 8 one at 30,000 and one at 90,000 miles. We would like to 9 see that strengthened by adding an additional testing 10 point at 60,000 miles. And essentially there's a 60,000 11 mile gap in the testing. And that's equivalent to about 12 four years of driving. So we feel that having an 13 additional testing point would give us some assurance that 14 failures are not occurring for four years without being 15 detected. 16 The in-use testing alone does not provide 17 sufficient protection against increased emissions since 18 only a handful of vehicles will be tested, while 19 potentially thousands of others will be operating 20 throughout California with no regular emissions testing 21 requirements. 22 As a backstop measure, ARB should adopt the 23 language that has been proposed by staff in order to 24 mitigate any emissions -- excess emissions from these 25 vehicles. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 247 1 Finally, I encourage ARB to adopt resolution 2 language to commit to establishing smog check for 3 light-duty diesel vehicles. I think this is a very 4 important -- in the future will be a very important 5 component to ensuring that all light-duty diesel -- 6 gasoline and diesel vehicles are meeting air quality 7 emission standards throughout their useful life. 8 And I just want to thank ARB staff for 9 recognizing the need for these additional requirements 10 along with the proposed changes, and want to thank you for 11 your time and the opportunity to comment. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 13 What is our commitment to smog check for 14 diesels -- light-duty diesels? And when do we expect to 15 have that in place? 16 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: It's 17 unfortunate you asked the second part of that question. 18 Yeah, we are committed -- as soon as this Board 19 meeting's over we intend to write a letter to the 20 Department of Consumer Affairs and explain what the Board 21 decided, show them the resolution, and then hopefully get 22 strongly engaged in the technical details of how this 23 would happen. There are a bunch of technical details 24 unfortunately on the administration side that the people 25 that administer this will have to deal with. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 248 1 I cannot tell you, you know, how long that will 2 take, because ultimately it will not be our decision, but 3 it will be the decision of Consumer Affairs. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, it seems like this 5 should be a pretty high priority. 6 Would we anticipate there'd be a six-year amnesty 7 period for new diesels just as there is for gasoline? 8 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: No, I 9 certainly would not argue for that. That amnesty period 10 was earned by those vehicles demonstrating that they have 11 extremely low emissions at least during the first five or 12 six years of their life. The question here is we don't 13 know. So I would argue that they should be in smog check 14 at year two and until they can created a record that says 15 that they don't deteriorate. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Thank you. 17 Luke Tonachel. 18 MR. TONACHEL: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and 19 members of the Board. My name is Luke Tonachel. I'm with 20 the Natural Resources Defense Council. 21 My comments are going to be brief and focused on 22 light-duty diesel. And in general I support the comments 23 that Mr. Anair made before me. 24 I had the opportunity the last three days to 25 attend the zero emission vehicle technology symposium PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 249 1 right here, which was an excellent discussion on the 2 various technologies available. And Dr. Sawyer before 3 that -- the opening of that meeting, as he did today, was 4 helpful in reminding all of us that ARB's charge is not 5 just criteria pollutants, but it also includes global 6 warming pollution. 7 And while light-duty diesels have the potential 8 to provide us some advantages in terms of reducing global 9 warming pollution, we can't ignore the other pollution as 10 well. And during the ZEV technology symposium, members of 11 the South Coast Air Quality Management District were keen 12 to remind us about how that program is essential for 13 helping them fight the PM and ozone and other problems 14 that they have today. 15 So that's why we support the idea that light-duty 16 diesels have the same requirements as gasoline vehicles, 17 that we've held those gasoline vehicles to. 18 Now, NRDC does understand that there is some 19 technology that still needs to be developed. So if 20 light-duty diesels are going to be allowed in California 21 before that development is completed, then I just want to 22 support the idea that it's essential we have additional 23 in-use testing with a stringent ramp-in of the regulations 24 that's being proposed. We also mitigate any emissions 25 that are found on vehicles that are not compliant with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 250 1 emission standards as we go forward. 2 And I'd like -- I appreciate, Dr. Sawyer, your 3 priority on including light-duty diesels within the smog 4 check. And we would agree that there should not be the 5 six-year exemption until those vehicles earn the right to 6 have that capability. 7 Thank you very much. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 9 Bonnie Holmes-Gen. 10 MS. HOLMES-GEN: Dr. Sawyer and members of the 11 Board. Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association of 12 California. 13 I want to comment on this item because the 14 American Lung Association has been very concerned of 15 course about light- and heavy-duty emission levels and 16 impacts on public health. And we have believed for some 17 time that light-duty diesel vehicles should comply with 18 the same CARB tailpipe standards and OBD requirements that 19 are applied to gasoline vehicles. So we were concerned 20 when we saw the proposal come out about any changes that 21 might place weaker standards, and concerned that there 22 might be some backsliding on emissions -- vehicle 23 emissions. 24 And of course, you know, our concern comes from a 25 public health perspective, that we don't want to see any PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 251 1 backsliding that would impact the public health impacts of 2 air pollution, the lung illnesses and deaths that we 3 already have from our extremely high smog levels. 4 We are very appreciative of staff work on this 5 proposal and very appreciative of the new provision that 6 would require manufacturers to remedy any increased 7 emissions from light-duty diesel vehicles that are 8 demonstrating through the in-use testing. And that is an 9 important component of this proposal which does help to 10 ensure that we're going to capture and mitigate any excess 11 light-duty diesel emissions or any excess emissions that 12 are demonstrated through the in-use testing on those 13 vehicles. 14 And while of course the in-use testing -- well, 15 we still think that in-use testing requirements could be 16 strengthened further. As has been stated by Mr. Anair and 17 Mr. Tonachel, we do agree that -- we do agree with them 18 that we should put in an additional testing point and that 19 a testing point should be at the 60 to 70,000 mile 20 interval. So we do think there should be at least those 21 three testing points to do sufficient testing to look for 22 those design defects and systematic failures. 23 And has been stated, we absolutely have to have a 24 Smog Check program for these light-duty diesel vehicles. 25 I mean we can look for those design defects and systematic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 252 1 failures, but we need to be able to have a system to look 2 at individual vehicles and find those individual vehicles 3 in need of repair. 4 And I just wanted to comment that I appreciate 5 you have this in the resolution. This is going to be I 6 think a sustained campaign to get these vehicles into a 7 Smog Check program. I appreciate that you're poised to 8 send a letter. But we need to kind of gear up for a 9 sustained program -- sustained campaign to work with the 10 administration, to work with BAR, to work with public 11 health and environmental groups to really make this 12 happen. And we think you should set a goal to make this 13 happen within the next two to three years at the most, 14 because we need to get this going. 15 So those are our basic comments. We appreciate 16 the staff work. We absolutely have to make sure that 17 we're not backsliding in any way on our air quality 18 commitments as we look at the prospect of introducing 19 light-duty diesel vehicles into California. 20 Thanks for time to comment. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 22 Does staff have a comment on the proposal to add 23 a 60,000 mile test for in-use? 24 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: Yeah, 25 we don't really think that it's necessary. There is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 253 1 another program that's run out of the sort of 2 certification effort. It's a uniform program with EPA and 3 ourselves, where there's some limited testing done at 4 various mileage points. And there happens to be a 50,000 5 mile limited test requirement on the engine -- on the 6 vehicle manufacturers. I think it's four to five cars 7 instead of ten. And so we think, you know, you put that 8 one in between the two groups of ten cars tested at 30 and 9 90,000, that that gives you another check, at least a 10 crude check that there's not something really bad going 11 on. We think that's probably sufficient. 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I will now close the record 13 on this agenda item. However, the record will be opened 14 when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued. 15 Written or oral comments received after this 16 hearing date but before the 15-day notice is issued will 17 not be accepted as part of the official record on this 18 agenda item. When the record is reopened for a 15-day 19 comment period, the public may submit written comments on 20 the proposed changes which will be considered and 21 responded to in the final statement of reasons for the 22 regulation. 23 I will now take our ex parte statements -- no? 24 No. 25 If we've had a chance to review the resolution, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 254 1 do I have a motion to accept? 2 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: So moved. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: And a second? 4 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Second. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Is there any further 6 discussion at this time? 7 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: I wondered if the Chair 8 would make any comments on it? 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Well, as you know, I've been 10 a supporter in moving ahead to open up light-duty diesels 11 in California. That's because I'm convinced that they can 12 be as clean as gasoline engines and must be as clean as 13 gasoline engines. The technology is there. 14 The OBD development does indeed lag a bit. But I 15 think the staff has come up with a plan to bring it about 16 over the next several years. And I'm confident that the 17 industry will be successful in providing fully compliant 18 vehicles over this period of time. And if not, the 19 consequences are pretty clear. Then they will not be 20 selling diesels in California. 21 All those in favor signify by saying aye. 22 (Ayes.) 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 24 Motion is adopted. 25 The next item on the agenda is 6-8-5, a proposal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 255 1 to adopt California's Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance 2 Regulation. 3 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 4 Presented as follows.) 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Health and Safety Code 6 Section 43104 directs the Air Resources Board to adopt 7 test procedures to ensure compliance with emission 8 standards for engines used in new heavy-duty motor 9 vehicles. 10 Existing procedures require these engines to be 11 removed from the vehicle and then installed on an engine 12 dynamometer. This is a very time consuming and costly 13 procedure, making in-use compliance testing of heavy-duty 14 engines impractical. 15 Since 2001, Air Resources Board staff has worked 16 collaboratively with the U.S. EPA and the engine 17 manufacturers to develop a practical in-use testing and 18 compliance program based upon performing what is referred 19 to as a "not to exceed" test procedure using portable 20 emission measurement systems. 21 In May 2003, the general structure of such a 22 program was developed and agreed upon by all parties. 23 Based on this collaborative work, in June 2005 the U.S. 24 EPA adopted a manufacturer-run in-use compliance program 25 that all heavy-duty engine manufacturers must comply with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 256 1 federally. 