MEETING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD BOARD HEARING ROOM CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 2020 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1997 9:40 A.M. Nadine J. Parks Shorthand Reporter PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii MEMBERS PRESENT John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman Joseph C. Calhoun Lynne T. Edgerton William Friedman, M.D. M. Patricia Hilligoss Jack C. Parnell Sally Rakow Barbara Riordan Ron Roberts James W. Silva Staff: Michael Kenny, Executive Officer Tom Cackette, Chief Deputy Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel James Schoning, Ombudsman Don Owen, Chief, Office of Environmental Technology Peter Venturini, Chief, Sanitary Source Division Don Ames, Assistant Chief, SSD Genevieve Shiroma, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch, SSD Joan Denton, Ph.D., Manager, Substance Evaluation Section, Stationary Source Division Jacqueline Johnson, Staff, SSD Kirk Oliver, Staff Counsel Also Present: Secretary James Strock California Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Secretary Ann Heywood, CalEPA William A. Vance, Ph.D., Acting Deputy Director of Scientific Affairs, OEHHA George Alexeeff, Ph.D., Chief, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology, OEHHA Bart Ostro, OEHHA Dr. Hanspeter Witschi, Scientific Review Panel Dr. James Seiber, Scientific Review Panel Patricia Hutchens, Clerk of the Board Wendy Grandchamp, Secretary Bill Valdez, Administrative Services Division PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii I N D E X PAGE Proceedings 1 Call to Order 1 Pledge of Allegiance led by Jack Parnell 1 Roll Call 1, 2 Opening Remarks and Announcements by Chairman Dunlap 2 AGENDA ITEMS: 97-3-1 Public Meeting to Consider CalEPA's Environmental Technology Certification Program Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 8 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny Executive Officer 9 Don Owen Chief, Office of Environmental Technology 11 Questions/Comments 25 Presentation Continued by Mr. Owen 26 Questions/Comments 30 Presentation to CalEPA Secretary Strock 37 97-3-2 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulatory Amendment Identifying Inorganic Lead as a TAC Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 48 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 97-3-2 Mike Kenny Executive Officer 50 Dr. James Seiber Scientific Review Panel Member 53 Questions/Comments 56 Staff Presentation: Mike Kenny Executive Officer 67 Jacqueline Johnson Stationary Source Division 69 George Alexeeff, Ph.D. OEHHA 77 Dr. Hanspeter Witschi Scientific Review Panel Member 83 Jim Schoning Ombudsman 87 Questions/Comments 89 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Thomas McHenry Lead Industries Assn., Battery Council International, and GNB 92 Questions/Comments 97 Jane Luxton Lead Industries Assn. 100 Questions/Comments 109 Dr. Alan S. Kaufman Lead Industries Assn. 139 Questions/Comments 144 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 97-3-2 Janet Hathaway NRDC 160 Questions/Comments 165 Written Comments Entered into Record 167 Questions/Comments 168 Official Closing of Record on 97-3-2 by Chairman 170 Ex Parte Communications Disclosures 171 Closing Statement by Chair 172 Discussion re Addition to Resolution 97-17 175 Questions/Comments 176 Further Addition to Resolution 177 Questions/Comments 178 Motion by Edgerton to Approve Resolution 97-17 with Amendment 186, 187 Discussion 187 Board Action 189, 190 Open Session for Additional Public Comment: Chairman Dunlap 190 Ben Knight Honda 191 Questions/Comments 199 Adjournment 201 Certificate of Court Reporter 202 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Will this, the April meeting of 4 the California Air Resources Board, please come to order. 5 We've asked Mr. Parnell to lead us in the Pledge 6 of Allegiance, so I'd like to ask the audience to please 7 rise. 8 MR. PARNELL: If you will join me, please. 9 (Thereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was 10 recited by all in attendance.) 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Jack. 12 Will the Clerk of the Board please call the roll. 13 MS. HUTCHENS: Calhoun? 14 MR. CALHOUN: Here. 15 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 16 MS. EDGERTON: Here. 17 MS. HUTCHENS: Friedman? 18 DR. FRIEDMAN: Here. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss? 20 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Here. 21 MS. HUTCHENS: Parnell? 22 MR. PARNELL: Here. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan? 24 MRS. RIORDAN: Here. 25 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 SUPERVISOR ROBERTS: Here. 2 MS. HUTCHENS: Rakow? 3 MS. RAKOW: Here. 4 MS. HUTCHENS: Silva? 5 SUPERVISOR SILVA: Here. 6 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here. Thank you. 8 Good morning. It gives me great pleasure to 9 introduce our newest Board member today. To my right is 10 Sally Rakow, and we're grateful to have her with us. 11 Sally has come to us from the California Energy 12 Commission, where she served from 1991 till very recently. 13 And during her tenure at the Energy Commission, she served 14 as Vice Chairman for a number of years and mostly recently 15 as the Acting Chairman. 16 Sally hails from Marin County and is a 17 long-standing civic activist there, having served on the 18 Board of Directors of the Marin Educational Fund and as a 19 member of the Marin Charitable Association. 20 Congratulations on your appointment. We're 21 grateful to have you with us. 22 MS. RAKOW: Thank you very much. I'm very excited 23 and delighted to be here. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That's great. And I think there 25 will be no excuses for this Board not to be fully in step PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 with energy policy -- 2 MS. RAKOW: Right. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- of the Energy Commission. 4 MS. RAKOW: Look forward to many future MOUs. 5 (Laughter.) 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. Well, I have a few items 7 of business that are most pleasurable for me to be able to 8 cover today. 9 The first is reminding, I guess all of us, that 10 the primary mission of government is to protect public 11 health and safety, and to promote the general welfare of our 12 State's population. 13 Most of the time, employees at the Air Resources 14 Board devote their energy to protecting the public by 15 working to reduce air pollution. There are times, however, 16 when circumstances call for us to step aside of our specific 17 job duties and use our skills to assist the public in other 18 ways. 19 The flooding that occurred in Northern California 20 this past January was one of those circumstances. I'm very 21 pleased that five Air Resources Board employees answered the 22 call for public service, and joined the other unsung heroes 23 in State Government who gave unselfishly of their time and 24 helped in the flood response effort. 25 I have a certificate of appreciation that I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 going to pass around for my colleagues on the Board to see 2 that's been issued to one of our employees from Governor 3 Wilson and the legislative leadership in our State. 4 I would like our young guests who are here today 5 to remember that having a job means more than just showing 6 up at work between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. You can use the 7 things you learn in school and in your job to help people in 8 time of need, and that is true whether you work in 9 government or for a private company. 10 Serving your community and your State is something 11 everyone can and should do. I would like to express my 12 appreciation to our five unsung heroes for demonstrating the 13 true meaning of public service during the floods. 14 Kelly Hughes of the Stationary Source Division, 15 Artavia Edwards of the Executive Office, Bill Yates of the 16 Monitoring and Laboratory Division in El Monte, and Allan 17 Hirsch and Genny Osborn of our Communications Office were 18 very active and involved in helping flood victims. 19 It's possible that we may have missed other ARB 20 staffers who performed assistance work here, but any 21 oversights, of course, were unintentional. And if anyone is 22 aware of other staff members that did participate, please 23 let us know. 24 But about a week or so ago, the Governor had a 25 recognition event on the Capitol lawn for the many people in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 State service that helped out during that time of need, and 2 it was a very prideful moment for me to be there and to 3 witness our staff being recognized. 4 I know the Governor appreciates it. I know my 5 colleagues on the Board do as well. So, thank you for your 6 work, those five individuals. 7 I think our Board here, looking out at the 8 audience, have noticed a bit of a change in the demographics 9 of our audience today. Today is our annual "Take Our 10 Children to Work Day" at the Air Resources Board. Children 11 of our employees are in the audience today in Sacramento and 12 are also listening via our phone system in El Monte. 13 I would like to welcome all of our young guests in 14 Sacramento and El Monte to the Air Resources Board. 15 When I was a kid, and it wasn't that many years 16 ago, we didn't have anything like "Take Our Children to Work 17 Day." Those were the days when dad's place and occasionally 18 mom's place was at work, and the children's place was in 19 school, and never the 'twain shall meet. 20 What I knew about my father's work was what I 21 could pick up at the dinner table. So, you have an 22 opportunity to get some real insight today. You're 23 fortunate. 24 The concept of "Take Your Daughter to Work Day" 25 changed all that a few years ago, and I'm pleased that the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 Air Board has seen fit to expand the concept to include take 2 our "children" to work. 3 Boys as well as girls can benefit by getting a 4 first-hand look at what mom or dad does at work during the 5 day as well as the service that mom or dad's organization 6 provides the public. 7 I understand that the group has already seen a 8 slide show and overview about the work we do here at the 9 Board, and that there has been a video conference between 10 the groups in Sacramento and El Monte. 11 Some of the other events planned for the day 12 include a ride in an electric vehicle, a tour of our 13 laboratory, a hands-on computer session, and a pizza lunch. 14 And I'm going to ask the staff to keep an eye on Supervisor 15 Roberts. I know he's going to run out there for that 16 electric vehicle trip. 17 (Laughter.) 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: If I can share any wisdom with 19 you today, it is this: As you tour our facilities and look 20 at what mom or dad does at work, you will notice that there 21 are different people doing many different kinds of work. 22 It's very diverse here. 23 Some employees are doing scientific research on 24 air pollution, others are keeping records on how we spend 25 our money, for example; some are answering phones and typing PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 important information into our computers. 2 But you need to know that all of this work is 3 important to what goes on here. All of our employees come 4 to work every day because they have an important job to do, 5 and that includes the work that your mom or dad does. And I 6 think the head of any government agency or private company 7 would say the same thing about their employees. 8 It'll still be a while, I think, before you decide 9 what you want to do for your career, but I would encourage 10 you to consider working in environmental protection. We're 11 going to do a lot of work in the next few years, but we have 12 a long ways to go to put our environment in the shape that 13 we need it to be. 14 So, I want to thank you very much for your 15 attention and for coming today. It is truly an honor and a 16 privilege to host you, and we look forward to seeing you 17 here next year, and hopefully one day in working here. And 18 who knows? One day, we may even be standing as older 19 citizens before one of you as you serve on this Board. 20 So, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to have 21 you. 22 (Applause.) 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Now, I'm not certain of the 24 proper timing in which you leave, but I'm told that, if now 25 is the right time for you to depart, you go through this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 door over here in the front. 2 Gayle, is that the plan? 3 MS. YOST: We're going out the back door. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. All right. Well, 5 have a fun day. 6 Okay. That brings us to our first item of the 7 day, 97-3-1. 8 I'd like to remind those of you in the audience 9 who would like to present testimony to the Board on any of 10 today's items to please sign up with the Clerk of the Board 11 to my left. 12 If you have a written statement, please provide 13 her with 20 copies. 14 The first item on the agenda is 97-3-1, a public 15 meeting to consider CalEPA's Environmental Technology 16 Certification Program. This item is an informational, 17 nonregulatory item on the environmental technology cert. 18 program that I had suggested staff present today. 19 I'm especially pleased to welcome Secretary Strock 20 and Deputy Secretary Heywood as they join us for this item. 21 I don't know that Jim's here, but I see Ann. Welcome. 22 They are both strong advocates for environmental 23 technology and its role in achieving our shared goal of a 24 healthier, cleaner environment. With their vision and 25 leadership, the certification effort has gained worldwide PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 interest. This program, which the ARB and the other CalEPA 2 organizations have forged together, now serves as a model 3 for other States, federal agencies, and countries. 4 Moving specifically to the agenda, the first item, 5 as I mentioned, is a staff presentation on the program. To 6 give you some personal background, I participated in the 7 public/private partnership which first proposed the 8 certification idea when I served at the Department of Toxic 9 Substances Control before coming to this Board. 10 At the Department, I also had the opportunity to 11 guide the first pilot certification effort here at our 12 agency. Good ideas spread quickly, particularly when they 13 address a compelling need in a creative, collaborative way. 14 In just a few short years, the certification 15 program has grown. It has also received much acclaim, and 16 was selected as one of the 10 1996 recipients of the 17 "Innovations in American Government Award," from some 1500 18 that applied, at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at 19 Harvard University. 20 So, we're very proud of that recognition. The 21 award is displayed in our lobby -- I think on our trophy 22 shelf that we have as you come in the front door. 23 So, with that, I would be happy to invite Mr. 24 Kenny to introduce this item. Good morning, Mike. 25 MR. KENNY: Good morning. Thank you, Chairman PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 Dunlap and members of the Board. 2 I'd also like to welcome Deputy Secretary Heywood, 3 and I was going to also welcome the kids who were here, they 4 decided to depart. 5 With Chairman Dunlap's leadership and vigorous 6 support in both his previous and current capacities, the 7 Environmental Technology Certification Program has evolved 8 considerably. The Air Resources Board has played an active 9 role throughout that evolution. 10 Following the pilot certification program for 11 hazardous waste related technologies and our air quality 12 permit streamlining initiative, the Air Resources Board 13 quickly and successfully conducted a pilot precertification 14 program for common, simple air pollution control equipment. 15 We heard a staff presentation about the 16 precertification program a few months ago, and I'm pleased 17 to note, the overall CalEPA Environmental Technology 18 Certification Program moved forward when the Air Resources 19 Board adopted the precertification program regulations. 20 That action instituted the first regulatory certification 21 where technical and engineering evaluation conducted in the 22 certification program complements and streamlines the 23 permitting process. 24 Other CalEPA organizations are now using the Air 25 Resources Board rule and guidelines as models to integrate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 their certification activities with the regulatory 2 framework. As the certification program concept expanded 3 within the CalEPA boards, its departments, and the offices, 4 the administration proposed a centralized office to 5 coordinate and implement the administrative elements of the 6 statewide certification program. 7 With Secretary Strock and Chairman Dunlap's 8 support, we established that office, the Office of 9 Environmental Technology, OET, here within our organization 10 in July of 1995. Working together, the precertification 11 program staff, the OET staff, and the Department's staff are 12 now helping the State Water Resources Control Board, the 13 Integrated Waste Management Board, the Department of 14 Pesticide Regulation, and the Office of Environmental Health 15 Hazard Assessment start-up certification program, so that 16 multimedia technologies can be evaluated. 17 I would like to introduce Don Owen of OET, who 18 will make the staff presentation about the certification 19 program. 20 Don? 21 MR. OWEN: Thank you, Mike. 22 Good morning. My name is Don Owen. I'm with the 23 Office of Environmental Technology with the Air Resources 24 Board, and I thank you for this opportunity to tell you 25 about the CalEPA Environmental Technology Certification PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 Program. 2 I'd like to tell you a little bit about the vision 3 for the program, its overall goals, where it originated, and 4 how it's come to where it is today through our 5 implementation, some of the partnerships and multistate 6 initiatives we've formed, and our accomplishments. 7 Our central mission, or vision, is to capitalize 8 on our high environmental standards without changing those 9 standards. We are set about to move technology from an idea 10 or prototype to commercial use, to increase its acceptance, 11 but doing so in a way which protects public health and the 12 environment first and foremost. 13 We are engaged in this program to make the best 14 technology available to California, to other States, and to 15 other nations, to increase the regulatory and market 16 acceptance of those technologies, particularly new 17 technologies that might find impediments or barriers to 18 acceptance. 19 We're also engaged in this program to enhance our 20 environmental technology industry. California is the proud 21 home to more than $20 billion in companies, businesses, and 22 individuals engaged in the manufacture, development, and 23 sale of environmental technology, and that translates to 24 about 180,000 jobs for Californians. 25 We'd also like to foster and perpetuate continued PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 innovations, so that we ensure that those good technologies 2 we need to achieve our high environmental goals continue to 3 be available. So, our central mission again is to ensure 4 that the best technology is and continues to be available 5 for California's environment. 6 In 1993, Governor Wilson brought together 7 representatives of many people engaged in the environmental 8 technology industry -- the industry itself, government, such 9 as ourselves, and other local, State, regional, and federal 10 officials, academia, the research institutions, the National 11 Laboratories, the legal community, public interest and 12 citizens groups, as well as financial institutions. 13 Governor Wilson, with Secretary Strock and 14 Secretary Myra Wright of the Trade and Commerce Agency, 15 formed the California Environmental Technology Partnership 16 with representatives of each of these stakeholder 17 communities. Working together, they defined barriers to 18 environmental technology, recognizing the importance of the 19 industry -- both in terms of its economic contributions to 20 our State, as well as the tools, and machines, and 21 equipment, and process units which they provide -- to 22 achieve our high environmental goals. 23 There were four CETP working groups formed in 1993 24 that set about assessing those barriers and determining or 25 suggesting ideas to overcome them. One in particular is of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 note, the financial community -- principally the venture 2 capitalists, bankers, lenders, others engaged in 3 transactions and investments in environmental technology -- 4 noted that it was an uncertain and unpredictable pathway, 5 fraught with much risk from an idea to the commercial use. 6 They are the proponents for the original idea of the 7 statewide certification program. 8 This graph I think you've seen before in the ICATP 9 program, but it's a good representation of how the idea came 10 about for statewide certification. This is the typical 11 pathway a technology moves from the inventor's idea to 12 commercial sale and use, that point at which the air quality 13 management districts permit a technology and it actually 14 performs to achieve those goals that we've set forth for the 15 environment. 16 Early in the idea stage, moving to the proof of 17 the concept of the technology and its first pilot scale, the 18 inventor or technology entrepreneur finds availability of 19 some capital to pursue development of the idea. However, 20 when they reach the prototype stage, the risk and 21 uncertainty, both in terms of the multiplicity of regulatory 22 jurisdictions and the uncertainty that is inherent in any 23 technology -- particularly new technology -- causes capital 24 availability to decline. 25 The CETP working group termed this "The Valley of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 Death" for technology. They found that prototype and field 2 application demonstrations were far and few between. It was 3 very difficult to overcome that risk and uncertainty. But 4 one of the ways that that could be solved would be for an 5 independent, credible third party to evaluate the 6 performance of a technology. 7 In that way, the commercial markets, the 8 regulatory agencies and jurisdictions would be more 9 comfortable in accepting the technology and more certain of 10 the outcome and its performance. Hence, the statewide 11 certification program idea was born. 12 Quickly thereafter, the CETP working group was 13 formed. Legislation was enacted to empower the Department 14 of Toxic Substances Control to begin statewide certification 15 for hazardous waste related technology. 16 The Department began very quickly to evaluate 17 performance certification of hazardous waste related 18 technologies, while also developing the program. This was a 19 brand new idea, the first of its kind in the nation. So, 20 they set about devising the procedures, protocols, and 21 techniques for evaluating technology, while also conducting 22 actual evaluations. 23 On a concurrent path, air pollution authorities -- 24 including Board members here today -- probably were engaged 25 in permit streamlining and regulatory reform initiatives, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 some aspects centering on the acceptance of technology 2 between air quality management districts. 3 The South Coast Air Quality Management District 4 had a similar program for certification of simple and common 5 air pollution control equipment. 6 Assembly Bill 3215 was enacted in 1994, which 7 created an opportunity for the Air Resources Board to 8 establish a similar program, known as "precertification," 9 which you've heard about earlier. It's notable that ARB was 10 the first of the CalEPA organizations to take the next step, 11 which was to implement regulatory certification. That's the 12 process by which a technology that has been proven is placed 13 into the permitting framework, so that there are simpler and 14 more predictable ways in which that technology can gain 15 acceptance in multiple markets and jurisdictions. 16 The Board adopted that regulation last fall, and 17 that now serves as the model for the CalEPA organizations to 18 proceed to regulatory certification for the other types of 19 technologies that are within their jurisdictions as well as 20 multimedia technology. 21 At the same time last fall the ARB regulatory 22 certification proceeded, Assembly Bill 1943 was enacted, 23 which creates a voluntary statewide program for 24 certification of multimedia technology. Those are pollution 25 control technologies, waste treatment and minimization PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 technologies, remediation technologies that may have benefit 2 or attributes affecting more than one environmental media -- 3 the water, the air, solid waste, pesticides. 4 As I mentioned, there are two types of 5 certification. Principally, the program is a voluntary, 6 market-driven effort, which evaluates and certifies a 7 technology proponent's claims about the performance of their 8 technology. This provides users greater assurance of the 9 technology's capabilities. It gives them a third-party, 10 independent, credible source for that assurance. And it 11 often provides a market incentive to the company that 12 receives a performance certification. 13 However, for CalEPA to achieve its overall 14 environmental goals, certification is linked to the 15 permitting and regulatory framework as well. Once a 16 technology is proven, the engineering and scientific 17 principles associated with it are often tested once again in 18 each jurisdiction. 19 The program allows for each of the various State 20 and local governments that may have authority for permitting 21 environmental technology to take notice of and use the 22 performance certification to reduce that redundant review 23 that often occurs. 24 Field testing of new technology will have already 25 been completed, and the various people who would then permit PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 that technology -- whether it moves to San Diego, or San 2 Francisco, or may used by companies who operate in different 3 jurisdictions -- now should have a simpler way to achieve 4 permitting. 5 Permitting can be reduced to an activity where the 6 company specifics and site specific aspects are addressed, 7 and the technology issues have already been proven through 8 the certification. 9 We're working towards, subsequent to Assembly Bill 10 1943, multiagency collaboration for multimedia technology. 11 In that way, we hope to bring new and better technology to 12 market in a cheaper, faster way; that we can achieve our 13 goals by reducing pollutants through all of our 14 environmental media. 15 The program began very quickly. As I mentioned 16 earlier, the Department of Toxic Substances developed the 17 protocols and procedures and began actual evaluation of 18 technology. The Air Resources Board also conducted the 19 pilot project concurrently, focusing on commercial 20 technologies, those which were already beyond the prototype 21 stage and accepted in the marketplace to some degree, but 22 not widely. 23 They began also with performance certification, 24 simply because the regulations were not yet developed and 25 they needed to understand how this process would work. Both PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 programs began by announcing the program's opportunities and 2 soliciting interest among companies and entrepreneurs who 3 develop technology. 4 Each of the pilot projects involved many 5 stakeholders from all of the various groups -- public 6 citizens, the National Laboratories, academia, other 7 regulatory jurisdictions, the other parts of the CalEPA 8 family. And interestingly enough, each of those pilots 9 attracted a lot of national and international interest. the 10 idea spread very quickly. 11 There are four steps to environmental technology 12 certification. The first is fairly simple. It's the 13 determination of a technology entrepreneur's eligibility for 14 the program. In short, that means a technology, which is 15 commercial or near commercial for acceptance in the 16 marketplace, can be accepted into the program. 17 For performance certification, the program 18 principally turns on two aspects: the claims that the 19 proponent makes for the performance of the technology and 20 the nature, quantity, and quality of the data in support of 21 those claims. 22 The second step is the formal application and 23 review of the completeness of the data which exist to date. 24 Ideally, a company will bring to us high-quality data from 25 an independent source which substantiates each of their PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 claims. The process, however, often involves a lot of 2 negotiation and interaction at this stage, both to refine 3 the claim to an objective claim as well as to a claim which 4 can be proven with the data that exists, or can be evaluated 5 and tested to generate additional data in support of that 6 claim. 7 The third step is field testing and analysis and 8 reduction of the data that is compiled and generated. Field 9 testing can be done within the CalEPA laboratories, through 10 our National Laboratory partners, or through the private 11 sector. It also can be done in-house by a company, provided 12 they have an appropriate quality management plan for their 13 data. 14 And the last step is the certification statement. 15 So, those claims proven true receive a CalEPA certificate, 16 which gives them significant market advantage and reduces 17 the risk to those making technology investment decisions. 18 What are the benefits of certification? For us, 19 as regulators -- both at the State and local level -- the 20 program is developing and has developed consistent and 21 recognized standards for technology evaluation. These are 22 spread not only within the CalEPA family, but to other 23 States, to federal agencies, and internationally. 24 It's a rigorous verification of the claims and the 25 data in support of those claims for the technology PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 entrepreneur and the consumer of that technology. Our 2 certifications provide assurance to the technology user. 3 And probably the next bullet's most important -- they 4 improve environmental performance. 5 I should contrast this voluntary, market-driven 6 program from some of the traditional certification efforts 7 that are implemented within the regulatory agencies today. 8 We have a long history of very successful certification 9 programs in motor vehicles, fuels, and other areas at the 10 Air Resources Board, many recognized nationally and 11 internationally. 12 Typically, those programs are mandatory, in that a 13 technology must achieve a specified regulatory standard. 14 This program differs, in that the technologies that ideally 15 can exceed today's standards can find greater acceptance by 16 CalEPA's partnership for certification. 17 As I said, ARB adopted a regulation for 18 performance and regulatory certification, moving to the next 19 step and placing certified technologies into the permitting 20 framework in a simpler, quicker fashion. 21 And lastly, it provides a competitive advantage 22 for certified companies. 23 This is an example of one of the CalEPA 24 certificates. It happens to be a low NOx boiler that the 25 precertification program completed. And ideally, this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 company will now find this of great use. It's early on, and 2 we don't have many results yet, however, for single media 3 air program pollution control equipment. We hope to learn 4 more and attract new and different technologies and 5 multimedia technologies as we work together within CalEPA. 6 I'll mention briefly some of the partnerships we 7 formed and a little bit about how our program began, how it 8 operates, what the steps are that are involved. We have 9 formed a number of collaborative partnerships with federal 10 agencies, with other States, with other nations, with 11 National Laboratories, all engaged in working together to 12 deploy better technology in a faster, simpler way, but with 13 very rigorous technical and scientific standards, and 14 without sacrificing our high environmental objectives. 15 We recognize that pollution knows no boundaries, 16 and many of the ideas that emerge here in California are of 17 benefit to other jurisdictions as well. Working together, 18 26, primarily Western, States formed what is known as the 19 Interstate Regulatory Cooperation Work Group or, in short, 20 the ITRC. We use way too many acronyms in this program, but 21 that is an unwieldy title. 22 But ITRC principally is working together to 23 develop protocols and technical procedures for the 24 acceptance of hazardous waste related technologies. It's 25 sponsored by DOE, the Department of Energy, and has found an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 enormous amount of success in developing particular types of 2 protocols associated with technologies that would be 3 applicable to cleanup of federal agency sites, particularly 4 used military installations and the former weapons complex 5 sites. 6 The next bullet is the six State MOU. Secretary 7 Strock and his colleagues in Massachusetts, Illinois, New 8 York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania formed a memorandum of 9 understanding to work together to find a way for acceptance 10 between States of proven technology in all environmental 11 media, not just hazardous waste. 