2 Staff's proposal would establish California 3 requirements that are consistent with the federal 4 requirements. The proposed compliance program would start 5 in 2007 for gaseous emissions and 2008 for particulate 6 matter emissions. 7 Ms. Witherspoon, would you introduce this item. 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Thank you, Dr. 9 Sawyer. I think you did a great job introducing it 10 yourself, so I'm going to go straight to the staff 11 presentation, which will be given by Dipak Bishnu of the 12 Mobile Source Control Division. 13 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was 14 Presented as follows.) 15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: Thank you, Ms. 16 Witherspoon. 17 Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and members of the 18 Board. 19 Today's presentation will summarize staff's 20 proposal for California's heavy-duty diesel in-use 21 compliance regulation. 22 --o0o-- 23 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: Today's 24 presentation will first provide background information on 25 heavy-duty diesel engines and the emission requirements PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 257 1 for those engines. This will be followed by a discussion 2 on staff's proposed in-use compliance regulation, the 3 impact this regulation will have on the manufacturers of 4 diesel engines, the benefits associated with the proposed 5 regulation, and the remaining issues. I'll conclude with 6 a summary and staff recommendation. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: Heavy-duty diesel 9 engines play an important economic role, both in 10 California and nationally. They play a vital role in the 11 transportation of goods and material throughout the United 12 States. It is well known, especially in heavy-duty truck 13 applications, that diesel engines perform better, are more 14 fuel efficient, and are more durable than their gasoline 15 counterparts. Unfortunately, diesel engines are also 16 significant contributors of NOx and toxic particulate 17 matter emissions. In 2010, on-road heavy-duty diesel 18 engines will contribute 30 percent of statewide mobile 19 source NOx emissions and 20 percent of statewide diesel PM 20 emissions. 21 In order to reduce heavy-duty diesel emissions, 22 stringent new emission standards were adopted in 23 California and nationally for 2007 and newer engines. 24 Specifically, compared to the existing 2004 emission 25 standards, PM and NOx will be reduced by 90 percent in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 258 1 2007 and 2010, respectively. 2 In order to meet these lower emission standards, 3 it will require improvements in engine design and the use 4 of exhaust after-treatment system for both NOx and PM 5 emissions control. 6 --o0o-- 7 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: Since exhaust 8 after-treatment technologies will be needed to meet the 9 2007 emission standards, it is important to make sure that 10 both the engine and the after-treatment systems are 11 working properly to achieve the emission reduction goals. 12 The development of an effective heavy-duty diesel in-use 13 compliance program is vital to ensure that the emission 14 standards are met in use for the useful life of the 15 engine, as well as provide the incentive for the 16 manufacturers to properly design their engines and 17 emission control systems. 18 --o0o-- 19 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The importance of 20 an effective in-use compliance program is demonstrated by 21 ARB's past experience with our in-use compliance program 22 for light-duty vehicles, which began in the early 1980s. 23 As you can see, the early years of the compliance 24 program uncovered high engine family failure or defect 25 rates. After about ten years of routine compliance PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 259 1 testing, the failure rate decreased to less than 10 2 percent of the total engine families tested. In fact, in 3 the last three years none of the engine families tested 4 has failed in-use compliance testing. 5 In 2001, vehicle manufacturers began to routinely 6 test some of their in-use vehicles under a federal and 7 California adopted program called the In-Use Verification 8 Program as part of the CAP 2000 program. The testing is 9 in addition to in-use testing that ARB or U.S. EPA would 10 conduct. The CAP 2000 in-use compliance program for 11 light-duty vehicles is similar in concept to staff's 12 proposal before you today. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The Health and 15 Safety Code directs ARB to adopt test procedures to ensure 16 compliance with emission standards for new motor vehicles 17 and engines. The test procedures developed were intended 18 to determine compliance of all motor vehicles and engines. 19 But in reality, they are more applicable for testing cars 20 and light-duty trucks. According to these procedures, 21 compliance determination requires a minimum of ten 22 vehicles or engines to be tested in the same configuration 23 as they were certified. 24 --o0o-- 25 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The compliance PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 260 1 testing procedures are problematic for testing heavy-duty 2 diesel engines because heavy-duty diesel engines are 3 certified on an engine dynamometer. Currently, to conduct 4 in-use compliance testing of heavy-duty diesel engines, 5 ten trucks would need to be removed from the revenue 6 service, the engines would be removed from the trucks and 7 installed on an engine dynamometer, and then each engine 8 would be tested. The engines would then be reinstalled in 9 the trucks and given back to the owner. 10 This is a very time consuming and costly 11 procedure. Current estimates indicate that the cost to 12 conduct such testing for one engine family is $250,000. 13 Therefore, a more practical and efficient way of 14 testing heavy-duty diesel vehicles is needed. This is now 15 possible with the adoption of the "not to exceed" or NTE 16 requirements and the development of portable emission 17 measurement systems, or PEMS, which I will discuss in more 18 detail in the next few slides. 19 --o0o-- 20 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: In the 1990s 21 seven of the largest engine manufacturers were alleged to 22 have violated state and federal emission laws by disabling 23 emission control devices on heavy-duty diesel engines 24 during in-use, on-highway driving, resulting in high NOx 25 emissions when operating outside of the standard emission PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 261 1 test cycle called the Federal Test Procedure or FTP. 2 To ensure that exhaust emissions were controlled 3 under virtually all driving conditions, settlement 4 agreements were made with most of the settling 5 manufacturers establishing "not to exceed" limits. The 6 NTE requirements have been in effect beginning with the 7 1998 model year. 8 The NTE requirements are not based on a 9 prescribed test cycle, but rather on a region of engine 10 operation. In general, NTE compliance is based on meeting 11 emission limits over several 30-second-or-more periods of 12 operation in the NTE area. 13 NTE requirements allow for a broad range of test 14 conditions allowing for testing under real-world 15 conditions. This concept is explained further in the next 16 few slides. 17 --o0o-- 18 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: Shown on this 19 slide is a typical range of engine operation that is 20 covered by the NTE requirements. The NTE requirements 21 were designed to help ensure that heavy-duty diesel engine 22 emissions are properly controlled over a wide range of 23 speed and load combinations and typical environmental 24 conditions commonly experienced during everyday use of the 25 vehicle. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 262 1 NTE establishes an area under the engine's torque 2 versus speed curve where emissions must not exceed a 3 specified value for any of the regulated pollutants. It 4 also broadens the applicable ambient conditions in which 5 the emission limits must be met including a temperature 6 range of 55 to 95 degrees Fahrenheit and an altitude range 7 up to 5500 feet above sea level. 8 As previously mentioned, the test itself does not 9 involve a prescribed driving cycle of any given distance 10 or time. Rather it involves any drive cycle that could 11 occur within the bounds of the NTE control area. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: Shown on this 14 slide is the entire engine operating area of a typical 15 heavy-duty diesel engine, with the NTE area shaded gray. 16 For comparison, we plotted in red engine operation that is 17 typically observed under the existing federal test 18 procedure or FTP. 19 As shown, the FTP covers a large portion of 20 engine operation. The FTP test cycle currently used for 21 heavy-duty diesel engine certification was developed with 22 real world test data collected on heavy-duty trucks and 23 buses, representing real world driving conditions in an 24 urban environment simulating stop-and-go traffic, idling, 25 and limited freeway driving. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 263 1 But it does not cover much of the mid speed, high 2 load operation experienced by most heavy-duty trucks 3 during normal highway driving, as shown within the green 4 circle of the slide. Operation of heavy-duty diesel 5 trucks in this region can be tracked very well with NTE 6 testing. Thus, with both FTP and NTE testing protocols, 7 virtually all operations of heavy-duty diesel engines will 8 be covered at low, mid and high speed and loads. 9 The NTE procedure allows testing on an Engine 10 dynamometer, a chassis dynamometer, or with on-board PEMS 11 during over-the-road operation. A more detailed 12 description of PEMS is provided in the following slides. 13 --o0o-- 14 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The emission 15 standards for heavy-duty diesel engines are expressed as 16 mass of pollutant per unit amount of work per unit time. 17 Therefore, at a minimum, the PEMS must be capable of 18 measuring exhaust concentrations of oxides of nitrogen, 19 Carbon monoxide, non-methane hydrocarbon and particulate 20 matter, exhaust flow rate, engine work output, and ambient 21 conditions such as temperature, humidity and altitude. 22 The PEMS is a self-contained unit, about 70 to 23 100 pounds in weight, measures exhaust flow and other 24 information such as vehicle location and altitude from a 25 global positioning system, and atmospheric temperature and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 264 1 pressure. Engine information from the vehicle's on-board 2 computer, such as engine operating conditions and work 3 output, is provided to the PEMS computer, along with 4 emissions data, to calculate the NTE emission results on a 5 second-by-second basis. Shown in this slide, in the upper 6 right, is a typical installation of a PEMS unit. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The proposed 9 program would require engine manufacturers to use PEMS to 10 conduct in-use testing of heavy-duty diesel vehicles over 11 the road. The use of PEMS for over-the-road realtime 12 emission measurement has been under development for the 13 past decade. Testing conducted in the past few years has 14 shown that PEMS technologies have performed well and 15 accurately in measuring gaseous emissions from heavy-duty 16 diesel vehicles under different driving conditions. PEMS 17 emission analyzers used for measuring gaseous pollutants 18 use the same technologies used in larger laboratory 19 instruments for the same measurements. 20 One of the advantages of using PEMS is that the 21 system can be mounted and taken down off a truck very 22 easily without interrupting vehicle operation. Once a 23 PEMS is mounted on a vehicle properly, it can collect and 24 analyze data for many hours on its own without requiring 25 any human intervention. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 265 1 The most important advantage of PEMS is the 2 ability to perform in-use compliance testing without the 3 need to remove the engine from the vehicle. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The proposed 6 program is a cooperative effort between ARB, U.S. EPA, and 7 the engine manufacturers that began in 2001. The program 8 is similar to the previously mentioned light-duty CAP 2000 9 program in that the manufacturers will be performing 10 routine testing of their engine families annually. In 11 June 2005, the U.S. EPA adopted its heavy-duty in-use 12 testing program. Staff's proposed program is essentially 13 identical to the U.S. EPA's program. 14 --o0o-- 15 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The proposed 16 regulation would require manufacturers to implement an 17 in-use compliance program for heavy-duty diesel engines 18 based on an agreement among ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine 19 manufacturers in May 2003. In the proposed program, the 20 engine manufacturers would be responsible for procuring 21 and testing heavy-duty diesel vehicles for compliance 22 determination. As mentioned, portable emission 23 measurement systems would be utilized to conduct the 24 over-the-road testing to assess NTE compliance of 2007 and 25 newer heavy-duty diesel engines in use. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 266 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The proposed 3 program is unique in that it would be the first of its 4 kind to require compliance with emission requirements 5 outside of a test laboratory environment. Because it is 6 unique, the ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine manufacturers 7 have launched a non-enforceable pilot program in calendar 8 years 2005 and 2006 to gain experience with in-use testing 9 utilizing PEMS. The pilot program will measure gaseous 10 emissions, namely, non-methane hydrocarbon, carbon 11 monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen, and will prepare the 12 manufacturers as well as U.S. EPA and ARB for the fully 13 enforceable program starting in 2007. Similarly, a pilot 14 program for PM emissions will take place in 2006 and 2007, 15 preceding a fully enforceable program for PM starting in 16 2008. 17 The success of the proposed program depends on 18 ensuring that the PEMS can correctly measure the exhaust 19 emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles in the field 20 rather than in a controlled laboratory environment. 21 Because of this, ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine 22 manufacturers have agreed to determine a measurement 23 accuracy margin for each pollutant to account for any 24 potential difference in measurement accuracy. The 25 accuracy margins are currently being determined by an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 267 1 independent contractor, Southwest Research Institute. 2 In addition, the proposed program helps fulfill 3 one of the measures in the 2003 State Implementation Plan. 4 --o0o-- 5 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: Each year, ARB 6 and U.S. EPA would designate for testing up to 25 percent 7 of a manufacturer's total number of heavy-duty diesel 8 engine families. Testing would be conducted under 9 real-world driving conditions within the engine's useful 10 life. 11 Emissions that would be measured for NTE 12 compliance are oxides of nitrogen, non-methane 13 hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. 14 Measuring carbon dioxide and oxygen would also be required 15 as a means of verifying fuel consumption and work output 16 of the engine. 17 These data will be compared to the NTE threshold 18 limit for each pollutant. 19 The proposed compliance program would be 20 conducted in two phases. 21 --o0o-- 22 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The first phase 23 of testing, Phase 1, is intended to screen a designated 24 engine family for conformity with the applicable NTE 25 emission limits. The vehicle will be tested in its normal PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 268 1 daily operation on its scheduled route with the regular 2 driver operating the vehicle. 3 Under Phase 1, the manufacturer would test a 4 minimum of five and a maximum of ten vehicles per engine 5 family during normal over-the-road vehicle operation. 6 Test results of the vehicles will be evaluated against 7 vehicle pass criteria. If a specified number of vehicles 8 failed the vehicle pass criteria, the manufacturers may be 9 asked to initiate Phase 2 testing. 10 --o0o-- 11 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The primary 12 purpose of Phase 2 testing is to gain further information 13 regarding the extent to which, and under what conditions, 14 the vehicles from the designated engine family failed to 15 pass the vehicle pass criteria during Phase 1 testing. 16 ARB could specify certain driving routes or other driving 17 conditions, namely, temperatures, altitude, geographic 18 location, or time of the year, if it is suspected that 19 these conditions are associated with non-compliance. 20 If the manufacturer is required to conduct Phase 21 2 testing, ten additional vehicles would be selected from 22 that engine family. ARB could require a subclass of 23 engines within the engine family, if the data generated 24 under Phase 1 or other test data indicate possible 25 non-compliance with the emission standards from that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 269 1 subclass of engines. 2 Data from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be used 3 to determine engine family compliance, and possible 4 remedial action, along with other test data or information 5 provided by the manufacturer or obtained by ARB or U.S. 6 EPA testing. 7 --o0o-- 8 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The proposed 9 regulation would affect about 13 medium- and heavy-duty 10 engine manufacturers who certify their engines for sale in 11 California. None of the engine manufacturers is located 12 in California and none is considered to be a small 13 business. The total cost to conduct the proposed program 14 nationwide is estimated to range from 1.6 to $2.1 million 15 per year for the 13 manufacturers combined. These costs 16 consist of fixed and variable cost components and may vary 17 from manufacturer to manufacturer. The actual cost to a 18 specific manufacturer will vary depending on how many 19 engine families are certified each year, how many vehicles 20 are tested in Phase 1 for a given engine family, and 21 whether Phase 2 testing occurs for a given engine family. 22 The proposed regulation poses no additional costs 23 to engine manufacturers since the manufacturers are 24 already subjected to an identical rule adopted by U.S. EPA 25 in June, 2005. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 270 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: By enforcing 3 emission requirements adopted for 2007 and newer 4 heavy-duty diesel engines, the proposed regulation would 5 ensure that the original emission benefits claimed through 6 the adoption of the lower emission standards are obtained. 7 The proposed regulation would ensure that violations of 8 the emission requirements within the regulatory useful 9 life of the engine would be detected and fixed. The 10 proposed program would potentially cover all engine models 11 within a four year period. 12 --o0o-- 13 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: The proposed 14 program would encourage manufacturers to design more 15 robust and durable engines and emission control systems in 16 order to avoid failing in-use compliance testing and 17 conducting potentially costly recalls or extending 18 emission parts warranties. The large amount of in-use 19 test data that would be generated by the proposed program 20 may help the manufacturers to develop better deterioration 21 factors for their engines in the future. 22 Also, ARB will likely use these data in the 23 future to develop better emission factors that can be used 24 for both emissions inventory development and air quality 25 modeling work. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 271 1 --o0o-- 2 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: There are 3 fundamental differences when the exhaust emission 4 measurements are made with stationary analyzers in a 5 controlled laboratory environment compared to emission 6 measurements done with the portable emission analyzers in 7 an uncontrolled open environment, subjected to variable 8 temperatures and humidity, road vibration and other 9 conditions. 10 To account for these factors, as previously 11 mentioned, in May 2005, ARB, U.S. EPA, and the engine 12 manufacturers agreed to jointly fund and develop a 13 research, development, and demonstration project to 14 determine emission measurement accuracy margin for gaseous 15 and PM emissions. Currently the development of the 16 gaseous emission measurement accuracy margin determination 17 is underway. The final report is expected to be completed 18 by January 2007. The gaseous enforcement program is 19 expected to begin in December of 2007. The development of 20 the particulate matter measurement accuracy margin is 21 expected to start in late 2006, with a final report 22 expected to be completed by early 2008. The particulate 23 matter enforcement program is expected to begin in 24 December 2008. 25 --o0o-- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 272 1 AIR RESOURCES ENGINEER BISHNU: In summary, 2 staff's proposed compliance program would require the use 3 of commercially available PEMS, significantly reducing 4 testing time and cost of testing heavy-duty diesel 5 engines. 6 The proposed requirements would result in a cost 7 savings to the engine manufacturers by aligning California 8 and the federal compliance programs, resulting in testing 9 fewer engines than would otherwise be required if two 10 separate compliance programs were in place. 11 The proposed testing program would generate a 12 vast amount of in-use test data that could be used 13 effectively by both the manufacturers and ARB. The 14 manufacturers would be able to evaluate the performance of 15 their engines and emission control systems under 16 real-world operating conditions and use. The test data 17 could be used to create cleaner and more durable engine 18 designs. 19 ARB also would be able to use the in-use test 20 data to develop emission factors for emissions inventory 21 and air quality modeling. 22 Staff therefore that the Board adopt the proposed 23 manufacturer-run in-use compliance regulation. 24 Thank you. This concludes my presentation. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 273 1 EMISSION RESEARCH AND REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 2 BRANCH CHIEF CARTER: And if I could, Dr. Sawyer, one 3 comment. 4 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 5 EMISSION RESEARCH AND REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 6 BRANCH CHIEF CARTER: Tom Jennings would like to make a 7 brief statement about a recent 15-day -- Michael Carter -- 8 sorry -- about a 15-day change we have. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Mr. Jennings. 10 ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL JENNINGS: Yes. A very 11 minor and tangential element of this rule making as 12 described in the staff report gives flexibility to 13 manufacturers in designing their emission labels with 14 executive officer approval. This tracks -- under 15 heavy-duty auto cycle test procedures, this tracks 16 language the EPA adopted. Staff had intended but 17 neglected to include that in the heavy-duty diesel cycle 18 test procedures. So the 15-day modification would simply 19 do that. And we'd ask that the resolution be treated as 20 modified to reflect this modification. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 22 Ms. Ferreira, would you provide the Ombudsman's 23 statement please. 24 ACTING OMBUDSMAN FERREIRA: Yes. Dr. Sawyer and 25 members of the Board. ARB staff, U.S. EPA, and the Engine PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 274 1 Manufacturers Association began a collaborative effort 2 more than five years ago to develop this rule. Since that 3 time staff has had more than 100 meetings. While they did 4 not conduct any workshops, U.S. EPA held a workshop in 5 2004, where they adopted a similar regulation in 2005. 6 The staff report was released for public comment 7 on August 11, 2006. It was noticed by hard copy to nearly 8 500 stakeholders and through the website to more than 1800 9 stakeholders. 10 This concludes my comments. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 12 Do any of the Board members have comments? 13 I do. 14 I'm delighted to see the progress that's been 15 made in this area. The bringing together of real in-use 16 emissions with regulation and compliance is exactly what 17 we need to ensure that the emissions which we think we're 18 getting from our regulations are really occurring in the 19 vehicles over their lifetimes. 20 And it's because the people at the EPA and at the 21 Air Resources Board have worked hard with the industry to 22 get this technology available. And the fact that it's 23 ready for prime time use now brings joy to the heart of an 24 engineer. 25 (Laughter.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 275 1 Couldn't resist saying that. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We have two witnesses who 3 would like to make statements: Chung Liu and Lisa 4 Stregink. 5 Dr. Liu. 6 DR. LIU: Professor Sawyer, members of the Board. 7 My name is Chung Liu. I'm with the South Coast Air 8 Quality Management District. We share the same feeling 9 about this is an essential piece. 10 As many of you know, that the South Coast 11 District doesn't feel that the past practice of using 12 certification -- engine certification tests is adequate to 13 really ensure the emission reduction is actually there. 14 As a matter of fact, the reason the few studies conducted 15 by Coordinated Research Council, co-sponsored by ARB and 16 South Coast District, actually indicate there are some 17 problems just relying only on emission certification 18 tests. The in-use emission data is really important to 19 ensure that actual emission benefits will be realized. 