12 So, ITRC and six States work together to develop 13 and deploy technology through shared protocols, shared 14 demonstrations, and challenges to our existing regulatory 15 frameworks which may be barriers to technologies. 16 We formed an important partnership with the 17 California National Laboratories. They provide significant 18 expertise and service, knowledge, and tools to our program. 19 If a technology comes to us with sophisticated types of 20 claims that we may be beyond our internal scope, we are 21 linked with the National Laboratories and can use their 22 scientists and their unique one-of-a-kind facilities to 23 perform testing on those technologies. 24 In addition, they provide peer review to our 25 protocols, and they assist us with stakeholder involvement PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 on acceptance of some of our protocols in a number of other 2 areas. It's been a very fruitful effort and partnership 3 with the National Laboratories. 4 The middle bullet, Bioremediation Reference 5 Laboratory -- increasingly, as we move towards multimedia 6 certification, we're finding that we're moving from 7 traditional chemical/physical techniques for remediation -- 8 particularly in groundwater pollution -- to biology, and the 9 application of biology for all sorts of environmental 10 pollution prevention, control, and measurement needs. 11 We, however, found there were gaps in biology, at 12 least -- as in the state of the art. So, working with DOE, 13 we formed a laboratory with the University of California at 14 Berkeley, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and 15 CalEPA's laboratories, bringing state-of-the-art diagnostic 16 techniques for essentially realtime assessment of 17 bioremediation technologies -- principally for groundwater, 18 but also probably applicable at some point for air pollution 19 stack control and other sorts of technologies. 20 This is just getting off the ground. It's very 21 exciting. And it will provide us new tools that are 22 desperately needed to address those things that technology 23 entrepreneurs would like to bring their technologies to 24 market. It also answers the questions that regulatory 25 agencies have about these new and different technologies. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Don, I hate to interrupt you. 2 It's been very interesting. But you have to tell us a 3 little more about the bugs, about the promising bugs we're 4 talking about there. 5 Can you say a word or two about perhaps some 6 pilots or some projects that you've seen? 7 MR. OWEN: Certainly. We're just beginning. The 8 laboratory has been established. And, as you probably know, 9 the State Water Resources Control is responsible for cleanup 10 of some 27 to 29,000 leaking underground storage tanks, 11 principally for gasoline and petroleum. 12 We're finding that the scoop and clean-up 13 techniques, many of the physical introduction techniques 14 where air is added, or other compounds are added, or what's 15 known as soil vapor extraction techniques are very costly, 16 very time-consuming. And the trend has moved to these bugs, 17 using the natural biota or microbiology components, 18 particularly bacteria, to treat those pollutant compounds. 19 There are ways of introducing additional oxygen or 20 food for those critters to do their job, and to do it more 21 successfully and more predictably. And there are also 22 physical techniques that can be added to that to hasten the 23 process or to direct it to a specific locale. 24 We are just now beginning pilot projects through 25 Bioremediation Reference Laboratory with a few of what are PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 known as in situ bioremediation technology companies that 2 introduce additional compounds to make the bugs eat the 3 things that we have identified as pollutants, and also to 4 foster the growth of specific types of bacteria in the soil 5 that we know will do this job. 6 Particularly for gasoline leaks, those are what 7 are known as anaerobic bacteria, the methanotropes -- 8 methane-loving bacteria -- will seek out and find and eat, 9 if we can create conditions where they like to live. And 10 that's what these technologies are engaged in doing. 11 We hope to have the first completed certifications 12 for bioremediation technologies this summer. We are just 13 now starting up. The protocols are complete. We also will 14 do stakeholder meetings to elicit response from the 15 technology industry, from regulators, from other interested 16 people, feedback on the criteria we are using for 17 bioremediation. 18 Moving on very quickly, we have a number of 19 federally sponsored initiatives. The program has attracted 20 a lot of attention, and it is being replicated rapidly 21 through the Federal Government, usually with the term 22 "verification." 23 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded 24 to California one of its six ETV pilots in recognition of 25 the program's success in moving technologies from the R & D PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 stage to actual use, and has now broadened this to all media 2 and looking at different delivery models. 3 We are running their State-run pollution 4 prevention and hazardous waste cleanup pilot. The federal 5 agencies have also formed a partnership known as "rapid 6 commercialization" to move technologies, principally focused 7 on the Department of Energy's weapon site cleanup problem to 8 commercial use faster. We are serving as their technology 9 verifier. 10 The last bullet's a new, exciting one. We are 11 working through State Department funding on the U.S.-Asian 12 Environmental Partnership. We're taking our ideas, our 13 policies, programs, procedures, protocols, and ultimately 14 our technologies abroad, particularly to the emerging 15 democracies of Asia. 16 These are the particular laboratories that we've 17 partnered. We hope to expand this to additional 18 laboratories, both within the National Lab system and in the 19 private sector. 20 The Air Resources Board already extensively uses 21 private sector laboratories for acquisition and testing 22 associated with the voluntary certification program. 23 Following the early success of ARB and DTSC's 24 pilot programs and the establishment of the emergent 25 multimedia programs, many nations also asked -- expressed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 interest in our program. 2 We formed a partnership with Environment Canada 3 and Bavaria, which have been very productive in helping us 4 move our program along, and to ensure the widest possible 5 acceptance of our programs, policies, procedures, protocols, 6 and technologies. 7 We are continuing discussions very actively with 8 Environment Canada in particular. They've replicated the 9 program and will announce it in June for its official 10 kickoff. They have moved very quickly from our model to a 11 full-scale program for all of Canada. 12 Additionally, Jalisco, Mexico; Russia, Guangdong 13 Province of China, Indonesia, and Brazil are all interested 14 in different aspects of the program -- either establishing 15 similar programs within their country, or exchanging 16 protocol, or acquiring our certified technologies. 17 So, in summary, the program moved very quickly 18 from the private sector to a State-operated pilot program, 19 to one which is now institutionalized within the CalEPA 20 family and is working on multimedia issues to the national 21 level and then the international community. 22 We are working vigorously toward multimedia 23 certification so that we can address all aspects of 24 technology that offer great promise, not only for air but 25 also water and other media. And we've certified more than PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 40 technologies to date. 2 I might mention some of the early anecdotal 3 results from when our first company -- a manufacturer of 4 what's known as electric mobile oil refiner. It's an add-on 5 part to a motor vehicle -- an automobile, a truck, or to a 6 boat -- which extends the useful life of the oil within the 7 system beyond its recommended change from the original 8 manufacturer to as much as a hundred or 150,000 miles. 9 It was a start-up company in 1989. The company 10 received the very first CalEPA certification as a pollution 11 prevention device which significantly offers potential to 12 reduce the amount of waste oil generated. More than 40 13 million gallons of oil each year in California are 14 unaccounted for in the recycled oil programs. 15 The TF Purifiner technology allows motor vehicle 16 operators to extend the service life of that oil and not 17 waste that oil significantly. The company credits CalEPA's 18 certification with developing not only greater interest in 19 marketability within the U.S., but abroad. They've now 20 formed partnerships with some of the major automotive 21 manufacturers and even oil companies for their technology. 22 And it is an ARB aftermarket part waived piece of equipment, 23 so that it does not increase air pollution while it also 24 reduces water pollution from waste oil. 25 That's a short summary of what our program has PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 done, where it came from, what some of the technologies are 2 seeing as results of the program. And we are working to fit 3 those into our permitting framework and streamline those. 4 Thank you again for the opportunity to make this 5 presentation. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Don, for a fine 7 overview. I appreciate that very much. I know there's a 8 lot to present, and the program has made great progress. 9 I'm very proud, as I think's been mentioned at the outset, 10 to have this program housed for our agency at our Board. 11 Are there any questions of staff on the program? 12 Lynne, did you have anything? 13 MS. EDGERTON: I wanted to thank you, but I 14 particularly wanted to remark to Deputy Secretary Ann 15 Heywood that I have, over the last few years, heard 16 wonderful, wonderful reports of your leadership in this 17 field, and it's a pleasure to have you here with us. And I 18 just wanted you to know that people are talking about you 19 good behind your back. 20 MS. HEYWOOD: Thank you very much. I'd also like 21 to say that we are very appreciative of the leadership 22 Chairman Dunlap and his staff have shown in housing this 23 program. I call them an incubator. They've done a superb 24 job. 25 Mr. Cackette, on the science side, provides PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 excellent support to the program. And ARB in this activity 2 has really shown great leadership within the whole CalEPA 3 family. 4 Thank you very much. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thanks. And I appreciate those 6 kind words. 7 One of the things I should ask you, Don -- I have 8 one quick question. We have no witnesses that have signed 9 up, and this is an informational item, so it's just us 10 having the Q and A with you, Don. 11 But tell me how you're going about marketing 12 thecertification program, letting people know about it. I 13 know you're active with a lot of groups. You and Deputy 14 Secretary Heywood do a lot of speaking and personal 15 outreach. But how are you publicizing that this program 16 exists? 17 MR. OWEN: We're working on developing much more 18 visible Internet presence. In particular, we've added our 19 program to the ARB and DTSC home pages as well as the CalEPA 20 home page. And that, we hope, will be a successful effort 21 in targeting just general interest queries about the 22 program. 23 We visit a number of trade shows where we focus on 24 those types of technologies that are now being sought by 25 each of the prospective program partners, whether they're PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 within the Air Board or DTSC. 2 We work with the National Laboratories, the 3 Department of Energy, and others where we think many of the 4 new ideas are developed and then passed to the private 5 sector for development. 6 So, we're trying to find technologies in the 7 development pipeline that are moving along and may need 8 certification to make the next step, or speaking to 9 regulators to gain acceptance for the technologies and 10 understand the program. And we're communicating in all 11 sorts of different forums. 12 We hope to do more focused marketing through 13 brochures and other things aimed at specific companies where 14 we think we can develop a relationship that would benefit 15 both of us. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Great. Tom, I have a 17 question for you relative to ICATP, the Innovative Clean Air 18 Technologies Program. 19 Have you had any cross-referencing, I guess, from 20 the cert. program or from companies that have gone through 21 the cert. program, coming to us looking for that "Valley of 22 Death" funding, that limited funding that we have? 23 MR. CACKETTE: Well, the ICATP program, as you 24 know, the first wave of grants or contracts with perspective 25 technologies is still underway. So, we're trying to bring PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 them from the precommercialization stage into the 2 commercialization stage. 3 But when they get there, then we're coordinating 4 OET to see if we can't get their technologies certified, if 5 appropriate, so that people will be more receptive of them, 6 and they'll come with a gold seal stamp of approval from a 7 government agency on them. 8 And so far, I think we'll have some candidates, 9 because out of the first four contracts, at least two and 10 probably three of them are showing quite a positive prospect 11 for being commercialized products. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That's great. It seems to me 13 there'd be a natural linkage. 14 MR. CACKETTE: Yeah. There is one. And that's 15 what we're coordinating on real carefully. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Good. Good. Thank you for 17 that. 18 Joe, do you have a question? Mr. Calhoun. 19 MR. CALHOUN: I think the point that you made, 20 Tom, is a good one. It sort of gets at the question that 21 you initially brought, John. How much publicity is given to 22 the existence of this office and the various services that 23 this office provides? 24 Well, I guess the question's to both of you. 25 MR. CACKETTE: Well, I'll just say that the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 strategic plan that we have for the Office of Environmental 2 Technology and for certification efforts -- outreach is a 3 strong element of it. 4 One of the elements is to not just wait for people 5 to come and knock on the door, but to go out and find 6 technologies that are either not aware of what the benefits 7 of certification are or just haven't -- you know, 8 struggling to try to maybe find money, that are not aware of 9 what this program can do for them. 10 The fact that we've done, you know, 40 11 certifications already is, I think, a pretty good -- we've 12 achieved most of our goal already in the first year or so in 13 this activity, because there was a lot of start-up costs. 14 And we are spending a lot of time doing exactly what you 15 suggest, which is trying to find out how we can communicate 16 with people. 17 On the comments about the Internet, I mean not 18 everybody's on the Internet. But, remember, these folks 19 tend to be either high-tech people or high-tech wannabees, 20 and I think they're very connected into that kind of media. 21 Plus, the international aspect of this, I think, gives a 22 real opportunity to spread the concept around, even though 23 it may not always be focused on California and Cal-EPA. 24 The fact that other people are doing the same 25 thing brings the idea of certification and the benefits of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 that for everything from permitting to just publicity of 2 your product, you know, to a wider community of people who, 3 therefore, will learn about us and other countries that are 4 doing this kind of certification. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ann, did you want to add 6 anything? 7 MS. HEYWOOD: Yes, Chairman Dunlap. I just wanted 8 to add that the Harvard-Ford Foundation Award, which Don 9 mentioned, which we received last December, did have 10 $100,000 with it, which is administered by Don's office, 11 which allows us specifically to focus on outreach and 12 publicity for this program. 13 We're able to buy a little more visual equipment 14 to be able to publish our leaflets, be able to visit trade 15 fairs, do exhibits. A lot more outreach is possible 16 through that grant. 17 I would say that we are, at this point, a little 18 slow in having spent that money this year, because for the 19 first part of the year, we focused very heavily on having 20 the California verification protocol accepted as the 21 international standard. 22 As we meet today, the international organization, 23 ISO, is meeting in Kyoto, Japan, and is deliberating right 24 now on the final acceptance of the California verification 25 standard as the international 14023 standard. We think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 that's probably as far as we can go with the acceptance on 2 the planet. 3 MR. CALHOUN: Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah, that's terrific. Thank 5 you for that. 6 So, Don, it looks like with the award, you got 7 some cash. 8 MR. OWEN: Yes. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Good. Good for you. Any other 10 questions? Okay. Very good. Thank you for your time. 11 MR. OWEN: Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ann, it's a pleasure to have you 13 with us. 14 I'd like to acknowledge the presence of Secretary 15 Strock. But, Jim, we're not going to say much about you for 16 a few minutes. So, I just want to acknowledge you're here 17 and appreciate you taking the time to come over. 18 Thanks very much. 19 Mr. Kenny, did you have anything to add? 20 MR. KENNY: No. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 22 I should ask, were there any written comments 23 provided to the Board on this item at all? Anyone from the 24 public? 25 (Thereupon, staff responded with negative PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 gestures.) 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Very good. Okay. 3 Why don't we move to the next item, which also 4 gives me great pleasure. 5 I'd like to call Secretary Strock to the podium if 6 I may. And, Lynne, would you join him there? 7 As this Board well knows, Secretary Strock has 8 announced his resignation, effective June 1, 1997, from 9 CalEPA. Jim was appointed in May of 1991, and he served as 10 our first Secretary for Environmental Protection in our 11 State, where he implemented and made a priority to implement 12 Governor Wilson's vision of a unified Environmental 13 Protection Agency for California. 14 He previously served as the Assistant 15 Administrator for Enforcement of the U.S. EPA, as Special 16 Counsel to the U.S. Senate Environmental and Public Works 17 Committee, as an Assistant to U.S. EPA Administrator William 18 Ruckelshaus; and during 1988-89, as Acting Director and 19 General Counsel of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 20 He was also active as an environmental lawyer in private 21 practice. 22 During his past six years as Secretary of CalEPA, 23 there have been many environmental achievements. I'd like 24 to run through just a few. For example, the innovative 25 public/private California Environmental Technology PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 Partnership that we just heard about. The emphasis on 2 environmental technology has linked environmental 3 improvement and economic progress as closely as any program 4 I've ever worked with in environmental protection. 5 He also saw to it that 13 permit assistance 6 centers were opened, making it easier for small businesses 7 and individuals to comply with regulatory requirements. 8 More than 2600 process regulations were eliminated or 9 updated following wide public consultation. 10 CalEPA has also worked in partnership with 11 prosecutors, law enforcement, and regulatory agencies with 12 jurisdiction over environmental matters to create a 13 statewide network of county and multicounty enforcement task 14 force groups. That is being studied by other States, and is 15 likely to prove to be not just a national model but an 16 international model. 17 I could continue on and say much more about 18 Secretary Stock. But you should know he has been a friend 19 and in many ways a mentor to me, and I've been very 20 appreciative of his leadership and his personal counsel. He 21 has been a friend to this Board. He has been a very strong, 22 independent voice for having an environmental conscience in 23 our State. And I have a great deal of gratitude in my heart 24 for how he went before the Legislature yesterday to fight 25 for sensibility, as it came to budgets and his agencies' PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 budgets and ours. And I appreciate that very much. 2 And so, with that, Jim, I'd like to welcome you 3 here. We're proud to have you join us. 4 Lynne Edgerton has before her a Resolution that 5 our Board has signed that we'd like to present to you. 6 Lynne, would you do us the honor of reading it? 7 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 8 you for the opportunity to be the individual who presents it 9 to Mr. Strock. 10 This is Resolution 97-18 of the California EPA Air 11 Resources Board. 12 "WHEREAS, James M. Strock has served since May, 13 1991, as the first Secretary of the California Environmental 14 Protection Agency, implementing Governor Wilson's vision of 15 a unified environmental protection agency for California; 16 "WHEREAS, under Secretary Strock's leadership, 17 CalEPA has brought together, in a coordinated way, the 18 agencies implementing California's environmental policies 19 throughout the State; 20 "WHEREAS, Secretary Strock has worked long hours 21 in service to the people of the State of California 22 reforming and streamlining the State's environmental 23 regulatory processes; 24 "WHEREAS, Secretary Strock's belief in the value 25 of teaching and innovation has brought the development and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 acceptance of new environmental technologies and 2 certification strategies to California, the nation, and the 3 world; 4 "WHEREAS, Secretary Strock believes there is no 5 free lunch and, by establishing a statewide network of 6 enforcement task forces, has worked to ensure fair, 7 predictable, and certain enforcement of California's 8 environmental laws; 9 "WHEREAS, the Air Resources Board is one of the 10 agencies within CalEPA maintaining and improving the quality 11 of California's environment; 12 "WHEREAS, Secretary Strock has contributed to 13 keeping California's air fresh and breathable throughout the 14 State by supporting the work and policies of the Air 15 Resources Board, including approval of the State 16 Implementation Plan for ozone, introduction of cleaner 17 burning gasoline, and encouragement of zero-emission 18 vehicles; 19 "WHEREAS, Secretary Strock appreciates the 20 benefits of a healthy environment and clean air, especially 21 when exercising outdoors, and personally contributes to 22 keeping California's air fresh and breathable by walking 23 instead of riding whenever he can; 24 "WHEREAS, the Air Resources Board believes 25 Secretary Strock's international leadership in innovative PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 environmental technologies will continue to influence the 2 direction of environmental protection strategies for years 3 to come; 4 "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Air 5 Resources Board expresses its wholehearted appreciation for 6 the contributions of James M. Strock in maintaining and 7 improving air quality throughout the State of California and 8 for his leadership in fostering innovative strategies for 9 protecting the environment of California and the 10 nation.Executed at Sacramento, California, this 24th day. 11 SECRETARY STROCK: "Formally" executed. 12 (Laughter.) 13 MS. EDGERTON: For work over six years. 14 Congratulations. 15 SECRETARY STROCK: Thank you. Thank you so much. 16 (Standing ovation.) 17 SECRETARY STROCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 18 members. It really is a tremendous honor to receive this 19 wonderful motion. I did want to make one small observation, 20 Mr. Chairman, about the speed of my departure. 21 I read this morning in the local newspaper that 22 you've already taken over as head of the agency. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 24 (Laughter.) 25 SECRETARY STROCK: That shows the kind of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 aggressive and effective leadership we all appreciate from 2 you and the Board. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Please let me explain. 4 (Laughter.) 5 SECRETARY STROCK: But I really do want to thank 6 you all again. The thing, in working for the Governor and 7 with you all, that I'm particularly proud of is getting to 8 work with the outstanding people, such as you all on the 9 Board and the tremendous career staff that represents the 10 continuing strength of the State. 11 So, thank you again. And I look forward to 12 working with you all in a different capacity in the future. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Jim. 14 SECRETARY STROCK: Thank you very much. 15 (Applause.) 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I would like to propose that we 17 take about a 20 to 30 minute recess. Jim, we have a cake in 18 the back room we'd like to share with you. 19 Lynne has a personal presentation she'd like to 20 make. Please, Lynne, take a moment. But as soon as you're 21 done, we will take a break and go to the back -- 22 MS. EDGERTON: It's not a presentation. Actually, 23 it's few remarks. You can stay seated if you'd like. 24 It's moments such as this that you -- that provide 25 me the opportunity to reflect on a new order of things. And PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 because the history may not always be gotten right, I'd like 2 to reflect on a few things in the last six years from my own 3 perspective. 4 In 1991, when Governor Wilson tasked Jim Strock to 5 initiate a new order of things with respect to California 6 environmental protection, it was quite a revolutionary step. 7 There's a quote I wanted to read that has stayed with me all 8 these last six years and has become only more true of this 9 endeavor Mr. Strock undertook, and I quote: 10 "There is nothing more difficult to 11 carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor 12 more dangerous to handle than to initiate 13 a new order of things, for the reformer has 14 enemies in all who profit by the old order, 15 and only lukewarm defenders in all those who 16 would profit by the new order. This 17 lukewarmness arises partly from fear of 18 their adversaries who have the law in their favor, 19 and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who 20 do not truly believe in anything new until they 21 have had actual experience of it." 22 This is a quote that's as timely today, but actually it was 23 written 1517 by Machiavelli in "The Prince." 24 With respect to the new order of things, the 25 establishment of the California Environmental Protection PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 Agency, I have found all of these to be true. 2 My memories, and I won't take the whole morning, 3 but they do fall into three distinct periods, each of 4 approximately two years. 5 The first period, 1991 to '93, challenged Jim to 6 master not only the environmental issues of the sixth 7 largest economy of the globe, but also to simultaneously 8 develop a challenging and achievable plan to bring Governor 9 Wilson's CalEPA into reality. 10 You settled on using the Little Hoover Commission, 11 because it seemed the most likely avenue for success. You 12 were correct. Yet even so, powerful voices objected to the 13 process, and still remind of those objections. 14 And the period, when CalEPA was proposed, through 15 its creation, funding and your confirmation was one of 16 tremendous turmoil. 17 I bring this history to this Board, because we 18 have served together and it's important for us to remember 19 these things. It was difficult personally -- I mean 20 politically, but it must have been tremendously difficult 21 personally. 22 The Senate Rules Committee held your confirmation 23 to the last minute, using as leverage with the Governor -- 24 using your confirmation as leverage with the Governor, 25 because it was close to the Governor's heart. Some of you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 here have had similar experiences. 2 You canceled your attendance at the Earth Summit 3 in order to prepare for the process of your hearing. I 4 remember seeing what seemed to me a library of three-inch 5 black binders which you compiled and studied to enable you 6 to respond accurately and completely to every senator's 7 questions at the confirmation hearing. 8 I remember thinking to myself, "That has to be 9 harder than Harvard Law School." It was during this period 10 that I learned that Jim Strock, like Mr. Roosevelt, had 11 suffered from asthma as a child. And that gave me 12 considerable insight into his understanding of the problems 13 we were suffering in Southern California with our air. 14 You were patient throughout that hearing. I was 15 there. Hours of lengthy and complex questioning, always 16 answering clearly, carefully, calmly, completely. And the 17 committee voted 5-0 for your confirmation. 18 And this is how you have handled the remainder of 19 your years. 20 The second phase was one of tremendous outreach to 21 Californians. California environmental policy entered what 22 seemed to me to be a dynamic phase under your leadership. 23 There was so much going on. There was the permit 24 streamlining task force, which was quite controversial in 25 the beginning. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 Environmental Technology Partnership, the 2 Comparative Risk Task Force, which enlisted large numbers of 3 Californians. The Military Base Reuse Committee, the 4 Unified Statute Blue Ribbon Committee, Bay Delta Federal- 5 State Partnership, the Mono Lake Committee. I even saw him 6 up there checking out the lake levels. 7 The Cal Start Policy Advisory Committee, ZEVs, 8 LEVs, clean diesel fuel introduction, green labeling. I was 9 constantly lobbying the man on this before I became one who 10 is a "lobbyee," I guess is what I am now. 11 The U.S. NAFTA proceedings, the efforts to make 12 sure that environmental considerations were considered in 13 NAFTA, and your close work with President Bush's trade 14 representative. You were open to multiple simultaneous ways 15 to encourage and promote environmental improvement, and it 16 has showed. It has perhaps not showed as much as I would 17 have liked in the newspapers, but it has showed in our 18 environment. 19 The third phase, the one just completed, saw the 20 fruition, the products of this time of dynamism, the 21 achievements of Environmental Technology Partnership, the 22 achievements of the Federal-State Bay Delta Partnership, 23 Bond 204's passage. Mono Lake is being preserved and the 24 levels are going up. 25 Electric vehicles can be leased. LEVs are coming PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 in. Reformulated gas is on board. And more recently, to 2 make sure the MTBE threat is contained, I notice that Mr. 3 Strock imposed -- well, worked with the Water Board in Santa 4 Monica to require Mobil, whose tanks were leaking -- 5 allegedly, the MTBE -- to pay for the drinking water Santa 6 Monica had to bring in. 7 Of course, there's the award his Alma Mater, 8 Harvard, and from Ford, and the report from the Unified 9 Environmental Statute Committee, and many others. 10 So, we have a cleaner, healthier environment and, 11 as well, a contract for a new Cal/EPA building to bring us 12 all together to better manage multimedia, cross-media 13 pollution. 14 It has been a challenging -- it's been challenging 15 years. And I note that you do not look much older, which 16 may seem unfair to some of us, but there it is. Perhaps you 17 have some secret "green" potion which keeps you vigorous. 18 At any rate, I hope that my comments have done a 19 little bit to share my journey as part of your journey, and 20 to set the record straight. 21 Thank you, Jim. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thanks, Lynne. 23 (Applause.) 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We'll take about a 20-minute 25 break and, Jim, if you'll join us in the back, we'll eat PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 some cake. 2 Thank you. 3 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Just to clear up an item, even 5 though Secretary Strock has left, the comment the Secretary 6 made about me filling his shoes was in jest. 7 There was a local newspaper article that put my 8 title as "Chairman of the State Environmental Protection 9 Agency." And someone on my staff probably did a dirty trick 10 on me and gave that to Jim. Played a dirty trick. And Jim 11 was laughing about that. 12 MR. PARNELL: Not a bad idea. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, I don't know. I don't 14 know about that. 15 Anyhow, why don't we move on with the meeting and 16 go with the second item of the day, 97-3-2, a public hearing 17 to consider the adoption of a regulatory amendment 18 identifying inorganic lead as a toxic air contaminant. 19 On a somewhat personal note, I think it's a safe 20 assumption to say that in one way or another, virtually 21 every person at today's hearing is aware of the dangers of 22 elevated environmental lead exposures, especially for 23 children. 24 In my previous position at the Department of 25 Toxics, I certainly became aware of many hazardous waste PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 sites which had lead contamination. Today, we are focusing 2 on lead in the air and its adverse health effects. No 3 control measures are proposed as part of today's hearing. 