20 Say all those and realize this is a joint efforts 21 among EPA, ARB, and EMA. And what kind of bother us a bit 22 is this program also has a terms manufacturer run in-use 23 emission compliance test program. 24 The track record of this industry on emission 25 compliance is questionable, especially looking at the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 276 1 situation for engine between '94 and '98. They really 2 have cheated. 3 But we think this program is going to really 4 help. We're coming here to support this program, but we 5 want to provide some suggestions. 6 First, the engine family will be joint selected 7 by EPA and ARB. But exact trucks going to be 8 selected -- to be used for this testing will be selected 9 by engine manufacturers. So we just want to really 10 encourage ARB using your authority oversight to make sure 11 representative sample of trucks will be used for testing. 12 Second point. The South Coast have a very 13 positive -- towards using remote sensing technology to 14 really detect high meters. That's the reason the EPA 15 study in Nogales, Arizona, detecting trucks crossing the 16 borders and showed very good correlation between the 17 remote sensing devices and also the PEMS using these 18 programs. So I want to encourage the ARB to consider that 19 on the long run that remote sensing technology been 20 improving and use in compliance and test. 21 Lastly, that we really want to recommend to ARB 22 to test vehicles that incorporate some of the engines that 23 we know have some defect, that we know some 24 software/hardware problems; that in your "not to exceed" 25 zone, that you really have things of experiences that you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 277 1 can really identify if there's major defect in functions, 2 so we can further avoid anything like the change in 3 software that happened last decades. I'm pretty sure ARB 4 staff, and which I share also, OBD devices really helped 5 greatly eliminate the possibility for that repeat again. 6 But I just want to say that when you're doing testing, 7 maybe you should really run some of the tests on some 8 defunct engines and gain some experiences so we can easily 9 identify any defects in the future. 10 Thanks. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 12 Does staff have any comments? 13 EMISSION RESEARCH AND REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 14 BRANCH CHIEF CARTER: I'll comment on the first point 15 about -- Dr. Liu was concerned about the vehicles that the 16 manufacturers get in and he's concerned that the engine 17 manufacturers may choose and pick or cherry-pick which 18 engines or which trucks to test. 19 Perhaps Dr. Liu is concerned because in the staff 20 report it talks about how the manufacturers will screen 21 and procure a test. Well, the screening part may be a 22 little misleading, because they can't just cherry-pick the 23 vehicles. There's a very specific guidance document that 24 EPA and we and the engine manufacturers agree to that 25 clearly specifies and spells out exactly how the vehicles PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 278 1 can be selected, how they can be screened, how they can or 2 cannot reject vehicles from the program. And so there's a 3 lot of checks in place to make sure nothing funny happens. 4 On top of that, if we do suspect there are some 5 funny things happening, the ARB has the right to do our 6 own confirmatory testing and make sure everything is going 7 as it should go. 8 Plus we can even go out to where the 9 manufacturers are doing the testing and inspect it as 10 well. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do we have a program of 12 doing similar work on older heavy-duty vehicles -- PEMS 13 testing? 14 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL SECTION MANAGER 15 LEMIEUX: This program is designed for 2007 and newer 16 engines. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes. 18 ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL SECTION MANAGER 19 LEMIEUX: And a big part of the problem with that is the 20 range of the analyzers and things with the technology that 21 if you put it on older vehicles, it may foul up the 22 technology and -- however, we could use other instruments 23 similar to that to look at overall compliance. But for 24 the older technologies we would have to revert back to the 25 current procedures, which is what Dipak was mentioning PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 279 1 earlier, was to rip an engine out of a vehicle and put it 2 on an engine dynamometer and test it, and which is pretty 3 costly and expensive. So we pretty much have to be sure 4 that if the older engine family is failing, for us to go 5 and spend that kind of money and do that type of testing. 6 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: We have 7 done -- I'm not sure if we've done a PEMS emission 8 measurement on a truck. But we have been collecting data 9 on truck usage using on-truck instrumentation. So, you 10 know, when this gets proven out, if it works well enough 11 and -- which I think it will -- and the measurement 12 capability fits the higher emitting older trucks, we could 13 do that kind of testing. 14 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL DIVISION CHIEF CROSS: I 15 guess we all had a nickel here. 16 I guess I would add that I share Chung's concerns 17 about making sure that all of this is done properly and 18 that we make sure that the heavy-duty manufacturers are in 19 fact complying. And I think that one of the neat things 20 about the PEMS is it does give us the power to do our own 21 double checking without having to pull engines out. So 22 there's a way that we can on our own make sure that all 23 this is going all right, and we plan on doing it. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 25 CHIEF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACKETTE: On the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 280 1 defects that he was suggesting we put in there, I think if 2 we do that it will be in conjunction with the heavy-duty 3 OBD program, because we're doing that on light-duty 4 vehicles now. We put defects in there and we see whether 5 the lights come on. So there will be some of that kind of 6 testing going on with heavy duty, although probably more 7 limited because of the higher cost of, you know, trying to 8 procure heavy-duty trucks. 9 And on RSD, just his other point, that may be 10 possible, but the NTE requirement is a 30-second time 11 average. And so it would be a little hard to have a 12 traditional RSD that's beside the road that would be able 13 to measure emissions for a truck for 30 seconds. The 14 truck would be long gone, I think, by that time. 15 And as we've seen for compliance purposes at 16 least, we have -- there's a lot of issues, like the 17 accuracy measurements, that we'd end up spending over a 18 million dollars just to determine how accurate they are. 19 So if new technology comes along, that's great. 20 But I think It'd have to show a substantial advantage over 21 the ones that we're pursuing right now. 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 23 Lisa Stegink please. 24 MS. STEGINK: Good afternoon again. I'm Lisa 25 Stegink here on behalf of the Engine Manufacturers PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 281 1 Association. 2 Due to the significant and unprecedented 3 challenges that engine manufacturers will face in 4 implementing the proposed in-use program, it is vital that 5 the program be administered on a uniform and nationwide 6 basis without any unique or special provisions for 7 particular jurisdictions, including California. 8 To that end, the engine manufacturers, EPA, and 9 ARB jointly developed the blueprint for implementing a 10 manufacturer-run in-use test program and a formal 11 agreement which, together, specifically include a 12 commitment by the parties to a single coordinated program. 13 ARB has honored the letter and spirit of the agreements in 14 submitting the proposed heavy-duty in-use testing rule for 15 Board approval. 16 Because the ARB's proposed rule is essentially 17 identical to the EPA rule, EMA and its members support the 18 adoption of the proposed rule. Adopting the rule will 19 complete the implementation of the agreements and will 20 establish a viable, groundbreaking, manufacturer-run 21 in-use NTE testing program that will ensure the real-world 22 emission benefits of advanced diesel engines and exhaust 23 after-treatment systems. All of this in turn will 24 continue to facilitate the deployment, validation and 25 expansion of clean diesel technologies. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 282 1 EMA appreciates the opportunity to present 2 testimony on the proposed rule. The in-use NTE testing 3 program represents a fundamental and groundbreaking 4 paradigm shift in the regulation and control of emissions 5 from heavy-duty vehicles and engines. Accordingly, 6 continuing cooperation among ARB, EPA, and engine 7 manufacturers will be necessary to accomplish that change 8 in paradigm. 9 For its part, and recognizing that many 10 significant challenges still lie ahead, EMA looks forward 11 to an ongoing collaborative effort with ARB and EPA to 12 ensure that the negotiated in-use NTE testing program is 13 implemented in a feasible, cost effective, and highly 14 successful manner. 15 Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 17 Will the manufacturers constrain the fuels that 18 are used in the vehicles as part of the test? 19 MS. STEGINK: Maybe Mike should answer that. 20 EMISSION RESEARCH AND REGULATION DEVELOPMENT 21 BRANCH CHIEF CARTER: Yeah, I'll get that one. 22 That also was discussed at great length in our 23 negotiations over the past several years. 24 The manufacturers do have the option. They can 25 actually drain the tank and refill it, but only with PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 283 1 commercially available diesel fuel. They can't put 2 additives in if the manufacturer didn't from the beginning 3 authorize those additives. Basically whatever's 4 commercially available they can use. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Thank you. 6 Do any of the Board members have questions on 7 this topic? 8 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Congratulations. 9 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: You want to continue it 10 for a month? 11 (Laughter.) 12 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I will now close the record 13 on this agenda item. However, the record will be reopened 14 when the 15-day notice of public availability is issued. 15 Written or oral comments received after this hearing date 16 but before the 15-day notice is issued will not be 17 accepted as part of the official record on this agenda 18 item. When the record is reopened for a 15-day comment 19 period, the public may submit written comments on the 20 proposed changes, which will be considered and responded 21 to in the final statement of reasons for the regulation. 22 Our ex parte statements. 23 Mark? 24 No. 25 No. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 284 1 No. 2 We feel neglected, I think. 3 (Laughter.) 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Not really. 5 (Laughter.) 6 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I just might 7 say that staff had briefed me, and I'm just so pleased 8 with the report. Unlike you, the engineer, I'm just 9 excited that we've harmonized with EPA. Because I think 10 it makes it so much easier for those who have to comply 11 with these standards, so that the same tests are 12 applicable for the different jurisdictions. And I just 13 think that's an incredible achievement. 14 And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to move 15 the staff recommendations and acknowledge the amendment 16 that was made. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: A second? 18 BOARD MEMBER BERG: Second. 19 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All in favor, aye. 20 (Ayes.) 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 22 The motion is carried. 23 We now move to another item on our agenda which 24 we don't always have and, that is, comments from Board 25 members and from the public. And we're going to have both PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 285 1 of those today. 2 Before we do that, I would like to acknowledge a 3 very special person, that is, Holly Edwards. She is -- I 4 don't -- when I first arrived here I wasn't quite certain 5 why things worked so smoothly. But then I realized that 6 she's a combination of stage manager and master sergeant 7 when it comes to running this operation. 8 And we're going to be losing her for two years. 9 And the good news is that it's only two years. But we 10 will certainly miss you during that period of time. Her 11 national guard unit has been called up, and she will be 12 serving her country. And we're proud of you. And we look 13 forward to seeing you back. 14 (Applause.) 