4 I'd like to acknowledge two members of the 5 Scientific Review Panel, or SRP, who are today to provide 6 perspectives from the SRP -- Dr. James Seiber and Dr. 7 Witschi. I'd like to welcome you today. It's a pleasure to 8 have you with us. 9 Before we begin the lead item, I've asked Mr. 10 Kenny to provide a brief overview of the toxic air 11 contaminant program, particularly the identification 12 process. I've asked for this because, with the exception of 13 Mayor Hilligoss, none of us -- including myself -- have been 14 through the identification of a substance as a toxic air 15 contaminant. 16 So, while we're experienced, Mike, all of us -- 17 except Patti -- are inexperienced in this matter 18 processwise. 19 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: And Barbara. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And Barbara. Were you here, 21 Barbara, when we went through this once before? 22 MRS. RIORDAN: Oh, yes. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Maybe we should rearrange the 24 seating to bring them next to the Chairman perhaps. 25 Well, with that, Mr. Kenny, why don't you seize PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 the moment and get us on track. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 4 the Board. 5 I'm happy to provide you with a brief overview of 6 the AB 1807 toxic air contaminant identification process. 7 Dr. Seiber will be following my remarks with a description 8 of the SRP and its role in the process. 9 The toxic air contaminant program was established 10 under AB 1807 and consists of two phases: risk assessment 11 and risk management. 12 During the risk assessment or identification 13 phase, the potential health effects of exposure in 14 California to a substance are examined. 15 During the risk management phase, the need for and 16 degree of controls for the substance are evaluated. 17 Under AB 1807, ARB is responsible for assessing 18 the exposure to a particular substance, and the Office of 19 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, is 20 responsible for assessing the health effects. 21 AB 1807 also established the independent SRP to 22 provide a formal independent review of the science compiled 23 by ARB and the OEHHA staffs. The SRP is an independent 24 panel of scientists, consisting of nine members, who are 25 appointed by either Secretary Strock or the Legislature. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 The SRP consists of individuals with expertise in 2 epidemiology, biostatistics, biochemistry, toxicology, 3 atmospheric chemistry, and pathology. 4 With Slide 1, the first step of the identification 5 process is identified. It begins with the prioritization of 6 the substances of importance to California. Factors 7 considered include potential risk to the public health, the 8 amount or potential amounts of emissions, the exposure, the 9 usage in California, and the persistence in the atmosphere. 10 Once a substance is selected for evaluation, we 11 prepare the exposure assessment report and OEHHA prepares 12 the health assessment report, referred to as Part A on the 13 exposure and Part B on health. 14 Meanwhile, lead members of the SRP are appointed 15 to work with the staff. The lead members are responsible 16 for providing scientific guidance and knowledge to the staff 17 in developing the reports. 18 The draft reports are distributed for public 19 review and comment. Public workshops are held where 20 interested parties can discuss issues with the staff and SRP 21 leadpersons. 22 After the public comment periods and workshops, 23 staff of the ARB and OEHHA consider the comments received on 24 the report and revise the report accordingly. The report 25 goes to the SRP, which is charged with reviewing the report PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 to determine whether sound scientific knowledge, methods, or 2 practice were used. 3 After the SRP is satisfied with the science 4 presented in the report, it prepares findings which are 5 incorporated into the initial statement of reasons. This 6 document is released for a 45-day public comment period 7 preceding the regulatory hearing to consider identification. 8 This is where we are today with inorganic lead. 9 Finally, if the Board decides to list a substance 10 as a toxic air contaminant, the substance is listed in the 11 California Code of Regulations. 12 Slide 2 shows a list of 18 substances that the 13 Board has identified as toxic air contaminants under the 14 full AB 1807 process. Once a substance has been listed as a 15 toxic air contaminant under this process, the ARB begins the 16 second phase of the State's air toxic program -- risk 17 management. 18 In this phase, a needs assessment is conducted to 19 determine the need for and degree of further control with 20 full public participation. 21 In closing, I note that the identification phase 22 is a very open and public process. There are multiple 23 opportunities to comment and to participate in the process 24 through numerous public comment periods and workshops. 25 Now, I would like to have Dr. Seiber describe the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 SRP's role in the identification phase. Dr. Seiber is the 2 Director of the Center for Environmental Science and 3 Engineering at the University of Nevada, Reno, and has been 4 a member of the SRP for over six years. His area of 5 expertise is atmospheric chemistry and chemistry of 6 pesticides, including air pollution impacts. 7 Dr. Seiber? 8 DR. SEIBER: Thank you, Mr. Kenny and Chairman 9 Dunlap, members of the Board. I'm pleased to be here to 10 represent the Scientific Review Panel and describe its role 11 in the identification of a substance as a toxic air 12 contaminant. 13 The SRP's role in the TAC process is to provide an 14 independent review, a peer review if you'd like. We 15 evaluate and ensure that the reports prepared by the ARB 16 staff dealing with exposures and with the Office of 17 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment staff dealing with 18 health effects, as you just heard described, are based upon 19 sound scientific knowledge, methods, and practices. 20 The Chair of the Scientific Review Panel, Dr. 21 James Pitts, Jr., -- I'm sure would be here today if he 22 could -- he routinely appoints lead panel members in the 23 review process. One lead addresses the Part A, or exposure 24 component, and the other the Part B, or health effects 25 component. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 The leadpersons work with the staffs of ARB and 2 OEHHA during the development of the report. And the 3 leadpersons are responsible for providing scientific 4 guidance to the staff in developing the reports, including 5 reviews of preliminary drafts. So, there's a lot of 6 exchange in that process. 7 Lead members also attend public workshops during 8 the comment periods, and they often lead discussions of the 9 report at the SRP meetings themselves. SRP meetings are 10 public and subject to the Brown Public Meeting Act. 11 Meetings are publicly noticed, and the meeting is recorded 12 by a court reporter. 13 There's been discussion about the SRP's policy on 14 oral testimony at the public meetings. So, I'd like to say 15 a word or two about that. 16 Let me note that the Health and Safety Code allows 17 the SRP at its discretion to either accept or not accept 18 public comment during the open meetings. The SRP has chosen 19 not to accept oral testimony. And the reason is that we 20 believe that scientific issues are most appropriately 21 raised, and referenced, and defended in the written comment 22 period, which lays out the evidence and logic behind the 23 technical issues involved. 24 The State staff and SRP read all the comments very 25 carefully, discuss them at length, and make appropriate PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 changes at the appropriate time. This method's a routine 2 procedure for use in the scientific community. If you're 3 publishing a manuscript, submitting a grant proposal, things 4 of that type, it's all done by written comment back, written 5 critiques that need to be addressed in written form. 6 Also, the leadpersons for the documents, which 7 we've already described, attend the public workshops -- in 8 fact, some of the SRP panel members who are not leadpersons 9 attend the public workshops -- where the public and 10 interested parties can bring forth their arguments and 11 interact directly with them. So, there is that capability. 12 I'd also like to add that I chaired the Senate 13 Bill 1082, Calderon, Risk Assessment Advisory Committee for 14 Cal-EPA. RAAC addressed the issue of whether CalEPA's risk 15 assessments were based upon sound science and were 16 consistent across the boards and departments and with 17 Federal EPA. 18 I'd like to state that the State toxic air 19 contaminant identification program, including the SRP 20 review, were not only found to follow our recommendations in 21 the RAAC process, but were even used as an example of how 22 the other boards and departments should operate when dealing 23 with issues of this type. 24 So, the identification of inorganic lead has 25 followed this mandate by incorporating multiple public PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 comment periods and workshops and an independent review by 2 the SRP and by using sound scientific methods, knowledge, 3 and practice. 4 In conclusion, risk assessment helps the public, 5 industry, and regulators to make informed decisions about 6 air toxics. Risk assessment really represents a way to 7 organize -- a systematic way to organize information and to 8 allow society to look at risk and place them on a comparable 9 basis. 10 So, it's against this background that the lead 11 reports were reviewed and the SRP recommendations, which you 12 have before you, were based. 13 And I thank you for the opportunity to address 14 you, and I'd be happy to respond to any questions. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Seiber, I appreciate that 16 overview. I had a question about the oral versus written 17 comments issue. You feel and your colleagues feel more 18 comfortable with taking the commentary -- comments from the 19 public in writing, or the input from people who have 20 opinions on the matters that you're considering because of 21 the logical scientific discourse that would emerge, rather 22 than just having someone orally -- 23 DR. SEIBER: Yeah. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- address the -- 25 DR. SEIBER: I think the arguments could be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 developed in a way that is easier for a scientific peer 2 review process to handle. 3 In other words, in addition to the comments, 4 you've got the arguments behind the comments, you've got the 5 references to the literature all written down. Very often, 6 when we review documents of this type, we not only read the 7 comments, we go back and pick out the references and read 8 those as well, so we really understand what's going on. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. I appreciate that 10 perspective, but just wanted to raise it. And I know you're 11 well familiar with what, for example, we go through here at 12 our Board. 13 It's a different situation certainly but, you 14 know, people expect to have an opportunity to take a 15 microphone and to address us. Perhaps sometimes it's even 16 off the cuff, and you don't see as much thought and 17 consideration in developing an argument sometimes. But 18 that's what the system seems to demand, and that's how we 19 deal with it. 20 But you feel comfortable going about it in writing 21 and our colleagues do as well, just because it's just easier 22 to address and to focus the discussion. Do I have that 23 right? 24 DR. SEIBER: Right. You're correct. And we do 25 have the workshops, of course, that do allow the -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. The back and forth. 2 DR. SEIBER: -- back and forth. And let me just 3 say that in the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee, we 4 allowed public comment. Personally, I found it very 5 constructive, and I think the other panelists became 6 comfortable with it in time. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 8 DR. SEIBER: So, that's just a personal 9 perspective. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Okay. I didn't mean to 11 touch, by any means, a sore point. But I just wanted to get 12 a flavor for that and make sure I was on the same track. 13 Okay. Dr. Friedman. 14 DR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. Dr. Seiber, just a question. 15 Does the Scientific Review Panel request ad hoc 16 expert consultation on areas that fit between the cracks of 17 the expertise of the individual members of the review panel? 18 DR. SEIBER: We have discussed that at some 19 length, and the door is open to do that. Now, how 20 frequently we've done it in the past, I really can't answer. 21 Dr. Pitts would probably give you a much better historical 22 perspective on that. 23 But that opportunity's there, both for the SRP to 24 use that method and, secondly, for the State staffs, of 25 course, can consult experts and get opinion when they need PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 help in developing a document. 2 So, I think both those avenues are open. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, you can draw upon those 4 resources if you need to? 5 DR. SEIBER: Yes. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Does that to it for you 7 on that point? 8 DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I guess -- I understand that 9 you can. The real question was: Do you ever? Or when was 10 the last time the SRP actually requested another expert on a 11 subject to come and speak directly to them rather than 12 through staff to them? 13 DR. SEIBER: Dr. Witschi reminds me that, as 14 scientists, of course, we consult on an individual basis and 15 get opinions from other people. And we feel certainly free 16 to do that in the SRP process. But you're asking, more 17 formally, could we request an opinion on a particular piece 18 of science and get it back. 19 The answer is, yes, we can. And how often we've 20 done it, I'm sorry, I can't respond. 21 MS. SHIROMA: Perhaps I could give an example, Dr. 22 Friedman and Dr. Seiber. Genevieve Shiroma with Stationary 23 Source. 24 The most recent example is on our diesel 25 identification report, which is going through the process, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 where we, and OEHHA, U.S. EPA, we convened a large panel of 2 experts. And SRP members were in attendance at this 3 scientific workshop, where we heard from many experts on the 4 health studies for diesel exhaust, most specifically on the 5 epidemiology. And that was done in January of 1996. And 6 that's where we utilize this feature. 7 DR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. 8 MR. SCHEIBLE: I think it's fair to say that it 9 has been done occasionally. It is not a routine part of the 10 normal practice, because the need is not felt. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Dr. Seiber's comment, 12 though, bears some emphasis, I guess, which is, you feel 13 free to go ask colleagues and others that you've read or 14 heard about for your views, and you incorporate that into 15 your personal decision-making. 16 DR. SEIBER: Absolutely. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. 18 DR. SEIBER: Either directly or, again, through 19 the literature. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 21 DR. SEIBER: Which we have available. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Ms. Edgerton. 23 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Chairman, this is more in the 24 nature of a point of information about how you wish to 25 proceed in this matter. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 Do you want to hear from all -- 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, what I'd like to do is 3 thank -- we're going to come to the presentation in just a 4 minute. But we wanted to get -- we wanted to hear from Mr. 5 Kenny and Dr. Seiber a brief summary of the process of 6 identifying a substance as a TAC. 7 MS. EDGERTON: Well, my question's about the 8 process. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And so -- okay. Now would be a 10 good time to ask that question then. 11 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. It's just a point of 12 information. 13 I have reviewed all of the materials and have no 14 more space left in my brain, there's so much. But -- strike 15 that. 16 (Laughter.) 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'm sorry. 18 MS. EDGERTON: I withdraw that comment from the 19 record. I have lots of space left in my brain. 20 I note that, with respect to the process and the 21 objection about the inability to have oral comment before 22 the SRP -- are we together? That's what I'm talking about. 23 The SRP doesn't take oral testimony. 24 DR. SEIBER: Well, we have the ability to do it. 25 We have chosen not to. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 MS. EDGERTON: You've chosen not to. 2 I noted in our materials on page 0-20 that there 3 have been seven comment periods with respect to the listing 4 of lead; is that correct? 5 DR. SEIBER: Yes. 6 MS. SHIROMA: Yes, that's correct. 7 MS. EDGERTON: There have been three public 8 workshops at which oral testimony has been taken, although, 9 can you tell me, were those -- how many of those were before 10 the SRP, and how many were ARB, and how many were OEHHA? 11 Mr. Schoning? 12 MR. SCHONING: Ms. Edgerton, there were three 13 before the SRP and there were three ARB staff workshops. 14 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 15 With respect to the -- it's my understanding, from 16 looking at this, that the last SRP review was October 31st, 17 1996. Is that correct? 18 DR. SEIBER: That's when we formally considered 19 and formulated our recommendations which you have, yes. 20 MS. EDGERTON: Was that at a public forum? 21 DR. SEIBER: It's a public meeting. It's publicly 22 noticed. But it was not a meeting at which oral testimony 23 was accepted. 24 MS. EDGERTON: Okay. So, if I'm correct, that's 25 the meeting that we've gotten some objections about, it's PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 the October 31st meeting. 2 Now, my question is, if you know: Did the SRP 3 consider -- read and consider all of the information 4 presented to you up through October 31st, 1997? 5 What I'm getting at -- 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: '96, Lynne. 7 MS. EDGERTON: I mean 1996. 1996. Thank you for 8 the correction. 9 What I'm getting at is, was there a date, a cut- 10 off date, for material, such as May, 1996, whereby you said 11 anything written after that date or submitted after that 12 date will not be considered? Or did you consider sort of on 13 a rolling basis, go ahead and read everything that was 14 submitted; so, if there was a research paper that came out 15 after May, '96, but before October 31st, was it considered? 16 If it was submitted to you. 17 DR. SEIBER: Yeah. The short answer is we 18 considered everything that we had before us. But I quite 19 frankly don't remember the dates for submitting documents. 20 Maybe someone else should respond to that. 21 Genevieve? 22 MS. SHIROMA: Yes. The SRP was provided 23 everything submitted from 1991 through the October 31, '96 24 time frame. And our usual process is that we provide the 25 actual letters to the SRP members. We also summarize the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 letters, and we also respond to the comments. 2 So, at each iteration, the SRP receives all the 3 material and receives a discussion from the staff on the 4 material. 5 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. And I don't want to 6 beat this -- 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 8 MS. EDGERTON: -- too much, but I have one more, 9 one more point on this. 10 I noticed in our book, it says -- on page 0-20 of 11 the staff report -- (reading) In preparing this report, the 12 ARB staff report, we reviewed pertinent literature through 13 May, 1996. That -- if I understand what you were saying, 14 actually, that means when you first wrote this report, but 15 then because this report now includes all kinds of things 16 all the way up through October -- because there were letters 17 objecting to the report and it was amended, and you replied, 18 and there's all kinds of correspondence, and there were the 19 SRP findings, I'm assuming that what you mean is -- what do 20 you mean? 21 (Laughter.) 22 MS. SHIROMA: Okay. It means that we looked at 23 all the available references through that time period. 24 However, as you said, as we proceeded towards the October 25 31st meeting with the SRP, we did receive additional PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 comments in discussion and letters, and ultimately revised 2 our report, as appropriate, in response to a number of the 3 comments for the October 31st meeting. 4 So, the October 31st report that the SRP reviewed 5 did reflect changes and revisions from material came in 6 during that summertime period and prior to the October 31st 7 meeting. 8 MS. EDGERTON: So, Mr. Chairman, the thing that 9 seems to be -- the thing that needs to be revised, it seems 10 to me, is that they actually -- at the beginning of the 11 report, perhaps it should say, "In preparing this report, we 12 reviewed pertinent literature through May, 1996, and 13 subsequent thereto." 14 Is that fair? 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well -- 16 MS. EDGERTON: Because one of the issues here is 17 whether the most recent -- 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 19 MS. EDGERTON: -- material has been considered. 20 And I'm trying to get a handle on that. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And I think that we're going to 22 get -- good point. I think we can use that as a theme to 23 take up later. We have eight witnesses that have signed up. 24 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And so, we'll -- the relevant PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 question is going to be, did we miss something? Has 2 something new emerged, and should that and would that make a 3 different in what we're considering today? 4 And so, I think we'll come to that, and we'll get 5 to that at the right time. All right. 6 MS. EDGERTON: And, Ms. Walsh, could you monitor 7 this particular point to make sure that it's wrapped up in 8 the end, please? 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. 10 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You be a bookmark. 12 MS. WALSH: Okay. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. What I'd like 14 to do then is move along. I appreciate Mr. Kenny and Dr. 15 Seiber's presentation about the model that we have before us 16 for the development of risk assessments that ensure that 17 sound science and public participation go hand in hand. 18 I don't want to belabor the point about written 19 comments versus public, I think Mr. Schoning -- or oral 20 comments. Mr. Schoning's going to give us a summary along 21 the lines of what Lynne was asking about, about 22 opportunities for people to comment. 23 But the staff of our Board and OEHHA prepared 24 exposure and health assessments on inorganic lead. And the 25 SRP approved the report at its October 31 meeting as you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 mentioned, Lynne. 2 The SRP then prepared findings and submitted them 3 to me on December 12 of '96. And so, what I would like to 4 do is give Mr. Kenny a moment to introduce the item and 5 begin the staff's presentation, which will be followed by 6 Dr. Witschi, who will present the SRP's perspective 7 specifically on inorganic lead. 8 We'll also hear the report by Jim Schoning, as I 9 mentioned, on the staff's outreach work and where people had 10 an opportunity to provide comments. 11 With that, Mike, why don't you get us again -- get 12 us back on track, Mr. Kenny. 13 MR. KENNY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of 14 the Board. 15 Inorganic lead entered into the identification 16 process in February of 1991. The identification process has 17 followed an open, public process consisting of seven comment 18 periods, three workshops, three SRP meetings, and numerous 19 individual meetings with interested parties and the affected 20 industry. 21 Lead compounds are listed as federal hazardous air 22 pollutants, or HAPS, that were formally identified as toxic 23 air contaminants on April 8th, 1993. 24 However, the federal HAPS definition of lead 25 compounds does not include elemental lead. Elemental lead PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 is included in our proposed definition of inorganic lead 2 and, therefore, the State definition of lead is broader than 3 the federal one. 4 There are multiple sources of lead and lead 5 compounds exposure and through various media, such as water, 6 soil, and air. As you will hear shortly from OEHHA staff, 7 at relatively low air lead concentrations, the adverse 8 health effects that may occur are neurodevelopmental effects 9 in children, increases in blood pressure and related 10 cardiovascular conditions in adults, and possibly cancer. 11 The neurodevelopmental effects in children are of 12 the greatest public health significance, since a large 13 number of children could be affected. No threshold has been 14 clearly identified and the effects may be irreversible. 15 Statewide ambient levels of lead have decreased 16 substantially, over 98 percent, since the mid-1970s, 17 primarily due to the phasing out of leaded gasoline. 18 However, measurements of air concentrations of lead near 19 stationary sources of lead suggest that levels can be four 20 times higher than the statewide ambient average. 21 It is these near source exposures to lead that are 22 of the greatest concern, particularly to children at risk. 23 With that, I would like to call upon Ms. Jacqueline Johnson 24 of the Stationary Source Division and Dr. George Alexeeff of 25 OEHHA to present the exposure and health assessments for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 inorganic lead. 2 Ms. Johnson? 3 MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Chairman 4 Dunlap and members of the Board, as Mr. Kenny mentioned, we 5 are proposing a regulatory amendment to identify inorganic 6 lead as a toxic air contaminant. This proposed amendment is 7 a result of an evaluation by the ARB staff and the OEHHA on 8 the exposure and health effects of inorganic lead. 9 Today, I will speaking on the exposure of 10 inorganic lead. After my presentation, I will turn it over 11 to Dr. George Alexeeff of OEHHA to present the health 12 effects of inorganic lead. 13 First of all, what is inorganic lead? Lead is a 14 bluish-gray metal that occurs naturally in the earth's 15 crust. It has been used in a wide variety of products, 16 because it is readily shaped, molded, and resistant to 17 chemical corrosion. 18 Inorganic lead refers to lead compounds, including 19 elemental lead, which do not contain carbon. Lead salts, 20 for example, lead acetate are considered to be forms of 21 inorganic lead. 22 We focused our efforts on inorganic lead because 23 the most significant non-workplace outdoor air exposure to 24 lead in California is inorganic lead particulate matter. 25 For my presentation, I will be talking about the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 chronology of the identification of lead, its regulatory 2 status, sources of lead exposure in California, ambient 3 concentrations, recent regulations, risk management 4 guidance, economic assessment, and then I will provide a 5 summary. 6 Inorganic lead has been in the identification 7 phase since 1991, and we have had seven comment periods, 8 including the comment period that ends today. We have had 9 three public workshops and three Scientific Review Panel 10 meetings. 11 In the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990, lead 12 compounds are listed as Federal -- listed as hazardous air 13 pollutants, or HAPS. The federal definition of lead 14 compounds does not include elemental lead. Elemental lead 15 is metallic lead, or lead in its natural form. 16 In April, 1993, as required by Assembly Bill 2728, 17 the Board formally identified the 189 Federal HAPS as toxic 18 air contaminants, or TACs. Although lead compounds were 19 identified as TACs, our definition of inorganic lead 20 includes elemental lead; therefore, inorganic lead remained 21 in the identification process. 22 Inorganic lead has also remained in the 23 identification process in order to complete the 24 comprehensive risk assessment using updated science. Based 25 on information from local air pollution control districts PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 and surveys conducted by ARB staff, an estimated 180 tons of 2 inorganic lead are directly emitted to California's air each 3 year. 4 This estimate is based on the inventory year 1993 5 and also updated emission estimates for 1996. Inorganic 6 lead emissions may deposit and accumulate in soil for many 7 years. Lead contaminated particles, including dust, can be 8 re-entrained by wind and agricultural activities. We 9 estimate that resuspended lead contributes approximately 390 10 tons of lead per year to California's year. 11 The main inventory sources of outdoor emissions in 12 California include small aircraft fuel combustion, 13 stationary point and area source fuel combustion, industrial 14 metal melting, autobody refinishing and incineration. 15 A large part of the inventory is small aircraft 16 fuel combustion and is estimated to be 150 tons per year. 17 The ARB does not have the authority to regulate aircraft 18 fuel. The Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, has that 19 responsibility and is currently developing an unleaded fuel 20 specification for aircraft. 21 Stationary point sources contribute approximately 22 25 tons per year in lead emissions and area sources 23 contribute approximately 5. 24 Inorganic lead is emitted and atmospherically 25 transported in the form of small particles. These particles PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 are less than 10 micrometers in diameter. The expected 2 lifetime of the particles containing inorganic lead is up to 3 30 days. This lifetime varies with size, density, and 4 meteorological conditions. 5 Inorganic lead particulate matter is removed from 6 the air primarily by wet and dry deposition. After removal 7 from the atmosphere and then deposited in the ground and 8 soil, inorganic lead may be resuspended into the atmosphere 9 by wind and traffic. 10 As shown in the graph, air lead has decreased 11 significantly, about 98 percent, since the mid-1970s. We 12 are now well below the State ambient air quality standard 13 for lead. This decrease is due to the phase-out of leaded 14 gasoline and the introduction of catalyst-equipped vehicles. 15 As a result, the State is now in attainment for State and 16 federal ambient lead standards at all our ambient monitoring 17 locations. 18 The statewide ambient concentration for 19 atmospheric lead is based on ambient monitoring data for 27 20 sites in the ARB's criteria pollutant monitoring network. 21 The statewide population weighted annual average 22 concentration for inorganic lead is 0.06 micrograms per 23 cubic meter based on 1990 to 1991 data. 24 More recent measurements of ambient concentrations 25 are expected to be on the order of 0.02 micrograms per cubic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 meter. 2 Near source concentrations are based on data from 3 monitors in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 4 since 1992, at two industrial metal melting facilities. 5 These measurements show near source annual average ambient 6 concentrations on the order of 0.24 micrograms per cubic 7 meter, or about four times the statewide ambient average. 8 While statewide ambient concentrations are very 9 low, near source exposures from facilities may still present 10 a potential public health concern, especially to children 11 already at risk. 12 On average, indoor air concentrations are 13 generally lower than outdoor air concentrations. Sources of 14 exposure indoors are from activities that disturb lead-based 15 paint, such as remodeling, paint removal, or intake of 16 outdoor air. These activities can release large amounts of 17 lead-bearing particles into the air. 18 Other activities that may cause higher 19 concentrations of lead are resuspension of lead-bearing 20 dust, second-hand smoke, and certain hobbies that use melted 21 lead or lead glazes. 22 In addition to air, other sources -- other 23 exposures to inorganic lead may be present in water, soil, 24 foods, dust, and lead-based paint chips. As such, it is a 25 multimedia pollutant. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 Most cases of chronic lead poisoning in children 2 result from the ingestion of lead-based paint and 3 contaminated soil. The greatest opportunity for lead-based 4 paint exposure occurs when painted surfaces are refinished 5 or remodeled. 6 Homes built prior to 1950 may contain paint with 7 lead concentrations as high as 50 percent lead. In 1978, 8 the Consumer Product Safety Commission limited the 9 manufacture of lead-based paint. 10 The State and the South Coast Air Quality 11 Management District have taken more recent actions that have 12 reduced exposure to lead in California. In January, 1992, 13 California completed the phase-out of leaded additives in 14 gasoline for use in on-road vehicles and limited the trace 15 amount of lead in fuel to less than 0.05 grams per gallon. 