15 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might. 16 As an interim chairman for almost a year, I can tell you 17 she is superb at organizing and keeping us all kind of 18 focused in the same direction, trying to keep us on time, 19 which is very difficult sometimes with this group. And I 20 just have to say that the U.S. Government's very fortunate 21 to have you. And hopefully you can keep them all 22 organized over there and come back and teach us all about 23 what you learned in two years. We'll miss you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All right. We will now take 25 a comment from Board Member Mayor Loveridge. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 286 1 I would remind you that this is an opportunity 2 for a Board member to bring items of interest to the 3 Board. We will not be taking action on these items at 4 this time. 5 Mayor Loveridge. 6 BOARD MEMBER LOVERIDGE: Thank you. 7 This is an item I'd like to raise for, as the 8 language of the agenda says, for notice for future 9 consideration at a Board meeting. And this is really a 10 concept of a plug-in California initiative. 11 And let me, if I can, read the context. But it 12 really comes out of at least a year or more sort of 13 reading articles, talking to different experts, and 14 thinking it is time that this particular technology bridge 15 receive state attention. 16 Plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles are an 17 exciting emerging technology because they offer the 18 potential for zero emission miles, reduced greenhouse gas 19 emissions and improved energy diversity. 20 There has been a tremendous support for plug-in 21 hybrids recently: 22 The three major auto manufacturers, GM, Toyota, 23 DaimlerChrysler are actively pursuing the 24 commercialization of plug-in hybrid technology. 25 President Bush has directed specific activities PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 287 1 to speed up plug-in hybrid research. 2 The City of Austin has what they call Plug-In 3 Partners, a national campaign which has investor utilities 4 and municipal utilities signed up across the country. 5 The State of New York has announced a $10 million 6 program to convert all state vehicles to plug-ins. 7 And the South Coast District has hosted two 8 meetings to examine the plug-in technology. 9 All of these activities have drawn the interest 10 and attention of the media. It's clear there is popular 11 interest in these vehicles. But to drive this technology, 12 battery improvements that are required, we need to give a 13 concerted effort rather than what I think has been sort of 14 small pockets of activity. And I would suggest this 15 effort be at the state level so we can put the weight of 16 all state agencies behind it. 17 Let me give at least examples of direction, is 18 request that the CARB staff work with appropriate 19 stakeholders, including the Governor's office, State 20 Legislature, auto manufacturers, battery technology 21 entities, state agencies such as the CPUC, CEC and DGS, 22 Plug-In Partners, electric utilities, environmental 23 groups, and the CAPCOA members to establish a Plug-In 24 California initiative that may do the following: 25 1. Establish a state commitment to purchase PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 288 1 plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles when they are 2 commercially available for all the state agency fleets. 3 2. Establish reduced electric rates to charge 4 these vehicles. 5 3. Establish incentive mechanisms for the auto 6 manufacturers by providing either additional ZEV credits 7 or reduced greenhouse gas credits for the number of 8 plug-in hybrids they produce. 9 4. Provide customer incentives to buy-down the 10 vehicle's initial higher cost as well as giving HOV lane 11 access to high fuel economy and higher electric range 12 plug-ins. 13 5. Establish a favorable environment for plug-in 14 hybrid associated businesses here in California. And 15 6. Dedicate at least $5 million of the 25 16 million CARB received through the AB 1811 toward the 17 research, development and demonstration of plug-in 18 hybrids, and leverage these funds to the extent possible 19 with other activities being conducted by the U.S. 20 Department of Energy, auto manufacturers, battery 21 technology firms, Plug-In Partners, and the South Coast 22 Air Quality Management District. 23 I would offer this as an idea for future Board 24 consideration. 25 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 289 1 to -- 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yes, Mrs. Riordan. 3 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: -- just respond, because I 4 had the good fortune to attend the ZEV technology 5 symposium, as our Chairman did. And first let me 6 compliment the staff, some of whom are probably here now 7 and hopefully some who -- you'll convey my appreciation. 8 This room, Mayor Loveridge, was almost filled for three 9 days. 10 And a lot of the discussion -- there were 11 sessions and there was a plug-in session. And I think 12 staff is going to bring back to us a report on that 13 symposium. And so maybe this could follow along after the 14 Board has heard about what we discovered. We basically 15 were listening to private enterprise speaking at the 16 symposium. And it's pretty incredible what I was able to 17 discern about the technology and the advancements and the 18 real interest in making this a part of a bigger program 19 towards zero emission vehicles. And so I think this could 20 fold in to that discussion. 21 And I just wish, Mayor Loveridge, you'd been 22 there, because you would have been very excited and would 23 understand that a lot of great things are happening, 24 thanks to the private sector, supported of course by all 25 of us who are concerned about air pollution in California. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 290 1 But the private sector is really moving forward. I don't 2 know, Mr. Chairman, if you'd like to comment. You 3 attended probably more than I did of the sessions. But I 4 was very impressed. And I was particularly impressed with 5 the plug-in effort, because I did sit through that. 6 Thank you. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Ms. D'Adamo. 8 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I'd like to 9 compliment Mayor Loveridge in putting this together and 10 say that we could have used you a few years ago, because 11 we were really pushing for when ZEV review was before us 12 last. Which is almost a bad word, ZEV review, to even 13 have to think about that. But many of us were pushing for 14 some additional incentives for plug-in hybrids. I think 15 that we've got them in there. But I think that more can 16 be done, and I look forward to working with you on this, 17 and just really want to compliment you for putting this 18 together. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I would add that it's pretty 21 clear from the ZEV symposium that the battery technology 22 is advancing -- has advanced and it is advancing and makes 23 all of these technologies, pure battery electrics, the 24 plug-in hybrids, the ordinary hybrids, all much closer to 25 reality in a big way. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 291 1 BOARD MEMBER DeSAULNIER: Mr. Chairman, I'd just 2 like to congratulate Ron too. And for those who make 3 documentary films, maybe it's -- as Mark Twain said about 4 his death -- supposed death, maybe the death of the 5 electric car is vastly exaggerated. 6 (Laughter.) 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Our next item are -- 8 there's a comment period -- 9 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Dr. Sawyer, I 10 just wanted to thank Mayor Loveridge as well. We think 11 it's an exciting technology. And to bring to the Board's 12 attention several events going on that will bring the 13 issue of plug-in hybrids back before you. 14 As Ms. Riordan indicated, we will report to you 15 on the outcome of the symposium in short order. We also 16 will have a report from our independent technical review 17 panel early next year on their conclusions about how all 18 the technologies are developing, which will frame the 19 policy discussion on what, if anything, should change in 20 the LEV/ZEV reg. And we expect you to give us directions 21 at that time about whether to work on real changes or not. 22 Next month we will be before you with the $25 23 million that was given to us in this year's budget to 24 facilitate the development of alternative fuels. And we 25 have tentatively proposed that at least 5 million of that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 292 1 go to plug-in hybrids. We have to work with the Energy 2 Commission and have their buy-off on the general spending 3 proposal. And the climate action team has expressed 4 interest also in reviewing what it is we're talking about. 5 But plug-ins I expect to survive. 6 And then, lastly, the ARB and the Energy 7 Commission are working on a major report about alternative 8 fuels, within which we include electricity. And that 9 report will be done by next June and cover the waterfront 10 on all the possibilities for, you know, moving away from 11 near complete reliance on petroleum. So that will be back 12 before, you know, late summer -- early summer, I mean, 13 next year. 14 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Just would like to see if 15 staff can -- there are some good suggestions in here. And 16 it sounds like with these various opportunities, the 17 suggestions might fit in here and there, although not in 18 all of the opportunities that are coming before us. So if 19 staff could get back to us as to -- there might be 20 something in here that doesn't quite pigeonhole just right 21 but still might be a good suggestion. 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Sure. 23 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. We will now move to 24 the open comment period from the public. 25 I would comment that it's a bit unusual for us to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 293 1 have so many public comments at one time. I thank you for 2 your patience, waiting until the end of the day to bring 3 to us your concerns. 4 I have met with at least one of the individuals 5 who will be talking today. Basically the problem has to 6 do with auxiliary engines on concrete pumpers, a rather 7 specialized issue but one which is very important to the 8 people who have come to talk to us. 9 I have 13 people who would like to talk. I think 10 that we will just continue our usual policy of a 11 three-minute presentation. And for those of you who have 12 brought written testimony as well, I thank you for that. 13 So we will start with William Davis, Amber 14 Parsons, and Hank de Carbonel. 15 Would William Davis please begin. 16 MR. DAVIS: A long walk from back there. 17 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Why don't you all move up. 18 This is the last item of the day. You might as well come 19 up front. It's my school teacher background which tells 20 me that sitting in the front row is a good idea. 21 MR. DAVIS: Well, we're all either sinners or 22 contractors back there, or maybe both. 23 Dr. Sawyer and members of the Board, Ms. 24 Witherspoon and all the staff people. My name's Bill 25 Davis. I work with a pretty wide variety of construction PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 294 1 industry organizations: The Southern California 2 Contractors Association, the Engineering and Utility 3 Contractors Association, the Mobile Crane Operators Group, 4 the Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, and the 5 American Concrete Pumping Association. 6 And I have two items actually. And I don't want 7 to take up any time unnecessarily, but I also have a 8 letter from the folks at the Construction Industry Air 9 Quality Coalition addressed to you. I can read it if you 10 want it entered in the record, or simply hand it up. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: We'll put it in the record 12 in written form. 13 MR. DAVIS: All right. Great. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 15 MR. DAVIS: The reason that I think almost 16 everyone is here -- oh, and I wanted to acknowledge -- I 17 see my friend, J.T., is here from Nabor in Bakersfield. 18 And J.T. is a company -- his company has done a superior 19 job, a vastly superior job to almost the entire 20 construction industry in complying with the requirements 21 of the Portable Engine Registration Program. And his 22 company's to be commended for that and used as an example 23 for the rest of us. 24 It is our position that the Air Resources Board 25 should and must open to all owners of existing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 295 1 construction -- or existing portable equipment the 2 opportunity to register that equipment, not as an amnesty 3 but as a regular and permanent part of the program for the 4 following reasons: 5 First, ARB has failed in its duty to properly 6 notify the affected industry. The Air Resource Board 7 staff has by its own admission attempted to reach less 8 than 10 percent of the California construction industry in 9 its effort on the PERP. This is no mere claim, but it is 10 backed up by the following facts: 11 Every five years the U.S. Census Bureau conducts 12 an economic census of the construction industry. In the 13 last such count, taken in 2002, the Bureau found 69,023 14 California establishments with employees. They employed 15 870,334 people. And, in addition, there were 167,000 16 non-employer establishments in construction: Mom and 17 pops, owner/operators, small businesses. Call them what 18 you want. They're a part of our business. 19 That means there were at least 237,788 20 construction companies operating in California in 2002. 21 ARB staff has said that they mailed 25,000 22 contractors from a list obtained by the Contractors State 23 License Board. The CSLB mailing list are notoriously 24 inaccurate. Large numbers, perhaps thousands of those 25 mailings were returned due to address issues. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 296 1 In addition to the mailers staff held a bunch of 2 meetings, sent out e-mail notices via your list serve, and 3 had some stuff on your website. The Construction Industry 4 Air Quality Coalition contributed 1200 names to your 5 database and 3,000 people expressed interest in receiving 6 information on the program directly from ARB, perhaps, 7 hopefully, as a result of the mailer. 8 In addition to contractors there are many 9 construction service companies who are not required to 10 possess a contractors license and, thus, would never be 11 contacted by ARB in their mailed outreach. This group 12 includes people like Amber Parsons, who you'll hear from 13 soon, as well as thousands of other small companies. You 14 guys do the math: 237,788 construction companies, 1916 15 companies in the PERP as of January 27th of this year. 16 How would you characterize the outreach effort? 17 Second reason: ARB fails to follow the 18 legislative intent of the PERP program. Closing the door 19 to registration on existing portable equipment is not in 20 line with the intent of the Legislature, as clearly stated 21 in the preamble to the PERP statute from the Health and 22 Safety Code. Specifically, Item C, as follows: A uniform 23 voluntary system of statewide registration and regulation 24 of portable equipment consistent with current state and 25 federal air quality law is necessary to ensure consistent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 297 1 and reasonable regulation of that equipment without undue 2 burden on their owners, operators and manufacturers. 3 Third, ARB failed to seek or receive a waiver -- 4 has failed to receive a waiver from the Environmental 5 Protection Agency to regulate most of the engines in this 6 category. 7 We can find no evidence that ARB has received a 8 waiver from the EPA to replace any regulatory controls on 9 most of the engines that power this equipment. It's a 10 violation of the federal preemption on these engine 11 classes. Until ARB receives a waiver to regulate these 12 engines, we believe that the agency must reopen the 13 registration and hold in abeyance any enforcement action 14 other than to warning equipment owners of the registration 15 requirements. 16 And, finally -- and aren't those your favorite 17 words -- finally, ARB failed to certify any low cost 18 alternative for this equipment in an attempt, we believe, 19 to subvert the economic impact requirements of the Tanner 20 Act. Once a regulation was originally adopted our 21 industry was promised that there would be an ample supply 22 of low cost alternatives to meet the requirements, 23 verified diesel emission control systems, VDECS, which 24 would substantially reduce the financial burden of 25 replacing otherwise serviceable equipment to meet the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 298 1 standards set forth in the regulation. The reality 2 clearly expressed by ARB staff at the Board's meeting on 3 June 22nd is that there are no such devices and that the 4 only alternative is engine repower or equipment 5 replacement. 6 In most cases involving portable equipment, 7 repowers are impossible, which leaves equipment 8 replacement as the only alternative. 9 This also means that most small businesses will 10 be forced to severely limit their operations or go out of 11 business altogether. It's an incredible expense that was 12 not included in the economic impact report on any version 13 of this regulation. 14 We believe ARB did nothing to encourage the 15 development of VDECS, that this always was a program 16 designed to force equipment turnover regardless of cost to 17 the industry, and thus ARB is engaged in willful 18 misstatement of the economic impact. 19 We are seeing the same approach being used in the 20 off-road diesel rule, and believe that this willful 21 disregard of the economic impact to the affected industry 22 is a standard and practice of the Air Resources Board. 23 Be happy to answer any questions. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Do Board members have 25 questions? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 299 1 I suggest that, since it's a little bit unusual 2 and we have so many people, that we listen. And then we 3 will ask the Board to respond to us later as -- can we do 4 that? -- in writing addressing the issues which are 5 raised. 6 MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much. And our 7 condolences on being saddled with the greenhouse gas bill. 8 I can suggest one immediate improvement in reducing CO2. 9 Keep these meetings shorter. 10 (Laughter.) 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Okay. Amber Parsons. 12 MS. PARSONS: Hi there. I'm a bit nervous. 13 In 2004 my husband and I sold our house and 14 poured all of our equity into a small business. We did 15 not want to half do any anything with this business. We 16 incorporated, got liability insurance, commercial auto 17 insurance, workmen's comp insurance, and various licenses 18 and permits from the CHP and DMV. 19 We decided that we would only purchase new pumps, 20 as they were less likely to break down, were cleaner 21 machines and had the latest technology. 22 We purchased our first pump, a Transcrete, in 23 2004 and went on to purchase a Putzmeister in 2005 and 24 another new puts Putzmeister in 2006. 25 After being in business for almost two years we PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 300 1 first heard about pollution districts on May 25th, 2006, 2 when we were given a notice of violation for not having a 3 permit to operate our portable equipment. 4 After spending more than a week wading through 5 the information, I discovered that it was more economical 6 to register with the state. I sent my application off 7 less than two weeks later. 8 Much to my dismay I learned in August of this 9 year from the ARB that two of our brand new pumps could 10 not be registered. Both the 2004 and 2005 pumps contained 11 2003 Tier 1 engines. As such, they were not eligible for 12 registration in the Portable Equipment Registration 13 Program. 14 Some claim that the solution to my problem is to 15 enter into a stipulated agreement with the individual 16 pollution districts. However, this would require me to 17 pay $600 per pump per county. We pump regularly in three 18 counties and periodically in six. Registration would cost 19 me $3600 per pump. Furthermore, if I enter into the 20 stipulated agreement, I promise to bring my engines into 21 compliance by 2009. If registration is not reopened, 22 bringing it into compliance will mean replacing the 23 engine. A $20,000 loan, which would cover the cost of two 24 engines in two of our pumps, will cost my company $465 25 dollars per month for five years. Just when we were PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 301 1 expecting our business to be loan free and become 2 profitable, we will be forced further into debt. 3 On the other hand, if registration at the ARB is 4 reopened, we will be able to pay one-tenth of that cost 5 for registration and not be forced to make a decision 6 about replacing the engine for many years. 7 On multiple occasions I have heard the term 8 "scoff laws" being thrown around in relation to people 9 like me in my situation. I am greatly offended at the 10 thought that some think that I have intentionally avoided 11 complying with the law. If it were my company's position 12 to regularly disobey the laws of this state, we would not 13 pay almost $20,000 a year in various insurance, permits 14 and license fees. 15 Furthermore, I take great offense at the idea 16 that I am a scoff law for one simple fact: Both the Air 17 Resources Board and the pollution districts have failed 18 miserably in their efforts to notify my industry about the 19 permit requirements. I feel that the pollution districts 20 have openly scoffed at their responsibility to inform the 21 people who will be most affected by this legislation. 22 Why would manufacturers of the equipment not be 23 notified? Why would dealers selling the equipment, 24 especially used equipment with older tier engines, not be 25 notified? What responsibility does the Board hold for not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 302 1 getting the word out to the most logical group, the people 2 who make and sell the machines? And if we agree that 3 communication broke down along the line somewhere, are 4 small business owners like myself going to be the ones to 5 pay the price? Or will the ARB and pollution districts 6 realize their error and, no matter whose fault it is, 7 allow registration to be reopened? 8 I can understand why some cutthroat competitors 9 would like for registration to be permanently closed to 10 older tier engines. I understand the selfish reasons they 11 possess and the huge competitive advantage it gives their 12 companies. However, I don't understand why the ARB is 13 allowing themselves to be dictated to by these few 14 companies. If the true intention of the ARB is to 15 encourage compliance, then what benefit is derived from 16 closing the registration? The equipment will still be 17 required to meet all averaging laws in 2013. It will 18 still be subject to any later requirements for engine 19 replacements and emissions testing. 20 All I am asking is that the Board be reasonable 21 in its decisions. Is it reasonable to outlaw machines 22 with less than one year of use on them? Is it reasonable 23 to refuse registration to business owners moving to this 24 state from another state with one or two year old 25 machines? Is it reasonable to expect that start-up PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 303 1 businesses -- 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I need to ask you to 3 conclude please. 4 MS. PARSONS: Okay. Does the ARB want to send a 5 message that only the richest can afford to be contractors 6 in this state? Or is the message much closer to the 7 legislative intent for which the ARB was created, to 8 reduce costs and make the registration requirements 9 reasonable for California contractors? 10 Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 12 Hank de Carbonel. Then we'll have Chris 13 McDonald, Christi Collins, and Mike Cusach. 14 MR. de CARBONEL: Yeah, my name is Hank de 15 Carbonel. I've been selling construction equipment in 16 California for over 30 years: Cranes, drag lines, 17 excavators, but primarily concrete pumps. 18 It seems to me if the purpose of this 19 registration program is to clean the environment, then 20 there should be no reason to not keep registration open at 21 all times. Because if we're trying to track down engines 22 that may not be documented in compliance with the current 23 rules, we need to know where they are. 24 If you sent out a letter to 25,000 people based 25 on the contractors list -- and, as Bill said, you've got PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 304 1 2,000 companies approximately enrolled in this program 2 now, representing 28,000 pieces of equipment -- I'm not a 3 real bright guy, but two into -- that seems to me each 4 contractor that is in compliance has a number of pieces. 5 Now, you take the number -- you take that number times 6 over 200,000 contractors, I think we have a pretty bleak 7 record of outreach to the industry for the requirements 8 that you're looking for. 9 Lead times for these engines, by the way, are six 10 months to a number of years. And there's no guaranty that 11 the replacement engines will fit inside the engine 12 enclosures or footprints of the existing equipment. 13 So you have reduced -- by this current idea, you 14 have reduced the value of everybody's piece of equipment 15 by at least 15 or 20 percent because it can only now be 16 sold outside the State of California. And many 17 contractors in other parts of the country are very much 18 aware of this fire sale of equipment that's being forced 19 upon industry in California. 