16 Also in 1992, the South Coast Air Quality 17 Management District adopted Rule 1420, emission standards 18 for lead. This rule requires that facilities do not release 19 emissions beyond the property line of the facility that will 20 cause ambient concentrations of lead to exceed the State 21 ambient lead standard. 22 In January, 1993, the Board adopted the nonferrous 23 metal melting air toxic control measure. Examples of these 24 facilities include aluminum smelting and brass and bronze 25 foundries. Although the control measure addresses the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 emissions of nickel, cadmium, and arsenic, emissions of lead 2 are reduced as a side benefit. In general, these rules 3 result in a 99 percent reduction of uncontrolled stack 4 emissions from affected facilities. 5 As I indicated previously, lead is a multimedia 6 pollutant. Exposure can occur through many pathways besides 7 the air, including water, soil, foods, dust, and ingestion 8 of lead-based paint chips. 9 Due to the multiple sources of lead exposure and 10 the interrelationship of the various media, risk managers 11 will need to examine all sources of lead to determine the 12 most effective manner for risk management. 13 Our plan, if inorganic lead is identified as a 14 TAC, is to develop risk management guidelines, with the 15 assistance of OEHHA staff, that provide a means to evaluate 16 mitigation strategies. This will be developed in an open, 17 public process with the participation of all stakeholders, 18 including OEHHA, the Department of Health Services, air 19 pollution control districts, affected industry, and other 20 interested parties. 21 The identification of inorganic lead as a TAC will 22 not require any private person or business to incur any 23 costs. If and when the need for an appropriate degree of 24 controls for inorganic lead are considered by the ARB during 25 the risk management process, all costs of compliance will be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 described and considered. 2 We do not anticipate any adverse economic impacts 3 on businesses, because the recommended OEHHA cancer risk 4 number for inorganic lead is approximately seven times lower 5 than the cancer risk number that has been used historically 6 by the local air pollution control districts and the 7 California Environmental Protection Agency for cancer risk 8 assessments. For noncancer, we and the OEHHA propose to 9 develop further risk management guidance in this area. 10 In summary, ambient air lead has decreased 11 significantly since the mid-1970s, primarily due to the 12 phase-out of leaded gasoline and the introduction of 13 catalyst-equipped vehicles. Recent regulations for 14 stationary sources have also contributed to a decrease in 15 ambient concentrations. 16 However, near source exposures from facilities are 17 higher than general ambient exposures. Near source average 18 concentrations can be about four times the State average. 19 As such, near source exposures may still present a potential 20 public health concern for children already at risk. 21 Due to the multiple sources of lead exposure and 22 the interrelationship of the various media, we will need to 23 examine all sources of lead to determine the most effective 24 manner for risk management during the risk management phase. 25 If inorganic lead is identified as a TAC, we plan PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 to develop risk management guidelines, with the assistance 2 of OEHHA staff, that provides a means to evaluate mitigation 3 options. These guidelines will be developed using a public 4 process with public participation from all interested 5 parties. 6 I will now introduce Dr. George Alexeeff of OEHHA, 7 who will describe the health effects of inorganic lead. 8 Dr. Alexeeff? 9 DR. ALEXEEFF: Thank you, Jackie. Good morning, 10 Chairman Dunlap, members of the Board, members of the 11 public. 12 Today, I'll be discussing our offices' report on 13 the health effects of inorganic lead. But first, I would 14 like too briefly summarize some background information, some 15 of which you've already heard. 16 First, lead is ubiquitous. I'm sorry. If I could 17 just get my glasses. 18 (Laughter.) 19 DR. ALEXEEFF: I apologize. I'm not used to this 20 age thing. Okay. 21 Lead is ubiquitous. That is, there are multiple 22 sources of lead throughout the environment. 23 Second, lead is persistent. Once lead is 24 introduced into the environment, it does not degrade. It 25 remains largely in soil or dust. And finally, lead is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 toxic. We know that lead is toxic, particularly at 2 high-dose levels. 3 The focus of the report is, what happens at the 4 lower concentrations? The U.S. Centers for Disease Control 5 health-based level of concern has dropped consistently since 6 1978 as new information became available. 7 Also, in 1986, the U.S. EPA promulgated a 90 8 percent reduction in lead in gasoline on the basis of three 9 major points. One is a strong association between air lead 10 and blood lead, the effects of lead on intelligence and 11 behavior in children, and the effects of lead on the 12 cardiovascular system of adults. Since then, there have 13 been many additional studies confirming these effects. 14 So, what does our report look at? Well, we've 15 focused really on seven issues. Lead is probably one of the 16 most studied toxic substances that's available. So, you 17 have to focus one's analysis. 18 We looked at the effect on intelligence in 19 children, since that is one that has been reported at lower 20 levels. We looked at the effect on cardiovascular disease 21 in adults. We looked at the relationship between air lead 22 and blood lead. We evaluated baseline blood lead levels. 23 We determined a way to assess the risk to children. We 24 looked at the cancer risk from lead, and we also came to the 25 conclusion for the need to develop risk management PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 guidelines through a partnership of interested parties. I'd 2 like to discuss these briefly. 3 First of all, lead's effect on intelligence in 4 children: High lead levels are known to harm the nervous 5 system of children. More than 25 peer-reviewed children's 6 studies show a quantitative link between blood lead levels 7 and decreased intelligence as measured by I.Q. And many of 8 these studies are at low lead levels. 9 Low lead levels, in this case, we're talking about 10 10 micrograms per deciliter. Okay. A threshold below which 11 no adverse effects are expected to occur has not been 12 identified. There may be one, but no one has identified it. 13 OEHHA agrees with the U.S. Centers for Disease 14 Control guidelines that 10 micrograms per deciliter is a 15 level of concern for children, and that is really the 16 fundamental basis of our report -- trying to protect 17 children from exceeding 10 micrograms per deciliter. 18 As blood lead levels rise above 10 micrograms per 19 deciliter, the effects on intelligence become more 20 pronounced. And our findings concur with those of the U.S. 21 EPA, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National 22 Academy of Sciences. 23 Now, briefly on cardiovascular disease, we 24 evaluated over 15 peer-reviewed human studies and also 25 meta-analyses in our report. A meta-analysis is a study PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 when you look at the studies in total. 2 These studies indicate a weak association between 3 blood lead and increased blood pressure in adults. 4 Increased blood pressure may be due to a number of factors. 5 The studies we reviewed took into account many of these 6 factors. 7 An increase in blood pressure may raise the risk 8 for more serious heart problems and death. And our findings 9 concur with those of the National Academy of Sciences. 10 I'd like to emphasize that, as Jackie did in her 11 presentation, that lead is a multimedia problem. That is, 12 the blood lead levels depend not only on exposure to lead in 13 air, but also exposure to lead in food, soil, water, et 14 cetera. 15 Almost a dozen studies -- including epidemiologic 16 studies in children and adult human chamber studies -- were 17 used by us to help calculate how much air lead gets into the 18 blood. And we also used a model developed by the U.S. EPA 19 to calculate blood lead levels in children. 20 The results of the models, both our model and U.S. 21 EPA's model, are consistent with each other and they're also 22 consistent with the findings of U.S. EPA and the World 23 Health Organization. 24 I'll briefly touch on California blood lead 25 levels. Blood lead levels have dramatically decreased since PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 the reduction of lead in gasoline. That is definitely good 2 news. Even though blood lead levels have decreased, the 3 report estimates approximately 10 percent of the children in 4 California had blood lead levels above the level of concern. 5 And this percentage is based upon what's called the NHANES 6 III data, which is a nationwide database. 7 The report also provides a range of children above 8 10 from about 4.8 to 11.5, depending upon the exact 9 analysis. 10 More recent data suggest that the proportion of 11 children above the level of concern may have decreased below 12 this 10. But the report still provides numbers that are 13 within our range of 4.8 to 11.5. 14 Now, in terms of assessing the risk to children, 15 exposure to the statewide average air lead concentration is 16 a relatively small contributor to the total blood lead 17 burden in children. So, this is confirming the reduction of 18 lead in gasoline. 19 However, there are certain groups of children who 20 are at greater risk; for example, those of lower income 21 living in large urban areas, living in older homes, or of 22 African American descent. 23 The report provides models on how to assess the 24 risk from localized exposures, taking into account exposure 25 from non-air sources as well as air sources. And the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 analysis is again focused on how many children may go above 2 10 micrograms per deciliter, the level of concern. 3 We also examined the cancer risk from lead. 4 Animal studies report kidney tumors following lead 5 ingestion. There is inadequate evidence of cancer in 6 humans, which basically means it's a data gap. We just 7 don't have enough information. 8 The State of California has identified several 9 lead compounds as carcinogens for purposes of Proposition 10 65. The U.S. EPA classifies lead and lead compounds as 11 probable human carcinogens. The International Agency for 12 Research on Cancer has classified lead as a probable human 13 carcinogen. And I believe that should be "possible" human 14 carcinogen (speaking of slide). 15 And then, unlike other toxic air contaminants 16 brought before the Board, however, the cancer risk is not 17 the most significant health effect. The most significant 18 health effect is the effect on children. 19 In conclusion, based on the findings of 20 neurodevelopmental effects in children, elevations of blood 21 pressure in adults, and potential carcinogenicity, OEHHA 22 finds that ambient inorganic lead is an air pollutant that 23 may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or 24 increase in serious illness. 25 Furthermore, a threshold has not been clearly PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 identified for neurodevelopmental effects in children, 2 effects on blood pressure in adults, or carcinogenicity in 3 experimental animals. 4 And, as a final point, risk management guidance we 5 believe should be developed to assist the risk managers to 6 identify and address the risks from exposure to lead. 7 Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, George, appreciate 9 that overview. 10 We'll hold for just a moment for the court 11 reporter. 12 (Thereupon, there was a pause in the 13 proceedings to allow the reporter to 14 replenish her paper.) 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Dr. Witschi. Do you 16 want to give your remarks from where you're seated, or do 17 you want to go to the podium? 18 DR. WITSCHI: No. I prefer to sit here. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Dr. Witschi, you're a 20 medical doctor, and are currently the Professor of 21 Toxicology for the Department of Molecular Biosciences of 22 the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of 23 California at Davis. Is that correct? 24 DR. WITSCHI: That's correct. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You're also certified by the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 American Board of Toxicology and the Academy of 2 Toxicological Sciences. Welcome. 3 DR. WITSCHI: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good 4 morning, members of the Board. 5 I have been one of the leadpersons, along with Dr. 6 James Pitts, for the SRP on inorganic lead. I was the 7 leadperson for Part B, Health Assessment; whereas, Dr. Pitts 8 was the leadperson for Part A, Exposure Assessment. 9 Dr. Jim Seiber, an atmospheric chemist, is here 10 today regarding the Part A. The leadperson for Part B was 11 previously Dr. Charles Becker, who has moved to Colorado. 12 As the staff has already pointed out, the report 13 was initiated in 1991, and has been through many revisions 14 and discussed at three panel meetings. 15 The first two were in 1993 and 1994. After some 16 clarifications, the Panel -- after considering Part A, Part 17 B, and Part C, the public comments -- approved both the Part 18 A prepared by the ARB staff, and the Part B prepared by the 19 OEHHA staff at our meeting on October 31st of last year. 20 The Panel views both assessments, exposure and 21 health effects, as scientifically sound. I'd like to 22 summarize the Panel's key findings. 23 Inorganic lead is the second proposed toxic air 24 contaminant considered by the Panel where the noncancer 25 health effects are the main concern. The first one was PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 ethyl parathion. 2 The two noncancer health effects of most concern 3 are neurodevelopmental effects in children and an increase 4 in blood pressure and related cardiovascular effects in 5 adults. 6 At low to moderate blood levels, the 7 neurodevelopmental effects in children include decreased 8 intelligence, short-term memory loss, reading and spelling 9 underachievement, impairment of visual motor functioning, 10 poor perception, disruptive classroom behavior, and impaired 11 reaction time. 12 The effects on intelligence occur above and 13 possibly below a blood lead level of 10 micrograms per 14 deciliter, the level of concern identified by the Centers 15 for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences. 16 Peer-reviewed studies in the open literature have 17 also shown that lead may increase both systolic and 18 diastolic blood pressure and cardiovascular adverse effects. 19 OEHHA staff has calculated a unit risk for mortality from 20 cardiovascular disease of 4.6 times 10 to the minus 4 per 21 microgram per cubic meter. The Panel agrees with this 22 calculation. 23 This upper bound estimate of 4.6 times 10 to the 24 minus 4 per microgram per cubic meter can be translated to 25 approximately 100 deaths annually. The Panel would like to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 remind the Board that these estimates are based on the 2 average ambient concentrations. 3 Near source elevated exposures to lead could 4 result in a significant increase, perhaps as much as a 5 fourfold increase in relative risk for neurodevelopmental 6 effects, increased blood pressure, and related 7 cardiovascular effects. Small populations in isolated 8 pockets might be thus at the higher risk than the general 9 population. 10 Based on all the available scientific information, 11 as presented in this risk assessment document, the Panel 12 believes that inorganic lead qualifies and thus should be 13 identified as a toxic air contaminant, including that no 14 threshold level can be identified. 15 The Panel recognizes the fact that other sources 16 of lead exposure may be much more important than airborne 17 lead at current ambient levels. Nevertheless, the Panel 18 strongly believes that any risk management effort should be 19 directed at making sure that future ambient and near-source 20 inorganic lead concentrations do not increase above current 21 ambient levels. 22 Thank you very much. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Before we go into 24 the questions, I'd like to ask Jim Schoning to take a moment 25 and emphasize the process that was followed in order to for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 us to get here. We saw a slide earlier that staff 2 presented, which I think gave a pretty good overview or 3 framework. 4 But, Jim, why don't you embellish upon that just 5 for a moment. 6 MR. SCHONING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 7 members. 8 ARB staff performed extensive public outreach on 9 the matter that's before you. That process began in August 10 of 1992. And since then, there have been a total seven 11 public comment periods, with each lasting at least 35 days, 12 and totaling approximately 365 days. Today's Board hearing 13 concludes the seventh comment period. 14 ARB staff itself conducted three public workshops, 15 one on April 21st, 1993, one on the 20th of May of 1994, and 16 a third on the 7th of March, 1996. 17 The Scientific Review Panel itself held public 18 meetings on October 21st, 1993, on the 14th of January, 19 1994, and the last one on October 31st of 1996, when the 20 Panel recommended that inorganic lead be listed as a toxic 21 air contaminant. 22 Workshop notices and draft reports to each of 23 these events were mailed out to more than 500 interested 24 parties. 25 In addition to the above, staff has held four PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 meetings and at least 11 teleconferences since 1991, and 2 mainly with representatives of lead industry. 3 As you've heard, it was only four years ago when 4 the Legislature and Governor Wilson addressed the risk 5 assessment of toxic air contaminants by enacting Senate Bill 6 1082, authored by Senator Calderon. 7 This measure provided, in part, for the creation 8 of a risk assessment advisory committee, whose purpose 9 includes reviewing the policies, methods, and guidelines 10 that are followed in the identification and assessment of 11 chemical toxicity in order to assure that risk assessment 12 reports are based on sound scientific knowledge, methods, 13 and practices that Dr. Seiber noted. 14 In the 1996 report of this advisory committee, the 15 committee found that ARB's toxic air contaminant 16 identification program, including the SRP review, operates 17 in full accordance with these requirements. 18 As you have already heard and will likely hear 19 again, there is controversy surrounding the health 20 assessment portion of the report, not only with regard to 21 the content of that portion, but with regard to the process. 22 As to the concern over process, the workshops, 23 meetings, and conference calls were designed to keep 24 industry up to date and to provide opportunities to all 25 parties to prepare and to offer comments at each step along PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 the way. 2 Indeed, one of the workshops was postponed at the 3 request of the lead industry in order to ensure that all 4 interested parties would be able to attend. Nonetheless, we 5 expect that you will hear today from industry about these 6 matters that are still at issue from their viewpoint. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Schoning. 8 I appreciate that overview. 9 Relative to the comment you made about the give 10 and take of the process, the industry requested a delay and 11 received that? They received that accommodation from the 12 SRP in the process? 13 MR. SCHONING: Yes. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good. Any questions 15 relative to what we've heard thus far before we get into the 16 witness list? 17 We have eight witnesses that have signed up. 18 Would the Board like me to just go ahead and start on those 19 witnesses? 20 Dr. Friedman? Okay. 21 MS. EDGERTON: Just briefly. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: A quick one, Lynne. 23 MS. EDGERTON: It doesn't need to be answered at 24 this minute, Mr. Chairman. But I did note that there seemed 25 to be some difference of opinion, and I've been listening to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 the discussion about it, with respect to the actual exposure 2 of California children. With respect to those levels, I 3 noted that there -- was referenced in some of NRDC's 4 comments, a study in Oakland of 50 percent of the children 5 were exposed to levels above -- 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: NRDC's here, so we'll hear 7 directly from them. 8 MS. EDGERTON: Yeah. And then also I noticed the 9 lead industry folks are saying, in their letter, they're way 10 down to 2 to 4 percent. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 12 MS. EDGERTON: So, I'll be listening very 13 carefully to what has actually been determined with respect 14 to our children. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 16 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Well, those witnesses 18 that are coming up, if you'd work on illuminating that point 19 for us, I'd be grateful. 20 Mr. Schoning, do you have something else to add 21 before we take the witnesses? 22 MR. SCHONING: The record should show that the 23 delay in the conduct of one of the workshops was on the part 24 of the ARB staff and not on the part of the Scientific 25 Review Panel. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Good. Okay. 2 Thank you, Jim. 3 Why don't we move into the witness list. Mr. 4 McHenry from the Lead Industries Association, Battery 5 Council International, and GNB. 6 Tom, it's my understanding that you have a handful 7 of your colleagues from the Lead Industries Association. 8 I'll let you serve as floor manager for that testimony. But 9 I'll ask you to be on the ball relative to not repeating 10 yourself and what not so we can move this along fairly 11 quickly. 12 So, Tom, I guess the first four witnesses -- 13 yourself, Jane Luxton, Dr. Alan Kaufman, and Jim Marzolino 14 are all yours. 15 Mr. Aviles, is he with you as well? 16 MR. MC HENRY: Yeah. Actually, we are going to 17 try to limit our comments to three individuals, Mr. 18 Chairman. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: The first three? 20 MR. MC HENRY: Mr. Marzolino, Mr. Aviles, Mr. 21 Roper, and Mr. Bryson will withdraw their request. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. So, help me out here. 23 Roper we'll remove, Bryson we'll remove. 24 MR. MC HENRY: Marzolino. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. And Aviles? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 MR. MC HENRY: And Aviles. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. So, those four. And so, 3 you'll focus on the other three? Okay. Very good, Tom. 4 Thank you. 5 That's the best news I've received in many, many 6 Board meetings. I appreciate that. All right. So, we'll 7 give you adequate time to cover the ground. Okay. Thank 8 you. 9 MR. MC HENRY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members 10 of the Board, members of the staff of OEHHA, ARB, the 11 Scientific Review Panel, members of the public. 12 My name is Tom McHenry, I'm an attorney with a law 13 firm in Los Angeles. Im here for three groups, the Lead 14 Industries Association, the Battery Council International, 15 and GNB Technologies, Incorporated. 16 As Chairman Dunlap's indicated, we're going to 17 have several of our witnesses yield their time to us, so I 18 can limit it to three presenters, myself -- and I will be 19 relatively brief, and I'm starting my stopwatch right now. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 21 MR. MC HENRY: Jane Luxton and Dr. Alan Kaufman. 22 And we're going to try to keep our presentation down to 40 23 minutes, and we'll try to do it in less than that. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Fine. 25 MR. MC HENRY: First of all, before we start, let PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 me just suggest that -- except for those of you who walked 2 to the hearing today, and at least one brave ARB staff 3 person I saw putting a bicycle in the locker outside, most 4 of you came by vehicle, by motorized vehicle which probably 5 had a lead-acid battery in it. Even if it was a bus, it was 6 started with a lead-acid battery. 7 That technology may or may not be the technology 8 of the future for electric vehicles, but it's certainly part 9 of the technology that starts vehicles today. That battery 10 was very likely made here in the State of California, and it 11 very likely and almost certainly will be recycled here in 12 the State of California. 13 There are numerous other uses of lead in our 14 society. And we're not going to burden you with talking 15 about those today. What we want to do is focus on some very 16 particular issues with regard to the staff report. Much of 17 what's in the staff report -- both the exposure assessment 18 and the health report -- we have no objection to. 19 First of all and most important of all, we do not 20 oppose the listing of inorganic lead as a toxic air 21 contaminant. So, we frankly urge the Board today to go 22 ahead and list inorganic lead as a toxic air contaminant. 23 And frankly, except for some definitional issues between 24 elemental lead and inorganic lead, which in our view are 25 relatively unimportant, inorganic lead could have been PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 listed by this Board as far back as April 8th of 1993, when 2 that first list was approved. 3 So, we certainly do not oppose that listing here 4 today, and hope that you will at the end of this meeting go 5 ahead and list inorganic lead as a toxic air contaminant. 6 Secondly, we do not oppose the strict regulation 7 of lead emissions. At higher levels of exposure, there's 8 certainly no doubt that lead is toxic and has significant 9 health impacts. And we're in favor of strict regulation. 10 In fact, the companies who are here today are very proud of 11 their health and safety standards. We believe we've 12 established standards for the industry, and we encourage 13 that kind of strict regulation. 14 In fact, as you've already heard from Jackie 15 Johnson, the removal of lead from the air is a great -- has 16 been a great success story. It has been one of the great 17 success stories from an environmental standpoint. 18 In fact, U.S. EPA Administrator Carol Browner, the 19 present Administrator of the U.S. EPA, recently stated -- 20 and I'm quoting her -- that, quote, "The ongoing reduction 21 in blood lead levels is a great American success story of 22 environmental and public health." 23 And, in fact, a recent advisory panel recommended 24 to the U.S. EPA that the ambient standard of 1.5 micrograms 25 per cubic meter not be lowered any further. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 We're also pleased, as you've already heard from 2 Jackie Johnson of the ARB staff, that the overall amount of 3 lead emitted in the atmosphere in the State of California 4 has shrunk. In fact, due to comments that we submitted to 5 this Board, the estimate of the amount of lead emitted from 6 the stationary sources was cut back by a factor of 7 approximately 90 percent. 8 So, due, in fact, to certain of the existing lead 9 regulatory measures in the South Coast Air Quality 10 Management District and the Bay Area, we have a much better 11 idea of how much lead goes into the atmosphere, and we're 12 very pleased that stationary sources are not the -- not the 13 most significant contributor; in fact, they're a much lower 14 contributor than any other -- than the other major source, 15 which you heard about today. 16 We're also pleased that the statewide ambient 17 average, the amount of lead that's just in the air around us 18 in this room and industrial areas, and urban areas, has 19 dropped. It's already much, much lower than the ambient 20 standard. And it's already two times lower. And, as you've 21 heard -- and actually, some of that was news to me, Jackie, 22 about the level dropping down to .02. We heard it might 23 drop as low as .03. 24 The ambient standard, which was used as the basis 25 for the drafting of this report was .06 micrograms per cubic PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 meter. Based on what Jackie Johnson was saying from the ARB 2 staff, that number is going to drop down to .02. So, we've 3 had a two-thirds drop in ambient air quality level in the 4 State of California over the somewhat lengthy, arduous five- 5 year period that this rulemaking has lasted. So, that's 6 frankly more good news in our view. 7 Additionally, and I just emphasize that the 8 staff's pointed out that air lead is a minor contributor to 9 children's exposure. That's a direct quote from the 10 Executive Summary in the staff report. And there is a 11 statewide lead poisoning project to end lead poisoning in 12 the State of California. And it's reached the same 13 conclusion. That's still in draft form, unfortunately, but 14 it - it is a widely shared conclusion. 15 The only issue that we are bringing to your 16 attention today, as members of the Board, is our concern 17 about several of the conclusions which are reached in the 18 staff report about health impacts at low levels of exposure. 19 We believe that the report, as it stands, fails to do two 20 things, and we have a recommendation that we're going to 21 give you to solve that. It's not going to require us all to 22 assemble in a room again. 23 Number one, it fails to reflect the degree of 24 uncertainty of health effects at low levels of exposure. 25 So, we believe that uncertainty needs to be reinserted in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 the staff report. And we're going to suggest to you how 2 that can be done. 3 Secondly -- 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Tom, on that point. George's -- 5 Dr. Alexeeff's comments earlier, when he talked about 6 uncertainties, was he on point with that from your 7 industry's view? 8 Because it seemed to me he emphasized that point-- 9 MR. MC HENRY: Yeah. Let me -- 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- in a fair amount -- 11 MR. MC HENRY: -- give you a -- 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- of detail. 13 MR. MC HENRY: Yeah. Let me give you the quick 14 answer to that. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 16 MR. MC HENRY: And you can ask Jane Luxton and Dr. 17 Kaufman. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I don't want to derail your 19 presentation, but I paid particular attention to his 20 emphasis there about probable and what that might mean. 21 MR. MC HENRY: Yeah. You're right on the issue. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 23 MR. MC HENRY: You're right on point. Let me just 24 say briefly, Chairman Dunlap, that we don't believe that the 25 existing report reflects an adequate level of uncertainty PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 and accurately describes the scientific controversy. 2 There was an earlier version of this report 3 delivered by the staff of OEHHA to the Scientific Review 4 Panel on October 31 of 1996 that we thought did a better job 5 of it. And our job today is to convince that that's the 6 report that you should approve. 7 In that regard -- and I'm about to finish my 8 comments and introduce Ms. Luxton -- I want to direct your 9 attention -- and, Ms. Edgerton, as the law member of the 10 Board, your attention most certainly -- to two provisions of 11 the California Health and Safety Code regarding the listing 12 of toxic air contaminants, TACs, by this Board. 13 The first is California Health and Safety Code 14 Section 39662, subparagraph (d), which your counsel can 15 obviously find for you, which states that in evaluating the 16 nature of the adverse health effect and the range of risk to 17 humans from exposure to a substance, the State Board shall 18 utilize scientific criteria which are protective of public 19 health and consistent with current scientific data. 20 So, you have a double task under the statute, 21 which is to be protective of public health, but to do that 22 consistent with scientific -- current scientific data. 23 Don't get me wrong. We're not suggesting you 24 shouldn't be health protective. We are urging you to do so. 25 But we're saying that that health protective measure must be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 taken consistent with current scientific data. 2 Secondly, we would direct you to Section 39650, 3 also subparagraph (d). That's California Health and Safety 4 Code 39650(d), which states that in the Legislature's 5 findings in adopting the toxic air contaminant law, the 6 identification and regulation of toxic air contaminants 7 should utilize the best available scientific evidence 8 gathered from the public, private industry, the scientific 9 community, and federal, State, and local agencies. 10 So, that's your statutory standard. So, I think 11 you'll learn in the comments that we're going to provide you 12 right now, the current report in front of you does not fully 13 meet that statutory standard. 14 You're going to first hear from Jane Luxton, who 15 is an attorney in Washington, D.C., with the Seeger, Potter 16 law firm. She serves as counsel to the Lead Industries 17 Association, and she'll explain to you why the best 18 available scientific evidence is not met -- that standard is 19 not met with regard to the findings on neurotoxicity and 20 blood pressure. 21 Secondly -- and probably of most interest to this 22 Board or to anyone who's ever had an interest in I.Q. 23 issues, Dr. Alan Kaufman, who is one of the foremost 24 authorities on I.Q. testing, is going to describe his 25 examination of the research methodologies of these lead PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 studies to explain why the conclusions that the staff 2 proposes are unwarranted. 