20 In addition to which you have a number of 21 contractors -- CalTrans, cities and counties are having a 22 difficult time getting a number of bids on their projects 23 that they want to move forward with. And when they do get 24 the bids, the prices are considerably higher. And that is 25 to cover the cost of these regulations as they come in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 305 1 place. And as the pieces are not registered and can no 2 longer be documented, those pieces are set aside. And so 3 now we have people that would -- operating engineers, 4 people that would run that equipment are now deprived of a 5 livelihood because an engine didn't happen to get 6 documented because people weren't informed in a proper 7 manner. 8 So I think that when you have a record of 9 compliance of less than 8 percent of the equipment -- it's 10 rather a bleak record -- and I don't see why in the world 11 you wouldn't keep the thing open all the time. You're 12 talking about a minimum of $270 per unit for registration 13 as it is currently. By anybody's standards, $270 times 14 200,000 starts to be real money. So it's funded. If the 15 goal is clean air, then let's go get some clean air. 16 Let's go after the process. But this is not a process. 17 This is a penalty. This is just going out bounty hunting. 18 I think it's completely unfair and I think that this rule 19 is nothing but a penalty for the economic health of the 20 State of California and the taxpayers who, after all, are 21 going to have to pay for the increased costs of hospitals, 22 churches, schools, freeways and every other structure 23 because this law has not been thoroughly researched, nor 24 has there been a proper outreach to the industry that it 25 purports to want to regulate. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 306 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 3 Chris McDonald. 4 MR. McDONALD: Good afternoon, Dr. Sawyer and the 5 members of the Board. I just want to thank you for 6 letting me speak today. 7 I own a small pump company in the Bay Area. And 8 we had a lady named Heidi Kroll come to our yard maybe a 9 year ago or a couple of years ago. And she's a member of 10 the ARB Resources Board, California Environmental 11 Protection Agency. And she came to our yard, pointed out 12 what we need to do to comply to the ARB. So we did what 13 she pointed out to comply. 14 But she failed to tell us about our portable 15 engines and anything to do there to register or comply. 16 And when we asked her about it, she says it's not her 17 department. 18 Most of us here aren't here to say that we are 19 disobeying what you guys are doing, we don't want to do 20 what you guys want to say. I mean we want to do it and 21 we're trying to do it. Most of us are trying to do what 22 we need to do to get these emissions into compliance. 23 And for them to say we're not doing it, whatever, 24 is not right. And how do we -- we just want to open up 25 the registration to get them so we can be in compliance. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 307 1 And that's all. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 3 Christi Collins. 4 MS. COLLINS: Good afternoon. My name is Christi 5 Collins and I'm the Executive Director of the American 6 Concrete Pumping Association. Our association consists of 7 concrete pumping companies, manufacturers, distributors, 8 and affiliates of the industry. 9 Approximately one-third of our total membership 10 are companies located in the State of California. They 11 own and operate over 15 percent of the total number of 12 concrete pumps in the United States, Canada and Mexico. 13 Through data supplied by our concrete pumping 14 manufacturers we estimate that there are over 1,000 15 companies which own a total of 5,000 trailer pumps and 16 skid-mounted pumps currently operating in the state of 17 everyday. These companies are typically small 18 family-owned businesses an employ approximately 7,500 19 people. 20 As you just heard a few minutes ago, Amber 21 Parsons, she would be our poster child for the concrete 22 pumping industry. This is typical of what type of 23 businesses we're talking about. 24 One week ago the ACPA along with several concrete 25 pump manufacturers and distributors sent out a notice to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 308 1 every known owner of a trailer or skid-mounted concrete 2 pump informing them of the Board's portable engine 3 registration program and requesting information regarding 4 their pump's engine registration. 5 To date -- and this is only from a week -- less 6 than 1 percent of the 100-plus companies responding knew 7 of your registration program and had registered their 8 pumps. And I have all their information. They are still 9 coming in. I'm still getting e-mails. And on some of the 10 replies that are coming in, most people are saying, "We 11 just didn't know. Thank you for informing us. We had no 12 idea." And they're also saying, "Now what? What are we 13 going to do?" 14 I have no answers at this time. 15 The following facts are an eventuality under the 16 current circumstances. The ARB's current registration 17 stance sets up an unnecessary game of hide and seek with 18 these companies, who under this misguided policy have no 19 incentive to come forward. Many of them supplied 20 information and asked that their names not be released for 21 fear of being turned in by a competitor or by someone from 22 the ARB. 23 As things stand now, they cannot legally operate 24 their pumps. If they can't work, they can't pay their 25 employees, which would create a substantial loss of jobs PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 309 1 in the state. They can't make their payments on the 2 equipment and will default on their loans, causing 3 millions of dollars in loss to their bankers and other; 4 lenders. 5 They will not be able to sell their concrete 6 pumps in the State of California. In most, if not all, 7 cases they cannot upgrade the engines in their pumps. But 8 if they can upgrade, they will have substantial costs in 9 doing so, and ultimately they will lose their business. 10 We would respectfully submit that the portable 11 engine registration program must be reopened to prevent 12 the loss of over 1,000 California businesses. By doing so 13 on a permanent and regular basis, ARB would meet the 14 intent of Legislature in establishing the registration 15 program. 16 When in the course of time this equipment is 17 replaced under the other requirements of the portable 18 engine regulation, the Air Resources Board would be able 19 to know that the air quality of the state is being 20 improved. 21 ACPA stands ready to assist the ARB in getting 22 the news about the permanently open registration program 23 to all our members and as many other companies in the 24 industry as we can as part of a cooperative effort to 25 improve California's air. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 310 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 3 Mike Cusach. And then we'll have Jim Nolan, 4 David Rudin and Jim Bury. 5 MR. CUSACH: Thank you very much for the 6 opportunity to talk to you today. My name is Mike Cusach. 7 I'm Vice President of Operations for Conco Pumping, 8 located in Concord, California. We have pumps all over 9 the State of California. We're probably the largest pump 10 company in California. And I'm here today to ask you to 11 reopen the Air Resources portable engine registration. 12 I was fortunate that I was alerted by the Air 13 Resources Board in San Francisco, the Bay Area Resources 14 Board, in December of this year -- of last year, and 15 worked diligently on the 29th and 30th to get the portable 16 equipment that I had registered. I stayed at work until 7 17 o'clock every night, and virtually mailed the check in on 18 the last day of registration. And I was not able to 19 contact my colleagues and the concrete pumping industry. 20 Many of them, my competitors, if I would have had the 21 chance, I would have contacted them and let them know this 22 was coming about. We just didn't know. 23 I'm a former President of the ACPA. I read a lot 24 of articles. I think I stay up on what's going on in the 25 industries, and I knew nothing about it. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 311 1 If the idea is to register the vehicles, closing 2 registration is not the way to do it. If you drive a 3 vehicle, a car down the road, and you didn't register your 4 vehicle, you get a fine and a ticket, but you're allowed 5 to register the vehicle. You don't lose the right to use 6 it forever. And that's what's happening if you have a 7 Tier 1 engine or below. It's just not fair. 8 These people, the 700 companies that we're 9 talking about, or more, they didn't want to break the law. 10 They're not scoffing at the law. They just didn't know. 11 And they pay their -- they pay DMV taxes every year, they 12 pay personal property taxes every year on their pumps, 13 they pay income tax, employment tax. Why wouldn't they 14 pay one more tax just to stay in business? They would do 15 that. 16 I implore you to reopen it and leave it open. 17 And, you know, like I said, these people are not 18 criminals. They're people that work very hard everyday, 19 very hard. They drag hoses that weigh 3, 400 pounds up 20 and down hills and just work till they cannot stand up 21 anymore, then take the truck home and work on it at night. 22 So these people work very, very hard. And to put them out 23 of business is just a shame. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 312 1 Jim Nolan. 2 MR. NOLAN: Thank you for letting us speak. I'm 3 President of Interstate Concrete Pumping. 4 I purchased a company down in Merced about four 5 years ago, and took all the portable trailer pumps down to 6 have them all registered at DMV. When I went down there, 7 nobody ever advised us to -- that the ARB is -- the 8 regulations is coming up the first of '06. 9 And I got caught over in San Francisco and had to 10 fill out a lot of paperwork and I registered everything 11 and sent it into ARB and with a check. They sent the 12 check back. And I went to the districts -- the districts 13 over in San Francisco and they says, "We can't do anything 14 until you get the blessings of the state." And the state 15 says, well -- I'm kind of a little in limbo. So right now 16 I've got seven machines just parked against a fence. It 17 looks like Richey Brothers Auction. 18 So I just want to see if you guys would 19 reconsider and open the registration up for people. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much. 22 David Rudin. 23 MR. BURY: I'm sorry. Due to lateness, David 24 Rudin had to leave. I'm Jim Bury. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Oh, okay. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 313 1 MR. BURY: Do you want his statement read for the 2 record? Or he already turned in a hard copy. 3 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Yeah, if you could hand it 4 in, then it will become part of our record. 5 MR. BURY: I believe you already have a copy of 6 it for Dave Rudin. We'll leave it at that. 7 Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Board. 8 My name is Jim bury. I'm the engineering manager of 9 Putzmeister America. We are one of the manufacturers of 10 concrete pump trucks and trailer units. I am the only 11 manufacturer here at this point because of the hour that 12 we're running. 13 Well, I'd like to briefly address four points on 14 this issue, if I may. 15 First of all, Putzmeister, along with a lot of 16 the people you've heard here, was not aware of any attempt 17 by the ARB or to staff to contact us with regards to 18 spreading of the word among our customers in California 19 that they need to register any equipment over 50 20 horsepower. 21 Once we became aware of this need, within the 22 last few weeks, we've done so by sending out approximately 23 600 letters to known customers that we serve. Of those, 24 we are only aware of a couple of them that are aware of 25 the registration requirements and were able to do so PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 314 1 before the deadline. 2 Number 2, I would like to emphasize the comments 3 of the others appearing here before you today, that 4 Putzmeister's unaware of any means for compliance to the 5 regulations now required for registration that would not 6 involve complete overhaul or total replacement of the 7 machine. The engines are just too big. They will not fit 8 in the equipment. The equipment is purposely designed 9 around the engine. And if you change it, you need to 10 change everything else. You're talking about a complete 11 unit. 12 Number 3, Putzmeister supports the assertion that 13 the refusal of the ARB staff to open up the registration 14 program to all machine owners will cause great financial 15 hardship to our customers, as you've heard, which for some 16 may mean the end of their business, which helps -- and 17 their businesses help build your houses, they build your 18 infrastructure. It's needed. 