3 And then, I think what we'll do is Jane will 4 finish up at the very end of my reminding you of the 5 suggestion we have about how this could be remedied, and you 6 can move ahead today with the listing of lead as a toxic air 7 contaminant. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Are you going to be available if 9 we have questions? 10 MR. MC HENRY: I'll be right here and will be 11 available for questions. And you shouldn't hesitate to ask 12 questions during the presentation. But I think we want to 13 try to get through it and honor our time commitment. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. That's fine. Thank you. 15 MR. MC HENRY: Let me ask Jane Luxton to come up 16 to the podium. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ms. Luxton, Mr. McHenry has set 18 you up now. You've got a task ahead of you here. 19 MS. LUXTON: I get to answer all the questions? 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. 21 MS. LUXTON: Well, I hope I can do that to your 22 satisfaction. And I have some points I want to bring to 23 your attention. And I really appreciate the opportunity to 24 be able to speak to you. 25 I appreciate the opportunity to be able to talk to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 you about these issues. They are very important to us. And 2 I want to stress at the outcome (sic), this is not a matter 3 of talking about high blood lead exposures. It's not a 4 matter of talking about whether lead is good or bad. This 5 is a question of how far can you push scientific research 6 into drawing conclusions and whether or not they're 7 supported by the science that is the best available science, 8 which is the statutory standard here. 9 And I really want to limit everything I say today 10 to that one point, because I think that's all that this is 11 about. And let me start by saying, I guess I had a prepared 12 way I was going to address this to you, but I think it would 13 be more instructive to you, better use of the time if I 14 respond to what the staff has said and try to tell you why I 15 think they're mistaken in believing that the preponderance 16 of the best available evidence -- and I guess in saying 17 that, let me focus my remarks. I'm talking about today's 18 date, April 24th, 1997. 19 And when we talk about the best available 20 scientific evidence, I think that means the best today. And 21 it doesn't mean the best in 1993. It doesn't mean -- what 22 was the date -- May, 1996. It means now. 23 And this is an evolving area of research. And I 24 think you will see, after I go through some of the newest 25 findings, that what is occurring here is not greater PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 certainty in these findings, but less. 2 Now, if there were a clear-cut effect at low blood 3 level effects -- low blood lead levels -- it's a mouthful -- 4 what do you think we would see? The studies would start to 5 show more confirmation of it, not less. And in a minute, 6 I'd like to take you through and show you what the studies 7 are showing. 8 But before I do that, maybe let's just -- if you 9 wouldn't mind, click that off for a second (speaking of 10 overhead projector), because I want to honor what I said, 11 and that is respond to the staff before I tell you what I 12 had planned to say. 13 The staff says that the preponderance of the 14 evidence shows that there is a link at low blood lead 15 levels. Well, Dr. Alexeeff said, and you'll see it in Part 16 C, page 538, that they rely on three sources -- U.S. EPA, 17 and the date that George mentioned was 1986; the National 18 Academy of Sciences -- and if you'll look that up, you'll 19 find it's 1993 -- and the CDC. And if you'll look that one 20 up, you'll find it's 1991. 21 In 1991, EPA also said to the Organization for 22 Economic and Cooperative Development, the OECD, an 23 international organization, that was specifically examining 24 the health effects of low level lead, EPA wrote this: 25 "There remains uncertainty" -- I'm quoting -- ". . .remains PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 uncertainty in the global scientific community about the 2 causal relationship between low level lead exposure and 3 certain health effects in children. The issue of 4 neurological effects at these levels is controversial." 5 Close quote. That's low levels. That's what EPA said in 6 1991. 7 Since 1993, the controversy has grown. And the 8 other thing, if you look in the staff's report, you will see 9 that they are basing their conclusions on five prospective 10 studies. What a prospective study is, instead of looking at 11 a snapshot in time, you take a large group of children and 12 you study them for years on end. And you look at -- you try 13 to find all the influences on their health. 14 So, you look at what their lead -- blood lead 15 level would be. You look at what their parents' I.Q. would 16 be -- or is rather. You look at what their socioeconomic 17 status us, whether their mother has an alcohol problem, 18 whether she takes drugs. Because every one of those things 19 I just mentioned can completely swamp the effect of lead in 20 a study. 21 And if you don't rule them out, they're called 22 confounding variables. And I think Dr. Kaufman will give 23 you a fuller explanation of how those confounding variables 24 have not been properly accounted for in a lot of these 25 studies and why that is causing this increased controversy. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 Well, why? Why would there be increased 2 controversy? There's scientists studying this. You heard 3 25 studies, George says. Because, as time goes on, the 4 methods of taking the blood samples are getting better, so 5 they have a more accurate reading of what the blood lead 6 levels are. 7 Instead of taking a finger prick, they now take a 8 venous sample, and it's more accurate. This is a blood 9 pressure example, but it also applies in the area of 10 neurodevelopmental effects. If you've ever gone to a doctor 11 and had your blood pressure taken, there's something called 12 a "white coat" effect. What it means is just the appearance 13 of a doctor in a white coat can influence people's blood 14 pressure so that it changes from what it normally is. 15 Well, there's a man named Dr. John Staessen who 16 has done updated blood pressure results -- I don't mean to 17 suggest, Dr. Friedman, you'd scare anyone. But -- 18 DR. FRIEDMAN: I've taken more blood pressures 19 than anyone around here. 20 MS. LUXTON: I believe it. I believe it. 21 (Laughter.) 22 MS. LUXTON: But someone has thought of a way to 23 test whether that is a confounding variable in blood 24 pressure studies of -- this is now on the other health 25 effect I want to talk to you about. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 And you know what he does? Ambulatory blood 2 pressure. So, he puts something on your arm and you walk 3 around all day. And you get a day's worth of readings. And 4 that's the blood pressure he uses. So, instead of one time, 5 you have more. 6 This is the kind of advance that's occurring in 7 these research methodologies. And that's why we know more. 8 The more we find out about confounding variables, the more 9 questions that are arising. 10 And again, I want to stress we're not talking 11 about high blood lead levels. We're talking now at the 12 lowest reaches where an effect can be measured. George is 13 right. There is no threshold that's been demonstrated. 14 Nobody knows if there's one. The fact that it's not been 15 demonstrated, we just don't know. 16 And what has happened is that these blood lead 17 levels of the children are now so low and the tests are so 18 sophisticated that the results are becoming more uncertain, 19 not less. And the version of the OEHHA staff report, before 20 it went to the SRP last October, reflected a lot of those 21 uncertainties. And then it was changed. 22 And what I'm here to tell you today is I think it 23 needs to go back if this is going to be accurate under the 24 best available science. 25 So, let me tell you. I mentioned the prospective PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 studies. There are five. They are huge populations of kids 2 in Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Sydney, Australia; and 3 Port Pirie, Australia. All right. 4 If you look at Part B of the staff's report, you 5 will see on page 3-12 that they looked at two things. 6 There's prenatal blood -- prenatal effects; that would be 7 through the mother before a child is born, and postnatal, 8 after the child is born. And it's the child's own 9 independent blood lead. 10 All right. First, on prenatal, all five of them, 11 said the staff, found an effect. But only three, after -- 12 key phrase -- adjusting for confounding variables. So, they 13 ruled out these other things that clutter up the results. 14 Now they're down to three. 15 And then, they looked at those three. And, in 16 every single one of them, the effect declines and disappears 17 by the time the child is age 2 or 4. So, it's not 18 persistent. Okay. And the three that -- and remember this 19 for a moment, please: in our Boston, Cincinnati, and Port 20 Pirie. 21 Okay. Postnatal, what happens to the child, him 22 or herself? Let's not look at the mother, because the 23 postnatal -- or the prenatal ones disappear. What about 24 postnatal? 25 The staff says those persist. Three studies found PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 them; two did not. So, we already have a division. There's 2 three that found an effect, two not. 3 The three that found, again, Boston, Cincinnati, 4 and Port Pirie. 5 Who were the leading researchers in those studies? 6 Bellinger is the leading researcher in Boston. Dietrich, 7 Ken Dietrich is the leading researcher in Cincinnati, and 8 Peter Baghurst is the leading researcher in Port Pirie. 9 This is a report issued in 1995 by the World 10 Health Organization. And its title is, "Inorganic Lead." 11 They convened an expert panel of the world's leading experts 12 on lead, and they looked at health effects. Okay. 13 Who was on this panel? Baghurst, Bellinger, and 14 Dietrich, the three studies that we talked about. And what 15 did they conclude? 16 They found the reports, the studies that showed a 17 statistical association -- statistically significant is a 18 term in these studies that means they found one. Then they 19 said, and I'm quoting from page 190, "The key question is 20 whether this statistical association is directly 21 attributable to the causal influence of lead on child I.Q." 22 Does lead cause it? 23 It is important to consider alternative 24 explanations as follows. Okay. What other things might it 25 be? Chance. That means the confidence intervals on these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 studies are relatively wide. The magnitude of the true 2 association could be as low as -- a much lower one or zero. 3 Confounding factors. The same thing we've been 4 talking about. 5 Reverse causality. And I won't discuss that, 6 because I know Dr. Kaufman's going to tell you what that 7 means. 8 And selection biases, which is another area of 9 error that can get into these studies. 10 And after looking at those four things, the 11 conclusion -- and again we are including in a unanimous 12 conclusion Baghurst, Dietrich, and Bellinger -- the three 13 people whose studies are relied on by the staff -- said it 14 is a matter of debate -- and I'm quoting -- debate and 15 conjecture as to the extent to which these four issues 16 should inhibit claims of a causal relationship in the 17 prospective studies. 18 You can put that up now. This is what I'm 19 quoting. (Speaking of overhead) 20 The essential problem is that observational 21 epidemiology cannot provide definitive evidence of causality 22 when the key statistical association is weak, the temporal 23 relationship is unclear, and major confounders are present. 24 That's 1995. 25 What the staff is relying on is the National PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 Academy of Sciences report of 1993, CDC in 1991, and EPA in 2 1996. And I've already told you that in 1991, they 3 acknowledged the global controversy on this issue. 4 So, the more recent authority, the World Health 5 Organization, concluded this. And it's just what they say 6 there. 7 Okay. 8 MS. EDGERTON: I take this is the sort of -- I 9 mean it's interesting, because you see this taken out of 10 context. I mean, there's a whole book, and this is here. 11 And I guess there's something -- if I understand you 12 correctly, you are going to be asking for something sort of 13 like that. One sentence to be added to our report that sort 14 of says that there is uncertainty -- 15 MS. LUXTON: Yes. 16 MS. EDGERTON: -- in science. 17 MS. LUXTON: Yes. Not that precise statement, but 18 one that would acknowledge that there is uncertainty as to 19 the strength of the conclusions. 20 We are not asking anybody here to say there's not 21 a link between lead and health effects at high levels. 22 We're only asking that the uncertainties at low levels be 23 acknowledged. That's it, really. 24 MS. EDGERTON: But I caution -- I caution you to 25 remember -- I mean I'm listening very carefully, and I'm PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 going to listen to Dr. Kaufman. And Dr. Friedman 2 understands this better and perhaps can guide me. But I'm 3 not sure that the new studies, in fact, show less confidence 4 that low level lead has adverse effects in the postnatal 5 area, rather isn't it that really the new studies identify 6 multiple confounding variables; i.e. there are other -- a 7 whole host of other explanations. 8 It does not mean that low level lead is not the 9 most likely explanation or a likely explanation. 10 MS. LUXTON: Actually, I think it says -- 11 MS. EDGERTON: Definitive. 12 MS. LUXTON: Yeah. 13 MS. EDGERTON: Definitive is not -- 14 MS. LUXTON: Cannot -- 15 MS. EDGERTON: -- is not no. It doesn't say it 16 doesn't provide evidence. Doesn't provide definitive 17 evidence. 18 MS. LUXTON: Which means there's controversy over 19 the -- 20 MS. EDGERTON: It doesn't mean it's not true. 21 (Thereupon, the reporter requested that 22 one person speak at a time.) 23 MS. LUXTON: No, but there's a question whether 24 it's true. And that really is the key point; that there's 25 controversy over whether it's true. And the Executive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 Summary does not acknowledge that possibility. 2 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 3 MS. LUXTON: Okay. I'm going to run through very 4 quickly just some of the other bases for why I'm asking you 5 to -- 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ms. Luxton, can I get you to 7 just hold off just a second? 8 MS. LUXTON: Sure. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Friedman, not to put you on 10 the spot, but can you help us with that a bit? Did Lynne 11 get that right? 12 (Laughter.) 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That characterization? Because 14 it made sense to me, but I -- 15 DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I'm glad "not" to be put on 16 the spot. 17 In any study of a population in which variables 18 cannot by definition be controlled, there will always be 19 argument, discussion, confounding variables. Saying 20 something isn't positively the case does not mean you're 21 correct; that it couldn't be the case. This whole morning 22 is distressing to me, because the issue that is in front of 23 us is an issue over an emphasis in a written report rather 24 than about lead. 25 /// PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 And I thought that what we're supposed to do is 2 talk about lead and use our best sense to come to a proper 3 conclusion and make a decision. 4 I was pleased that the oral presentation by Jackie 5 and George was more balanced than the summary statement or, 6 in fact, the text of what was provided us to prepare for 7 this meeting. I don't disagree about the issue of stating 8 which uncertainties exist. 9 I think in any scientific report -- and I've 10 written 300 of them, and you all have written many hundreds 11 of them yourself -- you always include a section on what you 12 don't know. And it's part of the analysis of the data. 13 And I think that the written reports that we 14 received would have been enhanced with a more complete 15 section on what we don't know. Frankly, I don't think it 16 makes a difference in terms of reaching the proper 17 conclusions. We can discuss that in a bit. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 19 DR. FRIEDMAN: So -- a long answer to your 20 question -- Lynne is identifying correctly the uncertainties 21 on both sides, whichever position you take. 22 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, I'm going to take a bit of 24 a leap of faith here and maybe ask Tom to come forward for a 25 second, too. Would you, Tom? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 Why don't we cut to the chase relative to the 2 suggested amendment or amendments that you would ask us to 3 consider, Tom. And then before you hand it directly 4 (speaking of document), I'll ask you to go through the 5 Clerk. So, Pat, maybe you can meet them over there and grab 6 whatever it is, a copy. Okay? 7 And then, what we'll do is we'll take a look at 8 that and then focus the discussion on what those amendments 9 proposed are, Tom. And then let's have it out specifically 10 on that. 11 The tutorial's been great. I've learned much. 12 But I think we might be able to make quicker work of this, 13 perhaps, than we otherwise would have. 14 Mr. Parnell. 15 MR. PARNELL: I only want to make a comment for 16 clarification. And you quoted a section of law which backs 17 your rationale for having concerns -- that is Section 39662, 18 subparagraph (b) I think you said. 19 MS. EDGERTON: (d). 20 MR. PARNELL: (d). And that section of law is -- 21 I think your concerns are more with the tone of this report. 22 This report is only suggesting that we're moving forward to 23 list as a toxic air contaminant, and even though there may 24 be some tone differences that cause you concern, the section 25 of law that you quote is really relative to the risk PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 management phase. When we get into actually doing something 2 to industry, then we must consider all of the science or the 3 significant science that's available, or most up-to-date 4 science that's available. 5 So, I think you have -- I'm putting words in your 6 mouth; I don't intend to. But I think you have concerns 7 with the tone in this document. But the section of law you 8 quote is basically -- applies specifically to the next 9 phase; does it not, Tom? 10 MR. MC HENRY: I think it's -- I lost part of my 11 microphone, but I think it's capable of several readings to 12 apply to both phases. Because, actually, if you look at he 13 beginning of 39662, it talks about the view of the findings 14 from the SRP. 15 But if you look at -- I think it's -- really 16 ultimately becomes applicable -- the same standard's 17 applicable to 39650(d), which is the legislative findings, 18 which impose the same standard on both parts of the 19 proceeding, which is both the identification -- 20 MR. PARNELL: Okay. 21 MR. MC HENRY: -- and the risk management stage. 22 MR. PARNELL: Thanks. 23 MS. LUXTON: And I guess the other thing I would 24 add is we're concerned, and you'll see the reason we drafted 25 this clarification that we would like the Board to consider PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 adopting, which I take it you may not yet have seen -- but 2 to cut the case, the reason why that's of concern is this 3 report, even in draft form, is already being used in other 4 regulatory proceedings in this State as a basis for cracking 5 down on lead. 6 And I -- I don't want to go through this if you 7 don't want me to, but there are -- especially in the risk 8 assessment portion -- Ms. Edgerton referred to some of them. 9 The figures are just out of date. The modeling projections 10 are way off track. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 12 MS. LUXTON: And that causes a lot of problems. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. We want to obviously 14 give you a full airing, but I want to come back to the issue 15 that Mr. Parnell raised, because we haven't heard from the 16 staff on it. 17 MS. LUXTON: Okay. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mike, do you want to direct some 19 kind of commentary relative to Jack's discussion and whether 20 it's -- 21 MR. KENNY: I think that's Kathleen's. 22 MS. WALSH: I think that Mr. Parnell is correct as 23 a practical matter. One thing that we need to understand 24 here is that the science continues to develop regarding 25 inorganic lead and all of the TACs that you consider. We PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 move through the phase where we do the identification. That 2 takes time. We then move into a needs assessment and 3 ultimately, if appropriate, airborne toxic control measures 4 to reduce emissions. 5 The science will develop throughout that period. 6 And we have always -- not only because the statute directs 7 us to, but because it's appropriate to do -- considered 8 developments in science, how those would affect the 9 uncertainties with respect to the science that's relied on 10 today in the context of the identification, but other issues 11 that come up with respect to the science as well. 12 And this is an ongoing process, and that sort of 13 assessment will happen throughout that process. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. I want to 15 make sure. I mean this is certainly a conversation between 16 you all and us, but we have some scientific advisors here 17 that I want to loop in and make sure that, as we cut to the 18 chase, we don't leap somewhere we shouldn't. 19 Pat, has everyone received this? Staff and our 20 SRP guests, have you all seen it? All right. 21 Pat, we need some copies. I want everybody to 22 have this thing. All right. 23 Dr. Friedman made a very compelling point, at 24 least to me, about dealing honestly and openly with things 25 we don't know or that we may not know completely. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 And it's been his experience in the articles he's 2 written and what he's seen in the science that he's most 3 familiar with, this is commonly done. It's something that, 4 in many respects, has strengthened ultimately the debate, 5 the discussion upon such scientific matters. 6 Have we -- and this is directed to the SRP 7 representatives today, is there something that's been 8 missed? Have we not done it as completely as we might have? 9 Is this accommodation that's being requested by our 10 colleagues from the lead industry out of line? Is it a much 11 bigger deal than I'm feeling it is? I mean, help me out 12 here. 13 DR. SEIBER: Well, I can make a comment, Mr. 14 Chairman, on the general issue of uncertainty. And 15 certainly, this is something that we deal with all the time 16 in all of the listings. 17 In the case of carcinogens, we're extrapolating to 18 very low doses, in that case from animal data. And there's 19 a real leap of faith when we get down to these low level 20 exposures as to the increased occurrence of cancer in those 21 particular cases. 22 In this instance, we're extrapolating again into 23 the unknown that are poorly characterized gray areas. So, 24 there's a lot of uncertainty. And I don't have any problem 25 with incorporating language in the report that we can all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 feel comfortable with that deals with this level of 2 uncertainty that is inherent in this particular document. 3 I don't think the other SRP members -- well, I 4 can't speak for all of them -- but I think some additional 5 wording in the area of uncertainty would not be a problem 6 for them. 7 Now, as to this particular statement, I'd rather 8 not comment, because I think this gets into matters of Board 9 policy and things that I can't comment on. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And that's fair. And I respect 11 that. 12 Mr. Kenny, along those lines? 13 MR. KENNY: I guess I'm willing to comment on the 14 statement if the Board wishes to hear that. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 16 DR. FRIEDMAN: I am also. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 18 Mr. Kenny, why don't you lead? Is the Board 19 comfortable with where I'm going here? 20 (Thereupon, there was no objection voiced.) 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Mr. Kenny, 22 why don't you comment and we'll hear from Dr. Friedman. 23 MR. KENNY: All right. I think there's a very 24 substantial different from acknowledging some level of 25 uncertainty, which Dr. Friedman has acknowledged, and which PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 the SRP and the staff have acknowledged, and to basically -- 2 adopting this particular statement, which really goes far 3 further than acknowledging uncertainty, and really has the 4 Board repudiating the activities of the staff and the SRP. 5 I think that is -- 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 7 MR. KENNY: -- an entirely different approach. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Understood. Words 9 matter. You continue to remind us of that, Mike. I 10 appreciate that. 11 Dr. Friedman, and then Supervisor Riordan. 12 DR. FRIEDMAN: Mike has essentially said what I 13 was going to say. Industry is concerned that the written 14 report is not balanced enough. I was going to say "too 15 slanted," but "not balanced" enough. 16 I think there is some truth in that. And now 17 industry is asking us to do -- to allow them to be 18 remarkably polar in a point of view, which is incredibly 19 unbalanced also. Telling us that everything in this report 20 is incorrect, and they're flat-out wrong. That's the whole 21 second portion of the paragraph in front of us. 22 And why would we -- that's called "folie a deux." 23 (Laughter.) 24 DR. FRIEDMAN: And it makes no sense. I mean I do 25 believe that we can provide an appropriate exposition on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 balance and on what's not known, but I am not willing to 2 come to conclusions which are also not known, which form the 3 basis for most of this paragraph. That's not appropriate. 4 MRS. RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to go along 5 with what has been said. It seems to me the paragraph 6 that's been offered -- and while I've not judged it word by 7 word, there are a number of adjectives that just simply lack 8 any objectivity. 9 And I think the Board might be wise to acknowledge 10 certain things, but to accept what has been offered, there 11 is -- that's troubling to me, very troubling. And you don't 12 have to be anything but cautious about just some of the 13 adjectives that are here. 14 MS. LUXTON: Well, I apologize. This has been a 15 long, arduous process. And I don't want to get into a 16 discussion about procedural aspects that have happened up 17 till now. But we were not permitted even to speak at the 18 SRP meeting when unilateral changes were made to this report 19 that resulted in -- I don't want to characterize it. I 20 don't want to use adjectives. But our feeling was that we 21 really ought to come in with a strong statement and offer it 22 to you. 23 This does express our views. I think Ms. Edgerton 24 has pointed out that there is a statement that indicates 25 some of the uncertainties in the World Health Organization PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 report. I have others from California pediatricians and 2 experts who are on the CDC advisory committee. Dr. Birt 3 Harvey says that the evidence is lacking at levels under 20. 4 That's his direct quote published in Pediatrics February, 5 1994. 6 I'm not telling you this. He's telling you. 7 Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics at Stanford University. 8 Former President of the American Academy of Pediatrics. So, 9 it may -- this statement may seem strong, but people in this 10 field are coming to conclusions about the lack of evidence 11 to support these low level conclusions. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, one of the things -- the 13 common ground is, there is agreement between the industry, 14 the SRP, our staff, and presumably our Board ultimately to 15 take action to list it as a TAC. And that's the primary 16 reason we're here today talking about it. 17 I have great sensitivity to your concerns about 18 being fair and open and making sure that we reflect what we 19 know and what we don't. And I have great comfort in Dr. 20 Friedman's kind of take on it, which is, you know, we can 21 honestly say that properly so it isn't misused and isn't 22 used in a way to de-position your industry. 23 And I must say -- actually, I need to ask you 24 directly. The staff asserted that the economic impact in 25 their presentation, at this juncture, was nonexistent on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 your industry. 2 Yet I'm hearing you say that if this report -- 3 MS. LUXTON: Well -- 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: If someone takes this report and 5 runs with it and references it, it has the ability to put 6 some local controls or something else that's out of our 7 control, it has the ability to be hurtful to you. 8 MS. LUXTON: Yes. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Is that correct? 10 MS. LUXTON: That's exactly right. And I'm afraid 11 that might have led to some of the -- what you consider 12 excess in adjectives in that last sentence. 13 I think your point is exactly our concern, 14 Chairman Dunlap, because this report, even in draft form, 15 has already shown up in a State regulatory agency as the 16 basis for a new RCRA permit restriction. And when we said 17 it's only a draft, they said it's going to be approved in 18 April. No question. 19 And so, you know, door closed; don't even bother 20 to argue about it. So, that's why this last sentence is in 21 here, that this analysis should be limited this proceeding, 22 because we're really very concerned about misuse not only in 23 other regulatory proceedings in this State -- 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 25 MS. LUXTON: -- but that this is going to travel. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And that's a fair concern, and I 2 respect and appreciate that. 3 MS. LUXTON: So -- 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Let me try to seize this 5 issue just for a moment, and see if we can find a common 6 ground. But we need to move on. 7 It seems to me that there's some consensus about 8 us doing a better job of identifying what we don't know 9 perhaps. Being careful with the words, but perhaps 10 expanding or emphasizing what we don't know. And so, what I 11 would propose is -- at this juncture, Tom, I'll give you a 12 few more minutes and you can bring your next witness up, so 13 we can get a chance to meet the gentleman, Dr. Kaufman. 14 But I would propose that some language, some 15 hybrid language emerge in a few minutes that the Board could 16 consider, and also the proper section it could be plugged 17 into. Okay? 18 So, if I might propose an ad hoc group, why don't 19 we do that -- Dr. Seiber or Dr. Witschi, one of you perhaps, 20 with our legal counsel, perhaps Genevieve and Mr. McHenry, 21 take a quick moment to sit down and put -- wordsmith some 22 things, and then we'll bring it back to us in a few minutes 23 when we hear from your last witness. Is that okay, Tom? 24 MR. MC HENRY: Do you want from -- 25 MS. LUXTON: Could I just make one request? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It'll be an open discussion is 2 my point. I'm not going to say this is it and there's 3 nothing else. But -- 4 MS. LUXTON: The only thing I wanted to request is 5 I didn't even get to tell you my concerns about the blood 6 pressure side of this. And they're as strong, so -- 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 8 MS. LUXTON: Listing the uncertainties I think 9 ought to be done in a general way rather than just specific 10 as to -- 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Let's see what can be cooked up, 12 okay? And there is time pressure, and that can be a 13 motivator. So, let me impose time pressure on you all. So, 14 Genevieve, why don't you raise your hand, assemble the group 15 for a minute, and get the little conference room in the back 16 and take a few moments. And we'll run that up here to Dr. 17 Friedman. If he's comfortable, I think we can have a basis 18 in which to bring this to a conclusion. 19 Is that fair? 20 MS. LUXTON: Yes. 21 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Chairman? 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Ms. Edgerton. 23 MS. EDGERTON: I do have one concern, and that may 24 get me really in Dutch with the Chairman. But I am 25 concerned that we make clear -- and I'm sure you don't mean PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 to be doing anything other than making it clear -- we are 2 prepared to take the time to listen to your concerns. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes. 4 MS. EDGERTON: This is the place where you have an 5 opportunity to speak. And you are protected in that 6 respect. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah, absolutely. We've found 8 some common ground, and you gave some concessions, Mr. 9 McHenry, in your opening remarks, which I greatly 10 appreciate, which moved us leaps and bounds forward towards 11 the conclusion. 12 I just want to do this right. And I'd like to do 13 it with some time sensitivity, not certainly to give you 14 short shrift. I don't want to do that. 15 Okay. Blood pressure. Do you want to say a word 16 or two on blood pressure while this group is starting to 17 meet? 18 MS. LUXTON: I will say a word or two on blood 19 pressure, and then if I can just say a really brief word 20 about the quantitative risk assessments, because Ms. 21 Edgerton raised it. And that's a big concern, too. 22 Blood pressure, okay. The quantitative risk 23 assessments comes up first here. Let me just tell you the 24 numbers. The staff used a model and projected at 0.06 25 micrograms air lead -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 2 MS. LUXTON: -- 1990 to '91 level, there'd be 11.5 3 percent of California children over 10. NHANES II is the 4 CDC study of all the blood leads, kids across the United 5 States. Part II just came out February, 1997. In this 6 nation, including the high lead Areas of the Northeast where 7 there's lead paint, pipes, all kinds of really heavy 8 exposure, the national number for kids's levels above 10 is 9 4.4 percent. 10 So, the staff is saying -- 11 DR. FRIEDMAN: Excuse me. Where does that come 12 from exactly and where is it referenced? 13 MS. LUXTON: It's in the MMWR. 14 DR. FRIEDMAN: The MM -- 15 MS. LUXTON: Yeah, I have it. I can just show -- 16 DR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I do, too. The MMWR 46, page 17 141, 1997, does not have the data that you just suggested it 18 does. It has, in fact, the prevalence of 11 percent of 19 blood lead levels above 10. 20 MS. LUXTON: Okay. Let me get that. 21 DR. FRIEDMAN: Not 4 percent. 22 MS. LUXTON: Let me get the document, because I 23 don't have it up here. 24 MS. EDGERTON: I found the reference on page 7 of 25 the comments from -- Ms. Luxton, it's Footnote No. 9. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 MS. LUXTON: You wanted the source document, 2 though, didn't you? 3 DR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah, unless it's more recent than 4 this 1997 reference in MMWR, which would surprise me, the 5 data you may know is based on an analysis of 13,000 6 individuals, 2400 of whom were under age 5. And the 7 prevalence, which has dropped obviously, as you know, from 8 98 percent to 11 percent. Let me read this and interpret 9 it. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 11 MS. LUXTON: Even apart from that, there are two 12 studies, one published in the Journal of the American 13 Medical Association, the other in Pediatrics, one in 1995, 14 one in 1996, that specifically looked at California children 15 and took their blood lead levels. In the 1995 one, 2 16 percent had blood lead levels over 10. 17 The 1996, which was -- I know that George raised 18 the question of some of the higher risk children. This one 19 was done in Oakland, California with higher risk children, 20 those risk factors. Four percent had blood leads over 10. 21 And there have been updated reports -- 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Let me ask a basic question on 23 that, if I may. Were those studies included in what we've 24 come up with? 25 (Thereupon, Ms. Luxton nodded her head.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. So, your argument -- I'm 2 assuming -- is that we didn't give enough emphasis on those 3 studies. 4 DR. FRIEDMAN: Excuse me, John. I'm sorry to 5 interrupt. But, look. In your letter to us about that 6 study -- let's really be fair here. 7 In your letter to us, you state that that study 8 studied 16,000 children. 9 MS. LUXTON: No. 10 DR. FRIEDMAN: You did. It's right here in front 11 of me. I believe this comes from you. Maybe I'm wrong. I 12 beg your pardon. You've signed it. It's on page 8. 13 You say the study examines 16,000 children. 14 MS. LUXTON: Okay. 15 DR. FRIEDMAN: The study examined 636 children. 16 MS. LUXTON: Okay. 17 DR. FRIEDMAN: So, let's look at the data which 18 really exists. Let's appreciate that there can be 19 controversy, but let's use data which is actually published 20 data. 21 MS. LUXTON: Okay. 22 DR. FRIEDMAN: Real numbers. 23 MS. LUXTON: That's fair. 24 DR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. 25 MS. LUXTON: What I meant, and it should be 10,000 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 not 16,000, is that updated results are going to be 2 published. And you're right. They're not published yet. 3 DR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. 4 MS. LUXTON: But the author of that study told me, 5 Dr. Edgar Schoen, the results are going to be published 6 later this year, and it now includes 10,000. And that was a 7 mistake. It should be not 16,000. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: One of the things that I've come 9 to learn about science -- if I may editorialize just for a 10 minute -- is it's always improving. There's always new 11 information. There's always a new way to look at things. 12 There's always new studies. 13 And we don't have the luxury of delaying things 14 indefinitely, as attractive as that might be. And let me 15 assure you, there isn't a controversial that comes before us 16 that I don't say, at least for a moment, jeez, it would have 17 been nice to take that up later. But we don't have that 18 luxury. 19 So, while we're respectful of the fact that new 20 information is coming out, it's not necessarily going to be 21 what's going to derail this. I'm not saying you're 22 suggesting it be derailed -- that it's going to keep us from 23 taking the proper policy action. 24 MS. LUXTON: No. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And you need to know that. I've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 never seen you here before, and it's something that comes up 2 repeatedly. But I wanted to make that comment. 3 Okay. 4 MS. LUXTON: That's fair. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Can we -- 6 MS. LUXTON: But I will say I think the correct 7 number for NHANES II across the nation now is 4.4 percent. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 9 MS. LUXTON: And it's 2 percent in the reported 10 study in 1995, and 4 percent of the 1600 in 1996 are over 11 10. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 13 MS. LUXTON: The other thing is -- 14 MS. EDGERTON: Before you go, I really do want to 15 get this straight. I confess. I'm still confused. You are 16 saying that the CDC 1997 report, which looks at blood levels 17 in the United States for 1991 to '94, showed that 4.4 18 percent of the children across the nation have blood lead 19 levels exceeding 10. 20 MS. LUXTON: Right. 21 MS. EDGERTON: Is that -- 22 DR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. That means -- 23 MS. EDGERTON: Because the cite was -- 24 DR. FRIEDMAN: That means a million children in 25 this country have blood lead levels beyond an agreed upon PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 level, a cut-off level of 10. It used to be 15, but now 2 it's 10. A million children have blood lead levels of above 3 that. And I stand corrected. It also means -- let's see, 4 .4 percent. That about -- in excess of 40,000 have blood 5 lead levels above 20. 6 Now, I've taken care of a lot of kids with lead 7 poisoning, lots of them, or are irreversibly retarded at 8 blood lead levels in excess of 20 -- actually mostly 30 and 9 on up. Can I make -- 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 11 DR. FRIEDMAN: The issue in front of us -- 12 agreeing that there's exaggeration or excess enthusiasm for 13 certain interpretations, the issue in front of us as a Board 14 is to protect a known quantity of children in this State 15 from dangerous levels of lead. Even though air only has 16 little bit, it's enough in some populations at risk in this 17 State to make X-number -- perhaps a thousand, perhaps two 18 thousand kids seriously developmentally retarded. 19 They're not wrong that this is not a problem for 20 millions, and millions, and millions of children. And we 21 are not wrong by being concerned about a few thousand 22 California children. And, you know, what we have to do 23 here, as we said -- and you've got a task force now working 24 on some common sense -- 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 DR. FRIEDMAN: -- appreciation of the problem -- 2 our job is to protect those thousand or two thousand 3 children who are either near source populations, they're 4 already at risk, and whatever is in the air is going to tip 5 the scale even further. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 7 DR. FRIEDMAN: And that's why we have to vote the 8 way we vote in terms of just common sense issue in front of 9 us. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well put. 11 MS. EDGERTON: Can we stop for just a minute? 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And, Lynne, the minutiae's 13 important, but directionally we have -- we have a 14 recommendation from a Scientific Review Panel, we have 15 industry agreement, and we are in agreement, at least for 16 purposes of getting this on the agenda to take action. So, 17 what I want to do is not get as involved in the minutiae, 18 and take the spirit of which Dr. Friedman just offered, 19 which is to cut to the general issues, to acknowledge some 20 concerns as legitimate, to try to find some common ground to 21 where we come up with the right assessment of what we know 22 and what we don't know. 23 So, I want to get to the next witness. 24 MS. EDGERTON: But a point of information, Mr. 25 Chairman. I respect that. However, I do believe it is my PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 obligation, as a Board member, under the statute to 2 understand how many of California children are really at 3 risk. 4 I want the record to be as clear as it can be on 5 this. And I'm sorry for taking extra time. I agree that 6 the direction is important. I agree that that's not what 7 we're here to do precisely. But I also am realistic enough 8 to know that we're saying here today is being taken down, 9 and we're going to see it come back around to us. 10 DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, let me -- 11 MS. EDGERTON: But, Dr. Friedman, I don't 12 understand how you got one or two thousand from the million, 13 because I'm not willing -- my information is not that -- I 14 mean that's one of the things that leapt out at me as 15 something I cannot accept, was the statement that it was 16 obvious other areas of the country have worse problems than 17 we do. Because we have a lot of poor people. We have a lot 18 of urban people in South Central L.A. who are exposed to low 19 lead (sic). And I am not willing to accept something here 20 that says that it's absurd to assume that California have -- 21 has blood lead levels exceeding -- or the 10 or twice the 22 national rate. 23 I want to know. 24 DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, let me respond. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Friedman. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 DR. FRIEDMAN: Let's use the information, the most 2 updated information that was just provided to me, 1997 MMWR 3 information. And you do the arithmetic with me, and we'll 4 see if we can understand it. 5 California has what, 30 million-plus people. And 6 at least a third of them are children. Do you agree that 7 there's 10 million children in the State of California? 8 MS. EDGERTON: Uh-huh. 9 DR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. 10 MS. EDGERTON: Or more. 11 DR. FRIEDMAN: 4.4 percent, or 440,000 -- yeah, 12 440,000 have blood lead levels in excess of 10. And .4 13 percent have blood lead levels in excess of 20. That's 14 40,000-plus thousand in our State. 15 MS. EDGERTON: (Interjecting) So, it's 440,000 16 children in California -- 17 DR. FRIEDMAN: This is -- 18 MS. EDGERTON: who have excess of 10. Just using 19 the that -- 20 DR. FRIEDMAN: We're extrapolating from national 21 data. And we're applying those extrapolations to what our 22 population is. There's 10 million kids. If you want to 23 accept this low figure of 4.4 percent, which I think is 24 probably fair, that means that we have 440,000 kids, 25 roughly, in this State above 10, and we have 40-something PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 thousand above 20. 2 And the point I'm making is, that when you get 3 above 20 and you tip a little bit with a lead air 4 concentration in a near source population, then you are 5 going to have significant pathology in some fraction of the 6 40,000. And I assumed it was a couple of thousand. 7 I don't know what the exact number is. Nobody 8 does. But it's not zero, and it's far more than 100. And 9 I'm concerned about that thousand kids. And we all should 10 be. That's all. End of story. 11 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. I understand. 12 DR. FRIEDMAN: You know. 13 MS. LUXTON: The only reason I raised this -- and 14 I'm sorry I did, but -- 15 (Laughter.) 16 MS. LUXTON: -- was because the projections in the 17 staff report say 11.5 percent. 18 DR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 20 MS. LUXTON: I think there are compelling reasons 21 why the number is lower in California. But even granting 22 without that, it's just way off. 23 Also, the question came up earlier about the 24 Oakland study that the NRDC had cited. I'm not sure what 25 study that is. But I looked in the staff's report, Part B, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 136 1 page 5-7, and there is an Oakland study reference there, 2 using 1987-89 data. And blood levels, as the paper that Dr. 3 Friedman has will show you, have dropped phenomenally since 4 then. Since 1991, they dropped 50 percent. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Friedman. 6 DR. FRIEDMAN: As long as we're clearing up the 7 record, it's important for me to mention because you 8 mentioned Birt Harvey's -- who is a very close friend of 9 mine -- comment. 10 Well, Birt Harvey has written us a letter -- I 11 assume you have seen it; I hope you have; it's dated today 12 or yesterday -- stating his position clearly. And I quote: 13 "I support the removal wherever possible of environmental 14 sources of lead. Lead has no beneficial effects for 15 children and only does harm. The less lead in the 16 environment, the better for the health and development of 17 children. There is no apparent threshold below which lead 18 is not harmful to children." 19 And then he goes on saying that any act that we 20 take which removes however much lead is in the environment 21 is beneficial. 22 And, you know, I asked members of the Scientific 23 Review Panel what they do about consulting with experts. 24 Well, Birt's been my consultant and he's helped me come to 25 the conclusions that I've come to, since this has been a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 137 1 serious issue of concern for pediatricians for at least 50 2 years. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Is that it 4 for your -- 5 MS. LUXTON: Just one -- I have to respond to 6 that. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Because we're at -- I know we've 8 asked you a lot of questions, but we're at about an hour and 9 20 minutes for your part of it. 10 We have one other witness from the environmental 11 community I want to hear from. You also have a physician, I 12 guess, that you've brought. 13 MS. LUXTON: Could I just respond to that last 14 comment? 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 16 MS. LUXTON: First of all, he's incorrect. We're 17 not opposed to the listing of inorganic lead. 18 DR. FRIEDMAN: Oh, I know that. 19 MS. LUXTON: Okay. And I have not argued that you 20 should make any statements that lead is good. I have not 21 argued about high levels of lead. 22 What I am talking about is solely the 23 uncertainties of low levels. And that's as to the 24 neurodevelopmental conclusions. And I'm showing you why. 25 And Dr. Harvey's statement was quoted in its entirety. It PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 138 1 was a public document in the Journal of the American Medical 2 Association. I did not take it out of context. 3 DR. FRIEDMAN: I know that. 4 MS. LUXTON: I did not mischaracterize it. It is 5 a fair and accurate quotation. 6 DR. FRIEDMAN: No, I -- 7 MS. LUXTON: I have a similar one from Dr. Schoen, 8 in which he published it in Pediatrics. And it is -- I 9 don't want to respond to. But I have not really made an 10 unfair use of Dr. Harvey's statement, and I'm surprised -- 11 DR. FRIEDMAN: No, no. My point is that even 12 experts can change their mind. 13 MS. LUXTON: Okay. Well, I don't think he's 14 changed his mind that the effects under 20 are lacking; that 15 the evidence on that -- 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I would like -- I'd like to get 17 to the next witness. 18 MS. LUXTON: Can I just -- I will say nothing 19 more -- 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, I mean there's been a long 21 discussion here about certain segments of science or quotes 22 being removed from documents, or reports, or letters. 23 I'd like to get to specifically talking about 24 listing this as a TAC. And we're going to accommodate -- I 25 /// PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 139 1 know Mr. McHenry's in the back working on the general 2 language so that we're fair in our treatment of what we know 3 and we don't know. 4 I'd like him to get out here. But I'd like to get 5 this next witness up. 6 MS. LUXTON: I just then would point you to pages 7 10 and 11 of our comments, which contain the questions about 8 the blood pressure. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 10 The next witness, I guess, is Dr. Kaufman. Dr. 11 Kaufman, do you have anything to add? 12 DR. KAUFMAN: I hope so. Up until two weeks ago, 13 I had been a 13-year resident of California. I just moved 14 from San Diego to Connecticut. If I had come up from San 15 Diego, I think I would just sit down and shut up. But I 16 came all the way from Connecticut, so I'd like to say a few 17 things. 18 (Laughter.) 19 DR. KAUFMAN: From what Dr. Friedman said about 20 things that distress him, however long I talk, I will 21 distress you for that amount of time. 22 But I do think that certain things need to be 23 addressed, and maybe they're going to be beating things over 24 the head, but I'd like to talk -- at least a little bit. 25 /// PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 140 1 And if you feel it's not productive, you can try to stop me. 2 I'll remember my plane trip, and maybe I'll fight back. 3 But in terms of I.Q. testing, that's what I do. 4 I've done it for 30 years. The main test that is used in 5 the 30, 50 -- whatever number of lead I.Q. studies, many of 6 them use the WISC-R. I worked with Dr. Wechsler. I 7 developed it. I have our own test, the KABC, which has been 8 used in lead research. And the research has been done by 9 people who don't truly understand I.Q. tests. 10 This is evident, I think, in the way the results 11 are interpreted, and I think there's a basic misconception. 12 So, one of the things I want to do is just educate people in 13 terms of what the I.Q. is. 14 Part of it is where it came from. Because right 15 now, when you read a lot of the literature on the lead 16 research and how it allegedly affects I.Q. at low levels, 17 you're looking at the different confounders. You're looking 18 at the I.Q. being divided up into a third of a point, or a 19 tenth of a point, or a half a point. And people who give 20 I.Q. tests, people who understand what the I.Q. test 21 measures realize that this is not something that is so 22 fine-tuned -- I mean you could watch ER last week, and see 23 Cari Weaver say, "She has an I.Q. of 145," but the other 24 character, her subordinate, had a 150," as if it's etched in 25 your brain somewhere. Well, it's not. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 141 1 We don't have an I.Q. And you don't just say 2 children will lose this or that, one, or two, or five, or 3 whatever I.Q. points. But what you really need to do, I 4 think -- it is instructive to understand what the I.Q. test 5 is, what it can do and what it can't do. 6 And when public policies are in some way based on 7 research -- I'm a researcher. I like to evaluate how good 8 the research is and if there -- if the research is based on 9 tests that I've created or helped create, then I want to see 10 the tests are interpreted properly. 11 But they're not this totally fine-tuned thing. 12 And a very brief history, but Sir Francis Galton, back in 13 1885, actually developed the first I.Q. test. And it was 14 presented at a world's fair in London. It was so popular, 15 it was brought to the Kensington Museum, and people came 16 from near and far. 17 I will give you, if you'll indulge, a very brief 18 one-item test from it. But -- not exactly. He didn't have 19 my keys (holding up keys). 20 But if I raise this, just clap your hands once. 21 Indulge me by clapping. Just clap your hands once. 22 (Clapping.) 23 DR. KAUFMAN: And if I raise my pen, just clap 24 down on your leg once. Just clap down once. 25 (Clapping.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 142 1 DR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, as rapidly as you can. 2 (Demonstrating.) 3 DR. KAUFMAN: We're going to have remediation 4 right after the break. 5 (Laughter.) 6 DR. KAUFMAN: Now, Galton's measure of 7 intelligence included visual acuity and auditory acuity and 8 strength of pull, and a lot of variables that he could 9 measure with the kind of accuracy that people are now 10 attributing to the I.Q. 11 And if he had been right, if that had been I.Q., 12 then that would be one thing. But Galton also made the 13 mistake ultimately of inventing the coefficient of 14 correlation, or at least the statistics that led to it. 15 That allowed people to relate his test to meaningful 16 variables. 17 And they soon found out that even though his test 18 could be measured with impeccable accuracy, it didn't 19 correlate to anything that was meaningfully related to 20 intelligence -- like school performance -- and his test was 21 dropped. 22 Alfred Benet in France then, working at the same 23 time as Galton, but in the early 1900s, came out with the 24 first real intelligence test, and one that was valid. And 25 he would ask questions like, what is the difference between PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 143 1 laziness and idleness? Or why is this foolish? 2 In an old graveyard in Spain, they found a skull 3 they believe to be that of Christopher Columbus when he was 4 10 years old. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Kaufman, so I.Q. tests have 6 been flawed from the very start; is that your premise? 7 DR. KAUFMAN: I don't think so. My premise is 8 that Alfred Benet's main contribution was to tell us we had 9 to accept error. Because you cannot measure something as 10 complex as I.Q. without built-in error. And if -- I don't 11 know how many people here have ever taken an individually 12 administered I.Q. test. But these are not multiple choice 13 tests where you check off C and somebody grades it. 14 The kinds of tests that are given that measure 15 I.Q. in these studies, the WISC-R, very specifically will 16 have 10, or 11, or 12 tasks. So one of them might be, in 17 what way are a wheel and a ball alike, or an apple and a 18 banana, or a mountain and a lake. 19 Well, there's no one simple way of scoring these 20 answers. There's a lot of subjectivity in it. 21 Or it'll be -- you'll be presented four or five 22 cartoon pictures. And they're presented in a mixed-up 23 order. And as rapidly as possible, you've got to put them 24 in the right order to tell a story. 25 /// PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 144 1 And the examiner is told, you click off the 2 stopwatch as soon as the child is done. Well, if they're 3 really fast, they'll get three bonus points. And if they're 4 not so fast, but still get them right, they won't get any 5 bonus points. 6 But if you take ten examiners, you'll have at 7 least five or six different opinions on when the child is 8 through. And some will look at a child just gazing at the 9 pictures and say, well, they -- you stopped moving them, 10 and they're right. He's done. 11 Others will just let him reflect. And you could 12 have as many as three I.Q. points just on one item because 13 of when you clicked the stopwatch or how you question. 14 So, I.Q.'s are very much a range, not a simple 15 point. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I appreciate that. What I'm -- 17 DR. KAUFMAN: Moving right along. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Kaufman, I'm looking for 19 common ground here, not to confound the issue. But maybe 20 Mr. McHenry -- Tom, maybe if I could get you to come up for 21 a minute. 22 What I would like to do here is to figure out -- 23 to tie this -- I understand the relevance of this witness. 24 I know he's got a problem with some of the I.Q. tests and 25 how they're done, and that's certainly something to think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 145 1 about. 2 But what I'm trying to understand here is what 3 this witness is going to contribute to what you want to have 4 done by this Board or considered. So, help me out here. 5 MR. MC HENRY: Yeah. Very specifically, the 6 reason Dr. Kaufman's here is because the staff report that 7 you have in front of you makes some extrapolations about the 8 number of I.Q. points that are going to be lost by 9 California's children. 10 And the staff believes that it's under a duty to 11 make that extrapolation. We think that extrapolation is 12 grossly inaccurate for several reasons. First of all, it 13 doesn't take into account the actual levels of air lead 14 exposure in the State. It's not appropriately qualified. 15 I am pleased to report we made some progress. I 16 don't know if we've reached agreement, but we made some 17 progress on the language. 18 And it's entirely inappropriate -- Dr. Kaufman 19 will correct me if I'm wrong to say this -- to use 20 fractional I.Q. measurements to make that kind of a gross 21 generalization. 22 And furthermore, why are we even concerned about 23 that? We're concerned that that kind of a number would make 24 its way into risk management reports and risk management 25 efforts by this agency, the Air Resources Board, by local PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 146 1 air districts, who, as you know, under the Monterey Bay 2 decision, have the authority to regulate to a greater degree 3 than the Air Board, even if the Air Board tells them not to 4 do it, they can regulate to a greater degree, and to the 5 decisions made by the other 49 States and the U.S. EPA. 6 So, what we hope to prove to you -- and I am 7 getting the sense from you, Mr. Chairman, you want to finish 8 our presentation quite quickly -- is that that was not an 9 appropriate task. 10 That's the message we want to send, if you don't 11 want to hear anything more detailed about it, just ask Dr. 12 Kaufman questions. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, my -- 14 MR. MC HENRY: We would make him available, but 15 certainly we want to be respectful of your time. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. I understand that. And 17 you can -- what I'm trying to do is again find the common 18 ground and to move. Because we have agreement on 19 identifying this as a TAC. 20 The other information is important, relevant, 21 needs to be heard. We have a scientific process we went 22 through. You guys feel frustrated, I'm assuming, because 23 you didn't get to stand up and do this orally. And the 24 writing, maybe doing it in writing or when the drafts came 25 /// PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 147 1 out was a problem, and you're concerned about being heard. 2 I respect that and understand that, and certainly 3 want to give you the time to do it. But at the same time, 4 we have common ground, and I want to try to take this issue 5 where it needs to go. 6 So, Dr. Friedman, and then we'll ask a couple 7 questions, if we have any, for Dr. Kaufman. 8 DR. FRIEDMAN: Dr. Kaufman's outstanding 9 reputation precedes him, and I mean that with real respect. 10 When I looked at this report for the first time and saw this 11 fractional I.Q. computation, I frankly was alarmed. 12 And when I read your really scholarly discussion 13 of what was wrong with that, I found it perfectly 14 appropriate. And I think that we need to concede, very 15 frankly, the notion that you can't use a breakdown of a 16 single I.Q. point in the manner in which it was presented. 17 And I have no problem with that, and I don't think 18 any of my colleagues on the Board would have a problem with 19 that. Frankly, the material that we have in writing from 20 Dr. Kaufman is right on point. 21 We ought to acknowledge that. And I think that's 22 where things are. My concern, as you know, is not whether 23 there's a change in -- what is it? .8 I.Q. points. 24 My concern, because you and I have -- or I have 25 seen kids -- it's not a question of a .1 or an I.Q. point, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 148 1 it's frank mental retardation of at-risk populations if 2 they're exposed or have too high a blood lead level. And 3 that's what our job is, to disallow that from happening. 4 So, there's no argument about where you're coming 5 from. You expressed it beautifully in writing. If you want 6 to do it again orally, maybe you and I should meet over a 7 drink. But, you know, I really think it was convincing. 8 DR. KAUFMAN: Let me just say one thing about 9 research. And I will just be very brief, but I think it's 10 very profound research. 11 And this has come out into the public as recently 12 as one week ago with this White House conference. But this 13 addresses the issue of these so-called other confounds. 14 Because when you find that lead may be responsible in some 15 studies for one, or two, or three points, the proper 16 interpretation of that finding is lead and other unknown 17 variables. 18 But right now, we are coming a whole lot closer 19 and cognitive neuroscience to understanding what some of 20 these other variables are. 21 And some of the more recent research with infants 22 has been showing that what we previously thought was just 23 genetic unfolding, is that the brain is so pliable during 24 the early years that one of the variables that has again -- 25 this is just new research -- but showing how the technology PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 149 1 is moving -- that one of the variables that seems to affect 2 later I.Q. in a dramatic way is how many words a parent 3 speaks to a child. 4 Maybe you saw the report on April 17th in the New 5 York Times. But it is the number of words -- and it's not 6 just turn the TV or radio on, because it has to do with the 7 appropriate affect or appropriate attitude. 8 This is the kind of research finding that makes us 9 all feel guilty thinking back, what did we do to our kids? 10 How much did we talk? 11 But the other part of the research is a different 12 study that was -- that actually looks at the number of words 13 spoken, where for one month, one hour/one month, for a 14 sample of children that went from zero to two and a half, 15 people just videotaped interactions. And they found out 16 that professionals talked -- believe it or not -- 2100 words 17 per hour to their children, but working class parents only 18 spoke 1200, and those on welfare spoke 600. 19 And in terms of the positively reinforcing types 20 of comments, the professional parents gave 30 per hour, 21 twice as many as the working class and five times as many as 22 the welfare mothers. 23 So, these are the kinds of variables, not 24 imaginary confounds, but real variables that current 25 neuroscience is saying affects intelligence, but are not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 150 1 measured. 2 Now I'll shut up. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Dr. Kaufman. I 4 appreciate. It's been looped back for me, and I understand, 5 through Dr. Friedman's help, the point you're trying to make 6 about the tests. 7 Okay. We have -- 8 MS. EDGERTON: I would like -- 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Ms. Edgerton. 10 MS. EDGERTON: Now, I assume that adding these 11 extra words is going to improve our intelligence. Is that 12 only for children or is it also for adults? 13 DR. KAUFMAN: The research right now deals with 14 the time when growth is so rapid and so much goes on. We're 15 really talking about the first two years. 16 MS. EDGERTON: Okay. That's not really my 17 question. 18 I also read the report -- I mean read the 19 attachment two, which is your lengthy comments. And I found 20 it fascinating. And I'd like to join you for a drink as 21 well. 22 There is something, though, two points. One with 23 respect to Dr. Friedman's concerns. I'd like to go on the 24 record for being concerned not only with retardation but 25 also in decreased intelligence in our people, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 151 1 specifically in California people. 2 As I see it, it seems that with this lead issue 3 and intelligence, we're talking about -- the important thing 4 is not a decrease in I.Q. It's an decrease in intelligence. 5 DR. KAUFMAN: That's the theoretical issue. But 6 the only way we can get at intelligence is through I.Q. 7 tests. 8 So, you're always making an inference. This is 9 among the things that I would said, but will answer you very 10 briefly, is that the intelligence tests we have now -- like 11 the WISC-R, basically with tasks that are 80 to 100 years 12 old before virtually every modern theory of intelligence 13 from neuropsychology or cognitive psychology (sic). 14 So, it is absolutely true what we are concerned 15 with is intelligence. And what a test like the WISC-R 16 measures is a form of intelligence, but it's a very small, 17 small part of it. 18 MS. EDGERTON: Well, I guess the question is: Is 19 there intelligence without an intelligence test? 20 But let me get -- that's a rhetorical question. 