19 Finally, I would like to clarify our opposal on 20 behalf of Putzmeister and our customers. Putzmeister's 21 definitely not opposed to the ARB's exhaustive efforts to 22 improve the environment and the air we breathe. We salute 23 your efforts. However, we feel the intent and spirit of 24 the efforts are being hampered at this point in time by 25 the restriction of admission to the registration program PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 315 1 to only those machines that contain certified BACT 2 engines. It is this restriction that we are opposed to 3 today, and ask that the Board direct staff to lift the 4 registration program barriers currently in place so that 5 those who are fully willing to register but did not know 6 of the registration be able to do so. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 9 Next we will have Mark Rubick, Bryan McLelland, 10 and Jolynn Hoxie. 11 MR. RUBICK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, 12 members of the Board and staff. My name is Mark Rubick 13 and I'm a sales representative for a local concrete 14 ready-mix company and line pumping service company. 15 Currently we only do have one pump in our fleet. But we 16 work closely with many of these other fellow pumpers 17 around here. We're kind of a close-knit group, yet we're 18 competitors. Kind of a unique arrangement, if you will. 19 What I wanted to -- also I wanted to endorse the 20 comments of those before me and also extend a little bit 21 of insight into the possible ramifications of things that 22 you may not have considered of the people working in this 23 industry. 24 With our pump we employ two people who go out to 25 the job sites and work their tails off, as many do here PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 316 1 when they go out to the sites. 2 By not allowing the registration process to be 3 opened, those people cannot put food on their table for 4 their families. They simply cannot act in compliance with 5 the law which the way it is. 6 So I respectfully submit to you to reopen the 7 registration process and allow these employees to continue 8 their livelihood, to provide for their families, and so 9 ultimately you're not driving the businesses out of state. 10 If they can't work here, then they're going to have to, if 11 they're going to remain in their industry, go to another 12 state. 13 Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you. 15 Bryan McLelland. 16 MR. McLelland: Hi. Good afternoon. I 17 appreciate your time. 18 I'm one of those small business owners. I don't 19 have six pumps. I don't have six employees. I don't -- I 20 have me. I have my pump. I've been in business for about 21 a year and a half. Never received any information on 22 anything here. More than happy to comply. 23 We go to great lengths every day not to pollute. 24 We put down tarps, sandbags. Shopvac-up cementitious 25 materials so it doesn't go down the drain. I mean you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 317 1 would be -- you'd be in awe if you saw how far we go not 2 to pollute. And in no way, shape or form was anybody here 3 trying to, you know, subvert that and try and get around 4 it. 5 I'd be happy to write a check today, I mean 6 whatever it would take. You know, I pay all my 7 insurances, I pay all my -- I go to great lengths to 8 do -- to run my business properly. And I just want the 9 chance to be able to register my pump and make sure I can 10 keep putting food on my table. Because if I have to redo 11 my pump, I won't be able to fix it. I'll have to -- it 12 will be a total loss. There's no way I could sell it in 13 California. I have to park it, try and sell it out of 14 state come up with another hundred thousand -- come up 15 with hundred thousand dollars, you know, or right about 16 there, which will put me out of business. I mean the 17 final loan would put me out of business. I mean I'm just 18 me. It's not -- you know, I don't have a big giant 19 bankroll or, you know, anything like that. 20 So I just -- we just want to do it right. And 21 I'd appreciate it if we got the chance to do that. So 22 that's really all I have to say. 23 I appreciate your time. Thank you. 24 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much for 25 coming. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 318 1 Jolynn Hoxie. 2 MS. HOXIE: Hi. Thank you for hearing us. I'm 3 sure I don't look like a criminal to you guys. But I feel 4 like one. 5 I have a small business. We've been in business 6 now for four years. We bought a brand new pump because we 7 wanted to make sure that we were doing everything right 8 when we started our business; and now we find out that I 9 cannot run everyday or I'm breaking the law. We have had 10 no notice. And that is so hurtful. 11 I have a mortgage. I have a business loan. I 12 have four children. What do I do? Do I go to work 13 tomorrow? Do I send my husband, who -- we don't have any 14 employees. Do I send him to work and have a $10,000 fine? 15 I don't know. We didn't give our real names, some of us. 16 We're afraid. I don't think it's fair. 17 Thank you. 18 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much for 19 coming. 20 James Thomas. 21 MR. THOMAS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 22 Board members. I appreciate you letting me come in and 23 speak this afternoon. 24 I'm James Thomas with Nabors Well Services out of 25 Bakersfield, California. My company operates throughout PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 319 1 all of California. We use portable equipment. We use 2 off-road engines as well. And we operate throughout the 3 state. 4 I would like to go on record to say that I 5 participated in the development of the Statewide Portable 6 Equipment Program for the past 14 years. This is not a 7 surprise. It didn't happen last week. It happened over 8 14 years. 9 So we're going to talk about amnesty. We 10 discussed amnesty 90 days ago. I'd like to make a point 11 that the last amnesty period was nine months ago. That's 12 when it ended. 13 So I'd like to ask the Board members the same 14 question that I've asked the staff members -- they're here 15 and they understand exactly what I'll ask -- is: If you 16 do grant another amnesty period, what will you do with the 17 companies that do not participate in the amnesty period? 18 There is people that's out there working today. There 19 will be another industry come after your next amnesty 20 period. So will you have Amnesty 4, Amnesty 5, Amnesty 6. 21 People made statements that they did not know 22 about the regulations. I have mentioned this in my past 23 testimonies and I'll mention it again. You had to have a 24 PERP -- you had to have a registration or a permit in 25 South Coast 25 years ago to operate. In Ventura you had PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 320 1 to have one 14 years ago. San Joaquin Unified Air 2 District you had to have 12. And the Statewide Portable 3 Equipment Program has been in effect for 10 years. People 4 have had the opportunity to read the regs. They are 5 there. 6 So only -- I know a lot of Board members may ask 7 the question, Well, what's the benefits for a company to 8 go into the amnesty program? Well, I'll tell you this. A 9 small company or any company that has a portable engine 10 that did not permit, they saved themselves $1500 a year -- 11 per engine per year. On what? Registration, inspections, 12 record keeping, installing hour clocks, replacing hour 13 clocks, replacing registrations and stickers, and filing 14 annual reports. 15 If you have a small operator who has only five 16 engines, he saved $75,000. And by saving $75,000, he 17 can -- he has a reduction in operating costs. So 18 therefore he can bid the program -- or the project at a 19 lower cost, and he can get it. And this has happened to 20 my company and to a lot of other companies. 21 Number 2 -- I want to make a point. Why don't 22 you leave the amnesty period open forever? Okay, I call 23 the dollars that you just heard from me as the small 24 dollar savings that a person would have. There is a 25 provision in the Statewide Portable Equipment Program that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 321 1 states that if a engine goes down after July the 1st of 2 2001, the engine has to be replaced with the most 3 stringent standards. That mean if you have an engine that 4 goes down, you have to replace it. If you have a 12V71 5 and it goes down, you cannot put another 12V71 on. You 6 have to go to a certified engine. So my company has done 7 that. 8 If you have a 450 horsepower engine to replace 9 one of them, it costs you 45,000; it costs you 11,000 to 10 install it. If you're lucky, the transmission that you 11 currently have in the unit will work. If not, you spend 12 another 42,000 for a transmission; 4,000 to install it. 13 That's a range from 55,000 to 102. 14 Just want to tell you that my company, and not 15 just my company, but all of the people that have taken 16 part in the PERP program are pouring out dollars every 17 single day and spending money. 18 I would just like to say, you ask: What will a 19 company get if you extend an amnesty period? They will be 20 able to work in the State of California for 1,190 days. 21 Why do you say that? Because in 2010 -- 22 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: I'm sorry, but I must ask 23 you to conclude, Mr. Thomas. 24 MR. THOMAS: Okay. So it's going to expire. So 25 all I've got to ask you, in the year 2010, January the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 322 1 1st, 2010, when every engine has to be a certified engine, 2 what will you do then? Will you have an amnesty period 3 there? 4 I will ask one last question. What are you going 5 to do for the companies that have paid hard dollars to 6 comply with the regulations? What can you do for us? 7 Because we've spent millions. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Thank you very much for 10 coming. 11 That concludes the public comment period. 12 I would say that Kathleen Quetin, our ombudsman, 13 is ill today. I'm sure that she regrets that she couldn't 14 be here, because I know she's met with a number of you 15 earlier in the month. 16 As I indicated, we will receive a written report 17 back from the staff, which I'm sure they'll be glad to 18 share with you and explain -- 19 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Yes. And we very 20 much appreciate that opportunity because, as you could 21 tell, there's a lengthy regulatory history here and an 22 interplay between state registration and district permit 23 requirements that we would want you to be aware of as you 24 weigh the testimony that you heard today. 25 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Right. I realize that some PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 323 1 of the Board members have lived through this from its 2 beginning or near its beginning, and others of us are 3 quite new to it. 4 I thank you very much. 5 Yes. 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Well, I wouldn't want to 7 take a position one way or the other because we haven't 8 heard from staff yet, but do appreciate you all taking the 9 time out to be here. And I just think that since they're 10 looking for answers, it might be helpful if we just gave 11 them a timeline on when you expect to have a written 12 report and next steps, since, you know, they're all here 13 right now anyway. 14 EXECUTIVE OFFICER WITHERSPOON: Certainly by your 15 next Board meeting. And we've already talked to many of 16 the people you've heard today about possible next steps 17 and what course of action they have. We've been working 18 with air districts. Because although you can't register, 19 you can obtain a permit. And that doesn't satisfy many of 20 the people because it's more expensive, the conditions for 21 a permit, or having new equipment. But districts are 22 trying to work with industry so that they have sufficient 23 time to sell the equipment they have, purchase new 24 equipment, obtain financing, et cetera, and still allow 25 them to operate. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 324 1 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Fine. 2 I would like to a adjourn. Do I have a motion 3 for adjournment? 4 BOARD MEMBER RIORDAN: So moved, Mr. Chairman. 5 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Second? 6 BOARD MEMBER D'ADAMO: Second. 7 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: All in favor of adjourning, 8 aye? 9 (Ayes.) 10 CHAIRPERSON SAWYER: Opposed? 11 Okay. We stand adjourned. 12 (Thereupon the Air Resources Board meeting 13 adjourned at 5:05 p.m.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 325 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, 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 California Air Resources Board meeting Item 7 06-8-3 was reported in shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a 8 Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of California, 9 and thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any 12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 14 this 6th day of September, 2006. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 License No. 10063 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345