21 But I think the thing that -- just one line of 22 questioning. I was particularly interested in your section 23 on I.Q. is a relative concept, not an absolute concept. And 24 you went forward to say that low I.Q.'s are relative, in 25 that they define low or high functioning relative to how PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 152 1 others of the same age perform. 2 Now, on a scale -- on a population scale, I guess 3 what you're saying is that if they're in this band, if we're 4 in this band of low intelligence/high intelligence, and you 5 might shift the whole band, so it would not show that 6 somebody had a different number of an I.Q. 7 If the whole band shifted, for example, if I had a 8 100, but everybody got a little slower relatively speaking, 9 I might -- you know, I would still have a 100. So that 10 would be moving. 11 DR. KAUFMAN: The I.Q. -- 12 MS. EDGERTON: I'm not explaining that well. 13 DR. KAUFMAN: I know what you're saying. The I.Q. 14 test is kind of like a car. The moment it comes out it 15 starts depreciating. And norms get out of date in the U.S. 16 at the rate of 3 I.Q. points her decade. Amazingly enough, 17 we're getting smarter. 18 And this has been true from the -- research has 19 been done from 1930 through the present. And at first they 20 though, well, it was the influence of television, because 21 the first study's been done right after World War II. 22 But it's continuing. You can go from 1986 to 23 1996, and people -- children, adolescents and adults -- are 24 getting smarter at the rate of 3 I.Q. points per decade. 25 So, what test publishers is they always make sure that they PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 153 1 center that curve around 100. 2 So, as we get smarter and smarter, they revise the 3 test and say, that's it. We're not going to let the average 4 I.Q. be 105, and they will get a new sample of people and 5 develop new norms, so the average is again 100. 6 But it also means that the percent below 70 is 7 always 2.3. 8 DR. KAUFMAN: So, you've actually answered my 9 question, because -- 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Right. 11 MS. EDGERTON: Wait a minute. But the way that -- 12 the way that that breaks down is, although it is relative in 13 the numbers that come out, it is also your expert opinion 14 that there is an underlying increase or decrease in the 15 population's intelligence. 16 DR. KAUFMAN: But in fat, it is an underlying 17 increase. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We got it. 19 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for 21 that. Any other questions of our witness? Very good. 22 Dr. Kaufman, stay close. We appreciate that. 23 Tom, we're wrapped up, right? 24 MR. MC HENRY: We're pretty much wrapped up. 25 The only thing -- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 154 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I'm going to come back -- 2 MR. MC HENRY: -- we would ask the Board to do 3 would be, in this language that I understand is currently 4 being drafted, to include the conclusions of the colloquy 5 between Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Friedman, which we would suggest 6 would be something like, further -- and I'd take a 7 suggestion from the Board -- it would be inappropriate to 8 use fractional I.Q. measurements for risk assessment in this 9 instance. 10 That's what I -- 11 DR. FRIEDMAN: I truly have no problem with that. 12 I mean, that was to me an important flaw in a segment of the 13 report. I'm not sure who's responsible for that conclusion. 14 And rather than hear from me, perhaps Dr. Witschi or Dr. 15 Seiber can provide some insight. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Do you, Dr. Witschi or Dr. 17 Seiber, or our friends from OEHHA, any commentary about the 18 fractionalized I.Q. testing? I see a hand back there. 19 DR. WITSCHI: I would like to defer to George. 20 DR. ALEXEEFF: Yeah. This is George Alexeeff. I 21 would -- the whole focus of the report and all the models 22 and the analysis we looked at are -- looks at children being 23 moved above the level of concern. We do the calculation of 24 I.Q. points as sort of a supplemental bit of information. 25 It's really just supplementing. It's not used in the actual PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 155 1 risk assessment or any of the models. 2 But it does explain on a population -- Ms. 3 Edgerton was exactly right. Our concern is not an 4 individual's I.Q. point of 1 or 2, but the population 5 shifting, especially subpopulations exposed to high lead 6 levels. 7 So, my sense is that it might be better to -- 8 instead of saying sort of a statement of -- against a 9 supplemental portion of the report, to simply say the focus 10 of risk assessment in kids is whether or not they're being-- 11 their blood lead levels is rising above 10, which is what 12 CDC says. I think that would be a more positive statement; 13 that that should be what's used for risk assessment. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: As opposed to the fractionalized 15 I.Q. 16 DR. ALEXEEFF: Yeah. Because that was never the 17 intent to actually use that in the -- 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 19 DR. ALEXEEFF: -- the risk management. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Dr. Friedman seems to be okay 21 with it. 22 MR. MC HENRY: I wasn't quite sure where we ended 23 up. Is that, George, meant to be a qualification about the 24 concern about -- 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I took it to mean an emphasis. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 156 1 Correct, George? 2 DR. ALEXEEFF: Right. An emphasis, yeah. There 3 could ultimately be some use in the I.Q. information, 4 particularly if there's cost-benefit analysis or something 5 like that. There have been studies taking what -- I know it 6 is said that there's some question about our use of this 7 data. 8 Well, other authors have taken this further and 9 done economic analyses of these. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 11 DR. ALEXEEFF: So, there might be some ultimate 12 use to this. I wouldn't want to just sort of say forget 13 ever using this. But I think the emphasis is on the level 14 of concern. 15 DR. FRIEDMAN: I have a concern about what you 16 just said. I mean, if you leave intact this section of this 17 report without some qualifier, that people are going to 18 misuse the information and misuse it all the time. You are 19 correct. You don't know the confidence limits at all of 20 this information. 21 And it is overkill. It's inappropriate analysis 22 of an approach, a technique never meant to be used in the 23 way it's employed in our report. Now, why don't we just say 24 that? 25 I mean, we have a world's expert who happens to be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 157 1 correct on this point. And I think if this was discussed in 2 an arena of developmental experts, they would tell you the 3 same thing. So, why do we have a -- why don't we just tell 4 it like it is? 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, in the spirit in which Dr. 6 Friedman's suggestion is offered, George, if I might suggest 7 -- we have another witness -- why don't you look for the 8 section in the report that you think could accommodate that 9 kind of additional comment or two that will clarify it. 10 Because in all fairness to the industry on that 11 point, if this point, if left untempered, has the ability to 12 be misused. We don't want to leave people with that false 13 impression. 14 Dr. Friedman. 15 DR. FRIEDMAN: The key, George, is that there is a 16 spectrum of central nervous system effects with lead at any 17 level. Nobody knows where it kicks in or precisely how to 18 measure it. And so, there's no argument about that. 19 The argument is about .5 of an I.Q. point. 20 MR. OSTRO: Can I just respond to that, sir? 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 22 MR. OSTRO: I'm Bart Ostro in the Office of 23 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the lead author 24 of the report. 25 There is some consensus among various agencies, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 158 1 both U.S. EPA and WHO that was referred to earlier, as well 2 as the National Academy of Sciences, do have a bit of a 3 consensus about what the effects are on I.Q. points per 4 change in blood lead. 5 Certainly, when you get down to very small changes 6 in blood lead, you would have greater concern for the 7 uncertainty. That .08, or whatever number that came out of 8 the document was merely an example, as George indicated, 9 that there's some evidence of quantitative association. 10 That's relating to a very small change in air 11 lead. In fact, it's relating to a change from zero to 0.6. 12 Now, what our document tries -- that's 0.6 micrograms per 13 cubic meter, the current ambient level. 14 What our document tries to indicate is what are 15 the impacts of going to higher levels? If we go to higher 16 levels, we're no longer talking necessarily about fractions. 17 We're talking about full points or many points. We're 18 talking about many points over thousands. Or, as you 19 indicated correctly, potentially tens of thousands, or even 20 hundreds of thousands of people, depending upon the amount 21 of exposure. 22 So, many authoritative bodies that include 23 psychiatrists and psychologists and people working in these 24 fields from very esteemed institutions have indicated that 25 there is really a consensus around the effects. We have a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 159 1 confidence interval which we've used in our document, and I 2 think we certainly could use in any risk assessment. 3 But, in fact, there is a pretty good consensus 4 about what the effects are quantitatively. 5 DR. FRIEDMAN: No one's going to argue that blood 6 lead at elevated levels causes brain problems. What they're 7 going to argue about is surrounding this 10 micrograms per 8 deciliter that you really know what you're talking about. 9 And I don't think you do. You're right. When you 10 extend out on the continuum blood lead at elevated levels, 11 there are going to be some measurable effects. Just say 12 that. And take these examples, which are frankly -- they're 13 offensive to experts in the field. 14 You don't need to use that kind of arithmetic to 15 make the point. And I think we ought to do that. We think 16 we ought to say that or, if you will, at that point in your 17 discussion, qualify what it is you're really trying to do 18 and recognize the limits of interpretation, so that somebody 19 in some other place doesn't take this .5 I.Q. point and do 20 some outrageous legislation or do something crazy. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, when it comes to the risk 22 management activity after this issue's dealt with, Dr. 23 Friedman, we all want to make sure that we give very clear 24 signals and we don't have people running down the wrong 25 path. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 160 1 And, Tom, I think that's your point. 2 MR. MC HENRY: Yes. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: What I'd like to do -- I have 4 one more witness. The hearing's been going on a couple 5 hours. You guys have had the floor the whole time. I have 6 one representative from the environmental community who has 7 been very patient, wants to say a few things. I want to get 8 her up here. 9 Tom, I'm going to come back when we talk about a 10 motion to move this item. I'm going to deal with the issue 11 you just mentioned. I'm going to ask Dr. Friedman to work 12 with our legal staff, if he doesn't mind, and try to come up 13 with the right emphasis about this I.Q. issue. 14 So, Kathleen, pay attention. 15 MR. MC HENRY: I have the proposal. That was the 16 language I read earlier. Should I just give that to the 17 legal staff? 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: That'd be fine. Give it to 19 Kathleen. I appreciate it. 20 MR. MC HENRY: Well, thank you. Thank you, 21 members of the Board, for your time. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 23 MR. MC HENRY: Appreciate it. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Appreciate that very much, Tom. 25 Janet Hathaway from NRDC, who's been patiently PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 161 1 waiting, and our final witness. 2 Janet, before you comment, if I might just say a 3 thing or two. It is our hope here to do the right thing. 4 It is also important for us to hear from some people. And I 5 don't want you to think in any way that the industry groups' 6 views have been the only thing that we've focused on. It is 7 not. 8 There is broad concern and I think consensus that 9 you'll see for this Board to identify this as a TAC. But we 10 also are cognizant of the impact -- inadvertent impact that 11 us doing this without dealing with these issues might have 12 on some of these companies, some of these interests. So, I 13 don't want to leave you with a false impression. 14 MS. HATHAWAY: Well, certainly, I was not taking a 15 false impression. I know how diligent you all are at 16 getting to the heart of these issues and, at the same time, 17 really looking at the impacts on the affected industry. 18 But I think, in this particular case, we have just 19 seen some demonstration perhaps of why it is that the SRP 20 doesn't really look forward to having oral comment. It is 21 very hard to avoid having, you know, just sort of a battle 22 of wills, and whoever's the best and fastest talker 23 dominating. And I can understand their desire to have it at 24 this forum rather than in their forum. 25 But I very much appreciate you allowing me to be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 162 1 here, even though I am not a scientist. There are a couple 2 of new members on the Committee. Dr. Friedman, I haven't 3 had a chance to meet you. And I haven't had a chance to 4 meet you as well (speaking of Ms. Rakow). 5 I'm Janet Hathaway. I'm an attorney with the 6 National Resources Defense Council. We provided some 7 detailed testimony on the earlier report. Dr. Gina Solomon 8 in our office, a medical doctor that I work with, actually 9 wrote that testimony. 10 But what I really want to say here is, the 11 standard is not absolute unanimity. The standard for 12 listing something as a toxic air contaminant is best 13 available scientific evidence. But that has to be 14 understood as an always evolving, always debated body of 15 information from which you an always pull some studies that 16 show greater or lesser degrees of agreement with whatever 17 the pronouncement is by the Scientific Review Panel. 18 It would be completely impossible to list anything 19 as a toxic air contaminant if we construed the standard to 20 mean unanimity. There is no substance on which there is 21 unanimity on all the effects. 22 So, I do think that it's very wise of you to hear 23 the industry's concerns, to sort through them, but to 24 recognize that a statement of this type would just vitiate 25 the entire process. It would make the whole process worth PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 163 1 nothing, because, in effect, you'd be saying the SRP has 2 said this, but, you know, we basically are ambivalent about 3 them saying it, and we don't want you to use this report 4 anywhere else. 5 That would be a mistake. The body of information 6 that the Scientific Review Panel has put together and your 7 staff has put together is voluminous. It goes over many, 8 many studies. It does indeed talk about the biases, the 9 confounders, maybe not with the same emphasis that the 10 industry would have you put in. But it definitely does 11 indicate the limitations of what we know. 12 It obviously is not going to satisfy, but it does 13 seem to me that they have done a really tremendous job in 14 collating some very extensive studies that show not just the 15 I.Q. decrements that we've been talking about, but even more 16 profoundly -- and I think more disturbingly for us in 17 California -- very substantial behavioral changes, lack of 18 attention in children who have these blood levels elevated, 19 increasing problems with their motor skills. 20 All of these are much more subtle and difficult to 21 measure in a sort of quantitative way that I.Q. perhaps can 22 be measured in. And we've heard from an expert saying that 23 even I.Q. is not an easily quantifiable matter, and that 24 there's a lot of range in that. 25 But what I'd like to say is, thank you very much PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 164 1 for moving forward on this. Please don't allow any further 2 delays. Yes, there could be and there might be a million 3 different ways you could write this report. There would not 4 be any way that would get unanimity in support. 5 And so, I think that biting the bullet, moving 6 forward with what you've got at this time would be my advice 7 to you. I would strongly dissent from anything of this sort 8 going out with your report, this recommended language by the 9 lead industry. And quite frankly, the process would be very 10 improper. 11 I think for them to come in at this point and 12 issue caveats about the science that was appropriately 13 evaluated by a whole panel and brought to you, I just think 14 would be terribly inappropriate and a disservice to the 15 people that you're representing. 16 So, I urge you to move forward with -- if you have 17 any kind of caveats you want to introduce, I hope that they 18 do not go anything like this; that they instead simply 19 indicate what everyone has said, that there are, of course, 20 biases and confounding factors that make it an evolving 21 question the degree of risk from these different levels of 22 lead. 23 But that certainly is nothing like suggesting that 24 there is no -- that there's no consensus or that there is 25 not a strong body of scientific evidence for listing these PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 165 1 effects as -- for listing lead as a toxic air contaminant 2 because of these effects. 3 So, let me close by saying, I'm not a scientist in 4 this area. I've spoken to some of the very wonderful 5 researcher in this area, like Dr. Herbert Needleman, who I'm 6 sure the lead industry would not agree with at all, who 7 would very much support the idea that -- though not 8 predictive in many individuals' I.Q. scores, even low levels 9 of lead can be associated with diminished intelligence, and 10 that he feels that it would be inappropriate to add the 11 kinds of caveats that the lead industry is suggesting from 12 this little colloquy that Dr. Friedman and the lead folks 13 had. 14 So, I just want to say that, you know, just in 15 terms of process, I think the SRP did it just right. They 16 looked at all these studies. They evaluated as best they 17 can. Best not to let the wordsmithing be done with the lead 18 industry in the room. I really caution you that that looks 19 very bad. I think it could be very bad. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, Janet, I appreciate your 21 testimony. One thing that concerns us, and I think Dr. 22 Friedman hit the nail on the head about examples and perhaps 23 uncertainties that everyone in the room will nod their head 24 and agree exist, yet when they emerge from this process in a 25 report like this, they have the ability to be misused. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 166 1 MS. HATHAWAY: Right. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And that's something that we're 3 sensitive to. And again, why I made those comments prior to 4 your testimony was that I didn't want to leave you again 5 with a false impression that we're here to rewrite science. 6 We're here to listen, evaluate, and hear from people. At 7 the same time, we want to be fair and even-handed, because 8 it'd be silly for us to think that what emerges from this 9 process won't be used for risk management. 10 And you know, we've been all through with risk 11 management -- we've done some terrific things with our 12 control programs, but we've missed the mark on occasion. 13 And so, we're sensitive to that, and we want to make sure 14 that we know all that we can before we go there. 15 And so, I think your counsel and your perspective 16 was very important for us to hear, and I appreciate your 17 patience. 18 MS. HATHAWAY: I appreciate your work on this. 19 And thank you very much for bringing this process to a close 20 with the successful, I hope, listing of this as a toxic air 21 contaminant. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Good deal. Thank you. 23 Any questions for the witness? All right. Very good. 24 That's it. 25 So, I think what we're going to do is we're going PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 167 1 to close the public testimony on this item. I'd like staff 2 to summarize, if they would, any written correspondence that 3 they've received. And, Mr. Ames, I know, as you do that, 4 the folks that we've heard from face to face here today, I 5 don't think you need to go through a summary of what they 6 might have put in writing to us, because we've heard from 7 them first hand today. So, you can suspend running through 8 those. 9 MR. AMES: Yes. Okay. I have four letters to 10 enter into the record. 11 The first one is an April 11th letter from Pat 12 Leyden of the South Coast District. The district has worked 13 with the State throughout this process and supports the 14 identification of lead, and looks forward to working with us 15 on the development of the risk management guidelines. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 17 MR. AMES: The second letter is an April 22nd 18 letter from Ellen Garvey of the Bay Area Air Quality 19 Management District. The district acknowledges the effort 20 of the ARB and OEHHA to identify lead as a toxic, and is 21 pleased to participate in the development of the guidelines, 22 the risk management guidelines. 23 The third letter has already been mentioned by Dr. 24 Friedman, and that is the letter by Dr. Harvey from Stanford 25 University. And as Dr. Friedman had already pointed out, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 168 1 Dr. Harvey recommends that the less lead in the environment, 2 the better children's health is. 3 And last, we have an April 23rd letter from Dr. 4 Carlson of the Children's Environmental Health Network. And 5 the Network supports the listing of lead so that the risk 6 management phase can proceed. 7 That's all the letters I have to enter into the 8 record. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Very good. 10 Before I go to you, Mr. Kenny, for any last staff 11 comments, I want to go to our SRP members. Thank you, 12 gentlemen, for being here and sitting through all of this. 13 You've heard the discussion. 14 We've had a chance to hear from you. We know how 15 seriously you've taken this item. And we're grateful for 16 you being that important intermediate step before it comes 17 to us. 18 Is there anything that we may have missed or that 19 we need to know or, as the discussion unfolded, that caused 20 you some concern? 21 DR. WITSCHI: Yeah. I'd like to make a couple of 22 statements. One is, with many of those points, we really 23 have been up against the limits of science. And we should 24 acknowledge there are some things science cannot do. And 25 one of them is that we cannot show that something is not PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 169 1 going to happen. Because absence of evidence is never 2 evidence for absence. And this is the problem we are up to 3 with many of those studies which purport to have shown any 4 effects of lead. 5 The other one is, we also know that lead is one of 6 the most insidious poisons there ever was around in the 7 history of mankind, which is documented from the fall of 8 ancient Rome and up to these days. But on the other hand, 9 it's also been a big success story. Because we have gotten 10 rid of enormous amounts of lead and we are working on it. 11 And the bottom line is we should not -- we should 12 try to remove as much more as we can. But more importantly, 13 we should not allow more to enter the environment again, 14 because we've already shown this can be prevented. 15 So, the issue is, we do not want more of it 16 around, if we can help it, and we can help it, as has been 17 shown. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very well said. Thank you. Dr. 19 Seiber, do you have any -- 20 DR. SEIBER: Yes, Mr. Dunlap, I just wanted to 21 say, it's been a pleasure to be here and participate. And 22 on behalf of the other panelists, I think I can speak for 23 all of them and say that we're happy to see that this issue 24 is moving forward and is close to a resolution. 25 It's been a long, long road. Of course, Dr. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 170 1 Witschi and I are just two members of the Panel, so I hope 2 you'll take our comments as simply two panelists. We can't, 3 of course, speak on behalf of the Panel. But I think they 4 would be pleased with what's occurring today. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. And I also know Dr. 6 Pitts', the Chairman's, perspective about having lead SRP 7 members. And I know you wouldn't be here if you didn't have 8 his full confidence. And so, I appreciate that. 9 Thank you. 10 Mr. Kenny, I feel like a little bit like we've 11 been in a brawl here for the last couple of hours overall. 12 But if you have any final words to leave the Board with? 13 MR. KENNY: I think, in summary, I would just 14 simply like to point out that the staff has concluded that 15 inorganic lead does meet the State law requirements as being 16 defined as a toxic air contaminant. That definition simply 17 is that the compound has the potential to be an air 18 pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in 19 mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may 20 pose a present or potential hazard to human health. 21 And I think everything you've heard here today 22 really substantiates that. So, I think with that in mind, 23 the staff recommendation to you as a Board is that you do 24 identify lead as a toxic air contaminant. And we have 25 provided you also with some language, which I think also PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 171 1 would address the issue which has come up during the day 2 about trying to acknowledge the uncertainties that exist 3 with regard to the science. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Thank you, 5 Mike. Well, why don't I close the record now, and then 6 we'll come back to talk about those two items, two or three 7 items we have outstanding, and the resolution. 8 Since all testimony, written submissions, and 9 staff comments for this item have been entered into the 10 record and the Board has not granted an extension of the 11 comment period, I'm officially closing the record on this 12 portion of agenda item 97-3-2. 13 Written or oral comments received after the 14 comment period has been closed will not be accepted as part 15 of the official record on this agenda item. 16 Also, as we well know, we have to report ex parte 17 communication on this matter. So, what I'd like to do is 18 ask any of the Board members to disclose any communications 19 that they've had on the record. It's okay to have those 20 communications, but we need to disclose them on the record. 21 Anything we need to disclose? 22 Mr. Parnell. 23 MR. PARNELL: Yes. Mayor Hilligoss and I met with 24 the three members of the lead industry representing the lead 25 industry and Battery Council International, and GNB PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 172 1 Technologies. And they were Tom McHenry, Jane Luxton, and 2 Gary Nese (phonetic) on March 26th. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Patti, does that 4 cover you as well? 5 All right. Very good. Ms. Edgerton? 6 MS. EDGERTON: I met with Jane Luxton and Tom 7 McHenry. Well, actually, let me -- I met with Tom McHenry 8 in his office and Jane Luxton from Washington, D.C. was 9 plugged into a conference call on the 15th of April, 1997. 10 And we spoke from 10:00 to 10:30 a.m. Pacific Standard time. 11 The items which were discussed were largely the ones that 12 have been memorialized in Ms. Luxton's letter of April 16th, 13 1997, to the Board, addressed to Ms. Hutchens. And, in 14 fact, I don't think there were any issues -- all of the 15 issues which were discussed were as -- were covered in that 16 letter. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. 18 MS. EDGERTON: There were no issues in addition to 19 that. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Anyone else? All right. 21 Very good. What I'd like to do is make a couple brief 22 remarks, then we'll get into the resolution and some of the 23 suggested -- I don't want to call them modifications to the 24 report, but addendum or issues. 25 I'd like to thank those that have participated PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 173 1 today, particularly the witnesses. Mr. McHenry, I 2 appreciate what you tried to today and distill your 3 associations' concerns in a compact way. 4 Also, I've already extended my thanks to the SRP 5 for the important role that they have played in evaluating 6 the science. And I need to mention this, particularly in 7 light of the assertions that have been made -- some of the 8 political assertions, and also some in the media. 9 This Board exists to protect public health. And 10 the basis for us to do that is to have sound science. 11 You've seen -- those that have been with us the whole day -- 12 how important it is for us to have an open discourse on 13 these items. But that is the basis -- sound science is the 14 basis for which we need to rely upon in order for us to act 15 with any risk management strategy. 16 I also see today as kind of a coming-out party for 17 one of our newer Board members. I'm very appreciative of 18 Dr. Friedman joining our Board and the strong voice he is 19 for public health and sound science. And I'm looking 20 forward to working with him and helping us clear up some of 21 these issues, and get smarter as time goes on. 22 But I also need to mention the tremendous work 23 that went into this from our own staff here at the Board and 24 our colleagues at OEHHA, and the time and effort they put 25 in. I know OEHHA has been criticized of late for perhaps PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 174 1 not being as fast as they might otherwise be, or for not 2 being as sensitive. But I must tell you, I have great 3 regard for them and for how closely they work with us, and 4 how much they put up with as they bring forward this work, 5 this science. And I want to acknowledge. And please give 6 our regards to Dr. Becker. 7 Mr. Schoning, some of the newer Board members may 8 not be familiar with his role, but as the Ombudsman, he 9 looks closely at the process by which any regulatory item 10 comes to us. And he gave us some assurance that the process 11 was open. Perhaps not perfect, but open. And there were 12 many, many bites at the apple, so to speak, for the industry 13 folks as well as citizen members of our community that had 14 opinions to express. And that's important. 15 It's also apparent that the process will continue 16 to be open to the public in the risk management phase. 17 We'll continue to make sure that happens. The exposure and 18 health assessments presented today show that inorganic lead 19 meets the definition of a toxic air contaminant. We have 20 even support from the industry that it ought to be 21 designated as such. 22 What I heard today is that the good news is our 23 unleaded gasoline program has been a remarkable success. 24 However, there are children still at risk from high blood 25 levels in large part due to other non-air media, such as PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 175 1 paint chip ingestion. 2 The body of scientific evidence shows that air 3 lead can adversely affect children. The risk management 4 phase will need to address how control decisions will be 5 made, taking into account all routes of exposure. I'm 6 prepared to support the resolution that staff has presented 7 to us. 8 However, I do need, Mr. Kenny, for you to take a 9 moment before we call the question, so to speak, to ask you 10 and your counsel -- our counsel to say a word or two about 11 the uncertainty language, and also about a couple of the 12 examples that we've asked Dr. Alexeeff to take a look at. 13 So, Mike, you help us organize that, would you? 14 MR. KENNY: What we did is we actually took the 15 Board's lead, and we had some people in the back trying to 16 sit down and figure out what we could say with regard to the 17 issue of uncertainty and how to best acknowledge that. 18 The language that was arrived at -- and I'm not 19 sure that all the parties would completely agree with this, 20 but the language I think that really best sort of states and 21 recognizes the need to acknowledge the uncertainties is 22 pretty much as follows: 23 The Air Resources Board has reviewed the staff 24 report and the Scientific Review Panel findings in the 25 manner of the proposed identification of inorganic lead as a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 176 1 toxic air contaminant. 2 On this review, the ARB acknowledges and agrees 3 with the SRP, and the ARB staff, and the Office of 4 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment staff that 5 uncertainty exists when dealing with the quantitative 6 correlation of potential health effects -- A parenthetical 7 would then be: (neurodevelopmental effects in children, 8 cardiovascular effects in adults, and potential 9 carcinogenicity). Close paren. -- at exposure to low 10 levels of air concentrations of inorganic lead. 11 The information contained in this report forms the 12 basis for the identification of inorganic lead as a toxic 13 air contaminant. No controls or risk management decisions 14 are made in this report. As risk management guidelines are 15 developed, the uncertainties will be taken into account and 16 the science updated as appropriate. 17 And that would be the paragraph that would 18 acknowledge the uncertainty element. And we would have that 19 in the preface to the report. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Dr. Friedman, are you 21 comfortable with that? 22 DR. FRIEDMAN: I think that's a really excellent 23 condensation of what we are looking for. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. I'm seeing 25 Ms. Hathaway's head going up and down. Mr. McHenry, we've PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 177 1 been sensitive about the risk management issue here, so I 2 feel that this accommodates your concerns. 3 Okay. Dr. Friedman has an outstanding issue or I 4 do -- I'll take the responsibility for that -- about the 5 examples in the report. 6 George, can I get you to say a word or two about, 7 or whoever's proper of the staff team there -- what would 8 you propose to get at the issue of the examples in the 9 report that may have gone a bit too far or may have not 10 properly represented -- 11 DR. ALEXEEFF: Well, we -- this is George Alexeeff 12 from OEHHA. We followed the other lead of providing just 13 basically a clarification statement. And our proposal is to 14 add it with the preface. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, you'd add a qualification 16 statement at the outset which would say that -- what? 17 DR. ALEXEEFF: I can read it to you. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure, please do. 19 DR. ALEXEEFF: Okay. Further, given the 20 complexity of the models used to correlate the 21 neurodevelopmental effects to low air concentrations of air 22 lead, the reader needs to be aware that the fractional I.Q. 23 measurements related to the low statewide ambient air lead 24 concentrations are given as an example of directional 25 effects and involves uncertainty, and should not be viewed PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 178 1 as definitive. 2 DR. FRIEDMAN: Can I ask you to -- the first -- 3 read the first portion, and then I'm going to interrupt 4 where I think you need to insert some more language. 5 DR. ALEXEEFF: Sure. Further, given the 6 complexity of the models used -- 7 DR. FRIEDMAN: Stop. We need a comment. 8 ". . .and the limitations of interpretation of 9 I.Q. testing," or of tests of I.Q. needs to be inserted 10 right there in that sentence. 11 Is Dr. Kaufman still in this audience? 12 DR. KAUFMAN: I agree with you completely. 13 DR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. I think that says the same. 14 DR. ALEXEEFF: That's fine. 15 DR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. The rest of it sounded 16 appropriate to me. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. I don't want 18 to impose too much responsibility to Dr. Friedman on that 19 point. Are my Board member colleagues okay with that? 20 MS. RAKOW: I have a question. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sally, go ahead. 22 MS. RAKOW: Did that take the place of No. 4 in 23 the resolution that was just handed out to us? 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: No. We're going to come to the 25 resolution in a minute. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 179 1 MS. RAKOW: All right. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: This is in the preface -- 3 MS. RAKOW: Okay. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- of the document. 5 All right. Does that deal with it? Our bookmark? 6 Have we got what we've been thinking about, Kathleen? Have 7 we covered it? 8 MS. WALSH: Right. I believe so. Earlier, Ms. 9 Edgerton raised a question about the reference in the staff 10 report to the May, 1996 date as the cutoff for the 11 information that was reviewed. 12 And I think that probably needs to be seen as a 13 kind of a logistical matter. The report had to be finalized 14 to be made available to the public. That reflects that cut- 15 off date. But, of course, any information that was 16 submitted as a part of the public comment period was 17 considered and is reflected in the final document. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And is it safe to assume, Lynne, 19 that the last sentence that will be included in the preface 20 of -- the first paragraph in the preface covers the issue 21 that you were concerned about, which I'll read it to you. 22 "As risk management guidelines are developed, the 23 uncertainties shall be taken into account and the science 24 updated as appropriate." 25 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 180 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay? That captured the spirit 2 of what you wanted to emphasize. 3 Okay. Anything else before we talk about the 4 specific resolution? 5 All right. We have before us a resolution, 97-17. 6 And I know a couple of my colleagues have some concerns. 7 Ms. Rakow mentioned one. I know Dr. Friedman has a couple. 8 Why don't I just go around, and anybody that -- 9 well, who has an issue on the resolution? I mentioned two. 10 Is there anyone else? 11 All right. Sally, let me give you a crack at the 12 first one, then I'll let Bill follow up. 13 MS. RAKOW: Well, it just seemed to me -- and 14 being the new person on the block, I might not be 15 interpreting this correctly. But No. 4 in the resolution on 16 page 3 is not in the theme of Dr. Friedman's comments and of 17 the comments by the staff person of incorporating the 18 uncertainties and also the inability to really have -- the 19 limitations of I.Q. testing. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 21 MS. RAKOW: And so, I wondered whether that 22 wording should be changed to accommodate that. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ms. Walsh. 24 MS. WALSH: Ms. Rakow is correct, but I would 25 point out that that section of the resolution is simply PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 181 1 quoting the findings of the SRP. So, those findings have 2 already been made and adopted by the SRP. This is in the 3 nature of a "whereas" as a part of the resolution reflecting 4 what the SRP fund. 5 So, it wouldn't be appropriate for this Board -- 6 MS. RAKOW: Us to change. 7 MS. WALSH: -- to make a change to that language. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Mike, take a 9 minute -- you or a Kathleen -- take a minute and give the 10 Board a quick update tutorial on what resolutions do and the 11 emphasis located from the words, I mean what we're trying to 12 emphasize with it. Would you do that? Just generally, 13 because I think it might settle some issues. 14 MS. WALSH: Well, the resolution will do a number 15 of things. It includes -- 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I mean resolutions in general. 17 MS. WALSH: Right. -- factual assertions. It 18 includes also specific findings made by this Board and 19 specific directions by the Board that that would be used as 20 indications of the decision that you make, and directions to 21 the staff or others to proceed from this point on. 22 In this case, with respect to the SRP findings, 23 that is just in the nature of factual findings; that those 24 SRP findings are out there. They're to be considered by the 25 Board in the context of this identification process. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 182 1 Those would not be findings by this Board -- 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 3 MS. WALSH: -- in the context of this resolution. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. Okay. So, they're 5 not -- they're substantive. 6 MS. WALSH: But they're not decisional by this 7 Board. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. All right. Very good. 9 But they're reflective and representative of what's in the 10 action. 11 MS. WALSH: Right. They're representative, in 12 this case, of the action taken by the SRP. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Dr. Friedman. 14 DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, you have to help me, because 15 I mean, if I -- I started to, you know, put an asterisk next 16 to each of the bullets that we've spent the whole day 17 discussing. 18 And when I got to 10, I stopped, because I thought 19 that we had said that we were going to create a little 20 better balance in how we present seemingly factual or 21 arguable information. 22 The resolution has a whole bunch of stuff that we 23 just decided we don't know enough about to include. Now, I 24 can disassociate myself from the SRP -- what I thought that 25 you just said a minute ago. I don't want to. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 183 1 I mean I think they also recognize -- they've 2 agreed to modify their position of some of their comments. 3 So, I guess, John, I just don't understand why we need to -- 4 I can't approve all of this, because it contains all the 5 stuff we've been talking about all morning. 6 MRS. RIORDAN: Mr. Chairman, let me offer an idea, 7 which would be, following the list of the 10 items where 8 it's based on certain things the Board finds, and then 9 couldn't we add after 10 on page 9, "Further, this Board 10 finds. . ." and then we add the ideas that we've just sort 11 of heard as staff worked out some, you know, language that 12 would further clarify what this Board feels. 13 MS. WALSH: The language that was read by Mr. 14 Kenny and Dr. Alexeeff -- 15 MRS. RIORDAN: Yes. 16 MS. WALSH: -- could be included in the 17 resolution. 18 MRS. RIORDAN: So, why don't we just say, 19 "Further, this Board finds. . ." and then add that? Could 20 we? 21 DR. FRIEDMAN: I still need some help. I mean, 22 Item 4 speaks specifically about .08 I.Q. points. And we 23 just decided that we really can't subscribe to that kind of 24 an analysis. 25 So, what Barbara just suggested was after that PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 184 1 paragraph, which we keep in, we then deny its existence. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: There's a problem here. Mike, 3 let me -- I don't want to open up a whole other can of worms 4 here, but here is what I'm concerned about. 5 As a matter of routine, we've had very good 6 resolutions presented to the Board that emphasize the 7 position that we took. I give staff a lot of credit for 8 getting these to us in realtime. But what we have here is a 9 10-page piece that is a proposed resolution, in which there 10 are some changes based upon our discussion. 11 So, the question I have is, Mike, why is this 12 thing 10 pages, and it's half the size of a good-sized 13 report, when all we need is a quick page on the cover, and 14 then let's move this thing out. You know what I mean? 15 We're getting hung up here because this is unnecessarily 16 wordy. 17 MR. KENNY: One of the things we do with a 18 resolution is we essentially lay out the Board's obligation 19 to comply with the toxic air contaminant requirements under 20 law. And so, we have here essentially a rendition of those 21 legal requirements and how the Board is complying with them. 22 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 23 MR. KENNY: The one thing that has actually 24 created a little bit of a hitch here is only the SRP's 25 rendition of its findings. And so, what you have in our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 185 1 resolution is simply recognition or acknowledgment that the 2 SRP also made findings prior to this matter coming before 3 this Board. 4 That is what you have here in these, you know, 5 enumerated items. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 7 MR. KENNY: Now, we cannot change those SRP 8 findings at this point in time, because the SRP made those 9 findings. 10 What you can do, though, is as Mrs. Riordan 11 suggested, is provide an additional paragraph in here which 12 acknowledges that the SRP made some findings and that you 13 have some disagreement, if you do, with those particular 14 findings. 15 But there's not really a way at this point in time 16 to simply change the SRP's determination. It's made those 17 determinations. 18 Before you today are two members of the SRP, but 19 they don't speak for the SRP. And before you today is the 20 staff of the Air Resources Board and the staff of the Office 21 of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, both of which 22 also don't speak for the SRP. 23 So, we are limited to those particular findings 24 that the SRP has made. And to the extent that the Board has 25 some problems with those findings, the Board can acknowledge PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 186 1 those findings in another paragraph as was suggested. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: All right. So, Mrs. Riordan's 3 recommendation is probably the way to go relative to the 4 process and what we have before us. Is that correct? Even 5 though it may rankle us on a point or two, you know, because 6 of the SRP -- 7 MR. KENNY: Correct. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: -- you know, some of the 9 examples that were in the report and the like. I mean we 10 can take care of that and focus our disagreement or concern 11 in that added paragraph or two. 12 All right. 13 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Chairman? 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, Ms. Edgerton, then Ms. 15 Rakow. 16 MS. EDGERTON: I would suggest, if this is a -- 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: You don't have your mike on. 18 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, I'm sorry. 19 I would suggest that following along Ms. Riordan's 20 comment is that perhaps, if we put our reference to the 21 change on page 8 at the bottom, where it says, "Whereas, in 22 consideration of the staff report, including OEHHA's 23 evaluation and recommendations, the available evidence, the 24 findings of the SRP, and the written comments, and public 25 testimony it has received, the Board finds that, one, the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 187 1 following paragraph will supplement the staff report in a 2 positive way," and list that. And then go on to, you know, 3 reorder the other ones, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. So, we're recorded 4 in our "whereas" that we made a finding that those two 5 sentences would be constructive, appropriate supplements. 6 Is that something that might get a second? 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Kenny, you want to comment 8 on that? 9 MR. KENNY: From a process standpoint, that would 10 work. 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 12 DR. FRIEDMAN: Exactly where would it be inserted? 13 MS. EDGERTON: Page 8, the last whereas. The 14 reason why I suggested putting it there is because it makes 15 it clear that -- at least I believe it makes it clear -- 16 that we made a finding of our own essentially of that 17 paragraph that's going to be in the front of the report. 18 So, the Board finds that -- instead of starting 19 No. 1, there is evidence, blah, blah, blah, we would say, 20 No. 1, the following paragraph will supplement the staff 21 report in a positive way, and then quote it, exactly what's 22 been agreed upon as going in the front of the report. 23 So that will then officially reflect and 24 incorporate every scrap of agreement we have. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Our concern. Yeah. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 188 1 MS. EDGERTON: Into the resolution. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. So, Lynne -- Bill, does 3 that make sense to you? 4 DR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. It does. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Fine. Ms. Rakow? 6 MS. RAKOW: I just wanted to follow up on your 7 thought of resolutions are really nice when they're one or 8 two pages. And I wondered whether it would be appropriate 9 to have a statement acknowledging the SRP findings and list 10 all the findings as an appendix and whether that would go 11 along with your process. And in that way, it won't muddy up 12 the reader trying to sort out which the SRP findings are and 13 which are the ARB findings. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I would -- Ms. Rakow, I would 15 prefer to go this time the way that Lynne suggested. And 16 then I'm going to come back -- let me just -- Mike, I'll ask 17 you. I want you to do a tutorial memo for all of us about 18 the history of resolutions, what they're intended to do, why 19 they matter, and what we can do to make them a bit more 20 Board friendly. Okay? 21 And I'm not suggesting you guys haven't done a 22 fine job historically, but there has been some confusion. 23 Supervisor Roberts, when he was new to this Board, had a 24 similar concern, and it would be beneficial. 25 So, Kathleen, would you and Mike work on that? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 189 1 MS. WALSH: Yeah. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 3 MR. KENNY: We'll be happy to do that. If I could 4 make one quick comment. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sure. 6 MR. KENNY: One of the reasons the resolutions are 7 often long is that a lot of the things that the Board deals 8 with have a fair amount of controversy. And often, what 9 will happen is that litigation could result. And we do use 10 the resolution in a lot of situations to -- 11 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Understood. And we want you to 12 make it as bulletproof as possible when there's consensus. 13 MS. RAKOW: So, appendices aren't part of them. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yeah. Okay. Now, Ms. Edgerton, 15 we have a resolution before us, 97-17. We've heard hours of 16 testimony. We've had some good discussion. 17 We have a motion from Lynne Edgerton to add in the 18 amendment, if you will, that showed that it would be 19 represented -- the issues we discussed added to the report 20 in the forward would be reflected in this resolution as well 21 at the proper place. 22 MR. PARNELL: Second. 23 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: And there's a second from Mr. 24 Parnell. 25 Is there any issue? Legal counsel understood PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 190 1 that? 2 MS. WALSH: Yes. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. Any 4 discussion of the Board on this resolution with the 5 amendments? We have a motion and a second. Okay. I think 6 we'll proceed on a voice vote. All those in favor, say aye? 7 (Ayes.) 8 Any opposed? All right. Very good. The item's 9 moved. 10 Now, I know a couple of my colleagues have some 11 time pressure relative to flights they need to attend to. 12 But we have the last item on our Board agenda, 13 which is an open session to provide an opportunity for 14 members of the public to address the Board on a subject 15 within jurisdiction of the Board. 16 We're fortunate enough today to have Ben Knight, 17 who's with Honda. He's an executive with Honda. He's 18 worked very closely with Mr. Cackette and his team here 19 talking about the electric vehicle efforts that they've 20 undertaken. 21 And Ben's going to spend a few minutes with us and 22 tell us what Honda's been up to. 23 So, Ben, if you will take your place, we'll give 24 the court reporter, and we'll come right back to you. 25 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken.) PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 191 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ben, come on down and give us an 2 overview. 3 We've got some time pressure, Ben, and you've been 4 very patient. And I am grateful for you coming here from 5 Southern Cal to give us your review. 6 You have an exciting new program, and we want to 7 hear about. 8 MR. KNIGHT: Thanks for giving me a few minutes. 9 I recognize we all have growing hunger pains. 10 (Laughter.) 11 MR. KNIGHT: I'm Ben Knight, Vice President with 12 Honda R & D, and I thank you for this opportunity. I'd like 13 to update you on our electric vehicle program. We're on the 14 verge of launching the vehicle next month. 15 And by the way, I would encourage you to go down 16 and test drive our vehicles. They're at our Honda EV 17 dealers now. And I think you'll be extremely pleased with 18 the quality and performance of the new vehicle. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Ben, we have a statewide Board 20 as you know. Tell us where the four dealers are. You have 21 four of them, right, statewide? 22 MR. KNIGHT: Yes. We have four, three in Southern 23 California. The local Sacramento dealer is Mel Rapton. And 24 we've got a dealer in Orange County, Costa Mesa Honda. 25 We've got a dealer in the South Bay, and we've got a dealer PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 192 1 in -- Miller Honda in the San Fernando Valley. 2 You may even wish to lease one after you drive 3 one. 4 Honda's committed to playing a leading role in 5 bringing low-emission vehicles to market. We have a broad 6 strategy, and it includes the first gasoline LEV, available 7 since 1995, and it now makes up a majority of the Civic 8 models we sell. 9 And we have the first gasoline ULEV. That'll be 10 in the Accord lineup this fall. Also, a natural gas vehicle 11 with exceptional performance, and almost zero emissions. 12 This will be for sale this fall, and it's the result of an 13 all-out effort at emission reductions, going well beyond the 14 requirements. 15 This is an artist's sketch of our new electric 16 vehicle. And you'll understand why I put in an artist's 17 sketch in a minute. Later, I'm going to show you an 18 engineering view of the car. 19 Let's go back in time about one year. The last 20 time I was here in front of you was in March of '96, and at 21 that time you were finalizing the ZEV regulatory changes. 22 At that hearing, I had expressed our support for staff's 23 conclusions, and outlined our interest in bringing a quality 24 advanced battery electric vehicle to the proposed technology 25 development partnership. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 193 1 Our approach is to offer a new purpose-built 2 electric vehicle design, fully developed, as a very 3 practical and refined EV. Our program is aimed at consumers 4 and real world usage. 5 Range is maximized by the use of the most 6 promising advanced battery in the near term, nickel-metal 7 hydride, and by the design of an electric drivetrain that 8 has highest efficiency, probably the highest efficiency in 9 production in the world today. 10 We're planning to launch the EV-PLUS in a way that 11 let's us more accurately assess the battery technology as 12 well as the potential market for a well-made electric 13 vehicle. 14 This will be the first market launch of an MOA 15 program and the first offering of an advanced battery 16 vehicle to the market. And the majority of the vehicles 17 will be going to consumers. 18 We unveiled the new EV design on April 10th of 19 1996, about a year ago, and it's since been presented to the 20 Press, agency key staff, and others in order to promote 21 awareness of our program and vehicle, and to share 22 information. 23 We've participated in infrastructure development 24 and emergency response preparations through the appropriate 25 forums and activities. And we're advertising and promoting PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 194 1 the new EV-PLUS as we get set for a market launch next 2 month. 3 We've given the all-new Honda EV a name -- the 4 Honda EV-PLUS. The PLUS represents some of the new values 5 designed into the car, P for performance, L for luxury, U 6 for utility and practicality, and S for society. And we're 7 already promoting this social value. 8 The EV-PLUS has already received many positive 9 comments from journalists. It's performance and driver- 10 friendliness often exceed their expectations. Also, its 11 practical layout and its fresh new look, a distinctive -- 12 some people call it a microvan look have been widely 13 appreciated. 14 This is the slide I mentioned to you, an 15 engineer's view of the vehicle, or cut-away drawing. It 16 shows off the new EV specific platform. The battery pack is 17 protected all around by a new structural layout, with two 18 large section side members on each side of the battery pack. 19 The passenger cabin is placed above the pack and 20 the motor for crash worthiness and efficiency. In fact, the 21 Mercedes Vision A, which will be in Europe the end of this 22 year, has a similar unique new layout. 23 With this new layout, we can package a very 24 spacious four-passenger cabin on top of a very compact 25 overall dimension vehicle. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 195 1 Plus the raised seating and elevated eye point 2 give the driver excellent visibility in city driving. 3 By starting from a clean sheet of paper in the 4 design stage, we could offer innovative new features to 5 increase the appeal of an EV. One example is here. A 6 liquid crystal display graphic, which quickly conveys useful 7 information to the driver about range and driving 8 efficiency. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Now, if you could wire in the 10 latest baseball scores, I think Supervisor Roberts would 11 jump right on that if you'd get the Padres in there, Ben. 12 MR. KNIGHT: Well, this is a two-way remote. And 13 you can query the vehicle response you want, and it'll come 14 back with some information. This remote lets you monitor 15 the battery's state of charge even if the vehicle's in your 16 garage and you're in your home by the press of a button. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, you can see that before you 18 even actually get in the vehicle. 19 MR. KNIGHT: That's right. You might be inside 20 your home, and your spouse has come back from a trip; put it 21 on the charger. But you've got a trip in mind that's 20 or 22 30 miles, and you want to check to be sure it's half full 23 (sic), so you do that before going out to the garage. 24 MRS. RIORDAN: What's the range? 25 MR. KNIGHT: I've got a slide, and I do want to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 196 1 tell you about the range and the unique way we are moving on 2 that. 3 MR. CACKETTE: You mean the range of the clicker? 4 MRS. RIORDAN: Yeah. 5 MR. KNIGHT: Also, you can precool the vehicle 6 before you enter the car just by pressing a button. 7 MR. CACKETTE: Mrs. Riordan wants to know how far 8 is the range of the clicker. 9 MR. KNIGHT: The range should be more than 100 10 feet. It's going to depend on whether you're inside the 11 building or not. But it has a pretty long range. 12 It's been FCC approved. 13 Our market plan for the Honda EV-PLUS has received 14 almost as much attention as the vehicle design. We'll lease 15 about 300 vehicles over the next couple of years, and our 16 customers will have a unique opportunity to drive an all- 17 new, very advanced technology vehicle. 18 Customers will lease and service the EV-PLUS 19 through Honda dealers. And these dealers were selected for 20 their proximity to potential customers; secondly, for their 21 strong interest in supporting this kind of program. I think 22 they're very long-range minded, and also for their 23 outstanding in the area of customer satisfaction. 24 Our goal is to market the EV-PLUS in such a way 25 that customers can have a positive and unique opportunity to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 197 1 drive an advanced-technology vehicle, providing us with 2 meaningful feedback on the utility and the value they 3 receive from this product. 4 And that won't work if the price is too high or if 5 it's too low, or if its perceived technology risk is too 6 great. Therefore, we're offering an all-encompassing, no 7 hassle three-year lease. We call the program the charter 8 lease program. $499 per month lease fee equates to roughly 9 $350 per month for the vehicle and advanced battery. That's 10 about the same rate as an Accord with a V-6 engine, Accord 11 V-6. 12 And then there's about $150 worth of value in the 13 included insurance, and also unlimited mileage warranty and 14 maintenance. 15 Everything is covered. 16 This slide outlines our infrastructure direction. 17 We've selected Edison EV to provide infrastructure hardware 18 needed in the home. It simplifies the process of purchasing 19 and installing the EV connecting device, as Edison EV will 20 manage all coordination between the city, inspectors, 21 utilities, electrical contractor, hardware supplier, and the 22 customer. 23 Honda EV-PLUS has an integrated on-board charger, 24 and it can handle both 110 and 220 volt input using a 25 conductive connector. The anticipated cost for the home PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 198 1 connecting device, when in higher volume production, maybe 2 at the end of the year, is about $800. And the installation 3 cost is also about $800. 4 This slide gets at the range you mentioned 5 earlier. With the advanced technology batteries, the car 6 has an EPA city mode range to empty of 125 miles, and a 7 combined range of 115 miles. These range values can be used 8 for comparisons, and they should, because they are SAE test 9 procedures. 10 However, uniquely at Honda, we've decided to 11 include an approximation of real world range, our best 12 understanding of real world range at this time, and put that 13 in the customer literature. 14 Our best estimate currently is 60 to 80 miles 15 range, and that's using accessories, such as air 16 conditioning or heating, and keeping some capacity -- about 17 20 percent capacity -- in reserve. 18 Personally when I'm driving the car, I've seen a 19 range, total range, of 95 miles if I'm a little gentler with 20 the vehicle; other times, about 75 miles, 75 or 80. 21 I'd like to summarize now by saying that the new 22 purpose-built EV-PLUS with advanced technology batteries 23 will offer our charter customers an excellent opportunity to 24 drive an advanced technology vehicle and to help make a 25 difference. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 199 1 Honda's charter lease program will play an 2 important role in shaping Honda's future electric car 3 programs, and ultimately place electric vehicles in our 4 society. 5 And we look forward to customer deliveries 6 beginning May 13th. 7 DR. FRIEDMAN: That's very nice. 8 MR. KNIGHT: Thank you for giving me this time. 9 And I'd be glad to answer any questions. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thanks, Ben. You want to 11 introduce your colleague Robert? 12 MR. KNIGHT: Robert Bienenfeld is here. Robert is 13 with American Honda. And he's the key person on the 14 implementation side of the charter lease program. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Great. Thank you very much. 16 Tom, do you want to say a word or two about what this 17 represents relative to advanced battery, and ground-up 18 vehicle, and all that perspective? 19 MR. CACKETTE: Well, it is the first production- 20 like vehicle qualifying as our MOA vehicles, ones that have 21 advanced batteries. And so, we're excited to see that to be 22 the first one out the door. I've driven the car. It's 23 great. It's really a nice vehicle. 24 And it feels exactly like a normal vehicle, except 25 it has all the other attributes, positive attributes of an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 200 1 EV on top of it. 2 And so, if you get a chance to drive one, it's a 3 real exciting experience. It's something I'm sure you'd 4 like. We'll probably ultimately have some around here. So, 5 if you don't choose to buy one, you can at least sneak a 6 ride once in a while from a friend. 7 I've been driving the prototype of this, which 8 State employees can rent at the Sacramento and Burbank 9 airports. And it's fun to drive. But this is a major step 10 forward from that vehicle as well. 11 So, it's an important step, and I certainly hope 12 it's well received by the public, because it's a quality 13 product. 14 MR. KNIGHT: Thank you for the compliments. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Any other questions or comments? 16 Lynne, you have to have one for our friends at Honda. 17 MS. EDGERTON: The insurance, that's not your 18 collision, is it? 19 MR. KNIGHT: The insurance will cover the vehicle 20 and it'll be equivalent of collision and comprehensive. 21 MS. EDGERTON: So you don't need an auto 22 insurance policy. 23 MR. KNIGHT: You just need your general liability 24 coverage. 25 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, you still have to get that. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 201 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Ben, thank you. I'm 2 certain we would have peppered you with more questions, but 3 we're a bit tired. 4 I appreciate you coming this distance to present 5 this to us. This is meaningful. And I know you guys have 6 worked well with us, and I've appreciated the invitations 7 we've had as a Board to participate when you've unveiled 8 some of these at some of your local areas. 9 And I hope that continues. We like going out and 10 seeing the fruits of our regulatory labors, I guess. 11 Thanks very much. 12 All right. If there's nothing else, we will 13 conclude our meeting. We'll adjourn this, the April meeting 14 of the California Air Resources Board. 15 (Thereupon, the meeting was adjourned 16 at 2:35 p.m.) 17 --o0o-- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 202 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER I, Nadine J. Parks, a shorthand reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify that I am a disinterested person herein; that the foregoing meeting was reported by me in shorthand writing, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting. I further certify that I am not of counsel or attorney for any of the parties to said meeting, nor am I interested in the outcome of said meeting. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of May , 1997. Nadine J. Parks Shorthand Reporter PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345